Friday, June 29, 2012

Republicans Against Thinking


Now that the Supreme Court has ruled Obamacare is constitutional, we can all huddle in terror and tremble for our lost liberty, the death of freedom, the complete government takeover of health care, and last but not least, death panels.

Cue fear reaction.

We were warned.

Those of us who are even moderately informed, and have a slight ability for critical thinking, won't be holding our breaths waiting to be shown those death panels the Right Wing authoritarians were shrieking about not so long ago.

Yes they lied. No matter. They will always lie.

The greatest threat to authoritarians is the ability of people to think for themselves.

It's time the Radical Right did something about this dire threat to their propaganda and power.

Let’s look to Texas Republicans for their solution to neutralize this threat. Check this from Education Week:

"Texas GOP: No More Critical Thinking in Schools"

The 2012 Texas Republican Party Platform, adopted June 9 at the state convention in Forth Worth, seems to take a stand against, well, the teaching of critical thinking skills. Read it for yourself:


“We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student's fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority.”


Right. We all know whose “beliefs” and “authority” are threatened by critical thinking.

Not surprisingly, it turns out the authoritarians are urging for more authority.

In that same section of the document, labeled "Educating Our Children," the Texas Republicans go on to state that they "oppose mandatory pre-school and Kindergarten." And, in a statement that human rights groups (and many others) will find difficult to stomach, the platform says, "We recommend that local school boards and classroom teachers be given more authority to deal with disciplinary problems. Corporal punishment is effective and legal in Texas."


While corporal punishment is in fact legal in Texas—and 18 other states, according to The Center for Effective Discipline—we're still poking around to find the research backing its effectiveness in the Lone Star State. Nothing so far. Readers, let us know what you come across.

And while you’re at it, let us know where we can find one of those death panels, too.

Nothing so far? Keep looking. The “liberal media” must be hiding them somewhere.

Authoritarian leaders would never misinform us and demand we take their word for anything, right?

192 comments:

Jerry Critter said...

Death panels? They are probably under the podium with Bush's WMDs.

free0352 said...

Authoritarian? You mean like if I don't buy the insurance this administration says I should, then they'll fine me thousands of dollars and if I don't pay I'll be locked in jail? Your party has made bill collectors of the IRS for the insurance agencies and we're 'corporatists?'

Nan said...

I take it free0352 is the product of those Texas schools. The last time I looked, amounts such as the $95 that will be the penalty in 2014 didn't exactly equal "thousands of dollars."

How much will the tax actually be? According to various web sources (insurance companies, the MSM, government web sites), the dollar amount for individuals is going to be $95 in 2014; $325 in 2015; and $695 in 2016; increases will be indexed to inflation after that, subject to a cap. The annual penalty is capped at an amount roughly equal to the cost of the national average premium for a qualified health plan — in other words you cannot be forced to pay more than it would have cost to buy a plan in the first place. My current monthly insurance premium is considerably higher than $95; from my perspective, Obamacare is looking like quite a bargain.

Kulkuri said...

It doesn't pay to argue with those like "free" because there is "no doubt in his military mind". And that's the problem in a nutshell. If there is no doubt, there can't be any critical thinking!!

free0352 said...

For a person making 35,000 per year who is married with one child, the fine for 2016 is 1738 per year and it goes up every year after.

This is according to the Washington post calculator. You can view it here.

My other option, would be to purchase the government mandated insurance plan, for 2205 dollars per year along with 15% of total cost of care. Gee, what is 15% of a heart transplant. Oh wait, more than just about anyone can afford. Guess the government won't care for you if you can't come up with the 15%. What do you call the group of bureaucrats who came up with that? Oh I don't know... a DEATH PANEL? That's one term you could use, if you were so inclined.

Bit more than 95 bucks. Oh... and if you don't pay the fine? Yeah, you go to prison.

Sounds to me like the people who can't critically think here are... um... hmmmmm I'll let you figure that one out.

John Myste said...

Free,

Your party has made bill collectors of the IRS for the insurance agencies and we're 'corporatists?

Funny how insurance stocks declined sharply on the news, huh? I guess investors with big money don't feel that the plan was a pawn of insurance companies the way you do. Hmm? Maybe if billionaires had more military training they would be able to work through this better.

Jerry Critter said...

I think insurance stock dropped because ACA limits corporate profits.

Dave Dubya said...

Jerry,
Limbaugh declared, “Our freedom of choice just met its death panel: the Supreme Court of the United States.”

And they went nuts when we complained they overturned democracy to install Bush the Decider.

Nan,
Well, Free does tend to be grandiose and...wrong... a lot.

Kulkuri,
Beliefs are more important to the Right than facts, as demonstrated so kindly here by our esteemed Real Americans.

Free,
So a "death panel" is what you call those Republicans who first dreamed up the mandate, and then abandoned it when Obama picked up on it?

I'll go with that. The Republican Party is quite the death panel, come to think of it. When it comes to wars of aggression, the death penalty, denial of coverage by insurance companies and other agents of death, they do stand out as a death panel.

John,
Your party has made bill collectors of the IRS for the insurance agencies and we're 'corporatists?

'Your party". LOL. Didn't have to be this way.

All of the Republicans and the corpo-dem corporatists did everything they could to remove a single payer or public option from the table.

The mandate is a Republican invention. Free should thank the Heritage Foundation for the idea.

Dave Dubya said...

"The Affordable Care Act’s requirement that certain individuals pay a financial penalty for not obtaining health insurance may reasonably be characterized as a tax. Because the Constitution permits such a tax, it is not our role to forbid it, or to pass upon its wisdom or fairness," Roberts said. Among other indications it is a tax, he said, "the payment is collected solely by the IRS through the normal means of taxation."

Good thing Free already has public health care. I'd hate to see him hauled off to prison.

What's that? No prison for scofflaws?

http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2009/11/gop_charge_skipping_insurance.html

It's worth noting that the Senate Finance Committee's version of the bill includes an amendment specifying that no one could be imprisoned or face civil penalties for ignoring the tax.

From Politifact:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2009/sep/29/jail-time-health-insurance-violators/

Both the House and Senate bills would impose taxes designed to prod Americans who are uninsured into buying insurance. Exemptions would be provided for families of limited means. Backers hope that no American actually pays the tax; they want to see people spending those dollars on health insurance instead.

But what would happen to someone who refuses to pay? Could someone really end up in prison for lack of health insurance?

The answer is: Not very likely.


From factcheck.org:

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/11/imprisoned-for-not-having-health-care/

In the Senate, the Finance Committee’s health care bill was amended to nullify the possibility of jail time for not paying the penalty tax. It stipulates that in the case of nonpayment, "such taxpayer shall not be subject to any criminal prosecution or penalty with respect to such failure." Instead, the Senate measure would allow the government to collect the tax by deducting it from any IRS tax-refund checks or other government payments.

The health care bill that was signed into law by President Obama says criminal penalties will not apply to those who refuse to get coverage and refuse to pay the penalty tax. As we wrote in a March 2010 post on the IRS’ responsibilities, the law says on page 131: "In the case of any failure by a taxpayer to timely pay any penalty imposed by this section, such taxpayer shall not be subject to any criminal prosecution or penalty with respect to such failure."


That should soothe any fears of going to prison...for a critical thinking, reasonable person, anyway.

free0352 said...

So a "death panel" is what you call those Republicans who first dreamed up the mandate, and then abandoned it when Obama picked up on it?

Its a bad idea no matter who is hucking it at the time.

Good thing Free already has public health care. I'd hate to see him hauled off to prison.

You can have it too, just bop on down to your local recruiting station and sign up, and Tricare can be yours as well. Just remember, its not "free" (you pay cash money for it) and the quality of Army hospitals isn't exactly the greatest for what you pay.

Interested in getting some tricare by enlisting? Nah, thought not. On that note, seeing how the government runs the jacked up military medical system has turned my against socialized medicine more than any other experience. Except for perhaps my experience with the French, German, and Canadian socialized medicals gulags which are just as bad as the tricare mess. You're right, I'd never sign on to curse the American people with that level of incompetence.

free0352 said...

Instead, the Senate measure would allow the government to collect the tax by deducting it from any IRS tax-refund checks or other government payments.

Thats hugely misleading. Say for example, I just added deductions so that I had no refund so as to avoid having the fine confiscated. If I did that, I would get a bill for taxes owed come January after my return was filed with the "penalty" added to that number... and what would happen were I not to pay that?

Thats right, they IRS would get a federal judge to issue a warrant for my arrest for tax evasion. Just try that sometime in your own life. Claim what is it, the max ten deductions? Guarantee zero dollars will be taken out of your paycheck but come April you'll owe, and if you don't buy the insurance the liberals have ordered us to buy the "penalty" will be there. If you don't pay 100% of the money the IRS demands... well you tell me Dave, what do you think would happen?

S.W. Anderson said...

". . . have the purpose of challenging the student's fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority.”

Yes, it's a well-known fact teachers, none of whom are parents, live for those moments when they can undermine parental authority. Because, heaven knows, along with contending with the less-well-socialized students (playground bullies, smart-mouthed brats and desk carvers), nothing generates job satisfaction, much less job security, better than getting parents riled up. A real career builder if there ever was one.

Seriously, if anyone thinks the state that has given us the infamous Phil and Wendy Gramm; playground bully right through middle age, Dick Armey; the felonious Tom DeLay; the Worst President in U.S. History, George W. Bush; a governor arguably as much a crackpot and incapable of governing as Sarah Palin, Rick Perry; and that paragon of down-home, dead-between-the-ears dipstickery, Louis Gohmert — if anyone thinks that state should be looked at or listened to about educating children, just consider who rises to the top in Texas.

Consider that and be afraid. Be very afraid.

Dave Dubya said...

Free,
Suppose I did the same thing to avoid paying for your wars? After all, I can't afford to pay for war as much as your wealthy elites can, and they get the bigger tax cuts.

You're talking about evading all income taxes. That would be different because you would be breaking the law.

SW,
paragon of down-home, dead-between-the-ears dipstickery, Louis Gohmert

LOL! So funny because it's true.

But my laughter is tempered by a horrible fact.

The horror continues to be the overbearing influence Texas has on our public school textbooks. We'll be seeing pictures of Jesus riding dinosaurs in science and history books soon.

okjimm said...

Neo-Con Republicans don't want to think.....after all, it is what they pay Grover Norquist to do for them.

Jerry Critter said...

Here is what the bill actually says.

"In the case of any failure by a tax payer to timely pay any penalty imposed by this section such tax payer shall not be subject to any criminal prosecution or penalty with respect to such failure."

You don't go to jail!

Dave Dubya said...

Okjimm,
Authoritarian leaders do the thinking. Their followers unquestioningly embrace the ideology as Moonies would embrace cult beliefs of Bush family friend and Republican Washington Times ragman Rev. Sun Myung Moon.

Too bad authoritarians are more aggressive, hateful, paranoid, and dangerous than Moonies.

T. Paine said...

Free! Don't you know that our progressive friends don't like it when you call things what they really are? Death panels are actually appointed government bureaucrats to provide "end of life counseling". Now doesn't that sound better when we use the politically correct asinine term?

Only in a world gone completely mad can our enlightened progressive friends look at a "constitutional" law that says all Americans MUST purchase a given product or be fined accuse conservatives/libertarians of being authoritarians.

Yep, if that is what critical thinking really is then I think I want to move to Texas just to be safe from that ignorance.

free0352 said...

You're talking about evading all income taxes.

Okay Dave, lets try this. Lets try an experiment. Don't buy insurance. Get assessed whatever the penalty is the IRS assesses you. While you're at it, claim ten deductions. When you file your return, calculate what your taxes should be minus the "tax penalty." Short the IRS the penalty amount.

What do you think the IRS will do in response? I'm just DYING to know the answer. Wait, I'll save the suspense and your jail sentence. We all know exactly what they will do. They will assess further penalties and interest on the unpaid amount and after a while you will be charged with tax evasion. That would be after the IRS garnishes your wages, repo's your real property that is. So you'd better have that money, or off to jail with you. Meanwhile, you get to pay 15% of the cost of your healthcare anyway.

Good job Democrats, now that everybody has insurance no one can afford actual healthcare. People would have been so better off had you not meddled in their lives... as usual.

Dave Dubya said...

Hey TP,
Thanks for clearing things up for us. So which is the “politically correct asinine term”? End of life counseling, or death panel? Is end of life counseling a new liberal plot to destroy freedom and kill people?

Have they killed as many people as Bush’s war based on lies yet? The body count must surely be rising as we speak.

Is that your indoctrination? How will we ever know if you can’t show us? Got some numbers for us?

Or was corporate denial of health care benefits more to your liking? Is that “freedom”?

Show us, please, where we can find a death panel of “appointed government bureaucrats”. You have the burden of proof. You must either show us a death panel or continue to lie, or in your case, regurgitate your indoctrination.

I take it you believe selecting a president and stopping a vote count is more constitutional than taxing Americans. I’d like to see your copy of the Constitution.

We have "constitutional" law that says all Americans MUST purchase a given product in order to drive a car, don’t we? I bet I would go to jail sooner for driving without insurance than you would for not buying insurance.

Just remember this. The mandate is a Republican idea and it is in place because your candidate for president did it in Massachusetts. Let that sink in. Corpo-dems and Republicans blocked the only sane alternative for national policy.

Liberals and progressives never wanted this. We wanted single payer or Medicare for all. We got the “authoritarian” corporatist plan instead.

And that is constitutional, according to your conservative Chief Justice, like it or not.

I bet a lot fewer people will die as a result of this decision compared to Bush v Gore.

How does it feel on the other end of the stick?

Dave Dubya said...

And TP,
Yep, if that is what critical thinking really is then I want to move to Texas just to be safe from that ignorance

LOL!!

You mean where:
http://www.window.state.tx.us/specialrpt/tif/public.html

Texas also has seen a significant increase in the number and percentage of economically disadvantaged students in public schools. In the 1996-97 school year, about 1.8 million students, or 48.1 percent of all Texas students, were identified as economically disadvantaged. In the 2006-07 school year, about 2.5 million children – 55.5 percent of all Texas students – were considered economically disadvantaged.

And:
http://austinist.com/2011/12/30/the_state_of_education_in_texas_par.php

Republicans have controlled the Texas Senate since 1997, and the Senate Committee on Education has reflected that one party's vision of education in our state through budgeting and mandates for at least twelve years.

Percentage of High School Graduates:

While Texas has improved slightly in the percentage of high school graduates over the past decade, from 75.7% to 79.9%, we have fallen further behind other states to dead last overall. That's just not going to cut it if Texas hopes to be a leader of the American economy.
Rankings
2000 - 44th
2009 - 50th

SAT Scores:

One of the few ways we have to measure the quality of Texas students against those across the nation is the rankings on national standardized tests like the SAT.

So how does our 50th ranked state in the number of student graduates perform on this metric?

Not very well. In 1999, the state mean for SAT scores for combined math and verbal was 993 (out of a possible 1600), placing Texas 47th on the list among all other states. That score hasn't changed in the past twelve years, with Texas students scoring a mean of 981 on math and verbal tests in 2011. We haven't fallen into last place, but we're still embarrassingly far behind the best states in the nation.
Rankings:
1999 - 47th
2011 - 47th


Looks like Texas gets an “F” in education. That should make you Republicans real proud, seeins how ya’ll don’t cotton ta teachers an that thar librool book larnin, whut with that godless Saience, math and lidderchure, an all.

Your deep faith in Republicans is a wonder to behold. Go bask in the wisdom of Goofball Gohmert; I’m sure he knows best what critical thinking is, and he shall save you from ignorance.

Dave Dubya said...

Free,
Humans are their own predators, I simply suggest we stay at the top of the food chain. If we don't occupy that spot, someone else will.

And history teaches us what happens to empires with that mentality.

Ok, you go ahead with your convoluted tax evasion plan and I’ll drive without insurance. See who goes to jail first. Sounds like a stupid game, though.

But you’re the legal expert on everything.

Eventually, we will break down and invade that bitch. The war will take about 8 years and cost about 2.5 trillion dollars.

And how many will be dead? Will it be like when Bush told us nobody will die in Iraq?

October 20, 2004 by CNN
Robertson: I Warned Bush on Iraq casualties
President's response: 'We're not going to have any'

NEW YORK (CNN) -- The founder of the U.S. Christian Coalition said Tuesday he told President George W. Bush before the invasion of Iraq that he should prepare Americans for the likelihood of casualties, but the president told him, "We're not going to have any casualties."
Pat Robertson, an ardent Bush supporter, said he had that conversation with the president in Nashville, Tennessee, before the March 2003 invasion U.S.-led invasion of Iraq. He described Bush in the meeting as "the most self-assured man I've ever met in my life."


