Well, well.
I’m impressed and flattered at the turnout of radical Rightists on the previous post. It appears my words are a threat to their radical ideology.
Never mind the fact Obama works for Wall Street as much as Republicans, it doesn’t matter. They hate him anyway, because that’s what they’re best at. Hate.
Notice how the fanatics swarm and get mean when I show most people disagree with them. The hate has been getting thick here recently, and I have decided I cannot allow hate speech here any longer. It drives away too many good people who may wish to comment without having to encounter the ad hominem attacks and inane inquisitions of trolls, who contribute nothing while demanding attention.
One troll is fond of the word “Libtards”. He is no longer worthy of my attention. I will screen trolls from now on. Polite disagreement is still welcome.
Funny how “Libtards” are now the majority of Americans who want to tax the rich, keep Social Security and Medicare, and restore democracy.
They think they have a better idea than most Americans. Tax the rich less and give them more money, more “free speech”, more representation, and more power. And they demand their tyranny of the minority now. The US credit rating has now been downgraded thanks to the fanatics of the radical Right. They are killing democracy, and Democrats are allowing them to do it. S&P used the word “brinkmanship” in their justification for the downgrading.
The radical Right Wing extremists really have a deep seated hatred for democracy and love to prove it. The Rightists claim to support the rule of law, but we know many of them would love nothing more than a law that allows them to toss “Marxist” liberals into camps or otherwise silence us. We are the enemies of their tyranny of the minority.
They hate liberals and the very notion of equal rights under a democracy.
Hatred for democracy, along with hateful scapegoating, is how Fascism grows. It will not grow here.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
61 comments:
Funny how “Libtards”
How many times have you used the word "teabagger."
LOL
Good policy, Dave. I wish Tom would take the same high road.
Of course now you are going to be accused of censorship and restricting free speech...the very things the trolls are attempting to do to your blog. Once again, if you want to see what the right is doing, listen to what they accuse the left of doing.
The Rightists claim to support the rule of law, but we know many of them would love nothing more than a law that allows them to toss “Marxist” liberals into camps or otherwise silence us.
Nah, that was FDR and Asians. That actually happened. Oh, noticed my comment that wondered if "libtard" was as bad as "Teabagger" got D-E-L-E-T-E-D.
Hahahahahaha! I wonder if this bad boy will ever see the light of day? I doubt it and I don't care. I'll just chock you up on my wall as yet another lib that couldn't defend the indefenseable... S-O-C-I-A-L-I-S-M.
"They think they have a better idea than most Americans. Tax the rich less and give them more money, more 'free speech,' more representation, and more power."
Right, because from 2001-2008 the right-wing extremists' better idea grew the economy so well, created so many jobs, balanced the budget, reduced the national debt, made people's 401k and other investments grow like topsy. Oh, and let's not forget how much safer their policy-making brilliance and leadership made us. Not a single terrorist attack on George W. Bush's watch! Let's see our Kenyan socialist, America-hating, whites-hating president match that.
So, of course right wing extremists have every good reason to condemn all that Obama and congressional Democrats want to do. With Republicans' sterling record, their instructions deserve to be followed to the letter.
Yeah, right.
This is one LIBERAL that isn't going anywhere. One of the best lessons I ever learned was how NOT to hate.
I'm too old for that shit!:)
I have never been able to figure out why there are so many fighting so hard for those that have it all already and don't really need help from the "peons", but will use them to further their cause. Maybe they are all "temporarily embarrassed Billionaires" and want to make sure things will be in their favor when their ship finally comes in!!
Not a surprise, until today the mainstream media declined to mention a primary factor in Standard & Poors' decision to downgrade United States Treasuries to AA+ from the previous AAA. Found on page 4 of the official Standard & Poors “Research Update” – the actual report published on August 5th on what they did and why – S&P bullet-pointed the following (quotation below). It's also in a report from the BBC (see ninth paragraph), but again, there's been no mention of this from the U.S. corporate media until this afternoon. Hmmm, I wonder why not?
"We have changed our assumption on this [referring to Bush tax cuts in '01 and '03] because the majority of Republicans in Congress continue to resist any measure that would raise revenues, a position we believe Congress reinforced by passing the act." [emphasis my own]
Uh oh, comment moderation :)
So far I haven't had much trolling at my site since I got rid of comment moderation a few months ago. But I'm ready to to reinstate it if I need to.
