Wednesday, July 27, 2011

One More Thing

I want to apologize for my lapse in passing this along. Our new friends Fred and Jed at the Fred and Jed Radio Show on Blog talk radio were gracious enough to invite me onto their show for an interview. You can hear the archived recording.

They are live at 5:30 pm Central on Saturdays. They're great gentlemen and there's a lot of humor in their show.

Thanks, guys. Hope to talk with you all again soon.

74 comments:

S.W. Anderson said...

Good for you, Dave Dubya; that's cool. I haven't got time right now, but I copied the link and will stop by there when things are a little less hectic.

Just the Facts! said...

Dave,

Good luck and best wishes on this new show biz venture of yours!
Will you be taking questions from the audience?

Dave Dubya said...

SW,
Thank you.

JTF,
No, an interview is when people answer questions from interviewers.

Jefferson's Guardian said...

Dave, congratulations on your debut under a new medium. Nice interview, and may there be many more! I listened to the show last night. You definitely have a face for radio. ;-)

By the way, you mistakenly referred to the infamous (and fallacious) Supreme Court case of 1886 as Santa Clara County v. Union Pacific Railroad. You're half right. It was actually the Southern Pacific Railroad. You recently presented it as Union Pacific on this blog, so thought I'd let you know. Not surprisingly, not one conservative called you out on it. I guess this proves they have no desire to learn the genesis of corporate personhood. Again, this shouldn't be unexpected. You can lead a horse to water...

As far as your simple-minded friend who followed you over from Tom's blog, he can't help it. After all, he's...well, simple minded.

Just the Facts said...

Oh, that's too bad. Do you know how I an get some questions to the interviewers to ask you? Sounds like that would be fun!

Dave Dubya said...

JG,
Oops. Yes, Southern Pacific Railroad was the "person". Two out of three SCOTUS decisions aint too bad for winging it live. Thanks, I knew that, but I er, mis-wrote and mis-spoke. Facts are important, so thanks for the correction. BTW, Union Pacific eventualy took over Southern Pacific in 1996.

True, despite the Righties fondness for crowing about their knowledge of history, they really don't know as much as they pretend to know.

No wonder, real history does not conform to their belief system.

Neither does Thomas Jefferson, "I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial by strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country."

Jefferson's Guardian said...

Dave, I knew you knew it. Even before you mentioned that Union Pacific absorbed Southern Pacific in 1996, I figured you may have been a railroad aficionado. Thus, the reason for your saying that.

By the way, my dad was a railroad modeler and enthusiast. I think some of that stuff stuck. ;-)

Dave Dubya said...

JG,
I like trains and planes(WW I and WW II aviation) and all, but I'm really more a freedom aficionado.

I'm also a music aficionado,(guitarist) which has been suffering due to my time spent with freedom rants. I just got an upright bass to plunk on. Woohoo!

free0352 said...

"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not."

"I am not a friend to a very energetic government. It is always oppressive."

"Most bad government has grown out of too much government."

"Were we directed from Washington when to sow and when to reap, we should soon want bread."

"I think myself that we have more machinery of government than is necessary, too many parasites living on the labor of the industrious."

"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have ... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."


Jefferson, maybe you should listen more to your idol and name sake.

Just the Facts! said...

Man is not free until government is limited

Dave Dubya said...

JTF,
That's why we have the Bill of Rights. We will not be free with unlimited corporate control of govenment.

free0352 said...

It doesn't matter who controls government, obviously someone is... You just seem butt hurt it isn't you. I don't really care who wields the most influence. I know corporate powers donate money and buy add time. I don't care. "Regular people" can oppress me just as easily as a rich person can. I like a small government, because you can never be sure the people running it are safe, but you can insure they can't fuck your life up with a small government.

Dave Dubya said...

Free,
Neither you nor I want to be oppressed. Politicians who ignore the will of the people to serve big money will not mitigate the possibility of oppression, especially in a government that operates as a huge corporate/military empire.

Just the Facts! said...

Free from control of government is what I want. Free from govt telling me I have to wear a helmet when I ride a motorcycle. Free to allow Ellis and you Dave, to smoke dope when you want to. Free from a govt that tells farmers they must have a CDL if they are going to drive a farm tractor on their own farm. Free from a govt that would tell me who I must hire. Free from a govt that tells me that my kids must learn in school things our family disagrees with. Free from a govt that tells me giving 30% of my income to them in the form of income tax, is not enough. Free from a govt that has fools like you who beleive the problem is corporations. Free from a govt who makes promises like cradle to grave care, but can't afford it.

Jefferson's Guardian said...

Free0352, addressing me, you said...

"...maybe you should listen more to your idol and name sake."

I do. He also said, "By a declaration of rights, I mean one which shall stipulate freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom of commerce against monopolies, trial by juries in all cases, no suspensions of the habeas corpus, no standing armies. These are fetters against doing evil which no honest government should decline." ..........Thomas Jefferson to Alexander Donald, February 7, 1788, Papers, 12:571 [emphasis my own]

The above was in response to Mr. Donald's (actually, Mr. Madison's) inquiry as to what rights Jefferson felt should be included in a presupposed "bill of rights". He wrote this while Minister to France. Unfortunately, for both him and the nation, Mr. Jefferson's ideas weren't all included in the final draft. If they were, I'm confident the we wouldn't have the confluence of government married to big business as we do today, and we certainly wouldn't be having this discussion.

By the way, please define "small government". Or, if you prefer, the alternative, "big government". In my mind, it has never adequately been termed or defined by the Right.

free0352 said...

Small government is a federal government that provides for the three houses of government, settles matters between the states, provides federal courts and law enforcement, and provides for the national defense.

Big government does more than that.

Just the Facts! said...

JG

Define the difference between "sharing the wealth, raise taxes on the rich, and spread the wealth" around and

"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs".

Jefferson's Guardian said...

Free0352, you replied (and I thank you) with...

"Small government is a federal government that provides for the three houses of government, settles matters between the states, provides federal courts and law enforcement, and provides for the national defense."

Can you show me a nation on this planet where this definition of small government is in place, practiced, and where the population thrives?

S.W. Anderson said...

Jefferson's Guardian, I notice Free0352 conveniently omits the Constitution's general welfare clause and the laying and collecting of taxes.

You asked free: "Can you show me a nation on this planet where this definition of small government is in place, practiced, and where the population thrives?"


The question is a good one but too broad. If you specify "among modern industrial nations" he'll be hard put to find even one.

Such states exist, but they tend to be small and special cases. For example, oil-rich Kuwait needs only a very small, limited government. That's because the rulers share the oil wealth so citizens can afford whatever services they want. There is virtually no poverty, little crime and much of the menial work is done by foreign guest workers.

If you stop to think about it, Kuwait is a good example of Molly Ivins' line, "We all do better when we all do better."

free0352 said...

I notice Free0352 conveniently omits the Constitution's general welfare clause

... can doesn't mean should

and the laying and collecting of taxes.

... again, can doesn't mean should. Just because you are allowed to spend your life savings, doesn't make it advisable. Jut because you can tax doesn't mean you should take as much as we do - just like just because the congress can borrow legally doesn't make it a good idea.

In short, Government has done what it does best. Its gotten carried away, and has done WAY TOO MUCH of a good thing.

Can you show me a nation on this planet where this definition of small government is in place, practiced, and where the population thrives?

Yes, you're living in it. America got on just fine prior to your tax and spend ways and it will get on just fine without them. In fact it will get on better. You progressives haven't progressed us, you've regressed us back to feudalism.

Jefferson's Guardian said...

Free0352, you replied with...

"America got on just fine prior to your tax and spend ways..."

Oh, yeah, so when was that? Would you care to elaborate?

...and you continued with...

"You progressives haven't progressed us, you've regressed us back to feudalism."

Interestingly, the Left feels exactly the same way about the Right. If it's feudalism you're truly concerned about, welcome to our side. The power of the ruling class (the aristocracy, or what's known today as the corporatocracy) has always been a thorn in the side of the Left, based upon the the exploitation of the peasants (or, the working class of our times, and now, more and more, the middle class) and the citizens at large.

Gee, Free0352, you seem to be changing your tune. I'm glad you're finally waking up to the exploitation of the masses by the wealthy elite. Next you'll be calling for unionization by the working class -- as a response to this despicable abuse by the rich and powerful.

T. Paine said...

I don't know about Free, but I am content with being in the Middle Class, as long as the government will stay within the boundaries of my guaranteed Constitutional freedoms and stop unduly confiscating my income to make me a part of the poor class.

I haven't had a dollar confiscated from me by a corporation yet that I didn't voluntary choose to give it. I cannot say the same for the government.

While I don't have a problem with private sector unions per se, I won't be one of those conservatives wanting to unionize with Jeff's Guard.

free0352 said...

The difference Jefferson between Libertarians like me and the left is you silly lefties think Government is going to free you from Government.

That don't make no sense there bubba.

Jefferson's Guardian said...

Free0352, you're definitely confused, or you're just not comprehending. Government is manageable when corporatism isn't leading with their banner. I don't know why this doesn't sink in with conservatives. I guess you just refuse to see it.

Under our system of government, the government is you -- We the People -- but, I concede, it has been hijacked by "special interests" (i.e., international banking cartels in addition to multinational corporations). These "special interests" are calling the shots; writing the legislation, writing the tax laws, determining acceptable pollution ranges, etc., etc. They're not created out of thin air by our legislators and/or career civil servants. They're written by lobbyists representing these special interests. You claim to have a degree in political science. Why don't you know this?

If you got your wish -- minimalist government as you've conveyed already -- the problem with special interests would still remain. That wouldn't shrink one bit.

Better hold back on the "bubba" labels, big boy. You're the Kansas plowboy, not me. ;-)

T. Paine, you naively said...

"I haven't had a dollar confiscated from me by a corporation yet that I didn't voluntary choose to give it. I cannot say the same for the government."

Bullshit!

Read my response above to Free0352. Oh, you pay alright! You pay dearly...

free0352 said...

Under our system of government, the government is you -- We the People -- but, I concede, it has been hijacked by "special interests"

When did that happen? 2000? No. 1980? No. 1865? No.

This is not a new thing. Not even close. Government is ALWAYS the tool of the powerful, hence to maximize freedom you neuter the tool.

Why don't you know this?

I know it, where we differ is I accept it as normal. Really, when isn't it? I don't care what other people do, so long as I don't have to pay for it and it doesn't bother me. A weak government can't bother me and doesn't cost much, while as your name sake Jefferson tells us

A government powerful enough to give you everything you need is also powerful enough to take away everything you have.

So whose naive now?

People have tried the benevolent state a billion times. 100% failure rate - however you can always trust people to care for themselves. Call me cynical, but I trust me far more than I do anyone else.

You're the Kansas plowboy, not me.

Actually I was born in NYC and grew up all over... I'm just stationed here ;)

free0352 said...

Let me ask you -

What if instead of writing legislation we start repealing it?

If Special Interest manipulates pollution levels, what would it mean if no one did?

If our entire tax policy consisted of one paragraph, how could special interest use it to their advantage?

Just the Facts! said...

Enjoy!

PRINCETON, NJ (Gallup) — Americans’ political ideology at the midyear point of 2011 looks similar to 2009 and 2010, with 41% self-identifying as conservative, 36% as moderate, and 21% as liberal.

If this pattern continues, 2011 will be the third straight year that conservatives significantly outnumber moderates — the next largest ideological bloc. Liberalism has been holding steady for the past six years, averaging either 21% or 22%, although notably higher than the 17% average seen in Gallup polling during the early to middle ’90s.

Longer term, the Gallup ideology trend, dating from 1992, documents increased political polarization in the country. The percentage of moderates has fallen to the mid-30s from the low 40s, while the combined percentage either liberal or conservative is now 62%, up from 53%.

Jefferson's Guardian said...

Free0352, you asked or stated...

"What if instead of writing legislation we start repealing it?"

What if? You tell me.

"If Special Interest manipulates pollution levels, what would it mean if no one did?"

If government imposed (but corporate written) "parts-per-million" laws were reduced to, well, something on the order of what the Chinese government permits, we'd go back to this, this, this, this and this. Wouldn't you say? Unfortunately, corporations write and pass the laws that allow them to pollute the commons in a way that's not as noticeable to our five senses (unlike the Chinese examples), but just as unhealthy and toxic to the environment. Those economic externalities, rarely if ever taken into account as an internal cost to a company, can be deadly.

"If our entire tax policy consisted of one paragraph, how could special interest use it to their advantage?"

Good question. Here's another: If the Bible (as an example) could be reduced to one word, how could religious extremists use it to their advantage?

"Actually I was born in NYC and grew up all over..."

Well, we have two things in common. That's a start!

free0352 said...

What if? You tell me.

I think we would be a lot better off.

corporations write and pass the laws that allow them to pollute the commons

Then if it's going to happen any way why have a bunch of laws that get selectively followed?

If the Bible (as an example) could be reduced to one word, how could religious extremists use it to their advantage?

I don't really care, I'm an atheist. However, while I don't go to church I do pay taxes.

Well, we have two things in common. That's a start!

I remember it as a shit hole. Then again I didn't live in a nice neighborhood.

