Tuesday, November 19, 2013

Then and Now


Seven score and ten years ago today...

===

Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate -- we can not consecrate -- we can not hallow -- this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

Abraham Lincoln
November 19, 1863


===

How things have changed from then to today.

Now the far Right Republican Party is openly hostile towards the concept of "government of the people, by the people, for the people"

They are legislatively suppressing democracy itself, doing their utmost to discourage and restrict voters from registration and poll access.

Their goal is an inverted totalitarianism, domination by the elite minority, a government of the rich, by the rich, for the rich.

Their words and behavior show us how they truly resent "government of the people, by the people, for the people".

Here, reduced to the simplest terms, is the GOP's Grand Oligarchy Plan:

Every man for himself, and let the powerful wealthy elites dictate our laws.

That's what it boils down to.

And of course, a healthcare system that amounts to "Let 'em die", as cheered in a Republican Presidential debate.

And shame on the Democrats!  They are abetting Republicans, and conceding the people's Constitutionally provided general welfare away from them, while doing the bidding of the economic elites.  

The Wal-Mart heirs have as much wealth as the bottom 40% of ALL Americans. Their employees are paid so poorly they need public assistance.

Can we ask that something be done about this?

And whose vision are we following as a nation? What is the government of the rich, by the rich, and for the rich doing about this neo-feudalist economic travesty?

The Republicans tell us the Wal-Mart heirs deserve MORE tax cuts. And that food stamps, Social Security, Medicaid, and unemployment benefits should be slashed.

What would Lincoln see in his Republican Party today? What would he see in his nation; one he'd given his life to preserve?

Something would be familiar. He would see similar hateful divisions in our people. Divisions nurtured by powerful economic interests that have no use for liberty and equality for all, but an antagonism for "government of the people, by the people, for the people".

Lincoln would be enraged, and then weep, at what the Republican Party has become.

212 comments:

1 – 200 of 212   Newer›   Newest»
Jerry Critter said...

You have given us a great demonstration of how the once great Republican Party has become the party of racists, assholes, and the ignorant.

free0352 said...

I wasn't aware "the rich" got to vote more times than "the poor."

How many votes do you get to cast when you break a million dollars?

Or is what you're saying - is that since they can spend soft money trying to convince voters to vote their way that somehow this salesmanship and persuasion is somehow anti-democratic?

okjimm said...

//I wasn't aware "the rich" got to vote more times than "the poor.//

there is so much, judging from your comments on the last post, that you are not aware of, or, in you own convulted way, are not willing to accept.

GOP voter supprssion tactics target the poor and the minorities.


free.... your utterances are still lame. Which way will you want to change the subject this time...hmmm...perhaps talk about misogynist, racist NRA pooster boy George Z?

free0352 said...

Sounds like you're trying to change the subject.

How many votes does a rich man get to cast at he polls when he breaks 1 million in net worth? Its a fair question.

Dave Dubya said...

Thanks, Jerry. I tried to make it short and pithy.

Okjimm,
You nailed it. Changing the subject to a straw man is an old pattern with someone.

Free,
Since when is "How many votes does a rich man get" the subject?

The answer to "What you're saying" is in the original post. If you want to argue, at least quote the point of contention before engaging your fallacies.



Dave Dubya said...

Just a couple good points to share from:
Voter suppression the new GOP strategy

Better bring some identification — and not just any identification, official though it may be — if you plan to vote in Republican-controlled states. However, if you contribute tens of millions of dollars to sway an election on Republicans’ behalf, the party will fight to keep your identity a secret.

....Jim Wright, who represented his Fort Worth district in Congress for 34 years, told the local paper that he had voted in every election since 1944 and that he had realized shortly before Election Day that his identification — a driver’s license that expired in 2010 and a university faculty ID — would not suffice under the state’s 2011 voter ID law. Indeed, officials required Wright to produce a certified copy of his birth certificate to procure a personal identification card that would allow him to vote.

free0352 said...

Their goal is an inverted totalitarianism, domination by the elite minority

Last time I checked every one of us has the same number of votes Bill Gates does.

doing their utmost to discourage and restrict voters from registration and poll access.

By doing what, by requiring voters do the same thing they have to do when paying with a credit card?

Its laughable.

Dave Dubya said...

Laughable fallacies.

free0352 said...

What's false? Having to show a government issued ID is pretty common. Americans showed their IDs to do about a million things today. Amazingly none of them thought it was a big deal.

Dave Dubya said...

It would be hard for us to have the dame "dogma."

Not if the dame is Ayn Rand. ;-)

free0352 said...

He read the book, I read the book. That's your connection?

Dave Dubya said...

That's your connection?

No. That's YOUR connection.

free0352 said...

We both read Das Kapital too.

The biggest thing I got out of Ayn Rand was her argument against religion and the supernatural. I was already a free market fiscal conservative. Being poor taught me that.

okjimm said...

yes Dave,,, it is no longer 'we' the people... It is 'Me the party'..... the Governor of OKlahoma has cut off all Spousal benefits... to all married coup;es...because she feels OK should not have to recognize same sex marriage.

//In announcing the decision, Fallin said "Oklahoma law is clear. The state of Oklahoma does not recognize same-sex marriages, nor does it confer marriage benefits to same-sex couples. The decision reached today allows the National Guard to obey Oklahoma law without violating federal rules or policies. It protects the integrity of our state constitution and sends a message to the federal government that they cannot simply ignore our laws or the will of the people."//

gosh... I bet she did not ask all the people before she made that decision. Especially the 'hetereo' peop;e whose benefits she just cut. But, I guess, Gays aren't 'people'..... Tlhe examples are Rampant.

Dave Dubya said...

Okjimm,
Soon enough only corporations will be "people". They're already "super persons" with more rights than individuals.

Some clear insight on corporate personhood and capitalism:

"I think it has become pretty clear in this country that corporations like Wal-Mart, despite their desire to be treated as people aren’t about to act with humanity." - Krystal Ball

----

"Capitalism knows nothing about humanity. It knows nothing about the environment. It knows nothing about quality of life for those without capital. The capitalist machine is intent on the ‘efficient’ allocation of resources at all cost. Those that have capital and move capital will ensure that their class is protected." - Egberto Willies

free0352 said...

I'm laughing because I was going through the tax stuff in preparation to file in January.

I was looking at my old W-2s. My first full year in the Marine Corps I made 14,400.00. I even got a promotion that year, from Private to Private 1st Class!

That's not to work an 8 hour shift either. That was 16 hour days, and trips to the field for months at a time. I promise you in the Marines we worked a little bit harder than the check out girl at Wall Mart.

You know why that is? Because being a Private in the Marine Corps is an ENTRY LEVEL POSITION.

I didn't cry about my shitty wages, I just worked hard and got promoted. After my first year I got promoted again - this time to Lance Corporal. I was making 1400.00 A MONTH. I thought I was making big money. When I retired, I was a Staff Sergeant making around 55,000 a year. With my wife's income, we cleared 80,000 in 2012. That to me is big, big money considering where I came from.

My Mom put her self through law school - while I was in high school. She worked as a part time legal secretary for 8.25 an hour and later as paralegal for 20.00 an hour. She cleaned houses on the side to make ends meet, and I can't remember when I didn't have some job. She passed the bar my senior year. That year I was working demolition for a fire clean up service - making 12.00 an hour under the table. I actually made a lot more money doing that, than I did my first year in the Marines.

The only other income my mother had was what I brought in - so I've had jobs since I was very young. We never went on assistance, sometimes we went hungry but never took a single hand out.

I think back to how I grew up, living in a studio apartment with my mom - who had to give my baby sister up for adoption because we were THAT broke - I'm sorry. My heart does not bleed for the employees at Wall Mart.

Work your way up, and you'll get paid more. Its that simple. Fail in that, get used to the studio apartment and spagetios and Ramen Noodles. When you get sick of it enough, you change your life.

okjimm said...

wowza, free, what a neato-spiffy keen bio. gosh, I can't wait for the movie....Justin Beiber portrays you, right? Did you find your lost puppy?

now, wtf your bio has to do with the topic is beyond me. but then, most topics beyond your pan ts zipper are beyond you. sheesh....go read a book.

Dave Dubya said...

okjimm,
Free holds everyone to his personal standards and abilities. Seems reasonable enough.

Free's gifted with a personality that has enough motivation to become a sergeant. But his promotions also required abilities. Free's abilities allowed him to be trainable up to a Staff Sgt level. That's not easy.

So his view is that others with less ability deserve to be among the working poor wage slaves. Never mind they perform the necessary duties that keeps the wealth flowing up to their Lords.

However since open-mindedness and interest in understanding other humans are not qualities of his personality, Free holds everyone to his personal standards and abilities.

Another good quote:

"And now they're coming after your Social Security money so that they can give it to their greedy friends on Wall Street. And they'll get it too, sooner or later." - George Carlin

free0352 said...

Free holds everyone to his personal standards and abilities

I operate on the principle that if I can do it, so can you.

So his view is that others with less ability deserve to be among the working poor wage slaves

YES. Because unless they are physically disabled, its not a lack of ability, but of motivation. If you lack that motivation, you do indeed deserve your life.

However since open-mindedness and interest in understanding other humans are not qualities of his personality

I think I understand better than you do. I think liberals are either taking advantage or are too soft hearted to realize they're being taken advantage of.

And now they're coming after your Social Security money so that they can give it to their greedy friends on Wall Street. And they'll get it too, sooner or later.

I just want to opt out, is that so wrong?







okjimm said...

//I just want to opt out, is that so wrong?//

I want to opt out on voter Id
I want to opt out paying for the Illegal Iraqi war
I want to opt out on paying taxes for highways I will never drive on
I want to opt out on drinking clean water
I want to opt out on paying military pensions
....is that so wrong?

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

I want to opt out on voter Id

It does make voting more than once per election challenging, I can't deny that.

I want to opt out paying for the Illegal Iraqi war

You didn't pay for it. America borrowed the money. Your grandchildren will pay for it - and they won't get the SS you will get and they will pay for to boot. As for me, I say we should fund it through war bonds like in the old days.

I want to opt out on paying taxes for highways I will never drive on

I say we should fund highways through a gasoline tax. That way you only pay for how much you use. I also don't think the federal government should have anything to do with highways... for that reason. Why are my tax dollars paying for highways in Texas? I want my tax dollars to pay for highways in Michigan.

I want to opt out on drinking clean water

I'm sure there is a pond or puddle somewhere near you. Have at it. If you are sick of that stuff that comes out of the tap, let the local water company know. They'll be happy to turn it off for you. Then you can bathe in dirty water too!

I want to opt out on paying military pensions

I want to opt out of paying for food stamps. I'll give up mine when you give up yours. And be happy to do it. Of course, when they draft you - or your family members - to fight in the war that will surely erupt without this country having a professional military (or at least a conscripted one), don't come crying to me.

is that so wrong?

Nope.

So riddle me this - if Social Security is so great - wouldn't people be lining up around the block to sign up if it were voluntary? Funny how liberals will sing SS's praises and then fight tooth and nail to force people into it. I can say this for the military - at the very least we quit making people join a generation ago. Can say that for SS... Too bad liberals haven't caught on to the spirit of volunteerism the military has...

Gotta be a clue - is SS was so great, you wouldn't have to threaten people with jail for tax evasion for "opting out."

John Myste said...

Free,

Work your way up, and you'll get paid more. Its that simple. Fail in that, get used to the studio apartment and spagetios and Ramen Noodles.

I am so sick of conservatives railing against spaghettios. I have always loved them, and I always will. I enjoy them several times per week.

Dave,

Free holds everyone to his personal standards and abilities. Seems reasonable enough.

ALL Conservatives do this. That is how they define equality. The fact that my mother could never have attended law school, as his did, and that she could never have even composed a coherent argumentative essay, does not matter to Free. If his mother could do it, my mother could to, so my mother deserves to have a lifetime of suffering for not doing what was impossible for her to do.

This demented notion of equality, makes the desire for "greater equal opportunity" impossible. Since some people can become lawyers, those who cannot, even those who contribute to society, pay taxes and hold jobs that must be held and that we don't want, deserve what they get.

I operate on the principle that if I can do it, so can you.

Free, why is your household income still only 80k per year? Are you not aware that others make far more and live far more comfortably? If they can do it, you can to. Many people are millionaires before they are out of the twenties. Why did you choose not to be?

Any by the way, the “principle” you operate on is a principle that does not mirror reality. Therefore, you live your life as if the world operated in accordance to your fantasy world. If Obama can become the president of the United States, we all can, per your principle. However, we only elect a president every four years. There is a Malthusian reality that prevents it. Be forewarned: so long as you are forming your philosophical ideas around notions that don’t reflect the real world, you are never going to be cured of your rabid conservatism.

Dave Dubya said...

Free,
For a very brief moment in my youth I thought as you do, about opting out of Social Security. Who needs it when they're young and healthy, right?

That reality changes, though. Even for you.

Social Security really is all that great. It works. People need it. It keeps millions from suffering the effects of poverty our corporate state is creating. Like all insurance or public safety nets it requires full participation to work. In fact we need the rich to participate more. If we raise their outdated caps so they pay closer to the percentage that most of us do, that would fix it.

Or is that asking too much of the poor Waltons, with their wealth equal to the entire bottom 40% of the country?

At least nobody was denied SS benefits for pre-existing conditions. This is why healthcare should not be controlled by insurance company middlemen who provide ZERO healthcare. Public healthcare for all is the cheaper, more sane and compassionate answer to the problem. It just makes sense.

But not to the narrow minded or shills for the elites.

John,
Speaking of narrow minds, your "reality therapy" is appreciated by some more than others here. I've pointed to Free's Bubble more times than I can recall, but he'll never see it.

After all, he has his "beliefs", and the noble thing is to "stand up for your beliefs", no matter how little they are grounded in reality.

For this is what con-servatism is, fundamentally. Beliefs. Beliefs that are shaped by an incredibly large system of corporate media propaganda. And the success of the propaganda is measured by the wide acceptance of a "liberal" corporate media.

Carlin was right. They will take it all, eventually. Neo-feudalism is their bottom line.


Jerry Critter said...

Advertising works in politics as well as business. That is why corporations invest millions in both to convince us to buy their products and philosophy.

free0352 said...

so my mother deserves to have a lifetime of suffering for not doing what was impossible for her to do.

Sorry, but a person who doesn't work smart or as hard as another doesn't deserve what the smart hard worker gets. Redistributing by law from the smart-hard worker to the dumb or lazy (or both) worker isn't equality - its theft and extortion. Its using the color of law to take.

Are you not aware that others make far more and live far more comfortably?

Sure - you know I do. And I'd like to make more. But I'd never dream of taking from someone else to give to me, either through robbery or redistributive taxation.

That's because I don't steal, or get the IRS to do my stealing for me. I get what I deserve.

Who needs it when they're young and healthy

Who said I'd opt out? I simply said I'd like the choice. People are smart enough to make their own decisions - and if they make the wrong one they deserve the consequences of their actions. What people don't need is nanny liberals making decisions for them. You claim to like democracy... but you seem to like democratic oppression. I guess when its the majority doing the oppressing its okay for you? I'd rather make my own decisions instead of having a bunch of liberals decide what's good for me and what isn't.







John Myste said...

Free,

Sorry, but a person who doesn't work smart or as hard as another doesn't deserve what the smart hard worker gets.

My mother worked as hard as any individual I have ever known. Your condition “as smart” or “as hard” is met in the second clause. She could not meet both conditions, but fortunately you did not require it. She deserves to not be impoverished just as much as your mother does.

Sure - you know I do. And I'd like to make more.

Didn’t you say that if “I can do it you can to?” Why aren’t you making more? I don’t understand. Could your formula, perhaps, be flawed?

As for “stealing,” you make your money under the conditions the government provides for you, as we all do. It is not stealing. It is a mutually desirable relationship, whether you want to admit it or not.

Equal opportunity is a myth if it does not account for disparate talents and abilities. If you and a ten year old are thrown into the desert with only enough water to get one of you out, and you are told to compete for survival, each given a club, and abandoned, it is not equal. One could claim it is as you each have your intelligence and you each have a club. That person would be irrational, of course. Since your mother and mine did not have equal opportunities, perhaps your concept of who deserves to have their efforts to survive supported in America, and who does not, should be rethought. I am not suggesting that your mother and mine split all earnings. I am suggesting that America will be a better place if all people are able to survive and no children go hungry. The infrastructure that is America is what allows you, me, Dave, your mother, and person X to make a decent living.

You claim to have never taken a handout. You were very poor, or so you say. I was actually poor and I am not sure you really appreciate poverty, but anyway …

When your mother was barely surviving, you took plenty of handouts from her. I am sure you would argue that it was her responsibility to care for you, since she brought you into this world. We are all children of America and we all, not your attorney mother, my attorney brother, who also rose from absolute poverty, but everyone who contributes to making America work.

Why would anyone want to be a nation known has half obscenely wealthy and the other half impoverished. Is there national pride in that?


free0352 said...

Didn’t you say that if “I can do it you can to?” Why aren’t you making more? I don’t understand. Could your formula, perhaps, be flawed?

Clearly my life goals were not based soley on monetary gain. Had I been desirous of millions of dollars over my goals, I'd have gone to college at 18 instead of joining the Marines and going at 23. I'd have studied say... investment banking and finance instead of political science.

I'm not suggesting all smart people become millionaires, nor are all millionaires smart. I am suggesting that even dumb ass cave men 100,000 years ago provided for their basic needs.

you make your money under the conditions the government provides for you

People don't need government to provide needs. A mere 90 years ago the social net you are talking about didn't exist, and people made lots of money. Government provides law and defense. That's all its needed for.

Equal opportunity is a myth if it does not account for disparate talents and abilities

You're talking about equality of outcome. There is no such thing, nor should there be. If your mom was as dumb as you say - sorry but them's the breaks dude.

efforts to survive supported in America

If you can't "survive" in this country you aren't just dumb, you're suicidal. Our bums live better than 70% of the people on this planet - with better access to clean water, shelter, food and medical care than say a place where survival is actually a challenge - like say Honduras or Ethiopia. What you are talking about isn't "survival" its a standard of living. Quit being dramatic. You're saying your mother should have a higher standard of living just because she's alive and dumb and we should all feel sorry for her. Perhaps she should have sat through more math class instead of having her son shill for more welfare at taxpayer expense.

I was actually poor and I am not sure you really appreciate poverty

You're right, I didn't appreciate it. I hated every second of it and found nothing about it appealing. I also don't think its noble.

But I also appreciated what I had and didn't expect wealthier people to make my life better just because I really, really wanted what they had. I worked hard and did better.

As for how poor we were, um... you won't hear me talk about the old man very much because he wasn't exactly a model father or husband - hence my single mother status. We lived in a tiny apartment in a BAD neighborhood. When I was 13 we had to live in the car for a while. That was after my mother had to give up my baby sister who I never saw again till earlier this year for adoption because even if my mom had the will, the state would have taken her. We ate the cheapest food known to man and sometimes cleaned up in the pay-showers at truck stops. Yeah, it sucked. I didn't appreciate it at all.

When your mother was barely surviving, you took plenty of handouts from her

Of course parents have duty to raise their children. Trust me, I joined the Marines at very young, I was out of the house BEFORE I was legally an adult. And while parents have duty to their children - only you have any kind of duty to your mother. If you mom is living in poverty - the problem isn't taxpayers or government not providing a standard of living for her - I'm wondering why you'd leave your mom in such a bad situation and instead insist that people who've never met the woman take care of her.

Why would anyone want to be a nation known has half obscenely wealthy and the other half impoverished. Is there national pride in that?

A nation where people keep most if not all of what they earn? How horrible!

John Myste said...

Free,
I'm not suggesting all smart people become millionaires, nor are all millionaires smart. I am suggesting that even dumb ass cave men 100,000 years ago provided for their basic needs.

Are you suggesting that those same cave people could do that now? You have to join me in the real world or it is difficult to communicate.

People don't need government to provide needs. A mere 90 years ago the social net you are talking about didn't exist, and people made lots of money.

Are you not aware of the age of homeless children in America and people working excessively long hours for low wages in factories as Industrial America emerged? The Rockefellers and Carnegies exploited the few lucky enough to work on their chain gang. Unfortunately, children were exempt. The time you remember fondly was a shameful period of agony for many Americans.
Government provides law and defense. That's all its needed for.
That’s all you need it for.

You're talking about equality of outcome. There is no such thing, nor should there be. If your mom was as dumb as you say - sorry but them's the breaks dude.

No, I am not talking about equality of outcome. I am talking about opportunity. You do not have the opportunity to do the impossible (for your), even if the opportunity is there for those who are capable. Join me in the real world.

By the way, if you can succeed, then anyone can, and then you say if someone is dumb [and so cannot succeed], well “them’s the breaks.” If you admit that we don’t all have the ability to succeed, then stop thinking along those lines. Instead, join me in the real world. It is the good starting point for a discussion.

John Myste said...

Free II,
Our bums live better than 70% of the people on this planet

Our bums suffer, regardless of the state of other people on the planet, which is an irrelevant metric to the discussion of the plight of the poor in America. Someone else’s pain does not ease yours.

Perhaps she should have sat through more math class instead of having her son shill for more welfare at taxpayer expense.

Firstly, math was the area that flunked out of that ended her education. Secondly, how is her son shilling out welfare at taxpayer expense? Either I am supporting her or the state is, but if I am doing it, it certainly is not at taxpayer expense. What are you even talking about?

But I also appreciated what I had and didn't expect wealthier people to make my life better just because I really, really wanted what they had. I worked hard and did better.

Why is it OK for America to defend you while you make your money? Shouldn’t you have to pay for that service? Why do you need government assistance? America provides a climate for success, and creates laws to regulate it. It doesn’t just provide your defense hand out. It also makes and maintains roads, sponsors education, etc. You use all of these things to make money. You also use my mother, working in her factory. We all use America and most people contribute. America costs money to run and it pays, in different ways, its citizens for their contributions. Part of America’s model should be that it uses part of ITS revenues (not your money, but the money it taxed you for the services it provides for you), to make sure that no one in America is destitute. You may not agree with this, but stop acting like your check is being forwarded to my mom. It is not happening.

f you mom is living in poverty - the problem isn't taxpayers or government not providing a standard of living for her - I'm wondering why you'd leave your mom in such a bad situation and instead insist that people who've never met the woman take care of her.

I support my mother. I was not always old enough to do it. When I was a child, like you, I was very poor. Children in America (or adults for that matter), should not have to live like that because Free wants a free ride from his government. We should all contribute and make sure no children (or adults) have to live the way you and I did as a child.

A nation where people keep most if not all of what they earn? How horrible!

There is no such nation. Everyone has bills and tax is one kind of bill collected for services rendered. Please stop trying to get government handouts and pay for the services it provides.

John Myste said...

I'm not suggesting all smart people become millionaires, nor are all millionaires smart. I am suggesting that even dumb ass cave men 100,000 years ago provided for their basic needs.


One more thing: the Cave Man culture was truly survival of the fittest, and every one else be damned.

Some cave men provided for their basic needs. Others suffered and died (routinely). Is this the America you want?

Additionally, the less fit Cave Men were not designed to serve the more fit, so they do all the manual labor the stronger cave men did not want to do, and then the stronger cave men would get all the benefits of such labor.

And again, there was not a an organized government of cave men built around protecting the wealth the strong elite cave men. If you wanted cave men to protect you, you had to give them bananas or they would not do it. Cave men back then were not just looking for a nation built by poor people to protect the needs of the wealthy.

As one who is relatively poor yourself, you should not so willingly serve your masters.

Jefferson's Guardian said...

John Myste to Free0352: "Be forewarned: so long as you are forming your philosophical ideas around notions that don’t reflect the real world, you are never going to be cured of your rabid conservatism."

and...

"Instead, join me in the real world. It is the good starting point for a discussion."


