[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Le7n3Y7dgxI&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]
Can’t Bring Yourself to Type the Word “Ass”?
Eager to share our brilliant political commentary and blunt media criticism, but too genteel to link to horsesass.org? Well, good news, ladies: we also answer to HASeattle.com, because, you know, whatever. You're welcome!
The only thing correct in that ad was “we cannot sit this out.” That is, the majority of Americans, appalled by the veer to the left, cannot sit this one out.
All conservatives must do is vote, and the common sense of Americans will reject the insane spending, the willful ignorance of basic economics and the general foolishness of Obama policies. We conservatives cannot sit this out.
Those wonderful words- Former Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi.
@1: A mouse, a drawbridge, and a teensy tiny erect penis…
Poor Zotz
Better than a straw man and a breath of odiferous wind.
VOTE!!! For “The propoganda thinly disguised as journalism” Macaca Award.
@1
Lost, you have been shown over and over again on this blog to have no sense of economic fundamentals at all. For example, you have called people who believe in progressive taxes ‘socialists’ when in fact the founder of free market capitalism, Adam Smith, supported progressive taxes. So as it stands now, you believe that the founder of capitalism was a socialist. This is just one example.
If you really want to do something for this country, educate yourself in the issues. It is a basic fact that Democracies need educated voters in order to thrive. But if you honestly think that progressive taxes = socialism, then you are ignorant of the issues.
The frustrating thing about Lost is that quite a bit of the time he posts stuff that, although from a different point of view than most of us here, is rather well thought out and interesting.
That makes it all the more of a disappointment when he lapses into autopilot and starts parroting the talking points from Fox.
@ 1
There ya go, goosestepping for Jesus again.
Tell me again, how are you fascist “christians” are any different from the
Taliban?
This is the modern American “christian”. This organization has convinced thousands of native peoples in Argentina, Paraguay and Hawaii, to burn and destroy their historical tribal artifacts, and their art. This organization has convinced thousands of people in those places to hand over their homes, and their land to their “church” for safekeeping.
They openly use their “church” to promote mass murder, and use it for purely political organization. They all seem to be praying to their twisted version of Jesus, using the Nazi salute.
You fascists make me wanna puke. If you liked the Spanish inquisition so much, why don’t you move somewhere where such beliefs are so common and socially acceptable and such practices are a part of daily life?
Say in the mountains of northern Pakistan or Afghanistan? Maybe even Iran or Saudi Arabia?
You are no different from the Taliban. You are exactly the same. Your total philosophy is the same. Your desires for power through some psychopathic, phony, murderous “religion” is the same. Your deliberately contrived rationale for destruction is the same.
No wonder the Republicans want all the mental hospitals closed. Keeping them open would rob them of their voting base.
Scratch the smug, arrogant and conceited surface veneer of the persona he presents and Lost is just another extremist wingnut seething with hatred for America.
The man behind the mask. Lost is just another extremist hater.
@ 5
Educated people are the enemies of Amerika. Educated people are all lazy slobs that want to turn Amerika into a socialist paradise where poor people are allowed to think they are equal with the Corporations. Lost is a die-hard Randroid fascist, make no mistake. His version of the United States would resemble North Korea.
But that would be perfectly acceptable to him and Cynical and Spudd, as long as the “christians” were in charge.
For over forty years Republicans have been lying through their teeth about smaller government and about their being fiscally conservative. The last time they had power they ran America into a ditch, running up trillions in debt, leaving us in a near depression. In their lasts months of power, their corporatist masters raided our treasury for more trillions. Their legacy is a mountain of debt and a divided country. Why on earth should anybody but the stupid believe them now?
As we have pointed out many times, if lost’s economic theories amounted to a hill of beans, Alabama would have the highest standard of living among the fifty states.
Not one of the useless trolls around here has ever tried to answer why it is that those states that most closely follow the economic principles they espouse are the ones with the lowest standards of living, investment, education, etc.
Heh, he wants to turn us into a country full of cardigan wearing, vegan, hipsters. Well guess what buddy, when your crapper backs up, it wont be a cardigan wearing, vegan, hipster, that comes and fixes it for you.
He’s right of course, the chances of your plumber wearing a cardigan are probably pretty small. Chances are he, or she, will be a union card carrying member of the working class. And we all know how the Republicans just love the unions and are out to make life a little easier for member of the working class…
Zan probably doesn’t wear a cardigan, but she is the other things. (well, I can’t actually vouch for the vegan part.)
@ 12
Actually, in a real, educated society, that cardigan wearing hipster would be able to effect their own repairs.
I understand the disaffection with the elitist snob, the “limousine liberal”. I know a few of those. They’re in many ways basically worthless. They can’t really do much for themselves, they look down on machinists and carpenters and welders and plumbers as being something inferior in a lot of ways. They’ll stand around and critique the work or interject opinions about the process, that they really know absolutely nothing about to the point where you wanna punch the living shit out of them.
It really is just an affectation. Education is lost on a lot of people. Our universities have been turned into trade schools and much of what constituted “education” has been stripped from American higher educational institutions.
Re 5
“For example, you have called people who believe in progressive taxes ’socialists’”
I don’t recall making that equation. I don’t agree with progressive taxes on an issue of fairness. Smith was talking about designing a functioning economic system, not necessarily one whose primary goal was fairness. I’d submit than an unjust economic system, like communism or socialism (yes, I understand they are different things) is also one which won’t function in the long term, but that’s another argument.
Re 4
Or you could vote for the propaganda thinly disguised as journalism coming from NBC, CBS, ABC, MSNBC and NPR. Odd, I didn’t see any of these propanda arms of the democratic party listed on that website.
Deathfrogg,
You rambled on for 2 posts with a lot of unsubtantiated lies about Christians being equal to the Taliban or to the Third Reich, or comitting mass murder or stealing property.
I’m truly sorry for whatever church experience you had that makes you so irrational about Christianity, but you need to seek help. Your paranoi is making your grip on reality more than a little tenuous. I doubt you’re dangerous, except perhaps to yourself. But seriously, for your own sake and happiness, seek help.
Let’s just start with this. I never mentioned Christianity or Jesus, for whom apparently I’m goose-stepping. Or with the fact that I’ve repeatedly voiced my disdain for Ayn Rand and her philosphy, such as it is. Or with any fact, really, as you seem to be suffering from a lack of them.
Angry Clown,
“Lost is just another extremist wingnut seething with hatred for America.”
Odd, in none of what follows is America mentioned. Not once. As for the object of my admittedly un-christian hatred of FDR (on which I’m so far unsuccessfully working) the reason is faithfully copied by you. “He and people like him who betray this nation for personal power I despise.” The greatness of this nation was undermined by that man. 80 years of social decay have followed from his disastrous presidency. All the heart and sinew of this nation was weakened by the pet theories he thuggishly forced on this country.
It is precisely my love of America that makes me disdain FDR so thoroughly.
