A Republican Class War

As most of you know, I ceased being a supporter of Capitalism a few years back and switched over to being a Distributist.  The genesis of the shift was my growing realization that Big Corporation and Big Government were two sides of the same coin while the very rich – for all their being demonized in liberal rhetoric – are for the most part liberal Democrats.  I cannot perceive a way for us to finally win – win where we can amend the constitution and thus undo the liberalism which is destroying us – unless we take out the whole of the enemy arrayed against us.  Since I figured that the Capitalist system was actually in alliance with the socialist system, I easily found myself slipping in to Distributist beliefs – which, to boil it down, are that nothing “too big to fail” should be allowed to live.  That a man, working hard and living frugally, should be able to by himself support his wife and children.  That almost all political decisions which affect the day-to-day lives of citizens must be made at the lowest level possible.

In the 2012 election we got a bit of confirmation of my views – 8 of the 10 richest counties in America were carried by Obama.  The rich like Obama.  They voted for him.  They donated to his campaign.  Do you think they actually believe that Obama’s “tax the rich” rhetoric is directed at them?  It isn’t.  And they know it.  You see, as I’ve been saying for years, “tax the rich” is a mere propaganda phrase for the Democrats.  They portray themselves as being on the side of the poor and the middle class and their most effective argument in this portrayal is their repeatedly announced determination to “tax the rich”.  But here’s the thing – they never, ever tax the rich.  They tax the middle class and dress it up as a tax on the rich.  They say they want “millionaires and billionaires” to pay their fair share….but a “billionaire” in the tax code starts at $200,000.00 a year.

Realize who the enemy is  – the entire Ruling Class.   All these rich people who live in heavily guarded enclaves and who claim they care about the poor while consigning the poor to live in Third World cesspools. The run the government, they run the big corporations, they run the MSM, they run the colleges – they are all educated the same way and all of them think alike even if some of them have the wit to understand that full-bore socialism is a losing proposition.  We have to beat them all – and I propose we start right away.

Over at Instapundit, one of the readers made this comment:

…I’m saying to myself, why am I going to war for these people? All this effort to try to protect the “job creators” and they’re voting for Obama and ever larger government and more taxes. I think it’s time to give them what they want! I would love to see a Republican bring forth a bill to tax the sh*t out of those making over $500k (the 1%). These are the people who live in these enclaves. Let’s do comprehensive tax reform, eliminate most or all deductions and lower rates for everyone…except them. Let their rates go back to the Clinton era rates AND eliminate their deductions. This goes hand in hand with your “eliminate the Hollywood Tax Cuts” proposal. Now granted, this would not do a whole lot to address the budget deficit. Anyone who is good at math knows that. However, it completely cuts the legs out from the Democrats, gives these rich jerks their just desserts for voting for Obama and supporting him financially, and will help insulate the married working professionals who Obama and the Dems REALLY want to soak…

Good stuff and entirely on the right track.  My idea is, of course, a “wealth tax”.  Excluding family owned farms, ranches, mines, and other businesses of the “make/mine/grow” type (not interested in protecting family owned law firms, ya dig?), we should impose a 5% annual tax on all wealth in excess of $5 million.  We’ll sell it just like the Democrats do – a way to make millionaires and billionaires pay their “fair share” so that we can afford to build better schools.  Gates?  We want $3.3 billion from you next year.  Buffet?  Your tab is $2.3 billion.  Bloomberg?  We’re going to need $1.2 billion from you.  And we push it thus – “you know, with that $3.3 billion from Gates we can provide school vouchers for x number of kids to go to a decent school.  That $2.3 billion from Buffet will pay the VA benefits for x number of our beloved veterans.  With Bloomberg’s money we can provide housing vouchers for x number of people currently living in decayed public housing projects…”

And here’s the real kicker – our liberal Democrats will fight it tooth and nail because these are their money bags.  These are the people who provide the money for their political campaigns.  The people who donate the foundations and thus provide cushy, high-paid jobs for liberals.  These are the people our liberals hob nob with in the tony sections of those urban areas liberals control.  It will draw the line – it will let the people know just who is fighting for the people and who is fighting for the super-rich.  This is where we can reset the debate and stop fighting by the liberal rules.

Ultimately, of course, the plan is not to tax the rich, of course.  We all know that even if we confiscated the entirely of the rich’s wealth we could only fund our government for about a year.  The reason our liberals use “tax the rich” rhetoric to justify raising income tax rates is because they know full well that the place to go for really great, big bags of money is the middle class.  Those men and women who work 40-60 hours a week to pull down between $80,000.00 and $300,000.00 a year – that is where the money is; and it gets replaced every year as they keep working every year.  Such a plan as outlined here would turn the debate around and allow us, then, to start educating the entire middle class and the lower class that until we get these rich, Ruling Class types of Big Government and Big Corporation under control, nothing is ever going to get better for us.

We have to take away the false narrative – the liberal narrative that they are defending us from Big Corporation/The Rich.  Their argument that unless we have things like a Department of Education and a Department of Labor then the big, bad rich people will destroy us.  The big, bad people are destroying us – they run both the Department of Education and Goldman Sachs and they are playing a class warfare game to sucker people in to backing them.  The vote of 8 of the 10 richest counties in America confirms this…there is no battle between the rich and the liberals as they are one in the same group of people. Let’s start a real class war – a war of the real middle and lower classes against the Ruling Class.

We’re engaged in a long war, good people.  It has taken 80 years for liberals to get us in to this mess and we’re not going to undo it all at once…but we’ll never be able to even make a start at it unless we recognize the entirety of the enemy force.  Do not be suckered by them – their whole power rests on their ability to divide and conquer.  As an example:  I am to be divided from a Latino man – we both work for a living, have bills to pay and suffer under the same liberal tyranny but he’s been convinced to fear me because I’m allegedly in alliance with “the rich”.  Meanwhile, the other side of the coin is played this way – I’m to fear that Latino man because he’s new to the country and alien and maybe he’s getting a little welfare on the side.  The black man who sits next to me in the church pew – he’s also supposed to fear me and I’m supposed to fear him, even as we say the Lord’s Prayer together.  Meanwhile, the real enemy is allowed to go forward with hardly a check – piling up more wealth and power for itself and insulating itself more and more from the real America.  And as we go to heck in a hand basket they simply don’t care – that I, the black man and the Latino man will all wind up living in the same Third World sewer is ok to our Ruling Class…they’ll still be rich and in power.  Unless we can see what is happening and unite against them.

Advertisements

57 thoughts on “A Republican Class War

  1. neocon01 November 9, 2012 / 2:22 pm

    national sales tax………ALL pay, ALL pay the same rate………poor consume little = pay little.
    rich consume much = pay a LOT!!

  2. bardolf2 November 9, 2012 / 2:43 pm

    not interested in protecting family owned law firms, ya dig? – Noonan

    Wow, what else can one say.

    In an unrelated make/mine/grow area of the world I have a question for our resident farmers/ranchers etc.

