Are We Really the UNITED States of America Anymore?

Red State Blue StateIt shouldn’t surprise anyone that liberals are blaming President George W. Bush for the chaos that is tearing Iraq apart while conservatives are blaming President Barack Obama, who they say inherited a fledgling democracy and did nothing while the country slid into a religious civil war.

They’re both right.

President Bush started the fire by engaging the United States in a war that in retrospect was a big mistake.  President Obama thought he could simply waltz out of the country with little risk or consequence.  Apparently the militants who are on their way to Baghdad have different ideas.

But we shouldn’t be surprised that liberals and conservatives are pointing to different bogeymen. Liberals and conservatives, after all, have different world- views on Iraq and a myriad of other issues.  So it’s only reasonable that the two sides would come to different conclusions.  But something else is going on in America.  More than ever we have chosen to live not in the United States of America, but in our own ideological silos.  According to a new poll by the Pew organization, we Americans are more polarized than at any other time in recent history.

According to Pew, the percentage of Americans who hold either consistently conservative or consistently liberal views on the big issues of the day has doubled over the last decade.

This is how the Washington Post opened its story on the poll: “Conservatives and liberals don’t just differ in their political views. They like to live in different places, associate with like-minded people, and have opposing views on the value of ethnic and religious diversity in their neighborhoods.”

To some extent, that makes sense.  Why shouldn’t we like to associate with like-minded people?  Who wants to constantly argue with our neighbors about politics and social issues?

But more than in the past, each side sees the other as not just wrong, but as a threat to the nation’s well-being. And even though most Americans place themselves somewhere in the middle, this kind of polarization can’t be good for a country.

And the divisions extend to places you’d never think would be touched by politics. The pollster Frank Luntz did a Father’s Day poll, asking Americans what Dads they admire the most.  Bill Cosby, who played a lovable Dad on TV for many years, came in first, but he was the only father on the list who was not seen as overtly political.  Barack Obama came in second – but here’s the political breakdown of his supporters:  69 percent were Democrats but only 3 percent were Republican.  Former President George H.W. Bush was also a favorite – but only 5 percent of his supporters were Democrats while 43 percent were Republicans.

So what’s going on?  I think talk radio and cable television news have a lot to do with the polarization in America.  You don’t get to be a guest on FOX or MSNBC if you tell the producer, “Well, I think both sides have a valid argument.”  Confrontation makes for good television.  We like to watch two sides battle it out.  It’s great entertainment.  We go to cable TV and talk radio not so we can be exposed to new ideas.  We go there to get our old ideas – our biases – validated.   If you’re a conservative do you really want to listen to Rachel Maddow?  You think liberals want to spend two minutes, let alone an hour, with Sean Hannity?

And the divisions that have played out as a business model in the media have spread to the culture at large.

No, liberals and conservatives are not like the Sunnis and Shiites killing each other in Iraq.  But that’s not saying much, is it?  A friend had an idea:  liberals should move to Blue States and conservatives should move to Red States.  That way, he figured, we’d be with ideological soul mates and everyone would be happier.

We’re not there – yet.  But we’re heading in that direction in the United States of America.


Bernie's Next Column.

Enter your email and find out first.

  • vivekroy1245

    Impress your adorable brother with your delivered love along with thread of Rakhi on this special day. Send Rakhi to UK at right price through various online shopping stores and express your best love and affection.

  • loupgarous

    That’s pretty much what happened with me. I lived in Colorado while crooked election after crooked election took it from a “purple state” to a blue statehouse in a red state. I couldn’t fix what was wrong, so I moved to Mississippi.

    Until more Coloradans want honest elections and are willing to fight for them, Colorado’s New York City West – Tammany Hall West, really. Government by the crooks, for the crooks, of the people. Eventually, perhaps, either the rural counties will secede and leave Boulder and Denver to their own devices, or (less probably) the whole state will be purged of crookedness.

    Curiously, I saw the same thing happen here – to keep his Senate seat, Todd Cochran made an unholy alliance with the same people who took a Red state Blue. Now, Chris McDaniel, his opponent, has to settle for documenting how it happened, and that the Republican National Committee works hand in glove with the Democratic National Committee.

    The very best thing the Koch Brothers could do is forget this fall’s elections and work on helping the Tea Party have their own national committee, because the RNC has surrendered to Obama and his crooks.

  • alevanpa

    MariaSci: Lady, I can’t agree more with you. I watched
    Glenn every evening. Through him I learned more about the United States, where we came from and how and what we stand for- and the philosophies that wish her destruction and why- in the short time he was on the air, than I learned in eight years of elementary school, four years of High School, and four years of college put together. He put together, in one place and at one time, all the isolated “facts” I was taught-or learned on my own-and what they mean to how we arrived, politically and philosophically to where we are today–ruled by an unelected bureaucracy, with its own agenda, from Washington, DC . It was an amazing educational effort.
    But, I disagree that he should not have been removed from the 5 o’clock hour at Fox News-and from mainstream television. There is no way he could have been kept on the air because, even though he spoke and taught the truth, that knowledge could only lead to a revolution of the people of the United States against their rulers in Washington, D.C.-and the media that protects that bureaucracy and is the main source of information in the U.S.
    Oh, wait!! There was a revolution. It was expressed in the slogan “Taxed Enough, Already” (“TEA”, if you will). It resulted in the “shellacking” of the Democrats in the 2010 midterm election.
    Since this concept’s inception, however, there has been no lack of effort from both political sides, Republican and Democrat, and their Medial sycophants, to destroy-and/or marginalize-it because its ideas are dangerous to the status quo in Washington. If I am to believe everything I read and see, this effort has resulted in some success.

  • MariaSci

    O’Reilly has some good points, but I get sick of the same old, same old and all the interrupting of the comedians and of his more interesting guests: Goldberg & Krauthammer specifically. But, I liked Glen Beck’s show the best because he presented FACTS, he told you who Valerie Jarret was, he told you who wrote the stimulus package, he told you where George Soros was investing, he told you who visited the White House and how often.

    I learned something every night and I didn’t have to listen to the left and the right arguing. Don’t argue, but show me what the politicians do and say, find video of Dunn praising Mao. Tell me about how many people were slaughtered under leftist regimes. On and on, Glen was an educator and a deep philosophical thinker and an appreciator of the wisdom of the founding fathers.

    I surmise Bernie doesn’t like Glen, but Glen presented facts and read from the books the left admires–like Olinsky’s writings, etc. So the audience could hear and see for themselves. He read from Obama’s book–who else does that? Beck educated and had high ratings for a reason. People’s eyes were opened, they started demanding a more responsive government, of the people, by the people and for the people, not of the left, by the left and for the left, which is sadly what we have more and more with every added government program.

    Bernie, if you think the conservatives have any say in this government, you are deluding yourself! I know you don’t like conservatives and especially Christian conservatives (and I am not one). But the power is so much the other way that it’s just bizarre that people are so threatened by the “Christian right”, as they are called. My artist girlfriend says: “The Christian right really scare me!” She won’t say “Radical Muslims really scare me!” I say: “Obama and his administration really scare me!”

    I may not agree with all Glen’s viewpoints, but he was right about about Obama’s administration, and he did educate people with his blackboards.
    And he is a remarkable, self-made man.

    I miss his show very much. Beck didn’t care about polls rising and falling,
    ( O’Reilly’s obsession), he wanted to teach the principles the country was founded on. This country has gone far from those principles which made it unique at a time of monarchies and strict social class structure.

    Glen showed us video “in their own words” so we heard and saw what Obama was saying, and Beck was an EDUCATOR, not a BLOVIATOR (O’Reilly). What he predicted and warned against has come to pass!(Unlike O’Reilly’s prediction–Eric Holder) He warned that the Arab Spring was not a good thing, he warned that Obama would just sign laws into being without any debate.

    The liberal, “open-minded” people got him off the air! Shut him up. How compassionate of them! Unfortunately, I think, Bernie probably celebrated. I like Bernie, but I don’t agree with his scornful attitude toward the “far right” as he calls them. We have far too many “far left” parading as just plain “liberals”. Thank God for some “far right” to offset the pervasive far left.

  • TerriGeer

    Try reading The Art of War, attributed to Sun Tzu. This was several thousand years ago. You will find nothing in the Alinsky book that is not in The Art of War.

    It is nothing less that idiocy to keep bringing up Alinsky’s book when every single politician and party use the same ideas from it.

  • DallieDoodAP

    Americans just don’t get it. You can’t do what your ancestors have done 1,000 ago by invading another country and think that your going to automatically change their ways of life or mull them over. Giving them money isn’t going to change their minds either, it just goes back to the hive-mind. Yet the U.S. has given BILLIONS of dollars over to these countries, who just take the money and re-feed it back either to their dictators or it “disappears” in bank accounts.

    The middle-east has been embedded with powerful religious influence and strife for decades. Your dealing with very different countries from very different rules and mind-sets from western society, which is why you are not winning, which is why we’re always pulling troops out from the area because of the causalities it’s been created. The only thing that the U.S. can do is coast-guard at this point. “Invasions” will only cause a holy-war. Even foreigners now are being given better opportunities for a chance at life than the very people that live here!

    The U.S. needs to stop acting like a bail-out ambassador for these other countries, giving out billions of dollars while the average american worker is put on a stretch-mill as difficult to keep or find jobs anymore. Our corporations aren’t even about America anymore or supporting the economy from which they originated from. Instead they have become very anti-american, laying off american workers in a minute in order to subsidize or cut back on work because their precious CEO’s are afraid of loosing a million or 2 from a billion/trillion dollar paycheck. The foreigners are coming in, and taking advantage of this all while we promptly kiss their butts in order to be “diverse” yet still permitting racism just as ever in work-job environments, in education, and in everyday life. We hold back the very people who live in this country, while the foreigners are taking advantage of american laws and getting the jobs and businesses.

    Our AMERICAN companies are NO LONGER PATRIOTIC. And our CITIZENS are fighting EACH OTHER for the sake of jobs because of this. We are indeed no longer the “United” states, we are now the “Individuals” of the states of whomever has the most popular politics or ideas that sound good on paper/speech, but terrible in execution and results.

    I use to be very patriotic of this country and hung up the flag everyday. Now the flag is absent. The entire country has been hunged up and focus on gay agenda while foreigners have been quietly coming in, and taking over the encomy. The companies in America DO NOT CARE. It’s a shame there isn’t a law pass with heavy taxation if the number of american workers in a company is smaller compared to the number of foreigners overseas.

    • El_Tigre

      You should realize we don’t have the attention span to read such long posts.

  • TerriGeer

    “President Obama thought he could simply waltz out of the country with little risk or consequence.”

    No, Obama wanted to leave troops there but the Iraqi Government said no. So, Obama removed our troops per the agreement that Bush signed with the Iraqi Government a few months before our 2008 elections.

    • Integrity

      I am confused. How could they refuse President Obama since he is so handsome, charismatic and such a phenomenal leader? I thought all he had to do was merely ask and they would acquiesce to his every wish. How dare they! Secretary Kerry should give them a firm scolding! Better yet, perhaps they should sick the IRS on them. QED

      • TerriGeer

        Do you actually have a fact based response? Or do you just have non-factual opinion and snark?

        • Integrity

          So you are telling me that Obama is not handsome, charismatic or a phenomenal leader? I am crushed; I had such an emotional investment in him. QED

          • TerriGeer


          • Integrity

            Nice to see you have a sense of humor. LOL

          • TerriGeer

            Thank you. :-) I think that life would be pretty painful and boring without one.

        • El_Tigre

          You need to read the MSM.

          • TerriGeer

            I read pretty much everything, not just MSM or just one viewpoint.

  • Hihoze

    Divorce = Secession
    Divorce is acceptable so is Secession.
    Don’t want a Divorce or Secession?
    Answer: Redistribute the power not our wealth.
    1. Abolish the 17th Amendment and return control of the U.S Senate back to the State Legislators.
    2. Federal regulations = Federal Laws that nobody voted for. If 2/3 or 3/4 of the States approve then and only then can regs =laws.
    3. Keep reducing the Centralized Gov and re-empower the people of the several states.

    If we reduce the Power of the DC’vers and re-empower the people in their states we won’t have to divide up the states. If we continue to rely on Big Gov, Central Planners and Washington DC’vers, then Divorce & Secession are inescapable.

  • Don’t Like the Format Change

    Was surprised to see the format change. Previously, discussions could be followed in the order of argument, even when the topic varied from the main comment. Replies to responses could be followed, making sense to each comment/reply/response/etc. It also does not show to whom the reply/response was intended. This loses a lot in trying to figure out who a response is intended for.

    The new format shows the posts in chronological order, which, unfortunately disrupts the flow for anyone who isn’t part of a “live” or “real time” banter between participants.

    I hope this can be adjusted.

    I also miss the voting arrows.

    There’s probably something else that could be improved or brought back… but that’s enough for now. People enjoy the lively back-and-forth that has been available through the previous format… let’s keep it lively!

    • Integrity

      I agree. QED

      • Tim Ned

        I second that!

        • Another feature

          And the feature that informed and indicated new posts that were made while you were online.

  • ted

    Like all other naïve conservatives, you have to blame Bush. That is playing on the Liberals’ playing field under their rules. The Left NEVER admits anything derogatory to any of them. And Republicans do…it is stupid. IF you remember most all of the country was approving to getting Saddam and the chem weapon stockpile was one of the reasons. Yes, Killary Klinton, Sec of State horse face and the rest approved. Now YOU have to say it was Bush’s fault. And anyone wonders why you and the Republican Party are losers. Wait until November, the liberals are setting you up. (Stupid!)

  • Mark W.

    “Confrontation makes for good television. We like to watch two sides battle it out. It’s great entertainment.”
    Yes, but only if it’s intelligent debate; otherwise, it is bad television. What has happened is that the same people argue, often against the same people, day in and day out. Over and over and over again. The conservative is serious, the liberal is smirking. If they’re on O’Reilly, he constantly interrupts and pontificates, as Bernie has experienced many times. We know what they are going to say before they say it. So, anymore, when that starts… I change the channel.

    • DallieBoo

      I don’t watch the debates as much either, as it has become an argument fest of who can out-yell/out-talk the other one. What happened to the use of “intelligent debate”. Our news stations are a joke, filled with puff-heads with ego-trips. News reporters are representing our country, I wonder what europe thinks of our news channels?

    • TerriGeer

      No, the liberals are serious, too. You just don’t like them.

  • D Parri

    The Sunni’s, the Shiites, and the Kurds will never come under U.S. control or direction. The U.S. does not hold that as a goal.

    Homeland for each of these factions, including their radical offshoots, is and always will be located where the Sunni’s, Shiites, and Kurds are engaged in fighting today. U.S. foreign policy does not state in any form or fashion a goal of claiming their soil as a U.S. territory.

    The practices, lifestyles, and culture of those people are drastically different from the environs of us in our Western cultures, and we should understand that we can either fight with them or live compatibility with them, providing that they are willing to do that.

    A mistake in our intelligence prior to the Iraq invasion by the U.S. told us that there were WMD’s that could potentially devastate the U.S., or large areas and cities. It was not wrong to act accordingly, but we now know that our vision for the future was flawed. However, our intention and purpose in reacting to that information was not flawed.

    Based on that assessment, it is now a different juncture that we find ourselves contemplating the decision to re-engage in Iraq, and to what extent. If the decision to get involved is tempered with the correct intent and purpose, then hopefully there will be a wiser decision and a better outcome from that decision than previously seen.

    • scott autry

      I understand all the people who say expecting democracy to come about in the Middle East is a hopeless fantasy might (have been) prove(n) correct in the end, if we’d actually tried to help that come about.

      But, I want to point out – many very intelligent, knowledgeable people said the very same thing about Japan, South Korea, and even Germany.

      Today, the average person who cares a little about history seems to have as an unacknowledged foundation that the bulk of Europe was pretty much like England – all with a Magna Carta-type culture as connected to ancient Greece and Rome as our founding fathers fought to establish over time in the United States.

      Under the onslaught of the Bill Ayers and Obamas to redefine the very core institutions of our government and society as inherently immoral and oppressive — it seems even the average American with an education has forgotten just how unusual the founding of democracy was back when the US began. (Which helps explain why it took over a hundred years for ideals clearly spelled out in the Constitution and the writings of the founding fathers to be given to blacks and other minorities and women.)

      I recommend people just read some on the history of the German peoples and their territory.

      Was establishing democracy after the defeat of the Hitler regime a given?

      I haven’t read extensively about that territory, but what I have is fairly amazing. They didn’t start to ban together into very late compared to other peoples in Western Europe. They were largely untouched by the long history of the Roman Republic and its ancient Greek predecessors.

      They most certainly weren’t well on the road to democracy before Hitler. He didn’t just “thwart the clear path of history” over there.

      I can’t remember reading people like Eisenhower or academics back then analyzing the likelihood Germany could be made into a democratic state after WWII.

      The fact they decided to divide it between – what was it – 4 different powers – with 3 sharing control of territory in West Germany – doesn’t seem to indicate they had high hopes we’d easily see the German people turned into cooperative, supportive, like-minded democratic capitalists.

      I do know many experts on Asia laughed at the idea the isolated, warlike Japanese would take to democracy. Or the Koreans.

      And it did take the Koreans a long, long time to reach a real democracy.

      So, despite the handicaps in the Middle East, is the idea of democracy working there insanity?

      Maybe. Maybe not. History seems to teach it isn’t easy to predict.

      • Tim Ned

        My historical understanding of WWII is that the Japanese and Germans surrendered and the people accepted the surrender. I don’t believe the Sheites and Sunnis have surrendered and won’t in the foreseeable future. We should have left a sign in Iraq. “When you want to join the 21st century, give us a call”.

      • TerriGeer

        “Under the onslaught of the Bill Ayers and Obamas to redefine the very
        core institutions of our government and society as inherently immoral
        and oppressive”

        The problem with your statement is that it is incorrect from the start. You have been sold a bill of goods by the right wing media and pundits, and instead of checking to make sure they were correct you simply believed them from the beginning.

        • truthnothate

          Plus Terri we have to take into account that he doesn’t have the slightest idea of the democratic values of Germany during the Victorian era and of course during the renaissance in Europe, and of course the French and the difference in the two empires that dominated the European and part of Asian continents through 500 years.
          I think he needs lot of more reading on the histories of democracies and governments of the world.
          Korea for example has been on and off democratic systems for more than a 1000 years.
          the Greeks never spread democracy as such, the romans acquired the concept and spread the system of government.
          the Roman senate was a democratic system, and Italy was on and off democracy until the final unification of the country during the 19th century.

          • Iggy Autry

            I luv how liberals always claim the high ground – morally intellectual or whatever.

            I’m also amazed at how they can spot the mots in America’s eyes while feeling so superior to it but ignore the planks in tose of others.

            But since insults are the norm – I’ve got a masters degree in Asian Studies and the line about Korea having a democracy for a thousand years before meeting the United States is one of the more laugh out loud ignorant things I’ve ever read…

          • truthnothate

   you have “master in Asian Studies”


          • Iggy Autry

            Yes, you are the face of liberalism: Nothing but a few lines of opinion coupled with childish insults. Nothing to back up your claim. And when pushed, you come back with a quick google to a tourist site…

            I’m done with you.

            You’ve done nothing but scroll down my comments list throwing in childish potshots with nothing to add but a lickitysplit line of your opinion.

            I will not respond to you again.

          • truthnothate

            I love how conservatives have this weird idea that if they are not right or someone is not in agreement with them they accuse the left of claiming a high moral ground, when in fact they live in a fantasy believing that America is the only and the best in the world, without recognizing that we are a country that has caused too much damage to the world and to ourselves and plainly because of those conservatives that had been destroying progress in science, diplomacy in the world and a peaceful coexistence.
            this is and has been always about republicans and their greed and now they are converting the United States into a plutocracy.

          • Iggy Autry

            The fantasy is on your part.

            Tell me – if you want me to continue – 1. where is this area of peace and harmony in the world just waiting to flourish if not for the evil US and its military aggression…

            2. Where has this fantastic growth in science in American conservaticism has suppressed?

            3. Where is the standard of living that America has suppressed?

            See, at least strict Progressives have a fail-safe: If you can ever get them to get into specifics – looking around the world for the far better place than evil American and dastardly oppressive Western civilization, they start humming and hawing — then point only to the future… “Progress” that they will make if just given enough power…

            The world is a rough place. Human society isn’t pretty much of the time…History is full of misery – all the way around…

            It is Western democracy and industrial capitalism that other countries have copied to move away from poverty and oppression – not into it…

            The education you received from those nimcompoops in the Ivory Tower is based on willful blindness. — Those chose the wrong side in the Cold War but haven’t been able to readjust even decades after the fall of global communism and their pet ideology….

          • Iggy Autry

            Not to mention throwing in Rome…

            Roman was more a democracy than the US? Funny.

          • truthnothate

            Rome had a senate and a triumvirate..and I never said “more than the US” , there is no comparison between the Roman empire and this plutocracy at all…

      • truthnothate

        We had been oppressive and intervenionists

    • TerriGeer

      Not really, The only source that said that there were WMD in Iraq was one that pretty much every country in the world said that they were unreliable. All other sources said that there were no WMD in Iraq. Our WH choose to ignore all the other sources and promoted the source that was unreliable.

      • Integrity

        It is hard to say what the truth is anymore. I don’t trust the media to want to find out. You and JMAX can easily find many links that support your opinions, but I find it curious that you are unable to find some of the many links that support the other position as well, such as this one:!3osM8
        You are free to believe what you want, but your claim that that all other sources said that there were no WMDs in Iraq is blatantly false. I can easily find several dissenting articles. Whether you choose to believe them or not is another matter. Those that control the media, control the facts. QED

        • JMax

          I find it curious that this is the best link you could provide that justifies the war and proves the existence of WMDs. I think you should read it again. LMAO

          • Integrity

            You are assuming that I am trying to justify the war. I am not. I am not married to the success of a political party. Now consider WIkipedia, the reliability of the information depends upon the integrity and competence of the person placing it there. This is the same as any link, as you can clearly see in this instance. The link was not intended to prove whether WMDs existed or not; that was not the point being made. The point I was making is that you can find dissenting opinions on the Internet if you so choose. I find it curious that you can go to the ends of the Internet to show that Bush and his cronies lied, but you are unable to find any credible evidence that Obama and his cronies have lied. Perhaps you have an agenda? QED

          • JMax

            “Now consider WIkipedia, the reliability of the information depends upon
            the integrity and competence of the person placing it there.”

            Well sort of. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. Articles are rarely written by only one person. Anyone can edit articles if they believe they are in error. That said, Wikipedia has a very good reputation for fairness and neutrality. If it didn’t, people wouldn’t use it.

            Your article wasn’t a dissenting opinion.

            Nobody needs to go to the ends of the internet to show that Bush and gang mislead the country and the world. It’s readily available.

