Patterico's Pontifications

6/24/2013

Serious Question: Which Frightens You More, Terrorists or the Government?

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:38 am



I was listening to one of my favorite voices on the economy, Peter Schiff, when he made a comment about the latest revelations by Edward Snowden, whom he considers a hero. Schiff said that he is more scared of the government’s powers than he is of anything the terrorists might do to him.

It got me thinking: a big part of the way people view the actions of a guy like Snowden has to do with this fundamental question: which concerns you more? The government’s far-reaching surveillance abilities combined with its power to investigate, harass, incarcerate, and perhaps even kill (at least by seeking the death penalty) its citizens? Or the terrorists, who may not always be in the forefront of our minds, but whose top aim is to kill us all, and would be thrilled to do so with a nuclear weapon if they could?

In short, which frightens you more: the government, or the terrorists?

Stop now and answer the poll. We’ll pick up the discussion below the fold.

Which frightens/concerns you more: government or terrorism?
  
pollcode.com free polls 

Answer it before you click the “more” button. I don’t want to prejudice you. I’d like it if everybody who reads this post would answer the poll question.

This poll question, of course, takes us back to Arnold Kling’s theory about the three languages of politics. As I summarized Kling’s admittedly simplistic hypothesis:

  • Progressives look at issues along an axis of oppressed vs. oppressors
  • Conservatives look at issues along an axis of civilization vs. barbarism
  • Libertarians look at issues along an axis of freedom vs. (government) coercion

This question focuses primarily on the conservative and libertarian axes. Kling’s Kindle short on this topic begins with a short series of questions designed to determine the reader’s axis. My answers, unsurprisingly, have me very slightly more conservative than libertarian. I am often torn between the two, which is why I find the Snowden affair so difficult to grapple with conceptually. There is no simple and obvious right answer, in my view, to whether he should have done what he did (although I tend to think he should not have, at least in the manner in which he did it).

On one hand, I am very concerned by some of the powers that the government has appeared to arrogate for itself, and by the huge potential for abuse implicit in the existence of these powers. In particular, I am disgusted by the blatant lies that have been told under oath by folks like James Clapper and Eric Holder, the very people with whom we are supposed to entrust these great and largely unknown powers. Snowden’s revelations have shown Clapper’s lies for what they are, and honestly, I am grateful for that.

On the other hand, I recognize the need for secrecy, especially in fighting terrorism, and I reject the sneering attitude of a Glenn Greenwald towards terrorism. Historically, Greenwald sees the threat of terrorism as nothing more than a tool for government to erode our powers, and he typically puts the words terrorism or threat in scare quotes, to signify his disdain for the concept that any real such threat exists. I can’t agree with that dismissive attitude towards a very real threat.

And call me naive, but I think most people in government — I said most! — are people of good will trying their best to do their job. But the ones who aren’t? Look out!

If I had taken that poll question a few years ago, I would have unhesitatingly picked “terrorists” as the group that concerned me more. I still gave that answer today — but in recent years, I have become more concerned about the power of government than I was before.

Some of this has to do with the Obama administration — not just the people in charge, but the fact that, as a (very minor) pundit, it is more likely that I will be targeted by a hostile administration than a non-hostile one, especially if I were to happen to break a big and damaging story. Keep in mind: I have been SWATted, and the folks I suspect of involvement may have ties to people in the State Department or other areas of government.

But some of it has to do simply with an ever-increasing realization that government power is pervasive, that a system of rules has been set up that could arguably be violated by any citizen at any time, and that people with an agenda are sometimes given jaw-dropping rein over other people’s lives.

The current scandals, in my view, have less to do with Obama and his administration than with a general concern that we should all have over the size and power of government. When we create a gigantic government that reaches into all aspects of our lives, we should not be surprised when government actors abuse their powers.

That said, nuclear weapons can kill hundreds of thousands in the blink of an eye. And that is the terrorists’ ultimate goal. They are quite serious about it, and they have not gone away.

I think the terrorists want to do worse things to me than the government does. But I think the government is more likely to interact with me in a coercive way.

Whatever your perspective, it’s an interesting question, I think — and I look forward to the discussion in the comments.

Now answer the poll if you didn’t already.

257 Responses to “Serious Question: Which Frightens You More, Terrorists or the Government?”

  1. My prediction:

    “Both” wins.

    Followed by “government.”

    Followed by “terrorists.”

    We’ll see how well I know this crowd.

    Patterico (9c670f)

  2. “I am worried that America’s Girl Scouts are now selling cookies to fund pension plans instead of camping,” wrote Rep. Bruce Braley, D-Iowa, in a letter last month to the committee chairman.

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  3. Won’t take a poll because it’s not that kind of equation.

    Even if I feared the potential actions of terrorists (because of their dedication to a nihilistic world view that involves suppression of every humanistic trait endeavor of value) more than my own government, it’s essentially the loss of liberty and degradation of slavery to the state I fear overall. A healthy fear and distrust of government is essential to keep government in its place.

    “Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel.”

    Sarahw (b0e533)

  4. Terrorists can kill me, maim me, or do the same to my friends and family. Short of dropping a WMD, the chances of them doing so are very small.

    The government can kill me, maim me, send me to prison, take my children away (if I were to have children), hold my family hostage, take all of my money, suppress my speech, determine what country I can live in, forbid me from practising my religion upon pain of death or imprisonment, make it impossible for me to be gainfully employed, invalidate elections, search my house, commandeer my property for their own use, obtain my cell phone records, read my email and Facebook posts, determine what kinds of health care I can get, draft me into the military, forbid me from receiving certain medical treatment that can save my life, or coerce me into aborting a disabled child.

    And if I try to fight back, they can kill me, arrest me, imprison me, or do the same to my family. If I park a bullet in a terrorist’s head, they might try for retribution – or it might end there.

    And that is not mere speculation: in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, governments have killed tens of millions of their own citizens, held fraudulent elections to keep dictators in power, forbidden their own citizens from leaving the country, executed dissidents, thrown kids into mass graves, violated human rights, forced their female citizens to have abortions, executed women who were raped, outlawed religion…. yeah, I could go on.

    Terrorists can bring physical pain or death to me or my family, and I can do my best to fight back. What the government can do is so much bigger, worse, and if you fight back, an entire army will land upon you.

    bridget (84c06f)

  5. Wow, I need more coffee: the government also has the power to determine what physical weapons are at my disposal for protecting my own life and liberty. Governments can and have outlawed the sale and possession of guns, controlled the production and distribution of ammunition, disarmed their citizens, and then proceeded to slaughter them en masse.

    Not only are there are different repercussions to shooting a government official in self-defence than there are to shooting a terrorist in the same circumstances, the government can make it impossible for you to have the gun and the ammunition.

    bridget (84c06f)

  6. I think one of the reasons that I put “Government” over “Terrorists” is that I really think the current government doesn’t give a damn what happens to us “little people”. If a terrorist wipes out a whole bunch of us, it just makes it easier for them to control those left, and certainly the lot in charge now, both elected and career, seem to by and large be the sort who would never “let a good crisis go to waste” if it could be used to give them more power. They are certainly less concerned with terrorists than they are with keeping under wraps anything that might upset the masses and make them think of something other than American Idol.

    Less than two months ago I could buy a gallon of milk at Walmart for around $3 a gallon. This morning it was $4.10. And I know that a lot of that cost raise is because of all sorts of government regulations. The terrorists may kill me, but I expect that of them. The government, the one supposedly instituted for our protection, seems to be working hard to send us back to third world status, half the country believes their lies, and we’re finding out just how seriously they take their vows to the constitution, which is not at all.

    So yes, I’m listing the government above the terrorists. If only because a few serious over-reaction bombings and military actions, and we could convince Islam that we are the strong horse, but DC wants to convince them that we are the weak horse instead, which guarantees that that more lives will be lost to terrorists due to government idiocy, incompetence, or worse, complicity.

    LibraryGryffon (06c781)

  7. A terrorist can kill me–and people around me.

    My government, particularly in the hands of this current bunch of clowns, and with a highly partisan regulatory crew in the administrative agencies can torment me in ways that terrorists can only imagine.

    Comanche Voter (f4c7d5)

  8. government (some individuals intentionally, some ignorantly) is advancing Islam faster than any group or agency that I can think of; God help us if we release/transfer/trade Fazl for Bergdahl

    ER (d7739b)

  9. As I commented at the poll, the gov’t is the better killer.

    Bill M (dc386c)

  10. I’m with bridget on this one. Government in theory is less dangerous than terrorism, but this particular government thinks it’s fair game to target citizens like me because of our political beliefs. And instead of impeachment, resignation, and disgrace, we’ve re-elected this government so it makes it even more likely that this is how future governments will act.

    Whether you think that’s a greater danger than terrorism or not, surely we can agree it’s far more destructive to our values and system than any terrorist event.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  11. Good question. Interesting results (so far).

    As the minority liberal voice here, it’s not surprising where I come down.

    I’m wary of government, but certainly not concerned or frightened of it. To me, government isn’t some big machine imposed from the outside. At the end of the day, it’s people. People I know. People with families, people who buy milk. It’s mailmen, DA’s, etc. And even the politicians who I disagree with — I know they don’t intend to do harm.

    Sure, the potential for governmental abuse is real, and it has happened. But because we can (in some small way) change and affect our government, or become a part of it, it tends to be self-correcting.

    Terrorists, not so much.

    Kman (5576bf)

  12. Solving the problem that the terrorists represent is fairly simple (if not easy); at some point we in the West will decide that we have had Enough Of This Sh*T. Shortly thereafter people in places of power around the world will begin to notice that whenever a terrorist that has been hiding in a country attacks the U.S., the U.S. arranges for that country to have a change of regime. And shortly after that Islamic Terrorism will return to its base state of small bands of unpleasant bandits who skulk around the edges of things and annoy their immediate neighbors but have little effect on the broader would.

    Government, on the other hand, is a much harder problem to solve. We don’t need Terrorists. We don’t need Islam. We need some kind of government, if only to prevent one not of our choosing being imposed upon us. Breaking our politicians from the habit of thinking of themselves as a class of rulers instead of a class of servants is going to be hard and complicated.

    The terrorists cannot destroy our world. They can only anger us enough to go all Imperial on their ass. In which case the problem will be the Government….

    C. S. P. Schofield (adb9dd)

  13. Terrorism is only an occasional threat and I can fight back, while the threat from our government is constant and growing, and fighting back is considered a serious crime.

    ropelight (4f329e)

  14. I give government the edge but the level of fear of either is very small for me. Neither I nor my loved ones are very likely to come into the sights of either. As opposed to the drunken/stoned jerk texting in the oncoming lane, for one example of more immediate fears.

    nk (875f57)

  15. Government, by a massive margin.

    Former Conservative (6e026c)

  16. Patterico may not know his audience as well as he thinks in posting those specific poll questions, which, with only 3 possible options are very simplistic and knee jerk–seem strangely black and white (while also being strangely vague at the same time)–and on their face are much too emotionally focused by inserting the word “frightens” ahead of the word “concerns”. So I’m with SarahW in that I’m not taking it thang.

    Beyond that quibble, it’s a very good and thought provoking post IMO and the issues raised in it should be on every American citizen’s mind pretty much all the time, regardless of their politics or who’s in power at the moment, but are not.

    elissa (0b3286)

  17. Great civilizations are destroyed from within.

    Amphipolis (d3e04f)

  18. Bridgit, this is one of the best and most philosophical, yet pragmatic, comments I have ever read on this all-important topic:

    Terrorists can kill me, maim me, or do the same to my friends and family. Short of dropping a WMD, the chances of them doing so are very small.

    The government can kill me, maim me, send me to prison, take my children away (if I were to have children), hold my family hostage, take all of my money, suppress my speech, determine what country I can live in, forbid me from practising my religion upon pain of death or imprisonment, make it impossible for me to be gainfully employed, invalidate elections, search my house, commandeer my property for their own use, obtain my cell phone records, read my email and Facebook posts, determine what kinds of health care I can get, draft me into the military, forbid me from receiving certain medical treatment that can save my life, or coerce me into aborting a disabled child.

    And if I try to fight back, they can kill me, arrest me, imprison me, or do the same to my family. If I park a bullet in a terrorist’s head, they might try for retribution – or it might end there.

    And that is not mere speculation: in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, governments have killed tens of millions of their own citizens, held fraudulent elections to keep dictators in power, forbidden their own citizens from leaving the country, executed dissidents, thrown kids into mass graves, violated human rights, forced their female citizens to have abortions, executed women who were raped, outlawed religion…. yeah, I could go on.

    Terrorists can bring physical pain or death to me or my family, and I can do my best to fight back. What the government can do is so much bigger, worse, and if you fight back, an entire army will land upon you.

