Main Menu

Why I am a liberal

The birthers made me do it

I was intrigued by a remark made by social scientist Jonathan Haidt during an interview on The Colbert Report, May 2nd:

We use our reasoning just to basically figure out how to tell the worst possible story we can about the other side and since now we can all watch cable news shows where we just — conservatives can just watch conservatives and liberals can just watch liberals, we tell the most toxic, nasty story we can. It might work great to get the team together, but it’s pretty bad for the nation. …

I was a liberal my whole life until I started writing the book [The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion] and then while trying to explain conservatives to my fellow liberals — I’m a professor — while trying to explain conservatives I realized actually conservatives see a lot of things that liberals can’t see. They actually have a very good understanding of human nature.

I grew up and lived my whole life in the South. As a child the conservatives around me were the advocates of “state’s rights,” which was a code word for segregation and their spokesperson was our governor, George C. Wallace. In college, conservatism equated to support of the Vietnam War. Today the face of conservatives to me are political attack ads, Creationists, Fox News, Rush Limbaugh and of course the birthers and their friends.

Is Haidt right? Do conservatives have an accurate understanding of human nature? I haven’t a clue. The right-wing nut jobs around here have so dominated the conservative message, that any true insight conservatives might have has been drowned out.

Why am I a liberal? I’m a liberal because I look conservatism in the face, the face it presents to me, and I know “that’s not me.” (The thoughtful reader might ask why I am not repulsed by the excesses of liberalism. The answer to that is that we don’t have any liberals around here, and I don’t watch cable news. The time I might have spent browsing liberal web sites is taken up researching the birthers.)

By the way, the comments by the German Ambassador to the United Nations in the segment starting at 9:44 of that episode of Colbert is one of the funniest things I have ever seen.

, , , , , ,

101 Responses to Why I am a liberal

  1. avatar
    alg May 4, 2012 at 8:44 pm #

    My own politics are just left of center. I don’t have a problem with people who hold conservative views. But more often than not it seems that those promoting a conservative world view believe in things that simply aren’t true. Hence, my criticism of birthers isn’t at all based upon my political views, but because the things they believe are simply not true.

    I have no problem at all with people who hold different opinions than my own. But I do have a problem with people who can’t distinguish between fact and fantasy.

  2. avatar
    Dave May 4, 2012 at 10:19 pm #

    Unfortunately, I can’t really say if I agree with Haidt because I can’t figure out what he’s saying. Does he provide any further clarification of these remarks anywhere?

  3. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 4, 2012 at 10:25 pm #

    One is not generally going to get much clarity from a Stephen Colbert interview.If you want to know more, I suggest checking out his book (linked in the article and perhaps available at your local library).

    Dave: Unfortunately, I can’t really say if I agree with Haidt because I can’t figure out what he’s saying. Does he provide any further clarification of these remarks anywhere?

  4. avatar
    misha May 4, 2012 at 10:32 pm #

    Barry Goldwater voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act because, “you can’t legislate morality. Tell that to Richard Grenell. I’d like to see Seamus come back, and bite Romney where he and Bibi kiss each other.
    http://www.wnyc.org/blogs/its-free-blog/2012/may/04/opinion-mitt-romney-has-gay-problem/

    You show me moral legislation, and I’ll show you a conservative sponsor. The latest was Virginia legislation deliberately meant to humiliate women. Virginia state university infirmaries no longer stock Plan B. Some man on their board of directors decided that women who use it “are little more than harlots.” He added that “women deserve” what happens if they are not married. Christian pharmacists refuse to fill certain prescriptions.

    There are many Israelis who have screamed insults at me because I am a liberal supporter of Obama. I am not going to trade reproductive freedom, the 1st Amendment, scientific progress and universal healthcare, for Israel. I am not a one issue voter.

    There aren’t conservative comedians, because conservatives lack intellectual curiosity. I associate conservatism with bigotry. I’ve also noticed conservatives are filled with anger. See Limbaugh and Coulter. Evangelicals tell Settlers the bible justifies stealing from Arabs.

    When Golda Meir (a socialist and Marxist) and her husband first went to Palestine to establish a kibbutz, she went on fund raising trips to the US and England, 2 or 3 times a year. She would come back with $3M in checks from each trip. I found out how she did it: she slept with them.

    When the allegations started swirling around Agnew, he told reporters it was “a smear campaign organized by the media and liberals.”

  5. avatar
    Rickey May 4, 2012 at 10:41 pm #

    There was a time when conservatism was dominated (or at least significantly influenced) by serious thinkers and scholars.

    Nowadays Newt Gingrich passes for a serious conservative thinker. 21st century conservatism is anti-intellectual, anti-science, xenophobic, anti-abortion, and pro-gun.

  6. avatar
    Dave May 4, 2012 at 10:45 pm #

    I suppose I should read his book, but given the severely backlogged state of my reading queue, I did some googling and found a review of his book. Even that, I confess, I skimmed.

    The impression I get is that by “human nature” Haidt means some current psychological theory of human moral nature. And his conclusion is that conservative politics does a more complete job of addressing that theory.

    The other impression I get is that his theory is dubious, and his description of what liberals and conservatives are all about is also dubious, none of which gives me a warm fuzzy feeling about his conclusions.

  7. avatar
    J. Potter May 4, 2012 at 10:50 pm #

    For some reason, Colbert doesn’t do it for me, I rely on others to mention clips worth checking out, thanks for highlighting the German ambassador spot The related appearance by Kermit on Colbert was also pretty sweet!

    http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/410652/march-14-2012/march-14–2012—pt–3

  8. avatar
    misha May 4, 2012 at 11:25 pm #

    Rickey: Nowadays Newt Gingrich passes for a serious conservative thinker.

    No, conservatism today is epitomized by Sarah Palin.

    Rickey: 21st century conservatism is… anti-abortion

    It is anti-reproductive freedom.

    Rickey: 21st century conservatism is anti-intellectual, anti-science

    It is anti-progress, and anti-artist. Remember the dog whistle about ‘the Hollywood elite.’

    “Gingrich went on to describe “the rule of two of three” — a made-up rule with no foundation in American law — in which two branches of government could out-vote the other one. He wasn’t kidding, by the way.

    SCHIEFFER: One of the things you say is that if you don’t like what a court has done, that Congress should subpoena the judge and bring him before Congress and hold a congressional hearing … how would you enforce that? Would you send the Capitol Police down to arrest him?

    GINGRICH: Sure. If you had to. Or you’d instruct the Justice Department to send a U.S. Marshal.

    Just so we’re clear, this week, a leading presidential candidate articulated his belief that, if elected, he might (1) eliminate courts he doesn’t like; (2) ignore court rulings he doesn’t like; and (3) take judges into custody if he disapproves of their legal analyses.

    Newt Gingrich believes Barack Obama is a wild-eyed fanatic, guided by an extremist ideology, hell bent on overseeing a radical overhaul of the American system of government. The irony is rich.”
    http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal/2011_12/quote_of_the_day_28034177.php

  9. avatar
    Thrifty May 4, 2012 at 11:28 pm #

    Doc, you speak as if conservative and liberal are the only choices. You sound like you’re saying you’re a liberal because you dislike the conservative outlook.

  10. avatar
    Rickey May 5, 2012 at 12:21 am #

    misha:
    Newt Gingrich believes Barack Obama is a wild-eyed fanatic, guided by an extremist ideology, hell bent on overseeing a radical overhaul of the American system of government.

    My comment about Gingrich wasn’t intended to be a compliment. The fact that he is considered to be an intellectual shows how sorry the state of conservatism is.

  11. avatar
    aarrgghh May 5, 2012 at 2:45 am #

    Rickey: There was a time when conservatism was dominated (or at least significantly influenced) by serious thinkers and scholars.

    conservative intellectuals have become victims of their success at selling their ideas to morons and their failure to prove those ideas actually work. but after realizing that their intellectuals didn’t really believe what they were selling, the rubes have decided that instead of jettisoning conservatism, they’d rather jettison the intellectuals:

    I’ve got to confess Andrew Sullivan put it pretty well, saying “this is an almost perfect illustration of what has happened to the “right.” A refusal to acknowledge scientific reality; and a brutalist style of public propaganda that focuses entirely on guilt by the most extreme association.” Brutalist is a rather perfect word for it; it harkens to the old Soviet propaganda efforts against their citizens, where the state was right because fuck you, that’s why, and because only people who were enemies of that state would possibly think otherwise. Rather than supposedly leading the right, “think tanks” such as Heartland have merely become products of it, having to bend themselves to coarser and stupider rhetoric in this ongoing rightward quest towards perfect anti-intellectualism.

    The next question would be how long the right can even hold out having “think tanks” at all. Anti-intellectualism is so strong that merely the appearance of scientific or political expertise, no matter how faked, is barely tolerated; the new conspiracy-riddled Tea Party conservatism looks on anything international or scientific as inherently suspicious, and God help you if you’re ever seen as compromising on something. The old model of putting out badly premised, misleading industry-backed white papers attacking corporate regulation or anti-pollution efforts may itself be in danger: do true conservatives even bother with such things anymore? Or is comparing people to Manson or Castro the highest and best expression of movement principles?

    I’m not joking on that one: I think the Koch efforts to rein in the Cato Institute and turn it more directly into a clearing house for pro-industry propaganda is a telling example of how even the most hardcore bastions of “intellectual” conservatism or libertarianism are under the same kind of assault as any random gay staffer for Mitt Romney. The new level of purity required in the movement is nearly impossible to achieve; acknowledging basic elements of climate science even in order to supposedly refute it may be soon be considered too heretical to allow. Cheap, brutalist billboard propaganda may be the wave of the industry-backed, “conservative intellectual” future. The weather is fine, damn you, and chocolate rations have increased!

