Yes Ernie, that was incredible, utterly incredible.

Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinski appeared on Morning Joe today indicating that not only is our domestic policy going in a dangerously insane direction, but that our foreign policy is too.

The world around us is alarmed by our direction.

I am no tea partier but your article is misleading because the set up to the question clearly said the 30 year old healthy male with a good job refused to pay the $300 month premium....so I'm not sure why the rest of us who do pay our premiums should have to pay the toll on him once he gets sick. this is exactly why an individual mandate is necessary--so in essence these baggers were confirming that the reform act is needed!

So, tell me Willito. Do you think the 30 year old's "mistake" in believing he didn't need coverage warrants a death sentence?

Ron Paul was advancing the idea of a market-based healthcare system --- essentially what we have now. Blitzer was simply bringing home the reality of that system --- that those who can't afford healthcare insurance will die!

Did you know that studies reveal that 45,000 Americans die each year simply because they can't afford healthcare insurance?

See, Corrupt U.S. Health Care System Far More Deadly Than Previously Realized

The so-called 'Tea Party' values are truly perverted. They place the huge profits of the CEOs of the parasitic middle-men, the healthcare insurance cartels, their Wall Street investors and the pharmaceutical industry above the health and very lives of our citizens.

The billionaire class screams socialism all the way to the bank as they seek to destroy the last vestiges of the safety net --- Social Security and Medicare --- and these idiot 'Tea Baggers' cheer at thought of the poor dying because they don't have the money to feed the pigs at the pinnacle of the capitalist order via insurance.

'Tea Party' followers are not only uninformed, they are truly sick!

If the actions of one or two people (supposedly of the Tea Party persuasion but it wouldn't surprise me one bit to find out they were progressives planted for just such a purpose) is enough to condemn all then try this on for size Ernie. Progressives favor arming the Mexican drug cartels. There's documented proof of that with administration progressives behind the scheme. You should be ashamed of yourself, wanting to arm the cartels so they could murder that poor Border Patrol agent.

That's inexcusable, you guys are truly sick!

Breaking News: Progressives admit to stereotyping Jews, state NY-9 went to the GOP because the Jews want to preserve their wealth as explained by Harry Waxman.

Senior Progressive Spokesman Joe Biden admitted that Progressives are racist: “I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that’s a storybook, man.”

You progressives should be ashamed...

This is rather fun actually..

Documentation Mr. Wingy, please.

Just cuz I say wingnutsteve was behind the Fukushima plants' multiple meltdowns because he's convinced it'll help Obama be defeated in 2012 does not make it so.

If I say wingnutsteve is a genetically modified troll who is paid to take up our time so we can't get anything done, and I want anyone to take me seriously, I need some documentation for the GMO charge.

Evidence. It's one of the few rules here. I'm for throwing you out if you can't follow this simple rule. Evidence. You don't get to come in here and spray random hostile shit around without it.

But let's keep it simple. For starters just show me one fucking progressive in the fucking Obama administration. That's your assigment, should you choose to accept it, one fucking progressive in the Obama administration. One. Count 'em. One. Show me.

What the fuck do you think a progressive is?

If Obama is a progressive than Rick Perry is Fyodor Dostoyevsky.

If Obama is a progressive than Glenn Beck is Rachel Maddow.

If Obama is a progressive than wingnutsteve is a liberal.

wingnutsteve do you think Ernest Canning and Barack Obama share political worldviews?

What the fuck are you talking about?

Who exactly are the "progressives" here that you are equating with "progressives" like Obama and Biden?

What the fuck are you talking about?

Always love ya, David Lasagna.

Somewhere within his hissy fit, WingNutSteve lost sight of the basic reality exposed by Wolf Blitzer's question.

The so-called "free-market" healthcare policy, touted only in the US of A and in no other industrial democracy, translates to a death sentence for 45,000 Americans/year simply because they are too poor to afford healthcare insurance.
And this doesn't account for the many who have insurance but lose their lives when insurance companies refuse to authorize vital procedures.

People are dying so the privileged few can profit, handsomely, and these jokers shout, "Yes!"

Historian Kevin Phillips, in Wealth & Democracy describes hard-right economics as an upside-down, vice-into-virtue philosophy.

I can think of no more poignant moment to demonstrate the accuracy of Phillips' observation than the CNN Blitzer/Paul video.

BTW, did you note that neither Ron Paul nor any other GOP candidate on stage sought to chastise those who were cheering death.

WingnutSteve is a hell of a lot more liberal than ya think knucklehead. Sorry that my attempt to make a point flew right over your brainwashed head. There is no "proof" to my claims just like there's no "proof" to Ernie's claim that the Tea Party wants to let people die. That was the point...

My "hissy fit" had nothing to do with Blitzer, Paul, or any of those people. It had to do with a condemnation of an entire group of people by a left wing would be journalist based on the actions of one or two people.

David, WingNutSteve, please. Let's tone it down and try to be civil.

Steve, please show me where either I or Alan Grayson used "the actions of one or two people to condemn" the entire Republican Party.

What I said is that the 'Tea Party Healthcare Plan' amounts to "Let them die." If the article --- or, for that matter, Blitzer's question --- was not enough to convince you of the objective facts supporting that conclusion, certainly you can find them in comments 3 & 9.

Grayson said that those who cheered death are exhibiting the same form of sadism as those who cheered in ancient Rome when the Christians were fed to the lions.

Your effort to conflate that into an ascription to "all" Republicans reflects an inability to hit the issue head on.

Neither Grayson's nor my observations warranted angry rants about "all progressives."

#7

That's your assigment, should you choose to accept it, one fucking progressive in the Obama administration.

Priceless.

One wonders how the audience for the republican CNN tea party debate was selected.(raid the retirement villages?) For some reason, I keep thinking about bush's last term when he was always standing in front of troops. Even then, there wasn't much enthusiasm.

They can mess with the polls, mess with the elections...but for some reason, it is hard to generate enthusiasm when it just isn't there.

