Patterico's Pontifications

1/25/2011

The Most Offensive Line in the State of the Union

Filed under: General — Aaron Worthing @ 9:47 pm

[Guest post by Aaron Worthing; if you have tips, please send them here.]

Update: See this follow up post showing the Beatles v. the Taxman.

Update (II): Where are my blog manners? I forgot to thank Instapundit for the link.

He said it in the prepared text and in the speech itself:

The bipartisan Fiscal Commission I created last year made this crystal clear. I don’t agree with all their proposals, but they made important progress. And their conclusion is that the only way to tackle our deficit is to cut excessive spending wherever we find it – in domestic spending, defense spending, health care spending, and spending through tax breaks and loopholes.

(emphasis added).

You got that?  When you are allowed to keep your money, that is considered “spending” by the Federal Government.  Because in reality all of the fruits of your labor belong to us, the government.

Is it wrong to say it almost the attitude of a master toward his slaves?  Consider this passage from Jeffrey Rogers Hummel’s history of the Civil War, Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men, which I have to cut and paste from a screen cap:


And consider this too, after a discussion about some of the terrible unquantifiable costs of slavery:

In other words, from a purely economic point of view, slavery is exactly like as if every day you worked, and every day you were paid at the end of the day, but also every day a thief set upon you and took your money.  As George Harrison said of the Taxman: “You’re working for no one but me.”  And Obama thinks that is a good thing.

An income tax is barely tolerable in a free society.  It is arguably a necessary evil, but it is definitely an evil.  A government that fails to recognize that this is your money it is taking, is intolerable.

Consider also this, before I sign off. In 1855, a man named George Fitzhugh wrote a book called Sociology for the South or, the Failure of Free Society. It is not hyperbole to say that it was the closest thing to Mein Kampf ever produced on American soil, denying the value of Declaration of Independence, asserting the essential inequality of people of specific races, and advocating for slavery as “the oldest, the best and most common form of Socialism.”  He also provided this chilling comparison between free labor and slavery:

In the 1850’s, abolitionists and people merely opposed to the spread of slavery (such as Abraham Lincoln) entertained the theory that there was a slave power conspiracy—that is a conspiracy to extend slavery over the whole of the United States and to many classes of whites, as well. Lincoln himself entertained that theory in his famous “House Divided” speech.  In it he discussed the recent decision in Dredd Scott, and how it interacted with Stephen Douglas’ “Nebraska Doctrine” that the people of Nebraska and Kansas were free to vote for or against slavery, subject only to the constitution:

The several points of the Dred Scott decision, in connection, with Senator Douglas’s “care not” policy, constitute the piece of machinery, in its present state of advancement. This was the third point gained. The working points of that machinery are:

First, That no negro slave, imported as such from Africa, and no descendant of such slave, can ever be a citizen of any State, in the sense of that term as used in the Constitution of the United States. This point is made in order to deprive the negro, in every possible event, of the benefit of that provision of the United States Constitution, which declares that “The citizens of each State, shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States.”

Secondly, That “subject to the Constitution of the United States,” neither Congress nor a Territorial Legislature can exclude slavery from any United States territory. This point is made in order that individual men may fill up the Territories with slaves, without danger of losing them as property, and thus to enhance the chances of permanency to the institution through all the future.

Thirdly, That whether the holding a negro in actual slavery in a free State, makes him free, as against the holder, the United States courts will not decide, but will leave to be decided by the courts of any slave State the negro may be forced into by the master. This point is made, not to be pressed immediately; but, if acquiesced in for awhile, and apparently indorsed by the people at an election, then to sustain the logical conclusion that what Dred Scott’s master might lawfully do with Dred Scott, in the free State of Illinois, every other master may lawfully do with any other one, or one thousand slaves, in Illinois, or in any other free State.

Auxiliary to all this, and working hand in hand with it, the Nebraska doctrine, or what is left of it, is to educate and mould public opinion, at least Northern public opinion, not to care whether slavery is voted down or voted up. This shows exactly where we now are; and partially, also, whither we are tending.

It will throw additional light on the latter, to go back, and run the mind over the string of historical facts already stated. Several things will now appear less dark and mysterious than they did when they were transpiring. The people were to be left “perfectly free,” “subject only to the Constitution.” What the Constitution had to do with it, outsiders could not then see. Plainly enough now, it was an exactly fitted niche, for the Dred Scott decision to afterward come in, and declare the perfect freedom of the people to be just no freedom at all. Why was the amendment, expressly declaring the right of the people, voted down? Plainly enough now: the adoption of it would have spoiled the niche for the Dred Scott decision. Why was the court decision held up? Why even a Senator’s individual opinion withheld, till after the Presidential election? Plainly enough now: the speaking out then would have damaged the perfectly free argument upon which the election was to be carried. Why the outgoing President’s felicitation on the indorsement? Why the delay of a reargument? Why the incoming President’s advance exhortation in favor of the decision? These things look like the cautious patting and petting of a spirited horse preparatory to mounting him, when it is dreaded that he may give the rider a fall. And why the hasty after-indorsement of the decision by the President and others?

We cannot absolutely know that all these exact adaptations are the result of preconcert. But when we see a lot of framed timbers, different portions of which we know have been gotten out at different times and places and by different workmen — Stephen, Franklin, Roger and James, for instance — and when we see these timbers joined together, and see they exactly make the frame of a house or a mill, all the tenons and mortices exactly fitting, and all the lengths and proportions of the different pieces exactly adapted to their respective places, and not a piece too many or too few — not omitting even scaffolding — or, if a single piece be lacking, we see the place in the frame exactly fitted and prepared yet to bring such a piece in — in such a case, we find it impossible not to believe that Stephen and Franklin and Roger and James all understood one another from the beginning, and all worked upon a common plan or draft drawn up before the first blow was struck.

I do not today believe that there was any such conspiracy.  But when you read the writings of men like George Fitzhugh, you can fully and deeply understand why some people did believe that one existed.  And you might consider that when you judge people like Glenn Beck.  I think he is on the paranoid side, but its not like he has no reason to be.

After all, our president thinks that when you keep the fruits of your labor, that this is federal spending.  And that should bother any person who believes in individual liberty.

—————————

P.S.: By the way, this is not the first time people have made that claim.  And would anyone be surprised to learn that this previous assertion that a failure to tax is equivalent to spending was in a Ninth Circuit opinion, joined by Judge Reinhardt?

Update: Ugh, how could I forget that the LA Times and the aptly-named, Congressman Wiener said this?  And that even Charles Krauthammer flirted with the concept?

[Posted and authored by Aaron Worthing.]

126 Comments

  1. Warning: some of this language is not entirely temperate. :-)

    Seriously, there are times when Obama just creeps me out.

    Comment by Aaron Worthing (73a7ea) — 1/25/2011 @ 9:48 pm

  2. Aaron, this isn’t civil enough. I’m trying to resist the urge to metaphorically play Grand Theft Auto.

    Great post.

    Millions of families have fallen on hard times not because of our ideals of free enterprise — but because our leaders failed to live up to those ideals; because of poor decisions made in Washington and Wall Street that caused a financial crisis, squandered our savings, broke our trust, and crippled our economy.­­

    That’s from Paul Ryan’s response.

    I think a great example of failing to live up to our free market ideals is the government assuming it owns all our labors, or complaining that it is entitled to a debt ceiling increase, or bragging that it increased spending 84%, and thinks we should keep it way up there.

    Obama’s poor decisions are bankrupting our country. We are running out of other people’s money, and it’s time to start spending cuts. There is no other serious solution to our problem.

    Comment by Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/25/2011 @ 9:53 pm

  3. So that’s the “spending” he’s gonna freeze, all while increasing “investment spending”.

    What a lackluster, insipid speech from someone who is supposed to be such a great speaker.

    Comment by SPQR (26be8b) — 1/25/2011 @ 9:54 pm

  4. Why not go full circle: Tax breaks equal investment.

    Comment by Arizona Bob (e8af2b) — 1/25/2011 @ 9:54 pm

  5. dustin

    i am (not metaphorically) playing red dead redemption.

    It was great when Ryan called him on that “investment” euphemism.

    Comment by Aaron Worthing (73a7ea) — 1/25/2011 @ 9:56 pm

  6. SPQR, those saying this speech was amazing must really have given up on their professional reputation.

    Let’s see if he enjoys a substantial bump in the polls.

