Not totally unexpected, the numbers of people who had shown up in Washington on Saturday was not enough to provoke attention from the mainstream media minions of Obama. It took some racial epithets supposedly hurled by protesters of economy destroying health care bill toward black (that's "black", not "African-American") congress people heading across the street to vote. Now, I won't put all my eggs in the basket of one brief video that failed to show actual protesters actually screaming the "N"-word at anyone. It could have indeed happened. But it seems we have only the word of some black congress people at this point, unless something's come out of which I am as yet unaware. No matter. Why was there so little coverage of the gathering at all? If it was a pro-baby killing gathering, we'd hear how 400 million people showed up.
Now, in a side note, that same Saturday found me amongst some worthy people protesting outside the building that houses the office of Rep. Melissa Bean (D). It was to begin at noon and run until 3PM. There were roughly between 30-50 or so braving the windy, snowy day (it was in the low 30's) and there were somewhere in the neighborhood of 12-20 supporters of this heinous assault on liberty and the American way. I got there around 12:20 and split around 2:15. By this time, the stupid, also known as supporters of this heinous assault on liberty and the American way, had packed it in. It was said that around 1:00, the news was the Bean had announced she would vote against the wishes of the American people. I wasn't surprised. She's a Democrat and there's no way they really anguish over such decisions. They don't have the brain power required to really think deeply enough, otherwise, how could any of them support this crap?
I must say that I did run into one guy who gave me pause. This guy was beating around the bush for awhile, but eventually copped to the notion that he would support an armed rebellion, and that it was all that was left to us. I totally called him out on it and said that his idea was about the stupidest thing I had heard of since the election of Barry Obama. I told him that if he really cared he'd spend more time studying the issues so as to be better able to explain to lefties he knows just how stupid they are for being lefties. (In not so many words.) We just don't need that kind of nonsense.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What ranks as among the hardest aspects of this whole deal is to hear the comments of the idiots who voted this monstrosity upon our nation. "Historic" is a word used far too often as if we're to see it as historic in a good way. Pearl Harbor was historic. Auschwitz was historic. The Chicago Fire was historic. The assasination of Abraham Lincoln was historic. None of it was good. This health care "reform" bill isn't either.
Some of these chuckleheads want to suggest that there is enough good things in this bill to make destroying our economy worth it. They don't use quite that presentation, of course, but that's the reality of it. There's not one good thing in this bill that couldn't have been handled individually, with a bill specific to whatever good thing one wishes to bring up. Not one. And if they were to have crafted a bill to, say, tackle the issue of pre-existing conditions, they would not have needed as much of our tax dollars to bribe other politicians to vote for it. Think of the cost savings in bribes alone! "This is the way it's always done" we hear them say. Bastards.
As to pre-existing conditions, to force insurers to cover such will drive them out of business, which is exactly what they were intending in the first place.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To continue on the subject of chuckleheads, and believe me, it's all I can do to inhibit my desire to use much stronger language (the assholes), there's the BS-er extraordinare, Bart Stupak. This lying S.O.B. has been doing the Texas Two-step in trying to justify his turncoat "Yes"-vote Sunday night. This little blog-post has a few vids that show just how little he really cares for the unborn. Voting for this piece of crap was what he was intending in the first place.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Still another chucklehead, this time a Dem on Hannity's show, (can't remember his name but he's a regular on Hannity's "Great American Panel") stated that now 30 million people will have access to health care. This lie is told over and over by all sorts of chuckleheads, from Dem politicians to the chuckleheads who vote for them. The fact is that everyone already has access. We have illegals getting care for hangnails at emergency rooms all over the country. It's total bullshit that anyone lacks access. The truth is that the Dems want to provide, at our cost, health care of all kinds to anyone, for any reason, no matter who they are, how they live, so that they can get votes. Bribery is a mainstay of Democratic/leftist politics. And here's another little gem that will hasten the demise of our economy: immigration reform is coming next. Obraindead will be pushing through Congress some half-assed bill to reform immigration, grant citizenship to all the illegals here, and all the promises about lowering health care costs, which were bullshit to begin with, will be right out the window for sure.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is so much wrong with this health care bill that I simply can't properly gather my thoughts to expound on it. I am shaken by the audacity, effrontery and arrogance of the Democratic Party and their pathetic leadership. I am aghast at the stupidity of those who voted for these people. There is very little of what has transpired since January of '09 that wasn't predicted. Barry & Co. are acting pretty much as we knew he would because, after all, we actually vetted the bastard ourselves and knew well the cut of his jib. Still now, I have little doubt that there exists too many who think yesterday was a great day for our nation. And somewhere between now and November, and surely between now and November of 2011, there will be a bone designed to be thrown to enough of the stupid to keep them enthralled with this bane to our liberty and it could be enough to perpetuate his harmful administration. I pray fervently that the stupid receive their epiphany, pull their heads from their collective asses, and get with the program.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is said that once we get an entitlement it is near impossible to repeal it. We've repealed a freakin' Constitutional Amendment. This should be child's play. Demand it!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
50 comments:
Marshall, repeal of this bill *should* be child's play compared to a Constitutional amendment, but, then, that amendment didn't create or justify a massive entitlement program.
