In the previous post, I mentioned a protester at a local rally wondering if armed revolt is warranted should Obamacare pass the House vote. Bubba reminded that such an option should not be dismissed and may indeed be necessary at some undefined point in the future. Dan jumped on it as if there are actual plans afoot to bring about such a response. Of course, he thinks this is a done deal as do many libs who can't see past the rhetoric to understand what is really going on.
This excellent J.R. Dunn article clearly points out a number of reasons that underline my belief that armed rebellion is not close to necessity. He adds some that didn't come to mind.
Consider also the fact that members of Barry's own party required bribery to cast a "yes" vote. Only the totally corrupted liberal (almost a redundancy) would overlook such a thing and constituents of those who were so bribed will not likely forget, especially if they are among the first who's taxes will rise as a result of the bill's passage.
There are also, as the article suggests, those who voted for Obama not to support him, but to punish the GOP. Now they fully understand the warnings and pleadings of their more rational compadres.
Add to that the actions already underway across the nation and the numbers willing to continue the vocalizations of the people begun by the Tea Party Movement and Barry's gonna have his tobacco stained hands busy. My oldest friend (who is a lib) spoke of his having optimism for our nation. Maybe this is what he meant
59 comments:
sigh...
CLARIFICATION:
Dan didn't "jump on it as if there are actual plans afoot to bring about such a response." Dan simply asked the reasonable question: What does an armed rebellion against the US look like to these sorts of loopnuts?
I was curious, and so, I asked a question. Is that okay with you?
I hate to be spoil sport, but I can't be so optimistic.
There are millions of Liberals out there who still believe Obama is the greatest leader since Moses.
Look at Dan himself as your paradigm of unreasonable, illogical, blind fanaticism.
They, along with calculating Chicago thug style politicians, can continue to influence the ignorant uninformed people of this nation, and will undoubtedly try with renewed vigor now that they have been victorious to continue trying to turn the United States of America into the United Soviet States of America with Obama as "dictator for life".
Would that I were wrong about this, but I don't have that much confidence in the uninformed masses.
Get real, Dan. You did more than ask one question. You implored that we should calm down and take our fingers off the trigger. You suggested that I should have alerted the authorities because some guy wondered whether it was time to start shootin'.
Mark,
I understand your cynicism. But keep in mind that the number of lunatic lefties is to small to win any election, just as the number of normal people (that would be conservatives) isn't enough either. It is the squishy middle, most of whom are more conservative than they are willing to admit, and some of whom would be Republicans if they could trust that the party would maintain, support and work toward its principles. There are truly more of us than there are of them, but our leadership hasn't been of the best quality in recent years, which is why Barry is even able to pretend to be a president.
Dan, when I point out that you're a liar, you frequently ask for proof. I've often provided proof, and you dismiss the evidence as piffle, feelings, and hunches.
You now write, "Dan simply asked the reasonable question: What does an armed rebellion against the US look like to these sorts of loopnuts?"
More definitive proof of your dishonesty would be difficult to find.
I'll say more about that specific comment shortly, but the fact is that very little of what you have written here and in the previous thread is sincere. It's mostly an act -- a charade -- and a very poor one at that.
You write about "the lunatic fringe who are ready (or nearly ready) to pick up arms against our nation," as if you haven't already carried water for an unrepentant domestic terrorist: the Marxist who targeted U.S. soldiers and their loved ones, you defend by repeatedly claiming that he only bombed "stuff."
You insist that we will still be a free nation next year, as if you have any real and reliable concept of freedom. You don't; freedom requires limited government, and our Founders intended the federal government to be limited to those powers explicitly enumerated by the Constitution, but you're willing to produce the most asinine arguments to support the idea that the federal government's power is limited only by a broad mandate to promote the general welfare.
You talk about how elections will still take place and that "this is how a Republic works," but you do so with no apparent recognition of the possibility that the government can undermine the legitimacy of elections: that you would surely find Jim Crow to be a threat to freedom belies this feigned ignorance on your part.
And you suggest an equivalence between the use of force and "embracing evil," when this country -- "our great nation," as you dishonestly describe it -- wasn't exactly liberated through a massive movement of "dropping out", and when you have no qualms supporting the legal sanction of abortion (50 million children murdered and counting) and practically having orgasms over a politician who has supported the legal sanction of infanticide by neglect and who has now signed into law an act that uses our taxes to fund the murder of "the least of our brothers."
It's clear that what you believe -- political progressivism, which is radical and collectivist -- you believe sincerely. But almost everything you write to advance your beliefs or discredit your opponents is dishonest.
Your arguments aren't the results of conviction, they're the tactics of convenience.
On that score, you're a complete fraud, and we see right through you.
Back to your supposed "clarification."
"Dan didn't 'jump on it as if there are actual plans afoot to bring about such a response.' Dan simply asked the reasonable question: What does an armed rebellion against the US look like to these sorts of loopnuts?"
This is an obvious lie.
Any curious bystander could verify the dishonesty of your claim BECAUSE THE WRITTEN RECORD STILL EXISTS AND IS READILY ACCESSIBLE, as the previous comment thread in this blog.
Not for the first time, you're lying about a comment you've written less than 48 hours prior, a comment that is still in the public record for all to see.
If you're not above lying about what people can **TRIVIALLY** confirm or disprove, then your word really is completely worthless.
Bubba, are you intent on being all aggressive asshole, all the time? Relax, brother man. And rest assured, you have me all wrong.
Or stay outraged if you want, but it's not good for you. You'll give yourself a hernia in outrage one of these days, or a stroke or heart attack. Such pent up rage over every trivial little line is not good for the soul, nor for good communication.
Relax.
I'll pass on further clarifications on your tirade. Suffice to say that there is very little accurate in your representation of my sins. You are right, people can go and see that I did not "jump on it as if there were actual plans." I asked questions as to what it would look like. Read it for yourself.
For my part, I am quite sure that most of these folk who espouse such venom and violence are impotent little men who are trying to prove themselves by yelling louder and uttering more vile threats, but ultimately, will do nothing about it.
THE REASON I ask, then, in addition to simply being curious, is that I would hope to bring a bit of a pause to the maddened mind that would suggest deadly rebellion. "Am I REALLY saying I want to go shoot up a liberal church or assassinate a Democrat representative?"
Once you spell out specifically what you're talking about, it helps to cool things off, I believe. Hence, I ask questions to clarify and, in seeking clarity, perhaps to calm the raging soul.
Perhaps I'm mistaken, though, as your soul Bubba, seems none the calmer.
Dan, you're so full of shit it defies description: if you really cared so much for others' physical and spiritual well-being, you wouldn't provoke justifiable contempt by being such a passive aggressive liar: you would be transparently honest and sincere, essentially everything that you're not.
Clearly, your concern for "venom and violence" is nothing but an act: once again, you defended the venomous slander of Jeremiah Wright, and you downplayed the literally murderous violence of William Ayers.
