AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Why do you use that word hysterical? I present solid, reasonable, third party material to you in the academic manner while you steam so much demanding apology after apology that vapor comes through the computer. Were we to poll people here, you would be described as hysterical.

Now, the governors of WI, ME and MI are acting like fascists. Their movements are unconstitutional. They might as well be honest enough to don jack boots.

WASHINGTON—In a strong rebuke of President Obama and his domestic agenda, all 242 House Republicans voted Wednesday to repeal the Asteroid Destruction and American Preservation Act, which was signed into law last year to destroy the immense asteroid currently hurtling toward Earth.

The $440 billion legislation, which would send a dozen high-thrust plasma impactor probes to shatter the massive asteroid before it strikes the planet, would affect more than 300 million Americans and is strongly opposed by the GOP.


"The voters sent us to Washington to stand up for individual liberty, not big government," Rep. Steve King (R-IA) said at a press conference. "Obama's plan would take away citizens' fundamental freedoms, forcing each of us into hastily built concrete bunkers and empowering the federal government to ration our access to food, water, and potassium iodide tablets while underground."

"We believe that the decisions of how to deal with the massive asteroid are best left to the individual," King added.

Repealing the act, which opponents have branded 'Obamastroid,' has been the cornerstone of the GOP agenda since the law's passage last August. Throughout the 2010 elections, Republican candidates claimed that the Democrats' plan to smash the space rock and shield citizens from its fragments was "a classic example of the federal government needlessly interfering in the lives of everyday Americans."

"This law is a job killer," said Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC), who argued the tax increases required to save the human species from annihilation would impose unbearably high costs on businesses. "If we sit back and do nothing, Obamastroid will result in hundreds of thousands of lost jobs, which we simply can't afford in this economy."

"And consider how much money this program will add to our already bloated deficit," Foxx continued. "Is this the legacy we want to leave our children?"

Many GOP members have also criticized the legislation for what they consider pork-barrel spending, claiming the act includes billions in "giveaways" to NASA, nonperishable food manufacturers, and pharmaceutical companies contracted to produce mass volumes of vitamin D supplements in the likely event that dust from the asteroid's impact blots out the sun for a decade.

In an effort to counter Republicans' claims, Democrats have asserted that the long-term benefits of preventing the United States from being incinerated by an explosion several billion times more powerful than the Hiroshima bomb would far outweigh the initial monetary outlay.

In support of their position, Democrats have pointed to estimates from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office that show repealing the law could result in a loss of up to $14 trillion in the nation's GDP.

"I will be the first to admit this is not a perfect bill, by any means," said Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD), who has argued that the measure does not go far enough in deflecting the ensuing debris that will rain down on Earth once the asteroid has been destroyed. "But it is absolutely a bill that each and every American needs now if we want to move forward as a country."

According to political pundits, the showdown over whether to let the asteroid blast a 150-mile-wide, 20-mile-deep crater in the Earth's crust represents a potential turning point for the nation, and could completely reshape the American political landscape for many centuries to come.

"If efforts to destroy the asteroid are successfully overturned, then there will be major ramifications for both Obama and his Republican opposition, as well as the American populace at large," political scientist Alan Abramowitz said on Face The Nation Sunday. "This could have a huge impact come 2012."

With repeal rhetoric reaching a crescendo, the president used his weekly radio address Saturday to state his case for destroying the one-trillion-ton asteroid before it barrels into Earth at 60,000 miles per hour.

"I am more than willing to work with my Republican colleagues to improve the Asteroid Destruction Act," Obama said. "But let me be clear: Repeal is not an option."

"While I recognize that intelligent minds may disagree on this issue, I believe we have an obligation to prevent our citizens from having their flesh seared off in a global firestorm that transforms our planet into a broiling molten wasteland," Obama added. "I think Americans deserve better."

POM is the poster child for liberal hysteria - POM is bat **** crazy.

So....

It isn't hysterical to refer to Obama as a socialist and call him a traitor?

