The American Spectator : Winning Without Wigging Out

The Largest Selection of Liberal-baiting Merchandise on the Net!

It was two-bit demagoguery when a powerful office-holder said Americans should seek out their neighbors and, if the neighbors were on the wrong side of issues, "argue with them, get in their face." It was two-bit demagoguery when he repeatedly accused those who disagree with him of instigating a "climate of fear." It was two-bit demagoguery back when he adopted a political methodology that required its practitioners to "rub raw the sores of discontent." And it was extreme demagoguery when this man, from a position of ultimate power, said his opponents should not "do a lot of talking" but "just get out of the way so we can clean up the mess."

Because conservatives do not want to associate themselves with demagoguery even if it emanates from a big White House, conservatives should not adopt those tactics. Just because the demagogue and his allies want to shut down our voices doesn't mean we should shout down theirs. And just because loud dissent is hardly "un-American" doesn't mean that it isn't rude. We have every right to be appalled and angered by the leftist power grab that is known as Obamacare, and every right to be appalled and angered that its oft-ignorant sponsors would rather insult us and send goons to shut us up than listen to our questions and concerns. But that doesn't give us moral leave to keep them from talking or making their own arguments heard above the din.

Just because they are bullies doesn't mean we should bully them back.

To be sure, the ethical high ground, by far, is on the side of the self-motivated protesters against Obamacare rather than on the side of the union thugs who would stifle them. The protesters occupy the high ground, too, against the congressional "leaders" for whom the thugs do bidding -- the same leaders who insult the public with all sorts of vile epithets and the same leaders who, if they had their way, would upend one-sixth of the American economy in a heated rush without even letting the American public read the bill.

But that still doesn't excuse rudeness.

Conservatives should applaud the passion of the protesters. Conservatives should applaud when the protesters vocally refuse to accept nonsense and lies from the House and Senate members who are their hosts -- nonsense such as Arlen Specter's assertion that bills must be read and digested so fast that senators can't read them, or lies like the repeated fallacy that the "public option" is anything but a Trojan Horse for an entirely government-run system. Conservatives should applaud when protesters insist that the congressmen actually listen to them and let them make their points.

But we should not applaud when protesters won't even let the congressmen speak. Just as it was terribly wrong for that Georgia Congressman, David Scott, to try to shut up a doctor with legitimate questions, so too is it wrong if an audience member asks a question but the crowd doesn't let the congressman answer it. We do not need to stoop to their level in order to prove how low they have sunk.

The anger is justifiable. The constant shouting is not.

Here's the deal: We are making our points. We are vastly outnumbering the nationalizers even when they try to stack the halls with their hired hands. We are clearly out-arguing them on substance. We are far better rooted in principle, and we are rightly far more passionate about those principles which the nationalizers would trample. And we have lots of people asking highly intelligent questions and making highly cogent points -- questions and points the lefty congressmen cannot intelligently answer, cannot explain away without falsehoods or meaningless clichés, cannot look or sound even half-decent in responding to. So what we should do is let them have the chance to look and sound as ignorant and wrong-headed as they are -- and then we should follow up by noting just how weak their answers were.

A few boos or heckles here and there, as they sling around their clichés, can help highlight just how absurd their responses are. But anything more than a few boos just plays into the false theme pushed by the White House and Speaker that protesters are nothing but a mob of wackos. The emotions expressed at the town meetings are honest ones, and well-founded, but that doesn't mean every emotion must be expressed in such a way as to be unruly.

We are winning, and we will keep winning if we just slightly restrain those emotions and funnel them in positive directions.

The injunction against rudeness is essential both on its own inherent merits and on the grounds of enlightened self-interest as well. Politics remains a battle of impressions as well as of facts, and we must make a good impression for the broader public watching on TV.

Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi want to push a bill that taxes and mandates us to death, and that could encourage us to choose death rather than ask for lifesaving care. Their plans would lead to rationing, and to bureaucrats denying us care or making us wait for months for surgery; they would replace a doctor's decision with a pencil pusher's; they would force pro-life people to pay for other people's abortions, and force medical personnel to help provide abortions against their own judgment and moral qualms. And they would do all this against the will of the public, not for better care but for more power for themselves -- themselves, the statist politicians who consolidate their power by creating a client class of government workers dependent on the state for their board and keep.

This political fight is important. It's crucial. And it is a fight against the degradation of our entire system of free enterprise and of properly limited government. To win it, we must be passionate, but we also must be smart. And we also must maintain our own standards, in order to remind those on the sidelines that our side is the side not just of truth but of light.

Two-bit demagogues use their state power to stifle their opponents. We won't let them compel our silence. And we will win.

Letter to the Editor

topics:
Conservatism, Obamacare, Rep. David Scott

Quin Hillyer is a senior editorial writer at the Washington Times and senior editor of The American Spectator. He can be reached at QHillyer@gmail.com.

Comments

Michael Dooley| 8.13.09 @ 6:43AM

With our august senators and representatives not even reading the bills they are voting on, I’d yell too. Ignorant congressmen make our precious devotion to civil debate a joke.

Big J| 8.13.09 @ 7:26AM

(said in a whisper):

"Excuse me, Mr. Congressman, but I don't think I agree with your plan to take over health care."

Mr. Congressman: "Well, you are one voice among many. I have to do the will of the majority."

(said with authority):

"Congressman X: You will NOT take over 1/6 of the U.S. economy! It is completely un-American! I will not have it, and if you try, you will be FIRED!"

Hmmm. Mr. Hillyer, while I understand your point, it really doesn't apply under these circumstances.

Maybe you can "civilly" disagree on the subject, but we cannot. We have spent far too long playing by imaginary rules that the other side simply does not follow.

NO MORE!

Don't tread on me!

Rocco| 8.13.09 @ 7:27AM

While I would tend to agree with Mr. Hillyer and understand his rationale, I also think that this is what is wrong with conservatives. We are confronting street fighters with the attitude and bearing of a bunch of pantywaists, concerned about moral standing. While this might impress bystanders and those sitting on the fence (which has some value), moral highground does not impress our opponents, who quite frankly have no morality. Calmness and such have their place, but so also do forcefulness and if necessary, rudeness and even violence. Do we just let them bowl us over, content in our smugness that we had the moral highground (and nothing else)? I for one am not. For one thing, the first union thug who lays a hand on me for exercising my rights as an American and a veteran will be a sorry son of a bitch when he gets a knee in the groin and an uppercut on his chin.....

Appleby| 8.13.09 @ 7:31AM

Mindless hollering is one thing; raising the tone and timbre of your voice to be heard above the tumult is another.

Raising your voice without becoming shrill or chanting manufactured slogans is a good thing.

It is possible to speak reasonably and forcefully in a loud voice; people who work on race cars or in the Ford Plant do it every day. We must get over the idea that speaking loudly is sinful -- in a noisy environment it is necessary. However, a loud voice should be used for the purpose of making a point and being heard OVER the shrieking and chanting. If you have a shrill and high pitched voice, ask your choirmaster or a friend who has been in the Armed Services to teach you how to project your voice without screaming.

As far as politeness goes, avoid profanity at all costs. Also avoid blasphemy and aspersions on the parentage, sexuality and eventual destination of the speaker. That is childish and shows that you have lost control of the argument. It is, believe it or not, possible to hold a forceful, meaningful, reasoned argument without saying either f**k or s**t.

Finally, if you were educated after rhetoric and public speaking were banished from the curriculum, get and read some speeches by people who made a difference in the world and in America. Learn how it was done by the experts. Then when you have a chance to speak, pretend you are Daniel Webster, Patrick Henry, or even Jimmy Stewart in Mr. Smith Goes toWashington. You will make your point, you will not be drowned out, and you will overcome.

Rocco| 8.13.09 @ 7:42AM

Appleby, you've refined some of my points, particularly the one on avoiding profanity. One does not have to be profane to be "rude," should the situation demand it. As I said, everything has its place.

As a former Marine, I can tell you that voice projection comes from the gut, and as you rightly say, does not have to be screaming.

Robert Rosencrans| 8.13.09 @ 7:45AM

This article would have been more apropro if it had focused on item after item indicating that it is the Obama White House who is ginning up the allegations of hate by well designed plants at town hall meetings including his own.

The young girl who asked why are people so mean, when in fact there are very few mean people, was nothing but a human prop from the Obama Hollywood Studio Conspiracy branch of the White House.

The only verified Nazi sign was carried by a verified Dingell supporter.

In essence, anyone who buys into the thought that somehow Republicans are mean are buying into the disinformation being spewed by the White House. It isn't happening.

http://theblogprof.blogspot.com/2009/08/busted-obama-as-hitler-poster-was.html
Note the black man holding up the poster. This screenshot was used in reports by the MSM who painted the protesters as Nazis. Here's the thing, though - that black man is a Dingell supporter! Last Friday, Frank Beckmann on his show broadcast on WJR 760 AM interviewed an eyewitness that said not only were union thugs let in through a side door before anyone else was let into the venue, but that he clearly saw from his vantage point that very Obama as Hitler poster in that back hallway after the union thugs took their seats. The interview was around 11:00am, but WJR chose not to post that audio (they only tend to select one or two clips a day to post). I thought it would have been bigger news, and needed more than just that to write a post, albeit an audio clip would have partially sufficed. In any case, I've been scouring YouTube and the web for more info, and have finally found some. Here is one account that was posted Monday over at FreeRepublic:

Daniel Squires| 8.13.09 @ 7:48AM

My default reaction is to eschew the in-your-face behavior that has been on display by the opponents of the health care legislation. However, I think for too long the right has favored logic and ceded emotion in an argument to the left. But people don’t make a buying decision on the basis of logic: people buy on emotion and justify the decision based on rational arguments.

Marketers know this, too. Effective advertisements appeal to emotion first and logic is in the background if at all. As we have watched the poll numbers fall so quickly for the health care legislation, it seems as though this new, less logical ‘marketing campaign’ has worked.

On the other side, the left is bewildered by this new face of the right; ‘where has all this passion come from?’, ‘That’s our schtick!...how dare they?’. It has to especially be galling the Community-Organizer-in-Chief, who, true to nature, has responded to call out his political troops to counter-attack in an effort to retake the lost ‘emotional’ ground.

In the case of the health care debate, the emotion on display has been righteous anger that resonates with much of America. Feelings that have been pent up too long are now being released. While I would agree that there needs to be a balance, sometimes we just need to take off our gloves and get dirty to get things done. And in the process we have rediscovered that emotion does sell.

TennesseeVolunteer| 8.13.09 @ 8:10AM

Quin, the way to handle a bully is to punch him in the nose. The passion of our fellow citizens has been a well aimed punch into the huge nose of the libs. I agree that to let our passions run wild is unwise but that is not happening. I watched Arlen Specter's second town hall and thought the fervor was just about right. Our local congressman got a lot of resentment and passion from people who, for all too long, have just let the Dems and the libs get away with having their say with no interruption. For all toooo long we have let them call us racists, greedy, or pampered when, in truth, we have worked our jobs, paid our taxes, supported our churches, read to our kids before bed and did everything we thought was right and they still accused us of anything to get their way...and we did nothing!
Quin, we are doing something now. a little patience is good counsel but these people are letting their frustrations out over decades of liberal judgement on their lives. I think it is best to let the body collective to let it all out: no craziness, no violence..just good old fashion Democracy.

Curly Smith| 8.13.09 @ 8:47AM

I vigorously disagree. There is, in fact, zero debate taking place in any of the Town Hall events. The Democratic politicians have their position and the public is either opposed or planted in support. It's lunacy in the extreme to tell opponents that the correct approach is "I say good chap, your proposal to nationalize the best health care system in the world and destroy it like you have Medicare is a dreadful idea. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to set you straight."

The only thing that will work to turn the tide is to convince the politicians that we're angry enough to toss their sorry behinds out of office and take the country back to its Constitutional roots. What Mr. Hillyer and the rest of the "civil debate crowd" want is for the political establishment to maintain control of the issue. They don't want their applecart upset by a mass public revolt against both the Democrats and Republicans. They fear the anger that will ignite political parties that actually represent the people rather than the inside the beltway special interests... and make no mistake, the beltway pundit class is a special interest group.

The "civil debate crowd" has accepted the premise that health care must be reformed, that the current proposal is a good starting point but that there are some minor details that must be ironed out, and that a good "bipartisan" bill will ultimately result and lead the country into health care nirvana. The "civil debate crowd" knows that all good things flow from Washington and that "we must destroy health care in order to save it" (to paraphrase George Bush on the free market). The unruly mob knows that premise is fatally flawed, that anything that the politicians touch turns to crap, and that the only way to improve health care is to remove government interference in the free market.

So how do you respectfully debate politicians who hold positions that are diametrically, and ideologically, opposed to the free market and real reform? How do you respectfully debate politicians whose past bipartisan proposals have led us to where we are? We can't debate them but we can scare them.

JimP| 8.13.09 @ 8:53AM

I agree with my fellow ruffians. What we have seen at the townhalls is restrained given the totality of the circumstances, IMO. Every one of the members of Congress deserves to be tarred and feathered and then run out of town (permanently) on a rail. That they haven't received this treatment shows how civily we have behaved. Obamacare has become the last, and most personal, straw in a series of abuses and usurpations of individual liberty.

Nittany| 8.13.09 @ 9:22AM

Quinn- I am another who disagrees; we need a demagogue of the political right. Not all synonyms for "demagogue" are negative you know.
The leftists have all the good ones these days. They are young, articulate , atrractive and excellent liars. They can soothingly speak to the uncommitted middle while winking to their socialist base and so, step-by-step, bring about their revolution. Our demogogues scream at the uncommitted middle that they are stupid to not see what we can see so plainly. These are bad demogogues.
Let's find and nuture a leader who can promote "sensible" and "reasonable" conservative solutions based on our founding principles and do so in a voice filled with confidence and conviction, even a loud voice. ...but let's not abandon the field to demagogues of the left.

S.L. Toddard| 8.13.09 @ 9:54AM

Hillyer is, for once, correct. The clips of ridiculous, under-informed, frothy-mouthed socialized medicine opponents raving about death panels and so forth are an embarrassment and hurt their own cause. It does not help the fight against government healthcare to have the most vocal opponents acting like rabid, bug-eyed lunatics. The fact that a good number of them are - *shudder* - "birthers" is even worse.

R Martin| 8.13.09 @ 10:11AM

It's a bit late to be talking about two-bit demagogues after the demagogue has left the barn. The demagoguery to which Mr. Hillyer refers was clearly on display when Sen. Obama made his acclaimed seminal speech at the 2004 Democrat National Convention. Nobody paid much attention then. In that speech Obama accused Republicans of voter fraud (he of ACORN fame), "rounding-up" Arab American families and putting spies in libraries. Ridiculous stuff, but he got away with it then, and he's using that game plan now. Will we call him on it this time?

I agree that comity beats rudeness. However, we all learned in grade school that if you don't deal with a bully forcefully he will continue to bully you. It appears most respondents agree and also recognize that a good biff in the hooter does not have to be administered rudely.

JimP| 8.13.09 @ 10:17AM

Nittany,
It looks like Sarah Palin may be our 'demagogue'. Here's a look back at some rude demagogues of yore:
“Patrick Henry, along with Samuel Adams and Thomas Paine, is remembered as one of the most influential (and radical) advocates of the American Revolution and republicanism, especially in his denunciations of corruption in government officials and his defense of historic rights.”

“....This is no time for ceremony. The question before the house is one of awful moment to this country… I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery… Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense,…. There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free--if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending--if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained--we must fight!... Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace--but there is no peace. The war is actually begun!....Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death! “

A little rudeness in defense of liberty is no vice. If this be treason to conservatism, make the most of it.

Bob Miller| 8.13.09 @ 10:22AM

John McCain and others have played patty-cake with the Democrats for so long, and to what effect? We can be assertive in an adult way.

Steve| 8.13.09 @ 10:39AM

I hate to pile on the estimable Quinn, but I believe the reality of things necessitates, at the least, verbal ugliness. We have been spat on, pissed on, and shat on by the Left for so long that they take gratuitously insulting their political opponents for granted.
"An armed society is a polite society." It will take a long season of Left-baiting, but I am hopeful that the end result may be a truce of some sort and a return to some level of civility. But the Left won't go there unless they're dragged by the ear and kicked repeatedly in the posterior.

