Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Tea Party/GOP candidate's ad: "Repent or perish"

Wow. Put this one down as my favorite ad of the cycle.

If you had any doubt that Tea Party candidates elected to Congress are going to demand an apocalyptic showdown with Obama and Dems, check out this striking ad from Dan Benishek, a surgeon and Tea Party/GOP candidate running in a very close race for the seat of retiring Michigan Rep. Bart Stupak:

The ad from Benishek -- who is running against Dem opponent Gary McDowell, a hay farmer -- features portentious drumming, a riveting montage of lurid, charged imagery, and best of all, a "repent or perish" sign at around the 12 second mark:

repentorperish2.JPG

It's going to get very interesting next year.

By Greg Sargent  | November 1, 2010; 12:13 PM ET
Categories:  2010 elections, House Dems, House GOPers  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Why ABC's Breitbart invite is a big deal
Next: Dem internal poll: Murray leads Rossi, 51-44

Comments

WOO HOO!!!

Posted by: JakeD2 | November 1, 2010 12:15 PM | Report abuse

I do not hate Obama. I actually like him.

However, I oppose his policies. And that opposition has gotten greater over the past two years.

I honestly believe the best thing for the nation is for Obama to resign. We have to get all these distracting issues off the table, and get on to economic growth as the major objective.


Simple.


Call me a racist for that, I really do not care.


.

Posted by: AutumnVictory | November 1, 2010 12:22 PM | Report abuse

The irony of a bunch of Ayn Rand / Objectivism adherents using biblical end times references is too funny for words.

Posted by: nisleib | November 1, 2010 12:24 PM | Report abuse

AutumnVictory, you're out of your mind. JakeD2, first again with your usual incisive comments.

Greg, give 'em enough rope.

Posted by: KathleenHusseininMaine | November 1, 2010 12:31 PM | Report abuse

I have two in laws in town visting us from Michigan's U.P...in the district this race is being contested.

They are horrified at the R candidate! They are as upset up there as I am down here in Florida about Rick "the Jake D STRF" Scott.

There are many in the R party who have truly lost their ability to think rationally...they have become obsessed with hate and ignorance and they are not looking for a mere election victory..they talk in terms like "take over"..."lick our boots" etc.

Thank heavens Stewarts Rally for Sanity blew away Beck's rally for ignorance in numbers of attendees!!!!

Thank heavens Jake is an old dinosaur as are most R's...check out the Fox demographics...old white people scared of their own shadows.

Posted by: rukidding7 | November 1, 2010 12:32 PM | Report abuse

KathleenHusseininMaine

AutumnVictory is SaveTheRainForests 2,375th name.

Posted by: nisleib | November 1, 2010 12:33 PM | Report abuse

I'm a little surprised this race is even close. I had kind of assumed from the outset that this was the Republicans' race to lose. And I still kinda doubt they'll manage to actually do that, but I'd also doubt they could have made it even this close a race with a saner candidate.

Posted by: CalD | November 1, 2010 12:35 PM | Report abuse

rukidding7:

Careful with the "hateful" personal attacks.

Orin Kerr went to the Stewart/Colbert “rally” for an hour or so, but there were so many people that you couldn’t get close enough to follow what was happening. He assumes it was different up close, but in the back you could barely hear anything and there was no video to watch, either. So for the most part, he saw lots of people standing around enjoying the nice day, with lots of funny signs and many folks in Halloween costumes, but he couldn’t really hear anything onstage except for very faint renditions of the musical acts.

http://volokh.com/2010/10/30/the-rally-to-restore-sanity-andor-fear/#comments

Posted by: JakeD2 | November 1, 2010 12:36 PM | Report abuse

I want my Morning Plum!

Posted by: CalD | November 1, 2010 12:38 PM | Report abuse

"Careful with the "hateful" personal attacks."

LOL! Now ~that's~ funny, coming from Jake("I'm not an assassin... yet")D2.

Posted by: CalD | November 1, 2010 12:42 PM | Report abuse

If the 'partiers were all old non-white people, the last thing those like rukidding7 would do is point out their race and imply a demonization of them based on their race.

P.S. As much as I dislike those like rukidding7, opposing the 'partiers is more important. Please join my call to repudiate the teaparties tomorrow:

http://24ahead.com/n/10263

Posted by: LonewackoDotCom | November 1, 2010 12:42 PM | Report abuse

Here's another take on the rally....more on some people who attended the rally.

http://exiledonline.com/the-rally-to-restore-vanity-generation-x-celebrates-its-homeric-struggle-against-lameness/

Posted by: mikefromArlington | November 1, 2010 12:42 PM | Report abuse

OMG!

Theocracy!

And a doctor, in the bargain!

Evil Health Care Establishment tool.

{{{CBS News, "Hey maybe we can tie him to Mengele. He's a doctor, right?}}}

Posted by: tao9 | November 1, 2010 12:43 PM | Report abuse

So, 60Plus and AmericansforProsperity are starting to hammer the DC/NoVa area with anti health care ads.

The war on America has begun. Koch and The Chamber of Commerce have fired the first shots. The Oligarchs push to lower our standard of living will continue until anyone short of a billionaire will no longer have a say.

Selfishness disguised as liberty. Power wearing a mask of freedom. Free trade tearing our working class apart hidden under the facade of patriotism.

Anyone who gives a damn needs to repudiate these libertarian ideas. Libertarians are the true enemies of this country.

They don't want our Constitution. They hate our laws. They hate the idea of the United States.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | November 1, 2010 12:53 PM | Report abuse

CalD:

What part of "I'm not an assassin" are you having trouble understanding? Do you think that Deitrich Boenhoffer was "hateful"?

Posted by: JakeD2 | November 1, 2010 12:55 PM | Report abuse

It's hilarious reading posts from the "reasonable righties" on this blog where they disregard the scary and unhinged from their own yet defend the "socialist" and "government takeover" lies.

Another of the their favorites defenses of their more extreme candidates if the "don't worry, they won't actually be able to enact" the ridiculous and reality-avoiding policies they have been articulating.

Seems the slogan of the modern GOP is, "Don't worry, we don't really believe all the lies we've been telling and we won't really do any of the crazy stuff we're promoting."

Posted by: pragmaticstill | November 1, 2010 12:56 PM | Report abuse

Greg

You should repent

Kathleen you too

MikefromArlington

rukidding7

Kevin Willis

12 Barblue

Shrink

Paul Lane


YOU SHOULD ALL REPENT


YOU STILL HAVE TIME.

