Another Liberal Gets Really, Really Angry
Tags: Second American Revolution.
At part of the liberal coalition – this from Rocket Shoes regarding the refusal of the vastly overpaid union workers in the San Francisco public transit system to agree to some givebacks during the financial crisis:
Dear SF Muni,
(Expletive Delted) you.
Let me start over.
(Expletive Deleted) you.
You are the public transportation system. Say that out loud. You are, supposedly, the way I should transport myself. You know, to places like “everywhere” and “anywhere”. So let me just say I’m a little bit confused…
…I’m done with your lies.
You show up late. When you do show up, you’re a total (expletive deleted). Your driver acts like it’s a serious inconvenience that I’ve burdened him with the “driving people around in a bus” part of his “driving people around in a bus” … job. I mean, I wouldn’t take a job at the ice cream store and sigh when people asked for a (expletive deleted) sugar cone. Also, I would like to figure out where you are training your drivers. Have they used brakes on a bicycle before? Same theory. Just ease up a bit. If you push it lightly, the brakes are going to work. There’s no need to play the “can I catapult Drew into the awkward guy who’s mouth breathing in sweat pants” game. That was fun when you were on time. Hell, at the beginning of the relationship? It was one of those weird reasons I liked you: it was kind of cute in some effed up way.
It now costs me two dollars to be late to everything. Which seems like a really (expletive deleted) deal. When did you become the cable guy, telling me vaguely that you’d be over at my place sometime between the morning and roughly any time ever, including never?…
Now we’ll have to see if this guy puts two and two together and figures out that the problem is that its a government-run transportation system. A private bus system would cost less and get you there on time – because if they didn’t, some competition would come along and scoop up the customers. Of course, that would involve all sorts of freedom and individual choice, which is not really wanted in San Francisco outside of whom to have sex with, and what gender to be.
But I point this out because its yet another sign that the fury is growing out there – and its growing against government, even if its not articulated exactly that way. Everyone is mad at government and quasi-government entities raking in the taxpayer’s money and providing bad or non-existent service…meanwhile, the well-connected make out like bandits (which is, in a way, an insult to bandits – at least they put themselves at personal risk for what they steal).
2010 is all about fighting against the machine of politics – that machine which has wrecked the country and needs to be brought to heel by the people. This will, by default, work to the GOP’s advantage in November – but the warning is there: if the GOP doesn’t serve the people – and the people see and feel that the GOP is serving the people – then we’ll just repeat this all over again in 2012; and keep repeating it until we do get a government of, by and for the people.
Mark Noonan is co-author (with Matt Margolis) of Caucus of Corruption: The Truth About The New Democratic Majority. He also blogs at Nevada News and Views. Follow Mark on Twitter.
78 Responses to “Another Liberal Gets Really, Really Angry”
Caucus of Corruption
OT, but too rich to ignore:
.
The San Francisco Democrat (Nancy Pelosi) says the tea party coalition shares some common ground with Democrats
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100228/ap_on_go_co/us_pelosi_tea_party
.
White, suburban, astro turfing, racists have something in common with democrats?
no..they all gotta eat, breath and shxt…the only thing in common…so the dingbat from sodom cisco is right for a change
the real truth is that they are bringing in all the libtard talking points so it takes your attention away from what thier hands are actually doing…the trick with shuffle the pea is to make sure that nobody is watching your hands…then you can oops and slip a few times so the pea is never where its supposed to be…but that doesnt mean that you and i are wrong about abortion and homosexuality being immoral and devisive…it only means that they try to display themselves as honest players…until you call them on thier con…takes facts for the truth to be upheld…but all it takes is a few diversions for it to be forgotten
You guys are going to chuckle at this but… Mrs. Rico and I bought ourselves a scooter last weekend. She’s wanted one for years. Not sure why. Now that she has one she hasn’t been on it. Not sure why. I, on the other hand, have been scooting all over the place. Not sure why, except it’s rather fun. Plus, it relieves my guilt about driving a huge truck down to the grocery store to pick up a half dozen limes and a stalk of celery. Now we have limes and celery galore, so I’ll have to find some other excuse to ride the thing. Cuz it is fun! There’s no gearing involved because it has an automatic tranny — just twist and go. And it’s fast enough to flow with the traffic (it has a top end of about 65). Maybe tonight the Mrs and I will hop on, head over to Cook’s, and two-step the night away with all the other bikers. The look on their faces ought to be a hoot.
Pretty cool, Rico. I almost bought one of them when gas prices were up near $4, but, unfortunately, it’s just too dangerous driving around on the roads I need to get to work on one of those things in Raleigh.
rico
as a former HARLEY rider (pseudo biker) never was bur ran with a bunch of them.
YOU HAVE to be KIDDING……
dont let the Marine find out, he may have to use his demolition training on it LOL!!
I think this obsession with the “astroturf” thing is symptomatic of the overall Dem delusion factory. Oh, it was a kinda-cute one-liner response to the grass-roots meme, but my gosh, guys, it is not brilliant, nor is it relevant, nor is it even remotely witty after the umpteenth repetition. Yes, I know it’s all they’ve got, but it’s getting kind of pathetic.
Americans know the Tea Party movement is grass-roots. Too many average Americans know people who have gotten involved in it, or look at the video clips of rallies and see, if not their actual aunties and uncles and neighbors, people who look just like them. Americans understand that when there is an upwelling of anything, eventually someone is going to step in and create a website, an organization, to help out, and they know that this is the farthest thing possible from prima facie proof that the movement BEGAN with the eventual organizing effort.
And I think that even if Americans were to believe that someone, some political mastermind, DID create this movement in some office somewhere, their response would be “Good! It’s about time! Where do I sign up?”
The problem with the Left is that it depends on fooling people. Sometimes it works. If you try to fool people by offering them something for nothing, or playing on their good emotions (‘helping’ people) or their bad emotions (hating people), you’ll do pretty well for a while if you are skillful enough at emotional manipulation and semantic razzle-dazzle. But the lack of foundational truth always comes back to bite them in the donkey, and that is what is going on now.
What is happening is that the fooled are starting to see through the razzle-dazzle, and are starting to get turned off by the trickery. This is why the Left is increasingly dependent on those who NEED the hate, and the few poor saps who still mean well but can’t see that the Left helps no one but the elites at the top.
