Americans’ resolve disgracefully weak
I watched the new Ken Burns production, The War, and I am amazed at just how anti-American America has become in 60 years!
In World War II, we fought a two-front war against ideologies that intended to kill and conquer free people, and end their way of life.
By the end of only the first year of that war, 35,000 Americans were dead, but we knew that we had to fight to the end.
In today’s two-front war, slightly more than 3,700 Americans have died in four years, and people are screaming for us to just quit and come home.
In World War II, we were losing badly to Japan in the Pacific. The media kept their reporting upbeat, and did not report how bad it was, so as not to demoralize the country.
In today’s war, getting a positive story from the media is like pulling teeth, even though our troops say there are thousands of good reports to give.
In World War II, we knew we had to take advantage of every opportunity to kill the enemy.
In today’s war, Iran is supplying both weapons and terrorists that kill Iraqis and Americans, yet we allowed the leader of that country to visit our soil unfettered and unarrested. If Adolf Hitler were alive today, would he have spoken at Columbia University, and perhaps spent an hour with Larry King on CNN explaining that there were no Jews in Germany?
I am disgraced by my countrymen’s behavior, and openly wonder: Has our love of freedom and liberty for ourselves and others around the world sunk so low, and our ability to recognize and confront evil so disintegrated that we will take anything as long as we don’t have to fight?
Jim Kiel, Aurora
Well Jim,you couldn't be more right .Compared to what Tom Brokaw calls the "greatest generation" we are indeed a gaggle of hand-wringing whining pansy-picking self-hating weenies. Figuring out how to stop behaving so disgracefully starts with figuring out why we started this behavior.Here's a thought: By the time WW II started we were pretty well over the "manifest destiny"/expansionist phase of our history and we'd been slapped hard enough by the Depression that we were beginning to believe that large,powerful organizations like governments needed to respect citizens and to behave humanely.Instead we had to behave in the most brutal fashion in order to stop some really brutal people from wreaking havoc on the entire world,and there is a reservoir of unexpressed guilt over using atomics on Japan as well as a sense of revulsion over the cruelty we had to inflict as well as the cruelty we learned the enemy was inflicting on civilians under their control.
At that point our mood was still pretty good because we had won.
Harry Truman,assisted a little by Ike changed that.They blinked in Korea,and made the deal with Mao and Stalin that restored the status quo ante in Korea.That mde us losers,and the American Left,with covert assistance from Soviet and Chinese Intelligence began to work college campuses into the peacenik factories that produced the student movement of the '60s that not only lost the war we'd won in Viet Nam,but unseated two presidents in a row.Big win for those who hated the USA, and that movement went on to hijack the Democratic Party and gain greater legitimacy by exploiting the self-doubt we Americans felt from what we had had to do in order to remain Americans.I would be optimistic,though.I do think that as a people we're coming around to a new sense of comfort in the power that we wield and that while we'd much rather work things out with the enemy, we can most certainly visit the Apocalypse on those foolish enough to ask for it.
There are too many dissimilarities between WWII and Iraq to make these comparative, disparaging remarks.
In 1941, we actually declared war on the correct instigators: Japan.
In Iraq, we never declared war at all, and we went after a nation that had not attacked us, based on inaccurate intelligence (lies).
The Iraq conflict is not something all Americans (let alone the world) can rally around in a common cause, as was the case in WWII.
There will always be ideologies in the world that, based on ancient religious tenets, want to destroy all "infidels". Our involvement in Iraq cannot/will not change that.
I also saw some illuminating TV recently, the "Alive Day" interviews with James Gandolfini on HBO. I was moved and saddened by the stories of these heroic and beautiful young people who gave their lives and limbs because they were told we were in there doing the right thing. Their lives have been shattered, and I can't help but wonder, "For what?"
It's sad, but the world is a very different place than it was 65 years ago.
Posted by Tom on October 8, 2007 06:13 AMhey tom it was for you and every other liberal anti war person so that you could keep berateing the government and anyone else you want to under the heading of free speech.
yes it is sad that America has become a door mat for the world to walk on and there are so many like you that can not figure out why they hate us and that we need to change to make them like us.
I have a feeling that if we stopped all of the foreign aid money flowing to these countries who hate us that their attitudes would change real quick. just think of the health care program you could have if we werent spending so much money on foreign aid and the amount of money to give to education and the poor. should we do that?
We? Got a mouse in your pocket? Since the ending of WWII, our rich GOP families have been great at atarting wars, however, when the stuff hits the fan, their blood and treasure break for college, shopping malls, ski slopes, Palo Alto, Tampa, etc. Rich kids know the drill. Their daddies didn't serve and they won't either. I serve in the USN for 23 yers and in 3 deployments to Vietnam. The only celebrity I saw in uniform was John Kerry. It was rumored that President Ike's grandson was also serving but I never saw him. In 1977 I also saw WWII hero Admiral Chester Nimitz grandson in uniform.
Its time to play the "R" card, reality. During the '04' presidential election, St. Elway, Mastermind, Lamborn, Allard (communist-sider), Billie Owens, Tancredo, Caplis, Schaffer, etc., were jumping around like a bunch of monkeys cheering Bush on in his personal Iraq-NAM War. By night fall, they were packing their blood and treasure off to various sanctuaries. This war is funded by poor and working class families, who are also supplying the bodybags (sitting ducks and targets). I am simply numb Americans let a corps of NAM draft dodgers (DelAy, Cheney, Bush, Lott (Ole Miss cheerleader), and Hastert) get us into this Hitler mess (extrerminating Arabs, oil grab, and other war crimes).
Posted by draftdodgingisntafamilyvalue on October 8, 2007 06:49 AMFunny how you folks like to compare the so-called war on terror with WWII, and neglect to compare the fact that ALL Americans helped contribute to that war effort:
1) there was a draft in place - even FDR stood to lose children in that war - and (unlike Vietnam with its college & marriage exemptions) it took an actual medical inability to fight to not be include. Are you willing to serve, or have your siblings, children or grandchildren serve on the front lines?
2) taxes were used to subsidize the war - not selling off of the US piece by piece to countries which at best don't care if the US survives as a country. This is the first war since the inception of income taxes during which a tax CUT (benefitting the group most likely NOT to serve) has been implemented. Are you willing to rescind all Bush tax cuts to pay for this, or do you want the country in debt for decades to come?
3) rationing of resources needed for the war effort - from rubber for tires to gasoline to even sugar was implemented. Are you willing to give up your car & start taking mass transit?
4) laws were in place to prevent war profiteering. How about nationalizing companies like Halliburton & Blackwater (Halliburton has found by GAO to have "overcharged" the US taxpayers to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars - and all they had to do to keep the Halliburton no-bid contract - forced thru by their former CEO, Dick Cheney - was repay the disputed amount - shouldn't their CEO be in jail)
5) generals were actually on the front lines instead of being out of harms way playing politician.
Please - name anyone in the upper echelons of the current administration who stands to lose anything in this war. Are you really surprised that there are those in this country who feel that this war is very different from WWII - and unless EVERYONE shares the pain, no one group should have to shoulder the burden by itself?
Posted by Mary on October 8, 2007 06:51 AMLiberal idiots need to be constantly reminded that freedom is not free.
Posted by on October 8, 2007 07:18 AMGreat rebuttal by Mary! The letter writer, Jim Kiel, and the first poster, Jimminy, sound like they're trying to do a college psychology thesis, and think they've got everyone figured out. I think that the majority of American people know the difference between right and wrong and know the difference between national security and bogus lies. I still can't believe that there are people out there who think we, the people have to support a war of choice that was started by bUSh based on lies.
Posted by on October 8, 2007 07:29 AMCan you imagine that after the Pearl Harbor attack President Roosevelt told the nation to go shopping as if nothing happened?
Instead of avoiding national sacrifice by giving his rich buddies massive tax cuts and raping the treasury for no-bid Halliburton contracts, Cheney should have told Bush to immediately implement a modified draft where both men and women were called up for 2-years in the Army or 3-years national service.
Strong presidential leadership and vision make a difference, something you wont see until those two gibronni's leave office.
Posted by BushCo on October 8, 2007 07:34 AMThe Iraqi army was defeated, cities occupied, government dismantled. The war is won. The big lie is that we are at war. We are restoring the peace. The democratic leadership wants to trade DEFEAT for VICTORY. For what? Power? Are you Americans or democrats? This American says don't waste lives, spit on sacrifice, or turn victory into defeat. Whether you agreed with the war or not, finish the job.
Posted by Tom on October 8, 2007 07:38 AMLiberals is so stoopid and chicken. we need to attack every country in the world and kill everybody and annynody who disagree with us. Our way of life is the bestest and they have to unnnerstabnd taht. if you are different than us then you dont deserve to live and have to give us all your money and resurces cuz they really belong to us and you weouold be too stoopid to use them anyways. hurray for the usa!!!
Posted by Keith on October 8, 2007 07:39 AMWith all the money we spend on education, how is it that so much confusion and ignorance can still exist?
Mary's points are easily refuted:
1) Our military would shut down if it had to receive an influx of hundreds of thousands of untrained draftees. That was last century. In today's world, we fight with high tech weaponry and tactics, which require a high level of training and professionalism. The military neither needs or wants a draft, but relies instead on highly-trained, highly-professional soldiers who have volunteered to serve.
2) A tax CUT has not been implemented. Rather, a tax RATE CUT was implemented, which--as predicted--has sent tax REVENUES soaring to unprecedented heights, with the deficit getting smaller each quarter. This is not opinion. It's fact. Go look at what's happened to rapidly-increasing tax revenue pouring into Washington, since the Bush tax RATE CUTS were implemented. Would that we did a better job teaching economics in this country, and maybe people would finally understand the difference between rate cuts and revenue cuts.
3) Rationing was a mistake then and now. Rationing was basically the economic system implemented by the Soviet Union for the 70 years of its miserable existence. It sounds good on paper, but is disastrous in reality. The free market always has and always will do a better job of delivering goods and services when and where they're needed.
4) If Halliburton broke any laws, they should be punished. I'll leave that to the courts to decide. By the way, plenty of companies made big profits in world war II as well. But profits are not evil. If you think profits are evil, I suggest you go live in the Soviet Union where they think profits are evil, and they outlaw them. Oh wait, their economy collapsed, because no one could make profits, and the country does not exist anymore. I guess that leaves Cuba.
5) Generals were on the front lines? Uh, exactly where are the "Front Lines" in Iraq? Front lines is an army-vs-army concept, and is meaningless in Iraq. My understanding is that the Green Zone (where all the bigwigs hang out) is as dangerous as anywhere else. Suicide bombers can and do attack anywhere.
that is what happens when congress and the administration care more about special interests and their cronies pocketbooks then the people who elected them for the better part of the past 60 years
Posted by Fresh on October 8, 2007 08:20 AMExcellent comments, High Country Libertarian.
I was just getting ready to explain to Mary (again) the concept of tax rate cuts and revenue increases when I read your comments. I'll repeat again for the added effect: The tax rate was cut and the wealthy paid more in taxes.
Meanwhile, investment soared, unemployment dropped, the budget deficit shrunk consistently, hundreds of thousands of new jobs were created, and GDP grew.