You're a tenacious prick, but the good news is that you're a really terrible liar: you can't even continue the fake civility and gentility to the end of a single comment: a person who was really interested in calming things down, cooling things off, and clarifying issues wouldn't digress into idiotic psychoanalysis about how his opponents are "impotent little men."
If you have any other lies, keep 'em to yourself, because I see right them.
I see right "through" them, I should say.
About my being perpetually "aggressive," Dan, I will note that I am quite civil even with those who strongly disagree with me, so long as I can reasonably extend to them the benefit of the doubt that they argue in good faith.
I was, for the most part, quite civil with YOU, until I could draw no other conclusion but that your inconsistency and incoherence is the result of deliberate deceit.
My lack of patience with your bullshit isn't aggression: it's a response to what is now clearly subversive, dishonorable behavior on your part.
If you were the civil, thoughtful, and decent man that you pretend to be, we wouldn't have a problem.
As it is, I'm actually quite calm in dismantling your hypocrisy. I'm just done with pretending that you have a conscience, and -- fully confident that your behavior is contemptuous -- I have no problem making clear my contempt.
The day will come, Brother Bubba, when we'll stand before God and you'll be awfully embarrassed to see that I have been honest all these years with you, explaining my positions as best as I can - imperfectly, of course - and just telling you truthfully what I believe.
And God will say, "Wow, Bubba. 'go fuck yourself'? Really? Why couldn't you just lighten up a little, my child? Such bile and vitriol was not good for you. That's what led to your heart attack which brought you here, my son. And let's not get started on the chutzpah of you insisting you know what these other children of mine REALLY thought better than they do..."
And what will you say?
(And, of course, God will turn to me and say, "Wow, Dan. Why didn't you just let it go? You could see that your answers weren't providing any light, only anger and darkness. Don't you see you were provoking these children of mine by trying to correct their misunderstandings? Sometimes, you just need to quit, son..."
And what will I say?
May God grant us all wisdom and grace.
Oh, I see.
It's "chutzpah" for me to draw from your writing conclusions with which you disagree, never mind that you do THE EXACT SAME THING, except more quickly and on less evidence.
From your writings over the course of literally years, I've concluded that you're a lying, passive-aggressive hypocrite. From what I've written over the last day or two, you've concluded that I'm dangerous, deluded, and impotent.
If you really are being honest and truthful, then you're guilty of the sloppiest thinking I've ever seen, because consistency would REQUIRE you not to draw controversial conclusions from the writings of others, if you think it's arrogant for others to draw controversial conclusions.
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
But it's not enough for you to criticize me for doing the same thing you do, and thereby ignore what God Incarnate actually taught: you have to presume to speak for God.
The irony is overwhelming. You routinely dismiss people's inconvenient conclusions by telling them that they're not "God enough" to know your thoughts, but you apparently think you're God enough to know His.
And I'm the one guilty of chutzpah.
Look, Dan, you will note in the previous thread that I apologized for the language.
You have said nothing -- not one word even of acknowledgement, much less explanation or apology -- regarding the substance of my conclusion that you're a lying hypocrite. You, who now pretend to be concerned about "venom and violence" against "our great nation", carried watter for the venomous Jeremiah Wright and the violent William Ayers, all while showing a complete ignorance of the limited government and the free markets that have helped make this country great.
As with your claim that you were "simply" asking a reasonable question in the last thread, there is hardly anything you could say that wouldn't be an obvious lie.
The record speaks for itself.
A race-essentialist Marxist smears this country by accusing its government of creating AIDS as an act of attempted genocide, and supposedly for the sake of repudiating "slander," you defend the slanderer as a man of God while slandering US by accusing us of a "digital lynching."
A literally revolutionary Marxist targeted soldiers and their loved ones with a nail bomb, failing only because of his incompetence, and you defend the unrepentant terrorist by repeating the lie that he only targeted "stuff."
It is only when someone affirms the principles of the Declaration of Independence, in defense of the Constitution, noting that it's not certaint that the Leviathan state can be ALWAYS rolled back through normal political means -- it is only THEN that you stand up for your supposed principles of civility and pacifism, all in the defense of "our great nation."
The hypocrisy of that, the utter moral bankruptcy, is obvious. It doesn't take divine omniscience to see that you're an unprincipled hack and a liar.
To say that such conclusions require literal megalomania is a mistake, but it's also an obvious pose when, in the very same comment, you presume to tell others what God "will" say on the last day.
Only a total fraud would criticize the arrogance of others while explicitly presuming to speak for God.
Gosh, Dan. Can you come up with a more bullshit imagining?
First problem: the assumption that our responses indicate some emotional furor on our part that put our health at risk. You give yourself far too much credit to suppose that this is the case. Feodor wrongly figures the same way. Your goofiness can be frustrating it is true. But to think any of us are sitting at our keyboards spitting and foaming at the mouth over your comments is an incredible piece of self-aggrandizement.
Second problem: To suspect that God would question Bubba over what, at worst, is righteous indignation regarding his disgust with your incredibly weak and infantile defense of your blatantly unBiblical understanding of the faith.
Third problem: That you think God wouldn't be taking you aside saying, "You didn't fool Bubba with your nonsense, what makes you think I'm buying it?"
The biggest problem: You can't make us understand your position because there's no way to defend the indefensible. You can't provide light because there's no light to provide where truth does not exist, and no truth exists in your positions. There's never been any misunderstandings on this side of the discussion. Indeed, we understand perfectly and that's where your own frustrations begin. Your frustrations (that insistence that you are misunderstood) are the result of your positions so completely falling apart under close scrutiny.
Is it really "chutzpah" when we see through your bullshit? I think not. There's no mindreading here, though you like to suppose we're making such attempts. We simply come to the only conclusions your words can possibly lead us. Additional words never lead us away from those conclusions, but instead draw us closer to them. You want us to see an ostrich when the big ears, trunk and lack of feathers indicates we're looking at an elephant. This can only mean that our conclusions are correct, since we've never failed to provide ample opportunity for you to more accurately explain yourself.
Indeed, I would find it far more likely that God would wonder, not why you didn't quit trying to explain yourself to us, but why you didn't drop the pretense that you even had an argument for your unBiblical beliefs. More accurately, He will tell you that He put us together so that you would, through us, learn how stupid your positions are. He got you to re-study the Bible when you had it wrong in the past (beliefs to which no conservative/fundie/traditionalist hold), only to develop a far worse set of beliefs. Do you think there is something special about you that prohibit His giving you over to your sinfulness in a manner of which Paul spoke? It seems to us that has already happened.
Shaking the dust off one's sandles or telling someone to go "F" himself...same thing.
Marshall, I have some thoughts on the substance, but I'd like to see this bit of housekeeping taken care of -- pest control, in a sense.
Dan, after literally years of talking with you online, I have to come believe that you're insincere and hypocritical, that you're a passive aggressive liar. Nothing you have written has called into question those conclusions, and much has validated those conclusions.
It's clear that you object to those conclusions and would rather that I take you at your word.
For argument's sake, I will do so now, just once.
