GOP fundraising (scare) tactics recanted

Does the GOP have any idea how patently offensive those pictures of Obama are to most decent Americans ?
Those useful idiots who display those horrible Obama-as-joker posters don't know socialism from fascism and allow themselves to be used and disrespected by the GOP
because they are afraid and looking to assign blame to someone and thats where their bigotry comes into play.

Recanted?

Yeah, right.

Like Galileo recanted his views about the Earth orbiting the Sun.

Yes, as a little itty bitty citizen I can bash Hillary and Cheney and BillyBob, W and Miss Sarahh.

Replicans at the national committee level aren't supposed to do that, now, are they?

Barack made up as the Joker?

Bad form, as the Brits would say.

But very revealing of the essential bankruptcy of their Party.

No ideas. No programs.

Only a tired racist canard.

How very Republican.

Michael Steele and his posse are a little easier to understand when you find out who's coaching them:

Coaching Steele

(satire)

You have to remember, the RNC is collecting money from an incredibly dumb segment of America (the Republican base) that doesn't know the difference between The Onion parodies and reality.

I thought I couldn't be surprised by the cynical manipulation of the goobers who make of the Republican base by their leadership, but man... sometimes you've gotta give it to them. They are bereft of anything resembling morals, empathy or compassion. Or reason for that matter.

Wow, the inmates truly do run the asylum in Wingnut-land..

After a lifetime of watching Lee Atwater, Roger Ailes and Karl Rove cynically manipulate the low IQ haters that comprise the Republican base, cynicism when considering their "dirty tricks" on all sides is practically a knee jerk response to everything they do.

It's part of the hypnotic brew of xenophobia, authority worship and racism the Republican leadership and the Right Wing Noise Machine pours down the throats of the damaged and gullible simpletons who make up their Wingnut "base". And that's what compeles the "base" rubes to go out and protect the scoundrels (their leadership) who betray them, enrich those who hate them and vote against the interests of their own daughters.

And the RNC actually put it in writing? I'll be damned. Republicans are not going to make the gains this fall that they think they're going to make, they've been shooting themselves in the foot much to often for that to happen now.

My, my, this has the potential to turn very, very ugly. Django would never have done the Mustapha poster make-over. Not my thing at all, but, Mustapha IS a Socialist.

From our Wilkipedia Friends:

“Socialism refers to the various theories of economic organization which advocate either public or direct worker ownership and administration of the means of production and allocation of resources...

Most socialists share the view that capitalism unfairly concentrates power and wealth among a small segment of society that controls capital and derives its wealth through exploitation, creates an unequal society, does not provide equal opportunities for everyone to maximise their potential, and does not utilise technology and resources to their maximum potential nor in the interests of the public.

Socialists inspired by the Soviet model of economic development have advocated the creation of centrally planned economies directed by a state that owns all the means of production…”

And that is just a small part of the Socialist story as laid out by Wilkipedia. Mustapha has plenty of Socialist friends. He is not just a one-man wrecking ball. 53% of democrats and 17% of RINOs admit to the pollsters that they are acolytes of the miserable Socialist ideology, but for some reason, they prefer to keep it on the down-low.

It’s not unlike being a N.O. Saints fan in the Aints’ days when the fans would deny the Saints but still show up at the game wearing a paper sack over their heads, with the appropriate cut-outs. Hey, just own up to it. Clearly, Socialism and being a good democrat are pretty much one and the same. WHAT would possibly be the difference? Own It.

Speaking of Republican screw-ups....

So much for Republicans making a big "comeback" this fall!

ANTI-GAY RIGHTS (FAMILY VALUES) CA GOP LAWMAKER NAILED FOR DUI....AFTER LEAVING GAY BAR!

"Republican Roy Ashburn served in the state Assembly before ascending to the state Senate in 2002. He might be best known by national political followers for his 2004 run for the United States Congress, when he and Democrat Jim Costa battled to replace retiring Democratic Rep. Cal Dooley. Costa emerged victorious in that contest, though Ashburn did notch a respectable 46% of the vote."
.
http://cbs13.com/local/ashburn.arrest.dui.2.1534505.html

Ashburn has been a consistent "no" vote in the state legislature on gay rights, and has been an honored guest speaker for at least one "Republican family values" rally, in his hometown of Bakersfield in 2005. The commentary from one of the counter-protestors at that event is nothing short of priceless.
.
http://www.gayfresno.com/content/view/51/
.

