Sunday, August 25, 2013

On Libertarians Scared Out Of Their Minds Regarding Statism But Who Worship The Wealthy Elites

Libertarianism is good because it helps conservatives pass off a patently probusiness political agenda as a noble bid for human freedom. Whatever we may think of libertarianism as a set of ideas, practically speaking, it is a doctrine that owes its visibility to the obvious charms it holds for the wealthy and the powerful. The reason we have so many well-funded libertarians in American these days is not because libertarianism suddenly acquired an enormous grassroots following, but because it appeals to those who are able to fund ideas. Like social Darwinism and Christian Science before it, libertarianism flatters the successful and rationalizes their core beliefs about the world. They warm to the libertarian idea that taxation is theft because they themselves don't like to pay taxes. They fancy the libertarian notion that regulation is communist because they themselves find regulation intrusive and annoying. Libertarianism is a politics born to be subsidized. In the "free market of ideas", it is a sure winner ~ quote from The Wrecking Crew by Thomas Frank.

The Libertarians who are scared out Of their minds regarding statism but worship the wealthy elites couldn't be bigger fools, in my opinion. You've seen their comments across the blogosphere; they are constantly warning us about the dangers of "big government" and "statism". They demonize both by claiming that there are those among us who "worship" big government as if it were a religion (see cartoon below). I authored a commentary on one such Libertarian a while back. In the mind of this Ayn Rand worshiping rational self interest as the highest ideal believing individual, what those who value freedom need to fear the most is tyrannical Progressivism.

The problems is that what they decry as "statism" is actually the citizens of the United States instructing our elected governmental representatives that they should pass legislation to provide services and assistance that benefits We The People. "Statism" is (in large part) when the citizens of a country decide we should have a strong social safety net, and, beyond that, there are some things (known as the Commons) that should be administered by the government on behalf of us all.

Healthcare (or health care insurance, the method by which the vast majority of us access health care) is one of those things that many of us on the Left believe should be a part of the Commons. Republicans and Libertarians believe that the health of the citizens is something corporations have the right to profit off of. In my mind the best method by which health care could be delivered to the people would be to open up Medicare to everyone. Medicare operates on a very low overhead (in the neighborhood of 2 percent) on a not-for-profit basis (which is in line with the Progressive belief that health care should be a part of the commons, or a RIGHT).

A compromise solution, passed into law via a piece of legislation known as the Affordable Care Act kept the profit motive intact. Originally proposed by "the Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute, and championed, for a time, by Republicans in the Senate" a mandate to buy HC insurance from FOR PROFIT providers (with some government assistance based on income), the ACA is now being vociferously opposed by Conservatives and Congressional Republicans who don't want the Democrats (and Barack Obama) to get credit (and receive the appreciation of the electorate).

The Republicans could have joined with Democrats and help shape the legislation and later share in the credit. Instead they decided to oppose (legislation and ideas they previously endorsed) and obstruct everything (even going as far as to oppose legislation that would benefit the country economically). According the Representative from the 32nd district of Texas, Pete Sessions, the plan was to wage a Taliban-like insurgency. They would, in other words, sabotage the Dems and Obama at every turn, regardless of the harm they might inflict on the country (a worsening economy would, in fact, be beneficial to them).

Not that any of this represents the Libertarian point of view. Repubs, Conservatives who distance themselves from the Republican Party, and Libertarians all demonize the ACA as a threat to "liberty" and all believe health care should be for profit (and it is not a part of the commons). Libertarians explicitly reject the very notion that any resource (or service) can be held in common (or administered for the common good). Ayn Rand, the source of many of the ideas that make up the ideology of Libertarians believed that anyone who accepts government assistance can be described as "parasites, looters and moochers [who used] the levers of government to steal the fruits of her heroes' labor".

A "hero" to a Rand devotee would be a rugged individualist who made his own way in the world relying only upon him or herself. He (or she) was the type personified by the "I built this" meme of the 2012 GOP presidential convention. These are the people otherwise known as the Makers, while most of the rest of us are the Takers. In the Objectivist's eyes (a religion created to worship Rand) most of us fall into the category of the unwashed masses who deserve nothing more than a life of poverty and to die in the gutter.

Although the Libertarians did not support Mittens Romney, he and his running mate (Paul Ryan) did tear a page out of the Rand Bible in their adoption of the "makers and takers" meme of demonizing the vast majority of us who are not wealthy, or at least well off (this was the thinking behind Mittens' 47 percent comment). Mittens later walked back, and then even denied insulting Americans who have the gall to believe the reason government exists is to provide services and see to it that nobody (or as few people as possible) fall though the cracks.

The fact is, however, that this is the mentality of people who describe themselves as "fiscally conservative". What they actually mean is that the government should keep it's hands off the money of the people who have it. Even though capitalism is a flawed system that allows some to manipulate things to their advantage and wind up with a huge pile of money that was earned mainly via the labor of others (workers they force into "contracts" that tend to favor themselves).

Redistribution is the key in balancing the equation in the minds of the Left. Seeing as capitalism tends to favor a small minority and wealth concentrated in a small number of hands is not healthy for the economy or society, it is the RIGHT and JUST role of the government controlled by We The People to step in and attempt to do SOME equalizing. Who wants to live in a country where a small number of wealthy elites control everything and the vast majority of the populace lives in miserable squalor?

I know I sure as hell do not, but for the Libertarians the dystopian nightmare they envision would be a world gone completely Socialist. In their minds what we should all fear the most is that the government does too much us and that the taxes on rich folks are too high. There does come a point where I think the government could (hypothetically) go to far. I don't want the government to control the means of production (which it would have to in order to be fully Socialist), but we are leagues away from ever crossing that Rubicon.

That there are dupes and stooges who genuinely believe that the United States has swung dangerously toward far Left Socialism would be laughable, if not for the fact that it is these fools (extremist Republicans, Tea baggers, Libertarians and even some Conservative/Corporatist Dems) who are to blame for the obstruction that is retarding an economic recovery. The fact is we have much more to fear from the fascist Right that believes the plutocrats should rule. Them and their deluded dupes and stooges who think government should get out of the way and the right won't step in to fill the power vacuum.

The choice here is, I believe, is between two rulers... should We The People rule (via our elected representatives) or should the wealthy rule? As far as Libertarians are concerned, there is a distinction that should be noted (one that the Libertarians believe is quite significant)... that is while the Repubs think government should assist the wealthy in their quest to rule over us (and help the wealthy siphon off the fruits of our labors to enrich themselves), while the Libertarians believe government should get out of the way and allow the wealthy to rape workers and the common man without their assistance.

