Letters to the Editor

Ironic rebuke

November 28, 2010

Advertisement

To the editor:

How ironic/paradoxical that one of Lawrence’s resident ideologues should lie so boldly about what he considers to be lies by those on the “left,” the president in particular. But then that is the nature of ideology, where facts are without warrant and honesty is not a necessary element of argument.

To Mr. Burkhart’s final question (Public Forum, Nov. 15), I have no problem at all turning the business of governance over to Barack Obama. He is certainly doing as good a job as Mr. Burkhart would do, along with the other folks on the “right.”

Dennis Dailey,

Lawrence

Comments

Liberty_One 6 years ago

No, he's not. A random person off the street would do a far better job of being president than Obama is doing.

Maddy Griffin 6 years ago

So why don't you run? How would you have done anything differently?

Corey Williams 6 years ago

But that would mean an end to "Liberty_One (anonymous)".

And of course, that you would have to get out and actually do something with your life.

Scott Drummond 6 years ago

What a ridiculous statement. Would a random person off the street been successful in passing health care reform legislation - something republican and Democratic administrations have failed to do over the last 50 years. Would a random person have been able to halt the meteoric rise in job losses inherited as a result of the previous 8 years of republican policies? Would a random person have been successful in shepherding an economic stimulus package that provided tax cuts for virtually all Americans through the Congress? Would a random person have been able to buck the military/industrial complex a begin the draw down of the Iraq Profit Center?

By the way, President Obama's opponent in the last Presidential election couldn't even pick a competent running mate and has flip flopped on so many issues one loses count, so please spare us your blind hatred. The American people looked at their choices and selected our current President.

tbaker 6 years ago

A random person would have been much less likely to seize money from people at the point of a gun and force them to pay for services provided to another person free of charge. A random person would be much less likely to believe he has a duty to force the providers of health care to work. Only a slave has no choice in the work he does. If health care is considered a right, then someone must provide it, willing or not. A random person would have a better chance of understanding this country was founded by people who did not consider themselves sacrificial animals, servants or slaves to the state. There’s at least a 50/50 chance a random person would not be one of the parasites in this country who rely on government transfers of wealth for their existence. A random person would stand a much better chance of understanding that we recognize the existence of individual rights and the full meaning of what they are and what they require, and would not promote the institutionalized slavery of enforced service of all to all, where ability is penalized and need is encouraged. I’d take the random person any day of the week.

windex 6 years ago

Point of a gun? Forced to pay for services provided to another free of charge? Force health care providers to work? What on earth are you talking about?

Here, change the wording: "If education is considered a right, then someone must provide it, willing or not." Or, "If liberty is a right, then someone must provide it, willing or not." Do you object to the provision of education and defense for the citizenry? If so, why? If not, why not?

P.S. Your federal taxes are LOWER now than they were at the end of the W administration, thanks to Obama. Look it up.

One more thing: WHO are the parasites to whom you refer? The homeless? Elderly shut-ins? Children? Soldiers? Snow plow drivers? Quadriplegics? School cafeteria workers? Police officers? Pre-school teachers? Please enlighten us as to who the parasites are.

Scott Drummond 6 years ago

Funny, President Obama won his election by getting approximately 10 million more votes than John McCain. More than 69M voters elected him. Do you contend these citizens were forced at the point of a gun?

Also, will (or can) you provide specific examples of President Obama's kickbacks, union payoffs and vote buying schemes?

Mr_B9 6 years ago

"scott3460 Do you contend these citizens were forced at the point of a gun?" I contend the additional votes Obama received were from duped voters which many of whom wish they had voted differently.

SnakeFist 6 years ago

Your posts are laughable, Liberty_Belle. The only corruption is in your neurons.

SnakeFist 6 years ago

What's sad is that you have nothing better to do than continuously monitor the LJ website.

tbaker 6 years ago

Point of a gun. Don't pay your taxes and men with guns will come take you to jail. Liberty is an inalienable right. You are born with it. Read our nation's founding documents. If healthcare is a right, it must be provided by someone. Unless the healthcare workers who are to provide this “right” are slaves, then they will be paid. Money must be taken by the government from the people who work to earn it in order to do this. That portion of the person’s life it took to earn the money the government took from them to pay for this healthcare “right” is called what? The absence of liberty is servitude. How is it right that some individuals are seen as servants to those in need rather than as independent beings with their own lives and goals? What happened to the right of an individual to exist for his own sake? Rights are freedoms for rational beings to take the actions necessary to fulfill and enjoy their own lives. Healthcare is not a “right” because it violates my rights. Calling it a right is nothing more than making an excuse for a crime. A word on taxes. The top 60 percent of taxpayers in the US pay 100 percent of all income taxes. The bottom 40 percent collectively pay no income taxes. Only 47% of the US population actually files an income tax return and that percentage is dropping every year. Parasites you ask? Re-read the last three sentences.

Scott Drummond 6 years ago

What are the specific harms, Liberty?

Obama's deficit spending is an attempt to pull our economy out of the tailspin caused by george w. bush's leadership. Had he done nothing, the tanking of the economy would have continued to grow. The granting of enormous tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans without corresponding cuts in government spending and the financing of an unnecessary war by george w. bush contributed greatly to deficit spending. Did george w. bush's tax cuts mean anything while he riddled the country with debt?

beatrice 6 years ago

"That's silly. George Bush spent this country into a recession. How can more spending be the cure?"

It isn't silly at all. It all depends on where the spending is going. A huge chunk of Bush's spending went to the military complex and the tax cuts that most benefited the wealthy, while Obama's expenses went to keep middle class people working, keeping the American auto industry alive (successfully, I might add), and keeping people in their homes whenever possible. The difference is in their priorities.

beatrice 6 years ago

I am not writing quaint propaganda, and what I wrote was not false. When I say that the money goes to help the middle class, I mean it. Yes, the money went to big corporations -- the auto industry isn't a string of mom and pop shops. I get that. However, the people who remain employed manufacturing those automobiles are middle class. Likewise, the people facing forclosures who had their loans modified are middle class. Same with those who are working the construction jobs on the infrastructure in states around the country. That is a huge difference than just lowering taxes in a way that it greatly benefits the wealthy, which we see reflected in their growing savings. It also is not just meant to go to the military, or to bankers in the hopes that they will lend money.

You may not agree with me, but I'm not attempting to write propaganda. While you have a major libertarian agenda, I actually only speak for myself.

beatrice 6 years ago

How exactly is protecting some workers at the expense of others? If there was no government contracts, then neither would benefit and both would then be out of business. I understand the misery loves company, but how is that helpful for everyone? It isn't government hiring at the expense of the other, so much as it is that the government can't hire all companies. Nor should you expect it to.

I believe this is your ideology getting in the way of reason, since you don't believe the government should ever be hiring companies for outside jobs. You might be correct in a perfect situation of absolutely limited government, but that isn't the world we live in.

Also, if you keep people in their homes rather than allowing homes to go into forclosure, that benefits the entire neighborhood. It only takes a few forclosed on homes to drive prices down on everyone, which effects numerous people. Not all people needing help with their mortgages were irresponsible. Some are, of course, but not all. Some people have lost jobs or had cuts in pay that could not be foreseen. Helping those who need it is the responsible thing to do.

Sorry that you think I'm being an apologist. I'm not. I believe the things I write and am not trying to protect or apologize for anyone. I will, however, defend policies if I believe them to be the correct policies. You may not agree with me.

beatrice 6 years ago

Ohhh... Alright...

I can appreciate some of your points, although I don't necessarily agree. However, I disagree strongly with the notion that empty factories just get purchased by other companies that then go on building stuff. Have you been to places like Detroit lately? Plenty of empty factories. Many people are still working thanks to the money that went to the auto industry, and those who might not be working are those building automobiles for Japanese firms in other countries. Yes, it was a gamble, but it is a gamble on behalf of the American companies (and their employees), and it appears to have paid off. That is good for all of us.

However, with the governement contracts, I was thinking specifically about people working in constructin firms that are working on road projects and such. It isn't the same as the auto industry, and it is something that does benefit all of us who drive and use roads and such.

parrothead8 6 years ago

So...what you're saying is we should let private businesses, based on the power of the free market, decide how we get out of this horrible economy?

Gene Wallace 6 years ago

Have you bought a decent cut of meat recently? Pretty expensive. This time next year, the price of that same cut of meat will be at least triple today's price. And unemployment will be above 10%. Those nice infrastructure jobs do not help the economy. They are paid for by quantitatively eased play money. The deficit hole gets deeper. No, your propaganda is not quaint, it's old and it's nonsense.

Jimo 6 years ago

Our recently elected GOP Congress is 48% millionaires compared with 1% of the population (and that understates matters as members aren't required to report all of their wealth). How different would the concerns of Congress be if members were required to be within one standard deviation of the per capita figure of $39,212 !!! I guarantee those politicians would be somewhat to the left of Barrack Obama (himself a millionaire although more by luck than design).

