Liberal mantra: do as I say not as I do.

Liberals define virtue not by one's personal behavior but by one's political positions. Thus, Bill Clinton could, without risking the ire of liberals, behave like a caveman with women who actually came into his orbit because he supported unrestricted abortion for those who didn't. Similarly, Tim Geithner gets a pass on failing to pay his own taxes because he favors raising taxes on "the rich."

Of the 25 states that had higher than average charitable giving, 24 went for George W. Bush over John Kerry in 2004.

On Tax Day, returns show Obama and Biden fall short of Bush on charitable giving

In 2009, the Barack and Michelle Obama donated 5.9 percent of their income to charity and Joe Biden gave away 1.4 percent of his. While in office, Bush routinely donated more than 10 percent of his income each year.

In his 2006 book, “Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism,” Syracuse University Professor Arthur Brooks analyzed charitable giving in the United States and found that conservatives were 30 percent more likely to give, even though liberal families averaged 6 percent higher household incomes.

Liberals define virtue not by one's personal behavior but by one's political positions. Thus, Bill Clinton could, without risking the ire of liberals, behave like a caveman with women who actually came into his orbit because he supported unrestricted abortion for those who didn't. Similarly, Tim Geithner gets a pass on failing to pay his own taxes because he favors raising taxes on "the rich."

#1 | Posted by paneocon

I don't even know whay you're going there. Either Willard Romney or Newt Gingrich will be the Republican candidate for president this year.

I'm curious why you're so immune to contradictions. By all accounts, Clinton was a bad boy when it came to women. By all accounts, so is Newt.

Um, does Newt raise your ire? And, if so, enough to meaningfully change your voting behavior?

Does Willard's behavior in regards to money raise your ire? The man got obscenely rich, in part, from raiding the pensions of ordinary workers.

Matters to you?

I guess that the only thing Republicans have given us to be grateful for this year is that they won't field a presidential nominee who has stolen someone's pension AND his wife.

How's your ire? Mine's starting to build.

"If you define virtue by one's personal behavior."

I would define virtue by one's personal behavior. I would also say that one's sexual behaviors have pretty much zero to do with one's effectiveness as a political leader (unless of course one is directly hypocritical), or only to the extent that one's constituents give a shit. Political effectiveness and virtue are not the same thing. I don't think anyone who "forgave" Bill C believes that they are. I certainly never met one who sees them that way.

I might also add that I know very few conservatives personally who donate time or money. I know a few liberals who do one, the other, or both. I'm not extrapolating, just suggesting...

A president who has impaired the vibrancy of the private sector so badly has long since forfeited the moral high ground.

Posted by paneocon

Jeez, what crap. The private sector very nearly blew it's own brains out.

You live on another world.

You might be a conservative if you give money to people who then turn around and lie about the efficacy of condoms, or back hateful Propositions, and still call that "charity".

You live on another world.
#8 | Posted by Zed

I live in realville which is just down the road from literalville.

Glad you enjoyed the post ZED.

"Liberals define virtue not by one's personal behavior but by one's political positions."

What a riot, coming from the small government, family values party which recently had Newt Gingrich in the lead.

You most definitely are a cancervative if you claim that God told you to invade Iraq and kill a million of its citizens.

"I live in realville which is just down the road from literalville."

You obviously pick up cargo in Bullshitland on your daily commute.

The heavy guns have yet to be brought out against either Willard or Newt, but sincere thanks to both of them for making a good start at revealing who the other really is.

I think that after the GOP convention we are going to be amazed at just how awful Willard or Newt have been in regards to money or to sex.

The people pauperized by Willard are going to be on TV 24/7, and the list of married and unmarried women Newt slept with while he was married will be as long as your arm.

But I guess you kids can keep on calling Obama a Kenyan-Communist-Socialist-
Marxist-Muslim-Atheist (and alien contactee) and see how that works out for you.

I live in realville which is just down the road from literalville.

Glad you enjoyed the post ZED.

#10 | Posted by paneocon at

Sure you do. As do the people like you. That's why you'll have a some version of Bozo the Clown as your presidential nominee in a few months. Because you're hard-headed and realistic.

Jeez. Your Party has become one long joke.

#7 | Posted by pragmatist

Virtue, humm, lets add ethics to that since we are talking public service. Virtue extend way past the bedroom and the "virtue ethics" conservatives find most desirable is adherence to core values. When Liberals accept "the ends justifies the means" this is counter to conservatives who feel that is a failure of "virtue ethics".

Virtue ethics
Virtue ethics describes the character of a moral agent as a driving force for ethical behavior, rather than rules (deontology), consequentialism (which derives rightness or wrongness from the outcome of the act itself rather than character), or social context (pragmatic ethics).

When Liberals accept "the ends justifies the means"

#16 | Posted by paneocon

Once again, why do you even go there? Why are you so immune to contradictions?

Willard Romney obviously thought, and thinks, that the end justifies the means when it comes to making money for himself.

Uh, you going to vote for that SOB?

When Liberals accept "the ends justifies the means"

{{COUGH}} {{COUGH}} WAR IN IRAQ {{COUGH}} {{COUGH}}

I'm indeed sorry that you want to talk about ethics as if it is some dry and intellectual weapon you can beat liberals over the head with, and I keep bringing you down to earth.

How many homes has Newt Gingrich personally wrecked, PANEOCON? And are you going to vote for that sumbitch?

Virtue ethics
Virtue ethics describes the character of a moral agent as a driving force for ethical behavior, rather than rules (deontology), consequentialism (which derives rightness or wrongness from the outcome of the act itself rather than character), or social context (pragmatic ethics).

en.wikipedia.org

#16 | Posted by paneocon at

George "Mocked a condemned woman's plea for life" bush

Would you like me to put this in even starker terms? How many kids has Newt helped not have a mother or a father secondary to divorce? I'm going to bet you it runs into the dozens.

Newt says he's made his peace with God on such things. If he really wanted to make amends, however, he could help with freaking child support.

Stiil want to talk ethics? It hurts to be ethical. You have to give up things you really want.

That's why Newt and Willard aren't.

#17 | Posted by Zed

I find no contradictions in Romney's pursute of profit.

Atlas Shrugged's Timeless Moral: Profit-Making Is Virtue, Not Vice

Why? Why does government control over the economy only grow? Part of the answer in "Atlas Shrugged" is that those seeking power over business triumph because they claim, unchallenged, the moral upper hand.

Bankers and hedge funds today, like Rearden and the other industrialists in "Atlas Shrugged," are denounced as selfish, greedy profit seekers.

And everyone knows that selfishness and profit seeking are evil, right?

Further, the justification of every new government scheme in our world, as in the world of "Atlas Shrugged," is that it places "the public interest" above private profit.

Ethics and Conservatives

Our nation as a group in its representative government passes policies vis a vis, defense, education, social welfare, security, justice,etc

those policies have a price tag.

those policies establish who how those policies are paid for.

it has been indisputably established that the current system of taxation is regressive (do not cherry pick taxes to defend one system or another). When considering ALL taxes it is regressive.

conservatives want to a. have the rich pay less and the poor pay more and b. want to cut the services received by the poor but not those received by the rich

that is ethical?

#24 | Posted by paneocon

IOW

Atlas Shrugged's Timeless Moral: Profit-Making Is Virtue, Not Vice

#24 | Posted by paneocon at 2012

Jesus wept. A Randian. That explains an awful lot. You interesting people have often informed me that a "post-Christian" moral ethic is what is now required.

You people are dangerous. I'm sincere in making that statement. You'd have been a better to person had you decided to wipe your ass with "Atlas Shrugged".

And everyone knows that selfishness and profit seeking are evil, right?

#24 | Posted by paneocon

You've adopted a philosophical system that allows you to gratify your personal desires, nothing else.

Animals do the same thing without dressing it all up in words.

Hay PANEOCON----What's the moral argument against abortion if the free market allows a profit on them?

Hey, PANEOCON----How does a Randian morally address the question of slavery in a free market?

