Tuesday, September 18, 2012

Class Act

So, what does class warfare from a classless, aristocratic, snob look like?

“There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that’s an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what…These are people who pay no income tax... my job is not to worry about those people. I’ll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives…. The president has been a disappointment. He told you he’d keep unemployment below 8 percent. Hasn’t been below eight percent since. Fifty percent of kids coming out of school can’t get a job. Fifty percent.”


— Mitt Romney, speaking at a private, millionaires only, fundraiser on May 17  

These obnoxious authoritarian Republicans really do believe their own swill, don't they? No wonder they've declared war on fact checkers.   This elitist, scornful snit is full of lies, of course. And it is insulting to almost half the country.

He told you he’d keep unemployment below 8 percent. 

  No. Obama never said that. Just like he never said, "You didn't build your business".  

I'd call that dangerous abundunce of pompous arrogance, befitting a prep school bully who wants the power of the presidency, a clear warning for us all.   

Why on Earth would a country elect a man who clearly has such mean-spirited contempt, if not outright hatred, for the less affluent half of the country?  

What kind of jerk would insult and demean so many Americans?  

A first-class authoritarian asshole.  

The larger tragedy is the number of low-class authoritarain assholes who think the same way.  

And they want to "take back America".  

God help us.

77 comments:

free0352 said...

Actually Christina Romer, then chairwoman of the president's Council of Economic Advisers, and Jared Bernstein, the vice president's top economic adviser said the Stimulus would prevent unemployment from going above 8% and by now would be in the 6% range. Conceivably if members of Obama's administration told it to congress, the President was in full support of the claim. But then again, this is a President who has had repeated trouble controlling his own cabinet so who knows.

As for Romney, he's absolutely right. It makes sense a message of low taxes won't matter much to people who pay no income tax.

Do Conservatives and Libertarians hate the "less affluent. Fuck yes, if by that term you mean the dead beats of society who suck tax dollars out of we tax paying citizens and then demand more... while they themselves pay nothing.

I don't think that's what Mitt Romney was talking about- but its what I'M TALKING ABOUT.

I am sick to death of supporting those that drink the water with no thought towards those that carry the water.

You want authoritarian? Its making us pay for social security we don't want, and won't get anyway. Its making us pay for medicare we'll never get, and don't want anyway. Its extorting the productive and using governmental force to redistribute wealth to people who frankly didn't do jack or shit to earn that wealth. Its using the power of the state to create a dependent serf voter base with a loyal vote bought and paid for with other people's money. We want out of say... social security, don't want to pay into it, don't expect anything from it. That is economic freedom. Putting an IRS gun to our heads is as authoritarian as it gets. Yet you are all for the ones holding the gun, not those who want to be free of that.

You're the authoritarian one dave, its your guys holding the pistols. Not us. If I thought Romney wouldn't flip on this the second the going got rough, I'd actually vote for him. But this is him pandering to Conservatives, nothing more. Too bad.

free0352 said...

This is what we object to. Redistribute your fucking self first, then come ask me or anyone else. If you aren't willing to pay that tax rate, you're a greedy thieving bastard yourself to expect someone else to pull the weight you won't. And you're the authoritarian one to use the naked power of the state to harness another person to your welfare plow and whip them along. And then call them lucky to be under the yoke.

FandB said...

Sometimes the truth stings like a hornet and cuts like a knife. It is such a glaring, brutal, painful truth that most people are afraid to look at it head-on. We have big problems in this country that have been brought upon us by democrats and a perpetual welfare class who have no intention of pulling themselves out of the gutter (they expect the government to do it for them) and that supplements their government handouts through criminal activity.

We need a leader who is not afraid to recognize this and someone who has the guts to do something about it. Romney went too easy on these freeloaders.

Weaseldog said...

Mittens himself is part of the 47%. He got a Federal Bailout when he was with Bain Capital.

As Mittens is a effectively a welfare recipient, I would imagine he is full of self loathing and will do his best to destroy himself as president.

Jerry Critter said...

Just who are this 47%? Jim Wright discusses them here.

Jefferson's Guardian said...

Free0352, here's my offer to you and others who feel as you do: You can opt out of SS and Medicare, when I and all other Americans can have the same option when it comes to paying taxes that support the Military-Industrial-Security Complex. Is it a deal?

free0352 said...

when I and all other Americans can have the same option when it comes to paying taxes that support the Military-Industrial-Security Complex. Is it a deal?

Sure. Why not? Once upon a time we funded our military through war bonds that were voluntarily bought. I'd like to see a return to that.

Tom Harper said...

The 47% that Romney was slandering includes a lot of retirees living on pensions and Social Security, people living on disability checks, and working people whose income is low enough that they're not required to pay federal income taxes. (This was made possible by Ronald Reagan when he greatly expanded the Earned Income Tax Credit.)

Millions of people in the above-mentioned paragraph are conservative. Will they still vote for Romney after he pretty much called them a bunch of helpless victims and moochers?

okjimm said...

"Too many blogs on the internet do nothing but bash every act by every government official and agency. I, for one, would like to see some good, concrete suggestions or ideas coming from some of these bloggers. If you're not part of the solution, then you're part of the problem. "
FandB.....august 30 2006 on his blog

" Sometimes the truth stings like a hornet and cuts like a knife. It is such a glaring, brutal, painful truth that most people are afraid to look at it head-on. We have big problems in this country that have been brought upon us by democrats and a perpetual welfare class who have no intention of pulling themselves out of the gutter (they expect the government to do it for them) and that supplements their government handouts through criminal activity."
FandB 2012

If you aren't willing to pay that tax rate, you're a greedy thieving bastard yourself to expect someone else to pull the weight you won't. And you're the authoritarian one to use the naked power of the state to harness another person to your welfare plow and whip them along. And then call them lucky to be under the yoke.
FandB 2012

ok....FandB...I am gonna be nice... your views are a rancid pile of shit. You revere a candidate who inherited his wealth and keeps his money hidden in off shore accounts to avoid taxes....who calls 47% of America leaches....whose party demands I show an ID to vote, because I am a fraud and yet will not be as transparent as to reveal his own taxes.

Shame on you!!! So let me clue you in on something.... I paid NO income tax last year.... cause I am blind, lame and living on my savings. HOWEVER.... I paid income taxes for 52 fucking years and in some years it was substantial. I paid taxes on gas, on my house, on every fucking thing I ever bought. And now you call me a leach.

just as you pointed out in 2006... you bring nothing constructive to the conversation and you pitiful attempts to bring them on the internet.... brought nothing. No solutions, no humor, no art, no finesse, no heart......nothing but empty sweeping rhetoric.

And, before you assault me... remember... you do not know me...who I am, where I have served America...nothing. Keep it that way. A troll and his opinion are soon offered....so go back to your own blog and see what interest you generate and quit being a bozo.

Weaseldog said...

I'm a bit bothered that Romney says that our veterans are lazy worthless moochers. That veterans are too lazy to work and don't pay taxes.

I disagree with Mittens. Our veterans deserve their VA care and pensions.

I have a problem with Mittens telling us that he won't do damned thing for veterans, that they are his base and he doesn't give a crap about them.

