Democrats are in big trouble and they know it

By 200 Comments 3,830 views

obama_sinks_cruise_ship_fail

The democrat party is in trouble. Big trouble. Captain Barack Schettino has run the SS Partito Democratico into the rocks just off Obamacare island. It’s listing heavily, taking on water and the rats are jumping ship.

After 40 years in Congress, George Miller (D-CA) is retiring. Miller has been a Pelosi capo for much of that time. Another Pelosi confidante, Henry Waxman (D-CA), has also read the tea leaves is headed for the exit.

These are ominous signs for the democrat party. It’s not as though Republicans aren’t retiring but these are democrats in positions of real power. And they know.

This isn’t what democrats predicted. Over and over they promised Obamacare would boost their electoral aspirations, none more so than the feckless Obama sycophant known as Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

“I think actually that Democrats will be able to run on Obamacare as an advantage.”

Politico ran an article titled “Nancy Pelosi’s tough times.”

I’ve bookmarked it so when I am unhappy I can return to it for a mood lift.

For House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, the bad news keeps piling up.

On Thursday, longtime Democratic Rep. Henry Waxman, a Pelosi ally and fellow Californian, announced he would retire at the end of this Congress. That closely follows Rep. George Miller’s (D-Calif.) decision to also leave the House at the end of the year.

While Democrats should hold both seats, the departures put more districts in play. Perhaps more important, the retirement of two Pelosi friends — both of whom would be chairmen in a Democratic majority — bolsters the GOP argument that their grip on the House is solid.

National Republican Congressional Committee Chairman Greg Walden (Ore.) called Waxman’s retirement a “clear indication … that the House Democrats don’t think they’re going to be wielding the gavels next time.”

The NRCC will use the Miller and Waxman retirements to raise money and lean on business groups and wealthy donors to back GOP candidates, arguing that the writing is already on the wall for Election Day and they’d better get on the winning side now.

Pelosi was even forced to deny rumors on Thursday that she too was retiring. More than a dozen Democrats called her personally to find out what was going on after a story speculated she might step down.

Be still my heart. If only.

There has been no one so consistently wrong about Obamacare as has Nancy Pelosi. Her words are now legendary.

Well, they passed it and we still don’t know all that’s in it. When asked a couple of years later about that obviously direct quote, Pelosi claimed that her words were “taken out of context.”

Pelosi said that the quote “was taken out of context” and it is most often quoted “by the far right.”

Then she said there is no bill:

We don’t even have a bill written yet. The Senate has not acted. And that really, the president really thought he was going to get a Republican vote in the Senate… You can’t say it’s in the bill, read it, ’cause there is no bill.”

Yet she had read the non-existent bill:

Also, Pelosi said “we read the bill.”

Pelosi also promised that everyone would have lower rates and better care.

She then was um, unexpectedly unable to remember saying that:

She promised that democrats would stand tall for Obamacare

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QXz0YO7FcDM

And she was utterly humiliated by Jonathan Stewart

This is the woman who had to have it passed before we could find out what’s in it- the woman who had three years to watch a failure develop knows nothing about nothing. She shoved it up our you know whats but she is not responsible for its incompetence?

She is a disgrace. She’s a partisan fool.

Obamacare is not becoming more popular- it’s becoming more and more unpopular- especially among the uninsured– and people are learning what “affordable” means.

Obamacare has become an albatross around the necks of vulnerable democrats:

President Barack Obama was barely out of the Capitol after delivering his State of the Union address Tuesday before members of his own party began distancing themselves from the president, and they’re running as fast as they can.

In an interview with CNN after the speech, Alaska Sen. Mark Begich, one of the most vulnerable Democrats up for reelection this year, took aim at Obama’s focus on using executive actions to go around Congress. ”I’ll be anxious to see what these executive orders are,” he said. “But if they go too far you’ll clearly hear push back from me. There’s no question about it.”

Begich also criticized Obama on energy, objecting to his calls to end oil and gas tax incentives and opposition to opening up more of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling. He added that he has no interest in campaigning with Obama, but is open to showing Obama why his policies are wrong.

Obama is downright radioactive:

Obama’s post-speech roadshow conspicuously excludes any state where vulnerable Democratic incumbents are up for reelection. And in Wisconsin, where Democrat Mary Burke is trying to unseat Gov. Scott Walker this fall, the candidate is avoiding Obama’s scheduled appearance on Thursday. Earlier this month, North Carolina Sen. Kay Hagan avoided an appearance with Obama in her home state.

These are ominous signs for the democrat party and Obamacare faces an even worse 2014.

Bon Voyage.

UPDATE

A loyal Democratic soldier tells the truth about Obamacare

Rep. Jim Moran of Virginia rarely holds his tongue (and never his punches), but he was the loyal Democratic soldier when it was time to vote for Obamacare. His pending retirement from Congress has freed him now to finally say what he thinks about the president’s takeover of the nation’s health care.