    America is ready to be treated as an adult. I think Paul Ryan would be able to handle Obama quite well in a debate. I know he doesn’t have the resume for the job, but I’d take him over the people I suspect will contend.

    Comment by Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/25/2011 @ 9:58 pm

  7. Demon’s Souls for me Aaron. The constant torture is good practice for the upcoming election season.

    Comment by Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/25/2011 @ 9:59 pm

  8. All camouflage except the cuts in defense. He is serious about that. And nothing else. This dolt wishes to destroy America. He has a good start.

    Comment by pat (f1bffe) — 1/25/2011 @ 10:03 pm

  9. btw, god bless google books for making it so that i could look up and even search in both books with little trouble.

    Comment by Aaron Worthing (73a7ea) — 1/25/2011 @ 10:05 pm

  10. Dustin, it was amazing … amazing that such an insipid pile of dreck wasted so much network and cable transmission time.

    A bump in the polls? Sure, because getting his name mentioned favorably in the the fawning media will do that. But it will be small, and evaporate before the frost on my windshield.

    Comment by SPQR (26be8b) — 1/25/2011 @ 10:06 pm

  11. Dustin

    that game is a sonofabitch, ain’t it?

    Comment by Aaron Worthing (73a7ea) — 1/25/2011 @ 10:08 pm

  12. that game is a sonofabitch, ain’t it?

    I did beat it, for the record, and then realized it just got ridiculously harder and put be back at level 1-1.

    And you can’t pause. WTF.

    In more important matters, I’m amazed at how long these speeches are. It’s completely counterproductive. Almost none of this speech was remotely new material. He could actually just report on the state of the union. Hardly an Obama-only problem.

    Faced with crushing debt, Obama offers “hope and change” and a continuation of extremely high spending and salaries. Faced with crushing debt, Paul Ryan offers sober truth, and an actual plan to fix the problem.

    I think America is ready to be treated like a grown up, instead of a mark.

    Comment by Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/25/2011 @ 10:15 pm

  13. Almost as ridiculous as helping people pay for, say, health care by “giving” them tax rebates. Like that helps if you’re too sick to work. Like a doctor will barter treatment for a future tax rebate.

    Funny money all over.

    Comment by Mork (5d2ff2) — 1/25/2011 @ 10:19 pm

  14. Funny money all over.

    Comment by Mork

    Sadly, they expect this reaction. They want people to accept that we owe anyone earning less than $250,000 a year a subsidy for their insurance, and then they want us to note that this subsidy, if a tax rebate, isn’t real money.

    Then they say they will just send them a refundable tax rebate (just send them a check, instead of a tax cut).

    Comment by Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/25/2011 @ 10:27 pm

  15. i’m pretty sure that the most offensive line in the SOTU speech was where the lying bastard said “…and fellow Americans.” at the very beginning… had i some bizarre need to abuse myself by listening, that first blatant lie would have likely cost me a television.

    after all, Obanal sure as hell doesn’t act like an American, and, from all accounts, 5hithead can’t prove he is one either.

    on Ear Leader’s best day he’s not an infected pore on my fourth point of contact and my Persian cat is both smarter and has a better grasp of the basic realities of life than Jug Ears does.

    Comment by redc1c4 (fb8750) — 1/26/2011 @ 12:17 am

  16. It’s time the tree got watered.

    Comment by Tim (dba623) — 1/26/2011 @ 2:50 am

  17. #16 Tim:

    Forwarding to FBI and Secret Service. Thanks for confirming my original impression of this blog.

    Comment by Mork (3215ca) — 1/26/2011 @ 3:09 am

  18. Get ready to lose or have cut back the mortgage-interest deduction — particularly for “the wealthy.”

    Comment by Always On Watch (e4c58a) — 1/26/2011 @ 4:17 am

  19. Ryan, Bachmann and Paul all covered their target, but the TEAs were more comprehensive.

    DeMint’s tweet “you don’t put the car in cruise control when you’re headed for the cliff”.

    Despite media hype that Dear Leader is moving to the center he’s mailing it in and has lost his mojo.

    Luntz had a focus group from Atlanta where 7 of 13 Obots would vote for the flim flam again.

    Next twelve months will be ugly.

    Comment by gary gulrud (790d43) — 1/26/2011 @ 4:45 am

  20. Comment by redc1c4 — 1/26/2011 @ 12:17 am

    I like the word-smithery, Ear Leader, et al.

    Comment by gary gulrud (790d43) — 1/26/2011 @ 4:48 am

  21. 10. “A bump in the polls?”

    Oversampling Dimmis and inaccurate read of target population.

    Indies are a bimodal group, comparatively sparse thru the center.

    Even CNN had 42% willing to vote for Il Douche again, and 48% considering the first two years of Magic a failure.

    All high water marks in the voyage of the 2012 Titanic.

    Comment by gary gulrud (790d43) — 1/26/2011 @ 4:53 am

  22. Same thing that goes on in all the public talk nowadays. Words are twisted to insidious lengths either to sensationalize and elicit powerful emotional responses “seared” into the brains of the listeners, or to perpetrate fraud.
    Advertising easily discloses this insane, twisted methodology, that we as a society may soon relize was a mistake.
    Pick up your old attic newspapers and notice, stores advertised upon the basis of you going there to “spend, spend, spend!”
    The social psychologists and mind game elites and authorities (in all fields eventually) realized that although spending was “fun”, the alternate, a big fat lie – “saving” when actually spending would have a special effect – it would cause more spending, and anyone trying to stop the excessive shopping sprees as people claimed, thought, or argued they were actually “saving”, would not win.
    Widely adopted, truth advertising laws made a joke to accommodate the consumer frenzy, and many other factors no doubt, made “saving” the standard when one “spends money” on anything and everything.
    So, here we have the offending “legalized crime” spewed from the potus pulpit – pure fiction, yet the society as a whole is so swamped with the same at every level, it just makes Obama the run of the mill lying skumbag citizen, a normal talker.
    I have suspected for quite some time that the first company who adopts the old honest method begging customers to SPEND SPEND SPEND ! may experience quite a surge in sales.
    It would be a new concept to the entire populace – “spending money!” when they are – spending money.

    Comment by SiliconDoc (7ba52b) — 1/26/2011 @ 5:01 am

  23. … spending through tax breaks and loopholes.

    We need to go to Orwell’s grave and install magnets on his body, and coils around the casket.

    Then, tie the coils to the grid … for the spinning that must now be going on there, as a result of this phrase, will generate megawatts.

    Newspeak, indeed.

    Comment by Ritchie The Riveter (c38676) — 1/26/2011 @ 5:16 am

  24. Any limited liability entity is a creation of the state. That is, they do not exist in nature, and it could hardly be said that a limited liability entity possesses “fundamental rights,” with the exception of the right equal treatment as to other limited liability entities.
    Thus, if the government wishes to tax and intrude upon the transactions of such limited liability entity, the government appears free to do so.
    But what about the individual?
    If the power of states; the power of the federal government are all but collections of the delegation of the powers of individuals, what power does an individual have to investigate the finances of another individual to determine how much money they “made” in a particular year in order to asses how much they should pay?
    The income tax upon individuals is not just unconstitutional, i.e., the power to audit individuals is a power the federal (or state) government can not possess, it is morally wrong.
    The only form of income taxation that would be both morally correct and constitutional would be a tax on any entity that wishes to claim liability protection from the state.

    Comment by Anthony E. Parent (7fb58d) — 1/26/2011 @ 5:17 am

  25. Fixing the criminal’s lies:
    The partisan pro-government cya Czars decreed by Me, the King and Lord, lie as much as I do, with my blessing.
    I don’t know what to agree with, and don’t give a damn about any of their proposals, and we will make no progress on them, and only spend more. You can safely bet your lives on it, we certainly have been and will do so some more.
    And their conclusion is that the only way to keep increasing our deficit is to keep spending wherever, on whatever, with money we don’t have, whenever we want. As I said, we will continue to do so.

    Comment by SiliconDoc (7ba52b) — 1/26/2011 @ 5:18 am

  26. RE: his military cuts.

    Mr P being in California which has been the subject of a few predictions of catastrophic weather/earthquakes you may be interested to know that the National Guard Bureau has been told in the past two weeks that they have to return 460 million from the current budget. Maybe the ONE believes that Bob the Builder will show up with his trusty crew when the next big one hits.