    Precisely.

    Brilliantly put.

    Former Conservative (6e026c)

  19. And you went further. Yes, entirely:

    the government also has the power to determine what physical weapons are at my disposal for protecting my own life and liberty. Governments can and have outlawed the sale and possession of guns, controlled the production and distribution of ammunition, disarmed their citizens, and then proceeded to slaughter them en masse.

    Not only are there are different repercussions to shooting a government official in self-defence than there are to shooting a terrorist in the same circumstances, the government can make it impossible for you to have the gun and the ammunition.

    You have a great mind. You could have and should have been a philosopher. I consider you one as it is.

    Former Conservative (6e026c)

  20. Maybe there was a time where government filtered out our worst traits and left our best ones – but I doubt it. Now, government filters out our best traits and leaves our worst ones.

    Government, easily.

    Leviticus (b98400)

  21. As ER said, in some ways the govt. is what makes terrorism as dangerous as it is. If we can’t call Hassan a terrorist, then I’m not sure what else matters. I think Obama does enough that is big and flashy in drone strikes and getting Bin Laden to make it look like he is interested in defending us against terrorism when in so many other ways his actions enable jihadists.

    That, and so many like him and under him think that people who are conservative and have an objective moral code are the dangerous ones.

    And my opinions have nothing to do with Snowden.

    And to some degree, the big problem is not the govt., but as Pogo said (who’s Pogo??), “We have met the enemy, and he is us”.

    As long as the public and the media and so many in the public’s eye prefer believing lies instead of truth then we can’t defend against an oppressive govt. or terrorists.

    If you think the future of America looks bright because our public schools teach children to be afraid of guns and let biological boys and girls go into whichever bathroom and lockerroom of their own preference, regardless of biology, and homeland security tells people to look out for people who read their Bible and the Constitution, you are going to be dissappointed.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  22. Well certainly government murders of civilians worldwide for the last century or so total around 100 to 150 million depending on the numbers you use (see R.J. Rummel’s works).

    SPQR (768505)

  23. 13.I give government the edge but the level of fear of either is very small for me. Neither I nor my loved ones are very likely to come into the sights of either. As opposed to the drunken/stoned jerk texting in the oncoming lane, for one example of more immediate fears.
    Comment by nk (875f57) — 6/24/2013 @ 8:37 am

    True, but as some governments are in the process of making it easier for there to be a stoned driver in the oncoming lane…

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  24. I think Patterico’s question is perfectly simplistic and knee-jerk, and is designed as such – it’s designed to measure the instinctive response, not the considered one.

    For instance, wouldn’t a conservative (vs. a libertarian, on these axes) instinctively view the Khmer Rouge as a group of barbarians or terrorists, and not as a government?

    Leviticus (b98400)

  25. I think Obama does enough that is big and flashy in drone strikes ….

    Simultaneously creating more terrorists.

    Former Conservative (6e026c)

  26. The majority in the poll have it right. Our founders understood that it would be necessary to have robust and determined opposition within our constitutional framework if the country was to remain free. When the Whigs failed to mount such a determined effort against slavery, the Democrats began to role up power in this country and the Republican Party and the Civil War were the result. We have so many weak and incompetent Republicans in the Senate, McCain and Graham foremost, and a fool for a Chief Justice, that the very premise of our government is threatened. And if the 20th Century taught us anything, it is that modern government in the wrong hands is the greatest threat to humanity that can be conceived. Read Three Swans by Jung Chang if you doubt that this is true. Read of the torture death of her grand mother in a public park over a six month period. Or consider the fate of about a quarter of the population under Pol Pot in Cambodia, execution by hammer blows. A nuclear bomb is merciful compared to the systematic slaughter imposed by these kinds of governments. The progressives in this country are bedazzled by their own image and they direct our resources to fantastical purposes … if we can’t stop them politically, there will be hell to pay.

    bobathome (c0c2b5)

  27. ==For instance, wouldn’t a conservative (vs. a libertarian, on these axes) instinctively view the Khmer Rouge as a group of barbarians or terrorists, and not as a government?==

    Gee, IDK Leviticus–and that is precisely my point. A poll that does not identify who the “terrorists” even are, and also one that does not include a category for entire states which are our economic or ideological adversaries/enemies is useless to me, personally. That was my instinctive response. YMMV.

    elissa (0b3286)

  28. I’m really surprised Patterico thought it wouldn’t be government in the lead.

    Former Conservative (6e026c)

  29. Great comment, bobathome.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  30. bobathome–Three Swans is one of the most profound and stick to the ribs books I have ever read. I would put Nien Cheng’s memoir, Life and Death in Shanghai, in the same category. I have been thinking of both those books with added frequency of late. The results of their government’s relentless year by year, month by month, week by week, hour by hour harassment and persecution of innocent people cries out in warning to us across the pages.

    elissa (0b3286)

  31. i’m most scared of government but that doesn’t mean terrorists should feel like they’re not doing a good job – they’re plenty scary too

    just not *as* scary

    and you know what that’s ok

    it’s not a contest

    happyfeet (c60db2)

  32. Terrorism (terror attacks) is something citizens and government are united against. We can give tips, call 911, render aid, send our sons and daughter off to kill the MF’s. We step up and step in.

    Government has become insidious.
    They ban everything useful or make it more difficult.
    Try to use a new EPA climate change gas can.
    Try to farm in California
    Try to produce the energy we need at a price that makes us competitive with the world.
    Try to own an AR15 rifle that can do everything from target shoot for fun, to win a gunfight in your store (10 rounds go pretty damn quick).
    Government has millions of pages of rules.

    I could go on forever.

    I guess it boils down to this:
    Dealing with terrorists is straight forward. Find them before they act and lock them away or if the do blow something up, hunt them down and kill or capture them.
    Dealing with government is impossibly byzantine.
    Seemingly no one gets fired.. the deck chairs get rearranged. The employees of government want more power and employee growth in government, they care less and less about those whose taxes employ them. And government is more likely to *bleep* up my life (with impunity) than any terrorist.

    That said I voted “both”. But not because I am equally frightened. I am not frightened of terrorists (because of one of the only things our government does a fantastic albeit expensive job of)

    SteveG (794291)

  33. The danger is quickly coming that population will learn that the government can only kill you once.

    If it takes all your income, your ability to defend yourself and your right to make decisions affecting your life, then the ultimate decision becomes: do you want a slow death or a quick one?

    MunDane (9f5b13)

  34. I wavered between government and both, thought “there’s a difference?” and voted both. I was wrong.

    Bridget, at post #4, wins the thread and the internet of the day. Government.

    htom (412a17)

  35. Thank you DRJ and elissa. Three Swans is an incredibly moving book. One might think of it as a testimonial to human spirit. But at what a cost! Think of the tens of millions of innocents who were slaughtered and from whom we will never hear. We are very fortunate that to be able to read it. I will look into Life and Death in Shanghai.

    bobathome (c0c2b5)

  36. do you want a slow death or a quick one?

    Comment by MunDane (9f5b13) — 6/24/2013 @ 9:45 am

    Can I have a BLT and a chocolate hot fudge sundae with whipped creams, nuts, and a cherry, instead?

    nk (875f57)

  37. Correction: Wild Swans by Jung Chang is the actual name of the book. Not Three Swans. But bobathome’s link is to the correct book.

    elissa (0b3286)

  38. terrorists are a drop in the bucket in the damage they do. A determined government can kill millions upon millions. Look back at history and think about how many millions were collectively killed and the damage done by the governments of hitler, stalin, mao, pol pot, among others….

    Jim (823b10)

  39. Bridget, at post #4, wins the thread and the internet of the day. Government.

    Hey, I am not the only one who can spot talent.

    Former Conservative (6e026c)

  40. I really wonder where some of my favorite conservative pundits are going with this.

    There are all kinds of tells that there is some kind of backchatter about a boomerang against Republicans if constraint of intelligence gathering methods is discussed. I don’t really know what’s going on with that, but its unsettling.

    Sarahw (b0e533)

  41. If I had taken this poll ten years ago, I would have said Terrorists without hesitation. Heck, six years ago.

    Our government has gone crazy in a very short amount of time.

    Pious Agnostic (c45233)

  42. Terrorists don’t confiscate your money to use it against you.

    Terrorists don’t have the authority of “law” behind them (remember that everything Hitler did was “legal.”)

    Terrorists usually can’t call for backup.

    The terrorist may hate you and want you dead, but at least the terrorist doesn’t try to tell us that its for our own good.

    Governments have killed, maimed, and tortured more human beings than terrorists could ever hope to. In fact, if it weren’t for governments killing people, there would be less terrorism. There would still be crazy lone wolf nuts, but there wouldn’t be a “they’ve killed our families, lets get revenge!” rallying cry that’s needed to incite a terrorist organization.

    Fearing terrorists more than government is like fearing a bumblebee when you’re standing on a killer bees nest.

    Ghost (2d8874)

  43. What Bridget said.

    I might also add that terrorists operate in the shadows, outside the law. On the other hand, government puts its jackboot on you in open daylight, with all of the authority of ‘the law.’

    For the record, I’m also frightened by low-information voters, some of Justin Bieber’s fans, and some of the people I see shuffling around with shopping carts at Walmart.

    Elephant Stone (6a6f37)

  44. As pointed out by elissa and others, the question is oversimple,
    for example, those who fear government may be a combination of two or more groups with totally different view points, e.g. the Bushitlerites, the Obamanations, and the don’ttrustanyofthems.

    Sort of like when they asked if people agreed or disagreed with various Bush policies, the disagreeds were actually a mix of those who wanted to do more and those who wanted him to do less, so saying 40% approved and 60% didn’t (just picking numbers) could mean anything in specific policy suggestions depending on just what those 60% wanted instead.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  45. If I remember correctly, somebody told us recently that fearing the government was nonsense…
    and as ES said, the bigger problem is that too many supposedly educated people believed him.
    Including some that shop at Lord and Taylor, I imagine. 😉

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  46. Slightly off topic, but only slightly, Larken Rose has a video on YouTube called When Should You Shoot a Cop? And it deals with the question of what do you do when your government IS the terrorist.
    “Asking fascists politely to stop being fascists has a very poor track record.”

    Ghost (2d8874)

  47. some of Justin Bieber’s fans

    some?

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  48. I fear the government that has made it clear they consider peaceful opposition more of a threat than the people screaming for our blood.

    Rob Crawford (6c262f)

  49. MD in Philly,

    Some. Most.All.

    Elephant Stone (6a6f37)

  50. Patterico: I think the terrorists want to do worse things to me than the government does. But I think the government is more likely to interact with me in a coercive way.

    That’s correct, but most of the bad stuff the government could do would not have anythuing to do with fighting terrorism, * and the government’s actions in that field do seem to be under control.

    * the IRS scandal, or things that could go wrong with Obamacare, for instance, have no relationship to fighting terrorism.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  51. If there was a successful terrorist attack, I might be more frightened of the possible response than of the attack itself. The response might be far more damaging.

    But for now all of that is under control.

    And I don’t like what they do in the case of natural disasters. The government created the aftermath of Katrina, by preventing people from helping each other.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  52. I think the terrorists want to do worse things to me than the government does. But I think the government is more likely to interact with me in a coercive way.

    Well not only that, but the vast power discrepancy. And the government does use force, violence, against millions of citizens who aren’t doing anything immoral — depriving them of their freedom.

    Murder trials and the like, OK then (although many of those would be blessedly avoided if the ill-advised and immoral war on drugs was ended). But voluntary transactions between individuals should not attract the violence of the state. Since it does, people are more at risk from their government now than they are through terrorists. The NSA and IRS scandals, etc., simply show us how much worse it is going to get.

    Former Conservative (6e026c)

  53. No-brainer, at least until nuclear nonproliferation efforts completely fail and the terrorists start using nukes repeatedly. Until then terrorists are a localized risk, whereas an oppressive government — as recognized since at least 1776 — is a generalized, systemic, and inescapable risk.

    Beldar (b97f8f)

  54. Comment by bridget (84c06f) — 6/24/2013 @ 8:00 am

    governments have killed tens of millions of their own citizens…

    The terrorists ultimate aim is to be a government.

    And in the meantime they act like that too, issuing edicts, like no polio vaccinations are to take place on pain of death for the vaccinators.

    ….or no music, war, forced marriages, no school for girls, killing poeple for making the wrong comments, being the wrong kind of person in the wrong territory, destroyinbg monuments and graves, etc.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  55. Comment by Leviticus (b98400) — 6/24/2013 @ 9:03 am

    For instance, wouldn’t a conservative (vs. a libertarian, on these axes) instinctively view the Khmer Rouge as a group of barbarians or terrorists, and not as a government

    No, they were a government.

