Monday, July 23, 2012
As soon as I saw the movie theatre shooting on the news, I told my friend, watch, tomorrow we'll hear this was done by Obama as part of his evil socialist plot to take our guns.
Is Batman massacre staged terror?
I'm reassured as this is all meticulously explained by Alex Jones's "overwhelming evidence" in his "gut".
It "magically happened". What more do we need to know?
Not-so-fast-but-but-furious Right Wingers probably won’t read the Fortune article that best explains the ATF Fast and Furious episode, because they already know all they need to know from FOX(R) and talk radio. I’d like to share my favorite short paragraphs just in case one might read what I write before their lunacy kicks into overdrive.
They (ATF) insist they never purposefully allowed guns to be illegally trafficked. Just the opposite: They say they seized weapons whenever they could but were hamstrung by prosecutors and weak laws, which stymied them at every turn.
...Irony abounds when it comes to the Fast and Furious scandal. But the ultimate irony is this: Republicans who support the National Rifle Association and its attempts to weaken gun laws are lambasting ATF agents for not seizing enough weapons—ones that, in this case, prosecutors deemed to be legal.
This won’t help the irony-impaired, cult indoctrinated believers who cannot question the lie that Fast and Furious was a, ” progressive democrat sponsored death by way of pushing guns to Mexican drug cartels."
Nothing can separate the willfully ignorant from their beliefs. “Liberals are commies”. “Obama is a Kenyan Marxist out to destroy America with death panels”. “Democrats want to take our guns”. Yadda, yadda, ad nauseam.
I have been a firearm owner all my life. I was lucky to come from a small town/rural county where gun ownership was a common responsibility, not a paranoid fantasy of some right to kill other humans.
Sanity requires some common sense firearm restrictions. Even the NRA doesn’t advocate the right to carry rocket propelled grenade launchers or 20mm Gatling guns. Who thinks it’s a good idea to arm someone convicted of domestic violence, or prison inmates, or psych ward patients?
But there are fools and racists out there who think Zimmerman should have his pistol handed back to him, with an "attaboy, go git 'em" slap on the back.
I don’t think banning guns is a practical idea, but banning firearm regulations is foolish, hard-headed and dangerous. Bottom line: Everyone reasonably sane is in favor of some gun control. Period.
Only one side refuses reasonably sane compromise. As usual.
Posted by Dave Dubya at 12:13 PM
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
Dubya, as usual, you immediately demagogue anybody that is not in absolute lock step with your typically far-left position on an issue and brand them as insane etc. Just out of curiousity, what is your opinion of "sane" gun control restrictions, sir?
My, you're sensitive for some reason. Who did I demagogue? I mean besides, "cult indoctrinated believers who cannot question lies".
I own firearms and disagree with gun prohibitionists. Would that be what you mean by "far left"?
Why would I criticize people who refuse to compromise? Figure that one out, if you can. If you can't understand that position, you're one of them.
What are you suggesting is my "typically far-left position"?
I suggested sane restrictions as far as domestic violence cases, violent felons and the mentally ill, didn't I? Is that "far left"?
I would suggest policies for online purchases, and bulk purchases of semi-automatic weapons be reviewed. Some restrictions should apply. Or are you OK with straw buyers from Mexican cartels? Hmm?
How about you? Is everything just perfect in your view of firearm sales?
Even Bill Kristol has come out in favor of moderate gun control:
"People have a right to handguns and hunting rifles. I don’t think they have a right to semi-automatic, quazi-machine guns that can shoot hundred bullets at a time."
He'll be getting Swiftboated any day now.
Kristol and a few other Republicans may stray somewhat from the cue cards, yet not challenge the party line. They're not running for office, so they have that illusory bit of leeway.
But, Bloody Bill Kristol recovered from defaming the Holy 2nd Amendment!
"I actually think the Democrats are being foolish as they’re being cowardly."
I knew this was the fault of the DemocRATS!
But, SE Cupp proclaimed the Fortune piece was debunked, and the Slow and Delrious Conservatives knew all they needed to convict President Obama the first time they saw him.
Why would they want to question their preconceived conclusions with facts and stuff?
I suggested sane restrictions as far as domestic violence cases, violent felons and the mentally ill, didn't I?
I don't know about your state, but those restrictions are already in place in most states. Fat lot of good they do, but what the hell, I can live with them.
And I buy ammo in bulk as I'm a competition shooter. I shoot like 500 rounds a week, that shit gets VERY expensive. It isn't a cheap hobby, so I don't think I'd appreciate my liberal friends passing laws making that process any more expensive and painful than it already is, just because some wacko who thinks he's the joker killed 12 people. I didn't kill them, punish him and leave me alone. As for buying guns on line, you know or should know all transfers from dealers online must go through a local FFL, and are covered by the NFA of 63. That is regulated... in a very stupid way I'm afraid. But that's another post. So no, everything is NOT perfect in the world of gun sales, because the ATF makes it harder than hell and prohibitively expensive to put a new shorty upper on my AR15 and I've never bothered anyone, and even with all their regulations wackos still get guns and shoot people with them. It seems to me, we lawful gun owners have to suffer while the criminals just don't care. Obviously.
Or are you OK with straw buyers from Mexican cartels?
Agreed about buyers for cartels. Also known as Eric Holder, the only confirmed dealer to Mexican Cartels. Busted by none other than gun store owners. I can make an exception with him, after all providing guns to felons is a crime. I just doubt they'll ever prosecute him.
Why would they want to question their preconceived conclusions with facts and stuff?
It's not the authoritarian way.
Free confirms your point. You see, Holder is arming the Mexican cartels so Obama can take our guns and establish the liberal Marxist States of America.
We will always see paranoid beliefs the Right loves to presume true and declare as reality. Bless their paranoia, for the armed and frightened shall never act violently out of fear...right?
Relax, nobody wants to take your bullets.
You have obviously decided what to believe, and obviously did not read the article.
Thank you for agreeing to live with some gun control. Part of you is sane after all.
Dave, I have no idea what the facts are in the Fast & Furious scandal. Unlike you, who apparently knows it all (from Fortune of all places).
Whatever happened, it looks like at a minimum someone did something illegal or stupid. I just can't believe Dave Dubya has sunk so low as to defend Fast & Furious.
Thank you for agreeing to live with some gun control
Cool, I can live with no felons owning guns, and you can trade me the repeal of the 1964 Federal Firearms Act.
Excuse me, meant the act of 1968
Sounds like you have your pre-selected Republican beliefs and don't need to read the article either. You don't know the facts but it just "looks like" you can attack a political target.
What we know is you Republicans want elected Democrats in government to fail, you do not compromise, want to restrict voting rights, want corporate written public policy, and will politicize anything and smear anyone to make it happen.
If you don't know what the facts are, how can you presume to say I have "sunk so low" to support a mission to stop guns flowing to criminals?
Clarify, please, if you think I support the mission, the agents, the methods, the "walking of guns", arming the cartels, or whatever you care to muddy up.
The wide open gun laws hamper the agents work, and you want to blame democrats instead of the NRA-friendly, cartel/friendly open market of assault weapons. How about looking there for someone doing something stupid?
Tell me, ye of little knowledge of facts, what it is I support.
Apparently you know more than the rest of us to make that lucid judgment. Or is it just your "gut". Is it simply your "beliefs"? After all, that's enough for Republicans, isn't it?
You Republicans "believed" there was a connection between Saddam and al-Qaeda, WMD's, "biological labs", and "nukular" aluminum tubes.
You Republicans "believed" Obama was implementing death panels and the government takeover of health care.
Now Republicans "believe" Holder is giving guns to cartels. After all, that's what it "looks like", right?
You pretty much said it all in one line: "Nothing can separate the willfully ignorant from their beliefs."
The NRA does note exist to protect the rights of gun owners, and does not give a damn about them. It exists to protect the right of gun manufacturers to sell any damned thing they want, regardless of the consequences. Just like the idiots that don't believe in global warming, or that think Obamacare involves death panels, gun nuts are nothing but willing suckers for the rich.
How many ATF whistleblowers have you ever talked to personally, Dave?
In re the much ballyhooed Fortune article, please see my post, http://sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com/2012/07/sipsey-street-exclusive-send-in-clown.html , Send in the clown. The truth about Katherine Eban Finkelstein. A "feminist" who wrote for Playboy and a "journalist" more interested in compromising other writers' sources than the truth. "Calling Eban a 'journalist' is an insult to honest journalists everywhere."
T. Paine, don't waste your time. What we are dealing with is alternate worldviews here. One side believes the people serve the government, the other that the government should serve the people. That cannot be finessed or negotiated.
Arguments at this late date are pointless.
Akin to what the Dutchman wrote, we are dealing with "alternate worldviews here".
On the one side is the arguments of conservatives as typified by The Heathen Republican. "It looks like" Obama and Eric Holder did this on purpose because every blog and news site they reference is involved in the incestous amplification of a false meme perpetrated by those who decided early on their goal was to defeat President Obama by whatever means necessary.
Now, once a conflicting viewpoint is made. That view must be chided as (i.e. "from Fortune of all places") because it does not conform with the pre-conceived and reinforced bullshit coming from liars.
Here's the synposis for right-wingers to Bushian
to read a whole story: Quite simply, there's a fundamental misconception at the heart of the Fast and Furious scandal. Nobody disputes that suspected straw purchasers under surveillance by the ATF repeatedly bought guns that eventually fell into criminal hands. Issa and others charge that the ATF intentionally allowed guns to walk as an operational tactic. But five law-enforcement agents directly involved in Fast and Furious tell Fortune that the ATF had no such tactic. They insist they never purposefully allowed guns to be illegally trafficked. Just the opposite: They say they seized weapons whenever they could but were hamstrung by prosecutors and weak laws, which stymied them at every turn.
Indeed, a six-month Fortune investigation reveals that the public case alleging that Voth and his colleagues walked guns is replete with distortions, errors, partial truths, and even some outright lies. Fortune reviewed more than 2,000 pages of confidential ATF documents and interviewed 39 people, including seven law-enforcement agents with direct knowledge of the case. Several, including Voth, are speaking out for the first time.
Dave, based on the length and substance of my comment, and the length and substance of yours, you brought an assault rifle to a knife fight? Why the overkill? Are you trying to misdirect and avoid responding to my actual comment?
"You don't know the facts but it just "looks like" you can attack a political target."
That's right, I don't know the facts and neither do you. Yet you insist on rendering an opinion and calling Republicans names.
"What we know is you Republicans want elected Democrats in government to fail, you do not compromise, want to restrict voting rights, want corporate written public policy, and will politicize anything and smear anyone to make it happen."
Blatant misdirection. If I made a comment like this, you would tell me to get back on topic.
"If you don't know what the facts are, how can you presume to say I have "sunk so low" to support a mission to stop guns flowing to criminals?"
It's easy, I said "Whatever happened, it looks like at a minimum someone did something illegal or stupid." You have sunk so low because you're either defending stupidity or illegality.
"Tell me, ye of little knowledge of facts, what it is I support."
According to the quotes you provided above, this is your show of support: "This won’t help the irony-impaired, cult indoctrinated believers who cannot question the lie that Fast and Furious was a, ” progressive democrat sponsored death by way of pushing guns to Mexican drug cartels."
You don't think Fast & Furious is a big deal. You defend the administration. You deny that they have either been stupid or done something illegal.
"Apparently you know more than the rest of us to make that lucid judgment. Or is it just your "gut". Is it simply your "beliefs"? After all, that's enough for Republicans, isn't it?"
I am wide open about what I don't know, unlike you. My original comment: "I have no idea what the facts are in the Fast & Furious scandal."
It would have been so much easier if you had 1) read my original comment instead of infer what you think I meant and 2) not tried so hard to misdirect. Now you've made me repeat things that were clear above and you look like the one trying to avoid the facts.
So now that that is taken care of, why are you defending the administration? Like me, don't you want to wait until all the facts come out?
Dubya, first I think that most everybody understands and agrees that convicted felons and people with mental health issues should not possess firearms. This is something that even the “evil” NRA supports, and so do I. That is not what I am talking about.
As for your take on the fast and furious scandal, I won’t even bother going into all of the ways in which Holder and the ATF were not only negligent but criminally so. You get your talking points from MSNBC so there is no sense in even trying to debate the topic with you. Arguing with a Koolaid drinker is a waste of time for both of us, my friend.
“Free confirms your point. You see, Holder is arming the Mexican cartels so Obama can take our guns and establish the liberal Marxist States of America.”
Free didn’t say anything about Obama taking away our guns; however, it is undeniable and inarguable fact that the ATF who ultimately report to the pure and innocent Holder did absolutely allow guns to walk to Mexican drug cartel members and that hundreds of Mexicans and two Americans have been killed as a direct consequence of this illegal and stupid action.
Dutchman6, I agree with you. I think the main reason I still peek in from time to time is because my blood pressure is low and I need to get it pumping again. What better way to do that then to see what all of our “enlightened” friends on the left feel about any given topic of the day.
"On the one side is the arguments of conservatives as typified by The Heathen Republican."
Grung_E, I'm pretty sure I do not typify Republicans. If what you and Dave say is true (and you surely wouldn't lie), Republicans also claim to know what happened and know why Obama launched Fast & Furious. I claim no such knowledge.
"Now, once a conflicting viewpoint is made. That view must be chided as (i.e. "from Fortune of all places") because it does not conform with the pre-conceived and reinforced bullshit coming from liars."
I use mainstream sources all the time, so that's not really my criticism here. We're talking about a question of legality and several congressional hearings have occurred. Why rely on a Fortune article when actual under-oath testimony could have been presented as Dave's evidence.
Oh, probably because it doesn't confirm what Dave already believes...
Republicans want elected Democrats in government to fail
How exciting for them then, to have the full - if unwitting - cooperation of Democrat policy makers.
Democrats haven't failed because of Republicans. After all, Republicans control only the House while Democrats still hold the Executive and Senate. More over, Republicans only recently a year and a half ago got the House. Thats just excuses. The problem mainly is Obama would much rather be golfing than doing his job, and when he bothers to show up to work he performs badly.
Right you are. And the line that separates gun nuts from nuts with guns is tragically thin indeed.
Thank you for your opinion. I welcome your input. I agree government agencies should be accountable to the people. What one party calls oversight, the other calls political. Too bad the public interest is usually the last priority.
I doubt “one side believes the people serve the government, the other that the government should serve the people”. One side believes in simplistic black and white slogans, apparently. I could easily say, “One side believes corporations should dominate public policy-making and the other believes in Constitutional regulation of commerce”. But I agree with you. That would be pointless.
I haven’t talked to any former ATF whistleblowers. I don’t really need to hear what they have to say in order to know what Republicans are up to. The reporter you despise has seen more documents and talked to many more non-disgruntled officers and agents than you, I bet.
You may need to cut her some slack about mis-construing your militia gun toting behavior and advocacy of Kristallnacht tactics of breaking democratically elected representatives’ windows.
Gabby Giffords and others got the message.
It must be especially irksome for the cult that the article was in the corporate-friendly Fortune. Real reporters are not to be trusted when we have renowned journalists like Limbaugh, Hannity and our dear guest above.
I asked, “Clarify, please, if you think I support the mission, the agents, the methods, the "walking of guns", arming the cartels, or whatever you care to muddy up.”
The list of new unfounded accusations is growing as you fail to support your first accusation: ”you insist on rendering an opinion and calling Republicans names, Blatant misdirection, you're either defending stupidity or illegality, You defend the administration,
I admit to rendering an opinion and calling Republicans names. I’ve shown ample substantiation for those throughout this blog. What you call “Blatant misdirection” was context for my assertion.
Finally you assert, this is your show of support: "This won’t help the irony-impaired, cult indoctrinated believers who cannot question the lie that Fast and Furious was a, ” progressive democrat sponsored death by way of pushing guns to Mexican drug cartels."
Of course what it “looks like” to you is my support of handing weapons over to cartels and being a Democrat. Neither is true, of course. I condemn the entire war on drugs, waged by both parties. The stupidity begins there and is exacerbated by loose gun laws. Is that clear? Ending that fiasco would reduce the deaths by drug gangs, wouldn’t it? How many booze dealers and bystanders have been killed since Prohibition?
Again what did I actually say I support? Condemning Republicans is not defending Democrats. That is your orientation though.
I’m all for an investigation of the entire process. Republicans display their hypocrisy in holding the AG in contempt when your Rove/Cheney gang with Al (I Don’t Recall) Gonzales setting the example.
“Looks like” they want a witch hunt more than the truth. They can access the needed info without making the entire mission an open book.
This is all a distraction from the dangerously stupid drug war and legal sales of large quantities of semi-automatic weapons. As I said, “you want to blame democrats instead of the NRA-friendly, cartel/friendly open market of assault weapons”.
Just what is the real problem here? Democrats or criminals with weapons?
Since you have incriminating evidence against Holder, I suggest you alert the Republican committee chairmen. And while you’re at it, please share your facts with HR.
You still didn’t tell me what “far left position” I was embracing. Don’t I own enough firearms? How many gun cabinets will I need?
Free didn’t say anything about Obama taking away our guns
He most certainly did in past threads. His comments are still there. Believe what you want though, for that is all that matters.
Democrats haven't failed because of Republicans.
I couldn’t agree more. They fail because they are largely owned by the same Big Money interests and do not have the lock-step unity of the Right.