  12. avatar
    Lupin May 5, 2012 at 3:22 am #

    With Marine Le Pen, leader of the French National Front, getting almost 20% of the vote in the first round of our presidential elections (the second & final round is tomorrow), there’s been a fair amount written in the blogosphere about the rise of the far right in France and in Europe.

    Unfortunately a lot of it is often terribly wrong. Leaving aside the xenophobic portion of her platform, which is kind of the cement of her party, Ms Le Pen’s program is wildly to the left of what the Democrats propose in the US. A goodly third of the Front National voters are disgruntled ex-communists who don’t like the more “tolerant/multicultural” approach of the French Left, but wish to keep all the economic benefits of a strong State-supported/regulated economy.

    The reason I mention this is because the traditional political divides are getting mixed up. In France, for instance, if you poll people on the economics, the divide would be around 70% in favor of what you might call “socialism” versus 30% what we call “liberal” but you might call capitalist/free trade/etc.

    On the other hand, the issue of the integration of foreigners creates a very different divide which splits both our left and our right along different lines, more according to age, ethnics, and social class.

    With a multi-party system, everyone has the possibility to find a candidate or party that to a large extent will represent him or her in the legislative assembly, and the first round of the presidential race enables the two major parties to triangulate where the voters are.

    In your case, the terrible fact is that your right wing party is entirely hostage to a bunch of lunatics that would poll less than 10% here (the true xenophobes who also reject socialist policies would not recognize themselves in the Front National and therefore would seek a different right-wing party; they end up polling 1.9%); and further, you no longer have a proper left-wing party either, since the Democrats have moved considerably to the center right to grab extra votes there (since they already have the lefty vote locked in).

    (As I have demonstrated before the current Democratic platform is to the right of Richard Nixon’s.)

    In order to restore a proper balance to your system, you’d need to marginalize the nutters on the right, restore the Republican party to its proper ideological role which roughly would be slightly to the right of Obama’s but not much, and move the democrats back to the left to the equivalent of the Kennedy/Johnson platforms.

    I don’t quite see how that can be accomplished; but the alternative is the consolidation of a third world-like potemkin democracy where no matter which “party” is elected, you end up being governed by the same economic factions.

  13. avatar
    JJ May 5, 2012 at 3:52 am #

    I don’t believe in left vs. right.

    Ron Paul 2012! :D

  14. avatar
    misha May 5, 2012 at 4:13 am #

    Rickey: My comment about Gingrich wasn’t intended to be a compliment.

    Gingrich is a partisan hack, a poseur.

    As soon as Adelson gave him $100M, he discovered the Palestinians are an invented people. They are a tribe, like the Hashemites and the Bedouin. In fact, genetically, Palestinians are closer to Israeli Jews, than their brethren.

    Rickey: how sorry the state of conservatism is

    Buckley once said he spent a lifetime getting rid of the kooks. Buckley is dead, the kooks are back, and are here to stay. The Republican party died with Nelson Rockefeller.

  15. avatar
    misha May 5, 2012 at 4:34 am #

    Rickey: 21st century conservatism is…anti-abortion

    misha: It is anti-reproductive freedom.

    Arizona Bans Funding to Planned Parenthood
    http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2012/05/04/us/04reuters-usa-abortion-arizona.html

    The Republican-backed Whole Woman’s Health Funding Priority Act cuts off funding for family planning and health services delivered by Planned Parenthood clinics and other organizations…

    Arizona does not provide tax dollars for abortion, but backers said the law is needed to make sure that no indirect monies are funneled to organizations like Planned Parenthood that provide abortion and other health services.

    “Abortion-centered businesses like Planned Parenthood do not need or deserve taxpayer dollars,” Marilyn Musgrave, vice president of government affairs for the organization, said in a written statement.

    Barry Goldwater on voting against the 1964 CRA: “You can’t legislate morality.”

  16. avatar
    Joe Acerbic May 5, 2012 at 6:14 am #

    “They actually have a very good understanding of human nature” is a statement devoid of moral meaning. The understanding can be used to help humans or exploit them.

  17. avatar
    Thoreau 2012 May 5, 2012 at 8:02 am #

    As I get older I do seem to get more conservative, but for me moving toward the right seems to mean becoming liberal. The big shift is about the role of government. I was much more Thoreauvian (no government is best), and still am in terms of my life approach, but I better see government’s pluses.

    I also see all the important political and social advances in our society as liberal, while seeing that conservatism maintains, keeps us going. Think Lincoln, to see both in one man. Ending slavery was liberal, but saving and even strengthening the union was conservative (though conservatives in name have always had an intense contingent that disagrees). Lincoln famously said if he could preserve the union with slavery he would (because preserving the union was his priority, not that he preferred slavery). That is a conservative perspective. But the telling point is that was not possible, not reality. The union could not continue while slavery continued.

    Seeing the world as it is is not itself conservative. After all you need to see the world as it is to want to change it, to take up a liberal task. Successful change needs to acknowledge reality, face it, deal with it, and when rejecting reality needs to do so for a bigger reality (not just a desire or good intentions).

    Neither liberal or conservative approaches are more real, or by themselves more aware of reality. They are just approaches of what to do with or about reality, or what we call reality, or how the world works.

    The liberal stance is nothing without conservatism (hello, Teddy Roosevelt!). And conservatism is nothing without liberalism (hello Nixon as Keynesian, hello Eisenhower warning of military industrial complexes, hello Christianity).

  18. avatar
    Thoreau 2012 May 5, 2012 at 8:10 am #

    Seeing the world (or human nature) as it is… etc.

  19. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 5, 2012 at 8:20 am #

    What I really wanted to say is that the conservative message has been co-opted by the crazies and because of this “conservatism” is not attractive.

    There are two kinds of being a liberal. There is the answer to the question (which, by the way is the context of Mr. Haidt’s second paragraph) “are you a liberal or a conservative?” This is the sense of why I say that I am a liberal. The other kind of being a liberal would be to buy into a rich fabric of liberal beliefs and in that sense I would prefer not to label myself and in fact there are many issues about which I haven’t made up my mind.

    Thrifty: Doc, you speak as if conservative and liberal are the only choices. You sound like you’re saying you’re a liberal because you dislike the conservative outlook.

  20. avatar
    Thrifty May 5, 2012 at 10:44 am #

    Yeah but it still sounds like you’re allowing someone else to set up a false dichotomy, then accepting the label it slaps on you. I think that “conservative” and “liberal” are descriptive of distinct political beliefs. A liberal is not simply a “non-conservative” as you seem to be accepting, but rather someone who holds a set of beliefs.

    That’s not to say that you can’t have nuanced beliefs, or a combination of beliefs, and still be more liberal than conservative. You could, say, be against abortion but in favor of universal health care and in favor of gay marriage.

    I guess I say all this because until recently I thought of myself as liberal because I didn’t care for the conservative viewpoint. Then I started following a liberal blog, but I didn’t care for THEIR viewpoints either. I’ve also heard some calm headed conservatives make some good points about how government money isn’t manna from Heaven and raising taxes on the wealthy is not the simple panacea it is often touted as. I tend to think of myself as a moderate who is open to views from either side as long as they’re put forth convincingly. Too often though, I feel like both sides just use political discussion as a medium to complain about the other side rather than try to sell their own side. I’m like “yeah yeah, that guy is an asshole, but that still doesn’t explain why I should follow you”.

    Dr. Conspiracy: There are two kinds of being a liberal. There is the answer to the question (which, by the way is the context of Mr. Haidt’s second paragraph) “are you a liberal or a conservative?” This is the sense of why I say that I am a liberal. The other kind of being a liberal would be to buy into a rich fabric of liberal beliefs and in that sense I would prefer not to label myself and in fact there are many issues about which I haven’t made up my mind.

  21. avatar
    Rambo Ike May 5, 2012 at 11:39 am #

    I always thought President Reagan had it right:

    “Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they’re ignorant; it’s just that they know so much that isn’t so.”

    I can attest to the fact, through engaging the Liberals in the political arena over the last 8+ years, the Gipper knew what he was talking about.

  22. avatar
    bovril May 5, 2012 at 12:05 pm #

    The issue with the labelling is that it is a knee jerk reaction to (usually) single issue idiots on the left and right.

    I was being badgered about my Ebil Liberal outlook on another site a while back and when pushed responded that I was not a “liberal” or “progessive” as those were lables of the idiocracy and ….

    Anarcho-capitalist with significant chunks of Ordoliberalism, free trade supporter with a good dose of Thatcherism.

    Any single political-economic viewpoint/label is by it’s nature, rigid, of limited flexibility and typically encased in a straitjacket of history and (frequently failed) precedent.

    Democracy, Capitalism and Constitutional Republicanism aren’t perfect but a hell of a lot better than the current alternatives out there. For example, the view I gave on untrammeled “free market” economics shows where there are inherent contradictions between “free” and “freedom”.

    In the case of the US system, not perfect but strives to the greatest freedom for the greatest number. It does however have significant concerns such as the ongoing de-facto creation of a political caste as well as institutionalized corruption through mechanisms such as “pay to play”, political appointments of judicial and legal positions etc etc.