Jumping in here to try and cool everyone down a bit (particularly as the heat between Ernie and WingnutSteve has been rising for a while.)

Ernie - Please do your best not to let Steve bait you. He is, admittedly a master at it. Even so, reasoned polite responses are always appreciated, even when dealing with a master baiter.

Steve - Please do your best to not let Ernie get under your skin when you've managed to get under his. Furthermore, recognizing that we're actually independent around here --- whether you agree with the majority of opinions or not --- would be appreciated. While we tend to share a disdain for the off-the-rails Republican Party of the modern moment (not because they're Republicans, but because they are off-the-rails to the point where neither Richard Nixon, nor even Ronald Reagan could win a GOP primary today, much less the nomination!), there is no particular support for the Democratic Party, or even for any particular embodiment of the vast array of liberal and progressive ideology out there.

Of course, while I understood the point you were trying to make in the above, I don't think David L. did. And Ernie was likely too touched off by it, as lingering animosity from other recent tete-a-tetes between you guys.

I also appreciate that you are not always a hard-line GOP'er, else you wouldn't be here for so long (even as you tend to buy into their nonsense far more often than you should, given your own independent abilities).

So let's all just try to cool down. Get in our sharp points, but remember, everywhere else in the world has gone Left/Right, Red/Blue, Dem/Rep, Lib/Con mad. We don't need to do that here. Really.

Thanks all for trying, at least!

Master baiter... I love it! You're awesome Brad!
Btw, I find the words of those who cheered Blitzers questioning reprehensible. But I wouldn't condemn the entire tea party movement (I never mentioned the GOP Ernie) based on the actions of a few. The tea party serves their purpose, agree or disagree, and their right to do so should be protected not condemned.

Thanks for getting the point I was trying to make Brad.

WingnutSteve said @ 15:

The tea party serves their purpose, agree or disagree, and their right to do so should be protected not condemned.

Strawman. Nobody here, to my knowledge, has condemned their "right" to do anything. That said, the "purpose" they serve is completely different from the purpose they *claim* to serve.

I should have said we shouldn't condemn them for their differences. Millions of people who were likely apathetic towards politics woke up to the reality that America is fucked. They have power because of the old strength in numbers thing. Running headlines like the one for this piece, calling them foul names , mocking, etc only ensures one thing. They will completely shut you out, along with other media outlets. And then it becomes a game of out doing the angry rhetoric. Doesn't accomplish a damn thing and it wastes the resources of a great site with important information about election fraud, the most important issue we face today. My $.02

One other piece of information relevant to this discussion. In 2008 Ron Paul's campaign manager, Kent Snyder, died of viral pneumonia. He was uninsured and ran up $400,000 in mostly unpaid medical bills. How much did the hospital and doctors have to raise their prices to cover the unpaid bills? The "Paulites" tried to raise money to pay them off but as I understand it they only collected about $34,000. If a group that large can't do it what is the chance that it can be done for less well connected people?

WingNutSteve @17:

With all due respect, you've missed the mark by a country mile.

I don't have a problem with people waking up to what you describe as "America is fucked." I do have a problem with the fact that they have been so thoroughly deceived by right-wing propaganda that they have chosen the wrong side in the global class war.

They've been duped into channeling their anger against other victims of the global class war, like immigrants, when they should be angry with those who are responsible for their economic demise --- the very right-wing billionaires, like the Koch brothers who are funding and controlling their pseudo-grass-roots movement.

From the perspective of mega-billionaires like the Koch brothers, their thoroughly indoctrinated followers are what Lenin referred to as "useful idiots."

The 'Tea Bagger' sides with the destruction of unions in the name of "liberty," when, in truth, unions were instrumental to the creation of a middle class lifestyle in the U.S.

The real meaning of "liberty" for an aristocrat like David Koch, is the "liberty" of the billionaire class to treat the rest of humanity as serfs.

The 'Tea Bagger' sides with the billionaire assault on the government's ability to do little more than reward the rich and wage war. They actually think that government (sometimes referred to as Big Government) is per se the enemy, when, in truth, our the real problem is that government is increasingly a captive of a billionaire class, whose interest it serves.

The average 'Tea Bagger' simply fails to understand the true purpose of government --- public institutions to promote the public good or, in the words of the Constitution, to promote the general welfare. They fail to understand that a democratic government committed to those ends is a vital check against dictatorial corporate power.

Frightened about how they will survive their senior years, they are nevertheless persuaded in the name of "liberty" to side with the billionaire effort to destroy the last remnants of a safety net --- Social Security and Medicare.

I am not "condemning" the average 'Tea Bagger' for having been taken in by the propaganda. But I do condemn the immorality and irrationality of a healthcare system that permits 45,000 citizens to die each year so the select few can live in splendor.

That is the reality of the 'Tea Party' healthcare policy even if the average 'Tea Bagger' does not realize it.

WingnutSteve,

What up?

I have a solution for the T-party folk who are frustrated.

Thumb Sucking For Power And Pleasure. There is nothing right or left about it.

Okay, after reading the above comments(up to #17 as of this moment)and looking back at the previous comments that pushed my buttons I think Brad is right--I didn't understand the point Steve was trying to make. I'll take some responsibility for that.

But I'll also give quite a bit of it to Steve, too. Because my basic question for you, Steve, often remains--what are you talking about?

On more than one occasion I've found it just about impossible to locate whatever tapestry of sense or reason you may be offering because you throw in what appear to me to be so many other distracting, irrelevant pieces of cloth simultaneously. You often sound like you are sincerely pissed off. Am I being a brainwashed knucklehead for thinking that? Are you not really angry at all? Maybe you're not. Maybe you're just pretending to be angry for effect. If you are actually not an angry person and are writing that way just for effect, I'll admit that you've had me completely fooled.

It's possible that the reason I don't understand what wingnutsteve is talking about is because I'm a knucklehead(someone will have to explain the "brainwashed" part cuz I got no clue there). But it is also possible that the reason I don't understand what wingnutsteve is talking about is because wingnutsteve can be unclear to the point of being indecipherable.