Jefferson's Guardian said...

Free0352, you replied...

"I think we would be a lot better off."

In what way? Define "we".

"Then if it's going to happen any way why have a bunch of laws that get selectively followed?"

You missed the whole point, completely ignoring my statement about economic externalities. There should be absolutely zero emissions; no pollution, etc., etc. Otherwise, the corporation should lose its charter and license to operate -- like it used to be during the early years of this nation.

I don't really care, I'm an atheist. However, while I don't go to church I do pay taxes.

Mine was purely a rhetorical question. I don't really care either. As far as taxes, yes, I pay them also. We all do. That's part of the social contract of living in a civilized society. So,what's your point?

One other point I'll make in closing: It's my opinion that as a member of the military, you're a drain on the resources of this country. You're more a part of the problem than being a part of the solution. And I might add, you're hypocritical for your anti-government and anti-tax rhetoric, while living off the government dole. My question is this: How do you reconcile this in your mind? (I know, I know, you're serving your country so that we may be free, blah, blah, blah... What a crock.)

free0352 said...

In what way? Define "we"

The American people, in every way you can imagine.

There should be absolutely zero emissions; no pollution

That is unreasonable and impossible. Zero? You as an individual don't even meet that standard.

That's part of the social contract of living in a civilized society. So,what's your point?

That the tax code is made diliberately over complicated to provide benefit to some and handicap to others. A single paragraph would be hard to be abused or misunderstood.

It's my opinion that as a member of the military, you're a drain on the resources of this country

Agreed. We produce nothing.

And I might add, you're hypocritical for your anti-government and anti-tax rhetoric, while living off the government dole.

I disagree here, I certainly work for it. I'm a government employee, and WE ARE ALL DRAINS on private society. Some of us are necessary, such as Soldiers who protect this country. Others are not, like just about any member of the Department of Education which... do nothing.

It's all about deciding what priorities the federal government should have. Take my job as a professional Soldier away, and you won't enjoy it long. You'll be drafted. Now take away the jobs away at say... The FEC or the EPA. No one would even notice.

I'm not an anarchist, I'm a libertarian. In short, a professional military is a cost effective, necessary evil. Probably 65% of my fellow government employees are not only evil, but much more so unnecessary and therefore a total waste. I suspect you think living in a love, peace and happiness world is an option if we just didn't do this whole military thing.

It would be funny to try your idea for a day, assuming the country would survive.

free0352 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
free0352 said...

I think you need to study your namesake a bit more jefferson,

Look up the Barbary Pirates war. This is not the fist time we've fought Libya you know?

It seems President Jefferson new the value of a small, professional, expeditionary force that could secure commerce and battle Islamic terrorists.

"Immediately prior to Jefferson's inauguration in 1801, Congress passed naval legislation that, among other things, provided for six frigates that 'shall be officered and manned as the President of the United States may direct.' … In the event of a declaration of war on the United States by the Barbary powers, these ships were to 'protect our commerce & chastise their insolence

*Ghasp!* Tomas Jefferson using the Navy and Marine Corps to protect American corporations! How can this be!? On his FIRST day as President no less!

Marine First Lieutenant Presley O'Bannon led a mixed force of eight United States Marines[19] and 500 Greek, Arab, and Berber mercenaries on a march across the desert from Alexandria, Egypt to assault and to capture the Tripolitan city of Derna. This was the first time in history that the United States flag was raised in victory on foreign soil. This action was memorialized in a line from the Marines' Hymn—"the shores of Tripoli."

Wow, Jefferson hires a professional military force with no less than the Black Water of the times to secure corporate assets and sea lanes. Hmmmmmm sounds like I don't know... the same job we do in the military today. Jefferson sounds a lot more like George Bush than you pal ;)

It seemed Thomas J lived in the real world. You should try it.

T. Paine said...

Free +1. Can't stop laughing, once again.

Jefferson's Guardian said...

Free0352, you replied with...

"The American people, in every way you can imagine."

I don't think so.

"That is unreasonable and impossible. Zero? You as an individual don't even meet that standard."

Certainly, why not zero! It's not unreasonable and "impossible". If not possible, the corporations committing the infractions should have to pay society for the emissions and pollution spread upon the suspecting, the unsuspecting, and the environment. As far as the "pollution" each individual emits, by virtue of the fact he or she is a living organic being, it is negligible compared to that of manufacturing's negative externalities (which, not surprisingly, you continue to evade answering through diversion of the conversation). But, of course, I see. Since you consider corporations to be persons, equal in every way to that of human persons, I can see the reasoning behind your argument -- as fallacious, insincere, and in bad faith as it may be.

"I disagree here, I certainly work for it. I'm a government employee, and WE ARE ALL DRAINS on private society. Some of us are necessary, such as Soldiers who protect this country. Others are not, like just about any member of the Department of Education which... do nothing."

Of course! Not unlike anybody else, you justify your job, exaggerate its importance, and claim you work yourself ragged. I wonder how a person working within The Department of Education would respond? (Not really -- the same way, I suspect.)

"...Jefferson hires a professional military force with no less than the Black Water of the times to secure corporate assets and sea lanes. Hmmmmmm sounds like I don't know... the same job we do in the military today."

As far as Libya, I don't recall bringing that up as a topic. But, since you seem to think Mr. Jefferson was a militaristic type of guy, you're dead wrong. As I already mentioned, he was adamantly against
standing armies
(although he did see a reason to maintain a strong naval force), and as also mentioned, he was against monopolistic powers in commerce. But, nice attempt on your part in diverting the conversation. ;-)

Seems I have more in common with Mr. Jefferson than you thought. And, just as yesterday, you're still a drain on society.

T. Paine said...

Jeff's Guard, the primary difference is that Free and those in the armed forces are provided for CONSTITUTIONALLY in our budget.

While a reasonable argument can be made that the Department of Education also should be included due to the general welfare clause, I would argue that these functions are far better served and at much lower costs on the state level.


The federal government is a drain on society almost by definition. That doesn't mean that many of its functions aren't necessary and reasonable. It also doesn't mean that many more of its functions aren't unreasonable, extra-constitutional, and redundant and should be completely cut accordingly.

I find it interesting that you imply that one of the clearly constitutionally delinated functions of our government (armed forces) should be eliminated while many of the utopian extra-constitutional crap should be funded and seemingly celebrated.

free0352 said...

All Jefferson wanted was a Navy? What were amphibious Marines doing then in the Sahara Desert? Not much ocean there. Securing shipping lanes for American Corporations is what they were doing, and they were right to.

As for standing armies, All government jobs drain society, however mine prevents you from being drafted. America made a choice, draft or pro? They went with professionals because just one of my volunteer pro's can fight better than ten draftee amateurs and they actually want to work there. That way, when we need to do things like secure shipping lanes today like we are in the straits of Aden, we have my pros instead of random teen agers plucked from the street with a rifle thrust into their hands. I would hope you would not suggest that coruse of action...

You don't have to like it, you still get to enjoy the benefits of it.

As for zero emissions or pollution, that's impossible. Of course a huge factory can't do it... you can't even do it and you're one guy, not 5000 employees who are building something.

I greatly fear for our liberty should we allow the powers of government too much authority in matters of commerce, which is the backbone of self government.

Thomas Jefferson.

free0352 said...

however Jefferson, Kuddos on being the only honest liberal who can admit he hates the military.

Except when he needs them ;)

Just the Facts! said...

Liberals like JG, define economic justice as taking money from those that will not vote for liberals and giving that money to people who will.

Dave Dubya said...

Liberals like JG, define...

Righties like Just The FOX(R) must unilaterally, and inevitably, define, or redefine terms, or even define a differing opinion of others, in their OWN way, in order for it to conform to their indoctrinated view. Ask one to show you a Death Panel. I’m sure it’s out there with all those jobs created by the Bush tax cuts. We’ll see even more of those jobs after the next round of tax cuts for the rich. Yesiree, you betcha.

Free from a govt that tells me that my kids must learn in school things our family disagrees with.

Righties like Just The FOX(R) detest and distrust public education. Those socialist teachers might tell their kids the Earth has been around longer than six thousand years. Or that Obama is not a Muslim and is a natural born US citizen.

Teachers should be fired for that there commie liberal nonsense. Let’s have a REAL professor like Glenn Beck tell us the story about how evil those progressives are. Those fools hate America so much they don’t trust corporate lawyers to write our laws, and they want their silly de-mock-ra-cy back, too.

We’ll teach them.

You betcha.

free0352 said...

Liberals need an "other" to explain why their policy is failing, miserably. You can't admit the failure. So it's "Fox(R)" or "the corporations." What it is, is a pitiful lack of collective accountability. The left gave us this mess these last four years... quit blaming others for your mistakes.

Just the Facts! said...

Must really suck to find out that less than 30% of Americans polled call themselves liberals.
Even after all of the spreading the of wealth/from each according to his ability to each according to his need. Must really suck.

T. Paine said...

Dubya, I don't have a problem with teachers exlaining the THEORY of evolution etc to my child. It would be nice if they would also teach the theory of intelligent design in contrast to it though.

What I do have a problem with is the health classes where my junior high schooler practices putting condoms on bananas or teaching my kindergartner that "Heather has two mommies".

What the hell does a five or six your old know need to know about sexuality, even homosexuality?

Respect for all absolutely should be taught, but we don't need to bring such political issues into our classrooms to our grade school kids most of all.

Jefferson's Guardian said...

Free0352, you said...

"They went with professionals because just one of my volunteer pro's can fight better than ten draftee amateurs and they actually want to work there."

Wrong, they went with professional killers because the outrage and dissent from draftees and their families created too much attention, placing a spotlight on the M-I-C and the permanent and perceptual wars it feeds. Seeing body counts on the nightly news didn't go over well, especially when the bodies were of those who didn't have a choice. But, as far as you, you have the choice. If you get your ass shot up, the public could care-a-less. You're recognized to be just another willing tool in the state's permanent war economy.

"I would hope you would not suggest that coruse [sic] of action...

and...

"You don't have to like it, you still get to enjoy the benefits of it."

Unfortunately, I'm afraid a return to conscription may be the only solution to breaking the permanent war economy's back. I suspect that if professional killers, in lieu of draftees, were in Vietnam from the onset, we'd still be fighting there.

I don't enjoy any benefits from permanent and unnecessary war; only the international banking and multinational corporations cash-in, while the American public flips the bill.

"As for zero emissions or pollution, that's impossible. Of course a huge factory can't do it... you can't even do it and you're one guy, not 5000 employees who are building something."

That's the fallacy with capitalism when it's practiced without taking into account the negative externalities as a true cost of building or providing a product. These costs shouldn't be borne of the unsuspecting public or the environment. If Company A's effluent is carcinogenic, and a disproportionate number of people within that effluent's pathway come down with cancer, that company should have to pay -- and pay dearly. (Actually, they should have to pay, anyway, because they're altering the environment in a negative way.) As a matter of fact, since they're already deemed to be "persons", criminal charges should be brought against executive management, the board of directors, in addition to the stockholders. After all, they're appendages of the corporate person's body.

however Jefferson, Kuddos on being the only honest liberal who can admit he hates the military. Except when he needs them..."

I don't hate anyone, much less those in the military. That's a domain held by professional killers, like yourself, who kill for the sake of killing. As far as war, however, yes, I do hate war -- especially when it's of the permanent variety and waged just so a minority of elites can line their pockets. I haven't needed, nor have any wars been waged that have benefited me, since the last legitimate war we fought of the last century. Just the opposite, they've cost me, and they've cost my country -- greatly!

Dave Dubya said...

Free,
I don’t recall “liberals” making any policy at all over the past thirty years, let alone over the past four years. You can’t admit the failures are due to corporate written trade agreements, job killing tax cuts, unfunded war, and Bush’s Medicare “reform”. The left did none of this. Democrats helped, but they are not leftists. They are corporatists. You want to blame Obama? What has he done that the left wanted? Your Heritage Foundation/Romney care? Stimulus that was 40% tax cuts? Escalation in Afghanistan? Not one of these are what liberals wanted.

Yes there’s a pitiful lack of collective accountability. The corporatist Republicans and corpodems have given Wall Street and corporations everything they wanted and more. Now they act like a bunch of crybabies because their chickens are coming home to roost.And above all, they don't want to pay for the consequnces. That's for the little guy to pay through "austerity".

You can’t accept the simple reality that millionaires, billionaires, corporate judges and corporate lawyers have formed public policy that has failed miserably. Why does government fail us? Because it is not ours. It belongs to the highest bidders. Guess what. That aint me, or any liberal I know.

Like fascists, the Right must create scapegoats. They need to blame liberals, since it is no longer politically correct to blame Jews and Black people, not that there aren’t plenty of diehards who still do.

JTF,
You like those stats, don’t you? They don’t mean anything, though. You see, I call myself conservative when it comes to our Bill of Rights. In fact, most people are conservative in many ways. That does not mean we like the corporatist policies of the radical Right.

Most voters voted for Obama, remember? Enough moderates understood the need to keep Republicans out of the White House. Most people want Social Security and Medicare. Most people think the rich should pay more taxes. This is why you hate democracy.

TP,
Whose theory of intelligent design do you want taught? Yours? Mine? Jerry Falwell’s? Native Americans’? Hindu’s? I’m all for education in comparative religion, just not religion as science. Let them teach the scientific theory of intelligent design as science, and religious theory in religion.

I don’t know anyone who wants to teach five year olds about sexuality. They do need to know about wrongful touching by strangers, though, right?

Birth control and same sex adoption are realities that should be taught at an appropriate age as factual aspects of our society, and not regarded simply as political issues framed by the Right.

"Heather has two mommies" is part of teaching respect for all.

Just the Facts! said...

Remember when we were told the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare)would not cut Medicare payments?
Guess what? That was the truth if the supporters of Obamacare meant the money given to the patient. HOWEVER,
starting this fall Medicare payments to nursing homes operators will be reduced by billions of dollars in federal funding this fall as part of an overhaul of Medicare.
From the St. Louis Business Journal August 3, 2011 the following was reported.

"The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services on Friday said it planned to reduce Medicare reimbursements to skilled nursing facilities by $3.87 billion, or 11.1 percent, starting in October, in response to a flaw in accounting that occurred last year when, to calculate reimbursement rates, the agency placed patients in groups based on the degree of services needed. The move unintentionally (really, unintentionally?) spiked Medicare payments by 16 percent, or $2.1 billion, from the last half of fiscal 2010 to the first half of fiscal 2011." Humm, nice timing, increasing payments in "error" right before the 2010 elections. Too bad it didnt workas planned in the election.

Socialism, liberalism, Big Government, failing America since 1932, strikes again. Another reason why liberals do not want a balanced budget amendment.

And who will suffer due to this "unintentional error"? The senior citizens who were feed a line of libtard bull shit that Obamacare would be good for them and the evil Republicans were trying to cut their Medicare and S.S. And those SEIU members who work at nursing homes can expect lay offs due to this.
And this after a 500 point drop in the stock market, that we were told would happen if the debt limited was not raised?
Wake up people, this current government is out to make you totally depend on them like the 52% of Americans who do not pay federal income taxes already are.

Dave Dubya said...

Just The FOX(R),

It is amazing how you ignore facts and cling to your indoctrination. Just like a Moonie clings to Bush family friend Sun Myung Moon's cult indoctrination.

Socialism, liberalism, Big Government, failing America since 1932.

Now there you go again. I already educated you once, or twice, on how FDR restored jobs after the Great Republican Depression hit after their market crash of '29.

Don't worry, be happy, the economic disparities between the haves and have nots is back to 1928levels. Your wish for the good old days of 1930 will soon be granted now that we have no Democratic Party to undo the GOP damage.

T. Paine said...

JTF, it is pointless to try and show the light to a blind man, my friend. To them, facts and unadulterated history is merely propaganda that are given to us in the form of talking points by Rush Limbaugh via the RNC. Just like Michelle Obama said, the left needs to re-write our history in order to lean forward and move us in that utopian Marxist direction.

Speaking of which, I saw that condescendingly insufferable Rachel Maddow doing a PMS-NBC commercial the other day. She was standing in front of the Hoover dam and was extolling the virtues of the Greatest Generation because they built such infrastructure. It occurred to me once again that this is one of the main differences between progressives and conservatives. She thinks that our parents and grandparents building roads, dams, and other various government-funded projects is what made them the Greatest. It doesn’t seem to occur to her that many of them put their asses on the line and indeed died fighting a horrible evil in Hitler’s Germany, Hirohito’s Japan, and Mussolini’s Italy. The sacrifice that these courageous folks made was not because they had jobs and built stuff. It is because they fought fascism and all of its associated evils so that she and people like Jeff’s Guardian can say that the military has done nothing for them and spout their silly rhetoric today without fear of government reprisal.

"I suspect that if professional killers, in lieu of draftees, were in Vietnam from the onset, we'd still be fighting there." Jeff's Guard, you are absolutely entitled to this ridiculous opinion and your loathing of all of those "professional killers" in the military, even though it is fallacious, disgusting, and pathetic and strikes me as a throw-back to the anti-war dope-smoking, hate-America hippies from the 60's and early 70's.

Unfortunately it would seem that the Greatest Generation’s only major fault was in spawning the spoiled, un-appreciative, and certainly ignorant Baby Boomer generation. One only needs to look at what most of the Baby Boomers have wrought with our country compared to what their parents did to see the truth of the matter.

Just the Facts! said...

Dave,

Just what the heck does your response have to do with my post? It's just another example of how liberalism has failed since 1931.
Its still failing.

Dave Dubya said...

TP,
Michelle Obama said the left needs to re-write our history in order to lean forward and move us in that utopian Marxist direction? Care to show us where? This is yet another example where radical Rightists love to call liberals commies. Just like fascists did...and still do.

So saying “condescendingly insufferable Rachel Maddow doing a PMS-NBC” is cool. Just don’t say anything sexist about Laura Ingraham or Ann Coulter. That would be hateful. One could see a person blinded by hate would suggest Maddow is unaware of World War II while mentioning public works projects and jobs.

Distraction is as vital as hateful rhetoric for the Right.

”Anti-war dope-smoking, hate-America hippies’ sounds just like pro-war, militaristic, liquor drinking, Republican haters of fellow Americans that did nothing to them.

Thank God for Hippies. Otherwise we’d have thousands more dead Americans in Vietnam, no recycling, more pollution, and nothing but twangy hillbilly music on our airwaves. And they do make great non-violent scapegoats for right wing fanatics, too. The radical Rightists love having someone, other than liberals, to feed their politically correct hatred. Peace and love are not American values to the Right. Cracking skulls and throwing non-violent people into prison are more in line with their values, I guess.

The Greatest Generation voted for FDR and Truman because they remembered the Republican market crash and depression. The “facts and unadulterated history” are what Rightists ignore in favor of Limbaugh and Beck hate talk. See M. Obama, Maddow and hippie references. Hate, hate, and more hate.

Just The FOX(R),
Read it again, and maybe you can see it is clearly referencing your previous post, and your recent one as well. I even italicized your words.

FDR lowered the unemployment rate of Americans. Fact. American infrastructure was built thanks to government jobs and funding. Fact.

Who’s gonna rebuild anything at all when nobody pays taxes in your Right Wing utopia?

Well?

free0352 said...

Unfortunately, I'm afraid a return to conscription may be the only solution

Ah yes, because returning to forcing minorities and the poor into uniform and feeding them into a meat grinder with little or no training and poor equipment is a suitable alternative... in your twisted world maybe. Yeah, that sounds like freedom baby. Nothing like institutional slavery to make the left happy.

who kill for the sake of killing.

You may not be aware, but we don't spray and pray and shoot everything that moves. We have the most restrictive rules of engagement of any armed force in human history. You'd know that if you weren't a huge hippie. Stop taking your ques from International Answer propaganda, you sound like a child.





I don't enjoy any benefits

You remain alive. The fact that you have no conception of how many people want to kill you is a testament to my success at my job.

and pay dearly

Translation: We should take the American standard of living and flush it to live like savages. No thank you.

Just the Facts! said...

Dave,

What has your post have to do with the current version of the New Deal?
Or how the New New Deal(from now on in my posts will be called NND) is destroying Medicare?

Do you ever address the news of the day with a response of the day or do you always bring out your old FDR defense? Or are you saying FDR was not a liberal?

"Who’s gonna rebuild anything at all when nobody pays taxes in your Right Wing utopia?" Dave, I hope your sitting down, but your quote is the line of reasoning that goes like this in the liberal mind.

All money is Governments. Private Citizens get to keep some of it that the Govt lets them keep.
If government doesn't spend the money it takes in then nothing gets done.
Our economy is best driven by what the govt taxes and then spends.

Ok, so you want to claim that govt must spend money it collects in taxes and Govt needs to raise taxes so it can spend more to build things. Right?
Then what happened to the $740 billion dollars the govt spent in 09 & 10 to jump start our economy with all those "shovel ready jobs"?
What is left to "build"?
Or is it like Obama himself said "I guess there weren't as many shovel ready jobs out there as we thought."
Pretty damming confession and you want more stuff built with increased taxes? Please.

FDR and lowering unemployment, two things, how did WWII effect unemployment?
And this speech quoted quote from Henry Morgenthau's Diary, May 9th, 1939 Roosevelt Presidential Library…

“We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent and it does not work. And I have just one interest, and if I am wrong…somebody else can have my job.
We have not made good on our promises… I say after 8 years of this Administration (FDR) we have just as much unemployment as when we started…And an enormous debt to boot!”

Note this speech was 1939, and the Secretary of the Treasurer (Morgenthau) states unemployment is the same as it was 1931.
When did WWII start, 1941. And when did unemployment levels start to drop? Like was it after 1939?
According to Morgenthau it must have been.
Closing note, or disclaimer, nothing from FOX News was used in gathering these FACTS. So don't start blaming my source, cause it's the frigging FDR Library!

free0352 said...

Dave,

I don’t recall “liberals” making any policy at all over the past thirty years

Have you been on the moon since 2006?

Like fascists, the Right must create scapegoats.

Fox(R), "corporations maaan" yeah, we know something of scapegoats for failed policy.

You can’t accept the simple reality that millionaires, billionaires, corporate judges and corporate lawyers have formed public policy that has failed miserably

I accept it just fine. I suggest we start taking care of our own selves instead of the pitiful serfdom we get from Government. Government will NEVER change. People can always be trusted to take care of themselves. It's that simple. You solution seems to be "more government" and then you have the audacity to be shocked when it bites you in the ass... time and again. I can just picture you, on election night 2008 thinking everything is finally going to change. It didn't did it? It's like an abusive spouse, you're just going to have to learn to leave the bastard Dubya - it will never stop hurting you.

BTW, We know what you mean when you talk about income diparity.

As for Hippies, all they gave us was Aids, drug dependency, a 60% divorce rate that caused us to grow up in day care centers, and generational debt my generation will be paying off till the day we die. Your generation are like economic pediophiles. Stop raping us. No means no.

Jefferson's Guardian said...

Free0352, you replied with...

"We have the most restrictive rules of engagement of any armed force in human history. You'd know that if you weren't a huge hippie. Stop taking your ques from International Answer propaganda, you sound like a child."


Yeah, right
. Here's a quote: "According to The Guardian correspondent Brian Whitaker in 2003, 'To some in the Arab and Muslim countries, Shock and Awe is terrorism by another name; to others, a crime that compares unfavourably with September 11.' Anti-war protesters in 2003 also claimed that 'the shock and awe pummeling of Baghdad [was] a kind of terrorism.'"

They hate us because of what we do to them, whether it's stealing their resources by way of
leveraging
, or, next, by force through militaristic adventures. You'd feel hate for your oppressors, too, if the shoe were on the other foot. Sounds to me like a vicious cycle; you're contributing to instilling that hate, and then you claim I need you so that hate doesn't pounce upon me. Bullshit.

That's funny -- you calling me a hippie. I live in a home in the suburbs, I've worked in the business world in management positions all my career (not a drain on society, as you would claim, and, ironically, as you are) and I don't do drugs. Try again, Army freeloader, but diverting the conversation doesn't take me off the trail of your inaccuracies and misconceptions. Now, if you please, answer my question about corporate economic negative externalities. How would you, as an avowed libertarian, address this? Quit ignoring the question.

Oh, one more thing, you thought I "sound like a child". That's interesting, because I quit playing army man when I was about ten years old. You never outgrew that and became an adult.

"Translation: We should take the American standard of living and flush it to live like savages. No thank you."

The American standard of living has eroded ever since Ronald Reagan took office over thirty years ago, but you have nothing to compare it to. You were in diapers then. Listen, we both fear the same outcome -- the systemic and systematic destruction and deconstruction of the middle class (the working class already has been) -- although we differ greatly in our ideas about the reasons this is occurring. I think you're partly right, but you're still only looking at half of the equation. While you're chasing and blaming obsolete Marxist and communist boogeymen, fascism, in the form of corporatism (or as Dave has labeled it -- "Corporatist Republicanism"), is tearing this country apart. Until you figure this out, the slide will continue and escalate -- especially as Republicans steer the ship. At least with Democrats in power, the descent isn't quite as steep and we can buy a little more time before we're reduced to total economic serfdom.

Jefferson's Guardian said...

Free0352, you had the audacity to say...

"It's like an abusive spouse [government], you're just going to have to learn to leave the bastard...it will never stop hurting you."

No, wrong again. The abused spouse is you...the government ("by the people, and for the people"...remember that?), taken over and run by corporate interests. You still haven't come to grips with this, have you?

...and then you said...

"BTW, We know what you mean when you talk about income diparity [sic]".

Yeah, but do you know what it's like to have grown up in the 1950s and 1960s? Neither does this guy. But I do.

That's when income disparity was, if not the lowest, close to it. It's also when the marginal tax rate was at its highest. You wouldn't know this -- you weren't here. However, this guy does, and he wasn't here either. But he was smart enough to figure it out. Are you?

Just the Facts! said...

Jeff Guard,
So you believe it is the duty of Government to unsure there is no
"income disparity"?

Interesting, from each according to their ability to each according the their need".