    Comment by Al from Chgo (8fa053) — 1/26/2011 @ 5:25 am

  27. Tim

    mmm, lfg plant?

    well, nonetheless, we still have democracy in this country. we can overthrow the king by voting him out in 2012. that is the genius of our system. so if you are sincere, that should be your goal.

    Comment by Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 1/26/2011 @ 5:33 am

  28. Apply the pirates analagy for dead weight loss to the WOT. Muslims sneak in a shoe bomb- our leftist, statist government makes everyone take off shoes and go through multi-million $$ scanners. These deadweight losses add up to strategic victories for the Ummah, because only occasional reminders that they are still after us will allow our Orwellian government to convince the people that these economic and civil liberty losses will continue to be required.

    Comment by Smarty (b78ca5) — 1/26/2011 @ 5:54 am

  29. smarty

    a valid observation. and of course that didn’t help people in russia, who were waiting outside of security.

    Comment by Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 1/26/2011 @ 6:06 am

  30. Aaron,

    Well argued article. You say, “I think he is on the paranoid side, but its not like he has no reason to be.”

    Do you think that it would be paranoid for Beck to claim that Obama, one day, wants to shoot other democrats in the head, and therefore they will need to shoot him in the head? Would that be a little paranoid, or a whole lot paranoid?

    Now suppose that someone argued based on known Christian doctrine and the existence of the Inquisition, that the Republican speaker of the house, John Boenher, may think he is using Christians, but one day he will have to shoot them in the head, lest they shoot him in the head.

    Is that just a little paranoid?

    Going further. Suppose that they argued that John Boenher would have to shoot Jerry Falwell in the head.

    Isn’t it a defamation to posit that Jerry Falwell is the same as the worst actors of the Spanish inquisition? Especially considering the total lack of evidence for that charge, and the definition of defamation?

    How exactly is this different than claiming that Van Jones is no different than totalitarian Marxists like Stalin?

    Beck comes off a worse than paranoid if we are to believe that he actually believes this stuff since in his talk he has provided zero evidence that Van Jones in particular has Stalinist ambitions. Which makes Beck more dangerous than Jones.

    I, in fact, don’t believe him. I think he knows what he said about Van Jones to be false, otherwise he would have provided the evidence. Thus what he is doing is malicious slander.

    Comment by Brian Macker (271b0c) — 1/26/2011 @ 6:12 am

  31. Fitzhugh’s writings are not so easy to categorize as being Nazi-like, an unfortunate red herring when you are making the point that the agenda is socialist. Apparently, Fitzhugh also advocated slavery for both whites and blacks, on an economic basis, and the vote for women. He was an early socialist. Thanks to Patterico for bringing this out.

    Comment by osocrates (e0c593) — 1/26/2011 @ 6:12 am

  32. P.S. The Wiki link is helpful.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Fitzhugh#Works

    Comment by osocrates (e0c593) — 1/26/2011 @ 6:13 am

  33. “28. Apply the pirates analagy for dead weight loss to the WOT. Muslims sneak in a shoe bomb- our leftist, statist government makes everyone take off shoes and go through multi-million $$ scanners. These deadweight losses add up to strategic victories for the Ummah…”

    I was watching a townhall blog earlier, and the video is still there where the Russians boarded the Somali pirate ship, laid out it’s guns(on the video) kept the 20+ it looked crew under the gun (on the video), then, one it was nighttime it appeared, left the handcuffed to it pirate contingent on board and blew it up from a distance (also on video).

    Now, the poster, as is the usual, in our fear ridden PC society, was certain to, in bold, disclaim he advocated “we” do that.

    I find it interesting our response is as you noted, instead of what the Russians seem ot have figured out, at least in one instance.

    I imagine the shoe bomber and the rest of the captured islamic war machine has never had it better in their lives.

    Comment by SiliconDoc (7ba52b) — 1/26/2011 @ 6:24 am

  34. oscocrates

    well, my thought was more like it was mein kampf-like in the sense that it was a really evil book promoting a loss of freedom. but obviously it would be anachronistic claptrap to say fitzhugh was a nazi or even particularly close to their ideology.

    and i will fix your accidentally saying “wiki leak.” we all do that sometimes.

    Comment by Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 1/26/2011 @ 6:25 am

  35. Yes, that wiki proves Fitzhugh to be profoundly evil, one of those that Franklin cautioned about, when he said ‘a republic if you can keep it’

    Comment by narciso (6075d0) — 1/26/2011 @ 6:25 am

  36. silicon

    the russians are not people to f— with. and there is a certain appeal to the idea of doing that with piracy and terrorism.

    Comment by Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 1/26/2011 @ 6:29 am

  37. Not that it matter, but this is what Van Jones is about;

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_Together_to_Organize_a_Revolutionary_Movement

    The experience of Russia in the Caucasus, talk about a Forever War, makes one think that conflict
    will never end,

    Comment by narciso (6075d0) — 1/26/2011 @ 6:34 am

  38. Did the POTUS speak last nite? I was busy creating wealth and didn’t invest my most precious asset in his folly. He gets none of my attention save to dissent, as I do now.

    How many of you are creating wealth at this very moment? How many of you have abandoned, for the sake of your descendants, the concept of retirement? How many of you have invented ways to create wealth while you sleep? How many of you practice the ways of the black market economy right now in order to ensure that you do not starve during the coming engineered privation that these “czars” are responsible for unleashing on the unwitting?

    Do you accept the responsibility that, despite the fact that you didnt vote for this fraud, this is happening on our watch? Do you have a plan for responding to your descendants, when they ask you “What did you do to fight this?”?

    I say these things not to chide anybody or to assume you are doing nothing. I say these things because this fraud is consuming all of the intellectual air and continues to frame the debate by dumbing it down to the least common denominator.

    What if no one on our side said anything about anything he says or does? What would his poll numbers reflect if there was a “Zero Impact” for President Zero’s assault on our intelligence as a people?

    When the abused no longer concern themselves with the dance of their abusers, and go on the offensive, there is a dramatic change. Witness the American Revolution. The shot heard around the world wasn’t a thought about the King of England and his mighty army. The shot was about “let’s roll, bitches.”

    Why should we equate the collapse of the American government status quo as the collapse of our Republic. The Republic’s roots are strong. Witness the Tea Party. Witness Sarah Palin, Paul Ryan, Ron Paul…. love em or hate em, they are strong and there are millions of us who are just like them in one central resolve: Give me liberty or give me death. Life and death frame “civility” and civil society. Chris Matthews and the rest of the enemedia be damned. It is like GW Bush said: “You are either with us or against us.”

    Get sober. Stay sober. And love your families demonstrably with sacrifice. Do those three things and you will fight for your Country. Do those three things and you will no longer concern yourself with spending your time reacting to this imbecilic Know Nothing in the White House.

    We can’t sit around and wait for Thing One and Thing Two to show up and sweep away all that pink icing. We are the last great hope of the Republic—- as is each generation. Reagan told us. The Founding Fathers told us. Warts and all: they knew. Now, so must we.

    Dump Obama 2012.

    Comment by bear1909 (58b23e) — 1/26/2011 @ 6:35 am

  39. #30, Brian, is spin your only talent, or can you fry an egg?

    Would it have been paranoid for an earlier Beck-like critic to have said that one day Mussolini would want to other Fascists in the head and therefore, they will need to shoot him in the head? And what proof about Van Jones do you want that Van Jones, himself, has not already provided? Or do you consider calling yourself a Communist not proof that you are? And perhaps you would like to show where Beck has said that Jones had “Stalinist” ambitions?

    It really helps to watch someone’s show if you are going to pretent to know what they have said.

    I suggest you self educate. Growing up as a dumb troll is no way to live.

    Comment by retire05 (173aa6) — 1/26/2011 @ 6:38 am

  40. Thing is, as bad as Obama may be in some policies, I would rather have him around till 2007 than endure one SOTU filled with nauseating treacle from this woman:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZxjuFxqYQM&feature=youtube_gdata_player

    At least Barack’s voice doesn’t make me want to self-lobotomize with a knitting needle.

    Comment by Mork (3215ca) — 1/26/2011 @ 6:45 am

  41. It’s the government’s money.

    These are the assumptions of the communist mindset and they happen all the time.