Is Steve writing vitriolically as a point of satire, in an attempt to deride what he feels is unfair anger from "the other side" or something?

I repeat--my recurring reaction is that I don't know what Steve is talking about. Whether I ask civilly or angrily more often than not I seem to get either shit or silence back.

This in turn makes me want to say go fuck yourself.

So maybe I have no idea what Steve is trying to say. But if we're really talking about having a civil conversation where different viewpoints are acknowledged I want to say in the strongest possible terms that what I get in Steve's offerings are repeated instances of gratuitous nastiness. That tends to make me not give much of a fuck anymore about what he's trying or not trying to say. Cuz the way he writes makes me want to say fuck you asshole cuz whether you're genuinely trying to make a legitimate point or just getting your rocks off master baiting, you sound like a fucking asshole.

I think he likes stirring the pot that way.

Don't know how else to say it.

WingnutSteve said @ 17:

I should have said we shouldn't condemn them for their differences.

Perhaps I've given you more credit than I should. This note underscores what I had hoped was not the case: that you were as out of touch with reality as others have charged you with being.

If bloodthirsty mobs applauding murder (Big Government) and manslaughter (by corporate greed) should not be condemned, loudly, who should be condemned, Steve?

Millions of people who were likely apathetic towards politics woke up to the reality that America is fucked.

They woke up to no "reality". They woke up to corporate propaganda via Fox "News", with made up shit like "Obama raised your taxes!" (he lowered them), "Obama is taking your guns away!" (he expanded gun rights), "Death panels!" (there was never any such thing), "Obama and ACORN stole the election!" (of course they didn't), "Government spending is out of control!" (If it's out of control, it's been out of control for years, and it had nothing to do with Obama, as we spend no more now per capita on social programs than we did 50 years ago), "Keep the government's hands off my medicare!" (hopefully that one needs no response).

The "millions of people" you cite are as clueless about what is wrong with America now as they ever have been. Actually, they are likely more clueless now than they were before, thanks to a sustained disinformation barrage like this nation has never seen.

They have power because of the old strength in numbers thing.

No. They have very few numbers. And any strength they have is due to their corporate funding/bribery and the corporate media's propensity for covering anything that crazy Republicans do. Remember those MUCH BIGGER protests that took place in the streets of D.C. during Bush's term in office?

I didn't think so. But go back and look it up. If your search brings you back to The BRAD BLOG as one of the few places to have reported it at the time, don't be surprised. But it's all easily confirmed. If you bother. Must have been that darned "liberal media" (who cover "Tea Party" events with a dozen people there, and ignore progressive anti-war protests with more than a million in dozens of cities.)

That you are gullible enough to fall for the "Tea Party" scam. That you actually think it is comprised of anything other than the same extremist elements of the Republican party, as co-opted and superPAC-funded by the corporate elite, then you're either much less smart than I had previously given you credit for, or you are so thoroughly bamboozled by wingnut bullshit, that you may just be hopelessly lost, at this point, like the rest of them.

Running headlines like the one for this piece, calling them foul names , mocking, etc only ensures one thing. They will completely shut you out, along with other media outlets.

Um, "they"? "They" who? Who are "they", Steve? I await your answer.

Okay, it took me about a year and a half to write my last comment #21. Now so long later I just read everything again and felt that in this instance anyway my own reaction to wingnutsteve was a bit overboard for which I'd like to apologize.

Had a very weird and rough day. Feeling mentally ill. Good luck to all.

Dave

Brad,

You have a site dealing with the most important issue we face today, or probably the second behind campaign finance. You have an articulate way of reporting, and a sticktoitivness to get the info that I haven't seen anywhere else on the web dealing with this issue. So I continue to come here and I have learned a lot from you. Again, this is the ONLY site I have seen which deals with election fraud. People from all walks of life could learn from you and that's a great power to have, but IMO you don't use it wisely. Seriously, read the headlines from day to day and think about it. I'm probably the only non-progressive you've had to stick around for awhile because open the page and it reads like dailykos.com meets ihaterepublicans.net. You like to say you're not about right vs. left but about right vs. wrong. Well hell, Fox news says they're fair and balanced so that must be true too right? I see plenty of stories about teabaggers and Christy, if you're about right vs. wrong where are the stories about fast and furious? Whatever, it's your site and I do love to read through some of the muck when looking for actual election issues. But the "they" you asked me about are the people who stumble upon this site, see the Ernie hit piece calling Palin responsible for the Giffords shootings or some other insulting crap, and close the page never getting the opportunity to learn from you.

I'm not bamboozled by the tea party. I agree with some of their positions but think they are mostly misguided. But just look at the response from you and Ernie regarding my statement about them. You call them blood thirsty? Ernie is in love with the term "teabagger" and to be honest I don't care to know why. Which goes back to my original point that judging millions of people based on the actions of a few is wrong. They are people who are now engaged in the political debate like it or not and you have the ability to maybe even convert one which is a start right?

No David, I'm not angry and likely I am sometimes unclear. Usually on an Ernie piece attempting sarcasm to respond to his sarcasm. Sorry, some people like Brad have a way with words and some of us.. no have way.

wingnutsteve, thanks for the clarification. I'll try to factor in what I've learned in this thread and not jump back at you in such an angry knee jerk fashion next time. Maybe it'd be helpful if I could deconstruct exactly where I get confused as to your meaning. (Brad's good at that.) 'Course, I suspect there are a bunch of things we just ain't gonna agree on.

I realized after I finished writing here last night that at least part of my reaction to you stems from repeated instances of others, who seem to be of a particular conservative persuasion, dropping in here just long enough to drop a big shit bomb. There's a certain kind of commenter who just wants to unload and insult while not seeming to understand what is actually being said in the slightest. There have been so many of them over time and they respond so little when objections or questions are posed that I guess it's built up a backlog of pressure. When you were doing your sarcasm and I thought I was reading yet another one of those fly-bys I couldn't take it anymore.

Gotta try to be more open to each particular individual and what they are actually saying or trying to say in the moment.