    And they stayed in power an extra two years because of Jimmy Carter (he stopped Thailand from invading. I bet you didn’t know that)

    And when they were finally overthrown by the Communist government of Vietnam, the United
    States sided with China all through the Reagan Adminstration and let Pol Pot keep the vote in the United Nations General Assembly, as well a small area on the border of Camboidia. Well, technically it was a coalition headed by Pol Pot.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  56. Terrorists have killed tens of thousands, but governments have killed tens of millions in the past century. No contest.

    When our government takes on the methods and mindset of the NKVD/KGB/STASI, and legislators merrily disarm us – prepare for the worst. Nations periodically experience invasion or internal strife or tyranny. Ours is no exception; it is just less likely than in other nations – but only as long as its people and elected officials truly believe in personal freedoms and responsibilities. The current regime has demonstrated its contempt for those who disagree. If that continues much longer, it does not bode well for us.

    David (099e1f)

  57. I voted government. If the pervasive surveillance state actually prevented terrorism, I might have reconsidered. But 9/11 and every attack after can be blamed on the failings of government — from Jamie Gorelick’s wall to the FBI’s minimizing of the Tsarnaev brothers.

    Patricia (be0117)

  58. “Why do so many people not realize America has become a total state?”
    By Wendy McElroy
    June 24, 2013

    Anyone who points out the politically obvious and is accused of panic-mongering has considered this question. The NSA’s massive spying, the TSA frisking their children, the IRS targeting people politically, the longest war in American history, the militarization of law enforcement, the indefinite detention of prisoners at Gitmo…nothing, nothing seems to budge some people from the belief that the US is the freest, grandest nation on earth. It is an article of faith as deeply held as any belief in God.

    But why?

    If that link is too slow to load, you can also try here.

    Former Conservative (6e026c)

  59. (First link is preferred though as it is followed by Gary Gibson’s “Parting Shot”)

    Former Conservative (6e026c)

  60. I predicted the GOVERNMENT. I was right. I’ve been out watching the tone on the internet and it NOT boding well for the government. Even if some people are questioning Snowden, and I have many questions about him…they have more about what our government is doing to us.

    Bets (717964)

  61. I think in the United States, it is state and local governments which are far more dangerous to people’s liberties and freedom than the federal government.

    It wasn’t the federal government that took away Britney Spears’ children, or her financial indepedence (basically the right to be considered an adult)

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  62. Government is much more involved with my daily life than terrorism.

    Loren (998d8f)

  63. 1 – terrorists
    2 – folks who answered “the government”
    3 – the government

    carlitos (49ef9f)

  64. The government. If they operated sensibly-control of the borders, profiling, focused data mining-we could very easily prevent almost any chance of a terrorist attack. Instead the NSA creates a huge data base to no discernible end with the assumptions being the terrorists don’t think they’re being watched and every American is a suspect. When you try to watch everyone you end up watching no one. Add in the TSA, the FBI and CIA and we have even more bureaucracies that would rather be PC that investigate those (read-Islamic maniacs) who would harm us. And even after 9/11 and the supposed end of Gorelick’s Wall, it’s clear there is no coordination and much duplication among and between them.And none of it is really fccused on those who would do us harm.

    The Tsarnaevs did everything short of announcing their intentions on the steps of Fanuiel Hall the morning of the marathon. And other than these knuckleheads murdering a campus cop they probably would’ve gotten away with it. Nobody was looking for them despite data points galore. We are gathering a lot of dats that is not collated by anyone. What really is the point?

    Snowden may be a jerk, buit how does Snowden get anywhere near this data in the first place?

    Bugg (ba4ca9)

  65. 1 – terrorists
    2 – folks who answered “the government”
    3 – the government

    Comment by carlitos (49ef9f) — 6/24/2013 @ 12:05 pm

    And that’s how the terrorists won.

    Ghost (2d8874)

  66. 20. As ER said, in some ways the govt. is what makes terrorism as dangerous as it is. If we can’t call Hassan a terrorist, then I’m not sure what else matters.

    Comment by MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 6/24/2013 @ 8:55 am

    Not only won’t the government call Hassan a terrorist, they won’t even now allow anyone else to call him a terrorist. The guy practically gave his colleagues at least one presentation on his intentions and I believe people who raised concerns were shut down by the chain of command. If any; I recall many had concerns but were afraid to say anything precisely because they knew the more serious charge in today’s Army isn’t being pro-Jihad but “Islamophobic.”

    The Army COS’s immediate reaction? The standard government reaction:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/08/army-chief-of-staff-worri_n_349927.html

    “You know, there’s been a lot of speculation going on and probably the curiosity is a good thing,” said Casey of accused killer Nidal Malik Hasan. “But we have to be careful because we can’t jump to conclusions now based on little snippets of information that come out. And frankly, I am worried — not worried, not worried, but I’m concerned — that this increased speculation could cause a backlash against some of our Muslim soldiers and I’ve asked our army leaders to be on the look out for that. it would be a shame — as great a tragedy as this was — it would be a shame if our diversity became a casualty as well.”

    “What happened at Fort Hood was a tragedy,” Casey said, during a separate appearance on ABC’s “This Week.” “But I think it would be an even greater tragedy if it [affected] our diversity.

    Diversity has a higher priority than his soldier’s lives.

    Others in their comments have observed that our governments policies and actions and/or inactions have made terrorists more dangerous than they otherwise would be. But I can’t find a clearer example of the fact that at the highest levels of government they openly consider individual Americans the eggs that they’re willing to break to make their diversity omelette.

    The fear of the never-occurring anti-Muslim backlash sends DoJ attorneys out to warn people that nasty online comments about Muslims can be considered a violation of their civil rights. I suppose the next individual or group they go after for making a “hateful” YouTube video they’d like to scapegoat instead of blaming the Muslims who organized and carried out violent attacks against Americans may not be on parole, probation, or have outstanding warrants they can jail them for.

    The problem with terrorists is this government has surrendered to them (and is now allying with them in Syria).

    How can I not view government as the greater threat?

    Steve57 (ab2b34)

  67. The world is filled with kings and queens who blind your eyes and steal your dreams…

    Bugg (ba4ca9)

  68. “What happened at Fort Hood was a tragedy,” Casey said, during a separate appearance on ABC’s “This Week.” “But I think it would be an even greater tragedy if it [affected] our diversity.“

    Diversity has a higher priority than his soldier’s lives.

    Hey, we find yet more points of agreement. That said, I’ve always been singularly unimpressed with General George Casey.

    Former Conservative (6e026c)

  69. The world is filled with kings and queens who blind your eyes and steal your dreams…

    Living times of knights and mares
    Raising swords for maidens fair
    Sneer at death, fear only loss of pride
    Living other centuries
    Deja vu or what you please
    Follows true to all who do or die
    Screams of no reply
    They died
    Screams of no reply
    And died
    Lordy, Lordy, they died

    carlitos (49ef9f)

  70. I put some replies about TWA Flight 800 in the open thread: https://patterico.com/2013/06/20/gay-marriage-decisions-today/comment-page-7/#comment-1239934

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  71. You know things are really falling apart when you get a barbarian as the emperor. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odoacer
    Since our current president was raised away from the behaviors and common experiences that form American values I believe it would be safe to consider him as the modern equivalent of Odoacer. There was a time when we could trust the govt to fight the barbarians. Now they actively encourage them to cross the border.

    MKS (8ceb67)

  72. Wow! I voted both, but after Bridget’s two brilliant comments and MD’s comment and remembering history I want to change my vote to government.

    Tanny O'Haley (c6f391)

  73. There was also Phillip “the barbarian” father of Alexander the Great. Who will be our Alexander?

    felipe (6100bc)

  74. I, also, voted government. The bastards.

    felipe (6100bc)

  75. “Wow! I voted both, but after Bridget’s two brilliant comments and MD’s comment and remembering history I want to change my vote to government.”

    A few commenters here have expressed similar sentiments. Not a one has expressed the desire to change their vote to anything other than to government.

    Former Conservative (6e026c)

  76. 66.

    “What happened at Fort Hood was a tragedy,” Casey said, during a separate appearance on ABC’s “This Week.” “But I think it would be an even greater tragedy if it [affected] our diversity.“

    Diversity has a higher priority than his soldier’s lives.

    Hey, we find yet more points of agreement. That said, I’ve always been singularly unimpressed with General George Casey.

    Comment by Former Conservative (6e026c) — 6/24/2013 @ 12:41 pm

    To make flag or general officer you have to be something of a politician. But clearly at the four star level the sole criteria for selection is one’s willingness to be a dancing bear for the administration.

    Steve57 (ab2b34)

  77. Carlitos is afraid of people who are afraid of the government.
    You know, because people who fear the power of the government have so much power themselves. Or whatever.

    In other words, the frightened lambs are much scarier than the lions !

    Elephant Stone (6a6f37)

  78. ES – You are just a dangerous bitter clinger. Denounce yourself!

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  79. I voted terrorists.

    As a gut check,which I do think the possibility of thousands of innocent people dying in a terror attack is real. They may not be Americans, but they are people who didn’t deserve that.

    The absolute hatred of those who would commit mass murder, is in a different category from the US Government’s outrageous behavior.

    I don’t say that to express that we can condone the IRS oppressing Tea Party activities, the BATF giving guns to warlords as a political trick to encourage gun control, or the NSA spying on all Americans like they are our enemies. Or the seemingly endless list of other scandals and proven lies. I think those activities show that our government is evolving rapidly into something hostile and ultrapowerful, but it is doing it in order to obtain short term political advantage for politicians and the elites who own them. That’s sickening and means this experiment in democracy is not going well, but it’s not the same as someone crashing a plane into a building in order to murder thousands of men, women, and children.

    The degree of religiously motivated hatred out there is simply on a different level of concern for me. North Korea has nukes, and Iran basically shares their weapons programs. We’re going to see that one of the costs of our government’s hostility is that it wasn’t on the ball for the greater threats out there.

    Among the things Snowden revealed was how far this country has fallen in standing with the international community.

    Dustin (0670a3)

  80. My comment was truncated. I meant “As a gut check,which I interpreted this exercise as […]”

    Dustin (0670a3)

  81. “Among the things Snowden revealed was how far this country has fallen in standing with the international community.”

    Dustin – I blame global warming.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  82. daley, I denounce myself !
    I’m just a bitter clinger in the belly of Hollywood, and I can testify that my Uncle Joe who clings to his shotgun and his church hymnals is inherently much more powerful than that other Uncle Joe—you know, Uncle Joe Stalin !

    Elephant Stone (6a6f37)

  83. daley-I think it’s more likely the international community is reacting badly to Michelle’s fashion choices.

    elissa (0b3286)

  84. ES – Well done. Brutha Feets and I congratulate you.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  85. elissa – They are a superficial lot. They should focus on her marvelous arms.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  86. Dustin, friend, perhaps you are interpreting Patterico’s question in the ‘micro,’ when it appears that he was asking in the ‘macro’ arena.
    He’s not necessarily asking about what the Obama Administration has done VS what Al Qaeda has done or threatens to do.

    I think he’s asking about terrorists in general vs the power of government in general.

    My response is that terrorists operate in the shadows, outside the law, whereas the power of government imposes its will upon people in sunlight, in full view, and more importantly—it has the power of the law back it up.

    Elephant Stone (6a6f37)

  87. I should say they should focus more on Michelle O’s fabulous arms—I mean, it’s not like she has any fabulous ideas for them to focus on !

    Elephant Stone (6a6f37)

  88. Carlitos is afraid of people who are afraid of the government.
    You know, because people who fear the power of the government have so much power themselves. Or whatever.

    In other words, the frightened lambs are much scarier than the lions !

    Comment by Elephant Stone (6a6f37) — 6/24/2013 @ 2:21 pm

    Don’t you remember when the people who were afraid of government rounded up all those Japanese people? Or when those who were afraid of government systematically starved Ukrainians in the Soviet Union? Or when those who were afraid of government bayoneted babies in Nanking?

    Hell, I even avoided Godwinning myself.

    Ghost (2d8874)

  89. The critic in me takes issue with the poll as it conflates “frightens” and “concerns,” when those terms have different meanings, and then gives the option to vote, ” both,” which I did. I assumed the poll measured feelings about current or recent American government, and concluded that without the draft and the relatively limited use of the death penalty, we are more likely to be killed by a fellow motorist. The first pillar of natural rights being Life, terrorists do frighten me as their primary goal is to kill and remove their opposition. Americans have been largely shielded from the type of terrorism that could make their lives miserable, such as regular small scale bombings at malls, schools or wherever people gather as happened at the Boston marathon. I submit that if the jihadis embraced those tactics on a widespread scale, Americans would not be quite so blase’ about terrorism, and if you doubt that, consider the reaction to every mass shooting.