            I don’t have to find evidence of Obama lying. I didn’t make any assertion that he did. The way it works is that you make an assertion, Terri challenges it providing links to support her challenge and then YOU, not Terri, provide any links that support your assertion. LMAO

          • Integrity

            You are ignoring the point, which was not unexpected. That is how it works if you are trying to defend a political party. I am not; you are. QED

          • JMax

            Where in this thread did I defend a political party? LMAO

          • Integrity

            Funny you like to demand links and proof, but when I provided you with over 365 days worth regarding the IRS scandal, it was quite obvious you gave them little attention and simply dismissed them without making any substantive comments regarding them, making future efforts of this nature a waste of time. By the way, you still ignored the point. Perhaps you should visit Instapundit and get a different perspective for once. Not specifically stated in the thread, but I bet no one has ever accused you of being a right wing nut job either. Just saying. QED

          • JMax

            As I recall you provided a very lengthy list of links which were primarily from the same source. I seem to remember that there was little original reporting in those links. I’d be happy to look at five or six of your best links, but You did that debate a disservice by “flooding” the zone, so to speak.

            Rather that continuing to assert that I’m missing the point, why don’t you state exactly what the point is that I’m missing and then I’d be happy to address it. LMAO

          • Integrity

            No you wouldn’t. QED

          • JMax

            Cop out. LMAO

          • Integrity

            No and you have a selective memory. QED

    • TerriGeer
      • Mike the mailman

        Did u forget that sadaam used wmd on the kurds and iranians? Of course he possessed wmd’s.

        • truthnothate

          Of course he did..we gave them to him..but in the end you need a little bit of history class on how the kurds came about..and understand first that those were the terrorists of their time since England decided to create a border and put them in the Iraq side instead of the Iran side when they decided to create this new countries.
          America supported Saddam under Bush Sr. so we knew what was going on since the beginning and of course when Bush Jr. came to power he knew there were no WMD anymore, he just wanted to prove the capabilities of a military force.

  • Drew Page

    I believe the extent of the polarization can be traced to our faltering economy. The post WW II era from 1945 to 1975 was probably the most prosperous time in U.s. history. Following the destruction of Most of Europe, Russia and Japan, there was only one place the world could turn for manufactured items from the largest to the smallest things. Further, America was a great supplier of food stuffs to the world. The manufacturing expanded to meet world needs. We built our infra-structure with the inter-state highway system, bridge construction, airport construction, home construction and expanding municipal buildings. The economy skyrocketed Manual labor was in demand, we had near full employment. Anyone who wanted to work could find a job, even with minimal skills. As the country grew and prospered so did the population. Unions demanded higher wages, benefits and pensions.

    During that 30 year period as wages and benefits grew, so too did inflation. but something else was also happening. The Marshall plan was helping to rebuild Europe at U.S. expense. We were also exporting out technology to Japan and Germany. Per the terms of the surrender and the treaties that followed, Germany and Japan were forbidden from having Armed Forces and America was to be responsible for guaranteeing their defense. The cost was met by American taxpayers. As America was using its tax dollars to maintain the defense of NATO and SEATO countries, Germany and Japan were using their tax revenues to rebuild their manufacturing capacities.

    In the early 1970s, Nixon took America off the gold standard. Inflation continued to soar. He implemented Wage/Price freezes that failed miserably and only accelerated inflation. when OPEC learned that we intended to pay for their oil with paper dollars no longer backed by gold, their oil prices tripled. the U.S. continued buying oil from OPEC countries. While gas prices in the U.S. were going through the roof, the prices of automobiles was also soaring as the quality was diminishing. The price of Fords and Chevys had tripled from 1960 to 1975; they were getting 10 to 12 miles a gallon and were rusting out in three years. Enter the compact Toyota and the VW bug into the U.S. market that could get 25 to 30 mpg at half the price of a Ford or Chevy. Within a few years the market share of the U.S. Big Three (GM, Ford and Chrysler) had dropped 30%. This translated into the need for 30% layoffs of UAW workers and corresponding layoffs for all of the auto industries support and supply industries including steel, glass, tires, and components. The result was “stagflation”, continued high inflation and high unemployment.

    Manufacturers no longer could compete with foreign labor markets and began outsourcing manual labor jobs and employing more technology and robotics to take the place of manual labor.

    With a growing unemployment, especially in manual labor jobs, these people began to look to the government for answers and their was at least one political party that saw the opportunity to rush to the aid of a large population of “victims”. Businesses were claimed to be the enemy of the worker, at least of the former worker. It didn’t stop there. That anger of the unemployed began to be directed at the wealthy and previous envy of the wealthy turned into a hatred. And there was one political party that was there to tell them they were right to believe that.

    In 2008 we elected a president who played to found new and additional to divide the people of America and it didn’t stop with workers vs businesses. It encompassed race, gender, age, sexual preference, religion, legal status of citizens, wealthy and poor. In every one of these categories, our current president found “victims” who he was quick to promise help and even quicker to place blame for that “victimhood” on anyone who disagreed with him.

    If we ever want to get back to being the United States of America we need to get back to (or close to) full employment. Not with part-time minimum wage jobs but with jobs paying $20.00 an hour or more. In order to get and hold such a job people need to obtain marketable skills through education and training. When 95% of those of working age can find and keep such jobs, the vast majority of things that divide us will fade into the background. to that end, we need government leadership that will unleash to power of American capitalism. We need to cut taxes on businesses to a level equivalent with those imposed on businesses by other countries. Smaller government will require fewer tax dollars to support, full employment will have more people paying taxes than living off the taxes of others. Our regulatory agencies are stifiling the development and growth of businesses, which provide the jobs people need. This has got to be reversed, not by suspending all regulations, but weeding out needless regulations. We need to secure our borders and eliminate to the greatest degree possible illegal immigration. We American taxpayers cannot provide for the needs of all of the people of Africa, Asia, Eastern Europe, the Middle Eastern countries and the countries in Central and South America. We have our own people to support and cannot be expected to pay for the needs of the world’s population because some people think that would be “the compassionate thing to do”. Nothing is stopping people who feel that way from liquidating all their assets and giving it all to the poor.

    • loupgarous

      Well stated, but you forgot the most crucial fix – exploit the power of the tariff. Use it to counterbalance the present unfair advantage enjoyed by the Asian countries and which will also be enjoyed by the other “BRICs” – next to no costs imposed by environmental regulation, worker safety rules and other regulation that counter the awesome productivity of American businesses.

      Pull us out of the World Trade Organization – the United States, if it really cared to, could get along without world trade. Many of the rare earths we presently import from Russia, China and the Congo can be had in the asteroid belt, and we now have the robotics and space technology to get them. It’s time to make America work for Americans.

      • truthnothate

        America has always worked for Americans..that seems to be one of the problems of our violence and how we are seen as a country around the world.
        If we go out of the WTO..well you can forget coffee, beans, asparagus, tomatoes, some red meats, rice, wheat, corn and other various foods to be sufficient in off to feed our population.
        added that the prices for those and other goods will not be a few dollars but a few hundreds of dollars.
        If you really think that the United States is self-sufficient just check the last electronics advances,medical advances and scientific advances around the world. without the rest of the world we cannot even have our own electricity running properly.
        so thinking that the US is solely a super-power that doesn’t need the rest of the world is a fantasy.
        just on potatoes..we cannot produce in off potatoes to do French fries buddy..lets get real here ok?

      • truthnothate

        they need either to take the same care of the Earth we do”
        We don’t take care of the earth, our corporations do not care about the earth, good year never cleaned the mess they created.
        our citizens have 200% per cent more chemicals in our systems than that of any industrialized countries in the world.
        our water supply is poisoned for years since the industrial revolution.
        we poison the earth at a rate that is more than sustainable for any animal or human.
        we do experiment with the deadliest virus and make constant mistakes on that.
        The rest of the world sells in our markets and they pay the price for that by giving us the best pricing in the world (hence you can buy tomatoes or asparagus or even corn for 60 cents).
        the rest of the world sees us as a big fat guy buying everything and anything just because we do not have measure or maturity to be responsible consumers but excessive and cheap.

        • loupgarous

          “our citizens have 200% per cent more chemicals in our systems than that of any industrialized countries in the world.”

          You just betrayed your cosmic ignorance there. European or American, any human being’s body is completely made of chemicals. DNA, RNA, calcium, dextrose, water, oxygen.. the list goes on. Since you apparently were snoozing through “general science” class when that fact was covered, I don’t feel the need to read any further. Some messages leave the reader more ignorant than he was before, and yours is one of them.

          • truthnothate

            There you just betrayed your OWN ignorance and lack of capacity to analyze what you are reading and here it is again and further clarified:


            Oh and a little class for you: there are also synthetic chemicals and you have those too.

            Now here are some links for you so your UNIVERSAL ignorance can be fully addressed:




            Oh and while you are at it please let me know that the following are completely part of the human body:

            monoxide carbon, nitrogen oxide, and the list below:


            now as you can see you definitely need a chemistry 101 buddy, your ignorance is appalling.
            I think this will definitely help you to overcome that ignorance once and for all.

          • loupgarous

            Back in freshman chemistry class at LSU, cheap hand calculators capable of doing scientific calculations had just come out, and my professor told us, first day of class, that he didn’t mind us using them on tests, because he and his grad assistants had seen some of the most precise wrong answers they’d ever encountered made with electronic help.

            You’re an example of that. Armed with the Internet, you’ve managed to embarrass yourself by marshaling quotations and pseudoscientific jargon in support of your confused thinking.

            I’d like to spend time trying to undo your myriad educational failures, but that much time simply doesn’t exist in my schedule. Just… that “200%” figure means that certain chemicals singled out for study which are present in parts per million or billion in the human body are twice as common in Americans than in Europeans. That’s what “200% more common” means. Not 200 times more common, but TWICE as common. And in none of these cases is that cause for alarm.

            Just spare yourself the odium of having a trail of utter crap under your name in Disqus – anyone with a computer can see who’s ignorant and who isn’t. I’m going to leave you to decorate the Internet with your own feces, now.

          • truthnothate

            Nope, you don’t understand squat of chemistry and biology, less mathematics , the reality here is that even if you claim to have scientific knowledge is clear that you don’t have the slightest idea of what you are made of at the atomic, molecular or biological level.
            Is very simple buddy, learn some humbleness and apologize for your stupid comment, move on and learn from this experience, since even on your sarcastic comment on sunbeams I taught you a lesson (and you deserved it).

          • truthnothate

            Ah and also…try to have 200% more mercury in your body than you are supposed to have and lets see if is not cause for alarm.
            200% more chemicals in your body of any type (including oxygen, methane, ammonia, nitrogen, carbon or even hydrogen) and that will definitely affect your health.

          • truthnothate

            Oh and finally (almost forgot), it is amazing how some clowns try to sound like they know what they are talking about as in your case here, it is amazing that you actually tried to put a “scientific fact” that almost sounded real so your ignorant peers around here could say: “wow loupgarous is amazing! intelligent fella we have here, he is sooo right! humans are made of chemicals..very true” …
            freaking ignorant, go and get some formal education for once buddy.

          • loupgarous

            Thanks for my morning laugh! Where’d you get YOUR “formal education”? Because I got mine at LSU and Louisiana Tech, minoring in chemistry, mathematics and biomedical engineering. Can’t wait to tell everyone back there that human beings aren’t made of chemicals!

            But hatenottruth, I have to know – what ARE we made of, if not chemicals? Because I’m racking my brain for alternatives.

          • truthnothate

            Bio-Genetics and Nano-technology University of Rome.
            furthermore, take into account that you should have taken math a little bit more there since 200% more means that there is the understanding that there are something already in existence of the chemicals in the body.
            reading comprehension is also a good class to take, helps a lot to achieve the knowledge on the other subjects.
            to finalize this conversation I state this in simpler terms:
            if I said and quote: “Americans have 200% chemicals in their bodies than any other developed country” should not you understand that I am attesting to the existence of a 100% chemicals in those American bodies? because there cannot be 200% of nothing, right?

          • loupgarous

            All I can see from your posts is that you claim to have gotten a massive fund of misinformation from the Sapienza in Rome, which is a horrible slander on them.

          • truthnothate

            Well then you need glasses with a high resolution perhaps a telescope since as I said and repeat:
            you must have 1,000% more chemicals in your body than needed since the methane emissions are high and detectable even from your computer to mine.

          • truthnothate

            What you need is to go to your daddy and ask him how to apologize when wrong , be humble and move on to your next “mission” in trying to correct someone with better knowledge of what you are trying to discuss, trust me eventually you will learn more that way than tryint to support and unsupportable argument.
            YOU were wrong on the assessment of the quote, wrong on the further claims you made, wrong on understanding the number, type, composition, atomic level, molecular composition and even the math part of the statement I made and that dude is way out of any formal education you claim to have.

          • truthnothate

            Oh and add the mathematics class too,,, learn about some percentages too.

          • truthnothate

            actually here is another interesting fact for you:
            One American has 1,000 percent more of methane and organic chemicals in his body than the average human being and that is simplify it for you: you are way full of BS.

          • loupgarous

            You reason so well. All I did was mention incontrovertible facts – that we ALL are made of “chemicals.” Lord knows what YOU thought we were made of – sunbeams and fairy dust, probably.

          • truthnothate

            Nope, unfortunately you seem not to understand the concept of the physical limitations that a body has in reference to the amount of chemicals that can maintain that body in a healthy state and perhaps alive.
            We are made of chemicals organic an inorganic, there are also synthetic chemicals that are not supposed to be in our bodies, there are chemicals that if in excess will kill us (mercury is a good example), there are chemicals that will cause major damage to our bodies even in the smallest quantities (venoms), there are chemicals that are included in the food, water and air that simply you take everyday into your body and are causing chemical and biological and even sometimes genetic imbalances.
            the chemicals in existence that can be poisonous to humans..well ALL of them are poisonous in one way or another, even 100% pure oxygen kills you in a matter of minutes.

          • truthnothate

            Actually now that you mention…at the atom level we do are made of sunbeams and fairy dust too…radical ions exist within the neutron and electron on the atoms that compose our molecules.

          • loupgarous

            You really don’t know what the word “ion” means, do you? (action: shakes my head).

          • truthnothate

            atoms where the electrons are not in balanced pairs with protons..simple…

          • loupgarous

            That’s not what you said just now, hatenottruth: “radical ions exist within the neutron and electron on the atoms that compose our molecules” – you said that ions exist WITHIN neutrons and electrons. Neutrons, for one thing, are NOT chemically active. Secondly, in no way can an electron or a neutron have an ion existing IN it.

          • truthnothate

            I correct: radical ions exist within the molecules not the atoms..simple correction…lets go on we have 364 days to go here until you learn.

          • loupgarous

            we could take 364 years and not change the fact that you asserted electrons and neutrons can “have ions.” That will be permanently recorded on the Internet.

          • truthnothate

            what is permanently recorded is the fact that you don’t know that 200% is the double of an already existing unit.
            and that buddy is BASIC even at elementary school level.

          • loupgarous

            And you can’t or won’t read. I said exactly that same thing in this thread.

          • truthnothate

            I didn’t challenged that, I just added more information, you are the one that challenged the “chemicals in body issues” and that is why I responded to you, otherwise makes no difference to me, you are still short on information, and if I understood correctly you claim that the EPA actually does a good job in relation to chemicals in the stream of market in the US?

          • truthnothate

            and as far as the years 364..well here you go with another mathematical Impossibility…lmao..but hey continue on your arrogant ignorance forever I have the time, the means, the education and the knowledge to clean the floor with your lousy arguments.

          • truthnothate

            So you mean there is no chemical bonding in neutrons?

          • loupgarous

            Show me where there’s an electrical charge capable of supporting bonding in a neutron. Electron orbitals can be affected by nuclear mass, but that’s not the same thing.

          • truthnothate

            The neutron is essential to the production of nuclear power. After the neutron was discovered in 1932,[7] it was quickly realized that neutrons might act to form a nuclear chain reaction. In the 1930s, neutrons were used to produce many different types of nuclear transmutations. When nuclear fission was discovered in 1938,[8] it became clear that, if a fission event produced neutrons, each of these neutrons might cause further fission events, etc., in a cascade known as a chain reaction.[5] These events and findings led to the first self-sustaining nuclear reactor (Chicago Pile-1, 1942) and the first nuclear weapon (Trinity, 1945).

            Free neutrons, or individual neutrons free of the nucleus, are effectively a form of ionizing radiation, and as such, are a biological hazard, depending upon dose.[5] A small natural “neutron background” flux of free neutrons exists on Earth, caused by cosmic ray muons, and by the natural radioactivity of spontaneously fissionable elements in the Earth’s crust.[9] Dedicated neutron sources like neutron generators, research reactors and spallation sources produce free neutrons for use in irradiation and in neutron scattering experiments.

            there you go buddy..another lesson to learn and stil you don’t apologize for your initial ignorant post…

          • loupgarous

            I know more about nucleonics than you do – I sure don’t have to cut and paste from Wikipedia to make my points the way you do.

            My question remains – show me ONE chemical bond involving a neutron. Just ONE. You fornicating ignoramus.

          • truthnothate

            hahaha now resort to name calling? I already proved to you on free neutrons…so guess what? want to take the conversation to that level fistus mater incubus?

          • truthnothate

            Free neutrons, or individual neutrons free of the nucleus, are effectively a form of ionizing radiation, and as such, are a biological hazard
            there fukus matrix imbedus

          • truthnothate

            By the way: coming back to my original statement that you said was wrong:
            Americans have in their bodies 200% more chemicals than any other developed country.
            simple as that.
            your argument: that we are composed of chemicals and that because of that I am stupid not to realize it and that is a normal is more stupid than any other argument I ever heard, since any amount of imbalance in a body can amount to biological and even emotional changes in a body.

          • loupgarous

            hatenottruth: “Americans have in their bodies 200% more chemicals than any other developed country.”

            That would require us to have twice as much bodily mass as inhabitants of any other developed country.

            I realize we super-size orders at MacDonald’s more than they do, but twice as much bodily mass? You’re a moron.

          • truthnothate

            mmhhh nah you are the moron, since the body can contain less chemicals that are supposed to be there and instead have the wrong ones in guess what….yep you are a fukkked up moron again and for the fifth time, I am having sooo much fun whipping my asss with your statements that is pathetic now.

          • truthnothate

            LOL by the way you are telling me that BMI actually increases right there if you eat a hamburger? mmhhhh
            I always thought that the BMI is just a formula for fat measurement, not total molecular mass of a body.
            mmhhh I don’t know we will have to take into consideration that air and methane are lighter than air and weight may not represent the (idiotic argument) claim that you make…
            so try again buddy, BMI does not measure what you think it does, and definitely a tank of compressed methane (such as you) can contain double the quantity if it is more compressed and apparently is happening right now as you learn a bit more.

          • truthnothate

            By the way there are still openings for the brain offerings , you don’t necessarily need to be the last one to get one, even of low quality, run and get the holiday specials on brains while you can, they have them at 75% discount, that means three quarters off a 100% which is the total)

          • loupgarous

            Or they can buy YOUR brain, which would be a splendid bargain, having never been used.

          • truthnothate

            Oh and by the way, here is your sixth class today:

            The medical establishment[27] and statistical community[28] have both highlighted the limitations of BMI. Because the BMI depends upon weight and the square of height, it ignores basic scaling laws whereby mass increases to the 3rd power of linear dimensions. Hence, larger individuals, even if they had exactly the same body shape and relative composition, always have a larger BMI.[29] Also, its assumptions about the distribution between lean mass and adipose tissue are inexact. BMI generally overestimates adiposity on those with more lean body mass (e.g., athletes) and underestimates excess adiposity on those with less lean body mass. A study in June 2008 by Romero-Corral et al. examined 13,601 subjects from the United States’ third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES III) and found that BMI-defined obesity (BMI > 30) was present in 21% of men and 31% of women. Using body fat percentages (BF%), however, BF%-defined obesity was found in 50% of men and 62% of women. While BMI-defined obesity showed high specificity (95% for men and 99% for women), BMI showed poor sensitivity (36% for men and 49% for women). Despite this undercounting of obesity by BMI, BMI values in the intermediate BMI range of 20–30 were found to be associated with a wide range of body fat percentages. For men with a BMI of 25, about 20% have a body fat percentage below 20% and about 10% have body fat percentage above 30%.[26]

            you are to a good start this year!!! you may learn in one day what you haven’t learned in all your life…lmao the moron here buddy: is you

          • truthnothate

            oh and by the way those happen to exist in the human body too and are the result of electrical impulses through light that imbed into our bodies, such as radiation and UV light.

        • loupgarous

          Getting back to the point of my original post, the EPA imposes much stricter controls on effluents from industry than ANY of the BRICs do. That has had a severe effect on the competitiveness of American industry with the BRICs, as has had all of the laudable and correct regulations protecting workers in the United States that don’t exist in the BRICs. Europe and the US, despite your comments are about on the same page of environmental and worker protection compared to the BRICs, and it’s trade with the BRICs I want to restrict until their care for workers and the environment is the same as ours.

          It’s only equitable, and I don’t care what mountain of nonsense you assemble to say different.

          • truthnothate

            nope, Europe is way ahead on environmental protections than the US..and do not even try to go there I work for Nano-Technology and have had the opportunity to experience first hand the EPA and the government approach to “environmental protection” in the US.

            Further, on food chemicals regulations are practically non-existent, from vitamins to determining (by republicans push) that pizza is a vegetable for children, America is the laughingstock of the whole world in food quality.

            as far as air quality, only China beats us with certain areas such as Los Angeles, New York and Chicago.

            Los Angeles has some of the most contaminated air in the country. With a population of over 18 million, the Los Angeles area is a large basin with the Pacific Ocean to the west, and several mountain ranges with 11,000-foot peaks to the east and south. Diesel engines, ports, motor vehicles, and industries are main sources of air pollution in Los Angeles. Frequent sunny days and low rainfall contribute to ozone formation, as well as high levels of fine particles and dust.[5]

            Air pollution in Los Angeles has caused widespread concerns. In 2011, the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) Survey on Californians and the Environment showed that 45% of citizens in Los Angeles consider air pollution to be a “big problem”, and 47% believe that the air quality of Los Angeles is worse than it was 10 years ago.[6] In 2013, the Los Angeles-Long Beach-Riverside area ranked the 1st most ozone-polluted city, the 4th most polluted city by annual particle pollution, and the 4th most polluted city by 24-hour particle pollution.[7]

            Both ozone and particle pollution are dangerous to human health. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) engaged a panel of expert scientists, the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, to help them assess the evidence. The EPA released their most recent review of the current research on health threat of ozone and particle pollution.[8][9]

            EPA Concludes Ozone Pollution Poses Serious Health Threats

            Causes respiratory harm (e.g. worsened asthma, worsened COPD, inflammation)

            Likely to cause early death (both short-term and long-term exposure)

            Likely to cause cardiovascular harm (e.g. heart attacks, strokes, heart disease, congestive heart failure)

            May cause harm to the central nervous system

            May cause reproductive and developmental harm

            – U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Integrated Science Assessment for Ozone and Related Photochemical Oxidants, 2013. EPA/600/R-10/076F.