    Comment by J (7821b1) — 1/26/2011 @ 6:48 am

  42. Actually self lobotomy is the only way to understand
    that speech

    Comment by orson (6075d0) — 1/26/2011 @ 6:48 am

  43. Macker #30, you obviously are trolling with chum. Beck did provide, in Van Jones own words, that he had communist dreams. I saw Beck’s shows. If it was just slander, Van Jones would have stood up and defended himself vociferously, and the WH would have backed him. Instead Van Jones resigned in the cover of night on a weekend so that the truth would not spread widely through a complacent media that does little work on the weekends.

    ***

    As for Mr. Worthings fine article, well-researched, and for which I believe he illuminates a fine rebuttal to confiscatory government, I have to say I think he misread the speech.

    The meaning I get out of it is that Obama was referring to **government spending** through tax breaks and loopholes, such as through subsidies or letting some entities off the hook for taxes (ironically, like the deals he has given Unions to opt-out of ObamaCare). That he worded it so poorly shows his ignorance and his lack of engagement, since I do not believe he really wants to chase after that train of abuses, embarrassing as it will be…but his speech writer needed one or two more “instances” in order to get the rhythm of his speech right.

    Just my $0.02.

    BTW, I’m for anybody *but* Obama in 2012. The guy is an anti-American loser who is in way over his head.

    Comment by J. Locke (832f7e) — 1/26/2011 @ 6:53 am

  44. Mork

    so hey, obama is driving the economy into a ditch, destroying our reputation around the world and bankrupting the country. but let’s keep him becuase i can’t stand how a potential opponent sounds?

    does that about sum it up?

    Comment by Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 1/26/2011 @ 6:56 am

  45. Aaron, the problem is that Obama, and his ilk, see the wealth of the U.S. as ALL belonging to the government. Any wealth earned is to benefit the government, and those causes the government deem worthy. And from the confiscation of the fruits of your labor, the government will equalize society, not into a system of whereby you can acheive wealth according to your own labor, but by equalizing what each person is allowed to possess.

    Even the term “equal opportunity” has been rigged as now some have been given greater “opportunity” than others, as is shown in the Affirmative Action quotas in universities and the lowering of qualifications for certain individuals in areas like the Denver Fire Department.

    Taxes are a necessary evil, but evil they are. And the power to tax granted in the U.S. Constitution was never designed to be used for the purpose of forced charity (taking from one to give to another) but to simply finance those things (such as a military and building postal roads) that were granted to the federal government.

    One thing I think you missed was Obama’s desire to invest in education. Tie that in with wanting to create jobs and what you have is a policy of creating more government and union jobs. Yet, the Department of Education has proven to be an abstract failure, as it has done NOTHING to improve the educational system in the U.S.

    Obama is in the group that thinks that the “Common Welfare” clause means that it should be provided, not just promoted. This is a movement that began with Woodrow Wilson, put on steroids by FDR and taken to extremes by LBJ. But none of that “providing” can be done without the confiscation of the wealth of others to be redistributed.

    People are surprised when I give them the tenets of Marxism; progressive income tax, the taking of all inherited wealth (now the government just wants 35%), the owning of all means of production (GE, Chrysler), etc.

    How did we get to such a point where Americans could not see that the very document that is the basis for our laws has been bastardized for over 100 years?

    Comment by retire05 (173aa6) — 1/26/2011 @ 7:02 am

  46. #17

    do you even know what that quote means ?

    the blood that will water the tree of liberty comes from those fighting for their freedom you dolt … not from those who want to cutail that freedom …

    ignorance is a sad excuse for stupidity …

    Comment by JeffC (488234) — 1/26/2011 @ 7:03 am

  47. JeffC

    actually we discussed that quote the other day. jefferson actually says it will be watered with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

    http://patterico.com/2011/01/25/scary-right-wing-hate-quote/

    i presume that is what tim is referring to. besides bluntly i think he is part of the LGFers coming over here and saying offensive things to prove that we are a hate site.

    Comment by Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 1/26/2011 @ 7:06 am

  48. Macker

    > Do you think that it would be paranoid for Beck to claim that Obama, one day, wants to shoot other democrats in the head, and therefore they will need to shoot him in the head?

    Beck, as we have been over before, was talking about the radical, violent left. It is not paranoid to take a person at their word.

    > Now suppose that someone

    We can all imagine the shoe on the other foot.

    As for your defense of van jones specifically, um the man is a communist and a truther. And truthers are themselves paranoid nutters who are instigating violence against the government. Would you care to show me once where he said something wrong about van jones?

    Van jones and his ilk do fantacize about overthrowing the government. The paranoid part is believing that obama and the like would like to see that happen.

    Comment by Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 1/26/2011 @ 7:10 am

  49. retire05

    People are surprised when I give them the tenets of Marxism; progressive income tax, the taking of all inherited wealth (now the government just wants 35%), the owning of all means of production (GE, Chrysler), etc.

    Hmmm

    Some People here are okay with progressive income taxes on certain industries

    Just a thought

    Comment by EricPWJohnson (13b18d) — 1/26/2011 @ 7:12 am

  50. Well wherever he comes from and whatever he means, “Tim” is now the concern of the Secret Service. No need to thank me – I’d do the same for anyone on any blog under any president.

    Comment by Mork (3215ca) — 1/26/2011 @ 7:14 am

  51. A major problem is the fact that “a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest”.*

    People didn’t like the way Health Care Deform** was passed, nor more and more spending without a budget, nor seeing the deficit get bigger, nor unemployment not improving. They did like the idea of not increasing taxes, which Obama utteredt agreement with.

    So much of the anger was spent on the elections in the fall, Obama’s voicing agreement with keeping taxes low won fans except for the hard left, and his voice staying relatively “civil” in the midst of the post Tuscon nonsense makes him appear, to those not paying close attention, to be the moderate “good guy” that they think they elected. Hence, the majority will judge the speech by how it sounds line by line, neglecting to even ask if the speech is internally consistent, let alone if it corresponds to actions and policies the rest of the 364 days and 22 hours of the year.

    *Attributed to P. Simon, nk, and Saul of Tarsus, aka Paul
    **Attributed to ???? Oh my, I forget who I stole this from! Was it SPQR? Was it JD? If you people would include pictures then I could remember who’s who.

    Comment by MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 1/26/2011 @ 7:16 am

  52. A great contrast to the President who says: America is great, we can do great things if we work together and a believe in American innovation.

    GOP and the tea party say: America is failing and it’s Obama’s fault, trust us, we can fix it but won’t tell you how.

    Bachmann’s lies don’t pass the fact check:
    http://politicalcorrection.org/factcheck/201101250021

    Comment by P Ryan (623bd6) — 1/26/2011 @ 7:29 am

  53. “P Ryan”

    your fact check article is a lying POS. basically its all “its bush’s fault.”

    No, the fact is that things are worse than obama’s worst case scenario, WITHOUT THE STIMULUS. he’s not helping, he is making it worse.

    Comment by Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 1/26/2011 @ 7:32 am

  54. Comment by Mork — 1/26/2011 @ 7:14 am

    We are a Nation of “Tims”, and the Stasi have to be more concerned with us than we of them.

    Comment by AD-RtR/OS! (d66a06) — 1/26/2011 @ 7:33 am

  55. #54:

    Here’s hoping “Tim” enjoys his contact with the government. And that Patterico or his stand-in reports the next “Tim” himself.

    Comment by Mork (3215ca) — 1/26/2011 @ 7:39 am

  56. The excerpt from Lincoln’s speech struck me in an off topic sort of way:
    If it were delivered today in an era of compulsory public education, not 1 in a hundred high school graduates would be able to follow it. If they were to read it, the comprehension would rise to 5 or 10 in a hundred. Yet he delivered that speech to the common people of the day and it influenced them in the way he hoped it would. Today, the press would shred it before it was out of his mouth and the people would ignore it.
    (all statistics are, of course sphincter-derived, but you get he point)

    Comment by quasimodo (4af144) — 1/26/2011 @ 7:41 am

  57. Sorry for the inconvenient facts. Why are you so hostile to facts?

    Comment by P Ryan (8222e7) — 1/26/2011 @ 7:44 am

  58. One important fact is that the “stimulus” did not affect the economy except for brief peaks which returned immediately to the baseline. The man, and apparently his advisors, do not understand economics.