Simon Templar| 8.13.09 @ 11:47AM

The comments here have given me new hope for this country...they are spot on and very insightful..yes..it time to not be afraid to respond with passion and clarity and defend ourselves if necessary..let us not restrain ourseleves to the point of impotence and irrevelancy as we have sometimes done in the past. If you are being bullied, you fight back..we will not engage in senseless violence or intimidation but we will defend ourselves. We will not be intimidated into not expressing our passion and objections to this insanity.

JeffW| 8.13.09 @ 11:59AM

While a agree in theory with this article, there comes a time in every person's life when they either fight for what they believe in or they roll over and are unable to look their reflection in the eye. Reasoned debate works with reasonable people. However, sometimes debate will not work and the only thing that will is fighting fire with fire until you prove your point. Do you think reasonable debate would have changed the minds of Stalin, Hitler, Saddam Hussein or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. I do not. Raise your voice and shout to be heard, Be civil as long as your opponent is. If they are not civil do not be afraid to go toe to toe with them. The public favor is currently on our side and we should take advantage of it. Our opponets would.

Ken (Old Texican)| 8.13.09 @ 12:08PM

Mr. Hillyer

Thank you for that "oh so civil arse whipping" you just administered to us.

I honestly think you are unaware of the urgency our compatriots are expressing. When it is urgent...one is allowed to yell...LOUDLY!

IE: TO THE LIFEBOATS!! TO THE EXITS, FIRE FIRE! THIEF...CATCH THAT THIEF!!!
LIAR LIAR...PANTS ON FIRE!!!

These congressional critters are lying to us right in our faces. Let's get very ANGRY...AND RESOLVED!

Rocco| 8.13.09 @ 12:09PM

JeffW, well said!

Quin| 8.13.09 @ 12:16PM

I tremble for my country when I see these comments. This isn't an "all or nothing" choice between bullying on one side and surrender on the other. What I advocate is LOTS of passion, and lots of toughness, but channeled in directions that help our cause rather than hurt it. One can be passionate without being rude or bullying. One can stand up for one's speech rights without denying somebody else their ability to speak. Read my column again. Nowhere does it advocate being mealy-mouthed. It just says that we hurt our own cause when we act like ruffians. THEY are the real ruffians, with their union thugs and the like, and if we stand up to them without sinking to their level then we win both the argument and the PR battle as well. Jeesh.

Simon Templar| 8.13.09 @ 12:24PM

THEY are the real ruffians, with their union thugs and the like, and if we stand up to them without sinking to their level then we win both the argument and the PR battle as well. Jeesh.
>>You have accepted some basic inaccurate premises right from the start of this debate. First, What ruffians? Those images invented by the MSM? Second, you think you are going to win a PR battle with the MSM? The only ruffians, violence, deception, and bullying that I see is coming from this administration, its media, and its union. Better wake up, pal.

Quin| 8.13.09 @ 12:39PM

Simon Templar, jeesh, can't you read? THEY means the left, "with their union thugs and the like." WE, meaning conservatives, need to stand up to them without sinking to their level. In short, I AGREE that the only "ruffians, violence, and deception" is coming from the administration, its media, and its union. (I HAVE seen some verbal bullying from our side, but my whole point is that THEY, the left, are the real ruffians, and that we need not BECOME bullies in order to defeat them.)

gill.Oteen07041776@gmail.com| 8.13.09 @ 12:51PM

If I had been in the audience at con-gresswoman sheila jackson lee’s townhall where she showed her utter contempt for her constituents by using her cell phone while she was being asked questions (video on Drudge), I would have taken a nerf football and planted it firmly upside her royal head. Lacking such a weapon, I might have resorted to flinging whatever piece of furniture I could grasp that was not bolted down. Jesus admonished us to do unto others as we would have them do unto us. By her act of utter disdain to her people, lee has set the bar for the standard by which she would have us behave.

But I wasn't there, and lee was not harmed. So, Mr. Hillyer, you got your wish, at least this once.

Gill O’Teen ✝✡
gill.Oteen07041776@gmail.com
Don’t Tread on Me!!

Tony in Central PA| 8.13.09 @ 12:54PM

I think the choice of these town hall forums has backfired disastrously on the Democrats. Obama made a campaign promise about hearings on C - SPAN around a big roundtable where everybody would be represented and a wise plan for health care would be forged. Its obvious this was never seriously considered as evidenced by the ramming of this Frankenstein of a bill through the House.
When objections to this bill began to grow, the Whitehouse began a disinformation campaign. That phase resulted in the labeling of opponents as " Nazis ".
Now we're into the Oprah - styled, stage - managed town hall meetings, but that ain't working either. It seems that the only option off the table for moving this bill is a point - by - point discussion of the many provisions in this bill by the people we pay to do just that.

I believe these meetings have unexpectedly tapped into a rising tide of resentment by average, responsible, tax -paying Americans against this Administration. An Adminstration that just flat - out doesn't like most of them and has told them so in many little ways already. I think its only going to get uglier.

Ken (Old Texican)| 8.13.09 @ 1:02PM

Quinn!
DUH!
It is about darned time...YOU STARTED TREMBLING FOR YOUR COUNTRY!

I would have never guessed that you were such a slow "figure it outer".

I quit trembling for our country last December.
I made my decisions then. Perhaps it is time for you to do so.

R Martin| 8.13.09 @ 1:04PM

Mr. Hillyer, you have initiated a lively debate, and for that I say, thanks. I think most readers and responders agree with you in principle. What we're seeing in these comments is a matter of degree and, perhaps, frustration.

Here's an example of the latter: After the cap and trade vote I wrote to my Congressman asking, respectfully, for a clarification of his vote in light of credible scientific evidence that climate change is insignificant and not man-made. I even documented the evidence. My Congressman was one of the eight Republicans who voted with the Democrats. In due course I got a four page response, clearly a form letter, containing nothing more than utter nonsense like, "We must reduce our dependence of foreign oil." There was no reference to the contradictory evidence.

So, I wasted a bit of effort and concluded the letter writing strategy is totally ineffective. I suspect others have come to the same conclusion, and that is why they appear at meetings and become emphatic. I think it is a bit early to start trembling. Best regards,

Lullabys, Legends and Lies| 8.13.09 @ 1:44PM

Quin: I also have to disagree with you too!!,.. sorry man!!,.. it’s looks like we’re starting to gang up on you here!!,.. but two or three months from now?,.. should we tone it down a little by then?,.. yeah sure!!,.. I’m all for that!!,.. in November or December I think we should all try to start talking again “Civilly”,.. We can call it the Christmas Truce!!,.. but right now?,.. no way!!,.. right now?,.. we need to stand and fight!!,.. and not give an inch!!,.. this is their main charge against our lines!!,.. and we’ve got to hold and break them now!!,..
You said in this article?,.. “the ethical high ground, by far, is on the side of the self-motivated protesters against Obamacare rather than on the side of the union thugs who would stifle them.”,.. well it sure will be terrific to have held the high ground during the heat of this battle?,.. but you still get run over by the enemy in the end!!,.. it’s too late then!!,.. the battle is over!!,… you lost!!,.. but maybe?,.. you’ll feel good about yourself afterwards for being so nice and polite in the mist of the fight,.. Nah!!,.. I’d rather win this instead,.. being polite is for the Brits,.. and we kicked their ass too.

JimP| 8.13.09 @ 1:47PM

Quin,

I honestly do not understand your reaction to the comments here. I did not read one comment wherein I understood the individual to be suggesting that we become bullies etc. I understood my fellow 'ruffians' ( I used the term here first, rhetorically) to be indicating that what we have observed at the townhalls does not constitute rudeness or even if some of townhaller's behavior was rude, it was understandable considering the circumstances. The kind of rambunctiousness displayed at the townhalls and in the comments here are completely normal and have a long history in America. You are overreacting. No offense, but you sound like some old maid. You tremble for your country? Obama & the Dems don't make you tremble apparently, but we commenters do? No offense but, quick, get to your primary care physician for a testoterone injection, before Obama disallows it.

Richard Baker| 8.13.09 @ 1:48PM

When the citizenry are treated as a mindless herd by their "Representatives", anger and disgust will follow. No need to be profane but tyranny deserves disrespect.

Eric Damon| 8.13.09 @ 2:00PM

Quin,

I would first like to thank you for reading the thread and responding to your readers. That is one of the things that I appreciate about TAS, is that the writers care about what the readers think and will engage in debate or conversation with us when time permits.

Also, I can understand your point about being civil and avoiding anything that could be used to turn the conversation away from the issues on the table to the actions of the public at these public meetings. My main point of contention with you is your seeming belief that in this battle of wills the MSM is going to allow conservatives to "win" the PR battle on this issue. You have been around long enough to know that the MSM is not going to allow anything on it's screens or newspaper pages that portray the "protestors" in a positive light. Any confrontation of any sort will be immediately spun in such a way that it makes conservatives look like right-wing extremists. That's how was, how it is, and how it is going to be so long as the left controls the newsroom.

And I agree with those who feel that it is well past time to stop worrying about being PR winners, and start focusing on actually winning the political battles in front of us. We cannot win the battle on health care reform by attempting to follow proper parlimentary procedures or being completely circumspect in all of our language all the time. Cursing and profanity are not needed, but passionate language is a must; if we feel anger, there is nothing wrong with expressing it to our elected representatives, and reminding them that ultimately they work for...and answer to...us.

I see this argument between those seeking civility and those advocating a "bare knuckle" response the same way that I see the differences between Martin Luther King Jr and Malcolm X. While everyone gives all the credit for advancing the civil rights of blacks to Dr. King and his us of non-violent protest and moral persuasion, I do not believe for one second that his approach alone could carry the day. The threat of a Black America that would stand and defend itself against attacks and violence, embodied in the rhetoric of Malcolm X and the NOI made it much easier for the powers that be to sit down with MLK and negotiate. Malcolm X represented a less desirable alternative to deal with, which made dealing with King the way to go. One did not work without the other.

I see those who desire a more civil discourse as having an opening to make headway in the shaping of the debate and hopefully the legislation, based on the fact that refusing to deal with them leaves the political powers that be in the awkward position of having to deal with the people the press has dubbed a "mob". We are seeing people working for the same ends, and while their demeanors may be different, they are two sides of the same coin. And both need the other to be successful.

Lullabys, Legends and Lies| 8.13.09 @ 2:01PM

Tennessee Volunteer said earlier: “for all toooo long we have let them call us racists, greedy, or pampered when, in truth, we have worked our jobs, paid our taxes, supported our churches, read to our kids before bed and did everything we thought was right and they still accused us of anything to get their way...and we did nothing!”

Exactly!!,.. we’ve been too busy living decent lives,.. being Good Citizens,.. to be involved,.. to go to protests,.. to have our voices heard,.. we were too trusting,.. but now?,.. nobody in Washington is to be trusted any longer!!

Or as Ken (Old Texican) said: LIAR LIAR…. PANTS ON FIRE!!! (I couldn’t have said it better myself)

S.L. Toddard| 8.13.09 @ 2:15PM

"And I agree with those who feel that it is well past time to stop worrying about being PR winners, and start focusing on actually winning the political battles in front of us. We cannot win the battle on health care reform by attempting to follow proper parlimentary procedures or being completely circumspect in all of our language all the time."

The issue here is that the behavior of some of these impassioned protesters is *working against their own cause*. They do not appear as impassioned advocates of the free market etc, they appear - to the rest of the country, whom they are trying to win over to their cause - to be rude, loudmouthed, uncouth, uninformed rubes. People who see clips of these people shrieking hysterically and threateningly at their representatives become turned off - who wants to side with seemingly unbalanced, under-informed, rude hysterics?

Simon Templar| 8.13.09 @ 2:20PM

Quin, I guess I am not the only person who "misunderstood" your comments. I will take you at your correction and leave it at that..yes , we can all agree that we will not bully (become violent or start practicing the deception that the left has practiced). So, what next? Lets all unite and take them on, stop this insanity and save our country. See you at the demonstration...

Curly Smith| 8.13.09 @ 2:21PM

I tremble for the country when the pundit class fails to understand that the time for debate has passed once the legislation has been written. I tremble for the country when the pundit class fails to comprehend that the “debate” in Washington is over which version of the 5 bills that nationalize health care is the best national health bill. I tremble for the country when the pundit class doesn't understand that the “Town Halls” were intended as staged events to shut down any opposition to Obama's signature legislation. I tremble for the country when the pundit class doesn't understand that the “Town Halls” are now about shutting down the legislation, not about debating the merits of the 5 dreadful bills and then picking the least odious one.

I'm sorry Quin, but the effort now is about shouting down the politicians and telling them in no uncertain terms that they proceed at their electoral peril. The effort now is about shutting down the legislation the same way that the Amnesty Bill was stopped – by a bunch of “loud people” (to use Lindsey Graham's quaint phrase) aggressively opposing the unconstitutional power grab.

Once the bills are dead, and National Health Care is off the table, then we can, and will, civilly discuss and debate the merits of real reforms. But unless you accept the premise of National Health Care, and perhaps you do, then there is presently nothing to discuss.

gill.Oteen07041776@gmail.com| 8.13.09 @ 2:25PM

Ken (Old Texican), you left out my favorite part of that children’s jingle:

LIAR, LIAR, PANTS ON FIRE.
HANGING FROM A TELEPHONE WIRE!

At least that’s how my few remaining post-stroke brain cells remember it.

Gill O’Teen ✝✡
gill.Oteen07041776@gmail.com
Don’t Tread on Me!!

Simon Templar| 8.13.09 @ 2:30PM

One does not win people over to one's cause by acting like a mentally unhinged psychopath. One does not win one's arguments by being loutish and rude. To anyone undecided on the issue it appears to be a conflict between reasonable, sensible Democrats and demented, fanatical vulgarians.
>>You really need to stop watching MSNBC.
No one has been fanatical, demented, or vulgar...that occurred over the last 8 years with everything from their "little Eichmans" to "this is the first time steel has melted from fire." That's dementia! this is an old and tiring lame argument used to silence conservative opinion and get the silent majority to shut up. The polls are showing jsut how incorrect and disingenuos you are!

JimP| 8.13.09 @ 2:33PM

Curly Smith-exactly. Right on.
GilOteen- 'hanging'? 'telephone wire'? Sounds ruffianesque.
Old Texican- you sound like an old Texican is 'spose to- tough as nails.
Everybody else, except SL Toddard, great comments! Thanks for posting them.
Quin-we still love ya bro. We just disagree this go round.

S.L. Toddard| 8.13.09 @ 2:34PM

“We have spent far too long playing by imaginary rules that the other side simply does not follow.”

“For all toooo long we have let them call us racists, greedy, or pampered…”

“We have been spat on, pissed on, and shat on by the Left for so long that they take gratuitously insulting their political opponents for granted.”

My god. The endless self pity on the right is so extreme, so widespread and so severe it borders on the pathological. Before Obama the right had run the country for the last decade. Over the last decade and a half they have controlled the house for all but two years. Out of the last ten presidential elections they’ve won seven. Please, for the love of god, cease the pathetic, whining self-pity and victimization-peddling – you people make Jeremiah Wright and Al Sharpton look like dignity personified.

Lullabys, Legends and Lies| 8.13.09 @ 2:35PM

S.L. Toddard says: “Mentally unhinged psychopaths, loutish and rude,.. demented, fanatical vulgarians!!”,.. One does not win one's arguments by being (like this)?
I guess one wins one’s argument by calling the other side nice names like the ones you used here?,.. To anyone still undecided on this issue?,.. these are the thoughts of the “sensible Democrats” that he speaks of?,.. they’re the ones that claim to be the “Grownups” in this debate?,.. S.L. Toddard here?,.. he sounds like a nice grownup now doesn’t he?,.. LMAO!!

Simon Templar| 8.13.09 @ 2:39PM

What exactly do you think they meant by, "Don't tread on me?" The rallying cry of our founding fathers! Should it have been, " Please your royal highness, may I respectfully request that you remove your boot from my neck?"

S.L. Toddard| 8.13.09 @ 2:41PM

"I tremble for my country when I see these comments."

