OT - Rep Todd Akin Exposes Romney, Ryan For The Bastards They Really Are

[Mark S]

and that would be anti-women knuckle draggers who AGREE on redefining
what rape is, denying women access to reproductive rights AND a trio
of people working to pass personhood amendments that would make
everything from the morning after pill to invitro fertilization
MURDER.

1. Paul Ryan co-sponsored a personhood bill with Todd Akin. That bill
would define as murder anything that interfered with a fertilized egg
developing into a child.

2. Mitt Romney told Mike Huckabee on the air that he would sign such a
personhood amendment if it came to his desk if he were president.

3. Paul Ryan co-sponsored a bill that would have redefined the
definition of rape, making up a new term, "forcible rape."

There is not a molecule of air between the position of Todd Akin and
his anti-women pals Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan.

The choice is so clear in this election.

Now, let's hear from the rmcr RW apologists on how I am
misinterpreting the extreme views of Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney. I look
forward to hearing how Owen, Frank, Bob et al have no problem voting
for these anti-women bastards.

[Gerard]

Mark S <markst...@yahoo.com> typed:

wrong ng again
(didn't we already have 5 Ryan threads weekly?)

[Mark S]

On Aug 20, 4:17 pm, "Gerard" <ghendrikse-nospa...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Mark S <markstenr...@yahoo.com> typed:

>
> wrong ng again
> (didn't we already have 5 Ryan threads weekly?)

fuck you

[Bob Harper]

Boy, there's some high class communication.

As to your hyperbolic statement, I think it noteworthy that by this time
tomorrow, Todd Akin will be out of the race, having been urged to do so
by virtually the entire Republican Party, including Messrs. Romney and
Ryan. Meanwhile, Joe Biden can brazenly appeal to racial animus in an
attempt to keep African-Americans on the plantation, and the sound we
hear from his party is....crickets.

As to your numbered allegations, they are your own extreme (see, I can
use that word too) interpretations, nothing more.

Look, Mark, we know who you're for, and we know who I'm for. I seem to
remember we have a small wager on the matter. That being the case, I'm
not going to get drawn into a pissing contest with you. Until November
7, over and out.

Bob Harper

[MiNe 109]

In article <YcAYr.606910$2a.1...@en-nntp-14.dc1.easynews.com>,

Bob Harper <bob.h...@comcast.net> wrote:

> Meanwhile, Joe Biden can brazenly appeal to racial animus in an
> attempt to keep African-Americans on the plantation, and the sound we
> hear from his party is....crickets.

He was doing the same thing you just did.

[Kip Williams]

Bob Harper wrote, On 8/20/12 8:00 PM:

> As to your hyperbolic statement, I think it noteworthy that by this time
> tomorrow, Todd Akin will be out of the race, having been urged to do so
> by virtually the entire Republican Party, including Messrs. Romney and
> Ryan. Meanwhile, Joe Biden can brazenly appeal to racial animus in an
> attempt to keep African-Americans on the plantation, and the sound we
> hear from his party is....crickets.

So you've conveniently bought into the inane fiction that "Y'all" is
some kind of awful word (though "kill" and "target" and "sick" are all
perfectly nice things for Republicans to say), and that one must never
mention c-h-a-i-n-s to the negroes, because they're all delicate flowers
who can't be exposed to that sort of thing (and they should just get
over it, like all the conservatives keep saying, except for right now,
right?).

It's a non-scandal.

But I'm as shocked as you that Akin can be drummed out of a race just
for saying out loud that you can't get pregnant from being raped. That
sort of ignorance is as American as apple pie, if only the press had
stayed out of it.


Kip W

[Mark S]

On Aug 20, 5:00 pm, Bob Harper <bob.har...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
> As to your hyperbolic statement, I think it noteworthy that by this time
> tomorrow, Todd Akin will be out of the race, having been urged to do so
> by virtually the entire Republican Party, including Messrs. Romney and
> Ryan.

And yet Akin's anti-women positions will remain in the hearts of
Willard Mitt Romney and Paul Davis Ryan, positions both of them have
enumerated many, many, MANY times over the years. Akin = Romney/Ryan.

It just shows what gutless cowards Romney, Ryan and the rest of the Rs
are. Their beliefs are like cockroaches - they run for cover when
exposed to the light of day. If they had any guts, they'd proudly
stand up for Todd Akin today, just as they have so proudly cosponsored
anti-woman legislation with Akin.

The Rs - they run against a fake Obama of their own imagination while
hoping that their core beliefs are somehow kept out of the debate.

BTW Bob - I know who you're for. It's just disappointing to realize
exactly WHAT you are supporting by throwing your support behind anti-
women pols like Romney and Ryan.

[Kip Williams]

Mark S wrote, On 8/20/12 10:29 PM:

> It just shows what gutless cowards Romney, Ryan and the rest of the Rs
> are. Their beliefs are like cockroaches - they run for cover when
> exposed to the light of day. If they had any guts, they'd proudly
> stand up for Todd Akin today, just as they have so proudly cosponsored
> anti-woman legislation with Akin.

Romney made some mild disclaimer about Akin's remark at first, but after
a lot of other Republicans showed that it was safe to criticize him, he
came out again and really shook his fist. Grrr.

Ryan, of course, publicly disowned his idol Ayn Rand after she touched
him in a bad place — his poll numbers.


Kip W

[Herman]

Le mardi 21 août 2012 02:00:55 UTC+2, Bob Harper a écrit :

>
> As to your hyperbolic statement, I think it noteworthy that by this time
>
> tomorrow, Todd Akin will be out of the race, having been urged to do so
>
> by virtually the entire Republican Party, including Messrs. Romney and
>
> Ryan. Meanwhile, Joe Biden can brazenly appeal to racial animus in an
>
> attempt to keep African-Americans on the plantation, and the sound we
>
> hear from his party is....crickets.
>

It is an embarrassing campaigning ritual, these Yankee politcians who start talking in a Southern drawl so as to appear more folksy, but I don't think - or rather, I know for sure - that "y'all" is racially tinged language. Whites say y'all, too, unfortunately.

Apart from that, Biden wasn't calling for "y'all" legislation, whereas conservatives are engaged in a concerted effort to redraw the map on a woman's right to her body and reproductive health, that's for sure.

Akin embarrassed the leadership in speaking dumb stuff on the record, but the effort will continue. This neanderthal language is part of the ways votes are being corralled. Remember Rush Limbaugh and his "slut" talk about women having so much sex they cannot afford birth control anymore.

[Frank Berger]

What I can't understand is how you can keep forgetting that I don't vote for
Republicans.

[bpnjensen]

and as a corollary...

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/08/14/catholic-publication-deems-president-obama-more-pro-life-than-mitt-romney/

[Mark S]

You're right. In fact, by voting for a Libertarian, you're actually on
my side, as the Libertarian hasn't a chance. Thanx!

[Jenn]

In article <YcAYr.606910$2a.1...@en-nntp-14.dc1.easynews.com>,
Bob Harper <bob.h...@comcast.net> wrote:

> On 8/20/12 4:20 PM, Mark S wrote:
> > On Aug 20, 4:17 pm, "Gerard"<ghendrikse-nospa...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> Mark S<markstenr...@yahoo.com> typed:
> >>
> >> wrong ng again
> >> (didn't we already have 5 Ryan threads weekly?)
> >
> > fuck you
>
> Boy, there's some high class communication.
>
> As to your hyperbolic statement, I think it noteworthy that by this time
> tomorrow, Todd Akin will be out of the race, having been urged to do so
> by virtually the entire Republican Party, including Messrs. Romney and
> Ryan. Meanwhile, Joe Biden can brazenly appeal to racial animus in an
> attempt to keep African-Americans on the plantation, and the sound we
> hear from his party is....crickets.
>
> As to your numbered allegations, they are your own extreme (see, I can
> use that word too) interpretations, nothing more.

Please tell us which of those allegations are interpretations, and
extreme ones at that.

--
www.jennifermartinmusic.com

[Jenn]

In article <MFCYr.6825$UW5....@newsfe15.iad>,

And Romney/Ryan have, of course, flip-flopped on their abortion
position. So predictable.

--
www.jennifermartinmusic.com

[patterbear]

On Aug 20, 11:18 pm, Jenn <jennconductsREMOVET...@mac.com> wrote:
> In article <MFCYr.6825$UW5.3...@newsfe15.iad>,

And Obama, of course, flip-flopped on his gay marriage
position. So predictable.

