California Young Americans for Freedom (YAF) leader Ryan Sorba was booed at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) when he said CPAC shouldn't have allowed the gay group GOProud [a coalition of gay Republicans] to be there. Here's the YouTube:
Alexander McCobin of Students for Liberty provoked Sorba's comments by saying in his own short speech:
"In the name of freedom, I would like to thank the American Conservative Union for welcoming GOProud as a co-sponsor of this event, not for any political reason but for the message it sendsâ¦.Students today recognize that freedom does not come in pieces. Freedom is a single thing that applies to the social as well as the economic realms and should be defended at all times."
McCobin also drew some boos, but they were drowned out by applause. CPAC is the largest annual gathering of the hard-right wing of the Republican party. This represents progress.
After the GOP makes expected big congressional gains this coming November, lobbying within the libertarian wing of the Republican party will be vitally important. But don't count on the big-name "progressive" LGBT groups to bother with anything remotely like constructive engagement.
Corvino, John
{ 85 comments }
← Previous Comments
Jorge, I’m not sure to whom you are replying in your last post.
That was addressed to you.
Are you actually — seriously — under the misconception that (A) all libertarians are young, or that (B) libertarianism is somehow “liberal?”
No on both counts. However, you are suggesting that young Republicans are libertarian-learning, and I’m agreeable to that. Perhaps I am adding my impression that young Republicans are more liberal than older Republicans.
However, if the current Republican party has a strong and large wing of ex-liberals and neoconservatives–that used to actually control the party–it seems to me that it is likely that the people who are young Republicans today will be pushed out of power years from now by people who are young liberals today.
I don’t need any lectures about the supposed starry-eyed impracticality of the notion that returning this country to the principles upon which it was founded — a country owned by us, instead of one that thinks it owns us — being some sort of feckless, youthful notion.
That’s your opinion.
No one familiar with the history of the conservative movement would actually confuse neocons with real conservatives.
I am neither identifying neocons as the same as conservatives nor am I making any confused statements. However you seem to be confusing Republicans with conservatives, which is shameful indeed. It is obvious that I struck a nerve, which suggests that I must be onto something.
Of course, I knew that already.
Actually they started out as communists in the THIRTIES. It was the Fifties when they completed their great conversion to “conservatism.”
Read. Read widely. Please do not assume that when we graduate from one of those centers of statist indoctrination — the public school system — our education is complete.
You may protest that you always went to private school. But if you’ve been exposed to the mainstream media for any length of time, much of whatever you were able to learn in school has been layered over with years — perhaps decades — of propaganda.
Again, please study history before assuming that libertarians are nothing but the pack of youthful savages you seem to think they are. They have a long and proud tradition, and it is well deserving not only of study, but of emulation.
I must say, I object to being talked down to by someone who is exibiting symptoms of typing under the influence of hallucinigenic substances.
Yes of course, Jorge. Anyone whose experience differs from your own must be “under the influence of hallucinogenic substances.”
“[Y]ou seem to be confusing Republicans with conservatives…”
Not all of them, only the neocons you seem to think have a deathgrip on the party. The fact that so many self-identified independents lean Republican (and surely not all of them are young) should tell you something about how many people felt themselves to have been exiled from the GOP while the neocons dominated. These people seem ready, now, to take their party back. If they are successful, you will find that the neocon influence is greatly reduced from that time on.
What sort of “something” are you on to? Probably that I, like many gays and lesbians, would like a political option that reflects the real convictions of all of us who are not content to be slaves on the “progressive” plantation. Sorry that isn’t dark and cryptic enough for you, but there it is. Some of us feel quite strongly about the fact that we, too, believe we have been exiled from a movement in which we rightfully belong.
Not scandalously Freudian enough to suit you? Sorry.
You seem to be suggesting that because those in the GOP, and on the Right in general, who don’t want gays there still hold a powerful influence, all those more inclined to work with us must be young whippersnappers who will grow up someday when they experience real life and hate us as much as Grandpa did. If so, you have an honored place in the Amen corner occupied by Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, Randi Rhodes and the others who will no doubt spin our encouraging reception at CPAC in a way that says, “don’t believe your lying eyes and ears…they still hate you! They really, really hate you!”