Repeat after me, Mary: Tax rates were cut and the wealthy paid more in taxes. Tax rates were cut and the wealthy paid more in taxes. Tax rates were cut and the wealthy paid more in taxes.
Posted by John II on October 8, 2007 08:21 AMThere was actually a goal in WWII. (It wasn't to secure access to oil)
Posted by on October 8, 2007 08:44 AMHey John II. Sure the the wealthy are paying a greater percentage of the taxes. That's because they are making so humongously much more money than anyone else. Bush's tax cuts were overwhelmingly skewed toward the wealthy. Having a bigger divide between haves and have-nots is not in the best interest of our country. And if cutting taxes always leads to revenue growth, please explain why the two biggest tax cutters, Reagan and George W. Bush, presided over the two biggest orgies of defict spending in our history
Posted by Romulus on October 8, 2007 09:04 AMHey John II. Sure the the wealthy are paying a greater percentage of the taxes. That's because they are making so humongously much more money than anyone else. Bush's tax cuts were overwhelmingly skewed toward the wealthy. Having a bigger divide between haves and have-nots is not in the best interest of our country. And if cutting taxes always leads to revenue growth, please explain why the two biggest tax cutters, Reagan and George W. Bush, presided over the two biggest orgies of deficit spending in our history.
Posted by Romulus on October 8, 2007 09:05 AMLiberal idiots need to be constantly reminded that freedom is not free.
Posted by on October 8
Other than lip service, I wonder what this doofus has paid?
Posted by It's True on October 8, 2007 09:09 AMmary seems to overlook the wonderful no bid contract that her beloved billie c gave Haliburton when Cheney was then the CEO pres of it. that must have been a brain fart on her part, at least she is good at something.
Posted by on October 8, 2007 09:10 AMWell High Country Libertarian and John II, have you noticed that, despite the soaring revenues, the national debt has increased more than 50% since the tax rate cuts went into effect? It's called borrow and spend.
As for the author of this letter he may want to read Tom's and Mary's posts above.
Posted by Stan B on October 8, 2007 09:17 AMAnd folks like the oh so courageous anonymous poster at 7:18 need to be reminded occasionally that freedom may not be free but BS is real cheap, that regardless of the price people need to feel they're receiving full value for whatever is being paid and that the cost is justly shared by all who benefit.Might help also to remind the courageous one that there was no Blackwater, KBR, or Haliburton being awarded nobid/no look contracts out of the proceeds of that price. Might also want to ask where are the leaders suggesting we all contribute by such means as questioning unnecessary travel conserving rubber, paper, cooking grease, strategic metals and forgoing sugar and meat as opposed to our current crops advice that we support the "mission" by going shopping.
Posted by patrick on October 8, 2007 09:21 AMRomulus,
It works something like this:
If the tax rate is 10%, you are paying 10 cents in the dollar. Cut the tax rate to 5% and you pay 50 cents in the dollar. Thus, you see, half a loaf is more than you had before.
Translated into the area of taxes - by the "science" of economics, and the wisdom of "economists" - it works sort of this way:
You earn $100. Under the old tax rate, you would pay $10. Under the new tax rate you would pay only $5. BUT! Your neighbor earns $200. Under the old tax rate he would have paid $20. Under the new tax rate, he now pays $10. BUT AGAIN! Since he is taxed on twice the amount of your income, that $10, represents his payment - at the new tax rate of 50%, or $5 - TWICE. So, you see, he's paying "more taxes".
"Economics" is, really, such a wonderfully wholesale return of silly conjecture on such a trifling investment of facts.
Posted by Old Grouch on October 8, 2007 09:24 AMMaybe it is just that people are tired of all attention going to the Iraq (war??) instead of the economy, infrastructure, health care, education, home foreclosures, lack of repair to roads, the threat to our constitutional rights, the selling of America and a hundred other things they feel are more important on the home front. Plus if Iraq were really a threat to our way of life I'm sure people would flock to the defense of our being there. But people have things to take care about in their everyday lives and the Iraq occupation, which it really is now, news reports seem to deal only in how many people have gotten blown up and what the next politician has to say about it and, well, it's getting boring.
No offence meant to the men over there, but they are not defending our freedom because it is not in jeopardy and never was from Iraq, it is the radical terrorists that are the threat. And although some brave souls are getting killed, I fail to see the need for that sacrifice which is not meant as any disrespect to those who lost their lives.
People get tired of a war that has no clear defined purpose or cause to believe in easily and this war is one of those. Whether you want to admit it or not and in spite of the zealots name calling, the majority of the people can't see the advantage of staying in Iraq and many are understandably concerned about the vast sums of money it is costing while, at the same time, things in this country need taking care of. Those are just the facts of life.
Posted by Allen Campbell on October 8, 2007 09:28 AMRomulus observed:
"Sure the the wealthy are paying a greater percentage of the taxes. That's because they are making so humongously much more money than anyone else. Bush's tax cuts were overwhelmingly skewed toward the wealthy."
Well, of course, by definition the wealthy make more than anyone else; that's why we call them wealthy.
Your logic is mostly correct: the class that pays the most in taxes will benefit the most from a tax rate cut. But, remember this: the class that pays the most in taxes is also taxed at a higher rate than anyone else.
Therefore, mathematically speaking, a class that pays more taxes than anyone else and pays a higher tax rate than anyone else, will always benefit the most from any across the board tax rate cut.
Posted by John II on October 8, 2007 09:31 AMStan B. said:
"Well High Country Libertarian and John II, have you noticed that, despite the soaring revenues, the national debt has increased more than 50% since the tax rate cuts went into effect? It's called borrow and spend."
So, Stan B., does this mean you would like to reduce government spending?
Other than money spent on war, are there any other federal programs you'd like to see cut that would make a substantial impact on the federal budget?
Posted by John II on October 8, 2007 09:36 AMI would like to explain to letter writer Jim Kiel what has happened in the US that has made it to where we can't win even a small war.The Democrat party is full of US haters and cowards.Almost all the issues they support are based in great fear.They and their media friends so hate the US that they want the terrorists to win the war.A new Fox News poll shows that 20% of Democrats want the terrorists to win the war.The Democrats that hate the US are trying to take our gun rights away so we would be easy targets for their friends [terrorists].The rest of the Democrats are cowards so they go along with taking away our guns because they fear being hurt.We can assume that the number of Democrats that want the terrorists to win the war in the media goes to 70%.There you have it the reason that "Americans' resolve is disgracefully weak".It is because of the New Democrat party and their media friends.
Posted by An American on October 8, 2007 10:06 AMHigh Country Libertarian made the bold claim:
Mary's points are easily refuted:
Yet he successfully refuted none of them. Consider:
1) Our military would shut down if it had to receive an influx of hundreds of thousands of untrained draftees.
This is silly and not supported by any evidence.
That was last century. In today's world, we fight with high tech weaponry and tactics, which require a high level of training and professionalism.
Yet we're continually lowering our standards in order to meet our force requirements and failing to achieve our stated benchmarks for success.
The military neither needs or wants a draft, but relies instead on highly-trained, highly-professional soldiers who have volunteered to serve.
Yet we're continually lowering our standards in order to meet our force requirements and failing to achieve our stated benchmarks for success.
2) A tax CUT has not been implemented. Rather, a tax RATE CUT was implemented, which--as predicted--has sent tax REVENUES soaring to unprecedented heights, with the deficit getting smaller each quarter. This is not opinion. It's fact.
Rather than being a fact, it is a simple cause and effect mistake. Most economists will tell you that revenues would have been higher had the rate cut not been implemented. High Country Libertarian likes to plays semantic games when his arguments fall short. Even though people may not know the proper terminology, they understand the concepts.
Would that we did a better job teaching economics in this country, and maybe people would finally understand the difference between rate cuts and revenue cuts.
More semantics with a sprinkling of condescension, and once again, the implication that revenue grew as a direct result of rate cuts. There's simply no definitive evidence for this.
3) Rationing was a mistake then and now.
A statement without merit or supporting evidence. Rationing was a rousing success in WWII, and a vital component in winning the War. It also had positive side-effects in employment, community building, and by inspiring the first real nation-wide recycling system.
Then comes the inevitable red-baiting:
Rationing was basically the economic system implemented by the Soviet Union for the 70 years of its miserable existence. It sounds good on paper, but is disastrous in reality.
Rationing is a tool for use in times of dire necessity. It's not an "economic system". I'm surprised H.C.L. can keep a straight face tossing out such nonsense, but I suspect he's simply trying trying to see what sticks and arguing exclusively in his own economic interest.
Then back to general vagaries and Utopian pipe dreams:
The free market always has and always will do a better job of delivering goods and services when and where they're needed.
A "free market" in the pure form that this Don Quixote argues does not and has never existed, therefore, it's impossible to make the claim that is always has and always will do it better.
A regulated free market- now that's a good idea with proven record of success..
4) If Halliburton broke any laws, they should be punished. I'll leave that to the courts to decide. By the way, plenty of companies made big profits in world war II as well.
And those big profits were taxed heavily. Truman and Roosevelt railed continuously against excessive profits in WWII. Truman went so far as to say some forms of profiteering were treasonous.
But profits are not evil.
Profits themselves are not evil, but individuals who seek excessive profits from the tragedy of war and those who argue for their further benefit are morally bankrupt.
Once again, an argument bereft of premise to be followed by the ever-present red-baiting and non-sequiturs:
If you think profits are evil, I suggest you go live in the Soviet Union where they think profits are evil, and they outlaw them. Oh wait, their economy collapsed, because no one could make profits, and the country does not exist anymore. I guess that leaves Cuba.
...
Finally, a couple grossly inaccurate statements, evidencing a complete lack of education regarding warfare:
5) Generals were on the front lines? Uh, exactly where are the "Front Lines" in Iraq? Front lines is an army-vs-army concept, and is meaningless in Iraq.
No front lines? Are you kidding? Where do you think our soldiers are dying?
My understanding is that the Green Zone (where all the bigwigs hang out) is as dangerous as anywhere else. Suicide bombers can and do attack anywhere.
Actually, your understanding is non-existent. If the Green Zone were not safer than "anywhere else", there would be no Green Zone.
High Country Libertarian is merely a war-mongering, profit seeking, talking-points puppet; he's a transparent and morally bankrupt wishful thinker with no concern for anyone's interests but his own.
Posted by Charles B. on October 8, 2007 10:32 AM“The religious cant that will send American troops into battle is perhaps the most sickening aspect of this surreal war-to-be. Bush has an arm-lock on God. And God has very particular political opinions.” -- Novelist John le Carre
Posted by RG r22037@yahoo.com on October 8, 2007 10:33 AMLIBERALISM, Jim, LIBERALISM...
Never have so many who reside within our borders become so fully-invested in an American defeat during a time of war. They overtly won't support our troops, nor will they support America. Benedict Arnold was more patriotic.
Don't let them snooker you as they have attempted (and failed) to snooker America. They "High-5" one another at DNC HQ e'very time an American soldier takes a hit in Iraq!
Posted by Hank on October 8, 2007 10:34 AMRe: "An American". You are a partisan hack! I wouldn't be surprised if you were really an AIPAC loyalist whose job is to disparage Real Americans who can clearly see that this Iraq war is not and never was in our national interest.