A very interesting essay on Today’s rally in D.C. from exiledonline. A very thoughtful analysis of the detached defeatism of the left. Some highlights:
I’ve never seen it stated better, though I’ve tried on several occasions. Either you live up to the ideas of creating union and contributing to the general welfare, or you are a traitor to hte ideas of the founding fathers.
True dat, brother.
“It is precisely my love of America that makes me disdain FDR so thoroughly.”
Disdain? Hardly.
“He was a traitor. He was scum. As I said, may he rest in flames.” “I despise FDR and everything that miserable anti American socialist bastard stood for”
Your words are those of someone consumed with hatred for an American president. Does anybody doubt that you harbor the same hatred for President Obama? I sure don’t.
“Angry Clown”
Oh, and you project waaay too much. It’s a Psych 101 thing, Lost.
RE 20
Well, that’s one way of looking at it.
Another, of course, is that the Constitution set up a union, but one of states; a republic in fact. This is distinct from the pure democracy whomever you quote seems erroneously to believe we are.
Nor is the general welfare clause a blanket grant of unlimited federal power as and when it chooses to use it. The perameters of what is meant by that phrase are spelled out in the 7 Articles and 27 Amendments which make up the contract itself and by any treaties we sign with other nations. The 10th Amendment specifies that any power not granted the federal government or denied the state governments is to be held by the states or the citizens of them.
As for private property, great care was given to ensuring that property held prior to the Constitution would be held after ratification. Bankruptcy is Constitutionally established. The 3rd through 5th Amendments specifically mention private property and our rights to hold it within the constraints of the law. The 14th Amendment grants us the rights to life, liberty and property within the same constraints. The 16th Amemdment had to be ratified prior to government having any right to a tax on our income, our property.
Really, all this is 9th Grade civics class stuff. Or it can be found in about 500 websites which print the Constitution verbatim.
Re 21
Blah blah blah.
@19
I’ll remind you that St. Reagan greatly admired FDR.
Chris,
And? Great men aren’t perfect men. Reagan was as capable of error in whom he admired as anyone else.
Ah, here we go again, lost as constitutional scholar. He’s doing his time-traveling, mind-reading thing where he can divine precisely what the Founders meant when they wrote the Constitution. The Founders were as ideologically divided as our politicians are today, yet lost believes they all had some Platonic ideal upon which they agreed with regard to each Article.
lost is, of course, wrong. The only genius of the Constitution is that the Founders recognized it had to be a document that had enough ambiguity to stand up to the changes sure to come along. It had to be a flexible prescription for government. The Constitution, as written, was a very imperfect document–it embedded slavery, failed to recognize women as citizens, and granted great relief to the propertied classes. lost’s hatred of FDR relates to his view of the Constitution–because of FDR appointees to the Supreme Court, his view of the Constitution as this fixed, crystal clear order was altered. Of course, lost would have to view Dred Scott (1857) as a good decision, as well as Plessy v. Ferguson (1896). lost may not be a racist himself, and I suspect he is not, but his constitutional view is definitely in line with those who are racists.
@23 “Blah blah blah.”
Sigh! With those three words you could have spared us your insufferable drivel regarding the Constitution @22.
@24 “St. Reagan”
When conservatism gave us a crash and bank failures. Thirty years later and what’s changed? Well, other than dumping the “Shining City on a Hill” for fear and loathing of the “other”.
“He’s doing his time-traveling, mind-reading thing where he can divine precisely what the Founders meant when they wrote the Constitution.”
Amazing, isn’t it, how the Founding Fathers he channels all seem agree with him?
@27
Trust me I only use the term ironicly. On the other hand what so-called “conservatives” have become over the past 30 years really does make one nostalgic for Ronnie.
@28:
I think it is some special talent all the wingnuts think they have, especially the teabaggers. They are able to channel “original intent” straight from the framers minds to their own.
Proud,
You’re the attorney. So far as I recall, we are a republic, not a pure democracy. So far as I remember, and my copy of the Constitution reads, I quoted the relevant articles or Amendments accurately. Tell me in what specifics I was wrong at 22, if you would.
As for the concept of the Constitution as a flawed document as originally written, that’s the reason for Article 5. A process was instituted to allow for change within the contract itself. (Bit of an interesting point if a thing which starts flawed but incorporates the means for it’s own correction is in fact flawed, but I’ll leave that alone.) Thus, the 13th Amendment abolished slavery and the manifest injustice of the Missouri Compromise. The 19th Amendment recognized that women had the same rights as their male fellow citizens, even if both happened belatedly. The point is, the rigorous requirements for altering the Constitution protects it from change driven by whim or temporary crisis. It makes a stable enough government to be meaningful, but one which can change as necessary to address mistakes, changing times, or changing notions of what we want our government to do.
Or do you really believe that what this contract means is subject to the whims of the moment. The provisions of it are, in your mind, gentle suggestions rather than compelling statements of the limits of government? How do you see a stable functional government working along those ‘m lines? Really, I’m not trying to be rude. I’m genuinely curious.
@25 “Great men”
FDR was treasonous scum who should have been hung and his soul condemned to hell, but Ronald Reagan was a great man. It’s hard to miss the extremism expressed by these views, as well as the deep reservoir of hatred. An alter and heaven for St. Reagan, the gallows and hell for FDR.
29
There is no chance I would ever claim any sort of nostalgia for Reagan. That fucking bastard’s thoughtless ideology led to where we are now in this nation. On the other hand, he would probably be drummed out of today’s Republican Party. He raised taxes, reached across the aisle, and recognized that we’re all in this thing together as Americans. Teabaggers, who he spawned, don’t get that, even though they pray to him. Let me add that, though I attribute most of what is wrong today to Reagan worship (not necessarily to Reagan himself), I don’t hate his corpse. That would distinguish me from lost and his pathological feelings toward FDR.
Re 30
Yeah. Pretty amazing that I can read a sentence in English and, this is the tricky bit, understand what it clearly says.
Good thing I don’t actually need to time travel when the thing they wrote sits on my desk, is available in thousands of websites, and even has the original itself preserved. Saves me a lot of messing around with bits of wire and stuff to make that time travel machine.
I forgot to say that Reagan put a smiley face on hate. Remember that Mississippi appearance where the 3 civil rights workers were murdered? Great hair, great teeth, and a true bastard, that would be Ronald Reagan.
Actually, for Steve that whole reading comprehension thing probably does seem miraculous. Sorry, Angry Clown, I forgot you neither read nor understand English. My fault.
“what so-called “conservatives” have become over the past 30 years really does make one nostalgic for Ronnie”
He was our president and he had his shining moments of which all Americans could be proud. Challenger was one of them. The Berlin wall was another. The nation pulled for him too recover from a would-be assassin’s bullet and get back in the saddle again, which he did. Sadly, conservative humor and wit seems to have died with the man and is now to be sorely missed.