Weaseldog said...

Free0352 are you really arguing that you want to see the benefit programs for disabled veterans ended?

I can believe you'd want that. But it makes you more extreme than I has originally thought you were.

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

Free0352 are you really arguing that you want to see the benefit programs for disabled veterans ended?

Firstly, they aren't "Benefit" programs they are pensions and compensation programs. Get your terms right. It ain't charity. They earned it. What I was talking about was who should be paying taxes.

I'm saying EVERYONE should pay taxes. EVERYONE. Believe it.

EVERYONE at the same percentage. Trust me, when everyone has skin in the game, you'll see a lot less support for the welfare monkey programs for DIRT BAGS of which there are MILLIONS like this cunt. People like her, who unlike veterans being compensated for their service and wounds or the legitimately disabled, are simply lazy and have never contributed jack shit to this country, and never will and need very quickly to be cut the hell off. People who are laughing at tax payers while they live in the HUD House, talk on the ObamaPhone, eat the food stamps, collect the defrauded SSI, and who cash the AFDC checks. And oh by the way, YAY! No more work requirement! Liberals are all fans of Darwin till it comes time to admit some people are going to be naturally selected off the island.

Get jobs or starve. I really don't give a shit which - but stop expecting the rest of we who are productive to save you. A healthy and grown adult can save themselves.

FandB said...

Okjimm: First, the third paragraph isn't from me, I didn't write that, it's not my style.

I put a blog together as an assignment when I was in school. I don't have the time to keep it up. I'm not going to apologize for that either, so don't let it bother you.

Okjimm: "your views are a rancid pile of shit" --- And so are yours okjimm, but you have a right to have them, and so do I.

My comments were directed at: "perpetual welfare class who have no intention of pulling themselves out of the gutter (they expect the government to do it for them) and that supplements their government handouts through criminal activity." I did not comment on anyone else. You let your Hate get the better of you.

Romney donated his inheritance to charity. He earned his wealth. He did not inherit it.

People pay income tax on income, not on money they have in the bank. Having savings in offshore accounts does not change his income tax liability.

I didn't call you a leach, okjimm, in spite of the foul mouthed tone you have taken with me.

You also bring nothing constructive to the conversation okjimm. Neither does anyone else here. It is the lefties bashing conservatism and the righties bashing socialism, and no one outside of this little group gives a shit about anything anyone says here.

But fine, you don't want me here then I'll leave.

Jerk.

Weaseldog said...

Free0352, "Firstly, they aren't "Benefit" programs they are pensions and compensation programs. Get your terms right. It ain't charity. They earned it. What I was talking about was who should be paying taxes."

Too be completely accurate, they are call "Entitlements". And Romeny classifies people like you, that feel they deserve these things as welfare leeches. And above, you've gone to great lengths to defend this position.

Taxes are every where dude, property taxes, sales tax, fuel tax. And if you work but don't earn enough to pay income tax, you're still paying payroll and SS taxes.

It's incredible that you don't know anything about all the different taxes that everyone pays. How can you not know this?

Weaseldog said...

Free0352, I think this is the guy you really need to debate.

If you can convince this veteran, I think you'll likely convince us all.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/19/veterans-mitt-romney_n_1897200.html?utm_hp_ref=fb&src=sp&comm_ref=false#sb=602158,b=facebook

free0352 said...

Too be completely accurate, they are call "Entitlements"

Nope. Sorry dude. When you get out of the military you either qualify for veterans disability which must be service connected, or a military retirement. There are also other programs like Vocational Rehab, for people with over 10% service connected disability, VA Home Loan (which you pay back) and VA Small Business Loan (which you pay pack.)

All of which a veteran earns through service. Thats not what Mitt Romney was talking about, he was talking about people like this.


Please explain how someone earns food stamps?

Of course that's what I'm talking about. Not Romney, who was making the observation that a low tax message won't matter much to a person who pays no income tax.

As for my knowledge of taxes, I'm keenly aware. Taxes are everywhere and that's my point. The government is taking 50% out of us, and now its demanding more for those who are productive, and nothing from those whose idea of work is tricking a doctor into getting them SSI.

free0352 said...

I mean really, unless you work for VA you trying to poorly educate a guy on COAD status about the veterans administration or medical retirement is kinda like me telling Dave here how to run a prison.

Weaseldog said...

free0352 said... "I mean really, unless you work for VA you trying to poorly educate a guy on COAD status about the veterans administration or medical retirement is kinda like me telling Dave here how to run a prison."

Wow! You're right! Mitt Romney is crapping on the veterans for being on the government dole.

Thank you for pointing out that disabled veterans are part of the 47% that Mitt Romney doesn't give a crap about.

If you want Mitt to represent you, don't be a disabled veteran. Have a high paying job, and pay taxes. Don't accept a government pension or disability checks.

The Republican Party is big on income taxes. They want everyone to pay more income taxes. They don't respect you if you only pay payroll, sales and school taxes. Mitt wants you to pay more taxes than that.

free0352 said...

First of all, lets get this strait. You're talking with me, not Mitt Romney. Romney was saying his message of low income tax won't mean much to a person who doesn't pay income tax. That's Mitt Romney.

Free0352? What I'm saying is waaaaaaaaaay more extreme than anything said by Romney. I'm a card carrying Libertarian who pays dues to the Libertarian Party and who would vote for Garry Johnson in a read hot minute if it weren't for scum bag Republicans who got us thrown off the ballot in my state. So fuck Mitt Romney and the Republicans, just say'n.

Now, what AM I SAYING? Firstly, Veterans earned it. So do a lot of public EMPLOYEES. Take Dave here. He's doing a perfectly legitimate job for a legitimate government function- running a jail. If anything, he's probably under compensated. Most DOC employees are. I'm not an anarchist, so I think some government functions are legitimate. Things like courts, jails, the Army and Navy, firemen are fine.

Fuck welfare in all its guises. What I'm saying, is if I were President and had a Libertarian Congress I'd end all food stamps yesterday. I'd end Social Security. I'd end all farm subsidy, all energy subsidy green or otherwise, I'd end the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Department of Education, the Department of Energy, and I'd gut from the justice department the DEA, and the ATF, and I'd get rid of Homeland Security too, along with the FDA while I was at it. I'd means test Medicare, and require dirtbag parents who don't provide insurance for their children to pay back in full what Medicare covers for their kids. I'd pass very stringent requirements for federal insurance of banks.

As for taxes, instead of 47% of Americans not paying income tax, I'd reduce that number to 0% by very simply repealing every federal tax - that means all of them - and replacing them with a 7% across the board VAT tax. I'd then have a balanced budget amendment and require the government to live within its means just like the States have to. And would veterans on disability have to pay that 7% tax? You bet.

Everyone should pay. Period.

Clearly, Mitt Romney doesn't think like me. I wish he did, but he doesn't. And hence he won't be getting my vote. Garry Johnson would have got it, but Republicans fucked me out of that option.

So I'm not voting.

free0352 said...

Oh, and as for me counting on a pension check, forget it. This country is nearly 16 trillion in debt. I'll be amazed if I get five years worth of them.