Posted by: BlueSkiesForever | November 1, 2010 12:59 PM | Report abuse

Seems the slogan of the modern GOP is, "Don't worry, we don't really believe all the lies we've been telling and we won't really do any of the crazy stuff we're promoting."

Trust us.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | November 1, 2010 1:01 PM | Report abuse

Lonewacko:

I think you've read my posts here for long enough to know that I am not a pro-illegal immigration, anti-intellectualist (I would doubt that many TEA Partiers are ; )

Maybe we can talk in a calm, reasoned manner after tomorrow.

Posted by: JakeD2 | November 1, 2010 1:01 PM | Report abuse

"They hate the idea of the United States."

And Christmas and Hannukuh.

And Chevrolets.

And puppies!!!

And the Yankees AND the Dallas Cowboys...uh, wait...

Posted by: tao9 | November 1, 2010 1:03 PM | Report abuse

For those who've never heard of Dietrich Bonhoeffer: he was a German Lutheran pastor and martyr during WWII. He was also a participant in the German Resistance movement against Nazism and participated in the failed plot to assassinate Hitler. Nothing I've read written by or about him indicates that he was hateful in the least.

Posted by: JakeD2 | November 1, 2010 1:05 PM | Report abuse

Joke -- the most immature 76- or 77-year-old man on the planet. Just incredible.

Posted by: Observer691 | November 1, 2010 1:06 PM | Report abuse

Lonewacko

In fact, the polls clearly show that the Tea Party holds more graduate degrees than the democratic party members - by a large margin.

This actually makes sense, if one examines the strength of the thinking on each side.

The majority of the American People now support the Tea Party. Quite simple. The economy is the most important issue and the health care bill must go. The deficits must be reduced drastically.


Case closed.

Obama should resign. If this were a Parliamentary democracy like the European Socialist countries which Obama loves so much, Obama would be out of office on Wednesday morning. So Obama should do just that and resign immediately or he can do the right thing and do it Wednesday morning.


.

Posted by: BlueSkiesForever | November 1, 2010 1:07 PM | Report abuse

tao9, yes libertarians hate the idea of the states being united under some sort of law or charter, let alone The Constitution. They hate portions of it.

Anything that doesn't justify their selfish characteristics, they openly despise.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | November 1, 2010 1:09 PM | Report abuse

tao9 at 1:03 PM


You forgot apple pie, hot dogs and the Constitution.

Posted by: BlueSkiesForever | November 1, 2010 1:09 PM | Report abuse

Jake

Just the fact that you fancy yourself a modern day Bonhoeffer says all we need to know. Presumably you characterize Obama as your Hitler, that is just weird and creepy.

STRF

It doesn't matter what name you go by anymore, you're still just a thread bomber with nary an original thought. Boring.

I'll be glad when the election is over and we can start building a coalition to take back the House.

Posted by: lmsinca | November 1, 2010 1:09 PM | Report abuse

Jake

Just the fact that you fancy yourself a modern day Bonhoeffer says all we need to know. Presumably you characterize Obama as your Hitler, that is just weird and creepy.
----------------------------
There's another word for it: grandiosity.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | November 1, 2010 1:12 PM | Report abuse

He's not resigning. His approval numbers nearly match his disapproval numbers if you look at the average of the polls. He has 18 months to see if the economy starts to uptick. If it does, he'll roll to an easy victory. If it doesn't, then he'll lose.

Posted by: cao091402 | November 1, 2010 1:13 PM | Report abuse

mikefromArlington at 1:09 PM

The democratic party wasn't around when they wrote the Constitution.

However, they did actually ENUMERATE the powers of the Federal government.

They also said, in the Bill of Rights, that any powers not actually enumerated - were reserved for the States or for the People. Clearly, the powers of the Federal government were meant to be LIMITED.


I realize you do not agree.

However that is what the Constitution says.

Posted by: BlueSkiesForever | November 1, 2010 1:14 PM | Report abuse

Tao said:

"OMG!

Theocracy!"

And to think, last week I heard BO again shouting about how the Parable of the Good Samaritan is the basis for America's core value and should be the basis for its laws.

But not a single outcry from our lefty friends about theocracy. Where were you, anti-theocrats? You know who you are.

Posted by: quarterback1 | November 1, 2010 1:16 PM | Report abuse

BlueSkies I repent on a regular basis, do you?

12B, I gotta work but I'll get back on the *grand solution* soon enough.

Posted by: shrink2 | November 1, 2010 1:17 PM | Report abuse

cao091402 | November 1, 2010 1:13 PM

And in that 18 months the GOP will do everything it can to STOP the economy from upticking.

This is the most frustrating part of the current political dynamic.

Posted by: nisleib | November 1, 2010 1:18 PM | Report abuse

Mike from Arlington

The democrats think the Bill of Rights only has 8 Amendments.

They prefer to pretend the 2nd and 10th Amendments don't exist.

.

Posted by: BlueSkiesForever | November 1, 2010 1:18 PM | Report abuse

Once again qb, there's a difference in acknowledging God and respecting their believe to shoving your religious beliefs down the throats of Americans think women have a right to their own privacy and health care is a humane thing to accomplish for all.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | November 1, 2010 1:20 PM | Report abuse

12B, I gotta work but I'll get back on the *grand solution* soon enough.
-------------------------------
I'll be watching for you. Go do good work.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | November 1, 2010 1:20 PM | Report abuse

How dare the President use a parable from the Bible as some sort of message.

Posted by: pragmaticstill | November 1, 2010 1:24 PM | Report abuse

mike,

Your rant above is one of the more insanely nonsensical I've seen in a while. Election Day is really driving you and some of your lefty pals berserk.

But how about just answering one question. Which parts of the Constitution can you show us the "libertarians" hate?

Posted by: quarterback1 | November 1, 2010 1:24 PM | Report abuse

The Tea Party is demanding an apocalyptic showdown? Which politician was it who recently told his supporters to "punish their enemies"?

Posted by: tomtildrum | November 1, 2010 1:26 PM | Report abuse

@Autumn: If two years of obstruction, questioning the President's patriotism/nationality, and creating infinite "distractions" is all it takes to get a President of the other party out of office, then there will no longer be a functioning government in this country. No one would call you racist for that, just incredibly short-sighted (and most likely disingenous).

@BlueSkies: Clearly, you've never actually taken a ConLaw class. However, I don't think anyone disagrees that the powers of the federal government are supposed to be (and are) limited. That does not mean that every time a president's approval rating drops below 50%, he should resign (also, the assertion that the majority of Americans agree with the Tea Party is absurd, esp. since the Tea Party doesn't contain a unified, coherent ethos to begin with).

