Scott versus Scott

Welcome to our blog. Here we will debate the days most serious topics and allow users the chance to discuss the topics as well. The range of topics will vary, but one thing will remain certain, the debate will rage on. Scott Lesinski is a proud conservative and Scott Jones is a proud liberal. However, the roles will switch on some topics. Stay tuned.

Scott Lesinski is currently an actuarial associate for a large human resources and insurance consulting firm in Saint Louis. He is also an avid student of US history and enjoys following current events, with an eye to their contextual relationship to the past. He is also, in fact, a former student of Mr. Scott Jones. Scott is working toward his FSA credentials, which is akin to earning a PHD in Actuarial Science.

Scott Jones is currently a high school social studies teacher at a high school in suburban St. Louis, MO. He teaches World History, AP American Government and Senior American Foreign Policy. He has a BS. Ed. (Secondary Social Studies) from the University of Missouri - Columbia and a M.A. (History) from Southeast Missouri State University. He is currently working on a dissertation in character education to earn a Ph.D. in Educational Psychology.

Sunday, May 2, 2010

Arizona is leading the way - we should follow.

Let me begin by first saying that the new law recently passed by the state of Arizona regarding illegal immigration should not have been necessary.

No, if the Federal government had done what it promised to do, what it is charged with doing – protecting the citizens and borders of the United States – this task would not have fallen to the states to take up for themselves.

Yesterday was May Day. Hundreds of thousands of people, in all likelihood many of them illegally here, protested in the streets of this country. They want President Obama to tackle the politically unviable task of “immigration reform”, which to all but the most obstinately blind translates directly into “amnesty for all illegal immigrants”.

In an article titled “Anger over Ariz. immigration law drives US rallies”, the AP reported that the governor of Arizona awakened a sleeping giant by signing this “anti-Mexican” and “Nazi-like” bill into law. One person called the bill “racist”. There are worries that the bill will lead to racial profiling and the comparisons of the consequences of this bill to the Gestapo in Nazi Germany – “your papers please” – have run rampant in the main stream media over the past week.

Let’s get something straight here: The bill signed by Arizona Governor Jan Brewer is a reflection of current US Federal Law. The only things it does is make it officially a state law to be illegal a state law as well as a federal law and it empowers police who have already come into legal contact with someone to verify their legal status and arrest those who are not here legally.

Essentially, the State of Arizona is doing the work the Federal Government should already be doing. The Feds promised us a fence along the entire border but a tiny percentage has been built. Arizona is overrun with illegal immigrants. Crime there is rampantly growing out of control as gang violence spills across the border. Phoenix is the number 2 city IN THE WORLD for kidnappings second only to Mexico City.

71% of Arizonans support the measure. 60% of Hispanic Arizonans support the measure. Jan Brewer’s approval jumped from 40% to 56% immediately after signing the bill. 7 more states are looking at Arizona and promising to bring up similar legislation.

The law is already having a positive effect as illegals can understand what is coming and they are packing up. Some may move to Texas, others to California. Hopefully some will actually go home and maybe try to immigrate here legally. It is my hope that this law in Arizona will be like the small stones that start an avalanche – driving illegals first from Arizona and then putting the strain that such illegals add to the economy onto the other states who will then be forced by their angry citizenry to enact similar legislation.

I, and no one else on my side, is against LEGAL immigration. I understand that we are a nation of immigrants; however we are also a nation of laws and of borders for without either of those, we are not a nation.

There is another aspect to this story that needs to be pointed out. In this article about the marches yesterday, it is reported that there has been this huge public outcry against the new AZ law while completely ignoring the fact that 60% of America supports this legislation. The rallies were reported like this:

“The event resembled something between a family festival - food vendors strolled through with pushcarts - and a political demonstration with protesters chanting "Si se puede," Spanish for "Yes we can." A group of undocumented students stood on a stage at the Chicago park and "came out" regarding their immigration status.”

We get sob stories from poor illegal immigrants who have to work to pay their way through college.

But there’s something else:

“At the White House, U.S. Rep. Luis Gutierrez, an Illinois Democrat, was among 35 people arrested in a demonstration of civil disobedience against the Arizona law.”

People are getting arrested.

“In Dallas, police estimated at least 20,000 attended a Saturday rally. About a dozen people there carried signs depicting the Arizona governor as a Nazi and Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, known for his tough illegal immigration stance, as a Klansman. Organizers were asking sign holders to discard those placards.”

People are carrying signs depicting Jan Brewer as a Nazi and Joe Arpaio as a Klansman.

“In downtown Miami, several hundred flag-waving demonstrators - many with Cuban and Honduran flags, but mostly American ones - called for reforms.”

People are harboring anti-American sentiments.