Funny thing about socialism, you run out of other people's money. We're nearly there. I'll get my way in the long run, because frankly we're too broke to do it your way anymore. Austerity is coming kids, either dictated by ourselves or those we'll be in receivership with as a nation, in the future. I mean really, how long do you really think the country can go on, borrowing this money?

Jefferson's Guardian said...

Free0352: "Sure. Why not? Once upon a time we funded our military through war bonds that were voluntarily bought. I'd like to see a return to that."

and...

"Firstly, they aren't 'Benefit' programs they are pensions and compensation programs. Get your terms right. It ain't charity. They earned it."

I'm sorry I couldn't join in on the discussion earlier, but was traveling and the use of a smartphone was less than optimal for this sort of thing. Anyway...

My trade-off with you, that you unthinkingly accepted, also included GI benefits such as retirement pensions and benefits for disabled veterans, etc. It's all part of the same ball of wax.

Social Security is also a benefit. The people collecting benefits paid into this annuity all their lives. It's also not charity (as you seem to embrace it). Just like your coveted military retirement program, they also earned it.

Are you still accepting of my offer?

Jefferson's Guardian said...

Free0352: "Funny thing about socialism, you run out of other people's money."

Funny thing about unrestrained, under-regulated or unregulated laissez-faire capitalism: Everyone runs out of clean water and clean air; in a nutshell, a habitable environment for all living things.

Money's man-made and replaceable; not so with a livable planet.

Jerry Critter said...

Free0352: "Funny thing about socialism, you run out of other people's money."

Where is the proof of that?

okjimm said...

//What kind of jerk would insult and demean so many Americans? //

"DIRT BAGS of which there are millions like this cunt"

Free

okjimm said...

Gees Free was you 'all having a Romney moment?

Weaseldog said...

From Marriam-Webster

Definition of ENTITLEMENT
1
a : the state or condition of being entitled : right
b : a right to benefits specified especially by law or contract

When you provide a service to your country or pay into a fund, you are entitled to a payout. This is called an entitlement.

You can call it a benefit, a pension, etc... These are all forms of entitlements.

If you receive benefits from the government in exchange for service or investments (SS, Medicade tax, etc...) then you're one of the 47% that Romney is shitting on.

He doesn't intend to be your president. He despises you.

Team Creative said...

Nice post, thaks fo sharee visit back to DamaiOnlineStore

free0352 said...

Where is the proof of that?

Oh I dunno, Greece, Spain, France... take your pick?

Do I have contempt for those that would lead us down that road. Oh yeah. Get a job, quit cry'n.

free0352 said...

Oh, and I almost forgot my all time favorite example of failed Democrat policy... My home town!

Jefferson's Guardian said...

Free0352: "Oh I dunno, Greece, Spain, France... take your pick?"

Please give me a list of three countries in the world, past or present, that have successfully operated under a policy of unregulated laissez-faire capitalism.


"Get a job, quit cry'n."

There aren't any...remember? That's why you cowardly joined the military -- then joined again after you got out the first time. If you were a man with just an ounce of integrity, you would follow your own advice.

But you're not. You're just a tool of the corporate-state.

free0352 said...

that have successfully operated under a policy of unregulated laissez-faire capitalism.

The United States of America.

There aren't any...remember?

I left law enforcement in 2005 for an account executive position with a major trucking company and was making nearly 70,000 dollars a year in 2007 when I chose to enlist in the Army.

I work here cause I like it. So think again.

Jefferson's Guardian said...

Free0352: "The United States of America [has successfully operated under a policy of unregulated laissez-faire capitalism]."

When? Do you mean prior to the advent of the "Industrial Revolution", when we were an agrarian-based economy? Sure...when the concepts of Adam Smith and small, local, farmers and tradesmen and entrepreneurs were all there was. How about in the modern world of monopolistic and oligarchical "competition" -- tell me when unregulated laissez-faire capitalism has been the norm, and when did it work? For that matter, tell me where in the world it works now.

The answer is none. Your utopian "free-market", beyond local and small regional traders, is a mirage. With libertarianism, it's a wet-dream.


"I work here cause I like it."

You work there because you couldn't cut it in sales. "Nearly" $70K is chicken-feed in that world. Plus, I'm sure you were compensated mostly by commission, if not all. You knew you couldn't sustain the pace of the quotas you were expected to achieve, so you defaulted to the government just like those you despise. The retirement pension beats the uncertainty of the 401K, and the military benefits can't be beat by any private sector industry -- unless you're upper or executive management.


"So think again."

Didn't have to. I'm right on target.

free0352 said...

I'm sure you were compensated mostly by commission

A salaried position, we were not paid by commission. My customers were companies like Menards, Miller & Company, Dart Container, and Kimberly Clark. I was a national account executive. I did fine. I won't claim to be the best ever sales dude in the world, but I wasn't in the dog house or anything. Truth is, I hated the job, and missed the infantry. Didn't particularly like LE either, part of that was the aspect of LE I was in but in the end I'm a humble infantrymen. Its the best job out there, least for me. I didn't mind the pay cut at all.

The retirement pension beats the uncertainty of the 401K, and the military benefits can't be beat by any private sector industry

Come try it then. I double dare you.

free0352 said...

Oh, and if you don't want to call pre new deal America free market economics thats fine with me. I don't care what you call it, so long as we go back to it and similar government spending levels. We can even name it socialism if it makes you feel better about it jeff.

S.W. Anderson said...

"Why on Earth would a country elect a man who clearly has such mean-spirited contempt, if not outright hatred, for the less affluent half of the country?"

Three main reasons. First, Romney is not black. Second, he's not a Democrat. Third, a significant portion of the population has strong tendencies toward selfishness, suspiciousness and resenting others who aren't just like them, especially if those others are perceived to be getting ahead when the resenters aren't — all of which Romney pandered to with his meanmouth monologue.

What kind of jerk would insult and demean so many Americans?

One who's done a coldly selfish and careful calculation of how many Americans he can write off and how many he might gain support from by insulting and demeaning the others.

Moneymen like Romney tend to be numbers guys, not people guys. He's at home in the executive suite, the country club and large rooms full of moneymen who can help him gain personal wealth or campaign money. Large segments of the population — the so-called unwashed masses — are of much less use to him. He doesn't relate to them and hasn't found an effective way to harness them to his purpose. Therefore, they're mostly an unhelpful abstraction. Since he can't win their active support, he'll use stereotype notions about them to gain traction with those whose gullibility, insecurities and resentment can be of use to him.

free0352 said...

I actually agree with your characterization of Romney except with one exception... most of what you call "Stereotypes" are true.

And a good portion of those who can't get ahead, have those that cling to the welfare state for every waking need to blame.

I'm not a Romney voter - can't stand the guy - but he's right there. We shouldn't be pandering to the entitlement class that doesn't do a thing to ***using an Obama term here*** move America forward. More like provide a massive boat anchor around America's neck. I know people who have never worked a single day in their lives. A lot of people like that, people I'm related to.

Fuck them.

Jefferson's Guardian said...

Free0352: "A salaried position, we were not paid by commission."

That's highly unusual -- especially given it was just a few years ago. I'll have to take your word for it, though I'm skeptical.


"...but in the end I'm a humble infantrymen."