    The trolls appear to be amateur trolls with little experience.

    Comment by Mike K (8f3f19) — 1/26/2011 @ 7:47 am

  59. How about the States Of The Union?

    TX up CA down.

    Comment by M. Simon (a498fa) — 1/26/2011 @ 7:49 am

  60. I believe there is a common thread that runs through the like of Fitzhugh and others who take positions that we generally identify with the left, or with totalitarians of any persuasion, and that is treating the individual human being as primarily a thing that consumes resources. Fitzhugh assumes that a larger family is a drain on resources. Well, I suppose that seems true if you have 4 children under the age of 6, but the typical farm family thrived in part due to the increased productivity of the family with each member contributing.

    I guess this points out a second assumption that “the left” makes, that resources and wealth are a fixed pie, from which more and more people take more and more of, and that “rich people” take more than their “fair share”, leaving poor people with less than their “fair share”.

    So, in the microcosm of the family, they see only a given amount of resources, and more people just dilute the resources and the ability of the family to “be productive”. The great irony is, a family is one structure of society that does function as communism, generally each family member is expected to contribute what they can, and each family member receives what they need, not because of imposed rules, but out of concern, love, and personal relationship.

    From a theological perspective, the “Leftist” notion of society arises logically only out of the desire/need to control the process of production and distribution. There is nothing that one would observe from the typical farm family that says the family will be more productive with fewer children, if watched long enough. The opposite view of the “conservative theist” is that one trusts God for providence, for daily bread. In trusting God one is allowed to be human, to act humanely to others. Those who do not are perhaps left to only trust what they can control, and in the short run limiting the distribution of one’s resources seems the “safe” thing to do. If a couple has no children, they do not need to share their resources, which looks good in the short run, but in the long run they are left being elderly and without the capacity to provide for themselves as they once did. For an individual couple, if they have accumulated wealth they can hire people to care for them, for a society, there are not enough people to hire, and economically all that is happening is the old are giving their savings over to the young, and if all of the old are being taken care of, there are not enough young to generate any other economic activity.

    Comment by MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 1/26/2011 @ 7:52 am

  61. At least Barack’s voice doesn’t make me want to self-lobotomize with a knitting needle.

    Comment by Mork — 1/26/2011 @ 6:45 am

    If she makes the cut will you be doing the deed on national TV? Or maybe YouTube?

    I do think exploding heads are more entertaining. But the knitting needle schtick is novel.

    Comment by M. Simon (a498fa) — 1/26/2011 @ 7:57 am

  62. After years of Compassionate Conservatives, now …
    Uncompassionate Progressives

    Behind closed doors, California Democratic Rep. Loretta Sanchez has proposed removing Arizona Rep. Gabrielle Giffords from the House Armed Services Committee (HASC) until she recovers from injuries sustained after being shot in the head on Jan. 8 in Tucson, The Daily Caller has learned.

    “From a woman who memorialized her cat, you’d think she’d show a little more compassion for a woman shot in the face,” said one GOP aide, referring to Sanchez’s 2010 Christmas card that paid tribute to her late cat, Gretzky.

    Comment by Neo (03e5c2) — 1/26/2011 @ 8:01 am

  63. There is a term of art for this, “tax expenditures”. Whenever I hear that term I get angry.

    Comment by ray_g (84ebcd) — 1/26/2011 @ 8:11 am

  64. P Ryan

    what facts? the economy is worse than obama himself predicted it would be.

    we have massive new debt and sh-t to show for it. the best they can do is pretend it would have been even worse if we did nothing. which is bull____.

    Comment by Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 1/26/2011 @ 8:20 am

  65. 55 #54: blah blah blah blah

    Mork, “the government” will ignore you, and for good reason.

    You also just failed, as 54 endorsed 16. I suppose you failed to report in that instance since 54 included YOU claiming we are all a nation of “Tims”.

    Mork, you’re a tiny, bad joke.

    Comment by SiliconDoc (7ba52b) — 1/26/2011 @ 8:31 am

  66. #16 Tim:
    Forwarding to FBI and Secret Service. Thanks for confirming my original impression of this blog.

    #54:
    Here’s hoping “Tim” enjoys his contact with the government. And that Patterico or his stand-in reports the next “Tim” himself.
    At least Barack’s voice doesn’t make me want to self-lobotomize with a knitting needle.

    Comments by Mork — 1/26/2011

    We have identified a new species:
    ignavus territus troglodyta

    Comment by quasimodo (4af144) — 1/26/2011 @ 8:35 am

  67. It amazes me that some people are so stupid they believe the material that Soros funded Media Matterz @52 puts out actually represents “facts.”

    Comment by daleyrocks (e7bc4f) — 1/26/2011 @ 8:37 am

  68. “62…removing Arizona Rep. Gabrielle Giffords from the House Armed Services Committee (HASC) until she recovers from injuries sustained …”

    I note once again, it doesn’t matter to your type, if aperson can actually do their job, or any job, we are supposed to pay them and hold all positions while they “can’t”, and maybe “never will”.

    So, welfare for the congressperson, and a 100% pass on their job duties.
    Should I be surprised you didn’t recommend a 6 figure subsidy as well ?

    Comment by SiliconDoc (7ba52b) — 1/26/2011 @ 8:38 am

  69. Time to re-evaluate the revenue neutral “FairTax“. It does away with:

    - personal income taxes
    - corporate income taxes
    - payroll taxes paid by employees
    - payroll taxes paid by employers
    - taxes on investment income
    - estate taxes

    Puts a flat 23% consumption tax on the purchase by every person, company and government of all new items and services. There are no exemptions (bye, bye lobbyists and earmarks!) A monthly “prebate” equal to the taxes paid on consumption up to the poverty level is paid to each citizen.

    Illegal immigrants would pay taxes on everything they buy since prebates are limited to citizens. $400B in taxpayer compliance costs go away since income will no longer be tax. 70% of all sales in the nation are made by fewer than 8,000 companies so monitoring compliance will be less costly for the IRS. Spending shows far less variation through business cycles than does income, so it is a more stable, predicable source of taxes. Trillions of dollars parked off shore to avoid paying US taxes would be repatriated immediately and available for true investment by private entities. Removal of corporate taxes would make US goods much more competitive internationally even with the higher domestic wages paid here.

    Check it out: http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer

    The time to think and act boldly is here.

    Comment by in_awe (44fed5) — 1/26/2011 @ 8:40 am

  70. Mork

    > Thanks for confirming my original impression of this blog.

    Lol, so one guy posts something out of school, possibly for the purpose of discrediting this blog, and that proves something about this blog.

    yeesh, its like you never heard of a troll before.

    Comment by Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 1/26/2011 @ 8:41 am

  71. You need an anagram of the word “troll.”

    Wait. I tried it with an anagram generator, Aaron.

    “Too many trolls” gives many possibilities. Here are a few of my favorites:

    Totally Morons
    Matronly Stool

    and for your attorneys:

    Slam Loony Tort

    Comment by Simon Jester (c8876d) — 1/26/2011 @ 8:49 am

  72. LOL, Simon

    Comment by Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/26/2011 @ 8:56 am

  73. #71 Aaron

    Years of posting at CJ’s place does that. The ban hammer falls fast there. Mork is so transparently LGFish it’s comical.

    Comment by GrandJunctionite (7542c1) — 1/26/2011 @ 8:59 am

  74. Mike K. “The man, and apparently his advisors, do not understand economics”

    He be Helicopter Ben as well. Ryan’s $3.1 Trillion is just new spending by Congress. Note that the Fed is buying up Treasuries sold in recent weeks to Primary Dealers paying them commissions while the US gains redundant indemity.

    Fed’s current income of $70 Billion is paid back to Treasury but as prime edges toward 5.4% all those mortgage-backed securities and TBills-$2.5 Trillion to reach $3.5 Trillion in a year-are underwater.

    Right now the CPI is depressed because HOMEPRICES are included, new in the last decade to measure price of investment for plebes.

    If, and a very big if, the economy ever comes back, a NAIRU of 8.4% unemployment will be crossed and inflation return like a house afire.

    We are in the very best of hands.

    Comment by gary gulrud (790d43) — 1/26/2011 @ 9:01 am

  75. #

    #16 Tim:

    Forwarding to FBI and Secret Service. Thanks for confirming my original impression of this blog.