And yet these protesters are lauded as being representative of the real core of America – the backbone, the salt of the earth. There’s not been on snide remark akin to “teabaggers” made about these protesters in the media. They are not called fascists or racists or xenophobes or hate mongers. They are not marginalized as fringe or wacko.

Most of these protesters aren’t legally in the country! They aren’t citizens! Yet when real citizens of America protest in the tens of millions and maintain that energy over 15 months, when 62% of America identifies as conservative, when nearly half of America self identifies as a part of the “tea party” even though such a party does not exist in any corporeal form, when the vast majority of those protesting with the tea parties are doing so for the first time in their lives, they are called Astroturf. They are called “teabaggers”. They are derided as fringe, wacko, crazy, homophobic, sexist, racist. President Clinton goes out and attributes future terrorism akin to Timothy McVeigh’s attack in Oklahoma City to their message.

And what exactly is that message?

Reduce the size and scope of government. Decrease taxes and spending. Protect our borders and our nation. Repeal HCR and replace with market reforms that actually bring costs down and increase availability as opposed to limiting freedom of choice and lowering quality.

And who is bringing this message?

American citizens that are fed up with the overgrowth of government.

Now what about these illegal immigration reform protestors, what’s their message?

Amnesty for the 20 million illegal immigrants who broke our laws and are straining our welfare state to the breaking point.

And who is bringing this message?


I say we listen to the legal American citizens.


  1. Several thoughts here...

    First, let me apologize for those on the left who have used Nazism and Hitler as part of the rhetoric. I hate it when the right has used this tone and I hate it when the left does as well. THIS IS NOT NAZISM AND/OR HITLER!!!

    Second, part of me agrees with Arizona on the issue. However, do not read into this my approval of their action. They have been frustrated in their attempts to enforce immigration laws passed by Congress (this is another whole and completely different issue, which most people don't get).

    Therefore, this debate is not about immigration - legal or illegal - this debate is about enforcing current law. Most of the media on the left and right as well as the protesters have missed this point. If we want to have a debate on NAFTA's free movement of labor clause and/or the immigration restrictions, then we have that debate in its own forum.

    This problem with Arizona is much more simple. Currently, Arizona has had some problems with illegal immigrants. While most of the immigrants here illegally are law-abiding (yes, I get the irony), their is a drug-gang element that is causing real concern. I get that.

    Arizona has felt the Federal Government hasn't done enough to help. They are partly right. However, they miss the fact that the DEA, INS and other Federal agencies dealing with the border have this thing called the Constitution they must follow. These agencies have always dealt with the problmes associated with probable cause, due process, freedom of association, unreasonable search and seizure, and the self-incrimination clauses of our Bill of Rights. This has made enforcement difficult.

    For instance, just because you look Hispanic, the INS doesn't have probable cause to question your status. Even if probable cause can be established (i.e. traffic violation), the self-incrimination clause prevents the INS from making assumptions about the lack of papers a possible legal immigrant might not have on their persons.

    And this is where I have a problem with the Arizona law. You can't just change the Constitution to suit your needs. Conservatives hound liberals all the time on this point when it comes to Constitutional Interpretation. However, Arizona lowers the standard from the Fourth Amendment's probable cause standard to reasonable suspicion. And that's okay? Arizona denies legal immigrants the freedom from self-incrimination. And that's okay?

    Look - I am not in favor of letting the Mexican drug gangs control our border states. However, I do believe the solution must fall into the realm of Constitutional.

    The Arizona law fails to do that.

  2. In addition, I have no problem with protestors of the law being arrested so long as they aren't being arrested for violence against another person.

    Martin Luther King wrote from his Birmingham jail cell that "the only place for a just man in an unjust society is jail."

    I guess that is un-American.

  3. I know this is a debate on about the Arizona anti-immigration law, but since when does cuban and hondoran flag-waving demonstrators equate to anti american sentiment. If I waved a german or cypriot flag would you think I have an anti-american sentiment. Beside's many means a large number, mostly means a majority. A majority of protesters were waving american flags.

    But what I really wanted to talk about was this,
    After the passing of Health Care reform there were all sorts of death threats against democrats. A representatives gas line was cut, and as I recall another's office window(s) was smashed.

    And while the connection can't be unarguably proven, it is reasonable to think that the Right-wing radicals (talking about these few exceptional people not all right wingers) that performed these actions did so because they felt they had to or be subjected to the consequences of inaction.

    Unlike the teabaggers, who protest peacefully and in mass, these radicals (one would reasonably assume) act because of their fear of where the country is heading is so great. Could their fear be so great because people keep throwing around inflamatory rhetoric like, Democrats are going to BANKRUPT this country, and turn this country into COMMUNIST russia.

