Couldn't have said it better meself. If the Obamessiah gets a second term, it will be strictly due to election fraud, and I agree w/ the good Doctor- talking about it will likely get you in some deep dodoo.
1. That his popularity will continue to trend down. I've despised the man since early 2008, but I was in the minority. Now I think I'm in a much larger group, but still a minority. That's an important difference between the BDS Left and me: I am aware that the depth of my dislike does not mean that the majority shares my opinion. The Left is the lady in Manhattan who could not believe Nixon won because no one she knew voted for him. They hated W from early 2000 on. Finally when the majority also turned on him in 2006 they cried out that they were vindicated. That's crap though, because if you predict something long enough, it will eventually come true.
2. The GOP runs a bad candidate in 2012. I'm not going to get into names, but there are several candidates who are the front runners, one of whom I'd want as President, and only a couple I'd vote for over Obama. So that's an issue. For "evenly split country picks one of two bad candidates in slight margin" we can look at the last three Presidential elections. Especially if a GOP House takeover leads to an economic bounce from businessman confident that no further wealth destroying bills will pass, thus leading to a Clinton 96 style election.
If though, the economy is still bad in 2012, and his approval is 45% or below, and the GOP runs a decent candidate I would say voter fraud is the only way he could win. That's some pretty big ifs, but that's how I see it.
Any nation which teaches that any segment based on skin pigment "doesn't count" is headed for trouble. It would be true if being black meant that your opinion doesn't count - and though the state run media teaches it, it's equally true when they call anyone who is white and conservative a racist or a bigot. As is natural, that same statist media will loose credibility to the point where their opinions don't matter to many Americans, irrespective of skin pigment or national origin. The chickens haven't come home to roost, but they will.
it's sad, really, that racist hate speech like this is still allowed on the same internet that *children* use and might come across. they're gonna have to do something about that....soon, i suspect, the wrath of the Dear Leader will smite the evildoers with a fierce and brutal and righteous rage!
I actually think that Reagan was a good president. Not in my Top Five but definitely in the Top Ten. In fact, thanks to juris, I'm going to be writing about him this week and how, over the years, I have come to realize just how good of a job he did while in office.
Interesting how the Cult (much in the same way they misinterpret and revise Jesus Christ) do the same with President Reagan. There would be no doubt that if he was a candidate today he would be accused of being a socialist/commie/traitor/statist etc etc...
Ah yes, the old "Liberals have strange new respect for dead conservatives" line of utter bullshit.
Like Goldwater, who the Dems called a Nazi and a racist in 1964, but in 2004 they loved him because he would have not been a Bush supporter. Even though he would, like me and most everyone here been attacking Bush from the right.
Reagan's failure to make headway on a rollback of the welfare state was due to the simple fact that his party a)never controlled Congress and b) wasn't really his party. The liberal's favorite kind of Republican, the nibble around the edge, moderates controlled the GOP.
Liberals love conservatives when they are powerless to stop liberal "progress", liberals love conservatives when they die, liberals love conservatives when they play the gallant loser, and they love them when they give them political cover for expansions in the size of the State. Liberals love John McCain because he fits three of the four. Goldwater does too, although he never came them political cover and McCain lives for that.
Well, Britt, I guess you'll just have to read my column and then decide for yourself. But I will tell you that I judge presidents by the results of their words and actions. And Ronald Reagan took responsibility for both unlike the current form of the GOP.
You clearly know little or nothing about Ronald Reagan. Shit, I've read maybe 5 books total about Reagan and I bet I'm ten times as informed as you are. Not that a lack of knowledge about the subject as ever stopped you from opining about it.
When do you start judging ol' Barry on his words and actions. He was gonna close Gitmo in the first year of his term. So is he a liar? Or just incompetent. He's broken promise after promise. He's one of the most fundamentally dishonest politicians I'd ever seen. Most politicians specialize in lies of omission, holding back important information or ignoring huge difficulties. For example, they attribute savings to the doc fix, not telling you the doc fix has a snowballs chance in Hell of ever passing. Obama lies to your face, saying he's not going to raise taxes on people making less then 250,000. He's broken this promise repeatedly.
Mark is one of the fringe on the left thinking his his a logical centrist.
He doesn't just think it, it's an absolute certainty. How can it be otherwise? After all, this is the guy who understands the Constitution better than James Madison.
GOF, re-read what I wrote. It's pretty plain that I said that all of us, including myself, are not Constitutional scholars. As I suspected, severe umbridge was taken by the self proclaimed experts that comment on this blog. How dare I suggest that all of you don't know EXACTLY what the founding fathers wanted for this country. Even worse, critically think (as Jefferson did) about James Madison?
It's pretty plain that I said that all of us, including myself, are not Constitutional scholars."
No, that is not what you wrote. About others, you wrote, verbatim (emphasis added):
"It's my understanding that many of you are engineers and not Constitutional scholars."
Thus, many of us could be scholars, yet this would not conflict with your statement.
About yourself, you wrote, verbatim (emphasis added):
"Although I have spent a fair part of my life studying the Constitution, I am decidely not a scholar of it."
Thus, you can't learn it worth shit, despite trying, can you, liar boy?
You ended with, verbatim (emphasis added):
"In sum, I'll be happy to engage in any sort of discussion regarding the Constitution as long as we recognize that this is a document that has been heavily debated by scholars for years. We aren't those scholars and if this discussion is going to devolve into confirmation bias via the Constitution, then I'll have no part of it."
Meaning we aren't "those scholars" who have been heavily debating the Constitution for years. Goddamn, teacher boy, do you not understand your own words?
Now, do you remember my response? Here it is again, verbatim (quote within "-----"):
-----
Your argument can be summarized as:
"I will not discuss (debate?) this subject with anyone who cannot show himself to be a scholar thereof, but I will discuss (debate?) this subject with anyone who will agree that he is not capable of doing so except at whatever level of expertise (ignorance?) I care to show personally."
You can say what you want about it. This is what it amounts to.
The sports metaphor which describes it is:
"I want desperately to be in the big leagues but I do not have sufficient ability, so I will play only with those players who agree that they are not capable of playing except, not simply T-ball, but T-ball at whatever level I care to play it personally."
Golly. What a whiny, wimpy-assed, pathetic little pissant you show yourself to be.
You have demonstrated a Standard Response #11, the "You're Not Smart Enough For Me To Converse With" response. Is this the first appearance of a Standard Response #12, the "You're not Dumb Enough for Me To Converse With" response? Are you going to whine this response some more?
-----
Yup, it appears you are. This is the second appearance. You're showing a pattern, teacher boy.
"critically think (as Jefferson did) about James Madison?"
Two things:
1) You didn't say anything about what Jefferson thought of Madison. You only mentioned that Jefferson disagreed with a Bill of Rights (which happens to agree with Federalist 84, which also agrees with us), and that he had views on the Federalist Papers, without saying what kind of views those were.
2) Even then, you didn't quote Jefferson or link to anything he said on the subject. (You know, that "evidence" thing you can't seem to understand!)
BTW, guys. Marxy's Constitution post needs a much more thorough fisking than it has received yet. (It's a manure gold mine!) I've been too busy to do it, what with deadlines breathing down my neck.
Here are some other writings from the Facebook page of Harold Estes:
Obama and pelosi are being like the serpent in the garden on eden!!!! Barrack huissein obama, nancy peloci, harry reid, and any other liberal demecrats.... For just turning our country into a third world country.... At least we got one good thing out of it they will spend the rest of there lifes on the street.... SO CONSERVATIVE VICTORY 2010 and 2012!!!!! Good job Glenn Beck! :) PLEASE INVITE ALL YOUR FELLOW PEOPLE WHO ARE AGAINST NOT HAVING FREEDOM AND BIG GOVERMENT!!! Crap they passedthe health care now they're going to inject and kill me because im elderly! It's pretty clear to me that he is not capable of critical thought when it comes to President Obama. He's always going to think that President Obama is the enemy and even words like this
But as a head of state sworn to protect and defend my nation, I cannot be guided by their examples alone. I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people. For make no mistake: Evil does exist in the world. A non-violent movement could not have halted Hitler's armies. Negotiations cannot convince al Qaeda's leaders to lay down their arms. To say that force may sometimes be necessary is not a call to cynicism -- it is a recognition of history; the imperfections of man and the limits of reason.
The United States of America has helped underwrite global security for more than six decades with the blood of our citizens and the strength of our arms. The service and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform has promoted peace and prosperity from Germany to Korea, and enabled democracy to take hold in places like the Balkans. We have borne this burden not because we seek to impose our will. We have done so out of enlightened self-interest -- because we seek a better future for our children and grandchildren, and we believe that their lives will be better if others' children and grandchildren can live in freedom and prosperity.
won't matter. And he has lived by those words through his actions, directives and increased efforts in Afghanistan. Clearly Mr Estes will never see this because of his blinding rage. Will any of you?
GOF, re-read what I wrote. It's pretty plain that I said that all of us, including myself, are not Constitutional scholars.
Quite true. Nonetheless, that was in the same thread where you claimed the general welfare clause gave Congress the authority for an individual madate, was it not? And it was also the same thread with this quote in it, twice:
"If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress.... Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America."
