Tuesday, September 25, 2007

A Feinstein Put Down

I believe I've mentioned before here my contempt for Senator Dianne Feinstein. It says a lot about this state that she easily gets elected over and over again. So I'm glad to see this article slamming Feinstein published- in a liberal magazine, no less- and just had to give it a plug.

Kudos to lewrockwell.com for the link.

77 Comments:

At 7:42 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Read what Counter Punch (a LEFTIST site) had to say about her back in 2/2006:
http://www.counterpunch.org/frank02282006.html

and 4/2007: http://www.counterpunch.org/frank04042007.html

There is nothing liberal about Feinstein other than the the label she chose herself. Greenwald is right on the money. This is just another example of how the neocons infiltrated even the Democrats. But would you expect them to spend all their ill gotten military contracting profits just taking over the media and the Republican party and ignore all the Democrats? LOL

 
At 8:33 AM, Blogger Derchoadus said...

She has done more damage to the Constitution than any other Democrat that I know of. I couldn't believe what she started doing back in the late 90's to control the Internet.

A Pox on her house!

 
At 8:59 AM, Blogger Rose said...

This is an interesting statement off you link site there, derchoadus - 3. She is a hypocrite. She is in bed with corporate criminals like Maxxam and David Hurwitz who seek to destroy the last of the old growth redwoods in California.

 
At 9:12 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

She is in BED with her husband, a war profiteer who is partners with Carlyle in URS, one of the top defense contractors. She voted for contracts which directly benefited her husband (and herself of course) although when it came to light she was allowed to "silently" resign her position on the Military Construction Appropriations Committee.

 
At 9:16 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

One can understand why the Democrats are silent about Feinstein's corruption with their almost nonexistent majority, but why doesn't the GOP go after this prominent "liberal" for her corruption? Why is it only the "liberal / left" media that is reporting on her corruption?

 
At 9:23 AM, Blogger Derchoadus said...

Hehe, yeah. Palco (Maxxam) has dug it's own grave. They don't need the help of a musician, unless it's to play taps.

I am more concerned about her stance on Internet Censorship and the failed War On Drugs. And the graft that is no better than Halliburton. Why do you think she voted for war in the first place?

 
At 2:14 PM, Anonymous big al said...

Holy Smoke! Feinstein finally revealed for the libertarian fascist she has always been. She was only trying to curry favor with the progressives by her citizen disarmament and econazi positions.

 
At 2:55 PM, Blogger Derchoadus said...

libertarian fascist

What's that? An anarchist?

 
At 3:20 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

She's better than another Bush Republican, which has been the option for several years.

 
At 3:45 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Feinstein votes just like a Bush Republican on too many important issues like war and civil liberties. One issue voters, whether it be for or against abortion rights, for or against gun control, will be our downfall.

 
At 5:49 PM, Anonymous big al said...

Derchoadus, The term "libertarian fascist" (an oxymoron) was coined by a commentater on Vote for Mavericks by an anonymous poster calling herself "fingersfly". Her assertion was supported by (strangely enough) another anonymous poster and Jeff.

"...SCOTUS decides if a law passed by congress is unconstitutional, not a bunch of neofascists calling themselves Libertarians."
Fingersfly 7:26 PM

"...Understanding the consequences of your political agenda seems to be impossible for Libertarians. Fascism by any other name still reeks."
Anonymous 8:01AM

"...Don't you read anything but your Libertarian neofascist propaganda?"
Anonymous 11:46 AM

Jeff said... @2:14PM
"Leonidas,
On cursory reread, I found that FF gave this string: "The Libertarian agenda is a corporatist agenda. Fascists are corporatists, according to Musolini, and referred to "libertarian neofascists." ..."The counter to it given was a dictionary definition of Facism, which fails to address FF's use of an alternative definition.

I guess we can now make up our own definitions of terms (or use Mussolini) and ignore traditional sources. How resourceful!

 
At 6:06 PM, Blogger Carson Park Ranger said...