    Not once in history has America been BANKRUPTED or turned into a COMMUNIST state, despite its swing from left to right and back again.

    Limbaugh and Beck can oppose Democrats without painting DOOMSDAY scenarios that push radicals over the edge. And I watched Hannity's whole show about 2 weeks ago and that is what they are doing.

    To be clear, I have provided a link showing you of acts of vandalism and threats of violence, done by those disatisfied with those who passed Health Care Reform. As I recall McVeighs actions wer inspired by the way the government handled Waco. Billy was right in that they are similar. He may not have worded it best. And if you don't believe inflamatory conservative rhetoric is to blame for the recent acts of vandalism, then please tell me who is to blame for individuals protesting with vandalism and death threats the day after health care reform was passed.

  4. SJ - I appreciate that you agree with me that the rhetoric about the AZ bill - calling it nazism or Gestapo-like - is outlandish and ridiculous.

    As far as the legilsation itself, I'm not sure I agree that it's unconstitutional, but I'm sure we will find out. However, is it not already the case that we are supposedly required to carry identification with us as citizens anyways, that is if we want to do anything.

    If you're not driving with your license, you have to prove that you actually own one and you are cited for not having a license with a ticket. This happened to my buddy Wardo and he had to go present his papers (driver license) at a government building.

    If you want to buy alcohol or enter restricted locations, you have to prove you are over 21 - with a state issued ID.

    Heck, over the past summer at many townhalls, congressmen were requiring that you present papers proving that you were a citizen of their DISTRICT to get into the meeting!

    Its almost as if the only place we aren't universally required to present a state issued ID is at the VOTING BOOTH! WHich is really why many elected Liberal Democrats have a problem with this bill. I've always wondered why Democrats have such a problem with requiring voter ID to be allowed to vote, but its almost as if they would prefer we not have that requirement. Interesting...

    But back to the AZ law and why it was necessary - it basically gave AZ the power to enforce current federal immigration law. It puts more people on the ground with the ability to do so and more importantly, it sends a message to illegals - go home and come back legally if you want to be an American. And it is already working, at least in forcing illegals from the state.

    On another note, I do not believe for ONE SECOND that our Federal immigration enforcement has been a main issue of concern for our government. For one thing, they voted on building a fence along the AZ border, and I think about 12 miles have been built. What gives?

    This is about voters. Republicans like John McCain and George Bush were wrong to pander in 2007 and they felt the repercussions at the ballot box. Its wrong for liberal democrats to pander to law-breakers. We don't need to balkanize America - that is, having these disparate groups of immigrants who won't assimilate. Coming to America should be about becoming an American. Yes you enrich our culture with your own, but you melt the cultures together rather than keep them separate. Learning English must be a is the language of America. Learning our history must be a requirement. Learning how our government works must be a requirement.

    Can you seriously look at me with a straight face and tell me that if you decided to pick up and become an French citizen that you would just go on over there and demand that they print all their papers in english to suit you?

    You may agree with me on many of these points, but I'm just getting on a bit of an immigration soapbox. It is an important function of our government - the naturalization of immigrants - but it needs to be something sacred and precious. Freedom in America is a gift from Nature's God and should be regarded as such - not demanded by a bunch of screaming lawbreakers on May Day.

  5. "Not once in history has America been BANKRUPTED or turned into a COMMUNIST state, despite its swing from left to right and back again."

    No, you're right. But we've come damn close.

    During WWII, the only point in history at which our debt/GDP ratio exceeded that of today, our nation hung by a thread (fiscally) and we had a MAJOR hole to dig out of after. How did we do it? DEREGULATION AND TAX CUTS.

    Now, at this point in history, as unemployment remains stubbornly high in the 10% range and people continue to be fed their daily pittance from Uncle Sam, our debt grows ever higher and the only thing on the horizon is more spending, more taxation, and more regulation.

    HCR will limit job growth, wage growth, and business growth. Cap and Trade will utterly ruin many small businesses. Financial regulation will be another harsh blow to our economy. There's talk of introducing the VAT here in America - another job killing tax that will only lead to short term gains in tax revenues but in the long term will shrink the overall economy and kill more jobs.

    No deregulation. No tax cuts. Just more and more government.

    So there is a VERY REAL POSSIBILITY that we are going to end up defaulting on our debt. You think the over-leveraged fannie mae, freddie mac, AIG, Lehman, Goldman Sachs, and Bear Stearn were bad when the house of cards crumbled? Brother, you ain't seen nothing yet.

    As far as communist/socialist...I really don't understand why liberals are so angry when we simply point out the logical ideological home of their ideas.

    Communism is an economic policy whereby the State owns everything...all the means of production. Socialism is a form of government whereby the state controls the economy - central planners set prices and quantities of goods and services, including employment.