That's hilarious -- the "humble" part! [LOL]


"Come try it then. I double dare you."

I'm afraid my days of playing soldier are over. I gave up such fantasies when I was a child.


"...if you don't want to call pre new deal America free market economics thats fine with me. I don't care what you call it, so long as we go back to it..."

Hey, I'm with you on that, just as long as the old 19th century laws regulating corporations were to be reinstated. Here are just a dozen examples from Wisconsin -- which were the norm in most other states at the time:

(1) Corporations' licenses to do business were revocable by the state legislature if they exceeded or did not fulfill their chartered purposes(s).

(2) The state legislature could revoke a corporation's charter if it misbehaved.

(3) The act of incorporation did not relieve corporate management or stockholders/owners of responsibility, or liability, for corporate acts.

(4) Corporate officers, directors, and/or their agents could be held criminally liable for violating the law.

(5) State (not federal) courts heard cases where corporations (or their agents) were accused of breaking the law or harming the public.

(6) Directors of the corporation were required to come from among the stockholders.

(7) Corporations had to have their headquarters and meetings in the state where their principal place of business was located.

(8) Corporation charters were granted by the state for a specific period of time, such as 20 or 30 years (instead of being granted "in perpetuity" as is now the practice).

(9) Corporations were prohibited from owning stock in other corporations, in order to prevent them from extending their power inappropriately.

(10)Corporations' real estate holdings were limited to what was necessary to carry out their specific purpose(s).

(11) Corporations were prohibited from making any political contributions, either directly or indirectly.

(12) Corporations were prohibited from making charitable or civic donations outside of their specific purpose(s).

If you're in agreement with just these twelve points, I'd be happy to jump on your bandwagon. Otherwise, it's no deal.

free0352 said...

especially given it was just a few years ago

If you call half a decade ago a few years.

That's hilarious -- the "humble" part!

Sure I am. I'm not an SF guru, I'm not a super soldier, I'm not a ninja black ops guy. I'm just a grunt, and proud of it.

Hey, I'm with you on that, just as long as the old 19th century laws regulating corporations were to be reinstated. Here are just a dozen examples from Wisconsin

Hey man, I'm a big fan of Federalism. I think states not only have the right but should be doing more. So hey, yeah, lets do just that. If you want to go the route of California which is going to need a massive bail out any day now- don't come crying to the federal government- but beyond that, go nuts. Its your state voters. What works for Wyoming probably won't work for New York. I like 50 little options, so you can have your socialist quagmire and I can live in a state that has free markets. Sounds good to me, sounds like the way its supposed to be.



free0352 said...

I'm afraid my days of playing soldier are over. I gave up such fantasies when I was a child.

Bok bok bok.

You were playing, we're dead serious.

Jefferson's Guardian said...

Free0352: "If you call half a decade ago a few years."

I do. Five years is a few years, isn't it? (Unless you're ten years old, I guess.)


"Sounds good to me, sounds like the way its supposed to be."

Only if the states adopt the corporate regulating of Wisconsin, and other states, from the 19th century. Only if! Like I said, that's the only way I'd agree to your unthinkable wet-dream.

(What do you think is the chance of that happening?)


"You were playing, we're dead serious."

Cold-blooded killers usually are.

Weaseldog said...

Capitalism works.

In the USA, even terrorists can purchase their very own government workers and politicians.

If profits weren't the basis of all morality in this country, these folks would be swinging from a rope. In capitalism, the only measure of whether something is right or wrong, is if you're making a profit or not.

As long as these terrorists keep ponying up the cash, our gov will look the other way.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/22/world/middleeast/iranian-opposition-group-mek-wins-removal-from-us-terrorist-list.html?pagewanted=all&_moc.semityn.www

Jefferson's Guardian said...

Free0352: "I like 50 little options, so you can have your socialist quagmire and I can live in a state that has free markets. Sounds good to me, sounds like the way its supposed to be."

Would we have to change our name?

Seriously, it sounds like you're sniffing at the edges of succession. That's a serious and flagrant violation of the oath you took, isn't it?

Socialist quagmire? You're the one who hypocritically takes federal government entitlements, not me. Until you can legitimately get off the government dole, your words are only empty rhetoric.

Anyway, back to my previous proposal: Should the states all revert back to the type of corporate regulating reminiscent of the 19th century (as I postulated for you earlier), then I'll agree to free market capitalism as you envision it. We both know this won't happen, so it'll be up to the federal government to enact and enforce this proposal.

Then I'll be on your team... ;-)

free0352 said...

Seriously, it sounds like you're sniffing at the edges of succession.

Ah you know we radicals... Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, George Washington, Thomas Paine...

I'm a supporter of the Bill of Rights though... so I guess that puts me exactly in line with... Thomas Jefferson! Who agreed that states should have relative autonomy but that autonomy and power should be checked by the Bill of Rights.

Guess you should read up Jeff if you're going to name yourself after the guy.

Should the states all revert back to the type of corporate regulating reminiscent of the 19th century

I think the states should pass any laws they feel like passing in a way consistent with their constitutions, so long of course none of those laws violate the Bill of Rights.

Clearly under that system, some states would be more socialist and others more libertarian. And I'm fine with that. You are not. You wish to harness states and their citizens against their will.

Who is really the authoritarian one then? I, who suggest states have the freedom to govern as they see fit and be bound only by the Bill of Rights or you; who suggest a small capital can dictate the lives of the third most populous country on the planet?

T. Paine said...

"So, what does class warfare from a classless, aristocratic, snob look like?"

For a moment I thought you had finally found reason, Dubya, and were talking about that inept, incompetent, medacious, divisive, class warfare snob currently in the White House.

Jefferson's Guardian said...

Free0352: "Guess you should read up Jeff if you're going to name yourself after the guy."

Oh, I'm well aware that Jefferson was an anti-Federalist. I'm also aware, which you're obviously not, that he wanted an "anti-monopoly" clause along with a "no standing armies" clause included in the Bill Of Rights. Unfortunately (for later generations), he was in France at the time of the writing and ratification of the Constitution. Consequently, he wasn't here to lobby his cause. We're paying for it to this day.


"You are not. You wish to harness states and their citizens against their will."

No, I wish to harness the power of monopolistic corporate power, which would give power back to its citizens.


"Who is really the authoritarian one then? I, who suggest states have the freedom to govern as they see fit and be bound only by the Bill of Rights..."

I guess, then, you're also in favor of each state being able to supersede the 13th Amendment? From that perspective, a little authoritarian power is needed to protect the few.

Why do you bother worrying about a Constitutional Bill of Rights? Why not allow each state the freedom to determine their own? All I see from you is a grand scheme of cherry-picking, with the consequences of your actions not even warranting an afterthought. It's easy to grab the low-hanging fruit, but things are more complicated once the totality of the Constitution is considered.

That's what I love about libertarianism. Everything's seen in black and white terms only. There's never any critical thinking that goes into your troublesome sound-bites.

Drill, baby, drill! ;-)

free0352 said...

I guess, then, you're also in favor of each state being able to supersede the 13th Amendment?