Posted by: jaycane40oz | November 1, 2010 1:26 PM | Report abuse

pragmaticstill:

That assumes that Obama is legally President of the United States.

Posted by: JakeD2 | November 1, 2010 1:27 PM | Report abuse

Mike,

Can we get together on definitely NOT loving the Yankees and Cowboys?

Posted by: tao9 | November 1, 2010 1:27 PM | Report abuse

jaycane40oz - Autumn and Blue Skies are the same person.

It is usually referred to as, "The Plum Lines Retarded Assh0le." Though not by me, because that would be an insult to the mentally handicapped.

Greg has banned him before, but he changes names a half dozen times a day.

Posted by: nisleib | November 1, 2010 1:30 PM | Report abuse

"Once again qb, there's a difference in acknowledging God and respecting their believe to shoving your religious beliefs down the throats of Americans think women have a right to their own privacy and health care is a humane thing to accomplish for all."

Really, what's the difference? Setting aside that BO is plainly distorting and politicizing the meaning of the parable, what is the difference between BO's belief that all Americans should be subject to laws enforcing "Good Samaritanship" and pro-lifers' belief that abortions should be illegal or regulated? Whose beliefs are you talking about in "their believe [sic]"? Why isn't BO respecting the beliefs of people who don't believe in the Bible, and why is he ignoring the "wall of separation between church and state"?

"How dare the President use a parable from the Bible as some sort of message."

Do you have a defense of his attempt impose his religious beliefs, rather than a meaningless retort?

Posted by: quarterback1 | November 1, 2010 1:31 PM | Report abuse

BlueSkiesForever:

I can vouch for Lonewacko, he's no Democrat. Something else much be wrong for him to let loose friendly fire.

Posted by: JakeD2 | November 1, 2010 1:31 PM | Report abuse

That does not mean that every time a president's approval rating drops below 50%, he should resign
-----------------------------
@jay,

Don't worry. Blue Skies (or whatever he's going by this minute) thought the President should immediately resign when his approval rating was 70%. I forget the reasons.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | November 1, 2010 1:32 PM | Report abuse

NOT loving the Yankees and Cowboys?
Then love the Ducks, the are really fun to watch. And they got rid of their criminals and dialed back the goofy uniforms a notch, Phil Knight was probably worried about hurting his brand.

Posted by: shrink2 | November 1, 2010 1:33 PM | Report abuse

"Which parts of the Constitution can you show us the "libertarians" hate?"

The Article 1, Section 8, the 10th, the 14th and the 17th come to mind.

They hate any parts that have to do with general welfare of our country and the power of Congress to enable laws to regulate commerce so all Americans don't get the short end of the stick.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | November 1, 2010 1:36 PM | Report abuse

jaycane40oz:

Since you are such a Constitutional Law expert, what's your opinion on whether Obama is President of the United State if he is not a "natural born" citizen?

Posted by: JakeD2 | November 1, 2010 1:38 PM | Report abuse

jaycane40oz


If you read my posting carefully, I said that because Obama loves European Socialist parliamentary countries so much, he should do as they do - and when a government loses the support of a majority in the lower House, Obama should resign.

It is a simple analogy.


As for your other point, it is clear that a majority of Americans support the Tea Party - millions of Americans will express just that with their votes tomorrow.


That is the mandate.

The Tea Party rules !

Posted by: BlueSkiesForever | November 1, 2010 1:39 PM | Report abuse

Our economy will be receiving a huge boost through the issuance of unemployment checks to out of work D politicians (per Nancy Pelosi). The NeoCom Statists will be biting the dust, a just reward to the arrogance of the elitist ruling class and their loyal dependents making fun of American citizens wishing to preserve their freedoms. If they can’t take away your freedom openly they will then take it by decimating your paycheck. That plan is already in progress.

Posted by: leapin | November 1, 2010 1:40 PM | Report abuse

Umm qb, just so you know.

People who don't believe in the Bible can still believe in "Good Samaritanship."

So, enforcing Good Samaritanship isn't pushing a Christianist agenda.

It's just the right thing to do that everyone of all religions could rally around.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | November 1, 2010 1:41 PM | Report abuse

Do you have a defense of his attempt (to) impose his religious beliefs ...

Posted by: quarterback1 | November 1, 2010 1:31 PM

When did he do that?

Posted by: pragmaticstill | November 1, 2010 1:44 PM | Report abuse

@Jake:

My opinion is that he is a natural born citizen, so it's a moot point. This is the same opinion I have on whether George Bush was President if he was not a "natural born" citizen. And my opinion on every President in history (save George Washington).

On a more practical note, I don't see any difference between a President who was born here, and one who moved here when he was 18 months old, but that's neither here nor there.

Posted by: jaycane40oz | November 1, 2010 1:44 PM | Report abuse

Our economy will be receiving a huge boost through the issuance of unemployment checks to out of work D politicians (per Nancy Pelosi). The NeoCom Statists will be biting the dust, a just reward to the arrogance of the elitist ruling class and their loyal dependents making fun of American citizens wishing to preserve their freedoms. If they can’t take away your freedom openly they will then take it by decimating your paycheck. That plan is already in progress.

Posted by: leapin | November 1, 2010 1:46 PM | Report abuse

nisleib at 1:30

That is a personal attack, and you should be banned.


Greg - ban that person for a personal attack

Posted by: BlueSkiesForever | November 1, 2010 1:46 PM | Report abuse

Right. In political ad featuring the tea party protests, there's a sign that says, "Pork - Repent or Perish" and that means the Christianists are coming to take you away.

Restore your own sanity, people.

Posted by: ALHurley | November 1, 2010 1:48 PM | Report abuse

"The Article 1, Section 8, the 10th, the 14th and the 17th come to mind."

Generally speaking, it's liberals who "hate" Section 8, because it is too confining for their vision of omnipotent national government. You have no real argument there.

It most definitely is liberals and not libertarians who hate the 10th Amendment. Somehow, I doubt you know what it actually says.

Nor do libertarians hate the 14th. They might hate the fanciful "interpretations" put on it by SCOTUS under the control of far-left activists.

Some people have begun reconsidering the wisdom of the 17th because it has arguably expanded federal power at the expense of states, and resulted in election of a low class of incompetents and blowhard demogogues. I don't know of any particular correlation with that questioning and libertarianism.