#29 | Posted by Zed Animals do the same thing without dressing it all up in words.

Capitalism and Interspecific competition have strong shared similarities. Survival of the fittest and absorption and reallocation of the failed. It's pure, honest and virtuous.

Hay PANEOCON----What's the moral argument against abortion if the free market allows a profit on them?

#31 | Posted by Zed

shit what is the moral argument against The Running Man style game shows

Capitalism and Interspecific competition have strong shared similarities. Survival of the fittest and absorption and reallocation of the failed. It's pure, honest and virtuous.

#34 | Posted by paneocon

Tis virtuous to destroy human beings? On an epic scale at that?

exhibit 1- Enron

Capitalism and Interspecific competition have strong shared similarities. Survival of the fittest and absorption and reallocation of the failed. It's pure, honest and virtuous.

#34 | Posted by paneocon

Thanks. A more succinct statement of the Randian position on morality and ethics would be hard to find.

You are a fool. A stupid one. Perhaps a rabid one. Someone needs to put a bell around your neck, to warn them you're coming.

Your Randian philosophical system, after all, is a frank justification for stealing children.

Ah, come on, PANEOCON. We all know that goo people don't steal children.

But those who believe in the survival of the fittest just might snatch the odd toddler or so. Or thousands of them, depending upon profit margins.

Ah, come on, PANEOCON. We all know that good people don't steal children.

But those who believe in the survival of the fittest just might snatch the odd toddler or so. Or thousands of them, depending upon profit margins.

in danger of applying godwin's law, nazi germany was fine up up to the point they invaded the USSR

I wonder what stops paneocon from robbing local convenience stores

Hey, PANEOCON---What's the Randian moral argument against executing people by having them torn apart by wild animals, if a profit could be made on ticket sales?

#36 | Posted by truthhurts

If you think Enron is an example of capitalism, you need to step back from the cool aide. Federal regulation created the tools for Enron to exist

but survival of the fittest rules motivated them to their actions

and government finally stopped them

Now you boys are being silly. Let the adults talk.

Hey, PANEOCON----Televised gladitorial exhibitions to the death? Pay per view? What's the Randian position?

Hey man, that's got to be more than stealing kids. After all, the gladiators could sign contracts.

You also might be conservative if you want to nuke Iran, salt the earth there and sell their remaining citizens into slavery.

Federal regulation created the tools for Enron to exist

#43 | Posted by paneocon at 2012-02-12 11:25 AM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

Um, what Randian tools are you creating to make what exist?

You haven't thought this through, have you? From my point of view, that's a kinder explanation for you than you just don't give a shit.

not giving a shit is one of the randian 10 commandments

not giving a shit is one of the randian 10 commandments

#49 | Posted by truthhurts at 2012

Let's all recall that PANEOCON started this thread to beat the rest of us over the head with morality.

So, PANEOCON----It's not so much that you think Liberals have no core values, as you fear that my core values might prevent you from doing any damned thing you want including fucking over me and my family.

Um, what Randian tools are you creating to make what exist? #48 | Posted by Zed

Remembering ‘Green’ Enron (Part I: The Kyoto Moment)

Beginning in the late 1980s, global warming became a bread-and-butter issue for Ken Lay, Enron's leader and up-and-coming industry visionary. Enron in the 1990s became a full-fledged “green” company, practicing “energy sustainability” with its investments in solar power, wind power, energy-efficiency services, and environmental services.

Lay had his reasons-seven in terms of company profit centers, all of which stood to gain from government restrictions on carbon emissions. They involved:

· Natural gas production (relative to oil and coal),

· Natural gas transmission (relative to oil and coal),

· Natural gas-fired electric generation (relative to oil and coal),

· Energy outsourcing (a/k/a energy efficiency) services,

· Renewable energy generation (wind and solar),

· CO2 emissions trading (joining company trading in sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide), and

· Environmental outsourcing (a/k/a environmental services).

fucking over me and my family.#51 | Posted by Zed

I wouldn't fuck you with ..... your dick.

#52 | Posted by paneocon at 2012-02-12 11:37 AM |

People like you deserve to lose, PANEOCON. In self-protection, the rest of us need to make sure that you lose.

You might be a conservative if ...

You are a vile shithead that loves to send the poor to die in wars so you may profit.

You might be a conservative if ...

You believe people of a different skin color are inferior.

You might be a conservative if ...

You believe the taxes of the poor should be redirected to the rich.

I wouldn't fuck you with ..... your dick.

#53 | Posted by paneocon at 2012

Sure you would. You've already explained it to us. Let me see:

"Survival of the fittest and absorption and reallocation of the failed"

That was you, right?

Did you mean something else than that statement actually said, PANEOCON?

I'm just wondering, sincerely, how many of your own family members are not part of the fittest, and need reallocation?

One, two, several?

I'm gone. I really do hope you aren't serious about the things you post.

But to the extent you are, Have a talk with yourself, my friend. If you get the sort of world you want, I have the feeling you'll be loaded on a cattle car even ahead of me.

= unshackle the private sector

When are the Child Labor laws to be abolished?

And the mining and other workplace safety rules?

How long until we can't drink the water or breathe the air?

Why do you want even more rat shit in your hot dogs?

If that last is all it is, I'm sure we can accommodate you.

Also, when are you going to recognize that Ayn Rand idolized sociopath serial killers because they fit her delusion of Super Men unable to even detect the existence of other people, much less generate empathy or concern for their fellow man?

Or their neighbor, as Jesus put it in the Golden Rule.

And since the Rwing loves them so much, how does her atheism and premium on selfishness fit in with the supposed Christian Family Values of the Right?

Christianity on Sunday and Objectivism the rest of the week?

"Ayn Rand, Hugely Popular Author and Inspiration to Right-Wing Leaders, Was a Big Admirer of Serial Killer

Her works are treated as gospel by right-wing powerhouses like Alan Greenspan and Clarence Thomas, but Ayn Rand found early inspiration in 1920's murderer William Hickman."

#57 | Posted by Zed

If you think capitalism is killing you and your family, it's a short plane trip to Cuba. Oh wait they are adapting capitalism now, maybe Venezuela? I'm sure you will like that better. Not much pesky capitalism there.

You might be a conservative if.... you value selfishness above all else. #60 | Posted by Corky

You may have missed this from the article. Being a product of public school it is understandable

Self-described conservatives, as Arthur C. Brooks demonstrated so cogently in his book "Who Really Cares," donate more to charity than do self-identified liberals. Perhaps that's because conservatives are wealthier? No. Liberals on average earn 6 percent more than conservatives. Yet conservatives donate about 30 percent more.

Conservatives also volunteer more of their time -- and their blood. Brooks writes: "If liberals and moderates gave blood at the same rate as conservatives, the blood supply of the United States would jump about 45 percent."

16--Mm-hm. So is Newt a conservative?

Again, PA, you are asserting that one ideology has the market cornered on the concepts of virtue and ethics. Or that one has the market cornered on bad behavior. Any honest analysis of available data would suggest that flawed humans appear all over the political spectrum. Your argument is absurd on the face of it. (Any serious Christian, for instance, would tell you that we are all--all of us--sinners.)

I also don't believe for a second that the majority of voters give a shit about ethics as long as their own political values are represented, or rather that they that they are.
+++++

"And everyone knows that selfishness and profit seeking are evil, right?"

No, profit-seeking despite damage to others or to one's community, with little regard for the hard work of others or their well-being, is evil. Cf. Exxon. And yeah, selfishness is not virtuous, sort of by definition. Do you hold to any religion, PA? If you're Christian, you'd best double-check the list of the Seven Deadly Sins. Then look up the meaning of "avarice."
+++++

53--It's scary that PA thinks "fuck over" and "fuck" are synonyms.
+++++

62--I wonder how Mr. Brooks gathered his data. And in any case, one always should ask, "Why do people donate to charity?" Giving blood--well, at least there's no tax write-off there... I think the whole argument is silly. Again, conservatives and liberals are PEOPLE, and people come in many different stripes. This sort of generalizing, particularly around morality--no matter who does it--is silly.

