Lose the Love/Hate, But Keep the Hope.

It seems Eyal and Richard have thrown down the gauntlet with their criticisms of the emotional, irrational, fact-proof fantasies that seem to characterize contemporary politics in the United States.

Richard's piece asks for emotional maturity in our politics. I only partially agree. Yes, we need to halt the characterizations of Obama as savior or as anti-Christ. And we similarly should moderate our memories of the Bush years as evil or perfect. Still, I believe that the Obama win is important precisely because it injects a certain emotional valence into our electoral politics: a much needed revival of American hope. Obama won, in part, by encouraging us to feel good, to be optimistic, and to believe. The problem is when we direct that hope and belief onto the character/candidate rather than investing that optimism in the movement itself.

There is a way to hold onto hard won optimism while still demonstrating emotional restraint in the public sphere. There are some ways to intervene in this moment with optimism and effort.

Within days of Obama's election, progressives began talking about "holding Obama's feet to the fire." This is an old fashioned way to approach being part of a governing coalition. The left has been trained in adversarial techniques. Shout from the outside. March through the streets. Make lists of your demands. Demand to have your interests taken into account. These can be very important strategies. A healthy democracy should nurture and protect protest politics as much as it provides opportunities for electoral and organizational politics.

However, the tea parties and town hall shouting matches are emblematic of the limitations of this approach. If the people screaming are now on the right, what tools remain for the left? This new moment calls for new ways of engaging politically.

When Obama suggested that we change politics in this country it was more than a call to change the political party in the White House. It was an indictment of a winner-take-all mentality that has led to tyrannical governance, which fails to protect the interests of political minorities. We won an election; we did not stage a coup. The left will get some, but not all of what it wants, and that is OK. It is better than OK, it is the heart of democracy. Winning does not give us a mandate to ignore the interests of those we defeated. It gives us the responsibility to try to build greater consensus for our viewpoint.

I want universal, single-payer health care. I want a federal election law requiring consistency in voting rules and technology across all 50 states. I want low-cost, widely available child care for all families with children under five. I want the appointment of federal judges who will protect women's reproductive freedom. I want full constitutional guarantee in all 50 states of the right to same-sex marriage. I am ready to work on these issues. In fact I have worked on many of them for years. But I also know that government grinds along slowly and I will not consider the Obama administration a failure if I don't get everything I want immediately.

The power of the campaign was not Obama: it was us.

By retreating to outsider angst the left forgets one of the most exciting lessons of the Obama campaign: that ordinary people working for common purpose wield tremendous power. For those of us who work for our income and have modest means, it was unbelievable to watch ourselves become donors to a political campaign and find that those donations made a difference.

There is no reason to stop now. If you found $50 for "Obama for President," then you can find $50 for an advocacy organization that fits your political interests. If you started an "Obama for President" Facebook group, then start an "Americans for Public Option" Facebook group.

Obama started running for his second term on the night he won the election. He told us that he can't accomplish everything in one term. Good. If he is running, we have influence. Get friends to commit $50 to Obama 2012 if he commits to saving the public option.

Did you make an Obama-inspired YouTube video? Make one today for universal health coverage. Send it to everyone, get it to go viral. Did you have a pro-Obama blog. Make in an Obama-watch blog and keep people informed of the opportunities we have to impact policy. Did you knock on doors or make phone calls? Then join a local advocacy group and put that energy into pressing for fair housing. We elected Obama. We can change America.

Put down the hammer and try a screwdriver.

We have a sacred responsibility as citizens to hold all of our elected leaders accountable. But we have a unique opportunity to do more than that with Barack. We could actually help him succeed. There is an important difference. Accountability language is all about making demands and screaming for the government to meet your needs and interests. That is fine, but it is only one tool. Let's call is a hammer. A hammer is a great tool if you are faced with a nail. Bang away on a nail and you get good results.

But we should not assume that all our problems are nails. Some are screws. If you bang away on a screw you get a big mess. So instead of always assuming we are faced with a problem that requires complaint from the outside, why not ask what we can do to help Obama achieve a new direction for America? How can our energies and efforts on a local level move us toward a better and more accountable government?

Are you ready to run for the local school board to help change education policy in your community? Are you ready to turn down your thermostat, refuse to drive 5 days a months, and recycle to help reduce your carbon footprint? Are you ready to spend your weekend building homes with Habitat for Humanity? Are you ready to find the contact information for your member of Congress and write monthly letters encouraging her to support specific actions? Are you ready to write OpEd pieces for your local paper?

Are we ready to see if a screwdriver might be more effective than a hammer? Of course we are not throwing out the hammer, because sometimes a nail needs a good smack.

Comments (179)

1. Good article, Melissa. And I liked it a lot when you said, "for your member of Congress and write monthly letters encouraging HER to support specific actions?" Nice work, Melissa.

   Posted by ktrig at 09/28/2009 @ 10:30pm

2. It was an indictment of a winner-take-all mentality that has led to tyrannical governance that fails to protect the interests of political minorities.

   Of course we are not throwing out the hammer, because sometimes a nail needs a good smack.

   Fear not! Your "smack" is coming, it will arrive in 2010 and 2012! Hammering Acorns was just the opener.

   Posted by BigPasture at 09/28/2009 @ 10:35pm

3. Put doen the hammer and screw driver??

   Put down thre hammer and sickle!!!!!

   How about all that love going on in the South side of Chicago!!!!!!!!!!!!

   I think a new Olympic sport has been discovered...

   he who beats up an innocent in the fastest time with his gang wins.....

   My God, that part of town should be invaded and occupied and subdued...

   Posted by YourJomamma at 09/28/2009 @ 11:29pm

4. Posted by YourJomamma at 09/28/2009 @ 11:29pm | ignore this person | warn this person

   No, just take the leftwing approach. Ban all 2" by 4" lumber of any length! It's the right thing to do! Shut down Lowes and Home Depot and do it for the children!

   (I'd say hang the perpetrators, but then we would just get into that "racist", bigot, hatred from the left thing.)

   Posted by BigPasture at 09/28/2009 @ 11:41pm

5. Ms. Lacewell, I have no idea what this article is about. Way too much rambling. I will say this though, and I hope you don't delete me this time, Barack Obama's election is uncovering some pretty bad wounds in this country. I don't know if this is good for the people who need 'hope' or not. I think their problem is way too big for one man to solve. His shoulders are not that broad, figuratively speaking.

   Bill Clinton was the man from Hope and he approached the problem of the poor in a constructive way. He didn't try to shove solutions down people's throats. I sense a lot of resentment across the board for Obama's approach and I fear that no good can come of it.

   Because he's threatened to change the way things are done in America, his adversaries are seeing that as code for, "It's our turn." Most people like America and actually feel pride when they hear the national anthem. They don't want change and they certainly don't want to pay for it. If I were President Obama, I'd slow down before the wheels fall off all together. just a little friendly advice.

   Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/29/2009 @ 12:07am

6. Oh please the only people that were calling Obama a savior were the new con repub far right. Inflate so it's a bigger sound deflating. And new con repubs are all about air, whether it's mythical smoking gun mushroom clouds, blow jobs, or a pretend prostitute; the correct tool is a nice pointy needle.

   While using a screw driver on new con repubs BS, only seems to enable their disingenuous behavior.

   Posted by hsuBfools at 09/29/2009 @ 01:17am

7. Posted by BigPasture at 09/28/2009 @ 10:35pm |

   "It was an indictment of a winner-take-all mentality that has led to tyrannical governance that fails to protect the interests of political minorities."

   ...but enough about Reagan.

   "Of course we are not throwing out the hammer, because sometimes a nail needs a good smack."

   Or your thumb, if you miss the nail and hit some dirty DoD contractors instead of ACORN.

   "Fear not! Your "smack" is coming, it will arrive in 2010 and 2012! Hammering Acorns was just the opener."

   Have you made a wager with Mask on that? I'd love to see the odds you're giving, since you're so confident that Palin and Joe Wilson can save that party you aren't a member of, but vote for every election.

   We'll see if your "angry 4%" can make a dent in the relief that most of us have felt since Bush flew over the mall in that helicopter.

   Posted by snowball777 at 09/29/2009 @ 06:44am

8. Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/29/2009 @ 12:07am |

   "I will say this though, and I hope you don't delete me this time, Barack Obama's election is uncovering some pretty bad wounds in this country."

   Has finally stopped ignoring, perhaps.

   "Bill Clinton was the man from Hope and he approached the problem of the poor in a constructive way. He didn't try to shove solutions down people's throats."

   I'm pretty sure the people dropped from the welfare rolls by Bill's fiscal cuts disagree...and he certainly cooperated with them on financial deregulation.

   "I sense a lot of resentment across the board for Obama's approach and I fear that no good can come of it."

   I sense a lot of fear across the board...and uncertainty...and doubt.

   "Most people like America and actually feel pride when they hear the national anthem."

   I love this country, but that Scottish drinking song and some lyrics about not completely getting our asses kicked isn't the reason.

   I feel pride when I read the preamble to the constitution.

   "They don't want change and they certainly don't want to pay for it."

   Who is this 'they' that are so in love with the status quo at home and abroad? 4%? 8%?

   Where were 'they' in November? (KY and AZ, I guess)

   The rest of us voted for change and are impatiently waiting for it. Ms. Harris-Lacewell's point is that we shouldn't abandon our desire for change if we don't get it from 'the one' ('that one', 'Magic', 'Messiah', etc ad nauseum...).

   Posted by snowball777 at 09/29/2009 @ 06:56am

9. WOW!

   different topic but all I can say is, "WOW!"

   Remember when (according to Elton John) the NYT said, "God is dead?"

   Well, the NYT just said "Socialism is dead."

   I shit you not.

   http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/29/world/europe/29socialism.html

   Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 09/29/2009 @ 07:20am

10. "The left will get some, but not all of what it wants, and that is OK. It is better than OK, it is the heart of democracy."

    Hmmmm?....now, where have I heard THAT before on this blog? Hmmmmm?

    And the person posting it given crap by the "pure progressives"....Hmmmm?????

    heheh

    Posted by Mask at 09/29/2009 @ 07:25am

11. Posted by Mask at 09/29/2009 @ 07:25am |

    Need some help putting that shoulder back in socket? ;)

    Posted by snowball777 at 09/29/2009 @ 07:40am

12. Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 09/29/2009 @ 07:20am |

    <Europe's center-right parties have embraced many ideas of the left: generous welfare benefits, nationalized health care, sharp restrictions on carbon emissions, the ceding of some sovereignty to the European Union.>

    These aren't the capitalists you're looking for...

    Posted by snowball777 at 09/29/2009 @ 07:42am

13. Obama understands the politics of hope. He manipulates our hopes. Just when we are losing hope that any real, progressive action will be taken, he opens a small window of hope and keeps us dangling. We have become hope addicts. Its the most cynical type of politcs. The only solution - stop cold turkey. Get rid of hope addiction. Stand up, admit we've been duped and start all over.

    Posted by trueleftist at 09/29/2009 @ 07:46am

14. Posted by snowball777 at 09/29/2009 @ 07:40am

    No...just find it rather humorous that Ms Harris-Lacewell is injecting a dose of REALISM into the mix and wondering if she did that as a "normal poster" what kind of grief she would get for it.

    I mean, can you IMAGINE what hassle, a poster telling the hard-core leftys on the blog "You'll get some, but not all of what you want and that's okay and how our democracy works"....would get?

    Do we HAVE to imagine?.....LOL

    Posted by Mask at 09/29/2009 @ 08:10am

15. United States is a great nation, but one of the most hated one also due to it's aggressive policies and unwanted wars and aggressions .US has military presence in around 40 countries, and still want more.Hundreds of billions of Dollars already been spent for such acts. For the benefits of it's own people, Obama administration must stop it's aggressive policies orchestrated by the former President George W Bush.Spend money for the American people.

    Posted by Dastu11 at 09/29/2009 @ 08:49am

16. Since Melissa wants to talk about asking ourselves "personal" questions I posit she add a few for Obama:

    --"do you want us out of Iraq and Afghanistan?"

    --"if so, when are we getting out?"

    --"why don't you want to put medical insurance companies out of business?"

    --"what's the benefit to the american people for big banks that are supposedly 'too big to fail' to be bailed out?"

    --"what are you doing to ensure they won't 'need' bailout money again?"

    I have plenty more, but if Obama would answer these, perhaps his answers would revive my optimism from last fall. As it stands now, he's successfully made me feel ridiculous for trust his message of CHANGE.

    Posted by urmygyro at 09/29/2009 @ 08:50am

17. I mean, can you IMAGINE what hassle, a poster telling the hard-core leftys on the blog "You'll get some, but not all of what you want and that's okay and how our democracy works"....would get?

    Posted by Mask at 09/29/2009 @ 08:10am | ignore this person | warn this person

    --I'll even take "some" at this point. But you seem to be saying we already have. What "some" have we got again?

    Posted by urmygyro at 09/29/2009 @ 08:55am

18. May have selected the wrong page for this hopeful suggestion:

    What are the consequences to new con repub lies? 'We the people' pay, but do the perpetrators? A few lost elections because their lies did not yield big time results but their opposite? Yet there they are still, still lying away and the MSM going along, again. One lie exposed after another, yet where are the consequences that will make the lies pay with the necessary deterrence? When the opposition has no morals, rather than moving the playing field closer to their moral lala-land, shouldn't there be a penalty pushing the line further away for their lala-land? I'm talking public moral humiliation and possible jail time. Anybody using lies for public consumption, if not fact checked sufficiently and argued with proper disclaimers and deference to the other side, should suffer inordinate public humiliation to dissuade lying as a method of persuasion.