Its funny how slavery always comes up with you guys when anyone dare suggest the Federal Government exists to support the states, not the other way around. Its your fall back argument because your other choice is to defend the wonderful job the Federal Government does in managing our super efficient super awesome federal government.

For the record, there's only one amendment I'd like to get rid of and it isn't the 13th, its the 16th.

Why do you bother worrying about a Constitutional Bill of Rights? Why not allow each state the freedom to determine their own?

Checks and balances. However lets flip that, why not if the federal government is so great simply abolish the states?

It's easy to grab the low-hanging fruit, but things are more complicated once the totality of the Constitution is considered.

Really? Good, you start considering it then. That would mean you should start by actually reading it.

Oh and as for Jefferson... if this were 1788 and it took 4 weeks to train a soldier and 2 months to cross the Atlantic instead of 2 years to train a basic soldier and 6 hours to cross the Atlantic I'd agree. Times change.

Guess I'm not the one thinking in black and white.


Former Republican Voter said...

“...A Republican ideology pitting the “makers” against the “takers” offers nothing. No sympathy for our fellow citizens. No insight into our social challenge. No hope of change. This approach involves a relentless reductionism. Human worth is reduced to economic production. Social problems are reduced to personal vices. Politics is reduced to class warfare on behalf of the upper class. “

Michael Gerson , head speech writer and a senior policy adviser to President George W. Bush. At the White House, he was an advocate for the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), the President’s Malaria Initiative, the fight against global sex trafficking and funding for women’s justice and empowerment issues.

Dave Dubya said...

Some more excellent observations:
From EJ Dionne’s “Does Romney Dislike America?”

He speaks as if hardworking parents who seek government help to provide health care for their kids are irresponsible, that students who get government aid to attend community colleges are not trying to “care for their lives.” Has he never spoken with busboys and waitresses, hospital workers and janitors who make too little to pay income taxes but work their hearts out to “take personal responsibility”?

...Yes, the riches enjoyed by the folks at that Boca Raton fundraiser were made possible in significant part by the strenuous efforts of proud, self-sufficient people, including many in the 47 percent.

Jefferson's Guardian said...

Free0352: "Its funny how slavery always comes up with you guys when anyone dare suggest the Federal Government exists to support the states..."

No, what's really funny (in a perverted, hypocritical sort of way) is the fact that most "Red States" take more federal dollars into their economies than they pay in federal taxes.

So, you don't think the federal government supports the states? Think again.


"...your other choice is to defend the wonderful job the Federal Government does in managing our super efficient super awesome federal government."

Yeah, the biggest being our super modern and efficient military. I'm defending it all the time. Particularly on this blog. ;-)


"Checks and balances."

Please give me some examples, because frankly, given your previous argument, your answer doesn't hold much water.


"...lets flip that, why not if the federal government is so great simply abolish the states?"

I've never made a claim that the federal government "is so great"; I've only heard you relentlessly rail against it. If you hate the federal government so much, why do you suck at its teat?


"That would mean you should start by actually reading it [the U.S. Constitution]."

I have, actually a number of times. It's not very big; I even have a pocket edition. But, I forgot, you're also a legal expert. Is it in Constitutional law?


"...if this were 1788 and it took 4 weeks to train a soldier and 2 months to cross the Atlantic instead of 2 years to train a basic soldier and 6 hours to cross the Atlantic I'd agree.

It takes two years to train a U.S. soldier?! Damn, it takes you two years to do what our forefathers did in a month? No wonder there's such a large debt!


"Times change."

Yes, they do. You just exposed the vulnerable underbelly of why the 2nd Amendment should possibly be revoked.

As usual, Free007, you instinctively resort back to what you've learned so well:

"Ready...Fire...Aim!"

free0352 said...

So, you don't think the federal government supports the states? Think again.

In the form of agricultural subsidy especially THEY DO.

I also think that should end, yesterday. Any questions? The only thing that pisses me off more than welfare to deadbeats is welfare to millionaires and giant corporations.

Yeah, the biggest being our super modern and efficient military

We're about 16% of the total federal budget. And we just made huge cuts. When are the welfare recipients going to face a cut? We at least keep the country defended, what the fuck do they do?

If you hate the federal government so much, why do you suck at its teat?

Because if I didn't they'd have to draft people like you, and then we'd get casualty numbers like we had back when there was a draft. Easily 1000 times the rate we have now. Modern warfare requires a modern, professional military. I help provide that service to you, at 16 cents out of every tax dollar you pay. And bear in mind, 47% don't even pay that. Its an amazingly cheap deal for what you get out of it.

But, I forgot, you're also a legal expert. Is it in Constitutional law?

I wouldn't say I'm an expert... just that I know more than you do because of experience. And if I had to pick an area of specialization it would be either family or criminal law.

It takes two years to train a U.S. soldier?!

Fully, yes- and thats for basic warfighting skills. Of course sadly we sometimes send kids right out of their 14 pitiful weeks of basic training and they die like its going out of style, because they are under trained for modern combat. Its something I think the Army should be ashamed of. We try to get them the full 2 years, but sometimes the Army does stupid things.

Damn, it takes you two years to do what our forefathers did in a month?

Well we don't exactly shoulder up our trusty muskets anymore. There have been a few advancements in technology the last 200 years. If you want to survive on a modern battlefield, you'd better be well trained. The days of cannon fodder are behind us.

You just exposed the vulnerable underbelly of why the 2nd Amendment should possibly be revoked.

I'd say its more important that ever.

"Ready...Fire...Aim!"

Thats funny, since I teach surgical marksmanship. One of those skills it takes a few years to master.





















Jefferson's Guardian said...

Free0352: "The only thing that pisses me off more than welfare to deadbeats is welfare to millionaires and giant corporations."

Something we agree about.


"We're [Defense] about 16% of the total federal budget."

Your numbers are way too low, especially when taking into account the supplemental bill to support the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. As of June of last year, the total cost of those two boondoggles was approximately $3.7 trillion (so far).

What a waste. What a fucking waste.


"When are the welfare recipients going to face a cut? We at least keep the country defended, what the fuck do they do?"

I can only assume you're referring to corporate welfare. I agree, what do they do? (Except steal our democracy and corrupt our politicians...)


"Because if I didn't they'd have to draft people like you, and then we'd get casualty numbers like we had back when there was a draft."

You've had an easy job in the desert. Fighting in rainforests was a totally different animal. You'd probably crap your pants...


"I wouldn't say I'm an expert... just that I know more than you do because of experience."

Like I said:

"Ready...Fire...Aim"

You're always making wild, off-the-wall, assumptions. You're really entertaining. :-)


"If you want to survive on a modern battlefield, you'd better be well trained."

I guess you've trained so well, you can't win any wars.

free0352 said...

The highest ever percentage of the budget since WWII was in 2010 when we were 18.7 percent of total government spending. Granted, the government hasn't passed a real budget in over 1000 days so its tricky to get real numbers. I know you get confused. Just remember, I'm here to help ;)

Best guess for 2011 is we spent 13.5 percent of the budget last year. Nobody really knows what 2012 will look like since we don't have a budget, but since we aren't fighting in Iraq anymore I imagine it will be a few points lower.

I agree, what do they do?