Eugene Robinson, Where Are the Compassionate Conservatives?

Actually, Eugene, I always thought of the phrase "compassionate conservative" as an oxymoron.

Ernie #26,

Yeah, Got MOM?

If so bring her over for a little plutonomy bro.

WingnutSteve @ 24

Have been busy all day (and still am), but I'd like to respond to your comments, and will. Thanks for your patience.

Okay, here's a little calmer critique for Steve.

(and by the way, as some of us are trying to not be trapped by labels and aspire to be open to thoughts and ideas wherever they may come from on the political spectrum, it's a little weird to always be addressing wingnutsteve as wingnutsteve as it sets up sort of an immediate subconscious gravitational pull to marginalize or at least categorize by the strong associations that exist for the term "wingnut". Perhaps that's his intent, however. Pot stirring as sport. I dunno. Just a thought.)

As I understand it, Steve, your principal complaint with Ernie's piece is that you believe he's dismissing millions of people for the vocal reactions of only one or two people in the audience.

First of all, and for me this is a recurring problem with your opinions, I believe you are mischaracterizing reality--in this case, the number of people who shouted out. When you mischaracterize reality it makes me wary of your opinions and motivations.(Ironically, this seems to be exactly the type of dynamic you are complaining about in this case). I wasn't there but it does not sound like only one or two to me. One or two conjures the possibility that it really might have been a very small unrepresentative minority. But as it sounds more like four or five people shouting out, and as Paul's initial response of "that's what freedom's about" seemed to elicit smiles, applause, and general agreement, and as there did not seem to be a peep of any objecting counterview from either anyone in the audience or on the stage to what we all seem to agree was an extreme and unkind reaction, it does not seem farfetched to suppose that the few who did shout may well have had the support of the many who did not. Or that at least the candidates believed that was the general viewpoint of those in attendance(in person and in TV land) as they seemed so reticent to object. These suppositions seem to me at least as reasonable as what you seem to be stating as fact--that the vast majority of teapartiers do not subscribe to(what you characterize as)the miniscule few in this case.

Then you take this presumption, which to me appears to be much more imagination-based than evidence-supported, and really run with it. With attitude. I take strong issue with all of that.

(geeze Louise it takes so much time and effort to try to deconstruct clearly and fairly)

Yes, my Lasagna - So much time spent by superior minds deconstructing a deconstructionist...

While I admire the skill and patience on display in this thread, I wonder: What could you have been doing, or writing about, that DOESN'T involve kowtowing to the one shrill voice (and yes, Wingy ALWAYS sounds pissed off to me, too - 'cept when he's trying to be "cute" which is often worse cuz it reads as pissy AND mean) that can not be assuaged; the one voice that constantly needs watering like a limp, de-hydrated, syphilitic potato plant.

...and another hijacked thread resulting.

If Wingy really had anything to offer, if he was on the level and was hanging around for the reasons he states above - he would and SHOULD (as Brad notes above) quit referring to us here as "liberals" or "progressives" in defense of every indefensible thing done by the corporations who have infiltrated our government, the multinational interests that have hijacked elections for years to advance their un-American agenda and pad their own pockets.

But he does not, no matter how many times we ask him - respectfully - to knock that off. He won't.
Which means Lasagna is exactly right - he LOVES stirring the pot this way.

You guys are LOVELY to gift us all with this open forum; debate is good. Diversity of thought, also good. Folks like Wingy will always come and go, but really...do not apologize to him for your correct assessments of his drivel.

His comments form a VERY clear pattern, one I'm *so* tired of reading, one I find so counter-productive and counter-intuitive and uniquely depressing; I have been steering clear of the comments section at Brad Blog...used to love reading the debates in these threads.

Too bad. We used to have some well informed, substantive discussions here before every comment was directed to, or misdirected because of, one needy reader who can not (will not?) shake off his limited world view of a two-party, US or THEM / liberal vs. repub - likes to throw-up that nonsense where it doesn't exist as a divisive line intended to distract and rile us.

You guys are WAY too good for this.

David Lasagna @ 29:

To crystalize your main point, David. No matter how many screamed "Yeah!!!", the lack of numbers screaming "No!!!" in response has been deafening. Dems would have been falling all over themselves to condemn a similar situation, where a few over-zealous supporters did something as offensive as that --- at least *if* they felt differently about it.

I have not heard a single condemnation from anyone in the GOP in regard that moment, much less any of the 8 candidates on stage when it actually occurred, or anybody in the audience who might have booed those folks. None did.

It's difficult to believe the position espoused by the shouters is not the position of the party. If WingnutSteve has links to the GOP condemnation of that moment, or the one that occurred during Perry's question a few days earlier (when the crowd cheered Perry's record for most murders-by-state), I'd love to see it.

If you are a tea party member who favors this, you automatically have opted out you and your family from any form of 'socialized health care'.

go ahead and gripe, but you made your choice....you cannot benifit when you refuse the same rights to other citizens.

WingnutSteve @ 24:

As promised, I wanted to respond to your remarks there. Thanks for your patience, as I did not have a moment to respond substantively yesterday.

First, thanks for the various kind words you offered in your comment. My responses below are not meant to belittle those, as they are appreciated, but rather, to speak to the specific points quoted...

You have a site dealing with the most important issue we face today, or probably the second behind campaign finance.

In case you have any confusion here, and feel that this site is meant to deal solely with issues of Election Integrity, while that is certainly a large focus of this site (and what is may be best known for), that is not the purpose of this site. If there is one single purpose, it would be to inform and enlighten on issues which are both corrupting our nation (and, with it, the world) when, and if, we have something to offer over and above what is already largely available elsewhere.

Obviously, the need for election reform (be it access to polls, transparency of tabulation or corporate corruption of the entire process, most notably at the front end through corrupting elements like campaign finance) and media reform (and all that that entails), as I see it, are the two of the most important issues needed in order to reach real representative democracy as envisioned in our Constitution. They also happen to be issues that we can often offer unique points of view in regards to. There are, of course, many others. But those two seem to be at the heart of much of what we do here, in our mission to enlighten and inform.