    It's the lying after all-- that brings on the hate.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 09/29/2009 @ 09:07am

19. By the way, this is the point in the comment section when Mask patting himself on the back ends...because he won't have an answer to why liberals should be happy with Obama. His stock response is: you'd be worse off if McCain was president. Way to raise the bar! Lots of HOPE there!

    Posted by urmygyro at 09/29/2009 @ 09:10am

20. Ms Harris-Lacewell, I will work just as passionately to stop your dream list from being implemented.

    Check your polls. They are showing far more Americans consider themselves to be conservative than liberal.

    Posted by antisocialist at 09/29/2009 @ 09:10am

21. Put down the hammer and try a screwdriver.

    posted by Melissa Harris-Lacewell on 09/28/2009 @ 10:22pm

    I understand the sentiment. But I think the image of the President as a screwdriver is an unfortunate one, with a whiff of WIN buttons and Carter's cardigan sweaters.

    Posted by Mistral at 09/29/2009 @ 09:11am

22. hsubfools--you're a joke.

    Posted by urmygyro at 09/29/2009 @ 09:12am

23. Check your polls. They are showing far more Americans consider themselves to be conservative than liberal.

    Posted by antisocialist at 09/29/2009 @ 09:10am

    They voted for the liberal last year, and if the stock market doesn't nosedive and inflation doesn't hit and Bin Laden doesn't make a comeback, they'll vote liberal again.

    The presidency changes party after only four years only if there is epic feebleness in the Oh Vloffis.

    Posted by Mistral at 09/29/2009 @ 09:18am

24. The presidency changes party after only four years only if there is epic feebleness in the Oh Vloffis.

    Posted by Mistral at 09/29/2009 @ 09:18am | ignore this person | warn this person

    --if things continue as they are the current occupant of the oval office will not receive my vote. In a state (CT) that he's sure to win anyway, my vote doesn't matter to him, but Obama's going to lose many of the votes he got last time.

    Posted by urmygyro at 09/29/2009 @ 09:25am

25. more Americans consider themselves to be conservative than liberal. Posted by antisocialist at 09/29/2009 @ 09:10am

    But define conservative and it's definitely not new con repub-- I'd say it's more a liberal with old time Ike-ish conservative fiscal concerns.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 09/29/2009 @ 09:30am

26. hsubfools--you're a joke. Posted by urmygyro at 09/29/2009 @ 09:12am

    But since you're already a blossoming turd, it's required that you actually explain your conclusion with something factual. Or is it that being a turd makes it unlikely you have that ability?

    Posted by hsuBfools at 09/29/2009 @ 09:34am

27. --a "blossoming turd"...oooohhh...penetrating criticism!

    --democrats lie just as much as republicans...yet you rarely, if ever, call them out.

    Posted by urmygyro at 09/29/2009 @ 09:39am

28. I'd say it's more a liberal with old time Ike-ish conservative fiscal concerns.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 09/29/2009 @ 09:30am

    Fascinating how the old guys, Ike, Harry Truman, etc. always seem to be seen more favorably by their opponents decades later. Someday maybe even Johnson will be remembered with something other than the chant "Hey, hey LBJ, how many kids did you kill today?" and Wilson may be forgiven his racism and foreign policy.

    Posted by Mistral at 09/29/2009 @ 09:47am

29. Ms Harris-Lacewell says: "But I also know that government grinds along slowly and I will not consider the Obama administration a failure if I don't get everything I want immediately." +++

    Keep dreaming those beautiful dreams of hope and change. Government does NOT grind slowly unless it wants to or its corporate owners tell it too. Didn't take long to give all that money to Wall Street, did it? It didn't take long to grind into the invasion of Iraq, did it? It didn't take long to decide to defund Acorn, did it? And as I recall, it didn't take long to impeach Clinton. There are hundreds of examples of government operating quickly.... when it wants to.

    The naive patience of liberals is why there will be no further progress in America. We just sit around hoping. Hope-a-dope!

    Posted by Citizen54 at 09/29/2009 @ 09:51am

30. Keep dreaming those beautiful dreams of hope and change. Government does NOT grind slowly unless it wants to or its corporate owners tell it too. Didn't take long to give all that money to Wall Street, did it? It didn't take long to grind into the invasion of Iraq, did it? It didn't take long to decide to defund Acorn, did it? And as I recall, it didn't take long to impeach Clinton. There are hundreds of examples of government operating quickly.... when it wants to.

    The naive patience of liberals is why there will be no further progress in America. We just sit around hoping. Hope-a-dope!

    Posted by Citizen54 at 09/29/2009 @ 09:51am | ignore this person | warn this person

    --citizen 54 where are you? oh, you're right on the mark! couldn't agree more. things CAN get done quickly. they aren't with this administration b/c Obama wants a 2nd term, so he's afraid to rock the boat. Status quo will be kept.

    --also, I wonder if Melissa was ok with gov't moving slowly when it took the feds 3 or 4 days to get to New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina? Methinks she wasn't falling back on defending Bush and company with "gov't grinds slowly."

    --It appears to me there are many apologists, such as Melissa and Mask, who simply view Obama's administration as a relief from Bush, so really no matter what Obama does, the criticism will be minimal or non-existant.

    Posted by urmygyro at 09/29/2009 @ 09:58am

31. Posted by Mask at 09/29/2009 @ 08:10am |

    Hap and YJM et al will tell you it's because you're not colorful enough to criticize the anointed and get away with it.

    I, for one, am glad to have the realism in play, but dismayed at how much of what people 'thought they were voting for' will not come to be (though that includes a list that wasn't even realistic given his centrist, capitalist bent).

    Sometimes it's difficult to satisfy oneself with the direction of change and be patient enough to notice the advancements being made over the longer timeline, but I'm confident that our republic will ploddingly find its way.

    Posted by snowball777 at 09/29/2009 @ 10:03am

32. Sometimes it's difficult to satisfy oneself with the direction of change and be patient enough to notice the advancements being made over the longer timeline, but I'm confident that our republic will ploddingly find its way.

    Posted by snowball777 at 09/29/2009 @ 10:03am | ignore this person | warn this person

    --as I asked Mask in my 8:55am post today, please tell me "some" of the advancements that Obama's made. Thanks.

    Posted by urmygyro at 09/29/2009 @ 10:07am

33. 'I understand the sentiment. But I think the image of the President as a screwdriver is an unfortunate one,,,,' -- HonestLiberal

    Oh dear, remember what happened to Rick Santorum. Hope our current President doesn't get remembered as "President Screwdriver" just because of Melissa Harris-Lacewell's unfortunate turn of phrase.

    Posted by HonestLiberal at 09/29/2009 @ 10:08am

34. oh, and don't worry about scrolling up looking for Mask's answer so that you're isn't merely a duplicate of his: the only way yours could be is if you don't respond.

    Posted by urmygyro at 09/29/2009 @ 10:08am

35. Funny to see the Republican lines of "Why do you hate America?", Bush Derangement Syndrome and the like being thrown back in their faces. See what being a shithead gets you, ladies and gents?

    Same goes for the Democrats currently using this line - although I will recognize that the derangement and hate is of a slightly different order.

    Posted by srjenkins at 09/29/2009 @ 10:09am

36. Posted by snowball777 at 09/29/2009 @ 06:56am

    "Has finally stopped ignoring, perhaps."

    When a contributor to The Nation delets the comments of a poster that were in no way offensive to anyone who respects someone else's point of view, it's called censorship.

    "I'm pretty sure the people dropped from the welfare rolls by Bill's fiscal cuts disagree...and he certainly cooperated with them on financial deregulation."

    Welfare refoem was a campaign pledge fulfilled by Clinton. He tried to stop the welfare queen baby factories. He wasn't very successful.

    "I sense a lot of fear across the board...and uncertainty...and doubt."

    Yes, on the part of southern democratic politicians.

    "I love this country, but that Scottish drinking song and some lyrics about not completely getting our asses kicked isn't the reason."

    I suggest you listen carefully to the words, focus on our flag as you do and envision in your ungrateful mind the landing on Omaha Beach, June 6th, 1944.

    " feel pride when I read the preamble to the constitution."

    That's fine, but do you believe in the body of the Constitution?

    "Who is this 'they' that are so in love with the status quo at home and abroad? 4%? 8%?"

    They' are people all across America who ask for nothing but the opportunity to work, raise a family and pay their taxes. They don't expect freebies. They play by the rules, serve their country and actually feel pride when they hear our national anthem played. They don't abuse the system, they vote and they respect authority while questioning it. I think the percentage is more like 65%, still wat too low.

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/29/2009 @ 10:19am

37. srjenkins: who is currently using the line "why do you hate america?"?

    mask and snowball777--still waiting for you to tell me what obama has given liberals. thanks.

    Posted by urmygyro at 09/29/2009 @ 10:19am

38. gunslinger1--I have to disagree wholeheartedly with one sentiment you expressed: NO ONE, liberal or conservative, asks to "pay their taxes." I'm quite sure everyone does it because it has to be done.

    Posted by urmygyro at 09/29/2009 @ 10:24am

39. The rest of us voted for change and are impatiently waiting for it. Ms. Harris-Lacewell's point is that we shouldn't abandon our desire for change if we don't get it from 'the one' ('that one', 'Magic', 'Messiah', etc ad nauseum...).

    Posted by snowball777 at 09/29/2009 @ 06:56am

    Ms. Lacewell is correct. No one should abandon hope. Just don't waste your precious time waiting for the kind of change that you think will miracuously lift you out of your miserable existance. Get up off the couch, go out and make a living and live within your means. Do not use charge cards.

    You are not entitled to anything you do not earn unless you are physically handicapped beyond the ability to work, a disabled veteran, or an elderly citizen who has paid your dues. The elderly on Social Security have earned their way by paying into it for years. leave these people alone. Do not water down their resources the way Obama wants to so he can give health care to illegal immigrants.

    Yesterday I saw Dem. Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee defending her and some thirty other democratic Congresspeople's signed letter to Obama asking for health coverage for illegals. Listen carefully, THEY SENT A LETTER TO OBAMA ASKING HIM TO MAKE HEALTH CARE AVAILABLE TO ILLEGALS! I guess Joe Wilson had a good reason to be outraged. I swear, Lee and her ilk are tone deaf. We can't afford health care for LEGALS! What do they not understand? How can you be taking money from Medicare to give to illegals? How do these people keep getting elected? Who the hell is voting for them? I know it's not the illegals. So, I ask again, WHO?

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/29/2009 @ 10:32am

40. Posted by urmygyro at 09/29/2009 @ 10:19am

    Who's currently using the line Bush Derangement Syndrome? You see how the word "currently" makes your question a little odd?

    The point is that Republicans regularly use jackass rhetorical moves like talking about people's feelings, using emotional laden language (victory, socialism) as a cover for their (frequently poor) arguments or escribe false preoccupations to others that are not germane to the topic under discussion. Whether the particular wording is current is irrelevant to the general pattern I'm talking about. And while these tactics aren't any better coming from Democrats, turnaround is fair play.

    If you cannot identify with what I'm talking about, perhaps you have never argued a "liberal" position with someone who considers themselves a Republican or you use these same tactics yourself. I'd say the latter, given what I've seen of your postings.

    Posted by srjenkins at 09/29/2009 @ 10:41am

41. Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/29/2009 @ 10:32am |

    "How do these people keep getting elected? Who the hell is voting for them?"

    If you consider the alternative that the electorate was presented with you'll see who: the 'unreal' Americans.

    I'd gladly vote both Pugs and Dems out in order to replace them with a 3rd party candidate who isn't sold out to some cause either corporate or idealistic, but there's no such beast in our body politic at this time.

    Posted by snowball777 at 09/29/2009 @ 10:42am

42. Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/29/2009 @ 10:32am | ignore this person | warn this person

    --gunslinger1: one of the main reasons I voted for Obama is he said upteen times how disatrous and wasteful the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are. Why are we still there? Why won't Obama make timetables to get us out?

    Posted by urmygyro at 09/29/2009 @ 10:43am

43. If you cannot identify with what I'm talking about, perhaps you have never argued a "liberal" position with someone who considers themselves a Republican or you use these same tactics yourself. I'd say the latter, given what I've seen of your postings.

    Posted by srjenkins at 09/29/2009 @ 10:41am | ignore this person | warn this person

    --I've never once uttered an accusation that someone "hates America." You're making things up to sound intelligent. Bush was a terrible president. Obama ran on change. What's he changed?

    Posted by urmygyro at 09/29/2009 @ 10:45am

44. Posted by urmygyro at 09/29/2009 @ 10:24am

    No, I think you're wrong about that. Most people realize that the services the government have to be paid for, especially defense, schools and infrastructure. Most people, working people that is don't mind contributing to our standard of living, FAIRLY. But they do resent having to pay for people who would abuse the system or who enter the country illegally. I don't care how much fruit they pick. They need to go back to wherever they came from and leach off their own governments. Or overthrow them.

    This country is great because we are given freedoms, granted by the Constitution we live under, freedoms that generation after generation have shed their blood to preserve. I fear that our present government with all the Czars and bleeding hearts don't really like our Constitution all that much. This says a lot about the guy who gave them their jobs. Yeah, yeah, I know, other Presidents had Czars too. That doen't make it right. The Constitution says nothing about Czars.

    Look at the gangbangers who killed that young honor student on the streets of Chicago yesterday. What the hell are they so angry about that they would stomp this innocent kid to death on the street. Thank God they've been arrested. These people need to place their anger in the right place, at THEMSELVES. Get the hell to class, pay attention, open a book, get your education and make something of yourself. Don't kill someone else who was succeeding and had a bright future and would actually contribute something to society.

