From around the blogroll

Our friends on the left had a field day after the press conference by National Rifle Association President Wayne LaPierre, and his suggestion that armed school attacks could be better prevented by having armed guards in the schools. Robert Stacey Stacy McCain has a good, and well-documented, article on what he calls the Progressive Civility™ on this issue,1 as does L D Jackson and Kate of Victory Girls. Trouble is, though the left will present Mr LaPierre as a nut, Phineas, writing on Sister Toldjah’s site, noted the lesser known part of the Columbine massacre:

About that armed deputy at Columbine

Posted by: Phineas on December 21, 2012 at 3:48 pm

In the wake of the massacre at Sandy Hook elementary school, some have suggested that perhaps, since “gun-free zones” have been shown to be ineffective at best and an invitation to disaster at worst, it might be a good idea to have people qualified to carry firearms at schools.  Whether it’s faculty and staff, or police officers, or paid armed security, the idea is the same: take down the shooter as fast as possible, because every second counts.

In reply, some gun-control advocates have pointed out that there was an armed deputy at Columbine High School in 1999 when two teens went on their rampage. Fair enough, but that’s not the whole story. NRO’s Dan Foster supplies important information the anti-Second Amendment forces don’t mention:

…but it isn’t like the deputy was sitting around eating doughnuts during the Columbine massacre. He traded fire (that is, he drew fire) with Harris for an extended period of time, during which Harris’s gun jammed. The deputy and the backup he immediately called for exchanged fire with the shooters a second time and helped begin the evacuation of students, all before the SWAT teams and the rest of the cavalry arrived, and before Harris and Klebold killed themselves in the library. Harris and Klebold had an assault plan — a sloppy plan, but a plan nonetheless. They had dozens of IEDs, some of which detonated, others of which did not. And there were two of them. In this highly chaotic tactical environment, the deputy acted both bravely and prudently, and who knows how many lives he saved by engaging Harris.

This illustrates an important point liberty-advocates have been trying to make in this “debate:” the point of an armed defender isn’t just that he can (we hope) kill or otherwise neutralize the shooter. The armed defender also distracts the gunman, drawing his attention away from his intended targets, giving them time to escape. While 13 students were killed by Harris and Klebold, untold others were saved precisely because there was someone armed on campus. Far from being an example of the uselessness of armed, trained defenders (1) in schools, Columbine illustrates why we should want them on the scene.

It does not make one a drooling, mouth-breathing gun nut to wish someone at Sandy Hook had been similarly armed.

More at the link.

We can’t know how many students would have died in Columbine had there not been an armed deputy in the school; it seems probable that there would have been more casualties had the deputy not engaged Mr Harris. What our friends on the left don’t want to admit is that Mr LaPierre was right.

Sister Toldjah commented:

Excellent post. 1) I did not know there had been an armed deputy at Columbine and 2) I had no idea anyone (let alone him) had played a role in hindering any more murders by the perps.

Sis has been blogging for many years, and she’s almost always up-to-date on the news; she didn’t know — and I hadn’t heard about it either — about the armed guard at Columbine because that part of the story wouldn’t have fit the mainstream media’s meme. Columbine was only 13 years ago, but, at the time blogging and the non-traditional media were still in their, if not infancy, still toddler years. The information about the armed guard at Columbine wasn’t a part of the story that the professional media wanted to stress, so it was the buried-on-page-B17 part of the story.

As for the much-maligned-by-the-left idea of putting armed guards in the schools, Karen noted that the professional media had litte to say about it when President Clinton not only proposed but actually implemented that very policy.  And Sister Toldjah added an article in the same topic.2

William Teach noted just how well the strict gun control laws have worked in the Windy City:

Mayor Of City With Horrendous Murder Rate And Strict Gun Laws Calls For More Gun Laws

December 22, 2012 – 8:43 am

If there was a media that was interested in exposing facts instead of pushing a political position, someone might actually ask Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel “how’s that current gun ban working?”

(WGNtv) Gun violence is a daily occurence for mayors across the Chicago area and the state of Illinois, and Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel is leading the push for stronger gun control.

“Whether you are a Democrat, whether you are a Republican, whether you’re rural or urban or suburban, whether you’re from Illinois or Gary, Indiana, given what goes on in some of the transfers of illegal guns – having comprehensive legislation at the national level doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t do what we need to do here in the state,” Emanuel said today at a City Hall news conference.