It is a known fact that conservatives are more generous with their own money whereas liberals are more generous with other peoples money.

Didn't miss a thing.

Conservatives give more to churches, and in that study churches are considered as total charitble contributions, whether they are or not, skewing the numbers.

If you want to say that Randian Objectivism isn't based on selfishness, which it most obviously and admittedly is, you would at least have an argument, albeit a losing one.

Pan I can't believe you are trying to compare a Hedge Fund manager to an industrialist. Hank would be ashamed of you. The hedge fund managers are the parasites your hero Rand describes. They do not add to the economy if they all left for some secret retreat they would all die and we wouldn't miss them.

Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerburg, Larry Ellison these are the Francisco D'anconia and Hank Rearden's of our age.

It's not about wealth it's about productivity. Those that create it vs. those that live off others. A hedge fund manager lives off the creations of others the software developer lives off his own creations.

Zed Rand was a bitch and her philosophy was easily misused by the greed is good crowd however up to a point it is not a bad philosophy.

Again, PA, you are asserting that one ideology has the market cornered on the concepts of virtue and ethics.#62 | Posted by paneocon

I could be incendiary here and suggest that to conservatives adherence to virtue and ethics is a positive and among liberals failures of virtue and lapses in ethics are acceptable but I will not make such a black and white statement but there is a lot of gray IMO. Any conservative that suggests that Newt's failures in virtue don't affect them in some way is either not a conservative or not being honest. The real question is how do we each weight the importance to these thing.

53--It's scary that PA thinks "fuck over" and "fuck" are synonyms #63 | Posted by pragmatist

For the propose of poking with a sharp stick they are. :-)

Pan I can't believe you are trying to compare a Hedge Fund manager to an industrialist. #66 | Posted by TaoWarrior

This is where things get sticky. As a capitalist I have to question if hedge funds would exist if not for crony capitalism. They exist in a world of derivatives, short selling and up ticks. None of those are concepts of capitalism and have been created by crony capitalism. The market was a tool for investment and capitalization. It is now something quite different. Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerburg, and Larry Ellison have all accessed the capital markets to create, one needs the other to flourish.

67--That wouldn't be incendiary; it would be wrong. That's my core point. The rest of your post, however, is more nuanced and more flexible than anything else you've said in the post. If you started with the concept in that last sentence, I probably wouldn't disagree--or not so vociferously--with you.

68--Now you're proposing to the guy? Yeesh. First you don't even wanna fuck him. Now you wanna marry him? : ) Okay, I had to sharpen my own stick there--and my dig was just a little less lame than yours. If you wanna poke at someone, PA, you can do better. I've seen you be more clever than a sophomoric play on the word "fuck."

67--That wouldn't be incendiary;#70 | Posted by pragmatist

Much of what I and a lot of other conservatives really dislike about liberals is the "end's justifies the means" mind set. This in a nut shell is why we don't trust liberals. When a state (California) can undertake a Constitutional Amendment in (Proposition 8) and the citizens approve by majority and liberal Judges over rule the people, then we conservatives get crazy. When a health care law is passed with bribes and trickery and violates the constitution and is against the will of the people because liberal politicians think they know better, conservatives get crazy. So my point is a darker shade of gray every day. Don't get me started on indefinite detention and the NDAA because it will turn to black.

"When a state (California) can undertake a Constitutional Amendment in (Proposition 8) and the citizens approve by majority and liberal Judges over rule the people, then we conservatives get crazy."

Translation: We get crazy when someone finally reads the US Constitution.

"When a health care law is passed with bribes and trickery and violates the constitution"

Translation: Everything we don't like is against the Constitution. (ps: ignore Medicare with regard to that can't-force-to-buy-health- insurance thingy.

#73 | Posted by Danforth

Unlike liberal's who love the constitution when it suits them and suggest that it is out dated when it doesn't.

Much of what I and a lot of other conservatives really dislike about liberals is the "end's justifies the means" mind set. This in a nut shell is why we don't trust liberals. When a state (California) can undertake a Constitutional Amendment in (Proposition 8) and the citizens approve by majority and liberal Judges over rule the people, then we conservatives get crazy. When a health care law is passed with bribes and trickery and violates the constitution and is against the will of the people because liberal politicians think they know better, conservatives get crazy. So my point is a darker shade of gray every day. Don't get me started on indefinite detention and the NDAA because it will turn to black.

#72 | Posted by paneocon

I guess you can see the hypocrisy of your own post. on the one hand you tout the infallibility and sanctitude of our representative democracy and on the other hand you demonize the same.

you ever hear of the tyranny of the majority? Courts and government exist to protect the minority from the majority, which is what prop 8 and the court decision was about.

oh the humanity, requiring healt insurance for all. I have many problems with the law, but condemning it as an attack on freedom is stupid because so often those who choose to not get health insurance are protected from the decisions they make

"Unlike liberal's who love the constitution when it suits them and suggest that it is out dated when it doesn't."

If the Prop 8 stuff drove you crazy, you don't understand the Constitution to begin with.

You might be a conservative if...

You think "proletariat" is a type of cheese.

You've named your kids "Deduction one" and "Deduction two."

You've tried to argue that poverty could be abolished if people were just allowed to keep more of their minimum wage.

You've ever referred to someone as "my (insert racial or ethnic minority here) friend"

You've ever tried to prove Jesus was a capitalist and opposed to welfare.

You're a pro-lifer, but support the death penalty.

You think Huey Newton is a cookie.

The only union you support is the Baseball Players, because heck, they're richer than you.

You think you might remember laughing once as a kid.

You once broke loose at a party and removed your neck tie.

You call mall rent-a-cops "jack-booted thugs."

You've ever referred to the moral fiber of something.

You've ever uttered the phrase, "Why don't we just bomb the sons of bitches."

You've ever said, "I can't wait to get into business school."

You've ever called a secretary or waitress "Tootsie."

You answer to "The Man."

You don't think "The Simpsons" is all that funny, but you watch it because that Flanders fellow makes a lot of sense.

You fax the FBI a list of "Commies in my Neighborhood."

You don't let your kids watch Sesame Street because you suspect Bert and Ernie of "sexual deviance."

You use any of these terms to describe your wife: Old ball and chain, little woman, old lady, tax credit...

You scream "Dit-dit-ditto" while making love.

You've argued that art has a "moral foundation set in Western values."

When people say "Marx," you think "Groucho."

You've ever yelled, "Hey hippie, get a haircut."

You think Birkenstok was that radical rock concert in 1969.

You argue that you need 300 handguns, in case a bear ever attacks your home.

Vietnam makes a lot of sense to you.

You point to Hootie and the Blowfish as evidence of the end of racism in America.

You've ever said "civil liberties, schmivil schmiberties."

You've ever said "Clean air? Looks clean to me."

You've ever referred to Anita Hill as a "lying bitch" while attending a Bob Packwood fund-raiser.

You spent MLK Day reading "The Bell Curve."

You've ever called education a luxury.

You look down through a glass ceiling and chuckle.

You wonder if donations to the Pentagon are tax-deductable.

You came of age in the '60s and don't remember Bob Dylan.

You own a vehicle with an "Ollie North: American Hero" sticker.

You're afraid of the "liberal media."

You ever based an argument on the phrase, "Well, tradition dictates...."

You've ever called the National Endowment for the Arts a bunch of pornographers.

You think all artists are gay.

You ever told a child that Oscar the Grouch "lives in a trash can because he is lazy and doesn't want to contribute to society."

You've ever urged someone to pull themselves up by their bootstraps, when they don't even have shoes.

You confuse Lenin with Lennon.

How does money equal virtue? #71 | Posted by webwrangler

The pursut of money is the basis of survival, Even a hard core lib has to ad mit that some one has to make money to support the neads of society.