    The Parliamentary system as exemplified in the United Kingdom along with a robust and more independent non appointed, permanent professional civil service keeps individual corruption and pork barrel politics at a far lower level but at the cost of some of the US constitutional checks and balances along with some institutional inertia.

    In the 30’s in the US with the New Deal through to the end of WW 2, the US was arguably running a significantly command based economy with many of the characteristics of the 1920’s “5 year plan ” model of the USSR. It did however move rapidly back to the more untrammeled raw capitalist economic model from 1947 onwards, the infamous “Military-Industrial Complex”….. Economics and politics run in staggered complementary cycles swinging across more rigid to more flexible over time.

    No one perfect solution, you have to be aware of the alternatives. The Anglo-American models have shown that they tend to be the most flexible and practical as well as capable of meeting short term goals whilst always being able to return to the core of individual liberalism

    Silence followed……8-)

  23. avatar
    misha May 5, 2012 at 12:18 pm #

    Rambo Ike: the Gipper knew what he was talking about

    “A welfare queen is a pejorative phrase used in the US…The term entered the American lexicon during Ronald Reagan’s 1976 presidential campaign when he described a “welfare queen” from Chicago’s South Side.

    Since then, it has become a stigmatizing label placed on recidivist poor mothers, with studies showing that it often carries gendered and racial connotations.

    The term “welfare queen” is most often associated with Ronald Reagan who brought the idea to a national audience. During his 1976 presidential campaign, Reagan would tell the story of a woman from Chicago’s South Side who was arrested for welfare fraud:

    “She has eighty names, thirty addresses, twelve Social Security cards and is collecting veteran’s benefits on four non-existing deceased husbands. And she is collecting Social Security on her cards. She’s got Medicaid, getting food stamps, and she is collecting welfare under each of her names. Her tax-free cash income is over $150,000.”

    Since Reagan never named a particular woman, the description can be viewed as an example of dramatic hyperbole…In 1976, the New York Times reported that a woman from Chicago, Linda Taylor, was charged with using four aliases and of cheating the government out of $8,000.

    In response to Reagan’s use of the term, Susan Douglas, a professor of communication studies at the University of Michigan, writes: “He specialized in the exaggerated, outrageous tale that was almost always unsubstantiated, usually false, yet so sensational that it merited repeated recounting… And because his examples’ of welfare queens drew on existing stereotypes of welfare cheats and resonated with news stories about welfare fraud, they did indeed gain real traction.”

    The term “welfare queen” became a catchphrase during anti-welfare dialogue and eventually became a permanent feature of American folklore.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_queen

  24. avatar
    misha May 5, 2012 at 12:39 pm #

    This why the right wing tripe is not harmless:

    “Former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has said millions of dollars from the “extreme right wing” in the United States helped oust him from government and derailed a peace plan with the Palestinians.

    “It was a killer for me, not only because of the opposition in Israel. I think that, by the way, in Israel, the majority of the Israelis would have supported my plan, had it come for elections,” Olmert said.

    “But I had to fight against superior powers, including millions and millions of dollars that were transferred from this country (the United States) by figures which were from the extreme right wing that were aimed to topple me as prime minister of Israel. There is no question about it.”

    But Olmert acknowledged that such leadership comes at a price. “I paid personally, dearly. But there was no option for me but to do what I did. And I know for sure, and I know the names, of the people that spent millions of dollars in order to stop me — from the United States.”

    He was then asked if there is still time for a two-state solution. “There is time,” said Olmert, “but time is running out.”
    http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/05/world/meast/israel-olmert-us/index.html

    The Zionism of ben Gurion has been destroyed by American evangelicals, just like Islam has been hijacked by nihilists.

  25. avatar
    Rambo Ike May 5, 2012 at 1:26 pm #

    misha: “A welfare queen is a pejorative phrase used in the US…The term entered the American lexicon during Ronald Reagan’s 1976 presidential campaign when he described a “welfare queen” from Chicago’s South Side.Since then, it has become a stigmatizing label placed on recidivist poor mothers, with studies showing that it often carries gendered and racial connotations.The term “welfare queen” is most often associated with Ronald Reagan who brought the idea to a national audience. During his 1976 presidential campaign, Reagan would tell the story of a woman from Chicago’s South Side who was arrested for welfare fraud:“She has eighty names, thirty addresses, twelve Social Security cards and is collecting veteran’s benefits on four non-existing deceased husbands. And she is collecting Social Security on her cards. She’s got Medicaid, getting food stamps, and she is collecting welfare under each of her names. Her tax-free cash income is over $150,000.”Since Reagan never named a particular woman, the description can be viewed as an example of dramatic hyperbole…In 1976, the New York Times reported that a woman from Chicago, Linda Taylor, was charged with using four aliases and of cheating the government out of $8,000.In response to Reagan’s use of the term, Susan Douglas, a professor of communication studies at the University of Michigan, writes: “He specialized in the exaggerated, outrageous tale that was almost always unsubstantiated, usually false, yet so sensational that it merited repeated recounting… And because his examples’ of welfare queens drew on existing stereotypes of welfare cheats and resonated with news stories about welfare fraud, they did indeed gain real traction.”The term “welfare queen” became a catchphrase during anti-welfare dialogue and eventually became a permanent feature of American folklore.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_queen

    misha: “A welfare queen is a pejorative phrase used in the US…The term entered the American lexicon during Ronald Reagan’s 1976 presidential campaign when he described a “welfare queen” from Chicago’s South Side.Since then, it has become a stigmatizing label placed on recidivist poor mothers, with studies showing that it often carries gendered and racial connotations.The term “welfare queen” is most often associated with Ronald Reagan who brought the idea to a national audience. During his 1976 presidential campaign, Reagan would tell the story of a woman from Chicago’s South Side who was arrested for welfare fraud:“She has eighty names, thirty addresses, twelve Social Security cards and is collecting veteran’s benefits on four non-existing deceased husbands. And she is collecting Social Security on her cards. She’s got Medicaid, getting food stamps, and she is collecting welfare under each of her names. Her tax-free cash income is over $150,000.”Since Reagan never named a particular woman, the description can be viewed as an example of dramatic hyperbole…In 1976, the New York Times reported that a woman from Chicago, Linda Taylor, was charged with using four aliases and of cheating the government out of $8,000.In response to Reagan’s use of the term, Susan Douglas, a professor of communication studies at the University of Michigan, writes: “He specialized in the exaggerated, outrageous tale that was almost always unsubstantiated, usually false, yet so sensational that it merited repeated recounting… And because his examples’ of welfare queens drew on existing stereotypes of welfare cheats and resonated with news stories about welfare fraud, they did indeed gain real traction.”The term “welfare queen” became a catchphrase during anti-welfare dialogue and eventually became a permanent feature of American folklore.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_queen

    Welfare Queen was around a long time before Reagan used it. It’s possible, to stress the point he was making, he did exaggerate. The fact is he was pointing out a serious problem with the welfare system.

  26. avatar
    Northland10 May 5, 2012 at 1:27 pm #

    Rambo Ike: I always thought President Reagan had it right:

    Such as this?

    Now, there are those who will always require help from the rest of us on a permanent basis, and we’ll provide that help. To those with temporary need, we should have programs that are aimed at making them self-sufficient as soon as possible. How can limited government and fiscal restraint be equated with lack of compassion for the poor? How can a tax break that puts a little more money in the weekly paychecks of working people be seen as an attack on the needy?

    February 26, 1982
    9th Annual CPAC Conference

    or this?

    Well, America may have lost the comfort and courage of Dr. King’s presence, but we’ve not really lost him. Every time a black woman casts a ballot, Martin King is there. Every time a black man is hired for a good job, Dr. King is there. Every time a black child receives a sound education, Dr. King is there. Every time a black person is elected to public office, Dr. King is there. Every time black and white Americans work side by side for a better future, Dr. King is there. He’s with us, and with us very much today.

    Remarks on the Anniversary of the Birth of Martin Luther King, Jr.
    January 15, 1983

    If some of today’s faux conservatives actually paid attention to their “hero’s” better, they might learn that being conservative does not mean just “hating to the left” but actually working to help all Americans.

  27. avatar
    Rambo Ike May 5, 2012 at 1:42 pm #

    misha: This why the right wing tripe is not harmless:“Former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has said millions of dollars from the “extreme right wing” in the United States helped oust him from government and derailed a peace plan with the Palestinians.“It was a killer for me, not only because of the opposition in Israel. I think that, by the way, in Israel, the majority of the Israelis would have supported my plan, had it come for elections,” Olmert said.“But I had to fight against superior powers, including millions and millions of dollars that were transferred from this country (the United States) by figures which were from the extreme right wing that were aimed to topple me as prime minister of Israel. There is no question about it.”But Olmert acknowledged that such leadership comes at a price. “I paid personally, dearly. But there was no option for me but to do what I did. And I know for sure, and I know the names, of the people that spent millions of dollars in order to stop me — from the United States.”He was then asked if there is still time for a two-state solution. “There is time,” said Olmert, “but time is running out.”http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/05/world/meast/israel-olmert-us/index.htmlThe Zionism of ben Gurion has been destroyed by American evangelicals, just like Islam has been hijacked by nihilists.

    Question to myself while shaking my head & laughing: “Does the ObOt propaganda ever end?”

    There was no American extreme right-wing conspiracy against PM Olmert. He used that to take the focus off himself for the all the corruption he was involved in. Case closed – end of story.

    I believe the people of Israel have a good man with Netanyahu.

  28. avatar
    Majority Will May 5, 2012 at 2:22 pm #

    Northland10: Such as this?

    or this?