Tyranny of the minority -- that's definitely what's paralyzing this country. Obama keeps letting himself get walked on and tyrannized. There's a lot he could do to stand up to the oligarchy and its useful idiots in Congress. Invoking the 14th Amendment to cancel out that ridiculous debt ceiling fiasco, executive orders; just playing hardball in general.
There are a lot of nasty (but legal) things a president can do to retaliate against the congressional opponents. For example, when George HW Bush closed several military bases, every one of them was in a liberal district. Obama should follow suit. He should start cutting off the spigot to states whose legislators are derailing him at every turn.
It's not a nice thing to do, but we're way past the "nice" stage already.
Define Trolling.
Would this be considered trolling?
DAVID BEERS S&P Chief interviewed on 8/7/11 by Chris Wallace: Question was "Does any compromise have to have both entitlement reform and revenue increases to be credible?
ANSWER WAS:
"Well, we think credibility would mean that would -- any agreement would command support from both political parties because, of course, the composition of Congress and, of course, the administration could change from 2012 onwards. But the key thing is -- yes, entitlement reform important because entitlement is the biggest component of spending and they are the part of spending where the cost pressures are greatest."
In this interview, the only person who brought up an increase in govt rev. was Chris Wallace of that hated right wing mouth piece Fox News. Wow, talk about slanted new reporting!
Free,
Teabaggers never could consider consequences, let alone most other things. Who do they worked for, and were sponsored by in their little delusion of being "grass roots"?
Teabaggers didn't think before they said "Teabag Obama", did they? What do we call one who "teabags"? "Teabagtards"? No, that is unimaginative, distasteful and rude, especially when there's a more accurate, ready, and fitting word.
They brought the label unto themselves along with their silly costumed, hateful posturing. We didn't give it to them.
CTM (Chuckle To Myself)
I'm delighted you find something to laugh about. Socialism and democracy are far more defensible than your tyranny of the minority.
JG,
The air in here is fresher already. Yes, the world is finally seeing the results of the tea cult’s lethal infection of our democracy. We are only beginning to pay for it.
Jerry,
I welcome their disagreement and even projection, but not their trolling, name calling and inane distracting "questions".
Sue,
Of course there’s extremist hate behind every one of those accusations of liberals as Marxists, Socialists, commies, and “hate-America-firsters”. This is what they have in common with fascists of the last century. They hate intellectuals, educators, minorities, gays, and everyone of the majority of Americans who disagree with them. We know it is a result of ignorance, fear and the vast indoctrination efforts by FOX(R) and the rest of radical Right media. Let them hate liberals and democracy. I welcome their hatred.
SW,
They do get very quite when we ask where those Bush tax cut jobs are. This is why they throw out stupid questions and distractions.
Future,
The unenlightened cannot understand the self destructive nature of hatred. I almost pity them.
Kulkuri,
They find identity in their ideology. They cannot think for themselves and are often easily frightened in their ignorance. They are very much like cultists.
Tom,
Unfortunately, Obama is a member of that elite minority. His loyalties are often to the people in word, but to the minority in deed.
Just The FOX(R),
Your actions have already defined trolling. Go back and read what you have written, and see how I responded.
I am almost always the first to protest when one side or the other makes a point of pointing out how ad hominen, anger-oriented, the other side is. I intended to try to refute Dave's argument, until I reviewed recent data. He made the right decision. This site is better than what it will become if he sits back and does nothing.
Dubya, you and I agree on several very important things such as the necessity of protecting our 2nd amendment rights and the necessity of lessening the power of giant corporations over the federal government. (Of course we disagree on how best to accomplish that second feat though.)
That said, I think you are being quite inconsistent in what you define as hate speech, my friend.
As Free pointed out, you use the term "tea bagger" all the time. A month or two back I told you that I found the term offensive and inflammatory and would gladly curb my more inflammatory rhetoric if you would discontinue using that word. Your reply was something to the effect that it was an appropriate word for the people you were denigrating with it and that you had no intention of stopping your usage of it.
In your last post, I criticized Michelle Obama for wanting to re-write our history and Rachel Maddow for her strange ideas of why the Greatest Generation was great. I was not making personal attacks on either of them. I was questioning what they said. You responded that my speech was hateful, racist, and sexist, and something I wouldn't have written about Laura Ingram.
The non sequitur still leaves me baffled.