Posted by on October 8, 2007 10:38 AMAn American is simply another macho right wing coward, a 'chickenshawk'. To him, people who oppose war are weak. To those of us who actually fought in a war, we understand the horors of war and realize it's not simply a macho pissing contest and one had better have a damn good reason for entering into a war. Forget being macho or weak, how about using intelligence for a change. You need a better reason than not simply not liking their politics, or religion, or because you want their oil. A reason such as we were attacked, which isnt the case here because Iraq did not attack us. Notice how an intelligent president ( a Democrat mind you) declared war on JAPAN after Japan attacked us. FDR did not declare war on China, or Russia ( whose politics we didnt like), no he declared War against the ATTACKERS! That is why Americans rallied around WWII efforts. It was a 'just 'War with a legitimate reason! Imagine if Bush had been president in WWII he would have ignored the Japanese and went after the Chinese or Koreans because they looked like the attackers to him.
I am sick of the brave cowards on the right ( yes, like YOU 'An American') who speak of braveness and warfare yet are too chicken to enlist and actaully serve your country. The draft would be useless Mary because these chickenhawks would be draft dodgers or else use their daddy's money to hide behind deferments. Rightwing macho pukes like An American and Keith and Bush and Cheney and Limbaugh would pee their pants if their ever looked face to face with an enemy soldie. Bring it on , my ass.
John II,
Everybody benefits from lower tax rates but the poor beneift more than the wealthy,
First. lower tax rates stimulate the economy and provide jobs that allow people to work their way up the economic ladder.
Second, lower tax rates provide more revenue to the public treasury which allows more funding for programs designed to help the needy.
Lower tax rates are a win-win recipe for reducing poverty. Bill Gates' gardener will benefit more from lower taxes than Bill Gates.
Posted by James Jones on October 8, 2007 10:40 AMHigh Country Libertarian
The only correlation between spending and education is that the more we spend, the less educated the population.
Posted by James Jones on October 8, 2007 10:42 AMFirst things first.
End the Iraq debacle. Bring our troops home. Stop throwing American tax dollars down the rathole of a contrived war.
Then - if you feel it's worth wasting time on - argue about how to dismantle 200+ years of programs instituted for the General Welfare; regress to a pre-Civil War position concerning so called "States Rights"; and have a Nation of 50 States - scattered over a large part of the globe - in a Federal Union that is limited to the "strict wordings" of the18th Century for its governmental operations.
Posted by Old Grouch on October 8, 2007 10:43 AMI agree Mr. Jones. My point was in terms of the effectual tax rate. A tax rate cut will save the wealthy man more in total taxes paid per paycheck than it will save the middle-class man. But, concomitant to that tax rate cut, as you've mentioned, is a huge economic benefit to the non-wealthy.
Posted by John II on October 8, 2007 10:47 AM@ Letter Writer: You're an idiot. Period. You want to try to psychologically distill the American psyche through some inapropos analogy? Try again. That sort of simplistic mindset wouldn't get you past an 8th grade comp course--let alone the "marketplace of ideas."
@ An American: Seriously, you need to do better than regurgitating something you heard from Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, or someone else of that ilk. Start with some serious scholarship (like studying the philosophical underpinnings of American democracy) and then apply logic and reason. If you are capable of doing that, feel free to come back and participate. Otherwise you're just showing the depth of ignorance to which so many Americans seem to have sunk.
@ Anonymous (7:18 AM): Wow. Simply ... wow. The scope of stupidity you express in a single sentence is utterly devastating. Unless, of course, you're really a second-grader who's mother let you use the computer before you trotted off to school in your "special" helmet.
@ High Country Libertarian: First off, please stop identifying yourself as a Libertarian, because it is insulting to those of us who really do hold a Libertarian point of view. Second, your comment about what the military "wants" or "needs" with regard to a draft is wholly misinformed. A draft would not "shut down" our military any more than a sudden influx of students would shut down our college system. If the sudden influx of recruits were able to shut down our military (as you argue) then we have some serious problems in our military training system. Moreover, what I think the military "wants" or "needs" more than anything else is some relief. No amount of professionalism can prepare or equip our military personnel for sustained combat operations for over 5 years--these kids are coming back broken, both physically and mentally, and it disgusts me to see so many people willing to push them back into the meat grinder. They are not robots. When one of these kids goes ape-sh*t because of PTSD or the fact that he/she can't get/hold a job I'll let you go explain to them how they got what they "needed," and how we saved them from having to deal with too many soldiers in uniform.
Posted by USMC Vet on October 8, 2007 10:50 AMHank: Rightwing conservatism Hank. The chickenhawks "High-5" one another at GOP HQ e'very time an American soldier comes home in a bodybag and mumble, 'well better him than us, beside somebody gotta get us that oil'.
John II,
I'd love to see the government cut spending, starting with the occupation of Iraq. Also we could get rid of the corporate welfare fiasco which drains money from the treasury and pours it into the bank accounts of some of the wealthiest people on the face of the planet. That's were the soaring revenues are going, instead of being used to pay off the soaring debt.
Posted by Stan B on October 8, 2007 11:07 AMCharles B. said:
"Rather than being a fact, it is a simple cause and effect mistake. Most economists will tell you that revenues would have been higher had the rate cut not been implemented."
Most? No. Would revenues have been higher than they were during the recession in 2000. Maybe. Maybe not. Would they have been as high as they've been since the tax cuts? Probably not. Either way, we know this: tax rates were cut; liberals predicted a drop in revenue; revenue rose; liberals now say it would have risen anyway. Regardless, more taxes have been paid since the start of the war, not less.
"And those big profits were taxed heavily. Truman and Roosevelt railed continuously against excessive profits in WWII. Truman went so far as to say some forms of profiteering were treasonous."
Both of them were Democrats. FDR was a communist; He despised capitalism. His misguided economic policies prolonged the devastating depression.
"Profits themselves are not evil, but individuals who seek excessive profits from the tragedy of war and those who argue for their further benefit are morally bankrupt."
You probably feel really good about yourself for saying that. The truth is, the quest for great profits causes more of a needed product to be developed. Without the profit incentive, less of the desired product will be available. This is a basic economic principle (a scientific principle) that liberalism refuses to acknowledge. In other words, liberalism replaces scientific fact with irrational emotionalism.
"Actually, your understanding is non-existent. If the Green Zone were not safer than "anywhere else", there would be no Green Zone."
Not true. I don't know if the Green Zone is as dangerous as any other place. But, it's called the Green Zone because it is intended to be safer; it doesn't mean it actually is safer. Similarly, calling something a Fairness Doctrine does not actually mean it promotes fairness.
Stan B said:
"I'd love to see the government cut spending, starting with the occupation of Iraq. Also we could get rid of the corporate welfare fiasco which drains money from the treasury and pours it into the bank accounts of some of the wealthiest people on the face of the planet. That's were the soaring revenues are going, instead of being used to pay off the soaring debt."
Do you have a single fact or statistic to back up that assertion? What "corporate welfare" are you referring to? Have you ever even looked at our federal budget? Take a look at this chart, Stan B., and tell me which program consumes the most amount of tax dollars.
Posted by John II on October 8, 2007 11:15 AMDoes calling someplace a "First Amendment Zone" enhance or detract from the first amendment rights of the person in it?
Posted by on October 8, 2007 11:30 AMJohn II,
Your chart proves my point. Did you see the last listing on that chart. Have you ever seen how much was lost to subsidies to the oil and mining indusrties? I don't have the total figure handy but it's pretty embarrassing. Especially when we're so far in debt. I'll try to Google the stats and get back with it. These statistics are not reflected on the chart you provided.
$9.1 trillion and growing. Let's stop spending our great grandchildrens money.
Posted by Stan B on October 8, 2007 11:36 AM14 billion dollars a year and that's just the oil indusrty (which is reporting record profits). I'd much rather spend my tax dollars on health and human services and defense (but not the quagmire in Iraq). I worked for a defense contractor thirty-five years ago.
We procured photocells for one of our products from TI for less than a $1 each and sold them to the Air Force (as spare parts) for $40 each.
Posted by Stan B on October 8, 2007 11:55 AMJohn II,
I knew we were in agreement from previous posts. My point is to clarify the leftist genuine goal in increased taxation.
Hillary, just for instance, knows perfectly well both that higher rates will decrease and that lower rates will increase revenues to the national treasury.
We don't need economic theorizing to understand that reality. Hillary can measure the results of Reagan and Bush tax cuts and see that revenues increased in both instances.
The left always argues for higher taxes in the guise of helping the vulnerable when in fact the goal is to transfer more wealth from more people to the state and thereby make more people more dependant on the state - that is to say, themselves.
The leftist poses as compassionate but in fact this is just another power grab.
That point cannot be overstated.
Posted by James Jones on October 8, 2007 12:03 PMGee Whiz!
I purely enjoy it when an "Economist" explains how tax breaks for the rich return "a huge economic benefit to the non-wealthy".
Ronnie Raygun used that argument by way of calling it "Trickle Down". Daddy Bush called it "Voodoo Economics" - until he got tapped to be Raygun's VP, that is. And, here we go again, round that same old mulberry bush.
As outlined above, with a tax rate of 10%, You "non-wealthy" get back a nickel in the dollar with a 50% tax rate cut. That's $5.00 per hundred. Sounds wonderful, doesn't it?
Surely does. And, that's what sells the idea. Lots of wonderful hype.
What the"Economist" doesn't tell you - and won't, even when faced down with the simple facts - is, that along the way, your basic cost of living has gone up to the point at which it is now costing you 6 cents per dollar for necessities for every 5 cents (nickel) you get back by way of the magnificent tax rate cut.
Or, in simple arithmetic - which seems to be something "Economists" avoid like the plague when touting their ideas - you get back 50 cents in the dollar in tax rate cut - which the "Economist" keeps telling you is "more than you had before" -
while you are now paying 60 cents of that same dollar for the essential "loaf of bread" in your life.
Thus, you are, IN REALITY, 10 cents in the hole for basic cost of living even with your 50 cent "tax rebate"; while your "huge economic benefit" is now more than wiped out by your day to day expenses to begin with.
Ah! "Economics"! Johnny the Deuce will ask for "facts", or "statistics", to "back up". How about sitting down at your own checkbook - or with your own pay-stubs - and doing a little simple arithmetic for yourself. The FACTS are there, whatever be the outcome of "statistics", which fall into that old cliche about "lies, damn lies, and". Or, go out to the grocery store; do your shopping; and then make some simple arithmetical comparisons to past bills for the same essentials.
Voodoo is Voodoo. In "Economics" or anywhere else.
Posted by Old Grouch on October 8, 2007 12:06 PMIf KING GEORGE I had finished the job back in '91 we wouldn't be in Iraq now.
Posted by RickyLee on October 8, 2007 12:09 PMDear American,
You morons claim that Democrats want terrorsist to win claiming that the number 1 propaganda machine used by the neo-cons (faux-news) told you so..I doubt that either one of you eunichs have children(I at least hope not!) Although it would be a slam dunk for the abotion rights crowd! WARS ARE FOUGHT AGAINST COUNTRIES, NOT IDEOLOGYS!! Get out of your trailer and look around, its called reality!
Stan B. said:
"I'd much rather spend my tax dollars on health and human services and defense"
That is not what I asked you. I asked you what you would cut from the federal budget that would make a significant impact on the federal budget.