Besides, we just finished having an exceedingly random President (albeit, born with a silver spoon in his mouth) - George Bush, a man who never managed to accomplish anything of note in his life on his own and without reliance upon the economic, patriotic, and moral treasure trove built-up by his blueblood father and grandfather, a man who relished the fact that his intellectual curiosity never exceeded that of a drunken poolhall Texan. How'd that turn out? When will the consequences of that "random man" be cleaned up? 2017? 2020?

jafs 6 years ago

Yes.

And, I read that Congress got richer while the economy tanked.

We should pay them a decent (not exorbitant) salary, and require that they accept no gifts/money from anybody for any reason.

Your figure might be a little low - I might give them $50-$60,000/yr.

Even that would ensure that they are more in touch with the average American, and change their policy-making decisions for the better, imho.

Jimo 6 years ago

Revealing about your b/s process:

A) the richer you are the more likely you've stolen it

B) expecting fair return for fair benefits is "stealing"

Somehow, Lib always managed to get things upside-down and backwards.

notajayhawk 6 years ago

"Our recently elected GOP Congress is 48% millionaires"

It has nothing to do with the "recently elected GOP" members. In 2009 there were 261 millionaires in Congress (48.8%). The top ten in the house was split 5-5 between Democrats and Republicans, 6 of the top ten Senators were Democrats.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20023147-503544.html

That was up some from the year before, when there were already 237 millionaires in the House and Senate in 2008. Four of the five richest were Democrats (including John Kerry), and 14 of the top 25 (including Pelosi and Feinstein). The 2008 numbers were down a little from the previous year.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-5553408-503544.html

Jimo 6 years ago

How nice of you to disprove your own propaganda.

The proverbial liberal, thought to be near extinction despite copious anecdotal sightings of "far left" "socialist" "communists," is hardly represented in our government.

Instead, we have government of the wealthy, by the wealthy, and for the wealthy. Our politics divides between those who are willing to be fair to the vast peasantry (a/k/a, the middle class) as long as these hoi polloi get to keep their own general social status if not all their money, and those who view the workers of America as tomorrow's dinner, a vast herd of sheep waiting to be fleeced and further enriching to the wealthy.

So, there you have it: two parties serving as lackeys to the running dogs of capitalism, viciously at each others' throats in proportion to the lack of substantive difference between them! (About as purposeless of dispute as seen since the murderous slaughter between the proponents of Homoianism and Homoiousianism.)

notajayhawk 6 years ago

"How nice of you to disprove your own propaganda."

Pretty pathetic attempt at spin there, little jimmie, even for you, and pathetic is a trait common to your posts. It's the whiny liberals that spread the propaganda that the rich are all conservatives and Republicans (you know, with lame statements like "Our recently elected GOP Congress is 48% millionaires.").

"The proverbial liberal, thought to be near extinction despite copious anecdotal sightings of "far left" "socialist" "communists," is hardly represented in our government."

So Nancy Pelosi, one of the richest members of Congress, isn't a liberal, because she has money? She's not "far left"? Seriously? As always, little one, just priceless.

SnakeFist 6 years ago

Why would you want a random average person as your leader? That's typical conservative anti-intellectualism. By definition, an average person doesn't have the drive, intelligence, or foresight to distinguish himself from the rest of the herd.

I'd rather have the best and the brightest as my leader, and the best and the brightest are almost always more educated, make more money, and have more wealth than the average person.

Unfortunately, the average person's lack of drive, foresight, and intelligence means he can't understand the decisions that his betters make.

notajayhawk 6 years ago

"That's typical conservative anti-intellectualism."

Actually, your post was the epitome of anti-intellectualism. It's based on a belief system that that the common people - which presumably includes your fine self - just aren't smart enough to figure out what's best for us, and we need someone 'smart' to tell us what we should want. You also seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of our form of government. The people you send to Congress aren't supposed to be your 'leaders', snake. They're supposed to represent your values, preferences, and priorities, not give them to you.

"the best and the brightest are almost always more educated, make more money, and have more wealth than the average person."

You may have a point with that one. After all, our Vice President reported a net worth of about $27,000 last year.

SnakeFist 6 years ago

Actually, I'm an intellectualist not an anti-intellectualist, i.e., I don't feel threatened by education and believe that education is an advantage not a handicap. No, I'm not one of the sheep; yes, I do believe the sheep, i.e., average Americans, are too dumb to know what's best for them, let alone what's best for the country.

If Congressmen did nothing more than represent the preferences of the average American, then they'd take a poll before every Congressional vote. We elect people to make the tough decisions - not necessarily the popular decisions - and that's called leadership.

Biden's net worth is estimated to be approximately $270,000, not $27,000, but I realize big numbers aren't easy for an anti-intellectual.

SnakeFist 6 years ago

"A random person off the street would do a far better job of being president than Obama is doing." The government is a "criminal organization." - Do you realize that your ridiculous statements leave you with no credibility? Your posts are laughable.

All of the problems you attribute to government are ultimately the fault of the people. For example, Freddie and Fannie didn't cause the housing crisis, average idiots like you who borrowed more than they could repay caused the crisis. So please, take your place at the back of the herd.

SnakeFist 6 years ago

I should be concerned with moral hazard? You're the one making irresponsible assertions and espousing completely irresponsible policies. But then, that's easy to do when its all theory and you'll never have to implement any of your extremist positions.

SnakeFist 6 years ago

It is theory because no modern first-world nation follows your extremist notions. You're nothing more than a contrarian blowhard. If you want government out of your life, move to Somalia where you'll have absolute freedom; of course, so will everyone else, and I doubt they've heard of the social contract.

SnakeFist 6 years ago

"You can't dismiss us as "extremist" or "fringe" for much longer."

But I can for the foreseeable future (LOL!). How many people read your blog? I mean besides your mother. Millions and millions? I doubt it.

I save rebuttals for bad ideas that might actually catch on. Rebutting your extremist notions of a country without government, in which people die in the street for want of basic societal services, isn't necessary because no one will ever acccept them.

notajayhawk 6 years ago

"The least wealthy administration figure is Vice President Joe Biden, whose net worth is estimated at just $27,012."

I even provided that link. At least we know why you want someone smarter than you to make decisions for you.

"Actually, I'm an intellectualist not an anti-intellectualist"

Couldn't tell from your post. Especially from the belief system it espouses. You essentially said you don't think you're smart enough to make your own decisions.

"No, I'm not one of the sheep"

If you truly believe that the relationship between the electorate and the elected is for the former to be 'led' by the latter, you're not a sheep, you're a lemming.

"We elect people to make the tough decisions - not necessarily the popular decisions - and that's called leadership."

No, it's not, it's called feudalism, at the least paternalism.

I hate to point out the fatal flaw in your logic, snake (who'm I kiddin', I love to do so), but how do all them dumb voters know who the smart ones are to elect? Since they're incapable of making good decisions, wouldn't they be electing the wrong 'leaders'? To use what passes for logic in your rather fuzzy argument, any candidate who says something those dumb voter can't understand would be electable. Or maybe we should do away with elections - just come up with some kind of scoring system based on the size of a candidate's stock portfolio and his GPA, and appoint them to 'lead' us.

If you believe you're not bright enough to know what's good for you, and you need to be led around by the nose, by all means appoint yourself a guardian. It's good to recognize your limitations. Just don't try to elect such a 'leader' for the rest of us, and expect us to follow lemmings like you over the cliff.

SnakeFist 6 years ago

From answers.com: "The Center for Responsive Politics estimates his net worth is at most $277,000." The fact that you believe a website that says Biden's net worth is $27,000 is evidence of your lack of intelligence.

I'll write this in crayon so even you can understand it. The logical flaw is your own: If the average person is so smart, then the people he keeps electing must be doing exactly what he wants them to do, in which case you have nothing to complain about.

Please take your place at the back of the herd with Liberty_Belle.

notajayhawk 6 years ago

Sorry it took so long to get back to you, snake. Couldn't stop laughing.

So, um, "The fact that [I] believe a website that says Biden's net worth is $27,000 is evidence of [my] lack of intelligence." And as proof of such, you post 'evidence' - from Answers.com!!!!!!

Just

frikkin'

brilliant.

Um, skippy? I assume this is the page from Answers.com you were referring to?

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_Joe_Biden%27s_net_worth

Didja' maybe happen to notice the sentence before the part you quoted - you know, where it says "Biden ranks as the poorest member of the U.S. Senate"? Maybe you haven't been keeping up with current events, but, um, Biden hasn't been a member of the Senate for two years! That answer, skippy, was posted on October 3rd, 2008 - a full year before the information provided by CBS.

"I'll write this in crayon so even you can understand it. The logical flaw is your own: If the average person is so smart, then the people he keeps electing must be doing exactly what he wants them to do, in which case you have nothing to complain about."

Hope you used those crayons on an erasable surface, snake, or mommy's gonna' take your crayons away. The part that you - as well as so many of your liberal Larryville brethren - don't seem capable of grasping is that "smart" has nothing to do with it. Everybody, skippy, the "smart" ones, the 'dumb' ones, the just plain folks, casts their vote for a representative government that best represents their own values, preferences, and priorities. But thanks for another fine example of the vastly undeserved elitism of which I've spoken so often, the belief that if someone votes differently than you do, they must not be very smart. Which is incredibly ironic coming from the guy who just said 'You must be some kind of stupid-head if you get your information from a website - my website told me so!'