    That said, I am more concerned right now with Big Government, which does not want to kill their own citizens as much as control and enslave them, thus threatening the second pillar of natural rights, Liberty. The truly frightening aspect is the way the government so easily manipulates people into hating “the other,” and turning them into good little foot-soldiers for the control and looting necessary to the totalitarian state, and wrapping it all up with a big shiny bow of rainbows and unicorns. Gag.

    Damselfly (145de5)

  90. Good points, Ghost.

    It was absolutely amazing that the lambs defeated the lions in all of those historical episodes. And in Nazi Germany, it was amazing how the Jews were able to fight against all those Nuremberg Laws, despite the fact they didn’t have any power to do so—not to mention the fact the Nuremberg Laws were, uh, like, the law. Or whatever.

    And in Syria, we have a head-to-head matchup of ‘the government’ vs ‘the terrorists.’
    Guess who’s winning ?!

    Elephant Stone (6a6f37)

  91. Maybe we should be afraid of people who are afraid of the government, because they’re the ones who’ll snitch us out to the government and only watch as we’re put in a van without a visible exhaust, glad it’s not them? Maybe too afraid to even watch?

    nk (875f57)

  92. To properly answer this one has to define the word terrorist. Americans probably have a different understanding of the term than our president and his administration.
    In 2009, DHS sent a secret memorandum to assorted law enforcement agencies targeting as “terror” threats those who, for example, oppose “federal authority” and favor “state or local authority,” or oppose “abortion or immigration.” Assorted DHS statements on “terrorism” have been laced with references to “right-wing” and “antigovernment” sentiments. In 2011, a DHS training video depicted only white males as terrorists; the video did not portray any terrorists as Muslims.
    This information is from an article by Ray V Hartwell III in American Spectator.

    Patti (c46f90)

  93. Governments create the nuclear weapons you cite Patterico.

    But besides that, it’s not just ill will of bad people in government, it’s also straight incompetence too. Just look at the Benghazi affair.

    Also coupled with the soft injuries inflicted on us all from taxing, regulation, and on and on.

    I think the answer to the poll is pretty clear. Government.

    NaBr (a094a6)

  94. My response is that terrorists operate in the shadows, outside the law, whereas the power of government imposes its will upon people in sunlight, in full view, and more importantly—it has the power of the law back it up.

    Comment by Elephant Stone (6a6f37) — 6/24/2013

    Your response is 100% justified. 100%. History has repeatedly shown how serious it is for a government to be hostile to its people, lie to its people and spy on its people in ways that are hostile to their rights.

    Dustin (0670a3)

  95. NK,

    Your argument confirms our point.
    Snitching someone out to the government can be a scary thing, because the government really does have the power to make your life hell.

    Elephant Stone (6a6f37)

  96. In a conference call with reporters, Danny Werfel said that after becoming acting IRS chief last month, he discovered wide-ranging and improper terms on the lists and said screeners were still using them. He did not specify what terms were on the lists, but said he suspended the use of all such lists immediately.

    — A domestic terrorist organization ^^^ hiding behind a .gov email address frightens me.

    Icy (220208)

  97. 92. But besides that, it’s not just ill will of bad people in government, it’s also straight incompetence too. Just look at the Benghazi affair.

    Heaven knows I’m a firm believer in the destructive power of incompetence in government. There is after all power in numbers and I don’t believe you’ll find a larger collection of incompetents in any other sector of our economy than the public sector. And sometimes bad outcomes are purely the result of incompetence. But I believe that’s rare. Like at Benghazi government caused disaster is most likely due to some toxic cocktail of incompetence, ill will, and CYA.

    I think the answer to the poll is pretty clear. Government.

    Comment by NaBr (a094a6) — 6/24/2013 @ 3:58 pm

    I couldn’t agree more.

    Steve57 (ab2b34)

  98. As my comment above shows, I agree with those who view government as the greater danger in today’s world, but liberals felt that way during the Bush Administration. Are we being hypocritical?

    I don’t think we are since conservatives tend to believe in limited government more than liberals. Also, the Obama Administration has targeted us as conservatives for our political views, and Obama condemns conservatives daily. Any thoughts?

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  99. The government alread takes away the freedom of millions, Dustin, for victimless crimes and sends them to rape rooms.

    The government is much more dangerous to free people at present, nevermind the chilling future.

    Former Conservative (3457f8)

  100. DRJ,

    Yes, it certainly is actually hypocritical of liberals to cry about the inherent dangers of government power, particularly when they are the ones always preaching to expand its powers.
    On the other hand, we conservatives are always conscious of the potential abuse of power by government—that’s why we advocate for its limits.

    Elephant Stone (6a6f37)

  101. And even the Government Zoo (and no, that’s not a deliberate euphenism for ‘Congress’!) is losing misplacing customers cute little critters, as documented by Hot Air’s hottie Mary Katharine Ham.
    http://hotair.com/archives/2013/06/24/yeesh-national-zoo-misplaces-red-panda-for-a-day-latest-in-a-series-of-sometimes-tragic-animal-mishaps/

    Elephant Stone (6a6f37)

  102. David Gregory
    “Grey Water News®” unfit for
    human consumption

    Colonel Haiku (92f60a)

  103. 97.As my comment above shows, I agree with those who view government as the greater danger in today’s world, but liberals felt that way during the Bush Administration. Are we being hypocritical?

    — NO, because the Bush administration was spying on our enemies, rather than spying on us!

    Icy (220208)

  104. Thank you, E.S. I had not seen the denouement of the red panda episode. I am glad it turned out OK because these man caused oopsies often do not. And as the article well documents the national zoo sadly is something of an ongoing embarrassment.

    elissa (0b3286)

  105. What bridget said.

    Kevin M (bf8ad7)

  106. Shorter bridget:

    I am unlikely to meet a terrorist in the balance of my lifetime, let alone be killed by one.

    I am quite likely to encounter government coercion before I sleep tonight.

    Kevin M (bf8ad7)

  107. The psychology of controlling mass populations is interesting to explore. I always recommend Etienne de La Boetie’s essay “The Politics of Obedience: The Discourse of Voluntary Servitude” circa 1553. He explores the historical phenomenom of large numbers of people voluntarily submitting to tyrants and their henchmen, even though they vastly outnumber their oppressors and suggests the tyrant, whether monarch or elected, could be easily toppled if the bulk of the people simply refused to obey. Every time I read it I feel fantastically empowered and certain that if every freedom loving American embraced the spirit of la Boetie together, we could start turning things around starting now…

    Damselfly (145de5)

  108. elissa, I wonder if we’ll ever get a public explanation for how Rusty the red panda ended up outside the zoo.
    Usually when a horse gets out of the barn, it is due to the stable boy not closing/fastening the barn door properly. And he’d probably be looking for a new job, at this point.

    I imagine this episode will be explained away as, “C’mon, conservatives, it was just one of those wacky things !” OR…”What difference, at this point, does it matter ?”

    Elephant Stone (6a6f37)

  109. E.S. It was the sequester, Silly.

    Per Think Regress:
    As a result of sequester, the zoo has been unable to fill some positions, although zoo administrators have long said the budget cuts wouldn’t endanger animals.

    elissa (0b3286)

  110. Why can’t we envision a world where a red panda can escape a zoo without aspersions cast on zookeepers?

    the tolerant nk (875f57)

  111. elissa, yes, of course. I keep forgetting—the sequester.

    The sequester caused some air traffic controllers to be furloughed (initially) and White House tours to be canceled.
    and gate keepers to be layed off at the National Zoo !

    (“Honey, I know I had a glass of wine with our brunch, but is that a giraffe standing in front of Ford’s Theatre ?”)

    Elephant Stone (6a6f37)

  112. Because it’s Chinatown D.C., nk. BTW, the very distinctive looking animal was seen by an alert condo resident only about a mile from the zoo. She was not even aware the guy was missing but had seen him at the zoo in the past and knew he shouldn’t be roaming the hood.

    elissa (0b3286)

  113. 97. As my comment above shows, I agree with those who view government as the greater danger in today’s world, but liberals felt that way during the Bush Administration. Are we being hypocritical?

    I don’t think we are since conservatives tend to believe in limited government more than liberals. Also, the Obama Administration has targeted us as conservatives for our political views, and Obama condemns conservatives daily. Any thoughts?

    Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 6/24/2013 @ 4:28 pm

    Following your question regarding hypocrisy, as your subsequent comments reveal we’re conservatives precisely because we’ve always believed government is a danger. The Constitution we support was written to constrain that danger.

    The poll question in question today revolves on how great the danger government poses to us today relative to other threats. That’s not a static relationship. One can place the dangers in different order depending upon contemporary circumstances but that doesn’t change the facts that threats are threats.

    Steve57 (ab2b34)

  114. I don’t think we are since conservatives tend to believe in limited government more than liberals.

    Perhaps. But in defending “civilization” versus the “barbarians” there are quite a few tasks conservatives have need of government for. The drug war comes to mind.

    And while liberals are terrible on economic freedom, social conservatives can given them a run for their money on personal freedom.

    Kevin M (bf8ad7)

  115. A Mrs. Powel of Philadelphia asked Benjamin Franklin, “Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?” With no hesitation whatsoever, Franklin responded, “A republic, if you can keep it.”

    I am sorry Mr. Franklin, but we have failed!

    peedoffamerican (ee1de0)

  116. government, hands down.

    redc1c4 (403dff)

  117. 97.As my comment above shows, I agree with those who view government as the greater danger in today’s world, but liberals felt that way during the Bush Administration. Are we being hypocritical?

    I think many politically active people (both liberals and conservatives) are blinded by partisanship and exaggerate the differences between their guys (good) and the other guys (pure evil). And in both parties there is pressure to demonstrate loyalty by parroting the party line no matter how ridiculous. You can call that hypocrisy I suppose.

    It can be off-putting to those of us who aren’t thrilled with either team.

    James B. Shearer (fc4608)

  118. In short, which frightens you more: the government, or the terrorists?

    That’s a no-brainer: The government. The government in the context of today, in the context of loony liberalism having corrupted so many aspects of our society, but in particular the public sector.

    Modern-day liberalism has made me fear not so much the Islamofascist terrorists floating around out there as much as the muggers, gangstas and criminals in general, because government (ie, law enforcement) is rife with political-correctness run amok. I could easily see myself as a dead version of George Zimmerman, with the “compassion” crowd (ie, far too much of the electorate) weeping over the sad plight of a poor little killer who, in their mind, didn’t get enough daycare, welfare and healthcare when he was growing up. As for me? Just another statistic on the police blotter.

    Variations of this scenario apply to so much of society — vis a vie the government — in today’s culture of political correctness run amok. Variations that include being harassed by the IRS, harassed by the corrupt Department of Justice, harassed by the EPA, harassed by inept but overly pushy field inspectors employed by local government, harassed by the DMV, harassed by the bureaucracy of Obamacare, harassed by indolent public-sector workers who grab the perks while lazing away the afternoon, harassed by a bureaucracy that is making our society sort of Mexico North, etc, etc, etc, etc.

    Perhaps if America in the future ends up with the demographics of the Middle East — or Mexico — I’ll fear the terrorists (including narco gangs) more than the government. But as things are right now, the government (fueled by liberalism gone berserk) takes the big, rotten, smelly cake.

    Mark (67e579)

  119. This isn’t definitionally complicated. If the standard is “frightens/concerns,” then you have to consider not just demonstrated behavior and stated or unstated intent, but capabilities. Terrorists score high on having demonstrated bad behavior, and they’ve clearly stated their intent. But their capabilities are still trivial, both in scope and dangerousness, compared to those of the federal government.

    Beldar (b97f8f)

  120. This might be the easiest poll question I ever answered.

    JD (b63a52)

  121. I don’t think we are since conservatives tend to believe in limited government more than liberals.

    Also, imprisoning millions of people for non-violent voluntary activities.

    And a wide array of censorship to boot.

    And indoctrinating children with either religion and/or state schooling including the very ironic pledge of allegiance “with liberty and justice for all” — ha ha, funny.

    This article I posted earlier has perhaps a very mysteriousness explanation considering the preceding:

    “Why do so many people not realize America has become a total state?”
    By Wendy McElroy
    June 24, 2013

    Anyone who points out the politically obvious and is accused of panic-mongering has considered this question. The NSA’s massive spying, the TSA frisking their children, the IRS targeting people politically, the longest war in American history, the militarization of law enforcement, the indefinite detention of prisoners at Gitmo…nothing, nothing seems to budge some people from the belief that the US is the freest, grandest nation on earth. It is an article of faith as deeply held as any belief in God.