— James Madison
So.... it seems to me that there are only two choices here. Either a) you are saying that Madison's quote above is bullshit, that it's simply not true, or b) that Madison isn't saying what he plainly appears to be saying in the above quote.
In short, either you know more about the Constitution that Madison, or no one here except you is capable of comprehending the English language, or English wasn't the language Madison was actually writing in when he wrote that, it only appears to be English.
c) You could be claiming that Madison is in fact correct, but that limited government (and the Constitution that defined it) are obsolete and have outlived their usefulness, and unlimited, totalitarian government is the best way forward.
Actually, I would choose none of the above and, instead, a combination of all three. We don't live in a black and white world, dude.
Working backwards, I don't accept your either/or choice. Limited government has not outlived its usefullness because that's what we have now. In your mind (and I'm certain others here), we don't have that now and, in fact, have the totalitarian government described in the second part of your options above. The way I see it we have something that is in between your choice. President Obama is a man who strives to maintain that balance given how much our society has evolved since the Constitution was written.
Madison was writing from the context of a man who was being oppressed by an aristocratic class led by a monarch. To translate his experience to what you and others here are now experiencing is ludicrious. Barack Obama is not King George. If anything, President Obama is using a government by the people to prevent an aristocratic class (banks, Wall Street, private corporations) from having a similar sort of power. The Citigroup document that I have mentioned previously on here is evidence that, sadly, we may already be there.
No doubt, Madison does appear to be saying what he was saying nor is what he is saying bullshit. It just depends on how you define general welfare and limited government. Madison was also not the sole voice in creating the Constitution. He was part of a chorus that created a document that, by its very nature, invited debate with the hopes of coming to a reasonable compromise and/or conclusion. A clause like "general welfare" was purposefully left to be vague in the document itself so future generations could decide what it meant.
I won't admit to knowing more about the Constitution than Madison does. Given his historical context, he defined what he thought was the best way to govern. I do, however, know more about the year 2010 than Madison does and can see that many of his basic ideas are still useful. Each state, for example, has their own education standards and given the variety of demographics in each region of our country, there are many advantages to this approach. Many would argue that it was NCLB that made things worse and if the states had been left to their own devices, things would've been better.
As I have mentioned before, health care was not one sixth of the economy and the for profit business as it is today. In my opinion, the federal government does have the right to regulate it not only because it's commerce but when the private concerns of these industries whir completely out of control as they have so clearly done. There is no way that Madison could have ever seen this happening so to use his writings as a framework/solution for our challenges today is in no way a solution.
" In my opinion, the federal government does have the right to regulate it not only because it's commerce ..."
But you can't quite admit that selling health insurance is intrastate commerce, while the Constitution empowers the feddle gubmint to regulate only interstate commerce. Just can't do it, can you, teacher boy?
"In your mind (and I'm certain others here), we don't have that now and, in fact, have the totalitarian government described in the second part of your options above."
Despite us telling you the opposite, right? You're a mind reader, are you?
You still don't understand why you are universally loathed here, do you, little boy?
So, whether Marxy recognizes the historical precedents or not, he explicitly and openly advocates for combining two bad theories:
1) "The living Constitution": various theories positing that the document was written vaguely enough that it could be interpreted to mean whatever the current generation wanted it to mean,
("A clause like "general welfare" was purposefully left to be vague in the document itself so future generations could decide what it meant. " --Markadelphia)
for the purpose of enabling the second bad theory:
2) Classic "Third Way" politics, the wellspring of Fascism, which attempts to triangulate between free and totalitarian government.
(" In your mind (and I'm certain others here), we don't have that now and, in fact, have the totalitarian government described in the second part of your options above. The way I see it we have something that is in between your choice. President Obama is a man who strives to maintain that balance given how much our society has evolved since the Constitution was written." --Markadelphia)
Not that this comes as any surprise to any who've been paying attention, Marxy's deep allegience to the enemies of Liberty has always been obvious. It is equally obvious that he will never recognize himself to be a member of the crowd screaming accolades for the Maximum Leader.
"A little locoweed must have gotten mixed in with his feed."
Geek, Ed Winter passed away in 2001. If they ever do a MASH revival, there is no doubt in my mind that you would bring new depth to the character of Colonel Flagg. In fact, his very personal epitomizes folks like Harold Estes as well as many on this blog.
Typos are OK, teacher boy, as we all make them now and then, but your writings are gibberish enough without them. You would earn better treatment here if you proofread what you write before posting it. You've admitted before that you don't, thus making such comments as mine quite appropriate.
Actually, I would choose none of the above and, instead
HAHAHAHAhahahahahahahahahaha
You aren't here for the logic, are you?
The country has evolved since the Constitution was written, so why aren't there Constitutional amendments granting Congress additional power to do all the good things that progressives believe in? You can't simultaneously argue that the power was there all along when that isn't what the language of the Constitution says (nor the opinions of the men who wrote it). I mean you can't argue that if you aren't insane.
"I judge presidents by the results of their words and actions."
HORSESHIT.
You judge President Obamateur by projecting your wet dreams onto his blank slate.
"It's pretty clear to me that he is not capable of critical thought when it comes to President Obama."
Well, DJ, Reagan said he was going to do everything in his power to defeat the Soviets and he did. He used a combination of several strategies (including diplomacy-GASP!) that resulted in victory.
Barack Obama stated that he would increase the effort in AfPak and he has after it was largely ignored by the Bush Administration. So far, we have seen a series of small victories. What will happen if we win a major one? Capture or kill bin Laden or Zawahari?
What on earth are you going to say if the man who has been accused in the main post here as being an "apologist" and weak has directed a policy which actually leads to the end of the people behind 9-11?
"What will happen if we win a major one? Capture or kill bin Laden or Zawahari?"
Probably very little except noise. This is not a war one wins because the enemy's gubmint gives in. But the alternative is to simply let the enemy win, and that is not acceptable.
"What on earth are you going to say if the man who has been accused in the main post here as being an "apologist" and weak has directed a policy which actually leads to the end of the people behind 9-11?"
I have searched for "apologist" in this comment thread and found nothing. I have search for "apologist" in Kevin's post to which this comment thread is appended and found nothing. I haven't a clue who you are talking about.
Goddamn, teacher boy, but you really do like gibberish, don't you?
Here's a test of your "judging" President Obamateur, teacher boy.
Recall that you you condemned President Bush because of the performance of the head of FEMA regarding Hurricane Katrina.
Now, fast forward to two days ago. Rhode Island is undergoing horrendous floods, the worst of the past 200 years. Where was Craig Fugate, the head of FEMA, one day after President Obamateur issued an emergency declaration authorizing FEMA "to coordinate all disaster and relief efforts" for the state? He was in Orlando, Florida.
Go read the whole article:
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/63649
Now will you condemn the head of FEMA for not being Johnny-on-the-spot? Will you condemn President Obamateur because the buck stops with him and he is ultimately responsible for all that happens under his administration? Or will you give him a pass, as usual?
What? Nothing but silence, cult boy? Why, I'm shocked! Shocked, I tell you.
Hah. I crack me up.
Actually, silence is precisely what I expected. It is, after all, your Standard Response #1, and it's Number One for good reason.
After all, what could you respond with here? That President Obamateur is, by golly, to be condemned in the same way and for the same reason as President Bush was? Nah, that'll never happen. Your keyboard would explode if you tried. That President Obamateur is blameless, by golly, 'cause it just ain't his fault? Nah, that would invite all manner of charges of hypocrisy. Not that you mind such charges, but even you could predict that response.
So, what's left? Why, just ignore it, as usual. That's the easiest response, ain't it?
Do you see what we mean when we describe you as being predictable?
I haven't looked it up to be certain, but I've heard that the flooding in the Midwest last year was worse, both in terms of property damage and in terms of lives lost, than Katrina was. I've also hear that this year's flooding is looking to be worse as well.
I wonder if it's the fact that those are all rural white conservatives in flyover country that makes their situation not be newsworthy, much less worth giving a damn about.
Working backwards, I don't accept your either/or choice. Limited government has not outlived its usefullness because that's what we have now.
Is it? How so? And how can "limited or not" be expressed other than as an either/or choice?
In my opinion, the federal government does have the right to regulate it not only because it's commerce...
In short, you don't give a rat's ass whether it's interstate or not. If "It's commerce" is the only standard, the federal government has the authority to "regulate your babysitter", your son's allowance for mowing the lawn, and whether or not you help your brother fix his roof because he helped you add on a patio.
To repeat: Limited? How so?
Totalitarian? No, not yet. But once you have conceded that it has no limits, totalitarianism is only a matter of time, nyet?
Again, GOF, it's difficult to have a reasonable discussion with people that are as hyper sensitive as many are here to the federal government. If you think that the health care industry is not commerce, you are certainly entitled to that opinion. I think it is and the government has every right to regulate per the US Constitution.
Totalitarian for me would be Venezuela. Contrary to the bizarre rants of Mr. Estes, we aren't there and we never will be. Your perception of what the Democrats want is part of the Big Lie.