I was definitely talking about the POS in the trailer park or in the HUD house or in the projects. But it goes double for the Bail Out Brigade and the subsidy whores. I can't think of anything they do that justifies the millions we throw at them. The Dept of Agriculture actually pays my old neighbor NOT to grow shit. Thats fucking insane.

You're always making wild, off-the-wall, assumptions

Really? How many years of law school have you completed and how many judges have you clerked for? How many judicial opinions did you help write?

I guess you've trained so well, you can't win any wars.

I dunno, you'll have to ask Saddam Hussein or Osama Bin Laden about that.

Oh wait... you're a twoofer I almost forgot.







free0352 said...

Oh and if you're wanting sources, you can go read the budget bs they put out yourself. I'm not doing your homework for you. Here's a pie chart. That should get you started. Wikipedia does a pretty good job of breaking down that shit for ya.
Fun fact, 70.6 percent of total spending is on Welfare Entitlement. And funny enough, that doesn't count the VA.

Jefferson's Guardian said...

Free0352: "I know you get confused. Just remember, I'm here to help..."

I forgot, you're also an expert budget analyst and a math genius. ;-)

You must have missed the most important part, though. DoD spending's share of discretionary spending was 50.5% in 2003, and has risen to between 53% and 54% in recent years.


"...but since we aren't fighting in Iraq anymore I imagine it will be a few points lower."

Well, U.S. combat troops might not be fighting, but mercenaries on the government payroll sure are. Plus, the upkeep on the massive Green Zone must cost a pretty penny.

But, wait, I forgot! Bush said oil revenues would pay for that war...


"I dunno, you'll have to ask Saddam Hussein or Osama Bin Laden about that."

So, taking out both of these men equates to a "win". Then what the fuck are you still doing over there...? {Oh, I remember, you're occupying their lands and allowing resource confiscation by the multinationals. How could I forget?)


"Fun fact, 70.6 percent of total spending is on Welfare Entitlement."

Define, exactly, "total spending". While you're at it, define "welfare entitlement", just so we're talking apples-to-apples.

okjimm said...

AH ah ah.... Free Said, ??
//I wouldn't say I'm an expert.//

you just say you know 150% more than anyone else, everyone else is wrong....and you are more qualified to tell everyone else they are wrong. Oh, boy....you is one funny rascal alrightie!

Jerry Critter said...

JG,
Your reference to discretionary spending is important. Free's numbers are based on total spending, but SS and Medicare are paid with employee contributions and premiums, and are not paid out of taxes. Remove SS and Medicare expenditures and Free's numbers go up significantly.

Jefferson's Guardian said...

Yes, Jerry, thank you. I understand this and am sure he does also. As is typical with conservatism and libertarianism, he always tends to "fudge the numbers" in order to misrepresent the real situation.

Remember, he's a tool. He's as much a part of the dismantling of the middle-class as the politicians who are bought-off by the banking cabal and the multinationals. He's a "foot-soldier" for the corporate-state.

Despite his words, he's far from being a "humble infantryman".

Jerry Critter said...

Infantryman is the easier career. You have no responsibility, you are taken care of totally by the government, and you only have to do what you are told. Sounds like Romney's definition of the 47%.

free0352 said...

You must have missed the most important part, though. DoD spending's share of discretionary spending was 50.5% in 2003, and has risen to between 53% and 54% in recent years.

You are aware discretionary spending is only part of over all spending right... and that entitlements are NONdiscretionary spending right? So what you're basically doing, is complaining about a fraction of a fraction.

I think I may be just good enough at math to figure out you suck at it.

So, taking out both of these men equates to a "win"

It ain't losing.

Then what the fuck are you still doing over there...?

We left Iraq dude. As for Afghanistan, we haven't killed all the Taliban yet.

Define, exactly, "total spending".

All the money the government spends.

And if for a definition, I liked you an easy picture. Go stare at it till your brain works.

Infantryman is the easier career

Come try it for a day. Double dare you. First formation is 0445.






Jefferson's Guardian said...

Free0352: "You are aware discretionary spending is only part of over all spending right... and that entitlements are NONdiscretionary spending right?"

I am.

Are you aware that discretionary spending is optional as part of fiscal policy, in contrast to entitlement programs for which funding is mandatory? (As is your military retirement "entitlement" programs.)

In case you weren't aware (which I'm beginning to believe you aren't), Social Security taxes are paid into the Social Security Trust Fund which is maintained by the U.S. Treasury. When revenues exceed expenditures, as they have in most years, the excess is invested in special series, non-marketable U.S. Government t-bills. I know your side always argues that this special trust fund holds no economic significance and is fictional, or just an accounting trick at best, but I argue that it has very specific legal significance because the Treasury securities it holds are backed by the "full faith and credit" of the U.S. government, which has an obligation to repay its debt. As long as we have a creditable United States of America, those t-bills are as good as gold.


"It ain't losing."

The U.S. spends 41% of the worldwide expenditures on defense (with the next closest being China, at 8.2%), and the best you can do is fight to a draw! A tie! That's pathetic...

God help us if we ever have to fight a real enemy.


"We left Iraq dude."

No, we didn't. (Is that what your commanders told you?) As previously mentioned, the Green Zone is very much still there, protected by United States-financed mercenaries. It's my guess it has the largest presence of CIA anywhere in the world, second only to McLean.


"As for Afghanistan, we haven't killed all the Taliban yet."

I didn't know we had declared war on the Taliban. I must have missed that headline...


"First formation is 0445."

That's sleeping-in for me. I've finished my second cup of coffee by then.

No wonder you guys can't win a war.

free0352 said...

Are you aware that discretionary spending is optional as part of fiscal policy, in contrast to entitlement programs for which funding is mandatory?

Yes. Also I'm suggesting we make it un-mandatory.

Social Security taxes are paid into the Social Security Trust Fund

That trust fund has been at beast breaking even for decades and is now dead broke and will stay that way. So stop repeating the lie. There is no account somewhere with every one's social security money in it. The boomers raided it and spent it. Its gone.

the Treasury securities it holds are backed by the "full faith and credit" of the U.S. government, which has an obligation to repay its debt. As long as we have a creditable United States of America, those t-bills are as good as gold

Well, so those bills are as good as dogshit. In fact, social security is that pays returns to its investors from their own money or the money paid by subsequent investors, rather than from profit earned by the individual or organization running the operation. That is the textbook definition of a Ponzi scheme. You've been had, admit it.

The U.S. spends 41% of the worldwide expenditures on defense

We're the third largest country in the world, its largest economy and act as its world police. This makes sense, this isn't a point.

No, we didn't.

Wow, we have an embassy there!? Who knew, do we have those in other countries too? WHAT DO YOU MEAN OTHER COUNTRIES HAVE THEM IN THIS COUNTRY!? Oh wow, its the New World Order! Get your tin foil hats!

I didn't know we had declared war on the Taliban. I must have missed that headline.

Yes you must have. They only announced it in September 2001 on national TV, by the President, in front of a joint cession of congress and the SCOTUS. He got a standing ovation.

That's sleeping-in for me. I've finished my second cup of coffee by then.

bok bok bok










Jefferson's Guardian said...

Free0352: "I'm suggesting we make it un-mandatory."

