ROSEN: 'We the people'

By Mike Rosen, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)

Published August 15, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.
Updated August 15, 2008 at 1:43 a.m.

Text size

More Opinion Columns & Blogs

Comments

August 15, 2008

7:22 a.m.

Suggest removal

Oh_Wise_One writes:

cue Jay and his anti-Rosen bigotry in five, four, three....
August 15, 2008

7:31 a.m.

Suggest removal

Art writes:

I really hate it when I agree with Mr. Rosen. This time I must say that I do agree with him completely.
August 15, 2008

7:40 a.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

Oh_Wise_One is correct,

jay can't stand Rosen, even when there is no point for him to argue. He will be on here soon, ranting about Rosen having nothing better to talk about.
August 15, 2008

8:30 a.m.

Suggest removal

Denverboy1 writes:

Good piece.....and peace to you...
You are so right about how "WE THE PEOPLE" are...America certainly is a melting pot of people ideas and culture....Yet the idea as of late that a small group can change and even do away with certain provisions of THE BILL OF RIGHTS..that fact does not bother you ?? Or the fact that our Leaders lie to the public and the world body (U.N.) for there own ends. Perhaps playing politics with our C.I.A agents or the Attorney Generals Office is ok ? Taxing a middle class to almost death while cutting taxes for the wealthy or doing away with them for close business partners .......? Our Reps. in Washington need to listen more to the PEOPLE and less to THE MONEY ..That holds true in either party. Because whats happening is America intrests are less about Americans than large multi-national Corps...here and abroad..What was that...? Wall Street got Drunk ? Well it's the TAXPAYER who's gets the hangover..not the CEO who banked millions during the party...whats better is that CEO is going to pay less in taxes on that money at a per capita basis than the little guy who now is burdened with his DRINKING BINGE !!
" WE THE PEOPLE" ? Im sorry who do you speak of..It's about EVERYONE not SOMEONE..and that is a collective in it's own way..not in a Communistic way but a pluralistic one..
August 15, 2008

8:35 a.m.

Suggest removal

dilligaf writes:

Thank You Supreme Court Justice Mike Rosen. Thanks for straightening us all out. Man I'm running down and joining the GOP right now. I'm was impressed.
August 15, 2008

8:48 a.m.

Suggest removal

hogarm writes:

No, Mr. Rosen, the Republicans are not "the party that better respects and protects individual rights and prerogatives." In property rights, yes, but not individual rights.
They believe in an authoritarian government licensing a women's uterus at the expense of a womans right of privacy.
They believe in a government that defines marriage in violation of individual prerogatives.
They believe in a government that criminalize people for using recreational herbs in violation of their individual liberties.
And on and on.
We know that Mr. Rosen's view of reality is filtered through conservative ideology, but this is blatant misrepresentation.
August 15, 2008

8:58 a.m.

Suggest removal

Truth writes:

Yes, hogarm has to bring up the sacrament of american liberalism: abortion. I fully believe that a woman has a right to control her own body--that right stops when it infringes upon someone else's right to life: the baby's. It is because the Republican party in general recognizes the rights of the baby (a genetically unique human), the phrase "party of the person" is even more apt.

As far as marriage, government should get out of the business all together. At the very least, the national government should stay out (as required by the Constitution: Amendment 10) and leave the issue to the states.

I have never had anyone stop me from using salt and pepper.

The Republican party has done an extremely poor job at holding elected officials feet to the fire when it comes to the party platform. We have allowed politicians to continue policies supported by officials in both partys of ridiculous government spending, unconstitutional government intrusion by way of monitoring, searches, and seizures; unsound fiat monetary policy, amnesty for illegal aliens, etc.
August 15, 2008

9:08 a.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

Uh oh, fellow cons,

Fro called us retardicans. He must be right. All he can think of is poor little him and his poor people's plight.

Government will slay the big bad corporate dragon and give him some handouts. Bush has been in power for eight years, so it must be his fault that oil is so expensive (never mind that dems have been restricting supply for thirty years). Who cares that our deficit is relatively small compared to GDP and completely sustainable? Bush is so horrible. The dollar is weakening; did I mention that Bush has been in office for eight years (Let's not forget that the dollar weakening is actually a function of several things, not the least of which are an ongoing trade deficit and the Federal Reserve lowering the key rate). Al Qaeda...Bush's fault (even though B. Clinton, himself had eight years to deal with Bin Laden and his chronies)

You know what, all the big bad republicans care about is that big oil gets to keep its profits (we ignore the point that if we tax oil, it will just pass on the tax to consumers, and if we continue to halt exploration and drilling, our consumers will just have to keep paying more at the pump)! Bush's fault.

On the other hand, we could go out and vote for the Messiah and his liberal ilk. They will rob from the rich to feed the poor. They will give handouts for the poor and downtrodden (and the lazy couch potatoes working under the table so that they can continue to receive handouts). They will rightfully ignore all market economics in the name of the little guy and the environment. They will regulate all our freedoms away from us.

Those darned retardicans.
August 15, 2008

9:46 a.m.

Suggest removal

temurlan writes:

Well said Mike. I just watched the John Adams mini-series. It was an interesting look at how we started and the environment at the time. Take out all of today's rhetoric and political squabbling and it still applies.

Side note: How the heck did this slip in under my radar?

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news...
August 15, 2008

9:57 a.m.

Suggest removal

Zim writes:

The point, Spencerr, is that Bush & Co. have had eight years to fix all that, and have done nothing. I'm curious though... you consider yourself a conservative, yet you consistently defend the practices of a rather un-conservative Republican party? Are you a defender of the party or the philosophy?

True conservatives have given up on the Republican Party. As a country, we deserve better. A party that borrows and spends, infringes on individual rights, tramples on state and local rights, and defends corporate welfare (the Republican version of socialism) is not a conservative party. You are not a true conservative, Spencerr, by defending the current incarnation of the Republican Party.
August 15, 2008

10:01 a.m.

Suggest removal

fatheromalley writes:

Thomas Jefferson had some things to say.. Praise to the Party comrads! One Party two heads.. Cap and Trade, Open Borders.. One Party.. no new ideas...

Mandate compulsive payment of a tax to be given to others? Taxes on Production...

Mandated Ethanol raising the price of staple food for the starving millions? (Environmental, Collective)

Mandated Mercury Filled Light Bulbs? (Environmental, Collective)

Mandating no drilling for over 30 years through activist Lawyers? (Environmental, Collective)

Mandating taxation where it is less expensive to ship raw oil into the world market than refining domestic oil, domestically? (Environmental, Collective)

Mandating a non-toxic, odorless, tasteless substance a pollutant? (Environmental, Collective)

Mandated every establishment be a "non-smoking" establishment for the "common good"? (Environmental, Collective)

Mandating the "Polar bear" endangered after a 700% increase in Polar bear population in the past 11 years? (Environmental, Collective)

Mandated 19 different blends of gasoline by the environmental movement's influence? (Environmental, Collective)

Mandated minimum wage meant for child labor the perpetuates a welfare state and their votes?

Mandated medical insurance minimum coverages by state? (Activist Medical Trial Lawyers)

Mandated FICA taxes and Employer Matching Funds Taxes (50% of FICA that employee owes the Federal Government which collected without choice?)

What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? - Thomas Jefferson

We done that this last summer, eh? Amnesty Defeat.. Now it's Pelosi allowing a vote? Drill Now!

Were we directed from Washington when to sow and when to reap, we should soon want bread.-Thomas Jefferson

Mandated farm subsidies not to plant at all?

Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms [of government] those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny

Katrina, Local, State then Federal Response? Overhead of every government program? Lack of Full Enforcement of our Nationalization Laws

Lack of secure borders after a 3,000 casualty attack?

Is it just me?

Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty.-Thomas Jefferson

I think myself that we have more machinery of government than is necessary, too many parasites living on the labor of the industrious.-Thomas Jefferson

Who is the America's Number One Employer?

Hail to the Parties Mikey.. hail hail!

Vote 3rd Party and live up to your claim of wanting change..

www.numbersusa.org
www.fairtax.org
www.jihadwatch.org
www.petitionproject.org
www.votesmart.org
www.grassfire.org

or go to www.fatheromalley.com that has click throughs to all the above...

Love to all,
Father O'Malley
August 15, 2008

10:02 a.m.

Suggest removal

RainbowWarrior writes:

Little Mike is on to something with his concept of "the party of the person". Ever since the corporation was given the status of personhood, we the people have become second class citizens!
We now have a government of the corporation for the corporation by the corporation.