            EPA Concludes Fine Particle Pollution Poses Serious Health Threats

            Causes early death (both short-term and long-term exposure)

            Causes cardiovascular harm (e.g. heart attacks, strokes, heart disease, congestive heart failure)

            Likely to cause respiratory harm (e.g. worsened asthma, worsened COPD, inflammation)

            May cause cancer

            May cause reproductive and developmental harm
            and finally, just for your information even countries like Mexico in Mexico City had been able to reduce their contaminants by 50% (that means half, just in case you have a problem with percentages again) and therefore improve their air quality on that city being harder and more expensive to do than almost any city in the United States…Yep Mexico City is a good example of how delusional you are on what we had been doing in America about it.

          • truthnothate
          • truthnothate
    • truthnothate

      mmhhh you seem to forget the poverty levels of the farmers, the blacks in factories and all the injustices we committed during that era you talk about.
      the substandard way of life for many people during that era is still present today.
      furthermore is easy to try to conclude that Obama is at fault for everything that happens today, but the reality is that those injustices were the reason for the civil rights movement, now I have to assume that you and your family rode on the “prosperity wagon” of the fifties…well how nice, I wonder how would you feel if your family was black or Hispanic at that time…perhaps the fantasy history of America you put here could be different?
      the Idealization of America as a great country that is no more is pathetic, we have not been a great country, we have used every single resource we can get our hands on the extremes and when we cannot get it from other countries by buying it we go with guns and steal it. that is unfortunately the truth of the American government values.
      The concept that a single President or administration can change forces of economics and other aspects that entail and are forced by the whole world is simplistic and pathetic at most.

  • Concernedmimi

    Only pea brain liberals would think it a good idea to trade 5 top ranking terrorists for 1 lousy deserter; especially while the war is still raging. Conservatives have logic; liberals have none!!!!!!!

    • TerriGeer

      We do not leave our soldiers behind! Period!

      As for the POW’s at GITMO, they will have to be released by the end of the year and returned to their home country’s anyway. That is what happens when a war ends.

      • Integrity

        They are not POWs. They are criminals. You should learn the difference. QED

        • TerriGeer

          If they are criminals, not POW’s, then they should have been tried in a court of law many, many years ago. But they weren’t.

          They were taken from the battlefields as enemy combatants. That makes them POW’s.

          • Integrity

            I have heard that deep down they are really nice people that are simply misunderstood. Perhaps you should invite some of them over for tea sometime. No, because they are also unlawful combatants. QED

          • truthnothate

            your attempt to sarcasm is idiotic at most…
            you tried to evade Terri point by using this? really? is that how lame you are?
            try something better such as:
            “our former king bush and his puppeteer chenney decided to go on an undeclared war of conquest claiming they were spreading freedom and finding wmd in an unrelated place they thought it was convenient for them since their friendship with saddam was no more and they needed Halliburton to make some millions for them along with other private companies, and finally when they were left with these individuals they didn’t know what to do put to place them in a place outside the continent expecting to be able to supposedly be judges and executors of these and have a show for the American people as evidence of these boogie men for Americans to believe that actually all their deceiving actions were true”
            try that for nice people.

        • truthnothate

          eh? bush and chenney said they were enemy what is your meaning then?
          if there was no war..then what are they? just criminals from other nationality? why don’t we submit them to the international court of Hague then?
          mmhhh too convenient for right wingers.

      • truthnothate

        And take into account that it wasn’t a war per se…at least with Iraq we did wonderfully a “preemptive strike” (aka undeclared war)

  • wildjew

    Bernie, you wrote: “You think liberals want to spend two minutes, let alone an hour, with Sean Hannity?”

    Thank God you didn’t say Rush Limbaugh. This self-absorbed man would have spent an entire segment talking about how Bernard Goldberg, like everyone else in the media invokes his name, because in talk radio Limbaugh’s opinion is the only opinion that matters.

    • scott autry

      I’ve never like Rush Limbaugh. I only listened to him some in college in the early-1990s, and he reminded me exactly of a Robert Tilton. I could never buy into the idea he was being sincere, because it was just too identical to a snake-oil salesman…

      • wildjew

        I listen to him from time to time, less so since the administration of George W. Bush. When he isn’t talking about sports, he can be worth listening to if you keep in mind he is a blind partisan. Limbaugh carried former President Bush’s water for eight years; still does. But since Bush Limbaugh claims to be against the Republican “Establishment.” How much more Establishment can you get than the Saudi and the Bush dynasties?

        • stmichrick

          I’m not reading any superior wisdom here.

          • wildjew

            You would know wisdom if it slapped you in the face.

          • stmichrick

            Wild J
            We’ve agreed in the past; I’m just observing that trashing Limbaugh rarely deals with the substance of what he says. Most of the criticism of Bush offers no alternative to what should have been done, given the available info and circumstances at the time. Predominately Monday morning quarterbacking.
            Few voted against him for use of force; just those that always oppose military action. Hussein completely ignored the efforts of the United Nations.

      • TerriGeer

        My Economics Professor FIL used to say that Rush was the best comedy show around. lol

        • stmichrick

          Why don’t you specify where and why he is wrong instead of lamely
          Hurling insults? I know why; you’ve never spent more tha a minute listening to him!

          • TerriGeer

            You are wrong. You don’t know me and have no idea what I watch, read or listen to. Assuming that you do is pretty ignorant.

          • truthnothate

            He has been wrong all his life..from racist comments to insults, assumptions and the fact that he hasn’t said one true thing ever. his logic is faulty and he is one of the most dangerous voices around (although the competition is hard between him and Hannity).
            the fact that he has promoted the killing of poor people (practically said that in one show) to the fact that for him any woman who has a voice is a slut..for his clarity of ideas while on drugs. to his boisterous ways, he is just a propagandist with no idea of the real world and if he does have an idea and fakes his comments, then he is the most dangerous voice in the country trying to convince people of such fallacies as freedom and the advance of society towards a fascism world as he sees it apparently.

  • Joh

    I never fail to be astounded at the number of people who follow a political party blindly, EITHER party. Bill O’Reilly always points out that people try to rationalize bad behavior by pointing out other bad behavior. Any thinking person can see the corruption that is rampant in government. The IRS scandal is a prime example. If you are not outraged because the of IRS conduct because you happen to approve of the party in power you are a fool because sooner or later, you will be on the wrong side of the party in power.

    • Concernedmimi

      Correct! and the very people being investigated; mainly Lois Lerner’s computer blew up! Yeah, right! And pigs fly!

    • TerriGeer

      Actually, the IRS employee’s did their job – processed the applications that were filed. If you can point to applications that they turned down because of politics then, and only then, do you have a case against the IRS.

      • Joh

        Taking years to approve an application while others, filed later, were approved in weeks and months is hardly “doing the job”
        Whatever dope you’re smoking in Washington must be pretty good stuff

  • Marvin Katzen

    How about common sense versus foolishness

  • scott autry

    “Now, the are more circumspect about announcing their “revolution” but you can’t watch something like the Occupy Wall Street movement or Hollywood elites flying on their private jets to shake hands with the latest Castro-like dictator to recognize they are still diligently working to reach a change in our fundamental social institutions.”

    (I know quoting yourself is a bit much, but I think it’s worth it, because this is important, and we seem to be missing it.)

    I think even people on conservative blogs and media outlets are missing the point when they bash Obama for incompetence…

    I can’t tell how incompetent he is, because in the areas The Right point to the most, it seems to me, he is following a game-plan like the one people who dug into his past before the first election started screaming about – trying to warn us…

    The short version of this is: What will Obama say if Obamacare leads to the fundamental collapse of our economy?

    “Goodie!!!” would be a good guess – if you have ever paid attention to the kind of ideology these guys ate like syrupy hotcakes as they came of age…

    That says it all: (2:24 in)

    This is not “participate within the system” – it is “use the system against itself to kill it – then we’ll be able to set up something new and better (that we can’t get enough support from voters to do right now).

    I seem to remember a fair number of writers/speakers in public back in 2008 understood this: That some were pointing out that the collapse of the Housing Market and free fall of the global economy was not actually viewed as a “bad thing” by some people in important positions of power.

    “President-Elect Obama’s chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, recently said: “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. And what I mean by that is an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.””

    Lastly, it seems to me too many conservatives writing and speaking in public get off point when the lambaste Obama for incompetence in the face of the deterioration of Iraq and so on…

    Maybe that is a better line to use on a Hillary Clinton-type – where getting elected and reelected is more important than Ideology.

    Which is exactly why the media and other liberal establishments tossed her overboard for Obama – someone THEY knew was old school, progressive/revolutionary – but someone they believed they could get in the White House, because they control the media and entertainment industry (and they were correct).

    — If your historical view is that — The United States has been a net oppressor with immoral power at home and around the world — then having no foreign policy —— IS YOUR FOREIGN POLICY….

    If you just recognize that – then – Obama is being fairly successful in applying his political ideology:

    ‘So, coal plants go belly up left and right in the future? Goodie. That’s the way it should be…’

    ‘Iraq and Afghanistan and Syria and others fall to extremists? So what? At least we no longer have American boots on the ground over their occupying and abusing and killing and oppressing the locals…….And if we’d reigned in American colonial power decades ago, we’d have prevented the just grievances that produce extremists.’

    If you recognize where these people are coming from – what we see happening today is not a surprise….

    • Drew Page

      He will say it’s Bush’s fault.

    • TerriGeer

      “”President-Elect Obama’s chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, recently said:
      “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. And what I mean by that
      is an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.”””

      Actually, ALL politicians operate on this premiss. Pretending that it is only one side is dishonest.

  • scott autry

    I want to try to better focus the comment I offered yesterday:.

    Examining the evolution of the people who produced Commentary Magazine – and what Bernard Goldberg has written about his own path away from Liberalism/Progressivism – is very telling about WHY we currently have at least two different Americas – and it isn’t just rhetorical and theatrics – it is foundational.

    John Podhoretz and Goldberg both describe how they were Old School Liberals back in the day, but then the Progressive activists began taking over and moving Liberalism far from its base.

    Where they took it is the key:

    Bernard Goldberg spends most of his time focusing on the media because that was an institution he cherished that became mind-bogglingly hypocritical concerning how it functioned and the “Ideals” it claimed to uphold.

    Podhoretz’ evolution is more telling: He wrote that the Liberalism he came of age supporting recognized the evils (and they were evil) in American society – slavery, Segregation, voting rights stripped away, and so on including sexism and homophobia…

    …The Old School Liberalism sought to change those things — but – they still defined American society as exceptional – recognizing the democratic and industrial base that allowed for changing laws and the practice of government — to better match the noble Ideas our founding fathers put in the language of our Constitution and their personal writings.

    But, as Progressivism took control – the definition of American democracy and freedom as goals to work toward to solve problems of inequality and racism that remained —– became replaced by one that said —- our institutions were fundamentally immoral and undemocratic — and that “Revolutionary Change” was necessary.

    During what The Left calls derisively the “Red Scare” – they were clear about what they had in mind: Stalinism. Authoritarian communism. Fascism: Putting the full power of government not in the hands of average voters – but – in the hands of super-intelligent people (like Obama) who would use that power to —— fundamentally create a New America —— to match their vision of what true “democracy” should look like.

    In short – yes – for a very long time now — about a hundred years worth — there have been two extremely different views about what a “moral” and “free” America would look like…

    It isn’t just cable news…and rhetorical flare.

    It is about very serious Ideological differences – that we fail to recognize at our own peril: How long can each new generation be taught in college and the media and by Hollywood elites that the economic and political foundation of our society is evil and must be changed — before they start winning enough minds to give it an honest try???

    When Segragation and lack of free participation in politics for Non-White Males was the norm, Liberals like John Podhoretz could still sit on stage with the Progressives/Revolutionaries – but as they became more radical, and the democracy we do have was able to move closer to the Ideals our founding fathers did instill in the society and government – Old School Liberals began to break away (or should have).

    Now, we need to break the strangle hold on media, higher education, and the entertainment industry we’ve just hummed and hawwed about for too long…

    • TerriGeer

      “we currently have at least two different Americas”

      We don’t have two different America’s. We simply have people who do not agree politically. Pretending otherwise is not very smart, and it helps to force a divide between our citizens.

      The fact is that I don’t know of any US citizens, including Obama and the Dem, who want to change this country’s Government. While the right has been maintaining that they do, it is not correct. And that way of thinking is what is making this country so volatile.

      If we are going to help our country, not harm it, we have to stop the stupid infighting. And stop making our disagreements into an “us v them” contest.

      • scott autry

        I’m not going to rewrite what I’ve said in multiple long comments here and on other threads about similar items.

        I will just sum up: I believe if you look at who inspired Obama as a young man, and also throughout his adult life, you will find individuals who most assuredly want a fundamental change in our economic and governmental systems.

        I know just using the word “communist” today means a whole slate of (educated) readers are going to immediately tune you out, because of how the Left has gained control of key institutions who define history (McCarthyism – to use a general term).

        But – communist movement in the United States from the early 1900s and on were NOT participating within democracy.

        Was Saul Alinsky a communist? I don’t know but it doesn’t matter: His goal was the same: Manipulate the weaknesses of democracy, by whatever means that worked, to bring it down.

        I don’t know how he and others could have been more clear.

        • TerriGeer

          And I prefer to look at what has been actually done and said. And what has been actually done and said does not, in any way, match up with your contentions about Obama or the left.

          Using the word communist in relation to anyone in our current Government means that the person using it has no idea what it actually means. They, also, seem to accept blindly what other people have to say about it, without questioning it. That is not smart at all.

          The left defined McCarthyism?? Not in this world they didn’t. You don’t seem to even understand what happened during the McCarthy red-scare years. I highly suggest that you read actual history books and look up verifiable facts.

          Back to the Alinsky crap, huh? Saul Alinsky was an agitator who wrote a book about the ways of media, and people, manipulation. What he wrote was not new, he just put it in one place. And EVERY SINGLE politician and political party uses those rules. Not just one side. Anyone who actually pays attention to what is going on can see it quite clearly.

          • JMax

            Rules for Radicals has been widely distributed among the Tea Party leadership.

          • alevanpa

            That’s right, Terri: you “prefer” to accept the left’s version of U.S. history/culture. Your ‘preference’, however, may have nothing to do with reality-and everything to do with, what can only be described as, “faith.” In other words: You are a true believer.
            Try this out on yourself: Go back, historically (you can easily do this via the web), to the year prior to, and the year following 9-11, follow the news accounts of 9-11 and the ensuing War on Terror”; and where that history leads. See if you don’t come up with, at the minimum, a questioning of the current beliefs of the left in the U.S. regarding our actions in Iraq and Afghanistan.
            To me, it was an interesting progression. Maybe it will be to you, too.

    • TerriGeer

      You talk about Liberals and Progressives as though they are the sum total of the left, when they are actually a small number.

      What do you have to say about the Democrats? You know, the party that is the vast majority of the left?

    • JMax

      “the definition of American democracy and freedom as goals to work toward
      to solve problems of inequality and racism that remained —– became
      replaced by one that said —- our institutions were fundamentally
      immoral and undemocratic — and that “Revolutionary Change” was

      I think I’ve heard that 20 times this week on talk radio and Fox. Times 10 when Cliven Bundy was in the news.

  • sunnyinaz

    Just wondering…did Legal Eagle change his name to JMax??

    • Jeff

      No, don’t think so… not nearly enough posts! And not nasty enough.

      • D Parri

        Thank goodness for that.

      • TerriGeer

        Agreed. JMax isn’t nasty at all, and uses verifiable facts to make his point.

  • scott autry

    “President Bush started the fire by engaging the United States in a war that in retrospect was a big mistake.”

    That is a defensible position but not law. You’ll need to develop it more to have meaning.

    If Bush Jr. had removed the No Fly Zones and let Husein do whatever he wanted, I would not have screamed at him about it. Nor am I yelling at him now that we know no WMD stockpiles were found. I detested the No Fly Zones and staus quo established after Iraqi War I as a typical BS politician’s non-answer answer to a problem.

    I still support Bush Jr. doing something about it.

    But, anyway, what exactly do you mean by “big mistake”?

    Do you think “Bush Lied and People Died?” – which would mean several big name leaders within the US government and other nations – as well as the intelligence agencies in those nations – lied as well…

    …Or…do you think the evidence was just wrong: That maybe, for some reason, Hussein felt he must maintain the appearance of having WMD stockpiles to prevent being overthrow by his own people or Iran, and he was even willing to bet his very life on that and the idea even if the US invaded, they’d fail to follow through just like they did the first time?

    In short, there can be a difference between being wrong and making a mistake. A “mistake” would look more like saying – even with the information we thought we had, invading was the wrong choice…

    Well, the success of the surge makes that an even tougher argument to hold to…

    • Bernie

      I never suggested that President Bush lied. There’s nothing to indicate that in my column. I said going to war was a “mistake.” A mistake not only because they got the WMD thing wrong. That was an honest mistake. A mistake because they thought we would be greeted as heroes; that the Iraqis would love us if we got rid of Saddam Hussein, that we could help the Iraqis create a real democracy.

      The religious divisions go too far back and run to deep. We could help create stability — but only for a while. Witness what’s happening now in Iraq.

      Hope that clarifies my position.

      • scott autry

        No, I understand that. I wasn’t clear in that I was throwing that Bush Lied line as the very common meme many people like to throw out – which frustratingly ignores the bulk of the actual history leading up to the invasion – and what a fairly wide variety of important people – in more than a few countries – believed was the reality based on evidence… Dennis Miller is the only person I can think of off the top of my head who pointed out early on that it would be great to know just what the heck was going on in Hussein’s head when he was pulling all that stuff to convince people he must have stockpiles: (Like how debriefed, captured commanders on the field said his units didn’t have WMDs on hand, but he knew the units on his left and right did.)

        I do think your clarification does add needed depth to what you had in mind.

        It does make me wonder: Do you think Truman throwing troops back into Korea was a “mistake”? I think that is an important question that does relate to whether we can confidently conclude Bush was also mistaken…

        (I won’t even get into the fact Truman pulled the troops out in 1948 and refused to arm the South.)

        Many experts thought the Korean War would be over in a flash once American boots hit the ground. Then we got flattened. Almost an American Dunkirk. Rather embarrassing.

        Then, when Incheon worked, many experts said the war would be over by Christmas. How’d that work out?

        Isn’t a common feature of military history that politicians and even expert generals make rather huge mistakes in judgment or policy or whatever? I guess in the very short wars, no, but then Iraq War I pops back into mind.

        Did Bush Sr. And Colin Powell make a big mistake getting I to the liberation of Kuwait?

        I like both those men, but I’d have to say “yes”, because of the disgusting way they “ended” that conflict – and then still had the gall years and years later- up to this very day – saying they were “correct” in doing so…

        • scott autry

          I guess that is the new standard of American fortitude and judgment on whether to use force or not:

          Make sure you can get it done in 4 – or at most 8 years – and have our troops out and the enemy on solid economic and democratic grounds by then – before the next person gets into the White House – because if you haven’t gotten it all wrapped up and solved by then – you’re going to be judged by what he decides to do…

        • scott autry

          I’ll also point out – the parallel of the Korean War example: Even President Carter, the man who won based on the purity of his heart and convictions, caved in and gave up on his pledge to remove troops from South Korea, because they were ready to stand on their own, and Park Chung Hee was an authoritarian ruler…

          • TerriGeer

            Purity of his heart? lol We didn’t vote for him because of that. That’s nonsense. We voted for him because we felt that, between his private business and his military levels, he would make a good President. For the most part, he did very well.

          • scott autry

            Good heavens!!

            That is a sure sign to stop reading and replying.

            Carter did a good job, basically? I’m done.

            (I said Cater won due to the purity of his heart. He ran on it as part of his sale’s pitch. His morality. And it helped him win a close election.)

            That will be all from me.

            Readers, do not take future silence as a capitulation to superior ideas.

      • scott autry

        I want to add – in the very long reply I wrote below – I finally stumbled on a more clear idea to say —- why I am increasingly dismayed at conservatives who say Obama is “incompetent”.

        No no no no no no no no no no…

        Look at the examples I used as examples of major – successes – in American foreign policy post-WWII: Germany, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Greece, and throw in France and the UK and others.

        Do people raised and educated as Obama was agree with me that those are such huge examples the US should be proud of?

        Maybe Obama with a microphone and camera shoved in his face – or giving a speech on D-Day – might lie and say “yes” – but the answer – for anyone who has been through higher education in the past several decades – especially at the more posh colleges – should know the answer for these guys is — No.

        Those are prime examples of a Teddy Roosevelt-inspired America picking up the mantel of classical colonialism and running wild with it. (Or they’d say it is even worse than that — that it is the dastardly Pres. Wilson with his neo-liberalism – preaching “democracy” and “economic freedom” while — enslaving the world.)

        I know this sounds far fetched to many. Particularly those who didn’t spend all their time in the Humanities in college, or graduated before 1965, or those who tossed out of their heads after getting their diploma the junk their professors tried so hard to convert them to, but, read a book like Indoctrinate U. by David Horowitz.

        If you have professors who thrive at a top college who start semesters by explaining how he is a Maoist and that Mao has been grossly misunderstood in American culture, is it really hard to believe or remember that this same type of intellectual —- the type Obama was proud to be in college —- looks at American society’s biggest achievements in the 20th century and – dismisses them?

        If we would examine that —- we would see — it isn’t about — Incompetence.

        It is about an ideology — one accepted by people and leaders in key institutions in our society — that explains what Obama has been doing with the deficit and the economy and foreign policy…

        It is not incompetence. It is applying a doctrine.

        A doctrine that has long viewed American society as still highly oppressive at both home and abroad – a society whose fundamental institutions – like the economy – don’t need tinkering with – but need a fundamental change…

        I know this sounds like conspiracy talk. Just like the other side throws at the Tea Party.

        But when you have even the likes of Hillary Clinton loving Saul Alinsky, what the heck else am I supposed to think!!!

        • alevanpa

          I agree with you. I also think that the events taking place around the world (ISIS, Ukraine, Syria) fit the Obama administration’s concept of “leading from behind.” After all, to lead from behind means someone else must be in front; and, since under Obama it won’t be the U.S., we must, therefore, wait until someone (other than us), gets scared enough to take some kind of action. Then, we can get behind them.
          The so-called “war weariness” of the United States is, actually, not a reason to avoid direct action. The president is supposed to be a “leader.” He must lead.
          If he thinks the action necessary to the well-being of the citizens of the United States, explain why to the American people (and the world) it is necessary to take direct action. But, as a leader, he must do it, even if the people still don’t want the action taken, because he knows that the action is necessary for the safety and well-being of the people of the United States.
          The problem is, as you explained, Mr. Obama does not see himself as a leader. Therefore, he doesn’t need to make, and prepare, contingency plans. I don’t know of a single major issue where Mr. Obama has not been caught by surprise. Everything the man does is from behind the eight ball. He has no plans because he is not out in front.

          • scott autry

            I’m afraid it is deeper than that:

            If you view US “leadership” in the world as “immoral” and “neocolonial” – then not doing anything is your foreign policy.

            He IS leading based on his type’s definition of American history and the ideology they base on it. Refusing to exercise American power abroad is leadership in his direction.

