Monday, March 9, 2009

Politics of ugly

Damn, Dude. President Obama is stripping the Democratic party of any bench strength in its farm teams. The president has filled his Cabinet with some of his party's top political players, making it easier for Republicans to defend Senate seats in Arizona and Iowa, and to compete for an open spot in Kansas. Read more in the L.A. Times.

Speaking of elections, some right-wing bloggers are actually trumpeting a new dream team for the 2012 elections – Palin/Limbaugh. Are you kidding me? Limbaugh would never agree to second banana.

Newly released academic (?) research indicates Sarah Palin might have lost the election because she is so pretty. Nobody looks pretty when their head is that deep in the sand.

Pivot now to Michelle Obama’s sculpted biceps. Amazing arms. But some people have seen enough. Writing in the Sunday NY Times, Maureen Dowd quotes conservative columnist David Brooks as saying, “She’s made her point,” he said. “Now she should put away Thunder and Lightening.”
I call meow.


The South Plainsman said...

Yeah. All of those blogs and articles are just dancing around what really needs to be said, but people are afraid to come out and say it.

We are bereft of any real and positive leadership in our country.

None of them knows what to do. Its closely akin to watching a chicken continue to run around the farmyard after his/her head has been cut off.

We are in deep trouble.

sph said...

If ya got it, flaunt it. Michelle is stunning and physically fit - let Thunder and Lightening Reign!

George Phenix said...

Xena, Warrior Princess:

Anonymous said...

Maybe I missed something. Is this the same Michelle Obama that has derided this country on numerous occasions? Did she not say that for the first time in her adult life,she was proud of this country. Pretty sad for for anyone to say something like that unless she had been living in a marxist arena. WHAT? Her husband was with her??
Sure Sarah is pretty,but Rush is not. I wouldn't vote for Rush if he promised to offer 'outs' for the banks, auto makers,States, and a few universities.
Of course like the present Big Guy,he would assure us that there were no 'pork' involved.--Goose

Anonymous said...

Okay, conservatives. Give it up! Michelle has more class than Palin and is way more intelligent. Palin was counted out simply because she was about as informed on world events as an eighth grader. And for that Marxist, socialist B.S. its not working. Is the U.S. military capitalist? Or is their medical health care socialist? As for Limbaugh he is simply a hate mongering loudmouth.

S.P. says, "We are bereft of any real and positive leadership in our country." So... do you want Georgie back, along with deregulation and anything goes capitalism? -- Ira

The South Plainsman said...

Ira: better than what we have now, so: Yes.

As for the Marxist/socialist business: what do you think income redistribution is?

All I know about Michelle is that she held a $300,000.00 + a year job that when she got to the White House, they didn't need any more. And that she is finally proud to be an American. For the first time.

Anonymous said...

Ira, take three aspirin and call Obama in the morning! You sound like most of the university pigeons that yodel whatever their professor told them in class. Michelle Obama has the class of a tree frog.While Palin is not perfect, she is certainly better than anybody that is in office now.
Yeah, I'd certainly take 'Georgie" back in a heartbeat if I thought He could get rid of the garbage that currently brandishes their idiocy in the Executive and cogressional branch of our alleged government---Goose

Anonymous said...

Well, Goose, I don't need snide medical advice. Furthermore, anyone who thinks the First Lady has the "class of a tree frog" -- I must extrapolate -- comes from someone who has no class at all.

S.P. I'll answer your questions if you'll answer mine first. "Is the U.S. military capitalist? Or is their medical health care socialist?"

Is this the best you guys have? --Ira

The South Plainsman said...

Ira: the US military is an organization of the government set up to make sure you are free to be whatever you want to be. Its medical care is a government/employer program for those in the service.

Of course, the VA medical care is a retiree policy provided by the government.

If you really want to see what government health care will be like, look at the VA.

Socialism is the government ownership or admministration of the means of production and distribution.

The US military is not either capitalist or socialist. Their medical care, provided by the government would fall within the definition.

JohnSBoles said...

Regarding health care.

I am fortunate to be insured. My insurance company employs people who decide, ultimately, those procedures which may be covered.

Where is the difference between that and "universal healthcare"? Is it that the actuarial staff may be employed by the government instead of Blue Cross?

Yesterday a friend lamented the possibility of increased wait time to see a doctor if all were insured. Is that the problem, that we who are/have been insured will be inconvenienced if all are insured?

Anonymous said...

S.P. Thanks for enlightening me. I was raised in the military from 1942-60 plus four years in the Navy 1960-64. And I know well that
"The US military is an organization of the government set up to make sure you [and you] are free to be whatever you want to be. Its medical care is a government/employer program for those in the service... The US military is not either capitalist or socialist. Their medical care, provided by the government would fall within the definition."

Well, I suppose you can parse this any way you wish but military health care is government-funded by the taxpayer just as a universal health care program would be.

To answer your question about income redistribution: I think it is currently a political red herring used by those who love the phrase to keep the rich richer and the poor on the dole. Tax breaks for the wealthy and not for the middle class is income redistribution. I don't like that one darn bit. --Ira

The South Plainsman said...

Ira: lets have a flat tax. No deductions and perhaps graduated upward at the top.

Its the deductions that do it. Every rich guy is able to buy a Congressman or Senator with hefty campaign donations. Making special exceptions for groups of campaign contributors is the lifeblood of our politicians.

If we treat everyone the same, perhaps we would have a more honest government.

But you will never get equality of outcomes without severely taxing those who work and are successful to support those who won't or can't work. Now I will go with helping those who can't, but have no regard for those who won't.

Anonymous said...

Ira- There is an old truth that obviously needs repeating.'The government can give you nothing,that they didn't take away from you to begin with!'
As far as having no class,I'll just show enough class that I'll not ask you 'What has Obama (or Michelle) done since January 20th.

Anonymous said...

S.P. I find myself agreeing with you completely. A flat tax works for me just fine. The country just might get out of some of the deep debt we are taking on -- which I don't care much for but what to do? Nothing?

Goose, First lets agree that Michelle wasn't elected and it's probably best she not get as involved in government the way Hillary did as First Lady.

What has Obama done? What? Is your T.V. broke? All I hear from the far right is what he's doing wrong which means he must be doing something.

Yes it needs repeating, 'The government can give you nothing,that they didn't take away from you to begin with!' Oh, you mean like the Constitution the Bush administration was sworn to uphold?

The long list includes the torture program, the destruction of the tapes involving the torture program; the warrantless wiretapping, the denial of habeas corpus, the secret sites/rendition program, waterboarding, special trials, and of course what we now know is the firing of US Attorneys scandal.

The government under Bush took the Constitution away and now I want it back. --Ira

Anonymous said...

Ira- You still have that portion of the Constitution that the Dem leadership didn't 'overlook'. To say that George Bush destroyed the Constitution,is like saying that Nancy Pelosi has a clue about what she's doing. Non-existent!!
Number one the Constitution was not written to include non citizens. The enemy at Gitmo is OUR enemy ,not a deranged citizen. The idea of torture has no mention in the Constitution.Whatever has to be done to get the information required to save American lives is something that we can't let the ACLU(ANTI-CHRIST LEGAL UNDERLINGS)dictate.
As I've said before and I'll say it again;if someone came up and told me that they knew that someone planned on murdering my friend George,but they weren't going to tell me who or where or when,I would have no hesitation in doing what I had too to get that information. Waterboarding would be the kindest thing I would do.A man who has others under him wan afford to do no less.
As far as the Attorneys that were removed,where is the outcry against Clinton who did the same thing??
Niether one of the Presidents violated ANY part of law. The fact that all lawyers in the government 'serve at the will of the President.'
It's amazing that the liberals want to decide what the Constitution says,whether it's original intent was applied or not.
What has Obama done?? Again take three aspirin and call Obama in the morning.
The main thing he has done is what he has not done. The only change I see are all negatives,while realizing that he hasn't had time to be a true patriotic Presidene because he has been all over the country trying to sell himself and his 'stimulis' package to the people.
Other than planning to disregard the first and 2nd and 14th amendments,I guess he's right on track.---Goose

Anonymous said...

Whatever, Goose. I didn't say anything about Nancy Pelosi. I don't care for her either, very likely for different reasons that you hold. And I'll stick by notion that Bush abused the Constitution.

You argue against my post by stating that the "Constitution was not written to include non citizens." Well, according to newly released military documents, the Navy applied lawless Guantánamo protocols in detention facilities on American soil. The documents, which include regular emails between brig officers and others in the chain of command, uncover new details of the detention and interrogation of two U.S. citizens and a legal resident – Yaser Hamdi, Jose Padilla and Ali al-Marri – at naval brigs in Virginia and South Carolina.' Jeez, there's that dang habeas corpus thing which is in the Constutition.