"They hate any parts that have to do with general welfare of our country and the power of Congress to enable laws to regulate commerce so all Americans don't get the short end of the stick."

Impressively specific. But the Constitution doesn't grant Congress any such power. Perhaps you are thinking of the Interstate Commerce Clause, which is a far cry from your mischaracterization.

Posted by: quarterback1 | November 1, 2010 1:51 PM | Report abuse

nutcase jake is still at it. he is a great laugh. a birther and an o'donnell supporter. lol.

Posted by: funkey | November 1, 2010 1:51 PM | Report abuse

jaycane40oz:

I have to assume you are avoiding the question then, because you know what the LEGAL answer is, whether you think it moot or not. If you did not understand the question I asked, please let me know. You are correct, at least, on a practical note, it's neither here nor there if you fail to see any difference between a President who was born here, and a usurper who moved here when he was 18 months old.

BTW: my opinion IF he is a natural born citizen, is that Obama is legally President of the United States. See how easy that was?

Posted by: JakeD2 | November 1, 2010 1:54 PM | Report abuse

"I do not hate Obama. I actually like him.

However, I oppose his policies. And that opposition has gotten greater over the past two years.

"

ME TOO!

he's turned out to be a nother pro-corporation, anti-citizen president just like Bush!

Posted by: newagent99 | November 1, 2010 1:54 PM | Report abuse

What is the definition of grandiosity, we ask.

It refers to an unrealistic sense of superiority, a sustained view of oneself as better than others that causes the narcissist to view other with disdain or as inferior. It also refers to a sense of uniqueness, the belief that few others have in common with oneself and that one can only be understood by a few or very special people.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | November 1, 2010 1:54 PM | Report abuse

JakeD2: the partiers are following people who I've known for years are on the other side from me on immigration. The same is true of their "free market" (i.e., libertarian) ideology. If someone is going to be a useful idiot for Armey et al and keeps going along with it, I don't see any reason why I shouldn't oppose them too. That's not directed at you personally, just at the teaparties movement in general.

Posted by: LonewackoDotCom | November 1, 2010 1:58 PM | Report abuse

"People who don't believe in the Bible can still believe in "Good Samaritanship."

So, enforcing Good Samaritanship isn't pushing a Christianist agenda.

It's just the right thing to do that everyone of all religions could rally around."

Well, that's a relief, since exactly the same thing can be said of abortion regulation, or resisting redefinition or "marriage," etc. So all the alarms about rising "theocracy" are wrong. Good to know you agree they are nonsense.

"Do you have a defense of his attempt (to) impose his religious beliefs ...

Posted by: quarterback1 | November 1, 2010 1:31 PM

When did he do that?"

Inter alia, when he has repeatedly invoked the New Testament as the proper basis for our public values and laws.

Posted by: quarterback1 | November 1, 2010 1:59 PM | Report abuse

qb, I could find you quotes of the batch of recent Senatorial candidates being pushed by the tea partiers to be in the Senate but I'm sure you've read them already.

One thing I left out of the merger of the theocrats with some of the original tea party libertarian types. You've got Miller, Angle, O'Donnell, Paul, Buck and a couple others that don't believe in abortion even in the case of rape and incest. Having them in the Senate has been a shadow game I think the religious right has tried to sneak past America. All of those candidates have echoed the libertarian views of repudiating the portions of the Constitution I mentioned above. Google any of them and the word Constitution or abortion if you don't believe me.

All that's left now between you and I is different interpretations of the Constitution it seems.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | November 1, 2010 1:59 PM | Report abuse


Greg, That still frame of the sign "Repent or Perish" was barely readable as it flashed on for a split second in that video above.

But leave it to you to try to portray those who oppose Obama as extreme.

The signs opposed to Obamacare and spending were on long enough to read and I think that was the Republican candidate's message.

And your "features portentious drumming, a riveting montage of lurid, charged imagery," comment?

Know what, when a country owes as much as we owe China, a communist country, and Obama & the Democrats want to spend more, maybe we should be worried.

Doctors say fear is a sign of intelligence.

With all the fear in the prose of the liberal MSM attacking the Tea Party candidates and TP movement, maybe there is a glint of intelligence in the Journolistas after all.

The Journolistas fear the tsunami coming tomorrow. What intelligence! Finally!

Posted by: janet8 | November 1, 2010 2:03 PM | Report abuse

Inter alia, when he has repeatedly invoked the New Testament as the proper basis for our public values and laws.

Posted by: quarterback1 | November 1, 2010 1:59 PM

What are you talking about? Do you have any quotes? Any links?

Posted by: pragmaticstill | November 1, 2010 2:04 PM | Report abuse

"But how about just answering one question. Which parts of the Constitution can you show us the "libertarians" hate?"

How about the 16th Amendment?

Posted by: rukidding7 | November 1, 2010 2:06 PM | Report abuse

"All of those candidates have echoed the libertarian views of repudiating the portions of the Constitution I mentioned above. Google any of them and the word Constitution or abortion if you don't believe me."

Sorry, but pointing out that Roe v. Wade has no Constitutional basis is hardly repudiating any part of the Constitution, let alone the ones you listed. It's just the opposite, in fact. You're very confused about many aspects of the Constitution.

"All that's left now between you and I is different interpretations of the Constitution it seems."

I doubt that is all, but it's clear of course that your claims about people "hating" the Constitution are simply based on their opposition to ridiculous "interpretations" you find politically attractive.

Here't the bottom line: the left has been tearing apart the Constitution ever since FDR declared it an outdated horse and buggy document that stood in the way of the modern regulatory and bureaucratic state. You're just engaged in the usual leftist propaganda project of inverting reality and accusing your opponents of what you do.

No one is fooled.

Posted by: quarterback1 | November 1, 2010 2:07 PM | Report abuse

"since exactly the same thing can be said of abortion regulation, or resisting redefinition or "marriage," etc."

Not really. The opposition to redefinition is bases in religious beliefs mostly. Same goes for regulating a woman's right to choose.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | November 1, 2010 2:07 PM | Report abuse

What's going to be so interesting about a tax cut, a milquetoast effort to reign in Social Security, and a few show trials of climate scientists?

Posted by: klautsack | November 1, 2010 2:09 PM | Report abuse

"stood in the way of the modern regulatory and bureaucratic state."

Couldn't be further from the truth. Regulating commerce is explicit.

Hating parts of the Constitution doesn't automatically make them some sort of left wing plot as you're making them out to be.

