Confederate Yankee
March 29, 2010
Hutaree Plot Revealed
If the allegations are true, this was one nasty little cult:
The indictment claims that the Hutaree planned to kill an unidentified member of local law enforcement and then attack the law enforcement officers who gather in Michigan for the funeral. According to the plan, the Hutaree would attack law enforcement vehicles during the funeral procession with improvised explosive devices rigged with projectiles, which constitute weapons of mass destruction, according to the announcement by U.S. Attorney Barbara L. McQuade.
"Because the Hutaree had planned a covert reconnaissance operation for April which had the potential of placing an unsuspecting member of the public at risk, the safety of the public and of the law enforcement community demanded intervention at this time," McQuade said in the announcement. "Hutaree members view local, state, and federal law enforcement as the 'brotherhood,' their enemy, and have been preparing to engage them in armed conflict."
The alleged plot is one spawned of a vicious mind. When a police officer dies in the line of duty, the funeral typically consists of dozens of officers, and often includes representatives of local law enforcement agencies from around the region, federal and state law enforcement, and local and state authorities in addition to grieving family members and friends.
The slow-moving procession would be an easy target for IEDs, and it would not be surprising if it is revealed that the group planned to lie in wait with the intention of ambushing police and rescue units responding to the initial attack.
If the attacking force were sufficiently competent, they could easily kill dozens in such a scenario.
Update: According to the NY
Times a total of nine co-conspirators were charged, and the charges
include sedition.
I do take issue with the claim made by the Detroit FBI SAIC:
"This is an example of radical and extremist fringe groups which can be found throughout our society," Andrew Arena, Federal Bureau of Investigation Special Agent in Charge in Detroit, said in a statement. "The F.B.I. takes such extremist groups seriously, especially those who would target innocent citizens and the law enforcement officers who protect the citizens of the United States."
There are groups like these throughout society?
Really?
If that is the case, we would have already had attacks such as those the Hutaree envisioned, or at least similar arrests. As we have neither, it strongly suggests that Andrew Arena, Federal Bureau of Investigation Special Agent in Charge in Detroit, is full of crap.
The article also sheds light on more details of the attack that the cult had been plotting:
The indictment charged that between August 2008 and the present, the defendants — led by David Brian Stone, 45, who also used the name "Captain Hutaree" — developed a conspiracy that they hoped would result in a war against the United States government. They allegedly decided they would kill a local law enforcement officer, and then bomb the funeral caravan. The killings "would intimidate and demoralize law enforcement diminishing their ranks and rendering them ineffective," it said.
Afterward, the indictment said, Hutaree members would retreat to several "rally points" and wage war against the government, using prepared fighting positions as well as "trip-wired and command-detonated" bombs.
"It is believed by the Hutaree that this engagement would then serve as a catalyst for a more wide-spread uprising against the government," the indictment said.
Mr. Stone used the Internet to obtain diagrams of "explosively formed projectiles," a particularly lethal form of roadside bombs responsible for many deaths of United States soldiers in Iraq, the indictment says.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:23 AM
| Comments (29)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Oh, please! Stop listening to the Obama FBI and the news.
http://bit.ly/byZLYK
And Home Grown Haji is off limits?
http://bit.ly/9f1OqE
This is Obama's deal and not a militant group going after Haji?
Posted by: Mark Harvey at March 29, 2010 10:34 AM (Y9Bvs)
2
Doesn't pass the sniff test.
Posted by: David at March 29, 2010 11:02 AM (jHK8i)
3
So how many times is the story going to change? And how wide are they going to try and make the blame? The Government is doing everything to blow this up instead of trying to stabilize a bad situation.
Posted by: s4r at March 29, 2010 11:46 AM (u0FmQ)
4
I don't see the problem. If you are waging war against a government the cops etc. are legitimate targets. They are agents of state power. If they don't want to be in the line of fire, find a new job.
Posted by: Tim in Philly at March 29, 2010 01:44 PM (PnG/3)
5
If this were a Muslim group planning the same thing you guys would be all over them.
Instead you are directing the blame to the government, Obama, and the FBI.
If you are really opposed to the Hutaree you should be vigoriously condemning the actions of a group ..instead of deflecting blame on Muslims or Obama
This leads me to believe that you are somehow OK with groups like this. You may not like their attempts to kill policemen but you sympathize with them because , like you, they love their country and don't want to see it taken over by a liberals intent on destroying freedom, tearing up the constituion and engineering a government take over of America.
"Terrorism in defense of freedom is not terrorism."
Posted by: Norris Hall at March 29, 2010 01:52 PM (HMb9u)
6
I don't see the problem.
Then you are the problem.
Posted by: sitnam at March 29, 2010 02:00 PM (lQnPY)
7
If the charges stick then this is one nasty little cult and they should get busted just like any other rats. Doesn't matter if their killing is inspired by Warrior Jesus, Allah or Che Guevara.
Posted by: zhombre at March 29, 2010 02:08 PM (vUWth)
8
I knew someone would start with the Muslim's. What would you do if during WWII, when we were behind and an end was not in sight, our government decided to go after a small group of frustrated America First individuals instead of concentrating all their efforts on erradicating the Nazi threat and sabotage that was threatening a large number of individuals? We are not at war with terror, as you liberals have said any number of times, Bush was an idiot. I voted for him twice and would love to have him as president instead of the scum we have now. But I agree, he was an idiot. What he wasn't was that he wasn't Gore or Kerry. Bush got it wrong in declaring war on terror. Our enemy is Islam. At some point we will have to aim our sights at that so called religion. We the recent events in Russia, Putin may take care of the problem for us, he is not a girly man like our current leaders.
But everyone, stop and think. This is an effort to direct the focus away from the take over of our lives and socialization of our country. I view our politicians as equivalent to an occupying enemy. I only hope that local law enforcement will see the problem as well.
Posted by: David at March 29, 2010 02:54 PM (jHK8i)
9
If there goal was to kill a law enforcement officer and then commit mass murder at the funeral I cannot support that agenda.
I do support defending personal rights, freedom and the constitution but it sounds like we are way off base here.
That said I do not always take government charges at face value, are these truly nut cases or does the government have an agenda.
Only time will tell.
Posted by: Tommy at March 29, 2010 05:47 PM (NUvh0)
10
"If that is the case, we would have already had attacks such as those the Hutaree envisioned"
Never forget Oklahoma City?
Posted by: Sirkowski at March 29, 2010 06:01 PM (3sW6T)
11
I don't see the problem. If you are waging war against a government the cops etc. are legitimate targets. They are agents of state power. If they don't want to be in the line of fire, find a new job.
Presumably, "Tim in Philly" is a big fan of Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn. They killed one cop, and Dohrn had an indirect role in a heist gone wrong that left cops and security guards dead. They also were famously behind a plot to blow up soldiers and their dates.
If you think it is acceptable to target police officers, you are scum, and you are not welcome here.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at March 29, 2010 06:31 PM (qhZ5Z)
12
There are groups like these throughout society? Really?
If that is the case, we would have already had attacks such as those the Hutaree envisioned, or at least similar arrests. As we have neither, it strongly suggests that Andrew Arena, Federal Bureau of Investigation Special Agent in Charge in Detroit, is full of crap.
Be careful, your logic dictates that if the government really believes there are Muslim terrorists targeting America for a multiple catastrophic death scenario since 911....and there is no multiple catastrophic death event then our CIA and military intel is full of crap?
Posted by: Wheaton Pat at March 29, 2010 08:07 PM (vreqy)
13
if the government really believes there are Muslim terrorists targeting America for a multiple catastrophic death scenario since 911....and there is no multiple catastrophic death event then our CIA and military intel is full of crap?
There have been several Muslim caused "multiple catastrophic death event"s since 9/11. But hey, don't let mere reality interrupt your happy fantasy life.
Posted by: flenser at March 29, 2010 08:46 PM (Tkbfo)
14
Never forget Oklahoma City?
I'm sorry... I should have stipulated that I was talking about modern-day events that could be tied to such groups, not a terrorist attack that happened 15 years ago.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at March 30, 2010 08:05 AM (gAi9Z)
15
>> So how many times is the story going to change?
You seem unable to separate objective fact from opinion and speculation.
There is no evidence the real story ever changed. The indictments were sealed. Different sources in the media speculated on what they were about. Some of that speculation was wrong. That is not evidence of a nefarious government plot.
Posted by: Bubba Joe at March 30, 2010 08:28 AM (oV1Hh)
16
I'm thinking that if this attack had been pulled off that law enforcement would not be "intimidated and demoralized". Plenty pissed off is more like it.
Posted by: Tim at March 30, 2010 11:04 AM (xq7pr)
17
I'm thinking that law enforcement might need to keep an eye on one Donald Woods. He is very much like the guy who threatened to kill Eric Cantor. Angry and wishing death upon his fellow citizens. He must have gotten teabagged by his Uncle Sugar.
You can go pick up your food stamp card on the first, Donald, if you're out of your drug-induced stupor by then.
Posted by: templar knight at March 30, 2010 01:41 PM (2fJ/e)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
AP Sources: Hutaree Militia Were Plotting to Kill Cops?
Such is the claim, but does it really make sense?
People familiar with the case against seven suspects arrested by the FBI this weekend say the case revolves around a plot to kill police officers.
Two law enforcement officials tell The Associated Press that members of the group in the Midwest had planned multiple attacks on police officers or other law enforcement personnel as a way of acting out their hatred for the government.
From what I've read of the Hutaree and similar groups, they see the
federal government as their enemies. They tend to champion local and state governments having more authority. Members of this same cult recently helped a nearby militia conduct search and rescue operations at the request of local law enforcement. This claims doesn't seem to make sense.
Another theory postulates that the group was plotting to attack Muslims, though there has been precisely zero evidence of that displayed, either.
The seven Hutaree arrested over the course of the weekend have a court appearance scheduled for later today. Perhaps then we can find out precisely what they were arrested for, and whether or not federal law enforcement was justified in such a massive display of manpower for so few suspects.
An identically-sized
domestic terrorist cell was successfully apprehended in Willow Springs, NC without the massive show of force authorities used in this tri-state raid. Both groups were religious extremists with large caches of weapons intent on holy war.
So why were their arrests so radically different?
Some have posited that perhaps federal authorities were attempting to provoke a response from other militias known to be active in the area. Until there is some explanation by authorities as to why such a greater show of force was warranted in this more recent arrest, we have no way of proving these theories wrong.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
09:34 AM
| Comments (13)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
What we might be seeing here is a return to the Clinton era of Ruby Ridge and Waco. I want to wait before I rush to judgment, although many news outlets, including Fox, are reporting that this militia planned to use IEDs against the police in order to force a confrontation with federal authorities. I have my doubts.
Posted by: templar knight at March 29, 2010 10:08 AM (2fJ/e)
2
The militia members are being tried in the press and being tied to the tax protesters. The propaganda ministry of the Obama administration, also known as ABC, CBS, CNN, NBC and MSNBC, will determine what you should think about this, and they will tell you. Until then, don't worry about it.
Posted by: Jim at March 29, 2010 10:17 AM (8v3oH)
3
as shown in Waco, dems will go for overkill and the big show instead of carefully planned simple takedowns. The Waco Wacko was known to jog the perimeter and would have been an easy grab, but Clinton, Reno, et al had to go for the Big Impressive takedown and botched the job.
At least this time they didn't kill a bunch of innocents for no reason other than looking impressive.
Posted by: JP at March 29, 2010 10:40 AM (VxiFL)
4
The released reports on this are strange and conflicting. It seems that one member called a Muslum for help who has his own group. He was turned down. I don't care for people being attacked in this manner by the government unless they are part of a group with a track record, like the Muslums, who are actively caring out their avowed mession. If a pattern begins with these people then that is another thing, unless I am targeted.
But, I agree with your assessment. Most people that I know who would take such a stance are all for local law enforcement. They would take their violence to Washington.
Posted by: David at March 29, 2010 11:01 AM (jHK8i)
5
Maybe D'Ohbama can't do anything about that pesky 2nd Amendment just yet, but he can't let anybody get too organized out there...
Posted by: Diogenes Online at March 29, 2010 11:04 AM (2MrBP)
6
You guy do know that a whole lota fokes when mobile over the weekend across a very wide region "just in case" this was another waco et-all. This could have turned out really bad. It is only going to take one of these stunts going bad to cause a lot of hart ache. This what happens when the basic trust between a growing portion of the population and the government is lost. This odds on these types of situations blowing up into larger problems is going to grow as healthcare, amnesty, and the rest of the agenda is rolled out....
Posted by: s4r at March 29, 2010 11:41 AM (u0FmQ)
7
Ruby Ridge happened in August 1992, Clinton did not have anything to do with it. His inauguration was in January 1993.
The President at the time was George Bush.
Posted by: Michigan Mark at March 30, 2010 06:13 AM (aKSDD)
8
Thanks for that correction, Mark. I should have looked at the dates before I commented. I still stand by my conclusion about the Clinton era overeation to groups like the Branch Dividians, which could have been taken down by arresting Koresh on one of his morning runs rather than a military-style shootout that left several people dead.
Posted by: templar knight at March 30, 2010 09:26 AM (2fJ/e)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
March 28, 2010
FBI Arrests Seven in Bomb-Making Raids
The media and blogosphere have been all over the map on this one. Last night federal agents conducted raids in three states, apparently targeting a small end-times religious cult called the Hutaree. According to Fox News, the raids were carried out to arrest those suspected of manufacturing and selling pipe bombs. If true, then yeah, arresting those involved was a good idea.
I'm just glad the raids were executed without anyone targeted being killed.
Federal law enforcement has a rather dismal record (to put it mildly) of botching raids on armed religious cults, and timing the raid during the current political crisis means that any gunplay could have caused the militia-saturated region to quickly escalate into bloody skirmishing between militiamen and federal authorities. It was a bad tactical decision, that could have ended badly for everyone.
I question the wisdom of using such heavy forces (including armored vehicles and helicopters according to witness reports), when light, fast and quiet raids would have been at least as effective.
More than the timing, I question the leadership.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
04:50 PM
| Comments (11)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
So, to heck with Posse Comitas????
Posted by: TimothyJ at March 28, 2010 05:19 PM (IKKIf)
2
Maybe the timing was intentional.
Posted by: Brad at March 28, 2010 10:21 PM (d2jLN)
3
You know, I've often kind of reconsidered Posse Comitatus. As it is I think the fed SWAT teams that have sprouted like mushrooms are more about people who want to play war then anything else. For cases where a hard core violent group who's actually hurting people in a direct fashion is holed up in some compound, I'm much more comfortable with calling in Delta with rubber bullets or a SEAL team operating with TASERs then I am calling a bunch of feddies who joined the SWAT team because it lets them play with cool toys instead of doing actual police work. They often seem to have military grade hardware without the code of military discipline and training. Look at Waco...they gave feds who could barely qualify on the pistol range SMGs and helicopter gunships and tanks. I'm much more comfortable sending in military forces with less then lethal weaponry then I am giving poorly trained "LEOs" military grade hardware.
From the civil liberties standpoint, I think I trust the Marines to enforce a warrant without evidence tampering or excessive force, or at least I trust them a lot more then ATF. I don't know, at this point it seems that fear of military forces being used in a paramilitary role being a gateway to abuse and excess is kind of dated. The solution was much, much worse then the problem.
Posted by: Britt at March 28, 2010 10:56 PM (VN7Wi)
4
You almost get the feeling that "law enforcement" or at least their leaders were hoping for more resistance.
Posted by: Neo at March 28, 2010 11:04 PM (tE8FB)
5
CY - Are you sure the raids were for selling pipe bombs and not for banging into cars with Obama bumper stickers?
Posted by: daleyrocks at March 29, 2010 01:02 AM (3O5/e)
6
This administration wants to provoke the right. Some of my friends think this is how O will justify Martial Law.
...
Posted by: Kitty at March 29, 2010 07:27 AM (ZfjUL)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Off Target
Has Josh Sugarmann of the Violence Policy Center ever been right?
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
07:52 AM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
I was unaware that the gun companies did any promotion except to hunters and hobbyist. One of my good frieds owns Sports South. They are number 2 or 3 in the world on distribution. All he does is make sure the inventory is up during election cycles. I am surprised to find gun sales down at this time. That does not make much sense with the way people are viewing the policies of The One. It might reflect the economy more than attitudes.
Posted by: David at March 28, 2010 12:43 PM (jHK8i)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
March 27, 2010
Harry Reid's Last, Best Hope Facing Felony Charges
It is really difficult to con people into thinking you represent their values and siphon off their votes when you're sitting in prison. Unless you're a Congressman's wife.
But we're talking about fake Tea Party Senate candidate Scott Ashjian, who doesn't look like he'll be politically viable.
Sorry, Harry.
A Nevada asphalt contractor who faces a legal challenge to his Tea Party of Nevada candidacy for U.S. Senate was hit Friday with felony theft and bad check charges in Las Vegas that allege he bounced a $5,000 business check last year.
Scott Ashjian is one of a record 22 candidates, including 12 Republicans, running for the seat held by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who is seeking a fifth term.
Bernie Zadrowski, head of the Clark County district attorney's office bad check unit, said he would seek an arrest warrant Monday in Las Vegas Justice Court. Ashjian could face up to 14 years in state prison if convicted.
The tea party movement is a disparate coalition of conservative groups angered by federal spending, rising taxes and the growth and reach of government. Other tea party activists have been distancing themselves from Ashjian, and an ad targeting him has been sponsored by the Tea Party Express, one of the most visible factions of the national tea party movement.
The Tea Party of Nevada is a fake grassroots organization
led by a Democratic lawyer and conspiracy theorists that hoped to split away enough Republican votes to give Harry Reid a chance of remaining in office.
It doesn't appear that strategy is going to work.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
09:13 AM
| Comments (11)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
I'm told there isn't a motor home slot from Searchlight to Vegas, so great is the enthusiasm to screw Reid this Fall with protests. I hope it is true.
Posted by: mytralman at March 27, 2010 06:46 PM (lbjHd)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
March 26, 2010
Whiskey Tango Foxtrot
I don't have the vocabulary to describe how reprehensible this is:
Mark Duren told News 2 the incident happened around 4:30p.m., while he was driving on Blair Boulevard, not far from Belmont University.
He said Harry Weisiger gave him the bird and rammed into his vehicle, after noticing an Obama-Biden sticker on his car bumper.
We all get angry at politicians (if you didn't, you wouldn't be reading political blogs), but attacking a stranger on the street over something as innocuous as a campaign bumper sticker is not just criminal, it crosses the line into insanity.
The attacker, a retired real estate developer named Harry Weisiger, is charged with felony reckless endangerment. I think the district attorney would get bipartisan support if the charges were upgraded to two counts of attempted murder.
Update:Weisiger's wife died of brain cancer
just over a month ago.
It certainly doesn't do anything to absolve or mitigate his assault, but does it provide a hint of a motive?
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
02:47 PM
| Comments (58)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
This is a really sad and horrible thing. What happened is not the answer to Obama/Biden stickers. Pointing at them and laughing heartily is.
Posted by: TimothyJ at March 26, 2010 03:14 PM (IKKIf)
2
"does it provide a hint of a motive?"
At first, second and any subsequent glance: no.