"Again, GOF, it's difficult to have a reasonable discussion with people that are as hyper sensitive as many are here to the federal government."
HORSESHIT, teacher boy. It is very easy to have a reasonable discussion with any or all of us. It happens quite often as we do it between ourselves when it doesn't involve YOU, but of course, you won't admit that.
The problem you face is that you do not understand reason, nor do you engage in it. We've tried for three goddamned years to teach you how, but you won't even try.
"If you think that the health care industry is not commerce, you are certainly entitled to that opinion."
And this is an absolutely PERFECT example of your lack of reason. Yet again, we see your Standard Response #6, the "How 'bout a little fire, Scarecrow?" response. Yet again, you deliberately miss the point and lay on yet another straw man.
No one here has stated, or implied, that health care is not commerce. We have stated, in plain English, many times, that selling health insurance is not interstate commerce, it is intrastate commerce. Look the words up, teacher boy. Intrastate commerce is commerce.
See why you get no respect here? You haven't earned it, indeed you have earned, many times over, all the disrespect we heap on you. You behave like a fuckheaded moron so you get treated like a fuckheaded moron. It shouldn't surprise you.
Your problem is that you simply cannot admit error. Imagine how easy it would be for you to have a reasonable discussion with us if you could.
it's difficult to have a reasonable discussion with people that are as hyper sensitive
It's even more to have "reasonable discussion" with people who don't know what the meaning of words is, is allergic to logic, and who base their entire worldview on emotion and 8-year old concepts of "fairness".
Since you haven't rebutted DJ, by your own rules, he's correct.
But allow me to futher abuse the dead equine.
If you think that the health care industry is not commerce, you are certainly entitled to that opinion. I think it is and the government has every right to regulate per the US Constitution.
The Federal Government doesn't have "every right", first off. As usual, you don't know the meaning of "right", and talking Constitutional issues, it's important to be correct and proper.
And it does specifically not have the ability to "regulate" (another term you don't know) any commerce. Only Interstate commerce.
DJ has pointed something out to you that ought to even ring a bell with you. The Federal Government, via that mechanism, has regulated a lot because of the "interstate market". The most famous case is the wheat farmer who was charged with a crime for raising wheat for his family's consumption, and the USSC, pulled some Logic worthy of you out of their ass, and stated that since his wheat, bought, planted, grown, and harvested in the same state meant that the farmer wouldn't buy on the market, thus affecting interstate commerce.
That's ... amazingly obviously unConstitutional, but such is the law of the land.
But.
and this is a big but.
THERE IS NO INTERSTATE MARKET FOR INSURANCE. DJ's demonstrated this to you many times, but due to the laws, there's nothing comparable to the "wheat market". Every health insurance pool is restricted inside a state.
The wheat case was bullshit, but - through the most tortured of logic - followable.
Now, it's your responsibility as a critical thinker to defend your position. As DJ has laid out, and I've waited for you to notice, this is a federal power grab that cannot easily be reconciled with the Constitutional enumerations. You claim it is. Prove it.
Isn't that what Madison was saying? By deciding that the only real limit is how far a given politician is willing to push (since any commerce, in other words any exchange of any type of value between any two people anywhere within the borders, is okay to "regulate"), aren't you declaring Madison's statement to be a crock of shit?
No, for its time and given his historical context of the oppression he was experiencing, he was correct. I think you will agree that commerce is different today than it was in those days. We've gone from agrarian to manufacturing to service/technology where we are today.
There needs to be some sort of regulatory mechanism that will allow people to purchase health insurance if they have a pre-existing condition for example. Or insures that their insurance will not be rescinded if they develop a disease after paying into it for 40 years. That mechanism is the federal government. It's not perfect and there will be problems but it is of the people as opposed to a coalition of private corporations that have banded together to essentially offer the same over priced service.
I think you will agree that commerce is different today than it was in those days.
I certainly won't agree with anything that stupid, and I doubt others here will either.
We've gone from agrarian to manufacturing to service/technology where we are today.
Which has changed the market dynamics, how? Before you say anything, it hasn't. Don't even bother with pointing to a pony.
According to you, when you go to buy food, that's different than going to buy furniture, and different yet again when you go to buy a computer.
Is that your experience? There needs to be some sort of regulatory mechanism that will allow people to purchase health insurance if they have a pre-existing condition for example.
Why? Why does there need to be a regulatory mechanism? There's a currently well-working system that handles that.
You don't understand it, at all.
If they have a pre-existing condition, it means that they will need much more care. This is right back to the Marxist "From each, to each" that you keep trying to deny.
If you have a pre-existing condition, you will need more care. Now, look at say, car insurance. If you have a "pre-existing condition", say, DUI, or accidents or a lot of speeding tickets, the odds are you're going to get in accidents and will cost more money. So if you allow people with those "pre-existing conditions" to buy in without regard to what it will cost, the insurance goes out of business.
Or insures that their insurance will not be rescinded if they develop a disease after paying into it for 40 years.
There's a market system that deals with that. It's not allowed to apply to health insurance due to government regulation.
That mechanism is the federal government.
Way to circular define there.
It's not perfect and there will be problems but it is of the people as opposed to a coalition of private corporations that have banded together to essentially offer the same over priced service.
The entire profits of the entire healthcare system doesn't exceed the cost of Medicare fraud.
But it's "overpriced". Just like Koresh was a "terrorist" and a "threat to his neighbors".
And you, in education, (putatively, I have my doubts) have the sack to call someone else "over-priced service?"
"I think you will agree that commerce is different today than it was in those days."
You think wrong. It's because you don't think well.
Commerce is a willing buyer paying a willing seller an agree-on price for goods and/or services. The nature of the goods and/or services are irrelevant to what commerce is. That is no different now than it was a thousand years ago, anywhere.
Don't think so, aphasia boy? Well, let's look up the definition online, shall we?
commerce
n.
1. The buying and selling of goods, especially on a large scale, as between cities or nations.
So, you're still offering up your Standard Response #8, the "Humpty Dumpty" response, are you?
"Aristotle wrote that ambiguity can arise from the use of ambiguous names, but cannot exist in the "facts" themselves…
Aristotle also writes, "since it is impossible that contradictories should be at the same time true of the same thing, obviously contraries also cannot belong at the same time to the same thing" …. He then proposes that "there cannot be an intermediate between contradictories, but of one subject we must either affirm or deny any one predicate" …. In the context of Aristotle's traditional logic, this is a remarkably precise statement of the law of excluded middle…"
And Marxaphasia claims to be "the rational one" when his arguments routinely violateBasic Logic. Sheesh!
Well, this is the crux of the argument, isn't it, GOF? To me, setting up a health exchange for private companies with actual, fair rules that will, in turn, allow them to gain 31 million new customers is regulation. This is what Mitt Romney did in MASS and it was pretty much the same thing that the GOP proposed in 1993 in response to health care efforts at that time.
Controlling it would be Medicare for All with no private companies and all money flowing to and from the Federal government in the form of taxes. No insurance companies, no privately owned HMOs, all doctors and health care professionals get a government pay check, drug companies are paid by the Federal government, and all medical devices are manufactured by the Defense Department. That would be my defintion of control.
But now we live in a world where the Cult has cut the football field in half and anything at the 50 yard line (our new health care plan) is now fascist/communist/socialist/statist control of every aspect of my life.
"But now we live in a world where the Cult has cut the football field in half and anything at the 50 yard line (our new health care plan) is now fascist/communist/socialist/statist control of every aspect of my life."
Controlling it would be Medicare for All with no private companies
You've shut down your brain, Mark, but you didn't actually explain the difference GOF asked you about.
You gave 2 examples, but you did not define the difference.
I suspect (as will most others here), that you cannot. You "defined" it by giving 2 examples, without explaining the difference between them.
You've failed to answer the question. 2 examples do not define the difference. They might illustrate the definition. But they don't define it.
I think the problem is you don't know what "define" means.
Controlling it would be Medicare for All with no private companies and all money flowing to and from the Federal government in the form of taxes. No insurance companies, no privately owned HMOs, all doctors and health care professionals get a government pay check, drug companies are paid by the Federal government, and all medical devices are manufactured by the Defense Department. That would be my defintion of control.
I see. In short, anything short of 100% totalitarianism (which can't be achieved except in theory) isn't control. As long as there is a black market, it's "uncontrolled". Therefore Stalinism isn't "controlling", nor is Maoism. Kim Jong Il's government, Idi Amin's government, even Adolf Hitler's government, weren't "controlling".
Given that, it makes a lot more sense that you consider industries hemmed in by thousands of pages of laws to be "unregulated".
Thank you Mark. That clarifies a lot about your opinions.
But GOF, those government that you mentioned did control their respective economies. The government was central to all production and distribution. We don't have that here and we never will. Even your bluest Democrat doesn't want to give up their mansion on the hill to the people. They want to maintain their private holdings.
Hitler had Berchtesgaden, therefore Nazi Germany had a free economy. Stalin had his dacha, therefore the USSR was a capitalist state. Or at least, that's how Mark sees it.
