A Good Start for John Boehner, Really

January 7, 2011 at 2:06 am 151 comments

The highlight of the second day of the 112th Congress was the reading of the Constitution, cover to cover, on the floor of the House of Representatives. Ehhhh, scratch that. It wasn’t read cover to cover. The naughty parts about blacks being 3/5ths of a man were left out. Apparently this spectacle was staged to satisfy the newly relevant Tea Party movement but one question we must ask is did anyone actually learn anything from the reading, things like the government’s prerogative to tax its citizens for example?

In a great interview Wednesday night on MSNBC’s “Countdown with Keith Olbermann”, Yale Constitutional Professor Akhil Reed Amar gives a quick lesson on the Constitution and the intent of the framers, which lately gets regularly skewed by conservatives with wishful thinking and a strong tendency for revisionist history.

In the interview Amar reminds us that American revolutionaries were not right wing conservatives, but rather “liberal nationalists”.  The politics of liberalism is reflected repeatedly in the Constitution and the “let the States do everything” approach was abandoned with the demise of the Articles of Confederation. The amendments further the liberal agenda whether it is the amendments of Lincoln’s Republican administration, or the administrations of the 1920′s (women’s sufferage, income tax), or the 1960′s with the end of poll taxes.

Conservatives make a big deal about how any powers not “expressly” attributed to the federal government fall to the States. Amar pokes a hole in this balloon also. James Madison fought hard to make sure the word “expressly” did NOT appear in the tenth amendment because he understood that the Constitution needed to be a living breathing document that allowed for implied powers of the federal government.

But I digress. Why was today a good start for Speaker of the House John Boehner? Well, the good Speaker read the Preamble to the Constitution and then left the chamber with Eric Cantor in tow, to hold a news conference. That’s right, Boehner didn’t think this suck-up to the Tea Party was worth his time. As Jed Lewison of The Daily Kos points out, this put Fox News in a bit of a quandary. Cover the Constitution reading, or cover Boehner? They opted for Boehner.

The big question right now is was this a deliberate move on Boehner’s part to delegitimize this Tea Party stunt? If so, I say bravo! I’ve already gone on record to say the good old boys won’t let the Tea Party hijack their agenda. I just didn’t think we’d see it manifest this quickly.

Respectfully,
Rutherford

WordPress.com Political Blogger Alliance

About these ads

Entry filed under: Politics, Social commentary, Wordpress Political Blogs. Tags: , , .

Mourning in America An Open Letter to Sarah Palin About Guilt by Association

151 Comments Add your own

  • 1. Hucking Fypocrites  |  January 7, 2011 at 4:02 am

    “The naughty parts about blacks being 3/5ths of a man were left out.”

    Because it was amended.

    Don’t worry, Rutherford. The CBC will make sure blacks get their fair share of victimization.

  • 2. an800lbgorilla  |  January 7, 2011 at 6:45 am

    I’d say I was disappointed in you R, but we’ve gotten well beyond that by now.

    You know, and I know, that your liberals are decidedly NOT the same as the liberal nationalists that constituted this nation. To say otherwise is a bald face lie. And as for the liberalizing events in history, like women’s sufferage, etc, they were led and supported by the GOP. Dems you see were- and still are- concerned with maintaining the status quo.

    What’s so disappointing about this post, is that you know that. You know today’s liberals do not reflect the notion of liberalism used in international relations parlance, yet you pursue the falacy altogether. And come now, using MSNBC as the brains behind this venture, well, that’s just salt in the wound- not mine but yours, because surely you could have found any number of left-wing nutjob to make the case without the taint of Olgerman.

    Tisk, tisk. You’re slipping…

  • 3. El Tigre  |  January 7, 2011 at 9:22 am

    OMG. Rutherford, you call that a great or enlightening interview. I am embarrassed for you. Really. You haven’t got a clue about the Constitution, states rights, the bill of rights, what constitutes liebralism and the parties, or the functioning of SCOTUS. And you laugh at the tea party?

    Turn the damn boob-tube off, R. Go read something instead. Try an early Supreme Court opinion or two as to the constitutional limits on taxation or states rights to regulate or something if you want to be informed. That interview was conducted by a complete moron for complete morons. Stupid beyond belief. I will try and avert my eyes for fear I might get some of it on me. . . like you did.

    “The document mentions ‘tax’ not once, but for times. . .” Good gawd man! You took someone’s spot at Harvard?

  • 4. El Tigre  |  January 7, 2011 at 9:25 am

    BiW, take it from here. I haven’t got the inclination or hours in the day to address this garbage.

  • 5. El Tigre  |  January 7, 2011 at 9:27 am

    Oh, but R did a good job. He should be proud. :roll:

  • 6. Rutherford  |  January 7, 2011 at 11:50 am

    I actually should have posted the first comment on this thread. It would have said “BiW’s head to explode … 5 … 4 …. 3 ….”
    :-)

  • 7. Rutherford  |  January 7, 2011 at 11:52 am

    The danger of posting any interview conducted by Olbermann is that you Yahoo’s focus on Olbermann instead of on the interview subject, whose credentials are impeccable. Then again, I suppose Tigre would wonder how Amar got somebody else’s spot at Yale. ;-)

  • 8. Rutherford  |  January 7, 2011 at 12:11 pm

    One reason I posted this was to make a statement concerning folks like BiW who confuse the Constitution with the Bible (that was also mentioned in the interview but didn’t make it into my article) and go to great lengths to cite minutiae from “supporting documents” to imply our founders were state’s rights advocates crafting a document to be taken literally, with no room for nuance or adjustment to changing mores. I especially love that Amar quoted The Federalist Papers, one of BiW’s favorite references, to support his views,

    This fellow Amar, unlike me, is no historical dilettante. He teaches at one of the finest schools in the country and I think he is more than a fair opponent in a debate with BiW or El Tigre for that matter. Admittedly, I wish I had an in depth knowledge of the subject so I could defend Amar’s views but then he hardly needs my defense.

  • 9. Tex Taylor  |  January 7, 2011 at 12:30 pm

    What makes Amar’s credentials impeccable? That he’s written for The Nation and Slate magazine? That he’s a lib’s wet dream? That he teaches law at a predominately godless and liberal university, who shows its own brand of hypocrisy abandoning its foundations of religious training?

    If we want to speak about original intent, perhaps before you take a stab at the people who wrote of original intent of the Constitution, you would do well to read of the original intent of Harvard.

    Impeccable people do not go on MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann.

    And even you know it Rutherford – if you were still honest. Like I said yesterday, you are losing your one saving grace, separating yourself from the rest of the leftist shills who post on this board on most other predominantly liberal places.

    Honesty.

  • 10. Tex Taylor  |  January 7, 2011 at 12:40 pm

    You can congratulate John Boehner for his 3rd day too. They just passed the start of the repeal of Obamacare.

    What was that about the Tea Party being delegitimized by Boehner again?

  • 12. Rutherford  |  January 7, 2011 at 1:05 pm

    Tex, maybe you’ve provided the wrong link. Do you really think Jonathan Alter wrote a profile of a sociopath? LOL

  • 13. Rutherford  |  January 7, 2011 at 1:07 pm

    Tex, your comment about the religious beginnings of Harvard and Yale are interesting. Odd as it may sound, I wonder if Christians centuries ago were MORE enlightened than they are today, valuing education and intelligence. Perhaps these institutions became God-less when followers of God became increasingly irrational and lost their marbles? ;-)

  • 14. Hucking Fypocrites  |  January 7, 2011 at 1:37 pm

    “He teaches at one of the finest schools in the country…”

    Yeah, we’ve heard that one before. And look how clueless that guy turned out to be.

  • 15. dead rabbit  |  January 7, 2011 at 1:58 pm

    That’s the great thing about the document, there is a legal way to change it, you zombie boob.