Perhaps that will give you a better understanding of how I, at least, view what we do here. It's not about Election Integrity, per se. We cover EI because it's one of the crucial elements towards restoring (or creating) real democracy. But it is just one of several legs on the stool.

You like to say you're not about right vs. left but about right vs. wrong. Well hell, Fox news says they're fair and balanced so that must be true too right?

You'll have to make up your own mind on this issue, naturally. But perhaps you have not been around long enough to notice that we've also had guest bloggers from the Right as well here. We welcome that, if they are intellectually honest. The trouble is, most of them, if, indeed, they are intellectually honest, quickly become critical of what has happened to your party. If you take a look at some of the great Republicans out there --- folks like John Dean, Frank Schaeffer, etc. --- they end up sounding like Democrats these days (even though they are not), in response to a Republican party that has gone off the rails, as I mentioned earlier in this thread.

Where there are legitimate conservative positions, or positions from the Right --- example Ron Paul, most of the time --- we have no problem with them, even as (as in this case) we might have a legitmate complaint about them. NOT because they are Republican, but because we (Ernie, specifically here) disagrees with the position.

Similarly, don't know if you were here yet, but had vehemently called for the impeachment and/or criminal conviction, of George W. Bush and cronies, not because they are Republican, but because they deserved impeachment and/or criminal conviction.

You are welcome to accept that or not. I think our tough criticism of the Obama administration over the past several years bears that out, but that's up to you to decide. I have no qualms about our record on this score.

I see plenty of stories about teabaggers and Christy, if you're about right vs. wrong where are the stories about fast and furious?

Um, largely at Fox "News", Andrew Breitbart's and everywhere else in the Right blogosphere.

If we had anything new to offer to it (sometimes, we'll post something without offering anything "new" per se, simply because the value we can offer is bringing more eyeballs to an important story that hasn't gotten enough coverage), we would.

As far as I can tell, however, "Fast and Furious" is little more than another "Fox 'News' Scandal". In otherwords, blown out of all proportion to what it actually is. If you concerned about guns flowing in to Mexico, it has been happening for *years*. Where were you (or they?) when it was going on under the Bush Administration? Did Barack Obama personally have *anything* to do with the F&F policy? Not to my knowledge. Whereas George W. Bush and Barack Obama have *personally* had much to do with policies that have resulted in *exponentially* more deaths of innocent human beings.

Yet where is Fox or Breitbart or the Rightwing blogosphere on those issues? Where have they been for at least the last 10 years on them? As far, as I can tell, nowhere to be found --- other than in folks like Ron Paul, who we have covered fairly here over many years.

the "they" you asked me about are the people who stumble upon this site, see the Ernie hit piece calling Palin responsible for the Giffords shootings or some other insulting crap, and close the page never getting the opportunity to learn from you.

I'm not bamboozled by the tea party. I agree with some of their positions but think they are mostly misguided. But just look at the response from you and Ernie regarding my statement about them. You call them blood thirsty?

Yes, I call them blood thirsty. And I stand by that. You are welcome to disagree. Even better, demonstrate how they are not.

Calling them "misguided" is very generous. They have been conned, plain and simple, by folks who are knowingly conning them by spending millions of dollars to prop up phony ideas that even they don't believe in --- but that might help them get back into power.

If you'd like to discuss which phony ideas those are, I'll be happy to. But these are disagreements about policy, they are disagreements about reality versus cynical con-man. If you have yet to notice the difference, I hope you will keep trying.

For the record, however, I should note that Ernie does not take assignments from me. He writes what he is moved to write (though I will usually edit his pieces before publication). His opinions may or may not be my own. But I'm not seeking someone to agree with me, I'm seeking interesting, informative, enlightening, educated viewpoints as informed by independently verifiable evidence. Got someone from the Right who wants to offer such viewpoints here at The BRAD BLOG, feel free to put them in touch with me.

Which goes back to my original point that judging millions of people based on the actions of a few is wrong.

See my comment in reply to David Lasagna above. If you are able to direct us to those on the Right who have condemned either those "Yeeeah!!!" comments, or that point of view in general, I hope you will share the links. So far, I've seen virtually nothing. So what are we all to take from that?

They are people who are now engaged in the political debate like it or not and you have the ability to maybe even convert one which is a start right?

Again, our mission is to enlighten and inform (and, hopefully, entertain a bit while doing it). If anyone is "converted", that's fine. But that is not our mission. If it was, we'd do nothing but speak to those we were trying to "convert". We don't. We presume anyone who shows up here is interested in being informed. If that changes their outlook --- one way or another --- that's swell. But neither I, nor Ernie, nor Desi, nor anyone else who has ever, or will ever, blog here, has any control over that.

Hope this note cleared up some of your (apparent) misperceptions. If not, as mentioned, I have no control over that.

And thanks again for your readership, your compliments, and your participation in the discussion here, no matter where it may sometimes bring us. That's democracy. Even as perverted as it has become in this nation, by the liars, scoundrels, sociopaths, corporations and others who profiteer (at *your* expense) off of such grotesque perversion of this nation's core values and principles.

This Is What It Means To Say "Let Them Die"
September 17, 2011 09:30 AM

http://crooksandliars.co...t-means-say-let-them-die

I have, of late, tried to refrain from responding to WingNutSteve simply because I have found his lack of intellectual acuity (perhaps coupled with lack of intellectual integrity) exhausting.

However, there was one comment Steve made @24 that I regard as a gratuitous smear, to wit:

see the Ernie hit piece calling Palin responsible for the Giffords shootings or some other insulting crap

What rubbish!

The articles I've written pertain to the impact of language used not merely to incite violence but which contribute to the process of dehumanization.

Those articles include Rightwing Xenophobic Dehumanization & 21st Century McCarthyism and Should Major US Pundits, Politicians be Prosecuted for Incitement to Murder, 'Terrorist Threats'?.

The thrust of both articles is that words have consequences.