Many people, including me, are getting tired of that sort of crap.
I suggest that you take a chill pill, relax, and take your own advice about not making silly assumptions about people who are trying to have an intellectual conversation with you. You’re usually good at saying that, but it seems when someone says something you don’t like, you’re not too good at doing it.
Well I can be plenty arrogant when I want to be, too. I really am that good.
“Well I can be plenty arrogant when I want to be, too. I really am that good.”
I’m terrified. Really just quaking in my butch-issue Army boots.
I did not mean to imply there’s anything criminal about thinking that young Republicans are more liberal than older ones. Socially, it’s true.
I am just wary, in general, of making too much out of that claim. When they’re polled, the younger ones generally show themselves to be not left-liberal, but libertarian.
The reason for this is that they are not as callow as youngsters in most other generations have been. The government started fleecing them back when they were in their cradles, and they know that. This accounts, I think, for why they’re much savvier about economics than the Baby Boomers were at their age.
On an individual basis, older Repubs are less reactionary than they’re usually seen as being.
After I came out, every “progressive” I knew told me I didn’t dare to tell my parents — because they were evil Republicans, don’t you know, who would leave me for roadkill.
I wasn’t sure how they’d react, because they were pretty conservative. I took my friends’ advice for a few years, then decided I needed to give my folks the benefit of a doubt.
My dad — the one my friends were sure was too evil to accept me (being both a Republican AND a man) — was fine with it, and quite supportive until he died a couple of years later. My mom, who probably always would have been fine with it, had Alzheimer’s, by that time, and didn’t even remember my name.
I tend not to listen, any longer, when people offer me cut-and-dried dismissals of older people for any reason: because they’re Republicans, because they’re men, or for whatever other reason. I’m also adamant that a new generation of kids not buy into that sort of propaganda. It surrounds us like the very air we breathe, but it has the potential to do tremendous damage — and to be tremendously wrong.
I no longer believe we should underestimate anybody on the basis of group tendencies. There’s something to be said about individualism — the libertarian concept of treating each person like an individual. Whether they are young or old.
I can sympathize with your story, Lori. My parents are liberals with issues such as abortion, gun control, health care and being accepted by them as gay is still a struggle for them. Of course, progressives are so self-righteous, they think “we are compassionate, we are tolerant, but everyone else is not.”
Progressives also suffer from paranoia, when Dick Chenney decided to support repealing DADT I saw liberals saying “republicans will do anything for a vote.” And when a poll showed that even people who don’t agree with homosexuality support repealing DADT, a progressive wrote “We are good enough to possibly DIE (thereby perhaps saving the life of a heterosexual service member) – but we are NOT good enough to have the same equal rights as thsoe heterosexual service members when we are not in harms way.”
http://advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2010/02/23/Poll_Antigay_But_For_DADT_Repeal/
Are Independents Really Republicans?
Bobby, I must totally concur that the Far Left has a special brand of hatred for their “enemies” that you will not find anywhere to compare.
One has only to read this quote from Jonathan Chait which Andrew Sullivan has referenced here:
****************************************
“I hate President George W. Bush. There, I said it … He reminds me of a certain type I knew in high school–the kid who was given a fancy sports car for his sixteenth birthday and believed that he had somehow earned it. I hate the way he walks–shoulders flexed, elbows splayed out from his sides like a teenage boy feigning machismo. I hate the way he talks–blustery self-assurance masked by a pseudo-populist twang. I even hate the things that everybody seems to like about him. I hate his lame nickname-bestowing– a way to establish one’s social superiority beneath a veneer of chumminess (does anybody give their boss a nickname without his consent?). And, while most people who meet Bush claim to like him, I suspect that, if I got to know him personally, I would hate him even more.”
****************************************
You just don’t see this kind of puerile sludge from alleged professionals very often.
One has to admit, looking back, there was no deeper hatred than from the Left for GWB.
You’re moved to laughter when hearing complaints about those who criticize Obama now.
