Doug Ross:
In other words, convincing 1/10th of one percent of the American population to vote for fiscal rectitude would have changed the course of history.
Mandate my ass.
Doug Ross:
In other words, convincing 1/10th of one percent of the American population to vote for fiscal rectitude would have changed the course of history.
Mandate my ass.
Like it or not, this is how the founding fathers set up the electoral system to operate.
George W. Bush, we may recall, prevailed over Al Gore with only 271 electoral votes—just 1 more than the necessary minimum of 270. Bush also failed to win a majority of the popular votes, with around 440,000 fewer votes than Gore.
Mandate is a relative term. Did Bush have a mandate to cut federal income tax rates?
@Greg:
It’s about the margin, Greg. The country, in this election, was split roughly in half with a very small percentage of voters within the key states affording Obama as many EC votes as he will get. The Democrats picked up two senate seats, while the GOP picked up quite a few seats in the House. This election provided no mandate to either party to do anything. If anything, the electorate expects them all to work together. Chances of that happening are somewhat low, though, given Obama’s cold shoulder treatment of the GOP after his first election.
Gridlock may be the best thing going in DC now.
Yes, it is your John Birch Right-Wing ass. Obama won with about a 2% national margin.
Now, we can have Lib and Greg explain how a 2% margin is a mandate. I’d like this explained in 2,000 words or less, but if you can’t write something meaningful, don’t start. If you can put something together, I am sure at least half of the American electorate would like to read it or maybe Obama’s State Directed Media would like to use it for explaining this dubious mandate. Lib, look up the definition of mandate before you write on the subject again, you won’t sound so dense.
I have a question. This morning I was adding all the totals to my excel file where I had both candidates % along with total votes.
Many of them showed their totals and had with 100% reporting. Now the numbers have changed. What does that mean?
Second question. NV showed the same totals this morning that it shows now but still shows the count has not finished while every other state so far has. Why?
@Greg: #1
“Mandate is a relative term. Did Bush have a mandate to cut federal income tax rates? ”
No, Greg. He didn’t have a mandate. Sometimes you have to do what you believe is right, whether other people agree with you or not.
A lack of a mandate is not a call for inaction.
Just about everyone on FA has taken heat for holding an unpopular position. But we hold those positions any, because in our minds, they are the right positions to hold.
Uno mas. Why does WA state only show 51.7 percent counted so far?
By the way, if anyone wants a copy of this workbook (xlsx or xls) here is what is on there.
State-EV Romney-% Romney-# Votes Romney-EV Obama-% Obama-# Votes Obama-Other Votes-Spread (Romney vs. Obama)-100% Reported?-# Votes Johnson-% Reported @ 22:30 PM on 11/7/12
All of the items above are the top row. I also did this for 2008. Aren’t accountants fun?
THIS WILL BE MY LAST POST IF NO ONE IS INTERESTED BUT WHY IS MARYLAND SHOWING A VOTE REDUCTION IN ROMNEY FROM EARLIER TODAY? IT WAS 904,970 AND NOW IS 901,260.
WAIT, IT JUST CHANGED BACK?
I AM AT THIS LINK.
MANY STATES ARE STILL COUNTING. AVG COMPLETION IS STILL ONLY 98.2%. I AM NOT SAYING ANYTHING, JUST STATING AND SORRY FOR THE CAPS. I WORK IN ALL CAPS.
Okay I lied. Now Michigan has REDUCED Romney’s number by 7,000 votes. What the hell is going on?
NY Romney count has been reduced. Since no one else seems to be curious about this I will stop. Thanks
WA is all mail-in ballots. As long as it is postmarked before the official closing time it is valid, so there is a lag for mail delivery and the final count.
@jlfintx:
The 100% usually refers to precinct voting machine turn out. Without being there, I can’t say why they are taking away votes. Some locations also started counting provisional votes (they did so in Florida before those voters still in line got to the polls).
@jlfintx: well duh — sounds like you may be ahead of yourself
@jlfintx: Writing in from Seattle — I can assure you that any info from WA WA state is crapp — at least we do not have to hear all the BS recounts with ballots popping outta every other demo poll workers ass — the real reason is propbably because this fraudulent state has all mail in voting — so they weren’t even opening a lot of the envelopes until today
@jlfintx:
I’ll take a copy jlfintx
email to: Aquaman43@gmail.com
@Greg:
I like the electoral college system, never want to see it change.