How does starting wars equal morals? #71 | Posted by webwrangler

Is it moral to condone genocide or to open one's self up to attack and loss of life?

How does being selfish and keeping it all to yourself equal better.
#71 | Posted by webwrangler
I see you too mised the part about conservatives and donations, and planthripy. Also no one is suggesting that progressive taxes are not conservative.

If you think capitalism is killing you and your family, it's a short plane trip to Cuba.

#61 | Posted by paneocon

My dear PANEOCON: I don't think that capitalism is a threat to my family. I think you and your buddies are threats to my family.

As long as you identify yourself as a Randian, you can't also identify yourself as being a normal person. Honest businessmen are normal persons. They don't want you either.

#78 | Posted by Corky

So much hostility so little common sense.

#81

Confuses common sense for hostility.

So much hostility so little common sense.

#81 | Posted by paneocon

There's nothing wrong with you that a little reallocation wouldn't cure.

#80 | Posted by Zed

One Ayn Rand reference and I'm a Randian? You libs are unhinged on this woman.

So much hostility so little common sense.

#81 | Posted by paneocon

You've been hit with common sense questions for quite a while now on this thread. You ignore all of them.

It's not that you don't have answers for them, I think. I think you won't answer because you understand what your responses will say about you.

But, just for grins----How does a philosophy that elevate the "fittest" and the free market above all other concerns deal with slavery?

One Ayn Rand reference and I'm a Randian? You libs are unhinged on this woman.

#84 | Posted by paneocon at 2012

Do you believe what you posted, PALEOCON? It's as simple as that. We untermenschen want to know.

Selfishness is a virtue

--Ayn Rand/Panecon

Big business is America's persecuted minority.

--Ayn "Panecon" Rand

#86 | Posted by Zed

I stand by my posts but I don't stand by your interpretation.

I stand by my posts but I don't stand by your interpretation.

#89 | Posted by paneocon

Great. Now, standing by your posts, tell me how you deal with slavery and how that fits into them.

#87 | Posted by nullifidian

Bring in the second string? I'm going to have to go be a capitalist here today so I can pay the taxes to keep you libs in the life style you are accustomed to.

I can pay the taxes to keep you libs in the life style you are accustomed to.

#91 | Posted by paneocon at 2012-02-12 01:11 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

Thanks. I'm sure you look forward to the day when your money can buy a few of us.

#90 | Posted by Zed

No because slavery is not virtuous or ethical. It's democratic

No because slavery is not virtuous or ethical. It's democratic

#93 | Posted by paneocon at

Sorry, I don't understand you.

No because slavery is not virtuous or ethical. It's democratic

#93 | Posted by paneocon at 2012

This strikes me as being besides your previously made points. Given your points, why is it not ethical or virtuous?

PALEOCON, who thinks in terms of survival of the fittest and the reallocation of things that are not fit, thinks slavery is unethical. Why?

This is interesting. I can answer this question from my point of view immediately. Jesus doesn't want you to be slaver because He really doesn't give a damn about your freaking profits.

#79 | Posted by paneocon at 2012-02-12 12:58 PM | Reply | Flag:
First i want to say good on you. really. You start a thread and you
monitor and try to answer civilly.
I just don't see that the amount of money you give makes you more moral or better. Mc Donalds take credit for all ronald mcdonald house donations.
I bet they take the tax write off. I say the only "moral" giving is anonymous. I think we need to spread the wealth more evenly.
Why "lately" have we only gone to war in places that have oil? Why don't we stop the african genocide? And why go to war and not pay for it? Is that moral or virtuous or whatever?

you are probably a conservative if you voted for Bush twice and supported his wars but deny it now.

Jesus also, I'm pretty sure, has a different idea of who is fit than you do. Go to church, PALEOCON?

Sorry, I don't understand you.
#94 | Posted by Zed

Is slavery a Virtue? Is slavery ethical? Cou can answer yes to either of these?

Democracy - from the Greek word (dÄ"mokratía) "rule of the people"

Slavery exists because it was the rule of the people. In the US it was the rule of the Democrats.

Slavery exists because it was the rule of the people. In the US it was the rule of the Democrats.

#101 | Posted by paneocon

Sigh. Is it too much to ask you to speak for and of yourself? By the way, I've already answered the question is slavery ethical, and told you why it's not. You may think my reasons are stupid, but I've put them out there.

I'm getting ready to leaqve again. If responding to this question is really that hard for you, you should examine why you feel a sense of shame when asked to explain your values.

#98 | Posted by webwrangler

Thanks but my time this afternoon is running low.

I just don't see that the amount of money you give makes you more moral or better #98 | Posted by webwrangler

When faced with the constant diatribe that conservatives don’t care about others and don't care about children it is often good to point out some facts. On the question of morality I do think that a lot of what passes for moral behavior on the left is not moral. I think a hand up and a safety net is moral but I don't think a lifelong entitlement society is moral as it kills off the human spirit and to please ZED it makes slaves out of people.

Goodbye, PALEOCON. I'm pretty sure that they have money in Hell. You'll fit in fine.

it makes slaves out of people.

#104 | Posted by paneocon at 2012-02-12 01:28 PM | Reply | Flag

And slavery is wrong.....Why?

OK, I'm gone. Best of luck to you. Because if you aren't quite as fit as you think you are, you'll need it.

#104 | Posted by paneocon at 2012-02-12 01:28 PM | Reply | Flag
you are welcome. good day.

72--What does that have to do with what I said. And guess what? Many of us liberals feel the same way about "the end justifies the means." Funny how people on both sides say that when the end is not one with which they are in accord. Btw, NDAA PISSES ME OFF. You need to take that up with your congresspersons and senators, who likely voted for it. (Pretty much everyone did.) That is hardly Obama's or the Democrats' fault alone.
+++++

"You don't think "The Simpsons" is all that funny, but you watch it because that Flanders fellow makes a lot of sense."

LMFAO!!!

"You're afraid of the "liberal media.""

Some kid at the HS where I teach has a bumper sticker reading something like: "Don't believe the lying liberal media!" I wince every time I see it, not because I disagree but because how can a teenager (most teenagers) have analyzed the MSM vs. Fox (which is pretty MSM now but is held up as not)? Or rather more to the point, what teenager (most) is going to take the time to do so. I also wonder if the kid is in my media studies class (where we really need to do more analysis, and where I am honest about my bias and work very hard to always present both sides--and do pretty well, judging from comments by conservative adults and students who have been in my class).
+++++

"I see you too mised the part about conservatives and donations, and planthripy. Also no one is suggesting that progressive taxes are not conservative."

#109 | Posted by pragmatist

Yes Republicans are sometimes guilty of "ends justify the means", reconciliation used to pass law is one example. The nanny state that Dems want us in is the most egregious and visible example of that process.

"progressive taxes are not conservative."
WHAT?!? Every self-proclaimed conservative on this board asserts that percentages should be the same no matter how much or how little money one makes. #109 | Posted by pragmatist

I have never seen that but I'm sure you will point it out next time it happens. The fight is most likely about the type of income and not progressive income taxation.

110 | Posted by MSgt

Bill Whittle does good stuff.

Paneocon: Nice work holding your own today. Its pretty funny to get libs all twisted with facts.

Jesus also, I'm pretty sure, has a different idea of who is fit than you do. Go to church, PALEOCON?

He does. He commented on how he switched churches because the one he was in wasn't bigoted enough.

Paneocon: Nice work holding your own today. Its pretty funny to get libs all twisted with facts.

LOL are you f'in serious? PAwhitetrashinternetwarrior got pwned. Hard.

#114 | Posted by jpw

FYI I'm still looking at Churches and the Eastern Lutheran Synod has gotten a lot of heat over "social justice" so I'm hopeful that they will get a clue. I'm sure Obama's recent abortion ruling helps push them in that direction.

As long as the conversation is honest and civil no ass kicking necessary on either side. I save my ass kicking for partisan bozos like you.

As long as the conversation is honest and civil no ass kicking necessary on either side.