Anyway, this line of frantic verbiage he's secreting is a common refrain on the Left. For any problems in anything, blame whatever freedom exists. They regulated the healthcare industry for decades, and when prices finally got high they said the problem was the lack of a total takeover. So they rammed that through. The fault always lies with the kulaks, never the commissars.
"Apparently there's more words you've got secret definitions of your own for."
Ironic, given that he frequently ignores past results (of things like government controlled health care) and focuses on the motives (insure the uninsured, it's for the children!).
Marxy,
How is telling someone what they MUST and MUST NOT do not controlling them?
And in the ever mobile goalposts department:
"Controlling it would be Medicare for All with no private companies and all money flowing to and from the Federal government in the form of taxes. No insurance companies, no privately owned HMOs, all doctors and health care professionals get a government pay check, drug companies are paid by the Federal government, and all medical devices are manufactured by the Defense Department. That would be my defintion of control."
What you described is not just "control", it's ownership. There is a definite difference. For example, if you borrow a friend's car, do you own it or control it during the time period your friend lets you borrow it?
Remember, the Nazis and Italian Fascists didn't own companies, but they did control them.
So, if the Secret Police can tell you precisely where and when to shit, and they enforce their commands at the point of a gun, that's regulation, not control,provided you get to choose what color toilet paper to use.
Mark, doesn't that also mean that anything you have ever said containing the phrase "when Republicans controlled Congress" is, by your own standard, a lie? After all, no party controls Congress unless there is not one single person of another party in either house, right?
Guys, it's nothing but his Standard Response #8, the "Humpty Dumpty" response. His motivation is about the "retort of the moment", not about any rigorous definition, because all his definitions are dynamic, y'see.
Centerpoint Energy demanding to inspect the meter is an unacceptable use of corporate force.
It doesn't matter that the lack of competition to Centerpoint is government mandated. It doesn't matter that the inspection is government mandated. It doesn't matter that the meter itself is, in all likelihood, Centerpoint Energy's property and not yours. It doesn't matter that they are liable under federal law for all of the system up to and including the meter, but not beyond. It doesn't matter that if your gas fails under pressure it could wipe the ground clean for a hundred feet or more in all directions. It doesn't matter that you are perfectly free to put in solar panels and windmills and all the green energy your heart could desire. It doesn't even matter that, if your home state is anything like Texas, you can get the meter moved out to the street, and then no they don't have the right to come onto your property at all.
In spite of all that, that's an example of "corporate force", and completely unacceptable.
But basically buying GM with the taxpayers' money and giving it as a present to the UAW is not "control."
And demanding, on pain of fines or imprisonment, that every American buy certain productsfrom particular companies (remember, most health insurance is a government-mandated statewide monopoly, and the same people behind this bill flatly refused to change that) is not an unacceptable use of government force.
Ah, GOF, you must've missed the anonymous comment at M's place about how the health care reform has turned health insurance companies into Centerpoint. He didn't even attempt a rebuttal.
It's not perfect and there will be problems but it is of the people as opposed to a coalition of private corporations that have banded together to essentially offer the same over priced service.
That line has been nibbling at the back of my brain ever since it was posted. It took me a little while to be able to articulate why.
"...it is of the people as opposed to a coalition of private corporations...."
There's the problem I have with almost anything I've ever seen you say, Mark. Apparently somewhere in the back of your head is this idea that people who vote, want free healthcare and get tax cuts on taxes they didn't pay in the first place are people, but that people who work, save, invest, and start and maintain businesses are not.
That attitude underlies pretty much every opinion I've ever seen you express.
"... In my opinion, the federal government does have the right to regulate it not only because it's commerce but when the private concerns of these industries whir completely out of control as they have so clearly done. There is no way that Madison could have ever seen this happening.."
Which is, of course, the rally cry of every fucking collectivist in this country, because its interpretation is so broad as to encompass, well, everything...and it's a sack of shit argument, and furthermore, you know it is, assboy!
This shit ISN'T UP FOR YOUR INTERPRETATION, ASSHOLE!
Also, you don't have a fucking clue about what the word regulate means, within the context of when that document was written, and your ignorance is showing mightily, here.
So, shut the fuck up and go back into your frozen hole up north, bitch!
"... In my opinion, the federal government does have the right to regulate it not only because it's commerce but when the private concerns of these industries whir completely out of control as they have so clearly done. There is no way that Madison could have ever seen this happening.."
It is almost as if M thinks private business making boatloads of money only occurred post founding fathers...because Madison never read any history books and private enterprise hadn't been invented yet? Ha ha, such a small, closed mind!
Not only is "commerce" not a blanket concern of Congress, only subsets of commerce were... Well, let me be very clear, so Mark can't handwave .. well, OK, it won't stop him:
"The Congress shall have Power ... To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes..."
Notice it doesn't say "right".
but when the private concerns
Madison and others specifically set up a country and system based on capitalism - that is "private concerns". Perhaps you're far more worried about it than they might be.
of these industries whir completely out of control
"whir completely out of control". Mark can't point to how this is, or explain it, it's something you're an idiot if you don't just repeat the talking point.
And dare to point out that the "out of control" is all due to government intrusion and intentional interference with the market signalling mechanism, Mark calls you a cultist. Without bothering to refute you, other than his gas company example... which was acting on government requirements.
as they have so clearly done.
Here Mark demonstrates he's made his conclusions before his proof. "So clearly" = "I can't back it up, but I'll insist the Emperor has clothes on and if you don't agree they're the finest you've ever seen, well, I don't think we can have a discussion since you can't discuss this dispassionately and logically"
There is no way that Madison could have ever seen this happening.."
Here's the only thing he's got right.
Because if Madison could see that the Federal government turned into the VERY THING HE WAS WORRIED ABOUT, and specifically tried to limit, he'd have put in even stronger verbiage that Mark's sort would still be using "critical pedagogy" to insist that there's no fixed meanings to words and....
jsid-1270505318-67theirritablearchitect at Mon, 05 Apr 2010 22:08:38 +0000
6Kings,
No, ya see, you've got it all wrong. Private business making boatloads of money is a sin to all liberals!
They'll be damned if that sort of thing gets to happen on their watch!
(Watch Marxy cheer about taking money from anyone, or any business, and redistributing it, since it's all for the "common good," and, since he's claimed, but not proven, that it's within this "Commerce Clause" that they have the power to do so. Or some OTHER piece of filth excuse he'll come up with.
Note:
All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost;
references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>
JS-Kit/Echo comments for article at http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2010/04/but-can-it-survive-emnity.html (93 comments)
Tentative mapping of comments to original article, corrections solicited.
Couldn't have said it better meself. If the Obamessiah gets a second term, it will be strictly due to election fraud, and I agree w/ the good Doctor- talking about it will likely get you in some deep dodoo.
OK, you DO realize you sound like a 2003 vintage leftie suffering from BDS when you say:
...gets a second term, it will be strictly due to election fraud...
You should realize that there are a lot of stupid, gullible people in this country.
Two huge assumptions
1. That his popularity will continue to trend down. I've despised the man since early 2008, but I was in the minority. Now I think I'm in a much larger group, but still a minority. That's an important difference between the BDS Left and me: I am aware that the depth of my dislike does not mean that the majority shares my opinion. The Left is the lady in Manhattan who could not believe Nixon won because no one she knew voted for him. They hated W from early 2000 on. Finally when the majority also turned on him in 2006 they cried out that they were vindicated. That's crap though, because if you predict something long enough, it will eventually come true.
2. The GOP runs a bad candidate in 2012. I'm not going to get into names, but there are several candidates who are the front runners, one of whom I'd want as President, and only a couple I'd vote for over Obama. So that's an issue. For "evenly split country picks one of two bad candidates in slight margin" we can look at the last three Presidential elections. Especially if a GOP House takeover leads to an economic bounce from businessman confident that no further wealth destroying bills will pass, thus leading to a Clinton 96 style election.
If though, the economy is still bad in 2012, and his approval is 45% or below, and the GOP runs a decent candidate I would say voter fraud is the only way he could win. That's some pretty big ifs, but that's how I see it.
Any nation which teaches that any segment based on skin pigment "doesn't count" is headed for trouble. It would be true if being black meant that your opinion doesn't count - and though the state run media teaches it, it's equally true when they call anyone who is white and conservative a racist or a bigot. As is natural, that same statist media will loose credibility to the point where their opinions don't matter to many Americans, irrespective of skin pigment or national origin. The chickens haven't come home to roost, but they will.
Jeb:
If the Obamessiah gets a second term, it will be strictly due to election fraud
Oh, don't discount the Stupid Party running the Next In Line (like Mitt) and assuming they've got it all won.
Isn't it spelled "enmity" (not "emnity")?
Whoops! And the spell-chckr didn't katch it! Now I've gotta fix it TWICE!
it's sad, really, that racist hate speech like this is still allowed on the same internet that *children* use and might come across. they're gonna have to do something about that....soon, i suspect, the wrath of the Dear Leader will smite the evildoers with a fierce and brutal and righteous rage!
Ah, the Cult...whose anthem is now "One Note Samba."
**yawn**
If you're so bored here, don't let us keep you.