I agree that the hyperbole and rhetoric have gotten way out of hand, such as our Vice President accusing me of supporting terrorists for instance. That said, I hope you realize that your are similarly guilty of the charges you have leveled against others and that perhaps, at times, you are being a little hyper-sensitive, my friend.
We all could stand to take a step back and keep the debate going as a matter of conflicting ideals instead of juvenile name calling. I realize that I am equally guilty of this at times and will endeavor to keep my comments based on substance going forward too. Cheers!
If I were you, Dave, I would not debate this any further. I would close comments on this thread, as further discussion is irrelevant.
I would point out what I did, and why I did it. Now many will feel like they need to reach into the archives and show how liberals are guilty, and in fact you are also guilty of the crime with which you charge others.
I would concede to all such points for the sake of the discussion, without concern as to their accuracy. I would say that we are all guilty to one degree or another, because that is the nature of the game. I would also say that something must be done in order to maintain the integrity of the site, or it will devolve from a forum for intellectual debate to a forum for name-calling and emotional outbursts.
You don't need to defend this. The need is obvious. Who is guilty of what and how much of this really a very secondary and subjective question, and a somewhat irrelevant one, since you have not banned anyone from the site.
Teabaggers never could consider consequences
You're the guys who borrowed over 6 trillion dollars and can't figure out why the credit rating got downgraded. That kids is what we call a consequence for our actions. You know, like increasing the national debt 40% in three years and have NO plan to pay it back.
As for Teabagger, I always kind of liked the term. I figure if you're going to give us the name Teabaggers, you libs had better get down and open wide ;)
As for "civility" that's all in the eye of the beholder. That's why I don't moderate my blog what so ever. I really don't care if people feel insulted - because theoretically anything can make a person feel insulted and I have better things to do that worry about someones Pooor whittle feewings.
But this is after all YOUR blog, do as you want with it. Being tolerant of your intolerance is a hallmark of Libertarianism.
Oh, and I've said it before and I'll say it again.
If you're too stupid to tell the difference between the IRA and the RNC, you're moron. There is just no way to sugar coat that. And since I'm not in the business when I blog of sugar coating things - I figure if you're going to call a person a fool you might as well do it with style.
Without sounding to uncivil, I guess all those who post here and dislike corporatism are happy with the stock market plunge today? After all, corporations sell stocks of their corporations so if this hurt them, this plunge must be good!
I don't think I can add anything valuable to this discussion, but I have to post to subscribe to the comments. I can't wait to read all of your fellow lefties congratulate you on filtering out the crazy nutters on the right.
BTW Dave, I understand why you've taken this step, and I won't accuse you of censorship. Obviously, we all have the freedom to say what we want anywhere else, so Jerry's charge is just silly. I understand but don't agree. I thought a key tenet of liberalism was unfettered free speech, damn the consequences.
TP,
Free is one to talk. He claimed that we assert “Republicans are "the rich" and must be silenced”. How honest is that?
Like I said, the “Tea Party” folks invited the name. What is the “Tea Party” anyway? There’s no such political party on the ballot, is there? They are Republicans pretending to be something different. They also carried openly racist signs. I could think of several worse, and even more accurate, descriptors of them. Republicans and FOX(R) sponsored and promoted the whole thing. We’re also talking about a crowd with a sizable portion believing, or at least promoting the falsehood, that Obama is a Muslim foreigner.
How is “teabagger”, applied to people who wrote “Teabag Obama”, any more denigrating than saying Mrs. Obama is a Marxist, hippies “hate America”, or tagging Maddow with PMS-NBC? None of these people hate America or are Marxists , or otherwise invited the terms used. Teabaggers, on the other hand, said “Teabag Obama” and “Teabag Congress”. See the difference?
Don’t feel bad about “supporting terrorists”. I was accused of wanting the terrorists to win, being a traitor, and undermining the president’s war simply by disagreeing with him and calling out his dishonesty. Cheney accused Obama of aiding and abetting the enemy. At least I wouldn’t accuse you of such things. I may be many things, but I am not a politician.
Welcome to the club.
Just The FOX(R),
See, you do fit my name for you. Posting a cut and paste from FOX(R) is not by itself trolling. What was your point? Beers was dodging questions more than answering them. Notice how Beers downplayed the market reaction to the downgrading. “But based on historical experience, we wouldn't expect that much financial impact in terms of higher interest rates for example.”