[Jenn]

In article
<028ac7f9-dc28-40b0...@pz10g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,

Yes, a bit. But at least he seemingly honestly stated from the
beginning that he was "evolving" on the issue. Romney, on the other
hand, has gone from pro choice, to supporting the "personhood" bills (no
abortion under any circumstances, including some birth control), to
exception for rape is OK. He flips on virtually everything.

--
www.jennifermartinmusic.com

[Mark S]

The difference, of course, is that Obama's change on gay marriage has
the result of extending equal rights to people who were being denied
the same, while Romney has gone from believing a woman has the right
to make her own decisions when it comes to reproduction to wanting to
take away those rights entirely...to carving out a small exception
just today, the sole reason for doing so being to get him and his
fellow woman hater over the current firestorm unleashed by the knuckle
dragging Akin.

Funny how the Rs are supposedly for small government...until it comes
to a woman's reproductive rights, at which point they demand a VERY
LARGE government poking its nose into every single pregnancy in the
country.

[wagnerfan]

Look Gerard is an anal retentive creep who thinks his job is to police
the group - he really has to get out of his mom's basement.

Wagner fan

[td]

It's only a fervent hope that you can see how ridiculous these nutbars
are, Bob.

We have mostly given up hope on you, you know, but some of us hold out
a shred of hope.

TD

[td]

Not really.

His position has "evolved".

Nice distinction. Some presidential candidates can actually think, as
opposed to hold opinions.

TD

[Frank Berger]

The probability that my vote, as yours, will determine an election is
vanishingly small. Besides, there are plenty of people who vote Libertarian
who would othewise vote Democratic.

[td]

On Aug 21, 5:30 am, wagnerfan <ivanmax...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Aug 2012 16:20:46 -0700 (PDT), Mark S
>

> <markstenr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >On Aug 20, 4:17 pm, "Gerard" <ghendrikse-nospa...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> Mark S <markstenr...@yahoo.com> typed:
>
> >> wrong ng again
> >> (didn't we already have 5 Ryan threads weekly?)
>
> >fuck you
>
> Look Gerard is an anal retentive creep who thinks his job is to police
> the group - he really has to get out of his mom's basement.

Gee.

Dickey's back.

Whoopee.

TD

[William Sommerwerck]

The following is addressed to both the liberals and conservatives in this
group.

I'm liberal. It's unlikely I'll ever change. But I'm all-too aware that
liberals are often foolish and self-deluded. This country doesn't have
/enough/ socialism -- but there's a limit to how far you can restructure
society, given American's hide-bound views. And there's also the question of
just how far government should go in attempting to "perfect" society.
Liberals would be much more successful if they attacked this country's
appalling materialism and shallow self-interest, which conservatives seem to
think are right and proper in a free society.

Nevertheless... The flap over Akin's remark reveals just how INCREDIBLY
STUPID Ye Moderne Conservative is. Granted, a general disregard for facts
(not to mention truth) is a universal human failing. Liberal or
conservative, people believe what they want to believe, and rarely change
their minds.

It's just that conservatives have raised Utter Stupidity to a fine art. How
anyone can believe that the trauma of being raped sets biological systems
into motion that prevent an egg from being fertilized (or the fertilized egg
from being implanted in the uterine wall -- which is it?) is beyond me.

You'll also find conservatives claiming that homosexuals want to legalize
marriage between men and boys; that the percentage rate of paederasty among
homosexual men is 10 times as great as among heterosexual men (how can
anyone know?); that homosexuals are trying to destroy marriage; that they
oppose "true" religion. (Given that homosexuals were sometimes burned at the
stake -- the likely origin of the word faggot ("bundle of sticks") -- the
latter wouldn't be much of a surprise.) Yet they speak these lies, and when
the SPLC calls them "hate speech", they are deeply offended.

When conservatives talk about "freedom", they mean the freedom of business
to do as it wishes, the freedom of individuals to be uneducated and
unemployed, and the freedom of the church to impose its will on government
and individuals.

Do you understand why I HATE almost all conservatives? (I used to think
Clint Eastwood was a pretty bright guy, but I'm having second thoughts.) The
thoughtful ones who occasionally have real insights and good ideas have been
marginalized, and are on the verge of political extinction.

If Romney wins this election, and Congress swings his way, we are likely to
see the fulfillment of the Reagan Revolution -- the destruction of the New
Deal and the middle class. This is many times worse than socialized medicine
(which I'm against, by the way).

If this country ever experiences violent revolution, it's far more likely to
come from the far right than from the far left. I am seriously considering
purchasing a big hand gun.

[Kip Williams]

Jenn wrote, On 8/21/12 2:18 AM:

> And Romney/Ryan have, of course, flip-flopped on their abortion
> position. So predictable.

They'll flop back after the election, if they win. They just want to
look more reasonable for the voters, some of whom care about women and
their rights.


Kip W

[Gerard]

Mark S <markst...@yahoo.com> typed:

Typical Mark S reply.

[J.Martin]

[snip of a lot of excellent stuff i was entirely in agreement with>

> Do you understand why I HATE almost all conservatives? (I used to think
> Clint Eastwood was a pretty bright guy, but I'm having second thoughts.) The
> thoughtful ones who occasionally have real insights and good ideas have been
> marginalized, and are on the verge of political extinction.
>

I was completely in agreement up to this point. I find the modern day
right wing Republican Party terrifying in its willful ignorance and
disregard of reality. From Obama’s birth certificate to climate
change to the basics of female anatomy, they seem determined to ignore
simple facts in evidence in favor of fantasies that support their
ideological positions. But I don’t hate them. I fear their
mindlessness. And I wish for the more moderate conservatives to join
us in speaking out against them. It wasn’t all that long ago that
conservatism was a an entirely credible intellectual position, and
conservatives had important contributions to make in our national
political dialogue. I don’t believe, either, that liberals have all
the answers or that unchecked liberalism is a good thing. I think our
system is engineered to require compromise between reasonable
individuals, and I believe that will usually result in good
government. Unfortunately, modern conservatism is not reason-based,
and it’s an ideology that foreswears compromise.

> If Romney wins this election, and Congress swings his way, we are likely to
> see the fulfillment of the Reagan Revolution -- the destruction of the New
> Deal and the middle class. This is many times worse than socialized medicine
> (which I'm against, by the way).
>

In other words, a re-run of the Bush years.

> If this country ever experiences violent revolution, it's far more likely to
> come from the far right than from the far left. I am seriously considering
> purchasing a big hand gun.

I'll be the guy on a motorcyle, heading for Canada.

[Mark S]

On Aug 21, 8:56 am, "Gerard" <ghendrikse-nospa...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Mark S <markstenr...@yahoo.com> typed:
>
> > On Aug 20, 4:17 pm, "Gerard" <ghendrikse-nospa...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > Mark S <markstenr...@yahoo.com> typed:
>
> > > wrong ng again
> > > (didn't we already have 5 Ryan threads weekly?)
>
> > fuck you
>
> Typical Mark S reply.

Only typical in your case, Gerard, as you're an annoying cipher when
it comes to contributing to this group.

[Gerard]

Mark S <markst...@yahoo.com> typed:

No, it's typical you, an annoying OT freak.

[Herman]

Calls for Akin to drop out of the race are now in vain, as the committee preparing the GOP convention in Florida is proposing a constitutional amendment banning all forms of abortion, no matter if rape or incest is involved.

This is what the party of small government is about.

[Mark S]

On Aug 21, 10:39 am, Herman <her...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Calls for Akin to drop out of the race are now in vain, as the committee preparing the GOP convention in Florida is proposing a constitutional amendment banning all forms of abortion, no matter if rape or incest is involved.
>
> This is what the party of small government is about.

Yep. They want to get rid of any government regulation of business
while sticking government's nose in everybody's bedrooms.

[Mark S]

On Aug 20, 11:18 pm, Jenn <jennconductsREMOVET...@mac.com> wrote:

> In article <MFCYr.6825$UW5.3...@newsfe15.iad>,

No matter, as the Rs most likely will - today - again adopt "no
abortion for any reason whatsoever, including rape and incest" as a
plank in their Party's platform, just as they did in 2004 & 2008.

[Dufus]

>On Aug 21, 12:39 pm, Herman <her...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Calls for Akin to drop out of the race are now in vain, as the committee preparing the GOP convention in Florida is proposing a constitutional amendment banning all forms of abortion, no matter if >rape or incest is involved. This is what the party of small government is about.

And I think Akin just announced on Huckabee's show Akin is not
dropping out. Why should he, since the GOP platform will support his
view, as the platform has since 2004. And hasn't Huckabee turned out
to be a Limbaugh shill !