    You have no filter, do you?

    You will run with any MSNBC argument, even if it makes you too fucking ignorant for Lenno’s Jay Walking shtick.

    The funny thing is when I heard a liberal spewing this same exact ignorance about the Constitution, I thought to myself, “I bet Rutherford will even accept even these dumb ass marching orders”!

    One day later, like clock work.

  • 16. an800lbgorilla  |  January 7, 2011 at 2:01 pm

  • 17. dead rabbit  |  January 7, 2011 at 2:05 pm

    I don’t get the rest of Rutherford’s point. Someone explain it to dear old Rabbit.

  • 18. Tex Taylor  |  January 7, 2011 at 2:06 pm

    I wonder if Christians centuries ago were MORE enlightened than they are today, valuing education and intelligence.

    Rutherford, your stupidity knows no ends. Christians were more enlightened and educational then. And they are now. You get your cue from inanity like MSNBC – men who are so poorly versed for example, they believed C.S. Lewis’ greatest gift to humanity was the Chronicles of Narnia which BIC beautiful demonstrated just a few weeks ago. You supposed intellects are the absolute poorest read, most clueless people on earth. Left to your own accord, you would either abort or die.

    What you fail to recognize because of your poor choices of information are the greatest scientists in the world today are still Christian. Doubt me? Let’s place a bet. Same goes for you Graychin. If you watched something besides TV, you would know that.

  • 19. Tex Taylor  |  January 7, 2011 at 2:10 pm

    The link is exactly what I wanted to demonstrate for Graychin dummy.

    A hardcore leftist admitting Obama is detached. Had a used Dinesh D’Souza, a far more brilliant writer that perfectly explained what a malignant narcissist Obama is than a stooge I chose, you would have screamed bias.

    So there you have it – leftist closest to Obama also explaining the detachment and lack of empathy.

  • 20. Tex Taylor  |  January 7, 2011 at 2:14 pm

    Rabbit,

    Rutherford is struggling. His personal investment is gone; his redeemer an epic failure; his religion now out of power and out of ideas. Rutherford has been cast into the depths and he is lashing out – Tea Party, Palin, Boehner, Reagan, Bush, anybody or anything to even the score.

    The last six weeks, Rutherford has become a whining, petulant author, scorned by the reality of the situation. It took him about two weeks to recognize the disaster of Nov. 2nd, which as you will recall he stated would not happen.

    When it happened, there was nothing left in the tank. And unlike 2000 and 2004, there is no one to blame but his own failed ideology. He can’t even spin in now. And that is the obvious truth.

    This is a screaming baby looking to suckle – but the teat is dry.

  • 21. Tex Taylor  |  January 7, 2011 at 2:20 pm

    Hey Rutherford,

    Why don’t you make your next post about how good Nancy Pelosi is? Then the circle of delegitimization will have finally come full circle.

    Reference this when you compliment her too. I think it adds to her credibility.

    http://nation.foxnews.com/nancy-pelosi/2011/01/07/pelosi-democrats-lost-house-because-bush#ixzz1ANIjeKBy

  • 22. El Tigre  |  January 7, 2011 at 2:38 pm

    “Impeccable people do not go on MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann.”

    Stole it before I could say it.

    Rutherford, listening to you defend that guy’s appearance on Olbermann is like trying to explain to my Grandparents that they didn’t win the Publisher’s Clearing House Sweepstakes. “Why, of course we did. Ed McMahon say so. Are you a celebrity? ”

    “It says “tax” in there four times. . .” Really. Who knew? I distinctly remember the Tea Party saying the federal government had no right to tax at all. Remember? Remember? Or wait is that something that Olbermann said they said? Oh, who cares. It doesn’t make a difference — they said it four times. Zing!

  • 23. Tex Taylor  |  January 7, 2011 at 4:16 pm

    Rutherford, why don’t we make a pact to talk about truth this year on your blog? No spin, just facts. You can start by admitting that you have been party to a representative(s) that have been blatantly dishonest, and continue to be blatantly dishonest with the American public – men like Anthony Weiner (D-NY) aka as Pencil Neck and Geek.

    Health Problem Quantified

    We now know how many people have the problem most often cited as the reason for last years’ health overhaul legislation. Answer: 8,000

    No, that’s not a misprint. Out of 310 million Americans, only 8,000 people have the problem given as the principal reason for spending almost $1 trillion, creating more than 150 regulatory agencies and causing perhaps 150 million or more people to change the coverage they now have.

    http://healthblog.ncpa.org/health-problem-quantified/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=HA#more-17097

  • 24. fakename2  |  January 7, 2011 at 4:31 pm

    Someone explain to me why if the states (excuse me, 46 states and four commonwealths) are so sovreign, why we have a federal governent at all? I thought that question was solved in, oh, 1865. Reading most of these posts, you’d think that the chief function of states is fighting the federal government.

  • 25. Rutherford  |  January 7, 2011 at 4:34 pm

    FN2 I love that book title. :-)

  • 26. Rutherford  |  January 7, 2011 at 4:39 pm

    Regarding #24, that’s part of the purpose of this article. I’m so sick and tired of seeing the Federal government viewed as the enemy of the “States”. Our States representatives have the job of making the Federal gov’t work better. When they don’t we all share the blame. It isn’t us against the Feds. (Unless you want to build another compound in Waco. Mmmm, let’s see, who would head that one up? Tex, BiW or maybe the Rabbit?)

  • 27. Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere  |  January 7, 2011 at 4:50 pm

    BiW, take it from here. I haven’t got the inclination or hours in the day to address this garbage.

    Maybe later. I’m stupid busy today, and I on the learning note, I posted an exerpt from one of the Anti-Federalist Papers today that I found very prescient. More learning R isn’t interested in, I’m sure.

  • 28. El Tigre  |  January 7, 2011 at 4:51 pm

    Why have states? Why even recognize them in the consitution? Why call it the United States of America. Federalism, schmederalism, I say. Why talk about reserving power to the states in the US consitution. . . Ahhhh. Forget it.

    WWOD? (what would Olbermann do?)

  • 29. dead rabbit  |  January 7, 2011 at 4:58 pm

    So what did Boehner do to the Tea Party, exactly? I don’t get it.

    As for Waco, wouldn’t Poolman be the prime candidate for that job, considering his allegations? Oh, I forgot, he wants to empower the Eye of Mordor. Never mind.

    The Federal Government stinks everything up when they get involved in matters traditionally outside its jurisdiction. It is ham fisted and inefficient.

    Am I wrong? Am I loco? Am I a Branch Davidian?

  • 30. Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere  |  January 7, 2011 at 5:00 pm

    Someone explain to me why if the states (excuse me, 46 states and four commonwealths) are so sovreign, why we have a federal governent at all? I thought that question was solved in, oh, 1865. Reading most of these posts, you’d think that the chief function of states is fighting the federal government.

    Ok…As I finished my lunch, I decided I really couldn’t resist this one.

    Rather than walking through the arguments made by the anti-federalists and the countering arguments by the federalists made to assure them that the federal government was going to be limited in scope and a co-soverign rather than the sovereign, I would instead like to hear your explaination why Senators were originially chosen by the states and not by direct election. Feel free to use arguments from the Federalist Papers to suuport your contentions, and perhaps you could provide a separate exposition on the meaning of federalism, and why we bothered to keep states at all after ratification of the Constitution.

  • 31. Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere  |  January 7, 2011 at 5:06 pm

    R, sometime this evening or tomorrow, I will watch your impecable expert, and let you know if he says anything that actually makes sense. but again, I implore you to quit being lead and actually do your own reading.