    I was watching a video about using bacteria to make fuels. http://www.ted.com/talks/craig_venter_is_on_the_verge_of_creating_synthetic_life.html

    At some point Venter says the technology is available to replace fuels if one could make hundreds of thousands of ‘microrefineries’. He dismissed that as impractical but it made me think why couldn’t farms be micro-refineries.

    With proper safeguards, why couldn’t farmers raise ‘bacteria’ which would produce fuel if that was technologically workable. I’ve seen corn farmers in Nebraska become ostrich farmers and catfish farmers and … What would keep GMB from growing his own gas?

    Again, I’m not talking about technology. I am asking if the technology was available, what practical reasons would hinder farmers from growing another item?

    • Amazona November 9, 2012 / 3:16 pm

      dolf, farmers in one of the Dakotas have formed a co-op where each donates a certain amount of an oilseed crop to be made into biodiesel and then the fuel is divided among the participants. They keep the whole thing local, they provide the means for fueling their own farm equipment, the equipment runs better and lasts longer because of the increased lubrication from biodiesel, and they did it on their own without the government.

      The technology is there, though rather expensive right now.

      I get a farm and ranch supply catalog that has a big center insert for equipment to use manure to generate heat—–it looks like some kind of processing tank, but I have not looked into it because my place is not set up to collect manure.

      I don’t know about the bacteria producing some kind of fuel, or the process or the science or the equipment, but I do know that farmers are the most creative and inventive people you would ever want to meet, and if it is feasible it will be done.

      • bardolf2 November 9, 2012 / 4:43 pm

        Amazona

        Farmers are also the craziest people you would ever want to meet. Crazy in a romantic way mainly. I have known enough farm kids who are lucky to have lived through some of their own creativity.

        Most involve gunpowder and other chemicals used to make explosives. Had a friend who lost part of his hearing from an experiment gone awry. Other experiments involve making machines autonomous which were meant to be driven by mankind.

        Some regulation would be needed to keep the farm kids away from doing gene splicing in the back yard.

      • neocon01 November 9, 2012 / 4:49 pm

        Eeeeeeasyyyy baldork…..

        “. Crazy in a romantic way mainly. I have known enough farm kids “
        Whew for a minute I thought you were going sasan on us, thats Baaaaaad right?

      • GMB November 9, 2012 / 4:58 pm

        “Most involve gunpowder and other chemicals used to make explosives. ”

        Does that explain why I spent twelve years in Field Artillery after I wandered from the farm?

        Say what? I can’t hear you.

        😛

      • neocon01 November 9, 2012 / 5:04 pm

        BoooooM

      • Amazona November 9, 2012 / 9:08 pm

        I have always said that one of the coolest things about being a rancher/farmer is that so much of the work involves burning things, breaking things, and sometimes blowing things up.

      • neocon01 November 10, 2012 / 3:01 pm

        Ama

        sounds like us Jar Heads….LOL

    • M. Noonan November 9, 2012 / 3:23 pm

      It is things like that though – the smaller is better individual and small-group effort – which is the key to our survival.

    • Amazona November 9, 2012 / 3:28 pm

      Haven’t heard anything about this for a few years, but it sounded great. Even tires could feasibly be transformed into pure crude oil, with the carbon black removed and recycled, instead of going into the soil. Any garbage could be ground up and mixed with water to make a slurry, and converted into pure light crude, pure enough to run a Briggs and Stratton engine without refining. It is not well suited to individual or possibly even co-op production as it sounds like it needs some pretty expensive and specialized equipment, but I have been interested in this since I first heard about it, which was probably in about 2003, which is when Discover Magazine started writing about it.

      **********************************

      From guts to glory: turning waste into oil
      Issue 9 of Cosmos, June 2006
      by Brad Lemley

      It sounds miraculous – a machine to convert waste into oil. But the road to profitability has been paved with many problems… and turkey carcasses.

      It is the worst stuff in the world. Eighteen tonnes of turkey offal – rotting heads, gnarled feet, slimy intestines and lungs swollen with putrid gasses – slides down a dump truck bed and sloshes into an 24-metre-long hopper with a sickening glorp. The smell is worse than the sight: an assertive mélange of midsummer corpse with fried liver overtones and a distinct faecal note.

      But two hours later, sterile as you please, an oil truck pulls up behind this Thermal Conversion Process plant in the small American Midwest town of Carthage, Missouri, and the driver attaches a hose from a nearby stationary tank to the truck’s intake valve. One hundred and fifty barrels of fuel oil (23,800 L), worth US$12,300, gush into the truck’s tank, and off it goes to an oil company that will blend it with heavier fossil-fuel oil to upgrade the stock.

      Three such trucks arrive here daily, loading up with the day’s production of 500 barrels of oil made from 270 tonnes of turkey guts and 20 tonnes of pork fat. Most of what can’t be made into oil becomes high-grade fertiliser; and the rest is water clean enough to discharge into a municipal wastewater system.

      “This is a real plant,” says Brian Appel, chief executive of Changing World Technologies, the company behind the offal-to-oil alchemy. “This is the first commercial biorefinery in the world that can make oil from a variety of waste streams.”

      He nods towards the US$42 million facility, which resembles a generic industrial plant from a James Bond movie’s climactic shootout: A collection of tanks, pipes, pumps, grinders, boilers and catwalks inside a corrugated steel building. It is perched some 90 metres from ConAgra Foods Corporation’s Butterball plant, where 35,000 turkeys die daily and surrender their viscera to Appel’s operation; the pork fat comes from four other Midwestern ConAgra slaughterhouses.
      “To anybody who thinks this can’t work on an industrial scale, I say, ‘Come here and look,'” says Appel with a grin.

      Forget about straw into gold. The Thermal Conversion Process can take stuff that’s far worse than straw – slaughterhouse waste, municipal sewage, old tyres, mixed plastics… virtually all the wretched, varied, voluminous detritus of modern life – and make from it something the world needs much more than gold: high-quality oil.
      “This is a solution to three of the biggest problems facing mankind,” says Appel. “This process can deal with the world’s waste; it can supplement our dwindling supplies of oil; and it can slow global warming.”

      ********************************

      Energy Forum / Alternative Energy
      Go Green This Thanksgiving: Turn Turkey Guts Into Oil

      A Missouri plant successfully turns practically anything into black gold. But profitability is another matter.

      by Peter Fairley
      published online November 25, 2008

      If biofuels are to free us from rising prices at the pump and rising sea levels they must be produced from agricultural and urban wastes rather than corn, soy, and other food crops. But the executives of Big Oil can rest easy for now: Even the most mature biomass-to-biofuels processor—the Hempstead, New York–based Changing World Technologies—is still struggling after five years of operation at large scale.

      DISCOVER has chronicled (and kept a close tab on) Changing World Technologies’ trials since it built its commercial demonstration plant in 2003. The Carthage, Missouri, facility was designed to be the world’s first biomass-to-biocrude refinery, equipped to turn just about anything with a string of carbon atoms—from unrecyclable plastic and municipal garbage to animal-processing waste—into road-ready diesel.