"libertarian fascist" is an oxymoron.

 
At 6:15 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Only to people who haven't done any research on fascism or the real libertarian agenda. It is a much more complex system than can be covered in Websters, you illiterates.

 
At 6:17 PM, Blogger Carson Park Ranger said...

And Fred, why are you surprised that Feinstein gets re-elected in California? This is the state which produced the scheming Richard Nixon and the second dumbest President in history, Ronald Reagan.

 
At 6:17 PM, Blogger Fred said...

"libertarian fascist" is an oxymoron."

I suspect the one who threw out that label is none other than the Authoritarian Leftist, Al Baston, although I'm not sure.

 
At 6:19 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Libertarians are economic anarchists.

 
At 6:20 PM, Blogger Carson Park Ranger said...

"Websters"? Anonymous calls us illiterate while referring to "Websters" for a definition of libertarianism?

 
At 6:22 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Who gave a Websters definition of libertarianism, Carson Park? Someone offered a Websters definition for fascism. Another functional illiterate.

 
At 6:28 PM, Blogger Fred said...

CPR wrote, "This is the state which produced the scheming Richard Nixon and the second dumbest President in history, Ronald Reagan.".

Boy, that's out there. No matter what some may say about Nixon, he established the Environmental Protection Agency, didn't he? If not, he at least established the environmental Superfund.

I'll never understand the Left's problem with Reagan, although more than enough Libs have problems with him, too.

I think you're grasping at straws, Joel.

 
At 6:38 PM, Anonymous illiterate researcher said...

6:15PM:"Only to people who haven't done any research on fascism or the real libertarian agenda. It is a much more complex system than can be covered in Websters, you illiterates."

Pleeeese illuminate us!

 
At 6:39 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Most of the posters here are too ignorant for words. "I'll never understand the Left's problem with Reagan..."

The fact that you still don't know what Reagan did to this country is pathetic for someone who pretends to have an interest in politics. You have to actually read BOOKS about issues to understand them. Knee jerk reactions to key words isn't political analysis.

 
At 6:44 PM, Blogger Carson Park Ranger said...

I said that Nixon was "scheming. Would you argue with that?

Ronald Reagan was highly skilled at napping. That's the best thing I can say about him.

"Websters" is in the public domain. Anyone can publish a "Websters" dictionary, and they do.

 
At 6:46 PM, Blogger mresquan said...

"I'll never understand the Left's problem with Reagan, although more than enough Libs have problems with him, too."

Are you serious Fred?

 
At 6:54 PM, Blogger Fred said...

Yes, I am.

CPR is ranting about Nixon, who established a number of federal government programs. I would thing he should be happy with that.

What's your problem with Reagan, esquan?

 
At 6:57 PM, Blogger Fred said...

CPR wrote, "Ronald Reagan was highly skilled at napping. That's the best thing I can say about him.".

Of course, nothing substantial. Just the same old cheap shots at the guy.

 
At 6:57 PM, Blogger kaivalya said...

And here I thought that Feinstein was protecting the free market from eco-terrorism...

"The most terrifying words in the English language are: 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'" -Reagan

 
At 6:57 PM, Anonymous D. Parker said...

When I heard that Ronald Reagan had been diagnosed with Alzheimers, I said "how can they tell?"

 
At 6:58 PM, Blogger Carson Park Ranger said...

Fred, do I have to make a list?

 
At 7:04 PM, Blogger Fred said...

Go for it, dude. I might even agree with you on some issues.

Problem is, seems to me, you're too partisan. Whatever you come up with, as far as complaints, could probably be said the same of with any Democrat president, just like with Feinstein.

 
At 7:07 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

How about Reagan turning the neocons loose in the Pentagon and CIA and developing a fraudulent NIE massively exaggerating the threat from the USSR and his treasury busting defense plan to counter this nonexistent threat. The defense contractors charging hundreds of times the real worth of materials with no accountability. How about Reagan illegally selling arms to Iran and illegally supplying the terrorist Contras? What about his deal with Iran that led to that illegal weapons sale?

That's a good start. Anyone have any pet peaves they want to list?

 
At 7:12 PM, Blogger Fred said...

How is that any different than under Clinton, or the current president? Please explain.

Oh, I know: You weren't paying attention then.

 
At 7:15 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

HUH??? WTF??? You really are half a load short, Fred. LOL

Yes, Reagan was a saint compared to the current crook-in-chief.

 
At 7:21 PM, Blogger Fred said...

See... this is totally partisan. It's always the Republicans that get nailed.

I agree with you on Bush, but you seem to have no problems with the Democratic presidents.

I assume that's simply because they're Democrats?

 
At 7:26 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I posted the stuff at the top from Counter Punch about Feinstein, Fred.

If you have any SPECIFIC charges to lay on Carter or Clinton, please do so. I don't think it is possible for a man of real integrity to become president today. Paint me cynical. You don't have to trust them if you have accountability and an open government.

 
At 7:37 PM, Blogger Fred said...

How about Clinton's fabricated case that led to the attack on Yugoslavia? Not much different than the attack on Iraq.

What gets me is the partisan attacks on different presidents that don't account for all of them doing much of the same thing.

I'm sure I could look it up, but I won't. Bottom line is, people like CPR, Greg and Carol, that are partisan activists, try to paint the other side as the problem.

Thing is, the lefties do exactly the same thing.

 
At 7:39 PM, Blogger The Boy Most Likely to ... said...

The problem with California, is aside from Boxer and Feinstein, who can run a successful campaign to win the Senate seat? Every piece of meat the California Republicans throw out there gets pulverized. Just like Bush, Feinstein has people who know how to play the election game.

-boy

 
At 7:41 PM, Anonymous gingerbread man said...

Fred, people are going to bash Republicans for awhile now, probably for the next decade or so.

The Left is fighting amongst itself as it careens into a future defaulted to them by the cynics who took over the Republican Party.

After two terms with Dubya, we are fighting about how Dianne Feinstein is too conservative. God bless America.

 
At 7:46 PM, Blogger Fred said...

Boy wrote, "Just like Bush, Feinstein has people who know how to play the election game.".

Perhaps. I think most of it is because the vast majority of voters probably just vote for the incumbent.

We can argue campaign finance laws until we turn red, but most people always vote for incumbents.

Never mind, as I've said before, that California is an Authoritarian State with what seem to be Authoritarians as the majority of people here.

 
At 7:47 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

What is liberal about war profiteering, Ginger? What is liberal about sitting on the Military Construction Appropriations Committee and voting to grant your husband billions of dollars in defense contracts? Why hasn't the GOP jumped all over this obvious corruption on the part of Feinstein? Because her husband is partners with Carlyle.

What kind of liberal votes to give Bush warrantless wiretapping authority, funds an illegal war, and makes money on it?

Feinstein is a neocon in liberal clothing.

 
At 7:52 PM, Blogger mresquan said...

"What's your problem with Reagan, esquan?"

The invasion of Nicaragua and Iran Contra.Arming both the Iraqi's and Iranians during that conflict.His selection for Sec of State and Vice President.His attack on public media.(He had lots of help,I agree).The War on Drugs.This for starters.
But I'd say that they've gotten much worse since.Clinton in some ways outrepublicaned Reagan.

 
At 7:55 PM, Blogger Fred said...

"But I'd say that they've gotten much worse since.Clinton in some ways outrepublicaned Reagan.".

Exactly. Arguments like this end up just partisan name calling.

 
At 7:58 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Fred, "Clinton's attack on Afghanistan" was a unanimous decision by NATO to halt ethnic cleansing / genocide. Do a little reading on what led up to it. Clinton's attack on the American worker with his signing of NAFTA is a different matter.

 
At 8:02 PM, Blogger Fred said...

More BS from, not just NATO, but the MSM. The Yugoslavian factions have been slitting each other's throats for centuries. The Clintonistas just took sides.

See, here we go again: The Democrats make good wars. Republicans make bad ones.

 
At 8:09 PM, Blogger Carson Park Ranger said...

If Bush had gotten us into Yugoslavia, we'd still be there.

Bob Dole probably would have been better than Clinton.

 
At 8:12 PM, Blogger Fred said...

CPR wrote, "If Bush had gotten us into Yugoslavia, we'd still be there.".

We are still there. We have troops there as I speak.

 
At 8:14 PM, Blogger Fred said...

They're called "Peacekeeping troops", that might be there even after we've left Iraq, whenever that should happen.

Hey...we're still in Germany after WW2, aren't we?

 
At 8:17 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

With the massive casualties we suffered in Yugoslavia it is incredible that the American people haven't demanded we withdraw.

What's that??? Not a SINGLE American combat casualty in Yugoslavia? Does that mean that the people there wanted and needed our help?

 
At 8:21 PM, Blogger Fred said...

"What's that??? Not a SINGLE American combat casualty in Yugoslavia? Does that mean that the people there wanted and needed our help?".

I suspect it probably means the situation wasn't as bad as reported, in the first place.

Is this our War Party (from the Democrat side) representative asking the question?

 
At 8:22 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

FRED!! I am AGHAST!! Deleting my post about you deleting my posts!!!

Could you be any more intellectually dishonest Fred?

 
At 8:23 PM, Blogger Fred said...

Not being dishonest at all. You're just an ass and deserve to be deleted.

 
At 8:25 PM, Blogger Carson Park Ranger said...

"We are still there."

That's the problem. We never leave.

 
At 8:27 PM, Blogger Fred said...

Regardless of whether it's a Republican or Democrat that got us there.

 
At 8:29 PM, Blogger kaivalya said...

fred, don't forget the philippines! Didn't McKinley get occupy them in 1890-something?

U.S. Pacific Command: And Official Military Website

 
At 8:32 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Your suspicions are bizzare, Fred.
NATO unanimously voted to intervene in Kosovo. There was ethnic cleansing and thousands of people were being killed. The refugees were destabilizing their neighbors with the massive migration. Milosevic was charged in The Hague with war crimes and most likely would have been convicted if he hadn't died of natural causes. There was no fabrication of evidence, fear mongering of nuclear clouds or claims of WMD. Comparing Kosovo to Iraq is insane.

 
At 8:35 PM, Blogger Fred said...

"There was no fabrication of evidence, fear mongering of nuclear clouds or claims of WMD. Comparing Kosovo to Iraq is insane.".

Disagree.

 
At 8:38 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

You are a fraudulent coward Fred.

Fred's definition of an ass: Someone who makes points that make me look like an ignorant ass.

Not that I had any respect for anyone who claims to be a Libertarian anyway. Idiots one and all.

 
At 8:41 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

You seem to be a bit of an authoritarian Fred. Guess your belief in liberty only goes so far as your ego allows. LOL

 
At 8:44 PM, Blogger Fred said...

Nope. I have the liberty to delete stupid posts from my blog. Don't like it, go somewhere else.

 
At 8:48 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

So you want to silence opposing views Fred?

It is obvious that you couldn't debate your way out of a wet paper bag and know nothing about politics or history. Like most Libertarians you have no grasp of political realities, just a pawn of the neocons and the NRA.

 
At 8:51 PM, Blogger Fred said...

Thanks for the comment, Al. Or is it Jake?

 
At 8:52 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

This is sort of fun in a sick way. I'll be posting on all your subjects, letting people know what a fraud you are, Fred. An intellectually dishonest authoritarian freak. You deleted relevant posts just because you can't debate them. If someone is being an ass, can't your readers discern that? Or do you have to be big brother and make their decision for them?

This is a good demonstration of what Libertarians REALLY believe.

 
At 9:35 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Fred, if you're not a Republican, why are you so thin-skinned about criticism of Republican Presidents?

 
At 9:46 PM, Blogger kaivalya said...

