Comments Posted By Sal
Displaying 1 To 10 Of 22 Comments
NEW BANKING REGS A BOON FOR MAIN STREET
It is amazing to me how people can be so ignorant of simple economics. Reinstating Glass-Stegall will be an economic disaster of epic proportions that will set our recovery back for a decade or more.
Comment Posted By Sal On 22.01.2010 @ 13:59
WHAT THE HECK IS GOING ON IN THE MASSACHUSETTS SENATE RACE?
It is worth pointing out that Romney was behind Democrat Shannon O'Brien in the 2002 Massachusetts Governor's race going into election day.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,69107,00.html
Comment Posted By Sal On 12.01.2010 @ 06:22
Being a resident of the Bay State, it is possible for Republicans to win here. Believe it or not, Massachusetts enjoyed a 16-year string of Republican Governors from 1991 through 2006. It is possible and Brown has a lot going for him. He could pull off an upset.
That being said, it is an uphill battle and one still has to favor Coakley. Even if Scott loses, if he comes within 5 or so points, it may have political implications nationwide.
Comment Posted By Sal On 12.01.2010 @ 06:13
YES TO HOFFMAN, BUT NO LITMUS TEST PLEASE
My big beef is along the same lines as yours, Rick. The GOP establishment is deigning from on high who should be the Republican nominee. I've always felt that the GOP needs to be moved more Conservative with good, Conservative candidates. In this case, the party bosses picked a candidate who is a liberal, not a moderate as you posit (she has a 15% rating from the ACU, making her to the left of virtually every member of the GOP caucus in Washington). There was a viable, good, Conservative alternative who may yet win the race. The same goes for Florida and Pennsylvania.
My advice to the GOP establishment: STAY THE HELL OUT OF THE PRIMARIES. Let the people decide without your interference and backing. Once the candidate has been chosen by the people, THEN the NRCC and NRSC can get behind whoever wins.
If Dede had beaten Hoffman in a primary, I probably would have supported her, for the sake of the numbers in Congress. But there was an alternative, and there was another viable candidate who could win and who was Conservative, and he was passed over.
Comment Posted By Sal On 27.10.2009 @ 12:53
CAN THE GOP HELP GOVERN WHILE IN THE MINORITY?
I think you speak of something that doesn't really exist. The Republicans in the Sentate HAVE tried to make the bill better by proposing amendments and by trying to work with Baucus to better the bill, but the Liberals are stopping them. I personally think that the individual mandate for health care is a poison pill that Republicans should oppose at all costs.
On another note, if voters (who reject the Health Care reforms by a fairly large margin) see Republicans as being complicit in passing this bad legislation, how will voters differentiate them from the Democrats in 2010?
What is better in this case? Helping to pass a more palitable, less bad bill but still a bad bill nonetheless, or to work to try to pass no bill at all? In this particular case, I think no bill is better all around. There's still a chance that health care will not happen because of Democrat infighting, and that would frankly be the best bet for the nation.
On the practical side, the Republicans simply don't have any room to negotiate. Their margins are so small, that they don't have any bargaining power.
Comment Posted By Sal On 11.10.2009 @ 07:38
In spite of our disagreements, congrats on a notable achievement.
Comment Posted By Sal On 23.09.2009 @ 14:51
STREAM OF CONSCIOUSNESS SATURDAY
And those who cannot see what this kind of rigid, uncritical, self-defeating thinking is doing to our country - both right and left - may live to see the day where useful dialogue and reasoned debate become an impossibility and our country dissolves into weak, divided, quarreling bunch of ideologues who prevent us from facing vital challenges both at home and abroad.
Yet I see this same approach coming from you, Rick. You call a reader of your site that he is a closet klansman for trying to explain a statement from Rush that you feel he takes out of context. It seems to me that the supposed "non-ideologues" have their own brand of rigidity. You assume Rush Limbaugh does not offer reasoned debate (that I disagree with you on) and so when someone tries to point out where you are wrong, you name call.
Seems to me that you should look in the mirror before you attack the rest of Conservatism.
