1 The problem with Rush and his ilk is this: Where does it get us? Does it advance the discussion(s)? Does it help the nation?

I love that this misses the entire point that, yes, this does advance the discussion.  It's not like Rush et al don't explain what they mean and why they disagree.  Hell, Rush even presented his own economic plan.  That sure as hell helps the nation more than the shut up, he argued position.

2 Does these people actually read what they write in the withering light of how they behaved for the past 8+ years? And, if they do, can they keep a straight face while composing such transparently hypocritical nonsense? It's like everything they write now is a tired riff on how these things don't help Michelle's kids writ large in neon-pink crayon (the leftist's writing implement of choice).

3

I'm reminded of Laura W's post over the weekend about "Don't be like this lady", and it was the picture of that Maryscott O'Connor freaking out at her computer.

 

 

4

What is sad is that Holland, MI is one of the most beautiful areas I have seen. Too bad a nutter like this guy ruined it.

 

Also, he attacks Rush, yet I bet he was one of those guys who loved it whenever the casualty figures from Iraq were blared all over the news, or whenever the DJIA would drop 100 points, hoping that that would help Democrats.

5

Since I am a "hack" I thought I might add my "two cents" to this intellectually stimulating post. Talk about taking someone out of context...Here is what I said in full.

“I hope Obama fails”. These were the words of Republican juggernaut Rush Limbaugh when explaining his warm feelings towards our new President. The fact that he despises Obama should be no surprise to anyone, the fact that he puts his own ideology above and beyond the well being of the nation should be at least eye opening to us all. Rush standing alone is not the problem, the problem is, he is the talking head that reaches millions with his vitriolic, ideologically spun drabble, that masquerades for intelligent dialogue. Everything is nicely cloaked in the American flag, smelling of apple pie, and of better days gone by. But just underneath that dire righteousness is someone who has become so utterly unable to see past his own ideology, that his beliefs in his own mind have become gospel. They are not to be questioned, just followed, regurgitated to the masses three hours a day, five days a week.

          The problem with Rush and his ilk is this…Where does it get us? Does it advance the discussion(s)? Does it help the nation? I cannot see how openly rooting for the failure of a new presidency, knowing the dire consequences that that entails, helps in any way shape or form (especially after the past eight years). Certainly you can find the same vitriolic drool on the left but does that make Rush any less pernicious? The nation needs truly bipartisan dialogue today more so than ever. We need to stifle, and relegate the haters to the fringe of intelligent thought. Playing the blame game today gets us nowhere. The only thing it does is continue the division, purposely widening that divide, because without it Rush and his minions cannot survive. Yet millions listen. Why? I wish I knew. It seems like such an enormous waste of time and energy. Let me sum it all up for you from Rush’s point of view “Those who believe what I believe are good and righteous, those who disagree with me are evil liberals who deserve nothing short of scorn”. This is his shtick boiled down to its purest form. You certainly can disagree with the new administration that’s not what this is about. But when your beliefs become so concrete, that you put them above the well being of the nation, and root against our overall success, you should really think about setting aside some time for some true soul searching.

          Disagreement, even vehement disagreement, is what this nation was founded on, and the nation needs it once again. But we need it with both sides reaching ultimately for the same goal, American success, not the destruction of the “other side”. No solution for our problems can have attached to it the wishful failure of “the other side” or America and be deemed responsible. Disagree all day, but come up with honest solutions, and call out your own side and hold them accountable when needed. We need to learn, talk, listen, understand, and maybe even practice some self reflection. The days of this great divide must come to an end, if it doesn’t we are doomed to continue this futile slide towards our demise. Remember the phrase “United we stand, divided we fall”? We may soon need to re-write this to say, “United we stand or else united we fail”. Time is wasting.

 

Todd Leva

Zeeland, MI

 

 

6

Todd:

where were you from 1-20-01 to 1-20-09? What about all of your side's cheering every time bad news happened?

7

 

Here is my latest article, since I am such a "hack" I thought maybe someone could attack this too... read it in its entirety and and make up your own mind...

http://www.hollandsentinel.com/opinions/x1638575365/COLUMN-Politics-as-usual 

8

Todd:

 

How about answering my question, mmkay?

9

What question would that be? And for the record, I don't have "a side" I am independent and do NOT vote for a party. If you ask a question I will answer it as honestly as I can.

Todd leva

10

My question #6.

 

11 An independent? What's next? Claiming you're a Libertarian, or a "Lifelong Republican"?

12

As I said before I do not have "a side". I know that throws some for a loop, America being so polarized today, but I don’t subscribe to a party line, nor drink from their Kool-Aid. I am not sure how to answer your question, asking where I have been for 8 years? My ire is equal for both sides, the ideological drool that comes from the right like Rush or Ms. Coulter, can certainly be found on the left too. The Daily Kos, Huffington Post, NY Times opinion page, etc. all drooled and gleefully rooted against President Bush. I hold them just as accountable for their actions. They went well beyond even vehemently disagreeing with Bush’s policies. They went into the realm of actually hating the man, which I think is despicable. If you disagree with Bush’s policies fine, but when you compare him to Hitler you are knowingly stepping over the line. I disagreed with a lot of Bush’s policies, but I never thought for a moment he was not sincere, or in his mind had the nations best, in his decisions.

I for one am just sick of the way Washington works. Look at my last article that I posted “politics as Usual”. I am sick of everything falling along party lines and bills passing in this spirit. I am disgusted that Congress voted for a bill that was over 1,100 unread pages, that from my view point looks to do a lot, except its intended purpose. My state of Michigan is truly on the brink. Now you can argue what got this state where it’s at, and certainly A LOT of the blame goes to the state leadership operating with blinders on, never looking over the horizon when the “big 3” would actually have to compete on a global scale. We can find faults with the unions, and so on and so on. But this “stimulus” bill is suppose to help, and I just don’t see how, and I’ll be the first to admit, in the beginning I was caught up in the Obama-mania, and for that I accept my being wrong. It does not mitigate though, that no matter who is in the White house (a (R), or (D)), they still have to deal with the most inept, narrow minded, incompetent body in the government known as the US Congress. These “leaders” want to push social engineering programs, and fund this or that, but their overriding goal, the one thing that keeps them going, the thing that trumps service to the nation and doing what’s right, is one thing and that is getting re-elected and retaining power. This is what I am truly tired of. Do the job you were elected to do and put petty politics aside. But again I know I am being naïve.

Todd Leva

 

13

"An independent? What's next? Claiming you're a Libertarian, or a "Lifelong Republican"?"

I am not sure how to answer such a bantering rant? I truly don't understand your question. Yes, there are independents out there and I am one of them, sorry to disappoint you. No I will not invoke the titles of Libertarian or life long Republican. I look at issues and make up my own mind. Certainly I will and have made mistakes and I gave my mae culpa in my "Politics as Usaual" article about my recent mistakes. But I still am an independent and don't see that changing anytime soon. Again sorry to dissapoint you, does this mean I cannot join your club?

Todd Leva

14

Todd:

I was using and mocking thetripe many of the O-Bots would use when they were astroturfing on blogs or call in shows. They all calimed to be lifelong Republicans or Libertarians.

15 Todd - I think eddiebear has a valid point in asking where your criticisms of the left were during the Bush administration.  I read through your entire article when eddie originally posted the link, and I have to say, it comes across as very Obamatonic. Taking Limbaugh's comment out of context and asking how it helps the nation ignores the point Rush was making, that the principles that Obama has espoused repeatedly are in direct contradiction to the bedrock of our nation, and that Rush wants to see Obama fail at destroying our foundations.  And in that context, I (and probably everyone else who writes on this blog, and probably the large majority of our readers too) hope Obama fails too.  I'm not ready to see my country become a socialist/fascist nation, to see a civilian national security force more powerful than the army, to pay for foreign abortions when we have financial problems domestically, or to sit down at the table with terrorists.

You claim that you hold the left just as accountable for their screeds during the Bush administration, but there's no evidence of that.  You had eight years to say, "Hey, wait a minute, you're hoping our nation fails!" (and I'd argue that the left was truly hoping for our nation to fail) but you didn't bother to speak up until the administration changed.  We on the right have done a pretty good job of telling people when they're over the line on our side, we don't see that over there on the left.  So until you've actually done your own housecleaning, don't try to come clean ours.  And don't try the "but I don't have a party, I'm an independent" crap - you made your bed, you lie in it.

16

I ask first off how you can deduce from two little articles I have recently written, my entire political belief system, and from those too, infer that somehow you can read invisible ink knowing in your heart of hearts that I am some bleeding heart liberal? That I never once stood up for the destructive behavior that President Bush had to endure? If you truly can do this, you’re a better man than me, because that Sir is one hell of a set of deduction skills you poses. In my few writings you’ve read and a day’s worth of postings of this blog, you know me better than myself. Not bad if I do say so myself.

          I do not, for one, control what my local paper prints in their opinion page, so how you know what I have written in the past 8 years is beyond me. Now I am sure that you’re going to ask “then show me something you’ve written, defending Bush”. I will say to that, no, I will not fall into your trap, that because you think I am one way, I now have to prove otherwise. You Sir are going to believe what you’re going to believe regardless of what I say. If you cannot deduce, from my two letters that I hold both sides accountable (along with myself), and the fact that I call myself independent and you call that “crap” tells me you don’t want honest dialogue, you just want another agreeing head to join your club on this blog. Especially when you use sentences like “don't try to come clean ours”. What fun it must be to talk to people all day that believe just like you, so much so that you can use a possessive noun such as “ours” when talking about politics. Can you really say you talk for everyone on this site? Really?