You should. This is what's left of "the right" - after Gingrich, Bush, Rush and Cheney. A party that magically "rediscover their conservative principles" only when democrats are in office, but then - boy oh boy! - they're ready to talk tough and do some shouting. How pathetic.

As I said before, here's an easy way to tell whether or not to take such foes of big, bad government seriously or not:

When George W Bush took office, Clinton handed him a $232 billion budget surplus, and the national debt stood at $5.7 trillion. George W Bush left office with an annual budget *deficit* of over $1 TRILLION dollars and the national debt stood at $10.6 TRILLION DOLLARS. That means George W Bush added almost as much to the national debt as ALL THE PRECEDING PRESIDENTS COMBINED.

Now, which pretend-enemies of "big government" and "big spending" here opposed this president while he was spending up a storm and running up the national debt as much all the American presidents in history combined? Who fought against his re-election? Who here fought against his reckless-spending party - which held both houses of congress through most of this time - and supported a Conservative instead of a Republican last election?

If you didn't - which is to say if you supported the fiscally irresponsible, wasteful, big spending GOP that ran up a trillion dollar budget deficit and nearly doubled the national debt - then your objections to the big government policies and fiscal irresponsibility of Barack Obama are - quite obviously - laughable and not to be taken seriously. Such people are called "opportunists" - they are inconsistent, dishonorable, dishonest, unpatriotic and - obviously and inarguably - *unconservative*. For what else can you call someone who supports reckless spending and unrestrained gov't growth when their party is responsible but a cynical liberal?

Virgil Caine| 8.13.09 @ 2:48PM

We try to fight the terrorists by observing strict rules of engagement while they have no rules. We try to battle Democrats by being polite while they paint us as heartless,selfish rednecks. Code Pink, Ward Churchill, Huffington Post, Daily Koz, Al Gore, Nancy Pelosi,Dick Durbin,Michael Moore
are not exactly models of decorum and yet their side is in control of all three branches of government,the mainstream media and each and every government agency.
If it bleeds it leads. If we weren't raising hell there would be no coverage.

Lullabys, Legends and Lies| 8.13.09 @ 3:00PM

Gill.Oteen: you said the last line is?,.. Hanging from a telephone wire?,.. really?,.. in NYC it’s,.. LIAR, LIAR, PANTS ON FIRE,.. HEY VINNIE?,.. CHOKE THIS GUY OUT WITH THAT TELEPHONE WIRE!!,.. maybe it changes from region to region?

Lullabys, Legends and Lies| 8.13.09 @ 3:17PM

Sleazy Little Toddard says: "I tremble for my country when I see these comments. You should!!”,.. well I don’t Sleazy!!,.. and I don’t tremble from the likes of you either!!,.. and you go on to say?,.. “you people make Jeremiah Wright and Al Sharpton look like dignity personified.”,.. and you my friend Sleazy?,.. you make them look like real stand up Citizens!!,.. it’s Bush’s fault!!,.. Bush did it!!,.. Bush spent all the money!!,.. crawl back underneath that Bush from which you came,.. okay Sleazy?,.. you’re a broken record!!,.. oh yeah?,.. one more thing?,.. LIAR, LIAR, PANTS ON FIRE,.. HEY VINNY?,.. YOU KNOW WHAT TO DO?

Virgil Caine?,.. is that from “The night they drove Old Dixie down”?,.. what a great "Band".

Oldefarte| 8.13.09 @ 3:22PM

Beautiful, Quin! The TRUTH [which you so eloquently state] is to protest by VOTING in the upcoming 2010 and 2012 elections for CHANGE [from the welfare governmental state which liberal Democrat-congressmen have burdened this nation with since the Kennedy/Johnson GREAT SOCIETY 1960's (all paid for by the back-braking labor of American taxpayers) until this present day]!!!!!!!!

S.L. Toddard| 8.13.09 @ 3:28PM

"protest by VOTING in the upcoming 2010 and 2012 elections for CHANGE [from the welfare governmental state which liberal Democrat-congressmen have burdened this nation with since the Kennedy/Johnson GREAT SOCIETY 1960's"

I'm curious - in the dozen years the Republicans controlled the Senate and House and the 8 years they controlled the White House - when they had the power to roll back the "welfare governmental state" - what did they do? How many federal programs did they repeal? How much did they decrease spending? How much did they decrease the size and scope of the federal gov't?

Oh that's right - they drastically increased spending, created massive new federal programs and astronomically increased the size and scope of the federal government.

Woops!

Simon Templar| 8.13.09 @ 3:47PM

Toddard..I am not going to waste much time on you..you apparently lost your way while surfing the internet from your usual Daily Kos and NYT download. You are in no position to lecture this readership or conservatives about rudeness, incivility, dementia, or anything else. Your ilk has taken politics in the last 8 years under that big bad Bush wolf to a level of dishonesty, deceipt, and ant-americanism that has never been seen in this country. In fact I am going to say it! You are not a liberal. You are a product of cold war anti-americanism and a neo-communist. I can deal with and respect a true Kennedy or Truman liberal. In fact most of us conservatives today are probably closer to old Kennedy democrats. Your messiah and his associates are stinging proof of just how far you have lost your way. So, lets knock off the bull and get real as to who you are and who we are. Your playbook is Socialism, Alinsky, Piven and Cloward, Post Modernism, and post 60's anti-americanism. Your comments are riddled with falsehoods, half truths, and deception. Anyone who has done the slightest bit of reading knows this. By the way, I have actually read all of the above authors and philosophys. Your rhetoric and your method of argument is so familar as I used to be a radical leftist. I know who you are.

Thom| 8.13.09 @ 3:47PM

Quin under normal circumstances I would heartily agree with your advice but these are not normal circumstances by a long shot.

First and foremost where is it written that any part or all of the unruly bunch at these meetings are “conservatives”? Can you prove any or part of this? I can prove that the people resorting to violence are Union members and bused in for such purposes. The MO of the Marxist movement is well documented around the world and my relatives spring from places where Union Thug was a badge of honor. What practical difference would it make in the scheme of a mass market media machine with 80% controlled by Marxist if no “conservatives” at all showed up and still there was this unruly behavior? Who would get the blame? Can anybody prove anyone’s allegiance other than the sponsor of said events to any political following at these meetings? (beyond Union Thugs proudly wearing their Union Thug T-Shirts as they man handle those they disagree with) Can anyone? Manufactured events aren’t exactly a new tactic for the Marxist mindset. If you can prove this unruly behavior can be laid on our door step, please do so. The polling data suggest this goes a bit beyond what could be statistically just be “conservatives”.

As for trembling for our country I would suggest you get over it pretty soon and go back and read your American history between say 1770 and the end of 1775. After a little refresher course Quin please give us your honest opinion on where you think we are today on a scale say from the Boston Massacre to the Battle at Concord Bridge? I would suggest that if you feel the need to “tremble” over current events you do so because much of what the Federal Government has enacted over the last 70 years is not constitutional and this latest power grab is certainly not. I would further suggest that given the Marxist have tried this maneuver before the current unruly behavior is the last brick being removed from the accumulation of a lot of tolerance for shear incompetence and MOB rule tactics on a grand scale that has run its course. The depth and scope of this little problem here goes way beyond just nationalizing the best health care system in world into the equivalent of the Post Office. Way beyond.

In closing Quin, the Marxist can pass any legislation they wish without a single Republican vote in either house or the fake Blue Dog votes in the House. Not one vote is required if they want to pass anything. There is no statistical basis for the Marxist losing control of the Senate in one election cycle and basically the same for the House. 51 Marxists always out vote 49 non Marxists every time it is tried. Combine all these factors and what does that leave? Hope and Change? You say we are winning (the argument?) or the battle for hearts and minds? I don’t put my faith in Dumbmocraies. With so few Americans left in the country I’d suggest if you really need to tremble put your signature on a copy of the Declaration of Independence and send it to King Obama. That should make you really tremble just as the signers of the original document had to come to grips with that which most had worked very hard to avoid.

I agree with you Quin in principle but I think it is moot for the reasons stated above and I think we are moving beyond the point of reason in this matter. I came to grips with the “tremble” thing years ago when I “reasoned” the founding principles were beyond salvation because simply too many men are willing to do nothing in the face of evil on the march…….

S.L. Toddard| 8.13.09 @ 3:49PM

Mr Hillyer, I think there's something you're not considering: these people spend ten minutes reading your writings daily, and agree with you most of the time and so forth. But they have Rush, Bill O'Reilly and Glenn Beck shrieking into their ears for HOURS every day - cheering on these protesters and portraying them as heroic American Heroes.

A sane, reasonable voice advocating the traditional conservative virtues of prudence, reason and good manners cannot win against the crude, clownish shtick-peddlars urging rash, destructive action. Believe me - we tried that during the run-up to the Iraq War and were drowned out by the lunatics then as well.

S.L. Toddard| 8.13.09 @ 3:51PM

"In fact I am going to say it! You are not a liberal."

Indeed. I am a Conservative - a species so alien to you and your ilk here that you cannot even recognize one when he's exposing you as a hypocritical boob.

Daisy| 8.13.09 @ 3:53PM

Quin, don't tremble for our country; be grateful that so many patriotic Americans are finally awake. Our country is in great peril, and I understand the fear and exasperation coming from the Right. It's been a long time coming and long overdue.

I feel heartened because I trust the basic decency of my fellow Americans; eventually we'll modulate our anger. It's the stranglehold of the government beast that I fear.

Our Founders understood that citizen outrage was a necessary ingredient in the fight against tyranny: We just have to harness this energy in order to effect positive change.

I pray to God for wisdom.

S.L. Toddard| 8.13.09 @ 3:57PM

"I can deal with and respect a true Kennedy or Truman liberal. In fact most of us conservatives today are probably closer to old Kennedy democrats"

Oh my. Sincerely - I apologize. I take back what I said - you are not a hypocritical boob. You are truthful and far more aware of your own political orientation than most people here. They are truly unaware that they are *not* "conservatives" but are instead philosophical descendents of liberal internationalists like Wilson, Truman and FDR. THAT is why you people and I disagree so vehemently - you are liberal Wilsonian internationalists, and I am an American Conservative.

Wow. Who would have expected to stumble across such honesty and self-awareness here, of all places? I am truly taken aback and once again: I apologize.

Simon Templar| 8.13.09 @ 4:10PM

Toddard, you are a liar! You are not a conservative.. you are not as clever as you think.
Yeah, your an American conservative in full support of a radical socialist and critical of leading conservatives like Gingrich and Cheney.
You can call yourself anything you want but no one is being fooled here. I did not say I am a Kennedy democrat but was making the point that leftist politics in this country is so far left that many of us share more values with Kennedy than you neo-communist posing as conservatives on conservative blogs.

Simon Templar| 8.13.09 @ 4:17PM

Toddard, they must be paying you well down at the Acorn office...your quite clever and apparently have been watching Glenn Beck and keeping good notes about Wilsonian internationalism and all those other big words. Yes, I am more aquainted with this history and these political movements than you might think.

TennesseeVolunteer| 8.13.09 @ 4:26PM

My friend Toddard,
I am a small business owner who manufactures construction related materials. Your posts today insult so many of my customers and their employees. They are workmen. craftsmen and small business owners. They are getting homes, trucks and everything else foreclosed on. Most of them don't even have insurance. They are just free men in a country they love that they see going the wrong way. Sometimes their language is rough and their ways are uneducated but they have had to make their way with fewer opportunities than myself, and probably than you my friend.
Though I come from a white collar background, I have found it a pleasure to be their friend. Judge the statements on this site wisely. These judgements you are so quick to criticize have been forged over years of experience. Sometimes you have to stand up and be a man, sometimes quiet and calm debate won't get it done. In fact, all of us tried that for years. As one of the earlier posters mentioned (must have some real world experience): once we have their attention then the decibels will lower and we can center this debate on the things that should be done- tort limits, crossing state lines for coverage etc.
I have been so proud to see brave Americans stand up and ask intelligent questions of our representatives, I am even more proud to be part of the long electric line of poster on this site (whether I agree all of the time or not). I would be proud to have anyone here at my back during a fight...and a fight this is!

Simon Templar| 8.13.09 @ 4:43PM

Toddard, you know what gave you away? The vitrol that you spewed against the town hall protesters. Tennesee voluteer seems like a decent person who really nailed it on the head. No real conservative would have expressed that kind of venom about simple folk and senior citizens expressing some anger about a government out of control. I got suckered by all your intellectual dancing around and actually took you as serious blogger. By the way, no one is out here defending the spending of the last 40 years..democrat or republican...but that not the real issue is it?

S.L. Toddard| 8.13.09 @ 5:34PM

"Toddard, you are a liar! You are not a conservative."

Really. I revere tradition, community and those things sanctified by Time. I favor a small, un-intrusive and Constitutionally-defined federal government, partially because a massive federal government is inherently wasteful, but first and foremost because centralizing so much power far from the people and in the hands of a few is a danger to our Liberty and way of life. I agree with Lord Acton that power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely – that as governments acquire more and more power and wield it with less and less accountability they invariably wield it arbitrarily, in a radical fashion destructive to institutions and traditions hallowed by antiquity. I value my people and community, and therefore am a proponent of localism and subsidiarity. I recognize that the Constitution granted the lion’s share of power to the States so that it would be more accessible to the People – what is called “States Rights”. I love Liberty, and recognize - as the Founders did - that the greatest threat to one’s own Liberty comes from one’s own government. Because of this, I revere the Constitution, the 2nd and 10th Amendments especially, as they serve (or should, at least) as a check on tyranny – on arbitrary power - and so I demand accountability when the Constitution is violated. I believe fervently in the Rule of Law and an open, Constitutional Republic. I love my people and culture, and so oppose open borders and mass immigration, as a massive and unending influx of foreign peoples of alien culture does violence to the maintenance, cultivation and enrichment of the native culture. I believe in self-reliance and responsibility - both for myself and my gov’t, and so I demand that balanced budgets and fiscal responsibility be the norm rather than the exception. I oppose federal social programs (including Obama's health-care boondoggle) because they are unconstitutional, and because they do damage to the moral fiber of the people.

What am I, exactly, if not a conservative?

"Yeah, your an American conservative in full support of a radical socialist"

If you are implying I voted for George W Bush or John McCain you are (unsurprisingly, though seemingly consistently) wrong. If you are implying I voted for - or even support - Barack Obama you are even more off the mark.

"your quite clever"

I think you mean "you're".

"and apparently have been watching Glenn Beck and keeping good notes about Wilsonian internationalism"

Please do not accuse me of such a thing - looking to a *talk show host* (of all people) for political wisdom. I'm not a buffoon. One need not watch Glenn Beck to know what that one-trick pony is up to. The man is an ape.

"Yes, I am more aquainted with this history and these political movements than you might think"

Are you sure about that? I criticized a big-government party for reckless spending, running up the defecit, creating massive social programs and increasing the size and scope of the federal government and you think I'm a "communist".

(Incidentally, if you would like to be instructed as to the meanings of these terms you misuse I'd be more than happy to assist.)

"Toddard, you know what gave you away? The vitrol that you spewed against the town hall protesters"

I have no vitriol for the protesters in general - I oppose socialized medicine as well. I merely note that the small percentage of those protesters who shriek and rave ludicrously about "death panels" and "forced euthanasia" are doing the movement a disservice by acting ridiculously.

S.L. Toddard| 8.13.09 @ 5:46PM

"Your posts today insult so many of my customers and their employees. They are workmen. craftsmen and small business owners. They are getting homes, trucks and everything else foreclosed on. Most of them don't even have insurance. They are just free men in a country they love that they see going the wrong way. Sometimes their language is rough and their ways are uneducated but they have had to make their way with fewer opportunities than myself, and probably than you my friend.
Though I come from a white collar background, I have found it a pleasure to be their friend."

