Documented: Additional comments by dmarks (AKA Dennis Marks) on the topic of remarks made by Russ Feingold during an exchange between Feingold (D-WI) and Rick Santorum (R-PA) on the Senate floor on 9/26/1996.
You did, Will. And not only did WD embrace one of the extreme views (extreme according to strongly pro-choice moderate Will and 'insane' according to strongly-Left John Myste), he extended it to a passionate (and compassionless) support for infancticide and disregard for the inconveneint (for him) protections for citizens under the Constitituon (his ineffective argument? People don't have any rights if they might possibly die. For them there are no civil liberties.) His bringing up of blowing up abortion clinics is hollow and ineffective sloganeering. Not only has it hardly ever happened, it represents an extremist view. No one here in this discussion supports either of the extremes, except for WD.
[Dervish Sanders said] "Calling someone a "corporate Democrat" or a "corporate Republican" means the politician in question does something for the corporation in question in return for campaign contributions. The term is widely used. You pretending to be unaware of it is just silly."
Yet, you are using it for people who quite often don't do anything in return for campaign contributions. Or for organizations such as the DNC, which has nothing to do with this.
By the way, Feingold gets thousands and thousands of dollars for of campaign contributions from Planned Parenthood (a corporation) and from elsewhere in the abortion industry. In return, he votes in an extreme out-of-touch fashion to increase abortions and to wast precious Federal dollars in corporate welfare handouts to the abortion industry. Russ Feingold does easily meet your definition of corporate Democrat.
That is simply not true for Feingold. He favors abortions at all stages (an extreme view) and also favors wasting tax dollars to encourage them. Which means be wants more of them. That is no wanting it 'rare' at all. Thankfully as you pointed out he is not in office anymore.
[Dervish Sanders said] "He does not favor abortions at all stages".
Actually, he does. Feingold very strongly favors abortion. In the other discussion on his views, I linked to a non-partisand site that had extensive examples. It is simply untrue that he wants abortions "rare". He Wants them increased, and supports governent funding to encourage them, and opposes any efforts that might reduce the number of abortions.[Dervish Sanders said] "He favors the decision be left to qualified doctors".
You mean unqualified. Because in the other discussion, you appointed doctors as judge, jury, and executioner to wantonly kill born American citizens on a whim in the name of expanding abortions. Only a jury is qualified to do this. Not a bloodthirsty mercenary with a medical degree.
[Dervish Sanders said] I'm in agreement with him on this.
Which means you too strongly favor abortions in a rather extreme way.
Also, refer to the other item for a sane, compromise view on abortion. One agreed to by me, John, and Will. One that eschewed extreme. Why not step in from the cold fringes and embrace some sense, and sign on too?
Fri Sep 20, 2013 AT 10:12:00 PM EDT
Failed former Senator Feingold was mostly someone who favored power for the state at the direct expense of the people.... from his "campaign finance reform" which included making it a crime for people to criticize politicians at the wrong time of year ....to his very extreme abortion position which would have given abortionists the power to act as judge/jury/executioner to born US citizens. Not entirely though. There were exceptions, as Tao has mentioned. Rand Paul has a much better record overall, though.
Sat Sep 21, 2013 AT 05:58:00 AM EDT
dmarks [Carl Mistlebauer said?] "Boy dmarks you have a way of spinning everything".I don't engage in spinning, but you engage in lying.
[Carl Mistlebauer said?] "born US citizens" really?
You might want to do some research before you launch into something yo don't know about. I was referring not to Feingold's support of abortion for fetuses, but his support of abortion taking place after birth at which point the child is not a fetus anymore.
[Carl Mistlebauer said?] "Let me know when a fetus gets a passport".
Now, this is strange of yo to say. Few born US citizens have passports. Does this mean it is OK to kill them?
[Carl Mistlebauer said?] "people to criticize politicians" is just a fancy way of saying that he limited the money that could be spent on elections".
Not at all. You are spinning, lying, and showing poor reading comprehension.
[Carl Mistlebauer said?] "that has nothing to do with speech or "criticizing".
It has everything to do with it. The people who ran afoul of the government for making a movie critical of a sitting US citizen are a perfect example.
[Carl Mistlebauer said?] "But then again you like your politicians who kowtow down to the wealthy and powerful..."
Never. I prefer they serve the public interest, rather than serve only the idea of more power for themselves.
[Carl Mistlebauer said?] "keep the working as slaves".
I favor the Emancipation Proclamation, and strongly support the eradication of slavery anywhere in the world. Wow. you know how to make stuff up.
[Carl Mistlebauer said?] "and want to regulate sexual relationships".
I am consistently opposed to this type of thing, such as the recently mentioned Michigan instance involving Rick Snyder. Talk about "spin". In every single instance, you got wrong the views of the politicians being discussed, and my views only.
Sun Sep 22, 2013 AT 02:47:00 PM EDT
Tao: After reading again the statements by Feingold that are so damning and embarrassing that Feingold tampered with the Congressional record to try to cover it up [Re this 9/26/1996 exchange], we will agree to disagree. A person acting as judge, jury, and executioner is not a "doctor" making an informed choice, in my view. This situation is long long after the dividing line in the compromise on abortion discussed by RN earlier in another item.
"Citizens United"? I was not being coy at all. Whatever point you were trying to make there, it is obscured by your own coyness and lack of clarity. And I got right to the heart of the movie: some individuals tried to express criticism of a member of the ruling elite, and were blocked from doing so by a law that would make Kim Jong Un smile.
[Taospeaks said] "Republicans are now against a movie being made of Hillary Clinton to be broadcast before the 2016 election".
So? As soon as I heard of this a while back, I went on record and sharply criticized the Republicans for objecting to this movie. I sure hope this backfires on those lousy party leaders, and it would serve them right if NBC/etc market this pro-Hillary move with the tagline "the movie the Republican Party doesn't want you to see". Usually the "don't want you to see" tagline in ads is hyperbole, but here it would not be.
[Taospeaks said] "but you also support CITIZENS UNITED in its entirety".
And here, Tao, you have completely lost a grasp of the facts, and are merely making careless assumptions and typing stuff that just feels good to type, without much thought. I have always and consistently opposed the idea of 'corporate personhood' because it is nuts, and I support that part being removed. I also favor strong restrictions on campaign funding. I have a big problem with "with wads of money being spent to control politicians". However, I strongly support the right of anyone to speak truth to power, any time of the year, be it the individuals in the "Citizens United" group, Michael Moore, NBC, or anyone. For or against issues, for or against candidates. The First Amendment demands this.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances".
The fact remains that it appears that you and most others I talk to about this who favor such censorship think it is a good thing for the government to harass and persecute individuals for the crime of criticism politicians at the "wrong" time. I've even seen someone repeatedly justify such censorship if the content is a "hit piece" (i.e. too critical of someone in power). In this case, it should be banned. Russ Feingold overall has a poor record on civil liberties and our Constitutional rights. So does McCain in this area. Make of that what you will. Rand Paul is overall on more sound footing, with more proper caution toward the idea of acceding more power to those in control than Feingold has.
Besides, Feingold is a has-been: a failed politician, rejected by the people. Sent home. For good or ill, he is irrelevant. Rand Paul is a in position of power. Hope he does more good with it.
The hard-line positions of the Democrats on abortion are likely a similar turn-off (wasting taxpayer money to encourage abortions, extreme policies a la Russ Feingold in favor of late term, or even for "abortions" applied to born US citizens).
This poll and study shows the mix of views 18-24 year olds had just 3 years ago.... definitely out of step with the agenda of the abortion industry, while definitely not "Right to Life" material either. You are right on the gay rights issue, but on this, the Republicans are only a few years behind the Democrats. Remember, Obama campaigned on banning gay marriage, and fought to keep "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" well into his administration.
Tue Feb 11, 2014 AT 09:42:00 PM EST
BB: Even before reading RN's comment after this, and despite Feingold having some extreme views (such as wanting "abortion" to be forced on born US citizens), my immediate thought, and not to be rude to you, BB, is "so what?". I've often enjoyed columnists and pundits in the past, despite them liking politicians I didn't like. That has not changed. Besides, Feingold is now a has-been. And I'm sure Greenwaldt could find some politicians I have supported with extreme views, if he so chose to. I'm just not thinking in terms of absolutism, pure ideology here, BB.
To now echo RN, I say "bring him on". I look forward to this approach of "Eclectic", and no less so if it means it includes left-wing columnists. I will readily admit, though, there are a few that would make me say "Nahhhh". Pat Buchanan tops the list. (Not thinking of any on the Left right now like that that really would turn me off, other than Molly Ivens who mistook Limbaugh-like taunts for wit, but she is not with us anymore).
Fri Jul 04, 2014 AT 07:38:00 PM EDT
Feingold has a lot of statist, anti-liberty views, including his support of abortionists killing already-born US citizens without any due process. But his stance on PATRIOT is commendable. The man who defeated him supports it, and even made a specific statement in which he said we need to give up our freedoms.
Sat Jul 05, 2014 AT 10:04:00 AM EDT
http://theshinbone.com/congtran.1.htm
Here is a transcript where Feingold says killing a born child is up to the "doctor". Yes, Santorum has out of the mainstream views on this issue, to say the least. But so does Feingold.
Sat Jul 05, 2014 AT 05:25:00 PM EDT
Dervish Sanders: My statements are correct, in reference to Feingold specifically saying that the "right" to kill these US citizens (an action which is not medically or legally an abortion, even) belongs to the "doctor".
Maybe she [Debbie Wasserman Schultz] is holding out for more money or something, and can shirk duty with Obama's "above my pay grade" line (in my view, one of Obama's worst "not ready for prime time", callow moments). Thanks for the view, Will, that extremes also exist on the "pro-" side as well as the "anti-" side. But of course... you are not a liberal/Democrat. And probably not a fan of the Feingold view of granting special rights to "abortionists" to be able to butcher born Americans as they please.
| Posts that link here [SWTD #232] The Truth About Dennis Marks, 2/19/2014. [TADM #48] Vile Lie Concerning Russ Feingold From Dennis Marks, Then Cognitive Dissonance When He Is Confronted With the Truth, 7/18/2014. |
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments are not moderated.
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.