    Comment by Mork — 1/26/2011 @ 3:09 am

    Why would your original impression of this blog be that we’re trying to kill people? That’s absolutely ridiculous. And what kind of person takes an anonymous comment as confirmation?

    Yeah, indeed, some of the commenters here are mobies. So? That’s the price you pay for having freedom of speech, unlike the LGF style of comment thread, where the master silences any strong critics.

    Why can’t you just react to bad speech with more speech? Why judge the whole community by it?

    There’s little doubt that guy was a Kilgore Trout clone, dropping something crazy in hopes that he can use it to prove how horrible we are to his pals at LGF.

    Some of your comments seem a lot more reasonable than this.

    Comment by Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/26/2011 @ 9:02 am

  76. “40.Thing is, as bad as Obama may be in some policies, I would rather have him around till 2007 than endure one SOTU filled with nauseating treacle from this woman.”

    ???This is supposed to make sense???

    Guess if one understands Wasserman-Schultz understanding a former IRS Tax Lawyer, mother of five, foster mother to 17, Palinista and VP shortlister might be a stretch.

    Life is a bitch for parasites when the host dies.

    Comment by gary gulrud (790d43) — 1/26/2011 @ 9:15 am

  77. http://www.fivefeetoffury.com/2011/01/uk-paper-declares-sarah-palin-month/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+FiveFeetOfFury+%28five+feet+of+fury%29

    Comment by orson (6075d0) — 1/26/2011 @ 9:18 am

  78. Well, gary, it makes sense is a way. As you say, the parasites know what’s coming their way. They can either see it happen now, and the nation recover, or squeeze just a little bit more, and see financial collapse and default, costing everyone tremendously as the dollar weakens.

    Those who say they want to squeeze a little more out find a conservative explaining the truth to sound like fingernails on a chalkboard. All over the internet I see comparisons between Ryan and Obama. “Ryan speaks of calamity and Obama speaks of hope!!!”

    They don’t want America treated like a grown up, told to spend less than they earn, told the problems we have to face. They just want trains and ice cream.

    Comment by Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/26/2011 @ 9:21 am

  79. Quote Obama “… the only way to tackle our deficit is to cut excessive spending wherever we find it – in domestic spending, defense spending, health care spending, and spending through tax breaks and loopholes.” and this statement ” A government that fails to recognize that this is your money it is taking, is intolerable.”

    This Government, quoting the ruler, has crossed the line into tyranny. The minority of people footing the federal bill are have indeed descended into slavery. Enough.

    Comment by Kryppic (2d3d63) — 1/26/2011 @ 9:23 am

  80. 77. “They don’t want America treated like a grown up, … They just want trains and ice cream.”

    Indeed. Case in point: All over academia there is a fear and gnashing of teeth at defined benefit morphing to defined contribution.

    Well, if one teaches, publishes, mentors, brings in grants you will survive, and in a few years be back to looking at a better future than tomorrow’s.

    If your contribution is some execrable online courses, faculty politics and department resource cornering, you will be downsized.

    Quit complaining about the administrations, what gos around comes around.

    In a couple years time the students might even be polite again.

    Comment by gary gulrud (790d43) — 1/26/2011 @ 9:45 am

  81. “Life is a bitch for parasites when the host dies.”

    The New Era of Civility requires that we not use words like “parasite”.

    But since the word is entirely appropriate, I’ll keep on using it.

    Socialism is to society as a plague of locusts is to a farm.

    Comment by pst314 (672ba2) — 1/26/2011 @ 10:11 am

  82. mork at 50 – You must have been really busy during the Bush years reporting blog comments and posts threatening his safety. Why don’t you request official reports on , at a minimum, twenty such reports you made before January 2009. Until I see those reports I will feel free to ignore anything you say.

    (Just kidding. I’m going to ignore you anyway.)

    Comment by Have Blue (854a6e) — 1/26/2011 @ 10:12 am

  83. btw, another cretinous lie, bites the dust:

    http://pajamasmedia.com/tatler/2011/01/26/another-palin-smear-and-run/

    Comment by orson (6075d0) — 1/26/2011 @ 10:25 am

  84. I think Paul Ryan would be able to handle Obama quite well in a debate.

    True. Rep. Ryan needs no teleprompter to be forcefully articulate. The President is very unlikely to debate him in any other than a contrived situation loaded heavily against Ryan.

    Comment by Insufficiently Sensitive (b6274d) — 1/26/2011 @ 10:25 am

  85. Rep. Ryan has already done that IS. Ryan schooled Obumbles last year at the public bipartisan meeting on the economy.

    Comment by Have Blue (854a6e) — 1/26/2011 @ 10:35 am

  86. No one’s being serious about this reform and cuts until three things happen:

    Social Security is privatized like a 401K with little or no taxes involved

    The Income tax is replaced by a 5% VAT Tax

    Medicare and Medicaid is replaced by private industry and a federal hospital/state system like we had until the 70′s

    Comment by EricPWJohnson (13b18d) — 1/26/2011 @ 10:39 am

  87. Ryan communicated a bit too much optimism even if the Weetards think him a Roubini.

    http://www.zerohedge.com/article/what-does-uk-stagflation-mean-us-and-western-economies

    We experience stagflation toward the end of Nixon’s tenure. There the oil shock was a big factor.

    Declining output(which lives on energy) with rising inflation.

    Note England has just 3.7% inflation, -0.5% growth. Our inflation, takeaway the house price collapse, was about 2% last quarter.

    Official Chinese inflation is about 6% but local reports are food is up 60%. Chinese foreign income is down 25% year-on-year(yeah 2009 was the good ole days). Asia is expected to see 10% inflation generally in 2011.

    Think we’ll escape the consequences? Stock market will see about $200 Billion in returned liquidity to banks from Treasury this year, let alone QE2.

    Guaranteed to give some a flush feeling even as commodities spike. Start your seeds in February so you eat this fall.

    Comment by gary gulrud (790d43) — 1/26/2011 @ 10:40 am

  88. #49, some people are OK with progressive taxation, period. Soak the rich so that government can salve the poor. End of story. Anyone who supports a higher tax percentage based on income they are not limiting it to just corporations. And anyone who thinks that corporations actually pay taxes, and do not pass those costs on to the consumer, well, they are simply an idiot.

    I am a flat tax supporter; an equal percentage for EVERYBODY and an end to the Earned Income Tax credit that makes April 15th payday for many.

    Comment by retire05 (173aa6) — 1/26/2011 @ 10:40 am

  89. Me to Retire05 me to

    Comment by EricPWJohnson (13b18d) — 1/26/2011 @ 10:42 am

  90. 86. “Social Security is privatized like a 401K with little or no taxes involved.”

    Not to pick on anyone, Ryan or EPW, but manufacturing has left the building an will take a decade to restart.

    Individual Mutual Fund investment in equities were down upwards of $100 Billion last year. People like me taking early distributions to avoid short sales on their home?

    No, demographics. Like Ryan pointed out, retirees to double overnight. Long term bear market once the free money evaporates. 401K?
    Stock market has been flat, relative to USD for a decade.

    A lot of the upward pressure has been foreign purchase, funded by the Feds repurchase of $1.7 Trillion in toxic debt sold to foreign banks.

    Yes, the Fed is the main reason for a falsely positive market and an overheated Asia, and Europe avoiding total collapse for 6 months and counting.

    Comment by gary gulrud (790d43) — 1/26/2011 @ 10:56 am

  91. Sorry Dustin, I don’t find Mork reasonable at all on this thread. Finding someone worthy of report to authorities because of a take off of a famous quote makes one as reasonable as the Stasi.

    Comment by Nick Shaw (71b010) — 1/26/2011 @ 11:22 am

  92. retire05,

    Hutterites, Amish, peaceful Marxists are all communists. That doesn’t mean they go around shooting people in the head. I suggest you educate yourself.

    What actions has Van Jones taken that remotely resemble the activities Mussolini took to gain power? You are being silly, or ignorant of history. Where’s Van Jones “March on Rome”?

    Comment by Brian Macker (271b0c) — 1/26/2011 @ 4:06 pm

  93. Aaron,

    “Would you care to show me once where he said something wrong about Van Jones?”

