Monday, June 4, 2012

Truth Spill

They say a gaffe in Washington is when a politician tells the truth. When a Republican does it, it's more than a mere gaffe. He's going to be in trouble.

From The Virginian-Pilot:

Stimulus helped Virginia weather crisis

Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell, a Republican, wandered off script somewhat Sunday as a surrogate for the Mitt Romney presidential campaign, saying that President Barack Obama's stimulus measures helped his state weather the economic crisis.


McDonnell, a potential vice presidential candidate who has sought to walk a tightrope between conservatives and moderates, said on CNN's "State of the Union" that federal assistance aided Virginia in balancing its budget, but he said it had no positive long-term impact.


"Did it help us in the short run with health care and education and spending to balance the budget? Sure," McDonnell said. "Does it help us in the long term to really cut the unemployment rate? I'd say no."

During his CNN appearance, when asked whether Obama deserved "just a tiny bit of credit" for helping the economy, McDonnell said: "Well, sure. I think there are national policies that have had some impact."

Oops. Some truth was inadvertently spilled by a Republican. He’d better get back with the program. He's going to have to lie about how tax cuts for the rich are going to create jobs and deregulating Wall Street will lead to prosperity for all.
 
Ah, here we go.
 
McDonnell also criticized Obama for "overburdensome regulations" and argued that Republican-led states have fared better during the downturn and struggling recovery.


"Think how much better we'd do if we had President Romney," he said.

I'm afraid that little backtrack shall elicit little mercy upon him in the court of King Rushbo the Corpulent.

He's toast.


167 comments:

One Fly said...

Does he still have his nuts??

FandB said...

It makes sense that pumping nearly a trillion dollars into the economy will produce some short term benefits, as the Governor indicated. How could it not? The fact that the economy has failed to consistently produce any meaningful number of jobs after that is an indictment of Obama's inept handling of the economy. Even as Bill Clinton admitted this weekend on CNN, with Romneys "sterling" record at Bain, and his proven ability to save failing companies and create jobs, he probably would have done a much better job than Obama has done. Oops, a little democrat truth slipped out!

It is amusing that when democrats talk about the "TARP" and "QE" programs, they are "Bush's" programs when someone is complaining about how much they cost, but they quickly become Obama's programs if someone implies that they did some good.

"Tax cuts for the rich" is too broad of a concept to be addressed in any meaningful way. It is nothing but a democrat talking point that means nothing in and of itself. That's why democrats repeat it over and overa again like a mantra.

Many republican-led states have done better than average during a recovery period that for the nation as a whole has been very weak, anemic at best. E.g., Indiana, Wisconsin, Arizona... Compare these to the democrat-led disasters in Obama's home state Illinois, California, New York...

And by the way, how are those European liberal-socialist countries doing these days? I hear there is talk of raising the retirement age to 80.

FandB said...

I meant to add that I worked through the calculations once with a history professor I had, it was his hypothesis but he needed some help with the math. The conclusion (again, his) was that the only way to "save" Social Security in this country would be to raise the retirement age by 7 years to 72.

Dave Dubya said...

F&B,
It makes sense that pumping nearly a trillion dollars into the economy will produce some short term benefits.

That’s not what Republicans and corpo-dems were saying when they obstructed and watered down the stimulus.

Oops,. Another piece of made up crap:

Even as Bill Clinton admitted this weekend on CNN, with Romneys "sterling" record at Bain, and his proven ability to save failing companies and create jobs, he probably would have done a much better job than Obama has done.

No. That is not what Clinton “admitted”.

Clinton has offered an addendum to his comments on CNN.

Per CBS News:
“I said, you know, Gov. Romney had a good career in business and he was a governor, so he crosses the qualification threshold for him being president. But he shouldn’t be elected, because he is wrong on the economy and all these other issues.

“So today, because I didn’t attack him personally and bash him, I wake up to read all these stories taking it out of context as if I had virtually endorsed him, which means the tea party has already won their first great victory: ‘We are supposed to hate each to disagree.’ That is wrong.”


That would also make your “democrat truth” whopper wrong.

when democrats talk about the "TARP" that was bi-partisan proof Wall Street owns both parties. Just what I’ve been saying for years.

"Tax cuts for the rich" is too broad of a concept to be addressed in any meaningful way....For the narrow-minded, perhaps.
Now that’s a hoot! It’s a good thing liberals are broad-minded.

And here I though the “only way to save Social Security” was to hand it over to the Banksters. The Right is apparently fine with working older people to death at minimum wage.

What you meant was your math was the “only way without raising the cap on the elites”.

You do realize every conned-servative position you support takes from the public, strips safety nets from the needy, and gives to the elites, right?

I have to hand it to the propaganda machinery of the radical Right. It is as effective as cult indoctrination. That is, if there’s any real difference between the two.

FandB said...

Yes, Clinton offered an 'addendum', a.k.a. 'backpedaling'. ;-) Yeah, I'm sure the democrat spin-meisters will be doing damage control on that one for days, if not weeks.

No, not for narrow-minded . . . for reality based discussions of where exactly to apply tax cuts to stimulate job growth. This is something that Romney understands, but that Obama (and you) clearly do not.

There is no way to save Social Security by 'raising the cap on the elites'. This was demonstrated in my prof's hypothesis, and was part of the math we worked through... Unless you want to define "elites" as anyone making more than about 24,000 a year and you're going to take a third of their income for Social Security. Part of his plan was to remove the cap entirely and maintain a flat percentage. One problem with this is that you have to screw them later because they never get as much as they put into the system. There you go again, trying to punish success.

When you keep trying to punish success, you reduce the incentive to be successful. Yes, like your utopian socialist states ... like Greece, Spain, France, etc. Or maybe the workers' paradise of Russia, or even Cuba.

There is no vast right or left wing conspiracy. Such paranoia makes it more difficult to see a solution to the nation's problems.

Tom Harper said...

I just KNEW McDonnell was one of them squishy RINOs. I don't know if he's "toast" or not, but he'll surely be punished for going off-message.

Dave Dubya said...

F&B,
Spinmeisters like you say Clinton “admitted” Romney “probably would have done a much better job than Obama has done”.

This is still not true no matter how you spin it. Keep trying though. It’s what you must do for your ideology.

reality based discussions of where exactly to apply tax cuts to stimulate job growth

Any day now, right? Those tax cuts will be creating so many jobs we won’t know what to do with them all. A favorite “Big Lie” of the radical Right.

Yeah, like “trickle down”, death panels, and Obama the Marxist. Ha!

Social Security can be fixed by a combination of raising rates slightly, and raising the cap so everyone pays an equal percentage, and yes, even gradually increasing the retirement age.

When you keep trying to punish success, you reduce the incentive to be successful.

More crybaby whining, aka Right Wing talking points. The pampered aristocrats are never “punished”. People who are forced into bankruptcy by health care costs and insurance company denial of benefits are punished. Workers who see their jobs go overseas are punished.

Not one of your Mammonites has been punished as far as I can see.

There is no vast right or left wing conspiracy. So who’s doing that “punishing” you talk about?

You do realize every position you support takes from the public, strips safety nets from the needy, and gives to the elites, right?

Tom,
I doubt he could pass another primary.

Weaseldog said...

Our $trillion a year in overseas funding is having a positive impact in Dubai. Construction after a downturn is still moving at a good pace.

If the Bush plan works that well in the Middle East, why wouldn't domestic spending help in the USA?

John Myste said...

Dave,

I am glad you have the patience to research and debunk the right wing "facts."

I just don't have it in me to "waste my time," finding opposing "facts," to their "facts." However, I am glad you exist, because you do it so well.

Sometimes I think the right is going to at least score some points when I read their commentary, and you almost always debunk it and send them back to square one.

God bless you, Dave Dubya. I know I don't say it often enough, but you are appreciated.

Weaseldog said...

I love the Republican Facts.

Being an Ignorant Liberal, I was taught that Germany kicked off WWII in 1939.

But Free schooled me. Let me know that is an ignorant belief, and that every history book says that WWII started when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor in 1942.

According to Republican History books, the German invasion of Poland happened years later, in 1939.

See, and that's another problem with us ignorant liberals. We're taught that 1942 comes after 1939. But as the intelligent and well educated Free explains, that's because we're all ignorant.

In Republican years, 1939 comes after 1942.

Republican facts are fascinating.

free0352 said...

Ah Weasel does your vagina hurt so bad you have to cherry pick the difference between the United State's entry into the war vs the start of WWII in Europe? And on an entirely new thread no less? Here, this should help. Have a great day!

As for Bill Clinton, you can see the guy rolling his eyes every time Obama opens his mouth. Clinton famously said "This guy a few years ago would be getting us Coffee." Everyone jumped to the conclusion Clinton was talking about Obama's race. I don't. I have a feeling Clinton was talking about how in his view, Obama is strictly amateur hour.

Clinton would have had this economic mess fixed or at least back on track by now. Obama just doesn't measure up.

Dave Dubya said...

One Fly,
I don't know if he still has his nuts, but his ass is going to be handed to him.

Malcolm Bondon said...

If McDonnell's support of a vaginal probe clause didn't kill his chances for getting the VP nod, his honesty about the positive effect of the stimulus will.

Dave Dubya said...

John,
Couldn't do it without ya, ol' buddy.

God bless you too... and God Bless even our dear contrarian contributors, for they know not what the do.

Verily, they bring me the pleasure of their entertainment, cloaked in their efforts to play foil to my avid support of democracy and the true American Way of justice and liberty.

We thank them for the baring the radical Right’s cold-as-cash and soulless lack of regard for democracy and government of by and for the people.

Liken our jottings of cyber ink as the blood of patriots watering the tree of liberty.

Oh, and God bless America!

USA! USA! USA!

Malcolm,
Yes, despite his truth spill, the basic Republican meanness is still there.

free0352 said...

Verily, they bring me the pleasure of their entertainment, cloaked in their efforts to play foil to my avid support of democracy and the true American Way of justice and liberty.

I thought we already came to the conclusion it's the Finnish way of justice and liberty.

Weaseldog said...

Free said, "Ah Weasel does your vagina hurt so bad you have to cherry pick the difference between the United State's entry into the war vs the start of WWII in Europe?"

I've just laughing a lot about it.

You made it damn clear that only ignorant liberals think that Germany started WWII in 1939.

You went on and on saying that WWII was started by the Japanese in a conversation, not about Japan, but about Germany... You were ridiculing me for arguing that Germany started the war.

You never once mentioned Easter nor Western Theaters as you adamantly explained that Germany did not start the war.

Now you're all flip floppy.

This is really basic history. You even had to go look it up in a book.

And you were strongly adamant that you were correct. You knew you were right, and insulted me over and over for being ignorant.

But you were wrong, and you're not even man enough to say so. Instead you weasel and say German only started the Western Theater. Are you still convinced that Japan started the war?

How many other simple basic things will you beat people over, only to find out later you were wrong? Is this how you'll spend your life?

I guess in the military you grow used to being able to just tell people that something is true, and you know they do not have the authority to correct you. So your authority makes it true. Is that what's going on with you?

Weaseldog said...

Free says, "Clinton would have had this economic mess fixed or at least back on track by now. Obama just doesn't measure up."

Clinton started from a better place. A lot of wealth has been extracted out of the country since then. The job situation was much better.

The growth in debt numbers look good for Obama, and had he started were Clinton did, probably would have similar results.

The USA is further down the decline now. We're intent on polluting our air and water for just a little more wealth. Leasing our land so a pipeline that won't benefit us, can run through our country. This is what we traditionally forced on third world countries. Now they are the only options left to us, to continue our party a little longer.

And now like every empire in decline, we're expanding our military and wars of conquest to try to make up for our accelerating losses.

No president can fix this. It's the natural order of things. We're gonna go out with a bang.

Weaseldog said...

free0352 said... "I thought we already came to the conclusion it's the Finnish way of justice and liberty."

They'll probably be the last to keep the ideals of justice and liberty.

With every administration we lose another sentence out of the Bill of Rights...

Dave Dubya said...

I thought we already came to the conclusion it's the Finnish way of justice and liberty.

Free's special sense of humor can really crack me up.

FandB said...

Re-read my sentence Dave, all I attributed to Clinton was that he said Romney had a "sterling" record at Bain - which he did. If you think, as Obama and his other minions do, that private equity buys businesses in order to shut them down, then you just flat-out do not understand private equity, or business.

Clinton's back-pedaling is just as meaningless as was Rush Limbaugh's a few weeks ago. If you don't accept Limbaugh's then you don't get to accept Clinton's. Can't have it both ways dems.

Raising rates slightly for Soc Sec won't be enough. Do the math. The system cannot sustain itself through the retirement of the baby boom generation without massive increases in money. There are about 3.3 workers in the workforce now to support each retired person, in the next 20 years that number is expected to drop to 1. When Soc Sec started, life expectancy was 63 and the retirement age was 65, now it is almost 79. When Soc Sec started there were 8 or 9 people in the workforce for each retiree, now there is 3.3.

Dubya: "You do realize every conned-servative position you support takes from the public, strips safety nets from the needy, and gives to the elites, right?"

Not at all. You don't read what I write, you must only be seeing what you want to see.

But I do realize that every position you support is designed to take from everyone who has earned more than you, and give to you. That is the worst form of greed.

Dubya: "So who’s doing that “punishing” you talk about?"

Again, read what I wrote, not what you imagined. I said "trying to punish". Thank God the Obamabots haven't succeeded yet. If they do manage to squash the incentive to succeed, as they (and you) are clearly trying to do, then Weaseldog might be right, and we will end up going the way of the USSR.

FandB said...

Dubya: "Workers who see their jobs go overseas are punished."

As I have discussed before, these workers sent their own jobs overseas by refusing to pay more for "Made in the USA" or "Made by Union Workers" labeled products. Until they do, jobs will continue moving to the lowest priced labor markets.

Jerry Critter said...

SS can be "fixed" for with an increase of forty cents per week

FandB said...

JerryCritter, if you really believe that then good for you. I do not.

Dave Dubya said...

F&B,
So who's "trying to punish" your Mammonites, and how so? Are they at risk of being punished more than someone denied his medical insurance or job?

Please enlighten us.

You don't read what I write, you must only be seeing what you want to see.”

Ah, the usual projection again.

No, the fact is I read better than you write.

Ok here it is;

Even as Bill Clinton admitted this weekend on CNN, with Romneys "sterling" record at Bain, and his proven ability to save failing companies and create jobs, he probably would have done a much better job than Obama has done. Oops, a little democrat truth slipped out!

For speakers and readers of the English language it is evident that your adverbial compound prepositional phrase, “with Romneys "sterling" record at Bain, and his proven ability to save failing companies and create jobs”, modifies the verb admitted. The object of the verb admitted is, “he probably would have done a much better job than Obama has done”.

If you are not fluent with the English language we cannot debate you and you cannot debate us. For progressives, unlike with the radical Right, words have meanings. Language is used to clarify, not muddy, the issues. No wonder the Right is hostile to public education and the language arts. Economic gain for themselves is their only concern. Their so-called values are always measured in dollar signs. A cult of Mammon if there ever was one.

But I digress.

But I do realize that every position you support is designed to take from everyone who has earned more than you, and give to you. That is the worst form of greed.

This sounds good to you, but it is, of course, not true at all. I support raising my taxes, and the elites, back to the former rates before the Bush tax cuts. I advocate for the general welfare, not personal greed.

The fact you fail to see the difference indicates your authoritarian nature’s predilection for projection.

You however, have consistently sided with every policy that enriches the elites.

Every conned-servative position you support takes from the public, strips safety nets from the needy, and gives to the elites. If not, please show us otherwise.

Further evidence of your authoritarian “blame the victim” mentality is, ”these workers sent their own jobs overseas”

What a load of crap. How can you live with yourself? Did you forget your indoctrination that blames taxes and regulations? You know as well as I the American worker has been pitted against the lower income workers overseas.

Oh, that’s right, your authoritarian personality blames everyone but the elites who off-shore jobs. You have no other option with your belief system.

FandB said...