          • alevanpa

            Yes! You may be right. But, who, in their right mind, wants to think, that the man elected to represent and protect them, would actually engage in activity that allows his people’s enemies to succeed in their objectives, to the detriment of the people he represents, because he thinks the people he leads (well their government, anyway) is evil. That, I think, is beyond comprehension.

          • scott autry

            Its not like that in their minds and ideology.

            1. They believe once the oppressive economic and governmental systems have collapsed, they’ll be able to create a far better country that will be far better for far more Americans. That is far from hating them.

            2. Which enemies? They come from different ideologies and ends of the political spectrum, but these guys are not too different from isolationists which made up a good part of the American people before WWII and before Wilsonianism.

            The isolationist didn’t look around the world and see trouble brewing that meant we had to export the us of US power abroad. They didn’t want to do it for the expense and so on.

            Obama’s type don’t because they view it as immoral.

            What you might view as doing nothing while watching America’s enemys march forward against us is —- fundamentally NOT how they view it.

            These guys believe they are saving America from itself…

        • TerriGeer

          “If you have professors who thrive at a top college who start semesters by explaining how he is a Maoist”

          I have yet to see a Professor to do anything of the kind.

        • JMax

          Except for a slight increase in 2011, the deficit has shrunk every year under Obama.

          You should read up on Saul Alinsky. He wasn’t what you think, certainly not a Communist. Freedom Works, the Tea Party group, gives out Rules for Radicals to its top leaders. And Dick Army gives the book out to Tea Party leaders as well. Where do you think the Tea Party storming the 2009 town halls tactic came from? They all LOVE Alinsky, too!

          • Lc Goodfellow

            “A useful idiot is someone who allows themselves to be used by politicians who trick them into thinking they really care for you and your family. A useless idiot is good to no one. So, you are so ignorant, you don’t even see how a useful idiot (you) is worse than a useless idiot.”
            JMax = “mindnumbingly stupid”.

          • JMax

            Well you sure responded to my comment point by point, didn’t you? Funny how facing actual facts makes you resort to ad hominem attacks.

          • Integrity

            Factually, you are correct. It is true that the deficit is currently in a downward trend. Have you done any research to determine whether the CBO thinks this trend will continue or not? You are viewing the data
            through rose-colored glasses. It is also a fact that, even after adjusting for inflation, President Obama has presided over five of the six largest annual budget deficits in U.S. history. In this current budget year, 2014, the projected deficit is $550,000 billion; 2013 – $680.276 billion; 2012 – $1.089193; 2011 – $1.296791
            trillion; 2010 -$1.294204 trillion; 2009 – $1.415724 trillion; 2008 (under Bush) -$454.798 billion. At the current rate, the “deficit” will add 1.1 Trillion dollars to our national debt in just 2 years. That is with a capital T. In a previous post, you claimed that the deficit was, “IOW, the national debt”, or words to that effect. You seem to have neglected the fact that interest is accruing on our current national debt of 17.5 Trillion, for which no
            payments are being made. It amounts to a lot of money despite historically low interest rates and it contributes to our national debt as well. How long will these historically low rates last? Have you considered unfunded liabilities? What is really scary is that the rate of growth of our national debt is a variable and not a constant. Perhaps if I blamed this on both political parties, which I do, you would finally be convinced that
            our massive national debt is a major problem. We are a nation addicted to debt. Each political party is simply another form of the narcotic. QED

          • JMax

            “Factually, you are correct.”

            Yes, that’s the idea. LOL

            Yes I have researched the deficit. It is currently projected to rise slightly in 2015 but it will level out lower than Reagan’s second term as a percent of GDP.


            Here is a nice graph showing the components of the deficit:

            Notice that the Stimulus was a small component and is very small from 2013 on. Note that the biggest components were the Bush era tax cuts, the Middle East wars, and the Economic downturn. Note the deficit without those components at the bottom of the graph.

            IMHO “unfunded liabilities” is a red herring. Your mortgage is an “unfunded liability”. So is your car loan. Like Social Security, these liabilities are paid with future revenues. Otherwise nobody would lend. Social Security has been an “unfunded liability” since it passed.

            One would HOPE that the rate of growth is not constant, not be scared of it. Many factors including economic cycles, would naturally speed or slow the growth of debt. Hopefully economic growth will slow the increase in debt and eventually reverse it.

            Our National Debt is a problem. It is a concern. It is not a crisis. The debt was much higher as a percent of GDP at the end of WWII.

            I don’t remember the IOW quote above. Perhaps you could provide more of the quote of link me to that thread.

          • Integrity

            There is a lot of opinion (yours, I am assuming) mixed with some facts in your response. Obviously we disagree on how to interpret the data. I can take everything you said and spin it 180 degrees and still be factually correct, as I did in my previous post. You are free to believe what you want. I am not interested in the national debt spin of either political party, which is what you seem to be providing. As I have said previously, both parties are culpable. To quote Thomas Sowell, “More disturbing than any of the issues of our time are the many
            people who debate those issues as contests in talking points,
            rather than as attempts to get at the truth. Too many people debate
            as if the point is to show who is smarter, rather than which
            conclusion is correct.” The Internet is making it easier for people to not think for themselves. QED

          • JMax

            ” I am not interested in the national debt spin of either political party, which is what you seem to be providing.”

            No I am referencing economists. One is Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry who writes for Forbes, the American Conservative, Business Insider, the Federalist, and many more. Here is a good article by him:

            Paul Krugman is one of many others. I won’t give you a link because he’s generally regarded as a liberal, so I figure you wouldn’t read him anymore than I would read Sowell on the subject.

            I have no interest in proving who is smart and who isn’t. My interest is digging into claims I don’t believe and learning more about issues so that I can correct people if needed or change my mind if appropriate.

          • Integrity

            Interesting article. Infinite money, is that like infinite lives in a video game? What happens if China takes over as the new world currency leader? Many countries would love nothing more than the taking down of the dollar. The debt is still growing exponentially. You may argue that it is not a big deal because of infinite money, the GDP-debt ratio or that something like inflation will mitigate it, but the fact still remains that the debt is growing exponentially. Do you have change for a gazillion dollar bill? Final question. If our Government has infinite money, then why are they taxing us? QED

          • JMax

            I didn’t say that the debt isn’t a problem. It is. But it is not a crisis.

            ” The debt is still growing exponentially.”

            No. The debt is not growing exponentially. It grew slower since 2009 than it did from 2001 to 2009.

            “the fact still remains that the debt is growing exponentially.”

            No. The debt cannot be growing “exponentially” if the deficit (increase in debt) is decreasing, as it has been since 2009.

            If you have credit cards, why are you working? LMAO.

          • Integrity

            The national debt curve may not be smooth, but it is exponential. Set aside the “deficit” for a minute. National debt is currently 17.5T and accruing interest, which remains unpaid. The rate of growth varies, due to changing interest rates, but it is still a positive number. Until the deficit becomes a surplus or our Government writes a check for a gazillion dollars, the national debt will continue to grow exponentially. Deficits only make the curve steeper by adding to our existing debt. Your statement that the deficit (by the way, not the only increase in our national debt) has been decreasing since 2009 is inconsistent with other posts you have made. You have also ignored some of my other points. Apparently you have no response for my question why the Government taxes us if it has unlimited money.

            “If you have credit cards, why are you working?”
            Are you channeling your inner George Costanza? QED

          • JMax

            “accruing interest, which remains unpaid.”

            If the interest remained unpaid, the US would be in default. The US is not in default. Interest is being paid when due.

            “The rate of growth varies, due to changing interest rates”


            Deficit = revenues minus spending where spending > revenues

            Debt: The cumulative net of all deficits and surpluses through US history

            Debt increases when there is a deficit and decreases when there is a surplus (rare, but it happens). Debt increases faster when deficits are bigger and increases slower when deficits are smaller.

            Debt increases “exponentially” only when the deficits consistently grow at the same rate year after year. Debt does NOT increase exponentially when the deficit does not grow year to year or even decreases year to year as it has done for four of the last five years.

            No. The rate of growth of the deficit varies primarily due to changes in revenues and spending. Faster economic growth is a key factor since it both increases revenues and decreases expenses. Changing tax rates is another.

            “Deficits only make the curve steeper by adding to our existing debt.”

            No. If you add $500 billion to the debt year after year, the “curve” is a rising but straight line. The “curve” only gets steeper if the deficits get larger.

            ” the deficit (by the way, not the only increase in our national debt)”

            Refresh my memory: what increases the debt besides deficits?

            “You statement that the deficit…has been decreasing since 2009 is inconsistent with other posts you have made.”

            I don’t think so, but point me to them and I’ll take a look/see.

            ” Apparently you have no response for my question why the Government taxes us if it has unlimited money.”

            Because “having” unlimited money and “spending” unlimited money are two different things.”

            “Are you channeling your inner George Costanza?”

            No, Andrew Shepherd. LMAO

          • Integrity

            Interesting JMAX, I will have to give it some thought. Have a nice weekend. QED

          • JMax

            Same to you!

          • Integrity

            Hope you had a nice weekend JMAX. I think at this point we are probably talking past each other. I will never understand the way you think politically, but I am quite sure you feel the same way about me. I have liberal friends and relatives, and for the life of me, I often can’t understand them either. An interesting fact, at least to me, is that my daughter has contributed to Wikipedia. LOL & QED

          • JMax

            I did. My son is on his summer leave from the Army, so enjoying time (and some politics) with him. Hope your weekend was good, too.

            Ironic that your daughter has contributed to Wikipedia. It it’s well-sourced it works for me.

          • Integrity

            Glad to hear that, hope you enjoy your 4th as well. Please thank your son for his service.

            My daughter is extremely smart, so I am quite sure whatever she contributed to Wikipedia is reliable. Everything with a grain of salt, especially the Internet. QED

          • JMax

            Good sourcing helps. Happy 4th.

          • TerriGeer

            Why would you believe that Wikipedia is some kind of liberal website?

          • Integrity

            Wikipedia has its uses. However, it is not always a reliable source since anyone can contribute to it. As I have stated previously, you can almost take any position and find sources that support your viewpoint, liberal or conservative. Finding links on the Internet that supports one’s opinion is not necessarily definitive proof of that opinion. I can give you a recent example. A report came out, claiming that the job growth rate had improved, for which President Obama quickly took credit. Almost immediately after, detractors pointed out that the job growth rate improved because many are still working in part time jobs and Congress quit extending employment benefits. Happy 4th of July. QED

      • D Parri

        What is not clear, Bernie, is what we may have been faced with in the near future if President Bush had pushed for non-intervention in Iraq.

        It is my belief that what we are seeing today would have most likely been the ultimately outcome–regardless of our decision to invade Iraq.

      • Drew Page

        Last night on TV news reports showed the areas where ISIS had taken control. Then they showed nearby areas where Sarin gas, Mustard gas and other chemical weapons were stored, saying that some of these stockpiles were leftover from Saddam Husein’s days in power. What are Sarin gas, Mustard gas and other nerve gas agents if not weapons of mass destruction?

        If these were left over from Saddam’s regime, it proves Iraq had WMDs. It’s hard to believe these weapons were produced after Desert Storm.

        • D Parri

          DP, it was my understanding, based upon my memory of the news at the time, that those facilities had been actively producing those chemicals many years ago, and had been shut down and rendered out of commission by some means.

          However, it does indicate that Hussein had produced the weapons in the past, and it was very likely that he may have started up more facilities that he kept in hiding from the U.N. inspectors.

          • TerriGeer

            No, the equipment was gone, too.

            With the length of time between invading Iraq and now, there has been ample time to start making them again, though.

      • Bob Hadley


        The WMD thing – as far as chemical and biological weapons goes – was an honest mistake. The “mushroom cloud” thing was probably was probably amoral – not exactly a lie, but certainly not made with integrity. Their aim was not to “lay everything on the table” but to sway the public.

        The problem is that the Bush Administration did a “sell job” on the American people. They appealed to visual imagery that scared a lot of babyboomers – mushroom clouds, yellow cake, aluminum tubes.

        Do used car salesmen lie when they make sales? Often, they don’t lie but then they don’t necessarily tell the truth either.

        But don’t we hold our presidents to a higher standard than used car salesmen?

        Many Bush defenders frame the issue as either Bush out-and-out lied or he did nothing wrong. There’s a lot of ground in between. After all, propaganda is not necessarily a lie. When Pres. George W. Bush and Condoleezza Rice said “If we wait for a smoking gun, it may be a mushroom cloud” they weren’t lying. Of course, this was a possibility even if there was no hard evidence to support it.

        Propaganda can be appeals to emotion through imagery and hot-button words – it’s anything that sways people by by-passing their rational thought process.

        • Patrick H.

          “But don’t we hold our presidents to a higher standard than used car salesmen?”

          Not anymore we don’t and the same goes for our congressmen and the media.

      • TerriGeer

        The only thing that I disagree with is that the WH did not make any kind of honest mistake. They knew going into Iraq that there was no WMD. And the intel that they provided to Congress was a pack of lies.

  • scott autry

    This is too much Kumbaya for me.

    “So what’s going on? I think talk radio and cable television news have a lot to do with the polarization in America.”

    I don’t like the polarization either, but I don’t think it is without a real foundation. A question, I think, for Bernard Goldberg to ask is “Why am I no longer liberal?” Why did the likes of David Horowitz end up where they are? (Or look at the evolution of the socio-political magazine Commentary.)

    Look at the fundamental failure of the active Left to adjust to the realities of today’s America – and to undeniable truths of recent global history…

    The active elements of the Left today refuse to accept that they won major victories in the society. They still fight hard to convince people we are still in Jim Crowe days – that our society is even more racist and oppressive because it’s just gone behind closed doors in the halls of power.

    And what I mean is — The Left is still dominated by Progressives – Progressives who have been fairly clear with what the end goal is for them – and that goal is NOT participating within our grand democracy and capitalist economy. No. Progressivism has as a foundation the idea — the current system — must be fundamentally redone!! Before the collapse of global communism, they used clear and unambiguous terminology. Now, the are more circumspect about announcing their “revolution” but you can’t watch something like the Occupy Wall Street movement or Hollywood elites flying on their private jets to shake hands with the latest Castro-like dictator to recognize they are still diligently working to reach a change in our fundamental social institutions.

    Yes, we can see the media, Hollywood, and higher education preaching the exact same thing about the Tea Party: That the Christian Coaliation and Tea Party types want to take America back to where minorities didn’t vote, a white man could lynch one if he felt like it, and women were even more oppressed than Progressives insist they still are now…

    But, I believe any reasonable person looking around – examining the rhetoric and activities of the two parties – and look at how institutions liberals dominate are run —- that reasonable person would come to the conclusion — the Progressivism that controls the Democratic party and their allies in the media, entertainment industry, and education —– are not trying to participate within the American system.

    I repeat: The are not trying to participate within the system.

    The define it as oppressive and morally repulsive. They want to do away with it. To “progress” to the better system they say exists or can exist if they are just given enough power to build it.

    In short, if we are talking about active people in the two parties,we are in fact talking about two very different Americas:

    We are talking about the one we currently have – and the one Progressives seek to gain the power to build – which will be fundamentally different from our current democracy and economic system – if they manage to do it.

    • Drew Page

      Substitute the word “socialists” for “progressives” and you are right on track. These are the people who believe that you have to destroy america in order to save it.

      • D Parri

        Handbook for Radicals.

        Destroy –> Rebuild

      • scott autry

        But the communist, “socialist”, and progressive movements have loosely merged for a core group.

        I’d prefer to use the term “communist”, but they’ve been preaching the Red Scare and McCarthyism for so long, the average American, who hardly pays attention to much of anything, has basically accepted their definition of that period in American history: That even if a person was a communist back then, it was just an American participating in the freedoms of association and political activity guaranteed in the Constitution.

        Try explaining to them that having as your goal the destruction of American-style democracy and our capitalist, free market system is not defined as legitimate political participation. It is clearly treason.

        Since that goes against everything education (even down into elementary school) and Hollywood and the media has been teaching them since the 1960s, at least, and you have no hope…

        Why Saul Alinsky is so important is —- in the heyday of global communism, when it did look like Soviet-led communism might topple the rest of the world without even fighting many wars in the field — the communist party in the United States and elsewhere was less careful in hiding its intentions. It did try, but there were plenty of people out there discovering documentation to expose them. And the average American turned against them, despite ending up accepting The Left’s overall definition of them as “harmless.” (Meaning: McCarthy is demonized in the average American mind, not without some reason, but back at the time, they did not rise to stop him or others who fought the destruction of organized communism’s effort to collapse our government and economy.)

        Today, who besides Right Wing blogs that average, Americans kinda believe might be just as screwy as the Far Left, who is pointing out that moves by Obama that cripple American foreign policy and our economy might actually be part of a plan???

        • JMax

          “But the communist, “socialist”, and progressive movements have loosely merged for a core group.”

          Who are these communists and socialists of which you speak?

          “Try explaining to them that having as your goal the destruction of
          American-style democracy and our capitalist, free market system is not
          defined as legitimate political participation.”

          Fair & Balanced. If only it were true.

          “moves by Obama that cripple American foreign policy and our economy might actually be part of a plan”

          What moves would those be, exactly?

          • TerriGeer

            I doubt that you are going to get a fact-based answer, just more unsubstantiated talking points.

          • Integrity

            How ironic. QED

      • TerriGeer

        Actually, we have no intention of destroying our own country and those who maintain that that’s what we want to do are delusional. I, also, think that they’ve read far too much of the poison that Ann Coulter, et al, have been publishing over the years. Those ideas that she has written about are what is being repeated as being true. They are not, and they weren’t when she wrote them.

    • JMax

      “They are not trying to participate within the system.”

      Then why are they running for and becoming Senators and Congressmen? Why are they working in government agencies? Why are they running for and being elected president?

      ” When you look at the key social institutions the progressives have come to dominate —- you most assuredly discover —- democracy is not in the game plan”

      Hogwash! Care to back that up with some links?

      “For progressives, it is about doing away with democracy as we have known it.”

      What utter nonsense!

  • FloridaJim

    There are 73 sects in Islam and each become an infidel when angry with another sect, as often happens. In America the 60’s radicals have taken over all schools and indoctrinated children for 50 years on the evils of being A Christian, a Republican, a gun owner and anything against what they currently stand for. Remember once they stood for “slavery forever” in 1863, KKK was began by them, Abortion as birth control and race control by Margaret Sanger, is another of their beliefs every Progressive President has failed and the history books have lied to make them appear good men. FDR’s Great Depression was only called that in America in Europe it was not as long or as deep every FDR program failed just as Obama’s. Calling it a “great depression was done to make the public believe it was more than one man could handle yet it ended in three years in Europe and only World War #2 saved us here not any FDR% program. Obama’s never ending recession ,called by Hillary, The great recession”, again a ploy to excuse Obama and her for their massive failures at resolving it. The longer Obama’s recession remains the more he can be a hero until, we awaken to the facts . :New Deal or Raw Deal: a book by Folsom, Jr. exposed FDR after 60 year of lies. Our country is falling apart because our leaders are Marxists and dream of another Marxist empire which, thi8s time, they will get right.

    • gold7406

      carter let all the 60’s radicals off the hook when he granted amnesty to the evaders and deserters, nixon ending the draft was another huge miscue. If there was still a draft and everyone was eligible for the draft,
      there would be no progressive movement. They would all be in Canada complaining about lousy healthcare. Women would want to be exempt and NOW would stand for Not Our Women and gays would be saying anybody but me, I’m really different and need to be treated differently.

  • TheOriginalDonald

    Even Benjamin Franklin Gates has to admit the United States no longer exists. #NationalTreasure

  • Lc Goodfellow

    The trouble all along, until several months ago, was that Americans would not believe what was staring them in the face. Maybe it’s been all those “little screens” folks stare at 24/7. Maybe we think everything’s “virtual” and therefore doesn’t matter.
    In fact, Barack Obama fits the classic pattern of a Left-wing revolutionary dictator. Every one of them co-opted the press and the intelligentsia. Every one played the Pied Piper to their nation’s children. Every one of these dictators blamed the regime that preceded them, demonized it, and excused their future failures by continually referring to it.

    Every Marxist dictator uses propaganda to change how his people speak and think. I submit that no president has ever attempted to “teach us the correct way to speak” —only Obama has done this. And his wife tried to tell us what to eat. What’s about George Orwell’s “1984” do we fail to grasp? Remember “new-speak” and the purpose it served?

    • David Gorton

      Lc Goodfellow, your “Alinsky & Marxist synopsis” was on the mark. It reminded me of, (President), LBJ’s credo;” . . . .I never trust a man until I know I have his pecker in my pocket”! Obama never listened to his Generals in Iraq, and he’s not listening to the Commanders in Afghanistan; and to my thinking for the reasons you gave. He’s got a whole bunch of peckers in his pockets!!!

      • loupgarous

        Compensation for his balls being in his wife’s purse.

    • scott autry

      And the media became the “propaganda” organ of one man and one party.

      • JMax

        “Did key people in the media really not know about Bill Ayers or Rev. Wright or the other skeletons in Obama’s past”

        I watch MSNBC about half the time and I surely knew about Wright and Ayers.

        What skeletons in Obama’s past?

        The Saul Alinsky movement, as you call it, is practiced mightily by the Tea Party and its leaders. Rules for Radicals is required reading. 2009 Town Halls overtaken by the Tea Party is classic Alinsky.

    • JMax

      “In fact, Barack Obama fits the classic pattern of a Left-wing revolutionary dictator.”

      Do you believe Barack Obama will be in power on January 21, 2015?

      • Lc Goodfellow

        Only if ‘Fools’ like you will allow him to remain.

        I would certainly hope NOT,
        Why are so many of today’s followers
        ” educated beyond their intelligences ? ”

        The thing that has me worried about this Gov’t is the unknown number of Demies as
        ‘ Public Servants ‘ in our U.S. Government.
        You can’t call them ‘ Civil Servants ‘ not after 2013 and all the ‘ FiFth’s ‘ taken. That’s far from being ‘ Civil ‘
        – ACA, and all the ‘Periods’, IRS, NSA, AP, Red Lines, the Census Bureau and the Benghazi lies. And all the Scandals
        There’s enough here for a century of Presidents!

        • JMax

          So you believe Obama intends to try to be president beyond January 20, 2105. How could anyone “allow him to remain”?

          “The thing that has me worried about this Gov’t is the unknown number of Demies as ‘ Public Servants ‘ in our U.S. Government.”

          OMG, they’re everywhere. Don’t you know?

          • Lc Goodfellow

            “I would certainly hope NOT” put your glasses on.

            Has there ever been someone elected with less knowledge about the highest job in the country?

            Go talk to the Preacher he can explain it to you.

          • JMax

            “Has there ever been someone elected with less knowledge about the highest job in the country?”


          • loupgarous

            Only if there’s something to cryogenic immigration into the future… January 20th, 2105 might be a stretch, otherwise.

  • Mark W.

