In response to the Tucson shooting (keep getting better Gabby) and in the midst of all the irresponsible rhetoric on the left blaming it on those mean right-wingers (do they never get the irony?), our president in one of his better moments called for a "new era of civility."

How we doing so far? So far during the budget debate, "tea party extremists" has remained the favorite Democrat slur, Schumer has likened conservatives to fleas, Reid said Republicans want to "throw women under the bus" and Louise Slaughter says (http://dailycaller.com/2011/04/08/rep-louise-slaughter-says-republicans-are-here-to-kill-women/) those nasty Nazis just want to kill them.

I'd say that's progress.

Hello Steve:

The Tea Party IS extreme. The Republicans WERE willing to throw women under the bus, and I don't know who Louise Slaughter is, and I don't care.

Why is being called extreme NOT a compliment? I'm extreme. I like it that way. If somebody said I WASN'T extreme, that would be a diss.

excon

Well they mean the word as a pejorative. Schumer in a rare moment of honesty (when he thought he wasn't being recorded ) admitted that the use of the word 'extreme' was a talking point that he was directed to use in the debate.

My question is :don't they get tired of unleashing the same old tired rhetoric ? The Dems won't even sign on to becoming better managers of their failed policies. Any cut ,regardless of how thin it is an assault on the program? I don't get that. Why don't they try this one... there is enough inefficiency in how our social programs are administered ,that with more efficient management ,budgets can be cut without negatively effecting the level of service.

Tom, that would require more honesty and I don't foresee that any time soon.

admitted that the use of the word 'extreme' was a talking point that he was directed to use in the debate. Hello again, tom:

More than Frank Luntz directed the Republicans to use words like "government takeover", and "job killing _____ (fill in the blank)"??

Nahhh. It's about equal... I'm amazed, though, that you guys are unable to recognize that you do the same stuff as the guys you complain about...

excon

"Government takeover", and "job killing _____" is one thing, telling the public that Nazi Republicans want to "kill women" or "die quickly" or starve 6 million seniors (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/nancy-pelosis-absurd-math-on-senior-citizens-losing-their-meals/2011/04/06/AFUf51rC_blog.html?hpid=z1) is another.

Hello again, Steve:

Yeah, you wingers are much more polite than those bastard dems...

Do you know the difference between liberals and conservatives? Liberals THINK they're right. Conservatives KNOW they're right.

excon

Or in other words, conservatives live in reality, dems live in fantasy world. :D

Or in other words, conservatives live in reality, dems live in fantasy world. :DHello again, Steve:

Actually, Steve, when you KNOW you're right, you're mostly WRONG.

Speaking of Planned Parenthood, here's John Kyle KNOWING he's right (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAryQP_Iz9A), but being oh sooooo WRONG. The fact is, only 3% of their budget is directed at abortion, and that 3% is PRIVATELY funded, since it's ALREADY against the law for ANY federal money to be used for abortion.

But, John Kyle, KNOWING that what he heard, or what somebody told him, had to be right, because he BELIEVED it. Knowing he was right prevented him from even the slightest bit of investigation... Why check out something that you KNOW is right, thinks a conservative like Kyle. That's of course, pompous and arrogant and WRONG! So, if THAT'S the reality you're referring to, you can have it.

Besides, if you wanted to AVOID more abortions, you'd think you'd be cool with MORE contraceptives being handed out... But, nooo. Instead, you're fine with 200,000 poor women having unwanted pregnancies, while those who can afford it, plan their family's just fine.

So, if YOUR reality is, that it's just hunky dory for RICH people to have access to heath care, but NOT the poor, you can take your reality and stick it.

excon

Speaking of Planned Parenthood...

I got numbers (http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/politics/153699-exposing-the-planned-parenthood-business-model), too, and they don't agree with yours.


Exposing the Planned Parenthood business model
By Abby Johnson - 04/04/11 02:43 PM ET

Myths about Planned Parenthood are spreading like grassfire. Thanks to a perfect storm of events, the abortion provider is scrambling to cauterize the biggest PR hit it has ever sustained. November’s election of an overwhelmingly pro-life Congress, revelation of numerous violations by its staff and repeated calls for its defunding by social and fiscal conservatives alike have put Planned Parenthood’s lifeblood on the line.

Planned Parenthood’s bottom line is numbers. And, with abortion as its primary money-maker, that means implementing a quota. I know this is true because I worked at one of their Texas clinics for 8 years, two as the clinic director.

Though 98 percent of Planned Parenthood’s services to pregnant women are abortion, Planned Parenthood and its political allies have sworn up and down that taxpayer dollars do not to pay for abortion. But of course they do. Planned Parenthood gets one-third of its entire budget from taxpayer funding and performed more than 650,000 abortions between 2008 and 2009. An abortion is expensive. Its cost includes pay for the doctor, supporting medical staff, their health benefits packages and malpractice insurance. As clinic director, I saw how money affiliate clinics receive from several sources is combined into one pot, not set aside for specific services.

Planned Parenthood’s claim that abortions make up just 3 percent of its services is also a gimmick. That number is actually closer to 12 percent, but strategically skewed by unbundling family planning services so that each patient shows anywhere from five to 20 “visits” per appointment (i.e., 12 packs of birth control equals 12 visits) and doing the opposite with abortion visits, bundling them together so that each appointment equals one visit. The resulting difference between family planning and abortion “visits” is striking.

But that’s not the only deception Planned Parenthood is spreading.

It also claims to help reduce the number of abortions. Not only is this not what Planned Parenthood actually accomplishes, but its goal couldn’t be more opposite. As a Planned Parenthood clinic manager, I was directed to double the number of abortions our clinic performed in order to drive up revenue. In keeping, Planned Parenthood headquarters recently issued a directive (http://www.lifenews.com/2011/01/17/planned-parenthood-to-implement-abortion-mandate-by-2013/) mandating that all of its affiliates provide abortions by 2013.

Planned Parenthood is also spending a lot of money convincing its primary income providers – taxpayers – that its highest priority is women's health and safety. Live Action and the Expose Planned Parenthood coalition released numerous undercover videos (http://exposeplannedparenthood.net/) showing clinic staff aiding and abetting alleged sex traffickers in exploiting underage girls – some as young as 14.

After initially downplaying the first video as a scam, Planned Parenthood of Central New Jersey came under so much pressure that it fired the office manager in the footage. New Jersey Attorney General Paula Dow quickly called for an investigation, but Planned Parenthood’s problems don’t end with firing one office manager. Later Live Action videos revealed an unbroken chain of similar problems in clinics up and down the East Coast.

Planned Parenthood has found other ways to increase revenue at the expense of women’s safety. Abortion consultations are now often done without a doctor in the room through online “telemedicine.” Abortion is a severely traumatic and potentially dangerous procedure. Even as Planned Parenthood's 2008 Employee of the Year, I saw this aggressive push toward more “efficient” telemedicine as risky.

Another nuisance the organization is seeking to do away with is reporting sex abuse of minors. It has sued to overturn a child abuse reporting law applying to minors under 14 on the grounds that it violated a girl’s “constitutional right to privacy.” Planned Parenthood called the bill unnecessary given that its medical personnel are already obliged to report such matters and that filing additional reports would only “overload” the government. Planned Parenthood doesn’t want to bother the government with protecting minors.

It also can’t be bothered to enable women to make informed decisions. Planned Parenthood has adamantly opposed laws in nearly two dozen states that require clinic staff to show a woman a sonogram before an abortion. With all the supposed health services these clinics provide, why should they fear sonograms? Because they cut down on its biggest income source.

With the Continuing Resolution battle before us, we can, at very least, stop making taxpayers perpetuate a culture that puts profit margins before women’s safety. Congress has and must seize the opportunity to stop directing hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars to recipients who deliberately deceive the public and violate federal law.

I joined Planned Parenthood because I wanted to help poor women with real health care needs. I still do -- that’s why I left. Planned Parenthood doesn’t care about women’s health care needs, it cares about abortion.

It’s time to defund Planned Parenthood of our tax dollars.

Abby Johnson worked at Planned Parenthood's Bryan, Texas, clinic for eight years and was clinic director for more than two years. She is author of "Unplanned: The Dramatic True Story of a Former Planned Parenthood Leader's Eye-Opening Journey Across the Life Line."

Hello Steve:

Doya agree with THESE numbers?

Gotswana Playasaurs - 42 points.

Green Chile Cheeseburgers - 33.5 points.

excon

PP performed 332,278 abortions in the United States in 2009.That's 910 lives snuffed per day.
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/files/PPFA/PP_Services.pdf
The real lie is that a lack of contraception results in increased abortions and /or unwanted pregnencies .

PP had a total revenue of $1.1 billion for it's "services " last year and did nothing to prevent either unwanted pregnancies or abortions. With the taxpayers footing 36 percent of PP's total annual funding it is hard to believe ,given the fungible nature of money ,that none of it was used for abortion.

So for $40 billion in cuts ,the Dems drew the line in the sand ,and went into some of their most vitriolic slurs $300 million that goes to PP.
Interesting .

Anyway ,the Republicans lost that battle last night because they lost their nerve. They shelved the rider and will take up the issue separately . But they will lose again because the Dems are willing to go to the mat over the issue.

Hello Steve:

Doya agree with THESE numbers?

Gotswana Playasaurs - 42 points.

Green Chile Cheeseburgers - 33.5 points.

excon

Speaking of numbers. You might find these articles an interesting read.

Planned Parenthood, abortion and the budget fight - Forbes.com (http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2011/04/08/general-us-spending-showdown-planned-parenthood_8399594.html)


The PJ Tatler Open Secret: Planned Parenthood turns tax dollars into donations to Democrats (http://pajamasmedia.com/tatler/2011/04/08/open-secret-planned-parenthood-turns-tax-dollars-into-donations-to-democrats/)

Why does the US make cuts to their incredible Defense budget if they need to save money?

Karma you know they need to defend themselves from all those powerful opponents out there. MAD is still in place to protect from Afghan Mullahs and Daffy Duck, who are waiting to take over a nation riddled with financial problems

The real lie is that a lack of contraception results in increased abortions and /or unwanted pregnencies .Hello again, tom and dad:

I'm not going to argue numbers, because I believe abortion should be available to anyone who wants one. I doubt Planned Parenthood cheats, but I don't care if they do.

excon

Hello again, tom and dad:

I'm not going to argue numbers, because I believe abortion should be available to anyone who wants one. I doubt Planned Parenthood cheats, but I don't care if they do.

excon

If you had read the links you would see some strange goings on. The first link from Forbes supports your 3% claim. What I found surprising is somehow they gave away 700 million dollars and still had enough money left over to not fund from what the government gave them. It was an interesting read.

Hello Steve:

Doya agree with THESE numbers?

Gotswana Playasaurs - 42 points.

Green Chile Cheeseburgers - 33.5 points.

excon

Yes I do. At least I'm not last.

NK and Clete.

A more careful analysis would show that the military has done some tremendous trimming of it's budget over the last 20 years . They have made the hard choices the rest of the bloated bureaucracy has failed to make ;and will continue to do so.

In fact,BRAC is the template the rest of the Federal Government should adopt.
The BRAC Model for Spending Reform | Mercatus (http://mercatus.org/publication/brac-model-spending-reform)

I doubt Planned Parenthood cheats, but I don't care if they do.

I can't think of a more scummy organization in America, and I don't want them to have another penny of mine.

A more careful analysis would show that the military has done some tremendous trimming of it's budget over the last 20 years .
It's still the biggest use of tax payers dollar by a long shot:
List of countries by military expenditures - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures)
No country comes close to spending what the US spends.

It's still the biggest use of tax payers dollar by a long shot:
List of countries by military expenditures - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures)
No country comes close to spending what the US spends.

Yes it is only the paranoid countries that makes high expenditures. But I can understand the US paranoia after all they have actually been attacked a couple of times but the losses on their own soil have been realitivily small if you leave the Civil War out of the statistics. The US military could afford to lose a few aircraft carriers etc without limiting their capability after all they are not fighting the rest of the world, or are they?

It's still the biggest use of tax payers dollar by a long shot:
List of countries by military expenditures - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures)
No country comes close to spending what the US spends.

Perhaps we could spend less on defense, but defense is a necessity, Planned Parenthood is not.

It's still the biggest use of tax payers dollar by a long shot:
List of countries by military expenditures - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures)
No country comes close to spending what the US spends.

And from that list how many are first responders to disaster around the world? There is a reason for the so called high budget. Every time disaster strikes its ugly head other countries look to the United States for help of some kind or another. Also having 2 oceans and 4 boarders to defend is no easy task.

Yes it is only the paranoid countries that makes high expenditures.

Paranoid? Um, the Norks are paranoid, I just believe freedom is worth the sacrifice.

defense is a necessity, Planned Parenthood is not.Hello again, Steve:

The Preamble to the Constitution says this:

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

It DOESN'T say that one of those things is more important than another, and it isn't.

excon

Hello again, Steve:

The Preamble to the Constitution says this:

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

It DOESN'T say that one of those things is more important than another, and it isn't.

excon

I still say the 2nd amendment is the one that protects all the others. ;)

Hello again, Steve:

The Preamble to the Constitution says this:

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

It DOESN'T say that one of those things is more important than another, and it isn't.

And which part of that specifies taxpayer dollars for Planned Parenthood?

And which part of that specifies taxpayer dollars for Planned Parenthood?Which part specifies the building of nuclear weapon silos?