Mayor Emanuel urged state legislators in Illinois and Indiana to pass an assault weapons ban and other common-sense gun control measures.

In urban areas, straw purchases and gun-running are huge problems, so Emanuel and others are looking for ways to better regulate and track the sales of guns.

Except, the criminals who have guns have them illegally, and really don’t care what the laws are. In fact, the Gun Control Act of 1968 prohibits most straw sales and transfers of guns to people who should not have them. Interestingly, they still get them. Weird, eh? Even more strange, murder violates the law, yet people still do it. Stranger still, gun running is illegal, yet, criminals still do it.

A lot more at the link.

There seems to be an almost inborn problem with liberal logic. If a liberal idea doesn’t work, doesn’t produce the results promised — think spending more money on public schools, higher salaries for teachers, strict gun control laws and $831 billion stimulus programs here — our friends on the left never seem to entertain the idea that maybe their idea was the wrong one in the first place, but seem to be able only to believe that the reason success wasn’t achieved is that they didn’t spend enough money, or the program wasn’t far-reaching enough. They are like the losing gamblers at the craps table; just double-down and if you don’t crap out, you’ll recover all of your losses.

They just can’t seem to understand the possibility of snake eyes.

Karen also noted the problems of a much better-looking Dana:

The Perils Of The Conservative New Media

December 22, 2012 | By 

I like being an independent blogger. When I make a mistake, I own up to it. There’s no editor to shut me up. The downside is no editor to make sure I don’t make the mistake in the first place. Another downside is that if you spend much time doing this, you might be able to make some money, but you certainly aren’t going to make a “living wage” which is so important to progressives, unless it comes to conservative bloggers. They prefer that we all just hurry up and die.

More at the link. And having an excuse to publish a picture of Dana Loesch pretty much makes this article a candidate for Rule 5 Blogging. :)

The story is that Dana Loesch was making more money, blogging for breitbart.com. Miss Loesch’s contract was not renewed, and she was continuing on as a month-to-month employee, when she decide to leave, giving a month’s notice, and a somewhat nasty fight over contracts has ensued; about which Robert Stacey Stacy McCain has more. That, to your Editor, isn’t a very big story, but Karen’s point — and she has more in her original — that an independent blogger is just that, independent, and that we make very little, or no, money doing this, is important. When your Editor posts something, unless it is specifically categorized as an advertisement, he is not being paid anything specific for it, nor does he have any contractual obligations which require him to adopt a position which is not genuinely his own.

From Patterico:

Adolph Reed, Jr.: Racist

Adolph L. Reed, Jr. takes to the pages of the nation’s foremost newspaper to denounce Tim Scott as a token:

Mr. Scott will replace Senator Jim DeMint, who is leaving to run Heritage Foundation. He will be the first black senator from the South since Reconstruction; the first black Republican senator since 1979, when Edward W. Brooke of Massachusetts retired; and, indeed, only the seventh African-American ever to serve in the chamber.

But this “first black” rhetoric tends to interpret African-American political successes — including that of President Obama — as part of a morality play that dramatizes “how far we have come.” It obscures the fact that modern black Republicans have been more tokens than signs of progress. . . .

Crazy thought here: maybe Scott’s appointment was aimed at getting a good man for the job. Oh no wait, that can’t be right, Mr. Reed assures us, because he’s black. If he were white, he might have been picked for merit, but since he’s black, it has to have been racial politics behind the decision.

Patterico has a lot more in the middle, and concludes:

Are there racist Republicans? Sure, just like there are racist Democrats.

But there are a lot of us who think our policies are actually best for black folks. And white folks, and brown folks, and all kinds of folks. Letting the market work isn’t just for white people. It benefits everybody.

I don’t accept the argument that black people in America have a separate set of issues that we have to cater to. They are Americans and we need to work to make the lives of all Americans better. If that happens, we should win elections.

And maybe black people will be allowed to think conservative thoughts without being called inauthentic tokens.

Nah. Who am I kidding?

Our friends on the left continually decrying racism and tokenism whenever a black American expresses a conservative position, or is a Republican, will end not when black Americans have achieved equality, but when they believe it is no longer politically useful.

Dr Weevil asked:

How come the stereotype only works one way? I mean, if someone has every Republican stereotype rolled into one – he’s old, white, male, hopelessly heterosexual, rich beyond the dreams of the average American, and all with money he inherited and didn’t earn – how come he (Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Jay Rockefeller, just to name three) is allowed to be on the left, when blacks, gays, and women are not allowed to be on the right?