Like I said. Libertarianism is just a justification created for selfishness and greed.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | November 1, 2010 2:12 PM | Report abuse

"The irony of a bunch of Ayn Rand / Objectivism adherents using biblical end times references is too funny for words."

Worth repeating, nisleib. The objectivists have contempt for traditional Christian values, yet are only too happy to use the Bible toters in places like Kentucky, Colorado and Alaska to get their pro-corporate rule agenda into action.

Posted by: B2O2 | November 1, 2010 2:16 PM | Report abuse

As a social libertarian I have no problem with the Federal government's power to grant letters of marque and reprisal. None at all.

the tenth amendment makes perfect sense. I'd like to see a resurgence of states' rights issues in America. Lefty bigots have usurped states' rights by claiming that it is somehow code for discrimination. To me that's just progressives' inability to see actual progress.

Anchor babies are a problem, of that I have no doubt. A neighbor went to visit his ex wife who is a nurse working at a county public health facility. While he was there a spanish speaking lady was told that she was pregnant. Her and her friends shouted with joy. Why? Now she cannot be so easily deported. She's made it to the promised land: an anchor in the US and access to the welfare feeding trough thanks to her illegitimate child.

Yeah, that's a problem for me, but not because I'm a social libertarian, but because I'm a fiscal conservative.

I'm not convinced that the move to popular election of senators did anywhere near as much to erode states rights and its recent history with civil rights. We have to reclaim states rights and the left is helping us by over using the racist charge.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | November 1, 2010 2:17 PM | Report abuse

"But how about just answering one question. Which parts of the Constitution can you show us the "libertarians" hate?"

How about the 16th Amendment?

Posted by: rukidding7
------------------------------------------
QB will probably respond that Liberals hate it too as if that's an answert to whether or not libertarians hate it.

The initial question was whether libertarians hate portions of the Constitution, an admittedly stupid question, but if QB is going to answer it with a denial, then non-sequitors like "liberals hate the 8th amendment" are avoiding the question.

The truth is that people interpret the Constitution differently. People who are far more brilliant than me often disagree with each other on the topic. The SCOTUS Justices seem to recognize this and manage to treat each other respectfully. (Note that the Michigan Supreme Court is unable to do so) The notion that those with an opposing interpretation hate the Constitution or America is a pointless place to begin a discussion.

Posted by: ashotinthedark | November 1, 2010 2:19 PM | Report abuse

"Not really. The opposition to redefinition is bases in religious beliefs mostly. Same goes for regulating a woman's right to choose."

You're engaged in pure ipse dixit argument. There are plenty of secular arguments and bases for both. Moreover, if it's legitimate for the left to invoke religious grounds for the welfare state, it's legitimate for the right to invoke religious grounds for abortion and marriage policy; asserting that there are "also" secular grounds is logically irrelevant.

"What are you talking about? Do you have any quotes? Any links?"

BO, 10/20/10:

"But we also believe in a country where we look after one another; where we say, I am my brother's keeper, I am my sister's keeper. That's the America I know. That's the choice in this election."

Posted by: quarterback1 | November 1, 2010 2:22 PM | Report abuse

Skip-

Anchor babies are a problem, of that I have no doubt. A neighbor went to visit his ex wife who is a nurse working at a county public health facility. While he was there a spanish speaking lady was told that she was pregnant. Her and her friends shouted with joy. Why? Now she cannot be so easily deported. She's made it to the promised land: an anchor in the US and access to the welfare feeding trough thanks to her illegitimate child.
-------------------------------------------

It's uncanny how frequently personal anecdotes happen to coencide perfectly with an individual's political beliefs only days before a given blog post. Why was your friend who was visiting his ex-wife in an area of the clinic where he could over hear a clinical diangosis?

Not to mention that maybe, just maybe the Spanish speaking individuals were joyous about the miracle of life, rather than the miracle of citizenship. Gasp...maybe they were even citizens.

Posted by: ashotinthedark | November 1, 2010 2:27 PM | Report abuse

""stood in the way of the modern regulatory and bureaucratic state."

Couldn't be further from the truth. Regulating commerce is explicit."

First, you really missed the point. Read New Deal constitutional history sometime. FDR in fact called the Constitution a horse and buggy document that was too limiting. That was and is a cornerstone position of liberalism, inconvenient as it may seem.

Second, no, "[r]egulating commerce" is not a power given to Congress. Read Article I. And pay attention to the words used. You'll find I am right and you are wrong.


"Like I said. Libertarianism is just a justification created for selfishness and greed."

How profound.

Posted by: quarterback1 | November 1, 2010 2:35 PM | Report abuse

BO, 10/20/10:

"But we also believe in a country where we look after one another; where we say, I am my brother's keeper, I am my sister's keeper. That's the America I know. That's the choice in this election."

Posted by: quarterback1 | November 1, 2010 2:22 PM

That's quite an answer there, nickel. Yep, promoting theocracy he is, President Obama. We gotta strike down such crazy talk, yes we do. And we better vote out anyone that might have the audacity to think or speak such vile propaganda. There is no place whatsoever for such thinking in my USA.

U-S-A!
U-S-A!
U-S-A!

Posted by: pragmaticstill | November 1, 2010 2:36 PM | Report abuse

nisleib | November 1, 2010 1:18 PM

Oh, no question. This has nothing to do with actually helping any of the schmucks who are about to vote against their own interests for the umpteenth time in their lives.

Posted by: cao091402 | November 1, 2010 2:40 PM | Report abuse

With each passing day, each passing campaign event, each passing debate, each passing revelation about Tea Party candidates, the prospect of the Tea Party being placed ina position of power goes from frightening, to terrifying, to outright dangerous to our Democracy. Like sheep in wolves clothing, the Tea Party represents the most dangerous terrorist threat this country faces, all wrapped in the false veneer of being patriots. They are anything but as shown here - http://wp.¬me/pNmlT-v¬w

Posted by: dh1976 | November 1, 2010 2:47 PM | Report abuse

Sorry Ashot, it is a nice thought, but I just isn't so. The lady I mention works at the clinic. She witnesses this frequently.

I understand your point, but I think you're missing mine. Times are tough, especially where I live. Those folks with jobs are being taxed at an alarming rate. The revolt against taxation is underway and along with it, the revolt against government waste. My friend/neighbor was damned angry and I don't blame him. I'm damned angry too.

Yesterday a couple dressed up as cows for halloween held an impromtu demonstration at a busy intersection near my home. They called themselves the "cash cows" and were standing in opposition to a ballot measure designed to raise property taxes for the schools. A teacher showed up with a counter sign and a fight ensued.

the ballot measure has failed at least twice already. The voters rejected it and I agree. Of course the teachers support the additional taxes as taxes fund the life the teachers have come to know and love.