Which part specifies the building of nuclear weapon silos?

That would be the common defense clause Ex spoke about.

That would be the common defense clause Ex spoke about.It says nothing about missile silos at all.

And which part of that specifies taxpayer dollars for Planned Parenthood?Hello again, Steve:

The part right after, "provide for the common defense....." What do YOU think that part means?

excon

NK clearly your desire for the US to scale it's defense forces down to the lame level that Canada budgets is of no interest to me. Canada cannot defend islands in the Arctic against Denmark .

Canada cannot defend islands in the Arctic against Denmark .Yea, that was quite a nasty war wasn't it? LOL!
In case any are curious this is what tom is referring to: Hans Island - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Island) Oddly enough a lot of the disputes relate to new territory caused by melting glaciers due to global warming.

Hello again, Steve:

The part right after, "provide for the common defense....." What do YOU think that part means?

Taking MY hard earned dollars to fund abortion, a practice that goes against everything I believe in, does not promote the general welfare. It just kills babies, which is counter to everything this country is about.

As opposed to killing brown-skinned people? That seems OK for you.

Taking MY hard earned dollars to fund abortion, Hello again, Steve:

I don't get to choose which wars my tax dollars support, so I don't know why you think you should have that privilege... Nonetheless, you DO in the form of the Hyde Amendment..

Now, you can choose to BELIEVE Planned Parenthood is cheating, because of what some people have written about them, and you do...

I, however, choose to believe the fact that IF they ARE cheating, they'd have been found out long before now - and NOT by your rightwing writers, but by the COPS and the COURTS, and the CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES...

Somehow, the flat out violation of the law by Planned Parenthood has been, IGNORED by law enforcement authorities, right wing lawyers, and your congressmen... THAT, to me, is much more telling about the true status of Planned Parenthood, than anything your winger writers and that kid who traps people have to say.

So, I don't believe your tax dollars ARE used to fund abortion.

Beyond that, there is no question that the BULK of Planned Parenthood services DO indeed provide poor women with vital medical treatment not available anywhere else. In my view, that is exactly what "promote the general welfare" means, and I don't mind MY tax dollars supporting it.

excon

Beyond that, there is no question that the BULK of Planned Parenthood services DO indeed, provide poor women with vital medical treatment not available anywhere else. In my view, that is exactly what "promote the general welfare" means, and I don't mind MY tax dollars supporting it.

excon

I don't support abortion on a personal level. But that is a personal choice. I do believe that planned parenthood is a valuable service. I agree with Ex that there is a great need and they are filling in that gap. Regardless of my feelings on the abortion subject it is law and it is legal under the rules of law. Freedom isn't about one person its about everyone and the choices available to them.

Anyone who knows an accountant or bookkeepper knows how you can play with the numbers to force an outcome. Lets face it right now it's a numbers game.

As opposed to killing brown-skinned people? That seems ok for you.

Nk, that was totally unnecessary, uncalled for, unwelcome, unrealistic and uncivil.

I dont support abortion on a personal level. Hello again, dad:

It's hard for a reasonable person to be an ideologue, isn't it? Thanks for coming out. My turn.

It may come as a surprise to some, but on a personal basis, I agree with Steve's description of abortion. For some, THAT alone would be enough. They hang their hat on that, and they KNOW they're right. And, if there weren't another person involved, who has rights too, I could be as certain about it as they they are.

But, I'm not. I'm conflicted. I only THINK I'm right.

excon

The constitutionality of funding planned parenthood with Federal Dollars is certainly debatable.

Where Article 1 Sec 8 enumerates a number of clauses related to funding national defense; the wording in the article vaguely refers to the promoting of the General Welfare of the United States (clause 1),and the 'necessary and proper' clause(18) ,which have both been interpreted too broadly in my view by the 20th Century nanny state.

The proper place for funding organizations like PP ,and determining if their activities are even legal has always been at the State level.

But, I'm not. I'm conflicted. I only THINK I'm right.

Ex, I think if we were honest with ourselves we'd all have to admit we're conflicted, about a lot of things. What I'm not conflicted about at the moment is this, however temporary it may be:

Hello again, Steve:

Nobody is interested in our silly game unless I'm winning.

excon

Hello again, Steve:

Nobody is interested in our silly game unless I'm winning.

excon

It's a long season...

Kos is also a huge proponent of the "new era of civility." Yesterday they had a hate fest toward Paul Ryan for having received survivor benefits at 16 years of age after his father died.

Entitlement-hating Paul Ryan collected Social Security benefits until he was 18 (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/04/19/968549/-Entitlement-hating-Paul-Ryan-collected-Social-Security-benefits-until-he-was-18)

The author called him "an evil hypocrite" for something that, at 16, he probably had no say in. For receiving some of what his father was entitled to after I'm sure many years of paying into the system. Not to mention he lost his father. I won't repeat any of the other hate-filled garbage. Well, maybe one... would have been a great question for O's Facebook meeting today.

Mr. President, is calling someone a "hypocritical douchebag" for receiving survivor benefits when he was 16 what you meant by "a new era of civility?"

Today during his Facebook thingy the President called Ryan a radical and accused him of trying to break the social compact(the only way this is true is if the President is a Hobbesian ) . The President is in full Alinsky mode now. The radical is using the language of the radical to define the opposition as a radical .

Has anyone played Portal 2 yet? I'm looking forward to getting it.

Has anyone played Portal 2 yet? I'm looking forward to getting it.

Lol. Somehow I wouldn't have pictured you actually saying that :)

today during his Facebook thingy the President called Ryan a radical and accused him of trying to break the social compact(the only way this is true is if the President is a Hobbesian ) . The President is in full Alinsky mode now. The radical is using the language of the radical to define the opposition as a radical .


Hi Tom,

I think Obama's argument is centred on a obvious political/social talent Ryan had from a early age, i.e. understood how the social welfare system works.

It seems as though he is making sure that individuals who have a similar talent don't get to use this talent in the same way. Ryan is making use of information he has been privy to in the past as 'a weapon' against others who might want to do the same thing.

I think this is what Obama means by Ryan breaking the social compact.

Tut

I think this is what Obama means by Ryan breaking the social compact.Hello TUT:

Nahh.. The social contract is between a country and it's workers... It says, that if you work hard, we're not going to let you starve or go without medical care when you can no longer work.

Ryan now wants to tell people that when they get old and cannot work, they're ON THEY'RE OWN. If they didn't save, too bad for 'em.

excon

Nahh.. The social contract is between a country and it's workers... It says, that if you work hard, we're not gonna let you starve or go without medical care when you can no longer work.

Ryan now wants to tell people that when they get old and cannot work, they're ON THEY'RE OWN. If they didn't save, too bad for 'em.

excon

Now Ex when did this social compact arise. Sounds positively socialist to me and I know there are those here who would argue such a compact is unconstitutional in the US.

I think the fact there isn't a social compact would allow a person such as Ryan to reverse welfare policy but really it isn't about destroying but moderating and I don't think that message has gotten across. There seems to be an all or nothing approach

I think the fact there isn't a social compact would allow a person such as Ryan to reverse welfare policy but really it isn't about destroying but moderating and I don't think that message has gotten across. There seems to be an all or nothing approach

Hi Clete,

Yes, I agree with that but I think the problem arises because Ryan is seen as someone who 'used' the system to his advantage (nothing wrong with that). The problem arises when he doesn't want to afford other people the same advantage.

By wanting to exclude others it appears that his motive was personal gain. That seems to be the problem.

Tut

No I was right . Obama believes in a Hobbesian social compact. Clete is right. This so called social compact was designed by Democrats for their political benefit. Reagan called it right:" It's very easy to disguise a medical program as a humanitarian project — most people are a little reluctant to oppose anything that suggests medical care for people who possibly can't afford it. Now, the American people, if you put it to them about socialized medicine and gave them a chance to choose, would unhesitatingly vote against it."
1965, President Johnson and a Democratic Congress enacted two massive federal entitlement programs ;Medicare and Medicaid ,that fundamentally altered the relationship between Americans and the federal government by making tens of millions dependent on the government for health care. Obama wants to take it to the next step and make us all dependent of the Levithian .

Ryan sees the obvious ;that the entitlements are unsustainable and has offered a plan of modest adjustments that would not affect those in the plan or those near entering the plan. However ,his plan would empower the individual again, as the Locke and the founders envisioned.

.. making tens of millions dependent on the government for health care. Would you rather be dependent on an insurance company for your access to healthcare when their motivation is to profit from your illness and deny you treatment?

Would you rather be dependant on an insurance company for your access to healthcare when their motivation is to profit from your illness and deny you treatment?

That is as we say a no brainer, but, it seems that is the human condition

The private insurance system was another artificial construct of the WWII era (businesses attempting to get around wage controls gave it to employees as a benefit).

The answer to the question above is that it is kind of narrow thinking to believe those are the only 2 choices.

If the insurance system wasn't constrained by government imposed competition restraints it would indeed work much better than government managed.

No I was right . Obama believes in a Hobbesian social compact. Clete is right. This so called social compact was designed by Democrats for their political benefit. Reagan called it right:" It's very easy to disguise a medical program as a humanitarian project — most people are a little reluctant to oppose anything that suggests medical care for people who possibly can't afford it. Now, the American people, if you put it to them about socialized medicine and gave them a chance to choose, would unhesitatingly vote against it."
1965, President Johnson and a Democratic Congress enacted two massive federal entitlement programs ;Medicare and Medicaid ,that fundamentally altered the relationship between Americans and the federal government by making tens of millions dependent on the government for health care. Obama wants to take it to the next step and make us all dependent of the Levithian .



Hi Tom,

As Locke would point out there is a huge difference between the Hobbesian position and his own position. Hobbes' position is characterized by the attempt of a person or a group of people to to seek absolute domination over others. No doubt politicians strive for this position. There is however one obstacle in their way. The rule of law. In most democratic countries the rule of law prevails. On this basis the Leviathan is held in back. Locke recognizes this fact.

The social compact as it applies to your country is a Lockean idea arising out of his criticism of Hobbes. I don't see how this is a Democratic construct.

Ryan's intentions may be good however he is in a position to influence future legislation. What is the point of the social compact if people are prepared to use( or have used) their skills to achieve their ambitions and then attempt to change the law to exclude others of the same opportunity? I am sure Locke would strongly disagree with this position.

Tut

If you don't think dominion over the people by making them dependent on the government largess is Hobbesian then you are misreading him. Locke would never approve of this usurpation of liberty.

Locke appeared to reject the government option in his 'A Letter Concerning Toleration'.
We have already proved that the care of souls does not belong to the magistrate. Not a magisterial care, I mean (if I may so call it), which consists in prescribing by laws and compelling by punishments. But a charitable care, which consists in teaching, admonishing, and persuading, cannot be denied unto any man. The care, therefore, of every man's soul belongs unto himself and is to be left unto himself. But what if he neglect the care of his soul? I answer: What if he neglect the care of his health or of his estate, which things are nearlier related to the government of the magistrate than the other? Will the magistrate provide by an express law that such a one shall not become poor or sick? Laws provide, as much as is possible, that the goods and health of subjects be not injured by the fraud and violence of others; they do not guard them from the negligence or ill-husbandry of the possessors themselves. No man can be forced to be rich or healthful whether he will or no. Nay, God Himself will not save men against their wills. Let us suppose, however, that some prince were desirous to force his subjects to accumulate riches, or to preserve the health and strength of their bodies. Shall it be provided by law that they must consult none but Roman physicians, and shall everyone be bound to live according to their prescriptions? What, shall no potion, no broth, be taken, but what is prepared either in the Vatican, suppose, or in a Geneva shop?

If you don't think dominion over the people by making them dependent on the government largess is Hobbesian then you are misreading him. Locke would never approve of this usurpation of liberty.

Locke appeared to reject the government option in his 'A Letter Concerning Toleration'.
We have already proved that the care of souls does not belong to the magistrate. Not a magisterial care, I mean (if I may so call it), which consists in prescribing by laws and compelling by punishments. But a charitable care, which consists in teaching, admonishing, and persuading, cannot be denied unto any man. The care, therefore, of every man's soul belongs unto himself and is to be left unto himself. But what if he neglect the care of his soul? I answer: What if he neglect the care of his health or of his estate, which things are nearlier related to the government of the magistrate than the other? Will the magistrate provide by an express law that such a one shall not become poor or sick? Laws provide, as much as is possible, that the goods and health of subjects be not injured by the fraud and violence of others; they do not guard them from the negligence or ill-husbandry of the possessors themselves. No man can be forced to be rich or healthful whether he will or no. Nay, God Himself will not save men against their wills. Let us suppose, however, that some prince were desirous to force his subjects to accumulate riches, or to preserve the health and strength of their bodies. Shall it be provided by law that they must consult none but Roman physicians, and shall everyone be bound to live according to their prescriptions? What, shall no potion, no broth, be taken, but what is prepared either in the Vatican, suppose, or in a Geneva shop?


Hi again Tom,

This letter has nothing to do with the rejection of government. Locke is pointing out the distinction between the role of government when it comes to religion and secular society. The role of government is not to save people from themselves.

Locke was all for government. Society develops the necessary institutions necessary for overcomes the defects that we might be encounter in a disorganized society. I don't recall Locke being the champion of small government.