SnakeFist 6 years ago

So your point is what, genius? That Biden lost all his money in the last two years? Listen, go get yourself a college degree so that when you're over your reactionary inferiority complex we can have an intelligent discussion.

And, again, if the average person, whom you think is so smart, elected the current government, then you have two choices: either the government is fine or the average person isn't so smart. So which is it? I'll wait while you find someone to read this for you.

notajayhawk 6 years ago

"if the average person, whom you think is so smart, elected the current government, then you have two choices: either the government is fine or the average person isn't so smart. So which is it? I'll wait while you find someone to read this for you."

Too bad you didn't wait to have someone read the post you were pathetically trying to reply to for you. Which part of ""smart" has nothing to do with it" did you have trouble with? I mean, there was one two-syllable word in that phrase, but sheez, even you should have been able to grasp that.

SnakeFist 6 years ago

By the way, if you could read, you would know that while the site was answers.com, the source was The Center for Responsive Politics.

I assume your mother is reading this for you. She made a mistake, I never said, 'You must be some kind of stupid-head if you get your information from a website - my website told me so!'

I'm embarrassed for you.

notajayhawk 6 years ago

"I assume your mother is reading this for you. She made a mistake, I never said, 'You must be some kind of stupid-head if you get your information from a website - my website told me so!'"

Um, yeah. That's why that statement was in single-quotes, instead of the double-quotes where I used your exact words. Which were:

"The fact that you believe a website that says Biden's net worth is $27,000 is evidence of your lack of intelligence."

Right after saying:

"From answers.com: "The Center for Responsive Politics estimates his net worth is at most $277,000.""

The figure you posted doesn't only show you "believe a website", you believe second-hand - and outdated - information from a website.

Seriously, dude, stop digging. Seriously. You screwed up. You're embarrassed, alright, as well you should be. But it's better to man up and let people laugh at your mistake than it is to keep them laughing because you just can't stop digging.

SnakeFist 6 years ago

My point was not that all websites are poor sources of information, but that you can't believe everything you read. But, like most conservatives, you can't think for yourself.

If you manage to get admitted to college, try taking Reason and Argument, then we can talk intelligently. Oh, and try taking an english class so you learn the proper uses of single quotes.

notajayhawk 6 years ago

"My point was not that all websites are poor sources of information, but that you can't believe everything you read. But, like most conservatives, you can't think for yourself."

You just can't stop digging, can you?

You're absolutely correct. some websites are better than others. You choose to take the word of an anonymous poster to Answers.com, from the only post that person ever made to that site, because he claimed as his source The Center for Responsive Politics.

Now, too bad you couldn't figure out how to click on the link I provided to the CBS story that mentioned Biden's net worth. If you had, you might just have seen the source they cited for their information. It's right up at the top, in the second sentence.

Wait for it:

"According to a report released this week by the Center for Responsive Politics"

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-5553408-503544.html

Unlike your anonymous poster to Answers.com, they even provided a link, which, again, if you could figure out how to click on one, you'd see that according to the latest information, provided directly from the Center for Responsive Politics, Biden's most recently reported net worth is $89K, hardly supporting your claim that "he also has a lot more than than the average citizen". (The most recent figures available, incidentally, are for 2007, so it's not a direct comparison, but at that time, the average net worth in this country was $556K, with a median of $120K.)

Really - stop digging. It's getting painful to watch, and not just from laughing.

Liberty275 6 years ago

"I'd rather have the best and the brightest as my leader"

"I'm not one of the sheep"

Anyone that wants a leader is a sheep. The rest of us want employees to handle the business of government. We are the leaders. Obama is our employee (and a bad one). If you worshiped less at the alter of the state, you wouldn't need to have that explained since you are an "intellectualist".

SnakeFist 6 years ago

And if you worshipped yourself less, you wouldn't think that you have what it takes to be a leader.

Liberty275 6 years ago

Who better for me to worship? I enjoy the adoration.

jafs 6 years ago

I also prefer to have intelligent people governing.

But I question your notion that the more intelligent folks make more money - history is strewn with examples of brilliant people who were poor.

SnakeFist 6 years ago

Thanks, Jafs. Others on this site seem to think that intelligence is not a desireable quality in leaders because they think leaders shouldn't think for themselves.

I agree with your point. And there are plenty of dumb people who are rich. But these are the exception, not the rule.

SnakeFist 6 years ago

Hey Liberty, what kind of work do you do that you have nothing better to do than reply to an LTE at 2:39 on a Sunday morning? You wouldn't be one of those hypocritical senior citizens who do nothing but complain about the government but have no problem collecting a social welfare check, would you?

SnakeFist 6 years ago

I see there are no new LTEs today. Gonna be a slow day for you, huh. Keep checking back every 15 minutes though, maybe something will happen to alleviate your boredom. Or you could just get a job.

monkey_c 6 years ago

Yeah dude...you should be at work at 2:39 on a Sunday morning...wait, what?

mr_right_wing 6 years ago

I was taught in school why the government shouldn't simply print more money to solve the problems of inflation. Maybe Mr. Obama was sick the day they covered that in his Jr. high......

cato_the_elder 6 years ago

Perhaps they didn't teach that subject in Indonesia.

whats_going_on 6 years ago

what does that have to do with anything?

cato_the_elder 6 years ago

If you don't know, then you're as ignorant about Obama's background as the rest of the lemmings who voted for him.

Brian Laird 6 years ago

Actually cato_TE, WGO was spot on in calling your comment irrelevant. Obama left Indonesia when he was 10 when he would have been in 4th or 5th grade and macroeconomics is not a subject that usually gets much attention in elementary school. That makes your comment irrelevant.

Calling other people ignorant lemmings doesn't make you smart or show that you can think for yourself. It just makes you look petty.

cato_the_elder 6 years ago

Chill out, Boltzmann. If you knew that Obama lived in Indonesia, then good for you. Instead of being an ignorant lemming, you're just a lemming.

Brian Laird 6 years ago

Another snappy retort. You don't see any problem with calling someone ignorant, when there was actually nothing incorrect with their comment, yet when someone calls you on it you tell them to "Chill out" and then insult them by calling them a "lemming". WGO merely pointed out that your comment was irrelevant, which it was, and says nothing whether he knew that Obama lived in Indonesia as a child. You made that assumption just to get across an asinine dig at someone.

cato_the_elder 6 years ago

Au contraire, Boltzmann. It was perfectly reasonable to assume that whats_going_on didn't know what was going on. As for Obama's exposure to basic economics when he was matriculating at his Muslim school in Indonesia, there's every reason to believe that such subjects could have been taught at his grade level when he was there but may not have been. A good number of the Founders of this Country were already fluent in Greek and Latin when they were children. Some school systems in the world recognize this and push kids to learn as much as possible at a young age, when learning is most important, instead of feeding them pablum and political correctness for 12 years and handing them diplomas when they've never mastered basic reading comprehension or basic math skills. All I said was that perhaps they didn't teach a certain subject when he was in Indonesia, which is entirely accurate.

notajayhawk 6 years ago

"Obama left Indonesia when he was 10 when he would have been in 4th or 5th grade and macroeconomics is not a subject that usually gets much attention in elementary school."

Oh, I dunno', pretty sure by the time I was 10 I already knew you weren't supposed to spend money unless you actually had money. Of course, I didn't grow up in Kansas, so I don't know what they teach kids around here.

Brian Laird 6 years ago

So I guess you have never taken out a mortgage or a car loan, then.

notajayhawk 6 years ago

There's somewhat of a fundamental difference between borrowing money and 'creating' it.

Victor Dawson 6 years ago

Yes, there is! However, that wasn't your point when you said don't spend money you don't have (a loan or mortgage would fit that). Good try though.

notajayhawk 6 years ago

Well, no, there is also a major difference between borrowing money and not having money. Good try, though.

cato_the_elder 6 years ago

I agree. I get sick every time I think of Obama, the ultimate narcissist, looking at himself in the mirror and seeing the most brilliant person he's ever known.

Maddy Griffin 6 years ago

Everybody can complain and criticize. I tell my employees not to bring that mess to me without offering solutions. If you think he's doing such a poor job, why not offer an alternative? Because it's just so much easier to gripe.Most of those griping about Obama don't have any. They don't have a clue about what his job entails.

Scott Drummond 6 years ago

Hey look, another substance-free response.

Maddy Griffin 6 years ago

Got any solutions?Didn't think so.

whats_going_on 6 years ago

thats not a means to an end; not a solution.

The people in this country, on all spectrums of the political or non-political pole are destroying this country. The hate and nonsense that people spew is ripping this place apart faster than you can say "United States of America"

SnakeFist 6 years ago

Like most conservatives, you like to complain about the government, but your naive and idealistic notions about politics would never survive first contact with reality.