I come from a blue collar background, though I have the misfortune of having a white collar career. Unless your customers and employees are shrieking lunatic conspiracy theorists a la the birthers, 9/11 truthers or the "Obama death panel" fanatics - indeed unless they *have been filmed* raving nonsensically then I have not mentioned them at all, and wish them well in all that they do. Indeed, it was not I who supported a party that sent their sons to die by the thousands in deserts and mountains on nation-building crusades on the other side of the globe. It was not I who supported a party that eavesdropped on their phone calls and spied on them in violation of the law. It was not I who supported a party that bankrupted their country and spent the fortunes of their children and grandchildren. It was not I who supported a party that stranded our military across the globe and left the economy a smoking ruin, clearing the way for a Democrat takeover.

I should think that by any measure I have done less damage to these people than anyone here, for I opposed - with my vote - all the policies that have done violence to these peoples' fortunes, liberty, property, lives and future.

Can you say the same, TennesseeVolunteer?

Thom| 8.13.09 @ 6:02PM

" it was not I who supported a party that sent their sons to die by the thousands in deserts and mountains on nation-building crusades on the other side of the globe."

“It was not I who supported a party that eavesdropped on their phone calls and spied on them in violation of the law.”

Todd, just a couple of trivial points.

My father, his brothers and 16,000,000 other sons served all over the planet between 1942-1945 and many then served another 10 years in two different countries doing exactly what you are railing against here. Nearly 300,000 died for that effort and it cost us about 58% of our GDP in deficit spending to fight that little effort. That makes what we’ve spent in this little effort over the last 8-9 years truly trivial by comparison in economic terms. This isn’t what is bankrupting the Nation by a long shot. We should have just “let it be” after Pearl?

Compared to what FDR did during his little war, eavesdropping on foreign calls (to or from) of known terrorist parties is a game of trivial pursuit by comparison. I could go on but you get the point I believe.

R E Bunnie| 8.13.09 @ 6:09PM

I've observed Republican politics for more than fifty years, going back to Mr Republican, the first Bob Taft. During that entire time RINOs like S L Retard have been advising the party to play nice and allow themselves to be shouted down by the left.

It has never worked for us, only gaining stolen elections (1960) and stupid candidates (Dole, McCain.) This time we've managed to grab the megaphone, and we'd be the worst kind of fools if we handed it back to ACORN and the unions.

I like Quin and value his wisdom most of the time, but eventually one must fight fire with fire. Let the embarrassed left (in which I count S L) whine all they want---victory is worth shouting for, and worth a few bruises on the egos of those like Spector, Dingell and Obama.

Ken (Old Texican)| 8.13.09 @ 6:24PM

The Toddards of the world will be the first ones KILLED by their communist sweeties. History, not opinion.

The poor child will have outlived his usefulness if the communists get control.

Conversely, when we win...he can continue to whine and we shall just laugh.

I wonder which he would hate less? Heh!

S.L. Toddard| 8.13.09 @ 6:28PM

"My father, his brothers and 16,000,000 other sons served all over the planet between 1942-1945 and many then served another 10 years in two different countries doing exactly what you are railing against here."

Your father and his brothers committed felonies by instituted a KGB-esque domestic spying regime to spy on American citizens - suspected of no crime, terrorism included - in violation of the law? Or are you implying that World War II was somehow a war of choice against a country that posed no threat whatsoever? Perhaps you've misread my quote (or misread a history book).

"Nearly 300,000 died for that effort and it cost us about 58% of our GDP in deficit spending to fight that little effort. That makes what we’ve spent in this little effort over the last 8-9 years truly trivial by comparison in economic terms. This isn’t what is bankrupting the Nation by a long shot."

35% of the federal budget is spent on defense. The Iraq and Afghanistan wars will end up costing *trillions*. I can't even imagine what you're trying to imply. The rest is federal social programs which the Republicans either enacted or actively continued and refused to repeal during the six years they held both houses of congress and the White House.

"We should have just “let it be” after Pearl?"

What an odd turn this has taken. Pearl Harbor? What on earth does Pearl Harbor have to do with anything? America was attacked at Pearl Harbor, and then declared (as per the Constitution) and fought a war of defense. The Iraq War was not declared, was (obviously) not a war of defense, nor was any evidence (fabricated or otherwise) presented - *ever* - which demonstrated the clear and present danger of imminent attack. Which is a long way of saying it was an unjust and unjustified war, instigated and supported by people who seemingly care more about cheering on conquest than the lives of our soldiers, who are sworn to defend the Constitution (you know - the document that mandates that wars must be declared by congress) - not nation-build.

"Compared to what FDR did during his little war, eavesdropping on foreign calls (to or from) of known terrorist parties is a game of trivial pursuit by comparison. I could go on but you get the point I believe."

Oh I agree - I'm sure you could go on spouting non-sequiturs. I've never said the United States shouldn't wage war in defense as we did in WWII. Nor have I objected to eavesdropping on suspected terrorists.

Perhaps you should read my posts again.

S.L. Toddard| 8.13.09 @ 6:33PM

"The Toddards of the world will be the first ones KILLED by their communist sweeties. History, not opinion."

Indeed, good, decent conservative Americans like myself will likely be rounded up and shot, as we oppose communism vehemently. You and the other disenchanted Trotskyites and likeminded liberal internationalist crusaders should do well for yourselves in a communist country. Bush brought us 3/4 of the way there with his bailouts and constitution-shredding, and Obama will likely take us the rest of the way.

Big J| 8.13.09 @ 6:35PM

Toddard and Bob are either two pieces of wood cut from the same cord, or are one and the same. Either way, they both deserve the scroll button, and not one ounce of energy beyond that.

I am so proud to see these regular folks at the town halls (no, not an organized group funded by the insurance lobbyists: nor a bunch of rabble rousers fired up by Fox News or talk radio): regular people like all of us (Toddard and Bob excluded - they are above it all).

I am just as proud to see the posts here. Some names I recognize, and some I do not.

Do ya'll see what's happening here? Regular people are becoming educated on the issues. Regular people are voicing their opinions. Becoming active. Getting loud when they are not being heard.

They didn't hear us when they passed TARP.

They didn't hear us when they passed the "stimulus" bill.

They didn't hear us when they passed the Omnibus spending bill.

This has got to stop. Everyone knows it. The powers that be are not listening.

The only way to adjudicate that is to shout. When that doesn't work, well, I shudder at the thought.

Mr. Quinn, save your shuddering for the next step.

THAT'S what I shudder for.

Thom| 8.13.09 @ 6:38PM

Ken (Old Texican), it becoming harder and harder to find anyone under the age of say 50 that has any perspective on worldly matters before they were born. The central tenet of people like Todd seems to center on isolation from the world will set us free or something like that. The classic ideals of those that lived before the 20th century began started to go up in smoke and debris when German Zeppelins dropped bombs on England in WWI. We’re are a bit beyond that capability today but idealists still think we can still follow the same policies of the 19th century and before in the age of ballistic missiles and atomic weapons. Like most principles in life, rights are only as absolute as the situation will tolerate. Using Todd’s logic he could not have voted for any Republican during his life time and certainly not any Democrat. I would have to wonder why he still lives here if he does? We aren’t going back to the 16th century regardless of what some would like simply because to do so is signing up with a suicide pack in a world where a single atomic weapon can kill more than all our wars combined.

S.L. Toddard| 8.13.09 @ 6:43PM

"The classic ideals of those that lived before the 20th century began started to go up in smoke and debris when German Zeppelins dropped bombs on England in WWI."

It's peculiar that you disparage and reject the ideals of the Founding Fathers while at the same time wondering why *I* - who still hold those ideals dear - remain here, in the country those ideals created.

How eccentric.

A Jewis Tax evader speaks out| 8.13.09 @ 6:44PM

convulutes evidence to achieve a priori concpetions)

Second.

Here is a little scenario that is just one of many that can happen but is more pognant since it takes on actual tactics the Sonei Yisorel, Barak Hitler Obama has used:

You might have heard of Joe the plumper.

And how the US Govt. in the person of the Sec. State of Ohio, ademocrat, you govt. computers to dig dirt and harm him. From say tax violations or what have you. it seems they found nothing since Joe is still plumping.

Well, What would happen if President Bark decided to go after a few thousand Jews tax records and for good measure - make sure they were all Jewish lookking Jews - Chasidim and/or Black Hatters. TO see if they were cheating the Motherland out of taxes owed to her and not being good guests.

What do you think he would find? Do you think they couldn't find oh a few thousand Jews - AN EPIDEMIC!!! - who cheated the US out of taxes BIG TIME. Look, we all know the answer to this question - they COULD and WOULD find real widespread tax abuse.

With Americans already on edge about mass unemployment, loss of kife savings and massive home foreclosures, this could be the beginngin of the 'scapegoating of the Jews' for all of Ameirca's problems. And once the public is with him - the sky is the limit to what he can do - just like with the Japanese of WW2.

Think this or other similar scenario's couldn't happen?

You are not alone. The vast Majority of European Jewry did not believe that the Nazis, ym"sh would perpetrate the atrocities the did.

Did the Jews of the Ukraine think Chnielnitzki would do what he did or that the Poles would give them up in Nemirov? nope.

DId Spanish Jewry in the GOlden Age ever dream of something as dreadful as the INquisition? No.

So do not be surprised that we do not believe that goyim could turn on us under the right circumstances in America. History has this way of never being learned from.

We should not project our hopes and logics on to the goyim's mind. THey fail to humor us every time.

Posted 9 months ago #

WW1 Banksters hoodwink| 8.13.09 @ 6:54PM

On Oct 12, 1915, Edith Cavell, 50, a British nurse and head of a teaching hospital in Belgium, was shot by a German firing squad. Her death inflamed anti-German feeling in the US and caused enlistment in England to double.

She had helped some British POW's escape. Normally her crime was punished by three months imprisonment. Why was she killed?

According to Eustace Mullins, Edith Cavell had stumbled upon some damaging information. On April 15, 1915, The Nursing Mirror in London published her letter revealing that the Allied "Belgian Relief Commission" (charged with feeding Belgium) was in fact channelling thousands of tons of supplies to Germany.

Sir William Wiseman, head of British Intelligence and a partner in the bankers Kuhn Loeb, demanded the Germans execute Cavell as a spy. Wiseman believed that "the continuance of the war was at stake." The Germans reluctantly agreed, thus creating "one of the principal martyrs of the First World War." (The Secrets of the Federal Reserve, pp. 72-73)

Pretty cynical you say? No more cynical than demolishing the World Trade Center, murdering over 3000 Americans to start a "War on Terror."

This example of cooperation between belligerents was accomplished because Wiseman worked closely with the head of the US Federal Reserve, Paul Warburg . Warburg's brother Max was Chief of German Intelligence and a close friend of Kaiser Wilhelm.

The London-based central bankers use wars to weaken nations and colonize the world (incl. UK, US Israel etc.). The difficulty executing WWI was that they had already bankrupted the European states by selling them battleships and other armaments. Europe couldn't afford a war!

The introduction of the US Federal Reserve and the Income Tax Act in 1913 solved this problem. US government loans financed World War One. The American people were on the hook for both sides of the conflict.

This is how it works: The banksters created money from thin air based on the credit of the US government. Every dollar they "loaned" the US government was a new dollar in their pocket.

No nation is free if it cannot control its own credit, i.e. print its own currency at will. We are not free. The central banking cartel controls us by threatening to withdraw our credit i.e. currency causing economic turmoil

S.L. Toddard| 8.13.09 @ 6:58PM

Oh man. The Jew-hater is back.

PCP Smoker| 8.13.09 @ 7:02PM

File this garbage under the "a different prospective" folder. Hey shitforbrains, your country and way of life are being destroyed, and at THIS MOMENT, when we are on the offensive, you want everyone to calm down and be respectful?
You, David Frum, The Craftsman style houses guy, the Oshkosh Republican guy, and the DC pundits are weaklings who have no stomach for what it takes to fight and win. You and the rest of the Compassionate Conservative crowd, is the reason why we are here now.

Do us - those who are actually making things happen - a favor: get the hell out of the way.
You are a creep.

Thom| 8.13.09 @ 7:12PM

Todd, what planet were you born on? All wars are by choice. We chose to make war on Germany who did not attack us on 12/7/1942 but did attack our merchant and naval ships prior to this. Just like Iraq and Afghanistan, neither of which formally declared or attacked us on 9/9/2003 we chose to asses the larger picture and solve the larger problem rather than ignore the obvious trend line and where that ends up repeatedly when a half ass effort is applied. I got some time in half assed efforts of such. I think the Japanese and German population would have a different take on your concept of defensive war given what our larger goal was after 12/7/1942. There was nothing and I repeat nothing defensive about our operations after Pearl anywhere on the planet. On the flip side we have lost every defensive war we have fought since and left the problems in place to fester and grow more dangerous. You apparently know nothing at all about the repeated armistice violations Iraq committed after we fought that “defensive” war and let the root problem continue by other means. Any signature to that armistice had the legal right to take Iraq out for a single violation. Words without teeth have no value in the real world. As for a formal declaration of war, that canard has been played and played until it has no value any longer. Congress authorized the “conflict by other means” and no Supreme Court has every bothered to say it wasn’t legal. A formal declaration of war carries with it a lot more executive powers, such as FDR used, and no American President has ask for and not likely any Congress been willing to agree too since WWII. It’s a fine point without merit Todd. It’s moot unless you want to take the matter to the Supreme Court and argue your case.

58% percent of GDP over 4 years is a slightly larger number than 35% of the Federal Budget over the same period don’t you think Todd? There are three components to Defense spending and Iraq and Afghanistan combined are much smaller than the base line defense budget and War on Terror supplement. We could stop fighting in both places tomorrow and not extend Social Security for more than a couple years at current SS spending levels. We are fighting both a defensive war and an offensive war is you haven’t noticed and that is a lot more expensive than just one or the other as we did in WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam and the first Gulf War. So how about living on the same planet where the rest of us have to for a while.

Thom| 8.13.09 @ 7:21PM

“It's peculiar that you disparage and reject the ideals of the Founding Fathers while at the same time wondering why *I* - who still hold those ideals dear - remain here, in the country those ideals created.
How eccentric.”

Todd the Founding Fathers could afford to hold what you think were their unshakable ideals dear. I hold those same ideals dear but I live in this world not the 16th century where it took months if not years to amass an army and wage the kind of war that takes seconds today to destroy by a magnitudes of order more. The Founder would have recognized that the rules had been bent a bit by aviation and mechanized war. They would surely look upon atomic weapons as the biggest single threat to their ideals and dreams but there you have it, ideals and dreams not unshakable, unchangeable rigid rules that can never change. They bent a few of their own rules when they had their hands on the yoke of power in their times too but I won’t mess up your dream.

Michael Tomlinson| 8.13.09 @ 7:30PM

Thom well said! But when dealing with these folks remember "convince a fool against his will and he's of the same opinion still."

Thom| 8.13.09 @ 7:42PM

Michael Tomlinson, “a long time ago in a place far far away” I saw a road side sign that said “Don’t drive like a fool because you might meet one”. Right past that the next one said “Watch for falling rocks”. They meant both as worded. Fools ignored both signs naturally with predictable results.

I make no effort to convince anyone of anything. Words are cheap; Action often very expensive. I simply remind them that the “world” has existed a long time before their birth and nothing much has really changed that much regarding humanity. We’ve got better clubs…. A lot better.

Idealists, fools and children are all entitled to their dreams but some times real adults have to do more than coach from a far. Necessity is the mother of invention I hear and so is a very up close and personal CQB kind of encounter with someone that truly means what they say. Our political class has never had its Bastille Day. Jefferson thought that would be required from time to time as I remember. I asses the situation as I see it and prepare for the actions I pray will never come. Words go with the dusk on a windy day and leave no trace with most today. We do what we can….for as long as we can.

JimE| 8.13.09 @ 7:52PM

Toddard trembles in anticipation of being sodomized by obama.

S.L. Toddard| 8.13.09 @ 7:53PM

"Todd, what planet were you born on? All wars are by choice. We chose to make war on Germany who did not attack us on 12/7/1942"

*sigh*

The Pearl Harbor attack was in 1941. We did not "choose" war with Japan - it was thrust upon us. Germany declared war right after - we did not "choose" that either. In response to the attack from Japan and the German declaration *we* then declared war. I cannot believe all of this is news to you. Amazing.

"Just like Iraq and Afghanistan, neither of which formally declared or attacked us on 9/9/2003"

Japan and Germany declared war on us, neither Iraq nor Afghanistan declared war on us - yet they are "just like" each other? Again - amazing.