I think we're missing the beauty of this RNC memo. It's really a manifesto of how the Republican party goes about duping dumb people into supporting and voting for them over and over again. This is how it works: Play on the foolish pride of people who aren't smart enough to know they're being used.

Here an example:
---------------------------

WHATEVER Republicans do is patriotic, moral, ethical and in the best interests of the nation. How can we know this? Because it is REPUBLICANS doing it.

WHATEVER Democrats do is (depending upon the time in American history you're talking about) appeasement, being a 'fellow traveler' with Communists, is socialistic, or is part of a baroque Islamo-fascist plot to sap our Precious Bodily Fluids. How can we know this? Because it is DEMOCRATS doing it!

So, let's say that a Republican rushes into a burning house to save a child. THAT was a brave act done out of Christian charity and that person is a hero.

If a Democrat rushes into a burning house to save a child, then the Democrat thinks that they know best for that child. Perhaps the child *chooses* to burn to death. Perhaps the parents of the child choose to let their child burn to death. The Republican stands for the *freedom* to let the child burn to death if she (or her parents) decide that's what they want while the Democrat is trying to be the 'nanny-fireman' and 'rescue' the child.

Now, of course, you will object that this is a double-standard. It's not. It's judging ALL Republicans by one standard and ALL Democrats by a different standard. If a Democrat becomes a Republican then, of course, their actions are heroic Christian charity.

You see, it's really quite simple for the Republican party to get stupid people to open up their wallets and give what little they have to the rich. All they have to do is appeal to their foolish pride.

Other reports I have read on this stated a copy was left behind in the hotel where the conference on was held. The tone of this fund raising campaign is despicable. I thought these were educated people but apparently I am wrong.

Michael Steele is a little easier to understand when you find out who's coaching him:

Video

(satire)

I really don't see what the fuss is about? The Democrats did this to Bush for 8 years and now their "Shocked"? Those images are "Tame" compared to most of the avatars that i see in comment sections on websites. I also don't think that the Republicans are TRYING to scare people, we are already scared to death of what Obama and his henchmen Pelosi and Reid will try to jam down our throats next.

django,

How about a little primer on fascism while you're at it.

For those who abhor socialism, dig this:

public libraries highways police and fire protection municipal water and waste facilities FDA FAA social security national parks VA Hospitals public schools
and on and on and on...

but as long as the anti-socialism crowd is first in line, socialism works just fine. LOL

meanwhile, put your money where you mouth is and refuse to partake in all those
" evil socialistic programs" which seem to function quite well, all things considered.

Does the Democratic Party (and its media allies) realize just how offensive, and hypocritical, their faked "outrage" is to decent, average Americans?

Have they no shame?

Writerofwrongs,

Many times, in Math World, when we are called upon to do a proof, we easily forget what is given or what has already been defined. My little primer on Socialism was taken directly from Wilkipedia.

Liberals are quite good at “links” and finding common stuff as well as the peculiar, but as per your request:

Fascism, pronounced /ˈfæʃɪzəm/, is a radical and authoritarian nationalist political ideology... Fascists seek to organize a nation on corporatist ...
Fascists advocate the creation of a single-party state. Fascist governments forbid and suppress openness and opposition to the fascist state and the fascist movement. Fascists oppose class conflict, blame capitalism and liberal democracies for its creation…

Wilkipedia is again, the source. Anyone can read through this.

I do not think that Mustapha is a Fascist. Fortunately, our system of government, designed by old, very dead white guys, makes it difficult for any one individual to pull that one off. I am not white, but I sure do thank those white guys for programming that in. I do not think that Mustapha is a Fascist, but I really do think that he is a Socialist/Marxist.

As for the public libraries, highways, police, fire protection, municipal water, etc. etc. They are all good. I have no axe to grind against any of them, and I do care about others. However, if they weren’t there, then we should be relieved of the property tax burden that we ostensibly pay for them to be there. I don’t see this as something that I am lucky to be getting for free. This is a legitimate function of local, state, or Federal government (in the case of an Interstate highway system). Stealing my liberty, limiting my freedom, micro-managing my life by someone with a law degree but no real relevant life experience, is not.