Again from the Fortune article:
Fortune reviewed more than 2,000 pages of confidential ATF documents and interviewed 39 people, including seven law-enforcement agents with direct knowledge of the case.
This, however, isn't the standard the Right wants to go on when it comes to Operation: Wide Receiver... Oops that was the Alberto Gonzales George Bush Gunwalking which netted ZERO arrests and of which the guns which walked are unaccounted for, but we aren't here to talk about the past!
As with all conservatives T. Paine and The Heathen Republican simply don't want any other information which may cause them to rethink their conclusions to enter the arguement.
He most certainly did in past threads.
Hmmm, I said many democrats are for gun control. That's true.
I also said President Obama is for gun control, also true.
I then said it's an issue he will try to address after the next election should he win, because to do so before that would cost him dearly in any election. I stand by that. It was my opinion then, and remains so now.
Things must be looking rather bleak for the democrat party if Dubya has to stoop to using Prison Planet to set up a straw man argument against conservatives. BTW, Prison Planet does not represent mainstream conservative thought in any way, manner, or form. In fact, most conservatives will agree that Prison Planet and Alex Jones are part of the far right fringe.
However, the lefties have already tried to politicize the massacre, with Diane Feinstein (D) linking the rampage to the need for more gun control, and ABC News immediately trying to link the killer to the Tea Party. Not exactly the far left fringe.
I'm sure this is just an attempt by Dubya to distract from the outrageous comments coming from his beloved libtard democrat party.
and just for fun . . .
As a compromise, dems, try enforcing the gun laws that already exist rather than writing new laws and stripping even more rights from The American People?
Regarding "Fast and Furious" - it is obvious to any rational individual that things were not handled properly by Holder and his cronies. They know that and have consistently felt the need to hide documents from Congress and to refuse to cooperate with the investigation. Actions they would not have taken if they had done nothing wrong.
Dubya: "But there are fools and racists out there who think Zimmerman should have his pistol handed back to him, with an "attaboy, go git 'em" slap on the back."
Yes, there are. And there are other fools (mainly democrats) who believe that no citizen should be allowed to own a gun of any kind. Just consider pre-Nazi Germany or pre-Stalin Russia to understand their motivation.
Dubya: "Only one side refuses reasonably sane compromise. As usual."
Yes, and that side is liberal progressives democrats, who are so tolerant, as long as you believe everything that they believe.
Grung_e_Gene, you are quite mistaken. There are HUGE differences between wide receiver and fast and furious. Both were flawed, but WR was shut down quickly when it was determined to not be working. It didn't get two federal officials killed. It was done with the cooperation of the Mexican government, and there were attempts to trace the guns through aerial surveilance and RF ID tagging. Fast & Furious was completely different from all of that in every way. Here is a good summarization for you, not that you will change your preconceived notions, I suspect.
Dave, let's cut through the BS and misdirection. You have no objections to the way the Obama administration ran the Fast & Furious program. True or false?
A valid point FanB, Jones is a lunatic. Totally unhinged. So it makes a lot of sense to point to that, instead of defending the indefensible Fast and Furious.
But there are fools and racists out there who think Zimmerman should have his pistol handed back to him
Thats laughable. The white racists of the world want Zimmerman disarmed FIRST because he isn't white. He's as white as Barack Obama is. But he should have his gun back. If some guy had me down on the ground and was pounding on me, I'd have shot him too. And that really is the point, and saying otherwise is not too defensible, so you throw up the race card... even though it's laughable in that situation. Zimmerman isn't a KKK kinda guy, in fact the KKK would love to burn a cross in his yard.
You said a lot more than that. Go back and look. If need be, I will point to your comments about Obama wanting your guns.
He's as white as Barack Obama is.
No, in fact Obama is a lot blacker than Zimmerman, isn’t he?
So only all-white KKK people hate blacks? You are so naive. Or dishonest. Now we know you’d love to stalk someone and then kill him when he resists.
They also don’t like the fact Bush said, “Your ass is covered” as he ignored warnings of the 9-11 attacks. Thousands more Americans died from his war based on lies. But look! Holder is the real criminal!
Dubya has to stoop to using Prison Planet to set up a straw man argument against conservatives
No stooping was required. They merely fulfilled my prediction. And many of your fellow “moderate Righties” agree with Jones. In fact, do you dispute what he said? Tell us where he’s wrong about this, please.
ABC linked the killer to the Tea Party? Who filed that report? What is the real story there?
beloved libtard democrat party
try enforcing the gun laws that already exist
That was the entire point of Fast and Furious.
it is obvious to any rational individual that things were not handled properly by Holder and his cronies
True enough. It is obvious to any rational individual that easy access by straw buyers to multiple semi-automatic rifles is stupid, too. It is obvious to any rational individual that the drug war does more harm than good. But we can’t be rational about these can we?
Ever think if we got rid of the stupid drug war laws, we’d need fewer stupid gun control laws??? Really answer me on this.
So tell us where Republicans have compromised lately?
And there are other fools (mainly democrats) who believe that no citizen should be allowed to own a gun of any kind. Just consider pre-Nazi Germany or pre-Stalin Russia to understand their motivation.
Or consider the massacres to understand their motivation. Do you think this discussion would be an issue if these never happened?
I consider pre-Nazi Germany or pre-Stalin Russia all the time. Jews, liberals, educators, and all non-conformists were persecuted. Authoritarians found a place of power with the dictators.
We are becoming prime fodder for totalitarianism of the Right. Just wait when they take over completely and see it they let you keep your guns. In a one party Republican dictatorship they will not tolerate most of the Bill of Rights and Constitution. You don’t believe me? Ha. You and I and every gun owner, even the NRA, will not count when they take away our democracy. There will be no need for them.
The media and government are all falling under the control of powerful, undemocratic Big Money. I want every citizen to vote. Your side is opposed to such democracy.
How’s that less democracy thingy gonna work out for us?
Did you read the article yet?
“agents could not seize guns or arrest suspects after being directed not to do so by a prosecutor.”
I have problems with the drug war laws, firearm sales laws, the prosecutors, the intra-agency backbiting, and the resulting failure of the mission. Why don’t you tell us how it’s all the Obama Administration’s fault?
"I haven’t talked to any former ATF whistleblowers. I don’t really need to hear what they have to say in order to know what Republicans are up to. The reporter you despise has seen more documents and talked to many more non-disgruntled officers and agents than you, I bet."
Since I'm the guy who broke the story in December 2012 and have been working it ever since, I doubt it, moron.
Errata: That's December 2010. I'm the guy who linked them up with the Senators and with Sharyl Attkisson of CBS.
"Did you read the article yet?"
More distraction. I read your quotes from the article. If you wanted me to read more, you should have quoted more.
Again, you have no objections to the way the Obama administration ran the Fast & Furious program. TRUE or FALSE?
Is this such a hard question for you, Dave?
By all means, don't read anything that could affect what it "looks like" to you. We know your beliefs are your religion. How can you question your sacred beliefs? No, reading is out of the question.
You may be a Heathen, but your cult beliefs are still present.
You didn't explain how, or even whether or not, the Obama Administration ran the program. I don't see any direction from Holder, but you claim to know what it "looks like".
I listed the issues where I have objections.
So what if I asked you:
You have no objections to a war of agression based on lies and/or falsehoods, true or false?
You have no objections to the Republican campaign to restrict voter rights, true or false?
You have no objections to secret money in our elections, true or false?
You have no objections to the claims of death panels, true or false?
The above premises are all factual.
Here's my answer. You offer a false premise.
From the timeline at National Review Online:
The operation is launched. It is designed and run by the ATF Phoenix field office.
So we see it is you doing the distracting after all. We're shocked, shocked, I tells ya.
In fact, one could easily claim Travon Martin was racist. He after all, was so freaked out a Cuban dude was following him. It's easy to see what happened in that case.
Zimmerman sees stranger walking in neighborhood, cutting between houses. Calls police. Follows Martin to keep an eye on him.
Martin sees Cuban dude following him, gets nervous.
Zimmerman ignores 9-11 dispatcher and continues to follow Martin. Note, this is not illegal.
Martin calls girl friend to tell her how freaked out he is some hispanic dude is on his tail. Perhaps wise to be vigilant of this in South Florida.
At some point, a fight breaks out. We have no idea how it started. Only witness is Zimmerman.
Zimmerman ends up getting his ass kicked, ends up on ground with Martin on top of him getting punched.
Zimmerman pulls out gun, shoots Martin.
False, false, false, false. Even with your false premises, I have no problem answering.
So why do you refuse to answer?
You know Martin knew Zimmerman was half Cuban? Brilliant.
And this proves Zimmerman's not a racist? But it proves he stalks, and starts unprovoked fights, with black kids, though.
I'm so happy to see you agree with me on my questions. My answers were all false too. If I offered a premise that you knew was false, you wouldn't have answered without demonstrating it's falsehood, as I did with yours.
So what is your question? Would you like to clarify, or re-phrase it more honestly?
Unfortunately, you didn't demonstrate a false premise. You claimed one, but that's just because you refuse to answer.
You know, this is tiresome and you could have simply answered the first time I asked. To any objective observer (i.e. none of your usual commenters), you look reluctant to state a position on Fast & Furious.
The original post offers a defense of Fast & Furious. So you have no problem with the administration's handling of the F&F program, right?
My question has no underlying premises; it doesn't assume which administration started the program; it assumes no facts not in evidence. So instead of dodging (again!), answer whether or not you have a problem with the administration's handling of Fast & Furious.
You've been defending it. You've been claiming nothing illegal took place. So you should have no problem stating clearly that you wholeheartedly support the administration and its handling of Fast & Furious. So say it.
If you don't, break character for a minute and tell us what they've done wrong. You claim to be the expert and to know the truth, so feel free to critique the administration if you disagree.
Show some balls and stop dodging the question.
Dutchman6: Since I'm the guy who broke the story in December 2012 and have been working it ever since, I doubt it, moron. [bold font my own, for emphasis]
Gee, a time-traveler...
Tell me, who won the "election".
break character for a minute
Since you kindly re-phrased the question, I'll respond.
It’s real important for you, and you want so much for me to say I wholeheartedly support the administration and its handling of Fast & Furious.
Why is that? I’m not a Democrat, but I support the mission to stop the flow of NRA-approved, painfully legal gun sales to stooges paid by killers. Fast and Furious was a failed operation, not a conspiracy.
Covering up something may be a conspiracy. But that is after the fact and irrelevant to the operation itself. Or it may be a good reason for eyes only congressional viewing, rather than open committee leaks of law enforcement methods and tactics.
But that would be a compromise, wouldn't it? Never mind.
The administration had no role I see in the almost complete failure of this particular operation. You fabricate that role. I have shown otherwise.
This is all Obama’s evil plan to destroy America and take our guns, right?
One more time:
you look reluctant to state a position on Fast & Furious
Reluctant, huh? But according to you I did just that.
post offers a defense of Fast & Furious.
You've been defending it. You've been claiming nothing illegal took place.
Oh, really? Where?
You say I defend it, saying nothing illegal took place. Sounds like a position to me... although it is from your imagination.
You see, the post is not about Fast and Furious, is it?
Note the subjects of each paragraph:
Obama and his evil socialist plot to take our guns.
"overwhelming evidence" in his "gut"
already know all they need to know from FOX(R) and talk radio
irony-impaired, cult indoctrinated believers who cannot question the lie that Fast and Furious was a, ” progressive democrat sponsored death by way of pushing guns to Mexican drug cartels."
Nothing can separate the willfully ignorant from their beliefs.
where gun ownership was a common responsibility, not a paranoid fantasy of some right to kill other humans.
Sanity requires some common sense firearm restrictions.
fools and racists out there
Everyone reasonably sane is in favor of some gun control.
Only one side refuses reasonably sane compromise.
See the theme of my post yet?
Check the title for another clue.
Oh, and You claim to be the expert
Show us where, please.
Never mind. I never did.
We have already bestowed that honor on Free, you know. He welcomes the title.
You know Martin knew Zimmerman was half Cuban?
If he didn't hes a dumb ass. Its kinda obvious. He looked Hispanic at the least, he didn't look Mexican or Puertorican, or Hattian. Dude LOOKS Cuban. You do know all Hispanics don't run around in a mariachi outfit with a sombuero on right? Oh I forgot, we all look the same to you white people... I get why this would confuse you.
But it proves he stalks, and starts unprovoked fights, with black kids
Isn't that what neighborhood watch is? Watching people. Of note, that is not a crime.
Further note, where is your evidence who threw the first punch? We have a body with a single gun shot wound and no other injuries, and a live body with well documented injury that supports the defendant's statement... that he was on the ground getting his ass kicked. What does that tell you, given the evidence? It tells me Martin threw the first punch, as he had no wounds or marks from that, while Zimmerman did.
You know what this is starting to sound like? Like as a Hispanic or which like Zimmerman I am half, if I choose to follow a strange guy in my neighborhood because he was walking between houses in our neighborhood which we've had burglaries in, and he's acting in what a reasonable person would think was suspicious, that for that... he can take me down on the ground and beat me till he gets tiered and Democrats will defend him for it. And if I defend myself with the means available, I'm a murderer.
This sounds like racism allright, anti Hispanic racism. How dare those spics protect their homes. What jerks they are... They should wait 6 hours for the cops to come and not do anything about the crime in their neighborhoods, and when they are victims they should just suck it up. That's what all this uproar is about.
Poor paranoid Free!
He's now decided that he is a victim of my "anti-Hispanic racism".
But look at the bright side. That proves Zimmerman is not a racist.
And it means Free is our expert on yet another subject.
We are not worthy.
It is a crime to follow people. At a minimum it is Disorderly Conduct. You don't have the right to just follow people. You can't just declare youself a Neighborhood Watch and be immune to laws.
Also where is Zimmerman's home in relation to the shooting? Bet you don't know do you?
Martin had committed no crime (and no running didn't provide justification) and all the retroactive combing through his background can provide zero legal justification for his shooting.
Additionally, in the Martin-Zimmerman confrontation the key question is who started the fight. If Zimmerman started the fight and then realized he's getting his ass kicked he can not claim self-defense in shooting Martin.
Either way Zimmerman isn't going to be convicted.
I see you get some good exercise jumping to conclusions.
Nobody but you apparently knows the real threat posed by Martin. If only he was minding his own business...
Say, why hasn't YOUR party of Social Darwinism, or the Republican Plutocrat Party consolidated the Hispanic vote?
This damn democracy thing has got to be eradicated. It gets in the way of the True Masters, the Aristocracy and Atlas.
who started the fight
That no longer matters. It's who finishes the fight and tells his version that counts in Stand Your Ground (aka Stalk Your Victim) America.
It is a crime to follow people.
Not it's not. I'm not an expert on Florida Statute, but I did just google their stalking statute, and it makes it clear one must repeatedly follow an individual. One time isn't stalking. And simply following a person isn't enough to be considered threatening. As for disorderly conduct, I'm not sure you know what that means.
Martin had committed no crime
Agreed, but neither did Zimmerman. Whoever threw the first punch did. The only witness to that is Zimmerman, and you know what he's going to testify to. So it comes down to forensics, and those forensics support Zimmerman's story.
all the retroactive combing through his background can provide zero legal justification for his shooting.
Were his background that he was a multiple felon or a saint is irrelevant to the case. Either Zimmerman was firing in self defense or he was not. Forensic evidence tells me Martin was not hit, and balistics shows Martin was on top of Zimmerman when shot. Zimmerman has wounds consistent with his story, that he was on the ground getting his ass kicked. Per self defense criteria of all 50 states, when a person is defenseless on the ground and being assaulted that is considered deadly force on the part of the attacker, and deadly force in return is justifiable. I won't argue Zimmerman is the smartest cookie, he should have heeded the dispatcher's advice. But a murderer? Nope.
Also where is Zimmerman's home in relation to the shooting
Doesn't matter if he lived 1000 miles away or 1 foot away. Irrelevant to the case.
the key question is who started the fight.
Agreed. Its the only question in this case. Martin had but one wound, a gunshot wound. Zimmerman had wounds consistent with suffering a beating. If Zimmerman had thrown the first punch, Martin would have a bruise. Of course Zimmerman could have thrown the first punch, and Martin ducked it. But that is speculation. Further, Martin was definitely using deadly force on Zimmerman after the fight started, that is verified by physical evidence.
he can not claim self-defense in shooting Martin
Not true. What the law considers is the force used. If you say, punch me in the jaw I can't shoot you for it. If I were to do so, that would not be considered a justifiable use of deadly force. This is fundamentally what Martin did, because once a person is determined to be legally helpless and defenseless... such as being pinned to the ground and kicked or pummeled... THAT IS CONSIDERED DEADLY FORCE just as much as shooting or stabbing a person is. So, in our little hypothetical here, If you punch me in the jaw I cannot shoot you because you haven't used what "a reasonable person would consider deadly force" against me. HOWEVER, I punch you in the jaw, and then you take me down on the ground and render me "helpless" I can now shoot you, since YOU instigated deadly force.
Is any of that relevant? I have no idea, because we don't know who threw the first punch. There were only two witnesses, and one is dead.
I see you get some good exercise jumping to conclusions.
By all means, tell me where my analysis of the evidence is incorrect?
Nobody but you apparently knows the real threat posed by Martin
You should know. Can you not read the news articles? Did Martin pose a threat? Yes. He used deadly force. Did he intend to kill Zimmerman? No idea, but probably not. Also, that is irrelevant to the case. The test for the legality to use deadly force does not involve the ability of G. Zimmerman to read T. Martin's mind.
