advertisement

The world-famous Internet site of the Nationally Syndicated Neal Boortz Show!

Search Boortz.com
Enter search terms:
Browse Boortz.com
Today's Nuze

"Every government interference in the economy consists of giving an unearned benefit, extorted by force, to some men at the expense of others."

Ayn Rand

Nobody's listening.

HERMAN CAIN IS IN FOR NEAL TODAY

By
webwench
@ August 24, 2009 8:34 AM
Permalink | Comments (46) | TrackBacks (0)

Our good friend Herman Cain is filling in for Neal today. Find out more about Herman here. If you have a question for Herman, email him here. Neal will be back in studio tomorrow.

Listeners to our flagship station News/Talk 750 WSB can catch Herman's show weeknights 7-10pm ET.



0 TrackBacks

Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: HERMAN CAIN IS IN FOR NEAL TODAY.

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://boortz.com/blogging/mt-tb.cgi/40814

Jamie Dupree's Blog

If you enjoy Neal's daily chat with Jamie Dupree, you'll love Jamie's Blog! Check it out for analysis of the campaigns and goings on in Washington D.C.

Cristina Gonzalez and Laura Nunemaker assist in the daily preparation of Nealz Nuze!


Avg. rating: N/A

What others are saying

  • @SnarkyBird
    "still waiting for something of substance..."

    Wow, your ego still makes you post fabrications I see.

    Again SB, you took to defending the claim that Hitler was not a leftist. Where is your proof of that or any other claim you have made?

    Demanding that someone proves you wrong is not how it works just as resorting to calling people names is not how a debate or discussion is conducted.

    "it's easy to walk around what you've stated. but you've done nothing to explain your comment "Historically and traditionally it is the leftist represented by the Democrat party in recent decades that seek to impose similar legislation and controls as those sought historically by fascists in power.""

    And you have done nothing to back up your claim previous to my comments. To even get to address my comments, you would first have to backup yours.

    And it must really be embarrassing for you when my comments are supported by the very referenced you posted as a defense of yours.

    "The Nazis were one of the most facist regimes ever. "

    Yes, but not the only one and every fascist regime did not operate exactly the same. Again, national socialism is not the same as Nazism.

    "You may like to avoid what you said and dance around my answers."

    You have provided no answers, Just dodged like calling people names.

    "I understand. I'd be embarrassed too."

    Again, you resorted to insulting people rather than debating. Be embarrassed all you like.

    "Name calling? c'mon. I'm not calling you names. Just like I'm not calling a table a name when I call it a table."

    Poor leftist justification. Typical for one of your outlook to feel justified in calling people names simply due to the fact that they disagree with you.

    "some things just are..."

    Making my point for me. This is akin to the claim that if you disagree with Obama, you are automatically a racists. Simply claims for simply and polarized minds.

    "but, it's easier for you to twiddle with what I say rather than say anything yourself."

    I have stated what I mean and you still cannot address the fact that you have not backed up your argument with any facts. All you have done is go from one dodge to another and insult people you cannot debate with.

    "again...waiting...still.."

    Keep waiting. As long as you refuse or are unable to back up your initial claim which prompted my first reply, then you have no argument.

    Again, you lost the argument once you resorted to insulting people and calling them names.
  • redrea3
    still waiting for something of substance...

    it's easy to walk around what you've stated. but you've done nothing to explain your comment "Historically and traditionally it is the leftist represented by the Democrat party in recent decades that seek to impose similar legislation and controls as those sought historically by fascists in power."

    The Nazis were one of the most facist regimes ever.

    You may like to avoid what you said and dance around my answers.

    I understand. I'd be embarrassed too.

    Name calling? c'mon. I'm not calling you names. Just like I'm not calling a table a name when I call it a table.

    some things just are...

    but, it's easier for you to twiddle with what I say rather than say anything yourself.

    again...waiting...still..
  • Anon or is that Truth?
    I had a big long answer to your last post, then hit the wrong button and poof, gone. Crap it was good too.