I would also add to your fine list the best Air Force (although Israel may have a claim on that as well), the best Navy, Army, Marines and Special Forces that are able to do the most un-imagineable things. Their very presence would seem to suggest to some of our adversaries that there won’t be any trouble unless they choose to make a little trouble. The modest tax burden on me for their on-going maintenance is something that I would never have an issue with. I know that democrats believe in peace through weakness. I prefer peace through strength. There is a better track record that that actually may work.

In their purest form, all economic systems would seem to have some kind of undesireable quality. But despite the shortcomings of the American traditional form of capitalism, it is also like what Winston Churchill said about democracy. That is, it is still better than the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th place horses and the rest of the tail draggers. So believeth I. Regards.

Wow where was the media for six years of President Bush's administration when the lunatic fringe on the left was doing this stuff. Come on they did it right up until election night 2008.

* * * * *
Posted by: writerofwrongs | March 5, 2010 8:48 AM
.
Yours is a common refrain in the Swamp, but a lame one all the same.
.
Let’s start off with the basics. Socialism involves collectivization and wealth redistribution based upon the varying needs and abilities of those in society. It is encapsulated in the Marxist/Leninist adage: From him according to his abilities; to each according to his needs. The basic idea is that the leveling of material wealth within the national community is necessary to attain “social justice.” Contrary to popular belief, socialism doesn’t require the nationalization of all the means of production. European socialists in countries like Denmark and Sweden (who believe that what they are doing is socialism) are happy to allow private industry to generate the wealth the government redistributes.
.
Judged by the foregoing, the agencies and items you have on the list have nothing in the way of “socialist” attributes about them (except, perhaps, social security and public schooling). Taxes are paid to build roads, maintain fire and police departments, provide water and waste treatment facilities, and so on, REGARDLESS of whether anyone other than taxpayers benefit from them. (And, BTW, I have to pay for my water services apart from taxes. Don’t you?) These are not socialist programs. Despite the collectivization of the community to provide them, no one either intends or attempts wealth redistribution through them. People can (and do) die from starvation, illness and exposure in communities with police and fire services, clean water and well maintained roads.
.
It might also be useful to point out that European monarchs paid for roads, police and fire services - because doing was a cost-effective way to move armies and protect their tax bases. No one could begin to claim these ‘nobles’ (whose very existence depended upon class distinction) were motivated in the least by the desire to equalize society or effectuate some primordial notions of social justice. They did this stuff only to protect their own bottom line.
.
Thus, you have perpetuated a common categorical error by suggesting that people only claim to hate socialism while reaping its benefits. Based on the examples you give, that is simply untrue. A person can pay into, and receive the benefit of, a community service without socialism breaking out everywhere.
.
On the other hand, the same can’t be said for welfare, social security and the proposed government subsidized health care plan. In these latter examples, it is clear that the government is bestowing unequal benefits on one segment of society at the cost of another. Many people receive more in social security payments than they paid in; and many pay taxes who will never be eligible to received a welfare check or access to a plethora of free or low cost government services. THAT is wealth redistribution from a collectivized source, and Obama and the Democrats are clearly in favor of as much of it as possible. Thus, Django and others are not wrong in characterizing Obama as a socialist. Learn to love the label and live with it if you like Obama’s plans.

john w:
(snipped)