If you're wondering why stand your ground is absolutely necessary, this guy can educate you.
I'm quite certian I know what Disorderly conduct means I'm also sure you think you know but you are wrong. I never mentioned Stalking. Stalking is a highly specific law.
And you are assuming a great deal with your expostitions. Martin was using deadly force? Because of Zimmerman's injuries? Because of Zimmerman's testimony? Maybe but you seem to reaching this conclusion because Zimmerman claims he was in fear of his life.
And maybe Zimmerman did fear for his life.
But, Zimmerman by the 911 transcripts told the Dispatcher he was intitiating contact. Dispatchers in Florida are sworn state-certified law enforcement officials. So yes Zimmerman was disobeying a lawful order to stop by following Martin.
If Zimmerman hadn't begun to follow Martin then a probable conclusion is the shooting would not have occurred.
Now of course Zimmerman claimed he walked back to his truck and Martin then followed and attacked him. So, that makes the preceding moot if you believe Zimmerman's account.
And I agree with Stand Your Ground, only it was Trayvon Martin who was doing it.
But, this is all pointless anyway. Zimmerman won't be convicted and there have been hundreds more gun murders in the time since Trayvon's.
I just don't know why so many conservatives believed Zimmerman's account right away and showed no compassion for the dead Martin.
Stalking is a highly specific law.
Yes it is. And its the only one I could think of that could apply. And you're right, it doesn't. Typically, disorderly conduct makes it a crime to be drunk in public, to "disturb the peace", or to loiter in certain areas. I don't think disturbing the peace applies here, because you can't show who started the fight. But even if you could make that charge stick, disturbing the peace doesn't give Martin the right to use deadly force.
Martin was using deadly force?
Yes, per the statute. If you look at the forensics, the most likely cause of the bruises and cuts on Zimmerman's face were from being hit in it, and the cuts and bruises on the back of his head were caused by the sidewalk. Its rather obvious what happened. Zimmerman was on the ground being beaten. That isn't jumping to conclusions, any lay person can see that. Or as the law would say "Cause a reasonable person to conclude..." Now is that deadly force. Yes, and had Martin lived he would have been guilty of aggravated assault, not simple or misdemeanor assault, because he had Zimmerman down on the ground and wouldn't let him up.
Maybe but you seem to reaching this conclusion because Zimmerman claims he was in fear of his life.
Zimmerman's fear for his life is less a factor in the case, as opposed to the body position of the victim and the ballistics of the wound. Its reasonable to assume Zimmerman did not want Martin either on top of him or striking his head.
What you or I think about the situation is irrelevant, what the law says is what counts. Believe me, had Martin simply punched Zimmerman in the head a few times it would be different circumstance. Everything changed when Martin got ontop of Zimmerman and started to strike him while he was down. That simple act makes all the difference in the world. We could speculate that perhaps Zimmerman drew his gun first and Martin took him down and was later shot, and was defending himself. That is possible. However, there is no evidence to support that, and evidence is what counts. Not speculation.
So yes Zimmerman was disobeying a lawful order to stop by following Martin
That might hold up, where I was a Deputy our dispatchers were civilians- except having listened to the tape the dispatcher said "We don't need you to do that [follow him]" and never either identified himself as an officer or issued a specific command. But even if you could make that charge stick- obstructing a police officer or whatever they call that in Florida, that doesn't establish much intent to murder. Zimmerman sounds calm on the tape, there is no sign of malice- other than Zimmerman's consternation that home invaders "always get away," as he says at one point.
If Zimmerman hadn't begun to follow Martin then a probable conclusion is the shooting would not have occurred.
Likely true, but asking a person what they are doing in your neighborhood is not a criminal act.
Now of course Zimmerman claimed he walked back to his truck and Martin then followed and attacked him
But he does say it. And you can't discount a witness, even if he's the suspect. Though you can be skeptical of the claims. The fact is, no matter what it all comes down to who threw that first punch. We don't know. What we DO KNOW, is that Zimmerman ended up on his back being hit over and over, and that when Martin was shot- he was ontop of Zimmerman.
And I agree with Stand Your Ground, only it was Trayvon Martin who was doing it.
Possibly, but where is your evidence to support that? Zimmerman approached him isn't enough. Even against the advice -and that's what it was, not a command- of a dispatcher.
Zimmerman won't be convicted
I was a court bailiff for two of my three years in law enforcement, and one thing I learned working with juries every day was that you never know what a jury will do. However, as best as I can predict there will either be a not guilty verdict or a hung jury.
I just don't know why so many conservatives believed Zimmerman's account right away and showed no compassion for the dead Martin.
In all legal cases I never make snap judgments. I always wait for the evidence to come out, because 99% of the time the media is reporting some rumor that ends up totally wrong anyway. Now that I've seen most of the evidence in the case, I've made up my mind. Of course I'm open to new evidence, but don't expect any.
I think George Zimmerman was an overzealous wana-be cop. And stupid. However, these things do not make him guilty of murder.
We accuse the pure hearted conservtives' non-racsim as an attack on the NRA and the Greedy Oligarch's Plutocracy.
Just call'n em' how I see em' Dave. Had Zimmerman been black the black community wouldn't have cared a hoot. And because the black community wouldn't have cared, neither would white liberals who need their votes.
Dubya, regarding Prison Planet - no other 'moderate righties' as you call them have even insinuated that the Batman massacre was staged so your entire premise Fails.
Seriously, using Prison Planet as a supposed source for mainstream conservative thought is as ludicrous as believing the drivel drooling out of Rachell Maddow's mouth, or the propaganda spewing from the Daily Kos.
ABC News, Brian Ross, attempted to link James Holmes to the Tea Party within hours of the shooting. ABC News has since retracted and apologized.
Dubya: "That was the entire point of Fast and Furious" --- OK. That may be. I need to rephrase: Enforce the gun laws that already exist, but do so in a sensible manner at the local and state level and don't let Odumbo's idiot cronies have anything to do with it.
There are reasons for keeping some drugs illegal that are unrelated to gun laws. Drug laws and gun laws are both necessary. And both serve to improve society. It is when the laws impede the 2nd Amendment that we will have a problem.
You consistently confuse "the right" with "authoritarianism". Hitler, Stalin, Castro were all authoritarians, but none of them were "right wing". Quite the opposite, they were left wing - they wanted total government control of everything. Very similar to the path favored by the "progressives" and Obama in the U.S. today.
All of this crap about Zimmerman, Fast and Furious, and on and on and on is just a smokescreen to prevent people from seeing the real demon Americans face today.
I've seen many liberals quote Eisenhower about the dangers of the military-industrial complex, becuase it is something they agree with. But Eisenhower also warned about the dangers of creeping socialism.
It isn't conservative republicans who will try to take away the guns and ultimately the rights of Americans. That will by done by the Authoritarian "progressive" liberals who want to tell you what doctor to use and when, what to drive and where, what kind of light bulb to use, what size Coke you can drink, whether or not you can have goose liver pate, what school your children have to go to...
This isn't being done by conservatives, these intrusions into our lives are being perpetrated by the Authoritarian progressive liberals.
Lets also consider what would have happened if Zimmerman had not fired his weapon. Martin would have been most definitely been charged with aggravated assault and likely trespassing - assuming the owners of the homes Martin cut through didn't want him to do so. And perhaps disturbing the peace, though that likely would have been dropped because its such a throw away charge. Barely a step up from a speeding ticket. Disorderly Conduct might as well be renamed "Very rude to police officer" because thats the only time it ever gets used. When drunk assholes outside of bars yelling and screaming are dicks to responding officers about leaving the area they are being stupid in.
As for compassion, I was only a Deputy for three years, so I'm not the end all, be all expert on the subject of police procedure... but I will say something I learned in those three years. Leave your emotions at the door. Things like anger and compassion get you into trouble. I tried to approach every situation as dispassionately as was possible- which is sometimes very hard. Things are often not as they first appear. If I had to go back to being a cop tomorrow, I would try to remember to divorce myself from each call, and examine the evidence first. Jumping to conclusions is the worst thing you can do, and is the leading cause of getting officers into trouble. Assuming anyone's guilt or innocence be it Martin's or Zimmerman's is unprofessional and in some cases will cause you to take the wrong person to jail. Something I tried very hard not to do in my three years of law enforcement.
no other 'moderate righties' as you call them have even insinuated that the Batman massacre was staged so your entire premise Fails
Agreed. I'm actually having a debate with some moron who buys into this wacko conspiracy theory, and housing his ass in the process. Anyone who thinks that is a moron on bar with twoofers and birthers in their level of stupidity.
As to Fast and Furious it's indefensible. The Justice Department no matter what their over reaching motive whatever that may be, DID give guns to Mexican drug cartels, then lost them, and they wound up in the hands of a guy who murdered a boarder patrol officer. This is more than enough to get your ass fired. And Obama should have fired Holder the minute he found out Holder did something so incompetent and stupid. If I were Obama, I'd fire Holder, his chief of staff, and the agent who ran the operation. Then we could simply move on and future AG's would know to never, ever do this stupid shit again.
I'm not going to debate the Martin Zimmerman homicide with you anymore but just ask you to review your positions which consistently come down on the side of Zimmerman.
"you can't discount a witness"? Yes you can. It is done all the time.
Now in court they ususally have to get a witness to perjury or impeach themselves but witness testimony has long been considered sketchy at best, especially if the witness is the suspect! If OJ said he didn't do it is that the end of the trial because he's a witness and he says he didn't do it! Come on...
And as far as I can tell your entire speculation of Martin on top ground-and-pounding Zimmerman comes from Zimmerman himself and other "eyewitnesses" who may not recount the same statements under oath and some who have recanted their initial claims. Although as you correctly pointed out Martin didn't have any other marks/bruises/cuts than the deadly bullet wound.
And just so you know a Police Officer can not be the victim/complainant of a Disordely Conduct charge, at least where I'm from...
Anyway I'm done arguing Zimmerman.
Now in court they ususally have to get a witness to perjury or impeach themselves but witness testimony has long been considered sketchy at best
I said myself you should be skeptical of it. You don't take it its word, you use it to corroborate other evidence. Like when the suspect tells you the victim had him down on the ground and was beating him- and then you look and find wounds on the suspect's head, impact wounds on the back of his head, and blood on the concrete that matches to the suspect. This corroborates his story.
And as far as I can tell your entire speculation of Martin on top ground-and-pounding Zimmerman comes from Zimmerman himself
It comes 100% from the forensic evidence. That being the wounds on Zimmerman's face (they didn't get there by magic) and the wounds on the back of his head (which look to not be caused by fists, but by striking the ground repeatedly... as in someone punching the subject and his head then striking the ground as a result), and the blood spatters found on the side walk (which are consistent with a head slamming into the concrete.)
No witness statement lead me to that conclusion, but the physical evidence did.
And just so you know a Police Officer
Perhaps, but that doesn't stop police officers from arresting people who have been assholes outside of bars on that charge now does it?
but that doesn't stop police officers from arresting people who have been assholes outside of bars on that charge now does it?
Not that I EVER did that, though once in a while it was tempting. Look, if at all possible I kept intoxicated people out of my cruiser. A lot of times you don't have any choice, but I hate it. The last thing I want is some drunk guy all screaming, crying, and puking on me on the way up to booking. I hated arresting people for public intox, but I had no mercy for DUI.
I agree Fast and Furious was horribly and tragically botched. We can only hope lessons are learned. Blaming Obama or Holder will solve nothing. They had no hand in management of the operation. Ultimate responsibility to investigate and correct the problem rests with them. For that they should be held accountable. Funny how congressional oversight only matters with this president.
True. I haven’t seen any moderate conservative parrot the entire Jones fantasy. However many “conservatives” are not moderate, and believe Obama is out to take our guns. That is what they share with Jones to one degree or another.
Batman massacre was staged
That is not so far out from the all too common “Obama the America-hating Kenyan Marxist” and the “death panel” mentality as you’d like to think.
You got evidence Maddow has proposed anything that crazy? Show us if you can. I’d really like to see your evidence. Or is that just showing your hatred for her?
At least ABC retracted it, right? Wasn’t there a tea party person named Holmes that may have confused him? No Republican has retracted the “death panel” lie yet that I know of. Just recently Limbaugh declared Obama hates American because he said small business didn’t build our roads and bridges. Got anything from Maddow that compares to that?
Evidence abounds that “conservatives” believe Obama is trying to take their guns. In reality he has not made a single suggestion of legislation intended for firearm confiscation or registration. And he knows that won’t get anywhere in the House and Senate as well. I doubt he would even propose a ban on semi-automatics. It’s not a political winner for him. Even many democrats support gun ownership. I have several and I am to the left of all the corpo-dems and NRA Dems. Yes there are NRA supported Dems.
The “Obama is coming for our guns” hysteria is just that.
Drug laws and gun laws are both necessary
Yes, some are, but why can’t we debate them? Anti-drug laws are too much like the sacred scripture of a religion; questioning them is political blasphemy. How much influence do you think is exerted by alcohol, tobacco and pharmaceutical lobbies in suppressing the competition from natural medicines?
Sure, let’s keep cocaine, speed and heroin out of the streets and schoolyards. Those would be good drug laws, and addiction can be treated as a health problem instead of a criminal problem. But for adults who use the least harmful medicine on the planet in their own homes and then have their urine taken as an excuse to fire them from jobs, deny student loans, or receiving food stamps does not improve society. It costs the taxpayers money and does nothing to improve society.
I see drug testing for anything other than safety or medical reasons as a violation of our Fourth Amendment. And the war on drugs was weakening our Bill of Rights before the War on Terror. The drug war only kills, it hasn’t saved one life. The drug war is rooted in conservative authoritarianism. It was all about controlling people, especially minorities. Look up Harry Anslinger, and the roots of cannabis prohibition.
How many people are killed by regulations on soda and light bulbs? No difference? How many are incarcerated at taxpayer expense for pop and pate? What is the cost to society? Has a liberal told you which doctor you may see? Really?
There are ineffective and unjust laws.
This is why we the people need the power of ballot initiatives. Politicians are way out of touch on many issues.
You are no history student. Hitler, Stalin and Castro, like all dictators wanted personal control of everything, including the government. They are not progressive liberals at all. Liberals want representative democracy, care for the poor, the sick, or unemployed. Dictators are not liberals. They do not want change, democracy, justice, or accountability. They don’t care for the poor, the sick, or unemployed. Is that difficult to comprehend?
You’re wrong about Hitler. He hated democracy, liberals, educators and unions. Hitler took good care of German capitalists and they supported him. Fascism is the extreme Right and Communism is the extreme Left. Neither supports the ideals of democracy. Liberal democracy in a representative republic is what we are supposed to have. That is fading.
Stalin hated democracy, liberals, educators and unions, too. He was no progressive bleeding heart liberal in any way, shape, or form. He was, however, a brutal authoritarian.
Speaking of opposing democracy, liberals, educators and unions, one party in the US is actively suppressing unions, and imposing restrictions on voter registration and turnout by ID requirements. How is that good for us? Sounds like stepping on the throats of we the people to me. Especially seeing their feeble excuse of voter impersonation is not a problem. How many cases of that have there been in the last decade? Two or three figures?
Authoritarians want control of everything. Progressives and liberals want a civil society with the rule of law. We want constitutional regulation of commerce, not government ownership of everything. Where do you get such nonsense?
Read former Nixon White House Counsel John Dean’s book on authoritarians, “Conservatives without Conscience”. I have quoted him throughout my blog. Dean considers himself a moderate Goldwater Republican, a dying breed.
While you’re at it, read some history and learn how Hitler was not close to being a leftist liberal. Declaring Hitler was a liberal socialist because the German word for socialism is in “NAZI” is no more accurate than declaring the Peoples Democratic of North Korea is a democratic republic. Do you understand that?
It isn't conservative republicans who will try to take away the guns and ultimately the rights of Americans
How about voting rights? No, Republicans and most Democrats are not out to take our guns. Both parties are guilty of drug war and Patriot Act abuses of our rights, though. Are you aware of at least that much?
When anonymous corporate money is “free speech”, then who do they listen to? If multinational corporations finish buying our government, they may just decide to tell the Republican/corpodem one-party government to keep the population in line by disarming them.
I've seen many liberals quote Eisenhower about the dangers of the military-industrial complex
So that’s reason to ignore it, then?
Eisenhower also warned about the dangers of creeping socialism
You mean this quote?
“I believe that for the past twenty years there has been a creeping socialism spreading in the United States.”
Source: President DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER, off-the-cuff speech to Republican leaders, Custer State Park, South Dakota, June 11, 1953.Robert J. Donovan, Eisenhower: The Inside Story, p. 336 .At his press conference in Washington, D.C., June 17, 1953, President Eisenhower was asked what he meant by creeping socialism. Donovan writes, He replied: continued Federal expansion of the T.V.A. He reiterated for what he said was the thousandth time that he would not destroy the T.V.A., but he said that he thought it was socialistic to continue putting money paid by all the taxpayers into a single region which could then attract industry away from other areas.
Context is everything. He supported safety nets like Social Security and unemployment insurance:
Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are H. L. Hunt (you possibly know his background), a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid.
Oh, well. Gone are the days of moderate Republicans.
Alex Jones isn’t alone. Tea Party celebrity Larry Pratt of Gun Owners of America also believes in the Obama/Holmes conspiracy.
