The swift boating of Graeme Frost

[Wags]

Last night on the "Countdown with Keith Olbermann" there was a article/video titled the "The swift boating of Graeme Frost."

On or about 10 October 2007 an article/video titled "GOP Attacks 12 Year Old" aired on the Countdown with Keith Olbermann.

If you are interested in more information on this subject google "GOP attacks 12 year old."

It is extremely sad that RUSH and some (did not say all) of the so called conservative compassionate Republicans have to attack a young 12 year old boy and his family. I do not know how anyone anywhere can justify or condone the harassment and the death threats that this family has been subjected to.

GOD BLESS

 

[EngineeringMyFinances]

If that link doesn't work for you, try this one.

 

[Rustic23]

Come on Wags... for a political troll you should be able to do better than that!

 

[MasterBlaster]

I don't quite see the validity of the point that is being made.

If the Democrats are going to use a cripled 12 year old in their latest battle of the Great Game, then isn't that person subject to scrutiny ? The Democrats were using this young man for their own propaganda purposes.

The so called outrage is not quite justified.

Maybe the Democrats could use other 12 year olds to make their talking points on other issues.

 

[travelover]

Wags, I admire your ability to get your political opponents to take the bait again and again, but maybe it is time to give it a rest.

 

[Wags]

The Swift Boating Graeme Frost

I don't quite see the validity of the point that is being made.

If the Democrats are going to use a cripled 12 year old in their latest battle of the Great Game, then isn't that person subject to scrutiny ? The Democrats were using this young man for their own propaganda purposes.

The so called outrage is not quite justified.

Maybe the Democrats could use other 12 year olds to make their talking points on other issues.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Thank you Engineeringmyfinances for the help. It is appreciated.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
It's no different then when Reps or Dems use their children in campaign ads and then complain because their children are fair game to the media.

I do not think that the use of the c=word when identifying this 12 year old was appropriate or politically correct. Maybe you should have identifed him as a person with a disability.

Maybe the Reps should use mouthpieces with common sense.

Come on get real since when has a 12 year old person with a disability been fair game? Or since when has any 12 year old been fair game? These are grown men and women picking on poor defenseless kids.

Whether or not the Dems were using the 12 year old boy for propanganda it still does not give the so called conservative compassionate Reps (some NOT all) the right to attack him and his family. Oh I forgot Old George W and the Reps set that as acceptable behavior during the Presidential elections when they attacked an American VETERAN who happened to be a person with a disability and in a wheelchair.

Now that's what you can call an outrage and disgraceful.
GOD BLESS
WAGS
Lifetime member of the DAV

 

[mh]

Last night on the "Countdown with Keith Olbermann" there was a article/video titled the "The swift boating of Graeme Frost."

On or about 10 October 2007 an article/video titled "GOP Attacks 12 Year Old" aired on the Countdown with Keith Olbermann.

If you are interested in more information on this subject google "GOP attacks 12 year old."

It is extremely sad that RUSH and some (did not say all) of the so called conservative compassionate Republicans have to attack a young 12 year old boy and his family. I do not know how anyone anywhere can justify or condone the harassment and the death threats that this family has been subjected to.

GOD BLESS

yaaawn.. If there actually was a GOD, I'd like to think he'd BLESS me by quelling your compulsion to post this kind of stuff.

 

[Wags]

yaaawn.. If there actually was a GOD, I'd like to think he'd BLESS me by quelling your compulsion to post this kind of stuff.

YES there is a GOD! You have the FREEDOM to believe or not to believe.

As for me posting whatever I decide to post that is called FREEDOM and you have the FREEDOM of choice of reading it or not reading it.

These are some of the reasons that brave men and women have and continue to defend OUR NATION so that folks like you and me will have that FREEDOM.

GOD BLESS

 

[Martha]

Easy folks.

Everyone has been pretty civil on the political threads lately. Let's not get too personal.

 

[ERD50]

It is extremely sad that RUSH ....

Didn't even look at the link, but I would like to point out that IMO, RUSH says whatever he thinks will attract a certain audience. Same can be said for many extremists on all sides.

So i wouldn't call the content of what they say 'sad'. I do think it is a bit sad that people take any of these extremists seriously.

JMO.