Yours is a common refrain in the Swamp, but a lame one all the same.

~~~~
lame ? not hardly. You folks seem to have no problem with fascism but toss the phrase "socialism" at anyone who disagrees with your strange and inconsistant beliefs.
I do not see Obama as anythng but another corporate guy. He ran on a party platform of healthcare reform and thats what Americans expect of him.
Meanwhile, all of you who never voted forObama in the first place will continue to pout and whine and wage your wars against other Americans because you are all so full of yourselves and self-righteous hypocrites who are now targeting those who are receiving unemployment because you are jealous.

Painting the democrats as socialists - if it walks like a socialist, talks like a socialist, then its a socialist.

* * * * *
Posted by: writerofwrongs | March 5, 2010 4:48 PM
.
You have gone from lame to downright weird.
.
Who are you talking about when you include me in “You folks”? I am not a Republican, and I have a very consistent set of views based on a single organizing principle. That principle is called “freedom.” You should look into it sometime.
.
Democrats who voted for Obama and his health care agendum are the ones with a motley bag of conflicting views. This is true because:
.
1. They hate corporations, yet they find it perfectly okay to allow corporations to remain in control of the health care system. Nor do they find it odd or objectionable when Democrats in Congress vote to pay out hundreds of billions of dollars in corporate bailouts and corporate welfare. Somehow, it never dawns on them that a company that needs subsidies might have a bad business model, is suffering from mismanagement, and/or perhaps ought to go through bankruptcy to allow companies with better business models to take over.
.
2. Democrats supposedly believe in constitutional zones of privacy (as per Roe v. Wade), yet believe it is okay to allow the federal government to invade all of those zones of privacy in setting up a health care system. In particular, all of the decisions about personal health, which ought to be the reserve of patients and their doctors, are soon going to be made with the government in the room (and to some degree this is already the case under HIPPA).
.
3. They claim to be the party of civil rights, and they thump on the Bill of Rights. Yet, they have no difficulty curtailing or ignoring many constitutional rights that don’t fit their agendum (especially those found in the First, Second and Fifth Amendments), and they have long exhibited utter contempt for the limits the Constitution places on exercise of federal power. This isn’t news either: progressives starting with Woodrow Wilson have had a long history of ignoring and distorting the Constitution when it serves their agendum.
.
4. One of the most galling and hypocritical features of Democrats is that they blame George W. Bush for running up the debt (which, for sure, he ought to share the blame), and then, without any guilt pangs or mental dissonance, turn around and run up an even larger bill on terms that are entirely unsustainable. We can also add to the grand achievements of the Democratic party those two mega-disasters known as Social Security and Medicare, either of which, and certainly combined, are about to drive this country into debt from which it may never recover. This would happen even if the federal government promised to never spend another penny in new spending ever again. And, somehow, this is sane and fiscally responsible? You can keep this group of nut cases for yourself, Mister.
.
I am not pouting, or whining, or waging war against other Americans; I am not full of myself or self-righteousness; and I certainly not jealous or envious of those who are receiving unemployment benefits. To the contrary, I want to see Americans succeed as a people. That can’t happen when the government remains as irresponsible and unrealistic as it currently is. Lastly, I am self-employed, and I don’t need unemployment insurance. How could I possibly be jealous of someone who doesn’t have what I do?
.
PS - Thanks for having nothing to say in response to the way I debunked your false argument regarding socialism. I’ll take that as a concession on your part.

Does the Democratic Party (and its media allies) realize just how offensive, and hypocritical, their faked "outrage" is to decent, average Americans?

Have they no shame?

Posted by: Judge Welch | March 5, 2010 9:42 AM

many republican voters are also disgusted, including your leader Michael Steele. maybe the GOP should try this approach to court voters:
GET A PLATFORM !

WriterofWrongs,

I always thought, very sincerely so, that it was the democrats that were “extremely liberal” with the Fascist label in their all-consuming disdain for the Prince of Darkness. Maybe it was the result of the Florida voters’ inability to properly mark a ballot. That was not in any way our fault. Maybe it was the lingering fall-out from Slick’s impeachment. I do regret that particular exercise. We can always argue the degree that a president may have manipulated one thing or another, but Prince, a Fascist? That, to me, is mucho ugly and totally in the land of the incongruous.

It makes practical sense that the citizens of a community would pool their money by some means or fashion to have a water system, sanitation, police, fire, and so forth. I don’t see a city or state service entity as some kind of special largess bestowed upon us by our benevolent D.C., or Travis County Socialists, because it is paid for through taxes and in many cases additional bonded indebtedness.

My high school definition of Socialism always referred to “critical” industries of an Economy, as John W. so explicitly noted here. That definition would generally reference rails, banks, and mass communication. An updated definition would have to include energy and healthcare. It would not include, still, the Department of Sanitation or Barney Miller’s police precinct.

Some things should clearly raise some serious constitutional issues to a reasonable person, if it were possible to define such a person in the year 2010. The Government that does control Everything, however, we would have to go ahead and just call them the Communists that they are.

Targeting those receiving unemployment? Jealous? Not me. Been there as a suddenly laid-off chemical engineer without a viable project assignment. I received the maximum unemployment $$ and that represented a 75% cut in my net pay. It forced me to get a miserable Teaching certificate the first time around and a painful Math degree the second time. For ANYONE unemployed, I feel yo’ pane, as the 42nd U.S. president, that would be Slick, would be inclined to say. How can anyone be pleased with Mustapha’s jobless-driven policies that seem to be designed to reward the Unions, the non-existent Green businesses, and not much of anything else.

Tawanda the Avenger,

Did you not hear the Republicans very respectfully and very clearly state their disagreement and reservations to the democrats Healthcare Conundrum this past week? Republicans will have a platform in November, and one in 2012, as well as a viable candidate. Maybe it does not make it through the filter of the accomplice Liberal Stream Media, but certainly there will be a platform, and probably candidates too. Presumably, the democrats will have some semblance of a platform as well. God bless ‘em and good luck. I think that the Republicans have some election momentum already, based on, I don’t know, some recent elections, maybe. Do democrats not smell the smoke? Eight months. Can't wait.

I am wondering.... How many here, including SIlva, and even Michael Steele, release that that poster/image is a Lyndon LaRouche poster and design?
You know, Lyndon LaRouche, a member of the US Labor Party and Democrat party.... Some need to get a clue.

DJ,

Just chill. Relax, and go with the Great Dialectic of History.

Judge Posner, as usual, is way ahead of everyone else in the class.

He's riding a light beam away from Free Market Friedmanism.....

Headed to Planet Keynes, in fact.

And he's a pretty smart guy. One of the smartest, in fact.

Anyway, just treat this little perturbation toward "socialism" as a natural, even healthy, reaction to the disaster wrought by Laissez Faire.

Don't fret. The Friedmanites will be back. In about 40 years.

john w
(snipped)

Democrats who voted for Obama and his health care agendum are the ones with a motley bag of conflicting views. This is true because:
.
1. They hate corporations, yet they find it perfectly okay to allow corporations to remain in control of the health care system.
~~~