Wednesday, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a study on taxes paid by corporations. In what Sen. Byron L. Dorgan, D-N.D., mildly called "a shocking indictment of the current tax system," the GAO found that about two-thirds of corporations operating in the United States did not pay taxes annually from 1998 to 2005.

Now, most corporations in America are start-ups or small, mom-and-pop operations that have adopted a corporate form to lower their tax rates. And a greater percentage of large corporations do pay some taxes. But in 2005, with corporate profits reaching new heights as a percentage of national income, the GAO found that more than one-fourth -- 28 percent of large corporations -- paid no taxes. (It defined large corporations as those with assets of at least $250 million or gross receipts of at least $50 million.) They can tell you how to make $50 million and not pay taxes.

Not surprisingly, the income collected from corporations has been declining as a percentage of GDP, with the burden transferred to your income and payroll taxes. According to a study by the Treasury Department, from 2000 to 2006, an average of 2.2 percent of GDP was collected in corporate taxes. This compares to an average of 3.4 percent in other industrial countries. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office projects that, under current law, corporate revenues will decline to 1.9 percent of GDP by 2017.

Why is this important? Well, the Bush administration, led by Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, and conservatives, led by John McCain, are mounting a major campaign to cut the corporate tax rate even more, arguing that we are crippled competitively by having a U.S. rate higher than any industrial nation other than Japan. "America has the second-highest business (tax) rate in the entire world," says John McCain. "Is it any wonder that jobs are moving overseas? We're taxing them out of the country." But the GAO study confirms what we already knew: Whatever the nominal tax rate, U.S. corporations pay an effective rate among the lowest in the industrial world.

Yet the core of the McCain economic agenda consists of breathtaking corporate tax breaks. He calls for cutting the top corporate rate from 35 percent to 25 percent and allowing corporations to write off investments in the first year. Combined, the Tax Policy Center wonks cost these at more than $1.3 trillion over 10 years. Len Burman of the Tax Policy Center estimates that in total, McCain would cut corporate revenues by about 50 percent from current levels. They'll be making hundreds of millions of dollars and not paying taxes. This is no joke.
August 15, 2008

10:25 a.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

Whoa Zim, you attack a true conservative using LIBERTARIAN (as opposed to liberal) rhetoric. Obviously, you haven't been following my raving conservative fights with MTS, jay, dilligaf, fro, and others. I spend most of my time attacking socialism (and policies that take their cues from socialism) and big government.

I am not a Nixon republican...Reagan wasn't perfect, but he was the best thing we had.

And if you have ever read my rantings, they are rarely in defense of Bush and never in Defense of McCain. The point of my attack on fro was to attack fro on his parties downfalls, not to defend Bush's inability to truly act conservative.

What, did you get so peaved about the republican party that you actually went against your libertarian values and voted Obama. How is that going to help you out, buddy?

We have two choices in this country, Republican and Democrat. I vote republican because it is the lesser of two evils, not because it is ideal. Northeast "conservatives" and many others are a joke.

I am conservative, as conservative as they come. I am conservative to the point that I would rather see a conservative dictatorship arise permanently out of a coup than ever see another liberal policy passed.

So don't accuse me of not being conservative.
August 15, 2008

10:31 a.m.

Suggest removal

Marshdale writes:

If the conservative party is the party of the "person" then why have all you conservative "persons", allowed without any dissenting voices, things like the Patriot Act and the Homeland Security Act to go on without question? These to pieces of legislation as I see them are the single largest threat to personal freedoms this country has seen since the days of Joseph McCarthy. Is it that you don't see them as a threat to personal freedom or is it that you are now willing to sacrifice personal freedom? I'm not trying to anger anybody with this. I just want an honest answer from a conservative who thinks these pieces of legislation are good and explain to me how they are in accordance with the Constitution. As I understand most conservatives, you are in general strict constitutionalists. These pieces of legislation fly in the face of the Constitution as I understand it. How do you reconcile these with your strict constitutional beliefs?
August 15, 2008

10:33 a.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

Take RainbowWarrior's above rant, for instance. He would raise taxes just for the sake of it. All he cares about is there are some Americans without roofs over their heads while businesses get to keep all their money. He is completely oblivious to the fact that profit gets reinvested and used as capital for job creation and that raising taxes on said business will cause a net decrease in jobs and/or productivity.

I, on the other hand, believe that taxes should be used only for necessary public goods; road infrastructure and national defense.

Most of my rants go as such. Very little mention of Bush. I am in a crusade against idiots on the left, not people who bash Bush.
August 15, 2008

10:42 a.m.

Suggest removal

Marshdale writes:

Spencer, your argument about corporate profits and reinvestment does hold some water but, what we are seeing now is reinvestment with those dollars over seas. They are creating jobs but not here. Not only that they are contributing less to infrastructure and domestic defense by doing so. How do we fix this seemingly irreconcilable difference?
August 15, 2008

10:46 a.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

Marshdale,

As unfortunate as it seems to some that we invest in outside countries, we are actually net receivers of foreign investment, not net contributors.

One of the other downfalls of our trade deficit (besides the weakening dollar) is that the credit we use (from a net importer standpoint) translates to foreign investment from others.
August 15, 2008

10:53 a.m.

Suggest removal

dilligaf writes:

spencerr
First of all Reagan committed treason. He was the one that either sold or gave weapons to the likes of Bin Laden, Saddam, Iran, & the Taliban. Look it up it is facts. These weapons have killed US soldiers and many innocent people. This man gave terrorism a big shot in the arm. They shot men for selling weapons to the Indians.

But one thing Mike Rosen said about the republican party was right. And that it is the party of the person. And that person right now is Bush. Oh and his daddy also was in on the criminal acts of Ronnie boy.
August 15, 2008

10:56 a.m.

Suggest removal

Marshdale writes:

Spencer: You seem to be refering to a ballancing act of sorts. What is the level of foriegn investment in this country compared to the dollars and jobs that are leaving this country? You claim there is a net gain. If that is the case, why is unemployment so high, and the average wage of skilled workers dropping so fast? How many people do you know who can run a houshold on a single income as was possible up until the mid '70's?
August 15, 2008

10:58 a.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

And BC gave Chinese defense secrets. What's your point? I was just making my point to Zim about me being a conservative and not defending the "conservative" wannabe presidents.

I said Reagan was the closest thing to a good conservative. I also noted that he was not perfect.

Furthermore, he may have had bad foresight, but his motives at the time were reasonable. Saddam turned on us after we gave him the means to defeat his enemies (who we also happened to be enemies with AT THE TIME).

Anyway, the point of MR's column is that Democrats are the party of the collective while the Reps are the party of the individual, just in case you missed it.
August 15, 2008

11:01 a.m.

Suggest removal

Zim writes:

Spencerr,
The Republican Party needs to be torn down, and re-built into the truly conservative party that it should be. Defending its policies (and your post above did read as a defense.... if it wasn't, I apologize) only helps to keep a corrupt facade of conservatism in power.

Yes. I will be voting Obama. The Republican Party needs a time out. The party will not re-build itself under McCain, who is nowhere near being a conservative either. It needs to re-organize and put a candidate in place in 2012 who truly represents a small, responsible federal government.

You want to prove to me you are a conservative? Then be vocal about the Republican Party's shortcomings. Demand change. Get the best damn candidatefor 2012 you can find who is truly a conservative. Not evangelical. Not imperialistic. Not corporatist. But conservative!!

The Republican Party is predominantly corporatist, which is basically socialism for big business, through Washington influence and corporate welfare. Supporting the Republican Party is not fighting socialism, it's enabling a different brand of it. Not saying you have to vote Democrat either, or support Obama in any way. But voting in the "lesser of two evils", the status quo, does nothing for conservatism. It just holds it back.
August 15, 2008

11:04 a.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

Marshdale, it is a balancing act. The whole macro-economy is a balancing act.

The reason skilled jobs are leaving is that in those particular industries, our foreign counterparts have a comparative advantage in producing those goods.

Our unemployment rate is about 1 to 1.5 percent above what is considered in this economy to be frictional unemployment. It was frictional until about seven months ago. It went up because of the ebbing and waning in the business cycle. Essientially, a bubble was popped.

And you are right about one income not being enough. I suffer from that right now. What would you do, turn the clock back fifty years to a time when America and Europe (and Canada and Australia) were the only industrialized places in the world and women did not work? Not to mention, our standard of living has gone up.
August 15, 2008

11:06 a.m.

Suggest removal

dilligaf writes:

spencerr
Reagans acts are well documented. Can you share where BC has gave defence secrets to China. Rush Limpd--k don't count.
August 15, 2008

11:07 a.m.