Still won't define "cult", will you, cult boy?
He doesn't need to define it, he IS it.
It's the Phantom Comment Shitter!
Well, it would be, if Mark didn't put his name on it.
Most other Phantom Shitters make a far more profound statement and commentary.
Mark is one of the fringe on the left thinking his his a logical centrist. Reminds me of this:
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so."
- Ronald Reagan
Ronnie called you out M.
I actually think that Reagan was a good president. Not in my Top Five but definitely in the Top Ten. In fact, thanks to juris, I'm going to be writing about him this week and how, over the years, I have come to realize just how good of a job he did while in office.
Interesting how the Cult (much in the same way they misinterpret and revise Jesus Christ) do the same with President Reagan. There would be no doubt that if he was a candidate today he would be accused of being a socialist/commie/traitor/statist etc etc...
Ah yes, the old "Liberals have strange new respect for dead conservatives" line of utter bullshit.
Like Goldwater, who the Dems called a Nazi and a racist in 1964, but in 2004 they loved him because he would have not been a Bush supporter. Even though he would, like me and most everyone here been attacking Bush from the right.
Reagan's failure to make headway on a rollback of the welfare state was due to the simple fact that his party a)never controlled Congress and b) wasn't really his party. The liberal's favorite kind of Republican, the nibble around the edge, moderates controlled the GOP.
Liberals love conservatives when they are powerless to stop liberal "progress", liberals love conservatives when they die, liberals love conservatives when they play the gallant loser, and they love them when they give them political cover for expansions in the size of the State. Liberals love John McCain because he fits three of the four. Goldwater does too, although he never came them political cover and McCain lives for that.
Well, Britt, I guess you'll just have to read my column and then decide for yourself. But I will tell you that I judge presidents by the results of their words and actions. And Ronald Reagan took responsibility for both unlike the current form of the GOP.
You clearly know little or nothing about Ronald Reagan. Shit, I've read maybe 5 books total about Reagan and I bet I'm ten times as informed as you are. Not that a lack of knowledge about the subject as ever stopped you from opining about it.
When do you start judging ol' Barry on his words and actions. He was gonna close Gitmo in the first year of his term. So is he a liar? Or just incompetent. He's broken promise after promise. He's one of the most fundamentally dishonest politicians I'd ever seen. Most politicians specialize in lies of omission, holding back important information or ignoring huge difficulties. For example, they attribute savings to the doc fix, not telling you the doc fix has a snowballs chance in Hell of ever passing. Obama lies to your face, saying he's not going to raise taxes on people making less then 250,000. He's broken this promise repeatedly.
Britt, my column on Reagan
http://markadelphia.blogspot.com/2010/04/reflecting-grays.html
Somehow, when you can't define "cult", "verbatim" "jihad" or "commerce"...
I think I can pass on your "thinking" on Reagan.
I'm certain that I can.
Mark is one of the fringe on the left thinking his his a logical centrist.
He doesn't just think it, it's an absolute certainty. How can it be otherwise? After all, this is the guy who understands the Constitution better than James Madison.
Madison didn't spend years studying the Constitution, you fool. He already explained his requirements for anyone non-Messanic.
GOF, re-read what I wrote. It's pretty plain that I said that all of us, including myself, are not Constitutional scholars. As I suspected, severe umbridge was taken by the self proclaimed experts that comment on this blog. How dare I suggest that all of you don't know EXACTLY what the founding fathers wanted for this country. Even worse, critically think (as Jefferson did) about James Madison?
I may as well have shat on the flag!!!
GOF, re-read what I wrote. It's pretty plain that I said that all of us, including myself, are not Constitutional scholars.
And then you went and acted as if you were.
But what you're doing there is trying to deny the argument. "You don't know any more than me, so my opinion is worth what yours is!"
That's it. As usual. No logic. Just appeal to authority.
The "umbrage" was due to you basing your entire "argument" on logical fallacies.
It's pretty plain that I said that all of us, including myself, are not Constitutional scholars."
No, that is not what you wrote. About others, you wrote, verbatim (emphasis added):
"It's my understanding that many of you are engineers and not Constitutional scholars."
Thus, many of us could be scholars, yet this would not conflict with your statement.
About yourself, you wrote, verbatim (emphasis added):
"Although I have spent a fair part of my life studying the Constitution, I am decidely not a scholar of it."
Thus, you can't learn it worth shit, despite trying, can you, liar boy?
You ended with, verbatim (emphasis added):
"In sum, I'll be happy to engage in any sort of discussion regarding the Constitution as long as we recognize that this is a document that has been heavily debated by scholars for years. We aren't those scholars and if this discussion is going to devolve into confirmation bias via the Constitution, then I'll have no part of it."
Meaning we aren't "those scholars" who have been heavily debating the Constitution for years. Goddamn, teacher boy, do you not understand your own words?
Now, do you remember my response? Here it is again, verbatim (quote within "-----"):
-----
Your argument can be summarized as:
"I will not discuss (debate?) this subject with anyone who cannot show himself to be a scholar thereof, but I will discuss (debate?) this subject with anyone who will agree that he is not capable of doing so except at whatever level of expertise (ignorance?) I care to show personally."
You can say what you want about it. This is what it amounts to.
The sports metaphor which describes it is:
"I want desperately to be in the big leagues but I do not have sufficient ability, so I will play only with those players who agree that they are not capable of playing except, not simply T-ball, but T-ball at whatever level I care to play it personally."
Golly. What a whiny, wimpy-assed, pathetic little pissant you show yourself to be.
You have demonstrated a Standard Response #11, the "You're Not Smart Enough For Me To Converse With" response. Is this the first appearance of a Standard Response #12, the "You're not Dumb Enough for Me To Converse With" response? Are you going to whine this response some more?
-----
Yup, it appears you are. This is the second appearance. You're showing a pattern, teacher boy.
Man, I really need to more thoroughly review what I write before posting it. This: "thinking his his a logical" should be "thinking he is a logical".
"critically think (as Jefferson did) about James Madison?"
Two things:
1) You didn't say anything about what Jefferson thought of Madison. You only mentioned that Jefferson disagreed with a Bill of Rights (which happens to agree with Federalist 84, which also agrees with us), and that he had views on the Federalist Papers, without saying what kind of views those were.
2) Even then, you didn't quote Jefferson or link to anything he said on the subject. (You know, that "evidence" thing you can't seem to understand!)
BTW, guys. Marxy's Constitution post needs a much more thorough fisking than it has received yet. (It's a manure gold mine!) I've been too busy to do it, what with deadlines breathing down my neck.
Here are some other writings from the Facebook page of Harold Estes:
Obama and pelosi are being like the serpent in the garden on eden!!!!
Barrack huissein obama, nancy peloci, harry reid, and any other liberal demecrats.... For just turning our country into a third world country.... At least we got one good thing out of it they will spend the rest of there lifes on the street.... SO CONSERVATIVE VICTORY 2010 and 2012!!!!!
Good job Glenn Beck! :)
PLEASE INVITE ALL YOUR FELLOW PEOPLE WHO ARE AGAINST NOT HAVING FREEDOM AND BIG GOVERMENT!!!
Crap they passedthe health care now they're going to inject and kill me because im elderly!
It's pretty clear to me that he is not capable of critical thought when it comes to President Obama. He's always going to think that President Obama is the enemy and even words like this
But as a head of state sworn to protect and defend my nation, I cannot be guided by their examples alone. I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people. For make no mistake: Evil does exist in the world. A non-violent movement could not have halted Hitler's armies. Negotiations cannot convince al Qaeda's leaders to lay down their arms. To say that force may sometimes be necessary is not a call to cynicism -- it is a recognition of history; the imperfections of man and the limits of reason.
The United States of America has helped underwrite global security for more than six decades with the blood of our citizens and the strength of our arms. The service and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform has promoted peace and prosperity from Germany to Korea, and enabled democracy to take hold in places like the Balkans. We have borne this burden not because we seek to impose our will. We have done so out of enlightened self-interest -- because we seek a better future for our children and grandchildren, and we believe that their lives will be better if others' children and grandchildren can live in freedom and prosperity.
won't matter. And he has lived by those words through his actions, directives and increased efforts in Afghanistan. Clearly Mr Estes will never see this because of his blinding rage. Will any of you?
GOF, re-read what I wrote. It's pretty plain that I said that all of us, including myself, are not Constitutional scholars.
Quite true. Nonetheless, that was in the same thread where you claimed the general welfare clause gave Congress the authority for an individual madate, was it not? And it was also the same thread with this quote in it, twice:
"If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress.... Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America."
— James Madison
So.... it seems to me that there are only two choices here. Either a) you are saying that Madison's quote above is bullshit, that it's simply not true, or b) that Madison isn't saying what he plainly appears to be saying in the above quote.
In short, either you know more about the Constitution that Madison, or no one here except you is capable of comprehending the English language, or English wasn't the language Madison was actually writing in when he wrote that, it only appears to be English.
Would you care to clarify?
Oops, excuse me, there's a third choice:
c) You could be claiming that Madison is in fact correct, but that limited government (and the Constitution that defined it) are obsolete and have outlived their usefulness, and unlimited, totalitarian government is the best way forward.