          I am asking that all of us call out all leaders when they are not doing their elected job. This goes for both sides, although you probably won’t believe me. If you disagree with Obama’s policies, and your argument against them are honest, and not hate filled blather, but born out of a passionate disagreement on how to make America better, than I Sir am your biggest fan, even if I disagree with your opinions. I don’t mind disagreement, matter of fact it’s good for the nation, but the main goal of all of us should be the betterment of America, not the re-election of some politician, or some worn out ideology. Certainly we can argue all day what roads we take to make America better, how the job gets done, but we should not take our eye off the prize of making America the global leader of the 21^st century and solving our issues. Again you’ll believe what you want, when I tell you something and you immediately call it “crap”, does not seem to me a promotion of open dialogue. Putting people into groups like “conservative” or “liberal”, “left” or “right”, might make you feel good. I am not sure. You can tag me “liberal” and then all of your beliefs of what makes up a liberal is immediately transposed onto me, even though we just met. You can immediately brush off what I say as “crap” because you have superimposed onto me what you will. I say this is a fallacious way of beginning a dialogue. Don’t lump me with left or right, even if it is what you must do to make yourself feel better. This is the bed you made and are voluntarily lying in it. I want issues solved, period. I don’t care who does it, I want America to become prosperous once again and I don’t care who gets the credit. There is enough blame to stretch across both aisles, but you well know this since you “call out your side” when they need it. I commend you. I just would like all of us to do the same. But then again I am full of “crap” remember?

Todd Leva  

 

17

Writing up a response.  It'll be good.

18 _{Blog Fight...}

19

I think DPUD's best response was  "Dear 52, fuck yourselves sideways with a chainsaw. Love, 48".

20 If we can prevent any of Obama's plans from working we WILL have helped the country.

21

Todd:

Obviously you don't read conservative blogs much. My referencing to "independents" and "Lifelong Republicans" was a mockery of how those folks notoriously would appear on conservative sites claiming they were "independents"/"Lifelong Republicans", et al., who, miraculously, were voting Obama this time. And, even more miraculously, they had Democrat talking points at their fingertips. If you deigned to visit a few conservative sites, you might have noticed that.

As for not wanting other views, or whatever, you have not been banned/deleted/disallowed from posting comments here. That says more than many lefty sites, which smother dissent. 

Finally, as for your "I won't retrieve pieces from the last eight years" line (I paraphrase), please consider this (and I will exclude you for the moment):

Why not? Prove me wrong. You are correct in that I do not know you. But you seem to possess many of the traits consistent with the Cult of The Magic Unicorn Rider. And besides, what are you afraid of? We won't ban you if you come here to debate respectfully. 

 

22

What is this “we”, might I ask? First off I never knew this site existed until a friend pointed out that somehow someone on this site quoted my article and tagged me a “hack”. Your right I don’t spend time on conservative blogs, nor do I spend my time on the left sided blogs either. Can I ask you a question, what’s the point? What is the point of a blog full of people that think the same way you do? What purpose does it serve but to re-enforce the “us” v. “them” mentality? I don’t see the fun in it nor the purpose, but that’s just me.

As for “proving” something to you, again I ask, why? Why should I have to? I don’t see the point, so I can write something and it can be picked apart, called “crap”, or I can retain my unwarranted title of “hack”? I have nothing to prove, because your mind was made up the moment I was deemed in your mind to be a liberal. It’s easier that way for you as I previously stated. If you have a specific question you want me to answer, maybe some thought up conservative or liberal test, I’ll answer it. But I see no need in proving something when there is nothing to prove. Remember that whole innocent until proven guilty thing? You take that to a totally different realm of now, liberal until proven otherwise, or more to the point liberal, unless they agree with what “we” believe.

Todd Leva

23

Ok eddiebear, I will contradict my last post and give you something I wrote not to long ago for a paper.

                         “Change"

Nothing gets me angrier than when our elected leaders on both sides of the aisle fail to do their job. I guess then I should be in a perpetual state of anger, but these first two weeks of the new Obama administration just cry out for Americans of all walks of life to finally put our petty differences aside, and demand once and for all, our “leaders” do exactly that…lead.

          The “change” we drooled over on inauguration day, seems to be now only wishful thinking. We now have had no less than four cabinet level nominees shine a glaring light on the problems in Washington. How can we believe in change when the newly elected leader of the IRS doesn’t pay his taxes? How can we believe in change when the once Senate Majority leader, and HHS nominee also somehow forgets to pay his taxes? We also have the chief “performance” officer that forgot that little ole thing called an IRS lien on her house, and the one time Commerce Secretary nominee who withdrew his name because of that pesky little federal investigation. The icing on the cake is the new Republican in charge of the Commerce department. I find it comical that this is the same man who voted to abolish the department he is now charged with running. Talk about “change”? Is this the revolution we voted for, because this seems like business as usual? Who is doing Obama’s vetting, Rob Blagojevich? It’s truly disheartening.

          To top it all off we have a House backed “stimulus” package that does everything but stimulate. It seems to be a litany of Pelosi backed social engineering programs, laced with woefully funded job creating projects such as road construction. I guess we can all sleep a little easier knowing that the National Endowment for the Arts will soon be flush with cash. I know I certainly would rather the arts be funded, than getting back to work full time, I just hope my mortgage company is as happy. The problem is our economy is now fully engulfed in a near depression. We look for our new “leader” to change the way Washington works, but it looks like the exact opposite is happening. Obama’s new government is staffed with nothing but long term Washington insiders, Clinton administration holdovers, and career politicians. How this group as a whole implements change is beyond me. Maybe it’s my fault. When I heard Obama talking about change, I thought he meant changing the way Washington works, turning government around and doing the people’s business. Now I am wondering when he espoused change, if he was talking about what’s left in my bank account? If that’s the case then these first two weeks, he’s done exactly as promised. I am off to the nearest museum, at least there the lights will be on and it will be warm. I just hope they don’t make me roll my “change” for my admission fee.

24 Can I ask you a question, what’s the point? What is the point of a blog full of people that think the same way you do? What purpose does it serve but to re-enforce the “us” v. “them” mentality? I don’t see the fun in it nor the purpose, but that’s just me.

Sorta like going to a lounge to enjoy a smoke and a drink at the end of the day with friends and talking about the day's issues, before before that greasy fucker Ed Rendell decided to ban smoking in most bars.

25 Why do we hang around with other people who think the same things we do?  Because after being bludgeoned all day by mainstream media getting a thrill up it's leg because Obama blew his nose on their underwear, after being bombarded by "Let's have a hand sign!" and "I'm finally proud to be an American!" and hopeychangey skittle-shitting couch-eating unicorns, it's a relief to come home to like-minded people. 

The "hope he'll leave us some change" meme is something we've been aware of for at least, what, six, nine months, as it's been bouncing around on right-wing blogs for at least that long.  It's even the long-standing header for one of the right-wing satire blogs.    Waking up now and realizing that three months ago you voted for someone who's going to enable and encourage Congress to rape our country and burden our grandchildren doesn't get you a pass here.  Not bothering to speak out in defense of our president and our country during a time of war, and then jumping in and (I'd argue purposely) misconstruing someone's words because we've offended your precious Obama-loving sensibilities, doesn't get you a pass around here.  Regretting that you voted someone into office that feels the population of our nation is so much a danger to itself that the government needs to step in and take care of everything, doesn't get you a pass around here.  When you realize months from now that, since the government's paying for your health care and your mortgage, they now feel they can step in and determine how you live your life "to protect their investment", you're still not going to get a pass here.  Your vote for Obama shows that you support a government that we find repugnant and don't cherish what we hold dear.  If you didn't bother to educate yourself as to what he was going to do to our country before you voted for him, it's your own damned fault - it was there as plain as day for anyone who actually wanted to find it.

26

Alice H, I am not sure where all your anger bubbles from but maybe you need to stop into the bar and have a smoke and a beer, since “we” are all likeminded friends here. It’s time to unwind after being bombarded by all those in the mass media wearing Obama’s underwear.  You don’t have to worry any more about those “skittle-shitting couch-eating unicorns, it's a relief to come home to like-minded people”, remember?

I don’t really know how you got that I was somehow “Not bothering to speak out in defense of our president (I am presuming ex-President Bush here?) And our country during a time of war, and then jumping in and misconstruing someone's words (Rush’s statement?) because you've offended my precious Obama-loving sensibilities, doesn't get me a pass around here” Oh and I did this somehow on purpose don’t forget! I must be some kind of liberal SOB, huh? I really must be rotten. And you have come to this conclusion off of two writings and these postings from today. Again, the deduction skills on this blog are unreal. I wish I could learn to jump to wild inaccurate conclusions, masquerading for contempt towards those who may have a different opinion. Maybe if I hang out here with my new found friends long enough, I will learn these superbly useful deduction skills. One can only hope!

And for the record I don’t regret voting for Obama. What I regret is thinking he could go into Washington and change the game. If you think for one second that if we had a Republican President and a Republican controlled House and Senate, and that somehow they would instantly solve our problems, then I am not sure there is anything else to say on this blog. Didn’t we try that already? If the Republicans in Congress are doing such a stellar job then why would they have such a paltry approval rating? Certainly this cannot be just liberals, to have approval numbers in the low 20% range, some Republicans who voted for them must too feel that they are not living up to the job promised, right? Or maybe they too now must regret their votes, and ask for a pass in my new found smoke filled bar full of friends?

Todd leva   

27 If you think for one second that if we had a Republican President and a Republican controlled House and Senate, and that somehow they would instantly solve our problems, then I am not sure there is anything else to say on this blog.