    If some of today’s faux conservatives actually paid attention to their “hero’s” better, they might learn that being conservative does not mean just “hating to the left” but actually working to help all Americans.

    We can also thank Reagan for slashing funding for mental health and turning future birthers and other mental patients out of the asylums and into the streets.

    http://badfiction.typepad.com/.a/6a00e553b3b3a7883301543607f10e970c-500wi

    (h/t to Patrick for the photo link)

  29. avatar
    misha May 5, 2012 at 2:43 pm #

    Rambo Ike: Welfare Queen was around a long time before Reagan used it.

    “The term entered the American lexicon during Ronald Reagan’s 1976 presidential campaign”

    Rambo Ike: The fact is he was pointing out a serious problem with the welfare system.

    Yeah, just like Michele Bachmann taking $250K in farm subsidies, while screaming about the dangers of socialism. Cattle ranchers do not pay market rates to graze on public land, and ADM got a 50/gallon tariff on Brazilain ethanol. No bid contracts for Halliburton, an invasion of Iraq costing around $1T, and a 1953 coup in Iran, which led to Khomeini. The coup in Iran was about oil, just like Iraq 50 years later.

    You don’t have any problem with welfare for the wealthy.

  30. avatar
    misha May 5, 2012 at 2:50 pm #

    Majority Will: http://badfiction.typepad.com/.a/6a00e553b3b3a7883301543607f10e970c-500wi
    (h/t to Patrick for the photo link)

    In the photograph’s lower right are Israeli flags, which proves my contention about Orly and her crowd.

  31. avatar
    misha May 5, 2012 at 2:54 pm #

    Rambo Ike: He used that to take the focus off himself for the all the corruption he was involved in.

    As bad as Nixon and Agnew, or worse? As bad as Cheney and Halliburton, or worse?

  32. avatar
    misha May 5, 2012 at 3:00 pm #

    Rambo Ike: I believe the people of Israel have a good man with Netanyahu.

    Netanyahu grew up in Philadelphia. He is being egged on by messianic evangelicals. If Israel attacks Iran, it could start a world war.

    Read this:
    http://latitude.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/02/the-israeli-debate-over-iran-is-more-polarizing-than-ever/

  33. avatar
    Northland10 May 5, 2012 at 3:47 pm #

    Rambo Ike:
    Welfare Queen was around a long time before Reagan used it. It’s possible, to stress the point he was making, he did exaggerate. The fact is he was pointing out a serious problem with the welfare system.

    Do you have proof that the term was around long before Reagan used it to get people upset about welfare fraud?

  34. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 5, 2012 at 3:50 pm #

    When I was growing up, it was “welfare Cadillac.”

    Northland10: Do you have proof that the term was around long before Reagan used it to get people upset about welfare fraud?

  35. avatar
    misha May 5, 2012 at 3:56 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    When I was growing up, it was “welfare Cadillac.”

    Same here, and I grew up in New York.

  36. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 5, 2012 at 4:33 pm #

    While not the specific phrase, I heard Rush Limbaugh pressing the same buttons just yesterday. (No, I don’t listen to Limbaugh, but I was testing a radio.)

    Northland10: Do you have proof that the term was around long before Reagan used it to get people upset about welfare fraud?

  37. avatar
    Rambo Ike May 5, 2012 at 5:37 pm #

    Northland10: Such as this?or this?If some of today’s faux conservatives actually paid attention to their “hero’s” better, they might learn that being conservative does not mean just “hating to the left” but actually working to help all Americans.

    Excellent! Reagan, a B actor who became a A+ president, besides being a great American.

    Contrary to what Ann Richards said about 1 republican president, Reagan wasn’t a “silver spooner”.

    Conservatives see it different than Liberals: Instead of the liberal hand out, it’s a hand up to cut the cord to the plantation mentality.

    I’m a hater – don’t believe in Leftism.

  38. avatar
    Thoreau 2012 May 5, 2012 at 7:10 pm #

    Haidt was on Chris Hayes this morning and clarified he means Burkean conservatives.

  39. avatar
    Thomas Brown May 5, 2012 at 8:56 pm #

    misha: Same here, and I grew up in New York.

    If you haven’t heard it, the Austin Lounge Lizards’ song “Teenage Immigrant Welfare Mothers on Drugs” is quite a hoot.

  40. avatar
    Thomas Brown May 5, 2012 at 9:06 pm #

    Rambo Ike:

    I’m a hater –

    Sorry; for a second there I thought you said “I’m a bitter clueless racist loser,” and was going to salute your candor.

    My bad.

  41. avatar
    Majority Will May 5, 2012 at 9:15 pm #

    Thomas Brown: Sorry; for a second there I thought you said “I’m a bitter clueless racist loser,” and was going to salute your candor.

    My bad.

    But that’s a good birther.

  42. avatar
    Sef May 5, 2012 at 10:21 pm #

    Rambo Ike: who became a A+ president, besides being a great American.

    If you grade on the a single point curve.

  43. avatar
    Joey May 5, 2012 at 11:37 pm #

    The nation’s largest corporations and richest citizens receive more welfare money than our social welfare programs. In 1994, the United States spent $104.3 billion on corporate welfare, while spending only $14.4 billion on Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC; now TANF).

    If we add together recent federal monies spent on AFDC/TANF plus food stamps and Medicaid, it comes to about $85 billion annually. The total cost of the corporate tax breaks and subsidies is in the hundreds of billions of dollars.
    Corporate subsidies only go to the largest, global corporations, thus squeezing out the little guys and independent entrepreneurs in favor of the lobbyist driven internationalists who export American jobs abroad.

  44. avatar
    madmardigan May 6, 2012 at 12:33 am #

    Joey:
    The nation’s largest corporations and richest citizens receive more welfare money than our social welfare programs. In 1994, the United States spent $104.3 billion on corporate welfare, while spending only $14.4 billion on Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC; now TANF).

    If we add together recent federal monies spent on AFDC/TANF plus food stamps and Medicaid, it comes to about $85 billion annually. The total cost of the corporate tax breaks and subsidies is in the hundreds of billions of dollars.
    Corporate subsidies only go to the largest, global corporations, thus squeezing out the little guys and independent entrepreneurs in favor of the lobbyist driven internationalists who export American jobs abroad.

    BRAVO!! That’s EXACTLY the the way things work!!

  45. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 6, 2012 at 8:30 am #

    In my experience, Conservatives read Saul Alinsky, not Edmund Burke.

    Thoreau 2012: Haidt was on Chris Hayes this morning and clarified he means Burkean conservatives.

  46. avatar
    Thoreau 2012 May 6, 2012 at 9:21 am #

    While meanwhile talking of the President as being a follower of Alinsky, yep…

    Well, a good example of a self-proclaimed Burkean conservative is David Brooks. In many ways, I think, the Burkean strand is conservatism proper, at least politically. Therein may be a clue why conservativism is so off the rails these days, becoming more and more religious in its fervor, whether in cause or affect.

    Speaking for myself, my family was Democratic, elected politician and all, until Roe v. Wade. Abortion, followed up with Reagan, with a side of local Democratic corruption, shifted the family, so that now the next generation is full of Republicans, and Libertarians. All following the religiously conservative track, never mind the contradictions with libertarianism (Ron Paul himself is contradictory on such maters, so it is all good for them, it seems). I don’t think any of them are conservative in the old sense.

    Having been listening to Haidt a lot lately (while he is doing the rounds for his book), I think he is a bit incorrect in his conclusions. I think the main point he makes that is important is questioning one’s own confirmation bias, either oneself or in a dynamic such as the scientific community where everyone else will question it for you. He also makes a point that the Burkean David Brooks makes which is that change happens socially, more so than through reason. In this regard, I note the shift toward homosexuality has occurred primarily as a social phenomenon, particularly across generations, not as a result of logical debate.

    My personal opinion is there something to be said about those aspects, but that Haidt overcompensates by talking of conservatives as better seeing human nature or the like. That’s the classical conservative trope, in any regard. Conservative parents have said that kind of thing to their children for centuries. It’s also been a bit condescending for centuries, as well.

    It’s not that conservatives see human nature better, but that they are perhaps more focused on security and the like, and thus more ready, sometimes too ready, for when things go awry, wrong, or need a strong hand.

    This kind of dynamic, between conservative and liberal approaches, is why the Constitution is so balanced, because it incorporates and creates a structure for both, or all. You could after all call the Constitution downright socialist, if you want, what with its giving Congress the power to provide for the general welfare, and all. Mind you, the Constitution declares that power in the same breath as the power to provide for Defense (as they spelled it). It is liberal in its institution of democracy, but conservative in nonetheless keeping power in the hands of a republic.

    This push and pull between liberal and conservative was present at the founding of this country, and well before that. I think Haidt is expressing a confirmation bias of his own by declaring conservatives better at seeing human nature, an unnecessary one at that for the rest of his perspective.

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    In my experience, Conservatives read Saul Alinsky, not Edmund Burke.

  47. avatar
    Thoreau 2012 May 6, 2012 at 9:31 am #

    In other words, today’s conservatives are not particularly conservative. They are too liberal with their fervors. I’m just saying…

  48. avatar
    Arthur May 6, 2012 at 11:20 am #

    Rambo Ike,

    The funny thing is that a lot of conservatives decry government handouts for other people, but have no trouble taking them for themselves.