I didn't say it wasn't. Just that you did far from hold your own. You simply ignored the majority of posts challenging you.

I save my ass kicking for partisan bozos like you.

So I should be expecting one of these in the future? I can honestly say I've yet to receive one.

Jesus also, I'm pretty sure, has a different idea

Jesus never existed.
He's a myth for morons; like Moses or Noah or Abraham or Adam & Eve.
A fairy tale for the dismally stupid.

#116 | Posted by jpw

Post some crap numbers like Zatoichi did in the Greek thread and you'll get your ass kicked.

#117 | Posted by Zatoichi

I know why you have so many guns. A god less, smart ass, Obama ass kissing, global warming truther is an endangered species in Texas.

"I have never seen that but I'm sure you will point it out next time it happens. The fight is most likely about the type of income and not progressive income taxation."

Nope. It's about how much. "Fair." You have missed all the "raise taxes on the rich/job creators" arguments? Pretty hard to believe. And no, I won't sit around and wait for such an argument to arise so I can point it out to you. I have never seen a conservative here support a progressive tax scheme; you can look it up if you don't believe me. A guy like you must know how to use the archives. : ) (I seldom look up the past on here...)

I have never seen a conservative here support a progressive tax scheme #119 | Posted by pragmatist

Well you see one now and there are no Republican presidential canidates who are pushing a non progressive tax scheme.

You might be a Conservative if:

you create a thread called "You might be a conservative if..." that is in reality an Obama-bashing thread.

120--Great! Do you now want to dial back on your original assertion?

What if I donate my time and money to MoveOn.org, does that make me a conservative?

If you define virtue by one's personal behavior.

That's why it's virtuous to baptize the Indians while they're in the noose. So when they're hanged, they meet their maker with a soul cleansed of sin.

I mean, provided the person doing the baptism and hanging really believes in heaven, that's a virtuous act, right?

Thanks for helping us understand the virtue inherent in genocide, paneocon. You're a credit to your belief system.

120--Great! Do you now want to dial back on your original assertion?
#122 | Posted by pragmatist

No I think I have made my case that Republicans don't have an issue with a progressive tax. The factors that cause the confusion are that there is some discussion of a flat tax and we could and have had threads on whether that is a progressive tax or regressive tax. That is not what I'm talking about. I'm also not talking about ultimate tax bills with mixtures of capital gains of all capital gains vs. those who have only income from income tax.

#121 | Posted by SamBarber that is in reality an Obama-bashing thread

What? Don't spend mych time on the DR? There is very little Obama Bashing going on here but If you want some, I'm sure someone will crank it up for you.

No I think I have made my case that Republicans don't have an issue with a progressive tax.

You have failed to make this case.

Name a single Republican who favors raising capital gains tax to income tax rates.

Then, you'll have made a case.

#125 | Posted by snoofy

Capital gains are not the same as graduated income taxs but you know that. Show me where a Republican canidate has come out againt graduated income tax?

"You have missed all the "raise taxes on the rich/job creators" arguments?" Job creators my ass, we cut the taxes on the rich but the jobs went overseas. Bring back real progressive income tax rates and make the rich realize that job creation saves them money by providing them with business deductions. Make capital gains taxes exactly the same as income taxes, then you'll see jobs created fast enough to make your head spin.

#127 | Posted by danni

These "my ideology > yours" threads are retarded.

"Capital gains are not the same as graduated income taxs but you know that. Show me where a Republican canidate has come out againt graduated income tax?" Gingrich did, Ron Paul has.

There are no real conservatives in any positions that matter in the GOP or anywhere else in our government. A real conservative would want nothing to do with today's GOP. Hyper-aggressive/retarded foreign policy and corporate welfare are not "conservative".

I give up, PA. Apparently you and I don't spend time on the same DR.

#132 | Posted by pragmatist

I think your confused, my rose colored glasses are just fine thank you.

your = you're sorry teach

If you think dependency is moral failure.

lol.

protestant work ethic.

Similarly, Tim Geithner gets a pass on failing to pay his own taxes because he favors raising taxes on "the rich."

#1 | Posted by paneocon

Yes, that's what happened, he just failed to pay them because 'didnt want to' pay his taxes. Sure.

Using the rightard logic, if he did something wrong, he'd be in jail. But he's not....so.......

You might be a conservative if you know which fork to eat the salad with, and which spoon to enjoy the vichysoisse.

No citation necessary.

Does Willard's behavior in regards to money raise your ire? The man got obscenely rich, in part, from raiding the pensions of ordinary workers.

Matters to you?

#5 | Posted by Zed at 2012

you probobaly have no clue or care to be reminded of 'staples' and how they are around and in business today because of bane capitol...

you create a thread called "You might be a conservative if..." that is in reality an Obama-bashing thread.

#121 | Posted by SamBarber

no sir, you are wrong..
its a thread to bach antiamerican,goddamn democrat, liberalfuck,piece of shit lying liberal,progressive duped,naive,punkass,potlegaldr
uggies.............

okay okay...that was all just being silly..
dude...barry is the MAN for radical leftwing statists imperial presidency loving obamadupes

OF COURSE its bashing obama.... :)

#youmightbealiberal If you’re scared that cow farts are going to melt the ice caps.

#youmightbealiberal If you’re scared the Gov”t can be toppled by senior citizens at townhalls.

#youmightbealiberal If you think thug life is cool but Tea Partiers are dangerous.

#youmightbealiberal If you can”t stop talking about how irrelevant Sarah Palin is .

#youmightbealiberal If you don’t worry about the Constitution.

#youmightbealiberal If the only way you can think of a tweet is to change a conservative tweet around.

#youmightbealiberal If you conveniently forget that Obama was against a mandate of HC before he was for it.

#youmightbealiberal If you think your job at OFA makes you a productive member of society.

#youmightbealiberal If you’re a little OFA clone who tries to copy @shoq right down to the avatar.

#youmightbealiberal If you’re still at your OFA job at this time of night.

#youmightbealiberal If you use the #rebelleft tag and don’t see the irony.

#youmightbealiberal If you believe the Constitution is alive but unborn babies aren’t.

#youmightbealiberal If you voted for Obama but just love Hillary”s mandate idea.

#youmightbealiberal If it doesn’t bother you that the President has socialist and communist advisers.

#youmightbealiberal If you think the Gov”t should own 61% of a car company.

#youmightbealiberal If you think 17 mins is about right to not answer a simple question about taxes.

#youmightbealiberal If you say you don’t believe in torture but force us to listen to Obama speak.

#youmightbealiberal If you think Bush should be tried for war crimes but Obama should get a peace prize for bombing people.

#youmightbealiberal If you’re sure Obama’s not a Marxist but you’ve never read Das Kapital

#youmightbealiberal If you met one conservative who was racist so now you think they all are.

#youmightbealiberal If you think you should be in charge of what people do or don’t eat.

#youmightbealiberal If you think socialism is the way to correct crony capitalism.

#youmightbealiberal If you thought you were in the majority b/c people voted against George Bush.

#youmightbealiberal If U troll conservative hashtags just to make inane Liberal comments that prove your intellectual bareness.

#youmightbealiberal If you don”t understand the difference between a public good and socialism.

#youmightbealiberal If you think saying no to bad policies makes you an obstructionist.

#youmightbealiberal If you campaign for a bill AFTER it’s passed.

You might be a conservative if you are a brain-dead coward like asshouse.

142 | Posted by jackass

You might be a conservative if jackass doesn't like what you have to say.

Capital gains are not the same as graduated income taxs but you know that

Again, you are mistaken.

Capital gain income from assets held longer than one year are generally taxed at a special long-term capital gains rate. The rate that applies depends on which ordinary income tax bracket you fall under.
Zero percent rate if your total income (including capital gain income) places you in the ten or fifteen percent tax brackets.
15% rate if your total income (including capital gain income) places you in the twenty-five percent tax bracket or higher.

"Dividend income is taxed lower than earned income.
Now, remind me which Republican wants to change that?"