    When he made the claim that he would shoot Nancy Pelosi in the head. Being a truther or being a communist is not predictive of such behavior. I know of no truthers that have shot any politician in the head, and even if there was we have to exclude the potential that the person was just nuts, or that they were operating outside whatever ideology truthers share. Same goes for communists.

    Were did you guys get the crazy idea that every communist is a “shoot them in the head” violent revolutionary?

    I can make arguments against communism that actually make sense, but I’d never argue that “We need to shoot them in the head before they shoot us in the head”.

    For one thing communism is in actually a ideology that incites to crime, the crime of theft. I don’t think they even have the right to make such incitements. However, I don’t think the punishment should be the death penalty for summary execution with a bullet to the head.

    Comment by Brian Macker (271b0c) — 1/26/2011 @ 4:16 pm

  94. Macker

    > When he made the claim that he would shoot Nancy Pelosi in the head.

    And when did he say that?

    > Being a truther or being a communist is not predictive of such behavior.

    Sure communists are cuddly and not at all violent. don’t believe me? ask the NY Times.

    > I know of no truthers that have shot any politician in the head,

    Ironically the example you allude to, Jared Loughner, does involve a truther.

    > Where did you guys get the crazy idea that every communist is a “shoot them in the head” violent revolutionary?

    Um, Mao, Stalin, Lenin…

    > For one thing communism is in actually a ideology that incites to crime, the crime of theft.

    And if you resist, they shoot you in the head.

    > However, I don’t think the punishment should be the death penalty for summary execution with a bullet to the head.

    He wasn’t advocating that.

    Comment by Aaron Worthing (73a7ea) — 1/26/2011 @ 4:23 pm

  95. Sorry Dustin, I don’t find Mork reasonable at all on this thread. Finding someone worthy of report to authorities because of a take off of a famous quote makes one as reasonable as the Stasi.

    Comment by Nick Shaw

    You’re right. I think that kind of comment is hyperbole, or simply a general historical reference, rather than the kind of threat people should be worried about.

    If Mork wants to be upset about it, that’s fine, but the FBI isn’t going to care about that.

    I will add: it’s not time for violence so long as we have elections. If the people are voting for the status quo, education is the only remedy.

    Comment by Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/26/2011 @ 4:30 pm

  96. When he made the claim that he would shoot Nancy Pelosi in the head.

    Macker, I take it you intend to repeat this lie so many times that some people are fooled by it.

    Beck was warning against violence, and saying we shouldn’t put radicals like Piven in power because they will never be satisfied, and there is a real potential for more violence.

    Saying he was advocating shooting Pelosi is so far from the truth that it’s clear you are simply a liar. I know you’ve had this explained to you many times, so you have had plenty of opportunity to actually verify what Beck said. No one who did thinks what you said.

    Comment by Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/26/2011 @ 4:33 pm

  97. J. Locke #43:

    “Beck did provide, in Van Jones own words, that he had communist dreams. I saw Beck’s shows. If it was just slander, Van Jones would have stood up and defended himself vociferously, and the WH would have backed him. Instead Van Jones resigned in the cover of night on a weekend so that the truth would not spread widely through a complacent media that does little work on the weekends.”

    Calling him a communist isn’t slander. Claiming that Obama would have to shoot him in the head was. In fact, turns out that all it took was a request that he resign and he was out of there. Which proves Beck wrong.

    BTW, here in the US it’s perfectly legal to defame/slander/libel public figures. So I very much doubt anyone is going to sue Beck over the “shoot them in the head” comments.

    Comment by Brian Macker (271b0c) — 1/26/2011 @ 4:35 pm

  98. Brian

    you haven’t established that he specifically said that about jones. my understanding is he was not that specific about what radicals were that dangerous.

    Comment by Aaron Worthing (73a7ea) — 1/26/2011 @ 4:41 pm

  99. “And when did he say that?”
    He listed Jones as an example of the people that would have to be shot in the head lest they shoot Nancy in the head.

    On the other thread I asked for a specific example of someone that Beck thought Pelosi was in bed with that required the claim that she would have to shoot someone in the head. Van Jones was given as one of those people named by Beck. I read the transcript and yes, Jones was named as one of those people that would have to be shot by Nancy lest she be shot in the head.

    I can’t believe you guys are defending this crazy rant, BTW. You make claims like these you need to have specific people in mind. Who exactly is Nancy working with that she will have to shoot or be shot? Certainly not Van Jones.

    Comment by Brian Macker (271b0c) — 1/26/2011 @ 4:42 pm

  100. also, technically it is never legal to defame a public figure. but the burden of proof in such a suit is harder.

    its a little known fact that slander by a public figure is on the same legal standard.

    Comment by Aaron Worthing (73a7ea) — 1/26/2011 @ 4:43 pm

  101. Macker, it is easy to defend Beck’s “rant” against misrepresentations like yours.

    Comment by SPQR (26be8b) — 1/26/2011 @ 4:50 pm

  102. Aarron,

    On the other thread I established why I wanted specifics. If he can’t establish who Nancy is working with that Nancy will have to shoot in the head then it’s baloney.

    Just because a abortion clinic bomber votes for George Bush doesn’t mean that he’s somehow colluding with them, or will have to personally bomb them back.

    Ever hear of Christian Reconstructionism. They advocate stoning in ridiculous situations, and outrageous ones as well. For example stoning gays. One could make an argument just as valid as Becks regarding them and the Republican leadership as he has made about communists to come up with the statement “Some day McCain will have to stone a Christian reconstructionist before he gets stoned by them.”

    Comment by Brian Macker (271b0c) — 1/26/2011 @ 4:53 pm

  103. Brian

    > On the other thread I established why I wanted specifics.

    Fair enough, but then you can’t really say he defamed van jones since you don’t seem to know who he is specifically talking about.

    As for Christian reconstructionism, you alleged that they want stoning as a punishment. but are we talking by changing the law or by vigilantism? its a vital distinction.

    Comment by Aaron Worthing (73a7ea) — 1/26/2011 @ 5:05 pm

  104. “What actions has Van Jones taken that remotely resemble the activities Mussolini took to gain power?”

    Macker – Why does Jones have to actually take actions like Mussolini’s for people to be concerned over his beliefs and his placement high up in the Obama Administration. Isn’t an examination of his public statements enough, and statements subsequent to leaving the Administration, to convince you that he is political nutjob?

    You keep throwing out these rules and standards as if they were set in stone. They aren’t. When Rep. Waters accidentally drops her mask and says she wants to socialize the oil industry in a congressional hearing that causes me great concern. It does not matter to me whether she have done it yet. I know what she wants to do. It works the same way with people like Van Jones.

    Your grade school rules are stupid.

    Comment by daleyrocks (e7bc4f) — 1/26/2011 @ 5:08 pm

  105. “Fair enough, but then you can’t really say he defamed van jones since you don’t seem to know who he is specifically talking about.”

    Correct, my original argument that he was defaming Nancy Pelosi, but it morphed into defaming Van Jones, because someone named him as one of those Nancy was going to have to have a shoot out with.

    He’s defaming one or the other when he says Nancy will have to shoot or be shot while listing him as one of the reasons why. In fact he did more than list him. He went on this rant about “revolutionaries” after running a clip of Van Jones, and calling him a revolutionary. It’s quite clear he’s the whole point of the rant.

    Actually he’s defaming both of them.

    I don’t find the vigilantism vs. legal differential all that compelling. Slavery was legal, as was killing anti-revolutionaries in communist dictatorships. In either case it may come down to McCain having to defend his daughter against a gang with rocks. I can think of no other way to describe a mob stoning their victim whether sanctioned by the law or not.

    Comment by Brian Macker (271b0c) — 1/26/2011 @ 5:19 pm

  106. Daleyrocks,

    I was concerned about Van Jones being in a position of power, but not because I was afraid he would shoot Nancy Pelosi.

    I’m also concerned about you, someone who cares not for standards of any kind apparently. My standards and rules are about things it is quite clear you don’t understand.

    I’ve got no problem with Beck saying that someone should kick Pelosi in the ass with a steel toe boot. That’s an expression of anger. He’s doing something different. I’d especially like that if Pelosi had claimed Beck had better watch out for people with steel toe boots, like Obama said about Republicans and people with pitchforks.