Posted by: dirk at March 26, 2010 03:58 PM (tbjtP)
3
Not trying to defend the guy, because I don't agree with what he did. But how do we really know that is why this incident happened?? Right now the only information is what the driver with the bumper sticker says. It could of been a regular case of road rage, and this guy is trying to milk the whole dem playing the victim card. Remember, liberals lie a lot!!!
Posted by: Jon at March 26, 2010 04:03 PM (IebeI)
4
Lets see, the man who purports to be our Presidents combined with his crones and corrupts the entire political process to illegally sieze one sixth of our industry, in the process he spends us into debt in a manner we can never repay, raises taxes to an ungodly degree on people who are already taxed to death and stressed by the economic downturn he has helped to create, has demeaned our country, groveled in the face of third world dictators, pissed of our allies, and brought us to the brink of civil war.
Our concerns, some imperious ass of a congressman is supposedly called the n word. A man who has been dienfranchised and pushed to the brink by our great government lashes out at a supporter of socialism. We need to look at what is important. The fundamental, unpopular, illconcieved change/take over of our govenment and lives. Or the actions of the people who have had enough.
We need action. We need a direction to involve people in the retaking of our government and re-establishment of our liberty.
Posted by: David at March 26, 2010 04:55 PM (jHK8i)
5
You people are disgusting. "hint of motive", liberals lie a lot, corrupts the political process by having a vote according to the rules.
Sick.
Truly vile, evil and sick.
Posted by: CJ at March 26, 2010 05:26 PM (jsQWZ)
6
Sorry, based on the limited information given this sounds like a bogus Toyata Prius sudden acceleration claim rather than a President Vladimir Arugula McHitlerAcorn road rage event. Based on the media hype, liberals are going to be imagining anything bad that happens to them is because of right wing rage over their political beliefs.
The other driver needs to be condemned and prosecuted for his reckless driving to begin with. To blame it on political road rage is going to take a little more information. Paging David Niewert!
Posted by: daleyrocks at March 26, 2010 06:12 PM (3O5/e)
7
"He said Harry Weisiger gave him the bird and rammed into his vehicle, after noticing an Obama-Biden sticker on his car bumper."
How exactly does the victim know what the perp was thinking or motivated by? Of course, the narrative is set. No new information will sink in now, if it becomes available.
I notice comments at the local news website are running about the same... how did the victim know what was motiving the guy and, more importantly, what kind of professional news organization runs this story on the basis of that kind of speculation? At the very least they should have police statements to back up the assertion since they would have interviewed the assailant.
Posted by: w3bgrrl at March 26, 2010 07:02 PM (IsqLi)
8
Oh so NOW they talk to him:
http://www.wkrn.com/global/story.asp?s=12211868
This is media malpractice. Bottom line, the speculations of the victim as to motive would be inadmissible in court.
Posted by: w3bgrrl at March 26, 2010 07:09 PM (IsqLi)
9
Wow. The rant by the other David above is truly unhinged. I keep trying to get one of these RWNJs to name one specific 'liberty' or 'freedom' that has been taken from them, and so far, none can. Why? Well, partly because of sheer ignorance. But mostly because not one freedom or liberty has been taken, infringed, or even threatened. NOT ONE. Please, one of you, step up and name one.
A couple of other clarifications:
Nothing has been taken over by the government. GM was bailed out before they went bankrupt and threw hundreds of thousands of workers out on the streets. (Precedent: Chrsyler in the 80s). Health Care has not been taken over. Point out where in the bill health care has been taken over. It hasn't been.
Maybe if you folks would actually get informed on issues this wouldn't be such a big deal. And watching Glenn Beck makes you LESS informed, not more.
Posted by: David at March 26, 2010 07:19 PM (fKQDe)
10
Evil Liberal Fascist David,
Can I call you ELF-D? I see you like acronyms and name-calling, so I will move ahead on the assumption that I may.
When you speak in absolutes it is simple for someone to destroy your arugment. "Nothing" has been taken over by the government, except for 60% of the ownership of GM. When an evil corporation, is mismanaged by greedy, evil rich people who deceived the evil and greedy stock holders through evil and greedy accounting tricks, it deserves to go under no matter how big it is. The assets should be sold to the highest bidder and the workers should seek employment elsewhere.
That is how a free market economy works. However, under this quasi-mercantilism economy, the government used our... well, China's money (which your grandchildren and great grandchildren will have to pay back) to purchase a portion of GM and they now control it. Who knows? Maybe we will default on our loan from China and China will own GM. They hold the mortgage on it, anyway.
Chrysler had US-backed loan guarantees of 1.5 billion from private sources. The US simply stepped in to a) reassure investors they'd get their money back; b) force Chrysler to restructure and offset the loans and interest with 2 billion in cost cutting measures. In GM's case, the US government bought equity in the company for $30 billion and an additional 9 billion from Canada. 72% of GM is owned by government. 60% US, 12% Canada.
Now I know I'm just an uneducated hick and you're from some Ivy League school, but that's the best refutation this simple little housewife can give to your claim that "nothing" has been taken over.
As to health care, ELF-D, well, I would suggest to you that if you would like to experiment for yourself whether the government has taken over health care that you do a two-step test: a) do not purchase health insurance; b) do not pay the fine for failing to purchase health insurance.
Also, don't you dare contradict Jesse Jackson, Jr. about whether the federal government is controlling health care. What are you, a racist?
Posted by: w3bgrrl at March 26, 2010 07:53 PM (IsqLi)
11
Sorry, W3bgrrl, but Liberal and Fascist are mutually exclusive. If you knew anything, you'd know at least that, so no, you can't fall me that. I'm neither evil nor fascist. Liberal, yes. Proudly.
Also it's very likely we (the taxpayers) will actually MAKE money out of the supposed 'takeover' of GM. Chrysler was mismanaged by evil, etc. as you point out. We backed their bailout. Same deal. We forced GM to restructure and reorganize. And please, feel free to go explain to the workers at GM and the various businesses dependent on the auto industry how they should just be unemployed and suck it up. Let me know how that works out for you.
YOu failed logic in school, right? Somehow, you equate having insurance with taking over healthcare. Those two things are not the same thing. Your state REQUIRES you to purchases car insurance if you own a car, right? So then your state has taken over the car insurance industry, by your logic. FAIL.
And you also failed at the ONE challenge I posed: Name a single freedom or liberty you have lost under Obama. Name one. JUST ONE. If you've lost so any, it should be really easy.
Posted by: David at March 26, 2010 08:53 PM (fKQDe)
12
Now I know I'm just an uneducated hick and you're from some Ivy League school, but that's the best refutation this simple little housewife can give to your claim that "nothing" has been taken over.
You shouldn't wear your inferiority complex on your sleeve.
If you would have rather seen a complete economic collapse and another Great Depression, I guess you are entitled to your opinion, but you should at least realize that is what you are advocating. Sometimes there aren't any good alternatives.
Posted by: DB at March 26, 2010 08:53 PM (OkYL+)
13
w3bgrrl-
exactly my question. I can kind of, sort of, a little see this conclusion if the guy who was rammed was watching the guy behind him scan his bumper, move his lips to read "Oh-bah-ma," get a look of rage and then ram him, but...can't see that realistically happening.
Reading the linked story, sounds more like what someone who was highly stressed might do when cut off, especially if someone didn't signal.
Picture this:
I'll call them "idiot" and "road rage".
Idiot gets out into traffic, going slow because he's just stopped to grab his daughter, and cuts off road rage guy without signaling. Road-rage guy flips him off and points at his blinker, which isn't signaling. Idiot decides to be a prick and sets at a stop sign for a good time, before finally pulling out. On a straight-a-way, road rage guy speeds up to try to get around the idiot who can't signal...and the idiot hits his breaks, causing a collision. In the middle of the road, the idiot puts his vehicle into park, and both vehicles come to a stop "near" the sidewalk. Rather than admitting he'd been an ass, the idiot then claims it's an attack because of his bumper sticker.
Sounds as likely as this guy deciding to stalk someone for a bumper sticker, eh?
David-
you do realize ad hominem is a logical fallacy, right? So attacking someone with a claim they failed logic is ironic, at best.
Also, if "liberal" is used in the American political sense, you'll have to prove that it's mutually exclusive of "fascist," or it's the logical fallacy "equivocation."
Posted by: Foxfier at March 26, 2010 09:35 PM (LZHe9)
14
DB, since you don't pick up on sarcasm, I can't take your status as a prophet seriously. If GM's assets were sold and demand for their products remained, another entity could have filled the void created. GM and Chrysler both criminally mislead investors and now we are on the hook for their misdeeds. Life is pain, brother. Especially when people make poor decisions. Sometimes innocent people get hurt because of others' decisions. It's the liberal who thinks the government exists to prevent pain instead of punish the people who cause it.
ELF-D, Liberal and fascist are not mutually exclusive in today's terms. In fact, under this administration they are cohabitating in a friendly way and are considering making the union permanent through marriage. "Liberal" was co-opted in the era of FDR to mean the exact opposite of what it meant in the era of Jefferson. No longer did it embody the idea that your rights end where mine begin. Instead it became synonymous with state solutions to social ills. This idea is expressed in the knee-jerk, false dilemma of "if you don't support my government-funded-and-administered welfare program, you want people to die in the street." The liberal leaves no room for the alternative notion that it is the people, and not the government, who are charged with caring for the poor.
Modern day fascism as expressed by today's left embodies many of the characteristics of Mussolini's brand of fascism. They believe in authoritarian paternalism: everyone must buy health insurance - this is no longer a personal decision; they reject individualism: any woman or racial minority who rejects democrat philosophy is regarded to be a traitor to her gender or his race; they wish to tightly control the messaging - Anita Dunn expressed this when explaining that during the campaign, Obama's staff was deftly able to manipulate the media by obfuscating or simply not answering questions; Ed Schultz expressed this recently when he said the return of the Orwellian "Fairness" Doctrine was required to shut up people like Rush Limbaugh; the Fascist wants to shut his opponent up, either through legislation and FCC regulation, or by screaming, “racist!” or by demonizing and alienating him. “There’s something else going on here, that’s churning up people for other activities down the road… I’m afraid that if we don’t tamp this down now… that controversial issue could very well generate something that could lead to some catastrophic events.” That liberal-fascist remark was made by Rep. Clyburn who also demonized protesters by falsely claiming they called him ugly names. They couldn’t defend their support of a bill that was hugely unpopular so they just demonized the opposition. Fascist. Appearance of unity and no opposition is important to the fascist.
ELF-D, you did not address that under the 80's Chrysler deal, the US government did not purchase an equity stake in stock, under GM it did. There is a world of difference between the two deals and I don't just mean the price tag. You lose on that point. Point to the right-wing nut job redneck you pretend to care about, but who you really hold in contempt.
ELF-D, you argued a strawman. I did not equate having insurance with taking over healthcare. I equate the entire health care bill, from individual mandates, to federal mandates on medical loss ratios, to dumping 30 million people into Medicare, to mandating states enroll the uninsured without the funding to do so, to establishing a bureaucratic panel of unelected appointees to decide the minimum amount of care that Americans can expect as their “right” (by the way, that is the one that will eventually piss you off, not me. I don’t consider it my right to demand a doctor treat me for free)as controlling health care.
It is disingenuous to equate state-required motor vehicle collision insurance with federally-mandated health care. That’s right! the US government does not require you to carry motor vehicle insurance. Your state does. Minimum standards are set by the various states. Some have collision as a minimum, some require more. That is a state’s rights issue. Are you arguing that I own and operate something that gives the state or federal government the right to compel me to purchase health care insurance? I don’t want to make the mistake you made of arguing a point you didn’t make.
I lost my right to self-insure my medical expenses. That’s one. You’re refuted.
Posted by: w3bgrrl at March 26, 2010 10:13 PM (IsqLi)
15
" would suggest to you that if you would like to experiment for yourself whether the government has taken over health care that you do a two-step test: a) do not purchase health insurance; b) do not pay the fine for failing to purchase health insurance."
Is, in fact, asserting that requiring insurance is a takeover of healthcare.
And there is no requirement. The 'fine' you reference is actually a tax credit for purchasing insurance. Feel free to not purchase insurance, and lose the deduction. Just to follow some wingnut 'logic', nowhere in the constitution do you have a right to self-insure.
I'm not even going to argue your "point" about "modern day fascism." Redefining it to mean what you want it to mean, and then pointing to that definition to prove your point is laughable, at best.
Posted by: David at March 26, 2010 11:29 PM (fKQDe)
16
I'm not even going to argue your "point" about "modern day fascism."
That would be fascism as it is expressed in the modern day. Thus far, it doesn't have an easily identifiable short-hand in the manner of Mussolini's.
Redefining it to mean what you want it to mean, and then pointing to that definition to prove your point is laughable, at best.
Again with the irony. This right after you redefine the government charging you a fine as a "tax credit"?
They charge you the amount if you don't buy insurance; a tax credit would let you claim the amount you spent.
Posted by: Foxfier at March 26, 2010 11:39 PM (LZHe9)
17
Wow, quite the adept excuse-makers here!
Posted by: The Observationist at March 26, 2010 11:44 PM (J+2TZ)
18
Excuse-making requires that we say "sure, he did X, but...."
I, for one, question the reality of the reported version, especially as to motivation.
Posted by: Foxfier at March 27, 2010 12:13 AM (LZHe9)
19
"And there is no requirement."
SEC. 5000A. REQUIREMENT TO MAINTAIN MINIMUM ESSENTIAL COVERAGE.
(a) REQUIREMENT To Maintain Minimum Essential Coverage- An applicable individual shall for each month beginning after 2013 ensure that the individual, and any dependent of the individual who is an applicable individual, is covered under minimum essential coverage for such month.
"The 'fine' you reference is actually a tax credit for purchasing insurance."
(1) IN GENERAL- If an applicable individual fails to meet the requirement of subsection (a) for 1 or more months during any calendar year beginning after 2013, then, except as provided in subsection (d), there is hereby imposed a PENALTY with respect to the individual in the amount determined under subsection (c).
(2) INCLUSION WITH RETURN- Any PENALTY imposed by this section with respect to any month shall be included with a taxpayer’s return under chapter 1 for the taxable year which includes such month.
ELF-D, I would greatly appreciate it if you did not lecture me on redefining terms in the same post where you attempt to define REQUIREMENT as not a requirement and PENALTY as a tax credit.
Thanks!
Posted by: w3bgrrl at March 27, 2010 12:21 AM (IsqLi)
20
My school said I had to have health insurance to attend college. My school had not taken over the health insurance industry.
My state says I have to wear pants if I want to walk outside without getting a fine, or jail time. The state has not taken over the pants industry.
Posted by: Jim at March 27, 2010 12:35 AM (0Kv0+)
21
The school is not the federal government. There are many schools. Not all require health insurance. If it was a policy at a school you wished to attend, but you could not abide by the policy, you would go to another school. You have freedom in that situation, and no right to attend the school you wish to attend.
Your state does not require you to wear pants if you walk outside. Your state requires you to cover up certain parts of your body. Your state derives this authority on the basis of decency, not commerce. Your federal government is attempting to claim that by not participating in an economic activity you are affecting interstate commerce, not that you are being indecent.
Posted by: w3 at March 27, 2010 01:11 AM (IsqLi)
22
But all the state schools have the same requirement. What gives the state the right to make me buy insurance to attend a state school that is funded by tax dollars? Aren't they taking my freedom, and aren't they thus taking over the health care industry?
Besides, people can buy insurance from any company they choose, or decide to pay a fine. They have the freedom in that situation. Just like I have the freedom to pay more to go to a non-state school or just go without a college education.
So if the Feds said it was indecent and rude to not have insurance you'd be cool with the mandate? What is magical about decency that makes it ok for the state to take away your freedom, and who gets to decide what is decent and what isn't? Seems pretty flimsy to me.
Posted by: Jim at March 27, 2010 01:22 AM (0Kv0+)
23
Well, I can see that CY's attempt to cast the wingnuts as reponsible Americans failed dismally here. Don't worry, you'll get on script. Soon enough, your overlords at Fox News will tell you that springtime is for the Republican charm offensive, and you'll toe the line and become "nice." This will be fun.
Posted by: The Observationist at March 27, 2010 01:40 AM (J+2TZ)
24
Oh so NOW they talk to him:
http://www.wkrn.com/global/story.asp?s=12211868
This is media malpractice. Bottom line, the speculations of the victim as to motive would be inadmissible in court.
Posted by: w3bgrrl at March 26, 2010 07:09 PM
-----------------------------------
Whom are you trying to fool?
From your very link the witness says the guy intentionally rammed him... twice!
The second time pushing the victim car on the sidewalk.
Maybe your ideology is affecting your hearing.
http://www.wkrn.com/global/story.asp?s=12211868
Posted by: David at March 27, 2010 01:44 AM (zrRaA)
25
Am I really getting into a states' rights discussion with someone on a thread about an allegedly drunk, aggressive driver, who has just been slandered on the local news as having targeted an Obama supporter on purpose, solely on the basis of the mind-reading abilities of the guy he hit? Sadly, yes.
Jim, I'm cool with the feds taking the individual mandate to court on any basis, but the basis in the law is the interstate commerce clause.
Furthermore, Jim, people will not be able to choose any insurance company or plan they want. It will have to be a certified plan from a certified company. Consumer choice and responsibility to read and understand the product they are purchasing is gone.
So if the Feds said it was indecent and rude to not have insurance you'd be cool with the mandate? What is magical about decency that makes it ok for the state to take away your freedom, and who gets to decide what is decent and what isn't? Seems pretty flimsy to me.
All that above is strawman and has nothing to do with health insurance. No, if the Feds said it was indecent and rude not to have insurance it would also eventually fail in the courts. See Communications Decency Act of 1996. If you or anyone else wants to claim it's rude for me not to have insurance, I'll claim it's my first amendment right to be rude, and you'll lose.
Posted by: w3bgrrl at March 27, 2010 02:05 AM (IsqLi)
26
ELF-D, you again engage in strawman attacks. The man is being accused by the media, leftist fascists on blogs, and the victim, of intentionally ramming his car into another car because of an Obama sticker, solely on the basis of the mind-reading ability of the victim.
Drunk driving, bad.
Aggressive driving, bad.
Ramming a car into another car once, twice or more, either intentionally or because you had so much to drink you were oblivious, bad.
Pretending you can read someone's mind and you just know it's because you left your Obama sticker on your bumper, bad.
Posted by: w3bgrrl at March 27, 2010 02:11 AM (IsqLi)
27
But w3grrl, insurance companies already have to be certified to sell insurance, so what's the difference? It seems to me you are conflating federal regulation with federal control. Plus you are free to pay a fine instead of buying insurance, you have a choice.
I understand you think states have rights that trump Federal law when it comes to commerce (at least I think that's what you're saying), but 1) that's not the way the SC has ruled on the commerce clause in the last century, and 2) from a personal freedom standpoint -- freedom vs fascism -- what difference does make to the individual if it's a state or the feds who are making the regulations? Why would state fascism be somehow easier to swallow than Federal fascism?
Posted by: Jim at March 27, 2010 02:22 AM (0Kv0+)
28
w3grrl, You complain about ad hominem attacks, yet persist in calling me a name based on such an attack, and which I said I do not wish to be called.