Finding common ground with tools and supporters of the inverted totalitarianism ("corporatism") we live under is nearly impossible. One has to, first, recognize where the problem exists before one can decide to solve it.

Free0352 is very much like the old woman who lost her eyeglasses in the house, but decided to look for them in the sunshine of her garden...because the light was much better outside.

free0352 said...

Are you suggesting that those same cave people could do that now?

Yes. Simply surviving in America is so easy... even a cave man can do it. You're not talking about survival, you're talking about raising an arbitrary standard of living for arbitrary reasons with other people's money. How compassionate of you.

No, I am not talking about equality of outcome.

Yes you are. And you want your mom's standard of living to look more like the Rockefeller's than it does now... paid for with other people's money. And you are trying to use guilt to talk people into it. "Oh my pooooor stupid mom." Bullshit. I don't care about your mom and I don't expect YOU to care about mine.

As for "America providing a climate for success," - American GOVERNMENT hinders success. Its a necessary evil, one that should be as small as possible.

One that doesn't take money away from me and give it to your mom. Screw your guilt trip.









okjimm said...

//Screw your guilt trip.//

ah, articulation at it's best.

It seems that 'Mother' and 'Mom' are words that set Free off. Perhaps he would best seek professional advice, if he was inclined to take any adviceat all.

Armed men with Oedipal complexes are dangerous...

take your meds, Free.

free0352 said...

Sure, I don't want to pay for your mom. You used a personal anecdote to illustrate your point. Somehow you thought I'd change my mind when you held up the example of your mom. It doesn't change anything. No one is responsible for your mom, except your mom. If you want her to have charity, maybe you should start with yourself instead of expecting taxpayers to sacrifice money that could be spent on their own mother's for your mother... while presumably you spend little or nothing. It would seem you are terribly compassionate when it costs you nothing - and fairly offended at the idea that you instead of taxpayers should actually have to take care of your mom... assuming she's as stupid and helpless as you claim. Which I doubt.

John Myste said...

Sure, I don't want to pay for your mom. You used a personal anecdote to illustrate your point. Somehow you thought I'd change my mind when you held up the example of your mom.

I did not think any form of logic would change your mind.

It doesn't change anything. No one is responsible for your mom, except your mom. If you want her to have charity, maybe you should start with yourself instead of expecting taxpayers to sacrifice money that could be spent on their own mother's for your mother... while presumably you spend little or nothing.

I contribute 400.00 per month directly, another 400.00 per month set aside for her needs and additionally any extraordinary medical expenses that do not get otherwise paid. I don’t think that is even close to nothing. My mom contribution has exceeded my mortgage.

If you want the government to give you a handout, provide the climate where you can succeed, which you call defense (thought more is required), then don’t expect my mother, who has other needs to suffer. If something happened to me, things would be very very bad for her.

It would seem you are terribly compassionate when it costs you nothing

It “costs me” far more than it would “cost you.” Per your own declaration, I make substantially more money than you (my individual income is substantially more than your household income even with my wife not working until our child is school age), and I would be taxed substantially more in many progressive scenarios, and I am happy to have all higher income people (like me), and to a lesser degree middle income people, like you, contribute more to the nation in order to have a higher minimum standard of living for all of its citizens. Stop making erroneous assumptions and basing your arguments on them.

f you want her to have charity, maybe you should start with yourself instead of expecting taxpayers to sacrifice money that could be spent on their own mother's for your mother

Oh, my mistake, tax payer. How much money are you spending on your mother currently? Perhaps we should be able to deduct funds given to the needy, such as the money you are spending your mother instead of paying higher taxes for the services the government provides for you.





Dave Dubya said...

Stop making erroneous assumptions and basing your arguments on them.

If I had a dollar for every time this happened...

free0352 said...

I contribute 400.00 per month directly

So what? If she is truly in poverty, that sum is a joke. And far less that what you are asking of people who don't even know her.

That hypocrisy is astonishing.

If you want the government to give you a handout, provide the climate where you can succeed

This is an individual responsibility. Government need only not hinder the individual. HINT - paying for your mother (and tens of millions like her) is a hindrance. I have my own mother. I'll worry about mine, you worry about yours. Quit demanding the IRS go riffling through my paycheck just because you spend on your mother less than I do a month on car payments - let alone on insurance.

It “costs me” far more than it would “cost you.

Every dime we pay to total strangers is one less dime to go to the people we actually care about. Frankly, I don't care about your mother's troubles. I care about my families troubles. I'd rather leave my money to my children when I die than pay your mother one penny. I expect nothing less from you. You should keep what you earn, and pay taxes only on that which you use. Frankly, I have no use for your mother. However, I am responsible for my own daughter. That money taxed away per month from me (and all the rest of we tax payers) that rains down the welfare is money we aren't spending on OUR children. You are robbing from us to give to your mom. That is not charity.

How much money are you spending on your mother currently?

Zero. She requires no help. If she needed it, it would be there... from me. I wouldn't expect you and all the rest of the tax payers to meet my responsibilities.

I am happy to have all higher income people (like me), and to a lesser degree middle income people, like you, contribute more to the nation in order to have a higher minimum standard of living for all of its citizens.

Oh how magnanimous of you? For you (and your fellow liberal ilk) to make that decision for us, right down to how much we'll "give." Oh and if we don't? A nice man from the IRS shows up with a gun and a warrant. How terribly charitable of you and your fellow Democrats to be so wise with OUR money. After all, you would know, you pay out a whopping 800.00 a month for your own mother. Meanwhile we lowly middle income folks get sweat how we come up with the college tuition. You're soooooo gracious. If you are so chock full of income - do the rest of the 299,999,999 Americans a favor and pay for your damn mother and quit expecting us to do it.














Jefferson's Guardian said...

Free0352 to John Myste: "[A government] that doesn't take money away from me and give it to your mom. Screw your guilt trip."

and...

"Every dime we pay to total strangers is one less dime to go to the people we actually care about."

and...

"You should keep what you earn, and pay taxes only on that which you use."

Yet you have no problem with accepting a government pension, for only fifteen years of service, which every American citizen reading this post has to contribute to whether they like it or not.

Your duplicity and hypocrisy is beyond reproach.

Dave Dubya said...

pay taxes only on that which you use.

La la land speaks.

Or maybe we can decide to not pay for his wars. I've had no use for the wars in Vietnam, Panama, Afghanistan and Iraq. I also don't use nukes.

I'd like a refund for those please.

John Myste said...

I contribute 400.00 per month directly

So what? If she is truly in poverty, that sum is a joke. And far less that what you are asking of people who don't even know her.

That hypocrisy is astonishing.


My total contribution is 800.00, as I explained, and I also make larger payments on top of that. You ignored that fact, so you could make an insincere point.

Additionally, I was merely countering your ad hominem attack on me, not making an argument for my contention that poverty in America should not exist. I just started contributing in this way in my adult years. My mother was impoverished prior to those. The little boy I was had very little income and could not contribute. Your idea that the impoverished mothers, impoverished children, etc. should be supported by their children is bogus and ridiculous.

HINT - paying for your mother (and tens of millions like her) is a hindrance. I have my own mother. I'll worry about mine, you worry about yours.

You do not assist your mother, but that is not relevant to your argument anyway, as you were also an impoverished child in America. Your argument that you did not have to be because you could assist your impoverished mother is quite silly, now isn’t it?

Quit demanding the IRS go riffling through my paycheck just because you spend on your mother less than I do a month on car payments - let alone on insurance.

The annual amount I spend on my mother currently, now that I am able, is not the issue. By the way, the total annual amount last year was just over 13,000.00, including 400.00 per month “allowance,” 400.00 per month set asides for other needs, and additional expenses. Why are you spending 13,000.00 per year on your car? Additionally, I have every reason to believe that her health will only decline from here and I have promised her that I will never put her in a home. It will only become more over time. By the way, I also spent around 3,000.00 on my wife’s low income grandmother and around 4000.00 on my low income niece. Again, this is irrelevant, but that total is around 20,000 of my net income, which is a huge chunk (not gross income, net income). What if I did not exist? What if I was also impoverished? You are basing your whole case on the fact that the 25 years before I made decent money the plight of my family was irrelevant, and that now I and the one not contributing enough. Your argument is bogus on both points. Again, what kind of car do you drive? 13k per year seems like a lot just for a car.

John Myste said...

Free II,

Frankly, I don't care about your mother's troubles. I care about my families troubles.

I know you are selfish, Free. You take the handouts the government gives you, which you allege is primarily in the form of defense, and you deny the need for the assistance other contributors have.

I'd rather leave my money to my children when I die than pay your mother one penny.

No, no, your children are supposed to care for you, remember? How much are they currently contributing?

You are robbing from us to give to your mom. That is not charity.

I totally agree that it is not charity. Taxes are payment for services rendered. I do not think you should give to any charity that you don’t want to give to.

Oh how magnanimous of you? For you (and your fellow liberal ilk) to make that decision for us, right down to how much we'll "give."

I don’t want you to give anything. I want the government to charge the minimum needed to provide a respectable America. I want the majority of Americans to want this, just as you want the majority of Americans do be mostly selfish, and I want those who do not agree with this paradigm to have the freedom to live in whatever nation they choose.

How terribly charitable of you and your fellow Democrats to be so wise with OUR money. After all, you would know, you pay out a whopping 800.00 a month for your own mother.

You said it was 400.00 early, and declared that to be your car payment. I don’t make car payments. You are just paying interest to other people when you do that, and getting nothing for it. Just a little financial tip from a government financials software developer. You are very welcome.

Meanwhile we lowly middle income folks get sweat how we come up with the college tuition.

I agree with you that all education, preschool to doctoral, should be subsidized by the government on an income-contingent repayment plan, but why change the subject now?

If you are so chock full of income - do the rest of the 299,999,999 Americans a favor and pay for your damn mother and quit expecting us to do it.

I am not “chocked full of income,” first of all. I have a low six figure income. A progressive tax system would simply hit me harder than it would hit you, which was my point, and I am willing to do it. Additionally, I always have been, even when I worked at Jack in the Box for five years. I think a progressive system for services rendered is fair (and a little more progressive than the one we have now).

Let me ask you something: if given the opportunity, would you cancel welfare, food stamps, Medicaid, Medicare? Would you cancel the economic portions of the New Deal and the Great Society, and move us to a flat tax system?


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

Additionally, I was merely countering your ad hominem attack on me

Its not specifically ad hominem. I used you as an example of the liberals (of which there are millions like you) who want to be CHARITABLE so long as they can use someone else's money. Also, my point was totally sincere, I mentioned you paid 800.00 specifically that amount. And that it was still less than I spend on car payments. Still less than 1300 if you count the insurance. Apparently you make more money than I do, yet love your mother less than I love my cars. Yet I am the one who lacks compassion. That viewpoint is astonishing. Your hypocrisy and rejection of personal responsibility is astonishing.

Your argument that you did not have to be because you could assist your impoverished mother is quite silly, now isn’t it?

Hardly. She was younger, and so was I. I was a child, I am now grown. She is no longer poor, and neither am I. However if one were to slip back - one would always be able to rely on the other. Unlike your mother who I can't rely on, because I don't even know her. Family is what matters, not strangers. If I must pay money for someone's mother, I'd rather it be my choice and to my own mother. Not yours.

Your idea that the impoverished mothers, impoverished children, etc. should be supported by their children is bogus and ridiculous.

Call me old fashioned for thinking family should help each other out in time of need. Its only worked for 8000 years...

But the point I was actually making was that liberals (such as yourself)are hypocrites. You'd demand far more than you are willing yourself to give. You demand of others what you yourself won't do - take care of dear old mom. And if they don't meet that duty they deserve to go to prison - which is what happens when you don't pay the taxes to fund your dear old mom. You do realize that right?

The issue here is of course future generations will take care of the past ones. Everyone knows that. What you are suggesting is that, that process should be managed by the iron fist of the state for the benefit of total strangers.

The annual amount I spend on my mother currently, now that I am able, is not the issue

I think its very illustrative of the liberal mindset. Liberals are terribly giving with other people's money, never their own.

Why are you spending 13,000.00 per year on your car?

Cars. Plural.

A more important question is why if you are high income (your words ) are you spending what amounts to about 10% (or less depending on how high) a year on your own mother; when she's in your own words in desperate need?

With a paltry dime out of every dollar you spend yourself going to dear old mom you expect taxpayers to pay at least a quarter? I'm also quite sure you've got the deductions lined up so you don't pay the quarter either. Am I right?

What if I was also impoverished?

Ah yes, but you aren't are you? We humble "middle income" (your words) peons should not have the choice about spending our tax dollars to fund your dear old mother should we? Ah no... we are far too greedy and stupid! We need rich philosopher kings like John Myste to tell use where and how we should keep and spend our money! Ah philosopher king, you indeed are wise enough to think for us all!

How magnanimous of you? Oh how in awe we should all stand of master's charity with our humble gold!

All kidding aside. Yup, another limousine liberal. Self righteous and self satisfied about throwing your mom a dime out of every dollar you make and demanding the "middle income people" pay more, more more. We should be grateful, you offered to pay a little more too (after deductions.) Epic Humble-Brag and completely illustrates how disconnected liberals are from the real world.

Dave Dubya said...

Notes from the Bubble view:

It would seem you are terribly compassionate when it costs you nothing, how magnanimous of you? For you (and your fellow liberal ilk) to make that decision for us, right down to how much we'll "give." Your hypocrisy and rejection of personal responsibility is astonishing. liberals (such as yourself)are hypocrites. You'd demand far more than you are willing yourself to give. You demand of others what you yourself won't do - take care of dear old mom. Liberals are terribly giving with other people's money, never their own. philosopher king, limousine liberal,

That’s our Bubble Boy. We see accusations, denunciations, and sarcastic ad hominum attacks, but nothing actually true and relevant. Excuse my ad hominum, but by all measures it is true. All are talking points from the radical Right Bubble, reflecting contempt for others and the Constitutional mandate for the general welfare.

Every liberal here is personally responsible, pays taxes, and willingly supports the general welfare provision, not to mention the taxes to pay for Free’s glorious war, health care and pension “Other people’s money” is both wrong and misleading. It is the Government’s money. Sorry. It is public wealth generated by taxes, again, mandated by the Constitution.

“Every man for himself” and “You’re on your own” are not in the Constitution. Taxes and the general welfare are. The Bill of Rights is there too. Nowhere in the Bill of Rights does it say Free doesn’t need to pay taxes for what he dislikes.

The one fact the radical Right cannot comprehend is, for the working class, the nation has been sliding downhill since Reagan took us from a creditor nation to a debtor nation, and handed public policy over to corporate interests. “Trickle down” only trickles up. There’s no debating this fact. The economic elites and their shills demand lower taxes for the Wal-Mart billionaires while gutting food stamps and safety nets for their serfs, er “employees”. They are richer than ever, and they want more. They want everything, in fact, including our entire Government to do their bidding and shut down the general welfare of the people. And what they don’t want, they would destroy. They want to destroy public services and safety nets that they can’t use for private corporate profit.

Worried about “other people’s money”? I am too. They are corrupting and buying what should be the government of, by and for the people. They want it of, by and for only the rich. And they’re winning. Look at the income inequality and “trickle up” of wealth to the economic elites. Obscene wealth for the few, austerity for the masses. Neo-feudalism is not only coming soon, it’s already taking root. They will crush any vestiges of democracy that impedes their complete takeover of our government. And they are winning. Even Ron Paul knows Obama is a corporatist. He and Ralph Nader know who is really represented in today’s government.

Why Free isn’t dancing for joy at this is a mystery. He must love being miserable. Yes, there will always be resentment and scorn for those not of the “master class” or its shills. Instead of fascism by the “Master Race” we will have fascism by the “Master Class”. Even the Bill of Rights will be nullified by a nation of impoverished wage slaves. Freedom isn’t free. We need a living wage for all workers, or our economy and nation will only decline faster.

The Right screams a lot about wanting “our country back”. I agree. Let’s go back to the tax rates of 1955 or even 1969. Or does the Right mean back to slavery? It would seem.

free0352 said...

Every liberal here is personally responsible, pays taxes, and willingly supports the general welfare provision

That remains to be seen. But we'll take it as a given. You still expect others to do more than you do.

It is the Government’s money. Sorry

And they take it, at the point of a gun! How Democratic of you Dave! General welfare - OR ELSE!

Funny how you'll gleefully admit to a military industrial complex, and deny the welfare industrial complex. Kinda like complaining about the drug war while cashing your drug war paycheck.

Seems liberal hypocrisy knows no bounds!

Nowhere in the Bill of Rights does it say Free doesn’t need to pay taxes for what he dislikes.

It also doesn't mention economic justice - but that never slowed you down.

Instead of fascism by the “Master Race” we will have fascism by the “Master Class”.

Yup. Its the entitlement class who drink the water and extort those that carry the water. Master class indeed. The welfare queen class. Voting in their millions for the fruits of labor they won't do, to enjoy things they haven't earned, at the expense of better men.





Dave Dubya said...

You still expect others to do more than you do.

Did I say that? No. Did I indicate it? No. Did you pull it out of your ass? Certainly.

welfare industrial complex

You mean corporate welfare? That’s industrial sometimes.

the entitlement class who drink the water and extort those that carry the water

Extort, you say? We know where that was pulled from too.

Voting in their millions for the fruits of labor they won't do, to enjoy things they haven't earned, at the expense of better men.

And the famous Bubble Cult’s primary resentment pops up again. Yeah the myth of the Welfare Cadillac and Welfare Queens endures. Like the myth or “trickle down”.

It’s apparent that a simple fact needs to be pointed out to you. There are not “millions” of jobs for those millions of imaginary welfare Queens.

Wall-Mart employees make so little that the company put our food donation bins for their wage slaves. Better cut food stamps so the Waltons keep the wealth of 40% of all Americans. Your neo-feudalism is here. Congratulations. The radical Right is succeeding in driving the US into a third world country, run by their economic royalists.

You may need to pull more crap from your ass to deny this reality.

free0352 said...

Did I say that? No. Did I indicate it? No. Did you pull it out of your ass? Certainly.

When you start calling for as big a tax increase on yourself as you want for others, I'll take this seriously.

Yeah the myth of the Welfare Cadillac

I'm laughing because our neighbors when I was a kid were on welfare, and they drove... a Cadillac.

The radical Right is succeeding in driving the US into a third world country, run by their economic royalists

You're turning America into one big Detroit, face it. YOU got what you want. A massive percentage of Americans are on the dole. Its pathetic. And then, you complain the people who PAY for said dole don't pay enough.

How magnanimous of you.



Jefferson's Guardian said...

Free0352: "That [Every liberal here is personally responsible, pays taxes, and willingly supports the general welfare provision] remains to be seen. But we'll take it as a given. You still expect others to do more than you do."

(1) Personally responsible...check
(2) Pays taxes...check
(3) Supports the GWP...check

Yup, that's me! So, Free0352, you've "seen" my confirmation of Dave's statement. I have no idea what you mean by "expect[ing] others to do more than you do."

I've noticed that you intentional never answer the hard questions, such as those Dave posed at 1:38PM on December 2nd. Like a child, you eat around the edges until it cools off.

One thing that has become very clear to me is your racist undertone whenever you jump on a soapbox about "welfare", as if safety net programs -- that allow people to, at a minimum, survive -- are the biggest obstacle we face as a nation economically. Yet, you see nothing wrong with a military-corporate-security complex that is bleeding us dry.

As I've mentioned so many times before, on so many other posts on this blog, you seek scapegoats where there are none, and refuse to see the real problem that's staring you in the face.

Dave Dubya said...

Free:
Your hypocrisy and rejection of personal responsibility is astonishing. liberals (such as yourself)are hypocrites. You'd demand far more than you are willing yourself to give

DD:
Every liberal here is personally responsible, pays taxes, and willingly supports the general welfare provision

Free:
When you start calling for as big a tax increase on yourself as you want for others, I'll take this seriously.


I’ll take you seriously when you stop your fanatical dogma that favoring progressive taxation means I “reject personal responsibility”. The Bubble Cult speaks.

When the rich pay the same percentage of income as the rest of us for safety nets. That’ll be the day. When I am rich I’ll happily pay a progressive rate.
I'm laughing because our neighbors when I was a kid were on welfare, and they drove... a Cadillac.

Yeah, right. Did they buy the new car while on welfare? Tell us the details. You have all the answers, right?

You're turning America into one big Detroit, face it. YOU got what you want. A massive percentage of Americans are on the dole. Its pathetic. And then, you complain the people who PAY for said dole don't pay enough.

How magnanimous of you.


Yup, all part of my master plan to rule the universe. LOL!

The fanatic accusations from the fringe are amazing. You are insane or just another brainwashed Cult Bubble true believer if you think I have more influence than your Randroids, Murdochs and Kochs.

YOU got what you want.

Not that is just a lie. YOU don’t even KNOW what I want. You only have your twisted vision.

And YOUR side is winning. Your cult is utterly blind to that fact. The rich are getting richer and the rest of us are getting screwed.

Amazing. What a frickin’ cult.

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

I have no idea what you mean by "expect[ing] others to do more than you do."

I mean pay the same tax rate you expect others to pay. If you were required to pay the same percentage of income as you demand others pay, you'd scream bloody murder and you know it.

That is hypocrisy.

One thing that has become very clear to me is your racist undertone whenever you jump on a soapbox about "welfare"

Race card. Yawn. I've noticed you always try to pull it out when you can't think of anything else, forgetting again I'm not exactly "master race" material.

Well, sine I'm Hispanic, I guess you could say I'm racist against whites when I demand you throw them off the dole. But then again I'm also half white.

As for Blacks and Hispanics - throw them off too. Equally throw them off, regardless of race or class. I'd end all corporate subsidy in a heartbeat as well. Every penny of it. Is that racist as well?

that allow people to, at a minimum, survive

I think I already mentioned - unless physically disabled - if a person can't survive in this country, that's willful. Its ridiculously easy. What you're talking about is rising a standard of living - not survival.

In short, your namesake says it pretty well.

"If we can but prevent the government from wasting the labours of the people, under the pretence of taking care of them, they must become happy."

- Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Cooper, November 29, 1802

You aren't even suggesting a pretence, you're advocating a nanny state. At other's expense.

free0352 said...

When the rich pay the same percentage of income as the rest of us for safety nets. That’ll be the day.

Here are the rates.

You're demanding that the top bracket pay a higher percentage of income than you do, then hide behind "a progressive" tax scheme.

Last I checked, if we all paid 10% of income - 10% of a billion would be a lot more than 10% of your prison guard salary. So it is indeed progressive. Yet you demand they pay a higher percentage - demanding of others what you won't do yourself.

Hypocrisy.

When you're paying 39.6%, I'll take your demands for tax increases seriously.


John Myste said...

Free,

Apparently you make more money than I do, yet love your mother less than I love my cars.

That statement is moronic, of course. You are not even arguing genuinely now. How much money you waste on vehicles has nothing to do with how much love I have for my mother. Additionally, you continue the ad hominim attack in favor of a compelling argument. If you wasted your entire “fortune” on cars, would I then not love my mother unless I contributed an equal amount? Your arguments are getting so silly they are hardly worth addressing.

Family is what matters, not strangers.

Country matters. We are all one country, and you don’t get to change that.

Call me old fashioned for thinking family should help each other out in time of need. Its only worked for 8000 years

Are you not aware that lots of humans have died of starvation in that time? It did not work for 8000 years.

But the point I was actually making was that liberals (such as yourself)are hypocrites. You'd demand far more than you are willing yourself to give.

That is a complete lie. All policies I would advocate would result in me contributing substantially more than you would be. You seem to see yourself as well off. I see you as lower middle class struggling. Your tax burdens would not increase very much, as tax increases would be mainly on top marginal income (and yours is marginal).