    Excuse me, but what the hell would you call it when a government owns two of the biggest auto makers in America, the healthcare industry, the financial industry, the energy sector (General Electric), the pharmaceutical industry, the education industry...

    I certainly would not call that free market capitlism or conservatism, so uh, dude...WHY THE BEEF?

  6. And another thing, Dems weren't the only ones targeted with angry responses.

    Eric Cantor's campaign headquarters was SHOT.

    Search google for republican examples and you will see just as long a laundry list as the Dems. The difference is that the Democrats were trying to exploit the threats for political gain, as if its somehow special because THEY got some threats of violence.

    Emmanuel Cleaver of MO made up a story about being spit on or called the n-word or something, yet when called on the carpet to produce ONE SHRED of evidence, he remained silent. There were all kinds of cell phone cameras including one manned by someone in the fateful procession of liberal Democrats through the tea partiers up to vote on their abomination of a bill and there is NO video or audio of such an incident.

    Yet have you heard of Kenneth Gladney?

    Kenneth Gladney is a black conservative who, during a town hall for MO Democratic Congressman Russ Carnahan, was assaulted and beat up by SIX SEIU members IN THEIR PURPLE SHIRTS! There is comprehensive video of this incident and it is going to court. His crime? Being black and conservative. He was selling buttons and other nick nacks at the town hall.

    What about that hate?

    You act like its all one way, like violence or anger is wholly owned by the right, yet its the left in this country that is responsible for 99% of the violence, whether its members of ELF (the Earth Liberation Front) blowing up whole lots of SUVs, or a beating of a black conservative, or even the biting off of a man's finger by a leftist protester.

    Essentially, I totally reject your premise that people like Rush and Beck are responsible for the anger out there. Beck has been preaching nonviolence for YEARS and recently sent out a non-violence pledge for listeners of his to sign.

    Rush has never EVER encouraged violence.

    Its a straw man argument.

  7. Beck has been preaching misinformation, scare tactics, and good old fashioned fear mongering for quite a while now. I'll concede, on rare occasions he has his moments of lucidity (just today I heard him advocating mirandizing the times square bomb plot suspect, for which I compliment him), but as they say, a broken clock is right twice a day.

    Okay... so, we ignore the 'Faggot' shouting, and the spitting, because there is no photo/video evidence. Everyone enjoys going around claiming to have been spit on, its actual a badge of honor, so I can see how thats the most likely scenario, but sure, we can leave it as a unproven assertion.

    The bullet in the window? No, thats just garbage. Here is an excerpt from the Police Release "A preliminary investigation shows that a bullet was fired into the air and struck the window in a downward direction, landing on the floor about a foot from the window. The round struck with enough force to break the windowpane but did not penetrate the window blinds". It was considered random gun fire. Pretty sure his 31st office windows wasn't the target, but hey, thats just the police's opinion.

    I'm not going to get into a "which sides hate more" argument, but I will say that there has been some manic fear mongering coming from the right, (maybe just far right, buts hard to tell who and what constitues far right sometimes), for a while now. You wanna pretend that doesn't exist? Fine. Do they tell people to go out and kill anyone? No. But they fear monger, and they people riled up. Remember that abortion doctor murder a while back? Did O'Rielly say someone should kill him? No. He said things like:

    "Tiller, O'Reilly likes to say, "destroys fetuses for just about any reason right up until the birth date for $5,000." He's guilty of "Nazi stuff," said O'Reilly on June 8, 2005; a moral equivalent to NAMBLA and al-Qaida, he suggested on March 15, 2006. "This is the kind of stuff happened in Mao's China, Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Soviet Union," said O'Reilly on Nov. 9, 2006."

  8. THIS is why your side gets accused of hate Scott L, its cause we here this from your mainstream front runners. Is it openly asking anyone to kill him? No. Is it some of the most sensational crap you've heard? After all, it wouldn't be wrong to kill anyone who is equivalent to al-Qaida would it? Thats our goal, killing al-Quida, and thats a noble goal... so why not Tiller? Hes of the same ilk. See how easily these connections can be made?

    Most of the "hate" I see coming from the left, is usually just scorn and ridicule. People like Beck, Palin, Bauchmann get the left in a hissy fit (see above :D ) mostly because we can't believe people listen to them, and take them seriously.

    You offered to take me to a tea party in the previous article... THOSE people are what keep me from going to those tea parties. I thought they were a cool idea at first, then I start hearing about Tom Tancredo, Sarah Palin, Beck, etc and I know I can't go. I don't support those people or the things they say, and I won't allow myself to be associated with any base they think they have.

    Are some of the left guilty of this as well? Sure. Lets not forget the Bush Presidency. But hey, I plead special circumstances, because who wants to be a silent bystander while torture goes on in your countries name? I digress.

