After Obama misspoke about the “healthcare” plan covering illegal aliens, it was walked back. Now, while the White House continues to assert that the NEA propaganda conference call “violated no law”, they are also going to “take steps to prevent a recurrence of a controversial conference call”
“While we have no reason to believe that the NEA call violated the law, the appearance issues troubled some participants,” Burton said. “It is the policy of the administration that grant decisions should be on the merits and that government officials should avoid even creating the incorrect appearance that politics has anything to do with these decisions.”Burton’s statement detailing the steps runs counter to a report by ABCNews.com that indicated the White House issued specific guidelines. Burton’s response outlined a series of steps rather than specific new rules, including the future issuance of a formal memo for White House staff and training sessions to “make sure the message gets across.”
Yeah, I’ll bet.
Comment by Bob on 9/23 @ 1:31 am #
I have no problem with illegal aliens getting health care. If they are in this country they are most likely working and either paying taxes or working under-the-table for unscrupulous employers, in both cases they are adding to total GNP. If you look at other countries that provide health care to illegal foreign workers it isn’t bankrupting their systems, far from it. Just where do you expect these people to get health care? I thought that helping others was the Christian thing but what do I know? I’m an atheist.
Comment by pdbuttonscone on 9/23 @ 2:08 am #
press uno for canadian
Comment by pdbuttonscone on 9/23 @ 2:18 am #
training sessions! that means box lunches!
that means i might meet my “chef momma”
Comment by pdbuttonscone on 9/23 @ 2:31 am #
if we come up on a red light
and ur on a cell phone and the light turns green
and ur driving a tin cupmobile
and then you put ur left blinker on…
i will cuss u
Comment by pdbuttonscone on 9/23 @ 2:32 am #
bobby orr!
Comment by someguy on 9/23 @ 2:33 am #
Three words: Hatch Act felony.
A criminal conspiracy to cover up the felony is under way.
Will the Attorney General appoint an independent prosecutor or not? Do we have justice in this country or not?
Is the President a crook?
Or not?
Comment by pdbuttonscone on 9/23 @ 2:41 am #
fair is foul
and foul is fair
Comment by maggie katzen on 9/23 @ 3:07 am #
mmmmm, turkey sammich.
Comment by pdbuttonscone on 9/23 @ 3:39 am #
aside/ story one of my sisters graduate from harvard
and big ceremony in harvard yard they gave box lunches
and my old man roofers union #33 kept saying
i paid for my daughter to go to harvard and all i
got was a tuna sandwitch
Comment by BJTexs on 9/23 @ 4:31 am #
Like France, Bob?
http://humanrights.foreignpolicyblogs.com/2008/06/19/illegal-immigrants-in-france-mobilize/
Or England?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1214161/French-Jungle-razed-week-immigrants-told-You-England-anymore-Calais.html#ixzz0RvNUxOTy
Comment by alppuccino on 9/23 @ 4:35 am #
I don’t think Bob was talking about those two countries Beej. He said “other countries”.
Nice try.
Comment by BJTexs on 9/23 @ 4:44 am #
Well, Al, how about the EU as a whole? This from the Netherlands in 2004:
The presence of illegal immigrants in EU countries is increasing despite considerable
immigration policy efforts over the last years. EU Member States have
responded by strengthening their fight against illegal immigration, with different
multi-level measures that include the curtailment or denial of social security rights
such as access to publicly funded health care. Although significant differences
exist between Social Health Insurance and National Health Service countries with
regard to legislative provisions, access to health care for illegal immigrants is
generally limited to situations that are life threatening (emergencies) or pose a
risk to the public health (i.e. infectious diseases). In practice, strong barriers to
access exist even in those situations.
PDF File: http://www.medimmigrant.be/uploads/Publicaties/Onderzoeken/acces%20to%20health%20care%20for%20illegal%20immigrants%20in%20the%20EU.pdf
Bob is Teh Ignorant, methinks!
Comment by Rusty on 9/23 @ 5:09 am #
Illegal immigrants coast the state of california over $550 million dollars a year,so says the L.A.Times. Bob. Care to rethink your stance.
Comment by alppuccino on 9/23 @ 5:14 am #
Why do you insist on naming specific geographic locations when everyone knows we’re talking about “other countries”? Jeez.
Comment by BJTexs on 9/23 @ 5:27 am #
Not to mention, Rusty, that England and Canada are facing massive deficits in Health care funding and even the saintly French system is starting to spring some leaks.
But bob has a meme, a wonderful meme, and none shall lead him astray. Again we are dealing with an ideology that is first and foremost concerned with the “ends” of policy. Channeling Ric Locke, we conservatives tend to be every bit as compassionate and caring (as demonstrated by our personal giving) but still want to know what the “means” or the “mechanics” of achieving the “ends.” It ios this very, very grownup idea that asking questions like “How will we pay for it” and “Do those numbers work or are they based on pixie dust and unicorn farts?” and “Will this acheive the ‘ends’ or will the unintended consequences end up being worse than the solution?”
The left is the sort that will hear you asking these reasonable, real world questions and respond by calling you a fascist, uncaring, war mongering wingnut, Teh Stoo-pid, scream that “something has to be done and it has to be >i>this!! or, when truly agitated, fall back on the tried and true RACIST!!
It’s the difference between policy making grownups and idealistic, tantrum leaning children.
Comment by BJTexs on 9/23 @ 5:30 am #
…achieving the “ends” are, with 8 X 10 glossy color pictures and diagrams on the back.
Somehow I annihilated the last part of that sentence.
Comment by pdbuttonscone on 9/23 @ 5:33 am #
friend/ row mans/
countrymans…can’t we all get along[did u hear git along ‘lil’ doggy?’
Comment by B Moe on 9/23 @ 5:44 am #
That is best left up to the artists themselves.
Comment by Mikey NTH on 9/23 @ 6:26 am #
Just one conference call? I doubt it. Any one want to guess how many of those calls were placed?
Comment by Andrew the Noisy on 9/23 @ 6:57 am #
Obama is clearly a leader of men.
Comment by Darleen on 9/23 @ 7:08 am #
Bob = Barton
BTW Bob, another thing, as a self-confessed athiest don’t try and tell Christians that their belief in charity means exactly the same thing as enacting laws to pick their neighbors’ pockets to fulfill that charity.
Comment by Barrett Brown on 9/23 @ 9:24 am #
Isn’t that the same photoshop you used that one time when you claimed that Obama had reneged on a promise not to let his kids be interviewed again by allowing them to be photographed by People, but then it turned out that the People spread had been before he had said that, and at any rate didn’t involve any interviews with his kids despite your baseless assertion that it did, and even people like Pablo were correcting you towards the end? Because it looks like that same photoshop. I just wanted to check and see if it’s the same photoshop. Is that the same photoshop? Looks like it!
Also, really? They rolled out a new provision to further prevent illegal immigrants from obtaining health care under his proposal even though it was already illegal for them to take advantage of it anyway – thus, not covering illegals whether some manage to steal it or not – and that’s a “walk-back”?
Let’s say I have a bunch of apples. I say, “Any American citizen can have one of these apples. Illegals can’t have any. I’ve written down the rules right here.” Then one of you is all like, “But an illegal immigrant could probably get their hands on one of those apples anyway! YOU LIE LOL!” And then I’m like, “Okay, you’ve got to show a drivers license or passport so I’ll know you’re not an illegal immigrant.” And then you’re like “OH YOU’RE WALKING IT BACK THROWING IT UNDER THE BUS OH IT’S THE ONE LOL REMEMBER WHEN OPRAH CALLED HIM THE ONE AND SHE CAPITALIZED IT IN HER SPOKEN WORDS LOL OBAMASSIAH” and then I go get a cup of coffee from around the corner real quick. How about that?
Comment by Squid on 9/23 @ 9:53 am #
Barrett, why can’t you just admit that it’s an awesome photoshop that perfectly suits our Dissembler-In-Chief?
And Bob/Barton, when are you going to figure out that giving to charity is a virtue, but holding a gun to somebody’s head and forcing them to give to charity is, in fact, theft?
Comment by geoffb on 9/23 @ 10:03 am #
Of course the apples are only one small part of an entire fruit basket which is there. Then there are the rules that require fruit to be given freely to any who request it. And no rules in place to require anyone to ask, even just ask if the person taking the apple is an illegal. Thus the chief spokesman saying that no illegal will receive any fruit is not true and when called on it the walk back is to put rules in place to prevent the distribution of the apples but not fruit in general yet.
