Wednesday, May 16, 2012

It's About Character

Republicans love to tell us, “It’s about character”. Never their own, mind you.

John Edwards is a slimeball for cheating on his wife.

But Newt Gingrich is not a slimeball.

Simple enough for the simple-minded ideologue. We’ll look at an explanation for this in a moment.

Willard (Mitt-the-Snip) Romney led a group of fellow prep school bullies in taking down a fellow student and forcibly cutting his hair, while the victim screamed for help.

Everyone in his posse remembers the incident, except for Romney, for some reason.

“I don’t remember that incident,” Romney said, laughing. “I certainly don’t believe that I thought the fellow was homosexual.”

I see.

So Mitt remembers the individual, but not what he did to him?

“Back in high school, I did some dumb things, and if anybody was hurt by that or offended, obviously I apologize for that,” Romney told Fox (R)’s Brian Kilmeade. Romney added: “I participated in a lot of hijinks and pranks during high school, and some might have gone too far, and for that I apologize.”

We note that he offered the typical Right Wing lame excuse for an “apology” laced with mitigating terms like “if” and “might”.

Well, “if” Willard can’t remember his bully behavior, then he “might” not be smart enough to be president. And if he lied about it, he’s not moral enough to be dogcatcher.

But we already know that.

Former Nixon White House Counsel John Dean’s 2006 book titled “Conservatives without Conscience” gives us valuable insight into the dark recesses of the radical right-wing mentality. Authoritarian personalities like Dick Cheney and Rush Limbaugh dominate their ideology.

They are bullies.

John Dean summarizes in a 2008 BuzzFlash interview:

In post-World War II, a group of social scientists were very concerned or very interested to find out if what had happened in Italy and Germany under Mussolini and Hitler could occur in the United States. They initially undertook their work with a little bit of empirical study, but mostly relying on Freudian psychology. And they did conclude that there is clearly an authoritarian personality. They issued their report in a book by Adorno and others that was called “The Authoritarian Personality”.


This research has really never been totally refuted. But other social scientists were critical of it because of its Freudian basis. So they quickly began studying to see if this personality type held up based on pure empirical study, by which I mean anonymously asking people questions that would reveal their personality types, their attitudes, their dispositions, and what have you.


The work on authoritarian followers showed a personality that is easily submissive to authority, be it political, religious or even parental. They submit quickly, and once they do, they become very aggressive in pushing that world view of that authority. They become submissive because they find great comfort psychologically in submitting. It helps them remove the ambiguities of life. And if they’re frightened by events, then this gives them a sense of security. And they’re typically very conventional in their lifestyle.


There are also, however, a lot of very negative traits which I’ve outlined in the book. They are very self-righteous. They are not self-critical. They have very little critical thinking about their own behavior. They are often nasty and mean-spirited. They are bullies. They are prejudiced. And the higher they test on these questionnaires and scales, the more conservative they are. You don’t find people on the left testing the same way. It’s very interesting. You cannot get even statistically significant numbers of people on the left that fall in this category of followers.


On the other side are the leaders. They are typically men whose desire in life is to dominate others and to be in charge. They are very aggressive when they do so. They are highly manipulative. They are also people who have absolutely no appreciation of equality of others. They see themselves as superior, and they are amoral in their thinking. They, too, have a host of other negative traits that are in many regards similar to the followers.


It’s not a very pleasant personality type, but it is certainly there. And it has certainly been established scientifically and corroborated and confirmed, time and time again. And this is clearly the core of the conservative movement.


‘The core of the conservative movement”. Amen.

Dean relied on Professor Bob Altemeyer of the University of Manitoba for much of his reference material. Professor Altemeyer has generously made his book available for free online.

“The Authoritarians

212 comments:

1 – 200 of 212   Newer›   Newest»
free0352 said...

Let me say first I hate Mitt Romney with the fire of 1000 suns.

However, I gotta say screw EVER running for President. Holy shit, thank God I'll never be judged for the shit I did in high school. I sure did a lot worse than chase some kid down and cut his hair because he had long hair at ultra conservative, uber preppy Cranbrook.

Maybe you guys were mommy's little angels back in high school, but I was about the furthest thing away from that you can imagine. I can honestly tell you I was pretty much a bad kid. I got pretty strait by the end of my junior year when I found out I was going to be a father... and I'm so lucky that happened BTW because if it hadn't I might have not woke up and got my shit strait prior to finding myself doing a nice long jail sentence. And I had a decent mom and grandparents who took a really active role in making sure I wasn't a fuck up... who knows how I'd have turned out had they not been in the picture? Yeah I did some good stuff as a teen age kid. I played football, boxed and was on the debate team and rode BMX bikes... and good thing my family pushed me into that stuff to keep my busy. I look back on those days and just shake my head. It's a miracle I never got caught. You should have seen the look on the polygraph people when I had to take one to work at the Sheriff's Department. Questions like have you ever used cocain, committed a felony for which you were not charged, assaulted someone with a weapon all got answered with a big fat yes.

So no, I don't like Romney at all but not because he was a mean kid. You can judge me for what I did as a child if you want... I don't give a fuck and I won't apologize either. But I won't hold anyone to a standard I won't hold myself. Romney has plenty of character flaws right now today, and who he was 45 years ago has zero to do with that. I think I'm proof myself and so are a lot of other people - a lot of very upstanding people - that who we were as kids doesn't determine our future. If that were true, I'd be an inmate.

Dave Dubya said...

Free,
Your story tells us how critical it is to have responsible adult role models while young.

You and I are lucky in that sense.

Not that I, er, recall what, ah, youthful hijinks I might have done. Who knows? Perhaps I would have to answer "yes" on one...or three, of those polygraph questions, too. However, the specifics are blurred.

But if I hurt anyone, I'm sorry.

At any rate, Romney was a cold-hearted, arrogant, blue-blooded jerk. Some people mature emotionally and grow up. Other people are that way all their lives. So far, I see no change for the better in him.

He's still a cold-blooded blue-blood.

The Heathen Republican said...

Dave Dubya on Mitt Romney: "We note that he offered the typical Right Wing lame excuse for an “apology” laced with mitigating terms like “if” and “might”."

Dave Dubya about himself: "But if I hurt anyone, I'm sorry."

How typical. Republicans are held to a higher standard than you hold for yourself.

I found that this describes progressives quite accurately:

"They are very self-righteous. They are not self-critical. They have very little critical thinking about their own behavior. They are often nasty and mean-spirited. They are bullies. They are prejudiced."

Of course, the authors (and you) don't see it, so you point it out in the right.

Dave Dubya said...

HR,
I agree that progressives are often "very self-righteous, are not self-critical, have very little critical thinking about their own behavior, and even nasty and mean-spirited".

These traits are common to most people at some time. Yes, even conservatives, but they cannot admit it. We know.

However, as documented here, and all over the corporate media, the bullies and the prejudiced tend by a large margin toward the radical Right.

Liberals don't go around and beat up gays and minorities.

We've listed the numerous cases of extreme violence by sociopathic radical Rightists. They are afraid Muslim commies are taking over the country. They hate liberals. Really, we know about them.

I see you almost got my humor.

Add "I might have done" with "if I hurt" and maybe you get the picture of what I was doing.

It's called parody.

For the record, I did not hurt anybody. Or even take them down to cut their hair.

There.

Otherwise, ya sure got me.

The Heathen Republican said...

I was really just trying to come up with something pithy in order to subscribe to the comment thread since you switched back to this crappy format. But since you said this...

"Liberals don't go around and beat up gays and minorities."

...I have to respond.

Oh really?! Liberals don't beat anyone else up, even gays or minorities? That's quite a statement, to think that anyone who has ever beat someone else up must be on the right.

Let's see, was George Zimmerman, Trayvon Martin's killer, a Democrat or a Republican? I'll give you a few minutes to think that one over...

And was Trayvon Martin a minority? I can't seem to recall. Perhaps you know, Dave.

Seriously, even with three attempts to get your comment just right, do you ever read the things that spew from your keyboard?

Dave Dubya said...

I know Zimmerman was a cop wanna-be, assaulted a cop, was a pest to them, packed heat that he was eager to use, profiled and targeted a minority member, hides behind the "self defense" nonsense under a Republican law and is defended as innocent by many more Republicans than Democrats.

What do you know? Take a few moments.

The Heathen Republican said...

What do I know? That for someone who likes to accuse people on the right of beating up minorities, being fascists, and hating women and the poor, it's more than a little suspicious that you won't acknowledge that Zimmerman was a registered Democrat.

Dave Dubya said...

HR,
You accuse me, here, that I "like to accuse", when I'm only stating the facts.

I'd rather not need to report such behavior. But it happens.

So ten years ago Zimerman registered as a democrat in order to vote.

He is not a member of the Democratic Party. Is he a democrat now?

According to you, that makes him one now, just like Romney is the same bully he was at around the same age Zimmerman registered as a democrat.

This is your contention as I see it. Fine, but your conclusion and mine are based on different evidence.

So what makes this "democrat" of ten years ago a liberal today, anyway?

Everything about his behavior, and his protectors, smells conservative, not liberal.

Malcolm Bondon said...

The negative traits outlined by Dean run rampant throughout the conservative blogosphere, Fox "News", etc. I engaged in a debate with a conservative blogger who is terming the Romney incident as simply a "prank" and "good fun". I told her she'd have a different perspective if it was a liberal politician. I'm not going to judge Romney based on something he did in high school. However, I am questioning how he's handled these revelations. Although it's possible he doesn't remember the incident, I find that very hard to believe.

By the way, have you seen how some of the folks at Fox are comparing Romney forcibly giving John Lauber a haircut with an elementary school incident involving a young Obama pushing a girl down on the playground? This is why I can't take most people on the right seriously.

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/hannity-panel-counters-romney-bullying-story-by-peering-into-obamas-bullying/

Dave Dubya said...

Malcolm,
Authoritarians are authoritarians. They cannot conceal their true nature. It's up to us to identify them along their dishonesty and cruelty.

What Romney did as a teen old enough to drive, and what he did to a dog as an adult are compared to what Obama did as a small child.

False equivalence is another characteristic of the Right.

The also told us the Abuses of Abu Ghraib were nothing more than frat house shenanigans. They really said nobody died. They lie.

And water boarding is not torture. And Obama is a Muslim commie. And liberals have no values and they hate America, ad museum.

Say, where can I find one of those Obamacare death panels?

I’ll have to ask a radical authoritarian Rigthie. They have all the answers.

free0352 said...

Liberals don't go around and beat up gays and minorities.

Sure they do. In fact tomorrow at work tool around your job at the prison and ask some of the felons who they want to win the Presidency and which party if any they support. Most will say Obama and you know it.

As for Romney being a blue blood, I don't think there is one iota of difference between a rich kid who is a dick and a poor one.

Other than perhaps your own envy.

Dave Dubya said...

Sure they do.

No, they don't.

So convicts are liberals, huh?

Right. That's a good one.

And they're all deeply religious Muslims and born-again Christians too, if you ask them. So you're saying religious people go around and beat up gays and minorities? Ok. But most religious people identify themselves as conservatives.

They're usually not literate enough, or too sociopathic, to be liberal progressives.

Actually they're far more libertarian than progressive. They want less government control over their lives, don't you know? Your kind of folks. Every man for himself. That's the operative principle from lone thugs to gangsters to banksters...and greed-is-good libertarians.

I'm sure you know the demographics that suggest they come down in favor of a black president. They would vote for a Herman Cain over a John Kerry.

But they don't vote, do they?

Do you really think most cons were liberal progressives, or church goers before going to prison? Do you honestly think they cared enough about civic responsibility to have voted?

Really??

Another of your delusions of the radical Right is that I envy Romney or Obama. I'd rather be happy than rich.

Too bad you don't know the difference.

okjimm said...

What is most telling is that Mitt 'Doesn't Remember'....An event that has described by the other participants vividly would stand out in anyone's memory. I am guessing that Newt really doesn't remember cheating on wife #1 or #2. JP Morgan Chase really can't remember how they lost $2BB. It was just an oops.

free0352 said...

So convicts are liberals, huh?

If they are anything, yes. We all know which party is toughest on crime. Its in their best interest.

Ok. But most religious people identify themselves as conservatives

Really? Then explain why 80% of african americans self identify as christian and now let me see... what racial demographic overwhelmingly more than any other votes Democrat? Yes, african americans. So there goes that point you tried to make.

They would vote for a Herman Cain over a John Kerry.

That's not what the polls said. The Democrat party has one firm grip on african american voters, that can't be denied.

But none of that was my original point. My point is people of all stripes do lots of bad shit - for their own reasons. I did plenty of shady stuff in my youth as I pointed out. My point is, it's not about the past. It's about today. Nobody is going to care too much about what Romney did 400 years ago... well the gay lobby probably will but they won't vote for Romney anyway. The single issue of the 2012 campaign is going to be the economy, and voters will vote for satan himself if they think he can do a better job with it than Obama. If I were a Democrat, I'd be highlighting efforts to get people back to work as much as I could instead of the smoke screen tactics we've seen so far. It isn't going to work, Obama is going to have to confront this economic issue head on and make believers out of voters instead of cry about some silly shit Romney did when he was 17.

Dave Dubya said...

News for you. The 80% of blacks identifying themselves Christian are not "most religious people". And why do they vote for Democrats again? Could it be a Southern strategy? Could it be they know Republicans do not represent them? Voting against the party of the Rich White Men's club doesn't make one liberal or progressive. It is self interest.

Regardless, my point stands. Yours does not. Liberals do not go around beating up gays and minorities.

By your logic, Jack Abramoff, Cunningham, Ney, et al should be Democrats. They're not.

Tough on crime is often not smart on crime. Real libertarians know this.

The original point is Romney's character. Not his past behavior by itself.

free0352 said...

I agree it's self interest. Democrats take money from the Rich White Man and hand out the change back to the blacks with a cheap welfare check while the Lib government types keep most of the money and in exchange black voters make with the votes. Its a self interest if you're interested in the crumbs off Democrat's plates instead of a real living.

And of course if a black guy makes something of himself on his own and leaves the Democrat welfare plantation we know what happens to him.

But keep babbling on about that southern strategy if it makes you feel better. You know who George Wallace endorsed in 1979? Jimmy Carter, along with all the other Dixiecrats. That was a decade after all those Democrats opposed the civil rights act. So keep pointing that finger, because there are three pointing right back at the Democrat party.

Tom Harper said...

I agree with your post, and John Dean's interview, about conservatives having an authoritarian personality. They just love fitting snugly into a hierarchy. They're totally submissive to everyone above them and merciless to those below them.

But as far as a person being a bully or an asshole, I think that cuts across all political lines. I've known plenty of liberals who are flaming assholes in person. I agree with their politics but their personalities suck.

Dave Dubya said...

Free,
because there are three pointing right back at the Democrat party. Yeah, of the previous two centuries. I thought past behavior didn’t mean anything to you?

It’s all black and white to you, isn’t it?

Democrats take money from the Rich White Man and hand out the change back to the blacks

That’s a two way street. Republicans take my money to give to rich Republicans. And not even a thank you from Halliburton Dick. Republicans take away public services to give tax breaks to the rich.

Republicans cut taxes on those who easily afford them and take money from the middle class, who can less afford it, for their wars for political gain and crony profit. The rich white “job creators” don’t create enough jobs for everyone as it is, and their corporations take tax cuts and send our jobs overseas. How noble. To be “Good Amerikans” we must serve their interests, fight their wars, and give up even more in our reduced standard of living, while we give them everything they want. Talk about entitlement.

There would be far less of your “welfare plantation” if we didn’t let the elites write trade agreements to pad their profits at the country’s expense. There would be far less of your “welfare plantation” if the so called “job creators” actually created jobs in this country. They have abandoned the country that nourished their business. They exist only to feed their greed machine. Tax the hell out of the bastards if the hate America so much. But that won’t happen. They own the entire Republican Party and most Democrats in DC.

Boo hoo for the poor wittow sociopathic wich bwats. They own our government and you shill for them. Very brave and noble of you to side with the rich and powerful over most Americans as they deregulate Wall Street, rape our economy, purge voters, and wage class war on the people.

Damn right money is taken from rich white men. Aristocrats don’t like to share. Some are lucky they’re not hung on streetlights for their thievery.

Among them are greedheads who swindle, steal, and bully as they buy politicians and cheat the country. Tax the hell out of the bastards and we’ll all have a better country, Even the rich, but their greed blinds them to this.

Tom,

It's all relative. Authoritarian assholes are usually far more dangerous than liberal assholes.

Just My Two Cents said...

Dave, there is no way my husband and I would be as rich as we are had I had not been in politics. So we put a few dollars in our pockets, but we help the poor people too!

Dave Dubya said...

Just The Fascist, or whatever,

Since you're "new" to most people here, let's share your Blogger Introduction:

I had to provide a special service behind the Lincoln Memorial in order to gather enough votes to pass the President's Affordable Care Act which the majority of the people don't want. My lips were chapped for weeks! “We had to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy.”

And now that everybody knows you couldn't possibly be a troll, they will just have to wonder why I decided you're not worth reading.

free0352 said...

I thought past behavior didn’t mean anything to you?

That's right. And what is happening right now is a Democrat party welfare plantation. It's horrible for both the black community and those who have to fund it. Basically what has happened is Democrats went from actually enslaving blacks in 1860 to simply making the vote serfs in the present day. That isn't the progress I'd want if I were black- and it certainly isn't the trap I'd like to see Hispanics fall into.

. Republicans take my money to give to rich Republicans

No, Republicans allow (and how sad it is I have to use the word allow) rich people of all political stripes to keep the money they have earned.

Republicans cut taxes on those who easily afford them and take money from the middle class

Are you suggesting tax deductions don't apply to the middle class somehow? They all apply to everyone if you have the sense to use them. And very clearly on the tax bracket "the rich" pay more.

To be “Good Amerikans” we must serve their interests, fight their wars, and give up even more in our reduced standard of living

Last I checked you weren't required to work for anyone, the military is all volunteer and you were responsible for your standard of living. Stop with the envy. If there is any greed here, it's yours.

There would be far less of your “welfare plantation” if we didn’t let the elites write trade agreements to pad their profits at the country’s expense.

Who was President when NAFTA was signed and trade was opened with China? Bill Clinton.

They have abandoned the country that nourished their business.

This country has never nourished shit. If anything it's trying to suck business dry, which is why the owners of those business' are leaving. Who are you going to tax when they're all gone? Sounds to me Singapore is doing a much better job of nourishing business than we are. Their profit our loss.