    "yet its the left in this country that is responsible for 99% of the violence" - Sure. I've also read into that finger biting situation, and its a hairy situation to say the least... if I recall correctly, i hear the dude who got his finger bit off punched first.

    Finally steering myself back on track...

    The protests didn't get the media uproar simply because they didn't cause it. It was bigger than expected, but thats not suprising, with the Arizona law coming out and sounding nasty. And if you ask me, it DID sound nasty.

    After all, they revised it fixing the wording to clear up confusion over the legitimacy (or lack there of) of using race as a reason for the legal stop, because previous wording in situations like "based SOLELY on race" gave people are pretty bad feeling in their mouths, at least the ones who read it.

    I have no problem with the law, as i read it, post modification. With full explanation on what was intended by thing like what constitutes a "Legal stop", it removed the ambiguity.

    Its not okay for a cop to just walk up to you and demand id. According to "there is no law requiring citizens to carry identification of any kind."

    You can say "Illegal Immigrants aren't citizens". Thats true. But how do you know they aren't Legal Immigrants? If they are, and you demand they provide proof, without any more reason than they fit the 'profile' of a typical illegal in that area, then that officer has violated a citizens rights. The illegals benefit from our rights, yes, but that doesn't mean we should allow an infringement on Legal Citizens rights simply because we "gotta be sure". So long as we are cool with that, then I'm gravy.

  9. Oh yeah. I googled that guy who got 'beat up' by the SEIU guy(s) and I watched the video. Where it starts with an SEIU person lying on his back on the ground and another SEIU guy stands over him in what looks to be a defensive stance. Then when this Gladney guy gets knocked down, he's gets back up and directed over to the camera man.., he seems to be fine.

    The next day of course he is on the news(Fox ofcourse :) ) in a wheelchair too medicated to speak... not quite the medical condition he seemed to be in immedaitely after the supposed assault.

    Not exactly a smoking gun. The courts will hopefully clear it up, but that video was no where near as clear cut as I expected.

    I expected something more along the lines of the libertarian guy who you see getting beat down at a tea party rally for speaking out (out of turn no doubt) against McCain and palin. I found the video at infowars ... I'm sure it's other places as well... I'd give a link, but I'm on my iPhone.

  10. I like how this has gone from Arizona actually doing something about illegal immigration to you guys doing the best you can to try to prove that tea partiers are violent and horrible...nice...

  11. And it's nice to see that your sources for how tea parties are so horrible are from people who have an absolute HATRED for the idea. The bottom line is this is an argument where you don't know the answer unless you actually go to one.

  12. "Beck has been preaching misinformation, scare tactics, and good old fashioned fear mongering for quite a while now."

    Can you please give me some examples of the misinformation that Beck has been supposedly spreading? Because he cites works by the Founding Fathers on a daily basis on his radio show. He cites references to writings about WWII and the lead up to it to describe why our deficit spending is so wrong and out of control. He knows more about the founding and history of this country and western Europe than most history PHDs.

    "Its not okay for a cop to just walk up to you and demand id. According to "there is no law requiring citizens to carry identification of any kind.""

    Both of these things are true. And the Arizona law completely complies with each statement. It specifically states that police must have already made lawful contact with a person and still have a reasonable suspicion that they are here illegally before requesting proof of legal residency or citizenship.

  13. Wardo -- I agree, it did get off topic... but given that the last article was all about the tea parties, and this article made a further connection to tea parties, I can't say it was a very far leap.

    Did you actually GO to any of my sources? Because they weren't even actually about tea partier's being horrible. The first one was describing the Cantor bullet story that Scott referenced in regards to leftist violence and the Salon article was about an event before Tea Parties even started with the O'Rielly reporting of the Abortion Doctor who was later murdered. I realized someone would probably dislike the fact that it was from Salon, but i figured given they referenced the episodes in question and the dates, that if you wanted to know more about it, you could go ahead and check into it.

    After about 2 minutes of googling, here is at least one example of Beck and a bit of fear mongering:

    And I'll bet he does know more than most history PHDs, just like how Hannity knows more about how Reagan would likely respond to things than Reagan's own Secretary of State.

    Finally -- I know that it specifically states they had to make lawful contact, it was part of the amendments defining a "Legal Stop". I said that. I simply mentioned as well that I think a lot of the heat was the wording, which they fortunately resolved, which helped clear up a lot of the text which sounded sketchy. I thought that amendment was also important to note because it didn't happen until April 30th, and given the protests were May 1st, many people may have been unaware of the change... whether that would have made things any different I can't say, but I thought it was worth noting.

  14. Additionally... I don't know that I ever said that the tea partiers were horrible. I DID state that there was violence involved at some events (if the spitting and Faggot thing were Tea Party protests... I don't recall off the top of my head, and I certainly didn't claim they were)... but I didn't say that all tea partiers are violent.