Posted by John II on October 8, 2007 12:17 PMOld Grouch,
Your last two posts were nonsensical. Inflation is a low 2.7%.
RickyLee said:
"If KING GEORGE I had finished the job back in '91 we wouldn't be in Iraq now."
True. Hindsight is...Oh you know what it is...
Posted by John II on October 8, 2007 12:26 PMJohn II,
I already answered that question. Don't you read what I posted?
Posted by Stan B on October 8, 2007 12:29 PMA real american,
Lat April, about five months before the surge strategy was fully implemented, Sen. Harry Reid D President of the Senate, declared the Iraq was war "lost."
Wishful thinking?
Sen Joe Lieberman (Former D) had a good response:
"With all due respect, I strongly disagree. Senator Reid's statement is not based on military facts on the ground in Iraq and does not advance our cause there.
Al Qaeda's strategy for victory in Iraq is clear. They are trying to murder as many innocent civilians as possible in an effort to reignite sectarian fighting and drive us to retreat from Iraq.
The question now before us is whether we respond to these terrorist attacks by running away as Al Qaeda hopes - abandoning the future of Iraq, the Middle East, and ultimately our own security to the very same people responsible for this week's atrocities - or whether we stand united to fight them.
This is exactly the wrong time to conclude that we have lost the war in Iraq, or that our new strategy has failed. Instead, we should provide General Petraeus and his troops with the time and the resources to succeed. We should not surrender in the face of barbarism."
The reality is that this war must fought against an ideology because our enemy, Islamic Jihadists, are trans-national.
Posted by James Jones on October 8, 2007 12:34 PMTypical conservative war-losing screed. Liberals have no effect on the war in Iraq. Look at Iraq, for crying out loud Jim!
The acrimony among politicians has strained the Shiite-led government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki close to the breaking point. Nearly half of the cabinet ministers have left their posts. The Shiite alliance in parliament, which once controlled 130 of the 275 seats, is disintegrating with the defection of two important parties.
"There has been no significant progress for months," said Tariq al-Hashimi, one of Iraq's two vice presidents and the most influential Sunni politician in the country. "There is a shortage of goodwill from those parties who are now in the driver's seat of the country.
One more time Jim: Conservatives started this war, which could not be won. You backed the losing horse, so you blame the liberals who opposed the war in the first place? Pretty pathetic.
John II
I advise against trying to instruct the Grouch in voodoo economics.
In my experience the effort is both hopeless and pointless.
Posted by James Jones on October 8, 2007 12:39 PMYes, Stan B., you mentioned something about a $14 billion tax break for the oil industry. You missed the keyword in my question: significant.
I gather from your side-stepping that you would not cut anything from the federal budget. You want to raise taxes; You want more taxes; But, you would not cut any spending. Furthermore, if you are in favor of Hillary's proposals, you want to spend more, not less.
So, your feigned outrage about "borrow and spend" was just that, feigned.
Posted by John II on October 8, 2007 12:42 PMI served five tours in the Middle East between 1991 and 2006.
By the way -- I'm a Liberal, and I am proud of it.
Conservatives who think that blind loyalty to the president and the war effort are required in order to be patriots, I say hogwash.
Dissent is NOT treason. On the contrary, it is the highest form of patriotism.
It's easier to go along with a corrupt government than to resist and speak out against it.
I would rather be wrapped in the Constitution and burning the flag than be wrapped in the flag and burning the Constitution.
Posted by Air Force Retiree on October 8, 2007 12:49 PMAir Force Retiree said:
"Conservatives who think that blind loyalty to the president and the war effort are required in order to be patriots, I say hogwash."
Which conservative thinks that?
"Dissent is NOT treason."
Doesn't that depend on the type of dissent? If I dissent by aiding the enemy, wouldn't you say I committed treason?
"On the contrary, it is the highest form of patriotism."
Well, that's your opinion. It's a foolish one though. Wouldn't your claim depend heavily on the type of dissent and what one was dissenting against? If I dissent against Social Security, would you consider me a patriot? Probably not. What if I dissent against tax cuts for the wealthy? Ah, now I'm being patriotic. Any criminal can dissent against the law by committing a crime. Does that mean the criminal is a patriot?
"It's easier to go along with a corrupt government than to resist and speak out against it."
True. That's why politicians are able to spend more and more money on unconstitutional programs.
"I would rather be wrapped in the Constitution and burning the flag than be wrapped in the flag and burning the Constitution."
That's an odd choice to be faced with. Couldn't you "wrap" yourself with the flag and the Constitution?
Posted by John II on October 8, 2007 01:05 PMALL of you are idiots!
Posted by Fresh on October 8, 2007 01:24 PMI would cut the funds for the war on pot, and eliminate any subsidy for corporate farms. Large corporate farms, not family farms.
The letter writers last sentence is confusing. We will put up with any kind of evil to avoid fighting. Looks like we go hunting for evil to justify a war. In 2 now and Bush is sniffing around the idea of a third.
The clear enemies of the WWII are gone forever. In the future we had better figure out how to fight ideology without using the army every time. We can`t declare war on a country and its allies since radical groups do not havse well known allies. If we start invading countries that supply arms to other groups, the invading will never end.
All this calls for a new way of thinking, because you can`t bomb ideas.
Posted by Sharon B. on October 8, 2007 01:25 PMJohn II,
Learn how to multiply and you will see a significant reduction in waste. It's not in one place. It's a bunch. Are you saying that if you dig yourself into a deep hole you should continue digging? Your statements are circular. You're just looking for an argument
Posted by Stan B on October 8, 2007 01:26 PMJust look at what Colorado schools are teaching these days. Jay Benish, a high school teacher teaching anti-american, anti-president, ant-everything. And Churchill, my god what is there even to say about a school that hires a lying, plagerism fool like that. And now the Boulder kids walking out on saying the pledge. That is how the democrates want to teach our kids. Completely anti-American.
Why don't these people get the hell out of this country if they hate it so much? And I thought that idiot Baldwin was supposed to move to France when Bush won! But no, he want to stay here so he can verbally abuse his kid some more.
Posted by True on October 8, 2007 01:34 PMJohn 2,
2.7% over what? 2.7% over when? Is that 2.7% a year? Or is that 2.7% since the last massive tax break for the wealthy?
It's you "economists" who are nonsensical.
Posted by Old Grouch on October 8, 2007 01:48 PMStan B.,
You still have not told me what spending you would cut. All you said was that you'd raise taxes on corporations. What spending would you cut?
Sharon B. answered:
"I would cut the funds for the war on pot, and eliminate any subsidy for corporate farms. Large corporate farms, not family farms."
Thanks for answering the question. But, even those cuts are just a small fraction of our budget.
Old Grouch wondered:
"2.7% over what?"
The current inflation rate is 2.7% for 2007. Inflation has been hovering around the 3% area since the tax cuts.
Posted by John II on October 8, 2007 02:09 PMJohn II,
I'm not gonna dance with you since I never tapped you on the shoulder, but you're arguing that I'm against anyprofit motive when I merely think the government should regulate free enterprise to a certain, debatable degree.
Unregulated free markets are a recipe for disaster.
But that's the way you roll Johny: Make up a position for someone and then swat it down as though you did something...
Posted by Charles B. on October 8, 2007 02:13 PMOG
What is more important? The tax rate or the Tax revenue we recieve?
What tax rate do you propose? At which tax rate percentage does the productivity slow, and in turn tax revenues decrease?
Do you truly think that by raising the tax rates, especially for the rich, will re-distribute the wealth? If it is not proifitable to invest their money, why would they do so? All the risk of investment, but lower rates of return on bigger projects.
Spending- Hell yes we need to cut spending in many areas. If we bring the troops home, I see a big push for other groups to "spend" that money "saved" instead of paying down the debt. We need to quit spending like a bunch of drunks and start paying down the debt.
Charles B.,
What position did I make up? I quoted you directly. I never even challenged you on regulation. I challenged you on "profiteering".
Posted by John II on October 8, 2007 02:19 PMJames said ”First. lower tax rates stimulate the economy and provide jobs that allow people to work their way up the economic ladder. “
That’s the belief, yes. However, there doesn’t seem to be much evidence that it does.
Care to show us some evidence?
”Second, lower tax rates provide more revenue to the public treasury which allows more funding for programs designed to help the needy.”
By “public treasury” I take it you mean that the money stayed in the hands of the putative tax-payers?
So you are saying that if you were taxed less than you are now, you would spend more than that amount on charities?
Interesting notion, but quite contrary to any study that I have ever read on how people actually behave. They usually spend less than any saving they get. So show me some studies that demonstrate what you say.
”John II, I knew we were in agreement from previous posts. My point is to clarify the leftist genuine goal in increased taxation.”
At about this point John is breaking out in a slight sweat, wondering what on earth you might agree on. Rabid Conservative that he is, I still doubt that he has quite lost enough marbles to agree on much with Jimmy Jeezus.
Posted by Bangalore Skank on October 8, 2007 02:25 PMCharles B, among many, pegged John 2's technique:
"But that's the way you roll Johny: Make up a position for someone and then swat it down as though you did something..."
He joins "Truth" in very effectively twisting words, establishing straw men, then lighting the match...pathetic way to argue.
Posted by Joseph S on October 8, 2007 02:27 PM"Joeseph S",
Which words did I twist and which position did I make up? Please provide a quote. You may not agree with a single thing I write, but I always quote folks verbatim and respond ad rem.
Posted by John II on October 8, 2007 02:50 PMThe same goes for you tmz, what "shifty sands and faulty logic" are you referring to?
Posted by John II on October 8, 2007 02:55 PMOh, I just realized that that entire paragraph was a quote of Joseph S, not tmz. My question on 2:55 should be directed to Joseph S, not tmz.
Posted by John II on October 8, 2007 03:05 PMBango.
Please show me a correlation between Higher tax rates and increased productivity and spending for non governmental groups?
I will ask you the same question I ask everyone on here
What is more important to you? Tax rate or Tax revenue?
It seems it is more important on making sure to soak the richest, rather than the amount of revenue generated
There is a %number for tax rate that is the most optimal for generating the highest Revenue. That number is not static and dependant on many macro-economic variables at a given time period.
That number is theoretically between 1% and 99% tax rate.
A number to high and entrepruneurial endeavors decline as the profit margins do not outweigh the risk of loss. This is a non productive situation. You can go out and show that in a short term situation that raising the Tax Rate generates more Tax Revenue, but this does not work for long term gains. Why should I take the risks of investing (small business, stocks, real estate, other investments)in the economy if the tax rate is too high to allow for losses?
A number too low does not create enough revenue no matter the productivity gains. This too is not a good thing for Tax Revenue.
Posted by bwr on October 8, 2007 03:22 PMMr. Skank asked:
"So you are saying that if you were taxed less than you are now, you would spend more than that amount on charities?"
Not necessarily. But, that's not the true purpose of a tax rate cut. The ultimate goal when cutting tax rates is to spur investment in the economy; to create jobs and more opportunities. This, in effect, reduces the need for charitable programs.
As one who has seen the devastating effects of unemployment first-hand, I can tell you that keeping unemployment as low as possible is crucial to the middle and lower classes. This if often overlooked by liberals. Creating more jobs, more opportunities and reducing unemployment is the best thing any politician can do for the poor.