In answer to your question: what does it matter where the guy stood? You are calling both him and I liars based on nothing at all.

And this welfare example is nothing new. I've been in healthcare since the dawn of medicaid. I've watched it pervert the American dream for decades. Getting something for nothing is the new virtue in my part of the country. How sad for us.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | November 1, 2010 2:52 PM | Report abuse

prag,

I guess we've at least demonstrated once again that you are incapable of honest or logical discussion. So long.

ashot said:

"The initial question was whether libertarians hate portions of the Constitution, an admittedly stupid question, but if QB is going to answer it with a denial, then non-sequitors like "liberals hate the 8th amendment" are avoiding the question."

Perhaps playing into the "hate" rhetoric is unwise, but in fact there is a difference. Liberals really do find elements of the Constitution objectionable, just as FDR vocally did. Conservatives and libertarian-conservatives as a rule really don't. They are fine with it as is but have serious problems with how the left has distorted it to avoid the limitations they wish weren't there.

Obama himself has spoken about this, when he said it was unfortunate that SCOTUS only went or could only go so far in enacting welfare rights from the bench.

Equivalencies and parallels aren't always present, and here they aren't.

Posted by: quarterback1 | November 1, 2010 3:08 PM | Report abuse

"Now she cannot be so easily deported."

Prove it. Show me a law on the books that makes it more difficult for a pregnant woman to be deported.

Posted by: schrodingerscat | November 1, 2010 3:09 PM | Report abuse

Skip-

Fair warning this is going to be very snarky.

Where the guy stood matters because it makes the story plausible or implausible. My experience in clinics doesn't consist of me walking around the treatment areas overhearing the diagnosis of patients, particularly if I'm not a patient. So pardon me if I'm skeptical. And it's not as if your beliefs would be different if you hadn't been exposed to the infuriating knowledge of Spanish speakers celebrating after finding out about a pregnancy.

As someone with as much experience as you have in the health field, I'm sure you understand I'm getting at the HIPAA issues arising out of your story.

Whether your anecdote is true or not really matters little. (Although you wouldn't know it given my above rant) With or without the story, in your humanity, foreigners cheer, not for life, but for citizenship and teachers fight for money, not for better education for their students, but to support the "life they are accustomed to". (I wonder if you have a friend that noticed the teachers who got in a fight were driving BMWs)

Out of curiosity, is there a situation where you aren't able to determine the specific motivation of strangers for a given behavior?

Posted by: ashotinthedark | November 1, 2010 3:13 PM | Report abuse

"Prove it. Show me a law on the books that makes it more difficult for a pregnant woman to be deported."

Should she be deported if she is illegal?

Posted by: quarterback1 | November 1, 2010 3:20 PM | Report abuse

prag,

I guess we've at least demonstrated once again that you are incapable of honest or logical discussion. So long.

Posted by: quarterback1 | November 1, 2010 3:08 PM

What was either honest or logical about your running post regarding the President making reference to the Good Samaritan as being somehow theocratic in nature. And then, when you finally post the single quote that you claim supports your theory, the quote fails to support your premise in any honest or logaical way.

But, sure nickel, you run off now and claim to all your teabagging pals that the mean librul was mocking your good faith arguments.

Posted by: pragmaticstill | November 1, 2010 3:22 PM | Report abuse

"That's quite an answer there, nickel. Yep, promoting theocracy he is, President Obama. We gotta strike down such crazy talk, yes we do. And we better vote out anyone that might have the audacity to think or speak such vile propaganda. There is no place whatsoever for such thinking in my USA.

U-S-A!
U-S-A!
U-S-A!

Posted by: pragmaticstill | November 1, 2010 2:36 PM | Report abuse"

Your anti-intellectual, evasive argument speaks for itself, prag. The question was not what anyone considers vile propaganda. It was: why isn't Obama's invocation of the Good Samaritan an instance of his imposing his religious views and theocracy?

Would you like another chance to answer that rather than acting like a spoiled child? He is invoking a specific passage of the New Testament and saying that the choice in this election is between that teaching and those who are -- he arrogantly implies -- against it.

Please explain how this does not violate the separation of church and state that is so zealously guarded by you and your liberal friends here on PL. You've had numerous chances. Here is one more.

Posted by: quarterback1 | November 1, 2010 3:40 PM | Report abuse

Prove this pal. Try googling Anchor baby. Shazam. Just amazing what you'll find.

these babies are eating our substance and leading to chain migration. The article at the FAIR website was particularly infuriating.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | November 1, 2010 3:48 PM | Report abuse

Also about Bonhoefer, he attended Adam Clayton Powell's church in Harlem when he was a seminary student in NYC in the early 1930's. Problably one of the only, if not the only, multi-racial congregation on the planet at the time. He was one of the first who brought gospel music to the German church upon his return.

Posted by: greenbem | November 1, 2010 4:00 PM | Report abuse

Prove this pal. Try googling Anchor baby. Shazam. Just amazing what you'll find.

these babies are eating our substance and leading to chain migration. The article at the FAIR website was particularly infuriating.

Posted by: skipsailing28
-------------------------------------------

I must have missed where I said anchor babies don't exist.

I believe I was disputing the veracity of your story because the story is terribly convenient, involves a likely HIPAA violation which was caused when a clinic let an employee's ex-husband into the clinical area where he could overhear a clinical diagnosis, and requires you to determine the motivation for the joyous shouts of strangers when you are hearing about the whole thing second hand translated from Spanish to English.

Posted by: ashotinthedark | November 1, 2010 4:01 PM | Report abuse

Next thing you know, the President might suggest that the Golden Rule might be a good concept to live by. Then what will we have?

Your suggestion nickel is absurd. Do you understand now why I am mocking you?

Posted by: pragmaticstill | November 1, 2010 4:06 PM | Report abuse

ashot, you said to skip:

"I believe I was disputing the veracity of your story because the story is terribly convenient,"

That a real-life example supporting his position is known to him in no way supports the inference that it is untrue. On the contrary, your disbelief seems to be the convenient dodge.

"involves a likely HIPAA violation which was caused when a clinic let an employee's ex-husband into the clinical area where he could overhear a clinical diagnosis,"

First, he didn't say the ex-husband was in the clinical area or heard a clinical diagnosis or anything private; you just injected that speculation. Second, the fact that the patient had friends present would similarly suggest that he heard something very non-private.

