@ kohoutek

Americans are, by and large, scared half-wits.

I gave an honest answer to the question that was asked. I'm sorry that you feel a discussion means "throwing around insults".

JohnW1141 you are correct, "produce ONE paper McCain wrote while in the Naval Academy", I can't but, I wouldn't expect a midshipman, learning to be an officer, while in a BA program to be writing articles for a paper he was not the Editor of. On the other hand, Obama was the editor of the Harvard Law Review.

The question you should ask yourself is "Why does EVERY editor in the history of the Harvard Law Review have published articles EXCEPT Obama?

DGValdron says:

Actually, the truth is that McCain's not so much a patriot as a rent boy. He used his Dad's connections to propel him through the Armed forces, and became an incompetent pilot.

That sounds eerily familiar.

Re: Such as, the idea that higher taxes bring prosperity

Strawman alert! No one claims that higher taxes bring prosperity. The claim is that (slightly) higher taxes do not affect the economy much in any wau, disproving the hysterical warning of the GOP back in 93 when Clinton did put through a fairly small tax increase.

um, vice president al gore???

i thought you were talking about the democrats being in control of congress. i thought you were blaming democrat control of congress to deflect criticism of republican control of the white house?

if you want to absolve republican control of the white house by pointing to democratic control of the congress, you'll have to point to an instance of the democrat controlled congress overriding a bush veto. or you'll have to point to specific legislation that the republican controlled white house has pushed for and not gotten from the democrat controlled congress. but at the very least you'll have to come up with something that is actually relevant in time and space to democrats controlling both the house and senate.

what aren't i taking at face value?

you just complained about the left mischaracterizing the right and then proceeded to mischaracterize the left.

Also, I believe you're being unfair to M.J. Rosenberg when you call him a "good proxy for the anti-war Left."

Much of the antiwar Left believes, as I do, that Bush and Cheney have committed treason and countless war crimes.

I haven't seen evidence that M.J. believes any of that.

It is an unfortunate, even tragic, situation we have here. Treason, War crimes. Forging evidence to go to war. Etc.

God, she spoke in Spanish again, be still my heart.

God this gets tedious. But in for a penny...

"And the rest of us are just scared of the truth, and believe that if they wrap themselves in a flag and have a John Wayne marathon, then everything will be alright." but that decaying half wit said just a little earlier "McCain and Palin scare me" which didn't tickle your ire at all. Apparently only those who are scared of your version of truth deserve to be ridiculed.

You really want all of us on here to believe you can't see the contextual difference between these two statements? I know, apples and oranges are the same thing. They're round fruit. Do you really need me to spell it out, or is just pointing out your inability to read for meaning enough? (I don't have to do this with my children, for crying out loud.)

You basically say that Republicans are evil capitalists while Democrats support heroes of socialist labor. Talk about simplistic, discredited bullshit.

So, I suppose you're now going to show all of us the historical evidence we've never seen? Please, elucidate. Or, you could go back and look at, oh, say any industry prior to government regulation or unionization. But, I know, you'd have to read something. And, previewing your later attempts to confuse Republican and Democratic labels in the modern era with previous party incarnations under these labels, the point is that Progressive ideals, presently championed by Barack Obama and the Democratic Party, are the ideals that, throughout history, have represented humanity's higher aspirations. Conservatism, in whatever guise, is the excuse for the status quo.

And those crocodile tears for old school conservatives - comrades like you hated them as much as you hated religious conservatives and you admitted that you continue to do so...but are blind to your admission. Nor is your claim true. Religious conservatives are just as conservative economically as the old bunch.

Not crocodile tears, not even tears. But I can try to respect economic arguments based on some kind of evidence. Even if that evidence has largely been discredited. "Comrades"...see, it's all about "commies" and "marxism" isn't it, Mr. McCarthy? The boogeymen hiding behind your "independent" facade are showing through.

I was raised a religious conservative (Church of Christ). What I hate about them is their a)complete ignorance b) refusal to follow Christ's actual teachings c) insistence upon judging, instead of leaving the judging to God, as instructed, and d) the complete lack of faith evidenced by their inability to hew to the doctrine they would shove down all our throats.

I didn't imply that religious conservatives aren't economically conservative. What I did say is that Republicans completely gave up being the party of "economic conservatism" when they sought to ally themselves with "values voters" and became the party of moral hypocrisy, ie, the evangelical right. There is no way in hell that anyone can use the New Testament to justify modern Republican every-man-for-himself, dog-eat-dog capitalist dogma. You show me where Jesus Christ ever says anything remotely resembling any of the crap being peddled by the Republican party. I do seem to recall a bunch of stuff about money lenders, false prophets, looking after the poor, selling all your possessions and following Christ, and the whole rich people, camel, and eye of the needle shit, though. You talk about a marriage of convenience that reeks of moral and intellectual dishonesty to the core.

And what about your claim that, since Lincoln, nothing good has come from Republicans who have been those who blocked equality among the racists. More complete crap from a pompous ignoramous. From the civil war to FDR the Democrats were the party of racists and TR did more for this country than almost any other President. One can also make the argument that Woodrow Wilson, that self-righteous, Southern racist Democrat, in his unreasonable demands, did more to precipitate WWII than anyone else. Nor do you have a realistic idea of what the founders meant by "all men are created equal". With the possible exception of Tom Paine none of them thought blacks and whites were equal...although many opposed slavery.