I say the result is much the same, so I place a lesser significance on this distinction. The utopian gates of the Progressive Kingdom (or greater equality and a healthier economy) will only open (or become possible) when the populace wakes the hell up and realizes that wealth must be kept in check. Wealth begets greed and corruption, whether it is in the private or the public sector. BOTH the Conservative Republicanism and Libertarianism that says redistribution/socialism is an evil must be guarded against.

Although, as the recent abuses of governmental power highlighted by the unconstitutional spying and data mining of the NSA shows, a big government that seeks to ever increase it's power can be a danger akin to that of the unchecked corporations. That answer is not, however, to strip down government, defund it, or keep it "out of the way". Doing that would [1] allow the wealthy and corporations to step in and fill the power vacuum and lead to a greater concentration of money and power in the hands of the wealthy. "Big government" is the only tool We The People have to keep the power of the wealthy in check. THAT is why some seek to destroy (or diminish) the power of government (by fooling some with slanders like "Big Guv").

The answer is not "small government" but more democracy and more transparency. The Citizens United SCOTUS decision was an effort by the Right to corrupt our elections. Elections under the influence of big money will tend to favor those paying for the elections. Unfortunately commercial propaganda campaigns CAN influence the gullible and cause them to vote against their own interest.

The answer it to stop worshiping the wealthy as Conservatives, Republicans, Libertarians and Conservative/Corporate Democrats do. The answer to improving society and our economy is Progressivism. Socialism (Democratic Socialism) is not an evil. Fascism (rule by the wealthy and corporations) is the real evil... and when they corrupt our government via bribery THIS is what you could conceivably call "Big Guv". But when the "big government" (big enough to stand up to the corporations and the wealthy and keep them in check) is transparent and acting on our behalf? That could be a greater force for good.

Image Description: Ridiculous Libertarian cartoon that will cause gullible Righties to laugh and say, "that's so true" when the assertions it makes are actually false.

Responding to the assertions made in the "Shrine of the Statists: Big Guv" cartoon...

Responding to the assertions made in the "Shrine of the Statists: Big Guv" cartoon...

1. Speech Balloon: Big Guv is hungry. Will feed him more taxes!

My Response: Taxes are for needed government programs. Waste exists and we should work to eliminate as much of that as possible, but taxes aren't a "tribute" to "appease" this "Big Guv" god. Nobody is arguing that tax money should be intentionally wasted.

2. Speech Balloon: Big Guv will keep us safe!

My Response: Keeping us safe is the JOB of our police and military (supposed to be, at least). Nobody is arguing that people should give up the right to defend themselves.

3. Speech Balloon: Only Big Guv should have guns!

My Response: The courts have interpreted the 2nd amendment to mean citizens have a right to own guns. After the Sandy Hook tragedy the crazies in Congress (Repubs and some Conservative Dems) shot down modest restrictions and safeguards, yet this cartoonist suggest gun confiscation is a possibility? This is a total straw man.

4. Speech Balloon: Curse those who disbelieve!

My Response: Another straw man. Randal Paul, a Libertarian, is currently serving in the Senate. He ran for office and was elected, not "cursed".

5. Sign: Worship Obey.

My Response: Straw man. Nobody "worships" government. People are only expected to "obey" so far as laws are concerned. Disagreement is protected under the first amendment.

6. Gun in the right hand of "Big Guv": Government force.

My Response: Force is used to enforce laws passed by our elected representatives. What is this, a call for anarchy? (Actually it's the old canard that the collection of taxes is backed up by force and is theft. Sorry, Libertarians, but the collection of taxes is authorized by the Constitution).

7. Door in side of "Big Gov": Implication that dissenters will be jailed.

My Response: Free speech is protected by the first amendment. People aren't thrown in jail for being Libertarians.

8. The Fed in the left hand of "Big Guv": Implication that the Fed is under the control of "Big Guv".

My Response: Incorrect. Wikipedia says "the Federal Reserve System has both private and public components, and was designed to serve the interests of both the general public and private bankers". Why should the Fed serve the interest of private bankers instead of only acting in the OUR interest? Answer; it shouldn't. The Fed needs to be brought fully under the control of "Big Guv".

SWTD #196, lDel #5.


  1. Why Libertarians such as Les of Rational Nation USA are Idiots, very naive and misguided.
    I realize it is a rather bombastic thing to assert, especially when I happen to agree with a lot from the libertarian platform. I am a Constitutional Conservative, but I get into some very heated debates with Libertarians over what that means. I happen to believe we have an ingenious system which allows for all ideas to be heard and considered, and the best of those ideas to rise to the top. It doesn't always mean I get what I want personally, sometimes it means I have to tolerate what most of my fellow neighbors want instead.

    To illustrate my point, let me give an example of something I once argued. The debate was about abortion, and what to do about it politically. I argued that it should be left up to the people and states to determine for themselves, and federal government shouldn't interfere. I seemed to catch flack from both 'sides' on this, because I didn't really interject my personal viewpoint. But I argued, it is not about "my personal viewpoint" because we live in a collective society of differing viewpoints. It's a matter of whether or not I feel compelled to support your viewpoint with my federal tax dollars. I do not feel so compelled. So I was asked, by one of the pro-life advocates, what would I do to eliminate all the abortions happening in America. I said, if it were up to me personally, anyone who was found to have had an abortion, would be publicly stoned. This would stop virtually all abortions from happening. Well naturally, this prompted a flurry of ridicule, and I became somewhat of a pariah, the whacky guy who believes in stoning women for having abortions. But the question was asked, what would I personally do? So I gave my answer. The point being, it's not up to me personally to decide, I am not the King. I realize we live in a diverse society, where people have a variety of opinions and are passionate about those opinions.

    This is one of the main reasons the founders saw fit to establish state rights over federal powers. They knew that a monolithic society would lead to tyranny, and it is currently heading in that direction. We can't escape federal laws and mandates, no one is going to leave America. However, if you don't like that your state makes gambling legal, you can move to a state where gambling is not legal, or visa versa. Same with gay marriage or marijuana. Federal laws blanket everyone with a single philosophy, and we all must live by that, regardless of our own viewpoints. Libertarians spend most of their time in air head discussions with other libertarians concerning what a libertarian is, and neither one seems to know their ass’s from their elbows.The best argument against Libertarianism is that there are no Libertarian governments or economies anywhere in Human history. Why is that?
    Have a nice day.

  2. Derv old buddy, thanks for the linkage. I always wonder how many read the comment section where I often elaborate. But that's not important.

    Thanks again, I must be doing something right cause I seem to be getting dedicated articles or honorable mention at this fine progressive site. I always knew you would arrive

    Congratulations Bro, keep up the fine work.