So, given your lack of logical abilities, and your continued use of ad hominem attacks and unslults to make your "point" I'll leave you to your fantasy land. I have not attacked you. When I verbally attack you, trust me, you'll know it. But like others on the right, you're incapable of a civil discussion without childish name-calling and ridiculous goal-post moving.
Enjoy yourself. Your party is out of power, and will remain that way until they complete their descent into utter irrelevance.
Posted by: David at March 27, 2010 02:29 AM (fKQDe)
29
David, I did not mention ad hominem once. That was another commenter. He or she does not speak for me. Secondly, you came onto this thread using the acronym "RWNJ," which, I admit, I did not ask you to clarify what it meant. I simply assumed you meant "right wing nut job."
I have not only called you an evil leftist fascist, but I've also presented facts you have refused to refute. But, if after calling people on this blog, "right wing nut jobs," you are going to retreat in tears after being called an evil leftist fascist and refuse to acknowledge that a requirement is a requirement and a penalty is not a tax credit, you go ahead.
I can't force you to stay, and more importantly, even if Republicans were in total control of the house, the senate and the white house, I wouldn't ask them to make you stay for me. That, essentially, is the difference between what I'm willing to take from you by force of government and what you're willing to take from me.
I also cannot force you to acknowledge how you type "I have not insulted you," before and after you've said I obviously failed logic. If you are not self-aware, I cannot force you to be through legislation. More importantly, even if I could, I wouldn't.
Posted by: w3bgrrl at March 27, 2010 02:42 AM (IsqLi)
30
ok w3grrl,
You have not presented much in the way of facts. But I will grant you that the bill callis it a penalty for not getting insurance. Granted, that is a penalty. But no one forces you to get insurance. Feel free not to. Just pay the penalty. I can guarantee you that, when the argument gets to the courts, it will be argued as a tax credit to allow you to buy insurance. But whatever. Don't buy insurance. Pay the fee. Just don't get sick. Or have a CRAPLOAD of money ready when you DO get sick.
If saying you failed logic is an 'insult' to you, you are far too thin-skinned to be doing this. Given the logical falacies you presented, it was more an observation or a statement of fact than an insult. But calling someone you don't know "evil" is an insult. But par for the republican course.
Again, you have yet to produce a right or freedom you have lost under Obama. Your example above hasn't been implemented yet, so you haven't lost anything.
It's clear that if Republicans were in control of the house, senate and whitehouse, they would do exactly what they did the last time: a) not do shit for the good of the country and b) destroy the country as quickly as possible by violating the constitution and waging war for no reason whatever.
I"m not in tears. Well, unless you count the tears of laughter as I watch you spin, trying to make your version of things back up the ridiculous things you say.
So, either come up with a right or liberty you have lost under Obama, or admit you're making shit up. Your choice.
Posted by: David at March 27, 2010 03:01 AM (fKQDe)
31
I heard ELF-D!
I'm Elf (no, really...)
And let me explain "Elfing".
Elf-D : To be shown FACT by Elf (That would be me) in order to make peace one way or another with everyone.
FACTS :
* Guy in SUV Rams Other SUV.
* {details about SUV2 Bumper}
* {speculation about SUV1 owner's agenda}
* BOTH sides/networks/folk on the ground are going to get bent about this but what I want to know is ...
[*] Which of you is most concerned that a little girl was in an auto accident, how is she? Does she have a bump on her elbow? Is she shaken up? Is this media mad-capping going to make it ANY FRIGGING BETTER FOR THE LITTLE GIRL?
Important things people.
You have been Elfed.
That is all.
Posted by: Elf at March 27, 2010 03:29 AM (R5zU2)
32
Heh. Liberal and fascist are mutually exclusive? Guess David never heard of National Socialism.
Posted by: Kevin at March 27, 2010 07:46 AM (FDaFm)
33
David,
A. You said you were leaving the conversation, but you're still talking to me.
B. I did not say I was insulted. I actually misquoted you, but what you said was that you had not attacked me, when clearly every post to me you have made attempts to attack my intelligence. I find your method of communication to be rather passive aggressive. What that means to me is that you do attack, but you claim you are not attacking. I do not care if you continue attacking my intelligence or if you choose to be more civil. That is entirely up to you. I don't care if you claim you are not speaking to me anymore and then continue to do it. All I'm doing is pointing out when you contradict yourself and demand treatment that you are not willing to extend to others. I do it partly because I'm entertained by it, and partly because it cannot be pointed out too often that the liberal part of the liberal fascist gets bent out of shape when he is given the same treatment he extends to others.
C. You first come to the thread calling names, you then tell me that I have attacked you by calling you a name and that you are leaving the conversation because I won't quit calling you names. I have not demanded anything from you in regards to how you communicate with me nor have I claimed to be not speaking to you anymore because you are a meany, yet you have? Question: who is the thin-skinned one here?
D. Simply because you refuse to call a requirement a requirement and a penalty a penalty and refuse to acknowledge the imprisonment portion of refusing to pay the penalty does not mean I have not answered your question. You asked for a single right lost under Obama, and I answered: everyone has the lost the right to choose whether to insure. We've also lost the right to only insure catastrophic events, by the way. Not only are we now required to buy insurance, but we've lost the right to decide at what level we would like to insure ourselves. Again, I've said all this before, you simply are ignoring it and then claiming I have not used facts and logic. Doesn't mean it's true.
David, the amount of projection you have used since addressing me is utterly astounding. You began this conversation by believing the claims of a guy who cannot possibly know what the aggressive driver was thinking. You claimed that a requirement was not a requirement and a penalty was a tax credit. I quoted straight from the legislation, but now you demand I admit something which is demonstrably untrue.
Someone is indeed full of crap here, but it's not me.
Posted by: w3bgrrl at March 27, 2010 08:22 AM (IsqLi)
34
Under the government's health care requirements, I have lost the right to be self-insured.
I do not want to purchase health insurance. I do not want to pay a fine/penalty. The government is requiring me to do one or the other.
If you read the Constitution, it is a document of enumerated rights. The federal government has the right and authority to do only those things that are specifically outlined in the Constitution. The commerce clause regulates commerce. If I choose to not purchase a product or service, I am not engaging in commerce. Therefore, there is no authority under the Constitution for the government to deny me the right to self-insure.
Posted by: Just Sayin' at March 27, 2010 08:28 AM (q0QIB)
35
David, Jim, and the rest of the blind will probably also believe their Dear Leaders when those same Leaders tell them that there will be cake after the showers...
Posted by: emdfl at March 27, 2010 10:10 AM (vwRFo)
36
To Just Sayin': You need to do a bit more research on the Constitution. Check out Section 8 of Article 1 which says, in part:
".....and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States"
That's a pretty broad term on which the SCOTUS has ruled in many cases over the years that Congress does have the right to pass laws that are not specifically outlined in the Constitution.
Of course, under our system it is the SCOTUS that decides if legislation is or isn't Constitutional. Truthfully, our individual opinions have no legal weight whatsoever.
Posted by: Dude at March 27, 2010 10:42 AM (5gxhz)
37
Liberal David and others,
There is no debate. There are no longer any issues. The fact is that Obama and group have taken our country in a direction that the majority of Americans do not like, or rather hate. I don't really care if you "won" the election, the election was not on the subject of the take over of our country.
We need action, Not debate. The sides are clearly drawn and from my view the liberals on this thread are either lying, obtuse, ill informed, lacking in basic logic or have an agenda of socialistic control. You are therfore not my fellow citizen, you are a blight.
We need to beat the drum. Thanks CY for the efforts to do so.
Posted by: David at March 27, 2010 10:48 AM (jHK8i)
38
Picked this up from another site, looks like it applies to some of the commenters:
"The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the presidency. It will be easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their president.
The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails us. Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince.
The republic can survive a Barack Obama, who is, after all, merely a fool. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him their president."
-- Author Unknown
Posted by: Conservative (ultra) David at March 27, 2010 10:58 AM (jHK8i)
39
Just Sayin,
The Militia Act of 1792 required all adult men to buy specific military equipment. No man could exercise his right to not buy:
"a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of power and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and power-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder"
If he did not buy those thing he'd face a fine of up to a years pay. Failing to pay the fines could result in imprisonment.
The Founders thought the Constitution gave Congress had the right to make you buy something. Even if you didn't want it. But what did they know about Freedom and the Constitution, silly liberals.
Posted by: Jim at March 27, 2010 11:07 AM (0Kv0+)
40
The Criminal Marxist Media continues the America-destroying narrative: violent insane white Christian Republican hater racist attacks innocent loving virginal enlightened Obama follower. Who the hell knows what happened? Furthermore, who the hell cares? The story is useful only as it fits the Obama narrative. Obama and Cronies want division, crisis, and the fundamental change of America to communism. The flaming of stories such as this shows how wide the divide between us is, and the story itself may hint at how close to revolution some Americans are.
If the old guy was driving in Atlanta traffic, it wouldn't take much to push him over the brink. My observation, as a professional road warrior, is that vehicles with Obama stickers are generally ill-kept clunkers, and the drivers have poor driving skills. The Obama drivers often are slow-rolling road blocks in the left lane of the expressway, oblivious, indifferent, or antagonistic toward the line of cars behind. From personal experience, places you will find the most cars with Obama stickers are the visitor's lot of the jail, the welfare office, and the public health dept. Defunding the entitlement programs is essential to restoring The Republic. People must be allowed to fail. So must this monstrous government.
Posted by: twolaneflash at March 27, 2010 11:49 AM (svkhS)
41
twolaneflash, I'm pretty sure that the reports say the ramming driver was drunk...? This doesn't prove that politics set him off, but I'd imagine it would make it more likely. In any case, he has nothing to be proud of. There's simply no place for either drunk driving or political violence in this country. If we're going to excuse this behavior (especially when a 10 yr old kid was involved) just because the perp's "on our side" then I really fear for us.
Posted by: Nine-of-Diamonds at March 27, 2010 01:02 PM (Eg9Id)
42
It is good to look at the motives of the driver. But, remember, this and other stories are plants to get you to look away from the real issue. The issue is our changing government. Hopefully action will increase. As I have said, the time for debate on these issues is over. I keep thinking of the people on the hijacked plane, they likely sat around discussing the problem, but when faced with the inevitable the leader stepped forward with "lets role". That is where we are now. The only discussion is how.
And Jim, before you get the vapors and feel that I am saying the government created the accident, that is not what I am saying. The news media is intentionally focusing on a daily event to distract.
Some of the liberals have indicated that they don't sense a loss of freedom. Here is my view. If the Feds came to your house, beat you up, threw you in jail and kept you there without a trial, would I sense a loss of freedom. No. But, in fact, my relationship with my government would have changed. That is what is occurring now. You might not notice a change in your everyday life and might not have a problem in your lifetime. But the government and its relationship to us has significantly altered. The alteration is not sanctioned by our contract with the government. The alteration has fundamental characteristics that are not what we desire.
And Jim, note that the government told the militia what to do. That is a body of soldiers for which Congress and the President have control. You are either trying to intentionally mislead, which seems wrong with the conservative audience, or you are not very bright. Either way, why are you trying to be so divisive?
Posted by: David at March 27, 2010 03:59 PM (jHK8i)
43
My dear teabaggers, I believe the "fine" for not buying health insurance is actually couched as the loss of a tax credit. But even if it's not, I haven't noticed a lot of you people whining about the requirement in 48 of the 50 states to buy automobile insurance.
Nor have I heard anyone mention that mandatory purchase of health insurance was originally a Republican idea, and is part of the health plan that your party's 2012 nominee instituted in Massachusetts.
Posted by: The Observationist at March 27, 2010 09:11 PM (J+2TZ)
44
Sorry Jim...
The Militia Act of 1792 required each citizen to "...provide himself with a good musket or firelock..." (emphasis added). He was not required to buy his weapons and accoutrements, he was to obtain them on his own (possibly from relatives, friends, etc.) if he did not already own them outright.
Also, the act provided that each militia member "...shall receive the same pay and allowances, as the troops of the United States...".
Citizens over the age of 45 were exempt from the provisions of the act.
I believe comparing the Militia Act and health care is mixing apples and oranges.
As I am not enrolled in a "health militia", I am not under orders to purchase health insurance. Until now.
Posted by: Just Sayin' at March 27, 2010 11:40 PM (q0QIB)
45
Observationist:
Driving a motor vehicle in all states is a privilege, not a right. You must pass a driving test in order to receive a license. If you don't want to purchase insurance, take the bus.
John McCain was governor of Massachusetts?!?
Posted by: Just Sayin' at March 27, 2010 11:46 PM (q0QIB)
46
Just Sayin,
Seriously? Provide versus Buy? No one says you have to buy your own health insurance either, you could have your relatives or friends buy it for you.
Citizens over 65 would be exempt from having to buy health insurance as they'll qualify for Medicare.
FWIW McCain ran in 2008, not 2012, just say'n.
Yes the Milita Act and HCR are not identical things. They do, however share the fact that both required citizens to buy stuff. The fact that the MA then required even more of the citizens doesn't help make HCR less constitutional.
Posted by: Jim at March 27, 2010 11:58 PM (0Kv0+)
47
and... you don't have to buy health insurance, you could have it provided for you by your employer, etc...
The point remains, the US government has required it's citizens to buy things before, and at least one of those times the government was made up of the Founders themselves.
Posted by: Jim at March 28, 2010 12:02 AM (0Kv0+)
48
I did a few minutes research on the incident on google. There is a set of charges they are leaving out. Driving under the influence and leaving the scene of an accident. This is a DUI turned into a political circus.
http://the44diaries.wordpress.com/
You’ll have to scroll down. It’s a bit below the top of the page.
Posted by: James S. at March 28, 2010 05:55 AM (QanhA)
49
But no one forces you to get insurance. Feel free not to. Just pay the penalty.
No one forces you not to kill people. Just pay the penalty.
Brilliant.
Posted by: Pablo at March 28, 2010 06:29 AM (yTndK)
50
My dear teabaggers, I believe the "fine" for not buying health insurance is actually couched as the loss of a tax credit.
You believe wrong.
I haven't noticed a lot of you people whining about the requirement in 48 of the 50 states to buy automobile insurance.
You're not required to buy insurance as a requirement of residence. You can choose not to drive an automobile. You can also post a bond showing your ability to self-insure. Furthermore, you're required to have liability coverage to protect others whose property you might damage. You are not required, anywhere, to insure against damage to your own property. Lastly, that something can be done by a state does not mean that it can be done by the Federal government. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Does that ring a bell?
Posted by: Pablo at March 28, 2010 06:38 AM (yTndK)
51
Jim:
They do, however share the fact that both required citizens to buy stuff.
This requirement was under the provision of the Constitution to provide for the common defense.
It was required of a specific sub-group of citizens: males age 18-45. Women and children were exempt. The militia members were compensated for their service. Also, they did not have to "provide" a new firearm every year at their expense...a one-time "provision" was sufficient. And given the time frame and conditions, most males of militia age likely had such a firearm in their possession without having to purchase one. For example, if I were called to militia service, I could "provide" the necessary equipment under today's conditions from my personal possessions without making any additional purchase.
The government is requiring all citizens to purchase a commercial product that some might not want to purchase and has provisions to penalize you if you do not make that purchase. And this is a recurring purchase that many might not be able to afford, especially as health insurance premiums skyrocket. It is a decision that heretofore has been a personal one, not decided by others and enforced at the point of a gun.
And on the McCain/2012 thing...my bad. However it is by no means certain Romney will be the 2012 nominee for the Republicans. His association with the Massachusetts health boondoggle certainly taints him. So let's do Massachusetts writ large. That's the solution!
Posted by: Just Sayin' at March 28, 2010 08:04 AM (q0QIB)
52
On the "On Topic" -
- Drunk driving inflated into political violence. Played hard it can result into an escalated counter-strike against members of the perceived opposition. Common tactic used by authoritarian parties to violently seize control of nations. Can be used by both partied in a political contest. Carries a heavy cloak of deniability. Can take years, if ever, before the survivors realize that they were the ones who initiated the violence.
On the "Off Topic" -
- The biggest political problem facing this country is that the majority (voters and politicians to the highest level) fail to grok that the Fed and the States have different functions - Constitutionally, philosophically, and functionally.
- The second biggest politically problem is that the a significant number know this but do not care....
Let me switch that up -
- The biggest problem is that a majority of politicians know this, but do not care because they know that a majority of voters don't know.
Posted by: Druid at March 28, 2010 11:22 AM (Gct7d)
53
Posted by The Observationist at March 28, 2010 12:58 PM
Thus providing a graphic illustration of the phrase "braying ass". It will be fun to thing about this fool's words as his narcissist hero is thrown down along with nutbag collection of perverts, racists and socialists/fascists Obama chooses as friends and associates.
Posted by: iconoclast at March 28, 2010 02:03 PM (yTmCE)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Krugman Almost Gets One Right
The old Southern aphorism "Even a blind hog can find an acorn every one in a while" is analogous to cliche of broken clock being right twice a day. It seems in his latest dim rant, blind hog Paul Krugman actually did manage to stumble into making a relevant comment, even if it wasn't intentional:
...if you care about America's future, you can't be happy as extremists take full control of one of our two great political parties.
Amen, Mr. Krugman!
Conservatives have been saying that for the better part of a year as we've watched the destructive policies and corrupt deal-making of the Progressive wing of the Democratic party set the nation on a path toward economic ruin, all to satiate their childish dreams of "economic justice." Leftists—and their economists—refuse to face the fact that true economic justice is best served by capitalism, where justice is derived in free markets as higher value and in demand products succeed, while those that are obsolete or substandard fail.
But Krugman isn't talking about economics, which is good, considering how little he actually knows about the subject (much like the raft of university professors who teach business classes even as they've failed in the market themselves).
No, our smug
Times editorialist valiantly takes up the fight against his favorite opponent, the strawman.
What has been really striking has been the eliminationist rhetoric of the G.O.P., coming not from some radical fringe but from the party's leaders. John Boehner, the House minority leader, declared that the passage of health reform was "Armageddon." The Republican National Committee put out a fund-raising appeal that included a picture of Nancy Pelosi, the speaker of the House, surrounded by flames, while the committee’s chairman declared that it was time to put Ms. Pelosi on "the firing line." And Sarah Palin put out a map literally putting Democratic lawmakers in the cross hairs of a rifle sight.
All of this goes far beyond politics as usual. Democrats had a lot of harsh things to say about former President George W. Bush — but you'll search in vain for anything comparably menacing, anything that even hinted at an appeal to violence, from members of Congress, let alone senior party officials.
No, to find anything like what we're seeing now you have to go back to the last time a Democrat was president.
Krugman's mock collapse onto the fainting couch is imminent.
Help! Help! Republicans are using literary devices!
No sane or sober person could equate metaphors used with enticing violence, but Krugman struggles mightily to make the non-existent connection.
No, if we want to take an honest look at descents into violent threats and fantasy, we merely need to watch how rank-and-file liberals have acted over the past eight years. You can and should include the murder committed by radical leftists like Andrew Mickel in the left's bloody tally. The Indymedia journalist turned death row resident
assassinated a police officer in hopes of triggers a war against capitalism in 2002. Somehow, I don't think we can blame Sarah Palin for that.
Liberal
Carlos Hartmann of Michigan was so outraged that the Netherlands provided troops for what he saw as "Bush's War for Oil" that he flew across the Atlantic in hopes of killing Dutch soldiers. Unable to find a soldier at the train station where he plotted to carry out his attack, Hartmann vented his rage by hacking a student to death with an axe. I'm pretty sure John Boehner didn't inspire him.