None. They already know the money used to invest was already taxed. You know, that earned income you mentioned...

"Capital gains are not the same as graduated income taxs"

This moron made the same claim about a month ago, and got smacked down. It became immediately clear he hasn't had a capital gain in his life. And now he's back to barfing his cluelessness again.

"None. They already know the money used to invest was already taxed."

But the reinvested money isn't taxed again. Only the gain is taxed, at favorable rates, and the losses are underwritten to the tune of $3000 a year, with any extra being carried forward.

"But the reinvested money isn't taxed again."

Nor is it guaranteed a return either.

"Nor is it guaranteed a return either."

Who said anything about changing the subject to a guaranteed return?

The point is, reinvested money isn't taxed, only the new money earned is, only when realized via a sale transaction, and only the amounts over and above any current or carried capital losses.

#144 | Posted by snoofy

Again the discussion is ONLY about income tax and NO Republican has come out for a change away from the graduated income taxes system. (This doesn't include the flat tax discussion) You are one thick headed liberal.

...bane capitol... -- #139 | Posted by afkabl2

Congrats, Afka. "Bane Capitol" is almost as good as "Rmoney."

Again the discussion is ONLY about income tax

Dividend income is income.
"Income" is right there in the name, even.
Sorry if this is getting too advanced for you.

NO Republican has come out for a change away from the graduated income taxes system.

NO Republican will admit the overall tax burden is regressive.
Are you capable of admitting it?
I bet you aren't.

"You are one thick headed liberal."

Pal, you don't realize capital gains are subject to income tax...because they're income. You're embarrassing yourself further with every successive post.

Better quit while you're behind.

Danforth,

As you are surely aware, the rip on capital gains taxes is that they are a double tax.

#151 | Posted by Phoenix

That was seriously funny.

#154 | Posted by Danforth

That has no bearing on the conversation. This is ONLY about the graduated income taxes system!

"That has no bearing on the conversation."

Only if you're a moron.

"This is ONLY about the graduated income taxes system!"

Capital gains are reported on a 1040, because they are INCOME, and taxed as INCOME.

But keep embarrassing yourself. You've now been corrected three times, and you're still clueless as the day you were born.

Tell us, have YOU ever had a capital gain? Ever?

"the rip on capital gains taxes is that they are a double tax."

The same could be said about the money I pay to my barber.

#153 | Posted by snoofy NO Republican will admit the overall tax burden is regressive.

WTF, OK go drop whatever insipid article on how Republicans and the rich are the problem so I can debunk it and you can go back to whatever you libs do.

Conservatives give more to churches, and in that study churches are considered as total charitble contributions, whether they are or not, skewing the numbers.

That is an excellent point and when religious contributions are eliminated the gap narrows considerably with conservatives still holding a slight edge in per-incompe/capita charitable contributions.

Translation: Everything we don't like is against the Constitution. (ps: ignore Medicare with regard to that can't-force-to-buy-health- insurance thingy.

#73 | Posted by Danforth

Medicare is grossly unconstitutional. Using one argument that one program is unconstitutional therefore justifies another unconstitutional program is a bad proposition.

#158 | Posted by Danforth

There were only two people in the original conversation, Prag and me. You are welcome to play through but you are not welcome to tell me what I was discussing. If you want to talk about capital gains for the 5000th time then post it up and maybe someone will play.

The same could be said about the money I pay to my barber.

#159 | Posted by Danforth

I know.

Personally I feel that capital gains and estate taxes should be treated as income and taxed according to the income tax code.

Having said that, one of the few "loopholes" that I agree with is being able to offset future gains with current losses.

Other than that, I say lower the rates and eliminate all but a couple of deductions targetted at the bottom and live with the consequences.

"Medicare is grossly unconstitutional."

Yeah, we know...and yet no court has recognized that in nearly 50 years, but somehow you know it as fact.

"You are welcome to play through but you are not welcome to tell me what I was discussing."

Go fuck yourself, you ignorant piece of shit. You're blathering on about how capital gains have nothing to do with income tax, making it clear you have no fucking idea what you're talking about.

It's obvious you've never had a capital gain. If you did, you'd know it's reported on...

...wait for it...

...your INCOME TAX return.

Yeah, we know...and yet no court has recognized that in nearly 50 years

Oh, so the courts ALWAYS get it right?

Dred Scott...(You probably like the following) Roe...Wicker V. Philburn...Miranda...Kelo...an
d hell, I'll throw you a couple of bones: Bush V Gore...Citizens United...

but somehow you know it as fact.

I have a very nice copy of the Constitution and I read it. Article 1, Section 8 spells out congressional spending powers and Medicare is SO far out of bounds, I don't even know where to begin.

The Constitution is silent on the topic of health care.
Health care as it's understood today didn't exist at the time.
Doctors didn't start washing their hands until the 1860s.

Now, if you are of the opinion that because the Constitution was written before modern medicine existed, it prohibits Federal activity in the realm of health care, that's fine.

But you'll have to explain why the government is allowed to have an Air Force, since it isn't mentioned in the Constitution, and there's been no amendment allowing the government to establish such a force.

Article 1 Secction 8 "...To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces," Nothing about air forces.

Golly, how come no court has found the USAF to be grossly unconstitutonal, JeffJ?

"Article 1, Section 8 spells out congressional spending powers"

And once again we go back to your argument these guys were brilliant, except when it came to punctuation, where they didn't know WTF they meant.

Medicare is SO far out of bounds, I don't even know where to begin.

Article 1 Secction 8 "...To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces," Nothing about air forces.

Golly, how come no court has found the USAF to be grossly unconstitutonal, JeffJ?

If it bothers you that much, put the airforce back under the jurisdiction of the army. Having said that, reading army and navy as "military" is FAR more narrow than reading "provide general welfare" as nullifying ALL of the following specificities in the sentence and the founders really intended limitless spending powers to congress as long as congress could justify it as providing 'general welfare' (which is the view that Danforth has argued on this subject).

I guess those few words eliminated everything that followed. Those goofy founders were just joshing us with all of those defined spending powers and the 10th doesn't really exist.

133/134. Ha! Given your comment about there being no Obama-bashing on DR, I was beginning to wonder. And I wouldn't have busted you on the orthography. I do that rarely, only when someone fucks up meaning or deserves pedantry. You seldom do the former and almost never fit the latter criterion. : )
+++++

"#youmightbealiberal If you don”t understand the difference between a public good and socialism."

Awfully ironic coming from you.
+++++

151--FF!
+++++

162--Hey! I'm not getting between you and Danforth. That motherfucker is rabid (I say that with love, Danny), and he knows much more about taxation than I do. Y'all have fun.

the founders really intended limitless spending powers to congress as long as congress could justify it

You think otherwise?
That the Founders intended justified acts of Congress to be incapable of being paid for?
You are in odds with over two centuries of jurisprudence, but hey, to each his own.

If it bothers you that much, put the airforce back under the jurisdiction of the army.

But it doesn't bother me. There wasn't much in the way of flying machines at the time of the Founders.
To state that this precludes the creation of an Air Force is precisely the argument you're making when it comes to health care.

Let me put it to you this way:
Does an Air Force seem to fit nicely within the military powers desrcibed in Art.1 Sec.8?
Did airplanes exist when the Constitution was written?

Does public health promote the general welfare?
Did public health exist when the Constitution was written?

Did they even know germs existed when the Constitution was written?
Had Leeuwenhoek looked through his microscope yet?
Were doctors in the habit of washing their hands?
No, no, and no.

What, then, leads you to believe this document speaks so vociferously when it comes to health care?

Let me put it to you this way:
Does an Air Force seem to fit nicely within the military powers desrcibed in Art.1 Sec.8?
Did airplanes exist when the Constitution was written?

Does public health promote the general welfare?
Did public health exist when the Constitution was written?

#173 | Posted by snoofy

General welfare is 1 part of a very long sentence. That sentence defines congressional spending powers and does so in a pretty specific manner.