I’m sure glad, as another one of those self assured neocons, you have that all figured out. What could possible go wrong? And the majority of Iraqis will be on our side too, I suppose?

People would have been so better off had you not meddled in their lives... as usual.

Who, me? It’s all part of my plan, along with my Wall Street swindles, to single handedly destroy America?....or we can blame your corporatists on the take. They wrote the damn thing, not me.

Who’s better off, except for those denied coverage due to pre-existing conditions or treatment costs, kids on parents’ policies, etc.,? Oh yeah, sick people.

So what’s your solution for people without health insurance?

Go tell ‘em to man up and die like swine?

S.W. Anderson said...

Re: T. Paine's comment @ 5:49 PM.

You seem to (conveniently) forget that the mandate was conservative Republicans' idea in the first place. They were for the mandate before Barack Obama got elected president and they were against it.

In the 1790's, the federal government mandated all citizens have a rifle and ammunition at home to help defend the country if necessary. As best we can tell, ours wasn't a nation of whiners and complainers in those days. As in "Nwahh! I don't wanna and you can't make me, so there!"

Digging himself in ever deeper, Mitt Romney tells us authoritarianism in mandating that citizens buy health insurance is perfectly OK as long as it's state government doing the mandating. That begs the question of what difference could it possibly make to whiners and complaienrs whether the state mandates that they buy insurance rather than the federal government. On the receiving end, a mandate is a mandate is a mandate, at least to anyone who applies an atom of logic to the matter. That leaves you out, sir. Your lack of critical thinking is only exceeded by your ready supply of misinformation.

free0352 said...

And how many will be dead? Will it be like when Bush told us nobody will die in Iraq?

He didn't say that, in fact quite the opposite. He said- "A campaign on the harsh terrain of the nation as large as California could be longer and more difficult than some predict and helping Iraqis achieve a united, stable and free country will require our sustained commitment

So he knew what a bitch it would be, on some level. You're basing your conclusion on hearsay of hearsay. Not exactly much of a source.

And history teaches us what happens to empires with that mentality

It also teaches us what happens when you don't have it.

As to exact numbers who will die in a war with Iran, of only one thing I'm sure. If that is a nuclear war, many many more will die than if it is not.

They wrote the damn thing, not me

And now you're ever so happy about it, which just a few posts ago you admitted on this blog that you were not for the individual mandate. Why the sudden reversal? Can't say for sure, but I suspect it's your tendency as a good political foot soldier to get in line, thumbs at your trouser seams and march to the drums of the Donkeys... like a good soldier should.

Oh yeah, sick people.

Ah yes, sick people can now -and oh how lucky they are!- pay 15% of their medical bills total. Whats that for something serious? Like say... a stroke? How much does a stroke cost? I have no idea, I've never had one. I'd bet over 100k though. That's 15,000 dollars your lucky duck new ObamaCare customers will pay. Or they get the death panel. "Sorry sir, you couldn't pay your co-pay, bye bye."

So really, everybody got insurance... YIPPIE! Still no one sees a fucking doctor.

Same bad health care availability, same bureaucratic mess, same high costs... just less actual medical treatment. Oh, and you could go to jail over it. Nice guys. Nanci Peloci was right, you have made history. You've passed the dumbest fucking policy in Earth's history. And again you made it, by sticking the middle class with the largest tax increase in American history. 21 new taxes, 13 of which hit the middle class. But hey, I bet the corporate guys over at Blue Cross make some good money now their customer base is collected on by the IRS.

And we're the corporatist. Sheesh.

So what’s your solution for people without health insurance?

Thats a blog post in and of its self. I'll spare you and say this- I've seen your solution, and to me it might work because I think enough people might blow their heads off to avoid it and solve the problem

Jefferson's Guardian said...

Free0352: "[The solution for people without health insurance is] a blog post in and of its self. I'll spare you..."

Gee, you've never spared us your opinion before. Why stop now?

That's the thing I love about the conservative response to the Affordable Care Act. As much as they disdain it (or hate it because of who's president), I've yet to hear a legitimate solution that's better (beyond keeping the current "system" -- which is unacceptable and worse).

T. Paine said...

Dubya, God bless ya, buddy. You are using the same old tired and inaccurate talking points that you were a year ago. First, I will attempt to stay on topic instead of going off on tangents like the silly and fictional “Bush’s war based on lies”. (That is unless you want to get into another blog-post-length debate on that topic too.) Nice try with obfuscation though, sir.

Let’s start with denial of health care benefits. I agree with you on this, Dubya. If someone has insurance, then that provider is obligated to pay for their health care. If they are denying benefits of a covered malady, then we need a way to swiftly deal with the intransigent health care provider from a legal standpoint so that timely coverage is provided. Obamacare is not the answer here.

Next, the death panels haven’t been implemented yet, but look at your beloved Obamacare law and they are in there, albeit by that euphemism of “end of life counseling”. Wait until 2014 when everything is fully implemented, assuming we the people cannot repeal this abhorrent freedom-usurping law that does nothing to improve health care for a vast majority of Americans while drastically degrading health care for millions that already do have insurance. I guess that is what progressives do though is reach for the lowest common denominator and try to spread the equal sharing of misery.

As for your next attempt at obfuscation, yes I must purchase car insurance in order to drive. I also have the option of riding a bike, taking public transit, calling a cab or a friend or a neighbor, or car-pooling etc to get where I need to go. In other words, I have a choice and other options if I don’t want to buy car insurance and drive myself. I have no such right under your “constitutional” Obamacare. Simply because I draw breath, I have to buy health insurance or be “taxed”.

One wonders just how loudly the left would scream if some future Republican congress and president were to use this precedent to mandate that everyone go to a church of their choosing or be fined. After all we are “one nation under God” and that law would absolutely do more to help “the common good” than the asinine Obamacare law does. For the record, I would be against that too, but simply used that example as an illustration. After all, now that we have opened the flood gates on this and the federal government can make us purchase any good or service they deem necessary, where will this stop?

T. Paine said...

Next, I don’t give a damn if this mandate was done by Romney in Massachusetts or thought up by the Heritage Foundation. It is wrong and an anathema to freedom. And for the record, Romney was NOT my choice in the primaries. Why? Because he has governed as a damned progressive far too often in the past. I would think that would make him more attractive to many of you on the left, accordingly. He evidently speaks out of both sides of his mouth like a Democrat for sure.

I understand that the militant left is not happy with Obamacare either. They wanted it to go even further. They want free health care for all. (or a minimal fee and let the evvvilll rich pick up the rest of the tab and finally pay their “fair share”.)

And while Obamacare does indeed meet the technical definition of “constitutional” now thanks to the politically expedient, non-constitutionally based decision of the NON-conservative Roberts, it certainly is not in keeping in the spirit of freedom that the constitution was written to protect in the first place. The constitutionality of Obamacare is contrived, fictional, and made up from some nebulous quasi-logic, not unlike the “constitutional” Roe v. Wade decision.

“I bet a lot fewer people will die as a result of this decision compared to Bush v Gore.” I’ll take that bet, and will sadly win it without question. Never mind that Bush v. Gore was adjudicated constitutionally. Besides the fact that Obamacare mandates that I must buy something whether I wish to do so or not, it also will KILL more people in the long run. When one adds 30 million more people to the health care roles and then mandates huge disincentives to doctors, medical device and drug companies, and hospitals, what do you think will happen? I personally know of two doctors that will be leaving or losing their practices if this law is not repealed. Other would-be future doctors will be far less willing to enter the field of medicine if they are dictated what their fees are so that they cannot even cover their costs, let alone live and pay off their schooling. So basic supply and demand economics tells us that when you drastically increase demand (30 million more potential patients) and you decrease supply (more doctors retiring or not entering medicine) then what happens? Costs will go way up and the demanded services will necessarily be rationed to those most in need accordingly. (Your non-existent death panels will be in charge of that.) This means that costs and accessibility will both be negatively impacted for far more people. Yeah, good solution there folks!

T. Paine said...

As for the always agreeable and gentlemanly Mr. Anderson, I have little use for Romney and agree with your logic for once that a mandate is a mandate regardless of whether it was done on the state or federal level. That said, I have little choice but to vote for Romney in order to keep the pernicious and vile egomaniacal Obama from finishing what he started in destroying what is left of America. I really don’t understand how you enlightened progressives can look at the decay of Europe under socialistic policies and determine that this is the same thing you want in America. Please, just move to Europe. We conservatives don’t have any other country to which we can move that still gives a rat’s ass about freedom and personal responsibility instead of free handouts.

Lastly, in response to Jefferson’s guardian, true conservatives/libertarians have put out very detailed solutions on how to fix this. It is the obfuscation and refusal of the left to drop their ideology for even a pico-second to look and see that the free market solutions offered will actually fix many of the problems of cost and availability of health care. The progressives would far rather have a stick to beat the right with than to actually have the problem fixed though.

If congress were to allow health insurance companies to compete across state lines and thus increase competition, that alone would go a long way towards fixing the problem. (For the economically ignorant, greater competition reduces costs.) Further when 1 out of 4 tests doctors order are unnecessary and are simply done to protect themselves against litigation, we are only adding to costs. Malpractice reform would help with this greatly. Ob/Gyn’s are becoming increasingly rare (hence their costs are rising for patients) because they are so often sued many times unwarrantedly for delivering children. Legitimate suits for negligence and malpractice must be protected, but people expecting to “win the lottery” through law suits must be eliminated through tort reform.

All of that said, even the horrible current system would indeed be far preferable to Obamacare. Hell, Obamacare even cuts half a trillion dollars from Medicare in order to fund it. How does that help seniors who are typically most in need of care. Nice try guys but with all of your monopoly on “critical thinking” skills, you all still have decided to support a “solution” that will only exacerbate the problem it was supposedly designed to fix.

Jefferson's Guardian said...

T.Paine: "...in response to Jefferson’s guardian, true conservatives/libertarians have put out very detailed solutions on how to fix this. It is the obfuscation and refusal of the left to drop their ideology for even a pico-second to look and see that the free market solutions offered will actually fix many of the problems of cost and availability of health care." [Bold type my own]

As I mentioned previously, I've yet to hear a legitimate solution from the right that's better.

It's sort of like deregulating the banking industry, huh? I really like how that free market solution helped me!

free0352 said...

Gee, you've never spared us your opinion before. Why stop now?

I'll let a real Doctor explain it to you.

T. Paine said...

Jeff, how silly of me. I forget that some of my progressive friends think that free market solutions are the equivalent evil of global warming deniers.

Yes, if you refuse to acknowledge that certain FREE MARKET solutions will work and only want a command economy solution as dictated by the government, then you will be waiting for a damned long time befoe your health care issues are ever fixed. I guess that is what happens though when you disregard "illegitimate" but efficacious free market solutions.

Jefferson's Guardian said...

T. Paine: "...if you refuse to acknowledge that certain FREE MARKET solutions will work and only want a command economy solution as dictated by the government..."

"Free market solutions" don't exist in the global monopolistic and oligopolistic economic landscape we live under today, so to keep relying on that old worn-out tagline is redundant and from a bygone era -- sort of like another conservative phrase, the "liberal media".

Just as your side believes "big government" is the primary evil in the world today, I believe "big business" (i.e., monopolistic behavior and influence) to be the largest and most critical foe we have to slay. I've never advocated a command economy, as much as you believe it so.

Again, I ask, specifically -- beyond relying upon and placing all your advocacy on a "free market solution" -- what exactly would you suggest for those without the ability to pay for insurance, or to obtain insurance due to preexisting conditions? All I hear John Boehner keep saying is, "We have a plan".

What is the plan?

(Is it the same plan that was promised during the 2010 Congressional races to create jobs?)

free0352 said...

What is the plan?

They don't have one. But that doesn't mean yours will work... and in my experience when government does nothing its better than when they do stuff.

Like when they say things like "everyone has a right to own a home."

How did that work out?

"everyone has a right to healthcare"

How will that work out?

Same fuck'n way.

Jefferson's Guardian said...

Free0352: "...and in my experience when government does nothing its better than when they do stuff."

That must explain why you hypocritically work for the largest waster of tax revenue within the U.S. government.

I guess doing "nothing" explains the space program that has allowed unprecedented avenues to open for technological growth, or the Interstate Highway System that, despite its abhorrent current condition and need of repair, has moved product and people from market to market; state to state.

But, to be fair, you're too young to know. Your "experience" only includes the time of the unraveling.


"[Republicans] don't have [a plan]."

I know they don't. Hence, the problem.

(Republican congresspersons in 2010 never had a plan for job creation, either, other than to create jobs for themselves.)

Dave Dubya said...

TP,
My, how emphatically you espouse your beliefs; unfounded as they may be. I really do appreciate your efforts.

like the silly and fictional “Bush’s war based on lies”

No debate is needed if you just show me those “biological labs”, “connections to al-Qaeda”, WMD’s and “nukular aluminum tubes”.

On July 14, 2003, Bush told reporters:

“We gave him [Saddam Hussein] a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn’t let them in. And, therefore, after a reasonable request, we decided to remove him from power.”

ABC News anchor Charles Gibson asked Bush after he left office, “If the [U.S.] intelligence had been right [and revealed no Iraq WMD], would there have been an Iraq War?”

Bush answered, “Yes, because Saddam Hussein was unwilling to let the inspectors go in to determine whether or not the U.N. resolutions were being upheld.”

Hussein did comply with Resolution 1441 by declaring accurately that he had disposed of his WMD stockpiles and by permitting U.N. inspectors to examine any site of their choosing.

How’s that for another lie? There are plenty more. Or instead, how about you show us things he said that were true? They might be far easier to list.

Obamacare is not the answer here.

And the answer is...? I’d prefer Medicare for all or at least a single payer public option. How about you?

Next, the death panels haven’t been implemented yet, but look at your beloved Obamacare law and they are in there, albeit by that euphemism of “end of life counseling”. Wait until 2014 when everything is fully implemented, assuming we the people cannot repeal this abhorrent freedom-usurping law that does nothing to improve health care for a vast majority of Americans while drastically degrading health care for millions that already do have insurance. I guess that is what progressives do though is reach for the lowest common denominator and try to spread the equal sharing of misery.

Wow. That’s quite a list of unfounded assertions. You still have not shown us a death panel, or even the language providing for one in the law. Is end of life counseling a death panel? And there are no such things as end of life counseling and death panels now? Or is end of life counseling ok, as long as it’s not the “death panel” in Obamacare?

Clear this up for us, please. Feel free to quote the actual “death panel” language in the law. You would present a better foundation for your beliefs if you did that.

Well, here’s news for you.

Republicans like them too.

Yes, that’s right. Remember the 2003 Medicare prescription drug bill, the one that passed with the votes of 204 GOP House members and 42 GOP Senators? Anyone want to guess what it provided funding for? Did you say counseling for end-of-life issues and care? Ding ding ding!!

You really have some explaining to do now. Your burden of proof cannot stand simply on your beliefs and assertions, sir.

Dave Dubya said...

TP,
I guess that is what progressives do though is reach for the lowest common denominator

You guess wrong. Obamacare is not progressive. It is the result of no compromise Republicans and corpo-dems in the pockets of insurance companies. If it is progressive, I feel sorry for you having to vote for Romney the aristocratic progressive. We all know who he really will be working for. He does not really seem to know any of the 99%. He has expressed his unconcern for the poor though. Very Christian, er Mormon, of him.

I have to buy health insurance or be “taxed”.

Yup, taxes are a fact of life for you and me. You cry much louder, though. Have a tissue.

federal government can make us purchase any good or service they deem necessary, where will this stop?

See “slippery slope fallacy”.

“militant left” would be what you call people like me? Because we think health care should be a right? That’s more like compassion than militancy, wouldn’t you think?

”We conservatives don’t have any other country to which we can move that still gives a rat’s ass about freedom and personal responsibility instead of free handouts.”

See “false choice fallacy”. Although conservative compassion shines here.

Your assertion “decay of Europe under socialistic policies” ignores the effects of their banking system and other fiscal and trade policies. Look at the decay of America under Wall Street’s rogue and unregulated capitalism. That’s ok, we know you’d rather blame progressives.

“conservatives/libertarians have put out very detailed solutions on how to fix this” This is assertion again. Evidence, please.

“progressives would far rather have a stick to beat the right with than to actually have the problem fixed” Wild assertion here.

Once again, how can public policy be fixed by the “no compromise” authoritarian radical Right?

Say, weren’t Soviet and Chinese Communists, dictators, Nazis and other fascists also well known for being the “no compromise” types? Why, yes, of course. No wonder we call your side authoritarian. It is so true.