Other left-wing sociopaths—as yet uncaptured—sabotaged Florida Republican Eddie Adams truck during his campaign, and nearly
burned him to death. I know...
blame Bush!
These are just some of the acts of radical left wing violence the media does its very best to avoid covering... there are many, many more, from assaults and intimidation by SEIU union thugs to the
biting off of fingers from MoveOn.Org antagonists to acts of vandalism, gunfire, and arson by the left-wing domestic terrorists Janet Napolitano tries very hard not to see.
Krugman wants to talk about extremism dominating political parties? Let me
provide the details he ignored in his eight-year amnesia.
Even his lord and savior Barack Obama has direct ties to two of the worst domestic terrorists of the past half century, a man and woman who led an organizationthat has been implicated in murders, armed robberies, and attempted to
blow up a soldiers' dance as they fantasized about murdering what they estimated to be
25 million Americans in concentration camps if they were ever able to seize power.
Indeed, Americans have watched one of its two political parties go to extremes.
Krugman just doesn't want to admit belonging to it.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:24 AM
| Comments (29)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
In truth, the Democrats would never have got the recent health care reform legislation passed had they pandered exclusively to the far left wing of the party.
Let's be honest here. Indeed, Americans have watched BOTH of its two political parties go to extremes.
By the time that the elections roll around in November, the party that appeals to the centrists will be the party that will be more successful.
The Democrats won the last election by doing just that very thing. When all is said and done, extremist views, as espoused by this website and its liberal counterparts, are not a reflection of the majority of Americans.
Krugman no more represents a majority of Democrats with his extremist views than CY represents a majority of Republicans with his extremist views.
Posted by: Dude at March 26, 2010 11:43 AM (5gxhz)
2
liberalism seems to involve a mental disorder in which self doubt and remorse for one's actions are non existent.All the hate the Krugmans of the world had for Bush, a noble man who is proving to be right in his cause, poured like pus from untreated wounds into their diatribes against him, and the right wing of the Republican party. To see where this led, take a look a the Zombie web site and her documentation of the results. Krugman is committed to this philosophy of lies for the "greater good", like his master in the White House.
Posted by: mytralman at March 26, 2010 11:52 AM (lbjHd)
3
One party has indeed moved, here's Romney then on what he now calls Unconstitutional Socialism blah blah:
http://www.MYtube.com/watch?v=y6DrH6P9OC0
(site won't allow links to youtube so swap a you for the MY)
Yep, the front runner for the 2012 Rep nomination called the individual mandate "the ultimate conservative plan", over and over two years ago.
Heck Geo Washington mandated that every adult male buy a gun. The militia act, look it up. Who knew George was a Fascist Communist Maoist American hater who took away our freedom.
A small segment of the right has gone nuts, and the the LEADERS of the right have been fanning the flames all year over what was good enough for Geo in the 1790s and good enough for Milt in 2008.
Posted by: Jim at March 26, 2010 11:58 AM (0Kv0+)
4
Mitt Romney a conservative? That's some funny stuff.
Posted by: the pistolero at March 26, 2010 12:07 PM (7PtU3)
5
Thanks for making my point better than I did pistolero.
Posted by: Jim at March 26, 2010 12:17 PM (0Kv0+)
6
Thanks for making my point better than I did pistolero.
Posted by Jim at March 26, 2010 12:17 PM
You don't have a point. Forcing people to buy things is not a conservative action. It doesn't matter if Republicans or Democrats or George Washington is the one doing it.
You seem to be having a problem with vocabulary. Republican, small "r" republican, libertarian, and conservative are not synonyms. These people ally themselves against socialism and the social democratic party currently in power, but they are not the same thing. Medicare Part D was not a conservative effort, it was a Republican effort to buy votes from seniors. Not conservative.
Me and mine will deal with the GOP after we bury the Dems. The kid pissing on my porch can wait until after I've horsewhipped the hooligan setting fire to my garage.
Posted by: Britt at March 26, 2010 12:32 PM (VN7Wi)
7
You had a point? Sorry, but I don't think politicians who support things like gun bans and government-mandated insurance are conservative. And I don't think I am speaking for just the fringe, either.
Posted by: the pistolero at March 26, 2010 12:32 PM (7PtU3)
8
OK Britt,
George Washington was too liberal for you, I'm very happy to have him on my side, and Jefferson who's now to liberal for Texas textbooks, and John Adams who represented the British solders accused of the Boston Massacre, Hamilton with his national bank etc. I'll gladly take all the Founders and the more perfect union they created with a strong central government that was charged with providing for the common defense and promoting the general welfare.
You can have whatever conservatives you choose.
Posted by: Jim at March 26, 2010 12:43 PM (0Kv0+)
9
Pistolero,
You are more than free to think Romney is too liberal. My point is he was a front runner for the GOP nomination. If he's too liberal for you, and he was in the top 2 or 3 candidates of the more conservative major party, then yeah, you are on the fringe. But keep the faith, the GOP is moving your way (as in away from the center).
Posted by: Jim at March 26, 2010 12:56 PM (0Kv0+)
10
Posted by Jim at March 26, 2010 11:58 AM
Conscription, dumbass, is completely different than a general mandate to purchase insurance. Support for the unorganized militia and it's purpose for defense is written into the Constitution. Healthcare as a right...not so much. Idiot.
That you would pathetically attempt to conflate the two just shows the intellectual poverty of the left--yet again.
Posted by: iconoclast at March 26, 2010 01:04 PM (zKViF)
11
more conservative major party
Uh-huh, and these days that's more perception than reality. I don't know what Dick Armey's thinking now, but he was leaning in the same direction right after the last election:
"oo often the policy agenda was determined by short-sighted political considerations and an abiding fear that the public simply would not understand limited government and expanded individual freedoms. How else do we explain "compassionate conservatism," No Child Left Behind, the Medicare drug benefit and the most dramatic growth in federal spending since LBJ's Great Society?"
Posted by: the pistolero at March 26, 2010 01:08 PM (7PtU3)
12
Who can forget those chilling signs at left wing protests saying "We Liberals came unarmed (this time)" and "Warning: if Jerry Brown can't stop it, a Browning can"?
It's not for nothing that "gun nut" & "gun-lover" are practically synonymous with Hippie & Liberal. Scratch a Hippie, find a marksman, isn't that the saying?
Posted by: scalefree at March 26, 2010 01:27 PM (IbRA6)
13
I don't find either party representative of the base American. Both are liberal in their own way. The Democrats want to control every aspect of my life as they think they can do it better and they have an agenda such as the environment that they feel is absolutely necessary to protect, even though their efforts in the past have caused more problems. The Republicans, they want to tell me what to do for moral reasons. The only problem is that I don't agree with their morals. From my perspective, and shared by many down here, Bush was a liberal; Obama is a person from another planet.
The situation as it now exist, after passage of this bill, is that we are essentially at war with our government. Yes, I know the liberals who are commentting will have a good time with that, but then your opinion matters very little; debate is over. Those like myself need only about 30% of the population. That is the magic number that seems to get a movement going. I think that we can come up with that number with little difficulty. The problem is leadership. So far no one has come the the front to express these views. And the views are not radical. Basically they consist of getting the government to leave us alone. The Feds need to get back to their original purpose, making wars and minimal regualtion.
The time will likely come as people are moved.
Posted by: David at March 26, 2010 01:50 PM (jHK8i)
14
Iconoclast,
The Militia Act of 1792 required all white males 18-45 to buy their equipment. It mandated what specific equipment they were required by Federal law to buy. The reason for the mandate doesn't change the underlying Constitutional principle that the government, according to the Founders, can indeed require the citizens of all the states to buy something. The Founders, not some Maoist, Fascist, Freedom takers.
Posted by: Jim at March 26, 2010 02:00 PM (3GzXA)
15
Pistolero,
I get it! The GOP since 2000 (or earlier?) is too liberal for YOU. You, and a fringe element, have moved to the right, and the GOP leadership has started pandering to you by also moving right with their rhetoric. That is my point, and a direct contradiction of what CY was saying with his post. Read the last sentence and get back to me
Posted by: Jim at March 26, 2010 02:06 PM (3GzXA)
16
Romney isn't a conservative, that's why he was elected governor, he is pro gay marriage and pro health-care, until he swung far right 4 years ago when he decided to run for president. Romney is a flip flopper, which is why he lost the nomination and will lose the nomination in 2012
Posted by: MAModerate at March 26, 2010 02:18 PM (knhh6)
17
You, and a fringe element, have moved to the right
Moved? How do you know we haven't always been here? And I can promise you that if the GOP really gave a damn about us eeevil right wing extremists, Mitt Romney with his record as MA governor wouldn't be taken any more seriously as a candidate than, say, Howard Dean.
Posted by: the pistolero at March 26, 2010 03:05 PM (7PtU3)
18
You're completely right, I shouldn't have said you'd moved anywhere. I believe you when you say you were always there. What I meant to say (2nd half of my post) was that the leadership of the GOP is talking as though they are moving towards you. Hence their newly heated rhetoric raging against the evils they, until recently, publicly supported.
Posted by: Jim at March 26, 2010 03:24 PM (3GzXA)
19
November is going to be sweet.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at March 26, 2010 03:45 PM (L4zp9)
20
The reason for the mandate doesn't change the underlying Constitutional principle that the government, according to the Founders, can indeed require the citizens of all the states to buy something. The Founders, not some Maoist, Fascist, Freedom takers.
If you're the Founders, you want the people to be armed, the better to oppose the government.
If you're a Fascist you want the disarmed people to be compelled at gunpoint to purchase healthcare from the business interests who pour money into the Fascist Party's coffers.
And if you're a Fascist you pretend not to see any difference between the two things.
Posted by: flenser at March 26, 2010 08:48 PM (/FlhT)
21
Nice dodge. Like I said, either mandates are constitutional or they aren't, being "good" or "bad" mandates make no difference in terms of their legality. Was Washington being unconstitutional and talking people's freedom or not. Pick one and then apply the same conclusion to Obama. I know it sucks to have to be consistent but life isn't fair.
As of the rest, no one is trying to take your guns, someone is trying to make sure everyone pays for the health care they will inevitably need. Personal responsibility -- oooh, so scary!
P.S. Hitler wasn't a liberal. Also up is still not down. I know, I know, you read (excerpts) of Goldberg's book, now read something on the same topic written by a professional historian.
Posted by: Jim at March 26, 2010 09:16 PM (0Kv0+)
22
"But Krugman isn't talking about economics, which is good, considering how little he actually knows about the subject..."
30 books including a leading textbook, scads of papers pointed at by thousands of citations, professorship at Princeton, Nobel prize... someone's wearing his clever trousers today!
Posted by: Alfalfa at March 27, 2010 12:42 AM (2u53x)
23
"30 books including a leading textbook, scads of papers pointed at by thousands of citations, professorship at Princeton, Nobel prize... someone's wearing his clever trousers today!"
Wow. You really do think the Nobel Prize, professorships, (and the presidency, for that matter). are awarded based on merit, as opposed to "right" [liberal] thinking, skin color, and so on. The hive-mind and stupidity emanating from Princeton at times is amazing - circa 2003 I recall academics who expressed sympathy for doctrinaire Communism. Not exactly the recipe for sound fiscal policy.
For crying out loud, the oval office is occupied by a Kenyan nonentity who Affirmative Actioned and guilt-tripped his way to success.
In short, I'm happy you feel safe b/c of deluded little men with impressive "credentials". For your own sake Krugman and Teleprompter Boy had better hope their Keynesian/statist philosophies don't fail yet again.
Posted by: Nine-of-Diamonds at March 27, 2010 12:54 PM (Eg9Id)
24
As of the rest, no one is trying to take your guns, someone is trying to make sure everyone pays for the health care they will inevitably need. Personal responsibility -- oooh, so scary!
Then why are there subsidies for lower income people?
Posted by: Pablo at March 28, 2010 08:43 AM (yTndK)
25
George Washington was too liberal for you, I'm very happy to have him on my side, and Jefferson who's now to liberal for Texas textbooks, and John Adams who represented the British solders accused of the Boston Massacre, Hamilton with his national bank etc. I'll gladly take all the Founders and the more perfect union they created with a strong central government that was charged with providing for the common defense and promoting the general welfare.
You can have whatever conservatives you choose.
________
HAHAHAHAH
Jim, you ignorant slut. So Tom "The government is best which governs least" Jefferson is now on your side? You dream, dickhead, you dream.
Hamilton was a statist prick, he'd be a 'crat today. I think Ben Franklin would too just on skeevy, "I have the clap and so I need to join the party that's cool with the clap" grounds. Every other Founding Father would be an extreme right winger today. If I resurrected Washington, he'd be raising an army right now. Something for ya'll to think about.
_____
As of the rest, no one is trying to take your guns, someone is trying to make sure everyone pays for the health care they will inevitably need. Personal responsibility -- oooh, so scary!
____
Forced personal responsibility is not personal responsibility. More importantly, the people who don't have health insurance choose not to purchase it. So clearly you should steal other people's money to give it to them. Just don't call redistribution of wealth socialist.
_______
P.S. Hitler wasn't a liberal. Also up is still not down. I know, I know, you read (excerpts) of Goldberg's book, now read something on the same topic written by a professional historian.
________
He wasn't a liberal, he was fascist. Fascism is a bastardized form of socialism, a heresy of Marxism. The National Socialist German Workers Party was a socialist party. Right there in the name.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Program
Some choice bits:
# Abolition of unearned (work and labour) incomes. Breaking of debt (interest)-slavery.
# In consideration of the monstrous sacrifice in property and blood that each war demands of the people, personal enrichment through a war must be designated as a crime against the people. Therefore we demand the total confiscation of all war profits.
# We demand the nationalisation of all (previous) associated industries (trusts).
# We demand a division of profits of all heavy industries.
# We demand an expansion on a large scale of old age welfare.
# We demand the creation of a healthy middle class and its conservation, immediate communalization of the great warehouses and their being leased at low cost to small firms, the utmost consideration of all small firms in contracts with the State, county or municipality.
I mean, if that's a right wing economic program, then I'm a lefty.
Posted by: Britt at March 28, 2010 10:41 AM (VN7Wi)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
March 25, 2010
A Tale of Four Polls: Public Still Overwhelmingly Against Obamacare Cram-down
Via the Senate Republicans Communications Center (so liberals will immediate ignore/discount it for intruding on their community-based reality), but still simply citing the facts:
QUINNIPIAC POLL APPROVAL OF HEALTH CARE BILL:
Mostly Approve: 40%
Mostly Disapprove: 49% (Quinnipiac University Poll, 3/22-23/10)
BLOOMBERG POLL APPROVAL OF HEALTH CARE BILL:
Favor: 38%
Oppose: 50% ("Bloomberg National Poll," 3/19-22/10, P.1)
CBS NEWS POLL APPROVAL OF HEALTH CARE BILL:
Approve: 37%
Disapprove: 48% ("CBS News Poll," 3/18-21/10, P. 4)
CNN OPINION RESEARCH POLL APPROVAL OF HEALTH CARE BILL:
Favor: 39%
Oppose: 59% ("CNN Opinion Research Poll," 3/19-21/10, P.2)
No matter which one of these polls you look at, support for the Democrat's health care rationing scheme never exceeds 40%.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
02:08 PM
| Comments (14)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
They missed the Gallup poll (the only one other than Qunnipac I've seen taken after the law passed).
http://www.gallup.com/poll/126929/Slim-Margin-Americans-Support-Healthcare-Bill-Passage.aspx
Gallup has the exact opposite 49-40 split.
49 good thing
40 bad thing
with Independents also46-45 in favor of the new law.
Posted by: Jim at March 25, 2010 02:43 PM (3GzXA)
2
Maybe Gallup doubled the usual over sampling of democrats.
Posted by: MANstreammedia at March 25, 2010 03:17 PM (5q/vg)
3
The 40 percent who approve don't care about the opinion of the other 60 percent as they see themselves as the anointed ones, and the others as ignorant, venal or deluded.
Posted by: zhombre at March 25, 2010 03:52 PM (vUWth)
4
An American rightist saying the left has a messiah complex?
oh god the irony it hurts
Posted by: Ryan at March 25, 2010 05:13 PM (RjmsR)
5
Rassmusen has 55% on those that want repeal. His polls seem somewhat more accurate.
Posted by: David at March 25, 2010 06:34 PM (jHK8i)
6
Ryan, you must have a poor tolerance for irony or a poor understanding of the word. Isn't Obama the declared Light-Worker? Truly a Messiah as Jesse Jackson said? Isn't his support flogged in grade schools with mantra-like chanting being taught to kindergarteners? Girl, you KNOW it's true!
Whatever. Pathetic. I yearn to see the Republican declaring Bush or Reagan a messiah. Perhaps you have a youtube.
Anyhow, yes, Rasmussen has proven to be a leading indicator. O has recovered migthily there, not in overalls but Stronglies, a phenomenon he has achieved in a couple other circumstances but somehow it trends back quickly AND, here is the part for Lefties predicting an O surge, all the movement is in the Strongly Approves. The Strongly Dissapproves just continue a slow climb. It is the Stongly Approves that are volatile, and why might that be? Could it be that these poor fools are the ones who actually BELIEVE the, um, messiah sits in the Oval? Who actually think there is an Obama Stash of greenbacks with which he spreads the wealth? Oh yeah. I wonder where the disgusting parties interviewed at the Panic In Detroit are now and how they are enjoying their Obama Money. For the ironically impaired, it is nearly certain they have received no such money as even the program as stated had funds for something like 5 percent of the assembled throng. Inevitable dissappointments like this are driving the pillar to post whipping of the O-bots. They are, if they are capable, learning the limits of gub largesse. They are learning the Thatcherite lesson that socialism burns through other peoples' money with alacrity leaving nothing but the voracious hunger of gub for more and yet more while they are able to dispense less and yet less. Joy.
Posted by: megapotamus at March 26, 2010 04:44 AM (LWhHe)
7
I was reading about one of the polls that showed a majority against the new legislation. Something like 11-12% (I forget the exact number) were against it because it didn't go far enough towards a true single payer system.
Up until recently, that's how I felt, too. Eventually, I decided that this legislation is a start in the right direction, one step at a time!
Posted by: Dude at March 26, 2010 08:46 AM (5gxhz)
8
Just sitting here smile at you Dude, as I have said before, you will get yours when you find out what this legislation does to you and you family.
Posted by: David at March 26, 2010 10:33 AM (jHK8i)
9
Yeah on mantras. Mine is, the Republic will remain and the nationalizing socialists will not.
Posted by: Ron at March 26, 2010 11:11 AM (nhhFn)
10
I was thinking of Thomas Sowell's Vision of the Anointed. I know a lot of insulated Stepford Libs, as I live in the district represented by Kathy Castor, one of the most liberal members of Congress, and they have little tolerance for or even understanding of opposing views.