Oh well, for a little levity, the Top 10 one-liner jokes from the
Edinburgh Fringe Festival this week:

http://tinyurl.com/coo2mky

[Dufus]

>On Aug 21, 1:01 pm, Dufus <steveha...@gmail.com> wrote:
> for a little levity, the Top 10 one-liner jokes from the
> Edinburgh Fringe Festival this week:
> http://tinyurl.com/coo2mky

Rob Beckett – “ You know you’re working class when your TV is bigger
than your book case.”

[Herman]

Le mardi 21 août 2012 20:01:30 UTC+2, Dufus a écrit :


>
> Oh well, for a little levity, the Top 10 one-liner jokes from the
>
> Edinburgh Fringe Festival this week:
>

Some of the jokes are too "written" but this one got a giggle:

7. George Ryegold – “Pornography is often frowned upon, but that’s only because I’m concentrating."

[Dufus]

>On Aug 21, 11:44 am, "J.Martin" <mistalu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I'll be the guy on a motorcyle, heading for Canada.

Hold on ; Kirk Cameron says Akin is really a "good guy."

[Kip Williams]

Mark S wrote, On 8/21/12 2:04 PM:

They just want a government small enough to fit in a woman's uterus.


Kip W

[wagnerfan]

On Tue, 21 Aug 2012 11:01:30 -0700 (PDT), Dufus <steve...@gmail.com>
wrote:

If Huckabee gains any more weight, we'll probably see him shilling
Hydroxy-Cut!!!!

Wagner fan

[J.Martin]

> > Calls for Akin to drop out of the race are now in vain, as the committee preparing the GOP convention in Florida is proposing a constitutional amendment banning all forms of abortion, no matter if rape or incest is involved.
>
> > This is what the party of small government is about.
>
> Yep. They want to get rid of any government regulation of business
> while sticking government's nose in everybody's bedrooms.

It's pretty simple really, and it has little to do with the 'size' of
government: if a policy increases the wealth and power of rich white
christian men, they're for it. If it helps women, non-whites, the
working class, or the poor, they're against it. All the rest is
window dressing.

[Frank Berger]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
> The following is addressed to both the liberals and conservatives in
> this group.
>
> I'm liberal. It's unlikely I'll ever change. But I'm all-too aware
> that liberals are often foolish and self-deluded. This country
> doesn't have /enough/ socialism

Sounds like you're a socialist, not a liberal.

-- but there's a limit to how far you
> can restructure society, given American's hide-bound views. And
> there's also the question of just how far government should go in
> attempting to "perfect" society.

Hmmm, maybe you just confused.

Liberals would be much more
> successful if they attacked this country's appalling materialism and
> shallow self-interest, which conservatives seem to think are right
> and proper in a free society.
>

Not a question of right and proper so much as rights. I have a right to be
materialistic. You have a right to try to talk me out of it. You a limited
right to take away some of my stuff in order to give it to someone else.
OTOH, I can give away as much as I want.

> Nevertheless... The flap over Akin's remark reveals just how
> INCREDIBLY STUPID Ye Moderne Conservative is.

Akin's stupidity reflects what percentage of "Conservative," do you think?

>Granted, a general
> disregard for facts (not to mention truth) is a universal human
> failing. Liberal or conservative, people believe what they want to
> believe, and rarely change their minds.
>

But it's OK when liberals do it, because they're right.

> It's just that conservatives have raised Utter Stupidity to a fine
> art. How anyone can believe that the trauma of being raped sets
> biological systems into motion that prevent an egg from being
> fertilized (or the fertilized egg from being implanted in the uterine
> wall -- which is it?) is beyond me.
>

What percentage of "Conservatives" do you think believes that? When Nancy
Pelosi or Joe Biden say stupid stuff, I don't go around saying liberals are
stupid. You shouldn't (about conservatives) either.

> You'll also find conservatives claiming that homosexuals want to
> legalize marriage between men and boys;

Some conservatives? Most conservatives? Your stereotyping is pretty
ridiculious, William

> that the percentage rate of
> paederasty among homosexual men is 10 times as great as among
> heterosexual men (how can anyone know?);

Who said that? How many conservatives believe it? I suggest you probably
don't know.

> that homosexuals are trying
> to destroy marriage; that they oppose "true" religion. (Given that
> homosexuals were sometimes burned at the stake -- the likely origin
> of the word faggot ("bundle of sticks") -- the latter wouldn't be
> much of a surprise.) Yet they speak these lies, and when the SPLC
> calls them "hate speech", they are deeply offended.
>
> When conservatives talk about "freedom", they mean the freedom of
> business to do as it wishes

"Business" is people making decisions. People have rights.

> the freedom of individuals to be
> uneducated and unemployed,

One of the greatest causes of youth unemployment is minimum wage laws,
supported by liberals and opposed by conservatives.

> and the freedom of the church to impose
> its will on government and individuals.
>

Which church is that? Churches differ in their wills. A point I've made
many times but which is ignored of course: A person favoring a particular
public policy because his values are religion based is not the same thing as
"churches" trying to impose their will(s).

> Do you understand why I HATE almost all conservatives?

I understand that you are in pain for various reasons you have shared here.
I am sorry for that. But you shouldn't hate almost all conservatives. Most
mean you no harm.

> (I used to
> think Clint Eastwood was a pretty bright guy,

>but I'm having second
> thoughts.) The thoughtful ones who occasionally have real insights
> and good ideas have been marginalized, and are on the verge of
> political extinction.
>

Which ones are those. What insights and good ideas to have conservatives
had?

> If Romney wins this election, and Congress swings his way, we are
> likely to see the fulfillment of the Reagan Revolution -- the
> destruction of the New Deal

Good

>and the middle class.

False. The middle class will blossom.

> This is many times
> worse than socialized medicine (which I'm against, by the way).

I can't imagine why you would be against it, but good for you.

>
> If this country ever experiences violent revolution, it's far more
> likely to come from the far right than from the far left.

Non-violent revolution isn't necessarily so good either. We have had a
creeping non-violent revolution from the left since 1932 or so.

>I am seriously considering purchasing a big hand gun.

I'm not sure that would be a good idea, given your moods, but it is your
right.

[Frank Berger]

J.Martin wrote:
> [snip of a lot of excellent stuff i was entirely in agreement with>
>
>> Do you understand why I HATE almost all conservatives? (I used to
>> think Clint Eastwood was a pretty bright guy, but I'm having second
>> thoughts.) The thoughtful ones who occasionally have real insights
>> and good ideas have been marginalized, and are on the verge of
>> political extinction.
>>
>
> I was completely in agreement up to this point. I find the modern day
> right wing Republican Party terrifying in its willful ignorance and
> disregard of reality. From Obama’s birth certificate to climate
> change to the basics of female anatomy, they seem determined to ignore
> simple facts in evidence in favor of fantasies that support their
> ideological positions. But I don’t hate them. I fear their
> mindlessness. And I wish for the more moderate conservatives to join
> us in speaking out against them. It wasn’t all that long ago that
> conservatism was a an entirely credible intellectual position, and
> conservatives had important contributions to make in our national
> political dialogue. I don’t believe, either, that liberals have all
> the answers or that unchecked liberalism is a good thing. I think our
> system is engineered to require compromise between reasonable
> individuals, and I believe that will usually result in good
> government.

I believe we generally have bad government, but it's the probably the best
government we can reasonably expect.
(Paraprasing Churchill)

[Frank Berger]

The party of small government is the Libertarian Party.

[William Sommerwerck]

I'm not surprised at Frank Berger's response. It is exactly what I would
expect from him, unfortunately.

[Kip Williams]

Frank Berger wrote, On 8/21/12 5:02 PM:

>> If Romney wins this election, and Congress swings his way, we are
>> likely to see the fulfillment of the Reagan Revolution -- the
>> destruction of the New Deal
>
> Good
>
>> and the middle class.
>
> False. The middle class will blossom.

This assertion is contradicted by the GOP ascendancy of recent years, in
which the middle class, created largely by the existence of unions and
of the social safety net, both of which the GOP strives to destroy, has
indeed dwindled.

Clinton raised taxes and business boomed.
Dubya slashed taxes, and the economy crashed.