It’s very simple: our friends on the left cannot allow blacks, homosexuals and women to think for themselves, or they will lose elections! Behind that, the simple fact is that they do not respect the intelligence of anyone other than white males enough to believe that they can think for themselves.

However, I disagree with Patterico’s statement, “Letting the market work isn’t just for white people. It benefits everybody.” Letting the market work benefits people who will work hard, and strive to achieve, irrespective or race; it doesn’t work so well for those, regardless of race, who believe that other people somehow owe them a living and would rather sit on their fat asses than work. Letting the market work benefits those who bear adversity with equanimity, and move forward in working to overcome hardships; letting the market work is of little benefit to those who suffer adversity with resignation and just plain give up.

William Teach isn’t very impressed with President Obama’s nomination of John François Kerry to become Secretary of State:

Let’s not forget that Kerry compared globull warming to 9/11. He compared it to Armageddon. As dangerous as a nuclear armed Iran. And plenty of other wackadoodle statements. Morano provides many smackdowns to Kerry in the article.

Let’s also not forget that John “Waffles” Kerry is a massive climahypocrite. He lives in a massive McMansion, which uses lots and lots of energy and water, and puts out huge amounts of CO2. And has several homes. He takes lots of unnecessary fossil fueled flights. He owns many fossil fueled vehicles, including SUVs. His “carbon footprint” is much, much higher than that of the average American citizen. He’s the same Warmists who told Senators to make “polluters” pay by instituting cap and tax, but refuses to modify his own lifestyle to become carbon neutral.

Oh, and Kerry was totally against the Cape Wind Project. He’s cool with wind turbines elsewhere, but not in his own “backyard.”

As far as your Editor is concerned, it doesn’t matter in the least: our foreign policy will be set by President Obama — who is a nutty enough “warmist” himself — and not the Secretary of State. We have four more years of President Obama’s bovine feces foreign policy through which we have to suffer — elections do have consequences — and it really won’t matter if Lurch is our Secretary of State, or some other hypocrite has the job.

According to Jason Scott, “Lewes was voted Delaware’s most overrated town?” :)

__________________________________

  1. My younger sister is named Stacey, and that’s how it’s spelled! :)
  2. Post updated at 1424 to add last link.

33 Comments

  1. Our editor just repeats his unsubstantiated crap over and over and over again, and now we are back to the warhawk mentality:

    What our friends on the left don’t want to admit is that Mr LaPierre was right.

    Mr LaPierre represents gun manufacturers and merchants, so of course he will take a position which increases sales. Only the radical right was impressed, whereas normal peace loving individuals thought his message was both radical and self-serving. He presented no data to substantiate his thesis.

    Why did he not address the gun-show loophole, which permits 40% of the guns sold to be sold without a background check? This is how the “bad guys” get guns.

    What about the 100 and 32 round magazines used in these WMDs? Nothing!

    Nothing about military weapons being permitted, when there is absolutely no use for them except to carry out mass killings.

    Nothing about increased medical services being made available for the mentally ill. What about Columbine where there was an armed guard?

    LaPierre is not suggesting solutions, he is trying to sell more guns; that’s obvious. His presentation attracted very little positive response, especially in Newtown, CT, where there was outrage.

    Here’s what Republican strategist John Weaver said:

    NRA response predictable, though breathtaking in its nonsense. Troubling is the silence from GOP leaders, other than @JoeNBC & few others.

    Righties, like LaPierre, see guns and wars as the solution to all our problems. Is there a gang-like mental illness here? Could be!

    PS: Why was LaPierre unwilling to even take any questions? That’s mighty telling. Let’s see his reception on the Sunday talk shows, where questioning will be intense.

  2. Our Editor quotes Patterico:

    But there are a lot of us who think our policies are actually best for black folks. And white folks, and brown folks, and all kinds of folks. Letting the market work isn’t just for white people. It benefits everybody.

    Yeah, but that’s not what black and brown folks think, but Patterico doesn’t particularly care what they think, because he knows best. How condescending is that?

    Our friends on the left continually decrying racism and tokenism whenever a black American expresses a conservative position, or is a Republican, will end not when black Americans have achieved equality, but when they believe it is no longer politically useful.