  3. Seen on another blog, but SOOO true and to the point I have to re post it here.

    "Progressives need to blame someone for Obama's failures that WE call "Scandals", and they call "Conservative" propaganda so they blame the "Conservatives" after all WE Conservative are their typical targets to blame for the horseshit propaganda that they post about. I like to call it. "Liberal Fascist Horseshit" posted in Asshole Dumbasses fashion, initiated, and set in motion by their mentor Shaw.
    If you noticed the RASH of Black on White murders in the news lately and SHAW hasn't said ONE word about it. No marches, no skittles and Watermelon drinks, no protests, no bans, no boycotts, no civil rights suits... funny isn't it.

    I have seen and read recent reports of SO many random attacks going on by young black teens attacking WHITE people, and none mention of it on any of the Liberal blogs at all.

    3 black thugs shoot down and kill Australian jogger to death in Oklahoma because they were bored!

    3 more black thugs shoot down and kill a 88 year old World War 2 Veteran, in cold blood for nothing, and again NO mention of it an ANY liberal blog.

  4. Difference Between Republicans and Democrats

    A Republican and a Democrat were walking down the street when they came to a homeless person. The Republican gave the homeless person his business card and told him to come to his business for a job. He then took twenty dollars out of his pocket and gave it to the homeless person.

    The Democrat was very impressed, and when they came to another homeless person, he decided to help. He walked over to the homeless person and gave him directions to the welfare office. He then reached into the Republican's pocket and gave the homeless person fifty dollars.

    Now you understand the difference between Republicans and Democrats

  5. The Real difference Between Republicans and Democrats...

    A Republican and a Democrat were walking down the street when they came to a homeless person. The Republican ignored the homeless person and, when the Democrat suggested giving the homeless person some money, the Republican scoffed and said people choose to be homeless and he wasn't willing to help someone who wouldn't help himself. The Republican then forbade the Democrat from giving the homeless person any money, insisting the homeless person would only spend it to get drunk or buy drugs.

    The Democrat was very disgusted, and when they came to another homeless person, he decided to help. He walked over to the homeless person and gave him directions to the welfare office. He then reached into his own pocket and gave the homeless person fifty dollars when he thought the Republican wasn't looking. Unfortunately the Republican turned around and saw the Democrat hand the homeless person the money. Quickly he ran over and snatched the money out of the homeless person's hand. "It's mine now", he said, stuffing the money into his pocket. Then he punched the homeless person in the gut.

    When the Democrat objected the Republican scolded him about the foolishness of wasting money on "human garbage". Then he called over a passing police officer and had the homeless person arrested for assault. "This vagrant attempted to mug my Democratic friend" the Republican said. The homeless person objected but the officer didn't listen and the homeless man was hauled off to jail. They found some marijuana in his pocket and he was sentenced to several years in a privately owned prison (which ended up costing tax payers several hundred thousand dollars).

    Now you understand the difference between Republicans and Democrats.

    1. That was prett stupid and lame. But consider who it was saying it and its understandable.

  6. Most people on welfare already work, do you think it's easy standing around on the corner in the hot summer sun, holding a coffee cup for donations? And standing on the welfare line for hours and hours in the sun or in the snow. These things aren't as easy as they seem to be. Give credit where cred it due. .

    1. DS, the above comment is a fraud. The cons are so devoid moral compass and any ability to express themselves that they've taken to stealing other people's identities. That's about as low as a turd can get, and the person who posted the comment above is a large, oily turd who can't win an argument, so he cheats.

      He's a perfect example of the moral depravity of the conservative movement--the shit of American politics--today. To do what he did is ample proof of their long slide into insanity. I didn't start blogging until this June 2013 because shaw asked me to get a profile so I wouldn't be another "anonymous." I did. And the pos above has been copying my profile and going around to other blogs pretending to be me. Read his profile and see when he started blogging "2011."

      AS I said, he's a perfect example of the brainless assholes who populate the Tea Party. They don't even have the talent to invent their own blog identities so they steal other people's?

      Shit goes to shit, and that's why that comment above is a con.

  7. DS, I've changed my profile. Let's see the cheat go around to conservative blogs and pretend he's me now.

  8. Only an ASS-HOLE like yourself would stoop to doing something like you did.
    Seeing as we live in a world where half of them voted for a creep for president people, chances are a few of them are going to be assholes—whether it's a temporary issue or a permanent birth defect who knows, but chances are in your case, you’re a brain-damaged retard!.

  9. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    1. Fake LOL Anonymous comment removed because... you told me you're a faker. Further comments from this ID will be removed as soon as I see them.

  10. Enough is Enough with all of this Fake LOL Anonymous blogger Bullshit.
    The Fact STILL remains that Rational Nation USA is still the same. He is still a Anti Semitic Jew Hating SOB.
    I think to focus on the stupid jerk who calls himself LOL anything is wrong. Lets keep focused on Rational Nation USA and his anti-Semitic rant, and NOT let HIM off the hook. The fact that Ms. Shaw allows him to receive a “Free Pass” is her business, after all, her opinion is about as useful as tits on a bull.

    Our fascist activist turd Rational Nation is finding out he can no longer successfully lie and without it all catching up with him.
    Somehow, these commie, tyrant progressives have an inarguable and indefensible sense of entitlement and think that they can get away with anything they say. Well this ignorant imbecile, shameless bigot RN is not going to get away with anything. I'd honestly love to see him try.

  11. Nothing to get away with, nothing at all. For the intelligent, those who actually take the time to read and think it is simple to see. For those who are purely ideological driven by failed extreme right wing fascist doctrine, like certain bloviating commenters here, who know they are on the wrong side of history and are in fact losing their battle they find it neccessary to lie and engage in character assaination. Thereby saying much about their own character.

    Those who hide behind Anonomous identities like MHO and others are the individuals who should be held in question. For it is they who are filled with hate towards those who question their own misguided beliefs. It is these individuals, hiding in the shadows that are the bigots and liars, that stop at nothing and who will stoop to the lowest and most despicable levels in trashing bloggers like Shaw, one I disagree with more often than not but who I respect.

    So MHO, I am not going away. You haven't the power to make me disappear, nor do any of your Anonomous cohorts, whoever they may be. I'm here to stay, for a very long time. Get used to it.

    Derv old buddy, thanks for the opportunity to respond to and to rebut the mindless Sheeples who seem to be multiplying in the void known as the blogoshere Most specifically in the extreme right wing conservative section.

    You have a fine day now ya hear MHO.

    1. RN has yet to produce the accepted historians that claim that the Jews went willingly to the gas chambers. RN is no historian and does not speak history only antsemitism, hate and bigotry.
      Of course these white supremest, skinhead, Jew hating bigots never go away. The Klan has been around since the end of the civil war.
      You and RN have one thing in common. This anon business. I guess you guys think because someone does not have a blog, they are full of shit, or at least have nothing worthwhile to say. I see little difference: you are WD, what does that mean? Name, address, phone number, and Social Security number please. Otherwise you as anon as anyone.