Posted by: zhombre at March 27, 2010 11:16 AM (vUWth)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
And Shots Rang Out: Lies of Congressional Black Caucus Lead To Gunplay
At least, that is how the headline would read if the New York Times, Newsweek, or the rest of the media were as far right as they are left, but let's face facts: John Lewis and the other CBC members that alleged racism against tea party protesters will never be held accountable for the death threats their false charges created, such as this:
Yes, uh. Yeah, I'm glad, uh. the president passed healthcare, yeah. Funky-ass, racist-ass Republicans hate that, don't you? Jean [sic] Smith, when you got hit by that car or when you fell or whatever, you should've broke your back, b***h. You, and Boehner motherf***er, that Mitch McConnell -- all you racist f***ing Republicans. Why don't you just change y'all's party name to "racist"? 'Cause if one of those little f***ing Teabaggers would've spit on me, I would have socked them in the f***ing face with my f***ing .09 mm. F*** all you racist motherf***ers.
That particular threat was left at an office of Rep. Jean Schmidt (R-Ohio).
Someone else thought mere threats were not enough, and
actually fired into Eric Cantor's office.
Virginia Rep. Eric Cantor said Thursday that his Richmond campaign office has been shot at and that he's received "threatening e-mails" -- but at the same time the House minority whip accused top Democrats of trying to exploit the threats they've been receiving for "political gain."
Cantor said "a bullet was shot through the window" of his campaign office. The incident happened Monday, Fox News has learned, the latest in a rash of apparent threats and acts of intimidation against members of Congress.
The Democratic thuggocracy has, without a doubt, underestimated the American public's resolve to stand up to their Alinsky tactics and lies designed to fan the flames of racial discord. They've simply played this card too many times, without justification or reason, for anyone but the true believers and besotted special interests to believe any claim they make.
Perhaps when our next left wing radical
detonates a bomb or assassinates someone (
again) these leftist thugs will stop inciting violence from their followers, but based upon their long and bloody history, I'm not getting my hopes up.
Update: In what can only be described as good news,
preliminary ballistics from the Richmond PD seem to indicate that the shot that hit Cantor's office window was probably a shot that was fired into the air from a distance. This would indicate that
this incident was probably not a targeted attack.
This in no way absolves the CBC of intentionally stirring up racial hatred merely for the purposes of cheap political theater. Leftists have a well-documented propensity for violence, whether bombs or bullets, or
arson and sabotage, and intentionally inciting them should be recognized as a criminal act.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
12:56 PM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Sickening stuff.
But you'd still be cool with someone punching Cantor, correct?
Posted by: Jim at March 25, 2010 01:05 PM (3GzXA)
2
Just as I said yesterday, if you're willing to go to jail for it, don't let me stop you.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at March 25, 2010 01:12 PM (gAi9Z)
3
The issue is whether you can stop people all over the country from punching Congressmen, the question is whether you condone people punching Congressmen if they disagree with their politics.
I assume the bullet from Cantors office is undergoing ballistics. Have you heard anything about that, I couldn't find anything on Fox.
Posted by: Jim at March 25, 2010 01:22 PM (3GzXA)
4
Whoops. That first line should read:
"The issue *isn't*..."
Posted by: Jim at March 25, 2010 01:35 PM (3GzXA)
5
This THREATS nonsense is a canard by Dems to deflect their inability to address the their real faults: That is Dems can't create or sustain jobs.
Take my Rep KOSMOS who is too afraid to be yelled at to have town halls while in our district--the Space Shuttle shutdown will cause thousands directly to loose jobs and indirectly many thousands more (and send our launch services to RUSSIA).
My dad's adage: "You have to make something." should be our marching orders. We need to abate EPA and minions of Government and start pounding nails and power up Coal/Electric plants.
Our national challenge should be to identify the 200 most sold products at WALMART and persue bringing down impediments to maufacture til we make these products in the USA.
Posted by: applepicker at March 25, 2010 02:01 PM (dxbzN)
6
Hey, Festus,
The Richmond Police don't seem nearly as certain as you are that this was an attack on Cantor:
"Richmond Police Detail Shooting Of Cantor’s Office
The Richmond cops send over a statement:
The Richmond Police Department is investigating an act of vandalism at the Reagan Building, 25 E. Main St., Richmond, Virginia. A first floor window was struck by a bullet at approximately 1 a.m. on Tuesday, March 23. The building, which has several tenants including an office used by Congressman Eric Cantor, was unoccupied at the time.
A Richmond Police detective was assigned to the case. A preliminary investigation shows that a bullet was fired into the air and struck the window in a downward direction, landing on the floor about a foot from the window. The round struck with enough force to break the windowpane but did not penetrate the window blinds. There was no other damage to the room, which is used occasionally for meetings by the congressman.
The Richmond Police Department is sharing information about the incident with appropriate law enforcement agencies.
At this time there are no suspects."
Maybe you should wait a bit before blaming John Lewis's uppity orneriness.
Posted by: Aaron Baker at March 25, 2010 04:17 PM (a3Pu8)
7
But you'd still be cool with someone punching Cantor, correct?
While you're at it, would you please restyle Cantor's lopsided hair?
Posted by: Twinks Tvet at March 25, 2010 05:07 PM (eXdIs)
8
I think the details of the shot absolutely prove that a Right-winger must be responsible for it. Consider that the police concluded that the gun was fired straight up and the bullet went hundreds of feet in the air before returning to earth and breaking the window. That is a miracle shot requiring extraordinary marksmanship that could only be the product of a Conservative upbringing, someone familiar with guns from childhood. I mean, can you imagine some hippie leftist who barely knows which end of a gun you point & which you hold pulling off this million-to-one shot? Please.
Posted by: scalefree at March 25, 2010 08:55 PM (IbRA6)
9
For myself, I'd like to see the ammunition for that ".09mm". You would need very tiny fingers to load the magazine, I'd imagine. We're talking pencil lead, here.
Posted by: Just Sayin' at March 25, 2010 10:23 PM (q0QIB)
Posted by: tylor at March 26, 2010 08:55 AM (Ze1q4)
11
Awesome stuff. The claim that Cantor's office (well ok, not his office but a building where his mass mailings are handled) was targeted can be found on a link to Fox News (it was on their front page all day yesterday), but CY has to link to the Washington Post to get the story about the police saying the shot was a random fluke. Priceless.
Posted by: Jim at March 26, 2010 09:40 AM (0Kv0+)
12
".09mm"? LOL (9mm = roughly 38 cal; .09mm = roughly .0038 cal, about the size of a flea)
Yeah, I could probably live with that.
Wonder how he would like 12-gauge 00 coming back his way?
Posted by: Sigurdrifta at March 26, 2010 01:15 PM (Ktan+)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Breitbart Challenges Congressional Black Caucus Members to Offer Proof of Alleged Tea Party Racism
As video after video suggests that Democratic attempts to troll for racism among tens of thousands of Tea Party protesters was a failure that resulted in formerly respected Congressmen lying to the media, Andrew Breitbart has issued them a challenge:
It's time for the allegedly pristine character of Rep. John Lewis to put up or shut up. Therefore, I am offering $10,000 of my own money to provide hard evidence that the N- word was hurled at him not 15 times, as his colleague reported, but just once. Surely one of those two cameras wielded by members of his entourage will prove his point.
And surely if those cameras did not capture such abhorrence, then someone from the mainstream media — those who printed and broadcast his assertions without any reasonable questioning or investigation — must themselves surely have it on camera. Of course we already know they don’t. If they did, you'd have seen it by now.
THOUSANDS OF TIMES.
Rep. Lewis, if you can't do that, I'll give him a backup plan: a lie detector test. If you provide verifiable video evidence showing that a single racist epithet was hurled as you walked among the tea partiers, or you pass a simple lie detector test, I will provide a $10K check to the United Negro College Fund.
I suspect Lewis will not collect one thin dime from Breitbart, and it's a shame, really. If Lewis has no evidence, and won't take a polygraph, and won't apologize for fabricating these slurs, it strongly suggests that a man who spent the early part of his life combating racism has been corrupted in his later years into embracing it himself.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
11:17 AM
| Comments (14)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
So trees really don't fall in forests unless they are caught on tape. Good to know.
Breitbart does know a thing or two about putting up or shutting up, and about offering proof for ones assertions. However, I'm not sure his experience with either lends him credibility on those topics.
Posted by: Jim at March 25, 2010 12:48 PM (3GzXA)
2
Well Jim, as Jesse Jackson jr. was following along with a VIDEO camera recording their walk, it should be rather easy for them to varify....
Posted by: JP at March 25, 2010 01:23 PM (VxiFL)
3
One would think so, assuming the camera was on and close to Lewis the whole time. Of course to know if that were true we'd have to have film of the filming for the whole walk and we wouldn't need Jackson's tape. ha ha
Posted by: Jim at March 25, 2010 01:32 PM (3GzXA)
4
Obama has changed our government and way of life. As such, do we really owe any respect to elected officials. When do we stop being subjects and assert our rights of God given freedom. If Obama had adhered to the Constitution and not brided and threatened each and every vote, then we could possibly have a civil discourse. As it is, I consider the government fundamentally disolved. I agree with CY, when people don't listen to the majority of their constituents, then you have to get their attention, or get rid of them.
My only reservation is that no one should do a thing to Obama. If something happened to him we would be left with Biden, that is truly scary. In addition, the last thing we need is for Obama to be another hero like Lincoln.
Posted by: David at March 25, 2010 02:03 PM (jHK8i)
5
So trees really don't fall in forests unless they are caught on tape. Good to know.
Serious accusations from people who stand to benefit from those accusations deserve proof. That is, unless you are a leftist. In which case the accusation is sufficient proof. At least for the thuggish left.
The rest of us need to hear some evidence confirming this accusation. Without that...it is just more lefty Democrats dishonestly trying to demonize the opposition by crying "racists"--predictable.
Posted by: iconoclast at March 25, 2010 03:59 PM (zKViF)
6
Jim, I'm not sure what you are talking about re Breitbart. Most famously, he made his bones with the ACORN tapes which were, as the name implies.... TAPES! an anachronism there of course, they were vid files. And they were released in their entirety, were scrutinized endlessly and publicly for any faults or flaws. Why? Because as anyone who blinks knows, ACORN and the media bigs are on the same side. Okay, so obviously Breitbart is on a side but he never said otherwise. I welcome the new media sincerity where everyone has an axe to grind and everyone knows it since it minimizes the taking of anyone's word for anything. I assert confidently that John Lewis is lying. Likewise Clyburn. These are scurrilous figures and I say that as a constituent of Lewis; a man who benefits mightily from the soft bigotry of low expectations and has for his entire career. He is but a hack, a man of no principle who can be counted on to toe the party line, as on Clinton in yesteryear. But he got beat up in a march forty years ago. How nauseating.
Posted by: megapotamus at March 26, 2010 04:55 AM (LWhHe)
7
Breitbart has not released the ACORN tapes in their entirety.
Posted by: Jim at March 26, 2010 09:33 AM (0Kv0+)
8
Breitbart has not released the ACORN tapes in their entirety.
Wrong.
Posted by: Pablo at March 28, 2010 08:33 AM (yTndK)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Should House Democrats Be Censured Over False Charges of Bigotry?
Video evidence confirms that Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-MO)was not intentionally spat upon. John Lewis didn't hear anyone anyone call him a charged racial epithet. Barney Frank, who was called a name, was called that after uttering a shocking profanity at protestors first, a fact the media failed to report, and may have conspired to cover up.
In every one of these instances, Democrats conspired to lie or misrepresent Obamacare protesters, slandering the thousands of Americans in attendance and the millions that share their views. The deserve to be censured for their behavior now that the truth has been revealed.
Just don't expect it from the most corrupt congress in recent memory.
Update: Add
Russ Carnahan to the list of gutless Congressional Democrats slandering Obamacare protestors.
Update:Politico updates to paste over Carnahan's lies.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
09:53 AM
| Comments (8)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
It does not really matter any longer. These people are now our enemies, not our elected leaders. Not many soldiers are kind in what they call there enemy.
Posted by: David at March 25, 2010 10:08 AM (jHK8i)
Posted by: Picric at March 25, 2010 11:13 AM (oKOn9)
3
And where are aour gutless Republican representatives on these points. cowering in the corner, nursing a latte?
Posted by: garrett at March 25, 2010 11:50 AM (DQjJA)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
A Special Prosecutor for Barack?
Rep. Darrell Issa of the House Oversight committee is on the verge of asking for a special prosecutor to investigate the Obama Administration for a blatant attempt at bribery:
Rep. Darrell Issa, the top Republican on the House Oversight committee, told CBS News Wednesday that he will call for a special prosecutor to investigate the White House if it does not address Rep. Joe Sestak's claim that he was offered a federal job in exchange for dropping out of the Pennsylvania Senate primary.
"If the public doesn't receive a satisfactory answer, the next step would be to call for a special prosecutor, which is well within the statute," Issa (pictured) told Hotsheet.
The California Republican has been pushing for the White House to provide details of conversations between Sestak and administration officials in the wake of Sestak's comment during a radio interview last month that he was offered a high-ranking administration job in exchange for dropping his primary challenge against Sen. Arlen Specter.
Asked if that job was secretary of the Navy, Sestak declined to comment. His press secretary told CBS News that the lawmaker stands by his original statement that he was offered the job in exchange for an administration post.
Only complete criminal ineptitude by President Obama's inner circle would end up indicting him directly in the alleged scheme, but then, we are dealing with a
very arrogant and corrupt Administration, led by a neophyte and staffed by bullies and thugs. If there is significant evidence of an attempted quid pro quo agreement in order to rig the Pennsylvania Senate primary, President Obama would almost certainly face impeachment. If Democrats lose a significant number of seats in November and the evidence is strong enough, Obama and members of his Administration could be out of office—and on the way to a federal prison—by 2011 or 2012.
All of this hinges, of course, on whether or not there is evidence of a specific crime. Considering the great lengths the White House has gone to to repeatedly duck the issue, evidence beyond the public statements of the man they tried to bribe would seem to exist.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
09:29 AM
| Comments (8)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
Posted by: Odins Acolyte at March 25, 2010 09:57 AM (brIiu)
2
Somebody is dreaming if you think Obama will be impeached.It would take 2/3 of the Senate to remove him from office. Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton were both impeached by the House of Representatives but not removed by the Senate because there was not enough votes to reach the needed 2/3.
Posted by: harp1034 at March 25, 2010 12:41 PM (agl/3)
3
Ah yes. Let's be right wing racists and demand that a competent and impartial investigation into a potential felony be conducted. Should evidence of wrongdoing be uncovered, let's be spitting, epithet-hurling teapartiers and demand that prosecution result, to be followed by a fair trial. Is there no end to which we crazed right wingers will not go?
Posted by: mikemcdaniel at March 25, 2010 09:58 PM (qjRSd)
Posted by: Massimo Oddo at March 29, 2010 02:38 AM (xxDbx)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
...And We're Back
During a series of late night/early morning votes designed to keep the public's eye of the behavior of Democrats, the Senate parliamentarian discovering a pair of rule violations that will send Obamacare back to the House for another contentious round of voting:
As an exhausted Senate labored past 2 a.m. on a stack of GOP amendments, Jim Manley, spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, told reporters that Republicans consulting with the chamber's parliamentarian had found "two minor provisions" that violate Congress' budget rules.
[snip]
Democratic aides said the problematic provisions deal with protecting students from future cuts in their grants if Congress does not provide enough money for them. They violate budget rules because they do not produce savings, one aide said.
Procedurally, this is merely a bump in the road for Democrats, but it is going to be explosive politically. After days of harsh words and threats from irate constituents, the House is going to have to vote on Obamacare again, under far more pressure.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
06:10 AM
| Comments (7)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
your forgetting they make the rules up as they go along, this will disapear....
Posted by: rumcrook¾ at March 25, 2010 10:48 AM (60WiD)
2
Not this time, friend. Not in an age where there's a real alternative media.
Posted by: MarkJ at March 25, 2010 12:34 PM (ZFVlP)
3
This time we get to insert the Public Option and vote it through with 50 senators instead of 60. Yes we can, even if we ultimately don't, and you better know it.
The GOP screwed the pooch again.
Posted by: CJ at March 25, 2010 07:24 PM (jsQWZ)
4
Not in an age where there's a real alternative media.
Posted by: tylor at March 26, 2010 08:56 AM (Ze1q4)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
March 24, 2010
Rules of Engagement
If you are an American and value your individual liberties and the responsibilities that go with them, this week has been a very troubling one. Using bribes, coercion, bullying and lies, a disgraceful Democratic Congress and President have passed a law that usurps power over one-sixth of the economy, and now eagerly plots their next power grab.
Predictably, many in this nation of 300 million have taken this transformative undermining of the Republic quite seriously, and harbor righteous anger towards the corrupt and powerful who made this unconstitutional law.
Several Congressional offices have been vandalized. These were acts to be condemned, though understood.
But a line was crossed in Virginia last night, and such behavior
cannot be tolerated:
Law enforcement authorities are investigating the discovery of a cut propane gas line at the Virginia home of Rep. Tom Perriello's (D-Va.) brother, whose address was targeted by tea party activists angry at the congressman's vote for the health care bill.
An aide to the congressman confirmed to POLITICO that a line to a propane tank behind his brother's home near Charlottesville had been sliced.
[snip]
"While officials are not willing to characterize the exact nature of the incident because of the ongoing investigation, it did not involve an immediate threat to occupants of the residence. However officials are taking the incident very seriously and conducting a vigorous investigation," the statement said.
The cutting of the line—a thin, flexible tube that delivers propane from the bulk tank—was not an immediate threat as the Fire Marshal investigating the incident makes clear, but it was a threat, and a threat against innocents that had nothing to do with making or passing the law.
No matter what you think of Obamacare and the craven ideologues that passed it, is totally unacceptable to threaten their relatives or friends and put them in danger.
Go to your Congressman's office and scream at him in the most colorful language possible. Hang him in effigy at protests. If you're willing to do the time for the crime, have a swing at him.
Better yet, throw a shoe... after all, the left
values such behavior as a form of "vigorous dissent," and will no doubt ask for any charges against you to be dropped.
Perhaps one day stronger action will be required if Progressives continue to trample on our liberties in their blind quest for power. But that time is not now.
At this time, I suspect Shikha Dalmia's call for
massive civil disobedience is the correct path. Show your anger. Make sure those who have trampled your liberties are stuck down by ballots. With your help, the Democratic Party's assault on the Republic can be undone.
The right way.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
03:37 PM
| Comments (47)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
I have a feeling that this is going to be just as accurate as all those nooses hanging from liberal professors doors. Or the "N" word shouted out in a crowd of TeaPartiers. Did anybody ever ask why those congress critters found it necessary to walk through the crowd to get to the meeting? Unless and until a tea party activist is arrested, I am not going to believe the hype. It has happened too many times. Conveniently the cut was fairly far from the house, so there was fairly small danger to anybody. It sure does sound like an inside job to me.
Posted by: TimothyJ at March 24, 2010 03:52 PM (IKKIf)
2
Well put. We're not going to defeat Socialism by using the well-rehearsed tactics used by Socialists in all it's guises.
Let's beat 'em at the ballot box by using CLEAN tactics. Civil disobedience, taking over the political parties at the local level and working on up...Once we have Liberty-minded folks running the government (which can be done in 4-8 years easily), then we can get about restoring the Constitution.
Going after relatives? Friends? That's something Socialists, whether in brown shirts with those little red, white, and black arm-bands or red T-Shirts with 'Che' or Lenin on 'em do.