      The concept works. Changing World Technologies proved to the satisfaction of Detroit’s Big Three, for example, that it is technically capable of producing fuel from shredder residue—the unwanted blend of plastic, glass, and metal leftover generated by automobile recycling operations. And Los Angeles County short-listed its technology for a municipal waste-processing plant the county hopes to build.

      • neocon01 November 9, 2012 / 5:16 pm

        right here several miles from me…….

        Waste-to-Energy Facility

        waste to energy plantThe Waste-to-Energy (WTE) facility has the capacity to burn 3,150 tons of garbage every day. The WTE facility processes about one million tons of garbage every year. The process can produce up to 75 megawatts (MW) per hour of electricity. It sells about 60 MW to Progress Energy for distribution within the community, and the remainder powers the plant itself. This electricity powers approximately 45,000 homes and businesses every day. The WTE facility uses state-of-the-art air pollution control technology, which continuously monitors WTE emissions, ensuring the plant’s emissions fall within the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) standards.

        Ash generated from the combustion of solid waste is transferred to the adjacent Residue Storage and Processing Building. Here, the ash is size-separated using screens, and both ferrous (steel) and non-ferrous (aluminum) metals are recovered from the ash using mechanical equipment such as magnets and eddy currents. The recovered metals are sold to steel mills and smelters for recycling, and the remaining ash is used for landfill cover and interior site berms and roadways.

      • neocon01 November 9, 2012 / 5:29 pm

        Ama

        we see a lot on newer boat docks being made out of this
        UV, salt water, insect resistant…..100% recycled plastic

        We are the leading manufacturer of high-technology HDPE plastic lumber to the wholesale trade. Our customers make innovative end-products like those shown on this page. We extrude hundreds of custom shapes from recycled plastics in virtually any color and size for our manufacturer – partners.

        Our customers have these things in common – they want their end-products to resist all kinds of weather and wet conditions and stay looking new for years. They support our efforts to recycle plastics and keep them out of the waste stream. And they demand the highest quality custom materials and service levels from us.
        We are the leading manufacturer of high-technology HDPE plastic lumber to the wholesale trade. Our customers make innovative end-products like those shown on this page. We extrude hundreds of custom shapes from recycled plastics in virtually any color and size for our manufacturer – partners.

      • ricorun November 11, 2012 / 1:58 pm

        Another excerpt from the Cosmos 2006 article Amazona mentioned:

        To his relief, that hole was plugged in August: the fuel he makes, known officially as renewable diesel, received a subsidy of US$1 per gallon in the 2005 Energy Bill, which took effect in January 2006. That boosted the company’s income by US$42 a barrel. So while Renewable Environmental Solutions makes oil for a lofty cost of US$80 a barrel, it can now sell it for US$82 per barrel, making a slim profit.

        Appel offers no apologies for needing government largesse to make money.

        “All oil, even fossil fuel oil, gets government subsidies in the form of tax breaks and other incentives,” he says. He cites a 1998 study by the International Centre for Technology Assessment (a non-profit research centre in Washington D.C.) showing that unsubsidised conventional petrol would cost consumers as much as US$15 a gallon (about A$3.96 a litre, NZ$4.71 a litre or £1.65 a litre).

        Note also that the 2005 Energy Bill was passed when GW Bush was president and both houses of Congress were controlled by Republicans.

      • ricorun November 11, 2012 / 3:19 pm

        Upon further investigation, I discovered that Changing World Technologies shut down their plant in Carthage MO and filed for Ch. 11 bankruptcy after a failed IPO in early 2009. Among other problems, the residents of Carthage complained of a very foul (fowl?) odor emanating from the plant. They have since reorganized and are apparently back up and running using other feed stocks to replace the smelly turkey offal they obtained from a local Butterball processing facility. I wish them luck.

        In other news, KiOR has started production at the first ever “commercial scale” cellulosic (non-food plant waste) biofuel plant in Columbus, MI. I put “commercial scale” in parentheses because it’s not that big of a plant — it is designed to produce only 11 million gallons of biocrude/yr. But still, it’s nothing to sneeze at. It’s basically a drop-in fuel from plant waste — not ethanol, but bio-gasoline, bio-diesel, and various other hydrocarbons that are immediately practicable! And they did it on time, on budget, and their yields thus far are somewhat better than expected. They have another plant 3x the size under construction in Natchez, MI. They are not cost-effective yet, but according to the article, “With scale-up, total cost per gallon drops to $5.95 by 2013, $3.73 per gallon in 2014, and the magic sub-$3.00 figure in 2015 when it is expected to reach $2.62 per gallon at full-scale.” Time will tell, I guess.

        At any rate, it is becoming increasingly obvious that if KiOR doesn’t hit the magic $3/gal figure to make biofuels from non-food feed stocks, some other company will. There are plenty of them in the chase, and getting closer and closer. And really, it only takes one (or a small few). All the others could go bankrupt and still the ultimate payoff will be many-fold times greater than the total investment in all of them. I just hope the US Congress does what is necessary to ensure the one (or the few) is/are heavily based on US technology and intellectual capital. But of course, that’s pretty much a no-brainer — assuming they don’t pull the rug out from under the feet of those companies getting close.

  3. mitchethekid November 9, 2012 / 6:44 pm

    My gosh Mark. You sound like a “liberal”. As they said in “Oh Brother, Where Art Thou”; “come on in boys, the water’s fine”.

    • M. Noonan November 9, 2012 / 8:25 pm

      No, I sound like a Distributist…a liberal sounds like this “those evil, racist Republicans….waaah! I want my free stuff!”.

      • mitchethekid November 10, 2012 / 12:27 pm

        The stereotyping you just admitted is one of the reasons the right was humiliated. “Free stuff” is a phrase the marginalized Limbaugh coined on Wednesday. Please come to your senses. You might find the following interesting.

        9 Nov 2012 09:51 AM
        Will The Right’s Fever Break? Ctd

        A reader isn’t optimistic:

        I’m not expecting a change. In a just, perfect world, people would look at a media system that purposely lied to them and dashed their dreams and demand accountability – or leave them in droves. But I would be willing to bet that we will see widespread agreement on rationalizations rather than accountability, and that the ratings of the right-wing media outlets will go up, not down. In the last 48 hours I have seen and heard absolute vitriol and incomprehensible cognitive dissonance. I have been amazed at the number of people who believe that God controls everything in the world – down to the smallest detail – yet He is somehow powerless in the face of election results.

        Another:

        Mr. Levin and those like him are sounding an awful lot like the angry lefties they abhor – blindly ideological, impervious to contrary evidence and reality, absolutist in their belief that their ideas are actually truths, hating the “mainstream media” and creating their own outlets to tell the “real news.” Say what you want about Clinton, but tacking the Democratic party towards pragmatism in the ’90s while shutting down the extreme left wing of the party was the beginning of what happened Tuesday. The Democrats, inexplicably, have become the party of pragmatism, cohesion, and evidence.

        Another ruminates at length:

        One thing that is disgusting about the current GOP and something you’ve not touched on much since the 47% tape faded away, is that a core tenant of the GOP is that they are the makers and everyone else (the Democrats) are the takers. Look at most any of the commentary from the right since the election night and this is pushed over and over again: America is lost because now the takers outnumber the makers. This premise is patently and outrageously false.