I'm going to assume that your most recent comment (7:42 am) was completely sincere on your part, an honest, earnest, and transparent attempt to convey what you really believe in the clearest possible terms.
I'm holding you to what you've written, and so I expect you to bow out permanently, after nothing more than maybe a brief parting word.
You write, "I have been honest all these years with you, explaining my positions as best as I can - imperfectly, of course - and just telling you truthfully what I believe."
Okay: I'll assume that in THIS comment you're telling me truthfully what you believe, to the best of your ability.
"The day will come, Brother Bubba, when we'll stand before God...
"...God will turn to me and say, 'Wow, Dan. Why didn't you just let it go? You could see that your answers weren't providing any light, only anger and darkness. Don't you see you were provoking these children of mine by trying to correct their misunderstandings? Sometimes, you just need to quit, son...' "
You apparently believe that God will chide you for not letting go, for not quitting.
So, let go.
Quit.
[continued]
[continued]
Your quitting would be a good thing from my perspective. As I wrote earlier, "I think there must be better ways to defend the truth than continuing to waste hours with passive-aggressive liars who pretend to be Christians."
I believe I have a duty to fight radical collectivism, including (and perhaps especially) those who advance their agenda in Christ's name, but I sincerely believe my time would be better spent on other fronts. Even aside from serious questions of theology and politics, I simply have more important things to do than continuing to point out what I believe is your clear dishonesty.
In this one subject, my beliefs about what is prudent align with your stated beliefs about God's will, so we should jointly submit to what we believe is smart and right, and so we should go our separate ways.
Dan, if you honestly think that your talking with us is something for which God will one day chide you, you should stop talking with us. If you think you're digging a hole for yourself, quit digging.
I disagree with the conclusion that we're the problem: it seems far more likely that, if you have so many issues communicating with theological and political conservatives, the problem is with the common factor (you) than with such otherwise civil and reasonable men as Stan, Craig, Neil, and so forth.
Either way, if you think God doesn't approve of your efforts to communicate your beliefs with us, repent and walk away. Don't talk to us, and don't talk about us, as you've done before with Stan after he showed you the door. According to your own ridiculous standards, that's gossip, and "I'm sure you know" that God forbids gossip.
Even beyond that, comments about us cannot help but provoke a response, so they are hardly any better than comments directed to us.
You think God will tell you, about our contentious conversations, "Sometimes, you just need to quit, son..."
So, quit.
In the immortal words of the McKensie brothers, take off, eh.
In the less civil acronym of the information age, STFU and GTFO.
Or, in the words of Roy Rogers, happy trails.
Bubba,
Of course Dan meant that God will metaphorically speak to you in that fashion. This is obvious because any one can reason that God is first and foremost a God of love. He will obviously just wrap us all in a big hug and tell us we're all OK and He loves us.
True -- and I have heard that literature written in the era of Dan's comment (i.e., this morning) tended to be in the genre of the mythic epic, and our interpretation should no doubt take that into account.
Bubba, I'm striving to cut down my appearances here. It's just that my name keeps getting invoked passing on false information and, right or wrong, I feel a need to clarify, moreso for other readers' sake than yours.
Quit gossiping/slandering about me and/or my church and that would make it that much easier to ignore your comments and leave you all to rage together in peace.
You will notice that many if not most of my comments from the last week have begun with the note, "Clarification..." For the sake of other readers (and your own edification if you were willing to agree that I know what I think better than you can hunch at what I think), I have been offering clarifications when someone has misrepresented my position. Or, I've tried to, but to be honest, it's difficult to get them all because they come faster than I have time or energy to clarify.
So, if you and yours would leave my name out of your comments and gossip, then I shall strive all the harder to stay away.
Dan, for my own sake I will again commit myself to ignoring you: no time like the present.
I will note, first, that this particular discussion started when you butted into a conversation that had nothing to do with you: nobody had mentioned your name or alluded to you in any way when you intruded upon the previous thread with your incendiary accusations.
Second, and more importantly, your comment here is not exactly something that is consistent with your earlier prophecy about what God will tell you on the last day.
You write, "if you and yours would leave my name out of your comments and gossip, then I shall strive all the harder to stay away."
If you really are convinced that God Almighty will tell you that you should have given up on talking with us, then I don't see why you would make your OBEDIENCE TO GOD contingent on our behavior.
"Wow, Dan. Why didn't you just let it go? You could see that your answers weren't providing any light, only anger and darkness. Don't you see you were provoking these children of mine by trying to correct their misunderstandings? Sometimes, you just need to quit, son..."
If that's what you think God will tell you, then you should just quit without **ANY** consideration for what we will or might say in your absence.
I'm just trying to take you at your word, at least with that one comment where you assure me that you really are being honest.
("The day will come, Brother Bubba, when we'll stand before God and you'll be awfully embarrassed to see that I have been honest all these years with you, explaining my positions as best as I can - imperfectly, of course - and just telling you truthfully what I believe.")
If you honestly and truthfully believe that God will chide you for not quitting, THEN QUIT. Period, full-stop, end of paragraph.
More to the point, Dan, if you continue to insist that we are in the wrong, "misinterpreting", "slandering", etc., how can you dare expect that we will not defend ourselves against these charges as we have successfully done thus far? You cannot expect that we would simply allow such false charges to go unanwered, do you?
If you'd honestly like me to quit responding to false charges, then quit making them. It's easy enough to do.
Truth is, I don't know what God will say to me "on the last day," about these conversations. That was a guess, to be generous and to allow for the fact that I may well be wrong to correct your misrepresentations.
But if you'd like to not see me respond to you here, you have that power: Leave my name and my church out of your hunches and guesses and misrepresentations.
If you'd like to speak of what I've said, stick to quotes, not what you're guessing I mean. You're batting about 1% accuracy when you move to guessing and interpreting.
A clarification:
Brother Marshall...
if you continue to insist that we are in the wrong, "misinterpreting", "slandering", etc., how can you dare expect that we will not defend ourselves against these charges as we have successfully done thus far?
When you are GUESSING at what I, DAN TRABUE, think and believe and write down, "Dan would say or do....," you ARE GUESSING. It's all a hunch. And I, DAN TRABUE, the one who knows what DAN TRABUE thinks, am telling you that you are getting my beliefs WRONG about 90% or more of the time.
I am not saying you're mistaken about your position very often. If you want to believe God in the Bible might command people to kill infants, you are welcome to believe that. It's MOSTLY when you move from offering your beliefs to guessing about what MY beliefs are that is bringing these charges of false witness.
And, again, I DO know what I think and thus, am in a position to recognize a false witness ABOUT MY POSITIONS when I read one. Stop guessing about what Dan would or wouldn't do - you nearly always get it wrong.
Seriously, what part of slander and gossip are you failing to understand, Marshall?
All I'm saying is that you don't know what I think or believe and most of the time when you guess at it, you're mistaken. I oftentimes feel compelled to offer corrections to those false representations.