If calling others fascists is hysterical okie, then calling someone a socialist would be the same thing.

pom, you are speaking some pretty serious insults there. I hope you realize this is a representative republic and when you lose at the ballot box, it is not going to be pretty if your ilk starts talking in the fashion you are here? You are talking like a real whacked out individual. I fear for the country if there are very many that think as you do.

And you never insult? Is that your message? Do you participate in the American Legislative Exchange Council?

How often do you and your ilk rant about Obama being unConstitutional in his words and deeds?

Fascism is on the right, always was. The right is showing its true colors. The right is openly acting contrary to the Constitution and depriving citizens of their liberties.

You leave out some important facts, such as the president has talked about spreading the wealth around, which everyone knows is socialist, even John McCain pointed out that obvious fact during the campaign, to no avail of course. The president has openly admitted he wants the entire medical industry to become single payer government run, which is obviously socialist.

The "traitor" term is pretty strong. I believe we had a conversation about that, and if my memory serves me, you came up with a quote wherein I suggested Barrack Obama was a virtual traitor, in other words almost . I still believe his sentiments are not fully on board with what I would consider totally American, but would say again as I think I said during the conversation we had, that I would not use that term now, as I believe it is too strong.

I will admit to the fact that I have said things that were probably stronger than I should have said, but have I ever been known for sugar coating things here, parados? I still resent the whole idea that Obama's mentor, the Rev. Wright ranted against America and basically said we deserved 9/11. I do not take kindly to that, nor do I like the idea that he launched his career in the home of essentially traitors, terrorists, and Marxists. Facts are facts, parados, you cannot escape those.

Looking at Obama as president, I would tone down my view of him somewhat, as I think instead of ultra socialist or virtual traitor, I think instead he is just very inexperienced, inept, and simply in way over his head in terms of being able to lead the country in times like these. With all of that said, he is still my president too and I wish him all the luck possible, as it would be difficult times for anyone to be president, no matter their ability. I think if the main stream media had done their job better during the last presidential campaign and informed the people about the stuff I have constantly pointed out, perhaps we would not be in as deep of trouble that we are currently in. At least we would have better leadership than we have.

So does that mean Capitalism consolidates all the wealth in a few people? Glad to see what you are really for.
You might want to read Adam Smith some time okie. He would disagree with you. Wealth is spread through capitalism.

Yes, you denied it even when shown you own words... You are still denying it.

You are a virtual idiot. I guess that means I didn't call you an idiot according to your interpretation. That would make you a virtual moron.

Just another of okie's lies. He doesn't understand honesty or ethics; he's his own worst character assassin.

If you are going to post an article from the oniion, at least be honest enough to admit it.
You know full well that the onion is satire, not legitimate news.

Here is the link to the article you posted...
http://www.theonion.com/articles/republicans-vote-to-repeal-obamabacked-bill-that-w,19025/

When you post satire as legitimate news, you do yourself no favors and weaken whatever case you were trying to make.

POM has no idea what satire is

To correct you, capitalism consolidates or gives wealth to the people that earned it or made it. Communism takes from the haves and gives to the have nots, as part of the principle "To each according to their ability and to each according to their need.It is true that ultimately everyone comes out better under capitalism, because each will work for their own self interest. That is human nature.

You are again twisting the truth, parados, obviously, as I just mentioned that I may have used that word in the past. I am not the only American using that word either.I suppose you will need reminding what the word, "virtual," means. Here is one definition from the web:
"1. Existing or resulting in essence or effect though not in actual fact, form, or name"
So, to be a virtual traitor is not the same as being a traitor in actual fact or form under the law, parados. I recall trying to explain that to you, but to no avail. I have also explained to you that as of now, I would not accuse our president of being a traitor. That does not mean however that I do not think he is doing many things that are very detrimental to the United States in the long term, or undermining the foundational strengths of this country.

I didn't hide the fact that the link was to the onion. What are you ranting about now? You seem to permanently rise on the wrong side of the bed.