You demand of others what you yourself won't do - take care of dear old mom

Again, you are just lying. You well know I take care of my mom. Additionally, I don’t demand that anyone else do. I think the government should not make my mom be impoverished if I am unwilling or unable to assist her. She is fortunate to have me, but not all moms do, and she did not for many years. The little boy I was suffered also. You have done nothing to address any of this. Instead you keep making up lies and bogus arguments, while ignoring it. My integrity is not the question. There is a real problem in America, regardless of whether or not I buy cars for my mother.

John Myste said...


And if they don't meet that duty they deserve to go to prison - which is what happens when you don't pay the taxes to fund your dear old mom. You do realize that right?

I do meet that “duty,” but you don’t get to choose whether it is a duty or not.

I think its very illustrative of the liberal mindset. Liberals are terribly giving with other people's money, never their own.

You keep calling me a hypocrite, while failing to make a genuine argument. If you are going to use liberals who don’t contribute, you need to find one who does not assist mother, grandmother in law, nieces (and then want to be taxed more on top of that to assist strangers). Not to mention the fact that I am also a donating member of Med And Food for Kids (and have been for close to a decade). Using me as your liberal example handily refutes your arguments . I don’t expect the same level of contribution from you and other greedy people, though. I only expect that you do your part to support the nation in which you live and stop wanting only the services you personally need funded to be funded, and screw the rest of contributors in America. If you don’t want poor people to look for handouts, perhaps you should not either.

Why are you spending 13,000.00 per year on your car?

Cars. Plural.


Your income does not justify this. You are very poor at management money. If you allow someone like me to help, you could contribute more in taxes and have the same standard of living you have now.

A more important question is why if you are high income (your words ) are you spending what amounts to about 10% (or less depending on how high) a year on your own mother; when she's in your own words in desperate need?

I told you about what I make and I said it was not high. Again, an accounting lesson for you: If you make 80,000 per year and you contribute 8000.00 per year to family, this is not 10% of useable income. That is 10% of gross income.

My mom is not in desperate need. I take care of her. If not for me, she would be. When I could not take care of her, she was, and again, that is not relevant to your lack of an argument, and again, I assist others also, not that it is any of your business, but I do. You live in a bubble where all that matters to you is you, and you transfer this assumed way of thinking to others. We don’t share them.

We need rich philosopher kings like John Myste to tell use where and how we should keep and spend our money!

I am not rich. I am just a little richer than you. I would not presume to tell you where to spend your money. I think you should get to keep all of it after you pay the government for the services it provides for you. I don’t expect you, or people who think like you, to be charitable.

We should be grateful, you offered to pay a little more too (after deductions.)

You take deductions also. I am for getting rid of most of them. Let’s do it.

My idea, despite your ad homimen rant, is that America, the government, should use its resources to prevent poverty in America. It would be a better place for all of us in the long run, and something we could take pride in, even if Free has to pay a small amount more in taxation, and if Bill Gates has to pay a lot more in taxation. Your idea is that America is a great place if lots of people are needlessly suffering so the richest among us can stuff more dollars in their mattresses. I consider this idea to be sick.

free0352 said...

How much money you waste on vehicles has nothing to do with how much love I have for my mother.

Its very reflective of your priorities. I was supposed to be ever so impressed with the great sacrifices you make - and it ends up you spend less on your mom than I do my cars - which BTW are just machines I have zero love for. And YET, we're all expected to sacrifice a portion of our incomes so that your mom should have a higher standard of living you barely contribute to yourself. Damn man, I don't even know the woman - why should I contribute anything when you contribute so little? Its a fair point.

Your arguments are getting so silly they are hardly worth addressing.

Your hypocrisy is so bad its totally astonishing.

You keep calling me a hypocrite, while failing to make a genuine argument

I thought pointing out that expecting others to increase your mother's standard of living when you give less than 10% of your own income to her benefit was rather telling.

If you allow someone like me to help

Not thanks.

If you make 80,000 per year and you contribute 8000.00 per year to family, this is not 10% of useable income. That is 10% of gross income.

Quibble away, its still a fraction of your income. The point is, you'd still demand others do what you only offer a token effort to do. If my mom was in need, she'd be living IN MY HOUSE and would want for nothing.

My mom is not in desperate need.

Then why are you using her as an example of a person so stupid, she requires EVERYONE to take care of her? Which is it?

I would not presume to tell you where to spend your money.

The welfare state you advocate isn't going to be funded out of thin air now is it? When you advocate that, you advocate redistributive taxation. Hint - I'd rather spend my money on other things besides paying for your mom's "safety net" when you should be providing the net, not tax payers.

You live in a bubble where all that matters to you is you, and you transfer this assumed way of thinking to others. We don’t share them.

Not exactly right. My family matters to me as well. Your family does not matter to me, in the slightest and I'm quite sure you could care less about them either. You simply feign this compassion to justify tax payers doing the job you should be doing. How compassionate you are with other people's money. You? 10% is a huge sacrifice.

You take deductions also. I am for getting rid of most of them. Let’s do it.

Fine. I have long supported a flat tax of 10% of ALL income, with zero deductions.

is that America, the government, should use its resources to prevent poverty in America.

What poverty in America? You just told me your mom is okay? Which is it? Is the woman in poverty or not?

free0352 said...

As for other Americans, I have yet to meet an American in my whole life who was genuinely in poverty. You've never met an American who starved to death in your life. Tonight our bums (most of whom are bums because of mental illness - a reasonable disability) will bed down in a warm shelter and drink clean water and shit in a flush toilet. That is our MOST POOR, and they are far richer than the vast majority of humanity. And BTW, I was homeless for a time as a child - so I know what that is like. The non-disabled can work past it. And do. And it would be easier to do, if not for philosopher kings like you getting all generous with other people's money paid for with taxes taken from said people who deserve every penny or as close to it as a nation as we can get without anarchy. What you advocate doesn't help the poor, it impoverishes the working man - of which I am one and yet still give over a quarter of my earnings to local, state and federal taxes. And yet here you are, demanding I pay more and then again trying your guilt trip angle of accused "selfishness" when (how dare I) demand relief from funding your mother and the legions of other sponges of the nation.

Illegal immigrants come to this country and have ZERO safety and mostly no protection from law and yet they do just fine! They even send money home! They wouldn't be coming and risking so much if there weren't opportunity here. The truth is, it isn't that there aren't jobs in America - there are just so many jobs here Americans won't do. Instead they chill out on your safety net, which is really a safety hammock - and then demand a higher standard of living simply for breathing oxygen. I wish we could trade them with Mexico on a one for one swap, and send the welfare queens to say - Honduras - so they can learn what real poverty is while we can get some new citizens who carry the water instead of just drink it.

Dave Dubya said...

John

Free is a fount of bad faith argument and discussion. He will deny it of course.

His authoritarian personality has narrowed his mind. In his bubble he knows everything and is never, ever wrong. The concept of arguing in good faith is alien to him. He MUST feel he “wins”, and it requires that all means are necessary and valid to support this “victory”. His ideology is at war with the American principle of constitutionally mandated promotion and providing of the general welfare.

He supports and defends the GOP vote suppression efforts. He denies the very existence of voter suppression. He has admitted as much that in his vision, equality is not desirable. He has admitted to the Orwellian Animal Farm doctrine that some people are “more equal” than others.

These are all classic manifestations of an authoritarian personality. He has even projected that quality back at me for supporting Constitutional taxes for the general welfare. Yeah, that’s his idea of authoritarianism.

What poverty in America? You just told me your mom is okay? Which is it?

And THAT is what the bubble sees as a rational argument. LOL!

Free’s histrionics are a veritable catalogue of fallacious arguments.

And there's this doozy:

demanding I pay more and then again trying your guilt trip angle of accused "selfishness" when (how dare I) demand relief from funding your mother and the legions of other sponges of the nation.

Resentment, false accusation, and persecution complex wrapped in one sentence. A classic portrait of the radical Right mindset.

According to his Goddess of Greed, selfishness is a virtue. But like all Right Wingers, Free wants his double standards. He wants to be annoyed at what should be a compliment in his cult.

Here’s one I bet he can’t wrap his head around. It won’t compute in a brain hard-wired to the “values” of selfishness as virtue, “Every man for himself” and “You’re on your own”.

“We all do better when we all do better.” - Molly Ivans

free0352 said...

These are all classic manifestations of an authoritarian personality

So says the guy who supports forcing people into Medicare and Social Security against their will, supports tax rates on other's he would be enraged to have to pay himself, is for suppressing free speech in the name of "equality," and cashes a paycheck based on a system that locks up 7 out of 10 black men and incarcerates a higher percentage of the population than any other western nation.

And I'm authoritarian because I want people to have more choices...

We all do better when we all do better.” - Molly Ivans

Yeah I've heard that one. Except... we don't. Since LBJ's "War on poverty" when your beloved "safety nets" came to exist, let me ask you this. Has the middle class grew or shrunk? Has household income grown or shrunk? Has unemployment grown or shrunk? Have divorce rates grown or shrunk?

Yup. When moochers do better, the people paying the freight get ripped off. Wrap your head around this, you are for turning America into Detroit. No thanks.

The real selfishness is an entitlement class who feel they are owed a working man's standard of living without the work.


Dave Dubya said...

The middle class ?

According to the Census, American men who work full time year-round earned less in real terms in 2012 than they did in 1973. Gross domestic product has nearly tripled since 1973, when President Richard Nixon was still flashing his V sign, but the gains have gone mostly to the people at the top.

Some snapshots of the “trickle up” redistribution of wealth:

Percentage of income gains captured by the top 1 percent in the first three years of the economic recovery: 95

The share of wealth held by the richest 400 Americans: ½

Year inflation-adjusted median household income peaked at $56,080: 1999

The median middle class household income in 2012: $51,017 and in 1989: $51,681

Things picked up for most American during the Clinton years, we see.

Then along came Free’s fearless Chickenhawk “Decider”, the guy whose opponent won more votes. He cut taxes on the rich, blew up the debt, played emperor, and left us permanent war, a police state and the Great Recession.

Now Obama, a corporatist, is called a commie for not fixing Bush’s mess.

Yeah, the poor, ripped off, and un-represented rich are suffering more than ever.

Time to punish the little guy. Teach ‘em all a lesson about a government of the rich, by the rich and for the rich. No more general welfare. Free dislikes our Constitution.

And we have more from Free’s catalogue of fallacious arguments. Resentment, false accusation, and persecution complex exude from his pores. Truly a classic portrait of the radical Right mindset.

And I'm authoritarian because I want people to have more choices...

Right. Except for women, the poor and the middle class. Like you say, some people are more equal than others.

free0352 said...

According to the Census, American men who work full time year-round earned less in real terms in 2012 than they did in 1973

That was my point. As the number of those on the dole increase, the number of middle class decrease.

Some snapshots of the “trickle up” redistribution of wealth:

The welfare state has given us trickle up unemployment.

As for the rich "having more wealth" that means stock in companies - not cash. No sane rich person holds large stores of cash, because interest rates make it impossible to make money from savings. We're talking about stock.

How the fuck do you buy stock on food stamps living in a HUD house? Of course the rich end up owning more stock, welfare queens don't have 401ks.

Then along came Free’s fearless Chickenhawk

GWB served in the AF Guard. What branch did you serve in? Maybe before we throw around the term Chickenhawk, your ass should be able to show me a DD214? Again, more hypocrisy. We had Vietnam, the Gulf War and the GWOT - one could have served in at least one of them. I did, where were you?

Now Obama, a corporatist, is called a commie for not fixing Bush’s mess.

Record numbers of Americans on welfare and record numbers of Americans out of the workforce, record numbers of Americans on "disability." Only a socialist would call that "fixed."







okjimm said...

"Every man for himself, and let the powerful wealthy elites dictate our laws."

Free continues to validate your statement.

Free: "As for the rich "having more wealth" that means stock in companies - not cash. No sane rich person holds large stores of cash, because interest rates make it impossible to make money from savings. We're talking about stock.

How the fuck do you buy stock on food stamps living in a HUD house? Of course the rich end up owning more stock, welfare queens don't have 401ks."

His thought process is akin to a foot fungus... except that a foot fungus can be treated and eventually go away.

I do not believe he thinks at all, much as a fungus is an entity that does not think,merely makes you itch.

Cite..his defense of GWB, stating that Bush served in the Texas AF National Guard. Bush never completed the last two years of his commitment, not showing up for physicals or duty. His admisstion into the Guard is also highly suspect. "Competition for the few openings in the National Guard was intense, and there was a waiting list of 100,000 nationally at the time. Bush took the Air Force officer and pilot qualification tests on January 17, 1968. He scored 25%, the lowest possible passing grade on the pilot aptitude portion. On his application form, he listed his "background qualifications" as "none." "

off to buy some anti-fungal powder.

John Myste said...

Free,

I was supposed to be ever so impressed with the great sacrifices you make - and it ends up you spend less on your mom than I do my cars - which BTW are just machines I have zero love for

It is pathetic that I support a second household on what you spend on cars. It is indicative of some of the things wrong with America (not with me).

Damn man, I don't even know the woman - why should I contribute anything when you contribute so little?

You are lying again. I contribute a lot and I don’t ask that you contribute that much to her. I ask that you contribute to your nation and that some of that contribution go to all people, not just her. Again, you are making no attempt to argue genuinely, which makes me think you feel defeated.

I thought pointing out that expecting others to increase your mother's standard of living when you give less than 10% of your own income to her benefit was rather telling.

Of course, that is not less than 10% of my own net income, but again, it is irrelevant. I strongly suspect I spend more on my mother than you do on your children (no need to make a fictitious rebuttal. We can honestly never know, but it is my strong suspicion).

If my mom was in need, she'd be living IN MY HOUSE and would want for nothing.

My mom has been invited to my house and she knows she is always welcome.

Hint - I'd rather spend my money on other things besides paying for your mom's "safety net" when you should be providing the net, not tax payers.

I agree. You spend YOUR money to help fund the government. The government will figure out where its revenues are needed. You don’t have to contribute to that. You have already expressed your hostility toward contribution.

Fine. I have long supported a flat tax of 10% of ALL income, with zero deductions.

In other words, the less you make, the higher your tax percentage. Pretty sick.

What poverty in America? You just told me your mom is okay? Which is it? Is the woman in poverty or not?

She is NO LONGER in poverty because I support her. She was in poverty for years and would be again if anything happened to my support. If you are not capable of following this simple bit of logic, I fear you are not capable of following the discussion at all, which may explain why you continue to try to direct my attention off logical points and onto silly nonsense.

John Myste said...


As for other Americans, I have yet to meet an American in my whole life who was genuinely in poverty.

When you lived in a car and had no food, if you had possessed a mirror, you would have.

What you advocate doesn't help the poor, it impoverishes the working man - of which I am one and yet still give over a quarter of my earnings to local, state and federal taxes.

You need serious financial consulting. Your effective (not top marginal) federal rate should be around 13% at your income level. State taxes are negligible and other taxes, such as SSN, are actually held in trust (presumably) and are not assisting “other people.” Additionally, much of the taxes collected do NOTHING to help the poor.

And yet here you are, demanding I pay more and then again trying your guilt trip angle of accused "selfishness" when (how dare I) demand relief from funding your mother and the legions of other sponges of the nation.

My mother worked two jobs most of her life (minimum wage or close to it, as you wanted), and she contributed to keeping America going. She is no more a sponge than you are. She simply needs different services.

Illegal immigrants come to this country and have ZERO safety and mostly no protection from law and yet they do just fine!

According to you, they do just fine, because you don’t see the suffering of others as a problem.

Stop trying to show that some nations have worse poverty than America. Everyone knows this, and that fact does nothing to ease the pain of those suffering in America, so it is irrelevant. If you are interested in joining my in contributing to Med and Food for Kids, I can hook you up. It sounds like you are compassionate and concerned. Their goal is not to “feed starving children fish,” but to “teach the children to fish,” one village at a time. They find destitute villages, and make them self-sufficient, then move to another. You can contribute here: http://mfkhaiti.org/




John Myste said...

Dave,

What poverty in America? You just told me your mom is okay? Which is it?

And THAT is what the bubble sees as a rational argument. LOL!


That is an example of someone incapable of or unwilling to, make a rational argument. I told him that she was not OK before I assisted and would not be OK unless I was there to assist, and he therefore saw an inherent contradiction in liberal philosophy. He is not concerned with what is right. He is concerned with making us believe that his motives are predicated on selfishness. (no offense, Free, I know you are an award-winning logician, as you stated before).


Dave Dubya said...

That was my point. As the number of those on the dole increase, the number of middle class decrease.

Your point is backwards in cause and effect.

Dave Dubya said...

The welfare state has given us trickle up unemployment.

Explain that one. I suppose if your goal is to blame the jobless for corporate off-shoring of jobs...

free0352 said...

Explain that one.

The welfare state sucks money out of the economy and largely funds... nothing. If you look at what entitlement spending takes out and then look at what percentage of that makes its way to the end user... it gets pretty amazing what gets eaten up by the bureaucracy.

The money that is taken up by bureaucrats could be spent on just about anything else and create jobs. But instead it goes to... nobody really knows. It doesn't even translate into the salaries of the bureaucrats.

The more you tax, the weaker the economy gets, the more "poor" (unemployed) are created and and death spiral of socialism begins and ends, very predictably.

What makes our case as a nation particularly galling, is that there is work out there for the unemployed. They just don't want to do it. That work? Illegal immigrants are doing it as we speak, right now. How many jobs? We're talking tens of millions.

Your average white "poor" person could go stand out there in front of Home Depot too - but they think they're too good for it. And hence, I don't feel sorry for them.

The work done by illegals is back breaking, low paying, and unpleasant. Welcome to the real world, where sometimes you have to do backbreaking manual labor for low wages. Perhaps if the work done by illegals were done by white people with protection under the law instead of illegals who are effectively outlaws; they'd form unions and work to have wages raised, benefits increased and working conditions improved.

Now I'm expecting you all to call me anti-union because I work against SOME unions in my profession. You'd be wrong. I'm very pro labor. I just don't like it when SOME unions force people to join with threats and acts of violence. I think unions should actually have to talk people into joining - not use government laws or worse thugs. I imagine if the young lily white children of suburbanites had to go pick fruit in 100 degree weather for 8.00 an hour it wouldn't be that hard to get them to sign a union card.

I know you are an award-winning logician,

I won a lot of debates in high school and college, and my team did very well. Our awards however, were a team effort ;)

As for John Myste's poor, suffering, retarded mother - She's fine. That's my point. John held her up as an example of someone too stupid to make a living, and it turns out she has a living. It seems she is poor and suffering when it is convenient in argument for John, and is doing just fine when I called John on not supporting his mother. Nuff said about John's attempts at an appeal to emotion.

BTW, isn't an appeal to pity? Isn't that a logical fallacy? You're the philosopher king John, you tell me?











Dave Dubya said...

Yeah, your points still need some explaining. We get what your other beliefs are.

As the number of those on the dole increase, the number of middle class decrease. The welfare state has given us trickle up unemployment.

You didn’t explain your reverse causality. In the real world, the welfare state is applied due to the failure of capitalism and the economy to provide enough good jobs. The fact is that unemployment gives rise to the welfare state. You have it backwards. As you do this: As the middle class shrinks, those on the dole increase.

Perhaps your inverted reasoning is due to your firmly held beliefs, and not the reality on the ground.

The welfare state sucks money out of the economy and largely funds... nothing

Ah, did you miss the one about the Bush/Wall Street collapse and Great Recession? Would that qualify as something that sucks money out of the economy and largely funds... nothing? Then I agree. Sorry, try as you may, you cannot blame everything on the unemployed.

One major difference between Wall Street welfare and safety net welfare is money to the poor is spent, and re-circulated into the economy. They pay bills and buy food. The poor don’t hoard cash off shore.

The more you tax, the weaker the economy gets, the more "poor" (unemployed) are created and death spiral of socialism begins and ends, very predictably.

Yeah, and did you also miss the Bush tax cuts that preceded the exploding debt and the Bush/Wall Street collapse and Great Recession?

How about this for comparison? The warfare state and Wall Street welfare state suck money out of the economy and largely fund... nothing.

Did you know every hour, taxpayers in the United States are paying $2.2 million for Nuclear Weapons? (FY2014).

Did you know Afghanistan and your war in Iraq are STILL costing Americans $11.26 million EVERY HOUR since 2001?

Imagine just half of that being used for jobs in this country to undo the damage from the Bush/Wall Street Great Recession.

free0352 said...

You didn’t explain your reverse causality.

You missed it, probably because of your own dearly held socialist beliefs. When you take money away from your boss in taxes, he will not have money to pay you. You become unemployed, and then go on welfare. That has to be funded by taxation - which creates a vicious cycle. Eventually your boss ships his company to China because he's sick of the taxes. Eventually, he ships himself off to a tax haven. No one is left to pay for the welfare, and economic collapse ensues. This is how socialism destroys the middle class, the upper class, and impoverishes the lower class. You can see a local example of this, by reviewing the economic history of Detroit.

Any questions?

did you miss the one about the Bush/Wall Street collapse and Great Recession?

George Bush made investment companies invest in toxic securities? Who knew? As for bailing the investment houses out, I AM NOT FOR BAIL OUTS OF ANY KIND. I think I said that. As for who legalized those toxic investments, you might want to ask Bill Clinton about that. Not George Bush.

you cannot blame everything on the unemployed.

Many of the bankers at Bear Sterns are (or were) unemployed (as a result of mal-investment), and they indeed share some of the blame.

welfare is money to the poor is spent, and re-circulated into the economy.

Ah yes Keynesianism at its finest. Money... does not matter! Production matters. Money is just a token. You can't eat it, sleep under it, or drink it. Welfare cases produce nothing, hence they produce no VALUE and hence are a drain on the economy.

Yeah, and did you also miss the Bush tax cuts

By all means, lets raise taxes, on everyone. Everyone should pay 10% on income. Deal?

The warfare state and Wall Street welfare state suck money out of the economy and largely fund... nothing.

The military does not produce anything... except national security and win wars. What do welfare queens produce again?

Did you know every hour, taxpayers in the United States are paying $2.2 million for Nuclear Weapons?

What do you think the consequences of defunding nuclear weapons would be?

Did you know Afghanistan and your war in Iraq are STILL costing Americans $11.26 million EVERY HOUR since 2001?

Its actually more than that. Of course, fighting terrorism is expensive. Fighting "poverty" that doesn't exist? Pointless.

okjimm said...

//Fighting "poverty" that doesn't exist? Pointless.//

hahahahaha.... bubble boy speaks!

Dave Dubya said...

Any questions?

Nope. As I said, we all know your ideological beliefs. You're the one with that backwards logic and fact-free "explanation".

What did we "win" in all these wars? Safety? Prosperity? Peace?

No, no, and no.

Money... does not matter! Production matters

I know better than to ask for an ideological explanation of that gibberish.

We'll let the facts stand. Our economy crashed after Clinton/Bush deregulation and the Bush tax cuts. The rich are now raking it in and austerity awaits the masses.

Believe in your bubble all you want, these facts stand.

Jerry Critter said...

Free,
Perhaps you should read the study discussed in this post. It shows that corporations which pay the highest taxes create the most jobs, not eliminate the most jobs.

Jefferson's Guardian said...

I've been gone recently and haven't had the opportunity to read the latest. I have to tell ya', Bubble-Boy ("Tool Boy"...take your pick) has completely gone off the deep end. It's all hilarious, but this was one of my favorites:

"What makes our case as a nation particularly galling, is that there is work out there for the unemployed. They just don't want to do it. That work? Illegal immigrants are doing it as we speak, right now. How many jobs? We're talking tens of millions." [Bold font my own -- to emphasize the hilarity.]

Not to play favorites, I particularly enjoyed this one, too (already addressed by Dave):

"The military does not produce anything... except national security and win wars."

He's right about the first part...well, unless you want to include: (1) a perpetual drain on the U.S. economy, (2) hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of civilian widows, widowers, and orphans around the world, (3) hate and ill-will against the United States, (4) uprooted and devastated economies and cultures, globally.