    Furthermore, asu who posted above me specifically stated "Unlike the teabaggers, who protest peacefully and in mass" -- which doesn't sound to me like a statement coming from someone doing the best they can to prove tea partiers are violent and horrible.

    Basically, I don't see how you came to the conclusion that "you guys doing the best you can to try to prove that tea partiers are violent and horrible", I think you missed the mark.

  15. "And while the connection can't be unarguably proven, it is reasonable to think that the Right-wing radicals (talking about these few exceptional people not all right wingers) that performed these actions did so because they felt they had to or be subjected to the consequences of inaction."

    Jon, I said this. I specifically made the point to say I was talking about these few EXCEPTIONAL people. Most Republicans just like most Democrats are level headed people and I do as much as I can to avoid unmerited demonizing.

    Scott, here is my premise in simple terms. Nut jobs and people easily manipulted exist (TRUE STATEMENT), fearmongering triggers those people to stupid and unlawful things without legimate cause. (That is my beef)

    In my opinion, saying things like we are going to become Bankrupt or a Communist state (which is something Rush, Beck and Hannity say often), is fear mongering, you disagree you appear to believe there is a very real possibility the country will be bankrupted and will become a communist state and I'd like to believe I have demonstrated that I respected your opinions in the past.

    Pause for emphasis

    But NOBODY has any PROOF that this path we are on WILL bankrupt our country and that we ARE becoming communist russia. We have historically swung less socialism to more socialism and back and we never once went down a path we could not come back from. And your right, our debt/GDP was only exceeded during WWII days, but where is the proof our country hung by this thread? Where is the PROOF that our country is this fragile being that can't survive what Obama is doing to it? There isn't any. There is no, X+Y=Disaster that anyone has shown me to justify that DOOMSDAY rhetoric.

    And please don't think I am limiting this to just the right. I have observed Keith Ulberman on MSNBC using inflamatory rhetoric and fearmongering as well to drive home his political viewpoints.

    I begin to disgress, you can believe that this rhetoric is fearmongering or the logical result of liberal policies, I'm not trying to debate liberalism vs conservatism right now.

    When a guy (Guy B) so fearful of a doomsday America, feels he has to cut a guys gas line, because Guy A states "America WILL be bankrupt and WILL be a communist state if we continue down this path", then Guy A bears some responsibility for misleading Guy B to the point were Guy B felt his actions were necessary.

    Which brings me to original point, Billy drew a legitame similarity. I'm not saying there aren't ecoterrorist, and fur is murder people out there and other unstable people out there with varying political beliefs. I am saying those guilty of FEARMONGERING, bear some responsibility for what peoples FEARS drive them to do.

    Quick miny beef. You stated "its the left in this country that is responsible for 99% of the violence". You have to had pulled that number out your butt. If not please, show me what source took the time to trace violent acts back to liberals or conservatives. Thats the type of inflamatory stuff I'm talking about.

  16. "But NOBODY has any PROOF that this path we are on WILL bankrupt our country"

    Well, is it reasonable to look at Greece? If not for proof at least as an example of what not to do. Obviously they're in a world of hurt right now due to ridiculous amounts of spending and we're not exactly being penny pinchers...

  17. Okay, sorry for taking so long to respond. Had my exam last Tuesday and took a weekend off for relaxing.


    I did check out that politifact site and based on that site, it appears that Beck used something about which he hadn't fully researched.

    But based on Beck's website and the transcript of that day during which he discussed John Holdren will point out that he did not ever say that Holdren suggested that we put sterilants in the drinking water or mandate forced adoptions. What he said was that Holdren coauthored a book in which these sorts of topics were openly discussed and considered. He then went on to comment that the fact that our new science czar seemed to have few ethical qualms about such policies disquieted him.

    I mean, regardless of when the man was writing these ideas, he expressed them as options. To me, such speculation is quite preposterous and dangerous. Nevermind the man with whom he cowrote that book, Paul Erlich, has been discredited as an enviro-kook more times than I can count. So again, when you look at what Beck said in context, you realize that the politifact site, while doing a good job of mischaracterizing Beck's statements, fails to prove anything.

    You see, people who listen to Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh, and really listen for the full hour or three hours of the show, get the full context and understand that these claims of fearmongering are really headline grabbers placed there by groups like mediamatters or If you only see the headline "Beck says Obama Science Czar supports forced sterizations", you think, well gosh, if that's true its horrible. Then you go and find a site like politifact that does a great job of claiming Beck said something directly when in fact he did not and more context is needed, and then they go and refute his "statement". If you don't listen or go read the transcript, you are easily misled.