    Anyway, short version, good ideas, we may actually agree on some stuff, no need for big bureaucracy.
  • @SnarkyBird
    "LOL

    oh man, you asked for a source for republicans saying the same things about medicare that they are saying now about healthcare reform and then mock me for posting something from 48 years ago?"

    I asked for no such a thing. You keep misrepresenting what I asked for. Sad that you cannot even honestly represent what I posted.

    You stated that conservatives made an argument and now you claim Republicans. I’m sure you have a simplistic view of the world where one is synonymous with the other, but you are also the one who quote an article the assumed national socialism is automatically Nazism.

    You also continue to ignore the facts and details. You claimed the arguments were defeated 50 years ago.

    The argument were made 48 years ago but has yet to be defeated.

    In fact, as it was stated earlier, it appears those claims are being proven try since the same organizations and politicians are pushing for exactly what was predicted. No timeline was given to when it would happen just that the threat existed.

    So again, where is your proof that the claim was defeated 50 years ago?

    "I mean, are you really that obtuse?"

    Obtuse would be more akin to your tactics of trying to use intellectually dishonest tactics when you are unable to back up your claims.

    "Do people set things on you from time to time? like drinks and books?"

    And finally we see the typical and final reply that a person bereft of material and factual support resorts to; more personal insults.

    You cannot back up your claims so like a petulant child, you resort to insulting those who do not buy into your fabrications.

    You already lost the debate once you resorted to insulting others. The rest is simply gravy.
  • Joyce -- Yes I Would
    Joyce -- You asked whether I could support a plan that would not lead that would not lead to a huge new government bureacracy. The answer is, of course, yes.

    But devil is in the details. The Republican plans I've seen are long in generalities but short on details. The problem is how can you force insurance companies to provide insurance to people with pre-existing conditions without them jacking up the insurance rates even higher than they already are?

    The other problem is how rates can middle class folks with incomes under, say $60,000 per year, afford health insurance if they need to buy it on their own.

    These are the key issues in any health reform plan. And there are no easy solutions.

    I'm all for:

    a. High deductible plans (i.e. Health Savings Accounts).
    b. Requiring anyone receiving government subsidies to (i) quit smoking, (ii) lose weight, and (iii) get annual check-ups.
    c. Make health insurance tax deductible for individuals.

    That would all help, but I don't think that would get us past the hump. What's your idea?
  • redrea3
    LOL

    oh man, you asked for a source for republicans saying the same things about medicare that they are saying now about healthcare reform and then mock me for posting something from 48 years ago?

    I mean, are you really that obtuse?

    Do people set things on you from time to time? like drinks and books?
  • @SnarkyBird
    "LOL

    you asked for a source, I answered, then you complained about my answer?"

    I asked for a source that backed up your argument and claim. Simply posting a source is not sufficient.

    "that's kind of weak, don't you think? Kind of like avoiding a topic?"

    I am not the one who cannot back up their claims SB, you are. You took up the argument of trying to prove that the claim that Hitler was not a leftist was true or that the right has distorted history.

    In that endeavor, you failed to prove you point and then tried to resort to a dodge that I had to prove my point first.

    Now you seek to use another copout since your cited source did not address your claims or back them up.

    "sorry but I've posted many links as you prattle on about the lack of substantive debate. "

    Sorry if the fact that you have yet to prove your claims is so upsetting but there is not need to get insulting unless of course that is all you have you support your claims.

    "and yet, after replying with a source, you continue to prattle..."

    Again, a source that did not support your claim that the concerns fo socialism was defeated 50 years ago.

    "pretty sad."

    That you cannot back up your claims? True, but as others have noted, when pressed for fact or a rational argument, you tend to try to dodge your way out of such a rational debate. Take for example your simplistic ad hominem dismissal of Burley.

    "Let me know when you've got something to offer."

    Why? All you would do is cower away again, but thank you for the final cop out.

    Odd. One would think that if you had the facts on your side, as you claim, you could easily be able to provide a plethora of them rather than posted a few quote mined comments, selective definitions and one video from forty eight years ago.
  • rekeninwashington
    outmatched? I made a joke because you claimed I left something out when I didnt...

    and then you reply to talk about how I'm outmatched?