So we hate you?! BFD. And your momma dresses you funny too. So what? We know you hate us right back. We know you hold our values in contempt; well, right back at ya’. Beyond that melodrama, I’d rather talk about what is right and what is decent and what is expected in and of an exceptional nation to afford its people.
“You’re moved to laughter when hearing complaints about those who criticize Obama now.”
—Yeah, with Obama we hate his policies, his arrogance, the progressives he likes appointing and his history. We also hair the way the mainstream media treats him, how they make excuses for him, how comedians like John Stewart and Bill Maher are still ridiculing Bush and conservatives when instead they should be ridiculing Obama.
Honestly, why can’t Comedy Central fine the libertarian/conservative version of John Stewart? Because Colbert is certainly not it. Well, thank God for Rush Limbaugh and his funny songs.
This is one of my favorites:
We Hate the USA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04BgdeMQZNg
After reading sites that span the spectrum (IGF, Gay Patriot, Bilerico Report, towleroad, etc., and ‘non-gay’ sites: National Review, NYT, Alternet, etc…) – I would have to disagree with Debrah.
One thing both ‘sides’ share is their contempt for the other. It is difficult to find any conversations where ideas aren’t poisoned with emotion, where too often facts take a back seat to some idealogical deathmatch.
And I haven’t found any real distinction between conservatives/neocons/libertarians vs progressives/liberals/’socialists’.
Oftentimes the banter is amusing, there are moments when valid points are made.
Opinions are valid, necessary, to be desired. And strong belief systems (pollitical, religious, whatever) have value to me as well.
But reading most any comment section of most online sites is like walking into a carnival’s mirror funhouse. Nothing is ‘objective’, everything is slightly skewed, distorted to some great and gross effect. Amusing, even revealing, but no view is more real than another.
Bobby–
I didn’t get a hit with the link you left.
This one I did see, however.
It’s so funny because San Francisco is always depicted that way.
And, of course much of this type of grotesquerie is there; however, every time I visit I have a much more eclectic experience.
The last time I was in San Francisco I ran into Jerry Brown at a coffee shop on the corner of California St. and Divisadero.
He had a cashmere sweater tied around his shoulders—preppy style—and was chatting with an assistant. And, of course, I had to begin chatting with him as well.
He’s more charming than he comes off on cable.
I had been shopping and galavanting.
And I always try to visit every corner of the city when I’m there.
That day after shopping and snacking and (drinking vino!) at Union Square, I took a taxi to Castro and had some clams on the half shell.
Walking back to Nob Hill most of the way, I stopped at that coffee shop at the corner of Divisadero.
The Castro District is, most definitely, full of people who are in a kind of retro fog and seem not to have evolved from those days of Harvey Milk; however, I always find it welcoming and fun.
I didn’t see any NAMBLA parades while there, thank heavens. LOL!
I always stay on Nob Hill which a much different atmosphere.
In addition, I want you to answer a question for me…..since I know you spend a lot of time reading and checking out the strangeness of life. Ha!
While I was having a lunch in Castro, this most amazingly beautiful man was standing nearby chatting with friends. He had my coloring, with long dark hair as well—(similar to the former locks of Omar Wasow, but he was much more handsome).
Everything about him was almost perfect. A great toned and lean body……but……his hands were claws.
Perhaps this condition.
It was surreal….simply because he was so great looking and the fact that his hands were like lobster claws made him seem all the more “unworldly”.
Anyway, I suppose many like that guy flock to a place like San Francisco because so many people there are on the edge.
In any case, I’ve always found it to be a beautiful city…..even with all its obvious problems which it shares with Seattle.
“One thing both ‘sides’ share is their contempt for the other.”
*************************************
That is no doubt true, Aubrey; however, the real issue here is how those views and that “contempt” are covered and how they are highlighted or played down by the media and those who make important decisions for other people in this country.
As you might have gleaned, I express my opinions openly and rarely hold back, even when they are controversial and unpopular.
And…..I’ve always been a registered Democrat and used to be much more liberal—until I began paying closer attention to the issues—than I am now.