    But according to our Editor, the 47%, of which many are black and brown, are lazy, don’t want to work, are not producers, and always have their hands out for welfare. He never substantiates these claims, so what does that say about him?

    There’s lot more to criticize, but I’ve run out of time.

  3. Pingback: Zero Dark Thirty and Weekend Links!

  4. But according to our Editor, the 47%, of which many are black and brown, are lazy, don’t want to work, are not producers, and always have their hands out for welfare.

    CITATION PLEASE!! Put up, or STFU with your asinine lies, troll.

  5. WW wrote:

    Our Editor quotes Patterico:

    But there are a lot of us who think our policies are actually best for black folks. And white folks, and brown folks, and all kinds of folks. Letting the market work isn’t just for white people. It benefits everybody.

    Yeah, but that’s not what black and brown folks think, but Patterico doesn’t particularly care what they think, because he knows best. How condescending is that?

    Certainly no more condescending than the attitude expressed by so many on the left that “black and brown folks” really can’t make it without special help, or that “black and brown folks” just can’t be conservatives without being tokens who are betraying their ethnic brethren.

    Of course, we all think that we know what is best for everybody; that’s why we are expressing our opinions here. How would someone telling us that the top producers really ought to pay more in taxes, when such a statement doesn’t mean that the speaker would have to pay more in taxes, not be saying that he knows what is best for us? How would someone telling us that he knows better what the Framers would have meant than the actual words that they have written not be condescending?

  6. Following Columbine, President Bill Clinton pressed for funding (450+ million) for his Cops in Schools Program. Clinton wanted hundreds of armed cops in schools to keep the children safe. Seems like Wayne LaPierre’s response to Sandy Hook isn’t quite so unusual after all.

  7. The Editor said; “Of course, we all think that we know what is best for everybody; that’s why we are expressing our opinions here.”

    Man, am I glad you followed that statement up with your sarcastic examples. I had to read it twice before going on cause I thought you had lost it. Then Mr. Editor you followed up with: “rope, surely you know by now that the quality of an idea depends upon whose idea it is, and not the actual merits.” We all know it’s the intentions not the results that matter. It’s their M.O., whose idea over the merits and intentions over results.

  8. Continuing my critique, our editor claims:

    It’s very simple: our friends on the left cannot allow blacks, homosexuals and women to think for themselves, or they will lose elections! Behind that, the simple fact is that they do not respect the intelligence of anyone other than white males enough to believe that they can think for themselves.

    What is the justification for this garbage? Apparently our Editor has not yet digested the demographics which resulted in his party being pummeled in the last election, except of course for the House Tea Party extremists, who maintained their power from y/2010 gerrymandered districts, which cancelled out the demographics that they did not like, thus maintaining the political dysfunction in the House of (so-called) Representatives.

    And then again we have this oft-repeated screed from our Editor, having never ever substantiated his opinion, so it is propaganda:

    However, I disagree with Patterico’s statement, “Letting the market work isn’t just for white people. It benefits everybody.” Letting the market work benefits people who will work hard, and strive to achieve, irrespective or race; it doesn’t work so well for those, regardless of race, who believe that other people somehow owe them a living and would rather sit on their fat asses than work. Letting the market work benefits those who bear adversity with equanimity, and move forward in working to overcome hardships; letting the market work is of little benefit to those who suffer adversity with resignation and just plain give up.

    This so-called free market of which the Editor speaks is actually a corrupted market which has managed to move the wealth of this nation such that 40% of it is now in the hands of the upper 1%. Corruption of Wall Street and our Investment Banks has produced this corrupted market, which together with anti-Keynesian Republican political interests have managed to distort our wealth distribution to the point where we now find it. Moreover, political power derives from these wealthy folks, given our system of unbridled campaign contributions from unknown origins. And let us not forget, the corrupted Bush tax policies favoring the wealthy, which the rightie extremists, especially in the House, continue to push, have also been a factor moving wealth upwards, away from the American middle and poor. And on top of it all, we have the Bush induced Great Recession which made the American middle and poor suffer all the more. These are the facts, folks. Deal with them and put us whole once again with appropriate Clinton-like policies restored.

    And then, as usual, our Editor comes back to this one more time, and one more time, and one more time:

    As far as your Editor is concerned, it doesn’t matter in the least: our foreign policy will be set by President Obama — who is a nutty enough “warmist” himself — and not the Secretary of State. We have four more years of President Obama’s bovine feces foreign policy through which we have to suffer — elections do have consequences — and it really won’t matter if Lurch is our Secretary of State, or some other hypocrite has the job.