“If congress were to allow health insurance companies to compete across state lines” So instead of blaming Pelosi, why didn’t your Republicans do just that when they had all the power? You states’ rights folks do know states have separate laws, right?

only exacerbate the problem it was supposedly designed to fix.” Except for those dumped for pre-existing conditions and other corporate policies. What fix can we expect from the no compromise radical Right?

S.W. Anderson said...

Re: T. Paine's comment @ July 2, 2012 1:46 PM.

"Next, the death panels haven’t been implemented yet, but look at your beloved Obamacare law and they are in there, albeit by that euphemism of “end of life counseling”.

This is scurrilous trollery of the worst kind, or maybe leg pulling.

End-of-life counseling is currently available throughout the country. I don't know how many people whose days are numbered avail themselves of it, but because it's widely available and has been for years, I assume it's more than a small number.

Paine, you have demonstrated a remarkable capacity for augmenting being underinformed with being misinformed, but I find it hard to believe that even you don't get it that this counseling, now, and under the American Care Act, is VOLUNTARY. It doesn't have anything to do with consigning people to the grim reaper. It's just a service to help people adjust to the reality of their unfortunate situation.

Trying to squelch this service by demonizing it is unforgiveably cruel. Trying to gain political horsepower by lying about what it is is downright evil. You should be ashamed of yourself. So should Sarah Palin and the entire Fox Noise menagerie. The problem is, they aren't capable of shame. Are you?
--
Re: Car ownership being a matter of choice and therefore auto insurance being elective, as opposed to not having a choice in buying health insurance because of the basically toothless federal mandate.

You've concocted a bad analogy that doesn't work. Not everyone owns or drives a car, OR NEEDS TO. But everyone, sooner or later, REQUIRES MEDICAL CARE.

Therefore, it makes sense to urge and nudge everyone into the insurance pool — just as Republicans suggested in the early 1990's. Just as in the Massachusetts legislation Mitt Romney signed into law.

Paine, I urge you and everyone here to read Leonard Pitts Jr.'s latest column, which is excellent. Important food for thought. It's Headlined, When Lies Triumph Over Facts, We're Done.

Dave Dubya said...

SW,
Thank you for Pitts’ stunningly sharp assessment.

“When lies triumph over facts, we’re done”

He hits the point with laser-like precision.

He first presents Palin’s politically manipulative lie, designed to invoke mistrust, fear and anger towards, Obama primarily, but also towards any opposition to the radical Right.

“The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s ‘death panel’ so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their ‘level of productivity in society,’ whether they are worthy of health care.” – Sarah Palin

The radical Right runs its propaganda program by inciting and invoking fear, uncertainty, resentment, and anger. They sow disinformation and lies in order to frighten Americans into trusting them to take over their government.

Too few Americans can remember what they left us in 2008. Besides reducing the number of voters as much as possible, the radical Right’s job is to scare them, and indoctrinate them into believing only the radical Right’s version of reality. They are taught to blame liberals for everything. They are indoctrinated to believe the corporate media has a liberal agenda, and not a profit motive.

Pitts says:

Indeed, falsehoods are harder to kill than a Hollywood zombie. Run them through with fact, and still they shamble forward, fueled by echo chamber media, ideological tribalism, cognitive dissonance, a certain imperviousness to shame, and an understanding that a lie repeated long enough, loudly enough, becomes, in the minds of those who need to believe it, truth.

Rather, the point is the construction and maintenance of an alternate narrative designed to enhance and exploit the receiver’s fears, his or her sense of prerogatives, entitlement, propriety and morality under siege from outside forces.


This is exactly how a cult works. They have legions of true believers in death panels, and an alien and illegal Marxist President. The lies are too numerous to list in anything shorter than a Russian Novel. They are like Moonies in their unquestioning belief in their authoritarian leaders. They may as well believe in the divinity of Bush family friend and Republican Washington Times propagandist, Sun Myung Moon.

The “conservatism” of the Republican Party is no different from a cult. It’s not enough to be corporatist servants of Mammon. They want it all. They don’t give a crap about our country or its people if it might cost them a buck.

Dave Dubya said...

Continues...

And they do get the bucks, Palin, Limbaugh, Hannity, Savage, Beck, ad nauseam. for spewing the hate and lies. It is an industry abetted by the very media they tell us is liberal. They lie shamelessly. Authoritarian leaders have no sense of shame, honor, or all too common, basic human decency.

They revere corporate bought free speech and scorn people protesting injustice in the streets. Corporate “persons” matter and must be allowed power over our government, as they are taught to fear and hate the living and breathing people who disagree with them.

This is a cult. One cannot reason with the souls already lost. They believe it is good that privation for the poor profits the rich. Our friend TP may believe he is Christian and wants to do the right thing, but ideologically he supports the anti-democracy agenda of the very Mammon in Jesus’ warning.

This is quite a feat achieved by Right. They knew long ago to play their Bible cards, their moral majority cards, their “real American” cards, their race cards, their reverse class warfare cards, etc. etc.

They have successfully wrapped the cross in the flag. Democracy is nearing extinction because the corporate media will not upset corporate power. Ironically the cult sheeple shall suffer privations while believing the lies that led to their austerity and profit the elites.

This has become the state of our nation. We cannot remain one people. Sadly, you and I are the scapegoats for the Amerikan Fourth Reich. I wish I could see a way out, but I’m afraid only catastrophe, or at the very least, awareness of its cause, can alter our destiny.

We seriously need a Constitutional remedy for Big Money’s seizure of our elections and government.

S.W. Anderson said...

I think Pitts would read the following, from Paine, shake his head and say, "Like I said."

"I understand that the militant left is not happy with Obamacare either. They wanted it to go even further. They want free health care for all. (or a minimal fee and let the evvvilll rich pick up the rest of the tab and finally pay their “fair share”.)"

No, those on the left don't expect free medical care. They do expect the "evvvilll rich" (your term, not mine) to pay their fair share, whether for health care, safe streets, highways and bridges, soldiers to risk and sacrifice their lives — everything. Those on the left accept that they have their own share to pay as well, based on ability to pay.

Some of the wealthiest Americans come far closer to being America's freeloaders, shirkers, whiners and complainers, Paine. Some of them have tens, maybe hundreds of millions to blow on buying pols and elections. They don't want the government they've bought for decorative purposes. They want to be immune to oversight and regulation. They want to be free of worry about prosecution, even if they cross the line into criminality. Most of all, they want to be excused from paying their fair share as taxpayers. Same goes for a bunch of major corporations, Wall Street and the big-time operators of the financial industry and Big Oil especially.

free0352 said...

They do expect the "evvvilll rich" (your term, not mine) to pay their fair share,

In terms of health care a fair share would be paying for their own care. Which they do.

As for highways and the military, last I checked those making over 250k were in the highest tax bracket. So my question is, with people in that bracket paying about 50% of their income, what is fair then? I mean in the words of John Lovitz, ITS HALF! And it is half when you add up federal, state and local taxes. So my question is, whats your definition of fair? All of it? 75%? 90%? What do you want out of these people?

free0352 said...

I mean its hard to give your contention that "the rich" don't pay their fair share any credence when you read facts like this.

Jerry Critter said...

free
Your "facts" are not about the rich.

Dave Dubya said...

Free,
Small business owners face what is called risk. Didn't you know that?

And the ones who forgo a paycheck are obviously not the rich. Don't you know that either?

The rich pay the lowest income tax rates ever, the lowest dividend tax rates ever, the lowest capital gains tax rates ever and zero taxes on trades.

And your crybabies still howl about the "oppression" and "tyranny" of constitutional taxation. Greed has no limits nor conscienece.

How swell has that turned out for our debt? How many of those promised American jobs were created by those tax cuts?

We didn't get that job growth, but what we did get is a record trickle up share of wealth to the top that gives the elites more "free speech" and political power.

We got less democracy, less jobs, and fewer public services.

I have paid nearly a third of my wages in taxes. Yet I don't bitch a tenth of what your aristocratic crybabies do, who make, or inherit, millions.

If I made over a million a year, I would be happy and comfortable, and our country would be better off, if I payed half in taxes.

If I made over a billion, I'd be more than comfortable paying 75%.

Taxes are the price we pay for civil society.

Jefferson's Guardian said...

Jerry Critter: "[Free0352], [y]our 'facts' are not about the rich."

Apparently Free0352 believes struggling small business owners are part of the top one-to-two percent.

There's certainly a disconnect here. Is it possible he's that naive?

Unbelievable!

free0352 said...

Apparently Free0352 believes struggling small business owners are part of the top one-to-two percent.

I do believe that. Because the data says that.

So now whose being naive? I'm the one who can quote figures and numbers, and you're the one who can only spout needlessly divisive class hatred. Really, how do you think small business owners can go years at a time without drawing a paycheck? It's because they've got hundreds of thousands or more in savings to live off of... duh...

The ones that don't go OUT of business. Which probably accounts for the rising unemployment rate- don't ya think?

free0352 said...

Small business owners face what is called risk

0% of that risk should be caused by government.

The rich pay the lowest income tax rates ever

Which is still half.

Greed has no limits nor conscienece.

No it doesn't. After all, you're the one who wants to take three quarters out of every dime a guy makes. There is nothing fair about that. There is greed going on all right. It's staring at you in the mirror. If stealing is presumably wrong, calling the act "taxation" doesn't make it right. Redistribution isn't fair, its legalized theft.

If I made over a billion, I'd be more than comfortable paying 75%.

I like it how you want to force your will on others in one breath and in the other call US authoritarian. At the end of the day, it's your side who wants desperately to make decisions about how others will live their lives. From how much money is "enough" to what size coke is "enough."

Your side is very oppressive, and their power won't last much longer. Even you admit as much... just don't with that clarity or honesty.

Jerry Critter said...

Taxes are on income, not wealth. Therefore someone with no income cannot be in the top 1% of income? Taxing someone's total wealth is a whole different subject.

FandB said...

Dubya: "If I made over a billion, I'd be more than comfortable paying 75%."

Yeah, the thing is, people who are fat, dumb, happy, and comfortable enough to let someone, even the gub'mint, take 75% of what they earn, will never figure out what it takes to earn a billion, or even a million.

So why cut it off at a billion, or even a million, why not make the tax rate perfectly fair and let the gub'mint take 75% of everyone's wages. Yours, mine, Obama's. Yeah, a flat tax of 75%, that would be fair.

FandB said...

75% of everyone's wages, Jerry's, Nan's, Kulkuri's, Myste's, and of course, Dubya's and Jefferson's and everone else's might even get enough money for the government to pay for the debamabacle Obamacare!

Dave Dubya said...

Free said,

it's your side who wants desperately to make decisions about how others will live their lives.

Yeah, like we force women to breed or go for unwanted medical exams, like we launched a war on drugs, started wars of aggression, wrote the Patriot Act, and engineered a rigged system that empowers Big Money and redistributes wealth to the elites.

you want to force your will on others in one breath and in the other call US authoritarian

Because we want the Bush/Obama tax cuts to expire as originally legislated? Ha. Oh, the tyranny! Alack and alas! Oh, the humanity!

Neocon war mongers and Right Wing corporatists are very much authoritarian. The forcing of their will has exploded the debt, written trade agreements that cost hundreds of thousands of jobs to be off-shored, killed countless innocents and thousands of Americans. And I get to pay the bill. Yeah, a real bunch of fair and square honest guys, minding their own business there.

Just like a dog whistle Free responds to the “oppressive” low tax rates.

Which is still half.

So who’s paying ‘half”? Free claims to be the numbers guy. I hope he shows us.

Redistribution isn't fair, its legalized theft.

You can say that again. Here’s how that redistribution has been going:

Average Pretax Income In Dollars

Bottom 20% Top 1%

1980 $15,500 $504,200
1985 $14,800 $675,900
1992 $15,500 $817,700
2000 $17,100 $1,508,500
2006 $17,200 $1,743,700

And this redistribution is expanding exponentially.

For more numbers that Free doesn’t make up:

http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html/

“Wealth, Income, and Power”

Yes, the three are related after all.

And:
http://politicalcorrection.org/factcheck/201106070002

“Bush Tax Cuts: A Decade Of Failure”


F&B,

Yeah, a flat tax of 75%, that would be fair.

You believe making someone earning 20k a year live on $5,000 is as fair as the billionaire on $250,000,000 for a year?

Sounds “fair and balanced” to me.

free0352 said...

Yeah, like we force women to breed or go for unwanted medical exams, like we launched a war on drugs, started wars of aggression, wrote the Patriot Act, and engineered a rigged system that empowers Big Money and redistributes wealth to the elites.

Democrats were key in all of those things.

Because we want the Bush/Obama tax cuts to expire as originally legislated?

Didn't you just say you wanted 75%? Even after you now get half? Even after most Americans don't pay any income tax?

The forcing of their will has exploded the debt

While Bush borrowed big to be sure, Obama borrowed more than Bush did in eight years in under one year. that is not an improvement and makes Bush the lesser of two evils. As sad day for the Democrat Party as well.

written trade agreements that cost hundreds of thousands of jobs to be off-shored

Bill Clinton signed NAFTA and the trade agreements with China. He's a Democrat and his wife is secretary of state. Also when NAFTA and the China agreements were passed, the congress was controlled by the Democrats.

killed countless innocents and thousands of Americans

Americans really? In my 12 years of military service how did I miss my invasion of my own country. You'd think I'd remember shooting at least one. If you get any more teen drama queen, I'm going to sign you up for an MTV reality show.

As for who pays the most taxes, here are the facts.

It's funny that is your definition of "fair." It certainly is progressive, but not really fair by any definition other than your own greed filled motives. Look out Dave, that big green monster is about to eat your brain.

Sounds “fair and balanced” to me.

It is. It sucks, but it is fair, if that is your goal. But of course that isn't your goal at all. Your goal is equality of outcome, not equality under the law. Certainly by percentage, 50% of one group and zero percent of another's income for equal service is hardly fair or equal.

In Dubya's world the eeeeevil rich would pay 1000.00 for a hamburger and those that vote Democrat would get it for free. That's his definition of "fair."

Dave Dubya said...

Democrats were key

Yes, like Democrats were following Republicans. We all know most Democrats are very much junior Republicans. They also take cash from the same interests.

We’d rather hear stuff we don’t already know.

Didn't you just say you wanted 75%? Even after you now get half?

There you go again. You claimed to be our numbers expert. How many pay half?

Americans really?

So you don’t count our dead soldiers as Americans?

We do.

It's funny that is your definition of "fair."

Not as funny as yours:

It is. It sucks, but it is fair,

Ha.


Your goal is equality of outcome, not equality under the law

You guys just love tired, old false clichés, Yeah, the corporate media is liberal too. Tax cuts create jobs, Wealth trickles down. FOX(R) is fair and balanced, and liberals hate America... ad nauseam

No, we want equality in rights and representation. Corporate personhood overrules and minimizes individual citizens’ rights.

Human rights should not be subservient to corporate rights.

So how about getting back to us with those numbers of “oppressed” aristocrats?

free0352 said...

How many pay half?

The people paying 36% or more of the income tax. That would be people making over 250k per year. Sure some have great tax lawyers, but most don't.

So you don’t count our dead soldiers as Americans?

I count them as volunteers who asked to go. I'm one of them as you'll recall.

No, we want equality in rights and representation

Congratulations, you have it. Except when you pay taxes. Then you're in a preferential class that pays much less than others. More over, your party often votes it's constituents a share of other people's money. You poor baby they don't want to give more. Those big mean jerks, wanting to keep the money they earned... especially as I've shown many have sacrificed entire years of pay to earn it later. How could they possibly want to profit from that work and sacrifice? The selfish bastards! They should instead altruistically instead sacrifice it to Democrat voters who collect 60,000 dollars in government benefits and go without working for years at a stretch. After all, that's the American dream right? Not working a day for 2 years churning out bay-bays in the free trailer or HUD house, eating off the EBT card, and blowing the aid check on meth and then getting medicade to pay for the rehab to satisfy the angry judge. That's what the grey-pony tail rejects from the 1960's gave my generation. 15 trillion in counting in generational debt, a broken Social Security pension system we'll never see a dime of, a crippled economy, mass drug abuse... and AIDS. And hey, if we're lucky enough to succeed after your lazy, "if it feels good do it," weed toking hippie asshole generation set us up for failure, and who it looks to me "tuned in, turned off, and dropped out" of common freaking sense, we can look forward to you demanding 75% of our pay-checks to finance your retirements and "free" healthcare.