        And this is their default worldview now. Certainly the welfare state is not anywhere near as small as most everyone wants it to be, but to presuppose a Democratic voter is nothing less than a leach on society is flat out disgusting. The GOP starts with contempt for their fellow citizen and go down from there. They make it a practice to insult everyone in the middle and lower classes then wonder why nobody wants to join their team.

        They insult women for caring about their personal health and freedom and viability in the workforce and wonder why there is a gender gap. They assume a successful person of color is a result of affirmative action and wonder why they don’t get credit for Condi Rice and Colin Powell. They refuse to accept that an effective safety net does not create mass poverty. Jesus had a lot to say about the poor in his day, yet I don’t think there was much of a safety net back then. The right wing today will demonize anyone who needs help and they demonize anyone who wants to give help. How is that American? How does any of that solve our real issues?

        The last two Democratic presidents were honest-to-goodness American Dream success stories. Men who came from broken homes and poverty only to transcend their status to become brilliant and powerful forces in America. They should be heroes to every little kid growing up in a tough neighborhood or boring suburb.

        But not on the right. They degrade both Bill Clinton and Barack Obama while at the same time trumpeting the privileged soft-handed sons of power. How is that American? How is that patriotic? How does this appeal to those of us who believe in our public schools and our dart league at the our favorite tavern and our “dinner for eight” every Saturday night at our church? Just because a person decides to write code for a living or they have to wait tables or they are promoted into middle management in some shitty corporation instead of “taking chances” and “sticking their neck out” as entrepreneurs or “Job Creators” doesn’t mean we are not good, loving Americans. And we vote Democratic now because we don’t want to hate our neighbors for simply being normal people.

        Not to say the Dems are the best ever – they are not – but at least they seem to want to reflect the diversity of experience that is uniquely American. From that broad base they have the mandate to solve America’s issues as a cohesive force in it together. The Republicans are looking more and more like quasi-apartheid rulers insistent that their ideological and racial and gender purity is the only thing that will hold this country together.

      • Amazona November 10, 2012 / 1:36 pm

        mitche, I assume you quoted these articles because you agree with them. ( It is hard to tell how many different sources you cite, and what is your own contribution, as your punctuation and attribution are so imprecise.) Do you like them because of Leftist catch phrases, such as “…..privileged soft-handed sons of power…..” or are you unaware of them?

        What has caught your attention is quite an odd and often contradictory grab-bag of wrong conclusions, mistaken beliefs,etc.

        “I have been amazed at the number of people who believe that God controls everything in the world – down to the smallest detail – yet He is somehow powerless in the face of election results.” is a perfect example.

        How anyone could possibly believe that ANYONE thinks God is “powerless in the face of election results” is only proof of the toxic hybrid of religious ignorance and religious bigotry. Certainly everything I have heard from every single person of faith, and this covers a range of faiths, is that just because we don’t know why God does what God does doesn’t mean God has no reason.

        It is simply impossible to both believe in God and believe God is powerless. It is a bizarrely stupid comment.

        This whole thing is nothing more than a collection of fantasies, delusions, and a distortion of fact. “Mr. Levin and those like him are sounding an awful lot like the angry lefties they abhor – blindly ideological, impervious to contrary evidence and reality, absolutist in their belief that their ideas are actually truths, hating the “mainstream media” and creating their own outlets to tell the “real news.” Say what you want about Clinton, but tacking the Democratic party towards pragmatism in the ’90s while shutting down the extreme left wing of the party was the beginning of what happened Tuesday. The Democrats, inexplicably, have become the party of pragmatism, cohesion, and evidence.”

        Oh, and absolute ignorance.

        Our ideology is not blind, it is merely strong, and it that the Constitution is the defining law of how to govern the United States. What “contrary evidence and reality” should conservatives factor into this allegiance to the foundational structure of our very nation?

        What part of this idea is not an absolute truth? How and in what way?

        This sentence starts off going in the right direction—- “Say what you want about Clinton, but tacking the Democratic party towards pragmatism in the ’90s while shutting down the extreme left wing of the party….” but then suddenly lurches into fantasyland when it veers into the delusion that it “….. was the beginning of what happened Tuesday.”

        The Obama administration has embraced, promoted, and encouraged “the extreme left wing of the party” to the exclusion of the Clinton-style moderates, rapidly moving the party so far Left it is no longer even recognizable as the Democratic Party.

        To double down on the goofiness of this paragraph we have the claim that ” The Democrats, inexplicably, have become the party of pragmatism, cohesion, and evidence.”

        So is is now “pragmatic” to announce, to people trying to find a middle ground where the parties could work together, that the Dems have no reason to do this because, in the immortal words of Dear Leader, “we won”. It is now considered pragmatic to invite the opposition party to a meeting in the White House and tell them that they can watch the Dems run the country but that they will “have to sit in the back of the bus”. It is now pragmatic to have an Imperial Presidency, in which the President picks and chooses which laws will be enforced, based upon political agendas, overriding the will of the people and the legislative process.

        “Cohesion”? Surely you jest. And “evidence”? The Dems are the Party of Evidence? Yes, if you are looking for evidence of the success of massive widespread thuggery, intimidation, and deceptive propaganda.

      • Amazona November 10, 2012 / 2:11 pm

        You go on:

        “One thing that is disgusting about the current GOP and something you’ve not touched on much since the 47% tape faded away, is that a core tenant (sic) of the GOP is that they are the makers and everyone else (the Democrats) are the takers…”

        Aside from the fact that “tenant” means someone who occupies a space, and the correct word is “tenet”, or philosophy, this is a wild distortion of fact. It IS a fact that many who favor the socialist model are people who are in the Dependent Class. No one can truthfully deny this. But it is far from the truth to claim that people on the Right believe that everyone but Republicans are ‘takers’.

        ” to presuppose a Democratic voter is nothing less than a leach (sic) on society is flat out disgusting.”

        It also is not the case. Once more, the author quite dishonestly takes a nugget of truth, that the Dependent Class tends to vote for the system that will support its dependency, and then wildly exaggerates this into a full fledged lie. A lie you seem to find quite tasty.

        ” The GOP starts with contempt for their fellow citizen and go down from there. They make it a practice to insult everyone in the middle and lower classes then wonder why nobody wants to join their team.”

        When I read sludge like this, I wonder if the writer has truly been brainwashed into believing it, or if he knows it is blatantly untrue but says it because he thinks it will advance his agenda by sliming the opposition. At its heart, it doesn’t matter which, because the choice is stupidity or dishonesty (not that they are mutually exclusive) but it is something that occurs to me sometimes.

        But it is odd to see someone assert that a party which is based upon belief in the honor, strength and integrity of the individual, and his freedom to develop those characteristics as an individual, is so falsely misrepresented as “contempt”—while the condescending attitude that people just aren’t smart enough to make their own decisions or take care of themselves, and don’t deserve to keep what they earn, is somehow respectful of this “common man”. As usual, Leftist cant turns reality upside down and inside out.

        To the rabidly radical Leftist demagogue, telling people of any economic class that they are capable and have the qualities it takes to succeed is an “insult” but paternalistic protectionism based on the assumption they are not, and expansion of government power to make decisions for them is not.

        “They insult women for caring about their personal health and freedom….”

        This is one of the more bizarre lies of this little rant. Once again, it turns reality on its head. If there is any implied insult to women, it lies in the gullibility of believing this kind of crap. There has not been one single syllable from any conservative saying, hinting or implying that women should not care about their personal health and freedom. There has not been one single syllable from any conservative that could even be taken several steps away from it to allow it to be legitimately interpreted to mean anything even remotely close to this. It is a lie so deep and profound that no matter how deeply it is excavated it is impossible to find a level of fact upon which it could be built. It is a lie so insane and so devoid of any aspect of truth or reality it is impossible to understand how anyone could believe it.

        What the Left has done has been to take the belief that when religious freedom has to be compromised to provide a product or benefit to someone else the stated Constitutional right of religious freedom trumps the desire to have these people provide the product or benefit, and spin this into something so outrageously slanderous and toxic it literally has no relationship whatsoever to the actual belief. They not only misrepresented the private and personal desire to be able to follow the teachings of a religion as an attack on someone else, they added to this vicious lie by claiming that if people of a certain faith did not want to be forced into financing something that goes against that faith, they want to deny others the right or ability to do it for themselves.

        The insult to women lies in the contempt for their intelligence that allowed certain lies to be spread, on the assumption that women were too stupid to see through them. One example is the claim that for one party to merely refuse to pay for contraception means that women will be denied contraception from any other source. ????? I know, it’s so obvious that this is not even a legitimate assumption it’s hard to believe anyone could fall for it. I was insulted that the assumption was made that women are that stupid. I think it was not rebutted adequately by the Right because the Right had enough faith in the intelligence of women to believe they would see right through this transparent attempt to manipulate them.

        But there were other lies. There was the implication that if Roe v Wade were reversed, abortion would become illegal. There was the tiny out-of-context excerpt of a Romney speech in which he said he would “get rid of Planned Parenthood” when in fact the statement was only in the context that when cutting federal funding for certain programs, he would also “get rid of Planned Parenthood” AS A FEDERAL EXPENSE. There was the totally insane claim that under Romney, “employers would DENY ACCESS TO HEALTH CARE FOR WOMEN. When I first heard this I thought it was the most insulting, demeaning, approach to women I have ever heard. To think for one moment that a single woman in the nation would buy into the notion, first that the President would even have this power (denigrating women’s intelligence and understanding of how our nation works) and the expecting them to think that somehow every employer would then take on the responsibility of—get this—DENYING ACCESS TO HEALTH CARE FOR WOMEN.

        Just how would this work? Would individual women be followed so when one tried gain ACCESS TO HEALTH CARE she would be DENIED? All health care? Would this include dental care? Podiatry? Would women no longer be legally treated for heart conditions, or diabetes, or the disease that affects Mrs. Romney, multiple sclerosis?

        It was so patently stupid and false on the face of it, yet it reflected the dismissive attitude of the Left toward women.

        It was the Left who redefined women as being genital-centric, just brainless little things without a care in the world about anything but getting someone else to pay for their sexual activities.

        Which brings up the question—is this like slander or libel, where it’s not slander or libel if it’s true? Because the Left was proven correct in their assessment of women, and the Right was disappointed in its evaluation of women as smart and strong and independent and intelligent human beings not defined by their sexual activities.

      • Amazona November 10, 2012 / 2:37 pm

        “They assume a successful person of color is a result of affirmative action and wonder why they don’t get credit for Condi Rice and Colin Powell”

        This has to be the most bizarre and egregious lie of all. Once again, it reverses a truth and claims the opposite of a belief IS the belief.

        Conservatives have NEVER thought that the success of people like Condi Rice and Colin Powell, or Thomas Sowell or any other successful person of color, was the result of affirmative action. This statement is another of those so comprised of a bizarre combination of lie and stupidity it simply boggles the mind.

        Did any conservative ever say Herman Cain got where he is due to lowering business standards because he is black?

        Conservatives point to the successes of people like this as proof that affirmative action is not necessary. We point to people like this as proof that the Left is WRONG when it claims that certain races are simply inherently not competent or capable enough to succeed without the condescending head-patting “help” that they deem necessary to compensate for these inadequacies of race or gender.

        Conservatives point to the demeaning effect of affirmative action on those who have succeeded on their own merits, due to their own talents and ambitions, but who are assumed to have needed this artificial “leveling of the playing field” to allow them to compete with white people. We find this profoundly unfair and insulting, and we find the entire concept of labeling a whole people as so inadequate they simply could never be expected to meet the same standards to which other people are held to be the very DEFINITION of racism, though it is disguised as compassion, etc.

        It is not only a lie, it is an exceptionally vicious and toxic lie, to claim that any conservative has asserted or believed, even in the secret recesses of his own heart, that the people you named would not have succeeded if some condescending paternalistic government program had not dumbed down the requirements for their success to accommodate their diminished ability.

        And it is an example of either astounding blindness or willful deception to pretend to be unaware of the fact that these, and many other people of color, such as Allen West and Ken Hamblin and Vernon Jordan, earned their status and success and did not have it handed to them because of their color, something never denied by the Right

      • Amazona November 10, 2012 / 3:41 pm

        “They refuse to accept that an effective safety net does not create mass poverty”

        Really? Hmmmmm. So does the “effective safety net” established by the War on Poverty actually eliminate poverty? Do you and your kind actually deny that generational poverty is related to generational dependence?

        Out of one side of your mouths you tout the welfare reform under Clinton, the plan for which he is falsely given credit and which moved millions off welfare rolls and out of government dependency and its poverty into the work force and middle class, as the crowning achievement of his administration, and out the other side you deny that dependence creates poverty.

        “Jesus had a lot to say about the poor in his day, yet I don’t think there was much of a safety net back then”

        Again with the reference to Jesus. Yet nowhere did Jesus say to take money from some people to give it to others. Jesus did have a lot to say about the poor in His day, and it was all about the moral responsibility of the INDIVIDUAL to care for the poor.

        A true “safety net” catches you when you are falling, to save you from a horrible fate. It is not supposed to provide you with lifelong support. The Left’s substitution of the quite acceptable notion of emergency help to get past a rough patch and get back on your feet for the wildly different cradle-to-grave multi-generational government dependency promoted by the Left is just another example of semantic dishonesty.

        “The right wing today will demonize anyone who needs help and they demonize anyone who wants to give help. ”

        Again, just another utterly stupid lie, another part of the mindless bigotry some on the Left substitute for actual political thought, and what impresses people like mitche so much he has to cut and paste it to pass on as representative of his own perceptions.

        The “right wing today” recognizes that many people do need help, but merely differs from the Left on what actually constitutes “help”. The Left seems to think that handouts, creating ongoing dependency, is “help”, and that this must come from the federal government as part of a national program or series of programs. The Right thinks that education, job training, and promotion of independence and personal dignity are the keys to getting away from dependence, and that when government help is the best response it has to come from local and state governments, BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT THE CONSTITUTION SAYS.

        And the “right wing” praises those who want to help, promotes various private enterprises offering help, and is in favor of local and state help agencies including faith based groups.

        Please quit lying. Posting lies is also lying.

        “The last two Democratic presidents were honest-to-goodness American Dream success stories. “

        Well, not so much. And they should not be held up as heroes and role models for American youth unless we want all of our young people to succeed by striving for political power and then building upon that for financial gain.

        I don’t think the American Dream is about gaining power and money through politics

        Maybe it’s just me, but I would prefer to hold up, as role models, men and women who have actually achieved something other than political success. Bill Clinton has never been anything but a politician. Even Jimmy Carter was a farmer first. Ronald Reagan had a successful career before entering politics. Both Bushes had both success and failure in the business world, and anyone who has experienced both knows you learn as much from failure as you do from success, if you can apply what you have learned to future efforts. John McCain was a military pilot.

        If you look at the last few Dem presidential candidates, you see an unbroken line of career politicians, for the first time in American history. Bill Clinton, Al Gore, John Kerry, Barack Obama—none of these men ever participated in the real life of America, and what success they did have was because of political influence.

        Barack Obama was not a child of poverty. He lived an upper middle class life, going to posh private schools, and somehow manged to segue from a high school career of drugs and alcohol and bad grades to top flight and very expensive schools and then sponsorship by the infamous Chicago political machine, acknowledged to be one of the most corrupt groups outside (though often compared to) the Mob. We might have some respect for his academic success and his transition from stoner to scholar if we had any information at all about his college years, his grades, his successes, and how he paid for it all.

        “They degrade (sic) both Bill Clinton and Barack Obama while at the same time trumpeting the privileged soft-handed sons of power. How is that American? How is that patriotic?”

        Here again we find the disconnect between hysteria and reality. Both Clinton and Obama are criticized for objective reasons. In Clinton’s case, the political opposition was soon complicated by the disgust over his character, his lies and his sexual compulsions unregulated by decency or respect for his office. Obama is criticized for his politics, which are seen to be rabidly Leftist, radical and extreme, and dedicated to, as he put it himself, “fundamentally transforming ” and even “perfecting” this nation, not to adhering to its existing rule of law. Corollary criticisms center on the fact that he has not been forthcoming about his history.

        Support for Romney, which I assume is what is meant by the phrase “privileged soft-handed sons of power.” is based not on his wealth but the commitment he made to this nation to provide leadership focused on a return to Constitutional governance.

        I don’t know if you Lefties are truly so easily distracted by the superficial or if you are just convinced that parroting it will somehow achieve something. But your history, everything we hear from you, indicates the former, as it is always focused on personality and the superficial, on emotional attraction to one side and the (false) conviction that therefore the other side is also based on the same shallow considerations.

        Just because a person decides to write code for a living or they have to wait tables or they are promoted into middle management in some shitty corporation instead of “taking chances” and “sticking their neck out” as entrepreneurs or “Job Creators” doesn’t mean we are not good, loving Americans.

        I had to bold this because it stands out, in a sea of loony, as remarkably loony. It is absolutely nuts, and if you or anyone else actually thinks like this, then God help us all. To have and cherish an ugly, cartoonish, invented perception of people who simply believe our nation should be governed according to its rule of law as people who are so hateful and judgmental and nasty says nothing about us and everything about you.

        You have made the choice to view us, and the world, through your prisms of distrust and hate and prejudice and wild assumptions of the worst of others, and people like simply do not understand that choice. But we recognize it, and find it both sad and distasteful.

        Tell me, and this is an honest question, not a setup for a gotcha—do you really believe that the right has disdain for people who wait tables and write code and work in middle management? Do you truly believe that allegiance to a certain political model includes such vicious prejudice and judgmentalism? Do you truly believe that to Constitutional Conservatives the only acceptable people are entrepreneurs and corporate moguls.

        Let me describe the conservatives closest to me: Another rancher, two ranch hands who work for the ranchers (one being black as well as a cowboy,) a realtor, a designer who works in a furniture store, an airline pilot, a truck driver, several oilfield workers, a student in welding school, a diesel mechanic, a stockbroker, two stay at home moms who do home schooling, a retired county road worker, a souvenir shop manager, a contractor, a painter and two electricians, two insurance agents, a veterinarian… These are just some of the people I talk to on a regular basis.

        Every one of them knows and understands the Constitution, every one of them is a conservative not because of some antipathy toward PEOPLE but because of a belief that the nation was founded on certain principles which were codified into law and when the nation was governed according to those principles, under that law, it was a better place to live and had a brighter future.

        we vote Democratic now because we don’t want to hate our neighbors for simply being normal people.

        Well, the very IDEA of hating people being the foundation for a vote is now owned by the Dems. It was not a Republican who spoke to a group of Latino people and told them they should identify and “punish” those they considered “enemies”. It was not a Republican leader who repeatedly identified a small political movement based solely on the Constitution and fair taxation as “domestic terrorists” and warned about the dangers of returning veterans. It was not a Republican who instructed his followers to vote because of a desire for “revenge”.

        It was not Republicans who put a bounty on the head of a man merely ACCUSED of wrongly killing another, and shrieked for his head, branding him not only a criminal but a vicious racist, when no evidence had ever been produced and had not been convicted of anything. It was not Republicans who instigated and fed this orgy of hatred, which was based entirely on race.

        It is Republicans who have constantly referred to “Americans” and urged that as a national identity, and it has NOT been Republicans who have tried to turn races against each other, genders against each other, economic classes against each other, religions against each other. It was not Republicans who ran an entire presidential campaign based upon lies and the character assassination of the opponent, instead of on objective political principles.

        This horrible, hateful comment is nothing more or less that just another example of the prism of irrational hatred and bigotry that mark the Left of today in the United States.

      • Amazona November 10, 2012 / 4:08 pm

        ” The Republicans are looking more and more like quasi-apartheid rulers insistent that their ideological and racial and gender purity is the only thing that will hold this country together.”

        Every time I think you have plumbed the depths of disgusting and hateful, you surprise me by going even deeper into the slime and sewage of what appears to be Conventional Leftist Wisdom.

        You accuse the Right of approaching apartheid, and of demanding “racial and gender purity”.

        Fascinating, how you can combine bigotry, insanity and dishonesty into so few words, yet so illustrative of a vile and toxic view of an Other that exists only in the twisted, hate-driven minds of you and people like you.

        Remember this the next time you are inclined to whimper because of my alleged meanness.

        What you people don’t seem to get is that you get by here by skirting the boundaries of your venom and insane hatreds, so your acceptance and treatment vary according to the level of toxicity of your latest post. But when you get all wound up in one of your little hate-orgasms and lose control, spewing your real beliefs out as you did in remarkable exposition of bigotry, lies and insanity, it makes a permanent impression.

        Like so many others here, like casper for example, once the mask of reasoned opposition, or of decency, is ripped away, and the ugly visage of your true beliefs is laid bare, that image is indelible. Every word you ever post here will be forever tainted by the knowledge of what your really believe and what you really are.

        As ugly, distasteful and creepy as it was to wade through the sewage of what you find to be so expressive of your own outlook and belief system, it was worth it, for the revelations of your true self.

    • thetruthshallsetyoufree2012 November 10, 2012 / 1:05 pm

      It is amusing that Mark is framing this as “this’ll show those liberals!” when he’ll have a much easier time getting liberals on board with it than he will getting conservatives on board.

      He also doesn’t quite seem to understand how the estate tax works, but that’s most likely a consequence of being inside the conservative bubble for too long.

  4. GMB November 9, 2012 / 8:33 pm

    I know I have a bad record. I will try one more time. I predict by the time that the 2016 elections roll around. Tax evasion will have replaced football as our national sport.

    I think this is a pretty safe prediction.

    • M. Noonan November 10, 2012 / 12:50 am

      GMB,

      I’ve given some consideration to the usefulness of a tax revolt – starting on January 1st, 2013 everyone who has income tax withheld from their paycheck ups their exemptions to 5 or so and thus no income tax is withheld. I don’t think it would be illegal provided you ponied up the taxes by April 15th, 2014 (we’d have to check with tax lawyers to be sure) or, better, everyone can ask for that auto-extension which carries it through until August 15th, 2014. This would absolutely crash federal government revenues. I’d have to have someone better at math do analysis of it, but I bet its at least a 700 billion dollar hole in the budget.

      The main idea is to demonstrate to our Big Government types how absolutely dependent upon us they are – how only upon our patient sufferance do they exist, at all. And they’d better get their act together.

    • neocon01 November 10, 2012 / 1:01 pm

      GMB

      I’ve already got a plan in place

  5. ricorun November 9, 2012 / 8:42 pm

    This has been an interesting thread so far. I especially like the locally traded biodiesel angle, but I think when you look into it more you’ll find it would be difficult to scale up to commercial levels. But it’s nice to know you guys are thinking along those terms. Maybe we could work together to educate ourselves about the science involved, the technology involved, and the engineering involved that can take us from the current state to possibilities for the future. I really love talking about that stuff.

    But back to the present topic…

    Mark said, In the 2012 election we got a bit of confirmation of my views – 8 of the 10 richest counties in America were carried by Obama.

    I see several problems with that argument. First, the article he cites uses AVERAGE income as its metric. The problem with that is, averages are very sensitive to significant outliers. In other words, it takes very few uber-rich households to inflate the average in an otherwise working class community. For example, say a single household makes $10 million/yr and every other household makes 50,000/yr. In order for the average household income to be $100,000/yr you would need 199 of those other households making $50,000/yr (I’m rounding a little, but you get my drift). If such a community shades Obama, perhaps you can see how you can’t blame the uber-rich household for the result. That’s the basic problem with using averages as your metric — a few major outliers can dramatically skew your interpretation.

    If you’re trying to understand how a community voted relative to their income, a better metric (though still not perfect) is MEDIAN household income — that’s the number where half the households make more and half make less than the specified number. In the above example, the MEDIAN household income would be $50,000, which is considerably less than the average. Perhaps Bean Counter can help me explain it to the crowd (help!), but the take-home point is that the difference between the average and the median tells you a lot about how income is distributed among them. Most simply, if the average value is above the median value, that tells you that there are fewer households making a lot of money and more making less. Unfortunately, the article Mark cited did not provide a link to the numbers they were using, and the numbers they did publish were sparse and incomplete. I just HATE that! Give us a link, point us to the numbers so we can think for ourselves, dammit!

    But as it turns out, Forbes magazine published an article on the 10 richest counties based on MEDIAN incomes. As I said, median income is a much better metric. And it would be particularly nice if we could compare each county on both lists — mean v. median. But we can’t. But what few numbers are provided in the link Mark provided are nonetheless telling. For one thing, only two counties show up on both lists. That tells you something right there. But perhaps more important is the fact that the richest county, according to the AVERAGE metric, doesn’t appear on Forbes’ MEDIAN metric. And most importantly of all, the link Mark provided indicated that that most affluent county has an AVERAGE household income of $137,000, whereas Forbes’ top richest county in terms of MEDIAN household income is $115,574. Again, they are not the same counties — it would be much better to compare average vs. median income county by county. But still, the difference is telling — and further erodes Mark’s argument.

  6. mitchethekid November 10, 2012 / 3:50 pm

    Ama, you could be absolutely correct in everything you say to refute my paraphrasing comments from another blog. Your problem though, is believability in what you say; in part because of your attitude, and the results of the election prove it. You are the embodiment of so many things that are wrong with the right; which is both the fundemental message and how you express it. Condensation and contempt are not appealing. You despise in others the unquestioning certainty you have in your own points of view and you express them with an unmatched hostility and superiority that isn’t helping convince others that you should be paid attention to. This election had not so much to do with “liberals” or “conservatives” or any stereotypes associated with either side. Rather it had to do with reality vs sanity, good governance vs ideological purity, comments about rape that were as divorced from medical science as is possible, juvenile Randian fantasy vs sound, reality based economic mechanics, climate change vs bible thumping denial and a shape-shifting vacuous, pandering liar who had no core, no articulated principals who lost every single county in the state he was governor not to mention losing all of the swing states, save one. The right was so convinced that people would vote against their own self-interest that they challenged all facts to the contrary. When the Romney campaign dismissed “the fact checkers” any reasonable person would have seen a problem. When Karl Rove had his hissy fit on Fox, that underscored that the water had been thrown on the witch and in shock and horror, reality set in. In public. If the right had been so convinced that the electorate agreed with and wanted to be represented by them, they wouldn’t have spent so much time and energy trying to make it more difficult for people to vote. That’s a sure way to undermine the democracy you claim to value. By trying to cheat in an insipid and devious manner. Super Pacs trying to buy the government is not an American virtue and keying on an insistence of absolute specificity of certain words I use to express myself is a sign of desperation and an even greater sign that your argument has failed. Not to mention a lack of understand of linguistics and etiology. You disagree with me so you try to use me height or eye color as some sort of de facto indictment of my entire being. Obviously you try to undermine me by discrediting the size of my shoes. Sadly for you, there is no correlation. Romney did himself no favors by remaining silent against the slurs by Limbaugh or the insane birther comments made by Trump and others or by trying to run to the right of Rick Perry and Rick Santorum. This event has been a wholesale rejection of the extreme right. The attempted imposition of authoritarians and theocrats on the country has destroyed the Republican Party and they took no heed to any warning sign. Fox “News” spent the last 4 yrs in bed with a business model that was built upon a false narrative of hate and demonizing an Obama who didn’t exist. Michele Bachman, Allen West and Joe Walsh did the right no good. Idolizing GWB, Cheney and John Bolton didn’t help either. Nor did invading Iraq. America has changed. It will never again be the 1980’s. Maybe you should pay more attention to a living Ronald Reagan jr than an idol worship session of his father who’s last input on American government was 24 yrs ago. One of the “tenants” of Darwinian evolution is adaptation through mutation. I suggest in order to adapt, that you change. Or mutate. Or change and evolve. Otherwise you’ll sacrifice survival for ideological certainty. And just so you know, Planned Parenthood spends 3% on abortion counseling and like PBS, one would need an electron microscope to see any effect on the budget.