    The hypocrites, Mr Editor, are you Republican extremists, who steadfastly refuse to acknowledge your foreign policy failures in the Middle East, with your unquestioning support of Israel together with your support of our unprovoked attack on the sovereign nation of Iraq. At least we see an Obama administration in support of the uprisings against dictators, recognizing that during these upheavals it is not going to be pretty for a while, while moving in the right direction. And importantly for us, the President’s security policies have kept us safe, without resorting to useless foreign invasions of mass destruction, instead, to carefully targeted actions which unfortunately occasionally have unintended consequences, sadly. No credit from the likes of our Editor for that, none!

    Thus, again, no recognition of this from our Editor, only the likes of this false charge:

    rope, surely you know by now that the quality of an idea depends upon whose idea it is, and not the actual merits.

    Now there, koolo, is real hypocrisy for you!!! Chew on it for a change, instead of your usual own wild accusations out of thin air!!! Our Editor is not lily white and pure; oh wait, maybe he is lily white!

  9. Now there, koolo, is real hypocrisy for you!!! Chew on it for a change, instead of your usual own wild accusations out of thin air!!!

    CITATION PLEASE! Otherwise, this is the usual unadulterated Perry alternate-reality garbage.

    Our Editor is not lily white and pure; oh wait, maybe he is lily white!

    Says the “man” whose racist parents fled town when the darkies moved in, and who now resides in a lily-white hamlet and merely pontificates about how he “helps” the darkies … well, not really, but how they should be grateful for what he and his frazzled mind ilk have “done” for them. Any way you look at it, it equals one thing: Pure racism.

  10. WW wrote:

    It’s very simple: our friends on the left cannot allow blacks, homosexuals and women to think for themselves, or they will lose elections! Behind that, the simple fact is that they do not respect the intelligence of anyone other than white males enough to believe that they can think for themselves.

    What is the justification for this garbage? Apparently our Editor has not yet digested the demographics which resulted in his party being pummeled in the last election, except of course for the House Tea Party extremists, who maintained their power from y/2010 gerrymandered districts, which cancelled out the demographics that they did not like, thus maintaining the political dysfunction in the House of (so-called) Representatives.

    The justification? That’s pretty simple: it is a judgement based on the way liberals treat blacks to dare to stray from the liberal line. Amos Brown, a radio host on a religious radio station in Indianapolis, Indiana, tweeted that while Scott claims to be African American, he’s not a real black man. There is a message board themed, “Race traitor to be appointed to senate by SC Governor.” We have liberals referring to him as a “token negro,” and, of course, the main article here noted an article, by a professor at your alma mater, labeling Representative Tim Scott, (R-SC) who will be replacing Jim DeMint in the Senate, as a token, and The New York Times actually publishing it.

    However, I disagree with Patterico’s statement, “Letting the market work isn’t just for white people. It benefits everybody.” Letting the market work benefits people who will work hard, and strive to achieve, irrespective or race; it doesn’t work so well for those, regardless of race, who believe that other people somehow owe them a living and would rather sit on their fat asses than work. Letting the market work benefits those who bear adversity with equanimity, and move forward in working to overcome hardships; letting the market work is of little benefit to those who suffer adversity with resignation and just plain give up.

    This so-called free market of which the Editor speaks is actually a corrupted market which has managed to move the wealth of this nation such that 40% of it is now in the hands of the upper 1%. Corruption of Wall Street and our Investment Banks has produced this corrupted market, which together with anti-Keynesian Republican political interests have managed to distort our wealth distribution to the point where we now find it. Moreover, political power derives from these wealthy folks, given our system of unbridled campaign contributions from unknown origins. And let us not forget, the corrupted Bush tax policies favoring the wealthy, which the rightie extremists, especially in the House, continue to push, have also been a factor moving wealth upwards, away from the American middle and poor. And on top of it all, we have the Bush induced Great Recession which made the American middle and poor suffer all the more. These are the facts, folks. Deal with them and put us whole once again with appropriate Clinton-like policies restored.

    And who is it here who actually advocated a complete restoration of “Clinton-like” tax rates? Who is it here who has noted that the last time the budget was balanced, we were spending 18.2% of GDP at the federal level and that we need to reduce spending to that level (or lower)? You have opposed both of those ideas, rather vehemently, haven’t you?