    2. Steve: are WD, what does that mean? Name, address, phone number, and Social Security number please. Otherwise you as anon as anyone.

      This again? I thought I was clear regarding the reasons why I don't want comments from Anons any longer. Too much game playing and people feeling freer to get nasty due to nobody being able to know who the hell they were dealing with. I like knowing who I'm dealing with from comment to comment. Before I had to deal with the utter nonsense of anonymous commenters insisting that they weren't another anonymous commenter. I also like looking at a profile and blog to get a sense of where the person I'm dealing with stands.

      Disallowing Anons gets me closer to that (although there are still some people playing games)... so you can stuff this baloney about me having to give out my "Name, address, phone number, and Social Security number" or I'm just as much an Anon as anyone. That's BULLSHIT.

      FYI, Steve... I'll allow you to respond to this comment if you wish, but if you go on and on about this subject future comments will probably be removed. This comment lays out how I feel on the subject. I know how you feel. We aren't going to agree (obviously), but this is my blog. You don't have to comment here if you don't like my commenting policies.


    3. Fine, like Shaw I will leave you to RN as your only commenter as you seem to believe only he has anything worth while to say sine he has a profile, as sick as that profile is, you seem to love him, to point of publishing his sick, insulting crap. Of course turning your blog to crap like Shaw has turned her blog to crap by allowing RN to take over her comment section. Good luck, you will need it since you cannot tell the difference between good and bad.

    4. You have a profile Steve, as you wouldn't be able to comment otherwise. Not having a profile does not mean a person does not have anything worth while to say. I never said that. You keep saying it. I gave my reasons for not wanting anons. That reason wasn't among them.

      Besides, getting a Blogger profile is easy and therefore I don't see it as a big deal to ask for someone to have one before commenting. I'm not even sure what the hell you're complaining about. Sounds to me like you want to hide behind an Anon comment and then complain when someone says a prior Anon comment might be yours. This is bad, IMO.

      Also, the content of my post (and prior posts) make it crystal clear that I don't agree with RN politically and I don't agree with him saying his objectionable comments about American Jews were taken out of context. You should know I have zero love for RN, so you're just lying or are incredibly dumb. RN monopolizing my blog is getting a bit annoying though. I may have to do something about that.

      Shows what a liar he was when he said he was going away because my blog is a swamp that can't be drained, or a toilet bowl, or that my blog was "beneath him".

  12. In a sense, what Les (Rational Nation USA) has done is as Fascist like as anything anyone in America can do. We live in a country that is diverse and should be tolerant of everyone's beliefs.
    This guy Les (Rational Nation USA) has done more to hurt the progressive causes than anyone on the right possibly could. Although the Repubs have DOZENS of scumbags who make him look like a parish priest (maybe a bad analogy, there...) all it takes is one liberal or libertarian to stray over the perverted line in the sand to give the right someone to ridicule. A false equivalency then presents itself, as if both parties are equally corrupt and immoral, when nothing could be further from the truth. He needs to be taken out to the woodshed and get his behind whipped. out of the public spotlight and back on-line where it belongs.
    Certainly it indicates a very sick mind. And I can not forgive a person such as him. Talk about despicable !

  13. Gracie, through all the gibberish and nonsensical musings there is certainly something there.

    Oh yes, there it is, both parties are corrupt. The pursuit of power, and the desire to maintain power once aquired, is the corrupting common denominator.Money from special interests is the fuel.

    I am in the light of day Gracie. I use my real name, I publish real images images of myself, and, most important, I am not a sheeple, I march to no ones drumbeat but my own. There is strength in numbers. But it is the outspoken individual, with reason on their side that both parties and their advocates are most fearful of. It is a truth that both parties are collectivist and both require, indeed demand conformity. And sadly enough most people seem to accept it and even enjoy it.

    Thanks for the backhanded compliment Gracie. And please keep exposing me to the light you think I'm not already in. I just keep getting stronger by your efforts.

    Have A fine day now Gracie, ya hear.


  14. Rational Nation USA said"
    Thanks for the backhanded compliment Gracie. And please keep exposing me to the light you think I'm not already in. I just keep getting stronger by your efforts."

    compliments? I didn't give any compliment, back handed or otherwise.
    Are you delirious? I would NEVER compliment YOU! In fact i don't care for you at all. And I don't agree with anything that you say.

    1. Thank you for your continuing support Gracie, much obliged.

      Someday Gracie I'll explain sarcasm to you so you can better understand your "compliment."

      Enjoy your day.

    2. Go directly to Hell, and don't collect $200. bucks.

    3. PS. I'd really Love to shove my foot up your ass, but it appears as if you're head's in the way.

  15. Don't try to come up with lame excuses, you fucking Jew Hater, it seems as if you are hated by the whole blogging world ...... you sick bastard

  16. Love that soap box don'tcha? Take a bow Gracie and SoapBox Kid.

    You both made great intellectual statements. Very deep, I'm sure you keep your followers (Sheeples) in AWE.

  17. Hey, I have a great idea for you dudes and dudettes that like the soap box of BS.

    Why not do a public service announcement tape EXPLAINING all your grievances with me and put then on a video/audio loop on your own blogs, assuming you have one, and run it every hour. Gets the word out, keeps repeating the BS and you won;'t have to keep typing the stuff.

    Just trying to be a good citizen here and hep ya all out!

  18. Has anyone bothered to look up the dictionary definition of the word “libertarian?” For your convenience, read this:

    Lib·er·tar·i·an [lib-er-tair-ee-uhn] noun
    1. a person who advocates liberty, especially with regard to thought or conduct.
    2. a person who maintains the doctrine of free will (distinguished from necessitarian ).

    3. advocating liberty or conforming to principles of liberty.
    4. maintaining the doctrine of free will.

    Have you looked up the dictionary definition of the word “liberty” yet? Again, for your reading convenience:

    lib·er·ty [lib-er-tee] noun, plural lib·er·ties.
    1. freedom from arbitrary or despotic government or control.
    2. freedom from external or foreign rule; independence.
    3. freedom from control, interference, obligation, restriction, hampering conditions, etc.; power or right of doing, thinking, speaking, etc., according to choice.
    4. freedom from captivity, confinement, or physical restraint: The prisoner soon regained his liberty.

    Now, how about the word “liberal?” Read on:

    lib·er·al [lib-er-uhl, lib-ruhl] adjective
    1. favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.
    2. noting or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform.
    3. of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism, especially the freedom of the individual and governmental guarantees of individual rights and liberties.
    4. favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, especially as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.
    5. favoring or permitting freedom of action, especially with respect to matters of personal belief or expression.