What you missed are the quotes around "Republican". We all know the parties have changed over time, the names in modern discourse meaning very different things from what they did at various points in the past.

In the context of this discussion (as you well know), I, and most others here, are speaking of progressive politics/policies/ideology, which, in the modern era, as you rightly point out, are represented by the Democratic party. What Democratic, Republican, or Democratic-Republican meant in another era...That's irrelevant. We're not arguing about the history of the parties. We're arguing who, here and now, is on the right side of history. And indeed, when looking at history, the cardinal sin (paraphrasing here) is to judge it with modern eyes. So, when a president is progressive, he's progressive. When he's not, he's not.

Back to the original point I was making (and that you've helped me make) is that what's disingenuous about the Republican Party claiming Lincoln now is that it seeks to inherit a glory it no longer deserves, seeks a virtue it has long since abandoned. All "Republican" Lincoln or Teddy really has in common with modern Republicans (in terms of which side of history they stand on) is that party label, which sadly no longer means the same thing. Love Teddy. But he's no more a modern Republican than I am. Woodrow Wilson...mixed bag. Racist, on one hand, as was a majority of Americans, progressive in most other areas, by the standards of the time. Responsible for WWII? I think not. Flawed figure? Sure. So, tell you what. I'll give you TR as (quote/unquote) "Republican"...but I still use the quotes for the same reason I used them with Lincoln. The meaning of Republican in their contexts bears little to no resemblance to the Republican of our time. And the Democrats of our time are the modern standard bearers of progressive ideals. Doesn't mean they always were. But we're not living and arguing in 1896 are we?

That's the point you'd like to obfuscate, but remains true all the same. Linking modern Republicans to previous incarnations...It's just bullshit. What have they stood for in the modern era? Where have the Democrats stood? More to the point, on what side do progressives and conservatives stand? That's the issue. If you're a modern Republican, you're not a progressive. And if you're considering siding with the Republicans, you're not a progressive.

Throughout history, it's progressives who make change for the better, conservatives who oppose it. Republicans one day, Democrats the next, it's not the party names that matter, it's the ideals being advanced. In our time, in our era, Republican=Wrong. Democratic=Right. McCain=Wrong, Obama=Right.

And don't get me started on that bullshit about what the founding fathers meant. What I said is that it's taken us 230 years to figure what those words mean. I didn't say the founders understood it...They obviously didn't live it out. But they wrote something true, despite their what we'd call "barbaric" understanding, that we've had to redeem from darker conceptions of the human condition. Our faith in the promise of those words, the challenge laid down by them, is what got us past the commonly accepted "truth" that god did not, in fact, make us all equal. The fact Obama is poised to become our president means that my version of history is correct. Progressive ideals have won out. All men are created equal is closer to be true in fact now than it was a year ago, 230 years ago, or 10,000 years ago. And I'm damn proud to be trying to make that happen.

And your claim that somehow only progressives can see the evils of American history. What a crock. What separates you from conservatives is not your ability to see that evil but your determination to see American society as essentially evil, and therefore to be destroyed. You don't love America. You hate it and side with its enemies.

And here, at last, and as predicted, we find patriotism, the last refuge of scoundrels, being appropriated by you. I'm on the Cherokee tribal rolls. My ancestors walked the Trail of Tears. My people have been here a goddamn long time. Don't talk to me about "America's enemies" you imbecile.

Who's doing something about the evils of American history? You do acknowledge, apparently, the evils. Who changes them? Who stands against them? Progressives. Of every era. It is, by definition, Progressives, versus Conservatives (the status quo), who, in any era, stand against the accepted evils of the time and demand better.

What separates me from conservatives is not my determination to see American society as evil, but my determination to believe we do not need to endure the evils. I do not accept that what is, what we've inherited, has to remain as is. I believe in progress as a fundamental aspect of humanity's better angels. And I choose to side with those angels from all times, places, party labels, who have been on the side of our continued progression from barbarians to who we are now, and who we can be. My Cherokee ancestors fought for this country in WWII. My German, English, Scottish and French ancestors fought for this country, with honor. When I buried my father 3 years ago, he laid beside his father, a colonel who served in Patton's 3rd Army, and then in Korea, and his two brothers, another colonel and a sergeant. Don't you dare lecture me about who loves this country.

I'm not afraid to face our sins and call them out. And neither am I afraid to believe we can do better. This is not yet the best of all possible worlds. And if you think it is, then you, sir, pompous ignoramus that you are, are content to cling to the status quo, afraid to demonstrate the same courage you would herald in your "Republican" heroes.

No nation has set itself a greater task. No nation has proclaimed itself so boldly. No fundamental ideology of government has inspired so many. I believe in living up to the challenge that was laid out before us.

And that makes me every bit as much of a patriot as you. History shows that any goddamn fool can die for any god-forsaken morally bankrupt leader, regime, or ideology. Obedience and acquiescence, jingoism and "patriotism" are the cheapest and easiest things men offer. You seem to forget those who staked out this nation, who saw the sins of their homelands and forebears, said, "We can do better. And we will do better." Traitors all, they endured, imperfectly. And now you bow down at the altar of excuses and fear, where they would not, and dare call those who refuse to sanction your fear, your willful ignorance and blindness, traitors. You deliberately miss the point.

Funny, isn't it.

I don't think our politicians are heroes and saints. But I do know, out of the two before us, which one is on the right side of history.