We see that here on the blog. The well-meaning but somewhat befuddled libs are falling by the wayside, leaving only the hateful and hate-dependent and downright nasty who are not only not turned off by the trickery but who love it.
At first I thought I was reading a letter written willy.
Another government system that may have at one time (for a short period) worked. But given the nature of all things government turns to bovine excrement.
rico, after my husband died and I moved up to the wilds of Wyoming, I gave his old Honda scooter, with only a few miles on it, to my brother, who had the same reaction you are having. It’s a classic, like new, and he started to respond to the moniker Scooter Boy. I thought it was cute but never felt comfortable on it in traffic, but if I still lived in the city I probably would have kept it and learned how to get comfortable on it.
Do you have a pink wicker basket with flowers on it? I threatened to get one for my brother, maybe with a little Toto dog to ride in it, but he drew the line at that.
Do you have a pink wicker basket with flowers on it?
Gee, thanks for giving Mrs. Rico ideas!
Actually, she’s already had it. But so far forceful eye-rolling on my part has kept it in check. However, thanks to the manufacturer’s current promotion, the thing has just about everything else one could think of: rear rack and topcase, cowl protectors, cover & windscreen. Yeah, we be stylin’. Lol!
And actually, purchasing it didn’t have much to do with guilt. That part was a joke. I like my truck, and I’m not about to get rid of it. But the scooter is fun, easy to drive, certainly more practical around town (it gets about 80 mpg, btw. Also, did I mention Mrs. Rico wanted one? I suppose I should also mention that what Mrs. Rico wants, Mrs. Rico usually gets (excepting the occasional wicker basket — hopefully).
Anyway, that last is basically the reason why we now have a scooter and not a dirt bike. But now that we have it another benefit has become obvious: between the various hooks and storage compartments on the little bugger, you can carry an amazing amount of stuff with it. Granted, you look ridiculous doing it. But really… if you have a problem with that you probably shouldn’t be riding a scooter in the first place, lol!
Btw, Mrs. Rico drove it for the first time this morning. She did very well, too. She really tore up the parking lot at the local elementary school! Before long she’ll be venturing out into the neighborhood on actual streets and stuff. Soon thereafter I suspect it will be hard to get her off it. And when that happens, we just might have get another one! Nah, I’m joking about that, too. A dirt bike maybe, but not another scooter — especially if she insists on the pink wicker basket with flowers on it.
Why would anyone feel guilt over driving their own vehicle, including a big truck? If you want to ride a scooter, more power to you, as I support everyone driving their vehicle of choice. My vehicles of choice are large SUVs and large trucks. Guilt doesn’t even factor into the equation.
On the subject, I “lived” (if you want to call it that) in Houston for 10 years and rode their Metro system just once, just to try it. That’s all it took for me to never want to use public transportation again. I can certainly relate to the letter writer’s frustration, but I wouldn’t have written a profanity-laced letter. I would have, instead, found a nice non-UAW large SUV or large truck, like a Toyota Tundra crew cab.
Well, grego, I just bought a car, my first in a couple of decades, so I don’t have to drive my truck (F-350 crew cab long bed Power Stroke) everywhere I go. It’s not a matter of guilt, it’s a matter of practicality. Now that my ranch is finally fully relocated, and I don’t need to haul cargo or pull a trailer every time I go anywhere, it doesn’t make sense to put the wear and tear on a big expensive truck.
And I got tired of having to negotiate city parking lots in it, and getting 12 mpg. I now have a car to drive most of the time. It’s still a big heavy road car, AWD, but it gets more than twice the mileage and is more practical. If I didn’t live 55 miles from the nearest supermarket and do all my driving on the interstate or mountain roads in very dicey weather conditions, I would not hesitate to go for the smallest and cheapest transporation possible, and guilt wouldn’t have anything to do with it.
Actually, for shorter trips in the summer, I do have my 1970 VW Thing. With the windshield folded down and the doors removed it’s like a 4-wheeled scooter.
I envy you Amazona… VW Thing? Sounds like a blast. The only thing that can top is a Karmann Ghia… (well… really it is a Volkswagen Schwimmwagen but I have a feeling the karmann Ghia would be easier to get)
Back on topic…
I can understand the letter writer’s frustration. Gov workers, once embedded in the system are some of the most imposable to fire, though with work they can be shifted to another office.
Amazona,
Exactly the point. When I “lived” in Houston, I drove a Honda Accord mainly out of practicality. At the time, I couldn’t afford a roomier vehicle, so that’s what I had. I have since upgraded to a Honda Pilot and a Toyota Landcruiser. I wouldn’t mind adding a Toyota Tundra in due time. I also live about 50 miles from the nearest city, so I’m with you there. Fuel mileage is very low on my list as I consider driver comfort to be most important, and I’m sure my fellow drivers on the road appreciate not having to deal with someone who would have to drive with his neck bent over to the side just to see out of the windshield of a car that seems like it was made for Lilliputians. 40 mpg isn’t worth such discomfort and unsafe driving. Guilt shouldn’t be a factor in a vehicle that someone purchased with their own money. I’ve had nosy Leftists yammer at me about driving SUVs. It’s my money, the SUV does what I want it do to, and I like it. That’s all that needs to be said.
I know what you are talking about. I was once driving my Excursion through a parking lot when some snotty bitch sneered “No one needs a car that big!” I backed up and said “First, no one cares what you think anyone else NEEDS…it’s none of your business. Second, this is not a car, it’s a truck. It’s a 3/4 ton pickup capable of carrying 7 people while pulling a trailer. It’s just a very nice truck.”
BTW, still have the Excursion. It’s the best vehicle I have ever owned and at 176,000 miles is just getting broken in.
The SF Muni system is a good system for getting around and SF is particularly suited to mass transit as it is quite compact as cities go. The buses come on a regular schedule, about every 5 minutes. If you miss one you only have to wait 5 minutes and another comes along.
We have done a lot of travel in California and have always taken our car or truck. After a few trips to SF we got tired of paying the cost of parking, something like $5 or more per 15 minutes. So we starting parking our personal vehicle and started using SF Muni to get around.
Cam,
The word of a tourist or the word of the guy who deals with it ever day? Whom should we rely upon?
Actually, Mark, since I know my home town better it is easier for me to know where I am going. Even so, in my hometown the mass transit does not work well. Further, while I am in favor of mass transit as a concept I think it has its place. If people vote, with their feet, er wheels, I think transportation agencies should give them what they want.