"we chose to asses the larger picture and solve the larger problem rather than ignore the obvious trend line"

The obvious trend was that Iraq had posed no threat to America, never had and continued to pose no threat - and especially no clear and present, immediate threat of the sort that justify a pre-emptive strike. No evidence of imminent attack was ever produced. Ignoring that trend we went to war against Iraq - which neither attacked us (as did Japan), nor declared war on us (as did Germany), nor harbored those who attacked us (as did Afghanistan), nor showed ANY SIGNS OF EVER WISHING TO ATTACK US.

My god why does every conversation here devolve in to me teaching history to the undereducated?

"I think the Japanese and German population would have a different take on your concept of defensive war given what our larger goal was after 12/7/1942."

*sigh*

1941.

"There was nothing and I repeat nothing defensive about our operations after Pearl anywhere on the planet."

I don't even know what that sentence means. What operations?

"On the flip side we have lost every defensive war we have fought since"

We have not fought a defensive war since. Do you even know what a defensive war is? It's a war fought against another country that has attacked us.

"You apparently know nothing at all about the repeated armistice violations Iraq committed after we fought that “defensive” war"

What defensive war? World War II was the last defensive war we fought, with the possible exception of the initial Afghanistan war.

"Any signature to that armistice had the legal right to take Iraq out for a single violation."

According to whom? The UN? Our International Treaties? Are those the authorities who dictate when and where we go to war, in your opinion?

In the end it doesn't matter: Iraq posed no threat - NONE. Period. To think that any American would value U.N. charters over the lives of American soldiers - it's almost too ridiculous to believe. These men are sworn to defend our way of life, yet you would sacrifice their lives for the UNITED NATIONS? How can you value the UN over our own boys?

"As for a formal declaration of war, that canard has been played and played until it has no value any longer."

That is fantastic - first you disparage the ideals of the Founders, and now you disparage our Constitution - the founding document of the United States. What, exactly, do you have against the American way of life? Our soldiers are SWORN to defend that document you refer to as a "canard". Article 1, Section 8 grants Congress - and only Congress - the power to declare war. It's fine that you reject the American system of gov't - most liberal internationalists do - but that doesn't change what's in it, or change the fact that it's the supreme law of the land.

"Congress authorized the “conflict by other means” and no Supreme Court has every bothered to say it wasn’t legal."

And?

"A formal declaration of war carries with it a lot more executive powers, such as FDR used, and no American President has ask for and not likely any Congress been willing to agree too since WWII."

Indeed - Congress has been derelict in its duty since WWII, and all the wars fought since then have been unconstitutional.

"It’s a fine point without merit Todd."

Really: "The Congress shall have power... To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water"

Unless you can cite any passage from the Constitution that mitigates this delegation of power then you are, quite simply, without recourse.

"58% percent of GDP over 4 years is a slightly larger number than 35% of the Federal Budget over the same period don’t you think Todd?"

I think it doesn't matter and isn't relevant. What on earth does defense spending in WWII have to do with dumping trillions of dollars into uneccessary wars of choice now?

"We are fighting both a defensive war and an offensive war is you haven’t noticed and that is a lot more expensive than just one or the other as we did in WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam and the first Gulf War."

Neither Korea, Vietnam nor the first Gulf War were "defensive wars". You really need to learn what that term means. And a lot of other things.

DS| 8.13.09 @ 8:12PM

Hey Hillyer,

This isn’t the High School Debate with teams and judges. This is our LIBERTY at stake here, and the Dems in Congress are trying to TAKE it. So you can take your whiny handwringing elsewhere. The American people are pissed and you’d better hope this bill doesn’t PASS, because this ‘anger’ is nothing compared to what will erupt in that scenario.

FeralCat| 8.13.09 @ 8:17PM

Just as Adolf Hitler and Joseph Goebbels and their propaganda machine tried to demonize and dehumanize Jews, Herr Barack Obama, Herr Harry Reid, Frau Nancy Pelosi,the DNC Gestapo, their Brownshirt SEIC and ACORN and various assorted enablers and abettors in the MSM media are trying to demonize and dehumanize those who are protesting their attempted mass takeovers and fascist control freak power grabs. The parallel is absolutely unmistakable. I think they are all desperately looking for a Kristallnacht.

S.L. Toddard| 8.13.09 @ 8:31PM

"This is our LIBERTY at stake here, and the Dems in Congress are trying to TAKE it"

"Just as Adolf Hitler and Joseph Goebbels and..."

There are legitimate arguments to make against this health-care proposal: It is un-American, it is socialistic, it will be inefficient, it will be more expensive, it is un-constitutional, it will be a bureaucratic nightmare and it will not work. That is enough justification to oppose it without demented, unhinged and fantastical rants about Democrats "TAKING" our "LIBERTY" and baseless Nazi comparisons.

This is precisely the sort of hysterical, paranoid crazy-talk that has made the Republican Party a failed, irrelevant, powerless world-wide laughingstock.

Jeff| 8.13.09 @ 8:34PM

I do not agree with the premise of this article. The aggressor makes the rules and the Statists are the aggressors who want to have the power to tell me how many times to I have to floss my teeth simply because they are paying for the dental bill.

None of this has the slightest thing to do with healthcare.It is a power grab to give the Statists the right to tell each and every citizen when it is time for them to die.

The last time this came up it was defeated on the technicalities.ie,too expensive ,won't work for whatever reason etc. While all of those technicalities were true and are still true they cannot be the basis for the defeat this time because some statist will always say he/she has a new angle that solves all of the technicalities.

THIS ENTIRE PREMISE MUST BE DEFEATED THIS TIME ON THE BASIS THAT GOVERNMENT HAS NO RIGHT TO BE THIS DEEP INTO PEOPLE"S LIVES.

It is true that the Dems want government out of people's bedrooms but they also want govenment to be absolutely everywhere else.

George| 8.13.09 @ 8:48PM

WRONG. WHAT' YOU'RE SUGGESTING IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

Where I'm coming from:

I assume that you are a conservative and Republican. Well, I'm not. I'm an independent. Don't ridicule me or whatever, but I voted for Obama. It's my right. (But I voted for Reagan too twice.)

My point:

Government serves the people. The people has all the right to bully those representatives of the Government.

When the people have doubt on their elected officials, then they have the right TO SHOW THEIR ANGER. In fact, the people have the right to form militia to arrest the Government.

A smiling and gentle police is futile and will never arrest even a erring child.

I voted for Obama. I voted for my Congressman. Let them serve me well. What I'm seeing right now is now what I had heard last time.

I CAN EVEN SLAP THEIR FACES. IN THE CASE OF OBAMACARE, THEY ARE LYING TO ME. THEY SAID GREATER ACCESS. THEY SAID BETTER ACCESS TO ALL.

I demand BETTER. Now that I see it, BETTER should be:

NO OBAMACARE anymore.

Sorry.... I did my strongest dissent to some of Reagans' false promises especially in his last term. (But those were out of love.)

I HAVE ALL THE RIGHT CHANGE MY VOTE TOO IN THE FUTURE IF I HAVE TO.

Why did I vote for him? I'm not like others believing in collective health care system. I voted for him? My grandfather was a member of KKK.

Voting for him is THE LAST STRAW of my family's guilt. I'M FREE NOW.

What are the MSM and this Government doing to my fellow white people now? Well, they are the ones building the guilt. They are the racists now. NOT THE WHITE PEOPLE.

LETS COUNT their SINS.

dr kill| 8.13.09 @ 9:07PM

The bleating for quiet and understanding from the Right-leaning beltway talking heads nauseates me. Hilyer, why should you understand what is important, when better read and respected conservative voices don't either.

Neither you or me or the GOP is organizing the growing town hall/ tea party movement. It is, by definition, a rabble. It is the very variety of heartfelt approaches that shows me here in the woods that I am not alone and that you do not speak for me. This is organic, disorganized, and majestic. If Krauthammer can admit he was wrong so can you. Just get out of the way.

Jack| 8.13.09 @ 9:13PM

Um, no.

This isn't debate class. This is citizens righteously showing their disgust with their elected representatives who are not listening. In case you hadn't noticed, the spontaneous (as opposed to manufactured) outrage that has been directed at the people we elected and pay handsomely to do our bidding is working. Overwhelmingly. Sitting back and trying to have a rational debate with a group which has never debated rationally is a losing strategy. You'd think that would be obvious after the last 8 years.

You are not going to quell the anger of people who know their children's children will be paying for the disaster this radical administration and Congress has foisted on us with zero debate. This is not manufactured, it's real. Better you understand the damage that has already been done and the irreversible damage that will be done by this radical realignment of our rights and responsibilities if this power grab passes and get on board than stand on the sidelines wagging your finger at the people who are fighting for your rights as well as theirs.

I'm pretty sure that our country wasn't founded by people who worried about being bullies against a group that had been bullying them. If you think we aren't close to losing the freedoms that people have died to give us, think again.

KB| 8.13.09 @ 9:13PM

You throw like a girl.

Thom| 8.13.09 @ 9:17PM

Todd, I’ll make you a down to earth suggestion for your pointless and legalistic academic arguments. Form a Political Party, get financial backing and take your crusade to the people by what ever means you can accomplish. Action speaks louder than words. No one ever won a war with words alone and to accomplish what you believe is the Founder’s ideals will require a war of the first order and it won’t be a defensive war.

At no time in the last century or most of the one before that has the government of the United States been bound by the strict interpretation of the Constitution as you see it. For most of the last century an awful lot of people in this country and government have believed that money comes from government and the unequal distribution of said money can be rectified by said government. The 16th amendment destroyed the central tenant of the Constitution and ultimately this Republic just as surely as an invading army might or a few well placed nukes.

If you accomplish your mission statement here then something useful might come of it but mere words aren’t going to do anything but get you how should I put it, assigned to that place where no one else wants to be. If you take on this assignment I’d be diligent because in a few short years as things are trending between the Marxists in charge and the crazies working to get a nuke on someone’s front porch for their salvation in eternity there might not be anything left to save of your 16th century ideals. Beat feet dude, time is a wasting……to save your dream.

JIMV| 8.13.09 @ 9:23PM

Folk generally do not shout unless they KNOW the person being addressed will not respond to anything less...these folk have spent years ignoring their voters...perhaps a little noise is past due.

Thomas Jefferson| 8.13.09 @ 9:32PM

So - Conservatives are FINALLY winning an Ideological debate with these HATE-MONGERING DEMAGOGUES, and all this Jackass has to say about it is:

"Hey!! We've been ROOOD, don't be ROOOOD!"

What a JACKASS!!!!

Daisy| 8.13.09 @ 9:35PM

Liberals intend to ram this filthy bill through congress regardless of the peoples' outrage. WE are going to have to stop it because no one else is stepping up to the plate.

Oh, what the hell, I'm up for a good fight!

Angel| 8.13.09 @ 9:38PM

Quin is a good and thoughtful man and a great writer. Don't insult him. Please.

Reid| 8.13.09 @ 9:40PM

Quin... you're a really nice, um, beta-guy... now please sit down and STFU... you're getting in the way of EFFECTIVE action (something that hasn't occurred to you, apparently)

Dave Lincoln| 8.13.09 @ 9:50PM

Though I have read only 1/2 of the comments (90% of them excellent!) I would like to insert mine before the long posts about the Jews and the Jordan tennis shoes.

In response to Quin's remarks "I tremble for my country when I see these comments.", Quin, I think you need to learn what is happening to this nation. This is not a simple policy debate that we can just lose on as usual and hope that the next Bush/McCain/GOP-loser may water it down for us for a few years in the name of "conservativism". I am referring not just to nationalized health care, but also the global warming/cooling/whatever fiasco, more trillion dollar bailouts, and illegal immigration amnesty (coming soon).

These are not "projects" that can ever be turned around. These are policies that don't just lead to socialism, they ARE socialism. These are not things that the talking heads can argue vehemently about on TV, then smile and shake hands at the end (I've seen lawyers do that after a deposition and it freaked me out).

The American people are starting to realize that their country, per the Constitution, is going away fast. They want to put a stop to this. It is going to take some hell-raising, Quin. If you don't understand that, then you don't understand who you are up against. These people don't care about debate or the Constitution. They don't ram the bills through congress due to time constraints, OK? They do it because they don't want people to read or learn enough about the laws to see what power those laws give to the Federal Gov't (call it Fedzilla, per Ted Nugent).

If you think rudeness is a bad thing, Quin, in the name of fighting for your country, I just "tremble" to think of what you would think of our founding fathers. They could easily have been called "ruffians" - yes, ruffians for the right cause. I know what they would call you - a pussy. The time for nice easygoing debate is over. I especially deplore how you ask people not to fight back (Jesus said turn the other cheek, up to 7 x 70 times; that is 490, which has been exceeded long ago). There will be violence before this is over, and hopefully most of the bodies will be socialist ones.

Dave Lincoln| 8.13.09 @ 9:53PM

Angel| 8.13.09 @ 9:38PM

"Quin is a good and thoughtful man and a great writer. Don't insult him. Please."

oops, sorry, Angel. I didn't read your comment before I called Quin a pussy. It doesn't change the fact that he is one, of course, but I could be a nicer guy, you are right, and the US could be a socialist country to rival the one in "1984" by 2015 also.

What do you want?

Reid| 8.13.09 @ 9:57PM

Thom| 8.13.09 @ 9:58PM

Daisy, just what do you intend to fight with? The first Tea Party wasn't about carrying signs and having a social gathering. We don’t have the votes to stop anything at all. All we have is anger and emotional outbursts neither of which have any real world impact on those that are in power because more Democrats voted for them than anyone voted against them. This win the hearts and minds approach has never held water too long when you have such a mass of serfs dependent on “government”. You are asking them to vote against their own self interest….which is like asking a drug addict to simply stop using drugs. Doesn’t happen. There has to be consequence, something that puts the fear of God in people who have for the most part abandoned him for the sake of raw power. It will take more than the fear of losing an election 14 months from now to have a lasting effect on those now in power. All the passion in the world won’t overcome the vote differences required in States where Marxism rules with almost absolute certainty. An awful lot of people have to come to grips with the reality of the situation from both a political and cultural view. If Marxist supporters physically confront you what are you going to do, harsh words? You need to think through the use of words like “fight” a little more before you throw them out like candy. The first Tea Party was not a protest without risk or consequence to those that took part. Bear that in mind.

Jack| 8.13.09 @ 10:11PM

Quin is a good and thoughtful man and a great writer. Don't insult him. Please.

Funny, I seem to remember Mr. Hillyer taking many "insulting" pot shots at various conservatives that didn't pass his muster during the last election. Goose, gander and all that.

Funny thing about the internet, not only does it have a long memory but it shows that there are many great writers even if many don't do it for a living. It also allows those of us who strongly disagree with those who used to have unchallenged opinion shaping positions. If Mr. Hilyer is as thoughtful as you say, he will learn from both the responses here as well as the demonstrable opinion of the citizenry at large that he is flat wrong on this one.

If not, well Kathleen Parker needs a running mate.

Angel| 8.13.09 @ 10:21PM

Dave, I'm with you--I'm a fighter, too, and I disagree with Quin on this matter. It's just that I've read his work for a long time and I consider Quin a friend and a patriot, and it's upsetting to see him being insulted.

I understand your sentiments and I agree we have to be strong; I just want to save all of my wrath for the fascist liberals.

And, no, HELL NO, I don't want to be socialist!

Daisy| 8.13.09 @ 10:30PM

Thom, you attack me for saying I'm up for the fight? What do YOU intend to do, big boy?

Who the hell are you to lecture me when you don't even know me?

Jeff Perren| 8.13.09 @ 10:30PM

Dear Mr. Hillyer,

Your article gets it exactly right. Passion and reason perfectly blended will carry the day. Don't become disheartened by your naysayers.

Respectfully,
Jeff Perren

Thom| 8.13.09 @ 10:36PM

Daisy, no lecture or attack simply a point that many decades on this planet have reenforced a hundred times over that words are cheap and getting cheaper by the day.... What do I intend to do Daisy?. Well the only rational answer I can give as an American is to exercisie my enumerated rights to the fullest I can and defend them with my life if need be. Pretty much the oath I took in 1973 not a product of current events btw. Sooner or later it will come down to action not words and such things always have negative consequences. You don't have to go look for trouble because in this situation it will be looking for you anyway.