-ERD50

 

[mickeyd]

was making an appeal for President Bush to reconsider his veto of legislation that would have expanded the program designed to provide health coverage to children of the working poor

Interesting link, thanks for posting it.

This is the first that I have heard about this, but it seems that once this child began to make a political statement that he was considered fair game. That's the way to game in Washington D.C. is played today, unfortunately.

 

[FinanceDude]

I don't quite see the validity of the point that is being made.

If the Democrats are going to use a cripled 12 year old in their latest battle of the Great Game, then isn't that person subject to scrutiny ? The Democrats were using this young man for their own propaganda purposes.

The so called outrage is not quite justified.

Maybe the Democrats could use other 12 year olds to make their talking points on other issues.

Typical political games.........they will continue to trot out kid after kid........ Doesn't anyone think that USING a 12 YEAR OLD is pretty weak?

 

[Rustic23]

They thought it was safe.... No one would question 'the children'.

You know while we are on politics, did anyone else wonder how 'Spending' became 'Investing' during the Clinton administration?

 

[FinanceDude]

They thought it was safe.... No one would question 'the children'.

You know while we are on politics, did anyone else wonder how 'Spending' became 'Investing' during the Clinton administration?

Must be the "new math"I never learned.........

I think we should fire Congress and start over..........

 

[ladelfina]

Since SCHIP is specifically FOR CHILDREN, it would be hard to imagine that the discussions should be off-limits to familes with children! Same with "No Child Left Behind" or the "snowflake babies" or whatever on the republican side.. no-one called those kids "human shields" or had people stalking and harrassing them at their home.. geez! The Rs have really jumped the shark on this one.

Right-wing sis, unfortunately, takes the extremists seriously and keeps writing me stuff about how 'rich' this family is and so forth. She reads Malkin (gag), and really buys into this on the basis of ideology.

She doesn't care if overall it's more expensive for society (i.e, us taxpayers) when a family like this ends up bankrupt, jobless, homeless, or living on our dime in a welfare motel. She thinks it HAS to get to that point -rock bottom- before anyone gets even a penny's worth of help.

I think the R line here is to divide and conquer: pit the lower-/middle-class "haves" against the lower-/middle-class "have nots".

One funny thing I came across is that the same income segment that these folks are calling "too rich" to get a health subsidy.. is lower than the income segment that they claimed was struggling.. and "too poor" not to get a tax cut back when. Which is it? Logic is not their strong suit; bullying and agression is where they excel. They see a weakness and go for the jugular.

Now they are bitching about a second SCHIP family with a cardiopathic 2-year-old. The mom is even a Republican!! I've read sickening post after sickening post of how "irresponsible" it was for this woman to have:
a.) quit a job where she had health ins. for one where she didn't (despite these posters knowing nothing else about the pay and conditions of either job)
b.) borne a child several years later when she had no health insurance!!

Seriously, I have been coming across HUNDREDS of posts saying things like this and much worse about this 2-y.o.'s parents. There are really a lot more people that seem to be agreeing with this than some of the other wacky Limbaugh/Coulter/Malkin memes; it's really hitting a hate nerve with a LOT of angry angry people with hearts of coal.

For some wierd reason they don't resent tax money spent on rich people or big business, but they seem to go bonkers when it's actually used to help people more like themselves whose life's lottery came up short with an extraordinarily sick child. I don't know what vein of resentment it is tapping, but it's there and it's real. There are a lot more "extremists" on this than I'd have imagined seeing, talking about how there have to be carrots and "sticks"!! (just one of the milder examples). There is a heavy Calvinistic punitive puritanism element to it.

ONE thing has cleared itself up: I deduce from these vicious posts that the Republican line is: a married non-rich working couple should use birth control and if that doesn't work, abort the kid.. Some pro-life position, that!! Or maybe everyone with crappy/no health insurance should practice "abstinence only", within marriage (yeah, that must be it!).

 

[MasterBlaster]

did anyone else wonder how 'Spending' became 'Investing' during the Clinton administration?

The ran words by their polling group. the words "Massive Investments" were received better than "Massive Spending" hence the use of such terms.

 

[ERD50]

Seriously, I have been coming across HUNDREDS of posts saying things like this ....