    For example, where I live in northwest Iowa, Republicans identify as strongly conservative. Ironically, when the Missouri River flooded last year, they clamored for federal disaster money, even though in 2005, when Hurricane Katrina flooded New Orleans, they applauded our congressman, Steve King, for voting against federal aid for Katrina relief. (King called it best vote he’s ever made.) Likewise, the very conservative corn and soy bean farmers are pro Tea Party and celebrate the principles of reduced government, free markets, and personal freedomexcept when it comes to farm subsidies, tax breaks for ethanol, tariffs on foreign grain, reproductive rights for women, and protecting the civil rights of non-Christians.

    In other words, they love it on the plantation, but they hate it when outsiders get to benefit, especially when the outsiders are of a different race, ethnicity, or religion. I’m not hating on them; these are my people–I’m just being honest.

    As a side note, the enormous increase in commodity prices and land values has made millionaires out of even modest farmers. For example, in December of 2011 the Omaha Herald reported, that north of where I live, “a 74-acre tract in Sioux County in northwest Iowa sold for $20,000 an acre. The previous record was in October when a 120-acre parcel went for $16,750 per acre near Sioux Center, also in Sioux County.” Just a few years ago, paying over $7,000 an acre was considered outrageous. Now you’d be lucky to get it that cheap.

    Rambo Ike: Conservatives see it different than Liberals: Instead of the liberal hand out, it’s a hand up to cut the cord to the plantation mentality.

  49. avatar
    Obsolete May 6, 2012 at 2:11 pm #

    Rambo Ike, Google “Reagan” and “Rape”.
    Yeah, he was a great American and a better rapist.

    And unlike the kooky lawsuit against George W. Bush for rape (his accuser killed herself), the claims against Reagan are plausible.

  50. avatar
    Joe Acerbic May 6, 2012 at 4:10 pm #

    Arthur: The funny thing is that a lot of conservatives decry government handouts for other people, but have no trouble taking them for themselves.

    Plain statistics: all the states that pretend to be populated by self-reliant rugged individualists are net recipients of federal tax dollars while the liberal states are net tax payers.

  51. avatar
    Scientist May 6, 2012 at 5:12 pm #

    I could be more open to conservatism if so-called “conservatives” tool the “conserve” part seriously. Republicans like Theodore Roosevelt, Thomas Dewey, even Nixon, protected the land for future generations. Now the faux conservatives like Limbaugh actually think it’s morally wrong to use energy efficient light bulbs or drive fuel-efficient vehicles. They seem to believe we have a duty to guzzle as much fossil fuels as we possibly can. What kind or moral “conservatism” is that.

    Instead of respecting the land and its natural beauty, they are just shills for rapacious corporations. Remember, there were no corporations in 1788 (other than a few mercantilist monopolies like the British and Dutch East India companies). Treating corporations as people defiles original intent more than Marxism does. As the President said yesterday, “Corporations aren’t people; people are people.”

    By the way, if Lupin drops by, I was pleased by the results of the French election. The Merkozy austerity is proving a dead end and the people are rejecting it-not just in France, but in Greece, the UK, Holland, etc. You don’t end a depression by cuts whhiich cause economic contraction, and then more cuts. And I don’t think the Ryan/Rmoney plan to do that here will appeal to most Americans either.

  52. avatar
    misha May 6, 2012 at 5:22 pm #

    Arthur: The funny thing is that a lot of conservatives decry government handouts for other people, but have no trouble taking them for themselves. For example, where I live in northwest Iowa, Republicans identify as strongly conservative.

    I drove long haul for CRST, in Cedar Rapids, and the only Jewish employee in the entire company. The damage to roads by heavy trucks is not fully paid for by HUT (Highway Users Tax), and fuel taxes. The difference is made up by taxpayers. Of course, that’s not socialism – it’s good business.

    I learned to drive a tractor-trailer at Kirkwood Community College. The tuition was subsidized by the state, which CRST gladly took. ADM has a major plant in Cedar Rapids. ADM got a 50/gallon tariff on Brazilian ethanol. That’s not socialism – it’s good business.

    One of my instructors complained about all the Vietnamese coming to live in Cedar Rapids. “They’ll never be Americans.”

    Arthur: the enormous increase in commodity prices and land values has made millionaires out of even modest farmers.

    Then they complain about the taxes on their gain. Rush Limbaugh complained long and loud about his NYC income tax. He said a $35K income tax bill was legalized robbery. He then said he was going to sell his NYC co-op, and close his NYC studio. “I’ll never set foot again in New York City.”

    Limbaugh drives a Maybach. It cost $450K plus freight, taxes and title. He dropped a half-million dollars on a car, and then complained about his taxes.

    Limbaugh is a hypocritical rabble rouser: ‘Drug abusers should be stripped of their citizenship, and thrown out of the country.’

    So when is he leaving? I’m sure his fourth marriage will work out better than the previous three, and she’ll be glad to go with him.

    Federal loan guarantees or bailouts started with Nixon: “The year was 1971. Richard Nixon was in the White House. And Texas Republican John Tower was butting heads with Wisconsin Senator William Proxmire over a bailout … of Lockheed Aircraft. In May, Treasury Secretary John Connally announced a proposed $250 million line of credit.”

    Read on: http://uspolitics.about.com/od/economy/a/lockheedBailout.htm

    Was Nixon a socialist or a Marxist? Nixon had wage and price controls to tame runaway inflation. Nixon created the EPA. Nixon and his family once took a commercial airplane to California, and he paid for the tickets from his own pocket, rather than Air Force One. He wanted to set an example. Was he being a Marxist? There is no legal requirement to release income tax forms. Nixon started the tradition. Was he a Marxist?

  53. avatar
    misha May 6, 2012 at 5:34 pm #

    Obsolete: Rambo Ike, Google “Reagan” and “Rape”. Yeah, he was a great American and a better rapist.

    At least he didn’t kill her, like Glenn Beck.

    http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/chatterbox/1999/03/gipper_the_ripper.html

  54. avatar
    misha May 6, 2012 at 6:06 pm #

    misha: At least he didn’t kill her, like Glenn Beck.

    Here’s more:
    http://didglennbeckrapeandmurderagirl.blogspot.com

  55. avatar
    Keith May 6, 2012 at 6:32 pm #

    Scientist: Republicans like Theodore Roosevelt, Thomas Dewey, even Nixon, protected the land for future generations.

    And Barry Goldwater!

    Scientist: The Merkozy austerity is proving a dead end and the people are rejecting it-not just in France, but in Greece, the UK, Holland, etc. You don’t end a depression by cuts whhiich cause economic contraction, and then more cuts.

    Tell that to the Australian Labor Government will you, please? After having steered the Australian Economy through the GFC with barely a hiccup, they are going to bring down a budget with a promised surplus that nobody, even the Liberal party (the conservative party in Australia), thinks is a wise move.

    Belt tightening is one thing, slash and burn is quite another; this is a most un-Labor Party like move.

  56. avatar
    Keith May 6, 2012 at 6:43 pm #

    misha: I drove long haul for CRST, in Cedar Rapids

    Ever drive I-10 through New Mexico? I have (in a car, not a prime mover), though admittedly it was 30 years ago.

    When I drove it the ruts were at least 6 inches deep, 10 inches in some places, and that is not an exageration. In asphalt. On an American Interstate Highway. My Fiat X1/9 actually bottomed out a couple of times on the crown, I was literally forced to drive in the left lane from Lordsburg to Las Cruces.

    I never figured out if it was caused by substandard construction (yes it gets hot and asphalt softens in the summer, but the under surface doesn’t, and the asphalt isn’t 6 inches deep), or substandard weight restriction enforcement (I never, ever, saw a weighing station ‘open for business’).

    I hope somebody has spent some money on that road between then and now.

  57. avatar
    J. Potter May 6, 2012 at 6:49 pm #

    misha: Nixon started the tradition.

    … because he was accused of filing creative returns…including claiming $576K in deductions for the value of his papers. But he is not a crook.

  58. avatar
    Arthur May 6, 2012 at 8:41 pm #

    Fiat X1/9. huh. I always liked that little sports car. Here’s a video that might bring back some memories, Keith.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-8OF6T3Nbw

    Keith: My Fiat X1/9 actually bottomed out a couple of times on the crown, I was literally forced to drive in the left lane from Lordsburg to Las Cruces.

  59. avatar
    BillTheCat May 7, 2012 at 2:07 am #

    I’m shocked – SHOCKED! At Rambo Ike’s beliefs outside birtherism. Shocked!

    Someone knock me over with a feather.

  60. avatar
    Lupin May 7, 2012 at 3:07 am #

    Scientist: By the way, if Lupin drops by, I was pleased by the results of the French election. The Merkozy austerity is proving a dead end and the people are rejecting it-not just in France, but in Greece, the UK, Holland, etc. You don’t end a depression by cuts which cause economic contraction, and then more cuts. And I don’t think the Ryan/Rmoney plan to do that here will appeal to most Americans either.

    I couldn’t agree more — and thanks for your good wishes.

    There was a local election in Germany in which the Socia-list also trounced Ms Merkel’s party. The dutch are next.

    I think we finally may have hit the reset button on the Friedmanesque economic policies and go back to sound Keynesian policies.

  61. avatar
    Keith May 7, 2012 at 3:57 am #

    Arthur:
    Fiat X1/9. huh. I always liked that little sports car.Here’s a video that might bring back some memories, Keith.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-8OF6T3Nbw

    Thanks for that. It was a great little video.