Very brave and noble of you to side with the rich and powerful

Whose more powerful? A handful of rich guys who control a mob of Democrat voters seeking to take out their competition through a bunch of government thugs? You think they're so powerful, go ask rich guy Weseley Snipes.

Damn right money is taken from rich white men. Aristocrats don’t like to share

Sharing is when you want to do it. What you're advocating is extortion. Talk about greed and envy... Whose the bigger bully, the small business owner or the IRS? I'll tell you who the real thieves are. Liberal Democrat Progressives.

Dave Dubya said...

Free,
Ah, now I’m a thief working for government thugs? That’s hysterical.

Democrats went from actually enslaving blacks in 1860 to simply making the vote serfs in the present day.

“Vote serfs”. Ha. So what do you call the poor conned Bible thumpers who vote for Republicans who ship their jobs overseas and cut their social programs, food stamps and health care?

Want a metaphor better than your “Vote serfs”? Did Robin Hood work for the aristocrats?

So there’s your Right Wing rational for imposing restrictions on voting. That’s what’s wrong with the Corporate States of America. Too many flesh and blood voters, and not enough influence for those poor corporate “persons”. Don’t want no more democracy, no sir. Republicans know just how to fix that. Your free market utopia awaits. Except it’s not really free, of course, and Democracy must be crushed first.

Conservative white rich people owned slaves. Not progressives. They were the Republicans of their day, states-rights, plantation slave owners and traitors to the USA. I thought you said past behavior didn’t mean anything to you? Want it both ways? Or do you need it both ways?

Yes, Republicans take my money to give to rich Republicans. I even mentioned Halliburton Dick, your chicken hawk neocon leader mentor. Never heard of the Military Industrial Complex? Some no-account commie named Eisenhower must have made that stuff up.

Last I checked Americans are giving up good jobs and public services along with their standard of living, as the elites make record profits. I didn’t say we are required to work for anyone, did I? No, but that’s what you want to argue. I said serve their interests. You served their interests by killing people who were no threat to our safety, while Americans sacrifice civil liberties and jobs. That’s how we serve their interests, by living under a corrupt regime dominated by wealth we subsidize.

you were responsible for your standard of living. Stop with the envy.

Still projecting your envy, I see.

We are responsible for doing our jobs. Our standard of living is being decimated by corporate owned politicians. We can thank Big Money’s puppet government of the corporations, by the corporations, and for the corporations. See NAFTA and every trade agreement after it. That, sir, is power. See the Military Industrial Complex feed into war fever. That sir, is power. See Halliburton Dick start wars and make a fortune. That, sir, is power. See the Bill of Rights shredded by a war on terror and war on drugs. That sir, is power. And the profits are rolling in. Money is power in a corporatocracy. Your oppressed elites are doing better than ever. Yes, they are. And that, sir, is power.

This country has never nourished shit. If anything it's trying to suck business dry

Well, boo hoo again. This is of course the opposite of reality. The elites are doing fabulous. Really. The rich are getting exponentially richer...as they and their shills like you whine more and more about taxes as “oppression” and “extortion” by liberal “thieves”. Fine, go pay for your own damn wars. Ever think about how much is taken from the people by corporate subsidies and other gifts of graft? How many millions of jobs could be created by the billions in corporate welfare that go into the pockets of the elites instead of into our economy and workers?

If this country has “never nourished shit and if anything it's trying to suck business dry”, then why don’t you and all the greedheads please leave, instead of dragging us all down? We really can to fine without your Atlas. Take him with you since your love of country and compassion for fellow Americans are dwarfed by your twisted virtue of selfish greed.

free0352 said...

now I’m a thief working for government thugs?

You're the one that said you were a Democrat.

what do you call the poor conned Bible thumpers who vote for Republicans

Voters. The difference between the Welfare Plantation and what you're talking about is simple. You don't see any Republicans filling Democrat controlled ghettos voting so that Democrats can fulfill their life's needs...at a substandard level I might add while they keep most of the cash. I don't see too many Democrat Party leaders or politicians living in crime ridden shit holes, but that's where their voters have been for 80 years. In fact what I do see is Democrats standing in the way of better schools, roads and tax breaks for those neighborhoods. Go try and get school of choice in a black neighborhood. You'll have the Democrat Teachers Union so far up your ass you won't have time to watch them call you a Nazi on the news. No, no, they're rather spend 80 cents on the dollar on "administration" while each kid in a poor black neighborhood gets pennys on the tax dollars so rich, college mafia liberals can have important sounding jobs at the school district where they don't actually work. That is just one example of the many instances of Democrat party patronage in a nut shell.

Did Robin Hood work for the aristocrats?

Last time I read that story Robin Hood stole tax money and gave it back to the people... after that government stole his land. So basically Robin Hood is a Christian Conservative just back from slaying Muslims in the Middle East; who then fights the Democrat Sheriff of Nodingham whose been screwing the people out of their money with excessive taxation. Sounds like a white Allen West to me minus the archery.

Still projecting your envy

No, I'm pointing out yours. I admire those people, you're the one demonizing them. If you want what they have so bad quite you shit paying government job and make your own instead of sticking your dirty hands in their wallets. That's what a real, grown up man would do and not a petulant, greedy child. Strait up. I hope they make another 50 billion each and keep as much of it as possible. That's something to admire, not hate.

Fine, go pay for your own damn wars.

I paid 1/3 of my left lung, and two of the disks in my spinal cord when I broke my back. Oh, and 90% of the hearing in my right ear... IN ADDITION to the taxes I paid. So tell me, how many body parts did you give up to win this thing?

why don’t you and all the greedheads please leave,

There are plenty of European countries that operate just how you like it. Why don't you guys quit fucking things up here in America and go check out the joys of fuck'n Finland. Send me a post card if you have enough money left over after they take 60% of your salary in taxes and then you spend what's left on yourself.

S.W. Anderson said...

That explains the ruthless, anything-to-win tactics, holier-than-thou attitude and sense of entitlement so many on the radical right exhibit.

It also explains their bully's delight in not just winning but humiliating and destroying their enemies. A great example: Reagan and his people's unconstitutional deal making with the Iranians to get the hostages released as soon as Reagan was sworn in. The timing was intended to humiliate Jimmy Carter while making some kind of liberating hero out of Reagan. He should've been impeached for making a deal with a foreign power before being sworn in.

Then, there was the swiftboating of John Kerry and so much more.

Dave Dubya said...

Free,
You never fail to amuse as you spin free from truth’s gravity into the void of Right Wing claptrap and your rigid belief system.

There you go again, calling me a Democrat. When did I claim to be one again? Never mind. You can only accuse, not substantiate.

But let me confuse you even more, since you equate rich white plantation owners and rich white, English feudal aristocrats and their ‘tough on crime” sheriff as “Democrats”, just like me.

I’m a supporter and defender of the principles of democracy. Yet I am not a Democrat. Try to figure that one out.

school of choice = Right Wing school for profit

call you a Nazi on the news by “college mafia liberals” no doubt. Very balanced.

If you want what they have

More projection. YOU want what they have. Your cult practically worships the elites, as it willingly hands our government over to them.

I don’t want 50 billion dollars. If I did, I would certainly not whine about having to live on twenty billion and pay the rest in taxes. I want democracy and equality under the law. These are the “radical” concepts that authoritarians vehemently oppose.

Here’s another good one. You accuse me of demonizing the corrupt elites as you crow about a “welfare plantation”.

Another chuckle was this one:

”Why don't you guys quit fucking things up here in America”

Since Reagan handed the keys of our government over to Big Money, just who are these “you guys” that have been running things for the past three decades?

I can help you answer that after I go give another urine sample to keep my job. We don’t need no stinking Fourth Amendment. We got us a corporate backed endless war on drugs to wage.

I, too, have been injured in the line of duty. I was lucky not to be in the spot where my co-worker was blind sided and had his skull bounced off concrete. I only needed crutches for a while, and walk with a limp sometimes.

I’m sorry you and your comrades paid the price and suffered the consequences for the defeat of democracy when the Right Wing Justice cronies installed the Bush/Cheney regime. Your buddies would be alive and you’d be healthy if not for those “nukular” aluminum tubes and WMD’s that Saddam was going to give to al-Qaeda to attack us. Only he didn’t have them and he was not buddies with AQ. Oops. As your former authoritarian aristocrat Fuhrer said, “Fool me once, won’t get fooled again”.

What exactly did you “win” for us again? I know the Iraqi Shiite majority is happily embraced by Iran now. I’m sure they thank you. And uber-authoritarian Cheney and his cronies thank you for re-election, and billions more in profit from taxpayer money that could have gone to domestic needs. I suppose that’s some comfort to you.

But never mind, all that is water under the bridge. I will continue to help pay for your medical care.

You’re welcome.

---
SW,
Yes, it is about character.

And they project their authoritarianism back at us for supporting constitutional taxation for the general welfare.

"Union thug" school teachers is another favorite projection.

It's the Right thing to do.

free0352 said...

You can cop-out your party affiliation Dave, but we all know you'll be pulling the lever for. Take responsibility for your choices.

I’m a supporter and defender of the principles of democracy.

Democracy has no principles. It's just a system, not a religion. Democracy enslaved Africans and forced Indians to march West to their deaths. It's a tool, that can be used for either good or bad. I happen to be dedicated to to personal freedom. Freedom isn't a tool, it's a right. Democracy can be used to achieve freedom, or it can be used to put the Japanese in concentration camps.

School of choice got me out of shitty ghetto schools. It got me into a charter school that didn't have drive-by shootings and metal detectors. The teachers union tried to shut my and just about every alternative to their bloated welfare job schools down. They'd rather see poor kids do a lifetime in prison than get good grades. The last priority they have is teaching. And as for institutions of higher learning, the last thing I'd call them is balanced.

YOU want what they have

Um, not really. Oh sure I'd love a check for 50 billion dollars to be sure. Wouldn't turn that down. But I had a much higher paying job and choose to return to the military instead. Why? Because I thought I was a pretty good leader and young Soldiers just out of Basic shipping out to a war they volunteered to fight deserved great leadership and that I could provide that. So while I value 50 billion dollars (or whatever I could make) a great deal, I valued those kids more. But be that as it may, I can't really say my top priority is money when I took a 30k a year pay cut to come do this. But I'm going to be medically retired now, and once out I intend to make a living. Even 50 billion if I can. So on the other hand I do want that. However, I don't want to take it from anyone. Whatever money I get I want to make for myself. American billionaires didn't take their wealth, they created it. And because they created it they deserve as much of it as possible.

just who are these “you guys” that have been running things for the past three decades?

The government leadership and the voters who elected them who took our country from the Capitalist system we had in 1920 to the mixed socialist/capitalist hybrid we have today. You know, the morons who privatized success and socialized failure.

As for injury in the line of duty, I wasn't injured so much as wounded by the enemy. And that's okay, I understood the possibility when I joined. I've been struck by numerous IEDs and that isn't uncommon. When you go to Iraq or Afghanistan and you're in the infantry it's not so much "if" you'll get nailed it's "when." We have great vehicles and armor now that protects us. Without them I'd be dead... something Democrats voted against I might add. But anyway, I don't mind paying that price because I truly believed in those missions and volunteered for all of them. However, I did find it laughable when you suggested I pay more for it. I think I paid a lot. More than you can put a dollar value on.

Dave Dubya said...

Free,
More than you can put a dollar value on

True, but I shall continue to pay dollars for your health care that would not be needed had democracy not lost the 2000 election.

Yeah some Democrats voted against something, but this is what actually happened:

Sen. Joe Biden held a press conference in Charleston, SC on July 23 before the CNN-YouTube debate, where two local companies had on display examples of Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicles (MRAPVs or just MRAPs). The Biden Amendment to the Iraq war funding supplemental passed in May included funding for accelerated procurement and deployment of these vehicles, which are four to five times safer against IED attacks, which account for 70% of our casualties in Iraq.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JNRoM4lNJq4

Now there you go again, with the “I know what you think” delusion. I’ve voted for Republicans too, does that mean I’m “affiliated” with them? I can’t see voting for one ever again, though. When Clinton proved to be another glad-handing company man corporatist, I didn’t vote to reelect him. I might not vote for Obama’s reelection for the same reason. You tell me. You know what I will do.

If I need to take the responsibility to stop a Republican one party dictatorship, then I would do what is necessary. Voting for a moderate right corporatist over yet another authoritarian aristocrat would be the logical and sensible choice. So tell us, who will I vote for? I suppose your nature refuses to allow the notion you might be wrong. That’s ok. Most of have already known that for some time.

Ah, the good old 1920’s. Not that any sane or humane person would want to take us back to 1920, but your very same elite folks who privatized success and socialized failure would love that. And are doing their best to roll us back to the bad old days again. How many Republican depressions does it take to sink in?

I’ll share your nostalgia for key moments in history and take all of us progressives back to 1886 and warn Americans of what was about to happen to their sovereign rights as “we the people”.

The Supreme Court case of Santa Clara County vs. The Southern Pacific Railroad in 1886 was used to grant corporate personhood. Although this personhood was not specifically worded in the decision. It was added by a clerk. J. C. Bancroft Davis wrote that the Chief Justice had said all the Justices had agreed that corporations are persons. Chief Justice Waite specifically disavowed this later in writing. Davis happened to be a former president of a small railroad, and was thus the man to strike a blow to democracy for corporatocracy and help endow corporations with all the rights of living person. The rights of human beings were being given to money. The god of Mammon was given birth and power over people. Big Money’s rights were to become superior to our civil rights and our Constitutional liberties.

They understood the need to infiltrate first and then seize our government.

As long as I’m giving you a history lesson, I’ll correct your errors.

Democracy enslaved Africans and forced Indians to march West to their deaths.

First of all, the democracy I refer to is our democracy within our Constitutional democratic republic, along with the rights of the minority.

But the news for you is this. Immoral, ruthless, unregulated capitalist greed drove the slave business. Yes, sir. It was just what the “free market” ordered. In fact, the free market would love a return to slavery. It’s so much better than that pesky minimum wage and those awful mean union thugs.

Same thing drove the Indians off their land. Do you think Americans voted to drive them like animals? That was not democracy; it too was driven by the interests of the economic elites of the time.

Corporations still to this day steal land. Only they learned to infiltrate government and invoke eminent domain.

So as you pine for the glory of the 1920’s and the Hoovervilles they produced, we remember what happens to those who don’t learn from history...

John Myste said...

Heathen,

I found that this describes progressives quite accurately:

"They are very self-righteous. They are not self-critical. They have very little critical thinking about their own behavior. They are often nasty and mean-spirited. They are bullies. They are prejudiced."


Do you find this describes conservatives?

Just My Two Cents said...

Dave you are so full of shit!

The Heathen Republican said...

"Do you find this describes conservatives?"

None that I've known personally and not most bloggers, personalities, or politicians I've seen in the media. Although some, yes. Hannity, Limbaugh, and Savage come to mind.

The description does, however, sound exactly like the left-wing caricature of conservatives.

On the other hand, it seems to describe many lefties and most left-wing bloggers including, for example, Dave Dubya and Jefferson's Guardian.

Not all, mind you, but I find both are quite self-righteous and have no clue how their words sound to others. I haven't seen that problem with you or SW Anderson, to mention a couple other from this comment thread.

free0352 said...

True, but I shall continue to pay dollars for your health care that would not be needed had democracy not lost the 2000 election.

Really? What do you think Al Gore would have done differently after 9-11 in regards to Afghanistan, and why was he calling for an attack on Iraq in 1992 and being critical of Reagan/Bush for not responding strongly enough to Iraq's terrorism and engaging in diplomatic talks after Iraq's nuclear program? Seems to me Al Gore was for attacking Iraq before he was against it.

Could it be Democrats turned on George Bush after his invasion of Iraq for political reasons? It sure seems so. How kind of them to vote to send us to war and then promptly turn on us and our mission when it made sense politically. It seems to me, had Gore been elected in 2000 nothing would have been different.

I can’t see voting for one ever again, though

Nuff said. That statement validates my point.

but your very same elite folks who privatized success and socialized failure would love that.

Than why-oh-why when libertarians and fiscally responsible conservatives try to get them to do just that do they resist us and instead pass TARP and Medicare Part D? Their actions speak louder than their rhetoric. Today's Republicans are not fee market people. You could never lay claim to that title having supported TARP.

First of all, the democracy I refer to is our democracy within our Constitutional democratic republic, along with the rights of the minority.

Firstly, we had a Constitution during legal slavery and Indian removal. Secondly the ultimate minority is the individual, and so it seems if that individual has too much money by your standard, his rights should be limited. Lets take a basic look at that, the concept of equality under the law. Equality under the law would have us paying the same tax percentage as our fellow citizens, or another example would be dividing the cost of government equally among tax payers and having them all pay an equal share. You do not advocate this, but instead advocate a punitive tax structure which punishes by ever increasing percentages of income taken in taxation those who make more money than others. That is not equal, that is fundamentally discriminatory.

. In fact, the free market would love a return to slavery.

How foolish it would be were that true. Slaves make poor consumers. In fact, the economy of the American South was hardly free market being driven by the vestiges of a Post Independence, Mercantile Economic System based not on free market capitalism but aristocracy and inherited wealth.

Same thing drove the Indians off their land. Do you think Americans voted to drive them like animals?

Actually the Supreme Court tried very hard to stop the President at the time, Andrew Jackson by issuing rulings to prevent Indian Removal. However Jackson - a Democrat, said famously

"John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!"

He went on to argue that Indian Removal was what "those whom had entrusted the office of the Executive" had wanted him to do. In short, THE PEOPLE- aka voters- had voted for him and his policy of Indian Removal and by that Democratic mandate Jackson had right to ignore the ruling of the SCOTUS, which he then did. And who did Indian Removal make way for? Was it rich corporate elites? No. It was poor farmers who laid claim Cherokee land. In fact, Jackson famously justified this unlawful theft by claiming it helped the poor tenant farmer with whom he was so popular. The 99% of his era.

There's a history lesson for you.

free0352 said...

Corporations still to this day steal land. Only they learned to infiltrate government and invoke eminent domain.