Corporations are artifical persons and are required in most cases,to be profitable at any cost, including the human cost. Profits over people, is their motto and nothing rings truer than their atitude toward
insurance and medical access, especially for those without coverage and then enter the lies: euthanizing gramma..rationed healthcare and the rest. If they're so righteous, why them resort to complete lies to maintain the status quo and why ? Money, profits; after all, gotta make those shareholders happy and to you, thats OK ?
This is not a political issue to the uninsured, as there are all sorts of people without medical access or coverage however the big medical cartel seems to have it's best success with republicons because money talksand now that the SCOTUS has given these same profit-motivated corporations the green light to buy our representatives and control elections, we can expect to see not only more of the same but an increase in this legal influence-peddling.

~~~~~

~
2. Democrats supposedly believe in constitutional zones of privacy (as per Roe v. Wade), yet believe it is okay to allow the federal government to invade all of those zones of privacy in setting up a health care system. In particular, all of the decisions about personal health, which ought to be the reserve of patients and their doctors, are soon going to be made with the government in the room (and to some degree this is already the case under HIPPA).
.
~~~~~
wow: john w,
The big medical insurance cartel has been making decisions based upon privacy invasions for years, so where have you been? They run credit checks on applicants for healthcare, as though thats germain, create files on what perscriptions you take, employment and on and on, all in their mission to deny you coverage. What abortion has to do with any of this is beyond me.
~~~~~
john w goes on (snipped)

To the contrary, I want to see Americans succeed as a people. That can’t happen when the government remains as irresponsible and unrealistic as it currently is. Lastly, I am self-employed, and I don’t need unemployment insurance. How could I possibly be jealous of someone who doesn’t have what I do?
~~~
wow: john, you could not apply for unemployment insurance even if you wanted to because you are self-employed. Those who qualify have paid into the fund and for the baggers to object to this is about as outrageous as can be.Nothing like kicking some poor soul while they're down but for the cons, what else is new. Their battle cry, after all, is survival of the fittest!

~~~~

.john w:
PS - Thanks for having nothing to say in response to the way I debunked your false argument regarding socialism. I’ll take that as a concession on your part.
~~~~~
sorry I couldn't reply sooner but I have other obliigations besides sparring with the neo-fascists on board here.

dream on, django ! no platform except BS like their pro-life platform. Didya know that the RNC had abortion coverage for its employees until they were forced to make a change cuz' they got outed ? That's after the fact, fyi. So much for their commitment toward the unborn. Then there is their hijacking of the teabag movement, followed by their pro-family blah-blah, except if you are sick and uninsured:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dl5Jo0GnX-k

or their anti-gay-profamily blah:

http://cbs13.com/local/ashburn.arrest.dui.2.1534505.html

So you see, my dear django, the GOP has morphed into the biggest buncha rank hypocrites and they dont even hide it.