The John Birch Society site says, “While Adams’ theory remains strictly conjectural at this point; the timing of the shootings coinciding with the final details of the UN Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) being polished up in New York by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton cannot be ignored.”
This article is linked by the John Birch Society:
"Even the NRA doesn’t advocate the right to carry rocket propelled grenade launchers or 20mm Gatling guns."
The NRA as an organization (a very profitable business, really) might draw a line just short of that, at least for now. I'm certain many NRA members vehemently insist they have an absolute, constitutionally guaranteed right to own and use any firearm or weapon they choose, with no restrictions on when, where and how they may carry their weapons.
One such person in my part of the country has spent years writing letters to the editor to area newspapers.
Dave is right, though, about the gullible and the willing ignorant among us.
Alex Jones of Houston, Texas, whose work you linked to, makes his living advancing and perpetuating a vast array of conspiracy theories — radio shows, TV productions, DVDs, multiple Web sites, all of them feasts for the fevered minds of the gullible, ignorant and paranoid. Not surprisingly, his party affiliation is listed as Republican. Not surprisingly, Jones' handiwork carries titles such as these 2009-2010 opuses:
— The Obama Deception: The Mask Comes Off
— Fall of the Republic: Vol. 1, The Presidency of Barack H. Obama
— Police State IV: The Rise Of FEMA
What's not surprising is this. Jones comes up with his disturbing, shocking reports and revealing insights — presumably painstakingly investigated, carefully researched and thoroughly documented material — using the exceptional skills he learned in high school and his reportedly brief attendance at a community college.
What a great country we have, where anyone with a vivid imagination and a hustler's bravado and spiel can create a career and build himself a lucrative media empire by shooting off his mouth on radio six times a week, catering to the fears and suspicions of people in need of a real life.
If that seems appalling, it's even more appalling that we have a burgeoning political class of people rising in that arena in a similar way and for similar reasons.
"A lot of gun owners would agree that AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers, not in the hands of criminals -- that they belong on the battlefield of war, not on the streets of our cities,"
Barack Obama- today.
You were saying he doesn't want the Brady Bill back?
Sadly, there's an entire industry dedicated to cultivating the fear, anger, hate and ignorance needed for the radical Right to convince voters to vote against their interests.
I agree criminals shouldn't have machine guns. Don't you?
Obama is well known for his words. He also says we needed change and Wall Street should be more regulated.
Fat chance any of those things will happen.
Yes, I believe I will subscribe to the thread.
"You see, the post is not about Fast and Furious, is it?"
Then why is this ("Not-so-fast-but-but-furious Right Wingers probably won’t read the Fortune article that best explains the ATF Fast and Furious episode...") in the main body of the post?
This is your pattern. You write a post and people discuss the topics in your post. Then you claim your post is about something else because you want to make a different point. But you ignore the fact that you wrote what you wrote.
As for your two questions to me...
Dave is the expert: Simple. You quote a Fortune article and every time a comment is written that strays from what you have determined are the facts, you call us right-wing nuts who only get their news from Fox.
Defense of Fast & Furious: Again simple. You quote a Fortune article that defends Fast & Furious. You also say, "The administration had no role I see in the almost complete failure of this particular operation." That's a pretty clear defense of Obama.
You presume to know the truth. You defend the administration. You defend Fast & Furious. Why are you afraid to stand behind your words? This is why I wanted to pin you down. You copy other people's words and then refuse to openly say what you believe.
Something we agree on: "Fast and Furious was a failed operation, not a conspiracy." And the cover-up may be the conspiracy.
I love the way you Republicans love to mischaracterize what you can’t reasonably debate. Like the Romney/(FOX)R misrepresentation of Obama’s “You didn’t build that” quote lifted completely out of context. This is a losing tactic, not to mention dishonest. But that is a good subject of a post. Thank you for the inspiration.
Then why is this...in the main body of the post?
Why are all the sentences in the main body of the post? Because they are relevant to the main subject. Your answer is in the sentence.
“Not-so-fast-but-but-furious Right Wingers”. You see, that is the subject. Not operation Fast and Furious. It was but one example.
But you probably already know that and need to distract, deliberately misconstrue, and obfuscate. It’s the Republican way.
You assume because I call out Republicans for dishonesty I defend Obama. Illogical. I would call out Obama for the same dishonesty, but the Republicans are so much more prone to dishonesty.
After all, their stated mission is to facilitate the failure of government under Obama, only to implement their own brand of failure when they take power.
What facts have I determined? If you rebutted them we could learn what they are.
Again you failed to show how the Obama administration managed the operation. If they did, I agree they failed. I showed who ran it. You did not. I win the point.
You defend Fast & Furious.
Something we agree on: "Fast and Furious was a failed operation, not a conspiracy."
If you agree with me then we both seem to “defend Fast and Furious”...or not defend it. Whatever you want to make up is entertaining for us.
Dubya. Dude. What a rant! Maybe you should consider using decaf.
I don’t have that much time on my hands, so I can’t hit every point…
I’m not going to bother quoting Maddow, her lunacy stands on its own merits, or lack thereof.
The ABC News lie about the Tea Party connection should have been vetted before it was aired, not after. Just another example of the liberal media’s left wing bias. And the propensity of the All Barack Channel to put their own agenda ahead of reporting facts.
Next point was already refuted by Free.
I am open to debating drug laws. Many conservatives would be willing to consider some revisions to the current laws.
Dubya, first you say: “The drug war is rooted in conservative authoritarianism. It was all about controlling people, especially minorities”. Then in the next paragraph: “How many people are killed by regulations on soda and light bulbs”. What are the regulations on soda (pop where I’m from) and light bulbs if not Liberal Authoritariansim and the liberals’ attempts to control peoples behavior? Another clear example of bias – it’s OK if liberals do it but not OK if conservatives do the same thing.
Dubya: “Liberals want representative democracy, care for the poor, the sick, or unemployed.” This is just your liberal indoctrination coming through loud and clear. Conservatives also want representative democracy, and they want to make sure the poor, sick, elderly, and unemployed are cared for. To suggest otherwise is sheer demagoguery. The liberal “progressive” democrats want to advance their agenda to increase government control of all aspects of society. Conservatives want less government control and greater personal responsibility. Once again, it is the “give a man a fish” mentality versus the “teach a man to fish” mentality.
Following citations are from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism
Regarding Hitler’s stand on capitalism:
“Initially, Nazi political strategy used anti-big business, anti-bourgeois, and anti-capitalist rhetoric. This was downplayed in the 1930s to gain the support of industrial owners, and it shifted more to anti-Semitic and anti-Marxist themes. Nazism favoured private property, freedom of contract, and promoted the creation of national solidarity that would transcend class differences. The Nazis outlawed strikes by employees and lockouts by employers, because these were regarded a threat to national unity. Instead, the state controlled and approved wage and salary levels.”
“Hitler believed that private ownership was useful in that it encouraged creative competition and technical innovation, but insisted that it had to conform to national interests and be "productive" rather than "parasitical". Private property rights were conditional upon the economic mode of use, if it did not advance Nazi economic goals then the state could nationalize it. Although the Nazis privatised public properties and public services, they also increased economic state control. Under Nazi economics, free competition and self-regulating markets diminished; nevertheless, Hitler's social Darwinist beliefs made him reluctant to entirely disregard business competition and private property as economic engines.”
“The Nazis argued that capitalism damages nations due to international finance, the economic dominance of big business, and Jewish influences. Nazi propaganda posters in working-class districts emphasized anti-capitalism, such as one that said: "The maintenance of a rotten industrial system has nothing to do with nationalism. I can love Germany and hate capitalism."”
“Hitler, both in public and in private, expressed strong disdain for capitalism, accusing modern capitalism of holding nations ransom in the interests of a parasitic cosmopolitan rentier class. He opposed free-market capitalism's profit-seeking impulses and desired an economy in which community interests would be upheld. He distrusted capitalism for being unreliable, due to its egotistic nature, and he preferred a state-directed economy that is subordinated to the interests of the Volk. Hitler told a party leader in 1934, "The economic system of our day is the creation of the Jews." Hitler said to Benito Mussolini that "Capitalism had run its course". Hitler also said that the business bourgeoisie "know nothing except their profit. 'Fatherland' is only a word for them." Hitler admired Napoleon as a role model for his anti-conservative, anti-capitalist and anti-bourgeois attitudes.”
Very interesting, Hitler preferred a state-directed economy that is subordinated to the interests of the folks. And he believed that business people know nothing except their profit. He expressed strong disdain for capitalism. But he was also willing to use businesses in a manner that advanced his political agenda. And he believed the state should control wages and salary levels.
Sound like anyone we know? (Hint: his current name ends with Obama)
And, the Nazi’s held that the economic dominance of big businesses damages nations. Hmmm, smacks of ‘anti-corporatism’ doesn’t it?
Your indoctrinators did teach you well, Dubya. Keep lumping the words ‘democracy, liberals, educators, and unions’ together and trying to create the illusion that somehow democracy is linked to the other three.
Conservatives want a civil society with the rule of law. You claim progressive liberals want that too, but I don’t see the progressive liberals in the OWS groups promoting either of those ideals.
Yes, some conservatives are attempting to combat the registering of ex-cons, illegal immigrants, deceased individuals, and pets to the voter registration rolls by requiring that voters prove their identity prior to voting. The actions of the liberals necessitated a reaction by conservatives.
Virtually all conservatives do support social safety nets. We oppose the nazi-esque nationalization of the health insurance industry, which is obviously the ultimate goal of Obamacare.
And last but certainly not least, we have Dubya admitting that he is a “progressive” liberal: “…Progressives and liberals want a civil society with the rule of law. We want constitutional regulation of commerce…” Good on you Dubya, don’t be ashamed of who you are!
I agree criminals shouldn't have machine guns. Don't you?
I agree most AR owners aren't criminals, don't you?
"The drug war is rooted in conservative authoritarianism. It was all about controlling people, especially minorities”.
Lets rework that statement a bit
The gun control lobby is rooted in liberal authoritarianism. It was all about controlling people, especially minorities.
Funny how you defend the one and oppose the other. I on the other hand am consistent on both sides. Drugs like guns have a capacity to hurt - and not just the user. Ask anyone who has been crashed into by someone high on drugs. In fact, many more people die in automobile accidents caused by intoxicated people than do by gun violence. But I do understand it's not the weed or the drink or the pill or the gun that causes deaths. It's the user. And those things can be used for good... or at least fun... or for evil. Criminalizing any of those things won't prevent their use, just make criminals of many otherwise innocent people, and only the law abiding will abstain. Frankly, criminalization only works on those who didn't need the authority exerted on them anyway.
Once again, thank you so much for your time.
Decaf? I prefer to be awake and conscious.
so I can’t hit every point…
Yes, we see, but at least you tried to hit all the ones you missed here.
I’m not going to bother quoting Maddow, her lunacy stands on its own merits, or lack thereof.
Now this is real Demagoguery. That certainly counts as a miss. Since you cannot find any comparison, I win the point.
the All Barack Channel to put their own agenda ahead of reporting facts
ABC immediately retracted whatever conjecture one person made. How about FOX(R) for comparison? They repeat ad nauseam the lie that Obama told small businesses “you didn’t build your business”. I bet you like that one.
But you miss the point again, on calling out false propaganda. Maybe you’d better try arguing with facts some time.
You accuse my stating liberal values in contrast to Hitler and Stalin as demagoguery. Did I say conservatives don’t have those values? No. I said Hitler and Stalin don’t have those liberal progressive values.
I'm so happy you share them with us.
That’s a big miss on the point, though. I win this one. In fact liberals agree on your values and expand them. We want less government control over our bodies and greater personal, government and corporate responsibility.
You Republicans are good at this missing the point kind of thing. I may have to write a post on this characteristic.
And there’s your argument against:
“progressive” democrats want to advance their agenda to increase government control of all aspects of society. Conservatives want less government control and greater personal responsibility.
Oh, I do love the all-too-familiar classic old “government control of all aspects of society” whopper. You guys are so indoctrinated you have a hard time seeing the difference between a moderate like Obama and Stalin. Anybody who disagrees with you seems to be a dirty America-hating, responsibility-shirking, parasitic, union-thug-loving, commie traitor to everything American and decent.
Once again you confuse, as a liberal, an iron-fisted dictator who seizes control of not only his country, but Europe and parts of Asia and Africa. I suppose you may imagine that is just what we liberals have been plotting all along? Your pal Glenn Beck told us all about it. He’s never wrong. He was paid millions of dollars after telling us Obama hates white people right there on FOX(R).
I dare you to show us a historian who agrees that Hitler and Stalin were advocates of liberal democracy.
combat the registering of ex-cons, illegal immigrants, deceased individuals, and pets to the voter registration rolls
That would find bi-partisan support. It is called registration fraud.
The anti-democracy machinery of the Right fabricates almost non-existent voter impersonation fraud as a reason to suppress democracy. And they know it works.
Senate Republican Mike Bennett, from Bradenton, suggested it might be too easy to cast a ballot.
"We do make it convenient for people to vote," he said. "But I have to tell you, I don't have a problem making it harder. I want people in Florida to want to vote as bad as that person in Africa who walks 200 miles across the desert. This should not be easy. This should be something you should do with a passion."
Republican majority leader of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives, Mike Turzai admits, “Voter ID, which is gonna allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania — done.”
And the final point goes to me.
Virtually all conservatives do support social safety nets.
That would be very progressive and socialist of them. Thank you.
We oppose the nazi-esque nationalization of the health insurance industry,
Looks like that darn demagoguery again.
Your cult indoctrination is something to behold.
Hitler was a liberal.
Read that again.
How can anyone with even half an open mind not laugh at that nonsense?
But believe it you must.
Did you know your Fearless Decider’s aristocratic grandfather dipped his fingers into some of that NAZI capitalism? But what’s a little “Trading with Enemies Act” between good wealthy conservatives?
But believe what you must.
Trust your leaders. Repeat what they say.
They are always telling you the truth.
The truth about what to fear.
The truth about whom to be very angry at.
The truth about the unregulated “Free Market”.
The truth about an unregulated Wall Street.
The truth about the evil conspiracy of climate science.
The truth about who’s to blame for our problems.
The truth about who’s destroying America.
The truth about the “liberal” corporate media.
And the truth about the Marxist Democrats.
The truth about the commie progressives.
But you know what? Not to be over harsh, I like you F&B. I hope you’ll see outside the narrow view of the Right eventually. Be aware, we really do share some important human values. Liberals are not the monsters FOX(R) and Rush portray us to be on radio and TV.
Really. Honest to God.
They both claimed to be advocates of socialism. Coincidentally so do you.
You're a real hoot.
Yeah, Free, I want the same things as Hitler and Stalin. And you believe them now?
They talked socialism, but imposed dictatorships through fascism and communism. They opposed liberal democracy, unions, liberals, and educators, (Coincidently so do Republicans.) with the frequent use of the death penalty and imprisonment.
Just like we bleeding heart liberal socialists would do, right?
Oh, the brutal tyranny of energy efficient light bulbs! The final nail in Liberty's coffin! I bet Stalin and Hitler wished they came up with that one.
Hitler and Stalin took care of minimum wage and union problems with slave labor. Sounds just like what we liberals have been advocating all along, doesn't it?
We've been warned. The holocaust and gulags are the inevitable consequences of regulations for Wall Street and tax cut expirations for the aristocrats.
Good thing we have your clear headed vision to thank for the salvation of our nation.
but imposed dictatorships through fascism and communism
Funny how that always seems to happen in socialist countries. Stalin and Hitler were individuals. They had millions of people behind them that fell for the socialist lie.
The holocaust and gulags are the inevitable consequences of regulations for Wall Street and tax cut expirations for the aristocrats.
Yes, it is.
Many socialists have the tragic illusion that by depriving private individuals of the power they possess in an individualist system, and transferring this power to society, they thereby extinguish power. What they overlook is that, by concentrating power so that it can be used in the service of a single plan, it is not merely transformed but infinitely heightened. By uniting in the hands of some single body power formerly exercised independently by many, an amount of power is created infinitely greater than any that existed before, so much more far-reaching as almost to be different in kind. It is entirely fallacious to argue that the great power exercised by a central planning board would be "no greater than the power collectively exercised by private boards of directors." There is, in a competitive society, nobody who can exercise even a fraction of the power which a socialist planning board would possess. To decentralize power is to reduce the absolute amount of power, and the competitive system is the only system designed to minimize the power exercised by man over man. Who can seriously doubt that the power which a millionaire, who may be my employer, has over me is very much less than that which the smallest bureaucrat possesses who wields the coercive power of the state and on whose discretion it depends how I am allowed to live and work?
It's as if here were speaking to you beyond the grave. That, or it's just your kind never learn from history.
Thank you for your guru's words. I'll have a look at them.
I stated Hitler and Stalin imposed dictatorships through fascism and communism.
Funny how that always seems to happen in socialist countries.
Funny how you falsely generalize. Czarist Russia was a monarchy. The Weimar Republic was a struggling attempt at democracy during chaos and depression. China was devastated and divided by war. Cuba was a dictatorship under gangster pal Batista.
Let's look at your Prophet.
Many socialists have the tragic illusion that by depriving private individuals of the power they possess...
Not this, or any socialist I know. Individuals have little power, unless we mean the Kochs and other billionaires who can buy politicians.