    • Cluster November 10, 2012 / 4:01 pm

      Condensation and contempt are not appealing – mitch

      It’s condescension Mitch, not condensation. Condensation is the build up of dew.

      If this were actually the case, then most, if not all liberals would be held in low regard, specifically the likes of Bill Maher,

    • Amazona November 10, 2012 / 4:24 pm

      mitche, too little too late, and too feeble an effort to distract from what you posted. After you admit that, true to Leftist tradition, what is the truth is far less important than a perception of who says it and how it is said, not one word of your effort to justify your post is relevant to the toxic sludge you posted.

      Nothing, and I mean NOTHING, can excuse the vicious, vile, and disgusting lies you spouted, or your belief that allegiance to the Constitution is just a cover for a desire to rule and impose racial and gender purity, etc.

      I dissected your vile contribution to this blog, not exactly piece by piece because it was so densely packed with lies and distortions and outright insane hatred that I skipped a lot of it.

      And your effort to rehabilitate yourself has to, because of who and what you are, consist of nothing but expanding the scope and detail of the insanity you have already posted, and expounding on ever more of your bigotry.

      “…. climate change vs bible thumping denial …” is just a tiny sampling of your fascinating though creepy hodgepodge of insanity and bigotry.

      With ” You disagree with me so you try to use me height or eye color as some sort of de facto indictment of my entire being. Obviously you try to undermine me by discrediting the size of my shoes.” you thoughtfully narrow it down to just insanity.

      You seem to be complaining that I am basing my critique of what you said on what you said. Yeah, I can see why that might bother you, with what you said being such an indictment of your character, your honesty, your dependence on wild irrational hatred as a substitute for political acumen, and your overall intelligence and mental state. Too bad—that’s the way it goes. I debunk what you say, practically line by line, and you respond by whining about how I sound when I do it.

      And you know what? Even after all these words, all this emoting, all this insulting, all this name calling, all these accusations, all this indignant outrage, you still have not outlined your idea of the political system which would be the best way to govern the United States, or why. Too funny.

      • mitchethekid November 10, 2012 / 6:10 pm

        Who freakin cares? Why is it soooo important that I define a political system to you? I think I have but you scoffed at it. This is 2012, not 1776. We have already established a political template. And have built upon it. I don’t have to argue with you anymore just to prove a point. The extremist, reactionary right has been crushed. Crushed, humiliated and shamed. You have no influence and your insistence only belittles you even further because your ideas have been rejected. You have some real issues lady and I feel sorry for the misery you must be experiencing. Not so much for you, but for the misery. Funny how you make fun of “emoting”. You haven’t debunked anything. You responded. So it’s OK that it makes you feel better about yourself. Any port in a storm. You need someone to feel superior and more intelligent to. That’s why you post on this insignificant blog and surround yourself with the likes of the Neanderthal Neo. But, I insult Neanderthals. They could draw.

      • Amazona November 10, 2012 / 6:57 pm

        mitche, do try to get a grip. You are losing it.

        This is a political blog. Therefore, it is a reasonable expectation that people who come here and are inspired to participate will do so from a political perspective.

        When people like you participate in quite hyperemotional ways, with great passion though not so much in the way of coherency, it does send the message that your participation is not based on politics at all, but on some need of yours to express great volumes of hostility and anger, sometimes with a thin veneer of kind-of-political seasoning but not always.

        So I thought I would test the waters, so to speak, and see if perhaps under all that rage-filled rhetoric and shrill exposition of nonstop hateful talking points there is a kernel, at least, of actual political content.

        And gee, your response was so predictable it is almost a cliche. As do most Lefties, you duck a valid question and instead unload with a barrage of evasions, attacks, snarls, insults, and the new Lefty meme of Junior Shrink.

        I did debunk your hysterical litany. I countered your claims, and all you could do was huff and puff and get all red in the face and holler really really loud.

        We’ve got your number, and it has nothing to do with political knowledge or conviction. It’s just your pathology, which you seem to think will be validated if you pretend it is exhibited in the context of phony political allegiance.

      • tiredoflibbs November 10, 2012 / 8:59 pm

        bitchie: “You have no influence and your insistence only belittles you even further because your ideas have been rejected.”

        Uh, tell that to the GOP Reps in control of the House. So much for the so-called “mandate”.

        I remember Bush’s re-election, who got FAR MORE votes than obAMATEUR. The left were jumping up and down all whining “there is no mandate” for Bush.

        Now, of course, the roles are reversed and so are their dumbed down talking points. Fortunately, the GOP still controls the House where spending and tax bill have their origin. Unfortunately, Reid still controls the Senate and his obstruction will continue. He hasn’t passed a budget for three years. He has not allowed any GOP budgets on the floor for debate… and those obAMATEUR budgets that went through the Republican controlled House (so much for the obstructionist dumbed down talking point) were soundly defeated UNANIMOUSLY in the Senate.

        mitchie, you should be in your glory!!! Your guy won the White House. The Dems hold the Senate. And yet you are whining like it 2010 again!!! Your incessant whining over small things and outright lies is truly laughable at best.

        Get a life and a grip on reality.

    • Amazona November 10, 2012 / 4:27 pm

      ” If the right had been so convinced that the electorate agreed with and wanted to be represented by them, they wouldn’t have spent so much time and energy trying to make it more difficult for people to vote. ”

      If the Left thought it had a chance of winning if we were to actually limit voting to citizens, they wouldn’t have spent so much time and energy making sure that non citizens could vote.

      • mitchethekid November 10, 2012 / 6:16 pm

        Prove it. Non- citizens my rear. Seems to me 336 to 202 and a 3 million + popular vote margin is a whole lot of “non-citizens”. The “left” (most people) didn’t only think they had a chance of winning, THEY DID! In 5 out of the past 6 presidential elections, Republicans only won the popular vote one time. Yep, non-citizens. And please extrapolate this hallucination to the congressional wins this Tuesday. You’re so predictable. When Republicans win, it’s a mandate. The will of the people. When Dems’ win, they cheated. It must suck to be you.

      • Amazona November 10, 2012 / 6:49 pm

        “Prove it. Non- citizens my rear.”

        Without valid state issued ID, there is no way to prove a voter IS a citizen, which is the only point I made.

        “Seems to me 336 to 202 and a 3 million + popular vote margin is a whole lot of “non-citizens”.”

        Or it would be. But as what I said didn’t even come close to saying that all these people were not citizens, but only that the Left has spent a huge amount of money and energy creating a system where there is no way to confirm identity, citizenship or residency, your comment is nonsensical and nothing but a reflection of your shaky grasp of reality—-in this case, of what was said.

      • Amazona November 10, 2012 / 7:00 pm

        Just curious—-how much humiliation and shame is there in losing seven million votes in four years?

Comments are closed.