"and requires you to determine the motivation for the joyous shouts of strangers when you are hearing about the whole thing second hand translated from Spanish to English."

You're just speculating again. Since you don't deny the reality of anchor babies, one must question why you are so eager to engage in speculation and embellishment to discredit the anecdote.

Posted by: quarterback1 | November 1, 2010 4:11 PM | Report abuse

Be as skeptical as you like. Since I work in the field and live a few doors down from this man, I have every reason to believe what he says. He and I shop at the same places and live in the same mixed community. Living in the 'hood gives me an excellent insight into the failure that is liberalism.

HIPAA doesn't apply to the patients themselves. The privledge is theirs. If they wish to cheer the good news of an anchor baby loudly enough for others to hear, the law has nothing to say about it.

the teachers fight for money for themselves. It is that simple. the ohio teachers are extremely well paid. since the teacher who demonstrated mentioned his name in the article, the comments section now contains not only his annual salary, but the amount of taxpayer funded liablity we face when he retires. These things are matters of public record. Let me tell you, smarmy pronouncements about "the children" fall on deaf ears when people realize that the teachers not only make more than the tax payers, but don't pay much toward their health insurance and have a far better retirement plan that is taxpayer funded.

by the way, the teacher in the story? His salary annualizes out to 104K per year. Sure he doesn't work a full year, but comparing apples to apples, he's making a heck of a lot more than the average taxpayer that is funding him. He's making far more than I am.

these are public records. Folks actually looked up his income. Wow, he's living well since he's feeding at the public trough. His income has improved 24% since 2004. Did your salary improve that much in the same period? Last year alone, this poor beset man got a 4.5% wage increase. Who pays that? why the cash cows standing on the corner do. I can't blame them for their anger.

the district wants a 5.9 mil increase for the next ten years but they also claim that this increase will only keep them solvent until 2014, when they will be forced to ask for more taxes.

for what? so teachers can make $50/hour, retire in their mid fifties and pay virtually nothing for their health insurance?

We're doing this for the children? Come now, such naivete is unseemly. We have to draw the line somewhere. Instead of making empty emotional appeals we need hard headed, fact based decisions.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | November 1, 2010 4:16 PM | Report abuse

"Should she be deported if she is illegal?"

Yes. Did I imply otherwise?

Skip is the one claiming that pregnancy makes it more difficult for the government to deport someone. Interestingly enough, he has yet provided any proof to back up his claim. I'm shocked.

Posted by: schrodingerscat | November 1, 2010 4:24 PM | Report abuse

"Your suggestion nickel is absurd. Do you understand now why I am mocking you?"

I understand perfectly well . . . why you are trying to mock me: because you are unable to make any cogent argument in defense of your position, and indeed seem unable even to comprehend how illogical and self-contradictory it is. You are the perfect example of one who mocks what he can't understand.

Posted by: quarterback1 | November 1, 2010 4:24 PM | Report abuse

I didn't say that she was harder to deport because she's pregnant.

You did s cat.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | November 1, 2010 4:27 PM | Report abuse

QB

"That a real-life example supporting his position is known to him in no way supports the inference that it is untrue. On the contrary, your disbelief seems to be the convenient dodge."

Well, I think it does support an inference along with the other problems with the story I pointed out. You're telling me that if tomorrow Obama has a speech about a person who had their life saved thanks to health care reform you wouldn't be a little suspicious?

"First, he didn't say the ex-husband was in the clinical area or heard a clinical diagnosis or anything private; you just injected that speculation. Second, the fact that the patient had friends present would similarly suggest that he heard something very non-private."

So the nurse just came out into the waiting room or into a public area to tell the woman she was pregnant? Pregnancy is a clinical diagnosis.


"You're just speculating again."

Of course I'm speculating. How could I possibly know why a given person shouts in joy. Are you contending that skip isn't speculating? That after finding out she was pregnang the woman turned to skip's friends and explained why she was excited and that the explanation was that she ?

Call me old fashioned or naive, but I tend to think that shouts of joy after learning about a prengancy are generally related to excitement about having a child rather than excitement at the citizenship possibilities said child brings along with him/her.

Posted by: ashotinthedark | November 1, 2010 4:28 PM | Report abuse

@skipsailing28

Here are the averages for salaries for teachers in the Cleveland, 2007-08. I believe you posted before about being from that area.

Search this database to find average teacher pay and other information about teacher experience and qualifications for each public school district in Ohio. The statewide average for 2007-08 was $54,205.

http://www.cleveland.com/datacentral/index.ssf/2009/04/ohio_teacher_pay_and_other_tea.html

Posted by: DinOH | November 1, 2010 4:34 PM | Report abuse

"Skip is the one claiming that pregnancy makes it more difficult for the government to deport someone. Interestingly enough, he has yet provided any proof to back up his claim. I'm shocked."

You are deliberately misreading what he said. You know it. What do you think the odds are that she'll be deported before her baby is born? Slim to none, right? So congrats on making a theoretical point that skip so recklessly assumed.

And pardon me for doubting you when you say she should be deported. Why? Because liberals simply don't support a vigoruous deportation program. In this kind of case, the illegal alien is using community health care. They should be required to report her, and she should be detained and deported. But this is precisely the kind of common sense enforcement that liberals virtually always resist and thwart. Your President would probably sue any state or locality who tried to do that.

Posted by: quarterback1 | November 1, 2010 4:39 PM | Report abuse

"I didn't say that she was harder to deport because she's pregnant.

You did s cat."

Is English not your first language? Try re-reading your post again:

"While he was there a spanish speaking lady was told that she was pregnant. Her and her friends shouted with joy. Why? Now she cannot be so easily deported."

What do you think the words "Now she cannot be so easily deported" mean?

Posted by: schrodingerscat | November 1, 2010 4:44 PM | Report abuse

"Well, I think it does support an inference along with the other problems with the story I pointed out. You're telling me that if tomorrow Obama has a speech about a person who had their life saved thanks to health care reform you wouldn't be a little suspicious?"

I would tend to doubt any story told by Obama, because imo he is a serial and prolific liar, not merely because it supports his position. (I haven't seen such a track record with skip.) The kind of story you hypothesize would not be a very apt comparison, however, because it is really an argument, not a factual account.

"So the nurse just came out into the waiting room or into a public area to tell the woman she was pregnant? Pregnancy is a clinical diagnosis."