Suggest removal

Zim writes:

RE: "I am conservative, as conservative as they come. I am conservative to the point that I would rather see a conservative dictatorship arise permanently out of a coup than ever see another liberal policy passed."

And this comment, to me, just comes across as un-American. Country before party, Spencerr, if you want to consider yourself truly a patriot.
August 15, 2008

11:14 a.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

Zim, I agree with most everything you said in theory, but not in practice.

As long as this political system consists of two parties, the republicans and the democrats, you are doing nothing but shooting American conservatism in the foot. What you are doing (in voting for Obama) may work, but at what expense, four years of complete liberal dominance leading up to socialized healthcare and higher taxes? Something that an arch-conservative president and a lukewarm conservative congress cannot undo (assuming that your plan works).

I don't get your rantings about corporate welfare. Are you talking about the fact that republican politicians have corporations in their pockets?

You are an idealist, not a pragmatist. You believe in the individual first, then the state, then the federal. You probably believe that on one level, at least, the union winning the Civil War was bad. No taxes at ALL, on anyone.

I believe in most of these things in theory. I also believe that most of these things are not practical. For one, we would find ourselves back in an urban wild west.

I am as conservative on all non-social issues (with the exception of abortion), and I am libertarian on the social issues (with the exception of abortion).

Tell me that I am wrong! Tell me why! And explain your theory on corporate socialism.

I urge you not to vote at all rather than going against your libertarian ideologies and voting O.
August 15, 2008

11:21 a.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

Zim, Thomas Jefferson was hardly unpatriotic. --"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

I actually have little faith in the democratic process. It is the worst government that actually works. The masses are stupid, which is why you won't ever possibly find a truly conservative republican party.

Dictators can do it right. However, the problem with dictators is that all their progress is unravelled the moment you run across one who is power hungry.
August 15, 2008

11:27 a.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

dilligaf, BC's quid pro quo deal with China; http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/0... also well-documented.

And I didn't deny that Reagan helped Iraq, but at least there was some sort of justification for it. There was no justification for helping China except to the purpose of filling his campaign coffers.
August 15, 2008

11:33 a.m.

Suggest removal

Eli writes:

"He was the one that either sold or gave weapons to the likes of Bin Laden, Saddam, Iran, & the Taliban"

Yet another clueless liberal running his yap about a topic he knows NOTHING about. Do you have any idea why weapons were sold to Iran, dilligaf? How exactly was this treason? Do you even know what treason is? How exactly did Reagan betray the nation?
Weapons were sold to Iran in a series of deals first authorized in 1985 in an attempt to gain the release of our hostages in Lebanon, as well as to deal with the Soviet threat- be that threat real or perceived. How does this amount to a betrayal towards the United States? If it's simply the fact that Reagan made a deal with the Iranians that amounts to treason, perhaps you should read the Algiers Accords which ended the Tehran crisis and accuse Carter of treason as well.
August 15, 2008

11:34 a.m.

Suggest removal

Marshdale writes:

Spencer; By "comparative advantage" you mean low wage workers, no environmental regulation, or industry regulation, don't you? In other words Industry operates carte blanc, workers and their communities have no voice and are forced into early retirement at a young age. Please explain where the morality is in that.
August 15, 2008

11:36 a.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

And Zim, I didn't say I was willing to act on that preference (even if I was assured a coup would work). It is merely a wishful thinking about a possible replacement for our current political system.
August 15, 2008

11:38 a.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

Marshdale, the upside to your dreary ending is that net jobs are created in America, and while industrial jobs that older people typically hold go away, more jobs that pay just as well are created for people with college educations.

To pre-empt any accusations of snobbery, I would say that I think it is important that every American possible gets his or her college degree.
August 15, 2008

11:40 a.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

Zim, I would love to see the Republican party get torn down and re-born again as a truly conservative entity. Won't happen in the next fifty years or more though, no matter how many ideologues like you (and me, I suppose), are willing to fight for that outcome.
August 15, 2008

11:49 a.m.

Suggest removal

Zim writes:

Spencerr,
RE: "You are an idealist, not a pragmatist. You believe in the individual first, then the state, then the federal."

Agreed. Except for one change, which in your eyes may make me more idealist, but what the heck: "America first (our nation, not its governance), then individual, then state, then federal." Isn't this a fundamental principal of conservative ideology, Spencerr? Isn't this part of your foundation as well?

RE: "You probably believe that on one level, at least, the union winning the Civil War was bad. No taxes at ALL, on anyone."

I never said that. I believe in taxes, efficiently used for public services. I like having a police department, fire department, highways, etc.

RE: "I am as conservative on all non-social issues (with the exception of abortion), and I am libertarian on the social issues (with the exception of abortion)."

As am I, with the exception on the exception on abortion.

RE: "I don't get your rantings about corporate welfare. Are you talking about the fact that republican politicians have corporations in their pockets?"

A tax break for a company, for any reason, whether it's because a municipality wants to use it as a bribe to lure a business, or through lobbying efforts in Washington, or as an incentive by government to produce a certain product or service, is still wealth re-distribution. No-bid contracts to favored businesses are a drain on the taxpayer, and also are wealth re-distribution at the taxpayer's expense. Privatization of government services does nothing to benefit us if these private companies have no legitimate competition. Corporate lobbyists pedaling their interests directly to our political representatives, and influencing them through campaign contributions (let's just call them bribes already) short-changes the democratic process. Why do religious organizations receive tax benefits? Why do tobacco farms receive tax subsidies? In fact, why does ANY industry?

I owned a small business for a while. If you want to have a business, then do it the old-fashioned way, and with your own money. Any government support for a business is just welfare for businessmen. Period. And wealth re-distribution from the taxpayer to private pockets.
August 15, 2008

11:51 a.m.

Suggest removal

Zim writes:

RE: Spencerr,
RE: "As long as this political system consists of two parties, the republicans and the democrats, you are doing nothing but shooting American conservatism in the foot. "

I disagree. I see it as you are enabling a corrupt party... one I would like to see vetted in '09. And the Republican Party, as it sits now, is doing far more irreparable harm to conservatism than me voting for Obama. Keeping everything the way it is will destroy conservatism outright. It needs either a fresh start or a whole new party. Apparently we are at an impasse on this subject.

RE: "I believe in most of these things in theory. I also believe that most of these things are not practical. For one, we would find ourselves back in an urban wild west."

So do I, Spencerr. I am a moderate libertarian, not full-blown. I believe government does have certain essential functions, and I believe in regulated capitalism, not the unfettered mob rule version. Philosophies are great on paper, but they tend to fall apart somewhat in the face of the real world.
August 15, 2008

11:56 a.m.

Suggest removal

Zim writes:

RE: Spencerr-- "Zim, Thomas Jefferson was hardly unpatriotic. --"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

I actually have little faith in the democratic process. It is the worst government that actually works. The masses are stupid, which is why you won't ever possibly find a truly conservative republican party.

Dictators can do it right. However, the problem with dictators is that all their progress is unravelled the moment you run across one who is power hungry."

Spencerr, the masses may be stupid (or I would prefer to say uninformed), but as citizens they still have the right to have a voice. Assuming one person has the right answers or the right vision leads down the road to ruin.

Our system is better than most because of the inherent checks and balances built in, checks and balances Bush & Co. have worked very hard to shred.

You and I, I feel, will never agree on this matter.
August 15, 2008

11:59 a.m.

Suggest removal

Zim writes:

Spencerr,
RE: "Zim, I would love to see the Republican party get torn down and re-born again as a truly conservative entity. Won't happen in the next fifty years or more though, no matter how many ideologues like you (and me, I suppose), are willing to fight for that outcome."

As long as the Republican Party stays in its current incarnation, then I can never truly support it. And the number of people out there who feel like I do is swiftly growing.
August 15, 2008

12:12 p.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

No, Zim, we do agree on just about everything you wrote, for purposes of practicality. I believe that our forefathers constructed the best possible system (doesn't make it a good system however).

The only practical difference between you and I is that I prefer the model of the Republic such as it was a hundred and fifty years ago, compared to the constant creeping toward a true democracy that goes on today. The Republic that was created was created, essentially, to the purpose that not everyone had an equal voice, essentially so that the larger states were not unequivically able to bully around the littler states.

And for the reason that I already stated (eventually, we would have a power hungry leader who would screw things up), I know that a dictatorship would not work.

And, I feel, that as long as the republican party keeps creeping leftward, the chance that there will be a revolution inside increases. Either, we will regress back to something akin to Reaganism, as we did in the eighties, or the conservatives will all flee the party, as you would have it. Maybe the latter can work??? I don't know.