Why not put your money where your mouth is and run for office?

SnakeFist 6 years ago

You, you're conservative; you just aren't smart enough to know it (or honest enough to admit it).

notajayhawk 6 years ago

"That's about the dumbest thing I've ever heard."

Oh, I dunno'. I'm going to go with his 6:10 pm post up above, where he said my belief in what a website said proved my lack of intelligence, and offered in refutation of my claim a citation from Answers.com.

SnakeFist 6 years ago

If you could read, you would know that while the site was answers.com, the source was The Center for Responsive Politics. You're really just embarrassing yourself.

notajayhawk 6 years ago

snake, seriously, stop, my sides are hurting from laughing so hard.

I'M the one embarrassing myself? When you're the one not only posting, but now trying to defend, income figures for Senator Biden to dispute the figure I linked to for Vice President Biden?

All of which is a very amusing, but inconsequential tangent. Your claim was that "the best and the brightest are almost always more educated, make more money, and have more wealth than the average person. " Whether we accepted your net worth figure or mine, one thing both agreed on - Biden was the least wealthy of the members of the Senate when he served there.

Thanks for playing, skippy.

SnakeFist 6 years ago

Yes, Bubba, but Biden was a senator just two short years ago. I agree that Biden has a lot less money than most politicians, but he also has a lot more than than the average citizen. So what's your point, Bubba? Or did you have one?

notajayhawk 6 years ago

"Yes, Bubba, but Biden was a senator just two short years ago. I agree that Biden has a lot less money than most politicians, but he also has a lot more than than the average citizen. So what's your point, Bubba? Or did you have one?"

First of all, skippy, your ridiculous statements gives the clear implication that more money is indicative of greater intelligence, and you overtly claimed that those with higher intelligence should be our 'leaders'. I never said Biden shouldn't have been elected to the Senate. But moving him from the (representative) legislative branch to the administrative branch (arguably more of a 'leadership' position) when he proved himself to be - according to your system of measurement - the least intelligent member of the Senate, hardly supports your argument.

From above:

"So your point is what, genius? That Biden lost all his money in the last two years?"

Do you understand the meaning of "net worth", skippy? That's assets less liabilities. Two things of possible relevance happened in 2008, skippy: The stock market crashed (along with other investments, like real estate), and Biden ran for the Democratic nomination for president.

Suppose in 2008, Biden had investments worth a million dollars, and outstanding campaign debt of $723K. That would give him a net worth, in 2008, of $277K. Then, in 2009, he'd paid off $200K of his campaign debt, but his investments (like everyone else's in the country) took a bath, and are now only worth $550K. That would give him a net worth of $27000.

Is that what happened? I don't know, but it's a possible (even probable) scenario. In any event, you attempted to dispute income figures published in 2010 with figures published in 2008. Forget getting a college degree, skippy - try finishing third grade first.

notajayhawk 6 years ago

(Last paragraph should read "figures published in 2009", the other CBS story I linked to was published in 2010.)

SnakeFist 6 years ago

Right, hey Limbaugh will be on shortly. Given that you parrot his talking points, I figured I'd remind you.

Tell us again how we have the most corrupt criminal government in history and its holding a gun to your head, I need the laugh.

SnakeFist 6 years ago

"Really?" "What are you talking about?" "Who turned out the lights?" "Are you serious?"

If these are the best responses you can make, then you're a waste of time. I have to work now, I'll check back later to see if you've learned any new talking points.

booyalab 6 years ago

I have some alternatives:

1.Not bailing out corporations 2.Cutting spending rather than appointing deficit reduction commissions to suggest raising taxes 3.Letting lawmakers read the bill they're asked to sign 4.Getting rid of earmarks 5.Use better judgement in whom you appoint ( For just a few examples: Not someone who thinks we're a nation of cowards, or someone who thinks national emergencies are a great opportunity for power exploitation, or someone who thinks that government induced contraception is a good thing)

notajayhawk 6 years ago

I'd change #3 to "Make lawmakers read the bill" instead of "Letting" them.

Carol Bowen 6 years ago

We will have to raise taxes and cut spending to balance the budget.

booyalab 6 years ago

You probably don't realize this but ,at a certain level, raising taxes tends to decrease revenue since it discourages people from trying to make more money. So when politicians promote the idea, they're either ignorant or just want more control over you.

notajayhawk 6 years ago

"I have yet to hear any person say "I don't want to be a billionaire because of the taxes. I'd rather stay middle class so I don't have to pay as much.""

That's not the point. We're not talking about a middle class person passing up an opportunity to become a billionaire. We're talking about the opportunity for a billionaire to make an extra hundred grand. When you start getting into marginal returns or diminishing returns, you eventually reach some point where it's not worth the time and effort.

Suppose you are comfortable with a $100,000 income. You have an opportunity to work an extra Saturday. That extra $400 might not be worth giving up your kid's baseball game, or even missing that big basketball game on TV. The principle is the same for a billionaire. That extra few hours of his time to invest a hundred grand in some venture may not be worth his time, but it would have been helpful to the company, and the employees of the company, that was seeking the capital.

Carol Bowen 6 years ago

Interesting thought. Is it based on data? It seems odd that ordinary workers would think that way.

independant1 6 years ago

two words - 1. politician 2. honest

Should never be used in the same sentence.

For the most part we are still ruled by the landed gentry.

George Lippencott 6 years ago

Left: I hate Bush

Right: I hate Obama

Left: Obama is wonderful

Right: None of the Above

Meaningful conversation???????

I wonder how people felt just before the civil war? Freight train coming and no way to get off the tracks.

beatrice 6 years ago

Ironic response indeed.

You are asking about "meaningful discourse" while being the same person who has, on more than one occassion, called me a "liar" and have made the ridiculous statement more than once that I was "a paid plant for the Democratic party." You have even claimed me "too liberal to be a Democrat," which is really funny given you imagine yourself a "moderate." So how often do you vote for Democrats? Is it roughly half the time? If not, then you are only kidding yourself, because it isn't working on us.

Please george, don't whine about a lack of meaningful conversation or make a call for civil discourse from others when you yourself are incapable of following your own advice. People who live in glass houses ...

George Lippencott 6 years ago

Bea

It is all about Bea, isn't it. I gave up on you quite a while back -except to challenge your one sided and biased inputs.

There really are othere people on here with opinions and thoughts - some of whom you intimidate.

Why don't you go blog in Arizona and take care of your own world rather than continuing to mess here.

beatrice 6 years ago

Don't you just hate it when you make a grandstanding call for "meaningful conversation" and the person you regularly berate and have very recently called a liar and made outrageous claims about shows up to call you on your b.s.? Hypocrite.

I'll stick around here as long as I (or the LJWorld administrators) see fit. Clearly, you only want to have discussions with people who not only think just like you, but are your direct neighbors as well. Yet somehow I'm the one who intimidates people. Uh huh. At least I don't tell others to go elsewhere just because I disagree with them. Talk about trying to intimidate. First you call me a liar, now you tell me to take a hike. How sad that your views are so threatened that they can't take being challenged.

Well george, if you want to only discuss your opiniions with conservatives like yourself who will agree with what you have to say, then I'm sure there are blogging sites where only conservatives are allowed. You are always welcome to go seek them out.

Besides, aren't you the one who recently claimed it your "passion" to argue with me? Now why would you want me to take your passion away by playing closer to home?

booyalab 6 years ago

Meaningful conversation is nice with people I actually care about. I don't expect it with anyone else. Truth is more important. However, I rarely argue politics in most circumstances. Having a job is more important than being right. But there's a difference between keeping the peace and encouraging wrongheadedness. I'm not going to pretend there is common ground with some people.

John Clayton 6 years ago

I randomly sampled these random people who all said, "no thank you," when offered an opportunity to be president:

butterfly

butterfly by roscoepoet

dogride

dogride by roscoepoet


John Clayton 6 years ago

wow, just saw your comment--help me out, why is it wrong to comment with a picture instead of words? this guy doesn't get any benefit from you looking at my pictures. help me understand my error. oh, and a present for you:

madspammer

madspammer by roscoepoet

SnakeFist 6 years ago

Liberty_One: You're clearly an intelligent person. Unfortunately, your life is limited to posting to this site and your self-esteem is inextricably linked to thinking that you're right and that someone cares about your opinion (hence your blog and the incredible number of your posts). So I realize you'll never admit you're wrong.

The mentality of the libertarian (and the conservative) is that of an ungrateful child who is happy to take by can't or won't recognize the moral obligation to reciprocally give. You take from the system everytime you use the public roads, you take from the system every time you use water from a public reservoir that was processed through a public treatment plant and delivered through public sewers, you take from the system every time you use the police or fire department, and you take from the system everytime you use public education or rely on the services of someone who used public education or paid tuition with public loans. So you are an obvious hypocrite when you assert that the government that provides these things that you take is a corrupt criminal organization and the taxes that pay for these things that you take are collected at the point of a gun.

The only way to avoid this hypocrisy is to become a hermit living completely off the grid, which very few people are will to do. And that is why the majority will never accept your extremist, childish, and hypocritical libertarian/conservative notions.