With money sanctified as “free speech” all the power goes to the corporations and aristocratic elites. Little remains for the 99.9%. Corporatocracy is what deprives individuals of power by subverting their democracy.
concentrating power so that it can be used in the service of a single plan
The single plan is of course to amass more money and power.
Who can seriously doubt that the power which a millionaire, who may be my employer, has over me is very much less than that which the smallest bureaucrat possesses who wields the coercive power of the state and on whose discretion it depends how I am allowed to live and work?
That would be one heck of a bureaucrat. One with the power of a cabinet level position or an agency director, I presume. Times have changed. Yes, now the millionaire has the “free speech” money to by the politicians who appoint and direct that bureaucrat, often a corporate insider in a regulatory position.
Your boy makes a good case against a type of absolute and total Socialism that fits his framing. Most of the socialism he speaks against would be communist type of Government planned economy and ownership of production and distribution.
Where the hell have I advocated that? I never did, of course, except in your imagination.
By the time Hitler came to power, liberalism was dead in Germany. And it was socialism that had killed it.
He says there’s a difference between liberalism and socialism. You don’t seem to see that, do you?
Long before the Nazis, too, the German and Italian socialists were using techniques of which the Nazis and Fascists later made effective use. The idea of a political party which embraces all activities of the individual from the cradle to the grave, which claims to guide his views on everything, was first put into practice by the socialists. It was not the Fascists but the socialists who began to collect children at the tenderest age into political organizations to direct their thinking. It was not the Fascists but the socialists who first thought of organizing sports and games, football and hiking, in party clubs where the members would not be infected by other views. It was the socialists who first insisted that the party member should distinguish himself from others by the modes of greeting and the forms of address. It was they who, by their organization of "cells" and devices for the permanent supervision of private life, created the prototype of the totalitarian party. By the time Hitler came to power, liberalism was dead in Germany. And it was socialism that had killed it.
If the above stuff is socialism then I am no socialist. Hell, I’d rather be a Democrat. Oh that’s right. Democrats are socialists to you too. I don’t care to "collect children at the tenderest age into political organizations to direct their thinking” or “organizing sports and games, football and hiking, in party clubs where the members would not be infected by other views”. These sound a lot like conservative private schools.
“Devices for the permanent supervision of private life” sounds like forcing women into unwanted uterus monitoring, drug testing for no medical or safety reason, or warrantless surveillance under Bush’s war on terror. These policies fit the Right more than the Left.
His and your version of socialism is nothing like the democratic, safety net socialism, with regulated capitalism I advocate. Even Hayek liked safety nets. That would mean he had a degree of socialist inclination.
"Conservative socialism" was the slogan under which a large number of writers prepared the atmosphere in which National Socialism succeeded.
Now we have “conservative corporatism” preparing the atmosphere in which undemocratic fascism will succeed.
You know what? I think I prefer to argue with Hayek. At least he won’t misrepresent and misconstrue what I say.
Dubya, I'm sure you always believe you win every point, so your rudimentary scorekeeping is irrelevant.
Maybe someday I'll have time to recount some of Maddow's intolerance and blatant lies, but I don't see that day coming anytime soon. I am busy personally trying to bring jobs back to the states from China and Mexico. Any rational person, however, can readily see that Maddow is the Alex Jones of the moonbat left.
ABC did not "immediately" retract their lie, but did so after even many on the left called "bullshit" on the report.
Dubya: "We want less government control over our bodies and greater personal, government and corporate responsibility." --- You might want those things, but they are not aligned with the agenda of the 'progressive' liberal left.
You really need to avoid the 'reductio ad absurdum' arguments, the reduce your credibility and weaken your position.
You just didn't get it Dubya. I'm not saying Hitler was a progressive liberal, although they share many of the same traits and philosophies. I'm saying that Obama shares many of Hitler's political positions. And increased Gun Control is coming, especially if Obama is re-elected.
Dubya, your consistent use of the "liberal democracy, unions, liberals, and educators" phrase is disingenuous and demagogic because the Nazis also opposed many other conservative ideals but you repeatedly ignore them and only mention the ones that fit your very narrow political views.
Make sure you give yourself 10 or 12 more points if it makes you feel better.
I'm saying that Obama shares many of Hitler's political positions.
Maddow is the Alex Jones of the moonbat left.
We cannot accept your unsourced, baseless demagoguery.
However, I graciously accept your consession.
By the time Hitler came to power, liberalism was dead in Germany. And it was socialism that had killed it.
Liberalism: A political ideology that advocates limited government, constitutionalism, rule of law, due process, individual liberties including freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and free markets.
You are not a liberal Dave. You can call yourself a liberal, but you're not. You are a-
Socialist: Democratic socialism is a political philosophy and social movement that rejects authoritarian means to achieve a transition to socialism, instead advocating for the immediate creation of decentralized economic democracy from the grassroots level, undertaken by and for the working class itself. Specifically, it is a term used to distinguish between socialists who favor grassroots-level, spontaneous revolution or gradualism over Leninism – organized revolution instigated and directed by an overarching Vanguard party that operates on the basis of democratic centralism. The term is used by socialist organizations that are opposed to Leninist communism and Marxist-Leninism.
I'm sure you have good intentions, but you are frankly what Lenin called a "useful idiot."
The end state of your bizarre and twisted sociological and economic theory is always one of two outcomes. First, the non-authoritarian failure state such as we see today in France, Greece and Spain, which often leads to the second outcome of gulags, oligarchy, total oppression, and economic ruin. Socialism never has nor will it ever provide better social services or personal liberty. It has a 100% failure rate.
Hayek tells us, that your brand of socialism is as his title suggests, a ROAD to serfdom. You would start us on that journey with good intentions, and your political descendants would give us the gulags of totalitarianism or the anarchy of a failed state. The end result of socialism is hunger, violence, war, depravity, and finally death.
I wouldn't know what I think if it were not for you telling me what I think. And here I thought I was liberal.
I take comfort in being categorized a "useful idiot" by a “corporatist puppet” fond of labeling people. ;-)
This actually supports my long standing position that the radical Right must assign a threatening and negative image to those who disagree with their idea of government of, by and for Big Money, and scorn for government of, by and for the people
The end result of socialism is hunger, violence, war, depravity, and finally death
Hmm, sounds just like "Operation Iraqi Freedom".
Definition of terms is the beginning of every debate. Agreement by the two parties on definitions is required to advance the debate. Otherwise the “debate” mires in conflicting definitions.
Free offers the definition of Classical Liberalism and pronounced judgment that I am no liberal. Yes, despite my agreement, with reasonable exceptions in regard to public safety and the general welfare, on limited government, constitutionalism, rule of law, due process, individual liberties including freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and free markets.
But note that he only provided the Wiki take on Classical Liberalism.
How about this?
Liberalism (from the Latin liberalis) is a political ideology or worldview founded on ideas of liberty and equality. Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but generally liberals support ideas such as capitalism (either regulated or not), constitutionalism, liberal democracy, free and fair elections, human rights and the free exercise of religion.
Why would he ignore the definition of Liberalism itself?
I think I know why, beside the fact he needs to paint a scarier un-American image of me. “Liberals espouse a wide array of views.” This makes it difficult for him to stuff us into a convenient category. He wants to portray us as hating the wealthy, and opposed to freedom and capitalism, wittingly or unwittingly.
“Useful idiot” is his condition of mercy here.
For that consideration, I thank him.
with reasonable exceptions
I'm willing to bet we have more than a few differences of opinion as to what constitutes reasonable.
This makes it difficult for him to stuff us into a convenient category. He wants to portray us as hating the wealthy, and opposed to freedom and capitalism, wittingly or unwittingly.
We're talking about definitions, but as you're so fond of saying- there you go again.
You can claim to support capitalism all you want. But your actions ... or at least the actions of the people you vote for who act on your behalf say otherwise.
After all, you acknowledge the Democrat Party doesn't really support indefinite detention without trail of American citizens. How does that support the rule of law? Your party supports gun control and drug criminalization, along with yes... light bulbs, soda cans, sugar, salt, transfats, rap music etc. The people you vote for don't pretend to allow citizens the freedom of choosing what size soda they buy, hardly a party of personal liberty. You claim to be capitalist and a Democratic Socialist at the same time, though they are mutually exclusive economic systems. In fact, I challenge you to name one regulation on business you think should be over turned. You claim to support free speech, and yet this in your twisted definition only applies to the proletariat. Those Dave and his socialist pals deem "big money" should have zero protection under the 1st Amendment according to them. This is because Dave isn't into freedom or equality under the law, he wants equality of actual speech. If one man can use his wealth to reach too wide an audience, Dave believes he should be silenced by unconstituional campaign finance law. Neither are in support of free speech or the constitution. However he is selective even in that stance, a stance where Michael Moore can make any movie he wants (as he should) but what he deems "big money stooges" like Citizens United should not. This is clearly a double standard, and certainly does not reflect a belief in equal protection under the law. In fact any entity deemed BIG MONEY by the socialists are deemed not only deserving of rights, but not human. As if corporations were composed of aliens from outer space or robots or some other form instead of being what they are, a collection of thinking, human beings deserving as a collective of the full and equal protection of law.
I am standing by for Dave to claim I am mischaracterizing his arguments which is typical of him. But he has made such statements time and again. He has self identified as a "Democratic Socialist" time and again. These terms indeed do have meaning. Socialism and Capitalism are not compatible and cannot coexist within the same sphere. When this is attempted, we see the socialization of failure and the privatization of success we see in America today. But with the same tried and true outcomes of socialism with fewer and fewer as time progresses benefits of capitalism.
I am not invoking Goodwin's Law when I say Dave supports many of the economic socialism of Adolph Hitler. Not everything Hitler did was evil. Building a system of national highways as Hitler did (when he didn't use slave labor) is not an evil act. Therefore, adopting the some of the facets of socialism Hitler favored
does not make evil. I simply use 1930s Germany as an example - and do not look to point to the more horrific and obviously flawed aspects of National Socialism. While I do believe Dave shares more in common with old Adolph that even he is aware, I DO NOT mean to suggest Dave is a white supremacist, in favor of Fascism, or is anti semetic. Fascism is a political system, and socialism is an economic system. Dave seems to support the economic policy of National Socialism without its Fascist trappings. I want to make that very clear.
In 1930s Germany the State did not appropriate directly into collective ownership (at least so long as the ownership were Aryan) the means of production. Instead it so heavily regulated private business and industry that effectively these businesses were state controlled if not owned, and Hitler simply outsourced their management. German business was only non-state owned in name. In reality, every nuance of their running was controlled by the Nazi Party. This act alone is not evil, it is simply pervasive regulation, such as Dave supports. What were it's consequences? In the short term very good. German business and "workers" were extremely subsidized and this led to the predictable short term gains. But as has been said before, the problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money, and that is exactly what happened. This is of course where old Adolph and Dave disconnect. Dave here supports ceasing the assets of the wealthy through taxation such as he has advocated many times, Adolph ceased neighboring countries, plundered them and enslaved the occupants. That is a stark, stark difference not in policy but of moral character. Taxation, even excessive taxation while possibly unjust is lawful. However, it is not infinite either. Predictably "big money" as Dave has labeled them do not wish to support the socioeconomic needs of total strangers, and are avoiding such taxation or outright moving away. There again is the problem with socialism, you run out of other people's money- or they run away from you. Dave acknowledges this flaw in a round about way, and his answer is stunning. Let them go, he says. Well okay, how do you propose to fund this socialist system without them? He doesn't have a sure answer, which again highlights his magical thinking on the subject. The answer is, if Dave were king for a day and got his way, America would go the way of Mexico, France, Greece, Spain and many others... at best. At worst, our leaders may just decide to start the plundering and enslaving.
ooops, should read the Democrat Party supports indefinite detention
Rights are not rights as long as some non human entities have more than human persons. You read Animal Farm, right. “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others".
All persons are equal, but corporate persons are more equal than other persons.
So how many labels do you want to pin on me?
Democrat, statist, Socialist, Democratic socialist, (This is the term I use to differentiate from the Democratic Party, not a lockstep fit to whatever definition you apply. But you still say "Your party" for some reason.)
I think the fact that I support regulated capitalism and socialistic safety nets confuses you.
You see, we had been prospering with both of those. Now both our capitalism and safety nets are suffering due largely to deregulation and tax cuts on the elites. Bankruptcy from medical expenses and lost jobs bring about the misery, not safety nets and public works and services.
Coddling corporations with corporate welfare while allowing them to legislate public policy as they offshore jobs is also the road to serfdom. It’s been the road to a lot of unemployed Americans, to say the least.
You are an absolutist and inflexible in your assessment of others and the world at large. Social Security and Medicare enslave no one. Absolutism is the path of failure, whether absolute divine right of kings, fascism, capitalism, communism or socialism.
Any absolute is incompatable with another. We live in a relative world.
You seem to need little mental boxes to put everything in, or your world becomes too confusing.
Capitalism and socialistic programs have been working in this country for decades until the "conservative" revolution began dismantling regulation of banks, cutting taxes on the wealthy, starting wars, and cutting public services and programs.
But I won't be an absolutist and say these are the only factors. Globalization and technology changes have affected things too.
Of course globalization and corporatism go hand in hand. While the hysterical reactionaries scream about "one world government" and creeping socialism, multi-national corporations are buying up all the governments.
Secret and foreign political spending can never result in a more open society and democratic republic. But that’s your “free speech” at work.
That, sir, is the true road to serfdom and the end of freedom and democracy.
Free, your comment at 3:20...
If you were still posting at John Galt, that should be written up as a stand-alone post. It's not just a good description of Dave, it's all about the Democrat party. Well done.
Rights are not rights as long as some non human entities have more than human persons
What laws do not apply to "big money" that don't apply to you? They are equal... under the law. What they have is MORE MONEY than you do. You have the same exact legal voice, but your voices aren't equal. I'm not looking for total equality, only equal protection under the law.
But you still say "Your party" for some reason
I say YOUR PARTY because that is where you cast your vote. Were I voting for Republicans, I'd be a Republican. I'm a Libertarian and vote that way, I'm I'm proud to say I do.
I support regulated capitalism and socialistic safety nets confuses you.
And your desired level of regulation and income redistribution is socialist. I'm not confused. That makes perfect sense. You're a socialist who likes socialist policy. This is not surprising.
You see, we had been prospering with both of those
With perhaps, but not because of. No, in spite of. And now because of them we are not prospering.
Now both our capitalism and safety nets are suffering due largely to deregulation and tax cuts on the elites.
Its simplistic and a shallow assessment to try to quantify America's economic woes to such narrow factors. We aren't and I'm not suggesting in recession simply because of government one way or another. There are a multitude of factors. Some people made bad business decisions sure. Both companies and customers. No company could have sold an adjustable rate mortgage, let alone the millions that were sold, without customers who chose to buy them. But Government exacerbates the problem. Probably the only thing Barney Frank and George Bush ever agreed on was government's subsidy and "regulation" that lead to what they both touted as record home ownership. They touted it right up until the bubble they built crashed and burned and then the finger pointing started. Everybody has a right to own a home. Sounds nice. Didn't work out that way though. Everybody has a right to ______ will get the same results, every time. Its predictable as clockwork.
Coddling corporations with corporate welfare is socialist. Nuff said. You act as if there aren't any socialists in the Republican party, nothing further from the truth. You want to complain about corporate welfare, look no farther than your fellow socialists in the Democrat party who worked hard to provide bailouts to General Motors, AIG, and Goldman even as their executives laughed and cashed the checks and went on vacation. Corporate welfare is a perfect example as to why socialism fails. All "welfare" fails. Its simple natural law. In every national park in this country you will find a sign that instructs visitors not to feed the animals because those animals will become dependent on those hand outs and will no longer be able to survive in the wild. Why anyone would think the human animal works any differently is beyond me. Social welfare or as your side likes to call it "economic justice" creates this very situation. It doesn't matter if its the welfare queen in the trailer or Solyndra or those GM exects flying in the corporate jets. It's all the same problem, just by degree. And just like in the national park, the answer is to CUT IT OFF for all those physically capable of self sustainment, which is what? 75% of those on the rolls? How many billions in subsidy? End it all. In fact, I would hold corporations to a higher standard. I'd have let them fail no matter who they were.
Social Security and Medicare enslave no one.
Its starts the journey down that road Hayek talked about. And its a bumpy road. They aren't slavery, just a huge rip off. This is why proponents of the socialist programs will fight tooth and nail before they let anyone opt out of them. If they were so great, people would be lining up to participate. But we both know that isn't the case. Let citizens have choice and they'll dump both so fast your head will spin. The reason is there are better answers in the private sector, and people know it. Those programs wouldn't survive a week. And this is why government must use force to keep them alive. It isn't slavery, extortion. Not nearly as bad, but not nearly good.
You can call me an "absolutist"... is that even a word? Who cares? My point is simple, you may be so open minded your brain fell out. Data counts, nothing else. The truth is our economy is more mixed every year, more regulated every year. We adopted thousands of regulations this year alone, most not passed by law but issued by fiat from government agencies. Those bureaucrats Hayek mentioned. The lowest level bureaucrat can shut down a business or cease property with the stroke of a pen. I don't know any "big money" types who have that kind of power. An IRS agent can lock you in prison. Even the richest American in this country can't do that. Where is the "Democracy" in that?
I think this guy makes a pretty good case.
I watched the video. I hate bending over for low mirrors. That’s height-ism. ;-)
Really, I’d be happy to consider repealing stupid regulations and harmful laws.