    In what way? not having the smallest sense of humor?

    touche!
  • Thanks for the reminder Snarky
    You posted the first part of dictionary.com and left out the second part of "fascism" directly below it.

    I had forgotten why I don't respond to your posts. You tuck tail when outmatched with a strong counter argument. You get a gold star anyway, since you shouldn't have your feelings hurt.
  • rekeninwashington
    ken, I posted what was there...

    except for the parts my dark overlords prevented me from showing you.

    darn! you've busted me. Now, we must formulate a new plan for the new world order...
  • redrea3
    LOL

    you asked for a source, I answered, then you complained about my answer?

    that's kind of weak, don't you think? Kind of like avoiding a topic?

    sorry but I've posted many links as you prattle on about the lack of substantive debate. and yet, after replying with a source, you continue to prattle...

    pretty sad.

    Let me know when you've got something to offer.
  • End of life counseling
    Yeah, let's do that for these guys. Oh wait! It wasn't fatal after all!

    http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9A9D8SG0&show_article=1
  • Snarkybird is leaving things out
    Snarkybird, you forgot the rest of dictionary.com:

    fas•cism (fāsh'ĭz'əm) n.

    1. often Fascism
    1. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
    2. A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.
    2. Oppressive, dictatorial control.

    It is a form of centralization, as you know. I have yet to see a reduction in the size and number of federal agencies.

    wikipedia.org – List of United States federal agencies OR usa.gov - All Agencies

    Since those agencies are appointed and not elected, you have bureaucracies that don’t fear retribution by voters. That is government gaining power. While it is NOT U.S.S.R., Prussia, Zimbabwe, Byzantine Empire, Ottoman Empire, Venezuela, or WW2 Germany; inch by inch, regulation by regulation, it slowing gets closer. Typically vented hyperbole aside, each person has their own line draw into how much power they want government employees to have over citizens.

    I find all members of Congress who have not worked to reduce bureaucracies appointed by Congress have been at fault for this. It is akin to a landscape caretaker leaving weeds and pests to grow just because the last caretaker did nothing about it. Whether it’s business or government based, centralization of power reduces individual choices and encourages LESS thinking.

    SBA.gov = research/rs264tot.pdf
    “The research finds that the cost of federal regulations totals $1.1 trillion; the cost per employee or firms with fewer than 20 employees is $7,647.”

    Federal Register page count under Reagan = 54,335 pages of regulations.
    Federal Register page count under George W Bush = 80,700 pages of regulations. Please keep in mind this is the LARGEST it’s been in it’s history.
  • @SnarkyBird
    "To your request:"

    Ah. Another “go look it up” demand.

    "There's plenty more out there but I especially like that this is Reagan. :-)"

    I’m sure you do, but you have failed again to back up your claim.

    And if there is so much, why it is that all you could fine is one YouTube video?

    You stated that people fifty years ago claimed that Medicare would lead socialism of everything and that the argument was defeated.

    So all you have cited is that Ronald Regan made a PSA against it.

    You have not addressed the claims of the congressmen he commented about.

    You have not addressed the push for socialized medicine since then.

    You have not commented that the same party, organizations and people are mow pushing for socialized medicine that was pushing for Medicare back then.

    So again, you have failed to support your claims of the topic being defeated 50 years ago.
  • @SnarkyBird
    "To your first posting...again, you've offered nothing but your opinion which is just wrong."

    I challenged the unsubstantiated claim that the ”right” has distorted history and the Hitler was not a leftist.

    You replied to me and took up that argument. You either changed names from the original post or simply took up the challenge.

    It therefore falls upon you to back up what you now defend.

    If you can’t, reporting to intellectually dishonest doges does nothing to support your claims.

    "To declare what either the democrats in congress or the president have done at any point as fascism ignores both the context of previous fascist regimes and the means to gain power and the amount of power they had to exert on the public."

    According to whom? You? You cannot even defend a claim you either posted or chose to defend.

    And as far as seeking power over others, that is exactly what government seeks to do.