There is no “historical experience” in downgrading the US government, and the market dropped significantly.
If you want my “interpretation”, Wallace asked a yes or no question, and a yes was in the answer.
I understand you’re grasping at straws. You want to feel better about the fact most Americans disagree with you on taxing the rich and keeping social programs.
"If you want my “interpretation”, Wallace asked a yes or no question, and a yes was in the answer.
I do not agree with your interpretation David, I take the words spoken by Mr. Beer to be exactly what he meant, not what you think they meant.
S&P is not blaming the conservatives or members of the Tea Party for the downgrade. He is blaming the over 50% of our budget being consumed by entitlements.
No spin, Dave, Just the Facts!
@Free,
Thanks for your well-reasoned comments. I do, however, have a small amount of blather to add:
You're the guys who borrowed over 6 trillion dollars and can't figure out why the credit rating got downgraded.
Wrong, we all know why, and that was not it. Standard and Poor published a PDF explaining it, so we know. Only you don’t know. If you ask nicely I will help you find the PDF.
You know, like increasing the national debt 40% in three years and have NO plan to pay it back We are not talking about Bush, so don’t bring him up again. You are off topic.
As for "civility" that's all in the eye of the beholder. That's why I don't moderate my blog what so ever. That is what Dave would call a “false equivalency.” It makes no sense to moderate a blog nobody reads. It would be like moderating your own diary.
I really don't care if people feel insulted I know, but is it OK if I do not?
If you're too stupid to tell the difference between the IRA and the RNC I apologize for saying the Republican National Convention is the Irish Republican Army. Since that time I have learned that the RNC is comprised mostly of typical Republican Americans. Very few of them are Irish. Who knew?
@Just
Without sounding to uncivil...
Too uncivil.
I guess all those who post here and dislike corporatism are happy with the stock market plunge today? After all, corporations sell stocks of their corporations so if this hurt them, this plunge must be good! I don’t think most liberals want to hurt corporations. You don’t understand why liberals want fair tax policy and the volume of the corporate voice muffled. This statement proves it. We can help you out with that, but you have to be open-minded and just learn. That should not be hard, as you just confessed that you don’t know.
@Heathen,
I don't think I can add anything valuable to this discussion Thank God. You are one of the few conservatives I worry may offer a complicated rebuttal.
I thought a key tenet of liberalism was unfettered free speech, damn the consequences. You thought wrong. Liberalism is not primarily about free speech. It is about social justice and true democracy.
Blathering Complete.
Free,
Thanks. Coming from a "tolerant teabagger" that means a lot. Together we can’t stand intolerance. ;-)
Actually, neither I nor any liberals I know created the debt. It was created by tax cuts and wars and corporate owned politicians dating back to Reagan. And don’t even pretend corporate welfare isn’t part of the debt.
HR,
We libs oppose “hate speech”. And we oppose what has been done to "free speech". Even the law has decided shouting “fire” in a theatre is not free speech. There are reasonable limits.
Mostly I want to filter out time wasting, trolling, anonymous jerks seeking attention and contributing nothing. So far they are all Righties. Wonder why libs rarely hide behind anonymity...
I think everyone has a fair chance of free speech here.
Just The FOX(R),
I know this is complicated for you. We don’t necessarily hate corporations. I support and invest in many of them. Opposing corporatism in our government is not the same as wanting the market to crash. Can you understand that?
John,
You're right. We all have been loose with words. I'm just limiting floor time to those with something to say. There's really no debate here, merely thoughtful commentary and discussion. ;-)
Just The FOX(R),
You have an interpretation. Very good. But it is inaccurate. Read the whole interview.
And as our esteemed Mr. Myste said, "Wrong, we all know why, and that was not it. Standard and Poor published a PDF explaining it, so we know. Only you don’t know. If you ask nicely I will help you find the PDF."
Dave,
Not to piss you off the interview I quoted from is available on the internet.
I stand by my post as being a correct and true quote of Dave Banks of S&P.
We find the bipartisan agreement reached this week to find at least $2.1 trillion in budget savings falls short of what was necessary to tame the nation’s debt over time and predict that leaders will not be likely to achieve more savings in the future.
Direct quote from President of S&P. They didn't downgrade us because we didn't agree with you, they downgraded you because you didn't agree with us. They wanted about 4 trillion in savings over five years, Republicans and Democrats gave them 2 trillion over ten... which is a joke... hence the downgrade.