    Signet publishing puts out a magnificently indexed copy of the Federalist Papers under its “Mentor” imprint. Look for the one with the foreward by Clinton Rossiter. They do a companion volume on the Anti-Federalist Papers…the one I am currently exploring every evening. You don’t have to try to read them ouright…I’m not sure you’re able to do that at this time anyway…instead flip to the index, and pick a topic, and read, unless you’re so afraid to find out who is really lying to you thatyou can’t bring yourself to do it.

  • 32. dead rabbit  |  January 7, 2011 at 5:14 pm

    I would like to see a liberal response to Tex’s #23.

  • 33. Rutherford  |  January 7, 2011 at 5:15 pm

    So what did Boehner do to the Tea Party, exactly? I don’t get it.

    Rabbit, I was conjecturing (more wishful thinking) that Boehner deliberately scheduled his news conference to coincide with the “reading of the Constitution” to draw attention away from the silliness of it all and perhaps signal that he is his own man. Like I said … wishful thinking.

    I saw a Tweet earlier today that was amusing .. I paraphrase: “Good morning. Before I start work today I shall read the company handbook aloud cover to cover. Thank you.” :lol:

  • 34. dead rabbit  |  January 7, 2011 at 5:34 pm

    Dude, so there was no substance in this blog entry?

    Ok, you think reading the Constitution was silly.

    In the wake of the thousands and thousands of pages of Obamacare and the fact it may be all for naught due to the Constitution, I don’t think its that outrageous at all.

    We could agree to disagree on this.

    Its just too bad you made yourself look like such a zombie follower with your idiocy over the amendments.

    The amendments kick ass and showcase how brilliant the Constitution is. You don’t need to be BiC to know this.

    You essentially lifted complete gutter spin of angry liberal pundits, without thinking about how utterly dumb they were being. Boo!

    I expect more from you.

    Zombie-land!

  • 35. Hucking Fypocrites  |  January 7, 2011 at 5:36 pm

    “Good morning. Before I start work today I shall read the company handbook aloud cover to cover. Thank you.”

    Not a bad policy for a company that has been ignoring its mission statement for far too long.

    “I’m so sick and tired of seeing the Federal government viewed as the enemy of the “States”.”

    That is understandable, considering how much attention it takes away from the class war you’d rather have.

  • 36. Tex Taylor  |  January 7, 2011 at 5:58 pm

    It’s hard for me to let the question from Fake go, because on its face, I’m sure it sincere.

    I’ll let our resident legal experts handle the specifics, but since when was the “united states” not supposed to emphasis the word states?

    Though I’m no scholar by any stretch, even my own casual reading of our founding papers clearly indicates our Founders were so concerned that the Federal Government would usurp the powers of state, that they included several provisions to lessen that possibility.

    And yet in my own lifetime, I have watched the federal government do exactly that.

    If the states rights are to be usurped by the federal government, then it overdue for progressives to be honest and push for a rewrite – in an open forum to change the acronym USA to just “A.”

  • 37. Tex Taylor  |  January 7, 2011 at 5:59 pm

    :oops: emphasize

  • 38. Tex Taylor  |  January 7, 2011 at 6:12 pm

    “Good morning. Before I start work today I shall read the company handbook aloud cover to cover. Thank you.”

    Not a bad policy for a company that has been ignoring its mission statement for far too long.

    You’re exactly right Huck.

    And Rutherford is conveniently ignoring that when private companies begin to determine why they are dysfunctional and non competitive, that is exactly the very first point of emphasis. What is the purpose and the mission?

    I believe it would have been even more useful to have first started with a reading of the Declaration of Independence. I could easily substitute federal government for King of Great Britain – emphasis highlighted.

    But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

    I’m afraid that the federal government may be repeating the same mistake as that from which she originally declared her independence.

  • 39. El Tigre  |  January 7, 2011 at 6:20 pm

    The way Rutherford is staggering around here lately, I’m hoping we don’t find him in a landfill. . .

    Just sayin’.

  • 40. Tex Taylor  |  January 7, 2011 at 6:28 pm

    The way Rutherford is staggering around here lately, I’m hoping we don’t find him in a landfill. .

    :lol:

    The quality of some of these responses I have received lately, have left me wondering if my old friend and now adversary took the I-pod and is seeking warmth. The Tweets are a lot more telling than the posts…

    Rutherford, do you have both shoes on at this minute – or like me, house slippers? :smile:

  • 41. poolman  |  January 7, 2011 at 7:19 pm

    I

    I’m afraid that the federal government may be repeating the same mistake as that from which she originally declared her independence.

    Amen to that. Shake off that imperialism. I think the declaration is pretty telling. I think it also a good idea to read the constitution. It needs to be fresh on their minds. I believe it is primarily for publicity, but the result will be positive regardless. It’s all good. Reminds me of Paul in Phillipians claiming it didn’t matter the motive as long as the message was being preached.

  • 42. poolman  |  January 7, 2011 at 7:29 pm

    As for Waco, wouldn’t Poolman be the prime candidate for that job, considering his allegations?

    Rabbit, that is a scary thought. Don’t go there. The Waco incident really freaked me out. I mean those Branch Davidians were pretty warped, but not worth attacking and murdering. The goverment stepped over the line and we watched it on primetime teevee. WTF? That was some pretty scary shit. Talk about shock and awe. We should have taken them feds down a notch or two then.

    But no, I won’t be forming any armored religious compounds. Though trust me, there are plenty around here already. We are a pretty outlaw state.

  • 43. an800lbgorilla  |  January 7, 2011 at 7:48 pm

    The Congressional Budget Office, in an email to Capitol Hill staffers obtained by the Spectator, has said that repealing the national health care law would reduce net spending by $540 billion in the ten year period from 2012 through 2021. That number represents the cost of the new provisions, minus Medicare cuts. Repealing the bill would also eliminate $770 billion in taxes. It’s the tax hikes in the health care law (along with the Medicare cuts) which accounts for the $230 billion in deficit reduction.

  • 44. an800lbgorilla  |  January 7, 2011 at 7:52 pm

    I want to see any libtard refute this point…

  • 45. poolman  |  January 7, 2011 at 7:58 pm

    why don’t we make a pact to talk about truth this year on your blog? No spin, just facts.

    Bwahahahahahahah! :lol:

    Reminds me of Nicholson in “A Few Good Men”:

    “You can’t handle the truth!”

    Who gets to decide what is true?

  • 46. Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere  |  January 7, 2011 at 8:03 pm

    Who gets to decide what is true?

    NOT Keef Olberdouche. That buttsniffer couldn’t find his own ass with both hands and a flashlight, let alone anything resembling the truth.

  • 47. Rutherford  |  January 7, 2011 at 8:04 pm

    Rabbit, the amendments kick ass? Who said otherwise? The point is that many of them are very liberal in nature, contradicting this notion of some far right Constitution that is focused on limiting federal power

  • 48. Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere  |  January 7, 2011 at 8:18 pm

    It might be helpful to consider what “liberalism” meant to the people who actually debated and signed the document.

    http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberalism/

    (i) Liberals have typically maintained that humans are naturally in ‘a State of perfect Freedom to order their Actions…as they think fit…without asking leave, or depending on the Will of any other Man’ (Locke, 1960 [1689]: 287). Mill too argued that ‘the burden of proof is supposed to be with those who are against liberty; who contend for any restriction or prohibition…. The a priori assumption is in favour of freedom…’ (1963, vol. 21: 262). Recent liberal thinkers such as as Joel Feinberg (1984: 9), Stanley Benn (1988: 87) and John Rawls (2001: 44, 112) agree. This might be called the Fundamental Liberal Principle (Gaus, 1996: 162-166): freedom is normatively basic, and so the onus of justification is on those who would limit freedom, especially through coercive means. It follows from this that political authority and law must be justified, as they limit the liberty of citizens.

    Many of them were heavily influenced by Locke, and by extention, Samuel Rutherford as well, along with Hobbs, Montesque, Coke, and Blackstone, all of whom would be repelled by what is called liberalism these days.