The top 1% doesn't earn the money it steals from the bottom 80%.

That's your interpretation and it is inaccurate, as is everything you post.

Rift in the Right: Many Conservatives Reject the Tea Party's Paranoid Views
By Adele M. Stan, AlterNet
Posted on March 29, 2011, Printed on March 30, 2011
http://www.alternet.org/story/150431/

When you think of the word "conservative," what comes to mind? Did you say the Tea Party? Well, if you did, you'd only be half-right. That's because 51 percent of self-identified conservatives do not strongly identify with the Tea Party, and strong majorities within that non-Tea Party contingent reject some of the Tea Party movement's signature sentiments, according to a new study by the University of Washington's Institute for the Study of Ethnicity, Race and Sexuality -- such as the notion that President Barack Obama is "destroying" America. Yet despite their rejection by the conservative mainstream, Tea Party leaders appear to control the Republican Party agenda.

Among Tea Party-aligned conservatives, 71 percent said that Obama was "destroying the country." Only six percent of those conservatives not strongly supportive to the Tea Party movement agreed with the statement, suggesting, according to a statement issued by institute, that the tea party is taking its philosophy in directions far more extreme than those of average conservatives." In other areas, the contrast was similarly stark. A whopping 76 percent of Tea Party conservatives said they wanted Obama's policies to fail, compared with (a still troubling) 32 percent of more mainstream conservatives.

And why do all those Tea Partiers want those policies to fail? Because they're perceived, somehow, as "socialist," despite the corporation-friendly nature of so-called financial reform, or a health-care reform plan rooted in the private sector. Three-quarters of Tea Party conservatives -- 76 percent -- told survey-takers that Obama's policies were pushing the country toward socialism. While mainstream conservatives more reticent to cry "socialism," 40 percent of them agreed with the Tea Partiers on that claim.

When it came to the conspiracy theories that fuel the Tea Party -- tropes about Obama's religion and place of birth -- the gap narrowed, but remained significant.

Despite the president's well-documented Christian faith, 27 percent of Tea Party-identified conservatives said the president was a practicing Muslim, compared to 16 percent of mainstream conservatives. Among mainstream conservatives, 46 percent agreed that the president is a practicing Christian, while only 27 percent of Tea Party conservatives agreed.

And despite Obama's release, during the presidential campaign, of documentation of his birth in Hawaii, only 40 percent of Tea Party conservatives believe the information on his certificate of live birth, compared with a slim majority -- 55 percent -- of mainstream conservatives.

Since the 1980 election of Ronald Reagan to the presidency, the Republican Party has become a nearly monolithically conservative party, a reflection of the party's takeover by the religious right in 1979. Gone are the "Rockefeller Republicans" -- politicians and their followers who were fiscally conservative and socially liberal.

So when we speak today of the conservative movement, we're essentially talking about the GOP -- which means that a rupture in the conservative movement, as revealed in the University of Washington data, could signal a rift in the Republican Party not unlike the one that launched the presidential candidacy of Sen. Barry Goldwater, R-Ariz., in 1964. While the result of that single race was disastrous for the G.O.P., it set the stage for Reagan's ascent 16 years later. And given the speed with which the Tea Party movement sprang in response to the election of the nation's first African-American president, if that acceleration maintains its momentum, could the G.O.P. become the Grand New Tea Party in four or eight years' time?

Already, establishment figures in the mainstream conservative movement -- columnists and pundits such as George Will of the Washington Post, David Brooks of the New York Times and David Frum, the former Bush speechwriter who blogs at FrumForum -- have begun pushing back against the Tea Party movement's more preposterous themes. When former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, now testing a potential presidential run, insinuated that the president was raised in Kenya, George Will accused him of "spotlight-chasing" in a way that rendered him unworthy of overseeing "a lemonade stand, much less nuclear weapons."