Comment Posted By Sal On 21.09.2009 @ 10:19
RUSH AND RACE: THROUGH A GLASS DARKLY
Man oh, man if you think that rancid, venomous, hyperbolic explosion was “satire” or “parody” or “sarcasm” you people are beyond help. There was no logic, no reason, no semblance of a connection to what the Newsweek article was about. Superficially, Limbaugh took the headline and then mounted the most horrendously dishonest attack on it - not using anything from the article itself, simply riffing off the headline, trying to make a point about a media double standard.
If you listend to the whole show, instead of taking one single section, you would understand that he DID take the time to critically attack the Newsweek piece. He spent most of that hour building up the various components of race-bating on the left that had been occurring over the past several days - the many charges of racism against Tea Party goers and other supporters, the Newsweek piece, the charges against Joe Wilson that he was a racist simply because he (inappropriately) shouted "You Lie" on the House floor. Then he brought in this story about a White kid getting beat up and the mainstream media reporting that it was not racially motivated. He was doing what Rush always says he does - illustrates absurdity by being absurd. And you are too thick and apparently not smart enough to get it.
And you fell for it. You got riled up because maybe you are a closet Kluxer. I don’t know. I do know that rational people can critique that Newsweek article without resorting to the kind of idiotic, manipulative, and ultimately self-defeating rhetoric used by Limbaugh.
Now your resorting to calling anyone who listens to Rush a Klansmen? Rick, this is a new low even for you. Just because you didn't get what Rush said, you are doing just what you claim he did. Rather than arguing out points against what Jeff said, to call him a Klansman is disgraceful, out of line and should be called out. It speaks very poorly of you, Rick, that you resorted to this line of attack on one of your readers, and I think you owe Jeff an apology. As one who claims to be for civil discourse and logical arguments, that comment just discredited your entire argument.
Comment Posted By Sal On 18.09.2009 @ 06:08
Rick, I have seriously begun to question your intelligence in that you can't see the obvious sarcasm in Rush's quote above. If you actually listened to the show instead of just reading the transcript, you'd realize that it was complete sarcasm (the tone in his voice was obvious).
Rush is a brilliant satirist and an important part of the Conservative movement, whether you like it or not. Love him or hate him, it is probable that if not for Limbaugh, much of the popular Conservative movement that materialized over the past 20 years would not have happened to the same extent. Limbaugh took the Conservatism of Reagan and Buckley and popularized it to a point beyond where it had ever been before.
We need to stop attacking our own, with very few exceptions. There is just as much room and importance in our movement for the Limbaughs and the Morans of the world. We're going to self-destruct if we attack each other the way we are. Rick, your tone over the past couple of months has been hate-filled at the Palins and the Limbaughs of the world whose tactics you disagree with. We can all agree that the (very few) racist signs and nazi-signs at the tea party's were wrong and should be condemned. That is behavior that we should fight. But to attack Limbaugh's character for making a point about the double-standard of racial claims by the media and the politically correct assumption that racism only goes one way is disengenuous at best.
Comment Posted By Sal On 17.09.2009 @ 05:46
PALIN'S OUTRAGEOUS DEMAGOGUERY: WHY NOT? EVERYONE ELSE IS DOING IT.
Tyrants rise to power because people think that "no one could be that evil" or "that could not happen here". Obama's quote about the women getting a pain killer rather than a pacemaker should tell you all you need to know about Obama's ambitons.
On the bill itself, Rick, it is obvious you have not read it at all. Besides the death panels are medical boards being set up to evaluate cost-effective treatments and determine which treatments are and are not viable. With private insurance being no longer allowed or sustainable (yes, you can keep your insurance, but you can't then change insurance UNLESS that new insurance plan meets the governments guidelines), the inevitable need to cut costs is going to adversely affect human lives. Look at Oregon, where a woman was denied Chemotherapy and instead offered Euthenasia.
Think of Obama's press-conference quote about tonsils, and apply it to serious diseases. Once we start getting away from caring for the patient and instead treat statistics, it leads to a devaluation of human life. We are already partially on that course with the insurance companies. This plan will lead to a single payer system with no options.
Rick, you are delusional and ignorant of the facts on this bill. I've always enjoyed reading your columns for an alternative "right-wing" viewpoint, but lately your usually thoughtful and informed posts have turned to long-winded diatribes without fact or substance.
Comment Posted By Sal On 9.08.2009 @ 06:10