  • 49. Rutherford  |  January 7, 2011 at 8:19 pm

    I love Gorilla quoting the CBO. Repubs always love the CBO when the data suits them. Oh well, no matter. Paul Ryan is taking the place of the CBO as chair of budget committee and he knows best. :-)

  • 50. fakename2  |  January 7, 2011 at 8:23 pm

    Re: #30. I guess I don’t have a leg to stand on unless I can quote the Federalist Papers, but I will say that I’m glad I wasn’t born in Little Rock, where intervention by the federal government seemed to me like a good idea. Was that unconstituionally overriding the power of the State of Arkansas? By the current arguments…yes. And what is this co-sovreign idea? Taken to its extreme, I guess South Carolina could go fight Afghanistan…if it wanted to.
    R—did you mean Talking Right? It’s a great book :)

  • 51. Tex Taylor  |  January 7, 2011 at 8:26 pm

    I guess South Carolina could go fight Afghanistan…if it wanted to.

    Let New Yorkers and progressives do it…

    Buwahahaahahaha, even if they can’t find their butt cheeks with both hands. Chances good they couldn’t find Afghanistan either.

  • 52. dead rabbit  |  January 7, 2011 at 8:34 pm

    Someone prove this wrong to Gorilla. Come on. Someone step up and actually defend the bill.

    The Congressional Budget Office, in an email to Capitol Hill staffers obtained by the Spectator, has said that repealing the national health care law would reduce net spending by $540 billion in the ten year period from 2012 through 2021. That number represents the cost of the new provisions, minus Medicare cuts. Repealing the bill would also eliminate $770 billion in taxes. It’s the tax hikes in the health care law (along with the Medicare cuts) which accounts for the $230 billion in deficit reduction.

  • 53. Tex Taylor  |  January 7, 2011 at 9:03 pm

    They’re not going to defend the bill Gorilla mentioned, no more than they’ll address my health care statement about preexisting conditions.

    Rutherford will offer some quip not related to the comment, and the rest will conveniently ignore their party’s lies and failures.

    I’ll give Poolman one thing. He’s the only one here that even makes the attempt to justify Obama’s asinine policies and new programs anymore, no matter how crazy his ideas about politics.

  • 54. Tex Taylor  |  January 7, 2011 at 9:25 pm

    From Powerline…

    I thought it was a good idea for the Constitution to be read aloud on the floor of the House of Representatives as that body kicked off its new session. The reading reminded those present of the contents of our fundamental law and symbolized a commitment to adhere to that law.

    But what seemed like a good idea turned out to be a great one. For instead of good naturedly going along with the exercise, or suffering in silence, a number of leftists publicly displayed their lack of comfort with, if not contempt for, the Constitution. Thus, the public received its clearest indication to date that the left regards the words of the Constitution as an impediment to its agenda.

    Today, the day of the actual reading, the left was at it again. At least two Democratic representatives, including Jesse Jackson’s son, protested that the document read on the floor did not contain provisions of the Constitution that have been superseded by amendments. In particular, Jackson was unhappy that the provision counting slaves as only three-fifths of a person for the purposes of taxation and apportionment was “didacted” as he put it.

    But if the purpose of the reading was to remind people of the contents of our fundamental law and to symbolize Congress’ commitment to adhering to that law, then it makes no sense to read portions of document that no longer apply. The reading Jackson and others wanted would make sense only if this were a history lesson. But it was not. History lessons are for speeches by individual members, each of whom has his or her own view about which aspects of history to emphasize. What all members of Congress have in common is their oath to uphold the Constitution as it stands today.

    The goals of Jackson and other leftists who supported him are plain enough – to make America look bad and, simultaneously, to create skepticism about the quality of the Constitution as a whole. How sound, the thinking goes, can the rest of the original document be if it originally contained a provision counting slaves as three-fifths of a person for some purposes?

    Who knew Rutherford and Jesse Jr. were one and the same?

    Read the rest…

    http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2011/01/028085.php

  • 55. Tex Taylor  |  January 7, 2011 at 10:00 pm

    More evidence Paul Krugman is a blowhard and moron – but a genius to the Left. :lol:

    http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/256616/no-paul-krugman-texas-not-broke-kevin-d-williamson

  • 56. Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere  |  January 7, 2011 at 11:17 pm

    Rutherford, I watched your expert. And then I went back and reread the Federalist 33…which actually has some of my favorite language about the ultimate check on federal power, and 44, which also says a thing or two on the subject that I’m not sure you’ll like either…

    This is quickly turning into a post all on its own, rather than a comment or two here.

    I noted that your expert was also somewhat reticent to join Keef in his spurious hyperbole, and flat out failed to correct some of it. He probably didn’t want to put the New York Slimes, Slate, and Wa Poo gigs in jeopardy.

  • 57. Rutherford  |  January 8, 2011 at 1:37 am

    BiW, I think it’s funny that you malign Amar for not joining “Keef” in his “spurious hyperbole” rather than admit that might actually add to his credibility.

    Keith has license to be hyperbolic. He’s a commentator. I don’t expect that from a professor and I viewed Amar as pretty level headed.

    I look forward to reading your analysis of Amar’s statements on your blog. I readily admit it makes much more sense for you to debate the likes of him than the likes of me. He’s spent his life studying the Constitution and its supporting documents. I just wish I could witness an interactive debate between the two of you.

  • 58. Rutherford  |  January 8, 2011 at 1:38 am

    Oh, reports of the demise of my intellect and sanity (and honesty) are greatly exaggerated. :-)

  • 59. El Tigre  |  January 8, 2011 at 1:40 am

    Good luck BiW. It’d take you an eternity refute, only to have your informed response disregarded. This is an Idiot’s Delight. You ain’t Olbermann ( or Ed Mcmahon). Do you think R is actuallly going to read, much less consider, something as like the Federalist papers? R and FN want to remain ignorant. I saw that immediatley.

  • 60. El Tigre  |  January 8, 2011 at 1:42 am

    “Oh, reports of the demise of my intellect and sanity (and honesty) are greatly exaggerated.”

    Prove otherwise.

  • 61. Rutherford  |  January 8, 2011 at 1:44 am

    Tex, regarding the Powerline excerpt you cited, I agree there is a difference between reciting the Constitution to remind us of current law vs history.

    However, I do see some value from reading the entire document including the superseded portions. It reminds us that the document is a reflection of its time. It reminds us that the document did change to reflect changing social views. I think that is important.

  • 62. Rutherford  |  January 8, 2011 at 1:48 am

    I think in the previous thread someone mentioned the “modernized” version of Huckleberry Finn. FWIW, I’m against it. If a book is deemed so offensive due to its language that it is unsuitable for children, then don’t teach the book. Period. But you don’t edit the book. Books are art. It’s like putting underpants on Michelangelo’s David.

  • 63. El Tigre  |  January 8, 2011 at 1:52 am

    “I agree there is a difference between reciting the Constitution to remind us of current law vs history.”

    What does this mean?

  • 64. Rutherford  |  January 8, 2011 at 1:52 am

    Tigre, the fact that you guys question the quality of the interviewee solely based on the interviewer makes me doubt you guy’s intellect. I think Rabbit was the only one who attacked Amar directly and his charge of Amar being a pundit was baseless.

  • 65. El Tigre  |  January 8, 2011 at 1:55 am

    Sorry. I watched the interview. The questions (agenda) and conclusions don’t match. Question away. I am still trying to get what you took away from it. Please explain.

  • 66. El Tigre  |  January 8, 2011 at 1:58 am

    Let’s start with “tax” is mentioned four times.

  • 67. El Tigre  |  January 8, 2011 at 2:00 am

    What’s the difference between current law and “history?”

  • 68. El Tigre  |  January 8, 2011 at 2:01 am

    Are states rights recognized in the Consitution? If so, what does that mean?