Likewise Hobbes is not interested in the size of government. So long as the sovereign has enough power to enforce the law. Again I don't recall Hobbes make reference to the size of government. One can assume that the size of government is proportional to the amount of control it needs to exercise.

I don't think I have misread Hobbes or Locke.

Tut

Tom is right, Clete is right, Reagan was right... now back to the subject at hand (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-ap-ia-collegerepublican,0,6593118.story).

In response to campus Republicans promoting "Conservative Coming Out Week" at the University of Iowa, professor Ellen Lewin responded by sending out an email on her university account that said, "F--- you, Republicans."

The poor thing had an excuse though...


Lewin, 65, later wrote another email to the leaders of the College Republicans explaining that she had just finished reading about "fresh outrages committed by Republicans in government" when she received the pitch.

Her heartfelt apology...


"I admit the language was inappropriate, and apologize for any affront to anyone's delicate sensibilities," Lewin wrote.

Ironically, her "delicate sensibilities" is what set her off.


But she said the group's email contained several statements that were "extremely offensive, nearly rising to the level of obscenity." She said she was upset that Republicans used the "coming out" language to describe the week given what she called their general disdain for gay rights. She said the email also mocked labor protesters in Wisconsin and animal rights.

Forging ahead in the new era of civility...

Yes the Locke letter was a distinction between church and state . However ,the part I quote he makes it clear that he doesn't see it as the role of government to force the individual to live under a health care plan the sovereign decides .

Hobbes believed in the benevolent ruler... The subject's are serfs. I think that is a perfect description of what Obama and the entitlement state have in mind. F.A. Hayek's 'The Road to Serfdom'
Argued that if a democratic society pursued central planning despotism would inevitably emerge.

Yes the Locke letter was a distinction between church and state . However ,the part I quote he makes it clear that he doesn't see it as the role of government to force the individual to live under a health care plan the sovereign decides .

Hobbes believed in the benevolent ruler ....The subject's are serfs. I think that is a perfect description of what Obama and the entitlement state have in mind. F.A. Hayek’s 'The Road to Serfdom'
argued that if a democratic society pursued central planning despotism would inevitably emerge.

Hi Tom,

You are assuming ( as did Hobbes) that we have to give up our freedoms and liberty in exchange for living under a benevolent ruler. Locke has already pointed out the error in Hobbes thinking.

I may be dependent of government for welfare, to pay my medical bills and even help me with paying the rent. Yes, we are a benevolent society ( perhaps too much so). If this were the case I don't forfeit my liberty and freedoms just because I am almost completely dependent on the state.

I still have freedom of speech, I still have due process under the law, I still have the right to protest against government legislation etc etc.

You are assuming that living under a benevolent equals loss of liberty.


Tut

Ryan sees the obvious ;that the entitlements are unsustainable and has offered a plan of modest adjustments that would not affect those in the plan or those near entering the plan. However ,his plan would empower the individual again, as the Locke and the founders envisioned.Hello again, tom:

Yes, the people IN the plan or about to go into the plan won't be affected... But those 54 and younger will have NO plan, and they'll be "empowered" to buy insurance that nobody will sell them... Sounds good, huh? Empowered to starve and die.

I wonder WHY those right wing people, who purportedly understand business, don't understand that if an insurance company doesn't have to sell insurance to old people, they won't. I also don't understand WHY they don't understand that medical insurance for old people would be VERY expensive IF they COULD get it... If the insurance companies weren't FORCED to insure them, they wouldn't.

Ryan wants to go back to that UGLY past... I don't know why.

excon

Ex no problem , If the insurance companies can't offer a better deal to the consumer than the traditional government plan,the consumer is free to stay with Medicare.
But you know as well as I that the insurance companies freed of the nonsense government imposes,and playing in a competitve environment ,will be able to offer a better deal.

If the insurance companies can't offer a better deal to the consumer than the traditional government plan,the consumer is free to stay with Medicare.
But you know as well as I that the insurance companies freed of the nonsense government imposes,and playing in a competitve environment ,will be able to offer a better deal.Hello tom:

Well, no wonder you support the Ryan plan... You haven't a clue what it says...

Those 54 and younger will have NO Medicare to stay with.. IT WILL BE GONE. It will be DISMANTLED (a word YOU used). It will be replaced by a voucher, and if the voucher doesn't provide enough money for a poor sick person to pay his medical bills, or buy insurance, then the poor sick person goes WITHOUT.

Your second statement is equally bizarre. As a right winger you really DON'T understand business... At some point in our lives, an insurance company can't charge enough to cover the anticipated costs, and BE profitable... Insurance companies KNOW this, and that's why insurance for the old and sick is NOT, and WON'T be available WITHOUT the government FORCING the companies to make it so...

But, if you MISS these features, which is WHAT the Ryan plan is about, then I guess you could tout it... I don't know why you WOULD, but you could.

excon

Yes and no . Yes the Ryan plan does not give those under 55 the choice to stay in Medicare. Instead it gives them what is mistakenly being called vouchers equal to the premium that Medicare would otherwise have to spend directly on care adjustments upward for inflation.

I am 100% correct in my claim that interstate competition will lower premium costs.

What you and the President fail to say is that regardless what plan is adopted ,the current unsustainable system will change .Obamacare "guts" Medicare and Medicaid and replaces it with greater dependency on the nanny socialist state and no choice. The Ryan plan still provides medical care for seniors and allows them choice .

I am 100% correct in my claim that interstate competition will lower premium costs. How can you be 100% correct on a result of a speculative action that hasn't occurred??

I am 100% correct in my claim that interstate competition will lower premium costs. Hello again, tom:

Let's pretend you're an insurer... You've got a 65 year old applicant with an oxygen thing in his nose. He has HIGH blood pressure, and HIGH cholesterol, and hasn't been feeling well lately...

In the very FIRST instance, why would you COMPETE to get HIS health insurance business?? What business model would prompt you, or any other insurer, to try to get THIS business?? I suggest, there's none.

Are you telling me that insuring THIS guy is going to be PROFITABLE for you?? Are you going to tell me, that even IF every insurance company in the world COULD compete for his business, that they WOULD?? Are you THEN telling me, that because they COULD compete, that the price for THIS guy's insurance would come DOWN??

Really??

You say the vouchers, I mean, coupons, OK let's call 'em checks... You say they'll be based on what the average 65 year old would spend... But, OUR sick guy isn't average. Who pays THAT difference for him? Nobody, I guess.

You also say the vouchers would be adjusted for inflation... Didja know that health care costs are rising FASTER than inflation?? Who pays THAT difference?? Him, I guess. Or, he goes without.

I know, I know what you're going to say... If he's spent his voucher money, but is still feeling poorly, he can drag his oxygen tank down to the nearest emergency room, and they'll take care of him just fine...

Really??

excon

Holy crap, I feel sorry for the older generation in the US.

Ex I guess that senior you speak of could be presented his case to the Independent Advisory Panel to decide his fate. We already know Obama thinks he should take the red pill instead of the blue pill and shut up and die.

We already know Obama thinks he should take the red pill instead of the blue pill and shut up and die.When did he say that?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-dQfb8WQvo

YouTube - Obama to Jane Sturm: Hey, take a pill (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-dQfb8WQvo)
I watched the video and he said absolutely nothing of what you wrote. He said nothing of red or blue pills or that people should 'shut up and die'. Geez can you lie any more, I don't think so.

He made reference to the blue and red pills on another quote. I just combined them . Get lost !

Caught you yet again. <sigh>

NK, why don't you troll some other site for real offenses instead of nitpicking around here.

Hi Tom,

You are assuming ( as did Hobbes) that we have to give up our freedoms and liberty in exchange for living under a benevolent ruler. Locke has already pointed out the error in Hobbes thinking.

I may be dependent of government for welfare, to pay my medical bills and even help me with paying the rent. Yes, we are a benevolent society ( perhaps too much so). If this were the case I don't forfeit my liberty and freedoms just because I am almost completely dependent on the state.

I still have freedom of speech, I still have due process under the law, I still have the right to protest against government legislation etc etc.

You are assuming that living under a benevolent equals loss of liberty.


Tut

Tut ,what about your property rights ? The benevelent ruler is being benevolent off your dime. Oh I'm sure he feels real righteous picking your pocket and deciding which of his other serfs deserve it. But where is the virtue if you are compelled to be charitable ?

For a man's property is not at all secure, though there be good and equitable laws to set the bounds of it, between him and his fellow subjects, if he who commands those subjects, have power to take from any private man, what part he pleases of his property, and use and dispose of it as he thinks good. (Locke Second Treatise, Chapter 11).

NK, why don't you troll some other site for real offenses instead of nitpicking around here.

He's the perfect example of the op. The left throws that word 'lie ' around frequently .

Tut ,what about your property rights ? The benevelent ruler is being benevolent off your dime. Oh I'm sure he feels real righteous picking your pocket and deciding which of his other serfs deserve it. But where is the virtue if you are compelled to be charitable ?



Hi Tom,

I agree and I almost said as much in my last entry.

However my question still stands. How does benevolence equate to loss of freedoms and liberty?

I don't see the argument for a person being rendered a serf because they are dependent on the state. They still have their liberty and freedoms.

Perhaps I need to read the book you mentioned in an earlier post or can you outline the main argument for me?

Tut

I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.
James Madison

You see the answer in the responses I get. The system is in jeopardy and the only answer is ever more extraction of wealth from others. If they take the total wealth of the top 2% of the nation they could not fix the long term solvency issues of the nanny state . It promises more than it can ever get from the confiscation of private wealth. What kind of majoritarian system survives by this perscription ? History has discarded more than one majoritarian system .

Yeah ,I recommend F.A. Hayek's 'The Road to Serfdom ',as well as 'Liberty and Tyranny ' by Mark Levin .

I don't see the argument for a person being rendered a serf because they are dependent on the state. They still have their liberty and freedoms.

Tut

But Tut you have left money out of the equation, benevolence is something people with money do to show they care, but they cannot see that if they contribute the same amount by way of taxation this is somehow not an inroad into their liberty. And the recipricant of that benevolence, why should they have certainty in their lives when they can be dependent upon the occasional crumbs from the benevolent donors who can withdraw their benevolence whenever they please.

It is all founded on a false premise, that liberty somehow equates to independence in thought and action. Liberty is not to suffer compulsion, beyond that there are no guarantees.

But Tut you have left money out of the equation, benevolence is something people with money do to show they care, but they cannot see that if they contribute the same amount by way of taxation this is somehow not an inroad into their liberty. And the recipricant of that benevolence, why should they have certainity in their lives when they can be dependent upon the occasional crumbs from the benevolent donors who can withdraw their benevolence whenever they please.

It is all founded on a false premise, that liberty somehow equates to independence in thought and action. Liberty is not to suffer compulsion, beyond that there are no guarantees.


Interesting comment.

It seems to me that Tom might have the Leviathan by the tail. The real danger to liberty and freedom doesn't come from the nanny state. It may well come from the belief that benevolence should come with 'strings attached'

Tut

Government 'benevolence' always has strings attached.

[I]

You see the answer in the responses I get. The system is in jeopardy and the only answer is ever more extraction of wealth from others. If they take the total wealth of the top 2% of the nation they could not fix the long term solvency issues of the nanny state . It promises more than it can ever get from the confiscation of private wealth. What kind of majoritarian system survives by this perscription ? History has discarded more than one majoritarian system .

Yeah ,I recommend F.A. Hayek's 'The Road to Serfdom ',as well as 'Liberty and Tyranny ' by Mark Levin .

Hi Tom,

All social, political and economic systems are nothing more than a house of cards. This is because your system, like ours has come together in a piece-meal way. We try and prop-up the cards. Most democratic societies exhibit this trait. This is what makes them democratic. On this basis I don't see the system being a 'majoritarian system'. I'll have to admit I am not exactly sure what a ' majoritarian system' is. My guess is that its not compatible with the democratic system you have in place.

Tut

Government 'benevolence' always has strings attached.

Hi Speech,

What are these strings?

Tut

I find it strange that it is considered benevolence at all it if it's the confiscation and distribution of other's property. Our Constitution is supposed to protect property rights . But for the so called ' general welfare 'confiscatory redistribution and excessive eminent domain happens routinely.

Regarding 'majoritarian'... another way to describe it is 'the tyranny of the majority (Alexis de Tocqueville)

I have a good quote that describes majoritarian as opposed to what is being described as democratic.
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses...
The rest of the quote describes the progression to dependency (soft tyranny). [Not sure the source but it is usually attributed to Alexander Fraser Tytler or Alexis de Tocqueville]

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses..Hello again, tom:

Assuming the writer is correct, and we're AT the point of collapse, what replaces it?

It would seem you favor Oligarchy.

excon

Hi Speech,

What are these strings?

Tom offered a great one, "the confiscation and distribution of other's property."

It's not 'benevolence' if it's taken from me to give to someone else.

Hello again, tom:

Assuming the writer is correct, and we're AT the point of collapse, what replaces it?

t would seem you favor Oligarchy.

excon

Hmm , if I favored a Executive that sticks the taxpayers and GM stakeholders with the tab for taking over an automobile company (illegal even under the very broad terms of TARP);giving favorable terms to his UAW cronies... appoints another crony with union ties to the NLRB without a Senate confirmation... if I favored this Executive that talks about "shared sacrifice' /make the rich pay ,and yet appoined one cabinet secretary after another who was caught not paying their share (or in the case of Jeff Immelt ,his whole corporation paid nothing... Immelt was awarded a position as an Obma economic advisor ).. then you would be able to claim that I favor an oligarchy.