    The fact that you ignore the facts of history of what the government has passed that limit freedoms and cause the very problems they now want to fix tends to make you appears as if you simply prefer a party line over reality.

    " both congress and the president were democratically elected and to even compare that with how hitler was elected or what he did once he was, ignores the history of what he did and how he did it."

    Again, where did I ever make such claims about the election or Obama?

    Cite where I commented on how his election was akin to Htiler’s.

    All you appear to have are strawman claims of what you think I have stated rather than address what I have actually posted.

    "It's just pure ignorance to make a weak point that you don't like govt. I mean, speaking of straw men! LOL"

    Do you even know what a strawman is? A prime example of a strawman would be your misrepresentation of what I have stated in order to try to easily defeat it.

    When I state I do not like government, it is a statement of fact.

    Your calling that a strawman is odd to say the least.

    "You dont like govt - Fine. then vote for someone else or run for office."

    As anyone would have or will do. But such a comment by you is irrelevant to your inability to defend your claims.
  • Truthseeker (another misnomer)
    I have done my own research, beginning to wonder if you have done any of your own.

    Under the House bill for instance, you can keep your own policy unless you have a chance occur. Get married, have a baby, change jobs, or OH NO your insurance company goes out of business, your employer changes policies. Your current policy is only grandfathered in, it is not really protected. If any changes are required per above circumstances, you will be forced to join the government plan.

    Oh the grandfather clause is only good for five years, then they all get "re-evaluated". Yeah we know where that goes.

    New employees to the workforce, don't have that option. So all the current private policy holders will eventually die off. Hence the attrition I spoke of.

    Now, I think I asked you this question once before. If a method could be developed (it's already been offered up but you choose to ignore it) that would bring down costs for everyone, truly let them keep their policy and provide a pool for those who are temporarily uninsurable and provide coverage for those permanently disabled, etc., WITHOUT building a huge government bureaucracy would you have a problem with an offer like that?

    Would you?
  • history
    I feel Drea3's frustration here. You can't actually address what we say so you deflect to something else. King George denied all the many peaceful attempts made by the colonists. That's why there was war. I imagine you'll be among the first to buy a red hat when the revolution begins. Oh, BTW: I don't mind being called irrational by one who IS irrational. Kind of reinforces my opinion.
  • reburley
    arguing history with someone who considers the bible to be a historical document is just a pointless endeavor burley.

    But I agree, we have peaceful means at our disposal to change our leaders. How do you think KING george felt about that?
  • redrea3
    To your first posting...again, you've offered nothing but your opinion which is just wrong.

    To declare what either the democrats in congress or the president have done at any point as fascism ignores both the context of previous fascist regimes and the means to gain power and the amount of power they had to exert on the public. both congress and the president were democratically elected and to even compare that with how hitler was elected or what he did once he was, ignores the history of what he did and how he did it.

    It's just pure ignorance to make a weak point that you don't like govt. I mean, speaking of straw men! LOL

    You dont like govt - Fine. then vote for someone else or run for office.

    To your request: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRdLpem-AAs

    There's plenty more out there but I especially like that this is Reagan. :-)
  • re: Snarky
    You said that history supports your point.
    The truth is that history demonstrates clearly that ALL governments get too big. It's inevitable. All governments fall. Also inevitable. They all get too big then fail for one of more of the following reasons: abject bankruptcy, the people get tired of it and kill them all, imperialism and territorial expansion gets them bombed(stoned, sworded, arrowed, depending on the era) back to the stone age. The big picture is that the U.S. Government is no longer serving the will of the people. Even if many agree, they are doing ALL they do to enhance their own power. They don't give a Rat's @$$ if you have good healthcare or not. They are going to take all they can before the peasants erect the guillotine. I see you all arguing about the details of how our government is too big without really addressing the historical aspect of inevitability. They must be stopped with the checks and balances that are currently in place or there will be bloodshed. Maybe you should read some history since you seem to think it is so relevant here. How do you think King George felt about it? He got his @$$ handed to him by a bunch of subjects also....
  • Joyce -- You need to do your own homework
    Joyce -- Why do you think allowing people the OPTION of choosing health insurance provided by the government will lead to the government take-over of health care.