Oh, it wouldn't solve our problems.  Just because the douchebags with the R's next to their names are in charge during a set period, doesn't mean we're moving in a conservative direction.  You know this of course.  We watched unprecedented growth in government size, spending and power during the Bush years, only to have it eclipsed by Obama's first month in office. 

In case you haven't figured it out, we conservatives abhor growth of government.  You didn't think we all stood around and clapped like seals when Bush cooked up the prescription drug plan, did you?  You didn't think we cheered as the GOP spent our children's futures on frivolous pork projects in an effort to buy votes, did you?  You didn't think we all said Amen when they established the faith-based initiatives, or tried to ban Playboy from being sold on military bases, did you?  Hint, we didn't like it, and we curse them for their betrayals. 

28 And for the record I don’t regret voting for Obama.

You will.  Just give it time.

29

Sir:

If you thought a Chicago politician could change anythng except his wife's bank account, you were not only naive, but dangerous, for you put a guy who is explicitly inexperienced in charge of everything.

30 Let's get one thing straight.

You.  Are NOT.  My Friend.  You are not part of "we".  "We" have no desire to be lumped in with your "ilk".  And if you don't get why I'm angry, you will by the end of Obama's term. 

You've provided no evidence that you ever spoke out to defend our country and our president from 2001-2008.  Deciding you don't like getting raped by Congress in the form of ARRA now doesn't take back the fact that you helped put the man who signed the bill into office.  Our contempt for you here is no masquerade, I think we're doing a pretty good job of explaining exactly why we think and feel what we think and feel. 

31

Well if you were disgusted by Bush, then why am I being derided for "not sticking up for him" unwarranted, I might add?...

I give you credit for sticking to your guns though, and thats sincere. I am off to dinner with the fam. I will have to pick this up later. Sometime tonight or tomorrow night. Being a "liberal" I know it won't be believed, but I have a church function all day tomorrow for a mentor program. But I will come back either tonight or sometime this weekend. I sincerely mean it, when I say its been fun.

32 Oh besides Alice H's contempt for me, and the fact that I am NOT her friend, its been fun...Later.

33 Because there's defending a guy as a human being and as a leader, and then there's what the left did to him.  Bush was regularly slandered and libeled by the left.  There hasn't been much time to create slanderous or libelous stories about Our Lord and Savior, but I can assure you that you aren't going to hear myself or any of my co-bloggers spouting this "ZOMG OBAMAS A SOOPER SEKRIT MUSLIM!!!1eleventy!1" shit.  

34 Someone give Todd a hanky.

35 but I can assure you that you aren't going to hear myself or any of my co-bloggers spouting this "ZOMG OBAMAS A SOOPER SEKRIT MUSLIM!!!1eleventy!1" shit. 

I can still mock the unicorns though, right?

36 I can't shout "ZOMG OBAMAS A SOOPER SEKRIT MUSLIM!!!1eleventy!1"?  Darn.  I was planning a weekly rant.

Should I mention that's sarcasm for Todd Leva and his ilk?

Actually, I consider his TUCC membership much more damning (pun intended) than having been possibly raised Muslim. 

37 I can still mock the unicorns though, right?

Yes! We! Can!

38 Hey, I've been gone all day.  Did I miss anything innaresting?

39 Hey, I've been gone all day. Did I miss anything innaresting?

I found some new stompy boots

40 Just finished dinner, was about to say Where the fuck is Sean?  He's missing out on the fun!

41

“Because there's defending a guy as a human being and as a leader, and then there's what the left did to him.  Bush was regularly slandered and libeled by the left”. Didn’t I say this very thing? I agree 100% the treatment of Bush was disgusting, over the top, and was not about his policies. A lot of the slander came from the far left that sees the far right (Bush) as a religious zealot, to be scorned. I think what the left did, was rotten, and don’t defend any of it. But in the same breath, how can one defend then the same treatment of Obama? If the treatment of Bush made you mad, and it was slanderous and libelous as you say, then when you see the same treatment of Obama, will you call it out as wrong? I hope so…

Doubleplusundead, you mentioned in your earlier post how you abhor the (R)’s that are in Congress. They are not “Conservative” enough when it came to spending. You scorn them for their betrayals. So what you’re saying then is that you and others like you don’t have a party anymore, or more to the point, somehow the party has left the “conservative” foundations, that it was created on, right?

The anger you feel, is the exact anger I feel. You feel betrayed by those elected leaders who are a part of the party that use to represent your beliefs (and those here on this blog that have similar beliefs), right? I feel the exact same way. Except I feel it not just towards the Republican but the Democrats too. The same sense of betrayal that you feel is the same sense of betrayal I feel, you feel it because they’re not “Conservative” enough, valid point mind you, I feel it because I don’t think either side has America’s interest in mind, I think they only care about power and re-election, doing what’s right ranks in importance right behind what’s on the Congressional lunch menu for the day.

I could be wrong, but I would bet if given the chance we could all learn that we agree more than we disagree (Besides Alice H., since she doesn’t want to be friends). I am NOT a bleeding heart liberal, I maybe more liberal than some here on this site but bleeding heart liberal I am not. I just want people to think for themselves, get involved, and hold ALL politicians accountable. Just as you and I find Bush’s treatment by the left detestable, I hope you and I will hold ALL people to this standard, including people here at our newly found friendship bar, when it comes to Obama. We will see I guess…

Todd Leva

42 Todd, I think what you're missing here is that there's a big difference between partisanship and Godwin's Law.

43

Godwins law:

"As a Usenet discussion grows longer the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.” There is a tradition in many groups that, once this occurs, that thread is over, and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever argument was in progress. Godwin's Law thus practically guarantees the existence of an upper bound on thread length in those groups".

Partisanship:

"In politics, partisan(partisanship) literally means organized into politcal parties. The expression "Partisan Politics" usually refers to fervent, sometimes militant support of a party, cause, faction, person, or idea. Although this is typically an appellation with negative connotations, some supporters embrace the term."

So somehow I am missing the differnce between an ardent believer, who can be fervent, or even militant in their beliefs and some one who invokes Hitler or Nazism? What's the point? I didn't say ideologs or partisans are equal to those, like on the left during Bush's time who called him Hitler? Matter of fact earlier I used this as an example of going beyond disagreement and into the realm of personal hatred. I am really not sure what "difference" I am not getting.

Todd Leva

44 But in the same breath, how can one defend then the same treatment of Obama?

I haven't defended slanderous and libelous treatment of Our Lord and Savior.  In fact, I've called it out here and elsewhere. 

My point of contention with all you have written is that somehow you seem to think that Rush's desire to see Obama fail to turn America into a Eurosocialist hellhole as Rush somehow not having the best for America in mind.  Then you turn around and you expect us to assume and treat Obama like he has the best in mind after you trash Rush throughout your column. 

We've been watching the Democrats trash and slander us in the media, which they dominate, in entertainment, which they dominate, and in academia, which they dominate for decades.  We have one place, one haven, AM radio, and even there, we now have liberal fascists trying to silence Rush and the rest of conservative talk radio through the Fairness Doctrine.  They're trying to disarm us through gun control, and they're trying to bankrupt us with their economic policies.  What, am I to pretend these assholes have my interests at heart?  Fuck that noise.

Conservatives don't say what we say for cheap political points, we don't say it to advance the GOP, as any Republican politician will tell you, their most brutal critics are usually conservatives.  We say what we say because we believe in it fully, as does Rush.  If you want a GOP mouthpiece that speaks for the GOP above nation, watch Sean Hannity.  Have you actually spent significant time listening to Rush?  After reading your three columns, I can pretty safely say you haven't, because if you had, and with any open mind, you'd *never* describe his message as pessimistic.

We're not interested in compromising, or "getting things done" for the sake of making it look like we're doing something, we're interested in advancing conservatism and individual liberty, and we'll accept no deviation from that path.  If liberals want to skip merrily down the path to serfdom under a Marxist state, they're more than welcome to do it, but they better goddamned well not try and drag us down that path with them.  That is my objection to the left.

45 Stompy boots.  WANT.  

46 Let's get a couple of things straight, Mr. Leva.  I don't know you from Adam.  I had never heard of you or the outfit you write for before seeing your column on Google News.  I don't know what your political leanings are, but you do seem to be an Obama supporter, yes?

Here's the thing: Your column attacked Rush Limbaugh, a conservative, for expressing the hope that Obama, a liberal, would fail.  He didn't say he hoped the country would fail.  He said he hoped Obama, and, by extension, his liberal policies, would fail.

You have said that you dislike the vitriol that was hurled at Bush from the left, and I agree.  But here's the part where my not knowing you comes into play.  Can you link to any column you published during Bush's presidency that decries a specific left/liberal critic's vitriolic treatment of the man?  Did you ever call for, say, Keith Olbermann to be stifled or relegated to the fringe (I paraphrase your own words) for his angry "Special Comments" or "Worst Person in the World" segments?  If you could link to something like that, it would help your credibility quite a bit.  Hell, I might even apologize for calling you a hack.

Oh, and by the way, I find the statement that  "The nation needs bipartisan dialogue now more so than ever" somewhat ironic considering the fact that your favored candidate's response to GOP concerns about the size, scope, and cost of the stimulus bill  was "I won."  But maybe that's just me.

47

Doubleplusundead:

My ire with Rush was not that I think he’s not a true believer. I think he believes everything he says, almost to the point of Gospel. Where I disagree with him is, there is no opposing opinion or any admittance of past mistakes, or for that matter ever the recognition that even once in a while someone besides a “conservative” might have a good point. Certainly again, here is my disclaimer, you can find this on the left. That I don’t dispute. But you say you don’t want compromise that you’ll settle for nothing less than what “conservatism” is. I am afraid on the left there is the same feelings that they too won’t compromise for whatever it is they believe in.