You don't like it, all you have to do is stop doing it. OR, at the least, say, "IT SEEMS TO ME, MARSHALL, that Dan is saying...." and make it clear that it IS only your hunch and NOT what I actually believe. There is a huge difference and I would think that Christian humility and grace would call for at least that much.
One more thing, I will re-iterate my standing policy of allowing anyone to post comments here. No one is obliged to respond to any comments from anyone else. I don't see why there is any problem over who says what if one is no longer interested in the opinions of another. Does this mean I will lose all visitors completely? That would suck, but it doesn't intimidate me into changing my policy. I'm sorry some may be annoyed by stupid opinions. They annoy me as well. At the same time, the stupid opinions are the easiest opinions to refute, despite the reactions from the ones who published them. And should I be so in need, responding to stupid opinions gives me something to do while waiting for something of greater substance.
Frankly, I haven't read a decent comment from a liberal in quite some time. I'm not sure if they're capable. I can't deny opinions vary and I can't deny they are often held firmly despite how stupid they might be. But stupid opinions and arguments need to be out in the open where others can see how much better mine are, or how much better other good and intelligent opinions and arguments are.
It's like good and evil. Can we know one without the other? Hard to say since we've always had both for comparison. What we do know is that some, like Dan, can say just enough to sound like one while still siding with the other and if only one person is lead astray by the confusion, that's one too many.
Is Dan a liar? Is he dishonest? To me it seems too late for that. If he believes what is so obviously false and goofy, he is either retarded or given over. I don't think he's retarded.
"If you'd honestly like me to quit responding to false charges, then quit making them."
You see, you have this totally backwards. You're the one making the false charges as we have only been responding to and drawing our conclusions from your very own words. As we've said repeatedly. If we were to simply quote exact words you've said, that isn't drawing a conclusion about the quote, it is only repeating it. Why would we do that to make a point? How does that get us to clarifications that have thus far cemented the conclusions your very own words have lead us to believe?
No. The only one who's been false here is you, Dan. Just because you can't articulate your position in a manner that changes our perceptions doesn't indicate a problem on our part, especially since the conclusions are shared by so many. If you can't articulate your position in a manner that changes our perceptions, then it's pretty clear our perceptions are an accurate representation of your position, not a "mis"-representation. In other words, to blame or accuse us is unjustified.
"Leave my name and my church out of your hunches and guesses and misrepresentations."
Unlike Bubba, I do not grow tired of correcting your false accusations. There are no "hunches", "guesses" or misrepresentations about you OR your church. They are the best conclusions that any reasonable and objective person could draw from your words, and where applicable, words of Jeff St (via their website---which I haven't visited but others have).
"You're batting about 1% accuracy when you move to guessing and interpreting."
Closer to the truth is that YOU are batting a poor average in articulating what you expect people to believe about you, your church or what either believes. We don't guess or have need to after years of your attempts to "clarify".
"Seriously, what part of slander and gossip are you failing to understand, Marshall?"
I understand the words perfectly. That's why I can say with confidence that they do not apply to anything that has been said by me, Bubba or others who oppose your beliefs. If all our conclusions are based on your words, how can we be doing either? Once again, and pay close attention here, if you can't adequately articulate your beliefs so that our understanding matches as we state it back to you in our own words, then it's on you, buddy, not us.
Here's an example of a "guess": I would have to say that there is no way you could objectively and honestly study the Bible and come away with the belief that God would ever bless homo marriages without outside influences guiding you to that belief. That's my guess and it's a safe one on which I would lay cash. The only thing that would cause me to lose that cash is either documentation that you are mentally challenged or similar confirmation that you spent two years sequestered in a cave, after which you came forth saying "TWO THOUSAND YEARS OF CHRISTIAN BELIEF AND TRADITION IS WRONG!" in which case you'd prove you were mentally challenged.
"OR, at the least, say, "IT SEEMS TO ME, MARSHALL, that Dan is saying....""
This is stupid. It is a given in any discussion whether in person or through a blog. It is YOUR job to better articulate your beliefs so as to turn the listener away from the conclusions your very own words lead him to believe. Again, there's no guessing here. In other words, you are telling us what to believe about you and your church. Don't blame us for taking you at your word.
Dan:
"Truth is, I don't know what God will say to me 'on the last day,' about these conversations. That was a guess, to be generous and to allow for the fact that I may well be wrong to correct your misrepresentations."
First, your supposed generosity was self-serving, to speculate that God would chide you -- not for your passive aggressive dishonesty and hypocrisy -- but for trying too hard to correct us poor, unteachable fools.
Second -- and more importantly -- nothing you wrote indicated that your comment was mere speculation.
It was all presented with arrogant certainty.
"The day will come, Brother Bubba, when we'll stand before God and you'll be awfully embarrassed..."
"And God will say..."
You said that you've been trying to explain yourself as best as you can, and yet you present as prophecy what you now **SAY** was only guesswork.
Funny how your ability to communicate is so very poor, and it's funny how you didn't IMMEDIATELY explain that your comment was nothing but guesswork.
Once again, you offer an implausible retrospective explanation for what you've previously said, indicating very poor communication skills indeed or a willingness to lie about what's right in front of us.
You write, "if you'd like to not see me respond to you here, you have that power: Leave my name and my church out of your hunches and guesses and misrepresentations."
I agree with Marshall that I don't think we're guilty of misrepresentations. You've had more than enough time to correct our conclusions, and you haven't.
I also note that no one mentioned you or Jeff Street or even alluded to you or Jeff Street when you decided to interrupt the previous thread to accuse me of being deranged and dangerous.
Regardless, whether you comment here or elsewhere is your responsibility, not ours.
If we have "the power" to make you comment by writing things about you that you don't like, it's only because you've given us that power.
Let me say this as plainly as I can.
Grow the fuck up, Dan.
Decide that you're not going to let your time and energy be dictated by other people who dare exercise their freedom of speech to say things that you don't like.
You exhibit the worst qualities of the tyrants of your political persuasion, both in your desire to eradicate -- sorry, "correct" -- comments that you don't like AND in your willingness to cede responsibility to other people.
It takes a certain kind of naive utopianism to believe that one could bring about a world where people don't say or write things that you don't like.
It's a (relatively) free country and a fallen world. If you feel "compelled" to make comments to us or about us, it's because of your own impulses, not our opinions.
While I think you should find some real convictions, for myself, I need to be more faithful in living out mine.
I sincerely believe I have better things to do -- I will ALWAYS have better things to do -- than to waste anymore time with you. I need to live by that belief, and I now recommit myself to doing so.
Dan, I sincerely hope that God's will would be done in your life, but I'm going to do my very best not to waste any more time or energy dealing with you and your mountains of bullshit.
I'm done.
Dan laughingly says, "I feel a need to clarify, moreso for other readers' sake than yours."
Dan, us other readers don't buy your clarifications any more than Bubba does.
Marshall, if I haven't pointed this out before...
http://wondermark.com/338/
On topic, I share Mark's pessimism. On the one hand, recourse that falls outside of normal political channels would succeed only with broad support, so that would suggest that we stick through those normal means through which the people govern the state.