  • 69. Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere  |  January 8, 2011 at 2:08 am

    Tigre, the fact that you guys question the quality of the interviewee solely based on the interviewer makes me doubt you guy’s intellect. I think Rabbit was the only one who attacked Amar directly and his charge of Amar being a pundit was baseless.

    Geebus…I’m feeling like Hercules at the Augean Stables with this post. It’s gonna be long, but then by necessity, it would.

    As for the Prof, I questioned his intellect when I saw him say “Thank you Keith, I’m a Big Fan.” like he actually meant it. As for being a pundit, that might be a bit much, but seeing as he does write for Slate, the New York Times, The Washington Post, and the LA Times and a few other publications that have an agenda, I wouldn’t bet the farm on his perspective being an impartial one. but then that nonsense about the founders and framers being the liberal democrats of their day was a dead giveaway, so there is that…

  • 70. El Tigre  |  January 8, 2011 at 2:09 am

    Is federal power unfettered? If so, how?

  • 71. Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere  |  January 8, 2011 at 2:10 am

    Actually, the citiations to the Federalist 33 and 41 had bigger implications that the Professor left out of his little talk, Tigre.

  • 72. El Tigre  |  January 8, 2011 at 2:20 am

    Imagine that, BiW. Were they limited by the interviewer? (rhetorical).

    The questions were to Rutherford who got so much out of this, there must be answers in what was said since he won”t look behind it. He’s from Yale. :roll;

  • 73. El Tigre  |  January 8, 2011 at 2:21 am

    :roll:

  • 74. El Tigre  |  January 8, 2011 at 2:22 am

    My “intellect” was questioned by R.

  • [...] 8, 2011 by Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere My friend Rutherford’s latest post crows on and on about the skewing of the Constitution and original intent by the evil/stupid [...]

  • 77. El Tigre  |  January 8, 2011 at 12:21 pm

    6:16 a.m. That explains it.

    R, you’ve been served. How about it from one of the peanut gallery members of doubtful intellect?

    A response from you from is owed.

  • 78. poolman  |  January 8, 2011 at 1:16 pm

    Very impressive BiW. Except for the Keef bashing, I found your post very enlightening. I guess we all know one of your hot button issues…

  • 79. Hucking Fypocrites  |  January 8, 2011 at 1:18 pm

    Yeah, this is off topic but…

    Why do we have to get news like this from foreign news sources? I notice nobody here posted anything about it.

    (Ahlul Bayt News Agency) – Muslims of all walks of life are planning to be on guard to defend churches across Egypt during Copts’ celebrations of Christmas on January 7, following a deadly bombing on New Year’s eve.

    “I want all of us to gather as Muslim human shields to protect all Christian congregations at churches, schools and other places,” Mohamed Abdel-Moneim El-Sawy, the head of the El-Sawy Cultural Wheel, said in a statement obtained by OnIslam.net on Wednesday, January 5.

    “I will join my colleagues in standing guard in front of churches in Zamalek,” he added, referring to an upmarket Cairo district, where the Cultural Wheel is located.

    “We want to abort attempts of those who want to harm our Christian brothers and fuel sedition that would harm all Egyptians.”

  • 80. Hucking Fypocrites  |  January 8, 2011 at 1:29 pm

    Look, here’s another.

    Read the words carefully and let them sink in deep.

    “The Dutch groups urged all Muslims to condemn the threat.

    “It is up to us to do so because Al-Qaeda is claiming to act in the name of Islam. Christian Copts, us (Muslims), and all Dutch have the same enemy: the terrorists,” the statement said.”

    Muslims condemning acts of Islamic terrorism.

    And to think I was told this never ever occurs.

    Oh, that’s right. They are probably just lying to throw people like me off the scent….

  • 81. Tex Taylor  |  January 8, 2011 at 1:36 pm

    Huck,

    Moderate muslims choke on the gnat and swallow big camels.

    Christians are being persecuted all over the world by your beloved Islam, including Egypt. For every one article of “protection”, I can show hundreds of persecutions.

    Here’s but one.

    http://www.smh.com.au/world/christian-lambs-left-to-slaughter-20110107-19itz.html?from=smh_sb

  • 82. Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere  |  January 8, 2011 at 1:37 pm

    Very impressive BiW. Except for the Keef bashing, I found your post very enlightening. I guess we all know one of your hot button issues…

    If it wasn’t for Keef being a sanctimonious, self-righteous tool (“FASCISM MR. PRESIDENT! FASCISM!!11!!!” or “The WORST person IN THE WORLD!!!11!!!”), I realize he’d have no audience at all, but I still see no reason to pat him on the head and give him a cookie when what he really needs is a boot in the ass and a shove out the door.

  • 83. poolman  |  January 8, 2011 at 2:20 pm

    He makes a good counter to the Becks and OReillys of the right. I think there are actually quite a bit less liberal pundits than conservative ones. Most republicans I know live by the words of their pundits. I don’t spend much time with either, but I think Keith is really quite outnumbered. He isn’t as obnoxious as Matthews, IMO. But yeah, he is providing spin. They all do.

  • 84. Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere  |  January 8, 2011 at 2:50 pm

    It isn’t that he is providing spin, it is that he and his buddy, Ed Schultz, the intellectual equivalent of a doorstop, constantly accuse other of preaching hate while at the same time angrily denouncing people in simplistic and often false terms, and fomenting class envy rather than inspiring their audiences to actually do their own study of the matter, and maybe accomplish something for themselves rather than talking about how it has to be taken from others.

  • 85. poolman  |  January 8, 2011 at 2:51 pm

    Good links, Huck. This type of cooperation between religions doesn’t get the play on the MSM because it goes against their agenda of painting Islam as evil. This is much how Iraq’s different religions cooperated before we took them over, how Palestine was a hundred years ago, and how much of the other “Muslim” nations act today. Look to the radical fringes or political factions for their acts of inciting terrorism, instead of the whole of a religion.

    Tex, do you even read the articles you provide links to? I suggest carefully reading that link. It claims the persecution is likely more anti-western and set about for political purpose than religious. Much for the shock and awe effect, Christians are being attacked. And it is understandable if one relates Christianity with western imperialism. We are corrupting their countries, from their perspective. They even discount the fact that Al Qaeda was involved, but rather named only because they’re the popular scapegoat of today.

  • 86. Tex Taylor  |  January 8, 2011 at 3:02 pm

    Liberal irrelevancy on display:

    “You couldn’t have asked for a better snapshot of the chasm that divides today’s so-called expert classes from the mass of humanity than the snow crisis of Christmas 2010. They warn us endlessly about the warming of our planet; we struggle through knee-deep snow to visit loved ones. They host million-dollar conferences on how we’ll cope with our Mediterranean future; we sleep for days in airport lounges waiting for runways to be de-iced. They pester the authorities for more funding for global-warming research; we keep an eye on our elderly neighbours who don’t have enough cash to heat their homes. . . . Anyone with a shred of self-respect who had predicted The End Of Snow would surely now admit that he was wrong. But no. Perhaps the most revealing thing about the snow crisis is that it was held up as evidence, not that the experts were mistaken, but that the public is stupid.” ~ Brendan O’Neill

    And they wonder why I laugh at them?

  • 87. poolman  |  January 8, 2011 at 3:02 pm

    BiW, I could say the same about Beck and Hannity. And I thought Schultz considered himself conservative. I don’t really keep up with these guys, but yes they do not inspire audiences to do their own research. We are a lazy electorate for the most part.

  • 88. Hucking Fypocrites  |  January 8, 2011 at 3:06 pm

    “For every one article of “protection”, I can show hundreds of persecutions.”

    Yeah, that was kind of my point, Tex. The moderates don’t get any press coverage. Yet, they are obviously out there.

