Barbara1247 wrote: The Republicans have helped bring us to this sorry state of affairs. - How About More Scandal, Incompetence, Venality, Hubris, Vanity and Error to Start
Dear Comrade 1247,
You’re a liberal, so even when you are right- like you are now- it’s accidental.
So as a public service, let me explain to you, in the simplest terms, what you got right, accidentally.
Certainly the GOP has helped establish a track record of what might be the sorriest 25 years of governing in American history. But it’s because they have supported watered-down versions of the Democrat agenda.
For every frick we have in government, we have another frack on the other side, proposing something equally idiotic.
I mean really: How do you run against each other for president as Mitt Romney and Barack Obama did and pretend like there is that much substance between the two parties at times?
Obama spied, so did Bush.
Was Mitt Romney going to stop the NSA spying program? Heck and no.
Obama declared war, as president, without the consent of Congress. Bush waged an unpopular war, which was poorly justified and poorly run.
Obama’s kept GTIMO open, killed American citizens by assassination, which he claims he has the legal authority to do.
George Bush on the other hand opened GITMO as a prisoner of war camp and allowed the torture of enemy combatants, which he claimed that he had the legal authority to do.
But here’s the difference: Bush isn’t some moralizing, Nobel-peace prize-winning, hypocrite wannabe who thinks America’s problem is that he’s not emperor.
Obama, on the other hand, is.
If the GOP – and George Bush- made mistakes, they’ve been honest mistakes.
Obama’s nothing but a pile of deceit, stuffed into an empty suit and trumpeted from a teleprompter.
When you allow your president to allow the attorney general to desist from prosecuting one of the most egregious examples of voter intimidation in the last 30 years, it’s not going to end well for you and your party.
And do you know why?
Because you pretend that there is some moral virtue that makes progressives better than anyone else.
And you pinned that claim to a guy with many talents, but virtue is not amongst them.
You guys have that habit too.
Bill Clinton was even a more talented guy than Barack Obama is; he’s a wretched person, however. And I think his wife is even worse.
I can’t wait to read the new book, she’s writing. From what I hear, it will likely make average Americans cringe.
Of course Democrats will treat it like it deserves a Noble prize in literature.
But here’s the real point for both parties: Our mode of government is inadequate for a period of time when there is more freedom, more equality of access, more people entering the middle class globally than ever before.
What we need is less government interventionism, less Big Brother, not more.
In a period where we have more data to make decisions about how to live our lives, how to best use our talent and how to gain an education that’s right for us, our government is using that technology to limit our choices, to revert to a patristic, feudalism that keeps us trapped in the intellectual remnants of the 19th and 20th century.
What people do with the conflict between technology’s liberating capacity and the desire of government to limit us, well, one day that will be called “The History of the 21st Century.”
RiffRaff wrote: Moral Authority. isn't that what all President's claim they possess? Is that what gives their actions transcendent authority? A President who presides over an immoral and unethical administration diminishes his strongest force for good. He is an empty suit at best. - How About More Scandal, Incompetence, Venality, Hubris, Vanity and Error to Start
Yes, moral authority is all the president has.
And here’s the secret behind Obama maintaining moral authority in the U.S.: Americans don’t know what morality is anymore. They think the color of someone’s skin is more important than the content of his character.
See above and see below.
Jeff2422 wrote: Well, John, discussing the media is an easy article to write. For the most part, the talking heads, bloggers, and editors have accepted the idea that the federal government should be in control of the economy. - Media Mediums and Obama’s Soft Patch
Discussing the media is an easy column to write. But try writing about anything 5-6 days a week and make it interesting. Especially “an easy column to write.”
You run the risk of redundancy, which of course I would like to avoid, avoid, avoid.
Yes, that is something I would like to avoid.
By the way, what do you have against writing easy columns?
DoctorRoy wrote: I agree. It's time for Holder to go. Actually it was probably time when he made that ridiculous statement about not prosecuting because they are too big. that's something i would have expected out of the previous administration. You know a I am suspending capitalism in order to save capitalism sort of thing.
Dear Comrade Doctor,
Oh, I see: Blame Bush is it?
Is it really that difficult to admit that your president is a doofus who doesn’t actually represent anything other than the projection of his own power?
We have been through this many times with you Comrade Doctor.
And every time we point out an example of corruption in the Obama administration, all you do is say, “Well, Bush was worse.”
You apparently are OK with the targeting of groups by political affiliation practiced by the IRS, the seizure of phone records by the AP and Fox News, the Benghazi cover up, the DOJ ignoring voter suppression when it’s practiced by the Black Panther party, Fast and Furious, etc., etc., but you’re still outraged at Bush about Abu Ghraib.