    A little background. Many liberals would prefer a single payer insurance system, like in Canada. That's not the same as government control of health care like they have in England, but it doesn't matter because it's not even on the table.

    A second option would be to allow uninsured folks to buy into Medicare. That's not on the table either, because Medicare pays doctors and hospitals about 20% less than private insurance companies, so the doctors, drug makers and insurance companies would all balk at that.

    So, in most versions of the "public option," the government sponsored health insurance would pay 10% more than Medicare in order the placate those groups.

    But the insurance companies don't want that either, so they've spent $1.5 million per day to modify that proposal, which is why the Blue Dog Democrats eliminated the tie-in with Medicare altogher (and, thus, the public option loses the barganing power of Medicare) and now the newly formed government entity will need to negotiate directly with doctors, drug manufacturers, etc. just like private health insurance companies do.

    But even THAT doesn't satisfy the Republicans, who continue to claim the public option will destroy private insurance.
  • @SnarkyBird
    "My point was, arguing that we need to stop this healthcare reform because "will just through the act of attrition, result in a single payer system." is the same slippery slope, govt will take over argument used by conservatives to oppose medicare. Medicare was supposed to turn this country into a socialist state where the govt runs everything. It didnt happen. So...I was mocking the irony of you telling people to wake up when your argument was defeated 50 years ago."

    Considering that Medicare was always intended for the aged, who made such an argument?

    In other words, you have a source for this claim? I’d be interested in reading it.
  • @SnarkBird
    There, that should do it. Fightin substance with substance there...Yeah man!!

    So are you still confused as to what substance is or do you still consider the length of a reply the measure of its worth and validity?

    You appear to be simplistically dismissing anything you simply do not want to confront or believe.

    And again, where is your proof to back up your claim?

    Depending on what flavor of fascism you are talking about, again, one can reach such a state by taking a far right or far left approach.

    In the most purest sense, the examples of fascism we have from history would have to be considered neither since such examples contain both examples of ideology from what would be seen as right and left ideologies, extreme or otherwise.

    Hence the preferred reference to fascism as “third force”.

    The point is that so many jump on it that there are well know actions taken from the left and the right that were used historically by fascistic states.

    With this in mind Snarkybird, you are in error when you claim that the Democrats of recent decades have not enacted similar legislation as that used by fascistic states.

    Many of the socialistic ideals that the more vocal in the DNC echo many of the goals of such states.

    Now, far be it from me to resort to simplistic comparisons as the article you cited tried when the author claimed that national socialism was the same as Nazism, but people who cherish their freedoms have a right to be concerned when they see their government and their elected officials trying to put into law similar laws that were used in fascist states of the past.

    This doesn’t even begin to address the fact that, in regards to health care, many of the problems Obamacare seeks to address are creations, intentional or otherwise, of previous actions taken by the government.
  • rejoyce
    WOW

    I mean, just wow.

    ....just...I mean, to comment that I should only reply to comments made directly to me is ridiculous. But then to tell people to wake up but not even be able to comprehend what I said....????

    You're right, you should go back to ignoring my posts. I'm sorry I ever criticized you for that. You should stick with cheerleading.

    But, Ill indulge you just so you're clear

    you said "I'm not even sure what your point is here?"

    My point was, arguing that we need to stop this healthcare reform because "will just through the act of attrition, result in a single payer system." is the same slippery slope, govt will take over argument used by conservatives to oppose medicare. Medicare was supposed to turn this country into a socialist state where the govt runs everything. It didnt happen. So...I was mocking the irony of you telling people to wake up when your argument was defeated 50 years ago.

    hope that wasn't too complicated for you.
  • rejoyce
    you said "And none of what is going on now is even remotely conservatism, don't be stupid."

    Yes, I know. That was my point.