No, but he had the numbers in congress to pass it.
@Liberal1 (Subjectivity): Once again, you demonstrate your mindless ignorance and lack of graciousness. winning a contest 75% to 25% is a mandate. Winning with it so close to 50/50 as to make no difference is a call to have some humility and to compromise. Obama has neither of these traits.
May you reap what you sow. My only consolation, this as it is, is that you’re in the same leaky rowboat. Of course, when the water gets up to your knees you won’t have any clue why, but you are a liberal after all. You aren’t required to know anything, just to feel.
@Greg: If Bush didn’t have a mandate then 0-blama has even less of that!!
@Liberal1 (Objectivity): That ain’t squat Dbag!!
I could be wrong on this, but didn’t greg argue that Bush didn’t have a mandate when he won back in 2000? I know for a fact his liberal bretheren did. Funny, now that it’s reversed he says obama does.
My stance now is what it was then. obama got the 270+ and that is all that matters. Mandate shmandate. He won.
HR, this is one of the few times I disagree with you. A substantial win encourages a president to set sail on his chosen course. A win representing only a few percentage points means there will be considerable resistance to a president’s agenda and he would be well advised to pay attention or at least listen to the opposition. It may not mean much to an arrogant narcissist, but it could be critical to the future of the Democrat Party during the elections that are two and four years away.
Let them gloat and bask in a shallow victory. The results indicate a shallow victory and with economic hardship ahead, now is the time to rebuild and carry on with the momentum we have. The economy, increasing energy costs, and the tax increases will soon have many Americans weary of “The Won.” There is no mandate and this fool wanted revenge, his revenge will come as a result of his own policies coming back at him.
Skook, I have a hard time believing he will even move a little towards the center and work with the GOP. I doubt he is capable of such a thing.
I just hope that when the economy takes another dip and the cost of electricity and food items goes up, more people will blame obama and the dems this time.
I have to hand it to the dems. They got enough of the know nothing voters to turn out to make a difference. Impressive feat.
If the GOP doesn’t do the same next time around then they really are done.
@Hard Right:
Carville, of all people, was suggesting that Obama pull Clinton in for a talk on how he can work with the GOP. This was late, late on election nite when it seemed all but certain that Obama was going to be re-elected, but with a split Congress and smaller popular vote victory than in 2008.
Of course, I don’t expect Obama would entertain any opinions from Carville, let alone actually talk to Clinton on how to “govern from the center”.
All you have to do is look at the statements made by our resident liberal and liberal/progressive friends here to see that Obama has a “mandate”, even though the demographics polling shows Obama gained very little on election nite while the GOP gained quite a bit since 2008.
No, the narcissist will not play ball with anyone. His agenda. His rules. His ball.
What, exactly, do people believe Obama thinks he now has a “mandate” to do?
In my view, the idea of a mandate was mostly on the republican side of the equation. I’m pretty sure they would have viewed Romney’s victory and the winning of a republican majority in the Senate—even if the margins of victory were far narrower—as a mandate to eliminate virtually everything Obama has done in his first four years. They clearly stated their intention to repeal the Affordable Healthcare Act; they clearly stated that the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act must go; they clearly had their sights on Roe v. Wade; there were all of the provisions of the Ryan Budget, suggesting a host of other things they intended. They clearly intended radical roll-backs in environmental regulation; in federal regulatory power in general, if I haven’t read them incorrectly.
Obama will likely approach deficit reduction with the protection of many of those things in mind. He’ll advocate balanced spending reductions, rather than reductions focused entirely on social programs. He’ll likely push for a return to the high end tax rates of the Clinton era, as he’s long said he would. Immigration reform will likely come up, but his approach may not be all that different from those some republicans advocated in the past.
Compared with what republicans might have thought they’d been licensed to do if they’d regained both majority control of the Senate and the presidency, any mandate Obama might presume will likely be far less drastic. And in every case, he’ll have to work through a republican-majority House. The best he can actually hope for is that policies acceptable to centrists will prevail. Even that will be a struggle.