General welfare is NOT a catch-all to enumerate limitless spending powers to congress as long as they can make some sort of bullshit argument that their largesse is providing "welfare".

Medicare is perfectly fine at a state level. But at a federal level congress simply doesn't have the power to spend treasury dollars on such a measure.

PS - healthcare/medicine existed before the constitution was even ratified (airplanes did not). Your argument is a massive non-sequitur.

Obama will raise capital Gains tax for income redistribution but history shows that a lower capital gains tax increased revenue to the treasury. Video is a bitch children.

Barack Obama will raise Capital Gains Taxes...even if it means less tax revenue!!

In the US it was the rule of the Democrats.

#101 | Posted by paneocon at 2012-02-12 01:21 PM | Reply | Flag:

In the US it was the rule of conservatives. Liberals are the basis for the freedom of the slaves in the US. Freedom is not a conservative concept. Freedom is a liberal concept.

that a lower capital gains tax increased revenue to the treasury. Video is a bitch children.

#176 | Posted by paneocon at 2012-02-13 06:39 PM | Reply | Flag:

Gee---let's get rid of all the taxes. the revenue will certainly grow.

Magic people will suddenly appear with magic money.

"PS - healthcare/medicine existed before the constitution was even ratified (airplanes did not). Your argument is a massive non-sequitur."

I'd say you're at least as guilty as he is. Medicine and doctors existed, but the healthcare system did not. Health insurance did not. There's a valid argument to be had about this, but I'm not sure it's in the "general welfare" phrase.

#177 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob

Making up your own history now?

but I'm not sure it's in the "general welfare" phrase.

#179 | Posted by pragmatist at 2012-02-13 07:09 PM | Reply | Flag:

I guess you don't consider your health to be part of your general welfare. Interesting.

Making up your own history now?

www.usconstitution.net

#180 | Posted by paneocon at 2012-02-13 07:15 PM | Reply | Flag:

Not at all. Freedom is a liberal concept. Freedom was never a conservative concept. The right to bear arms---liberal concept. Free Speech---liberal concept. Right to peaceful assembly---liberal concept. Womens right to vote---liberal concept. Freedom and equality for all races---liberal concept. Right of gays to be free to marry--liberal concept. Right of women to make their own life decisions--liberal concept.

#182 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob

No point in showing you the error of your ways.

There's a valid argument to be had about this, but I'm not sure it's in the "general welfare" phrase.

That's exactly where the debate resides.

Article 1, Section 8 spells out congressional spending powers.

Liberals used to argue that those handful of words "provide general welfare" (slightly paraphrased)enumerates limitless spending powers unto the federal government as long as said spending can be justified as "providing general welfare" (which can be accomplished with ANY spending measure with a modicum of effort). Of course, in order to do that, the entire remainder of the sentence which specifically lays out what Defense and general welfare means and thus enumerates specific spending powers has to be ignored as if it doesn't exist. Those powers not enumerated to the federal government are deferred to the states and the people per the 10th. I say "used to" because very recently liberals have been refreshingly honest and open in their contempt for the limitations that the Constitution places on our government and have grown weary with the textual gymnastics necessary to try and "find" spending powers that simply don't exist. Rip the Tea Party movement all you want but it has spurred a renwed interest in the Constitution and people are reading it for themselves. So, instead of having people of lower intelligence hand them their asses in debate because they are full of shit when it comes to the Constitution, liberals are finally being honest and are just openly dumping on the document.

BBob,

Classic liberalism (the founding philosophy of this country) is not even remotely akin to modern-day liberalism.

The modern-day label that most closely matches classic liberalism is libertarianism.

No point in showing you the error of your ways.

#183 | Posted by paneocon at 2012-02-13 07:29 PM | Reply | Flag:

You confuse dem and rep with conservative and liberal. Dem and rep mean nothing---their stances change 100% over enough time.

Liberals stand for freedom. Conservatives have never stood for freedom. Conservatives are against the freedom to choose who a person can marry. Conservatives want to tell people who they can have sex with. Conservatives have been against all progress since the founding of the country.
Do you really think it was liberals keeping blacks from the polls, siccing dogs on blacks, and turning water cannons on blacks demonstrating for freedom? No---they were all conservatives.

#186 | POSTED BY BUFFALO_BOB AT 2012-02-13 07:34 PM

WOW not a clue.

Classic liberalism (the founding philosophy of this country) is not even remotely akin to modern-day liberalism.

The modern-day label that most closely matches classic liberalism is libertarianism.

#185 | Posted by JeffJ at 2012-02-13 07:33 PM | Reply | Flag:

You are mistaken. Liberalism never changes. Liberals had the greatest influence on the Constitution. The reason slavery continued is because of conservative southern influence. Conservatives never change. The Bill of Rights proves you to be mistaken. It is a master piece of Liberal thought.

WOW not a clue.

#187 | Posted by glasshouse at 2012-02-13 07:36 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

WOW no rebuttal. Try a nice cup of STFU until you have something valid to say.

Do you think the people siccing dogs on blacks in the 60's were liberals? Speak up, boy.

I am not mistaken at all.

Our country was founded on the principles of an extremely limited and divided federal government.

Modern liberals seek the exact opposite - a massive centralized state.

Labels are stupid - they invite strawmen arguments.

Modern liberalism excoriates freedom and liberty with few exceptions.

Libertarians are not now, and have never been close to liberals in concept or philosophy.

Libertarians are the "do nothing" party. Do nothing about the poor. Do nothing about the economy. Do nothing about anything. The libertarians stand for doing nothing, and hoping things work out.

"Labels are stupid - they invite strawmen arguments. Modern liberalism excoriates freedom and liberty with few except"

Gee, "labels are stupid" lasted exactly 4 words.

#192 | Posted by Danforth

Touche.

Hopefully, you understood my point though.

Libertarians are not now, and have never been close to liberals in concept or philosophy.

Libertarians are the "do nothing" party. Do nothing about the poor. Do nothing about the economy. Do nothing about anything. The libertarians stand for doing nothing, and hoping things work out.

#191 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob

Libertarians most closely resemble the founding principles of this country.

George Washington was quoted as saying (paraphrased): "The greatness of the presidency is its weakness."

You can't have it both ways, Bovine. The term "liberal" can not be congruently applied to our founding principles AND the massive central state that modern liberals advocate.

Our country was founded on the principles of an extremely limited and divided federal government.

#190 | Posted by JeffJ at 2012-02-13 07:41 PM | Reply | Flag:

Our country was founded on liberty, freedom, and justice.

I see those things mentioned in the Constitution and DOI.

I don't see where the principles of limiting government are mentioned.

Facts are--we tried it that way. It didn't work. Monopolies ruled the country. Standard Oil had more money than the US government, and could control any industry it wanted--from the phone complany to every utility company in the country-to the whole water suppy. If it had been allowed to continue, all computers would be made by Stabdard Oil--all cars by Standard Oil. All manufacturing by Standard Oil. You really should look at a history book now and then. You obviously ignored the subject when in high school. Regulation was necessary for growth. Removing legislation takes us back to the time of monopolies. We had a taste of it under Bush, and are still living with the consequences. I guess you want more of his idiocy.

Bob, why are you arguing with someone who's suggesting that the argument you are in favor of is worth having?

I think "general welfare" can be very loosely, too loosely interpreted. Is this a real argument, that is a constitutional argument at the SCOTUS level, in favor of HCR?
+++++

Classic conservatism is not even remotely akin to modern-day conservatism. Neocons are nowhere near the old-school conservatives. They're reactionaries.

don't see where the principles of limiting government are mentioned.

Pick up a copy of the Constitution and read it - it's right there in front of you in plain black and white.

The rest of your post was one massive strawman and a non-sequitur to boot.

You crack me up by admonishing me to read a history book when you clearly haven't read the Constitution.

#194 | Posted by JeffJ

Hint: Buffalo Bob is a truther, it's not worth it.