Eleven Americans were convicted of crimes at Abu Ghraib.
We’ll never see anyone, ever convicted of anything under the reign of St. Obama.
Adendulk wrote: No John if you understand anything about the building industry you should know that it is there that you find the most undocumented workers in the home builders section and the remodeling sectors, but then he if you don't mind all the illegal workers on the payroll why don't you hire them John. - Did IRS Target Homebuilders on Behalf of Mobbed-Up Union?
Dear Comrade Dulk,
Once again, I have no idea what you are talking about. But then again, we’re even, because neither do you.
The issue here is whether the Obama administration picked on homebuilders- with the IRS as the muscle- in order to protect help unions; unions that still have mob influence.
I asked the question in light of the IRS willingness to stifle political discourse by holding up applications for 501(c)4s from conservative groups.
If you were asserting that unions are racist because they discriminate against minority groups, well, I would agree with you. But it’s hard to tell when someone completely ignores- almost- punctuation.
What you seem to be mumbling about is the same thing that happened in the 1930s with unions and African Americans. When black Americans started competing with unions for jobs, the unions got congress to pass the Davis Bacon Act. The Davis-Bacon Act was a Jim Crow law protecting union jobs and wages at the expense of black Americans.
It seems that you are alleging that the administration is targeting illegal aliens on behalf of unions in the same way.
Valy wrote: Look, you hypocrites:
you WANT the poor to exist, they do the low jobs
you KNOW you give the poor crums ot keep them poor
you were born with opportunities and Mommy (wait, you probably had a non-working mom), your daddy gave you the money
Stop bringing i discussion the 1-2% making it with no help, they are exceptions
You never bring up the stupid, genetically impaired "trust money" kids that stay rich their whole life because they just can
SO...have more but, forget about it
One more thing...THE LIBERALS WON LAST TWO TIMES, GET OVER IT
AND I LOVE TO RUB IT IN YOUR FACE - Teaching How to Sell Women into Slavery
Dear Comrade Valy,
Your exposition seems to be a cross between a performance art piece, a haiku recitation and the lyrics to a Bob Dylan song.
Have you put in the musical score yet?
I really think that Dylan especially would be interested. I tried out a few of the lines on guitar while singing off-key in a low voice, kind of a blend of Tom Petty and Dylan.
Please get back in contact with whatever Occupy Wall Street drum-circle you fled from and secure the rights immediately.
Myer wrote: “Whenever someone expresses moral disapproval in a legal context,” ...Kagan has an ethical objection to those of us who might have an ethical objection to the state of marriage.
There is a difference between "ethical" and "moral". One has as its source individual internal guidance and the other is based on the external social system. Its a distinction with a difference and the failure to understand what someone means when they make a statement because you are too sloppy or too opinionated to listen makes the conversation impossible.
But then I guess people who characterize the people at the Davos Summit as communists have a definition of marxism that can include someone who flys in his own air plane purchased with money he made in the stock market. - Teaching How to Sell Women into Slavery
Dear Comrade Myer,
Oh yes, another liberal metro sophisticate who gives me the Merriam-Webster dictionary definition almost verbatim.
Give that man a passing credit from Occidental College!
Why, with an intellect like that you could be president.
Actually what makes the conversation impossible is the refusal of your camp to identify anything as objectively right or wrong whether you talk about morals or ethics.
Ethics is an outgrowth of morality. If there is no morality, then there are no ethics. While you seem to understand the dictionary definitions, you have no concept of how they are applied.
It would be like me pointing out the difference between Communist and Marxist, which you use interchangeably. You can use them interchangeably in this instance, because it’s an informal discussion, but if you were to be making a scholastic argument about the people at Davos, the distinguishing characteristics of Marxist or Communist would likely make a difference.
That said, one would think that when a high-brow literati like you takes on a low-brow Tea Party, knuckle–dragger who just happens to be smart enough to have accumulated more wealth on behalf of us One Precenters than anyone else in human history…
Consistency isn’t a liberal strong suit.
It’s hilarious how you see it: On the one hand you have to talk down to us, because we’re too stupid to understand anything, but on the other hand, we're so clever that we managed to gather more money and power than anyone else.
We're either that clever or we ain’t.
Steve wrote: John, I enjoy your columns but I have to wonder why you engage with the far left loons and tin-foil hat crowd. You're more than capable of chopping apart their arguments but absolutely nothing you can say to them will change their minds.
Sometimes art can’t be explained.
It’s just there for enjoyment.
That’s it for this week,