@Greg:
You’d have to ask your fellow liberal/progressives that question, Greg. Conservatives don’t believe Obama has anything close to one. And, to be fair, you would be correct on some viewing a Romney win as a mandate, no matter how small.
If anything, the country voiced a united opinion that they would like to see the Republicans and Democrats work together on the issues. What remains to be seen, however, is if Obama and the Dem senate are willing to come to the table at all and discuss them. Bipartisanship and compromise do not include what we saw during Obama’s first term, Greg. That was truly “inflicting” their opinions on other people.
@Aqua:
You should never put your email address online like that unless you want to receive tons of spam and more malicious emails. There are harvest-bots that search the web looking for openly displayed emails. Instead, obfuscate your email slightly by doing such things as this:
myEmail_AT_ipsDOTbiz
myEmail(a)ipsDOTbiz
Obama won the popular vote by 2.4%.
Obama received more than 50% of the popular vote
More than 50% of the total popular vote in the Senate went toward Democratic candidates.
More than 50% of the total popular vote in the House went toward Democratic candidates (despite the GOP winning more House seats, entirely owing to creative gerrymandering).
The narrative that the GOP lost the Presidential election because Romney was a bad candidate or made strategic mistakes or Chris Christie giving him a bear hug or whatever is objectively unfounded.
I just read a very thoughtful analysis from a conservative, as a comment on the Huff Po. I’d like to know what other people here think of it:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/08/mitt-romney-florida-election-results_n_2094513.html
On top of that, Nate Silver just presented a very important analysis. Nate was excoriated by conservatives for being “biased,” but he was dead on with every single projection he made. He called 50 of 50 states and he even called Florida as the closest state. Even at the height of Romney’s post first debate comeback, Nate never found Romney’s probability of victory to go above 35%, at his very closest.
Nate today did an analysis which shows a built in advantage in the electoral college structure, favoring Democrats. This will persist in the 2016 and 2020 elections, until re-districting kicks in for 2024. Nate says that the GOP will have to win the popular vote by 3% to overcome the Democratic electoral college structure advantage. On the other hand, as noted above, the GOP has the advantage until 2022, regarding the electoral structure for the House of Representatives.
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA
Hi Ditto:
This is just regards paranoia in never releasing personal information.
I’ve been publicly commenting on the Internet since the early 1990s (on the old CompuServe Cancer Forum, circa 1992). Doing it on the WWW since 1994 or thereabouts. Always sign my own name. Often give out my email address. Anyone who wants to can readily track me down. I’m not shy about stating political positions.
In the ensuing 20 years, I get a bit more spam in my public email addresses than in my private email adresses, but it’s entirely manageable. It’s easy to maintain both “public” and “private” email addresses. In addition, I’ve never had anyone slash my tires or show up at my front door with a running chain saw or Glock. I think that I’ve received a total of two phone calls from heavy breathers, but two in 20 years is entirely manageable.
I wish that people didn’t hide behind pseudonyms. The First Amendment is worthless, if we can’t publicly state our views, standing behind these views with our own names. Otherwise, it’s just like scribbling graffiti.
This is just a cranky complaint I feel the need to make, about once a year or so.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
I’d agree almost completely with that comment from Huffpo, Larry. What I won’t agree with is some implication that we conservatives should just abandon our principles. I never will. I love freedom and liberty too much. Now, you pooh-pooh the use of those two terms all the time Larry, but for me, they aren’t just terms of expression. They are what this country was founded upon, mainly freedom and liberty from an oppressive, overbearing, gluttonous government. We Americans have created, in modern day, what our ancestors fought to be free from.
This election? It was all about “stuff”, Larry. It was about which political party the electorate believed would give them the most “stuff”. At least for just over 50% of them. We have come of age, finally, to that which we had been warned of, by numerous historical figures. We’ve hit the point where over half the electorate has determined that by voting a certain way, they can vote themselves “stuff”. Free condoms. Free abortion on demand. Free healthcare. Free cell-phones. Free food. Free places to live. Lots and lots of “free” “stuff”.
Read that posting you quoted again, Larry. It’s not a realization that the person’s beliefs are wrong. It’s a lamentation about where our country is right now.