George Lippencott 6 years ago

Interesting view. If LO pays taxes than he/she is not a ":taker". We tax liberals and conservatives the same (even libertarians). If they are sucessful and properous we tax them a lot. There is IMHO a legitimate issues as to "How Much". Real and perceived needs/wants abound. Priorities are mostly lacking. Yesterdays great liberal idea is lost in todays liberal new idea - but it contiues to draw resources. What we need is a cap on how much the governmen s get to take by income level so that people can plan their lives and those who want more can face the reality of priorities.

SnakeFist 6 years ago

So you recognize an obligation to give back to the system, you just think the difference is in whether you do it directly or indirectly through the government. That's not much of a distinction, either way you fufill your obligation. In fact, the government provides an instrument for more effectively and efficiently meeting the people's needs. Relying on individuals to voluntarily meet their societal obligations, especially in a capitalist system built on personal greed, won't work.

As for picking and choosing which government actions you want to support with your tax money, we all know that won't work either. For everything you agree with (I assume there's something), there's someone who doesn't.

As I said, Liberty_One, your self-esteem depends on insisting you're right, so while this post is addressed to you it is meant for readers with open minds. They can decide for themselves who's right.

SnakeFist 6 years ago

Look, its great that you volunteer at soup kitchens, house homeless people, and help old ladies across the street, but how do the roads get built in your utopia of limited government and no taxes? Workgangs of weekend volunteers? Answer that one question - how do the roads get built? You have two possible moves.

First, you could build them by voluntary direct contributions from individuals to private business. But that's naive: Short-sighted freeriders like Liberty275 would insist that he doesn't use the roads and so shouldn't have to pay for them (nevermind that his food comes to him over the roads).

Second, you could have private business build the roads and then charge tolls. But that's unworkable: What about neighborhoods and small towns that don't have enough traffic to generate enough profit to attract business, and what happens when the private road owners, realizing you have to use their product to get anwhere, charge exhorbitant tolls (a la American drug companies)?

You see, you have no workable answer, so you and libertarianism/conservatism are jokes.

Look, the average person has several thousand dollars in credit card debt and a mortgage he can't afford, never served in the military or earned a college degree, is divorced, and believes in fairy tale gods, so, no, the average person isn't bright enough to run a nuclear superpower with 350 million people. But the average person does have a well-developed sense of practical self-interest. So while he may gripe about government and taxes, the first time his child's public school closes for lack of funding, the bridge he's on collapses for lack of maintenance, his roads aren't cleared of snow all winter, or your beloved private business cheats him out of his retirement, he'll clamor for government regulation and gladly vote for tax increases.

Liberty275 6 years ago

"The mentality of the libertarian (and the conservative) is that of an ungrateful child who is happy to take by can't or won't recognize the moral obligation to reciprocally give."

Despite of that sentence being grammatically I get the gist of it and it is utterly and completely wrong. Libertarians (I don't speak of conservatives) are usually very selfless and giving people. In fact that is a core philosophy of libertarianism. Libertarians believe in voluntarily helping others. They abhor having their property taken by force and handed out to others that may or may not deserve it.

This is a primary reason libertarians loathe liberals. I work 40 hours a week for pay. That money is mine to do with as I please. I, like most libertarians, gladly help out neighbors, friends and family in need as well as organizations such as the humane society. We do it VOLUNTARILY. We give away OUR money. Liberals on the other hand think it has been bestowed upon them to decide what should become of the money I work 40 hours each week for. They believe it is their "moral" right to steal from others to support people they choose.

In the end, liberals are thieves, common thieves with the IRS and federal agents acting as their muscle. You should all be ashamed.

Libertarians get the last laugh though. Despite you stealing the fruit of our labor, we take from what is left and give part of it away to help others of our choosing.

Your "morality"? Your "morality" is rotten. The stench of it reeks. I don't want it.

SnakeFist 6 years ago

" I work 40 hours a week for pay. That money is mine to do with as I please."

This is the simplest argument to refute. You don't live or work in a vacuum; everything you do is assisted in some way by someone else - that's called being part of a society. For example, when you drive to work you drive on public roads, so at least some of your pay needs to go to maintaining those roads. See how simple that was?

bruno2 6 years ago

Fine, move to North Korea you jerk!

SnakeFist 6 years ago

Hey, Liberty twins, do you see the kind of idiot your philosophy appeals too?

Bruno, if you don't want government or taxes, move to Somalia.

SnakeFist 6 years ago

Bruno2, if your comment was aimed at Liberty275 and not me, I apologize - I was overzealous in defending my position.

Liberty275 6 years ago

"You take from the system everytime you use the public roads, you take from the system every time you use water from a public reservoir that was processed through a public treatment plant and delivered through public sewers"

Do you honestly believe we don't pay for using roads via gas tax and automobile registration? Do you think we don't pay the city for water and sewer service each month? Is that the thoughts that are going through your mind?

"you take from the system every time you use the police or fire department"

I've used neither in my life. I've paid them anyway with property taxes. Who is getting the short end of that deal?

"you take from the system everytime you use public education"

I have no children, but my tax dollars are funding the education of other people's children. How big a hypocrite does that make me?

"And that is why the majority will never accept your extremist, childish, and hypocritical libertarian/conservative notions."

The majority want smaller government and lower taxes, just like libertarians. Those of your ilk are petty losers that depend on stoking class warfare to slake your jealousy with trinkets you don't deserve. You are sickening parasites on what would be a better nation without you. Defend your master, it is all you deserve to do.

SnakeFist 6 years ago

"I've used neither in my life. I've paid them anyway with property taxes. Who is getting the short end of that deal?"

No, but you rely on their existence and their ability to come when needed. Would you prefer armed gangs roaming the streets? Would you prefer that the fire several blocks away was allowed to spread to your house? Its the same with education: Who do think will pay for the social security and medicare that you consume if not the educated children of tomorrow? You benefit from all of it, even the things you don't use directly.

Look, Liberty275, your shortsighted nonsense is exactly what I assert rational people will reject.

fancy80 6 years ago

SF, please detail the mentality of a democrat. You have described all libertarians (and conservatives) as ungrateful children. I'd love to hear your take on democrats. I think it is so neat that you can put a label on libs and conservatives across the board. My experience has been different from yours, as I live in the real world where people of all parties have different and varying beliefs in what their "moral obligations" are. That doesn't make them hypocrites. It doesn't make them right, or wrong. And just because my views might not match up with yours, does NOT make you better or smarter than me. It simply means that we have differing views. Get over yourself. Here's an example of what I mean: recently we had the yearly United Way drive. Some of the President Obama supporters that I know made comments such as, and I quote: "I'm not giving my money." So I could generalize that ALL Democrats don't think it is THEIR moral obligation to give to those less fortunate, but moreover that it is everyone else's moral obligation to give. But to make that generalization would be wrong, not to mention...small minded and intolerant of those that don't have the same moral obligation that I do.

notajayhawk 6 years ago

Hey, guys, pretty sure we won't see snakefist back on this thread again. If he's following the porchfinkel playbook, he'll disappear and repeat all the same arguments on the next thread as if he'd never been refuted. (He just might just make a comment alluding to something inappropriate about all of us disagreeing with him, but other than that he's probably moved on.)

notajayhawk 6 years ago

I stand corrected. Please, somebody, take this kid's shovel away - he just can't stop digging.

SnakeFist 6 years ago

You stand corrected on a lot of things, Bubba. You're like one of those annoying little dogs that yaps around the feet of its betters. The Liberty twins and I are trying to have an adult conversation, so please go back to flipping burgers at the back of the herd.

SnakeFist 6 years ago

Notajayhawk: You clearly never went to college, and, as a result, harbor feelings of intellectual inferiority. The only way for you to ameliorate these feelings is to minimize the value of education and insist that your uneducated ideas have equal value. So I don't expect you to admit you're wrong.

But consider this: people aren't equally beautiful, physically talented, tall, or wealthy, so doesn't it follow that they're not all equally intelligent? And would you rather have a more intelligent person or a less intelligent person running the country?

I assume you recognize that an M.D.'s education makes him more qualified than you to diagnose illness, and a J.D.'s education makes him more qualified to interpret law, so doesn't it follow that a leader's experience, vision, and intelligence make him more qualified to set public policy? Unlike you (and Liberty_One), I think most people would rather not have Joe Six-Pack in the Oval Office, and would prefer their leaders to lead rather than govern based on polls.

George Lippencott 6 years ago

Actuall Snakefist I would like the leader to lead and not herd. If people do not understand it falls to the leader to educate them not impose things upon them. Unfortunately for those ediucated elites our system bestows the right of the ballot to each and every citizen and not just to certain elites who judge themsaelves to be better than their peers.

notajayhawk 6 years ago

"You clearly never went to college, and, as a result, harbor feelings of intellectual inferiority."

That's pretty good coming from the person whose entire argument to this thread has been that he needs someone smarter than him to make his decisions for him.