LarryG| 8.13.09 @ 10:38PM

I see no reason to be civil to anyone trying to railroad the country into a nightmare.

Daisy| 8.13.09 @ 10:43PM

Thom, I don't know if you meant to be insufferable, but you were--and patronizing, too.

I believe that we are in the fight of our lives right now and I'm painfully aware that things could get ugly. It is a fight, whether you're afraid to admit or not; and I believe that our freedom is worth defending.

Maybe the women in your life don't mind being talked down to, but I do.

Daisy| 8.13.09 @ 10:49PM

Thom, your anger is misdirected--I am not your enemy, and neither is Quin. I'm not looking for trouble--seems the damn liberals have dumped it in my lap.

Mind your manners, Sir, and show some respect: Conservative women are tough--you just might need us in the future. Boys aren't the only patriots around, you know.

Mary Louise| 8.13.09 @ 11:03PM

I agree, in principle. I also agree with the posters who say we are not living in normal times. But maybe solipcism keeps us from understanding that we never did.

Thom is right when he points out the courage and risk in the first Tea Party.

President Washington knew that only fidelity to the Constitution would keep the Country free.

I'm hoping that the young Mother who told Spectre that he and those like him had awakened a sleeping giant is right. And more than that, I'm hoping I'm right when I assume that this Giant has no allegiance to any party, just to the Country.

La mala fide of this current crop of democrats is getting them what they have deserved for such a long, long time.

It's good to see the Independents sympathetic towards the attendees, who for the most part, have just been rambunctious. It wasn't a conservative Town Hall attendee who called a man a nigger and then beat on him a bit.

I don't want to become less American. And the democrats cannot be given the benefit of the doubt because they are totalitarians. They're programs and power grabs can never be undone because they weaken men and make them dependent.

We are the United States of America, an America that Barack Obama neither understands nor appreciates. He lingered long on the teet of anti-Americanism. His apologies for the Country do us harm because he's has no feeling for this Land, and that's obvious by his perfunctory, insipid praise of it.

His problem is that neither he nor his administration nor his party can match wits with ordinary, common-sense citizens. We don't need to wait for the law of unintended consequences to make itself felt before we know its yellow progress is certain.

He's at 47% approval. He has no real eloquence to marshal. And his party, to quote Sting: when their eloquences escapes you, their logic ties you up and rapes you.

If we demand competence, we might just get it. But before we do that we have to remove the sense of merely from the meaning of competence.

Thom| 8.13.09 @ 11:04PM

Daisy, you need to point your laser beams somewhere else. I didn't say we weren't in a "fight" but simply to remind anyone that words do mean things if they are to be effective and cheap words mean nothing at all. Insults should be the least of anyone's worry. Having served in this Nation's military when it wasn't real popular to even be seen in uniform I've kind of seen this scenario before with mindsets that typically don't have what it takes for a real "fight". Never the less a lot is on the line and those that think this is worth the "fight", what ever that means to you need to be prepared for the full course else you'll burn yourself out putting your faith in something that may not add up as you would like. I think the jury is in on the value of the words on the other side of this equation, zero. Actions have consequences, consequences cause actions....... No Tyrant respects any challenge to their paradigm of thinking let alone to their power. As I’ve said before, a lie is the first act of all criminals and people who lie for a living are the worst sorts of people regardless of what else they may be. Obama can’t get through the day now without an out and out lie where there is recorded video of his lies….You would think some gentle elected or want a be elected folks would call these people liars to their fact and say it with conviction. But no, it is up to Grandma and Grandpa to sort this out.

Simple words of advice Daisy, if you spend your time worrying about perhaps being insulted then you will waste a lot of energy on a pointless quest.

Daisy| 8.13.09 @ 11:12PM

Like most liberals, Thom; you can dish it out but you can't take it. I expect more from Conservative men. Pity.

Some words of advice for you, Thom--think before you lecture someone you don't know, it makes you appear self-righteous.

Mary Louise| 8.13.09 @ 11:23PM

You would think some gentle elected or want a be elected folks would call these people liars to their fact and say it with conviction. But no, it is up to Grandma and Grandpa to sort this out.

Well said, Thom.

I railed against Senator McCain after he lost, but everyday I'm prouder of my vote for him. Whatever his defects, he is a patriot.

I actually feared him more in foreign than domestic policy. He knew he knew precious little about economics and however impolitic, he had the humility to admit it. That humilty is what led him to consider tapping Fed-ex Ceo and the like for help with the economy.

The monumental stupidity of Obama's Post Office comment was something to behold. He has precious little in his tank other than arrogance. And daily you're reminded of the nobility of George Bush's natural humility.

Thom| 8.13.09 @ 11:31PM

Daisy, I've never been called a Liberal by anyone that ever knew me. All my current friends and enemies would laugh at your thought. Be that as it may it cuts both way Daisy. You don't know me. You worry about being insulted and I'll worry about what really matters in the scheme of things. Where I walk Barbara Streisand kind of stuff doesn't get a vote and results rule. I have no time for feelings being hurt because of an apparent slight. Wasted effort of that sort leads to failure of results. That's what separates those who run their mouth and those you don't but show up when that Barbara Streisand kind of stuff hits the fan..... It has always been that way throughout time. I've meant no offense to you in the least bit but if you wish to waste your efforts being offended have at it. Your dime. I've been around a while. I take a bit of a longer view of things than those who are looking for any one to pick a fight with just cause....

Peace be with you Daisy, if you want to just argue with people you'll never run short of someone to fill that need.

Lonnie| 8.13.09 @ 11:36PM

Good God in heaven, George W was a huge RINO and he did not defend conservatives in the least. It was a disgrace the way he treated Scooter Libby.

Please, can't we find a real conservative candidate to run in 2012?

Dave Lincoln| 8.13.09 @ 11:37PM

"Passion and reason perfectly blended will carry the day." This may be true when talking to a level-headed, independent-minded friend, Mr. Perren. However, you are wrong if you think it will carry the day with determined marxists, their useful idiots and others who WANT to destroy this country. Right now, they are big in number.

Fortunately so are we (and, we have the overwhelming number of small arms, if it really comes down to that.)

TennesseeVolunteer| 8.13.09 @ 11:42PM

I'm just glad Toddard left, he was getting on my nerves!

Dave Lincoln| 8.13.09 @ 11:42PM

Don't misunderstand me ... I don't want it to come down to that.

"Peace through strength" R.R.

Thom| 8.13.09 @ 11:44PM

Lonnie, I've got a list of 12 names the Republican Senatorial Committee thinks are 2012 possibles and they want me to vote on my first and second pick. Of the 12 there are only 2 people I respect and you would know all but perhaps one name already. The Other column would get a dead person at this point if it were that simple. No one really seems to want to make the fight or either are too afraid that they might lose.....

Mary Louise| 8.13.09 @ 11:46PM

Good God in heaven, George W was a huge RINO and he did not defend conservatives in the least.

You're right, but that doesn't negate his humility. His Mission Accomplished fiasco must have made his father want to hurl, but GW repented of it.

One of my favorite images is him getting the shoe thrown at him. Not because I think it was a good thing, but because of his reaction. It was pure Dubya.

9/11 made a man out of him. I'm not sure invading Iraq was the right thing. Time will tell us that. But, like Obama, he wasn't qualified to be president. And there was a certain callowness about him too.

The other favorite image of mine is the bear hug he gave Obama on inauguration (sp?) day. It spoke volumes.

I wish him and his family well, but no more Bushes for sure.

Daisy| 8.13.09 @ 11:48PM

Thom, I knew that comparison would get your attention and that's why I did it. It would have chapped my hide, too! lol

You don't like being judged any more than I do, see? I'm not a warmonger or an airhead; just like you're not a liberal.

You point out the splinter in my eye and ignore the beam in yours.

Daisy

Yehudit| 8.13.09 @ 11:49PM

I've seen most of the townhall videos, and some were quiet and respectful of the Congressperson & everyone who got up to speak. What made them different is the Congressperson adopted an attitude of LISTENING to the constituents rather than patronizing lecturing & droning talking points.

The first lets your public know that the bill is not a done deal & you are willing to learn from them & carry their demands back to Congress. The second implies that you have already decided the bill is good & you see your job as instructing your constituency why it is good. The second approach demands forceful interruption because the Congressperson is not making room to listen, he expects passivity. These officials are the ones who have been most dismayed by the protesters precisely because they expected passive receptacles for their superior wisdom rather than engaging with intelligent active voters, who in most cases read the bill, unlike the Congressperson in question. The only was to break through was to get in their face.

Most of the respectful Congresspeople were Republicans, so one would expect their angry constituency to give them more slack since they already agreed in whole or in part with the voters. But in the videos I saw the GOP lawmakers also treated the audience with more respect than the Dems, and were more likely to claim to have read the bill & have alternatice ideas.

Lonnie| 8.13.09 @ 11:56PM

Mary Louise, I agree that George W is a good man; I just wish he had been a better standard bearer for our party. He never refuted the vicious lies from the left and after a while people believed those lies. What an unnecessary tragedy for us.

Twisting in the wind is not fun!

Yehudit| 8.13.09 @ 11:59PM

"...Why did I vote for him? I'm not like others believing in collective health care system. I voted for him? My grandfather was a member of KKK. Voting for him is THE LAST STRAW of my family's guilt. I'M FREE NOW....."

Thanks for being honest. I think a lot of Americans voted for him for that reason, and if he had been white he would not have gotten elected. (But many are still not admitting it.) If you look at his history, most of his career has been smooth because everyone wanted to help him out. He really is the affirmative action president. Well, you voted based on guilt and now look what we got. Maybe, since you are "free now," you can vote in 2010 based on the content of the candidate's character & not the color of his skin.

Tina Marie| 8.13.09 @ 11:59PM

Yehudit, I agree with you. Whether we like it or not, liberals have declared war on us and the Constitution. What do we do now?

Thom| 8.14.09 @ 12:11AM

Daisy, actually I live what I preach so to speak. I don't get wrapped up in labels and use them to the point of just hitting the core point without the academic reaming we get from freshly and not so freshly minted examples of what "University" turns out these days. I've been schooled and educated and know the difference when I hear it. Like all people I'm a work in progress but those that know me from when dinos walked the planet have no trouble seeing the same core person and beliefs. Neither you (in jest) or anyone else seriously can insult me. I know who I am and what I believe. My friends know who I am too. That brings a burden at times. A long time ago a senseless event set some of my core beliefs in stone and I've been preparing my mind to match what the body may have to do before I leave this place. I understand the nature of things or the beast as some would put it. It will never change with our without the smiley face to go with what lurks behind the mask. This is ultimately a never ending battle between good and evil that will remain in one form or the other till none of this no longer matters. An awful lot of “good men” are sitting on the sidelines trying to “game” the outcome so as to maximize their political future…..or perhaps I should say fortunes? How much faith do you think I put in them? I’ve already agreed with Quin on his central point but I think we are beyond the point of reason in the market place of political power. Too much at stake on both sides for reason to win out ultimately. We’ve seen this many times before and not just in this country. How it plays out no body knows but what it may ultimately cost is beyond many’s grasp. We’ve all lead a rather pampered life by comparisons to what preceded us in the 16th and 17th century. A lot of people are going to have to get in touch with their 16th century self.

Mary Louise| 8.14.09 @ 12:14AM

Lonnie, GW's worst performance, in my view, came in his last days in office.

When he was pushing for the first stimulus he just read from a page while he was speaking about the likelihood of economic collapse. Noonan said at the time that he was like a cuckoo clock.

And you are right, he did the Country an enormous amount of harm by not wanting to play hard-ball when it was absolutely necessary that he do so.

Mary Louise| 8.14.09 @ 12:17AM

My first post should read teat instead of teet.

Войска ПВО| 8.14.09 @ 1:06AM

Big J writes:

"..but we cannot. We have spent far too long playing by imaginary rules that the other side simply does not follow. "

Isn't it Alinsky that said "make the other guy live by his own rules" or something like that? I think -- seeing all of the squirming going on by the left when their blowtorches are aimed at their own posteriors -- that Mr J is absolutely correct.

Daisy| 8.14.09 @ 2:02AM

Thom, you made my point for me: I said I was up for the fight because in your words, "I believe we are past the point of reason in the marketplace of political power."

We agree with each other completely; so why the lecture? Obviously, your statements make you an airhead and a warmonger, too.

Goodnight.

PALIN FOR PRESIDENT 2012| 8.14.09 @ 2:15AM

Toddard is Bob is LibReader/Jeremiah--all three are Axelrod Astroturf A-Holes. A pox on them and their houses.

Sarah Palin's two words--DEATH PANELS--killed ObamaCare! Vive! Sarah Palin, the True North Star!

SukieTawdry| 8.14.09 @ 2:34AM

There's no "debate" going on right now. Elected representatives are standing before their constituents (or not depending on their level of pusillanimity) and misleading, deceiving, concealing, obfuscating and outright lying to them about the Democrats' plans for health care "insurance reform." They lie when they say things like "anybody who likes his present insurance and his present doctor gets to keep them" because they know Congress can make no such guarantees and those kinds of decisions will be made largely by employers. Furthermore as regards those grandfathered plans, they conceal the fact that they have defined "change" so broadly that even the smallest change to an existing plan renders it non-qualified. They lie when they say there will be no rationing because they know full well there will be. They obfuscate about single payer. We know that without a doubt a public option will lead to single payer and so do they. In fact, that's their plan. They are due no courtesy.

And the ordinary citizens on the other side of the non-debate, the manufactured opposition to the opposition?Well, they're not so ordinary after all. Most of them are members of unions in bed with the Obama administration and Congressional Democrats. They know that if the Dems get their way, they won't have anything to worry about because, like government employees, workers who benefits are determined by collective bargaining will be exempt from the rules. So, how much courtesy do they deserve?

The folks at these meetings have a righteous anger and I don't blame them for expressing it. And I'm getting a little tired of hearing them lectured.

Alana| 8.14.09 @ 2:45AM

I'm afraid you are wrong, Mr. Hillyer.

El Gordo| 8.14.09 @ 3:12AM

Good article, and here´s why: Never forget who your target audience is. It may be tempting to want to get even with the left, but they are not your target audience. If you oppose big government, your audience is the large majority of citizens out there who are not part of the conservative base. Hysterical, over-the-top antics will not convince them. Strong words, sure, but let´s not get carried away.

The question is: Do you want to win, or do you want to feel good about yourselves for a moment? And which tactic is more conservative?

Tina Marie| 8.14.09 @ 3:48AM

Good comment, Gordo--smart, too. I believe we'll come around to your way of thinking soon; after all, we're Conservatives.

Ed| 8.14.09 @ 4:25AM

Mr. Hillyer, if you don't want to 'fight', just stay home.

The Hammer| 8.14.09 @ 7:48AM

In the Revolutionary War, the British fought in the "respected traditional", line-up, march forward, kneel, fire, move the the rear and repeat method. Americans tended to use "barbaric" methods like hiding in trees, behind structures, and generally trying to kill without being killed. British leadership derided the American tactics while their own fighting men suffered staggering causalities due to their adherence to "gentlemanly" warfare.

The debate has been one sided far too long, and yes some on "our" side may be releasing their frustration in a manner that makes most uncomfortable. However, I would argue that 2 points are being missed:

1. Remember that TV is framing all of the protesters as screaming lunatics because that makes for good drama and ratings. Don't assume the narrative that all the protesters are unhinged, as this is certainly not the case. And, if only 1 protester goes bonkers in a meeting of 200, who will get on TV? Is it realistic to expect all 200 protesters to have civil debating/argument skills or styles? Many of the most articulately offered opposition viewpoints would never be heard if the shouters weren't getting attention drawn to the meetings in the first place.

2. Don't assume all of the unhinged, yellers are conservatives. This is a general, populist anger, IMO that Obamacare has rallied but that has built up over years of being ignored, lectured and played for fools by a elected representatives who, in general, have grown too lazy, too elitist, and too power-hungry to deserve civil debate.