The second part of his claim is simply preposterous! It's a complete denial of the truth.

Of all the skills and abilities Free0352 has insisted he processes, he never claimed that of a comedian. Perhaps he should.

John Myste said...

Free,

As for John Myste's poor, suffering, retarded mother - She's fine. That's my point. John held her up as an example of someone too stupid to make a living, and it turns out she has a living. It seems she is poor and suffering when it is convenient in argument for John, and is doing just fine when I called John on not supporting his mother.

I said that she was in poverty until I was old enough to support her, meaning she, and her children, were in poverty for a few decades, and you think that is OK. You seem to be incapable of simple reasoning. You seem to assume that if she has ever been supported, then she was never impoverished. You would not stand a chance against most people in a logical debate, as demonstrated here.

BTW, isn't an appeal to pity? Isn't that a logical fallacy? You're the philosopher king John, you tell me?

It is called “reason.” You have not clearly not heard about it.


I don't believe you are really as illogical as you are pretending to be. I think, rather, you refuse to engage when you feel you are have no chance.

Dave Dubya said...

Ironically, debating with Free the atheist is still a debate between his articles of faith and our reason. as I've noted many times, he's a true believer.

Jerry Critter said...

He must be operating on faith because he certainly has no facts.

free0352 said...

What did we "win" in all these wars?

What did we win in the Banana Wars, or the Philippine Insurrection, or the Spanish American War? You act like America being the World Police is a new phenomena. Hell, Jefferson (Take note Jeff!) ordered the Barbary Pirates War in 1801. This has been business as usual since day one.

(1) a perpetual drain on the U.S. economy, (2) hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of civilian widows, widowers, and orphans around the world, (3) hate and ill-will against the United States, (4) uprooted and devastated economies and cultures, globally.

1) True. The military is a drain on the economy. On a local level so is the fire department. Sometimes you have to buy things that do not generate revenue.

2) To our enemies - fuck their widows. I hope it hurts. Every day. As for ours, I admire their husbands sacrifice. I think tax payers have a duty to take care of them forever.

3) Better to be feared and loved. If you must choose, be feared.

4) Economies like the Philippines (economy grown), Japan (grown), Germany (grown), Korea (grown), Kosovo (grown), Iraq (grown), Afghanistan (grown.)

Hell, if you live in a third world country, the best thing that could ever happen to you and your economy is having the US invade your country.

I said that she was in poverty until I was old enough to support her

Amazingly she didn't starve to death, freeze to death, or die of lack of medical care before you spent that ginormous 800.00 a month? I'm just shocked. Your appeal to pity is firstly false on its face, and secondly its a logical fallacy there Mr. Philosopher King. Before you talk about reason, you should try having some. More hypocrisy.

And lastly about me being in a bubble. Its kinda funny saying that I'm in a "bubble" - a term that suggests I don't hear alternative points of view... when I'm commenting on a self avowed socialist's blog.

Try getting out of your own bubbles.









okjimm said...

conservative estimate of Iraqi civilian death since American invasion and occupation.... 115,654 – 126,977

Afghani dead.... thousands more....

Free said....//Hell, if you live in a third world country, the best thing that could ever happen to you and your economy is having the US invade your country.//

boy... what a bunch of lucky folks! and here I thought the 'Grateful Dead' was only a rock band!

are you completely stupid... or merely naively idiotic?

yes... you do live in a bubble...

perhaps we {USA) should invade Detroit, kill a few thousand people, blow up the buildings... that would sure cure the bankruptcy, huh?

why do you come here... ? I think it is mostly because you are tired of jerking off and can think of nothing else to do in you spare time. sheesh, get a life or get a beer... but mostly.... get real.

Dave Dubya said...

Free is here to wage war between his ideological beliefs and our facts.

On the far Right, beliefs trump facts. Look no further than the view of corporatized healthcare as socialist "death panels", and vanishing arctic and glacial ice as a non-factor in climate change.

free0352 said...

conservative estimate of Iraqi civilian death since American invasion and occupation.... 115,654 – 126,977

Firstly, your "conservative" estimate counts the terrorists we targeted and killed. While technically plain clothed terrorists are "civilians" they are also combatants. further, your "conservative" estimate counts the tens of thousands of Iraqis targeted by insurgents in their war of ethnic and religious cleansing of which the United States had zero role and sacrificed thousands of American troops lives to stop.

Second - how many Germans and Japanese civilians were killed in WWII? Care to venture a guess? How many French or Dutch for that matter - when we liberated those countries? Think they'd be better off under Hitler or the Imperial Regime today? Do you know how many blacks and innocent southerners died during our own civil war?

Civilians die in war. We still waged the most humane war in living memory when it came to limited civilian casualties. Can't say the same about our enemies, who deliberately targeted civilians. Bottom line, we dropped two atomic bombs on Japan and killed hundreds of thousands in less than a second, and the Japanese are better off today because we won that war.

Those are facts. Not liberal doublespeak.

free0352 said...

vanishing arctic and glacial ice as a non-factor in climate change.

This is a great example of socialist "facts."

Vanishing sea ice eh?

If the climate is changing (which it has done for consistently for millions of years, it would seem to be getting a whole lot colder.

Next thing you know, liberals will be telling us we're in for another ice age, and BIIIIIIIIIIG OOOOOOOOIIIIIL is at fault.

Just like they did in the 1970s.

The socialist/liberal mindset is based on fear mongering and class envy.

No facts in sight.

Jefferson's Guardian said...

Free0352: "You act like America being the World Police is a new phenomena. Hell, Jefferson (Take note Jeff!) ordered the Barbary Pirates War in 1801. This has been business as usual since day one."

Being the "world police" has drained our Treasury in modern times. That's a fact. As far as Thomas Jefferson, he was against a concept of "standing armies". As a matter of fact, he wanted it included in the Constitution. Unfortunately, he was in France during the composition, and subsequent ratification, of that great document.


"Sometimes you have to buy things that do not generate revenue."

True, many times one does, but it shouldn't have to cost nearly half of your discretionary income. We need to slash the DoD budget to the bone, and do away with the NSA and the CIA. That's just for starters.


"To our enemies - fuck their widows. I hope it hurts. Every day. As for ours, I admire their husbands sacrifice. I think tax payers have a duty to take care of them forever."

We had few enemies until you created them. I'm guessing you actually did fuck the widows. Your type wouldn't have a problem with that. As far as military benefits, they should be withdrawn starting immediately. If you're working for M-I-C, no benefits for you.


"Better to be feared and loved. If you must choose, be feared."

Certainly that's the creed of killers and rapists, but not that of humanity. Fear begets fear. I sense you're a very fearful man. It explains the anger, hostility, and total lack of compassion.


"Economies like the Philippines (economy grown), Japan (grown), Germany (grown), Korea (grown), Kosovo (grown), Iraq (grown), Afghanistan (grown.)"

I know you know I wasn't referring to the military build-up that defeated the axis powers of WWII, so right off the bat eliminate Japan and Germany from your list. Those were the last days that we fought, and defeated, enemies for purposes other than imperialist or political reasons. With modern "enemies" we never defeat them. Every war since you were born, or I was born, has been for these considerations only.


"Hell, if you live in a third world country, the best thing that could ever happen to you and your economy is having the US invade your country."

More perversion from one who I'd expect nothing more.

Dave Dubya said...

We still waged the most humane war

“Humane war”...This has got to be the winner of all doublespeak. Better that “Compassionate conservative” even.

As Free’s Decider said, “War is peace”. No, that was Orwell. Bush paraphrased, “I just want you to know that, when we talk about war, we're really talking about peace.”

Free wins the Orwellian prize with “Humane war”, exemplifying once again “Ignorance is strength”

Of course, Bush’s war and occupation are directly linked to the ongoing deaths in Iraq. As warned by sane voices, the civil war was the consequence of the invasion. And now they like Iran more than their “liberators”. Wonder why? Iran didn’t invade them.

That didn’t happen in the case of his irrelevant distraction to WW II, did it?

Imagine Free burning down an old barn on a windy day that causes a house to catch fire. Free the barn burner sees no accountability for the house fire.

Now to current events.

“Vanishing arctic and glacial ice” was the phrase I used. Free needed to ignore my words and jumped to articles about Antarctica.

I love it when Free links to articles that he thinks support his beliefs. His beliefs are so dogmatic and firm that he doesn’t even read the articles.

From the first:

If the increase in ice is due to natural variability, Zhang says, warming from manmade greenhouse gases should eventually overcome it and cause the ice to begin retreating....Ultimately, it’s apparent the relationship between ozone depletion, climate warming from greenhouse gases, natural variability, and how Antarctic ice responds is all very complicated. In sharp contrast, in the Arctic, there seems to be a relatively straight forward relationship between temperature and ice extent....Ultimately, it’s apparent the relationship between ozone depletion, climate warming from greenhouse gases, natural variability, and how Antarctic ice responds is all very complicated. In sharp contrast, in the Arctic, there seems to be a relatively straight forward relationship between temperature and ice extent.

However, renowned world climate science expert Free pronounces global cooling:

“If the climate is changing (which it has done for consistently for millions of years, it would seem to be getting a whole lot colder.”

“Socialist” Scientists, of course, like all the fools of the world who disagree with Free’s beliefs, see it differently. Those nuts think they need evidence and logic to support claims.

Just because one spot on Earth has set records for cold that has little to do with global warming because it is one spot in one place, said Waleed Abdalati, an ice scientist at the University of Colorado and NASA's former chief scientist. Both Abdalati, who wasn't part of the measurement team, and Scambos said this is likely an unusual random reading in a place that hasn't been measured much before and could have been colder or hotter in the past and we wouldn't know.

Free learned all he needs to know from the Rush Limbaugh School of climate science, political science, and economics.

Meanwhile in the real world of science, published in Science magazine actually, apart from the unusual winds and weather pattern making Antarctic surface ice, (on warmer water) we find:

Antarctic research details ice melt below massive glacier

Sounds like more “socialist” scientists need to trust Free’s beliefs over their silly data and instruments.

free0352 said...

Being the "world police" has drained our Treasury in modern times

Adjusted for inflation we spend less on Defense than we did when Eisenhower made his farewell address you're so fond of quoting. As for total government spending, it doesn't go to the DOD, it goes to social welfare programs... which I'd end. You can live without medicade, but no serious person would suggest we could live without a national defense. I mean you would, but of course you've never been serious.

We had few enemies until you created them

Really? North Korea loved us prior to my generation or my person right? Saddam Hussien was a dear old pal until BushHitler and his BIG OIL™ pals came along...

No, I don't think so. Our enemies are real, and I don't care why they do what they do, so long as they die.

Truth is, over the last ten years the United States has sacrificed more of its young men and women to save Middle Eastern lives than any of their governments would bother to do.

they should be withdrawn starting immediately.

That's just laughable. Good luck getting anyone to fight for you then. Just another example of the extremist, communist viewpoint found on this blog.

With modern "enemies" we never defeat them. Every war since you were born, or I was born, has been for these considerations only.

Really? I wasn't aware we were fighting the people of Grenada, Panama, Haiti, or Kuwait? Last I checked we were in alliance with Iraq and Afghanistan too.

No, we're at war with a religious fundamentalist movement, and it will take a long time to kill.

I know you know I wasn't referring to the military build-up that defeated the axis powers of WWII

I was.

Look at Korea, we're technically at war there too, to this day. Is South Korea better off today? Do you have any idea how many Koreans died in the Korean war?

Yeah, if I were going to sleep in North Korea tonight, I'd be begging for America (or anyone really) to invade my country. I don't care how many of my fellow civilians are killed. I wouldn't care if I were killed. And if you wouldn't too, you're an idiot.









Dave Dubya said...

Saddam Hussien was a dear old pal who Reagan even helped target his gas attacks against Iran.

Thanks for the memory. Saddam forgot who his boss was and got uppity, so we needed to take his oil. But the Iraqis had something to say about that...and Iran.

Last I checked we were in alliance with Iraq and Afghanistan too.

Yeah, is that why they're people hate Iran, and are begging us to occupy them forever?

extremist, communist viewpoint Is that what you guys call reason over belief now?

Adjusted for inflation we spend less on Defense than we did when Eisenhower made his farewell address

Here's a historical chart of U.S. defense spending since World War II in inflation-adjusted dollars that disagrees with Free’s belief.

More tidbits:

The United States spent more on its military than the next 13 nations combined in 2011

Democratic, Republican and independent voters all want to cut military spending far more severely than the sequester would and far, far more severely than either party has proposed.

okjimm said...

/We still waged the most humane war in living memory/

ah, shit and biscuits!!!! that is the largest oxymoron I have heard in ages.....but then he tops it.....truly

//I'd be begging for America (or anyone really) to invade my country. I don't care how many of my fellow civilians are killed. I wouldn't care if I were killed. And if you wouldn't too, you're an idiot.//

I DON'T CARE HOW MANY OF MY FELLOW CIVILIANS ARE KILLED !!!!!!!!!!


Free has pulled his head out of the sand and stuck it firmly up his a

ss.

“They say even death can't cure an idiot.
-Ririn”
― Tite Kubo


I would if Free can breathe up there. sheesh.















11

free0352 said...

Saddam forgot who his boss was

Yes, he did. so we needed to take his oil.

Actually not one major oil contract went to a US company. Not one. The oil sales profits go to Iraqis, through their state owned oil company. Some facts...

Yeah, is that why they're people hate Iran, and are begging us to occupy them forever?

Actually a lot of Middle Eastern countries DO hate Iran, and ARE begging us to occupy them forever. I'd be content with an air campaign to destroy their nuclear capability and to target the Revolutionary Guard forces. I'd also like to start a campaign to assassinate their ambassadors in retaliation for their world wide attacks on diplomats.

extremist, communist viewpoint Is that what you guys call reason over belief now?

I was calling Jeff a communist because Jeff is a card carrying International Answer type communist. If the shoe fits.

The United States spent more on its military than the next 13 nations combined in 2011

So? That's like comparing the local guy with a concealed weapons permit to the local police force. We're the world police. We ARE the UN, we ARE NATO. Of course we spend a lot more. We took on that role after WWII.

As for defense spending, just google troop numbers the last year of Ike's Presidency vs today. We had a MUCH bigger military way back then, and adjusted for inflation we spent more too.

Democratic, Republican and independent voters all want to cut military spending far more severely than the sequester would and far, far more severely than either party has proposed.

Okay, dollar for dollar cuts in Defense for cuts in social spending. And when they draft your kid because we went back to the good old days of the draft board, don't come crying to me.

I DON'T CARE HOW MANY OF MY FELLOW CIVILIANS ARE KILLED !!!!!!!!!!

Not if I were living in North Korea I wouldn't. I would gladly die that live under that, and see you all die along with me... so that future generations wouldn't know this. But then again, I'm not a coward.

And speaking of gulags, on a long enough time line that is where socialism always ends up.


















free0352 said...

Oh and BTW, please explain why we have record ice growth the last two years and yet its "vanishing" dave.

And yes, they are socialist scientists who depend on funding from pro-"Climate Change" tax funding. They have a vested interest to ignore evidence, like world record setting cold and growing "vanishing" ice. You haven't coughed up a fact yet Dave.

Dave Dubya said...

Facts:
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/detect/land-permafrost.shtml

"When permafrost degrades (melts), there are impacts on drainage, ground water, river runoffs, ecological systems (such as plants and ponds), release of carbon that has been sequestered in the frozen soil, and infrastructure (such as houses, roads, airports, pipelines, and other facilities based on permafrost).

Average temperature during the year is the most important factor for permafrost existence. Permafrost temperatures at 1 m below ground in central Alaska have been warming since the 1960s and were reaching near to the melting point in the mid-1990s. There has been a retreat to colder temperatures (less than -1°C) in the last few years."

free0352 said...

What warming trend?

Not that the Earth hasn't been both far warming and far colder than it is now - just within the last few thousand years and long before the invention of the internal combustion engine.

Saying the climate is changing is like saying water is wet and the sky is blue. All are normal and have been since way before man had invented fire-making.

free0352 said...

Thus the IPCC predicts that warming will surely start up again at some point.

Of course they do. Wouldn't want all that grant funding to run out!

Dave Dubya said...

Since you're the authority on climate, what does the Eastern Mediterranean have to do with the thawing permafrost in the Arctic?

Or the Antarctic ice melt below a massive glacier?

This article does nothing to disprove the "socialist" science in the arctic, or antarctic.

Ah, but you have your beliefs. One of which is apparently "Pollution causes no negative effects in the environment". Just what your masters have programmed you to believe.

free0352 said...

Since you're the authority on climate,

I don't claim to be any more than you are. I just don't see much evidence the earth is heating up.

We aren't seeing a warming planet.

Dave Dubya said...

Again, what does the Eastern Mediterranean have to do with the thawing permafrost in the Arctic?

Or the Antarctic ice melt below a massive glacier?

okjimm said...

Aw Dave.... Free is a very troubled and frightened individual....who shows decidedly sociopathic tendencies; homicidal and suicidal. Clearly he suffers from a guilt complex apparently brought on by a traumatic childhood event. To aleviate, he seeks a group to join, yet rejects any complex social interaction.

. Consider this definition of reaction formation: When a person cannot face life's wounds or their own failings, their tendency is to project their ugly bits onto others, thus absolving themselves of all responsibility. Hence the constant drumbeat of anger, vituperation and delusional thinking heaped upon imagined enemies.

Collectively, they act as a cult in search of mutual validation. That's all they have going for themselves - nothing more – and there is nothing anyone can say to them.

Dave Dubya said...

okjimm,
We are lucky to have Free "on the couch" as a representative of the radical Right mentality. As an atheist he presents a bit different type of true believer. It is interesting how he can both reject one type of belief, religion, yet accept the dogma of the far Right as unquestionable truth.

As with all Right Wingers, Free is fearful of what he doesn't understand. No Right winger has ever understood liberals, They can't open up beyond their belief system. They are indoctrinated to believe corporate media is "liberal media", therefore not to be trusted. Listen only to Republicans. They are told to equate liberals with communists. This is where fear comes in. The Right has worked long and hard to frighten Americans into the belief that liberals are the enemy. They are taught to believe liberals are to blame for all of our country's ills. This is also historically how fascism takes root.

Free's open support for GOP suppression of democracy is another example of his true believer status. He BELIEVES the Republicans' claptrap about voter impersonation fraud at the polls. He BELIEVES the Republicans' claptrap about a global conspiracy of climate scientists.

He also buy into the Right's ideological rule of economic elites. He's happy to let the Koch brothers dictate public policy.

"Some people are more equal than others" is the authoritarian world view. Free has admitted to such a belief.

He wants to think he's libertarian, but a libertarian is a civil libertarian or not at all. Without the principle of democracy his ideology amounts to minority rule by wealth and privilege.

He's a Republican at heart, but likes to think of himself as above them. Why? Because they spend money too. On his foreign military adventures even. Yeah, we all disagree on some spending. But invading counties that didn't attack us is not what economic or civil libertarians support. The same is true about torture and indefinite detention without counsel. He supports all of the efforts in the so called "war on terror".

It's the authoritarian thing to do. Along with blaming liberals for everything, of course. Liberals, terrorists, what's the difference, right? The radicals of the far Right have accused liberals of everything else, so saying we are siding with the terrorists is all part of their resentment for us.

As we see our country's decline, the worst case is liberals will be the Jews of the American Fourth Reich. The other case is we are to be serfs in the neo-feudal corporaticracy.

Either way, democracy is to be suppressed, austerity is what the masses deserve, and unprecedented wealth and power shall continue to "trickle up". The rich are wealthier than ever, but everything bad is still the liberals fault.

...But don't get me started. ;-)





free0352 said...

Eastern Mediterranean have to do with the thawing permafrost in the Arctic?

I provided you links showing record cold from the arctic sea ice, to the arctic its self to freaking the Pyramids and you are actually asking this question?

Willful doublethink.

Doublethink: The act of ordinary people simultaneously accepting two mutually contradictory beliefs as correct.

For example - "Its snowing at the Pyramids, we've seen record ice formation the last two years, and we're seeing record cold. The Earth is warming."


We are lucky to have Free "on the couch"

I know some of you want to "get me on the couch" so to speak... but I'm just not that in to you. Or gay.

No Right winger has ever understood liberals,

There have long been people who because of personal failures seek to vote themselves rich. This is not a new phenomenon. Ben Franklin had liberals figured out when he said - "When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."

Liberals are those voters.

He's a Republican at heart

Except for immigration, taxes, gay rights, religion (or lack there of, judicial reform, bankruptcy, criminal law, drug war, the NSA, about 50% of defense issues... I could go on.

What you can't understand is that I'm a Libertarian... you cannot conceive of anything different than the straw man you've built up in your head your whole lives.

You can sum up where I'll be on any given issue very simply. Its based on this - Leave me alone, I'll leave you alone, you take care of you, I'll take care of me.










okjimm said...

Leave me alone, I'll leave you alone

ah, a truly anti-social self pronouncement. Indicative of a sense of a brooding paranoia complex. A deep sense of fear...of what I am not sure. I guess there are cabins available in the Idaho hinterland that might be available to accomadate someone who wishes to divorce himself from all sense of reality....but that would still not cure Free of the anger he feels. There is a sense that he feels the need for ultimate isolation, yet that need enrages him.

"Our greatest pretenses are built up not to hide the evil and the ugly in us, but our emptiness. The hardest thing to hide is something that is not there."
~eric hoffer

...and then, that begs the question...if Free really wanted to be left alone...why does he come here?

Dave Dubya said...

Why does he come here?

Basically, to prove to the unbelievers (us) that "Every man for himself" is a better principle for government and society than "We're all in it together".

We should resent the unemployed and scorn the minimum wage workers for not having better jobs. But they should pay more taxes so the rich can pay less.

We need to learn greed is good, selfishness is virtue and a corporation is entitled to superior rights of free speech and more representation than the majority of people.

We are to learn and accept without question the rich are to be allowed to become more wealthy and more powerful, as the people get the austerity they deserve. The rich owe the country nothing, and are entitled to run the show.

We need to be educated that minority rule by the wealthy elite is preferable to our pesky democratic principles.

And making voting more difficult is good governing. Also there's a global conspiracy of evil greedy climate scientists.

I think that about covers it.

Why we are not all converting in droves is a mystery to me.

free0352 said...

"Every man for himself" is a better principle for government and society than "We're all in it together".

Why not? Its certainly better than the socialist creed of "Rob from the rich, and give to me."

We should resent the unemployed and scorn the minimum wage workers for not having better jobs. But they should pay more taxes so the rich can pay less.

I'm the one preaching equality here. That everyone should pay for the government, and the best way to do that is through fees for use and a reasonable tax rate. No one, rich or poor - should pay zero taxes.

We need to learn greed is good, selfishness is virtue

There is nothing wrong with taking care of yourself. I hate the forced "altruism" of the left because its not charity - its legalized extortion.

Also there's a global conspiracy of evil greedy climate scientists.

vs a global conspiracy of greedy oil scientists...

I started questioning these people when I learned just how much money Al Gore made off "Inconvenient Truth."

There's a lot of money to be lost if it turns out the planet isn't getting warmer.

Why we are not all converting in droves is a mystery to me

Because you lack the courage to go it alone - and you're more than willing to pull other's down to elevate yourselves. That's my theory anyway.







free0352 said...

"Every man for himself" is a better principle for government and society than "We're all in it together".

Has it ever occurred to you that about 50% of the country doesn't want to be in it with you? That we have zero interest in our fates being intertwined? That we pretty much don't want anything to do with you, nor do we care if you feel the same? Does it dawn on you that when you use laws to force us "together" that its you who are arguing for the authoritarian position like some figurative kindergarten teaching demanding all the kids share everything? ... or else...

When you have to use the loaded gun of law enforcement to "bind us together" that isn't unity... that's extortion. You aren't about freedom, you're about demanding tribute.