So, my viewpoint on SF Muni is based on a contrast with the home town. And yes, you have a point, but if a tourist can make it work it must be pretty good.
I tell you what, I bike to work, even when it rains. But I still wouldn’t give up the old F150 when I need to pick up a load of lumber at Home Depot.
Anyway, if you look a little closer at this Rocket dude, looks like he is not very serious.
can can
I tell you what, I bike to work, even when it rains.
how do you say LOOOOOOOSER!!!!
We don’t have mass transit. My town is 8 blocks long by 8 blocks wide. I use a 4-wheeler most of the year until the snow hits. Otherwise walking is so not crowded here.
What I find amusing is that this letter, were it written under a government that the Left admires, would have probably gotten the writer imprisoned or executed.
What, “the Left” doesn’t admire SF? You might want to compare notes with Mark on that one, lol!
tfmo says:
February 28, 2010 at 6:46 pm
“What I find amusing is that this letter, were it written under a government that the Left admires, would have probably gotten the writer imprisoned or executed.”
And what government would that be? Please list a government that is universally admired by the left that doesn’t allow free speech.
casper,
What he meant to say is,
What I find amusing is that this letter, were it written under a government that the the Right Wing says the Left admires, would have probably gotten the writer imprisoned or executed.
Communist China, Communist Cuba, Venuzuela, Iran, Pre-war Afghanistan, the old USSR, etc, etc, etc….
cam1,
It makes it a lot easier to win an argument when you get to put your words in the other guys mouth.
And perhaps if either of you circle-jerks bothered actually reading history, you wouldn’t have embarrassed yourselves by posting.
casper,
I don’t think we can take much of what tfmo says too seriously. He comes off as angry and paranoid to me. I think he needs to get laid. Whoops, shouldn’t have said that. I really was serious about out fishing the dude. But I can’t find the backspace button. So I’m stuck with it. You would think I would know how to go to the left.
” tfmo says:
February 28, 2010 at 9:25 pm
Communist China, Communist Cuba, Venuzuela, Iran, Pre-war Afghanistan, the old USSR, etc, etc, etc….”
Proof please that the left universally admires or admired any of those states
And yes there might have been a few on the left that might have admired these countries just like their are a few on the right that admire Hitler, that doesn’t mean the whole side is that way.
#
“tfmo says:
February 28, 2010 at 9:26 pm
And perhaps if either of you circle-jerks bothered actually reading history, you wouldn’t have embarrassed yourselves by posting.”
I don’t just read history, I study it.
Then you need to hit the books, snookums. Or have you forgotten that the near-deified FDR knowingly emp0loyed communist spies in the highest levels of his administration, and ONLY wanted to become involved in what would become WW2 AFTER Hitler snaked the Commies?
Good ol’ lovable “Uncle Joe”, that ring any bells with you?
Modern liberalism is nothing but an offshoot of socialism (and not that far from the core) which is just an offshoot of Marxist Communism.
As to your implying that Islam does NOT have its roots in polytheistic moon-god worship, why don’t you take a closer look at that crescent and star sometime. Maybe put down the Alinsky and the bong, stop licking your official Obama Chia Pet, and read a real book sometime, hm?
But you won’t. Islam is alllll about the peace, you know. Liberals are always the good guys, socialism is Teh Awesome, and Obama’s gonna roll back the tides and peel back the darkness, yadda yadda. Why I or anyone here bothers explaining anything to you idiot trolls is a mystery. Boredom, perhaps.
tfmo,
You have got a warped idea of us on the left. Perhaps you should come out and do a little fishing on the river. As long as we don’t talk politics. We can find out who makes a better fisherman. Lighten up Francis.
You have got a warped idea of us on the left. Perhaps you should come out and do a little fishing on the river. As long as we don’t talk politics. We can find out who makes a better fisherman. Lighten up Francis.
My “warped idea” of you leftist twits comes DIRECTLY from watching that you do and listening to what you say. If you weren’t lying through your teeth half the time, and just plain old ignorant the other half, maybe I’d have a better opinion of your ilk.
I believe it was Stephen Wright who said “There’s a fine line between fishing and standing on the shore like an idiot.”
No thanks. Knowing you sissy libs, I’d have to spend the whole day baiting your hooks for you and making sure you didn’t fall in and drown.
And I note that you STILL haven’t refuted my assertion of which party has more in common with Nazism, Camille.
Stillllll waitin’….
“No thanks. Knowing you sissy libs, I’d have to spend the whole day baiting your hooks for you and making sure you didn’t fall in and drown.”
Sounds like more excuses tfmo. You are afraid that you would get out fished and then all of those assumptions about liberals would be in jeopardy. You would rather stay in your paranoid isolation and make proclamations about those whom you know very little about.
Further, even if you out fished me, you might still find out I’m not as bad as you would like to think.
Whether or not you can fish makes no difference to me, Camille. Whether you are an expert angler or just an idiot on the shore, you will still be a scum-sucking, limp-wristed, jock-sniffing, lying commie troll. I’ll decline your “offer” to go fishing with you for two reasons.
One, I spend enough time out of my day dealing with morons because I have no choice.
Two, I’d be too tempted to give in to my urge to throttle an idiot that cheers for the destruction of my beloved country and endangers my family.
And yes there might have been a few on the left that might have admired these countries just like their are a few on the right that admire Hitler, that doesn’t mean the whole side is that way.
Oh come on casper, haven’t you heard? Hitler is now on the left. In fact, as far as I can tell, everyone is. There are no right wing governments left. Except maybe the Vatican, and even that’s debatable. Either way, they don’t have a transit system — except between this world and the next. But even there, the only one with a round-trip ticket is Jesus. And in case you were wondering… no, it’s not transferable.
Rico, do you REALLY want to get into a debate over whether Hitler and the Nazi party had more in common with today’s Left the with today’s Right?
REALLY?
rico,
Don’t tempt him. He figures if he writes more his point must be more valid.
Rico, do you REALLY want to get into a debate over whether Hitler and the Nazi party had more in common with today’s Left the with today’s Right?
Actually, my question is better framed thusly: what present government does “today’s Right” believe they have something in common with? Secondarily, to what extent do you believe other self-described conservatives would agree with whatever answer you provide?
It seems to me that you are defining any form of totalitarian government as “leftist” — including Iran’s present and Afghanistan’s former Islamic regimes. That just seems weird to me, so I’m wondering what your logic is. Help me out here.