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
You have a point. But I would counter that those who prefer the pseudonyms do so as a reflection on who they are.
Hi John,
Firstly, I would never think, much less imply, much less state, that anyone should abandon their principles! You should fight for your principles, as you do. As I do, for that matter.
I object – strenuously – to the statement that I “pooh-pooh” the use of the terms “freedom” and “liberty.” That’s almost a libelous statement. Since you say that I do it “all the time,” perhaps you can point to a single case in which I did this.
What I do criticize is trivializing the meaning of these sacred terms (freedom and liberty). Or misapplying these terms. Again, if you have a specific example, bring it up. I can’t respond to a generalization.
With regard to the Huff Po comment, I also don’t want to be misunderstood. I wasn’t saying, for example, that it was a good thing that the USA has a thin majority of people who are not persuaded by the arguments of modern day conservatism (many aspects of which I certainly do embrace, as I always “test” out as being center-left on economic issues and center-right on social issues, whenever I fill out one of those “twenty questions” quizzes on web sites which offer the opportunity to score one’s political views).
My only purpose in posting it was to see whether or not other conservatives agree with the assessment. Frequently, conservatives defend their views, not on the basis of factual or even philosophical arguments, but simply by asserting “America is a center right nation.” It’s the same thing as asserting that being gay is bad, based on no argument beyond stating that gays are in a minority.
If we can finally agree that liberals are not just some sort of fringe element, and can, on that basis, be simply dismissed out of hand, then we can have more substantive debates in the future. Conservatives are not a clear majority. Liberals are not a clear majority. Numerically speaking, we are equal and our respective views are equally deserving of being considered on the objective merits of these respective views.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA
Larry, your Conservative sounds like an agent provocateur to me. I’d like to see his biography of commentary from the past. It is just a little to similar to what a Liberal might dream of having Conservatives evolve towards. You don’t really believe everything you read on HufPo do you? It is easy to ask Conservatives to alter their position on the most Progressive site on the internet, but a far different matter to express such opinions on a Conservative site.
I understand that new signs are going to be put in all U.S. international airports.
WELCOME TO THE LAND OF THE FREEBIES.
Hi Skook (#33):
I don’t think that the identity of the commenter is important (i.e. is she/he a “real” conservative). Since virtually no one signs his/her name anyway, I don’t evaluate the importance of anything by who wrote it. Or on what blog it appears. Stuff on the Internet is just like something overheard on a subway. Simply food for thought; you don’t change your life based on anonymous hearsay. But food for thought, none-the-less.
So forget about who wrote it. I wasn’t quoting it as an authoritative piece. As I wrote, I was asking people here whether or not they agreed with it — again, not with regard to whether or not it was a good thing that liberals may now have a slight plurality, but simply whether or not they agreed that liberals are now, numerically speaking, equal in number to conservatives and that America is not a “center-right” country, polluted by a few looney liberals, but is a sharply divided country, which is equally “center right” and “center left.”
John more or less agreed with assessment of the Huff Po commenter. How about you and if not, why not?
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
After further research we may not have hit the tipping point yet, but I do think we are now a center-center country. I can see in our lifetimes an America where we will be a center left at the current rate.
As for Silver, he may have been wrong until hurricane Sandy. Even your fellow liberals are crediting Sandy with the save.
Here’s a speculative article on the polls and Sandy.
http://minx.cc/?post=334782
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/nation_world/20121108_Vote_was_astronomical_for_Obama_in_some_Philadelphia_wards.html
In 13 Philadelphia wards, Obama received 99 percent of the vote or more!
Nor was Philadelphia the only place in the region with such high numbers for Obama. Five Delaware County towns topped 90 percent, led by Yeadon at 96.3. Following were Chester City (94.8), Darby Borough (93.5), Chester Township (92.3), and Colwyn (90.3).
Mayor Nutter doubles as leader of the city’s 52d Ward where nearly 96 percent of voters in his ward pushed the button for Obama.
WHY???
One voter ,Shakiena Williams, explains:
“Everyone was so dependent on [Obama].”
Some wards had TWO Republican committee men but only ONE vote for Romney!
Sounds fishy.