9.35PM that's what logicians call an Ad Hominen Appeal to Motive. It's fallacious and loaded question.

Use wiki to learn yourself something

 
At 9:56 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Fred is off crying because he was so easily outed as an intellectually dishonest authoritarian. Give him a little time for his delusions to heal his bruised ego. We should take bets as to how long it will take until he deletes this post. lol

 
At 10:03 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Kaivalya, WRONG. IF Fred wasn't thin skinned about criticism of Republicans, you would be right. However, Fred does claim to be a Libertarian and is extremely defensive of Republicans. So it was a fair question deserving of an honest answer.

 
At 10:11 PM, Blogger Carson Park Ranger said...

"that's...an Ad Hominen Appeal to Motive. It's fallacious and loaded question."

What's wrong with questioning someone's motives?

Only Anonymous knows whether the question was ad hominem, but we'd have to ask about his motives in order to determine that, wouldn't we?

It may have been a rhetorical question, but it wasn't fallacious.

 
At 10:19 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Poor Kaivalya...

He read "ad hominem appeal to motive" somewhere and it sounded so intellectual that he didn't expect he would be asked to defend it. LOL

 
At 1:06 AM, Blogger Eric V. Kirk said...

The left has hated Feinstein way back since she took over the Mayor's office after Milk and Moscone were killed by the last Republican to ever be elected to a position in San Francisco.

The left hates her, the right hates her. But she wins easily. Go figure.

 
At 4:56 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

If conservatives really hate Feinstein, why hasn't the corporate media done ANY reporting on her votes while on the Military Construction Appropriations Committee that benefited her husband's company, Eric? The only reporting done on that has been from the left, Counter Punch and Salon. Centrists don't read, they want their "news" spoon fed to them like an appetizer between cocktail and dinner. I don't care what party a crook belongs to, they don't belong government.

 
At 7:16 AM, Blogger kaivalya said...

Carson,

The Appeal to Motive isn't always a fallacy, that is dependent on it's use (the wiki link explains). However, if it's rhetorical then it's not a question, it's an attack.

And to load a question about Fred's republican-ness is just a red herring away from the subjects that deserve the real questions - how do useless people like Feinstein get re-elected? Has there ever been a president from any party that is worth voting for?

But I forgot, this is blog-land with trolls around every corner - dumbing down the Internet one anonymous post at a time, until it disappears in a poof spam.

 
At 7:29 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Kaivalya's definition of troll: Anyone who uses words he doesn't understand or who disagrees with him.

This blog of Libertarianism is so enlightening. Censors of free speech everywhere. LOL

 
At 7:39 AM, Blogger Carson Park Ranger said...

"The Appeal to Motive isn't always a fallacy..."

I'm quite sure that I already covered that.


"...if it's rhetorical then it's not a question, it's an attack."

If.

Kaivalya complains about commenters "dumbing down" the internet and, at the same time, proffers a Wikipedia entry in an attempt to make his point.

 
At 12:38 PM, Blogger kaivalya said...

yes, because wikipedia is dumb... good point.
Isn't that an Appeal to Authority?

I'll move on now and leave you to the happy slander corner since it doesn't seem that anyone actually wants to discuss anything interesting and reasonable.

 
At 6:04 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dear Fred,

I read your post, but did not bother to read all of the comments (no offense). Isn't hating DiFi just part of the job description for a Libertarian gun nut?

Very truly yours,

(Name withheld)

 
At 7:49 PM, Blogger Carson Park Ranger said...

Kaivalya is using the fallacious "I'm taking my marbles and going home" argument.

If he's unfamiliar with this tactic perhaps he'll find a Wikipedia entry which will explain it to his satisfaction.

He might want to find a definition of "slander" while he's at it.

 
At 8:32 PM, Blogger kaivalya said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 8:44 PM, Blogger kaivalya said...

thanks carson, you make me laugh.
Have a lovely night.

-Vote Guns and Dope Party 2008-

 

Post a Comment

<< Home