Kip W

[mic]

On Tuesday, August 21, 2012 1:03:26 PM UTC-5, Mark S wrote:
> On Aug 20, 11:18 pm, Jenn <jennconductsREMOVET...@mac.com> wrote: > In article <MFCYr.6825$UW5.3...@newsfe15.iad>, >  Kip Williams <mrk...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Mark S wrote, On 8/20/12 10:29 PM: > > > > It just shows what gutless cowards Romney, Ryan and the rest of the Rs > > > are. Their beliefs are like cockroaches - they run for cover when > > > exposed to the light of day. If they had any guts, they'd proudly > > > stand up for Todd Akin today, just as they have so proudly cosponsored > > > anti-woman legislation with Akin. > > > Romney made some mild disclaimer about Akin's remark at first, but after > > a lot of other Republicans showed that it was safe to criticize him, he > > came out again and really shook his fist. Grrr. > > > Ryan, of course, publicly disowned his idol Ayn Rand after she touched > > him in a bad place his poll numbers. > > > Kip W > > And Romney/Ryan have, of course, flip-flopped on their abortion > position.  So predictable. > > --www.jennifermartinmusic.com No matter, as the Rs most likely will - today - again adopt "no abortion for any reason whatsoever, including rape and incest" as a plank in their Party's platform, just as they did in 2004 & 2008.

I'm a Missouri liberal.
Where I live is highly Republican. So, in the primaries I get a Republican ballot and vote for the weakest candidates. I voted for Akin and he proved me correct.

[Frank Berger]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
> I'm not surprised at Frank Berger's response. It is exactly what I
> would expect from him, unfortunately.

Not a very communicative response to my reply, unfortunately. As you appear
not to want to communicate, I'll try to remember not to reply to your posts
in the future.

[Frank Berger]

Kip Williams wrote:
> Frank Berger wrote, On 8/21/12 5:02 PM:
>>> If Romney wins this election, and Congress swings his way, we are
>>> likely to see the fulfillment of the Reagan Revolution -- the
>>> destruction of the New Deal
>>
>> Good
>>
>>> and the middle class.
>>
>> False. The middle class will blossom.
>
> This assertion is contradicted by the GOP ascendancy of recent years,
> in which the middle class, created largely by the existence of unions
> and of the social safety net,

False.

[Kip Williams]

Frank Berger wrote, On 8/21/12 8:17 PM:

That's not a very communicative reply. It must be that you don't want to
communicate. I'll remember that.


Kip W

[O]

In article
<4f18da23-f121-48e1...@kr6g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,
Mark S <markst...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Aug 20, 5:00 pm, Bob Harper <bob.har...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> > As to your hyperbolic statement, I think it noteworthy that by this time
> > tomorrow, Todd Akin will be out of the race, having been urged to do so
> > by virtually the entire Republican Party, including Messrs. Romney and
> > Ryan.
>
> And yet Akin's anti-women positions will remain in the hearts of
> Willard Mitt Romney and Paul Davis Ryan, positions both of them have
> enumerated many, many, MANY times over the years. Akin = Romney/Ryan.

>
> It just shows what gutless cowards Romney, Ryan and the rest of the Rs
> are. Their beliefs are like cockroaches - they run for cover when
> exposed to the light of day. If they had any guts, they'd proudly
> stand up for Todd Akin today, just as they have so proudly cosponsored
> anti-woman legislation with Akin.
>

> The Rs - they run against a fake Obama of their own imagination while
> hoping that their core beliefs are somehow kept out of the debate.
>
> BTW Bob - I know who you're for. It's just disappointing to realize
> exactly WHAT you are supporting by throwing your support behind anti-
> women pols like Romney and Ryan.

This whole Akin case is just a wonderful, wonderful lesson in politics,
how hypocritical both sides really are, and how nobody really much
cares about women's reproductive systems, because the trump card of a
Senate seat beats women's rights by a Missouri mile.

First off, some facts:

1) Akin isn't the incumbent. He's a challenger. The incumbent is a
Democrat named Claire McCaskill who's on extremely shaky grounds
herself. She was considered the most endangered Democratic senator in
the country, having failed to pay property taxes on her personal plane
on time. In the primary, there were three strong Republicans against
her. So, McCaskill throws a million dollars in funding on a campaign
to help elect the weakest of the three candidates -- you guessed it --
Representative Todd Akin. That's right. She put up campaign money in
the primary to help elect her weakest opponent.

2) The Republicans were the first to call out Akin to drop out -
because his replacement will be a stronger Republican candidate, and
thus help them win a Senate seat, and this year control of the Senate
will be crucial.

3) Claire McCaskill herself, having blasted her challenger for his rape
comments on Monday, today has come out to say that the voters duly
elected Akin, and the will of the people should prevail, and that he
should not drop out of the race. Obviously, this is a tremendous
windfall for McCaskill, who, despite rigging the election to handpick
her own opponent, was still somewhat behind, but can only be helped by
this recent gaffe by Akin.

4) Have you noticed there are no real calls from Democrats for Akin to
resign? Oh, lots of slamming him, but it's only Republicans right now
telling him he's got to step down.

5) So, to sum it up, the only reason Akin is the main candidate is
because of Democratic Party support. They gave the shove that put this
idiot into his candidacy. They want to keep him there because it's
basically the only way the Democrats keep that seat.

6) The Republicans need him to step aside, for the same reason, so that
one of the stronger also-rans in the primary can take over the race and
put the seat into solid Republican hands. With Akin still holding out,
that puts the Republicans into a bind.

7) It also puts liberals in a bind. Mark's slamming of Akin (as per
above) can only be resolved by Akin resigning his seat, which is what
all the Republicans are calling for. But that pretty much hands the
seat to the Republicans. So Mark, where do you sit? Should he resign?
Note that a poll taken last night, after the news broke, still shows
him leading in Missouri by one percentage point. Even if he doesn't
resign, he's still leading in the race. So, I ask you, Mark (and any
other liberal) should he stick it out, or should he stick his
disgraceful tail between his legs and resign? (Which you would all
agree to if it didn't cost you the chance of a Senate seat.)

I think this is hilarious and the most fun we're going to get out of a
Senate campaign this year. I thought the Brown/Warren/Pocahontas race
was going to be the icing on the cake, but this obviously has just took
first place.

-Owen

[John Wiser]

"Frank Berger" <frankd...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:geadnTPwy-Z9Za7N...@supernews.com...

For the current GOP the Libertarian Party
is no more than amateur competition.

JDW

[Frank Berger]

It communicates my belief that your premise was false. You didn't explain
why you thought it was true and I didn't explain why I thought it was false.
The extent of your communication and mine was exactly the same. And I
didn't say something like, "It's the kind of remark I would expect from
Williams."

[Dufus]

>On Aug 21, 7:24 pm, "John Wiser" <ceec...@gmail.com> wrote:

> For the current GOP the Libertarian Party
> is no more than amateur competition.
>

LOL !

I am sure glad Bully Hill vineyard is well above it all !

[Kip Williams]

Frank Berger wrote, On 8/21/12 8:27 PM:

> Kip Williams wrote:
>> Frank Berger wrote, On 8/21/12 8:17 PM:
>>> Kip Williams wrote:
>>>> Frank Berger wrote, On 8/21/12 5:02 PM:
>>>>>> If Romney wins this election, and Congress swings his way, we are
>>>>>> likely to see the fulfillment of the Reagan Revolution -- the
>>>>>> destruction of the New Deal
>>>>>
>>>>> Good
>>>>>
>>>>>> and the middle class.
>>>>>
>>>>> False. The middle class will blossom.
>>>>
>>>> This assertion is contradicted by the GOP ascendancy of recent
>>>> years, in which the middle class, created largely by the existence
>>>> of unions and of the social safety net,
>>>
>>> False.
>>
>> That's not a very communicative reply. It must be that you don't want
>> to communicate. I'll remember that.
>

> It communicates my belief that your premise was false. You didn't
> explain why you thought it was true and I didn't explain why I thought
> it was false. The extent of your communication and mine was exactly the
> same. And I didn't say something like, "It's the kind of remark I would
> expect from Williams."

I offered more support than you did for "The middle class will blossom."
I explained why they wouldn't.


Kip W

[Dufus]

>On Aug 20, 6:10 pm, Mark S <markstenr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> 1. Paul Ryan co-sponsored a personhood bill with Todd Akin. That bill
> would define as murder anything that interfered with a fertilized egg
> developing into a child.
>
> 2. Mitt Romney told Mike Huckabee on the air that he would sign such a
> personhood amendment if it came to his desk if he were president.
>
> 3. Paul Ryan co-sponsored a bill that would have redefined the
> definition of rape, making up a new term, "forcible rape."
>

Shades of Dr. Mengele.

[Herman]

Berger's thinking is completely non-empiric, if not anti-empiric.

Whatever happens in the real world does not have his interest.

[Kip Williams]

Herman wrote, On 8/21/12 11:04 PM:

And he cut my example while claiming I didn't back up my assertion.