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/29/2009 @ 10:46am

45. Who the hell is voting for them? I know it's not the illegals. So, I ask again, WHO?

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/29/2009 @ 10:32am

    I guess it is the people Bushfools has been raving about mindlessly...the America haters...which always has been the far left, the Shelia J Lees supporters and of course,..BUSHFOOLS, himself.

    Posted by YourJomamma at 09/29/2009 @ 10:48am

46. I'd gladly vote both Pugs and Dems out in order to replace them with a 3rd party candidate who isn't sold out to some cause either corporate or idealistic, but there's no such beast in our body politic at this time.

    Posted by snowball777 at 09/29/2009 @ 10:42am

    I'll second that. Maybe politicians aren't the answer. Maybe we should look to the Tea Party people for candidates. I've heard that some are already thinking of running.

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/29/2009 @ 10:49am

47. Posted by YourJomamma at 09/29/2009 @ 10:48am

    So what would it take to shake these people out of their prolonged stupor?

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/29/2009 @ 10:50am

48. Posted by urmygyro at 09/29/2009 @ 10:43am

    I've seen you repeatedly make a comment about Obama and the wars in this thread. What I have a hard time understand is why you are surprised. I didn't vote for Obama precisely because he said he was going to deemphasize Iraq and escalate in Afghanistan. He didn't make any promises in terms of addressing our militaristic foreign policy - and in fact, the only difference between him and McCain was the degree of aggression they were willing to engage in. Remember Obama specifically said that he would bomb Pakistan if he had credible intelligence? That's telling you up front that he would commit an act of aggression against another sovereign state if he thought it prudent to do so - which shows no regard for international law and that he would continue the American imperialist project that has been underway for decades.

    So, people don't have any room to complain about Obama on the foreign policy front. He is doing exactly what he said he would do. At least "conservatives" have the right to pretend to be surprised and indignant over their perception of a government take-over of industry - he wasn't as specific about how he would handle the economic crisis.

    Posted by srjenkins at 09/29/2009 @ 10:53am

49. mask and snowball777--still waiting for you to tell me what obama has given liberals. thanks. Posted by urmygyro at 09/29/2009 @ 10:19am |

    - Stem Cell research funding

    - The stimu-less (diluted somewhat by Snowe/Collins) including SBA rule mods to borrower's benefit

    - A fresh look at FP (same wars though)

    - Pledges to sign bills implementing healthcare reform, carbon controls, and card check (should our congress be so decent as to get their collective act together)

    Still plenty of time for him to deliver on most of the platform, though it does get troublesome with all the rabble from the party of 'No!' fomenting FUD.

    Posted by snowball777 at 09/29/2009 @ 10:55am

50. Posted by urmygyro at 09/29/2009 @ 10:45am

    "I've never once uttered an accusation that someone "hates America."

    Nor did I say you did. You posts have more of the "escribe false preoccupations to others that are not germane to the topic under discussion" quality to them. Do I need to ask Mask to provide specific examples?

    Posted by srjenkins at 09/29/2009 @ 10:55am

51. These aren't the capitalists you're looking for...

    Posted by snowball777 at 09/29/2009 @ 07:42am

    And the news, "God is dead" was not a proclamation that Satan had triumphed. Maybe it is a recognition of false choices.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 09/29/2009 @ 11:10am

52. My response to Melissa Harris-Lacewell is the same as my response to Eyal Press.

    The tendency to see every battle between Democrats and Republicans as one of Good versus Evil would be greatly reduced if we had more than two viable political parties to choose from.

    Proportional electoral systems, such as Instant Runoff Voting, would likely give us three or more parties to choose from. Then the loonies would have a much harder time identifying an Anti-Christ. Which of the two or more opposing party leaders would he be?

    The two-party system, which is nothing more than a primitive electoral system that represents us poorly and inaccurately rather than accurately and well, encourages Manichaean thinking that is all-or-nothing, black-or-white, night-or-day, and good-versus-evil, with no nuance, no middle ground, and no complexity. A better electoral system, which more accurately reflected the true political diversity that exists in our country, would help us to see ourselves as something more complex and diverse than "us versus them."

    Posted by JakobFabian at 09/29/2009 @ 11:26am

53. Sometimes it's difficult to satisfy oneself with the direction of change and be patient enough to notice the advancements being made over the longer timeline, but I'm confident that our republic will ploddingly find its way.----Posted by snowball777 at 09/29/2009 @ 10:03am

    Careful, snow...that kind of talk might earn you a smacking around by Frosty Zoom!

    Posted by Mask at 09/29/2009 @ 11:32am

54. Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/29/2009 @ 10:46am | ignore this person | warn this person

    --I don't buy that anyone is happy to pay their taxes. People do it because they are forced to. And people will always say that the gov't is taking too much (the right will cry foul about social programs and the left will cry foul about war).

    Posted by urmygyro at 09/29/2009 @ 11:35am

55. Posted by urmygyro at 09/29/2009 @ 10:45am

    "I've never once uttered an accusation that someone "hates America."

    Nor did I say you did. You posts have more of the "escribe false preoccupations to others that are not germane to the topic under discussion" quality to them. Do I need to ask Mask to provide specific examples?

    Posted by srjenkins at 09/29/2009 @ 10:55am | ignore this person | warn this person

    --you mean like when mask constantly brings the right-wing media into discussions? suuuuuuuuure...

    Posted by urmygyro at 09/29/2009 @ 11:38am

56. - Stem Cell research funding

    --THAT'S GOOD.

    - The stimu-less (diluted somewhat by Snowe/Collins) including SBA rule mods to borrower's benefit

    --STIMULUS IS A JOKE.

    - A fresh look at FP (same wars though)

    --FRESH? WEREN'T YOU (OR MAYBE IT WAS SOMEONE ELSE) JUST ARGUING TO ME THAT OBAMA DIDN'T RUN ON STOPPING THE WARS? IF ANYTHING, HE RAN ON ESCALATING AFGHANISTAN? THERE'S NO REAL CHANGE THERE. PLEASE.

    - Pledges to sign bills implementing healthcare reform, carbon controls, and card check (should our congress be so decent as to get their collective act together)

    --I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE, TO OBAMA'S PLEDGES!

    Still plenty of time for him to deliver on most of the platform, though it does get troublesome with all the rabble from the party of 'No!' fomenting FUD.

    --TIME FLIES. WE SHALL SEE...

    Posted by snowball777 at 09/29/2009 @ 10:55am | ignore this person | warn this person

    Posted by urmygyro at 09/29/2009 @ 11:42am

57. Posted by urmygyro at 09/29/2009 @ 11:35am

    No reasonable citizen expects something for nothing. I agree that people will always gripe about how much and won't hesitate when you ask them if they're happy about it or not. Perhaps my use of the word happy was misplaced. I should have said that most people are responsible about paying their fair share. Better?

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/29/2009 @ 11:47am

58. Check your polls. They are showing far more Americans consider themselves to be conservative than liberal. Posted by antisocialist at 09/29/2009 @ 09:10am

    That's why they won the election. Ooops. It should have been easy with 304,059,724 people to find a candidate, from, hmmmm?

    Is it that they were as guilty of complacency as 'those on the left' were for a time? Two party system broke. It's just about money with religion thrown in for the 'cotton ball' effect.

    I'm hoping that conservatives DO win the next election so we can get this descent into ideological fascism over with. The suspense is killing me.

    Posted by ficheye at 09/29/2009 @ 11:54am

59. hsubfools--you're a joke. Posted by urmygyro at 09/29/2009 @ 09:12am But since you're already a blossoming turd, it's required that you actually explain your conclusion with something factual. Posted by hsuBfools at 09/29/2009 @ 09:34am --democrats lie just as much as republicans... Posted by urmygyro at 09/29/2009 @ 09:39am

    Lying about embarrassing extramarital affairs is then somehow morally equivalent to you with lying us into war, torture, disappeared billions? Or are you speaking about pecqueño lies like exaggerating a crowd size, killing grandma, etc..., because dems have done that too? Where, show me the dem moral equivalence.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 09/29/2009 @ 11:57am

60. Ooops again.

    It's 307,577,607. Humans have one thing down to perfection, that's for sure. Is it possible that we can build on that?

    Maybe that why 'screw you' is the worlds most common epithet.

    Posted by ficheye at 09/29/2009 @ 12:04pm

61. Posted by Mistral at 09/29/2009 @ 09:47am

    That was in response to how a dem might like viewing themselves as 'conservative' using a possibly more positive definition; rather than how the looney-toon lala-land new con repub radical extreme would define 'conservative'.

    But point well taken.

    Sad day though when the hsuB/cHeney admin will be considered moderate and reasonable!

    Posted by hsuBfools at 09/29/2009 @ 12:18pm

62. er, Sad day though when the hsuB/cHeney admin will be considered moderate and reasonable 'by liberal dems'!

    Posted by hsuBfools at 09/29/2009 @ 12:23pm

63. --STIMULUS IS A JOKE. Posted by urmygyro at 09/29/2009 @ 11:42am

    Penetrating criticism, albeit less so than blossoming turd, due to a 2pt deductions for lack of creativity. Do you really need to SHOUT today?

    Obama, has been a little disappointing. Although the primary reasons are not totally his fault. Democrats have a filibuster proof majority in the senate and own the house. Their is no reason why we should not be getting things done. Problem is that too many of our democratic senators are owned by various corporate interests or ideologues. Resulting in complete retardation of congress as a whole. Who needs the republicans, when the democrats fight amongst themselves just as much. One thing I always admired about the repubs is their ability to march lock-step on issues and actually get things done. The democrats, Baucus and his bipartisan group of six gave us a weak watered down healthcare bill, that I can't support. And while this bill was crafted with a bipartisan group, the republicans still complain about lack of participation (jerks). The dems should have just excluded the repubs and got a bill that dems could support.

    I see Obama as trying to get his agenda that he promised accomplished, but his own congress is not working with him. Would not give him the funding needed to close guantamo, etc. He never promised to get out of Afghanistan (we should) but that was not one of his promises. He promised to draw down and get our of Iraq, we are (at least from the cities). So I think some slow progress is being made there. It is easy to blame Obama, I blame him for not clamping down on his party in congress. The democrats are being pathetic. Such a wasted opportunity.

    Posted by Extraneous at 09/29/2009 @ 12:38pm

64. Posted by urmygyro at 09/29/2009 @ 11:38am

    Well, there is truth to that. Mask can engage in some bizarro, non-sequitor logic, too.

    Posted by srjenkins at 09/29/2009 @ 12:40pm

65. Posted by Extraneous at 09/29/2009 @ 12:38pm

    Ever consider that Democrats getting less done....is an asset? Let's call for longer vacations for Congress, 8 months a year should do the trick.

    Posted by srjenkins at 09/29/2009 @ 12:43pm

66. Posted by srjenkins at 09/29/2009 @ 12:40pm

    Care to name something?

    Posted by Mask at 09/29/2009 @ 12:47pm

67. er, Sad day though when the hsuB/cHeney admin will be considered moderate and reasonable 'by liberal dems'!

    Posted by hsuBfools at 09/29/2009 @ 12:23pm

    If George Bush didn't come across as stupid and wasn't so inarticulate and Dick Cheney didn't come across as Darth Vader, I don't think anyone would have ever heard of Barack Obama and the republicans would still be in the WH. The neocons got their way with Iraq but they lost government control in the process.

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/29/2009 @ 12:47pm

68. Check your polls. They are showing far more Americans consider themselves to be conservative than liberal. Posted by antisocialist at 09/29/2009 @ 09:10am

    Maybe the President can use the excuse that he can't be blamed, that it's the fault of a problem citizenry that the last administration stuck him with.

    Posted by Mistral at 09/29/2009 @ 12:58pm

69. Posted by Extraneous at 09/29/2009 @ 12:38pm

    Ever consider that Democrats getting less done....is an asset? Let's call for longer vacations for Congress, 8 months a year should do the trick.

    Posted by srjenkins at 09/29/2009 @ 12:43pm

    Sure, probably more often than not. It just seems like such a waste of momentum, when we had the opportunity and the support to reverse some of the errors of the past 8 years.

    Posted by Extraneous at 09/29/2009 @ 1:24pm

70. Exactly. If there are more conservatives out there... then they must be in charge. Whew. Just when I was starting to worry.

    Posted by ficheye at 09/29/2009 @ 1:25pm

71. The word 'hope' is the problem. "Hope" is always about tomorrow, never about today. "Hope" things will get better tomorrow, in the meantime, give me your money. "Hope" is the best thing the Reichwingnuts could ever 'hope' for!

    The 'right' has walked all over decent people precisely BECAUSE OF HOPE. Stop hoping, people. I hope the tooth fairy puts a Ferrari under my pillow. I 'hope' Israel stops it's relentless warmongering and racist persecution. I hope the banksters have a spiritual awakening. But above all, I HOPE LIBERALS GROW A SPINE! Stop hoping, start demanding.

    Good piece, otherwise.