@Ditto:
Thanks Ditto. They typically exclude gmail accounts. There are a lot of people that use their gmail for spam or secondary accounts. I use it for just that reason. It is not my primary account. Plus there are certain things I can do with gmail to block such attempts. I could give my primary account; I control the server and the exchange server. Such an attack on my email would not bode well for the attacker. Networking and software is what I do. 🙂
Hi Nan,
That was ZERO, in 120 random African American voters surveyed in a pre-election NBC/WSJ poll. I don’t think that you’d accuse NBC and/or the WSJ for election polling fraud.
From the above article:
Now, on a national basis, Obama’s advantage among African-Americans was overwhelming. I don’t have the exact percentage, but it was extremely high, and approaching unanimous among A-A women. It wouldn’t be surprising if certain urban precincts, in a city with strong de facto segregation in housing, weren’t nearly unanimous for Obama.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
I do it to protect my employer, not myself. It’s the same reason I don’t post anything on Facebook that isn’t completely benign. You can email my gmail account and I’d be happy to give you my information via my real email account. I’m pretty comfortable with just about everyone here on FA, except Ivan and Lib1.
Hi Hard Right,
It’s not just that Silver called the winner (unlike Rove, George Will, and Dick Morris), he nailed the precise percentages, on a state by state basis. All of the GOP public pollsters were wrong, right up to the day of the election. I posted a link to an interesting graphical representation of this. It’s a huge advantage to know what the polls are really telling you. I gave the example of trying to fly with instruments in a fog. The Dems had the better flight instruments; they knew where they were going. The GOP pollsters and pundits were, by comparison, flying blind. It’s one of the things that the GOP might try to improve, next time around.
I don’t think, either, that it would be wise to blame Romney’s defeat on Hurricane Sandy. There was no evidence whatsoever that Romney was gaining any ground following his first debate bounce — in fact, all the data showed that Obama had recovered from his low post-debate point and was even trending upward. At no time did Romney ever have enough of an electoral vote count to put himself over 270.
Well, all I can say is that you underestimate Nate Silver at your own peril. And you blame election outcomes on hurricanes at your own peril, as well. I don’t expect the operatives from future GOP campaigns to do either.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA
P.S. Thanks for the polite tone of the comment! Truly.
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
I don’t and never have thought liberals are a fringe element. I do think there is a socialist element on the left. I don’t think you or Rich or socialists; Greg may be pretty close, he’s to the left of both of you. I think the problem is this: The left can come together much more easily than the right. We have two fringe elements. We have libertarians and the religious right. Somewhere in there you have conservatives. The three of us can’t come together.
I think the libertarians may come home though. I read a pretty good article on the death of neo-conservatism. I’m pretty happy to see it go and would like to pave the way for it to hit to door as fast as possible. The good thing about this is they will go back to the left. Hopefully, that will split you guys up again. 🙂
Larry, this screed is so patently obvious, it hints of Liberal condescension. Let’s assume it is a sample of Leftist ideynost (ideological expression) before we begin. The fact that is so lacking in originality reveals the amateurish thinking of the author.
As our prologue, we should address the matter of statistics, not their accuracy, but their origin. When Democrat states elect their foregone conclusions to Senate and house seats it is reasonable that the high population states like California and New York will elect their representatives with resounding totals. Hurrah! assuming we abandon the definition of a mandate and declare any winner as having a mandate, then like 8% unemployment becomes acceptable, a 2.4% margin becomes a mandate, and soon a 3.5% margin is a landslide. Gerrymandering is an old curse or sin depending on who is in power; both sides use the vice, so its effectiveness is always tenuous and temporary at best.
I assume we should give this process of Conservative surrender a name, in fairness to the author “bekahlyons.” We should make the name of this philosophy eponymous; thus the process of abandoning our Constitution, the morality of our founding fathers, and our religious beliefs, should be considered the philosophy of that great renowned Conservative “bekahylons,” for whom we shall ever be indebted for this process known as capitulation of all our ideals and traditions. However, in this philosophy so similar in nature to that of Chamberlin; he has forgotten one most dear to the Conservative psyche, and one only a Liberal or Progressive would forget to mention: fiscal responsibility. How bizarre to have such a dedicated Conservative forget such a key component to the Conservative belief system. Have we not voted a mandate for fiscal irresponsibility? Perhaps it is merely a catachresis and meant to be corrected in the near future or perchance we have pretentious Liberal who falters during the epitasis due to a sudden fit of catharsis from his guilt at the depth of his deceit or maybe his bathos has overwhelmed his ability to carry out the ruse. Unfortunately, his exitasis is premature due to his exposure as a fraud and the world little notes nor long remembers the foolishness of bekahylons.