Wow, thanks dudes. I'll pass. Your generation spent mine into oblivion thinking you could simply vote yourselves a higher standard of living, and we'll digging out of the hole you dug for us for the rest of our lives. Hell, our kids may not even finish fixing the mess you made. More over, you vote for those who pass asinine laws to protect yourselves FROM yourselves. You want the party of No? The Democrat party is the party of no. No drinking, smoking (unless its WEED!), transfats, salt, guns, scary rap music, cheap mortgages, easy loans, pay day loans, driving without your seat belt on, toys in fast food, fast food, porn, SUVs, and even "violent toys."

And this from the generation of Democrats who in their day had one, big, drug fueled orgy known as the 1970s. It's as if you made such a huge mess of your lives, you don't trust yourselves or us to make our own decisions in life or have any responsibility for yourself what-so-ever. The Democrat Party, the party of no personal consequences. Only there were consequences. All very bad.

As Billy Joel said, you didn't start the fire. You just pissed gasoline on it and dumped it on your children. But hey, least you'll die with some fuck'n medicare. Your welcome.

Jerry Critter said...

free says "... we can look forward to you demanding 75% of our pay-checks to finance your retirements and "free" healthcare."

No one is suggesting a 75% tax rate or free healthcare.

free, you are full of crap and just making stuff up.

S.W. Anderson said...

With his usual incisiveness, Jerry Critter pointed out to Free0352: "Taxes are on income, not wealth. Therefore someone with no income cannot be in the top 1% of income? Taxing someone's total wealth is a whole different subject."

That deftly disposes of the bogus "class warfare" meme.

But unhelpful details like the one J.C. explained are routinely ignored by the teabag right. When pointed out to them, they dismiss them for any of several invalid reasons. If Free responds on this point at all it will be — wait for it — dismissive. Doesn't matter, because . . . Isn't true because . . . Shouldn't count because. And in each case, expect "because" to amount to "I don't want it to" or "I say it doesn't."

Dave Dubya said...

Jerry,
Like talking to a Moonie, isn’t it? Well, I have, and it really is similar

SW,
Exactly, and this is why they always resort to wielding their vast array of clichés, talking points, falsehoods, and fallacies.

Free,
How many pay half?

Ok. That would be zero. We accept your concession.

Ok, thousands of dead American volunteers. I accept your concession on that as well.

“equality in rights and representation”. Congratulations, you have it.

No we don’t. My free speech doesn’t get broadcast into FOX(R) viewers’ homes. I don’t get to own politicians and write legislation or trade agreements either.

Wow, look at all those resentments we evil liberals have burdened you with. You act like just the Democrats did all this. Sorry dude, liberal Democrats have not been in charge in decades.

Republicans’ and corpo-dems’ tax cuts, deregulation, and corporate written treaties and legislation had nothing to do with it, because those evil hippies had corporate America over the barrel, didn’t they? You’re on something a lot stronger than weed, dude. Has the Army been testing new chemicals on you? They have a history of that, you know.

after your lazy, "if it feels good do it," weed toking hippie asshole generation

I take it you include Bush, Cheney, Rove, Wolfowitz, Feith, Rumsfeld, the Clintons, neocons and corporatists that have wielded all the power over the last thirty years since Reagan first took us from a creditor nation to a debtor nation and exploded deficits that St. Ronnie proved “don’t matter” to Cheney. Right?

You mean those hippies? Yeah, only they are not hippies, dude. They are corporatists and agents for Big Money. Did you see the redistribution numbers I showed you?

That’s been their goal all along. That, and only that. The other Bible thumping, social regressive crap is merely used to mobilize resentments in the cult followers.

And they are winning while the rest of us are losing, including you dude.

I’ve paid for wars and corporate subsidies, along with Social Security and Medicare for at least as long as you’ve been alive. And your Party wants to steal the latter two from me, dude. While I still pay for their wars and corporate subsidies. Sounds like your definition of “fair”. It sucks.

Your generation had better realize who’s screwing who, if you want anything to get better.

You can start with learning how to develop and employ critical thinking, and question your beliefs and authoritarian leaders. Start with Cheney.

I won’t mention any of his lies at his time, unless you need me to provide a few.

free0352 said...

No one is suggesting a 75% tax rate or free healthcare.

Dave Dubya: "I'd be more than comfortable paying 75%"

So yes, someone... in this very debate... is suggesting 75%. You should try reading the thread before talking.

That would be zero

Nah, that would nearly everyone in paying the top marginal rate. I've heard numbers saying it's over 3.1 million Americans. This chart breaks it down well.

My free speech doesn’t get broadcast into FOX(R)

So you need a network contract to have free speech now? There YOU go again, wanting instead of equality under the law, equality of result. You have the right to say whatever you want, you do not have a right to an audience. You have to go get that yourself.

You act like just the Democrats did all this. Sorry dude, liberal Democrats have not been in charge in decades.

Which shows how much damage they can do in such a short time.

I take it you include Bush, Cheney, Rove, Wolfowitz, Feith, Rumsfeld, the Clintons

Yup. And more.

Reagan first took us from a creditor nation to a debtor nation

National Debt, 1980: $930,210,000,000

Now whose making stuff up.

Number of jobs created during 1980s: 16.1 million. That was the largest expansion of the economy ever, until a few years later when Bill Clinton over his two terms created 22 million.

So I guess those two weren't so bad. How many has Barack Obama created? He had to start saying he "saved" jobs for a while his record was so bad. Now he just doesn't talk about it because things suck so bad.

Kinda like they always do when we get a "progressive" who always fail at economic growth. Carter single handled proved Keynes theory wrong with his incompetence. And Obama is going to do it again.

And your Party wants to steal the latter two from me

Which party would that be I wonder?

Further, I would say they'd like to rescue my generation from your generations debts... but your greed won't see it that way. You are the me first generation after all. I don't care what you paid, your generation had everything will ever pay spent by 1987. After that they went on a credit card and are trying to stick the kids and grand kids with the bills. Talk about taxation without representation, 30 somethings will be paying off stuff that was decided before they were born for the rest of their lives.


Start learning economics Dave, start with Adam Smith.

Jerry Critter said...

Dave's comment was not a suggestion that everyone should pay a 75% rate.

Jerry Critter said...

The creditor/debtor nation reference relates to balance of trade not national debt. Duh!

Jefferson's Guardian said...

Free0352: "Start learning economics Dave, start with Adam Smith."

For someone who pays homage to Adam Smith, you certainly disregard one of the main reservations he had concerning the "capitalist" model. His ideas were formulated based upon small and regional economies, and not monopolistic and multinational ones. He was very much against the large trading monopolies of the day, believing because they didn't draw all of their revenues from the sovereign people, they cared nothing for the prosperity of the local and regional economies they dominated. Their transgressions were plainly pointed out by Smith, saying unequivocally that their interests as trading monopolies were directly contrary to the sovereign interests they displaced (e.g., the local "mom & pop" grocery store by Wal-Mart). In his own words (bold emphasis my own):

"In almost all countries the revenue of the sovereign is drawn from that of the people. (Wouldst that it were so.) The greater the revenue of the people, therefore, the greater the annual produce of their land and labour, the more they can afford to the sovereign. - - - It is the interest of such a sovereign, therefore, to open the most extensive market for the produce of his country, to allow the most perfect freedom of commerce, in order to increase as much as possible the number and the competition of buyers; and upon this account to abolish, not only all monopolies, but all restraints upon the transportation of the home produce from one part of the country to another, upon its exportation to foreign countries, or upon the importation of goods of any kind for which it can be exchanged. It is in this manner most likely to increase both the quantity and value of that produce, and consequently of his own share of it, or of his own revenue."

Possibly, instead of using The Wealth of Nations as a convenient doorstop, you might try reading it some time.

John Myste said...

Free, they sell regular doorstops that work much better than your Adam Smith works. Besides, since you are unable or unwilling to read it, you could barter with Dave, who may have a real doorstop you could use.

Just trying to help.

free0352 said...

His ideas were formulated based upon small and regional economies, and not monopolistic and multinational ones

True, but you'd be hard pressed to find me arguing against anti-trust legislation, which deals with monopolies. I agree with Smith's point. You however support the greatest monopoly of them all, the socializing force of the federal government. It is precisely Smith's opposition to monopoly that causes me to oppose state control. Calling a monopoly government doesn't change anything.

As to taxes which we were talking about earlier, Smith had this to say about them-

The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state.

Taxation in proportion to revenue isn't progressive taxation, it's proportional taxation—in modern terminology, a flat tax.

So, according to smith government should abandon all it's monopolistic practices (such as it's ventures into heathcare) and abolish the progressive income tax in favor of a flat tax.

You still a fan of Adam Smith or what? I did minor in economics, I'm not an economist but damn... I did read Wealth Of Nations once or twice.

As for Myste, I know philosopher kings don't need the dismal science but the rest of we serfs do.

Jerry Critter said...

"Taxation in proportion to revenue isn't progressive taxation,..."

free, your quote did not say revenue. It said, "their respective abilities". A flat tax is not "in proportion to their respective abilities".

Dave Dubya said...

Jerry,
Thanks for showing Free a little reality. It will probably be ignored, though.

John and JG,

It just occurred to me. A nice chunk of nukular aluminum tube would make a fantastic doorstop.

Unfortunately they seem to be very difficult to find. Just like death panels. And a complete government takeover of health care. And a liberal corporate media. And hippies who act like Bush and Cheney. And compassionate conservatism. And....I really don’t have time to list them all.

Free,
So I take it I answered this for you.

So what’s your solution for people without health insurance?

Go tell ‘em to man up and die like swine.


We’ll accept that until you show us your plan.

This is you claim:

So my question is, with people in that bracket paying about 50% of their income.

This is your answer:

Nah, that would nearly everyone in paying the top marginal rate.

Oh, so they’re the ones paying half their wages in taxes?

I'm the one who can quote figures and numbers, and you're the one who can only spout needlessly divisive class hatred.

Then show us please.

you do not have a right to an audience

Yeah just like under fascism and communism. You’re saying only the rich have a right to an audience for their free speech. What is free speech without having someone to speak it to? Just what the totalitarian corporatocracy ordered.

Carter was indeed very incompetent in controlling Mideast wars and OPEC oil embargos. But Republicans and neocon libertarians profited from those things, didn’t they? We got Reagan’s great “trickle down scam”, corporate foxes in the regulatory henhouse, and a nation doomed to debt and deficit in order to justify slashing our government down to subservience to corporate interests.

I’ll take the ‘70’s over the 2000’s anytime. Times were not the best, but many more single-income families were getting by better then than today. “Malaise” wasn’t so bad compared to depression and trickle up wealth.

See my chart on wealth redistribution for context.

You did see my redistribution chart, right?

So where’s your number for the oppressed aristocratic elites paying half their income in taxes? I assume you include inheritance and investment income too, right?

Jefferson's Guardian said...

Free0352: "I agree with Smith's point."

Yet, you don't believe we live under an umbrella of multinational corporate (i.e., monopolistic) rule.


"It is precisely Smith's opposition to monopoly that causes me to oppose state control."

Your opposition to monopolistic behavior in business practices causes you to oppose state (or central) "control"? That's a fair comparison (I guess, although a very poor one). So, why do you support a system that's dominated by a multinational monopolistic structure (and whose tentacles reach way beyond just the operating of their respective businesses), when we live in a time that our government doesn't "control" the operation of business? (Not to mention, that worldwide, only Singapore, Hong Kong, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom are the only nations that have a more business-friendly environment than here?)


"So, according to smith government should abandon all it's monopolistic practices (such as it's ventures into heathcare)"

No, that's according to Free0352 -- not Smith. (Besides, a government regulating healthcare isn't the same as a government owning healthcare. You do understand the difference, right?)


"You still a fan of Adam Smith or what?"

I never claimed reverence for, or even adherence to, Smith's ideas and philosophy. It's you who claimed his economic works to be the primer of economic enrichment. Remember?

Jefferson's Guardian said...

John Myste: "Besides, since you are unable or unwilling to read it, you could barter with Dave, who may have a real doorstop you could use."

Mr. Myste, the irony is...priceless!

free0352 said...

We’ll accept that until you show us your plan.

I'm pretty sure I linked it. It's very simple really. Remove what is making health care expensive. Government intrusion.

Then show us please.

Are you really that lazy. Dept Treasury says it's about 30.6% of the tax payers, which I linked, in a graph. Sadly pictures a child could understand must be too complicated. So when you factor that only half of Americans pay income tax, and 30% are thuged out of 50% of their incomes, you see just how "fair" that system is. What you have is people who drink the water riding on the backs of those who carry the water.

You’re saying only the rich have a right to an audience for their free speech.

No one has a right to an audience, you have to earn one. Sorry to say, Rupert Murdoch does a much better job of that than you do.

Carter was indeed very incompetent in controlling Mideast wars and OPEC oil embargos

If you call "controlling" instant surrender... and then we all waited in the gas lines. Yay. Carter was the most incompetent boob of the 20th century. The Mideast was laughing at him while they beat our embassy staff and Russia could barely stop convulsing in mirth to invade Afghanistan and infiltrate more of South America and Africa. But hey, all three were solved after 8 short years of Reagan. Thanks Ron, where ever you are.

Times were not the best,

No, no they were not. And in case you can't figure this out, the American standard of living has increased leaps and bounds since 1976. Back then, we had long gas lines, double digit unemployment, and a TV cost as much as a small car. Oh, and disco. Today a computer that is more powerful than the one on the 1980 space shuttle is sitting on nearly everyone's desk, people buy cheap flat screen TVs, cheaper energy costs, cheaper clothes, cheaper everything with better quality. Lower infant mortality, more running water, more paved roads, more opportunity, better working conditions, and the world isn't staring down the Soviet Unions nuclear threat. Your nostalgia for the era of bad hair, worse style, afros on white people, bell bottoms, rampant inflation, shitty cars, 4 channels on TV, and a laughing stock of a Leader that's your insane preference. Don't drag the rest of us with you.

free0352 said...

Here's a great little article that does a good job (with sources) of debunking pretty much everything you've said Dave. Just check out those graphs (those are those picture things with lines on them) to contrast the 1970s from today.

free0352 said...

Whoops link is broken, here it is again.

Jefferson's Guardian said...

Free0352: "...check out those graphs (those are those picture things with lines on them) to contrast the 1970s from today."

Unfortunately, or perhaps deceptively,
you failed to account for constant dollars
based upon inflation. I'll see ya', and raise you $331.59!

I'd speculate that the increase in the American standard of living, as you see it, has been mostly based upon increased consumer debt since the 1970s, in addition to requiring two adults within households to create that false sense of increased prosperity.

Jerry Critter said...

Inflation plays a big role when you compare 1970 to 2012. For example, the minimum wage of $1.60 an hour in 1968 would be $10.55 today when adjusted for inflation. That's an increase of more than 6 times. Hell, if the minimum wage in 1990 increased at the same rate as executives salaries, the minimum wage would be $23 per hour now.

S.W. Anderson said...

"It's very simple really. Remove what is making health care expensive. Government intrusion."

I can't recall ever using the expression, "Now I've heard everything," but it's my only reaction to this nonsense.

Jerry Critter said...

Well, you know healthcare costs would be a lot lower if we just let most people, at least 99% of us, die young, just after our productive laborer years are over. It costs a fortune to keep all those old people alive. What the hell. If they can't earn me money, screw them. That's free's philosophy.

Dave Dubya said...

SW,
That's our guy.

Jerry,
Free's Randroid cult refers to lesser fortunate humans as parasites.

Right, Free?

Free,
Yes I saw your chart. It disagrees with you. I again accept your concession.

And I saw your other happy little article with their cute home-made graphs, that starts out:

“It’s no secret by now that America is in an economic rut”.

And features this deep insight:

A good example of our extraordinary increase in standard of living over the last 100 years is to imagine all the things we can accomplish in an hours time.

And this: Our real standard of living has increased since 1990. The same cannot be said since 1999.

And it finished with: Standards of living is being viewed from a purely economical perspective in this piece. Clearly, there are many differing definitions of living standards.

Ah, yes the “differing definitions of living standards”.

Yes little things like poverty rates, unemployment rates, and redistribution of wealth and corporate political power.

In 1979 the poverty rate was11.6%.
The U.S. Census Bureau announced that the U.S. poverty rate reached 13.2 percent in 2008, a significant increase from the 12.5 percent rate in 2007. In 2009, 14.3% of people in America were living in poverty.

And lets look at the unemployment rates, shall we?
Nixon’s unemployment rates went from 3.5% in 1969 in to 5.65 in 1972. Ford saw 8.5% in 1975. Under Carter in 1979 it was 5.8%

But why should I tell you, Free? You’re the numbers guy.

And in response to "Times were not the best":

No, no they were not. And in case you can't figure this out....

At this point you are so error-ridden it would waste my time correcting you.

But since you’re boasting about US infant mortality:

From CNN: http://articles.cnn.com/2011-11-02/opinion/opinion_walker-infant-mortality_1_infant-mortality-rate-of-white-babies-american-public-health-association?_s=PM:OPINION


“The most recent statistics from 2007 show that the U.S. rate of almost seven deaths per 1,000 live births ranked the U.S. behind the majority of other developed countries. Thirty developed countries have lower infant mortality rates, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, all of them spending much less than we do on health care.”


Hmm, there must be something different about our health care system from those other countries...

Your nostalgia for the era is not nostalgia, unlike when you admitted how you felt about the 1920’s.

Dave Dubya said...

oops, I made a typo on Nixon's unemployment rate.

Let me make one thing perfectly clear.

Nixon’s unemployment rates went from 3.5% in 1969 to 5.6% in 1972.

Darn! I have to admit an error. That makes Free the number one number man. He makes no errors...

Jefferson's Guardian said...

Dave Dubya: "That makes Free the number one number man. He makes no errors..."

That's 'cause he minored in economics! ;-)

free0352 said...

That's 'cause he minored in economics!

Well then by all means if you majored in it be my guest to tell us all where you went to school? I went to Michigan State which is a great school but not one known with top tier econ department. I agree a minor in economics doesn't make you an economist, and I wasn't saying that. What I did say however, was that it was a pretty good indication I'd read Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations. And I did, right before I spent four years hearing about the New Deal and the Great Depression and the general theory of J.M. Keynes till my ears bled. I enjoyed economics far more than I thought I would, which is why I will likely go back to school next year for a graduate degree in Actuarial Science. But I fully admit, I'm not an Actuary yet. But I am a guy who has read and understands the key concepts.

As for inflation, anyone who likes to compare the value of the dollar way back when to today in doomsday like terms... smack them. Same goes for the "buy gold" people. And that goes for Jeff here, because he's talking like one of them. If you DON'T adjust Jeffs chart for 1982 dollars and let the value stand you quickly see the worker of 2012 makes a LOT more money, and whats more important he can buy a lot more stuff with that money because the goods are far cheaper. Heck, even after the latest housing crash homes are still easier to finance than they were in 1976. Just look at the difference in interest rates. Arguing that the standard of living in 1979 was better than today's is futile, because in nearly every metric 2012 wins.

Dave Dubya said...

because in nearly every metric 2012 wins

Except for wee, little, minor things like the unemployment and poverty levels. Aka the parasites.

But the metric that matters is, of course, redistribution to the top.

Woo hoo for growing inequality and neo-feudalism. No wonder Free is so happy. We are repeating the late 1920's. How can anything go wrong?

Jefferson's Guardian said...

Dave Dubya: "No wonder Free is so happy. We are repeating the late 1920's. How can anything go wrong?"

LOL

Jefferson's Guardian said...

Free0352: "As for inflation, anyone who likes to compare the value of the dollar way back when to today in doomsday like terms... smack them."

and...

"If you DON'T adjust Jeffs chart for 1982 dollars and let the value stand you quickly see the worker of 2012 makes a LOT more money..."

It' called a benchmark. Are you even vaguely familiar with the term?

Without it, coupled with your "reasoning", I suppose it could be said Germans in the early 1920s were "better off" because it took a wheelbarrow full of Marks to buy a loaf of bread. Gee, they had so many more! They must have been doing really well!

I suggest you return your minor in Economics to MSU with an apology. You've embarrassed that school beyond all measure -- "benchmark" or not.

okjimm said...

//Republicans Against Thinking//

I do believe Free has proven your point.

John Myste said...

Jesus!

Free is not an embarrassment to the conservative theories of economics. He argues them basically as well as liberals argue their side and better than most conservatives argue theirs.

If Free were not so maniacally emotional, he would be a force with which to be reckoned (or something like that).

Either way, he is not an embarrassment to the conservative position in any sense.

Just My Two Cents said...

Dave,

If we give Obama another chance in November I'm sure unemployment will go below 8% and there is a good chance that you will leave behind your underemployed position as a prison guard.

Jefferson,

I can't believe you understand that advanced economic concept of "constant dollars"! You are so smart and have read Adam Smith also. I am very impressed!

Jerry,

Lets be grateful that we have progressed from FDR's philosophy of initially implementing Social Security to start paying at age 65 when the average life expectancy of a woman was 64 and a man was 60.

S.W. Anderson said...

Free0352 wrote: "If you DON'T adjust Jeffs chart for 1982 dollars and let the value stand you quickly see the worker of 2012 makes a LOT more money, and whats more important he can buy a lot more stuff with that money because the goods are far cheaper."

First, real income of nonwealthy Americans has been flat or negative for most of the last 22 years. Spare us the nonsense.

Marx called religion the opiate of the people. He had a point, because for centuries the church of Rome and its British offshoot had conspired with monarchs and lesser nobility to keep people in line. The clergy did that by assuring commoners that kings rule by divine right, and that to challenge the rule of monarchs was to defy God's will. So, after whatever punishment a PO'd king or other noble might mete out, God's judgment awaited the rebellious in the hereafter.

Nowadays,cheap consumer goods and ever-expanding commercial distractions are the opiate of the people. The people who vastly increased their own wealth by taking millions of Americans' jobs away and giving them to foreigners, along with factories and whole industries, pacified the public with the cheap goods made by those foreigners. Financial industry Masters of the Universe greased the skids with easy credit for cash-strapped American consumers, the more the merrier, vastly increasing their own wealth in the process.

At every turn in this vicious shell game, the rich get richer, the poor get poorer and more numerous, and the middle class gets gutted.

Yes, American consumers can buy more with less than ever before. But for the millions who are unemployed and underemployed, and for all those who repeatedly suffer layoffs that cost them earnings setbacks they never recover, those cheap goods have come at terrible cost.

Less obvious but just as real, there's the loss or degradation of public services resulting from gutted tax bases, local, state and federal.

Great time to be as rich as Mitt Romney, though.

free0352 said...

Really, we have higher unemployment today Dave? Last I checked we had double digit unemployment and inflation in 1979, we have neither today.

As for standard of living, it's clearly higher. Anderson can accuse me of pseudo science (right after a tangent on the divine right of kings no less) but the fact is EVERY main stream economist will tell you that the standard of living (which after all is the goal) vs wages has gone up, up, up every year since the great depression. Even in this down economy. You want a source? You can source damn near every ECON head of every econ department of nearly every university in America. I'm not one that says consensus is always-always correct but damn... if ever that was the case... this is it.

And as for being underemployed, there is NOTHING wrong with being a prison guard. Honorable line of work for anyone.

Just My Two Cents said...

Nowadays,cheap consumer goods and ever-expanding commercial distractions are the opiate of the people.

Obama's books “The Audacity of Hope” and “Dreams From My Father” that were a big source of his wealth are a great example of commercial distractions that turned out be opiates for the masses. How many suckers here bought the big bullshitter's books?

Great time to be as rich as Mitt Romney, though.

Great time to be the Obamas too, who are now 1 percenters lol!

approximated summary of where the Obamas hold their wealth:
Cash: $660,000
Mutual funds/ETFs: $625,000
Pension: $90,000
Treasuries: $3.4 million
Real estate: $900,000
TOTAL: $5.7 million

T. Paine said...

“Except for wee, little, minor things like the unemployment and poverty levels. Aka the parasites. But the metric that matters is, of course, redistribution to the top. Woo hoo for growing inequality and neo-feudalism. No wonder Free is so happy. We are repeating the late 1920's. How can anything go wrong?”

First of all, Dubya, if your president and the insufferably dense Harry Reid and Her Mendacious Highness Pelosi weren’t such incompetent lying boobs, perhaps we would have a REAL unemployment rate below the 8% that Obama promised his stimulus would keep us from exceeding. As for poverty levels, again our Dear Leader has done nothing to improve but rather only exacerbate the huge increase of Americans now living below the poverty level. In that regard he has cynically tried to grow his voting base by becoming the food stamp king. It is damned ironic that you gripe and rail against the growing inequality in this nation while the politicians that are more in line with your progressive views are the ones ushering in that exact result through their “governance”. Again I say, it would appear that progressives really do want to govern to the least common denominator and instead of spreading equal opportunity, rather insist on the equal sharing of misery.

"I know of only two methods of establishing equality in the political world; rights must be given to every citizen, or none at all to anyone… There exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - Alexis de Tocqueville

John Myste said...

Obama's books “The Audacity of Hope” and “Dreams From My Father” that were a big source of his wealth are a great example of commercial distractions that turned out be opiates for the masses. How many suckers here bought the big bullshitter's books?

I would love to be one of the suckers. Obama is a great speaker and he is a very intelligent man. Alas, there is not enough time right now.

So, I guess I am a wanna be sucker.

Dave Dubya said...

John,
Something tells me the person accusing Obama of being the bullshitter hasn't read the book, or hardly any other books for that matter.

Free,
Really, we have higher unemployment today Dave?

Yes, really. Better check your numbers again. Mine are from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Here, look closely:

From you article: Our real standard of living has increased since 1990. The same cannot be said since 1999.

And it finished with: Standards of living is being viewed from a purely economical perspective in this piece. Clearly, there are many differing definitions of living standards.

Ah, yes the “differing definitions of living standards”.

Yes little things like poverty rates, unemployment rates, and redistribution of wealth and corporate political power.

In 1979 the poverty rate was 11.6%.

The U.S. Census Bureau announced that the U.S. poverty rate reached 13.2 percent in 2008, a significant increase from the 12.5 percent rate in 2007. In 2009, 14.3% of people in America were living in poverty.

And lets look at the unemployment rates, shall we?

Nixon’s unemployment rates went from 3.5% in 1969 in to 5.6% in 1972. Ford saw 8.5% in 1975. Under Carter in 1979 it was 5.8%

And thank you for showing you have more knowledge, respect and understanding than a certain multi-named twit:

And as for being underemployed, there is NOTHING wrong with being a prison guard. Honorable line of work for anyone.

He’s too cowardly and brainwashed to argue with you, though.

As I said, I could trust you in a dangerous situation, unlike an ignorant hateful idiot.

TP,
I take it you are afraid to disagree with Free, but indicate so with me.

Yeah, Bush sure let those corpo-dems screw things up, didn’t he? It’s not easy recovering from such a disastrously failed presidency, especially with a corporatist filibustered Senate and Tea Cult House.

If your party knows best, they didn’t govern like it, did they?

Remember that little crash of ’08? Remember the Bush “job boom”? If you can’t connect what is happening now with those corporatist Right Wing policies you are willfully blind.

he has cynically tried to grow his voting base by becoming the food stamp king.

Now THAT statement is what I call cynical and perhaps willfully and hatefully blind. Rush, Savage and Hannity would be proud of you.

Why don’t you just say Obama and progressives hate America? The only good persons, besides Republicans, are corporate persons. Let’s keep trusting them to write legislation, regulations, environmental laws and public policy. Those eeevilll godless, heartless socialists are incapable of old-fashioned conservative corporate compassion.

After all, Big Money cannot possibly have a negative effect on our former representative government, right?

politicians that are more in line with your progressive views are the ones ushering in...nothing at all.

They are a very small minority with no influence. Just the way Big Money wants them. Your side is winning, you know. The Mammonite elites are reaping all the wealth while the rest of us stagnate or will have to get by with less and less.

This is what you cannot deny by any fact or logic. But deny it you shall, for you have no choice in the matter. Your belief system, and authoritarian leaders, demand it.

Jefferson's Guardian said...

S.W. Anderson: "...cheap consumer goods and ever-expanding commercial distractions are the opiate of the people."

The ancient Roman poet and satirist, Juvenal, called it "panem et circenses" (bread and circuses). Politicians, even back in the first century A.D., knew the power of distraction through cheap food and entertainment. It has worked in some form or fashion ever since.

Jefferson's Guardian said...

Just My Two Cents: "Jefferson, I can't believe you understand that advanced economic concept of 'constant dollars'!"

I'm glad you learned something. Apparently Free0352 has not.

free0352 said...

Bread and circuses were funded by the Roman Empire. I think if Republicans have made anything clear, it's that they don't want to fund food or entertainment.

Meanwhile Democrats are expanding food stamps and paying for huge new sports arenas on the public dime. So let me ask you, of the two parties who seems to be all for "bread and circuses"?

Yes, really. Better check your numbers again. Mine are from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

You're making that up. Dude, Carter's average unemployment rate was 7.5% according to BLS, and no president has had a worse average since... except of course the one we have today.

So just by that metric, the two progressive presidents we've had in this country post WWII, have given us the highest unemployment rates since the Great Depression.

Good job progressives.

free0352 said...

Free is not an embarrassment to the conservative theories of economics.

First of all, with the possible exception of Paul Krugman economics isn't "coservative" or "liberal" or "republican" or "democrat."

It's a science, the dismal one in fact. Certain political parties might latch onto a certain theory, but the theory drives the politics not the other way around. In fact, most Republicans and Democrats are dedicated Keynesians. George Bush and Barack Obama both are... which is probably why both were miserable failures. Whereas Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton had a very Chicago School feel to them, and they presided over the two largest economic expansions of the 20th century.

Jefferson's Guardian said...

Free0352: "I think if Republicans have made anything clear, it's that they don't want to fund food or entertainment."

You're truly a literalist, aren't you? I provided the smallest box possible, and even left it open, yet you still can't think outside of it.

free0352 said...

I didn't bother. You thought you were being clever, and instead I just shat on your gay analogy.

You've probably been watching too much Dr. Who lately.

Jefferson's Guardian said...

Free0352: "...instead I just shat on your gay analogy."

While playing on your Xbox and purchasing your sports events tickets on StubHub...

You're impressive (or something).

Just My Two Cents said...

http://www.cnbc.com/id/48092010

The U.S. economy created just 80,000 jobs in June and the unemployment rate held steady at 8.2 percent, reflecting continued slow growth in the economy with the presidential election just four months away.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics said private payrolls increased 84,000, while the government lost 4,000 jobs. Economists expected job growth of about 100,000 and the unemployment rate to be unchanged, though many had increased their forecasts based on some recent indicators.

"There is little hope of an acceleration in the pace of job growth any time soon," said Kathy Bostjancic, director of macroeconomic analysis for The Conference Board. "These conditions are likely to persist at least through the summer and possibly longer."

Unemployment for blacks surged to 14.4 percent — the highest level of 2012 and up from 13.6 percent in May.

Last month's anemic jobs growth of 69,000 and the rise of the unemployment rate to 8.2 percent sent off a wave of speculation that the central bank would initiate a third round of quantitative easing.

A measure of unemployment that includes discouraged workers ticked higher to 14.9 percent, its highest level since February, while the labor force participation rate stayed near a 30-year low at 63.8 percent.


Jefferson,

Its been 3 1/2 years and is not looking good for the Messiah and the central planners who were supposed to bring "Hope and Change".

Looks like Obama and his economic advisors have gone blind from listening to Krugman, reading Keynes, and having too many circle jerk sessions. Maybe Obama's "vast experience" should have included some private sector experience like being manager at a McDonalds.

Jefferson's Guardian said...

Just My Two Cents: "[it] is not looking good for the Messiah and the central planners"

Maybe a little "central planning" is what we need. Obviously predator capitalism is failing America miserably. (Well, unless you're a member of the coveted 1%, that is.)


"...have gone blind from listening to Krugman, reading Keynes, and having too many circle jerk sessions."

You can't even be original. So, you finally read the comment I made about you and your fellow laissez-faire "invisible hand" jerk-offs on Tom's blog. Tell me, did you stew over that for the last few days? ;-)


"Maybe Obama's 'vast experience' should have included some private sector experience like being manager at a McDonalds."

Is that where you work?

Just My Two Cents said...

The ancient Roman poet and satirist, Juvenal, called it "panem et circenses" (bread and circuses). Politicians, even back in the first century A.D., knew the power of distraction through cheap food and entertainment. It has worked in some form or fashion ever since.

Jefferson,

Thanks so much for that "golden nugget". I noticed "bread and circuses" is one of Chris Hedges favorite phrases which explains why it is probably a favorite of yours. I have a chronically unemployed relative (lazy bum) who has a cellphone and free minutes, amongst other freebies, thanks to the State who cares. What party do you think he will vote for? The State knows the power of distraction best to keep people happy on the plantation.

You, Chris Hedges, and the OWS Movement were nothing but a bowel movement.

Jefferson's Guardian said...

Just My Two Cents: "I noticed 'bread and circuses' is one of Chris Hedges favorite phrases which explains why it is probably a favorite of yours."

As is modus operandi, you're wrong again. Honestly, I don't recall Hedges using that term, although if he did I wouldn't be surprised. I don't believe, even if he did, you'd be aware of it. I doubt whether you've ever taken the time to read more than a paragraph of his work. If you did, you'd feel the way I do about the current and near-future circumstances we're facing.