ACLU(ANTI-CHRIST LEGAL UNDERLINGS)? My how brilliant! I reckon you aren't aware of the 63 cases the ACLU took on defending the rights of Christians. But hey, facts are irrelevant in the face of opinion.

As for waterboarding. It's torture. If you approve that's your business, but you aren't representing the citizens of this country, thankfully.

Okay, I'll take thee aspirin and and call Obama in the morining. Perhaps you should take three oxycodone and call Rush Limbaugh in the morning. --Ira

Anonymous said...

Ira, thank you for recognizing brilliance. No I am not aware of 63church cases that the ACLU took on. The only 'churches' that have ever had a positive response from the big lawyer group,are churches that are so far outside the parameters of a Christian church,that they are more cultish than anything. As a former pastor who tried to get the ACLU involved in a freedom of religion disagreement in Wisconsin, I'll assure you that I know more about this group than most people do. Realizing that you may be a member in good standing with them,I still contend that they are 'Anti Christ Legal Underlings'.--Goose

Anonymous said...


You stated: Realizing that you may be a member in good standing with them [ACLU],I still contend that they are 'Anti Christ Legal Underlings'.

When I was being cleared for a crypto clearance in the USN I was asked if I had any association with various organizations considered anti-American. At the top of the list, along with the Communist Party, was the ACLU. I had never heard of them at the time -- I was 17 years old. My response was: "I am not now nor have I ever been a member of the ACLU. Nor have I ever attended any meetings."

That was true then and is now. Which doesn't mean that I don't respect what they represent.

Since I'm not a member of the ACLU are you going to take back the 'Anti Christ Legal Underlings' nonsense?

Your lack of knowledge regarding the ACLU is regrettable. Especially in light of your position. This should enlighten you with only those 63 cases since 1995:

"Prejudice is a great time saver. You can form opinions without having to get the facts." --E.B. White


Anonymous said...

No one actually accused you of beong a member of the ACLU.Henceforth I will not retract any statement of the ACLU being the 'Anti Christ Legal Underlings'.
It is apparent that you have been swayed by the alleged 63 times that the ACLU has defended the rights of Christians.I readily acknowledge that the ACLU has on rare occasion, represented particular 'rights' that were carried out by dealing with an individual who had a grievience against a particular group or governmental organization. The ACLU has never, I repeat never, represented the Christians as a whole.
If they want to do something, they need to file suit against the IRS for threatening a churches right to preach the Word in its entirety
against the things that Christ would not tolerate.
Do you remember the pastor in New York,who was told by a federal judge that if he or anyone else preached against homosexuality in his church he would have the pastor thrown in prison? Or how aboout the Boy scouts denial of membership to homosexuals. Or how about in Wisconsin,when the courts said that Christian Private schools could not refuse to hire homosexuals from teaching in the school. I could go on and on but the key thing is that the ACLU was in full support of the judge and courts.
This country was founded on Christian principles and the liberals have pretty well destroyed the founders intent,including the Constitution.
You need to become aware of the reasoning and not just the individual words of the document.------Goose

Anonymous said...


"The ACLU has never, I repeat never, represented the Christians as a whole." What? The Christians as a whole can't get together on everything in the scripture so how to defend those who aren't in agreement to begin with.

Also, the ACLU represents individuals who have brought specific cases to the courts. They can't just walk into a court and say, "Your Honor I'm here to represent the Christians cause the liberals are destroying the country."

Realizing that you may have some personal issues with homosexuality I can understand your contempt for the ACLU. Sorry about that.

As for the contention that the U.S. was founded on Christian principals, you might want to read up on that. Nowhere is the word Christian mentioned anywhere in the Constitution. The Founding Fathers were of many religious faiths. Some had no affiliation, others ran the gamut including Deism. Wasn't it all about religious freedom?

Look, the Christian right was represented by our government for the last eight years. Step aside the liberals are here to change things. How worse could it get? --Ira

Anonymous said...

and the politics of ugly goes on and on and on. It is good we only have two major parties. If we had to form coalition governments as in Isreal and some of the European countries...I shudder to think. Amazing that the founders created so much light while we have devolved into producing naught but heat.

Anonymous said...

Israel. The older I get the more English seems to become my second language replaced by gibberish.

National Politics

News on Aging

Geriatric Medicine News

Senior Health Insurance News

Social Security & Medicare News

Posts From Other Geezer Blogs