Sure, suggest all you want. I suggest you get a part-time job. Too many 'boomers are expecting their checks on time. ;-)

You're not working hard enough.


"That trust fund has been at beast [sic] breaking even for decades and is now dead broke and will stay that way."

Yet your link tells an entirely different story. Did you bother to read it?


"We're the third largest country in the world, its largest economy and act as its world police. This makes sense, this isn't a point."

And you still refuse to concede to my point: As big as the U.S. military is, it's still unable to beat a ragtag group of horse-riding bandits and religious extremists. As previously mentioned, I hope we never have to fight a real army. We'll be in trouble.

Perhaps starting your day earlier would help.


"They only announced it in September 2001 on national TV, by the President, in front of a joint cession of congress and the SCOTUS."

You'll have to show me the transcript, or video, of that speech. I don't recall him saying we've "declared war" against them; only Al Qaida. Although, I suppose, with the mythical "war on terror", everybody's a potential enemy of the corporate-state, even me. It easy to neatly define an enemy as a tactic. At some point or another, it can easily define anyone -- even jaywalkers (or protesters).

Just out of curiosity, do you consider the revolutionists who founded this country, terrorists?


"bok bok bok"

Hey, it's true. I start my day earlier than you.

Maybe you should think about doing the same.

free0352 said...

You'll have to show me the transcript, or video, of that speech.

Coming right up.

"The United States respects the people of Afghanistan - after all, we are currently its largest source of humanitarian aid - but we condemn the Taliban regime. It is not only repressing its own people; it is threatening people everywhere by sponsoring and sheltering and supplying terrorists. By aiding and abetting murder, the Taliban regime is committing murder. And tonight, the United States of America makes the following demands on the Taliban: Deliver to United States authorities all the leaders of Al Qaida who hide in your land. Release all foreign nationals, including American citizens, you have unjustly imprisoned. Protect foreign journalists, diplomats, and aid workers in your country. Close immediately and permanently every terrorist training camp in Afghanistan, and hand over every terrorist and every person in their support structure to appropriate authorities. Give the United States full access to terrorist training camps, so we can make sure they are no longer operating. These demands are not open to negotiation or discussion. The Taliban must act and act immediately. They will hand over the terrorists, or they will share in their fate."

" Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime."

George Bush, September 20, 2001.

I'm not sure what is unclear to you in those statements.

Just out of curiosity, do you consider the revolutionists who founded this country, terrorists?

The Continental Army? No.

As big as the U.S. military is, it's still unable to beat a ragtag group

These things take time. Again George told you that back in 2001 when he said-

"This war will not be like the war against Iraq a decade ago, with a decisive liberation of territory and a swift conclusion. It will not look like the air war above Kosovo 2 years ago, where no ground troops were used and not a single American was lost in combat.

Our response involves far more than instant retaliation and isolated strikes. Americans should not expect one battle but a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have ever seen."


If we wanted to simply kill all the Afghans, that's a simple enough task that we could accomplish in about 1 second. We do have ICBMs. Instead, we are using counter insurgency tactics because we are a humanitarian country and do not wish to indiscriminately wipe out the entire country, but apply violence in a surgical manner. That takes longer.

But I'm sure, you being an early riser and all, you could simply enlist and go Rambo and win the whole thing for us overnight.








Jefferson's Guardian said...

Free0352: "I'm not sure what is unclear to you in [Bush's] statements."

From Bush's speech: "The Taliban must act and act immediately. They will hand over the terrorists, or they will share in their fate."

and...

"Deliver to United States authorities all the leaders of Al Qaida who hide in your land."

Sounds like Bush never "declared war", in and of itself, but rather held the Taliban accountable as accessories to "the crime" through their harboring of "terrorists", and expected their cooperation.

Hasn't al-Qaida effectively been removed from Afghanistan? It would appear they've cooperated and have since split ties with the alleged perpetrators of 9/11. So, why are we still there again?

The real gem from Bush's speech...

"Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists."

I suppose, now, if one is in disagreement with the mythical "war on terror", one is also a terrorist? Doesn't that cast a wide net? Does that seem democratic to you?


"The Continental Army? No."

When the American Revolutionary War began at the Battles of Lexington and Concord in April 1775, the colonial revolutionaries did not have an army. They were just a bunch of ill-equipped and poorly trained local militia fighting the most powerfully armed and professionally trained army in the world. I believe one could even refer to these Americans, who were rightfully defending their country, as "insurgents". I'm sure the British had their own terms to describe them. I'm positive, though, that they weren't called "Taliban". Possibly they were "terrorists" in the eyes of their invaders. What do you think?


"These things take time."

Like I've mentioned several times before, the "war on terror" opens the floodgates to perpetual war, which it successfully has. It's really an ingenious and clever plan when you think about it, akin to the "war on drugs". Without specifying a particular country, or race, or culture, but instead targeting a "tactic", it has conveniently and effectively created "war ad infinitum". The possibilities are limitless. No wonder you're pleased to be an infantryman. You know you'll always be employed.

Tool!


"But I'm sure, you being an early riser and all, you could simply enlist and go Rambo and win the whole thing for us overnight."

Yup, I'm up at three o'clock every weekday morning. Like I said, I'm already in fourth gear by the time you get around to "first formation". Hey, give me your phone number, and I'll give you a wake-up call if you like.

No, you'd never see me enlist. That's for young conservative wannabes like yourself. As for Afghanistan, you already know my feelings about it. Leave it. Now.

free0352 said...

Sounds like Bush never "declared war"

He can't do that, only congress can. Congress granted that authority to the President on September 14th 2001. The language specifically states-

That the President is authorized to use all
necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations,
or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed,
or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001,
or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent
any future acts of international terrorism against the United States
by such nations, organizations or persons.


Clearly the Taliban was harboring Al'Queda. So nuff said.

Hasn't al-Qaida effectively been removed from Afghanistan?

Define effectively. There are still Al'Queda in Afghanistan, though not as powerful as they once were. There are lots of Taliban in Afghanistan, and they all need to die or be captured before this war will end. They only thing they have cooperated in is the killing of Americans, both civilian and military.

I suppose, now, if one is in disagreement with the mythical "war on terror", one is also a terrorist?

Stupidity isn't a terrorist act.

Does that seem democratic to you?

Me calling you an idiot does not involve Democracy.

When the American Revolutionary War began at the Battles of Lexington and Concord in April 1775, the colonial revolutionaries did not have an army.

Tell that to the Minute Men.

They were just a bunch of ill-equipped and poorly trained local militia

In the small arms department they were better equipped than the red coats. Many of the militia were veterans of the French and Indian war and kept their muskets. Many held Kentucky long rifles which were the most technologically advanced small arm weapons systems of the era- and were used to great effect during the revolution as an American armed with one could pick off individuals at 300 yards where a redcoat could only hit a man at 50.

. I believe one could even refer to these Americans, who were rightfully defending their country, as "insurgents".

Many were indeed insurgents, but not terrorists. I don't think you know what terrorist means. Terrorism is a tactic, its attacking civilians to intimidate a government. Some Americans did this, and they would be terrorists. The Continental Army nor the militia did so.