You write:
"I must say that I did run into one guy who gave me pause. This guy was beating around the bush for awhile, but eventually copped to the notion that he would support an armed rebellion, and that it was all that was left to us. I totally called him out on it and said that his idea was about the stupidest thing I had heard of since the election of Barry Obama. I told him that if he really cared he'd spend more time studying the issues so as to be better able to explain to lefties he knows just how stupid they are for being lefties. (In not so many words.) We just don't need that kind of nonsense."
I'm frankly less hopeful about our long-term chances in restoring the constitutional limits that the Founders placed on our government, short of "that kind of nonsense."
For one thing, I believe a veto-proof majority in both houses is mathematically impossible for the GOP this year, so repeal would become an option only after the 2012 election. Even if the Republicans *COULD* repeal the monstrosity at that point, it's not clear from their record over the decades that they would.
Look: Reagan slashed taxes and pushed the Soviet Empire to its almost immediate collapse, and even he was unable to dismantle such needless federal beauracracy as the Department of Education, to say ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about rolling back federal entitlement programs.
More fundamentally, Reagan was a political anomaly. Since the progressivism of TR and Wilson, EVERY President has been a progressive or at least was resigned to progressivism as a fait accompli, with only TWO exceptions: Coolidge and Reagan. In addition to these two men, the ONLY OTHER major-party candidate to stand against progressivism was Goldwater.
Even repeal of this one truly awful bill wouldn't change momentum away from the cancer of radical collectivism.
And, look, it's not as if we're fighting people who give a shit about this nation's traditional institutions or EVEN civilization's fundamental emphasis on the morality of fair play.
They're stealth radicals, Marshall, who have spent literally forty years in their long march through the institutions lying about who they are and doing everything they can to tear down waht they take over.
If a guy ripped you off by cheating at poker, there are many ways to get your money back: learning to be a better player and challenging him at another game ISN'T one of them.
It's now clear that they don't care about even clear, emphatic, and decisive popular opposition, and that opens the door to, well, anything.
Marshall, you see that amnesty for illegal immigrants is next...
"And here's another little gem that will hasten the demise of our economy: immigration reform is coming next. Obraindead will be pushing through Congress some half-assed bill to reform immigration, grant citizenship to all the illegals here, and all the promises about lowering health care costs, which were bullshit to begin with, will be right out the window for sure."
...and you're right that amnesty would cause the costs of this health care bill to skyrocket (which is why health care had to be passed first) but you overlook a cost even greater than (faster) fiscal insolvency.
Those illegals will be given the right to vote, and since they will be given socialized medicine AND voting rights presumably by (Social) Democrats alone, they will undoubtedly become a voting bloc of 15-20 million reliable socialists.
[cont]
[cont]
A few bloggers this weekend have noted the near inevitability of amnesty and its harrowing political consequences for this nation's current electorate, and I've balked, NOT because of the illogic of their conclusions (because the logic is sound) but because of the scope of the conclusions.
My initial reaction of denial has been strongly rebuked by the latest article from the brilliant and justifiably prominent mind of Thomas Sowell.
"The ruthless and corrupt way this bill was forced through Congress on a party-line vote, and in defiance of public opinion, provides a roadmap for how other 'historic' changes can be imposed by Obama, Pelosi, and Reid. What will it matter if Obama’s current approval rating is below 50 percent among the current voting public, if he can ram through new legislation to create millions of new voters by granting citizenship to illegal immigrants? That could be enough to make him a two-term president, in which case he could appoint enough Supreme Court justices to rubber-stamp further extensions of his power.
"When all these newly minted citizens are rounded up on election night by ethnic-organization activists and labor-union supporters of the administration, that may be enough to salvage the Democrats’ control of Congress as well.
"The last opportunity that current American citizens may have to determine who will control Congress may well be the election in November of this year. Off-year elections don’t usually bring out as many voters as presidential election years. But the 2010 election may be the last chance to halt the dismantling of America. It can be the point of no return."
What's unsaid is that the election could be the point of no return BARRING, um, "other means."
I hate saying this and I dread the consequences of this line thought, but it seems improbable -- to say the least -- that defeating the collectivist stealth radicals in their attempts to tear down this country and its core, founding values may require more than the tools available to us in the normal course of politics.
The good news is that our country still retains a cultural heritage that is traditionally American, as seen not only in the strong opposition to this bill, but in the fact that Obama won the election by FUNDAMENTALLY lying about who he is and being abetted by a willing media.
The problem is A) in the short term, the will of the people is increasingly irrelevant in terms of normal political processes, and B) in the long term, the character of the people can be destroyed by the massive entitlement programs of the leviathan state.
The New Paltz Journal blog sums it up well:
"When the 'political process' produces a third massive entitlement program even as the other two are on a glide path to bankruptcy and lights itself up like a Nuremberg rally over it, the divorce from reality has been made final. The papers have arrived. Or, perhaps as I have suggested, this diabolical President, at least, knows the destruction this brings.
"The Republicans stood against it, but by past performance they’ll only come back to manage the mess, not end the thing. Either them days are over, or this country is over. This is not Europe, but it could be Cuba or Venezuela. It could go there."