Dubya: "Further evidence of your authoritarian “blame the victim” mentality is, ”these workers sent their own jobs overseas”"

The fact that you (and other dems/socialists) can't see that the true power lies in the hands of We The People - the American consumer, the fact that you'd rather blame someone else for your problems than accept responsibility for your own actions and their consequences, condemns the "poor" that you claim to care about to the same plight they have been suffering for too long.

You throw the term "authoritarian" around without having even a basic understanding of what it means. I consistently argue on the side of less regulation, less taxation, less government control - and in your mind that is "authoritarian". While you constantly argue for more government control, more taxation, less freedom, more regulation - and you think that is less authoritarian? I think you need to re-evaluate what your values really are, because they don't match up with what you seem to think they are.

If you give a man a fish, you feed him for a day. If you teach a man to fish, you feed him for the rest of his life. Or more accurately, you enable him to feed himself for the rest of his life.

You and other authoritarian dems/socialists like you want to give a fish and keep him dependent on you, I would rather teach him to fish.

Jerry Critter said...

F&B says " I would rather teach him to fish."

But you are not teaching him. What you are really saying is swim or drown.

Dave Dubya said...

Jerry,
You pegged him there.

F&B,
Still blaming the victims, I see. Very authoritarian. You really believe that BS too. That is pure cult-like indoctrination. Real power lies with wealth in our corrupted system. This is what you cannot see or admit. You have still neglected to tell us where you disagree with the agenda of the elites over the public. Try to be honest for a change. Either admit your total support of Mammon, or deny it with evidence.

You throw the term "authoritarian" around without having even a basic understanding of what it means.

This is more outright dishonesty. I have written multiple posts, and included references, on authoritarian personalities like yours.

I consistently argue on the side of less regulation, less taxation, less government control which is exactly the agenda of the wealthy and powerful corporate elites. Thank you for confirming my point.

However when it comes to the bedroom, and a woman’s body, and our bladders, you will find compassion for the power of government and corporations.

You consistently argue on the side of wealth and power, and against government of, by and for the people. We have a Constitution that provides for taxation and regulation of commerce. This is lawful and limited authority, not authoritarianism. It defines our civil liberties and Constitutional rights. If you don’t like that, please leave our country so we can restore democracy.

You prefer the elites have more power than the people’s government. This is the Right’s stated goal. They want to shrink government to the point where it can be completely dominated by wealth. They pretend to support freedom, but this is another lie. They actively suppress democracy by restricting voting rights. That power of “we the people” you mention is one they must crush. They want to suppress rights to gays, women, union workers, and everyone else who disagrees with them. Authoritarians tend to support all of this.

“you'd rather blame someone else for your problems than accept responsibility for your own actions and their consequences is a classic example of your authoritarian indoctrination. This is another made up piece of crap you guys are famous for.

I see you’ve shifted from accusing me of greed, to accusing me of denying responsibility for my actions. No evidence required when regurgitating Rightist dogma.

Typical.

What else do want to falsely accuse me of without evidence? Maybe it’s time for you to call me a commie now. We know, deep down, your authoritarian nature will insist on it.

You and other authoritarian dems/socialists like you want to give a fish and keep him dependent on you

More false indoctrination. Extremists of the far Right insist on this lie to frame those who see through their agenda as being anti-work and pro-dependency. What we really want are our rights, jobs and opportunity.

Read that again. What we really want are our rights, jobs and opportunity.

The actions of the radical Right have been causing the destruction of those rights, jobs, and opportunities. And you blame the victims for that destruction.

Authoritarians side with the powerful over the powerless. You exhibit all the qualities of an authoritarian personality.

Your nature cannot admit this, so it projects that quality onto others. You can’t help it. You are what you are.

We can read you like a book, you know.

RedStateFred said...

Dave,

What is so hypocritical of the Public Service employees in Wisconsin is that they did not want to contribute more of a percentage of their wages to their medical and retirement accounts typical of what the private sector (whose taxes pay these public service employees) contributes. Instead of being "fair" and "socially just", they were "greedy basterds." I guess there is an evil capitalist in all of us lol.

RedStateFred said...

Tell us, are Social Security and Medicare the "cold cruel monstrosities of state central planning"?

When FDR first introduced Social Security, he argued that under Social Security the federal government would be holding your money for you. He deceptively fostered the idea that Social Security would be a savings account, into which employees and employers would make contributions and out of which guaranteed monies would be paid to those who reached the age of 65. Essentially, he claimed that you'd get your money back.

The Social Security trust fund is not money that the government "holds" for you, as FDR promised.

It is not money to which you have a lawful claim, as he claimed.

It is not a guarantee for you, as he led the public to believe.

The so-called "trust fund" is merely the difference between what is collected and what is paid out. And the Feds just acknowledged that in 21 years, they are likely to pay out more than they will collect.

Dave Dubya, Is a Ponzi scheme — which is basically theft by deception — lawful just because the government runs it?

free0352 said...

But you are not teaching him. What you are really saying is swim or drown

But what you're saying is he has no responsibility to swim on his own and he gets a free ride on our backs. I think swimming is hard enough without the freeloader.

I advocate for the general welfare, not personal greed

You are free to make a donation to the IRS at any time. I won't hold my breath as to when you'll do this. You cats are super good at spending other people's money, but when it comes to your own you hold on to it like the most miserly scrooges. All the while bitching like school girls locked out of a Justin Bieber concert about other's not paying their fair share, when in fact they pay many times the percentage of income you do.

free0352 said...

As for social security it's fucking doomed. It's already in the red and it isn't going back.

That's why you boomers won't let my generation opt out of it, and my generation overwhelmingly wants to. We know we'll never see a penny of the money we're paying into it. But the boomers are all like "Fuck our kids!"

Thanks guys.

That right there is how you know it's a total fucking scam. Your generation will never take those chains off us. Not until you're dead and we're paying half our checks to finance your fucking health care and your lavish benefits you voted yourselves when we were 4 years old. Talk about taxation without representation!

FandB said...

Dubya: “We can read you like a book, you know.” -- I’m sure you think you can, but you have proven repeatedly that you can’t read, much less comprehend anything other than your own far left wacko agenda.

Dubya: “What we really want are our rights, jobs and opportunity” – You say that but your arguments indicate otherwise. You claim you want jobs and opportunity, but you hate anyone who has enough money to give you a job, and you think the government should take all the money away from ‘rich people’ who can actually hire people. You can’t even see this contradiction in your ‘philosophy’. It leaves only the government to control the money and dole out jobs. See, you ARE a socialist. (BTW, opportunity is always there, you don’t need for someone to give it to you, neither can anyone take it away, except yourself.)

When was the last time someone without any money gave someone else a job?

Come now, I provide as much evidence for my comments as you do for yours.

It looks like you must be a product of our public school system, their socialist indoctrination has been fully absorbed into your psyche. Come on Dubya, FIGHT, you can break out of the mold your socialist instructors cast you in!

And why is it that left wing wackos get so pissy whenever anyone expects them to take responsibility for their actions?

Dubya: “You prefer the elites have more power than the people’s government.” – Another flat out lie. But as you fail to recognize, the ‘elites’ (however it is you define them) deserve just exactly the same rights as everyone else. Just because you hate “rich” people doesn’t mean that shouldn’t have ANY rights. That’s just downright mean. Interesting way to phrase it though, “people’s government”, kind of reminds me of “people’s republic” of this or that.

Dubya: “I consistently argue on the side of less regulation, less taxation, less government control which is exactly the agenda of the wealthy and powerful corporate elites” – That is because where you consistently argue in favor of socialist, authoritarian concepts, those whom you despise, and attempt to demonize by referring to them as “corporate elites”, are in reality the ones who favor personal liberty, freedom, and equality. Your socialist indoctrination just won’t let you see it as it really is.

RedStateFred said...

Dave,

Barret got his ass kicked in Wisconsin! I hope the state capital doesn't get trashed by the OWS crowd.

okjimmy in Wisconsin, penny for your thoughts?

Or the reason that Walker has won is that "democracy" has been hijacked by the Koch brothers? Jefferson, how about another anti corporation rant.

free0352 said...

They can't break that mold. I learned a long time ago the thought of "being on their own" is terrifying to them. They're down right phobic of it. They view our mission to set up a system fundamentally that produces that as the epicenter of evil... when really its the epicenter of freedom. You boys don't hate freedom Dave, as you suggested I thought. No. I think you fear freedom, because when you're really free you're all on your little own.

Weaseldog said...

FandB said... "Raising rates slightly for Soc Sec won't be enough"

That's not really his main argument. I think you're engaging in misdirection here.

The wage cap needs to be increased. It hasn't kept up with wage increases. There shouldn't be a limit on taxable wages. Higher wages shouldn't mean a fixed cap on the tax.

free0352 said...

They've worked that out 18 ways from sunday. They can't make the numbers jibe. Too many boomers, not enough x'ers.

Weaseldog said...

Dubya said... "Workers who see their jobs go overseas are punished."

FandB said... "As I have discussed before, these workers sent their own jobs overseas"

So Senators like Republican Dick Armey, who took bribes from foreign governments, to push legislation to give corporations for money to offshore jobs, can't take any responsibility?

It's the workers fault that Republicans in Washington paid their bosses to fire them?

So it's your fault,
FandB, that Dick Armey took bribes from the government of India to sell out Americans labor?Is that the lesson you're trying to teach us? You forced Dick Armey to take bribes and create the subsidy programs that export jobs?

Weaseldog said...

FandB says, "When was the last time someone without any money gave someone else a job?"

That's funny, the common refrain I hear from Republicans is that if you get fired, start a business and hire people.

Is there actually a Republican that understands that people who are freshly fired, generally don't have millions of dollars to spend on a new factory, or even $150k to spend on a a startup coffee shop?

Are you spinning around FandB?

Dave Dubya said...

Fred,
What is so hypocritical of the Public Service employees in Wisconsin is that they did not want to contribute more of a percentage of their wages to their medical and retirement accounts typical of what the private sector

Wrong again: Good regurgitation of Right Wing propaganda, though.

http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/116162704.html

State workers signaled Monday they could accept benefit cuts proposed by Gov. Scott Walker even as they prepared to battle with Walker over his plan to cut most of their union bargaining rights.

I asked you Tell us, are Social Security and Medicare the "cold cruel monstrosities of state central planning"? after you alluded Communist dictators killing people is somehow the same thing as liberalism. (That is far loonier than any liberal.)

As I predicted, the answer would be yes, according to your crazed Rightist indoctrination. “Ponzi scheme” is more of that same regurgitation.
--

Free,
You are free to make a donation to the IRS at any time. I won't hold my breath as to when you'll do this. You cats are super good at spending other people's money, but when it comes to your own you hold on to it like the most miserly scrooges.

As with F&B’s similar projection, please read what I wrote instead of repeating your prejudiced ideas.

What I said was, This sounds good to you, but it is, of course, not true at all. I support raising my taxes, and the elites, back to the former rates before the Bush tax cuts. I advocate for the general welfare, not personal greed.

The fact you fail to see the difference indicates your authoritarian nature’s predilection for projection.


But the boomers are all like "Fuck our kids!"

What’s this? I thought the victims are to blame. Make up your mind. Although every vote boomers and, Xers themselves, cast for Republicans and corpo-dems would indirectly reflect that attitude.

Neo-feudalism awaits the next generation. Democracy will be dead, and the serfs shall serve their aristocratic lords. Right Wing Corporations already have their own armies.

Keep siding with the elites and they will keep taking and taking until they have it all. They have more than ever and still they demand more, while their legions of indoctrinated crybabies howl over the “cruel oppression” the elites suffer at the hands of what little remains of our constitutional democratic republic.

I think you fear freedom

You are hilarious.

Dave Dubya said...

F&B,
Still can’t come up with one instance where you disagree with the aristocracy and corporate elites?

Told you so.

you have proven repeatedly that you can’t read,

And here we have yet more of that defense mechanism called projection, coming from the person who either lied, or needed a lesson in language. Sweet. And you wonder how we read you like a book...

Time for more made up crap:

you hate anyone who has enough money to give you a job, and you think the government should take all the money away from ‘rich people’

And you wonder how we read you like a book...

Dubya: “You prefer the elites have more power than the people’s government.” – Another flat out lie.

So your guru of greed, Grover Norquist, didn’t say you guys want to take government “down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub”?

Do we have to wonder who the “We” is that wants to drown our government of by and for the people?

Public education is “socialist indoctrination” to you fringe types. No wonder you hate to read, and need to accuse others of the same flaw.

And this batch of radical dishonesty is just precious:

And why is it that left wing wackos get so pissy whenever anyone expects them to take responsibility for their actions?

No examples. Just the usual made up crap.

Dubya: “You prefer the elites have more power than the people’s government.” – Another flat out lie. But as you fail to recognize, the ‘elites’ (however it is you define them) deserve just exactly the same rights as everyone else. Just because you hate “rich” people doesn’t mean that shouldn’t have ANY rights. That’s just downright mean. Interesting way to phrase it though, “people’s government”, kind of reminds me of “people’s republic” of this or that.

The “people’s government” sounds commie to you, but “we the people” is ok? (Except of course when I refer to the phrase) I knew you’d play your commie card. And you wonder how we read you like a book...

Dubya: “I consistently argue on the side of less regulation, less taxation, less government control which is exactly the agenda of the wealthy and powerful corporate elites” – That is because where you consistently argue in favor of socialist, authoritarian concepts, those whom you despise, and attempt to demonize by referring to them as “corporate elites”, are in reality the ones who favor personal liberty, freedom, and equality. Your socialist indoctrination just won’t let you see it as it really is.

So now you throw our a few more personal accusations...as I predicted. Now according to you, because I say, “What we really want are our rights, jobs and opportunity”, that means I “hate”, “despise” and “demonize” the lovers and defenders of liberty freedom and equality. And I suppose by demonize, you mean calling the sacred and holy “job creators” corporate elites. How odd that true words “demonize” and cut into your indoctrination.

In other words you revere your Mammonite leaders over our Constitution and its provisions for taxation for the general welfare and regulation of commerce. If you hate our Democratic Republic, or in your mind, Socialist Constitution, so much, please take your fascism and leave our country.

You’ll always find rich and powerful people who would love your unquestioning servitude

FandB said...

Dubya, after demonstrating again that you can't understand simple concepts, your rebuttals have turned into repeating "you made that up" over and over again. It is like arguing with a clueless child.

I'd better watch out, next you'll be telling mom on me, i.e. telling Mama Obama. :-)

Oh, yeah, and then ending with the "leave our country" bit. OK, I'll get right on that . . . (sarcasm, just in case you have trouble with that too).

free0352 said...

Fand,

You forgot aluminium tubes. You know you're winning when that one rears it's head.

Dave Dubya said...

Yes, we liberty and democracy loving liberals would prefer the radicals leave America. Remember when the Righties always told us to "love it or leave it"?

Free might be too young, but I enjoy turning that back at the extremists who oppose our democracy and constitutional taxes and regulation of commerce.

Yes, we were told to leave America, not because we opposed the Constitution or democracy, but for not supporting, and dying in, the war in Vietnam. And their war on drugs lingers on today as a favorite tool to disenfranchise voters caught with a politically incorrect plant. Now THAT's authoritarianism.

Yes, you know you're winning when the bald face lies are exposed, whether they're nukular aluminum tubes, Death panels, Obama the Marxist, or jobs jobs jobs popping up because the elites get a tax cut.

Still waiting these to be shown as reality.

Good thing I enjoy the waiting.

Now that the commie card has been played and the "you hate the rich" card has been played, and the “you hate responsibility” card has been played, there's nowhere to go but to sputter feeble accusations like liberals are just too stupid, and "can't understand simple concepts".

By simple concepts they mean stuff they make up, of course.

So they keep spouting their little lies, and the Big Lies, and do their best to distract from honest discussion and reality, while pitching the same old tired accusations.

Then there's this "simple concept" poor F&B keeps ducking:

Real power lies with wealth in our corrupted system. This is what you cannot see or admit. You have still neglected to tell us where you disagree with the agenda of the elites over the public. Try to be honest for a change. Either admit your total support of Mammon, or deny it with evidence.

I guess it's getting tough to make crap up that would address this.

I predict some distraction and maybe even more lame accusations coming soon...

Perhaps we read them like a book because they're such textbook cases.

FandB said...

Dave, Dave, Dave, why do you keep lobbing softballs at me?