Have I missed anything?
Actually, I would choose none of the above and, instead, a combination of all three. We don't live in a black and white world, dude.
Working backwards, I don't accept your either/or choice. Limited government has not outlived its usefullness because that's what we have now. In your mind (and I'm certain others here), we don't have that now and, in fact, have the totalitarian government described in the second part of your options above. The way I see it we have something that is in between your choice. President Obama is a man who strives to maintain that balance given how much our society has evolved since the Constitution was written.
Madison was writing from the context of a man who was being oppressed by an aristocratic class led by a monarch. To translate his experience to what you and others here are now experiencing is ludicrious. Barack Obama is not King George. If anything, President Obama is using a government by the people to prevent an aristocratic class (banks, Wall Street, private corporations) from having a similar sort of power. The Citigroup document that I have mentioned previously on here is evidence that, sadly, we may already be there.
No doubt, Madison does appear to be saying what he was saying nor is what he is saying bullshit. It just depends on how you define general welfare and limited government. Madison was also not the sole voice in creating the Constitution. He was part of a chorus that created a document that, by its very nature, invited debate with the hopes of coming to a reasonable compromise and/or conclusion. A clause like "general welfare" was purposefully left to be vague in the document itself so future generations could decide what it meant.
I won't admit to knowing more about the Constitution than Madison does. Given his historical context, he defined what he thought was the best way to govern. I do, however, know more about the year 2010 than Madison does and can see that many of his basic ideas are still useful. Each state, for example, has their own education standards and given the variety of demographics in each region of our country, there are many advantages to this approach. Many would argue that it was NCLB that made things worse and if the states had been left to their own devices, things would've been better.
As I have mentioned before, health care was not one sixth of the economy and the for profit business as it is today. In my opinion, the federal government does have the right to regulate it not only because it's commerce but when the private concerns of these industries whir completely out of control as they have so clearly done. There is no way that Madison could have ever seen this happening so to use his writings as a framework/solution for our challenges today is in no way a solution.
" In my opinion, the federal government does have the right to regulate it not only because it's commerce ..."
But you can't quite admit that selling health insurance is intrastate commerce, while the Constitution empowers the feddle gubmint to regulate only interstate commerce. Just can't do it, can you, teacher boy?
"In your mind (and I'm certain others here), we don't have that now and, in fact, have the totalitarian government described in the second part of your options above."
Despite us telling you the opposite, right? You're a mind reader, are you?
You still don't understand why you are universally loathed here, do you, little boy?
So, whether Marxy recognizes the historical precedents or not, he explicitly and openly advocates for combining two bad theories:
1) "The living Constitution": various theories positing that the document was written vaguely enough that it could be interpreted to mean whatever the current generation wanted it to mean,
("A clause like "general welfare" was purposefully left to be vague in the document itself so future generations could decide what it meant. " --Markadelphia)
for the purpose of enabling the second bad theory:
2) Classic "Third Way" politics, the wellspring of Fascism, which attempts to triangulate between free and totalitarian government.
(" In your mind (and I'm certain others here), we don't have that now and, in fact, have the totalitarian government described in the second part of your options above. The way I see it we have something that is in between your choice. President Obama is a man who strives to maintain that balance given how much our society has evolved since the Constitution was written." --Markadelphia)
Not that this comes as any surprise to any who've been paying attention, Marxy's deep allegience to the enemies of Liberty has always been obvious. It is equally obvious that he will never recognize himself to be a member of the crowd screaming accolades for the Maximum Leader.
As Colonel Potter said of Colonel Flagg
"A little locoweed must have gotten mixed in with his feed."
Geek, Ed Winter passed away in 2001. If they ever do a MASH revival, there is no doubt in my mind that you would bring new depth to the character of Colonel Flagg. In fact, his very personal epitomizes folks like Harold Estes as well as many on this blog.
#4: Hey Look! A Pony!
"... his very personal epitomizes folks like ..."
Damn, teacher boy, what the hell do you teach? How to write gibberish?
Ah, I meant "persona." Hmm...I guess when Kevin or 6 Kings makes a typo it's Ok. Different rules....
Typos are OK, teacher boy, as we all make them now and then, but your writings are gibberish enough without them. You would earn better treatment here if you proofread what you write before posting it. You've admitted before that you don't, thus making such comments as mine quite appropriate.
He wasn't talking about the typo. Even with that correct, it's still nonsensical.
Hey, look! A pony!
ROFLMAO! Yup, that's it exactly! VERBATIM!
And yet no rebuttal saying that you aren't like Flagg or that your above characterization of me isn't EXACTLY like something Flagg would say.
WHY does an ad hominem FALLACY deserve a response?
You've confused him with someone who gives a shit. Not everyone is interested in ponies.
And yet no rebuttal saying
You, YOU, dare to use THAT line?
You have absolutely no credibility. As many things as you leave out - including the "criminal and terrorist" claims just the other day...
You don't ever think before you talk.
Because now, when we use your criteria to evaluate your arguments.....
Oh, that's right. "Different rules."
Actually, I would choose none of the above and, instead
HAHAHAHAhahahahahahahahahaha
You aren't here for the logic, are you?
The country has evolved since the Constitution was written, so why aren't there Constitutional amendments granting Congress additional power to do all the good things that progressives believe in? You can't simultaneously argue that the power was there all along when that isn't what the language of the Constitution says (nor the opinions of the men who wrote it). I mean you can't argue that if you aren't insane.
"I judge presidents by the results of their words and actions."
HORSESHIT.
You judge President Obamateur by projecting your wet dreams onto his blank slate.
"It's pretty clear to me that he is not capable of critical thought when it comes to President Obama."
Pot, meet kettle.
Well, DJ, Reagan said he was going to do everything in his power to defeat the Soviets and he did. He used a combination of several strategies (including diplomacy-GASP!) that resulted in victory.
Barack Obama stated that he would increase the effort in AfPak and he has after it was largely ignored by the Bush Administration. So far, we have seen a series of small victories. What will happen if we win a major one? Capture or kill bin Laden or Zawahari?
What on earth are you going to say if the man who has been accused in the main post here as being an "apologist" and weak has directed a policy which actually leads to the end of the people behind 9-11?
after it was largely ignored by the Bush Administration.
Right. It was ignored.
What will happen if we win a major one? Capture or kill bin Laden or Zawahari?
That would be a mistake. Something Bush understood, and you don't, even after having been explained to you many times.
The Obama flailing with KSM hasn't clued you in into anything?
"What will happen if we win a major one? Capture or kill bin Laden or Zawahari?"
Probably very little except noise. This is not a war one wins because the enemy's gubmint gives in. But the alternative is to simply let the enemy win, and that is not acceptable.
"What on earth are you going to say if the man who has been accused in the main post here as being an "apologist" and weak has directed a policy which actually leads to the end of the people behind 9-11?"
I have searched for "apologist" in this comment thread and found nothing. I have search for "apologist" in Kevin's post to which this comment thread is appended and found nothing. I haven't a clue who you are talking about.
Goddamn, teacher boy, but you really do like gibberish, don't you?
Here's a test of your "judging" President Obamateur, teacher boy.
Recall that you you condemned President Bush because of the performance of the head of FEMA regarding Hurricane Katrina.
Now, fast forward to two days ago. Rhode Island is undergoing horrendous floods, the worst of the past 200 years. Where was Craig Fugate, the head of FEMA, one day after President Obamateur issued an emergency declaration authorizing FEMA "to coordinate all disaster and relief efforts" for the state? He was in Orlando, Florida.
Go read the whole article:
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/63649
Now will you condemn the head of FEMA for not being Johnny-on-the-spot? Will you condemn President Obamateur because the buck stops with him and he is ultimately responsible for all that happens under his administration? Or will you give him a pass, as usual?
What? Nothing but silence, cult boy? Why, I'm shocked! Shocked, I tell you.
Hah. I crack me up.
Actually, silence is precisely what I expected. It is, after all, your Standard Response #1, and it's Number One for good reason.
After all, what could you respond with here? That President Obamateur is, by golly, to be condemned in the same way and for the same reason as President Bush was? Nah, that'll never happen. Your keyboard would explode if you tried. That President Obamateur is blameless, by golly, 'cause it just ain't his fault? Nah, that would invite all manner of charges of hypocrisy. Not that you mind such charges, but even you could predict that response.
So, what's left? Why, just ignore it, as usual. That's the easiest response, ain't it?
Do you see what we mean when we describe you as being predictable?
I haven't looked it up to be certain, but I've heard that the flooding in the Midwest last year was worse, both in terms of property damage and in terms of lives lost, than Katrina was. I've also hear that this year's flooding is looking to be worse as well.
I wonder if it's the fact that those are all rural white conservatives in flyover country that makes their situation not be newsworthy, much less worth giving a damn about.
Could be, Grumpy, but Rhode Island is hardly flyover country. It's not very big, but it's right next door to Taxachussetts.
Mark: And yet no rebuttal
And yet no rebuttal to DJ.
SO USING YOUR CRITERIA, DJ's correct. Care to apologies to him?
Whoops. apologize.
Working backwards, I don't accept your either/or choice. Limited government has not outlived its usefullness because that's what we have now.
Is it? How so? And how can "limited or not" be expressed other than as an either/or choice?
In my opinion, the federal government does have the right to regulate it not only because it's commerce...
In short, you don't give a rat's ass whether it's interstate or not. If "It's commerce" is the only standard, the federal government has the authority to "regulate your babysitter", your son's allowance for mowing the lawn, and whether or not you help your brother fix his roof because he helped you add on a patio.
To repeat: Limited? How so?
Totalitarian? No, not yet. But once you have conceded that it has no limits, totalitarianism is only a matter of time, nyet?
Again, GOF, it's difficult to have a reasonable discussion with people that are as hyper sensitive as many are here to the federal government. If you think that the health care industry is not commerce, you are certainly entitled to that opinion. I think it is and the government has every right to regulate per the US Constitution.
Totalitarian for me would be Venezuela. Contrary to the bizarre rants of Mr. Estes, we aren't there and we never will be. Your perception of what the Democrats want is part of the Big Lie.
"Again, GOF, it's difficult to have a reasonable discussion with people that are as hyper sensitive as many are here to the federal government."
HORSESHIT, teacher boy. It is very easy to have a reasonable discussion with any or all of us. It happens quite often as we do it between ourselves when it doesn't involve YOU, but of course, you won't admit that.
The problem you face is that you do not understand reason, nor do you engage in it. We've tried for three goddamned years to teach you how, but you won't even try.
"If you think that the health care industry is not commerce, you are certainly entitled to that opinion."
And this is an absolutely PERFECT example of your lack of reason. Yet again, we see your Standard Response #6, the "How 'bout a little fire, Scarecrow?" response. Yet again, you deliberately miss the point and lay on yet another straw man.
No one here has stated, or implied, that health care is not commerce. We have stated, in plain English, many times, that selling health insurance is not interstate commerce, it is intrastate commerce. Look the words up, teacher boy. Intrastate commerce is commerce.
See why you get no respect here? You haven't earned it, indeed you have earned, many times over, all the disrespect we heap on you. You behave like a fuckheaded moron so you get treated like a fuckheaded moron. It shouldn't surprise you.
Your problem is that you simply cannot admit error. Imagine how easy it would be for you to have a reasonable discussion with us if you could.
it's difficult to have a reasonable discussion with people that are as hyper sensitive
It's even more to have "reasonable discussion" with people who don't know what the meaning of words is, is allergic to logic, and who base their entire worldview on emotion and 8-year old concepts of "fairness".
Since you haven't rebutted DJ, by your own rules, he's correct.
But allow me to futher abuse the dead equine.
If you think that the health care industry is not commerce, you are certainly entitled to that opinion. I think it is and the government has every right to regulate per the US Constitution.
The Federal Government doesn't have "every right", first off. As usual, you don't know the meaning of "right", and talking Constitutional issues, it's important to be correct and proper.
And it does specifically not have the ability to "regulate" (another term you don't know) any commerce. Only Interstate commerce.
DJ has pointed something out to you that ought to even ring a bell with you. The Federal Government, via that mechanism, has regulated a lot because of the "interstate market". The most famous case is the wheat farmer who was charged with a crime for raising wheat for his family's consumption, and the USSC, pulled some Logic worthy of you out of their ass, and stated that since his wheat, bought, planted, grown, and harvested in the same state meant that the farmer wouldn't buy on the market, thus affecting interstate commerce.
That's ... amazingly obviously unConstitutional, but such is the law of the land.
But.
and this is a big but.
THERE IS NO INTERSTATE MARKET FOR INSURANCE. DJ's demonstrated this to you many times, but due to the laws, there's nothing comparable to the "wheat market". Every health insurance pool is restricted inside a state.
The wheat case was bullshit, but - through the most tortured of logic - followable.
Now, it's your responsibility as a critical thinker to defend your position. As DJ has laid out, and I've waited for you to notice, this is a federal power grab that cannot easily be reconciled with the Constitutional enumerations. You claim it is. Prove it.
Isn't that what Madison was saying? By deciding that the only real limit is how far a given politician is willing to push (since any commerce, in other words any exchange of any type of value between any two people anywhere within the borders, is okay to "regulate"), aren't you declaring Madison's statement to be a crock of shit?
No, for its time and given his historical context of the oppression he was experiencing, he was correct. I think you will agree that commerce is different today than it was in those days. We've gone from agrarian to manufacturing to service/technology where we are today.
There needs to be some sort of regulatory mechanism that will allow people to purchase health insurance if they have a pre-existing condition for example. Or insures that their insurance will not be rescinded if they develop a disease after paying into it for 40 years. That mechanism is the federal government. It's not perfect and there will be problems but it is of the people as opposed to a coalition of private corporations that have banded together to essentially offer the same over priced service.
I think you will agree that commerce is different today than it was in those days.
I certainly won't agree with anything that stupid, and I doubt others here will either.
We've gone from agrarian to manufacturing to service/technology where we are today.
Which has changed the market dynamics, how? Before you say anything, it hasn't. Don't even bother with pointing to a pony.
According to you, when you go to buy food, that's different than going to buy furniture, and different yet again when you go to buy a computer.
Is that your experience?
There needs to be some sort of regulatory mechanism that will allow people to purchase health insurance if they have a pre-existing condition for example.
Why? Why does there need to be a regulatory mechanism? There's a currently well-working system that handles that.
You don't understand it, at all.
If they have a pre-existing condition, it means that they will need much more care. This is right back to the Marxist "From each, to each" that you keep trying to deny.
If you have a pre-existing condition, you will need more care. Now, look at say, car insurance. If you have a "pre-existing condition", say, DUI, or accidents or a lot of speeding tickets, the odds are you're going to get in accidents and will cost more money. So if you allow people with those "pre-existing conditions" to buy in without regard to what it will cost, the insurance goes out of business.
Or insures that their insurance will not be rescinded if they develop a disease after paying into it for 40 years.
There's a market system that deals with that. It's not allowed to apply to health insurance due to government regulation.
That mechanism is the federal government.
Way to circular define there.
It's not perfect and there will be problems but it is of the people as opposed to a coalition of private corporations that have banded together to essentially offer the same over priced service.
The entire profits of the entire healthcare system doesn't exceed the cost of Medicare fraud.
But it's "overpriced". Just like Koresh was a "terrorist" and a "threat to his neighbors".
And you, in education, (putatively, I have my doubts) have the sack to call someone else "over-priced service?"
"I think you will agree that commerce is different today than it was in those days."
You think wrong. It's because you don't think well.
Commerce is a willing buyer paying a willing seller an agree-on price for goods and/or services. The nature of the goods and/or services are irrelevant to what commerce is. That is no different now than it was a thousand years ago, anywhere.
Don't think so, aphasia boy? Well, let's look up the definition online, shall we?
commerce
n.
1. The buying and selling of goods, especially on a large scale, as between cities or nations.
So, you're still offering up your Standard Response #8, the "Humpty Dumpty" response, are you?
"how can "limited or not" be expressed other than as an either/or choice?"
This one falls under the third of the three basic laws of logic as stated by Aristotle: The Law of the Excluded Middle.
"Aristotle wrote that ambiguity can arise from the use of ambiguous names, but cannot exist in the "facts" themselves…
Aristotle also writes, "since it is impossible that contradictories should be at the same time true of the same thing, obviously contraries also cannot belong at the same time to the same thing" …. He then proposes that "there cannot be an intermediate between contradictories, but of one subject we must either affirm or deny any one predicate" …. In the context of Aristotle's traditional logic, this is a remarkably precise statement of the law of excluded middle…"
And Marxaphasia claims to be "the rational one" when his arguments routinely violate Basic Logic. Sheesh!
Another question for you, Mark:
Define the difference, if any, between "regulating" a given industry and "controlling" it.
Well, this is the crux of the argument, isn't it, GOF? To me, setting up a health exchange for private companies with actual, fair rules that will, in turn, allow them to gain 31 million new customers is regulation. This is what Mitt Romney did in MASS and it was pretty much the same thing that the GOP proposed in 1993 in response to health care efforts at that time.
Controlling it would be Medicare for All with no private companies and all money flowing to and from the Federal government in the form of taxes. No insurance companies, no privately owned HMOs, all doctors and health care professionals get a government pay check, drug companies are paid by the Federal government, and all medical devices are manufactured by the Defense Department. That would be my defintion of control.
But now we live in a world where the Cult has cut the football field in half and anything at the 50 yard line (our new health care plan) is now fascist/communist/socialist/statist control of every aspect of my life.
"But now we live in a world where the Cult has cut the football field in half and anything at the 50 yard line (our new health care plan) is now fascist/communist/socialist/statist control of every aspect of my life."
More gibberish. On a roll, aren't you, cult boy?
Controlling it would be Medicare for All with no private companies
You've shut down your brain, Mark, but you didn't actually explain the difference GOF asked you about.
You gave 2 examples, but you did not define the difference.