Your absolute convictions are impressive.
What laws do not apply to "big money" that don't apply to you?
If what you meant is, “What laws do not apply to "big money" that apply to you?”
Lots of important laws. I can be put in prison and executed. I violate rules of the road and I lose my license. Any banks lose their license, go to jail, get put to death?
You're a socialist who likes socialist policy.
Yes. And I’m a capitalist who likes dividends. I’m a democrat who likes democracy. Still confused?
Make up your mind. Since I am not liberal according to you, am I Democrat, socialist, or democratic socialist?
Remember I have financial investments too. But that makes me a capitalist and won’t fit me into your little box.
“Now both our capitalism and safety nets are suffering due largely to deregulation and tax cuts on the elites.”
Its simplistic and a shallow assessment to try to quantify America's economic woes to such narrow factors.
Its simplistic and a shallow assessment to ignore the complete thought: Capitalism and socialistic programs have been working in this country for decades until the "conservative" revolution began dismantling regulation of banks, cutting taxes on the wealthy, starting wars, and cutting public services and programs.
But I won't be an absolutist and say these are the only factors. Globalization and technology changes have affected things too.
Coddling corporations with corporate welfare is socialist.
No. It is corporatist. There’s nothing social about a corporation. It is in business for money, no longer having a social contract with the community and resources it utilizes, or other societal obligations, unfortunately. Corporate welfare (subsidies, special tax breaks, etc.) is one thing, corporate lackeys in regulatory positions are another, and government ownership is a different thing altogether. Bailouts requiring reimbursement to the government are yet another matter.
Yeah, we know, it’s all socialism to you.
“Social Security and Medicare enslave no one.”
Its starts the journey down that road Hayek talked about.
Slippery slope fallacy.
Let citizens have choice and they'll dump both so fast your head will spin. The reason is there are better answers in the private sector,
What, trust Wall Street and insurance companies with safety nets? No, those programs are supported by the majority.
All "welfare" fails.
Not if it feeds people when the “Free Market” fails to provide jobs.
Feeding wild animals is not the same thing as safety nets for humans. False analogy.
Feeding wild bears is dangerous. Feeding humans is part of civilized society. I don’t advocate unemployment checks for bears.
Why is that?
So how about jobs for all those physically capable of self sustainment? That’s what liberals, or socialists, or whatever you call us actually want.
The lowest level bureaucrat can shut down a business or cease property with the stroke of a pen.
Cops do it through property forfeiture in their war on drugs. Corporations seize private property through eminent domain. Some bureaucrats are corporate shills in regulatory and safety roles who look the other way and do nothing when they should be doing their jobs.
Who always gets screwed? Corporations or the little guy?
Data counts, nothing else.
Human beings count.
"The best lack all conviction, while the worst are filled with passionate intensity."
Any banks lose their license, go to jail, get put to death?
Ask Bernie Madoff, or Michael Milkin, or Dennis Kozlowski or Mark Swartz. They got 25 years. In prison. No they didn't get the death penalty, but we reserve that for only the most violent crimes.
You like dividends? Get your way and you can kiss those goodbye. As to your label, your words, not mine.
Capitalism and socialistic programs have been working in this country
Take a trip down to East Detroit, or Newark New Jersey, or Gary Indiana, or East St. Louis or South Central Los Angeles and tell me that's working. Take a look at the generational welfare recipients and tell me thats working. Three, four generations, how many do you need to get a leg up? Take a look at schools like Detroit' who have a 25% graduation rate. Not drop out rate, graduation rate. People who grow up in this system have a better chance of doing time than learning to read, and that' working in your book? That isn't prosperity, that's a slippery slope alright. One we've been sliding down for 40 years.
No. It is corporatist
Thats a term somebody just made up. A way to disguise the language. It's socialist. It's the net result of socialization. It's welfare for rich guys. You're damn right it's all socialism to me. I think that because that is what it is. Watching you try to cherry pick around one data point after another is like watching Fred Astaire try to tap dance through a mine field.
No, those programs are supported by the majority
Good, so let people opt out. If it's so great why do you need to force people into it? Should be easy if most people support it to get enough people to participate right? You shouldn't need to put the IRS' gun to their head. I think I'll pay into Social Security my whole life and never see a dime. I think its a ponzi scheme just like the kind that got Madoff locked up. So yeah, I'll take the Wall Street risk. Shit, I think I'd do better stuffing money in the mattress. Where do I sign up?
Funny how the generations of the entitled prove it.
That’s what liberals, or socialists, or whatever you call us actually want.
I'm sure you want magic jobs from heaven. But the fact is, government can't really provide them. People have to row their own boat. That's because government fails too, and a lot more than the market does. Markets just change. Government falls on its face. Ask any citizen from Greece.
Corporations seize private property through eminent domain
Another socialist policy. There are plenty of corporate entities who would use the government to create monopoly. But at the end of the day, its the bureaucrat who makes it happen. That's why I support a wall between economy and state the same as we have a wall between church and state. Then they can't corrupt each other.
Some bureaucrats are corporate shills in regulatory and safety roles
What did you think was going to happen. This isn't a problem to be managed, its a inevitable result of consolidation of power. It's like the old saying goes. I government with the power to give you everything you need, has the power to take away everything you have. And its only logical, that it's a matter of time before the wrong sort get that power. Especially since that wrong sort seem to seek it most.
Human beings count.
With socialism they are all just numbers.
Corporatist...Thats a term somebody just made up... Like Mortgage Backed Derivatives?
Somebody just made up Fascist a while back. We need to identify and name threats to freedom and democracy.
Detroit’s and other urban problems are not a failure of socialism. The “socialism” is needed because capitalism, or rather corporatism, failed them.
Jobs are sent overseas and to Mexico. Corporations that have grown and prospered in the US have no loyalty, obligation or sense of gratitude for our country or our people.
What kind of “persons” would be like that?
Those “Persons” with the most political “free speech” money to influence elections? The Persons with lobbyists to write legislation, regulations, and trade agreements?
Those “Persons” with the politicians in their pockets, and no loyalty, obligation or sense of gratitude for our country or our people?
Those “Persons” are undermining, subverting and wiping out the power of government to regulate them. Who’s really pulling the strings, Obama or the Federal Reserve? When they become more powerful than the federal government, who’s left to enforce our laws and protect our freedom and Constitution? Who will you be loyal to when Big Money re-writes the rules and privatizes you?
“corporate shills in regulatory and safety roles”..What did you think was going to happen?
Human beings count. With socialism they are all just numbers.
Sorry, I have no idea of the numbers. You do. Data counts, nothing else.
Humans are data, or they don't count, to you, after all.
"Jobs are sent overseas and to Mexico. Corporations that have grown and prospered in the US have no loyalty, obligation or sense of gratitude for our country or our people."
Dave, it is statements like these that make you sound anti-capitalist. In a free market, corporations are free to shop for talent both inside and outside U.S. borders.
If you truly were a capitalist, you would understand why conservatives want to minimize the incentives to send jobs overseas. Taxes are one. Increasing taxes on American corporations and business owners (the dreaded 1%) contribute to the problem you are complaining about.
"Those “Persons” with the most political “free speech” money to influence elections? The Persons with lobbyists to write legislation, regulations, and trade agreements?"
Nobody claims that corporations are "persons." The explanation, which I suspect you know but conveniently ignore, is that corporations are made up of people. People who still have rights. They don't surrender their rights by incorporating.
It's not that a corporation is a person; it's that corporations are people. Not robots. Not pieces of paper. People.
So now stating facts is "anti-capitalist" as well as anti-Republican, eh?
conservatives want to minimize the incentives to send jobs overseas.
They already have been paying low taxes, and receive subsidies, while they offshore jobs.
Both common sense and evidence say “Conservatives” want to maximize profits, regardless of the effect on people.
Nobody claims that corporations are "persons."
They are artificial political Superpersons.
We need a law to distinguish human personhood and corporate personhood.
The explanation, which I suspect you know but conveniently ignore, is the Supreme Court allows corporations personhood regarding rights to use money as political speech, even secretly, to influence elections.
People in corporations should have the same rights as me. No more. No less. And they do as individuals.
The elites of the corporation apply the power of corporate money as a power of free political speech, above and beyond the speech of the individual, the employee, and even society at large.
What does their political speech say to politicians?
It says, "We own you, we don’t want to follow rules, and we don't want to pay any taxes. We don't want unions, and we want trade agreements that let us offshore jobs."
What does their political speech say to the public?
"We write the rules, you follow the rules, we own you, and shut up before we send your job overseas."
An artificial entity of legal corporate personhood now wields more power to influence and control elections and government, with its superior power of “Free Speech Money”.
Detroit is the poster child of American Socialism. The proof that eventually you run out of other people's money. Atlas shrugs and you're left with a dependent underclass without one single major grocery store in your city limits and enough urban blight to make it easy to confuse your town with Beirut. And you can cry those rich people left, you can cry me a river. But they left. And contrary to your theory, the poor did not rise up and build a utopia. Instead the smoked crack and forgot how to read.
Corporations that have grown and prospered in the US have no loyalty, obligation or sense of gratitude for our country or our people.
Nope, sorry Barack Obama, government didn't do any of it. Zip, zero, nada. A bunch of those evil 1% who pay 56% o the taxes got taxed, then the government who took their money put out a bid and another evil corporation actually built it. The middle man just slowed down the process and jacked up the price. The one who is ungrateful here, are those crying about a "Fair share." You know, that 50% of the population that pay 0% income tax. I'll give their whines and cries some credibility when they pay the same rate they are asking of others, which they will not even do themselves. I just shake my head. Enjoy an America that looks like Gratiot Avenue you dumb bastards. Yay! We have income equality! Everyone is equally starving! Hooray!
Let me show you some DATA. Detroit, Newark, Chicago, Cleveland, the entire state of California, East St. Louis, Gary, Allentown, New Orleans and Washington D.C. That's your idea of working? Riiiiiight. If I had to choose between Detroit and Baghdad - and mind you I lived in Baghdad for two years - I'd pick Baghdad. Yes I really would no bullshit. It's safer and there is more opportunity for work, and less red tape. That's the result of socialist policy. Worse than Baghdad.
"Jobs are sent overseas and to Mexico. Corporations that have grown and prospered in the US have no loyalty, obligation or sense of gratitude for our country or our people."
Rationalize it all you want. You claim to not understand why anyone would think you're anti-capitalist. Statements like this are the reason why. Now you know. You're welcome.
Yes, Free, lack of jobs for Americans is proof corporatism failed our country. Not the elites, mind you. They’re rolling in dough more than ever, aren’t they?
Yes, they are. Cha-ching! It's hard to hear all the cash flowing, over their crybaby whining about their lower than ever taxes.
Worse than Baghdad? Last fall I went to a Lions game and a brew pub afterwards. We had a great time.
But look what we missed in the aftermath of your disastrous war for Republican reelection and corporate crony profits.
Dec 22, 2011 – BAGHDAD - A wave of 16 bombings ripped across Baghdad Thursday, killing at least 69 people.
Feb. 23, 2012 - BAGHDAD (AP) – Bombs and deadly shootings relentlessly pounded Iraqis on Thursday, killing at least 55 people and wounding more than 225 in a widespread wave of violence the government called a "frantic attempt" by insurgents to prove the country will never be stable.
"We want to know: What were the thousands of policemen and soldiers in Baghdad doing today while the terrorists were roaming the city and spreading violence?" said Ahmed al-Tamimi, who was working at an Education Ministry office a block away from a restaurant bombed in the Shiite neighborhood of Kazimiyah in northern Baghdad.
He described a hellish scene of human flesh and pools of blood at the restaurant, where another car bomb killed nine people and wounded 19.
Know of any safe brew pubs there?
As I said, you’re a hoot.
Rationalize all you want. Facts are facts. All you guys can do is try to blame others and say they hate America.
That's sorta what fascists did to people who stated facts they didn't like, isn't it?
They’re rolling in dough more than ever, aren’t they?
No, quite the opposite actually.
Last fall I went to a Lions game and a brew pub afterwards. We had a great time
I double dare you to head east onto Woodward and see how good a time you gave walking those streets. Now try living there. How do those people look to you?
A wave of 16 bombings ripped across Baghdad Thursday, killing at least 69 people.
And your point is?
Boarded-up brick buildings and abandoned properties with broken windows, kicked-in doors and shattered glass line many blocks of South Talman Avenue, South Maplewood Avenue and South Rockwell and West 62nd streets.
On the streets where so many of the shootings have occurred in the district, empty Ice House beer, Svedka vodka and Masson brandy bottles litter the front yards and sidewalks. Hypodermic needles and empty plastic drug bags are scattered on the ground along with potato chip bags, candy wrappers and crumpled debris.
They loose 42 per month to murder in Chicago alone. But at least in Baghdad you can start a business without 300 yards of red tape. And the weather is better.
Know of any safe brew pubs there?
Quite a few actually, contrary to Muslim law Baghdadians love to drink. They have huge dance clubs and heavy metal bars even. Booze has never been illegal in Iraq, and BTW neither is weed. Sad that we gave more freedom to Iraqis than we have here. There's your sign.
Heathen Republican: "In a free market, corporations are free to shop for talent both inside and outside U.S. borders."
Just as a government is free (obligated) to put restrictions on the creations they've licensed.
"If you truly were a capitalist, you would understand why conservatives want to minimize the incentives to send jobs overseas. Taxes are one."
Taxes were cut during the Bush years. Was that not enough incentive to create jobs in this country?
Obviously, the only incentive of capitalism is profit -- nothing more and nothing less. As long as slave-labor exists, taxes, for example, could be negative (which they have been for many companies -- for years), and capital would still make its flight overseas.
"Nobody claims that corporations are 'persons'."
Well, the Supreme Court certainly does -- since at least 1886. They've been riding on the coattails of the Fourteenth Amendment ever since. I suppose, when it's in your interest, you like to conveniently forget this.
"People who still have rights. They don't surrender their rights by incorporating."
No argument there. They also shouldn't have additional rights, on top of those that already exist, by incorporating.
Businesses are nothing more than contracts, existing purely at the prerogative of the state ("We, the People"), and should be totally restricted to the business they stated in their articles of incorporation. They shouldn't have, despite the Supreme Court's colossal misjudgement, the rights granted to human persons in the U.S. Constitution's Bill of Rights.
Of course, we've been over this time and time again. Apparently, you've forgotten.
They’re rolling in dough more than ever, aren’t they? No, quite the opposite actually.
Gasp! You found an article with the heartbreaking title, “The Falling Fortunes of the One Percent”. Woe unto the aristocracy! For they suffer ever more than we mere mortals.
I have to say, for an economist, you focus on a mighty narrow time span. Hmm. What could possibly have been a factor in a dividend income drop between your referenced years 2007 and 2009?
Oh, yeah, the crash of ‘08.
Better ignore the previous and following years, please.
No need to show you the numbers, of course.
But I will. Look at the numbers from the same source of your article, the CBO.
Average Pretax Income In Dollars
Bottom 20% Top 1%
1980 $15,500 $504,200
1985 $14,800 $675,900
1992 $15,500 $817,700
2000 $17,100 $1,508,500
2006 $17,200 $1,743,700
Average After-tax Income In Dollars
Bottom 20% Top 1%
1980 14,300 329.800
1985 13,300 493,400
1992 14,200 567,600
2000 16,000 1,010,100
2006 16,500 1,200,300
What about after 2009? The market rebounded didn’t it? Your article linked to this at CBO:
Although the detailed data that form the basis of CBO’s estimates in this report are available only through 2009, other data can provide some insight into more-recent changes in the distribution of income. Those data suggest that income for households toward the higher end of the distribution increased more rapidly than income for households elsewhere in the income distribution in 2010
Now I’m no expert like you, but your case is mighty weak in light of my amateur perspective.
Speaking of weak cases, your case for preferring Baghdad over an American city is worth a look.
No crime to worry about over there?
Do you think I can safely walk in any poverty stricken neighborhood there? Not counting Fortress Green Zone?
A wave of 16 bombings ripped across Baghdad Thursday, killing at least 69 people. And your point is?
My point is 16 freakin’ bombs ripped across Baghdad killing at least 69 people during one day!
What the hell is your point?
I decided to look for some brew pubs in Baghdad circa 2006.
Turns out I couldn’t find any online. They must be a secret.
I did find exclusive clubs though:
In a city ever more constricted by religious fundamentalism and terror, the Hunting Club, and its older cousin, the Alwiya, have become islands of relative safety and hedonism. They are protected not only by high walls and guards but also by the selectivity of their membership lists, strictly vetted to keep out anyone who might be a threat.
The clubs are virtually the only places in Baghdad - outside the international Green Zone - where men and women can socialize in Western dress without fear. Their well-stocked bars have few rivals now that armed zealots have killed many of the city's liquor- store owners and driven the rest underground. The clubs also offer a rare perspective on the past and present of Iraq's fragile urban elite. For many years, they were the playground and crucible of Iraq's privileged classes.
... It is an unusual mission in a city where social life has ground to an almost complete halt. Baghdad once had many all- night clubs and restaurants. Even during the sanctions of the 1990s, Baghdadis stayed out routinely until dawn, with long dinners of mazgouf, or roasted river fish, by the Tigris followed by drinks and dancing at one of dozens of hotels and nightspots. All that is gone now.