  11. WW continued:

    As far as your Editor is concerned, it doesn’t matter in the least: our foreign policy will be set by President Obama — who is a nutty enough “warmist” himself — and not the Secretary of State. We have four more years of President Obama’s bovine feces foreign policy through which we have to suffer — elections do have consequences — and it really won’t matter if Lurch is our Secretary of State, or some other hypocrite has the job.

    The hypocrites, Mr Editor, are you Republican extremists, who steadfastly refuse to acknowledge your foreign policy failures in the Middle East, with your unquestioning support of Israel together with your support of our unprovoked attack on the sovereign nation of Iraq. At least we see an Obama administration in support of the uprisings against dictators, recognizing that during these upheavals it is not going to be pretty for a while, while moving in the right direction. And importantly for us, the President’s security policies have kept us safe, without resorting to useless foreign invasions of mass destruction, instead, to carefully targeted actions which unfortunately occasionally have unintended consequences, sadly. No credit from the likes of our Editor for that, none!

    [guffaws] Has President Obama increased our efforts in Afghanistan or not? Have President Obama’s minions waffled on the “end date” for Afghanistan or not?

    Of course, I have to wonder how “an Obama administration in support of the uprisings against dictators, recognizing that during these upheavals it is not going to be pretty for a while, while moving in the right direction” is somehow better and nicer than simply going in and deposing the dictators, as President Bush did in Afghanistan and Iraq? Is it somehow better that the Obama Administration is mouthing words of support — after a considerable time just waffling — for the rebels in Syria, while actually doing nothing, and people keep being killed in that struggle? Are those people somehow less dead or more nobly dead or more prettily dead than the people killed during the liberation of Iraq?

    Besides, you have admitted that President Bush was right all along about Iraq, with your definition of semi-automatic rifles as “weapons of mass destruction.” :)

  12. As for the rancor on this particular post, on this Fourth Sunday of Advent, allow me to quote the words of our Savior:

    Yes, if you forgive others their failings, your heavenly Father will forgive you yours; but if you do not forgive others, your Father will not forgive your failings either. — Matthew 6:14-15

  13. Pingback: Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup » Pirate's Cove

  14. And who is it here who actually advocated a complete restoration of “Clinton-like” tax rates? Who is it here who has noted that the last time the budget was balanced, we were spending 18.2% of GDP at the federal level and that we need to reduce spending to that level (or lower)? You have opposed both of those ideas, rather vehemently, haven’t you?

    No, but I do take into account that Bush almost doubled the National Debt with two wars and Medicare D off-budget and unpaid for. And even more, I take into account that President Obama inherited the Bush Great Recession, damn near a Great Depression II, both of which you do not hold your own Party accountable. President Obama, so far, has not double the National Debt, while struggling with the legacy which Bush and his Republicans produce.

    These are facts, Mr Editor. Until you own up to them, your rhetoric remains not the least bit credible!

    Nevertheless, happy holidays to you and yours, and to all the FSJ contributors!!!

  15. No, but I do take into account that Bush almost doubled the National Debt with two wars and Medicare D off-budget and unpaid for. And even more, I take into account that President Obama inherited the Bush Great Recession, damn near a Great Depression II, both of which you do not hold your own Party accountable. President Obama, so far, has not double the National Debt, while struggling with the legacy which Bush and his Republicans produce.

    CITATION PLEASE! Until there is one, this is just the usual Perry drivel-ridden swill. Until you own up to this, your rhetoric remains not the least bit credible!

  16. “…..Debt with two wars and Medicare D off-budget and unpaid for.”

    I’d like to point out that under Obama we have had NO budget for three years. Dosen’t that make ALL his spending off-budget and unpaid for? Or does off-budget only work for extremests? BTW, when you say two wars and Medicare D were (are) unpaid for you are wrong. They are paid for by Keynesian methods, borrowed spending i.e. STIMULUS. And since we don’t have a budget, hasen’t Obama continued to fund two wars (or more) and Medicare D off-budget and by your words unpaid for? Or don’t you use Medicare D? Do your drugs fall from heaven like manna or does someone else pay for them?