    SS and Medicare, etc are all just govt programs. Anyone can propose they be eliminated. Heck, Bush tried to work on Social Security. Ron wanted to greatly reduce defense spending, you see where that got him.

    and, pay attention? ouch...my comments have struck at thee so?
  • Woah
    I'm gonna back out and let Drea3 take over from here.

    awesome
  • Snark?
    rejoyce
    oh the irony of you saying wake up. When the things you're saying to oppose this reform are the EXACT same things conservatives said in opposition to medicare. Did they happen? No.

    But we need to "wake up" because this time, what you're saying will super dooper happen. We just need to pay closer attention.

    Um, maybe your right but...history says you're wrong.

    Call me crazy but, I'm sticking with history.
    By snarkybird

    I'm not even sure what your point is here? I wasn't addressing that to you originally anyway, but now I'm not sure if you are agreeing or disagreeing.

    You need to think out your posts dude, too flighty.
  • redrea3
    You said "If you have something that actually addresses and backs up your claims in a substantive and rational manner, please post it."

    I knew I should have just gone the route you did "all substanty"

    OK, you're right. Here, I'll back up my claim since you were so eloquent in your oringal post.

    Historically and traditionally it is NOT the leftist represented by the Democrat party in recent decades that seek to impose similar legislation and controls as those sought historically by fascists in power.

    There, that should do it. Fightin substance with substance there...Yeah man!!
  • Why?
    Oh wait, you did - Ron just didn't seem to get enough votes.

    I wonder why?
    By snarkybird

    Maybe lack of intelligence on the part of voters!

    I was not a voter when the SS, Medicare, etc. was voted in, would have voted against. But they are there now, and it's kinda hard to reverse it which makes it especially important to stop this new one.

    I believe I've told you that before, pay attention.

    And none of what is going on now is even remotely conservatism, don't be stupid. I said convervatism, not Republican!
  • @HistoryLesson/snarkybird
    "Did I pass your "substantive" test or do I need to just state it in a sentence like you did?"

    You have posted nothing to back up your claim and seem to confuse the length of a post with substance.

    "Keep in mind, this is what you're comparing Obama to:"

    So now you resort to a strawman.

    Please cite where I called Obama a Nazi.

    Even the opinion piece you cite is based upon another strawman that national socialism is equal to Nazism.

    "If you dont think that's far fetched and is "historically" in keeping with the healthcare reform being proposed, then I have a bridge to sell you."

    I’m sure you think you do, but posting a few irrelevant quotes, misrepresenting what I have commented about and failing to address or back up you own claims simply illustrates how you posted form a position of ignorance driven most likely by a reactionary and emotional response to the criticism of Obama or the Democrats in office.

    If you have something that actually addresses and backs up your claims in a substantive and rational manner, please post it.

    If all you have is emotional and reactionary replies, strawmen claim and misrepresentation of what I posted, then quit while you are behind.

    Of course, you could just go for the personal insult. That is the only tactic you failed to resort to in your reply.
  • @HistoryLesson/snarkybird P1
    "so, substance equals more words then?"

    No, substantive mean backing up your claims.

    "You can read here:"

    So you are going to fall back on the “go look it up” rebuttal?

    "But I like the last one:"

    And resort to quote mining and selective quoting. I’m sure you like that passage since it supports your myopic view of the term but ignores the historical facts of the related political ideology and action taken under the label of fascism.

    But, let us look at your selective quote mining and illustrate how what you present now doesn’t support your original claims.

    "Some have argued ...word has come."

    Your original claim was in regards to distortion of history by “the right” that Hitler was view as being a leftist.

    What you post here has nothing to do with backing up that claim. It does speak to the abuse of the term post WWII, but doesn’t address the political classification or leaning of Hitler in regards to left or right.

    "of course there is always dictionary.com"

    And again, where does this definition disprove, prove or address you original claim?

    "either way you slice it, what you're seeing now is no where near fascism."

    According to what proof? You have provided nothing to back up your original claim or to prove that what we are seeing mow is not fascism.

    And again, I can cite your own selective use of terms and quote mining that supports your myopic view.

    You ignore the historical facts of the actions of the fascist states.

    "..and look, more words WITH content!"