The "incitement to murder" article involved a discussion of the legal limits to "free speech" and when words can carry legal responsibility. (There was a somewhat related example of that in an excellent CBS program that aired last night as to how verbal bullying in our middle and high schools has led to teen suicides.)

What I find interesting is that those who engage in dehumanized behavior --- shouting "yes" to the thought of the uninsured being left to die; "Second Amendment remedies" and "don't retreat; reload" are so quick to play the victim card the moment someone points to the dangers posed by their violence inciting rhetoric.

It was a point I specifically addressed in the "Incitement" piece, to wit:

As I see it, in complaining that one can't point to the inescapable logic of the 'Tea Party' healthcare position, which is "Let them die!" and then ascribe it to every indoctrinated individual who blindly accepts the 'Tea Party' position amounts to an effort to play the victim card.

WingNutSteve takes umbrage to my reference to "Tea Baggers."

There is, indeed, a better descriptor. I think I first heard it from Jeannie Dean --- "Tea Tard."

@10 WingNutSteve wrote: "there's no 'proof' to Ernie's claim that the Tea Party wants to let people die."

Well, I guess it depends on how you define "Tea Party." If you define it, as I do, as a pseudo-grass-roots organization that is funded, managed and controlled by the mega-billionaire Koch brothers, then the answer is a resounding "yes!"

The Koch brothers knowingly advocate healthcare policy that they know not only will cause the uninsured to die, but is, in fact, causing 45,000 Americans to die each year because they can't afford coverage.

If you are talking about the 'Tea Tards' --- the hapless dupes who think the Koch's fascism is freedom --- I have no doubt that many of them don't really want people to die, but they nevertheless support policies that have caused and will continue to cause the uninsured to die. They're just too damn stupid to realize the consequences of the policies they support.

Oh, for any who think I'm being too harsh in using the words 'Tea Tards,' take a gander at this video from Brad Friedman's short documentary, 'Tea Party Express II: Rise of the Tea Bags'.

Sorry, but ignorance is not bliss.

Ron Paul was advancing the idea of a market-based healthcare system --- essentially what we have now

Excuse me?! What we have now?!

Forgive me for phrasing it this way but how can you and other progressives, which are really regressives, be so ignorant?

To put to rest this debate of how many scream no or yes did all of you consider that you heard it on tv cause the mics are sensitive enough to pick up the sound for the tv broadcast but that the audience could not hear what was said in the audience?

I don't know if that was actually the case with the equipment but it makes sense that it's set up to hear the candidates not the audience.

Well said, Ernest! Oh, that was good readin'!...
Uh-huh, YES, and AMEN to every word and syllable you wrote. Gifted me, really, before going down for another fitful nappy as sleep.

*Anonymous...sensitive MICS? Seriously? THAT is going to be your silly fall-back argument for what is clearly an inhuman reaction (and btw, a complete slap in the face to the basic tenants of Christianity, assuming you care about the Sermon on the Mount type of Christianity that USED to be the popular religious toe-hold) You're going to give us the ol' HOWARD DEAN upped-amped alibi?!

What the MICS did or didn't pick up has NO bearing on the SILENCE from ALL on stage (and the GOP leadership) SINCE those live mics picked up that insanity. As Brad and Ernest point out again and again in this thread - NO ONE HAS SINCE CONDEMNED the crazy...

...and you show up here to defend the Roman Lion-feeders.

What kind of fear drives you to post such comments? Don't you see your position as a leveraged defense of the indefensible? If not, might wanna check your moral center with some kind of metaphysical dip-stick.

Adding: incredibly astute and gracious response to Wingy, Brad. You move me with your efforts to reach...

Oh, and before I DO try to sleep (something those of us with a moral center are having a harder and harder time achieving)...

I'd just like to add that the TEA-PARTIERS (and thank U, Earnest...as far as I know I WAS the first one to coin the term TEA-TARDS!) ...and I did so....

AFTER my very own Aunt Sue, a lady I once loved and who loved me - a lady who was intimately aware the trauma I experienced as a WTC 9/11 relief worker - told me I don't deserve health care. In fact, she wrote to me on my Facebook page that SHE deserved medicare and social security (that I'M PAYING INTO NOW) but I don't...or that she'd like to see my benefits phased out at some point, on principle, but her own were not at odds with her ideology, since she had already paid into the system she despises.

When I pointed out that I'd happily pay for my own insurance with the money I'm paying for HER early retirement, and that she should send me monthly checks from her own, detestable SS monies coming out of MY paycheck, she snarled:

"Jeannie, do YOU remember 9/11?"...

My formerly loving, but newly propegandized, tea-tarded Aunt Sue had the BALLS to ask a 9/11 responder if she remembered 9/11...she, who didn't lose one soul in the attacks, but has been duly put out from having to dial a "1" for English.

Devastating. This sad, stupid rift between myself and a family member who would rather see her NIECE, a 9/11 responder, suffer without health care - even DIE without it - so her un-founded FOX BASED fear and paranoia might be assuaged...even tho' she was not bombed, suffered no immediate consequences of the attacks...

...well, that was the first sign I had that Wingies were everywhere...and that they don't care one whit or one shit about the collective of which they are a part.

Most of them are, sadly, unresponsive to any human clarion call to act on behalf of their better angels.

Oh, and just for the record Anon - I'm a former RON PAUL supporter...

...so spare me the inevitable YOU LIBERAL / PROGRESSIVE bogus, unfounded, under-sourced line you and Wingy love to disingenuously fall back on every time reality slams hard-up against your hard-ons for mis-direction and derisive, divisive play.

...very few readers here at The Brad Blog will be fooled by that old school, stupid and hackneyed tactic.

BEST! - jd

Anonymous, that brave soul who lacks the courage to use his or her real name, denies that ours is a "free market" healthcare system.

Okay, smart guy (girl), tell me how (except with respect to the Medicare and the VA) you would characterize the U.S. healthcare system --- keeping in mind that the U.S. is the only industrial democracy that does not offer all citizens healthcare as a human right, irrespective of their individual ability to pay.