Jefferson's Guardian said...

Free0352: "Has it ever occurred to you that about 50% of the country doesn't want to be in it with you?"

That's an interesting claim. Please provide links to substantiate your claim.


"That we have zero interest in our fates being intertwined?"

First, define "we".


"That we pretty much don't want anything to do with you, nor do we care if you feel the same?"

It sounds as though you're anti-civilization. Honestly, I'm curious, but why did you retire from the military and move to Michigan? I would have thought that the open spaces of, for example, Alaska would have dovetailed better with your desire for isolation.


"Does it dawn on you that when you use laws to force us 'together' that its you who are arguing for the authoritarian position like some figurative kindergarten teaching demanding all the kids share everything?"

Actually, nobody forces you "together" (whatever it is that you mean by that). You're free to live in Alaska, or as okjimm already mentioned, in the wilderness of somewhere like Idaho if that's what suits your fancy.

As far as Kindergarten (or any grade level, for that matter) teaching cooperation and sharing, I suspect you don't believe that's a good thing. What would be a better alternative to you? Possibly "might makes right"? (I'm trying to envision that same kindergarten classroom following your "winner take all" principle.)


"When you have to use the loaded gun of law enforcement to 'bind us together' that isn't unity... that's extortion."

Yet, interestingly, you support the very the same idea on the international stage when the U.S. military invades, occupies, and robs sovereign nations of their natural resources.


"You aren't about freedom, you're about demanding tribute."

Well, no, I'm not about "freedom" when "freedom" means that corporations are granted the rights only reserved for human beings; when corporations are allowed to pollute and interfere in our democratic processes; and when wars are waged and people are killed because corporations stand to profit handsomely when governments declare permanent war on a tactic.

It sounds more like you're the one demanding tribute.

As I've said several times to you already, once libertarianism denounces corporate personhood, and makes it a permanent part of its platform (as the Green Party has), then I'll be on board. Until then, your party (and the concept) is only a lapdog of the corporate-state.

okjimm said...

Jeff G.... I do believe Free is pathologically anti-social... a virtual poster boy for mandatory mental health checks for gun ownership.

free0352 said...

Please provide links to substantiate your claim.

I'm basing that number on people who aren't down with the left. Conservatives, old school Republicans, Libertarians, Constiutionalists, etc. I'm not sure what exact number it is. Clearly well over 100 million Americans.

First, define "we".

People who don't want a liberal/socialist government. People who would rather live in states like Tennessee, Texas or Wyoming instead of California, New York or Vermont. People who resent liberals trying to run the country like one big California via Federal power instead of the options under Federalism of 50 separate options limited by the Bill of Rights.

It sounds as though you're anti-civilization

Or antisocial? Maybe.

"Anti-social behavior is a sign of intelligence in a world of conformists." - Nikola Tesla

Its not anti-civilization, its profoundly pro civilization. Civilization implies choice. The choice means the right to opt in - or out. Without choice, we aren't free.

Actually, nobody forces you "together" (whatever it is that you mean by that). You're free to live in Alaska, or as okjimm already mentioned, in the wilderness of somewhere like Idaho if that's what suits your fancy.

I want to opt out of social security? I want to opt out of medicade? I want to opt out of food stamps, and paying tax dollars for them. I want my state to get to vote on opting out of most government regulations. Freedom is choice, not just where you live. I want economic freedom too. Instead my generation is hit with paying 17 trillion in debt - 8 trillion of which was run up before most in my generation were even legally allowed to vote. Since that will be paid with tax dollars, and my generation had no hand in the spending what so ever but will foot the bill - I call that taxation without representation. Certainly for the young millennial who aren't even old enough to vote now - they have done nothing to create the 17 trillion they'll be asked to pay. As your namesake said

"Ought not then the right of each successive generation to be guaranteed against the dissipations and corruptions of those preceding, by a fundamental provision in our Constitution? And if that has not been made, does it exist the less, there being between generation and generation as between nation and nation no other law than that of nature? And is it the less dishonest to do what is wrong because not expressly prohibited by written law? Let us hope our moral principles are not yet in that stage of degeneracy, and that in instituting the system of finance to be hereafter pursued we shall adopt the only safe, the only lawful and honest one, of borrowing on such short terms of reimbursement of interest and principal as will fall within the accomplishment of our own lives."

- Thomas Jefferson

I'm sorry Mr. Jefferson, but previous generations have been that DEGENERATE.

free0352 said...

The unfunded mandates of the baby boomers is crushing - and being forced to pay for that which my and later generations will never see is not freedom. And not allowing the choice to opt out of that spiral isn't freedom either.

Yet, interestingly, you support the very the same idea on the international stage when the U.S. military invades, occupies

I'm not interested in "binding us together" with our enemies. I'm interested in killing them. As again Jefferson said of his generation's Islamic enemies -

"I have dispatched a squadron of frigates and a company of Marines to Tripoli to bring about more or less equal destruction upon the Pasha (Yusuf Karamanli) and the piratical states as has been wrought upon us. We have but one impediment to perpetual peace - Tripoli. I would see it burned before another payment (of tribute.)"

-Thomas Jefferson

After that the US Marines very famously marched "To the shores of Tripoli" and well... lets just say the Pasha stood around a lot of dead bodies after the Battle of Derna on April 27, 1805 - and handed Marine Commander Presley O'Bannon an agreement to end his attacks on American shipping.

Funny how your name sake ordered the first raising of the American flag over foreign soil. Learn some fuck'n history Jeff.

Jefferson's Guardian said...

Free0352: "I'm basing that number on people who aren't down with the left."

and...

"I'm not sure what exact number it is."

Well of course you don't. It's not visible because, as usual, you've pulled them from your ass.

I guess it's fair to say that there are, at least, an equal number who "are down" [Is that Hispanic-speak for agreeable?] with the left.


"People who resent liberals trying to run the country like one big California via Federal power..."

The country isn't run by liberals. It's run by corporatists. This seemingly still hasn't sunk in with you.


"Or antisocial? Maybe.

You could be both...but they're not the same thing. People who live in civilized society can be antisocial. Not wanting to be social isn't the same as not wanting a functioning and fair social order (i.e., "civilization"). There is no doubt in my mind that you are anti-civilization.


"Civilization implies choice."

No, civilization implies a society that is "civil" (please note the root word). It implies refinement and an appreciation for science and the arts.

It doesn't imply fifty choices of toothpaste, or people living under bridges.


"I want to opt out of social security? I want to opt out of medicade? I want to opt out of food stamps, and paying tax dollars for them."

You can't opt out when you live in a civilization. You either choose civilization or your choose to live in the wilderness. You can't have it both ways.

I want, I want, I want! It's not all about what you want as an individual. Total individualism is an extreme, just as totalitarianism is. Neither is good for a healthy and functioning civilized society.

You sound like a precocious teenage girl, crying about how life isn't fair. Grow up.


"The unfunded mandates of the baby boomers is crushing"

Please humor me with a list of the unfunded mandates that you perceive as created by baby boomers.


"I'm not interested in 'binding us together' with our enemies. I'm interested in killing them."

They weren't enemies until you invaded their sovereign nations, killed their civilians and raped their women, and allowed multinationals to steal their natural resources.


"Funny how your name sake ordered the first raising of the American flag over foreign soil. Learn some fuck'n history Jeff."

No, it's not funny at all. It was necessary, like some wars in our history. Not like the created wars that your generation freely fights in the name of the corporate-state.

It is ironic (which is really the word you were looking for -- not "funny") that soon after the first Barbary War was over, and near the end of Jefferson's term as president, he scaled back the Army to just a fraction of its former size. Jefferson wasn't a fan of standing armies, and as I've mentioned to you already, wanted "no standing armies" included in the Bill of Rights (along with no monopolies). Obviously he didn't have the leverage, living in France, to get this included. Tragically, we're paying for these omissions today.

okjimm said...

Jeff G...well said. Arguing with Free, though, is like arguing with a crayon....you are never sure if he is red, burnt orange, or what.

meanwhile...//You either choose civilization or your choose to live in the wilderness.//

...there may be a sub-let available for Free

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QKg3CN0dDnQ

free0352 said...

Well of course you don't. It's not visible because, as usual, you've pulled them from your ass.

How many registered Republicans and Libertarians are there Jeff? Millions and millions? Yup.

How many people in this country agree with this statement -

They weren't enemies until you invaded their sovereign nations, killed their civilians and raped their women, and allowed multinationals to steal their natural resources.

Probably less that even a few hundred thousand. You're not politically powerless because of "corporatism" you are politically powerless because your views are repugnant to a majority of Americans. A vast majority.

And that is why I come here. So I can link to the things communists like yourself have to say. Enjoy your next ANSWER meeting. All 12 of you.

The vast majority -vast- can understand that if a few American ships sunk justifies a war - so does the murder of 3000 Americans on Sep 11th.

But of course - we all know it was an inside job according to you...

I have a favor to ask. Just complete this sentence -

I think Israel is run by________

Here's another

I think zionism is _________

I'm just curious to what level I'm talking to here.



Jefferson's Guardian said...

okjimm: "...there may be a sub-let available for Free."

Yes, furnished at that!

Jefferson's Guardian said...

Free0352: "How many registered Republicans and Libertarians are there Jeff? Millions and millions? Yup."

I believe I already replied adequately when I wrote:

I guess it's fair to say that there are, at least, an equal number who "are down" [Is that Hispanic-speak for agreeable?] with the left.

So, what's your point?


"How many people in this country agree with this statement -

They weren't enemies until you invaded their sovereign nations, killed their civilians and raped their women, and allowed multinationals to steal their natural resources.
"

It really doesn't matter how many agree. Truth isn't bound by a majority vote.


"And that is why I come here."

No, your statement really doesn't make it clear why you come here, because, as I've said on so many occasions, I'm not affiliated with the Communist Party, nor have I ever been affiliated with the Communist Party.

Try again, and do not pass Go, and do not collect $200.


"The vast majority -vast- can understand that if a few American ships sunk justifies a war - so does the murder of 3000 Americans on Sep 11th."

True...as long as the war is against those who perpetrated the crime. So far, this hasn't happened.


"But of course - we all know it was an inside job according to you..."

I'm not sure how "inside" it was, but someone set those charges.

Hey, have you read that white paper you were demanding of me, yet? Just in case you missed it, here it is again.

okjimm said...

/you are politically powerless because your views are repugnant to a majority of Americans. A vast majority.
/

hhhhmmmmm must be that 'vast' majority that elected McCain, Romney.

gees...and why do you care about Israel....? you are an anarchist....

Dave Dubya said...

okjimm,
why do you care about Israel.

Free's been showing a lot of interest in Eastern Mediterranean weather too. He seems to think that it disproves climate change elsewhere.

free0352 said...

So, what's your point?

My point is you need guns and police to "bring us together."

If that is your definition of freedom and "civilization" then by that definition North Korea is also free.

It really doesn't matter how many agree. Truth isn't bound by a majority vote.

Exactly my point on global warming. But we're not talking about truth, we're talking about how people want to live their lives - and how you would like to see force to see them lived your way. And then you call me authoritarian...

True...as long as the war is against those who perpetrated the crime. So far, this hasn't happened.

I know you think it was all a conspiracy of GWB and Biiiiig Oooiiiil.

A great example of your extremist thinking.

I'm not sure how "inside" it was, but someone set those charges.

Yes, because to recognize the truth - that members of Al'Qaeda hijacked planes and flew them into the buildings brings your whole bullshit house of cards crashing down.

Just in case you missed it, here it is again.

Crap, crap and crap.

I could bury you under sources, but why bother. I have in the past and it isn't worth wasting the time.

Its enough that anyone reading knows you're a 9-11 truther who loves ANSWER. That allows just about anyone all the info they need to size up your logic and intelligence.

hhhmmmmm must be that 'vast' majority that elected McCain, Romney

Okijim,

Do the vast majority believe 9-11 was an inside job and our troops are rapist murderers? Not even Democrats accept this leftist dogma.

why do you care about Israel.

Just curious what Jeff's thoughts are on the subject. ;)












okjimm said...


//My point is you need guns and police to "bring us together."//

,,,now that sounds like Free is promoting a "Police State"

but then... he argues that Amkericans should be able to opt out of any regulations we do not agree with or like...

"I want my state to get to vote on opting out of most government regulations." of course, by most he means // not the rules and regulations HE LIKES//

Free, I am still curious about the Vast Majority that elected McCain and Romney. You rather side stepped that. I do believe that you must mean the Vast Majority hunkered down in that bunker you reside in.

truly... asking you what your favorite crayon color still may elicite from you something coherent and precise.

Yes....indeely-do...youse got the world in a nutshell all figured out. and speaking of nutshells..... if you can step from the bunker for a moment......and as long as you are asking questions about, oh, just good old stuff... do you agree with this:

//Almost everyone will agree that we live in a deeply troubled
society. One of the most widespread manifestations of the craziness of
our world is leftism, so a discussion of the psychology of leftism can
serve as an introduction to the discussion of the problems of modern
society in general.//

I do humbly await a reply. Please humor me.





//

free0352 said...

Sorry, I'm not the Unabomber Okijim...

The biggest problem facing society is debt. Both public and personal ;)

free0352 said...

As for quotes I'd like to identify with you can find them here.

Jefferson's Guardian said...

Free0352: "My point is you need guns and police to 'bring us together.'"

As okjimm already correctly pointed out, your affinity for a police-state is very obvious.


"If that is your definition of freedom and 'civilization' then by that definition North Korea is also free."

No, I believe my definition of civilization never included a requirement of capitalism. I plainly and simply said it implies refinement and an appreciation for science and the arts -- neither of which you respect or believe to be important.


"Exactly my point on global warming [that truth isn't bound by a majority vote]."

As mentioned above, you have no respect or need for science. It's irrelevant to you when it disputes your deep-rooted beliefs. You never seek truth -- only confirmation of what the nay-Sayers tell you to believe.

That's why you're the perfect tool.


"But we're not talking about truth, we're talking about how people want to live their lives - and how you would like to see force to see them lived your way. And then you call me authoritarian..."

Oh, but that's exactly what we're talking about! But you either refuse to face it, or you ignore and side-step it.

Nobody's forcing you to do anything. You're free to leave civilization and live in the wilderness. You'll never have to pay taxes when you isolate yourself in the mountains and become self-sufficient and live off the grid.

This is my challenge to you. Do that!


"I know you think it was all a conspiracy of GWB and Biiiiig Oooiiiil."

No, sorry, you have no idea what I think. If you really think you have the ability to read minds, can you tell what I'm thinking right now?


"...to recognize the truth - that members of Al'Qaeda hijacked planes and flew them into the buildings brings your whole bullshit house of cards crashing down."

Like previously mentioned, you have no respect for science -- not even the most basic principles of physics. If you did, you'd recognize all the inconsistencies between what happened that day and what officialdom wants you to believe happened that day.

You're suffering from what's called cognitive dissidence. I know, it really is hard to believe your government would lie to you, isn't it? ;-)


"Crap, crap and crap."

Hey, you asked for scientific evidence and I presented you with scientific evidence. It's there, plain and simple. I can't do anything else for you. Unless, of course, you're wanting me to refuse the evidence along with you?


"I could bury you under sources..."

Please do, but please make sure it's not just more hyperbole defending the already indefensible. Please present scientific evidence and conclusions. It's really the only way to arrive at the truth, you know.

But wait...you don't know. You're seemingly incapable. You're just an ignorant dough boy who plays along. And you like it like that.

free0352 said...

your affinity for a police-state is very obvious.

Right. Because wanting fewer laws and police clearly means I'm all for a police state. More liberal doublethink.

I plainly and simply said it implies refinement and an appreciation for science and the arts -- neither of which you respect or believe to be important.

I like science and art fine - I happen to think the government ruins both.

As mentioned above, you have no respect or need for science

Clearly untrue. You have no proof the earth is warming nor a plan to reduce carbon in the atmosphere anyway. Humans are 1% of carbon emissions. Even if we went back to 1800s technology it wouldn't matter. But I'm sure it feels good to regurgitate the "science" of others and tell yourself you are smart.

But we're not talking about truth, we're talking about how people want to live their lives - and how you would like to see force to see them lived your way. And then you call me authoritarian..."

Oh, but that's exactly what we're talking about! But you either refuse to face it, or you ignore and side-step it.


Right. Because I want government to have less authority, I am authoritarian. More doublethink.

you have no idea what I think.

By all means, explain again how 9-11 was a conspiracy of the military industrial complex to start a war? Perhaps I didn't get it the first 20 times you explained it.

not even the most basic principles of physics.

Right. I am a military trained demolitions expert. You are neither a scientist nor a demolitions expert. Free has no idea about demolitions and I do. More doublethink.

what officialdom wants you to believe happened that day.

Really? Who is "officialdom?" Get specific, name some names. Who is "behind it all?"

I know, it really is hard to believe your government would lie to you, isn't it? ;-)

I was judging by what we all saw on television. Perhaps you saw the "super secret" news cast.

Please do

Oh no. Lets hear your theory for a change. Tell us again how the secret agents smuggled red phosphorous into the trade center past all those people. BTW how much red phosphorous would it take to melt all that steel? I know the answer - but as you said I really don't know. You being the scientist, you tell us?

BTW, how many readers here have the guts to admit they are either

A: A twoofer like Jeff here

or

B: The other 99.9% of sane people.

I'm just curious. Okijim, Dave - do you think it was 'officialdom' who blew up the trade center or some hijakers acting on orders of Osama Binladin?
















Dave Dubya said...

I want government to have less authority

Like less authority for invading countries that didn't attack us?

Like less authority for warrantless surveillance?

Like less authority for waging a drug war, drug testing, and punishing people for ingesting what they please?

I agree.

Less authority to enforce laws required for public safety?

Less authority to enforce laws required for the constitutional regulation of commerce?

Less authority to enforce constitutional laws required to promote the general welfare?

Don't agree. Government must have more authority than those it is charged to regulate. Promoting corporate power over a constitutional republic is anti-American and can only lead to fascism or neo-feudalism.

Just like what is slowing happening now.

I like science and art fine - I happen to think the government ruins both.

Yes, that must explain why they faked the moon landing.

'officialdom' who blew up the trade center or some hijakers

Why can't we believe, or question, both?

It really isn't unreasonable to ask questions, especially of the government. I didn't see a plane hit the Pentagon or WT-7. We still haven't seen direct evidence. It is suppressed, so questions naturally arise.

And made further more reasonable, since your Decider and his Big Dick, aka 'officialdom', lied all over the place to get their war of choice intended for crony profit and political gain. All immediately after 9-11, as if they were salivating for it to happen.

You're belief in a conspiracy of evil climate scientists doesn't leave you on higher ground in a conspiracy contest.

I believe both did their part, AQ did theirs, and your Chickenhawk commander spewed treasonous lies to exploit their actions. They may as well have been a terror team. They both wrought death and destruction to thousands of innocents.

Unlike the paranoids, sane people know they don't have all the answers.



free0352 said...

Like less authority for invading countries that didn't attack us?

Iraq shot at US planes paroling the no fly zone over 4000 times. Shooting at people - to most reasonable people anyway - is considered attacking Dave.

Like less authority for warrantless surveillance?

Absolutely. I think I've mentioned that a time or two. Or a hundred times.

Like less authority for waging a drug war, drug testing, and punishing people for ingesting what they please?

Absolutely. I think I also mentioned this about a hundred times. BTW how are you mentioning the drug war again when you're collecting a drug war pay-check down at the prison? Or did you forget why most of your inmates are there?

Less authority to enforce laws required for public safety?

Absolutely. People don't need your help telling them what safe is. You're saying people are too stupid to do that without big brother's help. That isn't true.

Less authority to enforce laws required for the constitutional regulation of commerce?

Firstly its interstate commerce. Funny how you left that out. Second, depends on the law. Problem is, right now we have far too many of them. But to an authoritarian prison guard like yourself, there's never too many rules.

Less authority to enforce constitutional laws required to promote the general welfare?

There isn't one law that promotes welfare, just laws that create and promote more poverty, joblessness and apathy. If you really cared about welfare, you'd stop the authoritarian ruling of people and just let them be free.

Promoting corporate power over a constitutional republic is anti-American and can only lead to fascism or neo-feudalism.

Blah blah more socialist propaganda. Please come up with an original thought.

Yes, that must explain why they faked the moon landing.

Please provide a plan to reduce carbon emissions to a noticeable level that doesn't involve us going back to the stone age? You can't. As for the space program, seems the private sector has been making all the advances lately while the government can't get the remote control car on mars to work.

Why can't we believe, or question, both

Fine. What's your theory Dave? Who's "behind it all?" Was Osama Bin Laden the mastermind do you think - or was it George Bush? How did "they" (whoever it was) blow up those buildings? You tell me. You want to ask questions? I'm asking you what you think.

You're belief in a conspiracy of evil climate scientists doesn't leave you on higher ground in a conspiracy contest

I only told you I started having my doubts when I learned how much Al Gore made off Inconvenient Truth. Lot of money in global warming. Not just for Al Gore. Lot of grant funding, lot of careers at stake. Lot of money to be lost if it turns out to be the quackery I think it is. You like to ask questions: Who stands to lose if Global Warming is wrong?

your Chickenhawk commander

Least he was in the Air Guard. What service did you served in. What war did you fight in? I fought in Afghanistan and Iraq? Where were you?

Hypocrisy.

sane people know they don't have all the answers.

I don't know about sane - but its true you don't seem to have many answers.


























Dave Dubya said...


OK, here we go again.

Like less authority for invading countries that didn't attack us?
Iraq shot at US planes paroling the no fly zone over 4000 times. Shooting at people - to most reasonable people anyway - is considered attacking Dave.


They killed no one. More Americans died from Israeli hostility against the USS Liberty than from Iraq. Wanting the authority to invade a country that DID NOT KILL any Americans is authoritarian, and fascist as Hell.

Like less authority for waging a drug war, drug testing, and punishing people for ingesting what they please?
Absolutely. I think I also mentioned this about a hundred times. ...drug war pay-check... why most of your inmates are there?


Trying to blame me for the conservative war on drugs? Or is it just typical authoritarian bullying? I saw your saint Reagan launch the massive drug war AFTER I took my job. I’ve told you this and shown you the numbers.

While Your Party denies them the right to vote after serving time, and while Your Party is passing all kinds of laws to force drug tests on poor people. I bet you’re fine with all that.


Less authority to enforce laws required for public safety?
Absolutely. People don't need your help telling them what safe is. You're saying people are too stupid to do that without big brother's help. That isn't true.


News for you. Public safety is not “telling them what safe is”. That’s your authoritarian nature slipping out. How about traffic safety? Are rules of the road and traffic lights suppressing your “freedom”?

It’s providing a legal system, criminal justice, fire, police, environmental, and other reality based needs of civilization. Your authoritarian nature fails to comprehend the entire false justification for your war of aggression. It was for the “safety and security” of Americans. Remember?

You're saying people are too stupid...
No. But I’m thinking you’re pretty stupid for saying “people don't need your help telling them what safe is”, after going to war to make them “safe”. It’s called hypocrisy. Authoritarians exude it all the time as they play their double standards.

Less authority to enforce laws required for the constitutional regulation of commerce?
Firstly its interstate commerce. Funny how you left that out.


Firstly its NOT interstate commerce. Funny how you made that up. “Interstate commerce” does not appear in the Constitution. “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

You are dictating your beliefs as facts again.

Less authority to enforce constitutional laws required to promote the general welfare?
There isn't one law that promotes welfare, just laws that create and promote more poverty, joblessness and apathy


Yeah, Rush. We all heard enough of that deflection of blame away from the so called job creators and other elites who crashed our economy.

Utter nonsense. Really.