Ken (Old Texican)| 8.14.09 @ 10:28AM

Well Mr. Hillyer,
Over the months I have dropped in on the Spectator, I have thanked you for solid, thoughtful insight so many times, heh, I must sound like a groupie.

I simply beg to disagree on the "trembling for my country" reprise due to our comments.

Man, I started getting scared when I read Obama's so called autobiography. I became more alarmed as the election cycle wore on.

I saw the old warrior trying to be so gentlemanly in his campaign. I was so disheartened so many times when he failed to take advantage of his opportunities to slam the lectern and ask Americans just what in the dickens they were doing even thinking about hiring this man.

Well, obviously, as reflected in the majority of comments here and in the town halls, "frightened equals FIGHT OR FLIGHT" COMING INTO PLAY.
I am so proud of my fellow Americans for deciding to fight these no-rule scumbags.

Quin| 8.14.09 @ 12:28PM

You people astonish me. I write a column advising that we conservatives be VERY tough without playing into the left's hands by being outright bullies, and I get called a p***y, etc. I lay all the blame for lies and thuggishness on the left, and you respond as if I have given the left a pass. I am talking about winning politically; you all seem to be talking about the right to have a temper tantrum, whether it wins politically or not. There's a fine line between being tough and being so over-the-top that you hurt your own cause. All I am suggesting is that we notice and respect that line -- in order that we can actually win the political fight we are in. Unlike many of you, I've been in those political fights. Many times. And I've won. And I've never backed down. Not once. Or, take me on in sports and see if I ever back down. Never. You have to scrape me off the court or the field, because I won't leave the battle until and unless I am flattened like a pancake -- and that doesn't happen very often. But, since when does advising that we play it SMART equate to advising that we play SOFT? Never. "Tough" and "smart" are not mutually exclusive; done right, they are mutually reinforcing. Get a grip, people. Seriously.

TennesseeVolunteer| 8.14.09 @ 2:54PM

Quin, we've got your back. we're all on the same team. All of us are so earnest in our belief that we want our kids to have an America that they can pass on to their kids that we all are a little bit on edge. Quin, people are laying off employees, closing businesses, losing jobs, spending their 401K's and their is absolutely no light behind the darkness yet.
We all know in our guts that these fakes in the administration are running our country into a ditch and health care is where we are making a stand. Coarsely, rudely, roughly but with good hearts, strong backs and belief that opportunity and the true pursuit of happiness is just behind the clouds. All of us have to invoke the two words from Kipling from his magnificent poem "If". I keep them with me everyday because the hardships I described above are all what has happened to me, my employees and our business. Quin, we must all "Hold on!"

Angel| 8.14.09 @ 4:01PM

Quin, passions are red hot right now and most conservatives don't want to be calmed down. We need to muster all of the energy we can right now to fight this socialist juggernaut. We'll settle down in time but not yet.

I agree with Tennessee Volunteer--we are all on the same side.

I'm surprised that you're taken aback by the negative responses. Fox News' Charles Krauthammer got blitzed by Conservative viewers after he expressed a similar opinion on Special Report.

I don't think a lot of these bloggers know you, Quin: Those of us who do objected to their posts. They sound very young, too.

Ken (Old Texican)| 8.14.09 @ 5:18PM

Angel is precisely on the mark, here, Quinn.

I am reminded of an old gunny, (gunnery sergeant), in our family. "give me an 18 year old Marine private any day. I tell him to take out a machine gun nest...you betcha...and he's off.

I tell a 23 year old college grad the same thing...he says Gunny there has to be a smarter way to do this...and gets us ALL shot up while he's thinking about it."
Sir, I have finally accepted that we are no longer in a "political game"
64 years old, twenty years all over the earth as CEO encouraging our teams in the world's armpits.
I recognize the winds of war when I smell them, sir. Been there, got shot.

So far...the war is the "phony war" that just preceded, as you might recall, Dunkirk and the Battle of Britain.
As Churchill said "Jaw Jaw Jaw is better than war war war." (or a close paraphrase).

I agree one hundred percent.

Right now, I believe you sir are in tactical retreat to Dunkirk in the war of "jaw".

The one thing everyone seems to forget, is that there are lunatics on the right, itching for a gun-fight too. We must not let them reach critical mass.

We need to Jaw Jaw Jaw...honestly, and I believe, loudly. We must hold the "Center".

No compromise is possible with a "blitzkrieg", and that is exactly what we are facing in these days.
Yes sir, it is high time your knees trembled.
God bless

Please...keep wrestling with this. Thousands if not millions of us are looking for the "fifth way?"

JimP| 8.14.09 @ 6:08PM

Quin’s interpretation of the Townhalls is different than ours. Quin sees the people being rude, and constantly shouting down all opposing points of view, and stooping to the level of Democrat thugs. All we see is controlled justified outrage, by senior citizens mostly, with an occasional instance of ‘rudeness’ or ‘shouting down’ opponents. Quin overreacted to the Townhall protestor’s behavior in our estimation and he also ignores what has occurred before, which prompted the shouting.

We don’t need to be told to not be rude, or shout people down. We know this already. We don’t need to be admonished or lectured on how to behave. When Quin lectures us on polite behavior and says we commenters make him tremble for the country, he sounds like one of the effete, elite RINO’s who have been selling conservatives down the river and who have been telling us for over a decade that we need to be like John McCain instead of Reagan. He sounds like the kind of elitist Republican who gave us 6 years of over spending etc that lead to Obama getting elected. Quin wrote stand alone sentences that carry with them the implication that we need to be told how to behave: As if we were going to start a riot without his sage advise. To read his column and then his comments, one would think the senior citizens and we commenters are about to join up with the Hell’s Angels and run amok but for his enlightened admonishments. And then we have the temerity to not listen to The Great Man. LOL

It is ridiculous that anyone can see the senior citizens speaking up with justifiable anger, and fear that they are going to become bullies & thugs, or presume to lecture everyone on the rules of proper etiquette on the assumption that we don’t already know those rules, or read the reasoned comments to Quin’s column and then tremble for the fate of the nation. These are the interpretations of a prep school, beltway bubble, pantywaist. That’s why Quin was called a p#$$y. We who disagree with Quin come from more robust environs than the genteel salons of the elites. We were educated in 'pulik skrools ' and ‘cow colleges’. We served in VietNam, Grenada, The Gulf and the GWOT. We are COPS and Firefighters and truck drivers etc. When we see sixty somethings getting rambunctious, we don’t get all in a dither about losing the PR war or the fate of the nation. We recognize a genuine mob and they ain’t it. We also recognize a guy who is overreacting, arrogant, and writing columns that sound like the typical inside the beltway RINO.

Quin| 8.14.09 @ 8:22PM

Jim P.
If I am a RINO, the acronym has no meaning. I've been fighting these fights for three decades now, always on the side of very solid conservatives. I am starting to think some of you are so enraged that you are reading things into my columns that just aren't friggin there. The whole column started with a paragraph identifying Obama as a demagogue. I never backed down from who the real thugs are. And I also never said that the conservatives at the town halls are overwhelmingly acting out of line. A FEW have done so, and my point is that when they do, it plays right into the hands of the left. We needed the loudness to get attention early. Now we need to keep making our points firmly and toughly, but just ratchet down the volume a little in order to make the left look even more stupid for calling us a mob. Look, I spent a number of years VERY successfully doing conservative PR on the Hill, and NEVER was "Beltwayed." And I've fought and won harder battles than this. Why is it such an affront that you must call me names just because I write a column advising a LITTLE discretion amidst the passion that, in that very column, I repeatedly applaud? Jeesh!

Dave Lincoln| 8.14.09 @ 8:55PM

"I write a column advising that we conservatives be VERY tough without playing into the left's hands by being outright bullies, and I get called a p***y, etc. "

First, of all, the word is "pussy" (no asterisks). Enough of that. you're equating hell-raising with bullying? That is your fallacy, Quin. I wonder if you read the rest of my post after the word pussy. I tried to explain the other side to you, but it doesn't seem like you understood.

The problem is not whether you will fight till you drop, Quin; the problem is how you fight. "The Hammer" above made some very good points, one of which was about the American colonists' tactics versus the British. The Americans fought in a way that would be called guerilla warfare today. We are now acting like the British - stand in formation - don't take into account the tactics of your enemy. That's like the guy that got beat up by the SEIU thug at one of the town meetings. Sure, he got on you-tube, whoohoo, but he ain't coming out to another town hall meeting anytime soon. I imagine this discouraged him a lot more than if he had got good few swings in, and his friends at the meeting got in on it and started a riot. Put that on you-tube, and see what the SEIU thinks next time around.

Another example, Quin, is the blatant anti-voting rights actions by armed black panthers in one of the northern states (I think?) Yeah, it got on the news (you-tube, I mean, MSN doesn't care), so that may clue some people in to what's happening, but, on the other hand, what happened to the investigation of this. I'll tell you what; it was dropped.

Whom do you think you are dealing with? You keep writing about "political fights" that you've won. What does that mean? Does that mean you actually stopped a piece of socialist legislation from passing? Really, I'd like to know. Or, did you have many people agree with you in writing or on a Sunday morn. TV show that, yes, Quin is right. See, that doesn't do a bit of good (the latter). The people we're against are hard-core. Whether you are logically correct or not and make good arguments or not doesn't matter to them. They want power, and they want it now. It's our job to stop them, by any means necessary.

I would agree with you if your point was: "Don't be rude by starting a fistfight. Let them take the first punch. Only then, pile on."

Dave Lincoln| 8.14.09 @ 9:06PM

Another point: You all know that the MSM is against the conservative/libertarian side totally. So, try not to act like a George Bush or John McCain in the "we just need to reach out to the other side, so they will like us.", "why are my friends so mean to me when I am honest about my political views?", "why can't we all just get along? I'll compromise first; you next year, OK, little Teddy K?" manner. Come on!! Have we learned nothing?

The mainstream media are going to treat us with contempt no matter what we do besides turning hard left. They don't care about your logical political arguments, as most MSM reporters are, to put it delicately, stupid to no end. The left-wing politicians are not going to appreciate your logic either, as I said before. Don't worry about them. They're going to call you names; don't worry about that. They're going to get one of their beefy friends to grab you round the neck. That's when the fight starts, and you should not worry about being rude at that point. In the long run, it's going to take shots being fired, too. (No, that's not a threat, it's a prediction.)

Quin| 8.14.09 @ 9:15PM

Dave Lincoln: If I listed all the fights I have won, politically, it would take too long. I beat Ted Kennedy (he yelled about it, about my work specifically, on the Senate floor for 15 minutes) at his own game in order to keep alive, almost singlehandedly, the nomination of Bill Pryor for a federal judgeship. Bob Novak, among others, recognized that piece of work. I played a big role in helping cut $50 billion from the budget, in domestic discretionary spending, in 1995-1996. I've played large roles in helping conservatives get elected against the odds. I could name lots of such examples. You mentioned the Black Panthers. Go to the Washington Times web site. See ALL those editorials keeping the issue alive and keeping the pressure on Holder, et al? All but one of those editorials were mine. And we're drawing blood on that one. More blood to come. Then there was the fight to keep a real Nazi, David Duke, from taking over the Louisiana Republican Party. I won that one, too -- against lots of threats and one very physical altercation.
If YOU read the things I write, you would see that I am specifically talking about fighting the best way in order to win. And I have lots and lots of experience doing so. We're winning this health care fight because of our passion. We need to keep that passion focused and productive, rather than destructive, lest we blow apart the progress we've made.

Dave Lincoln| 8.14.09 @ 9:36PM

Quin, OK, I stand corrected about your political fights. You have a small influence on what the conservative politicians do, and that is sure better than none. I, for one, appreciate it. However, let's bring up the Black Panthers in (I remember now) Philadelphia for example. So, you put pressure on. Fine. If the anti-constitutional Eric Holder wants to do nothing, then nothing will get done. What do you mean by "drawing blood", making him look bad? So what? I'm trying to tell you that these guys DON'T CARE. They have the MSM on their side to always suck up and kiss ass. Other lefties just love the work Holder is doing, especially the part where he ignores the law and blows off people like you. They love it.

You may have influence on the conservatives that have some power in this realm (voting rights and that investigation), but, guess what, Obama won, right? As far as the left is concerned, it doesn't matter what the constitution prescribes, or what government commission determined what, they won, see? It doesn't matter what major point of law a conservative senator (note I don't mention GOP as GOP != Conservative), brings up at a hearing or writes in an official document, based on Quin Hillyer's influence, they won, get it? The ends justify the means for these commies, and we all know what the ends are.

(Continued in a minute; my keyboard is getting hot...)

Dave Lincoln| 8.14.09 @ 9:55PM

... Continued ...

Oh, I gotta say first, I like the new pop-up box with the picture of Michelle Malkin over Ben Stein any day.

Quin, you are a pundit. I read many of you guys and girls, as I spend entirely too much time on-line. I am sure you do have influence on some government people, as they care about what the pundits say somewhat. I hope more Americans are getting political news from on-line sources as opposed to listening to the crap on the major TV networks and reading the crap that is in their local newspapers.

However, don't assume that your average American keeps up with this stuff as much as someone like you, or most of the posters here. I don't say this is wrong - if our Fedzilla was of the size proscribed in the US Constitution, then, indeed, there would be no reason to have to worry about political news so much. It shouldn't matter (and DIDN'T, in the old, old days) matter who is president at all, unless there was a war fixin to start, or a war going on. That's the way this country should be. But, it's not now.

This means that people don't get riled about this or that egregious, law-breaking, selfish, and dirty acts by our millions of people in Fedzilla because they cannot hear about it all. Some of us have jobs (that is no sleight, BTW, I appreciate the job you are doing). Not all of us can spend our days being in touch with the big wigs as community organizers, especially for a living. At this point in US history, however, it has come to a point where even non-political-thinking Americans are starting to realize that this country WILL go down the tubes into the Socialist Sewer, if they don't do something soon.

People are getting pissed about what they do learn, say on Michelle Malkin, the Spectator, and thousands of other web-sites that have the guts to publish the truth. Those people do not need to be lectured about being rude or not. The more hell is raised by the general population, the better off we will all be in the long run. If y'all at the Spectator have done your small part to get people riled up, you should be proud of that. Keep up your support of the patriotic American people. If the US government were even to get destroyed by large-scale unrest, that is still much better than the path we are otherwise following.

Angel| 8.14.09 @ 10:02PM

Dave, do you understand my 8/13 @ 9:38 PM post now? Quin is a good person who has fought the good fight for a long time and I didn't think it was right to insult him.

But, I will say one thing; I am so d@mn sick and tired of "bringing a knife to a gun fight." Democrats are thugs and street fighters and are intent on remaking our Republic into a socialist state.

If we don't figure out how to beat them at their own game, I believe we will lose our country.

Robert Rosencrans| 8.15.09 @ 7:07AM

Well Mr. Quin, you stepped on the third rail of American politics and your thoughts do not need to be defended. The third rail is Freedom of Speech and although I agree with your premise, I don't agree with you that this is even happening as far as conservatives go.

If anyone is yelling and shrill it's liberal politicians, including the lying scheming Barack Obama and his lying scheming tax dodging minions in the White House.

In the meantime, I wouldn't take it personally. Go back and check. I think I referred to several of your articles as brilliant, and brilliant was right on the mark.

You article was good advice and good principles for anyone at anytime. However, a fact check would indicate that this entire scheme was cooked up by the White House to implicate Republicans in a negative light.

In the meantime, keep them coming. Your political insight is wonderful to read.

Michelle| 8.15.09 @ 1:22PM

Dave Lincoln, it doesn't make you more of a man when you use a female body part to make your point: It makes you less of a man. Offensive, too.

New York Times| 8.15.09 @ 4:12PM

Peterson Hits Social Security Myths
September 27, 2000
Peter Peterson, former Commerce Secretary and founder of the Concord Coalition, lamented in the New York Times this week that in the coming election "what poses for debate on entitlements may be worse than no debate at all. The bidding and one-upmanship on the campaign trail could easily lock the new president into indefensible positions that block genuine and badly needed reforms."