  17. WW wrote:

    And who is it here who actually advocated a complete restoration of “Clinton-like” tax rates? Who is it here who has noted that the last time the budget was balanced, we were spending 18.2% of GDP at the federal level and that we need to reduce spending to that level (or lower)? You have opposed both of those ideas, rather vehemently, haven’t you?

    No, but I do take into account that Bush almost doubled the National Debt with two wars and Medicare D off-budget and unpaid for. And even more, I take into account that President Obama inherited the Bush Great Recession, damn near a Great Depression II, both of which you do not hold your own Party accountable. President Obama, so far, has not double the National Debt, while struggling with the legacy which Bush and his Republicans produce.

    No? Are you swaying that you do not oppose raising taxes on everyone, and do not oppose cutting spending to 18.2% or less of GDP? Or did you make a mistake in how you expressed yourself?

    And it’s true enough that the national debt has not doubled under President Obama . . . yet. But you previously told us that an increase in the national debt of over $4 trillion, in (almost) eight years under President Bush was “pathetic,” while the national debt has been increased by well over $5 trillion under President Obama in less tan four years. And if President Obama’s policies are continued in the manner he has proposed, the national debt will have been more than doubled well before he leaves office.

    Your Editor, and most of the other conservatives here, have absolutely agreed that we spent way, way, way too much when George Bush was President. But when it comes to spending, our 43rd President was a bush leaguer (pun intended) compared to our 44th!

  18. As of 20 December 2012, our national debt stood at $16,334,217,015,073.49. On 20 January 2009, it stood at $10,626,877,048,913.08. In three years and 11 months under the man who said that it was “irresponsible” and “unpatriotic” of President Bush to have raised the national debt by $4 trillion in eight years, the national debt has been increased by $5,707,339,966,160.41.

    How is that not irresponsible? How is that not unpatriotic? How is that not pathetic?

  19. “How is that not irresponsible? How is that not unpatriotic? How is that not pathetic?”

    Simple answer: because he’s a Democrat and therefore his intentions are what count and he is thereby, Perfect In Every Way and relieved of all responsability for failure. Even all those Democrats who voted to go to war in Afghanistan and Iraq were pure of heart, they were just misled, lied to, misinformed. All those Kurds murdered by Sadam’s sarin gas were victims not of WMD, but rather some form of Persian Flu!

  20. How is that not irresponsible? How is that not unpatriotic? How is that not pathetic?

    What was irresponsible, unpatriotic, and truly pathetic is the Great Recession caused by the previous administration and by a corrupted gang of bankers on Wall Street.

    What has been responsible, patriotic, and intelligent is how President Obama, the Dems, and a handful of Republicans who have carefully steered our economy back to growth and job creation.

    Economics 101 teaches that a recession increases the deficit and debt by reducing revenue and increasing spending for emergency purposes and stimulative purposes.

    In spite of all this, on President Obama’s economic recovery watch, the debt has been increased proportionally less, about half again more, compared to the Bush near doubling the debt.

    Again, context matters, a simple fact ignored by our U KY and Princeton U graduates.

    Now with the fiscal cliff looming, it seems that the unpatriotic House Republican Tea Party extremists are about to do yet more damage to our economy, by continuing their non-governing dysfunction. In fact, their record so far, the Republicans that is, is driving our nation downwards. And they believe that they are patriots???

  21. The Tea Party, that is. It helps if one knows what they are talking about. They’re only “extremist” to you because you disagree with them.

  22. If it was possible for Perry to be any more wrongheaded, he couldn’t help himself, and if his former high school students ever happen to read the idiot nonsense he regularly spews here we can only imagine the tales they’d tell of his overbearing ignorance, monumental arrogance, and totalitarian intolerance.

  23. “What was irresponsible, unpatriotic, and truly pathetic is the Great Recession caused by the previous administration and by a corrupted gang of bankers on Wall Street.”

    Once again, a recession is just a recession, but it takes a Great Fuckhead to create a Great Recssion. Obama wins. And just so you know, patriotism has nothing to do with recession (except in your deludid mind), economics does. However, if you insist in calling an economic situation “irresponsible, unpatriotic and truly pathetic” you should start with spending money we don’t have. What is more pathetic than guys like you living off you children’s and grandchildren’s labor just so you can sit in your lilly white neighborhood and cast aspersions at everyone else?

    “What has been responsible, patriotic, and intelligent is how President Obama, the Dems, and a handful of Republicans who have carefully steered our economy back to growth and job creation.”