There are a lot more "extremists" on this than I'd have imagined seeing,

ladelfina, my trouble with all those statements is that we have no idea who, or how many people they represent. 'Hundreds' of posters could include some of the same people posting for all we know (are any signed with names like newguy, or booboobear?).

I can find something on the web that is pro/con on any subject, and find hundreds of wacky posts defending their beliefs on each side. I don't know if we can make much of it, other than there are extremists. A significant number? Don't know.

For some wierd reason they don't resent tax money spent on rich people or big business,

Who is 'they'? I certainly resent tax money going to the 'rich' or big business. I think you may be dipping into a small paint can, and painting with a wide brush.

-ERD50

 

[FinanceDude]

She doesn't care if overall it's more expensive for society (i.e, us taxpayers) when a family like this ends up bankrupt, jobless, homeless, or living on our dime in a welfare motel. She thinks it HAS to get to that point -rock bottom- before anyone gets even a penny's worth of help.

Funny, I have lived in the USA my whole life, I whole-heartedly disagree, there's PLENTY of govt help out there, and I have used some myself in the dark days..........

I think the R line here is to divide and conquer: pit the lower-/middle-class "haves" against the lower-/middle-class "have nots".

That is ridiculous...........

Seriously, I have been coming across HUNDREDS of posts saying things like this and much worse about this 2-y.o.'s parents. There are really a lot more people that seem to be agreeing with this than some of the other wacky Limbaugh/Coulter/Malkin memes; it's really hitting a hate nerve with a LOT of angry angry people with hearts of coal.

Maybe what they ARE sick of is continually using "pawns" to further political aims, rather than addressing the meat of the issue..........

ONE thing has cleared itself up: I deduce from these vicious posts that the Republican line is: a married non-rich working couple should use birth control and if that doesn't work, abort the kid.. Some pro-life position, that!! Or maybe everyone with crappy/no health insurance should practice "abstinence only", within marriage (yeah, that must be it!).

Why are you so bitter??

 

[ladelfina]

FD:
1. Boh ..that's just what she says. I could add that she actually qualifies for this program in her state, has a special-needs kid, and refuses to sign up. So at least she is consistent! (actually she included that after some checking she thought the plan was also inferior to the one she's on through her DH's grad school -ahem-). She does have access to an alternate choice; some people may not.

2. Not so sure. I mean, that's what I read into the attempts to paint people who make $45k a year, have 4 kids (2 with brain damage), who bought a house for $55k in a bad neighborhood and fixed it up and now it's worth $260k as somehow "too well-off".

3. Well, both sides are guilty of that. But only one is harrassing brain-damaged kids with stalking and phone calls.

4. I'm not bitter. I agree with aspects of (real) conservative ideology. I just get irritated by inconsistencies. To me a pro-zygote anti-kid stance is inconsistent, as are people who are in the aggregate anti-abortion and anti-birth-control and anti-condom saying that these people are "irresponsible" for having a child.

ERD50, I guess you are right that it could be just a small squadron of flying monkeys repeating the same things everywhere, but from the variety of styles I didn't get that impression.

"They" is my sister and the National Review and the Weekly Standard and Hugh Hewitt and the Free Republic and Little Green Footballs and all the other far-right sites she follows. She'll thinks taxation is confiscation, but will tell me how important it is to have mining or timber company subsidies for "national security". How it's important to have the feds indemnitize the insurance industry against catastrophic loss, but that it would be bad for them to indemnitize individuals against catastrophic loss.

In the scheme of things she values business over individuals. Individuals are merely around to serve the needs of capital. She thinks the estate tax should be zero no matter how many billions you have (but thinks the rich are rich and the poor are poor due to "merit").

OTOH, she'll say things like "the government has the right to" (eavesdrop, intern people indefinitely, etc.). To me, a sane person, the US government is not an entity that has rights -- the PEOPLE of the US have rights and they may confer certain powers on the government, any of which could in theory be rescinded.

Here's a good RWS quote:

Production and investment is the economy. Consumption is what fritters it away.

She is well-educated and has an MBA. What can I say?

 

[FinanceDude]

OTOH, she'll say things like "the government has the right to" (eavesdrop, intern people indefinitely, etc.). To me, a sane person, the US government is not an entity that has rights -- the PEOPLE of the US have rights and they may confer certain powers on the government, any of which could in theory be rescinded.

That goes anlong with my theory that ALL the Founding Fathers have been writhing in their graves for many, many years.

Fact is, the STATES should have the power to govern, not the Federal govt. We are so far from that it's crazy...............

I wonder how the rights of the average US citizen changed during World War II, was there "spying" on folks and such? I do recall innocent japanese-Americans being sent to "internment camps"............

 

[ladelfina]

innocent japanese-Americans being sent to "internment camps".

Michelle Malkin, a primary engine behind the aggressive anti-Frost campaign is the author of a 2004(?) book called "In Defense of Internment" - about that very subject and what a great idea it was!!

She's also continually freaked out about immigration, despite the fact that she herself has parents from the Philippines (with, some have said, an 'obscure' immigration record, making it quite possible she is one of the "anchor babies" she goes nuts about). This would all be pretty irrelevant if she stuck to her blog.. but she's on FOX quite often, and we saw the hand of a Republican senator's office in the propagation of her inaccurate accusations about the Frost family among more still more bloggers and media contacts... After having worked to disseminate the unsubstantiated Frost "charges", this senator [McConnell]'s office then backtracked, saying "the family is legit," (oops! too late!) and then (of course) denied having issued both the rumors and the retraction!

Not that I want to waste time defending Malkin (and I haven't read her book), but I wonder whether her Filipina roots lend her a certain animus against the Japanese; I recall reading something about terrible Japanese atrocities committed in the Phillipines. Yep.. FD, I think most of us are woefully under-educated in terms of history, both political history and world history...

--
As far as "spending" vs. "investing".. that's a very interesting point about Clinton.. There are plenty of Republican "framing" switcheroos ("estate tax" became "death tax", preying on the fact that EVERYone dies, yet very few leave an "estate" worth taxing). But to get back to "investing".. Clinton was a very centrist Democrat, which people seem to forget. NAFTA anyone? Welfare reform? and b.) he was nowhere near the big spender Bush is.

Total real discretionary outlays will increase about 35.8 percent under Bush (FY2001-06) while they increased by 25.2 percent under LBJ (FY1964-69) and 11.9 percent under Reagan (FY1981-86). By contrast, they decreased by 16.5 under Nixon (FY1969-74) and by 8.2 percent under Clinton (FY1993-98). Comparing Bush to his predecessors is instructive. Bush and Reagan both substantially increased defense spending (by 44.5 and 34.8 percent respectively). However, Reagan cut real nondefense discretionary outlays by 11.1 percent while Bush increased them by 27.9 percent. Clinton and Nixon both raised nondefense spending (by 1.9 percent and 23.1 respectively), but they both cut defense spending substantially (by 16.8 and 32.2 percent).

Reason Magazine - Bush the Budget Buster

Anyway, it's funny this is being brought up at this precise moment, because it was exactly the topic of yesterday's exch. w/RWS. Is an oil co. subsidy/tax break a "handout" (me) or an "investment" (rws)? Are student loans an "investment" (me) or a "handout" (rws). She sees a distinction between a tax break (good) and a subsidy (bad, esp. if not for some preferred industry of hers). I don't.

It's kind of like that optical illusion where you either see a vase, or two profiles!! Some people can see both; the rest can only see one or the other exclusively, and never "get" the flip side. I may not always succeed, but I want to try to be able to see both.

gotta go.. RWS jes' sent me another Malkin link!!

 

[ERD50]

As far as "spending" vs. "investing".. that's a very interesting point about Clinton.. There are plenty of Republican "framing" switcheroos ("estate tax" became "death tax", preying on the fact that EVERYone dies, yet very few leave an "estate" worth taxing).

Are student loans an "investment" (me) or a "handout" (rws). She sees a distinction between a tax break (good) and a subsidy (bad, esp. if not for some preferred industry of hers). I don't.

I'm not interested in defending the Reps (or the Dems), but I actually do think the term 'Death Tax' is much more to the point than 'Estate Tax'. IMO, it is 'Estate Tax' that is trying to disguise the fact.

An Estate Tax is non-voluntarily triggered by death. Yes, there is a large 'standard deduction', many do no not pay anything - but that doesn't change the fact that it is triggered by death.