Steve @ 37
There were some accomplishments during the Reagan Administration (ah, Tip O’Neill). We can look back fondly at a couple moments, though most of them were historical developments that would have happened regardless of who our president was. Here’s the quiz: fond recollections of GW’s dictatorship? Do you have any? Anyone? Anyone have some fond memories of the Cheney/GW dictatorship? BTW, he will be throwing out the first pitch of tomorrow’s World Series game, so I will be tuning in late. Go Giants!
“Sorry, Angry Clown”
There’s a few differences I can see between you and the Psycho-KLOWN. For starters, he uses more K’s and CAPS. The KLOWN comments proudly display his ignorance. You post hoping to conceal yours. Other than that, you’re both just a couple of idiots.
Reagan cut & ran from terrorists. Reagan gave us Ollie North and the whole shitload of baggage that goes with him. He was no Saint. But he was no traitor. No one here says he should have been hung. No one says that he should be burning in Hell. Even other trolls don’t spew the level of hate as Lost. I’d bet the only reason Lost doesn’t share his desire to see a similar fate for today’s president as he did for FDR is that he doesn’t want to end up on a Secret Service watch list. But Lost’s buttons are easily pushed. We may see it yet.
I try to relate this to my work, proud leftist. Lost wouldn’t stand for any interpretation of the building and fire codes. He’d get out his Ouija board and devine the original intent of the code committee members. And the answers from the board would no doubt agree with his, um, interpretation.
41
Indeed. But, surely, lost would be right in his own mind.
Reagan. That was an interesting time. I was just coming of age and in hindsight, Carter seemed to be a guy who addressed the hard truths, even when it was painful. He raised the interest rates to awful levels to get inflation under control (that Reagan reaped the benefit of). The world was changing. America was no long supremely dominate. We had an oil addiction. Our standard of living was going to to have to come down a bit. Hard unpleasant truths.
Uncle Ronnie, who I would have voted for the first time, and did vote for the second time, came and told us that America was great, just keep spending and put it on the credit card. He came in and made us all feel good about ourselves and everyone just ignored the changing reality around us.
It seems those realities, of debt, of china being the next super power, of corruption, of the failure of trickle down economics, of the cost of oil, of our crashing economy, and everything have finally become un-ignorable. And people are terrified and lashing out.
“We cannot be the ones who made the mistakes, it must be the liberals or the brown people, or the non Christians, or the Gahys, or the poor, or the illegals, THEY caused this problem. Not us. Oh GOD not us!”
While you ignorant toads argue over the latest Lost missive Puddy been reading the real deal. Even if DUMBOCRATS vote, you’re bound to lose… Why? The crossover Republicans and Independents have left your side. That’s the internal polling data you libtardos choose to ignore. Butt then again you all live on George Soros paid sites… So Puddy will venture out in libtardo land and prove to you fools the folly of your “thoughts”.
From the Daily Trojan at USC.
From The Daily Beast…
The NY Times….
Wow 20 somethings who are worried about the OdumbaCare. Yet you HA libtardos have Curtis Daddy Love and stupidlyincorrectandneverbright in your midst still rambling on with March 2010 articles saying how OdumbaCare is going to save money. Then when the conventional wisdom from the sadministration now shows a $311 Billion overage in April 2010 above the $1Trillion threshold they run and hide, with one fool claiming it was 40 year old data. Don’t ask Puddy… cuz TEH HA DATABAZE KEEPA ol’ dirt stain ylb has the comedic postings of stupidlyincorrectandneverbright on his archives for y’all to view. Now back to the post.
Buffaloed by Odumba
Independents – Well when you have bloggers writing horsesass manure like this
But it’s more like the thinking here… something now viewed by George Soros web site loving whackjobs on HA.
Just read Gallup since you fools tend to read 538.com and Nate Silver will be wrong again in his Rasmussen assessment. Rasmussen IS the most accurate pollster since 2004. No matter how much you scream and shout or hang from the rafters and howl at the moon on Halloween, da facts are da facts. Even Daily Kooks gave Rasmussen a thumbs up on accuracy in 2006 and Josh Marshall of The Phart Machine (TPM) gave Rasmussen a thumbs up on accuracy in 2008.
Sucks to be a mentally deficient libtardo these days. Oh yeah Darryl called Puddy a Pussy. Well we’ll see who the real Pussies are November 3 2010.
Damnit! Now I’ve got to clean up all the milk that just shot out of my nose.
Bush. That was an interesting time too.
Re 41
So, where was I wrong at 22? We aren’t a republic, rather than a pure demcocracy? I misquoted one of the Articles or Amendments? On what point of fact was I incorrect, Proud?
Blue John,
I do understand your reasoning, though I disagree with it.
Reagan inherited a poor economy and by the end of his term passed one that was booming on to his successor, with massive federal debt. FDR inherited a terrible economy and passed a weak one to his successor, with massive federal debt. Of the two men the one who accomplished the least is the one who gets credit with liberals. For liberals with Reagan the economy was just a fluke, he didn’t have anything to do with it. But FDR was the great savior of the civilized world. His economic accomplishments are the stuff of liberal legend.
See, you can’t have it both ways. You don’t get to blame the presidents or give them credit soley on whether you agree with their politics. At least not while retaining a shred of credibility.
Re 40
FDR was a terrible president. Maybe the biggest reason for my intense dislike of the man is that he could have been so much better though. He had the charisma, the intelligence and the political acumen to have been a great president upholding the Constitution and the values which created it. Instead he betrayed this nation to push pet theories which don’t work in the real world. He betrayed his oaths in order to gain personal power.
Obama has intelligence, and some limited charisma. Otherwise he hasn’t the material of greatness. He’s incapable of any principled stand. He’s incapable of being a leader. So no, I’m not worried about a visit from the Secret Service. I just don’t think Obama merits attention, except possibly for derisive laughter.
@ 48
So the real reason why you hate FDR so much is we fought on the wrong side in that war.
By the time of FDRs death, unemployment was around 1%. Under FDR, we fought TWO major wars simultaneously, winning them both handily. The Soviets won most of the European theater, taking the most ground and suffering the most casualties, but they couldn’t have done it without us.
Our purpose in Europe wasn’t just to contain and defeat the Nazis, it was to stand ground against the Soviet Union. FDR knew full well, and it is well documented, that the Soviets would take ALL of Europe if the western powers didn’t create a second front to distract the Nazis, and enable the US, France and England to eventually draw a line in Europe with which to face the Soviets.
FDR took a rather backwater, isolationist nation suffering from incredible poverty and a huge disparity of wealth, and took it into two simultaneous wars that emplaced the United States as a world military superpower that continues to this day.
Unfortunately, we have forgotten the lessons that enabled us to become that superpower, leaving the economy to the people that caused the Great Depression in the first place, and would have sided with the Axis as a major business partner instead.
“So the real reason why you hate FDR so much Ois we fought on the wrong side in that war.”