Besides, this is all a very well done deflection attempt, which I have fallen for here. The subject is the NEA call and whether any laws were broken and if so by who and the workings of the coverup that is being done by this administration.
Comment by Barrett Brown on 9/23 @ 10:06 am #
I didn’t say it wasn’t a good photoshop. It’s very good. Darlene could sell these to Joe Raiola if she was so inclined, and I’ll even give her his e-mail address if she wants to get it from me. But the accompanying arguments are as thin and crazy as a LaRouche Youth recruiter.
Comment by geoffb on 9/23 @ 10:28 am #
Expected to be Photoshopped in the near future unless the direction of events changes drastically.
Comment by Frontman on 9/23 @ 10:55 am #
Is this another one day story? I just want to be straight on that.
Comment by Andrew the Noisy on 9/23 @ 10:57 am #
But the accompanying arguments are as thin and crazy as a LaRouche Youth recruiter.
I take it, then, that you believed Nixon when he said there was going to be “no whitewash at the White House”?
I am not a crook.
Comment by Barrett Brown on 9/23 @ 11:22 am #
“I take it, then, that you believed Nixon when he said there was going to be “no whitewash at the White House”?”
I was born in 1981, so, no, I didn’t believe a thing Nixon said back in the ’70s.
Comment by JD on 9/23 @ 11:26 am #
Shocka. Still waiting on the Libertartian and classical liberal case for Teh One, Barrett. Or did they not yet cover that in Civics class yet?
Nice try at threadjacking, Barrett. Go back to your hate hate hate of the Roman Catholic Church.
Or explain how the transcript of the NEA call does not violate the Hatch Act.
Comment by Barrett Brown on 9/23 @ 11:43 am #
I’ve never said that Obama is a libertarian. I simply preferred him to McCain, and I think a lot of the arguments thrown at him here could also be applied to a number of conservatives and friendly institutions like the Catholic Church. I also attack Obama. I even called his decision to have an invocation at his inauguration an example of an “un-American practice,” and I did that on Fox, of all places, and I consider him to be a charlatan to some extent. It’s just that the highest level of liberal commentators are currently superior to the highest level of conservative commentators, so I tend to make fun of conservatives. So please stop asking me to make the libertarian case for Obama.
I haven’t read the NEA transcript yet, but it may very well violate the Hatch Act for all I know.
Comment by JD on 9/23 @ 11:48 am #
Nor did I accuse you of saying that, you lying jackass. You claim to be a libertarian and/or classical liberal, depending on the topic. People have asked you ad nauseum to explain how a person holding said principles (ha!) would ever prefer Teh One to even the geriatric statist McCain. Who are these “highest level of liberal commentators” you speak of? I will ask you whatever I wish. So long as you choose to come here, play word games, be a sycophant for Teh One, and overall act like a pompous arrogant child.
Comment by geoffb on 9/23 @ 12:06 pm #
Thank you, this does help explain quite a bit. I was around your age when the Carter Presidency caused me to re-think the political positions I had held since starting college in ‘66.
Re: Nixon. The perfidy involved in that that we know as “Watergate” is mostly unknown to the general population due to the machinations of a single man at the FBI, a news media that needed, as always, that “scoop”, and the quest for power and payback that has come to be, the be-all-end-all of the Party known as Democratic.
Comment by Eben on 9/23 @ 12:33 pm #
lulwat
Comment by Eben on 9/23 @ 12:36 pm #
Also, I think we here would derive great amusement if you would be so kind as to post whom you believe to be the top three liberal and top three conservative commentators in the media today.
Me thinks your definition of conservative and liberal might be a little different than how many here define them.
Comment by JD on 9/23 @ 12:45 pm #
Eben – It argues with the caricatures in its head, and then attempts to portray itself as somehow being above the fray. It is the same crap that Barcky tries to do.
Comment by maggie katzen on 9/23 @ 12:45 pm #
hey, you can’t argue with “PEOPLE WILL DIE IF THE GOVERNMENT DOESN’T GIVE EVERYONE HEALTHCARE!!!”
Comment by Kresh on 9/23 @ 12:51 pm #
Ph33r teh s34ason3d w1s3m4n! /leetspeak
Uh, yeah. I think “wet-behind-the-ears” still qualifies here. Don’t worry though, it doesn’t show. Much. Mostly it shows when you post. That’s about it.
Comment by Danger on 9/23 @ 12:54 pm #
“hey, you can’t argue with “PEOPLE WILL DIE IF THE GOVERNMENT DOESN’T GIVE EVERYONE HEALTHCARE!!!”
Yeah Maggie but responding to Gen McChrystal’s request for support can wait because free health care is a priority.
Comment by maggie katzen on 9/23 @ 12:55 pm #
lemme ask David Letterman about that one, Danger.
Comment by Barrett Brown on 9/23 @ 1:08 pm #
“Also, I think we here would derive great amusement if you would be so kind as to post whom you believe to be the top three liberal and top three conservative commentators in the media today.”
Happy to oblige. Glenn Greenwald, Duncan Black, and Matt Taibbi are certainly up there on the liberal side (there are better and wonkier ones, I’m sure, but these are the best of those with whom I’m familiar). George Will, Charles Krauthammer, and, fuck, David Frum are among the best of those conservatives who would still be considered conservatives by most other conservatives (although George Will is, I think, in time-out at the moment, and Frum’s always getting kicked around by other GOP affiliates). I’d probably have a somewhat different set if I thought about it for a while, though.
“Thank you, this does help explain quite a bit. I was around your age when the Carter Presidency caused me to re-think the political positions I had held since starting college in ‘66.”
Well, I abandoned communist anarchism (of the A. Berkman sort) and other forms of socialism when I was around 15 and got into Ayn Rand and even won their wacky essay contest and organized an Objectivist club in high school, then abandoned Rand around 17 in favor of libertarianism without her flawed epistemology and whatnot. I’m still sympathetic to non-coercive systems such as anarcho-syndicalism, but, again, I’m not a “liberal.” I don’t advocate a lot of the things that Democrats advocate; I don’t think health care is a “right,” for instance. And I do agree with the Republicans on a number of issues. But I don’t come over here to agree with people; I come here to debate. I used to attack the Democrats on the Washington Monthly blog as well, but this blog is more fun because many of the regular commenters are angry and deranged, whereas there are also a number of people here who are very well-informed, reasonable and polite. It’s like having the choice between Mad Dog 20/20 and 18-year-old Scotch.
Comment by Andrew the Noisy on 9/23 @ 1:14 pm #
We are an…eclectic community.
Comment by JD on 9/23 @ 1:24 pm #
Gleenwald? Atrios? Good Allah. Frum? No wonder you appear to argue with caricatures. It is not liberal, but it shows up to defend uber-liberal Barcky policies.
Comment by maggie katzen on 9/23 @ 1:25 pm #
OPEN THREAD!
Comment by Eben on 9/23 @ 2:43 pm #
I would argue that Frum and Will are Republicans first and conservative sometimes, but I think what is most enlightening is that you think your three libs are somehow superior to the three conservatives you list.
I mean, Sock Puppet isn’t even in the same class as Krauthammer. And Duncan Black? Really, top of the class? The one who’s blog no one reads? Who’s current leading blog entry is ‘They Fucked the Whole Thing Up’? You’re right, far superior to Will and Krauthammer; I mean, it takes some real superior skilz for that kind of writing.
Me thinks you have beclowned yourself.
Comment by geoffb on 9/23 @ 2:55 pm #
Unlike you I was never of a political bent until around age 19 in college. Writing also was something I did my best to avoid and that still shows even these many years later. Politics and writing were not the passions of my youth.
Please do not take my comment as meaning any thing derogatory. My generation, of my then political persuasion invented the “don’t trust anyone over 30″ stupidity. I only meant that the events that happen during our lives, the ones we experience as opposed to the ones we read of, have lasting effects on the way we view the world. You have done well by yourself in the part of the world you have set your sights on. I disagree with you quite a bit on politics but that is fine.
Comment by Barrett Brown on 9/23 @ 2:58 pm #
Krauthammer has managed to pull off the illusion of wisdom by virtue of his literate writing style and persona. Read my article on him; it’s pretty damning, and I’ve got twenty pages of notes on him in addition to that. Still, he’s better than most.
Fifteen years ago I would have named P.J. O’Rourke as among the best of conservative thinkers, but he’s losing his touch. Mark Steyn is his lesser replacement. I stand by my opinion of Greenwald.
Perhaps you can let me know who the best conservative writers actually are.
Comment by maggie katzen on 9/23 @ 3:03 pm #
I think I would put Thomas Sowell on the list.
Comment by Barrett Brown on 9/23 @ 3:05 pm #
Geoffb-
I absolutely understand what you’re saying with regards to that generation and its various errors, and even agree with you on that to a large extent. I also appreciate your civility.
Comment by Eben on 9/23 @ 3:08 pm #
Steyn, Krauthammer and Sowell but the names are almost irrelevant, what matters is the comparisons and what your comparison reveals is that you’re not a libertarian, you’re a leftist.
Comment by JD on 9/23 @ 3:08 pm #
Arguing with caricatures is sooooooo much easier.
Comment by Barrett Brown on 9/23 @ 3:09 pm #
Sowell is indeed one of the better conservative columnists and is additionally worthy of respect for his personal history in relation to his political principles. He’s walked the walk and whatnot. My off-the-cuff top three con thinkers list needs some work.
Comment by pdbuttons on 9/23 @ 3:14 pm #
i went to thom macanns when i was 8 and my mom wanted me
to buy buster brown shoe but the toe end was round and i thought it was faggy
i wanted puerto rican pointy toes cuz they were cool
so whenever i hear buster /barret brown
my inner demons gonna let u pass
tho i enjoy ur writing/ in a round shoe way
Comment by JD on 9/23 @ 3:16 pm #
OPEN THREAD !!!!!!!
SOCK-PUPPET !!!!!!!
Comment by JD on 9/23 @ 3:18 pm #
Barrett – You were only 1-3 in selecting actual conservatives for your list of conservative writers. A batting average like that would make you an All-Star in baseball, but in politics, not so much.
Comment by Barrett Brown on 9/23 @ 3:27 pm #
JD-
Except that you’re not the umpire and you don’t get to decide if George Will and David Frum are conservatives.
“Steyn, Krauthammer and Sowell but the names are almost irrelevant, what matters is the comparisons and what your comparison reveals is that you’re not a libertarian, you’re a leftist.”
I’ve written for libertarian publications, I got my start writing essays in opposition to campus leftists at the University of Texas, I routinely make fun of liberals, I hunt, many of my friends and family members are either ex-military or active duty, I’m in favor of a free nation’s right to act unilaterally in deposing dictators, I’m largely opposed to the UN, I serve as director of communications for a PAC that fights for the First Amendment, I’ve never given money to a Democratic candidate for office or voted for one, and the classical liberal who runs this blog knows me personally and does not think I am a leftist.
Obviously, you lose nothing by making shameless accusations against me despite verifiable facts to the contrary as you’re an anonymous coward indistinguishable from hundreds of others. But you’re not gaining anything either unless your objective is to waste my time, in which case you’re a fucking genius.
Comment by pdbuttons on 9/23 @ 3:31 pm #
barret brown bring it!
Comment by geoffb on 9/23 @ 3:38 pm #
This sentence can by itself cause much discord in a thread as it is left to the one choosing to define “liberal”, “conservative”, and “commentator(s)”. This is not to mention what is to be meant by the word “top”. Is it the most effective/influential politically? The best literary style? The best TV presence? Highest income?
My version of definitions, it’s what’s for dinner.
Comment by geoffb on 9/23 @ 3:39 pm #
can cause
Comment by pdbuttons on 9/23 @ 3:43 pm #
conservative mo mo’s
rudolph the red nosed rheindeer
them south park guys
thomas sowell
Comment by Eben on 9/23 @ 4:01 pm #
Well then, you’re not a leftist you’re just not very bright if you think those three libs are in any way superior to two of the three cons you listed. I mean, anyone who ’stands by’ the Gleens is well, delusional.
If you want my real name, send me an email at mr_flood at lycos.com and I’ll give it to ya.
Comment by JD on 9/23 @ 4:04 pm #
I am not the umpire, but you are? You want to be able to define conservative and Leftist and libertarian, and we just should STFU and agree with you? When I see you actually advocate a classical liberal position, then you can disabuse us of the notion that you are a Leftist. All evidence available here, points to that. Plus, you are a mendoucheous asshat, so there’s that.
Comment by Brittancus on 9/23 @ 4:13 pm #
Any company that has hired more than 3-5 illegal aliens–MUST –be entirely aware that they are hiring foreign nationals? That’s why we need a comprehensive E-Verify application in operation, as permanent immigration identity software countrywide? Nor should it be on a voluntary basis for everybody. Long timers and new hires must be verified? Sen. Grassley must have heard from his constituencies, because a letter The Honorable Thad Cochran Chairman Ranking Member Committee on Appropriations Committee on Appropriation requesting their support for my amendment (S.A.1415). The amendment gives businesses a tool to ensure that they have a legal workforce by allowing them to check the status of all workers, NOT JUST NEW HIRES? The amendment allows for voluntary checks of existing employees through E-Verify in the working locations.
But this amendment doesn’t go far enough? It should stipulate that anybody who doesn’t comply or ignores the usage of E-Verify should be held in violation of our laws. The fines should be severe, but in cases of second violations, should forfeit business assets and receive a prison sentences. These obnoxious businesses know exactly what they are doing and know the risks? E-Verify could be easily expanded for many other uses in the US, including admittance to health care, driver’s licenses, government subsidies that would include education and home mortgages? CALL YOUR DISINCLINED SENATOR OR REPRESENTATIVE AT 202-224-3121 SO THEY KNOW, HOW ANGRY WE ARE WITH THE IMMIGRATION INVASION TRAVESTY. Much more to learn at NUMBERSUSA, JUDICIAL WATCH & CAPSWEB.
All American workers and legal population should be very attuned in the coming months, as the Democratic leaders have tutored President Obama in forcing into Congress another AMNESTY bill. It is an objectionable legislation to enact in legalizing the 20 to 30 (?) million illegal people who have settled around our nation? Millions more will follow over borders, by plane and any entrance ports. They are already alert that free health care lies just across the international borders, for themselves, immediate family, young and old. This is the majority parties’ method to sneak health care for illegal families by legalization; America doesn’t even offer free treatment to its own people, who are hounded into bankruptcy for unpaid hospital bills. Americans absolutely cannot afford another path to citizenship, as it will have a major financial impact on our crumbling infrastructure, irreversible road to OVERPOPULATION and higher taxes. I am very agreeable with President Obama, for a European style health care package, but those illegal immigrants who have not been caught, will have to rely on a humane admittance to emergency hospitals.
Comment by Danger on 9/23 @ 4:20 pm #
Barrett,
You did not earn a lot of good will here with your moral equivalant arguement comparing ACORN to the Catholic Church.
Your thread jacking the other night was the typical type of arguement we see here from lefties bringing up BOOOSSH! in response to Obamas actions.
We tend to remember the wrong + wrong ≠ right equation here.
Comment by Barrett Brown on 9/23 @ 4:51 pm #
“When I see you actually advocate a classical liberal position, then you can disabuse us of the notion that you are a Leftist.”
Okay. Laws forbidding consensual crimes such as prostitution, the distribution of pornography and sexual devices (still enforced in Texas on occasion, for instance), and the possession and sale of drugs are statist. Both the Democratic and Republican parties have shown their true colors by supporting such laws. Those who actively seek to implement or enforce these measures are fascists with no regard for individual liberty. Any “statesman” or citizen who claims to be in favor of individual liberty while at the same time advocating such laws are in fact statists to some degree or another. And those who write off these sorts of objections with jokes about doobies and munchies and other cliche little comments do so because they cannot defend their support of such laws (or their support of politicians who support them in turn) while at the same time pretending to be advocates of liberty.
That is a libertarian position, one of several that I have expressed here and elsewhere.
“You did not earn a lot of good will here with your moral equivalant arguement comparing ACORN to the Catholic Church.”
You mean that archaic institution that Thomas Paine and many of our other Founding Fathers rightfully distrusted due to its statism, corruption, and active stance in opposition to the rights of individuals? Oh noes!
Comment by JD on 9/23 @ 5:07 pm #
Are you fucking intentionally mendacious, or does that just happen by accident?
Comment by Barrett Brown on 9/23 @ 5:17 pm #
It’s not intentional, no.
Comment by SBP on 9/23 @ 5:23 pm #
You mean that archaic institution that Thomas Paine and many of our other Founding Fathers
Paine was not a “Founding Father”. He wrote competent screeds, but had almost no influence over the form of our Republic.
He did, however, make significant philosophical contributions to the Reign of Terror in France, and almost lost his own head as a result.
Something to think about, spin-boi.
Comment by SBP on 9/23 @ 5:23 pm #
BTW: where did you go to school, Barrett, that you didn’t know that?
Comment by alppuccino on 9/23 @ 5:25 pm #
I was sure Thomas Paine was dancing next to Ben Franklin on Schoolhouse Rock. Doy.
Comment by Barrett Brown on 9/23 @ 5:45 pm #
“Paine was not a “Founding Father”. He wrote competent screeds, but had almost no influence over the form of our Republic.”
Many historians use the term “Founding Fathers” to refer to those who played a significant role in the founding of our republic, and I do as well, and Paine certainly qualifies. He did a bit more than just write “competent screeds,” incidentally. I know plenty about him, having researched his life and written about him in my first book and elsewhere.
“He did, however, make significant philosophical contributions to the Reign of Terror in France, and almost lost his own head as a result.”
He defended early executions to Burke by noting that executions were hardly an invention of the revolutionaries. Later, he spoke out against the terror, which is why he was imprisoned; obviously, he was not arrested for defending the actions of those who arrested him. I believe you may be confused.
“BTW: where did you go to school, Barrett, that you didn’t know that?”
As we just established, your question is in error, but I went to the University of Texas very briefly before dropping out upon getting a job as a copywriter. Before that, I left high school at the age of 17 in order to go do some wacky stuff in Africa, but got my Texas Tech high school diploma thingy by mail and took tests at the new, bomb-proof embassy in Dar es Salaam.
Also, aren’t you the guy who keeps pretending that he’s pushing some “troll” button that makes my posts invisible to you, but then somehow keeps responding to my posts anyway? That’s kind of pathetic.
“I was sure Thomas Paine was dancing next to Ben Franklin on Schoolhouse Rock. Doy.”
Good one.
Comment by Carin on 9/23 @ 5:53 pm #
Can someone fill me in on what Barrett’s position is? Either I’m tired, or he hasn’t really made a point.
Comment by SBP on 9/23 @ 5:56 pm #
Many historians use the term “Founding Fathers” to refer to those who played a significant role in the founding of our republic, and I do as well, and Paine certainly qualifies.
Didn’t sign the Declaration.
Didn’t do anything of note in the Revolutionary War.
Didn’t sign the Articles of Confederation.
Wasn’t a part of the Constitutional Convention.
Not involved with the Federalist Papers.
He wrote a pamphlet, dude. That’s all. A pamphlet that John Adams called a “crapulous mass”.
Don’t even bother pretending that Paine’s philosophy wasn’t a driving force behind the French Revolution, because that dog isn’t going to hunt. That revolution didn’t turn out so well. I don’t care how many books you wrote claiming otherwise.
Also, aren’t you the guy who keeps pretending that he’s pushing some “troll” button that makes my posts invisible to you
Yep, that’s me.
Hint: it can be turned on and off. I turn it off when I have time to make fun of a mendacious asshat, like now. I turn it on when I don’t.
Comment by Barrett Brown on 9/23 @ 5:57 pm #
I’ll help you out, Carin. I first stated that Darleen’s post regarding illegal immigrants and health care was in error, then I acknowledged that her actual photoshopping is very good and offered to give her the e-mail address of the editor at MAD who buys such things, then I fended off the usual accusations of communism for a while. This is what’s known as “threadjacking” around these parts, I believe.
Comment by SBP on 9/23 @ 5:59 pm #
Oh, forgot to add “buggered off back to England after the war”.
Comment by SBP on 9/23 @ 6:00 pm #
Later, Barrett. Things to do. Maybe you can “write a book” that claims that Moe Howard founded Freemasonry and developed the Theory of Relativity.
Comment by Carin on 9/23 @ 6:01 pm #
Thank you. I didn’t understand (i’m tired) the whole progression of the comments.
I find it interesting that you jump in on THIS post.
Comment by JD on 9/23 @ 6:06 pm #
Maggie – It is a snarky mendouceous contrarian, that has some burr is his saddle about not being acknowledged as the classical liberal he claims to be because he is against doobie laws and advocates for Barcky when he drops by.