Maybe if the Democrat oligarchs were paying their fair share under current rates then there would be no need to raise the rates on the few taxpayers who already pay over 60% of the total government revenues.
Where did you say Kerry parked his yacht ? (can you say that with a Brahmin accent ?)

After reviewing the comments here I can see that you are living in a dilusion. You are not ruled by the majority but by a minority of individuals who have duped the majority into thinking they represent their interests

I find it strange that it is considered benevolence at all it if it's the confiscation and distribution of other's property. Our Constitution is supposed to protect property rights . But for the so called ' general welfare 'confiscatory redistribution and excessive eminent domain happens routinely.

Regarding 'majoritarian' ...another way to describe it is 'the tyranny of the majority (Alexis de Tocqueville)

I have a good quote that describes majoritarian as opposed to what is being described as democratic.
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses...
the rest of the quote describes the progression to dependency (soft tyranny). [Not sure the source but it is usually attributed to Alexander Fraser Tytler or Alexis de Tocqueville]


Hi Tom,

I don't know who came up with this quote either but whoever it was doesn't make or recognize the distinction between liberty and democracy.
They are not necessarily one and the same. Lock and et al. recognized this. This is why you have the separation of powers. Individual rights cannot be voted out, even if the individual wanted to forfeit them.

Tut

tom offered a great one, "the confiscation and distribution of other's property."

It's not 'benevolence' if it's taken from me to give to someone
else.

Hi speech,

I assume Tom and yourself are referring to taxation.

Tut

Of course they are referring to taxation they want to make sure their benevolence is recognised and goes to the "right" people, not to the destitute supporters of the other side. Taxation has been a problem in the US every since King George slapped tax on tea, Instead of being sensible and drinking coffee they got in huff and you know the result. They went from backwoods to fighting for no taxation without representation everywhere

Of course they are referring to taxation they want to make sure their benevolence is recognised and goes to the "right" people, not to the destitute supporters of the the other side. Taxation has been a problem in the US every since King George slapped tax on tea, Instead of being sensible and drinking coffee they got in huff and you know the result. they went from backwoods to fighting for no taxation without representation everywhere

Hi Clete,


Ah.. the plot thickens

Of course they are referring to taxation they want to make sure their benevolence is recognised and goes to the "right" people, not to the destitute supporters of the other side. Taxation has been a problem in the US every since King George slapped tax on tea, Instead of being sensible and drinking coffee they got in huff and you know the result. They went from backwoods to fighting for no taxation without representation everywhere
The Brit excise on tea at least was a consumption tax. Clete is right in saying the individual had a choice to not drink the tea. (in fact ,tea was not the popular beverage at the time. ) The issue back then was representation .So the comparsion to what I am saying is not valid .

The US Constitution makes it clear where the Federal government has the authority to tax. Redistribution and collectivist compassion to achieve social equity is not one of them.
The assumption I am reading from the left is that the fruit of human labor is 1st the government's to portion and dole out and not the individual's .
If this were not so ,then the government would not be confiscatiing it directly from the paycheck of the people.

The left keeps telling us that the problem is that the top 2% aren't paying their fair share and that is why we are in constant debt crisis.
This is not true . As I've previously stated ,this group already pays 60% of national revenues. If all their income was confiscated ,it would net the government less that a trillion dollars of the $4 trillion budget the President proposed this year.

By far the biggest short and long term cause of this imbalance is "entitlement" spending (and a growing obligation to debt service).
For the most part those programs are not catering to charity for the needy . It is for making the rest of the populace dependent on the government largess.

Of course they are referring to taxation they want to make sure their benevolence is recognised and goes to the "right" people, not to the destitute supporters of the the other side.

be·nev·o·lence (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/benevolence)
 
1. desire to do good to others; goodwill; charitableness: to be filled with benevolence toward one's fellow creatures.

2. an act of kindness; a charitable gift.

My benevolence - charity - is no one's business. I prefer no recognition just as I prefer being able to choose the recipient. I'd much rather choose to support a destitute child in El Salvador than be forced to give it to someone with 2 TV's, 2 cars, air conditioning, satellite TV and an automatic dishwasher, which I don't even have.

There was one more entry on benevolence:

3. English History . a forced contribution to the sovereign.

I'm speaking of the first 2, you guys must be thinking of the 3rd.

The US Constitution makes it clear where the Federal government has the authority to tax. Redistribution and collectivist compassion to achieve social equity is not one of them.
The assumption I am reading from the left is that the fruit of human labor is 1st the government's to portion and dole out and not the individual's .
If this were not so ,then the govenment would not be confiscatiing it directly from the paycheck of the people.



Apparently they can and they do. I guess this is why constitutional lawyers get so much money. Who can come up with the most 'creative' interpretation of the Constitution.

I think you assumption about how the government distributes your taxes is probably correct.

I understand that the US Constitution recognizes the rights of the individual and of course this is very important but we also need to take into account society also exists as a collective membership. Positive and negative rights, if you like. I realize the taxman is infringing on your negative rights. Most of the time positive rights do infringe on our negative rights, but negative rights can also infringe on positive rights as well.

As far as your economic assessment goes I am happy to go along with it. You obviously know more about economics than myself.


Tut

The founders did not distinguish between positive and negative rights ,and President Obama is quoted as thinking that is a weakness in the Constitution. Speaking of the Warren Court he said that... [ It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it's been interpreted, and the Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can't do to you. Says what the federal government can't do to you, but doesn't say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf.]

I don't think it a weakness at all .
I think that is an unsustainable prerscription to a failure... as did Frederic Bastiat ,the French classical theorist who wrote:

Here I come into conflict with the most popular prejudices of our day. People not only want the law to be just; they also want it to be philanthropic. They are not satisfied that justice should guarantee to each citizen the free and inoffensive exercise of his faculties for his physical, intellectual, and moral development; they require of it that it should directly spread welfare, education, and morality throughout the country. This is the seductive aspect of socialism.

But, I repeat, these two functions of the law contradict each other. We must choose between them. A citizen cannot at the same time be free and not free. M. de Lamartine wrote me one day: "Your doctrine is only the half of my program; you have stopped at liberty; I go on to fraternity." I answered him: "The second half of your program will destroy the first half." And, in fact, it is quite impossible for me to separate the word "fraternity" from the word "voluntary." It is quite impossible for me to conceive of fraternity as legally enforced, without liberty being legally destroyed, and justice being legally trampled underfoot.

Bastiat: Selected Essays, Chapter 2, The Law (Cain translation) | Library of Economics and Liberty (http://www.econlib.org/library/Bastiat/basEss2.html)

As I see one social democracy after another going down the toilet of fiscal collapse ,I can't help but think that is exactly what Bastiat was predicting.

Here we have the nub of the argument, eighteenth century thought is thought to be inviolate, but what was the reality of the eighteenth century, less than a billion people on the Earth, vast parts unexplored and a much more settled society with slavery the cure for poverty, sell yourself into servitude. I prefer a society that takes the responsibility for the poor that the thinkers of the eighteenth century did not

Lol the 19th century thinkers that form the basis of the modern socialist collective state had it so much better ? Many millions of lives have been sacrificed to their utopia.

I prefer to move on and realise the error in both systems, the one which thought nothing of the suffering of others and the other which inflicted suffering to bring about change. I have seen the way the followers of your system inflicted suffering upon dissenters and I wonder how different the two systems might be, both are corrupt and evil.

The founders did not distinguish between positive and negative rights ,and President Obama is quoted as thinking that is a weakness in the Constitution.



I tend to agree with Obama in this instance.

The reason the founders did not distinguish between positive and negative rights was because the idea wasn't fully developed at stage. Any idea that Locke was arguing against positive law when it comes to health care or education is a misunderstanding.

As you point out the idea is more fully developed when it comes to Bastiat. Bastiat was not correct when it comes to a contradiction of positive and negative law. In today's society one is dependent on the other. Your rights to property and limited taxation can only be maintained through positive law. As I said before one is played off against the other.

The problem has come about because Locke believed that all humans have certain natural rights prior to the formation of organized society. The problem is that it is hard to imagine how we can have these rights prior to there being an organized society to give us these rights.

Tut

The problem is in thinking these rights are from the organized society instead of endowed by the creator. What organized society can give ,can also be taken away by the government .

The problem has come about because Locke believed that all humans have certain natural rights prior to the formation of organized society. The problem is that it is hard to imagine how we can have these rights prior to there being an organized society to give us these rights.

Tut

There Tut you seem to disgaree with the americans who's constitution says all men have inalienable rights, who gave them those rights? The constitution or God and life. The great problem is for the americans to distinguish between those rights that are inalienable and those that confined by a narrow constitution. They forget That if men have inalienable rights then surely the nation exists to provide and protect them.

Therefore we have to understand how life, liberty and happiness are defined and delivered. If life is an inalienable right then the nation must deliver just health care, food and accommodation, there is no mine and yours but ours. If liberty is a right, then slavery in any form is not to be tolerated and therefore a just wage must be delivered and if happiness is a right, then the nation must remove the sources of unhappiness, such as exploitation, crime and repression. Measured against such standards the US has far to go.

No Clete that is a distortion . There is no guarantee of equality of outcome and results.
It is the role of government as defined in the Declaration of Independence to "secure these rights " .Yes Madison explained in Federalist 10 that without government men are unprotected in the state of nature. So there is a partial giving up of rights so the government can secure those that man cannot do himself. Those limited powers granted to the government are outlined in the Constitution .

What you describe goes beyond all rational role of the government of free men into a realm of absurdity. What you are securing for one person you are taking from another . That is a tyranny.

No Tom my explanation is completely rational. If you state something to be a fact, an inalienable fact, then everything else must be seen in that context. So you cannot say we see these rights as existing but now we will limit them because we are going to limit government and its response to them. Such inconsistancies must be resolved and they can only be resolved by reference to the original context.

So back to what I said before, and it is not tyanny to ask everyone to contribute to the common good if they all have equal rights to the benefits. What you are trying is justify is a tyranny which says I will benefit from the endevours of everyone but I will not contribute unless I want to, In other words; usary

The problem is in thinking these rights are from the organized society instead of endowed by the creator. What organized society can give ,can also be taken away by the government .

Hi Tom and Clete

Obviously Locke was very influential in terms of 'rights' when it comes to the Constitution. I am not being critical of the role of the creator.

My criticism was centred on the so call called 'men living in a state of nature'- before the advent of organized society. Locke's argument is that all men are equal in the sense they have rights which existed prior to organized society being formed. These 'natural rights' are carried over to an organized society. On this basis Locke argues these rights cannot be taken away by government. It is hard to defend Locke when he says that certain rights existed in a state of nature. My criticism is directed at Locke's understanding of 'a state of nature'.

In the modern political environment Locke has been interpreted as saying each person has the right to equal treatment when it comes to the law. Positive laws are obviously man made and on this basis they are somewhat fluid. In other words, what the law gives with one hand it can take away with he other at a different time.

My argument is that positive laws are sometimes needed to defend negative rights. In a similar way negative rights can also be used to defend against positive laws. Who is winning the battle at the moment? Yes, there is an argument that your negative rights are being slowly eaten away. However, this is not sufficient evidence to accept Bastiat's contention, I e democracy will eventually topple in the face of so- called contradictory forces.

Tut

Tut I like to be a little more pragmatic than rely on one commentator's theories. The reality is government has been endeavouring to restrict rights ever since it has been set up and in that we have a tyranny. Today's tyrannies are not as excessive as those of centuries ago, but they are tyrannies nevertheless. Democracy inevietably gives way to tyranny as the weight of law is imposed upon it and bureaucracy takes over

Hi Tom and Clete

Obviously Locke was very influential in terms of 'rights' when it comes to the Constitution. I am not being critical of the role of the creator.

My criticism was centred on the so call called 'men living in a state of nature'- before the advent of organized society. Locke's argument is that all men are equal in the sense they have rights which existed prior to organized society being formed. These 'natural rights' are carried over to an organized society. On this basis Locke argues these rights cannot be taken away by government. It is hard to defend Locke when he says that certain rights existed in a state of nature. My criticism is directed at Locke's understanding of 'a state of nature'.

In the modern political environment Locke has been interpreted as saying each person has the right to equal treatment when it comes to the law. Positive laws are obviously man made and on this basis they are somewhat fluid. In other words, what the law gives with one hand it can take away with he other at a different time.

My argument is that positive laws are sometimes needed to defend negative rights. In a similar way negative rights can also be used to defend against positive laws. Who is winning the battle at the moment? Yes, there is an argument that your negative rights are being slowly eaten away. However, this is not sufficient evidence to accept Bastiat's contention, i e democracy will eventually topple in the face of so- called contradictory forces.

Tut

I think it's happening a lot faster than some predict. The nanny state model of the PIGS is being propped up by an increasingly reluctant Germany . The Obots think the rich can prop up their bloated budgets. They are wrong. Besides the fact that the rich don't have nearly enough to make up for the near 50% of America that pays no taxes to the Federal Government ;the rich can ,have ,and will move their wealth elsewhere... Galt's Gulch maybe .

I think it's happening a lot faster than some predict. The nanny state model of the PIGS is being propped up by an increasingly reluctant Germany . The Obots think the rich can prop up their bloated budgets. They are wrong. Besides the fact that the rich don't have nearly enough to make up for the near 50% of America that pays no taxes to the Federal Government ;the rich can ,have ,and will move their wealth elsewhere.... Galt's Gulch maybe .