If the GOP isn't willing to "not look back until they have done the impossible," he too contemplates what I think you're wrong to dismiss as nonsense.
"Turn this Titanic around and head back to the port of limited government. That would be to pull the sword from the stone and be something worthy of our lives, fortune, and sacred honor.
"Otherwise, don’t bother. It can be settled by other means."
"Pearl Harbor was historic ..."
Which was exactly why I liked the term "historic". It didn't really mean anything. The term could mean that it could be a historic success or a historic error.
Marshall, your comrades are saying...
I'm frankly less hopeful about our long-term chances in restoring the constitutional limits that the Founders placed on our government, short of "that kind of nonsense."
These people are dangerous and deluded, Marshall. Good for you for standing up to that guy at the march. Stand strong, brother. You may be mistaken, but at least you have drawn a line which you won't morally cross.
It makes me wonder what they think an armed insurrection would look like? Would it involve going to so-called "liberal churches" and opening fire, killing all the men, women and children therein? Going next door and killing the hippies who live there? Kidnapping children from so-called liberal homes? Would it involve political assassinations?
What do you think this fella at the march was calling for? Who do they plan on shooting and in what context?
Marshall, Dan Trabue should be given no opportunity to derail this conversation.
We know who he is, and nothing good can come from his input: to hell with him and his deceitful hypocrisy.
He clearly doesn't give a fuck about this country, its Constitution, and the rule of law.
One of Obama's closest associates is an unrepentant domestic terrorist who planned to use a nail bomb against soldiers and their loved ones at an officers' dance, and Dan defended William Ayers as a guy who only targeted "stuff."
Fuck his idiotic nonsense. Ban him, at least from this conversation.
Wow.
So, perhaps you could tell me, Bubba: What DOES an armed insurrection look like to you?
Who will you be killing or what will you be doing with your arms? Will you organize a militia to try to overthrow our military, so they can't put you down?
Will you try to convince the members of our armed services to forsake their oath and join sides with your militia? If so, then what? A coup? An assassination?
I'm honestly curious: What does an armed insurrection look like in the US in 2010?
If you kill anyone, would you begin with me, Brother?
I'm not going to pretend that epithets about my being "dangerous and deluded" are the results of a sincere commitment either to this nation and its Constitution, or to non-violence -- not when Dan carries water for murderous radicals like Ayers and the politicians he supports.
...or shall we return to the subject of abortion, which Obama supports EVEN TO THE POINT OF INFANTICIDE BY NEGLECT? Dan bleats about looking after the "least of these" our brothers, but he supports the legal sanction of abortion and has been giddy about the most pro-abortion politician to ever run for President from a major party. He sighs about how Obama ran "so our children could fly," but Obama will sign into a law a bill requiring government funding for abortion.
(Maybe that "flying children" bit was an allusion to an early ticket to Heaven?)
Dan Trabue is a hypocrite to his core. We all know this, and I'm not going to answer any of his questions here, nor am I going to pretend that his deceitful ass deserves a seat at this particular table.
Ban him, Marshall.
I second the motion on Dan. He only goes about seeking to deceive. Enough is enough with him. mom2
OK, folks. Unlike Dan, who deleted comments of mine he didn't like, or his friend Michael with the two last names who banned me for comments he didn't like, I have always maintained a policy of no banning. I even let Feodor still post comments (though his I will delete just to piss him off, and those are generally really stupid comments he already made). I prefer instead to let fools speak their minds and expose themselves as foolish. There's always the chance that some readers who do not comment, if there are any, do not take the time to visit the blogs of our opponents and only have this venue in which to experience the true goofiness of a typcial lefty. They need to see what it looks like and they need to see how to counter their foolishness. In my own humble way I hope to provide some example. Let it also be known that no one is mandated to respond to commenters they find unworthy.
But for the sake of this discussion, as well as the policy above, we find that Dan again suggests, in a very slanderous manner, possibilities for which our past comments cannot reasonably be offered as evidence in support of those suggestions. Why would we waste a bullet on Dan? Is he in the administration? No. He is only typical of the less than honest person that is.
But I stand by my feeling that armed response is still far down the list of actions that should be taken, actions that should still be effective if we are each effective in articulating facts and reality to just one person who opposes us. Sure, we'll run up against the Dans of the world who see what they want rather than what is. They will always exist. But since we know that so-called "independents" outnumber either party, there are plenty there who are already leaning our way on the matter of Barry & Co being in charge. There are already right-wingers who either voted for Obama or sat out the election of '08 as some kind of punishment of the GOP who are now really sorry for having done so and have proven to themselves just how stupid a move that was. Between both groups, the independents and the prodigal right-wingers, and even amongst the stupid (left-wingers), I feel confident there are a lot of pissed off people right now who will not forget what has happened. Armed insurrection is always an option, but it's not one we need consider quite yet.
more coming---
"These people are dangerous and deluded, Marshall."
These people are scared, frustrated and pissed off. We have people like you to thank for them. You supported the most leftist asshole available, without knowing who the hell he was or what he was about, because of lies about Bush and the color of Obama's skin and in doing so stoked the fears of a nation.
"...at least you have drawn a line which you won't morally cross."