I have a whole post on the subject up on my blog, feel free to go read it. You don't even need to pander to the host's fragile ego over there. Free speech, even when it's mean is a hall mark of Libertarianism too.
dating back to Reagan.
You are aware the last President to pay off the National Debt was Andrew Jackson right? It's a little older than Reagan.
And don’t even pretend corporate welfare isn’t part of the debt.
It sure is, lets get rid of it, along with the non corporate welfare which is also a part of it.
@ free0352 "You are aware the last President to pay off the National Debt was Andrew Jackson right?"
Andrew Jackson, a Democrat.
The last President to balance the budget was another Democrat, Bill Clinton.
I think I see a trend.
Free,
And we all know how bright the S&P hacks are. They're the idiots responsible for top ratings for Wall Street and their credit default swaps and mortgage backed securities.
Of course, you would side with those that help bring our markets down with shoddy ratings that led to the meltdowns, both in ‘08 and now. Your infallible free market at work. Yeah, we can trust them.
Wrong then, wrong now. You're in good company.
JTF,
I read the entire interview. Did you?
Their published statement, which the leader of the downgrade, John Chambers supported, said there were three problems: Gridlock, too much spending, and too little revenue. Granted, he did also say that that they were looking for 4 trillion total budget reduction. Revenue would have done that also.
I am not sure why people insist on lying about it. It partially supports all the arguments each side made. You appear much stronger if you don't get caught in lies. The truth in this case is not totally devastating to anyone's position. Getting caught in lies is.
I see that S&P have downgraded Fannie and Freddie Mac, that cant be good.
Dave Dubya,
Hats off to you for banning the trolls. They all belong back under bridges anyway.
Most Americans have ALWAYS been "liberal." They have no problem with lending a helping hand where needed, or with paying taxes FAIRLY assessed, and all they want is fair pay for a day's work. They do NOT believe in corporate greed or obsession with profits. They don't believe in torture or preemptive war. They are good and decent and TOLERANT, and stand in marked contrast to those spoiled little brats and hateful souls who comprise the Tea Party and a good number of those on the far right.
Jack,
The great delusion of the far Right is their idea that most Americans agree with them. We don't. It's been proven time and time again.
Their belief system is truly more like a cult than anything else. It just occured to me. They are the "Rand/Reagan/Cheney Cult". The "R2C2" for short. The true believers worship at their CATO, Beck, Limbaugh and FOX(R) temples.
And I think their secret mottos may be, "Down with Democracy" and "In Greed We Trust".
"They have no problem with lending a helping hand where needed, or with paying taxes FAIRLY assessed, and all they want is fair pay for a day's work. They do NOT believe in corporate greed or obsession with profits. They don't believe in torture or preemptive war. They are good and decent and TOLERANT..."
Mr Jodell, I too believe in all those things you list. Yet I'm still a conservative and not a liberal/progressive. I guess our differences stem from something else.
Andrew Jackson, a Democrat.
The last President to balance the budget was another Democrat, Bill Clinton.
Yes, Jackson did it by stealing Indian lands and selling it while he frog marched the indians west on a death march, sorta like FDR putting Asians into camps or rounding up the riff raff during the 30s to work in labor camps under the CCC. Or Democrat Jefferson Davis leading the Confederacy (along with all the other Democrats) or Democrats founding the KKK, or Democrats inventing Jim Crow laws or Democrat Bull Conor covering for terrorist attacks against black churches and sicking attack dogs on freedom riders or... well I could go on now couldn't I?
I see a trend too.
Dubya
Like it or not the ratings S&P give matter. People listen to them. You should see what the Chinese raters are doing to us, it's much worse. But hey, if it were up to me I'd have downgraded the USA back in 2008, and kept downgrading assuming America kept drunkenly spending. Guess S&P is a lot nicer than me. You're right they shouldn't have given Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Lehman and Goldman (not to mention a host of other companies) AAA ratings, but the rectified that finally earlier this week when they kicked F/M&F/M.
Anyway, don't shoot the messenger.
Free,
No reason to shoot the messenger, just dismiss him for being dangerously wrong about the mortgage shell game and Enron. The other two, Fitch and Moody's still outweigh "Poor Standards". We warned of the consequences of the dysfunctional gridlock leading to downgrading. The Poor Standards made it into a political statement.
We should have passed the ceiling, then argued about revenue and cuts. But, no, the crybabies had to throw a tantrum.
Congress is at its all time low in popularity. Watch for the tea cult to suffer losses next year. They may have even ensured Obama's re-election.
History is history. The Klan is now Republican instead of Dixiecrat. Secessionists are now Republicans. I wish they would secede so we can have our Red State welfare money back. You do know about Red State Socialism, right? Most of the Red states suck up more federal money than they pay. Talk about welfare queens. Let 'em go. They are both parasites and hypocrites.
Of course, we'd prefer to see the red states become responsible Americans. I wouldn't want to play into Rick (the secessionist) Perry's little delusions of neo-confederacy; otherwise those red states would be getting away with theft.
So you support ending state wealth transfer? Good, I agree. Money taxed in say New York should stay in that state, for example.
That's funny, the six years I was a Republican I never once encountered a clan member from that party. However Robert Byrd was alive and well at that time. George Wallace died a Democrat in the late 80s did he not? I wouldn't be so quick to cast the aspersion Republicans are a bastion of America's first home grown terror cell.
I remember in the Teamster's Union as a kid, that it was the most prejudice place I'd ever been. Of course that's just my experience.
As for rating agencies that matter, I'd venture to say the raters from the countries we borrow money from matter most. Care to google what state controlled Chinese Bond Raters have to say? I'll give you a hing, the headline said "American Dollar is finished."
We should have passed the ceiling, then argued about revenue and cuts. But, no, the crybabies had to throw a tantrum.
NO, what the President should do is examine his projected tax revenue and budget accordingly. He won't do that. He won't even put a budget up for a vote because that might interfere with his credit orgy. He wouldn't even risk it when he had a super majority last year. That's no way to lead Democrats.
We warned of the consequences of the dysfunctional gridlock leading to downgrading.
And we warned that without significant cuts in spending there would be wide spread and deep cuts in consumer confidence leading to a stock sell off.
1100 points plus over the last two weeks proves us right. The debt, deficit and the economy are linked. Until you get the first under control the second can't recover. I think that should have become obvious over the past four years.
Oh, and funny I noticed this just after you were bitching about red states sucking up tax dollars
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/09/usa-health-exchanges-idUSN1E7781U720110809
The above are the statements allowed about conservatives, just in this thread, since comment moderation has been enabled.
Shame on you.
Here here. The policy of this blog is, Republicans and Libertarians hate democracy and deserve to be insulted at every given opportunity. Should they say anything remotely offensive to ONE OF US however, I will ban them
Only tackling dummy republicans need post on Freedom Rants, as we can take only the softest, cuddliest of creme puffs here.
The Democrat male Ego after all, is a pitifully fragile thing. If you look at it mean enough, it will shatter. But Why be shocked fellow free marketeers? We've known for years these are emotionally driven people, who pride themselves on how sensative they are. It shouldn't come as a shock to us that they expect us to tolerate their childish abuse, but should it be reciprocated in kind we can expect the rabid, mouth foaming blather they've grown quite famous for.
Politics is a hot kitchen, and these Sensitive New Age Males simply cannot take this kind of heat.
Free,
I agree it is imperative that spending cuts are made. Believe it or not, liberals do not want to bankrupt our country and create a depression. And believe it or not, liberals, conservatives and everyone in between have voted for politicians that have made the mess. You’re right Obama is not leading. Neither are Republicans. All each side really wants to do is get reelected and kick the can down the road. Dysfunctional and gridlocked government is only making things worse. One side is paralyzed, and the other is doing its best to facilitate failure by obstructing nearly everything and refusing to compromise. Democracy is dead and nobody is getting what they want except the Big Money boys. But they want more and more money, and they don’t care how much they swindle Americans to get it. The politicians work for them while pretending to represent the people.
Here’s an example of what needs to be done, For a start, let’s cut Homeland Security and at the very least the overlapping parts of the surveillance agencies and bureaucracies. End the wasteful and failed war on drugs. Tax the corporations, the economic elites and the middle class. Tax Wall Street trading, they owe us. If this is a crisis then everyone needs to pitch in, right?
How about we take out the Department of Education and one or two aircraft carrier groups? Cut NPR and all corporate welfare. How about some “shared sacrifice” from both sides?