    Surprisingly, I have to agree with almost everything the marketeers said, except for the ‘high performance’ bit. The 1500cc engine left it under powered. I’m not sure what the deal was with that engine, it must have had to do with US taxes or something like California pollution rules. I heard that it was originally intended to have a 2 liter engine, and when Bertone took it back off Fiat they did sell it that way.

    Other than that it was great little car, beautiful to drive, economical, and just great fun.

    It wasn’t perfect however, maintenance was a nightmare to be honest. The engine was out of a front wheel drive Fiat 124. Now that engine worked well in the 124, which was a great little sedan too. But for the X1/9 they just pulled the engine out of the front of the 124 and bunged it down amidships to make it a mid-engine. Nice idea, except that meant that the spark plugs, which were perfectly placed for access at the front of the 124 engine compartment are now hard up against the firewall in the X1/9 and buried under the air cleaner. The throttle cable was routed up the back through a bracket attached to the valve cover (which was also conveniently positioned on the firewall side of the engine). So to replace the valve cover gasket (which I had to do in the first month of owning the car – gaskets weren’t covered by warranty, even when it was an obvious manufacturing defect) you had to dismantle two thirds of the damn engine compartment to get at the darn thing.

    Other than that the car was a breeze until I moved to California and the service department at the Fiat dealer in Santa Barbara ripped me off wholesale, and then a privateer service guy cut my brake lines with a razor so he could try and sell me a slave cylinder and almost ended up killing my wife. Fortunately we only lived a mile from the place and a mile from another garage who proved to actually know what he was doing (and even then it took us 3 months to find the cut brake line).

    On the other hand, it had almost 100,000 miles on it when I sold it to my brother. I had it fully serviced, including a new timing belt before I turned it over to him. That belt promptly broke and destroyed the engine within a month. I offered to return his money but he refused, his mechanic convinced him that my mechanic had done everything properly, it was a brand new belt, and it ‘was just one of those things’.

    But the car never moved again. It had birds nesting in it last time I saw it. Sad. I think he ended up selling it to a neighbor as a ‘fixer-upper’ project for his son, so that’s OK.

  62. avatar
    Keith May 7, 2012 at 3:58 am #

    Sorry Doc. I got carried away. That should probably be moved to open mike.

  63. avatar
    Northland10 May 7, 2012 at 7:05 am #

    Rambo Ike: plantation mentality.

    If I had doubts about your bigotry before, well, you have done well in clearing them up. Funny, I have seen children of Michigan Militia members and children of members of the Klan receiving free and reduced lunch at school. Is that plantation mentality?

  64. avatar
    bob j May 7, 2012 at 9:12 am #

    Rambo Ike: I can attest to the fact, through engaging the Liberals in the political arena over the last 8+ years, the Gipper knew what he was talking about

    After reading the last 8+ posts from Rambo Ike, and never getting an actually answer, I can attest to the fact that he doesn’t really know what facts are.

  65. avatar
    The Magic M May 7, 2012 at 9:19 am #

    Lupin: There was a local election in Germany in which the Socia-list also trounced Ms Merkel’s party.

    Not really. While they won about 4.5% points, they still ended up a close second to the ruling party (both scoring slightly above 30%). Though it’s possible they might secure a coalition with the Green Party and the Danish minority party that would give them a one seat majority.
    Besides, the German Social Democrats aren’t really Socialists compared to other countries. Their last chancellor probably had a better relation to the corporate world than most conservatives could dream of.

  66. avatar
    Lupin May 7, 2012 at 11:31 am #

    The Magic M: Not really. While they won about 4.5% points, they still ended up a close second to the ruling party (both scoring slightly above 30%). Though it’s possible they might secure a coalition with the Green Party and the Danish minority party that would give them a one seat majority.
    Besides, the German Social Democrats aren’t really Socialists compared to other countries. Their last chancellor probably had a better relation to the corporate world than most conservatives could dream of.

    That will teach me to speak out of my derrière about things I don’t know. Thanks for the (depressing) correction. I wholeheartedly agree with Krugman regarding the German “problem” and can only hope that those truly committed to the Euro project will do their best to destroy the Merkel party who’s dooming it.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/07/opinion/krugman-those-revolting-europeans.html?hp

  67. avatar
    bob j May 7, 2012 at 11:47 am #

    bob j: After reading the last 8+ posts from Rambo Ike, and never getting an actually answer, I can attest to the fact that he doesn’t really know what facts are.

    Apologies. My attempt to produce a zinger, zagged horribly. Poor taste on my part. I have no defense, but I do have a question: Rambo Ike, are you for real?

    Right vs Left makes great copy, and even better debate, but aren’t we all on the same team? We hold elections; the process is long and hard for the voters, as well as for the aspirers for office. But after the election shouldn’t the campaign crap stop? Every President is my President, even if I wish he( or someday she) wasn’t.

    I am not a liberal by any stretch, but I am not a conservative. What I am is an American. The system is not perfect, but the flexibility of the Constitution is such a beautiful thing.The rules are in place and they seem to work.

    The office of the President can only be disparaged by those making outlandish claims. To believe he wasn’t vetted is insane, to address one of your insane claims on another site ( yeah, your foray into the comic stylings of Mr. Smith was noticed. You must be so happy Rambo Attention Hound. And the best part was someone called you an Obot. How did that feel?).The guy working Subway at the Pentagon needs a background check that takes 3 months, but the guy with the red button codes gets a pass?

    It is truly amazing you think that Glenn Beck could not have raped and murdered someone because he was a T.V personality, yet the current President faked his way into the White House. How is that possible?

    Wearing political affiliation on your sleeve is a great thing, but painting the whole of this great nation in two contrasting hues, takes away from what truly makes America special.

    Birthism is simply stupid. That should be apparent to liberal and conservative alike.

  68. avatar
    Horus May 7, 2012 at 1:34 pm #

    “By the way, the comments by the German Ambassador to the United Nations in the segment starting at 9:44 of that episode of Colbert is one of the funniest things I have ever seen.”

    Hans Beinholt is a comic genius!
    Every time Colbert has him on he is hilarious.
    The first time he was on I did not believe he really was the German Ambassador to the UN, I had to look him up.

  69. avatar
    Rambo Ike May 7, 2012 at 9:52 pm #

    Arthur: Rambo Ike,The funny thing is that a lot of conservatives decry government handouts for other people, but have no trouble taking them for themselves. For example, where I live in northwest Iowa, Republicans identify as strongly conservative. Ironically, when the Missouri River flooded last year, they clamored for federal disaster money, even though in 2005, when Hurricane Katrina flooded New Orleans, they applauded our congressman, Steve King, for voting against federal aid for Katrina relief. (King called it best vote he’s ever made.) Likewise, the very conservative corn and soy bean farmers are pro Tea Party and celebrate the principles of reduced government, free markets, and personal freedomexcept when it comes to farm subsidies, tax breaks for ethanol, tariffs on foreign grain, reproductive rights for women, and protecting the civil rights of non-Christians. In other words, they love it on the plantation, but they hate it when outsiders get to benefit, especially when the outsiders are of a different race, ethnicity, or religion. I’m not hating on them; these are my people–I’m just being honest. As a side note, the enormous increase in commodity prices and land values has made millionaires out of even modest farmers. For example, in December of 2011 the Omaha Herald reported, that north of where I live, “a 74-acre tract in Sioux County in northwest Iowa sold for $20,000 an acre. The previous record was in October when a 120-acre parcel went for $16,750 per acre near Sioux Center, also in Sioux County.” Just a few years ago, paying over $7,000 an acre was considered outrageous. Now you’d be lucky to get it that cheap.

    No you’re not being honest, you can’t help yourself, it’s an Obot obsession indoctrinated into the sub-conscience, and like breathing controlling it is next to impossible.

    To put your obsession at ease, there are more whites on welfare that any other race in America. Feel better now?

    The point I was making with the statement follows what President Reagan said: “Welfare’s purpose should be to eliminate, as far as possible, the need for its own existence.”

    In other words, to use it to help people up and out from believing that it’s there lot for life. Liberals see it differently.

  70. avatar
    Rambo Ike May 7, 2012 at 10:05 pm #

    Thomas Brown: Sorry; for a second there I thought you said “I’m a bitter clueless racist loser,” and was going to salute your candor.My bad.

    No, you’re not bad. Something like that coming from you is expected.

    America’s lower class has that kind of thinking.

  71. avatar
    Rambo Ike May 7, 2012 at 10:12 pm #

    Obsolete: Rambo Ike, Google “Reagan” and “Rape”.Yeah, he was a great American and a better rapist. And unlike the kooky lawsuit against George W. Bush for rape (his accuser killed herself), the claims against Reagan are plausible.

    You’re sick.

    I don’t remember anything about this.

    From a search I find this comes from Kitty Kelly a Hollywood gossip columnist who wrote a book [tabloid sleeze] on the Reagans. The sources she used basically called her a liar when interviewed.

  72. avatar
    Rambo Ike May 7, 2012 at 10:17 pm #

    Scientist: “I was pleased by the results of the French election.”

    You’re not alone in that thinking – so was the commies’ Socialist Internationale.

  73. avatar
    Rambo Ike May 7, 2012 at 10:28 pm #

    BillTheCat: I’m shocked – SHOCKED! At Rambo Ike’s beliefs outside birtherism. Shocked!Someone knock me over with a feather.

    I have no idea what you’re talking about.

    I have previously stated I wasn’t a Birther, and my only interest on the issue is to find out the truth. It’s a fact that both sides are offering theories.

    Though it wasn’t my primary purpose for posting on some anti-Birther sites, I have found through reading some of the literature available that some of the beliefs I held were wrong.

