I'm still amazed at the fanaticism shown by those who are so passionate in defending the economic elites.
It would appear there's no higher priority for them than to keep their wealthy masters from paying a dime more in taxes. Never mind they are exponentially wealthier than before and can easily afford it. These minions are indoctrinated to protect and defend the aristocrats' wealth until their dying breath. It really seems to be the most important thing in the world to them.
Amazing.
It's as if they worship money. Or do they just worship the wealthy, in the vain hope they too will become wealthy? No matter. Either way, or both ways, it still has all the characteristics of cult worship.
Such selfless acts of delusion in the name of dismantling democracy in favor of a powerful minority are quite a spectacle. They're like American Kamikazes, in a way. They’re willing to sacrifice, unto death it would seem, their own interests to their own infallible Emperor/god.
They are more than willing to shut down government and public services to protect every nickel of billionaires’ wealth. Fanaticism may even be too mild a term for their devotion to wealth and greed.
What else could describe the many self-identified Christians so dedicated to serving Mammon? Do they think Jesus is impressed by that? Are they so twisted to think their Savior would be down on Wall Street, a temple of Mammon if there ever was one, admonishing the demonstrators and defending the banksters? I would have to conclude they are indeed that warped out from reality.
Some things seem certain. The cult servants of the aristocracy are oblivious to the concept that taxes are the price we pay to live in a civil society. And they are oblivious, or even contemptuous, of the concept of democracy. They utterly fail to understand, or be concerned about, the fact most people disagree with their views. They have no idea they are the ones out on the fringe. But this bears little effect on the absolute certainty of the authoritarian mindset. It is with absolute certainty they hold their sacred belief in wealth and minority rule by the wealthy.
No clue.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
108 comments:
It is baffling, isn't it?
The rich have been sucking the wealth out of the US Economy for decades, and using that wealth to create jobs, in China.
And that's an essential part of the war the Tea Party is fighting for. They want the rich to take all of the money, so that they can create jobs.
Since Nixon, taxes on the Wealthy have steadily dropped. The Tea Party wants to continue this trend, because they want to continue the economic trend we've enjoyed. Today we have an economic nirvana in their view, because the divide between the rich and everyone else has never been greater. They want to continue this trend. they want a nation of poor people, and a handful of billionaires, creating jobs in China.
And they think we're crazy for not wanting that.
I am amazed too. Just look at the jobs bill. It is paid for and add nothing to the debt. To pay for it, there is a 5% surtax on income over $1,000,000. Earn $999,999 or less and you don't pay the surtax. The number of people having to pay this tax is minimal. Yet, the republicans would rather let the economy and the people suffer than have millionaires pay a little more.
Just think if you earned $1,000,000. If you had to pay a 5% surtax, then you would have to survive on only $950,000. How many people out there think suffering with only $950,000 per year is a real problem?
JG,
On the surface it is baffling. However cults have been around as long as humans. The basic psychology is not too difficult to manipulate in confused or frightened people.
Wease,
The new cult indoctrination is "job creators". They all use that term now, blissfully ignorant of the fact that most millionaires don't create jobs, and when they do it is in China.
Jerry,
And the bizarre thing is, although there are plenty of wealthy crybabies, nobody whines more than the indoctrinated cult followers. In their shrill hysteria they call Constitutional taxation on the rich "oppression" and "tyranny". They really do.
Oh, the humanity! Only "Marxists" would dare suggest restoring the tax rate a few percent for the elite. It would be really funny if the damage to the civility and well being of our country wasn't so terrible. But instead we're stuck with the "money first, country second" crowd having their way AND whining about it.
The cultists would prefer they pay the rich's share for the wars and debt, I guess. Such ignoble self sacrifice for their elite masters is something to see.
You are right, Leslie. They will never be invited to join the Country Club. It reminds of the people who would say the like George Bush. He seemed like a person you could sit down with and have a beer. Just a normal person. Well let me tell you. George Bush never thought of you that way. It was all an illusion. They dangle the carrot in from of you, but never provide the step up to reach it. They pulled the step up behind them.
We 53% actually pay the taxes, and we think they're high enough. In fact way too high. That's why we all like Herman Cain's 9-9-9 plan so much. It's like our little wet dream. That way those who don't pay taxes will. You know, the Democrat Welfare Queen voter base. After all, they are the ones sucking up 99% of the tax money. Time THEY paid their fare share too.
Dave, possibly it's some perverse manifestation associated with what Naomi Klein described in The Shock Doctrine. Or, is it some psychological phenomenon associated with Stockholm Syndrome?
Either way, it's certainly interesting...and deadly.
Free0352, you said...
"After all, they ["the Democrat Welfare Queen voter base", as you termed it] are the ones sucking up 99% of the tax money."
You're fucking crazy.
But, I can this with certainty: your employer, the DoD, combined with the Afghanistan and Iraq occupations, and including the United States "security" apparatus, eats up over 50% of the available revenue stream in the 2011 Discretionary Budget.
How come you never react negatively to this fact?
Stockholm Syndrome? The only stockholm syndrome I see is when blacks vote for Democrats. Blacks voting for the party of George Wallance, the party that has promised them the moon for 80 years and dilevered ZERO?
That's gotta be mass hysteria or something.
That should be: I can say this with certainty...
50% of the available revenue stream in the 2011 Discretionary Budget.
Which is only 17% of the total budget. Wow, 17 whole cents out of every tax dollar you pay (assuming you pay) goes to the military. You poor baby.
Meanwhile, a full 70% of the entire budget goes to entitlements. And it's STILL NOT ENOUGH for you.
You guys are far too greedy.
Free0352, so I assume you're admitting that you were totally off base with your "sucking up 99% of the tax money" statement?
Or, do you stand by your statement? If so, please cite your source. I'd be interested in reading it.
Yes, our greed puts Wall Street to shame, all right. We want the "70%" entitlements that we pay for. The unmitigated avarice.
Wall Street wants it all. And Republicans want to give it to them. Bless their noble little reptilian hearts.
I do no get it Dave!How the hell they can destroy the lives of millions and still argue in favor of it and sleep at night is unconscionable.
so I assume you're admitting that you were totally off base with your "sucking up 99% of the tax money" statement?
Ok, 70%. That's exactly how much I'd cut spending in one day. Starve the beast.
I have decided that Obama and the Democrats just want to keep us on the Plantation.
They have done NOTHING for us but throw us bones just big enough for us to keep voting for them.
Just say no to the Democrats (Limosine Liberals) running the Plantation in 2012!
Vote for a black man who will really bring some change, Herman Cain in 2012!
We want the "70%" entitlements that we pay for.
Bad news, you didn't pay for it. That's why 10 out of the 14 trillion the country is on the hook for comes from entitlements. You borrowed it, and now you want someone who didn't get jack squat out of it to pay for it.
But you can shout your "corporatist" crap till your lungs bleed. You'll still pull the lever for Goldman Sachs, Citi Group, JP Morgan, and GM and GE come November. You'll pull it saying "Yes they can!" the whole way. Then you'll complain about them paying for the campaign they just paid for so YOUR guy could win an election. And he is YOUR GUY, after all we sure didn't vote for him. We all know who you voted for, and will again next year.
You'll pull it saying "Yes they can!" the whole way.
LOL free, tell them the truth, tell them the truth!
@Dave
"It is with absolute certainty they hold their sacred belief in wealth and minority rule by the wealthy."