The problem is simply this:
The radicals who now hold the levers of power might work to game the system to prevent or at least diminish backlash at the ballot box.
Their contempt for popular opinion couldn't be more clear, and their willingness to game the system of political representation has also been on display, with the efforts to make the Census Bureau report to Rahm Emmanuel, to introdue statistical sampling into what the Constitution requires as an enumeration, and by working to get corrupt groups like ACORN to provide their invaluable services to the census.
Since 1960, the largest popular-vote margin in presidential elections has been around 16 million voters, in 1964, 1972, and 1984.
(Note: not 2008.)
An amnesty for illegal aliens that would add 15 to 20 million new voters to the rolls for the 2012 election would probably be decisive, especially since the voters would constitute a reliable bloc for the party of Marxists that gave them free health care and the right to vote.
Such an act would be a sort of disenfranchisement -- de facto, but certainly not de jure -- of the current electorate.
The act might be so egregious that the voters overcome the new political landscape, but that's a helluva roll of the dice.
"If you'd like to speak of what I've said, stick to quotes, not what you're guessing I mean. You're batting about 1% accuracy when you move to guessing and interpreting."
As long as you interpret Dan's quotes correctly that is.
Final clarification:
Nearly 99.9% of what you think about me is incorrect. You all appear to be losing rational control and any semblance of grace.
Get some help.
Pray. Breathe. Relax. Speak with a spiritual adviser. Meditate. Read God's Word. Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable--if anything is excellent or praiseworthy--think about such things.
Not everyone who disagrees with you is a liar. Sometimes, you will disagree with fellow Christians and it won't be because they're plotting socialism or lying through their teeth but simply because we disagree. That's okay.
Embrace the grace.
Peace. In Christ, Dan
Bubba,
Ya threw me for a moment, getting back on the thread topic and all...
I find pessimism in this day and age to be healthy. I would add maintaining a suspicious and cynical eye on Washington is an absolute must more than ever before. But consider that for all the truth to which you refer, this admin still had to bribe, intimidate, cajole and arm twist to get their way. All this time, the numbers of people who became disillusioned grew. I don't see that diminishing because this crap was signed by the chucklehead-in-chief, but rather I see greater rage from even more people. It took this bastard 15 months to get this done. He's got only eight months (seven really when you consider March is almost over and elections are the first week of Nov) to try to ram through anything else. If the people up the pressure through calls to their reps, and I mean jamming phone lines with regularity, the weenies will cave to us rather than to Barry and Nancy. I think they're shaking now.
Drastic action on the part of real Americans will only draw sympathy when the people feel the pain being endured justifies it. That will take some time and the pain will have to be endured for an extended period. Jump the gun and fence sitters will join the wrong side.
But if we continue to expose the bastards for the bastards they are, they will lose more supporters than this bill's passing has already lost them. We don't have to embellish as they do because we have the facts and truth on our side. We just need to keep speaking it with every opportunity.
I'm optimistic (guardedly) at the thought that some states have already taken steps to reject this bill and others are working to do the same. Suits are being devised to have the bill tossed in whole or in part. Within their limited time frame before their numbers in the House and Senate are adjusted in November, they will have to deal with these issues on this bill and still find time to screw us at the same time. They are the divided ones. Everything will be harder to accomplish when they won't have right-wing support at all.
This is not to say that all is rosey. Of course it's not. We're dealing with total scum. But the truth will out, as they used to say on the old Perry Mason show.
Today I heard an interview with a guy named Wayne Perryman who has a book out called Whites, Blacks and Racist Democrats, as well as a past book called Unfounded Loyalty both of which speak to the strange and unexplicable devotion of blacks to the Dem Party, and this current book even shows how Obama is screwing the black race in this country. This latest book uses actual legislation and speeches and other solid pieces of evidence to back up his claims that the blacks in this country have been backing the wrong horse. (Perryman's a black man, BTW). As his books get passed around, support for the bastards will drop.
We can get this done. People are waking up.
Marshall,
Thanks for reminding me about the Perryman book, I meant to request it from the library, sounds like good stuff.
I'd love to hear Dan or one of the libs defend the tax on medical devices in the bill. How is raising the price of devices that save lives helping increase access to medical care.
Caterpller, Verizon, Medtronics, and McDonalds are already talking about how this is going to cost jobs. How many MacDonalds franchisees are going to be able to take the estimated 70k per year hit for this.
Responding to Craig's invocation of my name, just because perhaps it may help you all understand...
I was not a supporter of this health bill.
Nor was I an opponent.
I was an undecided.
I have grave concerns about the size of this bill and its costs. I have concerns about state's rights issues and perhaps most importantly, I am greatly concerned about the requirement that every breathing person MUST have insurance. I am concerned about this, at least in part, for reasons of religious liberty. Many anabaptists are opposed to the notion of insurance and "laying up for yourself" stores and provisions.
I have/had concerns about this bill.
My main reasons for not more actively opposing it are twofold:
1. I think the current system has great problems, too, and something needs to be done differently;
2. The most vocal opponents to this bill were so batshit nutty in their opposition, I leaned FAR away from them.
Praying for Obama's and Congress' death? Over a mere bill?? Calling it totalitarianism, communism, nazism? The irrational and demonizing approach taken by many of the most vocal supporters of this bill gave me cause not to want to have anything to do with THAT side of the issue.
So, Craig, to answer your question: I have no great position on that particular aspect of the bill, I haven't read up on it and am not informed enough to have an opinion. In general, though, if your side wants to gain support for opposition to a bill such as this, you'll have to do a better job of coming across as rational American citizens, capable of holding a conversation on the merits of an idea, rather than on the demonization of an opponent.
I may well have been an ally in the opposition to this bill IF the opponents came anywhere near close to sounding reasonable and making reasonable arguments and IF the reasonable opponents would have shouted down the nazi- socialist-name callers and demonizers.
Hence, the irony of the approach of many on your side.
Dan,
Thanks for the peek into your political thought process. It would seem that your solution to what you say is wrong with the health care crisis is lets throw something at the wall and see what sticks.
You say you didn't support it because of some you perceived were too fringe. Why not just do the research and decide what you think, not base your positions on your perceptions of others. Maybe you are unaware that many of those who strongly opposed the bill are on the left. Were they nutty?
I asked you this a while ago, and you didn't really have an answer, so no that P-BO's been in office for a while I'll ask again.
When does P-BO take ownership of the state of the country? What has he done so far that has worked? We heard (not to be nutty or anything) that people were literally dying because people didn't have health insurance. Well, the bill is passed and those folks still don't have health insurance. Some won't ever under this bill, some have to wait 4 years. So, are their deaths now on P-BO's doorstep?
You supported P-BO, you advocated for him. Are you happy with your hope and change? Happy with the broken promises?
Go check out Hillbuzz and see how folks on your side of the aisle roll from the perspective of some dems.
For someone who was wrote so much about how good things would be with P-BO pre election, you've been awfully quiet since. Are you hoping for some more change.
"you'll have to do a better job of coming across as rational American citizens, capable of holding a conversation on the merits of an idea,"
If you are unaware of the multitude of folks doing just that, then you haven't been looking. Just because the media covers the nuts, doesn't mean there aren't rational folks out there.
Since rationality is your standard, I assume you consider it rational that the bill was passed in the manner that it was, threats, payoffs, bribes, reconciliation. You voted for this kind of politics, not I. You forget that the only group that kept this bill from passing months ago was the dems. But, blaming someone who has no power to affect anything is rational, right?
Is Obama progressing as far as I'd like? Am I pleased with Obama?
No, and No.
Is he LIGHT YEARS better than the previous president?
Clearly, yes.
I may be cynical, but my first hope for a president or representative is that they do no harm. I may not agree with everything they're doing, but if they're doing relatively no harm, then that is a step in the right direction.
Bush's policies were harmful in so many ways and to such a depth that almost anyone would be a huge improvement. And Obama is.
Just off the top of my head...
1. He's in the process of ending don't ask/don't tell;
2. He's doing something about the economy and it appears to be working, albeit slowly and perhaps not always in my preferred way;
3. He killed the Yucca Mountain nuke waste "disposal" plan;
4. He's presenting a more reasonable face to our foreign policy;
5. He's successfully eliminated some wasteful spending, including the F-22 fighter jet program;
6. Successfully nominated Sotomayer to Supreme Court, a justice that appears to be a good one;
7. Expanded SCHIP, a program that seems like a cost-effective and wise way to assist children in need of health care;
8. I approve of his Public Lands bill, which will expand the amount of protected natural areas;
9. He's slowed down the wrong-headed practice of Mountaintop Removal for coal mining;
10. Expanded Americorps, a program that I believe to be worthwhile on many levels;
11. Increased gov't transparency;
For an uneven 11 things he's done in the last year which I think are steps in the right direction and a vast improvement over the previous administration.
You say you didn't support it because of some you perceived were too fringe. Why not just do the research and decide what you think, not base your positions on your perceptions of others.
Did some research. I'm not sure of any good answers. Sorry, but it seems to me like a complex problem with no clear cut obvious good set of solutions.
So, not being able to provide what I think is a good alternative solution, I mostly came at this with a "No Opinion" tack.
Maybe you are unaware that many of those who strongly opposed the bill are on the left. Were they nutty?
Yes, I am quite aware that some on the Left opposed the bill.
But what I DIDN'T see from those who opposed in on the Left were ridiculous demonizations of those who supported it.
I was just offering some insight for anyone who might be interested: The demonization approach is counterproductive to your cause.
You can take that insight or leave it, I don't care much. I'm just letting you know of that reality.
OK, Dan, you think these things aren't harmful?
1. He's in the process of ending don't ask/don't tell;
Harmful to the armed forces and the effectiveness of our troops during wartime.
2. He's doing something about the economy and it appears to be working, albeit slowly and perhaps not always in my preferred way;
He is making the economy worse. The Us will be bankrupt within 9 years, even if he does no more harm.
3. He killed the Yucca Mountain nuke waste "disposal" plan;
I don't know about this, but does he have an alternative dump site that is safer?
4. He's presenting a more reasonable face to our foreign policy;
Really? By siding with our enemies against our allies?
5. He's successfully eliminated some wasteful spending, including the F-22 fighter jet program;
Eliminating spending that's meant to defend our nation against enemies is hardly wasteful. Know what's wasteful? sending billions of dollars companies who donate heavily to the Democratic party, and then making excuses for them when they blow the money.
6. Successfully nominated Sotomayer to Supreme Court, a justice that appears to be a good one;
She is a horrible justice. Being a Liberal doesn't make a Justice a good justice. Basing one's decision on the US Constitution makes a good justice.
7. Expanded SCHIP, a program that seems like a cost-effective and wise way to assist children in need of health care;
Again, I am not wholly familiar with this program, but (somewhat off topic)including language in his health care bill that mandates killing the children before they need health care...is that your meaning of cost effective?
8. I approve of his Public Lands bill, which will expand the amount of protected natural areas;
Stupid to waste perfectly good land we could be living on instead of letting it sit there growing noxious weeds and infecting people with hay fever.
9. He's slowed down the wrong-headed practice of Mountaintop Removal for coal mining;
Wrong headed? Do you use electricity? How well do you think your computer would operate on wind power?
10. Expanded Americorps, a program that I believe to be worthwhile on many levels;
More wasteful spending which does nothing but create more votes for Liberal democrats.
11. Increased gov't transparency;
Yeah. Like those closed door meetings about health care and the 5 days between passing and signing the health care bill. Right.
" my first hope for a president or representative is that they do no harm."
So, are you saying that increasing the deficit more in one year than Bush did in eight is not harmful to our economy? Do you really believe that the precedent set by the process used to pass this bill is not harmful? Do you believe that the "we have to pass the bill so you can see what's in it" attitude is not harmful? Do you believe that cooking the books so that the health care bill appears to cost less than it does is not harmful? Do you believe that responding to a "crisis" by saying will start fixing it in 4 years and be done in 10 is not harmful? Do you not believe P-BO lying about the bill is not harmful?
1. Maybe, or maybe he isn't, who can tell.
2. Yes, he is passing debt down to our grandchildren rather than make cuts. It's working so well that his "unempployment won't get over 8%" would be looking pretty good if it was only that low.
3. This is a big issue to whom. Because we wouldn't want any more domestic energy.
4. Yes, he got a peace prize for nothing. He's essentially told israel to piss off. Failed to make the Irans of the world sit down and chat over tea.
5. But that is more than offest by his earmark (promised to get rdi of those), and pork (promised to dig in and cut that) laden spending bills, and massive increases in "non wasteful" spending.
6. Yes, the wise latina. Didn't the ABA say she wasn't qualified. How can you even comment on how good she is (except the equal opportunity boxes she allows to be cheched), she hasn't done anything yet. Maybe just being a wise latina is enough for the left.
7. Which we can assume will now be cut because "it's Christmas" and all our health care problems are solved. Unless you are one of the kids with a preexisting condition he lied to by saying that they'd get help immiediatly.
8. Finally one that has little practical use. Who cares. Unless it's a cynical ploy to stop people who would otherwise be legally developing or using this land in some way that might help scociety.
9. This comes as especially good news to those now unemployed in the mining industry. As well as those low income folks who have to pay more for energy. But, I can see why this got such high pripoity in the P-BO administration.
10. While I personally like and appreciate my Americorps members. It doesn't sound like there was a shortage of unfilled slots before this expansion. Personally, I don't see this a big accomplishment, more like a political payoff to a bunch of young libs. (Yes, in my personal experience 95% plus of Americorps are to the left politically)
11. You have got to be kidding. "I'll make sure all of the negotiations for the health care bill are on c-span." Nope. "I'll put the bill online for (the actual amount of time has changed several times) X number of hours/days before it comes to a vote" Nope. He did transparently try to buy one vote by offering the guys brother a judgeship, so thats a start. Not a chance on this one.
BTW, Gitmo is still open, the trials are heading out of NY, we're still fighting at least 2 wars. Unemployment is up, housing is still down, the govt now owns GM and Chrysler. There is still unspent "stimulus" money that won't go toward deficit reduction. That's just a quick few.
Dan,
So did your research leave you with the conclusion that no one was proposing any solutions other than the P-BO,Pelosi, and Reid bill?
Is it your contention that passion precludes reason?
Here's my threat. This bill has moved me from someone who's participation in the process was limited to voting and supporting candidates in my districts to someone who is going to actively seek out ways to see that the folks who inflicted this on us lose as much support as posible.
Hope that doesn't make me an unreasonable fringey guy.
No. By all means, oppose those who voted for the bill. It's the American way (if you want to tie your vote down to one issue, anyway).
As long as you're simply suggesting this bill is a bad idea (or even a HUGELY bad idea) and not conflating the passage of this bill with totalitarianism, fascism, socialism and/or a reason to take arms against your own country, I fully support you in opposing those who supported this bill.
Go for it.
Dan,
For the record I do share your concerns rearding the states rights aspect of the bill as well as the religious freedom aspects of the bill.
However, because of my concerns it causes me to question the value of the bill and the motives of those who wrote it. Not blithely accept it and move on.
Dan,
Thanks I plan to. You keep enabling those who gave us this monstrosity.
That's my point, Craig. "Monstrosity?" This is not a monster, a demon, something to hate, loathe, kill.
It is a flawed bill, as are ALL bills. Is this one more flawed than the average bill? I don't know that. You must think so, okay. Then speak against this BILL in adult terms.
"This bill is a HUGE problem because it will cost so much and not alleviate the problem because..."
"This bill is a HUGE problem because it interferes with states rights because..."
Make your case.
Calling it a monstrosity tells me nothing and does NOTHING to make me want to agree with and work with you to try to see this bill undone. It makes me question your position as being less than reasonable.
That's what I'm saying.
Dan,
What a silly response. Are you unaware of literary devices like metaphor and hyperbole. To refer to this as a monstrosity does not imply that I literally think that it is an imaginary creature or that it can literally be killed. Silly.
This bill will add to an already ballooning deficit. It will add a 2.9% tax to medical devices hurting both those low income folks who are going to see their costs go up, yet wait a minimum of 4 years to see any "benefits" from this bill. That one tax will cost jobs at companies who make these medical devices.
It is not just a bad bill, it is a monstrously bad bill. It is 2000 plus pages of un read, in some cases unwritten legislation.
I really don't care to try to persuade you, if you are so uninvolved as to have no opinion then you why should I waste time trying to change your apathy. You are obviously willing to give these folks a pass and your tacit support, and you'll most likely vote for them in November.
Your refusal to address the concerns raised in this thread speak volumes about your desire to work together to repeal this bill.
I know it may shock you but some times reasonable people use figures of speech when describing things. For instance, many would argue that referring to GWB as a NAZI was done by reasonable people.
Reasonable people, including some on your side of things are reasonably angry about the bill, its content and the process.
You deal with the specific problems that have already been brought up here, then you can complain.
States rights- This bill seems like a clear violation of the 10th amendment to the US Constitution.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
"On 15 March 1995, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) was enacted, setting up procedures to keep congress from imposing costs on states without appropriating funds. The UMRA requires analysis of any bill expected to cost state, tribunal, or local governments more that US$50 million. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) must perform this analysis. The same type of analysis is required for bills projected to cost the private sector US$100 million or more.
If a mandate is expected to cost lower levels of government or the private sector more than US$100 million, house and senate committees are required to show where funding will come from to offset these costs. If a committee fails to provide this information, the bill can be removed from consideration. However, a majority vote can keep such a bill alive, resulting in an expensive unfunded mandate."
Please show me where this law was complied with vis a vis the health care bill?
Re: religious freedom. Can the govt. force people to purchase health care insurance when using said health care violates the tenets of their religion?
Please name me one other instance in the history of the country where individual citizens are mandated to purchase anything against their will? Please provide some legal justification for such a requirement.
There, some more for you to respond to.
Dan, I read your list of things Obama has done right to my wife about 30 minutes ago...
She's still laughing.
I might have to call the rescue squad.
You're an idiot.
Dan,
Is this the kind of logical calm well reasoned kind of argument that might move you to consider that the Health Care bill might be more screwed up than most legislation?
"Now, what any sane or logical person would do is recognize that the bat-sh*t crazy ramblings of one gun-toatin' mouth-breathing slack-jawed yokel"
I'm unsure of your last point, Craig. That quote is in response to the batshit crazy folks who would threaten and do violence towards those with whom they disagree. Such language is appropriate in that situation, seems to me.
What's your point?
You're not comparing deadly rightwingnuts to those who support a particular bill, are you?
As to the rest of your previous comments, again, I'm unsure of your point.
I have no great opinion about this health care bill. I see some points in favor of it and some opposed to it. I see points in favor of and opposed to doing nothing about our health care concerns.
My point was that the nastiness, the advocacy of violence and uprising and demonization of political opponents, that THIS sort of "debate" only turns people against you. I think that much is fairly clear.
Are you disagreeing with me, thinking that referring to this health care bill as totalitarianism or the end of our liberties as a reasonable approach to supporting your position?
What is your point?
Dan,
My point is you asked for reasons I opposed the bill. I gave you reasons. You respond I really don't care about any of this. What's your point?
My point is you think calling someone is appropriate reasoned discourse.
My point is you provided 11 things that P-BO has "accomplished" but has he really done those things or just said he would. Like the health care bill so far all that has happened is the P-BO and his folks have passed a tax increase on everyone in the country (drat that promise about not raising taxes or people that make less that whatever random number P-BO popped out at any given time). There is no change in the status of health care delivery in this country, none. Maybe that will change sometime in the next 10 years, do you believe that P-BO is going to do everything he promised? But just like your "accomplishments" the left and the media is going to give these idiots credit for something that they haven't done.
My point, ,my point is you voted for him. I hope your happy with the change you got.
I really didn't think you'd answer any questions. Shockingly enough I was right. I love low expectations.
Yes, I AM happy. I'm happy Palin/McCain are not in office. THAT would have been atrocious and unbearable, it appears.
As I have said, I'm not pleased with a lot of what Obama has and hasn't accomplished yet, but he is light years away from the Bush/McCain/Palins of the world.
I've answered that question several times now. It remains the same.
Dan,
In what way, exactly, would Palin/McCain have been worse than the shit-for-brains now in the White House. You're right that Obama is light years away from Bush/Palin/McCain. They don't have shit-for-brains, though the gentlemen do seem to have mush. Had Bush been able to run one more time, I would have voted for him again, even with the stupid lib economic moves he made at the end of his second term. Unlike yourself, I looked at Obama closely and this crap is not news to me. He's doing just what a socialist would do. Yes. Socialist! The words you think are hyperbolic rhetoric are appropriate for him, but you're too much like him (or too stupid) to understand that. "Too much like him" is NOT a compliment, because he's proving to be shit.
