Don’t you love it when the Tea Cult pod people pontificate? They love to go on and on about how the Founders were just like them. They wrap themselves in colonial garb with their tricorn hats and wave their Gadsden flags warning, “Don’t Tread On Me”. Appearance really is everything to them, isn't it?
I’m not sure who they think is treading on them. It’s not like liberals go around stomping conservative heads to the ground. I don’t know of any liberals going into churches and gunning down conservatives because they got all riled up reading Paul Krugman.
I guess they feel oppressed by a government that taxes them less than what they paid under Reagan. Oh, the tyranny! Oh, the oppression! Woe is the Republic! Obama, the Black Muslim Socialist who hates white people, is destroying our country with government “takeover” of health care. Oh, the Socialism!
Yes, only the foulest of socialists would dare insult the Founders by instituting government mandated, and managed, health care. Second Amendment remedies may be our last and only hope to throw off the stranglehold of socialist government healthcare. It’s a clear violation of our Constitution, is it not?
Somebody better lecture John Adams on the Constitution. Apparently he and other Founders were some of those socialists for government mandated health care. Yes, the disturbing news is out. In 1798 the 5th Congress passed, and Adams signed, "An Act for the Relief of Sick and Disabled Seaman" into law. Thomas Jefferson was the President of the Senate during the 5th Congress while Jonathan Dayton, the youngest man to sign the United States Constitution, was the Speaker of the House.
The act provided for the Federal Government to build and run hospitals for sick and injured seamen. It was paid for by taxing the sailors. Let this sink in. Adams and other Founders instituted tax funded government run health care.
It survives to this day as the Public Health Service under the Surgeon General.
This shoots down the Right’s argument that government has no business mandating health care. The Founders were very open to the idea of government managed health care after all. Real socialism has been validated from the beginning of our Republic. What would you bet the Tea Cult would call Obama if this was his idea?
It looks like liberals resemble the Founders more than the fantasy filled dress-up Tea Cult buffoons after all. Oh, the irony! It turns out the Founders meant it when they wrote “promote the general welfare” in the Constitution.
I guess it’s time for progressives to start shouting, “We want our country back!”
Saturday, January 22, 2011
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
Great post but of course the Teabaggers have from the beginning had selective memories about the Constitution and want to shred the sections they don't like to pieces.
The Tea Cult needs no mocking. They make utter fools of themselves. On the other hand, they deserve to be mocked, for their hateful bigotry, racism and ignorance.
I was pretty pleased to see Obama get elected. I felt at that point we were as close to as our fore fathers intended as ever. That is what angers the right and they want Bush's mess back.
Yes, the Founders certainly had the audacity to hope, and fight, for change they could believe in.
We've come to expect selective memory on the part of the teabaggers and neocons, but wouldn't it be nice if they didn't maliciously lie about the founders and their intent? It's one thing to omit historical references that don't fit their narrative, but quite another to make up their own 'facts'.
I don't think we can ever understimate the ignorance and gullibility of the American voter.
How many of us know well-meaning people, normally intelligent and thoughtful, generous folks, who will forward hateful lies in the form of mass emails without giving the distortions therein a second thought?
Disinformation and propaganda are powerful tools, and our computer happy society is tailor made for making it even easier to spread the lies.
Great post Dave! These costume party clowns are preaching to one another about a fantasy version of history that never happened. But then again, they think the fossil record disproves evolution. They used to deny that dinosaurs ever existed. Now they put saddles on them. In the Middle Ages their predecessors burned people at the stake for claiming the earth was not flat - more than 1000 years after the Greeks had already calculated how big around it actually is. There is no reasoning with such people.
Oh my God! The rug has been pulled out from under me! Our Founding Fathers were socialists?!?!?!?
I'm gonna have to sit down, take a deep breath and try to process this devastating horrifying news.
This is kind of like finding out that God was gay, used drugs and ate shellfish.
Not only did the Founding Father's have a socialist bent, but many also were trained in the classics, and that was before Turner Classics colorized everything!
Yes, the world was a different place in black and white, no voices, just a piano track and subtitles...
Fascinating fact and some good ammunition to throw back at them. (Oops! Did I say "ammunition"? My bad.)
Oh hell, I think most of them would rather deal with ammunition coming at them than truth and facts. ;)
Here's something else to toss back:
"Exactly what part of 'the common good' and 'the general welfare' means 'You're on your own?'"
"Never underestimate the power of very stupid people in large groups."
- John Kenneth Galbraith
If this doesn't explain the Tea-Baggers, nothing will.
The ignorance and gullibility of the American voter is why the Republicans gain power. Darkness begets darkness.
I love the take that fossils are the "Devil's deception". I would day the GOP qualifies as such in spades.
Curses on that "Damn piece of paper"! That's still what's impeding the complete Right Wing takeover of America.
I wonder how the thumpers reconcile their God creating gays, drugs, and shellfish. I guess they were some of His mistakes. Is He good enough for the self-righteous? Will they forgive God?
History is supposed to be so much easier to study in black and white. Books are the problem. Everyone knows books have a well known liberal bias.
With the Right, beliefs always trump truth. Common good and general welfare mean only war and totalitarian law enforcement to them
Sounds like he's seen them.
Oh Dubya! Like I said before, I bet you laughed your butt off and did a jig when you came across this piece of information. Too bad that is really doesn’t apply to making your point for socialism, sir.
The Act for the Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen applied to U.S. ships “arriving from foreign ports”. Why do you think this act didn’t apply to U.S. ships that arrived from other American ports too? What was the difference?
It is because the U.S. ships arriving from foreign ports often were manned, at least in significant part, by foreign sailors. Foreign seamen were typically paid significantly less than their American counterparts and used their services as sailors in order to gain passage to America. If these poorer foreign seamen became ill or were injured, how were these poor foreign sailors to receive medical treatment in America?
Back then it wasn’t like today where one could simply be an illegal alien and stroll into any ER for care on the taxpayer dime. Indeed, that was the original purpose of this Act. This law provided for the owner of such sailing vessels to take responsibility and pay for their crews’ medical expenses, so that American citizens would not have to do so. It is precisely because the government DID NOT subscribe to socialized medicine that they passed this act.
Unfortunately in 1799 and 1802, congress amended the Act to include all American seamen as well. I suspect they wanted the additional revenue.
The difference is though, one could choose not to be a sailor and therefore remove the burden of this particular taxation upon one’s self. With today’s monstrosity that is Obamacare, I am unable to remove my burden of having to buy health insurance as long as I am an American citizen still drawing breath. Further, the 1798 Act did not mandate that a person had to buy a PRIVATE service or product.
The government takeover of our health care today encompasses all Americans so that you are comparing a willing group by virtue of their profession being covered in 1798 of perhaps a few thousand people to over 300 million citizens today. The result is a huge net drain on the economy today.
As for John Adam’s and the constitutionality of this Act, I would remind you that it was under Adams that the four Alien and Sedition Acts were passed and deemed highly un-constitutional by many, particularly the fourth act... The Sedition Act, as it directly conflicted with the freedom of speech.
This was so much so that when Jefferson succeeded Adams, he ensured these acts were dismantled. Unfortunately, even such a great founder as Adams was not above violating the Constitution that he helped to create, my friend.
Sorry TP, but government taxed and government provided health care is socialism, even according to your Tea Cult friends. In fact, socialism is government provided services to the public. It’s as American, and Constitutional, as apple pie.
Why ships arriving from foreign ports? I’d say because that meant they were returning from long ocean voyages, unlike ships from other American ports. Make sense? If foreign sailors were the primary concern they would have mandated that the tax be on foreign ships. Does that make sense to you?
There you go again with the “government takeover of health care” hysteria. It is NOT a government takeover. The only bureaucrats meddling with my health care are insurance company suits, not someone in government. I notice you would never say there’s a “government takeover” of auto insurance. Why not? I am mandated by the government to buy it, but they no more manage my car insurance as they do my cholesterol screen. Which way do you want it? Both ways, I assume. It is corporate takeover, if we were to be honest, now, isn’t it? That’s where the money goes.
Unlike the Alien and Sedition Acts, the Seaman tax was constitutional. You pride yourself as a Constitutionalist, but seem to ignore something at the essence of it.
Article 1 Section 8:
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;
I bet you hate that “general welfare” part. Maybe it really meant to say “corporate welfare” to fit the Right’s ideology. It’s either corporate welfare or “you’re on your own” from that crowd. How un-American.
T. Paine said, "Further, the 1798 Act did not mandate that a person had to buy a PRIVATE service or product."
First you argue that an actual socialist policy isn't socialist, then you point to this as an example of socialism.
Are you arguing that the Seaman Act wasn't socialist, because it didn't have capitalism embedded in it, and buying insurance is socialist, because makes a profit from it?
I call the second one, crony capitalism, or at best, corporatism at it's ugliest.
That Seaman Act was essentially the same sort of socialist system that guilds used to engage in.
You paid a tax on your trade to the guild, throughout your working life, then when you could no longer work, the guild supported you and gave you a place to live till the end of your days.
Seaman's missions have been around a lot longer than this country has. The Masons were originally such a guild.
Weaseldog Productions, explains the POMO!
Permanent Open Market Operations (Domestic POMO) plus Permanent Overseas Military Operations (Foreign POMO) combine to empower our Plutocracy Of Medieval Overlords (Ruling POMO).
A minor point, but the appropriation of the slogan "Don't Tread on Me" is a classic example of right wing dog-whistle politics.
While most of us associate this phrase with the American Revolution, Southerners remember it as having been on the first flag of Southern Secession, displayed in Charleston at the beginning of the Civil War, and shown in a well-known (to racists) engraving from the period.
T. Paine wrote: "The government takeover of our health care today encompasses all Americans . . ."
Wrong. HCR doesn't affect those on Medicare, Medicaid, using veterans hospitals, active-duty military members and their dependents, prison inmates or anyone who can show hardship. I think Native Americans living on reservations are exempt as well.
As to those HCR does cover, they're obliged to buy private health insurance so they can see whatever private care giver they want, or that is permitted by the insurance they get. If lab tests, X-rays or physical therapy are ordered, private providers supply those services. If they must be hospitalized, they're admitted to private hospitals.
Paine, LOL, you can't tell a government takeover from a bad comb-over. Please, spare us the GOP talking points and try stick to facts.
It's funny how much those "patriots" hate the Union...still. But then, what else can we expect from a mentality that insists taxation on the rich is tyranny, Obama's a Communist, and the Civil War was not about slavery. Never mind it was given as a reason in South Carolina's secession document.
Anderson wrote, "Wrong. HCR doesn't affect those on Medicare, Medicaid, using veterans hospitals, active-duty military members and their dependents, prison inmates or anyone who can show hardship. I think Native Americans living on reservations are exempt as well."
Oh, I see now...so perhaps what I should have said is that HCR affects all Americans except those already under some other government program for their care.
The fact remains that the government has taken over our health care. When I am mandated by force of law to buy something from a private business regardless of whether I want that product or service, then I would say it meets that definition.
Further, it is a good thing I am not old enough to be on Medicare. Despite Obama saying you could stay with your same doc, evidently due to the new rules and disincentives, my doc is not taking any new Medicare patients and will start phasing out existing ones.
Of course I am sure he will be the only one though, so no worries. The consequences for government meddling are almost invariably worse in the long run than the problem they were originally intending to "fix".
"The fact remains that the government has taken over our health care."
(Laughing and crying at the same time, bangs head on table.)
Paine, you're an engineer. Go see if you can come up with a way to turn lead into gold. All you have to do is make up your mind that there's gold hiding in lead and then devote your life to making it happen. Don't let a few hundred-thousand failed attempts discourage you. If you keep insisting and trying, eventually . . . ;)
I wish my government had taken over our health care. Medicare-for-All is the solution. Then Paine wouldn't feel mandated by force of law to buy something from a private business.....
T. Paine say, "The fact remains that the government has taken over our health care. When I am mandated by force of law to buy something from a private business regardless of whether I want that product or service, then I would say it meets that definition."
You're confusing me a bit here. Though I agree with you that the Federal Government has overstepped it's Constitutional Bounds, you're actually contradicting your previous positions here.
It's amusing to watch you argue against yourself, like it's amusing to watch a dog chase it;s own tail.
but I thought you were a champion of corporate rights and the right of corporations to use their money to influence our government policies.
On this issue, the insurance corporations used their freedom of speech powers to draft legislation that favors them, then used their freedom of speech powers to bribe your congressmen and your senators to pass their bills.
Now you're mad because you feel that the new powers Corporate Free Speech have violated American interests.
This is pure capitalism at work. In capitalism, a business does whatever needs to do to make money. In this case, corporations used their power of Free Speech to legally bribe politicians to get favorable legislation passed.
Would you do away with Corporate Free Speech Powers? Or how would you limit it? How would you decide what businesses can say with their Free Speech Bribery Money and what the can't say with their Free Speech Bribery Money?
Weasel, it seems that I constantly have to reiterate my stance on this very question you ask time and time again, only to be mischaracterized by you and then asked that same exact question again.
I think the Citizens United ruling was poorly adjudicated. Corporations, unions, special interest PAC's should all be completely restrained from donating money as part of their "free speech", as this right should be reserved to individual United States citizens only.
I no more want to have corporations in charge of the government than I want to have government in charge of our corporations. There needs to be an inviolable wall of separation between corporations and state, in my opinion.
Further, unlike Vigilante, I don't want to be shackled with being on a failing and rapidly-insolvent-heading government Medicare program.
Good God Almighty! It is amazing that America has achieved so much in spite of so many Americans clamoring to be taken care of in one aspect or the other by our government in the last few generations.
So much for the indomitable spirit of self reliance and determination that our previous generations exhibited. By now nothing remains of that spirit in America but a dim flicker. It saddens and sickens me.
"There needs to be an inviolable wall of separation between corporations and state, in my opinion."
T. Paine, I do not credit you with believing that in any way. The corporation is a creation of the government, and it exists for the sole purpose of gaining an exception to legal responsibilities and taxation that fall upon non-incorporated individuals.
Corporations only exist in order to get favorable treatment from the government. Your position would demand that these protections cease to exist, thereby bringing an end to all corporations, since they would no longer serve any purpose.
Are you really willing to give up the shielding of individuals from legal liability and the preferential tax treatment that give corporations their reason to exist? Are you really proposing that government sever all connection with corporations, or are you (like all Conservatives) only demanding that government only engage in behavior that benefits corporations?
Maybe I've missed the point, but Dave are you saying that you're a proud socialist, and you're covering yourself in the mantle of our founding fathers as a justification for your socialism?
And does this mean if someone calls President Obama a socialist, you will agree with them because he's upholding the vision of our founders?
This is one of the reasons why I like you. I think the Citizens United ruling was poorly adjudicated. Corporations, unions, special interest PAC's should all be completely restrained from donating money as part of their "free speech", as this right should be reserved to individual United States citizens only.
I no more want to have corporations in charge of the government than I want to have government in charge of our corporations. There needs to be an inviolable wall of separation between corporations and state, in my opinion.
We agree on something that I think is quite important to a functioning principle of democracy.
You grasp one thing, at least. I do have socialist inclinations. And so does every American who values Social Security, public services, and safety nets. Typically Right Wingers fail to see the differences between socialism and communism and proceed to conflate the two. As we know, socialism is compatible with democracy, the Bill of Rights and capitalism. Communism and its far Right cousin fascism are not so compatible. They are characterized by one-party control of everything and intolerant of the freedoms we enjoy.
So yes, I have socialist sympathies, as do I have capitalist sympathies. I have 401K investments and want a successful market, like most Americans.
As far as Obama, readers know I agree with Ron Paul, Obama is a corporatist. He fully supports the military industrial complex, Wall Street, and most other Big Money interests. He has signed into law many bills that work as conduits for tax payers’ money into corporate accounts. If this were the 1970’s he would be called a Republican. This is why I consider him a center-right corporatist.
T. Paine, "So much for the indomitable spirit of self reliance and determination that our previous generations exhibited. By now nothing remains of that spirit in America but a dim flicker. It saddens and sickens me."
Well, in the old days, if you got to old, and you're family didn't love you, you just froze to death, or died on pneumonia on the streets.
American Indians would leave their seniors that couldn't keep up, behind on the trail, left to die.
The Social Security Contract was recognition that the change in US Demographics from the family farm to city life and separation of family, was good for the economy.
I believe we're going back to the system where old people will have to become self reliant or just die.
Actually, I think there is good reason to believe that premature deaths from treatable causes is going to become very normal in the USA in the next few decades.
In Argentina, over the last decades many thousands of children have just starved to death because jobs are scarce and food is expensive. Now that country is run by Bank of America and Goldman Sachs.
Coincidentally, the USA is also run by Bank of America and Goldman Sachs. We should be expecting to get what Argentina got. And so far, we're not being disappointed.
What we're going to see is an end to investments. If you have a 401k, IRA or pension, kiss it goodbye. The bankers are going to steal it.
Actual unemployment is going to pass 60%.
The government will dramatically reduce (and eventually just stop paying) SS, Medicare, Medicaid and food stamps.
Right now the government won't stop those, because that's keeping Americans from rioting.
The next President is going to be a Republican and that President will get domestic spending reduced while cranking up the money presses to pay for expanded peace keeping missions in the Middle East. If you want a paycheck, you can join the army.
Of course military benefits and pay will be reduced. but hey, if your kid is hungry, it's better than nothing.
I personally don't think we need a total wall between corporations and the Gov. I think we need a government believes in and upholds the law, and regulates corporations in a fair and equitable manner. I do not think that corporations should be writing our laws.
Without fair an equitable regulation, capitalism turns into the Wild West.
But that's all fantasy talk.
My concerns these days are more in keeping with what is going on, and where it's going. I actually agree with a few of the fantastical ideas you've brought up in the past, especially concerning the US Constitution and the Rule of Law.
And i think we're going end up with health care for the people who can afford it, and home remedies for the rest. And the people that can afford it will be few. We'll be seeing more hospital closings and consolidations as the boomers really start feeling their age.
Then the epidemics will come. Without treatment for the masses, and crumbling infrastructure, we'll see a come back in many of the old maladies that once plagued mankind.
It'll sure be exciting.
Dave, you're correct on Obama.
If you look at Reagan's policies and compare them to Obama's, Reagan is actually left of, and more socialist than Obama.
Can you imagine Obama implementing an Amnesty program? The Tea Party and his corporate friends would rip him to shreds if he tried to pull a Reagan stunt like that.
Beach: They're good at having selective memories...they got it from 1,500 year of bible reading and ignoring all those parts that are now printed in red.
T. Paine wrote: "It is amazing that America has achieved so much in spite of so many Americans clamoring to be taken care of in one aspect or the other by our government in the last few generations."
Try to get your mind around this: the government isn't a disinterested third party sent here from outer space to cost us money and ruin our lives. It's us, Paine. It provides services we indicate we need and want. Government typically does that as well or much better than the private sector does.
Even more painful for you to accept, I imagine, is that the people have a perfect right to choose the government to provide certain services. Ones like police and fire protection, and market-proof savings for the retired years. I'm sure health insurance, single-payer type, will eventually be added to the list.
That will happen because of decades of suffering the excesses of greed and high-handed treatment from private outfits that gouge so they can lavish, as in one case, $700 million on their CEO in seven years. Millions of Americans will finally say, "Enough." Then, those Americans will demand the government take over health insurance completely.
It won't come about because government pushes its way in. It will be because businesses like Wellpoint, United Health and others did themselves in with their own greed and bad practices.
When it happens, Americans won't be guilty of wanting a nanny state. They'll be guilty of wanting affordable, reliable coverage and accountability from an organization that hears from them in public hearings and forums, and at the polls.
S. W. Anderson:
That was beautifully said. Thank you for putting what we all feel (well most of us here anyway) in such perfect words.
people have a perfect right to choose the government to provide certain services.
You're probably one of those people who thinks if the congress passes it, the president signs it, and the supreme court upholds it, it must be legal for the government to do it.
That's why we have a bill of rights and the government has enumerated powers. Even if we the people want to do something through the government, there are limits on what we're allowed to do. Even if all three branches agree.
Government typically [provides services] as well or much better than the private sector does
That's simply false. The only thing the government does well is the military. It's incompetent or inefficient at everything else it does: post office, healthcare, DMV, schools, courts, food stamps, welfare, social security, medicare.
Well said, my man.
I'm always amused when Righties get outraged at the "Marxist unconstitutional" heath care law, but are silent on the Bush/Cheney/Obama national security state that really shreds the Bill of Rights.
“The only thing the government does well is the military. It's incompetent or inefficient at everything else it does: post office, healthcare, DMV, schools, courts, food stamps, welfare, social security, Medicare.”
Despite your bias, people are given health care, food, education, mail, justice, and enjoy services that help us become a civilized society.
These are simply false Right Wing platitudes. While the military is efficient at knocking things down, destabilizing countries, and killing masses of people, it still has not captured bin-Laden. It has not reduced terrorism. Terrorism has increased since we invaded two countries. Very inefficient in that regard, I’d say, not to mention bankrupting our country even futher.
Just imagine no post office, healthcare, DMV, schools, courts, food stamps, welfare, social security, Medicare. Now that would be incompetent and inefficient government. In fact, there’s no such thing as efficiency or competence to an absolutist authoritarian mentality. We are not Somalia yet. Just wait until the “You’re on your own” crew takes charge again.
In fact, corporate run health care has proven to be incompetent and inefficient, as well as tragic, with its history of personal bankruptcy and people dying due to lack of access and treatment. Universal healthcare is the only sane and compassionate alternative. If we had the lowest infant mortality and highest longevity, you could make your claim for corporate run health care. However we are embarrassed by the “best health care system in the world”. We only have the best health care for those with the most money.
Okay, a lot to respond to. Let's see if I can keep it organized.
Military: Kills people and breaks things as efficiently as anyone else in the world. That's what we pay them for.
Post Office: It was necessary for the government to give everyone a mailbox and create the zip code system. A private company wouldn't have done it themselves -- too expensive. Now that the system is in place, UPS and FexEx are more efficient than the postal service. Both are profitable; postal service, not so much.
Health Care: You're lying in several ways. Universal health care has been available for decades (it's universal health insurance you think we need). Government run health care, like the VA, do not run as well as our private system of doctors, hospitals, and insurance providers. Ask the politicians from your favorite Social Democracy why they come to the U.S. for treatment.
DMV: Have you ever counted the number of employees it takes to run a DMV office? All they're doing is selling a license plate with a registration sticker, which any private company could do more efficiently.
Food Stamps, Welfare, Social Security, and Medicare: All useful, but the government doesn't do it efficiently. Every politician, Democrat or Republican, sites fraud and waste every time they talk about cutting the budget.
And finally, "people are given health care, food, education... that help us become a civilized society." I would argue that giving these things makes people more uncivilized.
Military: You make my point and ignore the failures and costs.
The post office is a constitutional mandate. What do you think would happen when private companies control all services? Higher costs for remote locations, higher costs when monopolization takes over, and a country at the mercy of bottom line business interests. It’s not all about profit.
You claim, “Universal health care has been available for decades” and say I’m lying??? Not only are you dishonest, you presume to tell me what I think as well. And you’re wrong. VA and other govt. care is better than the alternative, which is back to “You’re on your own”. Insurance company CEO’s profit from the misery of Americans and provide zero health care. We don’t need ‘em; they’re parasites who drain our health care dollars.
I said rich people come for treatment here. They still get emergency care at home, like others who are less affluent. How does that do anyone here without coverage any good? Where are the mass demonstrations demanding US style corporate health care?
Let’s entrust Social Security to Wall Street, since there’s no fraud there, eh?
"People are given health care, food, education...that help us become a civilized society." I would argue that giving these things makes people more uncivilized.
Go ahead and argue that. But it’s obvious that the lack of such provisions indicate a degraded civilization.
Sometimes you really are incomprehensible.
With regard to the military, it's their job to kill people and break things. You characterize the military as destabilizing, killing "masses", and invaders. You have a negative view of the military; I have a positive one. The military hasn't bankrupted us; politicians have.
The post office has outlived it's usefulness. We can outsource postal delivery to a private company and still uphold the constitutional mandate. It would cost less.
Your words were, "Universal healthcare is the only sane and compassionate alternative" as if we don't have it and in defense of ObamaCare. That was your lie. My point was that we already had universal health care, so ObamaCare is unnecessary. Unless your goal is universal health insurance...
You don't know what you're talking about with regard to the Veteran's Administration.
The reason we have good private health care is because it can be done profitably, therefore CEOs get paid well when they earn profits. Take away the profit motive, and quality of health care will fall precipitously.
When did I suggest entrusting Social Security to Wall Street? Is that your best rebuttal?
I'm sorry about calling you incomprehensible; I shouldn't get personal. But if you can't write clearly, I don't think you're thinking clearly.
I know you think I'm biased and blinded by ideology, but I make every effort to be clear in how I think and communicate. I don't think you even consider that I might have a valid point of view because of the same bias you accuse me of.
I really do appreciate you sharing your views in a civil way. We can disagree and still get along, I think. I'm sure TP and I would have a great time fishing, hunting and jawing over some Wild Turkey. Politics isn't everything, nor should it be. It's more important that we see each other as human beings and care something about each other.
In most civilized minds, avoidable destruction and death are negatives. Politicians’ abuse of the military is bankrupting us. I’m not blaming the rank and file. I do blame politicians and high ranking officers with political and corporate aspirations of disastrous policy failures. The entire “war on terror” is doomed to failure because it creates more enemies than it kills. It will always continue due to political and military industrial complex agendas.
Even if they catch bin-Laden, nothing will change. We will not be safer and thousands of innocents will continue to die.
“It would cost less” is mere assertion, unfounded in fact. Private monopolized postal services can charge more and limit and deny service...unless you favor regulating it.
I’ll try to be clear here. I’m not defending corporate Obama/Romneycare. We need universal health care, not universal insurance care. We do not have universal care. We still have corporate control of access. People have died and gone bankrupt within our flawed corporatist system. This is reality. Is that difficult to comprehend?
I’ve talked to veterans and none of them want to replace their VA care by buying insurance from corporations. What do you know that they don’t?
Insurance CEO’s do not provide health care. Medical professionals do. CEO’s are parasites. Their gains give us nothing.
You complained about government inefficiency, waste, and fraud with safety nets. I won’t deny it, and improvement is needed. But to dismiss the idea of corrective measures, and instead dismantle services in order to privatize is not the answer. If services are not provided by government, then what is the alternative but the bottom line obsessed private sector? No fraud, waste or abuse there, right? Come on.
You’re right. I am biased, but in favor of the public interest. And you are biased for corporate interests at the public’s expense, as far as I can tell. So yes, I won’t deny that your views are valid according to such perspective.
A couple of replies to Heathen Republican:
"You're probably one of those people who thinks if the congress passes it, the president signs it, and the supreme court upholds it, it must be legal for the government to do it."
It is. That's what the definition of the word "legal" is. Deal with it. The Supreme Court is mandated to interpret the constitution, not you.
"It's incompetent or inefficient at everything else it does: post office, healthcare... social security, medicare."
(I've left out the things done by State and local governments.)
Social security and medicare are administered by the government with an administrative overhead in the low single digits. The overhead of private health insurance absorbs approximately a third of all medical expenses- ten times as much. In fact, government health care and social security are examples of magnificent administration. It's the private providing of such services that is sucking the country dry.
I know that runs contrary to conservative cant, but it is the truth.
I don't propose a monopolized postal service. I offered two free market competitors as examples. It's expensive now because of a government monopoly that has no obligation to run efficiently and earn profits.
Once again, before ObamaCare, we had universal health care. No doctor will refuse to provide medical care. Emergency rooms are flooded because we offer universal health care. No corporation prevents access to doctors.
When you bring up people going bankrupt, I assume you would prefer universal FREE health care. Since when do we all have the right to a service from someone else, like a doctor? The corporatists, as you call them, are providing a service. They are intermediaries between patients and doctors to bring down the cost to the patient. No one has to use insurance; no one has to use a corporatist intermediary. We are all free to pay full price for a doctor's services. Again, no one is blocking access. (Green Eagle, that last paragraph is also directed to your comment.)
The Veteran's Administration has issues with quality of care and quality of facilities. The veterans you spoke to probably don't want to pay for their own insurance, but that's not the same as the VA providing top quality health care.
I have no love for corporate interests. I believe in specific principles that inform my policy positions. You always seem to be against corporations; is that your only principle? Is there ever a time when you would take a position that isn't anti-corporatist?
Green Eagle, you've demonstrated the greatest failure of government-run institutions like our public school system. Somehow we failed to teach you the most fundamental principle of our constitutional government. The government has specific and enumerated powers and, even when all three branches are in agreement, it can't exceed its authority. I am sincerely saddened by your reply.
I was reading previous comments, and thankfully Heathen Republican did such a fantastic job in rebuttal that I really don't need to add anything other than for my own ego's sake.
A few things not specifically mentioned:
1) Courts: Our government has a back-log of cases needing adjudication due to congressional issues in appointing judges (of both parties) and gross inefficiences.
2) Schools: more and more money is spent per student in public schools and yet we fall further and further behind in the world in math and sciences. Private schools attendance is way up accordingly.
3) Food Stamps: if more people needing to be on them is a sign of government success then the program is wildly successful.
4) Social Security: It is going broke and if not fixed will be insolvent for coming generations. While the stock market may not be the answer to fix it, over the time of a generation, it almost invariably appreciates in value substantially.
5) Medicare: It is going to be broke even sooner than Social Security and for the same reasons. Politicians keep raiding the money from these entitlements.
As for the VA, my father was a veteran and had cancer. His treatment at the VA hospital in Portland, Oregon was so poor that we moved him on our own money to St. Vincent hospital.
Unfortunately by then, it was too late and he passed away. HR is right; by and large the quality of the VA system is considerably poorer than private hospitals.
Finally, HR is also right in regards to Green Eagle's silly assertion that just because congress approves something, the president signs it, and the court upholds it that it must be constitutional.
Plessy v. Ferguson is just such an example. Thankfully this "constitutional ruling" was overturned later by Brown v. Board of Education.
"HR is also right in regards to Green Eagle's silly assertion that just because congress approves something, the president signs it, and the court upholds it that it must be constitutional."
I am saddened by your deliberately misconstruing what I said. Once the legislation has been signed and approved by the Supreme Court, it is the law. I did not say that it was constitutional, I said it was the law of the land. And by the way, it is, as I said, the duty of the Supreme Court to determine what is and what is not constitutional. You don't get a vote, no matter what you might think you know.
"Food Stamps: if more people needing to be on them is a sign of government success then the program is wildly successful."
No, it is not a sign of government success, it is a sign of private sector failure. You insist that only the private sector can drive the economy. It has failed to do that.
"Social Security: It is going broke"
Aren't you getting tired of repeating the same old Republican lies?
"As for the VA, my father was a veteran and had cancer. His treatment at the VA hospital in Portland, Oregon was so poor that we moved him on our own money to St. Vincent hospital."
I don't know when this happened, but since Bill Clinton rescued the VA from the deliberate incompetence imposed by the Reagan administration, it has been the segment of our health system with the highest approval rate.
And let me point out that you utterly failed to answer my major point: government paid for health care is massively, overwhelmingly more efficient than that provided by health insurance companies. This fact alone reveals the deceit inherent in your arguments.
UPS and FexEx are more efficient than the postal service
False. I use FedEx & UPS quite often in my job. They have lost several packages that included payoff checks. They are wildly expensive. Sometimes that "next day air" I pay extra for doesn't make it until the 2nd day anyway, and that's across town.
As for the USPS: I haven't had lost mail in years. We get netflix. We get 3 discs at a time, 2 - 3 times a week (no, we don't watch that much - Mr. Bee copies stuff and we watch it when we get time). We've been getting netflix for approximately 2 years now. Nothing has been lost yet. Nothing. 44 Cents to mail a letter to California from Virginia, and it gets there in 2 days. How much do you really, truly think that would cost with a private carrier like FedEx or UPS? Or how much would my retired parents who live in the middle of nowhere have to pay to send me a christmas card when I live 45 minutes away? A hell of a lot more than 44 cents. Let's start talking reality here, shall we?
The VA: Around 1992 or so, I had a good friend who worked at the local mall. Her husband was a Marine stationed at Quantico. They had a baby, and had to go on food stamps and WIC to feed themselves. They did not live extravagantly. In fact, their apartment was one step up from a slumlord's dream. He had one year left in the corps, but was planning to re-up so they could keep that shitty VA healthcare that was mentioned.
Heathen said: And finally, "people are given health care, food, education... that help us become a civilized society." I would argue that giving these things makes people more uncivilized.
Really? Who would that be, exactly? Those uncivilized persons on food stamps and who are managing to be educated - who would they be?
Let me clarify, I don't think I emphasized my point in the right way. I was not trying to say that those who receive health care, welfare, education, etc. are uncivilized. The emphasis should've been on the word giving.
I believe the act of giving it away makes our society less civilized. It fosters a culture of hand-outs, where people start to believe they have rights to health care, a good paying job, a roof over their head, and vacation time. The more we expect government to provide, the less we provide for ourselves, and the less civilized our society becomes.
Sorry for the confusion.
Heathen: Hard evidence, please. I get the feeling you are talking in "code" now. Please feel free to de-code for the edification of the rest of us. Who exactly are you speaking of?
I thought we were all debating opinions here. What hard evidence would you like for my opinions?
Perhaps a few anecdotes about my lost mail or a friend's husband's brother-in-law's cousin? I can't match your hard evidence.
Sorry if I've made it too complicated for you.
Green Eagle, my sincere apologies for not noticing that you said nothing of such laws signed and court-reviewed as being "constitutional", but rather only "legal".
That said, if a law is unjust, don't we as civilized and moral human beings have a right and an obligation to continuously petition our government until that law is overturned? Just because something is "legal" does not mean it is just. Plessy v. Ferguson and Roe v. Wade are just two pernicious examples of something that is legal but hardly moral or just.
As for food stamps being indicative of a private sector failure in your opinion, I would point out that if the government largesse, over-regulation, and over taxation (particularly on small businesses) was not so, there would be far more jobs and a whole lot less people needing to be on food stamps, so ultimately this comes back to being the government's fault.
When unions and government make it cheaper for big corporations to offshore their operations to cut cost, then small businesses that cannot follow suit are unable to compete and thus fail.
I've never understood the need for the left to impose such high business taxes anyway, as it hinders job creation and ultimately, we consumers pay for those higher taxes in the pass-through cost of the businesses products or services.
Social Security IS going broke by any objective standard. Do you know something the rest of the United States doesn't, sir?
As to your "point" of government-paid-for-health-care being more efficient than private insurance, I guess you can explain why Medicare is also going broke and why access for Medicare patients is getting tougher and tougher for them, especially as the government cuts funding on it in order to fund Obamacare and then provides further disincentives so doctors costs aren't even covered many times with Medicare patients.
Yes, that is wonderful efficiency.
In reply to T. Paine:
'That said, if a law is unjust, don't we as civilized and moral human beings have a right and an obligation to continuously petition our government until that law is overturned? '
Absolutely. Do you think that I don't think that the five Supreme Court justices who committed the greatest act of judicial corruption in American history when they saddled us with the criminal murderer George W. Bush should have been immediately removed from office and spent the rest of their lives in prison? But people stood by and did nothing.
"if the government largesse, over-regulation, and over taxation (particularly on small businesses) was not so, there would be far more jobs"
There is not one shred of evidence to support that contention- it is just one more piece of right wing cant.
"Social Security IS going broke by any objective standard. Do you know something the rest of the United States doesn't, sir?"
This is more conservative cant. I cannot go into the actual numbers here, but this is simply false.
"I've never understood the need for the left to impose such high business taxes anyway, as it hinders job creation"
One more example of conservative cant. There has never been any evidence to support this contention; in fact the real data that have been collected on this subject indicates that taxation has a negligible effect on job creation.
I've been having discussions with "conservatives" for over forty years now. It's very frustrating to hear the same baseless, self-serving claims made decade after decade. You really need to get in touch with reality; as it is,you are doing your little bit to destroy this country.
Mr Eagle, I hear a lot of "cant" in your retort. Your saying so, does not negate the truthfulness of it, sir.
Further, "taxation has a negligible effect on job creation"???? Please do provide the supporting documentation for this nonsense. I think even many Keynesian economists would recognize this as being factually challenged.
Oh, and by the way, SCOTUS simply made the Democrats abide by Florida state law in the 2000 recount when it was certified by the Florida Secretary of State that Bush did legally win the electoral votes for Florida. Otherwise, Al Gore and company would have insisted on numerous recounts until he got his desired results.
Heathen, you made the claim, you have to support it. I'm just providing small talk while I'm waiting for your evidence.
I still would like to know who the uncivilized folk are that you referred to. Sorry if that's too complicated a question for you.
The Heathen Republican said, "The only thing the government does well is the military."
The military is a very good capitalistic profit center. It's pumping over a $trillion a year into the pockets of Muslim contractors in the Middle East. The money it profitably pours into the UAE, Dubai and Kuwait allows our Muslim friends to expand the harems of child sex slaves, and to create demand for our military by funding terrorist cells.
Our military has proven that it can wage never ending wars, designed to maintain it's unending wars.
If only the Federal Government could exist and spend money, just to keep itself expanding and spending money like the military does,. Then it could be as an efficient a profit center as the military.
Of course the direct spending costs of the wars are only in the hundreds of $billions. This ignores that many Pentagon programs that are mismarked as civilian and the entitlement programs that give military families and veterans free and subsidized programs, pouring money from our pockets into theirs, efficiently through third parties that skim out profits.
"Military: Kills people and breaks things as efficiently as anyone else in the world. That's what we pay them for."
Why don't we do that domestically so that foreign contractors, won't funnel money back into international terrorism? We could have the military perform a campaign in a different American city each year, and pay domestic contractors to support our armed forces. then they money being skimmed off to keep the war justified, could fund domestic terrorism instead of international terrorism.
The Heathen Republican said, "UPS and FexEx are more efficient than the postal service. Both are profitable; postal service, not so much."
So you'd eliminate letter mail? I guess gas company could tack on a $10 charge for each bill, to cover the added expense of overnight Fed Ex delivery.
I think what you're saying is that Fed Ex costs more to deliver a letter, because it's more efficient. the more a service costs, the more efficient it is.
TP said, "When unions and government make it cheaper for big corporations to offshore their operations to cut cost, then small businesses that cannot follow suit are unable to compete and thus fail."
Starting with Reagan, both parties have systematically created an environment that makes offshoring cheaper. They have instituted programs where the government pays businesses to leave the country.
They did this because the top corporations wanted this. Big business wanted this. The bankers wanted this.
As you pointed out previously, corporations are made of people and they deserve a vote too. They voted for offshoring.
How is it that on this issue you're suddenly anti-corporations and anti-business? DOW and DuPont for instance, knew that future natural gas supplies in the USA would be insufficient for their needs, so they lobbied for the US Government to pay their expenses to leave for Asia, where supplies have not yet peaked. And because the get a vote in Congress, they were granted a subsidy to leave the USA and to pay for construction of factories in Asia.
Everything you're bitching about, are programs designed and developed by big business, to enhance their profits. Why are you all anti-capitalistic all of a sudden?
China is big business friendly. It's highly Capitalistic, because everything business and the government does there is to chase money. Like you, they don't care about domestic welfare or the environment. That's why Chinese workers kick our butts, making $35/week. That's why the pollution is thick and the water quality is poor. Why the dolphins in the Yangste river are extinct.
Heck it's Bush that removed most of the Math and Science from our schools. In his no child left behind policy. He made science an elective and many schools then dropped it because it's too expensive.
When you're ready to drop your pay to $35 a week, I might quit calling you a hypocrite, hypocrite. If you hate domestic welfare so much. Then why are you part of the problem? Why are you expecting health care at all? The Chinese don't get real health care unless they are wealthy.
When you start talking about eliminating modern health care in the USA, by bringing us down to Chinese standards, I'll accept that you're heart is really in this argument.
Or is that what you want? Chinese wages and magical health care remedies, provided by a neighborhood shaman, for you and your family?
If you guys, T. Paine and Heathen Republican hate America so much, why don't you leave for a country that reflects your beliefs? Say China for instance?
You conservatives will approve of this news.
Rolling blackouts here in Texas. The new stadium is exempt from the black outs for security reasons to protect property.
Hospitals are supposed to be exempt, but the local hospitals are reporting that their power is getting cut anyway.
The stadium is not reporting any power problems.
Oncor (A Bush family business) has got their conservative priorities straight. Property is valuable. Humans are expendable.
Weasel, you have no idea what conservatives do and do not believe. When you say things like this, you demonstrate that you can't be taken seriously... in anything that you say.
"Further, "taxation has a negligible effect on job creation"???? Please do provide the supporting documentation for this nonsense."
Try this; it's the first thing I ran across:
I reiterate: There is no evidence to support the Conservative contention that cutting corporate tax rates does anything to increase job creation. In fact, the historical evidence shows that the periods of highest job creation have often been those with the highest tax rates.
Now, as to the Bush "election-" I am not even going to get into an argument about that. Even ignoring the 3000 or so Jews in Palm Beach county who "voted" for Pat Buchanan, or the far more serious tens of thousands of black voters who were systematically and illegally eliminated from the voting lists by Republican operatives, or the several thousand heavily Bush leaning military votes which were counted despite their not conforming to clear Florida law, it is still clear that Gore won this state. Deny it all you want- you only show your disregard for the truth.
The Heathen Republican said..., "Weasel, you have no idea what conservatives do and do not believe."
I think you may be right. Conservatives are constantly telling us what they believe. Most of the time though, I think you're all lying about it. As soon I start asking questions about the beliefs that you and your cohorts express, the story starts changing, morphing...
I've had a number of conservatives here an on other sites say that liberals make the worst terrorists, because they vandalize property.
Now when I compare the worst class of terrorists, as defined by conservatives with Timothy McVeigh who's crimes aren't nearly as bad as liberal breaking windows, I'm left wondering how this works out.
Timothy McVeigh destroyed a building. That's got to be worse than spray painting one I would think.
So how do we reconcile the horribly evil liberals that are spray painting buildings, with the more benign right wing terrorist, Timothy McVeigh who's crime is more acceptable to conservatives.
I can think of two reasons.
1. Timothy destroyed a Federal building. But this doesn't fit really because liberals are also condemned as the worst, most evil terrorist ever for vandalizing government buildings.
2. Timothy killed a lot of people including a lot of children.
And that must be it. Conservatives are clearly more disgusted with liberals, because liberals don't have the guts to kill people in their attacks. This makes them contemptible and for more evil, when compared to Timothy McVeigh or the Unabomber, who weren't afraid of slaughtering people in their war against the liberals.
You yourself want to cut programs for the disabled and the elderly. you approve of massive foreign spending going straight into the pockets of America's enemies, but want most domestic programs eliminated. You've expressed a love and admiration for the destructive and slaughtering power of the US Military, You clearly don't place much value on human life. But you love the idea that your tax dollars are being used for genocide in foreign lands.
You're an open book dude. You are a good Republican.
Government revenue and corporate profits are always highest when the Republicans are blowing financial bubbles.
Our owners know these bubbles will pop and they use the media, to support the installation of Democrats to take control, when the bubbles are popping.
This helps polarize the population, and gives the two parties the appearance of control and legitimacy.
We're on our last bubble now though. And that's the Fed running a money printing bubble.
It's be interesting to see what happens when this one pops. We'll likely get a conservative in power and move to a full blown military state, as the Heathen Republican seems want. As he's argued, the military is more efficient than our civilian government. Perhaps he'd feel better if the military ran our schools, City Halls and grocery stores?
Weasel, I am really tired of you mischaractrizing me and what I think. Your attributions of all manner of evil things to conservatism and what I specifically support are bogus and grotesque.
Your "facts" are always specious at best and counter-vailing arguments supported in fact are ignored by you. For that reason, I really have no desire to debate with you any more. You are lost in a very sad and sick world, sir.
I actually pity you because I think you really do believe all of the drivel you accuse me and HR of supporting. Often times, I think you project too much, sir.
I want to come to the defense of Weaseldog. HR says:
"Weasel, you have no idea what conservatives do and do not believe."
Well, H.R. I do. I have followed conservative talk radio since its inception in the 1960's, I have read many of the prime conservative propagandists, and I read several dozen conservative blogs daily, to report on them for my blog.
I do not think Weaseldog has been unreasonable at all in his characterization of the thought processes that lie behind many conservative doctrines; in fact if anything I feel that he has been overly fair in not suggesting that many conservative claims (such as the one I dealt with above about tax rates and job creation) are not beliefs at all, but just cant intended to allow them do whatever serves their short term interests.
In any event, I cannot believe that any fair person could not see that Weaseldog's remarks are benign pats on the back, compared to the endless conservative characterization of Obama and liberals in general as communist, terrorist loving, Hitlerian traitors. I suggest you do a little looking at the beam in your own eyes, for a change.
Perhaps, in a gesture of fairness, we should confine our remarks to the people participating in the conversation here instead of unnamed conservative bloggers and radio personalities. No conservative on this page has called Obama or liberals "communist, terrorist loving, Hitlerian traitors."
The so-called tolerant progressives here have broadly mis-characterized and name-called all conservatives.
-Costume party clowns
Weasel has said, and Green Eagle has defended, awful things, mis-charactering our statements and repeated name calling. We
-Are contemptible and evil
-Want a military state
-Lie about what we believe
-Cut programs for the disabled and elderly
-Don't place value on human life and humans are expendable
-Love that tax dollars are used for genocide
In contrast, the few conservatives trying to participate in the conversation have avoided name calling, personal attacks, and mis-characterization. We're big boys and we can handle it, but why must you resort to name calling and personal attacks?
Are you unable to debate the issues at hand based on the merits of your argument against ours?
Oh... I guess that's why you resort to personal attacks.
Heathen Republican, I often say that the new definition of a "racist" is someone that is winning an argument with a liberal.
You correctly allude to hyperbole and mischaracterization, but resort to both yourself. It happens. You are correct, “no conservative on this page has called Obama or liberals "communist, terrorist loving, Hitlerian traitors." But neither have we “broadly mis-characterized and name-called all conservatives”. The “unnamed conservative bloggers and radio personalities,” as you put it, are relevant to our discussion because you and your fellows on the Right repeat, and embrace, so much of what they say. The fact remains the propagandists like Beck and Limbaugh have powerful voices enabled by corporate media that have always demonized, or “mis-characterized” if you prefer, liberals. Obama is called a communist by the teabaggers and a racist by Beck, and everything imaginable by Limbaugh. He is a corporatist. People like us are in fact treated like communist traitors by the propagandists. We resent it, and refuse to allow this hate and dishonesty to go unchallenged. And as it is with the incidence of violence, hate speech is far more pervasive from the Radical Right. Note that I do not call them conservatives, for they are not. They support every bit of the corporatist agenda and promote further changes to the status quo that transfers more wealth to the wealthy at the expense of public services, standard of living, and jobs that made ours the society people wanted to live in. Even illegal immigration is down because the collapse of our system is becoming clear. This is not conservatism or liberalism bringing us to ruin. It is plutocracy of the economic elite. The elite are doing better than ever. The rest of us are not. They pay less taxes than ever. They whine more than ever, and have the tea cult and propagandists calling the taxes they pay “punishment” and “tyranny”.
We’ve seen the reality of tax cuts for the rich, corporatist legislation, and trade agreements. Since Reagan Big Money has been calling the shots and the results are what we see today. It cannot be any more obvious to see the ideology of the Right means failure and ruin for the middle class and society in general. Liberals have not been in charge of Washington DC for over thirty years. Yet radical Righties have to blame someone, don’t they? Yes, it’s all the fault of commie Liberals, unions and the “less civilized”, isn’t it? This is what reeks of intolerance. This is the dangerous hateful scapegoating that the Right has in store for those of us who disagree with the Mammonites, corporatists, militarists, and fascists of the American Right. In contrast, Amish are the real conservatives.
I’ll tell you what I think. It is because of a long campaign of indoctrination of a belief system, of “principles”, that conforms to the avarice and agenda of the economic elite. The Right values corporate interests over the interests of the people. Corporate money has become “free speech” that corrupts our politics and destroys democracy in our government. What part of this don’t you get??
Your opinions are one thing, but you present them as facts without any evidence. This leads to circular and contradictory claims that are very easy to mischaracterize.
We know from Beck and Limbaugh that Obama is the real racist, right?
T. Paine, NP, you can just tell lies and change your position anytime you like. Being a conservative means never having to defend what you said yesterday.
Heathen Republican, when you were praising the military for it's efficiency, and talking about shutting down civilian programs because they were inefficient, you were lying, right? You didn't really mean that, right?
One thing you were praising with clear admiration was how the Military efficiently slaughters people and destroys civilizations. Were you just joking?
I am sorry to waste space here, but I am upset about the implication of "unnamed bloggers and radio personalities," so here is a very partial list:
Radio personalities from the 60's that I was familiar with:
Right wing political radio hosts from the 1960's:
Gerald L. K. Smith- nearing the end of his career but a seminal influence on the character of right wing talk radio.
Rev. Carl McIntyre
Dr. Stuart McBirnie- two of the early figures in the injection of political content into what had been, until the late 50's purely religious broadcasting
Melvin Munn- Lifeline- sponsored by the Hunt brothers, perhaps the forerunners of today's Koch brothers, and the first major example of rich people financing self serving radio propaganda
Current Radio Hosts I monitor:
and a number of others
Some of the right wing blogs I read regularly:
National Review Online
World Net Daily
Riehl World View
and quite a few others.
Just to make it clear that I meant what I said. This is a corporate financed sewer of hatred and lies, and something that every American should be ashamed of.
a lot of new work was funded by gov back then. moat of i think.
“We had to struggle with the old enemies of peace - business and financial monopoly, speculation, reckless banking, class antagonism, sectionalism, war profiteering. They had begun to consider the Government of the United States as a mere appendage to their own affairs. We know now that Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob.” Franklin D. Roosevelt – 1936
The trouble with "conservative" thought is it's not so much thought as beliefs. We really don't know what they think, but we know plenty of what they believe, or want us to believe.
Beliefs they clearly don't hold are those of shared prosperity and responsibility along with the principles of democracy.
They are Golden Rulers; those with the gold make the rules. They believe the economic elite are entitled by a sort of "divine right of wealth" to dominate our government and politics.
Don't you know prosperity will magically "trickle down" like the Reaganites promised? I guess we'll have to wait until after the rapture for that to happen.
In the meantime, in response to Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill’s objections to new tax cuts and deficit concerns, the infallible Dick Cheney said "Reagan proved deficits don’t matter. We won the midterms (congressional elections). This is our due." A month later, Cheney told the Treasury secretary he was fired.
So we can rest easy. Deficits only matter when a Democrat is in the White House, I guess.
The Big Dick also said in 2003, “The President's tax policy [has] put money back into the pockets of the people who earn it. We think that's been vital to avoiding an even deeper recession. We think it's been crucial, as well, to getting the recovery underway. We've been able to cut rates. We've been able to reform the double-taxation of dividends and improve the treatment of capital gains, significant expensing for small businesses. That's where all the jobs get created. Those reforms are key to long-term economic growth.”
Nothing but jobs, jobs, jobs, ever since, right? What more “proof” do we need?
Maybe the problem is we just don’t “believe” enough.
FDR was called a Communist for that too. Some things never change.
Well Dave, you sure have simplified things for yourself.
1) You know what I believe better than I do.
2) Whatever I say I believe, I'm lying.
3) There's no point in having these little discussions because even when I can prove an argument logically or with facts, I'm disguising what I truly believe.
I have to give you credit; at least you've found a way to never be wrong in a debate. Anything that I say simply validates your own worldview. You've created your own disprovable hypothesis, like global warming. Extreme weather, hot or cold, is used as evidence that global warming is real.
Anything said by someone on the radio or on the fringe right, you'll take as evidence against all of us. Anything said by a typical conservative, you'll take as our ability to lie, deceive, and hide our true motives.
And here I was looking for an intellectual challenge to see if the principles I believe in hold up to debate. Your method is so much easier.
While I understand simplification can be beneficial as in Occam's razor, your conclusions mystify me. When did I say I know what you believe? I remarked about what the propagandists, and their “true believers” want us to believe. “We know plenty of what they believe, or want us to believe.” You told ME what I think, remember? Projection is the term for this.
I’ll never say you are lying when you state a belief. When belief is presented as fact, then I will call it as it is.
“Anything said by a typical conservative, you'll take as our ability to lie, deceive, and hide our true motives.” Paranoia is the term for this. I refer to the radical Right, not “typical conservatives”.
If you don’t want the economic elite to control our government, you haven’t indicated it at all. Your words reflect their message and complete support for their policies.
BTW, according to NOAA, each of the 10 warmest average global temperatures recorded since 1880 have occurred in the last fifteen years. But I guess you can disprove that logically with facts from Rush and Beck. They are the ones who say snowfall disproves climate change. More projection.
If “debate” is what you seek, I’m more than happy to engage. Just remember, there can be no real debate without mutually agreed upon definition of terms and presentation of evidence. Exchanging unsupported contrary assertions is mere disagreement, and does not constitute debate.
I must be very dense. What exactly did you prove by logic and facts? Show me the evidence or reference, please.
I notice you still ignore Bee’s request to name the “uncivilized people”. Feeling trapped by that belief?
Someone here argued that shutting down hospital power doesn't cause any problems. I won't name that person because they'll just argue they didn't say that....
Here's a rebuttal...
Jorie Klein runs disaster management for Parkland Hospital, and is still upset that her hospital was included in the rotating outages. “We were not happy,” she said. “You can’t just go down for 15 minutes and come back up. It really does disrupt hospital care.”
T. Paine, I really don't mind you lying or insulting me. that;s just the kind of person you are. People like you who tell lies, usually get mad and defensive, and start playing the victim card when they get caught. I understand the process you engage in. I don't take it personally.
Post a Comment