Does he deserve a Homeric epithet, no, indeed no: “He who does not need to lie is proud of not being a liar.” Nietzsche
“How beauteous mankind is! O brave new world
That has such people in’t Shakespeare
False face must hide
what the false heart doth know Macbeth
The Devil can cite scripture for his purpose. The Merchant of Venice
Thus conscience does make cowards of us all;
And thus the native hue of resolution
Is sickled o’er with the pale cast of thought Hamlet
I trust you have a vague appreciation of my opinions of this man with his theory of capitulation.
“I, like the 57 million who voted for Romney, have been horribly wrong about a number of assumptions. For Conservatives, Defeat offers clarity. If we had any doubts as to our position, yesterday’s election put an end to them. Conservatism and Progressive Liberalism are in fact two different ideologies. This country is no longer a center- right nation. America is presently a deeply divided country with a center-left plurality. We have become a post- constitutional republic. No rationalizing can derive at an alternative conclusion. The majority of the U.S. electorate has overwhelmingly rejected conservatism as an applied ideology for governance. Every time I chided a progressive for not grasping where we were as a culture I was naïve and absolutely wrong. There has been a fundamental transformation of the country. We are no longer the Judeo Christian nation, which embraces the principles of our founding, documents. We have in fact evolved and embraced a more secular, global, European- socialist style model of governing and culture. The polls were not skewed and the voter turn out was D +3 even +6 in some areas. The slim majority voices have been heard and they have gotten the country they envision. This majority do in fact champion what Obama has done in his first term.”
Larry, you have my permission to quote my response to this antithesis of Conservatism in whatever fetid swamp of corruption that publishes bekahylons.
@jlfintx:
i read something today about the same softwear used in casinos to stack the odds and deck for the house was used in this election by the company owned by soros selected to do the vote count. hope that helps
No way, please provide links!
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
Larry, a long time ago I accused you of being a liar. You called me on it, and I subsequently apologized.
However, this;
That is BS, Larry. No, you don’t do it “all the time”. I exaggerated. But you have done it, including a long sermon to myself and a couple of others on doing that. If I had one small bit of the talent Mata has at mining through past postings here, I’d paste it right now. Possibly someone else might do so. Suffice to say, you have done that, Larry. I know it. I read it.
Did I not say that I agree with that poster’s assessment, Larry?
I will agree that ‘liberals’ are not a fringe element, Larry. However, and this is something that you and the other Democrat supporters around here deny constantly, the Democratic Party is not the party of the liberals anymore. It is led by liberal/progressives. Those people that are but one or two small steps away from being full-blown socialists. Go ahead. Deny it. You cannot see it because your perspective is skewed.
As far as freedom and liberty are concerned, the Democratic party cannot claim that they stand for them anymore, given what they have promoted, passed, and signed into law over the past four years. It’s not protecting individual freedom and liberty, for example, when you force a person to engage in commerce they do not wish to engage in. That is nothing but tyranny, Larry, and is reminiscent of King George forcing his will upon the colonies.
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
(1) Re: my warning about posting Emails: Having managed email accounts for various individuals as webmaster over few domains, as well as having to (as a computer technician) repair operating systems due to various email attacks, trojans, virus etc., I know of which I speak. The fact that you’ve have only minimally been affected is no doubt a matter of both luck and continued diligence on the part of your internet provider in utilizing blackhole protocols to block emails from particular DNS addresses.
(2) Re: pseudonyms: People from all points of views have used pseudonyms since the the inception of the internet. There reasons have been varied and in many cases valid. (Incidentally, I use here in FA one of my nicknames that I have had for decades before Rush ever went on the air.) IMO the real reason that lefties like you are calling for people to use their “real names” on line is so that your fellow attack dogs can target them for harassment, just as some in the unions and “Occupy” movement have already done. I reject your big brother inspired appeal to this being in the spirit of the First Amendment. Take that to your far-left brethren in the hacker group “Anonymous” and see how far you get.