Kelo vs New London clearly does just that. And the arguement used to justify it was that more taxes could be collected from greedy corporations if private property was taken from private citizens and rendered over to developers. Democrats including then Senator Barack Obama were over joyed at that decision. Libertarians in revenge filed suit against Justice Stevens, the author of the majority opinion in order to use the precedent he set to cease his personal home, while George W. Bush issued an executive order to insure the Federal Government under his Presidency would not use the government's new found power under eminent domain to cease and auction private property for the benefit of corporate business. More over, Republican Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) introduced legislation, the "Protection of Homes, Small Businesses and Private Property Act of 2005" (S.B. 1313), to limit the use of eminent domain for economic development. The operative language
prohibits the federal government from exercising eminent domain power if the only justifying "public use" is economic development; and
imposes the same limit on state and local government exercise of eminent domain power "through the use of Federal funds."

The only members of Congress to oppose the bill were Democrats.

If we're going to learn from history, lets look first at slavery, Indian Removal, Japanese Internment Camps, the struggle for civil rights, Al Gore's crusade for music censorship, the fairness doctrine, on up through recent history with the fallout from Kelo vs New London and President Obama's recent signing of bills allowing infinite detention without trial at who has been the primary driver of inequality, gross government over-reach and oppression.

It wasn't the free market, it was The Democrat Party

Dave Dubya said...

Why, thank you, HR.

Wow. I'm flattered to be compared to Hannity, Limbaugh, and Savage.

As I am expressing my "Freedom Rants" as inpired by the words, “Irreverence is the champion of liberty, and its only sure defense,” some humor and sarcasm come with the theme of my blog.

Just like my fellow "entertainers" you mention, so I'm happy you understand.

The difference is I pick on the powerful; they pick on the weak.

But am I really as downright mean as those guys?

A just cause, I may retaliate for their foul cruelty and dishonesty.

Dave Dubya said...

Free,

Since I can’t see voting for a Republican ever again, that statement validates your point? What point? The point that I vote for Obama? The point I am a Democrat? I’d prefer to vote for almost any Socialist over a corporatist drug warrior and accomplice in the war on terror’s destruction of civil liberties. Since you know who I will vote for, why don’t you let us know too. After all you cannot be wrong, right?

Thank you for your meticulous response and your definition of equality. And thanks for shilling for the powerful elite victims of “inequality” again.

And we are well aware of our “equality” in Constitutional freedoms, contrasted with the more “equality” of the “persons” that are our corporate Big Brothers.

More Orwellian framing would be “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.” All persons are equal, but some “persons” are more equal.

Today's Republicans are not fee market people.

I agree. They are authoritarian, anti-democracy, radical Right, corporatists.

(Slavery, and every other evil...) It wasn't the free market, it was The Democrat Party

First, there is no such thing as a free market, or a "Democrat Party". Really. And the trading and ownership of slaves was pure business as usual for white conservatives way before there were any Democrats.

Time for more Remedial History:

First, the Indian Removal Act was not voted for by “The 99% of his era”. You’re off by about 90%. The conservative white guys had the votes that counted.

I’ll summarize the Trail of Tears origin. 1829: Gold discovered on Cherokee land, 1830: Indian Removal Act. Those “poor farmers” were Southern white guys after gold.

It ain’t a real democracy when over two million slaves and Indians couldn’t vote in the South.

You don’t think conservative aristocrats had an interest in gold and more land for their plantations? Yes, the Southern business minded conservative white guys wanted the land, and were intent on taking it.

Most European Americans favored the passage of the Indian Removal Act. It’s what America did back then when democracy (voting rights) was denied to millions of Americans, and conservative rich white guys ran the place.

The conservative Southern white guys were the ones that voted to deny rights to others.

Hey, that’s starting to sound familiar... there really is a conservative white Southern tradition of denying rights to fellow Americans. But it is spreading, along with the radicalization of the Right, all around our country.

Selective denial of civil rights has lead to very bad things. Conservatives seem oblivious of the harms, though.

Slaves make poor consumers

...is so true, just like the unemployed folks whose jobs were sent out of the country are poor consumers.

How foolish it would be were that true.\\

And that’s the way it is...

You must love the fact you can make up crap faster than I can debunk it.

I present one more nugget of those droppings.

had Gore been elected in 2000 nothing would have been different

...except the very Supreme Court that selected his opponent with fewer votes.

But that’s another story.

free0352 said...

I'm sorry if a Democrat President rounding up every indian he could find and frog marching them to their deaths opened a wound. First in a lot of round ups for Democrats, just ask the Japanese Americans.

just like the unemployed folks whose jobs were sent out of the country are poor consumers

Apparently then they need to stop beating the shit out of business, or the standard of living they've enjoyed for the last 100 years is going to move to China. Bye bye. Wave. Who you gonna tax when those nasty rich guys are living on some tax fee beach? You, that's who, cause then we'll be the 1% Then maybe you'll wake up to the "democratic" shake down going on when you're the victim and not the beneficiary.

Selective denial of civil rights has lead to very bad things. Conservatives seem oblivious of the harms, though.

Well, except when George Bush of all people is signing executive orders to stop things like Kelo vs New London. What was that guy you're gonna pull the lever doing about it? Oh yeah, he was overjoyed. I'll be voting Libertarian, you'll be voting for the guy who renewed Haliburton and Blackwater's contracts.

Leslie Parsley said...

I don't think it's about what he did in HS as much as it is about his failed memory and non-apology. This would have been a perfect time for him to make a strong statement against bullying but he dropped the ball. And, in his case, bullying has become an art form.

Dave Dubya said...

Free,
While I'm glad you show us what rich conservative white guys have done, it only adds to what I say about authoritarians.

Can you show us where rich conservative white guys opposed the internments? Did you know Germans and Italians were also interned? Do you know why?

News flash One: Conservative white guys are no longer democrats. Keep digging up irrelevancies regarding progressives. It's about character.

News flash Two: The elites are doing better than ever. Don't you know that yet? Why are you whining and shilling for them? Atlas is winning. Everybody else is losing. Still not happy? How much more do you want us to lose?

News flash Three: GW Bush was not a champion of civil liberites. He's a conservative authoritarian white guy who led us into this mess, and let his rich pals off the hook to pay for it. It's about character.

As I said before, please take Atlas away from America. He doesn't like us, and we don't need him.

When I vote for the Socialist on the ticket you will be wrong, but won't won't admit it, will you?

It's about character.

That sounds like a good title to this post, doesn't it?

Jefferson's Guardian said...

Free0352: "Apparently then they need to stop beating the shit out of business, or the standard of living they've enjoyed for the last 100 years is going to move to China."

It already has.

As far as the 1% moving off-shore, that's fine. let 'em renounce their citizenship and move to China, India, or wherever. That's perfectly fine with me.


"I'll be voting Libertarian, you'll be voting for the guy who renewed Haliburton and Blackwater's contracts."

Good, and I'll be voting Green. Until the vast majority of Americans wake-up and realize their country's been hijacked by corporate interests, we'll still be in the same sinking boat no matter which wing of the "Corporate Party" is leading the charge of the corporate-state. (Being in the military, you're defending and supporting the very tyranny you say you oppose. How ironic.)

Dave Dubya said...

JG,
Unfortunately, while the corporatists can leave our country, they've poisoned our system. They solidified the influence of multinational and even secret interests on our government.

The more Free says I'll vote for Obama, the more likely I'll vote Socialist. As I noted, I refused to vote for Clinton twice.

Part of me also wants Romney to finish the job and be done with it. If Americans are too stupid to remember what Bush left us, they deserve any fate the aristocracy hands them.

Dave Dubya said...

Leslie,
Mitt the Snip's "failed memory" and non-apology are what makes it about character. His past behavior would be less a factor if he didn't act like he never grew out of that attitude.

He is an authoritarian and is not a good choice for leadership. Too bad not enough of us have learned that.

The more people understand them, the less power they will have.

RedStateFred said...

First, there is no such thing as a free market, or a "Democrat Party". Really. And the trading and ownership of slaves was pure business as usual for white conservatives way before there were any Democrats.

Just curious Dave with your Howard Zinn like revisionist history. Did these "white conservatives" also control the capture of slaves in Africa to be shipped to the Americas? Domestic slavery was common in Africa well before European slave buyers arrived. Black africans enslaving fellow black africans for "profit and greed" did not exist in Africa? Maybe there was no free market and the black enslavers hired a lobbyist to find a loophole in the African tribal regulations.


Kelo vs New London clearly does just that. And the arguement used to justify it was that more taxes could be collected from greedy corporations if private property was taken from private citizens and rendered over to developers. Democrats including then Senator Barack Obama were over joyed at that decision. Libertarians in revenge filed suit against Justice Stevens, the author of the majority opinion in order to use the precedent he set to cease his personal home

lol, that Authoritarian Justice Stevens is one left wing loon, maybe his psychological well-being suffers from only eating at Burger King like Morgan Spurlock's did while only eating at that evil corporation McDonalds run by the 1% that the 99% are forced to eat at.

Jefferson, I just want to say that I apologize for slandering you and hurting your feelings which was mean. I hope we can be friends despite our political differences.

Green Eagle said...

I think this story is about the fact that his bullying behavior in high school is totally consistent with his sociopathic conduct decades later at Bain Capital. It has resonance because in this case people see it as a window into his soul.

Green Eagle said...

"and have no clue how their words sound to others."

You know what, Heathen? We don't give a damn what our words sound like to you. We learned long ago that you hear what you want to hear without regard to truth or common decency.

RedStateFred said...

I see OWS has a facebook presence, http://www.facebook.com/OccupyWallSt

Is there any internal conflict with you OWS people now that Mark Zuckerberg, CEO and founder of Facebook, is worth over $19 Billion? Do you think he robbed that money from someone else? Don't you think OWS should now boycott facebook? Is Mark Zuckerberg an evil corporatist?

Green Eagle said...

There is no way to discuss anything with people who will just lie in your face without a microsecond of discomfort. These right wingers know every word they say is false, but they are so greedy and so afraid that some Democrat might actually make them pay for the government services they receive, instead of just stealing the money from the poor, that you will never get anything out of them but the same old canned lies.

The worst of it is that, over and over again, they end up being just that many more victims of the rich.

Dave Dubya said...

Fred,
What part of this is "revisionist"?

"And the trading and ownership of slaves was pure business as usual for white conservatives way before there were any Democrats."

What color were the slavers bringing them to America, and selling them in America, and buying them in America, and whipping them in America, and raping them in America?

Or were these not conservative rich white Americans?

Are you saying because blacks sold out rivals in Africa my statement is false and "revisionist?

Would like to revise your question? Or would you agree with Mr. Free that is was the "Democrat Party", whatever that is, doing the slave trade all along?

Maybe to you, slavery is entirely the blacks fault, and not the rich white conservative Southern Americans. How's that for revisionist?

Zuckerberg, Jobs, Gates and other innovaters did not swindle people, create fraudulent credit default swaps and mortgage backed derivitives, buy the Senate and Congress, and then make the American people bail them out.

And you see no evil there, is that correct?

Dave Dubya said...

Funny thing about Republican memories. They're not at all like elephants. Reagan couldn't remember anything either, except fictitious anecdotes he thought were real.

RedStateFred said...

Dave,

Did these "white conservatives" also control the capture of slaves in Africa to be shipped to the Americas?

Dave Dubya said...

And your point?

RedStateFred said...

The point is the blacks in Africa who enslaved fellow blacks for "profit and greed" were just as bad as the "white conservatives" "profit and greed" in the Americas.

But of course your filter will only see the "white conservatives".

And your response?

Weaseldog said...

It's interesting that choose a bullying and mean spirited tone to make this point, about how others are not self critical.

You were engaging in sarcasm to prove a point, right?

Weaseldog said...

I'm still a registered Republican from the 1980s, yet you often call me a liberal and a progressive.

I wonder if these words mean what you think they mean.

Weaseldog said...

Dave has never claimed to be a Democrat.

That's what you keep saying.

So is this whole comment about you, arguing with yourself?

Dave Dubya said...

Fred,
I acknowledged that point already.

Does that excuse the "civilized" rich American white guys?

Is that your point?

You didn't explain how this statement is "revisionist".

"And the trading and ownership of slaves was pure business as usual for white conservatives way before there were any Democrats".

Is this false? You accused me. Back it up. Are you saying because blacks sold out rivals in Africa my statement about slavery in America is false and "revisionist?

Sounds like you're interested in a revisionist
justification of slavery.

But of course your filter will only see the "white conservatives".

This is clearly false if you read what I said previous to your accusation.

You're not lucid on your points, sir. But it is clear you want to accuse me of some evil or egregious error.

Would it be easier for you to just accuse liberals of being commies? This seems to be where it all comes down for you guys.

So go ahead, disregard my questions and request for clarification and get down to your dogma.

Feel free to do as your inner authoritarian wishes. Note your “Just the Troll” friend’s simple juvenile accusation about what I am full of. Say that, if it makes you feel better.

Accuse away. Tell me I'm a Marxist traitor, yadda yadda, useful idiot, blah, blah, have no values, yadda yadda, destroying America, blah, blah, hate freedom, blah blah, ad infinitum.

It's easier than rational discussion. And it makes you feel like a good American patriot....

But it might make you look like a useful idiot to the corporatocracy that is dismantling our democracy and standard of living.

So have at. Tell us what you really believe.

free0352 said...

I think Dave forgot that the Republican Party was founded on Abolition. It was not "conservatives" but Democrats, card carrying members of the Democrat party who fought and died to preserve slavery. Fought and died by the hundreds of thousands. Then after, drove Jim crow, drove tenant farming and share cropping. If you asked Jefferson Davis were he alive today what party he was in, he'd tell you he was a Democrat. Were George Wallace alive today, he'd tell you the same. That's why what you are saying is revisionist. It was Republicans Dave, who fought and died to end slavery. It was Republicans Dave, who got women the right to vote. It was Republicans Dave, who fought the hardest to get the civil rights act signed. I'm not a Republican, I don't agree with then on everything- but you can't take that away from them.

The history is very clear, Republicans spent most of their history fighting Democrats to keep the Japanese out of the camps, to free the slaves, and their whig ancestors to let the Cherokee nation keep their land. And today, when a bunch of Democrats want to rob from the rich and give to themselves, its Republicans standing up to that. As a Libertarians our history is short, only about 40 years. But our track record on individual rights and freedoms in that time has been perfect. Republicans are not perfect, but superior. The Democrats very long history? Not at all. In fact they have been wrong more than they have been right. Way more. In truth it wasn't too popular in America to support Indian property rights or oppose slavery or tell the mob of Democrat voters they have no claim to other people's money.

Dave Dubya said...

Free,
Thank you for not clarifying. Those Republicans and Democrats DO NOT EXIST.

Rich authoritarian white guys do. They have failed to provide jobs, crashed our economy, slaughtered innocents in their war of choice and profit, and they are wealthier than ever. Boo hoo.

Keep shilling for them.

The Libertarian record on human values and compassionate public policy is abyssimal.

"Greed is good" is not cutting it.

free0352 said...

What's more compassionate Dave, ensuring freedom and individual rights or locking up blacks to a life of vote serfs on the Democrat welfare plantation while the party elite reap the benefits?

As for the evil rich, they employ Americans. Rich Democrat elites in DC sure don't. The shake down the people who work for a living and drive them out of this country. Then complain about greed when those being ripped off object. If anyone is a shill for powerful people Dave, it's you and the progressive ilk. Now go cast your vote for more confiscation, more confinement without trial, more contracts for Haliburton, more Kelo vs New London policy, more bailouts for bankers- in short a vote for Obama.

Great job fucking up America.

Weaseldog said...

219 Republicans believe that the US Gov should have the power to 'Disappear Americans', as the communists in the Eastern Block used to do.

This is a vote on a bill to make this unconstitutional law, illegal. The 'noes' are in favor of disappearing Americans with charges, trial or notification of kin.

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2012/roll270.xml

Dave Dubya said...

Free,
Thanks for the false choice.

Tell us about what all the Republcans have done for blacks in the last century and a half.

Again, just who is reaping the benefits in our system? Your "job creators" are poviding less and less jobs and getting more and more wealthy.

They are in reality, getting far less of your "shakedown" than any of us can remember. Their taxes are lower than ever as their Swiss bank accounts swell larger. But their shills whine louder and longer than ever. Boo hoo.

If that's "oppression", they can get the hell out of our country.

Great job fucking up America. Because the helpless disenfranchised economic elites and their Republican Party have had no power or effect on policy over the past three decades?

Yessiree. I done it all by myself. Heh, heh.

Be nice to me, or I'll come back and finish the job with more tax cuts for the rich, more corporate welfare, more deregulation of Big Money, more corporate written trade agreements, more corporate written legislation, and a couple more wars for Halliburton, Blackwater and cronies.

I guess the only way to fix things is to give up our democracy and let the elites own our government and have everything their way.

Just like we've been doing over that past three decades.

Wease,
Thanks for showing just how "conservative" Republicans protect our "freedom and individual rights" as Mr. Free suggests in his false choice. Let's give them more power.

Weaseldog said...

I guess Lucas and Spielberg (Democrats) might be surprised to learn that they haven't created any jobs.

At least not as many as Paris Hilton (Republican) has.

And don't you know Dave, the continued income inequality and three decades of steadily increasing tax breaks for the wealthy, have today, given us the greatest economy and best employment conditions, that the USA has ever seen.

You can look at the USA today, to to see see the benefits of overseas investments and Middle East tax havens for the ultra wealthy.

Weaseldog said...

Free isn't well educated Dave. He doesn't know much about the history of the Republican Party.

In his schooling he never learned that the Republicans used to be the liberals and the Democrats the conservatives. Our crappy education system that gives us candidates claiming that Paul Revere was working for the British, strikes again...

Weaseldog said...

Mark Zuckerburg is worth $19 billion, so long as he doesn't try to withdraw the money.

If he starts cashing it in, the stock value will drop and he'll be worth a lot less.

Further, he's not affiliated with either party. He just likes money.

Do you assume that he's a Democrat because he made his money in IT? Are people who make their money in technology and science assumed to be Democrats?

And finally, has he produced $19/billion in jobs? It's possible that he's made huge profits. After all, at is fingertips is personal information on hundreds of millions if not billions of people worldwide. Information that he can sell at will. And does sell.

That's not really a liberal sort of trait.

That's certainly corporatist. Much like Bush and Obama granting warrant less wiretapping and Peeping Tom rights to private corporations.

RedStateFred said...

Dave,


I believe in the "economic means" discussed below to acquire wealth.

The limosine liberals and their running of the plantation, OWS, and the 99% primarily believe in the "political means" to acquire wealth.