Kip W

[Mark S]

On Aug 21, 5:23 pm, O <ow...@denofinequityx.com> wrote:
> In article
> <4f18da23-f121-48e1-b4f0-3acf54a24...@kr6g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,

>
>
>
> Mark S <markstenr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Aug 20, 5:00 pm, Bob Harper <bob.har...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > As to your hyperbolic statement, I think it noteworthy that by this time
> > > tomorrow, Todd Akin will be out of the race, having been urged to do so
> > > by virtually the entire Republican Party, including Messrs. Romney and
> > > Ryan.
>
> > And yet Akin's anti-women positions will remain in the hearts of
> > Willard Mitt Romney and Paul Davis Ryan, positions both of them have
> > enumerated many, many, MANY times over the years. Akin = Romney/Ryan.
>
> > It just shows what gutless cowards Romney, Ryan and the rest of the Rs
> > are. Their beliefs are like cockroaches - they run for cover when
> > exposed to the light of day. If they had any guts, they'd proudly
> > stand up for Todd Akin today, just as they have so proudly cosponsored
> > anti-woman legislation with Akin.
>
> > The Rs - they run against a fake Obama of their own imagination while
> > hoping that their core beliefs are somehow kept out of the debate.
>
> > BTW Bob - I know who you're for. It's just disappointing to realize
> > exactly WHAT you are supporting by throwing your support behind anti-
> > women pols like Romney and Ryan.
>
> This whole Akin case is just a wonderful, wonderful lesson in politics,
> how hypocritical both sides really are, and how nobody really much
> cares about women's reproductive systems, because the trump card of a
> Senate seat beats women's rights by a Missouri mile.
>
> First off, some facts:

>

> 7) It also puts liberals in a bind.  Mark's slamming of Akin (as per
> above) can only be resolved by Akin resigning his seat, which is what
> all the Republicans are calling for.  But that pretty much hands the
> seat to the Republicans.  So Mark, where do you sit?  Should he resign?
> Note that a poll taken last night, after the news broke, still shows
> him leading in Missouri by one percentage point.  Even if he doesn't
> resign, he's still leading in the race.  So, I ask you, Mark (and any
> other liberal) should he stick it out, or should he stick his
> disgraceful tail between his legs and resign?  (Which you would all
> agree to if it didn't cost you the chance of a Senate seat.)
>

I think Akin should stay in so McCaskill will win reelection.

Ds aren't calling for his resignation because Ds have known all about
his Paul Ryan-like anti-voting record in Congress. Why do you think
McCaskill wanted Akin to run against in the first place? We've known
about his co-sponsoring anti-women bills with Paul Ryan. That's one
reason some of us were shocked by Romney's pick of Ryan. We knew the
lazy media had never bothered looking honestly at Ryan. Otherwise,
they would never have labeled him a fiscal conservative. The media has
never called Ryan out on his extreme Christian views on abortion, and
they weren't likely to, unless Obama decided to lead them by the nose,
which is what I thought they were doing by framing the R policies as a
war against women.

But the Akin debacle is one of those blessed events that rips the scab
off the lies the Rs have been selling the public, and puts the
spotlight directly on their cockroach nest of policies. Yes, they want
Akin gone because he spilled the beans! They all think just like he
does, but they don't want the public to know what they're really
about. They want to point their collective finger at Akin and label
him as the one-and-only abortion extremist in their midst, when ALL of
them are, in fact, extremists on abortion. He's their scapegoat, their
sacrificial lamb. But they are all in the same flock, and they're all
herded by the same shepherd.

No, Akin shouldn't resign. He should put his beliefs out there in the
light of day where the electorate can see them, just as ALL Rs should
put their TRUE beliefs out there for the public to see. Up to this
point, they have avoided doing so, because they know the American
people find their core beliefs to be extreme and frightening. Think
about it: they keep their true beliefs hidden while concocting lies of
a "false Obama" that they can run against. Why? Because they know that
the American people like Obama personally, AND that they like his
policies once they learn what his policies have actually done for the
country. That's why Romney/Ryan LIE and say that Obama "stole $716-B
from Medicare," and continue to say it even after every legitimate
news organization and fact check group has said they are lying about
it.

Sorry, Owen, but Liberals are not at all in a bind about this. No, we
- and Team Obama - are playing hardball this time around. We are not
apologizing. We are not backing down. We realize that this is war, and
we are taking no prisoners. You Rs just aren't used to Ds standing up
and playing the game by your own rules. Our goal is to keep the
presidency, retain the Senate with a larger majority, retake the House
and to work as hard as we can to consign the Republican Party to the
dustbin of history, a history that the Rs are now firmly on the wrong
side of.

Unfortunately, "teh stoopid" has reached the point in the R Party that
it's believing its own PR. The anti-women roaches think it's safe to
come out in the light, wearing their anti-women policies on their
backs. But, surprise! the American public still has a big ol' can of
political Raid handy for just such occasions. All of the pleas from
the roach nest to kill just the single roach who goes by the name of
Akin ain't gonna work.

A new conservative party needs to arise in this country, a party fed
by intelligence and honesty instead of the stupidity, fear and
religious fantasy that grips the current R Party. You've got time on
your hands, Owen. Why not get started on that? It would be a good
project for you. Here's a tip: position your new party as the party
that respects and believes in science, that labels religion as the
fantasy it is, that believes in public education and the arts. You may
be surprised at who might join you in your efforts.

[Kip Williams]

Mark S wrote, On 8/21/12 11:30 PM:

> We are not backing down. We realize that this is war, and
> we are taking no prisoners. You Rs just aren't used to Ds standing up
> and playing the game by your own rules. Our goal is to keep the
> presidency, retain the Senate with a larger majority, retake the House
> and to work as hard as we can to consign the Republican Party to the
> dustbin of history, a history that the Rs are now firmly on the wrong
> side of.

I just want them to come to their senses and ditch the zealots, the
users, and the hidden agenda-ists. Let them be the adults they used to
be, and shoulder their share of responsible governance.


Kip W

[Frank Berger]

You said the middle class was largely created by unions and the social
safety net. It was an unspported assertion with which I disagree. If you
want to provide support for your assertion, I'll read it, evaluate it, and
perhaps comment on it. I don't really care.

[Mark S]

On Aug 21, 9:11 pm, Kip Williams <mrk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> I just want them to come to their senses and ditch the zealots, the
> users, and the hidden agenda-ists. Let them be the adults they used to
> be, and shoulder their share of responsible governance.
>

Don't you think it's too late for that? That they've reached and
exceeded the tipping point?

[Bob Harper]

On 8/21/12 8:30 PM, Mark S wrote:

> Sorry, Owen, but Liberals are not at all in a bind about this. No, we
> - and Team Obama - are playing hardball this time around.

This time around!? UYou're joking, right? I'll agree McCaskill and the
Democrats in MO took a leaf out of the Obama playbook: arrange matters
to get the weakest opponent. It's what Obama's done in all his races
since Bobby Rush cleaned his clock in his first run for Congress. Get
your opponent disqualified, get sealed divorce records mysteriously
opened. I still believe Akin will withdraw--I certainly hope so--and
then McCaskill will be toast. In the national race, Obama's got a real
race on his hands, and it's proving rather difficult for him to pull his
usual Chicago tricks (though I wouldn't put anything past that bunch).
We see from his demeanor that he isn't finding the experience of a real
contest a particularly happy one. Too bad.

Only 78 days to go.

Bob Harper

[Frank Berger]

The term "forcible rape" was not made up by Ryan. The FBI uses the term as
does Wikipedia. It seems to exclude consensual statutory rape. The
proposed bill seems to say that Federally supported abortions can be done in
cases of forcible rape but not statutory rape. I don't know the logic of
that, except that I suppose the idea is that the minor woman is held
responsible for her pregnancy and therefore is denied the right to a
federally funded abortion. Slipping a woman a micky and then having sex
with her is considered "forcible," so it's all not quite as stupid as some
want to make out.

As I've said before, I understand and am comfortable with the Orthodox
Jewish law on rape; I don't approve of abortion at will nor am I comfortable
with the government deciding zygote/fetal rights.

[Frank Berger]

*You* don't have my interest.

[Frank Berger]

You mean this bit? "..... both of which the GOP strives to destroy has
indeed dwindled."

First, I cut it inadvertantly. But cutting irrelevant material is totally
acceptable and is done all the time. We scold people for not cutting
irrelevant material. What was cut is hyperbolic anyway. Conservatives want
to limit union power by removing special power granted by government. No
one wants to eliminate unions. People have the right to associate. Also,
only anarchists want to entirely eliminate the social safety net. So your
facts were wrong to start out with, as was the implication that unions have
declined in power primarily because of Republican poltical activity. That's
another unsupported assertion.