I'm sure the British had their own terms to describe them

I believe the term they used was "Subjects to The Crown in rebellion."

What do you think?

I think you'd have a point if the Continental Army had crashed a 747 into the Tower of London - but they didn't. Nor anything equivalent for the time period.

Like I've mentioned several times before, the "war on terror" opens the floodgates to perpetual war

Likely so. So what?

, you already know my feelings about it. Leave it. Now.

I'll agree with that statement the day the Taliban strongholds are in ruins and its members are dead.



















Jefferson's Guardian said...

Free0352: "He can't [declare war], only congress can."

Of course. Hence, the quotation marks.


"Clearly the Taliban was harboring Al'Queda."

Well, actually it's not so clear. That's the government's storyline, though.


"Define effectively."

How about "for all practical purposes". In other words, they're no longer the perceived threat they once were.

In other words, why are we (still) fighting the Taliban?


"Stupidity isn't a terrorist act."

If it were, you'd be highly suspect.


"Tell that to the Minute Men."

Are there any still alive?

By the way, the Minute Men predated the Continental Army. They were militia, as I originally stated.


"Many [revolutionary militia] were indeed insurgents, but not terrorists."

Exactly. So why do you fault the Taliban for attacking the occupiers of their country? You'd do the same, wouldn't you?


"Terrorism is a tactic..."

Yes, I already made that clear previously.


"Likely so. So what?"

So, it's contrived and false. There's no real threat. It's made up and not real. Therefore, as a voluntary member of the armed services, you're complicit in the scheme.

That's what!


"I'll agree with that statement the day the Taliban strongholds are in ruins and its members are dead."

It's already the longest occupation in U.S. history. Obviously, all the money and all the superior weaponry, and the "best trained military in the history of the world" (your egotistical words) can't beat a bunch of hooligans. They chased the Soviet Union out, and they'll chase you out. Why? Because you'll never win against a people defending their homeland. Their heart is in it; yours isn't.

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

Well, actually it's not so clear

Yes it is. Oh I forgot, you're a twoofer.

So, it's contrived and false. There's no real threat. It's made up and not real.

I forgot, you're a twoofer.

You can't argue with crazy. I can tell you 100 times what everybody to include 99% of Liberal Democrats knows. The September 11th 2001 attacks were not perpetrated by black helicopter riding Illuminati dudes involved in a vast and super complicated conspiracy. It was perpetrated by Islamic Radicals who trained to do it in Afghanistan, with the support of the Afghan government which at the time was the Taliban. And that is a clear act of war. Being at war, you have to fight until one side is either killed off or surrenders. That in this instance will take a long time. But of course none of these facts which everybody with an IQ over 7 knows, will make any difference to you. By accepting the attacks were perpetrated by Islamists you will then have to admit we have to fight and that George Bush and **Ghasp** Dick Chaney were right. This is unthinkable to a guy like you, so you make up a fairy story that places blame on the people you hate. Republicans and Rich People. Never mind that yes, every single Republican and even 99% of Democrats accept the truth, that truth gets in the way of your delusions. Its like showing a person the empirical evidence the Earth wasn't created in six days, faith and delusion trumps evidence. Its like showing someone Barack Obama's birth certificate, and yet the person insists Obama is a Muslim from Kenya. Sometimes you just have to accept you're talking to a crazy person. Crazy people will say crazy things.

Jefferson's Guardian said...

Free0352: "You can't argue with crazy."


You can argue with blind obedience.


"The September 11th 2001 attacks were not perpetrated by black helicopter riding Illuminati dudes involved in a vast and super complicated conspiracy.

I agree.

They also weren't pulled off by nineteen hapless Arabs who commandeered four commercial airliners, who then precisely struck three targets.

Of course bin Laden was behind it! That's what your government told you.


"But of course none of these facts which everybody with an IQ over 7 knows..."

Everybody, at one time, knew, for a fact, that the world was flat -- until new information became available.


"...so you make up a fairy story that places blame on the people you hate."

I don't hate anybody. I've already told you this before. (You have major comprehension problems.)

I didn't make any of this up.


"Crazy people will say crazy things.

People with blind obedience will follow their leaders to fascism. Now, that's a fact!

Hey, are you up yet?

Dave Dubya said...

Ahem. Meanwhile, for those of you who agreed with Romney, now you can disagree...again.

Romney: ‘47 percent’ remarks were ‘completely wrong’
“Well, clearly in a campaign, with hundreds if not thousands of speeches and question-and-answer sessions, now and then you’re going to say something that doesn’t come out right,” Romney answered. “In this case, I said something that’s just completely wrong.”

That's our Mitt. We all agree, and disagree, with him. Bless his cold little flip-flopping heart.

Jefferson's Guardian said...

Mitt Romney: "My life has shown that I care about 100 percent**, and that’s been demonstrated throughout my life."

**Unless he's kissing the asses of wealthy donors...which is 100 percent of the time. ;-)

John Myste said...

Who are the 47%. Fox Business did a breakdown here:

The 47 Percent by Category

28% are people with jobs, but who earn so little they are not taxed. It is the bottom marginal tax rate, which effectively comes out to be zero. Romney also pays 0.00 on this portion of his income. The bottom margin is not taxable and no one pays it, not the poor, not the middle class, not millionaires.

10.3% The next largest group is the elderly, who were already taxed when they were working.

The breakdown does not specifically mention it, but The Heathen Republican accidentally informed me that a portion of the 47% are millionaires.

Romney rejects all of these people was useless drains on society, not out of meanness, I think, but out of pure ignorance. He simply does not understand taxation. He earns his wealth via long term capital gains, where the top marginal rate is 15%, the same top marginal rate for someone earning 34,000.00 per year.

Dave Dubya said...

John,
I think the fact Romney wants to have it both ways indicates arrogance more than ignorance.

He only had to flip because he was caught on tape. Like with most Republicans, there's no compassion for the less fortunate.

John Myste said...

Dave,

Before he was caught on tape, and before he flipped, he still betrayed the fact that he knows the 47% number, but has no clue who they are. I think he genuinely believed that 47% of Americans were people on welfare collecting food stamps. I think he genuinely never considered that he too does not pay taxes on the bottom margin of his income, and some of the 47% only make that bottom margin, so he is getting the same benefit they are, no difference. I think he genuinely did not consider tax shelters, loop holes, etc., and the some of that 47% are millionaires.

In other words, he heard a number, was completely ignorant of what it meant or indicated, and had so little understanding of the issue, an issue that does not concern him and that he literally does not care about, that he jumped to a completely illogical conclusion.

Jerry Critter said...

You may be right, John, or he thought the people he was talking to were that ignorant and that his statement would get their approval...and their money!

Dave Dubya said...

John and Jerry,
We cannot know for certain, but whether it is ignorance, arrogance, or a blend of the two, he parrots the Right wing talking point in order to "mobilize resentments" against the demonized half of the American people.

He is a divider, not a uniter. For Obama to behave similarly he'd have to say the rich are all class warring, greedy, crooked, me-first-America-last Scrooges.

But no, Obama is a "Marxist" America-hater for merely wanting the Bush tax cuts to expire on the wealthy.