Funny how you think a rational and defensible statement like “Promoting corporate power over a constitutional republic is anti-American” is “more socialist propaganda”, while you embrace your ditto-head cult beliefs. This is authoritarianism. You must believe in the words of your authoritarian leaders, the Goddess of Greed and the Oxy-moron.

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

And we have....


the government can't get the remote control car on mars to work.

Are you serious?? Do you have any idea how successful they were in keeping Mars Rovers operating? Surpassed all expectations. What was that you said about science again? LOL!


Why can't we believe, or question, both
Fine. What's your theory Dave? Who's "behind it all?" Was Osama Bin Laden the mastermind do you think - or was it George Bush? How did "they" (whoever it was) blow up those buildings? You tell me. You want to ask questions? I'm asking you what you think.


I don’t believe any “theory”. I’ve told you I don’t have the answers. Bottom line is what I said regarding the loss of life. Bush and OBL may as well have been partners in terror. One thing I do know from life and experience. The “official story” is hardly ever the whole story. We should always ask questions about a lot of things.


You're belief in a conspiracy of evil climate scientists doesn't leave you on higher ground in a conspiracy contest
Lot of money in global warming. Not just for Al Gore. Lot of grant funding, lot of careers at stake. Lot of money to be lost if it turns out to be the quackery I think it is.


Yeah, Rush. We’ve heard that too.

Lot of money in global warming.

Nowhere near as much as in climate change denying. Follow that money and see. Wonder how we ignore that fact? Remember all that money spent to deny a link between smoking and cancer? Corporate “values”.

Who stands to lose if Global Warming is wrong? That’s a narrow “if” you have there. I’ll tell you who stands to lose if the special interests who deny climate change are wrong. All of us. But on your farm, some animals are more equal than others.

your Chickenhawk commander

Least he was in the Air Guard. What service did you served in. What war did you fight in? I fought in Afghanistan and Iraq? Where were you?


Like Bush, I sure as hell had sense to NOT follow my brother to Vietnam. The difference was HE supported the war. Hench "Chickenhawk", like Dick. But yes, I risked my neck longer and saw more violence than that asshole coward and liar who brought so much death and destruction.

Well, the Chickenhawk did bravely survive a tossed shoe. Your hero deserves a medal after all.


sane people know they don't have all the answers.
I don't know about sane


And perhaps there’s your problem.

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

I don’t believe any “theory”. I’ve told you I don’t have the answers

Really? No clue eh? You have no opinion? You have no idea if it was Osama Bin Laden or George Bush or Dick Cheney behind the 9-11 attacks? Really, no clue what so ever? Who do you think conceived and planned the operation? We at least saw the whole thing live on TV, tell me what you saw?

Bottom line is what I said regarding the loss of life.

Simple question requiring a short answer. Who is ultimately responsible for the deaths on September 11th, 2001 in your mind?

I don't think its a coincidence you can't answer that.

Yeah, Rush. We’ve heard that too.

And there you go again. Its too hard to admit there is a billion dollar industry surrounding global warming. You can't and remain consistent in your own mind let alone this argument, so to avoid having to acknowledge that you compare me to Rush Limbaugh who I have nothing in common with instead of having to address a well known fact - which happens to contradict your faith belief. And you still can't tell me how we'll cut out the paltry 1% of carbon the human race produces without going back to a pre industrial society anyway.

Doublethink.

Nowhere near as much as in climate change denying.

Really? Oil companies I suppose you mean? Then why does every major US oil company embrace the theory? Perhaps to add ethanol to their gas (at tax payer expense) and raise prices? There is a lot of money in global warming Dave - money for oil companies too. But having a conversation about that is too tough - just stick to calling me Rush Limbaugh to avoid questioning your own thought bubble THAT YOU NEVER LEAVE except for when you talk to me.

You are entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts. Gore made nearly a billion dollars off it and was set to make more of his carbon exchange boondoggle. And that was just Al Gore. Who by the way, didn't have the sense to avoid Vietnam.

I sure as hell had sense to NOT follow my brother to Vietnam

How about before you denigrate someone else service to their country you first serve yourself. What did you expect the President to do, climb back into his fighter plane and lead the attack on Baghdad? That is a ridiculous notion. He was too old anyway... not to mention they don't let the leader of the free world into combat.

But its easy for you - having never done the job yourself - to bash people who served in the National Guard as chicken hawks if they didn't adopt total pacifism following the Vietnam war. Unreasonable standard you are setting and more over... Hypocrisy. Something along with doublethink you are a master at. And more over - you had "better sense" to follow your brother into Vietnam? Are all the other Vietnam veterans stupid now too? Are you smarter than the totality of Vietnam veterans because you were too much of a coward to do your duty as a man and a citizen?

Hypocritical, doublethinking coward who can't even form an opinion on the most watched even of the 21st century. With a record like that, I don't think you have much ground to criticize anyone except the felons you turn keys on.

Jefferson's Guardian said...

Free0352: "...wanting fewer laws and police clearly means I'm all for a police state."

I certainly interpreted your previous reply to my question, "What's your point?", to mean that. Here, I'll copy and paste it for you (again):

"My point is you need guns and police to 'bring us together'."

Would you like to clarify exactly what you did mean (in order to avoid any further misunderstanding)? Otherwise, my statement still stands.


"I like science and art fine - I happen to think the government ruins both."

As Dave already alluded, how many times has private industry put a man on the moon? How many space vehicles, funded and commissioned by private industry, have explored the outer reaches of the solar system? And the Internet isn't too shabby either, nor are all those satellites put into orbit by, oh my god!...government missiles and technology!


"You have no proof the earth is warming nor a plan to reduce carbon in the atmosphere anyway. Humans are 1% of carbon emissions."

Your first statement is ludicrous! It has been proven.

Maybe human farts only generate 1%, but human activities of extraction, refinement, and use of hydrocarbons, as just one example, produce plenty! To deny this means there is no point in continuing this discussion.


"I am a military trained demolitions expert."

Clearly, your expertise leave much to be desired.


"You are neither a scientist nor a demolitions expert. Free has no idea about demolitions and I do."

In actuality, you have no idea whether I'm a scientist, a demolition expert, a police officer, a college professor, or a member of the judiciary. I've never revealed this, so automatically your statement cannot be claimed as fact.

Once again, your expertise in high-rise demolition is suspect. I'd certainly never hire you. You're clueless when it comes to the basics of physics.


"I was judging by what we all saw on television."

I saw two buildings hit by aircraft. I saw three buildings collapse in total free-fall. I never saw a commercial airliner hit the Pentagon.

I also saw Siegfried & Roy make tigers disappear right in front of my eyes! There was a whole audience that saw this! It was incredible!


"Lets hear your theory for a change."

I really don't have a specific theory, but I do know this: The official explanation was a whitewash, and would have been impossible to occur as it claims.

Don't forget the white paper that I provided. Science reveals that there was seismic activity recorded just prior to each tower coming down. Gee, I don't know, maybe it was just an earthquake. ;-)


"BTW, how many readers here have the guts to admit they are either A: A twoofer like Jeff here, or B: The other 99.9% of sane people."

That's good! I know I'm frustrating you when you have to resort to "appealing-to-the-mob" in order to force a disclaimer. Sorry, like I mentioned earlier, the truth isn't bound by public opinion.

Gee, I've never been diagnosed as insane. I guess I'm within the 99.9% that you claimed.

Dave Dubya said...

you compare me to Rush Limbaugh who I have nothing in common with instead of having to address a well known fact - which happens to contradict your faith belief.

This is so funny.

every major US oil company embrace the theory?


So it's a bubble of "faith belief", supported by scientific consensus, "embraced" by oil companies, even the Pentagon, but is overruled by your belief in a conspiracy of climate scientists.

Yes, Rush, why shouldn't we believe you? LOL!

You say the same thing as Rush. Really. Just like all the other authoritarian personalities he appeals to.

You both presume to understand climate science better than climate scientists. You regard the scientific consensus as "faith" while you cling to the bubble cult beliefs.

What did you expect the President to do, climb back into his fighter plane and lead the attack on Baghdad? That is a ridiculous notion.

Ridiculous indeed. Why do you suggest it? I was referring to the war in Vietnam that your Chickenhawk supported but weaseled his way out of. Same with your other hero Cheney. Why should I have gone to a war of choice that I opposed and knew was a waste of lives? At least I stood up and spoke out for my principles.

Your problem is you magically believe the government is wrong about everything except militarism, when it becomes almost immaculately perfect in judgment and wisdom.

Bubble again.

And how about some more of that authoritarian false accusation?

Hypocritical, doublethinking coward who can't even form an opinion on the most watched even of the 21st century.

You must be so blinded by hate and rage that you can't even read what I said about it.

Shoot first, ask questions later. Brilliant. That authoritarian tactic works out swell every time.

okjimm said...

///But to an authoritarian prison guard like yourself, there's never too many rules.///

oh, shit&Bisquits! let's have 'less' rules for prisoners....oh gees, break me up.

//Hypocritical, doublethinking coward who can't even form an opinion on the most watched even of the 21st century.//

ah, that would be? which super bowl are you refering to?

Free is, ah, flakier that a carton of corn flakes.
Gimmee a break, Al Gore is...what? not telling the truth because he made a lot of money writing a best seller? hmmmm...I guess the same would be true of Rush Limbaugh then? oh oh oh, but the later writes (employs ghost writers) fiction.

I gotta go....there is a war on Chirstmas going on...I'm off for my 20th deployment...gotzta throw snowballs at some carolers,see.

Dave Dubya said...

okjimm,
He's unintentionally hilarious.

And have a Merry...er..Happy Holidays! Don't forget to wear your special commie "red" and environmental wacko "green".

Hee, hee. They'll never crack our secret underground holiday color code.

free0352 said...

My point is you need guns and police to 'bring us together

My point Jeff, is that no one would pay the taxes you demand they pay - if not for an IRS agent with a gun and a jail to back up liberal demands. Make taxes voluntary, and you'd see a sizable drop off. You need cops to do your dirty work.

how many times has private industry put a man on the moon?

How many times has government mass produced any of the things you can see in your room right now? That is science too. Going to the moon is nice - government still can't solve even basic economic questions which the private sector solves easily. You can point to one victory - and try slight of hand to ignore that business delivers more scientific breakthroughs that benefit regular people in a week that government has done in 100 years.

but human activities of extraction, refinement, and use of hydrocarbons, as just one example, produce plenty!

What is "plenty?" What percentage of total carbon in the atmosphere is human generated? Its less than 1% even by the IPCC's own estimates. To make any difference - we'd have to go back to 1800's level of technology - pre-industrial revolution. That is anti technology and antiscience. You're advocating a Luddite theory.

your expertise leave much to be desired

Why? Because I don't agree with the theory you hold - what with your zero experience? Again, your doublethink is astonishing.

You're clueless when it comes to the basics of physics.

And what is your professional background in physics?

I really don't have a specific theory

Really? So like Dave you have no idea? That is not surprising.

The official explanation was a whitewash, and would have been impossible to occur as it claims.

So just so we are all on the record, Jeff (who has no scientific or military skills) doesn't know much... but he does know that thousands of pounds of jet fuel burning could never weaken the steel structure of a building. He also mentions a white wash. White wash from what? What "was really going on" that we all missed.

Who is ultimately responsible for the loss of life on 9-11 in your mind Jeff?

Don't forget the white paper that I provided.

You provided a theory written by someone. I could provide same that said 9-11 was caused by unicorns. Of course we can't consider official data - it was all a white wash you know... very convenient to your conspiracy theory.

I'm frustrating you when you have to resort to "appealing-to-the-mob"

Before you can make any sense, you have to propose a theory backed up with data and facts. You yourself admit you have no theory. I'm not appealing to the mob, I'm acknowledging conventional wisdom... and agreeing with it.

Gee, I've never been diagnosed as insane

Maybe you should see a shrink...



























Dave Dubya said...

Before you can make any sense, you have to propose a theory backed up with data and facts.

Unless you're Free or Rush overruling the overwhelming scientific consensus.

free0352 said...

but is overruled by your belief in a conspiracy of climate scientists.

If you want to have a conversation on global warming - that's fine. But you don't want to do that. Instead of talking about it - you insult anyone who doesn't agree with you because you lack the knowledge to even have that conversation. I provided you with links that showed record cold temperatures from the Arctic to the Pyramids - record calm hurricane season - among others. Your response was to infer I'm a "flat earther" buying into a conspiracy theory. That's not a debate - that's you calling names when you have nothing left to fall back on.

And lets assume the earth is warming. What do you want to do about it? Even if we had adopted the Kyoto Treaty, that would have reduced human carbon emissions by less than .01%. What steps do you want to take to reduce it further? Ban the internal combustion engine? That would be required to even start to make a difference. But of course you wouldn't say that and likely don't want it - so your whole point is moot. Even if I'm wrong and global warming is happening - you aren't willing (unless you're a luddite) to do anything that would be effective about it anyway.

You say the same thing as Rush

And again, calling me someone I have nothing in common with and don't even like because its easier than answering questions.

You both presume to understand climate science better than climate scientists.

I simply presume to note that their predictions have not come true. That is all. I've also noted that they make good money of the predictions. If we can presume oil companies are corrupt because they have a vested interest in the debate - why not those on the other side who also have a financial incentive to be right? How did I choose which one to believe? They climate change advocates don't have accurate predictions. 10 years ago we were supposed to see a 3 degree change in temperature. We have. It got colder. The opposite of what climate change advocates said would happen.

But since I'm not a scientist so I don't get to have an opinion according to you - isn't Al Gore a politician? Why does he get an opinion and I don't?

I was referring to the war in Vietnam that your Chickenhawk supported but weaseled his way out of

You mean the one you also weaseled your way out of?

More hypocrisy.

At least I stood up and spoke out for my principles.

That doesn't mean anything in a free country like this one. There were zero consequences for your speaking. There were potential consequences for serving in the Air Guard. Your insult to Guardsman of that era is frankly despicable by the way. The National Guard serves an important function.

Your problem is you magically believe the government is wrong about everything except militarism,

Incorrect as usual. On your very blog I argued strongly to oppose action in Syria. This fact alone disproves your above statement. You're really talking out of your ass now to avoid having to answer any questions - which you obviously feel very uncomfortable doing.

You must be so blinded by hate and rage that you can't even read what I said about it

You didn't say anything. I asked a series of questions you didn't attempt to answer, and have been dodging this question since I began posting here.

Who do you think is responsible for the loss of life on 9-11 Dave?




















Dave Dubya said...

Time to add up the authoritarian false accusations: (From a single post, yet.)

1. “you calling names when you have nothing left to fall back on.”

What did I call you, other than authoritarian? “Nothing to fall back on” means scientific consensus right, Rush? OK I called you Rush because your beliefs are the same as what he tells all his authoritarian Dittoheads. Let me clarify. You are a Dittohead. Compare that accurate descriptor to what you’ve called us.

2. “You mean the one you also weaseled your way out of? More hypocrisy. “

Do you even know what hypocrisy means? It is Bush and Cheney being pro-Vietnam war while avoiding it. AKA Chickenhawks.

THEY weaseled out. I fulfilled my obligation to register for the draft. Tell us how that is weaseling. Care to explain how not volunteering for a war I opposed is “hypocrisy” but your Chickenhawks were the patriotic war heroes? Yet you still seem to revere your authoritarian leaders.

You are either incredibly dense, or you ignore words and their meanings out of spite and anger.

3. “our insult to Guardsman of that era”

Yes, one Guardsman. Many were opposed to the war but chose to serve in the Guard. I respect that. Dick had “other priorities”. Your pro-war “Decider” chose to drink, snort coke, refuse a physical and be grounded, INSTEAD of volunteering for a war he liked. Those cowards deserve more than insults. Your comrades died for their lies about connections to al-Qaeda, “nukular” tubes and biological labs. They are war criminals and are responsible for more deaths than 9-11. Then the economy crashed on their watch. How does that deserve respect?

4. “You're really talking out of your ass now to avoid having to answer any questions”

If you cared to read, I answered your questions. Can’t fix willful blindness.

5. “dodging this question”

6. “You didn't say anything.”

See false accusation #4.

Bonus falsehood:

“There were zero consequences for your speaking”

Like jail for resisting the draft?

Like at Kent State, where “guardsman of that era” shot down and killed unarmed Americans?

free0352 said...

What did I call you, other than authoritarian?

Immediately after this, you again equate me with Rush Limbaugh. A person I seldom agree with.

Let me clarify. You are a Dittohead

No I'm not, for starters because I have never been a listener to his radio program. Second, I strongly disagree with Limbaugh and conservatives in general on tent peg conservative issues such as drug legalization, atheism, foreign policy, the list is very LONG. Too long to name it all. But calling names is much easier than addressing facts.

Do you even know what hypocrisy means?

Yes. "GWB 'weaseled' his way out of Vietnam. I did not serve in Vietnam - but that is okay because I had 'sense.'"

Hypocrisy.

I fulfilled my obligation to register for the draft.

Ah! So you had "sense" to be lucky enough to not have your draft number called. That isn't sense Dave - thats luck. But its ironic you can be such a critic of GWB for not serving in Vietnam... when you were very happy you didn't have to either.

Hypocrisy.

I answered your questions.

No you didn't.

Who in your mind do you think was responsible for the nearly 3000 deaths on 9-11? You have never answered this question and I'm not going to stop asking it.

Like jail for resisting the draft?

You JUST told me your draft number wasn't called.

Like at Kent State, where “guardsman of that era” shot down and killed unarmed Americans?

So ALL National Guardsman were responsible for Kent State now? And the students at Kent State who were throwing rocks, molitov cocktails and various debris at the National Guard have NO hand in how the situation there played out? One could say the National Guard over reacted - but you couldn't say that the students were 100% peaceful either. But you indict the one and excuse the other - in fact you do more than that. You collectively deride all members of the Guard, not just the ones present at Kent State.

That isn't hypocrisy... its just despicable.















Dave Dubya said...

But its ironic you can be such a critic of GWB for not serving in Vietnam... when you were very happy you didn't have to either.

Hypocrisy.


Now you've shown you have no clue what irony is, as well as hypocrisy.

No wonder there's no reasoning with you. You have your own meanings for words. The far Right is famous for that.

free0352 said...

Now you can quibble about word definitions while you still can't answer a simple question.

Jefferson's Guardian said...

Free0352: "My point Jeff, is that no one would pay the taxes you demand they pay - if not for an IRS agent with a gun and a jail to back up liberal demands. Make taxes voluntary, and you'd see a sizable drop off. You need cops to do your dirty work."

Death and taxes. Quit being a crybaby and accept it.


"How many times has government mass produced any of the things you can see in your room right now?"

I never had a disagreement about mass production. I believe we were discussing government's role in science. Remember?


"Going to the moon is nice - government still can't solve even basic economic questions which the private sector solves easily."

You mean like the private sector solved the economic meltdown of 2008?


"You can point to one victory - and try slight of hand to ignore that business delivers more scientific breakthroughs that benefit regular people in a week that government has done in 100 years.'

No, I'm sorry, but you're the master of sleight-of-hand. Your ability to mentally masturbate is incredible. (We know one thing you're not an expert in -- spelling).

Most scientific breakthroughs that find their way into marketable or commercial products were discovered within government funded or granted facilities or programs.


"What is 'plenty?'"

"Plenty" is more than your underestimation.


"Really? So like Dave you have no idea?"

I believe I said I had no specific theory. There's no way I can tell you exactly who was responsible. All I can tell you is who was not.

Until a proper investigation is initiated, by authorities within the state of New York and the Commonwealth of Virginia, there's no way of knowing for sure. But that's a start. The rule of law needs to be applied, and it wasn't with the 9/11 Commission's whitewash job.


"...but he does know that thousands of pounds of jet fuel burning could never weaken the steel structure of a building."

It certainly couldn't burn hot enough to weaken all key structural points within a steel structure building, and make them fail simultaneously so that the building collapses in free-fall. Especially, in a building hundreds of feet away.

Yes, that is correct.


"You provided a theory written by someone."

Obviously, you didn't read it. It's scientific evidence of seismic activity immediately preceding the collapse of each building.

Oh, but that's right, you said government "ruins" science.


"Before you can make any sense, you have to propose a theory backed up with data and facts."

No, actually, that's the job of a prosecutor. But, we'll obviously never see this case make it to the inside of a courtroom (nor, as an aside, all the "combatants" in Guantanamo). But I can point out the flaws in the official story, simply because there are so many.

okjimm said...

/Al Gore a politician? Why does he get an opinion and I don't?
/

hehehe...sure, Free, you can have an opinion....and if youse gotz three bucks, you can have a beer at the bar, too. But my guess is that you would drink alone and be asked to keep you opinions to yourself.

you have NO clue about Vietnam...or Kent, or the Draft... I do know how to do the math..you were not present or involved in anything that happened then. And don't go anecdotal...doesn't work.

Dave Dubya said...

"Anecdotal." Oh, oh. Another word for Free to reinterpret.


I think, for him, it means, "If Al Gore made money, then climate change is a conspiracy and hoax".

Dave Dubya said...


There’s an interesting study that supports our assessment of the science deniers.

Climate change denial, laissez-faire economics and conspiracy theories: A productive pairing?

The results indicated, perhaps not surprisingly, that there is an inverse correlation between espousal of free markets and belief in the scientific consensus on climate change. This free market-dominated rejection of scientific evidence is consistent with denial of important environmental and public health concerns in the past, most notably the link between cigarette smoking and lung cancer and the effects of acid rain on the environment. Once free-market ideologues make up their mind that complete government withdrawal from markets is the only way to ensure prosperity, then it’s not surprising to find them inclined to disbelieve even rigorous scientific evidence that would somehow point to more increased government regulation as a solution. This is of course independent of actual government regulation; all that matters is a belief in future government action.

Oh, dear, can this study be just another part of the COECS, (Conspiracy Of Evil Climate Scientists)?

Or is it true what we say about the radical Right? Beliefs trump facts.

free0352 said...

Quit being a crybaby and accept it.

ACCEPT THE MAN WITH A GUN.

No thanks. Now who is authoritarian? I never suggested we get rid of taxes, simply make them more voluntary. Liberals can't even imagine this.

I believe we were discussing government's role in science. Remember?

Did private sector scientists not invent everything you see in the room you are sitting in now?

Most scientific breakthroughs that find their way into marketable or commercial products were discovered within government funded or granted facilities or programs.

Totally false. The overwhelming majority of new products are the result of the private sector. Hardly anything you are looking at in the room in which you now sit was a government invention.

hat is 'plenty?'"

"Plenty" is more than your underestimation.


Total man made CO2 is less than 4%. A tiny fraction compared to natural C02. In order to reduce it even 1%, the United States would need to ban the internal combustion engine. Nobody is wiling to do that, so the whole "climate change" argument is moot. Never mind how ridiculous the idea that a 4% increase would destroy the planet is in the first place.

All I can tell you is who was not.

Who was not? And how many investigations do you really need? Its funny that when I ask specific questions, your conspiracy theory breaks down and YOU even admit you aren't sure about what you think.

Obviously, you didn't read it

Yes I did, and its utter bullshit. Just because its a "white paper" doesn't mean ANYTHING. Nomb Chomskey -not exactly a right wing zealot - wrote a paper that using Twoofer logic unicorns caused 9-22. You can dress any nonsense up, but its still nonsense. You will grasp onto any pseudo scientific garbage you can because to admit the REAL Truth - That 11 suicide bombers working for A'Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden hijacked aircraft and crashed them into American buildings your whole house of anti-war cards comes crashing down.

Yes, that is correct

Sure it could. And it did. The WTC wasn't the first building to fall down due to fire and it won't be the last. But again, that common knowledge doesn't jibe with this conspiracy tent peg of yours - so no amount of reason or SCIENCE will sway you. This is a prime example of how you are anti-science. Something even the uber left like nomb chomskey will tell you.














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

They found that climate change denialists also seem to display two other characteristics; a belief in laissez-faire capitalism and more troublingly, a tendency to espouse conspiracy theories

Like what, 9-11 was an inside job?