I agree completely. I'm tired of being ruled by wealthy Democrats. We need to elect more conservatives and get out from under minority rule.
@Weasel
"The rich have been sucking the wealth out of the US Economy for decades, and using that wealth to create jobs, in China."
Seriously? Where does the money go? Secret banks and secret matresses that have somehow found a wormhole to another economy? Weasel, even if the rich keep getting richer, their money is still a part of the economy. Even shipping jobs to China doesn't take money out of the global economy, and the U.S. benefits from global free trade. U.S. companies who create jobs in China, like Apple, still realize those profits in the U.S.
"[The Tea Party] want the rich to take all of the money..."
What a ridiculous lie. I must have missed that protest sign on the news: "Let the rich take all the money!"
"Since Nixon, taxes on the Wealthy have steadily dropped."
Since Reagan, taxes on the wealthy have steadily increased.
@Jerry
"Yet, the republicans would rather let the economy and the people suffer than have millionaires pay a little more."
It has nothing to do with wanting anyone to suffer or protecting millionaires. It has to do with not raising taxes in a poor economic environment. Even our esteemed president agrees that we shouldn't be raising taxes... well he did agree way back in 2010.
They've been here since the days of the Puritans, who linked great wealth to Godliness. Sadly, they always will be here, as long as there is greed and stupidity (they are sisters, after all.)
Stockholm Syndrome? The only stockholm syndrome I see is when blacks vote for Democrats. Blacks voting for the party of George Wallance, the party that has promised them the moon for 80 years and dilevered ZERO?
Could you possibly be moire stupid? Could anyone ELSE be? Your parents/siblings must be appalled.
Leslie,
They wouldn't know class warfare if it bit them; and it already has. As cultish true believers they really have no choice but to defend and advance the agenda of the privileged few. They cannot veer from their programming.
As for the majority of Americans who disagree with them, we can all go to Hell. This ain't no democracy. The extremists are demanding control over the majority. This is the real tyranny we face, unlike a 5% tax restoration on the rich.
TW,
The Democrats want to keep us on the plantation? And they at least throw us something.
So we can trust Cain. He won't try to keep us on the plantation, right? Or at least he will certainly toss us some bigger bones, then?
I'm not sure what you mean by plantation.
Obama wants us there, and it is run by liberals....Hmm. That rules out the government... at least the Republican House, the filibustered, gridlocked Senate, and the most Right Wing Supreme Court in our lifetime.
Well, that leaves us the White House. Is that the plantation you're talking about? Well, that's not so bad as some other plantations, is it?
Free,
I wish I had time to disprove all your points of indoctrination. I trust most of us see through your heavily saturated dishonesty, mis-information and/or mindlessly regurgitated Rightist dogma.
I see you are bringing up race for some reason. I'm sure some of us here share Native American blood. Not that that has anything to do with our discussion.
So there's a Black person here? Great. Who is he, or she?
JR,
There will always be a culture of greed, and their puppets. Now that it has bought our government, I'm sure everything's gonna be just swell for all if us, eh?
Jim,
Unconscionable is right. They really don’t have a conscience. Very much like sociopaths. I always like to suggest John Dean's "Conservatives without Conscience" to get a picture of the authoritarian mentality.
The man had first hand knowledge.
@Heathen,
"Since Nixon, taxes on the Wealthy have steadily dropped."
Since Reagan, taxes on the wealthy have steadily increased.
This is not true. Reagan did oversee some laws which resulted in the U.S. collecting many taxes it would not have otherwise collected from the wealthy, so he was not a total scumbag. However, a huge portion of the rich are made rich by capital gains, which has consistently plummeted after Reagan, and far more so then the incremental increase in top marginal rates (which are never even close to being collected, anyway.
@Dave,
Stockholm Syndrome.
Yes, that is exactly what it is.
John, during Reagan, rates fell to 15% and 28%. Since Reagan, rates have gone up (we're now at 35%). Maybe Weasel was referring to tax revenue, but I was referring to tax rates.
I believe tax revenues and the rich's share of income tax revenue have also gone up since Reagan. I could put some charts together if that would help.
@Heathen,
John, during Reagan, rates fell to 15% and 28%. Since Reagan, rates have gone up (we're now at 35%). Maybe Weasel was referring to tax revenue, but I was referring to tax rates.
I believe tax revenues and the rich's share of income tax revenue have also gone up since Reagan. I could put some charts together if that would help.
I would not consider your charts trying to prove that the rich literally pay more in taxes valid, as you already know. We have been down this road before. There are too many variables.
As you well know, I already have produced tables that show the raw data, the only thing I consider relevant:
Tax and Capital Gains Charts
Capital Gains taxes plummeted and top marginal rates increased marginally. What is actually collected is nowhere near the 35%, but this is true even if we use that number.
"I'm still amazed at the fanaticism shown by those who are so passionate in defending the economic elites.
"It would appear there is no higher priority for them than to keep their wealthy masters from paying a dime more in taxes."
What's that old saying? Oh yes, "It takes all kinds to make a world." It's been said you could open a food stand offering turd burgers and get a few suckers to buy them.
A lot of it, though, is ideological nonsense adopted by some as cover for what's really eating them. Yes, they dislike government, especially federal government, and hate to pay taxes. But they're basically bigoted bullies, and what's really eating them is resentment over the civil rights movement and gains made by people they believe are their inferiors. They believe they should have the right to treat those people as inferiors, with society's approval and cooperation. At the same time, they realize they can no longer get away with that, so they're all about resentment and spite.
As I've said in the past, one thing that made George W. Bush so popular with the people I describe is that he really got under the skin of the liberals they want to get even with. He was their sharp stick in our eye.
Myste, you're to be congratulated. You put a lot of work into those stats. They are very revealing.
I find it particularly interesting that the top marginal rate remained at 91 percent through the 1950's, when Dwight Eisenhower, a Republican, was president. I don't think he even tried to get that rate reduced. Yet, until the business cycle precipitated a recession in 1958, the economy boomed in that period. More people earned college degrees, and bought new cars and homes, than in any country at any time in history. Personal bankruptcies were comparatively rare. The middle class became substantially larger. Productivity gains weren't half bad.
Anyone dull or ideologically bent enough to believe conservatives' trickle-down political lies should have to explain how all that could've happened. Because in their mythology, with a 91 percent tax rate on the rich, the economy should fall down, roll on its back and go four feet to the sky, with rigor mortis soon follow.
So you raise the taxes on the rich by 5%, what does that do to balance the budget, and reduce the debt?
Mr. Anderson,
To be fair, the 91% was never collected, not even close, just as the 35% is not collected now. The rich don't pay their the top marginal rate on the top marginal portion of their income.
My top marginal rate is 28%, and I pay it. I have no choice. Not rich.
Just The FOX(R),
So you raise the taxes on the rich by 5%, what does that do to balance the budget, and reduce the debt?
It provides jobs for Americans that will return revenue as they are taxed on earnings. Paying taxes is a good thing. That means you have a job.
Jobs are most Americans' primary concern. It is your minority that disagress and would rather not create jobs.
SW,
The aristocracy is blessed by the tendency of any given population having authoritarian personalities comprising between 20% and 25% of the people. They will always be a minority, but since they echo the voice of Big Money they are much louder in the public arena than the majority.
"It provides jobs for Americans that will return revenue as they are taxed on earnings. Paying taxes is a good thing. That means you have a job."