The following is from "Anatomy of the State" by the libertarian Murray Rothbard


Man is born naked into the world, and needing to use his mind to learn how to take the resources given him by nature, and to transform them (for example, by investment in "capital") into shapes and forms and places where the resources can be used for the satisfaction of his wants and the advancement of his standard of living. The only way by which man can do this is by the use of his mind and energy to transform resources ("production") and to exchange these products for products created by others. Man has found that, through the process of voluntary, mutual exchange, the productivity and hence the living standards of all participants in exchange may increase enormously.

The German sociologist Franz Oppenheimer pointed out that there are two mutually exclusive ways of acquiring wealth:
- the "economic means"
- the "political means"


One, the above way of production and exchange, he called the "economic means."

The other way is simpler in that it does not require productivity; it is the way of seizure of another's goods or services by the use of force and violence. This is the method of one-sided confiscation, of theft of the property of others. This is the method which Oppenheimer termed "the political means" to wealth. It should be clear that the peaceful use of reason and energy in production is the "natural" path for man: the means for his survival and prosperity on this earth. It should be equally clear that the coercive, exploitative means is contrary to natural law; it is parasitic, for instead of adding to production, it subtracts from it.

The "political means" siphons production off to a parasitic and destructive individual or group; and this siphoning not only subtracts from the number producing, but also lowers the producer's incentive to produce beyond his own subsistence. In the long run, the robber destroys his own subsistence by dwindling or eliminating the source of his own supply.

RedStateFred said...

Dave,

Todays limosine liberals have replaced yesterdays "white conservatives" running the plantation.

Dave Dubya said...

Fred,
The false conclusion by the Right is that most people want handouts and not jobs. Of course the jobs are not there. The holy elite failed to produce enough jobs or shamelessly sent them overseas, but that false judgment still calls for stripping safety nets from the lazy "parasites".

Yes, I've seen this over-simplification before.

Let's look at the real parasites you guys call the "producers".

Tell us, what was "produced" by the Wall Street shell game of credit default swaps and mortgage backed derivatives?

Todays limosine liberals have replaced yesterdays "white conservatives" running the plantation.

You Right WIngers love to parrot this crap, but liberals have not been running anything for decades. This is reality, no matter what your beliefs are.

The mythical "liberal media" has been conglomerated by a handful of powerful corporations. Corporate money is now the dominant form of "free speech" in our political system. Congress and corporate lobbyists are the same club through a revolving door.

Need I spell it out for you further?

As I sarcastically explained Mr. Free:

Because the helpless disenfranchised economic elites and their Republican Party have had no power or effect on policy over the past three decades?

Yessiree. I done it all by myself. Heh, heh.

Be nice to me, or I'll come back and finish the job with more tax cuts for the rich, more corporate welfare, more deregulation of Big Money, more corporate written trade agreements, more corporate written legislation, and a couple more wars for Halliburton, Blackwater and cronies.

I guess the only way to fix things is to give up our democracy and let the elites own our government and have everything their way.

Just like we've been doing over that past three decades.

Weaseldog said...

So if the government gave someone millions in free money, they'd become hard working job creators?

Or is it.

If the government gave someone millions in free money, they'd get lazy and not work to create jobs?

I'm getting confused about the effect of giving free money to people are. They get lazy or work hard to create jobs. Which is it?

The multi-millionaire in the video below says that if you give rich people money, they just get lazy and don't create jobs. Because they don't need to. Will the multi-millionaires on this forum please provide evidence to the contrary?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=bBx2Y5HhplI

Weaseldog said...

RedStateFred. I don't doubt that folks believe in the things you say they do.

And yet everyday, we see politicians tell us what they believe in, then go do the opposite.

Now you seem to believe in thieves and liars, but I'm wired that way. When I catch people lying, it doesn't strengthen my faith in them, it destroys and opportunity for trust.

You and I will continue to disagree on this point.

Dave Dubya said...

Wease,
Great video clip. Hanauer is the newest of what they called FDR, a traitor to his class.

Loved the sour mean look on Trump's face.

The worst of them hate the truth.

"Greed is good" and "let the elites have everything their way" is all they want Americans to believe. It's working too, and only for them, nobody else.

Jerry Critter said...

Weaseldog,
You may be on to something. When you give "free money" to the poor, they spend it all, generating demand which creates jobs. When you give the wealthy "free money", the have no incentive to invest in their businesses, nor do they spend it all, so there is less demand created and thus fewer, if any, jobs created.

The job creators are those who spend their money rather than simply accumulate it.

The Heathen Republican said...

Mr. Eagle,

"You know what, Heathen? We don't give a damn what our words sound like to you. We learned long ago that you hear what you want to hear without regard to truth or common decency."

Thank you for making the point. Obviously, as a conservative, I'm not your audience. If you mean to persuade, you should care what your words sound like.

Of course, those who know you know that you don't mean to persuade. Ad hominem is all we ever hear from you.

"These right wingers know every word they say is false..."

I'm confused. Dave made the point that (he thinks) conservatives aren't self-critical and aren't aware of their own behavior. Yet here you are saying we're aware of everything we say. Which is it?

Do you disagree with Dave, or are you just looking for more ad hominem opportunities, whether or not you believe what you're saying?

Jefferson's Guardian said...

Yes, Weaseldog, that was a great vid. Here's more of Nick Hanauer on the same subject.

This is a reaffirmation of Keynesian economics: It takes demand to drive an economy, or to lift one out of the doldrums of depression. As usual, the supply-side conservatives have it all bass-ackwards. Jobs are created through demand. It's always been that way.

It's 10:27 minutes worth watching. Pay attention to the end. Der Spiegel addresses the current situation and puts it into clear perspective.

Weaseldog said...

Thanks for that one JG. I like the way he explains that because he's so rich, and pays so little in taxes, he doesn't have to work to create jobs, and doesn't.

Why should he, when the living is easy?

And for the Der Spiegel point, we're dumbed down as a nation so well, that that a large proportion of the population doesn't know poorly educated the candidates are. Look at all of the people who defended Bachman, and insisted she was right, when she said that the American Revolution was fought to free the slaves.

Dave Dubya said...

HR,

I'm confused. Dave made the point that (he thinks) conservatives aren't self-critical and aren't aware of their own behavior.

I’m afraid you’re far more confusing than confused. I understand. You’re just doing your job. We have discussed this.

Remember what we learned about projection?

It is difficult to be lectured by you if you can’t remember doing the very thing you’re accusing me of doing. These were your words early in this comment thread.

I found that this describes progressives quite accurately:

"They are very self-righteous. They are not self-critical. They have very little critical thinking about their own behavior. They are often nasty and mean-spirited. They are bullies. They are prejudiced."


See? You made the alleged “ad hominum” point you accused me of making. This is called projection. It is a common defense mechanism for those who have done wrong, or even said or thought something shameful or otherwise negative.

My point on this accusation was this: I agree that progressives are often "very self-righteous, are not self-critical, have very little critical thinking about their own behavior, and even nasty and mean-spirited". These traits are common to most people at some time. Yes, even conservatives, but they cannot admit it. We know.

How was that an ad hominum attack on you again?

Actually, John Dean made the point, but I don’t expect some of our readers pay to that close attention. John Dean is very familiar with authoritarian personalities. Nixon, Agnew, G. Gordon Liddy, etc.

He wrote a book about them called “Conservatives Without Conscience”. I think Cheney is one of the guys on the cover.

As Dean said drawing from his years spent within the Nixon White House:

There are also, however, a lot of very negative traits which I’ve outlined in the book. They are very self-righteous. They are not self-critical. They have very little critical thinking about their own behavior. They are often nasty and mean-spirited. They are bullies. They are prejudiced. And the higher they test on these questionnaires and scales, the more conservative they are. You don’t find people on the left testing the same way. It’s very interesting. You cannot get even statistically significant numbers of people on the left that fall in this category of followers.

This prompted you to project these characteristics almost exclusively onto progressives, as you claim to have never known authoritarian politicians or personalities, or even seen, amazingly enough, in the media.

Except for me, Hannity, Limbaugh, and Savage.

Who could argue with that?

“Yes, even conservatives, but they cannot admit it. We know.”

I called that one, didn’t I?

The Heathen Republican said...

Speaking of projection, my comment wasn't directed at you. Not everything is about you, Dave.

I asked Green Eagle a question because he contradicted your point. Green Eagle pretty much only made ad hominem attacks and no substantive points.

I ignored the rest of your comment since you made it all about you and were so off the mark. If there was anything of substance, let me know and I'll respond with one of my trademark lectures.

Dave Dubya said...

Your projection was here:

I'm confused. Dave made the point that (he thinks) conservatives aren't self-critical and aren't aware of their own behavior.

True, not everything is about me, but this is. You included my name, right? And you projected your own behavior unto me.

I'll gladly keep my nose out of your exchanges with others, if you keep my name out of your false accusations and projection.

Mmkay?

The Heathen Republican said...

So you didn't make that point? You're lying.

Weaseldog said...

He's lying about you using his name?

free0352 said...

Corporate money is now the dominant form of "free speech"

As spoken on a blog which can literally be read by a billion people in one day.

Not that a billion people will read but there is potential. It isn't that you don't have free speech Dave, you have more tools for free speech at your disposal than any other time in history for a cost so cheap it's mind boggling.

It's just that billions of people don't care what you have to say. Don't be so bitter about it and blame others for your lack of readership.

Dave Dubya said...

Wease,

As I patiently noted, John Dean made the point. It was drawn from his experience working with authoritarian Republicans.

I only agree with it, as it is true. Even if I originally made it, HR projected what he did himself at me. That is in plain view for all to see.

HR proved Dean correct as he needed to twist the authoritarian characteristics 180 degrees and attribute them to progressives...and for some odd reason, Limbaugh, (he-who-must-not-be-contradicted, which tells us all we need to know about authoritarian followers.)

HR decided it applied to progressives, “most left-wing bloggers” and Limbaugh/FOX(R) types. Perhaps those are desirable traits on the Right, since they reward their authoritarian propagandists so handsomely, and elect their authoritarian political leaders into power.

HR is merely doing his job. He needs to muddy the water and cloud the discussion. When reality paints its ugly picture of the radical Right, they need to attack that reality and project the negatives toward others.

We all know the authoritarian followers. They are the true believers of “death panels”, “Obama the Marxist racist”, “tax cuts for the rich create jobs”, FOX(R) is “fair and balanced” and everything Cheney and their authoritarian leaders say.

Free,

Ha. You crack me up.

Don't be so bitter about it and blame others for your lack of readership

Looks like more projection.

It’s the quality of readership that matters to me. You never disappoint.

free0352 said...

The problems in this country can best be illustrated by the two most popular groups outside of government trying to solve them. OWS and the Tea Party. Fundamentally they are protesting the exact same thing... our government is broken. One thing it's easy to find consensus on is that the government has failed to solve the very serious changes faced by America today. You ask 10 Democrats, they'll tell you government is failing. Republicans; same thing. The differences are in the solutions offered by the two groups. They're 180 degrees in the opposite direction.

OWS basically tells us that if we punish in business and the public sector; those who caused some of these problems, government will do more for people in a better, smarter, faster manner. Then we'll all live happily ever after.

The Tea Party says fire the bastards. It assumes as I do; that government is broken and will likely stay that way. That the more we empower it the worse it will become and the more the problems faced by Americans will get. It says that the fundamental flaw with OWS is that while a few scape goats will take the fall, the power given to the government will put those who have caused this mess who will survive on steroids. They say if you like the mess we're in today just wait till we feed those who caused it more money, more power, and more authority over us.

free0352 said...

What the Tea Party and more so Libertarians are saying is they want to take maximum responsibility for their lives. They're saying let us take care of earning for ourselves a living, providing health care for our families, for providing ourselves with a retirement. We're saying let government take responsibility only for the things an individual cannot possibly do. No individual can build even a single road- that takes government. No individual can defeat Al'Queda or North Korea or any of the other threats to this country, so we need a military to defend us and our nation's international interests. While we strongly think we have a right to own fire arms to protect ourselves for the same reason we own fire extinquishers and first aid kits- because response time for first responders is a factor- we still need a police force and fire department to handle situations an individual cannot. We need courts to handle criminal charges and peacefully settle disputes between citizens. Beyond those few things we cannot do for ourselves, we will do for ourselves. More over, for those who choose not to- don't make us responsible for them. We have our own life problems we are trying to solve. The last thing we need is the weight of perfect strangers around our necks making it more difficult to solve our own problems.

OWS doesn't think this, they think government- though they readily admit it's failure- are the answer to all their problems. It isn't. In fact the OWS solution will amplify all the objections OWS has with the State.

But all this is beside the point. Dave Dubya isn't a Tea Party guy or an OWS guy. He's a status quo kinda guy. He's a guy who this November who regardless of all his objections is going to run out and cast his vote not for any sort of change but for another four years of what he's admitted time and again is failed policy. And he'll do it because he thinks rich people are Republicans, and I've concluded he has a resentment towards rich people. Never mind the people he's voting for caused this mess, and are fabulously wealthy. Even more either ironically or hypocritically, most are rich by a means of what Red State Fred calls Political Means. What this means is they did nothing productive to make their money... they simply took it from people who were productive. What this suggests is Dave's arguements aren't original or productive or centered on solutions- but instead he's a kind of Political Fan-Boy. He gets in line, forms up, does an about face and marches on as a good little political soldier better than any actual Soldier who has ever worked for me in the Army.

His loyalty is amazing.

Dave Dubya said...

I must say I would completely agree with Mr. Free’s analysis...if his assumptions were correct.

Our government is not broken. It works just fine for the elites and corporations. Regulation is weak. Their taxes are down and profits are up. The Tea Party loves this. OWS and the sane members of the 99% question it. It’s not government, but Democracy that is broken. Government of, by, and for the people is what is being dismantled by Big Money’s tightening lock on our elections and government officials. See the congress/lobby revolving door. See Wall Street insiders in our treasury department and buying politicians. Even what was once the “Public Broadcasting System” is now beholden to corporate sponsorship. Thank the Republicans for this, and for primarily the rest of the corporatization of our government. They always have enough corpo-dems to follow their agenda thanks to Big Money’s corrupting influence.

It’s not just PBS. The regulatory function of government has been hijacked by Big Money. The trade agreement function of government has been hijacked by Big Money. It’s not broken. It has been hijacked. That is the status quo that Mr. Free falsely asserts I defend. He indicates I shall vote for Obama, who has caused all this. If he only could see how utterly false he is on both counts there.

And because I condemn the influence of Big Money on public policy, and support higher taxes on the elites, Mr. Free falsely concludes I hate rich people. Ironically the very purpose of Big Money’s seizure of our government is to expand their wealth by political means. That probably doesn’t show up well in their black and white view of the world.

We're saying let government take responsibility only for the things an individual cannot possibly do

Yes, one of which is to provide jobs. And another is the general welfare of the people. The last Republican Great Depression proved that government is necessary when unregulated capitalism fails to provide jobs. Our recovery is hampered now because the foxes are still in the henhouse. They work for Big Money more than we the people.

The difference between the Tea Party and OWS, apart from the fact the Tea Party was built by Big Money, and apart from the lunatic sense of “oppression” by the lowest tax rates ever, and apart from racist pictures of Obama with a bone in his nose; the real difference is the Tea Party is fine with corporate power dominating government, while the OWS understands the need for the rule of law and the constitutional duty of government to serve the people by regulating commerce.

Free’s right about one more thing. The people who caused this mess are fabulously wealthy. It’s their government now. And our loss.

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

The difference between the Tea Party and OWS, apart from the fact the Tea Party was built by Big Money

If the millions of people in the Tea Party were all worth "big money" we wouldn't be having many national problems.

This is what I've noticed you like to do- a lot of Democrats actually. Instead of addressing the issues the Tea Party has raised about government you try to deflect it with labels like "big money."

I suppose that's easier than making an arguement. It's a childish response actually. You bring up a random wacko with a racist sign as if anyone can do anything about that person... while I being an adult ignore the random idiot who took a shit on a police car at OWS... not to mention filth, rampant drug abuse and over 100 rapes at OWS. That's because I try to focus on issues here- while Dave, you seem desperate to avoid addressing the arguement. Why not skip the deflection and stay on issues? That would save time.

You argue how "big money" has taken over government for the worse... but it's hard to take that point seriously when immediately after you suggest we should give give government more power and control. Thats the equivalent of saying "Wow this employee sucks... LETS GIVE'EM A RAISE!" It doesn't make any sense.

What I find even more baffling is when you rail against "the powerful rich" who according to you have hijacked our government for the worse... and then in November will run out and cast a vote for Barack Obama who just two weeks ago put 15 million dollars in his pocket after one night at George Clooney's house.

And you may object to Obama's campaign fund raising in a later post... but you'll still vote for him.

Truth is, the people in Governmental elected positions got there because people voted for them. And largely, those people do what their contributors, party, and constituents want (in that order.) That's the way it is, has always been, and will likely always be. And you seem fine with that Dave, so long as that person is on the team you are such a Fan-Boy over. You're more like a diehard sports fan than a person interested in solutions.

Remember Dave: Feet at a 45 degree angle, body held erect, thumbs along your trouser seams, head and eyes forward. When it's time to salute- make sure your fingers are extended and joined with the tip of the pointer finger to your brow, elbow held parallel to the deck. And you say sir to a superior. And never question orders. Hope and Change.

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

Calling the Tea Party a construct and tool of Big Money is not "deflection". It is reality.

The so called "Issues of the Tea Party" are identical to FOX(R) and the Republican Party. Remember the big FOX Tea Party hoopla? I do. Thanks to the GOP pandering to them and they lost any remaining moderates along with the ability to compromise.

That's the way it is, has always been, and will likely always be.

No. It has not always been this way. The floodgates of Big Money are wide open as never before in our lives. Democracy is lowered further into its grave.

The issue I address is the seizure and corruption of our government by Big Money. End corporate personhood and restore our rights to real persons.

There's the problem and a big part of the solution.

Your solution is every man for himself. Let the government belong to the elites.

Dave Dubya said...

More Boo hoo for the aristocracy. You are hysterical. Profits and wealth have gone up, exclusively for the elites.

Facts.

free0352 said...

Oh, and I forgot to address this logic bending point.

Yes, one of which is to provide jobs. And another is the general welfare of the people.

The government creates jobs eh? Well certainly they do employ people. Specifically 2.7 million civilian federal employees, 2.3 million are on active duty and in the reserves of the military, and there are 19.8 million state and local government employees. That totals to 24.8 million people who work for government.

Last time I checked we have 300 million people in America, and of that only 153.6 million are eligible to work. The rest are kids, the disabled and old people. So 19.8 from 153.6 works out to be 133.8 million people in the work force not employed by government. It is true some of them are unemployed. The national average being 8.1% but really closer to 11%. We'll use 11% figure, which gives us 119.1 million people in America who somehow managed to find jobs in this country without ANY government help what-so-ever.

Oh it gets better, a full half of Americans who work are employed by small business, and small business according to the Small Business Administration amounts to over 99% of all employer firms in this country. They also pay 44% of the taxes in this country.

These numbers don't do your point very well. What this says; is that the vast, vast majority of Americans not only pay their own way in life but also pay 44% towards the cost of the over 14 million Americans who do jack shit- not to mention 44% of we humble government employees. And while they suffer that 14 million American burden they still managed to create 67% of the jobs these last 17 years.

And what Dave do you do for them for their trouble? Tell them they don't do their fair share, call them scum bags and demand they pay well over half their income in taxes. No wonder they're all off shoring to China and moving away. The Democrat policy is killing these people financially and you could give a rats ass. Instead you call them greedy and run out to vote for a guy who has real, authentic fat cats shilling out 15 million dollars a night from George Clooney's couch. I gotta ask, what the fuck is the matter with you? What are you thinking? I would suggest you abandon this insane Fan-Boy mind set and start supporting efforts to help the people we depend on as government employees instead of kicking them repeatedly in the balls... but I won't hold my breath.

Dave Dubya said...

No wonder you're always angry at me. You think I'm "fucking up America" and kicking people repeatedly in the balls.

And to think, I use all that power to oppress the elites as they become more and more wealthy.

I must be doing something wrong.

Jefferson's Guardian said...

Free0352: "OWS doesn't think this [in rugged, Marlboro-Man style individualism -- I suppose], they think government- though they readily admit it's failure- are the answer to all their problems."

You're way out in left field. As a matter of fact, you're not even in the ballpark! Please cite your source for this preposterous statement. (It would be nice if you weren't constantly exposing us to such unsubstantiated bullshit. I don't have waders high enough.)

free0352 said...

Hmmm Jefferson, from what I have read in their own literature is among other things, OWS wants what they call a "living wage" regardless of employment, free college education in addition to the free education they already are entitled to, government to end what they call a "fossil fuel' economy, an additional 1 trillion in "infrastructure spending" which they don't go into specifically what that means, 1 trillion in ecological spending to save the trees, something called a "Racial Gender Equal Rights Amendment" to the Constitution... I'm not sure what that means either. They go on to demand open boarders, and end to not only the war in Afghanistan but all foreign military presence we have outside the US boarders, 100% across the board debt forgiveness for all people in this country who are in debt, a law against credit reporting agencies, the establishment of a single Federal Banking system, and last but not least all the bankers and corporate people who took the bail out to go to prison.

That's what they want in their own words. Sorry guy, but I can't help but take them at their own word and that to me sounds basically like a socialist revolution. Now I understand OWS is a leaderless organization and no one person or group speaks for 100% of OWS'ers any more than one group speaks for the Tea Party... yet I must confess that even if a person wanted a quarter of that... well that's a person who believes in two mythical things. An honest government and the tooth fairy.

In case you want my sources, they are-

SEIU

occupywallst.org and their facebook page

occupytogether.org

I'll avoid link-bombing Dave's site again. I'm sure you can read three websites yourself and a facebook page. That is if you aren't a member already. Of course if you have a better source for what the occupy groups stand for, please share.

And Dave, we have a right to be angry.

Jerry Critter said...

Most, not all, of those things you list, Free, sound like pretty good ideas.

Weaseldog said...

Free, I like the way you make up stuff and attribute it to OWS.

That's excellent redirection, and great illustration of what this post is about.
BRAVO!

Weaseldog said...

You're a great poo flinger Free. Have you ever considered actually reading what people write and trying to remember it?

Or is it just easier to make shit up and fling it?

Dave's been clear for years that he's not an Obama supporter. Yet your Alzheimered brain can't seem to learn this. Why is that. Is safe to assume that you're really old, or is it something else causing our acute memory loss?

Weaseldog said...

So an organization is defined by every fringe idea a member has? Sort of like the Tea Party has been organized to drag negroes to death behind pickup trucks? Because there are some loonies in your organization, Free, you believe that we should ascribe their beliefs to you? And assume you believe in these things too?

I don't think that's a fair way to judge other people. I think you can rise above this.

free0352 said...

Hmmm, throwing people who didn't commit a crime into prison, throwing 2 trillion dollars into an unaccountable black hole, seizing private property, controlling the means of production and wages, rendering a college education worthless by making it universal... yeah sounds like a socialist quagmire to me. Tried the same thing in the Soviet Union, North Korea, and Vietnam to name a few. Millions starved.

S.W. Anderson said...

There's this phenomenon of American democracy called "countervailing force." Says that for some reason I were to get all wrought up about the environmental and health hazard presented by jet engine contrails. So I get others wrought up and we form a pressure group. Our group militates to have jet aircraft grounded unless or until the contrails menace can be neutralized.

In virtually no time, you'd have a pressure group, say Airline Pilots, Passengers and Shareholders for the Freedom to Fly. They would argue contrails are not only harmless but good for the environment. Their friends in the oil industry would chime in that contrail vapor is as healthy as mother's milk. Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla., would fly his plane for miles through the contrails of a jetliner, cockpit window open, to demonstrate the harmlessness.

Not only do groups form to oppose one another, but the tone and wavelength of the groups tend to be reflected on opposing sides. The whackier the fringers on one side, the farther out the countervailing force group on the opposite side.

So, free0352, if you think the OWS crowd is way out there, thank the tea party crazies.

free0352 said...

I don't think their objections are part of the problem, but in fact think they'r legitimate. There are things wrong with our government today. So I think your analogy is incorrect since both sides largely agree on what some of the problems are. It's the solution where there is a disconnect. One proposes a governmental solution- oddly enough because government is the problem. The other advocates an individual solution with a minimization of governmental solutions.

free0352 said...

Free, you believe that we should ascribe their beliefs to you? And assume you believe in these things too?

You should really read my posts. Specifically where I said-

"You [dave] bring up a random wacko with a racist sign as if anyone can do anything about that person... while I being an adult ignore the random idiot who took a shit on a police car at OWS... not to mention filth, rampant drug abuse and over 100 rapes at OWS. That's because I try to focus on issues here- while Dave, you seem desperate to avoid addressing the arguement. Why not skip the deflection and stay on issues? That would save time.

See I can accept there will be random idiots in a leaderless organization and not judge the actions of the whole based on the few. However, I can read the literature coming out of OWS from various sources and listen to the speeches and make a determination. I did quite a bit of research on OWS because I wanted to have a better argument against them, than one time an OWS dude shit on a cop car.

So direct that comment at Dave Dubya, since in fact he was the one cherry picking random morons, not I.

free0352 said...

And a last thought, the one thing this country could use is a little more Marlboro Man- Cowboy rugged individualism. A lot more actually. We're becoming a nation of weaklings and cry-babies.

Dave Dubya said...

Free,
Your 12:08 comment: “Hmmm”

Beside the generalized blanket statement that Communism doesn’t work, which we agree with, only not as you frame it, there’s your odd claim:

rendering a college education worthless by making it universal...

...is irrelevant, as not everyone could attain a college degree, and it is as illogical, as in saying “rendering education worthless by making it universal...”

You are correct about this:

There are things wrong with our government today.

While the Tea Part and OWS both make that claim that is all they have in common. And the differences are in both the problem and solution as I said:

The difference between the Tea Party and OWS, apart from the fact the Tea Party was built by Big Money, and apart from the lunatic sense of “oppression” by the lowest tax rates ever, and apart from racist pictures of Obama with a bone in his nose; the real difference is the Tea Party is fine with corporate power dominating government, while the OWS understands the need for the rule of law and the constitutional duty of government to serve the people by regulating commerce.

The racist element was visibly present at those demonstrations, and conveniently ignored by FOX(R) and fellow Big Money Republicans. That didn’t stop them from declaring the entire OWS movement as anti-American commies though, did it?

Those are two very divergent views of what is wrong with our government. OWS has no such vast corporate media and political party support. Only the grass roots of the American people. They may just be the last dying gasps of what was our democracy.

The OWS list of goals reflects the spectrum of the 99%. It’s a big club with diverse and even competing interests. The Tea Party is razor sharp in its focus on the interests of Big Money; cut taxes and regulation for the elites and demonize Obama and Democrats. The Tea Party has the backing and support of Big Money, the Republican Party, and FOX(R)/talk radio corporate media. This is not “deflection” as you suggested by your own fallacious argument that the dupes of the Tea Party are not all rich. It was not my point that they were.

Democrats only vaguely acknowledge OWS, as they say they “understand” the movement, in a vain attempt to co-opt it. The truth is OWS is outraged at both the Democratic and Republican Parties’ corporatist servitude.

They want democracy, not corporatocracy. As for the Tea Party...follow the money.

If we had “more Marlboro Man- Cowboy rugged individualism” we would also have more of the lung cancer that killed him.

free0352 said...

Dave, be making a collage degree "universal," lets say as a high school diploma is- because it's so easy to get- it would be rendered as worthless as the high school diploma it would replace as a box check on the way to employment. The more you have of something, the less it is worth. The standards for a bachelors degree and even an MBA have fallen over the years, to become more accessible to more students- and their worth has fallen in the market place correspondingly.

lunatic sense of “oppression” by the lowest tax rates ever

The rate paid now averages 50%, and it surely wasn't always so. That actually highlights how greedy your side has become when paying half isn't nearly enough for you, so you demand figures as high as 90%... numbers I've heard on THIS BLOG and in the media.

And as for cowboys, I'd rather have one that smokes than a dreadlock sporting looser living in his mom's basement who wants a welfare check for breathing along with his "universal" diploma.

Jefferson's Guardian said...

Free0352, as I previously mentioned, you're out of the ballpark (and making things up as you ramble along). Occupy Wall Street hasn't committed to, or publicly announced, any list of "demands".
There certainly have been grievances, no doubt, which mostly center around the growing income inequality and wealth distribution in the U.S. between the wealthiest 1% and the rest of the population.

You hardly speak for the heady and independent "cowboy" mentality that you seem intent on portraying. Until you wean yourself off the government teet, you're not a very convincing spokesman for the independence of the mythical Marlboro Man. If you truly believed it, you'd live it.

Jerry Critter said...

Nobody is suggesting that a college education should be universal...available for everyone at no or minimal cost. It should be available for only those that can meet entrance requirements.

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

Actually several OWS websites list the points I mentioned on their list of goals. For one they see a college degree as a right that should be provided by the state. So someone, in fact many are saying that. And where does that end? It is only logical that once, say- a bachelors degree- becomes a universal right colleges with less that scrupulous admissions departments will let dumb-dumbs in under the pretense of an easy degree... which will devalue the bachelors degree even more so than it is now. This is why 50 years ago if you had a bachelors you had a guaranteed job and today you have people with bachelors waiting tables in restaurants. You see that today with an MBA. Used to be an MBA was a big deal, now it's a check in the box because the free market delivered on a customer demand and a lot of MBAs flooded the labor market.

As for "no one speaking for OWS" I agree to some extent. It's a leaderless organization. But just like a person can examine the totality of Tea Party messages and conclude they want lower taxes and a smaller government you can do the same with OWS to determine a consensus of what it wants. The "demands" I mentioned were the consensus from their own literature- and I listed where I got that literature. If you have a problem with that I suggest you email Occupywallst.org or Occupywithus.org among others and tell them to stop being the two most traffic'ed occupy websites. If you have an online resource that does a better job of outlining what OWS is about you should send it to me. I for one don't like taking the MSM's word for much of anything and I like to make up my own mind about things; so I tend to go to the source and see for myself.

As for me being on a government teet; I think this illustrates an excellent point. Dave likes to talk about a black/white thinking and with you Jefferson that mindset is clearly on display. For you, I have to be either an anarchist or a card carrying socialist or I am a hypocrite. Taking a moderate position and saying there are some responsibilities of government and some things that are not isn't acceptable to you. That's an extreme line of thinking and that makes you a political extremist. You are part of the problem bud, not part of the solution. There can't be any kind of compromise with a guy like you who is operating on an "all or nothing" mindset. I think you do wonders for my cause when people read comments like yours because it highlights the extreme socialist theme many Democrats have. It says you guys aren't a part of the main stream political thought most Americans have. Instead you folks are a group of class warriors who won't accept any level of moderation short of government controlling the means of production and setting wages in a centrally commanded economy. The vast majority of voters can understand the need for a professional, all volunteer military these days and also possess enough nuance to understand that doesn't mean government should provide every waking need to the citizen. When offered the choice between a wonderful example of Liberal Progressive ideals like yourself and my very moderate approach I can't help but win. I only wish more Americans could hear Jefferson who is at least honest about his intent, as opposed to the more sly in your movement who know better how to hide their intentions and institute them by clandestine degree against the will of the American people.

Every time true liberals open their mouths like this, it demonstrates that Conservatives and Libertarians aren't the radicals and extremists we are often painted to be by liberals like Jefferson... its quite the other way-around.

Jerry Critter said...

A college education should be available to everyone who,qualifies, not only those that qualify and can afford it. It is money well invested and the country will be paid back many times over.

free0352 said...

Why not give everyone a PHD then? And when everyone has a PHD, won't those with a Masters (let alone a Bachelors) be at a disadvantage? What happens to those too stupid to graduate from high school?

Dave Dubya said...

This is what I found at the non-facebook links. I don’t do facebook.

is an international, people-driven movement of individuals with many different backgrounds and political beliefs. Since we no longer trust our elected officials to represent anyone other than their wealthiest donors, #occupy empowers real people to create real change from the bottom up. Organized in over 100 cities in the United States, the movement aims to fight back against the system that has allowed the richest 1% to write the rules governing an unbalanced and inequitable global economy, and thus foreclosing on our future.

#occupy wants to end the monetized relationship between corrupt politicians and corporate criminals. To end profit-driven policies. We believe our grievances are connected and rooted in corrosive corporate influences. We want a system that operates in the interest of the people.

#ows is fighting back against the corrosive power of major banks and multinational corporations over the democratic process, and the role of Wall Street in creating an economic collapse that has caused the greatest recession in generations.

Through a direct democratic process, we have come together as individuals and crafted these principles of solidarity, which are points of unity that include but are not limited to:
Engaging in direct and transparent participatory democracy;

Exercising personal and collective responsibility;

Recognizing individuals’ inherent privilege and the influence it has on all interactions;

Empowering one another against all forms of oppression;

Redefining how labor is valued;

The sanctity of individual privacy;

The belief that education is human right; and
Making technologies, knowledge, and culture open to all to freely access, create, modify, and distribute. (amendment passed by consensus 2/9/2012)

------
Free,
Why did you ignore all of that?

I couldn’t find most of what you allege they say.

Education is a right. That is not the same thing as a free college degree for all, regardless of ability. Where did you pull that one from? You ignore every mention of qualification and ability. Universal free college degrees for all, you said.

Where do they say this?

OWS doesn't think this, they think government- though they readily admit it's failure- are the answer to all their problems.

And this?

throwing people who didn't commit a crime into prison, throwing 2 trillion dollars into an unaccountable black hole, seizing private property, controlling the means of production and wages, rendering a college education worthless by making it universal...,

As far as I can tell, Wease is right about you making this stuff up.

If I applied your same method, I would say the Tea Party is a fascist and racist organization dedicated to a dictatorship by the economic elite.

And I may just be closer to the truth.

John Myste said...

Free,

Why not give everyone a PhD then? And when everyone has a PHD, won't those with a Masters (let alone a Bachelors) be at a disadvantage? What happens to those too stupid to graduate from high school?

Jerry did not advocate giving anyone a degree and you know it. Please don't misrepresent. It ruins the debate. Jerry advocated giving everyone the opportunity to earn a degree. So, it not "those too stupid" you want to penalize, but "those too poor." Those who are too stupid to earn a degree are already penalized and no one here suggested saving them with a degree, no one except for you, that is.

Jerry Critter said...

Thanks, John. Free has no argument for what I am saying so he has to make up shit.

free0352 said...

Its funny that in Dave's quote value was mentioned. Perhaps it's because I minored in economics when I was in college- and in truth if I had it to do over again I would have majored in Actuarial Science and not Political Science because I'm mathematical by nature- but I tend to see everything as related to it's value and incentives.

What value is, is key to what we're talking about as to education. Value is determined quite simply by what people will pay. Bottom line- something is only worth what people are willing to pay for it. You cannot redefine value, value is like the law of gravity. That includes not only labor, but the value of a college diploma. Labor has zero intrinsic value. Product has value, labor does not. If you work very hard making a substandard product, that product is not more valuable than an easily made, high quality product. In fact the easily made product of same or better quality is more valuable because it will be more appealing to a customer.

Now lets apply that to a bachelors degree shall we? We can assume that if we make education a human right and provide funding for it, that will increase the demand for a bachelors degree. It is only common sense that by subsidizing education more people will take advantage of it. So there you have it... Demand. The price of a college education will rise. This in fact has already happened to a certain degree as can be seen by ever more new students and a drastically increasing tuition costs. So with every Demand, Supply will increase. Schools will want to cash those subsidy checks, hot in the hands of all those students with a fresh human right to go to school. Therefore, they will lower entrance requirements in order to cash in and make maximum profit. Some schools surely will not, however many more will do so. You libs may want to rule greed out of the equation, but greed like gravity is practically a law of nature. In fact, this has already happened to a certain degree with college entrance requirements and tuition costs. Certainly this has happened with a High School Diploma which is essentially worthless in today's labor market. A high school diploma costs more today and is worth less than it was 50 years ago.

free0352 said...

Now call me crazy, but I believe the incentive for the vast majority of college students to attend higher education is to be more competitive in the labor market. After all, a person's labor is only worth what someone is willing to pay for it. You can try to debate that, but it's true even with you on a limited level. Let me ask you this: Would you pay someone to work really hard to shine your shoes for 20 hours and pay them a thousand dollars; or would you rather pay a guy 8.50 and have the same job done in 10 minutes? We all know the answer to that question. So by increasing the number of bachelor degrees- and I'll even assume every graduate is a worthy student- you will DEVALUE and DELUDE a bachelors degree value in the labor market just as a high school diploma has been devalued and deluded. You will actually make things worse for that young kid out there trying to get a job. In fact, you will make it worse on several levels. You will increase the amount of competition he or she has in the labor market, you will give incentive to unethical schools to graduate idiots further eroding the value of his or her degree and finally you will dramatically increase the costs of higher education. Further, lots of students will use subsidy to pay for degrees in utter garbage because the students are stupid and the degree is easy to get. A million new art majors won't help this country in any real, meaningful, productive way. Basically what your good intentions have done is lower the labor market bar, lower wages, increase education cost, delay entry into the labor force as students are forced to get graduate degrees to be competitive, and increase unemployment by locking even more non-educated people out of the labor force.

This is likely not what you had in mind I'm sure, but that will be the result. What result exactly? More of what we see today... college graduates waiting tables at Dennys because their degrees are no longer competitive in the labor market due to over supply through botched incentive. More over, you'll see government scramble to regulate entrance requirements for schools. Just imagine George Bush being in charge of this. That alone should turn you off.

I know it's the dismal science folks but a science it is. Economics, the world revolves around it even in command economies. I was kind-of giving you all credit for understanding what I have just explained, but I just remembered that few students bother to stay awake for ECON 101 let alone minor in it.

John Myste said...

Let me summarize what Free said for everyone, so in case there are those in the audience who slept while Free was minoring in economics:

If we have fewer people in America who are college educated, the country will be a better place. If we have more college educated people, knowledge will become worthless, because employers will stop wanting to pay for it, and will, in fact, hire street people, so all of our wages go down.

The problem with education in America: too much of it.

It's simple economics, as I and Free say.

Jerry Critter said...

"Now call me crazy..."
Free, you are crazy.

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

No John, you missed the point and you know it. I guess I have to dumb it down for you. So its like this... the more you have of something the less it's worth. The more bachelors degree holders there are, the less competitive they are in the labor market because... duh... they become a dime-a-dozen. Then in ten years we'll be having a debate on why government should pay for everyone to get a masters, then a PHD and on, and on, and on. More over it will create an incentive for fraud, which will require the government to police schools. That might sound nice, but as I said imagine George Bush setting standards at schools. Very quickly that gets frightening.

free0352 said...

You can say what I'm telling you is crazy but it's already happening.

Have you really never asked yourself why college educated people find it much harder to get a job today than they did even 20 years ago?

free0352 said...

Another question you may want to ask yourself is do you want to solve a problem or do you just want to feel good about throwing money at the problem?

Jerry Critter said...

And I always thought lack of jobs was the cause of unemployment. Now you are telling me it is an over educated population. You realize, of course, that college educated people have the lowest unemployment rate.

free0352 said...

Yes they do have the lowest unemployment rate but that will change rapidly as the labor market floods with more bachelors degrees which are deluded in their value. That trend is already in motion. We've had a lack of jobs in the past, even worse than today and even during the great depression it was easier for a graduate to find employment than it is today. The reason for that is a bachelors was more valuable on the labor market in 1930 than in 2012. You're going to have to look past your heart and start staring at the numbers on this issue. Let me ask you this, if most Americans have a bachelors degree how do they become more competitive? More over, what happens happens to those who can't get one? You're gong to lock people out of the labor market, and increase unemployment, tuition costs, and the age of Americans entering the workforce as they spend more of their lives attaining ever more graduate degrees to better compete. Often for jobs that wouldn't really require them.

John Myste said...

No John, you missed the point and you know it.

It is not possible to miss the point and at once know it. The act of missing the point precludes knowledge of the point missed.

I guess I have to dumb it down for you is this... the more you have of something the less it's worth.

That is not dumbing it down. It is repetition.

The more bachelors degree holders there are, the less competitive they are in the labor market because... duh... they become a dime-a-dozen.

Actually, I believe we are not talking about monetary cost, as there will be no monetary cost, which means they will not cost 0.8333333333 per degree, as you suggest.

Then in ten years we'll be having a debate on why government should pay for everyone to get a masters, then a PHD and on, and on, and on.

We should have that debate immediately. I like where you are going with this.

Anyway, all you did is reiterate your point, that your concern with education in America is the deleterious effect of too much of it.

If this is not your point, but merely your statement, can you please dumb the dumbed down version down so the lesser people such as I can understand why Free is worried that too many Americans will become educated and I too can worry about this? You need to clarify your position or I may mistake it for a false justification for not wanting the poor to be educated on America’s dime. Argue what you believe for the reason you believe it, sir.

Jefferson's Guardian said...

Free0352: "As for me being on a government teet...[f]or you, I have to be either an anarchist or a card carrying socialist or I am a hypocrite."

Only because you want me to believe you interpret it that way, which I don't. You know exactly what I mean, but you're afraid to confront your hypocrisy in the eye. You pretend to be the free-wheelin' cowboy who's creating your own path to financial independence and freedom, yet you hang on to a lucrative (in this economic market) government job until you can attain a pension plus have paid healthcare benefits the rest of your life. If you were true to your libertarian creed, you'd be slogging it out like the majority of us and pretending your 401K will not be robbed (again) when the banks make their final assault on the middle and working classes, and would be stuck with crappy healthcare benefits and sky-high deductibles and premiums.

You're not the Marlboro Man -- you're Beetle Bailey, except you speak with "forked tongue".


"Taking a moderate position and saying there are some responsibilities of government and some things that are not isn't acceptable to you."

That's hilarious, because I gather from this comment that you consider your position moderate?

What position have I taken, Free, that you think isn't moderate in terms of government responsibility? Could it be protecting its citizens from corporate intrusion in its democratic processes? Or could it be the protection of its citizens from corporate polluters poisoning our waterways, our air, our total ecosystem...and ultimately our bodies?


"There can't be any kind of compromise with a guy like you who is operating on an 'all or nothing' mindset."

Gee, that's what I always thought about you...


"I think you do wonders for my cause when people read comments like yours because it highlights the extreme socialist theme many Democrats have. It says you guys aren't a part of the main stream political thought most Americans have."

And you are...?

(Oh, one other thing, I'm not a Democrat.)


"Instead you folks are a group of class warriors who won't accept any level of moderation short of government controlling the means of production and setting wages in a centrally commanded economy."

Hmmm, I don't believe I've ever mentioned being favorable of a centrally planned economy. I guess because I'm adamantly against corporate influence in our governmental processes, and big money pulling the strings of our puppet government, you automatically assume that means I favor government controlling the means of production? Is this correct?

You're wrong!


"When offered the choice between a wonderful example of Liberal Progressive ideals like yourself and my very moderate approach..." [bold print for emphasis]

WTF!! You, moderate...and very at that??

Do you even read what you write? If you do, do you laugh your ass off when you're finished?


"I only wish more Americans could hear Jefferson who is at least honest about his intent..."

Believe it or not, I'm interested in hearing from you what you think my intent is exactly?

free0352 said...

Everyone having a college degree sounds nice. It really does. Just like everyone has a right to own a home sounds nice. How did that turn out? Having a college degree is supposedly a good thing right? Can't have to much of a good thing! Oh wait... as tax breaks and subsidies for home ownership showed- yes you can have too much of a good thing.

Jefferson,

I'm not suggesting you have a problem with an all volunteer, professional and publicly funded military. In fact I have a hunch there are a great deal many things that aren't publicly funded and regulated you think should be. In fact I can't think of anything you don't think should be publicly funded, or at least subsidized and regulated.

Your point seems clear. Free0352 is a hypocrite because he supports a limited government and yet works for the government. That would be true if I were an anarchist... which I'm not. There are a great many things I think government should be responsible for regulating and funding through taxation. In fact on this very blog I have been critical of the privatization of prisons among other things. Not only does government have the responsibility to meet certain needs of citizens but with a few things government should exclusively be responsible for.

So compared to you Jefferson, I'm very moderate. I can say- some things the government should do... some they shouldn't. I'm not suggesting an anarchy where there is no government or government has zero authority. I simply suggest we limit governmental authority to certain things. I can't think of a single issue we've talked about where you haven't come down for more government authority. Not one.

As for my being a "rugged individualist" I and every other person who has a job is just that. I don't collect a welfare check, I work for it and my employer is the People of The United States.
Every cent I'm paid is in exchange for work in regards to a contract your representative as a taxpayer- an officer of the President of The United States signed. They made me the offer, and I accepted it as it was mutually beneficial. If you're unhappy with the terms of the contract, you should contact Barack Obama's office and complain.

As for your intent, Finland, Norway, UK? Somewhere in there is what you're looking for. Perhaps instead of burdening your fellow citizens with a government they don't want- you should just emigrate. I think you'd be happier.

John Myste said...

Everyone having a college degree sounds nice. It really does. Just like everyone has a right to own a home sounds nice. How did that turn out? Having a college degree is supposedly a good thing right? Can't have to much of a good thing! Oh wait... as tax breaks and subsidies for home ownership showed- yes you can have too much of a good thing.

I was not really debating the point, Free, but just clarify it: too much education in America is a bad thing. I was not sure that your adoring audience would appreciate the gist of your claim.

free0352 said...

All I can say John, is not all of us can be benevolent philosopher kings... The rest of us peasants have to live in the real world of bad numbers and economic reality.

John Myste said...

Free,

All I can say John, is not all of us can be benevolent philosopher kings... The rest of us peasants have to live in the real world of bad numbers and economic reality.

I am not aware of any philosopher kings other than in the mind of a Greek with whom I don't agree (about that, that is), and I think you know this. Therefore, I am not sure why you revive that silly comparison.

As for your claim that the rest of us have to live in the real world of bad numbers and economic reality, I will consider it what it is, your declaration that you don't want the poor to be educated because you fear it would devalue your education.

Your philosophy in this matter is not only most likely wrong, but is completely selfish, even if it is right. I see no evidence that a less educated America is good for America or that your supply and demand view of education is a relevant comparison.

Once I see an educated country over taken by a less educated one by virtue of the less education, I will give your theory the scientific consideration it deserves, just as I have now.

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

but just clarify it: too much education in America is a bad thing

No, my point is too much subsidy in America is a bad thing. I can think of a great many countries who have subsidized themselves into economic ruin.

Sorry if I'm not interested in sacrificing the economic competitiveness of a college education on the alter of your altruism and shallow assessment of economic factors like incentive and value. We number crunchers must seem so callous to you benevolent philosopher kings who can afford to exercise their consciences with other people's money with no regard to the consequences. Be that as it may, I think you should have learned your lesson with the housing boom. But as you are not accountable for your ideas, I can see why you advocate them without regard to the consequences of them.

John Myste said...

We number crunchers must seem so callous to you benevolent philosopher kings who can afford to exercise their consciences with other people's money with no regard to the consequences.

I program financials software for a living. I have no problem with number crunching. It's what I do.

Again, I was just clarifying your position, that too much education will harm a nation. If we want to stay competitive, we must stay uneducated.

Be that as it may, I think you should have learned your lesson with the housing boom.

I would like to formally apologize for the Housing Bubble. I didn't mean it, guys. Sorry.

But as you are not accountable for your ideas, I can see why you advocate them without regard to the consequences of them.

Again, I certain can appreciate the potential disaster of too many educated Americans.

I live in Texas, where the Republican government has made sure to nip this time bomb in the bud poste haste.

free0352 said...

Again it isn't too much education, it's too much subsidy. I think I made that point over and over. At this point oh king, I think you're arguing with yourself. Oh what will the Republic ever do?

Weaseldog said...

free0352 says, "Hmmm, throwing people who didn't commit a crime into prison, throwing 2 trillion dollars into an unaccountable black hole, seizing private property, controlling the means of production and wages, rendering a college education worthless by making it universal... yeah sounds like a socialist quagmire to me. Tried the same thing in the Soviet Union, North Korea, and Vietnam to name a few. Millions starved."

I know it bothered all of us, when you supported these things while Bush was President. But now that Obama is continuing these works with full Republican support, you are defying the Republican Party and flip flopping.

You do realize that the Republicans in the House and Senate, overwhelming support these things, right?

Weaseldog said...

You want everyone to get cancer, after supporting industry for decades, and get an industry payout to keep silent?

Weaseldog said...

"throwing people who didn't commit a crime into prison" - CIA Black Sites

"throwing 2 trillion dollars into an unaccountable black hole" - No bid contracts to Halliburton and other Muslim Corporations.

"seizing private property" - Destroying nations to seize their resources and land for international corporations.

"controlling the means of production and wages" - Using government subsidies to increase the profitability of corporations that funnel campaign funds back into Republican coffers.

"rendering a college education worthless by making it universal...," - Subsidizing the flight of industry offshore and subsidizing the immigration of college grads from India, to compete with American workers at a much lower wage scale. This was pioneered by Republican Dick Armey.

Weaseldog said...

Labor has no intrinsic value?

That is the most revealing thing I think you've ever written. And it's not something you'll find backed up in economics text books.

But I see that you do view everything as a consumable commodity. Even education. But for that to be true, shouldn't the benefits of education run out and have to be replenished? But it doesn't work that way. An education provides the capacity to provide increased benefits to society as a whole throughout a persons lifetime.

Rather than view at as a commodity that is used one and is gone, you should be viewing it like an investment that pays dividends for life.

Weaseldog said...

And why pay for education, right?

If your co needs someone who can read and write, you can hire someone from Canada, Mexico, India, China or Sweden.

An ignorant America is a cheap America, that can't afford to buy products. But we can import consumers from overseas too, right?

Weaseldog said...

We used to have a better educated population and the USA was the technological leader of the world.

Why do you think that was a bad thing?

Weaseldog said...

"As for my being a "rugged individualist" I and every other person who has a job is just that. I don't collect a welfare check, I work for it and my employer is the People of The United States."

Like I said, you're a socialist. You've spent your life living off of our tax dollars, while we actually create things, and work in a capitalist system. And constantly you a hard core, living the life socialist, continue to berate us hard working capitalists, for being socialists, because we see value in being taxed to provide folks like you with a job.

Weaseldog said...

And the everyone should have a home thing is a Republican Bush plan.

Promoted by the banks as a means to make big bucks from government sponsored fraud.

Free is compiling a long list of Republican ideals and works that he despises, while explaining how the Democrats are the problem.

Weaseldog said...

The Republican Housing Boom.

Weaseldog said...

No, you made the point that an educated America would make you feel inferior.

John Myste said...

No, my point is too much subsidy in America is a bad thing.

Then you should not point out the economic dangers of too much education to make that point, or some simpleton may think you are not arguing what you believe for the reason you believe it.

John Myste said...

I am going to have to agree with Weaseldog on this one, Free. I distinctly remember that point.

FandB said...

Free is correct. Everything else being equal, more people having Bachelor degrees (for example) decreases the value of a Bachelor degree in a free market. That is basic economics.

The strawman arguments about making education worthless are worthless themselves.

The point that Free was not addressing, but that others were dancing around, is related to the value to the country of having more highly educated people. More Bachelor level educated people in the workforce improves the competitiveness of the U.S. in many ways. Two of these are that a more educated workforce would produce higher quality output at a lower cost (for various reasons), and the level of technology and complexity of the processes and products produced could increase due to the improved capability of the workforce.

One other point that has not been addressed is that the situation exists now, the subsidies are already there. I certainly get the impression that no one commenting here has put a child through college lately. There is this thing called FAFSA, it is a form prospective college students fill out and submit to the government. It is designed to equalize opportunity and negate (to a large extent) the importance of family income in college selection.

Assuming the student is academically qualified and accepted at the university of his/her choice, any student, regardless of income, can go to any school that he/she wants to attend. Through the FAFSA process, the government decides how much the student and family can afford to pay. The gap between ability to pay and actual cost is made up through various grants, loans, and campus jobs. The parents are even able to easily obtain a "Parent Student Loan" so they can afford their part.

When my daughter was applying to schools a number of years ago, it would cost her the same amount to go to Illinois State or Notre Dame (both of which accepted her based on her academic high school performance). More money would be provided in the form of loans, grants, etc if she chose Notre Dame, and she would graduate with more debt, but the opportunity was there. As it is for all students wishing to go to college.

As far as the burn-outs who take the term "high" school too literally, and drift through high school in a drug induced haze (e.g. Obama), they should not be entitled to government subsidies. But if they can get a college to accept them, they will be eligible for money just like anyone else in the FAFSA system. In fact, in this system, the less you (and your family) have, the more you get.

There is no legitimate reason now for anyone not to go to college, provided they are able to meet the academic requirements and get accepted at a college or university.

free0352 said...

more people having Bachelor degrees (for example) decreases the value of a Bachelor degree in a free market. That is basic economics.

Than you for exercising a little common sense.

More Bachelor level educated people in the workforce improves the competitiveness of the U.S. in many ways.

Not necessarily. A nation of art majors will not improve our competitiveness. Business majors? Astrophysicists etc.? More likely. However- that's not what we're talking about here are we? OWS and these guys on Dave's blog are calling higher education a "right." By classifying it as such, it becomes impossible to pick which majors a student will pick. You potentially waste a lot of tax dollars on the art majors of the world that way.

And of course then we have the law of unintended consequences. What happens as I pointed out, when a guy like George Bush gets to set priorities as to which student gets subsidized? I'm pretty sure that won't end well. What happens when special interest gets to weigh in on who gets a free degree?

the subsidies are already there.

I agree. But these folks aren't talking about subsidizing, they're talking about enshrining a right- and that is a different matter all together. You go from saying "Gee, having a few more astrophysicists might help" to "Throw Money."

Throwing money doesn't work. Ever.

free0352 said...

I know it bothered all of us, when you supported these things while Bush was President

Was I supporting Bush when I didn't vote for him. Was I supporting Bush when I opposed NCLB, Medicare Part D, or TARP? I suppose you could say I was supporting Bush when I was for invading Iraq, but you could just as easily say I was supporting Hillary Clinton as she was for it too. After all, I supported her husband when he bombed Iraq twice and Afghanistan once.

Jefferson's Guardian said...

Free0352: "...I have a hunch there are a great deal many things that aren't publicly funded and regulated you think should be."

You seem to know me better than I know myself, so please, humor me. List them.


"I simply suggest we limit governmental authority to certain things."

I can agree with this, just as I suggest we limit corporate influence to certain things.


"I can't think of a single issue we've talked about where you haven't come down for more government authority. Not one."

That's possibly because I typically only comment on subjects that deal with corporate influence in government. So, from that perspective, yes, I believe in more "government authority" (i.e., authority from We the People) to stem that tide.


"I don't collect a welfare check, I work for it and my employer is the People of The United States." [Bold type my own -- for clarity]

It amuses me that from day-one, the first time I read any of your commentary on Dave's blog, you've been adamantly in favor of shrinking the "government" to a few specific functions. Or, as Grover Norquist is fond of saying, shrinking government "down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub." You've lambasted "government" every, and any, time you've had the opportunity, as if government is some three-headed creature that's out there "somewhere" -- inside the Beltway -- ready to pounce and eat your young.

However, when you speak in terms of your own employment, which is only possible through the tax dollars I provide with millions of others, you soften the rhetoric, and almost speak affectionately of that same government being "the People of The United States".

For as long as I've followed this blog, Dave has often spoken about, or at least alluded to, the government of "We the People". Is he starting to convince you, or is it only a government of "the People of the United States" when it pertains to your own employment -- not the employment of others?


"Every cent I'm paid is in exchange for work in regards to a contract your representative as a taxpayer- an officer of the President of The United States signed. They made me the offer, and I accepted it as it was mutually beneficial."

I believe each and every civil servant, civilian or otherwise, would make the same claim. Yet, somehow, you feel your job is more important. I find your narcissism, or at least your special brand of elitism, fascinating!


"As for your intent, Finland, Norway, UK?"

Those are places, not intents. You previously mentioned that I am honest about my intent. Please explain, for me, what that is. I need to know.


"Perhaps instead of burdening your fellow citizens with a government they don't want- you should just emigrate. I think you'd be happier."

But I'm already happy, and I'm not burdening anybody with a government they don't want. You are, remember? You're the federal employee -- not me.

Jefferson's Guardian said...

Free0352: "Throwing money doesn't work. Ever."

Did the trillions of dollars that were thrown at Iraq and Afghanistan work? How would we know it did...if it did? How would we know it worked, if we never knew what it was we wanted the trillions of dollars to help make work?

Dave Dubya said...

JG,
Throwing money at Halliburton Dick and cronies worked fine...for them.

F&B,
Everything else being equal, more people having Bachelor degrees (for example) decreases the value of a Bachelor degree in a free market.

This generalization depends on what “Everything else being equal” means, and what “value” an education may have if it is not directly related to the field of employment. Then of course, just what is a “free market”?

Just wondering.

no legitimate reason now for anyone not to go to college

The “free market” is not very loan friendly for college these days.

. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/29/community-college-student_n_855523.html
More than one million community college students in 31 states are denied access to federal loans, according to a report released by the Project on Student Debt.
From FOX(R):
College Students Still Denied Federal Funding: Report

http://www.foxbusiness.com/personal-finance/2011/05/04/college-students-denied-federal-funding-report/

Although 9.2% of students lack federal student loans nationally, African-American and Native-American students lack 16.4 and 18.5% respectively.

Perhaps your “legitimate reason” could be defined better.

As far as the burn-outs who take the term "high" school too literally, and drift through high school in a drug induced haze (e.g. Obama), they should not be entitled to government subsidies.

Maybe you need to modify As it is for all students wishing to go to college to only those students who conform to your idea of “qualified” that has nothing to do with academic ability.

Or are you just pissed off that a black pot smoker can go on to edit the Harvard Law Review and then to the Oval Office, while you cannot? Seems to me your haze was foggier than his.

Or should Bush Jr.’s whiskey and cocaine be the preferred “qualified” choices to “drift through high school in a drug induced haze” that entitles one to loans?

Please clarify your prejudices.

Free,
Who is calling higher education a "right." here?

You claimed OWS does, and then transferred it to...Just who exactly?

free0352 said...

How about instead you list the things government should not be regulating that it currently is.

as Grover Norquist is fond of saying, shrinking government "down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub."

On this Governor Norquist and I are in complete agreement.

as if government is some three-headed creature that's out there "somewhere"

That's funny, since I would say the same to you about your opinion of corporate America.

Government isn't The People. Government is an organization of people who work for citizens who are in effect their customers, who are funded by tax dollars. THE PEOPLE do not govern, provide governmental services or in the military's case fight wars. The subcontract this to various levels of government. Some of the services provided are needed and lawful, many more are not.

As to my function within that framework, I as you know am an infantrymen. It would be hard to make the case that our Army would function without us. However, I can think of a great many Soldiers whose mission and jobs are a total waste of tax money. There is waste in the Department of Defense Jefferson. I make no arguement against that. However, since I'm an actual authentic warfighter I highly doubt anyone would suggest my job is unnecessary to the Army. But I will tell you, every day I wish I could take a sledge hammer to our budget. I've seen money wasted that would boggle your mind. But I guess that's tradition. Compared to how we were doing compared to WWII let alone the most wasteful as to spending conflict in our history... The Civil War I guess we've shown improvement. Anywhoo, we're no angels over here at Defense Dept when it comes to throwing money into a black hole but we're nothing compared to Medicare or Social Security.

free0352 said...

Whoops Dave must have commented while I was writing.

Throwing money at Halliburton Dick and cronies worked fine...for them

If this is presumably bad, please explain why you vote Democrat. After all, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama have given far more contracts to Halliburton that during the George Bush years. And if it isn't bad, why complain?

Then of course, just what is a “free market”?

From Websters: Free Market Economy: An economic system in which prices are determined by unrestricted competition between privately owned businesses.

The “free market” is not very loan friendly for college these days.

That's odd. I mean, the federal government has gotten involved with student loans more and more every year! Could it be, the more they get involved the harder it becomes for a student to secure a loan?! Wow! No kidding? Regulation and government oversight makes it harder to do the things government is regulating and overseeing. This is profound.

Or are you just pissed off that a black pot smoker can go on to edit the Harvard Law Review and then to the Oval Office

I can't say I'm familiar with how Barack Obama funded his education... I truly have no idea. However if he did it on the taxpayers back without providing some service for their trouble- yes. Nothing is free, someone always pays. I happen to think that the person doing the paying when it comes to what amounts to charity should have some say in weather or not they do so or not. Free country and all.

Or should Bush Jr.’s whiskey and cocaine be the preferred “qualified” choices to “drift through high school in a drug induced haze” that entitles one to loans?

I'm almost certain George Bush's dad paid the price for his education... well accept the MBA which I'm sure George footed the bill for himself. So that point is moot. Bush was not subsidized. And on coke he still got better grades than John Kerry.

free0352 said...

You claimed OWS does, and then transferred it to...Just who exactly?

Well for starters you guys are. On this blog post.

Dave Dubya said...

Free,
Thank you for clarifying your prejudices. The only thing is, when I asked,"Please clarify your prejudices", it was directed at F&B.

At ease, soldier.

We all know that you think you know what we think and know. Were you showing us that you know what F&B thinks too? You're probably closer on his thinking than ours, but who am to say what you think?

This is all I asked you. You claimed OWS does, and then transferred it to...Just who exactly?

"Well for starters you guys are. On this blog post."

Where on this blog?

And on coke he (Bush) still got better grades than John Kerry.

Yeah, and he was bigger war hero too.

free0352 said...

Was he a big hero when he was lying about being in Cambodia or when he was writing his own purple heart citations for a scratch? John Kerry? Fraud. I'd rather go to war with Bettie White. And I don't mean 40 years ago Bettie White but 2012 Bettie White. The man is the very definition of douche bag. That's why he should have shoved those medals he threw back up his ass instead of tossing them in the street. That is also why American voters, voted that scum bag off the island so hard even the Democrat Senate Majority Leader lost his job. He didn't get swift boated, he got faced raped by George Bush. That's like loosing a spelling bee to a deaf retard.

But enough with the comic relief.

Lets just settle the question right now. IS. A. COLLEGE. EDUCATION. A. RIGHT?

Jerry Critter said...

The opportunity for a college education for qualified people is a right.

jackjodell53 said...

Romney jas no character. No substance either.

Weaseldog said...

Yes, you're right, the unlikely worse case scenarios in human endeavors are doomed to failure.

Good strawman argument.

So FandB and Free352 believe that a well educated population is bad economics. That the more college educated workers you have per capita, the lower the standard of living.


It's in an interesting theory. Surely there are real world examples of this principle we can look to.

Such and 'obvious' theory must have many examples of the populations of well educated nations living in abject poverty, and the populations of poorly educated nations living with a high standard of living.

Or is the banana plantation model of a 99% population that can't afford shoes, serving a handful of rich folks, the model you're shooting for?

Weaseldog said...

So you don't support the Republican Party? Is that what you're saying now?

Hillary has a history of supporting the Republican Party. Look at her voting record.

Weaseldog said...

Free lives the life of socialist and his argument of late, would make a hard core union member proud.

The hard line union men work to keep people out of their industry so they don't face competition in the workplace, to keep wages up.

Free seeks to reduce the number of college graduates so that they don't compete with him and keeps his wages up.

Free is retired from the largest socialist organization in the world, the US Military.

Free now earns a paycheck, performing a public service in exchange for my tax dollars. This is pure socialism.

And Free is quite vocal in his hatred of socialism and unions...

Weaseldog said...

If we do shrink government, you'll be laid off. You can bet your job function will still exist, it will simply be transferred to a job creator in India.

But you have the perfect attitude and belief system to become a union organizer. You'll have to switch your vocabulary a bit, but you're beliefs are on track.

Weaseldog said...

"Barack Obama have given far more contracts to Halliburton that during the George Bush years."

Excellent lie! You tell real good lies! The whoppers just keep coming, don't they?

Give Obama another term in office and he might just break Bush's record, but he hasn't done it yet.

free0352 said...

The opportunity for a college education for qualified people is a right.

That is inherently discriminatory. If it is a right after all.

And I agree, Romney lacks character. He's a flip-flopper who will say anything.

FandB said...

That's why the U.S. is in so much trouble. Obama also has no character and no substance. He is an empty suit with a teleprompter.

Dave Dubya said...

F&B
Are you saying the US is in trouble because Obama has no character? What, unlike the corporatist aristocrat before him, Obama caused the collapse of the economy before he took office?

This ignores the fact the economy has recovered, but only to the wealthy elites advantage. Check out their increases in profit and wealth.

Some of us would say the US is in trouble because Obama is too much like the empty suit with a teleprompter he replaced.

Do we want a government of, by, and for the people. Or do we want what we are getting, a government of, by, and for the elites?

Free,
To clarify for you, a primary education is, or at least should be, a right. As we know, you're pretty much on your own, excluding the "legacy" privilege of elites like Bush, in the free market world of college. It is not an entitlement.

Dave Dubya said...

"As people do better, they start voting like Republicans - unless they have too much education and vote Democratic, which proves there can be too much of a good thing."

-Karl Rove

FandB said...

I agree with Critter that the "opportunity" for a college education is a "right" for "qualified people." But limiting it to some arbitrary definition of "qualified" does make it discriminatory. So in order for a college education to be a right, it has to piggyback on some other right, like maybe the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. You can't be prevented from pursuing a college education due to any discriminatory practices other than failure to meet a specific school's entrance requirements.

As far as Dubya’s comments in his failed attempt to cloud the issue by misquoting blurbs from Huffpo and Fox (?!?), the article in Huffpo says: “9.2 percent of community college students go to colleges that do not participate in Federal Loan Programs, such as Stafford loans. The figure is higher for minorities – 18.5 and 16.4 percent of Native American and African American community college students, respectively.” The only reason these students have any problem getting Federal Loans is because the Community Colleges they chose to attend do not offer them. Without wasting any more time on this attempt by Dubya at obfuscation, in my experience, when (especially) Community Colleges don’t offer Federally funded programs, it is often because they have failed to meet the minimum requirements for full accreditation. The students are not being blocked by the government, or evil corporations, or even President Bush! They are being blocked by their choice to attend specific schools that choose not participate in the Federal Loan program. Ah, personal responsibility and accountability kicks in again. How much better off we would all be if there were more of those two things. Not gonna happen under Obama, that’s for damn sure.

OK, Dubya, I’ll clarify my prejudices: I have none. There, does that help?

Dubya: “Everything else being equal” and “free market” are generally accepted economic terms that don’t really need any further definition, they are rather self-evident.

Dubya: I agree there are more benefits to people having college level educations than just jobs. I acknowledged in my first post that there were many, but that I was only mentioning two of them.

Dubya: regarding your “only those students who conform to your idea of “qualified”” comments… Like I said: “…they should not be entitled to government subsidies. But if they can get a college to accept them, they will be eligible for money just like anyone else…” Do you have trouble with reading, or comprehension, or both? Which is it? Yes, of course I have my own ideas of an ideal student versus a burn-out, and who should be eligible for government subsidies and who should not. Everyone has their own views (except most liberals who sit around waiting for Huffpo and the MSM to tell them what they believe). But the system does not operate based on my views, and I accept that it is the way it is.

Of course, the fact that Obama received grants when he went to Occidental College by claiming he was an Indonesian Citizen just falls in line with the Complete Lack of Character he demonstrated while in high school, and continues to demonstrate to this day.

Obama’s performance in office solidifies my perception of how his high school performance would be reflected in his future performance. (I’ve never had any desire to be President, so you won’t get any traction there.) I have seen no evidence indicating that President Bush snorted coke or drank whiskey while he was in high school. Have you? Or did you just make that up?

Weaseldog said “So FandB and Free352 believe that a well educated population is bad economics. That the more college educated workers you have per capita, the lower the standard of living.” -- OK Weaseldog, show me where I said that or anything like that, as usual your absurd comments consist in totality of lying about what others have said.

FandB said...

Dubya: What I said was clear. If you liberals think Romney has no character. And conservatives know that Obama has no character. And pretty much everyone else in politics in Washington has no character . . . that is why we (the U.S.) are in trouble.

Obviously, the collapse of the economy is very, very complicated. In reality, it can no more be blamed on President Bush than it can be blamed on Obama. The economic problems in 2008 were (and continue to be) global. Even China, Brazil, and India have felt strong effects from the economic downturns.

Obama and his administration's failure to improve the economy over the past nearly four years also cannot be entirely blamed on him, but part of it can be. The democrats in the house and senate also have a great deal of culpability. And, Obama is a weakling and a characterless, spineless coward for continuing to blame every bad thing that happens to him on President Bush and/or "the republicans".

The economy President Reagan inherited from Carter was much worse than the economy Obama inherited, but President Reagan did not whine about it like Obama does. He just fixed it. It's about time the current administration got to work fixing the problems.

John Myste said...

"The economy President Reagan inherited from Carter was much worse than the economy Obama inherited, but President Reagan did not whine about it like Obama does. He just fixed it. It's about time the current administration got to work fixing the problems."

I know he is famous for his "tax cuts," but to the degree that he "fixed it," if you will go back in time I believe you will find his approach would not have been approved by today’s GOP. The 1986 tax reform targeted loopholes businesses use. I believe Reagan’s approach was to cut taxes, but not to cut tax revenue. Today’s GOP has made sure that Tax Revenue is the target.

I would take Reagan over a modern republican any day, as painful as taking Reagan would be.

Dave Dubya said...

F&B,
F&B,
Why is it you neglect to admit the elites are doing quite well, even in this economy?

“Everything else being equal” and “free market” are generally accepted economic terms that don’t really need any further definition, they are rather self-evident.

This tells us nothing. “Everything else being equal” is a vague generalization and “Free Market”, while simple in definition, does not reflect reality.

What did I misquote?

Assuming the student is academically qualified and accepted at the university of his/her choice, any student, regardless of income, can go to any school that he/she wants to attend.

This is your unsubstantiated broad claim. I showed evidence that contradicts it. You said I misquoted yet didn’t say where.

Obama received grants when he went to Occidental College by claiming he was an Indonesian Citizen just falls in line with the Complete Lack of Character he demonstrated while in high school

And how is this lack of character? And are you saying Willie Nelson has “no character” because he smokes weed? Or are you prejudiced against just blacks who do?

I’ll clarify my prejudices: I have none.

This is one glaring prejudice in itself. I know of no humans who have never had some prejudice. Authoritarians tend to deny it, though, I’ve noticed.

You just admitted you’re prejudiced against Obama, and perhaps all black kids, or at least those who try weed.

I mentioned Bush’s admitted abuse of whiskey and use or cocaine (that he didn’t deny) as a contrast to your selective condemnation of Obama, along with a huge percentage of kids, who used weed.

White guys who drink whiskey and snort coke don’t seem to trouble you as much as a black kid toking after school. Is this true?

If anywhere, the lack of character is demonstrated by Obama the hypocrite on cannabis, not Obama the user. He’s another gutless shill for the wasteful, tragic, and ineffective corporate-backed war on drugs.

In reality, it can no more be blamed on President Bush than it can be blamed on Obama.

With the crash occurring after 8 years of a Bush Administration your claim is clearly prejudiced. As is:

The economy President Reagan inherited from Carter was much worse than the economy Obama inherited

I beg to differ, given the off-shoring of jobs, corporate written trade agreements etc. since Reagan handed government over to Big Money, and given the fact Reagan took the US from a creditor nation to a debtor nation in the process. But we know it’s only bad when a Democrat increases the debt, right?

Feel free to note my prejudices if you like. Just don’t resort to the usual “You hate the rich” crap. I love a lot of rich people. I hate the corruption of Big Money in our elections and government. Not the same as “hating the rich” or the “envy” nonsense the Right loves to project.

John,
Yes, in today's radicalized and rigid Republican Party, Nixon and Reagan would be denounced as socialist appeasers.

Jefferson's Guardian said...

Free0352: "How about instead you list the things government should not be regulating that it currently is."

It doesn't work that way, remember? You're the accuser. Because you made the accusation, it's conducive upon you to present your case. For example, if I killed someone, it would be the responsibility of the state to prove that I did. It would not be my responsibility to show the state all those I didn't.

Since you claim to be a legal expert, I would think you'd know this.


"On this Governor Norquist and I are in complete agreement."

All except his name, it appears.


"That's funny, since I would say the same to you about your opinion of corporate America."

Considering there are approximately 26 lobbyists per congressperson, or that records are being swept away this year with untold millions in private funding in just the early stages of the presidential campaign, I'd think you'd have to be wearing blinders not to see the corruptible influence of corporate money in Washington. Matthew Henry said there are "none so blind as those that will not see."


"Government isn't The People. Government is an organization of people who work for citizens who are in effect their customers, who are funded by tax dollars. THE PEOPLE do not govern, provide governmental services or in the military's case fight wars."