    But why?

    Former Conservative (6e026c)

  122. Saw a boat yesterday, “Seaquestering”. Wife thinks it is meant to be a political comment, I think (noticing that the lettering was not at all new) it was wordplay on Sea Quest.

    htom (412a17)

  123. And while liberals are terrible on economic freedom, social conservatives can given them a run for their money on personal freedom.

    That reminds me of various liberals (one I know personally—ie, he’s the epitome of a “limousine liberal”) who like to demonize big business — big corporations — while remaining mum about big government. There may be micro tidbits of such sentiment that aren’t without merit, but I also immediately retort by noting that the private sector (with a few exceptions) doesn’t FORCE me to buy its goods or services, doesn’t FORCE me to pay its employees/managers/bosses. But with the government — the public sector — I’m pretty much FORCED or obligated to do those exact same things.

    BTW, the two-faced liberal I allude to above has avoided paying sales taxes in California by buying his cars out of state. He also does back flips (some that skirt the ethical line) to avoid paying anymore than he has to to the IRS.

    Mark (67e579)

  124. I was being ironic. It’s not mysterious at all, considering the childhood indoctrination into believing a country that isn’t free is free.

    Former Conservative (6e026c)

  125. 116. …It can be off-putting to those of us who aren’t thrilled with either team.

    Comment by James B. Shearer (fc4608) — 6/24/2013 @ 6:32 pm

    I’m a conservative precisely because I’m not thrilled with either team. How could I be a liberal? I don’t vote for Messiahs.

    I could never imagine myself saying this:

    http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/chris-rock-calls-obama-america-dad-article-1.1257009

    According to Chris Rock, President Obama knows best.

    … “The President and the First Lady are kind of like the mom and the dad of the country,” Rock said at a press conference. “And when your dad says something, you listen. And when you don’t, it usually bites you in the ass later on. So I’m here to support the president.”

    Rock, who also called the president “our boss,” kept his remarks short, noting that the other advocates at the event were better spokespeople for the issue.

    Remember when the long-haired hippy dude stood up an a town hall meeting during one of the two Clinton campaigns back in the 90s and said words to the effect of “theoretically you are our daddy?”

    Some things never change.

    I never trusted Bush. But to hell with voting for someone like Obama who comes out and says there’s something wrong with me for not trusting him.

    Steve57 (ab2b34)

  126. 120. Also, imprisoning millions of people for non-violent voluntary activities.

    Comment by Former Conservative (6e026c) — 6/24/2013 @ 6:55 pm

    Really? Millions for non-violent voluntary activities.

    The problem with that is we don’t have millions imprisoned in total. From the latest year for which I can find Bureau of Justice Statistics available:

    http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/p11.pdf

    During 2011, the number of prisoners under the jurisdiction of state and federal correctional authorities declined by 0.9%, from 1,613,803 to 1,598,780 (figure 1). This decline represented the second consecutive year the prison population in the United States decreased.

    There aren’t millions of people incarcerated at the state and federal level in total. And there are certainly violent offenders among them so it would be impossible to say that even one million are imprisoned for “non-violent voluntary activities.”

    One could argue that we have too many people in prison. One might suggest we need to take a fresh look at just what is a felony, mandatory sentences, and putting prosecutors under greater scrutiny as law professor Glenn Reynolds does in “Ham Sandwich Nation.” As a matter of fact I believe I’ve brought up Prof. Reynolds (AKA Instapundit) and suggested exactly that myself.

    But I’d lay off the hyperbole if I wanted to be taken seriously.

    Steve57 (ab2b34)

  127. There’s another point to be made about terrorists-vs-government: Terrorists strike in isolated, infrequent, and discrete instances. Government is all-day, every-day, ubiquitous, and –what’s the right word?– diffuse, or maybe non-local or non-specific?

    Anyway, a person can be watchful and avoid abandoned backpacks or nervous-looking Middle Eastern types clutching “something with wires going into his shirt”. But it’s impossible to defend against governmental meddling and bullying. They can seize your property to give it to BigBox, Inc; they can declare your back yard a protected wetlands; they can shut down your company for importing Indian rosewood; they can declare your portable, iodine-based, water purification system as “drug-manufacturing paraphernalia” and put you out of business. Government has sufficient resources to harass and prosecute you until you are broke (financially) and broken (in spirit).

    Which is worse? Government, hands-down.

    A_Nonny_Mouse (57cacf)

  128. … “The President and the First Lady are kind of like the mom and the dad of the country,”

    I’ve mused that liberalism is like a family, in which the parents are very permissive, very flaky, very lacking in common sense. Such a family might do okay if the “children” are naturally resourceful, stable, reliable and skilled. But if the kids are average to below average (meaning if they’re like most kids worldwide), than WATCH OUT! Trouble brewing up ahead.

    According to Chris Rock.

    It can never be said too much that black America is Textbook Example #1 — Case Study #1 — of a community infused, oozing, drenched with liberalism. Liberalism run amok when 95% (repeat: 95%) of a people are devotees of liberals and liberalism (based on surveys). It isn’t a gross oversimplification to say that such a populace can be used as a guidepost to show what happens when leftism dazzles and blinds a group of humans.

    BTW, I wouldn’t think it a good or healthy thing if 95% of a community or populace were conservative or rightwing. But all things being equal, that probably wouldn’t be as disastrous to a “family” whose “children” are prone to bouts of self-destructive behavior.

    Mark (67e579)

  129. I’ve mused that liberalism is like a family, in which the parents are very permissive, very flaky, very lacking in common sense.

    This is where you’re wrong. Liberalism isn’t like a family.

    There’s a stratification. Wealthy liberal families don’t preach what they practice. They’re wealthy for a reason. They get married before having children, stay married, and otherwise actually practice some forms of self-discipline. But they’re too conflicted about appearing judgmental to ever preach to single mom’s caught in a generational cycle of poverty that anyone follow their example.

    Steve57 (ab2b34)

  130. Liberalism is more like a feudal duchy than a family.

    Steve57 (ab2b34)

  131. The Senate voted today to reward all the illegals (damn the lawful immigrants).

    Cue the Visigoths.

    Patricia (be0117)

  132. “I never trusted Bush. But to hell with voting for someone like Obama who comes out and says there’s something wrong with me for not trusting him.”

    – Steve57

    I concur with the sentiment.

    Leviticus (2c236c)

  133. It’s somewhere in the middle, Steve — although many of these on probation have their lives unnecessarily ruined with a criminal record for doing nothing wrong.

    According to the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), 2,266,800 adults were incarcerated in U.S. federal and state prisons, and county jails at year-end 2011 – about 0.7% of adults in the U.S. resident population.[7] Additionally, 4,814,200 adults at year-end 2011 were on probation or on parole.[11] In total, 6,977,700 adults were under correctional supervision (probation, parole, jail, or prison) in 2011 – about 2.9% of adults in the U.S. resident population.[11]

    Also, remember, that people are incarcerated … and released. So when I’m saying millions are incarcerated unjustly, that’s what I mean. Not that they’re all still in prison.

    Former Conservative (6e026c)

  134. for doing nothing wrong

    For breaking the existing laws

    JD (b63a52)

  135. 124

    I’m a conservative precisely because I’m not thrilled with either team. How could I be a liberal? I don’t vote for Messiahs.

    I was thinking more Democrats and Republicans than liberals and conservatives. Like the “spin doctors” who come on after debates to explain that their guy won.

    I could never imagine myself saying this:

    Conservatives have been known to say stupid things also. And while I wouldn’t put it like Rock I am old-fashioned enough to grant Obama a certain amount of deference because of the office he holds. I don’t agree with Obama on most policy issues but I don’t care for the rabid personal attacks he is subjected to.

    James B. Shearer (fc4608)

  136. Former Conservative, I largely agree with you. I think if you look at my past statements I’ve decried the Kali Correctional officer’s union for its undo influence when lobbying for the state’s three strikes law. As a matter of fact I’ve called Kali a state that’s an asylum run for the benefit of its keepers.

    On other subjects I’ve never subscribed to the theory that if you don’t have anything to hide you don’t have anything to fear from the federal government’s “total information awareness.” “Total Information Awareness?” The feds don’t even know how many federal laws and regulations they have on the books. Even doing my utmost to keep my affairs lawful, how can I know I’m doing so when the laws are beyond the federal government’s ability to count?

    That said it’s beyond a stretch to claim that people who are placed on probation for crimes are among those in this category:

    “imprisoning millions of people for non-violent voluntary activities.”

    And if we’re going to count those who are imprisoned and released, how far back to we go?

    If you go back to the beginning of the Republic I’m sure there are millions who have been imprisoned for burglary and robbery. Perhaps even murderers. Certainly rapists.

    The statistic has to be meaningful.

    Steve57 (ab2b34)

  137. Who gives a crap? That’s the point — conservatives love themselves big government just fine. The laws in question are evil.

    They want millions imprisoned for voluntariness, censorship, and childhood indoctrination into standing up for the land of the free that isn’t free at all, recruited into the security state.

    These aren’t Calvin Coolidge’s conservatives.

    Former Conservative (6e026c)

  138. @JD

    Former Conservative (6e026c)

  139. The feds don’t even know how many federal laws and regulations they have on the books.

    Exactly. Three Felonies a Day

    I.e., if they want you, they’ll get you. With this many laws, people live free at the mercy of the state. Period.

    Former Conservative (6e026c)

  140. And if we’re going to count those who are imprisoned and released, how far back to we go?

    Living people works.

    Former Conservative (6e026c)

  141. Who gives a crap? That’s the point — conservatives love themselves big government just fine. The laws in question are evil.

    They want millions imprisoned for voluntariness, censorship, and childhood indoctrination into standing up for the land of the free that isn’t free at all, recruited into the security state.

    Who is this “they” you yammer about, and why do you conflate conservatives with Team R? Or why do you conflate following the rule of law with big government?

    JD (b63a52)

  142. Team R, in essence, yeah. There are some people who provisionally come to support Team R during elections that don’t want a massive surveillance state, a military-industrial complex, censorship of free speech, the indoctrination of children, and people put in jail for engaging in voluntary vices.

    But most conservatives want some or all of the above. They certainly don’t do much to stand up against them.

    Former Conservative (6e026c)

  143. 136. These aren’t Calvin Coolidge’s conservatives.

    Comment by Former Conservative (6e026c) — 6/24/2013 @ 7:48 pm

    These aren’t anyone’s conservatives. Assuming you’re trying to conserve the gains of the American Revolution as opposed to the FDR administration.

    Steve57 (ab2b34)

  144. I don’t agree with Obama on most policy issues but I don’t care for the rabid personal attacks he is subjected to.

    Sometimes things just crack me up.

    JD (b63a52)

  145. 139.

    And if we’re going to count those who are imprisoned and released, how far back to we go?

    Living people works.

    Comment by Former Conservative (6e026c) — 6/24/2013 @ 7:53 pm

    If we could count those Stanley “Tookie” Williams wouldn’t be voting Democrat again.

    Steve57 (ab2b34)

  146. Wealthy liberal families don’t preach what they practice.

    I’d love to witness such families being uprooted and moved to, say, Detroit, Michigan. Their idealism and two-faced compassion deserves to be tested on a daily basis. But, of course, that will never happen, since the mess they create generally is left for others to clean up.

    Sarcasm aside, I’m still taken aback by learning recently that Franklin D Roosevelt behind closed doors was a surprisingly bigoted person. Even though I’ve seen studies that indicate people of the left can be grotesquely just the opposite of what they love to think of themselves and other like-minded people, I still never would have believed that Roosevelt fit that template.

    I’ve also noticed through the years plenty of liberal sentiment pouring out of Bill Clinton (described by some as America’s “first black president”). And even though I’m aware he’s also a crude huckster, I still would have presumed he’d be sophisticated and decent enough to not use the “N” word in a casual, nonchalant way.

    BTW, if celebrity Paula Deen’s PR people are aware of the history of such liberals, they might want to force that into the face of her former employer, particularly if that crowd tends to lean left.

    Mark (67e579)

  147. There’s a stratification. Wealthy liberal families don’t preach what they practice. They’re wealthy for a reason. They get married before having children, stay married, and otherwise actually practice some forms of self-discipline.

    Much of that is biological. These are the higher-IQ liberal families, as I get into here, and they generally engage in more self-restrained personal behavior with an eye to their future.

    Former Conservative (6e026c)

  148. And there is variation within ancestral groups, of course, but wealth and intelligence correlate well, and intelligence correlates well with self-restrained behavior.