And, I assert, that as long as the corporations are net taxpayers (none is a net tax receiver), it is not redistribution of wealth; it is simply allowing them to keep more of their wealth that they earned from taking risks and working hard, not to mention, it is beneficial to American jobs. Furthermore, I would like to redefine your take on socialism; you seem to think it is simply the redistribution of wealth. A better definition would be "the redistribution of the means of production. By allowing the producers to keep their means of production, nothing akin to socialism has happened.

It seems I am actually more libertarian than you are, still understanding the impracticalities of hell-bent libertarianism (on defense, etc).

Anywho, it has been fun fighting with a fellow con (albeit a renegade).
August 15, 2008

12:15 p.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

ZIM,

BTW, if you ever run for office, let me know.
August 15, 2008

12:33 p.m.

Suggest removal

dilligaf writes:

spencerr
Give me more documented evidence then some interview from a right wing nut job like Thompson. This man is close to being another Rush Limpd--k.
Eli
I know why. It was weapons for hostages. Also we have known for years about these clowns he sold them to where terrorist. So you can give me all the reasons in the world but it is plain and simple these weapons have killed Americans.
August 15, 2008

12:37 p.m.

Suggest removal

Zim writes:

Spencerr,
I have no problem with corporations or business making wealth. It's why I went into business for myself. But they should all start out on equal footing-- no government assistance. That's my point in a nutshell about corporate welfare. And we shouldn't be bailing them out when they fail.

RE: "Anywho, it has been fun fighting with a fellow con (albeit a renegade)."

I like to consider myself old-school. But whatever.

RE: "BTW, if you ever run for office, let me know."

I don't have the patience. Plus, I have the feeling both of us are better people than to soil ourselves on the political landscape. It was an enjoyable debate... thank you. I'm leaving now so I can actually get some work done.
August 15, 2008

12:49 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

"The phrase "We the people," it should be understood, does not imply that the United States is a commune, a homogeneous collective of like-minded people who all agree on issues of public policy. When Democrats talk of their party as "the party of the people," they tend to apply that in just such a collective - or socialist - sense."

once again we see rosen using a strawman argument as the basis for yet another ridiculous socialist boogeyman ghost story immediately parrotted by our resident far right wing footsoldiers.

"It's not that "We the people" can't agree on anything, but it's certainly true that we won't agree on everything. Along with some areas of common ground, there are also irreconcilable differences between hawks and doves, seniors and juniors, protectionists and free traders, pro-life and pro-choice, unions and businesses, big government and small, public and private, gays and straights, men and women, blacks and whites, urban and rural, nannyists and rugged individualists, rednecks and hippies, etc."

and yet rosen quite regularly on his radio show implies that he is somehow part of the majority...when in fact the majority of americans do not share his views on policy stances.

again i wonder if mike "rose colored glasses" rosen could get any less relevant.
August 15, 2008

1:06 p.m.

Suggest removal

Cwillyrun1 writes:

dilligaf, give it up already. You're making me laugh but it's you I'm laughing at. You think it's only Republican leaders that have done the things you claim? JFK...... a President I admire, probably the last Democratic President I can respect, started putting troops in Vietnam before the Vietnam war. Lyndon Johnson not only didn't pull the troops out as Kennedy had planned, but ramped up the Vietnam war all the while running it in Washington DC instead of at the hands of military leaders (kind of like how the Democrats want things now) and what did we get out of it? The worst war the United States ever got involved in. I suspect that was because Johnson's from Texas, and he was protecting all of the large military contracts with Texas companies.

Jimmy Carter's biggest claim to fame was the failed rescue attempt of hostages under his administration...... the first terrorist attack against the United States. He also taxed "big oil" and it created long lines at the pump and high gas prices (something Obama and the Democrats want to do again), and it didn't help our country.

Bill Clinton wiretapped phones in the 80's under a top secret program called, "Echelon", yet those who are uninformed believe it all started with Bush. Clinton knew where binLaden was at on several occasions, even after the first WTC attack, but he failed to do anything about it....... guess it's possible he was too busy with his White House brothel. After he left office, him and his wife Hillary bought a mansion in New York, and the Secret Service agents that are protecting him are charged rent to live on the property to protect him. That's at the cost of us taxpayers, so we're basically paying the Clinton's mansion off.

Now we have Obama, who in 2005 voted to support corporate welfare. He plans to tax Americans on retirement income with a windfall tax. He plans to tax "big oil" with a windfall profits tax that'll only get passed onto the consumer...... not lowering prices at the pump but raising them even higher.

I could go on, but the point is, Democrats aren't any better than Republicans. Republicans are supposedly for corporations, but it's no different than Democrats catering to unions, and either way, it's the taxpayers left to face the consequences. I'm independant because I want to vote for the best person, not the party. But I won't be voting for Obama, some of his stated plans only make it harder for the average American. And I can't vote for a guy that campaigns to foreigners with no voting ability in the United States, and brags about it, while when he visits a base overseas he treats American soldiers as second class citizens when the camera's not rolling.
August 15, 2008

1:08 p.m.

Suggest removal

Eli writes:

You didn't answer the question, dilligaf. Where was the treason? Don't run away from questions like our friend jay always does. It hurts your credibility.
August 15, 2008

1:11 p.m.

Suggest removal

Cwillyrun1 writes:

jay, the board was wondering when you'd show up with nothing relevant to say, with only a rant against Rosen to offer up.

strawman is a favorite word of yours.......... watching "The Wizard Of Oz" again?
August 15, 2008

1:28 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

cwilly...don't pout because you can't refute my points about yet another ridiculous rosen article.

but hey, since you popped your head up...let's debunk one of your myths while we're at it shall we?

"Democrats aren't any better than Republicans"

really?

how do you explain these numbers?

REAL GDP GROWTH1
4.09% Over Prior 8 Years
2.65% Over Prior 7 Years

NATIONAL DEBT
$5.7 Trillion
$9.2 Trillion

BUDGET DEFICIT/SURPLUS
$431 Billion Surplus over the Previous Three Budget Years
$734 Billion Deficit over the Previous Three Budget Years

JOBS CREATED
1.76 Million Jobs Per Year
369,000 Jobs Per Year

AMERICANS IN POVERTY
31.6 Million
36.5 Million

AMERICANS UNINSURED & CHANGE IN UNINSURED LEVEL
38 Million Uninsured
47 Million Uninsured

4.5 Million Less in 2 Years
8.5 Million More in 6 Years

ANNUAL TOTAL PREMIUM COST
$6,230 for Family Premium
$12,106 for Family Premium

MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME & CHANGE IN MEDIAN INCOME
$49,163
$48,023

$6,000 Increase in 8 Years
$1,100 Decrease in 7 Years

PRICE OF GAS
$1.39/Gallon
$4.07/Gallon

COST OF COLLEGE
$3,164 per year
$5,192 per year

PERSONAL SAVINGS RATE
+2.3%
-0.5%

CONSUMER CREDIT DEBT
$7.65 Trillion
$12.8 Trillion

U.S. TRADE DEFICIT
$380 Billion
$759 Billion

STRENGTH OF U.S. DOLLAR
1.07 Euros per Dollar
0.68 Euros Per Dollar

COMBAT READINESS
All Active Duty Army Divisions Were Rated At The Highest Readiness Levels
Not A Single Active Duty Or Reserve Brigade In The U.S. Considered “Fully Combat Ready.”

FOREIGN OIL DEPENDENCY
52.75% of U.S. Liquid Fuel Consumption is Imported
60.38% of U.S. Liquid Fuel Consumption is Imported

VIEW OF AMERICA ABROAD

PEW POLL OF TEN NATIONS
58.3% Viewed America Favorably
39.2% Viewed America Favorably

GREAT BRITAIN’S VIEW OF U.S.
83% Favorable
56% Favorable

INDONESIA’S VIEW OF U.S.
75% Favorable
30% Favorable

TURKEY’S VIEW OF U.S.
52% Favorable
12% Favorable

GERMANY’S VIEW OF U.S.
78% Favorable
37% Favorable

how about these numbers?

http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

remember kids...data always shines a little light...at least enough to differentiate between rhetoric and reality.
August 15, 2008

1:32 p.m.

Suggest removal

dilligaf writes:

Eli
SELLING WEAPONS TO KNOWN ENEMIES OF THE UNITED STATES (TERROIST) IS TREASON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! THIS COUNTRY HAD JUST PRIOR TO THIS TOOK AMERICANS HOSTAGE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ARE YOU THAT DENCE?