    On another note, I condemn the shooting of Rep Giffords of AZ, as well as members of her staff. D or R doesn’t matter in a thing like this. It’s fucked up.

  • 89. poolman  |  January 8, 2011 at 3:16 pm

    Giffords died from that shooting. She was one of 3 out of 17 from Arizona on Palin’s “hit list”. The list from her FB page showing crosshairs denoting the location of these folks. They have the shooter in custody. Any bets on the political/religious affiliation?

  • 90. Tex Taylor  |  January 8, 2011 at 3:16 pm

    Poolman, you’re more of point of fascination and lunacy for me than adversary, but I need to tell you something.

    You’re not terribly deep, probably explaining why your so gullible and naive.

    I suggest carefully reading that link. It claims the persecution is likely more anti-western and set about for political purpose than religious. Much for the shock and awe effect, Christians are being attacked.

    That is exactly the point I was making numb nuts. How many times do I have to tell you that Islam is politics and law and not faith, and it is evil at its core? Of course Jews and Christians are the targets for shock and awe. We were attacked on 9/11 not because of our freedoms, but because we are perceived by the Islamic world as Christian and favoring Jews over Muslims.

    The fact the killing of Christians political and not religious reinforces my point that Islam is corrupt. So no matter how moderate a Muslim claims, he or she is still deceived. Huck wouldn’t get that nuance, but you surely should.

  • 91. Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere  |  January 8, 2011 at 3:16 pm

    On another note, I condemn the shooting of Rep Giffords of AZ, as well as members of her staff. D or R doesn’t matter in a thing like this. It’s fucked up.

    This isn’t a political act. That’s what elections are for.

  • 92. Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere  |  January 8, 2011 at 3:23 pm

    Giffords died from that shooting. She was one of 3 out of 17 from Arizona on Palin’s “hit list”. The list from her FB page showing crosshairs denoting the location of these folks. They have the shooter in custody. Any bets on the political/religious affiliation?

    Before you get on with throwing stones, that can no more or less be linked to Palin then the acts of the protestors marching and breaking windows and other property in downtown areas protesting for the “right” of free education, or the rent-a-mobs bussed in to the neighborhoods of the AIG executives and parking them on their lawns screaming about eating the rich and breaking into their houses and scaring their children. Extremism runs both ways, and if it isn’t confined to the nonviolent means allowed in our political system, it will end badly.

  • 93. Hucking Fypocrites  |  January 8, 2011 at 3:27 pm

    Poolman, what is really funny is that the link shows moderate Muslims protesting the same thing my links showed. Also notice that it is not a US news source.

    Regarding what it says about AQ… Like has been said here several times, AQ is hard to pin down because of the way it franchises its name and ideologies. I doubt this has anything to do with Mubarak’s domestic policies. It if was, why not hit government buildings instead of a Christian church?

  • 94. Tex Taylor  |  January 8, 2011 at 3:40 pm

    I’d give this 24 hours before we start shooting arrows at each other concerning the Giffords shooting.

    The idiots on the Left are already blaming this on Sarah Palin’s crosshairs on her office during the last election. :roll: This appears to be the act of a nut. Add this one of the few left of the reasonable Dims, so I doubt she targeted by some right wing fanatic. She didn’t vote for Pelosi, for instance.

    Don’t be a party to those idiots before spouting off.

  • 95. poolman  |  January 8, 2011 at 3:42 pm

    BiW, we’ll let it play out. But like the Tiller murder that I believe was incited by O’Reilly’s rants, I will venture to guess the Palin post was the motivation for this shooting. If I am wrong, so be it, but that is my first impression. She, along with the others, have been getting death threats since the posting.

  • 96. Tex Taylor  |  January 8, 2011 at 3:45 pm

    Here Poolman, this one is of you before you show your ass anymore. Sorry, but it’s an insult to Representative Gifford’s memory to mention her and George Tiller in the same sentence.

  • 97. Hucking Fypocrites  |  January 8, 2011 at 3:46 pm

    “BiW, we’ll let it play out see what the Simpsons say.”

  • 98. Absolute, Unequivical Beauty « The 800lb Gorilla  |  January 8, 2011 at 3:46 pm

    [...] good liberal friend Rutherford Lawson decided to do a post on the new GOP decision to read the Constitution aloud in the House. It was, to be frank, quite [...]

  • 99. an800lbgorilla  |  January 8, 2011 at 3:54 pm

    For those of you who have not gone to BiW’s post refuting R’s posting, well, you’re really missing out. His piece is one of the finest I’ve ever read on this issue and I’ve directed all of my readers to his blog for some Constitutional lessons.

    Excellent work my friend…

  • 100. Tex Taylor  |  January 8, 2011 at 4:05 pm

    “BiW, we’ll let it play out see what the Simpsons say.”
    :lol: Classic!

  • 101. poolman  |  January 8, 2011 at 4:22 pm

    Actually, Gabrielle Giffords is still alive and in surgery.

    Prayer time. Say em if ya got em.

  • 102. dead rabbit  |  January 8, 2011 at 4:36 pm

    “I think Rabbit was the only one who attacked Amar directly and his charge of Amar being a pundit was baseless.”-Rutherford

    I was referring to the pundits that were requesting the Constitution be read without amendments. My hands are so full lately (literally) I rarely have time on the computer. So, I often access this sight via my Blackberry, particularly on week days. Often times I can’t see video.

    Another negative effect has been on my writing. Not that it was very deep before, but “texting” my thoughts seems to diminish my prose. I’m starting to wonder if its also starting to sap my intellect.

  • 103. dead rabbit  |  January 8, 2011 at 4:37 pm

    Om my God. I just learned about Arizona Rep. Giffords.

  • 104. dead rabbit  |  January 8, 2011 at 4:49 pm

    And Rutherford is tweeting about how its Palin’s fault. Sick.

  • 105. Hucking Fypocrites  |  January 8, 2011 at 4:56 pm

    I don’t care if the guy comes out and says “Sarah made me do it.” He is responsible for his actions…nobody else.

  • 106. dead rabbit  |  January 8, 2011 at 5:04 pm

    Rutherford, you sicken me. Nobody cares about your political gotcha game in the middle of a tragedy where we don’t even know who is dead yet. Wtf is wrong with you?

    When I hear about terrible loss in a breaking news story, the facts unknown, the dead not even tallied yet, does hating on Pelosi or Obama even blip on my radar? Hell, no.

    Folks, the real R is on twitter. He’s not the guy you think he is.

    Rutherford, fuck you and your silly little politics game.

  • 107. dead rabbit  |  January 8, 2011 at 5:05 pm

    9 year old shot and killed. Terrible.

  • 108. Hucking Fypocrites  |  January 8, 2011 at 5:10 pm

    Yeah Fox just confirmed a man that was a federal judge was killed, too. Appointed by Bush 41, I understand.

  • 109. dead rabbit  |  January 8, 2011 at 5:19 pm

    Terrible, man. What kind of person wakes up in the morning and decides to kill unarmed women and children. Somebody’s little daughter is in a morgue.

  • 110. Tex Taylor  |  January 8, 2011 at 5:23 pm

    Never let a crisis (or a tragedy) go to waste, right Rutherford? I got this gut feeling you’re going to end up with egg on your face concerning this one schmuck…

    I agree with Rabbit. The real Rutherford is on Twitter.

  • 111. Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere  |  January 8, 2011 at 5:26 pm

    Giffords died from that shooting. She was one of 3 out of 17 from Arizona on Palin’s “hit list”. The list from her FB page showing crosshairs denoting the location of these folks. They have the shooter in custody. Any bets on the political/religious affiliation?

    *Ahem*

    http://www.verumserum.com/?p=13647

  • 112. dead rabbit  |  January 8, 2011 at 5:27 pm

    “No, I won’t trust in God”

    A quote by the suspect.