Ah. So now I’m a nazi sympathizer. Or maybe I’m Goebbels himself re-incarnated. Hard to tell in the delusional paranoic world in which you live what you mean to insinuate here.
“By the time of FDRs death, unemployment was around 1%. Under FDR, we fought TWO major wars simultaneously, winning them both handily.”
Here again libs want it both ways. I assume the TWO major wars were the Pacific and European theaters of what was, you know, the same war. But it sounds so much better in your holy book of FDR to make it sound like he personally fought 2 wars barehanded. See, the problem with dissecting what the effect of New Deal policies on the economy really were was WW2. The massive spending both during the war and after to rebuild a shattered Japan and Europe cloud the issue. Sure, the spending on WW2 and its’ aftermath probably did spur economies. Some might say that between 50 and 70 million dead (depending on source) might possibly have been a high price to pay for an economic recovery, but hey, you can’t make an omelette without breaking a few eggs, right?
So did FDR domestic policies end the Depression or did WW2? No matter what Naom Chomskey and all the other America haters you read say, no-one can conclusively say. The right can’t claim it as vindication of their theories, nor the left theirs, if either is being honest.
Lost @ 48
You don’t get to blame the presidents or give them credit soley on whether you agree with their politics.
Of course not. Correlation is not causation. To determine causal factors, one has to ask precisely which policies a president implemented, and ascertain the actual effects of those policies. To blithely assert that a given president’s policies were “good for business” doesn’t cut it.
I have asked you, repeatedly and to no avail whatsoever, exactly which of Reagan’s policies were actually good for business.
At least not while retaining a shred of credibility.
I couldn’t have said it better myself. Now, when are you going to gain some credibility for yourself by answering my questions regarding Reagan’s policies?
Lost, I was not referencing FDR. I was writing about Reagan and what his narrative was to the nation.
I understand that you did a compare and contrast between Reagan and FDR and you don’t think progressives give Reagan any credit for doing similar things to what FDR did.
I don’t think that the economy under Carter is the same as the Great Depression but apparently you do.
“Some might say that between 50 and 70 million dead (depending on source) might possibly have been a high price to pay for an economic recovery, but hey, you can’t make an omelette without breaking a few eggs, right?”
Go ahead, blame America and it’s president for 50 to 70 million war dead. Just to kickstart the economy. Some might say? Um, some might say that the hatred inside you has driven you to plant your head up your ass.
“I don’t think that the economy under Carter is the same as the Great Depression but apparently you do.”
It helps to ignore the inflation, price controls and WIN buttons that the previous eight years of Republican administrations handed off to Carter. History repeats itself as we see today’s Republicans whitewash the huge shitpile they left for the present administration. Republicans. They’re really not that big into personal responsibility.
Lost @ 52
See, the problem with dissecting what the effect of New Deal policies on the economy really were was WW2. The massive spending both during the war and after to rebuild a shattered Japan and Europe cloud the issue.
How so? A government deficit transforms savings into consumption, thereby increasing aggregate demand. That effect is irrespective of what the government actually consumes. If anything, the deficits of WW2 prove that Roosevelt’s domestic policies, while partially effective, didn’t go far enough.
Indeed, when Roosevelt, at the insistence of Republicans in Congress, attempted to reduce the deficit in 1937, the depression worsened. This evidence further bolsters the notion that Roosevelt’s pre-war deficits simply weren’t big enough to dig us out of the Economic hole into which the laissez-faire policies of Hoover had dropped us.
So, we have both correlation and a plausible causal chain between Roosevelt’s policies and economic recovery.
When can I expect you to do the same with your claims about Reagan’s economic policies? Never?
Don Joe,
You’re right. Apologies.
In cutting the top tax rate from 70% to 35% vast amounts of money were freed from the public sector and returned to the private sector. Contrary to the liberal belief, the wealthy paid similar taxes to what they paid before tax cuts, but by closing loopholes and targeting tax shelters to productive private sector investments in businesses and so on, money that had been wasted in government hands produced in the real economy. Yes, they are a partisan source, but the Cato institute did a study on this at this link.
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=1120
The spending increases and resultant deficits were largely in social spending. Partisan sources blame Democrats. I’m not so sure. Reagan and Congress had to address a real problem with Social Security and the baby boom generation, so that spending was probably unavoidable, given any responsible president and Congress.
There is also the less quantifiable effect an optimistic president can gain. People who are fearful that they can’t keep their homes or jobs are less likely to spend. Discretionary spending is a powerful force in our economy, capable of turning a slow recovery to a boom, or a recession to a depression, depending on the direction of trend. Reagan was far from perfect. Unlike the liberal canon though, he believed in the ability of the people of this nation to do for themselves. But what numeric effect this had on the larger economy can’t be put to any meaningful numeric test. Ignore this paragraph if you like, as arguing about it would be meaningless.
Re 56
At what cost? What devaluation of the dollar, or effect on the bond market or diminution of our creditors belief that we can pay our debts is acceptable, and what is destructive?
You also seem to equate the efficiencies and long term good of the public sector with that of the private. I’m not so sure that works. As an example just within the public sector, look at federal stimulus spending on ‘shovel ready’ projects. Why were these pressing projects not funded before by local or state means? No-one asked. Were they really ‘shovel ready?’ Even Obama admitted that in fact these projects were delayed for up to a year by local beauracrats red tape.
Which really is the point. The private sector spends where both the immediate and long term profits dictate that spending is wise. This sector doesn’t invest in losers just to produce temporary jobs that will disappear once the non-viable business concept does. It invests how and where it sees a chance of making money. By doing so it produces stable and lasting jobs that produce goods or services the market demands.
Or you could have vast amounts of federal money supporting businesses or infrastructure no-one wanted or asked for.
Don Joe,
Just as a point of information-
Were the Obama administration to target major infrastructure projects we actually need, I’d be fine with that. The federal government has a duty with regard to interstate commerce. Our highway system is old and crumbling in many areas. Money spent now at lower costs would potentially offset the costs of borrowing the capital to do these projects. Jobs would be created. Fine. One of the few things both FDR and Lyndon Johnson did well was to invest in our nations infrastructure.
But that isn’t what’s happening. Money just flows to whatever pet project some local officials brother in law can make money on. It flows to projects deemed sufficiently unimportant that no attempt to fund them was made before stimulus money came available.
Re 54
Angry Clown, you can keep trying to make FDR out to be ‘America’ until the the last trump. He wasn’t. He was a president, and a particularly bad one.
On the bright side, the Angry Clown is a perfect Halloween costume for you, and you won’t even need to dress up.
Lost @ 57
In cutting the top tax rate from 70% to 35% vast amounts of money were freed from the public sector and returned to the private sector.
Except that you’ve not come up with a plausible causal chain. Even the source you cite shies away from discussing causation in any detail. And for good reason. If supply side economics had worked as advertised, the savings rate would have increased during the Reagan years. In fact, and as your source notes, the savings rate fell during the Reagan years.