If I'm not mistaken, a representative democracy ("representative government") is people chosen by the citizens of the land to make decisions on their behalf, and to represent them in the legislative assembly. In lieu of calling us customers, I'd prefer we look upon our elected leaders as agents -- our agents. But that day is gone. With corruption due to big money, they've transformed into, instead, agents for the most wealthy and the largest corporations.

So you, in practice or actuality (but not "officially established") work for corporate interests. It would be much more appropriate that you start wearing uniforms that promote your corporate sponsors -- similar to race-car drivers.


"...we're no angels over here at Defense Dept when it comes to throwing money into a black hole but we're nothing compared to Medicare or Social Security."

I agree, the latter has trust fund solvency through at least 2036, and the former is more cost effective than private insurers. DoD can't even come close to matching their efficiency.

Weaseldog said...

Yes, because he's an empty suit who has no influence in the world, he caused the market crashes in 2001 and late 2007.

Weaseldog said...

Reagan skyrocketed the debt, are you suggesting that Obama reaccelerate the rate of debt also?

The job market was pretty crappy when Reagan was president. But a little better than now. At least Bush and Obama have made him look good on that point.

Weaseldog said...

National Security budget is nearly one $Trillion a year and growing fast.
http://www.tomdispatch.com/archive/175545/

Medicare & Medicaid $835 Billion a year.
Social Security $725 Billion a year.

A major difference is that Medicare, Medicaid and social security is largely spent in the USA, whereas military spending has a larger component going overseas make foriegn contractors wealthy, and creating jobs for foreigners.

But I guess Kuwaiti Princes are entitled to my tax dollars as their corporations are people too, and they contribute to my congressman's campaign funds.

Jefferson's Guardian said...

FandB: "The economy President Reagan inherited from Carter was much worse than the economy Obama inherited..."

Huh?!?! Certainly you're not serious? Just out of curiosity, how old were you in 1981?

okjimm said...

hmmmmm "It's About Character"????
Seems like the post is mostly..."About Freedim's Opinion". Perhaps it is notable that he no longer has his own blog... That FandB has not posted since 2008. Could it be that neither one can come up with an original idea of their own and merely try to hijack other peoples' posts. Frankly...I find them both boring.

Jefferson's Guardian said...

okjimm: "Perhaps it is notable that he [Free0352] no longer has his own blog..."

I find it interesting why he succumbed to fear and took his blog down. For someone who swung his bravado like a lasso in a girls' rodeo, he sure showed his true colors when confronted by "the man".

It seems our "Marlboro Man" truly is another Beetle Bailey. No, correction, Beetle Bailey always showed more courage and character.

okjimm said...

Jeff G... his pronunciations, his arguments, his fallacious evidence...smacks of a naive and pretentious teenager. He seems to masturbate his own ego by attacking other commentators and their views; but his worst offense.... he is boring.

John Myste said...

Hmm,

First off, I am a liberal and proud of it, and I think Free is nuts, but intelligent nuts.

That said, Free's blog was a very low-volume blog, which I suspect was kind of boring. I wouldn't know. I couldn't get into it.

I disagree that Free himself is boring, though.

I don't agree with him (and I think he utterly despises and disrespects me), but I do not find him boring when he comments on others' blogs.

I find any blog commentary with which he graces his semi-maniacal presence becomes more lively, more challenged, and more entertaining. I will not miss Free's blog one bit, but I would definitely miss Free were he to abandon the liberal blogs on which he posts (such as this one).

Dave Dubya said...

John,
Boring as it may be for everyone to agree, I agree with you.

Free provides the yin to our yang so to speak. Even he understands the value of contrasting ideas, although his are that of a discredited belief system that endures because it is the agenda of powerful Big Money interests.

I've always had a bit of a sick sense of humor that has proven valuable in preserving my sanity at times. That would explain more than anything why I am entertained by Free.

Say what we will about Free, I would trust him in a dangerous situation, provided we wore the same uniform, or under some criminal attack.

I wouldn't say this if I thought he was a complete sociopath or fascist.

Weaseldog said...

Free took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States of Americas against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

More than one hundred times he has betrayed that oath, to support fascism in our nation, and to undermine our democracy, in support of the Republican Party.

In that vein, don't see him as an entertaining clown. I don't see him as a useful example of a counter culture.

I see him as an agent of the old soviet culture, the East German Stasi, and all that they stood for.

That is the image that in at least my mind, he has worked hard to project. And I believe that he would take great pride in my characterization of him, in this light.

okjimm said...

John, Dave... I guess I, personally, am very tired of the type of rhetoric Free puts forth. To clarify, though, I cannot think of him, personally, as a bad person. Here, in Wisconsin, the polarization between Dems and Repubs, between conservative and liberal thought has gotten to an almost malicious, vicious level. I have backed away from those who speak thus. Conversely, I have a good body of good friends that can only be described as fiscal conservatives. Stock Brokers, Bankers, Developers,Lawyers, CEO's....and to a man they also back women's rights, environmental safety, fair labor practices. When we are together conversation turns to common ground; I listen to them, they listen to me.

But I still find Free boring. There are books to read, music to listen to, forests to hike, rivers to raft. If I really want boring...I can watch Fox. The commentators here... for the most part, are articulate and interesting. Off biking. thanks.

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

Yeah I'm super boring, that's why you've all been talking about me while I was having fun all weekend. Stalkers. ;)

RedStateFred said...

To all of you in the liberal cocoon, always talking about the need for free or subsidized housing, free healthcare, free education, free abortions, free contraceptives, free this, free that, free blahblahblahblahblah, the EVIL 1%, the EVIL corporations and calling the Tea Party crowd who believe in limited government Neo Nazis, East German Stasi etc is BORING.

To read liberal blogger posts that basically contain the above and the need for the Nanny state is NAUSEATING!

Totalitarianism, where the state centrally social engineers society and the economy includes Commumism and Fascism. The state recognizes no limits to its authority and strives to regulate every aspect of public and private life wherever possible.

Only members of the Alinsky crowd (and those too ignorant to know they are a part of it) repeatedly attempt to falsely associate Fascism with the Tea Party members who believe in limited government like the Founders of this country. okjimm, Lets hope this association is as successful in the Scott Walker recall vote as it was in the 2010 vote.

What is really amazing with the liberal cocoon is how they fail to see that European Socialism is imploding as the social engineers there have run out of road to kick the can. You people fail to see the parallels in Greece with all the failed liberal strongholds in the US: California, Illinois, Detroit etc etc etc.

The only way Obama will create prosperity for the people is when he develops the ability to squat and drop some gold buillon from his ass. Time to take off your rose colored glasses libs, Obama is a fucking joke and many Democrats are jumping off his sinking ship.

Dave Dubya said...

Fred,
I agree. Anyone who is “always talking about the need for free or subsidized housing, free healthcare, free education, free abortions, free contraceptives, free this, free that, free blahblahblahblahblah, the EVIL 1%, the EVIL corporations and calling the Tea Party crowd who believe in limited government Neo Nazis, East German Stasi etc is BORING. “

Who is Alinsky, and what has he done? Did he call the Tea Party fascists? Did he write the Patriot Act?

Did you know we liberals also believe in limited government? While some progressives have problems with firearms in the hands of thugs and crackpots, we really want to keep our Bill of Rights, thank you.

We hate totalitarianism here. We strongly oppose a one party dictatorship led by the elite minority, whether it is fascist, communist, or Republican Party. We strongly oppose government in the bedroom, and in a woman’s uterus and any law abiding person’s bladder as well. We oppose corruption, whether by cronyism or by the “free speech” money of artificial entities.

Are Medicare and Social Security totalitarianism? Is regulating Wall Street totalitarianism? Are any and all regulations limiting the power of Big Money totalitarianism? Let us know so we can resist the evil together.

We oppose warrantless government surveillance in our electronic communications. We oppose feds snooping in our library reading and the gag order on librarians. We oppose indefinite detention without charges or right to counsel.

How about you Fred? Your idea of totalitarianism seems to be mostly health care and education, or pretty much anything under the “general welfare” clause of the Constitution. For some reason you ignore the police state methods I mention.

Why is that, Fred? Are you in some kind of bubble that cannot see this?

While you seem to love to crow about “failed liberal strongholds”, are you aware of “Red State Socialism”? You know those failed conservative, and mostly Southern, states that take in more federal money than they pay in taxes.

What about that, Fred? Are they useless parasites like welfare cheats?

We liberals see Europe is struggling with a global economy and a shaky Euro monetary system. Did socialists or liberals cause that?

We also see unregulated capitalism has failed, both in the crash of ’29 and the crash of ’08. Did you happen to notice?

We are mad at Obama for being a corporatist appeaser following the failed policies of his Republican predecessor. What else has he done that is so radical to annoy you?

Has Obama raised your taxes Fred? Is that what pisses you off so much about him? Is the stock market doing better or worse than when he took office? Please tell us what it is so we may commiserate with you.

If Obama’s ship is sinking, can you point to one that isn’t leaking? Are you saying Republicans deserve another chance to continue their failed agenda?

What is your clear-eyed vision of the big fix to our problems? We welcome your suggestions,

Weaseldog said...

Wow, Republicans are all into free this, free that, and reading our mail and putting cameras in our bedrooms, while Alinsky and Bush stroke each other's long johns.

Why do Republicans love Alinsky and legalized unconstitutional surveillance under the patriot act? Why do Republicans hate the liberal ideals of the right to trial and right to face your accuser and limitations placed on the government so far as personal papers and property are concerned?

How did Republicans grow to hate those that believe in Constitutional law and decide that the US Constitution is communistic document?

Back in the 1980s, the Republicans and Democrats both defended and used it to limit each other's powers. Now both parties believe that anyone who thinks the ideals written out in the Bill of Rights and the basis of our laws as outlined by the Constitution of the United States of America are commie fag socialists.

RedStateFred, how did you come to shit on the Constitution of the United States of America?
How did you come to believe that it's a commie fag socialist document? Have you never read it? Have you never sworn to defend and uphold it? Why do you believe that those that have sworn that oath are shit turd commie fags?

free0352 said...

It's funny how you're talking about "Republicans" and "Patriot Act. and what-not.

Did you fall asleep or forget that Democrats have been expanding those things the last three years.

Democrats love rendition, Club Gitmo, indefinite detention, targeted killing, all the stuff they were bitching and moaning about when Republicans were running the show. How is that not hypocritical?

Dave Dubya said...

Gee, Free,
You think its news to us that spineless dems followed the Republicans' lead on all those things?

You seem to offer your support as well.

I suppose you could say I was supporting Bush when I was for invading Iraq.

GW Bush was not a champion of civil liberties. He's a conservative authoritarian white guy who led us into this mess, and let his rich pals off the hook to pay for it. It's about character.

free0352 said...

I also said I was supporting Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, and Al Gore when I supported invading Iraq.

As for civil liberties, Obama and Democrats have expanded these things you are complaining Republicans did. Now go vote for them. Oh BTW, how is that not hypocritical?

Dave Dubya said...

So you support the bi-partisan assault on civil liberties? Ok, but that disqualifies you as a libertarian.

how is that not hypocritical?

Because it is hypothetical on your part. If I voted Republican then I would be hypocritical.

Voting for Democrats is the pathetic alternative.

Voting socialist would be my preference. But you've made up your mind.

I bet you vote for Romney.

FandB said...

Old enough to realize that I wasted a vote on John Anderson, something I'll never do again.

And, Yes, the economy was much worse - double-digit inflation, double-digit unemployment, double-digit interest rates, gas lines and on and on. It was a terrible time.

In the area I lived in at the time, unemployment approached 25%, and over 50% for people my age (early twenties).

If Ronald Reagan had not been elected when he was, the country would most likely not have recovered for decades.

How old were you, Jefferson?

Do you remember 12% mortgages? While inflation was soaring as high as 12% or more? And with unemplyment at 11+% nationally while "discouraged workers" were not even included in the total? Lines outside unemployment offices stretching for blocks?

Yes, Reagan inherited much worse than Obama did.

FandB said...

Regardless of how you want to spin the numbers or play semantics, the fact is the deficit under Obama has skyrocketed and is now almost as high (as a % of GDP) as it was at the end of FDR's last term. Something has to be done about it and it is painfully obvious that Obama and his minions are not up to the challenge.

FandB said...

Yes, elites are doing quite well, as they always do since the beginning of time. But you know where elites always do the best? When they are elites living in those socialist countries that you would love so much to emulate. :-)

Re: terminology - check out an Economics 101 level textbook, those terms will be clearly defined.

Your misquote: Which I pointed out and corrected by citing the entire section that you parsed. You misquoted it because you "quoted" it in a manner that changed the meaning/intent of the author. That is why I included the parts you left out. If the students who you claim are unable to get college loans had gone to schools that offered them, then they would have been able to get them. The balance of the article supports my claim.

Don't try to play the race card with me, you'll get burned.

No, I am not against people who "try" pot, and I would fully support full legalization of it. Regulate it and tax it, like alcohol. I am against people who slough off high school, practice habitual pot and alcohol abuse, use their race as a crutch when it suits them, lie habitually to get their way, etc. (Read some of the articles Obama wrote for the Harvard Law Review and you'll see what a truly uneducated cretin he is. The only thing the guy is really good at is manipulating people, especially voters.)

Yes, Willie Nelson has little and/or no character. And very little good music on top of that.

Dubya: "it’s only bad when a Democrat increases the debt, right?" Yes, I'll agree with you on that point.

My comment: "In reality, it can no more be blamed on President Bush than it can be blamed on Obama." Sorry, that was intended as a softball for Weaseldog, but you swung at it. Obviously, it could not have been caused by Obama, so the meaning of the statemnt is that Bush had little to do with it. The economics that led to the bubbles bursting in 2008 had been building for years, and neither party has clean hands. Analysis of the details is far beyond the scope of this blog.

Regarding off-shoring, (nice to see the term used properly for a change), to use one of your expressions, "follow the money" - not to its destination but to its source. If you want to see who really controls where a product is made and by whom, find out who controls the flow of the money. Hint: If consumers stopped buying "Made in China" labeled products, corporations would immediately stop having products made there...

FandB said...

Good for you jimmy boy!

free0352 said...

So you support the bi-partisan assault on civil liberties?

No.

Voting for Democrats is the pathetic alternative.

Lets examine that. Republicans did a few things that I think limited civil liberties. Democrats complained about those things. When Republicans lost and Democrats gained power, they not only did certain things to limit civil liberties they put those things on steroids. They've expanded every one of those programs beyond what Republicans had envisioned.

So by your own scale, Republicans are the least pathetic alternative.

I bet you vote for Romney.

Care to put real money on that?

FandB said...

Thanks for reminding me! I forgot all about that thing. I put it up while I was working on my MBA but never did anything with it . . .

FandB said...

You should ask yourself whether you want opposing points of view, or do you just want a left-wing echo chamber like Kos ?

FandB said...

Wow, it's like every single thing in that post was a lie about another commenter or something they wrote. You can't actually expect to be taken seriously.

How much more boring can it get than that?

Jefferson's Guardian said...

Free0352: "So by your own scale, Republicans are the least pathetic alternative."

You still don't get it, do you? You refuse to see that big money controls both parties, and it doesn't really matter, too much, which major political party's holding the reins of power these days. The reality still is, despite your pissin' back-and-forth as to which party is limiting civil liberties more, or which one has become more corrupted, both major parties are limiting our democracy; both are stealing and siphoning away our civil liberties, and both are allowing the banking cartel to bankrupt and bring America to its knees.

In my opinion, the road to perdition is shorter with the Republican Party. The only advantage to voting Democratic, that I see, is it buys us a little bit of time. A major crisis is on the horizon, and it's impossible to turn back the clock to happier and more fruitful days. A very bleak time in our country's future is going to occur soon. It may be months away; it may be years away, I don't know. Therefore, I'd like a little extra time to prepare for it, so I'd prefer it happen "later". Voting Republican only accelerates the process.

Dave Dubya said...

F&B,
But you know where elites always do the best?

In monarchies, aristocracies, and unregulated capitalism.

What race card? If you believe prejudice is the same as racism, you are too ignorant to discuss the prejudice you have.

You lecture us that Obama is an “uneducated cretin”, who sloughed off high school, practiced habitual pot and alcohol abuse, used his race as a crutch when it suited him, and lied habitually to get their way.

Wow. That’s a lot of hate. And we are to trust your ability to judge character when you say “Willie Nelson has little and/or no character. And very little good music on top of that.”

You are about as informed on character as you are about music. Your opinion is weak and unsubstantiated...and prejudiced.

At least you’re honest about this repressed prejudice:

Dubya: "it’s only bad when a Democrat increases the debt, right?" Yes, I'll agree with you on that point.

You just don’t see it as prejudice.

And this glimpse of honesty as well:

The economics that led to the bubbles bursting in 2008 had been building for years, and neither party has clean hands

But this is rendered meaningless by the above display of prejudice. And what do you think soiled those hands? As JG pointed out, you Righties utterly fail to connect money with corruption. Your Mammonite worship of wealth forbids it. Every policy you want is in the interests of the elites. Unless you are in the top 1%, you are a shill against your own economic interests.

"follow the money" - not to its destination but to its source The source that lobbys and contributes to politicians to enact polices that provide for off-shoring, and corporate-written trade agreements in the first place.

Your Hint: If consumers stopped buying "Made in China" labeled products, corporations would immediately stop having products made there...

..Rings hallow when there are no alternatives to choose from. Yet your ideology undermines buying union made products in the USA.

The radical Right may as well admit it hates American workers. It does nothing for them.

---

Free,
Republicans did a few things that I think limited civil liberties

None that you recall, or condemn, it seems. How about starting with the entire war on drugs? Most of what you condemn Democrats for doing was initiated by Republicans. Gitmo, Patriot Act, detention without charges, warrantless surveillance, etc.

Extraordinary rendition was initiated by Clinton, but vastly expanded and abused by Bush.

They've expanded every one of those programs beyond what Republicans had envisioned

You assert this without evidence. Just wait until the next Republican takes us even further into a police state. You Righties always bitch more about health care and safety nets than violations of civil liberties. Always. That says all we need to know about you.

”I bet you vote for Romney”. Care to put real money on that?

Sure. How about twice what you bet I vote for Obama?

That would require honesty, though.

--
JG,
They can never admit it, even if they “get it”. It would undermine their entire ideology and offend their Big Money gods. Greed is good. Selfishness is virtue. Honesty is by nature, and must be, irrelevant to their creed.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 212   Newer› Newest»