  • 113. Tex Taylor  |  January 8, 2011 at 5:33 pm

    I wonder what some of these irreligious, Jew hating type are going to say if we find out the shooter is a godless Jew hater?

    ————

    “No, I won’t trust in God”

    A quote by the suspect.

    Now that doesn’t sound like a rabid Sarah Palin supporter to me. But Rutherford wants that so bad he can taste it.

  • 114. El Tigre  |  January 8, 2011 at 5:37 pm

    Rutherford, STOP IT you fool!!!!!!!!!

  • 115. Tex Taylor  |  January 8, 2011 at 5:39 pm

    Good find BIC. I assume our resident blog master will make note of that.

    Not…

  • 116. Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere  |  January 8, 2011 at 5:39 pm

    Oh, this guy is a piece of work…

    His Youtube channel:

    http://www.youtube.com/user/Classitup10#p/a/u/1/nHoaZaLbqB4

    “Conscience Dreaming.”

    Favorite Books include Mein Kampf and the Communist Manifesto.

    Yeah. I think Sarah Palin’s FB page had a HUUUUUGGGGEEEE influence on this guy.

  • 117. poolman  |  January 8, 2011 at 5:40 pm

    We all are responsible for our own actions. This shooting appears to be a premeditated event. That isn’t the debate. What was the motivation that justified the actions of this person? That is where the blame will lie. We got these homegrown terrorists that are getting all worked into a frenzy by what they perceive as evil. You think what they feed on doesn’t affect the stuff they do? THAT is the crazy talk. The motive. What was it that caused this action? That is where this debate has to go. How can we pretend to not make the connection between what we take in’s relationship to what we put out. Make sure the well from which you drink is pure, especially if you don’t have a good filter.

    ~~~~~

    BTW, Giffords has survived surgery. The bullet went all the way through and out temple zone. She was responding to doctors. Keep praying!

  • 118. Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere  |  January 8, 2011 at 5:44 pm

    What was the motivation that justified the actions of this person? That is where the blame will lie.

    Unfortunately Marx and Hitler already have neighboring cells in Hell.

    I don’t know about the person who came up with the concept of ‘conscience dreaming”.

  • 119. Hucking Fypocrites  |  January 8, 2011 at 5:50 pm

    “I wonder what some of these irreligious…”

    I am going to say the same thing I have said this whole time.

    He doesn’t represent me any more than he does Sarah Palin.

  • 120. dead rabbit  |  January 8, 2011 at 6:01 pm

    Poolman, I couldn’t disagree more.

    Who gives a shit about his motives.

    How are we in any way responsible, even indirectly, for his motives?

    What if I agree with a fraction of what is coherent in his rants? What if you do?

    A guy goes off and kills people over health care, monetary policy or even the amount of marshmallows in Lucky Charms. Does that teach us a lesson on said controversies? Does it validate the passion we might or might not have on those issues?

    It also has nothing to do with some over used metaphors made in political speak by Palin or Obama. But, I’m thinking you agree with me there.

  • 121. Tex Taylor  |  January 8, 2011 at 6:03 pm

    Huck,

    He doesn’t represent me any more than he does Sarah Palin.

    This was not directed to you, but many on the Left.

    I still think you have a bias you don’t perceive in judgment not entirely led by logical conclusions, but I never pictured you crazed, a killer, particularly unfair, or irrational.

    You’re no friend to Jews, but I don’t consider you their enemy either. I do many on the Left.

  • 122. poolman  |  January 8, 2011 at 6:05 pm

    Marx and Hitler didn’t have the marketing capabilities of today. How do you think our own concepts are developed? Whatever we are exposed to shapes our perception. It works that way and there are plenty of studies confirming it. There is also motive in marketing. The results improve with repetition and reward or confirmation. Take the current Muslim hatred, for example. “Much has been said about the disproportionate Zionist presence in the world of organized Islamophobia.” When you find this type of deception quite commonplace, you need to question who is feeding your frenzy.

  • 123. Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere  |  January 8, 2011 at 6:09 pm

    The results improve with repetition and reward or confirmation. Take the current Muslim hatred, for example. “Much has been said about the disproportionate Zionist presence in the world of organized Islamophobia.” When you find this type of deception quite commonplace, you need to question who is feeding your frenzy.

    Quite true.

    I’m sure the “Death to America” rallies, complete with burning effigies, kidnapping and cutting the heads off Americans while chanting “God is great!” and the whole strapping bombs on and driving/walking into groups of people had NOTHING to do with it.

  • 124. Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere  |  January 8, 2011 at 6:13 pm

    Oh wow! Let’s blame someone for this bit of “motivation” while we’re at it!

    http://twitpic.com/3o7s5c

    Of course, its gone down the memory hole now, but that’s the nice thing about the internets…they are forever.

  • 125. poolman  |  January 8, 2011 at 6:23 pm

    Who gives a shit about his motives.

    Really? Aside from the injured and families of those dead? How about his Creator, or maybe a jury of his peers? If we can’t find a cause, how do we expect to curtail this type of activity in the future? I don’t think gun control or living in more of a police state is the answer. Blame it on crazies in our midst, unless of course, they fit the profile we are programmed with.

  • 126. fakename2  |  January 8, 2011 at 6:26 pm

    Good grief…enough already! Now is not the time! I don’t care about what his politics or religion were because it’s immaterial. And I wouldn’t care what he said about it either. I don’t care if he said Sarah made me do it or Osama bin Laden came to him in a dream. This guy was a lunatic with a gun. His ravings make that plain. Literacy? The currency? Please. Someone said earlier, this is not a political act. Totally true.

  • 127. Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere  |  January 8, 2011 at 6:34 pm

    Blame it on crazies in our midst, unless of course, they fit the profile we are programmed with.

    Fuck you.

    No, really. Fuck you.

    All this bullshit about “motives” and “filters”, and “blame” regarding what someone says and what influence it has or doesn’t have on someone else is bullshit.

    No. Scratch that. It is insulting bullshit.

    If we accept the premise, then we can never, ever, hold anyone responsible for their actions, because they are just so weak willed that they will act on the worst aspect of the suggestions of others, and therefore, we simply cannot be trusted with any of the responsibility that is expected from adult members of society.

    Of course, that means that we are nothing better than adult children, who must be looked after and babysitted by people who know better than us.

    No more social contract.
    No more freedom.
    Just a nation of children who can never, ever be held accountable for their actions.

    I can’t accept that.

    I won’t accept that.

    And you shouldn’t either.

  • 128. Tex Taylor  |  January 8, 2011 at 6:36 pm

    Fake,

    I think you need to preach your message to the blog owner. As we have noted, it is the Left that is desperately trying to score points because the poor woman was a Democrat. I’m simply pointing out the speculated facts as they are known at this moment.

    I’m actually more concerned that she was a mother, a wife, a daughter. People forget that, and she is not anymore important to me than the others who have died in the affair.

    A lunatic? Absolutely. But the gun is only relevant in that it has the power to kill, and should not be the topic of focus. He could have easily have sped his car into a crowd and killed as many if not more, strapped bombs to his chest, or thrown a stick of dynamite.

  • 129. El Tigre  |  January 8, 2011 at 6:39 pm

    “@carolynpexton It shows a deep seeded selfishness: my guns matter, your life doesn’t.”

    Rutherford, was this in response to the shooting? Are you using the tragedy for personal validation right now? Do you even know that Gifford was a proponent of gun rights?

  • 130. Hucking Fypocrites  |  January 8, 2011 at 7:15 pm

    The sad part is that it is Rutherford’s PDS that is screwing him today. Ordinarily he knows better than this since he got screwed by that census worker.

    But Rutherford’s teachable moments fly out the window if the name “Palin” comes up. He just can’t resist.

    It really is sad how stupid he gets over her.