Oh, one additional point I neglected to make in comment #35.

In comment #6, WingNutSteve refers to "Senior Progressive Spokesman Joe Biden."

In comment #24, WingNutSteve accused me of drafting a "hit piece" that sought to blame Sarah Palin for the Giffords shooting.

Not only did WingNutSteve miss the entire thrust of a piece that was directed at dehumanization and the consequences of violence-inciting speech, but he appears to have overlooked the fact that, in Should Major US Pundits, Politicians be Prosecuted for Incitement to Murder, 'Terrorist Threats'?, I specifically criticized VP Joe Biden for his irresponsible claim that Julian Assange was "a high tech terrorist."

Apparently, when I say something negative about a Democrat --- and you can find a ton of articles where I've blasted President Obama's duplicity, especially when it comes to his sophistries regarding holding those who authorize torture accountable and matters of war and peace --- WingNutSteve can find no fault in my work. But if I dare criticize any of his heroes...

Oh, one final point. Where was WingNutSteve when Sarah Palin lied; falsely claiming that the Obama healthcare plan included a provision for "death panels." Do I detect hypocrisy?

Anonymous,

It sounds like you may never have been in an audience or on a stage in front of one.

Or maybe you can't(or don't?)hear?

Have you never been in an audience and heard even a single person just cough? Ever notice how easy it is to hear?

Are you serious?

I love this thread.

Okay, wingnutsteve, ball's in your court. Or more accurately--balls are in your court. A lot of time and attention has been given to responding to you.

Whatcha got?

Let's not start this all from scratch again on another thread. Let's see this through.

Where's WingNutSteve?

He posted all day and into the night Thursday the 16th, the day Ernie's post appeared. Some of us kept talking to him through the weekend. Haven't heard anything back. A lot of time and energy put into the conversation.

Where's Steve?

Deafening silence, as usual, my Lasagna. WingNut likes to come in swinging early, stoke fires and flame through, then always bows out once he soaks us.

...and yes - you can be sure this same discussion will start anew the next time he gets urine-jumpy about some new thing like a fact that Brad or Ernest writes; one that he can take twist into a tight wedgie.

Now that I think about it, he IS a blog wedgie.
Or maybe a wet willie...

no...a wedgie for sure. That personification works on so many levels.

Hey Jeannie,

I come and go here. With so much going on in my personal life in-between. So I may not be as aware of Steve's machinations as I should be.

If that is his MO, that changes the game for me. Cuz that's fucked up. And I don't need a co-dependency with that kinda dysfunction. Got enough of my own to work through.

Brad and Ernie wrote such beautiful responses to him. Can take me an hour and a half to get a few paragraphs of deconstruction so that I'm satisfied with it. I don't know how long it takes Brad and Ernie,(though I suspect they may be a hell of a lot better at it than I)but however long it takes they put time and effort into being thorough and offering sincere conversation and exploring opportunities. That's really rude, weird, and thoughtless behavior on Steve's part. Unless of course you're exactly right and it's deliberate strategy. Personally, I'm inclined to hold off on judgments of motivation till I know more. But I don't need judgments of motivation to make judgments of unacceptable behavior.

I'm inclined to start the next conversation with Steve(should one occur)with an accounting session. Cuz I don't like this game. It breaks my rules.

Life is a wild exploration. I don't need wingnutsteve as my blind, deaf, and dumb gondolier.

Sorry David, I have a little retreat.. actually just a camper up in the woods near Julian Ca. Went up there on the 17th, came back home yesterday evening to a Charger game on the DVR. And the rule is no internet up there, mainly because it's not available but also because Pacifico beer doesn't mix well with typing on a blog site.

My moniker does not describe me, sorry for the confusion. Most "wingnuts" would consider me to be a RINO, which is more evil in their minds than the progressive or liberal label, because they wouldn't have any idea issue to issue where I stand or if they could count on my vote/support. And I think (although I'm not positive and I'm not affixing any blame in any way) that you are partially responsible for me changing my name. When I first came here I commented as "steve", and one day (might not have been you) someone told me at least wingnut steve could have the courtesy to have a different name as we already have a poster named steve. Well, taking that comment, and the fact that Ernie had labeled me a wingnut, Fox News watching, yadayada from day one I thought the name was perfect so I used that one. And I got a great laugh a few weeks ago when Ernie scolded someone for "judging a book by it's cover (or in this case name) when referring to me...

True, I spend too much time, as Jeannie and Brad have pointed out, baiting Ernie. I disagree with most of his stuff but he's so predictable, one little poke and watch him come unglued. I apologize to the blog for that and will stop my childish actions, or at least TRY to..

I'm not blind, deaf, and dumb. We're probably more alike than you think.

Thank you for your response Brad.

I guess I found this site back in 2006 (I think) looking for news about my home district sending electronic voting machines to polling places (usually garages) a week ahead of the election to just sit there. And so I always think of this place as an EI site which is obviously not the case, so I stand corrected on the basis of my point I tried to make.

True, the people on the stage in Florida did not condemn those who shouted approval at letting the person in Blitzers scenario die. What the hell is our country turning into... But that's politics today, not excusing them, it is what it is I guess.

So thanks again to you, Jeannie, Ernie, David, et al for taking the time to address my comments.

Plus, even though Jeannie is not talking to me I think she's probably an awesome lady and I have much much respect for her. Especially after reading her comment regarding 9/11 and being a first responder herself. I'm in awe of your selfless effort to help others in such dangerous and trying times.

There, my effort at a group hug has reached it's end.

Re WingNutSteve @52, 53 @ 54.

Thank you for confirming that your efforts reflect lack of intellectual integrity in addition to lack of intellectual acuity.

Ernie - While I realize our friend Steve took another shot at you --- the personification at this blog for all that he has so much trouble reconciling within himself --- I do believe his comments above were sincere.

I could be wrong, I suppose, but his remarks didn't come across to me, at least, as sarcastic. In fact, I read them as heart felt and commendable.