DITTO Obviously I use my real name.Never had a problem. I’ve never had a problem with paranoia.
I’m a Dem. and a great believer in freedom and liberty.
Skooks below Great story
Ditto, for years someone was posing as me on the internet, answering questions and giving advice. This was when I lived in the back country with no internet. Eventually he faded away, but it was more than a little disconcerting. People used to walk up to me and talk about our internet conversations and I had never been on the internet; actually, it took many years before I ventured onto the ether. I still wonder who the weirdo was who wanted to pose as me. Apparently he gave out some pretty good advice, at least no one was mad at me.
Hi John,
The following, to me, is of more than trivial concern, which is why I won’t let it drop:
Here’s what you charged:
To which I responded:
Now you say:
I’ll tell you what:
If you or anyone else can show so much as a single example of where I pooh-pooh the use of the terms “freedom” and “liberty,” I’ll donate $50 to the tax deductible charity of your choice and post a hard copy of the receipt on one of my web sites.
Now, I first give you credit for calling it the “Democratic” party, as opposed to the childish and intentionally annoying descriptor “Democrat” party. If we were to have another child, we’d have the right to name her whatever me and my wife wanted. Polite people would respect our choice and call the child by her correct name. You are “John” and not “Jon” or “Jonathan,” for example. I digress, but I do want to note my appreciation of this one point.
Moving to the rest of the last paragraph, there is a difference between freedom and liberty, on one hand, and anarchy, on the other hand. Instituting a speed limit abridges freedom. But what about criminalizing abortion? What about prohibiting same gender marriage? What about a prohibition of marijuana for personal use? What about a mandate to purchase health insurance? Wear a motorcycle helmet? Not rake the autumn leaves in your front lawn into piles in your driveway and burn them up (which is what everyone did, at one time, when I was growing up in Michigan)?
I can understand how people with honest differences of opinion could come down on either side of the above issues. I’d never accuse a person of taking a position opposite to that of my own, in issues such as these, of being anti-freedom or anti-liberty, in a general sense. Nor should you.
Let’s take the insurance mandate. This idea came out of the conservative Heritage Foundation and was supported by Newt Gingrich, among many others. Whatever you might say about Newt (and Bob Dole, Chuck Grassley, and Mitt Romney), I’d defend all of them against the charge that they were not supportive of freedom and liberty. The same for most Republicans who are in favor of criminalization of abortion and/or marijuana use.
Among other things, we are a nation of constitutional law. Presidents swear to defend it, so do soldiers, and so do judges. The Supreme Court is the ultimate arbitrator of the constitutionality of laws, as clearly defined in the Constitution itself. The health insurance mandate is, therefore, constitutional, just as are federal prohibitions of drug use, and other similar laws which “promote the general welfare,” within the framework of the Bill of Rights and the rest of the Constitution.
Freedom and liberty are truly sacred terms and accusing someone of disrespecting these concepts, simply because said person has a different point of view on a given issue is reprehensible. For what freedoms do soldiers fight and die? For the great Constitutional freedoms. I doubt that anyone in history fought and died for the freedom to avoid paying a fine or tax in lieu of purchasing health insurance. That’s what I mean by the trivialization of the terms “freedom” and “liberty.”
When you trivialize words, you cheapen their meaning, and some words are so sacred that they shouldn’t be cheapened.
Consider, “that’s awesome, bro.’ ” “Awesome” used to be a very powerful word — literally, inspiring awe, the dictionary definition of which is “a feeling of reverential respect mixed with fear or wonder.” But the word awesome has now been trivialized beyond value. At a minimum, we now have to say “that’s incredibly, amazingly awesome, bro.’ ”
Or, “making me purchase 2 16 ounce servings of cola when I want a quart is taking away my freedom.”
No one fights and dies for trivial stuff like that. There’s a difference between Freedom and freedom.
P.S. to Skook, thanks for taking the time to do as I asked, which was to give your views on the Huff Po comment in question. Very thoughtful response.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA