Monday, April 9, 2012

Projecting Stupid

Obama was recently mentioning the hypocisy shown by the radical Right with their desire to have the Supreme Court overturn the Affordable Health Care Act.

Remember when they complained about a contemptable "activist" Supreme Court whenever it disagreed with the Right? Remember when they whined about the terrible lack of "judicial restraint" from the Court?

Now add an "attack on Supreme Court independence" to their shrill squawking.

On Twitter, Chuck "Death Panels"Grassley wrote: "Constituents askd why i am not outraged at PresO attack on supreme court independence. Bcause Am ppl r not stupid as this x prof of con law."

We can only hope and pray the "Am ppl" are not as stupid as Mr. Death Panels and Sarah Palin.

From Politico:

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) is warning that Americans should be worried about an "end of life" provision in the House health care bill. “In the House bill, there is counseling for end of life,” Grassley said Wednesday during a town hall in Winterset, Iowa. “You have every right to fear. You shouldn’t have counseling at the end of life, you should have done that 20 years before. Should not have a government run plan to decide when to pull the plug on grandma.”

A rumor that the legislation will determine when older Americans end their lives is rampant at town hall meetings, propelled in part by former Alaska GOP Gov. Sarah Palin who warned the Democratic plan would create bureaucratic "death panels."

The House health care plan would require Medicare to fund voluntary end-of-life counseling sessions for older Americans. Grassley fueled -- rather than corrected-- the rumor at the packed town hall Wednesday morning, when asked about older Americans being "denied health care." “There are some people who think it is a terrible problem that grandma is laying in a bed with tubes in her, and that the government should intervene,” he said. “I think that’s a family or religious thing that needs to be dealt with.”

Yes, "you have every right to fear" all right, but not for grandma. You can fear for the future of our democratic republic. You can fear for our grandkids. You can fear the Republicans' war on democracy. You can fear the effects of the vile propaganda from ignorant liars and fear mongers like Grassley.

So, "Death Panel" Chucky, tell us please. Tell us where those death panels are lurking? Show your voters how smart you are compared to that "stupid" x prof.

Not that your voters care. Stupid is as stupid votes.

63 comments:

John Myste said...

I almost forgot, but

free0352 said...

I'm not sure why this is hard to understand. Judicial Activism is when The Court makes a right or law. Not when they strike one down.

I think the hypocrisy you're complaining about here should be around your own neck. Liberals love to defend the SCOTUS when they like them too. But lately you've been loosing a lot of cases so all of a sudden you're butt hurt.

Just the Facts! said...

"Not that your voters care. Stupid is as stupid votes."
And 2008 proved that beyond a doubt.

Jack Jodell said...

Conservatives lie about judicial activism just like they do with everything else. It's wrong until they're doing it.

Dave Dubya said...

Black's Law Dictionary defines judicial activism as "a philosophy of judicial decision-making whereby judges allow their personal views about public policy, among other factors, to guide their decisions, usu. with the suggestion that adherents of this philosophy tend to find constitutional violations and are willing to ignore precedent."

The Post is about an ignorant senator writing that a sitting president is stupid. I would guess that’s up there with “You lie!” being shouted during a State of the Union Address. Since when has this been acceptable?

I guess it’s a Right thing, huh? Or does it have something to do with having an African American president? Just wondering.

The Heathen Republican said...

Forget party, because each side always claims judicial activism when a ruling doesn't go their way. Let's try some basic principles that could apply regardless of party or ideology, and then none of us have to be hypocrites.

Judicial activism can be used to A) strike down a law or B) essentially write new law. Can we agree on that? C) Creating new precedent and D) overturning precedent is also acceptable and neither is necessarily "judicial activism." Can we agree on that? Otherwise, we are bound to 200 year old precedents or we can never undo bad court decisions of the past.

So arguing that overturning laws is always okay is not a rational argument. Similarly, saying that overturning any precedent is definitionally judicial activism is irrational.

I would define judicial activism as going against the plain language of the Constitution in supporting a law or overturning a law, or creating new law purely through interpretation of the Constitution.

If a law banning handgun ownership were upheld by the Court, it would be judicial activism because it violates the plain language in the Bill of Rights. Similarly, if the Court overturns a law that uses race-based criteria in college admissions, it is consistent with the plain language of the Constitution and not judicial activism, even though earlier precedents allowed such behavior.

The problem is that not all laws and not all cases before the Court can be supported or overturned based on a plain-language reading. Usually, you can ferret out the answer by listening to the attorneys on both sides. Those pointing to the Constitution are usually on the side of plain language, and those building lengthy chains of reasoning are not.

For example, the Roberts Court struck down parts of the Patriot Act because indefinite detention of U.S. citizens in the name of terrorism violates due process. The plain language of the Constitution supported overturning it, and those in the Bush administration arguing for the law had to contrive answers to explain the violation of the plain language.

In the case of the PPACA individual mandate, there simply is no plain language within the Constitution that allows Congress to require the purchase of an insurance product and enter into a private contract. The only justification requires lengthy chains of argument using the Commerce clause, the General Welfare clause, and the taxing power of the government.

In other words, in this case, overturning the law could be explained using the plain language of the Constitution (or lack thereof), which would NOT be judicial activism. Upholding the law would require complex arguments to justify the decision because there is no plain language support.

free0352 said...

Black's Law Dictionary defines judicial activism as "a philosophy of judicial decision-making whereby judges allow their personal views about public policy, among other factors, to guide their decisions, usu. with the suggestion that adherents of this philosophy tend to find constitutional violations and are willing to ignore precedent."

Dave,

There is no precedent in this case. The Obama administration is trying to call a fine a tax - the whole crux of their arguement. The Solicitor General couldn't even keep that strait during oral arguements. When the Solicitor General goes back and forth you know you're going to loose. It was a dog of a case for him. He's a good lawyer but he didn't have a legal leg to stand on. The Justices asked some very pertinent questions of him and he didn't have very good answers because... duh, this is a fine not a tax. The government can't fine you for not buying insurance from a private company. I read their legal brief, they can't win under current law and the Justices have no choice but to rule against the Federal Government as the law is written.

Tom Harper said...

Ever since 1994 Newt Gingrich and his fellow "Contract on America" nutzoids have been threatening to impeach (or worse) judges whose decisions they disagree with. These threats never got a peep out of their fellow rightwads.

But when Obama makes an admittedly clueless comment that it would be "unprecedented" for the Supreme Court to overturn Obamacare, all Hell breaks loose. Judging from the hysterical rightwing talking points, you'd think Obama had just declared martial law.

S.W. Anderson said...

Grassley long ago sacrificed any shred of decency and integrity he ever had to keep his precious Senate seat. I saw a news clip of that talk he gave about death panels and was outraged. It marked the completion of his transition from a center-right Republican who would sometimes work across the aisle to an all-out, anything-to-win conservative lockstep marcher.

Grassley kept his seat but at quite a cost. He's a cynical, selfish, sour old fart who's running in place, contributing nothing helpful or worthwhile to anyone but himself, his party and the GOP's big-money backers. Those voters he lied to about death panels? They're just tools, pigeons, his means to the end of keeping his seat. He's a disgrace to the Senate and to Iowa. His membership in the Senate insults the concept of public service.

Dave Dubya said...

HR,

You make some valid points.

Unfortunately constitutionally questionable provisions of the Patriot Act still remain, and adding the latest National Defense Authorization Act with more cover for indefinite detention continues down that over-reactionary course in dealing with terrorism.

Free,
I agree the precedent for mandating purchase from private companies is a shaky proposition at best. I think I recall back when the health care act was being drafted, more people were wanting to redo the package than were against, or for it. This is what happens when corporate fingers are in the process. Somebody sure likes the idea of channeling more money in their direction.


Tom,
Obama can’t do anything right in FOX(R) world. Remember “Obama’s hip hop BBQ Didn’t Create Jobs”?

SW,
You’re right. Public service is not what Republicans are about. Private profit at public expense is their ideological mission. While expansion of personal wealth isn’t an evil in itself, the toll on our society will be a poor trade off for the comforts of the few.

free0352 said...

Dave,

I think corporations love this bill because they can dump some of their health care costs on the tax payers and if you're a health insurance company... hell you'd LOVE this because the federal government just made it a crime not to buy their service. I think that would be a huge red flag for you that this whole idea is bad and Obama and Co. and Washington in general needs to go back to the drawing board.

Dave Dubya said...

I'm sure insurance companies kindly offered their help in drafting the mandate.

That said, there are certainly some very good provisions elsewhere in the law. Removing lame reasons for benefits termination like pre-existing conditions and other coverage issues are worth keeping.

I don't think the Supreme Court can strike down the entire law.

Believe it or not, a lot of people are helped by the law. It's not all about "oppression".

My annual physical is covered without co-pay now... I think. So far anyway. I like that part.

free0352 said...

I don't think the Supreme Court can strike down the entire law

You can't, but the law becomes unworkable. As for those who are "helped" by the law I kinda wonder who that is. Social Security and Medicare and Medicade covered those who couldn't work or just plain old people. That leaves the rest... people who are able bodied and can provide insurance for themselves through WORK. I don't have any sympathy for the people out there with no obstacles other than their own brains who can't provide basic needs for themselves. You may get a benefit, but someone has to pay for that. Physicals aren't free. Why should someone have to take care of you? Can't you do that for yourself? If the answer is: You can... then aren't you taking from someone else... by force of law?

Dave Dubya said...

If you really wonder about those affected, maybe a good place to start would be checking on people forced into bankruptcy by “free market” health care. Your simplistic summation leaves some huge gaps in the picture. But that’s fine. You’re not the caring type anyway.

A lot of people work damn hard and still cannot afford decent health care. I was lucky to have a good job with group health insurance rates. You’re right. My physical was not “free”. I just said there was no co-pay for that visit.

Insurance plans that allow for a physical without a co-pay are an incentive for preventive care, increasing the possibility of earlier detection of disease, better outcomes, and maybe even cheaper treatment as such. I hope you can at least see the financial practicality in this.

You and I can provide basic needs for ourselves. But you and I cannot provide advanced and expensive medical care. Most of us, faced with serious medical issues, are not wealthy enough to shop the “free market” of health care.