    Posted by DejaVu at 09/29/2009 @ 2:27pm

72. I am, admittedly, a biased pro-Melissafan. So much so that if she were to tell me that she thought it would be a good idea for me to step out in front a fast moving bus, on Main Street, at rush hour, I would consider it, poste haste. I would make this consideration largely because I am serene in the confidence that, at the last second, she would reach out and pull me back, saying, "Just kidding. I couldn't really let you do that", much in the way that God saved Abraham's son at the last minute (I still remember some of my Bible). It should, therefore, come as no great surprise that I find this article well written, satisfyingly pungent and the epitome of much needed moderation, in a time when our culture is prone (and extremely susceptible to) hyperbole, extremism, pendulum swings and emotional outbursts that are just plain embarrassing. I suspect that many of you, no matter your ilk, (perhaps somewhat grudgingly) will concur. However, even though some of the comments that follow are thoughtful, and insightful, many of them belie precisely the reactionary impetuosity Ms. Harris-Lacewell identifies, decries and cautions against. In fact, a few even manage to lose sight of the point of the article, dislay juvenille irrationality, react like snubbed ingenues and wander off to grind a completely different axe (these behaviors may also support her thesis). And having been a reader of The Nation, for a very long time, the claim that there is some form of censorship at work here is laughable. Those who do not appreciate the calm, insight, wit and wisdom the author puts forward should, to put it bluntly, go pound sand. And, by the way, if you excitedly beat a screw with hammer, you do not get "a big mess": you get a hardware/ideology conundrum which is "unscrewable"...

    Posted by hivanh at 09/29/2009 @ 2:30pm

73. Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/29/2009 @ 12:47pm

    So in other words..."If everything had been different, WE'd still be in charge!"?

    LOL

    Posted by Mask at 09/29/2009 @ 2:33pm

74. Posted by Mask at 09/29/2009 @ 2:33pm

    Who's 'WE'?

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/29/2009 @ 2:42pm

75. "I don't think anyone would have ever heard of Barack Obama and the republicans would still be in the WH."

    So gunny, you're a Democrat or a left-leaning Indy????

    Posted by Mask at 09/29/2009 @ 2:48pm

76. Dear Ms. Lacewell, I am a fan of yours from watching you on MSNBC. But this article sounds like it was written on a tight deadline. You tell the left they need to be patient. That, the right is now using the same tactics as ours. You sound like "ladies who lunch". The right is the pharmaceuticals and insurance companies using the weak minded and easily influenced to storm the town halls. The insurance company Health Care Group busing in people with their talking points provided. And if that is not enough, just shout them down. The left does not make it a habit to discourage debate. We are not playing on even playing field. We have the American people up against well funded corporate interests. I see a tendency that pundits have, trying to be fair, to say both parties are guilty of the thing being discussed, when it " just ain't so!" One President warned us of the influence of the industrial- military complex. Today he would surely warn us of the pharmaceutical-insurance complex. We agree that all of our success does not depend on our President, but us letting him know, we got his back. We need to remind the democrats as often as necessary, we have been patient too long. Over 50 years, and we are the only industrialized nation without health care for all its citizens. So, yes write to your elected officials and let them know you vote! P.S. Have you ever used a hammer or a screw driver? I think it was a poor analogy.

    Posted by stjam8 at 09/29/2009 @ 3:16pm

77. GROW A SPINE!

    Posted by DejaVu at 09/29/2009 @ 2:27pm

    I'm sure you all know this is an anagram for SPIRO AGNEW.

    Posted by Mistral at 09/29/2009 @ 3:17pm

78. I am, admittedly, a biased pro-Melissafan. So much so that if she were to tell me that she thought it would be a good idea for me to step out in front a fast moving bus, on Main Street, at rush hour, I would consider it, poste haste.

    Posted by hivanh at 09/29/2009 @ 2:30pm

    If all your friends were named Cliff, would you jump off them?

    Posted by Mistral at 09/29/2009 @ 3:22pm

79. I can assure you that writing my congressman and or senators will accomplish nothing. I live in a GOP, stick your head in the mud state where the majority want to go back to a time when everyone thought the world was flat and daily witch burning rituals took place......Glen Beck's Faux world for you.

    The religious bigot minority and the rich are still calling the shots, otherwise we wouldn't be in Iraq or Afghanistan, the banks would have been bailed out and then broken up into smaller banks that wouldn't have been too big to fail, and the same would have gone for the wallstreet firms.

    Our (the people of the United States) interests have been stomped all over folks to enrich a handful of greedy bastards.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 09/29/2009 @ 3:28pm

80. I am, admittedly, a biased pro-Melissafan. So much so that if she were to tell me that she thought it would be a good idea for me to step out in front a fast moving bus, on Main Street, at rush hour, I would consider it, poste haste.

    Posted by hivanh at 09/29/2009 @ 2:30pm

    1.The first rule of Melissa Club is: you do not talk about Melissa Club.

    2.The second rule of Melissa Club is: you do not talk about Melissa Club.

    .

    .

    .

    Posted by Mistral at 09/29/2009 @ 3:33pm

81. If all your friends were named Cliff, would you jump off them?

    Posted by Mistral at 09/29/2009 @ 3:22pm

    Thank you for validating my worst fears. Do you take everything out of context, and then fail completely to read anything else that might follow? Melissa warned me about people like you.

    Posted by hivanh at 09/29/2009 @ 3:36pm

82. Ms. Harris-Lacewell's post is nothing but dishonest, reformist claptrap.

    First of all, which left Democrat is saying that we should have gotten every significant reform, let alone all of the items on her list, by the end of September 2009? Most would have settled for a real fight for single-payer or the Employee Free Choice Act, but Obama preferred throwing more money at Wall Street.

    Some of us have years of activism under our belts, too, and have counseled others to take the long view, to realize that deep, thorough-going change cannot be won in the course of one campaign or action. But when the irons are hot, one needs to shift focus to the short-term.

    Polls have shown over the years that a majority of the public support the right to unionize, aggresively enforcing anti-trust laws, more regulation of the financial sector and the environment, a higher minimum wage and less corporate power from health care to politics. And yet, in the face of this public consensus, Ms. Harris-Lacewell appears to be arguing that the left must reach a consensus with the die-hard opponents of these reforms.

    FDR was called a class traitor, Truman a Red, Johnson a n****r-lover and Medicare the first step in the march to the Gulag. And yet, within a few months or years, we finally got the 8-hour day, military desegragation, the Voting and Civil Rights Act and Medicare by rolling over the objections of the knuckle-draggers of the day, not by trying to win them over.

    Posted by cka2nd at 09/29/2009 @ 3:44pm

83. Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/29/2009 @ 12:47pm

    I clearly remember my dad, as staunch a dem liberal as they come, being partial to Ike. We're talking half a century ago. He respected the former president even if he wasn't a dem and hadn't voted for him. It may have been simply because Ike was born in Texas or a war hero. Or it was that he was very religious like my dad and got the 'In God We Trust' as the US motto put in the pledge and on money. Maybe it was that Ike helped get JFK elected... Or maybe it was his stance on discrimination, (back then something was a lot better than nothing), but in any case, my dad liked Ike.

    In remembering back though, it becomes very apparent the accepted dignity in discourse that's been long ago lost. The congress probably would've shot or at least arrested on the spot any congressman shouting out at Eisenhower, 'YOU LIAR', during a joint session, and everyone would have clearly understood the disgrace. Even Ike, as much as he disliked McCarthy privately, didn't come out publicly to denounce him.

    Perhaps that loss of decorum came with the gain in blurring personal and private information being exchanged; along with the exploding information network and mass media, plus conditioning via the ever more outrageous anti-Walter Cronkite types. It became ok to yell out "I'm mad as yell and I'm not going to take this anymore"-- I want lettuce, no fucking onions damn it', all our most petty neurosis instantly gratified by millions of viewers; where quantity not quality rules. See what sticks. Mud wrestling is always fun. Some slight of hand. A little more blood letting each time.

    How does one progress beyond anger when there are monetary rewards for disseminating deception; promoting delusional ravings and no stiff penalties?

    Posted by hsuBfools at 09/29/2009 @ 3:45pm

84. Do you take everything out of context,

    Posted by hivanh at 09/29/2009 @ 3:36pm

    The passage quoted from your post seems to match the rest of it quite nicely: you agree with Ms. Harris-Lacewell, repeat some of what she said, and call her opponents "weak minded." Nothing is out of context.

    Posted by Mistral at 09/29/2009 @ 3:50pm

85. extraneous: "Penetrating criticism, albeit less so than blossoming turd, due to a 2pt deductions for lack of creativity. Do you really need to SHOUT today?"

    --the all caps were to make it easier to see what I was writing (I didn't reformat the post like I normally do--like I'm doing here). the stimulus is a joke. It's corporate welfare for companies "too big to fail." Unemployment is still way high.

    extraneous: "Obama, has been a little disappointing."

    --a little?

    extraneous: "Although the primary reasons are not totally his fault. Democrats have a filibuster proof majority in the senate and own the house. Their is no reason why we should not be getting things done."

    --the President is a democrat. He can't get members of his own party on board with what he (supposedly) wants. It's so easy to see why conservatives/republicans laugh at not being in power...it's irrelevant that they aren't...the democrats won't do anything with the power the people gave them!

    extraneous: "Problem is that too many of our democratic senators are owned by various corporate interests or ideologues."

    --it appears Obama's not much different, if at all.

    extraneous: "Resulting in complete retardation of congress as a whole. Who needs the republicans, when the democrats fight amongst themselves just as much. One thing I always admired about the repubs is their ability to march lock-step on issues and actually get things done. The democrats, Baucus and his bipartisan group of six gave us a weak watered down healthcare bill, that I can't support. And while this bill was crafted with a bipartisan group, the republicans still complain about lack of participation (jerks). The dems should have just excluded the repubs and got a bill that dems could support."

    --I agree (also see above)

    Posted by urmygyro at 09/29/2009 @ 4:02pm

86. osted by srjenkins at 09/29/2009 @ 12:40pm Care to name something? Posted by Mask at 09/29/2009 @ 12:47pm | ignore this person |

    --you kidding? you ask him! I point out these things about you all the time....pay attention!

    Posted by urmygyro at 09/29/2009 @ 4:07pm

87. from the blog entitled: "Ending the Cycle of Presidential Love and Hate": "Sometimes, civility is the last thing required to resolve disingenuous behavior. And may even be enabling it."--Posted by hsuBfools at 09/29/2009 @ 12:56am

    from earlier on this thread: "In remembering back though, it becomes very apparent the accepted dignity in discourse that's been long ago lost. The congress probably would've shot or at least arrested on the spot any congressman shouting out at Eisenhower, 'YOU LIAR', during a joint session, and everyone would have clearly understood the disgrace. Even Ike, as much as he disliked McCarthy privately, didn't come out publicly to denounce him."--Posted by hsuBfools at 09/29/2009 @ 3:45pm

    --Putting my "Mask" on: so Ike was enabling McCarthy! hsuBfools' impermeable logic at work!

    Posted by urmygyro at 09/29/2009 @ 4:19pm

88. Posted by Mask at 09/29/2009 @ 12:47pm

    I haven't noticed anything lately. In the past, there were three main categories of "some bizarro, non-sequitor logic":

    1. Fallacy of many questions: framing the discussion with questions rather than addressing the argument directly or putting forth your own position.

    2. Straw man: you'd create and attack an argument no one made.

    3. Quotes out of context: I find your quotes generally interesting, but you occasionally have been off on them.

    More generally, you have a bias toward pragmatism and the status quo that occasionally brings out the kind of fallacies listed above when an argument strays too far from your agenda - obvious examples would be your vitriol against Nader and third parties in general or the electoral strategy of appealing to the youth vote.

    While I would like you to put forth your position more, offer something more sophisticated than a "whatever works" type argument and offer less criticism/"gotcha" postings, I think you have improved on this a lot lately.

    However, I may not be the best judge because I haven't been reading as carefully lately either. I could try to look for examples in your future posts I read if you think that would be useful.

    Posted by cka2nd at 09/29/2009 @ 3:44pm

    Your posts are always excellent. I'm not always in agreement, but your voice is a consistent voice for a brand of leftism that isn't represented in this forum. Thanks for posting.

    Posted by urmygyro at 09/29/2009 @ 4:07pm

    You're not exactly impartial on this matter, are you?

    Posted by srjenkins at 09/29/2009 @ 5:09pm

89. so Ike was enabling McCarthy! Posted by urmygyro at 09/29/2009 @ 4:19pm

    That one is easy, but answer my question to you first:

    hsubfools--you're a joke. Posted by urmygyro at 09/29/2009 @ 09:12am But since you're already a blossoming turd, it's required that you actually explain your conclusion with something factual. Posted by hsuBfools at 09/29/2009 @ 09:34am --democrats lie just as much as republicans... Posted by urmygyro at 09/29/2009 @ 09:39am

    Lying about embarrassing extramarital affairs is then somehow morally equivalent to you with lying us into war, torture, disappeared billions? Or are you speaking about pecqueño lies like exaggerating a crowd size, killing grandma, etc..., because dems have done that too? Where, show me the dem moral equivalence.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 09/29/2009 @ 11:57am

    Posted by hsuBfools at 09/29/2009 @ 5:10pm

90. Posted by urmygyro at 09/29/2009 @ 4:07pm

    You're not exactly impartial on this matter, are you?

    Posted by srjenkins at 09/29/2009 @ 5:09pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    --is Mask "impartial" when he constantly brings the right-wing media in to attack conservatives/republicans? c'mon now!

    Posted by urmygyro at 09/29/2009 @ 5:13pm

91. so Ike was enabling McCarthy! Posted by urmygyro at 09/29/2009 @ 4:19pm That one is easy, but answer my question to you first: hsubfools--you're a joke. Posted by urmygyro at 09/29/2009 @ 09:12am But since you're already a blossoming turd, it's required that you actually explain your conclusion with something factual. Posted by hsuBfools at 09/29/2009 @ 09:34am --democrats lie just as much as republicans... Posted by urmygyro at 09/29/2009 @ 09:39am Lying about embarrassing extramarital affairs is then somehow morally equivalent to you with lying us into war, torture, disappeared billions? Or are you speaking about pecqueño lies like exaggerating a crowd size, killing grandma, etc..., because dems have done that too? Where, show me the dem moral equivalence. Posted by hsuBfools at 09/29/2009 @ 11:57am Posted by hsuBfools at 09/29/2009 @ 5:10pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    --actually, I asked you a question that you ignored. Are you saying democrats never lie about policies? thanks.