So my taxes are what will pay for the jobs of other Americans? What happens when those Americans who relied on my taxes for their job want a raise? Will my taxes go up to pay them? Or will their taxes go up and when they do, they will want a larger raise to off set the loss in earnings due to the tax increase?
How is this gonna work?
Dave, in past comments you've ridiculed Republicans for claiming the Bush tax cuts created jobs, yet here you are claiming that raising taxes on the rich by 5% would create jobs. I sense some inconsistency.
Based on your past arguments, I've been given to believe that there is no relationship between taxes and jobs. Perhaps you could explain the logic behind your assertion. Even some data would be useful, if it exists.
How long will this relationship between taxes and jobs hold up? We need a lot of jobs, so let's not stop at a 5% increase. How many jobs will 25% give us? Ah screw it, let's just boost tax rates to 100% so we can have full employment!
Dave Dubya, Jeffersons Guardian, John Mystical, and friends:
Why don't you all just move to Cuba where there is the economic and social justice of your dreams?
Just don't complain about the substandard of living that always "trickles down" from Marxism.
I think there are still lots of statues of Che Guevera that will give you tingles up your legs!
Anon,
Thank you for your suggestion. I had not thought of that.
My concern is not for me personally, and not even for the economy, per se, as the president’s ability to actually determine the effect of his actions on macroeconomic issues is mostly little more than an excuse we have for supporting our ideological opinions.
My concern is for the poor and underprivileged, and sending one of their advocates to Cuba will not help them.
Again, I am grateful for your attempt to find a solution. Thank you.
This specific idea does not seem to solve the problem.
Just The FOX(R) and Anonymous Troll,
Your guys must be identical twins...or something like that.
Anonymous half,
Thank you for re-confirming number three of the five pillars of Right Wing fanaticism shared by radical Republicans and fascists.
3. Red baiting and scapegoating anyone who disagrees with them as a commie.
I bet you also believe Obama is a foreign Marxist Muslim out to take our guns and help the terrorists win, too.
--
Just The FOX(R) half,
So my taxes are what will pay for the jobs of other Americans?
You just figured that out? You are very confused aren’t you? How do you think your House and Senate Republican Overlords are paid? I mean besides from the corporate trough.
Unless you’re making over a million per year, nobody’s talking about raising your taxes. Obama wants the rich to kick in for jobs because the so-called “job creators” are hoarding and sitting on their big fat piles of tax cut cash. Poor little things. Five percent. Oh the tyranny!
--
HR,
I sense some inconsistency.
Me too. Did you read what you wrote? Misrepresentation, illogic and false assumptions all wrapped together.
I said tax cuts do not create jobs and taxes create jobs. This is what you call inconsistent?
Amazing.
How long will this relationship between taxes and jobs hold up?
You tell me. Here’s what we got. We have the lowest taxes in decades. Now we have highest unemployment in decades.
Let me find a twelve year old to explain for you. On second thought you don’t want an explanation. You want distraction.
As I keep saying, amazing. But I admire you guys for your consistent efforts to distract from the theme of my post. Ironically such distraction is consistent with what I've been saying all along.
"let's just boost tax rates to 100% so we can have full employment"
Heathen,
Such comments really undermine your credibility.
"So you raise the taxes on the rich by 5%, what does that do to balance the budget, and reduce the debt?"
I seriously doubt anyone who asks that seriously is both capable of comprehending the answer and accepting that it is the answer.
However, I could be wrong. So just in case let me suggest signing up for a community college course in macroeconomics. I don't suggest that as a put down. The country desperately needs for more people to have a good basic grasp of economics, especially macro.
Dave Dubya, you wrote in response to Heathen Republican...
"Me too. Did you read what you wrote? Misrepresentation, illogic and false assumptions all wrapped together.
I said tax cuts do not create jobs and taxes create jobs. This is what you call inconsistent?"
Yeah, Dave, I shook my head in amazement also. It seems our favorite curator of the syllogism may be inverse relationship-challenged.
Free0352, I'm glad to see you've finally become a Keynesian.
Perhaps, though, you should rethink your analysis and your reliance on YouTube videos for your understanding of macroeconomic theory. Taxes actually weren't lowered on the top marginal rate until 1964, when it went from 91% to 77%.
By the way, when the country finally emerged from that recession in February 1961 -- at least two years before the highest marginal rate dropped to 77% -- it began the second longest period of growth since the National Bureau of Economic Research started recording the time-frames of economic recessions in 1920.
So, obviously, the answer to economic prosperity is to raise the upper margin limit back to 91%. It certainly worked well throughout the 1950s and early '60s.
@Dave
"We have the lowest taxes in decades. Now we have highest unemployment in decades. Let me find a twelve year old to explain for you. On second thought you don’t want an explanation. You want distraction."
I think you need to stop accusing people of trying to distract when they are directly replying to your comment, the author of this blog. It's a petty attempt by you to undermine a commenter by making it look like they are dodging your point when, in my case, I'm directly addressing your own point.
@Dave (and Jefferson)
"Did you read what you wrote? Misrepresentation, illogic and false assumptions all wrapped together. I said tax cuts do not create jobs and taxes create jobs. This is what you call inconsistent?"
I made the inconsistency clear. In one comment you said there was no relationship between taxes and jobs; in the next you claim a relationship actually exists. Ask the twelve year old to explain it to you.
@Jerry (and Dave)
In response to "let's just boost tax rates to 100% so we can have full employment" You replied, "Such comments really undermine your credibility."
I'm fairly certain that I have no credibility with you anyway, since I'm a conservative. But if you'd like, maybe Dave will ask the same twelve year old to explain my point to you as well.
Let's review:
JTF said: "So you raise the taxes on the rich by 5%, what does that do to balance the budget, and reduce the debt?"
Dave said: "It provides jobs for Americans that will return revenue as they are taxed on earnings."
A reasonable reading of Dave's words indicates that he believes raising taxes by 5% on millionaires will create jobs. If this is true, how many jobs would be created by a 10% or 20% increase in taxes?
Jerry, you rightly noted the absurdity of my question, but that doesn't undermine my credibility; it undermines Dave's (particularly since he chose to only partially respond to my comments).
In Myste-like fashion, I extended Dave's logic to demonstrate its absurdity.
@ Anonymous 8:19 a.m.: Why don't you just move to Somalia. You won't find any meddling government bureaucrats stealing the wealth created by productive citizens and redistributing it to a bunch of parasites who won't work.
Ditto for Haiti. Two places that will make your Inner John Galt smile.
Free,
So you agree with Mr. X that we only have "false promises of integration and civil rights"?
Interesting.
So you think Obama is a token after all. Also interesting.
One thing for certain, as far as a progressive agenda, he is nothing but a token, locked onto a chain of restraint by the corporatist GOP and corpodems. He is powerless to change anything in a progressive direction.
HR,
I think you need to stop accusing people of trying to distract when they are directly replying to your comment.
You quoted, distorted, and then ignored my point. We have the lowest taxes in decades. We have the highest unemployment in decades. Point stands.
I also said tax cuts do not create jobs and taxes create jobs. You quoted, distorted, and then ignored my point again. Point stands.
Well done.
Tom,
Our authoritarian friends want us to leave so they can freely dismantle our democracy without being called on it.
I think they hate us for our democracy. We're supposed to roll over with the majority of Americans and let them run the show.
Bless their fascist little hearts.
"You quoted, distorted, and then ignored my point."
Show me.
"We have the lowest taxes in decades. We have the highest unemployment in decades. Point stands."