    So you admit not to comprehend what I meant when I stated substance. You are confusing your bloviating and the length of a post with the quality of that post.
  • rejoyce
    oh the irony of you saying wake up. When the things you're saying to oppose this reform are the EXACT same things conservatives said in opposition to medicare. Did they happen? No.

    But we need to "wake up" because this time, what you're saying will super dooper happen. We just need to pay closer attention.

    Um, maybe your right but...history says you're wrong.

    Call me crazy but, I'm sticking with history.
  • Health Care plan not like Canada?
    Oh and that makes it all better I suppose? We don't need another government bureaucracy PERIOD.

    And you are either lying or delusional if you can't see that the majority of plans the Dems are pushing will just through the act of attrition, result in a single payer system.

    WAKE UP
  • rejoyce
    great, let's call it conservatism.

    "we do not need big govt"

    Great, start voting for politicians who want to end Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid and reduce the defense budget.

    Oh wait, you did - Ron just didn't seem to get enough votes.

    I wonder why?
  • Whatever you call it
    fascism, socialism, communism, statist, doesn't really matter. What is going on right now, is wrong. There, that is simple. We do NOT need big government. Little by little we are headed that way and it has to stop.
  • Herman Can't Tell the Truth
    Like Boortz, Herman can't speak two sentances about Democrats without at least one of them being a lie.

    His comment about Barney Frank was a classic example. He left out the key part about the woman bringing a sign with Obama dressed as Hitler and then asking why Barney Frank would support the Nazi health care proposal.

    But another lie that Cain repeats all the time is that the Democratic plan is the same as Canadian health care. It's not. Canada has a singer payer plan. Although may Democrats would support a single payer plan, it was taken off the table before discussions even began in drafting the health care reform. The Democrat's plan is far more akin to Switzerland and the Netherlands, but Herman is too stupid to know the difference.
  • redrea3
    so, substance equals more words then?

    You can read here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_fascism

    But I like the last one:

    Some have argued that the term "fascism" has become hopelessly vague in the years following World War II, and that today it is little more than a pejorative epithet used by supporters of various political views to attempt to discredit their opponents. This view dates back to George Orwell, British writer and author of Nineteen Eighty-Four and Animal Farm, who famously remarked:

    "...the word ‘Fascism’ is almost entirely meaningless. In conversation, of course, it is used even more wildly than in print. I have heard it applied to farmers, shopkeepers, Social Credit, corporal punishment, fox-hunting, bull-fighting, the 1922 Committee, the 1941 Committee, Kipling, Gandhi, Chiang Kai-Shek, homosexuality, Priestley's broadcasts, Youth Hostels, astrology, women, dogs and I do not know what else ... Except for the relatively small number of Fascist sympathisers, almost any English person would accept ‘bully’ as a synonym for ‘Fascist’. That is about as near to a definition as this much-abused word has come."

    of course there is always dictionary.com

    fas⋅cism
    /ˈfæʃɪzəm/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [fash-iz-uhm]
    –noun
    1. (sometimes initial capital letter) a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.
    2. (sometimes initial capital letter) the philosophy, principles, or methods of fascism.
    3. (initial capital letter) a fascist movement, esp. the one established by Mussolini in Italy 1922–43.

    either way you slice it, what you're seeing now is no where near fascism.

    ..and look, more words WITH content! Did I pass your "substantive" test or do I need to just state it in a sentence like you did?

    Keep in mind, this is what you're comparing Obama to:
    http://www.tennessean.com/article/20090816/OPINION03/908160358/-1/ARCHIVE01/Comparing+Obama+s+health+plan+to+Nazi+party+is+wrong

    If you dont think that's far fetched and is "historically" in keeping with the healthcare reform being proposed, then I have a bridge to sell you.
  • @History Lesson
    Nice simplified denouncement but you failed to back up your argument with anything substantive.

    The truth is that fascism can be reach by taking either political ideology to an extreme.

    With that fact in mind, one would have to rationally examine the actions of those representatives of each party over time to determine if their actions are illustrated in kind with those of Hitler or any other fascists.