    I was born in the 40’s, grew up in the 50’s, served in the Army & finished college in the 60’s. Looking back from the 2010’s, it’s hard to recognize the country I grew up in. Looking ahead from 2014, it is actually frightening to think what the country will look like in even a few years. People think I’m alarmist when I point out the parallels between what is happening here in this era and what happened in Europe after WWI. They forget that what is history today, was current events in the 1920’s, 30’s and 40’s. We have current events now. History can repeat itself if we are not vigilant.

    • JMax

      Really? What are the parallels you see between current events and the 1920s, 30s, and 40s?

      • Lc Goodfellow

        A social state by Saul Alinsky:

        There are 8 levels of control that must be obtained before you are able to create a social state. The first is the most important.
        1) Healthcare – Control healthcare and you control the people
        2) Poverty – Increase the Poverty level as high as possible, poor people are easier to control and will not fight back if you are providing everything for them to live.
        3) Debt – Increase the debt to an unsustainable level. That way you are able to increase taxes, and this will produce more poverty.
        4) Gun Control – Remove the ability to defend themselves from the Government. That way you are able to create a police state.
        5) Welfare – Take control of every aspect of their lives (Food, Housing, and Income)
        6) Education – Take control of what people read and listen to – take control of what children learn in school.
        7) Religion – Remove the belief in God from the Government and schools
        8) Class Warfare – Divide the people into the wealthy and the poor. This will cause more discontent and it will be easier to take (Tax) the wealthy with the support of the poor.

        Why are so many of today’s follower’s
        ” …. educated beyond their intelligences … ” ?

        • JMax

          Nice list. How does this apply to the current state of affairs in the US? It’s easy to cite Alinsky but it’s a lot more difficult to actually make the case that each of these or any of them are actually relevant to 2014 America.

          • Blakely1

            I see that “obtuse” is your word of the day.

          • Mark W.

            I want to be polite. JMax is typical of today’s “Progressives,” who buy what their leaders tell them. So when Obama’s 2012 slogan became “Forward!” they knew they couldn’t look back (except to blame “W” for anything). Looking back 100 years provides a clearer picture than when things were then current events. There are lots of very good histories and documentaries to explain what and why things happened; and you can judge for yourself what those times and today’s times have in common. And if you bother to revisit those times, you will see what I mean.
            I believe that JMax doesn’t really want answers to his questions because he already knows the answers; he simply chooses to believe another ideology.

          • JMax

            Looking back 100 or 150 years towns could bar guns from the city limits. But I digress.

            The Alinsky list posted above was supposedly posted to show the parallels between the 1920s, 30s, and 40s, but it doesn’t. Nobody here is showing how the list applies to the early 20th century much less the 21st century. For example, it’s easy to say they are alike because….guns. But it’s much harder to say what it is about guns in the 21st century that parallels the early 20th. It’s even harder to demonstrate that any of the list applies at all to the 21st.

            But I’d be happy to read your explanations. Could this be construed that I “really want answers to” my questions?

          • Walter Peck

            “Could this be construed that I “really want answers to” my questions?”

            Based on my past experiences with you, no. It’s more likely you’ll just change the subject after someone wastes the time to explain things to you.

          • JMax

            So no answers to my questions, huh?

          • Walter Peck

            The parallel is the government using the items listed to gain increased control over the lives of citizens.

            By the way, you missed the obvious low-hanging fruit.

          • JMax

            But as I’ve said, nobody here has yet to demonstrate how the current government is “using the items listed to gain increased control over the lives of citizens”. You can say that it does, but I can say E.T. lives in your closet and it is just as meaningful.

            Explain how each item on the list applies to government today.

          • Walter Peck

            We’ve been over some of this before. The ACA is increased control.

            “How can you not see the broad standards about what coverage the plans have to provide, how they distribute the costs among customers, etc. as increased control?”

            Copy + pasted from another post of mine addressed to you.

          • Integrity

            and the confiscation of our money through taxes. QED

          • JMax

            So you are a “no tax” kinda guy? How do we pay for trillion dollar wars in the Middle East?

          • One Man’s Opinion

            “Any government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take away everything you have.”
            … and, in time, it will.

          • TerriGeer

            Great bumper sticker slogan. Do you have any facts to back it up or disprove it?

          • Integrity

            He is just channeling his inner Will Rogers. QED

          • Integrity

            I don’t mind paying taxes for legitimate Government functions. I do mind paying taxes for excessive programs that people who think like you do want to waste it on. We pay for the war debt by eliminating politicians from both parties who continue to spend our money on pork and wasteful programs. Still taking all tax deductions allowable by law? QED

          • JMax

            “Still taking all tax deductions allowable by law?”

            Of course. Why do you ask?

          • TerriGeer

            Are you under the false impression that our country has not been collecting taxes since the foundation of our country?

          • Integrity

            No; are you under the false impression that our politicians have not been wasting it? QED

          • JMax

            “how they distribute the costs among customers, etc. as increased control”

            Do you not understand the concept of insurance?

            “How can you not see the broad standards about what coverage the plans have to provide”

            I believe this is actually called consumer protection.

          • Walter Peck

            “Do you not understand the concept of insurance?”

            Do you? Insurers typically get to set rates based on risk factors rather than coercion from another party.

            “I believe this is actually called consumer protection.”

            Thanks for proving the point. “Give us [the government] more control. We will protect you.”

          • JMax

            “Insurers typically get to set rates based on risk factors rather than coercion from another party.”

            This hasn’t changed under ACA. Private insurance companies set their own rates based on risk factors, age, and locations. Now they aren’t allowed to discriminate for gender or preexisting conditions. There is no coercion involved. They can charge anything they want as long as they pay out 80% of premiums as benefits to their insureds.

            “Give us [the government] more control. We will protect you.”

            Do you not believe that the government should provide consumer protections for credit card holders, borrowers, food purchasers, insurance company customers, airline passengers, etc.?

          • Walter Peck

            “Now they aren’t allowed to discriminate for gender or preexisting conditions”

            The government actually accepts “discrimination” based on gender as long as it’s the politically correct gender.

            See auto insurance rates.

            “Do you not believe that the government should provide consumer protections for credit card holders, borrowers, food purchasers, insurance company customers, airline passengers, etc.?”

            Who is protecting consumers from the government? What if you don’t want to pay for maternity care or counseling coverage you are not going to use? You still haven’t explained how forcing people to buy these things is not an increase in control.

          • JMax

            “The government actually accepts “discrimination” based on gender as long as it’s the politically correct gender.”

            What does that mean?

            “See auto insurance rates.”

            I thought we were talking about health insurance and the ACA.

            The Constitution protects consumers from the government in the form of elections.

            What if your young neighbor doesn’t want to pay for your hip replacement or quadruple bypass or colonoscopy? We all pay for insurance coverage that we never expect to use. I’ve never had the opportunity to opt out of my employer health coverage for maternity benefits. You don’t pay for maternity benefits so much as you pay for coverage that includes it if you need it. This is a phoney issue.

          • Walter Peck

            “I thought we were talking about health insurance and the ACA.”

            We’re talking about government control. When the government cherry picks who gets to be “equal” it’s obvious that it’s being political rather than protecting its citizens.

            “The Constitution protects consumers from the government in the form of elections.”

            You mean those elections in which the IRS is disproportionately silencing groups with certain political affiliations?

            “We all pay for insurance coverage that we never expect to use. I’ve never had the opportunity to opt out of my employer health coverage for maternity benefits.”

            You can thank the government for that one, too.They promoted employer based coverage with tax breaks and wage freezes during WWII. We have had a more efficient, not-so-insurance-heavy healthcare system.

            “You still haven’t explained how forcing people to buy these things is not an increase in control.”

            Still waiting

          • JMax

            “When the government cherry picks who gets to be “equal” it’s obvious
            that it’s being political rather than protecting its citizens.”

            What are you talking about?

            “You mean those elections in which the IRS is disproportionately silencing groups with certain political affiliations?”

            Those groups, both conservative and liberal, were free to do whatever
            they wanted at least until audits said they couldn’t. None did. Nobody was

            “We have had a more efficient, not-so-insurance-heavy healthcare system.”

            Really? When?

            “You still haven’t explained how forcing people to buy these things is not an increase in control.”

            you prove a negative? There’s a difference between requiring people to
            participate in the insurance pools and taking control of 1/6 of the

          • Walter Peck

            “What are you talking about?”

            One of the attempted selling points of the ACA was that it brough “equality” to insurance. If its supporters really wanted equality, where’s the movement for equality in auto insurance rates?

            “Nonsense. Those groups, both conservative and liberal, were free to do whatever they wanted at least until audits said they couldn’t. None did. Nobody was silenced.”

            If by free you mean at great expense, then yeah, that’s true.

            “Really? When?”

            I meant to say “COULD have had.”

            “Can you prove a negative?”

            There it is, right on queue. Remember when I said “It’s more likely you’ll just change the subject after someone wastes the time to explain things to you.” Then you replied “But as I’ve said, nobody here has yet to demonstrate how the current government is ‘using the items listed to gain increased control over the lives of citizens'”

            We’ve moved on from whether or not the ACA was an increase in government control to “Can you prove a negative?” Bravo!

          • JMax

            “One of the attempted selling points of the ACA was that it brough “equality” to insurance.”

            Never heard of it. The only thing is that all things being equal, women can’t be charged more than men. Is there a problem with that?

            The cost of auto repair is not a crisis in this country. This is one of the lamest “talking points” I’ve ever heard.

            “If by free you mean at great expense, then yeah, that’s true.”

            No, by free I mean that that these groups were allowed to operate as a tax-exempt organization UNTIL they were disallowed by the IRS, which none of them ever was.

            You asserted that “forcing” people to buy something was an increase in control without one single source or explanation. Just through it out there and then asked me to prove it’s not so. I didn’t change the subject. proving a negative is not a subject. We’re on the same subject. You just aren’t providing anything to back up your claim. It’s you who is attempting to change the subject, which is examples which demonstrate parallels between the early 20th century and today.

          • Walter Peck

            Forcing people to do things is an increase of control. If you need more of an explanation, I can’t help you. Try the dictionary.

          • JMax

            Those few unwise people who do not want to purchase health care insurance are free to not do so. The penalty is minimal. There are a lot of things some people don’t want to do that are nonetheless required by the federal, state, or local governments. Most of the original 13 states REQUIRED all adult males to own a firearm whether they wanted to or not. Would that have been a problem for you? Forced to buy something they didn’t want to buy? Being controlled by the government? Were you forced to buy health insurance against your will? Did the government gain “increased control” over you?

          • Walter Peck

            “There are a lot of things some people don’t want to do that are nonetheless required by the federal, state, or local governments.”

            Each of those things is a degree of control the government is exercising over its citizens. When the government adds more of them, they are gaining more control. This is not difficult to grasp.

          • JMax

            Can’t beat that logic. But I would dispute that the intent is to gain control as opposed to promote the general welfare. Sometimes more control is good. Can you imagine what our highways would be like if the government didn’t exercise control over the quality of tires you can buy for your car?

          • Jeff Webb

            If “more control is good” applied here, you wouldn’t have spent so much time denying OC increased govt control.

          • JMax

            It’s hard to beat that logic. However, some of them are control over corporations. Can you imagine what our highways (and car insurance premiums) would look like if the government didn’t exercise “control” over automobile tire specifications? Or aircraft maintenance?

          • TerriGeer

            I remember the days before the EPA cracked down, by implementing regulations, on those company’s who were poisoning our land, water and air. Sometimes, it seems that most of the people who are against those regulations have no idea what the reasons were for implementing them. Sometimes, it seems that these naysayers are simply told something and accept it as gospel without checking out the facts.

          • Walter Peck

            I never said any and all government control was bad. I’m not an anarchist.

          • One Man’s Opinion

            JMax, if you are that far in the dark, not even God could enlighten you.

          • JMax

            So you are unable to answer the question.

          • One Man’s Opinion

            A man sits in a dark room and asks, “What is light?” “I will show you,” a voice says, turning on a light. “Well?” the man asks, “What is light? You haven’t told me.” “You have to open your eyes,” comes the answer. “I won’t open my eyes, for what I might see may be different than what I believe it to be,” the man says, “but tell me, what is light?”

          • JMax

            So you are unable to answer the question.

          • One Man’s Opinion

            It is obvious that JMax has a closed mind. He is illustrative of what psychologist Abraham Maslow described as a “high dogmatist.” That is a person who believes something so strongly that he refuses to be open to other evidence. We could provide JMax with information all day long and he would deny (not refute) it with inaccurate/incomplete information. He’s like the man in the parable, afraid to open his eyes because what he might see could conflict with his belief system. He really doesn’t want answers, or he would open his eyes.
            The answers to all of JMax’s “questions” are so readily available to him, if he could look at the world without his mental blinders.

          • JMax

            So you are unable to answer the question.

            “he refuses to be open to other evidence.”

            What “other evidence”?

            “We could provide JMax with information all day”

            But you haven’t provided ANY. I can’t refute what you won’t answer. Somebody posts that there are supposedly parallels between today and the first half of the 20th century. I ask what those parallels might be. Somebody posts a list from Alinsky (Rules for Radicals, I presume). I ask how this list applies to either the 20th or 21st century. Nobody is willing to put forth an answer to the question.

            What are you afraid of?

            I have my eyes open and read voraciously from all kinds of sources including any you provide here. It’s not up to me to FIND the sources that will explain your assertions or “prove” them.

          • Mark W.

            JMax, I understand that it is not up to you to find the sources that explain my comments. It is not my job to provide them, either. As I said before, “There are lots of very good histories and documentaries to explain what and why things happened; and you can judge for yourself what those times and today’s times have in common. And if you bother to revisit those times, you will see what I mean.” You are well known on this blog, and in many ways, you are provocative and sometimes thoughtful. For me to provide the kind of information you desire would take hours to write and I doubt that it would change your mind. My reference to the time period in question is not subtle.
            For those who are curious (too few, I imagine), the challenge is to compare and contrast the politics, economics, social changes and their effects on the population as a whole following WWI in Europe (particularly Germany) and whether there are any similarities to the political, economic and social changes in the United States during recent times. Some events may have relevant comparisons, others will not.
            I know this will not satisfy you, but by digging in and doing your own research, you will learn a great deal more than if I wrote a treatise here for you. Good Luck.

          • JMax

            Mark, first thanks for a civil post.

            Second, my take from your original post is that you were implying that there are parallels between the rise of Hitler and Nazi Germany and the presidency of Barack Obama.

            I’m not an expert on European history, but I know generally that Germany was decimated by the end of the First World War and that the Treaty of Versailles placed an onerous burden on a non-existant German economy to pay reparations for the war. I know that hyperinflation existed. I know that the people were looking for a leader to deliver them from their misery.

            I don’t see any real parallels between that history and today. The US has not been decimated in a world war. The last time we had high inflation was the late 70s. We don’t have a leader looking for Lebensraum. We don’t have people being sent to slave or death camps. And the country is not in the grips of a tyrannical, maniacal despot.

            Now I know this is pretty simplistic, but I’m willing to be enlightened on what the parallels are, because as I look at it, the suggestion appears to be a not very subtle attempt to compare Obama to Hitler. And I reject that comparison.

            And the Alinsky post is just crap. I like people to try to back up crazy crap like that, but nobody could or would.

            One question: Do you (or anybody else here who “well knows” me) believe that President Obama will be president and carrying out his policies after January 20, 2017?

          • JMax

            I’ve never used the word. Still no answer to my query.

          • J.R. Willingham

            Point made, re: Blakely1

          • Blakely1

            Actually, that list is remarkably similar to Lenin’s list.
            I don’t remember them all but his comment.
            “Give me your children for 8 years & they will be Bolsheviks forever.” is exactly what Common Core
            is attempting to do.
            Obamacare was not implemented to take care of 30
            million uninsured or reduce premiums (it has failed
            at both) From the start it was intended to control 1/6th
            of the economy & make people dependent on the government
            As the British Press printed,
            “Obama so loved the poor that he created millions more.”
            & he has. People on the take are more easily controlled
            than independent people.

            Mull over those for a bit .

          • JMax

            “exactly what Common Core is attempting to do.”

            Horse manure. Common Core is driven by the National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers. In other words, it’s driven by the states. It’s not a vehicle for the Federal Government to take over the minds of children. States can and do adopt and/or modify the standards and can refuse to participate.

            “Obamacare was not implemented to take care of 30
            million uninsured or reduce premiums (it has failed
            at both)”

            Horse manure. It most certainly was implemented to provide health care to 30-40 million. There is no projection or expectation that all of them would become insured in the first year. The expectation was 7 million in the first year and I believe 24 million in the second year. Premiums have been reduced for millions of people, and over time they are expected to grow more slowly than in previous years.

            The ACA does not “control” healthcare. It provides a set of consumer protection rules for private doctors and nurses, private hospitals and clinics, private insurance companies, and private drug companies. The vast majority of people do not receive ACA subsidies so they remain “dependent” on their employers for the most part, not the government.

            Mull over that for a bit.

          • Blakely1

            Sorry, although this is an opinion column, your opinion should not include fiction.
            Liberals have a tendency to say< "It was a Republican
            idea."then exacerbate an innocuous program into a behemoth. like Lifeline.
            Common Core was indeed started by Governors
            & I & many supported it until it was hijacked by liberals.
            When Obama chimed in with Money for takers, states
            opted in. Then Bill Gates put his money into it & shoved it down the throats of Americans.This was explicitly
            explained in a recent story in The Washington Post.
            Then we have ultra liberal Arne Duncan challenging
            states that want out like Indiana & the latest Louisiana.
            This is Big Brother in a Cap & Gown.

            Obamacare…Don't get me started. Pardon me If
            I prefer to listen to the CBO over you.They have admitted that , when the ashes clear, 30 million people will still be uninsured.
            Certainly premiums have been reduced for millions.
            Anyone who is below 4 times the poverty level
            gets a subsidy but if you happen to be in the
            middle class, you are cooked.They are the lifeblood
            of America & Obamacare is strangling them.
            BTW, whatever happened to the $2500 that each family was promised by Obama.
            Face it, if Democrats were ever going to fix this bill
            it would have been done before the election in Nov.
            The delays prove that the worst is yet to come.

            We learned that employers' insurance plans are subject to the same standards of the 5 million
            kicked off their insurance so we can expect the same to happen to untold millions.
            With 2700 pages of laws & 20,000 pages of regulations, tell me again how the government
            is not taking over Health-care.

          • JMax

            “This was explicitly explained in a recent story in The Washington Post.”

            Are we talking about an article by Diane Ravitch? That’s one opinion. A lot of people in the states seem to like the Common Core Standards.

            “30 million people will still be uninsured.”

            And millions who did have it will get it. Millions may choose not to opt in. And then there are those who fall into the Medicare gap in states where the Republicans have refused Medicaid Expansion.

            “We learned that employers’ insurance plans are subject to the same standards of the 5 million
            kicked off their insurance so we can expect the same to happen to untold millions.”

            Uh, no. That is a nonsensical statement. Why would would people be kicked off of an employer group plan? Are we to believe that insurance companies are going to leave the group plan market?

            The ACA law is just over 900 pages, not 2700 pages. Care to guess how many pages the regulations for the airline industry are? Government is not taking over health care. There, I’ve said it again.

          • Blakely1

            The article is ” How Bill Gates pulled off the Common Core Revolution” by Lyndsey Layton..June 7

            Who do you think that you are kidding? That
            nonsensical statement is the absolute truth
            delayed by Obama until after one of the elections,
            because he knew that every Democrats would be
            voted out of office.The 2009 Law passed by Dem.
            & lied about ever since is still on the books guarantees
            that the Employers Insurance plans will be canceled
            if they change anything, like a dollar increase in premium.I guess the Getting the 2013 Liar of the Year
            award doesn’t stop you from putting out the same garbage.You are deliberately misleading people
            to save Dem. in Nov.

            The Bill was 2700 page with 20,000 pages of regulations. Frankly, I doubt that Democrats
            are smart enough to whittle it down.

            No matter how you slice it, it is still Baloney .
            The “supposed” reason for the law was to cover the 30,000,000 uninsured & The CBO admitted that
            there will still be 30,000,000 uninsured.
            That is an epic FAILURE.
            BTW, where is my

            You are promoting the same falsehoods put out by the
            White House & Democrats. Are you one of the White House hot shots or perchance a paid shill?

          • JMax

            Thanks for pointing out the article. I learned a lot. I didn’t learn what is so bad about the Common Core Standards. What is your objection?

            It’s nonsense. Most group policies already comply with the ACA regulations. The people whose policies were discontinued had cheap coverage that didn’t meet standards.

            “still on the books guarantees that the Employers Insurance plans will be canceled if they change anything, like a dollar increase in premium.”

            This is utter nonsense. I can only guess that you are confusing the issue of grandfathered non-compliant individual policies with group policies which change every year and will continue to do so forever. My company’s policy premiums increased 2% and removed annual and lifetime caps on benefits. No cancellations.

            How am I misleading people? I don’t work in the media and I haven’t said anything that’s untrue. As far as the lie of the year goes, it was the wrong way to convey to people that “Obamacare” is not a healthcare policy or plan with government hospitals and government doctors that would replace existing private policies.

            Here is the text of the ACA:

            Note that it is 906 pages. Again, how many pages do you think the regulations for the FAA are or the FDA? So what?

            Covering the uninsured was one of a number of reasons for the ACA. The primary reason so many people will remain uninsured into the future is that Republican-controlled states that have refused to adopt Medicaid Expansion are creating a huge gap that leaves millions of people ineligible for either Medicaid or ACA subsidies. This is squarely on the Republicans.

            FYI there is a little-known section of the ACA that says that anyone opposed to the ACA does not get the $2500.

            “Are you one of the White House hot shots or perchance a paid shill?”

            No. Are you an ALEC shill or just a Tea Party dupe?

          • Blakely1

            One sign of intelligence is when one meets an

            unsolvable problem, to abandon trying to solve it.
            I tell you the truth , you answer with a lie & claim it is the truth. There is nothing to be gained by debating you as

            you are either grossly misinformed or a liar .I will give
            you the benefit of the doubt but either way,

            I have better things to do, Have a nice weekend.

          • JMax

            I am very well informed. Nothing I have said is untrue (except the part about the provision for not paying you your $2,500). I noticed that you have not provided a single source in any of your posts actually refuting anything I have posted here. That says a lot.

        • JASVN67

          If JMax chooses to ignore the relivency of your post, perhaps it is because he, like Alinsky, embraces the tenants of what he writes.

          • TerriGeer

            Or it could be that he just disagrees with you.

        • Tim Ned

          Quote from
          Wikipedia: Hillary Clinton’s senior honors thesis in Saul Alinsky, written at Wellesley College, noted that Alinsky’s personal efforts were a large part
          of his method. Both she and President Barack
          Obama were described in promotional material for a radio
          interview of an author of an Alinsky biography as having been indirectly
          influenced by Alinsky’s work.

    • Drew Page

      Mark we were born and raised in the same time period and went through school and the Army about the same time (“67 and ’68 for me). I feel the same way about not recognizing the country I grew up in and fought for. It seems to me that so many are embracing all the things we and our fathers fought against, government control and socialism/communism.