I didn't argue this point. I find it to be a non sequitur, because I'm not aware of evidence that shows causality between tax rates and unemployment. All you've done is note a correlation, which is not causation.
I didn't argue this point because I don't feel like debating it. So let it stand. I don't really care.
"I also said tax cuts do not create jobs and taxes create jobs. You quoted, distorted, and then ignored my point again. Point stands."
This is the point I've been debating, so thank you for repeating it: Taxes create jobs. Show me. Your point doesn't stand until you can back it up.
HR,
I've heard from every Rightie how corporations are forced to offshore our jobs so they can pay lower taxes.
That is but one correlation. There are more.
You and JTF demonstrate a remarkable inattention to the obvious sometimes.
He asked, "So my taxes are what will pay for the jobs of other Americans?"
I responded.
You just figured that out? You are very confused aren’t you? How do you think your House and Senate Republican Overlords are paid? I mean besides from the corporate trough.
You demanded:Taxes create jobs. Show me. Your point doesn't stand until you can back it up.
How can anyone be so oblivious or obstinate to need it pointed out that our taxes created every federal, state and local government job. Every soldier, sailor, marine, airman, cop, politician, agency employee, and street sweeper.
This is why we call your "arguments" distractions.
I suppose you'd rather nit pick like this and prove my post's thesis than recognize the unpleasant truth of it.
Dave,
Don't you know. Those are not "real" jobs. :)
Note to fellow "commies".
I will be out for the evening, so if anyone would like to play with our distracting and disoriented Righties, please feel free. Otherwise I will patiently respond to their next round of delusional distractions tomorrow.
Jerry,
One thing for sure, something is not real around here.
Dave,
I thought the plan was to increase the taxes on $250,000 and up.\
But wat about the raises I asked about, where's the money coming from for them?
Why did the 1st stimulus plan fail?
"My concern is for the poor and underprivileged, and sending one of their advocates to Cuba will not help them."
John Mystical, we should send you, the poor, and the underpriviliged to Cuba where you all can enjoy the same social and economic justice.
Don't let the door hit you in the rear on the way out of Amerika.
FYI, Michael Moore says Cuba has a great health care system.
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Obama administration Friday pulled the plug on a major program in the president's signature health overhaul law - a long-term care insurance plan dogged from the beginning by doubts over its financial solvency.
After months insisting that could be fixed, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, finally admitted Friday she doesn't see how.
"Despite our best analytical efforts, I do not see a viable path forward for CLASS implementation at this time," Sebelius said in a letter to congressional leaders.
The law required the administration to certify that CLASS would remain financially solvent for 75 years before it could be put into place."
Hate to be Mr. Obvious, but this is the problem with liberal tax and spend programs, there is no viable path for implementation that allows them to remain financially solvent for any length of time. And taxing the rich to pay for the "jobs plan" will be another example of this true fact.
Note, this did not come from Fox(R) News, but the vaunted, well respected, non biased AP.
JG, I bet this is just as baffling you to!
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Obama administration Friday pulled the plug on a major program in the president's signature health overhaul law - a long-term care insurance plan dogged from the beginning by doubts over its financial solvency.
After months insisting that could be fixed, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, finally admitted Friday she doesn't see how.
"Despite our best analytical efforts, I do not see a viable path forward for CLASS implementation at this time," Sebelius said in a letter to congressional leaders.
The law required the administration to certify that CLASS would remain financially solvent for 75 years before it could be put into place."
Must be Wall Street, the filthy rich pigs and conservatives every where's fault for this. Or that dammed part of the law that said it had to show it would be financially
solvent. Or the majority party at the time this bill was pasted. You know the party whose leader said "we wont know whats in the bill until we pass it." Truer words wee never spoken.
Anon,
"My concern is for the poor and underprivileged, and sending one of their advocates to Cuba will not help them."
John Mystical, we should send you, the poor, and the underpriviliged to Cuba where you all can enjoy the same social and economic justice.
Don't let the door hit you in the rear on the way out of Amerika. You misspelled America in your native alphabet AND you misspelled underprivileged, even though I provided an example of its spelling for you in my statement.
FYI, Michael Moore says Cuba has a great health care system. Thank you, but I am not unhealthy. Should I fall ill, off to Cuba I will go.
we should send you, the poor, and the underpriviliged to Cuba where you all can enjoy the same social and economic justice. Do you know what named fallacy this response is? Would you like assistance identifying it?
Just,
"Fox(R) News." You crack me up with your creativity, sir. Very apropos.
"Tom,
Our authoritarian friends want us to leave so they can freely dismantle our democracy without being called on it."
Just curious Dave. The MAJORITY of Americans DON'T WANT OBAMACARE, yet the bill was rammed up the arses of the MAJORITY of Americans.
IS THIS DEMOCRACY DAVE DUBYA?
Just The FOX(R),
Your limited comprehension still sees Obama/Romneycare as a "liberal" plan. It is no such thing. Republicans, corpodems and insurance companies all helped twist it into another Romneycare.
Just The FOX(R),
Why did the 1st stimulus plan fail?
It didn't. We are not in a depression and I have a new road.
Why has capitalism failed?
My concern is for the poor and underprivileged, and sending one of their advocates to Cuba will not help them."
John Mystical, we should send you, the poor, and the underpriviliged to Cuba where you all can enjoy the same social and economic justice.
Don't let the door hit you in the rear on the way out of Amerika. You misspelled America in your native alphabet AND you misspelled underprivileged, even though I provided an example of its spelling for you in my statement.
John Mystical, you sure are anal retenteve!
Capitalism hasn't failed, if left alone it will do quite well. What's failed is liberal attempts to turn our capitalist system into a Command Economy instead of a Demand Economy.
How much more debt producing stimulus dollars need to be spent until the Obama "depression" is over?
"Your limited comprehension still sees Obama/Romneycare as a "liberal" plan. It is no such thing. Republicans, corpodems and insurance companies all helped twist it into another Romneycare."
Gee, if this moderate health care cant carry it's own water, what make you think a more liberal one would be able to do any better?
Just The FOX(R),
You seem to remember the Stimulus, but you can't remember why it was needed. Maybe the collapse of Sept. '08 is too far back to recall. We almost had a depression. Obama may have helped prevent that.
Capitalism "left alone" works quite well for rich capitalists. Nobody else.
Unregulated capitalism failed most of us because it was "left alone". If you didn't worship wealth and the wealthy so much you might comprehend the need for them to follow some rules. But you're too busy shilling for them to see that aren't you?
Still can't decide if Obama/Romneycare was moderate or liberal? Let me help. Who profits most from it? Insurance Corporations. That would make it corporatist legislation in a sane and reasonable mind.
Let me spell it out for you one more time. Medicare for all is what liberals want for a health care system. You simply want more money in CEO's pockets. See the difference?
Anon,
Just curious Dave. The MAJORITY of Americans DON'T WANT OBAMACARE, yet the bill was rammed up the arses of the MAJORITY of Americans.
I am going way out on a limb here, because I cannot prove this, but: Obama also did not want ObamaCare. He had no love for shared participation. He is a visionary. He could get ObamaCare passed and he could not get Universal Healthcare passed. He knew that if he could get a shared participation plan though Congress, later the private payer portion could be picked up by the government.
So you are asking the wrong question. The question, which you may find has the same answer, is do the majority of Americans want Universal Healthcare?
I am not sure how relevant that question is, but for the sake of the game, I point it out as the right question.
The fact that you are so amazed by people wanting to protect their wealth shows how ignorant you are about human behavior.
John Mystical,
Dave Dubya likes to have democracy in a lot of his sentences. The MAJORITY of the people did not want the Obama Health Care Bill passed. The question I had was should a bill in which the MAJORITY of the people don't want, be passed in a democracy?
John Mystical thanks for the pretzel logic and the attempt at changing the subject.
I am not asking the wrong question. You are avoiding the answering of the question.
Above is a good example why I prefer not to respond to anonymous cult trolls.
First, they don't read the original post. My post was about duped cultists defending the interests of their wealthy masters over their own.
Second would be the attendant arrogant stupidity of their judgment of my view of human nature.
A cult is a cult is a cult. Ask Republican cult leader, Washington Times owner, and Bush family friend "Rev." Sun Myung Moon.
Our troll is passionately and ignorantly defending Moon's wealth, not his own.
Anon,
Dave Dubya likes to have democracy in a lot of his sentences. The MAJORITY of the people did not want the Obama Health Care Bill passed. The question I had was should a bill in which the MAJORITY of the people don't want, be passed in a democracy?
Our system, to be precise, is a Representative Democracy. Presumably, we “hire” people who will basically represent our needs. We do not take a referendum on every issue. That would be a different kind of democracy. I cannot speak for Dave, but I can tell you that Founders, blessed by They, had the choice to create a democracy closer to the Athenian flavor and they rejected it.
So, in answer to your question, popular vote should not affect every issue. It is the mandate of those voting to become experts in the ramifications of the issues before them, and to represent the needs of their constituency.
John Mystical thanks for the pretzel logic and the attempt at changing the subject.
I am not asking the wrong question. You are avoiding the answering of the question.
Understood. I did not answer the question, because I considered it to betray an ignorance of Obama’s intention. I did not avoid it, but I also did not answer it. I believe I have answered it now, but I will add to it:
Obama properly represented his constituency with the passage of the Affordable Healthcare Act. That does not speak to the quality of the actual bill itself, but only to Obama upholding his office in trying to achieve a step toward Universal Healthcare.
Yes, Obama did his job with the Affordable Healthcare act and I am very proud of him for what he tried to do.
I hope that answer was less circuitous and meets with your approval.
One other point. Many on the Left opposed Obamacare because it did not go far enough; it did not provide a single payer universal plan, and it did not get for-profit health insurance companies out of providing primary health insurance and limiting them to only secondary coverage.
John and Jerry,
Anonymous cult trolls will not understand you or me. They would have to pay attention to people other than their masters.
Note the delusion and distraction about healthcare "rammed" up someone somewhere. Not me. Did you get something rammed up somewhere?
We could mention the real public sentiments, but that doesn't fit the cult belief system.
From a CNN/Opinion Research poll last December:
"Do you oppose that legislation because you think its approach toward health care is too liberal, or because you think it is not liberal enough?"
Favor 43%
Oppose, too liberal 37%
Oppose, not liberal enough 13%
No opinion 7%
Or to put it another way, 56 percent of Americans either like the law or would prefer that it was more robust.
In their indoctrination that means most Americans don't want health care reform.
We also know a good 2/3 majority are in favor of restoring 5% of the elite's tax rate. Righties do not want that majority represented in our government either.
Lucky for them they are winning.
Even when democracy is losing, they're still not happy. I'd be afraid to see what exactly would make them happy. I think it would be best for 99% of us if the cultists were more miserable.
At least the whining crybabies are entertaining us, with their delusional mix of ignorance and arrogance.
Dave,
You are doing your liberal dance around the question again. My question is why didn't the 1st stimulus spending bill work? Instead if answering it, you blame someone else for needing the 1st stimulus spending bill.. So who are you blaming for needing the second one, you know the Jobs (increase taxes) Bill?
Nor do you want to answer this question "Obama/Romneycare" is not liberal enough and it fails, why would a more liberal health care plan work.?
Dance all you want Dave, but truth is Command Economics doesn't work.
Examples abound in the last 3 years of the futility of govt picking the winners and losers: Want to start with SOLYNDRA? That was a wise, visionary selection.
Just The FOX(R),
You just spat out four more questions, one after another after another, while complaining that I do a “liberal dance” around just one loaded question? First of all a “liberal dance” is more fun and expressive than a conservative dance. Second, the dance is the answer.
I hear you. I agree Command Economics doesn't work. Wall Street, Big Money, Corpocrats and Republicans commanded we offshore jobs. Then Wall Street, Big Money, Corpocrats and Republicans commanded we cut regulations and taxes on Big Money. Wall Street, Big Money, Corpocrats and Republicans commanded we cut more taxes for the rich, cut them lower than anyone can remember. And Wall Street, Big Money, Corpocrats and Republicans also commanded we go to war in Iraq.
On a side note that is not strictly Command Economics, but related, Wall Street, Big Money, Corpocrats and Republicans commanded we amend our FISA Law to legalize and immunize corporate and government data mining and warrantless surveillance on Americans.
Wall Street, Big Money, Corpocrats and Republicans finally crashed our economy in September 08; and then commanded we pay for their failed un-regulated capitalism. Then Wall Street got bonuses and Republicans got the House.
Yeah, I see what you mean. Big Money commands. It barks and politicians jump. Command Economics as commanded by Big Money not only doesn’t work, but takes out its failure on the little guys. Maybe you haven’t seen that part.
Dave,
After reading your many posts blasting the rich, wall street, and just about anything not liberal, and supporting the Occupy Wall street protests, I thought you should know the company you run with. Here's their link:
whitehonor.com/white-power/the-occupy-wall-street-movement
Dave ole friend, the American Nazi Party is on your side!
dakotavoice.com/2011/10/communists-nazis-throw-in-behind-occupy-wall-street
Let the spin begin!
Just The FOX(R),
Back so soon after our Command Economics meeting of the minds?
Oh, I see. You're all excited about something, aren't you? Kind of like that hoax you bought into about the demonstrators being paid. We haven't heard much about that lately from you.
You must have found a crazy new conspiracy or something.
Well, bless your innocent little heart and simple understanding. You did find a crazy new conspiracy.
I bet this Nazi guy tickled you silly getting you to think I'm on his side, or he is on my side of anything.
You see, I don't have to share any ideology to side with anyone's right to not be screwed. Including your right to not get screwed.
Time to explain some things for you, son.
First, I'm not racially pure enough for him to be very much on my side about anything. Deal breaker. Second, my fellow liberals and I don't agree with his anti-semitic view of Wall Street Bankers, nor much else.
Nope. Not one of us liberals will march with a swastika. (Especially after your Tea Cult painted one on Obama.)
Ok, here's the thing you don't get.
They are part of the non-elite 99%.
Even Nazis have been screwed by Wall Street. I've been screwed by Wall Street. You've been screwed by Wall Street. That makes them on your side as much as mine. That makes me on your side, and would make you on mine if you were not so cult-indoctrinated.
Democrats have been screwed by Wall Street. Republicans have been screwed by Wall Street. Capitalists, communists, socialists, libertarians, conservatives, liberals, Christians, Jews and Americans of all faith and creed have been screwed by Wall Street.
Wake up, lad.
Dave Dubya,
So now the American Nazi Party has joined the OWS movement. Is that right?
"Tyrone"
You tell us, please. You're the one keeping up with the Nazi websites.
Since I don't read their crap, I’m glad you're interested enough to read it for us and report back.
I saw one of your tea baggers carrying a picture of Obama with a swastika. Would you explain that one to us too?
Also, since I am only an avid amateur World War 2 historian, you are probably far more insightful, so please educate us.
We trust you because you're the most honest Rightie here. You're the only one to give us a full real name, "Tyrone".
Please say hello to "Wavy Gravy" and "Michael Stivic" for us. Oh, and what's his name again...? Yes, "Saul Alinsky", too, okay?
Say "Hi" for us, please. For some reason you guys are never all around at the same time...
We should have you all over for a party some time. That would be fun. I just know you guys love hanging out together.
Tyrone Witherspoon (AKA Anonymous, Just the Facts!, Wavy Gravy, Michael Stivic, Saul Alinsky, and countless other pseudonyms) you attempted to deceive with the following...
"So now the American Nazi Party has joined the OWS movement. Is that right?"
You, and the modern-day conservative movement, would be a better authority on fascism. That's your forte; your expertise. You understand, and stand behind, fascism, simply because your movement adheres to its basic principles. You are fascism. You live and breathe it.
I very much doubt whether the American Nazi Party would ever join and be a part of the Occupy movement. It would be antithetical to your cause.
'Not one of us liberals will march with a swastika."
How about marching with a hammer and sickle? Would you be ok with that? What will happen if the swastika shows up? Will it be welcomed?
Daddy Dave, do you remember at one time those two socialist countries were allied? Help me recall who was their common enemy at that time?
Was it nations who were capitalistic?
Interesting that both Germany and USSR operated using Command Economics, and both failed to survive in the free economic (Demand Economics IE:Capitalism) market place.
Daddy Dave, it is my belief that what is screwing us is the Federal Govt trying to manage our economy (Command Economics) by picking the winners and losers. In the past I felt that while most of their actions had good intentions, it still screwed things up. Today with the most transparent WH(LOL) clearly making it's selections based on what it's selections can return in campaign support, I no longer beleive that.
SOLYNDRA, is the most known about example to date.
I am gentile, I find the anti Jewish theme running through the OC crowd clearly disturbing..It reminds me of what took place in Germany and the USSR before and during WWII. The anti-Jewish theme in the Anti-Wall Street movement was clearly shown BEFORE the Nazis lent their support. Scapegoating I believe it's called.
Clearly I disagree with the OC movement. Clearly I disagree with the Wall Street screwed us concept. Clearly I disagree with the idea that the only way to fix our economic ills is more Command Economics. Clearly I disagree with the anti-Jewish racism shown in the OC movement.
If painting a mustache on a man's photo upsets you Dave, how can you give any support to a group that is supported by Nazis is beyond me.
Your long lost son,
Just the Facts!
JG,
What??? You mean our Righties are dishonestly and deceptively trying to distract us?
I feel like such a dupe.
Just The FOX(R),
Wow. SIX hypothetical, deceptive and nonsensical questions popped off the bat. You don’t really expect to distract us into answering all of those, right?
I will, however, be happy to perform a “liberal dance” around one or two. I like that “liberal dance” thing you gave me.
Do you remember at one time those two socialist countries were allied? Help me recall who was their common enemy at that time?
I assume you mean the Fascist and Communist countries. Saying they were both simply socialist is inaccurate.
A broad sense of socialism was present in Britain, the US, Germany and the USSR back then. Still is in fact. Deal with it. That’s what saved us from the collapse of un-regulated capitalism.
So you see, it was NOT the “socialism” that launched the aggression in WW II. It was the Imperialism of Japan and Fascism of Germany.
If you are referring to the German/Soviet non-aggression pact you are mistaken by saying they were “allies”. Poland was the country between them in both their sights. Hitler was attempting to distract and deceive Stalin of his true intentions. As with the radical Rightists of today, distraction and deception were useful tools for fascists of the 1930’s.
Your ignorance of history is matched by your indoctrinated view of modern times. Look how you desperately and foolishly try to paint anti-Wall Street sentiment as fascism.
Your “scapegoat victims” are the powerful billionaires who first bought the politicians, then cheated us, and finally demanded we bail them out with bonuses. Now they are bankrolling Republicans' campaigns
Your “Fascists” are the powerless people representing the majority of Americans against this plutocratic corruption.
Your powerful wealthy “Victims” are the ones dominating our government. They are the ones picking the winners and losers in our former representative democracy. They command our economy and our government.
Senator Dick Durban admitted, “They own the place”.
This is a truth you cannot see. Another truth you cannot see is the fact that you, sir, are an extremist. That’s right. You are in the fringe minority defending the narrow interests of the rich and powerful over the people’s democracy. You are the indoctrinated hysterical ideologue whining about anti-Jewish racism shown in the OC movement . You are utterly blind to that fact many Jews are in that crowd. You are much closer to fascism than most Americans and that is why you cannot see it for what it really is.
You have demonstrated ignorance of the past and of the present. You don’t need facts when you are a cult slave to radical Rightist ideology.
Dave, Just the Facts! (AKA Anonymous, Michael Stivic, Saul Alinsky, Tyrone Witherspoon, and Wavy Gravy, among others) is a dyed-in-the-wool fascist troll who only attempts to divert and distract when he sees the truth. He surely can't be ignorant of that which is so apparent, and certainly nobody could be that stupid.
His motives are clear.
//
Oh, the humanity!//
Oh, the
Hindenburg!
Man, you gotz more trolls than 'Lord of the Rings'
Whoa! At least it is better than having hemorrhoids... don't itch quite as much
JG,
I'll be fair, balanced and generous and give him the benefit of the doubt. He is either a stupid ignorant cultist or a malevolent fascist liar. Of couse any degree within that spectrum is possible. But it is clear how he chooses to define himself within those parameters. I agree that fascist is more likely his true nature. And you're right. It is difficult to believe anyone could be that stupid.
Either way he displays the rabid fanaticism of a both a cultist and a fascist, and still confirms the truth of an authoritarian mindset in my original post.
--
Again, I thank you, Just the FOX(R) and all your little "friends" for demonstrating the accuracy of my assessment.
Your fanatic extremism really is an amazing thing to behold. Unfortunatley your ilk is succeeding in destroying our democracy. You are the very image of fascism in America.
Okjimm,
I decided to allow them through the gate this time in order to let them exemplify the truth of my post.
They don't know they're playing my game, where I get to freely stomp their fascist drivel and use it to support my case.
I'll confess my weakness that I enjoy setting sociopaths up and then slapping them down. I've taken my share of crap from them over the years, and it feels good to verbally humiliate their evil asses.
They won't always have the run of the house.
I'll want to have an intelligent discussion with sane people with a conscience sometime.
I shall soon go back to limiting the trolls' intrusive, rude fascist propaganda. I admit it is fun deleting their BS too.
"Your ignorance of history is matched by your indoctrinated view of modern times. Look how you desperately and foolishly try to paint anti-Wall Street sentiment as fascism. "
Dave, what you said in this part of your spin post is the lid calling the kettle black. You are hopelessly indoctrinated. USSR and Nazism were both socialist Command Economic countries.
You can call it what you want but the names they called themselves was Socialist. Socialist was in the name of their country and government. Sucks I know, but that is a fact.
"So you see, it was NOT the “socialism” that launched the aggression in WW II. It was the Imperialism of Japan and Fascism of Germany."
Then you said "A broad sense of socialism was present in Britain, the US, GERMANY and the USSR back then." Duh?
"Hitler was attempting to distract and deceive Stalin of his true intentions." If that's the case what was Stalin doing when he also invaded Poland, distracting Hitler?
"Your “scapegoat victims” are the powerful billionaires who first bought the politicians, then cheated us, and finally demanded we bail them out with bonuses. Now they are bankrolling Republicans' campaigns.
Dave, your too smart to really believe that or at least I hoped you were. I can give you link after link where the OC protesters are expressing anti-Jewish feelings. Why do you think the American Nazi party supports the OC protesters? Because the OC protesters are made at gentiles? Do you know who Wall Street supported by well over 75% in the 2008 election? It wasn't McCain.
For the record, I think the debates you and I have are well handled, but the posts by JG are nothing more than attempts to distract both you and I from our debate. So in my brief one recognition of JG, I wish to state once and for all to JG,
Jefferson Guardian, I could care less what you post, you are an idiot.
To you Daddy Dave, I really hope you review your willingness to be ID'ed with any protest that has such an Anti-Jewish as OC does.
"...troll...fascist...sociopath...evil...insane...lacking conscience...intrusive...rude..."
And that's just your last comment, Dave.
I wonder what it would be like to participate in a blog from the left and NOT be called names, either personally or generally. You know, it is possible for people from the left and the right to participate on a blog without resorting to name calling. It's actually possible to have constructive conversation.
It usually starts with the attitude and behavior of the blog owner, and commenters will follow suit.
Heathen Republican, you said...
"It usually starts with the attitude and behavior of the blog owner, and commenters will follow suit."
Possibly, but certainly not in this case. This character is a troll from the word go, and has haunted not only this site for far too long, but migrated from The Rant by Tom Degan, where he's been a nuisance for the last year. He's at his worst when he starts drinking at night (although he claims he's sober), when his obnoxiousness and challenge with grammar and spelling are clearly at its zenith. Tom is probably one of the most gentlemanly and courteous people you'd ever have the pleasure of knowing, so your premise is false.
Please don't encourage his unacceptable behavior. I'm sure you wouldn't if you were a guest in Dave's home. Again, please don't here.
Thank you.
HR,
Not be called names. Right. As if I and all the other progressives have not had our fill of Right Wing red baiting and accusations of being communists....or fascists, or any other term the accuser usually has no concept of.
"...troll...fascist...sociopath...evil...insane...lacking conscience...intrusive...rude..." are all terms derived from verifiable context and examples from various extremist comments. Do you think I make up this crap we see here?
Long ago I told JTF that dumping articles, distracting, and numerous questions, etc was troll behavior. He ignored me and continued. More similar content by himself and others was added later. This isn’t out of the blue.
You and I have had somewhat constructive conversation, but that is not intended by some. I’m not so naive.
Forces against democracy need to be called for what they are. Rude dishonesty needs to be called for what it is. When idiots say I’m on the side of Nazis, I will say they are idiots. When they say I am a communist I will call them a fascist, because that is what fascists historically label those who disagree with them. When brainwashed cultists spew their brainwashing I will call them brainwashed cultists. That gives them leeway from being called simply evil. I try to understand where someone may be coming from. But I will not tolerate the intolerant.
I’m also not so naive to call opposition to democracy nice names. Fascism is a cancer attacking our democracy and I will call it what it is. Minority rule by Republicans and the economic elites is proto-fascism and antithetical to democracy. I will not tolerate the intolerable. I will fight for freedom and democracy and that requires powerful words that contain truth.
Look at this, “I really hope you review your willingness to be ID'ed with any protest that has such an Anti-Jewish as OC does”. And this: “I can give you link after link where the OC protesters are expressing anti-Jewish feelings.”
“OC” being OWS I would presume. Clarity is not the concern here obviously.
No evidence offered. This is purely dishonest demonization. At least he admits he shills for the elites. There is a limit in trying to reason with such tactics. The limit is always pushed.
I was quoted: "Your “scapegoat victims” are the powerful billionaires who first bought the politicians, then cheated us, and finally demanded we bail them out with bonuses. Now they are bankrolling Republicans' campaigns”.
He responded: Dave, your too smart to really believe that or at least I hoped you were.
Maybe you can tell me what that means. I had even posted the donations in another thread JTF participated in.
Continues...
Heathen,
Have you forgotten about your interaction at Fair and Unbalanced and Mysterious Things?
HR,
In case you and Just The FOX(R)both missed it:
Top Goldman Sachs 2012 cycle donations:
Romney, Mitt (R)
$290,750
Obama, Barack (D)
$44,750
Brown, Scott P (R-MA)
$38,500
Rubio, Marco (R-FL)
$38,000
Gillibrand, Kirsten (D-NY)
$34,000
Pawlenty, Tim (R)
$19,000
Cruz, Ted (R-TX)
$17,750
Roskam, Peter (R-IL)
$17,500
McConnell, Mitch (R-KY)
$16,000
Cantor, Eric (R-VA)
$15,500
Himes, Jim (D-CT)
$15,000
McCarthy, Kevin (R-CA)
$15,000
Boehner, John (R-OH)
$14,500
Look at all those (R's)
You share some of that nonsensical style when you post: Taxes create jobs. Show me. Your point doesn't stand until you can back it up And I wearily did.
One can reason with cultists, “6,000 year old Earthers” and “Birthers” only so much. The disconnect will always present itself.
I’ve been more than tolerant of the red baiting, Nazi baiting and other fascist tactics. Yes they are fascist tactics. That is what fascists did....and still do. As a representative of the party that caters and serves only the wealthy elite, you cannot recognize what I am saying as relevant and true. You are defending your fellow ideologue and ideology, not the truth. I can freely say Obama has betrayed our Constitution. You cannot say the same of Republicans because you are the partisan.
Yes it starts with attitude, and I have an attitude towards those who are dismantling democracy. And that attitude justly carries over to the minions of the proto-fascist advocates of minority rule. Look at where being nice to Republicans got Obama. He is the weakest president ever. Just what you want. Soon the Guardians Of Plutocracy will take the White House and continue their war on democracy and push their austerity program of punishment for the majority of Americans who had nothing to do with the debt and follies of Washington DC.
Most of my life is past. I hurt for our children and grandchildren. They will never know the freedom and prosperity the former United States of America provided.
I have a conscience and I know damn well when I see it lacking in others. There can be no conscience in an authoritarian cultist, only fanatical belief.
Just the FOX(R),
My response to you is within the above comment.
@John
"Have you forgotten about your interaction at Fair and Unbalanced and Mysterious Things?"
Not at all. Those are two good examples where the respective blog owners keep the conversation constructive, and do not lower themselves to calling their commenters named when they disagree.
They also don't (usually) craft entire posts designed to call Republicans Fascists, delusional, or cultists.
My comment was not intended as a defense of JTF or any other annoying commenters. It was to see if a rational statement might penetrate Dave's defenses, and see if we could return to a time when left and right freely debated at Freedom Rants, without the name-calling that is endorsed and employed by Dave himself.
Jefferson's Guardian,
Fuck you!
Now I've said something you can be pissed about. Dave, now I've given you reason to ban me from your site.
Go for it, the only people who you listen to are those who agree with you.
Dave,
Top Goldman Sachs 2012
Nice but what I asked about was 2008. Guess another example of my asking numerous questions or distracting.
Final note, I've not been on Tom's or this blog for a year. How about less than 6 months? FYI, I rarely read or post on conservative blogs, why? Because I agree with most posting I find there, I want to find different ideas that challenge my beliefs, and I want to challenge others positions. So I read the liberals blogs..Wonder if that could be said about liberals?