... But killings in Baghdad are becoming increasingly common, driving the club's members to flee the country in droves. "It is a big problem. Almost 2,000 of our member families have left the country," Muala told me. "Actually, I can tell you exactly how many: 1,936 families since 2003. But those families mostly belonged to the top level, the most educated people."
we gave more freedom to Iraqis than we have here. There's your sign.
I should say so, “freedom” to leave.
Well. I’m no city boy, but I’m pretty sure I’d take Detroit over Baghdad. Suit yourself, though.
By the way, why are American cities rife with crime and guns? Could it have something to do with Corporatism’s failure to create jobs and the NRA insuring there would be plenty of guns?
"Just as a government is free (obligated) to put restrictions on the creations they've licensed."
Jefferson, freedom is for the people, not the government. When the government is "free" to do things, it inevitably takes freedom from individuals.
"Taxes were cut during the Bush years. Was that not enough incentive to create jobs in this country?"
Really? Which bill cut the corporate income tax? I don't remember that one.
"As long as slave-labor exists, taxes, for example, could be negative (which they have been for many companies -- for years), and capital would still make its flight overseas."
Slave labor does not exist. That would violate international law. You made this up.
No crime to worry about over there?
Sure, but then again you have to worry about it in any big city.
Do you think I can safely walk in any poverty stricken neighborhood there? Not counting Fortress Green Zone?
I never lived in the green zone, I lived on small outposts in Hit, Fallujah and Sadr City. Pretty far from the Green Zone. In Sadr City I lived on a HUGE base that had about 60 dudes on it.
Could it have something to do with Corporatism’s failure to create jobs and the NRA insuring there would be plenty of guns?
No, could have something to do with dependent people rendered... dependent and helpless. The welfare system creates that nonsense. It's like a hope vampire.
Heathen Republican: "...freedom is for the people, not the government."
Government is "the people" (You remember..."We, the People..."?), or supposedly anyway, when they actively participate. It's certainly not "We, the Corporations...". Well, until now.
"Really? Which bill cut the corporate income tax? I don't remember that one."
Did you not refer to "business owners (the dreaded 1%)"? Pardon me, I must have misread your statement. Really!
"Slave labor does not exist. That would violate international law. You made this up."
Of course it doesn't.
It violates international law.
It's like America sanctioning torture.
It never happens. If we close our eyes, and plug our ears and scream, we won't have to acknowledge it. How can slave labor...or torture...exist? It's unlawful!
Heathen, unfortunately the truth is harder to deal with than your fiction.
Government is "the people"
You're living in a fuck'n dream world. Government is organized force, managed by people. Weather those people are elected or not and what they do with that force depends on the type of government system used. In the end, all government is, is a guy with a gun. I should know, I'm one of the guys with the gun. Don't get me wrong, sometimes you need that guy. But 99.9% of the time, you don't. That's a big factor in why I didn't like being a cop. I didn't like enforcing bullshit laws, and got burned out enforcing the right ones.
Basically it works like this. They say we're a nation of laws. Partially true. Laws only matter when they are enforced. So really, we're a nation of enforcers. That is what our government does. When you say "regulation," regulation is law, and that means more enforcers. The more "regulations" you guys jam through, is a few more steps down Hayek's road to serfdom. The police state. You end up like England with cameras on the street corners. You end up with Echelon. You end up with the base ball park being shut down because the mirrors are too low.
"Government is "the people" (You remember..."We, the People..."?), or supposedly anyway, when they actively participate. It's certainly not "We, the Corporations...". Well, until now."
Jefferson, I'm going to remember this the next time you rail about elitist, plutocratic government in Washington.
Aside from that, you have a very fundamental misunderstanding about the role of government in our constitutional republic. The entire purpose of our constitution is to protect the people from the power of government. Your ability to justify the intrusion of government using the very words in the constitution is Orwelian doublespeak.
"Really? Which bill cut the corporate income tax? I don't remember that one."
My comment was very clearly about tax rates in competing with the rest of the world. But sometimes you're not too bright, so I'll be more explicit. I was referring to corporate income tax rates. Now that you know that, would you like to change your comment, or say something inane about Bush tax cuts?
"Slave labor does not exist. That would violate international law. You made this up."
Okay, I shouldn't have made such a sweeping statement. Returning to your original statement, you implied that U.S. companies outsource in order to have our products made by slave labor. That's a lie that you can't back up.
Even if slave labor exists, it is not used to produce American products. If you think it is, kindly provide evidence of that.
Free0352: "That's...why I didn't like being a cop. I didn't like enforcing bullshit laws."
And to think, now you're just a tool for the corporate-state -- allowing the raping and pillage of other sovereign nations under the pretense of "fighting terrorism".
You should rip the American flag off your shoulder and replace it with that of your favorite multinational. It's more fitting.
Heathen Republican: "I'm going to remember this the next time you rail about elitist, plutocratic government..."
Instead of taxing your ability to recall, I'll make it easy for you.
You might want to reread my words again. Do phrases like, "or supposedly anyway...", jump out at you? Or, even better, "[i]t's certainly not 'We, the Corporations...'"? They have the same unmistakable meaning. Yeah, we're living under a plutocratic government, alright. I prefer to call it the "corporate-state". Make no mistake about it. The plutocrats run the show.
"Your ability to justify the intrusion of government using the very words in the constitution is Orwelian doublespeak."
Please, show me the "very words in the constitution" that you're referencing.
"The entire purpose of our constitution is to protect the people from the power of government."
And any enemies, foreign or domestic, in whatever form or configuration, that may be a danger to equal justice, insuring domestic tranquility, promoting the general welfare for all, and establishing liberty for everyone -- presently and for all future generations.
Hey look! We agree on something!
"...I'll be more explicit. I was referring to corporate income tax rates."
Maybe you should be more clear. Your original remark certainly could have meant "the dreaded 1%" (which is exactly what you wrote).
"...you implied that U.S. companies outsource in order to have our products made by slave labor."
No, I didn't. But I did imply that capitalists will seek out the lowest labor costs -- whether slave labor or otherwise. It's never a moral question to them. It's a bottom-line question.
"Even if slave labor exists, it is not used to produce American products. If you think it is, kindly provide evidence of that."
By American, do you mean products for American consumption, or do you mean products made in America? Again, please be more explicit. (You do have a problem with that, you know.)
In response to your last sentence, please provide evidence that products made overseas, which are destined for American markets, are never produced using slave labor.
Jefferson, as usual you've resorted to obfuscation and lies to make non-essential points.
"In response to your last sentence, please provide evidence that products made overseas, which are destined for American markets, are never produced using slave labor."
You made the original assertion, so back it up. You ask me to prove a negative, which can't be done.
Since you didn't offer valid rebuttals to any of my other points, I'll let my original statements stand.
allowing the raping and pillage of other sovereign nations under the pretense of "fighting terrorism".
Yawn, now tell us more about how 9-11 was an inside job and some American Illuminati caused it because it needed perpetual war to distract the 99% from the collapse of our unsustainable economic lifestyle, so it could suck up the last few resources and money it had not already stolen while stoooopid Americans were distracted by a giant, multicorporate conspiracy involving millions spreading racism, lies and hate.
Sound about right? Yeah, if they have a foundation that raises money to help people with whatever it is you have, you let me know. Then again, you can't cure stupid, and its pointless to debate with an irrational person suffering from delusional thinking. See a shrink Jeff. In the meantime, I'll enjoy mocking your ridiculous conspiracy theories. Get your tinfoil hat dude, and have your mom bring you some more pizza rolls down in that basement.
Heathen Republican: "You made the original assertion, so back it up. You ask me to prove a negative, which can't be done."
I provided enough links already. Do you want me to spoon-feed you? Oh, alright, here's another. Ever heard of Nike? There are many others.
"Since you didn't offer valid rebuttals to any of my other points, I'll let my original statements stand."
Valid? According to who? What were your original statements? Oh, I remember! You mean these overt fallacies?
"Nobody claims that corporations are 'persons.' The explanation, which I suspect you know but conveniently ignore, is that corporations are made up of people. People who still have rights. They don't surrender their rights by incorporating."
"It's not that a corporation is a person; it's that corporations are people. Not robots. Not pieces of paper. People."
Were there others you want to let stand?
Free0352: "In the meantime, I'll enjoy mocking your ridiculous conspiracy theories."
No, the pleasure's all mine. Pointing out your culpability and blind faith in the story-line is what makes this fun. You're an accessory to the crime -- either knowingly or unwittingly. My guess is you're just ignorantly unaware.
After all, you're only infantry. How smart does a speed bump have to be? ;-)
Smart enough to stay alive. Which is more than I can say for most people who have been relieved of that responsibility.
Free0352: "Smart enough to stay alive. Which is more than I can say for most people who have been relieved of that responsibility."
You volunteered to be a target, remember? Nobody forced you to sign on the dotted-line (unlike hundreds-of-thousands before your generation).
I'd guess, for you, it was a case of your bravado dominating your intellect, huh Free? Can't say we haven't seen that before... ;-)
Never said otherwise that I volunteered, or that I ever had regrets for doing so. Even after spending a better part of a year healing from a spinal injury I got in Iraq when my truck was blown off an overpass. In fact as you can see from my previous comments, I like Iraq a lot. Its a great place. I mean that. It was worth fighting for. I'd do it again in a heartbeat. I'll be retired soon, and I hear there is work in Turkey near Syria/ I might just go check that out in a few months. I'm a pretty big fan of the Free Syrian Army, and I am NOT a fan of militants trying to hijack their cause. I can train some good, honest Soldiers and get a little revenge against Assad for turning Damascus into the suicide bomber gateway during the war, and make trouble for the Jet-Set-Jihadi crowd... and make money... well damn that's just fucking fortuitous. Guess I better start hitting that Rosetta Stone Arabic classes again.
not a fan of militants trying to hijack their cause
You mean mercenaries like Blackwater/Xe? And here I thought they were only making an honest buck.
Although I think Assad deserves what he gets:
revenge against Assad for turning Damascus into the suicide bomber gateway during the war
The endless cycle of retribution is clearly visible, but what started it? Bush’s invasion and the masses of Iraqi refugees had something to do with it too. There was the post invasion breakdown of control, thanks to uncompromising neo-con arrogance. General Shinseki warned them, and paid the price for disagreeing with the neocon warmongers. The ensuing chaos fueled resentment and drew in the bombers. Some liberators. And even still, for some reason, there are no statues of Bush and Cheney in Iraq. “Hard to imagine”, to quote neocon Paul Wolfowitz’s dismissal of Shinseki’s warning that more soldiers were needed to secure the place.
And to this day the corporate media and the corporate owned politicians cannot come out and say the war was based on false neocon propaganda. Only in American politics can the Right be so wrong and not be called on it. Corpodems meekly follow or stay out of the way. The wrongs of the Right happen all the time in the brave new “Rightward Ho!” Corporate States of America. From nukular aluminum tubes, to death panels and “You didn’t build that”, they are all part of the same parade of the Right being wrong, dishonest, and treacherous.
Anyway, that’s all blackwater under the bridge, so to speak.
But I digress.
Go get ‘em Free. Have fun storming the castle.
Watch your back. You only have one of them.
And here I thought they were only making an honest buck
Training the FSA is as honest a buck as any.
but what started it?
Who cares. It started. Better win.
General Shinseki- was the worst Army officer in 40 years and is now doing a dismal job of managing the VA. I hope he gets hit by a bus.
cannot come out and say the war was based on false neocon propaganda.
You calling Bill Clinton a neocon now? He attacked Iraq... twice!
Watch your back
This assumes of course I leave for Turkey. Lot has to happen between now and then to make that happen. But I'm open to it, if the opportunity presents its self. Done contract work before. Its no big deal.
Oh, and it will be them storming the castle. I just plan on teaching them how to do it better. And if I run into the Jihadi types, feeding them to the CIA.
As usual, everything is Obama's fault, don't you know that by now? ;)
Yes, as we fellow "America-hating Marxists" follow our "chosen one" without question.
Notice how we all changed our opinions on the Patriot Act, the wars, and every other corporatist rightward move by Obama...
What? We didn't?
No shit! I have a tshirt from the Bush era that says: Hes not my President.
Sadly, it fits Obama too.
Notice how we all changed our opinions on the Patriot Act, the wars, and every other corporatist rightward move by Obama
I've been consistent for the last 10 years but hey... I'm one in a million!
Wars? Afghanistan I was all for it. And in case you don't remember Obama was during his campaign too. He is consistent. Iraq? Thought Iran was the real enemy (still do) but also saw the need for Saddam to take a dirt nap and understood why we had to stay (clean up the mess we made arranging said dirt nap). Obama was against it and while he did preside over the close in Iraq operations, he followed the GWB timetable and plan GWB had in place before Obama was elected. On this Obama was constant. Patriot Act? Some things about it I like. Yup, I think the CIA should be able to share intel with the FBI. Some things about it I HATE. Give me a few months to retire from the military and I can talk about those things to an extent. Today, its a felony for me to do so. Its a given that holding Americans or even foreign national terrorists without any form of hearing is antithetical to American law and values. A long time ago FDR had the right answer for what to do with Al'Queda.
well.... back to the topic... it happened AGAIN
It's nice to know you and Obama are consistant.
I'd guess we agree more with each other than with Obama and the Republicans on the Pat Act. Not all of it is bad. But...We have seen our nation's acceptance of the entire thing almost institutionalized. Nobody talks anymore about that issue in the corporate media.
And tragically it will occur again and again and again, as we accept the madness of human sacrifice as who we are.
But, hey, look at the bright side. At least you and I are the lucky ones. We haven't paid the bloody "price for freedom"...yet, anyway.
It looks like this guy is a true fascist of the far-far Right. Complete with Nazi flags.
I'm pretty sure this guy wasn't Republican main stream, or even Republican. In fact, NeoNazis hate them too.
Nobody talks anymore about that issue in the corporate media.
Gee, they did during the Bush administration, and now they quit... Why do you think that is?
Gee, they did during the Bush administration
"They" didn't talk about it so much then either.
I heard it all the time. Now that Obama has it in his clutches, liberals love it.
I heard it all the time. Now that Obama has it in his clutches, liberals love it.
Any examples? You did understand that was sarcasm I was using, right?
I didn't say you love it. But as for most liberals, their silence is deafening. And while on the subject of all to convenient opposition, where did the anti-war movement go? Overnight... POOF!
That's because it wasn't an anti-war movement, it was an anti GWB movement. These days Cindy Sheehan can't get a meeting with a city councilman, let alone the POTUS.
I mean it's ironically funny you didn't see that one coming. For 8 years we heard how dictatorial GWB was, and how the Patriot Act (that Democrats voted for) was a violation of the 4th Amendment. And yet, Obama EXPANDS IT so much that even GWB was like... that's a little far bro. I mean when Dick Chaney is clapping and saying how great it is, there's your sign. Now run along and vote for it.
See, I was warning Conservatives back then, telling them- "You may trust GWB with this power rightly or wrongly, but remember the 'other side' will get hold of that monster at some point."
Always remember, any power you give Government will one day be in the hands of a guy like Richard Nixon. Thats why I'm a Libertarian. I just ask myself "What could Dick Nixon do with this?" If the answer is at all bad, I walk away.
Free0352: "...it will be them storming the castle. I just plan on teaching them how to do it better."
Ironic, isn't it, that you'll now work in conjunction with al Qaeda in Syria? As I've said before, the "war on terror" is a masquerade, pure and simple, and you're willing to continue to be an even bigger tool than you are now.
"...if I run into the Jihadi types, feeding them to the CIA."
Another ironic gesture on your part. They are the CIA. (...and, by default, you are too!)
By default, you need to adjust your tin foil hat Jeff. If you don't the CIA will be able to beam those mind control rays directly into your brain.
Of course, if they could really do that it would be a huge improvement. Jeff, meet lithium, lithium this is Jeff.
Hey man, if I can teach some people to kill that Baathist prick Assad AND fuck up Al'Queda AND make some money... well damn it doesn't get any better than that. That's a beer commercial come to life.
... watching Jeff try to talk about mid east politics is like trying to watch a monkey fuck a football-bat.
It's just damn ridiculous... though it is hilarious and comical watching you girate through various conspiracy theories to justify your strange and frantic political paranoia. Put down the illegal drugs Jeff and go back to your shrink. I'm sure that free medicade covers you.
Free0352: "...to kill that Baathist prick Assad AND fuck up Al'Queda AND make some money..."
Are you sure about that? You better start thinking about who you're really working for.
"That's a beer commercial come to life."
That's probably about the depth and breadth of your intellect and emotional well-being -- thirty seconds worth.
Gandhi was right.
"...is like trying to watch a monkey fuck a football-bat."
What's a "football-bat"?
Evidently Free has nothing to do other than bash commenters on this site.
Get a life dude or keep it civil and on topic..just a friggin thought.
nothing to do other than bash commenters on this site.
I get a kick out of the conspiracy types, but I can't take them seriously. If you're a serious liberal, I wouldn't take them too seriously either. The twoofers make you libs look as stupid as the birthers make conservatives look.
And Jeff here is definitely a full-on twoofer, on par with a birther. Someone totally divorced from reality. You can't have a rational argument with an irrational person.
Oh, and a football-bat? Its ridiculous, thats what it is. What I was saying Jeff, is your little theories (rejected by Democrats and Republicans alike with equal disdain might I add) remind me of a small primate trying to have intercourse with a nonsensical, ridiculous object. Thats a good allegory for your life.