Actually, my question is better framed thusly: what present government does “today’s Right” believe they have something in common with?
Present government? There isn’t one. There is no government in the world, that I know of, that has a system of government like the one our Founders laid out for us with the Constitution. You socialists, commies, and of course the Islamic dictators, have managed to weasel into every system of government in the world.
Maybe you should ask yourself if America is so bad, why have so damn many people tried to get here?
Secondarily, to what extent do you believe other self-described conservatives would agree with whatever answer you provide?
Show of hands, folks?
<i.It seems to me that you are defining any form of totalitarian government as “leftist” — including Iran’s present and Afghanistan’s former Islamic regimes.
Most of them are. Liberalism, as we commonly define it, stems from Socialism, which stems from Communism, which stems from Feudalism, which is almost completely indistinguishable from totalitarianism and dictatorship, which is a very apt description of the system used by the Islamic regimes.
You still don’t get it though. America is unique. When our Founders laid out the Constitution and our Bill of Right, no country in the WORLD had ever put forth a system of government like. None. The degree of freedom demanded by our people, and recognized by our laws, was unheard of.
AND IT WORKED.
Were it not for that freedom, our nation would NEVER have become that beacon of light and hope for the poor, the down-trodden, and the oppressed of the world. We never would have become a super-power. We never would have become THE go-to country when a crisis occurs.
So why would you leftists want to destroy that? Simple; the left is filled with failures; people who haven’t the skill or the will to succeed based on their own hard work and perseverance, so they must devise ways of TAKING it from the successful and the hard-working. But the Constitution doesn’t allow many of such opportunities, so your side must destroy it.
The Founders recognized this. This is why they laid out the Amendments in the order they did. First and foremost is our Freedom of Speech. We MUST be allowed speak out against our government. If they are doing wrong, if they are oppressing the people they should be serving, then the people must have the ability to make demands without fear of punishment.
But what’s to stop the government from taking that right away? The SECOND Amendment, that declares that EVERYONE has the right to bear arms and own a gun, to deter any government attempt to run roughshod over the people. Take a look around the world, Rico. In every case, the first thing a government that’s trying to grab more power will do is control and/or remove the weapons from the hands of the citizens.
The remaining original amendments make it abundantly clear that the Founders wanted to limit government power as much as possible, leading us to the 10th Amendment, in which it states that anything NOT covered by the preceding 9 is under the purview of the STATE governments. They wanted the individual to have GREATER say in their lives, not less. One man in a hundred can be heard; one man in a thousand is drowned out.
And as any historian or economist can tell you, the more the Constitution is followed, the more the free market is allowed to be free, the GREATER prosperity our country has had. The more nonsensical “interpretations” placed on the Constitution, the more the government takes over where private industry SHOULD be, the more government interferes with the economy, the more restriction and self-serving regulation the government places on the market, the weaker our country and our economy becomes.
Once again, by all means, REFUTE IT.
tfmo: Present government? There isn’t one. There is no government in the world, that I know of, that has a system of government like the one our Founders laid out for us with the Constitution. You socialists, commies, and of course the Islamic dictators, have managed to weasel into every system of government in the world.
Sounds like they’ve been pretty successful, lol! Like, completely successful. I’d be very concerned about that if I thought your argument was logically consistent. But I don’t. I still don’t understand how you can lump all forms of totalitarian governments together to imply a common etiology. It seems to me that all they really have in common is, well, totalitarianism. Odder still, you further lump them together with all forms of democratic governments and likewise infer a common etiology, then assume all of them, in toto, are examples of “Liberalism”. And if that weren’t bad enough, you can’t point to ANY counter-example AT ALL — not even the US government as it presently exists! And if THAT weren’t bad enough, I suspect you can’t point to any era of American history when it WAS totally up to your snuff. If you disagree, please enlighten me.
Failing that, it seems to me that you’re tilting at windmills. You start from the assumption that “everything sucks because of Leftists”, and impose on it an idealized notion of what reality should be like without any real world evidence that it could be that way in some sustainable fashion. Granted, it might sound great on paper, but where’s the beef?
Mind you, I’m not advocating “today’s Left” over “today’s Right”. That’s a different rant. I’m just questioning your facts and logic. They don’t make any sense.
You can find examples of people who throughout history admired someone who later turned out to be evil. That doesn’t mean they agreed with every thing that someone did. Charles Lindberg and Henry Ford both admired Hitler when he first came to power. Langston Hughes was an early cheerleader for the Soviet Union. All three of them were mislead.
You’re missing the point again, casper: according to Jonah Goldberg, fascism (including Hitler) is just another example of liberalism. Apparently (at least according to tfmo), so is Iran, Pre-war Afghanistan, etc. I don’t mean to imply tfmo should be considered an authority on the subject, it’s just that his attitude doesn’t seem all that different than many others on this site. Considering that, it gets a little mind-boggling. I mean, if all those are examples of leftist governments, what’s a good counter-example? In other words, are there any worthy, functional examples of a rightist government?
All kinds of history one the proper form of government you can find here. They have a wonderful collection of books on the history of America and former civilizations to compare America to. Although there aren’t many civilizations that we can compare America to, Israel certainly obeyed God and He raised leaders amongst their midst.
So, really, it’s not a question of right or left, but a question of what society does to please God.
If you’ve got a society that’s murdering the unborn, a society that is saturated with sex and themes thereunto, a society whose government wants to oppress the weak and the elderly….you’ve got a society that’s bought into the wrong story.
Here, they have a nice book on the history of the Conservative movement. That would be interesting, I think I’ll order it.
Oh, no…it’s a DVD. I’m sorry.
Already made this argument, sweetie. Months ago. Thus far all attempts to refute have failed miserably. By all means, go for it.
Superbly done, tfmo! It must have taken you quite a while to write that. The leftists who come here quite frequently would do well to take a while a study what you’ve written there. Some rich history!
Anyway, you ask the question in the title of the thread…”Who Really Has the Mustache?” And the answer clear … Obama, and his minions.
Actually, Jer? It took about three hours, including three smoke breaks and two trips to the bathroom. That’s from the moment I decided to write it to the moment I posted it.
THAT is how easy it is to get that information. THAT is how easy it is to shut down a liberal’s argument. THAT is why I call them idiots.
tfmo, a legend in his own mind.
tfmo,
I see. From what I can tell, you wrote the majority of it, with the exception of the brief quotations.