    Comment by Brian Macker (271b0c) — 1/26/2011 @ 5:27 pm

  107. “I can think of no other way…….”

    Brian – Your ability to think and imagination appear severely limited. You are concerned about the possibility of a conservative Christian Theocracy assuming power in this country and stoning people willy-nilly for no apparent reason even though there has been no indication such events are remotely likely to happen. On the other hand you dispute the presence of professed communists in the Obama Administration who have publicly expressed a desire for violent demonstrations and have seen violence occur where communism has taken over as a form of government in other countries.

    I see something one-sided in your thinking.

    Comment by daleyrocks (e7bc4f) — 1/26/2011 @ 5:30 pm

  108. Brian – How many members of the Democratic Socialists of America are sitting in Congress today?

    Comment by daleyrocks (e7bc4f) — 1/26/2011 @ 5:32 pm

  109. Here’s a link to Becks rant in case anyone wants to easily check again. Search down to where Beck says, “This is an ominous statement coming from a revolutionary.” and then goes on to tell Nancy Pelosi, “You’re going to have to shoot them in the head.”

    If Nancys is in bed with people so dangerous that she’s going to have to shoot them then what does that say about what Republicans should be doing? Shouldn’t Republicans be out shooting them?

    Comment by Brian Macker (271b0c) — 1/26/2011 @ 5:36 pm

  110. Mr. Macker-

    The fiancee of Mr. Ayers was killed when her bomb making abilities proved inadequate. He later married someone involved in other acts of domestic terror. His comrads in arms blew up a building and killed a researcher at the Univ. of Wisconsin.

    I have yet to see where any Christians, be they “reconstructionists” or not, blow up any university buildings or state that 20 million or more Americans will need to die in the revolution.

    Now, if Mr. Jones is nothing like what Mr. Beck said, why did he resign, and why did Obama accept his resignation? Surely the President of the United States, especially one favored by the media such as President Obama, would not retreat in fear because of lies by the likes of Glenn Beck?

    Hutterites, Amish, and other such faith communities are not communists. Communism is primarily an economic system, one that has had to be established by force whereever it has been tried. The Amish and others are religious communities whose economic system is secondary to their religious beliefs. Last I heard, the Amish or Hutterites had not been known to take geopolitical areas by force and mandate they practice the same economic system. When you can give me an example of Amish so acting I’ll give you the time of day.

    Comment by MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 1/26/2011 @ 5:37 pm

  111. macker

    which fails to show that he specified that jones would have to be shot in the head. so you have spend how many comments alleging something that was not true.

    and van jones is a revolutionary. he probably loves the term. again, you should like charles johnson, complaining that we are defaming him with accurate and in-context quotations.

    Comment by Aaron Worthing (73a7ea) — 1/26/2011 @ 5:41 pm

  112. “You are concerned about the possibility …”
    Don’t tell me what I’m concerned about. Frankly you are too dense to understand what I was doing in that comment where I mentioned the Christian Reconstructionists. Hint: I was NOT an example of a valid concern about Republicans.

    I’m not going to respond again till re-read my comment and admit that that I did not express any personal concern that “about the possibility of a conservative Christian Theocracy assuming power in this country and stoning people willy-nilly for no apparent reason …”

    Comment by Brian Macker (271b0c) — 1/26/2011 @ 5:41 pm

  113. Don’t worry, Brian – if the communists take over you’ll be the first one they shoot in the head. Stalin always referred to his numerous apologists and moral relativists in the media as “useful idiots.” Sadly, those useful idiots are the first ones they deem expendable – but good luck anyway with your fellow travelers.

    Comment by Dmac (498ece) — 1/26/2011 @ 5:44 pm

  114. Yes, MD, there are different brands of communists. Hutterites are communists and live in voluntary communes. So being a communist isn’t a problem if you are a voluntarist about it. Being a communists who advocates forcing people to live in communes is a different story. Not all Marxists believe that. Some believe quite foolishly that Capitalism will dissolve on it’s own accord. Others believe that force is required to make it happen.

    Comment by Brian Macker (271b0c) — 1/26/2011 @ 5:46 pm

  115. Since Brian’s fond of using irrelevant and non – existent statements to back up his “facts,” let’s ask him if he thought that the Rosenbergs were indeed innocent. Should be an interesting answer.

    Amish, peaceful Marxists are all communists.

    That you actually think the Amish are communists speaks poorly on your claimed well of knowledge.

    Comment by Dmac (498ece) — 1/26/2011 @ 5:46 pm

  116. For example, many Amish communities in Pennsylvania (and nearby where I live across the Indiana border) contain numerous millionnaires, based on wise investment decisions and playing the market. Also, many of those same communites are self – insured, which is quite a bit cheaper for them in lieu of more traditional means. Doesn’t sound anything like communists, does it?

    Comment by Dmac (498ece) — 1/26/2011 @ 5:48 pm

  117. Aaron,

    He did it indirectly. Didn’t say it outright. He classified Jones as a revolutionary. Then said that Pelosi would have to shoot the revolutionaries. All in a rant about a video he has just got done showing of Jones. He works like that liar Michael Moore and lets you make the deductions without explicitly stating them.

    Comment by Brian Macker (271b0c) — 1/26/2011 @ 5:49 pm

  118. Dmac,

    I’m not a moral relativist or an apologist. In fact I’m quite the anti-Marxist. I just like to be accurate about what I have against the ideology. I’m not against Marxism because I think Van Jones is going to kill Nancy Pelosi, or vice versa.

    Comment by Brian Macker (271b0c) — 1/26/2011 @ 5:51 pm

  119. Dmac,

    There are degrees of communism with the Hutterites being much more extreme in that regard. The Amish have certain communist precepts and the fact that some have lots of money is hardly an argument they don’t have communist or socialist beliefs. Plenty of communists of the kind you hate were millionaires also.

    Comment by Brian Macker (271b0c) — 1/26/2011 @ 5:56 pm

  120. macker

    you’re reaching. it could be that he is head revolutionary and not going to dirty his hands with an actual gun.

    Comment by Aaron Worthing (73a7ea) — 1/26/2011 @ 5:56 pm

  121. I don’t really care how you wish to classify the Amish since the Hutterites are sufficient for my purposes.

    Comment by Brian Macker (271b0c) — 1/26/2011 @ 5:59 pm

  122. # 117 He did it indirectly. Didn’t say it outright. He classified Jones as a revolutionary. Then said that Pelosi would have to shoot the revolutionaries.
    Comment by Brian Macke

    It took all of this time to get to a reasonable approximation of what Beck actually said?

    Now that we have the first point clarified, you may eagerly say that Beck is overreacting, paranoid, and that not all leftists are violent, anyway, and how do we know that Van Jones is a violent Marxist.

    And we’ll say, “You’re entitled to your opinion. The history of the world shows that when people are serious about revolution, it usually gets bloody. And if people want to talk about revolution, especially those with ties to folks who have done acts of domestic terrorism, we’ll show them enough respect to take them at their word.”

    And you can say, “Crazy paranoid right wing nuts”

    And we’ll say, “Good night”.

    Comment by MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 1/26/2011 @ 6:28 pm

  123. “Don’t tell me what I’m concerned about.”

    Macker – Sure, for some reason you are fond of bringing up religion out of the blue on comment threads. A puzzlement it is.

    Comment by daleyrocks (e7bc4f) — 1/26/2011 @ 8:36 pm

  124. It’s the Brian Mackers of the internet world that piss me off. Too stupid to live, I say.

    Comment by RickZ (882387) — 1/26/2011 @ 9:42 pm

  125. This is twice this week the government has treated me
    like its servant.

    Comment by Nick Dorazio (3f552e) — 1/27/2011 @ 6:43 am

  126. While in general I accept that point that not taking is not the same as giving – there are ways exemption from taxation can function as a gift or expenditure.

    The most egregious example I can think of quickly was the exemption of “gasohol” from the Federal excise tax on motor fuel. The exemption was given to all motor fuel that was 10% ethanol, and was effectively a subsidy of about $0.45 per gallon.

    (The exemption has now been replaced by a “tax credit” of exactly $0.45/gallon.)

    It generated billions of dollars in revenues for ethanol producers. If that money didn’t ultimately come from taxpayers, where did it come from?

    Comment by Rich Rostrom (95afb3) — 1/27/2011 @ 3:12 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.5121 secs.