* * * * *
Posted by: writerofwrongs | March 6, 2010 2:19 PM
.
I can tell you are a progressive. You have progressed from the lame to the weird, and now from the weird to that which is ignorant and mindless.
.
At the bottom of your last post I see the words, “sorry I couldn't reply sooner but I have other obliigations (sic) besides sparring with the neo-fascists on board here.” Calling me a fascist or a neo-fascist tells me that you haven’t the faintest clue as to the meaning of “fascism,” much less how very different it is from what I believe. This, of course, is not surprising. Pseudo-liberals like yourself simply use the term “fascist” as a label to attach to everything and anyone you don’t like; and you do so for the purpose of marginalizing other views. It’s useful because it relieves you of the obligation to actually think for yourself. The odd part of all of this is that you are actually backing into the very fascism that you claim to hate. That is one of the reasons I brought out the numbers of contradictions within the stated Democrat positions (the significance of which you entirely failed to understand).
.
The first clue regarding the meaning of “fascism” is to look at its symbol. The fascist flag under Mussolini had the Roman “fasces,” which is an axe within a bundle of birch sticks bound into a cylindrical form by a leather strap. It is meant to symbolize both power and “strength through unity.” See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fasces That, of course, is the entire essence of fascism: absolute collectivism within a totalitarian state.
.
As Benito Mussolini put it in “The Doctrine of Fascism” (1932):
.
“The keystone of the Fascist doctrine is its conception of the State, of its essence, its functions, and its aims. For Fascism the State is absolute, individuals and groups relative. Individuals and groups are admissible in so far as they come within the State. Instead of directing the game and guiding the material and moral progress of the community, the liberal State restricts its activities to recording results. The Fascist State is wide awake and has a will of its own. For this reason it can be described as ‘ethical.’”
.
The central position of the “State” in fascism represents total antagonism to democracy and classical liberalism. Democracy and classical liberalism mean that governments must exist for the benefit of the people, and that people have a right to say how they will be governed. To fascists, the individual lives for, and is only valuable to the extent he or she contributes to, the State. Also, contrary to classical liberalism, an individual has absolutely no rights against a fascist state. The state can confiscate, imprison or kill anyone, without any reason or pretense of justification, and no individual has any basis to complain about this. Furthermore, fascists believed that the state has the right to dictate the minutiae of an individual’s life, the individual’s beliefs and aspirations, and the individual’s function in society. It embraces the absolute deprivation of any individual liberty that has no value to the state. All rights exercised by the individual within a fascist state are granted by the state itself, and have no other source for their existence.
.
From what I can gather from your ranting, someone told you that “fascism” consists of the combination of corporate and state power. I’ve seen this before:
.
“Let me explain to you how this works: you see, the corporations finance Team America, and then Team America goes out ... and the corporations sit there in their... in their corporation buildings, and... and, and see, they're all corporation-y... and they make money.”
.
~ The caricature of Tim Robbins in “Team America: World Police.”
.
This idea is only half correct. Fascism embraces the fusion of corporate and state power because the fascist state is a governmental black hole that sucks in everyone and everything into a single state. It’s helpful for corporations to get supported and protected by a big-brother type government because it saves them from having to function efficiently and competitively, and it helps them control labor.
.
This is why I raised the paradox of the Democrat’s dislike of corporations and their synchronous willingness to allow corporate control of health care. As a free-market Libertarian (which is the same as a “classical liberal”), I see this as an unhealthy combination. For government to jump into bed with corporate interests is to create the exact power combination embraced by fascism, and to permit corporations to survive without competition or efficiency. (This is significant because efficient and competitive companies bring goods and services to market at lower prices.) Why Democrats never send up red flags over this combination is a mystery to me. Maybe it’s because progressive Democrats really want to combine government and corporate interests.
.
Contrary to what you have stated, I don’t think it is ‘okay’ for Corporations to lie, cheat, and steal, or to deprive people of rights they have acquired under an arm’s-length, paid-for contract. You merely assumed that I am willing to give corporations a pass on wrongdoing. This is your imagination running wild. In my view, the very raison d’être of government is to protect people from foreign invasion and domestic predators.
.
You likewise failed to appropriately address the paradoxical willingness of Democrats to permit the government to intervene into the doctor-patient relationship and areas of privacy ala Roe v. Wade (which involve issues of privacy and personal autonomy beyond the specific question of abortion - which you apparently didn’t know.) You also claimed that such intervention is no worse because corporations are already intrusive. But to make such a claim is like saying a “snake in the grass” isn’t dangerous because grass is harmless. Whether corporations are intrusive doesn’t change the fact that adding the government to the medical decision-making process is even worse. Every individual has a fundamental right to make decisions about his or her body without governmental interference. That’s not likely to remain true if the government is calling the shots. Did you ever hear the expression: “He who pays the piper calls the tune”? This, again, is reminiscent of the fascists insistence on micromanaging ever aspect of human behavior. Your willingness to turn a blind eye to the ever growing federal government and its embrace of corporate partnership is quite telling.
.
This is similar to the problem of the Democrats selectivity when it comes to civil rights - which, again, you failed to address. Progressives have a particular world view in which many human and civil rights are neither essential nor desirable. Also, democracy is a hindrance, inasmuch progressives believe that a select few people know better how people ought to behave than the great unwashed masses. This is especially true of the early progressives like Woodrow Wilson and his henchmen - who believed that neither individual rights nor constitutional limitations should prevent the government from pursuing a “progressive” agendum. Many of Wilson’s folks were also great admirers of Mussolini’s fascist state in Italy.
.
You likewise failed to address the gross hypocrisy involved in decrying Bush’s spending spree (which was wrong) while the Democrat’s spending is even more profligate. I don’t believe your failure in this regard had anything to do with your mythical jousts with neo-fascists. Furthermore (to return to the theme here), a lot of the current spending involves bank and industry bailouts. To those of you who are looking for fascists behind every corner, this combination of government and corporate power seems to have eluded you. Are we getting the picture yet?
.
You also missed my point regarding unemployment insurance. My inability to acquire unemployment insurance because of my self-employed status is no basis for jealousy. I have a job. That is something unemployed people don’t have. Given the choice, I’ll take my job over unemployment payments any day.
.
Finally, in a rather strange twist of irony, you chose to call me names instead of addressing my refutation of your phony socialism argument. If your failure to do it once can be explained, your second one can’t. You lose.