Seriously, kid, I can't take much more laughing today. You've definitely brightened up an otherwise dull Monday, but really, it's getting painful. Stop digging, seriously, dude.

Nice of you to move the conversation down here, away from all your embarrassing comments above. Let's review, shall we?

You espoused the position that we need intelligent leaders, and posited the theory that more intelligent people are financially more successful. I pointed out that our Vice President is far from financially successful.

You then nitpicked over the amount the source I linked to reported as the VP's net worth, saying that my belief in what a website (CBS News) reported indicated a lack of intelligence. You offered as evidence of their error information from Answers.com. I pointed out that this was rather duplicitous.

So you came back with the response that the information did not come from Answers.com, but the (anonymous) post to that site cited a more reliable source. And, as I pointed out to you, the CBS article cited the exact same source.

And now you resort to hypothesizing about my lack of a college education, when you obviously haven't attended high school. If you had, you might just grasp the concept that in the form of government our forefathers chose for this country, our elected leaders are supposed to represent the will of the people, not define it.

I can certainly understand why you feel the need for someone smarter than you to tell you what to think and what to do. You are incapable of recognizing the logical fault in your so-called argument, namely that if the common man is not intelligent enough to make good decisions for themselves, then they will not choose the best leaders, either. And you mix that in with the false-intellectualism and elitism of believing that political differences reflect some continuum of intelligence.

Seriously, kid, stop digging. Quit while you're still hopelessly behind. It's hard to imagine how you could embarrass yourself further, but I'm sure we'll all find out if you insist on continuing.

Liberty275 6 years ago

"Notajayhawk: You clearly never went to college, and, as a result, harbor feelings of intellectual inferiority."

LOL. We have a two-bit internet psychologist among us. Do you interpret dreams too bright boy?

"education "

You toss that word around like it means something. It doesn't. A dog can be educated but that does nothing to make him intelligent. Your mistaking education and intelligence for one and the same thing makes it fairly evident you lack both. Daddy might have bought you a degree somewhere, but it was wasted money.

Before you try, I have a post-grad degree 8/100s away from a perfect GPA. I don't use it because I have enough intelligence to make more money (and get more enjoyment from) doing something I never spent a day learning in school.

SnakeFist 6 years ago

You're lying, Liberty275. No one with a graduate degree refers to it as a "post-grad" degree, a high GPA in graduate school is not uncommon (which you would know if you had been to graduate school), and no one who had earned a graduate degree would dismiss it as you have. Lying about your education will only feed your feelings of inferiority.

But I thought you asserted earlier that you shouldn't have to pay for public education because you don't use it? I suppose its possible you attended a private school and paid cash for tuition, but I doubt it.

Liberty275 6 years ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

notajayhawk 6 years ago

"No one with a graduate degree refers to it as a "post-grad" degree"

Uh huh.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postgraduate#Degrees

"a high GPA in graduate school is not uncommon"

So, um, if GPA's don't mean anything, which in effect suggests the degrees themselves are meaningless, then how are you going to find these smart folks to lead you around, skippy?

SnakeFist 6 years ago

You scoff at answer.com but cite wikipedia.com? You're a joke, Bubba.

GPAs do mean something. Graduate school (not Liberty275's "post-grad" school, LOL!) only accepts above-average students, so it follows that graduate students have above-average GPAs. See how easy that is? You're the one embrassing himself, Bubba.

Liberty275 6 years ago

I have a graduate degree. I'm allowed to make mistakes in wording late at night.

Now, lets see where I said anything saying that I shouldn't have to pay for public education. Let's see it. Cut and paste it. If you don't, I would have to say you are the liar, and a blatant one at that.

As for dismissing my degree, I find my natural abilities earn me more money than anything I learned at the university. I'm not dismissing my degree as it was an accomplishment most people haven't/can't achieve, but it isn't what pays my mortgage, bought my corvette or pays for my morning latte.

It isn't surprising that you feel rote learning is as important as, and the same as, intelligence. When all you can do is buy the former because you don't have the second in your genetics, you are stuck defending the band-aide on your limitations.

While you may not like the idea of a better educated person than yourself relegating education behind intelligence, your lack of wit prevents you from doing anything about it. Live with it.

George Lippencott 6 years ago

Don't you just hate it when you make a grandstanding call for "meaningful conversation" and the person you regularly berate and have very recently called a liar and made outrageous claims about shows up to call you on your b.s.? Hypocrite.

Bea

Your posts are rarely discussions. You state an opinion. If someone disagrees with you instead of reinforcing your opinion with fact you attack the individual who disagrees with you on a personal level (like raciest). You deserve censure. And I will continue to censure you (and return your personal attacks). Go address Arizona’s problems and let us Kansans address ours.

beatrice 6 years ago

Yes george, it is noted that you would rather people not be called on making racist comments, and when they do that we just forget them right away. Got it. When "opinions" are just judgmental attacks, as you routinely do in your blog, I enjoy calling you on it. You take yourself oh so seriously. Funny how quickly your "passion" for attacking me, as you called it, has turned to asking me to leave. Well guess what george, I believe that isn't your call to make. I'll leave when I choose. It won't have anything to do with you.

beatrice 6 years ago

One more thing george, speaking of attacking people on a personal level, isn't that what you do with consistency? You have attacked me by calling me a "liar," you wrote a blog and called me and others "envious," and in another blog you called people "arrogant," and (my favorite) you claimed I was "a paid plant for the Democratic party." And it all started because you didn't agree with my opinion. You first made the attacks personal. You did. If you wish to censure someone for making personal attacks, well george, you should start a little closer to home.

I am more than happy and willing to discuss issues with you, but when you make such outrageous accusations on a regular basis, how can you be expected to be taken seriously?

George Lippencott 6 years ago

Bea,

Your fingers are working overtime. Did the sprinkler go off? Wish there was some light besides the heat. It is still all about Bea.

beatrice 6 years ago

Actually george, it is all about you. You are the one calling people "liar" and making outrageous accusations and calls for censure. I am just able to discuss it from personal experience, as you directed these claims at me.

George Lippencott 6 years ago

Of course Bea - diected only at you. Why when you are such a nice person!

beatrice 6 years ago

Nice gets nice in return, bub.

But sure, it is all me and not you at all. I actually forced you to make nonsense accusations and write false statements. Must be the envy that courses through me.

notajayhawk 6 years ago

And as usual, rush checks in with a drive by to say - absolutely nothing. Maybe you should look up the definition of a troll, rush. If you can find someone to spell it for you, that is.

kernal 6 years ago

I thought the City of Detroit and Wayne County were tearing down some of those buildings as they now own them due to property taxes not being paid. There are no owners, other than various governments, for a good number of commercial and residential properties in that area and they have deteriorated so fast, they're being razed. The face of Detroit is changing and fighting for survival.

Sorry, Liberty275, but many of your ideas are not workable and have little substance. It's almost as if you are co-mingling quotes and statements you've heard on Fox News and read on the internet.

Liberty275 6 years ago

My ideas work for my household. We live within our means which means we don't have to beg for assistance or steal extra money from our employers to make ends meet.

As for commingling ideas, everyone has a set of such ideas. There is very little original thought anywhere. You might try to associate me with Fox news, but that doesn't jive with my atheism, belief in absolute free speech or removing all laws from the books regarding victimless crimes. Funny enough, you won't even find such far left views on msnbc either.

Of course, you can find every idea on the internet, so you can pretty easily point to a website that mirrors any belief I hold. I can do the same with yours, rendering that clause in your statement meaningless.

ivalueamerica 6 years ago

Yes, we have all grown impatient with Obama's slow pace in cleaning up the mess from the most failed President in US History, George Bush.

jafs 6 years ago

Many people do in fact want smaller government and lower taxes.

The problem starts when deciding what part of the budget to cut - there are many differing ideas about that, and no clear majority consensus about it.

It would be nice if we could simply do away with government assistance and individuals and the private sector would just take over those functions. But, whether or not that would happen is completely unclear.

It's sort of funny, really - libertarians hate politicians because they're corrupt, etc. and rightly criticize liberals for failing to see that. But, at the same time, they seem to think individuals not in politics are somehow different and superior.

The fundamental problem is that humans are capable of making choices ("free will") and thus will make a variety of them, some good and some bad, some generous and some selfish, some with integrity and some without.

And, I've known some libertarians - they are by no means all generous and giving people who care about the environment, etc. Some may be, just as some liberals may be, some conservatives may be, etc.

heygary 6 years ago

There is a long-held belief that democracies, in general, are a predictably doomed form of government.

In the year 1787, Alexander Tyler (Scottish history professor - University of Edinborough) used an analogy to describe "The Fall of The Athenian Republic" some 2,000 years prior: “A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years, during which these nations always progressed through the following sequence: From bondage to spiritual faith; From spiritual faith to great courage; From courage to liberty; From liberty to abundance; From abundance to complacency; From complacency to apathy; From apathy to dependence; From dependence back into bondage.”

From my vantage point, Mr. Tyler’s observation has been unsettlingly predictive of the path of our own experiment in Democracy.