Now, for some substance:
First of all, DADT was wrong for the fact that it conflicted with the UMCJ prohibition against the enlistment of homos in the military. Secondly, there has been no proof that restricting homos from serving has been harmful to the military whatsoever. DADT allowed homos to serve if they controlled their bad behavior. Dumping it doesn't help them. You're too in the bag for homos because you are morally corrupt and care more for the world than you do the Lord.
continued---
Well, I had much more to say, beginning with the stupid idea of closing down the Yucca Mountain facility, a facility that has cost close to ten billion dollars (now down the crapper) for nothing. Thanks President Shit-for-brains.
I would have liked to elaborate, but I have to get up early to attend a state mandated class (all freakin' day on a Saturday) for a part-time job I don't want but have to take because Pres. Shit-for-brains has acted in a manner that has destroyed the confidence of employers across the nation (that is, those still in business) so that they are not hiring. This health care bill already has some of the largest corporations considering layoffs as part of their plan to deal with the added expense that will be laid on them.
So I'll have to give more details tomorrow whenever it is I get to come home. Maybe Sunday.
Oh, I forgot to say that the reason for my putting it off was that my computer was having issues with connecting me to my blog. I typed out a detailed comment and it dumped me. I'm running diagnostics now. I'm using another computer to tell you all this. I hope it's not a real issue but this computer seems to not have the problem. It's just a slower computer. Prolly Bush's fault.
Marshall...
beginning with the stupid idea of closing down the Yucca Mountain facility
So, the fact that the people of Nevada are overwhelmingly resolutely OPPOSED to the notion of having that forced on them means nothing? Majority opposition to a cause only matters when it's an issue with which you disagree?
(Something like 75% of Nevadans oppose the project with less than 20% supporting it.)
one source
Oh, not to mention state rights...
I guess you all AREN'T too serious about opposing health care for reasons of state rights and democratic opposition to a plan - even when the plan is OVERWHELMINGLY opposed. Duly noted.
Hey, Dan. Has Obama offered an alternative site for Nuclear waste disposal? If he has, is it any better than Yucca Mountain?
I repeat:
I guess you all AREN'T too serious about opposing health care for reasons of state rights and democratic opposition to a plan - even when the plan is OVERWHELMINGLY opposed. Your opposition appears to be purely partisan-based and whimsical.
Duly noted.
Whilst dealing with my computer issues, I have been also trying to find evidence of how many Nevadans opposed the Yucca Mountain development. So far, I've found nothing but environmental whiners who's claims were not substantiated in the articles I've found thus far. Forgive me if I hold those off as less than objective. Trash the nuke industry's science all you want, but do so with real research untarnished by Gore-like alarmism.
For instance, there was talk of the site being in a quake zone, but no stats regarding instances of earthquakes were offered. Thus, how is this site more likely to experience a quake more so than any other desert location?
For the sake of objectivity, I admit that I also have not seen the science that supported the nuke industry's, and thus the fed's argument for using Yucca as the repository of nuke waste.
Rather than a true state's rights issue, it seems that there has been some measure of law attached to this site that is now in breech and current whining seems woefully after that fact. While safety concerns are legitimate, there seems only to be objection that the nuke industry is falling short of standards that aren't necessarily realistic, but purposely made burdensome by environmental assholes. This is typical and is what has been a major stumbling block for the oil industry as well. I believe such standards are put into place by the very people Dan would consider appropriate for all energy producers to be forced to satisfy before providing the necessary supply that will effectively reduce our dependence on foreign sources.
So, if public sentiment is enflamed by the alarmism of such people, to then pretend to be concerned about states' rights is less than intellectually honest.
This is a far cry from what is happening with the so-called comprehensive health care reform bill. So many are becoming more and more familiar with the details of this despotic scam so that the issues of states' rights is legitimately in question. What's more, states' rights is only one of the many problems justifying opposition to this bill.
In addition, considering the legal aspects of the Yucca situation, even more tax money will be spent to wage legal battles that several states justifiably will join. Money wasted to build the site, now money wasted to close it down. I'd call that harm by our prez during a time when our economy can ill afford it. To wit, even if we concede that Obama is justified in supporting Reid's whine to close Yucca, he's doing it in a harmful and less than brilliant manner. This is important since I'm still waiting for evidence of the brilliance this shit-for-brains is supposed to possess.
if public sentiment is enflamed by the alarmism of such people, to then pretend to be concerned about states' rights is less than intellectually honest.
Sooo, it's OKAY to ignore majority opinion IF you think that some group has wrongly inflamed the populace with alarmism such as, for instance, talk about DEATH PANELS and FORCED ABORTIONS and END OF LIBERTIES and TOTALITARIANISM and things of that nature, is that what you're saying and that's why you support taking action that goes against the will a VAST majority of Nevadans and contrary to that state's rights?
Do you understand that, for some of us, this appears to be wholly whimsical and partisan, based on your own political prejudices and not on ethics or consistency?
This is typical of you, Dan. Mixing those apples and oranges again.
Charges of "death panels", "end of liberties" and "totalitarianism" have been explained quite distinctly and are legitimate even where some (like "death panel") might be hyperbolic. ("Forced abortions", however, is just a lie. The concern is over being forced to pay for abortions.) I'm willing to defend each one of them.
What I said regarding Yucca, is that I've only found whining by environmentalists that surely fired opposition to the planned facility, but nothing more objective. So, the difference, based on what little I've thus found, is that opposition to Yucca seems totally contrived, whereas opposition to Barry's health care is totally legitimate based on legitimate, as well as obvious, concerns.
But once again, the larger point here is Barry's decision despite all the peripheral aspects. It was done sloppily, to say the least, and has wasted money coming and going. No harm? Puh-leaze! His action was thoughtless and a kiss to Reid rather than a noble act.
Unlike lefties, who are all to willing to buy into any demonizing of the right by their dishonest leaders, the right does not need to do anything more than to tell the truth to "incite" the passions of their fellow Americans. Righteous indignation for the whole story rarely told by the left does not parallel the passions of the left so often fed half-truths.
The right understands what rhetoric like "death panels" is meant to imply. It is descriptive of the type of rationing that will occur as the costs of health care continue to rise despite the claims of Dem supporters. Will it actually go so far as to have a group of people weighing who will live and who will die? The form it actually takes is irrelevant compared to the results which could mean death for those the gov't will determine aren't worth the expenditure. It's funny how the Dems will accuse the insurers of this very thing, but insist that their plan won't lead to it itself. But questions about how to pay for this reform, how Dems count money already spent, and other less than honest computations will have to affect eventual administration of resources.
What do you call a gov't who forces its people to spend money in a manner the people wouldn't otherwise choose on their own? If it's not definitionally totalitarianism, it's certainly despotic and definitely unConstitutional. And isn't that an assault on liberty at the same time? If not, how so?
Post a Comment