john w:

(snip)

You also missed my point regarding unemployment insurance. My inability to acquire unemployment insurance because of my self-employed status is no basis for jealousy. I have a job. That is something unemployed people don’t have. Given the choice, I’ll take my job over unemployment payments any day.
~~~
..and I am certain you have no choice in the matter, either.

"..and I am certain you have no choice in the matter, either."
.
Posted by: writerofwrongs | March 9, 2010 2:00 PM
.
Is this all you have to talk about after all I said?
.
Right. In any event, you are wrong in stating I have no choice in the matter. I could do something about unemployment insurance if I wanted to. I have had job offers from a number of the firms for which I do contract work. For some reason, the downturn in the economy has made criminals out of more people; and I defend people for a living. If I decided to take a job in one of those firms, I would have unemployment insurance.
.
Problem solved.
.
Except that I would never use it. That’s because I would prefer to go back to being gainfully self-employed rather than relying on a taxpayer bailout.

@John W.
"You likewise failed to address the gross hypocrisy involved in decrying Bush’s spending spree (which was wrong) while the Democrat’s spending is even more profligate."

There is big difference between both spending sprees you failed to recognize.
First a little economic sanity: you save during the good years, so you are able to spend when it's most needed, during the bad years.

Bush's spending spree was like a renter who spent the taxpayers dollar on weekly frat parties for his friends, with caviar, champagne and prostitutes. It was pussy galore at the house, paid for by us. After years and years and years of holding these parties for himself and his small cotery of friends, the rented house was totally neglected and demolished, the furniture was trashed, the mattresses soiled, the windows broken, the roof was leaking, and the pool and the garden were unrecognizable, as you can imagine.

And now you want to admonish the second renter for having the audacity to redecorate and refurnish the house and bring it back to order?