"You, Chris Hedges, and the OWS Movement were nothing but a bowel movement."

Thank you for your usual anal fixation. I'm sure it's related to your suppressed homosexuality. Being the ever-obedient and "good conservative" that you are, you can't face the idea that you're attracted to other men. Tell me, do you frequent many gay bars in Middletown, or do you do your cruising in Hartford?

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

One of the things I've noticed over my years of blogging is liberals have trouble understanding that while we should treat everyone equally it is impossible to MAKE everyone equal. Economically or otherwise, and any attempts to do so are not only futile but will result in ruin for more the more successful. In short, socialism doesn't elevate anyone, it drags people down to a lower level. You do not create wealth or prosperity for your people that way. It has never worked, even once. If the phrase "Misery loves company" had a political system tied to it, socialist democracy would be it.

Jefferson's Guardian said...

Free0352: "...socialism doesn't elevate anyone, it drags people down to a lower level. You do not create wealth or prosperity for your people that way."

Like the "capitalism" we practice in today's America, where profits are privatized and losses are socialized; where investment banks are deemed "too big to fail", yet are allowed to become even larger so they can repeat 2008 once again?

Is that the kind of socialism you mean?

John Myste said...

One of the things I've noticed over my years of blogging is liberals have trouble understanding that while we should treat everyone equally it is impossible to MAKE everyone equal.

Like most people, I have never met a liberal who thought this or wanted it. The concept of the desire to MAKE everyone equal is a conservative intention. If conservatives want liberals to understand their philosophical suggestions better, they should more thoroughly articulate them.

free0352 said...

where profits are privatized and losses are socialized;

That is the very definition of social democracy backed by a Keynesian economic philosophy. The one espoused by Carter, Bush and Obama. I'm for having a wall between economy and state the way we have a wall between church and state. I don't think business and profit are dirty words, and neither did Reagan or Clinton- President's who presided over the two greatest economic expansions in the history of the world.

Jefferson's Guardian said...

Free0352: "...presided over the two greatest economic expansions in the history of the world."

By what measure?

Jefferson's Guardian said...

Free0352: "I'm for having a wall between economy and state..."

Then, by definition, you would be against the Supreme Court's decision in favor of Citizens United, and further, would be against the legal concept of corporate personhood?

Jerry Critter said...

Since people are also deeply involved in the economy (there is no economy without people buying stuff), I guess free wants to keep people out of government.

Free must be in favor of an absolute dictatorship!

Jefferson's Guardian said...

Jerry Critter: "...I guess free wants to keep people out of government."

No, because we already know that's the case. It's more likely Free doesn't look before he leaps.

However, we already know that, too! ;-)

free0352 said...

By what measure?

By any measure.

Then, by definition, you would be against the Supreme Court's decision in favor of Citizens United, and further, would be against the legal concept of corporate personhood?

No quite the opposite. And you don't have to be a "person" to have free speech. The NY Times isn't a person and it has it... for example. For another example MSMBC isn't a person, nor is Media Matters. All have free speech. And as for keeping people out of government, I'd rather keep government away from people. People do a much better job of managing their lives and money that government does. Liberals say they agree with that, but in practice they do everything they can to create the opposite. A very regulated, top down, command approach. Not that Republicans are innocent, but this isn't a Republican blog now is it?

Dave Dubya said...

The NY Times isn't a person and it has it... for example. For another example MSMBC isn't a person, nor is Media Matters. All have free speech.

Of course they do. It's called freedom of the press. A free press is, or should be, different from company advertising and corporate bribery.

No longer. It's all corporate bribery, advertising and PR, except for maybe the little guys like MM and Mother Jones.

Jefferson's Guardian said...

Free0352: "And you don't have to be a 'person' to have free speech."

Hence, Dave's title of this post is apropos and fitting.

Oh, that's right, you're not a Republican.


Dave Dubya, possibly you'd consider revising the post title to include Libertarians.

Jefferson's Guardian said...

Free0352: "By any measure."

This, this, and this, tell a different story. It just depends upon the story you want to tell.

Of course, I didn't minor in economics. What do I know. ;-)

Jefferson's Guardian said...

Dave Dubya, given the title of your post, I thought this latest from Hedges to be very timely.

free0352 said...

Ok Jeff, your first link was to a chart that had a massive upward climb in GDP right up until... Barack Obama was elected. Your second graph reflects the same. A drop we horrible Chicago School guys predicted. I guess your links prove if anything that the Keynesian school of bail outs and public spending are a total failure. I agree, and think we should return to the policy of the 1990s and that level of spending. Your last link focused on deficits, and I must say since we have the second highest corporate tax on earth and a 35% income tax on the wealthy in this country we don't have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem. One highlighted nicely by your first two links. After the two biggest bail outs of government spending in history what happened? GDP fell. Lesson learned. Cut spending and balance the budget through austerity. That will fix the problem.

free0352 said...

It's called freedom of the press.

Okay, lets look at the law.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Sorry guy, but you can't discriminate between one group of people and another. If MSNBC gets freedom of speech, so do the Koch brothers. If you don't like it, there's always Cuba.

Jefferson's Guardian said...

Free0352: "Cut spending and balance the budget through austerity."

Let's start with the Department of War -- slash it by three-quarters, starting right now.

I provided links that would allow you to play with the numbers. What you said about "greatest economic expansions in the history of the world" can be shown otherwise. By the way, even if it were so, at what cost?

You want austerity? Watch what you wish for. (Oh, that's right, you have a nice cozy federal government job. I forgot.)

free0352 said...

Let's start with the Department of War

We're cutting over 100,000 troops and we're going to have the smallest military since 1941 if the current defense spending bill goes through. So that has been done.

As for austerity, nobody wants it, but sometimes the right decision is the hard one. Just remember with those military cuts, you should be careful what you wish for. One attack on American soil, and it's your kid who might end up drafted.

free0352 said...

Now the real question is, will the welfare queens be asked to make remotely the same sacrifices as DOD has made? Are we going to cut 1/3 of them from the rolls?

Dave Dubya said...

JG,
Thanks to you and SW, readers will find some good linked articles if they manage to wade through this thread.

Free,
So where are all those jobs for the welfare queens? Why didn't the tax cuts create them, as promised by Republicans? Where's the jobs program from the austerity preaching Republcan House? More tax cuts for the rich and deregulation for Big Money is not going to do it.

As I pointed out: A free press is, or should be, different from company advertising and corporate bribery. No longer. It's all corporate bribery, advertising and PR.

you can't discriminate between one group of people and another

I don’t, the Constitution does. MSNBC is covered by the right to a free press. The Kochs have the same right to free speech as I do. Freedom of the press is added separately to freedom of speech, not conflated as the same thing as you are doing. And who do these rights belong to? We the corporations? No, they use another word don’t they?

we don't have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem

We have both. Revenue and spending are directly related.

If you don’t want to be mistaken for a Republican, why are you parroting them?

Jefferson's Guardian said...

Free0352: "...will the welfare queens be asked to make remotely the same sacrifices as DOD..."

The term "welfare queen" is as antiquated and over-used by conservatives as the term "liberal press". Neither is justifiable, since neither exists. "Welfare" today accounts for unemployment insurance, and of course Medicaid, the WIC Program, and Aid to Families with Dependent Children. Granted, it's a whopper of a bill each year, but what's the alternative? Let 'em starve? (Somehow, I think I already know your answer.)

Your Department of War budget is twice as much, and accomplishes nothing to alleviate hunger and poverty. In retrospect, it creates more pain and suffering worldwide than what our "welfare" budget reduces.


"...be careful what you wish for. One attack on American soil, and it's your kid who might end up drafted."

If we ever face a foe as determined to conquer the "free world" as imperialist Japan and Nazi Germany were, then conscription should be re-instituted for the safety of our society and its people. But that has not been the case since WWII. Today, the United States is the imperialist force itching for a fight. That's you. Just as the banks were deemed "too big to fail", the military-industrial complex has gotten to "too big to quell". It needs to be slashed from head-to-toe, otherwise all of humankind (and every other species) is at risk.

free0352 said...

So where are all those jobs for the welfare queens?

I would suggest looking at the classifieds in the news paper. The responsibility to provide for yourself rests with yourself.

I don’t, the Constitution does

No it doesn't. And that's backed up by law.

And who do these rights belong to?

Every American.

If you don’t want to be mistaken for a Republican, why are you parroting them?

I'm a Libertarian, we are even more extreme than Republicans are on this issue. Republicans love big government, not as much as Democrats, but they love it. But since we're comparing in simplistic terms; why if you don't like to be labeled a communist, are you parroting them?

since neither exists

Bwahahahahaha sure they don't.

I mean, people would neeeeever take advantage of the system.

Let em' starve? I think we need to keep them alive so they can pay back what they took.

free0352 said...

the United States is the imperialist force itching for a fight.

And that kids, is all that needs to be said there. Got it.


In your case, the Republicans were right when they said...

Dave Dubya said...

Free seems to think there are more jobs available than there are unemployed.

Yes, fraud exists. So that means destroy safety nets?

I wonder why Free never mentions corporate welfare queens...

Dave Dubya said...

Ah, there he goes again. Liberals don't hate democracy. Republicans are at war with it. That sums it up.

Our bill of Rights and Constitution of "we the people" not "we the corporations", makes us great.

The right of citizens to vote and participate in a democratic process is what makes America great.

Republicans and Free disagree and wish to suppress and restrict targeted voters' rights.

Eugene Robinson wrote:

Late last month, the majority leader of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives, Mike Turzai, was addressing a meeting of the Republican State Committee. He must have felt at ease among friends because he spoke a bit too frankly.

Ticking off a list of recent accomplishments by the GOP-controlled Legislature, he mentioned the new law forcing voters to show a photo ID at the polls. Said Turzai, with more than a hint of triumph: “Voter ID, which is gonna allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania — done.

That’s not even slightly ambiguous."


http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/eugene-robinson-the-gops-crime-against-voters/2012/07/09/gJQAopcCZW_story.html?wpisrc=nl_politics

Jefferson's Guardian said...

Dave Dubya: "I wonder why Free never mentions corporate welfare queens..."

I was wondering the same thing. I suppose it's because it's okay with him.

Just My Two Cents said...

I want all my progressive friends here to support Mayor Bloomberg's new proprosal for apartments in NYC to be built the size of prison cells! The ban on sweetened drinks larger than 16 fluid ounces has been a big hit! Remember less is more!

free0352 said...

I was wondering the same thing.

I was too. Why did Democrats vote to give banks all that money? Why does Obama throw money at "green" companies who epic fail? I'd like to put a stop to that.

So that means destroy safety nets?

They aren't nets, they're hammocks. For the lazy to mooch in, in comfort. So long as they vote Democrat anyway. I'd like to say the welfare queens in the hood are under the patronage of the Democrats while the corporate variety belong to the Republicans. But alas, those bastards own both. And they get their bailouts from both teams. A big reason I'm a Libertarian. You folks aren't part of the solution, you are the problem. You can't see beyond your class resentment and blind party loyalty to see whose really socking it to the taxpayers. And your willful ignorance is akin to being an accomplice. Now run along and pull the lever for more bailouts, more money printing, more food stamps, more bridges to nowhere, more Keynesianism, more never ending detention without trial, and more give aways to favorite sons of Democrat politicians.

Least I can say I have the integrity to not support either fucked up major party. You don't.

Jefferson's Guardian said...

Free0352: "Why did Democrats vote to give banks all that money?"

If I've said this once, I've said it a thousand times. It's because they're corporatists.

Do you have a reading comprehension challenge?


"And they get their bailouts from both teams."

No argument from me there. But, the "red team" certainly has more loyalty toward their benefactors. That's evident.


"You folks aren't part of the solution..." and "You can't see beyond your class resentment and blind party loyalty..."

You call it "class resentment". I call it anti-oligarchy, anti-monopoly; in a word, anti-corporatocracy -- all which you support and will die for (apparently).

As I've mentioned, you're the one that's the tool for the corporate-state, not me.

By the way, I'm not a Democrat. (Again, I've mentioned this countless times -- as has Dave) I've usually voted third-party. I suspect I will again.

Jefferson's Guardian said...

Free0352: "And that kids, is all that needs to be said there. Got it."

It really bothers you, doesn't it? You expect everyone to fawn over you and consider you an American hero, and when I don't it confuses and angers you.

What you haven't figured out is that many people feel the same way -- they just haven't verbalized it, yet, because the corporate-state's propaganda-machine keeps hammering away with the on-going invalid message. But things are changing. Be ready for it.

Tool!

free0352 said...

If I've said this once, I've said it a thousand times. It's because they're corporatists

Good, so in addition to being anti-American and anti military you're so politically extreme you can't find a mainstream political party where you fit in. Got it. As for you thinking me a hero or not, I'm not looking for the support of extremists of any kind.

free0352 said...

As for how the American people feel about us, my experience is the love us everywhere we go.

When out in uniform, I could not begin to count how many times I've had to turn down free meals and free beers over the years. I get told "Thank you" every single time. Only one time on the Michigan Campus did someone react negatively to me in uniform, and the other college kids told that dread lock sporting hippie scum bag to get out of the restaurant where I was eating. When the kid wouldn't go, the manager kicked the kid in the balls and threw him out by the collar. A local cop saw it, and came to investigate, when he found out why, he laughed about it.

That was in uber liberal Ann Arbor.

Jefferson's Guardian said...

Free0352: "...so in addition to being anti-American and anti military..."

You're the one who works for, vis–à–vis the U.S. military, the corrupt international banking cartel. Not me. That makes you anti-American. I'm for democracy, remember? You're the one for "free markets" trumping democracy.

Not me.


"...you can't find a mainstream political party where you fit in."

The Libertarian Party is "mainstream"...???

That's funny...


"I get told 'Thank you' every single time."

That's a very homey and sweet story. You have a huge imagination. If true, odds are every occurrence was prior to 2008 -- and closer to 2001. Am I right?

Be honest.

Like I said, things are going to start changing. Get ready.

Jefferson's Guardian said...

Free0352: "...my experience is the[y] love us everywhere we go."

I just checked out your link. Notice where "Banks" and "Big Biz" fall in the poll. Once people start catching on that the U.S. military is just a willing-tool in their agenda, its ranking will drop like a rock in a shallow pool.

Get ready...

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

Incident I mentioned happened in 2004. Of course since, no one has expressed in my presence anything other than gratitude, which I deeply appreciate. Last time someone told me thank you- was yesterday. Really nice guy at the pet store.

Think about this Jeff, how many films get made that glorify my job? How many kids line up over night to get the very first copy of a video game where they get to pretend to do my job?

When it comes to the military, your "side" if you want to laughably call it that is totally marginalized. The days of throwing shit on returning troops is dead. Today if you did such a thing, the civilians around you would beat you to a pulp. Even the First Lady spends most of her time advocating for better benefits for military families. So no, if I were you I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for the pacifist revolution anytime soon. Instead I'd stand by for another generation to proudly serve. Which they did, even when it wasn't too popular in the 1970s. Even though there are a tiny minority of people like you who try to slander us and bad mouth us. It falls on deaf ears, and your anti-americanism isn't acceptable to just about anybody... which is why you have to say it on the internet and can't say it to much of anyone in your daily life. Right? Be honest.

Jefferson's Guardian said...

Free0352: "...which is why you have to say it on the internet and can't say it to much of anyone in your daily life. Right? Be honest."

As previously mentioned, the corporate-state and its media dominance have made sure it's politically incorrect. In the course of the day, in the business I'm in, it would be senseless to bring the topic into the conversation. But people who know me, people close to me, know how I feel. I'm making converts every day.

I also alluded, a few times, that the public's acceptance of the waste, death and carnage will be changing. As economic conditions continue to deteriorate, and as people see the connections I've already mentioned, your stock value's going to plummet faster than Wall Street's did in September 2008.

Count on it.

free0352 said...

the corporate-state and its media dominance have made sure it's politically incorrect.

So you admit to not having the courage of your convictions in public, but instead sneaking around the internet to voice your impotent ideas because in real life... people would look at you like you have a dick growing out of your forehead. Well, all I can say to that is I'm sure glad I don't have to go skulking around with any of my opinions.

Jefferson's Guardian said...

Free0352: "...all I can say to that is I'm sure glad I don't have to go skulking around with any of my opinions."

By your own admittance, you shut down your own blog because you were afraid of "The Man".

Who's "skulking around"? ;-)

free0352 said...

The Army puts out policy, and I follow lawful orders. That's a far cry from holding opinions most Americans would find repugnant. As a member of the military, I can agree that we as an organisation need to be apolitical- and when in uniform I certainly am as a representative of the U.S. Army. I do disagree with DOD policy on where they draw the line between off duty political activity, but my disagreement does not exempt me from compliance with lawful orders. In short, I read the new policy and followed it. However were I not a subject to the uniform code of military justice, I would act differently. You are not subject to the UCMJ, so our situations are hardly similar.

Be that as it may, while it does govern my operation of weblogs (or in private conversation), it does not govern my comments in such forums so long as I do not say anything that compromises operational security- a policy I diligently follow for obvious reasons- which is why I won't discuss the particulars of most anything Army related. A good example would be certain intelligence gathering programs many here (and elsewhere) object to. For me to discuss in any sort of depth those programs or current operations that I may or may not have knowledge of would be a violation of that policy and in fact treason. I don't mean to suggest I'm a super-secret-squirrel CIA operative or something. I'm surely not, I'm a humble infantrymen. But loose lips do sink ships, and anyone of any rank be it mine or a buck private could at worst say something completing the puzzle certain enemy intelligence operators are trying to piece together and that could cost lives- or at best see me imprisoned, prosecuted, or non-judicially punished. I wouldn't want that on my conscience, and I certainly wouldn't want to be this fucking traitor.

I suspect you won't be able to tell the difference between our situations, but I think any objective reader will find your comparison quite hilarious.

However, the fact that the US military is as apolitical as it is, is just another reason why we are one of the greatest fighting forces on Earth. Most western nations have at some point in their histories suffered a military dictatorship. Our country has not, because our military serves the Constitution first, and it's people second. Dead last is the President of the United States, and then only when his orders are lawful. I can think of only a handful of times the trust between citizen and Soldier has been abused in this country, which is much more than any country espousing your political beliefs can say.

Jefferson's Guardian said...

Free0352: "...the fact that the US military is as apolitical as it is..."

That's a laugh! "Apolitical"?!? It's the willing strong-arm of the corporate-state. It can't be more political! There hasn't been an "apolitical" conflict that this country has entered into since the beginning of WWII.

That's the real fact!


"...and I certainly wouldn't want to be this fucking traitor."

Actually, he's the true patriot, whereas you're still a tool of the military-industrial complex. He has bigger cojones than you'll ever have.

Another fact...

free0352 said...

There hasn't been an "apolitical" conflict that this country has entered into since the beginning of WWII

I'll do you one better, there hasn't been a war in human history that wasn't political in nature, because as the second most influential military strategist in history Carl von Clausewitz tells us "Krieg ist eine bloße Fortsetzung der Politik mit anderen Mitteln."

War is politics by other means.

But in the case of the United States, the military is under sole control of the President of The United States, our Commander in Chief, who is overseen by the Congress. We make no decisions as to whom we fight, when we fight or why we fight. We have never had a military dictatorship in America at any time, we can't even deploy withing the boarders of the Untied States without express permission of that state's governor. No military branch espouses any one political party, and we are not allowed to participate in any election or political activity while in uniform.

Sure, we're political alright...

It's not that you haven't heard these facts, you simply choose to ignore them. The United States military could take control of the entire country in less than 24 hours without much effort, but it never has and never will. That isn't because we can't, it's because we're the most honorable fighting force in the history of human kind.

free0352 said...

Actually, he's the true patriot

I'm only sad they didn't seek the death penalty for that back stabbing, traitorous idiot whom is too stupid to even figure out what gender he is, let alone which side he's on. Some patriot in Leavenworth will take care of him. Another sad, basement dwelling "Anonymous" member out seeking his "lulz" who is going get what's coming to him from Soldiers who are locked up for killing the enemy who probably lost friends due to that scumbags actions. The lowest circle of hell is reserved for traitors, and I have no problem telling you if I ever get the opportunity I'll slit his throat and if that means life I'll do it with a smile. The man who kills him will be a hero. And I'm pretty sure once he hits G.P. and stops getting the protection from the MP's his liberal defenders complain about so much, he's a dead man... and I know he'll die on his knees. He isn't a human being anymore. He volunteered to be held to a higher standard and he betrayed that standard and his fellow Soldiers. There is no fate too cruel for him.

Jefferson's Guardian said...

Free0352: "The United States military could take control of the entire country in less than 24 hours without much effort, but it never has and never will."

All except for "CONUS" operations in the event of "Civil Disturbance Operations". Then you guys will be used "domestically to quell riots, confiscate firearms and even kill Americans on U.S. soil during mass civil unrest."

What's the timeline for this? Is that why you're stationed in Kansas? Is this what you're training to do? C'mon, you can tell us. You're among friends... ;-)


"He volunteered to be held to a higher standard and he betrayed that standard and his fellow Soldiers."

Did all soldiers decide to be held to the same standard, or
is the standard different for Arabs or Muslims?


Or, this standard?

Inquiring minds want to know.


"...it's because we're the most honorable fighting force in the history of human kind."

My ass.

Weaseldog said...

Looks like the Republicans expanded the programs to feed the poor while they controlled the House and Senate.

That might have something to do with the program being privatized and Morgan Chase skimming 30% off the top. By adding an additional 30% in costs and expanding the programs, Republicans are showing how much money can be saved by privatizing gov functions.


http://www.trivisonno.com/wp-content/uploads/Food-Stamps-Yearly.jpg

free0352 said...

They built Ft. Riley when it was on the very boarder of the US frontier, and it's been here ever since. That's why I'm here. As for what I train to do, I don't undergo training I conduct it for others. And that's a focus on shooting skills. As for civil unrest training, this unit hasn't trained on it. But I did do that training in the Marine Corps, specifically my unit was tasked with big-city operations in the even of a chemical, nuclear, biological or radiological attack.

Did all soldiers decide to be held to the same standard

Yes. When you enlist in the military (all branches) you agree to be held to a higher standard than civilians. One of the reasons that is, is to avoid things like collateral damage. Which is what happened in your links... or downright frame jobs by insurgent forces for propaganda purposes, which you seem to have willingly fallen for. Not surprising with your anti-America stance and hatred for the US Military. Truth is, the US Military in this conflict has gone to amazing steps to limit civilian casualties, and I've seen time and again US Soldiers and Marines killed or wounded to save Iraqi and Afghan civilians or killed or wounded because they did not engage enemy forces for fear of killing innocent people.

If only the terrorists were so moral in their behavior, but they are not, and instead kill more Muslims in a week than we have in 10 years of both wars combined.

free0352 said...

Oh and as for standards, we all agreed to be held to a higher standard of conduct when we volunteered. That's every person in the service. Most people meet that standard, Manning not only didn't meet it, he betrayed it.

For that he deserves to die. Screaming in pain preferably.

Jefferson's Guardian said...

Free0352: "[Military enlistees] agree to be held to a higher standard than civilians. One of the reasons that is, is to avoid things like collateral damage. Which is what happened in your links..."

Old women and children are handcuffed and shot in the head, and you call that "collateral damage"?

I call it homicide.


"Most people meet that [higher] standard, Manning not only didn't meet it, he betrayed it."

Did that "higher standard" include the fact that "a female soldier in Iraq [was] more likely to be attacked by a fellow soldier than killed by enemy fire"? Rape is a horrible and disgusting crime, on a par with and equal to murder, yet apparently those pledges of "higher standards"
don't apply here
either.

By the way, George Washington betrayed a British "higher standard", as did many founders of this country, yet they're all revered and held in high esteem for doing so. They wouldn't be if the American Revolution turned out differently.

To coin a phrase, the jury's still out for Private Manning. Only history will reveal whether he was patriotic or treasonous, despite the findings of his upcoming military inquisition.

Dave Dubya said...

Wease,
Interesting graph. Looks like the Decider was the real "food stamp president". The skyrocketing increase was clearly kick off during his term. But we can't blame Bush for any consequences for his actions, when have a Kenyan Marxist to blame.

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

Crime does happen in the military. Just look at Manning. But we also punish our criminals a bit harsher now don't we? I think we still hand out the death penalty for rape- and though that's rare I wish we did it more. Instead our rapists do life forever in Leavenworth, because we don't tolerate that sort of thing.

And as for Manning he did exactly that. He attacked Soldiers in a way. He leaked information that compromised Afghan sources and directly got Soldiers killed. He might as well have executed those Soldiers himself.

Last, on a closer look on the photo of your link Jeff, I noticed the dead people aren't Iraqi. See, because I um.... KNOW ABOUT THE MIDDLE EAST I can see stuff like that. I'm a little curious why the dead people in the picture aren't Arab when Iraqis only fall into two ethnic groups- Arab and Kurd. Looking a bit closer, I also don't see any hand-cuffs- but I'm sure your TRUTH TO POWER super bias propaganda site would never lie right?

You know why you aren't linking that story to a major news outlet? Because it never happened. At least like you said it did. Next time you little anti-military scamps try to get in on framing Soldiers, try not using a photo of the right ethnic group and having the pictures match up to the accusations. Jackasses.

free0352 said...

But we can't blame Bush for any consequences for his actions, when have a Kenyan Marxist to blame.

Dave, why blame just George Bush when he and Obama have the exact same Keynesian econ strategy? Both responded to the recession in the exact same way, and got identical results.

Weaseldog said...

Yeah Dave, Jesus made it clear that we should feed and clothe the poor. A true Christian believes in this.

Free0352 argues that Republicans reject the teachings of Christ. That they hate feeding the poor. They hate to do what Jesus taught us to do.

And yet, the Republicans during the Bush administration did feed the poor and expanded these programs.

Maybe Free0352 is anomaly and doesn't speak for all Republicans? Maybe his hatred for the teachings of Jesus Christ are his own?

But there is the profit motive in the Republican plan. The more money we pump into food stamps, the more money can be transferred to foriegn bank accounts through Morgan Chase.

Dave Dubya said...

Wease,
Free's not into Jesus. Rand, Hayek and Friedman are more his types.

Free,
why blame just George Bush when he and Obama have the exact same Keynesian econ strategy

I do blame both parties, and their owners. But you oversimplifiy and mischaracterize globalization, "free trade" agreements, off-shoring, tax cuts for the rich, dereglation of Wall Street, and wars on credit as "Keynesian".

That's pure corporatocracy running the show.

We can't afford a civil and prosperous society with safety nets, and give the elites every tax cut, subsidiy, and legislative influence they want.

There's the breakdown. A country does not prosper when only the elites do. They are doing quite swell, by the way. The system is working better for them, and only them.

Jefferson's Guardian said...

Free0352: "Looking a bit closer, I also don't see any hand-cuffs- but I'm sure your TRUTH TO POWER super bias propaganda site would never lie right?"

and...

"You know why you aren't linking that story to a major news outlet? Because it never happened."

Apparently your power of observation failed to pick-up on the caption that indicated the children were in the back of a truck, getting readied for burial. Normally, and I'll be the first to admit I don't have intimate knowledge of all cultures, people aren't buried with handcuffs.

As far as your "major news outlet" comment, I thought I've made it very clear in past comments that the mainstream-media are just another tool of the corporate-state (just like you!). Of course they're not going to publish stories about military atrocities (or corporate malfeasance or criminality) unless they're embarrassed into it and their omission is blatantly obvious. They're there to shield and protect you, remember?

The following is from a speech by John Walcott, the Washington bureau chief for McClatchy Newspapers, upon accepting the I.F. Stone Medal for Journalistic Independence from Bob Giles of the Nieman Foundation.

"Why, in a nutshell, was our reporting different from so much other reporting? One important reason was that we sought out the dissidents, and we listened to them, instead of serving as stenographers to high-ranking officials and Iraqi exiles. I'm afraid that much the same thing may have happened on Wall Street. Power and money and celebrity, in other words, can blind you. Somehow, the idea has taken hold in Washington journalism that the value of a source is directly proportional to his or her rank, when in my experience the relationship is more often inverse."

It's not like The McClatchy Company is someone's high-class blog hatched in a basement. It operates thirty newspapers in fifteen states, is publicly traded, and purchased Knight Ridder a few years ago. Is that "major news outlet" enough for you?

free0352 said...

I thought I've made it very clear in past comments that the mainstream-media are just another tool of the corporate-state

Right, because they never jumped all over Abu Gareb (which was a war crime) Haditha (which wasn't) use of WP rounds during Phantom Fury (which was legit) the Nasoor Square "Massacre" (which was legit) and the 101st Rape attacks (Which was a war crime.)

The only time the liberal media doesn't report on this stuff is when the Soldiers or Contractors who are accused are found NOT GUILTY. In the case of Nasoor by a California civilian jury no less.

And even in the case of the 101st Rapes in Anbar, those criminals still weren't as bad as Bradley Manning. They killed a handful of people with their own hands. Manning got hundreds of civilians and Soldiers killed with his stupid fucking mouth. He's the REAL war criminal. The worst this war has produced.

free0352 said...

And I'd also add, that far more Soldiers have given their lives to defend Iraqis than Soldiers have taken unlawfully. As opposed to the enemy we're fighting, which specifically targets civilians with real, authentic torture, mass killings, genocide, and mass theft.

Jefferson's Guardian said...

Free0352: "...those criminals still weren't as bad as Bradley Manning. They killed a handful of people with their own hands. Manning got hundreds of civilians and Soldiers killed..."

Reference Manning. That's hearsay. Cite your source (beyond just personal conjecture).


"...far more Soldiers have given their lives to defend Iraqis than Soldiers have taken unlawfully."

So much for your theory that the U.S. military performs at a "higher standard". I guess it depends upon whether each individual wants to, huh?

John Myste said...

If Free were more psychologically healthy, he would have declared:

The next time someone analyzes reported data, they should make sure that the source is using a photo of the right ethnic group and having the pictures match up to the accusations.

No one seemed to respond to this. Was it because Free made the assertion that the ethnic group was wrong and presented no evidence other than the assertion or was it because there really was no rebuttal to the claim or was it that the ethnic group was not considered germane to the point?

Just curious.

Jefferson's Guardian said...

John Myste: You stated that "[n]o one seemed to respond to this", concerning Free0352's statement: "I'm a little curious why the dead people in the picture aren't Arab when Iraqis only fall into two ethnic groups- Arab and Kurd."

Mr. Myste, there are only so many hours in the day. When responding to Free0352, I generally only select those statements that seem the most blatantly misleading or outlandish, or contain the most entertainment value. In this case, I truly couldn't tell whether the dead children were Arabic, Kurd, or otherwise, so I instead replied to his next statement, "[l]ooking a bit closer, I also don't see any hand-cuffs...". It seemed to contain more of the criteria I referenced.

It's obvious Free0352 could be right, that the photo was incorrect, but this doesn't mean that the atrocity didn't take place.

free0352 said...

So much for your theory that the U.S. military performs at a "higher standard". I guess it depends upon whether each individual wants to, huh?

We are held to a higher standard, that doesn't mean everyone meets it. Manning didn't meet it, and worse he betrayed his brothers. However, when you fall short of that standard, the Army has plans for you. Manning is learning about those now. He'll learn a lot more when he goes into general population at Leavenworth. He won't last too long.

As for whom he got killed, if you can't see the consequences of what he's done, no link will help you. Hell, you'll just say it's part of the "corporate" media anyway. Then you'll giggle while the Soldiers die.

Jefferson's Guardian said...

Free0352: "Manning didn't meet it [a higher standard]..."

You're right, he exceeded it! He performed the most heroic and noble of patriotic acts -- he sacrificed himself not only for democracy and freedom and human dignity here, in the United States, but for everyone where those values are cherished and held sacrosanct beyond all others -- even economic ones. His definitely was a higher calling, something you'd never understand.


"As for whom he [Bradley Manning] got killed, if you can't see the consequences of what he's done, no link will help you."

Try me.


"Then you'll giggle while the Soldiers die."

No, I don't wish death upon anyone, or glory in it -- unlike you. That's your sickness, not mine.

free0352 said...

That's your sickness, not mine.

That would be your weakness. As for links-

How bout' this one.

the prosecutors showed what they described as a Qaeda propaganda video in which terrorist operatives talked about the ways they had been able to exploit the leaks, with one of them saying that Private Manning “aided in the publication of those files, knowing that our enemies would use those files.”


Or this one.

Or This one. Oh yeah, it's all part of the corporate media.

Well, that doesn't make those people any less dead so Manning could enjoy his 15 minutes of fame.

They shouldn't bother to incarcerate Manning, just turn him over to the Afghan families who lost loved ones due to his fucking treason. That's one Soldier whose head I wouldn't mind seeing cut off on Youtube.

free0352 said...

But seriously Jeff, I refuse to believe you are so stupid that you can't see how 90,000 classified DOD documents being put on the internet could help the Taliban and Al'Queda. I can only then conclude, that you'd rather see the mission in Afghanistan fail, and US Soldiers and their Afghan allies die, to win some sick political point. That makes you a very repugnant human being, and a terrible American. Were I your father, I would be ashamed of you and I would wonder how I raised such a very sick individual.

Jerry Critter said...

"They shouldn't bother to incarcerate Manning, just turn him over to the Afghan families who lost loved ones due to his fucking treason."

free,
Is that your "higher standard" of justice?

Jefferson's Guardian said...

Free0352: "I can only then conclude, that you'd rather see the mission in Afghanistan fail..."

Exactly, what is the mission in Afghanistan? Building 400 hundred bases?


"...and US Soldiers and their Afghan allies die..."

I already told you, death is your domain -- not mine.


"...to win some sick political point."

What's the political point; that you're a tool of the corporate-state?

free0352 said...

Is that your "higher standard" of justice?

I don't think that's the Army's definition but it would sure be justice in my book considering the consequences of his actions.

what is the mission in Afghanistan?

The mission is to deny Taliban/AQ forces freedom of movement, operations and training in Afghanistan and in the long term to kill, or capture AQ/Taliban forces in Afghanistan and the middle east at large, and destroy their ability to wage war or terrorism. We accomplish that mission via the COIN strategy outlined in FMI- 3.24, counter insurgency operations.

Sub mission tasks are classified for security reasons. Manning violated that security policy... among other crimes. What he did was the equivalent of publishing for the world to see Churchill, Eisenhower, and FDR's plans during WWII... including giving Hitler a copy a few days after D-Day.

free0352 said...

I already told you, death is your domain

Yes, it is. And I like to be dealing it, not be the one dying. You don't win a war dying for your country, you win it by killing the enemy. If Manning wasn't too busy whining about being a transvestite in the Army, maybe he would have learned that lesson. Or gave a flying fuck about the people he got killed. What a shitbag.

Jefferson's Guardian said...

Free0352: "What he [Manning] did was the equivalent of publishing for the world to see Churchill, Eisenhower, and FDR's plans during WWII... including giving Hitler a copy a few days after D-Day."

Wrong! At most, he's accused of publishing "Secret" government documents; most others being no more than "Classified". D-Day documents, as you indicate, would have been labeled "Top Secret" -- the same that Daniel Ellsberg leaked and which became known as The Pentagon Papers.

Would you like to kill Ellsberg also?

free0352 said...

Jeff,

The Pentagon papers mostly showed the Johnson administration lied. Bradley Manning published names of Afghan allies, and after action reviews from combat operations that would give Al'Queda and the Taliban a window into our tactics and specifically what we are doing to counter their tactics. It was like handing them our playbook. That's a huge difference. Not to mention, D. Ellsberg wasn't on active duty in 1969 when he worked at Rand or in 1971 when the NYT published the Pentagon papers. Ellsberg didn't get a single person killed.

Manning got thousands killed. Some of whom are likely Americans who died because Manning decided to put our AARs on the internet. So yeah, I'd like to kill him. Where do I sign up for that mission?

Dave Dubya said...

Where did Manning publish names and after action reviews?

Your case might be better made if you told us who really published names and reviews. As I understand, names were redacted.

Let's say I want to support your assertion. Where would I find evidence of these claims? Can you show a direct link to specific deaths that would support your estimate of "thousands"?

I could imagine why enemies would claim benefits from the information even if there were none. Both sides lie, don't they?

Too bad our side lied about Tillman, and Lynch, and, well you know my favorite lies.

free0352 said...

Dave,

90,000 documents worth of that along with State Department cabals on Wikilinks for god and everyone to see. Everything from routine patrols to missions involving JSOC got published, including the NAMES of informants and who servicemen spoke with, who cooperated, etc.

As I understand, names were redacted.

It turns out he "redacted" only about 10% of the names in Assange's rush to embarrass the US and get his fame on. Which lead to about 1300 confirmed incidents like this (from a link I posted earlier)and who knows how many we have no idea about.

The Taliban, a radical Islamic militia in Afghanistan, announced its gratitude to Wikileaks for the release and vowed to hunt down those revealed in the documents to be collaborating with the U.S. It appears that they have now made good on that threat.

Khalifa Abdullah, a tribal elder, was removed from his home in Monar village, in Kandahar province’s embattled Arghandab district, by gunmen. He was then executed.

At the same time, 70 other tribal elders received death threats warning them that the Taliban had obtained reason to believe they were collaborating with the U.S. One such threat is signed by Abdul Rauf Khadim, a senior Taliban official who was imprisoned in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. When the Cuban prison was partially shut down by President Obama Khadim was transferred to Afghan custody in Kabul, where he subsequently escaped.


I mean really, the Taliban thanked Manning and Assange for giving them a ready-made kill list. I'm pretty sure the Taliban isn't a part of the right wing media now is it?

Hell, Assange admits as much in another link I already posted.

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange acknowledged that Afghan deaths may be "unavoidable" after his website released the files, but he said he felt in was in the public interest.
Questioned by Australian news program "Dateline" as to whether their release may lead to Afghan informants named in the documents being killed, Assange said it was possible.
"It's absolutely not something I want, but ... the possibility of that is unavoidable," the Australian said.


Well... there you go. In the man's own words.

Can you show a direct link to specific deaths that would support your estimate of "thousands"?

I think I already have. And that doesn't count the unknowable number of US Soldiers and Marines who were killed, wounded or at least attacked when they otherwise might have survived, been unhurt or avoided contact, because the Taliban was armed with great intelligence provided to them through our own AARs and delivered by Manning and Assange/Wikilinks.

That my friends is what we call treason. No bones about it.

free0352 said...

Too bad our side lied about Tillman, and Lynch, and, well you know my favorite lies.

Guy, I doubt you know as much as you think you do about either incident. Especially Lynch's ordeal and rescue, something I I was personally involved in to include being present shortly after her rescue and present at her evacuation. My unit staged a diversionary attack, and my platoon along with RECON elements from the TF pulled security for the operators who entered the hospital and rescued Lynch. On that story, I know where ALL the bodies are buried so to speak.

Dave Dubya said...

Your links do not support your inflated numbers.

The "rescue" of Lynch was more a "recovery". Not that I question the use of the forces employed. Iraqis even tried to return her in an ambulance, but had to turn back after our heroes fired on...the ambulance.

So nobody lied, again? You are quite gullible.

Jessica disagrees with you. The Tillman family disagrees with you.

Who agrees with you, is the real question.

Lynch claimed, concerning the media and the Pentagon: "They used me to symbolize all this stuff. It's wrong. I don't know why they filmed [my rescue] or why they say these things. She also stated "I did not shoot, not a round, nothing. I went down praying to my knees. And that's the last I remember."

http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-500202_162-2725423.html

"It meant a lot, really, it did, especially to come out for the Tillman family," Lynch told The Early Show co-anchor Harry Smith. "They really need answers. And, you know, they have tons and tons of questions that are just unanswered. And they need that."

"At first I didn't even realize … the stories that were being told," she said. "It was quite a while afterwards, and then I found out. It was a little disappointing. And I knew that I had to get the truth out there because, one, I wouldn't be able to live with myself ... knowing that these stories were portraying me to do something that I didn't."


http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/may/15/iraq.usa2

The truth about Jessica Lynch

Her Iraqi guards had long fled, she was being well cared for - and doctors had already tried to free her. John Kampfner discovers the real story behind a modern American war myth...

free0352 said...

The "rescue" of Lynch was more a "recovery"

That's true and isn't. There was more than one attempt. I was- as I linked- a member of TF Tarawa, and on March 23rd we launched a rescue attempt for not only her, but many other members of her company. We succeeded in rescuing all but 6 of them. Had it not been for TF Tarawa, the entire company would have been captured or destroyed. After all, we launched into what is probably a the most difficult mission an Infantry unit can undertake with the possible exception of an amphibious landing against prepared positions- that being an assault on a prepared enemy occupying a city. We were in the toughest fighting of the invasion, and were up against a unit 16 times our size, and our leadership had basically zero time to flex their plans. But we went anyway, because we don't leave people behind. that's why we fought for six strait days, and stayed even longer till every member of our guys and the 507th was accounted for. That in my book is a heroic thing. And eventually we got em' all. They didn't all make it out alive but we got everyone out dead or alive.

Jessica disagrees with you

Really? What does she disagree with me about? Was she a "hero." I don't think many people are on an individual level. I wouldn't say I am either. But she was there, in a bad situation. Her truck took an RPG, and it crashed into another and knocked her ass out. She doesn't even know how long she was out of it. No she didn't go out like Rambo if that's what you mean. She did endure days of captivity and she was raped. She got her POW medal. And what in my book made her a real hero is she didn't play up what the media was saying about her. She testified the truth. That's pretty honest and heroic in my book. And damned humble. And she definitely went through some shit. I have a picture of me standing next to her Humvee taken on March 24th, and it was covered in blood, both outside and in. I will not post that, because I think it would be hugely disrespectful to the other girl in her truck those remains (which is what those blood stains were) belonged to.

free0352 said...

As for engaging civilian ambulances, that wasn't some dumb fuck move. The Saddam Fedayeen had taken control of every first responder vehicle they could, since our air support was taking out all their little white pick-ups with the red triangles painted on the sides. They were using them to shuttle indirect fire teams around an'Nas and really giving us a hard time. And another thing, those were probably warning shots to drive that doctor's vehicle away. Every Marine, Infantry or not is trained to hit a moving man sized target at 500 yards and must demonstrate the ability 5 out of 10 trys to graduate boot camp and must requalify every year. Trust me, if they wanted to blow that ambulance away it would have been lit up. Yeah it's a damn shame they had to shoo it away, but that's a fact of war when your enemy doesn't play by any set of rules. However the doctor that treated her is a great guy. I've never met him, but I know he was given refuge status here in the States for his actions, and if I ever meet him I'm taking him and his family out to dinner. He's just one of thousands of examples I've witnessed over the years of Iraqis putting their lives on the line to take care of Americans. I'm deeply grateful to them all.

As for Pat Tillman, I unlike with PFC Lynch was not there. However, I think you are assigning the worst possible motives Dave. Think about his mother! Do you tell her "Yup, we screwed up and shot him"? I guess that is the right thing to do, but you can understand how every mother wants to think of her son as a hero. So you can see, out of compassion more than anything, you might tell a white lie. Only in that case, it proved why that's a bad course of action, and how honesty is the best policy long-run. I've seen guys who've been killed basically because they did something stupid. That I have experienced. You don't tell mom her son died because he freaked out in combat and was hiding and got taken out because he wouldn't shoot back. You let the Army lie and call him a hero, because that woman has just sacrificed her son, why compound the loss with her finding out he was a coward? That wasn't Tillman's case, but it was for the same motives I bet.

And last, as to the damage Assange and Manning did. Imagine the same situation in your job. Imagine if someone gave all your prisoners a list of all the prison snitches, your search times, count times, where you were watching and weren't, who you were watching, who was a suspected gang leader, etc. How would that affect your job?

Dave Dubya said...

"Jessica disagrees with you" is about my statement about lies, remember?

Dave Dubya said...

That wasn't Tillman's case, but it was for the same motives I bet.

Or, more likely:

Tillman’s death, and framing as a Silver Star hero, were propaganda tools when Iraq was degenerating into a bloody mess during an election year. You’re the one who said wars are political.

McChrystal lied to the family and approved the Silver Star citation on April 28, 2004, which gave a detailed account of Tillman's death including the phrase "in the line of devastating enemy fire”.

I’m not saying his unit killed him.

His clothes were burned along with his personal diary. Could three carefully aimed shots to the head indicate maybe someone didn’t want a poster hero questioning the invasion of Iraq? I wish I could believe for certain he wasn’t taken out for political reasons.

The extensive cover-up that followed his death included the military's order to Tillman's comrades to lie to his family at the funeral

You call that honorable? Where’s the “higher standard” there?

free0352 said...

I’m not saying his unit killed him.

I am. He died via friendly fire.

Where’s the “higher standard” there?

In caring what his mother would think of her son's death. Sometimes people do bad things for good reasons. Again, I think you're assigning the worst possible motives.

And last, as to the damage Assange and Manning did. Imagine the same situation in your job. Imagine if someone gave all your prisoners a list of all the prison snitches, your search times, count times, where you were watching and weren't, who you were watching, who was a suspected gang leader, etc. How would that affect your job?

Still waiting on the answer.

free0352 said...

There are so many genuinely heroic things that happen overseas, the military doesn't need to manufacture anything. There are plenty of heros out there. I've seen medal of honor worthy actions where the guy didn't get anything for it. And I guess that's okay. A person does what he has to in combat, you don't think about being brave to get a medal, you think about saving your ass and the guy next to you.

Dave Dubya said...

Well, you believe what you're told to beleive.

If lies are your "higher standard" you'd make a good Republcian. The ends justify the means, even with nukular aluminum tubes, eh?

Why not say Saddam was in league with al-Qaeda on 9-11?

Oh, that's right, they did suggest that. In fact, Bush told Richard Clarke to link Saddam with 9-11.

Higher standards.

If I could link deaths of comrades to a snitch, I'd feel as you do.

Where's the link?

free0352 said...

If I could link deaths of comrades to a snitch, I'd feel as you do

So what you're saying is, you wouldn't mind if someone leaked that kind of information to your prisoners? You're saying that wouldn't put your life in danger? There is no way to know exactly how many, we don't interview the Taliban after they blow up an MRAP. But we do know they thought enough of the information to thank Wikilinks. That's gotta be a clue. Think about this, I've been to military SERE school. What would you think of me if I gave notes from my SERE training to your inmates on how to resist you, escape, defeat your handcuffs and shackles, pick your locks, communicate without your knowledge, and resist interrogation and questioning, and how to lead other inmates in a riot? I wouldn't say a word mind you, just give them the notes along with your after incident reviews. Are you really telling me something like that wouldn't put your life at risk. I would never do that, but then again I'm not a traitor.

It sounds like the only person believing what they're told to believe here is you.

Dave Dubya said...

“what you're saying...”
No.

“You're saying...”
No.

“What would you think of me if I gave notes...”
Bad Free.

“Are you really...”
No.

"It sounds like the only person believing..."
No.

Weaseldog said...

So Free0352 thinks Jessica Lynch is a liar. In this case, I think that would make her a traitor.

The only problem I have with this analysis is that Free0352 is constantly caught telling lies. And when he gets caught, he juist moves on and tells another.

I don't think he knows the truth from a lie. And for this reason Jessica Lynch is lying about her capture and rescue, carries much weight.

Free0352 Admits he was off somewhere else causing a distraction and wasn't there when she was rescued.

What kind of distraction were engaged in? Blowing up houses or lighting cars on the highway?

Jefferson's Guardian said...

Weaseldog: "Free0352...was off somewhere else causing a distraction and wasn't there when she was rescued."

Have you noticed that this is what he does here, too? He's a champion at creating distraction.

The Marine Corps taught him well.

free0352 said...

Free0352 Admits he was off somewhere else causing a distraction and wasn't there when she was rescued.

I was about 300 hundred meters, or about 3 football fields away from the hospital. And I didn't say she was a liar at any point. Good luck finding that quote. You douche.

And as for the first attempt to rescue her company, I was 0 feet away. Right in the middle of it. My element was the second group over the bridge into An'Nas.

free0352 said...

In fact here is my exact quote-

She testified the truth. That's pretty honest and heroic in my book. And damned humble

Yeah, try actually reading my comments.

Dave Dubya said...

”She testified the truth.”

Yes she did. What I said was our side of “honorable men” lied about her and Tillman. She and the Tillman family agree.

free0352 said...

With Lynch I think you're deliberately confusing rumors that got reported as fact for lies. Those rumors started floating around in An'Nas before you ever heard of PFC Lynch. Some people ran with those rumors. That was stupid. As for honorable actions, Lynch proved just how honorable Soldiers can be. She set the record strait, when she could have capitalized on the rumors of her capture. That proves my point more than anything.

With Tillman, like I said- It was a lie. A white one. Is that wrong? Maybe. But I don't doubt the motives were good. Its too bad some in the media capitalized on those good intentions and turned a bad situation into a much worse one. I think the lesson learned there is brutal honesty, while a little heartless, is the right policy in the long run.

free0352 said...

I think I just figured out why Jeff is so anti military.

Jefferson's Guardian said...

Free0352: "I think I just figured out why Jeff is so anti military."

You "think"? Really?! Gee, I haven't seen any evidence of that...yet. Truly, Free0352, if you did take the time to "think", you'd figure out everything I've said is true. So, please share with everyone...how did you conduct your duties as a tool today? ;-)

Oh, by the way, is this another example of the "higher standard" you ascribe to?