Posted by John II on October 8, 2007 03:44 PM............. and don't forget Johnll. Food stamps and welfare look just like a debit card. Nephew likes using them as they put more money in it every month. That was his explanation to the "card" when asked if his mom had a job. Dont need one with the "card"
Allows for more money to be spent on Meth and drug dealing.
btw when asked what the mom does for a job......... Stay at home mom. Forget that she is single.............
John II asked:
"What position did I make up?"
You said:
"Without the profit incentive, less of the desired product will be available."
The implication being that I don't support the profit motive at all, when my argument is merely that we should regulate excessive profits through government policy such as the profit taxes that worked so well in helping finance WWII.
Posted by Charles B. on October 8, 2007 04:06 PMCharles B...don't confuse johnny deuce with the facts! Shame on you. Now he'll have to find another way to weasel around his own words and their implication. Of course, he'll just claim you misunderstood what he said and, therefore, it's you who is wrong.
Typical shifty johnny deuce..a true disgrace to true conservatism -- he fits in with "new conservatism of Bush, etc., he telling everyone else just what is what!
Posted by on October 8, 2007 04:17 PMCharles B.,
Again, my comment to you was in response to your profiteering remarks. I can easily prove this because I quoted you. If you look at my comment on 11:08, you'll see where I quoted you as such:
"Profits themselves are not evil, but individuals who seek excessive profits from the tragedy of war and those who argue for their further benefit are morally bankrupt."
I addressed your point directly. It matters not that you support the profit motive to a certain degree; the real question is why should you get to choose what is excessive profit? Like I said to you before, the quest for great profit is what lures more suppliers to the marketplace. Limit the profit incentive and you limit the supply.
John2
So where is the long line of suppliers offering what Haliburton and Blackwater provide?
Posted by on October 8, 2007 04:43 PMAs for Blackwater, I suggest you read Soldier of Fortune magazine; there is no shortage of mercenaries.
As for Haliburton, there is not a big enough market for what Haliburton does. Yes, they have a pretty good contract with the USA. But, if you don't land that big contract, opportunities are limited for such a big entry fee. Keep the market open and eventually, more suppliers would enter the market.
Good questions.
Posted by John II on October 8, 2007 04:54 PMBangalore Skank
Did you mean:
Do tax cuts stimulate the economy?
or
Does a stimualted economy produce jobs?
It doesn't matter to me which of those you find vexing. The fact you ask is sufficient.
Private means individual and public means common. So whatever you think a "putative taxpayer" may be, putative tax money goes to the public treasury or, government coffers.
And of course since you don't have the vocabulary, you misunderstand the point.
I suspect what you find counter-intutiive is that lower tax rates means more tax money going to the government.
John II may have the patience to walk you through that one. Why don't you try asking politely?
Posted by James Jones on October 8, 2007 05:36 PMJohn II, once again you misrepresent my position. You asked:
"why should you get to choose what is excessive profit?"
I never said I should get to choose, but rather that government should get to choose, based on a consensus opinion reached by our chosen representatives, what constitutes excessive profit and how it should be dealt with.
While I support taxing the sh*t out of it and have some ideas about what excessive profit constitutes, I'm not the decider you seem to think I am.
Your tactics are transparent and you seem bent on turning gray areas into black and white. And to what end? So you can see yourself as ideologically pure? So you can sort everything into neat little platitudes and avoid the deeper thought required to continue learning?
Posted by Charles B. on October 8, 2007 07:08 PMCharles B.,
You are simply being dishonest now. If you disagree with my opposition to your argument, that's fine. But, don't tell me I'm not addressing your argument or I'm somehow misrepresenting you. You yourself spoke of "excessive profits". Again, what do you consider excessive? And, why should you even worry about what is excessive? You either support the profit incentive or you don't; there is no in between. Your comments suggest you would vote for politicians that would limit profits. This runs counter to the central principle of capitalism. Do not blame me for your irrational arguments. You said it, now you own it.
Posted by John II on October 8, 2007 07:33 PMMr. Kiel, what is really anti-american is invading a country such as Iraq under false pretenses like Bush did, and attempting to convince the populace that it was necessary and then after the invasion claiming falsely that it is part of the greater war on terror. What this imbecile has done is create more terrorists by invading Iraq.
Posted by A True American on October 8, 2007 08:04 PMA True American,
The 12 million Iraq's who have shown up twice to vote in the face of death threats, waving ink-stainded fingers in defiance did not need any convincing from the American president that a better life is on offer.
They were living a life that is apparently beyond your comprehension as a "True American."
There is no basis, beyond Al Jazerra propoganda, for your charge that our fighting back against terrorism creates more terrorists. At some point "True Americans" have to acknowldege that it is them, not us, who is responsible for their savagery.
Posted by James Jones on October 8, 2007 09:07 PMBwr said ” What is more important to you? Tax rate or Tax revenue?”
Revenue
John said ” The ultimate goal when cutting tax rates is to spur investment in the economy; to create jobs and more opportunities.”
I understand that this is the goal, I just have no faith that it is what usually happens.
It seems to me that it is an assumption rather than something that any economist has been able to demonstrate.
” As one who has seen the devastating effects of unemployment first-hand, I can tell you that keeping unemployment as low as possible is crucial to the middle and lower classes. This if often overlooked by liberals. Creating more jobs, more opportunities and reducing unemployment is the best thing any politician can do for the poor.”
Actually that is a very liberal viewpoint. Conservatism espouses high unemployment to reduce inflation, lower worker security, and low wage expectations and therefore lower production costs. Job creation and low unemployment rate is a socialist value statement.
Jimmy, can't parse your text, care to try again with some formating?
"Their lives have been shattered, and I can't help but wonder, "For what?"
For Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness AKA FREEDOM........
Posted by Heather on October 8, 2007 10:40 PMall of you are still idiots, especially you james jones, You bought the bait and switch hook line and sinker so easily that you truly believe what you are saying now.
people like You are why our country is falling apart!
Posted by Fresh on October 9, 2007 06:59 AMHa, good point, Mr. Skank, you were mostly correct in your last statement to me. Socialism does promise job security and jobs for everyone.
But, you forgot to address my desire for more opportunities. That is not a socialist value. In fact, socialism, by it's very nature, reduces opportunity. Take France for example: France has almost twice the unemployment rate of the USA yet has some very tough laws regarding job security. There are laws that prevent employers from firing workers within a certain time period of employment. While this certainly helps create job security once one gets a job, it also reduces the motivation of an employer to take on more workers.
Worker's unions function the same way. The union worker has decent pay and job security. Yet, each worker is treated the same: good workers get paid the same as bad workers. Also, because of the cost of paying union workers, employers hire less of them. So, if you're lucky enough to get a union job, good for you; otherwise, tough luck, buddy.
I can accept less individual job security if more job opportunity, in general, were present. I can even accept a lower salary if I had the opportunity to achieve higher pay by working harder and smarter.
Jobs and job opportunity are created with low taxes and minimum government interference. These are conservative values.
Posted by John II on October 9, 2007 07:50 AMJohn II,
You make some very good points in regards to your views on the way the economy should work. The problem with the model, however, is that it leaves out a very important factor which needs some serious regulation: Greed. Greed screws everyone including the proponents of the "free market". If we could discourage the swindlers and those who wish to stretch the rules to enrich themselves at the expense of others, the system you espouse would, no doubt, work. A billion dollars a year is way more than any sane person could spend in a lifetime.
Posted by Stan B on October 9, 2007 09:37 AMStan B.,
Greed, while certainly holding a negative connotation, is the key to capitalism. It is the cornerstone to Adam Smith's Invisible Hand. The quest for greater profits induces entrepreneurs to hire more workers. The entrepreneur's motive is personal, but his effect is much greater than his own personal gain.
Greed, when practiced legally, is good. Greed, when it causes one to break laws, is bad. Greed does not "screw everyone". Greed creates jobs, opportunities, profit, a higher living standard, cures for diseases. Greed has done more for the common man than any charity or government welfare program.
While you may not want to invite the greedy man to your home for dinner, most people have no problem accepting a paycheck from the greedy man.
Posted by John II on October 9, 2007 10:07 AMJohn II
Well done.
Posted by James Jones on October 9, 2007 10:18 AMStan B. declared:
"A billion dollars a year is way more than any sane person could spend in a lifetime."
I don't know who makes a billion dollars a year. Regardless, why should you or I care if one did make that much?
Whether or not someone could spend a billion dollars is irrelevant. If someone wants a billion dollars, and has the means to legally earn it, why should anyone stop him?
Once you get into the process of determining who should make what and how much is too much, you've crossed the line into a planned (communist) economy. In order to accept the enormous benefits of capitalism, we must also accept the fact that some folks will make enormous profits.
Posted by John II on October 9, 2007 10:21 AMJohn II,
You stated, "Greed, when practiced legally, is good". Greed means an avid desire for gain or wealth and is definitely uncomplimentary in implication. Of course, if you use your greed to write the laws, it's OK, right? Or you could be greedy for knowledge or fame. But when it comes to economics, taking more than you deserve actually hurts the economy because it distorts the model upon which a free and fair market system is based. The greedy man would not pay his workers their fair share.
Posted by Stan B on October 9, 2007 10:21 AMStan B. said:
"But when it comes to economics, taking more than you deserve actually hurts the economy because it distorts the model upon which a free and fair market system is based."
You are still missing the point. How can one legally take more than one actually deserves? Someone is paying him. Someone obviously feels he is worth his salary.
"The greedy man would not pay his workers their fair share."
What is fair? If I worker agrees to work for a stated wage, how is that not fair? Furthermore, you seem to gloss over the fact the worker even has a job. Why does that job even exist? It exists because of a greed.
Over 95% of this country is employed. Why do you think that is? Do you think they are all employed by benevolence? Pity? Charity? No. They are employed because of greed and the quest for obscene profits.
As you can see the posting of "A Real [Phoney] Soldier shows that the Democrats will do anything to help the terrorist win the war.They will post acting like they are soldiers and give aid and comfort to our enemy.The Democrats can no longer trick the public because Rush has exposed them for what they are,US haters and cowards.A Real [Phoney] Soldier is probably Sharon B. trying to act like she served in the military to give more power to her propaganda.This is what Democrats do to help the terrorists.
Posted by An American on October 9, 2007 10:48 AMBangalore Skank,
It more or less boils down to the simple fact that there are two worlds; the REAL WORLD and the fantasy world of self-delusional belief-system(s), one of which may be called, "Economics"
In the REAL world, when the Ronnie Raygun form of Voodoo Economics is applied, jobs are outsourced; factories are closed down; pension funds are looted; prices are kept artificially high; and,unemployment figures, as well as figures concerning the rate of inflation, kept artificially low. After these and other REAL measures to make the already wealthy even richer, there comes what is euphemistically called a "recession" - or, in more REALISTIC terms, a depression.
Meantime, in the fantasy world of the "Economist", all is considered to be just peaches and cream; as the increasing re-distribution of wealth serves to eliminate more and more of those who would otherwise be the underlying bulwark of a middle class; thereby creating an ever increasing number of those for whom any job whatsoever, at any wage whatsoever, becomes a gift, to be held onto at the expense of any and all effort to exercise rights, or hold positions, antithetical to the idea of the rising Oligarchy of wealth. Which Oligarchy of wealth the "Economists" both cherish as true believers in the fantasies of both "Economics" and regressive and reactionary politcal theory, and also worship as the main source of both increase and preservation of their own fantasies and foolishness.
Those who choose to live in the REAL world, and seek to make the social, economic, and political conditions equable and condusive to a greater increase in the common good and general welfare, are then excoriated - both by the Oligarchy of the wealthy and by the fantasy dwellers in "Economics", and other areas of self-delusional belief-systems - as "socialist", or by some other derogatory epithet - which then becomes a rallying point for not only preserving the depressed status of matters in the REAL world, but also for a very blatently stupid, egotistical, and irrational demand for even further descent into regressive, and repressive, fantasies, social, political and economic, as time goes on.
The fantasists and self-delusional belief-system proponents simply cannot deal with the REAL world; and have nothing to offer to the REAL world in the way of constructive solutions to any of the manifold problems of REAL world existence.
In turn, those in the REAL world who refuse to attempt to live in the increasingly confused, and confusing, atmosphere of the self-delusional world(s) of belief-system(s) arrive at a place where any effort to deal with such arrogant ignorance becomes both tiresome and useless to waste time, effort, and energy on.
I admire your patience; and your efforts. But, I fear that neither will be of any effect in the area.
Posted by on October 9, 2007 10:49 AMOld Grouch (10:49), you are an intellectual anaphrodisiac. No one kills a good conversation quite like you.
Posted by John II on October 9, 2007 10:55 AMJohn II,
Well, we definitely disagree. I think that some people are hurting the system by their actions and should be closely monitored. Greed is a very questionable and, I believe, dangerous virtue.
Posted by Stan B on October 9, 2007 11:09 AMIt looks like "Air Force Retiree,A Real [Phoney] Soldier and USMC VET" have learned the ploy of "acting" like they were soldiers to help the terrorists win the war.We can see these are just US hating,cowards and Phoney soldiers.I have a friend that won the Silver Star in Vietnam and he never talks about it.These so called solders that have posted here have no shame and are in fact "Phoney" Democrat soldiers.In fact I know a lot of solders and none of them talk like the Democrat cowards on these postings.
Posted by An American on October 9, 2007 11:11 AMHmm, I've been noticing a certain pattern lately. I hate to think that folks are posting with one name, and then attacking with another. But, the evidence seems to be pointing in that direction.
Posted by John II on October 9, 2007 11:19 AMJohn II
I have wondered the same thing. Howver, in the past the RMN has interceeded and inserted the identity of the poster. I was engaged in a thread where someone posting variously as James Jones is a Liar, Repugnants are Liars and Queen Gorgo (something or other) was indentifed as being the same person.
I hope the RMN continues with that policy.
Posted by James Jones on October 9, 2007 11:54 AMDos,
You have the freedom to post here any thoughts you care to and what you post here you are self-defined.
The fact that you use this freedom for no better purpose then to type out vile insults, cloaked comfortably in the shadows, directed at people you will never know tells us a great deal about you and nothing at all about your target.
I think the last posting of "A Real [Phoney} Soldier" proves my point.He is no soldier but a Phoney Democrat trying to act like one.The Democrats will stoop to any trick to help their terrorists friends.This is the New Democrat party at work.If it were not for the aid and comfort the Democrats have given the terrorists our soldiers would have won this war a long time ago.
Posted by An American on October 9, 2007 12:35 PMAnd your point, O Great Master of the Kool-Aid, James Jones, is what? You and J2 have shown yourselves to be oligarchy-loving, poor-hating, anti-American neo-anarchists. So I am just being more to the point than either of you clowns ever have been. You couch your evil beliefs in flowery language and semantic games. I cut through that BS and get to the heart of the matter.
I will give you two losers a bit of credit, though (it must be given when due). The use of semantic games and flowery language demonstrates the lengths you two will go to in an attempt to rationalize your evil beliefs. This stands in stark contrast to the likes of Keith and An(ti) American (who, coincidentally, do the exact same thing as I do, but where is your feigned outrage there?). Unfortunately for you, the both of you are in the same league as those two morons, as you all espouse the same evil beliefs. But keep up the quixotic quest!!
As Karl Rove said: "As people do better, they start voting like Republicans - unless they have too much education and vote Democratic."
Posted by Dos on October 9, 2007 12:44 PMMr. Jones,
RMN does not always intercede on naming issues. For example, I recently discovered that darfur, mongoose and Small Practice Attorney were the same person.
Also, Dos usually posts to me as an anonymous coward. This is the first time I've seen him post as Dos.
You're probably right that Dos is not a hand-puppet of, oh let's say, Old Grouch. But, there are some curious details that I've noticed: (a) Dos usually posts within minutes after a long-winded post by Old Grouch. (b) Look at the grammatcial patterns practiced by Old Grouch (anonymous on 10:49) and Dos at 11:01. They both seem to capitalize their words the same way. Also, Old Grouch often refers to me as Johnny Boy or J2. (c) Old Grouch has a habit of forgetting (supposedly) to sign his posts. Dos almost always posts anonymously. Is it possible that Old Grouch did not sign his post at 10:49 because he keeps switching between the anonymous and Old Grouch monikers?
Either way, it's no big deal. Both characters resort to petty ad hominem attacks rather addressing the issue at hand. How boring is that!
Posted by Epictetus on October 9, 2007 01:01 PMAn American; better get your pen and paper out; you're going to have a lot of letters to write in defense of your AK 47 after the slaughter up north:
"Police, who declined to provide details of the argument, said Peterson stormed out, retrieved an AR-15 rifle from his car outside and burst back into the house firing 30 shots that killed all but one of the people at the party."
Lot of shots aimed at six people -- only killed 5 of them.
Posted by on October 9, 2007 01:13 PMEpictetus, aka John II:--
"For example, I recently discovered that darfur, mongoose and Small Practice Attorney were the same person."
Outside of having "darfor" spelled wrong, you are incorrect about darfor and mongoose being the same person. They are very close, like brothers, but they are definitely not the same individual. I do some consulting work for the venture capital firm mongoose is with, and have met both of these gentleman.
I don't know who "Small Practice Attorney is, by this or any other screen name.
Posted by carl on October 9, 2007 01:20 PMfrom the femi-nazi; Sheila...
"...Hugs and Kisses,
Dos..."
Posted by on October 9, 2007 01:24 PMEpictetus, aka John II:--
You seem to have a minor streak of paranoia running through you. You once accused me of being "anonymous coward" using some of the same analysis you use above for "Dos".
Wouldn't it be better to address the argument at hand than attempt to play super sleuth in order to attack your opposition?
Posted by carl on October 9, 2007 01:28 PMWrong, wrong, wrong, anonymous coward at 1:24pm!!! Wrong person, wrong gender, wrong altogether!!!
And nice way to use a term from the drug-addicted draft dodger, Rush Limbaugh. That lends you so much credibility. Oh, wait. Make that NO credibility, anonymous coward.
Posted by Dos on October 9, 2007 01:28 PMAn(al) American: your postings prove one basic fact, that you are too much a coward to fight for your so-called beliefs. How is it you never explain why you refuse to serve?Or is that muffled sound of ours simply that of your heaed up your ass ( or up Keith's?).
It is tragically funny how the most blatant rightwing chickenhawks refuse to serve, either being draft-dodgers like An American, Limbaugh and their ilk, or cowards like Bush who hid in the National Guard and still whimpered till they let him out. Bring it on my ass.
Dos,
I remember you now. I can't quite remember your other moniker but I remember some of our discussions. I recall embarrassing you tremendously because you could not argue logically. You were trying to claim that the belief that a certain race dominated a criminal gang was racist. You even managed to admit that you were a racist (because you once thought gang members were all black until you realized that there are Latino gangs as well) just to conform to your own illogical assertion.
I remember you. Everyone saw how illogical and irrational your arguments were. They ridiculed you. So, you decided to go anonymous. That is too funny. Now I know why you have such a grudge against me. Ha, too funny. Thanks for the hint.
Posted by John II on October 9, 2007 01:37 PMcarl said:
"Wouldn't it be better to address the argument at hand than attempt to play super sleuth in order to attack your opposition?"
I would love to. What argument did Dos present? That is what is so boring about Dos and Old Grouch. They present little substance other than ad hominem attacks and lectures.
By the way, my paranoia was correct. Dos admitted posting as someone else.
Posted by John II on October 9, 2007 01:41 PMJohn II
The question I have is: Why?
Why not just post here telling people what you think and why you think it. It ought to be obvious that there is nohting to be gained from the deceit.
I will relate one antdote. I asked my multi-poster (she was championing abortion) why? She told me that she worked in the abortion industry and was concerned for her personal safety. If the fanatic fundamentalists learned her true identity they would certainly come after here with blood in their eyes.
I asked if she was satisified that simply posting under different names would confound the fanatics or if she also wore different costumes when posting - glasses, fake beard, masks and so on.
She didn't respond.
Posted by James Jones on October 9, 2007 01:54 PMReally, J2? You are still a mile or ten off. That is even funnier. It is great to see you grasping at straws.
But, you start to prove my points. Ridicule is a form of attack, is it not? Then you are guilty of doing just what you accuse me of.
But I hold no grudge, for I have no reason to. I just think that you are, well, stupid and evil. And even worse, I think that you are anti-American since your beliefs consistently show that you, like grover norquist, want to starve the American government until it can be drowned in a bathtub. That smacks of the dissolution of the Union, and is a form of anarchism. That is enough for me to start to pile on the insults on you.
So let's see here, you think that I am Old Grouch, some guy you cannot remember who it is, and Sheila (since you show no problem with changing names in mid-thread, you should have no problem going anonymous either). Who's next? This should be good. Your paranoia is showing fewer bounds. Watching someone fall into mental disruption is very amusing when that person greatly deserves it.
Posted by Dos on October 9, 2007 01:57 PMcarl,
Does it not occur to you that personal validations from an anonymous source are inherently suspect?
Posted by James Jones on October 9, 2007 02:01 PMAnd BTW, JohnnyBoy II, I did ask you a question. In fact, I asked a suite of them. In your typical fashion, you did not respond because I hit the nail right on the head.
Sad, sad, sad. But still funny in a slapstick sort of way.
Posted by Dos on October 9, 2007 02:01 PMWhy is a good question, Mr. Jones.
I think it varies. It my case, some posters have changed names because they were embarrassed. Others do it to create the impression that there are more people out there with a certain point of view.
I actually was guilty of this practice a couple of years ago. I created several different personalities on Daily Kos. It was an experiment. Some characters were mild mannered conservatives that did unspeakable things like defend WalMart. Others were hot-headed leftists that spoke of hanging George Bush and bashed Christians. Guess which characters were eventually banned from DK?
Posted by John II on October 9, 2007 02:04 PMDos,
Were you holding the nail between your eyes when you hit it?
Posted by James Jones on October 9, 2007 02:04 PMJames Jones:--
"Does it not occur to you that personal validations from an anonymous source are inherently suspect?"
As are personal accusations from anonymous sources. It can only cause circular accusations, with foundation, that denigrates any attempt at discourse.
My purpose was to show how ludicrous all of this "who's who" malarkey is in the real context of an open forum.
How do we know that you're not John II in a support role of setting the props for each personality?
Posted by carl on October 9, 2007 02:08 PMDerp!! What a stupid question, Jimmy "Kool-Aid" Jones. Just like the one you asked the other poster (from your ANECDOTE) who changed names in mid-thread.
And just keep on flattering yourself, J2. Whatever keeps the psychosis at bay, right?
Posted by Dos on October 9, 2007 02:08 PMDos,
I know who you are and you know I'm correct.
By the way, your "suite of questions" included question like "How are you not a vile neo-anarchist?". Did you honestly think I would answer such a question?
Now, if I'm stupid like you said I am, why not pick apart my arguments with ease instead of resorting to boring ad hominem attacks? It seems that a brilliant and eloquent person such as yourself should have no problem dismantling my feeble and ignorant assertions. Or, are you so emotionally driven that you cannot prevent your emotions from clouding your thinking?
By the way, I'm never accused you of being Sheila.
Posted by John II on October 9, 2007 02:12 PMEpictatus,
Unfortunately for your imagination, sir, I do NOT "make a habit of posting anonymously". That such postings do happen is something that - presently anyway - has to do with some failing hardware in this machine. This hardware is supposed to deal with "Scripting", - and, I am told, those moving and flashing little ads that keep the blog alive by paying for it.
When this piece of hardware gets "overloaded", it flashes a message box, asking whether or not to continue processing. If I click on the "No" answer, there is a quick changeover to a page without flashing ads; and in the process, it appears that the "Remember your personal info" set of little circles at the posting area go back to having the indicator in the "No" position.
This does not always carry over to the "Preview" page, nor is there any signal there to have it do so. Thus, there have been times when my posting went out without my screen signature. Usually I try to catch up with this when it happens, and let it be known that it was not intentional. This morning, however, I posted; and the technician who does some work for me - and explained what was going wrong - took over, before I had a chance to read the posting as it appeared on the blog page.
Whether or not you approve, agree, or even have opinion about the troubles on the machine here sir, is of no consequence to me at all. I have never posted with a screen name other than the one I am using now; and I use a screen name because of personal harassment in another forum, where I posted by name as such.
It is fantasists such as you, with your straw man comparisons of who writes how, who might better learn to have something to say, before you mouth off about matters.
Posted by Old Grouch on October 9, 2007 02:16 PMCarl stated:
"How do we know that you're not John II in a support role of setting the props for each personality?"
He is the same guy, fool. Look at their diction, context, general address structure, etc. James Jones, Epictetus and John II (along with a few "anonymous posts tossed in for good measure) are all the same.
He attempts to hide this by throwing accusations of duplicity at others.
By the way, James Jones, John II, Etc., I'm also the poster "Small Practice Attorney". Fitting, since that is what I do for a living.
Posted by Joseph S on October 9, 2007 02:17 PMJust to clarify, I posted as Epictetus to prove that RMN does not consistently enforce user-names.
But, it's good to see all these phony posters coming to surface. We now have Dos, carl, and Joseph S addmitting to posting under different names on RMN.
Posted by John II on October 9, 2007 02:27 PMcarl,
How do we know that you're not John II in a support role of setting the props for each personality?
Posted by: carl | October 9, 2007 02:08 PM
I don't suppose you do. What difference does it make?
Here are a couple of points I made earlier
"The 12 million Iraq's who have shown up twice to vote in the face of death threats, waving ink-stainded fingers in defiance did not need any convincing from the American president that a better life is on offer.
They were living a life that is apparently beyond your comprehension as a "True American."
There is no basis, beyond Al Jazerra propoganda, for your charge that our fighting back against terrorism creates more terrorists. At some point "True Americans" have to acknowldege that it is them, not us, who is responsible for their savagery."
Posted by James Jones on October 8, 2007 09:07 PM
which are actually related to the original letter.
Any comments?
Posted by James Jones on October 9, 2007 02:28 PMJohnnyBoy2, you can think whatever you want about whoever it is you think I am. I know of no "conversation" you speak of where you supposedly embarassed "me", but who am I to burst your delusions of grandeur?
I am not surprised that you refuse to answer any of my questions, nor am I surprised that you offered up the feeble excuse you did. But why is it OK for you to make up other people's positions and demand they answer, and then balk when the same is dished up for you?
I know that you adhere blindly to your beliefs, no matter how evil or wrong they are. I also know that no amount of trying to show you where you are wrong will do anything but reinforce your own beliefs inside your own head. That is why I don't attempt to do so, because you need no further encouragement. Instead, I will take the truncheon approach with you. It is a sign of (a complete lack of) respect for you.
Posted by Dos on October 9, 2007 02:30 PM"But why is it OK for you to make up other people's positions and demand they answer,"
Which position did I make up? Let's return to some kind of topical issue. Challenge me; Present a bold assertion; Refute one of my assertions. Let's see what you've got besides hate.
Posted by John II on October 9, 2007 02:34 PMJohn II
Remarkable they didn't catch on to your ploy.
My multi-poster didn't realize for quite a while that she was being exposed. The left has never been known for perception.
I guess the RMN doesn't want to devote the time to keeping the record straight. Too bad - that one little bit of hygiene had a postive impact.
Posted by James Jones on October 9, 2007 02:36 PMFinish reading my last post to discover your answer, JohnnyBoy2. It's all right there.
Love and Kisses,
Dos (Quatro Dos)
Posted by Dos on October 9, 2007 02:39 PMJohn II:--
Where did I admit to posting under another name? I only stated that YOU accused me of it; I wasn't aware that your accusation carried final judgment.
Posted by carl on October 9, 2007 02:43 PMWho's on first...
Posted by Charles B. on October 9, 2007 02:47 PMMr. Jones,
Opinion columnist Linda Seebach used to manage the Letters to the Editor online section. I just searched RMN and could not find her name so I'm not sure if she's still at RMN. I've chatted with her a few times. She's a nice enough lady but perhaps a bit out of her league when it comes to this forum.
I think RMN added this online forum as a second thought. I don't think they truly understand what they've got themselves into with this format or the significance of it.
Posted by John II on October 9, 2007 02:49 PMJohn II...
"...columnist Linda Seebach used to manage the Letters to the Editor..."
Linda wrote her farewell retirement column four to six months ago. She has actually retired.
Posted by Joseph S on October 9, 2007 02:54 PMWell that explains it. I let my subscription to the paper run out a few months ago. To be honest, I never read her columns anyway.
In an email to me, she mentioned that she ran the Letters to the Editor online section. I don't know who (if any) has replaced her.
Posted by John II on October 9, 2007 02:57 PMDos - or whoever you may be,
For a long time the pair known as, "John II and James Jones", were also called - among other things - "Batman and Robin"; with no one exactly sure of who was which at any one time. Were you to go back and read in the archives, you would find it very interesting to note how almost like a pair of Siamese twins - joined at the skull - or even a pair of clones their postings were.
And, at times, still are today.
Both vehemently deny it, but there is a large - and very regular - practice of mis-quotation, deliberate mis-statement, deliberate falsification of what others are supposed "to have said",as well as what the pair themselves said earlier; and in general, a thorough exibition of a self-delusional fantasy of "knowledge" that at times is hilariously amusing; especially since neither one of them can construct a basic logical syllogism, or reply to one when used by someone else.
But, aside from their hyperbolic imagination(s) running away at times - especially when the "Jones" entity posts, and gets all emotionally involved in taking umbrage personally at something he fantasizes was said about somebody, or something; and the "John II " entity's fixation on turning the clock back to 1789 - they can be - and often are - amusing fun. One just needs to remember not to take either, or both, of them too seriously, since there's really nothing there of serious relevance to the REAL WORLD anyway.
After all, a second childhood - even unto infantilism - is supposed to be FUN!
Posted by Old Grouch on October 9, 2007 03:04 PMWell said Old Grouch. I remember when I was on the threads much earlier, and from what I recall, you are right on the mark.
Dos (Quatro Dos) is merely the spanish translation for the numeric moniker tag I used previously.
Posted by Dos on October 9, 2007 03:10 PMHa, I believe Sharon B. was the inventor of the Batman & Robin nicknames. I agreed to be Robin as long as I didn't have to wear tights.
By the way, Old Grouch, that Batman & Robin nickname was in response to my labeling you, Sharon B., and Truth the Three Stooges of the Left.
Posted by John II on October 9, 2007 03:19 PMJohn II,
Around 10:40 you posted: I don't know who makes a billion dollars a year.
This note from the "400 Richest Americans": 2007, Benet Dorence $2.2 billion 2006-7
Now you know.
Posted by Stan B on October 9, 2007 03:22 PMIt was Sharon B and neither of us has vehmently denied anything.
You should be able to tell us apart. I'm the hilariously amusing one.
Posted by James Jones on October 9, 2007 03:23 PM...and I'm the extremely good-looking one...
Posted by John II on October 9, 2007 03:34 PMStan B.,
Does Bennett Dorrance make that much per year or is that his net worth?
By the way, Bennett Dorrance is the owner of that evil corporation known as Campbell's Soup. Yes, this evil corporation, with their overpaid and greedy owner, provide low-cost canned food for the middle-class. The nerve of some people!
Posted by John II on October 9, 2007 03:39 PM"...this evil corporation, with their overpaid and greedy owner, provide low-cost canned food for the middle-class..."
Laced with excito-toxins - a derivation of MSG - and slowly poisoning the "middle-class" while making a "clean profit."
Posted by on October 9, 2007 03:46 PM"Laced with excito-toxins - a derivation of MSG - and slowly poisoning the "middle-class" while making a "clean profit.""
Hm, that sounds like Bangalore Skank...
Posted by John II on October 9, 2007 03:57 PMDorrance Bennett is an heir, not the chairman of Campbell's Soup Company. And, yes, that was this year alone. You said you didn't know of anyone who made a billion dollars a year. Dorrance Bennett made twice that much.
Posted by Stan B on October 9, 2007 04:15 PMJohn II
You really are one paranoid, shrinking violet. You were, in fact, invited to the last poker game. What I do in my personal life is just that -- personal. Just because you are most likely less successful than your own self evaluated worth says you should be doesn't mean others haven't reached a level above your mediocre existence.
Nobody called me; I've been reading your rants and postings of self aggrandizement for a week now. It's been real entertaining watching your smugness overshadowing your wishful thinking about syllogistic arguments supporting dubious positions.
Looks like in your rush to identify others as duplicitous and/or multiple posting noms de plume in order to discredit them, your own skeletons are rattling in the closet.
darfor and I go back to sharing life shaping experiences that you have no comprehension of. We've been closer than brothers since we met in 1967. Those life experience changed and challenged us to set high goals, and the fortitude to reach them. All you seem to have is an over active imagination coupled with an overblown self assessment of perceived net value.
You take great pleasure in trying to belittle and demean people, especially women. I could go into the insults you've thrown at women, the vulgarities you've accused men of becoming and the general put downs that you utilize to attack people; but, then you already know them by heart -- by rote if usage is any indication.
You're so repulsive in manner, and repugnant in intellectual antics, that I don't even find humor in your babbling and accusations similar to Old Grouch and Dos profess above.
Posted by mongoose on October 9, 2007 04:17 PMjohnny boy2:
"Hm, that sounds like Bangalore Skank...