Who do you think was ultimately responsible for the deaths on 9-11 Dave?

Okay, as for this. I don't think its a "secret" theory. Right out in the open billions of taxpayer and private sector dollars goes to fund private companies, and research groups. Al Gore is just one example or a slew of guys who get rich off this - and then you have the mother load - the carbon exchange. A new "greed" wallstreet. So this isn't something that is going on in some magical back room. President Obama made "green collar" jobs a corner stone of his policy. If it turns out they were wrong, that's all gone. Billions lost, reputations damaged or destroyed. And the prediction models they give us are always wrong.

So yeah, I'm skeptical. You're not... unless its about 9-11 ;-)

Dave Dubya said...

So yeah, I'm skeptical. You're not... unless its about 9-11 ;-)

Terrorists hijacked and flew planes into the WTC. I'm skeptical of everything the Bush Administration said after that.

Got Nukular aluminum tubes? Saddam's ties to al-Qaeda? Iraq training AQ in poisonous gasses? "Biological labs"?

Now there's a conspiracy of treason.

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

Terrorists hijacked and flew planes into the WTC

What about the Pentagon? Do you believe that 100% of the deaths on 9-11 were caused by these planes hijacked by terrorists? If not, who then caused them?

I'm very interested to know what you think.

Dave Dubya said...

the fact remains Iraq fired on US troops 4000 times

Show us where you got that "fact"..

How many US Troops were killed? Wounded?

"Nobody killed" is not a reason for a war of aggression. Neither are lies good reasons. As I said, Israel killed more Americans on the USS Liberty than Iraq ever did before Bush's War based on Lies.

Here's the simple equation:

Nobody died + Bush lied = Thousands of dead Americans and unknown thousands of dead Iraqis. Bush was the greater partner in terror, over al-Qaeda, when measured by the body count.

What hit the Pentagon? I didn't see what did it. And a secretive Bush Administration and military won't show any evidence. THEY told us it was a plane. But THEY wouldn't show any evidence.

Maybe it was a plane, or some other missile. I'm in no position to say. That is the only truth I can tell you about that. Faith in a militarist government's truthfulness is all we have, right? I cannot swear on their word alone.

Their openness and honesty was nowhere to be found after 9-11.






Dave Dubya said...

"Bush was the greater partner in terror, over al-Qaeda, when measured by the body count."

I know, I know. "Al-Qaeda in Iraq" killed a lot of people too. Bush was key to their coming into existence, and his war of aggression became their cause.

Like I say, Bush may as well have been a partner with AQ as far as death and destruction go.

Jefferson's Guardian said...

Free0352: "I never suggested we get rid of taxes, simply make them more voluntary.

Death and taxes -- two realities of the natural world you can't escape.

"More voluntary"! That's a laugh!


"Did private sector scientists not invent everything you see in the room you are sitting in now?"

Not everything. The most technologically advanced came from spin-offs from government programs, grants, etc. It's an undeniable fact that the U.S. space program, as an example, advanced technology way beyond what it would have been without it.


"Totally false. The overwhelming majority of new products are the result of the private sector."

Please see my reply to previous question.


"Who was not?"

The nineteen "terrorists".


"And how many investigations do you really need?"

Only one...which we haven't had yet.


"Its funny that when I ask specific questions, your conspiracy theory breaks down and YOU even admit you aren't sure about what you think."

Did I "admit" that I wasn't sure about what I thought? Please point this out to me, using my exact words. (Your reading comprehension skills leave a lot to be desired.)

I think I've been very open in my opinion that it was an inside job. There's no way it couldn't have been. That's why I'm calling for a criminal investigation -- which to this point we haven't had.


"Just because its a "white paper" doesn't mean ANYTHING."

Actually, it means everything. It means those buildings came down due to demolition. What does this mean? It means it was an inside job. It's very simple.


"Nomb Chomskey -not exactly a right wing zealot - wrote a paper that using Twoofer logic unicorns caused 9-22."

Unicorns may have caused 9/22, but 9/11 was most definitely an inside job.

By the way, Noam Chomsky is totally entitled to his opinion. It doesn't mean he's always right. ;-)


"You can dress any nonsense up, but its still nonsense."

So, you do agree with me that the 9/11 Commission was a whitewash! Great! Now we're getting somewhere!


"The WTC wasn't the first building to fall down due to fire and it won't be the last."

They actually were the first steel-frame buildings, ever, to totally free-fall due to an internal fire. They were the first, and it's never happened since.

Well, except for WTC-7, which pancaked upon itself, in total free-fall, about seven hours later.

free0352 said...

Dave,

No one knows for sure exactly how many times Iraqis fired at US planes patrolling the no-fly zone. Notice I said "over" 4000 seperate instances. In reality, it was more than that. Toward the end of northern watch planes would be engaged multiple times on the same mission. This went on for years, starting almost immediately after the Gulf War when the US took up protecting Iraq's northern Kurds and the Marsh Arabs in the south from Iraqi air attack. In December 1992 an American F-16 was shot down. The final tally for Operations Northern Watch, Southern Watch, and Provide Comfort worked out to well over 4000 seperate instances of attack. After 1998's Operation Desert Fox - which was launched in part in retaliation for the attacks on US aircraft - Iraq publicly stated they would attack EVERY US aircraft that came into Iraqi airspace. And they did, dramatically increasing an already ever accelerating pattern of resistance to US patrols of the Iraqi no-fly zones. Total tally of US craft shot down were 2 F-16s - one in 1992 and another in 1998, and a Navy FA/18 shot down again in 1998. Luckily no US pilots were killed, though 3 aircraft were lost and NUMEROUS planes were damaged by AA fire.

But I'm sure none of that will change your world view. You make that clear, when you ACTUALLY ASK how many pilots were killed. My question is TO YOUR MIND HOW MANY AMERICANS HAVE TO DIE BEFORE THEY CAN SHOOT BACK EFFECTIVELY?

Judging by your thoughts on Sep-11th, 3000 innocent civilians isn't enough - so why would you care about combat pilots...

BTW, shooting back isn't aggression - its defense. Repeated attempts to destroy Iraq's AA capability had met with a decade of failure. AA guns are cheap, and while not very effective Iraq's Army had to get lucky a few times - like the Serbians did when they shot down one of our stealth aircraft.

Nobody died

Exactly how many people have to die to your mind - before they can fight back effectively? Would you like to volunteer to tell the wives of the men who died - that nothing meaningful would be done about those that killed them? Perhaps you would have volunteered to tell the pilots risking their lives that they'd just have to endure being shot at forever - because to fight back on the ground would be too aggressive for your taste.

Bush was the greater partner in terror, over al-Qaeda, when measured by the body count.

Really? So since the US lost far, far, far more men fighting in WWII after Pearl Harbor was Roosevelt in error for fighting a war that had a higher body count than the initial attack?

What hit the Pentagon?

What do you think hit the Pentagon on Sep-11? We already know I accept the main stream account of what occurred that day. I'm asking you what you think.











free0352 said...

More voluntary"! That's a laugh!

Only an authoritarian person would laugh at a more voluntary system. Of course, you love the system run by IRS agents with guns using force. Aside from drug law, I've never heard you once complain.

Did I "admit" that I wasn't sure about what I thought? Please point this out to me, using my exact words.

You said you didn't have all the answers. But by all means, tell us what you think really happened on Sep 11th?

There's no way it couldn't have been.

Why?

They actually were the first steel-frame buildings, ever, to totally free-fall due to an internal fire.

There is a first for everything.

As for who disagrees with you, it certainly isn't Nomb Chompskey alone.









Dave Dubya said...

shooting back isn't aggression - its defense

That is exactly how Iraqis saw it. When did they attack the US? They didn’t.

We shot them first, remember? They were aggressors against Kuwait, and we slaughtered Iraqis by the thousands. Then we assumed the power to fly patrols over their country. That would be perceived as military aggression were it to happen to anyone else.

Judging by your thoughts on Sep-11th, 3000 innocent civilians isn't

What the hell does WWII have to do with invading Iraq? And Iraq also had nothing to do with 9-11. Stop conflating Iraq with 9-11. It is dishonest and it makes you sound like Cheney.

Would you like to volunteer to tell the wives of the men who died - that nothing meaningful would be done about those that killed them?

Well too bad about that. Bush and Cheney are still walking free.

free0352 said...

That is exactly how Iraqis saw it. When did they attack the US? They didn’t.

They attacked a neighbor and our ally. 12 years later after over a decade of failure to comply with a binding agreement their government signed, we invaded them. People are responsible for what their government does - even if their government is totalitarian. Except the Kurds - they tried to resist and bear no responsibility. Even still, many Iraqis (especially Kurds) welcomed the US and all Iraqis will be better off LONG TERM for it. Just like the Japanese, Koreans and Germans were. Imagine if you'd have polled Germans or Japanese in December of 1945?

And Iraq also had nothing to do with 9-11. Stop conflating Iraq with 9-11.

It had nothing to do with 9-11. You brought up Iraq with your typical bullshit about alluminium tubes that you always fall back on when you've got nothing better. I answered your questions.

Afghanistan however, had a lot to do with 9-11. And we had every right to invade them in response to their government's support and protection of a fanatical cult that killed nearly 3000 American citizens. While I have some sympathy for the Iraqi people, I harbor almost none for the denizens of southern Afghanistan who supported the Taliban and still support it to this day.

Well too bad about that. Bush and Cheney are still walking free.

Yeah I didn't think you'd have the balls. Again you won't answer simple questions.

Who was responsible for 100% of the American deaths on 9-11? To include the Pentagon. And now, another one.

How many American Soldiers have to die before to your mind it is acceptable to fight back effectively?

I don't expect answers, but your audience can watch you fail to answer.





free0352 said...

And to be honest Dave. I think you are a 9-11 Truther just like Jeff is - you just have the good sense not to advertise it because you know people look at Truthers the same way they look at Birthers or the Black Helicopter militia people.

Kooks.

And you'r rather not have the audience so to speak know about your kookiness.

Dave Dubya said...

As long as you're not reading anything I write anyway...

Here's that simple equation again:

Nobody died + Bush lied = Thousands of dead Americans and unknown thousands of dead Iraqis.

free0352 said...

I did read what you wrote. I know how to question people Dave.

Who. Do. You. Think. Was. Responsible. For. The Deaths. On. 9-11? Especially. The. Pentagon?

How. Many. Soldiers. Need. Die. In. Your. Opinion. Before. They. Are. Justified. In. Fighting. Back. Effectively?


Those are two very simple questions. One relates to his interpretation of given and very public facts, and the other is his own opinion.

Dave Dubya said...

OK, you can read, but comprehending is another matter.

Here is where you conflated Iraq with 9-11:

Judging by your thoughts on Sep-11th, 3000 innocent civilians isn't enough - so why would you care about combat pilots..

Poor ”judging” on your part to say the least.

What I clearly wrote, again, for the remedial students:

Who. Do. You. Think. Was. Responsible. For. The Deaths. On. 9-11? Especially. The. Pentagon?

“Terrorists hijacked and flew planes into the WTC. “

“What hit the Pentagon? I didn't see what did it. And a secretive Bush Administration and military won't show any evidence. THEY told us it was a plane. But THEY wouldn't show any evidence.

Maybe it was a plane, or some other missile. I'm in no position to say. That is the only truth I can tell you about that. Faith in a militarist government's truthfulness is all we have, right? I cannot swear on their word alone.

Their openness and honesty was nowhere to be found after 9-11.”

And:

How. Many. Soldiers. Need. Die. In. Your. Opinion. Before. They. Are. Justified. In. Fighting. Back. Effectively?

Self defense while under fire is allowed. However...One more time...

"Nobody killed" is not a reason for a war of aggression. Neither are lies good reasons. As I said, Israel killed more Americans on the USS Liberty than Iraq ever did before Bush's War based on Lies.

---

See? I told you I already answered your questions. Or do only answers you’ve already pre-determined count?

Yes, you know how to question people. What you can’t seem to do is process answers.

YOU are the conspiracy theorist, clinging to a paranoid cult-like belief in a Conspiracy Of Evil Climate Scientists. YOU are the one rejecting ‘public facts” and scientific peer review. YOU are the one spewing the same crap as Limbaugh. YOU are the one demanding unquestioning belief in the Bush government propaganda.

free0352 said...

Maybe it was a plane, or some other missile. I'm in no position to say.

Really? So are you really suggesting that on the day the Al'Qaeda decides to fly 747s into the twin towers "someone" just happened to shoot a missile into the Pentagon?

YOU are the one demanding unquestioning belief in the Bush government propaganda.

Its not propaganda and it is hardly lonely GWB saying it. Barack Obama is saying it. The Clinton are saying it. Bill Maher is saying it. Hell, even leftists like Nomb Chomskey is saying it. That's because its the REAL truth.

Just admit you're a Truther Dave. Jeff can at least be honest about his kookery.

YOU are the conspiracy theorist, clinging to a paranoid cult-like belief in a Conspiracy Of Evil Climate Scientists.

If that's what you want to call being skeptical of a theory, I guess I am. I might be wrong about global warming. Of course, even if I am... the entire human race would have to go back to energy use on par with the 1800s to make a significant difference to carbon levels anyway - so the whole argument is moot. And that is using THEIR numbers.

"Nobody killed" is not a reason for a war of aggression.

You've said that. Now, for the 200th time - how many have to be killed before war in justified in your book?







Dave Dubya said...

are you really suggesting....

No, I’m not suggesting anything, am I? I did state no evidence was shown. No matter. Saudi hijackers flying into the Pentagon didn’t justify telling lies and invading Iraq.

Its not propaganda

Depends on what “it” is. If it’s false and deliberate, then it is propaganda. You know the lies I mentioned.... Shall I repeat those for you, too? If it’s withholding evidence, then it’s secrecy. Secrecy should be viewed with more skepticism than scientific consensus.

You trust and believe Cheney, like all other authoritarians.

how many have to be killed

More than zero for sure. Circumstances matter. Now forget the hypothetical and consider. How many Americans can Israel intentionally kill? It gets relative real fast, doesn't it?

free0352 said...

I did state no evidence was shown.

Obviously by questioning the mainstream view, you're suggesting it isn't true. I'm very interested to know if you don't believe the widely accepted view - what your alternative is? If you have no alternative, why do you disregard the widely held, main stream version of events?

In short - if it wasn't Al'Qaeda - then who?

Saudi hijackers flying into the Pentagon didn’t justify telling lies and invading Iraq.

Saudi born. They had moved to Afghanistan and clearly adopted it as a home land. So that fact and the fact that Afghanistan's Taliban government nurtured and protected the organization that those folks belonged to, justified our war there and our continuing fight with the Taliban.

As for Iraq, I'm lost as how you can infer that Iraq had anything to do with 9-11. It didn't. In any way. We waged war on Iraq on its own merits, and if you or anyone else was confused about the reasons for war with Iraq that is your fault. The authorization of Congress for war in Iraq was published, and didn't mention once that Iraq was responsible for the 9-11 attacks.

You trust and believe Cheney, like all other authoritarians.

Dick never claimed Iraq perpetrated 9-11.

More than zero for sure

Really? I'm sure glad we don't apply this logic to your prison. We don't put a figure on the number of guards that have to be murdered by inmates before you search them and take the shanks away now do we? Would you like the policy you are suggesting be applied to Soldiers be applied to you as well up at the jail?

I doubt it.

Hypocrisy. Again.

How many Americans can Israel intentionally kill?

I'd say zero. However the incident you described happened once - a long time ago - and was an incident of mistaken identity. Our country's own military and congressional investigations found this fact, and later the NSA released its tapes of internal Israeli military aghast and this incident. One accidental incident is hardly relative to a ten year pattern of firing on US aircraft over 4000 times. But rest assured - if Israel begins deliberately firing on US personnel anywhere for any reason - especially for over 4000 times for ten years - I'll be DEMANDING Congress declare war on them.

But its funny how you'd take a non-analogous single incident and try to twist and spin it to avoid answering some very simple questions.

Once again Dave - now that we've figured out that you can't even imagine how many US Soldiers need die before fighting back effectively would be allowed... Who do you think was responsible for the deaths on 9-11, especially the Pentagon?

Dave Dubya said...

You really have no clue what hypocrisy means, do you?

Obviously by questioning the mainstream view, you're suggesting it isn't true. I'm very interested to know if you don't believe the widely accepted view - what your alternative is

One may ask this of you’re denial of climate science. You are the hypocrite.

Again, I’m not suggesting anything but more evidence. Not that I am not denying anything like you are of climate science.

Again, it is you who are the hypocrite.

I'm lost as how you can infer that Iraq had anything to do with 9-11

I didn’t of course. You are the lost one. The conflation and inferences were all form you, and your authoritarian leaders, who told us Saddam was buddies with al-Qaeda, was training them in “deadly gases”, and “pretty much confirmed” meeting in Prague. Want to see more? I got the quotes.

Now you swallow the official Israeli line that their attack on the USS Liberty as “mistaken identity”. Yeah, our flag looks just like Egypt’s and you believe Israel mistook the most modern electronic surveillance vessel in the world for a rusted-out 40-year-old Egyptian horse transport.

Want to see more real hypocrisy?

“people don't need your help telling them what safe is”

So why did we need to invade Iraq, if not for you and your authoritarians telling us it was for our safety?

free0352 said...

Sure I do. I'll give you an example. "In my potentially dangerous job, I should have to assume as little risk as possible. In your dangerous job, you should have to assume much greater risk. In my dangerous job, I should be able to escalate force if only verbally threatened, in yours being shot at 4000 times isn't a good enough reason to escalate your use of force."

If they did that to you at the jail, you'd quit.

One may ask this of you’re denial of climate science. You are the hypocrite.

I'm sure falsely equating 9-11 being an inside job and my skepticism of the research techniques used in global warming probably makes you feel better, but it certainly doesn't do much for your argument that the government didn't tell the truth about 9-11.

Again, I’m not suggesting anything but more evidence.

Evidence of what?

The conflation and inferences were all form you

Really? What was I "infering" when I made the basic statement that Dick Cheney never claimed Iraq had anything to do with 9-11, other than ... that Dick Cheney never claimed Iraq had anything to do with 9-11. What code do you think I was talking in?

Now you swallow the official Israeli line that their attack on the USS Liberty as “mistaken identity”.

No. I'm going with the US Navy's version of events- not Israel's. You aren't suggesting that Israel controls our Navy are you?

So why did we need to invade Iraq, if not for you and your authoritarians telling us it was for our safety?

Go read the the Congressional authorization for use of force that they passed into law, or Clinton's Iraqi Liberation Act. That's why.













Jefferson's Guardian said...

Free0352: "Only an authoritarian person would laugh at a more voluntary system."

No, only a fool would make such a ludicrous statement. The very definition of the word, tax, implies a compulsory contribution to state revenue. Otherwise it's called a lottery.


"You said you didn't have all the answers."

No, I don't, but I know enough facts to know those buildings didn't fall due to gravity. They were blown up. That's why a real investigation needs to be completed, and the rule of law applied.


"But by all means, tell us what you think really happened on Sep 11th?"

See answer, above.


"There is a first for everything."

Only if it violates Newton's 1st and 3rd laws of motion, which is really just basic high school physics.

Oh, but I forgot, you don't believe in science.


"As for who disagrees with you, it certainly isn't Nomb Chompskey alone."

True, but with each passing anniversary of that event, more people are siding with me and less with you.

The growing body of evidence is making the debunker's defense of the 9/11 Commission look more and more suspect.

We keep trudging on.

Jefferson's Guardian said...

Free0352 to Dave Dubya: "You aren't suggesting that Israel controls our Navy are you?

You're not suggesting that the tail doesn't wag the dog, are you?

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

You're not suggesting that the tail doesn't wag the dog, are you?

I'm getting a very creepy "The Israeli Jews control America through international banking as well as making America's military its puppet." vibe from that comment.

Lets just hope I'm imagining things instead of seeing the actual antisemitism the above comment smelled like. Of course that isn't the first time I've got that creepy Jew hater feeling from you. Hence why on this thread - I asked your opinion of Israel and Zionism.

Your silence to my question was deafening.

True, but with each passing anniversary...

There is also a growing body of folks who think Barack Obama was born in Kenya. They have "evidence" too. And like you, they claim its only a matter of time before "the truth" comes out.

You two groups are just two sides to the same kooky coin Jeff. I just wish Dave would come out of the Truther closet.

And speaking of closets - if you're in the antisemitic one stay in it. My tolerance for kookery only goes so far. If you happen to be some "Zionists are evil and control us through banks" and "Protocols of Zion" believing idiot spare me. Just immediately put a gun in your mouth and do the human race a favor.

Of course if I'm wrong - disregard.

Jefferson's Guardian said...

Free0352: "our silence to my question was deafening."

As is yours, whenever I bring up corporatist influence in our government, and whenever I ask for your ideology's support of revoking corporate personhood.


"There is also a growing body of folks who think Barack Obama was born in Kenya."

No, that's not true...and you know this.


"They have 'evidence' too."

No, sorry, they never presented evidence to support their claim. Once the Hawaiian BC was produced, their claim died on the vine.

As far as evidence supporting "inside involvement" in bringing the WTC twin towers down (along with WTC 7), the body of evidence grows by the day. Even when thrown back into the face of NIST, their own explanation of how WTC 7 fell doesn't support sound scientific theory. Their own models don't even duplicate what actually happened. As a matter of fact, they refuse to share how they came to their conclusions. They refuse peer review.

Now, that's creepy.


"Of course if I'm wrong - disregard."

As usual, you are.

free0352 said...

No, that's not true...and you know this.

What's not true? That Barack Obama was born in Kenya (false) or that there are a growing group of people who think he was (true.)

they never presented evidence to support their claim

They presented a LACK of evidence - which BTW is exactly what Dave is saying about the Pentagon.

Of course its utter nonsense - but you're presenting a similar nonsense about some super secret conspiracy.

Once the Hawaiian BC was produced, their claim died on the vine.

I didn't even need to see that. But that never stopped Birthers from "connecting the dots" anymore than it does you from doing same on another kook theory of 9-11 "truth."

They refuse peer review.

There's been REAMS of stuff, but of course anyone who discounts your kook theory is in on it...

So anyway - how DO you feel about Israel?





okjimm said...

ohohoh... Free said..."Your silence to my question was deafening."

break me up....could it be that your questions....ah, defy laws of gravity,common sense, and Jewish dietary law? Or that it is hard to tell when you are asking a honest question or just jerking off.

Dave Dubya said...

okjimm,
There's an apt term for Free's method of discourse.

Are you ready?

"Free association", a spontaneous, logically unconstrained and undirected association of ideas, emotions, and feelings.

I once thanked Free for being "on the couch" for our entertainment and analysis. He, true to form, took it as some sexual reference or suggestion.

DD: We are lucky to have Free "on the couch"

Free: I know some of you want to "get me on the couch" so to speak... but I'm just not that in to you. Or gay.


"Free association" is what he's all about, projecting his bubble beliefs.

Free's words are a veritable playground for psychiatric evaluation.

free0352 said...

Notice Dave still doesn't want to mention who he suspects blew up the Pentagon...

Jefferson's Guardian said...

Free0352: "What's not true?"

Just about anything that you write. ;-)


"They presented a LACK of evidence - which BTW is exactly what Dave is saying about the Pentagon."

No, it's totally different. Dave's skepticism accepting the official version is mostly due to, which I can only assume, the lack of photographic evidence showing a Boeing 757 flying into the side of the Pentagon. That's reasonable, wouldn't you say? There has been only one image released, which you have to admit doesn't show a commercial airliner crashing into the building, and all other images and videos were confiscated immediately after and either stored away and labeled classified or destroyed (I would imagine).