To whatever extent Reagan’s domestic policies “worked,” we can confidently say that they did not work by increasing investment.
As Nixon said, we’re all Keynesians now.
As Nixon didn’t say …
– via Wiki
You Dems are all DonJoevians now. You’ll say any damn thing despite its lack of truthiness.
Oh, so you’re blaming only FDR for up 70 million deaths and not America. Got it.
Let me help you out with something. Klynical is the Psycho-KLOWN, Puddy needs meds, and you’re Mr. NPD. If you want to insult me, you’re going to have to try being at least just a little bit original and more on the mark, cuz this weak shit you’re trying to bring just isn’t cutting it.
Lost @ 58
At what cost? What devaluation of the dollar, or effect on the bond market or diminution of our creditors belief that we can pay our debts is acceptable, and what is destructive?
First of all, if there are some bond vigilantes out there who are skittish about the ability of the federal government to repay its debts, it’s awful damn hard to find them. Wherever they are it’s certainly not in any of the bond markets. The US Treasury appears to have very little difficulty selling bonds right now, and there is no concrete evidence that this will change in the near future. If you have such evidence in hand, I can name several economists who’d love to have a chat with you.
Secondly, I’m compelled to remind you of the difference between chronic and cyclical deficits. It’s a distinction that investors understand rather well, as they’ve historically been quite amenable to buying up government debt when there is a clear road to reducing deficits once the economy is in recovery.
You also seem to equate the efficiencies and long term good of the public sector with that of the private.
Given that I’ve repeatedly stressed the distinction between cyclical and chronic deficits, one would be hard pressed to find an argument that could lead one to believe that I “seem” to make this equivocation.
The private sector spends where both the immediate and long term profits dictate that spending is wise.
Really? It always amazes me that people can make statements like that in a discussion that’s taking place on the internet.
And, yes, I get that this sort of thing is the main-stay of conservative economic thinking, but therein lies the problem. Assuming something to be true despite evidence to the contrary doesn’t make for a very compelling argument.
Or you could have vast amounts of federal money supporting businesses or infrastructure no-one wanted or asked for.
Yes, we could. And the result could be the fact that we can have these discussions on an internet that wouldn’t exist if the government hadn’t spent money on things where the private sector is reluctant to invest.
Do I need to point out other examples? Like, for example, the fact that we wouldn’t have a private airlines industry if government hadn’t bought enough war planes to fund the research necessary to develop aircraft for private use?
Lastly, @ 59, you wrote:
But that isn’t what’s happening.
True. On the other hand, is President Obama responsible for that fact? No. Indeed, Republicans in Congress, through a cynical ploy to block any Democratic efforts at recovery so they can construct overly simplistic 30-second sound bites for campaign purposes, are most responsible for the hap-hazzard nature of the present recovery efforts.
From a policy perspective, there is really very little doubt as to what the government ought to be doing. Unfortunately, politics keeps getting in the way.
If this is your argument in favor of voting for Republicans during this election cycle, then I’m afraid the argument is an epic fail.
@ 62
You’ll say any damn thing despite its lack of truthiness.
Actually, attributing the statement to Nixon is a clear-cut example of “truthiness” in action.
If you’re going to pick a nit, don’t leave your own nits lying around to be picked.
Don Joe,
“On the other hand, is President Obama responsible for that fact?”
Obama failed to accomplish what he and the far left of America wanted him to do. And you and the rest of the progressives blame who? Obama? Absolutely not! Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid for failing to pass what you regard as needed legislation? Hell no! These failures of leadership aren’t the fault o the leader, they are the fault of those who refuse to follow a bad road.
It reminds of the executive at the dog food company. He packaged the food in what the market consultants said would sell the product. He advertised extensively. But the kibble didn’t sell. Storming around the office he asked everyone what made the sales so poor. Finally, a timid junior executive pointed out the obvious. The dogs don’t like it.
Well, liberals, the problem with selling your ideals to the rest of America is the same. We just don’t like it.
I might also remind you that Republicans are doing their jobs. They were elected as and who they were, and are representing their constituents on that basis. At election time they will undoubtedly be voted out if they didn’t do so. But we know what will happen on Tuesday, and that ain’t it, is it?
The scurilous comment, often repeated from the left, that Republicans are trying to destroy America isnt’ worth responding to.
“you can keep trying to make FDR out to be ‘America’ until the the last trump. He wasn’t”
FDR wasn’t an American? Sigh! I won’t bother asking about President Obama. Kenyan, no doubt. And a Muslim.
Poor little Libtards. Looks like the Queen will be de-throned. Nice to be rid of this dumb-cunt parasite! LMFAO! Happy Halloween all!
http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/08599202821200
@16
In one of the open threads, you specifically said that anyone who believes in a progressive tax system is socialist, Lost.
But regardless of that, your claim @16 that you want a fair tax system is perplexing. You rant about I-1098, but you have also been presented with the fact that right now, the top 1% in this state pay 2.4% of their incomes in state taxes and the bottom 20% pay 17%. In what world is that fair? What is your solution, other than an income tax, to make it fair?
This is what I really don’t understand about people like you. You claim something (ie., you want things to be fair) but then it just seems like lip service because none of your opinions support your opening statement.
Right wingers think rich people walk on water. Well here’s one billionaire who blew through a big chunk of her fortune trying to buy a Governorship.
Between making excuses for her nine-year cheap labor hire of an undocumented nanny – finally some light’s being shed on her bidness career. News is not good:
http://www.alternet.org/news/1.....e_company/
She made the decision for the Skype acquisition. 4 billion bucks! What kind of value could that ever hope to add to an auction website?
The big joke down there is that Meg Whitman was running for Governor of Texas. California is dodging a bullet with that one.
More former corporate CEO’s should run for the office on the Republican ticket especially ones who made the decision to send jobs overseas like Mike! McGavick and Carly Fiorina.
That’s good for Democrats.
Yeah Fiorina’s equally ridiculous campaign should go down in defeat on Tuesday.
Whenever we hear a Neo-‘Bagger shout about “class warfare” we must reply thusly:
HELL YES!
There is no shame for liberal Democrats to fight openly for the poor and middle class. The right has been waging war on the poor and middle class ever since the Civil Rights Act. When it comes to class warfare, Republicans lose every damn time. Make it about class warfare, and Democrats win. That is the essence of what James Carville meant when he coined Clinton’s mantra.
Lost:
I’ll also point out that FDRs programs have been held to be Constitutional by every Supreme Court since the 30’s. This includes justices appoined by Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, and Obama.
Now you may believe those rulings aren’t in-line with the Constitution but the court decides that not you. If you really disagree there is always the option of passing one or more amendments, but that is rather hard to do and requires a fair bit of consensus you aren’t likely to get any time soon.
Yes, I know. Despite most of these decisions being predicated on bad precedent from a co-opted Court threatened by FDR in 1937, stare decisis is compelling.