    Please note: The words liberal, liberty and libertarian share semantic elements, and I am flabbergasted when partisans argue over words that are conceptually similar.

    One problem, as I see it, is that we have forgotten how to be friends and neighbors. In my neighborhood, for example, there are liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans. When any of us take a vacation, there are neighbors who look after the house, take in the mail, and feed the family cat. Regardless of persuasion, there are no partisan variations in how to be a good neighbor. However, there are political hacks and henchmen who want to polarize us along party lines and turn neighbor against neighbor.

  19. Octopus comment continued (part 2):

    I have known Rational Nation for about 5 or 6 years. At first, I was an admitted predator – unmerciful in how I treated him. Over the years, I began seeing RN within the context of neighbors in my neighborhood. Yes, there are differences in opinion and in how we view contemporary events, but little difference in how neighbors might treat each other when you treat them right. One thing I have learned about RN: If you respect him as a friend and neighbor, he will return the complement a hundred fold.

    So what is this stuff about RN being some notorious anti-Semite. In the 5 or 6 years I have known him, RN may not be the best wordsmith in the Blogosphere – but I have never read a hateful or malicious word from him. So why is this troll assailing RN’s character?

    Was it perhaps a misplaced remark about victims going to the slaughter? What was the context of his remark? Was RN vexing over a question that has haunted Holocaust victims: Why wasn’t there more armed resistance? I won’t argue over details, but a vexing and well-intentioned question doesn’t turn a person into a bigot. Did this question mean RN is an anti-Semite when Holocaust victims have been asking the same question? Get a life.

    There are 18 writers at the Swash Zone, four of whom are Jewish. RN is a regular reader and welcome commenter at the Zone. None of us at the Zone who are Jewish ever witnessed a mean-spirited or anti-Semitic word from RN. To claim otherwise is malicious defamation.

    Then, you ask: How can a non-Kosher creature such as an Octopus claim to be Jewish. Simple: We don’t eat our own kind. I can’t say the same for trolls.

    1. Octo: So what is this stuff about RN being some notorious anti-Semite.

      I shall assume your inquiry is genuine. See here for an explanation of why people are attacking RN.

      Octo: If you respect him as a friend and neighbor, he will return the complement a hundred fold.

      I've never seen an example of this. In fact, RN made the same old tired accusations of "spinning, twisting, and intentionally taking my words out of context so as to intentionally misrepresent them" the last time I commented on his blog. My comment was genuine. I did nothing that he accuses me of. The "spinning" accusation is one I've seen him make against Shaw. I assume it's an insult he uses regularly. Accusations of lying ("intentionally misrepresent") isn't a compliment.

      Also, he admitted to posting anonymously and said "I've had fun playing games with your delusional ass".

      Currently he is monopolizing the commenting on my blog and (IMO) encouraging these attacks. Previously he referred to my blog as a swamp that could not be drained, a shit bowl, and beneath him (and his friend Shaw). Now he says were're friends? It's more game playing and I am not amused. How do you know RN isn't laughing at both Octopus and Shaw? He is laughing at Shaw if he is an Anon who commented here and on Shaw's blog as "The Sword of Truth".

      Here on Shaw's blog RN all but admits it. He was "The Sword of Truth". He also calls himself "Sir Baron Von Quilty" and Shaw responds by saying "Now THAT'S funny!". No offense Shaw, but it isn't funny.

    2. Dervish,

      I have seen examples of what you say and worse. And with all due candor, I have been as guilty as anyone in accusing the other side of "neo-fascism" and harboring "totalitarian intentions."

      Notwithstanding the above, you and I have read the literature and know the source of red meat politics. I believe we are on the same page with respect to the plutocracy, i.e. the Walton and Koch families, who fund the stink tanks such as ALEC and CATO whose goal is to craft messages that fragment the electorate such that we no longer vote common economic self-interests.

      If I make allowances for RN's politics, it is because we are all riding in the same boat, and it seems silly for us to be pawns in the game of oligarchs. RN may have his partisan moments (so do we) but RN also shares a fundamental distrust of corporatists as we do. In a hypothetically dystopian future when push comes to shove, I think we can count on RN; so lets not get caught up in an adrenaline rush over nothing.

  20. Bravo, (O)CT(O)PUS,

    Well done.

    1. RN made the dumb comments, "apologized", but then walked back the apology by saying he was "taken out of context".

      And don't forget that this "out of context" explanation is predicated on...

      [1] His assertion that Jews went "willing" to the gas chambers and didn't fight back... when some Jews DID fight back... and then there is the fact that it took the trained and equipped combined forces of the allies to defeat the Nazis (equipped with machine guns, tanks, aircraft, naval warships etc). Does RN think the Jewish people could have defeated Hitler if they had fought back to his level of satisfaction? It's utterly ridiculous victim blaming that is, in itself (anti-Semitic or not) disgusting and laughably ridiculous.

      [2] His ridiculous worry that the jack-booted Progressive brown shirts will come for him if he (and others like him) and he needs to be prepared to fight back. And he believes this threat is one that comes exclusively from the Left. He specifically called out Progressives, yet here we have two Progressives who jump eagerly to his defense? WHY? I see no problem with being friendly with people we disagree with politically, but it was RN who created this problem (of people saying he's anti-Semitic) and it was RN who could have simply retracted the comment in it's entirety.

      People would not still be talking about this if he had deleted the comment, apologized and not gone on and on about idiots taking his comment "out of context" (and calling detractors POS, asshat, etc). And he comes to my blog to publish literally dozens of comments insulting people and calling them stupid for not knowing the "proper context"?!

      He did this to himself and continues to goad people into talking about him and his comments! His "context" is largely BS and insensitive regardless. WHY the hell, given these facts, do Octopus and Shaw feel the need to jump to RN's defense???

    2. Indeed, there is the experience of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising and other isolated examples; however a naive comment often issues from a lack of historical knowledge, not necessarily from bias intent.

      My point: RN treats me with civility and respect, and I to him in return. I respond to personal one-on-one communications, not to third-party hearsay reported by other bloggers regardless of persuasion. All too often, bloggers act as a lynch mob along partisan lines expecting us to salute at the mere mention of hearsay. I prefer to experience people and events for myself and judge accordingly.

    3. Derv, put it on a continual play video loop.

      Whatever axe you have to grind keep grinding away. Neither you, or your trolls are worth one more second of my valuable time.

      You are but a vindictive individual, if that makes you happy, or gives you a perverse sense of satisfaction I'm glad to be at your service.

      Enjoy you life, however you choose.

    4. Your, not you.

      Not that you care Derv but you, and those like you, give progressives a bad name. Octo and Shaw on the other hand do not.As well as many other progressives that are unlike you.

    5. Wrong RN. I have no ax to grind. You are suffering from persecution delusions. I offered to let the matter drop (with a proposed truce that you rejected). I'm not worth one more second of your valuable time? You've expressed similar sentiments before, but you keep coming back.

      Fair enough Octopus, but what we're talking about isn't "hearsay". The comment in question can be viewed on RN's blog here. In addition to saying "American Jews are the offspring of the pacifists that willing were led to the gas chambers in Hitler's Holocaust" he also insults Shaw by saying "twisting, spinning, and turning in your perverse desire to be foolish are ya s. Shaw?"

      What was "foolish" was Shaws comment that "American Jews, who also care deeply about Israel's security, overwhelmingly support Mr. Obama".

      Looks like a statement of fact to me. But, instead of saying Shaw and American Jews who support Obama are wrong (in his opinion) RN makes the offensive comment about going willing to gas chambers. In my strong opinion RN is the fool. A huge one, at that (anti-Semite or not, and I think probably not). But what difference does it make, as he identifies with Ayn Rand and Objectivism, an ideology that is (in essence) anti-everyone but a select few (a great many people are parasites and leeches according to RN's heroine).

    6. Good golly Miss Molly, this doesn't sound like an anti-Semitic statement to me:

      RN: "I believe his support is sincere and that Romney certainly places the importance of Israeli - U,S. relations far above that demonstrated by President BHO."

      Here is RN talking about "the importance of Israel." How does this statement translate into an anti-Semitic comment? Yes, later in the comment thread, RN does refer to pacifist Jews going to the gas chambers, but you need to look at the post and comment thread in its entirety. It's a partisan statement, not an anti-Semitic one.

      So what if RN is a Romney supporter. Romney lost. Obama won. In a hyper-partisan election season, all sides engage in hyperbole. Let's put this into context.

      Let's not malign and defame people who would also be good neighbors if they lived on your block. This is an example of partisanship going WAY TOO FAR.

    7. It was commenters on this blog -- commenters that traveled from RN's blog to Shaw's blog to possibly some other blog before they ended up here. Those commenters were the ones that said RN was an anti-Semite. It wasn't me. I say the comment is fking stupid and offensive and I stand by that.

      BTW Conservatives defend Israel because they believe it will play a role in the end times. Supporting Israel does not preclude one from being an anti-Semite... obviously this doesn't apply to RN, as he is an atheist (I'm fairly certain). I don't know what Mormons believe about the "end times" but clearly Romeny has to support Israel for political reasons (regardless of whatever his personal/religious beliefs are).

      RN maligned and defamed himself. I'm not taking any blame for anything that happened in regards to a "poorly worded" comment by him that others took "out of context".

    8. Dervish my friend,

      Acknowledged, I can name Pat Robertson as an example of a religious conservative who invokes Israel only insofar as it serves his private agenda.

      Getting back to RN, I never made any claims of him being a consummate wordsmith; however, gaffes do not necessarily turn everyone into a bad person. We all make gaffes, have off days, or say things we regret later. It's human nature (exempting cephalopods).

      All I am saying is that bloggers often take partisanship too far and allow adrenaline to get the best of them. Ethical blogging is important to make (except for trolls who are unredeemable).


  21. Holy dollars Batman.......looks like George Zimmerman is going to get a couple hundred grand from the state of Florida to cover his legal cost.

    I love it....justice prevails.....good for you George.

    Dervy or Shaw,call the race slut Sharpton....there should be a protest over this...wait maybe processed Al can get a piece of it.

    1. Rusty: George Zimmerman is going to get a couple hundred grand from the state of Florida...

      No he isn't. I haven't looked into it, but if there is any money it will go to his lawyers. Also, regarding your comments on Will's blog... my head isn't exploding. GZ was found not guilty so FL covering his costs makes sense. That FL has to pay GZ's portion of the costs for their show trial does not bother me.

      And remember that there is still the matter of the civil suit and the (potential) civil rights violation charge.

    2. Rusty was a bit too early in his crowing about Florida paying off Zimmerman's legal debts. Only the court costs would be covered, not attorney fees, the MOST EXPENSIVE part of his defense:

      Zimmerman's defense attorney,O'Mara: George Zimmerman will ask state to cover $200K-$300K of his legal bills
      (Orlando Sentinel) George Zimmerman, the Neighborhood Watch volunteer who killed Trayvon Martin, plans to ask the state of Florida to cover $200,000 to $300,000 of his legal expenses, his attorney told the Orlando Sentinel Monday evening.

      Because Zimmerman was acquitted, state law requires Florida to pay all his legal costs, minus the biggest one: the fee that goes to his lawyers."


  22. Will Dervy,Shaw,Steve or Octo contribute to Bradley Mannings hormone treatment?

  23. Rusty,

    Your sarcasm is duly noted. For the record, the answer is "no." I would not contribute to Chelsea Manning's hormone treatments. However, I would contribute to yours: The change might help broaden your perspective.


  24. It is my privilege to expose the falseness, or the myth if you may of Octo’s remarks here.
    Who gives a Rats Ass what the LibaTurds Shaw, or Octo and especially TN say.
    Fats are Fact and can NOT be interpreted to mean anything but the original thought.
    This was and IS RN's way of behaving period.
    Just because he is a ass wiper over at your place that does NOT excuse him from what he is anywhere else.
    There is NO one who will deny that he said want he did... period, end of conversation.
    His calling out his troops to defend him will not change the Facts.
    And no one that I know with a once of brains will buy what those to crapheads say anyway. In fact if they come here defending him that only expounds the matter.
    a anti Semite is a anti Semite, there is no way to interpret it any other way

  25. It is my privilege to expose the falseness, or the myth if you may of Octo’s remarks here.

    And it is our privilege to ignore your tripe.

    Besides, "fat" facts are dangerous to your health.


  26. Frankly, I’m sick and tired of these Liberals who protect each other, no matter what they say.
    There’s an old saying that “Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views”. And Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn" about what Shaw, or Octo contribute to these boards, I wouldn’t believe a word about what they say no matter what! Liberals endorse whatever their liberal buddies say. No matter how outrageous or untrue it may be.
    There is no moral honesty, on honor in what they say.
    As for the Anniversary of Martin Luther King's famous speech. It is ironic that Barack Hussein Obama is speaking on the anniversary of Dr. Martin Luther King's march on Washington. Where he gave his famous "Dream" speech.

    Obama is the epitome of someone who got where he did by the color of his skin and defiantly not by the content of his character.