Every time, without fail, when I would express strong disagreement with conservatives, NOT ONE ever tried to censor those opinions or rabidly attack me.
However, I can cite many occasions when Liberals have done exactly that.
Although it’s true that there are rabid ideologues on both sides, no other group is more dictatorial and can entertain opposing views the least than the Far Left.
That’s been my experience to this very day.
Do you think some of those Lefty and goofy gay blogs could take someone as strong as ND30 and allow him his facts?
Debrah,
My experience has been not as one-sided as yours. I have found several sites where opposing views are freely expressed, and responded to.
But unfortunately, most of those views (on either side) are expressed in a loud voice, with no room for any truth but their own.
So, yes, the ‘goofy gay blogs’ you describe have given space to people like NDT (though I know he had a problem with towleroad, I think it was…).
As a counter example – have you spent much time reading ‘National Review’? While I find opinions and perspectives I wouldn’t find anywhere else, to think that NR is welcoming would be a stretch.
Converseley, some of the far out lefty sites do have their regulars who work to incite the crowd. And make very valid points in doing so.
I just don’t find the qualitive difference in ‘political’ discourse you seem to find. It seems to me too much of our dialogue is hampered and/or handicapped by stridently partisan language. I can’t honestly give the Left or the Right any pass on this one.
And I think people tend to see what they want to see when it comes to the ‘national media’.
I don’t find widespread bias as much as I find bland, boring, insipid regurgitation of gossip. But maybe that’s what I want to see.
BTW, you mention NDT. This probably isn’t the place to go into this (since I’ve just referenced boring gossipmongers), but what the hey.
I have read NDT’s angry and venomous comments and critiques in IGF for quite a while (I don’t say this as a criticism, but as a description.) And I would always skip the links. One day I decided to follow all the links in a comment – and there were several.
I was ‘cringe-ready’ – expecting to find horrible examples of the whole gay community doing the most abhorrent things.
But a funny thing happened on the way to my cringing… The links didn’t support NDT’s claims.
So, I then decided to do a little research into NDT and his own blog.
I was genuinely surprised at what I found.
In his blog’s archives was a man who describes himself as a “bear”, or perhaps ‘bear-loving’. NDT referred to the man he loves in his life as his “husband” (whether legal or not, I don’t know).
Pictures of NDT ‘modeling’ – ‘tastefully erotic’ to use your phrase, Debrah. Southern exposure, if you know what I mean.
Dialogue and banter with regular visitors to his blog that can only be described as civil, even when some of these regulars disagreed with him.
Now there was a wealth of the NDT postings we have all come to know, no doubt about it.
But I’m taking too much time to say that the impression I got from his own blog – and I perused years worth of history on his site – was totally different from what I find portrayed in his visits to IGF, to Gay Patriot, etc…
To apply my standards to myself, I don’t know if this difference is in my eyes.
Or if there isn’t some rhetorical device involved in NDT’s postings as a visitor/commentator.
But I was intrigued.
And now to try and tie this back to my original point.
Both left and right are equally vocal, and equally vicious (in my eye) towards those that don’t tow the line, wherever it is drawn (and the line is always in flux, it seems.)
But this rabid quality tends to restrict ideas, rather than give them free reign.
I found myself much more open to hearing NDT’s ideas when I found him to be a person, rather than an idealogical battering ram.
The rapid fire use of links that maybe do/don’t support his anger and frustrations are not anywhere as effective a rhetorical tool as the voice I found in his own blog – a slightly more measured one, acting as a ‘moderator’ of sorts on his own site.
Not to get sidetracked on NDT.
And to answer your final question – I have not found a site where a comment from someone of the ‘opposing’ side is not met with scorn and disdain. You can sit back and wait for the name-calling to begin (on both sides). Personal attacks, gross generalizations, anger, until finally one side in the thread just quits.
Resolution is to be achieved not by debating an idea until there is an agreement of some sort (even to agree to disagree), but by somehow browbeating the opposing comment into silence.
I have seen it on this site – and it happens frequently. And I have seen it on others.