As for me, that, coupled with the story that amateur pilots (poor ones, at that) were able to fly and maneuver a commercial airliner, at around 580MPH at sea level, is preposterous at best. Commercial airliners are not designed to fly at low altitudes such as these (near and at sea level). The density of the air would tear the plane apart before it reached its target. Even seasoned and veteran pilots of this type of aircraft concede this. (And, by the way, the same applies to the two "commercial aircraft" that we're led to believe crashed into the Twin Towers.)


"...but you're presenting a similar nonsense about some super secret conspiracy."

Conspiracies are merely evidence that courts refuse to hear.


"There's been REAMS of stuff, but of course anyone who discounts your kook theory is in on it...

And the "REAMS of stuff" defy basic laws of physics. Just because you decide to believe the fairy tale, doesn't mean it's true, does it? Isn't that exactly the argument you've used to discount a higher spiritual life?

Because the laws of physics reside within the physical and natural world, any discrepancies can be proven or not proven very easily. It's really a very simple concept.

Oh, but I remember now, you don't believe in science...


"So anyway - how DO you feel about Israel?

Never been there, but it looks like a nice place to visit.

Jefferson's Guardian said...

Free0352: "Notice Dave still doesn't want to mention who he suspects blew up the Pentagon..."

There's no way, without a proper investigation (and subsequent trial) to tell exactly who "blew up" the Pentagon. (And I think your use of the word, "blew up", is very revealing.) But there's enough evidence to show that a Boeing 757 didn't fly into it. That's all I need to know, to know that the official version is hogwash.

Dave Dubya said...

Someone blew up the Pentagon? I missed that.

All I know is THEY say a hijacked plane was flown into it. But THEY won't show us evidence of that. Based on that lack of evidence I have no suspects. Their withholding evidence would certainly tend to expand, rather than narrow, the suspect list if I had one.

One thing we all agree on is, Saddam didn't do it...so we invaded his country.

Another good reason to be skeptical of what those warmongers said. Traitors who start wars based on lies should not only never be trusted, but should be arrested and tried. But instead we're told to "look forward" by the corporatist company man who replaced the traitors.

Nothing to see here folks, just business as usual.

free0352 said...

Jeff,

Of course the WTC towers and the Pentagon (not to mention a field in PA) were blown up. That's what happens when thousands of gallons of jet fuel crashes into a solid object going several hundred miles per hour. It was an explosion - everyone knows that, everyone saw that.

There's no way, without a proper investigation

There was an investigation. You simply discount its findings because they don't jibe with your conspiracy theory - and discount the investigators as "in on it."

The same way the Birthers do Obama's birth certificate.

And the "REAMS of stuff" defy basic laws of physics

No it doesn't, and you wouldn't be able to tell anyway. Unless you've been hiding the professional training you admit you don't have.

But THEY won't show us evidence of that

And there it is. You'r a truther. That lone says enough about your intelligence for any reader to make a determination about your judgement.

Saddam didn't do it...so we invaded his country.

Yes. Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11. That's why we invaded Afghanistan - which had a lot to do with it. Iraq was invaded for totally different reasons.

Bill Maher has you folks pegged.










Jefferson's Guardian said...

Free0352: "Of course the WTC towers and the Pentagon (not to mention a field in PA) were blown up."

No, it definitely was a Freudian slip. Thank you for your acknowledgement.


"There was an investigation."

There was a whitewash. There never was a trial in a legitimate court of law. The rule-of-law never came into play. Nineteen hapless Arabs were tried only by public opinion.


"...and discount the investigators as 'in on it.'"

I discount any probe where the potentially accused gets to select their own judge and jury. I prefer impartiality. It tends to lead to the truth better that way.


"No it doesn't, and you wouldn't be able to tell anyway."

Like I said, several times, it's just a matter of understanding very rudimentary high school physics (which I now know you don't).

You're been watching too many movies with incredibly inaccurate special effects. Study up on Newton's 1st and 3rd laws. They're indisputable. They're exactly the reason why the Towers couldn't have fallen as they did...well, without lots of "help", that is.

But why would I expect you to understand this? It's why they put you in the infantry.


"Yes. Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11."

Not according to your boy, Bush.

Oh, and by the way, you can bet I'll be following this story to see where it goes.


"Bill Maher has you folks pegged."

Bill Maher already knows what happens when you say things that are deemed "Politically Incorrect" about 9/11. It's obvious he would like to keep his job this time.

Dave Dubya said...

Saddam didn't do it...so we invaded his country.

Yes. Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11. That's why we invaded Afghanistan


"The danger," said President George W. Bush on Sept. 25, 2002, "is that Al Qaeda becomes an extension of Saddam's madness and his hatred and his capacity to extend weapons of mass destruction around the world."

free0352 said...

Bill Maher already knows what happens when you say things that are deemed "Politically Incorrect" about 9/11.

Or... he's like everybody else who knows a kook when he sees one.

"The danger," said President George W. Bush on Sept. 25, 2002, "is that Al Qaeda becomes an extension of Saddam's madness and his hatred and his capacity to extend weapons of mass destruction around the world."

Notice he didn't say it happened, he said it would be dangerous. And it would be. What he didn't say - was that Saddam Hussein was behind 9-11. As for why we did invade Iraq - the Congressional authorization and the Iraqi Liberation Act is public record. But instead of mentioning that - its easier to imply GWB said something he never said and pretend Yard Nomes or magical elves or whatever (after all Dave, you said you had no idea) blew up the Pentagon coincidentally on the day Al'Qaeda hijackers flew planes into the WTC.

The fact is that people like me and Rachel Maddow are on the side of sanity and logic and you are on the side of crack pot extraordinaire Alex Jones. When Rachel Maddow and I can agree and you instead choose Alex Jones... that's how you know you are a punchline to a joke.

Don't listen to actual scientists... no, no. You need this to feel better.

Jefferson's Guardian said...

Free0352: "Or... he's like everybody else who knows a kook when he sees one."

No, I'm sure it's because he'd like to keep his job this time. From HBO, where else could he go? He's already in the most liberal entertainment environment available, but even HBO, which is a wholly owned subsidiary of the world's second largest media and entertainment conglomerate, isn't going to let anyone step outside the lines. Bill learned his lesson from Politically Incorrect. Do you think he's really going to let it happen again? He's too smart a man to let that happen.


"Notice he didn't say it happened, he said it would be dangerous. And it would be. What he didn't say - was that Saddam Hussein was behind 9-11."

Yes, but his implication was undeniable. He danced around it, and alluded to it enough, in order to create the impression. He certainly got what he wanted.


"...and pretend Yard Nomes or magical elves or whatever (after all Dave, you said you had no idea) blew up the Pentagon coincidentally on the day Al'Qaeda hijackers flew planes into the WTC."

I don't believe Yard Nomes did it (I don't know who he is, and never heard of him until just now), or magical elves, but I do know this: A Boeing 757 did not crash into the Pentagon. What is was, exactly, I don't know. As far as the Twin Towers, there definitely were aircraft of some sort that crashed into those buildings. But one thing's for sure, they were not commercial aircraft. Another thing that I know, for sure, is that those buildings didn't topple due to gravity alone.

Like I have said repeatedly, Newton's 1st and 3rd laws rule that possibility out.

As I've repeated more times than I can count, that's why a proper criminal investigation and trial is required -- each held in the state where each crime was committed.


"When Rachel Maddow and I can agree and you instead choose Alex Jones..."

I've already said this about Bill Maher, and I'll say it again in reference to Rachel Maddow. Both like their jobs and want to keep them. It's very similar to why you shutdown your blog. You knew if you didn't, that there would be ramifications. Both Maher and Maddow know this. Because of their career (and financial) interests, they've chosen to stay away from the third rail. Right now, publicly disputing the "official story" is definitely flirting with the third rail.

END OF PART I...PART II FOLLOWS:

Jefferson's Guardian said...

BEGINNING OF PART II:

By the way, did you notice how Maddow introduced the stylistic method of the 9/11 Commission report, and how it was written in narrative so as to appeal to the masses? But the next part that blew me away was the comic book version that followed that up. Yes, propaganda comes under many guises, doesn't it?

As far as Alex Jones, I don't follow him. Because we both agree that 9/11 was an "inside job", doesn't mean I agree with everything he thinks and feels about every subject. I'm sure there are aspects of 9/11 that I disagree with him about. I don't know, because I don't follow his work.

But, hey, I like your attempt at trying to appeal to readers of this blog. Maybe it worked. ;-)


"Don't listen to actual scientists..."

Actually, I've read and researched the work by the debunker "scientists" at Popular Mechanics. Everything has already been disputed and thrown back into their collective faces. Their work was another regurgitation of the "official story". Nothing new. They still couldn't answer all the hard questions.

I do love your sarcastic tone about "actual" scientists. I suppose military and commercial pilots, with up to decades flying commercial aircraft, including the aircraft that purportedly flew into those buildings, don't have any particular relevance to you? Or hundreds of architects, civil engineers and structural engineers, practicing their trade in highrise design and construction, also don't mean anything to you?

Please, ask me any question about what happened that day. Any at all. I'll give you either a reason, or reasons, why the "official story" doesn't answer the questions. So can hundreds of eyewitness accounts that were there that day. Unfortunately, the 9/11 Commission omitted their stories. The Commission already knew what it wanted to say, but they still needed to perform the dog-and-pony show.

Jefferson's Guardian said...

Free0352: "The fact is that people like me and Rachel Maddow are on the side of sanity and logic..."

One more question: Do you believe Rachel Maddow is always "on the side of sanity and logic"?

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

Do you think he's really going to let it happen again?

This is how you know you've drifted off to KOOK-Ville. When people like Maher, Maddow and even conspiracy nuts like Glen Beck can all agree on facts so obvious that they can't even fight over them... and Alex Jones is on your side. Gotta be a clue.

Because we both agree that 9/11 was an "inside job", doesn't mean I agree with everything he thinks

He thinks Obama is a "corpratist" just like you do too. The similarities between you both are striking.

One more question: Do you believe Rachel Maddow is always "on the side of sanity and logic"?

Yes, 100%. While Maddow and I can and likely have a difference of opinion on how to solve a great many problems - we both can articulate our positions without resorting to wild conspiracy theories to justify our positions on issues. We both argue on facts, not invent facts to suit or arguments.

free0352 said...

Yes, but his implication was undeniable.

They didn't imply anything. The administration was very clear about the subject.

Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9-11, and the Bush admin never "implied" otherwise.

Dave Dubya said...


"The danger," said President George W. Bush on Sept. 25, 2002, "is that Al Qaeda becomes an extension of Saddam's madness and his hatred and his capacity to extend weapons of mass destruction around the world."

Notice he didn't say it happened, he said it would be dangerous. And it would be.

Notice what he DID say. It was fear mongering to get his war. “Danger, danger”. Remember when you said we don’t need anyone to tell us what safety is? But it’s fine for them to fabricate a danger to “keep us safe” from, right?

This is real hypocrisy from you.

“What if” is not a reason to invade a country.

What if a race of highly intelligent, evil, giant mutant rodents were to attack us???? Sounds like that would be very dangerous. Better invade Iraq.

Want more?

Sunday, Dec. 9, 2001:
RUSSERT: Do you still believe there is no evidence that Iraq was involved in September 11?

CHENEY: Well, what we now have that's developed since you and I last talked, Tim, of course, was that report that's been pretty well confirmed, that he did go to Prague and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service in Czechoslovakia last April, several months before the attack.

Now, what the purpose of that was, what transpired between them, we simply don't know at this point. But that's clearly an avenue that we want to pursue.


Nothing implied?

Did he answer, “No”?

No, he didn’t. Why? Because that would have been telling the truth. Truth is the first casualty of war.

By the time Bush got his war most Americans believed Iraq and al-Qaeda were allies and Iraq was involved in 9-11.

Why would they think such a thing?

In an appearance on NBC's "Meet the Press," Cheney was asked whether he was surprised that more than two-thirds of Americans in a Washington Post poll would express a belief that Iraq was behind the attacks.

"No, I think it's not surprising that people make that connection," he replied.

In other words, just what they wanted us to believe. Propaganda catapulted, mission accomplished.

Mr. Bush defended his No. 2.

"We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the Sept. 11," he said. "What the vice president said was is that he has been involved with al Qaeda. ... There's no question that Saddam Hussein had al Qaeda ties."

"The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al-Qaida: because there was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaida," Bush said in 2004.

“You can’t distinguish between Saddam and al Qaeda when you talk about the war on terror.” Bush added, “We’ve learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gasses.” And later, that “Saddam is a threat because he is dealing with al Qaeda.”

Nothing implied?

Dave Dubya said...

"Nothing implied", again?

In January, Cheney said the "best source" of information on the subject was an article in the Weekly Standard, which reported: "Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein had an operational relationship from the early 1990s to 2003 that involved training in explosives and weapons of mass destruction, logistical support for terrorist attacks, al Qaeda training camps and safe haven in Iraq, and Iraqi financial support for al Qaeda -- perhaps even for Mohamed Atta -- according to a top secret U.S. government memorandum."

In late 2001, Cheney said it was "pretty well confirmed" that attack mastermind Mohamed Atta had met with a senior Iraqi intelligence official. Later, Cheney called Iraq the "geographic base of the terrorists who had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11."

Rumsfeld claimed in September 2002 that the United States had "bulletproof" evidence of cooperation between the radical Islamist terror group and Saddam's secular dictatorship.

"No one is trying to make an argument at this point that Saddam Hussein somehow had operational control of what happened on Sept. 11, so we don't want to push this too far, but this is a story that is unfolding, and it is getting clearer, and we're learning more," Rice said.

Yes, “we simply don't know at this point. But that's clearly an avenue that we want to pursue”, and “no evidence”...yet...but a “story that is unfolding”.

“No question” and “no doubt”, they said, right?

But still nothing implied?

Finally by 2008:

Exhaustive review finds no link between Saddam and al Qaida

“ An exhaustive review of more than 600,000 Iraqi documents that were captured after the 2003 U.S. invasion has found no evidence that Saddam Hussein's regime had any operational links with Osama bin Laden's al Qaida terrorist network.”

No link to al-Qaeda, No “Biological labs”, no nukular aluminum tubes.

Just lies. Treasonous lies that killed thousands of Americans and will have added a trillion to our debt.

THAT is the REAL conspiracy to investigate.

But never mind. You are a true believer.

free0352 said...

What if” is not a reason to invade a country.

The Authorization to use force in Iraq cited 12 main reasons - one of which was the Iraqi Liberation Act (signed into law by a Democrat President). If you want to talk about those 12 reasons in totality instead of IMPLYING there was only one, be my guest Dave.

In your own quotes, Dick never says Iraq was responsible for 9-11. He never said it, once. All you can do is IMPLY he's lying. The only one guilty of implication here - is you Dave.

As Condi said in your own quote -

No one is trying to make an argument at this point that Saddam Hussein somehow had operational control of what happened on Sept. 11,

And they never did... at any point. Even years later - again by your own quote.

An exhaustive review of more than 600,000 Iraqi documents that were captured after the 2003 U.S. invasion has found no evidence that Saddam Hussein's regime had any operational links with Osama bin Laden's al Qaida terrorist network.”

The message of the Bush admin for eight years was very consistent. It basically said "Yes of course we're looking into the possibility - Hussein is a bad guy so of course he's suspect - but we see no evidence so far he was responsible for 9-11."

And then in 2008 they basically said "Yup, we were right all along, Iraq had no ties to 9-11"

Your own quotes lay that out.

Just lies.

What lies? The war was predicated on Saddam Hussein not living up to the cease fire agreement he signed in 1991. And even HE admitted he didn't.

But of course, its easier to claim lies instead of arguing the war on its factual merits. We can of course have a conversation about it being a good idea or a bad one - if only you'd drop your conspiracy theories about 9-11 and the Bush Administration and start talking about facts instead of making up your own personal thriller novel. "It was based on lies" when there are no lies, is a non-starter. Is that by design? Are you so horrible at examining the Congressional Authorization or the Iraqi Liberation Act (all signed by bipartisan majorities) that you have to revert to Alex Jones tactics?








Dave Dubya said...

What lies?

LOL!!!!!

Got "nukular" aluminum tubes. Got "biological labs"? Got connections to al-Qaeda?

Looks like it's time to be blunt.

You are a liar. Plain and simple.

You lie. Abundantly and often. In fact you MUST lie to preserve your beliefs in your authoritarian leaders. You have no free will to think or speak for yourself.

Besides that you're "free".

“I just want you to know that, when we talk about war, we're really talking about peace.” - George W. Bush

Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength War is peace.

"America is safer". GW Bush

"People don't need your help telling them what safe is. You're saying people are too stupid to do that without big brother's help." - Free the hypocrite.

Thanks for validating my statements:

"Free is here to wage war between his ideological beliefs and our facts". Proven true by Free's words.

"On the far Right, beliefs trump facts". Proven true by Free's words.

What a cult of unthinking, obedient, true believer zombies.

Unbelievable.

So what do "no doubt" and "no question" mean in your cult?

For that matter what does "implied" mean in your cult?

Doesn't matter, does it? All that matters to true believers in your cult is "liberals are destroying America", "Bush never lied", and the corporate media is magically "liberal media".

Literally unbelievable.

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

You lie. Abundantly and often. In fact you MUST lie to preserve your beliefs in your authoritarian leaders. You have no free will to think or speak for yourself.

And there it is. Easier to call names and throw a temper tantrum than debate issues on the facts. Best to stick to conspiracy theories that cannot be questioned - and scream names when challenged. One would think... that if I were really speaking for these people you clearly hate so much - that you'd relish the chance to have a logical discussion on fact based differences. But no, instead you beclown yourself in front of your readership and among other things, suggest "someone" (perhaps santa claus) shot a missile into the Pentagon on the same day some Afghan-Saudi expats decided to crash jetliners into the WTC. And then you cry when I point out how ridiculous you sound. You claim the worn out clichet "Bush lied - kids died!" and yet post quotes that back up the total opposite! And then, when all that blows up in your face - you throw a hissy fit.

Free is here to wage war between his ideological beliefs and our facts

When you start presenting some facts that might be true.

So what do "no doubt" and "no question" mean in your cult?

You mean the cult I'm in with Rachel Maddow, Bill Maher, and Barack Obama? Some bubble I'm in. For the record, I don't question if water is wet and the sky is blue either.

All that matters to true believers in your cult

Ah yes, my cult that I'm in with Rachel Maddow, Bill Maher, Noam Chompskey, and Barack Obama. Vs you and Alex Jones. If that's my cult, I'll take it. Over here in the cult of common sense - we might not always agree - but we can at least not sound like paranoid mental patients when we do.

"I just read from my own source that Dick Chaney, Condi Rice, and GWB said Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11. The Bush Admin implied Iraq was behind 9-11."

Doublethink. Again....

Dave Dubya said...

One more time,

What lies?

LOL!!!!!

Got "nukular" aluminum tubes. Got "biological labs"? Got connections to al-Qaeda?

-

Well? Gonna keep running from the truth? Like you even have a choice.

So what do "no doubt" and "no question" mean in your cult of Bush/Cheney believers?

You won't answer.

You'll continue to pretend to miss the quoted reference to your leaders' words. Or you won't even pretend, simply react with distraction, evasion and deliberate misinterpretation, devoid of rational mind.

Sooo...babble away with your gibberish and nonsense.

...And I will once again respond:

One more time,

What lies?

LOL!!!!!

Got "nukular" aluminum tubes. Got "biological labs"? Got connections to al-Qaeda?





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

Got "nukular" aluminum tubes. Got "biological labs"? Got connections to al-Qaeda?

Got compliance with the 1991 Cease Fire? Got a whole shit ton of violations of that? Got US planes getting shot at over 4000 times?

Yes.

Which is why we went to war with Iraq. Nobody -not even Saddam- argued that he was in compliance. But like you care if American pilots are getting shot at. You already told us you can't even come up with a number of how many of them would have to die before you would let them fight back on the ground. But of course when you want to escalate force for your own safety in your jail that's different... Hypocrisy.

what do "no doubt" and "no question" mean in your cult of Bush/Cheney believers?

It means "we" (Bill Maher, Rachel Maddow, Noam Chomsky, Barack Obama among many other notorious right wing mouthpieces) don't think the Pentagon was attacked by the tooth fairy. We think Al'Qaeda did it. Along with all the other smart people.

Jefferson's Guardian said...

Free0352: "...don't think the Pentagon was attacked by the tooth fairy. We think Al'Qaeda did it. Along with all the other smart people."

I personally don't think the tooth fairy attacked the Pentagon (nor did Yard Nomes, and nor did magical elves). But one thing I'm certain about is this: It wasn't hit by a Boeing 757. There's no proof that it was. There are no pictures -- at least there are none that have been made available to the public -- that would indicate this. Of course any proper investigation would have revealed exactly what happened. In all civil aviation crashes, the NTSB is the independent investigative agency charged with investigating and reporting the results. Except in this case.

A recovery effort and investigation, commensurate with the scale of the disaster, would have always gathered and cataloged the aircraft remains with great care. This was apparently not done for the doomed "aircraft", just as it was not done for the collapsed building (or the aircraft parts and building parts that remained from the Twin Towers). The order of the day was to remove and recycle the evidence, not preserve and study it.

It's due to this lack of evidence control and due diligence, which always takes place after a large aviation accident or crash -- but was not practiced at any of the sites involved in 9/11 -- that I believe the biggest coverup in American history was perpetrated right under the noses of every American of good conscience.

It was a travesty in every sense of the word. The rule of law, along with every proper investigative tool and methodology, was forsaken and denied in order to create an illusion of outside "terrorism". Unfortunately, it worked. But, it won't work for long. People are finally waking up.


Free0352 to Dave Dubya: "And there it is. Easier to call names and throw a temper tantrum than debate issues on the facts."

Sounds more like the pot calling the kettle black. How many times have you attempted to insult me with your name-calling during the course of this thread (and others)?

I've presented several facts, as has Dave, but you refuse to acknowledge them -- much less respond with a clear counter-argument. I've even invited you to ask me about anything, specifically, involving crashes at both sites, but instead you choose to call me a "kook" or some other demeaning remark. But that's okay, I don't care about that. What I do care about is your inability to present and prove the government's explanation is airtight and foolproof. This tells me that you know you can't. Once I challenge you, you hide behind Bill Maher and Rachel Maddow (and others), but you can't justify your own weak "facts".

Dave Dubya said...

One more time,

What lies?

LOL!!!!!

Got "nukular" aluminum tubes. Got "biological labs"? Got connections to al-Qaeda?

-

Well? Gonna keep running from the truth? Like you even have a choice.

So what do "no doubt" and "no question" mean in your cult of Bush/Cheney believers?

You won't answer.

You'll continue to pretend to miss the quoted reference to your leaders' words. Or you won't even pretend, simply react with distraction, evasion and deliberate misinterpretation, devoid of rational mind.

Sooo...babble away with your gibberish and nonsense.

...And I will once again respond:

One more time,

What lies?

LOL!!!!!

Got "nukular" aluminum tubes. Got "biological labs"? Got connections to al-Qaeda?

free0352 said...

Got "nukular" aluminum tubes. Got "biological labs"? Got connections to al-Qaeda?

Go look up the 12 reasons the US authorized the President to use force in Iraq, along with the Iraqi liberation act if you want to know why we fought Iraq. Nobody cares what your personal criteria for war is. You'll have to look at why we actually fought there.

I promise you neither document mentions aluminium tubes. That's just you. Try being relevant to the conversation Dave.

Jeff,

This tells me that you know you can't. Once I challenge you, you hide behind Bill Maher and Rachel Maddow (and others), but you can't justify your own weak "facts".

You're right, I'm not going to dignify a wild conspiracy theory. It won't matter how much evidence you are shown - as Maddow said this isn't about evidence. You believe this because it makes you feel good. And until it doesn't, you'll keep believing it no matter what. But readers can read this and see what kind of conspiracy kook you are, and that has clearly been established. You're basically Alex Jones for welfare. We established that clearly.






«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 212   Newer› Newest»