Hi Tom,

You're the economist, not me. What you say here and in your previous entries relating to statistics and trends is no doubt correct.

What I am rejecting is the idea that Marx, Bastiat, Rand, Smith or anyone one else for that matter can predict what society will be like in the future.

Many years ago Sociology Departments were full of papers and books predicting what life was going to be like in 20,30, 40 years time. As it turned put none of them were worth the paper they were printed on.

We can't apply the methods of science to society and get the same accurate predictions. There is always some factor not taken into account. Take Marx for example. Marx believed he had discovered 'the key element' which would allow him to predict the way society will progress (sounds familiar with all of these commentators doesn't it?)

It seemed obvious to Marx at the time society was heading in a particular direction and nothing was going to stop it. One of many things he didn't take into account in his formulation was the rapid expansion of the middle class. Some people are still waiting for the revolution.

I think it's happening a lot faster than some predict. The nanny state model of the PIGS is being propped up by an increasingly reluctant Germany . The Obots think the rich can prop up their bloated budgets. They are wrong. Besides the fact that the rich don't have nearly enough to make up for the near 50% of America that pays no taxes to the Federal Government ;the rich can ,have ,and will move their wealth elsewhere.... Galt's Gulch maybe .

Yes and the excesses of the rich in the US are being propped up by China. There is nothing wrong with lower income people paying no tax, it is when the rich pay little tax that the country, any country, is in trouble. The tax rates in the US could be 100% and yet the tax take would be small because of all the allowances and deductions. Why don't you get a real tax system which captures all alike. It's time for a Goods and Services Tax so all the avoiders are contributing.

No problem with that thought if the "progressive" income tax was abolished.

My bigger point is that so long as the bulk of the country sees the role of government as being 'sugar daddy' the country is doomed no matter how it's paid for.

no problem with that thought if the "progressive" income tax was abolished.

My bigger point is that so long as the bulk of the country sees the role of government as being 'sugar daddy' the country is doomed no matter how it's paid for.

Well Tom you don't abolish it but you can greatly modify it's operation so it does what it is supposed to do, tax the rich. We once had draconian taxes in this country but slowly the penny dropped that there were better ways to shear the sheep and minimise the bleetting, you also abolish a lot of state taxes in the process, quite revolutionary

My bigger point is that so long as the bulk of the country sees the role of government as being 'sugar daddy' the country is doomed no matter how it's paid for.

Hi Tom,

That's a bit pessimistic. No one can predict the future, least of all economists. The entire population is dependent on government to some extent. If the progressive taxation system is too much of a burden then perhaps a system where everyone contributes according to their ability to pay. I think it is called equity.


Tut

My bigger point is that so long as the bulk of the country sees the role of government as being 'sugar daddy' the country is doomed no matter how it's paid for.I have a different take on it: as long as the bulk of the country accepts that your government is a tool of the corporations your country is doomed.

Hi Tom,

That's a bit pessimistic. No one can predict the future, least of all economists. The entire population is dependent on government to some extent. If the progressive taxation system is too much of a burden then perhaps a system where everyone contributes according to their ability to pay. I think it is called equity.


Tut

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need ?
Hmmm where have I heard that before ?

I have a different take on it: as long as the bulk of the country accepts that your government is a tool of the corporations your country is doomed.

That would be the Dems. You think not ? Why this push for universal health care ? So the corporations no longer have to underwrite their employees health care.

That would be the Dems. It's both sides. All the politicians are bought by the corporations and they vote for their sponsors' interests. This isn't a partisan issue - it's both sides. You're deluded if you think your party is looking out for *your* interests. Unless that is fixed your ideals will never bear fruit.

I am not a political party type of guy. When I left the Dems I remained independent .

I am not a political party type of guy. Really? LOL! Your posts/threads here betray that statement.

Hi Tom,

That's a bit pessimistic. No one can predict the future, least of all economists. The entire population is dependent on government to some extent. If the progressive taxation system is too much of a burden then perhaps a system where everyone contributes according to their ability to pay. I think it is called equity.


Tut

Tut that's called a progressive taxation system which turns out to be a regressive taxation system. It has been tried. The easy way is to tax consumption, that way the more you pay, the more you pay, want a tax holiday, don't spend any money.

Really? LOL! Your posts/threads here betray that statement.

So you think ;but that's the fact .

Tut that's called a progressive taxation system which turns out to be a regressive taxation system. It has been tried. The easy way is to tax consumption, that way the more you pay, the more you pay, want a tax holiday, don't spend any money.


Hi Clete,

Thanks for the clarification. I don't know much about economics.

Tut

Originally Posted by TUT317
Hi Tom,

That's a bit pessimistic. No one can predict the future, least of all economists. The entire population is dependent on government to some extent. If the progressive taxation system is too much of a burden then perhaps a system where everyone contributes according to their ability to pay. I think it is called equity.
Tut

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need ?
Hmmm where have I heard that before ?
__________________


Your statement to me was philosophical Marxism... or maybe not. The roots of the modern nanny state goes back to Bismarckian national Socialism which in turn was a response to the threat of international socialism. What Bismark did not consider was that his was just a slower progression to the same end.

Your statement to me was philosophical Marxism ....or maybe not. The roots of the modern nanny state goes back to Bismarckian national Socialism which in turn was a response to the threat of international socialism. What Bismark did not consider was that his was just a slower progression to the same end.

Hi Tom.

Probably, did start back with Marx. Sounds about right so I'll go along with your statement.

If you are suggesting that Marxism, national and international socialism was the thin end of the wedge then again you are probably right.

There is an argument for being pessimistic when you look at the thick end of the wedge at the moment. It shows that Marx was right about one thing. It is the capitalist mode of production that determines our consciousness.

Tut

Tut you've got him started, there will be no stopping him now

It seems that any form of government is only as good as those that administer it. I think what we have seen in America since its declaration of independence is a scramble to create a more perfect union that's constantly changing and evolving.

I think as more people become informed as to the way America works, or doesn't work, then they no longer will be just sheep following what some politician with an agenda, and the motive of money ( be it capitalism, or just greed, take your pick), and take better care in who represents them, rather than large monied interests. Then problems will be addressed and solved.

Maybe its time we stop letting the ones hoarding the money have all the power, and we all can share equally in the responsibility to form that more perfect union. Doesn't matter about opinions, it's the actual actions that count, and Americas problem has always been simple because it was laid out long ago, WE THE PEOPLE, and if it ain't working right, its WE THE PEOPLES fault.

We have the greatest tools in the world, debate, and vote, to work with. And that's what will determine what rights we have and what direction WE take our country. Some may not like it, but they will benefit from the will of the people being done, and I have to tell you the stirring of fear, is our greatest challenge, and the examinations of facts, is the way out of any mess we face.

That's the only way ANY government on the face of the earth will ever work efficiently, if all have an equal say in the way it functions. When we leave it to one person, one family, one idea, we follow as sheep, and some get what they want, and others don't. If we all vote foe what we want we all get some piece of the results, and as long as my piece is the same as yours, hey what more can you ask for?

My voter registration card is right next to the Visa card, and ID, and in America, that should be all you need to get a piece of the pie. At least that should be the goal, no matter how big the pie is, or how many pieces we have to cut it, everyone gets a piece, and that's fair, and equal.

That's where I want the country to be headed to, and away from the notion that the right to have money trumps my right to get a piece of the pie. That's the bottom line, I want my piece, and you shouldn't be greedy, and wait it for yourself, AFTER you gobble yours up.

YOUR right end, where mine begin.

Good thing Gabby's getting better (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCkQqQIwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cbsnews.com%2F8301-504763_162-20064258-10391704.html&rct=j&q=giffords&ei=iyLVTeCIBsia0QGuo7yaDA&usg=AFQjCNFqI1BXZ2ucCUr268XFcWHBwR8XQw&cad=rja), the left can get back to doing what they do best - fear mongering. First, that pathetic waste of human skin Alan Grayson said Republicans want you to "die quickly." Now they intend to just push granny right over the cliff. Literally.

OGnE83A1Z4U

Looks like things are going to get nasty.

the left can get back to doing what they do best - fear mongering. Hello again, Steve:

When the right wingers were fear mongering about "death panels", it was cool with you.. But, when the left wing shouts they're throwing granny over the cliff, and it's TRUTHFUL, and done quite well by the way, you don't like it...

Let me ask you this... When Medicare is OVER, as the Ryan plan will do, what about throwing granny over the cliff is NOT true??

excon

No you are!!!

You're just an ***.

http://cs12.cs.qc.cuny.edu/~pake2745/images/donkey.jpg

Hehe. Internet tough guy.

Hello again, Steve:

When the right wingers were fear mongering about "death panels", it was cool with you.. But, when the left wing shouts they're throwing granny over the cliff, and it's TRUTHFUL, and done quite well by the way, you don't like it...

Let me ask you this... When Medicare is OVER, as the Ryan plan will do, what about throwing granny over the cliff is NOT true??

Excon

No one whined when we pointed out all the cuts in Medicare Obama was making (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703649004575437311393854940.html). ..


Altogether, ObamaCare cuts $818 billion from Medicare Part A (hospital insurance) from 2014-2023, the first 10 years of its full implementation, and $3.2 trillion over the first 20 years, 2014-2033. Adding ObamaCare cuts for Medicare Part B (physicians fees and other services) brings the total cut to $1.05 trillion over the first 10 years and $4.95 trillion over the first 20 years.

These draconian cuts in Medicare payments to doctors, hospitals and other health-care providers that serve America's seniors were the basis for the Congressional Budget Office's official "score"—repeatedly cited by the president—that the health-reform legislation would actually reduce the federal deficit. But Mr. Obama never disclosed how that deficit reduction would actually be achieved.

There will be additional cuts under ObamaCare to Medicare Advantage, the private option to Medicare that close to one-fourth of all seniors have chosen for their coverage under the program because it gives them a better deal. Mr. Foster estimates that 50% of all seniors with Medicare Advantage will lose their plan because of these cuts. Mr. Obama's pledge that "If you like your health plan, you will be able to keep it" clearly does not apply to America's seniors.

Moreover, there will be additional cuts to Medicare adopted by bureaucrats at the Medicare Independent Payment Advisory Board. ObamaCare empowers this board to close Medicare financing gaps by adopting further Medicare cuts that would become effective without any congressional action. Mr. Foster reports that "The Secretary of HHS is required to implement the Board's recommendations unless the statutory process is overridden by new legislation

We can debate the plans all we want, but this thread is about how the left threw an absolute fit over how those mean ol' conservatives got Gabby shot because of their overheated rhetoric (which wasn't true), and HYPOCRITICALLY called for civility. This ad is as irresponsible and uncivil as it gets.

Hehe. Internet tough guy.

Look in the mirror a$$hole.

I guess we shouldn't mess with Texas. Yeehaw!

This ad is as irresponsible and uncivil as it gets.Hello again, Steve:

Oh, I agree. It's pretty damn uncivil. At the same time, it's pretty damn responsible. The TRUTH about the Ryan plan ought not be sugar coated. It's pretty damn UGLY.

excon

I guess we shouldn't mess with Texas. Yeehaw!

Have all the fun you like on your own, you aren't worth a response any more. But thanks for making my point.

Hello again, Steve:

Oh, I agree. It's pretty damn uncivil. At the same time, it's pretty damn responsible. The TRUTH about the Ryan plan ought not be sugar coated. It's pretty damn UGLY.

So, fear mongering is cool again, eh? Just trying to get the rules of the game.

So, fear mongering is cool again, eh? Just trying to get the rules of the game.Well let's play by the rules that you'd like: is fear mongering acceptable or not? If not will you call out those who do it?

So, fear mongering is cool again, eh? Just trying to get the rules of the game.Hello again, Steve:

I think I mentioned MY rules.. They go something like this: SCREW CIVILITY. I didn't mince words. If you're looking for somebody to blame for ENDING the truce, I'm your guy.

excon

There never was a truce, those good progressives are all talk.

It's official, the new tone in the new era of civility is... Republicans are terrorists.


Vice President Joe Biden joined House Democrats in lashing tea party Republicans Monday, accusing them of having “acted like terrorists” in the fight over raising the nation’s debt limit.

Biden was agreeing with a line of argument made by Rep. Mike Doyle (D-Pa.) at a two-hour, closed-door Democratic Caucus meeting.

“We have negotiated with terrorists,” an angry Doyle said, according to sources in the room. “This small group of terrorists have made it impossible to spend any money.”

Biden, driven by his Democratic allies’ misgivings about the debt-limit deal, responded: “They have acted like terrorists,” according to several sources in the room.

Biden’s office declined to comment about what the vice president said inside the closed-door session.

Earlier in the day, Biden told Senate Democrats that Republican leaders have “guns to their heads” (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0811/60421.html#ixzz1TogPdGMR)in trying to negotiate deals.

A question for Mr Doyle is, just how much money "any money"? What are we going to spend in the next 10 years, $40 trillion? "Guns to their heads" Mr. Vice President? Really?

I thought you Democrats were supposed to be the adults in the room but it turns out you're just mean, hate-filled, whiny sore-losers.

Get over it, that what you told me to do.

I wouldn't call you a terrorist, tal. I find that inexcusably intolerant, undignified, peurile behavior from our elected officials, especially the VP.

I thought you Democrats were supposed to be the adults in the room but it turns out you're just mean, hate-filled, whiny sore-losers.Hello again, Steve:

Whoa, podner... You paint with a broad brush... Do you want me to find some despicable Republican and call you a hater because of what HE says?? I can, you know.

excon

Well, I can narrow it down. For starters, Slaughter, Doyle, Pelosi, Biden, Reid, Rangel, Dan Pfeiffer, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, Rep. Garamendi, Rachel Maddow, Tom Friedman, Steny Hoyer, Van Jones, Joe Klein...

By the way, Biden's "guns to their heads" remark was particularly pathetic seeing as how Gabby Giffords was there for the vote.

And P.S. I HATE the new site.

Slaughter, Doyle, Pelosi, Biden, Reid, Rangel, Dan Pfeiffer, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, Rep. Garamendi, Rachel Maddow, Tom Friedman, Steny Hoyer, Van Jones, Joe Klein...Hello again, Steve:

Those bastards!

excon

Yes, it's definitely the official leftist talking point.


Tea Party’s War on America
By JOE NOCERA
Published: August 1, 2011

You know what they say: Never negotiate with terrorists. It only encourages them.

These last few months, much of the country has watched in horror as the Tea Party Republicans have waged jihad on the American people. (http://community.nytimes.com/comments/www.nytimes.com/2011/08/02/opinion/the-tea-partys-war-on-america.html)

Funny, but you can't say anything about Islamic terrorist waging jihad in their effort to subject the whole world to Islam, but it's suddenly cool to call conservatives terrorists waging jihad on America for trying rescue us from Washington's inability to stop spending trillions we don't have. I'm waiting for some liberal somewhere to stand up and say enough of this violent, irresponsible rhetoric - especially considering Gabby Giffords was back yesterday.

Yes, it's definitely the official leftist talking point. Nah, you guys beat everyone to the punch:

O?Reilly: Times Waging "Jihad" Against U.S. | Right Wing Watch (http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/o%E2%80%99reilly-times-waging-jihad-against-us)

But the truth is far more insidious. There is a far left press jihad going on in this country. That's the truth.

Immigration Talk with a Mexican American: Breaking News: AZ sb1070 Racial Profiling Bill Author State Sen. Russell Pearce - RECALLED!!!!! (http://immigrationmexicanamerican.blogspot.com/2011/07/breaking-news-az-sb1070-racial.html)

Mired in various scandals, Pearce infamously accused President Obama of "waging jihad" on America.

OPINION: Step up, take charge and lead the nation, Mr. President - TheHill.com (http://thehill.com/opinion/columnists/judd-gregg/152043-step-up-take-charge-and-lead-mr-obama)

Agencies like the FDA, EPA and the Labor Department have declared their own jihad against American entrepreneurs

And which of those isolated incidents became the featured talking point of Republicans and the media? Even Krugman yesterday lamented Republicans' "bloody-mindedness." This is a vicious, choreographed assault on Americans, particularly inexcusable on the day of Giffords' return.


To Hell With You People (http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/273444/hell-you-people-jonah-goldberg#)
August 2, 2011 11:24 A.M.
By Jonah Goldberg

Look, I am past exhausted talking about liberal media bias. It’s real, we all know it, and people who deny it aren’t even fooling themselves. But some things just have to be pointed out. This morning I watched the first 15 minutes of the Today Show. I don’t particularly love or even like the program, but I find it useful to see what the producers think is the big news of the day. And sometimes Chuck Todd is on, and I like him. If I sound defensive about watching the show it’s only because I am.

Anyway, the first ten minutes was about Gabby Giffords’ return to the House yesterday. I’m not sure it merited the full ten minutes or trumped the hard news that later followed, but it’s a great story and everyone is rooting for the lady, so I’m fine with it.

But think about this for a second. The Giffords shooting sent the media elite in this country into a about of St. Vitus’s dance that would have warranted an army of exorcists in previous ages. Sarah Palin’s Facebook map was an evil totem that forced some guy to go on a shooting spree. The New York Times, the Washington Post, all three broadcast networks — particularly NBC whose senior foreign affairs correspondent, Andrea Mitchell, devotes, by my rough reckoning, ten times as much air time to whining about Sarah Palin as she does about anything having to do with foreign affairs — flooded the zone with “Have you no shame” finger wagging. A memo went forth demanding that everyone at MSNBC get their dresses over their heads about the evil “tone” from the right. Media Matters went into overdrive working the interns 24/7 to “prove” that Republicans deliberately foment violence with their evil targets on their evil congressional maps.

Everyone “knew” the shooter was a tea partier. Except he wasn’t. He wasn’t even a conservative. He was a sick, demented, nutball. And it still didn’t matter! More bleating and caterwauling about the “tone” followed. More chin stroking and tut-tutting from Meet the Press roundtables and “very special segments” on the Today Show. More pizzas were ordered for the Media Matters galley slaves.

Finally, president Obama, our national-healer gives a speech. It was a good speech. Indeed it was one of the first speeches in a long while that got anything like bipartisan support. Civility. New tone. No more martial metaphors. These were the takeaways.

So flashforward to this week. Tom Friedman — who knows a bit about Hezbollah — calls the tea partiers the “Hezbollah faction” of the GOP bent on taking the country on a “suicide mission.” All over the place, conservative Republicans are “hostage takers” and “terrorists,” “terrorists” and “traitors.” They want to “end life as we know it on this planet,” says Nancy Pelosi. They are betraying the Founders, too. Chris Matthews all but signs up for the “Make an *** of Yourself” contest at the State Fair. Joe Nocera writes today that “the Tea Party Republicans can put aside their suicide vests.” Lord knows what Krugman and Olbermann have said.

Then last night, on the very day Gabby Giffords heroically returns to cast her first vote since that tragic attack seven months ago, the vice president of the United States calls the Republican party a bunch of terrorists.

No one cares. I hate the “if this were Bush” game so we’re in luck. Instead imagine if this was **** Cheney calling the Progressive Caucus (or whatever they’re called) a “bunch of terrorists” on the day Giffords returned to the Congress. Would the mainstream media notice or care? Would Meet the Press debate whether this raises “troubling questions” about the White House’s sensitivity? Would Andrea Mitchell find some way to blame Sarah Palin for **** Cheney’s viciousness? Would Keith Olbermann explode like a mouse subjected to the Ramone’s music in Rock and Roll High School? Something inside me hidden away shouts, “Hell yes they would!”

The Today Show even had Debbie Wasserman Schultz on this morning for five minutes talking about Giffords. No one thought to ask her what she thought of Biden’s comments? It’s not like she’s the Democratic party’s national spokesperson or anything. Oh, wait. She is!

Instead, after the full ten minutes on Giffords, we get an update about the debt-limit situation (which is supposedly an Armageddon-level issue) and Kelly O’Donnell basically carries water for Biden on the issue by completely muddying whether he said anything of the sort at all. (His office says, no, no the vice president didn’t call them terrorists, he just politely agreed with all the Democratic congressmen in the room that they “acted like terrorists.” Ah, this is a distinction a team of a million Jesuits working around the clock would have a hard time slicing).

And yet you know the next time there’s the slightest, remotely exploitable tragedy or hint of violence, the same reporters, editors, producers and politicians are going to insist that blood was spilled because of the right wing’s rhetoric.

Well, go to Hell. All of you.

Well said, Jonah.

It just continues. An editorial cartoon suggests Obama send in the Navy SEALS to take out the Tea Party.
http://cdn2-b.examiner.com/sites/default/files/styles/image_full_width/hash/de/03/de03eb60dd2105f301b034b7b84d8e7a.JPG

I'm waiting for some liberal somewhere to stand up and say enough of this violent, irresponsible rhetoric Hello again, Steve:

Those irresponsible bastards..

excon

This is a vicious, choreographed assault on Americans

http://community.secondlife.com/t5/image/serverpage/image-id/30279i19A994DAFC798043/image-size/original?v=mpbl-1&px=-1


It's so sad that you fail to see the irony.

It's so sad that you fail to see the irony.

Look who's talking.

The Goracle has taken to the air n his own network and called for an American version of the Arab-spring (http://dailycaller.com/2011/08/03/al-gore-we-need-to-have-an-american-spring-you-know-the-arab-spring/#ixzz1U4cJp3jA).


Ever since CNBC’s Rick Santelli inspired the Tea Party movement’s creation in early 2009, the left has been looking for a similar spark on their own side. The earliest liberal alternative, the so-called Coffee Party, was a flop. But former Vice President Al Gore insists such a movement still needs to be invented.

On Tuesday’s “Countdown with Keith Olbermann,” Gore made an appearance on his own network, Current TV, for the second night in a row. This time it was to respond to the debt ceiling legislation agreed upon by Congress and signed into law by President Barack Obama.

Gore said the new law demands the “reinvigoration of democracy” or an “American spring,” to get the country back on what he thinks is the right course. (Al Gore: ‘Our system of government, itself, is in real trouble’)

“[I] want to focus on one particular suggestion you had about using the wonderful digital tools that are newly available for the reinvigoration of democracy,” Gore said. “Now, they have been around for a while, but they are spreading far and wide and more people are getting involved. We need to have an American spring — you know, the Arab spring. The non-violent part of it isn’t finished yet, but we need to have an American spring, a kind of an American non-violent change where people on the grassroots get involved again. Not the, you know, not in the Tea Party-style.”

Gore took his attack to favorite left-wing targets: the Fox News Channel, and David and Charles Koch.

“There are people who are genuinely upset in the Tea Party,” Gore continued. “I understand that, but that movement was funded with seed money from right-wing billionaires, the Koch Brothers, and promoted on Fox News and turned into a stalking horse for this right-wing agenda that a lot of people have been trying to push on this country for a long time.”

I take it he's either expecting the Tea Party to get violent or his "American spring" to get violent. Either way he's just more ridiculous every day. Richer, but more ridiculous.

Speaking of the rich, I am always amused at these idiots complaining about the Koch brothers and Fox News. This coming from a movement that's been backed for years by George Soros and his wealthy buddies. I would call them hypocrites but I don't think they're smart enough to do anything but parrot whoever said it first.

And all who think conservatives are extremists for wanting to "take back our country"? The slogan of the Arab-spring is "The people want to bring down the regime".

We need to have an American spring Hello Steve:

I couldn't agree with the Goracle more. What?? Didn't the Tea Party people say sh*t like the country needs a revolution now and then to keep itself invigorated? I think they DID.

It's time to take our country BACK. (You probably don't like me saying that, either) (Bummer for you)

Excon

Hello Steve:

I couldn't agree with the Goracle more. What??? Didn't the Tea Party people say sh*t like the country needs a revolution now and then to keep itself invigorated?? I think they DID.

I think Jefferson said that, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

I think Jefferson said that, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

Excellent - we'll watch on the sidelines as you spill the blood of your fellow americans. Although I'm quite certain this hubris can be attributed to internet courage.

Hello again,

Look, the Goricle used a poor choice of words. He's talking about a coming together at the grass roots exactly like the tea party did. He's not calling for revolution any more than the tea party did... Of course they DID carry guns, and they DID threaten to use 'em.

The left ain't pu$$y's. If we need to use OUR Second Amendment rights to defend LIBERTY, ain't that what it's about?

excon

Excellent - we'll watch on the sidelines as you spill the blood of your fellow americans. Although I'm quite certain this hubris can be attributed to internet courage.

I'm certain your hubris can be attributed to "internet courage." Seeing as how I didn't threaten anyone but merely offered a quote that ex alluded to, I'd say your little cheap shot was pretty darn cowardly.

Hello again,

Look, the Goricle used a poor choice of words. He's talking about a coming together at the grass roots exactly like the tea party did. He's not calling for revolution any more than the tea party did... Of course they DID carry guns, and they DID threaten to use 'em.

What, one guy had a gun and the media tried to portray him - a black man - as a racist.

Seeing as how I didn't threaten anyone but merely offered a quote So what's the message you want to send using the quote ""The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."?

So what's the message you want to send using the quote ""The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."?

I'm not sending any message other than I know the quote ex was fumbling for. Geez, read the context (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/forging-ahead-new-era-civility-569011-16.html#post2865011) before taking potshots at people.

You are correct. My apologies.

Accepted, thank you.

The right wing won't be happy until they have the oligarchy the want.

The right wing won't be happy until they have the oligarchy the want.

LOL, and ex calls Obama "Bush on steroids." He loves those signing statements, he's turning our health care over to an unaccountable committee, his EPA is drunk with power, he has yet to get Congress' approval to carry out his mission in Libya and on and on. Even Robert Byrd criticized his power grabs with all the unaccountable czars in his administration.

The right on the other hand, wants the balance of power to be restored to its rightful place, with the people and the states and away from judicial activism. Since you guys like the term you can call it a "balanced approach" to government, but not an oligarchy.

The right on the other hand, wants the balance of power to be restored to its rightful place, with the people
You are completely deluding yourself if you think that will EVER happen. It makes for cute talking points though.

You are completely deluding yourself if you think that will EVER happen. It makes for cute talking points though.

MLK had a dream, can't we? It's not a "cute talking point," and it's certainly not a wish for an oligarchy.

Fighting against black oppression was easier than wrangling the control of your government away from the corporations. The first instance was achievable because men saw their transgressions against their fellow man, in this instance the corporation care very little about their fellow man, unless he's a boardroom member... and even then...
Remember it is the right that set up the TSA, spied on its own citizens, etc. I don't see any of that changing any time soon.

Uh, the act that created the TSA was sponsored by a Republican in the House, Don Young, and a Democrat in the Senate, Fritz Hollings.

Ok, that makes it all better I guess.

Ok, that makes it all better I guess.

No, it makes it true.

Oh come on Steve, the right is scaring the heck out of the republican party, and we all know Rush, Sarah, Glen, and Grover ARE the right. To them, any government is bad, and rich people rule. (They are rich too, you know) Too bad the Oligarchs don't give a darn about you, the right, or the TEA party, but you will find that out for yourself, as your fellow unemployed tea partakers have already.

Their ideology is money, THEIR money, and very cheap labor. And MORE money. Yeah I listen to what they have been ranting about too!

Their ideology is money, THEIR money, and very cheap labor. And MORE money. Yeah I listen to what they have been ranting about too!

I guess you missed the part where Obama is good with helping Soros get richer, that 7 of the top 10 wealthiest in Congress are Democrats, that Al Gore is making a killing on his environmental garbage. Don't talk to me about greedy without including Democrats.

Greed has nothing to do with titles, nor ideology. You seem to think it does, I don't.

Nope, I just don't see you single out greedy, rich liberals like you do conservatives.

Unions appear to be doubling down on the new civility. A non-union electrical shop owner in Lambertville, MI who is no stranger to union harassment and violence, was shot a couple of nights ago (http://www.wtol.com/story/15273318/lambertville-vandalism-turns-life-threatening?clienttype=printable).


King Electrical Services owner John King was shot by a person who appears to be from one of the many unions who have targeted his workers, Toledo News Channel 11 WTOL reports. King is the largest non-union electrical contractor company in the area of southeastern Michigan near the Ohio border.

He has a long history of being on the receiving end of union-related violence, and this case doesn't appear to be any different. Before shooting him, the gunman etched the word “SCAB” into the side of King's SUV (http://dailycaller.com/2011/08/17/union-organizer-suspected-of-shooting-non-union-ohio-employer/#ixzz1VJUdLULU).

The altercation started when King woke up late last Wednesday to find someone in his driveway. He described the intruder as a “silhouette figure” because he didn't see the person clearly enough to offer a description. The individual was attempting to vandalize his SUV. When King went outside his Lambertville, Mich. home to confront the person, the vandal shot him in the arm.

Also, union leaders in the Verizon strike in NY have called on members to "torture" non-union workers (http://www.myfoxny.com/dpp/news/tense-verizon-strike-continues-20110815) since it's "open season" on them.


"It is open season. Follow them safely, but when you get to a location, torture them. Torture them with chants and noise. Be so loud that they can't concentrate and wish they never got out of bed," he said on the recording. Calabrese also said Verizon doesn't want a fair deal, but instead wants to break the union. "Understand brothers and sisters, we can never let these [expletive] piece of [expletive] pigs break us."


God bless unions.

They represent all the unions in the world? I didn't know! :rolleyes:
What their crazy chants and loud noises.

They represent all the unions in the world? I didn't know! :rolleyes:

I forget, without extreme specificity you misinterpret everything. No one implied these two incidents represented all the unions in the world, just American unions taking after the bully-in-chief.


“Our job basically is to keep the boot on the neck of British Petroleum” -Barack Obama

“They bring a knife…we bring a gun” -Barack Obama

"Republican victory would mean “hand To hand combat” -Barack Obama

“Argue with neighbors, get in their faces!” -Barack Obama

“I don’t want to quell anger. I think people are right to be angry! I’m angry!” -Barack Obama

“Hit back twice as hard.” -Barack Obama

“We talk to these folks… so I know whose a$$ to kick“ -Barack Obama

"We’re gonna punish our enemies and we’re gonna reward our friends..." -Barack Obama

Hello again:

Didja hear that our REPUBLICAN head of the Federal Reserve is a traitor?? But, that's not all.. The guy that called him that wanted to secede from the nation... That's pretty traitorous, no?

excon

... Biden called the Republicans terrorists .

Re Perry ;calling Bernanke's policies traitorous is inartful... His policies of devaluation is folly of the highest degree.

His comments about secession was clearly 'tongue-in-cheek ' .

That being said ;he has 'plenty of splainin' to do before I give him my support . I remain undecided about the current group of declared Republican candidates .

BTW... I will be happy if monetary policy becomes a central issue in this campaign. The Fed has had a free pass for too long.

Hello again:

Didja hear that our REPUBLICAN head of the Federal Reserve is a traitor??? But, that's not all.. The guy that called him that wanted to secede from the nation.... That's pretty traitorous, no?

That's old news. Last I heard is he's cold-hearted and worse than Bush (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/aug/18/rick-perry-presidency?CMP=twt_gu), once briefly invested in a company that profited from porn (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/08/19/121366/perry-once-invested-in-firm-that.html), had an experimental procedure (http://www.abc12.com/story/15295242/doctors-question-perrys-stem-cell-back-treatment) on his back and horror of horrors, tried to get out of a speeding ticket (http://democratsforprogress.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=8656) and once killed a coyote (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/27/rick-perry-shoots-and-kil_n_554397.html).

Meanwhile, Maxine Waters is forging ahead in the new era of civility herself in saying what she thinks of those "terrorist" Tea Partiers.

Rep. Maxine Waters says "Tea Party can go straight to hell" (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20095373-503544.html)

That's old news. Last I heard is he's cold-hearted and worse than Bush (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/aug/18/rick-perry-presidency?CMP=twt_gu), once briefly invested in a company that profited from porn (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/08/19/121366/perry-once-invested-in-firm-that.html), had an experimental procedure (http://www.abc12.com/story/15295242/doctors-question-perrys-stem-cell-back-treatment) on his back and horror of horrors, tried to get out of a speeding ticket (http://democratsforprogress.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=8656) and once killed a coyote (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/27/rick-perry-shoots-and-kil_n_554397.html).

Meanwhile, Maxine Waters is forging ahead in the new era of civility herself in saying what she thinks of those "terrorist" Tea Partiers.

Rep. Maxine Waters says "Tea Party can go straight to hell" (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20095373-503544.html)

Maxine Waters is a racist blowhard with a mental defect... and she proved it.

But since she is a good Democrat she gets a free pass on having mental disease.

Today the President said he was proud of Jimmy Hoffa Jr who declared war on Republican 'Son's of B.tches '.
Obama Says He Is "Proud" Of Hoffa | RealClearPolitics (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/09/05/obama_says_he_is_proud_of_hoffa.html)

I was proud too!

Al least we agree this so called 'era of civility ' is nothing but posturing .

al least we agree this so called 'era of civility ' is nothing but posturing .Everything an american politician does is nothing but posturing.

Everything an american politician does is nothing but posturing.

And the Candian Politicians don't do that too? Or politicians anywhere?

And the Candian Politicians don't do that too? Or politicians anywhere?
You can start your own thread about Candian politicians.

You can start your own thread about Candian politicians.

Why should I... YOU made the comment like its ONLY American Politicians that Posture... when your own do it all the time in Canada.

Touching some nerves there? Are we?

Today the President said he was proud of Jimmy Hoffa Jr who declared war on Republican 'Son's of B.tches '.
Obama Says He Is "Proud" Of Hoffa | RealClearPolitics (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/09/05/obama_says_he_is_proud_of_hoffa.html)

The head of the DNC thinks it was fine, too. It's only uncivil to want to "take out those sons of b*tches" and take back your country if you're on the right.

Hello again, Steve;

Seems to me that Republicans have thinner skin than I remember. I'm not sure what a straw man is, but talking about your opponent swearing at you, instead of talking about the problems of the nation, is pretty straw mannish.

excon

I'm just holding their feet to the fire re: this thread. That's no straw man.

I'm just holding their feet to the fire re: this thread. That's no straw man.Hello again, Steve:

Nahhh... You're playing gotcha... That ain't going to hep. It's getting BORING, though.. Look... Democrats ARE going to swear at Republicans, and deservedly so.. Whoever said they shouldn't, was STUPID. It's going to continue for decades, maybe even century's... Are you going to bring this up every time that happens?? Really?

excon

Yep, they will. And there will always be hypocrites which is what the thread is about.

There is enough hypocrisy to go around, and everyone has some. Okay what's the point?

There is enough hypocrisy to go around, and everyone has some. Okay whats the point?

The point? Waiting for someone to lead by example instead of just running their mouth.

I hear some wacko shot up an IHOP and killed two and injured six in Carson City, NV before taking his own life. My condolences to the victims of this senseless tragedy.

I have to ask though, was the perp motivated by Hoffa's remarks?

I hear some wacko shot up an IHOP and killed two and injured six in Carson City, NV before taking his own life. My condolences to the victims of this senseless tragedy.

I have to ask though, was the perp motivated by Hoffa's remarks?

Jimmy Hoffa is a blowhard.

Want to bet this nutcase in NV turns out to be a registered democrat, probably voted for Prince Harry? The silence by the drive by media is telling me he just might be.

The shooter was motivated by Palin's remarks to put them in their gunsights. The silence by the media validates my claim.

The shooter was motivated by Palin's remarks to put them in their gunsights. The silence by the media validates my claim.

Gee... and the fact DEMOCRATS were using gunsights in political ads targeting republicans and the same terminology BEFORE Sarah Palin ever came on the scene means nothing? Or is this more democrat Propaganda backed up with no facts at all?

Hahahahhahha... when you have you ever provided facts for any of your statements? You are the LAST person that should be denlmanding facts from others.

Edit to prove you are lying: http://twitpic.com/3o7j5z

Gee....and the fact DEMOCRATS were using gunsights in political ads targeting republicans and the same terminology BEFORE Sarah Palin ever came on the scene means nothing? Or is this more democrat Propaganda backed up with no facts at all?

Fact is the left hates Palin as much as the right hates Obama, so you should understand the left throwing darts at her, just as you throw darts at the left. TIT fot TAT (no pun intended?)

The shooter was motivated by Palin's remarks to put them in their gunsights. The silence by the media validates my claim.

The shooter was a nut job and you connecting Palin to it puts you in the same category. The media is silent because they have no facts, the stories say there is no clear apparent motive

Speaking of nut jobs I see Palin wants to do away with corporate income tax and fix loopholes in the corporate tax system. I would have thought one negated the other

The shooter was a nut job and you connecting Palin to it puts you in the same category. The media is silent becuase they have no facts, the stories say there is no clear apparent motiveSatire... I was parroting speech and smoothy to show how ignorant their statements are.

Speaking of nut jobs I see Palin wants to do away with corporate income tax and fix loopholes in the corporate tax system. I would have thought one negated the other

Palin made a substansive policy statement that deserves a lot more coverage than it got. Along with making corporations responsible for their actions(no too big to fail nonsense ) ,and her tax proposal which would go along way to eliminate the incentive for corporations to lobby for tax breaks ,she is half way to ending the crony relationship between corporations and politicians . The last 2 step would be revisting over regulation ,and term limits .

Have not heard all the details of the shooting .Last report I read was that the shooter targeted National Guard troops at the IHOP . A profile is emerging . That the shooting followed several hate fill speeches by the left wing is most likely coincidence.

Satire...I was parroting speech and smoothy to show how ignorant their statements are.

I was merely applying the "logic" used by the left after the Tucson shooting to this tragedy. You mean such "logic" is ignorant? I love it when you unwittingly make my point. I appreciate that.

You mean such "logic" is ignorant? Yup.

Palin made a substansive policy statement that deserves alot more coverage than it got. Along with making corporations responsible for their actions(no too big to fail nonsense ) ,and her tax proposal which would go along way to eliminate the incentive for corporations to lobby for tax breaks ,she is half way to ending the crony relationship between corporations and politicians . The last 2 step would be revisting over regulation ,and term limits .

Have not heard all the details of the shooting .Last report I read was that the shooter targetted National Guard troops at the IHOP . A profile is emerging . That the shooting followed several hate fill speeches by the left wing is most likely coincidence.

Here we go, populist politics at it's best. How do you end the crony relationship between corporations and politicians? You do away with lobbying. Can't see that happening because the system is inherently corrupt. By all means remove corporate taxation but don't remove taxation of dividends at the same time. Just carve those sections dealing with corporations right out and create a tax haven right there in little old USA, then everyone would have their own corporation and no one would pay tax, great thinking there Sarah.

As to the shooting, very regretable event but the weapon used, an assault rifle in the hands of an ordinary person and a foreign made one at that, how does the rifle association justify that?

Fact is the left hates Palin as much as the right hates Obama, so you should understand the left throwing darts at her, just as you throw darts at the left. TIT fot TAT (no pun intended?)

True... but you also have to look at who dragged the darts out of the closet in the first place. And that was the left before Palin was ever heard of outside Alaska.


That's akin to yelling at the guy next to you for cutting the cheese after you already did it a few times and joked about it.

CLete dividends should not be subject to taxation anyway.. or at least not at the corporate level. The investor should probably have dividends taxed however at normal income rates (then Buffet could pay the rates he claims he should be taxed at ).
I think there is a lot to like about Palin's plan. Add to that her strong support of energy development in the US and she has the beginnings of a strong platform.
Romney came up with a proposal yesterday that I have not had time to look over . I expect it's his same milquetoast that the Obots already have answers for.

True......but you also have to look at who dragged the darts out of the closet in the first place. And that was the left before Palin was ever heard of outside Alaska.