Income tax also has a standard deduction, and many do no not pay anything. So is that term a framing and a 'switcheroo'?

If the govt was spending wisely, almost all of it could be viewed as an 'investment'.

Are student loans an investment or handout? I don't know. Off the top of my head they probably do a lot of good so I'd say 'investment'. Even those of us that do not qualify directly may see a benefit from living in a more educated society. But I'd need to see a breakdown and analysis to know if that is correct or just a 'feel good' justification. Like the "DARE" program.

Subsidies - Robert Reich (Clinton's Sec of Labor) said something to the effect that subsidies should only be granted if there is clear benefit to the general public *and* there is not sufficient reward/risk to encourage a company to fill that need on their own. I think it makes sense to apply that logic to all govt activity.

-ERD50

 

[ladelfina]

tax names---
Hmm.. but you wouldn't call the income tax a "life" tax, though it is 'triggered' being your being alive. You pay income tax on income, estate tax on an estate; it's not like a liquor tax or a gas tax -- a tax everyone has to pay universally. (For the privilege of being allowed to die?)

I agree that the logic you cite from Reich is compelling. But I fear we've really lost the sense of a moral or ethical compass whether in spending or in saving.

I would love -point blank- less government spending, which could easily happen if we did, indeed, spend wisely. When I see spending happening nontheless, I do have a soft spot for spending on people and small business rather than catering only to big business interests.

What used to be a government "of the people, by the people, for the people" has become a government "of business, by business, for business" to an ever greater extent, and the process of funneling wealth to the top is growing. I think we are already seeing, economically, diminishing returns in this trend.

And frankly it doesn't have all that much to do with a capitalist system vs. a socialist or communist one. Here in Italy there are very rich entrenched powers too, that will never be unseated in my lifetime, and while workers are unionized, pay is fairly low for most; this in turn stunts the economy just as surely as does Wal*Mart's racing to the bottom in the US.

I see that what the Bush government and the Prodi government both do best is to effectively channel public tax money to their private rich friends, not all that different from Putin or Mugabe. It's not a process that any particular ideology has cornered the market on.

 

[Rustic23]

Once more I see the 'eye of the beholder' here.
Government subsidies did not start with Bush or the republicans. Farm subsidies, mostly to large business, Airlines, Rail Roads, Auto Industry, the list goes on. They existed before the Roosevelt administration, and most likely started in the Washington administration. I am not that much of a historian to swear to when Government began giving subsidies to business.

And just for the record, it is not Bush, Clinton, Ford or any other president that pushes these subsidies. It is congress. Congress appropriates the cash. I have never figured out why it is the President that gets credit or cursed for spending too much. It was not President Bush that spent $250M for a bridge to nowhere in Alaska. You could argue Bush could have, and I think, should have vetoed more Republican spending bills but it is still Congress that passes the bill and under the constitution is responsible. And Congress is paying off constituents from home.

 

[ladelfina]

Right, Rustic 23.. There's some sense to the "constituents from home".. but all subsidies are not created equal. When there were more people actually involved in farming and manufacturing favorable treatment might help that industry grow, with its "trickle down" effects. But the world is a bit different today. As an example, the mechanization and aggregation of farms means farm subsidies no longer assist a large community of "family farms" and workers, but put money into the pockets of ADM or Con-Agra, who don't exactly need our "handouts" any longer.

Maybe it's my imagination, but it used to be that politicians -sure- tried to bring home populist pork for their district, but I had the sense that more people shared at the feast and got crumbs from the table. Now it seems they respond not so much to the aggregate citizenry, but to the ever-more-concentrated lobbying power of big capital like in the oil, insurance and pharmaceutical realms. Many pieces of legislation are WRITTEN word-for-word by industry lobbyists. Bush COULD have shown himself a "prudent" leader in vetoing any number of crazy spending bills, but he didn't. Every bridge-to-nowhere was tied in to a "terror" bill, and he went for years without ever vetoing anything; the only vetos he's into now are the ones that might help an individual (and we can't have that!).

I don't defend Congress; the reason they have an even lower approval rating than Bush nowadays is that I think people voted for change, and have been largely disappointed on many fronts.