    Posted by urmygyro at 09/29/2009 @ 5:14pm

92. Posted by urmygyro at 09/29/2009 @ 5:13pm

    Mask is not impartial, nor is he under any obligation to be impartial. Besides, the question was aimed at me because he was basically saying, "Bullshit!" and asking me to back up my comment. He also knows that I generally try to be fair so long as someone isn't being a complete asshole - and Mask rarely gets to the level. Less often than I, certainly.

    I'd also argue that if someone is using an argument that is getting play in right wing media, then this is a relevant point to be made - particularly for people like me that can't be bothered to pay attention to right wing media. Once he brings this up, I then look to see how it is talked about, and it helps me to find the flaws in the thinking. So, I find it useful.

    What is it about bringing in Rush's talking points of the day that you are finding problematic? Because it is not directly addressing the person's argument? What if the arguments are the same or similar enough for comparison?

    Posted by srjenkins at 09/29/2009 @ 5:21pm

93. What is it about bringing in Rush's talking points of the day that you are finding problematic? Because it is not directly addressing the person's argument? What if the arguments are the same or similar enough for comparison?

    Posted by srjenkins at 09/29/2009 @ 5:21pm

    Because Mask also attempts to link us to Rush's comments even when he knows we don't listen to him and hold different views. For him just being a conservative is sufficient to link you with Rush.

    Posted by antisocialist at 09/29/2009 @ 5:38pm

94. -actually, I asked you a question that you ignored. Are you saying democrats never lie about policies? thanks. Posted by urmygyro at 09/29/2009 @ 5:14pm

    Actually, I answered the 'actual question' you asked and then asked you to cite their moral equivalency explaining how dems lie like repubs.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 09/29/2009 @ 5:46pm

95. Posted by antisocialist at 09/29/2009 @ 5:38pm

    You make a good point. I've seen a few exchanges where he talks about Rush and you've reiterated that you don't listen to him. But, it is also true that given the nature of right wing media, it is hard to know where the ideas of the day are really coming from since much of it seems coordinated through different media outlets.

    Even acknowledging this as true, I also know you are your own person and think your own thoughts - not driven by media - so if he is making this argument with you, then it is probably a good example of "bizarro, non-sequitor logic".

    Posted by srjenkins at 09/29/2009 @ 5:50pm

96. What is it about bringing in Rush's talking points of the day that you are finding problematic? Because it is not directly addressing the person's argument? What if the arguments are the same or similar enough for comparison? Posted by srjenkins at 09/29/2009 @ 5:21pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    --do you see Mask bringing up right-wing t.v. and radio pundits as a way to seriously debate a topic or as a way to attempt to simply discredit someone he already has disagreed with on these threads thousands of times?

    Posted by urmygyro at 09/29/2009 @ 6:10pm

97. -actually, I asked you a question that you ignored. Are you saying democrats never lie about policies? thanks. Posted by urmygyro at 09/29/2009 @ 5:14pm Actually, I answered the 'actual question' you asked and then asked you to cite their moral equivalency explaining how dems lie like repubs. Posted by hsuBfools at 09/29/2009 @ 5:46pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    --what's the time stamp of your answer? I'll go read it and respond. thanks.

    Posted by urmygyro at 09/29/2009 @ 6:12pm

98. Check your polls. They are showing far more Americans consider themselves to be conservative than liberal.

    Posted by antisocialist at 09/29/2009 @ 09:10am

    You are you the one who argued that most conservatives are not real conservatives. Just like most Christians aren't real Christians and most Muslims are not real Muslims. So what does it matter how they are self identifying. They did not vote conservative.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/29/2009 @ 6:16pm

99. --do you see Mask bringing up right-wing t.v. and radio pundits as a way to seriously debate a topic or as a way to attempt to simply discredit someone he already has disagreed with on these threads thousands of times?

    Posted by urmygyro at 09/29/2009 @ 6:10pm

    Does it matter how times he has disagreed with someone? I also don't see how bringing up a right wing pundit cold possibly discredit someone. While I am not the biggest fan of Mask's tactics you are engaging in the same tactic against him that you are accusing him of engaging in with everyone else. You constantly post comments specifically aimed at trying to discredit him often times when he hasn't even posted a comment yet. So if we are talking about the weight of true debate instead of attacking their credibility then you have to step back and realize you have engaged just as vigorously in the latter.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/29/2009 @ 6:20pm

100. Also Larry I find it desperate to be posting the polls, probably the least accurate method of finding peoples political standings. Look at who they vote for if you want to know what they want. Other than that people blow with the wind. One week everyone is conservative the next they are liberal.

     Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/29/2009 @ 6:23pm

101. Does it matter how times he has disagreed with someone? I also don't see how bringing up a right wing pundit cold possibly discredit someone. While I am not the biggest fan of Mask's tactics you are engaging in the same tactic against him that you are accusing him of engaging in with everyone else. You constantly post comments specifically aimed at trying to discredit him often times when he hasn't even posted a comment yet. So if we are talking about the weight of true debate instead of attacking their credibility then you have to step back and realize you have engaged just as vigorously in the latter. Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/29/2009 @ 6:20pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     -- with other posters I discuss. with mask, I'm using his own game against him, as you correctly identified.

     Posted by urmygyro at 09/29/2009 @ 6:33pm

102. -- with other posters I discuss. with mask, I'm using his own game against him, as you correctly identified.

     Posted by urmygyro at 09/29/2009 @ 6:33pm

     Then you can't criticize the game. By using it you justify it as a tactic.

     Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/29/2009 @ 6:40pm

103. --what's the time stamp of your answer? I'll go read it and respond. thanks.

     Posted by urmygyro at 09/29/2009 @ 6:12pm

     --democrats lie just as much as republicans... Posted by urmygyro at 09/29/2009 @ 09:39am Lying about embarrassing extramarital affairs is then somehow morally equivalent to you with lying us into war, torture, disappeared billions? Or are you speaking about pecqueño lies like exaggerating a crowd size, killing grandma, etc..., because dems have done that too? Where, show me the dem moral equivalence. Posted by hsuBfools at 09/29/2009 @ 11:57am Posted by hsuBfools at 09/29/2009 @ 5:10pm

     Posted by hsuBfools at 09/29/2009 @ 7:34pm

104. You are you the one who argued that most conservatives are not real conservatives. Just like most Christians aren't real Christians and most Muslims are not real Muslims. So what does it matter how they are self identifying. They did not vote conservative.

     Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/29/2009 @ 6:16pm

     Also Larry I find it desperate to be posting the polls, probably the least accurate method of finding peoples political standings. Look at who they vote for if you want to know what they want. Other than that people blow with the wind. One week everyone is conservative the next they are liberal.

     Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/29/2009 @ 6:23pm

     I seldom post polls, since I agree that they are often misleading. The poll I cited was one I have posted previously from Gallup showing that SINCE the election, far more people are indicating they are conservative than liberal. I have noted that in response to those who claim the country is moving left.

     You do agree with point, counterpoint in debate?

     Posted by antisocialist at 09/29/2009 @ 8:20pm

105. The three democrats who shot down the public option ammendment are traitors to the party they claim to represent, the senate and the people of the United States. The GOP is obviously on the payroll of big business, but it's abundantly clear that at least three democrat senators are also on the take. Corrupt to their very core. I'd expect this of the right wing big business propaganda machine, but not the party that is supposed to represent working class Americans. Baucus, you suck!!

     Posted by Wolfgang1 at 09/29/2009 @ 8:30pm

106. You do agree with point, counterpoint in debate?

     Posted by antisocialist at 09/29/2009 @ 8:20pm

     I do, but I think polls are a weak counterpoint. Again what you consider to be conservative is no longer the conservative of yesteryear. It is the same thing I pointed out about Europe. In order for the right to be taken seriously they had to move left. I think many of the people are consider themselves conservative are far more liberal than you think.

     Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/29/2009 @ 8:33pm

107. Even acknowledging this as true, I also know you are your own person and think your own thoughts - not driven by media - so if he is making this argument with you, then it is probably a good example of "bizarro, non-sequitor logic".

     Posted by srjenkins at 09/29/2009 @ 5:50pm

     thanks

     Posted by antisocialist at 09/29/2009 @ 8:57pm

108. I do, but I think polls are a weak counterpoint. Again what you consider to be conservative is no longer the conservative of yesteryear. It is the same thing I pointed out about Europe. In order for the right to be taken seriously they had to move left. I think many of the people are consider themselves conservative are far more liberal than you think.

     Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/29/2009 @ 8:33pm

     I've acknowledged that I'm more conservative than most conservatives. I don't find many politicians I can be proud of.

     Posted by antisocialist at 09/29/2009 @ 8:58pm

109. I've acknowledged that I'm more conservative than most conservatives. I don't find many politicians I can be proud of.

     Posted by antisocialist at 09/29/2009 @ 8:58pm

     Oh no I know you've acknowledged that. What I'm saying is that even these conservatives are not truly conservatives. I think they are moderates who think that because they against one thing they are conservative. I think by definition they don't fall under conservative. So you could say thy are conservative compared to the road American is already on but that is not really conservative by yesterdays standards.

     Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/29/2009 @ 9:01pm

110. -- with other posters I discuss. with mask, I'm using his own game against him, as you correctly identified. Posted by urmygyro at 09/29/2009 @ 6:33pm Then you can't criticize the game. By using it you justify it as a tactic. Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/29/2009 @ 6:40pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     --or, I mock its usage in the first place (like Colbert acting like O'Reilly) and hopefully other people pick up on Mask's tactics too...

     Posted by urmygyro at 09/29/2009 @ 9:40pm

111. --what's the time stamp of your answer? I'll go read it and respond. thanks. Posted by urmygyro at 09/29/2009 @ 6:12pm --democrats lie just as much as republicans... Posted by urmygyro at 09/29/2009 @ 09:39am Lying about embarrassing extramarital affairs is then somehow morally equivalent to you with lying us into war, torture, disappeared billions? Or are you speaking about pecqueño lies like exaggerating a crowd size, killing grandma, etc..., because dems have done that too? Where, show me the dem moral equivalence. Posted by hsuBfools at 09/29/2009 @ 11:57am Posted by hsuBfools at 09/29/2009 @ 5:10pm Posted by hsuBfools at 09/29/2009 @ 7:34pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     --that doesn't answer the question I asked. The question I asked is: "are you saying that democrats never lie about policies?" I'm willing to take silence (no answer) as an admission that democrats do lie about policies (if you can't bring yourself to type it). If you believe democrats don't lie about policies, then please say so. again, thanks.

     Posted by urmygyro at 09/29/2009 @ 9:45pm

112. Posted by srjenkins at 09/29/2009 @ 5:09pm

     You're very welcome.

     Posted by cka2nd at 09/29/2009 @ 10:40pm

113. that doesn't answer the question I asked. The question I asked is: "are you saying that democrats never lie about policies?" Posted by urmygyro at 09/29/2009 @ 9:45pm

     YOU LIE!

     No really-- you are lying. What went down happened thusly and now you are changing a question you did not ask in order not to answer the question I asked you 1st:

     hsubfools--you're a joke. Posted by urmygyro at 09/29/2009 @ 09:12am

     But since you're already a blossoming turd, it's required that you actually explain your conclusion with something factual. Posted by hsuBfools at 09/29/2009 @ 09:34am

     --democrats lie just as much as republicans... Posted by urmygyro at 09/29/2009 @ 09:39am

     Lying about embarrassing extramarital affairs is then somehow morally equivalent to you with lying us into war, torture, disappeared billions? Or are you speaking about pecqueño lies like exaggerating a crowd size, killing grandma, etc..., because dems have done that too? Where, show me the dem moral equivalence. Posted by hsuBfools at 09/29/2009 @ 11:57am

     So now your pants are on fire, just because you're running away from a very appropriate question to you and are now you're lying to get out of answering it: Where are the moral equivalencies showing dems lie like repubs?

     Seriously answer the question.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 09/29/2009 @ 10:44pm

114. hsuBfools: you're right, I thought I had typed that question long before in the thread. I hadn't. My apologies. But, now is the 3rd time I'm asking the same question (w/out scrolling up I'm pretty sure this is the 3rd time; so if it's the 2nd time or the 4th time save your "you lie" accusation

     here's the question (just requires a yes or no): are you saying democrats never lie about policies?

     because that seems to be what you're saying (since you'll only cite Clinton lying about a blow job, which if you think I personally cared about, you'd be wrong).

     Posted by urmygyro at 09/30/2009 @ 12:10am

115. Posted by urmygyro at 09/30/2009 @ 12:10am

     Stop being disingenuous. I asked you the question first. You can't or won't answer it and now you're lying about being the one asking the question.

     You made a statement and I asked you to prove your contention by showing the moral equivalence of dems lying like repubs.

     Why can't you answer it?

     Is this one of your debating strategies-- to simply lie when you make a statement you cannot defend?

     Sounds rather new con repub extremist looney and not very honorable.

     You should not be the one hassling Mask as you're behaving even worse.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 09/30/2009 @ 01:43am

116. Posted by srjenkins at 09/29/2009 @ 5:09pm

     SR, isn't it a LITTLE unfair to make a charge ...and then not come up with even ONE SPECIFIC example to back it up?