Cwillyrun1
WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT WARS WE ARE TALKING ABOUT SELLING WEAPONS TO KNOWN ENEMIES OF THIS COUNTRY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Did you and Eli get kicked out of grade school together?
August 15, 2008

1:38 p.m.

Suggest removal

dilligaf writes:

jay
This idiot don't care about facts. Just what Rosen and Rush tell him how to think. He is not capable of doing any research for facts like you have done. This why the right always support religious institutes they are famous for brainwashing. They are called cults.
August 15, 2008

1:41 p.m.

Suggest removal

Marshdale writes:

Jay. Nice statistics. I have always tried to explain this stuff to conservatives but, it's like they have this deer in the headlights look on their face because it flies in face of everything they hear on Fox Spews.
August 15, 2008

1:42 p.m.

Suggest removal

Eli writes:

I am aware of the Tehran hostage crisis, dilligaf. In fact, I am very intimately aware of the details of that situation and the negotiations involved with the release, and the subsequent dealings with both Iran and Iraq in the years that followed. I'd venture a guess that you're not too familiar with the actual events in Tehran at all, otherwise you'd be accusing Carter of treason as well as Reagan.
So, your logic is that because of the Tehran hostage crisis, any dealings with Iran afterwards amount to treason. Or maybe it's just weapons, and you figure any other trade is okay. I'm not quite sure, could you please clarify? Explain a little bit further on what specifically you think is and is not treason, and then I'll be happy to very thoroughly explain the reality of our dealings with Iran to you and demonstrate why you should keep your trap shut regarding topics that you are obviously not well educated on.
August 15, 2008

2 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

thanks folks....it's nice when i hear people embracing data instead of running away from it...cough...cwillly...cough...

nice dance moves, eli.

who would have thought anyone could be fleet of foot enough to try (and fail) to rationalize the conservatives' track record of arming, funding and training extremists in iraq, iran and afghanistan.

you should take that show down to 16th street mall during the convention and put out a cup.
August 15, 2008

2:05 p.m.

Suggest removal

dilligaf writes:

Eli
You are like talking to a third grader. I don't give a damn if we trade bubble gum with them. But trading or selling things like guns, rockets and any other things that will kill Americans is not a good Idea. Is this all that tough for you to grasp. If so I feel for you. Time for recess.
August 15, 2008

2:10 p.m.

Suggest removal

Eli writes:

Regarding the actions of Iran as far as the Tehran crisis, here is something that is noteworthy, dilligaf:

"...injury to the United States nationals or their property as a result of popular movements in the course of the Islamic Revolution in Iran which were not an act of the Government of Iran."

That is section D of paragraph 11 of the Algiers Accords, the agreement reached between Iran and the Carter administration for the release of the hostages.
The United States signed a legal agreement to NOT hold the Iranian government responsible for the hostage crisis once the hostages were released. Were the United States to refuse to deal with Iran after the crisis was resolved on the grounds "You held Americans hostage", we would be in clear violation of the Algiers Accords.
Now, one could make the argument that the Algiers Accords were signed under duress and therefore were not a valid agreement. Hostages and their families attempting to bring civil suits against Iran have been making that argument for a long time. I have to say that I'm tempted to agree, but we'd be opening a whole new can of worms with that debate which we could easily spend the entire thread and then some on.
However, that said, the fact remains that we did sign an agreement to not hold the Iranian government accountable for the actions of the students who took the embassy.
You're accusing a former president of treason for dealing with a nation that we agreed to not hold responsible for the events in Tehran.
At the same time, while accusing Reagan of treason for dealing with the Iranian government, and saying that you don't care what it was that was traded, you fail to accuse Carter of treason for his concessions in the Algiers Accords.
To be clear, I'm not at all accusing Carter of treason. In fact, I think he did an excellent job of handling the Tehran crisis given the circumstances and I think that conservatives are very unfair to him.
However, by your logic Carter should be accused of treason as well, yet you seem to give him a pass. This leads me to believe that you are accusing Reagan of treason simply because of partisan political views. The logic behind your accusation is hypocritical, at best.
August 15, 2008

2:16 p.m.

Suggest removal

Marshdale writes:

Jay; After a little more thought, one statistic really sticks out. That is the national debt. The conservative polititions, it has become rather obvious to me, love increasing national debt so they can disguise entitlement programs as the cause. They hate the idea that they may have to help someone less fortunate than themselves through taxation. Conservative polititions and the wealthy they represent don't have or feel any obligation to contribute to, or "promote the general welfare" of our society through taxation. Private donations are fine. I don't have a problem with that but, there will never be enough private dollars to offset the total cost. The wealthy conservatives live in a "me" world. I can't tell you how many times I hear conservatives say, "it's not my problem, why should I care?" Yes there are some flaws in entitlement programs. I will not say they are the end all be all, but in many cases they do help. To do away with them entirely is a recipie for social collapse of the highest order. If you think crime is bad now, do away with social programs all together and see what happens.

I for one like my
socialist fire department
socialist police department
socialist steet maintenance department
socialist park system
socialist Social Securiry
socialist water and sanitation department
socialist US mail

This takes me back to Rosens individual liberty argument which in large part I have some agreement with, but there are many cases when the will of the singular majority is not always correct. For instance womens sufferage, voting rights for minorities, segregated schools etc. All of these court desisions were made as a way to promote the greater good rather than protect the individuals right to be discriminatory in certain cases. Mike Rosen, I would have to say that in these cases 'We The People" is collective rather than individual. We don't allow people to be collectively discriminated against nor do we allow people to collectively discriminate based on race, creed, color or gender. I guess we are still working on the gay maraige thing?
August 15, 2008

2:17 p.m.

Suggest removal

Eli writes:

If you're interested dilligaf, you can find the Algiers Accords here:
http://www.parstimes.com/history/algi...

As far as weapons deals with Iran in the following years, you may find this interesting:
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/N...

This is a draft directive by National Security Advisor Robert McFarlane, and was one of the first documents to propose arming Iran. The rationale at the time was that the Soviets were the greater threat, and that it was in the best interest of the United States at the time to support factions in Iran that were friendly to the West.
We can look back on that now and debate all day long whether it was a good idea or not, but there really isn't any way to tell what the outcome in Iran regarding the Soviets would have been had these deals never happened.
August 15, 2008

2:22 p.m.

Suggest removal

vet64 writes:

And just how, Mr.Rosen, would you suggest that "We the People" take back our government when it would be illegal for anyone to voice their objection? Emperor Bush has seen to that, all in the name of protecting us from harm. Yes, we have an opportunity to right some injustices come election day but that only lasts until the first bribe is offered and accepted. Bush tried to confiscate our guns and luckily that failed, so far. Revolution? That idea does have a nice ring to it and is certainly in the offering but only as a last resort. We the People, as you say, is just a cliche that has been overused.
August 15, 2008

2:25 p.m.

Suggest removal

dilligaf writes:

Eli you have left out the Taliban, Saddam, and Bin Laden. So what I hear you saying is that if someone took one of your family members hostage that when they released them you would sell them some of your guns?
August 15, 2008

2:35 p.m.

Suggest removal

Eli writes:

"Eli you have left out the Taliban, Saddam, and Bin Laden"
Yes, I have left those out dilligaf. For now, anyway. Let's take one issue at a time here.

"So what I hear you saying is that if someone took one of your family members hostage that when they released them you would sell them some of your guns?"

No, that is not what I'm saying, and if that's what you're getting then you should reread my posts very carefully. What I'm saying is that the Reagan administration armed factions in Iran considered friendly to Western ideals, viewing the Soviets as the greatest threat to American interests at the time, and that any dealings with the government of Iran were absolutely not treason, especially considering the terms of the Algiers Accords.
I am also saying that I think your accusations of treason are based simply on disdain for Republican politicians and not on the actual events after the Tehran hostage crisis, otherwise you would also accuse Carter of treason for the concessions made in negotiating their release.
August 15, 2008

2:35 p.m.

Suggest removal

dilligaf writes:

Marshdale
I can't recall the authors name but there is a book out called the 50 billion dollar astroid. It is about what will happen to this country and the effects of people losing their social security. Basically it will make this country not just a third world country but a forth world country. But for the Rosen's and the rest of the haves they could care less. Hey Eli do you think some of these rich cons will let you move in with them for staying loyal to them? NOT!!!!!!!!!!
August 15, 2008

2:45 p.m.

Suggest removal

Eli writes:

"Hey Eli do you think some of these rich cons will let you move in with them for staying loyal to them?"

I don't know. Do you think rich liberals will let me move in with them if I start voting Democrat?
August 15, 2008

2:46 p.m.