  • 131. poolman  |  January 8, 2011 at 7:27 pm

    Okay. Have it your way. All the science and money spent on marketing and propaganda is for naught. Your input and surroundings don’t influence your thoughts or actions. Motive is immaterial. Action and response are all that matter.

    What a disconnect.

    Now how do you explain the actions of an Islamic extremist or suicide bomber? Is it now just an individual crazy person too, or are they “just so weak willed that they will act on the worst aspect of the suggestions of others, and therefore, we simply cannot be trusted with any of the responsibility that is expected from adult members of society.”

  • 132. Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere  |  January 8, 2011 at 7:41 pm

    Or maybe they believed the rantings of someone they trusted with the care of their soul and spiritual well-being, and decided that the best thing to do for it was to seek out and kill infidels in God’s name.

    Or maybe they just like the idea of killing people, and 72 raisins and all eternity with Hillary Clinton’s barbed strap-on wearing out their poopshoot really gets them going.

    I don’t remember giving the scimitar-wielding splodeydopes a pass on the responsibility thing. Maybe you can refresh my memory?

  • 133. an800lbgorilla  |  January 8, 2011 at 8:30 pm

    R, re comment 115 from BiW and in light of your twitter posts today, I expect a complete and full apology…

  • 134. dead rabbit  |  January 8, 2011 at 8:58 pm

    Fakename,

    I agree. I know it looks like most of us are politicizing this slaughter. But, we are enraged over the “tweets” of Rutherford only moments after the news broke. He was blaming Palin because she used metaphors such as “target” in her prose when discussing elections.

    He won’t listen to me. But he might you.

  • 135. dead rabbit  |  January 8, 2011 at 9:21 pm

    Poolman….so….you are saying that it’s mind control? Or is it the 1st Amendment’s fault. Television? Video games? Books? Rutherford’s blog? Paleolithic cave art? That static on AM radio? Sara Palin? Obama? The yellow Tella-Tubby?

    You talk nonsense, that, as usual, is impossible to refute or remedy.

    Why don’t you worry about your “surroundings” and I worry about my own, crack pot.

    The disgusting killer is a disgusting killer. Doesn’t matter if we both voted for Ryan Howard to be on the All Star Team. It has nothing to do with me or Ryan Howard. He’s a disgusting killer.

    Someone’s little girl is dead.

    I get so upset over this stuff, now that I’m a Dad. I literally lose sleep now days when tragedies involve children.

    Speaking of surroundings. I wish me and my boys could surround the coward killer and slowly give him brain damage.

    The “surrounding”: A case of beer, my mechanic buddy’s garage and two hours of justice.

    This is what makes me the biggest hypocrite in the world over the death penalty. I know in my heart its wrong, yet I’m long for killing these evil people with my own hands.

  • 136. dead rabbit  |  January 8, 2011 at 9:28 pm

    “R, re comment 115 from BiW and in light of your twitter posts today, I expect a complete and full apology…Gorilla

    I agree. I just watched the you-tube video. That shit didn’t even make sense. Insanity.

  • 137. Tex Taylor  |  January 8, 2011 at 10:35 pm

    BICs other link showing the bulls eye is even better. Kind of refutes Rutherford’s story of us guys “that just don’t get the Sarah Palin” connection.

  • 138. fakename2  |  January 8, 2011 at 10:39 pm

    Now that everyone has had an opportunity to trash Rutherford…on his own blog…including his alleged “obsession” with Sarah Palin…observe this:
    http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/6197742/sarah_palins_website_crosshairs_no.html?cat=2
    It always was bad imagery, but it took a member of Congress actually getting shot? I can’t speak for R, but most of the time, I dislike Sarah for the dumbing down of of the debate.
    I still think this guy was just a lunatic. They are everywhere. But anybody see the interview with the Pima County Sheriff? He said something along the lines of, unstable individuals are more affected by the vitriol going on in this country now. Amen, and amen.

  • 139. Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere  |  January 8, 2011 at 10:50 pm

    It always was bad imagery, but it took a member of Congress actually getting shot?

    So when the DLC and the DCCC did it, they didn’t “dumb” down the debate? Criminey, have you heard Chris Van Holland speak? He’s the poster child for mentally deficient politicians.

  • 140. Tex Taylor  |  January 8, 2011 at 10:57 pm

    Here Flake,

    Put this in your panties and stroke it.

    http://mobile.twitter.com/caitieparker/status/23853016876589057

  • 141. Tex Taylor  |  January 8, 2011 at 11:06 pm

    Here Flake,

    You must have missed this in your piety…

    http://www.verumserum.com/media/2010/03/DLC-Targeting-map.gif

    Look familiar?

  • 142. fakename2  |  January 8, 2011 at 11:25 pm

    #139: Huh? I hope everyone else notices your constant sexual references. I think you must secretly like me. Sorry though…I’m busy.

  • 143. Tex Taylor  |  January 8, 2011 at 11:30 pm

    Here Flake,

    Since you suffer equally from Palin Derangement Syndrome, why don’ t you and your pal Rutherford review the kindness of the Left – and the vitriol we’ve listened to for the last ten years.

    http://nagarjunaa.blogspot.com/2010/04/death-threats-against-bush-at-protests.html

  • 144. Tex Taylor  |  January 8, 2011 at 11:36 pm

    Huh? I hope everyone else notices your constant sexual references. I think you must secretly like me. Sorry though…I’m busy.

    :lol: Well, that’s a shame. I don’t think my sexual references toward you have been the “come hither” kind.

  • 145. Tex Taylor  |  January 8, 2011 at 11:51 pm

    Way off the subject of Gifford, but even Newsweak is now saying ObamaCare is a disaster – of course, it took Evan Thomas about a year to learn what the Republicans knew a year ago.

    http://dailycaller.com/2011/01/08/newsweeks-evan-thomas-the-health-care-bill-is-a-disaster/

  • 146. dead rabbit  |  January 9, 2011 at 12:35 am

    Is that sequence of comments by Fakename classic or what.

    1. Fakename comes on here lambasting people for politicizing the shooting.

    2. We agree with fakename, and show her that it was Rutherford doing this.

    3. She responds by pointing out our poor blogging protocol, because we are on Rutherford’s blog and stuff.

    4. She then politicizes the shooting herself, blaming rhetoric.

    5. Pretends to be offended by overt sexuality because someone said “panties”.

    6. Runs away.

    On a side note, I wonder if she has numerous cats. I always picture her with 30 cats.

  • 147. dead rabbit  |  January 9, 2011 at 12:43 am

    Tex, it’s frustrating how right we were.

  • 148. Rutherford  |  January 9, 2011 at 1:30 am

    There actually is a difference between a dart board (or even bow and arrow) target and crosshairs.

    Regardless, I’m not answering stuff here … I’ve written a post that sums it up. Sadly you’ll read it and still not understand it. :-(

  • 149. Hucking Fypocrites  |  January 9, 2011 at 1:55 am

    alleged?

    You’re obviously new here….

  • 150. bvilleyellowdog  |  February 14, 2011 at 6:24 pm

    http://www.frumforum.com/gops-climate-change-fight-heats-up

    One of thier own exposes the GOP-teabagger echochamber enviromental lies

  • 151. bvilleyellowdog  |  February 14, 2011 at 6:28 pm

    meanwhile the regressives flog violence and get all innocent and offended when someone carries it out their wishes and they get called on it. How sick and totally phony.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed


January 2011
M T W T F S S
« Dec   Feb »
 12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930
31  
Bookmark and Share

Categories

Rutherford on Twitter

The Rutherford Lawson Blog is a member of

WordPress Political Blogger

My Sister Site

Town Called Dobson Daily Preview
AddThis Feed Button
http://www.blog4mobile.com/

Recent BlogCatalog Readers

View My Profile View My Profile View My Profile

Archives


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 713 other followers

%d bloggers like this: