Thanks, Ron, for you dose of reality. It seems to be lacking in this town.

You know Ron, you really are hot-looking. Next time, let’s see a full-body shot!

Are you suggesting, in any way, that our administration, and the conservative “majority” in general, are a bunch of pinheads? Good for you.

When he says “loud and proud” and “looks forward to giving back to the community” I get excited.

“Skills?” LoL

Oh Plz Mr. Deters do tell…

LOUD AND PROUD, RON! OH YES, YES! LOUDER AND PROUDER! OH YES! YES!!

Just kidding, you wrote a nice opinion piece. It says a lot of things that needed to be said.

Said what? The author is a moron?

There is nothing “reality based” in thinking that the Social Security ponzi scam can continue forever.

There is nothing “reality based” in thinking that appeasement of Islamic fascist terrorists will solve the problem.

This piece is just puffery, suitable for a pre-protest pep rally at the Starbucks, but almost devoid of substance. Just dredge up a few anecdotes about the “other” side, carefully skirt around the question of how your side is reality-based, and presto you’ve got a column.

It gets more amusing when Rob attacks the blogs. One is FreeRepublic, where it was first pointed out that the Bush National Guard documents were probably forgeries. The “reality-based” Dan Rather, who got the documents from a known anti-Bush nutcase, insisted for almost two weeks that they were genuine. Another blog that Deters attacks, Little Green Footballs, provided the best evidence that the documents were forgeries.

The reality-based media has pinned its hopes for MidEast peace on Abu Mazen. But you’d have to go the Little Green Footballs to find out that the great pink hope is actually a holocaust denier. Last week when the reality-based media had a minor case of the vapors. It was discovered that Israeli soldiers at a border checkpoint had required a Palestinian man to take his violin out of the case and play it. (Good Lord! Just like the holocaust!) Somehow the reality-based media couldn’t remember that Palestinians had previously carried out a terrorist attack with explosives hidden in a guitar case. LGF reminded us. And come to think of it, wasn’t it the reality-based crowd that assured us that if the Palestinians were given land and a police force, then lifelong terrorists would suddenly become peaceful? That wasn’t a peace plan; it was pure wishful thinking.

Deters should have been more direct and claimed that he represents the non-poopy pants community. It would have been slightly less childish.

Go Rob, it’s your birthday…

They should have the next season of the Real World in Madison. Give America a good hearty dose of reality TV in a really real Madison

I’ll bet you’re a real treat to bring to a Christmas party… How many groans do you incite? I’ll bet you’re one of those guys who isn’t afraid to bring up religion and politics at the table and make it unbearably awkward for everyone there.

Articles like this are a dime a dozen in the Madison press.

“We leftists are smarter and more enlightened and more tolerant than those religious idiots because…”

YAWN

You can also find cute things on Little Green Footballs like “kill all the dirty Arabs,” or “fags should burn in hell.” I’d be careful, Lizzy, to use them as good examples of anything.

Example from today: “Islamic nations must be subdued. I’m talking about the smallest to the biggest. I don’t care how. And I don’t propose that they be socially engineered for democracy. Defeat them, and leave them to rebuild on their own — to a standard which is appropriate to their primitive means.

1. Destroy their icons. Mosques, Korans, symbols… I know this is abhorrent to modern Westerners, but that’s how it’s always been done, and it’s the only way to relegate a religion/mythology to dusty history books.

2. If push comes to shove, there can be no quarter. I’m not talking about death camps. But if any Muslim sticks his head up out of a hole, it’s got to be taken off.”

See? We’re not fighting terrorists. We’re fighting an entire religion! The whole thread is like that, including comments that Islam should be purged from the United States, as well as blaming self-hating liberals for caring about putting any restrictions on our armed forces whatsoever as an occupying power.

Seriously—if you don’t believe Deters, go spend ten minutes of your life trolling around that sewer.

I did an LGF search for “fags” in the last month. There were 6 hits. None were in posts by Charles Johnson, the owner of the blog. Of the 6, one was by a leftist troll, two were passing references to someone else’s opinions, and three were playground insults. Not one comment (out of the about 10,000 in the last month) advocated killing or persecuting homosexuals.

LGF is a war blog. I know this must be a shock to leftist nitwists, but not everyone who favors killing our enemies is a bible thumping homophobe. LGF regulars do include right-wing Christians and Orthodox Jews, but they also include atheists, libertarians, objectivists, and former Democrats who were mugged by 9/11. The last group includes Johnson himself.

By the way, how do homosexuals fair in an Islamic theocracy? Not well. Since LGF is all about destroying Islamic fundamentalism, it is fair to say that it does more for the cause of gay rights than you ever will.

Lizzy, why exactly were you searching LGF for “fags”?

Were you looking to do some substantive (cough cough) research on the subject?

Anonymous,

Can you read? I searched for “fags” because the previous poster tried to paint LGF as a homophobic blog.

“Articles like this are a dime a dozen in the Madison press.

‘We leftists are smarter and more enlightened and more tolerant than those religious idiots because…’

YAWN”

Yeah, but we are, so I don’t see your point.

wow rob, i thought maybe for once you’d have something intelligent to say, but again you just repeated all the things you heard your little ignorant liberal buddies say. have you ever formed an individual opinion? I mean i realize that can be difficult in madison where liberals seem to be the vast majority, i guess we’re just lucky their and your ideologies aren’t representative of the country at large. so instead of bashing republicans, maybe you should wonder why college students seem to be one of the largest support groups for the democrats; could it possibly be that they haven’t experience the real world and can continue fantasizing about how the government will coddle them forever? Also i found this to be a very interesting quote “Besides the always-delicious irony of Republicans who can't manage their finances” now is this not incredibly hypocritical when one major push for the democrats during the election was that all republicans only vote bush because of the tax breaks they’ll receive being in the higher income brackets? Well in order to have large sums of money one needs to save money. And if we’re going to take one man and use him as a poster boy for an ENTIRE enormous group of people, than for the democratic poster boy I nominate Bill Clinton, and since you chose to only mention one action of Sen. Bill Frist i think we should focus on Clinton’s lack of integrity and the fact that he lied to an entire nation, so i guess then, according to your article and ideologies, we could say that all liberals are liers, eh? I mean really Rob, if all you’re going to do is be an airway for your liberal friends, at least make it convincing that you know what you’re talking about, and maybe put some new ideas in, because frankly your column is getting a little tiresome.

There is NO risk of this loser ever having an original thought. He parrots libby mags and rags.

> The current push to privatize Social Security, or at least allow people to invest their retirements in the stock market on the government dime, is a bad idea. >

“government dime”?! It’s MY MONEY! I’d like to have some of it back when I retire too, thank you very much.

Though I’m saving my own money for retirement, realizing that I’m not going to get any of the SS money back that’s been stolen from me so far. So I end up paying for 2 retirements, but I only get to have one.

I’ll take my “chances” over the 40yrs I’ll be saving my retirement in the market. Because the current SS system is a sure way to lose it all.

I wake up every morning and am so thankful nut jobs like this are not running our country right now. Just wait until you are in the “real” world. Being in college is so far away from the real world it’s not even funny. Don’t write about something you have no idea about. Working part-time at Toppers and writing little articles in the campus newspaper is not the real world. Madison is surrounded by reality.

. “government dime”?! It’s MY MONEY! I’d like to have some of it back when I retire too, thank you very much.

>

You obviously don’t understand that all income belongs to the government. Just be happy that you are allowed to keep any at all!

Simplified Tax Form:

How much did you make ___

SEND IT ALL IN!

Taxes are the price of civilization.

I think America is worth paying for.

Taxes are the price of civilization.

I think America is worth paying for.

“Taxes are the price of civilization.

I think America is worth paying for.”

Yeah, but how much is enough?!

“Taxes are the price of civilization.

I think America is worth paying for.”

And I think those who get more (i.e., the rich) should pay a hell of a lot more.

I didn’t mean to imply that LGF was a homophobic blog, in terms of who runs it or its primary goals. (though that was a reasonable interpretation of my remark). I have read strongly homphobic posters there before, but my experience certainly could have been out of the ordinary.

Yes, Islamic regimes don’t take kindly to homosexuals (or women’s rights). But linking the War on Terror as “doing more for gay rights than I ever will”? Come on. Given the Bush administration’s position on the issue, and, I will assume, the likely position of the majority of the posters on LGF, I don’t find that convinving, to say the least.

My larger point, as my earlier post showed, was that LGF equates the War on Terror with the War on Islam. Islamic fundamentalism, of the Osama Bin Laden variety, must be opposed, and destroyed when possible. But many of the posters there, as the one I explicitly pointed out, make no distinction between Islam and its destructive offshoots. I find that reprehensible on both moral and practical grounds. Do we really want, to paraphrase Ann Coulter, to burn their cities to the ground and convert them all to Christianity?

It’s a dumb idea, and dangerous. We aren’t even raising taxes or cutting spending to pay for the current war—do we really have the will or the desire to carry out a war against all of Islam?

Deters seems to bring out the dumber conservative posters. Frist is being attacked because he is 1) in a position of leadership and 2) a doctor who should know better than to allow the Right to put forward garbage science in its effort to build support for its social positions. I don’t know what Bill Clinton has to do with that. I don’t know many liberals or Democrats who would argue that BC had a lot of personal integrity regarding his sex life. Your point? I also have no idea how the Republican inability to deal with the deficit relates to claims that Republican voters liked their tax cuts. “In order to have money one needs to save money.” Of course—how about applying a little of that to your own party?

There are lot of people who aren’t college students who vote for Democrats. The vast majority of those folks have jobs; they may not, for example, have health care.

Okay, kids. It’s fun to latch onto a vague ideology and then spout all the prerequisite dogma online. It seems there are plenty of people doing this from both sides — in fact, it’s this notion that there are two sides, and only two sides, that makes this all so absurd. Just to see if it adds any thought to the debate, I’m going to inject two notions for general consideration. One: unless you think the world is perfect just as it is (and, if you do, you are either ineffably ignorant or rich, arrogant, and hateful), you ought to think twice — or even once — about labeling yourself “conservative.” “Liberal” implies wanting change — in other words, understanding that the world is imperfect, and desiring to find ways to improve it. Disagree with the dogma all you want, but this politicized use of the word as an insult is asinine. For #2, consider the election. Look at the Red/Blue map. The bluest places are urban, and college towns are the bluest of all. The reddest areas tend to be those with homogenous populations and fewer schools. What this suggests is that learning from and interacting with people from different backgrounds promotes a liberal outlook, while being separate from other types of people provides a more conservative point of view. Make of that what you will. But I say, if Democracy is meant to be inclusive, how much sense does the neo-conservative outlook really make? I can’t say I care for pundits spouting a party line and throwing a lot of unwarranted faith behind politicians or their parties. The advantage that knee-jerk liberal have is that there arguments tend to make sense and be optimistic, whereas reactionary conservatives are more combative and, apparently resigned to living in a miserable world. -Adam Arnold

Anonymous,

That LGF poster certainly had one thing right. Our fight is NOT primarily against terrorism. Terrorism is merely one method used by our enemies, the Islamic fundamentalists. The real question is whether the savagery of Islamic fundamentalism is an offshoot of Islam or if murderous jihad is central to Islam itself. Of course, it doesn’t help when so many supposedly moderate muslim organizations are fronting for jihadis. Anyway, LGF hosts that very legitimate debate. See, for example,

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=13713

My personal opinion is that Islam can be made moderate, if the stars happen to align correctly. True, many of its texts do seem to support what the jihadis are doing. But a thousand years ago, I wouldn’t have given good odds on Christian Europe, either. Yet the Enlightenment did happen in Europe, largely because Christians were willing to kick God upstairs, like a beloved but now-useless founding CEO. They were still religious, but they no longer let religion dominate every aspect of their lives. If the Christian world can do it, then so can the Muslim world.

The fundamental point is the any religion is based mostly on talking to God and getting his opinion. Oddly enough, God seems to say wildly different advice to different people. So perhaps Islam can be MADE into a religion of peace. But that isn’t going to happen so long as the West continues to treat the difference between Islamic culture and Western culture as no more significant than the choice between chocolate ice cream and vanilla.

Of course this may all be a moot point. If Manhatten vanishes under a mushroom cloud tomorrow, then we won’t be searching for a more tolerant Islam. We will (quite rightly) just make their holy cities cease to exist.

Wow. Lots of comments here.

Let’s deal with a few of them.

First, yes, it’s a little facetious to use Sen. Frist as the example as to how people would mismanage Social Security funds in the market. It’s called a little bit of humor. Sen. Frist is a good example, though, of how even intelligent individuals, who probably have the foresight to have someone else manage their money, can still lose money. How did Frist lose his money? I don’t know, but it doesn’t matter, he was in charge of his money and he lost it. Will average American’s fare better? Inherently the market has losers, unlike the bulls in the 90’s who predicted a 30,000 Dow, it’s going to go up and down.

This is unlike Social Security which is (thanks to a tax hike in the 80’s proposed by Greenspan and passed by Reagan) a trust. An enormous trust. It’s not actually going to run out (and even then, it will pay equal to what it takes in for 81% of takers) until 2052. If you rolled back 25% of the tax cut to Americans earning over $500,000, you secure Social Security until the 22nd Century.

Does anyone here realize that if you earn over $88,000 a year, you only pay in as if you earned $88,000? That means the rich pay less into Social Security and the poor pay more. Wait! Before you cry Communism, understand that the rich collect less and the poor collect more, in an inverse proportion.

Therefore, most of us graduating from college will never even have to worry much about relying on Social Security, because hopefully our 401k’s haven’t bankrupted when the Dow collapses.

On the other hand, what privatizing Social Security about is enriching giant Wall Street money management firms who eat up enormous profits “managing” our accounts for a small fee. Exactly the sort of government giveaway our supposedly conservative counterparts decry.

Whew! Any responses to that? I write my column to be a little provocative, but you’re best argument best bring some facts, or my reality-based thinking will dismiss you as what you are; a jackass (and why, while I disagree with everything The Critic Known as Lanche write, at least he/she provides some tidbits of info, instead of implying I’m gay).

implying? lol

you advance blatant lies as your version of “truth,” and when busted call it “intentional provocation.” no robby you are just a dumbass.

No No NO, the rich do not pay LESS than the poor…a rich person MAY pay less than a poor person AS A % OF TOTAL INCOME——such a typically manipulative BS argument from a stupid liberal.

Social Security is a capped flat tax. Social security was passed in the new deal and expanded in the 1965 LBJ welfare society on the premise that it is “for everyone.” It will surely fail politically if you try to marginalize it.

It is a FACT that over a given period of time (RE: long term investment) the stock market always..ALWAYS gives back the strongest returns…ALWAYS.

Deters there is nothing “reality based” about any argument you ever make. You manipulate and spew complete BS. You parrot other libs like your hero maureen dowd. I dare you to have an original thought.

—a real 3L, unlike your pathetic phony gay ass

I’m sorry, real 3L, I thought that the as a % of total income was obvious. Since it isn’t, I stand, well, I don’t stand corrected. On the other hand, your assertion that the stock market always gives a higher return. Prove it. Prove it. Don’t assert it, prove it. If you are a real 3L (which I doubt) then you’ll no the difference between stating something and proving something. If you had a long term investment in 1926, and social security existed at the time…would you be utterly wrong? I think so.

And by the way, I’m engaged, and been a proud member of the straight community since I was born. It’s disgusting I even have to assert this, since I don’t go around throwing around assumptions about people’s sexual orientation.

