Polly Can You Spare a Cracker . . .
Digg 
Stumble Upon 
Newsvine 
Slashdot 
Mixx 
Diigo 
Delicious 
Reddit 
Facebook
This is what a shill looks like. Glenn Reynolds writes:
CHARLIE COOK: “At What Point Will the Public Blame the Recession on Obama Instead of Bush?” When the press quits covering for him?
If I understand Reyolds correctly; Barack Obama is responsible for a downturn that began in December of 2007, when he was an upstart senator facing the invincible Clinton Machine and is only escaping blame now because the media is covering for him.
What ever you say, Glenn. I can remember back when you were regularly sneering “dude, where’s my recession” at the prospect of a downturn. Back then we had a Republican in the Whitehouse and the prospect of another taking his place. I guess that there are downsides to parroting a party line, but at least one always knows what to say.
Filed under: Uncategorized
That’s a pretty hard slap down. Nicely done.
It may not be a fair question, since it minimizes Bush’s role so much, but it is a valid one.
Were Bush II’s policies terribly destructive economically? Yes.
Should Obama get a pass when the stimulus bill makes things worse? No.
Regardless of who, or what circumstances, caused our financial meltdown, Obama was elected on his big-talking rhetoric of “Change you can believe in.” And the gullible voters who fawned over him are expecting him to walk on the water and keep his grandiose promises. So now it’s time for him to put-up or shut-up. He brags about how his socialistic policies are going to solve the problem. We’ll see.
Meanwhile, we must watch him and his cohorts like a hawk. His choices for top positions have been tax-evaders and otherwise shady characters, for the most part. Part of the Chicago political machine. Watch him.
If you want your blood stirred, click on the following link and watch a video of Thomas Paine pleading with America to get its act together…
http://www.patriothangout.com/PH/Watch_TV_-_Issues.html
‘Should Obama get a pass when the stimulus bill makes things worse? No.’
If. Give him a chance dude.
Rick, those of us who voted for Obama aren’t the idiots you wish we were. We’re not gullible and only asshats on the other side say he can walk on water. We’re realists and understand it’s going to take more than a month to fix the damage done by Bush. And yes returning us to our socialist roots might help. Government should work for the people, not some of them, not just the rich in the hope we will all be lifted by a rising tide. (Some of us don’t have boats)
Waaaaaah he’s from the Chicago machine, waaaaaah he’s choosing shady characters. Grow up. Bush chose Cheney as his VP. The man was in Nixon’s White House and gave full throated support to the idea the president can’t be investigated by Congress during the Iran Contra affair. He probably didn’t pay his taxes either since he’s rich and according to Bush rich people find ways to avoid paying taxes. I guess that doesn’t piss you off when a republican does it. It’s good sense then because taxes are the evilest thing evah!!!!1111
This is a socialist country it always has been. The right has been trying to amend that from the beginning. The idea that all of us are born equal in the eyes of the law doesn’t appeal to a conservative. They never wanted to move from the idea that some are born with more privilege and should be allowed to exercise that privilege unfettered. Conservatives have no use for peasants other than as sign carriers.
rawshark wrote:
“This is a socialist country it always has been.”
And may I ask just what dictionary you use there, rawshark?
Cheers,
I will personally donate $1,000 dollars to the bailout fund for each TAC article that Rorschach has read during his lifetime.
I think he uses the word conservative in the magazine’s name as a taking-off point and goes from there.
‘And may I ask just what dictionary you use there, rawshark?’
Declaration of Independance.
You guys need to stop letting right wing radio tell you that socialism is a bad word.
rawshark wrote:
“Declaration of Independance [sic].”
Ah, must have come after the Dec. of Independence and I missed it. Was that the one they passed to stop the Charleston craze? I remember my grandfather talking about the tyranny; couldn’t go into a speakeasy without having to dance it.
E.g. “When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the jazz bands which have incessantly played this infernal tune and disconnected them from one another on the dance floor, and to assume among the powers of the earth the right to dance cheek to cheek as the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitles them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they need not declare any further the causes which impel them to this separation….”
(Sorry shark, couldn’t resist.)
Cheers,
Just what is “socialism”? I learned in economics, history, and political science classes that it exists when the state controls the movement of capital. You sometimes hear control of the means of production or central planning, but it seems to really come down to control of capital. Of course, many liberals seem to believe it has something to do with their own nebulous definitions of fair play and equality. They also seem to connect it with their definitions of personal liberty, which include personal control over ever decision except what happens with money. Money is too powerful to be a matter of personal liberty. Only the state has the ability to ensure that individuals each get what they have coming to them.
Socialism is not a bad word. It’s a way of organizing capital. Did the founders, who fought a revolution over taxes and currency, want to centralize the control of capital in these United States? Since the rally of the day was “no taxation without representation” liberals can always say, “Well, you have your representation.” Certainly, the power to tax does give the government power over capital. I’ve heard some people argue that the constitutional powers to establish tariffs and regulate interstate commerce are socialist, because the government decides on the flow of capital.
I am curious exactly which part of the Declaration says anything about a United States government controlling the movement of capital rather than individual citizens. Rawshark, can you point me to some specific wording that supports that conclusion for you? If you’re just talking about personal liberty, you may want to use another word beside socialism.
I don’t think you’re going to find much support for the proposition that the U.S. was created a socialist country in either the Dec. of Independence nor the Constitution nor indeed anywhere reflecting that such an idea was in the mind of the Founders. Clearly they believed that there would be private ownership of most of the means of production, which is why they took the time to delineate how government could control it.
On the other hand what’s more interesting to me is how so many “conservatives” seem to feel that there is some crystal clear “right of capitalism” in the Constitution. That’s not to deny that there are any number of provisions that—to me at least—show again that the Framers’ assumptions were that capital would in general be privately owned. (E.g., the contracts clause, the “takings” clause and etc.) But I remember when first studying the Constitution how surprised I was at how (relatively) open it could appear to allow full-blown socialism if that’s indeed what the people wanted.
I suppose that says more about me and my expectations originally, since of course the document’s primary focus is to establish *democracy* and not some economic system, and therefore of course the Framers were only trying to say *how* that system would function rather than *what* it would decree.
But, still, and again relatively speaking, it can be surprising to look at the Constitution and find how weakly one might say it defends any guarantee of private ownership of capital/the means of production.
Not something to warm the conservative/libertarian heart, but there it is….
Cheers,