Orion
Posted by: Orion at March 24, 2010 03:52 PM (UnCdA)
3
I think the Iraq War was an act of mass murder.
Despite this, I don't advocate violence against Congressmen who voted for it even if the violence is discriminate and carefully targeted.
Posted by: AJB at March 24, 2010 03:52 PM (cnGKW)
4
I think the Iraq War was an act of mass murder.
Yes, but you're an idiot.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at March 24, 2010 03:54 PM (gAi9Z)
5
Great one mantis.
It's astounding that the main stream media associates right wingers with violence. I mean don't they realize many of them have clear rules of engagement for when it's OK to punch your Congressmen?
Thanks CY for making this brave and non-violent call for civil disobedience (and swings) -- for now.
Posted by: Jim at March 24, 2010 04:26 PM (3GzXA)
6
This will not stand. Right, Newt?
Posted by: Jason at March 24, 2010 04:44 PM (4lRZm)
7
Posted by Ryan at March 24, 2010 04:40 PM
A predictable post from the type of folks who admire Chinese totalitarianism and wish we could get more of it here. True reactionaries who would enjoy putting several million Americans into camps for reeducation or termination.
Posted by: iconoclast at March 24, 2010 04:45 PM (zKViF)
8
Still don't get it, do you? 'Have a swing' at a Congressman? That's an incitement to physical violence. But it's okay for you to sit back and incite some poor soul willing to 'do the time' for the cause, is it?
'Colourful' language? Ya mean like, dozens of Congressmen (and women, and their families) receiving death threats, and calls to assassinate Obama up 400%? Sticking things up someone's rear end and putting them in front of firing squads and hitting them with baseball bats and throwing bricks through windows? That kind of 'colourful' language?
Glad to see there's been some pull-back on the frenzied insanity, but that line is still really fuzzy to far too many, ain't it? I might not necessarily want to live in a 'nanny' state, either - but right now this one is being overrun by a rabid pack of out-of-control brats with no sense of morality or conscience.
When you come out with a call for your supporters to attend public debates, protest peacefully, hold up signs that are less about race, and hatred, and fear-mongering, when you can talk about specifics in issues rather than denigration of personalities, argue your passions with logic rather than hatred, then maybe the line will be a littler clearer, to us all.
But here, all I see is more of the same, but with an admonition to get a better bead on the target, that's all.
Posted by: nonny mouse at March 24, 2010 05:06 PM (CZsi2)
9
Leave the bribes, coercion, bullying and lies to the experts in DC
Posted by: Neo at March 24, 2010 05:19 PM (tE8FB)
10
Too many Reichstag fires originating out of the left lately. This is their MO, not ours.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at March 24, 2010 06:31 PM (j7e94)
11
Bet the "cut propane line" turns out to be an attempted theft of fuel on the first warm weekend of the season.
"Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity." - Robert A. Heinlein
Posted by: Stretch at March 24, 2010 06:38 PM (Y2kIE)
12
I have no opinion on the threats/attacks/slurs, if real, aimed at Congresscritters. Frankly, I don't care.
I also don't think that Republicans will achieve the majorities they hope. I think the Democrats have banked that the bulk of the American people will grow to like this latest iteration of "something for nothing" (see also social security, medicare, medicaid, SCHIP, food stamps, etc.), and that the outrage will disappear come November. I believe the Democrats have bet correctly. Secondly, even if Republicans achieve their majorities, they do not have the spine to repeal it. They will nibble at the edges of this monstrosity, and leave the core of it untouched. The Democrats will label any attempt to repeal this bill as "mean", "racist", "killing children and the poor", and Republicans will do what they always do when tarred that way: tuck tail and retreat.
Yet, there is a truism embedded in all of this that few can see. Congress feels perfectly fine with screwing you over because THEY DON'T FEAR YOU. They spit in your face, and you do nothing but make pathetic promises of electoral re-shuffling. They destroy your livelihood, steal your bread, corrupt your children, and you appeal for redress to the same people who created these conditions in the first place. Oh, but for ancient wisdom: It was a tradition of the Athenian assembly that if one proposed a law and that law was not passed, the one who proposed it was put to death. The possibility of violence tends to sharpen one's focus quite well.
Congress does not FEAR you. The federal bureaucracy does not FEAR you. And neither do the judiciary, for that matter. Quite the opposite: it is the people who are fraught with fear.
To clarify, I urge nothing nor advocate anything. It is far too late to talk of the Constitution; that ship set sail long, long ago. Even violence cannot achieve the restoration of something outside the experience of anyone currently living.
The American Republic died generations ago. What we live under is merely an echo of its former self. I give credit to Obama for dispelling once and for all that this is anything but a society of drones ruled by philosopher-kings and their attendant Guardians.
Posted by: Mike at March 24, 2010 06:46 PM (v0tY4)
13
Really, Stretch? Clutching at straws much?
And, CY, it's as they say. "He who troubleth his own house shall inherit the wind." Ya think you can stir them up and then disengage when they commit a crime? Again ... really???
Posted by: BBH at March 24, 2010 06:50 PM (uv8Ax)
14
CY, I'm not at all comfortable at your equivocation ("condemned, though understood") or which actions you keep inside the realm of acceptable when you draw the line (hitting Congressmen is OK? Really?). But I'll give you credit that you are drawing that line, that you're agreeing there are boundaries in this political game, that there are tactics being practiced by some on your side that are unacceptable & deserve condemnation. We can work on the details of the boundaries another time. For now, I think I've gotten enough of what I came here for. Thanks.
Posted by: scalefree at March 24, 2010 07:07 PM (IbRA6)
15
scale, let me make something crystal clear to you.
I do not care what you find comfortable, not do I care what you feel is acceptable. The same goes for the rest of your craven liberal brethren.
For eight long years I watched and listened to your kind bray and buck, make threats, fund terrorists, harass our soldiers, and publish the addresses and make threats against Republican politicians in their homes. The only difference is that no one took your threats seriously, even after your side murdered people. We simply have more credibility, even when our rhetoric is softer.
The simple fact of the matter is that your side is far more vile in your commentary and far more violent in your actions, and your whining here is nothing more than the cries of a petty bully bested.
"He hit me back, first," is the cry of the American liberal, and frankly, the majority of Americans don't care what you think anymore.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at March 24, 2010 07:44 PM (qhZ5Z)
16
I don't know about what is happenning in your areas, but in mine people are beginning to awaken. I am not talking about the conservatives, but many of the people who just love Obama suddenly found out that they are going to be paying a bunch of money. They are not happy about this. Somehow they thought that they would not get taxed. Now they understand that the government is in their pocketbooks.
The RNC needs to begin hitting this topic. Many of the people involved in housekeeping, yard care and other activities are now facing the fact that the small amount of money they are getting is now going to Obama. They are not happy.
Posted by: David at March 24, 2010 07:55 PM (jHK8i)
17
CY,
Thanks for the firm stand. I wish that more had the balls to throw off the polite mantel and begin to speak like we mean it. Many of my patients who are in the 70's and 80's and starting to talk like this as well and would just as soon end their lives marching on Washington in a less than peaceful manner.
Posted by: David at March 24, 2010 08:01 PM (jHK8i)
18
Oooooooh Yankee. Not only was that clear, it was CRYSTAL CLEAR.
All is settled.
http://miltownkid.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/internettoughguy.jpg
Posted by: CJ at March 24, 2010 08:15 PM (jsQWZ)
19
CY - when you referred to the other side murdering people, what were you referring to? When did the libs off someone?
Posted by: pd at March 24, 2010 08:17 PM (jsPTR)
20
Do you want to back up any of that, CY? Particularly the funding terrorists, harassing soldiers, and murdering people?
Posted by: Ryan at March 24, 2010 08:21 PM (RjmsR)
21
Craven is someone cheering for others to take a swing at Congressmen. Bravery would require action.
BTW CY, before throwing words around like "majority" you should really check out the latest polls.
Posted by: Jim at March 24, 2010 08:23 PM (0Kv0+)
22
I do not care what you find comfortable, not do I care what you feel is acceptable. The same goes for the rest of your craven liberal brethren.
CY, I'm not seeking your approval or acceptance either. I'm still glad to see you capable of drawing a line & saying there are tactics those on your side are using that you find unacceptable. Again, thanks for that.
Posted by: scalefree at March 24, 2010 08:33 PM (IbRA6)
23
This one smells, and it's not the smell of propane. But first, the obligatory disclaimer: all such actual acts of violence or attempted violence are wrong, without qualification or excuse.
Obviously, I write without firsthand knowledge, but if this was an actual attempt to do harm, ie: to cause an explosion, those responsible were incompetent. An outdoor propane tank would simply vent into the atmosphere, particularly if there was any breeze at all and the probability of ignition would be vanishingly small. No, you really don't know what you think you know about this; what you've seen in the movies is special effects, like every car that has an accident in a chase bursting into flames and exploding. But even an incompetent should understand that merely releasing propane would not result in anything more than an increased propane bill (which could be nothing more than juvenile vandalism). Absent any ignition source, timing mechanism--and there seems to be no such thing here--it is unlikely that this is a bombing/arson attempt.
On the other hand, if you're a leftist, unfamiliar with firearms, to say nothing of field expedient explosives, cutting a propane line and crying "bomb" would make all manner of sense. Do I know that's what happened here? Of course not, but which, given what we know at the moment, is more likely?
Posted by: mikemcdaniel at March 24, 2010 09:14 PM (qjRSd)
24
pd, Ryan, I'm sad that you don't know--or are trying to forget--your own history.
Funding terrorists The example that immediately leaps to mind for most people is Code Pink sending $600,000 of money and supplies to the al Qaeda terrorists holed-up in Fallujah as the Marines prepared for the second and final battle of that city. some of your kind referred to the terrorists as "freedom fighters." That doesn't begin to account for the various leftists that have palled around with Muslim front groups that have had people go to jail for funding terrorism. That could take days to cite. If you want go further back I can easily cite the various robberies and murders carried out by American leftists through the 70-and 80s to support their nutty little terrorist groups. Just tell me where to stop.
Harrassing soldiers Your wonderful analogues in Berkley are of course famous for obstructing recruiting at an armed forces recruiting station there, having made the news countless times for their various stunts. One of your punk allies bombed a Times Squire Recruiting Station. And the constant drone of leftist pansies calling our soldiers and Marines war criminals, terrorists, baby-killers, etc. You Presidents co-baord member and fundeaiser Bill Ayers targeted cops and soliders, even trying to blow up an Army Dance at Fort Dix. Need I go on?
Murdering people While countless liberals have published fantasies, made movies, and even products hoping for the deaths of Republicans, none of that ever got the media's attention. Neither did Andrew Mickel, an IndyMedia journalist who assassinated a police officer in hopes of triggering a war against capitalism. If he wasn't on death row, I'm sure Obama would have him in an Cabinet position by now. Carlos Hartmann left Michigan for the Netherlands in hopes of killing Dutch soldiers because they were part of hated Bush's "war for oil." Unable to find a NATO ally to kill, he murdered a student with an axe instead.
Again, I could go on, and the further back I go, the deep the blood gets, all pointing back to a diseased common leftist ideology that had put a hundred million souls on ice in the past one hundred years.
We can continue, if you have the stomach to face your past, present and future.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at March 24, 2010 09:32 PM (qhZ5Z)
25
It wasn't a "leftist" that targeted the Perriello home, it was a known Tea Party activist & blogger, Mike Troxel. It wasn't a "leftist" who, when he found out he'd targeted the man's brother's family instead of the Representative himself, said "oh well, collateral damage". We may never know who actually slashed the gas line, but we sure as hell know who put this family in the line of danger, who intended them harm. It wasn't any hypothetical "leftist", it was Mike Troxel of the Lynchburg Tea Party.
Posted by: scalefree at March 24, 2010 09:35 PM (IbRA6)
26
Correction: it wasn't Mike Troxel who said "oh well, collateral damage", it was his fellow Tea Partier Nigel Coleman who said that. Troxel said some equally stupid things but his blog is down at the moment so I can't give you exact quotes.
Posted by: scalefree at March 24, 2010 09:42 PM (IbRA6)
27
Correlation=/=causation. Criminals of all sorts have any number of political views, religious confessions, etc. You wouldn't find it fair for me to say that the preponderance of Christians in the US prison system means that Christianity predisposes people to crimes, and likewise the fact that a very few individuals committed crimes (or donated money to innocent civilians whose only "crime" was living in the city they did) is no indictment of leftism, liberals, or the Democratic Party.
Posted by: Ryan at March 24, 2010 10:16 PM (RjmsR)
28
How about we identify an actual culprit before we start smearing the blame around?
Rather wide brush everyone is using.
Posted by: ThomasD at March 25, 2010 05:27 AM (21H5U)
29
Whew! Check the polls---the Left's answer to everything they don't like! Never mind the fact that the state-controlled MSM creates these push-polls to justify the outrages of the LEFT!
This just in from the MSM: Sam Adams, John Hancock, Patrick Henry and Geo Washington check their polling and find only one third of the colonists support the Revolution, one third remain "Loyalist", while the remainder doesn't give a damn! Can't you Patriots just get along with every one? Imposing these massive commerce-destroying taxes is for your own good. We, here in London obviously know what's best for you! Mmmm, Mmmm, Mmmm! HRH George III
Posted by: Earl T at March 25, 2010 08:59 AM (oQgFZ)
30
It will not be too long before some misstep shall cause a landslide of emotion and outright armed conflict will erupt. Right or wrong, people will then have to make a decision and take a stand. Only 30% of folks cared who ruled during the American Revolution (it was all the same to them and a person was too busy trying to live). Only 3% actually participated. I think we have that pissed off 3% already. Are you ready to RUMBLE?
Posted by: Odins Acolyte at March 25, 2010 10:02 AM (brIiu)
31
Hey CY: Don't forget Obies good friend, mentor, and book writer, Billie Ayers.
Posted by: TimothyJ at March 25, 2010 10:30 AM (IKKIf)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
EXCLUSIVE: Media Falls For Pallywood Production...Again
European media has been falling all over itself this week to report that Israeli soldiers slaughtered a pair of innocent Palestinian boys near the sight of a protest. A human rights group is parading around an X-ray that they say is proof that Israeli forces used live ammunition instead of rubber-coated less lethal ammunition.
It is too bad for them that all the X-ray does is provide
considerable evidence of deliberate fraud.
An interesting aspect of the story is the commentary of a radiologist who looked at the image, and provided his feedback after this story was written.
He noted:
Is the bullet actually inside the skull? If somebody wanted to, he/or she could take an xray with the bullet overlying the person's head and make a similar appearance. On the limited image I don't see any shards of bone/fractures to indicate entrance into the skull. I would need some kind of cross sectional image to confirm that the bullet is ACTUALLY inside the skull.
A different angle (frontal xray or crossectional imaging i.e. CT/MRI) would definitely be able show fractures or fragments of bone, but unfortunately i'm only provided with a low quality image of a one-view skull xray.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
11:39 AM
| Comments (9)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
I have rarely seen a bullet stay in the brain cavity. Especially with a rifle. Noted the concern for the low velocities, but a close range, the skull should have burst like a melon.
Posted by: David at March 24, 2010 12:48 PM (dccG2)
2
It is from Palestinians. Ergo, it is a fraud. Why anyone would believe those dishonest and cowardly killers about anything at all is a complete mystery.
Believing that there is such a thing as an honest Palestinian is a little like believing there is such a thing as a moderate Democrat. The tooth fairy has a greater likelihood of existing.
Posted by: iconoclast at March 24, 2010 02:27 PM (zKViF)
3
It is from Jews. Ergo, it is a fraud. Why anyone would believe those dishonest and cowardly killers about anything at all is a complete mystery.Congratulations, you're a Nazi.
Posted by: AJB at March 24, 2010 03:44 PM (cnGKW)
4
Congratulations, you're a Nazi. Posted by AJB at March 24, 2010 03:44 PM
Thus proving that there is no rational refutation of my assertion. A long history of fraudulent claims, doctored films, and staged photos by a culture who fervently desire genocide...and you call me a nazi. Typically pathetic.
Posted by: iconoclast at March 24, 2010 09:14 PM (yTmCE)
5
Reminds me of the time that Flat Fatima was holding a couple of unfired cartridges that she claimed were bullets fired at her house.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007/08/when_dullards_run_enemy_propag.html
Posted by: Tim at March 25, 2010 12:10 PM (xq7pr)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
DemCong: Obamacare a Law Written "...to Control The People"
Via Ed Morrissey at Hot Air, we find John Dingell of Michigan having a Freudian slip and admitting that the purpose of Obamacare is to control the American people:
Let me remind you this has been going on for years. We are bringing it to a halt. The harsh fact of the matter is when you're going to pass legislation that will cover 300 American people in different ways it takes a long time to do the necessary administrative steps that have to be taken to put the legislation together to control the people.
And therein lies the defining philosophical difference between statists and free men.
Democrats—I no longer see the utility of separating them rhetorically from the radical progressives that drive them—are convinced of their own intellectual and moral superiority. They are certain that society at large is too ignorant to survive and thrive on it's own, and must be overseen and controlled... "for their own good." Their default worldview is that people are children barely more competent than dumb animals, and they need to be controlled. They, of course, set themselves above the crowd, and imagine themselves benevolent protectors.
Conservatives and Libertarians—I care little for the lesser statist views of many modern Republicans—have a set of beliefs that is diametrically opposed to that of Democrats. We acknowledge that man will make mistakes and sometimes work against his own best interests, but we believe that the freedom to make decisions—including mistakes—is essential to the future of humanity. Without freedom, without liberty, imagination and innovation die. We believe that the pioneering, exploring spirit of man is to be celebrated and rewarded, that failures are to be seen as learning experiences and not traumas to be avoided.
Statism crushes the souls of men, emasculating them. It reduces and enslaves them, and punishes those who dare to dream and aspire to be more than average.
Liberalism requires mediocrity. It rewards complacency. In a world exploding with life, possibilities, and color, it desires to be beige.
We deserve better. And we shall never submit to being controlled.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
09:35 AM
| Comments (16)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
yes all you child citizens need controlling.
so says the benevolent left statist socialists.
shut up and drink the kool aid all ready! and quite fighting it.
Posted by: rumcrook¾ at March 24, 2010 11:47 AM (60WiD)
2
Wow. Sometimes the truth just will not be hidden! Great work to all you morons who discovered and shared this freudian slip (HA!).
Posted by: TimothyJ at March 24, 2010 12:03 PM (IKKIf)
3
Umm- you're giant conspiracy about the true reason we passed health care is based on a slip of the tongue? Boy I'm sure Obama will have him killed now that he can't be trusted and let the cat out of the bag.
Posted by: Growuprepubs at March 24, 2010 12:12 PM (0/zd5)
4
lol, oh man, good job 'growuprepubs', your grasp of non sequitur is clearly better than your reading comprehension!
Posted by: ECM at March 24, 2010 12:49 PM (nYKDd)
5
We need to quit talking about eveything and get some action going. I am for a national slow down. At the least, get everyone to start driving the interstate a 35 per hour. This seems to deliver the message in Europe. Of course, a strike in which people stop traffic into Washingto would be better. The time for rheortic is past, need action.
Posted by: David at March 24, 2010 12:52 PM (dccG2)
6
By the time elections roll around in November, a majority of Americans will support this new legislation. Republicans will have shot themselves in the foot for having been, once again, the party of NO.