Nor is the Supreme Court infallible. If it were we would still hold Dred Scott to be the law of the land. Miranda rights would not be in existence. Segregation would still be operant. I can hope that a future court recognizes the lunacies of FDR over-reaching for power, while still respecting the law as it stands.
At any rate, I confess, I don’t follow why you mention this tradition of granting federal power where it doesn’t exist in our post New Deal courts.
@74
Short of Constitutional Amendment the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of what is and isn’t Constitutional, not some notions of what you may or may not think is “orginal intent”. Don’t like it? amend the Constitution.
Dred Scott was swept aside by passage of the 14th Amendment. When a civilized Republic finds the jurisprudence of its Supreme Court to be “fallible” we revise the document upon which the court bases its judgments. And at least once we’ve had to wage a civil war in order to do so. Is this what Real America proposes?
Conservatives like to point to Dred Scott as a Supreme Court decision they disagree with, but if we could transport the internet back to 1857, you better believe Lost and the rest of them would be madly typing out lengthly comments on every thread praising the judicious application of the law vis a vis property rights.
Conservatives are always on the wrong side of history, which helps explain why revisionism comes so naturally to them.
Chris Stephan,
Odd, it seems you’re arguing something other than what I’ve written.
I don’t recall mentioning original intent. Steve did, you did, and Leftist did. I didn’t. What I did say is that in most cases we go by the plain English of the 7 Articles and 27 Amendments which make up the Constitution.
Which is why elections are so important. We rely on the good faith of those we elect to act within the law and in our best interests. On occasion something becomes so obviously troublesome (segregation, criminal civil rights, forcing people to purchase health insurance they neither need nor want etc) that it goes to the courts. Otherwise elected officials and the army of government administrators are the actual arbiters of what the Constitution means, unless a citizen, state or local government challenges them in court.
Doc Daneeka,
Exactly. A lawful process exists by which to alter the Constitution. Assuming that it can mean one thing today, and another tomorrow on the basis of some passing crisis or cultural fad is a recipe for the collapse of a society based on the rule of law.
Civil War? I know of no-one advocating for that. So far as I know, to do so would be illegal, though the line between advocacy and philosophical mutterings is notoriously broad.
Re 77
Revisionism natural to the right? Surely you mean the left? After all, by your own terms conservatives are enamored of the past. It’s Howard Zen and his ilk that distort the past to create the image of an evil America that never was.
You are right though. We have a society which is still valid because of the tug of war between conservatives wanting to retain the status quo no matter the costs, and liberals pushing for change, whether well advised, practical or even rational. Through this both play a needed role, whether either side is able to admit it or not.
Certainly a partisan like you who assumes everyone you disagree with a racist nazi fascist who kicks puppies as a hobby when not beating up on the wheelchair bound couldn’t see it, anyway.
Lost @ 66
The scurilous comment, often repeated from the left, that Republicans are trying to destroy America isnt’ worth responding to.
First, “scurrilous” has two r’s in it.
Second, the contrast between your accusations that Democrats are motivated by political considerations (and if your comment at 59 isn’t such an accusation, I don’t know what could possibly qualify) and your reaction to the accusation that Republicans are motivated by political considerations is truly astounding. I guess such accusations are only “scurrilous” when they’re made against Republicans.
We could, of course, spend some time actually going over the relevant evidence in support of these accusations, but, given how long it’s taken me to get you to even deign to answer my questions as to how Reagan’s policies were “good for business,” I dare say we’ll be here an awful long time before you cough anything up.
Nevertheless, you, sir, are a hypocrite. Of this, there can be little doubt.
“Exactly. A lawful process exists by which to alter the Constitution. Assuming that it can mean one thing today, and another tomorrow on the basis of some passing crisis or cultural fad is a recipe for the collapse of a society based on the rule of law.”
Insisting that a society, its members, and the way in which they interpret ideas expressed in written language be frozen in permanent stasis is called dogma. And it is a crucial element in social collapse throughout human history.
My wife is not my property. But you wouldn’t know it by how we interpreted the 14th Amendment for its first half century. First women won the vote with the 19th Amendment. The rest followed. And all without changing so much as a single word of the Constitution.
So maybe the Court has been wrong for two hundred years about the Commerce Clause. And maybe on some bright shinning future morning you and Sarah Palin will wake up in the same bed and greet the day in a republic where the Congress is powerless to do anything other than issue stamps.
But it seems to me that the Conservative plan for achieving this future wet dream has more to do with diluting and limiting citizen participation in their government rather than intensifying and expanding it. That’s what makes it wrong. And that’s why it is future that will remain confined in your fervid imaginations or in a damp wad of tissue laying on your mother’s basement floor beside your futon.
Re 81
Well, never say your side of the political fence doesn’t take the high road-
“And that’s why it is future that will remain confined in your fervid imaginations or in a damp wad of tissue laying on your mother’s basement floor beside your futon.”
“And maybe on some bright shinning future morning you and Sarah Palin will wake up in the same bed ..”
And here I thought most on the left couldn’t engage in political discourse without recourse to attacking their interlocutor.
BTW, if the 19th Amendment wasn’t ‘changing a word of the Constitution’ what exactly was it?
Necessary, sure. Just, absolutely. But it absolutely changed the Constitution in exactly the way those who wrote it intended that kind of change occur. Before you start whining about original intent and time machines, that would be Article 5. Of the Constitution. You might read it before commenting on it for a change.
Lost, you are doing great. Shredding all of their libtardo commentary. Off to the Sounders soccer game!
See ya lata leftist morons!
The 19th Amendment granted women the vote. And nothing more.
The rest of the pantheon of modern rights subsequently extended to women as full citizens followed without any further change. Despite the fact that a “plain reading” of the 14th would have granted them those rights, including the right to vote, fifty years earlier.
And incidentally, had the Court read the 14th “plainly” from the beginning, there is little doubt on which side of that question traditional political conservatives would have landed. Dogma is as dogma does.
were there any fainters at the rally?
News Alert!
Blanche Lincoln has pulled to even in Senate Race!
Sunday, October 31, 2010
Since some of you feel Rasmussen is unreliable, you must believe this to be true!
lost: “I don’t recall mentioning original intent. Steve did, you did, and Leftist did. I didn’t. What I did say is that in most cases we go by the plain English of the 7 Articles and 27 Amendments which make up the Constitution.”
For fuck’s sake, lost, to provide for “the general welfare” is “plain English”? You’ve always argued for some form of original intent, this is just another form. The language has plenty of ambiguity about it; that’s the point, that’s why the Constitution has survived as a governing document. You folks who claim to be the Constitution’s defenders really have been embarrassing yourselves about doing that this campaign.
@79
Well funny thing there, but I fully expect the current court to uphold the health reform law as written. I don’t think it will be a 5-4 decision either, both Scalia and Roberts have shown they tend to take a rather broad view of the commerice clause.
The structure of the mandate is such that it will be very hard to throw it out without throwing out every other tax deduction and credit.