  74. avatar
    Rambo Ike May 7, 2012 at 10:52 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: When I was growing up, it was “welfare Cadillac.”

    Got on the horn and asked a senior relative from my home town about it. They said the standing joke back in the ’60s was people pulling up at the welfare office in their cadillacs to their checks. I wasn’t sure, couldn’t remember.

  75. avatar
    Rambo Ike May 7, 2012 at 10:58 pm #

    Northland10: If I had doubts about your bigotry before, well, you have done well in clearing them up. Funny, I have seen children of Michigan Militia members and children of members of the Klan receiving free and reduced lunch at school. Is that plantation mentality?

    Your obsession is showing. How you connected welfare mentality to Klan children getting free lunches is beyond me. BTW, why you hanging out around the Klan. Hmmm ~grin~

  76. avatar
    Rambo Ike May 7, 2012 at 11:35 pm #

    bob j: Right vs Left makes great copy, and even better debate, but aren’t we all on the same team? We hold elections; the process is long and hard for the voters, as well as for the aspirers for office. But after the election shouldn’t the campaign crap stop? Every President is my President, even if I wish he( or someday she) wasn’t. I am not a liberal by any stretch, but I am not a conservative. What I am is an American. The system is not perfect, but the flexibility of the Constitution is such a beautiful thing.The rules are in place and they seem to work.The office of the President can only be disparaged by those making outlandish claims. To believe he wasn’t vetted is insane, to address one of your insane claims on another site ( yeah, your foray into the comic stylings of Mr. Smith was noticed. You must be so happy Rambo Attention Hound. And the best part was someone called you an Obot. How did that feel?).The guy working Subway at the Pentagon needs a background check that takes 3 months, but the guy with the red button codes gets a pass?It is truly amazing you think that Glenn Beck could not have raped and murdered someone because he was a T.V personality, yet the current President faked his way into the White House. How is that possible?Wearing political affiliation on your sleeve is a great thing, but painting the whole of this great nation in two contrasting hues, takes away from what truly makes America special.Birthism is simply stupid. That should be apparent to liberal and conservative alike.

    No we’re not on the same team. My teamies wouldn’t be smear merchants, propaganda ministers, race mongers, and rewriters of American history.

    It’s apparent you lack a knowledge of history. There are many presidents I wouldn’t want to be associated with.

    There are constitutional rules in place that recent presidents haven’t been following.

    My apology if you think I’m getting more attention than you are. It’s not my fault.

    Here’s your chance at fame: get the irrefutable proof on Beck and turn it over to law enforcement.

    The original idea of birtherism is based on a very honorable agenda that represents a good portion of decent Americans that believe they have no voice in the democratic process.

  77. avatar
    Obsolete May 8, 2012 at 1:21 am #

    Rambo Ike: You’re sick.

    I don’t remember anything about this.

    From a search I find this comes from Kitty Kelly a Hollywood gossip columnist who wrote a book [tabloid sleeze] on the Reagans. The sources she used basically called her a liar when interviewed.

    I’m not sick. Here is the actress Selene Walters IMDb page:
    http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0910366/

    She told others about Reagan raping her at the time it happened, and her story has not wavered.Just who called her a liar? She put her name to the accusation, while you just make up people calling her a liar. (Or are you saying someone called Kitty Kelly a liar?)

    I know you don’t want to believe it, but I have no reason to doubt it. It has been circulated and accepted as truth for years in Hollywood circles. (Just waiting for you to explode more irony meters by saying Hollywood liberals (like Reagan around that time) are known liars.)

    She is still alive (unlike the woman who sued George W. Bush for rape and “committed suicide” shortly after filing her lawsuit) ;) why don’t you ask her about it?

  78. avatar
    nbc May 8, 2012 at 1:42 am #

    Rambo Ike: Though it wasn’t my primary purpose for posting on some anti-Birther sites, I have found through reading some of the literature available that some of the beliefs I held were wrong.

    Any specific examples?

  79. avatar
    Arthur May 8, 2012 at 2:30 am #

    Rambo Ike,

    Although your response to my comment was incoherent, I appreciate the fact that you struggled to say something.

  80. avatar
    Lupin May 8, 2012 at 3:12 am #

    Rambo Ike:
    Scientist: “I was pleased by the results of the French election.”

    You’re not alone in that thinking – so was the commies’ Socialist Internationale.

    You should stick to what you know ,or think you know, because here, you come across as a nitwit.

    The Socialist International (wiki page here:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_International )
    has little or nothing to do with “communism” — it is an alliance of social-democrat parties which, at one time or another, have governed virtually all the countries in the developed / western world. They have nothing in common with communists.

    I’ll grant you that distance blurs understanding — to many uninformed French voters, there is little difference between Obama and Romney: both are right-wing presidents; both to the right of Nicolas Sarkozy; it’s only a matter of degree.

    But that still would be no excuse to amalgamate the two, the way you clearly do when you assume that “commies” and “soc-ialists” are somehow the same. If I wrote something cursing “that republican Obama” you’d feel justified in correcting me and you’d be right.

    The same applies here: you obviously don’t know what you’re talking about.

  81. avatar
    Northland10 May 8, 2012 at 6:34 am #

    Rambo Ike: is beyond me

    That much is certain.

  82. avatar
    The Magic M May 8, 2012 at 7:26 am #

    Lupin: Thanks for the (depressing) correction.

    Not as depressing as you think; I believe the Social Democrats will secure their one-seat-majority coalition I mentioned, thus taking the state from the ruling CDU/FDP coalition.

    Still I’m not sure this will have a lot of influence on federal politics, though it will push the number of Social Democrat seats in the Bundesrat (the state representatives) from 30 to 34 (35 needed for absolute majority, but since 15 seats are taken by states ruled by a CDU/SPD “grand coalition”, it may suffice to block more issues that involve states’ rights).

    Next Sunday, my state has its elections which might stir things up again – while the Social Democrats are unlikely to lose it entirely, another grand coalition is a possible result.

    This is partly due to the Liberal Party scoring much better than in the polls (that constantly saw them way below 5% which is the limit to get any seats) and partly due to the Green Party losing many protest voters to the new Pirate Party (which became the fourth strongest party in the state elections last weekend, clearly outscoring liberals and socialists, despite having a very narrow party program).

  83. avatar
    Majority Will May 8, 2012 at 8:04 am #

    “America’s lower class has that kind of thinking.”

    Disgusting bigotry.

  84. avatar
    bob j May 8, 2012 at 9:06 am #

    Rambo Ike: No we’re not on the same team. My teamies wouldn’t be smear merchants, propaganda ministers, race mongers, and rewriters of American history.
    It’s apparent you lack a knowledge of history. There are many presidents I wouldn’t want to be associated with.
    There are constitutional rules in place that recent presidents haven’t been following.
    My apology if you think I’m getting more attention than you are. It’s not my fault.
    Here’s your chance at fame: get the irrefutable proof on Beck and turn it over to law enforcement.
    The original idea of birtherism is based on a very honorable agenda that represents a good portion of decent Americans that believe they have no voice in the democratic

    Wow, you really struggle with reading comprehension.

    Now I understand where you are coming from. I would say get help, but I don’t think there is any hope for you.

    Good Luck.

  85. avatar
    Majority Will May 8, 2012 at 9:13 am #

    “The original idea of birtherism is based on a very honorable agenda that represents a good portion of decent Americans that believe they have no voice in the democratic”

    LMAO! What a completely idiotic statement! WOW!

  86. avatar
    Thomas Brown May 8, 2012 at 10:53 am #

    Today on Fox Snooze:

    “Some have said that RamboIke has sex with barnyard animals. Now, I’m not saying he does or he doesn’t. I’m just saying there is some doubt. Ike won’t confirm that he has stopped committing bestiality, but if he says he has I’ll have to take him at his word, for what it’s worth.

    As for Glenn Beck, he still hasn’t proven he didn’t rape and murder an underage girl in the 1980’s, so the jury’s still out on that one. He could clear all this up in a minute if he wanted to, but so far the silence is deafening. Is he hiding something? Is RamboIke? Who can say?

    As far as we can tell as of now, Joe Arpaio didn’t assist Timothy McVeigh in carrying out the most heinous act of domestic terrorism in American history, but questions have been asked, and so there is a team of investigators looking into it. They are only trying to clear his name, and Sheriff Joe should be thanking them for that.”

  87. avatar
    Keith May 8, 2012 at 10:57 am #

    Rambo Ike: No we’re not on the same team. My teamies wouldn’t be smear merchants, propaganda ministers, race mongers, and rewriters of American history.

    You missed his point.

    It’s apparent you lack a knowledge of history. There are many presidents I wouldn’t want to be associated with.

    But they were never-the-less President. Somebody wins, somebody loses. The winner gets to be Chief Executive and Commander in Chief, the loser gets to be the loyal opposition.

    There are constitutional rules in place that recent presidents haven’t been following.

    Names and instances, please. The Congress and the Courts are pretty good at picking up on these kinds of things.

    My apology if you think I’m getting more attention than you are. It’s not my fault.

    Here’s your chance at fame: get the irrefutable proof on Beck and turn it over to law enforcement.

    Again you miss the point of the discussion.

    Birthers expect Obama to provide proof of his ‘innocence’ of some imaginary crime. Misha is asking Beck to provide proof of his ‘innocence’ of the very real crime of rape.

    It is only fair that what is good for the goose is good for the gander.

    Here’s your change at fame: get the irrefutable proof on Obama and turn it over to law enforcement.