Comment by Barrett Brown on 9/23 @ 6:07 pm #
I’ve got dinner in a bit, but I’ll simply retort that Paine has long been referred to as The Father of the American Revolution for a reason, and he obviously wrote more than just one pamphlet. Also, I never claimed that his philosophy wasn’t a driving force behind the French Revolution. It was. And that revolution, despite its errors – domestic violence that wouldn’t make for a paragraph in any book covering European history beforehand – was a victory over monarchy. And it would have been far superior had Paine had more of a say over its implementation. You don’t have to respect Paine, of course, but you need to refresh your knowledge of what he did before you go around attacking him.
Last thing – it’s hardly significant that John Adams didn’t find much to inspire in Paine’s work. He was the fellow who signed into law the Alien and Sedition Acts. You can have him.
Comment by SBP on 9/23 @ 7:37 pm #
I’ll simply retort that Paine has long been referred to as The Father of the American Revolution for a reason
Because people don’t know what the fuck they’re talking about?
Yes, he stirred people up.
So?
His fucktarded philosophy was never applied in this country, thank God.
BTW, I’ll take the Alien and Sedition Acts over Madam Guillotine any day.
Comment by sdferr on 9/23 @ 7:39 pm #
With Alien and Sedition Acts you get eggroll.
Comment by SBP on 9/23 @ 7:41 pm #
With Madame Guillotine you get head roll.
Comment by sdferr on 9/23 @ 7:43 pm #
You read my mind. Have an eggroll Mr. Goldstone?
Comment by SBP on 9/23 @ 7:56 pm #
Well, there’s a discussion of Mr. Brownstone over in the other thread.
Nancy Pelosi would make one hell of a scary tricoteuse, wouldn’t she?
Comment by RTO Trainer on 9/23 @ 9:08 pm #
Interesting. Here I thought Samuel Adams was the “Father of American Independence,” (sometimes wrongly rendered as “Father of the American Revolution”).
Comment by Barrett Brown on 9/23 @ 9:29 pm #
SBP-
I have an offer for you. E-mail me at barriticus@gmail.com if you’d like to discuss it.
Comment by poppa india on 9/23 @ 10:12 pm #
Barrett, who referred to Paine as “The Father of the American Revolution”? Not doubting someone did, just curious who.
Comment by geoffb on 9/23 @ 10:57 pm #
New Jersey and the BBC for two. “Father of the Revolution” is however different from “Founding Father”.
Comment by geoffb on 9/23 @ 11:02 pm #
But there are other claims,
and this book.
Comment by Barrett Brown on 9/23 @ 11:47 pm #
Poppa India-
Good question. Thomas Jefferson is the first person known to refer to Thomas Paine as the “Father of the American Revolution.” He was commonly referred to as such by his supporters thereafter, as well as by some modern historians, and the term is inscribed on his statue (forgot where exactly).
And RTO Trainer wrote:
“Interesting. Here I thought Samuel Adams was the “Father of American Independence,” (sometimes wrongly rendered as “Father of the American Revolution”).
You were right; Sam Adams is often referred to as such. And so is Thomas Paine, who, as noted above, was first referred to by that term by Jefferson. Jefferson also referred to Adams as “truly the man of the revolution.” Clearly, he felt – correctly – that both played key roles in our push for independence. Again, though, Jefferson and others have indeed referred to Paine as “The Father of the American Revolution,” and in light of that, you’ll probably agree that my earlier contention that “Paine has long been referred to as The Father of the American Revolution” is true insomuch as that he has long been referred to by that name. Also, I’m glad you find this all to be interesting.
Comment by geoffb on 9/24 @ 12:35 am #
See New Jersey link above.
Comment by RTO Trainer on 9/24 @ 12:38 am #
No such thing as an “American Revolution.”
Comment by Barrett Brown on 9/24 @ 1:38 am #
“No such thing as an ‘American Revolution.’”
I did not say that there was. Rather, I said that Thomas Jefferson referred to Thomas Paine by the phrase “Father of the American Revolution,” which he did. You’ll have to take it up with them.
Comment by Barrett Brown on 9/24 @ 1:51 am #
To be clear, though, are you indeed saying the use of the term “American Revolution” is invalid and that those who use the term are somewhat misinformed?
Comment by Andrew the Noisy on 9/24 @ 6:08 am #
domestic violence that wouldn’t make for a paragraph in any book covering European history beforehand
I would dearly like to see some evidence backing this one up. Are we comparing the French Revolution to previous tyrannies (i.e. Spanish Inquisition), or are we comparing it to European Wars?