I have never, not once, opposed the U.S. Constitution or other Founding Documents in any way, manner, or form. Only the twisted illogical mind of a Neo-Socialist such as yourself would ever believe that I have.

The next few paragraphs are just you proselytizing and do not warrant a response.

Dubya: “Real power lies with wealth in our corrupted system. This is what you cannot see or admit. You have still neglected to tell us where you disagree with the agenda of the elites over the public. Try to be honest for a change. Either admit your total support of Mammon, or deny it with evidence.”

I do agree that real power lies with wealth. I also know where the real money, the real wealth is. It is Not in the hands of the “elites” as you call them, but in the hands of We The People. We do control where products are manufactured and who manufactures them. We do so by choosing which products to buy. If consumers stopped buying GE radios tomorrow, by the end of the week GE would stop shipping radios from China. That’s what you can’t seem to grasp. We The People possess more money than all of the “elites” combined. And We The People possess more power than all of the “elites” combined. All we have to do to wield this power is to realize that we do indeed possess it.

I can’t tell you where I “disagree with the agenda of the elites over the public” because the “elites” do not have an agenda over the public. That is purely a construct of your deluded mind. In other words (your own to be specific) that is just some stuff you made up.

-----
My turn for a prediction . . . Since I'm sure David Letterman is one of your heroes, and since he is running out of things to use against republicans in his lame little show, I predict that by Thursday night he will be reduced to whining about spelling errors in a Romney political ad.

Stay tuned . . .

Weaseldog said...

Free, does the US Military pay you to post here?

Is this what you do for them?

free0352 said...

Fand

There's a lot of the liberal melodrama going on, on the left these days. They can't figure out why their policies are failing miserably so they spend their spare time crying about the end of the world. Its a common result of a faith belief (and progressivism is akin to a religion) crashing down in a giant, flaming ball of failure.

Weasel,

I hand out vagisil to whiney liberals who can't run 20 minutes strait or lift their own body weight.

Dave Dubya said...

F&B,

Still can’t come up with one instance where you disagree with the aristocracy and corporate elites?

Told you so. You’re such a good little conforming Mammonite. It is in your authoritarian nature, of course.

I have never, not once, opposed the U.S. Constitution

Yeah, so you claim. You don’t oppose the Constitution entirely. You only oppose a few parts of it.

One part is about taxes, another is about regulating commerce, and another is to promote and provide for the general welfare. There are probably a few other parts you’d rather not have as well.

Since you are unable to come up with one instance where you disagree with the aristocracy and corporate elites, maybe you can tell us where you disagree with Grover Norquist.

I’m sure you ascribe to the Norquist Rule, which the entire Republican Party seems to be doing by signing pledges to Big Money interests who want to keep their tax cuts. That alone undermines the Constitution by abrogating the power of Congress to tax. Since when does an oath to a Party operative override their oath to support and defend the Constitution?

If it is your philosophy to shrink government down to the size it can be “drowned in a bathtub” then that would require serious opposition to the Constitutional provisions I mentioned.

Don’t feel alone. The entire radical Right and Republican Party desires and facilitates the destruction of our democracy by legalized bribery, voter restrictions, and subversion of the laws of our Constitution.

I have to say I enjoyed the little fairy tale about the magical “wealth” of people who need every dollar to get by. As if a million Americans with a ten dollar bill have the political clout of one corporation or billionaire. Very amusing.

How many lobbyists are working for the unemployed? How many lobbyists are working for the minimum wage earners? How many lobbyists are working for the increasing numbers of poor Americans created by unregulated capitalism? Seems pretty clear to us you scorn these people and blame them all for losing and not finding jobs. We’ve been told that “compassionate conservative” lie before.

How much legislation is that ten dollar campaign contribution going to buy compared to what Citizens United offers in unlimited secret bribes?

The wealth I refer to is not the collective wealth of disparate citizens, but the concentrated wealth in the hands of the elites. You do a fine little job with your fairy tale in distracting from that reality.

All we have to do to wield this power is to realize that we do indeed possess it.

Cute.

We can just all wave our magic little dollar bill wands and we shall have the same influence on politicians as Exxon-Mobile, Pfizer, and McDonnell-Douglas.

I can’t tell you where I “disagree with the agenda of the elites over the public” because the “elites” do not have an agenda over the public

Ha. Another good one. Yessiree folks, don’t you worry your pretty little heads over what Wall Street, Big Tobacco, Pharma, etc. tell our politicians. They have no agenda whatsoever that could possibly conflict with the public good.

Step right up and drink some of this cool, refreshing kool-ade. It’s the Right thing to do. There ya go. Chug it down; and never concern yourself again that Big Money would possible advocate and influence public policy in their interests over yours. Glug, glug.

I have to say I still enjoy reading the crap you make up.

Dave Dubya said...

Free,

They can't figure out why their policies are failing miserably so they spend their spare time crying about the end of the world.

That’s right. Why can’t the fools just learn to give more tax cuts to the rich and stop regulating Big Money. It has worked miracles so far. Jobs, jobs, jobs.

In fact, wouldn’t we all be better off if we just let Big Money be free of all regulations, and be allowed to run our government and make all the rules for us to obey.

Corporatocracy is the only fair system. Who needs democracy, or even elections, when Big Money does all the talking and legislating with their “free speech” money and lobbyists? They get to write their own “free trade agreements” too.

After all their policies have done for the country, we should thank them by never questioning their agenda again.

FandB said...

Dubya: “Still can’t come up with one instance where you disagree with the aristocracy and corporate elites?” – Like I said, “aristocracy and corporate elites” is a fabrication you have created in your mind, they don’t exist. It is impossible for anyone to oppose or support your fictional bogeymen.

Taxes, regulation of commerce, promote the general welfare . . . I completely support all of those. I do not support unfair taxation, overly burdensome regulation of commerce, or the creation of a nanny-welfare state e.g. Greece, Spain.

For example, the EPA has been trying to change the classification of Styrene, which is already regulated by EPA and OSHA. If they succeed, it will completely decimate a huge industry in the United States and will drive hundreds of thousands if not millions of jobs overseas. They are ignoring scientific evidence that has been accumulated over 60+ years including very long term epidemiological studies of workers in the industry. The only supporting study they have referenced is a study done in France about 30 years ago on mice. All contrary evidence generated before and after that study has been ignored. Even OSHA has declined to go along with this little snippet of rulemaking by an out-of-control EPA.

This is a clear example of a “burdensome regulation” and this is the type of regulation I oppose.

I do not oppose legitimate regulations of commerce, or regulations that legitimately promote the general welfare. One area where republicans and democrats disagree is what actually constitutes promoting the general welfare.

BTW, when the Founding Fathers talked about the general welfare, they were not talking about “welfare” as in government handouts.

When taxes and regulations reach the point where they become burdensome, the government is no longer promoting the general welfare but rather are only promoting their own self-interests. The government should be able to operate within a budget that is no more than 15% of GDP. If that is small enough to strangle in the bathtub or not, then so be it.

Democrats are responsible for much more voter fraud and bribery than are republicans. Just look at the role ACORN or the Black Panthers played in the 2008 election and you will see voter fraud and intimidation at its finest. Or look at the busloads of Union members bused in to Wisconsin from Detroit to vote in the recall election that occurred just a few days ago. Nice try with your Alinsky-ite tactics though.

A million Americans have much more political clout than a single billionaire. If you and a billionaire met with any given politician, and the billionaire had his checkbook open, and you represented a voting block of one million people, do you really believe the politician would listen to the billionaire over you? I do not. And I am surprised that you do not see this. We The People do in fact still have the power in this country, just as we did 236 years ago when George Washington’s collective army of disparate citizens defeated the Elite army of King George.

Jerry Critter said...

F&B,
If you truly believe that "We The People do in fact still have the power in this country...", why do you support term limits?

Term limits override the will of the people, and do not allow them to elect the person of their choice if that person has served for more than some set number of years.

free0352 said...

Why can’t the fools just learn to give more tax cuts to the rich and stop regulating Big Money

Why can't the minority of people who can't take care of themselves start... god forbid... taking care of themselves. This is a big boy world, and it plays by big boy rules. If you want a living you have to go out and make it. Nobody comes to work for me everyday, I have to go. If I loose my job, I have to figure it out, I don't turn to others and demand it. Dave, I think you're afraid of a world where people will be responsible for themselves. That's why you support govenrment protecting people form their own bad decisions, creating this false cushion at the expense of everyone else whose pulling their weight, rowing the boat, and carrying the water. I want a society that focuses on those that carry the water, not just drink the water. If you're not productive, why should those who are carry your weight, care for you? What have you done to earn that? Clearly you don't like that mindset. That's the fundamental difference between Libertarians and Progressives. I don't care what the "elites" are doing. I care what I'm doing. I care about me. Only me, and my family. That's it. Everything I do in life, thats why I do it. I don't think I have a duty to anyone else. That's why I'm in the military. Because it's in my specific interest to see that it and it's assets are protected. I know the theats out there in the world and weather or not your croud recognizes them I know what I know, from what I've seen. So I took a pay cut, on the surface it would seem alturistic since I took a pay cut but really it's not. I simply value national security for my loved ones more than a value my own and a pay check. I've been to countrys unde siege, and I don't want to live like that. But your strategy is different, it's based on denial and entitlement. And because you've lived in a really great place your whole life you have nothing to contrast that nice life with. You've never seen real corruption, or violence (even in your prison) like I've seen, or how societies collapse, or real poverty. You have no scope for which to judge. You fear being on your own. I relish not the freedoms that come from government but the ones that come in its vacuum.

I can deal with big corporations and rich guys. They can't oppress me, but I've seen what even small, two-bit third world governments can do. It ain't pretty. I'll err on the side of limited government... government simply doing nothing any day. A government powerful enough to provide you everything you need is equally powerful enough to take everything you have away.

John Myste said...

I have tried not to say anything, but I cannot take it anymore!!! I have been dealing with this nonsense on almost every post here for months.

"Loose" means "not tight." "Lose" means to misplace.

John Myste said...

Oh, and Free, are you sure it is a big boy world where you have to provide for yourself? Is that your final answer?

Dave Dubya said...

F&B has moved on to throwing the whole kettle of crap against the wall to see what sticks.

“No such thing” as the corporate and economic elites is a good one. Deny, deny and deny, no matter how obvious the truth is. As I say, the authoritarian personality is truly cult-like in its rigid belief system.

Taxes, regulation of commerce, promote the general welfare . . . I completely support all of those

Classic lie, He has supported zero taxes and regulations in all his comments. “Overburdensome and unfair” are whatever he says they are. Surprise, surprise.

Another thing F&B alone gets to dictate is what the founders thought and what we are supposed to think.

when the Founding Fathers talked about the general welfare, they were not talking about “welfare” as in government handouts

As the Right knows, the Founders clung to a rigid Constitution that could never be left to the interpretations of Americans that followed. The Founders thought that it could never, ever, be amended to suit future generations’ needs. Right?

drive hundreds of thousands if not millions of jobs overseas

The horror! F&B plays the old “Jobs held hostage” card. “Millions” could lose jobs. They better be afraid, very afraid. Ha,.

What if a billionaire had his checkbook open, and you represented a voting block of one million people?

If it’s million gay voters, the Republican will do anything for the billionaire over the interests of the million.

Just look at the role ACORN or the Black Panthers played in the 2008 election and you will see voter fraud and intimidation at its finest.

Yeah, we’ve looked. Zilch. Nada.

Speaking of “fictional bogeymen” F&B projects a couple of the Right’s favorite racial-based fears. Yessiree, ACORN and the two scary black guys in the video had more influence on the election than all the non-existing corporate and economic elites. Yup. Trust F&B on this. He is after all, an expert.

Perhaps he can easily show us say, a hundred or two fraudulent ballots by ACORN in the 2008 election, or perhaps an intimidated voter. He hasn’t yet. He may need to go look behind the death panels, and among all those jobs that came from the tax cuts and deregulation.

Union members bused in to Wisconsin from Detroit to vote in the recall election

This is one of their newest “death panel” type lies. You betcha.

Let’s all give F&B a big round of applause for selflessly providing us a lovely mix of fresh and stale lies.

I knew he could mix it up. He’s a very dedicated, and perhaps professional, purveyor of the authoritarian radical Right indoctrination.



Free,
Why can't the minority of people who can't take care of themselves start... god forbid... taking care of themselves?,

The question for the ages. People who can’t take care of themselves need help. Those who can take care of themselves need jobs. Fair?

I can deal with big corporations and rich guys. They can't oppress me,

That is a comforting thought to hold as thousands upon thousands of Americans have been killed and untold millions of foreign nationals die from our corporate military industrial complex puppet politicians’ wars of choice.

Dave, I think you're afraid of a world where people will be responsible for themselves.

This is the only way your frame of view can see people like me. No matter how much I say. What we really want are our rights, jobs and opportunity.

Read that again. What we really want are our rights, jobs and opportunity.

Really. If our system cannot provide enough jobs and opportunity, then the need for safety nets is real.

Why is this complicated?

free0352 said...

People who can’t take care of themselves need help

Perhaps... but we don't define those people the same way. Hey, if you are a paraplegic then maybe you have a claim. And private charity should be the first to step in, not the after thought once the government has come into play. If you just suck at life like so many do, I have no sympathy. If you want to drop out of high school, have sixteen babies and live in the trailer park paid for by the HUD money while eating free on EBT, and feeding your 16 bay-bays with WIC while you cash the welfare check to drink 40s and smoke weed I sort of enjoy watching you suffer. People died for the right to live in this country, and those kind are taking a shit on the graves of far, far better men.

What we really want are our rights, jobs and opportunity.

Here are a list of your rights Dave. Nowhere in that list does it mention "jobs" or "opportunity." Nor should it mention them. Your rights are a list of things government can't do to you, not what government should do for you. If you want a job or an opportunity and you don't have one, I'd suggest filling out job applications. Just about anyone in this country could have a job picking fruit this summer in just about every state- but I guarantee you most will kick back on the welfare check while people not even legally allowed to work in this country fill those jobs... for 9-10 bucks an hour. I may have never picked fruit but I've damned sure slung a sledge hammer in the hot, hot sun and the cold, cold winter next to Mexicans because I'm not a bum and I'd rather work for a living. Real men find or make jobs and seek opportunity, not demand it from their neighbors. That's what weak, overgrown children calling themselves men do. And that goes for women these days too. They wanted equality? Welcome to it. Lesson One on Equality: Swing a sledge hammer. Fun being equal eh?

The problem with our country isn't the "elites" or even government... its bitchy cry-baby citizens who rather sit on their ever fatter asses, cruising wallmart on the fat schooter casing in the Doritos on the EBT card. That is the root of all our problems nationally. This is also why Libertarians don't win elections, telling the damn truth and pointing out most people with problems made their beds and now must lay in them isn't a winner- even if it is true. In short, people need to quit crying, pick their vaginas off the ground and look within to solve their problems. This is where most of them come from.

Jerry Critter said...

Free says "This is also why Libertarians don't win elections, telling the damn truth and pointing out most people with problems made their beds and now must lay in them isn't a winner- even if it is true. In short, people need to quit crying, pick their vaginas off the ground and look within to solve their problems."

And if they don't solve their problems by themselves, let they die. Right free? Screw them, their children, and the horse they rode in on.

Jerry Critter said...

That is why libertarians don't win elections.

free0352 said...

Let me ask you Jerry, how many people do you know who have starved to death in this country? I already know the answer... zero. It is phisically impossible to starve to death in America, even without the "safety net."

Hunger will motivate the shit out of you. Try it sometime, I have. Try not eating anyting for two days. See what it does for your motivation level to find what you need.

And you're right, it's exaclty why we don't win elections. Lying to get what you want (elected) is much easier in the short term... but hopeless and flawed in the long term. That's why we have so many problems in America, from the welfare clas to the glorified welfare class on Wall Street. People think their lunch is free these days... and telling them the truth that it isn't doesn't get their votes.

For me it isn't a popularity contest. It's about solutions to problems and sometimes the solution is you have to be tough on people. Nobody is too big... or too little... to fail. When your teenagers blow their money partying and you just give them more money, they don't learn. And that is a huge problem in America. Kids never learn and never then become adults. America from Wall Street to Main Street could use a little motivational hunger. Maybe they'll become a little more like the Mexicans and Chinese who are all too familiar with real, authentic hunger- who are out working us and beating America to the punch every day. You know what motivates those people.... basic needs.

I've been to a number of survival schools, and had to hunt my own food to survive. If I didn't get out and look for it, I didn't eat. That simple. That instructed some good life lessons. A lesson a lot of Americans in our nation's abundance never learned. And Americans very desperately need to learn them, because the days of "free" money with a 14.5 trillion dollar debt are going to come to an end. Mark my words. Who you elect doesn't matter in the slightest. 14 trillion is 14 trillion Republican or Democrat, and the big tit is going to dry up no matter what. The FED can only print so much money and the tax cash cows are leaving. People better learn some skills beyond swiping their EBTs because if that debt keeps growing and those "rich elites" you hate so much keep going, one day those cards won't work. Then what are they going to do?

Jerry Critter said...

They don't die because there IS a safety net, a safety net you want to destroy. Fine. Go ahead and push for it...and you will continue to be marginalized. You like libertarianism so much. Tell me about a country where it has been successfully implemented.

free0352 said...

Tell me about a country where it has been successfully implemented.

The United States Of America, from 1776 till about 1931.

free0352 said...

If you look at the numbers, we aren't marginalizing, we're growing very rapidly. Especially if you count Ron Paul's followers. Americans don't want your Democrat welfare checks or the draconian social policy of the Republicans. The more they see government fail them and stand in the way and when they address the economy at all use taxes to hook up their pals on wall street the more they turn away from the nanny states and debt and poor fiscal managmenet and corrpution and turn to a movment of good old self reliance, personal freedom, economic freedom and market freedom.

They don't want your party's welfare check dude- which lately is the only promise Democrats make and one that will be broken. It doesn't matter who gets elected, government is going to go broke. You can't vote yourself rich. You actually have to produce shit.

FandB said...

Just a few things to clear up…

JerryCritter: ??? I don’t remember ever discussing term limits here. Why do you assume I oppose them?

Dubya: I have never argued for zero taxes or zero regulation.

Dubya: I have never indicated that the Constitution was not meant to be interpreted or amended. Quite the contrary, I understand completely that that is why it works as well as it does and why it has survived for well over 200 years. We clearly disagree, however, as to the interpretations themselves and what and how it should be amended. My ancestors were here and fought for this country when it started. I have no loyalties above God, Country, and Family. So please bear in mind, when you ask me to leave the country, I have no where else to go. This is my country. One of my direct ancestors was registered here in a 1620 census. My family has been here since the beginning. That having been said, we might even have the same goal in mind, mine being the preservation of our Democratic Republic and the “American Dream”. We just have different ideas on what we need to do to accomplish this.

Dubya: “He’s a very dedicated, and perhaps professional, purveyor of the authoritarian radical Right”

Oh, stop, you’ll make me blush!

Dave Dubya said...

F&B,

I have never argued for zero taxes or zero regulation.

That’s not what I meant. I didn’t say you agued for zero taxes and regulation.

Pardon my phrasing but by saying you have supported zero taxes and regulation means just that.

This is what is true. You have never supported any taxes or regulations in all your comments. Is that a little more clear, now?

You don’t have to leave our country. Just stop supporting the destruction of our democracy and let the elites fight their own campaign to take over our government.

My ancestors were here before yours, not that that means anything anymore. Just as the land was stolen from the native population, our government is now being taken from we the people.

How can you support a democratic republic by opposing democracy?

Thanks to Republican Party mandated restrictions on registration and voting, there are uncounted thousands of voters turned away from the polls.

Oh, stop, you’ll make me blush!

If getting caught telling all those lies won’t do it, nothing will.

Jerry Critter said...

F&B,
Term limits? Maybe it wasn't you. So let me ask, do you support them?

Jerry Critter said...

Free,
So the US implemented libertarianism "from 1776 till about 1931"...ending in the Great Depression! Now there's libertarian success for you!

With that kind of success, who needs failure?

FandB said...

Jerry Critter: Re: Term Limits = I would support term limits only for democrats, and especially for Obama! ;-)

But seriously, I don't have a strong opinion either way, and I really haven't given it much thought. I certainly can see the argument that long tenures by Representatives or Senators have the potential to breed corruption. But addressing this through term limits is sort of like cutting off a person's hand to prevent him from stealing. Corruption needs to be dealt with directly.

And I can understand the desire for fresh blood, new ideas coming into government. But again, this can be accomplished through other means.

I agree with the argument that imposing term limits might restrict the will of the People to elect whomever they choose to elect (within the limits of the Constitution). But if there were a Constitutional Amendment I would not have a problem supporting it, because this would demonstrate that the will of the people is to have term limits. It is interesting that the purpose of term limits is to eliminate/reduce corruption of politicians, and to break up the status quo spending patterns and habits that are so detrimental to the economy, but the primary opponents of term limits are democrats. Hmmmm...

In George Washington's 'Farewell Address', he discussed his reasons for declining to run for a third term and thus set a precedent for Presidents that was honored until FDR (D) ran for his third term (which led to Term Limit legislation and a Constitutional Amendment). His reasons still apply today, and they apply to Representatives and Senators as much as to the President. I think it is generally recognized that the original intent was that Congressmen would be temporary Citizen-Legislators rather than career politicians.

All this being considered, I think the best term limits are self-imposed limits (as with Washington and succeeding Presidents until FDR) and Elections.

Jerry Critter said...

F&B,
I agree with you on term limits.

free0352 said...

there's libertarian success for you!

People caused the great depression, not government. Further, Libertarianism built a nation, freed slaves, and gave us the industrial revolution. The Socialist model did none of these things.

And as for Progressivism, it's going to end at the Great Recession, how successful was that? 14.5 trillion in debt, and a welfare state with crumbling services isn't doing your cause well.

Jerry Critter said...

I thought libertarian limited government power and maximized people power...maximized it so much that they caused the Great Depression.

Dave Dubya said...

People caused the great depression

Yeah, “libertarians” and “every man for himself” types who dismantled government regulations caused the Great Depression. So called “conservatives” have pushed us into the Great Recession the same way.

Labor built the nation, both slave labor and exploited working class labor. Science and technology gave us the industrial revolution.

A strong federal Government freed the slaves from the “libertarian” aristocrats’ plantation system. It’s called the 13th Amendment. Everyday soldiers died to free the slaves, not Libertarians. Progressives hated slavery, and to this day oppose the elimination of minimum wage laws that push us back toward slavery.

AMENDMENT XIII
SECTION 1.
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

SECTION 2.
Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.


Watch Big Money exploit this loophole: “except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted”. The corporate sponsored war on drugs is just the ticket. Watch for more laws that disenfranchise and imprison people for non-violent, politically manufactured crimes.

The “libertarian” man who pushed for the 13th Amendment also who said:

”Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.” - Abe Lincoln First Message to Congress December 3, 1861

Libertarians used child labor, company thugs, and imposed brutal working conditions and long hours. Liberalism restored more humane conditions and labor rights.

Progressivism gets the blame, it always does for some reason, for the debt incurred by the Medicare prescription drug scam, the tax cuts, and Bush putting two wars on the credit card.

Progressivism is used as a scapegoat for the job losses incurred by corporate written trade agreements and legislation.

Nothing new there either.

Whatever Big Money says, and they have the loudest voice, is swallowed by their legions of duped Americans.

Progressives will always get the blame for everything in the Amerikan Fourth Reich; just as the Jews and Communists were blamed in the Third Reich. Authoritarians must use scapegoats. Scapegoats are the ones represented least in the power structure.

That would be progressives, as corporate bought politicians and corporate owned media run from the word “liberal”.

free0352 said...

Everyday soldiers died to free the slaves,

In fairness to those Soldiers Dave, you are right they weren't libertarians the were Republicans, and the slave owners and Southerners they were fighting were Registered Democrats.

S.W. Anderson said...

Uh, I don't know what that Virginian Pilot reporter was smoking, but it must've been potent if it made it possible for him to write that McDonnell has walked a tightrope trying to please both conservatives and moderates. If McDonnell was any farther to the right he'd have to join us on the left.

OK, McDonnell slipped up. But Republicans will overlook a lot in a pol who tells whoppers like this with a straight face:

". . . . argued that Republican-led states have fared better during the downturn and struggling recovery."

BTW, although I can't come up with a link right now, I just got through reading a comparison showing states such as New York with Democratic governors and legislatures have added more jobs and are recovering faster than Republican-ruled states such as Ohio and Wisconsin, that have imposed more auserity and refused to raise taxes.

Dave Dubya said...

Free,
Those Union farm boys and mill workers who became soldiers were Republicans just like Romney the Aristocrat, Bush the Decider and Dick Cheney, eh?

Now that's funny. And the modern Klansmen are all Obama supporters too, I suppose. LOL.

The anti-federal government, anti-minimum wage (aka pro-slavery) Southern conservatives are all Republicans now. I almost wish they'd won and left the Union before they took it down by their red state socialism and their Republican war on democracy.

I love how you guys need to pretend nothing has changed in a hundred and fifty years.

This makes you a conservative. You spout the identical crap. You all want Big Money to cripple government’s power to regulate commerce, and therefore have more power than our government. This is what you must believe. Be happy.

Their strategy of divide and conquer is fruitful. Working Americans have been turned against unions and the middle class. Corporate media is doing its job. Big Money is winning. The American middle class is losing. Austerity for the masses and increased wealth and political power for the elites will seal the deal.

Republican corporatist "conservatism" is taking the nation down. It is directly opposed to both democracy and the general welfare of we the people. War will be their only way of maintaining the meager economy of their Orwellian police state they're building.

SW,
Corporate media loves to be "fair and balanced" for both the right and the far right.

Yes, ironically, as Red State socialism thrives, the ignorant dupes and dishonest hypocrites will continue to spout the propaganda.

free0352 said...

Those Union farm boys and mill workers who became soldiers were Republicans just like Romney the Aristocrat, Bush the Decider and Dick Cheney, eh?

The officer corps of the time was overwhelmingly from wealthy families and on both sides they joined and died in droves. So in short, yes except to where they came from. Rich and poor Republicans died together to fight slavery while Rich and poor southern Democrats died together to save it.

And the modern Klansmen are all Obama supporters too

Nah, now they're all "ex-members" who are "deeply sorry." Yeah right.

Their strategy of divide and conquer is fruitful.

I don't know if they even have a coherent strategy over there, but whatever they are doing it seems to be working. Its mostly working because over the last four years two of them had a super majority and progressivism was tried more than at any other time in American history and it has failed. Miserably. People are abandoning the Democrat party more every day.

And more people are joining mine every day. More and more. The reason is it isn't terribly hard to point to government and ask "Do you want those people running your life?"

Most people answer "NO. FUCK NO."

Dave Dubya said...

Can't let the century and half go, eh?

So by your reasoning, you were a Republican in Iraq and are a Democrat soldier now.

Too bad your imagination can't be used for the forces of good instead of corporatocracy.

Their strategy is suppression of democracy by unilateral restrictions of registration and voting requirements, along with purging rolls. Very anti-democracy.

Corporate media has been used effectively in "catapulting the propaganda" as Bush said.

Corporate media and corporate government are the reasons for the rise in corporate Republicanism.

No progressive legislation was passed by corpo-dems over a filibuster.

The Right has ruled by majority and obstruction for decades now.

As I said, don't worry. Big Money and its antidemocratic authoritarian rule shall defeat American democracy and make you very happy.

FandB said...

Unions might still have a place in this country if they were not completely controlled by organized crime and managed through tactics of thuggery and intimidation.

Workers should have the right to freely decide if they want to be part of a union or not. That choice now is severely limited - you can't work in a union shop unless you're a member of that union. And with the 'card check' rules that the mob boss union leaders tried to install a few years ago, people would have been intimidated even further. They would have to vote pro-union or face the union thugs.

This is not an acceptable way to run an organization in this country.

That is why more and more people have opted out of unions whenever they could. And this massive exodus from labor unions is one of the things that prompted the drive for card-check.

I agree, Free, 'progressivism' in this country is in it's death throes. The recent election in Wisconsin is clear evidence of that.

free0352 said...

Notice as Dave slides the topic to the Iraq war every time a topic becomes to uncomfortable. Suggesting his fear of self responsibility must have hit a nerve.

The truth is this. Republicans AND Democrats helped to free the Iraqi people and those like Dave are simply aged ex hippies lost in an imaginary world where force isn't necessary. Jeff Cooper called them Hoplophobic. Its an apt title. Afraid of everything. Afraid of the need in this world for violence, afraid or self responsibility, afraid, afraid. They see conspiracy and plots at every turn, to avoid self blame. No wonder they always accuse us of "Using fear."

they project their terror on us.

Jefferson's Guardian said...

FandB: "Unions might still have a place in this country if they were not completely controlled by organized crime..."

Like the banking cartel...?


"...and managed through tactics of thuggery and intimidation."

You've been watching too many Jimmy Cagney movies.

I suppose you also think we have a liberal media?

Dave Dubya said...

F&B,
I try to be polite, but in all honesty, in addition to being an authoritarian personality and a lock step ideologue of the radical Right, you are a liar. People with these characteristics have provided fertile nurturing for fascism.

The lies and indoctrination keep pouring as fast as the koolade you chug. How do you guys sleep? No conscience apparently. Compassion is out of the question. See above characteristics.

Unions might still have a place in this country if they were not completely controlled by organized crime and managed through tactics of thuggery and intimidation.

Be very afraid of union thugs. Only Republicans can save us. Substitute the word “Jews” for unions and you quickly see the template.

Hey Free, now there’s your fear-mongering projection. Watch out for those organized crime thugs!

Workers should have the right to freely decide if they want to be part of a union or not.

Oh that’s a good one, coming from someone opposed to both unions and democracy, and who cannot disagree with one component of the Big Money boys’ agenda. As you guys always love to point out, they have the choice to work there or not. Right? Always gotta have it both ways.

Seems your indoctrination keeps you from ever having a choice of your own, what with your rigid dogma, false beliefs, embrace of lies and no tolerance for compromise and all. Un-American and uncompromising adversaries of democracy and unions share more in common with fascists and communists than American workers. What does that tell us about our future under their tyranny?

'progressivism' in this country is in it's death throes.

And not coincidently, the middle class and most of the country is going down as well in a direct parallel course. Just like the radical Right wants.

Just watch how things keep getting worse as a result. What’s that? It’s already apparent?

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/04/opinion/krugman-this-republican-economy.html?_r=1

“The Republican Economy”
What should be done about the economy? Republicans claim to have the answer: slash spending and cut taxes. What they hope voters won’t notice is that that’s precisely the policy we’ve been following the past couple of years. Never mind the Democrat in the White House; for all practical purposes, this is already the economic policy of Republican dreams.
Free,

The topic is your ludicrous statement that soldiers are of the political party of the President. I know you need to obfuscate and distract from your wild fabrications. We understand.

As I say, don't worry. Big Money and its antidemocratic authoritarian rule shall defeat American democracy and make you very happy.

You are the apparent fearful one. “Obama’s coming to take my guns”. “Progressives are destroying America”. “The rich are suffering terrible oppression”.

Boo hoo. You seem too frightened to face the truth.

I look killers right in the eye, inches from their face. I do the same with liars. You need to hide behind fabricated accusations. Man up and deal with reality for a change. Being a war-loving adrenaline junky is not the same as having courage.

Your aristocratic neo-feudal paradise with a servile class of serfs and the demise of the public good, while enriching the elites with more wealth and power will solve none of our problems.

Like all radical extremists you guys fear democracy. You need to call it “mob rule” just as you need to call union members thugs.

The Fourth Reich will reward your servitude with nothing but a bleak Orwellian shell of our once great country. Hail Victory!

Liberals hate America. Union members are thugs. The corporate media is liberal. Democracy is mob rule.

Ignorance is strength. Freedom is slavery. War is peace.

And you guys wonder how we can read you like a book.

S.W. Anderson said...

Dave wrote: "Corporate media loves to be 'fair and balanced' for both the right and the far right."

Good one, almost, but you forgot something. Allow me to fix . . .

Corporate media love to be fair and balanced for the right, the radical right and tea party lunatic fringe.

Someone who calls him or herself FandB wrote: "Unions might still have a place in this country if they were not completely controlled by organized crime and managed through tactics of thuggery and intimidation."

There was an element of truth to such charges 60 years ago. That was then. Can't say there's no union officials with sticky fingers and dirty hands currently, but for several decades it's been the rare exception. You'd come closer to an organized-crime situation attending a U.S. Chamber of Commerce or Wall Street banksters conclave than a union convention.

Oh, wait, I'll bet your uncle Melvin belonged to a union a few decades ago, became an instant expert on all of them and has spent the time since barking at the moon and telling anyone who will listen how crooked the union bosses all were/are. He probably has a wing nut fan base, including you.

Such are the origins of trolls.

Weaseldog said...

A very famous man said the following...,

"We must close union offices, confiscate their money and put their leaders in prison. We must reduce worker's salaries and take away their right to strike."

Yes, it sounds like exactly like the things that Free0352 and FandB keep saying, but they got their ideas from another famous man.

Guess who's wisdom and beliefs they are championing?

Weaseldog said...

Dave says, "And you guys wonder how we can read you like a book."

Exactly, everything they spout was already being preached in speeches in an earlier time.

Adolf Hitler believed in all the same things that they believe in. Not one iota have they deviated from the beliefs and principles that he espoused.

Every single belief and ideal that Free0352 and FandB have promoted can be attributed first to Adolph.

FandB even argues that Germany did not start WWII.

I don't know that we are arguing with Republicans, so much as Neo-Nazis. Or are they the same?

Jefferson's Guardian said...

Weaseldog: "Or are they the same?"

I believe we're witnessing the ascension of the Fourth Reich. The process is eerily similar to what occurred in Germany in the early 1930s, no doubt. Some of the cast of characters is different than the last time, but the overriding end-game remains the same.

We're destined for very turbulent and devastating times in the coming years. Strauss and Howe wrote a well-researched and documented book called The Fourth Turning, where they equate the cycles of society -- in particular American society -- with the four seasonal changes. The book was published during the "unraveling" (1997 -- the "third turning", or autumn), and we're now into the crisis period (winter) which should last through this decade. How we respond to, and act upon, the coming events heading our way will not only decide our fate as a nation, but also whether we survive as a species.

Their book is totally non-partisan and, as mentioned, thoroughly researched and documented. (It took over ten years to prepare.) I put it on my list of the five most important books I've read in my lifetime. I suggest everyone read this.

Jerry Critter said...

Here's why republicans don't like unions.

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

Wease,
As I suggested earlier, substitute the word “Jews” for “union thugs” and “liberal loons” and we see the template.

All Republicans are not Radical Right Republicans, but the entire Party is shifting so far to the radical Right moderates will be filtered out. But Radical Republicans are directing the Party in its campaign against democracy.

Neo-Nazis are a specific hate group of Rightist and racist extremists. We can’t lump them together.

But we can recognize how authoritarian personalities rise to power within these ideologies. As with fascism, they need to scapegoat certain groups. The unemployed, teachers and other public employees, and as always, liberals are the scapegoats of authoritarian types and the Fourth Reich. We see the shared antipathy for unions, progressives and voting rights from both the far left and far right. Communist dictators, Fascists, and now the radical Right Republican Party along with toady corpo-dems, are all united in their opposition to our ideals of civil liberties, individual rights, the general welfare and democracy that we’ve built in America.

JG,
Those who don’t learn from history repeat it. Most people don’t learn. In fact we see the opposite with the radial Right’s revisionist attacks on FDR and the New Deal. They don’t want us to learn history from books or from those who lived it. Public education is “socialist indoctrination” to the fringe types. They want to indoctrinate their revisionist propaganda version of history directly into the American people. They are succeeding. Same thing with science. The propagandists are pushing Limbaugh Climate Science in the corporate media and “intelligent design” into the education system.

Thanks for the book referral. The patterns are clear. We are headed for trouble, and this time the opponents of democracy will impose their solution. Never mind the problem was created by them as well. More tax cuts for the rich and deregulation for Big Money are on the way. Austerity awaits the rest of us.

We are in a Republican economy now and it can only get worse for most of us.

Jerry,
Exactly.

free0352 said...

Here I am somewhere else talking about unions just the other day.

Republicans don't hate unions. As in the concept of unions. And neither do I. But fact is, some of these unions have become corrupt. Some unions, not all but some, have become a real problem. Democrats won't confront those problems like they used to. Back years ago Bobby Kennedy took the most powerful man in labor at the time- James Hoffa- head on over corruption. You won't see Democrats do that today. So Republicans do. There are a couple of ways you can do that. I favor the Christie method of tough negotiating over the Wisconsin model myself. But I do recognize some of these unions need to be confronted. That's not hate,and you folks know thats over the top. My thought is, if Democrats did a better job being less one sided on the union vs management situation things would be better off for everyone.

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

Perhaps there’s a fine line between promoting the destruction of unions and hating them.

While corruption is a valid issue that requires correction, unions are targeted even without the presence of corruption; even when they agree to accept concessions. That sir, is hate, or the desire for their destruction, which may as well be hate.

So the concept of a union is ok, as long as they shut up and do as they’re told, don’t recruit members, don’t support Democrats and don’t represent the members’ interests. The concept of a union is ok if we allow management the divide and conquer tactic where non-dues paying employees enjoy identical benefits as members.

Sure looks a lot like hate here:

Unions might still have a place in this country if they were not completely controlled by organized crime and managed through tactics of thuggery and intimidation.

I’ve rarely seen any Republican/Rightist refer to unions without using the descriptor “thugs”. It seems a requirement on FOX(R) to always say thugs after the word union. That sir, is hate.

When has a Republican ever, ever, supported a union? To them, “corruption” is representing the interests of labor and supporting Democrats.

if Democrats did a better job being less one sided on the union vs management situation things would be better off for everyone.

There are countless corpo-dems who support corporate management. I don’t know of one Republican who supports unions.

Which party is being one-sided? Which party never goes after corporate corruption?

Unions are “confronted” every time a contract is negotiated. You forget there’s a contract in effect. Republicans loves to shred contracts they don’t like.

What you’re saying is unions need to be confronted by management as well as the Republican and Democratic Parties.

free0352 said...

Perhaps there’s a fine line between promoting the destruction of unions

If by that you mean by that refusing to collectively bargain with a given union with a bad track record? Yes. All for that in certain circumstances. As I said, that isn't necessary in about 99% of circumstances but then again ever so often especially with public employee unions it is.

When has a Republican ever, ever, supported a union?

Well only the biggest and baddest Republican of all time. Ronald Reagan was not only supported unions, he was elected President of one- the Screen Actors Guild. That was actually Reagan's job before he got into politics, he was the head of a union. More over, he was endorsed by hundreds of individual unions, including in 1980 the largest in the country at that time, the IBT.

Jerry Critter said...

Reagan was president of the Screen Actors Guild while he was a Democrat.

free0352 said...

In fact, one of the reasons Reagan gave for leaving the Democrat party during the early 1960s (He officially left to support Barry Goldwater, was his disgust for what he thought were the Kennedy administration's policies in regards to labor unions. In fact, because of what Reagan thought of as a family bias he supported Nixon in 1960.

Lets just say Ron wasn't a huge Kennedy fan and ONE of the reasons why was he thought the Kennedys were into union busting.

free0352 said...

Reagan said in October of 1981-

By outlawing Solidarity, a free trade organization to which an overwhelming majority of Polish workers and farmers belong, they have made it clear that they never had any intention of restoring one of the most elemental human rights—the right to belong to a free trade union.

So there's a fun fact for you guys to use. Reagan clearly thought union membership was a human right. I wouldn't go as radically pro union as Ronald Reagan but I do agree- it is much better for labor and capital to negotiate things like wages, working conditions, and hours than a government drone in Washington setting that policy- which is fundamentally what we have today.

Unions are a very libertarian concept- and so its not surprising that one of our most libertarian Presidents thought of union rights as a human right.

Weaseldog said...

free0352 said... "Republicans don't hate unions. As in the concept of unions. And neither do I"

You've been clear that you're against Unions in practice.

Though you give lip service to the ideals of collective bargaining, you've been clear that you'd like to see it ended forever.

I've heard many Republicans say they hate unions. If you speak for them as you seem to believe you do, then why would they tell me that? Why do they say things that you insist they don't say? Officially, the Republican Party has had a hard line anti-union stance. It is easy to find many, many instances of Republicans waging war against unions in one for or another. I think it would be nigh impossible to find examples of Republican support for unions within the last 50 years. We'd probably have to go back to a time when Republicans were liberals and Democrats were conservatives.

Weaseldog said...

Just so you know, Poland is a foreign country. It's not one of the 50 states in the Union...

Ahhh, yes, Reagan supported unions in Poland, while denying union rights in the USA.

It's easy to be for a cause, that you have no say over.

As president, please provide a concrete example of Reagan promoting union rights in the USA. Not just in speech, but using presidential powers. Something like what he did for the air traffic controllers, but in a positive light.

Weaseldog said...

Just so you know, Poland is a foreign country. It's not one of the 50 states in the Union...

Ahhh, yes, Reagan supported unions in Poland, while denying union rights in the USA.

It's easy to be for a cause, that you have no say over.

As president, please provide a concrete example of Reagan promoting union rights in the USA. Not just in speech, but using presidential powers. Something like what he did for the air traffic controllers, but in a positive light.

free0352 said...

You've been clear that you're against Unions in practice

Some union practices I should be against, and you should be too. Take for example the UAW in 2008. For years they battled any concessions to GM, and then after the bail out when the union bosses were given stock options and they became the owners whose profits were at stake they not only laid off employees and cut salaries but went farther than the old execs at GM wanted to go.

How can you possibly be for that?

I don't hate unions in general, but some specific unions? Oh you bet your ass I am.

you've been clear that you'd like to see it ended forever.

Where? In fact quite the opposite. I said I'd rather see unions and management negotiating things like working conditions, pay, and insurance coverage than a bureaucrat in Washington DC. Take a steel mill, I'm one to think that the owners of the steel mill and the people who work there probably know a lot more about the steel business than some asshole 700 miles away whose never been in a mill in his life. I'd much rather see the two work things out between themselves than have government's big, ignorant nose all up in their business.

If you speak for them as you seem to believe you do,

I'm a Libertarian. I'm familiar with the positions Republicans and Democrats take on issues. Thats easy to find out. As for my party's position on labor, it's spelled out quite well in the party platform

We support repeal of all laws which impede the ability of any person to find employment. We oppose government-fostered forced retirement. We support the right of free persons to associate or not associate in labor unions, and an employer should have the right to recognize or refuse to recognize a union. We oppose government interference in bargaining, such as compulsory arbitration or imposing an obligation to bargain.

please provide a concrete example of Reagan promoting union rights in the USA

I'd go with his presidency of um... a union.

FandB said...

Dubya: “Liberals hate America. Union members are thugs. The corporate media is liberal. Democracy is mob rule.” . . . One by one:
I never said that Liberals hate America and I don’t believe that most of them do. Some of them, however, do hate America.
I never said union members are thugs. I said union leaders use thug tactics. And they do.
Yes, in fact, the corporate media is extremely liberal.
I never said that democracy is mob rule. I am completely in favor of running this country as a Democratic Republic. What you espouse is not democracy. As Margaret Thatcher said (paraphrased) “the problem with socialist is that they run out of other peoples’ money.”

Dubya: “I look killers right in the eye, inches from their face. I do the same with liars. You need to hide behind fabricated accusations. Man up and deal with reality for a change.” – LMAO at that one. Sounds like you really think a lot of yourself. That’s good, people should have self-confidence. Maybe you should talk about looking killers right in their eye, inches from their face when you’re out on the street and not the uniformed Authoritarian guard figure in a controlled prison setting. I don’t recommend trying that unless you’re really ready for a real death match. You’ll find people on the street who aren’t playing with you.

Dubya: “Compassion is out of the question.” – What about compassion for the guy who is turned down for a job because he does not belong to or refuses to join a particular labor union? You spout off about ‘compassion’ but only for those who agree with you. Just like you whine about a woman’s right to control her own body, but you never mention the rights of her Unborn Child. You’re more than happy to trample on, completely disregard the rights of the child in favor of the rights of the mother. Just like you are more than happy to trample on the rights of the worker who does not want to be in a labor union in favor of union members. So as much as you claim I don’t have compassion, neither do you.

It is rather telling that your only response is that the non-union worker should go find a job somewhere else. So, you clearly oppose Freedom and Worker’s Rights, you really only support union rights. I’m sure your union overlords, the mob bosses, are very happy with you today. As long as you keep lining their pockets.

Quoting Krugman to support your left-wing talking points would be like me quoting Limbaugh. Better not quoting anyone at all than quoting that left-wing wacko Krugman.

SW Anderson: A little snarky there, eh? Actually, I spent a number of years as a member of the Machinists and Aerospace Workers Union, and all they ever did for me was take 2 hours of my pay every month. I received a very significant pay increase when I left that job for a non-union job elsewhere.

Weaseldog: “FandB even argues that Germany did not start WWII.” -- Weasy, I never even mentioned WWII on this blog. I dare you to find anywhere that I said anything remotely similar to the lie you posted. G’head, I double-dog dare you.

free0352 said...

Go easy on him man, he got all confused when I didn't spell it out by the numbers the difference between America's entry into WWII and what is considered by historians the official beginning of WWII- the Nazi invasion of Poland.

It's hard to see past all that fanaticism and histrionics. Its tough out there for the political fan boys.

Dave Dubya said...

Free,
Reagan supported HIS union, as a Democrat. As a Republican he busted unions and only sided with foreign unions challenging a Communist dictatorship. Before he switched parties he supported Eisenhower and Nixon.

For years they battled any concessions to GM, and then after the bail out when the union bosses were given stock options and they became the owners whose profits were at stake they not only laid off employees and cut salaries but went farther than the old execs at GM wanted to go.

Please show us evidence apart form your assertion.

laid off employees and cut salaries

Sounds a lot like union-voted concessions to me. In fact, the UAW has been making concessions for years. Look it up. New employees have very few of the benefits their elders have. Third world wages, here we come.

an employer should have the right to recognize or refuse to recognize a union.

So you support Walker’s gutting of bargaining rights and membership after all. If all companies and governments decide against unions, you do not support unions. Sound fascistic and communistic to me.

That is supporting corporatocracy. You only “support” them if the company suits do. There’s a comfort.

You may want to back off on the history lectures. Most Union and Confederate soldiers were neither Republicans nor Democrats. In fact a large percentage of them probably never even voted.

However, it you have any questions, feel free to ask. I have probably read more books on the Civil War and WWII than you have in your entire personal library.

--

F&B,
I was listing the usual dogma of the Right, not quoting you. And you are responding to remarks addressed to Free. You and Wease made a similar error. You should apologize to him.

Free said democracy is mob rule. I dare you to correct him. Or should I say double-dog dare you? However you certainly seem to agree with all of it, so my point stands.

You think a prison is safe? Nobody gets killed? We are unarmed when talking to inmates. Lifer thugs with nothing to lose don’t “play”, and don’t try to lecture me on things you don’t understand, kid.

What about compassion for the guy who is turned down for a job because he does not belong to or refuses to join a particular labor union?

Show us this is a problem. As you guys love to say, he’s free to not join and seek a job elsewhere. Why would someone apply for a union job and not want to join a union?

If every sperm is sacred to you, there’s no point in a discussion about individual rights to one’s own body. A child has rights. A zygote is not yet a child. I do have compassion for a fetus that has a nervous system and feels pain.

My union“ mob bosses” (There you go again with your programming) are paid the same as me.

I espouse the right to vote. Your party is restricting and suppressing that right.

By Krugman the wacko, do you mean being educated and being an educator in his field? Are you saying Limbaugh is as educated as Krugman? Is Limbaugh a better economist? How many degrees does Limbaugh have? In what field is he an expert? Is he also as much a climate science expert as an economics expert? Limbaugh is a propagandist. Krugman is an economist. Big difference. False equivalence, lad. Look it up if you don’t understand your fallacious argument.

FandB said...