I'll be watching the news for the "slow downs".
Posted by: Dude at March 24, 2010 01:31 PM (5gxhz)
7
Dude,
I just sit a smile at you because I know what is coming your way and you don't. I have been in public medicine and know th horrors. I think that when you discover them it will be very funny in a tragic sort of way.
Posted by: David at March 24, 2010 02:25 PM (dccG2)
8
Some politicians seeem to believe that with elective office come divine wisdom. John Conyers invented a new clause to the Constitution and procliamed himself an expert on the Constitution because he was Chairman of the House Judiciary Commetee. Earht to Conyers, you gotthe position due the Senority System and not a higher that room temperature IQ.
Posted by: DavidL at March 24, 2010 08:26 PM (uMia6)
9
Congressional livers and onions. Its what's for supper!
Posted by: Odins Acolyte at March 25, 2010 10:05 AM (brIiu)
10
Unfortuantely for the left I am one of those who fall through the cracks in this law and happily so. No one will be foisting any thing upon my pocket book I do not want to pay for.
Posted by: Ron at March 25, 2010 10:41 AM (ZPZEO)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
March 23, 2010
Obamacare-Related Jobs Massacre to Begin
The media is doing it's damnedest to ignore the damage that Obamacare will have on small businesses, ignoring anecdotal stories of small businesses that will be forced to lay off workers.
It will be a bit hard to hide when they come
2,500 at a time.
SLM Corp. may cut 2,500 jobs as a result of education loan provisions contained in health-care legislation passed yesterday by the U.S. House of Representatives.
"We are profoundly disappointed that thousands of student loan originators will soon lose their jobs -- although the Senate has the power to change this," the McLean, Virginia- based lender known as Sallie Mae said today in an e-mailed statement.
Manufacturing groups are also
lamenting the damage that the short-sighted political power grab will do to their businesses, making it difficult for them to keep from cutting health benefits.
"This legislation is fundamentally flawed...an could cost as much as $2 trillion over 10 years once it takes full effect," said NAM. The group said manufacturing has lost 2.2 million jobs since December 2007.
"America's manufacturers will continue to advocate for real health care reform that lowers costs, improves care and does not impede our ability to create jobs, grow our economy and remain competitive in a global market," stated the group.
The Medical Device Manufacturers Association has also issued concerns about the healthcare bill, citing how the $20 billion device tax provision will impact patient care, innovation and small businesses.
"If eliminating the tax is not possible, structuring it to provide relief for smaller companies is critical. Under the current structure, many companies will owe more in taxes than they generate in profits, requiring companies to layoff employees, cut R&D budgets and slow the development of new therapies that will improve the quality of care for all Americans. Moving forward, these issues must be addressed before the tax takes effect in 2013," the group stated in a statement.
In addition, Obamacare was created with the intention of undermining and destroying the private health care insurance market, which will begin affecting them immediately, and which will force thousands of people
out of work.
On the bright side, Obamacare will create thousands of new jobs for IRS workers and in the mortuary industry.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
02:57 PM
| Comments (35)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
What does Sallie Mae do? They take government money and loan it to students, while taking a cut for themselves. Is that value added? No, not one bit.
Instead this bill will take Sallie Mae out of the loop, the government will lend directly to students. And you know what CY, that same government will -- hire people to do that lending.
Now please tell me why the old system was better than the new one, otherwise you're just shouting to hear yourself shout.
Posted by: Jim at March 23, 2010 03:42 PM (3GzXA)
2
Jim,
You didn't just acknowledge Sallie Mae and Fredie Mac? Do you realize these are the two institutions that just brought down the economy of the world?
Two things are needed by the liberal commenters on this site, or any other for that matter. You need to read much more, the other is you need a heavy dose of logic. Both are sadly lacking.
Posted by: David at March 23, 2010 04:43 PM (ZgM5r)
3
Hi David,
First of all it's Fannie Mae and Fredie Mac you're trying to credit with bringing down the world's economy, not Sallie -- which is at best a gross oversimplification but that's another discussion altogether. At least get your players correct before you start lecturing someone on their knowledge and logic.
Secondly, CY is the one defending Sallie Mae.
Now, you were saying?
Posted by: Jim at March 23, 2010 04:48 PM (3GzXA)
4
I believe the government pays the interest on the subsidized loans, it doesn't do the loan itself. I can't imagine the government doing a better job deciding who to make loans to (i.e. people who will likely pay them back) than private industry. Jim, I like your assertion that increasing the number of government jobs has an economic benefit.
Posted by: MANstreammedia at March 23, 2010 04:53 PM (5q/vg)
5
MAN,
Where does the money for the Sallie salaries come from?
Posted by: Jim at March 23, 2010 04:57 PM (3GzXA)
6
will force thousands of people out of work!
And will save the saving of millions of people!
And those people thrown out of work? Well they won't have to worry about not having medical coverage while they look for a new job, neat huh?
Oh and Americans are not going to stop buying health insurance and health isn't the only thing that Americans get insured so there will be other sales and management jobs out there.
But yes, you're right, it's all part of Obama's scheme to hire more IRS agents because they're like his secret police.
Posted by: salvage at March 23, 2010 04:59 PM (dtgFH)
7
Prithee, how does a bill which will result in millions more of income to private insurance companies go about destroying their market? Are you afraid that if insurance companies actually serve the purposes they were meant to they'll collapse? That if they give out the payouts to customers who dutifully paid their premiums and who now suffer from this or that expensive illness, they'll crumble like a house of cards? Maybe it's not such a bad thing for government to take over, then; after all, people pay insurers to get them out of a bind when they're sick, not to get some fat cat his next new Mercedes.
Posted by: Ryan at March 23, 2010 05:46 PM (RjmsR)
8
The layoffs will be blamed on something else and the solution to that 'something else' will be more gov't control.
The MSM will, of course, assist in this.
Posted by: ArmedGeek at March 23, 2010 06:15 PM (Yf8V2)
9
Just one time I wish a liberal would think things through to a logical conclusion.
For the sake of discussion, suppose you are a healthy 30 year old male earning 35K a year, given the fact that the fine for not purchasing health insurance is 2.5% of earnings($875)are you going to be willing to spend 5K a year on health insurance knowing that part of the premium you pay goes towards womens reproductive health, abortion funding and the poor lifestyle choices of a 50 year old, 3 pack a day smoker? Insurance companies can no longer deny coverage for pre-existing conditions so, doesn't it make economic sense to simply pay the fine and wait until you have a pre-existing condition to get health insurance? After all, you cannot be denied coverage. Healthy people will simply pay the fine and the insurance companies will be saddled with the unhealthy. In 5 years time the insurance industry will be bankrupt and the Government will have their precious single payer system. This health care bill was designed to do just that.
Posted by: Bob at March 23, 2010 07:59 PM (hJyf6)
10
It's like you don't understand how health insurance works. Everyone pays into the pot, with the understanding that in 20 years some youthful whippersnappers will be helping to pay for whatever medications are necessary in your own old age. I really, really don't think healthy people will just "pay the fine." I certainly won't. It's not that a single-payer system would be a bad thing, though, the NHS works just fine.
Posted by: Ryan at March 23, 2010 09:15 PM (RjmsR)
11
Bob said:"In 5 years time the insurance industry will be bankrupt and the Government will have their precious single payer system. This health care bill was designed to do just that."
I hope it works out according to your scenario, Bob! That's a nice thought, to be sure.
Don't expect me to have any pity on the so called Medical Device Industry. Those crooks have been gouging the public for way too long. If you have any personal experience with their products and services you'll clearly understand my point.
If we're gonna discuss R&D budgets, let's not forget to mention the tax payer funded research done in public universities, upon which the private firms so heavily depend for "their" new inventions and discoveries, all of which, of course, are patented by the private firms.
Posted by: Dude at March 23, 2010 09:28 PM (5gxhz)
12
wow what insight DUDe! and when the "crooks" of the medical device world stop developing new devices and we live in a world lacking innovation becuase innovation is punished, you should pat yourself on the back for helping to punish the "crooks"
of course the next level of saving lives maybe of someone you love will remain a distant dream
the technology that may have saved millions of lives will be squashed like a bug.
bravo DUDe.
Posted by: rumcrook™ at March 23, 2010 11:02 PM (60WiD)
13
socialist systems that promise everyone everything have to be paid from somewhere.
innovation and the money for it dries up, the money has to go to immediate needs. innovation and research withers.
Posted by: rumcrook™ at March 23, 2010 11:06 PM (60WiD)
14
Jim,
A better solution is get the government OUT Of the student loan business instead of taking it over.
The government has overstepped its bounds in taking over industry after industry.
Posted by: Sharp Right Turn at March 23, 2010 11:36 PM (dP1uw)
15
"Dude" alluded to medical device companies gouging the public. Many liberals talk about insurance companies gouging the public.
But they are all just fine with the government gouging its citizens.
This new law for healthcare adds almost 20 new taxes, countless beaurocracies, unsustainable demands on insurance companies, increased premiums, unconstitutional mandate w/ threat of fines, and increased deficits (as per recent CBO numbers that include admin, Medicare cuts, and Doc Fix numbers conveniently left out by Dems). But a small example of the gouging and damage created by this law.
sarc on/ But, yea, those insurance companies and medical device companies need to be destroyed. /sarc off
Posted by: Sharp Right Turn at March 23, 2010 11:43 PM (dP1uw)
16
Sharp,
They're government loans to begin with. All the cash comes from the government, and the government covers all the risk by paying for any loans that default. All the private industry does is process the forms, profit from the interest -- and pay it's CEOs millions per year.
Eisenhower started the program after Sputnik and it was entirely government run. It's not a case of the government taking something over, it's a case of the government taking control back of how the money is being spent. Money for student loans shouldn't end up in some CEOs pocket.
Posted by: Jim at March 23, 2010 11:53 PM (0Kv0+)
17
My bad!I should have known better than to say liberal and logical in the same sentence.
Posted by: Bob at March 24, 2010 07:32 AM (hJyf6)
18
They're government loans to begin with. All the cash comes from the government
Spoken like a socialist. Of course, in reality all the cash comes from the taxpayers.
the government covers all the risk by paying for any loans that default.
The government is very generous with other peoples money.
Posted by: flenser at March 24, 2010 07:58 AM (608vj)
19
Instead this bill will take Sallie Mae out of the loop, the government will lend directly to students. And you know what CY, that same government will -- hire people to do that lending.
But for some reason, we're supposed to be better off if the people doing the lending are government workers? Because nothing says "efficiency" amd "cutting costs" and "quality service" like the words "government worker"?
The big gain for the Fascist Party is that this way, the new government workers will also be contributors to the Party. As with health-care, the consumers of the service in question are an afterthought at best.
The Democats motto - "Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State”.
Posted by: flenser at March 24, 2010 08:24 AM (608vj)
20
flenser,
Besides being against taxes what is your specific point on this specific issue?
That it's ok if the program wastes money on seven figure CEO salaries -- not to mention dodgy loan practices -- as long as it's a private company spending the people's money?
Sallie Mae is a middle man that wastes money and engages in suspect business practices, all with the peoples money. Why defend that, how does that benefit the people?
Posted by: Jim at March 24, 2010 08:52 AM (0Kv0+)
21
I for one welcome the thought of a Soviet style lethargic and opaque bureaucracy handing out student loans. Just getting through the loan process itself will weed out the weak who shouldn't have been going to college in the first place.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at March 24, 2010 09:02 AM (53zf+)
22
You nailed it Purple, Eisenhower was all about creating Soviet style bureaucracies. That's why he started the program in response to Sputnik. Not to help us catch up in math and science, but to join them in a workers paradise.
Posted by: Jim at March 24, 2010 09:10 AM (0Kv0+)
23
With Obamacare being forced down our throats, now is not the time to shrivel away. Now is the time to stand up and fight back harder then ever before. Will you join us on a campaign to DESTROY THE MOUTHPIECE OF OBAMA'S SOCIALIST AGENDA, THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA? WE ARE IN A FIGHT FOR THE FUTURE OF OUR COUNTRY, A FIGHT FOR OUR CHILDREN'S FUTURE. Join the fight here, http://sosssn.blogspot.com/
Posted by: sosssn at March 24, 2010 09:10 AM (dzL2N)
24
I can explain medical device cost. First, there is the development (and failure, which you don't hear of). Then there is the constant and unrelenting trials. Follow this with the 30% or more for pending legal suits. Now you have a product. You anticipate that the government is going of interfere at some point. Do you price your product to market? No, you price it at the highest cost it will bear anticipating that the government will come in and assign a price at a later date based on your pricing and sales. That is what occurs when the govenment interferes.
Posted by: David at March 24, 2010 09:23 AM (dccG2)
25
Sallie Mae is a middle man that wastes money and engages in suspect business practices, all with the peoples money. Why defend that, how does that benefit the people?
If you're really so concerned about "the peoples money" then you should join us is wanting the government to stop taking it from them.
Assuming the government IS going to take it from them, it is cheaper and more effective for the government to contract out services to private industry than to have the same task carried out by government employees.
That is my "specific point" on this issue.
Posted by: flenser at March 24, 2010 10:05 PM (608vj)
26
I'm sorry flenser, I didn't realize you'd run the numbers and seen that the current Sallie Mae model is more efficient than the future (and past) government model. I'd think the $30 mil SM was paying their CEO alone would cover a good deal of the government programs costs.
I'll stop wanting the government to stop taking the peoples money when the people stop needing roads, water, police, fire, the army, the fda, osha...
Posted by: Jim at March 25, 2010 12:03 AM (0Kv0+)
27
I'd think the $30 mil SM was paying their CEO alone would cover a good deal of the government programs costs.
Yes, that 30 mil would be much better off going into the Fascist Party's coffers.
roads, water, police, fire, the army, the fda, osha...
Trolls are hardwired to change the subject.
Posted by: flenser at March 25, 2010 05:14 PM (wARhE)
28
Party coffers? Yeah, spending student loan money on...student loans is a fascist plot.
As for me changing the subject, you're the one who started whining about the government taking our money, I just pointed out what they do with it -- which is pay for stuff you want and need. Sorry if that struck a nerve.
Posted by: Jim at March 26, 2010 12:45 AM (0Kv0+)
29
" I just pointed out what they do with it -- which is pay for stuff you want and need. Sorry if that struck a nerve."
Wow. Lying about a red herring that's still openly posted for everyone to see. Oh well, figures - their trashy little Kenyan idol has trained his followers well. Several commentators have noted this is a common "rhetorical tic" of the Messiah - caricature an opponent's position, fail to address the question asked, and retreat into generalities that don't quite add up to a solution.
Posted by: Nine-of-Diamonds at March 27, 2010 12:33 PM (Eg9Id)
30
I just pointed out what they do with it -- which is pay for stuff you want and need.
If people really "want and need" health insurance, its odd that the Fascists need to pass a law compelling us to buy it whether we like it or not.
Posted by: flenser at March 27, 2010 03:08 PM (T52Ho)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Ted Kennedy's Death Had Global Economic Impact
What a tragedy.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
02:33 PM
| Comments (9)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Now Bob, don't forget us contractors and military... the decline started in 2001, and what with deployments and the institution General Order Number One, we've been hardcore-dry ever since!!! I hope to do my part on my next R&R and try and boost those numbers for the sake of my families homeland!!!
Posted by: Big Country at March 23, 2010 03:34 PM (tf/FU)
2
I disagreed with Kennedy on just about everything, but I did respect him. He had his beliefs and he stuck with them, and he tried his best to accomplish them, regardless of opposition.
My view of him may be colored by living in Massachusetts, but there is no call for ethnic jokes at the expense of a recently dead man.
Posted by: MaModerate at March 23, 2010 08:46 PM (knhh6)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
For The Dumb and Uneducated, Obamacare "To Be Like Christmas"
I pity DeCarlo Flythe, a local man without insurance, or much in the way of smarts:
"It's just going to be like Christmas," said DeCarlo Flythe, who lost health coverage for his family when he was laid off almost three years ago. "It's going to be great. You know, no worries (about) the bills. We are going to go ahead and pay our co-pay and be alright."
For dim souls like Flythe, Obamacare certainly seems to be an answer to their worries. In the short term, IRS agents will confiscate monies from those of us who pay taxes to pay for his inability to take care of his own family. Obamacare will pay for his diabetic medicines, and his eventual blindness. After all, with me and you picking up the tab, there is little incentive for Flythe to change his behavior to help regulate his diabetes.
What Flythe and his slow-witted allies in the dependency lobby don't grasp is that the quality of service consistently goes down in nations where socialized medicine has been tried, even as costs go up. Rationed care is an inevitability. Flythe will eventually die of his diabetes, once his poor lifestyle choices and the illusion of Obamacare's protections conspire to render him as one of those simply not worth treating as a cost-benefit matter.
Then again, Flythe might not die of diabetes and neglect.
He very well may die of one of any number of other health problems as Obamacare drives medical device manufacturers, pharmaceutical companies, and doctors out of business.
Jobs are being lost already. Promising lines of research will stagnate and new cures to diseases affecting millions will never be developed.
I've read the plodding thoughts of liberal blog commenters in recent days that Obamacare will provide care to those with pre-existing and congenital conditions. What they know better than the promise is that Obamacare will lead to the development of new treatments, new cures or make fatal illnesses and conditions curable.
The simple fact of the matter is that Obamacare promises a near stasis in medical care. Research and development will necessarily slow as the very companies that create new techniques and tools for the betterment of man face crippling taxation to pay what should be the obligations of un-men like DeCarlo Flythe and other dependent wards of the welfare state.
Cancer treatments will come years later, or not at all, terminating the lives of millions before their time. Cures for cystic fibrosis, AIDS, autism and spinal cord injuries will simply not have the funding to continue in the private sector. Chronic, but non-life threatening conditions will continue to debilitate millions.
I'm not promising that our existing medical research would find cures for each and every malady if left alone, but there simply are no credible claims that Obamacare or any other iteration of socialized medicine leads to future medical innovation, and plenty of data to suggest it cripples progress.
Obamacare, as others have noted both in the House chamber and on the street, is not about patients. It's about politics.
We can only wonder how many will die unnecessary deaths before figuring that out.
Update: Even Lefty Jane Hamsher of firedoglake
admits that people such as Flythe are idiots for thinking they'll get something for nothing (or next to nothing), and that a lot of people are going to get screwed by Obamacare (and not in the way
Obama screwed Vera Baker).
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
09:59 AM
| Comments (11)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
>after all, with me and you picking up the tab, there is little incentive for Flythe to change his behavior to help regulate his diabetes.
Yes! Seeing certainly isn't motive enough.
>He very well may die of one of any number of other health problems as Obamacare drives medical device manufacturers, pharmaceutical companies, and doctors out of business.
Yes! In every Western country that has universal health care there is no medical R&D or innovation. In fact there hasn't been dozens upon dozens of medical breakthroughs and developments in Europe over the last five decades.
America is doomed because Americans will no longer have to destroy their life savings to pay for medical disasters. This is worse than 9-11 x 10 billion to the power of infinity!
And you CY are going to have to pay for it all, every dollar you make you will owe two that will go to some lazy diabetic who is too stupid to work his pancreas. He will sit there throwing insulin out his window because hey, he's not paying for it and it looks cool when it smashes on the ground.