      We have too many people looking for a handout at someone else’s expense. And we have a president intent on weakening America, growing the government and making as many as possible dependent on government as a means of control. He is doing it by lying to everyone; pitting Americans against each other; promising government freebies to minorities, women, gays and illegal aliens if they will only vote for Democrats. He releases five terrorists in exchange for one Army deserter (yes, I believe the seven soldiers in Bergdhal’s unit who served with him and to a man say he deserted). His administration is the most corrupt in recent memory and no seems to be able to do anything about it except wait two more years.

      • Mark W.

        Thanks for your comments. I was “invited” to join Mr. Johnson’s army in 1966 and returned to school in 1968, so we served at the same time. I think they were drafting about 30,000 men every month at that time. While I wouldn’t want to do it again, it was a life changing experience and it is even more meaningful now than it was then.
        I agree that the current administration is thoroughly corrupt (as was demonstrated again earlier today 6/20/14 by the IRS commissioner).
        As another poster quoted, “Any government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take away everything you have.” And that should concern everyone.

  • JASVN67

    Bernie, The Greatest Generation wouldn’t recognize the Country they fought, bled, and died for! From that generation forward people have eschewed what was written in the preamble of the Constitution, the Pledge of Allegiance, and in the Declaration of Independence. I use the past tence because it is so apropos. It is an old motto but it’s wisdom can’t be denied, “United we Stand, Divided we Fall.” As your article points out, we have become a divided Country! Do we have to Fall? By the way events in this Country have been unfolding, it’s getting harder and harder to be the optimist!

    • TerriGeer

      Our country has been changing constantly since it’s founding.

      We have become a divided country because that is what we wish it to be. If we didn’t wish it to be that way we wouldn’t be diving our country into an ‘us v them’ situation. The plain and simple fact is that we are ALL citizens, and we ALL want our country to work. I don’t of anyone, despite the contentions of those on the far right, who wants to change our system of Government. That includes Obama and his Administration.

  • nepakandy

    I’ve read and studied the US Civil War, and was disturbed years ago when the media began identifying red states-blue states. It still bothers me. It seemed to be the beginning of separating instead of uniting..

    • TerriGeer

      I agree whole-heartedly.

  • D Parri

    Bernie, this is the United States of America, and there is no possibility of it being anything but that.

    Changes in that basic premise, established by our Constitution, will achieve only a collapse of this nation.

  • D Parri

    To be truly honest about the current situation and political environment, then perhaps it will be necessary for us who are now concerned and engaged in a debate that seems to have no finality–we would need to back away from the argument(s) and return in maybe one-hundred years when history can give us the results of our actions and the truth of the matter, clearly.

    Arguments for/against intervention in Iraq during Bush’s administration are met even now with many valid arguments against ‘being the world’s policemen’, or on the other side the mistakes made prior to WWII in taking an isolationist position, allowing Hitler and his hyper-nationalist German Nazi forces to set off one of the darkest periods in human history.

    The question that will need to be answered regarding Iraq, Al-Qaeda, Saddam Hussein, jihadists, and the growing violence and turmoil in the Middle East is one that will asks, “Without U.S. intervention, what developments in the radical Islamist groups and the Islamist state will take place, and will we be forced to engage in conflict even if our foreign policy remains isolationist?”

    That is the question to be answered, but the answer may not be readily apparent at this time. The next question, then, is “Can we wait for an answer?”

    • Brian Fr Langley

      In a book about the history of the Ottoman Empire written prior to the emergence of modern Israel, the writer documents nearly 800 years of that last Islamic Caliphate. (the victorious allies dismantled it at the end of WW1 because they sided with Germany) From the inception of the Ottoman Empire at the end of the 13th century they went on Jihad every spring. (yes for century after century after century) At one point they were knocking at the doors far into western Europe. (having conquered much of Eastern Europe). In fact fighting Muslims was one of the claims to fame of Vlad the impaler (he of Dracula fame). Your question is answered by history. Islam did, does, and always will believe in conversion by the sword. In their faith, converting the infidel is an imperative. While Christianity requires a conversion of conscience, Islam does not. Islam simply requires a conversion of submission. (which is what the word Islam means). They will attack Christians, Jews, and infidels for as long as they are able. If they are not able, they will wait until they are. They take a long view and are very, very patient. The pundits in the media who repeatedly tells us there is NOT a gigantic clash of civilizations, are either stupid or liars. This is not to say America should invade Muslim countries. but the only safety to be found, as history so aptly teaches is in maintaining and projecting over whelming power. They are neither blinded by their faith or stupid. For the most part they respect power and are willing to let (very big) sleeping dogs lie.

      • D Parri

        I am a subscriber to the “Peace through Strength” policy, particularly when dealing with those whose calling in this life is to destroy us and our way of life. “Live and Let Live” does not work for them.

      • TerriGeer

        While you have brought up very valid points, the Christians were doing the same thing.

        • Brian Fr Langley

          Christianity’s call was (is) to love your neighbor as yourself. And as I said conversion was (is) an act of conscience. Contrast this with Islam which calls on it’s adherents not to suffer an infidel as neighbor. (who would you rather have as a neighbor)? And conversion was (is) to be an act of physical submission. (which is why all conquered holy sites were converted to mosques) While true Christian conquests were as numerous and barbaric and Muslim ones, the difference was (is) they were violating the tenets of their faith. Muslim conquests are not.

  • Lougjr1

    I’ve been calling this country The un united states for the last 10 yrs. or more so your statement is absolutely correct. Albeit, I don’t think there is any chance of dividing the nation into the liberal states and the conservative states. I guess we will just have to fight it out sometime in the future you know like in 1863 maybe ?

    • D Parri

      I truly believe that asking the correct questions and then answering them honestly could do a great compliment to our nation in terms of gaining a united purpose.

      There are many assaults being visited upon our nation currently, though, that seek to destroy the fabric of our nation’s character, primarily that of honesty and integrity.

  • Blakely1

    I liken President Obama’s role in Iraq to a man who along with other family
    members, inherited the Family business. He wanted the job of running
    it & convinced the other members that he was the best man for the job.
    After several years the business failed & he claimed that it wasn’t his fault
    but the fault of his Father who originally ran the firm.
    Of course, the family didn’t buy it because he knew what he was getting into.
    They didn’t believe his excuses any more than Obama & Democrats
    can get away with blaming Bush.

    • JMax

      Did that man’s family refuse to work with him even on the night their father died?

      • Blakely1

        That is still an unresolved issue. Did they refuse to work
        with him or did he refuse to work with them? My take
        is that he was the intransigent one.

        • JMax

          Your take is incorrect. It is well known that the GOP leadership decided on Inauguration day not to let the president have any successes. When Obama was on his way to Capitol Hill to meet with the GOP on the Stimulus, the GOP leadership released a press release stating they would vote en mass against it. Many changes were made to the ACA to placate the GOP and try to get some of them on board, but still they voted unanimously against it. Many supporters of Obama had complained in the early part of his term that he was too bipartisan.

          • Blakely1

            You seem to have forgotten a few things. Like the first
            meeting that Obama had with people from both parties.
            He started the meeting with announcing that Republicans can come on board but should get to the back of the bus. Then McCain said that Democrats
            were getting more time to speak than Republicans.
            Obama answered, “I won.”
            Then lets go to the merits of the Stimulus,
            which stimulated nothing. The Wall St. Journal called it
            the Democratic Wish List of every crazy thing that Dem.
            ever wanted. The only jobs were “saved jobs” & infrastructure…AKA…temporary work for Unions.
            It was lousy Bill # one & Obamacare was the
            mother of all lousy bills. Why Democrats supported
            these bills is beyond me.
            Sorry, we were too smart to vote for them.

          • JMax

            Yes I did forget that. Or did I. Can you link to a citation for that? RE McCain: Any committee hearing the majority gets more time…well because there are more of them. “I won” means that the people spoke in the election and that gives the president a mandate to carry out his policies.

            All you have to know about whether or not the Stimulus worked is look at the following graph and note that the Stimulus was passed during that second blue bar on the left.

          • Jeff Webb

            >>”I won” means that the people spoke in the election and that gives the president a mandate to carry out his policies.<<

            Maybe so, but it certainly ain't the sort of thing a cooperative, congenial guy would say to the folks across the aisle.

            Obama claimed to be a "post-partisan" type who would bring the parties together, and then behaved like a petty little jerk from early on. It was just another one of his many, many bold promises he never planned on keeping.

          • JMax

            Unsurprisingly you fail to include context around the “I won” quote.

            First, the GOP Congressional leadership had only three days before that meeting agreed that they would do everything possible to block any possible successes for the new president.

            In the January 23rd meeting between the president and Congressional leadership Obama stated that there were things on the GOP’s agenda regarding the Stimulus Bill that he didn’t have a problem with and that compromise was possible. However, some of the differences were ideological and the fact that he had won the election gave him a mandate for his ideology.


            It’s quite similar to George W. Bush’s comments after winning re-election in 2004:

            “I earned capital in this campaign, political capital, and now I intend to spend it,” Bush told reporters. “It is my style.”

            As he had done in his victory speech Wednesday, Bush spoke of building a bipartisan consensus and reaching out to the 48 percent of Americans who
            voted against him. Yet he made plain that he had no intention of moderating his agenda to reach that goal.

            “When you win, there is… a feeling that the people have spoken and embraced your point of view,” Bush said. “And that’s what I intend to tell Congress, that I made it clear what I intend to do as the president; now let’s work.”


          • Jeff Webb

            Strawman. President Bush didn’t arrogantly say that directly to a congressman voicing real concerns about questionable spending of tax dollars. Context indeed.

          • JMax

            Poor widdle Eric Cantor. Obama so mean.

            The question was whether people who owed no taxes should get a tax credit. The president suggested that was a question of ideology and the electorate had just spoken on ideology.

            You should probable look up “strawman”.

          • Jeff Webb

            >>Poor widdle Eric Cantor. Obama so mean.<>The question was whether people who owed no taxes should get a tax credit. The president suggested that was a question of ideology and the electorate had just spoken on ideology.<>You should probable look up “strawman”.<<

            I did, and among the definitions was "yet another dissimilar example featuring President Bush."

          • JMax

            “That’s illogical.” How so?

            “The voters were essentially told they were electing a guy who wouldn’t
            give non-taxpayers money that by definition they should not get.”

            Do you have any source for this? When were they told this and by whom? And what exactly does it mean?

            “Another thing sold to the electorate was how Obama was an especially bipartisan, cooperative, paragon of civility.”

            I’ve never heard of him being uncivil. “Bipartisan”, by definition, means that both sides must have some willingness to work together. GOP established on 1/20/09 that they had no intention to do so.

            “I did, and among the definitions was “yet another dissimilar example featuring President Bush.””

            Good one! LOL

          • Jeff Webb

            >>”That’s illogical.” How so?<>I’ve never heard of him being uncivil.<>”Bipartisan”, by definition, means that both sides must have some willingness to work together.<<

            Which Republican held him/herself up as the model post-partisan uniter? In all of his lofty campaign talk about his ability to bring both sides together, where did Obama qualify that with something like "unless the Republicans make it a challenge"?

            Again, I'm talking about whether the way Obama has conducted himself as president lines up with the crystal-clear, unambiguous words he used to describe himself before he became president. If you're promised a Rolls, you should take exception when a Yugo gets delivered, no matter how much you like the dealer.

          • Bob Hadley

            That’s not quite how it happened. Every time Pres. Obama tried to get the GOP leaders to supplement or improve the bills the Dems were proposing, the GOP leaders would propose that he trash his ideas wholesale and “begin on a clean sheet of paper” i.e. accept their ideas. Out of exasperation, he said “I won.”
            Pres. Obama’s stance was quickly changed by the obstructionism of the GOP.

          • Blakely1

            No Bob, I distinctly remember that meeting as it was the first after Obama’s inauguration.. Where did you get
            that story? Whoever told it to you was lying.
            There were no ideas put on paper. It was all talking,
            throwing out ideas.Obama was King of the Hill & he
            was strutting like the conquering hero.
            I recall that I was appalled that Obama would be so crass as to tell McCain, “I won.”, after McCain
            just lost to him.It was beneath a President.
            Obama’s stance on obstructionism was started
            when he could not get his way. It was his way & don’t you dare disagree or I will demonize you, which of course he did. By now even the most devoted
            Obama sycophant ought to acknowledge that
            the President is a petty & vindictive man.

          • Bob Hadley


            How do you spell hypocrite? Do you ever listen to yourself? Out of one corner of your mouth, you condemn President Obama for demonizing his opponents. Out of your other side, you demonize Pres. Obama

            Many GOP leaders made a pact to obstruct Pres. Obama on his inauguration day in 2009. The meeting you referred to was after the Obama administration’s feelers were cut-off and after many GOP leaders trash-talked President Obama on national TV/cable.

            I didn’t care for the way President Obama handled Sen. McCain at that meeting, but it pales in comparison to the loud anti-Obama drumbeat that arose just after he assumed office.

            BTW, Obama wasn’t my first choice for president.

  • equinox

    I think you are missing the point on this one. It’s not equal, Left and Right. The Republicans (by and large) seek to preserve the Family, Religious and Social values that made our country great and provided the foundation for our economic and military successes and superiority.
    The Democrats (by and large) have bought into the narrative launched in the late 60s/70s that America is the Great Satan/Imperialist Monster that needs to be brought to its knees because of its outrageous acts vis a vis the rest of mankind, as we are first, citizens of the World and second, Amercians. And that is the root of the problem. Whenever someone asserts that point of view to me, they are invariably befuddled and rendered speechless by this one little question: “Ok, gotcha, but isn’t every other country in the world trying to do the same, but we are just better at it than the rest?” They cannot say “No” because except for maybe Finland and Norway and a dozen or so others , the answer would be untrue. So I think that it is a very good thing that the US is now fully polarized, because at lease the lines have been drawn. On the one side you have those who feel that the US should have the right to compete for resources and markets and seek to be as successful as possible, for the benefit of its citizens, as well as to protect itself and live up to its treaty obligations to its allies, and on the other side, you have those who insist that we “Play By the Rules (even though the competition does not), and fundamentally change what has worked so well because of their theoretical objections and execute q political/exonomic plan that is based on core values and policies that are inconsistent with human nature and have failed in virtually every place they have been tried, except for the social democratic wellfare state model adopted in Europe, whcih worked moderately well in the begiing, but is now structually broken adn doomed to long term minimal growth amidst huge increases in entitlement spending that is simply unsustainable.
    Although it is never articulated, aI believe that most Leftists think that there is this unlimited amount of capital that the disgusting and boorish capitalists can generate, so it is only a question of the 99% taking their fair share. That is why the issue is always whether we Need it, rather than whether we can AFFORd it. They think that the $17 trillion deficit is abstract instead of what it is, very real and in the here and now.

    I don’t believe that you can assert moral or intellectual equivalence if one of the sides views are based upon fundamental contradictions and assumptions that have proven to be totally unreliable and most time plain wrong. And that contradiction is being highlighted dramatically by Obama’s foreign policy the results of which completely affirm the foolishness and wrong headedness of Obama’s positons and initiatives. Basically the Left wants to be able to go to cocktail parties at the French Embassy and be accepted by the intellectual/diplomatic elite, be able to constantly reassure their fragile little egos that they are a “Good Person”, and live their life as if the rest of the world were succeeding atliving according to their “higher selves”, despite the fact that most of the rest of the world operate as their “lower selves”(except of course in those nstances where the Leftist is negotiating for their own account in which case their survival instincts dominate and they act just like the demonic Republicans do (but they make believe that these incidents of reality and the unfolding of human nature do not exist).

    • TerriGeer

      “The Democrats (by and large) have bought into the narrative launched in
      the late 60s/70s that America is the Great Satan/Imperialist Monster
      that needs to be brought to its knees because of its outrageous acts vis
      a vis the rest of mankind, as we are first,’

      I haven’t seen any evidence of this whatsoever. Do you have any verifiable facts to back you up?

      • equinox

        Just read any of the manifestos of SDS, SNCC, Black Panther Party, Ramparts Mag, etc and that is narrative you will find. It created political/moral assumptions that “felt good”, but were mythical. The truth is that there is an economic/survival competition among nations and the US, like every other nation, has a duty to compete. Whatever act of Imperialism or economic exploitation that the US is criticised for, the thruth is, that any other nation given the chance would likely do the same thing, so it is embarrassingly hypocritical. The appeal of this Anti-US bias to Liberals is that it resonates with this mythical narrative.

  • Jarob54

    This nation is polarized because those with the bully pulpit decided to divide the nation for political purpose. Plain and simple.
    Too many ill informed people with knee jerk reactions and this is where we are at this point in time. We where united when Pearl Harbor was attacked focused on winning the war. We were united after the World Trade Center attacks focused on fighting terrorism. Now we are a nation divided and likely to remain so for a long period. But I hold fast that the nation will unite when the nation has an honorable leader.

    • TerriGeer

      Now see, that is part of what is dividing this nation. A little over half of us believe that we have an honorable leader, and we are getting very tired of the other half using innuendo, paranoia and fear mongering to attempt to take down our current Administration.

      How can anyone be believed when the only argument against the current Administration has no basis in facts? ALL I’ve heard against this Administration are unfounded rumors, unfounded gossip and purposefully attempting to destroy our country by the people who did not vote for them. That is NOT how our country is supposed to work.

      • Integrity

        Wow, a JMAX protege. QED

  • Chuck

    What’s sad is that this same mentality extends also to the Supreme Court, which usually judges on the basis of each justice’s ideological biases. That should be the one bastion of objectivity, but it doesn’t exist even there.

    • TerriGeer

      With the millions of people in the country, it would be very strange (and very scary) if everyone believed the same way.

      • Chuck

        Yes, but I’m not saying that at all. I’m saying that when it comes to interpretation of law, Supreme Court justices (and lower court judges) should be setting aside their ideologies and viewing through an objective lens.

  • Zeezus
  • Roadmaster

    I used to think Proggies were as Reagan said of them, “…not that they’re ignorant, it’s just that they know so much that isn’t so!” Which implied they were nice, well meaning people, only misguided. They are not misguided – many are truly ignorant but those beating the drum and leading the parades are EVIL with evil intentions. Their ideas are destructive, expensive, and divisive, designed purposefully to bring down the Republic. I WILL NOT abide them destroying the country I love and will fight them by any means. We can no longer agree to disagree – it’s either them or us. One must be utterly and totally defeated and vanquished from the scene forever, and I plan on it being THEM!

    • WhiteHunter

      Absolutely correct. Years ago it used to be possible to believe (as I did) that “liberals” meant well and wanted what’s best for the country–to keep us strong, free, prosperous, and proud, but had merely chosen the wrong means to achieve that.

      No longer. Their actions have proved that their intentions are malevolent–and Obama is a perfect example, believing (and even saying out loud) that we as a nation are “too rich, too proud, too arrogant, too comfortable,” and that we “deserve” to be brought down a few notches, or more than a few, and humbled.

      They are, truly, evil; and they’ve proved that they no longer deserve the benefit of the doubt that we used to accord them.

      • JMax

        I can’t find the quotes you attribute to Obama anywhere. Can you provide a link to them?

      • Roadmaster

        You said it even better, W. Hunter. They’re dirty, rotten BASTIDS

        • TerriGeer

          Not at all. They just disagree with you politically.

    • TerriGeer

      “but those beating the drum and leading the parades are EVIL with evil intentions.”

      ” I WILL NOT abide them destroying the country I love and will fight them
      by any means. We can no longer agree to disagree – it’s either them or
      us. One must be utterly and totally defeated and vanquished from the
      scene forever, and I plan on it being THEM!”

      THIS kind of crap is what is tearing our country apart. Stop it and grow up.

  • russ in bc

    There’s nothing written in stone that says there must be fifty stars on Old Glory.

    • TerriGeer

      If you are thinking about having States secede, think again. It is not allowed under our Constitution. And it is the work of cowards.

  • mthammer

    A great analyses on how Liberals are different than Conservatives , what you failed to bring up is Congress voted to go to war in Iraq , it wasn’t only Bush like you say in your piece. Every time their is a problem liberals will never take any responsibility for anything. Hilary voted to go to war along with the rest of Congress , then when confronted they blame Bush , like this country is a dictatorship , well its not. All the Democrats needed to do was not fund the war anymore, they had the majority in the Senate & the House of Representatives when they passed Obama Care , all they needed to do is end the war. They always blame each administration that proceeded them , no one takes the bull by the horns and either win the war or not fight at all. I am a Vietnam Vet and we could have won that war , Westmoreland told Washington we could have cleaned up and won that war, however DC politicians were making the decisions on how we fought that war. We couldn’t shoot in certain Free Fire Zones, we couldn’t shoot on their holidays , however on ours we got pounded. We don’t need liars which are every politician in DC , Federal Employees who are ripping the taxpayers off , getting Bonuses on the backs of our military Veterans. I lost many friends & brothers while fighting that war , then when we came home got spit on by the citizens of this country , all perpetrated by you people in the media , that’s how they found out that we killed woman and kids , all lies by the press. Its happening right now , the press will only cover what the White House tells them to cover , the Head of CBS’s brother is a top advisor to Obama , don’t you think he is advising his brother not to cover certain items that will show the truth about Obama, that’s why CBS gets all the big interviews.

    • TerriGeer

      “Hilary voted to go to war along with the rest of Congress , then when
      confronted they blame Bush , like this country is a dictatorship , well
      its not.”

      Based on lies told to Congress by the WH.

    • TerriGeer

      “Its happening right now , the press will only cover what the White House
      tells them to cover , the Head of CBS’s brother is a top advisor to
      Obama , don’t you think he is advising his brother not to cover certain
      items that will show the truth about Obama, that’s why CBS gets all the
      big interviews.”

      Do you have verifiable facts to back this up? If not, it is rumor only.

  • Seattle Sam

    Bernie — Conservatives really do see Big Government as a threat to the nation’s well-being (and nothing much in the news the last couple of years would provide contrary evidence, would it?). As long as liberals see an expanding Big Government as both viable and desirable, you’re not going to see much “middle ground”. Nor should you. What would be the middle ground here, anyway?

    • TruthBeTold

      Conservative is a broad term ranging from social conservatives to economic conservatives and everything in between.

      Your average working class conservative is interested in being left alone and keeping the government from taking his money. Reasonable taxes to fund basic services are acceptable.

      Big business conservatives are another matter. They are out for themselves and are always looking for ways to shift the cost of doing business to others (cheap labor, tax breaks).

      Average working class conservatives can be victims of big business conservatives which is why they often grumble about big business like those on the left do.

      It’s often difficult to meet at middle ground when everyone has their own agenda and self-interests.

      • Seattle Sam

        The only way business can shift costs to others is by enlisting government interference. Anyone who seeks government protection doesn’t qualify as a “conservative”. It’s not THAT broad.

        • TruthBeTold

          That’s part of what I wanted to say.

          ‘Conservative’ is used by many people to mean many different things.

          I believe people are trying to narrow down the differences which is why we now have the term, ‘crony capitalism’.