Suggest removal

dilligaf writes:

Eli you can ramble on all you want with dealings with Iran. All I know is that these weapons as been use to kill Americans. Now it is obvious this doesn't bother you but I'm a Vietnam Vet and it would not have set right with me if guns and rockets that was being fired at me were given to them by some hair brained President that felt it to be in the best interest of his country. Now it sounds like you have no experience of being in a war zone. I know that because most cons do not. They usually go to the Bush school of getting out of it.
August 15, 2008

2:49 p.m.

Suggest removal

Marshdale writes:

vet64: Even though I am a Liberal, I also am a gun owner. I can't figure out how the rest of the blue collar conservatives out there think Bush is going to protect their gun rights. This administration has done everything they can to indirectly take them away through the Patriot Act and the Homeland Security Act. I wish I could convince more people to see this, but they are blind to it. It's all in the language of those documents. It starts with labeling someone a "suspected" terrorist, warrentless searches Etc. I'm as aware of this as you are vet64. This is the only way the Fascist ultra wealthy will be able to protect themselves if the people were to ever resort to revolution because, they are tired of being scamed into poverty. Lets hope that "we the people" through peaceful assembly and the voting booth in America can turn this title wave of fascism, and the Military Industrial Complex (Eisenhower so dutifully warned us about), around and get this country back on track. Assuming the voting machines are not rigged. I know this all sounds a little paranoid, but someone give me a reason not to be. This administration is so dangerous to America itself, it is almost unfathomable.
August 15, 2008

2:50 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

speaking of mcsame and SS....

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB12174...
August 15, 2008

2:50 p.m.

Suggest removal

Eli writes:

"Now it sounds like you have no experience of being in a war zone. I know that because most cons do not."

Really? I have a CIB that says otherwise.
August 15, 2008

2:52 p.m.

Suggest removal

Eli writes:

"All I know is that these weapons as been use to kill Americans."

Yes, you've made it rather obvious that this is all you know.
However, now you appear to be changing your tune a little bit. Do you stand by your accusation of treason? If so, why does this accusation not apply to Carter as well given the concessions he made to the same government that Reagan dealt with?
August 15, 2008

3:01 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

so what we've established, fellas...is that as much as some of us would apparently like to...you can't rationalize funding, arming and training folks who then go on to kill americans.

right, eli?
August 15, 2008

3:08 p.m.

Suggest removal

Eli writes:

Jay,
One has to wonder how Reagan was supposed to have known that weapons supplied to factions friendly to Western interests for the purposes of dealing with the greater threat around 1985 would have an effect on a war in another nation in 2003. Would you care to explain that? Would you also care to rationalize the funding supplied by the Carter administration as a result of the Algiers Accords and explain why Carter gets a pass and Reagan is guilty of treason?
August 15, 2008

3:27 p.m.

Suggest removal

Cwillyrun1 writes:

jay, the only myth is the one in your head that makes you think you know something when you're just a Democratic led sheep. Try watching "America: Freedom or Fascism" and you'll get it. It's people like you that are so uninformed about the reality of both parties and government that disgust me. Oh yeah, please try to come up with something other than lame and stale "debunk myth" and "strawman" comments. Most of us are laughing at you!
August 15, 2008

3:33 p.m.

Suggest removal

Eli writes:

Another thing worth noting is that both dilligaf and jay have yet to even back the idea that those same arms sold to Iran in the 80's are being used in Iraq today.
BGM-71 TOWs were sold to Iran in 1985. Have any of these been used in Iraq or Afghanistan?
In '86, missile parts were sent to Iran after the release by Hezbollah of Father Lawrence Martin Jenco. Have any of these parts been used in Iraq or Afghanistan?
August 15, 2008

3:41 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

so what we've established, fellas...is that as much as some of us would apparently like to...you can't rationalize funding, arming and training folks who then go on to kill americans.

right, eli?

still waiting on you to address the data, cwilly....attacking me isn't really going to do your credibility any favors.
August 15, 2008

3:43 p.m.

Suggest removal

Cwillyrun1 writes:

Eli, I don't think they care to look at the facts or debate the truth, they're blinded by Democrats. For instance, jay still can't answer on how it was okay for Clinton to wiretap Americans before Bush did it, all the while ripping the Bush administration for it. dilligaf talks about getting out of going to war, but it's not exclusive to Republicans since Clinton left America and went to England for college to miss out on Vietnam. marshdale won't even acknowledge that the Democrats got us in Vietnam, and kept us there for many years. Vietnam was so, so much worse for America than what Iraq is, but it's just convenient to ignore reality. The thing is, they don't want to know the truth, they already have the outcome in their head regardless of facts. jay brings up numbers, but it's only a short history. Should we go back through the last century and find out the real historical trend? I wish I could take the time to put historically factual dat together for them, but no matter how much of the truth I post here, I can't force uninformed people to get a clue. Eli......... good posts though!
August 15, 2008

3:49 p.m.

Suggest removal

Eli writes:

That's what I thought, jay. You've got nothing. We know you've just gotten your rear handed to you when you resort to repeating yourself. Are you planning on starting with your usual insults and temper tantrums next, or would you like to salvage some credibility here?
There are a few points to address:
1. Have the weapons sold to Iran in 1985-86 appeared at all in Iraq or Afghanistan?
2. IF they have (which as far as I know they have not but I certainly could be wrong there), how was Reagan to know what would be happening in Iraq 20 years later?
3. Why is Reagan accused of treason and Carter is given a pass? Again, it's not that I'm accusing Carter of treason, but the logic (or lack thereof) being employed by you and dilligaf would say that Carter should be charged with treason too for the funding he gave to Iran in his concessions in the Algiers Accords.

Stop repeating yourself and try actually debating for once. Or you could continue to be the intellectual coward you usually are, I guess. Your choice.
August 15, 2008

3:53 p.m.

Suggest removal

Cwillyrun1 writes:

Ooops, said marshdale was a Vietnam vet when it was actually dilligaf.......... but he still conveniently ignores a conversation on how is beloved Democratic party got us in Vietnam and kept us there. dilligaf, how do you feel about Johnson keeping you in Vietnam so it would protect his military contracts with corporations out of Texas? I know, it sounds like something a Republican would do, but Johnson was a Democrat. Can't answer?

Something else that just came to mind....... speaking of Iran. During the Iran-Contra hearings, Ollie North spoke about beefing up his home with security measures that went far beyond the ordinary. Some Democratic Senators scoffed at North and asked him who he would be that afraid of. Ollie North replied, "Osama binLaden" with a straight face. The Democratic Senators thought he was out of his mind at the time, but now we know how wrong those Democrats were, don't we?
August 15, 2008

3:56 p.m.

Suggest removal

Cwillyrun1 writes:

marshdale, this one is specifically for you. You like to use the word "Socialist" but you don't even know it's meaning. Socialism is where the ruling entity will take your land, your money and other material items and give it to the community as a whole. Look it up in the dictionary. Again, the uninformed..........
August 15, 2008

4:02 p.m.

Suggest removal

Cwillyrun1 writes:

Run, Forrest (jay), run!! LOL

Eli, they're just puppets being led by strings.
August 15, 2008

4:11 p.m.

Suggest removal

Eli writes:

Cwillyrun1,
Agreed about the puppet comment, but I am a little skeptical regarding contracts being LBJ's primary motivation for continued presence in Vietnam. I've heard the theory before, but haven't seen any convincing evidence to support it. Do you have any?
August 15, 2008

4:24 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

you guys are just repeating the same thing so i guess we can do the same, no?

so what we've established, fellas...is that as much as some of us would apparently like to...you can't rationalize funding, arming and training folks who then go on to kill americans. (unless of course you can do so, eli...i'll even get you started..."conservatives were right in funding, arming and training the folks we're fighting now in the middle east because...)....okay go...

still waiting on you to address the DATA, cwilly....again...attacking me isn't really going to do your credibility any favors.

now...either you are going to address the DATA i've posted, or you're going to continue to run from politically inconvenient truths.

which is it going to be?
August 15, 2008

4:39 p.m.

Suggest removal

Eli writes:

Let's deal with one issue at a time, jay. A blanket statement like yours about funding terrorists doesn't really mean much.
First off, Iran. Is Reagan guilty of treason regarding Iran or not? If so, why? Answer that, and then we'll move on to Iraq, Bin Laden, etc.
August 15, 2008

4:56 p.m.

Suggest removal

Cwillyrun1 writes:

jay, I'm not the one with credibility issues, or are you blind to so many people cutting your posts down? You keep ignoring the questions I have, and ask me for data, after I ask you some questions, that I'm not taking the time to look up. You're a waste of it and I have better things to do since I know no matter what data I put out there, you'll either spin it, or ignore it, or just go to the simple but easy "Republicans are to blame", so why bother when you're just not worth my effort? When you can intelligently discuss an issue, we can talk on an even level, until then, you're below me.

