I am certainly not endorsing this thing, but it is happening here, so....
Help fight the “out of control” government spending
and stop mortgaging our kids future!
Wednesday, April 15, 2009 Annapolis Party is 12:00-2:00 PM at City Dock
Sponsors: American Solutions, Americans for Prosperity, Del. Don Dwyer, MDGOP, Sean and Frank, Severna Park Rep. Women, and many more...For more information contact: Aaron Jones:
Sponsors: American Solutions, Americans for Prosperity, Del. Don Dwyer, MDGOP, Sean and Frank, Severna Park Rep. Women, and many more...For more information contact: Aaron Jones:
These people are so worried about the power of government spending...except when it's for military purposes or invading other countries.....and as for mortgaging our children's future--what about sending them off to war? Talk about out of control government spending--what happened for the last eight years? Guess they thought that was controlled. On the other hand if Don Dwyer is endorsing it, well, that makes it all the more interesting...
15 Comments:
Funny to see Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity support this sort of thing. I seem to remember their accusing Iraq War protesters as anti-Americans.
Funny to hear them defending this as a defense of the constitution. I don't recall that perspective when the Patriot Act was coming into effect.
Thanks Andrew:
Right on. Please fully identify yourself in subsequent emails. thanks
Actually, providing for the national defense was the primary purpose of our government. Our founding fathers we be shocked to find what they're doing today.
I see no reason to denigrate anyone, on the left or right, who want to become a vocal part of their government.
As for spending, you should brush up on your counting. There's a difference in between a billion and a trillion. When Bush ran a few hundred billion dollar deficit, the Dems were screaming that world was about to end. Now that OBama will routinely run trillion dollar deficits, they're suddenly silent.
You can try to rewrite history, but that won't change it.
Also, Paul would you have accepted this anonymous comment, had he not agreed with you?
Bob McWilliams
Bob
Your comment is full of grammatical errors as usual, and while you may include some version of your facts, they do not create an honest or accurate narrative--as always. What does national defense have to do with invading other countries or a bloated and obscene military industrial complex lining the pockets of the rich? Why don't you send your son to Iraq? Or better yet, maybe you should go?
Besides that, you asked me a really offensive question about whether I would have included that last comment if I had disagreed with it. I publish your stuff, yes? I am under no obligation to accept any comments from anyone. However, I published nearly 100% of comments for over two years until recently when I ended anonymous comments because they are out of bounds and irresponsible--and for other reasons. At least this one had a first name, was respectful and I am reasonably sure who it is--and I did ask the person to identify himself next time. As I have suggested to you a hundred times--start your own blog. And as I asked you to do a dozen times before that, start writing a regular column here--but you NEVER acknowledged those offers. So do us all a favor, and stop suggesting that I censor anyone--or that I only do so because I disagree with them. Nothing is further from the truth--yet that is a commodity in short supply in your world. If you like having this blog around, then why don't you put your money where your mouth is and buy an ad??? You get this as a free mouthpiece and then criticize me for it! What chutzpah! Anyhow Bob, maybe I should start a policy that if there are numerous typographical and grammatical errors, not to mention flawed and irrational thinking, I won't publish it. That would quickly eliminate your comments.
Paul,
Your ad hominem attack of Bob does not detract from his argument.
He has the right to disagree about what constitutes national defense.
People have the right to protest, whether it is outrages related to spending, or the Overseas Contigency Operation.
You have a new policy related to Anonymous posts. Bob's question is valid. Your response was bullying and intimidating.
So here is question. Would you have gotten so indignant if someone with your "like thinking" questioned your anonymous policy in the same way?
And one more. If another identified poster had attacked Bob in the same manner as you, would you have posted the comment?
Brian Brown
Brian
Hi there. I did not even know that you were a reader. First of all, there is no adhominem attack on Bob. I have always published his letters. If you or he do not like my responses, well, don't write to me.
It seems to me that you and Bob are trying to bully and intimidate me--and here I am publishing your letters while you accuse me of stifling anyone who disagrees with me!
Who are you to lecture me about people's right to protest? What do you think I am doing here? And not only that, but consider why this round of commenting started---IT IS BECAUSE I AM PROMOTING THE TEA PARTY--even though I disagree with it. Hulloah! So what exactly is your point? If you don't like it, start your own blog.
Geeze, some people don't even have any sense of their own ironic attitudes.....I gotta finish my taxes and help give the country away....
pmf aka CP
Paul:
The length of your response belies the weakness of your argument. Furthermore, the need to attack my grammar further reinforces your inability to debate the issues.
As lawyers say, argue the facts, and if you can't argue the facts, then just argue.
Your attack on me has nothing to do with the topic.
As far as sending my son to Iraq, or going myself, I would be happy to do so in the defense of our country; I'm sure my son (and my daughter) feel the same. But, you'd have to ask them; they're old enough to make their own decisions.
I seem to remember many, like Hillary Clinton, who authorized the Iraq war, given the worldwide post 9/11 intelligence. That intelligence (perhaps wrong) saw Iraq as a threat to our country. And, that point-of-view went well beyond the executive branch.
It's easy to call the game, after it's over, especially after you just had 3,000 Americans killed on their own soil.
About writing on your blog, I thought that was what I'm doing. The purpose of your blog, or anyone else's, is to generate a free exchange of ideas. You seem to think such ideas come only if "paid" for. Why would you want me to contribute to your blog, if my grammar negates my thoughts?
As for your last comment, I suggest that you start a blog about proper english. Apparently, that's what determines someone's right to comment. And, if first names are all that's required, then so much for your concern about people being anonymous.
My response is lengthy as well, but there is much to address. As one of our Founding Fathers said, "I'm sorry this is so long; I didn't have much time".