[O]

In article
<8c7b3696-0fa1-416a...@v9g2000pbu.googlegroups.com>,

Mark S <markst...@yahoo.com> wrote:


> > First off, some facts:
>
> >
> > 7) It also puts liberals in a bind.  Mark's slamming of Akin (as per
> > above) can only be resolved by Akin resigning his seat, which is what
> > all the Republicans are calling for.  But that pretty much hands the
> > seat to the Republicans.  So Mark, where do you sit?  Should he resign?
> > Note that a poll taken last night, after the news broke, still shows
> > him leading in Missouri by one percentage point.  Even if he doesn't
> > resign, he's still leading in the race.  So, I ask you, Mark (and any
> > other liberal) should he stick it out, or should he stick his
> > disgraceful tail between his legs and resign?  (Which you would all
> > agree to if it didn't cost you the chance of a Senate seat.)
> >
>
> I think Akin should stay in so McCaskill will win reelection.

I'm very surprised that you take this position.

>
> Ds aren't calling for his resignation because Ds have known all about
> his Paul Ryan-like anti-voting record in Congress. Why do you think
> McCaskill wanted Akin to run against in the first place? We've known
> about his co-sponsoring anti-women bills with Paul Ryan. That's one
> reason some of us were shocked by Romney's pick of Ryan. We knew the
> lazy media had never bothered looking honestly at Ryan. Otherwise,
> they would never have labeled him a fiscal conservative. The media has
> never called Ryan out on his extreme Christian views on abortion, and
> they weren't likely to, unless Obama decided to lead them by the nose,
> which is what I thought they were doing by framing the R policies as a
> war against women.
>
> But the Akin debacle is one of those blessed events that rips the scab
> off the lies the Rs have been selling the public, and puts the
> spotlight directly on their cockroach nest of policies. Yes, they want
> Akin gone because he spilled the beans! They all think just like he
> does, but they don't want the public to know what they're really
> about. They want to point their collective finger at Akin and label
> him as the one-and-only abortion extremist in their midst, when ALL of
> them are, in fact, extremists on abortion. He's their scapegoat, their
> sacrificial lamb. But they are all in the same flock, and they're all
> herded by the same shepherd.

You pick the worst of the Republican lot, you prop him up in his
candidacy with millions of dollars of campaign money in a primary, you
get out the Democrat vote to jigger the election for him to win, then
you say you did it because he's just like the rest of the Republicans.
Cute.

>
> No, Akin shouldn't resign. He should put his beliefs out there in the
> light of day where the electorate can see them, just as ALL Rs should
> put their TRUE beliefs out there for the public to see. Up to this
> point, they have avoided doing so, because they know the American
> people find their core beliefs to be extreme and frightening. Think
> about it: they keep their true beliefs hidden while concocting lies of
> a "false Obama" that they can run against. Why? Because they know that
> the American people like Obama personally, AND that they like his
> policies once they learn what his policies have actually done for the
> country. That's why Romney/Ryan LIE and say that Obama "stole $716-B
> from Medicare," and continue to say it even after every legitimate
> news organization and fact check group has said they are lying about
> it.

Except Akin is really a Republican in name only. He was elected to his
candidacy by Democratic Party money, and by thousands of Democratic
Party voters who crossed party lines and voted Republican in the
primary to tip a close race away from the front runners and into the
hands of a guy they knew would utter some ridiculous statement and
lose. This is the Democrats hand-picked guy!

>
> Sorry, Owen, but Liberals are not at all in a bind about this. No, we
> - and Team Obama - are playing hardball this time around. We are not
> apologizing. We are not backing down. We realize that this is war, and
> we are taking no prisoners. You Rs just aren't used to Ds standing up
> and playing the game by your own rules. Our goal is to keep the
> presidency, retain the Senate with a larger majority, retake the House
> and to work as hard as we can to consign the Republican Party to the
> dustbin of history, a history that the Rs are now firmly on the wrong
> side of.

So, it's just fine and dandy to throw women under the bus when you're
salivating over the possibility of control of the Senate. Remember,
this neanderthal still holds a lead, and he might actually win. You'd
be willing to risk moving him from the House, where his power was
relatively negligible, and give him a Senate seat, which is one of the
top power positions in the country, just because it gives you a
political edge. To hell with women's rights! We can do a whole lot
when we've got control of the SENATE!

Sorry, Mark, but the Democrats have over-reached this time. He played
the part too good -- the gaffe was so egregious, and drew so much
attention, that all the dirty tricks are coming out now. It would not
surprise me one bit if Akin was promised some payback if he loses.

>
> Unfortunately, "teh stoopid" has reached the point in the R Party that
> it's believing its own PR. The anti-women roaches think it's safe to
> come out in the light, wearing their anti-women policies on their
> backs. But, surprise! the American public still has a big ol' can of
> political Raid handy for just such occasions. All of the pleas from
> the roach nest to kill just the single roach who goes by the name of
> Akin ain't gonna work.

It's the Democrats promoting the anti-women roach this time around.

>
> A new conservative party needs to arise in this country, a party fed
> by intelligence and honesty instead of the stupidity, fear and
> religious fantasy that grips the current R Party. You've got time on
> your hands, Owen. Why not get started on that? It would be a good
> project for you. Here's a tip: position your new party as the party
> that respects and believes in science, that labels religion as the
> fantasy it is, that believes in public education and the arts. You may
> be surprised at who might join you in your efforts.

All I can say is, this case really shows there is no moral difference
between the two parties. It's all about power and politics. Women's
rights, civil rights, tax reform, health care -- that's all window
dressing when it comes down to getting political power. Playing
hardball -- getting control of the Senate -- yes, that'll give you that
high.

-Owen

[MiNe 109]

In article <-Yadnf9107yk-6nN...@supernews.com>,

What would you accept as support? There are about a billion "unions
created the middle class" articles out there.

http://chroniclesofdelusion.net/2011/02/27/labor-unions-the-life-and-deat
h-of-the-middle-class/

Stephen

[William Sommerwerck]

>> This assertion is contradicted by the GOP ascendancy
>> of recent years, in which the middle class, created
>> largely by the existence of unions and of the social
>> safety net,

> False.

"Oh, Moses, Moses, you adorable fool..." See what I mean?

A "middle class" is largely the result of general material prosperity, which
the US has had since roughly the beginning of the 19th century. Of course,
that's a tautological definition, because it merely describes, it doesn't
give a reason for.

The "modern" middle class in the US seems to have sprung up after WWII, when
the pent-up demand for consumer goods -- combined with our world-wide
economic power -- made possible millions of well-paying jobs.

Unfortunately, greed is one the strongest human emotions. It is /always/
true that the wealthy want more wealth, and more power. They don't care how
the rest of the world lives (why do you think Warren Buffet is called a
traitor to his class?). They will do anything to see to it that as much
wealth as possible is diverted to their pockets.

This is not far-left Marxian theory. It is a simple recognition of human
nature.

[William Sommerwerck]

> You said the middle class was largely created by unions
> and the social safety net.

I would say that unions and the social safety net tend to /protect/ the
existence of the middle class.

[William Sommerwerck]

> A new conservative party needs to arise in this country,
> a party fed by intelligence and honesty instead of the
> stupidity, fear and religious fantasy that grips the current
> R Party.

As a liberal, I say "Yea, verily, yea".

Unfortunately, Americans aren't much interested in "intelligence and
honesty". Stupidity and fear are basic human traits, and the amount of
religious superstition in this country is appalling.

[William Sommerwerck]

>> I'm not surprised at Frank Berger's response. It is
>> exactly what I would expect from him, unfortunately.

> Not a very communicative response to my reply,
> unfortunately.

And your response was communicative? It was mostly a kind of gainsaying that
contributed nothing.

Mr Berger, I sometimes see people who respond in a similar fashion, ignoring
the issues in favor of nit-picky responses. I can assure you, you are an
absolute amateur at such non-communication.

If you like, I can refer you to an exchange between me and an Amazon
reviewer of Owen Wister's "The Virginian". His ability to mis-state, and to
utterly ignore what I was saying, far outstrips yours.

[Gerard]

Frank Berger <frankd...@gmail.com> typed:

Don't forget Williams.

[Kip Williams]

Mark S wrote, On 8/22/12 12:55 AM:

I think they'll tip and fall over, and then perhaps the sane part of the
party will reassert itself. At least this is more likely than a third
party coming along to fill the void.