So there in a nut shell is where America is today. Split with no room for compromise. We have two parties that are as far apart as they have ever been. I say this with all honesty and admiration. I respect the fact that you know what you want and are willing to stick up for it. That you and others here feel your brand of conservatism is being left out, not recognized, and ignored. I admit after today I see a difference with what has been described here as “conservative” and what today it means to be Republican, before I may have blurred the two. For that, I have learned something and am grateful for it. I would be remised though if I did not ask where in the end, this enormous divide get us? There will never come a time when either the far right or the far left gets everything they want. Politics in America is not a zero sum game. It is about compromise. It’s not about doing something just for the sake of doing something, it’s about doing something for the country not a party or ideology. I know we’ll disagree on this point and that’s fine, but I will leave you with this quote because to me it is truer today than ever before…

“There are always too many Democratic congressmen, too many Republican congressmen, and never enough U.S. congressmen.”

Author Unknown

Todd Leva

48 Decentralization of power in America would defuse a good bit of some of the tension you see developing, Marxists for the most part could live as Marxists, and conservatives can live as conservatives.  Of course we've seen both Bush and Obama move us in a more centralized position, Obama believes fully in radical centralization of power, and I see no real desire amongst the political class to decentralize power, either.  So we move inexorably toward centralization, and with it, increasingly radical and vicious partisanship.  It is what it is, and we'll act accordingly.

49

Sean M:

                           I am not sure what “outfit” you think I am writing for. I don’t write for anyone but myself, these articles were simply opinion pieces that I wrote to my local paper recently. That’s it. No left leaning, mass media machine behind me. The fact that somehow, to get my “credibility” with you, I have to prove myself as worthy and have to show you proof that at one time I spoke out in favor of Bush and in condemnation of some on the left just seems ridiculous to me. Why should I have to prove to you anything? Did you have to pass a conservative smell test before entry into this club? Did others have to post past writings from blogs proving to you they were not a dreaded liberal before they too earned your credibility? Doesn’t the fact that I have posted on here all day, answering every question, even after being called a “hack”, told that somehow because of my article that I personally have taken away from the beauty of my local town, that when I describe my personal beliefs they were said to be “crap”, and so on and so on. Certainly my attempt at dialogue here has to count for something right? Have I attacked anyone here today? Have I said any of your beliefs are “crap”? Have I used words like “fuck” or “goddamn”? I have even been equated with loving casualty numbers coming out of Iraq and being gleeful when the Dow does badly in some demented way helping Democrats, which time and time again I have said I am no fan of. “yet I bet he was one of those guys who loved it whenever the casualty figures from Iraq were blared all over the news, or whenever the DJIA would drop 100 points, hoping that that would help Democrats” Have I said or done any of these things? Have I not tried to explain myself and advance the discussion? I have even today admitted that I had learned something. I feel I have done all I can. I am not sure what else there is to say. You all are who you are, I am who I am. Here though, I am who you say I am. I have to prove otherwise, and that seems intellectually dishonest when I am tagged as a Hack and “possess(ing) many of the traits consistent with the Cult of The Magic Unicorn Rider.” Then I am told “We won't ban you if you come here to debate respectfully”. really? I have been nothing but respectful and continue to be. I wrote what I wrote, and I stand behind it. I am no fan of Rush or Ms. Coulter, if this makes me unable to be a part of your club or somehow you transpose your beliefs of what a liberal is onto me because of it, there’s really nothing I can do about it. I am not going to sit here and regurgitate a party line to be popular. Operating within the spectrum here of being “conservative” and then and only then getting admiration, once I am deemed “ok”, seems after a while to become quite mundane and boring, not to mention ultimately pointless. I can tell you that I despise Keith Olberman or others on the left, but if I can’t show you “proof” what do my words matter? I cannot pass the test unless you say I pass, and that is just inherently unfair. I have said it before and I will say it again, my ire is for the broken process we receive from our leadership, including Republicans and Democrats alike. I cannot for the life of me see how one side thinks they have ownership to what is good for the nation and that the other side should somehow be equated with Lucifer. It’s just a vicious circle and it only seems to be getting worse. In the end it makes me sad. I want America to succeed. I want us to lead the world, and I want us to do it together. But Again I know my beliefs are “crap”, and that I am riding some type of unicorn, gleefully espousing the number of casualties from Iraq, wishing mass destruction on the Dow, and all the while denigrating my home town and wearing my newly printed T-shirt with the words “hack” proudly emblazed upon it. Oh and I still have pass my test and earn my “credibility”, right?

Todd leva

         

50 "There are always too many Democratic congressmen, too many Republican congressmen, and never enough U.S. congressmen"

As others have pointed out, the fundamental question is what is in the best interest of the United States.  The left and the right have deeply divergent views as to what that is.  Demanding that principles be put aside for some type of mythical consensus is, frankly, demeaning to those on both sides of the issue.  To know what one believes and to defend that vigorously is a good thing.

I do not believe in the cult of nice.  In fact, in my more hear my roar moments, I am deeply and utterly offended that anyone would have the temerity to tell me that I should be a good little girl and smile and nod and play well with others.  No.  Absolutely not.  It reeks of condescension to demand that I sit there and shut up and be run roughshod over.  I will not learn my place.  No one puts Alex in a corner. 

I will attempt to be polite.  I will attempt to debate and attack ideas, not individuals.  But I will not now or ever back down from defending what I believe with all the weapons at hand.  I demand nothing less from those who are my ideological opponents.  And if that discussion occasionally because heated?  That's perfectly fine by me. 

51 Have I said any of your beliefs are “crap”? Have I used words like “fuck” or “goddamn”?

Start posting as a conservative at HuffPo, Kos or DU, if you're lucky, they'll just ban your ass without comment, but otherwise they'll make anything we say here look like teatime.  Besides, if you haven't looked along the right column, we're Morons, foulmouthedness is one of our trademarks.  Most of the right side of the blogosphere is squeaky clean compared to us. 

52 The reason people are hounding you for proof of your independent bonafides is because we conservative bloggers and commenters been dealing with "independents" for years.  Basically full-on leftists who offer up the same "can't we all just get along" type of sentiment you're offering, but we oh so often can find and dig up and pick apart their writings, or back them into a corner or trip them up and pretty much get them to admit they're just leftists trying to sow discord or stifle the right.  We Morons are kind of known for being good at doing that. 

As for knowing who is on our side, believe me, we know our own kind, and we can almost always spot someone pretending to be one of ours from a mile away.  Obama's zealots engaged in astroturfing on conservative sites extensively during the election season.  It became a sort of sport to see if we could spot them fastest and/or bait them into saying something that exposed them as leftists playing the role of "concerned conservative Christian" or "disaffected Independent" or "moderate."  So when someone declares themselves Independent, the bullshit klaxons go off, and people start grilling said Independent. 

53 Wow, I think we've chewed up more pixels here than with that shitbag Truther.  At least this guy isn't a total twat like that.

54 Again, Todd, I don't know you.  I don't know a lot of the people who post here.  And I can't speak for anything that anybody else here has said.  But I will say this.  You wrote what you wrote, attacking Rush Limbaugh and arguing that he should be stifled for his views.  I asked you to provide some evidence that you had argued similarly that partisan commentators who had said much, much worse about George W. Bush were doing anything to "advance the discussion(s)" because, if not, your claim to somehow be above the partisan fray rings (at least to me) a little hollow.  It's easy to say that we should abandon partisanship once your guy is in the White House, after all.  And you'll forgive a lot of us if we're a bit touchy after being called Nazis for the last eight years.  That kind of thing gets under your skin.

This isn't a matter of us admitting you to our "club" or any such thing.  This is a blog.  It's about lots of things.  Bacon.  Zombies.  Booze.  Sexy boots.  Hunting transients for sport (perhaps I've said too much).  But it's a conservative blog.  Its readers are mainly conservative.  Our host knew me from a different conservative blog, where both of us used to be frequent commenters, and he thought I would be a good fit here, so he asked me to join.  So far, you've been respectful, especially for someone who isn't exactly on our side of the aisle.  And if you want to return and discuss these issues, I'm sure you're welcome to do so.  But this is a partisan blog.  It always will be.  And, while I'm sure liberals like Barack Obama feel that their positions are good for America, we disagree.  Strongly.

55 I want to make a couple of other points before I toddle off to bed.

First of all, the unicorn stuff.  It's a running gag here and on a few other conservative blogs.  We use that to mock some (okay, a lot) of Obama's more airy-fairy promises about Hope and Change on the campaign trail and beyond.  And to mock his more cultish supporters.  Mainly, we're mocking the idea that with the election of this man, a new era of prosperity and global good-feeling is going to be magically ushered in.  We all get free unicorns with the election of Barack, you see.  He offered a lot of promises, didn't he?

Secondly, I want you to know that a lot of people here held their noses when they voted for McCain in November.  If you were to ask most of the people here if they thought McCain's solutions to the current crisis would be any better, I'd wager that most of them would give you a resounding NO.  We supported McCain mainly because we found him the lesser of two evils, and you wouldn't get much argument from people here about the fact that something is wrong there.  We also supported him because he picked Sarah Palin, who represents conservative values.  We were "early adopters" as far as she was concerned, and I'd be interested to find out whether or not the MSM's savaging of Palin was anywhere near as damaging as Rush Limbaugh's critique of Obama.

The main point of my original post was that conservatives and Republicans have heard, for the past eight years (or more, if you go back and look at the way Reagan was treated), that we are Nazis, racists, and criminals.  And you've mentioned both here and in your columns that Rush Limbaugh has been divisive.  All I'm asking of you is that, maybe, you might be a little (per Fox News *shudder*) more fair and balanced.  I don't even listen to Rush on a daily basis.  But, hey, if you want to count this exchange as "one to grow on" and call out left-wing partisans in the same way you singled out a right-wing partisan, I'll give you a lot of credit.  If you feel that's a bit too onerous, well, we'll just have to leave that be.

But asking those of us on the right to come together in a post-partisan spirit after all of that is just a little too much to ask, in my opinion.

56 a lot of people here held their noses when they voted for McCain in November

did anyone who posts here regularly actually happily vote for McCain (as opposed to for Palin or against Obama)?  I can only think of one right-wing blogger who supported him, and she doesn't stumble over here too often.  I won't hold it against you if you did, I'm just curious.

57 Well I certainly didn't vote for McCain as much as I voted against Obama. (And whatever part of me voted for McCain was really voting for Palin, so...)

58

I am back. I was gone this morning, off to a mentor program for troubled teens through my church. The training was cut short because of the snow storm. I came home and checked the site out and found some of the following which I will attempt to respond to, in kind…

Alexthechick wrote: “I will attempt to be polite.  I will attempt to debate and attack ideas, not individuals.  But I will not now or ever back down from defending what I believe with all the weapons at hand.  I demand nothing less from those who are my ideological opponents”

I can respect this openly. Knowing what one believes and defending such beliefs is honorable as long as it’s done respectfully, which I agree should hold true for both sides of any given issue. I am not asking for you to give up your beliefs I am just pointing out to you and others that there are for one, opposing viewpoints, and in that maybe different thoughts and ideas that one has not thought of, which possibly could lead to changing ones mind, (you changing mine, and vice versa), or at least seeing where there is common ground. I will admit for the record that my idea of “bipartisanship” lives somewhere between Disney world and the land of those unicorns that are so talked about here. I understand the “fantasy” it seems to entail. But just as you believe in your partisanship, I believe partisanship is a road block to better days. Is this fantasy land on my part? I will admit it out right, but nonetheless, I think most American’s are more center-left, center-right, than far right, far left, the common ground being center. I understand the wedge issues that politicians use to continue the divide, gun control, abortion, immigration, civil rights v. security, and so on. I just don’t think most politicians want these issues solved, they just want them around for the next election, so they can point out the flaws of their opponents to likeminded folks. It perpetuates the “us” v. “them” mentality that permeates politics today. I just see it as useless and a waste of time, all the while serious issues keep mounting with no solution from either side. Certainly there are issues where compromise would be difficult, but not every time, nor should difficulty be used as a crutch, or a reason to not try, but again I know I am in the minority here.

Sean M. Wrote:

          “I want you to know that a lot of people here held their noses when they voted for McCain in November.  If you were to ask most of the people here if they thought McCain's solutions to the current crisis would be any better, I'd wager that most of them would give you a resounding NO.  We supported McCain mainly because we found him the lesser of two evils…”

As you want me to understand your thought process for voting for McCain, then I only ask for the same understanding for my vote of Obama. I too, in my mind, chose the lesser of two evils, I just so happened to pick the other guy. Did I think either Obama or McCain had a magic pill of sorts to cure America’s ills? No, I didn’t think either of them had the answers for everything, nor do I believe Obama champions all that is right and good for America. His “stimulus” bill in my mind was a joke and I don’t think it will work. But I am not sure McCain would have done much better. Maybe I am wrong, maybe not, but I weighed what each candidate brought to the table, and I liked Obama, this time. Matter of fact it was thee very first time I voted for ANY Democrat, I am willing though to give the man time, and pray that America succeeds.

Todd Leva

59 I am not asking for you to give up your beliefs I am just pointing out to you and others that there are for one, opposing viewpoints, and in that maybe different thoughts and ideas that one has not thought of, which possibly could lead to changing ones mind, (you changing mine, and vice versa), or at least seeing where there is common ground.

Why on earth would you presume that I do not do so?  It is that attitude, the arrogant presumption that those who are conservative simply are unwilling or unable to consider opposing points of view, that is offensive.  Not only am I aware of opposing points of view, I am far more likely to be able to articulate the philosophical basis thereof.  You see, in order to fully known one's own beliefs, one must understand and contemplate the criticisms thereof.  So, really, thank you for the little lecture, but it is not only unnecessary but unwelcome.

60 ROFL at the thought of alex not considering other points of view. 

alex, you're not open-minded at all

At the end of four years, there will be no doubt in anyone but the most diehard Obamatons' minds where the evil is.

61 I understand the wedge issues that politicians use to continue the divide, gun control, abortion, immigration, civil rights v. security, and so on.

These are not just small issues to be brushed aside, or dismissed as little side issues, they're of critical importance.  Of course, if the federal government would cede control of most of these issues to the states, it would limit the "wedge" effect you lament.

62

Alexthechick

“It is that attitude, the arrogant presumption that those who are conservative simply are unwilling or unable to consider opposing points of view, that is offensive…” You find the fact that I point out to you that my reasons for posting on your blog is to point out to you and others that there are opposing viewpoints, (mine specifically) and that in that I hope to show you and myself common ground, offensive? Really? Quit reading into what’s not there. At no time did I say “conservatives” cannot understand or entertain new viewpoints, if someone has said this to you in the past, I am sorry for that, but don’t project that towards me because that was not in any way what I was doing. If by chance my words were poorly written, then so be it, but ask if I meant “all conservatives cannot accept opposing opinions” before you just infer that this was what I meant. As for being offended there is only one of us on this blog who has been called a “hack” and told that they revel in the casualty numbers coming from Iraq, and that my beliefs are straight up “crap”, but I did not proclaim offense. All I was trying to do, and all I continue to try and do, is get my points of view out there and have them respected as much as you would like me to respect yours. At no time was I lecturing you. If all I wanted to do was lecture, do you think I would consistently come back to this site, continue the dialogue? Don’t you think I would have written a long response, deriding everyone here, and then never come back? I have done the exact opposite. Don’t find offense where there is none intended. Hurtful things have been purposefully said towards me yet still I am here, that has to at least dispel your theory of me being offensive and lecturing. Nonetheless, for the advancement of hopeful discussions to come, Alexthechick, if by chance my previous post offended you in any way, I sincerely apologize, this was not my intentions.

Todd Leva

63

Alice H:

“These are not just small issues to be brushed aside, or dismissed as little side issues, they're of critical importance (gun control, abortion, immigration, civil rights v. security, and so on)”

Alice I agree that these issues are not mere side issues. I understand their importance to both sides. I truly do. My point was and is, is that I don’t think politicians on either side care one way or the other about these issues and others like them as long as they land on the “right” side of the issues come election time. I understand the power that an issue like abortion can have, or gun control. You might feel one way about these issues and I might feel another, hey we might even agree some, but I don’t think the politicians in Washington care either way, as long as they can use these issues as a divisive weapon come re-election time. Its ammo that never runs out, never loses its potency, and can always be counted on to divide and anger. Politicians on both side bank on it and these issues so far have not let them down…

Todd Leva

64 You find the fact that I point out to you that my reasons for posting on your blog is to point out to you and others that there are opposing viewpoints, (mine specifically) and that in that I hope to show you and myself common ground, offensive? Really?

Why do you think you need to do so?  I am asking that legitimately.  Why did you believe you needed to say that?  A person generally does not point out something so prosaic and fundamental such as that unless that individual believes that it is necessary to bring that to his opponent's attention.  Taking that as a baseline, my interpretation was that felt that you needed to tell those of us here that there are other viewpoints than our own and that, by golly, someone else may be right.  I would trust that you comprehend why feeling compelled to point out one of the most fundamental propositions of all thought will be deemed more a bit presumptuous by those to whom such a statement is directed. 

Having said that, let's move to the next step.  It appears from what you've written, that you have an unstated assumption that recognition of other viewpoints will per se lead to some type of accommodation therewith.  That does not follow.  It is entirely possible to understand a different point of view, to comprehend the worldview which animates such a position and to utterly reject that conclusion.  Explication is not acceptance. 

We clearly have a fundamental disagreement as to the best manner in which to solve political disagreements.  I believe that the interested parties need to explain their positions, make their best case and then attempt to win in the marketplace of ideas.  I freely admit that this works far better in theory than practice, but that is my view.  You desire that people attempt to reach common ground.  Fair enough. 

Of course, this will all be moot once Alextopia begins.  Then all y'all will be entitled to my opinon and my opinion only.  Ahhh, it will be good to be queen.

65 How long before Todd "Independent" Leva goes to Huffpo or Kos and cries about how poorly he's been treated*? As if fisking his writing is a bad thing, given what the left does every time a conservative sneezes. *Assuming he isn't already there under a nom-de-blog.

66 I can say categorigically that I DO NOT go the Huffington Post nor DailyKos. Why is it that I get called out for painting conservatives with a broad brush, but then the same wide brush is used against me? because my opinions are deemed "liberal" here, I am instantly lumped into the far left such as those on the DailyKos or Huffington Post? I do not operate under some fake name either. Todd Leva is my real name, why would I hide behind some tag name? If anything I would of hidden here, but that is not the case...