No more tyranny of the minority. No more dysfunction. Unfortunately this requires sane leadership and their loyalty to the American people over money. Give the people their voice in government back. Restore democracy and revive the notion we are all Americans in this together by revoking corporate personhood and having clean public funded elections instead of cash for representation.
Never once met a Klan member? How would you know? They don’t wear robes on casual Friday at the office. I met one, and he and none of his friends are democrats. Byrd renounced the Klan and Wallace changed his views. It happens.
Just The FOX(R),
Those words are the impressions and opinions of people. None of them called you anything personally...Like you did to me. I don’t care if you say liberals are idiots. We generalize all the time.
You got personal.
Then Dave there is your classic libertard reaction, or if you're just a libetard Mina bird.
That's what trolls do. Name calling degrades a discussion and wastes time.
Shame on me? Yes, I admit I get loose with words. Have you no shame, sir?
Free,
My goodness! Four in a row! You're on quite the free speech spree there. Such passion. I like that.
you were bitching about red states sucking up tax dollars
No, just reporting facts. I could bitch about it if you'd like.
we can take only the softest, cuddliest of creme puffs here.
Yeah. That’s why you didn’t get banned, you cuddliest of crème puffs, you.
Sorry Dave, I did not mean it personal
I can see now how it was personal and do apologize to you.
JTF,
Thank you. I hope you understand my point that we can have better discussions without resorting to ad hominem personal attacks.
My purpose is not censorship, but civility and continuity of conversation. Name calling is immature and a dead end. I know it's not easy, for me and most others, but I think it is worth trying to maintain.
Free0352 said that "Being tolerant of your intolerance is a hallmark of Libertarianism...."
Really? That hasn't been a hallmark of theirs for quite some time. Seems like the folks we have now who like to call themselves "libertarian" are merely republicans obsessed with the Second Amendment. Otherwise, they seem to be very intolerant of other people's behavior, lifestyles and opinions, even opposing the right of gay and lesbian couples to marry.
I've also noticed that most self-described libertarians seem to think it's fine for the government to legislate abortion and birth control, and who has access to them.
They generally support draconian drug laws, along with the unconstitutional property seizures that have become government policy. And they appear to have no problem with the incarceration-nation thing, either.
The ones I've encountered in my area and out west are about as far from tolerant as someone can get.
Either they're not really libertarians, or what I used to understand as being libertarian has changed dramatically.
Anna,
You don't know any libertarians then.
I won't bore the peanut gallery with my every little view point, I have a blog of my own for that. In the mean time, I've noticed Democrats are the most prejudice people alive, far more so than Republicans.
Just see how you're prejudging me as an example of that. I thought you lefties were supposed to be open minded? I guess you were so open minded, your brain fell out.
Free0352, if you actually read what I wrote, you'd see that I did not prejudge you at all. You, however, reacted with an insult, and you don't know me, nor have you had an exchange with me.
You claim that "lefties" are the most prejudiced people you know, which doesn't match up to what I've observed in the places I've lived. It also doesn't match up with what we observe coming from rightwing mouthpieces in the conservative mainstream media, either: Limbaugh, Colter, O'Reilly, etc, etc, who are not only demonstrably bigoted, they're also demonstrably morons.
Anna,
We know most libertarians are really republicans by another name. They vote republican, walk republican and talk republican when it comes to serving the exclusive interests of big money. They declare their support for civil liberties yet vote for politicians and judges who viciously oppose the ACLU.
They pretend to oppose the drug war and property forfeiture and taking of homes by eminent domain, but they strongly support corporate super-personhood and "free speech" money to buy politicians that prosecute the corporate agenda. Alcohol, tobacco, pharmaceutical, and private prison corporations want the drug war, and libertarians want corporate control of policy makers.
Ron Paul rightly opposed the unconstitutional Bush FISA law and even called their surveillance illegal. I wonder why he didn’t introduce impeachment for those crimes. “Good republicans” stick together.
Their disconnect is wide enough to march a parade sideways.
Mr. Free has shown us his brand of tolerance, especially for hippies and public assistance recipients. Hate and tolerance go together, right? And his special neocon brand of libertarianism seems quite fond of the Bush/Cheney war mongering, torture and the Patriot Act.
It’s easier to just call them republicans. As Mr. Free told us, “If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck it must be a ______?”
You are right, Dave. I have heard plenty of people say I am not a republican, I am a conservative, or I am a libertarian, or something similar. But when they walk into that voting booth and pull the lever, it is the lever marked R. Call yourself what you want, but when you vote primarily for republicans, you are primarily a republican.