If you aren’t an original intent type then pray tell how do you “know” what FDR did was unconsititutional to the point of treason and how do you know the courts that have upheld his policies decided the matter “incorrectly”?
‘Oh please, you know Obammy had those bombs “planted” so that some boxwalla in Yeahman could find them and help the Dumbocrats election prospects.
Not there’s anything wrong with being a boxwalla. One of my friends is a boxwalla.
Re 87
So, where at 22 was I wrong.
We aren’t a republic? The 3rd through 5th and 14th Amendments don’t specifically mention private property rights? The 10th Amendment doesn’t say that all powers not enumerated are reserved for the states and citizens of them? I mean, you fairly stridently told me I was wrong. In what details exactly?
As for the general welfare clause it is modified by the language around it, as in any contract. You’re an attorney for Gods sake. Don’t tell me you advise clients to take one clause of a contract completely out of context and stake their win or loss in court on that flimsy ground.
I asked another question of you earlier. You seem to be saying that the Constitution is only as binding as the wishful interpretation of the day. With no malice at all, how in the world does one structure a meaningful and lasting government on that foundation?
Re 88
Of course a leftist would bring up the much abused Commerce Clause. Under that ‘authority’ the browbeaten court Roosevelt threatened held that I can’t grow corn on my land for my family without engaging in interstate commerce. Every subsequent decision relying on this precedent is a shameful farce. It is a smear on the memory of the brave men who put their lives and property on the line to found this nation. I agree, in the interests of the continuing growth of federal power at the expense of civil rights, the Roberts Court will likely hold this insane health care bill Constitutional. But they will pry an insurance premium out of my cold dead hands. My agent has instructions to cancel all my families health insurance on the day that provision takes effect. I will file taxes as though I paid them, as I won’t be penalized for my personal choice to conduct my affairs as I damn well see fit. And the IRS and Obama can go fuck themselves.
Ian Welsh: Praying For The French.
Ha ha ha.
G DUHbya’s team’s down 3-1 in the series. Wonder how sedated Chimpy’s gonna be tonight?
Hey Roger you seem to have forgotten…
1) The terrorist attack at a military recruiting center in Little Rock, Ark., June 1, 2009
Hey Roger you seem to have forgotten…
2) The terrorist attack at Ft. Hood in Texas on Nov. 5, 2009, which left 13 soldiers and civilians dead and more than two dozen others wounded.
Hey Roger you seem to have forgotten…
3) The Underwear Bomber Dec. 25, 2009 on a Delta plane landing in Detroit
Hey Roger you seem to have forgotten…
4) Times Square attack of May 1, 2010 who the news media hoped and thought was a white Tea Party person.
Hey Roger you seem to have forgotten…
All this against the one who led A p o l o g y Tours in 2009. EPIC FAIL Roger
@92
Yet more proof that lost is just as insane as the rest of the wingnut trolls here.
Re 93
Yep. That’s the end goal of liberal thought. Create a class of people who by their virtues of attainment and industry are told they owe more to society. (As if those virtues weren’t already more than their profligate and lazy fellow citizens gave as it is.) The second is to create another ‘educated’ class teaching that theft of these peoples property is justified morally and ethically. The third is to institutionalize theft of private property in the law, as it does in socialist systems, and to some extent right here in the US. Finally, you threaten to steal all that they own outright, as Worf suggests our whiny temper tantrum throwing toddler cousins in France do, even calling to memory guillotines and physical punishment for their horrible sin of financial success.
Nice way to run a civilized society, by theft and extortion.
lost @ 91
Your post at 22 doesn’t say anything. I am supposed to quibble with, uh, what exactly?
The case is Wickard v Filburn which created the right of the federal government to tell me not to grow food on my own land for my ownyufamil
The cases which followed, using this abomination as a precedent, have universally held that the Commerce Clause means whatever the hell the federal government damn well wants it to. And you ‘citizens’ had better shut up about civil rights already, at least according to this appalling line of cases.
As for Obama telling me what financial instruments I need, he can move to France or to somewhere else his socialism is desired. He can also damned well mind his own fucking business. In a couple of days he will be getting a very clear sign that it isn’t wanted here.
Former Speaker, Nancy Pelosi. Wonderful words.
Proud,
You already quibbled, at 26. I merely asked the ground for your disagreement.
MarkS @ 94
Yeah! GW throws out the first pitch and Texas (red state) loses to San Francisco (blue as blue gets). Go Giants!
Sorry, 102 referred to 99. And the sentence should have read, “Wickard v Filburn…the right to grow food on my land for my family.” Oops.
@100. Lost, that’s not true and you know it.
Time and time again you have posted some variation of this post and time and time again we have explained in great length on what progressive and liberal ideas really stands for.
To continue to reiterate this view here, means you are not listening or chose not to learn.
Blue John,
That’s certainly how everyone but progressives sees it.
I do, in fact, understand that progressive theory is an attempt to gain the greatest good for the greatest number. I understand that it’s generally well meant. The notion of theft for instance would not enter a progressives mind. He or she would believe, as Worf apparently does, that private property isn’t more important than the hunger of fellow citizens, or their lack of shelter.
I’d suggest that when protection of private property is down-graded this way the social contract which relies on it is in danger. I’d suggest that we enjoy the more refined civil rights only because our personal safety and our property are protected first, giving us the basis on which to form a more evolved society. But that’s just my opinion.
lost @ 103
Actually, at 26, I was doing no more than restating your view of the Constitution. As usual, there is no particular fact to refute, because you don’t do facts. You could, if you wanted to, but you choose to not do facts. Your view of the Constitution seems to be fluid, actually, lost. With regard to constitutional interpretation, you have espoused everything from original intent to your present “Plain English.” Please name a single constitutional scholar who proclaims the “Plain English” approach to our founding document.
@106
I vote ” chose not to learn.”
re 107:
You are idiotic.
Gallup/USA Today has GOP up 15 over Dems among likely voters.
Get ready for The Pain.
I’ll be in the crowd rooting supporting Tim when I1053 passes, and cheering loudly when I1098 gets its ass kicked.
calling BS on Obama’s interview w/ Univision
Ladies and gentlemen, we have a president in the White House who referred to Americans who disagree with him as ‘our enemies.’ Think about that. He actually used that word. When Ronald Reagan, George Bush, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush used the word ‘enemy,’ they reserved it for global terrorists and foreign dictators — enemies of the United States. Enemies of freedom. Enemies of our country.
“Today, sadly, we have president who uses the word ‘enemy’ for fellow Americans — fellow citizens. He uses it for people who disagree with his agenda of bigger government — people speaking out for a smaller, more accountable government that respects freedom and allows small businesses to create jobs. Mr. President, there’s a word for people who have the audacity to speak up in defense of freedom, the Constitution, and the values of limited government that made our country great. We don’t call them ‘enemies.’ We call them ‘patriots.’”