Sucker!
Posted by: salvage at March 23, 2010 10:53 AM (dtgFH)
2
I agree with salvage. Anybody still paying taxes is a sucker.
Anybody paying off their credit cards, their mortgage, or generally living within their means is a hick and a rube.
Posted by: Adriane at March 23, 2010 11:02 AM (0U2C0)
3
I read in the news this morning about a recently diagnosed, new, mental disorder called ODS: Obama Derangement Syndrome. It seems that it mostly affects Republicans and others on the far right. A recent Harris Poll offers up some interesting statistics to confirm some of the symptoms of the mental disorder.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-03-22/scary-new-gop-poll/?om_rid=CjSeck&om_mid=_BLqLIwB8GkeDBR&
Posted by: Dude at March 23, 2010 11:13 AM (5gxhz)
4
tip: the daily beast isnt the "news". ODS would only effect those who think we govern under the constitution. The fact you think this is only Republicans and the far right says much about you. Salvage, I noticed you didnt actually point out all that innovation you claim for Europe. Why is that? The obvious fact that the gentleman has NOT modified his behavior indicates that blindness is NOT a motivational factor. And finally the vast majority of Americans "ruined" by some medical disaster because they had no insurgence, could have been prevented by a high deductible catastrophic insurance plan. For less than the monthly price of cable, or cigarettes or beer, the vast majority could have insurance. It certainly doesnt pay for everything, but if something really bad happens to you, you will have to shell out about as much as you would for a new car (and they let you do it over time) but it will not bankrupt you. But as stated, you might have to decide over that and cable, or cigarettes, booze etc. I have no doubt there is a very small minority of people this doesnt cover, but I think they could be helped without screwing over everyone.
Posted by: buzz at March 23, 2010 11:28 AM (GmELZ)
5
Salvage, I noticed you didnt actually point out all that innovation you claim for Europe. Why is that?
Because there is no innovation, Europeans medical science leads in no area, they've had no breakthroughs, not a one, that's why every medical professional flees Europe and moves to America where they can get paid for their work, in Europe doctors live on the street begging for spare change.
And yes, insurance companies are great, the way they do everything they can to avoid paying out so they keep everyone's premiums as low as possible. Can you imagine how much medical insurance would be if people used it when they needed it? For profit baby not people! Stupid government plan isn't for profit so how can it be any good? It's going to be run like the army or the police and look at how crappy that all is!
When will people learn? The American government hasn't done anything right since the 1700s.
Posted by: salvage at March 23, 2010 11:55 AM (dtgFH)
6
I'm not promising that our existing medical research would find cures for each and every malady if left alone, but there simply are no credible claims that Obamacare or any other iteration of socialized medicine leads to future medical innovation, and plenty of data to suggest it cripples progress.
Excellent point!
Posted by: L.N. Smithee at March 23, 2010 12:23 PM (xKQ04)
7
"Flythe was among the patients Monday at the Walltown Clinic, a joint program of Duke University and Lincoln Community Health Center that serves the low-income neighborhoods near Duke's campus. The clinic serves 3,000 to 4,000 patients a year – 80 percent don't have health insurance – and charges co-pays based on what patients can afford."
So he DOES get health care that he can afford.
Posted by: Divine Miss T at March 23, 2010 12:42 PM (Lznlr)
8
Percentage of GDP spent on healthcare goes way down if you spend next to nothing on R&D leeching off the US for new drugs and procedures (which is why so many foreign leaders come to the US for medical care), pretty much ban lawsuits against government run plans (no need for alot of malpractice insurance, report deaths as natural causes when the truth is otherwise. A positive outcome in Europe is one where you DIE and stop consuming rationed healthcare. You dont see millions of Americans fleeing to Europe to take advantage of their socalled wonderful healthcare. It would be cheaper just to buy plane tickets to Europe for those who like socialized medicine.
Eventually it catches up with you. Greece is a prime example - they have 1/5 the doctors they need and you basically have to pay bribes to avoid long waiting lines. Oh, and Greece is on the verge of financial collapse. Good luck to Greeks seeking free healhcare when the government collapses. Several other European countries are just slightly behind Greece and will run into huge problems as their populations age.
From a Socialist website, yet!
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2010/feb2010/gre3-f25.shtml
"The catastrophic situation in the health service has lead to widespread corruption. The combination of low wages and thousands of permanent posts for doctors and maintenance personnel remaining unfilled in state hospitals means that bribes are a part of everyday life. Anyone seeking basic care or an earlier date for their operation slips the doctor a “Fakelaki”—a small envelope containing cash.
Younger physicians, who speak out against such immoral practice or reject such payments are likely to be pressurized by their colleagues for threatening what is widely seen as a vital wage supplement. “The birth of a child in a public hospital, for example, must be lubricated with the sum of €1,000”, reported Ellen Katja Jaeckel, the head of the Athens office of the Goethe Institute, in an interview over the protests in Greece 2008."
Posted by: Winston Smith at March 23, 2010 12:50 PM (kXW6Q)
9
the only financial change to the american health care economy in this bill is to funnel $100 billion or so a year into the existing private insurance companies
the money for this is to come from a %1 increase in the marginal rates for families with incomes over $250k/yr, and on "cadillac" health care plans like those supplied to CEOs and auto workers with union contracts
somebody explain to me please how adding $100+ billion a year to the bottom line of private insurance companies is going to restrict any aspect of health care in this country
Posted by: tacitus voltaire at March 23, 2010 01:13 PM (aor+S)
10
Salvage,
As I read the med. lit everyday, why don't you point out meaningful European reseach? I know of some areas, but it is tied into American companies. Socialized medicine is not known for innovation. A good for instance is the development of angioplasty and intervention in myocardial infarction. The man who wanted to develop angioplasty moved here from Europe in the 80's. When we were advocating aggressive intervention in MI's, England was giving the people an aspirin and a shot of lidocaine and sending them home.
I really can't wait to see what happens to people like you when the consequences of this bill kick in. Talk about Obama syndrome.
Posted by: David at March 23, 2010 01:19 PM (dccG2)
11
Oh, the man with diabetes. He will go blind no matter what the state of his insurance as tight control of diabetes is not associated with meaningful prevention. He could loose weight and stop smoking, but that is usually too much. And, he does have medical coverage at this moment, the same as all Americans as everyone is covered with medical services in the US. The bill does little to chage that concept, only to socialize you.
Posted by: David at March 23, 2010 01:23 PM (dccG2)
12
DeCarlo Flythe is on Facebook, and he's very sensitive about the fact that there's no such thing as Santa Claus. He's got a lot of time on his hands, though.
Posted by: FatBaldnSassy at March 23, 2010 01:23 PM (Lq9ag)
13
CY - where in the story you link does it say that Flythe has 'poor lifestyle choices'?
And have you looked at the most recent Fortune 500 list of the biggest pharma and biotech companies in terms of revenues? A bunch of them are in countries with 'socialized medicine' - UK, Switzerland, Germany, Japan, Israel, Denmark, France, etc.
Your line about socialized medicine crippling progress and stifling innovation is not borne out by the facts.
Posted by: Snopes at March 23, 2010 01:43 PM (MMRpw)
14
Snoopes,
They are selling here. The structure of socialized medicine does not allow for innovation as would help to create new drugs. Our government is already lining up to get this concept going. Doctors will be given a list of meds for each disease state, you choose from the list.
Posted by: David at March 23, 2010 01:53 PM (dccG2)
15
-- "the quality of service consistently goes down in nations where socialized medicine has been tried, even as costs go up. Rationed care is an inevitability." Um, I wish that were true. If by "socialized medicine" we mean the other OECD countries, their quality, costs and availability are almost universally better than ours. Most are improving in those categories. We're not. This bill may not fix that, but we've got to do something.
-- But I do endorse your implication that people should be encouraged to adopt healthier lifestyles. I know some conservatives call this "socialism," but we have to act. Alas, most obese people are in the red states. Sad but true. So making them healthier is in the GOP's interest.
Posted by: dave morris at March 23, 2010 03:12 PM (ZhMfu)
16
Greece is a prime example!
Yes! Greece's economy was destroyed because people paid for health care through their taxes! There is absolutely no other possible reason.
But weird that it hasn't happened in every other country in the world that has the same system.
Of course those places also have no doctors, no hospitals, no medical universities or industries, they just steal stuff from America and says they did it.
It's going to be funny when the new system kicks in and the only change people notice is they don't have to pay 1000s to the insurance companies and y'all will still howling about how bad it is.
Be a bit like Saddam's WMD, even when you're shown to be wrong you'll never admit it.
Posted by: salvage at March 23, 2010 05:08 PM (dtgFH)
17
Ha ha, you're right, because not losing your sight isn't an incentive or anything, and poor people now are all about getting preventative care, but now that they qualify for a subsidy, they'll totally just wait until they have painful and debilitating medical conditions and then go to the doctor ON OUR DIME. I know this one guy who is on food stamps and he says he's already started shaving too close. His plan is to get some ingrown hairs and let them develop infections, and then wait until they become really serious and expensive to treat, and then he's going to finally go to the doctor.
Posted by: Kell DeMadze at March 23, 2010 05:41 PM (MVY4f)
18
Salvage,
Stop trying to be ironic, you're terrible at it. Read BlameBush. It's an effective parody of people just like you.
Posted by: MAModerate at March 23, 2010 08:54 PM (knhh6)
19
the only financial change to the american health care economy in this bill is to funnel $100 billion or so a year into the existing private insurance companies
They are not "private insurance companies" any more, they are arms of the state. Private companies don't get to "funnel $100 billion" to themselves at gunpoint. In return for that $100 billion the formerly private insurance companies throw a few hundred mill to the corporate whores in the Democrat party.
So the formerly private insurance companies make out like bandits, as does the Fascist Party. Health-care consumers? Who cares about them?
Posted by: flenser at March 24, 2010 08:07 AM (608vj)
20
It's going to be funny when the new system kicks in and the only change people notice is they don't have to pay 1000s to the insurance companies
Since the new bill REQUIRES people who currently pay zero dollars to the insurance companies to start paying thousands of dollars to the insurance companies, that's going to be pretty fricking "funny" all right.
Do any of you Demodopes have the slightest idea what you've just signed up for?
Posted by: flenser at March 24, 2010 08:12 AM (608vj)
Posted by: alex at March 24, 2010 10:59 AM (QiJSR)
22
>Since the new bill REQUIRES people who currently pay zero dollars to the insurance companies to start paying thousands of dollars to the insurance companies,
Yes! And if they don't they'll be thrown into the Obama reeducation camps!
You are very smart for noticing this thing that no one else notices.
Posted by: salvage at March 24, 2010 12:13 PM (NpikQ)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
On Tyranny, And The Illusions Of Hope
No man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the House. But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope that it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen, if, entertaining as I do opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely and without reserve.
This is no time for ceremony. The question before the House is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty towards the majesty of heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.
Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren, till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation?
For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth -- to know the worst and to provide for it. I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided; and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years, to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the House?
Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received? Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with these warlike preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation -- the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motives for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies?
No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us; they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging. And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer on the subject? Nothing.
We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves longer.
Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament.
Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne. In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope.
If we wish to be free -- if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending -- if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained, we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of Hosts is all that is left us!
They tell us, sir, that we are weak -- unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance, by lying supinely on our backs, and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot?
Sir, we are not weak, if we make a proper use of the means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. Three millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us.
The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable -- and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come!
It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, "Peace! Peace!" -- but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!
Patrick Henry - March 23, 1775. 235 years ago, today.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
08:15 AM
| Comments (27)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
That Patrick Henry person sounds like some right-wing extremist. I hope the Southern Poverty Law Center condemns him so good people won't listen to him.
Posted by: Old Rebel at March 23, 2010 09:02 AM (eTIZJ)
2
There is no way to get proper revenge for this.
Executive office betrayed us. Congress betrayed us. Justice betrays us by inaction. They sit and do nothing. I am sickened. There is no punishment.
There are no consequences. The liars rule the day. Wealthy men and women of low intelligence run our country. Corruption and power lust seem to eclipse all else from Washington to its sister city, Hollywood. The characters in both cities too much the same. This country deserves what it gets, I guess. I had thought better of it.
Posted by: Odins Acolyte at March 23, 2010 09:37 AM (brIiu)
3
Patrick Henry said it all. He even new the outcome. There is no getting even. There is only a resolve to understand and accept what will need to be done, why, and what our out will be on the other side of the event horizon.
Posted by: s4f at March 23, 2010 11:14 AM (u0FmQ)
4
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquilty of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.
Samuel Adams
Posted by: had enough at March 23, 2010 11:27 AM (8kQ8M)
5
You know who else sounds like a right wing extremist? Mike Vanderboegh & his Sipsey Street Irregulars.
Whose side are you on in the Window War?
http://sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com
Posted by: scalefree at March 23, 2010 04:25 PM (IbRA6)
6
I'll invite you to look at that first 2 lines and note the comity, the civility and the decorum that Ptrick Henry displayed towards those with whom he did not agree.
Perhaps if the right were to try to adopt those tactics, instead of smear and burn at every corner, you would have gotten more of what you wanted in the bill.... (err...sorry) law.
Patrick Henry realized (as did David Frum on Sunday) that one must have a dialogue in order to reach accord. If you all cannot do that, then you're guilty of trying to do what you've cursed my side for supposedly doing.
I am not going to argue HR 3590 with you - we have little common ground and besides, it is now the law of the land. I am asking you to consider the lack of civility that has been present in the arguments leading up to it's passage. Perhaps, again, more dialogue and less ad hominem attacks would have yielded a bill more to your liking. Remember this as we pursue financial and immigration reform.
I'll also remind you that Patrick would laugh at you for invoking his name while living under the Constitution, a document that he hated, feared and worked against. unless of course, you're advocating for the overthrow of the government.
Posted by: CJ at March 23, 2010 06:02 PM (jsQWZ)
7
CJ's post above hits the nail on the head! Well said, Hear! Hear!
Posted by: Dude at March 23, 2010 09:38 PM (5gxhz)
8
CJ, please spare us the calls for civility and dialogue as if the left possessed moral superiority in that regard. I didn't -- and still don't -- see very much retraint by the left in terms of ad hominem attacks on G.W. Bush and Republicans in general.
It is completely disingenuous on the one hand to give the louder voices on the left a pass as they castigate the right on a personal level when it suits them, and then on the other hand call for civility in dialogue when the right fires back with a tad too much fervor for your liking. Lions and tigers and ... conservatives, oh my!
It's much akin to witnessing the playground bully get comfortable beating on all the other kids, but when one kid steps up and punches him square in the nose, then the bully starts to demand, "Can we talk? Can't we all just get along?"
Uh-huh. Right.
Posted by: AtticusNC at March 24, 2010 06:08 AM (lX7JB)
9
Atticus, the difference between the right & the left is we stop short of throwing actual bricks through your windows.
Posted by: scalefree at March 24, 2010 06:55 AM (IbRA6)
10
Actually, scalefree, the left enjoys throwing bricks through their own windows and then the blames the right for it.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at March 24, 2010 08:12 AM (gAi9Z)
11
You've got one kid, that everybody at the time totally disavowed. So far there's at least 5 separate, coordinated attacks in 4 days with no admission on the Right that it even happened let alone a single statement condemning it. One of these things is not like the others.
Posted by: scalefree at March 24, 2010 01:13 PM (IbRA6)
12
Right Scalefree, calling for armed revolt and the slaughter of Congress is exactly the same as setting up camp down the road from Bush's place in Crawford.
This equivocating is embarassing. I feel sorry for you that you're so apparently bereft of logic that you cannot see the difference between dissent and calls for violence, and that, further, you seem to be able to justify those calls for criminal acts with "we're being enslaved" - as you drive off to your job in your car and drink your after-dinner drink and watch your big screen TV. Yes! SLAVERY!
You're an embarassment to the Fathers.
Posted by: CJ at March 24, 2010 01:22 PM (fJTqC)
13
Severed gas line found at home of Perriello brother
Wanna take bets on whch side ends up being responsible for this one? You've cultivated a culture that condones political violence. It's time you were held accountable for it.
Posted by: scalefree at March 24, 2010 01:51 PM (IbRA6)
14
"You've cultivated a culture that condones political violence. It's time you were held accountable for it."
This coming from someone who voted for a guy who started his political career in the home of two domestic terrorists.
Posted by: anon at March 24, 2010 01:57 PM (gAi9Z)
15
You've got allies who right now are committing political violence in support of your cause. Plotting to blow up members of Congress (and their families), explicitly threatening the lives of their children, vandalizing their offices - and that's just what they've already tried.
How is it remotely possible that everybody on the Right isn't jumping out of their skins in their haste to distance themselves from these inexcusable tactics? What kind of people are you?
Posted by: scalefree at March 24, 2010 02:20 PM (IbRA6)
16
As noted before, it is just as likely that angry progressives threw bricks threw those windows (and considering their track record and angry at this legislation, that is probably more likely), so my advice to my "allies" (whoever you think they are) is denounce this violence right after Nancy Pelosi does.
Some on the right have condoned these isolated incidents, but the fact of the matter is that we have limited time and have far bigger fish to fry, you know, like a radical government usurping control over 1/6th of the economy, against the will of the people.
As for the gas line incident, that is worth of commentary, and I started writing an entry on that as soon as I heard the news.
Will be up later this afternoon.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at March 24, 2010 02:43 PM (gAi9Z)
17
We know (loosely) the people behind the so-called Window War; they're proud of it, they've taken credit for it. These are not tricksy Liberals smashing their own windows & trying to blame it on someone else. These are hadrcore Right-wing Second Amendment activists. On April 19 they'll be attending an Open Carry March at Ft. Hood, VA.
These are your allies.
Posted by: scalefree at March 24, 2010 03:07 PM (IbRA6)
18
Get a clue. The guy who called for windows to be smashed did so the morning after the crimes had been committed. Check the posting time on the blog entry you cited.
As for their involvement in the open-carry movement open carry, that is a complete non sequitur, and utterly irrelevant to to the discussion at hand.
And for the record, they are having their completely-legal open carry meeting at a place called Fort Hunt in Virgina, not a military base of any sort, and certainly not Fort Hood.
Idiot.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at March 24, 2010 03:36 PM (gAi9Z)
19
Wrong again, Smedley. Mike Vanderboegh actually wrote his call to political violence as a piece of fiction in Feb. 2009, more than a year ago.
The point of the Open Carry rally isn't intended as a charge against them, just to establish the group's Right wing credentials. Given your defensiveness on the subject, I'll take that as an admission of alliance with these people who advocate & commit political violence.
I will concede I got the name wrong of the Fort where the rally will happen, so you can tell your buds at the corner bar you got something right today.
Posted by: scalefree at March 24, 2010 04:34 PM (IbRA6)
20
Before you cackle about how I'm wrong & therefore everything I say is wrong times infinity, Vanderboegh actually says he originally wrote his Window War manifesto in 1999 or 2000. He first posted it to his blog in Feb 2009. I'm sure this disproves everything I've ever said or will say, somehow or other.
Posted by: scalefree at March 24, 2010 04:57 PM (IbRA6)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
<< Page 61 >>
Processing 0.05, elapsed 0.156 seconds.
37 queries taking 0.1131 seconds, 298 records returned.
Page size 251 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.