That is again pure speculation. Skip didn't say the neighbor heard the diagnosis delivered by a nurse or anyone else, although it wouldn't be the first time something was overheard. It's just as likely that the patient announced it to her friends when she returned to the waiting room. Or that she waived her privacy.


"Of course I'm speculating. How could I possibly know why a given person shouts in joy. Are you contending that skip isn't speculating? That after finding out she was pregnang the woman turned to skip's friends and explained why she was excited and that the explanation was that she ?"

I don't know whether skip is; I know you are. And we all know that anchor babies are cause for rejoicing for illegals, beyond celebrating of new life. You are quibbling about the accuracy of a story of which the illustrative truth is not in doubt.

Posted by: quarterback1 | November 1, 2010 4:54 PM | Report abuse

S cat, try this: did I say "because she's pregnant"? uh no.

In fact the pregnancy isn't an issue at all. The CHILD is. He or she will be an American citizen. Sorry this is sooooo complex for you.

But I did not say she was difficult to deport because of her pregnancy. you did.

This is what has the taxpayers in my corner of the country so incensed. Our city is a ghost of what it once was. There are fewer and fewer taxpayers and an ever increasing number of tax recievers. Our roads are like the lunar landscape, our fire and police departments are decimated, the things that governments are founded to provide are no where to be seen, but we can afford extravagant teachers salaries and extensive welfare benefits, often paid to women who are not even citizens.

Of course we're angry. And the Democrats/liberals simply don't understand it.

thanks DinOH, but looked the guy's salary up at the buckeye institute web site. Just enter the name and the district and the pay records are displayed. The average isn't as useful as the specific facts about this one teacher. He was angry because the cash cows were demonstrating against higher taxes. Those higher taxes are what he's banking on for his extravagant salary. When the citizens refuse to tax themselves into penury to keep this guy's life style supported, he's unhappy.

so what?

Posted by: skipsailing28 | November 1, 2010 4:56 PM | Report abuse

Oh golly, nickel, you got me! You're amazing rhetorical skills have convinced me. President Obama is a theocratic assh0le just like you teabaggers.

U-S-A!
U-S-A!
U-S-A!

Posted by: pragmaticstill | November 1, 2010 4:59 PM | Report abuse

"You are deliberately misreading what he said. You know it. What do you think the odds are that she'll be deported before her baby is born? Slim to none, right? So congrats on making a theoretical point that skip so recklessly assumed."

You're just wrong about what skip said. It's baffling that you or skip would dispute this point anyway because the whole notion behind anchor babies is that it makes it means you'll get to stay. Skip's own article mentions that on average the women are 25 and having their second baby. Why do you need two babies to be anchored?


"And pardon me for doubting you when you say she should be deported. Why? Because liberals simply don't support a vigoruous deportation program."

Deportations have increased under Obama. What vigorous deportation program did the Republicans pass when they had control?

Posted by: ashotinthedark | November 1, 2010 5:00 PM | Report abuse

"You are deliberately misreading what he said. You know it."

No, I don't know it and no, I'm not misreading anything. He was the one who specifically stated that she was excited because "she cannot be so easily deported". It is patently false to claim that pregnancy equates to either amnesty or some sort of leniency when it comes to deportation proceedings.

"What do you think the odds are that she'll be deported before her baby is born? Slim to none, right?"

I don't have a clue since I don't know anything about her particular circumstances, but I congratulate you on the strawman you've managed to create. If you want to have an argument about granting citizenship to the children of unlawful immigrants then fine - but that was not my beef with skips post.

"And pardon me for doubting you when you say she should be deported. Why?"

Because you enjoy stereotyping and demonizing your opponents? I seem to recall you having a major hissy fit last night when someone on the left did the same thing when discussing the rights stance on the size of government. Funny, huh?

Posted by: schrodingerscat | November 1, 2010 5:07 PM | Report abuse

"S cat, try this: did I say "because she's pregnant"? uh no."

Uh, yes:


"While he was there a spanish speaking lady was told that she was pregnant. Her and her friends shouted with joy. Why? Now she cannot be so easily deported."

"Pregnant"=>"shouting for joy"=>"cannot be so easily deported"

Unless of course you're saying that she "cannot be so easily deported" because she's "shouting for joy".

"Of course we're angry."

That's still not a license to lie....sorry.

Posted by: schrodingerscat | November 1, 2010 5:15 PM | Report abuse

I didn't lie. You inserted your own meaning into my words. The down side of written communication. I believe I have explained the words adequately at this point. If you wish to continue hurling invective you may do so by yourself.

it is pretty simple: the lady was excited about being pregnant because she was about to give birth to her ticket to America: an anchor baby. I did not say that she couldn't be deported because of her pregnancy. That's an inference you've made and now cling to.

What is it about anchor babies that you don't wish to confront s cat? Is it so hard to understand why taxpayers facing a horrible economy and a poor prospects for future improvement wish to insure that the money confiscated from them by our governments gets spent wisely?

and of course living as we do in in the 'hood we see money being wasted first hand. And we know where that money came from, us.

the Democrats and liberals simply refuse to acknowledge the anger of the American taxpayer. It will cost them tomorrow to be sure, but even the Republicans may misunderstand what's happening here. I'm not voting FOR a republican, I'm voting AGAINST the incumbent. We threw out a bunch of REpublican spendaholics on 06 and 08 and we'll do it again and again until DC gets the message.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | November 1, 2010 5:35 PM | Report abuse

"I didn't lie."

Well, you either lied or you made a mistake.

But let's play your game: let's assume for a moment that she's cheering because she will eventually (if she does not have a miscarriage or get deported prior) give birth to a US citizen. How does being the parent of a US citizen make it that she "cannot be so easily deported"?

Posted by: schrodingerscat | November 1, 2010 5:56 PM | Report abuse

"Her and her friends shouted with joy. Why? Now she cannot be so easily deported."

Who is she? The unborn child? Who could you possibly be referring to other than the pregnant mother. Why did the friends shout for joy, they could still be deported right?

Just to help my dispute with QB- Skip, did the pregnant spanish speaker and her friends a) explain to your friends why they were all shouting for joy, or are you speculating about why she was shouting? b) Did they also reference their citizenship status or indicate their plans to stay in the US or return elsewhere?

Posted by: ashotinthedark | November 1, 2010 5:58 PM | Report abuse

I never would have thought that nostalgia could be so dangerous. Apparently the "We Know How We Got Here/And We Know How To Get Us Back" meme is enough to foment fascism.

I've seen more authentic recruiting claims from Amway distributors.

Posted by: bradeleven | November 2, 2010 7:04 AM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company