    Former Conservative (6e026c)

  149. R.I.P. Richard Matheson,
    science fiction author par excellence; writer of “I Am Legend”, “The Shrinking Man”, and many episodes of the original Twilight Zone tv show

    Icy (220208)

  150. RIP

    Former Conservative (6e026c)

  151. Science fiction with heros and villians and babes and ideas, oh my! RIP, Mr. Matheson.

    htom (412a17)

  152. Start reading some Solzhenitsyn to get a perspective on the end game of an authoritarian government. Be sure to read “One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich” – as a gulag prisoner he terrified the state most of all because he realized that once the state takes everything away from you then you are finally free … and free to act accordingly.

    in_awe (7c859a)

  153. Be sure to read “One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich” – as a gulag prisoner he terrified the state most of all because he realized that once the state takes everything away from you then you are finally free … and free to act accordingly.

    Well this much is true. Once you lose everything you think is essential to life, you cannot be intimidated.

    Former Conservative (6e026c)

  154. Not unless you think life itself is important.

    Former Conservative (6e026c)

  155. Libertarians just want to drugs.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  156. do drugs

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  157. 153. Not unless you think life itself is important.

    Comment by Former Conservative (6e026c) — 6/24/2013 @ 8:42 pm

    Life is important. But so are the terms.

    http://legalinsurrection.com/2008/11/is-it-time-for-conservatives-to-sit-down-in-the-snow/

    Sharansky spend almost a decade in Soviet prison because of his activities on behalf of Jews who wanted to emigrate to Israel. Sharansky was subjected to torture and other indignities, but never lost his spirit. Sharansky notoriously refused to obey even the most mundane orders from his captors. Sharansky understood that to compromise even a little would lead to compromising a lot. Throughout his ordeal, Sharansky kept his spirits alive by reading a small book of psalms.

    As Sharansky was being led to the airplane that would take him from the Soviet Union to East Germany for the exchange, the Soviets confiscated his book of psalms.It would have been easy for Sharansky simply to keep walking towards the plane and freedom. But Sharansky understood that the Soviets confiscated his book of psalms not because they wanted the book, but because they wanted to show that even in this last moment, they were in control.

    In front of reporters covering his departure, Sharansky sat in the snow refusing to move unless the Soviets gave him back his book of psalms. Here was this diminutive man, after 10 years in prison, on the verge of freedom, refusing to budge unless one of the world’s two superpowers gave him back his book. And give him back his book of psalms they did. Sharansky proceeded to the plane, where he read Psalm 30: “I will extol thee, O Lord; for thou hast lifted me up, and hast not made my foes to rejoice over me.”

    Jay Nordlinger’s 2005 interview with Sharansky recounts not only the episode in the snow, but also the final moments when Sharansky walked to the car for the exchange:

    Sharansky spent nine years in the Gulag, a harrowing time in which he demonstrated what resistance is. More than 400 of those days were spent in punishment cells; more than 200 were spent on hunger strikes. His refusal to concede anything to the Soviet state was almost superhuman. This was true to the very last. When they relinquished him to the East Germans, they told him to walk straight to a waiting car — “Don’t make any turns.” Sharansky zig-zagged his way to that car.

    I will add quite gratuitously that Snowden isn’t fit to hold Sharansky’s jock strap.

    Steve57 (ab2b34)

  158. Life is important.

    I don’t agree.

    But so are the terms.

    I agree.

    As for William Jacobson, I agree with him about a whole lot of things. One thing where I don’t agree is that there’s any possibility in hell that conservatives are going to “sit down in the snow”.

    Former Conservative (6e026c)

  159. Former Conservative @157, if life isn’t important how could the terms possibly be important?

    Steve57 (ab2b34)

  160. And by the way, you do realize that the post by Prof. Jacobson I linked to was from November 2008?

    I agree that if the conservatives were going to “sit down in the snow” they would have already done so in what’s going on nearly the past five years. That wasn’t the point of bringing up Anatoly Sharansky.

    in_awe sparked my memory. In this year of the beatification of Eddie Snowden it’s time to remember what real courage in the face of actual adversity looks like. What genuine civil disobedience looks like. And it’s not flying to Hong Kong to sell whatever secrets you stole in exchange for the most comfortable retirement.

    Steve57 (ab2b34)

  161. it’s time to remember what real courage in the face of actual adversity looks like.

    Indeed, Steve. There are a lot of everyday heroes who are more than willing to face a little adversity and personal risk or cost in order to promote human rights. They do it all the time, and they don’t run to the media to validate themselves for it.

    Some internet commenters have gone to some length to congratulate themselves while praising Snowden, so I don’t think they understand the concept of courage, to say nothing of civil disobedience. I see one of them conflated criminalizing drug sales with supporting a massive surveillance state. While idiotically saying conservatives love big government. Reminds me of Alan Colmes, a bit, winning arguments in his own mind by clumsily redefining points of view in trollish ways.

    Without question Snowden’s supposed message would be more powerful and amplified had he taken it to the American people rather than China, in some ways not an ally of the American people or our concept of human rights.

    But he didn’t. Snowden made a knowing choice to put our rights and this message about those rights second to other things his own sake, which resulted in helping some bad guys. What more does one need to know about his lack of character?

    Dustin (303dca)

  162. Former Conservative @157, if life isn’t important how could the terms possibly be important?

    I get your point, and maybe its semantic.

    My position is life is not inherently important, but it’s the content of life that is important. Life is a necessary precondition for either a good life or a bad life.

    But most people will, in fact, choose life. However, if one insists on life under all circumstances, then one doesn’t have the courage to sit in the snow.

    Former Conservative (6e026c)

  163. @156

    In front of reporters covering his departure, Sharansky sat in the snow refusing to move unless the Soviets gave him back his book of psalms. Here was this diminutive man, after 10 years in prison, on the verge of freedom, refusing to budge unless one of the world’s two superpowers gave him back his book. And give him back his book of psalms they did.

    This is tried by hundreds of people on a daily basis against various unjust law enforcement actions, except now LE responds not with frustrated acquiescence but violent tasering or worse.

    Chris (654abf)

  164. Dustin, I just can’t help but see the difference between Edward Snowden’s actions and those of Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods at Benghazi. Snowden stole a great deal of insurance to guarantee his safety before holding his ostentatiously self-effacing press conferences. Doherty and Woods just went into action without the press conferences.

    Eddie says this country is worth dying for…

    http://news.yahoo.com/country-worth-dying-other-revelations-edward-snowdens-q-135600550.html

    …while he shops for a villa that satisfies him.

    Other people just fight and die for their country.

    I can not imagine under any circumstance doing what Snowden is doing. I realize that sounds like big talk, but how could I look anyone in my family in the eye if I sold out my country? How could I pretend to be courageous when I wasn’t willing to go to prison for a country other people died for?

    Steve57 (ab2b34)

  165. Libertarians just want to [do] drugs.
    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 6/24/2013 @ 8:50 pm

    — Not true, not true!

    They ALSO want to manufacture & distribute them.

    Icy (a52148)

  166. R.I.P. Gary David Goldberg, producer of “Family Ties”

    Icy (a52148)

  167. for doing nothing wrong

    For breaking the existing laws

    Comment by JD (b63a52) — 6/24/2013 @ 7:44 pm

    Don’t conflate legality and morality. It was an existing law in Nazi Germany to hide a Jew, but it damn sure wasn’t wrong.

    Ghost (2d8874)

  168. Libertarians just want to [do] drugs.
    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 6/24/2013 @ 8:50 pm

    – Not true, not true!

    They ALSO want to manufacture & distribute them.

    Comment by Icy (a52148) — 6/24/2013 @ 11:29 pm

    Hey!

    Don’t forget the porn and kinky sex.

    Ghost (2d8874)

  169. Terrorists are far away. Their supply and communications lines are long. Their members are thin on the ground – today. They can kill or maim you. In either case you are left a sympathetic character in the drama of life. If you live you get SOME additional understanding.

    Government is “right there all around you.” That means it has all its power already marshaled to make your life miserable. And as the people who are nominally on your side, they all too often fail miserably (as often as not due to our rather miserable set of excessive laws.) I’ve spent a year receiving online threats ’85-’86 from a man who’d sort of “lost it” big time. (I am a woman.) He threatened rape, dismemberment, degradation, and so on often enough I managed to acquire a firearm that fit in my purse where it lived any time I was out of the house. Otherwise it lived by my right hand. I was living alone. The police were powerless to protect me and the legal system, regarding that gun I carried illegally, is structured such as to make life and careers for criminals safer for the criminals. Or at least that is my jaundiced view of the situation after this experience.

    I also lived near Torrance. I had occasion to report a lost or stolen handbag in Torrance. Now, Torrance Ca at the time was not noted for having one of the absolutely straight sanest group of officers. They inherited some tossed from other departments over their treatment of their victims. (sic) One of them, a very far gone sadist testosterone case, came in with a black girl shop lifter. His carrying on scared ME; and, I was only there to file a report.

    There are police always all around me. If one in 10,000 is a little off that leaves me with better odds of becoming an object of interest to a crazed officer than becoming a victim of a Boston Bomber.

    Damn right I’m more worried about a government perverting an anti-terror software tool by “redefining terror” as far as the software is concerned. That is a VERY simple matter of programming. And with the crew in the White House this is VERY likely to happen given Janet Napolitano already declaring I am likely a terrorist because I favor the Tea Party ideals, particularly that of “get the freaking government out of my face.”

    By the way, with Google and everybody else in the world, or so it seems, building large databases based on your web behavior and presence, having the government do it, too, is not THAT big a deal as long as we have strong laws, and gruesome punishments, regarding how this data may be used. This genie is out of the bottle. It’s up to us to figure out how to arm twist our legislators into properly defining its legal uses both for the government and for civilians.

    {^_^}

    JDow (d8539e)

  170. Eddie says this country is worth dying for…

    http://news.yahoo.com/country-worth-dying-other-revelations-edward-snowdens-q-135600550.html

    …while he shops for a villa that satisfies him.

    Sure, Eddie made the move because sticking around spending his 6 figure income, porking the jazzersize girlfriend, has lost it’s alure.
    It’s so much better living on the run.

    I can not imagine under any circumstance doing what Snowden is doing.

    Steve would have let us all bask in the ignorance while Obama’s henchmen rifling through our phonecalls, credit card receits, and that he calls virtue.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  171. 170. The false dilemma–equating the esteem for Tyrone Woods with that of Snowden by implication of those who might disagree with them–is evidence of a sick, iniquitous nature.

    Perspective an unknown quality.

    gary gulrud (ef8610)

  172. Kevin M. @ 105: I’m from Boston. My friend’s nephew died in the blasts; another friend’s dad was shot at in Watertown. (Thankfully, the bomber had bad aim.) Two hijacked 9/11 planes came out of Logan: I know a handful of people who lost someone, including a woman whose friend’s child died.

    So “death by terrorist” is not a hypothetical for me, but I can do really basic math and compare that with the gulags, concentration camps, killing fields of Cambodia, rape rooms in Iraq, atrocities in China, etc. It is only because I live in Boston in 2013 that my own government isn’t out to kill me. Statistically,looking across the scope of human history and the modern world, that is an anomaly.

    But Rand Paul went on a thirteen-hour rant because the modern American government wanted the right to kill Americans without a trial, without due process, without even dragging them into the police station. Assisted suicide was sold as a way for mentally healthy, physically dying people to avoid suffering; it didn’t take long for Oregon to try to pay for death but not for chemo. One European country now wants to use “assisted suicide” on Alzheimer’s patients who lack mental capacity.

    Let’s talk ObamaCare. If a terrorist shoots at me on the way to the doctor’s office, I can try to fight back, and it wouldn’t affect anyone else. If the government forbids doctors to prescribe certain treatments, or doesn’t allow them to do certain testing, everyone is SOL and without recourse.

    /rant

    bridget (84c06f)

  173. Ok, this really does clinch it, “the security lapse in allowing an IT guy access to all this is unimaginably gigantic”.

    http://hotair.com/archives/2013/06/24/cold-war-u-s-tells-russia-to-give-back-snowden-or-else/

    Allahpundit is a ph*kwit.

    gary gulrud (ef8610)

  174. 173. With bridget, the gals around here, DRJ, sarahw, elissa, patricia, et al., have taken an overwhelming preponderance in gravitas at Rico’s vis a vis us mens.

    gary gulrud (ef8610)

  175. Ghost – I don’t really give a crap if you and former conservative wish to burn a one-hitter, or clear a 3 foot Graphix bong. Like Snowden, it may be right, but that doesn’t mean your choices don’t have legal consequences.