Try watching "America: Freedom or Fascism" and think with an open mind instead of pointing fingers in one direction when it's a two way street. The Democrats love you because you're too gullible. Being uniformed means it's easy for them to lead you with strings.
August 15, 2008

5:01 p.m.

Suggest removal

Cwillyrun1 writes:

No Eli, I don't have something to give you on Johnson. Part of it is sarcasm considering it's the same logic used by libs against Bush and "big oil", and part of it's speculation due to the fact Kennedy had plans on pulling our soldiers out of Vietnam and then in steps Johnson, from Texas (with nearly every military contract coming from a Texas company), taking Vietnam to another level. Something else to keep in mind, Kennedy ordered the CIA to stop training for another invasion of Cuba, and the CIA was heavily involved in Vietnam. Take what you will out of that. I have my ideas, but I'm not posting them.
August 15, 2008

5:04 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

still waiting for you to address the DATA, cwilly....

eli...again....,let me get you started....

conservatives were right in funding, arming and training the folks we're fighting now in the middle east because...

"
August 15, 2008

5:05 p.m.

Suggest removal

Cwillyrun1 writes:

jay, have you ever heard about how Israel attacked the U.S. years ago? The details are kind of vague, but Americans were killed. I think it had something to do with a Navy ship and sailors. So, according to you, that would make every President since then complicit in "funding, arming and training folks who then go on to kill americans", as you put it. I think it happened in the late 60's, but I'm not sure.
August 15, 2008

5:07 p.m.

Suggest removal

Cwillyrun1 writes:

Still waiting for you to answer the questions I asked you before you asked for the data.......... but you can't. You're like the kid who can't admit any wrong, but you like to point fingers. Immature of you, but it's your deal and not my concern.
August 15, 2008

5:45 p.m.

Suggest removal

FreeToChoose writes:

Jay reads the Wall Street Journal!!!!
HOLY COW!!!!!

Maybe he missed this one lambasting Obama's corporate tax policy:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB12187...
August 15, 2008

6 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

STILL waiting for you to comment on the data i posted way way above, cwilly.

stop running.
August 16, 2008

12:19 a.m.

Suggest removal

Eli writes:

Charles,
Was it the right thing to do? I really don't know. I don't have the ability to see into a parallel universe in which those deals were never made, therefore I can't tell you what the results of Soviet influence on the political situation in Iran at the time would have been.
I suppose whether it was a good idea or not is debatable, and we could have quite a long discussion on that, but if you say it was not then I really don't take any issue with that. I take issue with accusations of treason.

Jay,
I disagree with the premise of your statement. You're implying that somehow Reagan knew where we would be in Iraq and Afghanistan 20 years later. Obviously, this is impossible. Therefore, I will not complete your statement because it makes a false assumption.
Now, answer the question. Is Reagan guilty of treason or not? Stop running, you sorry little coward.
August 16, 2008

12:28 a.m.

Suggest removal

Eli writes:

Oh, and one more thing about your "fill in the blank" statement, jay.
Why is it prefaced with "CONSERVATIVES were right in funding..." when the VERY LIBERAL Carter provided the Iranians with quite a bit of funding through the Algiers Accords?
Could it be because you're a clueless partisan hack who cares nothing for the reality of what happened with Iran in the 80's?
August 16, 2008

4:39 a.m.

Suggest removal

Ofearghail writes:

Froward69 writes:

"'As a Republican, I prefer to regard my party as "the party of the person" - the party that better respects and protects individual rights and prerogatives.'

that is a noble ideal Mike but as possibly you have not been paying attention your republican party has run government for multinational corporations and wealthy persons for years."

And just how would you describe "Progressive Insurance" or George Soros?? Hmmmmm?
August 16, 2008

11:40 a.m.

Suggest removal

johnrpack writes:

Mike Rosen writes, "It's not that "We the people" can't agree on anything, but it's certainly true that we won't agree on everything. Along with some areas of common ground, there are also irreconcilable differences between hawks and doves, ..."

There's no question he's hit the nail on the head here. What Mike misses, however, is that the reason 13 individual, sovereign States could agree on our Constitution, despite irreconcilable differences, is because the Constitution limits the federal government to 17 specific powers listed in Article I, Section 8. "We the People" agreed only to allow the federal government to over-rule our differences in 17 areas. We kept the rest to the States and individuals respectively. That limitation is why such diverse people can tolerate a demoncratic government that goes against us so often -- because it can only do so in its limited sphere.

The only problem? The federal government has ignored its limits and is now imposing its will in areas where it has no legitimate power. The violation of its contract means that the federal government is no longer "a bottom-up model of governance."

Here's what Article I, Section 8 says the federal government is allowed to do:

1) To determine and collect uniform taxes, duties, imposts, and excises
2) To borrow money
3) To regulate commerce with foreign nations, the Indian tribes, and among the States
4) To establish uniform Naturalization and Bankruptcy laws
5) To coin money, regulate its value, and fix standards of weight and measurement
6) To punish Counterfeiters
7) To establish Post Offices and Post Roads
8) To provide Copyright and Patent protections
9) To establish federal courts
10) To punish piracy and felonies on the high seas as well as violations of international law/treaties
11) To declare war and regulate conquests
12) To raise armies
13) To provide for and maintain a navy
14) To govern our military forces
15) To provide for the calling forth of the militia
16) To govern the militia
17) To govern the District of Columbia and federal property purchased with consent of the state that property is in

There's nothing about education, retirement, Wall Street, or most everything we hear coming out of Washington, DC.

Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. Our Constitution restricted the wolves such that they couldn't vote to have the sheep for dinner. Unfortunately, that Constitution is being ignored.

Of course, as long as "We the People" continue to vote for Democrats and Republicans -- who intend to continue violating our Constitution and increasing the scope, reach, and cost of federal government -- we have no one but ourselves to blame.
August 16, 2008

11:59 a.m.

Suggest removal

johnrpack writes:

>Spencerr writes: "We have two choices in this country, Republican and Democrat. I vote republican because it is the lesser of two evils, not because it is ideal."

As long as we vote for lesser or greater evil, evil will be elected. We need to stop picking between "colossal government" and "gargantuan government." It's time to vote for smaller government even if we'll lose. It's time to get that snowball rolling so that eventually it'll be big enough to win. It's time to vote Libertarian.
August 16, 2008

1:47 p.m.

Suggest removal

Dannyar writes:

johnrpack,

I'm afraid that we'll never see that day in our lifetimes. The American public doesn't have the stomach for a truly limited government. The average person is too accustomed to a pandering government that promises to strip away all of his concerns and make life easy for him. Too many people actually believe that it is government's responsibility to:

-Educate their children
-Provide health care
-Ban smoking in private establishments
-Require you to wear a seatbelt in your car
-Tell you what you can, and cannot, put in your body
-Tell you what days you can and cannot operate your business and sell your goods (Blue Laws that are finally being reversed)
-Punish the successful through taxes and redistribute their money to those who haven't earned it
-Stand up to 'Big Oil' and punish companies who manage to sell their products at a profit

and on and on and...

I don't believe that mentality will ever change.
August 16, 2008

3:12 p.m.

Suggest removal

rg writes:

America has never been a melting pot; it is a stewing pot.
August 18, 2008

9:39 a.m.

Suggest removal

Cwillyrun1 writes:

jay, how do you account for the fact that part of the last 7 years, the Democrats have been in charge of Congress and the Senate? What role do they play in those numbers? And try to answer honestly instead of spinning it. Seems your spins aren't working too hot. And if you want, when I have time to spare, I can look up the numbers for the data you brought up for a period of over the last 30-40 years and we'll see what the historical data says. Just knowing the truth, Reagan rescued the economy from the disaster that was Jimmy Carter.

So, what do you think of Obama voting for corporate welfare in 2005? What do you think of the plans to put a windfall tax on retirement income? What about the windfall tax on oil profits that will get passed onto the consumer, raising prices at the pump even more? As I said, Democrats are no better than Republicans. Try watching "America: Freedom or Fascism" and let me know how my statement's not the truth.
August 18, 2008

9:43 a.m.

Suggest removal

Cwillyrun1 writes:

jay, just one more thought for you.......... the current mortgage crisis has been a problem while the Democrats have been the majority in Congress and the Senate. Before that, the property rates were rising each year.
August 18, 2008

10:33 p.m.