Posted by John II on October 9, 2007 03:57 PM"
Wrong again, doggy breath. Just another admirer of your self revealing stupidity.
Signed,
Secret Admirer
Posted by on October 9, 2007 05:00 PMMongoose
What I do in my personal life is just that -- personal.
darfor and I go back to sharing life shaping experiences that you have no comprehension of. We've been closer than brothers since we met in 1967. Those life experience changed and challenged us to set high goals, and the fortitude to reach them. All you seem to have is an over active imagination coupled with an overblown self assessment of perceived net value.
I couldn't resist.
John II
The reason the posts are indistinguishable is that they have no integrity. What does it matter which name, which of them chooses?
The left is morally bankrupt and intellectually fatigued and we don't exactly have the best and brightest posting here. You and I have both issued challenges for some material discourse. It's not coming.
Take the deceit and vindictive out of their posts and there isn't enough leather left to saddle a flea.
I respect your patience and willingness to explain voodoo ecomics to dogmatic reactionaries but for me it has gone from boring to tedious.
It is still fun to spank them once in a while I will admit.
Posted by James Jones on October 9, 2007 05:21 PMJohn II
The reason the posts are indistinguishable is that they have no integrity. What does it matter which name, which of them chooses?
The left is morally bankrupt and intellectually fatigued. You and I have both issued challenges for some material discourse. It's not coming.
Take the deceit and vindictive out of their posts and there isn't enough leather left to saddle a flea.
I respect your patience and willingness to explain voodoo ecomics to dogmatic reactionaries but for me it has gone from boring to tedious.
But it is fun to spank them once in a while I will admit.
ol' johnny boy2, aka "jessie James Jones" got so excited to post nonsense he had to do it twice...lucky us!
Posted by on October 9, 2007 06:04 PMStan B.,
"Dorrance Bennett is an heir, not the chairman of Campbell's Soup Company. And, yes, that was this year alone. You said you didn't know of anyone who made a billion dollars a year. Dorrance Bennett made twice that much."
Here is a link to Forbes list: http://members.forbes.com/global/2006/1016/058.html
Dorrance Bennett is listed with a net worth of $2.1 billion. That is not an income for one year but a total net worth. Do you know of anyone who has made a billion dollars in one year?
Posted by John II on October 9, 2007 06:04 PMBy the way, Stan B., I never said Dorrance Bennett was the "chairman".
Posted by John II on October 9, 2007 06:17 PMNice try John II. Playing the words games. You're already over your head. Keep digging.
Posted by Stan B on October 9, 2007 06:59 PMBet all you poker players $100.00 that 90% of the Anons are men.
Women may use more names, some men, it seems, have none.
For some of John II`s earlier posts I have a name: Damnatio memoriae.
Posted by Sharon B. on October 9, 2007 09:10 PMDamnatio memoriae -- how apropos, Sharon B., when referring to johnny deuce!
Many credits for ingenuity in finding an applicable, yet different, label.
I hate to think what he's screaming about you right now..but, boy, does the truth hurt at times!
CA
Posted by on October 9, 2007 10:32 PMDamnatio memoriae is the Latin phrase literally meaning "damnation of memory", in the sense of removed from the remembrance. It was a form of dishonor that could be passed by the Roman Senate upon traitors or others who brought discredit to the Roman State.Posted by on October 9, 2007 10:36 PM
Boy Howdy!!!! If THIS wasn't a pie fight!
Posted by Jimminy on October 10, 2007 12:12 AMAnd we're the 164 Stooges.Jim,I think your question got answered.We'd rather flame each other anonymously on blogs like this one than do much that has substance.
Posted by Jimminy on October 10, 2007 01:54 PMOne more stooge attempt, John II. See page 23 of the October 9, 2007 issue of the RMN. Man, is it hard to get information on any AGI for these guys.
Posted by Stan B on October 10, 2007 03:20 PMStan B.,
Since I cannot go back in time and buy yesterday's paper, perhaps you could enlighten us a bit on what you're talking about. Are you still trying to see if anyone actually makes a billion dollars a year? Why are you so concerned with how much other people make? Unless you're a shareholder, it's none of your business.
Posted by John II on October 10, 2007 06:23 PMIt is easy to see that A Real [Phony] Soldier is a Democrat.You can be the judge of the quality of this party by his postings.Also the Democrats will try to take you guns away so join the NRA today.The number is 1-877-NRA-2000.Remember in Bill Clinton's book he said he lost the House and the Senate because he pushed anti-gun legislation.Nobody kicks butt on anti-gun Democrats like the NRA.JOIN TODAY!!!!
Posted by An American on October 11, 2007 01:16 PMI really wanted to post on this topic but the childishness and name-calling make it too tedious to read the thread. I'm just curious - did anyone ever find out at what firebase "An American" is serving?
Posted by Mac on October 12, 2007 08:34 AMIf you want to stop the pro-terrorists Democrats join the NRA today.Most political observers say that Gore lost the election in large part because of the NRA.Nobody kicks liberal Democrat butt like the NRA.Join today.1-877-NRA-2000.Pass this on to all pro-US citizens!!!
Posted by An American on October 12, 2007 09:40 AMIf you want to stop the pro-terrorists Democrats join the NRA today.Most political observers say that Gore lost the election in large part because of the NRA.Nobody kicks liberal Democrat butt like the NRA.Join today.1-877-NRA-2000.Pass this on to all pro-US citizens!!!
Posted by An American on October 12, 2007 09:41 AMIf you want to stop the pro-terrorists Democrats join the NRA today.Most political observers say that Gore lost the election in large part because of the NRA.Nobody kicks liberal Democrat butt like the NRA.Join today.1-877-NRA-2000.Pass this on to all pro-US citizens!!!
Posted by An American on October 12, 2007 09:41 AMThe last I heard the NRA was giving FREE memberships to people serving in the military.Call today 1-877-NRA-2000.
Posted by An American on October 12, 2007 09:48 AMThe last I heard the NRA was giving FREE memberships to people serving in the military.Call today 1-877-NRA-2000.
Posted by An American on October 12, 2007 09:48 AMThe last I heard the NRA was giving FREE memberships to people serving in the military.Call today 1-877-NRA-2000.
Posted by An American on October 12, 2007 09:48 AMThe last I heard the NRA was giving FREE memberships to people serving in the military.Call today 1-877-NRA-2000.
Posted by An American on October 12, 2007 09:48 AMThe last I heard the NRA was giving FREE memberships to people serving in the military.Call today 1-877-NRA-2000.
Posted by An American on October 12, 2007 09:48 AMJohnII said ”But, you forgot to address my desire for more opportunities. That is not a socialist value. In fact, socialism, by it's very nature, reduces opportunity”
Your desire is admirable, but try as I might, I couldn’t quite get Socialism to necessarily equate to meaningful loss of opportunity. I am happy to admit that it often does turn out that way, but I see no inherent mechanism that would do so, just as I see no inherent structure within Capitalism that would necessarily increase opportunities.
I suspect that your assertion is more a straightforward articulation of the ideological premise than of actuality. Capitalism believes that it creates opportunity, but I doubt that this has been shown to be true.
”Jobs and job opportunity are created with low taxes and minimum government interference. These are conservative values.”
These are neo-Conservative values ala Kristol, Fukuyama, and the like, but I see very little reason to believe that it has ever been shown to be true. As much as these individuals heartily claim that low taxes produce greater employment and opportunity, there appears to be little factual evidence to support the belief.
I suspect that these gentlemen were so eager to advance the Straussian rebirth of Conservatism, that they saw things that weren’t there.
I also think that the Neoconservative approach of appealing to individualism, consumerism, and greed are ultimately corrosive and deadly to Conservatism itself, since Conservatism is at it’s very heart, social, traditionalist, and frugal.
Look again at how you admired the Stoics.
James Jones is a liar
I write that when the facts warrant.
I have never posted under that name.
I’m sorry to join this thread after it’s “below the fold”, as it had long since lost interest for me, but JJ’s BS requires a response.
“I was engaged in a thread where someone posting variously as James Jones is a Liar, Repugnants are Liars and Queen Gorgo (something or other) was identified as being the same person.”
Posted by James Jones on October 9, 2007 11:54 AM
Perhaps you weren’t lying, just a tired old man with a poor memory.
“My multi-poster didn't realize for quite a while that she was being exposed. The left has never been known for perception.”
Posted by James Jones on October 9, 2007 02:36 PM
Never one to miss the chance for a baseless insult, Jimmy ignores the reality that “quite a while” was 13 hours, 8 of which I was asleep.
blogs.rockymountainnews.com/denver/letters/2007/06/unintended_pregnancies_sex_edu.html
I didn’t realize I was busted because I’m not in the habit of going back and rereading my own posts when I rejoin a thread. I wasn’t posing different sides of an argument, but Jimmy still has his panties in a wad because of ONE time I used two names on the same thread.
“The fact that you use this freedom for no better purpose then to type out vile insults, cloaked comfortably in the shadows, directed at people you will never know tells us a great deal about you and nothing at all about your target.”
Posted by James Jones on October 9, 2007 12:02 PM
And the fact that you type out vile insults you sign your name to directed at people you will never know says what about you?
blogs.rockymountainnews.com/denver/letters/2007/05/eugenics_drives_many_abortion.html#comments
Until pharmacologic Insulin was produced in 1922, almost half of pregnant diabetics died of medical complications of pregnancy, and fetal wastage was even greater. (Reece “Medicine of the Fetus and Mother”)
So Jimmy, either evolution is real or your god is a practicing eugenicist."
Posted by Queen Gorgo (For only Spartan Women Give Birth to Real Men!) on May 30, 2007 02:50
"either evolution is real or your god is a practicing eugenicist."
Probably an interesting question for an imbecile...
Do enjoy the crickets. You ought to listen, they're smarter then you.”
Posted by James Jones on May 30, 2007 10:47 PM
“I will relate one antdote. I asked my multi-poster (she was championing abortion) why? She told me that she worked in the abortion industry and was concerned for her personal safety. If the fanatic fundamentalists learned her true identity they would certainly come after here with blood in their eyes.
I asked if she was satisified that simply posting under different names would confound the fanatics or if she also wore different costumes when posting - glasses, fake beard, masks and so on.
She didn't respond.”
Posted by James Jones on October 9, 2007 01:54 PM
If I’m your antidote, I’m quite pleased; the anti-Jones.
I champion abortion rights, and the access to preventive measures that reduce the need for abortion.
If I’m in “the abortion industry” does that make me a Captain Of Industry?
It’s cute how the pro-birth crowd uses terms like that: There are no abortion clinics, only mills, Planned Parenthood is the nation’s largest abortion business, and abortion providers are never referred to as doctors, only “abortionists.” It allows you to delude yourself that we’re all in it for the money.
I provide reproductive healthcare. Abortion is a small part of what I do. Still, there are people who hold views similar to yours who would like me dead. I wonder if the tree being cut down on my block effects the sightlines into my house for snipers. I wonder if my name has been posted on websites where the names of other doctors who provide abortion who have been killed are posted.
I’m glad my legitimate concern for my own safety provides you a source of jokes and amusement.
I believe in my views strongly enough that I’m willing to put my life on the line to uphold them.
What do you do besides harp on people on a website?