    THAT part of the dream is nowhere to be found today. Everything that happens, the people involved are judged by the color of their skin and character has been all but ignored.
    This is the fault of the Media and the race baiters like Al Sharpton and Jessie Jackson.

    1. MCV,

      One problem with your reply is that you stereotype people and make blanket statements. In your universe, people are either angels or devils - all black or all white with no shades of grey. The real world is not like that. There are sincere well-intentioned people on both sides of the political divide who simply disagree on the role of government but otherwise make rather good civic-minded neighbors. Too bad you see it that way.

      Another problem with your reply is that it embodies and exemplifies everything you criticize - with anger and extreme intolerance towards others motivated by "identity-driven" partisanship.

      I suppose "Do unto others ..." is not a credo on your subscription list.

  27. VoR,
    The anger, vituperation, and lack of civility in your comment (above) demonstrates that you are not an ethical blogger or a mature person.

  28. Oh shut your dumb fat face Octopus, your screen name is even dumber that your thoughts.
    And that's pretty damn dumb.
    This Country is tapped out from the Welfare and Food Stamp giveaways that are the real cause of a bankrupt America. And you jerkoffs close your eyes, and gaping liberal mouths and keep on defending him. Go back to your Rat hole blog and stsy there, we heard more than enough bullshit from you and your ilk.

    1. Found on "Obamanot" blog. If anyone needed a good hard laugh today, THIS IS IT! Whatever writes this blog it's doing a terrific job of making fun of unhinged, foaming-at-the-mouth, rolling in the mucky-muck hyenas. It's really got them down really good as "morans"!

      "Friday, April 13, 2012
      Who is this guy pretending to be president?.
      Who is Barack Hussein Obama? I think he is the same guy that the Media neglected to investigate before electing him for us.. not a natural-born citizen, but an indoctrinated America-hater, slayer of Capitalism, user of socialism/Marxism to gain office, and a Muslim at heart.. they who want 'infidels' dead.
      Like all hypocritical Liberals, he preaches one thing and does another.
      The people who could not vote for McCain and the independents looking for hope and change? They should be so embarrassed as to never vote again."

      Wonder how much it gets paid to publish that slop.

    2. At least he has a blog, not like the chicken Shit a-hole coward you are

    3. I have a blog, Jerk Torrance, but only people who can walk without dragging their knuckles on the ground are invited to see it.

      That's why you can't.

  29. George Whyte: It is my privilege to expose the falseness, or the myth if you may of Octo’s remarks here. And it is our privilege to ignore your tripe.

    True, you can ignore Octo's remarks. But it isn't your privilege to publish any comment you wish here. I'm getting tired of so many of the comments here being all about RN. I haven't done anything up to now because I REALLY did not want to become a "defender" of RN... but it looks like I might not have a choice.

    MCV: Everything that happens, the people involved are judged by the color of their skin and character has been all but ignored.

    Your racial and political biases are influencing your view on this matter. President Obama accomplished everything he has in life due to the exemplary content of his character.

    FYI, Rational Nation is a Libertarian. He isn't a Progressive or a Liberal. Proof that MCV didn't read any of my post.

    Obamanot: This Country is tapped out from the Welfare and Food Stamp giveaways that are the real cause of a bankrupt America.

    Typical Conservative Bullcrap... blaming poor people for what the rich leaches have done to our country. The things you mention are a tiny portion of the budget.

    1. Mr. Sanders, I forgot to use quotation marks around the sentence you quoted above. I took that sentence from some rightwing nut who wrote it. I think its name is Voice of Ranting or something:

      "The Voice of Reason8/28/2013 7:22 AM

      It is my privilege to expose the falseness, or the myth if you may of Octo’s remarks here."


    2. Correction noted, Mr. Whyte. You didn't say that, VOR did. My apologies to you.

  30. And we wonder why crime, murder, rape, and lack of any moral fiber exists in this nation with these creepy-ass, liberal freaks preaching to the rest of us.. Just go through their blogs and look at them.. I was looking through them today and I couldn't even stomach it to read them. it would be a joke, but it’s not funny. These are the assholes who elected our president! Just take a look at the TRASH on the boards of these degenerates like Octopus, Rational Nation USA, and Shaw Kenawe, along with this president they are prime examples of why this country has declined. They are all mentally, and morally dysfunctional. Reminiscent of Rachel Jeantel!
    BTW they are progressives. They just stole the liberal moniker when people realized how nuts progressives were.

    1. Obamanot, your insults are meaningless, as you have no idea who you are even insulting. RN did NOT vote for Obama. RN is NOT a Progressive. Also, I'm fine with being called a Progressive. The "liberal moniker" wasn't stolen by us when "people realized how nuts progressives were".

    2. Whatever, Same Shit, different moniker.

    3. Man, you know about shit, don't you Obamanot. Stink goes to stink.

    4. Obamanot: "I was looking through them [liberal blogs] today and I couldn't even stomach it to read them."

      Did you move your lips when you forced yourself to read those blogs. And did you secretly get a thrill up your conservative posterior when you did?

      Tell us about how reading those liberal blogs got you off.

  31. Man that good! You are good Obamanot! That's the best laugh I've had since Sarah Palin said she could see Russia from her window! Why don't you try to write for her? I bet, Obamanot!, you could make big bucks writing stuff for her or any other con like her. Look into it. Why limit yourself to giving us free entertainment here, when you could be lining your pockets with enough money to buy yourself some great drugs!

    1. You are just as big an Ass-Hole as the other DemoTurds I mentions, except you're small potatoes.

      By the way, Mr. Know it all, Sarah Palin NEVER said she could see Russia from her window! A myth from your Dimocrap friends.

      Maybe it was Her Thighness Hillary Klinton who said it. After all, she lies about everything else.

      LOL Go home small potatoes your out of your league.

    2. Would you like fries with that Funny Obamanot?

  32. Haven't you "Progressives" seen enough to admit that Your Messiah is the worst president in terms of foreign policy, and just about everything else, especially Race Relations, ever? Obama pushed an "outreach to the Muslim world" with speaking tours in Cairo etc. The result is our standing in the muslim world is worse than under Bush. Obama pushed for total withdrawal in Iraq and Afghnistan. As a result both those places are less stable than under Bush. Obama pushed for "reset" with the Russians. The result is that Russia is arming Syria and opposing us at every turn. Obama lectured European allies like schoolchildren with the result that they wont listen to him and are making their own way on foreign policy. Obama held up the UN as the only legitimate determiner of US policy. The result is he cannot get anything passed there. Our UN ambassador missed a key vote on Syria, allegedly on vacation.
    What has he done for other blacks in this country, being the first black president; the first post racial president? NOTHING. In fact, under Obama the situation for blacks has gotten worse with higher then average unemployment and underemployment. Now that he's finally abandoned the "It's all Bush's Fault" excuse for his non-performance as a leader or president, the new excuse relies heavily on his own innate racism.
    Is there one foreign policy success that can be attributed to Obama and his changes in policy? No. His administration is a total failure.

    Actuality, I'm still trying to figure out what his foreign policy is?

    1. Very good Obamabot. But you're not quite as funny as Ted Nugent was when he shit his pants to get out of serving in Viet Nam.

      Keep it going. We're enjoying the comedy.

  33. Obamanot: [Obama is] the first post racial president... Now that he's finally abandoned the "It's all Bush's Fault" excuse for his non-performance as a leader or president, the new excuse relies heavily on his own innate racism.

    Barack Obama is not the first "post racial" president. Your racist comment proves this. Also, it is Republican obstructionism that explains why we haven't made more progress in getting out of this recession. According to a story on AlterNet "Republicans Are Clearly Happy to Destroy the Country...If They Can Get Political Leverage Out of It".

    Excerpt... On [1/20/2009] in a private room at the Caucus Room restaurant in DC, Republican leaders plotted to intentionally sabotage and undermine the Obama presidency at every turn, no matter how much damage it did to the American people. Remember, at that time 700k people a month were losing their jobs and the American economy was in the most horrible tailspin since the Great Depression. And the Republicans wanted to keep it that way.

    As Robert Draper documented in his book "Do Not Ask What Good We Do: Inside the U.S. House of Representatives", on the guest list for the 4 hour "invitation only" meeting were Republican Congressmen Eric Cantor, Paul Ryan, Kevin McCarthy, Pete Sessions, Jeb Hensarling, Pete Hoekstra and Dan Lungren. Republican Senators included Tom Coburn, John Ensign, Bob Corker, Jon Kyl and now-Heritage Foundation President Jim DeMint. Newt Gingrich was also in attendance and [later] bragged that the purpose of the dinner meeting was to come up with a plan to sabotage the Obama presidency.

    During the dinner, the Republican conspirators vowed to bring Congress to a standstill, regardless of how badly Congressional inaction would hurt the already hurting American economy and people. In essence, they pledged to each other to obstruct filibuster and block any legislation that might improve the economy, and thus make President Obama look good.

    And the recession was bush's fault. You whining about anyone pointing this out doesn't shift the blame for bush's lousy presidency to anyone else, so you can stuff it.

  34. DS says..
    'And the recession was bush's fault. You whining about anyone pointing this out doesn't shift the blame for bush's lousy presidency to anyone else, so you can stuff it"

    LMAO yeah right, where have I heard that before?

    1. "LMAO yeah right, where have I heard that before?"

      From the voices in your head?

  35. What both sides have to accept is obama is not reagan. Reagan had ideas on how to fix the economy and get people back to work, obama has handlers who only care about politics and the rich. He can say all he wants about the middle class but every action hurts the middle class and benefits the rich and large corporations.

    1. skuddy, what both sides have to accept is all the problems of today can be traced directly back to Reagan. Reagan had ideas on how to ruin the economy and begin the transfer the wealth of the middle class upwards. 30 years later that task has been largely accomplished. Until the people recognize that fact and [1] pressure the politicians to move in a significantly more Progressive direction and [2] vote in more Progressives... the slide into oligarchy will continue.

      Obama and the Congressional Dems have tried to pass legislation to get people back to work, but the Repubs are only concerned with obstructing, keeping us in recession, and continuing the transfer of the wealth of the middle class to the wealthy. The Obama Administration has tried to take steps toward helping the middle class but every action the Repubs prevent him from taking hurts the middle class and benefits the rich and large corporations.

    2. You are so correct. Reagan administration oversaw unprecedented prosperity, low unemployment and a growth of the middle class. The US was admired throughout the world. Defiantly the opposite of what we have today. Reagan took a page from JFK in lowering taxes to create prosperity.
      I am waiting for an explanation of what legislation the dems are trying to pass to get people back to work that the republicans are blocking. Would that be another stimulus package that created no jobs or perhaps increasing unemployment.
      Yes Obama has been very supportive of the middle class. He has raised taxes on cigarettes, tanning parlors and obamacare. He has given corporations a pass on obamacare so the middle class can pay more.

      Yep, he is a real supporter of the middle class. Explain again what the republicans are holding up to help the country?

    3. JFK lowered taxes but eliminated loopholes. That Cons try to link JFK and Reagan is another of their ridiculous lies. Reagan was primarily about cutting taxes on the wealthy. The term "trickle down" was invented to describe his brand of economics... a theory (trickle down) that Reagan's budget director, David Stockman, later admitted was a "Trojan horse" that was "used to used to get approval for the huge top tax bracket cuts". Lowering taxes does NOT create prosperity. It's a scam.

      The stimulus created jobs and lowered unemployment. As for the Republicans blocking legislation, see my comment above...

      Dervish Sanders @ 8/28/2013 11:47 AM

      The Republican met and decided to block EVERYTHING. The plan was to intentionally prolong the recession to make Obama look bad. This is why, even when Obama adopted Republican ideas and incorporated them into his proposed legislation, the Repubs objected! Ideas they formerly endorsed they now opposed.

      But Skuddy ignores this prior comment from me and repeats his same talking points. He isn't an honest debater, but instead someone who thinks he can "win" just by insisting he's right and ignoring comments from others that show he is wrong.

    4. Dervy,

      Lets have an honest debate, what legislation are the republicans holding up that would create jobs.

      900 billion and no permanent jobs created, great plan. When it started to fail to produce jobs the leader started using create or saved.

      On the Reagan side, remember he took over a disaster created by jimmy. At least the mess obama took over was created by his own party.


  36. After these folks left the Caucus room they flew to Dallas to look for shell casings on the grassy knoll.......then they went to Washington State in search of Bigfoot.....then on to Roswell......a few went to search for the Yeti......a couple went to the Bermuda Triangle.......and some went to help Al Gore find ManBearPig....

    1. A comment that makes no sense at all, Rusty. Are you saying you think the meeting did not take place? The evidence that it did is pretty solid, I believe. It includes statements by several people who were there. It isn't a conspiracy theory.

      According the Representative from the 32nd district of Texas, Pete Sessions, the plan was to wage a Taliban-like insurgency. Is intentional sabotage of the economy by the Party Rusty (likely) voted for something he supports?

  37. skudrunner8/28/2013 3:54 PM
    What both sides have to accept is obama is not reagan.

    THANK GOD!!!!!!!!!


Comment moderation has temporarily been suspended. Although I may be forced to reinstate it if the trolls take advantage.