Naaah.
Just the Facts!, you said...
"Fuck you!"
Sorry, but you're not my type.
"Final note, I've not been on Tom's or this blog for a year. How about less than 6 months?"
Gee, it seems like a year. Actually, it seems like it's been an eternity.
"Wonder if that could be said about liberals?" [visiting conservative blogs in order to find challenging ideas]
Nope, been there and done that. I rarely visit conservative sites any longer because I seek the truth, and I find the truth has no validity with most conservative minds.
HR,
The only times I call Republicans fascists, delusional or cultists is when they speak and behave as such.
It is not a blanket indictment, but the party is sliding so fast to the radical Right, the terms tend to follow.
For example, former governor of New Mexico Gary Johnson hasn't earned any of those tags. I applaud his courage to challenge stale doctrine.
Eisenhower was certainly not a fascist or cultist either. You won’t find another Republican warning us about the Military Industrial Comples.
Bachmann-Palin Overdrive and their followers on the other hand...
See where I'm going here? There are damn few moderate Republicans left. As a party they are extreme in their opposition to democracy. I don’t care if someone wants lower taxes or no public funded abortions. I’ll even let someone try to say a corporation is a person. Fine. I can argue against those people without calling them anything. When public education is attacked I will defend it. When public services are denied, I will object. The greedy will be greedy, and will advocate for greed. I will question their conscience, but not their sanity. Those are their opinions.
But when the party that represents those positions actively disenfranchises voters, destroys workers’ right to bargain on working conditions and pay, and allows corporations more rights than persons, I will call them what they are. When that party’s defenders call me a Marxist, or insinuate I am anything less than they are, or spew any other hateful dishonest Right Wing propaganda, they will be called the fascist that they are.
I have documented moderate Republicans leaving the party due to its shift to the extreme Right.
Rational statements are never derided as cultist either. However few would allow the word rational to describe many of the assertions and accusations presented by the Right Wing extremists here.
When Limbaugh says, "Liberals want to destroy America and want the terrorists to win" he forfeits any civility, and deserves contempt as the propagandist and liar he is.
I think the radical Right is shocked when they meet real resistance. They’ve cowed the corporate media for so long they think everybody will allow their dishonesty and destruction of democracy to go unchallenged.
Okay, maybe I’m a radical extremist too, but I am being rational and extreme for the cause of democracy, for the Bill of Rights, and for the majority of Americans.
Our government has become so corrupt that democracy and our Constitution have become the radical solutions.
Just The FOX(R),
No, you didn't ask about 2008. You brought it up as an argument against what you quoted me, "Now they are bankrolling Republicans' campaigns".
What did you say immediately after that? Dave, your too smart to really believe that or at least I hoped you were.
This is why I call it deliberate distraction and deceit. If you are not deliberately being dishonest, or ignorant, then I can only say you are intellectually lazy, inattentive or careless. Either way, distraction is the result.
You say you want to "find different ideas". Good. Try reading for understanding.
Instead you argue against something you didn't read or comprehend in the first place. That reinforces our perception that you are a rigid ideologue.
JG
To be your type I'd have to be an under age boy. That's is what I've always heard about you.
What do you recommend for pouge bait, Snickers or Almond Joy?
"Do you know who Wall Street supported by well over 75% in the 2008 election?"
There's the question I asked you Dave, in case you missed it! Or didn't take time to read it? Or did you want to deflect the fact that all of hated WALL STREET has had Obama , the man you have said you will support in 2012 for President,in their back pocket. You know the guy who supports the 99% now, but has been screwing them over all along and taking money from the Jews you and others liberals hates so much.
Do you know who Wall Street supported by well over 75% in the 2008 election? It wasn't McCain.
Tough question. Big secret. Hmm. Ya got me there.
That was your question and answer. It was a distraction about the past, a distraction from the present truth that you didn't want to read. That is your pattern.
That wasn't what you said directly after quoting me, was it?
This pile of fascist excrement was:
Dave, your too smart to really believe that or at least I hoped you were. I can give you link after link where the OC protesters are expressing anti-Jewish feelings. Why do you think the American Nazi party supports the OC protesters? Because the OC protesters are made at gentiles?
You meant OWS, but never mind your usual ignorant jack around, you've gone over the line with taking money from the Jews you and others liberals hates so much.
That is pure fascist hate mongering.
This means the time has come for us to ignore your typical rude troll crap, as well as your hate speech.
You've been a fascist cult troll for long enough here. We got more than we need of what you say. Everything I've allowed you here for has finally come down to this foul hate.
Your evil is not welcome, and shall not be rewarded with further reply.
Just the Facts!, you said...
"That's is what I've always heard about you."
The only things you've ever heard are the voices in your head due to your pathological delusions, which are fed, I'm sure, by the lies and deceit coming from Fox News, the right-wing echo chamber.
Keep telling yourself Dave that Obama is funded by nothing but hard working middle class folks and pull that lever for Goldman, pull it for JP Morgan. He'll tell you what you want to hear and you'll eat it up... just like last time... and once again he'll let the cronies opt of of ObamaCare and he'll cut them huge tax breaks and NOTHING WILL CHANGE.
Free,
Did you miss those numbers above? Pull for an R and you have Big Money, including GS. They've gone back to their usual puppets. Pull D and you still get corpo-dems. Pull your L and you get Kochs.
Money money money, D R or L.
You're telling me nothing.
Dave, somehow Free0352 hasn't heard a thing you've said all these months.
Strange, huh?
JG,
Righties tend to believe they know what we think more than we do. Just ask one. It's important for them to fit us into a mold that makes for an easier target. As with their Big Lie of "liberal media", it is a wish fulfillment on their part to define us as stupid, ill-informed socialists out to destroy capitalism.
And as we all know, this is why it often comes down to them calling us anti-American Marxists.
OWS just won the endorsement of Obama, the American Communist Party, and the American Nazi Party.
All want the destruction of America.
This one was probably from you know who. I just thought I'd let one more shining example of evil and stupidity make my case.
This is what American fascism looks like.
In case someone buys into the lies:
Chris Hedges interviewed an OWS woman in the park.
“People have been yelled out of the park,” she said. “Someone had a sign the other day that said ‘Kill the Jew Bankers.’ They got screamed out of the park. Someone else had a sign with the N-word on it. That person’s sign was ripped up, but that person is apparently still in the park.
It's more than clear who's side American fascists are on. They hate the demonstrators.
Dave, the fascists are at Stage II of their propaganda escapade; planting provocateurs and instigators among the protesting masses of OWS. Since denouncing them as "hippies", and other bogus terms such as "mobs", was hugely ineffective and has not reduced their numbers, they're attempting to discredit them by false association.
We all know that Stage III will be to incite violence and destruction.
Least the Koch's earned their money as opposed to Obama's donors who got it via bail outs. In an era where campaigns cost a lot of money that must be donated, at least my side has honest money.
Boom.
P.S.
I also know from direct Tea Party experience that every wacko with a crazy agenda will show up to your protest and try to jump on your band wagon to try and lend some legitimacy to their crazy ideas. such is the nature of leaderless movements... they attract the nut jobs.
I'm sort of enjoying watching you have to deal with them, because they are all bothering you guys now and leaving us well enough alone.
Enjoy the nazis, commies and skinheads.
//Least the Koch's earned their money//
ah, they inherited it
Post a Comment