And a further response to your final question would be that my impression is NDT doesn’t want to be “allowed” his facts, he wants to win. And the same is true for any ‘Left’ visitor to the ‘Right’ sites.
Looks like the GOP has another “maverick” on its hands in the guise of Sen. Scott Brown. Right wingers are apoplectic over his apostasy.
http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2010/02/24/scott-brown-not-the-man-they-thought-hed-be
Aubrey–
I must confess that I don’t usually read the comment sections of most websites, including NRO. Perhaps I should, but there’s only so much time in a day!
I go there for a particular report or a column by such masters of current events as Charles Krauthammer. And I go to Slate and Vanity Fair for commentary by Christopher Hitchens…….among so many others.
You make very good points regarding the culture of the commentariat on any given website or blog. As with human nature, in general, we all come to life’s pages carrying our own individual experiences.
With regard to IGF, I find it impossible to believe that if I were Far Left and viciously opposed everything that ND30 writes that he would behave toward me the way one or two commenters (who appeared to be very Liberal) have on a few occasions here. FYI, one even tried to leave a home address as an attempt of harassment, but it wound up being the home address and information of a woman who has the same last name, by marriage.
Do you see how utterly dirty something like that is? How cowardly and trashy? I contacted the woman and warned her and I also contacted my attorney in case that same person tries something like that again and actually posts home addresses that might be accurate.
The consequences are staggering.
I would advise anyone else to be on guard and do the same thing when you run into people like that. Your attorney can contact their ISP and get their identities and they will have many legal problems as a result.
And no, Aubrey. I have only witnessed this type of cowardly “debate” from a Liberal.
Not people like ND30.
But if I checked out some of those comment sections as you have, I’m sure there would be such cases.
The whole issue is one of decent debate. One should be able to express themselves as they wish, but when someone crosses legal lines, I’d say it’s time for an adjustment.
By the way, you have intrigued me with the information about ND30′s blog. LOL!
Jimmy–
Scott Brown is very wise to refrain from partisanship for partisanship’s sake.
He does want to get re-elected in 2012, after all.
“…..though I know he had a problem with towleroad, I think it was…”
*******************************************
Really? The “toll road” that seems to stay in bartender gossip mode couldn’t handle him?
ND30 is too much “man” and will, no doubt, totally intimidate someone like that and the commentariat on his site.
From ND30′s blog, I see that he mentions Pam’s House Blend as another one who can’t take his presence. Who is surprised by that?
A loudmouth with the most tendentious way of looking at every issue and who also seems to reside in permanent gossip mode. Quite a vapid destination.
Someone like ND30 must simply perplex them as well as scare the heck out of them.
If his info is accurate, he’d be a woman killer if he were a straight man.
Most gay men—(you excluded, Aubrey, because I find you not only thoughtful and intelligent, but someone who should be the model of “gay” when they try to push SSM)—can’t take someone as strong and as honest, as well as relentless, as ND30.
Lastly, I didn’t do an archival journey, so was not able to find the “erotica” you mention. LIS!!!
Interesting video you posted, Debrah, I only watched part of it, it’s true depressing to watch progressives without the Glenn Beck filter, otherwise is like doing 99% pure heroin when you’re used to 40% pure (I learned that from “The Stand” by Stephen King).
Aubrey, I don’t think both sides are the same. The left wants to turn this country into a Marxist utopia while the right wants to go back to the constitutionalist views of the founders. That doesn’t mean the right is going to bring back slavery or put gays in concentration camps, what it means is that we’re going to do our best to stop the changes Obama wants.
Socialism doesn’t work, have you read about what’s happening in Greece? The government has huge debts, the euro has made them less competitive and now the young people don’t want the austerity measures the government is proposing.
http://www.eubusiness.com/news-eu/greece-finance-us.2v4
If the San Francisco Marxists got their way, education, healthcare, housing, and pretty much everything else would be “free” and paid for by higher income, sales taxes, consumption taxes, alcohol taxes, death taxes and every tax scheme you can imagine.
I believe in capitalism. For example, Las Vegas has had a lot of foreclosures yet the low prices have brought in so many people into the market that now the deals are going away.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704269004575073260976528540.html
That’s the nature of capitalism, we have up and downs. So why bail out companies? All the airlines that got bailed out ended up declaring bankruptcy. Have you looked at the Toyota hearings? How dare does the US Congress which owns Chrysler and GM complain about a financially sound company with a few problems, problems they’re dealing with WITHOUT government help. Progressives think we’re stupid, that we have short memories, but the reality is we don’t. Toyota did not become #1 by making crappy products, and if we’re going to look at recalls we should look at the hundreds of thousands of recalls the big three have had.
All conservatives and libertarians want is for the government to get out of the way, stop regulating everything, and let the free market correct itself no matter who gets hurt. This is America, you have the right to pursue happiness, not the right to be happy. You want socialism? Get it from your parents, let them pay for your college if they want. Don’t have a place to stay? Go to a church-based homeless shelter. What America isn’t supposed to be is a welfare state where people get taken care of. This is the land of the free, not the freeloader.
Bobby,
I am not trying to say the ‘left’ and the ‘right’ are politically similar.
What I find, though, is that both sides engage in a demonization of any opposing viewpoints, particularly at partisan online sites. (Though even print media is not immune to this vilification of the other.)
Debrah finds the left to be less accommodating of opposing views. I haven’t found that distinction.
The right shout “socialists”; the left cry out “fascists”.
In my limited experience, intolerance is the rule, not the exception.
For every ‘side’.
And, not to be melodramatic, but the country is the victim. How do we succeed as a people when each group sees the other as mere caricature?
That is basically all I was trying to say.
And Debrah – re: San Francisco.
I lived in SF for a few years in my younger days. Whatever one’s politics, SF is one of the most beautiful cities in this country, if not the world.
And you are certainly correct in noting the eclectic quality of the city.
You have a good eye. And I love the Brown anecdote.
I don’t think the distinction is so much between Left and Right as it is between libertarianism and statism. There are statists on both Left and Right, but only a few libertarians, it seems, on the Left.
I have always been center-Left: voted for Reagan in the first two elections I was old enough to participate in, but have been a Democrat since the age of 18. I started to turn in the libertarian direction during the George W. Bush years, but was still skeptical of them because all my friends told me they were so craaaaazy. They’d reel off these Apocalyptic, Mad Max nightmare-fantasies about all the terrible things that would happen if libertarians ever got their way.
Now I know that’s nothing but hysteria. A vital and growing third party wouldn’t believe all the strange things I was told. That would be ten guys in somebody’s basement. If the libertarian vision ever comes to pass, it could only happen gradually — and it would have to work every step of the way. Ron Paul can’t wave a wand, or wiggle his nose like Samantha on Bewitched, and automatically make it all happen at once.
I only wish he could.
Liberals talked a good libertarian game when Bush was in charge, but as it turns out, they’re full of el crapola. They didn’t mean a thing they said about states’ rights or limited government — and as soon as somebody with a “D” in front of his name got into the White House, they showed that. They love unlimited and arrogant government power — as long as they’re in charge of it.
I have come to believe that it is better for gays, for women, for African Americans — for everybody — if we return to the vision our founders had of this country. I don’t see it as “anti-gay” to believe in limited and responsible government, or in the same rules applying equally to everybody. We have nothing to fear there.
The problem is that nobody wants to trust an idea to debate anymore. The first time we see one coming is when it’s already wrapped up in proposed legislation — and all too often, it’s crammed down our throats without much debate at all. No one in the nation has been ambushed by that practice more than gays.
How some of the liberal trolls who come to this site can imagine my views are “anti-gay,” or question whether I’m even gay at all, because I hold them is beyond me.
No other group in the country is subjected to more frequent lecturing about what we “must” believe, or how we “must” vote. Some freedom for gays!
I should say that I WAS a Democrat from age 18 until this year. I’m now the proud owner of one of those little cards designating me as a newly-minted Libertarian.
We did have a debate, over two cycles of national elections, and the American people came down on one side of it disproportionately. They saw that that every interest but theirs was being served in Washington DC, at their expense, and they responded to it.