As I've mentioned before, I lived in Virginia when the Governor and a
majority were Republicans, and they were rubbing their hands at the
thought of all the lovely tax giveaways they would have and how this
would impoverish the state and make it impossible for it to provide
services. Yay. Interestingly, though, elements within the party ended up
mutating into de facto Democrats, putting the brakes on the slide
downward and calling for some responsibility for their districts.

If it could happen in Virginia, who knows?


Kip W

[Kip Williams]

Frank Berger wrote, On 8/22/12 12:55 AM:

> You said the middle class was largely created by unions and the social
> safety net. It was an unspported assertion with which I disagree. If
> you want to provide support for your assertion, I'll read it, evaluate
> it, and perhaps comment on it. I don't really care.

That was a fountain of information next to your "Good" and "The middle
class will blossom." Do you not see that I gave more information than
you did, and yet you're castigating me for not giving enough information?

Try this.

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/economy/news/2012/01/19/10944/the-top-10-middle-class-acts-of-congress/

I know, it has "progress" in the title, but look at it anyway. Skim the
subheads.


Kip W

[Kip Williams]

William Sommerwerck wrote, On 8/22/12 7:54 AM:

As would I. Two of the biggest institutions — along with education —
that the modern right in the USA wants to demolish.


Kip W

[Kip Williams]

Frank Berger wrote, On 8/22/12 1:35 AM:

> Kip Williams wrote:
>> Herman wrote, On 8/21/12 11:04 PM:
>>> Le mercredi 22 août 2012 00:47:50 UTC+2, Kip Williams a écrit :
>>>> Frank Berger wrote, On 8/21/12 5:02 PM:
>>>>
>>>>>> If Romney wins this election, and Congress swings his way, we are
>>>>
>>>>>> likely to see the fulfillment of the Reagan Revolution -- the
>>>>
>>>>>> destruction of the New Deal
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Good
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> and the middle class.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> False. The middle class will blossom.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This assertion is contradicted by the GOP ascendancy of recent
>>>> years, in which the middle class, created largely by the existence
>>>> of unions
>>>> and of the social safety net, both of which the GOP strives to destroy,
>>>> has indeed dwindled.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Clinton raised taxes and business boomed.
>>>>
>>>> Dubya slashed taxes, and the economy crashed.
>>>>
>>> Berger's thinking is completely non-empiric, if not anti-empiric.
>>>
>>> Whatever happens in the real world does not have his interest.
>>
>> And he cut my example while claiming I didn't back up my assertion.
>

> You mean this bit? "..... both of which the GOP strives to destroy has
> indeed dwindled."

No, I mean

"Clinton raised taxes and business boomed.
Dubya slashed taxes, and the economy crashed."

This was absent from your comment in which you said I gave no support
for my assertion. It's in Herman's comment, which you quote above, but
not the comment you made when you said I didn't back up what I said.


Kip W

[Frank Berger]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
>>> I'm not surprised at Frank Berger's response. It is
>>> exactly what I would expect from him, unfortunately.
>
>> Not a very communicative response to my reply,
>> unfortunately.
>
> And your response was communicative? It was mostly a kind of
> gainsaying that contributed nothing.
>

I asked specific questions designed in part to point out what in my opinion
were errors in your discussion and in part to understand in greater detail
what you were saying. It's called communication, conversation, dialogue,
what have you. I understand now, you just wanted to make a speech.

[Frank Berger]

You gave zero information. You "supported" on assertion with another
assertion.

[Frank Berger]

Oh yeah?

http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2010/02/capitalism-created-middle-class-and.html

[Frank Berger]

I would say the evolution of human and property rights, industrialization
and capitalism created the middle class. In fact, I just did.

[Kip Williams]

Frank Berger wrote, On 8/22/12 9:40 AM:

> Kip Williams wrote:
>> William Sommerwerck wrote, On 8/22/12 7:54 AM:
>>>> You said the middle class was largely created by unions
>>>> and the social safety net.
>>>
>>> I would say that unions and the social safety net tend to /protect/
>>> the existence of the middle class.
>>
>> As would I. Two of the biggest institutions — along with education —
>> that the modern right in the USA wants to demolish.
>

> I would say the evolution of human and property rights,
> industrialization and capitalism created the middle class. In fact, I
> just did.

Did industrialization create a middle class in Russia? Will property
rights preserve the middle class in the US after all the money has
trickled up into the hands of the top few percent? Does capitalism do a
thing for anybody who didn't have money to start with?


Kip W

[Gerard]

Frank Berger <frankd...@gmail.com> typed:

> William Sommerwerck wrote:
> > > > I'm not surprised at Frank Berger's response. It is
> > > > exactly what I would expect from him, unfortunately.
> >
> > > Not a very communicative response to my reply,
> > > unfortunately.
> >
> > And your response was communicative? It was mostly a kind of
> > gainsaying that contributed nothing.
> >
>
> I asked specific questions designed in part to point out what in my
> opinion were errors in your discussion and in part to understand in
> greater detail what you were saying. It's called communication,
> conversation, dialogue, what have you. I understand now, you just
> wanted to make a speech.
>
>

Do you *really* think that these OT threads are about "communication",
"conversation", "dialogue", "what have you"? After all those years you've been
posting this kind of stuff?
Unbelievable.

[Kip Williams]

Frank Berger wrote, On 8/22/12 9:38 AM:

Oh, I see you've refuted it with someone else's bald assertion. Take
that, history!


Kip W

[Kip Williams]

Kip Williams wrote, On 8/22/12 10:04 AM:

That's exactly what you were doing! Why do you take me to task for doing
what you did both before and after?


Kip W

[O]

In article <7C5Zr.24386$H23....@newsfe19.iad>, Kip Williams

<mrk...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Did industrialization create a middle class in Russia?

Didn't Russia simply just merge the middle class and poor? I don't
know. I can't speak for Russia, I don't know that much about it.

> Will property
> rights preserve the middle class in the US after all the money has
> trickled up into the hands of the top few percent?

I worry that this may happen. The foreclosures are keeping real
property prices down, but only the well off can yet afford, or even buy
them. All that formerly Mom & Pop owned residential single family
homes are now owned by bank corporations. But, as I said before, I'm
in favor of any tax plan that makes the rich pay at least at the rate
that I do.

> Does capitalism do a
> thing for anybody who didn't have money to start with?

Capitalism did pretty good for Bill Gates, and Steve Jobs, and the
countless rags-to-riches stories we've heard over the years. Can you
think of any other system which better accommodates entrepreneurialship
and where a broke person can strike it rich better?

-Owen

[Robert Pecchioni]

"td" <tomde...@mac.com> wrote in message
news:1734de2e-c437-4a80...@p8g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 21, 2:40 am, patterbear <patterb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Aug 20, 11:18 pm, Jenn <jennconductsREMOVET...@mac.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article <MFCYr.6825$UW5.3...@newsfe15.iad>,
> > Kip Williams <mrk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Mark S wrote, On 8/20/12 10:29 PM:
>
> > > > It just shows what gutless cowards Romney, Ryan and the rest of the
> > > > Rs
> > > > are. Their beliefs are like cockroaches - they run for cover when
> > > > exposed to the light of day. If they had any guts, they'd proudly
> > > > stand up for Todd Akin today, just as they have so proudly
> > > > cosponsored
> > > > anti-woman legislation with Akin.
>
> > > Romney made some mild disclaimer about Akin's remark at first, but
> > > after
> > > a lot of other Republicans showed that it was safe to criticize him,
> > > he
> > > came out again and really shook his fist. Grrr.
>
> > > Ryan, of course, publicly disowned his idol Ayn Rand after she touched
> > > him in a bad place his poll numbers.
>
> > > Kip W
>
> > And Romney/Ryan have, of course, flip-flopped on their abortion
> > position. So predictable.
>
> > --www.jennifermartinmusic.com
>
> And Obama, of course, flip-flopped on his gay marriage
> position. So predictable.

Not really.

His position has "evolved".

Nice distinction. Some presidential candidates can actually think, as
opposed to hold opinions.

TD


Romney doesn't "hold" opinions, he just rents them while they're useful to
him.

[Kip Williams]

O wrote, On 8/22/12 10:19 AM:

> In article <7C5Zr.24386$H23....@newsfe19.iad>, Kip Williams
> <mrk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Did industrialization create a middle class in Russia?
>
> Didn't Russia simply just merge the middle class and poor? I don't
> know. I can't speak for Russia, I don't know that much about it.

It's hard to say. All roads lead to Wikipedia, and apparently you can't
believe anything it says.

>> Will property
>> rights preserve the middle class in the US after all the money has
>> trickled up into the hands of the top few percent?
>
> I worry that this may happen. The foreclosures are keeping real
> property prices down, but only the well off can yet afford, or even buy
> them. All that formerly Mom & Pop owned residential single family
> homes are now owned by bank corporations. But, as I said before, I'm
> in favor of any tax plan that makes the rich pay at least at the rate
> that I do.