67

Alexthechick:

I first off, don’t see you as an opponent. You may have different opinions than me, you might want things ran different than me, but opponent seems to me to equate competition? Nonetheless you said, “It appears from what you've written, that you have an unstated assumption that recognition of other viewpoints will per se lead to some type of accommodation therewith.  That does not follow.  It is entirely possible to understand a different point of view, to comprehend the worldview which animates such a position and to utterly reject that conclusion.” I understand your point about rejecting a conclusion, even after understanding thoroughly where the given opinion giver is coming from. You see their point of view, understand the thought process behind it, but at the end of the day it’s this point of view that you reject, regardless if that viewpoint is based upon a rationally followed explanation, right? I have absolutely no problem with that what so ever. None. What I like is the “understanding” part. You gave it (that being the other opinion) a valid chance. That’s all I ask for. Now I will say this, your point made saying I operate under the assumption “that recognition of other viewpoints will per se lead to some type of accommodation therewith”, is not an assumption, it’s a wish, a hope if you will. I do wish that people would recognize opposing viewpoints, understand each other’s points of views and then come to some “accommodation” as you say. I do not assume though this is the case, I wish it were, but I know it’s not…

You went on to say “I believe that the interested parties need to explain their positions, make their best case and then attempt to win in the marketplace of ideas…” This was exactly my thoughts when I wrote my articles and even more so coming to this blog, even though by then I had been tagged a “hack” and my favorite, finding joy in the casualty numbers coming out of Iraq. Knowing that my thoughts were already not well received, I have continued the dialogue and been respectful every time. I too want to be in the “market place of ideas”. I find it for me though being places where there are opposing opinions, hence the word market place, equating variety, which is differing opinions. I so far have not seen that here except between me and others, although I’ll admit my evidence is scarce since I just started on here yesterday. My point is, that to me, getting your position out there into the market place means your opinion should be here, but also places where you know that your opinion may not be well received. That to me is being in the market place of ideas, not the market place of likeminded ideas, but again that’s just me…

Todd Leva

68 This was exactly my thoughts when I wrote my articles

An article in which you appear to have rejected, out of hand, the concept that Rush Limbaugh and his "ilk", your word not mine, are capable of engaging in precisely the type of understanding you now say that you find acceptable.  Unless I missed it, I have yet to see you acknowledge that Rush did present an alternate plan.  If you did address that here, my apologies.  But if you did not, well, that rather puts paid to the underpinings of your position that Rush refuses to enage in the bipartisian discussion you demand.  Rush presented the ultimate in bipartisian plans.  Yet it appears that this was either insufficient for you or you are unaware of it at all. 

If you don't like how Rush presents his thoughts, that's perfectly fine.  If you can't stand him, that's perfectly fine too.  But your article gave no credence to the concept that Rush et al are hoping for failure because, in their opinion, the consequences of Obama's plan are dire and will result in great harm to America.  Bluntly, you engaged in exactly the type of action which you claim to find so appalling.  Thus, Sean quite properly called you out on it. 

The fact that he puts his own ideology above and beyond the well being of the nation should be at least eye-opening to us all.
Rush alone is not the problem. The problem is, he is the talking head that reaches millions with his vitriolic, ideologically spun drabble, that masquerades for intelligent dialogue.

Those are your words.  Yours.  You wrote them.  I presume you stand behind them.  Those words are in direct opposition to the words you just wrote to me.  You give no quarter to the concept that Rush holds his views legitimately.  You give not the most passing lip service to the idea that he believes, passionately, in what he is saying.  You malign his positions as being less than intelligent.  Frankly, that rather diminishes what you are attempting to say now.

We need to stifle, and relegate the haters to the fringe of intelligent thought.

Again, your words.  Yours.  You wrote them.  I presume you stand behind them.  When you refer to someone you oppose as a hater, then the logical consequence is to presume those that share his views also are full of hate.  For you to take offense at being called a hack when you called those of us on the Right haters is rather rich.

Your attempts at a concillatory tone here would be more credible if you hadn't written those words.  You did.  You are being judged by them. As well you should be.

I so far have not seen that here except between me and others, although I’ll admit my evidence is scarce since I just started on here yesterday.

Most of us who regularly post or comment here do so because this is one of the few places where we will not be called haters, bigots, racists and homophobes due to our political beliefs.  Note, however, that the lack of any opposing views is not due to any policy against opposition.  If it were, you would have been banned, your comments devoweled or altered or some other such action.  Frankly, we're just not important enough to attract that much attention. 

This is a conservative blog.  Those of us who post here have strongly held opinions. We state them.  We have a point of view.  And we're damn proud of that.

69 bravo! alex.well said. of course,my imagination has me picturing you giving that smackdown while wearing your new "stompy boots".

70 Obligatory.

71 Let's try a thought experiment here, Todd, leaving political parties aside...

President _____ has just been elected.  You've heard his campaign rhetoric, and it goes against every principle you hold dear.  These are your core beliefs, and you're the kind of person who has the ability to sway a lot of people who hold similar, if not the same beliefs.  President_____ proposes a legislative program that you feel is going to harm the country in the long term.  It is anathema to you.  What do you do?

A.) Go along with it in the spirit of bipartisanship because that's nice.

or

B.) Express your hope that President _____'s agenda fails, because you think the alternative will harm the country.

72

Alexthechick:

I admit that I stand behind the words that you quoted from my writings and the subsequent writings on this post. I will be 100% honest with you. I have listen to Rush many times and I deplore him. To me he seems like a “hater”. Now I am only speaking for me, but in this, to me, he seems to be on a constant 3 hour a day diatribe about his “wisdom”, and that Democrat or others who do not believe like him are evil “liberals”. They are scorned and mocked. Again to me only, he does not seem to be interested in solutions from anyone except himself. Honestly, even being a “conservative” talk show host, shouldn’t there be at least once, when he thinks someone besides himself knows what is right or wrong?

I think though this constant talk about Rush is missing my bigger point. Rush was just an easy thing to write about because he’s out there, everyone knows who he is. But I didn’t write about him, simply because I don’t care for his style of politics, I wrote about him because to me he is a prime example of what’s wrong with politics today, and that includes the left and the right.

We have “haters” on both sides, this blog has derided the “left” as such and I personally have been attacked merely for putting forth a different view point. No I am not calling you all here haters, if you were, you would of banned me yesterday. “Haters” to me are a definable group on either side that does not want dialogue from the “other side” at all. They see the “other side” truly as evil, deserving nothing short of scorn and personal attacks. Just as others here have said that if they post their beliefs on say the Huffington Post, that they would immediately be scorned and then booted. They don’t want any type of conversation that may infringe upon what they believe to be true. They to me are like a swarm of bees, fine around their own kind, but something disturbs the nest, they attack.

This to me is what Rush encompasses, along with Ann Coulter, Keith Olberman, Michael Moore, etc. etc. They don’t want to even try and entertain the thought of understanding the “other side”. The moment Limbaugh or Coulters hears “liberal” the attacks ensue. Same with Moore or Olberman, the moment, they see that little (R) by someone’s name, to them it invokes the same reactions, ready to ridicule at a moment’s notice.

You went on to say, “Your attempts at a conciliatory tone here would be more credible if you hadn't written those words.  You did.  You are being judged by them. As well you should be.” To this, all I can say is OK, I can live with that…I wrote them, I showed up here, I can take it, I am a big boy. Fair enough?

Finally you said, “Most of us who regularly post or comment here do so because this is one of the few places where we will not be called haters, bigots, racists and homophobes due to our political beliefs.” This needs a qualifier that says you will not be called names here if those within this blog agree with your politics right? Because I have been called many…

How about we move this discussion on? We drop the Rush thing and move on to issues. Any suggestions? I am all ears…

Todd Leva

73

Sean M.

C. neither

 I work within the system, I point out the faults of the programs, not based on an ideology but on facts. I do everything I can do to see the country succeed. If that means working with the "other side" or that dreaded word "compromise" thats what I do. I let President ______, know how I feel but that I put getting America running again, over ideolgy, that I would be will to work with him, discuss alternatives, and compromise, but that we both have an over riding duty to do whats good for America and that together I am sure we can find solutions.

74 We drop the Rush thing and move on to issues. Any suggestions? I am all ears…

Sure, let's hear the Todd Leva dictator-for-life platform.  How would you run the nation if you were free to run it exactly as you please?

75 This needs a qualifier that says you will not be called names here if those within this blog agree with your politics right? Because I have been called many…

Really?  Someone here has called you a bigot?  A racist?  Accused you of being a hater?  Because I sure as hell haven't read that.  The hack comment is an evaluation of your writing and opinion as expressed in your article.  The discussion of being pleased by troop casualties or a DIJA drop was an estimate of your beliefs, which was apparently incorrect.  The only statement regarding hate came from your writing.  Trust me, if we were to start calling you names, you'd know it.

Also, as previously noted, we are Morons.  The capital letter is there for a reason.  Scorn, vituperation and mockery are the coin of the realm.  For the record?  This is probably the most profanity free thread ever in this blog.  I'm about to break into hives due to that. 

C. neither

So you do not have core beliefs that you will not compromise on?   Then how on earth can you possibly begin to have a baseline to determine what is in America's best interests?  If you do not have a well defined framework of political theory, then you have no foundation for decision making.  Some amorphous reference to what's "good for America" is meaningless.

76 "Todd Leva dictator-for-life platform" This promotes open dialogue? I will not respond to this particluar post since your mind is obviously already made up.

77 I let President ______, know how I feel but that I put getting America running again, over ideolgy, that I would be will to work with him, discuss alternatives, and compromise, but that we both have an over riding duty to do whats good for America and that together I am sure we can find solutions.

Might I remind you that in my scenario, President _____ has proposed something that I specifically said was anathema to your core beliefs?  Something you, and I quote my previous comment, "feel is going to harm the country in the long term"?

Your solution to something like that is compromise?  Good God, man.

78

So I call Rush a “hater” and that gets your ire but when someone immediately equates my beliefs with being in-line with some sicko who finds glee in the rising number of US casualties in Iraq you blow that off as nothing more than a “I guess that’s incorrect”? Really? Seriously? You are relegating the unwarranted accusation of my use of US casualty numbers in Iraq as a political weapon in some sort of sick way of helping the Democrats, and all you can say is “I guess that’s incorrect”. Nothing more, nothing less? Nothing crosses your mind like “I agree that’s over the line”? But I call a radio talk show host a hater, and this gets your goat? Really?

I have explained my “hater” comment at nauseam already. It is in my previous postings…

“So you do not have core beliefs that you will not compromise on?   Then how on earth can you possibly begin to have a baseline to determine what is in America's best interests?” I didn’t say this either. I said “I would point out the flaws of the proposed bill and work to fix them”. Also who is to say that your “core beliefs” are the correct ones in which to build a baseline on besides you? Many of people have held “core beliefs” but does that make them inherently right? As strongly as you feel about your “core beliefs” there is someone on the left who equals your strong feelings. So are you both to build baselines from what you each believe? If I say they are my “core beliefs” whether they are right or wrong has no bearing? Also once you establish what your “core beliefs” are, does this mean they are unchangeable forever? I mean when I was 6, I use to believe in my heart of hearts and would of bet my life on it that there was a Santa Claus, but now I know better, that “core belief” something I would have defended as true, changed over time. If then even “core beliefs” change over time, then how “core” are they? Is it not human nature to mature and learn as we grow older, inherently changing some beliefs that we held while younger, but now see the error of our ways?

Todd Leva

79

"Your solution to something like that is compromise?  Good God, man"

in this instance, yes, I would compromise, first off I as an elected official am there to represent my people. Its not me v. him. I do whats best for the people who voted me in, not whats best for just me. I work at the bill, come to a compromise, and live to fight another day. At no time are you going to get a perfect bill. We have seen here on this blog people admit they voted for McCain even though he was not "perfect", is that not a form of compromise? even if in the form of "lesser of two evils"? I am sorry to dissappoint you, but I think alot more can be accomplished with a little more give and take than the winner takes all mentality that permeates politics today. Again, its just how I FEEL...

Todd Leva

80 This promotes open dialogue? I will not respond to this particluar post since your mind is obviously already made up.

Yes it does numbnuts, it's not some negative thing, you've never had someone ask what you'd do as dictator-for-life?  I'm just asking if you could run the country however the hell you wanted, how would you do it?

81 I never posited that you were an elected official.  I was suggesting that you were someone more like, oh, say, Rush Limbaugh.

82 Really? Seriously? You are relegating the unwarranted accusation of my use of US casualty numbers in Iraq as a political weapon in some sort of sick way of helping the Democrats, and all you can say is “I guess that’s incorrect”.

I am pleased to hear that you agree that's sick.  To say the accusation was unwarranted, however, is to ignore the reality of media comments over the last several years.  Should that accusation have been hurled at you immediately?  No.  Do people have an itchy trigger finger on that?  Yes, I will grant you that.  But an incorrect assumption about your position on the continuum of reporters is not the same as shrieking RACIST because there's an (R) after someone's name.  Note, I am not saying that you did that at all. 

And, yeah, I think calling an entire spectrum of conservative thought hate and referring it as not actually being intelligent as being across the line.  You think it's fair game.  Fine. 

As far as the core beliefs argument, I repeat Sean's comment.  Good God, man.  His hypothetical was that the proposed policy was something that was anathema to whatever core beliefs you do have.  Your response was still to seek compromise.  You can attempt to change the subject all you want, but you tipped your hand right there.  You think everything's on the table.  I don't. There are lines to be drawn.  There are things where I say this and no more.  And, yes, if Obama, or anyone else for that matter, is driving through a policy which crosses that line, I want it to fail.  No.  I want Epic Fail.  And I'm proud of that. 

So are you both to build baselines from what you each believe?

Seriously?  You're seriously asking that?  Holy hell, the entire concept of political theory is based on doing exactly that.  For pity's sake, if people didn't there would be nothing to argue about.  There would be no need for compromise if there weren't opposing positions. 

83 By the way, I never thought this would become the longest comment thread EVAR!!!1!1!!one!eleventy!! on this blog.  Good times.  Good times.

84 By the way, I never thought this would become the longest comment thread EVAR!!!1!1!!one!eleventy!! on this blog.  Good times.  Good times.

Well, comments are down at the Head Moron's so I have nothing better to do.  That and I got sick of the zombies eating my head in L4D. 

85 Well, comments are down at the Head Moron's so I have nothing better to do.

You know you just love my company, my devilish good looks, and my sparkling wit.  Make all the excuses you like.

86 You know you just love my company, my devilish good looks, and my sparkling wit.  Make all the excuses you like.

I was trying to be coy and ladylike.  Stop.  That.  Laughing.  I can too be ladylike.  I CAN.  STOP THAT LAUGHING RIGHT NOW!

87 *snigger*

(RACIST!)

88 Honestly, I can't stand commenting at AoS anymore.

89 I've been thinking that with $2000 in damage, I may have hit a unicorn with my Mini and not a raccoon.....hmmm....no wonder mine is missing. 

90 Honestly, I can't stand commenting at AoS anymore.

I've learned when to bail immediately on a thread.  Dude, when I think people need to step away from teh crazy, that's pretty much an assurance that things have crossed the line.

91 As far as the core beliefs argument, I repeat Sean's comment. Good God, man. His hypothetical was that the proposed policy was something that was anathema to whatever core beliefs you do have. Your response was still to seek compromise. You can attempt to change the subject all you want, but you tipped your hand right there. You think everything's on the table. I don't. There are lines to be drawn. There are things where I say this and no more. And, yes, if Obama, or anyone else for that matter, is driving through a policy which crosses that line, I want it to fail. No. I want Epic Fail. And I'm proud of that.

What alexthechick said. I couldn't have said it any better. Todd may be an advocate of bipartisanship, but he's also exhibit A as to why bipartisanship has, frankly, fucked us for the not-too-distant future.

92 I am late to the party, and have nothing to add to the Todd bit, however I would like to posit something and ask your opinion.
I think it boils down to world view. Gradually over the past 30 or even 50 years the world view of the left and the right has become diametrically opposed. Take for example the life question. (I am not trying to stir the pot, just illustrate)  The left applaud, and encourage abortion as if it is a good thing and something to be cherished. The right see it as a taking of the life of a (innocent) human being and abhor it.

How can there be a middle ground on that?
(that was more rhetorical, but if you have a opinion please go there)  and lastly, how do we, or even, can we, bridge this divide? Or converge our world views?

Or is it irretrievably broken ?

93

"Take for example the life question."

I understand its tough to see common ground here. I am not even sure you can get to a common ground on an issue like this. One side says "life", the other says "choice". There really is not alot of wiggle room here, because you either abort or you don't, you can't sorta abort, or partially abort. I understand the arguments for and against abortions. I for one am not for them, but that is based on my religion, nor would I recommend or support decisions by others to have an abortion. But why is it that when we talk about compromise, we start out with thee toughest of issues, why can't we start out small, build some trust, and work on issues were there is wiggle room? Why must it automatically go to abortion, gay marriage, etc.? I am not sure we even want government solving some of these issues, they seem to me to be moral issues, and who wants government doing that job?

94 But Todd: for the most part, pro-life Democrats have been marginalized or now are Republicans. Take, for instance, my former Congressman, Richard Gephardt. He ran in the early 70s as a "Pro-Life Democrat" right after Roe V Wade came out. But once he wanted to aspire to something more than a backbencher role, he embraced NOW and NARAL, and the gobs of cash they brought with them.

95 And Todd: We may be circling back, but from 2001 until 1-20-09, Democrats were highly invested in failure of war/economy/whatever. Hell, I recall Gephardt in 2002 cheering the DJIA drop, because he claimed every 100 point drop equaled "x" number of seats regained in the House. And the cheerful tones the Dems used whenever a soldier was killed or a company laid off workers convinced me that they only wanted failure themselves. And, for that matter, much of the media gleefully aired jihadi videos of them killing Americans. And you think it's only the GOP of the last month that has been rooting for failure? We want the country to strive and win. Too bad your side explicitly wanted the opposite for the last 8 years.

96 Honestly, I can't stand commenting at AoS anymore.

::sulk::

97

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at February 22, 2009 12:14 PM

Awwwww.    I wanted to comment there last week, but I can't comment from my work computer.  It was one of your posts and everything.

98 Um, you can partially abort a baby.  It's called partial birth abortion, where the baby is partially delivered, then killed.  It's a practice that Pat Moynihan called "too close to infanticide".  It's a practice Obama has repeatedly spoken out against.  And a practice that, if the baby somehow manages to survive, would still be killed after the fact if Obama had anything to say about it.

I'm still stymied by how someone who considers themselves anti-abortion could have pulled the lever for Obama.  And how they can't be sick to their stomachs that one of the first things Obama did upon taking office was start to fund foreign clinics that preach abortion.  Apparently sending cash off to foreign countries to abort their babies is more important than addressing the economy.  Maybe it doesn't matter as much that it's foreign babies being aborted since it's not your own daughter, sister, wife.

Why must it automatically go to abortion, gay marriage, the big issues? Why was the Mexico City policy reversed the first few days Obama was in office?  Answer the second question, you'll have your answer to the first.

99
I thought maybe someone could attack this too... read it in its entirety and and make up your own mind...

I'd be more inclined to read your work in its entirety if you hadn't taken Limbaugh out of context in the first place. "Hack" is far too polite a term.

100
Honestly, I can't stand commenting at AoS anymore.
Word.

101
Honestly, I can't stand commenting at AoS anymore.
Word.

102
I guess that's two words.

103
...and no italics on the quote from Eddie's comment.

104

"for the most part, pro-life Democrats have been marginalized or now are Republicans."

"We may be circling back, but from 2001 until 1-20-09, Democrats were highly invested in failure of war/economy/whatever. Hell, I recall Gephardt in 2002 cheering the DJIA drop, because he claimed every 100 point drop equaled "x" number of seats regained in the House. And the cheerful tones the Dems used whenever a soldier was killed or a company laid off workers convinced me that they only wanted failure themselves"

Here we go again trying to fit me into the "democrat" box. I am not a Democrat, remember? I am an indepndent...

"Too bad your side explicitly wanted the opposite for the last 8 years."

Once again, I dont have a "my side"...

105

"I'd be more inclined to read your work in its entirety if you hadn't taken Limbaugh out of context in the first place..."

These arguments are starting to run in circles. Let's just say for arguments sake, I did, God forbid, take the all mighty Rush Limbaugh "out of context", ok? Your anger towards me is based upon this assumption. fair enough, I say he is a "hater" you like him, you like his message, you like the things he says, and you think he has a plan for America. Fine, I'll give you this too, ok? But why is it consistently ok here on this blog, to not even make the mistake of taking me out of context, but to ignore my words and consistently lump me in with the far left? Why do my beliefs make me a "hack", or why must I be a part of some left wing conspiracy that loves the high casualty numbers out of Iraq? How on one side can your anger be fired by an out of context statement on my part, but your anger is no where to be found here towards those who consistently ignore my statements of belief, or the fact that my beliefs are derided as "crap", "liberal", etc. etc.

106 Well, that's kinda the thing, other than voting for Dear Leader, and noting squeamishness about Porkulus and being pro-life, we don't have a hell of a lot to go on, hence the dictator-for-life platform question.  Beyond that, we need to know what your guiding philosophy is, or at least is based on.  Arguments become circular without new information.

107 Why do my beliefs make me a "hack",

I made the first comment on this post.  In that comment, I noted that Rush had, in fact, offered a plan.  To this point, I have not see you addressing that.  Again, if you have and I missed it, my apologies. 

I have the following question for you:

In an oped published in the WSJ on January 29, 2009, Rush set out in detail his economic plan.  Were you aware of this when you wrote your article?  If not, please explain how you could come to a reasonable conclusion as to whether or not Rush attempted to set out a bipartisan and productive plan?  If so, please explain how you could, in good faith, state that Rush does not address other viewpoints when he does so in the text of the oped itself?

My opinion that the hack comment is full warranted is based on a perception that you appear to have reached a conclusion about Rush's comments without even pretending to acknowledge that Rush did exactly and precisely what you claim he did not.  That's pretty close to the Platonic ideal of hackdom  right there.

Your wide eyed shock and surprise that people will be angry with you when you call them haters and unintelligent is incredibly disengenous.  I don't think a single person here is saying that you shouldn't be angry or have taken offense at words you find beyond the pale.  But you chose to write that article, you chose to come here and interact.  If you don't want criticism, then don't speak.  When you do?  Be prepared for the consequences. 

108
These arguments are starting to run in circles.

Yeah, sorry. I was busy yesterday.

I say he is a "hater" you like him, you like his message, you like the things he says, and you think he has a plan for America. Fine, I'll give you this too, ok?

As for me personally, you don't need to give me the extras; I'm not a big fan of his. I'll be more than satisfied if you simply treat his position accurately, rather than creating a strawman to attack. Limbaugh's point was that he didn't want Obama's to succeed because the long-term damage to the country would far exceed the benefits of short-term relief. It had nothing to do with hating Obama or wanting America to suffer.

Except as framed by the opportunistic liberal media.

109

Abortion – generally against, just seems like there’s better alternatives, I know there are stipulations, incest, rape, mom’s life, etc. that people agree on or disagree on…

Immigration- build a fence, protect the border no matter the cost. Those here illegally, are ILLEGAL, and they should not be rewarded. Although I understand the logic saying we cannot deport 12 million illegals, I too am not sure if this is feasible? I dislike the “undocumented” tag the media portrays. It is a law issue, enforce the law, period.

War in Afghanistan – Totally supported

War in Iraq – did not support, Saddam had as much to do with 9/11 as Canada did. But I want us to do whatever it takes to win. A defeat in Iraq would be devastating. We cannot just pullout to heed some politician’s whim, nor do I think Obama will. We will be there for decades to come (in some fashion) regardless who is in office.

Gay marriage – I am for it, because I really don’t care, but am nervous to where that leads? Slippery slope sort of thing…I would prefer “gay unions” but I know some in the gay community want the word “marriage”. Yes I have gay friends, no I am not gay, been married for 11 years now…

The economy – at this point I truly would be guessing. I am no economist and could not intelligently tell you how to fix things. I have personally been laid off since January. It sucks but it could be worse, my wife is the bread winner anyhow. I have taken the chance to go back to school and get my Masters degree…

Religion – believer in Jesus Christ, go to church every weekend, non denominational church. Just began training for a mentor program mentoring troubled teens in my area. Thought, I have all this free time, why not put some of it to good use. The people who run this particular organization are truly angels who consistently do God’s work. I am in awe of their faith, courage, and spirit.

Gitmo – Probably a good thing that it’s closed. Not a bad PR move, but these people are going to have to be housed somewhere. NOT on American soil, they do not deserve access to US courts, although I am against detaining them indefinitely without counsel of some sort.

US military – I hold no other people to a higher esteem than the folks that make up the US military. I wish I had half the courage, bravery, dedication, and sense of service that these fine people do. They deserve nothing but admiration and our dear thanks, for when you strip it all down, they fight for the right that allows us to post on here anything we want. And it is true we lay our heads down every night under their blanket of protection. I will stand in awe of them for the rest of my life.

America in general – Not an America basher. No I don’t think America is inherently bad. Yes we have made mistakes but all in all I think we have done infinitely more good than bad. When we do make mistakes I don’t hide behind them, I’ll say so, point them out and hope we learn from them. I still think this is the greatest country on the planet, and if anything Obama proves the American dream. I don’t think most Americans want a nanny state. They don’t want hand outs. They just want a fair shot, the playing field to be level, and bureaucratic red tape to stay out of their way. They want to do something that makes them proud, provide for those they love, and see to it that their kids have a shot. Pretty simple if you ask me, but nonetheless still eloquently beautiful and inspiring.  

110 How about gun control?

111 Gun control - Pro 2nd amendment, I think the 2nd amendment allows me to have a gun for the protection of my family and home. Don't see a need for military style weapons, but don't think the government should tell me which I can own or not as long as I am not breaking any existing laws or a convicted fellon. Gun control to me seems to only control law abiding citizens...

112

Foreign Policy - I know it is somewhat "fantasy" but while studying for my under grad in Politcal Science I came across this speech by John Adams. It's at least something to apsire to. But I know that with globalization, growing threats, and an ever shrinking world in general, it would be tough, but I like it nonetheless...

John Quincy Adams on U.S. Foreign Policy

U.S. Secretary of State,

Speech to the U.S. House of Representatives on July 4, 1821, in celebration of American Independence Day.

AND NOW, FRIENDS AND COUNTRYMEN, if the wise and learned philosophers of the elder world, the first observers of nutation and aberration, the discoverers of maddening ether and invisible planets, the inventors of Congreve rockets and Shrapnel shells, should find their hearts disposed to enquire what has America done for the benefit of mankind? Let our answer be this: America, with the same voice which spoke herself into existence as a nation, proclaimed to mankind the inextinguishable rights of human nature, and the only lawful foundations of government. America, in the assembly of nations, since her admission among them, has invariably, though often fruitlessly, held forth to them the hand of honest friendship, of equal freedom, of generous reciprocity. She has uniformly spoken among them, though often to heedless and often to disdainful ears, the language of equal liberty, of equal justice, and of equal rights. She has, in the lapse of nearly half a century, without a single exception, respected the independence of other nations while asserting and maintaining her own. She has abstained from interference in the concerns of others, even when conflict has been for principles to which she clings, as to the last vital drop that visits the heart. She has seen that probably for centuries to come, all the contests of that Aceldama the European world, will be contests of inveterate power, and emerging right.Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. She will commend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example. She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom. The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force.She might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit.America’s glory is not dominion, but liberty. Her march is the march of the mind. She has a spear and a shield: but the motto upon her shield is, Freedom, Independence, Peace. This has been her Declaration: this has been, as far as her necessary intercourse with the rest of mankind would permit, her practice.

 

113 Well it appears to me Todd is a moderate. (do not get excited Todd, I am not a regular here) I did hear Rush say what he said, and Todd misrepresented it. Perhaps Todd only listened to the sound bites.

While there may be no need for military style weapons. I will not give up a inch on allowing anyone who wants one to have one. We are not allowed to have Full Auto weapons *I know about class III licenses not my intention here* That is the difference

How a weapon looks does not make it any more or less dangerous.

114

Hence my agreeing statment on "military style" weapons...

115 Gabe: It's not you, it's the new breed that have taken over.

116 I meant taken over in the comments.

117
Actually, as a favor to TL, you ought to remove his email address and, with his permission, give him a moniker. He doesn't understand how dangerous what he's doing is.

118 I wish I could edit comments, but I can't, I may just hide the one with the email, because you're right, having it out there is not a good idea, if for no other reason than he'll be overrun by spambots.

119 If you're gonna post email, make a dummy email that you don't mind getting hate/spam mail.  My regular readers are pretty cool so you shouldn't have any problems (though let me know if you do), but I can't account for random people who stumble in here.

120
You should mention the part about it only taking about 5 minutes to get his address and place of employment, Google images of his house, and anything he's ever written on the web. And that hiring managers now routinely search the web for your name. And that people have actually called up employers to complain about something employees wrote on the web.