  18. "When a guy (Guy B) so fearful of a doomsday America, feels he has to cut a guys gas line, because Guy A states "America WILL be bankrupt and WILL be a communist state if we continue down this path", then Guy A bears some responsibility for misleading Guy B to the point were Guy B felt his actions were necessary."

    You're guy A => guy B causation here is a typical Obama strawman. You have no proof that some guy's gas line was cut because of something Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity et al said. None.

    Besides, Andy, where were you during Bush's adminstration when people were writing books and making movies about the assassination of George W Bush?

    Is there no accountability for one's own actions anymore? Limbaugh et al., are merely mouthpieces for one end of the ideological spectrum. Millions of Americans agree with them. Millions more do not. But you can't blame them for what one random kook might go and do.

    Besides, this discussion started with Bill Clinton blaming Rush for the Oklahoma City bombing, when in fact, it was BILL CLINTON'S INVASION OF WACO TEXAS that was the stimulus that lead to McVeigh doing what he did. Any coincidence that the bombing took place on the EXACT date of the Waco massacre? Or that McVeigh SAID that he was pissed at Clinton for invading and killing a bunch of innocent people at Waco?

    Statements like yours, Andy, scare me much more than somebody on the radio expressing his beliefs, because statements like yours lead to things like the limitation of free speech and dissent. I am absolutely repulsed whenever Al Sharpton opens his racist, hate-filled mouth to spew his venom, but I would NEVER support banning his right to do so. Instead, I seek to counter his statements with my own facts and arguments.

    As for having proof of where our current policy path leads, I'll submit, in addition to Greece, Spain, Portugal, California, Michigan, New York and Illinois. All of these states/countries have been living the high life, pursuing "green" economies, passing around all the "evil rich guys'" wealth, and handing out ridiculous pensions and healthcare benefits to all their government workers.

    They are also totally bankrupt. The only reason the states haven't totally gone under yet is they had the Porkulus package to delay the day of reckoning - but rest assured, if the course they are on remains unaltered, they will end up like Greece. And if ours as a nation remains unaltered, the Great Recession will seem like a booming economic recovery.

    Its happening RIGHT NOW for anyone to see. Obama is pursing the same damn policies Greece and Spain pursued and Spain has 20% unemployment and Greece is going to default on its debt and/or burn itself down in the process. If that doesn't constitute proof for you, I don't think there is anything that would constitute proof in your mind.

  19. I won't disagree with the strawman comment. I've never heard some say I did it because Limbaugh said....

    But I go back to my premise

    "Nut jobs and people easily manipulted exist (TRUE STATEMENT), fearmongering triggers those people to stupid and unlawful things without legimate cause."

    You can either argue fearmongering does or does not trigger people to do stupid and unlawful things without legitimate cause.

    Other Premise

    "I am saying those guilty of FEARMONGERING, bear some responsibility for what peoples FEARS drive them to do."

    You can either argue those guilty of fearmongering do or do not bear some responsibility for what peoples FEARS drive them to do.

    I never said GUY A should not be allowed free speech. I simply stated he beared some responsibility for actions inacted from the information they provide.

    So yes GUY A and GUY B aren't real people. But give me a reason why Guy A isn't responsible for what Guy B does or give me a reason why this THEORETICAL EXAMPLE can not be applied to the real world.

    Let me give you a real world example you may agree with, Guy A (IPCC) says global warming will make the world uninhabital (fearmongering), Guy B (Congress) passes Cap & Trade (to prevent climate change). Answer this DOES THE IPCC NOT BEAR SOME RESPONSIBILITY FOR CAP & TRADE? And WHY?

    Why are people not accountable for what they say?

  20. Okay... so I had a decent response, and somehow, its all lost now... sigh...

    I'll make it short.,2933,592610,00.html

    "Thanks, Mr. President, but I think we're going to keep the Internet the way it is right now. You know — or at least until people who are worshipping Satan, you know, aren't in office."

    That is fear mongering AND its misinformation.

    To state that "we're [Those against Net Neutrality] going to keep the Internet the way it is right now" is very mis representative of what Net Neutrality is about. Net Neutrality is actually trying to, at its core, keep the Internet how it is now. Those AGAINST Net Neutrality, want ISPs to have full control, and we ALREADY have examples of the end results of this (a) multi-tiered internet approach, in which certain content will be given top priority (due to content providers paying ISPs cash money) while all others are given regular priority, thus allowing ISPs to effectively control the content provided to the end user and (b) ISPs directly controlling what 3rd Party Software will work effectively over their network (i.e. Comcast basically not allowing BitTorrent to utilize any bandwidth on their network).