Are you implying that you and I should compare degrees as well?

Or are you willing to admit that a degree is only as good as what you do with it?

Dave Dubya said...

Dodging the issue I see. I only "imply" your false equivalence.

Stating Limbaugh as an equal in economics to Krugman is a false equivalency.

Again, how is Limbaugh an authority on anything? An entire Party follows his lead. Why, apart from the fact he and FOX(R) are their primary propagandists?

No party follows Krugman, although they should listen to him.

Maybe that's why things are so screwed up. The Party of obstructiton and Limbaugh have no answers apart from tax breaks for the rich and deregulation of Big Money. That sure has worked swell over that past dozen years, hasn't it?

And if you equate Limbaugh and Krugman, then Limbaugh is also a wacko, right? So again, the Party of obstructiton and Limbaugh have no answers apart from tax breaks for the rich and deregulation of Big Money. Folowing a wacko economist like Limbaugh sure has worked swell over that past dozen years, hasn't it?

FandB said...

Yes, in fact you did dodge the question. I don't blame you on that one though, it would be a mistake on your part.

As usual, you are (intentionally) misconstruing my comments, or maybe you really can't comprehend them as written.

Limbaugh is just as right-wing biased as Krugman is left-wing biased. There is no 'false equivalency'. Neither would be a valid source on a political topic due to their individual bias. Neither can make a non-partisan judgement of a political issue.

Dubya: "although they should listen to him" -- Do you say that because of his time working as a consultant for Enron?

So, do these scary killers you spend time with ever make fellatios arguments?

Jefferson's Guardian said...

FandB: "Are you implying that you and I should compare degrees as well?"

You're really proud of that MBA, aren't you? ;-) I have noticed that you try to insert it into the topic of conversation at every opportunity.


"Neither can make a non-partisan judgement of a political issue."

And you can?


"...do these scary killers you spend time with ever make fellatios arguments?"

Like many male conservatives, you seemingly also have an unusual fascination with homosexual acts and behavior. Tell me, like the little right-wing troll, Just the Facts! are you, too, secretly a closet queen?

Dave Dubya said...

F&B,
Oh, boy, here we go again. Looks like we see another little display that supports the curious tendency that the most homophobic are aroused by homosexuality.

By the way, in its crusade against nuns who think masturbation is ok, and who may care more for the needy than condemning other people for who they love, the Vatican says masturbation “is an intrinsically and gravely disordered action.” Just so you know you have something else in common with (other?) gay guys, the Vatican says homosexual acts are also “intrinsically disordered”.

My goodness! Didn’t you say you’re a good Catholic?

Anyway...

Yeah, which is more biased, an educated analysis or propaganda? False equivalence.

Following a wacko economist like Limbaugh sure has worked swell over that past dozen years, hasn't it?

Well? Tell us please, Your lies are entertaining.

Or would you rather devolve back into idiotic latent juvenile crap?

Seems you have. Must be how you won “arguments” back in school. A regular Mitt-the-Snip type of homophobe.

I could easily see you as a bully. We know you have an authoritarian personality and you are a liar, at the very least.

But that doesn’t mean I don’t like you, big boy.

Weaseldog said...

Free, how can you speak for all Republicans if you're a:Libertarian?

You said, "I'd go with his presidency of um... a union."

Good, you found a Democrat that supports Unions. Good job. Was that hard to do?

Still can't find a Republican that worked to promote a union cause?

I'm sure there has been one or two, but I don't know of them.

Weaseldog said...

Sorry FandB, you simply commented that I was an ignorant liberal while Free was explaining to me that Japan started World War II. This was in response to my claim that Germany started the war. Free made it clear that he also thought this was an ignorant thing to believe.

Free says, "It's hard to see past all that fanaticism and histrionics. Its tough out there for the political fan boys."

Yeah us ignorant liberals think that Germany started WWII. You got out your history book and carefully explained how stupid that idea is, that Japan started WWII when they bombed Pearl Harbor.

You repeated it several times and explained several times that only ignorant people believe that Germany started the war.

Then you suddenly flip flopped and I guess, read more of your book, and started talking about the Eastern and Western Theater of the War.

You think I'm ignorant because I argued that Germany started the war. You were wrong.

I think though, you still consider yourself perfect and infallible. After all you don't seem to learn.

free0352 said...

Please show us evidence apart form your assertion.


Here is where the UAW bosses got the stock, and here is where they shut down 14 factories and laid off thousands more.

Concession? Hell no. They made no concession till it was the union boss' money. Then they cut more than GM execs ever even asked for.

Way to take care of the membership UAW. Had they agreed to those concessions years before those plants would be open, but now they are closed or moved to China. I guess the last people in Michigan to support union auto workers is the UAW.

Free said democracy is mob rule.

Democracy is mob rule. We don't live in a Democracy Dave, we live in a Representative Republic. Apparently while Weasel was dodging history class you were asleep during civics.

Free, how can you speak for all Republicans if you're a Libertarian?

I can tell you what their policy is, since they have a website and they put their platform on it. This is very simple. Talking to you is like talking to a 3rd grader.

Weaseldog said...

Rush Limbaugh is testing the waters of the next stage in a fascist takeover.

He forgets that these people buy things. His Marxist theories aren't that complete. If he were right, that they don't contribute to the economy in any fashion, then the departments and the people, would never make purchases, earn or trade money in any way. They wouldn't buy cars or fire trucks, they wouldn't buy food, clothes, toys, houses, buildings or televisions.

Our police and fire departments used to work for a fee. If you didn't have money to pay, they wouldn't show up when you called them. Well the fire department would show up, and loot your home. The scenes in the "Gangs of New York" weren't fiction. That's how it used to be.

Republicans want to take us back to those days. Of course, our tax dollars would still go to the these private police departments. They need profits even if they aren't working.

RUSH: You know, Axelrod was on CNN with Candy Crowley on the State of the Union show on Sunday. He said, "We need to accelerate job creation in the private sector." And then he added, "One of the ways we can do that is putting teachers and firefighters and police back to work. Because those are good, middle-class jobs." Do you realize…? Well, I'm alternately stunned and at the same time exhilarated by this, because of how explanatory this is.

All of the jobs that he listed are actually public sector jobs!

All the money for them comes right out of the private sector.

But now we know where Obama gets his economic advice from. Look, as nice as they are to have — teaching jobs, firemen, policemen — they are all paid for with money out of the private sector. They are paid for with tax revenue from citizens. They cut into the amount of money left for private sector. They don't grow the number of private sector jobs, they reduce them. Now, I've gotta very careful here. Because nobody's against teachers or firemen or cops. But those are public sector jobs.

Look at the way these people think.

They're combining two things here: A, the never-ending appeal to tax revenue for firemen, cops, and teachers. That is the education of your kids and the safety you and your house and your family. And they're trying to say that those jobs are being cut and now we're not safe and your kids aren't being educated. And that's because the private sector's been too selfish and too greedy and so forth. (pause) Look, folks, this is where I have to be very careful. Nobody's opposed to cops or firefighters or teachers.

But they aren't private sector jobs. They do not contribute to economic growth. Their purpose is otherwise. They have an entirely different purpose: Public safety, public education, this kind of thing. But there's no growth in the economy. If you add those jobs — and if there aren't other types of private sector jobs added while at the same time we're adding to the fire rolls and the cop rolls and teachers — we are reducing the size of the private sector. This is Marxism 101. It's also Ignorance and Sophistry 101.

Weaseldog said...

Free sats, "I can tell you what their policy is, since they have a website and they put their platform on it. This is very simple. Talking to you is like talking to a 3rd grader."

I see your point of view. They are a voice of authority. So you can't help, but believe in what they say and ignore what they do.

So I understand you. I don't think it's right that you should believe everything that politicians tell you, just because they represent daddy figures in your life.

Yes, I understand that they advertise their products on their website to attract funding. And that you're the kind of person that thinks that politicians can't say things that aren't true.

But I've never been the kind of person that believes what people say, just because they are in a position of authority.

Believing in people just because they represent your daddy, is a child's perspective. You should work to outgrow it.

America became the powerhouse it did, because our innovators didn't accept the dogma, and asked questions. It didn't grow through entrenched unquestionable dogma.

FandB said...

Jefferson: Yes I am. I have worked very hard for many years to get to where I am.

You are right . . . errrr, correct. I do not claim to be un-biased. Neither are you, or Free, or Dave, or Weasel, or anyone I have seen posting here.

Geez, youse guys need to lighten up a little, it was a joke, a play on words. :-)

Weaseldog said...

Free, it occurred to me that when we're talking about what people in the Republican party think, you referred me to a website.

I guess I erred by actually talking and listening to Republicans.

Likewise, as you're a libertarian, the libertarian websites are the only accurate way to learn about you.

You've given me a renewed sense of freedom. Whereas you are defined by what people write on Libertarian websites, I am free to decide for myself, what I should believe, as I am unaffiliated.

Thank you.

FandB said...

Getting back to the original point, of course you will see some short term benefits from pumping nearly a trillion dollars into the economy. The problem is, it is not sustainable.

WHat Gov. Walker did in Wisconsin IS sustainable, and his labors are beginning to bear fruit.

I heard this morning on an ABC radio station that 14,000 new UNION jobs have been added in Wisconsin since Walker's reforms were enacted. Much to the consternation of union leadership, who were clearly hoping to see the Governor fail, the new union policies have been wildly successful.

The issues related to the teachers' union are also very minor concessions compared to what most progressives would like everyone to believe.

"Many public employees covered under collective bargaining lost a good many of their bargaining privileges and now must pick up 5.8 percent of their retirement contributions and at least 12 percent of their health insurance costs."

http://statehousenewsonline.com/2011/08/03/wisconsins-walker-touts-job-growth-defends-record/

"“Now they’re actually hiring more teachers, lowering classroom sizes, and ultimately setting money aside for merit pay,” Walker said. “Not only does it balance the budget, it allows us to hire and fire based on merit, to pay for performance, best of all to put our best and brightest into the classroom and into our local governments.”

Teachers’ union Wisconsin Education Association Council, tens of thousands of Wisconsin teachers and other opponents hold a decidedly different point of view, many demonizing the governor for leading a charge that cut $800 million out of Wisconsin’s public education budget.

The Democratic Party of Wisconsin did not return phone calls seeking comment."

So that is a concrete example of something a Republican Governor did to help a labor union. Sometimes the best cure comes in the form of a bitter pill. But the end result of Gov. Walker's efforts is a stronger school system, stronger teachers, and a union that is positioned better than itwas before for long term stability and growth.

Of course, the democrats don't want to talk about it.

Dave Dubya said...

F&B,
Ok, you were making a joke. The other Republican person made repeated homophobic comments. Let's assume you are a non-homophobic person for now.

Your “concrete example” is Right Wing propaganda.

You take Walker at his word and ignore this part:

Teachers’ union Wisconsin Education Association Council, tens of thousands of Wisconsin teachers and other opponents hold a decidedly different point of view, many demonizing the governor for leading a charge that cut $800 million out of Wisconsin’s public education budget.

This is a giveaway:

“The Democratic Party of Wisconsin did not return phone calls seeking comment”

Why is that? Do they owe a Republican organization the duty to respond?

Your Republican source “state house news”, subsidized by the Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity, is funded by the Club for Growth and other Right Wing Big Money clubs.

Franklin Center Founder Jason Wesley Stverak was Executive Director of the North Dakota Republican Party. Curiously the Franklin Center was born around the same time as the Tea Party.

This is journalism in the same sense FOX(R) is journalism.

Needless to say I couldn’t find your ABC story about 14,000 new union jobs in Wisconsin. I did find this while looking:

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/06/wisconsin-exit-polls-good-news-for-obama-bipartisan-cellmates-santorums-big-announcement-and-more-job-creationism-pm-note/

Voters in preliminary exit poll results today say they favor Obama over Mitt Romney in November’s presidential election by a slight 6-point margin (51-45 percent).

Jefferson's Guardian said...

FandB: "Yes I am. I have worked very hard for many years to get to where I am."

So, would you say that your degrees, and your professional level of career attainment, define you?


"I do not claim to be un-biased. Neither are you, or Free, or Dave, or Weasel, or anyone I have seen posting here."

I don't pick any party affiliation (as Weasel also mentioned about himself). As a matter of fact, I've been one of the Obama Administration's biggest critics. If you've read any of my comments, or have visited my own blog, you'll realize I'm adamantly anti-corporatism and anti-corporate-state. Which, in the general scheme of things, makes me as "unbiased" as it's possible to be when it comes to assessing the "two" major political parties.


"...youse guys need to lighten up a little, it was a joke, a play on words."

I recognized the word-play, but also wondered if there was something even deeper going on there. You know how repressed many conservative men are concerning their homosexual tendencies. It tends to cause it to surface in the most unusual ways.

FandB said...

You have to admit that 'fellatios argument' line was funny.

Yes, you quote left-wing biased sources and I quote right-wing sources. You sure the hell won't hear any good news about the labor issues in Wisconsin from NPR or Huffpo.

I haven't been able to find it yet either. It was in an interview with a Senator. I think it was Ron Johnson. Time will tell on this one. As your hero Ronald Reagan once said, 'Facts are stubborn things.'

Yes, I heard the exit polling data too. Exit polls can easily be slanted, and almost always are. That issue will be decided in November. The recall was decided in the poll, and as you know, Walker won by about a million points.

FandB said...

Jefferson: No, that doesn't define me per se, but obviously everyone (hopefully) is made up of many different facets.

I have said here before, my priorities start with God, Country, Family . . . education and employment would be somewhere further down that list.

Your bias is anti-corporatism, as you indicated. So you do have a bias. You will seek information that supports your beliefs rather than information that would refute your beliefs. We all have it. It can't be avoided.

I am strongly opposed to corruption but not opposed to corporations. There are many, many corporations in this country both small and large that do an excellent job every single day. They employ people and are responsible for the standard of living that we have in this country. No system is perfect, but ours is pretty darn good.

FandB said...

By the way, Jefferson, I also am registered as an "Independent", although admittedly I have been leaning a little further to the right since the Obama became President.

Dave Dubya said...

Free,
From your article:
"I was angry at first, then I cried, and I got angry again," said Don Skidmore, the president of U.A.W. Local 735, which represents workers at the Willow Run plant. “Then I thought, let’s just get back to work and see what we can do.”

From you: Concession? Hell no. They made no concession till it was the union boss' money.

Sorry, you have not shown that union “bosses” were running the corporation.

we live in a Representative Republic.

Based on our right to vote, free speech, and citizen participation in the process. Ever hear of ballot initiatives?

That is called democracy.

Dave Dubya said...

F&B,
I have been leaning a little further to the right since the Obama became President.

So has Obama. Look how well that turned out.

free0352 said...

Sorry, you have not shown that union “bosses” were running the corporation.

I showed the run nearly 20% according to my ABC link. That's a huge controlling interest. No one else owns that much stock in GM.

But keep those blinders on. That's a good look for you. Its obvious the only "evidence" you'll accept is a signed, notarized statement from the UAW that said "FUCK OUR MEMBERSHIP." Well, I kind of have that in a way. Like when the UAW voted to close 14 factories. They keep record of those.

“Then I thought, let’s just get back to work and see what we can do.”

Yeah, I'm sure that guy from local 735 was just totally bummed out. I wonder how much money he made from the stock when it went up 10 points after the layoffs were announced. That probably helped him get over it.

Ever hear of ballot initiatives?

Not at the Federal level. Sorry kid, they don't exist. Stop confusing state government and the federal government. Back to civics class with ye!

Jefferson's Guardian said...

FandB: "You will seek information that supports your beliefs..."

True, however the information that's readily available is always labeled "liberal" by you guys. (No surprise there.) The facts are irrefutable -- this government's been over-taken by corporatism. Can you deny this?


"I am strongly opposed to corruption but not opposed to corporations."

I'm not opposed to "corporations" either. I've never made that claim.

They were initially, early in this country's founding, created through the sole discretion of the state (We the People), with a purpose and a finite life. When that purpose (or finite life) occurred (or became exhausted), they had to be approved by We the people, once again, in order to continue in existence. They were never intended to be the monstrosities they are now, spanning borders and having infinite lives...and certainly not with the same constitutional protections as its citizens.

Despite what the Supreme Court has ruled, and what Mitt Romney repeats, corporations are not persons. They are only contracts. Nothing more, nothing less.

That's were it got off-track, and that's why I'm labeled a liberal by you. You approve and support this bastardization of the Constitution, and that's why we have no common ground.

free0352 said...

corporations are not persons. They are only contracts

Then I suppose a union is the same thing- a contract and not people.

Here, let me help you

From Websters

an association of individuals, created by law or under authority of law, having a continuous existence independent of the existences of its members, and powers and liabilities distinct from those of its members.

Dave Dubya said...

Free,
You have still failed to show the union manages GM.

Ever hear of ballot initiatives?

Not at the Federal level. Sorry kid, they don't exist.


Thanks, but I know that. The existence, or non-existence, of federal ballot proposals is not the point.

Democracy is being strangled at the state level by unilateral Republican restrictions on registration and voting at the polls. And it is being dismantled at the federal level by Republicans and corpo-dems.

But this is not the first time I've told you this.

free0352 said...

You have still failed to show the union manages GM.

What the hell do you call 17% of the stock? Especially when the government owns 31% of the stock and backs the UAW. Do you have no idea how a corporation works? Everyone knows the UAW runs that show. You can't possibly be that uninformed. More fear, more putting the blinders over your face because it challenges your progressive world view. The only rational explanation I have for you Dave.

Dave Dubya said...

Quoting a Right Wing Opinion is not quite the same as "everyone knows".

The government’s share has been dropping down from the original 61%. It is under 30% now.

From your “Murdoch Street Journal” OPINION page:

The UAW finally will end up having a direct stake in the survival and prosperity of General Motors and Chrysler -- even though the union's shares in the companies will be held by special trust funds instead of by the UAW itself.

Whether the union's rank and file will recognize its interest in the companies and act accordingly is another matter.


(They did. GM is doing better now.)

Here’s how the ownership actually breaks down:

http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/gm/ownership-summary

You have still failed to show the union manages GM.

Dave Dubya said...

Union “Mob Boss”?

G.M.’s chief executive, Daniel F. Akerson a former executive with the Carlyle Group private equity firm took over as G.M.’s chief in mid-2010.

Jefferson's Guardian said...

Dave Dubya: "...a former executive with the Carlyle Group private equity firm took over as G.M.’s chief..."

The Carlyle Group, huh? I did not know that. Is it the same Carlyle Group with ties to George H.W. Bush? And the same Carlyle Group with ties to James Baker? And, last but not least, is it the same Carlyle Group that, during the time frame of 9/11, also had ties to the bin Laden family? Do you mean that Carlyle Group?

It also retains major ties to the "defense" industry if I'm not mistaken.

Yeah, real mob bosses if you ask me...or something. ;-)

Dave Dubya said...

Yeah, one big powerful syndicate,... er,.. family... I mean gang.

You know what I mean.

Jefferson's Guardian said...

Free0352: "Here, let me help you...From Websters..."

Thank you. Here, let me extend the favor by rubbing your nose in it. It's terribly ironic that you've chosen the surname of one of the most pro-corporate Constitutional lawyers of past days...Webster, although, it's Daniel and not Noah.

In Dartmouth College v. Woodward, he argued in front of the Marshall Court, citing the commerce clause and reaffirming the Constitutional protection of "the contract". This decision led to the rise of the American corporation when the Court decided that corporations did not, as many then held (and I previously mentioned), have to justify their privileges by acting in the public interest, but were independent of the states. This is, or was, the beginning of the slide toward our current corporate-state.

Of course, I expect you already know this, being our resident legal expert...or something.

Jefferson's Guardian said...

FandB: "The recall was decided in the poll, and as you know, Walker won by about a million points." [Bold print for emphasis]

That must be "derivative-speak". Did you learn that in business school also?

free0352 said...

Dave,
The government’s share has been dropping down from the original 61%. It is under 30% now.

Look directly over your comment. I sourced earlier that the government still owns 31% of GM. And that isn't because they sold stock, it's because GM issued more and deluded the government's shares.

They did. GM is doing better now

Yup, and they could have done that years ago. But instead they screwed the GM bond holders over royally and took 4 billion out of the tax payers in bailout money. The union reps and the CEOs hand in hand flying in the corporate jets up to DC to beg? Then, after the sweetheart union deal, they got 52 billion more in bail out money. They used that to pay back the 4 billion dollar "loan" and then had the gall to make a commercial telling the tax payers they were paid off. And after that what did the new bosses of GM do? Hired a patsy that is Ed Whitacre and laid of 14 factories worth of employees.

Course the Union could have agreed to less layoffs before, but that would mean they couldn't screw over the bond holders and use government to steal 53 billion dollars in taxpayer money.

Is this how your Democrat Socialism is supposed to work, because where I come from in Detroit we call that grand theft?

They own 17% of the stock and they put those dividends in their pockets every time they are issued. Dividends for stock they never paid a dime for. Dividends given to them by their guy in the White House. And !surprise! because the UAW wouldn't make a single concession... even to their most ridiculous perks... GM lost 3 billion. But now that the fox is watching the hen house and laying off and getting streamlined and oh by the way getting an ocean of tax payer subsidies GM becomes magically "profitable."

Of course take that free government check away and all of a sudden those margins look a little smaller. But what the hell, this whole shake down was all about paying back union bosses for delivering Ohio in 2008.

Talk about "elites" and corruption. That was a bigger heist than anything the Kochs ever fucking dreamed of.

Jefferson,

Do you have a point somewhere?

Dave Dubya said...

Yeah, Free. I know how much it sucks for you guys that millions of jobs were saved. It sucks that the money is recycled into, and boosts, our economy. It sucks that further cash flow is stimulated by other jobs connected to auto manufacturing. This is terrible for a good recession sponsored by de-regulation of Big Money, tax cuts for the rich and corporate welfare for Big Oil, Banks, Insurance and pharmaceuticals. Corporate welfare is supposed to benefit the elites, not the workers.

It sucks that we have people working in good jobs when those sweet austerity measures for Americans are plotted as we speak.

It also sucks that all the money paid in wages to auto workers isn't socked away in the black hole of the elites' Swiss bank accounts.

Curses on that evil general welfare of socialism. The working class needs to be punished and taught a lesson.

And have pity on the poor Kochs for a change. Haven't they been punished and oppressed enough? Why can't we leave them be? It's not like they mess with anything in the public interest, like elections and government policies, for Pete's sake.

Yes, all of that sucks, but you have still failed to show the union manages GM.

free0352 said...

GM didn't even employ a quarter million people, and 13,000 of the 200,000 who worked for them lost their jobs. Way to go bailout. But hey, at least the union bosses who make six figures are year extorting union dues get a hefty dividend check every quarter now. I mean, that just warms your heart.

money is recycled into, and boosts, our economy.

You mean the economy that Barack Obama calls the worst since the great depression and Republicans talk about in apocalyptic terms? Yay democratic socialism! It created a bipartisan, egalitarian failure! Weeee! Pretty soon everyone will be economically equal! Equally poor.

Corporate welfare is supposed to benefit the elites, not the workers.

It does. Also it benefits UAW union bosses too it seems, to the tune of 57 billion dollars. But of course, I'd lump them in with the most elite of "elites."

It sucks that we have people working in good jobs when those sweet austerity measures for Americans are plotted as we speak.

Austerity is coming no matter what, because the country is 14.5 trillion in debt and all the tax cows are moving to other countries along with American jobs. Yaaay Democratic Socialism! We're all going to be equally poor! Hooray! I know, lets "regulate" and tax them more.... maybe that will make them stay.... oh wait, no. No it won't.

The working class needs to be punished and taught a lesson

I'm all for the working class not paying taxes to fund GM's union bosses if that's what you mean. I'm down with that.

It's not like they mess with anything in the public interest, like elections and government policies,

You mean like when they got on a swanky corporate jet with their union guys to bring in the Democrats and then begged for money on national TV? Oh wait that wasn't the Kochs that was GM, and then your union UAW guys got massive checks in the mail.

you have still failed to show the union manages GM.

They certainly manage their union. And now that its their money on the line they've suddenly turned over a new leaf when it comes to concessions haven't they? 14 factories worth of concessions, higher co pays, cut wages. Yeah, I'm sure thats a coincidence.

Jefferson's Guardian said...

Free0352: "Jefferson, [d]o you have a point somewhere?"

I'm sorry...were the facts too startling to comprehend? Please, cite exactly what it is that's difficult for you to grasp, and I'll walk you through it.

FandB said...

Free: "...lets "regulate" and tax them more.... maybe that will make them stay.... oh wait, no. No it won't."

Excellent point Free. This is exactly the point which Dubya, Jefferson, etc. cannot fathom. Their only solution is to turn the means of production over to the state (thus eliminating the "corporate elite" fabrication that they hate so much, and vastly increasing the government elites both in number and authority. Ah, the socialist utopia.

Jefferson's Guardian said...

FandB: "This is exactly the point which Dubya, Jefferson, etc. cannot fathom. Their only solution is to turn the means of production over to the state...blah blah, blah..."

I'd expect a little more originality from you, instead of falling back upon the typical conservative worn-out and overdone clich├ęs about turning the "means of production over to the state". Really...it's getting pretty old.

Please, if you'll do everyone a favor, cite where either one of us ever made such an insane proposal.

Unless it falls into your little bag of chewy soundbites, you're dumbfounded and don't know what else to say. Right?

Hey, when you do find it, get back with me...

Dave Dubya said...

Free,
Well, then, I’m sorry you’re disappointed that hundreds of thousands of auto workers have jobs, along with the numerous jobs that support and depend on those. Your tax-cut, de-regulated, wasteful war, and coddling of the elites Bush recession could very well be a depression if you and Romney had your way and let Michigan go bankrupt.

What’s wrong with a little bit of reverse red state socialism for a change? Michigan and most other blue states have been paying more and getting less while most Southern red states have been paying less and getting more from the federal government. And since this was a loan, I figure the red states still owe Michigan a few more bailouts just to make it even. Fair?

You mean the economy that Barack Obama calls the worst since the great depression and Republicans talk about in apocalyptic terms? Yay democratic socialism! It created a bipartisan, egalitarian failure! Weeee! Pretty soon everyone will be economically equal! Equally poor.

“egalitarian failure” as in tax cuts, wars on credit, deregulation, and corporate written trade agreements? Yup.

Yes, the economy Obama inherited, the economy devastated by tax cuts during a war charged on credit, corporate welfare for pharmaceutical, big oil, insurance, and multiple other corporations, and last but not least, corporate written legislation and trade agreements. Yeah, that all worked out swell, didn’t it? Only thing is, that’s not democratic socialism.

They certainly manage their union. And now that its their money on the line they've suddenly turned over a new leaf when it comes to concessions haven't they? 14 factories worth of concessions, higher co pays, cut wages. Yeah, I'm sure thats a coincidence

Well, finally you concede to my point on concessions and the fact that the union does not run GM.

Thank you.

F&B,
Way to go. Your belief system remains rigidly separate from reality. Taxes and regulations have been cut and reduced and they left anyway. Why? Not because of taxes and regulations, but because thanks to corporate written legislation and corporate written trade agreements, they’re able to have the tax cuts and off-shore our jobs. Now that’s a real swell deal for a few and it screws the rest. Hey, I think I just defined “republicanism”.

the "corporate elite" fabrication that they hate

Same old regurgitated lies.

Their only solution is to turn the means of production over to the state

Now there you go again. Making crap up as usual. Ya got any evidence to back your lie? Show us where we said that.

And while you're at it, how come you guys never admit there’s red state socialism? It’s like asking you guys to show us a death panel or something.

Dave Dubya said...

Free,
You mean like when they got on a swanky corporate jet with their union guys

You made that up, right? Union guys on corporate jets? Yeah that was a real big problem.

FandB said...

Dubya, I would need for you to tell me what you think "Red State Socialism" is before I could try to define it for you.

And no, as I have pointed out before, jobs have gone overseas because the People choose the lowest prices when they buy things, rather than making their choice based on where things are manufactured. As soon as that changes, all the jobs will come back to the U.S.

free0352 said...

Did you ever stop to ask why American prices are so high?

And did I make that up? Hmmmm, I remember seeing it on the news in 2008 (in Iraq no less), where were you?

free0352 said...

Well, then, I’m sorry you’re disappointed that hundreds of thousands of auto workers have jobs

Uh, I think I made it clear 14 whole factories worth of employees lost their jobs. You'd think with 57 billion in free money GM could have saved them... but riddle me this batman: Why did the union when it didn't own 17% of GM in 2007 refuse any concessions and a year later in 2008 were initiating lay offs and wage/benefit cuts nigh a year later after they got 17% of the company?

very well be a depression if you and Romney had your way and let Michigan go bankrupt.

Romney was a big fan of TARP and Stimulus so it's actually YOU and Romney against me. And as for "bankrupt" companies go into chapter 11 all the time, it's no big deal. I didn't see you all jumping out of your ass when Kodak or Hostess went under... oh wait those are non-union companies so that makes sense...

I figure the red states still owe Michigan a few more bailouts just to make it even. Fair?

No.

Now please explain how tax cuts caused GM to nearly go into chapter 11, cause I'm dying to know. In fact, please source how tax cuts drove ANY company out of business.

Dave Dubya said...

Free,
Why did the union when it didn't own 17% of GM in 2007 refuse any concessions and a year later in 2008 were initiating lay offs and wage/benefit cuts nigh a year later after they got 17% of the company?

You sure are out of touch. I thought you said you were from Michigan.

From 2007:...and 2005...and...etc.

GM and Ford, After UAW Concessions in 2005, Seek More

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=ayvDtThJ5FJ0

I guess you also missed it when Mitt “Let Detroit go bankrupt" Romney shared your cold-blooded disregard for American workers.

I figure the red states still owe Michigan a few more bailouts just to make it even. Fair?

No.


What’s the matter? Still can’t face the fact of red state socialism, or do you just hate Michigan?

Now please explain how tax cuts caused GM to nearly go into chapter 11, cause I'm dying to know. In fact, please source how tax cuts drove ANY company out of business.

Why should I explain that? I never asserted such a thing. I will assert that mismanagement, the Bush economy, corporate written trade agreements, and Southern foreign owned auto plants’ anti-unionism played their roles, though. The UAW was most certainly taking concessions on their part though.
--
F&B,
You’d know what red state socialism is if you actually read what I write instead of just pitching indoctrination. You will choose to continue your denial, no doubt.

And no, as I have pointed out before, jobs have gone overseas because the People choose the lowest prices when they buy things

And where did you pick up this indoctrination? Don’t you know the American worker is pitted against low pay Asian workers by corporations? My wife lost her pharmaceutical company job to India. Do you think that’s because Indian drugs are sold cheaper here? How naive can you get? Your cult is truly amazing.

And how do the cheaper products get here in the first place?

Hint #1: Very often Americans have no choice in buying domestic instead of foreign made products.

Hint #2: Trade agreements have something to do with it.

Hint #3: Corporations write trade agreements.

Too bad your indoctrination has your mind locked up and closed to reality. You’d try to comprehend what I write, and thank me for the information I give you, instead of spewing the same old over-simplifications, lies and falsehoods.

Oh, looky here! Your “non-existing elites” seem to know who they are.

"I'm against very wealthy people attempting to or influencing elections. But as long as it's doable I'm going to do it" - Sheldon Adelson, casino mogul defending decision to donate $10 million to Romney super PAC

Yup. Sounds like “I’m against fascism, but as long as it is doable I’m going to do it”.

As I say, your cult is amazing.

FandB said...

Dubya, I'm still waiting for your definition of "red state socialism" . . . or maybe you have conceded that it is imaginary as your scary corporate elites.

You should read Thomas Friedman's (probably another one of your lefty heroes) book, The World is Flat. Friedman explains (very well for a liberal) that the U.S. is not giving business away to China and India, etc., but that they are coming over here and taking it. This is a very important distinction to understand if you really want to do something about it.

If you want union workers to remain employed in union jobs then you had better be buying union made products.

The people in China and India understand that their jobs depend on people buying what they make, and that quality and low prices sell merchandise.

Dave Dubya said...