If Real 3L has the cojones to debate me, then send me an email, or don’t post anonymously. Otherwise, I’ll keep my comments to myself.

Sure Deters, try to manipulate your “facts” that way in a brief and see how hard the judge kicks you in the ass.

If you had any business background you would understand the nature of LONG-TERM historical stock market returns.

=reform is necessary to save the system financially AND POLITICALLY= “A number of reform proposals call for workers to contribute 2 percent of earnings to personal retirement accounts over their work lives. Based on historical stock market data, we estimate that if workers are in 100 percent stock portfolios prior to retirement:

“During retirement, a private annuity would be expected to equal 43 percent of currently promised Social Security benefits. In the best-case scenario, the annuity would equal 85 percent of the Social Security benefit. In the worst-case scenario, the annuity would equal 17 percent.”

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st/st244/

“Another approach for reducing the disincentives on elderly workers would be to completely or partially privatize the Social Security system. Proponents of complete or partial privatization of Social Security typically call for replacing all or a portion of the current system with a system of individual retirement savings accounts (IRSAs) that would invest in the stock market. All or a portion of the Social Security taxes that workers *294 now pay to the federal government would go instead into IRSAs which would operate much like today’s Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs). Proponents of privatization typically point to the country of Chile, which began to privatize its Social Security system in 1981. Under Chile’s new Social Security system, workers are required to contribute at least ten percent of their salary to IRSAs held by the private pension fund of their choosing. Individual accounts and contributions to them are exempt from taxation, while withdrawals are taxable. The roughly twenty different companies that manage these new IRSAs are subject to extensive regulation by the Chilean government. The Chilean example is already being followed by a number of other countries, including Peru, Colombia, Argentina, Uruguay, and Mexico. Furthermore, the World Bank has begun to encourage most countries to include IRSAs in their Social Security systems. Replacing all or a portion of Social Security with individual retirement savings accounts has also found a good deal of support in Congress, in academic circles, and in the press. In fact, a majority of the 1994-1996 Social Security Advisory Council agreed that at least a portion of Social Security payroll tax contributions should be redirected into IRSAs which would invest in the stock market. For example, under the Personal Security Accounts (PSAs) plan endorsed by five Council members, individual accounts would be held by financial institutions and their investment would be directed by individual workers, much like today’s IRAs. The Personal Security Accounts (PSAs) would be financed by reallocating five percentage points of the employees’ share of Social Security taxes into their PSAs. Every worker under age fifty-five in 1998 would participate in the five percent payroll reallocation and receive PSA benefits based on their accumulations plus interest. Individuals could begin withdrawing funds from their PSAs at age sixty-two, and any funds remaining in their accounts at death could be passed on to their estates.”

Jonathan Barry Forman, Reforing Social Security to Enourage the Elderly to Work, 9 Stan. L. & Pol’y Rev. 289, 292-293. (1998).

Now wouldn’t that be horrible!? Imagine: every American with a bit of back-pocket efficacy! You can’t stand that, can you? You need to patronize the world.

Have you told your wife you are gay?

Didn’t make law review did you Rob? That’s a shame.

http://students.law.wisc.edu/lawreview/masthead.htm

Remember, even if you have an argument to make, it can never hurt to throw in a childish insult or two. If you children can’t learn to argue with any sense of respect or decorum, your computers will be taken away!

“If you children can’t learn to argue with any sense of respect or decorum, your computers will be taken away!”

This is my mom’s computer, bozo! Try and take it away and my mom will kick your butt, dodohead! And then my dad will come in and kick your butt! And then…and then my babysitter will come in and use her pepper spray on you…and then she’ll kick your butt! and then…and then…

…and then my dentist will come in and yank all your teeth out and then he’ll kick your but. And then…and then my second cousin who’s dad is a pastor at Calvary Baptist Church way out in Eugene, Oregon will dome in and kick your butt. And then…and then my Transformer toys will join together and make one gargantuan Transformer and kick your butt. And then…