    JD (716d3b)

  176. As long as there are “Lois Lerner” types in the government, then the work of good people is nullified. Keep in mind, the government is a union shop, full of good drones – people who do whatever they are told. When they are told to do questionable things, they do it.

    The key to keeping our Republic is to keep the federal government as small and unobtrusive as possible, and to make our election system as fraud-proof as possible. The Democrats are against both- and they are the enemy of freedom, just as they see the Tea Party as the enemy of their socialist utopia.

    Smarty (273307)

  177. And then there’s always somebody trying to ice skate uphill.

    @ comment by JDow

    By the way, with Google and everybody else in the world, or so it seems, building large databases based on your web behavior and presence, having the government do it, too, is not THAT big a deal as long as we have strong laws, and gruesome punishments, regarding how this data may be used. This genie is out of the bottle. It’s up to us to figure out how to arm twist our legislators into properly defining its legal uses both for the government and for civilians.

    Fine. If you want to let the government get away with snooping on everything I do, no skin off your nose. Google does it. Why not Obama?

    Ok, but first you have to get a bill through both houses of congress to amend the constitution abolishing the Fourth Amendment, then get that petition approved by a super majority of the States.

    Good luck with that.

    And as far as Google goes with them snooping on my every keystroke, there probably aught to be a law against that. Kind of like the anti-telemarketer law.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  178. /rant

    Comment by bridget (84c06f) — 6/25/2013 @ 5:52 am

    Naw, but that was good. To me that wasn’t a rant. That was just cutting to the chase with a jigger of clarity.

    You know living in Boston, that’s got to up your odds on the terrorist coming to kill me thing.

    Just sayin.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  179. How afraid are you of getting hit by lightening? Probably not very because it is a rare and random event. So is terrorism. The government is neither rare nor random. Good people and bad are involved and the bad are much more likely to abuse that power. The more power, the greater the opportunity for abuse and the more damage that will be done.

    ProfTwist (b24ff0)

  180. My man Mick Jagger at the Stones concert last night at the Verizon Center. A double zinger:

    “I don’t think President Obama is here tonight… But I’m sure he’s listening in.”

    elissa (c2c614)

  181. Another reason why it isn’t a case of being glib or cavalier, or partisan, to believe that the US government is more frightening than terrorists: The current crowd throughout DC actually has the gall to say that out-and-out terrorists in Libya were inflamed by a dumb video posted to Youtube, and that a US military enlistee who raved and ranted against America, and who openly played up his pro-Islamic sympathies, was exhibiting “workplace violence.”

    Here’s another reason:

    nationalreview.com, June 24: A November 2010 version of the list obtained by National Review Online, however, suggests that while the list did contain the word “progressive,” screeners were in fact instructed to treat “progressive” groups differently from “tea party” groups. Whereas screeners were merely alerted that a designation of 501(c)(3) status “may not be appropriate” for applications containing the word ”progressive” – 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from conducting any political activities – they were told to send those of tea-party groups off IRS higher-ups for further scrutiny.

    That means the applications of progressive groups could be approved on the spot by line agents, while those of tea-party groups could not. Furthermore, the November 2010 list noted that tea-party cases were “currently being coordinated with EOT,” which stands for Exempt Organizations Technical, a group of tax lawyers in Washington, D.C. Those of progressive groups were not.

    Cincinnati [IRS] screener Gary Muthert…told committee investigators that the applications of pro-Israel groups went to an antiterrorism unit within the agency.

    Mark (67e579)

  182. Conservatives and especially libertarians are some of the most fearful conspiracy theorist anti-gov’t loonatics on earth.

    Truth (cb9ecd)

  183. JD – Up for some mostly peaceful recreational face eating this weekend?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  184. Ghost – I don’t really give a crap if you and former conservative wish to burn a one-hitter, or clear a 3 foot Graphix bong. Like Snowden, it may be right, but that doesn’t mean your choices don’t have legal consequences.

    Comment by JD (716d3b) — 6/25/2013 @ 6:14 am

    FC said, “they did nothing wrong,” you said, “except break existing laws.” Sure, there are legal consequences, but that doesn’t make the law right, or disregarding it wrong. If the law is unjust, man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so. It’s illegal to be a Christian in Islamic countries, does that make it wrong to disobey the law?

    Because the Christians who are jailed and executed in those countries did nothing wrong, except “break the existing laws.” I’m simply warning against people thinking, “this is legal, therefore it is good; this is illegal, therefore it is bad.” Far more people have been brutalized and killed in the name of “law” than have ever been killed in spite of it.

    Ghost (2d8874)

  185. Then convince people of the unjustness of your position.

    I never once suggested this is legal therefore it is good, or it is bad because it is illegal. Continue to torch strawmen.

    JD (b63a52)

  186. Conservatives and especially libertarians are some of the most fearful conspiracy theorist anti-gov’t loonatics on earth.

    Comment by Truth (cb9ecd) — 6/25/2013 @ 9:14 am

    Try reading a damn history book, troll.

    Ghost (2d8874)

  187. JD,
    You’re right. I drew an improper conclusion to what you were saying. My apologies. You weren’t saying that these people were arrested for doing something wrong, just that they broke the law. It seemed like you were saying that breaking the law was wrong, but looking back at it, I can see where that was my assumption and not what you said.

    And trust me, I’m working on convincing people.

    Ghost (2d8874)

  188. There are times when I fear the media. Misinformation, disception, and censoring of information is becoming an evil that feeds government power. With a better media, government is better controlled.

    James (20c4d9)

  189. Whaddaya know, there are conservatives in AZ.
    Comment by gary gulrud (ef8610) — 6/25/2013 @ 5:24 am

    — Me and PatAZ resemble that remark.

    [And yeah, I was a big McCain supporter in ’08, because I knew how bad Obama was gonna be. And yeah, I was a big supporter of Flake — while he was in the House; but once he got into the Senate, and McCain and Graham got their hooks into him . . .]

    Icy (3cd8e3)

  190. 192. You’re a good man Icy, I was steerin’ clear of Flake and now see it was for cause.

    Same with me and Ryan, best mind in House leadership doesn’t amount to squat.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  191. “Gang of Eight”?
    More like Mad Magazine’s “usual gang of idiots”.

    Icy (3cd8e3)

  192. Icy, in a way we should be grateful McCain didn’t get in. He’d be embracing 95% of the Obama agenda and then the press would claim all this crap stems from “conservative ideas.”

    Steve57 (ab2b34)

  193. My man Mick Jagger at the Stones concert last night at the Verizon Center. A double zinger:

    “I don’t think President Obama is here tonight… But I’m sure he’s listening in.”

    Comment by elissa (c2c614)

    and after all of that brown-nosing in the past… wonder what Bobby Dylan has to say about his choice in ’08 and ’12?

    Colonel Haiku (a4ce0d)

  194. Icy, in a way we should be grateful McCain didn’t get in. He’d be embracing 95% of the Obama agenda and then the press would claim all this crap stems from “conservative ideas.”

    Comment by Steve57

    And to anyone who is paying attention to ObamaCare, the small silver lining is that Obama will be holding the bag when the whole thing goes to hell in a handbasket.

    (The bill was designed so that the bulk of the costs would go into effect during Obama’s lame duck term, or a Republican presidency, but the goodies like “insurance companies send you your own personal refund check” would take effect prior to November, 2012. Well, it’s a disaster, it’s already running red ink, and it’s not “our guy” in the White House. Karma’s a bit of a witch.)

    bridget (84c06f)

  195. The Democratic Party is not perfect, but, by far, the insane Republican Party is more hazardous to this democracy than terrorists. Unless, of course the terrorists get a hold of The Bomb! The Republican Party are the puppets of big business, who now run this country. Thanks to the right wing, this once great country is now more fascist than democratic. What planet are these right wing idiots from? This is NOT the same country I grew up in. I feel like I am in the Twilight Zone, or the movie Invasion of the Body Snatchers. More like Invasion of the Brain Snatchers! They are mindless, goose-stepping morons that don’t both to think, or, more likely are unable to think, rationally about the consequences of their selfish pursuits. They are mean, heartless bastards. The only way they can win elections is through corruption and attracting ignorant, single issue nut bags (guns, religion, money, racism…..). The same dumb ass crackers that watch Fox News and actually believe what they hear and see. You know who I talking about. They are the ones that don’t laugh at what they see and hear when they watch blow hole Bill O’Reilly, for instance. Here is an idea for a bumper sticker: “Racist? Redneck? Religious? Rich? Rifles? = Republican!”

    Mark62 (2d1b87)

  196. The Republican Party are the puppets of big business, who now run this country.

    I always find it amusing when liberals rail against big business and, in effect, capitalism, but are so snug and comfy with the existences of a huge, bloated bureaucracy. A public sector that forces the populace to feed it, if you will, that forces the populace to buy its goods and services (eg, I can choose to not visit WalMart, but I’m mandated to drop by the DMV office; I don’t have to respond to ads from GM, but I’m mandated to respond to junk from the IRS), the forces the populace to keep its employees fat and happy—ie, government employee unions with their bountiful vacation time, pension plans, healthcare benefits, salary increases, etc.

    BTW, I bet you’re one of the many two-faced liberals out there who deems him or herself as being so compassionate, wonderful, generous, tolerant and humane, when in actuality you exhibit none of those qualities on a regular basis.

    Mark (67e579)

  197. I think this would make a good bumper sticker:

    “I am the target of ad hominem attacks!!!”

    It would make a lot of head scratching, people wondering if “ad hominem” was the name of a new terrorist group.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  198. First of all, I don’t have any issues with capitalism. I do have a major issue when big business becomes 1) too large to fail and 2) so powerful that it controls our government. “I always find it amusing when” the right wing brings up capitalism when discussing our government. You see, the right wing (ex. people that use that small portion of their brain)mix the two together. So, here is a small history lesson: There is nothing in the US Constitution that refers to capitalism. Nothing. There is, however, a little passage that starts off with “We the people…”. Big business only cares about one thing ($$$$$$$). Big business will destroy anything that gets in it’s way of $$$$$$, including you and me and the environment that we happen to need in order to live. I would much rather have an imperfect government (one run by Democrats) looking out for “We the people…” than a big business (Republicans)running the country. BIG BUSINESS DOESN’T CARE ABOUT YOU! Don’t you get it, dumb ass? No, I am very compassionate. I treat every person I meet with respect, unless he or she proves he/she doesn’t deserve it. As far as I am concerned, the right wing has proven it doesn’t deserve it. I’ll bet you are the typical two faced religious conservative who pretends to follow the teaching of Jesus but, in reality, takes issue with the teachings of Christ. In other words, you have no compassion for the sick (which ObamaCare tries to remedy) and zero compassion for the poor. The Democratic party has focused on both. It has focused on the environment and tried to police big business. It tries to keep “We the people…” safe from our enemies (anyone that tried to take advantage of us, or harm us). Big business would not lift a finger to protect “We the people..”, especially if there was a cost involved that might cut into it’s bottom line. Yes, you are probably the typical right winger who only believes in God so that, in case there is a God, you will go to heaven. Question: If Jesus were here today, bases on his teachings, would he be a right winger or a Democrat? I know it is hard to honest with yourself, due to your mindset, but think long and hard about that. Yes, I think you have the same mindset of those that Jesus chased out of his Temple. But, you probably won’t know about that part of the New Testament, since you you don’t really follow the teachings of Christ. And, for God’s sake, stop watching Fox News and use what little brain you have.

    Mark62 (2d1b87)

  199. No, I am very compassionate. I treat every person I meet with respect,

    Liar

    That was an epic parody of a community based reality leftist. Bravo!

    JD (b63a52)

  200. Question: If Jesus were here today, bases on his teachings, would he be a right winger or a Democrat?

    Neither.
    If you kind find a copy of the book God’s Love, the one thing we can’t live without by Peter Kreeft, he has a chapter on that.
    (Peter Kreeft is a college professor who writes simply so even those of us with little brain, like Winnie the Pooh, I guess, can understand, a little bit.)

    And no, I really don’t go by “Pascal’s Wager”.

    You must be very smart or something to know my behavior from afar,
    and you could be more compassionate with those of us who have little brains, since it seems you think you have cornered the market on compassion.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  201. No, I am very compassionate.

    Really? Based on your comments and biases, I suspect that you’re not only no more compassionate than the average person, you’re likely even less than that. The reason is your rantings are so devoid of common sense, and you exhibit the emotions of a bratty teenager (and I’m assuming you’re not in your teens), that your take on things is reminiscent of a child berating mommy for not letting you stay up later and daddy for not giving you a bigger allowance.

    The fact you don’t even bother to insert paragraph breaks also indicates a peculiar obsessiveness — a sort of foaming-at-the-mouth extremism — on your part.