F&B,
Now you’re just wasting my time.

From your GOP Moonie Gazette:

DEMINT: GOP should end affair with corporate elites

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/apr/29/gop-should-end-affair-with-corporate-elites/

Google red state socialism. It is as imaginary as your Senator Demint and Moonie Times.

How do you guys sleep? Is it lack of a conscience, or is there a sedative in that koolade?

The lure of the Dark Side must be strong indeed for you and your fellow Mammonites.

Jefferson's Guardian said...

FandB: "...the U.S. is not giving business away to China and India, etc., but that they are coming over here and taking it."

Yeah, sure! Off-shoring of American production has been going on for decades, and has accelerated with the ascension of China into the WTO (in 2001).

To blame American consumers for seeking out Chinese- and Indian-made products, instead of buying disappearing and mostly non-existent American-made products, is disingenuous and insulting. As a matter of fact, it's a ridiculous notion that has no supporting evidence.

Beyond the globalist and pseudo-liberal Thomas Friedman, please cite your sources.

FandB said...

OK, Dubya, I'll help. From the Library of Economics and Liberty: "Socialism — defined as a centrally planned economy in which the government controls all means of production — was the tragic failure of the twentieth century. Born of a commitment to remedy the economic and moral defects of capitalism, it has far surpassed capitalism in both economic malfunction and moral cruelty."
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Socialism.html

OR

From Merriam-Webster:

"Definition of SOCIALISM

1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

2 a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state

3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

So, how does the definition of Socialism fit into the "Red State" thing you keep talking about?

Also, the fact that you repeatedly ignore this fact . . .

If you want union workers to remain employed in union jobs then you had better be buying union made products.

. . . makes me think you're concerned more about bashing republicans than trying to fix the problem.

Jefferson's Guardian said...

FandB: "Also, the fact that you repeatedly ignore this fact . . .

If you want union workers to remain employed in union jobs then you had better be buying union made products.
"

I haven't ignored your dubious claim. Although I, for one, do just that whenever possible, and buy American products over foreign-made even when the price is higher, your claim that off-shoring wouldn't have occurred if American consumers didn't have an appetite for Chinese and Indian products and/or services is ludicrous, if not impossibly silly.

I suppose that thirty years ago Americans' tastes changed so drastically and inexplicably for Chinese-made and Indian-made products, that American corporations saw the shrinking base for their USA-made products and therefore built plants and facilities overseas in order to salvage their lost market-share?

Is that, basically, how you see the evolution of this?


". . . makes me think you're concerned more about bashing republicans than trying to fix the problem."

Unfortunately for millions of Americans, and for you and your own family one day, you don't think, and instead rely upon old and misused tag-lines. You've allowed the propaganda-machine to annex not only your country and it's democratic processes, but you've also been colonized in your mind.

You're going to soon be confronted with a "future-shock" that will totally stand on-end your currently outdated value system. Nobody is immune to the vast societal changes ahead of us. Good luck in the future.

Dave Dubya said...

F&B,
Sorry, you’re no help at all. You are simply quoting articles you haven’t read and definitions that do not apply to what I advocate.

In other words, you are wrong again.

Here’s how.

Are you sure you’ve given all the definitions of socialism? Which of the definitions given have I advocated? Go ahead, show us. I double-dog dare you.

Time to distract, I’d say.

Also, the fact that you repeatedly ignore this fact . . .If you want union workers to remain employed in union jobs then you had better be buying union made products.

Yes, a very good distraction. How your psychic abilities reach this conclusion is another amazing facet of your cult indoctrination, no doubt.

The linked article is about Soviet socialism, aka communism. Did you read that far? Or do you assert that I am an advocate of communism or Soviet socialism? If you are asserting this, then you need to show us where I have done this. If not, you are once again making up more BS accusations.

Interestingly enough, if you had read the entire article you’d have seen this:

“The real danger of socialism,” Lange wrote, in italics, “is that of a bureaucratization of economic life.” But he took away the force of the remark by adding, without italics, “Unfortunately, we do not see how the same or even greater danger can be averted under monopolistic capitalism” (Lange and Taylor 1938, pp. 109–110).

Do you need someone to explain that part to you?

Now, go google red state socialism. Show us you have a little bit of that forbidden curiosity your cult suppresses.

Or you can just go back and read what I already wrote. Your choice, pal.

Unlike your death panels, red state socialism is as real as Senator Demint and corporate elites. Honest.

So be a sport, dare to read the forbidden words. And please let us know what you learn.

I double-dog dare you.

--

JG,
No worries. after their corporatocracy reduces us into an Orwellian police state with a standard of living at or below Soviet levels, they will blame it all on liberals.

Sadly, we can read them like a book.

free0352 said...

Still can’t face the fact of red state socialism, or do you just hate Michigan?

Michigan is a Blue state and while I do hate it with the power of 1000 suns (cold grey days suck, mean people), if you're talking about federal money going to the states I say no more. To any state, Michigan included. You interested in getting on that band wagon with me? Nah I thought now.

And your point about 3 year old contracts is moot. We were talking about 2007- and the results of UAW action that got them billions in stock.

Still can't admit the UAW screwed over the bond holders and the membership can you? Talk about a cultist. Your devotion is monk-like.

I will assert that mismanagement,

Of that we can agree 100%. But I do have you on record now in admission that tax cuts don't hurt business. Which infers more taxes do hurt them. Glad to know.

f you want union workers to remain employed in union jobs then you had better be buying union made products

If they're made in America they get more consideration from me for sure. My cars are all American and so are my guns. Much the rest if it is made by unions are chinese unions.

The UAW was most certainly taking concessions on their part though.

I wonder, did it involve closing 14 factories? Certainly that's not what GM asked for. Seems funny when its union money at stake it would seem your job Mr Local Member is much safer in the hands of one of the "elites"

Corporations write trade agreements.

Riddle me this Dave, who signed NAFTA again... I forgot? Hmmmm he was a fat guy who like to bone chicks what was his name? Didn't he sign one a lot like NAFTA with China? Oh I don't know the schools down here in Red State Socialism aren't so good and I can't remember.

Oh now I do, it was Bill Clinton. Thanks Democrats! Yay Democratic Socialism strikes again!

Obama on Nafta: "Obama said the United States should continue to work with the World Trade Organization and pursue deals such as the North American Free Trade Agreement," reads one line, pulled from an Associated Press article.

Another from the Herald & Review: "Obama said the United States benefits enormously from exports under WTO and NAFTA."


This from Clinton: WHO WAS ALL ABOUT NAFTA AND THE FREE TRADE WITH THE CHI COMS.

free0352 said...

The best part of Clinton's speech is when he starts talking about how NAFTA is a force for social justice and it's super awesome benefits for the middle class.


Yay Democrat Socialism! Forward: Everyone Equally Poor!

FandB said...

Jefferson: No. You don't see it. American consumers chose LOWER PRICES, as I said before, rather than country of origin. Duh. I'm afraid I gave you more credit in your ability to parse simple sentences than I should have.

American consumers still choose lower prices over country of origin. That pressures manufacturers to find ways too reduce costs so they can sell for lower prices. That pressure has driven businesses to find lower cost labor markets in order to remain competitive.

Whether you believe it or not is up to you, but it ain't rocket science, and there is no vast conspiracy.

Dubya: OK, I'll spell it out for you. What you have been calling "Red State Socialism" isn't "Socialism".

But it has become clear that when your special interest group gets something it is protected under the Constitution - 'promote the general welfare', but when someone else gets the same thing it is 'Socialism'. Nope, doesn't work that way dude. We're not buying it.

I will say, however, that your use of Alinsky tactics has improved somewhat. Especially the part about accusing others of doing what you yourself are doing.

Dave Dubya said...

Free,
The UAW did what it needed to do to save as many jobs and preserve pay and benefits they could. Reality dictated some concessions and layoffs. It was not a conspiracy to screw anyone.

One more time: Clinton and Obama are corporatists. Non-corporatists do not get into the White House.

Follow the money. Notice how much more Wall Street money is flowing to Romney than Obama now. He’s their bitch.

F&B,

I will say, however, that your use of Alinsky tactics has improved somewhat.

Who’s Alinksy, anyway? I don’t have cult leaders. I never heard of him until you mentioned him earlier. Honest to God.

Especially the part about accusing others of doing what you yourself are doing.

And it’s called projection, lad, and numerous examples of you Righties using that defense mechanism abound throughout the comments in this blog. To know that would require reading though.

Here's a recent example:

when someone else gets the same thing it is 'Socialism'

For you, corporate welfare is not socialism but safety nets are socialism. See what I mean? Projection.

I see you still fear the forbidden words. Got news for ya kid. Those states aren't really "red" either. Do you understand "figure of speech"?

Go read about it so you can make an informed comment about it...if you dare.

Dare to rise above the herd and say something original or true.

Have you noticed how thoroughly your misinformation, falsehoods and lies have been shot down?

Either make some sense or stop wasting my time. We all know your cult indoctrination inside out.

Like we know they coach you to say “Alinsky” a lot.

free0352 said...

The UAW did what it needed to do to save as many jobs and preserve pay and benefits they could. Reality dictated some concessions and layoffs. It was not a conspiracy to screw anyone.

Just not in 2007, I guess they needed an incentive to do it in 2008, like 17% of GM and another percentage of Chrystler. Conspiracy suggest something secretive, this was not. They pretty much robbed the bond holders and fired over 10000 people right out in the open. Then they collected their dividend checks. Oh those poor unions.

One more time: Clinton and Obama are corporatists. Non-corporatists do not get into the White House

Really? But you still cast your little vote for both. And you'll do it again. You'll vote for the kind of people who live to intimidate bunny farmers. Yup, you'll cast your vote for pervasive surveillance of the American people, indefinite detention of Americans without trial, and a President who spends more time sucking up to George Clooney and playing golf than doing his job and then...and then... this is the best part... and then you'll cop right out and say "Obama's a corpritist." Dude, you're a corporitist then too, since you're voting for it enthusiastically. Yes you can!

Start taking responsibility for your choices. You voted for all this shit. It was as much your idea as theirs. That or you were a simple useful idiot.

FandB said...

Dubya, if you have to point out that "misinformation, falsehoods and lies have been shot down" then they really haven't been.

There you go again, I never said "safety nets are socialism". It should be clear from the definitions I offered that Socialism means that government controls the means of production.

I don't oppose safety nets for those who are unable to fend for themselves. I do oppose a welfare state that supports people who should be able to take care of themselves but choose no to do so.

Dave Dubya said...

Free,
Yes, I voted for the lesser of evils. Be glad I did. You'd have a lot more dead comrades if Johnny (Bomb, Bomb Iran) McCain was in the White House.

Neocons added trillions to our debt and then blame liberals for it. And they will start more wars when given the power to do so.

As with Clinton, I may not vote to re-elect Obama.

F&B,

Socialism means that government controls the means of production.

Then I accept your apology for accusing me of advocating that kind of socialism.

free0352 said...

You'd have a lot more dead comrades if Johnny (Bomb, Bomb Iran) McCain was in the White House.

To be honest I'd rather have dead friends who died fighting in Iran than friends killed by Iranians in Afghanistan and Iraq. If they are going to die I'd rather die taking the fight to the real enemy. We invaded the wrong hajjis in 2003.

As with Clinton, I may not vote to re-elect Obama.

We'll see won't we?

Dave Dubya said...

Free,
Invade Iran?

Then you'd have a hell of a lot more dead friends, and our nation would be a hell of a lot more in debt, and likely fall into a full depression. (Which you would then blame on liberals.)

What's the suicide rate these days in the military? One a day? Sad, very sad. Psychological casualties are still casualties. Your next war will boost that number too.

Iran never threatened us. They were not our problem. Religious idiots over there called us the "Great Satan" and we react by giving them more reason to think that. Although I'm sure most Iranians don't buy into their leaders madness as much as Americans buy into the Neocon madness infecting you and far too many others. Neocons and corporate media are doing their best to make it that way.

And Iran still won't invade America. I promise. But they will retaliate way more that Iraq was able to do.

As the war in Iraq opened the door for a new Al-Qaeda, it only made Iranians and Iraqis friendlier. Could that be why your friends were killed by "Iranians" we never needed protection from?

The civil war we lit the fuse to ignite is some kind of "Iraqi Freedom", isn't it?

Wednesday Iraq Slaughter: 107 Killed, 384 Wounded

http://original.antiwar.com/updates/2012/06/13/iraq-slaughter-107-killed-384-wounded/

Maybe that's why they haven't erected all those statues of your Chickenhawk "decider".

Funny thing, the more countries we invade, the more people die. And the more debt we have, and the more our civil liberies are threatended, and the more enemies we make... and the less safe we turn out to be. Hmm.

As with Clinton, I may not vote to re-elect Obama.

We'll see won't we?


No, you won't see, but I will.

Jefferson's Guardian said...

Free0352: "If they are going to die I'd rather die taking the fight to the real enemy."

The real enemy is right here, within your own borders. They're the corporatists who allow your country to be bought by the highest bidder. But you can't see it. You're blind. You're deaf.

You've been bought too.

Jefferson's Guardian said...

FandB: "I do oppose a welfare state that supports people who should be able to take care of themselves but choose no to do so."

Does that include corporate-"people" too? Do you also oppose a corporate-state, or is that okay with you?

Jerry Critter said...

"We invaded the wrong hajjis in 2003."

Free, we agree. We should have never invaded Iraq. Since it should have never been done, shouldn't the perpetrators be punished? Or do you agree with Obama and let them slide? After all, a few people made a lot of money off this war and it only cost a "few" soldiers.

free0352 said...

Then you'd have a hell of a lot more dead friends, and our nation would be a hell of a lot more in debt, and likely fall into a full depression

Worth it.

Your next war will boost that number too

Worth it.

Iran never threatened us. They were not our problem.

Iran is everybody's problem except Syria's.

Although I'm sure most Iranians don't buy into their leaders madness

I don't care. I suggest they overthrow those leaders. It would be easier for everyone.

Could that be why your friends were killed by "Iranians" we never needed protection from?

Again I don't care. Killing my friends was enough to make me want to kill them back.

Funny thing, the more countries we invade, the more people die

Generally how war works. Again, I don't mind dying. I mind letting Iran win anything. I'd sacrifice every friend I ever had and you along with them as well as my self to see the Iranian Mullahs die in flames. I'd die very happy. In fact, if by putting a gun to my head and pulling the trigger I could take those mullahs with me I'd do it in one second without blinking an eye. The day my Government calls me to fight there will be a bright fucking day. I have quite the score to settle with those assholes.

free0352 said...

In fact, I can't think of much I wouldn't do to kill this son of a bitch. Mookie and I go back a long way. I don't know many of my pals from Sadr City who wouldn't love to get a crack at that dirtbag, subhuman sack of shit. And if we had to die for that chance? Well where do I sign up? Goes double for this guy, and this guy.

free0352 said...

The real enemy is right here, within your own borders.

Yeah, I've had the fun filled opportunity to visit countries and places with actual, authentic violent maniacs in them so I think I'll stick to my radar for identifying real threats and you can stick to having diarrhea come out of your mouth. It's nice that we've done our jobs so well, that you can have the luxury of mistaking rich people for real, honest to goodness dangerous people. It validates everything the US military has done over the last 70 years.

Jefferson's Guardian said...

Free0352: "...I've had the fun filled opportunity to visit countries and places with actual, authentic violent maniacs in them..."

You shouldn't refer to yourself as authentic (you're far from it), although I'll agree with the "violent maniac" part. That's an excellent description of your personality.

You see the world as an evil and foreboding place, and your paranoia runs deep. The military has done its job brainwashing you, although I believe you've had these tendencies all your life. That's probably why military life is so appealing to you (beyond the benefits and not having to work very hard).

free0352 said...

You see the world as an oblivious sheep Jefferson, wandering through your nice, safe life with god like power to remake your own world and have no idea what lies beyond the boarders of your safe little fishbowl.

Hope those lattes arenn't late, you might have to protest something.

Jefferson's Guardian said...

Free0352: "...wandering through your nice, safe life with god like power to remake your own world and have no idea what lies beyond the boarders of your safe little fishbowl."

I'm a believer that a person can choose their life, everything about their life. Don't you believe this also?