    And if you DARE say "if they do that, people will just go somewhere else", i will flip out man, because we BOTH know competition in an industry with the type of Infrastructure backbone as ISPs cannot possibly be the same good old fashioned regular competition, the barriers to entry are simply too large.... though, Google Fiber may be able to stir that pot up a bit.

    Final note:

    The reason that the Glen Beck statement was noteworthy? Normally, I would just say "thats no big deal, just the type of rhetoric I expect from a self professed Rodeo clown" but the fact is, polled Republicans come up at just about 25% saying "Obama might be the anti-christ". Which btw, ARE YOU [censored] KIDDING ME?!?!?, but yeah, so thats his base. You see how Glenn went ahead and tried to smash one right to his base there? Pretty subtle right?

    Like i said, Fear Mongering... Distortion of Facts...

    Maybe he should try to get an ACTUAL PH.D in History... or wait... does wanting to take history lessons from someone with an actual degree make me an elitist? damn...

  21. Scott - just got an issue with one of your claims. That Bill Clinton was wholly responsible for the Waco incident. This incident occurred between February 28 – April 19, 1993.

    Let's see...President Clinton takes office on January 20, 1993 and little over a month into office, he coordinates a massive inter-agency seige of the Branch Davidion compound.

    You seem to leave out the facts the Koresh and the others had been watched by President George H.W. Bush's and President Ronald Reagan's FBI and ATF. In fact, President Bush gave the order to plan a seige as early as 1991. While Clinton gave the order, don't claim that he is solely responsible.

    If you claim innocent people died at Waco (some were and some weren't. Yes, it is sad that Koresh used children as cover like that coward he was), please be accurate in placing blame.

    This is exactly what we on the left claim about the fearmongering. You claim Clinton killed innocent people, but leave out very important facts about the case. This is exactly what Rush, Beck and Hannity do. They tell the listeners just enough fact - and leave out plenty of relevant and important facts - to get their listeners enraged about things.

    If Beck tried to get a Ph.D. in History, he'd have troubles. REAL historians try to find the whole story - not just the stuff they want to find.

  22. On a side note - our debt to GDP ratio is scary when put into comparison with Greece and Spain. Greece was 127% debt to GDP and Spain is working at around 119%.

    Both countries have embraced America's high spend and low tax philosophy. We can argue all we want, but we need to cut spending on things (I call for a cutback on the $18 billion per month we spend in Iraq and Afghanistan) and look at raising taxes. For too long, we've tried to have our cake and eat it to.

    However, I do wonder if Republicans seek this. It seems as if they want to have America bankrupt. They would achieve their goal of breaking the power of DC. Both Reagan and Bush (43) cut taxes dramatically and increased spending.

    Goal??? Destroy the American Government????

    Who said fearmongering and conspiracy theories were just for the conservatives....Muhahahaha

  23. Final Note:

    Saying that Global Warming can / will make the planet uninhabitable is not fear mongering. It would be fear mongering if I said "Our president worships the Devil", because there are no facts to support that, and it is said, intentionally, to incite your god fearing base.

    HOWEVER, if I say that increased CO2 in the atmosphere from a non natural source can lead to increased global temperatures, and then follow that claim up, by scientifically explaining how increased CO2 in the atmosphere and slight increases in the global temperature can make living on this planet significantly different than it is today, well, thats science.

    It is not fear mongering to report on scientific studies and peer reviewed research. It is not fear mongering to try and utilize that science to push an agenda aimed and neutralizing the future ramifications shown by said science. Perhaps Cap and Trade isn't the answer (at the very least, it wont solve the problems of TODAY, it will try and reduce us from adding more problems tomorrow...), but that doesn't make talking about AGW science "fear mongering".

    Do you see the difference?

    Also -- considering your support for Glen Beck, I'm suprised you have such a dislike of Godwin's Law. Afterall, I have never seen more comparisons between Hilter and the 3rd Reich than those being continually evoked by Glen Beck, on a national television show nonetheless. Why is it "outlandish" and "outrageous" now (in reference to the AZ Law), but when Glen Beck continually evokes it, its okay, because its "History". Do you see the disconnect?

  24. Sorry for repeatedly saying "Final Note" when its not at all my final note :) But I just looked into your evaluation on the article I posted about Glen Beck.

    Scott -- You provided a link (thanks btw) but that link is to a different show than the one politifact was talking about. You provided a link to July 16th, however Politfact was talking about his July 22nd episode. He said the following:

    "I mean, we've got czars now. Czars like John Holdren, who has proposed forcing abortions and putting sterilants in the drinking water to control population."

    Just like Politifact reported. Here is the link to the transcript, which I copied this word for word on.

    He may not have said he proposed it on the day he went in detail on it (the link you provided), but that doesn't stop him from misleading his audience a few days later (as politifact reported).

    It seems like if anyone is being misled, its his audience....