Mr. Moran joins a group of departing Democrats conceding what everyone knows: Obamacare is a train wreck. An airliner crash. A battleship aground on the reef. Pick your metaphor. “I’m afraid that the millennials, if you will,” Mr. Moran tells Washington’s WAMU-FM radio, “are less likely to sign up. I think they feel more independent. I think they feel a little more invulnerable than prior generations . But I don’t think we’re going to get enough young people signing up to make this bill work as it was intended to, financially.”

His analysis is spot on, but that’s small consolation. “I just don’t know how we’re going to [fix] it, frankly,” says Mr. Moran. “If we had a solution, I’d be telling the president right now.” Now he tells us.

Belated it is, but Mr. Moran’s assessment is a breath of fresh air in an environment where the Obama administration talks about “surges” in enrollments and tells “success” stories that don’t bear the weight of scrutiny. Obamacare was sold to the nation on a similar foundation of lies.

UPDATE II

Democrats: Cede the House to save the Senate

With Democrats’ grasp on the Senate increasingly tenuous — and the House all but beyond reach — some top party donors and strategists are moving to do something in the midterm election as painful as it is coldblooded: Admit the House can’t be won and go all in to save the Senate.

Their calculation is uncomplicated. With only so much money to go around in an election year that is tilting the GOP’s way, Democrats need to concentrate resources on preserving the chamber they have now. Losing the Senate, they know, could doom whatever hopes Barack Obama has of salvaging the final years of his presidency.

DrJohn has been a health care professional for more than 30 years. In addition to clinical practice he has done extensive research and has published widely with over 70 original articles and abstracts in the peer-reviewed literature. DrJohn is well known in his field and has lectured on every continent except for Antarctica. He has been married to the same wonderful lady for over 30 years and has three kids- two sons, both of whom are attorneys and one daughter on her way into the field of education. DrJohn was brought up with the concept that one can do well if one is prepared to work hard but nothing in life is guaranteed. Except for liberals being foolish.

200 Responses to “Democrats are in big trouble and they know it”

  1. 151

    retire05

    @Greg:

    “The modern conservative is engaged in one of man’s oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.” John Kenneth Galbraith

    And liberal progressives are not selfish, Greggie? Why, hell, yes, they are just like you are, Greggie.

    Tell us, how much did your computer cost? How much does it cost you to have internet service? Why are you so selfish? You could have given the money that your computer cost, and the money that your internet service costs, and give it to the poor. Why didn’t you do that? Why were you so selfish? You could have opted for giving that money away, to the poor, and using a library computer and its internet service instead.

    Did you share your salary with someone else who made less money than you, other than someone in your own family? Did you find a poor family, take them in, provide them with housing, food, clothing, sending their kids to college? Or did you keep your salary, choosing to donate to the poor only through your taxes?

    Every human being that ever walked the face of the earth was selfish, in one respect or another and for you to try to bash conservatives as being selfish shows how the left is willing to twist the truth. If the left is so generous, why does Barbara Streisand live in a tony Malibu mansion while there are people in California living in poverty?

  2. 152

    Greg

    @retire05, #151:

    Selfishness is an all-too-common human trait. Some conservatives tend to compound the moral errors that selfishness can lead to, however, by proclaiming it to be a virtue.

    Your argument, by the way, is totally bogus. It’s nothing but a tediously extended example of an Ad Hominem Tu Quoque fallacy. Which brings to mind another quote, by John Stuart Mill.

  3. 153

    Richard Wheeler

    o5 and Greg Seems Conservatives are proud of their selfishness whereas Libs. feel guilty about theirs.
    ” The search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.” How are Conservatives doing with that?

  4. 155

    Pete

    @Greg:

    So explain how having the government put a gun to your head to force you to give up what you earn is in any way an act of charity?

    You leftists assume that your thuggish actions are virtuous, that somehow because you feel smug about taking money from those who earn it to buy the votes of those who do not earn it that such theft is acceptable.

    So what is going to support your self delusion when there is no more money for the government to steal?

  5. 156

    retire05

    @Richard Wheeler:

    Seems Conservatives are proud of their selfishness whereas Libs. feel guilty about theirs.

    Yeah, RW, I bet you were just racked with pain from guilt when you bought your house (over $600K, right) knowing that you could have bought four houses worth $150K and given three of them away to poor families. And hey, when you made rank (you did make rank, right?) did you have to get psychiatric treatment when you got a raise in pay, knowing that some buck private had a couple of kids and could use that money more than you could?

    I can just see the pain on the faces of those California neighbors of yours, you know, the ones that live in Malibu, that feel so guilty about their wealth. Barbara Streisand’s face just reeks pain for the poor. Same with John Travolta, when he’s being photographed on his own private air strip or the worst ever, Ben Affleck, who, I’m sure, lives in a one bedroom walk up just to give all his money to the poor.

    Guilt over your own selfishness doesn’t seem to be such a motivator when you are called on to put your money where your mouth is, and give your own wealth away and only keep what you need to provide the most basic of shelter and groceries. When it comes to charities, we all know that liberals are cheapskates.

    You’re more than willing to be charitable, as long as you can stick your hand in someone else’s pocket for the money.

  6. 157

    Redteam

    @Greg:

    Selfishness is an all-too-common human trait. Some conservatives tend to compound the moral errors that selfishness can lead to, however, by proclaiming it to be a virtue.

    I can’t figure out where you get this notion that conservatives are the party of the selfish. Do you realize that the average conservative donates more to charity than the average Dimocrat? Always have. Do realize that the Obama’s are worth 12 million but they charge Moochelle’s birthday party to the taxpayers? Is that selfish?

  7. 158

    Redteam

    @Richard Wheeler:

    o5 and Greg Seems Conservatives are proud of their selfishness whereas Libs. feel guilty about theirs.

    Which orifice did you pull that non-fact from?

    whereas Libs. feel guilty

    really, then why don’t they give their money away?

    RW, you and I both need to stay away from predicting SuperBowl scores.

  8. 159

    Redteam

    It has just occurred to me that Dimocrats feel that if they give the taxpayers (not their own) money to the Dimocrats that they are being charitable. I don’t believe that stealing from one(that will work) to give to another(that won’t work) comes under the literal definition of charity. That must be a Robin Hood complex.

  9. 160

    Ditto

    @Greg:

    “Conservatives define themselves in terms of what they oppose.”

    That may be so, and my reply to that is: Democrats define themselves in terms of what they impose on others.

  10. 162

    Greg

    @Ditto, #160:

    That may be so, and my reply to that is: Democrats define themselves in terms of what they impose on others.

    “Today’s so-called ‘conservatives’ don’t even know what the word means. They think I’ve turned liberal because I believe a woman has a right to an abortion. That’s a decision that’s up to the pregnant woman, not up to the pope or some do-gooders or the Religious Right. It’s not a conservative issue at all.” – Barry Goldwater

  11. 163

    Nathan Blue

    @Greg:

    Maybe you’ll be more appreciative of a quote from George Will:

    “Conservatives define themselves in terms of what they oppose.”

    I would find it asinine for any liberal, or conservative for that matter, to use this statement about the other. To do so means that you’ve actually fallen into the fallacy you’re trying to uncover (George Will is now defining himself by labeling conservatives of the only one capable of such a very common human defect).

    MOST people caught up in an ideological pursuit are defined by that which they want fight, to stop — or at least that’s the temptation. Look up mimetic mirroring and Rene Girard.

    I’d argue that the libs defined themselves too much in terms of what they oppose (or the false image of what they oppose), and became markedly worst than the cons back in 08.

    My biggest reason for not supporting Obama or the radical wave of liberalism that sweep the country was because it defined itself by what it opposed: the media image of Bush, stereotypes about those they don’t agree with, new words to denigrate (teabagger), etc. Obama was the mirror image of Bush, but bigger, twisted.

    They became worse than what they were combating, and anyone with a bit of critical thinking handily rejected such mimesis.

  12. 164

    ilovebeeswarzone

    PETE
    THEY THINK THEY CAN PRINT MORE MONEY, AND GET AWAY WITH IT,
    BECAUSE THEY DON’T PAY IT BACK,
    EXCEPT THE PEOPLE HAVE TO PAY BACK THAT PRINT MONEY PLUS THEIR EARNINGS,
    PLUS THEIR FOOD, PLUS THEIR VACATION, PLUS THEIR BONUS,
    PLUS WHAT THET SENT TO MUSLIMS ABROAD, PLUS THE AIRFORCE 1,
    MY I MUST HAVE FORGOTTEN SOME,
    AND THEY HAVE THE ARROGANCE TO ASK FOR MORE,
    WHAT WOULD THE FRAMERS DO WITH THEM?.

  13. 165

    Greg

    “Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.”
    ~Dwight D. Eisenhower

    “Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.”
    ~Abraham Lincoln

    “To impose taxes when the public exigencies require them is an obligation of the most sacred character, especially with a free people.”
    ~James Monroe

    “The supreme duty of the Nation is the conservation of human resources through an enlightened measure of social and industrial justice. We pledge ourselves to work unceasingly in State and Nation for … the protection of home life against the hazards of sickness, irregular employment and old age through the adoption of a system of social insurance adapted to American use.”
    ~Theodore Roosevelt

    “It is essential that there should be organization of labor. This is an era of organization. Capital organizes and therefore labor must organize.”
    ~Theodore Roosevelt

    “The tax which will be paid for the purpose of education is not more than the thousandth part of what will be paid to kings, priests and nobles who will rise up among us if we leave the people in ignorance.”
    ~Thomas Jefferson

    “I know of no safe repository of the ultimate power of society but people. And if we think them not enlightened enough, the remedy is not to take the power from them, but to inform them by education.”
    ~Thomas Jefferson

    “While I am a great believer in the free enterprise system and all that it entails, I am an even stronger believer in the right of our people to live in a clean and pollution-free environment.”
    ~Barry Goldwater

    “As Mankind becomes more liberal, they will be more apt to allow that all those who conduct themselves as worthy members of the community are equally entitled to the protections of civil government. I hope ever to see America among the foremost nations of justice and liberality.”
    ~George Washington

    “Where free unions and collective bargaining are forbidden, freedom is lost.”
    ~Ronald Reagan

    “Only a fool would try to deprive working men and working women of their right to join the union of their choice.”
    ~Dwight D. Eisenhower

    “We establish no religion in this country. We command no worship. We mandate no belief, nor will we ever. Church and state are and must remain separate.”
    ~Ronald Reagan

    “Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes that you can do these things. Among them are a few Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or businessman from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid.”
    ~Dwight Eisenhower

    “We all agree that neither the Government nor political parties ought to interfere with religious sects. It is equally true that religious sects ought not to interfere with the Government or with political parties. We believe that the cause of good government and the cause of religion suffer by all such interference.”
    ~Rutherford B. Hayes

    “The divorce between Church and State ought to be absolute. It ought to be so absolute that no Church property anywhere, in any state or in the nation, should be exempt from equal taxation; for if you exempt the property of any church organization, to that extent you impose a tax upon the whole community.”
    ~James A. Garfield

    “We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security.”
    ~Dwight D. Eisenhower

    “Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the party, and they’re sure trying to do so, it’s going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can’t and won’t compromise. I know, I’ve tried to deal with them.”
    ~Barry Goldwater

  14. 166

    Redteam

    @Greg:

    Who Gives and Who Doesn’t?
    Nov. 28, 2006
    By JOHN STOSSEL and KRISTINA KENDALL via

    There are a million ways to give to charity. Toy drives, food drives, school supply drives…telethons, walkathons, and dance-athons.

    But just who is doing the giving? Three quarters of American families donate to charity, giving $1,800 each, on average. Of course, if three quarters give, that means that one quarter don’t give at all. So what distinguishes those who give from those who don’t? It turns out there are many myths about that.

    Sioux Falls vs. San Francisco

    We assume the rich give more than the middle class, the middle class more than the poor. I’ve heard liberals care more about the less fortunate, so we assume they give more than conservatives do. Are these assumptions truth, or myth?

    To test what types of people give more, “20/20” went to two very different parts of the country, with contrasting populations: Sioux Falls, S.D. and San Francisco, Calif. The Salvation Army set up buckets at the busiest locations in each city — Macy’s in San Francisco and Wal-Mart in Sioux Falls. Which bucket collected more money?

    Sioux Falls is rural and religious; half of the population goes to church every week. People in San Francisco make much more money, are predominantly liberal, and just 14 percent of people in San Francisco attend church every week. Liberals are said to care more about helping the poor; so did people in San Francisco give more?

    It turns out that this idea that liberals give more…is a myth. Of the top 25 states where people give an above average percent of their income, 24 were red states in the last presidential election.

    Arthur Brooks, the author of “Who Really Cares,” says that “when you look at the data, it turns out the conservatives give about 30 percent more.” He adds, “And incidentally, conservative-headed families make slightly less money.”

    http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=2682730

    I don’t need to say more.

  15. 167

    Nathan Blue

    @Greg: Just as I said, mimetic mirroring.

    We have each side claiming the other doesn’t know what it stands for.

    BUT, the issue is that there are real people that do stand for real things, on each side. These people have a hard time engaging in anonymous discussions with agenda-laden ideologues.

    YOu’ve illustrated the problem:

    “Today’s so-called ‘conservatives’ don’t even know what the word means. They think I’ve turned liberal because I believe a woman has a right to an abortion. That’s a decision that’s up to the pregnant woman, not up to the pope or some do-gooders or the Religious Right. It’s not a conservative issue at all.” – Barry Goldwater

    Too many of the prominent voices on the left come across as ignorant, as petty children who don’t have firm understanding or education in regard to history, ethics, religion, etc. The “god” they follow is the chip on their shoulder.

    Sadly, a young person reads something like that and may be swayed to reduce the 2000 year history of Christianity — and all human culture with it — into a span of history being hijacked by “do-gooders”.

    Goldwater probably thinks he’s a “do-gooder” himself, if that’s not ironic.

  16. 168

    Nathan Blue

    @Greg: Is this the new way to troll? Offer up quotes without really “saying” anything?

    “Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the party, and they’re sure trying to do so, it’s going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can’t and won’t compromise. I know, I’ve tried to deal with them.”
    ~Barry Goldwater

    That’s a damn bigoted thing to say. The majority of Christians don’t conform to the caricature that the left propagates out of their angst when grappling with their own sense of faith (or lack of faith).

    The majority of Christians are not the Westboro Baptist Church. I can’t believe that libs claim to defend the weak by “tearing down stereotypes” for LGBTs, Blacks, Latinos…any group you can image — but they stoop to the lowest common denominator when profiling the “religious”.

    Doesn’t give you much ground to stand on (See my post 119 about libs defending ground that they’ve already destroyed).

  17. 169

    Ditto

    @Greg:

    You must be incapable of thinking and speaking for yourself. Or are you just practicing how to cut and paste? Are you nothing more but a mindless parrot? None of these quotes are relevant to the Democrat’s electability problems in 2014.

  18. 170

    Greg

    I don’t believe anyone would ever have accused Barry Goldwater of spinning out leftist caricatures. I remember when he was the republican candidate for president.

    The point of all of those quotes is to provide points of reference. None of those people were leftists. All of the ideas they expressed would have been considered reflective of mainstream conservative thinking.

    So, who’s been drifting away from core values and principles? What is actually radical, and where is it presently found? That “tiny splinter group” Eisenhower was referring to… Who are they now?

  19. 171

    Redteam

    @Greg: What was the purpose of those quotes?

    ~Abraham Lincoln

    Did you know that Abraham Lincoln was president when more Americans were killed by military action than any other president. And for no legal reason. Just asking?

  20. 172

    ilovebeeswarzone

    ONE THING FOR SURE IS THE CONSERVATIVES CANNOT MISS EVER
    BECAUSE THEY FOLLOW THE CONSTITUTION THE JEWEL OF AMERICA,
    AND THEY WOULD NEVER BECOME TRAITOR AND STEP ON THE CONSTITTION TO FIX THEIR FAILURES,
    IF THEY WOULD FAIL ON A LAW, THEY ARE FRANC AND HONEST TO PUBLICLY SAY IT, AND VOW TO NEVER REPEAT IT AGAIN, INSTEAD OF STEPPING ON THE PRECIOUS LAWS OF THE LAND SO IMPORTANT THAT THEY STOOD TALL FOR THESE CENTURIES, MADE UP BY MEN OF FAITH IN GOD WHO SEEK WISDOM FROM HIM, AND WROTE THOSE LAWS,
    WHICH AMERICA CHERISH AND WILL NEVER LET IT BE FORGOTTEN, or stepped on by any minion
    be him a PAUPER OR A PRESIDENT NOW REPRIMANDED FOR STEPPING ON IT, WICH IS ONLY A WARNING, for now,

  21. 173

    Nathan Blue

    @Greg:

    The point of all of those quotes is to provide a point of reference. None of those people were leftists. All of the ideas they expressed would have been considered reflective of mainstream conservative thinking.

    A point of reference toward what destination, towards what end?

    As I said, read post 119. We’ve cleared all this up already.

  22. 176

    Greg

    @Redteam, #166:

    The only “research” source mentioned anywhere in this article is “Who Really Cares,” a book by Arthur Brooks. Brooks is associated with the American Enterprise Institute, a neoconservative think-tank. He became president of that organization in 2009. He is not what most people would think of as an unbiased source of information.

    @Redteam, #175:

    Yes. I was in my final year of elementary school. I recall the campaign that year. It was a topic in citizenship class.

  23. 177

    ilovebeeswarzone

    GREG
    i suppose you are an unbias source of information?
    is in that arrogant, noting in his history you noted is not worthy of telling the truth,
    and i heard it before the CONSERVATIVES ARE MOST GENEROUS,

  24. 178

    Ditto

    @Greg:

    He is not what most people would think of as an unbiased source of information.

    There you go again Greg. Shooting the messenger instead of debating the issue. Pathetic.

  25. 179

    Greg

    @Ditto, #178:

    I’ve taken note of the fact that someone has cited a book written by a neoconservative that claims conservatives donate more to charity than liberals. There’s a research paper that concludes otherwise. I see no reason why I should automatically believe the assertion.

  26. 181

    Richard Wheeler

    @retire05: My statement reflected on what you and Greg had said about selfishness in previous statements. Greg agreed. No surprise that you fought it.
    I consider myself a JFK/Blue Dog Dem. I’ll say again–I have no allegiance to radicals of the Left or Right.
    Greg Thank you for posting those statements from Barry Goldwater.Causes me to re-evaluate some long standing beliefs I’ve held about him.

    RT “I won’t go against Manning.” Ouch
    Waiting on your Senate picks 2014
    Baseball coming up. I’ll take The Dodgers–again.

  27. 182

    Ditto

    @Greg:

    Then prove his conclusion false, (if you can). Provide this “research paper” of which you speak, instead of using a lame Alinsky tactic of discounting Brooks’ work simply on the grounds that he is a “neoconservative.”

    Debate properly, don’t argue like a whiny adolescent.

  28. 183

    Redteam

    @Greg:

    The only “research” source mentioned anywhere in this article is “Who Really Cares,” a book by Arthur Brooks.

    But, you don’t claim it’s wrong, do you?

  29. 185

    Redteam

    @Richard Wheeler:

    RT “I won’t go against Manning.” Ouch

    Heard today that Manning said ‘he would have thrown in the towel but it would have been intercepted’. Oh, and I hear that Omaha has become O Ma God. Talk about ‘ouch’. But my recollection is that you felt about the same. Seems as if Seattle came ready to play.

    Baseball coming up. I’ll take The Dodgers–again.

    Sticking with proven losers, eh? As in Dodgers-Dimocrats..

    Waiting on your Senate picks 2014

    About November 1st.

  30. 186

    Redteam

    @Ditto: Greg did provide that link back above, but here it is again” Link
    If you read what they say in the study, they admit that the conservatives give more than liberals but much of the conservative giving is discounted because it is religious giving, to their own churches. And if you take off the much greater amount given to churches, by conservatives, then the giving is approximately even. Now that is kinda like the research paper that was titled: A Thesis to Prove that you can Prove any Thesis you want to. All you have to do is ignore anything counter to what you want to prove and what you are left with will usually prove what you want to prove.

    That paper is 41 pages long and I didn’t read it all, but I’m sure they counted liberal giving to ‘un-religious’ organizations such as planned parenthood, but for some reason think that conservative giving to religious organizations is not ‘charitable giving’.
    I didn’t see where Greg, or anyone, said ‘why’ they discount Brooks study.

  31. 187

    retire05

    @Richard Wheeler:

    I consider myself a JFK/Blue Dog Dem.

    Then you are in a lonely world since the modern Democrat Party seems to have purged itself of all “blue dogs”.

    So tell us, does that mean that you refuse to vote for the radical left wing of the Democratic Party? You know, those like Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer, Maxine Waters, Henry Waxman (who is retiring only to have Sandra Fluke filing to replace him)? Because frankly, RW, I don’t see any blue dogs being elected in your insane state.

    See, if you vote for those radicals in the Democratic Party, then you are giving tacit approval to what they do, which is as far from JFK politics as one can get.

  32. 188

    Redteam

    Further reading of that paper reveals this statement:

    Even with these adjustments, however, we still find substantively greater giving by conser-
    vatives in a handful of specifications

    “Even with these adjustments” here he is referring to religious contributions (which to liberals do not count as charity, if given by a conservative)

  33. 189

    Greg

    @Redteam, #188:

    “Even with these adjustments” here he is referring to religious contributions (which to liberals do not count as charity, if given by a conservative)

    Robert Jeffress’s First Baptist Church of Dallas recently spent around $130 million on a church campus. Is that a charitable work in the same sense that spending $130 million to build a children’s hospital would be? I’m not saying one way or the other. I’m just suggesting that perceptions can vary.

  34. 190

    ilovebeeswarzone

    GREG
    is that all you know about it?
    not good enough to make that judgement,
    he probably had a wealthy person ask him for an hospital on his pockets,
    so what is your problem?

  35. 192

    Nanny G

    @Redteam: @Richard Wheeler:

    RT “I won’t go against Manning.” Ouch

    Heard today that Manning said ‘he would have thrown in the towel but it would have been intercepted’.

    Seattle played very smart.
    They studied Manning’s hand signals and, by game day, had properly interpreted all of them.
    They knew every play he was calling from start to end.

  36. 193

    Ditto

    @Redteam:

    but much of the conservative giving is discounted because it is religious giving, to their own churches.

    “There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics.” – Mark Twain

    As said, Greg needs a link that proves his case, not a heavily massaged statistic report by two far left political-science doctoral students from the leftist liberal arts portion of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. A paper that admittedly ignores certain types of charitable donations in a bogus attempt to equate the amounts the opposing groups give through estimated creative number crunching with probablity weighting. Which, even with ignoring churches, the linked paper does not succeed. Nor does the paper qualify the accuracy of the data that they do use. It’s bad enough when statistics are fudged to create a false premise, its worse when meaningless variables such as “probably,” “estimated” and other creative obfuscations are introduced into supposed mathematical conclusions. That paper is only fit to line a birdcage. Which is not surprising, as this isn’t the first bit of statistical nonsense I’ve read from that pair.