We have witnessed a rapacious corporate culture turn this nation into a plutocracy (perhaps it always was), exporting our manufacturing sector, decimating the middle class which has seen its wages stagnate for the last 30 years. All the while, wealth has coalesced at an ever narrowing percentile with the top 25% owning upwards of 85% of the wealth, paying far less in taxes than at any time in modern history. Whatever ideological tick one might have, anyone can see what has been going on in this country.
“What I find, though, is that both sides engage in a demonization of any opposing viewpoints, particularly at partisan online sites.”
—Well that’s true, although I think the right demonizes with the truth while the left makes up lies. Take Van Jones and Jeremiah Wright, everything the right said about them was based on their own statements, so when Glenn Beck calls Van Jones a communist is not because he’s being mean but because Jones was seen on camera admitting to being a communist.
“All the while, wealth has coalesced at an ever narrowing percentile with the top 25% owning upwards of 85% of the wealth, paying far less in taxes than at any time in modern history.”
—Jimmy, that’s not exactly true.
” The wealthiest 1 percent of the population earn 19 perÂcent of the income but pay 37 percent of the income tax. The top 10 percent pay 68 percent of the tab. Meanwhile, the bottom 50 percentâthose below the median income levelânow earn 13 percent of the income but pay just 3 percent of the taxes. These are proportions of the income tax alone and donât include payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare.”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1946831/posts
So what if the top-25% own 85% of the wealth? I would rather have Bill Gates, Steve Jobs and the founders of Google manage their own self-made fortunes than to have the government break them into pieces. It doesn’t matter who owns the wealth because wealth has a tendency to move around, or have you not heard of venture capitalists that invest in projects that show promise? Where do you think they get their money? From the rich, of course! Bill Gates doesn’t want to put everything in the stock market, he’s willing to take a chance and unlike government, he will pay a price if he makes a bad choice. But you think Obama will ever pay for his mistakes? Not in a million years, he can expect to finish his term with a presidential pension regardless of his job performance.
Trust the government? Look at Amtrak, in the 19th and early 20th centuries there were dozens of private rail road companies, sometimes they got low-interests government building bonds, but they certainly didn’t get any subsidies. Now you have one Amtrak that bleeds millions a year, provides substandard service compared to Europe, and needs to be subsidized to the tune of $32 per ticket according to The Pew Research Center.
“I lived in SF for a few years in my younger days. Whatever one’s politics, SF is one of the most beautiful cities in this country, if not the world.”
**********************************************
You must have some great memories from that time in your life.
It’s probably the only city on the West Coast where I might want to live……..but I’m more East Coast than anything else.
“And I love the Brown anecdote.”
**********************************************
Thanks. I can’t believe he’s thinking about running for governor—again!
That’s a mistake, IMO. That state needs some new blood.
“……..the right demonizes with the truth while the left makes up lies. Take Van Jones and Jeremiah Wright, everything the right said about them was based on their own statements……”
***************************************
This is quite true about 99% of the time.
You have no idea what it took for me to look over the open and unapologetic anti-Semite and bigot Jeremiah Wright in order to support Obama in 2008.
That’s why I’m holding him to his words from the campaign. He promised to govern from the center and he hasn’t.
Van Jones is a nut case. How on earth was such a person given a White House position?
Does anyone really wish to put forth the idea (with a straight face) that any other politician could have gotten elected with such a man as Jeremiah Wright being a close friend and “preacher” for two decades?
Any other politician would have been forced to take him/herself out of the race.
Pure and simple.
“Any other politician would have been forced to take him/herself out of the race.”
Has anyone bothered to go listen to the nutty dominionist preachers that so many congressmen associate with? They’re the ones that call for all out theocracy and world domination. Yet somehow, those a-hole reps still get elected. Please.