    Perhaps in you think we are “steered” into growth and job creation, but I don’t see it. Oh, unless you mean the new jobs in government because nobody else is hiring. Growth, indeed! Get a grip Wagonwheel. Our economy is not growing, it’s shrinking. How many people have you hired this year? I’ll bet fewer than those who have left our country for greener pasteurs. I know, it’s unpatriotic to leave one’s country when times are bad. Unless you’re an Irishman leaving Ireland during the potato famine. Or a Jew leaving Germany when the Nazi’s were taking over. Then it’s okay to leave. But an actual producing American to leave America because they see guys like you ready to grab all they’ve earned well then it’s unpatriotic.

    “Economics 101 teaches that a recession increases the deficit and debt by reducing revenue and increasing spending for emergency purposes and stimulative purposes.”

    Ecomomics 101 teaches no such thing. Obviously you failed the course. Or perhaps, like your hero, you never even took the course.

    “In spite of all this, on President Obama’s economic recovery watch, the debt has been increased proportionally less, about half again more, compared to the Bush near doubling the debt.’

    Do we really, really have to go over the numbers yet again? You know WW, complete denial is just silly.

    “Again, context matters, a simple fact ignored by our U KY and Princeton U graduates.”

    Context does matter, and in today’s context we are worse off than we were just ten years ago. Dosen’t matter what school you went to.

    “Now with the fiscal cliff looming, it seems that the unpatriotic House Republican Tea Party extremists are about to do yet more damage to our economy, by continuing their non-governing dysfunction. In fact, their record so far, the Republicans that is, is driving our nation downwards. And they believe that they are patriots???”

    That entire paragraph is so stupid it requires nothing. The DEMOCRATS hold the White House. The DEMOCRATS hold the Senate. The REPUBLICANS hold a thin majority in the House. But somehow, in your little tiny mind, the Republicans CONTROL everything. And worse, just because they actually have A VOICE, they should be stopped, shut up, banished. “Non-governing dysfunction” indeed. The Republicans proposed a budget, did the Dems? Other than pissing away our national wealth what, exactly, have the Democrats accomplished? Did they end your so-called Great Recession? NO! Did they save Solyndra? NO! Did they end all the wars? NO! Did they close GITMo? NO! NO! FAILURE! But they did win the election. It’s all on YOU, your Party and your people. I’ll sit back and watch you guys gut America. I know, I know. Your intentions are good and you have compassion. That should be written on you tombstone.

  24. “…. his overbearing ignorance, monumental arrogance, and totalitarian intolerance.”

    Could not have said it better. Thanks Ropelight. But remember, he’s full of compassion! And his intent is good. He’s a real gem. I guess when you’re in your late 70′s, collecting Social Security off the “working poor” and “the middle”, living in your paid-off million dollar home in Lewes, and using Medicare Part-Whatever, also paid for by the working poor and middle class OUT OF THEIR FUCKING TAXES, it’ s easy to be a leftist. It’s all about HIM.

  25. Here we have wingnuts Hoagie and ropelight, making excuses for their own dysfunction, and telling lies about the Obama era.

    Fortunately for all Americans, the American voter did not believe your crap, which is what should really count politically, but still doesn’t, as the House Republican Tea Party unpatriotic, irresponsible, evil extremist idiots continue to hold all Americans hostage by their continuing dysfunction, a refusal to compromise and govern.

    Well we patriots will have to take over the House in 2014, the same outcome we have just produced in the 2012 general election cycle. We now know how to do this successfully!

  26. “…. his overbearing ignorance, monumental arrogance, and totalitarian intolerance.”

    Could not have said it better. Thanks Ropelight. But remember, he’s full of compassion! And his intent is good. He’s a real gem. I guess when you’re in your late 70′s, collecting Social Security off the “working poor” and “the middle”, living in your paid-off million dollar home in Lewes, and using Medicare Part-Whatever, also paid for by the working poor and middle class OUT OF THEIR FUCKING TAXES, it’ s easy to be a leftist. It’s all about HIM.

    Pot….kettle. Moreover, there is not one word of truth in your personal attack, Hoagie!

    Are you going to go on SS and Medicare when the time comes? Our Editor says that he is, because he earned it! I guess that makes him a f*cking Liberal, exhibiting “overbearing ignorance, monumental arrogance, and totalitarian intolerance”. Defend yourself, Mr Editor! :)

Comments are closed.