    As is true with the above linked MIT political-science student’s poor attempt at statistical hyperbol, lefties conveniently forget that quite a bit of the monies donated to many religious establishments are used to help the poor, homeless and other people who are in other dire straights.

    @Greg:

    Robert Jeffress’s First Baptist Church of Dallas recently spent around $130 million on a church campus. Is that a charitable work in the same sense that spending $130 million to build a children’s hospital would be?

    Cherry picking one specific pastor’s extravagance and comparing it to building a hypothetical “children’s hospital” is not only comparing apples and oranges, it’s completely dishonest. Just as all religious leaders and their religious establishments are not managed the same, neither are all children’s hospitals. Is this hypothetical hospital for profit, or does it operate like St. Judes? What children does this mythical hospital treat? Does it only treat children of homeless families or does it cater to the spoiled, pampered brats of Democratic congress-people? I can’t even give you a “nice try” cookie for your anti-religion biased tripe.

    Greg = Debate – FAIL

  37. 194

    Nanny G

    @Ditto: You make some excellent points about charity and who is worthy (as Wayne put it in Wayne’s World).
    My favorite hospital in So Cal was a childrens’ hospital run by a Catholic order with both nuns and priests all over the place. It was a terrific hospital.
    But what killed it?
    Too many people here illegally bringing heavily pregnant women in who had never had even one bit of pre-natal care.
    I guess they don’t do pre-natal in Mexico.
    The extraordinary costs involved in so many problem pregnancies broke the hospital.
    Before it died, it held out for a Prop on the CA ballot that would have demanded the country pay equally for the cost of so many illegals in CA.
    But a judge killed that hope.
    With his decision dozens of charitable hospitals – that turned away No One – died.
    That Catholic Church’s religious order did yeoman’s work in helping illegals from Mexico and were rewarded for their work by being inundated with so many needy people their order decided to do something else.
    How different this is from Obama’s version of ”charity.”
    Obama demands you fit into one of his support groups before you qualify.
    Look who gets his ”free” ObamaPhones, his ”free” ObamaCare, and so on.
    Can you say, Pigford?

  38. 195

    Pete

    @Greg:

    Quotes taken without context as you have done are equivalent to Satan quoting scripture.

    If Jefferson, Madison and Washington’s quotes supported your leftist ideology then why didn’t the Founding Fathers implement the kind of ridiculous wealth redistribution tax schemes you leftists support? No conservative argues there should be no taxes at all. The argument is against excessive taxation to pay for government to buy the votes of the uneducated.

    Reagan’s quote regarding unions needs to be viewed in the context of his actions against PATCO.

    Of course you quote Teddy Roosevelt, a big progressive in his worldview, and cousin to the horrible FDR. Not someone who will hold any water with conservatives.

    Goldwater, whom leftists branded as a nuclear warmonger, lost his way as he grew older. It is the trait of conservatives to hold to actual principles, not personalities, as leftists do.

    Eisenhower was a great general, and stood up to racist democrats opposed to integration of schools. His comments on the military industrial complex, and the quotes you posted above have to be viewed in the context of the destruction he saw and the aftermath of WWII. Stretching those quotes to support establishing marxist wealth redistribution is more leftist propaganda.

    The current leftist claim that the over 2 million jobs estimated to be lost because of obamacare are a good thing because these additional unemployed are now “free agents” (Reid) who can do “other things” (White House) shows the typical dishonesty and uncaring nature of the left.

  39. 196

    ilovebeeswarzone

    how about taking care of the FELONS ?WE KNOW THEY CANNOT FIND WORK
    BECAUSE OF THE LABEL WHICH SOCIETY BRAND THEM, THEY WANT TO WORK,
    THEY HAVE A FAMILY TO TAKE CARE OF, THEY NUMBER
    20 MILLIONS
    DON’T TELL ME THEY ARE ALL DANGEROUS TO SOCIETY, THEY DEPEND ON WELFARE,
    THEY PAID THEIR ERRORS AND STILL PAY BECAUSE THE COMPANYS DON’T WANT THEM,
    NO MATTER THE LAW STATING THEY CANNOT BE REFUSE,
    THEY MOSTLY ARE AMERICANS, AND LEFT TO DEPEND ON A MEAKER BITS FROM SOCIETY WHO CAN GIVE THEM WORK, MANY ARE SO SMART AND HAVE LEARNED ABOVE THE NORM,
    WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON THERE, WHY ARE YOU AMERICAN FORSAKING THEM???
    THEY HAVE ONE FALL AND SOME ARE INSIGNIFICANT AND NOT THEIR FAULT,THOSE ARE
    THE ONES TO BE HIRE NOW,IT IS A LOST TO AMERICA TO SHUN THE ONES WHO CAN GIVE A COMPANY A LIFT UP WITH THE SKILL THEY HAVE,
    I WAS GIVING A NUMBER WAY SMALER LIKE 10 THOUSAND I FOUND TERRIBLE THAT WAS FOR THOSE MINOR OFFENCE, YESTERDAY SOMEONE WHO STUDY OF IT SAID 20 MILLION OUT,
    IT SHOULD CHOCK EVERY ONE AMERICANS, AND MOVE THEIR BACKWARD MENTALITY,
    TO GROW AND HELP THAT NEW SOCIETY UNKNOWN AND LET BEHIND BY THE SO CALL PURE OF ANY SIN OF ANY ERRORS, AND PUT THEM TO SHAME,
    HELL THE FELONS HAVE NO VOTES, THEY CANNOT BECOME PROTECTOR OF THE CITIZENS WITH JOBS,
    THEY CANNOT BE IN THE MILITARY EITHER, WTF IS AMERICA REGRESSING SHE SHOULD TAKE CARE OF THEM BEFORE THE ILLEGALS, THEY MIGHT BE THE ONE WHO HELP IF YOU GET MUG, WHY?
    BECAUSE THEY SEE YOU ALL AS A BROTHER, STILL NOW AFTER YOU REFUSE THEIR PLACE IN SOCIETY, HEY 20 million is a society itself, LEAD TO HATE THOSE WHO PREVENT THEM TO LIVE A DECENT LIFE, THEY NEED SO DESPERATLY, SOME ARE THINKING OF COMMIT SUICIDE AFTER 7 YEARS OF SEARCHING, BUT GOOGLE IS PROVIDING THE QUICK DATA TO SLAM THEIR CHANCES,
    OF DOING A NORMAL LIFE WIT A NORMAL JOB, YEARS OF WAITHING AND SEARCHING IS KILLING THEM SLOWLY AND AMERICANS ARE RESPONSIBLE,
    HOW DARE YOU TREAT THEM LIKE IT, YOU ARE WORSE AND HEARTLESS,AS THE ONES WHO LEFT 4 GOOD HEROS DIE IN THE HANDS OF THE ALQAEDA, WHEN THEY HAD ACCESS TO THE STRONGEST MILITARY FORCES, THIS IS A REAL FELONY
    AND HE GOT AWAY WITH FOUR DEATHS OF THE BRAVES,
    SO TO WIN HIS ELECTION,
    HOW LOW CAN ONE GET? LOWER THAN ANY FELON LEFT OUT BY SOCIETY,
    FIRST REAVALUATE THE PROCECUTORS ALL OF THEM,
    AND THANK GOD FOR THOSE RELIGIOUS PLACE WHO HELP THE FELON KEEP HOPE AND HELP THE WOUND IN THE SAME TIME,

  40. 197

    Redteam

    @Ditto:

    As said, Greg needs a link that proves his case, not a heavily massaged statistic report by two far left political-science doctoral students from the leftist liberal arts portion of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

    Yes, I notice that the grade the student received on this paper is not shown,, but since it didn’t prove his hypothesis, but concluded that it did, means he was wrong about all of it. Probably got a ‘not accepted-try again” grade.

    Robert Jeffress’s First Baptist Church of Dallas recently spent around $130 million on a church campus.

    interesting point: but, once that 130 million is spent, they will have another 130 million to spend on that Children’s Hospital.

  41. 198

    ilovebeeswarzone

    Redteam
    to hear that they will get another !#) million to built the hospital<
    it will kill GREG FOR SURE , his brain will collapse first,
    bye,

  42. 200

    ilovebeeswarzone

    AND YES THEY ARE IN BIG TROUBLE WITH THE IRS AGAIN,
    why not shut that agency who is showing decrepency all over,
    it’s not a new COMMISSIONER THAT WILL STOP THEM,
    BECAUSE THEY ARE ROTTEN AND TOO ROTTEN TO PICK UP THE PIECES,
    THE UNIONS AE TRYING TO SALVAGE THEM ARE TOO LITTLE TOO LATE,
    THEY MUST EAT THE SAME FOOD THEY FED THE TEA PARTY AND THE OTHERGOOD CONSERVATIVES,
    THEY MUST REGURGITATE THEIR ARROGANCE, AND JOIN THE WELFARE GROUP,
    THEY HAVE RUIN OTHER GOOD PEOPLE OVER THE YEARS,
    USING THEIR SOCALLED POWER,
    NOW THEY EXTENDED THEIR STAY, THEY MUST GO,AND FEEL THE SAME PAIN,
    THEY HAVE THROW THEIR WEIGHT TOO LONG,

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *