Wednesday, November 05, 2008

Stock In K-Y Should Soar!

Well, I guess congrats are in order. I'm afraid you'll have to look elsewhere for those. I'm far too concerned about giving my condolences to a nation astray.

I'm not bigoted enough to think that this is a great day for America simply because the president-elect has darker skin than all those who went before him. I'm far more concerned about the content of his character, a character already suspect because of alliances as well as philosophies. I'm far more concerned for all the babies that won't stand a chance. I'm concerned that the freedom of religious expression will be further eroded in favor of how a minute percentage of the population chooses to pleasure themselves. I'm concerned about even more corporations moving overseas due to even more burdensome taxation. I'm concerned about the suppression of speech under the guise of "Fairness". I'm concerned about foreign wackjobs teeing off on the United States, her interests and allies, now that their choice for our president has won.

Is there enough lubricant available to lessen our pain?


Les said...

For Art

Obama 349
McCain 147

That's all I wanted to say.

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

Homoeroticism from the anti-gay crowd. Tells me a lot.

For now, and I think for a while, the right is sidelined.

Whine about all those "babies who don't stand a chance" all you want. I for one am celebrating the upcoming enshrining of Sharia, the surrender of our sovereignty to Islamic extremist, and will marry a man as soon as possible.

Seriously, we have a lot of work to do to heal this country from 40 years of the divide and conquer strategy of the Republican Party. While I might have some fun (a la the above paragraph), in the end, I think we need to look toward moving forward together. Since the election was a referendum not only of two different men, but two different philosophies of governance, and since all the talk about abortion, William Ayres, and all the rest was out there, I think the American people spoke pretty forcefully last night. Not just about who will be President, but about how we wish to be governed. Do not remain silent, Marshall Art. But do not carry a grudge.

Ms.Green said...

A great many people have been duped. It will be interesting to see how long it takes them to figure that out.

On a side note. I was not in the least bit disappointed because McCain lost. I was deeply disappointed though, that Obama won. You see, I ended up not voting for anyone. I instead voted against someone.

Such is politics. But my God is still on His throne, and it'll be interesting to see what He does in all this.

hashfanatic said...

forget the lubricants

look for a living Christ,
to lift up a dying nation

Marshall Art said...

First of all, any "divide and conquer" philosophy was in your head. One of Bush's first moves was to join with Ted Kennedy in the No Child Left Behind legislation. That's about as close as it got to anything resembling non-partisanship from the left. From that point on it's been constant obstructionism. The divide and conquer was by the likes of you and your party.

Secondly, it's pretty clear that the election proved only that people are stupid and racist. Everyone wants to believe there's significance in the election of a black man to president. That belief shows we haven't moved one inch away from racism. Some of us clearly don't give a flying rat's ass what color the man is. It never freakin' enters our mind except to fend off bogus charges of racism from even Obama himself.

Most of the left hate Bush without having a clear reason why. The rest have only bullshit reasons mostly emanating from the childish sour grapes from losing in 2000 and to this day haven't gotten past it. Reasons that would never have been suggested had Gore or Kerry done the exact same things.

Right now, I am reeling with disgust at the stupidity of my fellow Americans. I am sick to death of the lame justifications for the support of so unworthy a candidate and am likely to refrain from posting for a time until I recover my senses. I have never so strongly wanted to be wrong as I do right now. I have never been so afraid that I'm not.

You're entitled to enjoy your victory. I truly hope you don't end up choking on it.

Mark said...

Racism is far from dead now that Obama is President-elect. If anything, the divide will get worse, only now, the racism will be black against white.

No doubt everytime someone criticizes President Obama the accusations of racism will ensue. This may very well be the catalyst Obama will use to justify the outlawing of free speech. It may soon become illegal to criticize the Government. After all, Obama is a Marxist and that's what Marxists do.

hashfanatic said...

let's face it, this is possibly america's darkest day

marshall, i'd be happy to recite, chapter and verse, all the reasons i hold bush in the lowest regard, but does it all not pale in comparison to the POSSIBLY, more malevolent horror we now are forced to contend with?

obama is not a president, as much as he is a CULT LEADER, which is why dissent is needed, from day one, if there is anything left over for our children

i identified as leftist until this year, i understand the threat that now faces our nation, and i know what could be in store

on the other hand, i know that some that voted for barky got sucked into supporting him, and i understand they have been just as disheartened, for a LONG time, as we are today

i urge you to take at least one day's break from this, so you can wrap your mind around this national catastrophe, and approach this all with an eye toward a somewhat altered future....doing so today has helped me immeasurably, for you should not be moved by your emotions

above all, do not lose faith

hashfanatic said...

"It may soon become illegal to criticize the Government. After all, Obama is a Marxist and that's what Marxists do."

yes, unfortunately

Anonymous said...

hash, I can see a difference in you. You and I have disagreed greatly in the past. I agree about the CULT observation. mom2

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

Wow, Marshall - I really had hoped you might be able to rise above the bile and bitterness. Apparently, I was wrong. I thought this stuff didn't matter all that much.

Seriously, I can name any number of reasons, not why I hate Bush, but why I think he has been a terrible President, perhaps the worse since at least Herbert Hoover, and perhaps since James Buchanan. Yet, every time I enumerate these reasons, it's like talking to a wall, so I shall not repeat myself. Suffice it to say that me, and 64,000,000 other Americans are quite fed up with mediocrities running our country. Real governance requires not just experience, but understanding, creativity, and a refusal to have the terms of the discussion dictated by others. Obama has displayed all these qualities in droves.

All the evidence was presented to the American people, and they rendered their verdict. Don't run and pout. If you are really angry, as many on the left were after 2000 and 2004, do what we did - double down on your efforts to protest those things with which you disagree. Read, learn, fight for what you believe in. Don't get all pouty and take your toys and go home. Definitely not the American way.

Vinny said...

You cannot oil the pain away, but if you turn off the talk radio for awhile and read some responsible journalism (I suggest The Economist), you may figure out that Obama represents a step forward.

Mark said...

Hash, I don't know what to say! Is it my imagination or did you actually agree with me?

Marshall Art said...

"I thought this stuff didn't matter all that much."

What "stuff"?

"Seriously, I can name any number of reasons, not why I hate Bush, but why I think he has been a terrible President..."

You might be able to seriously name any number of reasons, but you can't name any serious reasons.

"Yet, every time I enumerate these reasons, it's like talking to a wall, so I shall not repeat myself."

Buck buck buckAWK!!

"Obama has displayed all these qualities in droves."

He's displayed no more than the qualities of a good used car salesman, and people like you are the suckers to whom he just sold a junker.

"Don't run and pout."

You wish. I don't run (not fast anyway), I stand and fight. And you confuse pouting with lamentations over the stupidity and gullibility of 52% of the American people.

"If you are really what we did..."

You mean whine about a fix? Jump on every insignificant belch and fart Barry makes and pretend it's meaningful? Spin decisions about weighty issues and twist or eliminate facts to propagandize in our favor? Or how about just saying every move he makes is crap without saying why or offering alternatives? OK, what the hell. You guys had a good time with that, why not?

Marshall Art said...


I can't bring myself to respond to your last silly comment? A step forward? C'mon.

I will, however, seek to pick up on the Economist as it has been used by lefties to support arguments before. It's been quite sometime since I've given it a gander.

But since you're an avid reader of this rag, perhaps it contained an answer to a question I had for Geoffrey that, as far as I can tell, he hasn't yet answered; to wit:

How does taking profits from a company or individual in the form of higher taxes help the company, individual or the economy? I'm dying to know.

Mark said...

Me too, Art.

Vinny said...

How does taking profits from a company or individual in the form of higher taxes help the company, individual or the economy? I'm dying to know.

Every dollar that the government obtains through taxes reduces its need to borrow. Lower deficits are good for the currency and good for the economy. Being less indebted to the rest of the world is also good for national security.

Mark said...

Lower deficits may indeed be good for the economy, but when taxes are raised on Corporations, the Corporations will raise prices on the goods and services they provide.

If you think Corporations will pay higher taxes and not compensate by raising prices to keep their profits high, you are sincerely deluded.

If they raise prices, lower wage earners cannot afford to pay them, and so, don't.

The corporations, seeing their customers cannot pay their inflated prices, will compensate in other ways, mainly by laying off employees and cutting production. And raising prices further. There will always be some people that can afford to pay more and those are the customers they will be targeting.

Those ex employees will have to file for unemployment insurance causing a shortfall of funds from the federal government, which, in turn, creates another excuse for Government to raise taxes on Corporations yet again, and the cycle continues.

Eventually, the lower deficits you think will come by raising taxes still occur, due to the fact that higher taxes have created inflation, high unemployment, a demand for more andmore government bail-outs, and depression.

And now we are even more indebted to other nations than we were before we started to meddle with Corporate profits, thus, National security is lessened.

So, in the end, in a misguided attempt to punish corporations for the sin of making a profit, which is actually good for everybody, you make the deficit problem even worse.

Vinny said...

If you think Corporations will pay higher taxes and not compensate by raising prices to keep their profits high, you are sincerely deluded.

If you think that corporations have the power to increase profits by raising prices, then you do not understand the fundamental economic concepts of supply and demand.

My comment was only meant to answer MA's question about the benefit of increasing taxes. I do not deny that there are negative consequences as well or that those consequences have the potential to outweigh the benefits.

Les said...

"...without saying why or offering alternatives?"

THIS is why talking to you is like talking to a wall, Art. Here you go again with your "no alternatives were offered" line. Two words:

Excuse me?

We've covered this. I've offered alternatives. I've also referenced people who offered alternatives (like Clark). Problem is, YOU DON'T AGREE WITH THEM, SO YOU DISMISS THEM OUT OF HAND!!!

Stop pretending nobody's offering alternatives. It's a lie, and it makes you look like a stubborn idiot.

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

Marshall's question about taxation is simple - it helps because we all contribute our fair share to keep our country together. Everything from physical infrastructure to the mail to the United States Army to the National Parks - it all has to be created, and maintained, and that costs money. Now, some people reasonably disagree on what our spending priorities ought to be; yet, the very notion that it is illegitimate for the state to demand, under threat of legal penalty, each and every member - individual and corporate - who lives under its protection, and who thrive under its laws, to contribute to the physical and bureaucratic upkeep is laughable in the extreme. Societies that cease to tax cease to be societies.

It's really that simple, Marshall. I've explained it before, and I've explained it again. If you don't get it, well, there isn't much I can do for you.

We are a nation of laws, not principles or ideologies. It is established law that the state can take a certain percentage of your, my, IBMs, Wal-Marts income and use it as the duley elected representatives of the people see fit. We can disagree over whether or not this or that item should be higher or lower on the list of priorities. To simply claim that taxation is inherently wrong is to live in cloud-cuckoo land, pure and simple.

Ben said...

"I will, however, seek to pick up on the Economist as it has been used by lefties to support arguments before. It's been quite sometime since I've given it a gander."

Haha.. I've used the Wall Street Journal to support my arguments in the past. Marshall, are you going to start reading that MSM paper?

Marshall Art said...


Look at the question again. I was not asking whether or not taxation was a good or a bad thing. I fully understand the need for everyone to contribute to society to some extent. The question is to what extent?

But Vinny came close with his answer, as I included the economy in the question. However, that is only one way to deal with deficits. A far better way is to stop spending on things for which the federal government has no Constitutional mandate. Of course there is disagreement as to whether or not the feds should adhere to that mandate or expand upon it. The right answer is to adhere. Dan Trabue likes to admonish all to live within their means. Yet, he is keen on supporting all manner of largess that is outside that mandate. Borrowing would not be necessary if the feds would stop spending on so much crap and stick to their jobs.

So, if we assume that the feds acted as they should, the level of taxation would remain constant, at least as far as percentage of income, and could stay that way almost indefinitely. Then, business could thrive, the people would prosper, and a greater flow of capital would fill the federal coffers resulting in a true surplus, rather than the fake one folks like to say Slick Willy left us. That is, one that doesn't require the addition of separate funds like Social Security to produce.

However, as things stand, and really, even in the best of situations, raising taxes on businesses and individuals does NOT help them as it adds more burden. It slows their advancement toward whatever goals they had set for themselves.

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

To what extent? I answered that. It is determined by the people's representatives in the Legislative Branch of government. You seem to think there is some magic number that, once arrived at, should be adhered to like it was passed down from God on high.

This is a representative democracy, and our representatives decide what those numbers are. If they seem to be working against the commonweal, they are changed.

It's that simple.

Marshall Art said...

The magic number is that number which, when chosen by percentage of income, or percentage of purchase price paid, or whatever version is that to which the majority agrees, pays for those tasks mandated by the Constitution. When through that number, incoming revenues rise to a point above what it takes to pay for those mandated activities, the number should then be lowered.

However, we both digress from the question.

Vinny said...

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States . . . .

As GKS aptly points out, this is a representative democracy. Our elected officials decide what measures are necessary for the "general welfare."

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

You say the number "should be lowered" if tax revenues exceed outlays. Why? If a majority of people disagree with that position, and since this is a democracy, there is no "should", there is just the way things are.

On the other hand, if a high correlation can be shown between a relatively high level of taxes and slower economic activity, then perhaps lowering taxes would be a good idea. Yet, what that new level is or might be . . . well, that's up to the people's representatives, not some arbitrary formula.

Again, whether it's who is elected President, whether or not we allow abortion on demand or same-sex marriage, or how high our taxes are - that's up to the people's representatives to decide. If you don't like the way they are deciding, there are all sorts of things one can do to show your disfavor. To pretend, however, that some kind of arbitrary point - revenues exceed outlays - "should" mean anything is to just not understand that we are a democracy.

Marshall Art said...

What the hell are you guys arguing? That this is a democratic republic? That our beliefs and desires are enacted through our elected representatives? Really? Wow! I've never heard that before. You guys are smart! Gee, I think I'll send word to the millions of other conservatives so that they know, too.

Vinny said...

Gee, I think I'll send word to the millions of other conservatives so that they know, too.

We would appreciate it if you would because so many conservatives seem to think that anytime our elected representatives enact a program that they don't like it is somehow un-American or unconstitutional.

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

Marshall, you register surprise, yet you show an abundance of ignorance on this very point. It is fine to believe, as you seem to, that all sorts of things "should" be thus-and-such and not otherwise. Yet, when the state pursues policies that either ignore or even contradict these imperatives, it is not a violation of nature, or God's law, or anything else. It's just our form of government in action.

As Vinny rightly notes, for decades conservatives have argued that our laws "should" be thus-and-such - whether it has to do with taxes, or housing, or abortion on demand - because to do otherwise is immoral or unnatural or something else. It is impossible to argue against such a position because it simply doesn't understand that such an argument is, in fact, undemocratic. If the people prefer to get rid of the IRS and invoke a national sales tax, well, get Congress to pass such a law. If the people believe that abortion is murder, get Congress to pass a law stating that.

Neither of these goals, loudly advocated by conservatives, have proven very popular with the American people. Conservatives have argued that the refusal to do so is a moral failing, perhaps, or a refusal to recognize some arbitrary "natural law" of economics. Such refusal is a wonderful virtue. It proves the democratic wisdom of the American people.

Throughout the 1970's and into the 1980's, the American people preferred a certain type of government - one roughly to the right of where it had been for a decade or more beforehand. The end of the Cold War at the end of 1980's started period of reassessment, in which both major parties sought to redefine who they were. The American people were pretty evenly split, from the mid-1990's until fairly recently, about their preferences. The past two elections, however, have left little doubt that the current brand of conservative policies pursued by the Republican Party are not in favor. This is hardly the stuff of Marxist revolutions. It's just democracy in action.

Marshall Art said...

If only that were so. The fact of the matter is that the failure of Republicans to retain or gain seats in recent elections is due to a failure on their part to adhere to those principles on which they gained their seats initially.

There is also the constant anti-conservative rhetoric by the left and their willing cohorts, the MSM. You can protest this all you like, but that won't change the fact of it. Conservative principles, such as in tax policy, prove themselves every time. Lefties win elections when they move right during their campaigns. Conservatives lose elections when they move left during their campaigns. When I say that things should be a certain way, it is based on historical success with that particular policy. Thus, if a conservative policy has had success where the liberal alternative hasn't, then logic dictates that that is the way it SHOULD be, at least until a better way is devised.

So it is no great "stop the presses" headline to say that "this is our democratic system". No freakin' duh, Einstein. The point here is that too many voters believed the crap spewed by the left and now believe the wrong way, that is, Obumble's way, is the right way. As I said, the conservative point of view is proven every time it has been given a chance. Our current situation is NOT a result of conservative principles failing, but a result of a departure from conservative principles and behaviors.

Now, we're stuck with fending off what will surely be a tsunami of leftist proposals, some of which will be enacted, all of which will cause further harm to our nation.

In addition, to pretend that the results of this election was due to thoughtful consideration of all the options is laughable. Just the opposite is true. It is a result of a lack of consideration.

Vinny said...

When I say that things should be a certain way, it is based on historical success with that particular policy.

And you know this how? Because you have read and studied history and economics? Or because the wingnuts on talk radio tell you so?

Marshall Art said...

The former, Vinny. And though my level of study might not be intense enough to please you, I haven't seen a whole lot from your side to convince me otherwise.

Vinny said...

It is a question of whether it was intense enough to justify your attacks on the intelligence of people who reach a different conclusion than you do.

Les said...

"In addition, to pretend that the results of this election was due to thoughtful consideration of all the options is laughable. Just the opposite is true. It is a result of a lack of consideration."

What are you talking about? As a matter of fact, careful consideration of the two options listed on my ballot was PRECISELY why I voted the way I did. Are you still suggesting alternative policy positions were never presented? If so, I'd like to direct you here:

And here:

Seriously. Enough with the bullshit claim that alternative platforms were never laid out. They were never more than a click away, so don't blame me if you needed someone to hold your hand while searching for the candidates' positions. Just because you don't agree with a viewpoint that contradicts your own doesn't mean said viewpoint never existed in the first place. It was there all along, and voters made it clear in which direction they wanted this country to go. It just so happens it's NOT the direction YOU prefer. Tough. We can talk about it again next election cycle.

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

First, Marshall, give me an example, from history, of a successful conservative policy. I'll wait for a discussion of Harding's bribery-infested plan to open up public lands to private pillage that ended up in the Teapot Dome Scandal, or Hoover's adamant refusal to just go and see some of the homeless people living across the street from the White House. Perhaps you mean Ronald Reagan's tax cuts, or perhaps George W. Bush's tax cuts, that have dried up revenue, the latter during a two front war that has been managed so badly even former supporters think it time to start over from square one?

As for this election, I have to agree with Les. While there was much lying and a whole lot of trivia, real information was out there, and even the candidates managed to be very clear about what they would do in areas of major policy priorities, whether it is taxes, Iraq, or healthcare. That info has been out there, both talked about it a lot, the American people made their decision. Rarely have the differences between two candidates been more clear, more stark, and in recent memory, rarely has the voice of the American people been heard so loudly - the Democrats won because they presented a liberal alternatives to eight years of conservative failure. The idea that Republicans lost because they weren't conservative enough is so funny and so detached from reality I see no need to present anything other than the following evidence to counter it - aren't you and the rest of your right-wing buddies the ones who were saying, just a week ago, that Barack Obama was clearly a Marxist who was going to turn our country in to a Shari'a paradise? Now, you're saying he won because he ran a conservative campaign.

You don't even bother to think, sometimes, man. You just say stuff. Is it any wonder I don't really take you, or any other right-winger, all that seriously?

Andrew Clarke said...

We have the same concern in Australia, Marshall. Until recently all the governments, state AND Federal, were Labor. It was ripe for the sort of social engineering and Political Correctness that the left indulges in. But our Labor P.M says and seems to mean he is a Christian. That puts a brake on what the intellectually arrogant left would like to do. Last Sunday I prayed before the congregation in our church for Christian revival in Australia, the United Kingdom, the United States and New Zealand. I felt led to. God can and will overcome all that His enemies try to do. Even the U.S President can only do what God allows. But I understand your concern. Sometimes it seems that the unholy get away with too much. Still: God is and will be honoured and His power seen.

Marshall Art said...

"It is a question of whether it was intense enough to justify your attacks on the intelligence of people who reach a different conclusion than you do."

Yes. It was.

Marshall Art said...

"Are you still suggesting alternative policy positions were never presented?"

No. Let me re-state my position in hopes of being more clear:

"In addition, to pretend that the results of this election was due to thoughtful consideration of all the points in favor or against either candidate is laughable. Just the opposite is true. It is a result of a lack of consideration."

It's pretty clear that high taxes and more spending, just to name two points, is bad policy as it does little to stimulate prosperity amongst the people, or reduce debt of the nation. Yet, people vote for the guy who intends to increase taxes and spend more.

People on the left have whined about how Bush never accomplished anything in his private life, that he was a failure at the things he attempted, but Obama has no better a track record, particularly in his vaunted position as community activist where he was supposed to be dealing with education and housing, and there is no great success story as a result of anything he ever did (we'd have heard about it until we blew chow if he did). Yet, they ignore his lack of record and vote him in anyway.

I've seen what Obama supporters have said regarding their support and there's never anything substantive given as a reason. All we hear is, "We need a change", as if THAT'S not repeated every freakin' election cycle. Even Colin Powell just listed empty rhetoric for his decision to endorse Obama.

A change? From what to what? Very few Obama supporters can even begin to answer that question. Barry's election was the result of very little consideration about anything important, and a whole lot of jumping for joy over that which has no importance at all.

Marshall Art said...

"First, Marshall, give me an example, from history, of a successful conservative policy."

You confuse conservative policy with the policies of some guy who calls himself a conservative. My bad. Again, I should have been more clear. Heck, McCain supported a few things not really conservative. Same with Bush. A bailout is not a conservative move.

A conservative policy would be cutting taxes. Bush's tax cuts resulted in higher revenues as a percentage of the GDP (See here). In recent years, the only time it was better was after Clinton cut the capital gains tax, also a conservative move. Now, a liberal tax hike might bring about increased revenues initially, but then after the effects are felt, decreased productivity, companies moving to tax friendly countries, etc., the revs decrease.

Mark said...

"First, Marshall, give me an example, from history, of a successful conservative policy."

Art, I fail to understand why you continue to let idiots like this comment, but it's your blog. Do what you wish.

UH...every time taxes are cut, revenues get higher. Everytime they are raised, revenus decrease.

There's your example, Putz.

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

Mark, you are the Putz - and I do so love the schoolyard bully tactics, it's so adult of you - because your claim concerning the inverse ratio of taxation rates and revenue has been disproved in the real world every single time. There is no instance, ever, in the history of the US since the imposition of the graduated income tax, where a decrease in tax rates led to an increase in revenue. It has simply not happened. No matter how often this piece of drivel is repeated, it doesn't become more true.

Marshall, I do love the way you move the bar. So, I shall acquiesce - who, in your estimation, were true conservative Presidents? What policies are true conservative policies? Should we return to the founders, and if so I would certainly consider John Adams a conservative, at least in the classical sense. As such, he imposed the executive overreach by proposing and signing the Alien and Sedition Acts, which violated the First Amendment to the Constitution. Martin van Buren is probably another classic conservative, and he was both fairly popular and fairly successful, although he eventually lost the national argument with Andrew Jackson, under whose Presidency the franchise was extended, and who defeated traditional conservative forces by refusing to reinstate the first central bank.

The most conservative President in the 20th century was probably Calvin Coolidge, and his successes are . . . um, hold on . . . oh yeah, hastening the onrush of the financial collapse of the European banking system and the introduction of fascism by insisting on the repayment schedule of World War debt, refusing to renegotiate the terms, or offer a certain amount of forgiveness in the face of mounting financial problems in Europe with the diplomatic "They hired the money, didn't they?" There's a success for you.

Ronald Reagan signed in to law the largest tax increase in American history. He also oversaw the greatest expansion of federal power and federal bureaucracy in our nation's history. George W. Bush expanded Federal power in various ways deemed unconstitutional by a roughly conservative Supreme Court. Yet, conservatives embraced both these gentlemen as two of their own. As such, we can only conclude that they are, in fact, real conservatism, not the figment of people's imaginations that is bandied about.

Erudite Redneck said...

Conservatism has been dead, actually, since the Depression. Peopel just keep trotting out the corpse once in awhile, it gets true b'lievers to vote for this or that candidate, and then, once again, they get it in the end. Which makes the K-Y topic of this post wholly appropriate but entirely misdirected. Y'all keep screwing yourselves. And that takes some doin'.

Les said...

Once again:


The choice was right there, and a decision was made. Did many vote for the man simply because he represented all things NOT Bush/McCain? I'm sure they did. There are countless reasons voters decide on a candidate, among them the complete and total rejection of the incumbent party. Perhaps you should blame the GOP instead of the voters, Art. Why do you hate America so much?

blamin said...


I’m afraid you’re wrong on your tax increase/decrease supposition. It’s all a matter of how you play with the numbers.

Take Regan’s tax cuts for example. The left likes to argue that since a smaller percentage of taxes were paid in, in relation to income, tax revenue went down. The right, rightly argues that an increase in (inflation adjusted) real dollars coming into the treasury resulted in an increase in tax revenue.

Let me simplify. A man that has more in his pocket is likely to spend more (and save more!).


The GOP did indeed let us down! I truly don’t know what their problem is. Most every time they make a move to the left, they’re repudiated. You’d think they’d know better by now.

Regardless, let’s all hope that Obama governs how he campaigned and not based on his actual record. Now, I’m no fan of his campaign rhetoric, but it’s far better than his actual record. Is that what you were talking about when you referenced considering voters? A voter who “heard” his message and ignored his record?

blamin said...

Of course that last question was tongue in cheek. We all know that a huge portion of those who voted for Obama relied solely on his campaign rhetoric, and had no idea of his record. They simply didn’t care, or were too lazy to find out.

Les, you are truly one of a few. Most of your fellow supporters weren’t even fractionally as informed as yourself.

Take my step-sister for instance. A nurse in upstate New York. When asked if she had a problem with the Ayer’s connection, her answer, “no problem, none whatsoever”. When asked to give a reason why she supported Obama her answer was, “I like his tax plan, and health care plan”.

I asked how Obama could cut income taxes on 95% of income earners when 40% don’t pay income tax, her answer was “that’s not true, everybody pays income tax”. I patiently explained about withholding and refunds and she refused to believe me. (Oh the wicked web we weave, when we truly try to inform the deceived).

I then asked about her experiences as a nurse with patients on Medicaid. Oh, the horror stories she told. People with acute problems getting lost in the system, bureaucrats losing paper work, bureaucrats that don’t care, that are just doing their time and drawing a check, filling out paper work incorrectly, becoming jaded and not giving a shit, etc.

Yes, she had plenty to say, at which point I asked her, “so, you think these same people should handle everyone’s healthcare. Needless to say she changed the subject.

Marshall Art said...

Blamin, my man! Where've you been? Good to "see" you again.

Regarding Geoffrey's claim of Reagan's government expansionism, I've tried to Google that in various ways and all I come up with is his economic expansionism. So I really don't know what you're talking about regarding that.

As to conservatism, I haven't moved the bar at all. I've only clarified my previously clumsy and misleading words. At the same time, you seem to think that a guy who calls himself conservative, even a guy who is considered conservative by most everyone, only makes conservative moves. But then, this is typical of the liberal. The liberal expects the other side to be the perfect example of whatever position is taken. "OH! I saw you lookin' at that chick's ass! What happened to family values! Oh! Oh! Oh!" Hell, even the American Conservative Union shows few people with a 100% conservative rating. (In fact, I don't know if they have anyone rated at 100%.)

We who exist in the real world understand that we are generally faced with selecting from a pool the most conservative available. Even Reagan gave amnesty to illegals. That's swell from a Christian perspective, but not from a conservative one as far as federal policy. We're dealing with the consequences now, just as we deal with the negative consequences of most every liberal policy.

But really, little Geoffy, when I speak of conservative policy or conservative philosophy or conservative action, I speak of things like tax cuts, which are always a good thing and, unlike tax hikes, can help in a down economy. Another is cutting spending which reduces debt and deficits in a way that our descendants will hopefully appreciate (the smart conservative ones will for sure). Still another conservative policy is reducing or eliminating handouts and raising expectations. This worked well with welfare reform and it got people back into the game producing, rather than leeching. Yet another conservative policy is personal contributions to charity as opposed to forcing others to care for the needy. Not only does it make one feel good to do it one's self, but one can be assured of where the money is going and that the recipient is truly needy and not just leeching. And not to be outdone is the conservative policy of encouraging the adoption of real traditional virtues. When people practice what we all know in our hearts is the best way to live our lives, regardless of religious or political beliefs, the result is ALWAYS positive for our country.

These have been the incomplete, but general sense of what I mean by conservative policy. "Philosophy" might be a better word to use, but that really doesn't matter. The results are always good when the principles are put into practice. In fact, they've never failed.

Marshall Art said...


If it makes you feel better to believe that the lion's share of Obama supporters labored over the minutia of policy proposals of each candidate until the finally settled upon Barry O, by all means, believe it. Keep the bowl full and you can hang onto that for a long time. I don't buy it for a second. It has nothing to do with hating anybody. It's based on what I've been hearing from people I've spoken with personally, to the media talking heads on TV, goofy celebrities of all types, and even people like Colin Powell. NO ONE referred to Obama policy positions except for right wingers pointing out how stupid those policies are. And as far as "the complete and total rejection of the incumbent party", there's equally a scant few who even know just where the incumbent part went wrong. The truth is that the driving force behind Obama's election was a heaping helping of superficiality. He's young, he speaks well, and he's black (half, anyway), and that's good enough for a good 90% of 'em, I'd say. Talk of his alleged intelligence and ability is not supported by past performance, otherwise we'd have been hearing all about it from him. We didn't.

Marshall Art said...

And BTW, Les. I hold the GOP responsible for complicity in this tragic outcome. They never win listing left. And they won't win until they put up people who stand firmly behind conservatism and have the ability to articulate it to the masses, the majority of whom will respond favorably.

blamin said...

Thanks Marshall.

We had a family tragedy. Discussing politics seemed kind of trivial in the bigger scheme of things. But maybe it’s best to try and stay occupied.

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

Marshall, you tried Googling Reagan's government expansion and came up dry. Let me help. In 1983, acting on the recommendations of the bipartisan Moynihan commission, his administration worked with Congress to pass a measure designed to keep Social Security solvent through the mid point of this century; it also provided recommendations for further action to keep it going afterward, actions which are minor, and are, in effect, tinkering with a few nuts and bolts.

One of the biggest parts of that bill was a substantial increase in the payroll tax for Social Security and Medicare that was the largest single tax increase, both in terms of raw percentages and affect upon individuals, especially in lower income brackets, in American history. He signed this bill quietly, with little fanfare (although Moynihan used photos from the signing in various re-election campaigns).

For general purposes, considering Reagan's expansion of the federal bureaucracy, consider the huge expansion of the Defense Department. By the time he left office, if was about 60% larger than when he entered. I am not speaking in terms just of personnel in uniform; civilian employment at the Pentagon skyrocketed, as well as federally subsidized consultants and wholly-owned subsidiaries of the federal government like the RAND Corporation and the company Raytheon that did 100% of their business on federal Defense contracts. Every weapons system proposed during the Reagan Administration, whether it was feasible, like the F-22 fighter, the horrifically overdesigned B-1B bomber, or the ridiculous Star Wars nonsense, was funded. Indeed, no less a hawk than Donald Rumsfeld killed a next-generation artillery piece so huge and clumsy it needed several rail cars to transport all the parts and many hands to construct. While it had the advantage of hurling shells hundreds of miles, in terms of our real defense needs it was simply unrealistic, as well as horridly expensive. We, the American taxpayer, paid hundreds of millions of dollars researching it, then billions building a few of them before Rumsfeld killed this particular boondoggle back in 2002. We are still saddled with the Abrams fighting vehicle (improperly shielded, as the victims of roadside bombs in Iraq and Afghanistan can attest), the M-5 variant of the Vietnam-era M-16 (jams incessantly because the barrel expands unevenly when heated; in Vietnam, the VC used to strip American corpses of their shoes, cigarettes, chocolate, and sometimes even their pants, but leave behind their rifles). There was not only little forethought about any of this, there was an eagerness to go on a huge tax-payer funded shopping spree for every gadget proposed.

The Energy Department, which Reagan had campaigned on closing down, also expanded, with research in to fusion, cold fusion, and other ridiculous non-scientific nonsense. They were also given control of our nuclear warhead up until they are mounted on delivery vehicles, and after these are decommissioned.

I could go on, but why should I? This is evidence - actual evidence - and I feel more and more like Vinny; I see no reason why I should hold your hand and lead you to the water when, like the horse of the aphorism, you refuse to drink.

Marshall Art said...

Like Vinny, or I should say, more so than Vinny, you are just too lazy to support your position. Hand holding my eye. Is that some kind of homoerotic suggestion?

Can you imagine the outcry if Reagan had done nothing to insure the solvency of SS? No. I guess you can't, though I suspect you'd be writing about that if Reagan didn't act when he could have. Was that the best way to go about it? That's the real debate.

Building up the military is exactly the job of the federal government. Keeping it state-of-the-art and cutting edge. Whether or not every action measured up properly is another debate. Whether the sitting president should work to cement our military superiority is beyond debate as it is indeed his job. That would make his actions a proper expansion and not a problem for rational people. And BTW, Star Wars type missile defense is not looked upon as goofy as it was back then in light of terrorist threats. His getting that started is the equivalent of our going into space at all. The feds and military should continue to pursue this initiative.

In addition, I would say that the water to which you would like to lead anyone is tainted and marked by the typical skeletal longhorn skull. I prefer the fresh water of rational conservative thought.

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

Nothing that I wrote is made up. It's all out there, not just on the internet, but in histories of the 1980's. I see little need to grab you by the nose (since you don't want me holding your hand) and drag your ass kicking and screaming to the facts. You can take it or leave it, and it makes little difference to me one way or another.

What does rankle a tad is the insistence that I am somehow just making this stuff up out of whole-cloth, or that if only we would provide a link, say, or a book title. You know what, Marshall? I've got a whole library full of books on the Reagan years, and none of them consider him "conservative" in any of the ways you insist "conservatives" should behave. Yet, they consider him conservative. Ditto George W. Bush. The difference is not that I am just making up stuff, or that Vinny is making up stuff; the reality is that what you think it means to be "conservative" and what conservative governance have actually accomplished - everything from domestic spying and the torture of illegally held non-combatants to the utter gutting of our military and near-bankrupting of the public treasury - end up defining what conservatism really is. Not some imaginary conservatism that has never existed.

I would submit, by the way, that old-late-60's, early-70's style liberalism was not at all "liberal" in any sense I would consider uplifting. It took a long time for a healthier, more robust, dare I say aggressive liberalism to reclaim a proud mantle and history, one that has deep roots all the way to Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson, up through FDR, Truman, and Lyndon Johnson. What came after, well, I think it deserved defeat, although I think the country was ill-served by a morally bankrupt, intellectually hollow conservative movement that used the unease of religious conservatives and racism of southern whites as a prop for the complete warping of our national discourse.

What you call "rational conservative" thought hasn't existed since Edmund Burke, who died before the end of the 18th century. I admire Burke, and many of his ideas can be traced to contemporary American liberalism, while the "conservatism" of our modern American variant is much more akin to some weird variant of nationalism, religious and racial bigotry, and the bait-and-switch tactics of the powerful to convince those who voted for them that it is some odd conspiracy of those out of power who keep them from doing what they were elected to do.

In the four years that Ronald Reagan had a working majority in Congress, or that George W. Bush had a real majority in both houses of Congress, please name just one instance of a member introducing and getting co-sponsors of legislation outlawing abortion. I do not mean the fake procedure some call "partial-birth abortion", but a real ban on abortion, the kind you folks demand is the only proper course of action.

Please name a bill that was introduced to limit government expenditures. Oh, that's right the Republicans did that with Bill Clinton's help back in the late 1990's when the budget deficit disappeared, and we were promised the ability to pay off our national debt.

That worked out well when the fiscal conservatives took power in 2000, didn't it.

See, there's the real world, and then there's this odd place where you and other right-wingers imagine that only if Republicans were this way, the world would be a better place. They won't meet because Republican politicians have acted rapaciously, indeed nihilistically, from the get-go.

Now, again, these are facts, and as atrios is want to say, facts tend to be stupid things, easily ignored by those who choose to do so. If you wish to check out my facts, feel free. Please don't dismiss them as false simply because you are too lazy to do so. I'll gladly correct myself if given actual factual evidence to the contrary on any of the points presented here. I don't even care what the source is. If you can point out an error of fact - I'll say, "You bet, I was wrong."

I won't turn blue holding my breath in the meantime.

Les said...

"They never win listing left."

I never understood this excuse. It contradicts itself by arguing that there wasn't a candidate who was far enough to the right, so voters opted for the candidate who was EVEN FURTHER to the left. Hogwash.

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

Les, I feel sorry for you. See you are trying to understand Marshall. Don't. Obviously the argument doesn't make sense. If America is really a center-right nation, then Barack Obama didn't stand a chance, because, even if John McCain wasn't quite conservative enough for these folks, he was certainly far more conservative than Obama. Yet, he lost.

Not only did he lose, but real conservatives in Congress lost all over the country.

These are facts, which just get in the way of conservative grievances, Les.

Marshall Art said...

It's not a matter of whether or not you're relating history, Geoffrey. It's a matter of whether or not you're interpreting it correctly. For example, you say that the Republican Congress reduced the deficit with Clinton's help. I say that they did it in spite of him. They took it upon themselves without waiting for Bubba to get on board. He simply claimed credit for it, or, perhaps more precisely, looney lefties like yourself pretend Bubba took the lead.

You keep asking for examples of what any particular right winger did or tried to do. My point is has nothing to do with a given individual. I would challenge you to show where any lib pol has accomplished anything of note. And BTW, I did offer a source in an earlier comment.

In any case, I maintain that conservative principles are more effective, more uplifting, more moral, and more of a lot of other things than are liberal principles, because they are based on reality. You want me to come up with the perfect conservative politician, as if everyone simply bows to his every desire, rather than work to persuade him toward their own ideas. In other words, a given politician, of either discipline, gets what he can whilst working with whomever is in Congress. It ain't a perfect world and no politician has carte blanche or kingly authority to make happen whatever he pleases. Thus, your arguments are merely typical lefty diversions.

The key to whether or not this is a center-right nation is determined not by who is elected president, but by presenting questions formulated to elicit answers that are honest and related to how the world actually works. A simple example would be to ask a union supporter if they believe it is just that a goldbricker earns as much as a hard worker. If the answer is "no", then that worker is not really one who understands what the union has done for him, since crappy workers within a union structure can work for years and prosper, when by rights, they should have been let go years ago. This is commonplace within union situations.

Another might be to ask someone who works really hard if they feel it is just that someone come and take some of their money and give it to someone who doesn't even try to work hard. If the answer is "no", then that person doesn't understand what happens when tax rates on the rich are raised.

A lib would ask, "do you believe everyone should have access to health care?" and most people, even conservatives, would say "yes". A lib will take this to support universal health care in the manner suggested by Hillary and Barry O. But if you ask also, if it should matter what a person does with his life and should that affect whether they should be entitled to health care on someone else's dime, you'd get a different answer.

But to get closer to YOUR goofy comments, I'm not about to defend every move that every right-leaning politician has made in order to justify my position. YOU don't get to set the terms of discussion on my blog. You cling to your misconceptions about what the GOP has done and what it means or what they stand for, but you don't support it other than to make comments without backing. I told you that I've looked for something on Reagan's government expansion, but found nothing that covers it as you have laid it out. That means that you need to provide it, otherwise, you're just blowing lefty smoke. The few things that you offered provoked a response that you ignored.

Now, that 52% voted for Obama doesn't mean anything about rejecting the GOP because of how little honesty goes into relating events in which Bush played a part. Don't forget your failed attempt to list a couple dozen of his "lies" that weren't lies at all. In essence, lib lies generated support for Obama more than actual lies on the part of Bush or the GOP.

So I'll spell it out for you once again, Geoffrey. You need to provide something that I can review in order for anything you say to have any shred of credibility, because you have shown repeatedly an incredible knack for missing the point, for misinterpretation of events and for outright distortions, either by your own initiative or by your aforementioned inability to understand what you read. Your lame retorts regarding your comic book library and cracks about dragging me kicking and screaming (yeah, sure) to whatever you view as reality won't make it.

Marshall Art said...


"I never understood this excuse."

I shouldn't be so hard to understand. Look at the last mid-terms where many Reps lost their seats. They were decidedly less than conservative in their actions and even right-wing voters sought their removal as a result. Most of the Dems who captured seats in that election were not the Barry O type far left liberal, but Dems with some conservative aspects to their platforms. When a Republican supports too many liberal initiatives, they are rejected by their base constituency. McCain is a prime example. His campaign brought about lots of criticism by many on the right who felt that if anyone was going to back a stupid proposal, it should be libs and not Reps, who will be held accountable by both left and right when it fails. It was when he brought in the conservative Sarah Palin that he began to get some traction. He also had appeal by the lefty media and that made him their darling until he was pitted against the far lefty Obama. But between him and a full time lefty, he could not win when the crap about his ties to Bush was constantly being put forth. His "leftiness" could not overcome that, even if it brought in some independents.

Reagan came out with a conservative message that was positive and well articulated for consumption by the masses. That was what gave him such a decisive edge over the failure Carter. Bush 41 lost his edge when he failed his "read my lips" posture and signed on to big tax increases and lost his support along with it. Then Gingrich led with the Contract with America and that led to good things until those people eventually became lazy and lib like. So there hasn't been a huge belief on the right that Republican politicians are acting with conservative principles guiding them where the distinctions between them and libs would be more blatant and stark and easy to notice. Thus, they lose by not being conservative enough.

Les said...

"When a Republican supports too many liberal initiatives, they are rejected by their base constituency."

You just made my point for me. Even though there are times when Republican politicians might move a bit further to the left on a couple issues than their constituencies would like, they're STILL more conservative than the pinko commie liberal elitist anti-American Democratic al-Qaeda lovers on the other side of the aisle! If you're suggesting conservative voters reject their Republican candidates out of spite or simply to teach 'em a lesson at the expense of national well-being (in their opinion), then those voters are dumber than I thought. Scorched earth strategies are for sore losers and Russians.

Ben said...

"Not only did he lose, but real conservatives in Congress lost all over the country."

Geoffrey, REAL conservatives didnt lose. In the same way Bush is not a conservative, the REAL ones are still in office. A REAL conservative is one that exists only in Marshalls mind. Therefore, the REAL conservative (perhaps Uncle Ted?) will always be elected. Its only when they jump off the tracts and become liberal in the slightest that they are dumped by the people.

"In any case, I maintain that conservative principles are more effective, more uplifting, more moral, and more of a lot of other things than are liberal principles, because they are based on reality."

Hahahahaha.. Marshall.. is anybody home? Anybody at all? Is Steven Colbert your twin brother? Really, if you hadnt written so much crap to date, I would think you were making this all up.

oh.. and.. Obama 364.

Marshall Art said...

Hi Ben,

You're drooling again.

Marshall Art said...

"If you're suggesting conservative voters reject their Republican candidates out of spite or simply to teach 'em a lesson at the expense of national well-being (in their opinion), then those voters are dumber than I thought."

The thought is that if someone is going to put forth liberal ideas thought to be certain failures, it would be better that that person be an actual liberal. The GOP gets enough heat without adopting stupid liberal ideas that don't work. Under normal circumstances, this wouldn't be a terrible idea. But normal circumstances wouldn't present us with such a far lefty candidate as Barry O. So despite McCain's propensity for supporting stupid ideas, there was enough to otherwise distinguish the two, and there may have been enough Republicans in Congress to block the truly lefty ideas in which he might find favor.

Now how many cons took this position to the limit and voted for Obumble or third party or just sat out, who can say? I found the tactic distasteful considering how distasteful the thought of a Yomama win.

Les said...


Marshall Art said...

With what part are you having trouble, Les? McCain is decidedly less conservative than most conservatives would like in a presidential candidate. Some even consider him liberal by conservative standards. So, rather than vote for this guy and risk his being elected, and then, once elected take heat for liberal moves on his part (like comprehensive immigration reform, legislation based on the unproven man-made global warming, closing Gitmo), the thought is to let actual liberals win and do those very same things and then the certain bad consequences will be on the Democrat's shoulders, and not Republicans.

My position is that were it not for the Dems running the most leftist liberal available, I could understand some taking that position. I would likely never take it because half a conservative is better than no conservative, especially a no conservative like BO.

Les said...

"...because half a conservative is better than no conservative..."

That's precisely my point, and it's why your explanation - while clear - makes absolutely no sense. Again, if voters fail to grasp that very concept, then I question not only their motivations but also their mental acumen.

Doc said...

Sure it makes some sense.I have spoken with people who report that they voted for all of the following stated general reasons:

1. Voting for Obama (on the basis of his platform, character, etc.)
2. Voting for McCain (as above)
3. Voting against Obama
4. Voting against McCain
5. Voting for the Democrat Party
6. Voting against the Democrat Party
7. Voting for the Republican Party
8. Voting against the Republican Party
9. Voting for a specific single issue.
10. Not voting

There are many sub reasons for these general rationales. Of course there are some conservatives who thought that McCain was a distasteful candidate due to him being too liberal in some policies and thus they chose not to vote. I am sure there were liberal Hillary supporters who voted for McCain, or chose to stay home, out of spite, anger, or whatever. We should not assume the logic (or lack thereof) of the individual voter in the single vote to have any singularity. We should not assume that the 2008 vote is a repudiation of all conservative beliefs, nor a validation of all liberal beliefs.

The analysis of the vote does suggest a shift and a rejection, by a large percentage of those in the center, of the status quo. 60-39 % of moderates voted for Obama according to Pew (supported by other polls, with close numbers). 52-44% of self- described independents went for Obama as well.

In my opinion, while the economy was the main and final nail in McCain's presidential coffin, it will still be the charge of the Republican party to figure out how to reach that middle group, lest it continues to trend further towards the Democrats, chipping away from the once large Republican tent.

hashfanatic said...

"Hash, I don't know what to say! Is it my imagination or did you actually agree with me?"

Of course I did, Mark, and I meant it!

"Marxism" is a harsh term, but I do agree, it does seem to be the closest description to what Barky has in mind to do to our nation, civilian brownshirts and nationalized industries, notwithstanding.

I once referred to GWB's approaches as "corporatism on steroids", and I still stand behind it, even though it ruffled some feathers at the time.

We should not shy away from using the best of our OWN terminology when describing what we see.

It's an important part of taking our language back, so we can begin communicating with one another again, and remaining as clearly informed as we can, now that the storm clouds are not just on the horizon.

Ben said...

Hi Marshall,
You confuse drooling with pointing and laughing.

Marshall Art said...


If you say so. Yet, there is that drool.

Marshall Art said...


I agree that it doesn't make much sense in the face of what is possible with Obama in office and running with Pelosi and Reid (should they actually join forces---they could be at each other's throats). In my opinion, the downside is too great to take that route. Or rather, to have taken that route. Against a Dem not so dangerous, it might be a good idea. You have to remember that from the left, criticism comes no matter what. It's part of their tactics.

Marshall Art said...

I just re-read my own post. I'd almost forgotten what my original point was. Now that I've confirmed what I thought I had had in mind, I wonder if anyone would like to comment on any of it. It would be such a delightful change of pace.

Marty said...

Well, Marshall, you've got a lot of concerns.

I know how you feel. Been there.

But having gone through it the last 8 years I can tell you that I did survive! And the last time I checked America is still here. I still wake up in the morning, look out my window, and live the new day God has given me.

Life is what we make of it, regardless of what the government does.

Keep those you love close by, enjoy the sunsets, take time for play, and work through your church or charity of your choice to be of service to others.

You'll survive too.


Marshall Art said...

Thanks for those wonderful comments, Marty. But my concern is how, as we watch sunsets, adverse changes could overtake those who are not vigilant against them. As I say, I truly hope I'm wrong about Obama, but feel certain I am not. His very election indicates that some of us were not vigilant enough and doing enough to prevent his ever appearing to be a good choice at all. It's not enough for me that I survive. I'd like us all to.