This seems like a remarkably true observation. I'm of the opinion that if you receive any form of State or Federal assistance (welfare), you should not be allowed to vote! What do you think of that?

jafs 6 years ago

Would that include all of the business owners/CEO's/etc. who got bailed out in the recent mess?

Liberty275 6 years ago

"I'm of the opinion that if you receive any form of State or Federal assistance (welfare), you should not be allowed to vote! What do you think of that?"

Not bad. I offer the amendment that you get one vote for federal office per dollar you pay in federal taxes. The same with state and local taxes. To make it fair, every citizen over 16 regardless of income gets one free bonus vote.

I'll offer a second amendment requiring the state legislature to choose by vote the US senators for that state. It is the job of the senate to represent the state, not the people. We the people are represented by the house.

Paul R Getto 6 years ago

"This seems like a remarkably true observation. I'm of the opinion that if you receive any form of State or Federal assistance (welfare), you should not be allowed to vote! What do you think of that?" === heygary: I'll ditto jafs on that one. If we won't let farmers, businesses (does that include all their stockholders too?; retired folks, the poor on assistance, etc. vote, who is left?) I think your fears are unfounded, if they are pointed towards the poor. For the most part they vote in very low numbers and have given up. That's why the old folks and some of the fat cats who vote regularly are running the show. In state and local elections, this averages 10-12% of the total possible voting population picking the winners, and at the national level where presidential elections draw 'great interest' about 25% of the population picks the leaders. I'd rather have lots of people voting and take my chances with that. I do, however, agree with much of your analysis of the decline of civilizations. We are fat, lazy whiners from top to bottom and if we don't grow up and pay the piper we may well see a decline if not a collapse. This has nothing to do with the R's and D's and the TP's and a lot to do with our selfish natures and ignorance of history's great sweep.

SnakeFist 6 years ago

Sorry for the redundancy, but I posted the following response to Liberty_One, and I think its important that everyone see his eventual response to my question of how a limited government, no taxes Libertarian/Conservative would build and maintain public roads. Liberty_One has been a blowhard on this site for a long time, so I, for one, would like to see him answer that simple question.

Look [Liberty_One], its great that you volunteer at soup kitchens, house homeless people, and help old ladies across the street, but how do the roads get built in your utopia of limited government and no taxes? Workgangs of weekend volunteers? Answer that one question - how do the roads get built? You have two possible moves.

First, you could build them by voluntary direct contributions from individuals to private business. But that's naive: Short-sighted freeriders like Liberty275 would insist that he doesn't use the roads and so shouldn't have to pay for them (nevermind that his food comes to him over the roads).

Second, you could have private business build the roads and then charge tolls. But that's unworkable: What about neighborhoods and small towns that don't have enough traffic to generate enough profit to attract business, and what happens when the private road owners, realizing you have to use their product to get anwhere, charge exhorbitant tolls (a la American drug companies)?

You see, you have no workable answer, so you and libertarianism/conservatism are jokes.

Look, the average person has several thousand dollars in credit card debt and a mortgage he can't afford, never served in the military or earned a college degree, is divorced, and believes in fairy tale gods, so, no, the average person isn't bright enough to run a nuclear superpower with 350 million people. But the average person does have a well-developed sense of practical self-interest. So while he may gripe about government and taxes, the first time his child's public school closes for lack of funding, the bridge he's on collapses for lack of maintenance, his roads aren't cleared of snow all winter, or your beloved private business cheats him out of his retirement, he'll clamor for government regulation and gladly vote for tax increases.

Liberty275 6 years ago

"no taxes Libertarian/Conservative"

False premise. Balance of post to /dev/null

SnakeFist 6 years ago

I'll focus on the two most glaring problems with your solution.

"The cost of neighborhood roads would be included in the price of the house." - So the homeowner bears the entire cost of building and, more importantly, maintaining the roads in perpetuity (you conveniently forgot to tell us how the roads would be maintained), but others can use them to get across town? I think most people would rather have everyone who uses them share the cost of building and maintaining roads. Perhaps you envision toll booths at every corner? Again, I think most people would rather write one check to the government than pay a toll every few blocks.

"If you study history you'll see that this never happens when there is free competition." - Now you're being completely disingenuous: Many goods and services are not amenable to free market competition, and roads, for the most part, are one of those things. How many roads do you expect to have through one neighborhood? Obviously, there will only be one road, which creates a monopoly, and that's where competition ultimately leads you without government regulation. Your lack of education in economics is laughable.

So, on the first point your solution is incomplete and impractical, and on the second point it is absolutely naive. Thankfully, Liberty_One, you will always be in the extreme minority.

SnakeFist 6 years ago

"Privately owned roads worked already." - You cite a system that may have worked in the early 1800's - the roads were made of dirt and rock, genius! Modern roads costs several million per mile, and you think homeowners will prefer building and maintaining roads by themselves rather than pay the government to have it done? You really think people will embrace that idea?

"Railroads compete with each other all the time." - You have got to be kidding, you think modern railroads successfully compete in the free market? - they're so heavily subsidized by the government even I'm in favor of getting rid of them.

SnakeFist 6 years ago

The Great Northern Railway, like your builders of private dirt roads "turnpikes" (LOL!), no longer exist, so they obviously weren't that successful. Liberty_One, you're a fool who's stuck in the past for some reason, I can only assume you have a degree in history, because it certainly isn't in economics or political theory. Good luck turning the clock back 200 years.

"You mean every government has rejected the idea of giving up its power and wealth? What a huge surprise! That must mean I'm wrong!" - No, I mean the majority of voters in every democratic society, and the leaders they've elected, have rejected your ideas, and, yes, that means you're wrong.

SnakeFist 6 years ago

One last thing: I assume you're aware that every modern, successful nation has rejected your idea of a loose collection of self-interested individuals in favor of a cooperative society? So while this conversation has been interesting on a theoretical level, you'll never get a significant number of rational people to revert to the practices of the early 1800's. You do realize that?

notajayhawk 6 years ago

"One last thing"

Good lord, we can only hope!!!

SnakeFist 6 years ago

Hey Bubba, assuming any college will accept you, and assuming the burger joint you now work at will give you time off to educate yourself, maybe you can take Liberty_One's dirt toll-road from your trailer to campus.

SnakeFist 6 years ago

"Haven't you heard of a little thing called the internal combustion engine?" - Apparently you haven't since you couldn't come up with an example that postdates their invention.

Four words, Liberty_One: "dirt toll-road turnpikes". That was your laughable solution. I've wasted my day arguing with a moron.

SnakeFist 6 years ago

I asked for the Libertarian's solution to public roads. The best example you could come up with were private dirt roads - which you grandiously referred to as "turnpikes" (LOL!) - from the early 1800s. That was your great solution. Build your dirt roads, moron, and see if anyone will pay to drive on them. By definition, a historian knows nothing relevant to modern society.

Peacemaker452 6 years ago

SnakeFist (or is it really 75X55 in disguise?),

You are indeed sorry for posting that redundant drivel.

Even though you are educated (different from intelligent, as was noted earlier), you seem to have a startlingly limited understanding of both politics and economics.

By lumping conservatives and libertarians together you show that you are ignorant of the beliefs of both groups.

To put it in simple economic terms, it is called a “use fee”. If you use a product or service that has been provided by either a limited government that is fulfilling its legitimate purposes or a private enterprise then you pay for it. When you buy your groceries you pay for the transportation because the grocer passes part of the cost on to you. This happens right now in the form of taxes. The difference, and the part that appeals to most libertarians, is that you get to choose where your money goes. You don’t pay for a new high school football field if you don’t have children going to school. If your grocer has kids in school, he is free to pass some of the money he received from you in your mutual exchange on to the school for the field.

Please try to step away from your liberal, there are no consequences for my actions, give up your inherent rights for the common good soapbox and look at a issue from a balanced perspective once in a while.

SnakeFist 6 years ago

"The difference, and the part that appeals to most libertarians, is that you get to choose where your money goes. You don’t pay for a new high school football field if you don’t have children going to school."

Oh please, do you realize how inane your ideas are? This entire discussion has been about how you benefit from many things in indirect ways, the fact that you don't recognize that and don't think you should have to pay for something you don't directly use doesn't change the fact that there is a huge chain of causality behind what you do use.

"If your grocer has kids in school, he is free to pass some of the money he received from you in your mutual exchange on to the school for the field." - So you admit that, ultimately, all of those costs will be distributed anyway, e.g., you'll ultimately pay your share for that stadium through an increased grovery bill. So what's the substantive difference between paying for it as a tax to the government versus paying for it as an increased price to the grocer? At least I can hold the government accountable for how it spends my money.

Peacemaker452 6 years ago

Once again, instead of providing any real discussion you just make a poor attempt at a personal attack and try to put a new shine on your “indirect benefit” pseudo argument. As someone else already pointed out to you, all of these ideas have worked in the past but since you cannot see past your liberal dogma you will never be able to look at the issue with an open mind. And no, I did not “admit” anything. I simply laid out a possible scenario. If I thought the grocer was overcharging me for food so that he could pay for the stadium I could find another grocer, or grow food for myself. The substantive difference is that the government will not give me that choice. I hold the grocer accountable by deciding for myself if I will continue a voluntary financial relationship with him. I think that you would find “Joe Sixpack” making significantly different choices in what he feels government should be involved in if he bore a financial load equivalent to his use.