The line has always existed. It's been there since the founding of this country. It's the same line the founders crossed on their way to establishing this country. I simply see that it is farther in the distance than does this goofy dude at the rally. There may come a time when crossing that line is the absolutely moral thing to do. That time is not yet here. I'm certain you won't know it when it comes.
"What do you think this fella at the march was calling for? Who do they plan on shooting and in what context?"
I have no idea, and in hindsight I wish I had asked him. I have his phone number and could do so, but I don't really care to form a relationship with him. I have to admit that the lost and forlorn look in his eye compels me to do so in order to keep an eye on him. I don't know if his closer associates are quite aware of his true capabilities.
Still, I find it typical that you would list possibilities that would suggest the worst of anyone who would feel taking up arms is the way to go. What the hell's wrong with you that you would suggest that such people would kidnap children? My best guess is that such people would look to pop a politician since they are responsible for foisting this nonsensical bill upon us.
One more thing about bannishment:
I once deleted a comment of Mark's that I thought had crossed the line of decency, which it really did. But in doing so, Dan used the situation to falsely accuse Mark and there was no evidence to the contrary, since I deleted it. That will never happen again, though I risk the use of language I'd prefer not be used.
Also, I'm not sure how to ban one single commenter without adding work for myself I don't care to have. I would love to know how that might be done, but only to use against the most egregious losers. If anyone knows, I'd appreciate an email.
Bubba puts me in mind of Malcolm X. I love it when both sides come together:
"And when you see them coming up with that kind of conspiracy, let them know your eyes are open. And let them know you know something else that's wide open too. It's got to be the ballot or the bullet. The ballot or the bullet. If you're afraid to use an expression like that, you should get on out of the country; you should get back in the cotton patch; you should get back in the alley. They get all the Negro vote, and after they get it, the Negro gets nothing in return. All they did when they got to Washington was give a few big Negroes big jobs. Those big Negroes didn't need big jobs, they already had jobs. That's camouflage, that's trickery, that's treachery, window-dressing."
Marshall, I'm not familiar with blogger but there are usually some moderation options in the settings area.
I understand your reasoning and appreciate the forum. I actually like some interaction with false teachers because it shows that they really do hold these anti-biblical views and it provides an opportunity to grind their arguments into a fine powder.
The problem is that these types tend to comment a lot and it ends up taking too much time, so I often end up banning them.
I would have thought Neil supported competition in the market place of ideas. And let the market decide.
But, then, that takes guts.
Neil and Texas... ready to drop Jefferson and democracy as things start slipping away again.
Neil, how are you on armed rebellion against representative democracy?
Oh, and of course I ban shrill, egomaniacal idiots like Feodor. If you had a neighbor or co-worker who was a raving loon, is it a free speech violation for you to look away or walk a different direction to avoid them? I think not. I consider it wise living. Why on earth would you have to give your time to every single person who requested it?
The only downside of banning people like Dan and Feodor -- and this is a very small one -- is that they take it as martyr status. After all, there are only about a dozen blogs in the world and if you ban them they have no outlets for their speech.
Marshall, you and Bubba and the wayward Mr. Sowell suggest that this bill was passed in a way that bypassed representative democracy. Pray tell, how then did over 200 Republican amendments come to be included in the approved legislation?
And Bubbs rages against "stealth radicals"? "Stealth"? Let's see... Health Care Bill campaigned on in the open air for over twenty months of campaigning... debated in a bicameral legislature for a year... passed by one body of the legislature before Christmas... passed without filibuster-proof majority... passed with over 200 amendments from the minority party... voted on by over 500 members, all of whom were elected by the people of the United States.
Stealth?
And Bubba thinks armed insurrection may soon be legitimate in the face of such egregious democracy. Before Dan's question of how would such a thing look comes the question of justification. But surely one way in which such a thing would be carried out [this is ludicrous speculation in the Wonderland of tea baggers] would be with stealth.
Orwell is watching you guys with intense interest. And so is the FBI, I hope, for national security sake and reason's interest.
"I think not."
I like that, Neil. That seems to be your raison d'etre.
Feodor apparently believes that a commitment to the free marketplace of ideas means a tolerance for anyone saying anything, anywhere. The position is absurd, and so, Marshall, you should feel no obligation to give him a voice in this particular venue.
About stealth radicalism, I wasn't referencing this monstrous bill or even the frequently dishonorable deals that were made to pass this bill, against the clear objections of the American people.
I was referring to the change of tactics a few decades back, when radicals (primarily Marxists) largely moved from trying to tear down this country's institutions from without, to subverting those institutions from within.
You can see this in an unrepentant domestic terrorist who becomes a professor because (in Ayers' own words to Hugo Chavez) "La educacion es revolucion."
You can see this in an race-essentialist conspiracy theorist and hate-monger who wraps his demagoguery against the United States in the trappings of the Christian church.
And you can see this in their friend and protege, who ran for the Presidency as a post-partisan moderate who would unite the country, and who is now governing in a manner worthy of Chavez, not this nation's Founding Fathers: in terms of both the substance of what he supports and the process used to advance his agenda, Obama's broken promises and outright lies continue to mount.
Was the health care bill passed democratically? Certainly, but a 51% majority can vote to oppress the 49% minority, and that's still an outrage even if it's democratic. A cartel of gangsters can vote whether to try to bribe or kill the new district attorney, but their democratic process of decision-making doesn't sanctify the group or their actions.
Democratically voted, the bill is still an outrage in its contempt, not only for the will of the American people, but also for the Constitution itself -- the supreme law of the land, which provides absolutely no basis for (for instance) requiring people to purchase private goods or services.
And about Malcolm X, I'm reminded of Buckley's observation, that:
"...to say that the CIA and the KGB engage in similar practices is the equivalent of saying that the man who pushes an old lady into the path of a hurtling bus is not to be distinguished from the man who pushes an old lady out of the path of a hurtling bus: on the grounds that, after all, in both cases someone is pushing old ladies around."
There is a giantic moral chasm between those who encourage violence AS A FIRST RESORT to tear down the traditional institutions of the freest and most moral nation in history, and those who are willing to use force AS A LAST RESORT to defend those institutions.
Marshall, because this subject is so important, and because Feodor is a moron who couldn't find his asshole with both hands and a flashlight, it might be prudent to show him the door as well.
Either way, thank you for accepting my request regarding Dan.
Marshall, you write, "I stand by my feeling that armed response is still far down the list of actions that should be taken, actions that should still be effective if we are each effective in articulating facts and reality to just one person who opposes us... Armed insurrection is always an option, but it's not one we need consider quite yet."
For the moment, I absolutely agree, but I'm not sure how much longer that will hold true, ESPECIALLY if a Congress that has already proven its contempt for the people -- and is therefore facing blowback in 9 months anyway -- decides to push on, full steam ahead.
The first legitimate chance to "repeal and replace" the actions of the current Congress will be in 2012, because I believe a veto-proof GOP majority simply isn't mathematically possible in 2010.
If, in the next nine months, Congress and the current administration attempt to rewrite the electorate's composition in their favor with an amnesty bill that would give illegals the right to vote by the time the 2012 election runs around, recourse through normal political channels would be almost impossible now and very difficult later: it's clear the Leftists now don't care about the will of the people, and a later response would require a massive defection from the current Democrats, and I'm simply not sure that's in the cards.
Clarifications...
1. Unlike Dan, who deleted comments of mine he didn't like
I've deleted Marshall's comments that were repeating what he had already said and that were off topic, AFTER asking politely that he comment ON topic or go away.
I believe reasonable people could agree that there's nothing wrong with that.
2. Either way, thank you for accepting my request regarding Dan.
Ummm, I don't think Marshall is banning me, if that is the request of which you speak.
3. I am still curious and Bubba could provide some clarification: What DOES an armed insurrection look like to you?
I ask and offered examples only because I'm trying to gauge what sort of threat these folk are to our great nation. That, and I'm honestly curious, WHAT in the world are these people talking about? Who are they going to raise arms against? On what basis?
Do they really think, "We don't like the way this vote went, therefore, we'll start killing people? ...therefore, we'll start assassinating politicians who didn't vote our way?"
What in the world does that look like and how could they possibly justify an armed rebellion simply because somebody passed a bill they didn't like? Or even a few bills they don't like?
I wonder if such folk realize how simultaneously deadly and childish that seems? It's like putting a rifle in the hands of an angry and demented child who didn't get the lollipop he wanted.
Any chance of telling us what your armed rebellion will look like, Bubba? Or are you just blowing off steam?
A question for Marshall...
If you are aware of some folk who are planning an armed rebellion against our nation - or even considering doing so - and don't turn them in, does that make you a traitor? An accomplice?
Bubba complains about having to tolerate others and yet extols "liberty." Bubba, do you ever think about what you think about? From conservative founder, Edmund Burke: "Toleration is good for all, or it is good for none."
__________________
"Democratically voted, the bill is still an outrage in its contempt, not only for the will of the American people..."
Where do you get "the will of the American people"?
__________________
Au contraire, Bubbs, regarding "FIRST RESORT" and "LAST RESORT."
Black Power resorted to violence in light of the fact that one hundred years after emancipation and the passage of the fourteenth and fifteenth amendments, white government officials all across the land were denying constitutional rights for black folks.
So... Bubbs, you have to wait eighty more years before contemplating violence to be as patient as Malcolm X and his brothers and sisters.
Come back then with your complaints.
________________
When did Bubbs get so willfully, openly stupid and maniacally angry? What have you guys done to him? It's like he's given up.
Feodor, militants like the Black Panthers weren't merely (and justifiably) indignant over Jim Crow: they were -- and their intellectual progeny are -- Marxists whose goal is the radical transformation of this country. In working toward that goal they hardly resorted to violence as a last resort.
About your call for eighty years of patience, apparently you're an ignoramus when it comes to history, since progressives have been undermining the Constitution (sometimes quite explicitly) since Woodrow Wilson.
And, just as the free market of ideas doesn't require that one be free to say anything anywhere, the principle of tolerance doesn't require that either.
Marshall, I fess up to skimming your earlier comment and drawing the inaccurate conclusion that you were making an exception to your general policy of not prohibiting comments.
"But for the sake of this discussion, as well as the policy above, we find that Dan again suggests, in a very slanderous manner, possibilities for which our past comments cannot reasonably be offered as evidence in support of those suggestions."
Since we both know Dan well enough to know that things aren't going to improve, I would think that his comments justify showing him the door.
I really think you SHOULD make an exception to your general rule, at least in discussions like this, because Dan Trabue apparently wants to derail the conversation. The lying little prick isn't arguing in good faith, so I strongly recommend that you copy his comments for your records, then delete them here.
Dan, I don't think you truly give a shit about what you dishonestly call "our great nation," and I'm not answering your fucking questions.
You defended as a "man of God" a racist hate-monger who slandered "our great nation."
By repeatedly lying about how he only targeted "stuff", you carried water for an unrepetant terrorist who planned to murder civilians and soldiers of "our great nation."
You did all this in support of a radical who sees nothing exceptional in "our great nation," and whose actions will tear down the fundamental principles of individual freedom and limited government on which this nation is founded.
You don't understand those principles, as you have offered transparently ludicrous arguments in support of the dangerous and ahistorical notion that the Constitution's "welfare clause" gives the federal government innumerable unenumerated powers.
And you don't even understand this nation's history, because you don't think one could "possibly justify an armed rebellion simply because somebody passed a bill they didn't like." Google "Stamp Act," you ignorant chump.
And, while you're at it, go fuck yourself and your hypocritical and dishonest concern for threats against the United States.
"I've deleted Marshall's comments that were repeating what he had already said and that were off topic, AFTER asking politely that he comment ON topic or go away."
Not true. You deleted comments that contained explanations rebutting false claims about statements made at this blog, comments to which you would not respond here, and comments that were in response to your repeated false charges at your blog. To be kind, you're mistaken. To be totally honest, you're much worse than that.
"What in the world does that look like and how could they possibly justify an armed rebellion simply because somebody passed a bill they didn't like? Or even a few bills they don't like?"
Do you totally reject the truth now Dan? No one was suggesting rebellion over the passage of a bill. The suggestion was in regards to a gov't that is unresponsive to the will of the people as was the case in the 1700's. No poll shows better than 35% or so in favor of this bill. The assholes you support are not acting in concert with the will of the people. Like you, they take a few words and say they are. They say the people want health care reform, so they force this shit down our throats. But the people have shown they do NOT want THIS bill and they don't care. Try to stick to the facts, Dan.
"If you are aware of some folk who are planning an armed rebellion against our nation - or even considering doing so - and don't turn them in, does that make you a traitor?"
Perhaps if I did indeed know someone like that. But simply because one frustrated and pissed off dude wonders if such a time is upon us is hardly an indication that he has plans for such a thing. Of course, in your twisted way, you are assuming that armed rebellion is an evil that should never be tolerated. Tell that to our founders. I can more easily deal with anyone considering such a move at present. What's harder to deal with is those who prefer the suffering of the masses to making the hard choice to risk life and limb to bring it to a halt should it prove necessary. Such people are a worse evil as they posture themselves as pious and holy while others live on in their misery.
Feodor,
"over 200 amendments"? Why not list a quarter of those at your blog, with the right-winger who proposed it, and we'll see how perfectly it actually matches up with the original proposal. I doubt there are that many as I've never heard that number used before, so a simple list of 50 should be easy for you to assemble. Go now. We'll wait here.
Once again, I have no problem with who posts comments here. No one is obliged to respond to them, but I find it entertaining to allow them to expose their silliness as serious thought. It makes me laugh. I love to laugh. Feodor's attempts at intellectualism I find especially entertaining. It takes no time to see their name boldly printed in blue or black before their comments and simply skip it.
Fair enough, Marshall.
I reiterate that I don't think we've come to the point where political avenues have been exhausted, and I pray that it doesn't come, but I'm not naive.
As Mark Steyn has noted, sometimes you live to see it.
But to Dan's dishonest blather about dangerous and delusional children, the best thing I could say has already been said.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security..."
Bubba,
You say, " militants like the Black Panthers weren't merely (and justifiably) indignant over Jim Crow..." The quote by Malcolm X comes from his famous speech titled, "The Ballot or the Bullet". Excuse me for thinking this dichotomy is about full enfranchisement, promised in the 1860s, unmet by the 1960s. All he is asking for is the ballot.
Read, Bubba, and think before you make claims.
As for your time conditions for approving treason, I was dating your impatience to have begun with your earlier statement to the effect that, regarding Stealth Radicals, you were "referring to the change of tactics a few decades back, when radicals (primarily Marxists) ..." Which, I suppose, reduces your wait time to 60 years.
Now you want to go back to Wilson. You want to keep moving the goal posts? I'm sure you have no respect for Thaddeus Stevens, or John Adams, or, like Texas, for Thomas Jefferson and his Enlightenment-inspired and inconvenient separation.
Thank God we don't live by your understanding of toleration, Jabberwocky basis upon which it sits.
You really haven't read much about this Bill, have you, Marshall? Not exactly a revelation.
Feodor might want to check himself: I criticized the progressivism of TR and Wilson BEFORE mentioning stealth radicals, because my problem is with radical collectivism in BOTH strains, the overt attempts to tear down from without AND the covert attempts to subvert from within.
My bad, Bubba: go right ahead... buy a gun if you don't have one, recruit and organize with a militia of some description, and storm Washington with justifiably murderous stealth. Who am I to protest? You're overwhelmingly convincing. You surely have the right by patient constitution and by profundity of complaint.
Good luck with your coup d'état. You've really earned it, you remarkable man.
Dan wants to know what an armed insurrection would look like.
Obviously, it could be everything Dan suggests it is.
However, I don't believe that is exactly what Art's acquaintance had in mind with his inflammatory statements. I'm sure, in his frustration, he was voicing a readiness to defend his Freedom and Liberty against those who would take them away.
For instance, if the time comes when Obama sends his SS troopers to my door to take me to jail for refusing to buy his Government health care, I will defend myself. With guns if necessary.
Don't think that can't happen. He just signed a bill that will ultimately destroy the industry in this country which will, in turn, open the door to total Governmental control over all facets of American life, with Obama as the supreme dictator for life.
Make sure you wave your gun clearly, Mark. Don't leave them guessing.
Believe me, I will, Feo. In fact, why don't you come for a visit? I need some target practice.
"As to pre-existing conditions, to force insurers to cover such will drive them out of business, which is exactly what they were intending in the first place."
Proving, as I believe Feodor said, you don't know much about the bill or get the concept. The reason that health care coverage is mandated is so that the premium base includes healthy, young people to make sure that the insurance companies DON'T go out of business.
Get it?
"You really haven't read much about this Bill, have you, Marshall? Not exactly a revelation."
Nice dodge, you educated idiot. Support your claims or admit your folly. Again, we'll wait here whilst you assemble your proofs at your blog.
Jim,
We get it just fine. You're advocating for the federal gov't to force people to buy what they don't want to buy in order to attempt to make their stupid idea work. How exactly is this Constitutional? How exactly is this even American?
You do realize that people don't respect that for which they do not pay, don't you? In other words, they will overuse it rather than use it as it was meant to be used, that is, when absolutely necessary. GIVING people something they should be paying for out of their own pockets will lead to them using it as if it is free, because liberal asshats mandated that it should be free. The poor, many of which are so because of other liberal interferences, will not be paying anything for the PRIVILEGE of modern health care, but will be subsidized by those healthy young people who will be forced against their will to buy what they would not have bought otherwise. Even some working people will have subsidies to aid in their costs.
What you don't get is that this bill is based on some netherworld alternate reality. It's not based on how the real world operates, and it will be further burdened by the flood of illegals allowed to be legal for a low, low price.
But you go ahead and believe the liars, armtwisters and bribe takers who passed this steaming pile of feodor.
A couple things for now, as I have other, more pressing priorities.
First, while much of the language I used today is understandable, the obscenities were still unnecessary, and so I apologize for them.
I stand behind my belief that Dan has little apparent respect for the American Revolutionaries or the principles which guided the founding documents they crafted, and that he is a complete hypocrite for feigning concern about a nation whose true greatness he probably doesn't see or understand, all while he has carried water for domestic terrorists, racist demagogues, and lying totalitarians.
It's just that the justifiable contempt I have for his behavior, did not require such base language.
Now, about the profitability of the insurance industry under this new regime, we must not ignore, not only the gross tyranny of forcing people to buy private goods and services, but the very real likelihood that many people will choose to pay the fines for not buying health insurance until they are ACTUALLY sick: thus will fall the scheme to support insurance companies by requiring the healthy to buy coverage.
It's perverse, to forbid insurance companies from actually doing their fundamental activity of evaluating risk, limiting customers' options by prohibiting out-of-state insurers, and limiting the companies' options with countless mandates regarding coverage AND costs, and THEN claiming to be able to make the whole thing work by requiring people to buy what the companies wouldn't sell in a free market, at prices that they wouldn't charge.
In the face of an economy of unimaginable complexity that can be managed ONLY by a unfettered price system that efficiently accounts for extremely diffuse information, it's the height of arrogance to think that the government could make this work.
It's also naive to think that this particular administration actually wants to the new system to work, rather than fail and thereby justify a move to a total, single-payer nationalization of health care.
It's the ratcheting effect of socialism in half-steps: regulate an industry in part, then blame the inevitable unintended consequences on the remaining vestiges of the free market so you can introduce ever more regulations.
Reagan almost had it right: "Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it."
More accurately, the progressives' approach to government is, if it moves, kill it in order to justify nationalizing it.
Stephen Spruiell briefly summarizes the gradual process of nationalization which has only begun with health care and which was completed with student loans.
Also, NRO has republished the Mark Steyn's cover article for National Review regarding the Roman-style decline that America now faces. I hope we can avoid this fate, preferably doing so through normal political channels.
I'm not your Step 'n Fetchit, Marshall. If you haven't come across the Republican amendments by now, it means 1) you haven't read the Bill, and 2) what you do read has little interest in reporting facts.
I'd try the objective Google.com if I were you. Thousands of citations will appear right before your eyes.
The dodge here is about the integrity of your intentions... to yourself much less.