    BTW, if you’re still rather young, perhaps no older than your 20s or lower 30s, you have a bit of an excuse for being so rabidly leftwing. But if you’re older than that, the phrase that comes to mind is “arrested maturity.”

    Mark (67e579)

  202. In other words, you have no compassion for the sick (which ObamaCare tries to remedy) and zero compassion for the poor.

    Hmm, I did not bother reading your entire tirade closely.
    You are either not very smart or you are mixing me up with someone else. My career as a physican has been spent working among the poor at less than market wages.
    Maybe Obamacare in theory as advertised is supposed to show compassion for the sick, but in reality it does nothing of the sort, just pours more money into government bureaucracies and gives big government more control.
    And since Big Government is run by fallible people like Big Business, it is no better.
    Right there is a major difference between libs and conservatives. libs think that if one works for the government somehow that makes, or means, that one is a better person.
    Nope.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  203. Read it again, Righty! I am compassionate to those who deserve it. You and your kind don’t deserve compassion. Get it??!! You and your kind are why the rest of the civilized world hates us all. And, frankly, I understand why they do. You people have gone so far off the cliff that your God, Ronald Reagan, would be consider a “leftist” in your political universe. Why don’t you ALL go to Texas or Arizona, where you belong?

    Mark62 (2d1b87)

  204. MD Philly, I haven’t een speaking to you. I have been speaking to Mark (67e579)the entire time.

    Mark62 (2d1b87)

  205. The Democratic party has focused on both.

    I’m truly not trying to sound snarky here, because it’s merely incorporating a facet of harsh reality, but you truly should move to the city of Detroit and witness it on a daily basis. It’s a community that for over 50 years has been awash with people who think and vote the way you do.

    Similarly, I can’t think of one very messed-up, dysfunctional society that isn’t dominated by leftism, or weird variations of it (eg, the socialism of a Sadaam Hussein), or where common sense is respected and upheld (ie, I don’t consider the Sharia-Law-crazed nations of the Middle East to be of the normative right, and I certainly don’t consider them infused with basic logic).

    Mark (67e579)

  206. I am compassionate to those who deserve it.

    Just be honest and admit that you’re no more compassionate or humane than the average person, and may even have less of those traits than many of your fellow humans.

    Mark (67e579)

  207. We have a floor wax and a desert topping, all of the surveilance, but none of the protection, it is basically the incompetence of an Asiri, or a Fahzad
    that has saved us from more massacres in the sky or
    in Times Square.

    narciso (3fec35)

  208. Mark 62
    If you want to rant about one conservative being an uncompassionate stupid hick because of your sterotype then you are arguing all of us who are more conservative than liberal in our political outlooks of being stupid uncompassionate hyopcritical hicks.

    So stand up for what you believe or rethink, none of this, But…but… stuff.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  209. Bless your little heart, mark62. This is the new CIVILITY the left is always yammering about. ThinkRegress and MediaMutterz sure know how to breed nutterz.

    JD (b63a52)

  210. Mark (67e579)
    You, and the good doctor, are clearly superior to me due to your use paragraphs and large words. Therefore, I surrender. Yes, I fear you have won and I must now tuck tail and run from such an overpowering onslaught of pulsating brain power.

    (New Paragraph) Well, at least I learned a new term today: ad hominem. I will try to use that word throughout the day so that I can trick people into thinking I am intelligent, like you guys.

    Mark62 (2d1b87)

  211. MD is intelligent, and thoughtful, unlike yourself. That was like the Mt Vesuvius of ad hom spewing nonsense, one of the best unhinged unglued histrionic leftist rants I have seen in a while. Don’t go away because you feel inferior.

    JD (b63a52)

  212. “I will try to use that word throughout the day so that I can trick people into thinking I am intelligent, like you guys.”

    Mark62 – I don’t think it’s going to work, the intelligence thing, I mean. You’ve already demonstrated your lack of it in your comments here.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  213. ‘that word he is using’ daley:

    narciso (3fec35)

  214. I thought I was just trying to engage in conversation without being too snarky.

    I mean, I wasn’t the one who started, or even continued, the name calling.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  215. Wow. Patterico is moving up in the world. I see Toure has started posting here. Maybe Chris Matthews will be next?

    elissa (24b4c0)

  216. I think I stumbled upon a bunch of Right-Wing crazies, here.

    The questions should be: Who’s more dangerous to the United States of America and our freedoms, the crazy Right-Wing or Terrorism?

    The answer: The Right-Wing.

    You people need to crawl back under the rock from which you came. Seriously!

    Sanity (2d1b87)

  217. Do you have any actual argument or case to make, other than a Capitalized Assertion?

    Former Conservative (6e026c)

  218. Commenters who do not use a consistent name, and/or who use a proxy to post, are subject to banning

    Mark62 is “sanity”. Classic

    JD (b63a52)

  219. No. Just stating my opinion on how screwed those people really are. And the Right-Wing thought process is really messed up. It is really sad. Goodbye

    Sanity (2d1b87)

  220. JD, thanks for exposing yourself.

    Sanity (2d1b87)

  221. I agree with Sanity. You people are really are messed up.

    Sanity (2d1b87)

  222. Don’t bother responding to that lefty. Sanity is clearly the same person as Mark62.

    ConMan (2d1b87)

  223. It is clear that Sanity and Mark62 are not taking this right wing blogosphere sight seriously. They need to be booted, unless they start thinking the way we do. Now, on to other topics.

    (New paragraph) I propose that it is time to get into another war. Since we are no longer slaughtering people in Irag and will soon be out of “offically” Afghanistan, I think we need to go to war in…..say…..Iran or Syria. Any ideas on how we do this with a Marxist, Pinko Socialist, Communist black man in our Oval office? We can’t have another USS Maine, Pearl Harbor or 911, just yet, so we need to think of another way. Any ideas?

    ConMan (2d1b87)

  224. ConMan, you are sick! We need to be investing in American, not more wars.

    Sanity (2d1b87)

  225. I agree with Sanity. You people are really are messed up.
    Comment by Sanity (2d1b87) — 6/27/2013 @ 10:24 am

    First lesson in sockpuppetry:
    When you write a post as a sockpuppet, change your name, otherwise you just end up saying you agree with yourself, like you did.

    Second lesson in sockpuppetry:
    Comment by Mark62 (2d1b87)
    Comment by Sanity (2d1b87)
    Comment by ConMan (2d1b87)
    The (2d1b87) behind each post tells us the same computer was used for all 3 posts,
    so if you want to sockpuppet here and get away with it, you need to go to the trouble of using a computer from another ISP address.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  226. Playing with oneself is considered by most people as something to do in private, Sanity, Mark62 and ConMan. You are fooling no one.

    elissa (24b4c0)

  227. Good thing that sanity was here to put ConMan in his place.

    Joe Sockpuppet (3d3f72)

  228. 227, 228. I cannot believe we’ve lost our country to these ‘tards.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  229. Comment by Joe Sockpuppet (3d3f72)
    Comment by MD in Philly (3d3f72)

    See how that works.

    Joe Sockpuppet (3d3f72)

  230. No. We need more war to get the economy moving. Don’t you know that is how we got ourselves out of the last Republican manufactured depression!

    ConMan (2d1b87)

  231. ConMan,
    Can you read??

    Joe Sockpuppet (3d3f72)

  232. ConMan,
    Can you read??

    Comment by Joe Sockpuppet (3d3f72)

    Sorry for the forgetting to change the name back.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  233. No, you are wrong. It was Roosevelt and his New Deal that got us out of the great Republican depression. An it was the Cheney administration that almost got us into the another great depression!

    Sanity (2d1b87)

  234. On to a new topic: Thanks God for the right wing controlled Supreme Court! We can now go about our business suppressing the non-white vote, on a state by state level. Now, all we need is someone to run for president in 2016 who isn’t a complete clown. I think Sarah or Newt are really on top of things. Oh, then there is Rick Perry. A really brilliant man. What say you?

    ConMan (2d1b87)

  235. I changed my mind. Let’s talk about abortion rights. You know, there really is such a thing as legitimate rape. I know, because I watch Fox News. Also, I think it is ridiculous that woman feel they should have control over their own bodies. Hell, they shouldn’t even have the right to vote, period! Same with black peoples. What do you guys think?

    ConMan (2d1b87)

  236. Looks like neither Sanity nor ConMan can read.

    I don’t know if T-y-p-i-n-g s-l-o-w w-o-u-l-d h-e-l-p .

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  237. No more OT than anything else:

    http://www.jihadwatch.org/2013/06/britain-capitulates-to-jihad.html

    Today Britain is back to 2005 in its citizens disposable income.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  238. New Topic: Let’s talk about poor Darrel Issa. Last week,that poor, kind, thoughtful, honest man was exposed for his selective release of information regarding the IRS scandal. Facts that were proven to have been cherry picked by Mr. Issa so that it looked like the White House involved. That poor man’s dishonest was exposed, of all things, by a black man! This is an outrage. Where is the KKK when you need them!!!!???? Let’s discuss.

    ConMan (2d1b87)

  239. Oh, Ace is reporting NYT is hoping to unload Boston Globe for 10 cents on the dollar paid.

    (Hyena laugh), oh, I think I hurt myself.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  240. ConMan knows that the more money the government has, the better it is for the economy. Because when people keep less of their own money, it enables them to spend more money in the economy. Or something.

    Elephant Stone (6a6f37)

  241. ES, it appears that ConMan hasn’t figured out that we know it is a sockpuppet spewing random nonsense not worthy of engagement
    even though I did my best to inform it

    speaking of not being self aware

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  242. This is surreal. Sock puppets arguing with themselves.

    Your comments must follow our copyright policy. Commenters who do not use a consistent name, and/or who use a proxy to post, are subject to banning

    No more chances.

    JD (b63a52)

  243. JD,
    I realize the policy, but with the addition of the code which means any of us can readily identify a sockpuppet, maybe you want to make an exception.
    yes, it is a bit surreal, a sockpuppet baiting and arguing with itself, apparently unaware we know what it is doing, even when we have spelled it out, s-l-o-w-l-y even.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  244. It is not new, original, entertaining, informative, or funny. It is straight from the comments at DailyKos ThinkRegress MediaMutterz. I will give it some leniency, but it is a serial troll, with many email addresses and IP’s. Funny how many trolls have crawled out of the woodwork recently.

    JD (b63a52)

  245. JD and MD–this one is spewing filth, and as one of the socks is pretending to post as it thinks conservatives think and would talk. This is not just bad faith trolling. It needs to be gone.

    elissa (24b4c0)

  246. I am happy for you to get rid of it.

    I just think it is somewhat humorous to have demonstrated that we know it is sockpuppeting and it seems oblivious to the fact that we know.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  247. MD–I totally agree with you about the eye rolling and humor we all can see over it here. But when “it” runs back to Kos or Media Spatters, all aghast and upset about what some racist and ignorant conservative commenter named ConMan said over on Patterico’s site, then the idiocy and participation of the sock puppeting is lost. That’s always the concern when someone who pretends to be a conservative posts lies and garbage. As opposed to, say, Perry who never pretends he is anything other than a libtard.

    elissa (24b4c0)

  248. Wow! You really think “we” didn’t know that you knew “we” were being farcical by engaging in a mock conversation with “ourselves”. You are all dumber than “we” thought you were. Thank God that, as time goes by more and more of your kind die off. Yes, your party is dying and you can’t stop it. Good riddance!

    (New paragraph)I am now leaving this messed up, parallel universe. It was nice screwing with you all. GOODBYE!

    Mark62 (2d1b87)

  249. It was Roosevelt and his New Deal that got us out of the great Republican depression.

    Wow. I guess I’ll respond to a sock puppet just for the hell of it.

    Not only did FDR not get us out of the Great Depression (eg, his Secretary of the Treasury groaned that when all was said and done, the economy under his boss still was a dud), not only did he and his predecessor (Herbert Hoover, a foolish left-leaning Republican) follow the lunacy of tax and spend, and not only did FDR bemoan the wealthy for avoiding taxes while privately telling the IRS that the higher taxes he enacted into law shouldn’t apply to his own comfy income, but he also was a bigot.

    FDR happily created or supported the idea of quotas to keep the number of Jews below a certain number in places like colleges, he complained there were too many Jews in government, he said Jews were partly to blame for Jew-hatred in 1930’s Germany, and he said whites and Asians shouldn’t marry and have interracial kids.

    IOW, FDR was similar to you: A big phony-baloney liberal who talks the talk but doesn’t walk the walk. A person who idiotically believes the left is guided by compassionate, generous, wonderful, tolerant principles, when in reality it’s motivated mainly by leftism for leftism’s sake.

    Mark (67e579)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1949 secs.