That’s good. I read just a paragraph or two last night. I’m going to try and read all of it a little later on this evening, and study it.
“I mean, if all those are examples of leftist governments, what’s a good counter-example? In other words, are there any worthy, functional examples of a rightist government?”
tfmo provides a terrific example of the Goldberg Principle: “You can prove any thesis to be true if you make up your own definitions of words.” So in this case, he makes up his own definitions for “leftist” and “admired” to prove his thesis.
Once again, Gearl…REFUTE IT.
Are you claiming Liberalism DIDN’T stem from Socialism, etc?
Are you claiming that the definitions of what is commonly accepted of Liberalism and Conservatism HAVEN’T changed with time and location?
I’m not “changing” the definitions of anything, dingus. I’m pointing out that which is already there. And it’s pretty damn silly to assert that lil’ ol’ me has the ability to change the definition of anything.
Even if I decide to start calling a car a duck, it doesn’t change what the car/duck IS; 4 wheels, an internal combustion engine, seats, and a few other bits. Even if I could get the entire world to start calling it a duck, it still wouldn’t change what it IS. That’s almost as ridiculous as trying to rename “terrorist attacks” “Man-made disasters.”
Oh wait, I’m sorry…which side of the aisle is doing that? You seem to think that the Right is engaging in “Newspeak” but the only examples I’ve seen have come from YOUR side. Huh. Funny how that worked out…
You seem to be arguing the point but you aren’t providing much of anything to back up your side. Just offering your usual snide stupidity.
“I’m not “changing” the definitions of anything, dingus. I’m pointing out that which is already there. And it’s pretty damn silly to assert that lil’ ol’ me has the ability to change the definition of anything.”
Well, in a sense, you’re right–you’re not changing the overall definition of these words. Outside of the right wing nutjob community, few people are going to go with your redefinitions, but for the purposes of your argument (such as it is), yeah, you’re redefining words. Largely because your argument fails otherwise, as ricorun points out above.
Well, in a sense, you’re right–you’re not changing the overall definition of these words. Outside of the right wing nutjob community, few people are going to go with your redefinitions, but for the purposes of your argument (such as it is), yeah, you’re redefining words. Largely because your argument fails otherwise, as ricorun points out above.
Okay…you say I am not changing the overall definition of words, but I am redefining them. Please, step away from the bong and at least TRY to focus.
As for Rico’s ridiculous post, he pulled the same stupid stunt that you just tried, claiming that he “…still don’t understand how you can lump all forms of totalitarian governments together to imply a common etiology. It seems to me that all they really have in common is, well, totalitarianism.”
He chastises me for lumping these various forms of government under totalitarianism, then in the VERY NEXT SENTENCE admits that these forms of government have totalitarianism in common.
Rico further claims that I have lumped them in under democratic forms of government.
Liberalism is not democratic in its goals. Nor is Socialism, Communism, feudalism, or Totalitarianism, nor are the various forms of Islamic governments. Fail, Rico. Big fail.
And of course there’s his little giggle about how successful these governments are! WOOT!
They are successful in TAKING AND KEEPING POWER. That’s easy enough to do; simple promise the voters that they’ll all have everything provided for them by Big Nanny Government and that they’re gonna TOTALLY stick it to those awful evil rich people.
That’s how they get power.
Then they start whittling away the freedoms, one by one. First they take the guns, because an armed populace is not easily cowed. Once they are unable to defend themselves, they are forced to rely on the government for any and all protection, never mind the fact that the more money they take from the evil rich, the fewer jobs are available, and those that remain pay less. This inevitably leads to higher crime rates, requiring MORE protection from the government. But of course, to have the ability to do something about this awful crime spree, they’ll need to cancel a few more of your freedoms in the process.
Eventually, someone will speak out against this. Many will listen. But the government won’t want people “stirring up public unrest” so those dissenting voices will be “deterred” from speaking out. This takes the form of anything from bullying and threats to imprisonment to execution.
Now you have a populace with no money, so they must take what the government gives them. They have no guns, so they are at the government’s tender mercies. They can not speak out, lest they silenced.
And of course, you can always speak with your vote right?
Yeah, how’d that work out in Iran?
If you’re even still allowed to vote. With such widespread poverty, can we really afford the expense of an election? Besides, we may have to shut down polling areas, those dirty filthy enemies of the state, those traitors might decide to bomb them. Too risky. And just to be safe, let’s have the military start helping the police with patrolling the streets. In fact, forget the police, another redundant drain on the economy. The military is now the police.
Wait, isn’t there a law against having the military run amok in our cities? Pfft, that’s a no-brainer. We can have them in case of emergencies, and clearly this is an emergency. For that matter, your “duly appointed representatives” can vote to override that law.
This is how they KEEP power.
Again, you and Rico (if you’re not the same person; a reasonable question since you both make the exact same stupid errors) haven’t refuted my argument. But you have successfully proven that neither of you has clue one what you’re talking about. So at least you got that going for you. Nice one. Really.
Hahahaha, wow. You know, for a minute there, I thought you weren’t as cartoonishly paranoid as the Amazonas and Mark Noonans of the world, but your little “first, they come for your guns…” fantasy shows that actually, you’re just as cartoonishly paranoid as them. Throw in some basic ignorance buttressed by the Goldberg Principle, and voila: tfmo.
You should stick to D-grade cartooning, kiddo.
Hahaha wow, you’re an idiot.
Try googling Nazi Gun Control. Or Cuba Gun Control. Or USSR Gun Control. Or China Gun Control. Pich the name of ANY oppressed country and google it with Gun Control. What I listed is EXACTLY what these dictators and regimes did.
Keep trying though, Gearl. The law of averages states that eventually you’ll get something right.
Once again, you offer ridicule and rhetoric, BUT NO SUBSTANCE AND NOTHING THAT DISPROVES WHAT I HAVE SAID.
And just to help you on that search that you probably WON’T bother with, or admit that you’ve read it because then you will see that you haven’t a frickin’ clue, Hitler instituted gun control in 1938. Just ONE YEAR LATER was when he started hauling people off to the concentration camps.
Dumbass.
tfmo: He chastises me for lumping these various forms of government under totalitarianism, then in the VERY NEXT SENTENCE admits that these forms of government have totalitarianism in common.
They all have language in common, too. But you’d be hard pressed to argue that all languages have the same etiology. Similarly, many birds, bats, and insects can fly. But again, the etiology of flight in each case is different. You mentioned gun control. And again, many monarchies banned ownership of guns by common people. One would be hard-pressed to describe aristocrats as being liberals in any sense of the word. So it’s pretty clear that the mere fact that convergence exists does not imply similar etiology — or ideology.
Liberalism is not democratic in its goals. Nor is Socialism, Communism, feudalism, or Totalitarianism, nor are the various forms of Islamic governments.
Okay, this seems to be where I get lost, because the United States itself is the result of liberal ideas. It thus seems that you don’t really have a problem with liberalism per se, just with the way it’s practiced now — “today’s Left”, if you will. So it seems to me that it would be better to argue that “today’s Left” is a bastardization of liberalism. Amazona makes that distinction pretty well. Maybe you should pay more attention to her. Then again, maybe she displays too much nuance for you. Lol!
I chuckle, but seriously, it seems to me that what you’re really arguing is very simply: “government is bad whatever its ideological underpinnings are”. It’s a little hard to come to any other conclusion seeing as how you don’t like any of them. Not one. According to you, all of them have accumulated too much control for your tastes. That’s the commonality you really see. You define it as “liberalism”, but it seems to me that it’s better to define it according to what it is: “control”, however accumulated, under whatever context.
Am I right so far?
If so, here’s the first question: Is it only government control that concerns you? Years ago company towns were popular — at least with big companies. Sometimes they owned absolutely everything — all the real estate, the buildings, the shops and everything in them, the hospitals and other services, everything. Is that okay with you?
Likewise, there was a time when some companies owned everything associated with one or more commodities. They owned the mines, the mills, the means of transport and distribution. Is that okay with you?
If not, how would you prevent it? Whatever answer you offer, I suspect there would be some around here who would accuse you of being a member of “today’s Left”. Pretty absurd, huh?
Here’s a second question: How do you propose to avoid control of any sort? It is, after all, the purpose of any organization, be it a government, a company, or whatever, to establish rules or laws, thereby exerting control and limiting what individuals within it can do. The only alternative is total anarchy. And anarchy isn’t very stable.
Yes, these are very basic questions. But I honestly don’t believe you’ve thought about them much — if at all. Basically, you seem to be one of those “everything sucks” kind of people who hasn’t put much thought into what it would take to make things stop sucking. I don’t know if it will help you out, or even if it will just make you think, but here’s my philosophy in a nutshell:
Our forefathers did a pretty good job establishing a system of government embued with various levels of checks and balances. But one thing they didn’t forsee is that businesses would get so big that they would be able to challenge government on any level for control of peoples’ lives. That has become an issue. With respect to business, it is commonly argued that the most essential concept of any free market system is the law of supply and demand. But IMO, there is another concept just as essential: competition. The entities involved in the free market system naturally respond to the law of supply and demand, but they will also naturally resist competition any way they can. Consequently, an agent outside the market system is required in order to check and balance that tendency. And I can think of no other agent remotely capable of that task than government.
That’s not to say governments are always successful in that task — or even try. But IMO, the extent that a government tries to be a check and balance on business is to me a major distinguishing feature. In that respect, anything smacking of a command economy is something to be avoided, regardless of whether they are imposed by the government (e.g., the USSR, Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, etc.) by powerful business interests (e.g., the various “banana republics” around the world), or by a confederation of both (e.g., Nazi Germany and other fascist regimes, present day China, etc.). That to me is the true etiology one should be concerned about: it’s about relationships, about checks and balances. And as you may be beginning to appreciate, it has very little to do with left/right ideology — but it sure does explain things with a lot more logical consistency than the ideological nonsense you’re trying to peddle.
Blah blah talking points, straw men, BS, and stupidity.
What is Democracy, dipstick? It’s letting everyone chip in on the decisions. That is NOT the goal of any of the systems I listed. Oh, they CLAIM it is, but once they get in power, the individual has less and less say, don’t they. Or do you actually believe that the Jews in Germany WANTED to be carted off? Or that the protesters in Iran WANTED to get shot at? Or that the millions of people whom the USSR starved to death were all thumb up about it?
Government IS bad, inherently so. And that’s a belief that was shared by the Founding Fathers, which is why they envisioned and designed a system of government that SEVERELY LIMITED IT.
They tried getting as close to anarchy as they could. And it turned out to be, well, ANARCHY. So they figured out that the government would have to have SOME power, BUT NOT TOO MUCH.
I would much prefer that PEOPLE own businesses and land. They actually have a stake in whether or not it succeeds or fails. As opposed to letting the government control it all. You seem to advocate that. So where exactly is Freedom in your ideal? The government owns all the land and businesses, it becomes a fiefdom AT BEST, a tyranny at worst.
Our forefathers did a pretty good job establishing a system of government embued with various levels of checks and balances.
Yes they did. But it’s you twits on the left that are misinterpreting it to death. You want to take everyone’s guns because of the placement of a comma, insisting that it means that the Founders DIDN’T mean that regular average citizens should be armed. The problem with this premise is that it is cherry-picked to the extent that it completely ignores the circumstances in which that amendment was written, and the overall ideas behind the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
Likewise the premise trumpeted by the Left that the Separation of Church and State means that the government is protected from religion. Your side completely ignores Thomas Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists (from which we get that phrase.) Jefferson made it ABUNDANTLY CLEAR that RELIGION would be protected from GOVERNMENT.
But that doesn’t fit within the liberal/socialist/progressive agenda, so they sought to misinterpret the first two and most VITAL amendments; the freedom to speak without fear and the ability to protect oneself against tyranny.
These two freedoms are the FIRST on the chopping block when a group or government desires power.
Competition. And just how much competition do you think Government will allow? Look at ObamaCare; if the government offers free health care, how does that inspire competition between private insurance firms? The two main weapons in business competition are the cost of the product/service, and the quality. Neither will have any affect whatsoever on government health care, nor will private businesses be able to compete with it.
So what else have you got. Let’s see…more assumptions claiming that I believe in a total LACK of government, even though I never said such a thing…more inability to grasp basic financial concepts…more cluelessness regarding the economy and human nature…Nope, nothing new here.
Bored now. Pointless to try explaining anything to you when you head is shoved that far up the Dem’s collective chimney.
Ricorun,
I’m pretty sure that what tfmo is concerned most about is a national entity, which is what Germany had when Hitler was in control.
Not very many countries have had or have what we have here in the United States, which is individual States with their own sovereignty…which is to hinder the Federal government from getting too much control. That’s how the founders set it up..as you explained. And we know that too much control in the hands of the government leads to policies such as what Hitler had, with such things as gun control as a direct result.
True, checks and balances on corporations, so that they do not cheat and take advantage “was not foreseen.” But I would have to check into that to make sure that that is the case. Because there may be somewhere in there where they did have these checks and balances, but were somehow buried in the liberal re-education revisionist history.
We will see.
Well, let’s just as the question … should groups of people, have the same rights as people individually?
Now I’ve already got my answer … let’s see what you think, Ricorun…
Oh, I forgot to add…corporations, it’s supposed to go…
Should groups of people, such as corporations, have the same rights as people individually?
Bravo rico,
You nailed it. If we become economic serfs, serfs to the corporations our democracy will have no meaning. Why those on the Right fear government control but fail to see the threat of corporate control I can not understand.
Rico,
You have said it well.
“Why those on the Right fear government control but fail to see the threat of corporate control I can not understand.”
In all fairness, Mark Noonan has written posts decrying corporate control. Granted, he’s one voice that will get no traction among the corporate-dominated right wing, and it can be chalked up to the whole stopped clock phenomenon, but he has at least seen the threat.
Anyway, great post, rico.
Seeing as how tfmo didn’t answer the questions I posed last time (color me shocked, shocked I tell you!), I’ll answer Jer. But before I do let me just respond to one thing tfmo seems to have misconstrued. tfmo said, “I would much prefer that PEOPLE own businesses and land. They actually have a stake in whether or not it succeeds or fails. As opposed to letting the government control it all. You seem to advocate that.”
If that’s your impression of what I advocate you grossly misread what I wrote. I specifically said, …anything smacking of a command economy is something to be avoided, regardless of whether they are imposed by the government (e.g., the USSR, Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, etc.) by powerful business interests (e.g., the various “banana republics” around the world), or by a confederation of both (e.g., Nazi Germany and other fascist regimes, present day China, etc.).” How you read that and concluded I am advocating “letting the government control it all” is a complete mystery. I mean really, who’s the dipstick (your word)?
Anyway, on to jeremiah…
jeremiah: Should groups of people, such as corporations, have the same rights as people individually?
Most definitely not. I would include trade unions and other special interest groups too, by the way — no matter what their ideology is. That doesn’t mean such groups should have no rights, just not the same ones as individuals. They should be denied the right to vote, for example. In fact, it is my opinion that they should not be able to participate in elections in any way, so much as possible. IMO, elections should be about the people, not special interests. Unfortunately, I haven’t come up with a way to break that influence short of publicly funding elections. I’m certainly open to ideas. But the main point is to limit the influence of corporations, unions, and other special interest groups.
And I’m sure that many here think that’s a radically leftist idea, not because it necessarily is, but because it has been labeled as such — even though many of the same people copiously criticised Obama for rejecting public funds. After all, if one is truly concerned about the accretion of power by the haves to the detriment of the have-nots, and especially if one labels any tendency in that regard as “Leftist”, how is favoring a mechanism limiting special interest influence also “Leftist”? That doesn’t make sense.
Most definitely not.
So I take it then, that you want to limit as much as possible those individuals who have large businesses; or who may be connected in one way or another to a corporation from exercising their right to vote. Am I right?
Keep in mind, now, that, if you count those who work under the executives of these companies, the employed will make up a good percentage of the voting block, and they would also have to be excluded from the right to vote…according to your wishes. Because naturally they’re going to vote for the individual who will help them to keep their job, and likewise their overhead, because it is at that level that they keep their jobs. In addition, if the overhead, and supervisors can’t keep their positions…and they can’t, if they can’t employ workers. Do you see what I mean? This would create a massive problem, seemingly, maybe more like for real.
What about those small businesses? Both they, and the larger companies/corporations rely heavily on hired hands, and taxes play a role in keeping their businesses afloat, by keeping the taxes low…if the taxes go up, so does everything else.
The leftist position, as I understand it, is to raise taxes…and so these corporations and small businesses have to wonder, will this benefit my company? What are the extra taxes I am paying going to help? Can I keep afloat with paying more taxes? It’s an extra worry, ya see…and well, take this healthcare bill being proposed by Obama and the liberals … what is contained in this bill that will create jobs, and work to pay off our debt? What about cap-n-trade? Will this punish those currently providing our energy, and those using that energy currently being provided? And the answer is yes…people will pay more for keeping the midnight oil burning, mind you, that’s probably living a little out of one’s means, but yes, they will pay more for the services that they currently get for that’s not breaking their piggy bank, but will in due time when the cap-n-trade goes into effect. This, while things will slow down, the economy will dwindle, while the government will continue to grow…the extra taxes going, of course, to fund Obama and his liberals pet projects and communist agenda overall….more money to revisionist history classes, and these kids will grow up not knowing the dangers in communism, and the benefits of a free-market capitalist society, that allows them to pursue a career under their own wants and desires, but will be assigned a career according to the dictates of the government…it’s a no freedom zone when the government gets involved….which is how Hitler done it, you see.
Well, I don’t agree with that position, quite frankly. And I don’t think anyone should…but we live in an age when most people in this country have received an education in government run public schools to the tune of Marxism, where man is king and the rights of individuals to pursue their dreams is given very little thought.
That’s my take on it.
Do you have a response you’d like to share?
HAHAHA!!! YER SO CLEVERRRR!!!
Now how about you try REFUTING it, Camille.
I assume that since you’ve decided to insult me, that you can actually refute my post, right? Or have you chosen to insult me because that’s all you’ve got?
Take your time, sugar. We’ll wait.
“Legend in my own mind.” Hm.
Apparently you thought I was bragging when I said it only took three hours to write that article.
Not so much.
More along the lines of “If I can do it in three hours with minimal effort, then anyone else should be able to do it too.”
Or am I asking too much of you, Camille?
Or am I asking too much of you, Camille?