          • TerriGeer

            “I believe people are trying to narrow down the differences which is why we now have the term, ‘crony capitalism’.”

            Even this is incorrect. Capitalism has always been crony capitalism. It’s just that someone decided to use it as something to hit people over the head with, as though it is wrong. It’s the same thing that happened to the word ‘liberal’. And it’s pure nonsense.

  • Odin Larsen

    I’ve been saying it for years now,there’s nothing United about this Country, from race to ideologies, this Country it’s more divided than ever. This can only be solved by another Civil War and lets see who prevails. I’m of the believe that Liberals are the scum of this Country and will do anything to destroy it.

    • TerriGeer

      Then you are a biased idiot. Stop believing what the political party’s are telling you, stop believing what the wingnut website and media are telling you, and start living in reality. The only ones in this country who are attempting to destroy us are those, not liberals.

  • semmy

    I hate to say this, but unfortunately it’s going to take another national disaster similar to 9/11 to bring this country together again. Barring that, I don’t see anything changing here for a very long time.

    • Odin Larsen

      911 did not bring anybody together, Liberals blamed George Bush for it. As a matter of fact, a ton of them believe it was an inside job, so try again.

      • semmy

        I don’t need to try again. Though it was short lived, in the aftermath of 9/11 the country was incredibly united. Bush had an approval rating in the high 80’s. Do you remember that? It shows that the country IS capable of coming together if it so desires.

        • WhiteHunter

          A mere one week (or was it all of two weeks?) after 9/11 “The New Yorker” magazine published a short piece in The Talk of the Town with toxic, hate-saturated quotes from at least half a dozen hard-left celebrities (Susan Sontag was just one of them, but representative of all) blaming the massacre on ourselves, and justifying it as understandable “retaliation” for…for whatever they hallucinated we’d done to The World and to Humanity to “get what we deserved.” Others viciously slandered Bush 43. Or all of the above.

          Normal people–those with common sense, who don’t normally hate the U.S.A.–didn’t tend to feel that way, of course; even Letterman, the snide, oh-so-clever “comedian,” was briefly outraged as he watched the smoke from the Towers rise from his studio windows.

          Obama’s dishonest 2008 campaign theme of “putting partisanship behind us” and “bringing the country together” turned out almost immediately to be as big a lie as all of his others. He has intentionally stirred up racial hatreds (of blacks against whites, not the other way around) to an intensity not seen in our lifetimes.

          To hear Obama (and Holder, of course) tell it, we’re still a nation of slaveholders and “whites only” signs still hang over water fountains and bus station lavatory doors. And they have intentionally nurtured this attitude of angry grievance among black youth.

          I’m fed up with the “diversity is our strength” idiocy. It’s not our strength; it’s our Achilles heel. And it has little to do with race–which ought to be merely skin deep, and make no difference at all. It has to do with outlook and attitude, which go all the way to the bone. And Obama has intentionally ripped open long-healed wounds and gone out of his way to stir up American-vs.-American hatreds. That alone is the most damaging of all of his many crimes.

          So I don’t think even another 9/11, or even worse, will unite us as long as this venomous, deadly mindset prevails.

      • TerriGeer

        You apparently, don’t remember how the whole country pulled together after 9/11.

        And a ton of our citizens, much more that the conspiracy theorists, told them that they were crazy.

        It wasn’t until Bush decided to invade Iraq, and told us that because we didn’t agree with him that we were traitors to our own country that we got angry. As we should have.

        Look at how many people, including those who are posting on this site, are blaming anyone who does not agree with them as being people who are attempting to destroy our own country. And it is utter nonsense.

  • nnw59

    The gulf between the left and right is unbridgeable. Different values.

    • TerriGeer

      No, we have the same values. We just don’t always agree with how to implement them

  • Barbara

    Liberals are never happy even when they are supposedly winning…

  • Seattle Sam

    Well, Bernie, if liberals really believed their diversity mantra, they WOULD move to Blue States and they WOULD want to have people from Texas as their neighbors. B ut they don’t. SO what does tht tell you?.

  • Shane

    I used to think that the liberals were just vicious attack dogs who didn’t believe the hateful things they said about conservatives, but I was wrong, The left truly believes that conservatives are all racists, Nazis, etc., and now I hate them back and believe that liberals are all America-hating traitors like Obama. It is the left that has allied with Muslim groups in North America and Europe to oppose conservatives, Christians, and patriots. So far, it looks like the liberals in Europe are well on the way to destroying their countries. They will all be Islamic Republics like Iran by the end of the century.

    • TerriGeer

      We’ve done all that? Wow. What verifiable facts do you have to back up your statements.

  • texexpatriate

    We have not been a “United States” since Republicans launched a war of destruction against a duly-constituted American government in the South in 1861.

    • Stimpy

      Oh, so now you want to re-open another divide? Red states vs blue states isn’t enough for you?

    • bofus

      Be glad the South lost. Because if you’d have one, you might be walking post some fine day in northern Wisconsin when it’s -25, and we all know what weather weenies live in Texas.

      • bofus

        one?? won.

  • Ocho

    It’d be so much easier if the other side wasn’t so wrong all the damn time! 😛

    • OKWishbone

      Not funny.

      • Ocho

        See what I mean?!

        • OKWishbone

          Don’t quit your day job. You have no future in comedy.

          • Trochilus

            He’s just simplistically opinionated and wrong. It’s always a bad combination. And definitely “not funny.”

    • TruthBeTold

      WHAT DO YOU MEAN? Are you deliberately being ambiguous and implying that MY side is wrong?

      No, Sir, YOUR side is wrong!

      Good day.

  • sinz54

    This has little to do with Obama.

    We were already becoming very polarized in the 1990s.

    It has to do with the difficulty of maintaining some semblance of unity without a common culture.

    The common culture of America originally came from Christians of European descent. And all minorities used to have to go along with that. Jewish students didn’t protest or stalk out of the school orchestra played Jingle Bells near Christmastime. Immigrants from Asia accepted that they were now going to live among an overwhelmingly Christian people. And all citizens–regardless of their ethnic heritage–recognized that they would need to learn English to function in America.

    The radicals who captured the civil rights movement replaced Martin Luther King’s call for good will and common ground with bitterness and rejection of the society. Other minorities copied them.

    Today, minorities don’t do “go along to get along” anymore. Every group insists on maintaining its own unique identity. Even the things we used to consider the basis of America–the Constituion and Declaration of Independence–have been sharply criticized by certain minorities who felt that their ancestors were short-changed by those documents. Minorities, rather than learning English, often insist on keeping their original native tongue. We now see the spectacle of ballots on Election Day being printed in a couple of dozen different languages.

    The balkanization of America into little pressure groups is destroying the unity we used to enjoy.

    • Mike Garrett

      Sinz54: As a black man, I believe it has a LOT to do with Obama! He does not see himself as POTUS instead, he sees himself as President of Those Who Agree with his ideology. In my 47 years on Earth, I’ve never laid eyes on a “leader” who is more purposely divisive, dishonest and corrupt as this President. I didn’t care for Jimmy Carter but he was simply weak. This President is, without a doubt, simply corrupt and THAT’S what continuing to pull US apart!

      • Shane

        Obama is a better liar than Bill Clinton, as he takes offense when you catch him in a lie and blames it on someone else!

        • El_Tigre

          That is the islamic way. It is not a sin to lie to unbelievers.

          • TerriGeer

            lol What does this have to do with Obama? He is not, nor has he ever been, Muslim.

          • Integrity

            I don’t think he has a religion, but this is merely my opinion, which I cannot prove. QED

      • Odin Larsen

        you sir, are 100% correct. Obama is so bad, that he wanted to fundamentally transform this Country, and he has yet figured out how to do it. Them man is highly incompetent, yet Liberals will follow him to hell if they have to.

        • TerriGeer

          No, Obama has never said that he wanted to fundamentally change this country. At all. What he said was that he wanted to change the way that business was done in D.C.

          • Integrity

            Are you his press secretary? QED

      • General Chicken

        Do you realize you may be the only black man to ever post here? The right wing is a hate group. Hatred is inbred in them and hatred unites them and drives them. Are you a hater? Wouldn’t you love to join their hate fest? Well think again. They hate everyone who does not look like them. Do you look like them? Wise up my hateful homeboy.

        • El_Tigre

          You, sir, are accusing people of not only being against you, but being against the thing that they love which you hate, which is Christianity.

    • TerriGeer

      “Today, minorities don’t do “go along to get along” anymore. Every group insists on maintaining its own unique identity.”

      In what way is this wrong. Our Constitution says that everyone is to be treated equally under the law. That includes those you don’t agree with, as long as they are not harming you. Not agreeing with them does not, in any way, mean that you are being harmed.

  • justintime

    I’m not a Democrat; I’m not a Republican; I’m an American. I don’t care what is in the best interest of the Democratic Party; I don’t care what is in the best interest of the Republican Party. I’m interested ONLY in what is in the best interest of my country, America. As far as the wars in the Middle East: the “Best & Brightest” should be renamed, “Dumb & Dumber.” I hold the policy makers responsible for the mess in the Middle East. America’s foreign policy in the Middle East has been an abysmal FAILURE.

    • TerriGeer

      I agree. And it goes back for decades. It is not something new.

  • Ed I

    First Iraq, we will never know whether Bush was right going into Iraq. What might have happened if Saddam had stayed in power and the rest of the so called Arab Spring had happened. Saddam was ranked by all sides as being in the top ten as being ruthless. He wanted to take over much of the Middle East. He was a ruthless evil man. Imagine if after taken out Hitler we had just left. Imagine South Korea today if we had just left. Second, many of the Iraq War critics like to sell the idea that Bush lied about WMDs. Hind sight is always 20-20, but his primary critics in Congress all saw the same intelligence and voted for the war. Third having lived in two of the most liberal counties in the USA I began more conservative because of the left. Disagree with their position, which you need a playbook to tell what it is on any given day, and you will be personal attacked, shunned, and attacked in the most vicious of ways. Remember anyone, even those believing in climate change, dare question the leftist rhetoric and some on the left demand they be put in prison and one of the Kennedy clan actually said they should be hanged. Finally, the USA is the freest country in history. We have freed or tried to free more people from tyranny than any country in history. Yet in the minds of the left they believe we are the only evil, the only problem in the world. That is why some on the left actually support the Islamist movement on our college campuses.

    • AnMar22

      Remember this; People are dying to get into this country, nobody is dying to get out!

      • El_Tigre

        That may change.

        • AnMar22

          When that happens, America is gone. God help us.

          • TerriGeer

            There are a lot of people who seem to want to drive a wedge between the disagreeing factions in this country. Instead of turning on each other, maybe we should be turning on them. Stand up and tell them that we are ALL American’s, and we ALL love our country and want it to survive and do well.

    • JMax

      “his primary critics in Congress all saw the same intelligence and voted for the war.”

      They saw the “intelligence” that was shown to them by the administration, without any of the doubts expressed by some in the intelligence community on aluminum tubes, yellow cake, and mobile labs.

      • bofus

        Correct; and it wasn’t just our intelligence. European intelligence agreed. The left didn’t decide they were always against the war until after they saw political potential in opposing the war.

        • JMax

          Uh…no. The Bush administration relied for much of it’s “intelligence” on an “informant” called Curveball. However, German and British Intelligence questioned the information he was providing, but their warnings were ignored by the US and British governments.

          Our own nuclear scientists told Condi Rice that there was no way the infamous aluminum tubes could be used for manufacturing WMDs and were most likely for rockets. She was told that. So she knew what she said about them was a lie.

          The “left” was against the war and voted against the war. I was against the war. It was moderate Democrats who unfortunately believed that the administration was giving them reliable intelligence who voted with the administration.

          • Integrity

            You sure are fond of wikipedia. Do you have a clue who posted this information? You do realize that “anyone” can contribute to it, don’t you? Have you ever considered that wikipedia, although useful in some instances, is not considered a reliable source of information? Still waiting on your answer regarding Ms. Lerner’s missing emails. Google away until you find a site with an answer you like. QED

          • JMax

            Do you have a clue that there are 30 citations on the page I linked to? If that isn’t good enough for you, Google “iraq war curveball” ( and you’ll find other sources such as The Washington Post, The Guardian, CBS News, NBC News, The LA Times, to name a few.

            What question about Ms. Lerner’s missing emails am I to answer to?

          • Integrity

            So what? I can use Google and find as many sources that paint a different picture. I can also find sources that blame President Clinton because he dismantled the national intelligence program. There are even books about it. Remember the peace dividend? I can also find links to numerous economists that believe our national debt is growing exponentially. I could go on ad nauseam explaining why the national debt is a serious problem, but you are only interested in sources that support your love of big Government spending. Try searching beyond Wikipedia. Riddle me this, why didn’t the Wikipedia link refer to any of the dissenting opinions? Once you finally figure out that both political parties, at least at the national level, are inherently corrupt, you might finally be able to understand that President Obama and his cronies are not as pure as the driven snow. QED

          • JMax

            What sources do you have that “paint a different picture” of Curveball?

            Please provide one link to an economist who uses the term “exponentially” in describing the growth in debt (IOW the deficit). The deficit is shrinking. Maybe you have a different definition of “exponentially” than mathematicians.

            “but you are only interested in sources that support your love of big Government spending.”

            Why do you write stupid stuff like that?

            “why didn’t the Wikipedia link refer to any of the dissenting opinions?”

            I didn’t “search wikipedia”. I used Google. Wikipedia was the first result. But there were a number of other results (I linked to the search results above). There were no dissenting opinions about Curveball. But I’d be happy to read anything you can link to that says he didn’t exist or that his information was reliable.

            “Once you finally figure out that both political parties, at least at the national level, are inherently corrupt, you might finally be able to understand that President Obama and his cronies are not as pure as the driven snow.”

            Why do you write stupid stuff like that? Are you 15 years old? Seems like you just finished Euclidean Geometry this year.

          • TerriGeer

            “you might finally be able to understand that President Obama and his cronies are not as pure as the driven snow.”

            Nobody has said the Obama, or his Administration, is anywhere close to being pure as the driven snow. What we have said, accurately, is that everything they do and say is not wrong.

          • Integrity

            Pray tell. Perhaps you could enlighten me on something they did that was wrong? I might take you more seriously then. QED

          • Integrity

            “Please provide one link to an economist who uses the term “exponentially” in describing the growth in debt (IOW the deficit). The deficit is shrinking. Maybe you have a different definition of “exponentially” than mathematicians.”
            Here are some interesting links for you to consider:
            When I think about the national debt, I do not concern myself with how it will make either political party look since they are both culpable. In this regard, Reagan, Bush, and Obama are all bad. It is true that our deficit is currently shrinking. Albeit a step in the right direction, please excuse me if I don’t pop the cork and start celebrating right now. Have you done any research to see whether or not the deficit is expected to continue in a downward manner? Despite this, most likely, temporary downward trend, the current “deficit” is still over half a Trillion dollars. That is with a capital T. So at the current deficit rate, 1.1 Trillion dollars will be added to our national debt in just two years. However, this 0.55 Trillion dollar deficit is not the only thing contributing to our national debt. You appear to be overlooking other factors. What about the interest we are currently paying on our 17.5 Trillion national debt? Have you ever looked at the graph for this? It looks pretty scary to me. What is even scarier to me is that the rate of growth is a variable and not a constant. There is a lot of information out there if you choose to avail yourself to it.
            I am not committed to defending a certain political party like you are. In fact, I have had some people call me a stupid liberal in response to some of my posts that I have made on Bernie’ site before. Has anyone ever called you a right wing nut job? As to my math knowledge? After I retired from the Army, I went back to school and earned a Bachelors of Science degree in Mathematics and graduated with departmental honors. QED

  • Bob Hadley

    As Ted Koppel said, “Journalism used to be a calling, now it’s a business.” And who was who said social movements become businesses.

    • TruthBeTold

      The media used to report news (ie, facts) now they write narratives.

      And they wonder why they’re losing credibility and their audence.

      • Hammockbear

        It is very insulting to have have the SPIN shoved at us when we attempt to watch News. Now there is a media outlet that simply trashes another media corporation. It is obvious almost all credibility is gone when news is presented. Hard to respect any of that.

      • Bob Hadley

        Formerly, the news media tried to report all the pertinent facts. Now, not infrequently they select facts (and stories) that will appease their base and de-emphasize, if not omit, facts and stories that their base cares not to hear.
        You have to take in various news media sources – of varying persuasions – to be able to get a complete picture of things.

        • El_Tigre

          But there are only two, Fox and the rest.

        • TerriGeer

          Media has always been that way, unfortunately.

  • SkyCitizen

    Frankly, I don’t look at the political divide as an absolute as much as a process. Conservatism is a place where liberals escape to when confronted with age maturity and money. The exceptions are Hollywood types and principle deficient politicians i. e. (Charles E. Schumer) who because of their public persona have to appear as altrusic, it’s the easy road. Historically Americans have lived through some pretty hard times and there wasn’t then much difference in the national mentality. In WW2 the Japanese initially killed 3,000 Americans and subjugated the Far East. For this deed we sent them back to the stone age. Ditto for Germany and both are better nations for the horrific experience. Democracy was imposed on them as a condition of existence.

    Since the Korean war we as a nation have sought to fight wars in a magnanimous fashion carefully preserving the culture and politics of our enemies during which time we have had to listen to Liberal bunk that America is an imperialist nation. Britain, France and Spain were at one time Imperialist Nations: We have never been so.

    The false belief that Islamic Terrorists are a Stateless movement is another slice of baloney. The money for bullets and goat meat comes from somewhere and we know where. We just lack the resolve and leadership to do anything about it.

    So, is the country divided? Yes, but only until the population of New York is sent to Mars without the help of NASA. It’s only a matter of time.

    • Kathie Ampela

      “The money for bullets and goat meat comes from somewhere and we know where. We just lack the resolve and leadership to do anything about it. So is the country divided? Yes, but only until the population of New York is sent to Mars without the help of NASA. It’s only a matter of time.” Well said, SkyCitizen, thanks.

      Don’t you just love all the highfalutin speeches on how the Iraq War was a mistake? Just wanted to let you know Bernie that I live in New York and have an 8 year old son that I didn’t have on 9/11. I give it about 45 minutes to an hour to get the country united again. I’ve seen it first hand, even though everyone else seems to have forgotten. It’ll take just about that long for the holier than though speeches about the sorry state of our political discourse to end too. We should only pray that who ever is running the show by then has the b*lls to do something about it instead studying his/her godd*amn poll numbers or apologizes to the poor oppressed terrorists for the terrible sin of being America.

      • General Chicken

        Let’s get it on dildolips

        • El_Tigre

          You must be a liberal what with the ad hominem attacks.

    • General Chicken

      Sounds like a threat. Do you have the cajones to carry it out?

      • El_Tigre


        • General Chicken

          Cojones. What you like to lick milk off of.

          • Integrity

            Pretty pathetic, even for you IHF. QED

  • dlmstl

    America was born fighting. Those so-called periods of tranquility between fights were used to ‘reload’. I can’t imagine the hostility which reigned before, during and after the American Revolution and the Civil War. The 60’s and later pale in comparison. Fret not fellow Americans, we are still a good bunch of ruffians who, as General George Patton said, just “love to fight”. We’ll muddle though and be stronger in the long run. Just remember to keep your friends close but your enemies closer. That’s just in case the ‘pajama boys’ happen to restrict guns via executive orders and we need to get our hands on their sorry asses!!

    • General Chicken

      Bring it on fuckboy

    • zeezus

      300 million guns already owned in usa. what gun do you want?>go buy it.

  • beniyyar

    Societies rise and fall, cultures grow great and then stagnate, countries have their decades of greatness and decades of decline. Obama and those like him are working to push America into decline and they are succeeding beyond their wildest expectations!

    • AnMar22

      I have been saying that for a long time and you, sir, are the first who agrees with me. obama (lower case deliberate) is NOT clueless, a moron or any other like term. He knows what he’s doing. Hasn’t he put people who think like him in key positions?? Holder, Watt??? What’s stopping us from impeaching him???

      • beniyyar

        I could not have put it better and I can only hope that the next Presidential election will put a decent and loyal American in the Presidency and that does not include one single treacherous Democratic Party member!

        • AnMar22


  • Joan Lee

    Great idea !

  • rgcomega

    Nothing like a good fight for freedom….rednecks v. commies

    • TerriGeer

      The problem with this is that very, very few people on the left are communist, or even want to be. That is media hype only. Too bad so many people have chosen to buy into it.

  • Larry blaspheming liberalism

    “Conservatives and liberals … have opposing views on the value of ethnic and religious diversity in their neighborhoods.” But not what the Post thinks. Liberals don’t want conservatives around. They won’t live in neighborhoods that are different from themselves — ethnically or religiously. Liberals want a Silly Putty Constitution (that they euphemistically call “living”) that they can twist whatever way they want.

    opposing views on the value of ethnic and religious diversity in their
    neighborhoods.” – See more at:

    have opposing views on the value of ethnic and religious diversity in
    their neighborhoods.” – See more at:

  • Tim Ned

    “liberals should move to Blue States and conservatives should move to Red States.”

    Unfortunately, liberals won’t move!

    • AtlHarleyDave

      Oh yes they will move, and are, to red states because they’ve RUINED the blue ones. The problem is they don’t connect the dots, so they bring their libtard policies to red states and ruin them, too.

      • Tim Ned

        You are right, my liberal friends who are retiring are moving to those states more senior friendly. Basically the ones without income tax.

        • TerriGeer

          lol This tends to happen as people retire, no matter what their political views are.

          • Jeff Webb

            lol This wouldn’t happen with liberal people if they truly were as pro-tax as they claim to be.

      • WhiteHunter

        Exactly! They foul their own nests until they’re unlivable, then move out to places that are, and repeat the process.

      • El_Tigre

        It is called californication.

    • TerriGeer

      Why should they? This is their country, too.

  • Skyguy51

    Bernie, “more polarized than at any other time in recent history” puleeze! You are old enough to remember the anti-war demonstrations over Vietnam, the race riots of the 60’s, Kent State, the civil rights movement.
    We aren’t shooting at one another (as long as you stay out of Chicago, Detroit and some other major metro areas) like we did in the 1860’s. Did a pretty good job of showing our displeasure with one another just using black powder weapons too.
    Iraq is “polarized”, so Ukraine, Nigeria and some other garden spots. Compared to those places the US of A is barely having a mild domestic argument over who is washing the dishes!

    • Odin Larsen

      that’s like thinking that your 16 year old is having too much Ice Cream and find out 6 months later that she’s pregnant.

    • El_Tigre

      The Tennessee state capital building has a crater in a marble hand rail where one political opponent shot at another.

  • sgtstriker

    As long as the masses remain in a state of conflict amongst themselves, they have little ability to wage any cohesive defense to a tyrannical government. The more conflict within the citizenry the less likely any real pressure can be put upon the administration.
    Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain…….

    • MontanaMade

      BINGO!!!! The government is dividing Americans deliberately to keep them from eyeing the government themselves! All the while, the gov makes themselves out to be the savior to save us all from each other- justifying itself getting bigger and bigger because we need it to keep the peace. Had they not caused the issue in the first place- we’d be just fine.