    Historically and traditionally it is the leftist represented by the Democrat party in recent decades that seek to impose similar legislation and controls as those sought historically by fascists in power.
  • way off topic.......................................
    WEBWENCH.............I'm soooo glad you found early........I was worried that he was either bait or a yummy snack.....

    Thank you a'gin....youz iz a sweeeeeeety oxoxoxoxoxoxox
  • "Distortions" from the right
    Though claims of distortions are highly distorted, I wish the left was correct. Why? Karma. Sweet, sweet karma.

    Ever since the election in 2000 patriots have been deluged by the most absurd claims from the left:

    * Bush stole Florida!
    * 9/11 was an inside job!
    * Bush is going to bring back the draft!
    * Bush "knew" in August of '01 but did nothing to stop it!
    * Bush is an idiot who masterminded the biggest conspiracy the world has ever seen to begin a war for oil for his buddies in Halliburton!


    And let's not forget old lefty staples like:
    * Global warming will kill us all!
    * Acid rain will kill us all!
    * CFCs released from hairspray will kill us all!

    In other words, you leftwing, narrow-minded, over-educated yet ignorant latte sipping metrosexual and/or feminazi leftists DESERVE to see your precious fascist/communist/socialist policies go up in flames from lies and distortions from the right! Sadly, the right hasn't resorted to that, and you deserve it so much.

    I wish the right would stop hitting you with the truth and give your side a taste of its own intellectually-dishonest "Rules for Radicals" political bullying. Unfortunately my side has standards, but thankfully that has apparently been enough to get you worthless social cockroaches scurrying back for the dark.
  • It is a very sad day for the world when the American right has so successfully butchered history that its constituents believe that Hitler was politically left.
  • @Reality Distortion Field
    1) Regular talk radio listeners have heard that exchange numerous times because it's often played on the very talk radio that Comedy Central has conditioned you to feel distorts the truth.

    2) You state that Cain neglected to elaborate on what that question was, and it was indeed a question on healthcare. Mr. Frank's ignorance on Germany's National Socialist party is very embarrassing for him considering that he's supposedly a Jewish man (but we all know that's in name only). Hitler was an intolerant man on the hard left who believed a centralized government was the solution to all of life's problems, and that the only thing standing between the public and utopia is a group of people. Gee, I can't imagine why someone would get Obama and Hitler mixed up.
  • Question to Barney Frank
    Would seem to be entirely appropriate. Many of our directions Obama is taking us, were taken in Germany. Frank being Jewish should be even more sensitive to that direction. His response was un-called for.
  • Omitting the Truth is still Lying, Mr. Cain.
    How very, very cute this morning to see some outright distortion in a piece about distortion.

    Mr. Cain informs the audience about the infamous "on what planet do you spend most of your time" quote from Barney Frank. Mr. Cain tells the audience that this is in response to "a constituent asking a question about Democrat healthcare policy", and is an insult. How very interesting that Mr. Cain neglects to elaborate on what that "question" was. What we find is a standard Conservative tactic of omitting the truth, so that when they're called on it, they can say they didn't actually lie.

    The woman's question was: "Why do you continue to support a Nazi policy, as Obama has expressly supported this policy, why are you supporting it?"

    Mr. Frank, a Jewish man, responded with: "When you ask me that question, I'm going to revert to my ethnic heritage and ask you a question: On what planet do you spend most of your time? You stand there with a picture of the president defaced to look like Hitler and compare the effort to increase health care to the Nazis ... Trying to have a conversation with you would be like trying to argue with a dining room table. I have no interest in doing it."

    An honest talkshow host would admit that his statements were entirely appropriate.
  • Hi Herman
    If he looks at our silly wanderings, I hope he realizes Stan's #1 Fan is a joke.
  • Again?
    I agree with Stan. Neal is on vacation again? For crying out loud Neal, it's not like you have to do any actual work when you work. You just sit there behind the microphone all morning and tell africamericans why they aren't entitled to medical care. That's hardly work. Maybe since work is such a vacation to Neal that when he goes on vacation he actually goes and does some work!
send to a friend  view as printer-friendly  RSS feeds
advertisement
advertisement
advertisement