"Why is there so little understanding of the long-term challenge? Two big myths are anesthetizing our judgment: Myth No. 1: Social Security is in good shape because it has a trust fund. We are often told that the trust fund will keep the system solvent until 2037 if we do nothing and, if we make some minor tweaks, it will last until 2075. Who could get excited over such a distant danger?

"What we are rarely told is that the trust fund is fiscally and economically meaningless, an accounting fiction; this money has already been spent. Its so-called assets are nothing but a stack of IOU's from the Treasury. By 2015, Social Security's annual costs will start to exceed its tax revenues by ever ballooning margins.

"Because this is a pay-as-you-go system, Congress would then have to raise taxes, cut other spending or borrow from the public to redeem the IOU's -- precisely as if there were no trust fund -- or else take a heavy hatchet to Social Security and Medicare at the very moment the huge boomer generation is moving into its elder years.

"Some argue that we can use the projected budget surpluses to pay off the IOU's. Alas, this isn't possible. The surpluses themselves may not materialize. For one thing, an economic downturn could easily turn the surpluses into deficits in just a few years. For another, the budget projections assume, implausibly, that discretionary spending will not grow faster than inflation -- in spite of major new commitments to defense and education.

"If the surpluses do materialize, much of the money is likely to be spent. Gluttons don't often turn down a free lunch. Presidential candidates and members of Congress rarely withstand the temptation to give away surpluses by increasing spending or cutting taxes. There's much talk of putting a "lock box" on the surpluses. But no one has yet designed a lock box that Congress couldn't pick. Even if the lock box works, the money in the trust fund is but a small down payment on future obligations.

"Myth No. 2: The New Economy will allow us to grow our way out of the problem. According to this myth, official projections, which point to a gradual slowdown in economic growth, are too pessimistic. The critics confuse pessimism with arithmetic. Economic growth depends not just on growth in productivity, that is, output per worker, but also on rising numbers of workers. By the 2020's, the labor force will be growing only about one-tenth as fast as in the last quarter century. Given the demographics, it would fly against all logic if economic growth did not slow.

"A better question is whether the official projections are too pessimistic about the growth in productivity. But keep in mind that even a huge boost in productivity won't do much to reduce Social Security's burden. According to Alan Greenspan, the Federal Reserve chairman, eliminating Social Security's long-term deficit would require a 200 percent increase in long-term productivity, a leap that few economists, even new economy enthusiasts, believe is possible.

"Our leaders face a choice. They can address the question of entitlements for the elderly while the economy is still booming and the budget is in the black, and before most baby boomers retire. Or they can delay until the window of opportunity closes. Either way, America will change course. If we act now, everyone, young and old, will have time to adjust and prepare."

2001 Index | 2000 Index | 1999 Index | 1998 Index

Blood line to Abraham| 8.15.09 @ 5:43PM

New York Times Reveals that European-Descended Jews are Counterfeits and have no Blood line to Abraham
The fact that most of those who call themselves Jews are not Jews and have no claim to the lands of Palestine because they have no genetic relation to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob can no longer be suppressed. The October 29, 1996 N.Y. Times, in an article entitled, "Scholars Debate Origins of Yiddish and the Migrations of Jews," states:

"Arching over these questions is the central mystery of just where the Jews of Eastern Europe came from. Many historians believe that there were not nearly enough Jews in Western Europe to account for the huge population that later flourished in Poland, Lithuania, Ukraine and nearby areas.

"By reconstructing the Yiddish mother tongue, linguists hope to plot the migration of the Jews and their language with a precision never possible before.

"It has even been suggested, on the basis of linguistic evidence, that the Jews of Eastern Europe were not predominantly part of the diaspora from the Middle East, but were members of another ethnic group that adopted Judaism.

"...One linguist has recently argued that Yiddish began as a Slavic language that was 'relexified,' with most of its vocabulary replaced with German words.

"...Even more troublesome are demographic studies indicating that during the Middle Ages there were no more than 25,000 to 35,000 Jews in Western Europe. These figures are hard to reconcile with other studies showing that by the 17th century there were hundreds of thousands of Jews in Eastern Europe.

"...Some scholars believe the roots of Yiddish, and even the Ashkenazic people themselves, lie much farther east. In his 1976 book, The Thirteenth Tribe, Arthur Koestler made the startling suggestion, never taken seriously by linguists, that the Eastern European Jews were not really Semitic -- that they were largely descended from the Turkish Khazars, who converted en masse to Judaism in medieval times.

"More recently, Koestler's controversial thesis has been revived and expanded in a 1993 book, The Ashkenazic 'Jews': A Slavo-Turkic People in Search of a Jewish Identity (Slavica Publishers), by Dr. Paul Wexler, a Tel Aviv University linguist.

"Wexler uses a reconstruction of Yiddish to argue that it began as a Slavic language whose vocabulary was largely replaced with German words. Going even further, he contends that the Ashkenazic Jews are predominantly converted Slavs and Turks who merged with a tiny population of Palestinian Jews from the Diaspora."

(Emphasis supplied).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dave Lincoln| 8.15.09 @ 8:27PM

Michelle| 8.15.09 @ 1:22PM
"Dave Lincoln, it doesn't make you more of a man when you use a female body part to make your point: It makes you less of a man. Offensive, too."

I said it because I meant it. Too bad, Michelle, if you're going to get offended so easily, I think maybe you are not going to make it on our team. As I said before, the name calling is just the beginning.

BTW, I particularly called Quin a pussy in response to his comment in which he was trembling at the other (previous) comments, not really at the original post (article).

Prepare to be called worse, and remember the whole sticks and stones thing they discussed in kindergarden.

Dave Lincoln| 8.15.09 @ 8:35PM

... while I'm writing anyway:

"Dave, do you understand my 8/13 @ 9:38 PM post now? Quin is a good person who has fought the good fight for a long time and I didn't think it was right to insult him. "

I understood your post, but that doesn't mean I agree. I mean, I do agree that Quin has written some very good articles in the past. This is not one of them, that's all. I don't know if he's a good person, but I can assume so. I don't feel at all bad about insulting him, and he should not feel bad (wrong, but not bad) about insulting me back.

However, the battle is with the left-wing politicians really, not our own side. So, enough about the mighty Quin ("come on within, come on without....")

Theresa Ann| 8.16.09 @ 12:46AM

Dave, most women don't want a man who behaves like a pig on OUR team. Real Conservative men can make their point without demeaning women. It makes you look like a trailer trash troll.

drudge ette obama| 8.16.09 @ 3:22PM

David Scott and the sign on his sign: I wouldn't be surprised if an ACORN operative painted it on. So Saul Alinsky-like.

Dave Lincoln| 8.16.09 @ 9:21PM

"Dave, most women don't want a man who behaves like a pig on OUR team. Real Conservative men can make their point without demeaning women. It makes you look like a trailer trash troll. "

I actually don't care what you think of it, Theresa Ann. I called Quin Hillyer a pussy because that's the retort that best suited his (not his original post, I will admit).

Like I said, "sticks & stones", people, "sticks & stones". I would guess Quin knows what I mean about that more than anyone, but maybe an easily-offended women wouldn't. What DID they teach you in kindergarden, self-esteem-building?

Michelle| 8.16.09 @ 10:26PM

What an oinker! And a bully, too. No decent man I know gets off on flinging the P-word around. How old are you, about 19?

Does it make you feel like a big man? You're probably about 5' tall and about as wide.

What was your major in college, A-Hole studies? You've obviously done a great deal of Post Graduate work.

Grow up, loser.

Dave Lincoln| 8.16.09 @ 11:11PM

I stand by my comments to Quin. Again, you can call me any names you want (I like "A-hole studies", I'll have to use that if I can get your permission and also if I can drop 25 IQ points). I don't get offended by that stuff, especially if it is wrong.

Let me paste in what Quin wrote that I disagreed with him on:

"I tremble for my country when I see these comments. This isn't an "all or nothing" choice between bullying on one side and surrender on the other. What I advocate is LOTS of passion, and lots of toughness, but channeled in directions that help our cause rather than hurt it. One can be passionate without being rude or bullying. One can stand up for one's speech rights without denying somebody else their ability to speak. Read my column again. Nowhere does it advocate being mealy-mouthed. It just says that we hurt our own cause when we act like ruffians. THEY are the real ruffians, with their union thugs and the like, and if we stand up to them without sinking to their level then we win both the argument and the PR battle as well. Jeesh. "

I replied:

" Though I have read only 1/2 of the comments (90% of them excellent!) I would like to insert mine before the long posts about the Jews and the Jordan tennis shoes.

I seriously doubt the last few commenters have read my comments above and others from some great commenters. I think you all are just fixated on one word. I'm not backing down on what I wrote, because I believe it.

Michelle| 8.16.09 @ 11:46PM

Dave, if you lose 25 IQ points you'll have a single digit IQ--and no, you don't have my permission to use it, moron.

Look, it you think throwing the P-Word around makes you the biggest, hardest, bad@ss patriot around, by all means USE IT!

Be loud and proud-- shout it from the rooftops 24/7.

George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Ronald Reagan, et al would be so proud.

Dave Lincoln| 8.16.09 @ 11:53PM

Oh, I just noticed something. I didn't call Quin a pussy; I stated that I think our founding fathers would call him that. Yes, it's possible people did not use the term in that way back in 1776, so I am using some artistic license. OK, that was a technicality, but it lead me to think about the following:

If you think this country was not founded by people considered "ruffians" you should read some more detailed history of those times. We have people now who are worried about a permit for protesting and another permit to actually throw a tea-bag (bought and paid for) into a river. Come on, folks, our patriotic ancestors did not apply for the permits from King George or his reps. here in what was to become the United States.

They took over a whole ship, mind you; the tea did not belong to them, and they threw cases and cases of it into the Boston harbor! How many laws did that violate, eh? Oh, and supposedly, some of the guys dressed as Indians; totally politically incorrect, that was (considering part of the purpose of the latter was to push some blame on innocent others, not just to add to the festivities).

These guys crossed an icy cold (back in ye days before ye global warming) Delaware River to attack the opposing Hessian (German) mercenary soldiers on Christmas Eve night! The nerve! The Ruffians! (wonder whether they had degrees in A-hole studies too?) What else would you call them?

If name calling is enough to give you all the trembles and the vapors, then I don't think you're up for straightening out this country - setting it back on the course toward freedom, instead of away from it. Take a cue from Ann Coulter on this - no matter what you think of her rhetoric (personally, I have never caught her being wrong), she doesn't back down and she doesn't let name-calling set her back. I would put Michelle Malkin in this same category. More power to them!

Dave Lincoln| 8.17.09 @ 12:01AM

I was being facetious, Michelle, about permission to use your "A-hole studies" line. Maybe that didn't come through.

Keep the insults coming, and thanks for your kind words regarding Reagan, Washington and Jefferson. They are my favorites, but I would hope Ben Franklin would be proud too. I am proud of them, but especially proud of the ruffians who made it possible for this great country to exist for a coupla hundred years. Not all of them could have the kind of etiquette and political correctness of you and Mr. Hillyer, of course.

Michelle| 8.17.09 @ 12:32AM

Yeah, I caught your brilliant sarcasm; but I guess you missed mine. What's your IQ Score again? Tsk, tsk.

It's not politically correct to be a lady, Dave; it's politically INCORRECT. Foul mouthed f@rts like you make it more even more difficult.

You're worse because you're a pop culture punk pretending to be a noble patriot. Excuse me while I throw up.

You must be a real big treat to live with: So glad I never have to find out.

Swim against the current; even a dead fish can go with the flow.

Michelle| 8.17.09 @ 12:36AM

I bet you a bundle if you called Coulter or Malkin a P**** they'd knock you on your @ss! And I would help them.

Good Night, Mr. Lincoln (any relation?)

Dave Lincoln| 8.17.09 @ 1:32AM

Nope, no kin to the president one and very proud of that fact.

A four-some sounds good to me. You bring Michelle and Ann; I will bring the peanut oil.

Michelle| 8.17.09 @ 3:56PM

Men always go there.

In your dreams, freak boy: Like you could handle it. Ha ha.

You're a jerk but you make me laugh. Behave yourself. ;)

Dave Lincoln| 8.17.09 @ 7:39PM

You ain't getting the last word, Michelle, if I gotta skip my next TARP meeting to comment. Buh-bye.

Michelle| 8.17.09 @ 8:13PM

Juvenile delinquent.

Michelle| 8.17.09 @ 8:33PM

You mean your next Cash for Clunkers meeting. How'd you make out? lol

Dave Lincoln| 8.18.09 @ 3:51AM

Michelle| 8.17.09 @ 8:13PM

Juvenile delinquent.
Michelle| 8.17.09 @ 8:33PM

You mean your next Cash for Clunkers meeting. How'd you make out? lol

Haha, did it really take you 20 minutes to think of that 2nd comment, Michelle, or was it an error with the webserver?

Don't quit your day job.

Michelle| 8.18.09 @ 1:59PM

Unlike you--I have a day job, hence the reason for the twenty minute interval between posts.

I thought you said Buh-bye. Guess you're not a man of your word; must mean you're a p****.

Later, Darling.

Dave Lincoln| 8.18.09 @ 6:54PM

I said bye to you Michelle ... wish you could honor that and go away.

Michelle| 8.18.09 @ 7:36PM

Ha ha ha. Last laugh, baby.

Dave Lincoln| 8.18.09 @ 9:45PM

Not quite.

Angel| 8.18.09 @ 10:22PM

B-Hole.

I still think it's funny that I called you a Quin.

C'mon, say UNCLE!

Michelle| 8.18.09 @ 10:27PM

Sorry, Angel; I shouldn't have posted under your name. I didn't want Quin to ban me.

Dave Lincoln| 8.18.09 @ 11:53PM

"... wonder what her childhood was like."

Michelle| 8.19.09 @ 12:07AM

"Pity you'll never know," she whispered.

C'mon, yell uncle!

Michelle| 8.19.09 @ 1:08AM

David, you're a lot of fun--so smart too!--and you've made me laugh, but my original point still stands: Strong Conservative Alpha Males don't have to demean their women in order to prevail. You should defer because you can; men like you are at the top of the human biological chain. I hope that makes sense--I mean it as a huge compliment. (No Liberal Beta Males for this girl!)

I'm just so grateful that there are good, strong men like you out there, even if YOU are very bratty!

I don't know what's going to happen in the next few years, the future looks a little shaky right now: But American men and women have always stood strong together and persevered, and I pray we can do so again.

Take care, M

dropshippngwatch| 9.2.09 @ 10:28PM

Replica Watch
Replica Watches
Fake Watch
Sales Replica Watches
Fake Watches
Fake Watch
Replica Watch
Replica Watches
Fake Watch
replica Rolex watches
Replica Panerai Watches
Replica Parmigiani Watches
Replica Patek Philippe Watches
Replica Paul Picot Watches
Replica Piaget Watches
Replica Porsche Design Watches
Replica Rado Watches
Replica Richard Watches
Replica Romain Jerome Watches
http://www.dropshippingwatch.com

replica jersey| 9.7.09 @ 3:06AM

I stumbled upon your blog a while ago and come back occassionally since I find it a good read. Awesome article,feel free to take a tour on my website tooUgg Shoes ,air jordan shoesYou articulate your thoughts so eloquently on very personal matters on this site, and I find your perspectives helpful in my own life. I believe true lasting happiness comes from having a sense of
purpose in life. It'll differ for everyone, but I wish you luck in finding yours.

Wedding Dresses| 9.10.09 @ 12:31AM

Very good article written byWedding Dresses
Designer Wedding Gowns
ah

groupshoes| 10.24.09 @ 5:00AM

Nice airtical, i would like to tell all of my friends about it. By the way, i would like to introduce everyone of you a very nice website, it offers cheap air max trainers for men and women. Such as Air max 1, air max 2, air max 90, nike air max 2009+, air max 2010 new, nike air max TN, nike air ltd trainers, air max 95. Dunk SB shoes, nike shox shoes. You can find almost all the nike series there, in huge collection and varies colorways. They have Latest style and classic style. Though their price are low, don't worry about it's quality. They are realll ones!!! I have bought from them for so many times, and very satisfied with the their goods and service. Come on, you'll love it.

The American Spectator

Streetcar Line

Winning Without Wigging Out