You wont last long enough to show any skills, Mark, don't worry.
Feodor, So be it. It's better than meekly submitting to oppressive, freedom and liberty killing Governmental control like all you Liberal bleeding heart weak-kneed sob sister sheeple are so willing to do. I will not cultivate a supple spine that will bend like a willow branch with every little change in the direction of the wind, like you. You are everything that's wrong with this country and nothing that's right.
True patriots fight for this country and defend this country and stand for freedom and liberty. True patriots do not follow Obama and his socialistic agenda. In fact, Obama makes true patriots want to vomit.
Classify yourself. Do you stand with true patriots or do you stand with Obama? Don't answer that. We already know what you will say. You are an enemy of freedom and Liberty and this country.
A clarification, regarding comments deleted at my blog. I had deleted them because 1. They were off topic, 2. They were a repeat of what I had already allowed Marshall to say (off topic) and, since he was repeating himself, there was no need to post a second batch of off topic comments that just said the same thing in different words, and, 3. Because I had already asked Marshall to post ON topic or go away.
Those are the facts. Marshall said...
You deleted comments that contained explanations rebutting false claims about statements made at this blog, comments to which you would not respond here, and comments that were in response to your repeated false charges at your blog.
Again, see above. I deleted comments that were mere restatements of your off topic comments that I left on there.
I still have the deleted comments if you'd like me to email them to you. Then you can read and see that they are just repeating the points that you had already made.
Want 'em?
Regarding the lunatic fringe who are ready (or nearly ready) to pick up arms against our nation, I'd suggest you just relax, breathe deeply and watch. Next year, we will still be a free nation. We'll hold elections and the Republic will function as it always has - imperfectly, not pleasing everyone, but about as well as any other nation.
If you can just relax your trigger fingers a bit, get through the fall elections and doubtless other votes that you won't approve of and realize that this is how a Republic works, you will see that life goes on and we will retain our liberties.
IF, on the other hand, some few of the lunatic fringe REALLY goes nutty and starts harming people, then THAT portion of the Wacky Right WILL be arrested or killed and life will continue for the rest of us, perhaps a bit sadder for the chaos and evil wrought by those who too easily embrace deadly violence, but life and this Republic will carry on.
IF you really want to take a principled stand and you don't approve of how your tax dollars are being spent, then you DO have a solution: Lower your living costs, live off the land and get below the taxable level.
"Dropping out" is a legal and moral way to take that stand that does not require you killing me or my children and thus, embracing evil. If enough people were fed up enough with US spending and did so, then gov't spending habits WOULD perforce change. The leviathan can't spend what it doesn't have.
Food for thought.
Well, when I read the bill online during the 5 day period between passage of the bill and P-BO signing it... oh wait.
sorry, just one more promise broken, carry on.
"I'm not your Step 'n Fetchit, Marshall."
No, you're something else entirely, beginning with, but not limited to, "False Priest" and educated but not intelligent. Those are the nicer things you are.
The question, however, is not what I've read or not read but whether you can support the statements you make here. You said,
"Pray tell, how then did over 200 Republican amendments come to be included in the approved legislation?"
I questioned the number. What about your history here proves you can be trusted to know what you are talking about? If you have the balls to throw out a claim, be ready to back it up. Do you suppose that I'm required to go searching out proofs of your words when you've proven an inability to understand that which you HAVE offered as support? No, child. You need to bring your proofs with you. I'm certainly under no obligation to believe that YOU'VE read the entire bill.
But while we're on the subject, let's look at your question again:
"Pray tell, how then did over 200 Republican amendments come to be included in the approved legislation?"
There are two simple explanations that leap to mind.
1. It is proof that Republicans ARE willing to attempt bi-partisan compromise despite liberal and Democratic complaints to the contrary.
2. It is an attempt to mitigate the harm to our nation and its economy to do so.
But in the end, their unanimous vote against this dripping oooze of feodor shows that their attempts were not enough and that the final version is still crap, which is plainly is. Plain to people of real intelligence, however great or slight. (You don't qualify either way, Feo boy)
Dan,
What I want is for you to put the comments back were they were. I know what I said and if the people agree with you (which at your site is quite likely since they are part of your circle jerk), so be it. This "off topic" crap is a dodge so as to justify removing my defense, repeated because you only restated your lie about them.
But frankly at this point I don't care one way or the other. I stand by my version of events and to refuse to replace those comments to their original position simply contorts the truth, which is typical.
How about if I just copy and re-post the comments that are there three more times? Wouldn't that serve the same purpose of repeating your points that your repeated off topic points repeat?
No, thanks. I gave you the chance to make your case, you tried but failed to do so. Repeating it three more times or thirty more times wouldn't make your posts more relevant or correct the false representations of reality.
"How about if I just copy and re-post the comments that are there three more times? Wouldn't that serve the same purpose of repeating your points that your repeated off topic points repeat?"
Not at all, because when I first responded, you followed with the same false charges that you, your church and kids in your church were being attacked unreasonably. My follow up to that is what you deleted.
" I gave you the chance to make your case, you tried but failed to do so."
It was my success at defending against your lies that lead to your deleting my comments. Try to be honest, won't you?
Post a Comment