Thats akin to yelling at the guy next to you for cutting the cheese after you already did it a few times and joked about it.

They been throwing darts since the Declaration of Independence. Why is it a big deal now?

Plus you like throwing darts, I do too! Its fun. Admit it.


CLete dividends should not be subject to taxation anyway ..or at least not at the corporate level. The investor should probably have dividends taxed however at normal income rates (then Buffet could pay the rates he claims he should be taxed at ).
I think there is alot to like about Palin's plan. Add to that her strong support of energy development in the US and she has the beginnings of a strong platform.
Romney came up with a proposal yesterday that I have not had time to look over . I expect it's his same milquetoast that the Obots already have answers for.

Why are you so convinced that profit is the answer to all our problems??

They been throwing darts since the Declaration of Independence. Why is it a big deal now?

Plus you like throwing darts, I do too!! Its fun. Admit it.





Well... its all about The Democrats ignoring the fact they used bulls-eye targets on ALL major republicans for some time... but singling out one republican they fear to blame when they did the same thing that was routine for them... its the old people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones thing.

Yeah... I like darts... haven't done it for some time, but yeah, with the right people, a few beers, its fun.

That's right wing talk smoothy, both parties are the same as far as method goes. You just like Sarah, so you throw darts in her defense. Come on man, fess up!

Sarah's farts stink as bad as Obamas, you know it, I know it. She has a cuter butt, but the farts still stink!!

What?? You saying they don't?? DUDE!!

Thats right wing talk smoothy, both parties are the same as far as method goes.

What????? You saying they don't??? DUDE!!!!!!Hello again, tal:

See, here's where WE miscalculate... We think the wingers are just as reasonable as WE are. We think they'll SEE that BOTH sides act the same... We think they really KNOW what's going on.

But, they WON'T, DON'T, and AREN'T. YES, they think Sarah farts are rose scented breezes..

excon

Thats right wing talk smoothy, both parties are the same as far as method goes. You just like Sarah, so you throw darts in her defense. Come on man, fess up!!

Sarah's farts stink as bad as Obamas, you know it, I know it. She has a cuter butt, but the farts still stink!!!

What????? You saying they don't??? DUDE!!!!!!

BUT you are ignoring the point... the lefties are pretending the Democrats never, ever did such a thing when evidence abounds they did it far more.

That's like one looter turning in another looter because they swiped a bigger TV they wanted to come back for.

Hello again, tal:

See, here's where WE miscalculate... We think the wingers are just as reasonable as WE are. We think they'll SEE that BOTH sides act the same... We think they really KNOW what's going on.

But, they WON'T, DON'T, and AREN'T. YES, they think Sarah farts are rose scented breezes..

excon

Gee... then why doesn't your Dear Leeder practice what he preachs... or demand his minions do the same, we know you think the Messiah is above demands made on mere mortals..

This would be almost comical if you guys weren't so serious that your guys can say and do absolutely anything and you accept it as being right and proper... but get so indignant when someone else does the very same thing.

....the lefties are pretending the Democrats never, ever did such a thing when evidence abounds they did it far more.
[citation needed]

[citation needed]

Any proof they DIDN'T? Finding proof they did is easy.

Here is one where the Messiah talks about bringing a gun to a knife fight.. in the dear leaders own words.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06/14/obama-we-bring-a-gun/

A democrat created chart targeting Republicns with a Bullseye...



http://kerfuffles.blogspot.com/2011/01/dems-targeting-republicans-with-gun.html


Here's one from 2006... By a democrat... tv ad.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=epdJWNA65oY&feature=related

Here is a list...


Another Media Double Standard: Dems Also Use 'Target Maps' for Election Fundraising
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/ken-shepherd/2010/04/01/another-media-double-standard-dems-also-used-target-map-elections#ixzz1AVKG2NqI

Vice President Biden Wants to Strangle Opponents
http://www.publiusforum.com/2010/10/07/vice-president-biden-wants-to-strangle-opponents/

Slate's Anti-Wall Street Mob Populism: 'We Should Go After Them with Pitchforks, Knives, Guns, Clubs…'
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jeff-poor/2010/04/24/slate-s-anti-wall-street-mob-populism-we-should-go-after-them-pitchforks-#ixzz1AVKXQKft

Stephanie Miller Fantasizes Drunks With Baseball Bats Beating O'Reilly, Beck
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-finkelstein/2010/07/23/stephanie-miller-fantasizes-drunks-baseball-beating-oreilly-beck-g#ixzz1AVKkA3v7

Rep Weiner advocates puching Bill O'Reilly in the nose
http://thehill.com/blogs/twitter-room/other-news/92267-weiner-i-follow-twitter-for-the-tea-party-and-just-show-up-to-f-with-them

Violent Liberal Hate Rhetoric: Fifteen Quotes
http://townhall.com/columnists/JohnHawkins/2010/03/30/violent_liberal_hate_rhetoric_fifteen_quotes

WaPo Civility: 'Knock Every Racist and Homophobic Tooth Out of Their Cro-Magnon Heads'
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2010/03/24/wapo-civility-knock-every-racist-and-homophobic-tooth-out-their-cro-magn#ixzz1AVLvMhZB

Union memo hints at gov.'s [Christie's] death
http://dailycaller.com/2010/04/09/union-memo-hints-at-gov-s-death/

Nobel Peace Prize winner wants to kill the President [Bush]?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDrliITbed4

No, I meant this part:
"the lefties are pretending the Democrats never, ever did such a thing"
When did they say they never did such things?
People can come back and post loads of stuff righties do too. You know that right? Where does that leave us?

No, I meant this part:
"the lefties are pretending the Democrats never, ever did such a thing"
When did they say they never did such things?
People can come back and post loads of stuff righties do too. You know that right? Where does that leave us?

Ignoring it implies that... and the people pointing fingers after the AZ shooting were doing exactly that... as well as Obama himself.

He calls for civility and practically in his next breath goes right back to doing the same thing.

And Obama not chastizing the Blowhard Jimmy Hoffa after those comments... implies he was in agreement with them, that's called a wink and a nod.

Hoffa lost a lot of votes when he is up for reelection next time. There are a large number of conservatives in the Teamsters that were greatly offended by his outburst... many who voted for him before... very few of those will ever vote for him again.

Being in a Union doesn't mean you are a lefty... or are happy with your dues being wasted on lefties. Hoffa is going to learn that soon enough.

Ignoring it implies that......No it doesn't - that's a logical fallacy, you can't assign whatever you want to someone's silence. :rolleyes:

No it doesn't - that's a logical fallacy, you can't assign whatever you want to someone's silence. :rolleyes:

Oh yes you can... it happens all the time everyplace. Not just in politics. Do you have kids?

Oh yes you can......it happens all the time everyplace. Not just in politics. Do you have kids?
The papers seem to be quiet about your drug use and the way you look at children. I guess that makes it true that you do these things.

The papers seem to be quiet about your drug use and the way you look at children. I guess that makes it true that you do these things.
Did you stop beating your wife?

Aw, come on smoothy, play nice, we have to take turns throwing darts, and when its your turn, I duck, but we can't get mad because it's the other guys turn.

Your turn will come around soon enough. What you don't like to duck?? No wonder your mad, those darts do hurt when they hit you! Duck next time. Sarah doesn't like to duck either, and she hates it when people say her farts sink.

What's with these new wingers??

Aw, come on smoothy, play nice, we have to take turns throwing darts, and when its your turn, I duck, but we can't get mad because its the other guys turn.

Your turn will come around soon enough. What you don't like to duck???? No wonder your mad, those darts do hurt when they hit ya! Duck next time. Sarah doesn't like to duck either, and she hates it when people say her farts sink.

Whats with these new wingers????


Best answer to his comment... there is no correct answer where you don't look bad... No means you are still doing it... and yes means you used to do it. No answer also means you did but are trying to avoid incriminating yourself.

That's exactly like a punk that finally gets his car vandalized complaining about it when he's gotten his jollies slashing tires, breaking windows and keying cars for years.

Best answer to his comment....there is no correct answer where you don't look bad...... No means you are still doing it...and yes means you used to do it. No answer also means you did but are trying to avoid incriminating yourself.

That's exactly like a punk that finally gets his car vandalized complaining about it when he's gotten his jollies slashing tires, breaking windows and keying cars for years.

Just duck, and hold your nose. That's what everybody else does. Now why do you have to be different. Have you smelled YOUR farts lately? Definitely presidential material.

Just duck, and hold your nose. Thats what everybody else does. Now why do you have to be different. Have you smelled YOUR farts lately?? Definitely presidential material.

Mine smell positively presidential at times... at others they would make a dung beetle gag.

OK, farts are funny, but have we really turned this thread into a farting competition?

OK, farts are funny, but have we really turned this thread into a farting competition?Hello again, Steve:

Seeing as how you rode this "civility" thing to DEATH, talking about farts IS more interesting.

Anybody ever light one?? I did, and it happened to be one of those LOOOOONG ones. My poor little bum...

excon

We aren't done riding the civility thing, and the Gamblin boys used to enjoy lighting their farts. But they were smart enough to do it with their pants on.

Hello again, Steve:

Seeing as how you rode this "civility" thing to DEATH, talking about farts IS more interesting.

Anybody ever light one???? I did, and it happened to be one of those LOOOOONG ones. My poor little bum...

exconI had the benefit of knowing someone who singed their dingleberries off lighting a fart once... before I got to drinking age. The thought of even a first degree burn in that region is enough to disuade me from ever trying it. Pants on as a flamestop or not.

Told you I wasn't through with this civility stuff. A new role-playing game has emerged so peace-loving, tolerant libs, progressives and Democrats can take out those gun-totin' terrorist, barbarian (http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2011/09/06/bidens-barbarians-blast-barely-media-blip), SOB Tea Partiers and Fox News personalities - Tea Party Zombies Must Die! (http://teapartyzombiesmustdie.com/)

Come on, let's hear it for civility!

Come on, let's hear it for civility!Hello again, Steve:

Yeah, even Keith Olbermann (http://current.com/shows/countdown/videos/worst-persons-starvingeyes-advergaming-rick-perry-and-michele-bachmann)didn't like it.

excon

If you can't beat them, throw darts at 'em.

Don't forget to duck. Civility requires two willing opposite sides to agree, good luck with that.

If you can't beat em, throw darts at 'em.

Don't forget to duck. Civility requires two willing opposite sides to agree, good luck with that.

No it doesn't, civility only requires a willingness to respect others even when you don't agree.

Hello again, Steve:

Yeah, even Keith Olbermann (http://current.com/shows/countdown/videos/worst-persons-starvingeyes-advergaming-rick-perry-and-michele-bachmann)didn't like it.

Ok, that's kind of creepy that Olbermann and I agree on something. But I'll take it.

No it doesn't, civility only requires a willingness to respect others even when you don't agree.

Darn it, but you are right! :eek:

If you can't beat em, throw darts at 'em.

Don't forget to duck. Civility requires two willing opposite sides to agree, good luck with that.

And if the side that's calling for it refuses to actually practice it first (instead of flapping their gums about it only)... they can't expect the other side to do it either.

Just to show you this civility thing is spreading, just another adopted idea from outside our culture
Federal parliament lacking civility - AG | Herald Sun (http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/breaking-news/federal-parliament-lacking-civility-ag/story-e6frf7jx-1226132650109)

Darn it, but you are right! :eek:

See, that was nice. :D

Even cartoonists are getting in on this civility thing...

http://edsteinink.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Stei111022.gif

A San Antonio high school teacher took some of his students on a field trip and in front of students called the local Tea Party president a Nazi (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/texas-teacher-calls-tea-party-president-a-nazi/). I'm sure that was news to the Hispanic leader, George Rodriquez. Good to know high school students in San Antonio are learning all about government from an unbiased guy as well.

The Civility demands are not intended for the Liberals... they can say anything they want. They have no adversion to discrimination, duplicity or hypocrisy, in fact they embrace them.

They expect to say the most inflamitory, derogatory slurs and not be held to account, or to hear the same thing they enjoy dishing out.

Like Obama saying "they can just shut up and get on the BACK of the Bus".

Imagine the outrage of the Pink Panty Brigade if someone said that to Obama.

Smoothy have you ever ridden in the back of the bus. When I was in China I rode all over the country in the back of the bus, no one paid any attention to me.

Rather than being a bad place it is a good place to be, no one can puke on me

Smoothy have you ever ridden in the back of the bus. When I was in China I rode all over the country in the back of the bus, noone paid any attention to me.

Rather than being a bad place it is a good place to be, noone can puke on me

Here in the USA that has a meaning you would not be aware of in Australia.

It is a reference back many decades ago during segregation when the blacks had to ride in the back of the bus. It was a rather rude and racially charged statement for anyone to make much less coming from a Black man who should know better.

But actually he did, and he made the comment for that very reason knowing EXACTLY what it meant..

Here in the USA that has a meaning you would not be aware of in Australia.

It is a reference back many decades ago during segregation when the blacks had to ride in the back of the bus. It was a rather rude and racially charged statement for anyone to make much less coming from a Black man who should know better.

But actually he did, and he made the comment for that very reason knowing EXACTLY what it meant..

I am well aware of its connotations, just as I was in China. Humility is sometimes useful. What makes you think BO is a black man? He is what we call a coconut and making that statement he clearly demonstrated on which side of the line he stands