SnakeFist 6 years ago

You're first comment on this issue was to say , "You are indeed sorry for posting that redundant drivel," and you have the nerve to say I'm making personal attacks? You're a hypocrite, Peacemaker452.

"As someone else already pointed out to you, all of these ideas have worked in the past." - Liberty_One's example from the past involved private dirt road "turnpikes" from the early 1800s. If that satisfies you, then you're a fool and a hypocrite.

You can go grow your own food, and Liberty_One can build his dirt toll-road, and we'll see how many people join you.

Peacemaker452 6 years ago

Once again, you are showing the real difference between education and intelligence.

Definition of HYPOCRITE 1: a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue 2: a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings

I did neither, I simply made the statement that you were making a personal attack instead of a substantive comment. I did not claim to be above making a personal comment or claim that I did not make one. In fact, by placing my comment first and separating it from the rest of my post, I think I made it obvious that it was a personal comment.

Since you probably just skim other comments so you can get to writing your retort I will summarize for you: Private roads, gravel and paved, existed in the past and still exist. They are currently being operated at a profit in several areas of the US and all over the world. Quality is on par or better than many public roads. When you wiki something to add “facts” to your reply, maybe you should read the whole page.

The good thing about my belief system is that the only people that would join me would be of the same mold. There would be no way for a social moocher or statist to hide in the group. They would be the ones who were naked and starving, demanding that they be provided for and wondering why no one needed their benevolent leadership.

notajayhawk 6 years ago

SnakeFist (hilarious) replies…

"You scoff at answer.com but cite wikipedia.com? You're a joke, Bubba."

Well, I tried to find something you'd understand, but I couldn't find a reference from Dr. Seuss for you.

But since you want something from an authoritative source, like Answers.com:

"Dictionary: post·grad·u·ate (pōst-grăj'ū-ĭt, -āt') adj. Of, relating to, or pursuing advanced study after graduation from high school or college." http://www.answers.com/topic/postgraduate

Which, gee, comes from Merriam-Webster. Still having trouble with the English language? How about a source from England?

"Postgraduate qualifications involve more advanced study in the area of your first (undergraduate) degree. They include honours and master’s degrees, postgraduate certificates and diplomas, and doctorates (PhDs)." http://www.canterbury.ac.nz/courses/key_terms.shtml

Hey, but what would they know. I'm sure you're right, as always [snicker].

"GPAs do mean something. Graduate school (not Liberty275's "post-grad" school, LOL!) only accepts above-average students, so it follows that graduate students have above-average GPAs."

So, skippy, I guess that would mean Liberty275 is one of these smarter people you want to lead you. Why are you trying to argue with him?

"The Liberty twins and I are trying to have an adult conversation"

In case you haven't been paying attention, little one, "the Liberty twins" are about as impressed with your "adult conversation" skills as I am. Which is to say not at all.

Seriously, kid. It really is painful to watch. I've been begging you, not for my sake (I can always use the extra laughs), but for your own, stop digging. If your purpose here is to try to prove your original point, that some people just aren't bright enough to know what's in their best interests, well, you do set yourself up as a pretty convincing example. But really, it's like watching a Buddhist monk self-immolate - fascinating in a horrific kind of way, but very sad when you realize the incredible waste of a life.

notajayhawk 6 years ago

Ooh, just noticed this one up above:

SnakeFist (anonymous) replies… "Hey, Liberty twins, do you see the kind of idiot your philosophy appeals too? Bruno, if you don't want government or taxes, move to Somalia."

Priceless. Just priceless, skippy.

I realize these sub-threads can get confusing, but you might have paid attention to the fact that bruno's post was indented the same as your own reply to the "Liberty twin". Looks like he was replying to Liberty, not you. If you'd bothered to peruse a few of Bruno's posts, you might have noticed that the person you just called an "idiot" actually shares your philosophy.

Again, just priceless.

SnakeFist 6 years ago

Oh great, another non-substantive comment from the dummy in the burger hat. Do you realize you haven't had anything substantive to say in this entire discussion? Doesn't it bother you that you are so uneducated that you have nothing worthwhile to say? But then, I guess ignorance really is bliss for you, huh?

notajayhawk 6 years ago

Wasn't meant to be substantive. Just more evidence that you don't know what you're talking about.

Hey, kid, I'm trying to do you a favor. Really. Have you happened to notice that the number of people lining up to tell you that you don't know what you're talking about is growing? And that the only person who took your side in the argument, you called an "idiot"?

You're getting eaten alive, and you're not bright enough to realize it. I'll concede you the point that some people aren't intelligent enough to know what's good for them and need someone smarter than they are to lead them. You've provided us with an incontrovertible example in your fine self. You've also made my point that those - like you - who lack that capacity also won't listen when those more intelligent try to help them. Really - have mommy tell you a nice bedtime story, snuggle up with your Care Bear, and call it a day.

SnakeFist 6 years ago

Desperately trying to save your credibility, Liberty_Belle?

I asked for the Libertarian's solution to public roads. The best example you could come up with were private dirt roads - which you grandiously referred to as "turnpikes" (LOL!) - from the early 1800s. That was your great solution. Build your dirt roads, moron, and see if anyone will pay to drive on them. By definition, a historian knows nothing relevant to modern society.

notajayhawk 6 years ago

Hey Liberty, do ya' think he's ever going to figure out that in the time period you were referring to, pretty much all roads were dirt roads?

An oldie but a goodie, with thanks to Satirical:

Porch_person's modus operandi when confronting opposing viewpoints:

(Step 1) Quote something completely random the opponent says. It doesn’t have to be a full sentence or more than 5 words . (Step 2) Claim their quote should be interpreted to mean s/he supports ‘X’ ('X' = anything you want, like paving the streets with post-notes. Similar to how porchie claims you say something, even when he quoted your saying the exact opposite. It really doesn't matter what 'X' is, as long as it is ridiculous, and keeps the opponent on the defensive to distract from the fact you can't back up your argument). Alternatively, repeat step 1, and using the two random quotes claim they contradict each other.

(Step 3) Mock opponent for believing ‘X’

(Step 4) When opponent claims s/he didn’t say that, respond by stating that you quoted him/her directly (even though when you paraphrase the statement it isn’t anything close to what s/he actually said)

(Step 5) Insert “(laughter)”

(Step 6) If opponent continues to claim s/he didn’t say ‘X,’ use a specious analogy.

(Step 7) If opponent continue to respond, claim s/he is “in Garfinkel mode” trying to get away from the fact he said ‘X,’ and/or contradicted himself. But never explain how the quote you randomly pulled is anything close to ‘X.’ And never respond to his/her questions.

(Step 8) Insert “(laughter)”

(Step 9) If this does not work engage in personal (attacks) by making up facts about opponent, again using random quotes, as described in Step 1

(Step 10) Repeat until you have lost all credibility on the issue.

Now, I'd hate to give old porchie the credit for having enough foresight to have a 'back-up' account for the day when he eventually got disappeareded. But I'll tell ya', take out the (laughter), and this guy could be a clone.

hipgrrrrl 6 years ago

"At least I can hold the government accountable for how it spends my money."

That's funny.

SnakeFist 6 years ago

Yes, by your vote. Or perhaps you think private business, like Enron and Worldcom, are more accountable with your money? Please little girl, you're a little late to this party to chime in now.

notajayhawk 6 years ago

You don't have to buy a product. You have to pay your taxes or end up in jail.

beatrice 6 years ago

Liberty, first off, let me admit that I haven't been following this "discussion" between you and Snakefist very closely. It doesn't appear to have been a pleasant one, at any rate (not that I have ever been involved in such "discussions" myself, of course).

However, from the end here, I do ask about your claim that privately built roads would have been sufficient had the government not stepped in to take over. While I do not claim to be any kind of expert on infrastructure history, didn't the government take over the roads because the cost was largely prohibitive for private industry outside of the most heavily travelled routes? Didn't this happen shortly after WWI, when the government had to rely on railways to transport goods to the coast? The early roads simply couldn't handle the weight of trucks, and by using government funds roads around the country were created on a much larger scale than private industry would or could have done, which would help in the rapid growth of industry in America. Isn't this accurate? At least this is how I remember it from American history.

notajayhawk 6 years ago

Not to mention the fact that Obamacare is a pretty far cry from "universal healthcare".

Scott Morgan 6 years ago

Hang in there Liberty_One

Often libs scream what about moral obligations for our fellow man. My view after 45 years of social welfare experimentation we all need to take a step back.

Step back and see what the trillions upon trillions of transferred wealth bought our nation.

The land of the free, or the home of the handout. Didn't somebody once state.......ask not what your country can do for you...

I believe we have a moral obligation to stop the growth of socialism.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.