I’m with you on the mandate, remember? It’s not right, it’s not the solution we need, and it’s not even a good idea.

Jefferson's Guardian said...

Free0352: "...people who are able bodied and can provide insurance for themselves through WORK. I don't have any sympathy for the people out there with no obstacles other than their own brains who can't provide basic needs for themselves."

Spoken by someone with a cozy government job, with "socialized medicine" as a benefit. You obviously haven't worked in the private sector lately...at least since September 2008.

free0352 said...

Let me reiterate JOB. I have a JOB, as in I work. My insurance is in exchange for the very dangerous job I have. That's the whole idea behind work. You do stuff for someone, and in return for that stuff they give you stuff... like insurance.

You're not the caring type anyway.

I'm not the enabling type. I have zero problem holding people to basic standards. Why can't you do this? It's a basic principle in being a grown up.

A lot of people work damn hard and still cannot afford decent health care.

Hard work is irrelevant. I don't care how hard someone works. I care how smart they work and how productive they are. I have more respect for a guy who works 2 hours a day and produces more than some idiot that slaves 18 hours a day and produces less.

Most of us, faced with serious medical issues, are not wealthy enough to shop the “free market” of health care.

According to your own party's numbers, 10% of Americans are uninsured. That doesn't mean they don't get to go see a doctor, it means they don't have insurance. Most people... 29 out of 30 seem to be able to do just fine paying for medical care. If you happen to be that 30th looser and you don't have any mitigating circumstances... look I don't feel sorry for you. You need to man up and get with the program like the other 29 and stop feeling sorry for yourself and expecting people to pay for your failures.

Dave Dubya said...

As far as I can tell your "basic standards" and "basic principle" amount to "every man for himself".

Hard work should not be irrelevant. Providing goods and services are real jobs. They deserve real health care benefits.

As I said, you're not the caring type.

Or would credit default swaps be more to your idea of "producing"?

Good pay and benefits there. Is that your basic principle at work?

Dave Dubya said...

I'm not sure what "your own party" means, but according to the Census Bureau’s 2011 Current Population Survey (CPS), there were 49.9 million uninsured individuals in 2010, or 16.3% of the total population.

The percentage of people covered by employer-sponsored insurance declined from 56.1% in 2009 to 55.3% in 2010. This continues a steady decline over the past decade, from 64.1% in 1999.

From: http://aspe.hhs.gov/health/reports/2011/CPSHealthIns2011/ib.shtml

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

As far as I can tell your "basic standards" and "basic principle" amount to "every man for himself"

What other way should it be, "Every man for everyone but himself?" Nobody gets free anything. Someone always pays. Why should someone pay for services for a perfectly healthy, able bodied person? That's glorified stealing. It's what we're talking about when we say REDISTRIBUTION.

Life can be hard enough without having to be responsible for total strangers at my expense.

Hard work should not be irrelevant.

Lets play a game. You and I will enter a doughnut baking contest. Lets say you spend an easy hour making your doughnuts and they taste fucking delicious. I spend 20 hours slaving on mine and they taste like shit. No one cares how hard I worked, my doughnuts still suck. No matter how hard I work, they will never taste as good as yours. People will buy yours over mine. You win, I loose. That's life. Grownups live that life, children demand a participation trophy when their doughnuts suck - or insurance for "free" (paid for by the winners) when they lost. I would personally feel guilty as hell if I made perfect strangers pay my freight in life- too bad there are millions of people out there who don't feel the same and quite the opposite... think they are "entitled" to the fruits of my very hard work... which by the way pays shit because frankly selling derivatives for example is far more profitable than carrying a gun for a living. I don't cry about that, I accept the reality of the marketplace. Besides, I don't work here for the money.

Hard work my friend, is totally irrelevant. Take it from a guy whose held a shovel in his hand most of his life. There is no harder job than manual labor- and it pays crap. That's no accident. Bottom line is manual labor is just plain less productive and therefore less valuable than other jobs. Value is not intrinsic. Things are only worth what people are willing to pay for them, and quite frankly people are willing to pay more for a banker than a ditch digger.

Just My Two Cents said...

Obama's Income over the last 3 years

2009: $5,505,409
2010: $1,795,614
2011: $789,674

How many of you suckers bought that shitty book of his? The Community Organizer is laughing all the way to the bank like that fatso Michael Moore!

Dave Dubya said...

Irrelevant troll comments like this are not welcome. The next one will be removed.

Jefferson's Guardian said...

Free0352: "I would personally feel guilty as hell if I made perfect strangers pay my freight in life..."

Obviously, then, a shroud of guilt must totally envelop you, because I'm paying, as are millions of Americans, your "freight in life" -- and I don't like it.


"Besides, I don't work here for the money."

Well, hell no! How much could a gun-wielding foot-soldier make, anyway? Not much, I'm sure, but still way too much in my eyes. You're "putting in your time" ("working" would be doubtful) and waiting for that early retirement pension (something unheard of in the private sector) and all those beautiful government-supplied benefits (which include, obviously, great health insurance).

If you were true to your values, you'd be slogging it out in the private sector and carrying the flag of laissez-faire capitalism high and with pride. But you don't. You hide behind the curtain of an adequate federal government income and have contempt for others who do the same.

Admit it -- you're a hypocrite to the core.

Mauigirl said...

Free0352: "Bottom line is manual labor is just plain less productive and therefore less valuable than other jobs. Value is not intrinsic. Things are only worth what people are willing to pay for them, and quite frankly people are willing to pay more for a banker than a ditch digger." Yeah, that is what is wrong with our society. People who do nothing worthwhile being paid more than someone who does an honest day's work. If that banker needs a ditch dug, I bet he's damn happy to be able to pay someone else to do it. You won't see him out there doing it, will you? And how would he like to be a garbage collector? I don't think so. People who work hard doing jobs the white collar snobs don't want to have to do, deserve to at least have health care when their bodies fail and they can no longer do that kind of work! Your attitude, Free0352, is typical of the "conservative" mindset. You can still sit at your desk making piles of money by "investing" imaginary money in the lottery known as the stock market until you are old, grey and decrepit. Our friend the ditch digger won't be able to do that much after he's, say 50. What is your solution?

Just the Facts! said...

"People who do nothing worthwhile being paid more than someone who does an honest day's work. People who work hard doing jobs the white collar snobs don't want to have to do, deserve to at least have health care when their bodies fail and they can no longer do that kind of work!"

Mauigirl, Ah, what's to prevent the people you term as hard working, from doing what the white collar workers does to make a living? In both cases it was the individuals chose to do so. That being the case, why do you hold one person in contempt and the other in high regards, when both are doing what the chose to do? Why should either be responsible for the others health based on the way they decided to earn their income?

If the ditch digger wants to set aside part of income for more health insurance than is currently provided him by the govt, what is to prevent him from charging more for his service and setting aside the increase for future needs? No one is forcing him to dig a ditch for a living and no one is forcing him to charge the rate that he does.

Dave Dubya said...

Mauigirl,
Notice no information is offered by Just the Troll.

Don't bother answering Just the Trolls' inane, ill-informed and stupid questions. He demands answers from us, but will refuse to answer any of our questions. He epitomizes the radical Right’s arrogance, ignorance and double standards.

He loves to demean others' jobs, but is ashamed of his own menial job and social standing. He may not even have a job. It is quite possible he lives on government disability compensation. He refuses to say, so we must draw our own conclusions. He reminds us of the Tea Cultist with the sign saying, "Keep your government hands off my Medicare!"

He also seems to believe he'd be rich if not for the Democrats. That and virtually all the rest of the Right’s indoctrination.

Just the Facts! said...

DD,

There are no stupid questions, just stupid answers, as you have proven again and again.

I am sure Mauigirl has the full and total ability to respond to me without your interference. It's rather sexist of you to feel you have to come to a women's rescue, when she hasn't requested it from you. Mauigirl has a beautiful, well designed, well thought out website, that she runs without your help. I disagreed with her post positions and respectfully responded to same, by asking thought provoking questions about her position.

For the record, any mentally balanced person in reading the exchange between Mauigirl and myself, would be hard pressed to find any relationship to what you posted.

But I have come to expect that.

Dave Dubya said...

Just the Troll,
Of course, Mauigirl is free to speak for herself. She asked Free a question, not you. YOU butted in with mischaracterized and falsely premised questions. I was just pointing out your behavior. That is what speaks volumes about you.

We have come to expect that.

Just the Facts! said...

"YOU butted in with mischaracterized and falsely premised questions."

I butted in? On a blog, a poster is butting in, now there's a stretch of logic if there ever was one. I understand that, unlike you, Mauigirl can my handle my questions to her regarding her statement and doesn't need the big strong man to come to her rescue. I am sure that as an adult woman, she can handle my "falsely (you way of saying you don't know the answer) premised questions".
I knew you are a lot of things DD but I ever would have figured you for a Sexist.

Dave Dubya said...

Just the Troll,

One more time.

Yes, you butted in. Her question was not directed to you. (Which you did NOT even answer, by the way) Therefore there was NO exchange between you.

JG answered all your questions and asked you one or two in return.

Not only do you not provide information relevant to the discussion. You refuse to answer others and continue your lame little punk asshole contemptuous derision of an honorable profession.

Shall we start with what you do for a living that gives you such a deep perspective on others?

We await your answer.

If you refuse that simple courtesy, you are finished here.

You are a Troll in every sense of the word.

In fact, I will delete you from now on, unless you provide honest answers and respectful dialogue that you seem to demand from others.

Just the Facts! said...

Oh, go piss off.
Anytime my questions catch you in your liberal lies you claim the same thing, that I'm not being respectful, etc. Yet you continue to say this little punk asshole contemptuous, about me.
If you cant handle my standing up you to because I'm not one of your "wards of the state" who you control their every minute of their lives, and if the best is you can do is to delete me from you blog, then do it.
You will be less a man for doing so, but I've come to expect that from you.
So, go piss off!

okjimm said...

hmmmmm.... Just the Facts has turned into Just Piss Off....I would say, judging from his previous comments, he is merely adding credence to the saying, " never argue with idiots.... it is merely a lesson in futility"

Suzan said...

Dave,

Just Wanted To Say

that I really enjoyed your essay and the responses from your commenters.

Lots of insightful dialogue here. I always enjoy stopping by.

Let's keep it that way.

meh

Love ya,

S

P.S. Wish the insightful commenters had the funds available to the trolls.

Dave Dubya said...

Okjimm,
Yes, the entertainment value of idiots diminishes in proportion to the hate they spew.

Suzan,
Thanks. Yes, we can find some real information here amidst all the trollish distractions. I'm delighted to see one Just the Troll blew a fuse.

Just the Troll,
There, there young man. Calm down. No need to be angry or hateful.

We see you can't handle answering one little question. No surprise. We got your number.

You mischaracterize your trolling behavior as "standing up" to me. Nothing is further from the truth. You offer nothing to stand on, my poor deluded boy.

That's right, you offer nothing. No information, and no answer to my one, little, single question for you. You choose to offer nothing.

So that's what I would be deleting.

Nothing.

Except, "Go piss off!"

We'll take this as your final answer, and final talking point.

Quite fitting, actually.

I thank you.

free0352 said...

I think anyone who does't acknowledge we need a professional, all volunteer military in this day and age pretty much speaks volumes about how in touch they are with reality. Next he'll start telling us how Bush was behind 9-11 again, which also speaks volumes. Even the more extreme Liberal Democrats agree with the first and disagree with the second. What you have here isn't a political point of view but a probable diagnosis.

Any-hoo back on topic. You can cry about who should get paid what till your blue in the face, but the reality is the market sets prices- not dreams. After all, it would be pretty hard for you to pay for your ditch behind your house to get dug if the digger cost what a lawyer does. Of course, heavy equipment operators (ditch diggers) get paid about 20.00 an hour here in Kansas so I don't hear them complaining.

And you can call me mean all you want, but I bet if we add up all the time all of you have worked with a tool in your hand (axe, shovel, whatever) I'm certain I'd have you all combined beat. I've certainly spent more time swinging a pick and a sledge hammer than I have behind a gun at my job. Forward Operating Bases and Combat Outposts don't build themselves. And that was of course after I joined the military. Prior to that I did demolition (breaking down buildings with a crowbar and sledge hammer) and working on a loading dock loading trucks. I know all about manual labor... it sucks. You don't do it because you like it.

Dave Dubya said...

Free,
I know all about manual labor... it sucks. You don't do it because you like it

This insight separates you from the mindset of the dimmer bulbs on the Right who think we all "choose" our jobs. We often must take what we can get.

When I was younger, I did my share of physical labor. For my first job I worked as a grave digger, then a sawmill worker pitching 100lb slabs, and then a forest fire fighter.

Yes, I've sweated for a living and have seen many injuries, too. This is why I think these people need good, affordable health coverage. I also think Medicare and Obamacare fall short on this need.

free0352 said...

This insight separates you from the mindset of the dimmer bulbs on the Right who think we all "choose" our jobs. We often must take what we can get.

Yes, but where you and I don't agree is - that you think getting more is a right endowed by God it would seem, and I happen to think if you want more out of life it's you that has to do the getting.

Dave Dubya said...

Free,
I'm surprised you don't know what I think by now.

I've told you before I want jobs for every able person. If there are none, then safety nets are needed.

Wondering why the most prosperous nation in the world cannot provide health care like most civilized nations isn't that unreasonable. Only greed by the elites prevents it. The same elites who export jobs while claiming to be "job creators". Ha.

This has nothing to do with a right endowed by God. This all about taxes being the price for a civil and healthy society. Too many businesses given fertile ground for growth by our public infrastructure and legal system are betraying the nation and people who supported that system.

The rich are wealthier than ever. They are not creating jobs. They are bleeding us dry.

They are selling us out while bitching about paying taxes that do not hurt them. This has nothing to do with God, and everything to do with Big Money dominating government policy.

Bottom line.

free0352 said...

Wondering why the most prosperous nation in the world cannot provide health care like most civilized nations

One of the reasons we are so prosperous is we don't have a safety HAMMOCK like those Euro Trash shit holes.

Only greed by the elites prevents it.

Only the greed of those who don't want it.

Too many businesses given fertile ground for growth by our public infrastructure and legal system are betraying the nation

I don't like living in a country where we have a duty to the state. I like it better when the state has a duty to leave people alone and let them make the choice if they want to fund other people's insurance premiums or not.

The rich are wealthier than ever.

So? Don't be jealous.

They are not creating jobs.

Why would they want to create you a job when you're after their money all the time? More over, I wasn't aware creating jobs was a requirement to keep your own money. How many jobs have you created?

They are selling us out

They didn't owe you or "us" in the first place. It's not the rich people's job to pay for your insurance.

I'll take big money over big government any day. Big money never conducted a genocide.

Dave Dubya said...

Yes, we already know what you think.

I'm comfortable. I've worked all my life and have enough to show for it. I have investments and I've even made money in the market like a good little capitalist.

Are you sure you're not projecting your own jealousy, or are you parroting the Right's little talking points again?

Big Money and its neocon stooges started a war in Iraq. Big Money took us to Vietnam. Big Money sells the instruments of death to dicators. Big Oil will continue to do its best to send us to war when they so desire.

Where have you been?

Big Money is bleeding us dry. Big Money is amoral and will not be responsible to the society that grew it. They are selling us out. This is why they must be taxed. Not as a duty to the state, but as a fair exchange to the people of the nation where their little empire could not have thrived without a government of, by, and for the people.

Lots of people have died for that "state", haven't they?

Why?

You risk your life, but don't like paying taxes?

Some strange values there.

Dave Dubya said...

"I'll take big money over big government any day" is a false dichotomy.

They both have been around a long time. One is built on Constitutional law, the other on the law of the jungle.

free0352 said...

Are you sure you're not projecting your own jealousy

Sure I like money LOL. But I don't think other's have to loose theirs so I can get mine. I do sense a resentment of the successful on the part of the left.

Big Money and its neocon stooges started a war in Iraq

I guess Saddam Hussien didn't have anything to do with that eh?

Big Money took us to Vietnam

That would be LBJ.

Big Money is amoral and will not be responsible to the society that grew it

They have no more responsibility to society than society has to it.

This is why they must be taxed

It's not "if" we should be taxed but "who" should be taxed and "how much."

but as a fair exchange to the people

The "Rich" pay over 50% of the tax revenue and the "poor" (a laughable label in America anyway) who are nearly 50% of our country pay nothing. In light of this can you tell me who is getting the short end of this stick?

Lots of people have died for that "state", haven't they?

In an all volunteer military, they chose to.

You risk your life, but don't like paying taxes?

Again, choice. I made an informed decision to join the military, and to reenlist in time of war. I have no choice about subsidizing complete stranger's insurance premiums for no good reason and it benefits me absolutely zero. I can take care of myself and so can every other able bodied person. Expecting people to care for themselves isn't a strange value, it's a basic one we should expect of every adult. In fact, you aren't an adult if you do not do this. That's not only a law of the jungle, it's the law of common sense.

free0352 said...

And all this talk of big money is sort of funny, as you were the one defending the legality of a bill that forces people with penalty of fines and if they don't pay them jail if they don't purchase insurance- enriching whom? Big money. Who then in this debate is really against "Big Money?" You or I?

Dave Dubya said...

Free,

Now there you go again, with a favorite Republican misleading talking point, "50% of our country pay nothing”.

Are you on some quota here?

And yes, it was all Saddam’s fault for being out to get us with those darn “nukular” aluminum tubes and biological labs and training AQ in “dangerous gasses”.

We get that. Thank you.

Well that about covers it. We got your projected jealousy for money, your required talking points quota, your Saddam starting Bush’s war, and either one complete falsehood, or an example of your inattention to what I say.

you were the one defending the legality of a bill that forces people with penalty of fines and if they don't pay them jail if they don't purchase insurance.

Where did I defend that part? I seem to remember telling you I was with you on the mandate.

So once again, thank you. We know what you think.

I hope you understand a little more clearly about how I think, and what I actually said.

Now if you’ll excuse me. I have a big meeting tomorrow regarding a long term business project.

(True. Believe it or not; although I may be old enough to be your father, I have ambitions, ideas and a future to build. See, I’m actually quite the real American after all.)

I’m sure you’d understand why, as much as I enjoy it, I can’t chat any further tonight.

free0352 said...

I can’t chat any further tonight.

I'm sure you'll read in the morning.

Are you on some quota here?

It's a proven fact nearly 50% of Americans pay zero income tax... or even get over 100% back on their returns. Sorry the facts don't jibe with the class warfare... there's another talking point for you I'm sure you'll appreciate.

As for Bush starting the war... who started the war between Saddam and Clinton?

As for what you're calling "jealousy" I think you're confusing that with ambition. I don't hate, I emulate.

Now if you’ll excuse me. I have a big meeting tomorrow regarding a long term business project.

Funny you say that, I'm trying to get a business up and running myself so I can employ myself when I get out selling communication software to the military.

Dave Dubya said...

Free,
Again, we all know about your 50% talking point. The deceptive nature of the message is obvious. The bottom half deserve nothing because they pay nothing. This is not true, of course. The fact is they do pay. Income taxes are not the only taxes. They pay their taxes on the very safety nets that they often need. And they pay a higher percentage of their income for such taxes, in addition to gasoline and other taxes, than the pampered privileged aristocrats, politicians, and the rest of the elites. OK?.

And will you please stop with the talking points? We’ve all heard them repeated every day in the corporate media. Just because we want previous tax rates on the elites does not mean we are jealous of anybody. And it does not mean we are communists. That is radical Right Wing propaganda, and we are quite aware of that as well.

We get it. Can you accept that reality?

Good luck on your business. Yes luck helps. As we know hard work, though vital, is not a guarantee of success.

I gotta go now.

free0352 said...

We're talking about the income tax though, and the fact is that the richest 30% of this country pays 100% of tax revenue the government gets from the income tax. You can't deny that fact by labeling it a talking point, and what's more you'll say it's still unfair? How the hell is that fair?

The bottom half deserve nothing because they pay nothing

I think it's a strong point. Nothing is free.

And they pay a higher percentage of their income for such taxes, in addition to gasoline and other taxes

I'm all for repealing those taxes on the federal level. If I were king for a day one of my first acts would be to repeal the federal gas tax totally.

