It speaks volumes about today's republican party, when one of their
groups would even consider inviting James O'Keefe to speak. No decent
person would want to be associated with him.
Exposing corruption and planned parenthood's apparent approval of child prostitution is indeed a terrible thing.
(disclaimer for my liberal friends: this comment contains sarcasm)
August 28, 2012 at 3:45pm
Yes, this progressive does indeed smell
the sarcasm. Ironic though (you DO understand irony, right?) how the
"corruption" you cite doesn't exist. You see, hard as it may be for you
to believe, James O'Keefe MAKES STUFF UP.
Could you point to a specific case where he has made something up?
Thanks for pointing out the sardonic nature of your comment, because on
first read it only seemed steeped in partisan banality.
As opposed to the article, which is "non partisan."
It was ACORN not Planned Parenthood. Also, the videos were found to be
edited and fake and ACORN was cleared of any wring doing. Here is the
source (hoping you can read):
Both ACORN and Planned Parenthood: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_O%27Keefe
No, I can't read. But how did I type this if I can't read?
First line in your article: "A few ACORN members exhibited terrible
judgment and highly inappropriate behavior in videotapes obtained in the
Every time I see that little dweeb's face, I want to punch it. Is that so wrong?
If I said, "Every time I see that little dweeb's face, I want to punch
it." about someone like Sandra Fluke, would you not take offense to
What exactly is it about his exposure of bad things in the government that you do not like?
He is a criminal. Ms. Fluke is not.
Is it your position then that violence is acceptable against those who have have been called a criminal, even if those people doing that are highly partisan and are pressing the charges for political reasons?
Those of you on the left sure are happy to use personal attacks rather than actually debate the issues.
You are right: personal attacks do nothing to further discussion. But
don't paint all of us with that brush, just as I would never accuse
Republicans of doing the same.
Have you seen the comments on this article? Its one after another of name calling and insults.
If you can point to a similar series of name calling coming from a website on the left, then I'd like to hear it.
btw, some of the most viewed post on my blog come from the friendly
folks on the left calling me names, insulting me, and suggesting that I
kill myself. All for making comments like this one and the one you
replied to. Last time I talked to someone on the left about politics in
person I was called all sorts of names too.
Lots of people say that both sides engage in lots of name calling, but I
don't think that is even comparable between the sides.
Those wealthy individuals and investment houses are not creating jobs in
America. They keep their money overseas and invest in companies in
other countries. Of the wealth that our would- be president Romney has
stored overseas how much of it is invested in producing jobs in America.
If he had an interest in American workers and their jobs he could
invest a few million to start an or expand an industry in this country.
The American public seems to have no idea what a hypocritical situation
If the wealthy do not invest in America, do you think it is because they
don't want to make money on their investments? Or is it because we have
so many rules, regulations, and taxes that it is difficult for them to
make money here than elsewhere?
We can encourage people to invest, and create jobs, here, but taxing
them more and drowning them in endless rules is the opposite of
Even if I believed your argument, I would not want to follow it to its logical conclusion.
Do you want to be groveling at the feet of some "job creator" for a
dollar a day job while he sits upon a mountain of cash built from your
Saying we have to placate their every whim so they continuing hiring
people is rubbish. Either they need people or they don't.
My logical conclusion is a world where no one, not even the government,
controls the lives, or businesses of others. People are free to make
their own decisions without interference.
If you can create "a mountain of cash" without an employer, then why are you not doing it for yourself?
It is very difficult to found a successful company. Adding more rules
and regulations, and raising taxes does not make it easier for a
business owner to grow his business, and hire more people.
We don't need to placate anyone, just leave them alone. and me too.
The dream of pure, free-market capitalism simply doesn't fit anymore,
now that companies have the capability to efficiently produce and
distribute any and all saleable goods and services without employing
anywhere near our full population of workers. Thanks, internet; thanks,
robotics; thanks, big-box stores. Our economy has to advance and adapt
at the same pace as our technology; Republicans want to drag it back
into the past.
Freedom always fits. How much would you like being told what to do? what job you should have? what you are allowed to eat? etc.
The goal of businesses is not full employment, but rather to make money
by providing goods and services that people want to buy. In places
where this is not allowed to happen, the people live much more poorly
than the places where this is true.
So to you, freedom equals the goal of business but does not equal the
right to a decent paying job? In other words the bottom line is more
important than human rights and capital will just fly where it can live
freely by exploiting desperate human units for labor and consumption.
Freedom is not being told what I, or a business, can or cannot do.
A "right" to a high paying job sounds good. But someone needs to provide it. If you have a "right" to someone else's time and effort then you are placing them in a form of slavery.
That last sentence is a half truth, if not an outright lie. Working
class Americans live WORSE than their counterparts in countries with
stronger worker protections.
Best for last:
Teagop is all about driving wages and benefits down. Life on the tea
plantation....workers toiling in the fields for some moldy bread, a lame
mule, and a shack while the 1% sit on the verandah sipping mint juleps
yelling at the toilers to work harder and blaming them for the economic
mess 1% greed has created. They alternate yelling with whining for more
tax cuts for themselves.
Are you suggesting with this comment that the republicans want a world of slavery for the 99%?
No. Slaves get fed.
So the republicans, whose party was founded to oppose slavery and who voted in a higher percentage for the civil rights act of 1964, is worse than slaveholders because they want lower tax rates?