And if you don't vote, then shut the hell up and go away, because you are irrelevant.
Anna,
My political affiliation is not libertarian, for sure, but I describe myself as a part of the Israeli HaAvoda Party, the leftist Zionist group. I am not Jewish or Israeli and I have never been to Israel, but I am still a HaAvoda in philosophy.
I don't vote that way in presidential elections. I go ahead and vote for whoever wins the democratic primaries.
Because I am a registered as a democrat, vote for democrats, and have much of the democratic Party's philosophy, I am often mistaken for a democrat.
No, no, no! I am not a democrat. I am a HaVoda, and I don't appreciate being mislabeled.
The problem Myste, is I don't walk like that duck, quack like it either.
You know me, uber republican with my talk of drug decriminalization, open boarders, military draw downs of Europe and East Asia, and atheism. You know, typical Republican view points.
Democrat Definition of a Republican Racist Tea Bagger: Anyone who opposes Democrats.
They stick together too you know.
@Free,
The problem Myste, is I don't walk like that duck, quack like it either.
Being a Republican and being a hippie are not mutually exclusive.
Democrat Definition of a Republican Racist Tea Bagger: Anyone who opposes Democrats.
That is not my definition at all, never has been, but then I am a HaAvoda. The democrats may use other terms.
I call republicans those who primarily vote for republicans in important elections. I do not claim that they have to embrace every plank in the republican platform.
Like Plutarch's Ship of Theseus, replace enough Republican planks and eventually you no longer have a Republican ship. I do not think enough of this ship has been replaced to call it a new ship. This debate has raged since the time of Plutarch, and it seems will continue to sail on.
I call libertarian vessel an old ship with some repairs made, and even some of those questionable. Perhaps that is why this ship continues to wave the Republican Flag when the real battles begin.
As a HaAvoda, I am very sympathetic to your plight, though. It just drives me up a wall every time someone suggests I am a Republican (Weasledog) or a Neo-Con (Dave). Like you, I find the term very insulting. Unlike you, I don’t vote for republicans to represent me. I am not a republican.
P. S. And before you get all contorted and foamy at the mouth, I know that you are a philosophical libertarian and I know that this is not identical philosophy to that of a Tea Party republican.
I call republicans those who primarily vote for republicans in important elections
I voted for Bob Barr in 2008, what do you call that?
I voted for Bob Barr in 2008, what do you call that?
A wasted vote. Thank you very much. Tell all your friends.
If that is all you did, then I am very pleased by your efforts. I applaud them. I commend them. Keep up the good work.
Call yourselves what you want, but you are what you vote. It is that simple. And, no vote is wasted unless you consider all losing votes wasted. I don't. The only wasted vote is the one not casted.
And, no vote is wasted unless you consider all losing votes wasted.
I do consider losing votes mostly wasted. That is why I would not vote for Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy or any other candidate that has no chance of willing.
I would say voting for Barak Obama or John McCain was a much more wasted vote.
I'm actually in the minority who didn't waste theirs. After all, how's that Barak Obama working out?
I'm actually in the minority who didn't waste theirs. After all, how's that Barak Obama working out?
Barack Obama did not do as well as I had hoped against American’s enemies. His policy in Libya was questionable, as were his policies in Iraq and Afghanistan. However, he has far more data than we do, so we may have done the same thing. As for the internal enemies of America, I have serious issues. I am not pleased with his handling of Ryan, Boehner and their crews.
However, I again acknowedge that he has more data then everyone else and it was a difficult situation.
Hope that helps, Free.
he has far more data than we do
Speak for yourself ;)
I would say the balance of failures in Afghanistan are largely the fault of the top brass more so than Obama. Obama has no idea how to run a war... he's a lawyer, not a Soldier. He has pretty much gone along with what the brass have said besides not giving them all the troops they wanted in Afghanistan which was indeed a mistake.
But even with the troops they do have... they aren't using them very well and our "allies" are WORTHLESS. More a hinderance than an asset. Those failures mostly lie on the chain of command.
I think McCain would have likely handled that better. However, I think McCain would likely have handled everything else at least as bad as Obama has.
Hence... I voted for the guy who I knew would most likely bungle the war by running away... but handle everything else very, very well.
Bob Barr.
Post a Comment