I hope that your blog continues to allow for non-paying contributors and makes way for those of us who try to express their ideas in less than perfect english.
Your thoughts, ideas, and effort to drill down to the truth are commendable. Why waste your time in an effort to attack people personally. Stay with the issues, and we'll all enjoy a fruitful debate.
My son and daughter will never go to Iraq. But, they will have another war to fight. That will be an economic one, as they struggle to pay off the trillions currently being spent to finance mother government.
Bob (McWilliams)
"If you agree, just put Bob. If you don't feel free to use my entire name.
Bob I will repeat what you said:
"The length of your response belies the weakness of your argument."
Thanks for your comments. As I said, start your own blog.
As anyone who reads my post will see, I conceded the length of my response. What is missing is any discussion of the issues in your retort.
All I find is a request that no one challenge your position, other than with a blog of their own.
That being said, you should limit comments in your blog, only to those (identified or not), who agree with your position.
How boring of a blog that will be.
Bob McWilliams
Bob
Like the bartender says to the guy who has had too much to drink, "I'm cutting you off." You bore me. Your comments are predictable, argumentative, and formulaic.
Even when I try to just deflect them and be a bit coy or snarky, you keep coming back for more. Then you accuse me of being unwilling to argue facts or to debate. I don't want to debate you. It's not worth my time. Can't you understand that?
I am under no obligation to keep publishing your comments but go ahead, make one more comment. Humor me. Make it your swan song. I'll publish it. One for the road Bob--or shall I say one for the information superhighway? Then I'm cutting you off. Let's just say I'm doing it for the national defense, but remember, I reserve the right to have the last word, so choose your words carefully. And if you don't like that, you can start your own blog--boring or otherwise. Good day Sir!
pmf aka "CP"
I don't really need to say anything. Your own words speak for themselves.
Bob McWilliams
Bob 'n Paul,
You two should get a room.
Relevant detractors are crucial to our government and society's stability. And by stability I mean gridlock. Take the US Senate. Our state sanctioned two-party corrupt system seemingly ensures through partisan gamesmanship that the democratically elected 60th senator won't be seated for who knows, maybe 3/4 of his term? While the underdog party (either one, in turn) obstructs the leading party from enacting the platform they got elected on.
Pardon the digression. I support Mr. McWilliams however long-winded and irrelevant this petty squabble is, over the free and public debate about who gets to post a few words of text that they took the time to write. However Bob, your fatal flaw was actually writing the last response. If only you lived up to the words you typed. But then, it is your work.
Paul, you lose points in this debate for critique of grammar and spelling which have little merit but do encourage proof-reading by otherwise intelligent people who are, like many of us, prone to slight mistakes especially in casual forums.
Also you can suggest to your readers using Firefox which has a built in spell checker at least, so when typing in a form it underlines misspellings. Now that is a productive reply to bad spelling. Matter of fact, I know I have seen bad grammar or spelling on your part as well.
Notwithstanding the other points. Your policy has not clearly stated what seems to be shaping up that you will allow writers to remain semi-anonymous if you know their identity, which is a reasonable policy in that not everyone feels comfortable publishing their full name but that does not mean they shouldn't be published. For we readers, we are all subject to Paul's discretion. It's generally not bad, he doesn't give forum to degenerates who are scared to put their name on their drivel, but generally gives forum to degenerates who will. In a land run by degenerate proxies elected to Congress to abscond with tax dollars for personal and crony, while going indicted by the for-profit and colluded press and judicial system, it's great to have a local publisher attempting to analyze that mess on a more local level, and for the most part a nice place for other locals to shed some excess calories bantering on about nothing but hey it provides a little exercise and amusement eh?
Thanks for your note Will:
That's a lot to grind up in my blender and drink but I am sipping it now. You understand that I promoted the tax-tea party even though I don't agree with its point or its organizers. I wish my right-wing detractors would understand that when they pigeonhole me as a "liberal" or as someone who stifles disagreement that they are clearly wrong. (You know the old Jonah Goldberg thing on Liberal Fascists?) Instead of them at least thinking it was a decent thing to promote the event, all they saw was red. Of course,that's usually all the rightwingers ever see.
It would also be nice if people understood that I make this forum possible and worthwhile, even though some certainly don't like what I say. It would be nice if they understood that it is my labor, my intellectual efforts and honesty that give this blog value. I am under no obligation to anyone. Period. Yet every reader may wish to ask themselves how am I compensated for this? In other words, if you read it for free and you expect me to publish you for free, what is it that makes it all possible? How can you make a demand on me? Don't make the spelling and grammar thing into its own red herring. If you spot a typo on my part, please let me know. Finally, having said that, what is keeping anyone from starting his or her own blog?
It does take effort to write intelligently. For those that write belligerent anonymous comments I would say the effort is needed more for the sake of their own mental exercise and character development.
I feel a significant margin of respect is due to those who put forth a respectful effort to have a proper discussion, that those attempting to engage in that discussion should make an effort to focus on the material points as opposed to the points on an english paper.
Lets not use our personal and communities precious time attempting to dispute one another's points over semantics, and if it takes a little extra brain power to digest what they are saying because their writing is not perfect that should not call for significant and contrarian effort that distracts from any actual merit. In order to raise the quality of discussion if you don't get what someone is saying, it is more useful to say "Please clarify what you mean by ... " or "I disagree with you on these points and with this explanation"
Just my two cents. Rub em together if you like.
To "William James"
I appreciate your comment but in order to keep in line with my policy, I request that you provide your full name, email address and phone number, per the instructions/policy shown where you leave your comment. I intend to publish what you wrote, after I can verify your identity. Thank you.
Post a Comment