YES!!
liberalism is a mental disorder!
and yet through ALL this, I see NONE of you liberal lick-spittles have gone anywhere NEAR refuting my article about which political party has more in common with Nazism, or with my assertion regarding the numerous similarities between between liberalism, socialism, communism, feudalism, and totalitarianism.
tfmo
November 25, 2007
The Nazis Were Marxists
By Bruce Walker
“The Nazis were Marxists, no matter what our tainted academia and corrupt media wishes us to believe. Nazis, Bolsheviks, the Ku Klux Klan, Maoists, radical Islam and Facists — all are on the Left, something that should be increasingly apparent to decent, honorable people in our times. The Big Lie which places Nazis on some mythical Far Right was created specifically so that there would be a bogeyman manacled on the wrists of those who wish us to move “too far” in the direction of Ronald Reagan or Barry Goldwater.
The truth about the Nazis was that they were the antithesis of Reagan and Goldwater. Let us consider the original Nazi movement and its evolution. The National Socialist movement began in Austria with Walter Riehl, Rudolf Jung and Hans Knirsch, who were, as M.W. Fodor relates in his book South of Hitler, the three men who founded the National Socialist Party in Austria, and hence indirectly in Germany. In November, 1910, these men launched what they called the Deutschsoziale Arbeiterpartei. That party was successful politically. It established its program at Inglau in 1914.
What was this program? It was against social and political reaction, for the working class, against the church and against the capitalist classes. This party eventually adopted the name Deutsche Nationalsozialistche Arbeiter Partei, which, except for the order of the words, is the same name as “Nazi.” In May 1918, the German National Socialist Workers Party selected the Harkendruez, or swastika, as its symbol. Both Hitler and Anton Drexler, the nominal founder of the Nazi Party, corresponded with this earlier, anti-capitalistic and anti-church party.
Hitler, before the First World War, was highly sympathetic to socialism. Emile Lorimer, in his 1939 book, What Hitler Wants, writes about Hitler during these Vienna years that Hitler already had felt great sympathy for the trade unions and antipathy toward employers. He attended sessions of the Austrian Parliament. Hitler was not, as many have portrayed him, a political neophyte in 1914.
The very term “National Socialist” was not invented by Hitler nor was it unique to Germany. Eduard Benes, President of Czechoslovakia at the time of the Munich Conference, was a leader of the Czechoslovak National Socialist Party. Ironically, at the time of the Munich Conference, out of the fourteen political parties in the Snemovna (the lower chamber of the Czechoslovakian legislature) the party most opposed to Hitler was the Czechoslovak National Socialist Party. The Fascist Party in Czechoslovakia was also anti-Nazi.
The first and only platform of the National Socialist German Workers Party called for very Leftist economic policies. Among other things, this platform called for the death penalty for war profiteering, the confiscation of all income unearned by work, the acquisition of a controlling interest by the people in all big business organizations and so on. Otto Strasser, the brother and fellow Nazi of Gregor Strasser, who was the second leading Nazi for much of the Nazi Party’s existence, in his 1940 book, Hitler and I revealed his ideology before he found a home in the Nazi Party. In his own words Otto Strasser wrote: “I was a young student of law and economics, a Left Wing student leader.”
Consider the following text from that platform adopted in Munich on February 20, 1920 and ask yourself whether it sounds like the notional Right or the very real Left:
“We ask that the government undertake the obligation above all of providing citizens with adequate opportunity for employment and earning a living. The activities of the individual must not be allowed to clash with the interests of the community, but must take place within its confines and be for the good of all. Therefore, we demand an end to the power of the financial interests. We demand profit sharing in big business. We demand a broad extension of care for the aged. The government must undertake the improvement of public health.”
In his 1939 indictment of Nazism, Germany Rampant, Hambloch has an entire chapter on political parties under the German Empire before the First World War and political parties under the Weimar Republic. Hambloch lists parts of the “Left,” “Right” and “Centre” in the German Empire pre-1914, but there are no “Left,” “Right” or “Centre” parties in the Weimar Republic, but rather “Weimar Parties, i.e. those who supported the republican constitution,” “National Reactionary Parties” and “Revolutionary Parties.” The Nazis are listed, along with the Communist Party of Germany, as the two “Revolutionary Parties.” Pointedly, the Nazis were not considered a “National Reactionary Party.”
Consider these remarks of Nazi leaders. Hitler on May 1, 1927:
“We are socialists. We are enemies of today’s capitalistic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are determined to destroy this system under all conditions.”
full article…..
http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/11/the_nazis_were_maxists.html
That’s a good article, Neo. I think I came across it during my research for my Mustache article, but decided not to go that far into the origins of Nazism because it was already running long.
Well, you’ve made it perfectly clear that reality has absolutely no chance of disabusing you of your fantasy world, tfmo, so better to just sit back and marvel at your ridiculousness.
Again: Stick to the doodling, kiddo. Fact-based discussions are obviously not for you.
Let’s see….
Well, you’ve made it perfectly clear that reality has absolutely no chance of disabusing you of your fantasy world
Still nothing to refute my argument
so better to just sit back and marvel at your ridiculousness.
Still nothing
Again: Stick to the doodling, kiddo.
Still nothing.
Fact-based discussions are obviously not for you.
Still nothing.
Funny thing for you to say since I’m the only one between us that has actually provided facts.
“Funny thing for you to say since I’m the only one between us that has actually provided facts.”
Yikes, you still haven’t brushed up on the definition of the word “fact,” apparently. Here’s a helpful hint: It’s not a synonym for “ill-informed ramblings.”
As for your sad little notion that nobody has refuted your argument…well, Ricorun took your argument seriously and then very neatly destroyed it. I, meanwhile, never took your argument seriously in the first place because it’s profoundly unserious, so there was really no need to do anything other than point and laugh at your incompetence. You actually claimed that Iran and Afghanistan under the Taliban are left wing–what more need be said about your grasp of reality (or rather, your lack thereof)?
I’d say you should be ashamed of your absolute failure of a performance in this thread, but you’re so proud of that failure that you’re incapable of doing such a thing.
Try not to get too mad at the truth, m’kay?
And which post, exactly, did he supposedly “neatly destroy” my argument?
For that matter, which post, exactly did he OR YOU answer my original question?
Facts? Don’t use the big words if you don’t understand them, snookums. One might think you an idiot.
OH WAIT.
Aaaaannnd the usual switcharoo.
“He didn’t answer my question!!”
Yeah, I did answer your question, dipstick. Don’t blame me if you can’t READ.
You STILL haven’t answered mine, refuted anything I’ve posted with FACTS, or done much of anything except mouth off the usual commie stupidity that passes for argument on your side, regurgitate the flawed talking points on the left, and of course, bore the hell out of anyone bothering to read your posts.