Unlike you, I've actually met actual CIA case officers. Trust me, after you meet them, you sort of stagger at the Bureaucratic inefficiency and stop worrying about every idiotic conspiracy theory you've ever heard. Frankly, most of the CIA crew can't get their teeth brushed without 15 forms singed in triplicate and the approval of 4 bosses, and only then after writing 10 ass covering memos.
Free0352: "I get a kick out of the conspiracy types, but I can't take them seriously."
I can't say "I get a kick out of conspiracy types", because the greatest conspiracy of them all is the "war on terror" conspiracy. Any rational person knows it's all a snow-job; a way of inducing war and manipulating the citizenry to be fully compliant in giving away their civil rights. And to think, you're a willing and unwitting part of the charade. Again, congratulations on being their tool! Now, get along little soldier boy, and march lockstep with the rest of the sheep...
"You can't have a rational argument with an irrational person."
That's why I don't argue with you; I just point out your irrationality and hope one day you'll come to your senses.
Unlike you, I've actually met actual CIA case officers.
Oh, so that convinces me then! Gee, thanks for the information, otherwise I would have thought they were capable of conducting and accomplishing many clandestine activities.
You've met a sampling of CIA case officers and that automatically makes the whole entity a fumbling and inefficient organization? Hey, didn't your boss come directly from the CIA?
Did you ever think that possibly the CIA didn't need anybody other than "Colonel Flagg" when dealing with you? For me, it was the first thing that came to mind.
Jefferson, I have a close family member that is ctually part of Homeland Security, the secret part, which there is of course thanks to our tax dollars..so I agree with you completely and also that it's ridiculous to attempt to convince Free of anything since he seems to know it all..based on what I don't know, nor do I care.
Any rational person knows it's all a snow-job
What? All six of you sitting in your mom's basements?
You kids are hilarious. You got a cousin's, step brothers, ex-college room mate in the "secret" part of DHS eh? Guy, I'm the only one in this conversation with a security clearance. I bet your pal is a janitor.
My all time favorite was when Jeff here tried to explain to me how to demolish a building. That would be me, the USMC Demolitions guy (MOS 0351 / Urban Breecher)
Its almost as stupid as some yahoo telling me Obama is a Muslim from Kenya. You guys, Jesse Ventura, and Donald Trump should go fuck a football bat. Just don't forget your tinfoil hat.
Ah, and while you don't care- for the benefit of the peanut gallery
I have a top secret security clearance, I have 15 years in the military, 3 in law enforcement and 1 as a security contractor over seas. I've spent my last three years working in military intelligence.
Free0352: "I have a top secret security clearance, I have 15 years in the military, 3 in law enforcement [blah, blah, blah...]"
Gee, can I shake your hand?
Don't forget your economics minor, your major in political science, and your expertise in...well, according to you, everything!
Free, you're a supreme human being! ;-)
"I've spent my last three years working in military intelligence."
That's the ultimate oxymoron.
So, you're Colonel Flagg! [LOL]
"That would be me, the USMC Demolitions guy..."
So, tell me how Building 7 went into a complete, unimpeded, free-fall again...
I had a friggin secret clearance for over a decade. I helped build some of the crap now floating around as junk up there.
And they gave me one knowing full well I smoked pot, so it isn't hard to get one Free.
I was the first female program director in the early 80's which just proves it took those dipshits forever to quit being sexist sumbitches.
I think Blogger wigs out when the thread gets over a hundred comments.
Time for a new post.
So, tell me how Building 7 went into a complete, unimpeded, free-fall again
Thousands of tons of rubble in chunks that were school bus sized hit it after bouncing off the ground, traveling at terminal velocity- this being compounded with the earth quake millions of tons of debris falling at terminal velocity would cause. Nothing is really built to stand up to that.
Which of course every major scientist on Earth agrees with. If you know even a little about building demolition you know that A: Buildings tend to collapse into their own foot pints and B: When this is not done in a controlled manner debris can cause serious damage to surrounding structures. This is why blast engineers get paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to do controlled demolitions. The trick isn't blowing up the building or getting it to collapse strait down into a footprint. Physics is on your side. The trick is doing so in a way that will completely collapse the building and NOT damage surrounding structures. I can't even begin to compute the stand off distance for structures the size of even one of the towers. Probably something like 500 meters. And they BOTH went down in quick succession. I'm only surprised most outlying structures weren't more heavily damaged. Its a testament to NYC building codes.
Now lets move on to your silly theory that it was red or white phosphorus that caused the beams to be cut, and how that is freaking so impractical that it boarders on insanity to even consider it.
You forgot that he claims to be an award-winning logician, though he repeatedly violates elementary concepts of the soft science of critical thinking and he claims to be a virtual attorney, though he cannot hold his own does not know much about the law.
I do suspect he has some kind of security clearance, though. It's what he does.
You can do the math for yourself easily here. Truth is, I have no idea what the total mass of BOTH towers was, or even if that is knowable. The velocity is knowable, and you can look up the equation here. I've played around with different factors in the equations, and all of them come up with this-
The energy released upon impact of the towers was many magnitudes greater than that released by every explosive device used by the US Military save nuclear ordinance. Assuming a 450000000 kgs for both buildings falling 415 meters you get something like 18301500000000 Joules of energy. A gram of TNT releases 4100–4602 Joules upon explosion. That means the WTC collapse was the equivalent in force at point of impact as 4692 tons of TNT. Granted, a kenetic impact doesn't behave physically like an explosion. Explosions don't do damage with kenetic force but through atmospheric expansion (Blast Wave). However, I'm pretty sure a net force of impact of over 4.5 tons of TNT might shake the ground a little bit, and since our debris are bouncing, their force of impact is greater due to the greater change in momentum.
So in sum, was the force of the WTC collapse enough to render Tower seven structurally unstable? Oh fuck yes. More than enough. In fact it was enough to render any building on Earth unstable, and then some.
Hows that for science Myste?
I never claimed to be an attorney, just a humble former first year law student. That doesn't make me the smartest guy in the world... just smarter than you ;)
Yes, Free. Perhaps you will one day win an legal argument with me. Alas, it has not happened yet. In every instance, you come out a little abashed.
Free0352: "So in sum, was the force of the WTC collapse enough to render Tower seven structurally unstable?"
No argument there.
"In fact it was enough to render any building on Earth unstable, and then some."
No, I'm sure there are plenty of building designs where their structural integrity wouldn't have been compromised in the least.
But, hey, you're the demolition expert! ;-)
"Thousands of tons of rubble in chunks that were school bus sized hit it after bouncing off the ground, traveling at terminal velocity..."
Pure speculation and conjecture on your part. What is known is that structural damage was limited to the south and southwest sides -- particularly to the lower stories -- which would have made any kind of vertical collapse, totally into its footprint, improbable if not impossible. Simultaneous and symmetric damage is needed to produce a collapse with the precise symmetry of the vertical fall of Building 7. This building had 58 perimeter columns and 25 core columns. In order to cause the building to free-fall into its footprint, all of the core columns and all of the perimeter columns would have to be broken in the same split-second.
Despite fire on several floors, this would be virtually impossible if the structural damage were limited to one side, and to the lower floors. Of course, never in the history of highrise design has a building collapsed upon itself, at free-fall, because of unsymmetrical structural damage or intermittent or scattered fire. It never happened before, and it hasn't happened since.
Of course FEMA and NIST made sure all the evidence was swiftly and carefully hauled away and sold as scrap metal in China and India. Gee, even the FAA meticulously puts all the pieces of a fallen airliner together in order to put the case to bed. FEMA and NIST took the opposite approach, and as a matter of fact, nothing about Building 7 is even mentioned in the "official" 911 report.
Even Huckleberry Finn and Tom Sawyer would've been envious of this government's whitewash story.
John Myste: "I do suspect he has some kind of security clearance, though.
I have no doubt that he has a security clearance of some level. In the area I'm in, they're a dime a dozen.
"It's what he does."
Yes, it seems to be. Our little doughboy now claims to be in "military intelligence", so I'll add another proficiency next to his name.
As a matter of fact, in my filing I now refer to him as James Bond. ;-) Or..."Free007"
No, I'm sure there are plenty of building designs where their structural integrity wouldn't have been compromised in the least
Civilian buildings? None anywhere. Perhaps the NORAD command center, which is built under a mountain.
Of course, never in the history of highrise design has a building collapsed upon itself,
Not only have they, they are most likely to do so. Buildings don't teeter over. They fall DOWN.
Free007 "Not only have [buildings collapsed upon themselves], they are most likely to do so."
Please cite examples with pictures or illustrations.
"Not only have they, they are most likely to do so. Buildings don't teeter over. They fall DOWN."
Who ever claimed they "teeter over" (like a tree)? Not me.
But neither do they free-fall, and "pancake" upon themselves as if there were no resistance. They only do that when they've had help. And you know this.
Film of Building 7 clearly shows the building failing with the initiation of collapse in the center and top. Sporadic damage at the south and southwest sides of the building, near the bottom of the structure, wouldn't have caused this. You know this too.
Unsubscribing from this conspiracy nutter thread.
Gee, Heathen, we'll surely miss ya'! Just so there's no hard feelings, this song's for you... ;-)
I haven't been here for a while, been busy doing one of my favorite conservative things, bringing jobs back to the U.S. from China.
Anyway, dang, I had no idea there were still so many Truther nutjobs still out there.
Go get 'em you wacko truther nutjobs :-)
I'm pretty sure conservatives have sent jobs to China. But I am happy you agree with the President.
“I don’t want those jobs taking root in places like China, I want those jobs taking root in places like Pueblo,” Obama told a crowd gathered for a campaign rally at the Palace of Agriculture at the Colorado State Fairgrounds here.
He made the remark while pushing for the renewal of a tax credit for wind energy manufacturing – something Romney opposes – and for the creation of credits for companies who bring jobs home from overseas, as well as the elimination of loopholes for offshoring.
“Gov. Romney brags about his private sector experience, but it was mostly invested in companies, some of which were called 'pioneers of outsourcing,'” Obama said. “I don’t want to be a pioneer of outsourcing. I want to insource.”
Dave Dubya: "I'm pretty sure conservatives have sent jobs to China."
Of course...almost all of 'em! Remember, they're proud of their misleading title of "job creators", they just never finish and tell you the jobs created are in China, in India, in Singapore, in Brazil, in Vietnam, in Jordon, in Malaysia, in...(name a place other than the U.S.A.)
If FandB were honest, and assuming he works within a company that actually manufactures something, he'd admit his company has undoubtedly done the same thing within the last ten to twenty years.
There was an interesting article in a recent Scientific American about the Conspiracy mindset. People who believe that a particular conspiracy exists, for example that 911 was an "inside job", are very likely to believe in other conspiracies, e.g. that corporations control America. The bad news is that there isn't really a cure for it, once you get hooked on a conspiracy, you will tend to see conspiracies everywhere, even where none exist.
Dubya: Yeah, but one difference between Obama and me is that I actually have brought some jobs back to the U.S. from China (and Mexico, and Europe).
Jefferson: So, you're saying that the 4.5 million jobs that Obama claims to have created do not exist and Obama is a liar. OK, another thing we agree on.
Whew! Thank you for reassuring us that corporations' lobbying and campaign contributions are only a reflection of their good-hearted and compassionate sense of sharing, and their patriotic and civic-minded support of public interests.
At least that's what I hear under the din of your blowing your own horn.;-)
FandB, There was an interesting article in Forbes about the conservative mindset, more specifically the psychological profile of CEOs. Research has revealed that the incidence of psychopathy among CEOs is about 4 percent -- four times what it is in the population at large. Basically, these researchers found that when you get them talking, they [i.e., CEOs] are different than human beings. They lack the things that make people human: concepts such as empathy, remorse, loving kindness, etc., etc.
Other research has confirmed, if not psychotic, they're sociopaths. The article asserted that the incidence of sociopathic and narcissistic personality disorders increased dramatically the higher the rank of an individual in a corporation. In the view of the authors, there was a greater proportion of sociopaths among the CEO population they studied than in the general population in the average state prison.
My question for you is this: Are you a CEO? If not, what is your title in your organization?
Oh, by the way, has your organization outsourced jobs to other countries within the last ten to twenty years, with the prime motivation being to save labor and benefit costs?
You also stated:
"Jefferson: So, you're saying that the 4.5 million jobs that Obama claims to have created do not exist and Obama is a liar. OK, another thing we agree on."
I claim that both parties collude and serve their benefactors, whoever they may be. In a word, they serve "Big Money". As much as I distrust the Democratic Party, I distrust the Republican Party a whole hell of a lot more. It won't be good for middle-class and working class America that Obama is reelected, but it'll be a lot worse if Romney gets in.
Remember, I'm a conspiracy theorist! ;-)
So, Dubya, if someone talks about having accomplished something contrary to your preconceived thoughts about the way things are in your conspiratorial little world, in your mind they are 'blowing their own horn'? I'm not surprised then that you don't blow your own horn more often about all your security guard exploits. Oh, wait, that's right, you do that quite often.
Just for fun Jefferson, I'll answer some of your questions. Bear in mind that sometimes the details are more complex than can be discussed fully in a blog setting. No, I am not a CEO, but I do report to the CEO as I have for many years. My current title is Global Technology Director.
Twenty years is a long time in the business world, and during that time my company has gone from one location in the U.S. to two locations in the U.S., 2 in Mexico, 1 each in Germany, Turkey, China, and Brazil. So, yes, we have created many jobs in the U.S. as well as many jobs in the countries mentioned above. Our move overseas was driven by the fact that our customer base was moving into those areas and we had the choice of moving there to support them or losing their business. The latter would have been irresponsible from the standpoint of increasing shareholder's equity (which is the primary function of every employee, whether they realize it or not). Also, our product has a rather limited shelf life, about 60 days, so shipping globally from the U.S. is not a good long-term option.
OK, Jefferson, let me ask you a question. When you talk about "CEO's", are you talking about all CEO's, even the CEO's of 260K/year start-ups that employ 2 or 3 people? Or do you limit your definition to some specific size corporation, maybe 1 million/year? 100 million/year? 1 billion/year? I'm just curious at what level of success these nefarious CEO's become evil.
There appears to be a basic contradiction in the thought process when, on the one hand you profess to distrust government and CEO's, but on the other hand you seem to think government is better suited to control businesses that are private citizens.
Bearing in mind that small mom & pop shops would never be capable of building a safe car, much less an airplane or space shuttle, how do you think the U.S. business environment should be structured so that we are capable of maintaining our current lifestyle and level of innovation, without having large corporations or CEO's? Again, I'm just curious as to how you would accomplish this.
Yeah, but one difference between Obama and me is that I actually have brought some jobs back to the U.S.
Feeling grandiose are we? And could you help us out by showing where I compared my “exploits” to a president’s accomplishments? We understand it was sensitive and defensive of you to throw the mud...
So, Dubya, if someone talks about having accomplished something contrary to your preconceived thoughts about the way things are in your conspiratorial little world, in your mind they are 'blowing their own horn'? I'm not surprised then that you don't blow your own horn more often about all your conspiratorial little world. Oh, wait, that's right, you do that quite often.
...but please feel free to expound on all your accomplishments.
One accomplishment that eludes you is attaching any clear meaning to “preconceived thoughts about the way things are in your conspiratorial little world”.
What “preconceived thoughts” would those be? What is meant by the “way things are”? What things and in what way? And what “conspiratorial little world” are you talking about? Is the reality of corporate and Big Money influence on politicians that “conspiratorial little world”?
And again, what ‘security guard exploits” have I “quite often” blown my horn about?
Really, can you cite even one “exploit”, let alone where I come off comparing myself to a president? Sheesh!
I once listed some aspects of the job in response to a troll’s cowardly spewing of disrespect and hate for me and members of the profession. Was that blowing my own horn?
So please, put up or shut up with accusations. It lowers you to the level of a mean and nasty troll.
I know you’re better than that.
FandB: "OK, Jefferson, let me ask you a question. When you talk about "CEO's", are you talking about all CEO's..."
No, not unless the shoe fits. Working for a technology start-up in the past, I've also reported directly to a CEO. The guy was definitely a sociopath. But, predominately, I'm referring to CEOs of Fortune 500 size multinationals. I think you probably already knew that.
"There appears to be a basic contradiction in the thought process when, on the one hand you profess to distrust government and CEO's, but on the other hand you seem to think government is better suited to control businesses that are private citizens."
There's no contradiction at all. I never indicated I distrusted "We the People", the purported owners of our government according to our Founders, but rather the two major political parties that really serve one consideration -- "Big Money". But I'm repeating myself, aren't I?
Government, in the form of "We the People", has to regulate business, because self-regulation, as we've seen fail time-after-time again, does not work. You've said it already: The primary function of business is increasing shareholder's equity; it's certainly not serving the public interest.
"...how do you think the U.S. business environment should be structured so that we are capable of maintaining our current lifestyle and level of innovation without having large corporations or CEO's?"
First, I've never campaigned against "largeness", per se, but rather monopoly and oligopoly; companies so large and so powerful, that they are more than in the business of being a business -- they're unduly influencing our elected (and unelected) government representatives with Big Money. I don't believe their corporate charters say anything about this.
As far as your term "our current lifestyle", even as just a Global Technology Director, this shows how out of touch you are with the working class in this country. Congratulations! You've passed the first test to becoming CEO material! You tried on the latest style of narcissistic shoe-wear and it fits perfectly!
Post a Comment