Yes.

>> Does capitalism do a
>> thing for anybody who didn't have money to start with?
>
> Capitalism did pretty good for Bill Gates, and Steve Jobs, and the
> countless rags-to-riches stories we've heard over the years. Can you
> think of any other system which better accommodates entrepreneurialship
> and where a broke person can strike it rich better?

You're talking about the system as it existed a few years ago. That's
being changed as we watch, to reward those who already have money. It's
possible somebody will occasionally break through into The Club, but at
the same time, we're creating a permanent underclass, and a lot of it
consists of people who used to be in the middle.


Kip W

[Frank Berger]

Kip Williams wrote:
> Frank Berger wrote, On 8/22/12 9:40 AM:
>> Kip Williams wrote:
>>> William Sommerwerck wrote, On 8/22/12 7:54 AM:
>>>>> You said the middle class was largely created by unions
>>>>> and the social safety net.
>>>>
>>>> I would say that unions and the social safety net tend to /protect/
>>>> the existence of the middle class.
>>>
>>> As would I. Two of the biggest institutions — along with education —
>>> that the modern right in the USA wants to demolish.
>>
>> I would say the evolution of human and property rights,
>> industrialization and capitalism created the middle class. In fact,
>> I just did.
>
> Did industrialization create a middle class in Russia?

Were human and property rights well defined in Russia?

>Will property
> rights preserve the middle class in the US after all the money has
> trickled up into the hands of the top few percent?

Won't happen.

> Does capitalism do
> a thing for anybody who didn't have money to start with?
>

Do I really need to remind you of all the jobs created by capitalists?
>

[Frank Berger]

And I see you've cut my reference. Your citations are good, mine are bad.
I get it.

[Frank Berger]

Umm. you started it.

[Gerard]

Frank Berger <frankd...@gmail.com> typed:

Excellent discussion!
Having a look from time to time in those OT threads is soooooooooo enrichening!

[Bob Harper]

As Milton Friedman suggests, economic freedom (i.e., capitalism) is a
necessary but not a sufficient condition for human freedom.

See
https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/ipe/friedman.htm and
http://facstaff.uww.edu/mohanp/theory9.html

for a fuller explication of this thesis. The fact that Russia did not
become free after industrialization has nothing to do with capitalism
and everything to do with totalitarianism, whether of the Czarist or
Stalinist variety.

Bob Harper

[Kip Williams]

Frank Berger wrote, On 8/22/12 10:35 AM:

> Umm. you started it.

No, I chimed in after you were doing it in response to William. My words
are an echo of your words to him. Do you remember writing them?


Kip W

[Kip Williams]

Frank Berger wrote, On 8/22/12 10:33 AM:

> Kip Williams wrote:
>> Frank Berger wrote, On 8/22/12 9:40 AM:
>>> Kip Williams wrote:
>>>> William Sommerwerck wrote, On 8/22/12 7:54 AM:
>>>>>> You said the middle class was largely created by unions
>>>>>> and the social safety net.
>>>>>
>>>>> I would say that unions and the social safety net tend to /protect/
>>>>> the existence of the middle class.
>>>>
>>>> As would I. Two of the biggest institutions — along with education —
>>>> that the modern right in the USA wants to demolish.
>>>
>>> I would say the evolution of human and property rights,
>>> industrialization and capitalism created the middle class. In fact,
>>> I just did.
>>
>> Did industrialization create a middle class in Russia?
>
> Were human and property rights well defined in Russia?

Not at all, and they're an object lesson to why human rights shouldn't
be thrown out here.

>> Will property
>> rights preserve the middle class in the US after all the money has
>> trickled up into the hands of the top few percent?
>
> Won't happen.

Great fact-based rebuttal there.

>> Does capitalism do
>> a thing for anybody who didn't have money to start with?
>
> Do I really need to remind you of all the jobs created by capitalists?

No, you can see them every day in places like China, thanks to our job
creators. If only they'd create those jobs closer to home, which they'd
do in a heartbeat if only we'd allow them to reinstate starvation wages
and child labor, and go back to having no safety and environmental codes
to follow.


Kip W

[Kip Williams]

Frank Berger wrote, On 8/22/12 10:34 AM:

> And I see you've cut my reference. Your citations are good, mine are
> bad. I get it.

I was already writing my comment when I saw that you'd thrown in your
link, so I changed what I was saying to reflect that.

If you'd actually looked at the thread, instead of jumping to a
conclusion, you'd have seen that the comment of yours that I was
responding to did not actually include your latest link.

Sorry to be confusing, but at least it gave you an opportunity to blame
me for something and engage in more of your patented "I'm not -quite-
insulting you now, so if you respond, I can jump in with both feet" routine.


Kip W

[William Sommerwerck]

>>>> I'm not surprised at Frank Berger's response. It is
>>>> exactly what I would expect from him, unfortunately.

>>> Not a very communicative response to my reply,
>>> unfortunately.

>> And your response was communicative? It was mostly a kind of
>> gainsaying that contributed nothing.

> I asked specific questions designed in part to point out what in my
opinion
> were errors in your discussion and in part to understand in greater detail
> what you were saying. It's called communication, conversation, dialogue,
> what have you. I understand now, you just wanted to make a speech.

I am not joking when I say I would gladly take part in a conversation -- if
you offered something I could respond to.

[Herman]

Le mercredi 22 août 2012 13:52:58 UTC+2, William Sommerwerck a écrit :


>
> A "middle class" is largely the result of general material prosperity, which
>
> the US has had since roughly the beginning of the 19th century. Of course,
>
> that's a tautological definition, because it merely describes, it doesn't
>
> give a reason for.
>
It also seems off by a mere 100 tot 150 years...

[William Sommerwerck]

> I would say the evolution of human and property rights,
> industrialization and capitalism created the middle class.

The following is a gross -- even grotesque -- oversimplification, but
industrialization (which might arguably include the rise of artisans --
computers, washing machines, vinyl siding are all produced by people with
special training -- artisans, if you like) has done more to destroy property
rights than anything else.

ALL economic systems -- ALL -- assume that one's employer owns your labor,
and is entitled to reward you in whatever way he thinks appropriate --
rather than giving you the net amount of value you have added to the product
or service you produce.

I might also add that there is no such thing as "anarchy". There is always
"government" of some form. I understand why people are afraid of political
government trampling their rights -- but why is economic government
(government by business) necessarily better?

[William Sommerwerck]

>> Does capitalism do a
>> thing for anybody who didn't have money to start with?

> Capitalism did pretty good for Bill Gates, and Steve Jobs,
> and the countless rags-to-riches stories we've heard over
> the years. Can you think of any other system which better
> accommodates entrepreneurialship and where a broke
> person can strike it rich better?

Rags-to-riches stories are uncommon. Especially in the 19th century. A bit
of reading will show that hard work was no guarantee of success.

And what is "success"? No one seems to take Jesus's negative view of Earthly
treasures seriously. There are one or two people I've known that I would
live in abject poverty with, because simply being with them makes me far
happier than any degree of material success.

[Herman]

Le mercredi 22 août 2012 15:40:25 UTC+2, Frank Berger a écrit :


>
> I would say the evolution of human and property rights, industrialization
>
> and capitalism created the middle class. In fact, I just did.

Not education, of course.

[Herman]

Le mercredi 22 août 2012 16:19:18 UTC+2, O a écrit :


> Capitalism did pretty good for Bill Gates, and Steve Jobs, and the
>
> countless rags-to-riches stories we've heard over the years. Can you
>
> think of any other system which better accommodates entrepreneurialship
>
> and where a broke person can strike it rich better?
>

Are you rich? Do you think your life is a failure if you have not become Jobs - Gates - Zuckerberg or Putin rich?

Maybe it would be far better to picture a societal ideal which is geared towards creating and maintaining a middle class and eradicating of poverty, rather than keep thinking in those fairy tale rags-to-riches stories. They're anecdotal, statistically irrelevant and also, in most cases, not very productive in terms of making the world better. Most newly created mega-rich are Wall St whizz kids who do not create any wealth beyond their own.

[William Sommerwerck]

> Do I really need to remind you of all the jobs
> created by capitalists?

Do I need to remind you of how the greed of capitalists has destroyed
millions of jobs in the Great Recession?

You seem to think that because freedom is good (which it is), and that the
ability to make one's own choices is good (which it is), that the results of
these are necessarily good -- if not in an absolute sense, in a practical
sense.