RedStateFred said...

Jefferson's Guardian,

it sure is funny watching you get bitch slapped here! you must be the only marxist in the world who associates himself with Thomas Jefferson! keep me laughing JG.

free0352 said...

They hate us because of what we do to them

Who is "they?" I've lived in Iraq, Djibouti and Afghanistan. I've been to Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Dubai and Kuwait. That wasn't my experience. People "over there" aren't mindless robots. They have their own thoughts and opinions. Some do hate us, some don't. I will tell you this, if my alternative were the Taliban or Saddam's Baath party I'd be jumping for joy the minute US tanks crossed the boarder. I've seen what real oppression looks like first hand, it ain't pretty.

That's funny -- you calling me a hippie.

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck it must be a ______?

Now, if you please, answer my question about corporate economic negative externalities. How would you, as an avowed libertarian, address this? Quit ignoring the question.

Free market alternatives, market deregulation and letting prices work. Keynesian economics perverts economic incentives and provides the fatal conceit of capital circular flow which perverts corporate actions. It failed in the past as it fails today. The answer is conservative spending by government, a stable currency, and removal of the toxic element the state produces in the market - the absence of which will let the system heal itself organically, I would also like higher interest rates to encourage thrift and savings, which are the backbone of economic stability, not consumption and credit - for both public and private sectors. As a result of this course of action, economic opportunity and vicariously raised standard of living will result for all income levels - though this won't and never can under any system be uniform in nature. Income disparity is irrelevant, provided all classes of income increase net worth.

Happy now?

You wouldn't know this -- you weren't here.

I can read.

The American standard of living has eroded ever since Ronald Reagan took office over thirty years ago,

You mean the Ronald Reagan who presided over the second largest economic expansion in US history? We should be so lucky to see that again. As opposed by Jimmy Carter who presided over the third largest recession in American history... which until current leadership was the second largest behind... FDR and his prolonged Great Depression... I fear Obama will unseat his record as economic failure well.

Just the Facts! said...

free0352 ,

When you read or hear, "The American standard of living has eroded ever since Ronald Reagan took office over thirty years ago," just understand that is liberal code for fewer Union jobs. In the minds of liberals the only real job is a union job.

Dave Dubya said...

Just The FOX(R),
So you’re not only an expert on liberal thinking, you’re also an authority on our standard of living and jobs? Good. Can you tell us where all the jobs are that were created by the Bush tax cuts? Don’t bother trying. We all know it’s a Right Wing lie. They proved to be job-killing tax cuts. Thank you for suggesting the “liberal code” reflects reality.

I asked, “Who’s gonna rebuild anything at all when nobody pays taxes in your Right Wing utopia?”

Your response was a typical distraction and evasion with your re-definition of my “liberal mind”. To top it off, you add the ludicrous question, “What is left to "build"?

Are you really that ignorant? Do you truly think our entire infrastructure is just exactly perfect, and nothing needs maintenance or rebuilding? You are very stupid if that is what you think.

Do you also think I’m foolish enough to waste time responding to all NINE of your questions when you refuse to answer ONE of mine?

You don’t have to answer any of the preceding questions, just the following one.

Tell me, who’s gonna rebuild anything at all, or for that matter, pay for your wars, when nobody pays taxes in your Right Wing utopia? If you answer this question, I’ll answer one of yours.

Your spin on Morgenthau is exactly what FOX(R) does. Your “reading” of the FDR library is also exactly as limited as FOX (R)’s “reading” would be. I bet you got it from FOX(R), either directly or indirectly.

I will spell it out for you...again.

FDR reversed the Republican unemployment numbers every year of his first term. Even after he made the mistake of caving to the GOP, the rate never did go back up to GOP levels. He even added jobs after the 1938 dip that count as still being gains before the war.

1933 - 24.9%. Thanks a lot GOP. 1934 – 21.7%, 1935- 20.1%, 1936 – 17%, 1937 - 14.3%....Wow! Down 10%! Way to go, FDR, “traitor to his class” and great progressive leader for our people. But then he compromised under the GOP’s relentless pressure. No! 1938 – 19.0%. Ah. Thank God he stopped listening to those corporatist goons...1939 – 17.2%

I will repeat this just on the off chance you absorb it. The unemployment rate NEVER went back up to GOP levels. No matter how hard you wish it happened, whatever way you imagine it happened.

You obviously ignored this when I wrote it last month so you will probably ignore it again. I’m done repeating myself due to your complete inability at reading comprehension.

Dave Dubya said...

Free,
Where have you been since 1980? Where have you been before, and since, Liberalism has been demonized by the radical Right, and the government and media have been corporatized as never before? What you’ve seen in your shorter lifetime are the results of all this. You grew up in Reagan World. Yes, he’s the president who turned us into a debtor nation from a creditor nation. But according to your hero, and person you believe to tell the truth, Cheney said, “Reagan proved deficits don’t matter”. Right, but only when a Republican is in the White House. Pure hypocrisy.

You’ve seen only the decline of our national prosperity. You have never known a liberal government. The “Reagan Youth” generation will help the Right complete the destruction of our democracy and economy.

”People can always be trusted to take care of themselves. It's that simple.

That, of course, is dishonestly simplistic. People get sick and injured. Soldiers get wounded, don’t they? Will the free market treat them? No. This is where sociopathic libertarians show they have the compassion of reptiles.

So, why couldn’t the Iraqis be “trusted to take care of themselves”? More hypocrisy.

You’re playing the fascist hate card again, scapegoating hippies for giving us the Reagan/Bush/Obama debt. Very lame. You sure do know everything about hippies, though, giving us drug addiction and a high divorce rate. Limbaugh is one of the hippies that quack just like that duck of yours. I guess that means you hate Rush, too? Such hypocrisy is always displayed by the radical Right. Thank you.

Freddie,
Thanks for the red-baiting. Nice to see another democracy-hating fascist in the peanut gallery.

Anonymous said...

For years we have been working under the premise that liberalism is a perspective or a point of valid view. I think we must now come to the conclusion that we are wrong and have been wrong. Liberals and leftist doctrinare personalities are more likely to be very sick people.

After many years of dealing with these people, I almost find liberalism and drug burnout to be deceptively parallel. Something is very wrong with these individuals, and the first and foremost sign is that they do not understand that they do not comprehend standard logic, specifically, their positions in relation to reality. They tell fabrication after fabrication, and then use those twisted untruths as a foundation for further development. The result reminds me of psychosis. Therefore, there is no way anyone can have an expectation of reason with these people.

Just the FOX(R) Impersonator said...

What the socialists do not and cannot get is, we trust them even less than we do the corporations, and we see socialism as the bigger threat.

Socialists ignore, if not deny outright, their history, we do not. In fact, they won't even acknowledge they are socialists, preferring to be called progressives. They would point to the fact that the government has not taken over the means of production, even though the drive is to central planning and control. And so what of this distinction? The end result is the same. The difference is the government would get the rewards while the business owners would be stuck with the risks and the costs.

Just the FOX(R) Impersonator said...

The 'liberal/progressive' mindset goes back to Russeau and the beginning of nihilism of western values.

Their mob mentality includes the bloody French revolution which was an example of class envy and hatred for morals. The entire class of wealthy as well as all Christian priests and church officials were murdered, dismembered and their bodies displayed amidst cheering by the mobs. Our government schools failed to teach anything truthful about that massacre.

Mobs are never about rational intelligent thought; they are powerful, though, as evidenced in the Russian revolution and Mao's war on traditional Chinese values, as exposed in the biography of three generations of a Chinese family, "Wild Swans". Mobs have always been used by would-be tyrants in Latin America.

free0352 said...

Liberalism has been demonized by the radical Right,

You know how it got demonized? Two words for you. Jimmy Carter. Two more words. Epic fail.

Yes, he’s the president who turned us into a debtor nation from a creditor nation.

Okay, lets stop borrowing money. No, I'm serious. Lets not extend the debt ceiling. You down?

You’ve seen only the decline of our national prosperity

I grew up in the late 80s and early 90s, THE MOST prosperous time in American history, which held the highest standard of living for Americans. As opposed to the wreckage of today, largely generated from 2006 to the present.

Thank you Progressives.

As for the 1930s, it was THE MOST economically tragic decade not only in US history but very nearly world history. If that's your idea of success I'd hate to see what failure would look like... but I think another four years of Obama (and misguided baby-boomer non-values) will show us at this rate.

Face it dude, the boomers will be looked upon by history as the most selfish and destructive generation America will ever produce. My grand children will be paying the debts you ran up before they were born. Talk about taxation without representation!

Way to go hippies.

free0352 said...

as for your numbers, lets take them at face value.

19% was the best he could do after nearly a decade? Is that supposed to be a funny joke?

LOL.

Liberalism is a Mental Disorder said...

Dave W

Obama was elected with only one mandate; focus on the economy like a laser beam. Instead, he launched into his grand ideological dream of transforming America into a Socialist state. While he did his social engineering with ObamaCare, stimulus money for unions and “green” foolishness, the economy (and jobs) went to hell in a hand-basket. Now he is paying the price. There is a reason Obama prefers the public sector; if he worked in the private sector he would have been fired by now.

Just the Facts! said...

Dave,

Amazing when FDR's policy's failed, you blame the GOP (the party NOT in power)instead of liberalism.
History shows FDR had more problem with his own party and the Constitution than ever he did with the GOP. You might want to study it some time.

Then Dave there is your classic libertard reaction to Mr.Morgenthau's quote. In typical libtard fashion you claim I put spin on a direct quote, simply amazing! How can anyone put spin a direct quote?
Instead of dealing with the quote and it's source, (your hero's library), you focus on how I could have found the quote much less read it. Dave, that is not a very winning argument on your part.

Dave, I'm going to see if you have ideas or solutions or if you're just a libetard Mina bird, repeating the latest talking point.

I'm gonna give you complete power to do one thing that would end our country's recession. There will be no Constitution, no GOP, no SCOTUSA, nothing to stop you from doing this just one theing.
What would your one thing be?

free0352 said...

What would your one thing be?

I'll help you out.

Step 1: Take rich people's money away.

Step 2: When that runs out, take the middle class' money away.

Step 3: Go bankrupt, and wonder what happened.

The end.

free0352 said...

I've got an idea, we could have full employment if we simply drafted 100% of the unemployed into the military. Hey, Jefferson likes the draft, it's a thought right? Then we could have a strong military, full employment, and nothing to eat.

Dave Dubya said...

Anonymous,
Magnificent projection. Limbaugh's drug burnout is just peachy though, right?

LIAMD,
Ditto. Magnificent projection in your moniker.

JTFI:
Since the other Rightists are babbling incoherently, seeming to have been short-circuited over the real FDR unemployment record and the utter non-existence of jobs resulting from the Bush tax cuts, I’ll give you a response.

Socialism is far less a threat to democracy than fascism, Corporatist Republicanism, and even your beloved French monarchy as well. So the French revolution was an “example of class envy and hatred for morals”? Beautiful.

You’re certainly one for history lessons there, professor. Abuses of the people by the monarchy and aristocracy were the seeds of the French Revolution. Of course, you and King Louis and Marie would prefer to call it “class warfare” by the peasants. Let them eat cake.

The difference is the government would get the rewards while the business owners would be stuck with the risks and the costs.

Unlike corporatist America where the public assumes risk so the government can cover Wall Street failures and fraud. Privatized profit at public expense is your ideology. Democracy is your enemy.

Moderates, Liberals, and yes, socialists too, love freedom and democracy, and support the rule of law and a Bill of Rights to protect the minority from mob rule.

I love how the fanatics of the radical Right need to conflate democracy with “mob mentality”, especially since Republican mobs were sent to disrupt vote counts in Florida. Why? Because the Right hates democracy.

Jefferson's Guardian said...

Free0352, after going into a meandering and mindless discourse about "free market alternatives, market deregulation and letting prices work", and totally ignoring, another time, my question about economic externalities, you asked...

"Happy now?"

Er, no, I'm not. You still haven't answered the question, even after I provided a Wikipedia link explaining the term and what it means.

I've pointed out the most obvious and most glaring pitfall of laissez-faire economics and have shot holes in your argument. As already mentioned, and as I'll remind you, the true cost of building or providing a product, under unregulated capitalism, doesn't account for negative economic externalities such as pollution (i.e., the introduction of contaminants into a natural environment that causes instability, disorder, harm or discomfort to the ecosystem or living organisms). These costs shouldn't be imposed on the public or the environment, for the benefit of the corporation.

So I'll ask, once again, how does libertarianism address this?

...then you stated...

"I can read."

Well, you can, but obviously you don't.

...and continued with this...

"You mean the Ronald Reagan who presided over the second largest economic expansion in US history?"

No, I mean the Ronald Reagan whose presidency kicked-off the escalating Debt-to-GDP ratio that conservatives seem to be so enamored with. That's the Ronald Reagan I remember.

Just the Facts! said...

Well Dave, your response of August 7, 2011 2:39 AM convinced me! I am, as you are, a liberal socialist, cause it's not as bad as something else.
Superior logic will do it every time.
Thanks.

Dave Dubya said...

Just The FOX(R),
Thank you for your best effort yet.