      • El_Tigre

        The only problem is that the government is being run by people. People who have the same weaknesses, biases, and greed as anyone else, including the people the government is demonizing in order to have the electorate give the government more power.

      • TerriGeer

        That’s not what he said.

        It’s the pundits that are doing this, not the Government. And they are not doing it for patriotic reasons. The more unrest they create, the more followers and the more advertizement money they get.

        IOW, they are dividing this country in order to make money. For no other reason.

        • Jeff Webb

          >>It’s the pundits that are doing this, not the Government.<<

          Yeah, Obama, Pelosi, & Reid haven't made one single divisive statement while in office. Great uniters, those three.

  • phollrah

    Bernie: To blame the Bush administration for getting us into an unnecessary war in Iraq is far from the truth. What is not widely known is that, in the summer of 2002, the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI), under Republican control, authorized an information warfare initiative against Saddam Hussein called SOFTWAR. Under the theory that no dictator can remain a dictator unless his people believe him to be both omnipotent and omniscient, the HPSCI SOFTWAR program was designed to remove one or both of those advantages from Saddam Hussein, thereby eliminating the necessity of putting boots on the ground in Iraq.
    However, when the HPSCI proposal arrived in the U.S. Senate, which had just gone over to Democrat control when Senator “Jumpin’ Jim” Jeffords left the Republican Party to become an Independent, Senate Democrats saw it as a chance to develop a political issue to be used against George W. Bush in his 2004 reelection campaign. So, while Tom Daschle (D-SD), Hillary Clinton (D-NY), Dick Durbin (D-IL) and other Democrats were making impassioned speeches on the senate floor, opposing the idea of giving George Bush the war powers he requested, they were quietly strangling the HPSCI SPOFTWAR program to death in the Senate Appropriations Committee, chaired by the late Robert Byrd (D-WV).
    How do I know this? I know this because I was one of two people who lobbied Senate Democrats throughout the months of September and October 2002, trying to get the Democrat leadership to approve the $10 million appropriation necessary to launch the HPSCI proposal. I know because I sat in the meetings with Democratic senate staffers, all of whom were very enthusiastic about the SOFTWAR proposal. But when it came down to the “nut-cuttin’,” their bosses were more interested in having a political issue to use against George W. Bush than they were in averting a ground war in Iraq. And when we proposed that senate Democrats authorize the program for a single dollar… with the thought that we would ask for a later supplement… to fund the initial $10 million startup costs, the Democrats denied even that proposal.
    So the war in Iraq, at the cost of 4,000+ American lives, is on the hands of Democrats, not George W. Bush.

    • El_Tigre

      Wow! Thank you for that insight. Nothing like hearing it from a person who was there.

  • stmichrick

    Bernie, the situation was headed this way already but when someone as far left as Obama was elected under different pretense (with many voters) polarization was bound to get worse.
    I was worried about Bill Clinton but he turned out to be less ideological than I expected.

    • SkyCitizen

      Right! At least Clinton could tell which way the wind was blowing.

      • stmichrick

        You chose the correct verb, Sky

        • SkyCitizen

          Yep, opportunists have no values.

    • TerriGeer

      Except that Obama is not, and never has been far left. That you have chosen to believe this nonsense only goes to prove that the propaganda has worked.

      • stmichrick

        While I was relieved that Obama has ‘whacked’ a few ‘moles’ with drones and offed bin Laden, he has caved to his code pink base in abandoning Iraq and Afghanistan prematurely causing the chaos and bloodbath that we are reading about this week.

        • TerriGeer

          The whole reason for the US, along with quite a few other country’s, being in Afghanistan was because that was where bin Laden was hiding. That was the only reason that we went there. When we got bin Laden, there was no more valid reason to be there. Afghanistan has made it plain that they don’t want us there. Since it is not our country, we don’t get a say in it.

          As for Iraq, Bush made an agreement/contract with them as to when we would no longer be in their country. Obama tried to get them to say that we could be there longer and they refused. Again, since Iraq is not our country, we don’t have the right to simply stay there. So, we followed the agreement.

          As for the blood bath, Iraq was in the middle of a civil war when we invaded them. And they didn’t have any al quida groups in there. They were too busy fighting each other.

          • stmichrick

            The reason we went to both countries was because of the national security threats that originated there. We should not completely leave either one until those threats have been eliminated.
            What will your response be when the next 9/11 happens? Blame Bush?



    • El_Tigre

      I would rather one side go east of the Mississippi and the other west.

      • TerriGeer

        But you don’t have the right to dictate what other people do or where they live.

        • El_Tigre

          That is not what I said. I was answering Doski with a suggestion, not trying to impose anything on anyone.

  • Sheila Warner

    I’m a moderate. So all of this bickering has driven me away from cable. Since Mothers Day, I’ve been on cable rarely. It’s the same old, tired, and repetitive talking points. I like to be challenged, not yelled at.

    • Stimpy

      Yeah, after a hard day at work there are times when I just pass on by Hannity or the Kelly files and just find something a little less engaging. I wouldn’t think of watching MSNBC.

      • TerriGeer

        I watch the Food Network, the Weather Channel and the Triple Crown races each year.

        Where I get my information from is online. And I read what pretty much every website has to say, although I avoid WND (they are nothing less than crackpots). I, also, try and find the original stories and read the bills that are on the floor of Congress, instead of relying on someone else’s opinion of what is happening.

        When the IRS stuff started making the new, I ordered the Instruction manual for the applications from the IRS. I discovered that those people trying to make it a scandal don’t seem to even know what the process is for filing an application, let alone how they are approved. Anybody else know that there were no applications turned down? And that, therefore, there is no scandal?

  • RickonhisHarleyJohnson

    Just a thought, Bernie; but one reason conservatives tend to move to like communities is that the liberals have taxed them into it. Where I live the left controls the county and our taxes go up and up and up. Won’t be long and I’ll move. Where? To a lower tax county and/or state.

    • Sheila Warner

      Stay far away from NJ, where I live. Taxes are sky high here.

      • FlaVet

        They don’t like the Bill of Rights or the Constitution there either.

        • JDinSTL

          They appear to like doughnuts

      • Joan Lee

        I visited New Jersey once. Once is plenty.

      • Stimpy

        The CEO of the corporation I quit a couple of years ago lives in Jersey. He is the greediest pig I know.

      • RickonhisHarleyJohnson

        I know – have family there. And I thought it was bad here in Illinois.

    • Kit

      We reside in a city where liberal Democrats have been a one-party rule for decades. Nothing changes for the better. Our crime/murder rate is considered the highest in the nation; taxes keep going up, the public school system here is a disgrace and the voters keep reelecting the same do nothing politicians that keep on screwing their constituents time after time. My vote doesn’t count anymore, for all the times I’ve voted, the candidate of my choice never stood a chance. We’re moving abroad at the end of this year. Yes, Bernie, for me this is not really the United States of America anymore. And lastly, I’m still a proud American at heart; I fought in Vietnam and will always be proud of my service there.

      • JDinSTL

        Rick… no worries on anyone guessing which city that is. It’s all of them.

      • RickonhisHarleyJohnson

        Same here. Sad, how they continue to add programs and bureaucrats like there is no cost.

      • TerriGeer

        But you don’t seem to understand that just because you have chosen a candidate that they are not required to win if the majority of voters don’t wish to chose them.

        If you believe that this is not really the USA, then you are not a proud American at all.

        School systems are done by the disctrict not the State. If you want to change how the schools are working, get elected to the school board. Make a difference by getting involved instead of just whining that you don’t like the way things are going.

    • El_Tigre

      Don’t like California, eh?

      • RickonhisHarleyJohnson

        A beautiful state, but wouldn’t live there.

  • sniper2535

    As a “Tea Party” guy, or as I preferred to be called, regular American, I find that most people I deal with on the left know very little about the constitution, three branches of government, or even who the players are in Washington. Yet they are very nasty when it comes to defending something, it seems, they know very little about. (their own position) The foundation from which they throw stones is very shaky at best. Yet I walk away the “racist” or extremist. Kind of sad for them in a way, yet detrimental to all in the melting pot.

    • AtlHarleyDave

      Personal attacks are their only response, because they can’t argue with facts. They process only emotion, not logic. Progressivism is a mental illness, how else can it be explained?

      • Stimpy

        They make all the wrong decisions for the noblest (in their minds anyway) of reasons. How else to explain shipping oil by rail while refusing to build pipelines.

      • TerriGeer

        “Progressivism is a mental illness, how else can it be explained?”

        Except it isn’t. It just makes a great bumper sticker slogan. It is not, however, based on reality and facts. Just diving our nation.

    • TerriGeer

      Do they truly not know about the Constitution or is it just that they don’t agree with you? There’s a big difference there.

      • sniper2535


  • Brian Fr Langley

    Bernie, there is a lot more going on here besides a simple disagreement over ideology. The underlying disagreement is much more fundamental. It’s really about right and wrong, and how righteousness (right behavior) is viewed. Can we really support a society where record numbers of women abort their babies? Can we really support a society where record numbers of men abandon them? Does it make sense that for righteousness sake, my tax dollars MUST be coerced to support another mans abandoned family? Is it really okay to print money to excess, when we know we’re actually adding sawdust to the wheat we’re selling? Is it really okay to penalize virtuous money savers with low interest rates that put them into poverty, while rewarding profligate spenders hoping they’ll jumpstart the economy? Is it really okay to reward the queue jumpers on the border who get into America by lying and cheating, while penalizing the poor souls (and their deserving families aching to get here) who have followed all the rules, but now are turned away due to far to many illegals? Wherever we look we are finding infamous, ignominious behavior lauded and rewarded, while virtue is scorned and penalized. Then wonder why we have a nation of people who choose ignominy over virtue?

    • floridahank

      I share your comments. There are many parts to our problems. First, our educational system is next to worthless. They don’t teach the basics that we were taught 50 yrs. ago. The teachers basically have a very biased view and don’t give the opposition side any coverage. The kids today know nothing about the Founding Fathers and how our country evolved.
      Look at the level of “entertainment ” today — truly stupid, wasteful time on inane shows. We get no help from various “health” agencies — most of the foods are junk and they’re endorsed and promoted to let the food companies continue to put our empty and even harmful products.
      Our religious institutions are serving empty sermons and don’t support any strong moral beliefs. The list could go on for pages, but you all get the idea. I’m not sure how we can stop the downhill plunge.– we’re sure not getting any good ideas or examples from our politicians or the WH.

      • El_Tigre

        Oh, I don’t know. In 1954 we were told by our Junior High math teacher that communism is really a good thing.

        • floridahank

          Sometimes communism does work better — every country can’t handle the democracy concept that we try to foist on other countries. We should mind our own business and not try to change every other nation.

      • TerriGeer

        It’s not the teachers who are failing, it’s the school districts that decide what is to be taught. The teachers don’t have too much say over what is taught. It really is in the hands of the school district.

    • richard whaley

      Well stated. Many of the questions you posed started with the phrase “Is it okay……..”. How one answers your question usually defines which side of the spectrum (liberal or conservative) you fall.

      • Brian Fr Langley

        You can take the answer to these questions a step further. Ignominy = self serving Virtue = self sacrificing. So is abortion ignominious or virtuous? Is gay marriage ignominious or virtuous? Abandoning your children for others to support? Printing excess money? Illegally crossing a border? Condoms in schools? Etc. etc. etc. Leaders used to lead to virtue. Kennedy for example said “ask not what your country can do for you, but what can you do for your country”. Martin Luther dreamed of a day when a man should be judged on his “character” not his color. Today all politicians pander to ignominy, while their media cohorts chastise virtue. I guess we could call it a political spectrum. I simply call it a shocking lack of virtue. (righteousness)

        • TerriGeer

          “Leaders used to lead to virtue.”

          Not really. They have always been political, not based on virtue, but based on what the money people who back them want. That is, actually, been true throughout our history.

          Abortion, btw, has only been an issue for less than 100 years.

          • Brian Fr Langley

            If for a moment you ponder the “leaders” who have been called great leaders by the judgement of history, you’ll find they were typically self sacrificing, as opposed to self serving. And just because a mob elected you, does not a leader make you.

  • Ivals

    Multiple reasons for the divide. (1) History of our founding and the Constitution are no longer taught in our schools (2) The Congress has gradually ceded power to the Executive Branch (3) The Federal Government has gradually eroded the rights of the States and (4) the voter continues to elect the incumbent expecting different outcomes. Was it not John Adams who said the two party system would be to the detriment of the country?

    • Tonethousand

      Ivals-Totally agree. Especially #1. It used to be our public high schools provided a general education, with an intention of graduating young adults ready to shoulder the mantle of “Citizen”. Today, leftists monopolize academia, and want to prepare students for prolonged stints in their system (Obamacare will cover students until 26 yrs. old). And, under the pretext of preparing students for a College education; civics and U.S. History, in some places in America, have been entirely excluded from public school curriculum in an effort to eradicate American nationalism/Americanism. This makes many generations of Americans devoid of any sense of national pride, or sense of civic duty. This leaves our nation to be lead by self-serving career politicians, elected and re-elected by self absorbed constituencies of ignoramuses. Readers of this commentary, please write, and attend school board meetings and DEMAND that ALL students must have an understanding of our form of government and our history in a great enough capacity to pass the same test that new immigrants must pass to attain American citizenship.

      • Ivals

        We are definitely at a crossroads in the life of our democracy. Thanks for the specifics regarding our educational system. There is a reason the people who fought the WW II battles (and for those who supported them in the homeland) were called the “greatest generation”.

    • TerriGeer

      Where did you get the idea that our schools no longer teach History of our country? Or the Constitution? My Grandchildren are taught both.

      The US Constitution overrides State laws if those State laws are in violation of the Constitution. One example of this is that States have no legal or Constitutional right to make laws that treat groups of people differently. The 14th Amendment overrides State laws if they violate it.

      As for elections, that has almost always been the case. Just as there have always been people who vote for people and issues that are not popular and that will not win. There is no right to have your candidate or issues win elections.

      • Ivals

        I am happy that your grandchildren understand our history and why we fought a revolutionary war. Conversation with high school graduates will demonstrate their shallow understanding of our founding. I don’t disagree with your statement about the Constitution but that doesn’t disprove my comment. I think you missed the point of my comment about the elections – there is a reason why Congress has such poor approval ratings.

        • TerriGeer

          Well, yes, there is a reason. They’ve stopped paying attention to the people who put them in office, and the good of our country, in favor of what their party platform is.

  • LHS

    Move to blue states or d states depending on which suits your ideology?
    Great. Except…the ue states are sucking economically and want the red states to pay for their stupid, cockamamie programs that DON’T WORK. Take the “exception” out of the equation and I’m in.

    • El_Tigre

      I always wondered about that color designation. Isn’t the left associated with red?

  • Gloria

    The main reason we are so divided, not united, is because we have an administration whose stock in trade – whether campaigning or “governing” – is to continually pit one American against the other. Conservative vs liberal, rich vs poor, black vs white, laborer vs boss, Main St. vs Wall St., hawk vs dove, etc etc creating an atmosphere of hostility rather than harmony. Do not recall ever seeing this style of ugly politics in the name of advancing an agenda designed to supposedly benefit the one side over the other side. I, for one, liked it better when we were actually the UNITED States of America.

    • FlaVet

      +100…You’ve nailed the “change” that Ovomit has foisted on us.

      • Gloria

        Thanks! I still remember hearing him (on radio) shout during a campaign rally in ’08 – “We’re going to fundamentally change America” and his audience was cheering, but a cold chill ran up my spine as I wondered what the heck does he mean by that? And I thought then, I LIKE my country – sure there’s room for improvement, but FUNDAMENTALLY change it? No thanks. And guess what folks? He is fulfilling that campaign promise one chunk off the constitution at a time. : (

        • TerriGeer

          He never said that he was going to fundamentally change our country. What he said was that he wanted to change how business was done in D.C. He, also, said that he couldn’t do it by himself that the US citizens would have to help. That’s where the “Yes, we can” slogan came from.

          • Jeff Webb

            >>He never said that he was going to fundamentally change our country.<<


          • TerriGeer

            So, you refer me to an obviously edited video as proof that Obama wanted to change our system of Government? I don’t think so. What he was talking about was changing the way that government business is done in this country. Not to change our system of Government.

            You have let hate color your world. Why?

          • Jeff Webb

            Full quote is at the bottom:

            >>What he was talking about was changing the way that government business is done in this country.<>Not to change our system of Government.<<

            Depends on how you define "fundamentally transforming the USA." Our system of government, in a nutshell, is a free populace with limited government interference. The USA is a representative republic, with three co-equal branches confined explicitly by the text of its foundational document.

            The Obama administration does not operate within our system of government. With their policies & legislation, the way their agencies operate, their lawbreaking, and their exempting themselves from the rules, with enough time this will be a representative republic in name only.

    • LHS

      You haven’t seen it, Gloria, because they have achieved their control and chaos gradually over two generations that weren’t paying attention and will certainly pay dearly now.

    • sinz54

      You don’t think we were divided in 2001 prior to 9-11?

      I seem to remember the Dems screaming for Bush’s head after the disastrous 2000 election recount mess.

      • TerriGeer

        That was only one issue, and we moved passed it. We didn’t scream about everything that he did.

        • Jeff Webb

          >>That was only one issue, and we moved passed it.<>We didn’t scream about everything that he did.<<

          Yes you did.

    • TerriGeer

      So tell the GOP to knock it off. Just because people disagree with then does not, in any way, mean that they are anti-American.

    • TerriGeer

      We still are the United States of America. And most of the hate is coming from US Citizens who have not wanted the results of our elections for the last 6 years. All that is is burying their heads in the sand because they don’t like the results.

      Our country is still being run the way that our FF set it up to be run. You just don’t like the current results. That does not, in any way, that we are no longer the USA. It simply means that you refuse to accept that the majority of voters disagree with you.

  • rbblum

    Is the United States ‘united’? Not in Obama’s progressive world that is hell bent to fundamentally transform the constitutional republic.

    • TerriGeer

      Except that Obama has NEVER said that he wants to transform our republic. Never.

      • rbblum

        Uh-huh. Being absent from reality is not a legitimate excuse (for not being aware of the facts of life).

  • joepotato

    The political theater we are being treated to is contrived for our consumption… The Office of the Resident (that’s all Soetoro/Obama is) is more ceremonial these days… Farther down the rabbit hole are those with above top secret clearances that pull the strings that make politicians dance. Those super secret operatives work for the oligarchs and the bankster cabal… And people wonder why the rule of law means nothing to the DC elite and the constitution is being scrapped… Bottom line; the USA has been sold out, so naturally the nation is divided Bernie. How could it not be…?

    • El_Tigre

      Surely not sweet Valerie Jarrett?

      • joepotato

        Yes… sweet Valerie, and don’t call me Shirley… {;-)> She’s just the “hands on” puppet-master… She probably works with Soros who is a NWO operative mid-level kind of guy…. They work above the “rabbit hole”…

    • TerriGeer

      “The Office of the Resident (that’s all Soetoro/Obama is) is more ceremonial these days.”

      You just lost whatever argument you were trying to post.

      If you want to deal with factual information, which you haven’t, you might have a valid point. But as long as you are basing your belief on something that is not a fact, you have no valid point.

  • Josh

    To the title more than the content (which I did read, and do agree with mostly): Have we ever been “united” in anything but name? Every majority group has always thought it was their country, and everyone else has to grin and bear it if they want to live here. Every special interest wants to transform it. Every 34-year-old schmoe commenting on this blog drinking a Bud Light at 10:36 a.m., because $*#& work today, wants to divide things to the extent it pleases him.

    The right and left seem, to me, as if they simply provide a large, open clubhouse for people who want to join up with other people to force their particular will on everyone else. Often enough it’s well intentioned totalitarianism, but I’m not shocked both sides are gaining volume.

    But for the most part it’s innocuous.

    Man, it just feels good to blame someone else for everything else and for even a brief moment to drop all responsibility to yourself and everyone else to tell other people to get their shiz together and fix it. And we’re all inherently vain and swag-ready to a fault. We all think we’re right about our views. That necessarily makes others wrong.

    But, seriously, I don’t see that it’s worse or teetering on the edge of dirty bombs and bearded bandits in the streets for sure, or even moving to quarantine zones. It’s just more in-your-face in this in-your-face instant-media, everybody’s-got-a-connection age.

    We had an old neighborhood reunion two Sundays ago. We haven’t had a big group picture taken since 1998, my graduating year. Back then, we had to send someone to the store to get a camera with cheap Kodak film. But this time, when we asked someone to snap a photo, seven people pulled out their phones and got us from all kinds of angles and took multiple shots, many of which were on Facebook and Instagram before we even left.

    I think the only difference today is that more people can let it be known that they believe other people are wrong. I don’t think actual people in the streets in the real world hate one another to any larger an extent than before in America’s history.

    We’re kinda doing what we’ve always done in America, only not as violently.

    • Ksp48

      Oh, maybe its Alzheimer’s, but I do seem to remember when Americans, even politicians, actually cared about the country and its citizens.Remember when partisanship was supposed to stop at the waters edge? I can remember when Presidents did not seek to divide everyone into class, race, gender, sexual orientation, or at least if the did, they were frowned upon (Richard Nixon). There is no on /off switch. When the President’s every word is to divide, when the ex speaker of the house and President Pro tem of the Senate seem to actually hate half the country, when one party’s entire strategy for staying in office is to demonize half the country there is very little hope for unity.

      • Josh

        If you want to put division on Obama, I won’t bust chops. I’m not a fan, and the guy–along with his team and his minions–is a snake.

        But even though I’m only 34, I always remember people being divided, particularly pertaining to religion and politics. There have been many great minds, long before the name “Obama” was even conceived, much less the man, who have warned about venturing into those topics. Honestly, the only difference I see now, in terms of polarization, is that everybody’s suddenly got a microphone and a radio show, news channel, blog or website to voice their grievances, and everybody and their brother wants to do some type of polling about stuff as if political division is something that’s new to America — the same country that fought the most famous Civil War in world history.

        In fact, didn’t Jefferson and his stooges play Adams in a vicious smear campaign that cost him votes in the first presidency which ultimately went to Washington? Have we not been divided politically from the inception of the nation?

        Sorry, but I don’t see that aspect of politics as anything new or newsworthy. Obama’s inept policies and the ineptitude surrounding him, now that’s an area where I’ll gladly jump down his throat.

        • SkyCitizen


          You are wise beyond your years. Great wealth will find you.

        • TerriGeer

          For the most part, I agree with you. But I don’t believe that it’s Obama who is inept or is trying to bring down our country.

    • JanelleHumbert

      Rather good summation, Josh. Well done. 1998 was your graduating year from college?

      • Josh

        High school.

        • JanelleHumbert

          If the only opinion any of us ever heard was our own – the unrelenting boredom would cause a much faster exit from living. We need the differences, so hating hating each other for them doesn’t compute at all.

          • TerriGeer

            True. This demonizing of people that don’t agree with our views is what is tearing our country apart. I wish more people would realize it.