Of course, if you disagreed, I do appreciate that it wouldn't be the first time you've felt I've given the benefit of the doubt to someone who didn't deserve it

Brad, I would suspect that you and I will have to agree to disagree on this one.

The admission contained in "I spend too much time…baiting Ernie," is one which reflects that the dialogue has not been motivated solely by intellectual curiosity or a need to understand someone with whom WingNutSteve acknowledges that he disagrees.

That said, I suppose I could be more gracious in accepting his apology for what he now acknowledges was his "childish" behavior.

Perhaps we can move on from there.

Ernie, as I stated above, from maybe my first comment here you pegged me as the token site wingnut. That's a true statement, I've been accused by you of being many things most of which are not true. I'm talking about the typical: Rush, Fox News, etc. jabs which almost always accompany any comment directed towards me. Hell, someone tried to pay Brad a compliment a few weeks ago and misspoke saying "voter fraud" vice "election fraud" and that day your typical insults were directed to that person instead of me, that's the tone you routinely take with any indication someone may disagree with you. You could look it up, but I'm quite sure you probably recall the comment. So am I guilty of pre-emptive strikes against you? Yep, I am. But it takes two to tango.

I am sincere and I'm done with this silly discussion. Have a great day!

Wait, WAIT, STEVE, DON'T GO!!!!!

I appreciate your responses and I'm with Brad in that I believe they are heartfelt but I still WOULD REALLY LIKE to hear your responses to Brad's Comment #33. He gave you such a beautifully detailed response and I for one am very curious to hear what you have to say back.

Since it seems you and Ernie may be in need of some couple's therapy that I cannot provide, I say let's for the moment skip responding to his lovely deconstruction and just deal with the less emotionally charged one of Brad's.

Jeannie Dean and I will be the two hotheads sitting on the fence bearing witness.

Whadaya say? I'd really like to hear what you think.

ps. no, I was not the one calling you a winged nut way back when though I think I do remember that comment.

David, my comments back to Brad: 1. I agree the GOP has been overtaken by idiots such as Bachmann. 2. I disagree that you can lump an entire group of people (teabaggers) based on the words of some. 3. It's a Fox News scandal (Fast and Furious)? Sorry, Brad doesn't get to just claim that. Administration officials are complicit in ensuring weapons were sold, in violation of the law, to drug cartels. That goes beyond the problems we have with our border, in fact it has created a new problem. One of which the Mexican Government is obviously upset about. 4. People throughout politics today fail to condemn the acidic vitriol. That's not to excuse any of them and they should all be ashamed. 5. Impeach Bush? All I can say is I'm glad he's no longer there..

How the Modern GOP Is Like a Death Cult

Good article, Ernie.

By the way I didn't mean to trivialize your or Jeannie Dean's efforts in recent posts, so I hope I didn't come across that way. I was/am truly interested in how people who think differently and sometimes in ways that don't make sense to me do it. How exactly their thoughts and evidence and realities and feelings line up to make sense to them.

Steve seemed like he was here actually trying so I wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt and do what I could to encourage more and deeper dialogue.

Frankly I'm a bit discouraged on this front and it's not just because of Steve.

I've been having simultaneous discussions/arguments with some old friends on various matters in other venues, too. In all cases the people I'm trying to engage don't seem to me to be playing by the same rules as I--as Steve's response to Brad seems qualitatively different to me from Brad's response to him.

Brad's style as exemplified in his comment #33 (and I think by others of who comment here)--thorough, comprehensive, clear, seeking clarification while clearly laying out his views backed up by evidence and reason is for me THE method. I'm always trying to get better at it.

When the other person, whether it's Steve or my friends in private communications, doesn't really address the issues raised and questions asked, it leaves sort of an empty, lonely feeling. And is frustrating.

Maybe I should stop trying to have these conversations for a while and get back to creating.

Woah! ...I'm just coming back to check this thread after two days heads down in supporting the kids with #occupywallstreet (who are getting the shit kicked out of them by my former NYPD heroes, btw...)

...had no idea this discussion was still goin'!

Wingy's comments were *absolutely sincere*, imho - in fact, that's the MOST sincere I've ever seen him. Frankly, I think it's a real break-through, and not just because he had some off-the-cuff, kind words for me (which I felt that would likely happen through "with-holding" my attentions and limited affections...a tactic you guys should try sometime!)

I'm sorry to see this exploded again - tho' I'm still catching up and haven't read the comments as carefully as I should before responding - considering Wingy, for the first time to my knowledge, addressed (and even almost apologized for) being a crusty toady 'round here and playing games with our time.

If he stopped doing that, and stopped calling us polarizing names, I would find his comments and his presence SO much more palatable I might even READ him...might even not have to withhold comments from him like he's a toddler who can't handle his tantrums without a time-out.

Wingy, I appreciate your comments above - truly.
Thank you.

I hope you will not be further stoked by a (natural) reaction on Ernest's part considering the grief you've given him (us) about nonsense in the past, just to pad out your self-appointed roll as troll. You're better than that, too.

I've suspected that, but you've supplied scant proof...until now.

xoxox to you all (LOVE you Lasagna...!)

OT: Brad, I know you've got 10 breaking stories on the griddle at once, but have you been following #occupywallstreet?

The revolution may not be televised, but it sure as HELL will be LIVESTREAMED:
http://www.livestream.co...channel=globalrevolution

OT, but important: Call @NYCMayorsOffice (#Bloomberg) to complain about police actions - #OccupyWallStreet -# 212-341-2009 or online here: http://www.nyc.gov/html/...tml/mailccrb.html...

They're literally picking these kids off right in front of our eyes...

Dear Steve,(if you're still around this thread),

I'd like to take my cue from Jeannie Dean's comments and apologize for what I said in my comment #62. My words may well have come across as a bummer.

Sounds like you really offered us all some new looks here(I'm not here consistently enough to know this, perhaps)but instead of encouraging words I complained about it not being enough.

Don't worry, this is not the first time I have tended towards being impatient and inappropriately demanding. Sorry.