     As for Larry and Limbaugh, go back to the threads here at "TN" where Limbaugh's name came up....for a "non-listener" Larry SURE was interested in defending him, wasn't he???

     Posted by Mask at 09/30/2009 @ 07:52am

117. hsubfools: "Stop being disingenuous. I asked you the question first. You can't or won't answer it and now you're lying about being the one asking the question."

     --um, I already admitted I made an error. And I have asked you the same question three times. You won't answer it. It's a very simple yes/no question.

     hsubfools: "You made a statement and I asked you to prove your contention by showing the moral equivalence of dems lying like repubs."

     --and now I'm asking you (for the 4th time): are you saying democrats never lie about policies? simple yes or no will do.

     hsubfools: "Why can't you answer it?"

     --why can't you? my question's a simple yes/no

     hsubfools: "Is this one of your debating strategies-- to simply lie when you make a statement you cannot defend?"

     --I didn't lie. I made a mistake, believing I had already asked you a question, when I hadn't. I admitted after scrolling up I hadn't asked you the question. Look at my activity on the Nation yesterday--I posted a lot. You weren't my sole focus. So why do you focus on that rather than answering my question? Is your debating tactic to avoid the question because you know the answer is "yes" democrats do lie about policy?

     hsubfools: "Sounds rather new con repub extremist looney and not very honorable."

     --you clearly don't read my posts. I'm very liberal. I want us out of Iraq and Afghanistan. War is bad. Nation building is not the business our gov't should be involved in.

     hsubfools: "You should not be the one hassling Mask as you're behaving even worse."

     --please. the last thing I'm worried about is you telling me about "etiquette." read pretty much every one of your arrogant, antagonizing, name-calling posts for evidence.

     Posted by urmygyro at 09/30/2009 @ 08:26am

118. Posted by urmygyro at 09/30/2009 @ 08:26am

     So you're apologizing for the inability to answer my question to you? Sure didn't sound like it.

     You clearly made a statement that you can't back up and now you're running around with your tail between your legs yiping like a scared little pup.

     That'd be cute, but your not a little scared pup, you're simply a grown-up with no sense of honor flinging shit.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 09/30/2009 @ 08:34am

119. hsubfools: "So you're apologizing for the inability to answer my question to you? Sure didn't sound like it."

     --you haven't answered my question either. so it's sounds like you're apologizing for your inability to answer my question. you're forgiven.

     hsubfools: "You clearly made a statement that you can't back up and now you're running around with your tail between your legs yiping like a scared little pup."

     --i'm sure this analogy makes you feel better: but, again, the same can be applied to you. the same question has been asked of you 4 times. guess you're unable to bark "yes" or "no."

     hsubfools: "That'd be cute, but your not a little scared pup, you're simply a grown-up with no sense of honor flinging shit."

     --that's your forte, actually. you "sling shit" at conservatives and republicans all the time, constantly calling them names, acting like a todddler on a tirade. it's why you get nowhere with any of them on here (not that you're here to "debate" or "discuss" of course, you're here to "sling mud" as is a toddler's wont.

     I find it telling that you won't simply say "democrats never lie about policy." Since democrats are so honorable it should be an easy assertion to make. But you won't say that, because you know it's not true. So, rather, you'll continue your tirade...

     Posted by urmygyro at 09/30/2009 @ 08:45am

120. hsubfools: "So you're apologizing for the inability to answer my question to you? Sure didn't sound like it." --you haven't answered my question either. so it's sounds like you're apologizing for your inability to answer my question. you're forgiven. Posted by urmygyro at 09/30/2009 @ 08:45am

     Ok pretend little innocent one, the way it works is if I make a statement and then you make one refuting mine and I ask you to prove it-- you answer it with the proof. What you've been doing is avoiding answering my question. The original question you've avoided answering like 10 times is:

     Where are the moral equivalencies showing dems lie like repubs?

     Posted by hsuBfools at 09/30/2009 @ 09:03am

121. Posted by hsuBfools at 09/30/2009 @ 09:03am

     Just a warning, ol' buddy. urmy might go "Glenn Close-Fatal Attraction" on you. Hide your virtual pet rabbit....heheh

     Posted by Mask at 09/30/2009 @ 09:16am

122. Posted by hsuBfools at 09/30/2009 @ 09:03am

     Just a warning, ol' buddy. urmy might go "Glenn Close-Fatal Attraction" on you. Hide your virtual pet rabbit....heheh

     Posted by Mask at 09/30/2009 @ 09:16am | ignore this person | warn this person

     --says he who still tries to communicate with people who have him on ignore...heheh

     Posted by urmygyro at 09/30/2009 @ 09:21am

123. Ok pretend little innocent one, the way it works is if I make a statement and then you make one refuting mine and I ask you to prove it-- you answer it with the proof. What you've been doing is avoiding answering my question. The original question you've avoided answering like 10 times is:

     Where are the moral equivalencies showing dems lie like repubs?

     Posted by hsuBfools at 09/30/2009 @ 09:03am | ignore this person | warn this person

     --ok, pretend little innocent one, the way it works is I ask you a yes/no question 4 times, and you ignore it 'cause you know you won't like that answer you have to give.

     The original question you've avoided answering 4 times is:

     do democrats never lie about policy?

     Neither you nor Mask has the balls to answer that question.

     Posted by urmygyro at 09/30/2009 @ 09:24am

124. Posted by urmygyro at 09/30/2009 @ 09:24am

     You said you'd answer mine 1st since I posed it to you 1st:

     Where are the moral equivalencies showing dems lie like repubs?

     Posted by hsuBfools at 09/30/2009 @ 09:27am

125. Posted by urmygyro at 09/30/2009 @ 09:24am

     You said you'd answer mine 1st since I posed it to you 1st:

     Where are the moral equivalencies showing dems lie like repubs?

     Posted by hsuBfools at 09/30/2009 @ 09:27am | ignore this person | warn this person

     --oh, right, you play "so nice" I'm concerned about appeasing you! You're asking me for an elaborated answer; an entire book could be written about corruption in both parties. I'm asking you a yes/no question that would take you 5 seconds to answer. who has the easier task? but go ahead, don't answer: because you know that you won't like the answer!

     Posted by urmygyro at 09/30/2009 @ 09:34am

126. Posted by Mask at 09/30/2009 @ 07:52am

     As far as charges go, "Mask can engage in some bizarro, non-sequitor logic, too," is pretty tame. I think Larry provided a good example of the general pattern I was talking about, but perhaps it's a bit unfair that I didn't say something like:

     Your post on this thread at 09/29/2009 @ 08:10am is a good example. You take an argument offered by someone else, in this case Melissa Harris-Lacewell, that is primarily focused on arguing for individual empowerment and the need to work for the causes we care about and turn it into an argument for compromised pragmatism that you consistently favor. This inverts the argument, so it means almost the opposite of what she says, and does so to further your agenda of compromise and working on what is possible today.

     Is that a specific enough example of "bizarro, non-sequitor logic" for you?

     As for Larry, I think he'll give cover to anyone he considers on the right of the alternative. It explains his support for Bush II, McCain, Limbaugh because I think he is always looking at them as compared to Gore/Kerry, Obama or Olbermann. It's not that he agrees with them, it's just that they are better in Larry-land.

     Posted by srjenkins at 09/30/2009 @ 09:36am

127. As for Larry, I think he'll give cover to anyone he considers on the right of the alternative. It explains his support for Bush II, McCain, Limbaugh because I think he is always looking at them as compared to Gore/Kerry, Obama or Olbermann. It's not that he agrees with them, it's just that they are better in Larry-land.

     Posted by srjenkins at 09/30/2009 @ 09:36am | ignore this person | warn this person

     --and Mask actually does the same for democrats...it's the flip side of the same coin. he and larry aren't really all that different in their approach to politics, just different in their political beliefs.

     Posted by urmygyro at 09/30/2009 @ 09:44am

128. Posted by urmygyro at 09/30/2009 @ 12:10am

     Let me summarize. Your question: "[A]re you saying democrats never lie about policies?"

     The answer is obvious. Yes, Democrats lie.

     hsuBfools responds: There is a moral difference between lying about who you've slept with and a lie that led to a war that costs thousands of lives, displaced millions and untold amounts of treasure.

     This distinction relies on a utilitarian moral claim. But, you could also use a deontological basis for this claim and say that there is a difference between lying about a private matter and lying about an affair of state when you are the head of it.

     Now, do something with this claim. Do you disagree that there is a moral difference between the lies Democrats or Republicans have told in the recent past? Do you have ideas about how this should be addressed? Can you draw any important distinctions?

     Posted by urmygyro at 09/30/2009 @ 08:45am

     "that's your forte, actually. you "sling shit" at conservatives and republicans all the time, constantly calling them names, acting like a todddler on a tirade. it's why you get nowhere with any of them on here".

     Most of the discussion on this board amounts to slinging shit. Even if you do try to stick to arguments, logic is not most people's strong suit, and even if the logic is perfect, there's little chance of changing anyone's mind because that would entail completely changing their worldview. People don't do this lightly, and the window of opportunity on it frequently involves some form of crisis - you don't get to that with logical arguments.

     That said, posting should be about discovering your ideas and in the exchange refine them. So, can we move beyond the "he said, she said" and get this discussion going in a useful direction?

     Posted by srjenkins at 09/30/2009 @ 09:58am

129. Posted by urmygyro at 09/30/2009 @ 09:44am

     Mask is a moderate Democrat with some social libertarian leanings. He believes in party politics, and the Democratic party is a better match if you have a pragmatic view of such topics as abortion, gay marriage, regulation (environment, financial sector, working conditions, etc.), and so forth - as he does.

     Larry, on the other hand, is more of an ideological conservative. I think he would hesitate to support a Republican candidate like Mitt Romney - because he's a "Temple Mormon". You'll never see Mask make that kind of argument.

     This is an important distinction. One, I think, you should give careful consideration. They are not the same but on opposite sides of the coin - not by a long shot.

     I'd also go further and say that any discussion that is limited to Republican and Democratic politicians misses the fact that these two groups have a lot of agreement. Their foreign policies, for example, are more or less identical and you have to rely on the fringe of Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich before you can see any meaningful dialogue about scaling back the military. It's basically a question of far, authoritarian right or moderate, authoritarian right. No question anywhere in the main political landscape of that authoritarian part - other than the cover complaint about socialism. To think Obama stands for socialism is to not understand what socialism means.

     Posted by srjenkins at 09/30/2009 @ 10:10am

130. Posted by urmygyro at 09/30/2009 @ 09:24am You said you'd answer mine 1st since I posed it to you 1st: Where are the moral equivalencies showing dems lie like repubs? Posted by hsuBfools at 09/30/2009 @ 09:27am | ignore this person | warn this person

     --oh, right, you play "so nice" I'm concerned about appeasing you! Posted by urmygyro at 09/30/2009 @ 09:34am

     You stated that "--democrats lie just as much as republicans..." Posted by urmygyro at 09/29/2009 @ 09:39am

     But can't prove any moral equivalencies, zippo, none-- nada.

     So will you just admit that you are a new con repub in fake liberal clothes, like maybe even a snake in the grass?

     No 'liberal' would say dems lie like new con repubs and then not be able to prove it with a few simple examples that are morally equivalent. Otherwise it would not slip out of your mouth so naturally. Natural as in an ideological bent.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 09/30/2009 @ 10:34am

131. Posted by hsuBfools at 09/30/2009 @ 09:03am Just a warning, ol' buddy. urmy might go "Glenn Close-Fatal Attraction" on you. Hide your virtual pet rabbit....heheh Posted by Mask at 09/30/2009 @ 09:16am | ignore this person | warn this person

     Wormy actually reminds me a little bit of you a few years back when we used get into some doozies, i.e. you were all like anti-hsuB/cHeney impeachment investigations and I accused you of being an appeaser for immoral political leverage shit or simply being a pro-hsuBie in disguise. And here I am seeing Wurmy all like the same way...

     My my, how things stay changing the same. (ha)

     Posted by hsuBfools at 09/30/2009 @ 11:20am

132. Posted by srjenkins at 09/29/2009 @ 5:09pm

     SR, isn't it a LITTLE unfair to make a charge ...and then not come up with even ONE SPECIFIC example to back it up?

     As for Larry and Limbaugh, go back to the threads here at "TN" where Limbaugh's name came up....for a "non-listener" Larry SURE was interested in defending him, wasn't he???

     Posted by Mask at 09/30/2009 @ 07:52am

     I've learned that you have to confront Mask with his lies, else someone might assume that his statements were accurate.

     Here is my comment about Mask and Rush. It cannot be conceived as a "defense" of Rush by any thinking person. But evidently using Limbaughs name in a post, even as a denial of listening to him constitutes a defense in Maskian logic.

     <Because Mask also attempts to link us to Rush's comments even when he knows we don't listen to him and hold different views. For him just being a conservative is sufficient to link you with Rush.

     Posted by antisocialist at 09/29/2009 @ 5:38pm>

     Posted by antisocialist at 09/30/2009 @ 11:26am

133. Posted by srjenkins at 09/30/2009 @ 09:58am

     Like what sane planet are you from?

     Posted by hsuBfools at 09/30/2009 @ 11:29am

134. Posted by srjenkins at 09/30/2009 @ 10:10am

     A well thought out response and one I certainly agree with (and thank you for making the distinctions).

     Mask denigrates those of us on both the right and the left who are willing to vote 3rd party to remain consistent to our principles. And I've stated in the past that I have more respect for a liberal/progressive who votes their conscience in a 3rd party vote than I do for the "pragmatists" like Mask. I think adherence to your principles when it comes to supporting politicians is sadly lacking in this country today.

     That's why I agree with and have greater respect for those who do vote 3rd party, whether right or left, because it demonstrates a strength of character that I believe is absent with the apologists who vote either Republican or Democrat, no matter what or who.

     Posted by antisocialist at 09/30/2009 @ 11:33am

135. Melissa Harris-Lacewell, After what happened in the senate finance committee, do you still think we should lose the love/hate and keep the hope? When the democrats could have passed the amendment 13-10 and chose instead to side with the lockstep republican corporate whores?

     If that doesn't make you furious, than nothing would or could.

     Posted by Wolfgang1 at 09/30/2009 @ 11:51am

136. Posted by srjenkins at 09/30/2009 @ 10:10am

     Your description of me and Larry sounds about right. But as I warned HSUB, don't turn that critical eye on urmy....he bites.

     Posted by Mask at 09/30/2009 @ 11:56am

137. Posted by antisocialist at 09/30/2009 @ 11:26am

     Risky bet, isn't it, Larry? Hoping you remember that statement when (not "if") Limbaugh comes up here at "TN" as a topic of a thread and "playing it safe" or changing the subject????

     Posted by Mask at 09/30/2009 @ 11:59am

138. Posted by Mask at 09/30/2009 @ 11:56am

     "But as I warned HSUB, don't turn that critical eye on urmy....he bites."

     I've been turning a bit more of a critical eye on him - as you can see in my 9/29 posts on this thread @ 10:41am, 10:53am, 10:55am and this morning.

     Why? I'm trying to figure out whether to ignore him or not. He has qualities of sjchermak (many posts that are often off point), Happy (zinging article writers and other posters), and others. I ignore sjchermak, but I read Happy's posts. And the difference is that though Happy can be a small-minded bigot, he is generally reasonable and occasionally makes an insightful comment. The same can't be said of sjchermak.

     urmyguru presents a problem because I generally remove people from my ignore if I see a lot of responses to their postings. However, if it is a frequent poster like sjchermak or urmyguru, I have to have a gut sense of whether these responses are because the posts are good or simply because there are a lot of them. I know the answer to that for sjchermak. I don't know the answer to that for urmyguru, yet.

     And now, I've offered WAY too much detail on how I filter The Nation posts. It would be better if specific posts could be moderated up and down, but it is better than having to mentally filter through all the people that consistently post crap. YMMV.

     Posted by srjenkins at 09/30/2009 @ 12:28pm

139. Posted by srjenkins at 09/30/2009 @ 12:28pm

     Interesting the two posters you compared him to...are right-wingers. Yet urmy claims to be "the most liberal poster here"!??!?!?

     Curious if he and those fellows (and Larry/antisoc) share more than just mutual loathing of me????

     Posted by Mask at 09/30/2009 @ 1:09pm

140. If that doesn't make you furious, than nothing would or could. Posted by Wolfgang1 at 09/30/2009 @ 11:51am

     I agree to a certain extent. But Schumer came out and mentioned some rope-a-dope technical congressional procedure that he felt optimistic about per 3 moderate dems simply siding with the measure. And ultimately I am disappointed that even moderate dems are somewhat spooked by voting for something 65% of the people want. However, I will not at 'rage' yet. If by the end of this session or the next, something doesn't open up the possibility to establish the public option, which would move ultimately to a single payer, I will start seriously looking at a third party.

     And looking ain't buying-- jus' seriously looking. Gots to get past the looney-toon/lala-land stuff if a 3rd party is going to be plausible. Seriously.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 09/30/2009 @ 1:16pm

141. er, I 'am' not at 'rage' yet.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 09/30/2009 @ 1:24pm

142. Say, isn't the repub GOP becoming a 3rd party?

     Posted by hsuBfools at 09/30/2009 @ 1:27pm

143. Posted by antisocialist at 09/30/2009 @ 11:26am

     Risky bet, isn't it, Larry? Hoping you remember that statement when (not "if") Limbaugh comes up here at "TN" as a topic of a thread and "playing it safe" or changing the subject????

     Posted by Mask at 09/30/2009 @ 11:59am

     What possible "risky" bet could there be for me when you stated an outright lie. I have kept the relevant posts just to remind you and others should you make that play again.

     Posted by antisocialist at 09/30/2009 @ 1:59pm

144. Posted by Mask at 09/30/2009 @ 1:09pm

     The right-wing examples are more top of my mind for archetypes. I don't have a good sense of his politics, and I find urmyguru's posts difficult to read. So, do you have a sense of how urmyguru might answer these yes or no questions?

     1. Abortions should be legal. 2. Government regulation of free markets, the environment, etc. is necessary. 3. Public media outlets are important. 4. Capital punishment is just. 5. Federal government should mandate educational standards to states. 6. Workers should have the legal right to organize. 7. Guns should be licensed. 8. A developed nation should have public health care. 9. Illegal immigrants are necessary to our society. 10. The United States Government should give international aid and my taxes should be used for this purpose. 11. The United States should help police the world. 12. Gay people should be able to marry. 13. Nuclear deterence is necessary to national security. 14. Originalism is the only valid interpretation of the Constitution. 15. Affirmative action is necessary. 16. Social Security is an effective government program. 17. Government should help citizens in poverty. 18. Government should invest in basic science. 19. Federal government should maintain national parks. 20. Free trade is economically important.

     If you had to point to one general theme for these responses, what would it be in three sentences or less?

     Posted by srjenkins at 09/30/2009 @ 2:02pm

145. Posted by srjenkins at 09/30/2009 @ 2:02pm

     In the interest of fairness, my answers. 1. Y, 2. Y, 3. Y, 4. N, 5. N, 6. Y, 7. N, 8. Y, 9. Y, 10. Y, 11. N, 12. Y, 13. N, 14. N, 15. Y, 16. Y, 17. Y, 18. Y, 19. Y, 20. N.

     Principle guiding these answers: In most cases, no government is the best government. Yet, government has a place - that place should be as local and democratic as possible. Federal government needs to be smaller, and more focused.

     Posted by srjenkins at 09/30/2009 @ 2:17pm

146. Guns shoulden't be licensed???

     Posted by Denise29 at 09/30/2009 @ 2:51pm

147. Y1. Abortions should be legal. (With lots of sex ed.)

     Y2. Government regulation of free markets, the environment, etc. is necessary.

     Y3. Public media outlets are important. (If they state truthful facts as much as possible and are regulated to do so with stiff financial penalties.)

     ?4. Capital punishment is just. (Yes, for DNA proven beyond a doubt heinous crimes involving premeditated murder. No for all other crimes.)

     Y5. Federal government should mandate educational standards to states. (Clearly some states are poorer and less equipped to train and school students in this highly competitive world. High achievers should have every opportunity to do so.)

     Y6. Workers should have the legal right to organize.

     Y7. Guns should be licensed.

     Y8. A developed nation should have public health care.

     ?9. Illegal immigrants are necessary to our society. (Illegal for cheap corporate/company labor = NO; immigrants creating greater social understanding and knowledge-- Yes)

     Y10. The United States Government should give international aid (for disasters and great need) and my taxes should be used for this purpose.

     Y11. The United States should 'help' (not be the) police the world.

     Y12. Gay people should be able to marry.

     littler y13. Nuclear deterence is necessary to national security. (but becoming less and less necessary)

     N14. Originalism is the only valid interpretation of the Constitution.

     Y15. Affirmative action is (as the law is written for historically underrepresented minorities) necessary.

     Y16. Social Security is an effective government program.

     Y17. Government should help citizens in poverty.

     Y18. Government should invest in basic science.

     Y19. Federal government should maintain national parks.

     Y20. (Regulated) Free trade is economically important.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 09/30/2009 @ 2:58pm

148. Posted by srjenkins at 09/30/2009 @ 2:02pm

     Cool, a survey! Here are my answers to questions 1-10:

     1. Abortions should be legal. (Yes, and covered by ALL health plans, too, including government ones.)

     2. Government regulation of free markets, the environment, etc. is necessary. (Yes, but an organized, mobilized working class is better.)

     3. Public media outlets are important. (Yes, and no more regulated for free speech than private ones, Hsub.)

     4. Capital punishment is just. (In theory, yes, but in practice, No. And DNA is proving not to be the silver bullet if the testing is badly done or falsified. I do make exceptions to this for wartime conditions.)

     5. Federal government should mandate educational standards to states. (No)

     6. Workers should have the legal right to organize. (Hell YES!)

     7. Guns should be licensed. (Hell NO! Arm the working class!)

     8. A developed nation should have public health care. (Any nation should have public health care, so Yes)

     9. Illegal immigrants are necessary to our society. (Yes, but they should be integrated into it by allowing them to unionize and get citizenship. And there are things that could be done to lessen the pressure on them to migrate.)

     10. The United States Government should give international aid and my taxes should be used for this purpose. (Aside from emergency relief, No, because it is just soft imperialism.)

     Posted by cka2nd at 09/30/2009 @ 3:35pm

149. nteresting the two posters you compared him to...are right-wingers. Yet urmy claims to be "the most liberal poster here"!??!?!?

     Curious if he and those fellows (and Larry/antisoc) share more than just mutual loathing of me????

     Posted by Mask at 09/30/2009 @ 1:09pm

     Don't waste your time with urmy. His/Her goal mostly is to take people off topic.

     Posted by Wolfgang1 at 09/30/2009 @ 3:36pm

150. nd looking ain't buying-- jus' seriously looking. Gots to get past the looney-toon/lala-land stuff if a 3rd party is going to be plausible. Seriously.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 09/30/2009 @ 1:16pm

     True enough. But here's some food for thought. I just talked to my 74 year old mom. She's voted dem all of her life, lives in Montana and used to like Baucus. Now, she'd like to see him burning in hell.

     When I lived in Montana I voted for Baucus. But Max has seen the light in the form of big cash donations. He no longer represents the state of MT. He represents the state of the health care insurance industry.

     My point is that people like my mom are thinking about not voting for Baucus or even worse, voting for the republican opponent. I would not vote for Baucus to be sure, but the republicans that come out of eastern MT are scary.....ever heard of Conrad Burns? You Betcha!!

     The dems better quit screwing around and pull their heads out, or as Dean said, they are guaranteed to lose seats come the next election in 2010. Baucus may have already smalled the final nail into his coffin already the way he's pandered to the insurance companies....but as I said earlier, he doesn't give a rip, he's been a senator for umpteen years, and most likely will become a lobbyist for the very industry he is supposedly supposed to be reigning in.

     Posted by Wolfgang1 at 09/30/2009 @ 3:44pm

151. And my answers to questions 11-20:

     11. The United States should help police the world. (Hell No!)

     12. Gay people should be able to marry. (Yes)

     13. Nuclear deterence is necessary to national security. (It depends on the country's situation. Getting the bomb was necessary for the U.S. - though not using it - the U.S.S.R., China and North Korea. It wasn't for South Africa nor, I would argue, for France, the U.K., Israel, India or Pakistan.)

     14. Originalism is the only valid interpretation of the Constitution. (No)

     15. Affirmative action is necessary. (Yes)

     16. Social Security is an effective government program. (Yes, though less so than Medicare.)

     17. Government should help citizens in poverty. (Yes. unemployment and survivors insurance and other grant programs are useful, the best way is to make sure everyone who wants one has a job at a livable wage.)

     18. Government should invest in basic science. (Yes, and retain a proportionate level of any rights coming from it.)

     19. Federal government should maintain national parks. (Yes)

     20. Free trade is economically important. (Trade under capitalism will be neither truly free nor fair, so bourgeois free trade or protectionism is bad. The worst programs and policies on either side must be opposed, such as tax breaks for off-shoring jobs and super-high tariffs to protect big business. To be honest, I'm not sure what policies by a bourgeois administration that I could support.)

     Posted by cka2nd at 09/30/2009 @ 3:50pm

152. may have already smalled....sorry, should be may have already hammered the final nail....

     Posted by Wolfgang1 at 09/30/2009 @ 3:55pm

153. Posted by cka2nd at 09/30/2009 @ 3:50pm

     I agreed with most of your answer with the exception of licensing guns. If I'm not mistaken you are gun enthusiast which I have no problem with....so are my brothers. But, if you registered your guns, your one hell of a lot less likely to go out and shoot someone with them.

     Owning an unregistered weapon should be a felony offense. If you aren't a criminal nor have any criminal intent with your weapons, you have nothing to fear. It's only the people who like the idea of taking on the police or the gubbamnet with their guns that don't want to register them typically.

     Posted by Wolfgang1 at 09/30/2009 @ 4:02pm

154. Posted by Wolfgang1 at 09/30/2009 @ 4:02pm Posted by Denise29 at 09/30/2009 @ 2:51pm

     The intent of the Second Amendment is to provide for armed revolt, a Second American Revolution. Even if you don't think this will ever be necessary (a naive view), I am more concerned about the systemic abuse of power by my government rounding up licensed gun owners as it pursues a program of tyranny than I am of isolated incidents where a gun owner uses his liberty to instigate crimes on his fellow citizens.

     Posted by cka2nd at 09/30/2009 @ 3:35pm

     Now, this is a nice surprise. When I read your stuff, I find I am frequently in agreement, but I get hung up on all your talk about the working class. I think the bulk of the working class would rather buy inexpensive goods from Wal-Mart than organize and make the necessary sacrifices that would lead to any kind of systemic change.

     Further, it has to be worldwide. You can't have a worker's paradise in the US that's built on exploiting the labor of other workers in China, India, Brazil or the cheap labor market of the week. Those are two big problems that cause me to doubt worker organization as much of a solution.

     I might also be a bit biased against any talk of the bourgeois. I went to a socialist conference once where I spoke up for anarchism, and I was told in the coming "revolution" they would be happy to put me up against the wall with the bourgeois. (Psst! Didn't you learn anything from history, the Stalin type betrayals should come after you're in power.) It opened my eyes that there were components of the left that were just as much the enemy as the power brokers destroying our manufacturing base and sending it overseas.

     Posted by srjenkins at 09/30/2009 @ 4:42pm

155. Posted by cka2nd at 09/30/2009 @ 3:50pm

     We agree on most of these, and we agree on 10, too. However, I was thinking of both disaster relief and efforts that really require government - such as training police officers in the basics of collecting evidence.

     The nuclear issue is key. I think we, as a world, need to move away from that completely. Otherwise, someone is going to set something off that is going to lead to our extinction - although, we may be headed there anyway with climate change.

     It seems to me that 20 is also a problem. It's fine to have a critique of capitalism, but you have to have some sense of what might replace it. I'd like to imagine a world of cooperatives - but I don't know if that would work on a global scale. Maybe it doesn't need to do so.

     Posted by srjenkins at 09/30/2009 @ 5:01pm

156. It's only the people who like the idea of taking on the police or the gubbamnet with their guns that don't want to register them typically. Posted by Wolfgang1 at 09/30/2009 @ 4:02pm

     Agreed. But then I'm only ok and not partial to a gun, rifle, bow/arrow and have always been into close up and personal + never having to register them = my folded and mod banite katanas!

     Not that I get to ever use them much. But practice does make perfect; better than hitting a bunching bag to get that 'rage' out.

     Down side = can't walk around with them like in Kill Bill-- especially not to presidential gatherings...!

     But speaking of forming a 3rd party, can you just imagine a Ninja/Samurai 3rd Party gathering!!!! :)

     Posted by hsuBfools at 09/30/2009 @ 5:11pm

157. Arun Gupta (TheIndypendent.com), whose writing I just found, has it correctly: there is no hope for the Left in working within the Democratic Party. The Left has to go back to its radical period in the 1930s for guidance. That means civil disobediance. It means getting their heads bloodied and broken. It means jail and worse. Nothing short of civil disorder can have any effect on the establishment.

     It may already be too late. The establishment now controls the media. In the 1930s there were far more independent newspapers and commentators, on the radio! In the 1930s there was a president who was a complete person, a person of integrity. Barack Obama is a narcissist; a black-skinned Bill Clinton. FDR certainly had a high self-opinion, but he merited it. That is not the case with the betraying brayer who now occupies the White House.

     It may also be too late, because our rulers have enacted laws that can be used to spy on people and detain them w/o habeus corpus.

     What is certain is that the day of writing letters to one's representatives is over.

     Posted by goedel at 09/30/2009 @ 10:28pm

158. Posted by goedel at 09/30/2009 @ 10:28pm

     Is that you wurmy? I was just kidding about the 3rd party ninja/samurai. Sorry that wasn't obvious enough w/the smily face and all.

     In any case if a revolt didn't happen during the hsuB/cHeney admin, and being that there's not enough new con repubs with enough sense not to come off as obviously looney-toons lala-land inhabiting, the only hope of the far right new con repubs got is to convince the far left looney-toons lala-land inhabiting-- to join forces! Now there's something that can't happen.

     Why? "In the 1930s there was a president who was a complete person, a person of integrity. Barack Obama is a narcissist; a black-skinned Bill Clinton." That to begin with. And there is every other looney-toon lala-land stand the far right new con repubs have being diametrically opposed to the far left. And since those ideological differences are the others bread and butter...

     And no sense in trying to lie about it-- way way too ingrained not to slip up somewhere.

     Nope, the only way to come together would be to stop lying and loose the extreme shit. And to do that we all need to stop lying to ourselves 1st. And what are the odds of that ever happening in the next 2000 years!

     Posted by hsuBfools at 10/01/2009 @ 07:09am

159. Oh and if that were to ever happen, the stop lying all around part-- there wouldn't be a need for a revolution-- that would've been it!

     Like OH DUH!

     Posted by hsuBfools at 10/01/2009 @ 07:14am

160. The intent of the Second Amendment is to provide for armed revolt, a Second American Revolution. Even if you don't think this will ever be necessary (a naive view), I am more concerned about the systemic abuse of power by my government rounding up licensed gun owners as it pursues a program of tyranny than I am of isolated incidents where a gun owner uses his liberty to instigate crimes on his fellow citizens.

     Posted by cka2nd at 09/30/2009 @ 3:35pm

     Read the original second amendment sometime.....Second Amendment: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

     It's not talking about a damned revolution against itself, it's talking about arming an army to fight against the Brits. Think of when it was written. The U.S. didn't exist yet as a country and as far as the Brits were concerned, it was their colonies.

     Posted by Wolfgang1 at 10/01/2009 @ 07:50am

161. The U.S. didn't exist yet as a country and as far as the Brits were concerned, it was their colonies. Posted by Wolfgang1 at 10/01/2009 @ 07:50am | ignore this person | warn this person

     also as far as a great part of the population was concerned, the Tories. that is why the "revolutionary war" was actually a civil war, pitting colonist against colonist. that is how it was referred to in England then and now.

     Posted by emile duBois at 10/01/2009 @ 09:02am

162. Posted by Wolfgang1 at 10/01/2009 @ 07:50am

     You think people that just revolted against the British didn't think the government they were setting up might become like the British? That's interesting.

     Posted by srjenkins at 10/01/2009 @ 09:10am

163. You think people that just revolted against the British didn't think the government they were setting up might become like the British? That's interesting.

     Posted by srjenkins at 10/01/2009 @ 09:10am

     I think the people who revolted against the Brits had their hands full as it was with the Brits and as Emile pointed out....themselves. Fast forward a few years to when George Washington as president. Those same people wanted to appoint George Washington as King. If they were willing to give that much power to one man, they sure as hell weren't worried about the government of that one man coming after them.

     Posted by Wolfgang1 at 10/01/2009 @ 10:57am

164. You think people that just revolted against the British didn't think the government they were setting up might become like the British? That's interesting.

     Posted by srjenkins at 10/01/2009 @ 09:10am

     I've got a bulletin for those of you who think that having your guns will stave off the enemy (our government or foe government). Your guns are no match for hostile military takeover. Even automatic weapons are no match against a tank.

     The warfare you'd be fighting would be the exact same warfare the "terrorists" are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. Sure, you can cause trouble, but you have to hide and mix back into the crowd, but make no mistake, if they want your guns, they'll get them whether or not you like it.

     Our soldiers went door to door in Iraq. Anybody with a weapon was under immediate suspicion whether or not they meant any harm to our troops. They were told to turn over their firearms. The last time I checked, our government hasn't done this to it's own people.....just people from other countries which most of the right wingers who like their guns were applauding.

     Posted by Wolfgang1 at 10/01/2009 @ 11:04am

165. Posted by Wolfgang1 at 10/01/2009 @ 11:04am | ignore this person | warn this person

     good points all.

     in my city the police do 800,000 stop and frisks a year, mostly young kids. as justification they point to ten weapons seized.

     how far are we from apartment inspections?

     Posted by emile duBois at 10/01/2009 @ 11:15am

166. Posted by Wolfgang1 at 10/01/2009 @ 11:04am | ignore this person | warn this person

     good points all.

     in my city the police do 800,000 stop and frisks a year, mostly young kids. as justification they point to ten weapons seized.

     how far are we from apartment inspections?

     Posted by emile duBois at 10/01/2009 @ 11:15am

167. Posted by Wolfgang1 at 10/01/2009 @ 11:04am | ignore this person | warn this person

     good points all.

     in my city the police do 800,000 stop and frisks a year, mostly young kids. as justification they point to ten weapons seized.

     how far are we from apartment inspections?

     Posted by emile duBois at 10/01/2009 @ 11:15am

168. it's not my fault.

     Posted by emile duBois at 10/01/2009 @ 11:18am

169. Posted by Wolfgang1 at 10/01/2009 @ 11:04am

     You need to learn a bit about COIN and how the military and an insurgency actually work. A modern army can very well have its ass kicked by people starting with only small arms. Iraq, if anything, is an object lesson, and the fact that you use it as an example shows you don't know jack shit about what you are talking about.

     As for the government not doing it in the US, you've heard about the gun bans in Washington DC, Chicago, elsewhere? You believe there is some reason that the kinds of sweeps soldiers are being trained for in Iraq couldn't happen here? Yeah, right.

     Posted by srjenkins at 10/01/2009 @ 11:27am

170. A modern army can very well have its ass kicked by people starting with only small arms.

     no way. East Germany, Hungary and many others show the contrary.

     in Iraq we are fighting the previous gov't of Iraq. we are not fighting civilians with handguns.

     Posted by emile duBois at 10/01/2009 @ 11:47am

171. They have gas that will put most people to sleep for hours. They can work block by block and most people will wake up with a major headache, others in jail.

     Will our own troops do it? No. Would contract paramilitary - mercenaries? Sure.

     Want to be paranoid-- the USA now contracts out more military services than ever before...

     Posted by hsuBfools at 10/01/2009 @ 11:55am

172. the fact that you use it as an example shows you don't know jack shit about what you are talking about.

     this is uncalled for. why would anyone dialogue with you?

     Posted by emile duBois at 10/01/2009 @ 11:57am

173. Posted by emile duBois at 10/01/2009 @ 11:57am

     Because I'll challenge preconceptions and not sugar coat the fact that someone's ideas are bad?

     You may be right. I've taken a more aggressive tone lately that doesn't help discussion. But, I believe this is the nature of this forum and appropriate to it. A sad, unfortunate fact - but a fact none-the-less.

     You don't like what I say? Don't read it. Wait for The Nation to develop a better filtering system. Do whatever. But, don't blame me for the environment.

     Posted by srjenkins at 10/01/2009 @ 12:15pm

174. Posted by srjenkins at 10/01/2009 @ 11:27am

     I don't know what I'm talking about? Please enlighten me as to when people rose up against the powers that be with their handguns and drove an invading army off. Counterinsurgency my ass. It's a case of martial law being declared or not and you know this to be true. We did declare martial law in Iraq and we did pound down doors and in some cases some bad soldiers killed innocent people not to mention raping a few.

     Those people having guns didn't stop that now did it? If anything, it hastened the problem in their direction. All it took was someone ratting them out for cash or whether the informant had a grudge against the person they turned over to the U.S.

     Listen, I'm not the one saying our government is coming to get you, you are. I'm saying that having guns in your home ain't gonna work. How many standoffs between the police or FBI have turned out well for the people with their hand guns?

     Posted by Wolfgang1 at 10/01/2009 @ 12:19pm

175. Posted by Wolfgang1 at 10/01/2009 @ 12:19pm

     Yes, I repeat. You don't know what you are talking about. Why don't you look at this manual as a starting point?

     "Achieving victory still depends on a group's ability to mobilize support for its political interests (often religiously or ethnically based) and to generate enough violence to achieve political consequences... Long-term success in COIN depends on the people taking charge of their own affairs and consenting to the government's rule... Political and military leaders and planners should never underestimate its scale and complexity; moreover, they should recognize that the Armed Forces cannot succeed in COIN alone."

     You'll notice that the Army understands that military power is not sufficient to stop an insurgency. They also make no claims about how conventional armies make them irrelevant. All of this should make it clear that your argument has serious flaws, and you need to learn more about this topic.

     In my experience, people that do not own/have never fired a weapon and never been in the military underestimate the effectiveness of a disciplined, single rifleman - and one of the signs that this is in play is they are thinking about handguns. Grunts in our military are issued rifles, not handguns for a reason. This is just the beginning in the bad reasoning behind this position.

     http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm3-24.pdf

     Posted by srjenkins at 10/01/2009 @ 2:04pm

176. Please enlighten me as to when people rose up against the powers that be with their handguns and drove an invading army off.

     you are of course correct. East Germany and Hungary proves it.

     americans will never be out in the streets. they are too afraid of losing their tenuous jobs.

     Posted by emile duBois at 10/01/2009 @ 2:22pm

177. americans will never be out in the streets.

     Posted by emile duBois at 10/01/2009 @ 2:22pm

     If true, it's a good thing. Look what happened in Tulsa, Oklahoma in 1921.

     Posted by Mistral at 10/02/2009 @ 08:52am

178. How many standoffs between the police or FBI have turned out well for the people with their hand guns?

     not to mention confronting the army, navy and air force.

     Posted by emile duBois at 10/02/2009 @ 5:49pm

179. emile duBois...good to see a intelligent statement.

     For those that haven't experienced the Sound of "The Swarm of Bee's" as they wizz by you..count yourself Lucky. And God knows you don't want to be "STUNG", thats right "GOD", as the are NO Atheist's is those situations.Those that speak of the Foolishness ...confronting SWAT,FBI etc etc, you nailed it right, let alone Highly Trained and MOTIVATED Military Personel, not to say swat or the fbi aren't just as trained or motivated.They all Cross Train at some Point to learn certain Skill Sets. They just have a Different Operational Mandate, unlike the Military. Handguns,Rifles??? Yeah so what...To these Men and yes Women, yes Women,Women are employed as SNIPERS in Civilian Law Enforcement, (think about that tough guys,brains all gone by a sexy little thing) these Weapons mean nothing. Even FULL-Auto , they prepare fore All contigencies , and they gather INTELL,all sort's, even in places like THIS. hmmmmm

     Posted by wanderingghost at 10/03/2009 @ 6:30pm