    The original idea of birtherism is based on a very honorable agenda that represents a good portion of decent Americans that believe they have no voice in the democratic process.

    Over 130 million Americans disagree with you. They turned out in record numbers in 2008 to voice their opinion, and 70 million voted for Obama and 60 million voted for McCain.

    It is honorable to ‘question authority’. It is dishonorable to refuse to listen to the answers.
    It is honorable to examine the issues. It is dishonorable to misrepresent the facts.
    It is honorable to debate opinions. It is dishonorable to press opinion as fact.
    It is honorable to expose injustice and dishonesty. It is dishonorable to lie and spread smears.

    Again, the fact is that somebody wins and somebody loses. Get over it.

    The original idea of Birtherism was to focus the disappointment of sore losers onto a smear campaign that could be used to keep touch with the fringe lunatics while the party worked to rebuild after the disaster that Bush left them and the country in.

    That ain’t going so well for them, they almost lost control when they let loose the Tea Party, and the flirtation with the Birther lunacy is starting to bite them in the sweet patootie.

  88. avatar
    El Diablo Negro May 8, 2012 at 11:03 am #

    Rambo Ike: Here’s your chance at fame: get the irrefutable proof on Beck and turn it over to law enforcement.

    Here’s your chance at fame: get the irrefutable proof on Obama and turn it over to law enforcement.

  89. avatar
    misha May 8, 2012 at 11:23 am #

    Rambo Ike: Here’s your chance at fame: get the irrefutable proof on Beck and turn it over to law enforcement.

    It won’t do any good. Orly Taitz and Mario Apuzzo are helping him cover his tracks. Roger Ailes retained them, so it would not affect Beck’s ratings.

    Now it turns out, Rick Santorum runs a white slavery ring. It made the news:
    http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/406797/january-24-2012/indecision-2012—rick-santorum-s-senior-pandering

  90. avatar
    Lupin May 8, 2012 at 12:18 pm #

    The Magic M: Not as depressing as you think; I believe the Social Democrats will secure their one-seat-majority coalition I mentioned, thus taking the state from the ruling CDU/FDP coalition.

    Still I’m not sure this will have a lot of influence on federal politics, though it will push the number of Social Democrat seats in the Bundesrat (the state representatives) from 30 to 34 (35 needed for absolute majority, but since 15 seats are taken by states ruled by a CDU/SPD “grand coalition”, it may suffice to block more issues that involve states’ rights).

    Next Sunday, my state has its elections which might stir things up again – while the Social Democrats are unlikely to lose it entirely, another grand coalition is a possible result.

    This is partly due to the Liberal Party scoring much better than in the polls (that constantly saw them way below 5% which is the limit to get any seats) and partly due to the Green Party losing many protest voters to the new Pirate Party (which became the fourth strongest party in the state elections last weekend, clearly outscoring liberals and socialists, despite having a very narrow party program).

    I saw a quote in the paper today from the leader of the SDP (Gabriel?) echoing very much the same anti-austerity/keynesian line voiced by Hollande. Hopefully that will grow.

  91. avatar
    Thrifty May 8, 2012 at 12:23 pm #

    Okay, since I don’t think you quite get it, I’ll explain it.

    The accusations against Glen Beck are satirical. Nobody here actually believes them. They are a send-up of the way Birthers view justice. Birthers convict Obama on a “guilty until proven innocent” basis. Birthers are saying that Barack Obama has not proven he was not born in Kenya. Birthers advance these ridiculous ideas that Barack Obama has sealed his records and is paying millions in legal fees to quash investigation into his records and that there is a massive coverup.

    Misha is repeating the Glen Beck thing on the same idea that nobody has proven Glen Beck has not raped and murdered a girl. Glen Beck, after all, has not come out to deny it. Again, nobody believes this but it is presented to highlight the absurdity of birtherism.

    Rambo Ike: Here’s your chance at fame: get the irrefutable proof on Beck and turn it over to law enforcement.

  92. avatar
    misha May 8, 2012 at 12:34 pm #

    Thrifty: Glen Beck, after all, has not come out to deny it.

    Rick Santorum has never denied running white slavery ring. What a snob.

  93. avatar
    misha May 8, 2012 at 12:41 pm #

    Rambo Ike: Here’s your chance at fame: get the irrefutable proof on Beck and turn it over to law enforcement.

    I’m sorry, but the burden of proof is on Glenn Beck. The burden of proof is on Rick Santorum, to show he does not run a white slavery ring.

    All Rick Santorum has to do is have Joe Arpaio hold a press conference, and flatly state “We have investigated the accusations, and I can say there are not any credible ties between Rick Santorum and white slavery.”

    Why doesn’t Arpaio do this? The answer is simple: Santorum is a snob.

  94. avatar
    Arthur May 8, 2012 at 1:37 pm #

    I work with a man from Sicily, and he’s sworn an affidavit that Rick Santorum is directly involved in prostitution ring that lures young women from Eastern Europe to Sicily with the promise of work. Once the women arrive, they are sexually and physically abused and then sent to the Middle East.

    To prove his innocence, all Santorum needs to do is release to the public his:
    1. Passport records to prove he’s been to Sicily in the last 15 years
    2. School records to prove he never took a class in human trafficking or read a poem, story, novel, or play that mentions rape or false imprisonment.
    3. Senate records to prove he was never involved in anything having to do with Sicily.
    4. Netflix and other video records to prove he’s never watched “The Godfather” or other films that glorify the Mafia.

    Of course, if he DOESN’T do this, that proves he’s guilty.

    misha: All Rick Santorum has to do is have Joe Arpaio hold a press conference, and flatly state “We have investigated the accusations, and I can say there are not any credible ties between Rick Santorum and white slavery.”

  95. avatar
    sfjeff May 8, 2012 at 3:12 pm #

    Keith: It is honorable to ‘question authority’. It is dishonorable to refuse to listen to the answers.
    It is honorable to examine the issues. It is dishonorable to misrepresent the facts.
    It is honorable to debate opinions. It is dishonorable to press opinion as fact.
    It is honorable to expose injustice and dishonesty. It is dishonorable to lie and spread smears.

    Well put. Thank you.

  96. avatar
    sfjeff May 8, 2012 at 3:19 pm #

    Rambo Ike: No we’re not on the same team.

    You clearly missed his point. And unfortunately I believe you mean it.

    I take his point being that we are all Americans, and regardless of whether we approve or disapprove of our President, he is our President.

    When Bush was sworn in, I put aside my doubts and wished him every success as President- because even though I didn’t support him, a successful Presidency is reflected in a successful America. He proved disappointing to me, but I never pretended he was not our President. I opposed many of Bush’s policies and actions but I never claimed he was my enemy.

    We are all in the same boat. Throwing molotov cocktails at the end of the boat you don’t like is suicidal, in my opinion.

    And by the way- this is why I laugh when people tell me that I will panic if Obama is not re-elected. Panic? This is America….a change in Presidents is not that huge of an event- life goes on. Yes we might be dragged into an unnecessary war, yes a justice I don’t approve of might get nominated…but life goes on. .

  97. avatar
    Paper May 8, 2012 at 5:35 pm #

    What, you’re not American? Until you show me your real birth certificate proving you were born in another country, I am afraid we will have to count you as part of the team. Sorry about that.

    Rambo Ike: No we’re not on the same team.

  98. avatar
    Rambo Ike May 8, 2012 at 7:04 pm #

    Arthur: Rambo Ike,Although your response to my comment was incoherent, I appreciate the fact that you struggled to say something.

    I know nothing about the politics of the area you’re from, so I only commented on what’s seen as an ongoing obsession with you and your ilk.

  99. avatar
    Rambo Ike May 8, 2012 at 7:32 pm #

    Obsolete: I’m not sick. Here is the actress Selene Walters IMDb page:http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0910366/She told others about Reagan raping her at the time it happened, and her story has not wavered.Just who called her a liar? She put her name to the accusation, while you just make up people calling her a liar. (Or are you saying someone called Kitty Kelly a liar?)I know you don’t want to believe it, but I have no reason to doubt it. It has been circulated and accepted as truth for years in Hollywood circles. (Just waiting for you to explode more irony meters by saying Hollywood liberals (like Reagan around that time) are known liars.)She is still alive (unlike the woman who sued George W. Bush for rape and “committed suicide” shortly after filing her lawsuit) why don’t you ask her about it?

    It’s a known fact that others see the sickness before the one suffering does.

    There’s no truth in any of the numerous claims ObOts are making. Just pure tabloid sleeze.

    In the Bush case the woman was mentally unstable and committed suicide. Her claim was Bush along with some FBI agents drugged and raped her and her husband. Only ObOts would swallow that as truth. Even the Democratic Underground, a site that operates deep in the Abyss of Deceit, didn’t run with that one.

    Even Selene Walters didn’t totally agree with the claim Kelley made about Reagan in her book. Kelley is known as a “dirt peddler” without any truth to back up her claims. One of her most outrageous is claiming 3 times to interviewing Peter Lawford for her book on Sinatra. First 2 times he was on his death beds and the 3rd time he was actually dead, but that didn’t stop Kelley’s from claiming she did in her book. And the ObOts swallowed

    .

  100. avatar
    bob j May 8, 2012 at 8:03 pm #

    Rambo Ike: It’s a known fact

    You keep using that phrase. I do not think it means, what you think it means.

  101. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 8, 2012 at 8:10 pm #

    I am closing comments on this topic, as the discussion has strayed off topic, both for the article and for the blog.