That's my theory on why you guys fear a national sales tax replacing the income tax. You know that once everyone has to pay, the resentment level on those who eat benefits for years on end will go through the roof and the safety hammock you hold dear will be dead on arrival through very popular support.

okjimm said...

Free...//those Euro Trash shit holes.//

.... boy, is that projecting stupid, or what?

What you do not seem to understand is that by making such broad, sweeping statements you invalidate most everything you say. Have another drink of Tea and tell us more ...

Jefferson's Guardian said...

Dave Dubya, you said: "Too many businesses given fertile ground for growth by our public infrastructure and legal system are betraying the nation..."

This was Free0352's response: "I don't like living in a country where we have a duty to the state. I like it better when the state has a duty to leave people alone and let them make the choice if they want to fund other people's insurance premiums or not."

Am I wrong, or did your statement totally go over the head of Free0352? I really don't think he understood what you said, or if he did (which I suspect), he's totally disregarding it and diverting the message.

Free0352 hasn't figured out that he doesn't have a duty to "the state"; that his duty is to the corporate-state. He hasn't come to terms with the fact that this government is run by, and for, the multinational corporate and banking structure, or that his military service serves to further the agendas (i.e., profits) of these larger-than-life structures. His duty is no different than that of the armies and navies that provided cover for the East India Trading Company in the 17th and 18th centuries. He's another corporate tool; paid and provided by the the U.S. taxpayer -- gratis our corporatist lawmakers, executives, and judicial system.

Free0352 is an anarchist, but a fake one at that. He parades for no government involvement in his life...well, until it's payday, of course, and then I'm sure he's the first standing in line for his taxpayer-provided paycheck.

He's a corporate warrior only, no more, no less -- and we're paying the bill.

Dave Dubya said...

JG,
Free often bends the context of my points in order to present his views as contrary. I gently remind him of this quite often.

He's no anarchist. He's a genuine Randian, John Bircher type libertarian, with Neocon inclinations. Yes there’s a bit of disconnect with the Neocon/libertarian nexus. But he has his reasons. He likes being a soldier.

And I’m sure he’s a very good soldier. He has a strong work ethic.

As I am a small "d" democratic socialist with strong inclinations toward regulated capitalism, we have our differences that result in avid discussions.

As for his service; the military is one of the few Constitutional powers of government that he recognizes. And as for the anti-democratic forces pulling those government strings on the military... His is not to reason why.

Since war is good for business, his world is a complete, self contained, self-generating cycle of the military industrial dream machine.

Along with Big Money’s financial swindles, it's the new American Dream, replacing the previous one that had a growing middle class and expansion of opportunity for most Americans.

Out with the New Deal. In with the Raw Deal.

God bless Amerika, and pass the ammunition... and pass that Patriot Act too. The "job creators" and the "producers" need some muscle to enforce their will.

And we are witnessing that, ahem, "Triumph of the Will", leading us into our glorious future as the Fourth Reich.

Well, at least until China decides to step in.

But I digress.

free0352 said...

The "job creators" and the "producers" need some muscle to enforce their will.

You mean like when Thomas Jefferson took as to war with a Muslim Country to protect commerce?

Shit, protecting commerce is kind of the military's traditional role... at least sine 1805.

Jefferson's Guardian said...

Free0352: "...protecting commerce is kind of the military's traditional role..."

Protecting shipping lanes from piracy is one thing; unilaterally attacking sovereign nations, under the auspices of some fictional threat to national security, and then opening the floodgates of privatization to "rebuild" the country it just inhumanly destroyed -- that's another.

Dave Dubya said...

Arrrrgghhh! Avast, ye landlubber buckos! Keep an eye peeled o'er the bow for them Iraqi merchant raiders. Ye know 'em by their pointin' nukular aluminum tubes at our waterline.

Barbary pirates were small time punks compared to this piracy:

From:

Cheney’s Energy Task Force

http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/articles/8-secrets-of-cheneys-energy-task-force-come-to-light/

Documents dated March 2001 turned over in the summer of 2003 by the Commerce Department as a result of the Sierra Club’s and Judicial Watch’s Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, concerning the activities of the Cheney Energy Task Force, contain a map of Iraqi oilfields, pipelines, refineries and terminals, as well as two charts detailing Iraqi oil and gas projects, and “Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield Contracts.”

Documented plans of occupation and exploitation predating September 11 confirm heightened suspicion that U.S. policy is driven by the dictates of the energy industry. According to Judicial Watch President, Tom Fitton, “These documents show the importance of the Energy Task Force and why its operations should be open to the public.”


This would be more what I’m talking about.

free0352 said...

So merchant shipping is a form of commerce and being an oil company isn't... because they vote Republican most likely.

Got it.

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

So what about the early years of the 20th century?

You know fact is, it's more traditional for the American Military to look after foreign commerce than it is... well anything else.

So when Saddam Hussein steals every US oil asset in Kuwait, it was wrong to kick him out and take them back. And then again, when Saddam Hussein didn't live up to the cease fire agreement he signed, it's wrong to enforce it? BUT! When old FDR ran wars in Central America and China during 1933 and 1934 (not to mention running them directly as Assistant Secretary Of The Navy during the 1900s) it is a-okay with you right? Which is it? Was FDR wrong to aid the United Fruit Company and Standard Oil in Central America or was he not?

Dave Dubya said...

For context, I said, “Big Money and its neocon stooges started a war in Iraq. Big Money took us to Vietnam. Big Money sells the instruments of death to dictators. Big Oil will continue to do its best to send us to war when they so desire.”

War is more often about gaining resources, wealth, and influence by force than about the defense of our country.

You basically agree then, with, “it's more traditional for the American Military to look after foreign commerce.” “Foreign commerce” is about as broad in meaning and open-ended as anything, including Bush’s “Spreading freedom” in Iraq.

That’s what empires and aggressors use militaries for, isn’t it? They want to control foreign commerce, and gain resources, wealth, and influence by force. Your argument is not undermining my contention of influence, or outright control, by Big Money on our government and its wars.

Your claim that Saddam stole “our oil assets” in Kuwait. Good example. He claimed those were his oil assets.

And Kuwait was also claiming their oil assets under the sands of Iraq.

http://www.nytimes.com/1997/12/23/opinion/23iht-edcool.t.html?pagewanted=all

Also, there is evidence that Kuwait was engaged in slant-drilling of Iraqi oil, under the border. As one oil executive put it, slant-drilling is enough to get you shot in Texas or Oklahoma.


A few days before the August 1990 Iraqi invasion, the Bush administration, according to Iraqi transcripts, had its ambassador in Baghdad, April Glaspie, tell Saddam that the United States took "no position" on those boundaries.


Cheney knew better, as he was mapping his vision of “our” future oil assets in Iraq.

War is good for business. It always is until the aggressors and empires collapse.

As I said, “Big Money is amoral and will not be responsible to the society that grew it”

And you asserted, “They have no more responsibility to society than society has to it.”

Taxes are the people’s responsibility to their country. Big Money should have that responsibility as well, especially when they profit from wars that serve their interests.

If society has no responsibility towards Big Money, why must we pay for their wars with blood and treasure, while the corporations and elites get tax cuts?

Military service is becoming less about serving the country than serving the interests of the elites.

free0352 said...

Your claim that Saddam stole “our oil assets” in Kuwait. Good example. He claimed those were his oil assets.

So are you suggesting say... our office buildings in Kuwait city belonged to Saddam Hussein when he invaded that country in 1990? What about the American human shields he captured, was it not the military's duty to liberate them?

Military service is becoming less about serving the country than serving the interests of the elites.

Military service is about protecting American lives and property. Even American property in Kuwait city. Heck, we invaded Tunisia to punish insolence. The Tunisians didn't even capture any oil executives or office buildings.

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

Also Dave, one more thought. Sometimes I think you forget who did the actual invading during the Iraq war. I helped capture the Karbala oil fields on March 21st 2003... and who did we turn those fields over to after the invasion? Was it... Shell oil, or Exxon, or BP or some other company? Um... no wait, no it wasn't. It was the Iraqi Oil Ministry. Basically, we took the fields from Saddam and gave them back to the citizens of Iraq, who to this day sell that oil at the price they set.

free0352 said...

How many of them have you lived in? I lived in Europe for quite a few years.

Dave Dubya said...

Military service is about protecting American lives and property. Well, yes, it’s supposed to be about that, anyway.

War is bad for business? Well, I guess you'll admit FDR restored our economy before the Second World War.

Ask Halliburton Dick if war is bad for business. If war wasn’t good for business, we wouldn’t be having so many.

Bottom line.

Basically, we took the fields from Saddam and gave them back to the citizens of Iraq

Not exactly Halliburton Dick’s master plan was it? Yes, we “gave” the Iraqis so much didn’t we?

How will they ever thank us? Oh, they did. They now have closer bonds with Iran. And Iran has more influence in Iraq.

Swell deal there. Bet you can’t wait until “Operation Iranian Freedom” fixes everything just exactly perfect.

After all we have to protect our oil in Iran, too. Or are we afraid they’ll attack us with nukular aluminum tubes?

So many justifications for so many wars...

Either way, neocons and their Big Money friends love a nice war.

free0352 said...

They may enjoy a big war, but I'm sure insurance companies enjoy government mandating people buy their service. I wonder how long it will be before property and life insurance companies use the ObamaCare precedent to gain the same mandated customer base. Anyway, as you have agreed several times now Dave that mandating health insurance is unconstitutional, I am somewhat perplexed you would question it in your blog post and then in the comment thread seemingly reverse yourself. It would seem that anything the Supreme Court does angers you, enough to blog about it no less... even when you seemingly agree with them in your comments section. Could it be your post was motivated more by your dislike of The Court and less by it's rulings. On several occasions you have mentioned your distaste for the Citizens United decision - and yet agreed with the fundamental finding of The Court in your comments; that Citizens United's First Amendment rights were violated when they were forced by the FEC to pull their movie during the Democrat Party primary. And again here, you admit many times that the individual mandate of ObamaCare is unconstitutional, yet bemoan the likely ruling of such by The Court.

You seem to flip flop more than Mitt Romney does.