Suggest removal

Lowtaxequalsfreedom writes:

Both parties are taking away our choices, increasing taxes, interfering with the market, debasing the dollar. Basically expanding the scope, size and influence of government.

One party just does it a little quicker than the other!

Mike is confused. Just today he said anybody who challenges the establishment is a communist/anarchist. Communist is the exact opposite of an anarchist.

We the people? I never signed any contract. Did you?
August 18, 2008

10:48 p.m.

Suggest removal

Lowtaxequalsfreedom writes:

Marsdale writes: "I for one like my
socialist fire department
socialist police department
socialist steet maintenance department
socialist park system
socialist Social Securiry
socialist water and sanitation department
socialist US mail"

Marsdale, you have been brainwashed so severely that you falsely believe that the only way you can receive these services is if the Government provides them. Not true. Unfortunately you will never get the chance to see which company can provide you these services more effectively and cheaper. You only assume the government is giving you the best service possible.

For example builders might build houses that do not burn if they had to take care of fire control themselves. Major automobile manufactures could easily have local accident response facilities. You only assume it is as clean and healthy as possible. You only assume it is a cheap as possible. Water is over priced. It is natural resource that is completely free. Gravity delivers it. Yet somehow a water bill can cost thousands per year. The private sector might create self contained single unit recycle center for each home. Social security? If you are wealthy you will never get a penny back. Net loss. If you are poor you might gain a little. Why not save yourself and invest yourself?

You will never know.

If privatization scares you, we should at least have competing governments.
August 19, 2008

1:33 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

cwilly....STILL waiting on you to respond to the DATA...

eli...let me get you started again as you seem to have gotten sidetracked.

conservatives were right in funding, arming and training the folks we're fighting now in the middle east because...

come on guys...this isn't that hard
August 19, 2008

3:17 p.m.

Suggest removal

Eli writes:

I didn't get sidetracked, jay. See my 12:19 and 12:28 posts. There is no need to keep repeating yourself, I already told you I will not respond to that statement and very clearly explained why. Repeating it over and over won't change that, but I guess that's all you've got. How pathetic....it's like talking to a two year old every time with you.
August 19, 2008

11:01 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

alright...so what we've established, fellas...is that as much as some of us would apparently like to...you can't rationalize funding, arming and training folks who then go on to kill americans.

right, eli?
August 19, 2008

11:35 p.m.

Suggest removal

Eli writes:

Jay, for someone who claims to be well educated your reading comprehension is absolutely sad. Let me know when you're ready to offer a response to my 12:19 and 12:28 posts.
Here's a hint to get you started: repeating the same garbage that I already addressed is not an adequate response.
I'm losing my patience for having to educate you on recent history. Let me know when you're ready to step up your game.
August 20, 2008

2:25 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

i'll say it again....so what we've established, fellas...is that as much as some of us would apparently like to...you can't rationalize funding, arming and training folks who then go on to kill americans.

right eli?

either you can or you can't.

i haven't seen you do so thus far...so can we consider the matter closed?

cwilly...STILL waiting for you to stop running and address the politically inconvenient data posted above...
August 20, 2008

2:42 p.m.

Suggest removal

Eli writes:

Yes, jay. If I were to hand a gun to someone I KNEW would subsequently travel on to Afghanistan or Iraq and subsequently use said weapon to engage American soldiers, you'd be correct in pointing out that it probably wasn't a good idea for me to give that individual a weapon.
That said, what point are you trying to make? All you're doing is repeating something completely irrelevant over and over again, and it makes you look like a moron. We all know you're not the brightest person on this site, but you're certainly not stupid enough to believe that you've made some sort of valid point with that statement.
What are you trying to say? That the Reagan administration somehow knew where we'd be in the middle east in 20 years? You're not making much sense at the moment. What conservatives "funded, armed and trained" the same individuals fighting Americans in the middle east right now, knowing what they were doing?
August 20, 2008

3:56 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

we're not just talking weapons, though are we, eli?

we're talking funding and training as well, right?

why are you continuing to run from this losing battle?

now....either you can rationalize conservatives' actions in regards to the middle east or you can't.

so far you've failed to do so.

so which is it?
August 20, 2008

4:31 p.m.

Suggest removal

Cwillyrun1 writes:

jay, my question for you is, how much of the blame goes to Democrats for the data you posted? Why do you have problems with that question? Do you not want to add how the Congress and Senate are the ones that write legislation, and for the last two years have controlled that branch of the government (with gas prices going not only above $3.00 a gallon, but over $4.00 a gallon, and the mortgage crisis laying at the Democrats feet). Talk about running, and with your tail between your legs at that. Please prove that the numbers you cite are solely the fault of Bush and Republicans, then I will address your data. I know you won't, but should anything more be expected from you, the lowest common denominator? I don't think so. It's why you and froward are the most laughed at posters on these boards!
August 21, 2008

8:34 a.m.

Suggest removal

Eli writes:

"we're talking funding and training as well, right?"

Depends on who and when you're talking about. Be more specific.

"now....either you can rationalize conservatives' actions in regards to the middle east or you can't."

You'll have to be more specific regarding their actions before any appropriate response can be offered for this. What actions?
August 21, 2008

11:44 a.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

we'll try it again, eli...so what we've established, fellas...is that as much as some of us would apparently like to...you can't rationalize funding, arming and training folks who then go on to kill americans.

right eli?

cwilly...as we've established many many times...if you're going to try to shift the blame for the failures of the last eight years from the republicans to the dems, you need to tell us which specific democratic legislation and/or initiatives were responsible for said failures.

when did accountability become a four letter word on the far right?
August 21, 2008

12:46 p.m.

Suggest removal

Eli writes:

*Sigh*...I give up. I've already addressed that statement, jay, and I asked you to specifically reference what funding, training, etc. Obviously, without the specifics, an adequate response either way cannot be given. Since you refuse to get into any specifics and resort to just repeating yourself, that leads me to believe that you don't know what specifically you are referring to. You're just throwing around accusations without a clue what you're talking about again.
If you'd like to discuss the specifics be it on Iran or Bin Laden or whomever else I'd be happy to do so, but you're just wasting my time and making yourself look like a fool repeating yourself like that.
August 21, 2008

1:37 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

of course you give up, eli...because you can't rationalize funding, arming and training folks who then go on to kill americans.
August 21, 2008

2:48 p.m.

Suggest removal

Eli writes:

Good lord man, you are a tool. If you are going to throw out accusations like that, provide the specifics. You haven't argued a single valid point thus far on this thread.
Who, what, when and where are you talking about, jay? Who was trained? Who was armed? Who was funded? Why was it done at the time? What effect, if any, does it have today?
Are you referring to the Iranians? The war against the Soviets in Afghanistan? Another event that hasn't been mentioned yet?
Try making a valid argument for once.
August 21, 2008

3:27 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

uh oh...the willful ignorance is rearing its ugly head again, eli.

are you now saying that conservatives have not trained, funded and armed groups that have gone on to kill americans?

my goodness....we've come full circle haven't we....and all because you won't agree to the statement that you can't rationalize funding, arming and training folks who then go on to kill americans.

wow
August 21, 2008

3:36 p.m.

Suggest removal

Eli writes:

You're still not making any arguments, jay. You're dancing. How pathetic
August 21, 2008

3:39 p.m.

Suggest removal

Eli writes:

"are you now saying that conservatives have not trained, funded and armed groups that have gone on to kill americans?"

I can't really say much of anything one way or the other if you won't say what event you are referencing now, can I? What a sorry little coward you are, jay. You dance more than anybody else on this website and go to absolutely insane lengths to avoid actual debate of any kind. You never argue, you just whine and repeat yourself and whine some more. You're a waste of a good mind.
August 21, 2008

4:25 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

i'll repeat the question until you answer it.

"are you now saying that conservatives have not trained, funded and armed groups that have gone on to kill americans?"

yes or no.

stop running.
August 21, 2008

4:34 p.m.

Suggest removal

Eli writes:

No, I'm not saying that. For Christ's sake, we worked with the Iraqi army and then ended up fighting them years later, so of course that's happened. What made you think I was making such a claim?
Whether or not it was the right thing to do at the time is another question entirely, and depends on the specifics of the situation which you refuse to get into. This leads me to believe that you don't really know much of anything about the topic.

Home › Opinion › Opinion Columns & Blogs

ROSEN: 'We the people'

By Mike Rosen, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)

Published August 15, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.Updated August 15, 2008 at 1:43 a.m.

More Opinion Columns & Blogs

Share

Comments

Featured

Columns & Blogs

Published August 15, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.
Updated August 15, 2008 at 1:43 a.m.