"Right around 50 years ago, you had this split in the Republican Party between the Goldwater people and the Rockefeller sort of Republicans," said Christopher Parker, the University of Washington associate professor of political science, who led the survey. "We see the same split happening right now." Although Parker sees some differences between the Tea Party followers and the John Birch Society fans who helped fuel the Goldwater candidacy, the Birchers "still had these really extreme ideas, you know these ideas embedded and rooted in conspiracy theories," Parker told AlterNet. "Well, we see the same thing now," he continued. "If you get the way that that treatment is worded -- 'Barack Obama will destroy the country' -- I mean, how much more extreme can one get? And you see that these conservatives who do not ally themselves strongly with the Tea Party, they don't follow that line."

Is it possible, then, I asked Parker, that the Republican Party itself will become more divided? "Yes," he replied. "We've been seeing this ever since the mid-term elections... And I, for one, think it's driven by this split among conservatives..."

Although the establishment conservatives -- people like Will and Brooks and Frum -- have the power positions in mainstream media, the Tea Party movement, nonetheless, appears to drive the Republican agenda. "They're more politically active and engaged," Parker explained. "And our data show that across a range of activities or measures for political engagement, that people who strongly support the Tea Party are more engaged and more active than people who don't. And that's ranging from voting in the mid-term elections to attending a meeting to donating to a campaign, volunteering for a campaign -- I mean, you name it."

In other words, House Speaker John Boehner may not be a Tea Partier at heart, but it's the Tea Partiers to whom he must answer. So even though the Tea Party movement has yet to assume the majority within the G.O.P., it drives the agenda because of the destruction its followers could wreak on those who refuse its demands.

The split in the conservative movement could be good news for liberals and progressives, but only if they are willing to exploit the divisions among their opponents, something they've never shown much taste for doing. Wedge-driving has long been the tactic of conservatives and Republicans -- rarely of liberals and Democrats. If those divisions are allowed to take their natural course, the probable outcome will be an even more reactionary and paranoid G.O.P., and that's not good for anybody.

Parker, however, sees another possible scenario, heralded by the uprising in Wisconsin against the draconian, anti-worker, anti-poor-people policies of Gov. Scott Walker, a Republican, who won his spot as his state's chief executive with a hefty assist from billionaire David Koch, patron of the Tea Party movement. Parker foresees the possibility a nationwide, grass-roots push-back against the Tea Party-driven agenda.

"When you think about what's going on, for example, in Wisconsin," Parker said, "there's a possibility that what's happening with these candidates or with these elected officials who are really paying attention to the Tea Party and all the noise these Tea Partiers are making -- it's possible it could lead to a counter-mobilization. [Wisconsin] could be a case in point, where you see this massive counter-mobilization against these groups."

Parker's latest survey is based on 1,504 telephone interviews of respondents from 13 states.

Under Parker's direction, the Institute for the Study of Ethnicity, Race and Sexuality began collecting data on Tea Party supporters last year, producing a landmark survey on Tea Partiers' racial attitudes, finding 73 percent of Tea Party "true believers" agreed with the statement that "if blacks would only try harder they could be just as well off as whites."

Adele M. Stan is AlterNet's Washington bureau chief. Follow her on Twitter: © 2011 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/150431/

[w1]

Reread the article you posted.
There is no link mentioned at all.
You might have thought you posted the link, and that could be an honest mistake, but there is no mention in your post that it came from the onion at all.

I said nothing about a link. I posted an article this morning and another article yesterday, but, I assume you mean today's article.

Why do you need a link to the one I posted today? There is a link to AlterNet and the article can be easily found. However, I did post it in its entirety.

I just clicked on the link to today's article, highlighted in blue, and the entire piece came up. The blue highlighting could not be more obvious. It is at both the beginning and the end. However, it isn't necessay.

I am talking about the article you posted on monday.

Yes okie.. You are in essence an idiot.

So.. does capitalism spread the wealth around? Or are you talking out of your ass when you say this?
It looks to me like you are claiming capitalism spreads the wealth around. Which would make capitalism socialism in your mind, would it not?