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/s.....z142SabsAk
The FINAL Rasmussen Polls are coming in.
Lots of tightening of races.
This one kind of surprises me–
Monday, November 01, 2010
This is the aftermath of Blumenthal fumbling & bumbling over the simple question “How do you create jobs?”
This one is breaking stronger for the Dems–
Monday, November 01, 2010
Manchin did ecverything he could to distance himself from the Obama Regime and paint himself Conservative. It may have worked.
Here is an article about close races.
The latest FoxNews Poll shows Murray at +2…
I’ve been saying +2-3, which is where this will likely finish.
If so, will Rossi run again in 2012???
Cantwell is more vulnerable than Murray.
We’ll see.
Read this…it’s a reasonable assessment:
http://www.foxnews.com/politic.....-election/
@100
Poor Lost – you are such a simple minded fool who thinks that the free market can solve all of the worlds problems. Too bad you have not paid attention for the last 150 years as the free market (and coporations) caused some of the worlds greatest disasters and has polluted our political process.
You continue to “pontificate” that “liberals” believe that there is a priviledged class and that they think it is OK to “steal” money from the rich. Progressive taxation is not stealing – and has been supported by politicians (from the left and the right) in this country for over 100 years. In fact, the personal tax rates in the US (it was 77% in 1964 and the economy was doing just fine up to that point) are some of the lowest in the WORLD.
When you look at the overall tax burden, the U.S. is quite low,” said Eric Toder, a senior fellow at the Urban Institute in Washington, D.C., and former director of the office of research for the Internal Revenue Service.
http://moneycentral.msn.com/co.....148855.asp
Frankly, I think you either are too dumb to understand what tax fairness really is – or you are deliberately lying.
While there may be a few wackos who believe the junk you are propagating – most progressives think that government has a role in making the world a better place.
Most of the rest of the civilized world subscribes to this belief.
Only in the US do we give companies tax breaks to ship jobs overseas – and the republicans you support voted against taxing these companies like they should be taxed.
Are you and your fellow republicans stoopid or just in the pocket of the large corporations (who, by the way, are spending record amounts supporting republicans with untraceable outside money this year)?
@116: Klynical
I guess you really love Rossi – a guy who lost two elections, is litigious and lost his cases against the state (and wasted money)and who is in the pocket of the BIAW and specializes in how to buy out forclosure properties from people who have lost ther jobs.
Frankly, I have a relative who has cancer and lost her job and the thought of Rossi advising people how to make her homeless makes me sick. She has been a hard worker and responsible all her life and cancer has ruined her lifeand totally eatne through her savings. The safety “net” has not worked anywhere near well for her and I just think some of these idiot republicans should think of people like her before they shoot off their fat mouths about liberal freeloaders.
@106 – chose not to learn, definitely.
Who knows what strange impulse forces one to show up at somewhere they aren’t welcome, rub their dirty shoes on the sofa, complain about the food in the fridge, (which they weren’t offered in the first place) and act in a generally buffoonish manner? But that is what trolls do, then they complain vociferously that they are being treated rudely whenever someone tells them to piss off, go home, and rub their dirty shoes on their own damn sofa. I have recently instituted my own non-engagement policy with them. I’ll mock them, or discuss their stupidity with others, but I won’t waste time engaging them directly because pointless confrontation over bizarre minutiae is their raison d’etre. There are some interesting voices here, and I am interested in learning from them, not perpetuating an endless Kulture Kamph with numbskulls and intellectual shitstains.
Lost wrote: He or she would believe, as Worf apparently does, that private property isn’t more important than the hunger of fellow citizens, or their lack of shelter.
Then you think that that private property IS MORE important than hunger of fellow citizens, or their lack of shelter.
That’s like saying “The families down the street under the bridge were kicked out of their house and are starving and homeless but it’s ok, I was able to buy another Hummer. ”
Seriously?
…will have to write more about this later.
“I’ll mock them, or discuss their stupidity with others, but I won’t waste time engaging them directly”
Yeah, that’s pretty much all they’re good for.
“numbskulls and intellectual shitstains”
That’s pretty much it. While the others seem intent on boring us to death, Lost is reaching for new lows. To read the out and out hatred contained within the endless NPD saturated drivel is to puke. But I’m sure he’ll soon be a bore again as he was before. Their acts always grow old.
These “numbskulls and intellectual shitstains” live their lives too much through this crap. Whether the election goes this way or that, nothing will change for them. They’ll wake up Wednesday morning only to find themselves just as fucked up as they’ve always been.
More bad news for the Libtards:
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com.....?GT1=43001
Lovin’ every minute of it! Hardy-har-har as Roger “retired head Courthouse Janitor” Rodent likes to queef from his mouth so often. :)
Here is an interesting poll out today which ought to give you KLOWNS a ray of hope–
Monday, November 01, 2010
But the above poll is apparently muted because of the enthusiasm gap…
Monday, November 01, 2010
So you folks have a slight ID advantage, a horrible enthusiasm DISadvantage and a horrible DISadvantage with unaffiliated voters. I can see why the leftist desperation to get out the vote to try and close this 12-point Generic Ballot gap. But even if the enthusiasm were the same as Republicans, you would still be behind because of the massive flip by Independents/Unaffiliateds.
And when it comes right down to it, one of the real crushers for the progressive movement is ObamaCare…how it is perceived by voters. I think Pelosi and Reid create a huge mess by jamming it thru in 3 days before Christmas. That was very unwise, even though it was passed. Your Democrat Senators up for re-election in 2012 and 2014 will also pay a huge price for this I suspect.
@92,
you aren’t reading enough of the right books.
Typical.
The “broad and sweeping” interpretation of the Commerce clause dates back to the Marshall Court. As in John Marshall.
Congress had the authority to regulate interstate commerce, up to and even including exclusively intrastate trade and transportation of goods and services. Why? Because that intrastate transport took place on an interconnected system of waterways vital to interstate commerce. Even if you were only moving goods from Albany to Poughkeepsie, Congress alone had ultimate authority to regulate your business.
So you aren’t butting up against what you perceive is a uniquely flawed interpretation of the document arising from paranoid fantasies about court packing. You are challenging the entire history of federal jurisprudence concerning the clause.
So, John Marshall was a hippie too? Damn.
@126: Klynical:
You suspect….BS. The reason the health care is unpopular is that it has just started. When people are actually informed about the bill:
It saves us money according to the CBO.
It prevents companies from getting rid of insured people for no reason.
It prevents companies fromnot insuring people with pre-existing conditions.
It requires allowing coverage of young adults up to age 25.
They actually favor it – but the GOP and the corporate interests (insurance companies) have given us the big LIE about the bill – just like you LIE all the time on this blog.
It is ignorance trumping facts – luckily, we don’t let you get away with your lies on this blog – and we can esily show how you are lying.
On the other hand, ads from out of state unknown corporate donors are plastering the airwaves and the GOP supported that and opposed the disclose act.
They and you are dispicable.