It’s always remarkable how anyone who dares speak up for the Palestinians, who are also semitic, gets labeled an anti-semite. This dynamic has had a suffocating aspect on American foreign policy. Van Jones is a Jew-hater because of these words?:
“I came over here very concerned about Israeli children living in fear.. nobody is winning here.. WHAT IâVE SEEN HERE GOES FAR BEYOND WHAT COULD BE CONSIDERED FOR SAFETY.. ABSOLUTE HOUSE ARREST FOR EVERY SINGLE PERSON IN A CITY.. 24/7 FOR WEEKS AT A TIME.. NONE OF THIS COULD RATIONALLY BE CONCEIVED OF AS DEFENSE.. I HAVE BEEN A LIFELONG OPPONENT OF ANTI-SEMITISM.. NOW NOT TO SPEAK OUT HERE IS ANTI-SEMITIC. WE OWE IT TO THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL.. AND PALESTINE.. TO PUT AN END TO THESE KIND OF ABUSES.. THERE IS NO DIVISION BETWEEN US POLICY TOWARD IRAQ AND TOWARD ISRAEL-PALESTINE.. THE US GOVERNMENT ON THE WRONG SIDE OF SANITY..”
Jimmy–
I would invite you to do some further reading on the subject of this former—mercifully!—member of the Obama administration.
I see someone asking questions. That’s his right. At least 25% of the GOP members of Congress are “birthers”. Are you calling for them to resign?
Further…..(and don’t forget to check the vid as you scroll)…..
“If this is actually how it happened then Jones may be the most naive person to walk the planet, and the White House vetters need to acquaint themselves with ye olde Google alert.”
Hmmmm…….
“That’s why I’m holding him to his words from the campaign. He promised to govern from the center and he hasn’t.”
—That happened to a lot of Americans. This is why the right was comparing Obama to Hitler, what we were referring to was the excitement of the crowds, the youtube videos pledging allegiance to Obama, the popularization of the Hope poster. Have you ever seen a film called “The Wave?” It basically explains how you can get people to support totalitarian leaders. I’m just glad that Obama’s spell is going away.
“Van Jones is a nut case. How on earth was such a person given a White House position?”
—That’s the thing, Obama is nuts, he may pretend to be sane but this guy grew up and was mentored by the most left-wing people you can find. To Obama, Marxism probably makes sense, but he knows that’s not the way to sell it.
“Any other politician would have been forced to take him/herself out of the race.”
—That’s why Obama’s so dangerous, he’s almost like John Gotti, nothing seems to stick to him, well, at least that was the case in the past. I just hope republicans get smart, listen to the tea party, and stop being afraid about being labeled “the party of no.” Sometimes saying “no” is a good thing, specially to bad ideas.
“At least 25% of the GOP members of Congress are “birthers”. Are you calling for them to resign?”
I think that figure might be a bit high. I wouldn’t call on them to resign, but I would call on those in the GOP who don’t believe that sort of stuff to vote for saner candidates in the future. There are certainly plenty of people in that party who are not birthers.
I’d say the same thing about candidates’ positions on gay issues. Instead of always falling for the Democratic option, those of us who do not agree with the Dems on other issues should vote for GOP candidates who support us.
The more we do that, the more likely, as time goes by, they will be to support us. As a pro-gay position becomes more politically viable within the GOP, more candidates will take that position.
The birthers are a bit embarrassing, but then again, there were leftwingers saying that McCain wasn’t an American because he was born in the Panama Canal Zone and that Bush master-planned 9/11.
ND30 is too much “man” and will, no doubt, totally intimidate someone like that and the commentariat on his site”
I’ve had a few encounters with ND30 (at gay patriot). Manly? Who cares. Intimidating. No. His ideas are just repulsive.
Down here, the governing National Party treats sock cons with barely disguised contempt, probably because they’re shrill, strident and obsessed with their own sectarian obsessions at the cost of greater centre-right unity. They’re ghettoised into tiny fundamentalist microparties and seem to prefer binding referenda to much else.
They’re too extreme. If indulged, they end up poisoning the electoral chances of moderate centre-rightists, which has happened down here over and over again. Britain seems to have learnt the same lesson in the case of its Conservative Party.
Craig2
Wellington, NZ
← Previous Comments
Comments on this entry are closed.