I suspect (as will most others here), that you cannot. You "defined" it by giving 2 examples, without explaining the difference between them.
You've failed to answer the question. 2 examples do not define the difference. They might illustrate the definition. But they don't define it.
I think the problem is you don't know what "define" means.
But I will tell you that I judge presidents by the results of their words and actions.
Apparently there's more words you've got secret definitions of your own for.
Controlling it would be Medicare for All with no private companies and all money flowing to and from the Federal government in the form of taxes. No insurance companies, no privately owned HMOs, all doctors and health care professionals get a government pay check, drug companies are paid by the Federal government, and all medical devices are manufactured by the Defense Department. That would be my defintion of control.
I see. In short, anything short of 100% totalitarianism (which can't be achieved except in theory) isn't control. As long as there is a black market, it's "uncontrolled". Therefore Stalinism isn't "controlling", nor is Maoism. Kim Jong Il's government, Idi Amin's government, even Adolf Hitler's government, weren't "controlling".
Given that, it makes a lot more sense that you consider industries hemmed in by thousands of pages of laws to be "unregulated".
Thank you Mark. That clarifies a lot about your opinions.
But GOF, those government that you mentioned did control their respective economies. The government was central to all production and distribution. We don't have that here and we never will. Even your bluest Democrat doesn't want to give up their mansion on the hill to the people. They want to maintain their private holdings.
Hitler had Berchtesgaden, therefore Nazi Germany had a free economy. Stalin had his dacha, therefore the USSR was a capitalist state. Or at least, that's how Mark sees it.
Anyway, this line of frantic verbiage he's secreting is a common refrain on the Left. For any problems in anything, blame whatever freedom exists. They regulated the healthcare industry for decades, and when prices finally got high they said the problem was the lack of a total takeover. So they rammed that through. The fault always lies with the kulaks, never the commissars.
"Apparently there's more words you've got secret definitions of your own for."
Ironic, given that he frequently ignores past results (of things like government controlled health care) and focuses on the motives (insure the uninsured, it's for the children!).
Marxy,
How is telling someone what they MUST and MUST NOT do not controlling them?
And in the ever mobile goalposts department:
"Controlling it would be Medicare for All with no private companies and all money flowing to and from the Federal government in the form of taxes. No insurance companies, no privately owned HMOs, all doctors and health care professionals get a government pay check, drug companies are paid by the Federal government, and all medical devices are manufactured by the Defense Department. That would be my defintion of control."
Will you still hold this definition when Obama gets what he wants?
What you described is not just "control", it's ownership. There is a definite difference. For example, if you borrow a friend's car, do you own it or control it during the time period your friend lets you borrow it?
Remember, the Nazis and Italian Fascists didn't own companies, but they did control them.
So, if the Secret Police can tell you precisely where and when to shit, and they enforce their commands at the point of a gun, that's regulation, not control, provided you get to choose what color toilet paper to use.
Ah, now I see.
Mark, doesn't that also mean that anything you have ever said containing the phrase "when Republicans controlled Congress" is, by your own standard, a lie? After all, no party controls Congress unless there is not one single person of another party in either house, right?
It depends on the context of which I said "controlled" Congress. I guess you are going to have to elaborate further.
Dictionaries: Books worth learning.
It depends on the context of which I said "controlled" Congress. I guess you are going to have to elaborate further.
Classic Mark.
"Could you please explain to me what I said, and what I meant by it? But I'm still smarter than you."
Mark is using this tactic often enough that it should be Standard Response #13.
Guys, it's nothing but his Standard Response #8, the "Humpty Dumpty" response. His motivation is about the "retort of the moment", not about any rigorous definition, because all his definitions are dynamic, y'see.
Perhaps he ought to change his handle to Mercuradelphia?
Okay, let's see where we stand...
Centerpoint Energy demanding to inspect the meter is an unacceptable use of corporate force.
It doesn't matter that the lack of competition to Centerpoint is government mandated. It doesn't matter that the inspection is government mandated. It doesn't matter that the meter itself is, in all likelihood, Centerpoint Energy's property and not yours. It doesn't matter that they are liable under federal law for all of the system up to and including the meter, but not beyond. It doesn't matter that if your gas fails under pressure it could wipe the ground clean for a hundred feet or more in all directions. It doesn't matter that you are perfectly free to put in solar panels and windmills and all the green energy your heart could desire. It doesn't even matter that, if your home state is anything like Texas, you can get the meter moved out to the street, and then no they don't have the right to come onto your property at all.
In spite of all that, that's an example of "corporate force", and completely unacceptable.
But basically buying GM with the taxpayers' money and giving it as a present to the UAW is not "control."
And demanding, on pain of fines or imprisonment, that every American buy certain products from particular companies (remember, most health insurance is a government-mandated statewide monopoly, and the same people behind this bill flatly refused to change that) is not an unacceptable use of government force.
Right?
Ah, GOF, you must've missed the anonymous comment at M's place about how the health care reform has turned health insurance companies into Centerpoint. He didn't even attempt a rebuttal.
Classic.
Well, then, by Mark's Flagg Rule, it's undeniably true, and he's incorrect!
Um, well.... um, actually...
No, I didn't miss it.
I posted it.
8-)
It's not perfect and there will be problems but it is of the people as opposed to a coalition of private corporations that have banded together to essentially offer the same over priced service.
That line has been nibbling at the back of my brain ever since it was posted. It took me a little while to be able to articulate why.
"...it is of the people as opposed to a coalition of private corporations...."
There's the problem I have with almost anything I've ever seen you say, Mark. Apparently somewhere in the back of your head is this idea that people who vote, want free healthcare and get tax cuts on taxes they didn't pay in the first place are people, but that people who work, save, invest, and start and maintain businesses are not.
That attitude underlies pretty much every opinion I've ever seen you express.
To paraphrase Heinlein: "They want the benefits of society without paying its costs, and they demand a halo for their dishonesty."
"... In my opinion, the federal government does have the right to regulate it not only because it's commerce but when the private concerns of these industries whir completely out of control as they have so clearly done. There is no way that Madison could have ever seen this happening.."
Which is, of course, the rally cry of every fucking collectivist in this country, because its interpretation is so broad as to encompass, well, everything...and it's a sack of shit argument, and furthermore, you know it is, assboy!
This shit ISN'T UP FOR YOUR INTERPRETATION, ASSHOLE!
Also, you don't have a fucking clue about what the word regulate means, within the context of when that document was written, and your ignorance is showing mightily, here.
So, shut the fuck up and go back into your frozen hole up north, bitch!
"... In my opinion, the federal government does have the right to regulate it not only because it's commerce but when the private concerns of these industries whir completely out of control as they have so clearly done. There is no way that Madison could have ever seen this happening.."
It is almost as if M thinks private business making boatloads of money only occurred post founding fathers...because Madison never read any history books and private enterprise hadn't been invented yet? Ha ha, such a small, closed mind!
Oh, if you diagram Mark's thought it's a lot wore than that.
the federal government
The one enumerated by the Constitution (of which he assures us he isn't a scholar, and we can't be, since we have "engineering backgrounds")
does have the right
Nevermind that the federal government does not have any rights in the Constitution. Not a single one.
Not. One, Mark.
Here, so a search on "right" and tell me I'm wrong.
Go on, this is what "proof" is called.
to regulate it not only because it's commerce
Not only is "commerce" not a blanket concern of Congress, only subsets of commerce were... Well, let me be very clear, so Mark can't handwave .. well, OK, it won't stop him:
"The Congress shall have Power ... To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and
with the Indian Tribes..."
Notice it doesn't say "right".
but when the private concerns
Madison and others specifically set up a country and system based on capitalism - that is "private concerns". Perhaps you're far more worried about it than they might be.
of these industries whir completely out of control
"whir completely out of control". Mark can't point to how this is, or explain it, it's something you're an idiot if you don't just repeat the talking point.
And dare to point out that the "out of control" is all due to government intrusion and intentional interference with the market signalling mechanism, Mark calls you a cultist. Without bothering to refute you, other than his gas company example... which was acting on government requirements.
as they have so clearly done.
Here Mark demonstrates he's made his conclusions before his proof. "So clearly" = "I can't back it up, but I'll insist the Emperor has clothes on and if you don't agree they're the finest you've ever seen, well, I don't think we can have a discussion since you can't discuss this dispassionately and logically"
There is no way that Madison could have ever seen this happening.."
Here's the only thing he's got right.
Because if Madison could see that the Federal government turned into the VERY THING HE WAS WORRIED ABOUT, and specifically tried to limit, he'd have put in even stronger verbiage that Mark's sort would still be using "critical pedagogy" to insist that there's no fixed meanings to words and....
6Kings,
No, ya see, you've got it all wrong. Private business making boatloads of money is a sin to all liberals!
They'll be damned if that sort of thing gets to happen on their watch!
(Watch Marxy cheer about taking money from anyone, or any business, and redistributing it, since it's all for the "common good," and, since he's claimed, but not proven, that it's within this "Commerce Clause" that they have the power to do so. Or some OTHER piece of filth excuse he'll come up with.
Note: All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost; references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>