Hell, the Constituion was drafted as a response to the Articles of Confederation which created such a neutered federal government that it was effectively powerless.

And you're telling ME to read a history book. In the DR dictionary of 'self-retorting retort' a link to your userprofile stands as the definition with that nonsense that you just posted.

Congrats, Afka. "Bane Capitol" is almost as good as "Rmoney."

#151 | Posted by Phoenix at 2012-02-13 04:51 PM

DRAT..I should have remembered,.,.

principAL...cause the principal is your PAL

capitOL...AUSTIN cause it has a dOme...capitAL...cause PHOENIX is an A hole...( just kiddin,...went for the joke..)

Bane, Afk. You missed Bane. That's arguably the better part of the mistake. It's Bain, you see. Bane means something else...

George Washington was quoted as saying (paraphrased): "The greatness of the presidency is its weakness."

#194 | Posted by JeffJ at 2012-02-13 07:48 PM | Reply | Flag:

Link? George Washington had nothing to do with writing the Constitution.

Here is a REAL quote from Washingto. Notice the link. Notice how he considers republicanism to be for a small military. See how things change.

Over grown military establishments are under any form of government inauspicious to liberty, and are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty.
George Washington

Classic conservatism is not even remotely akin to modern-day conservatism. Neocons are nowhere near the old-school conservatives. They're reactionaries.

#196 | Posted by pragmatist

Neo-cons aren't reactionary.

They have no problem with big government as is clearly evidenced from 2000-2006. Neo-cons believe that the reason that liberals fail is that they can't steer the ship and that neo-cons can steer it. Fact is, it's the ship itself that is the source of failure.

Link? George Washington had nothing to do with writing the Constitution.

The hell he didn't.

The Philadelphia convention never would have happened without Washington's presence.

#197 | Posted by JeffJ at 2012-02-13 07:55 PM | Reply | Flag

It isn't in black and white, or you would have quoted where it says the government should be limited.

Speak up boy.

Tell us how those nasty liberals were siccing dogs on blacks seeking equality.

Waiting on you.

And you're telling ME to read a history book.

#199 | Posted by JeffJ at 2012-02-13 07:57 PM | Reply | Flag:

Yes---if you think deregulation is a good thing---you should read several history books. Maybe you would appriate the parts of unions, and the people who died for LIBERTY---not smaller government.

All rights come from the government. Freedom comes from the government.

BBob,

Article VII: "The Ratification of the Conventions of nine states shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the states so ratifying the same.

Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of Septemer in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of American the Twelfth In witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our names,"

First name listed:

Go. WASHINGTON - Presidt. and deputy from Virginia

It isn't in black and white, or you would have quoted where it says the government should be limited.

If you'd pick it up and read it that it sets up a limited federal government is blatantly obvious.

The rest of your argument is more BS strawmen.

It isn't in black and white, or you would have quoted where it says the government should be limited.

"Speak up boy."

Is this another prelude to a B Bob meltdown? Like when he asked for any proof someone was convicted of murdering a fetus, and there was a link posted less than a minute after he was stupid enough to hit the publish box?

The Philadelphia convention never would have happened without Washington's presence.

#204 | Posted by JeffJ at 2012-02-13 08:05 PM | Reply | Flag:

I believe you are confusing Washingto with Madison. Madison was the driving force behind the Philadelphia convention, not Washington. Washingtons presence lent some legitimacy to the convention, but it would have gone on anyway, without Washington. Again, Washington had no input in writing the Constitution.

Yes---if you think deregulation is a good thing---you should read several history books. Maybe you would appriate the parts of unions, and the people who died for LIBERTY---not smaller government.

Your ignorance of our founding is astonishing.

You then go on to intermingle your ignorance with absurd strawmen arguments.

I am done with this discussion - if you can't even bother to read our founding document, then it's a waste of time discussing it.

If you'd pick it up and read it that it sets up a limited federal government is blatantly obvious.

#207 | Posted by JeffJ at 2012-02-13 08:13 PM | Reply | Flag:

No Supreme Court has found your statement to be factual. No congress has found your statement to be factual. No President has found your statement to be factual. The Constitution does not say your statement is factual.

That means your statement is not factual. What is factual is that you are delusional, and you really believe your delusions.

#210 | Posted by JeffJ

You were warned.

All rights come from the government. Freedom comes from the government.

#206 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2012-02-13 08:08

really???

interesting take....

That means your statement is not factual. What is factual is that you are delusional, and you really believe your delusions.

#211 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob

The 10th amendment:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

found that conservatives were 30 percent more likely to give, even though liberal families averaged 6 percent higher household incomes.
#2 | Posted by paneocon

......so the liberals have higher incomes ?......I guess they work harder.....

.....this means then that the layabout foodstampers are actually the conservatives ........

#213 | Posted by afkabl2

Bob is a willing slave. He's bought and paid for.

"Link? George Washington had nothing to do with writing the Constitution."

You poor delusional bastard. Must be getting tougher everyday...

George Washington

Committee Assignments: President of the Convention

"George Washington had nothing to do with writing the Constitution."

#217 | Posted by crispee_oc at 2012-02-13 08:21 PM | Reply | Flag:

So what part did Washington write?

Besides the basic fact, Crispee that he presided over the body that drafted the document.

"I am done with this discussion - if you can't even bother to read our founding document, then it's a waste of time discussing it."

LMAO...Wait a sec. Some want you to address the spread where he jumps from the founding fathers era to the modern Bull Connors.

It isn't in black and white, or you would have quoted where it says the government should be limited.

Speak up boy.

Tell us how those nasty liberals were siccing dogs on blacks seeking equality.

Waiting on you.

#205 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2012-02-13 08:06 PM

You were warned.

#212 | Posted by paneocon

I know.

203--Maybe the word "neocon" messes up my point. Apologies. Conservatives who rail about needing more religion in gov't are not old-school conservatives. Conservatives who push for more military engagement all over the world are not old-school conservatives. Conservatives who shout about shutting down liberal voices or shipping them off somewhere are not old-school conservatives. These people who engage in such actions are reactionaries. They are not conservatives. If there is overlap with neocons, so be it. I'm not labeling you; I'm labeling behaviors and where they seem to belong.

He signed the damn thing.
www.archives.gov

#218 | Posted by Zatoichi at 2012-02-13 08:24 PM | Reply | Flag:

Signing it doesn't mean he wrote it or any part of it.

he presided over the Constitutional Convention, whose success was immeasurably influenced by his presence and dignity.

Yep, he literally had to be begged to attend - he'd rather have stayed home and continued his private life.

"So what part did Washington write?"

Is that the new goalposts Bob? From having nothing to do with it to what did he actually write?

Would it matter what his relationship with Hamilton was?

he presided over the Constitutional Convention,

#223 | Posted by Zatoichi at 2012-02-13 08:29 PM | Reply | Flag:

Presiding over the Constitutional Convention doesn't mean he wrote the Constitution or any part of it.

Is that the new goalposts Bob? From having nothing to do with it to what did he actually write?

Would it matter what his relationship with Hamilton was?

#227 | Posted by crispee_oc at 2012-02-13 08:31 PM | Reply | Flag

Pay attention little mind---then you are dismissed. It was ALWAYS stated by me that Washington had nothing to do wit WRITING the Constitution, starting with post # 202. Trying to make it into me saying he had NOTHING to do with the Constitution is your deflection.

That's why you are a little mind. You can't hold very much. Run along, boy.

That's our bOoB, caught in a lie, tries to change the statement.

George Washington had nothing to do with writing the Constitution.
He chaired the convention and signed the document.
If that's 'nothing' I need a new dictionary.

George Washington had nothing to do with writing the Constitution.
He chaired the convention and signed the document.
If that's 'nothing' I need a new dictionary.

#230 | Posted by Zatoichi at 2012-02-13 08:41 PM | Reply | Flag

What part did he write---put up or shut up.

"Pay attention little mind---then you are dismissed. It was ALWAYS stated by me that Washington had nothing to do wit WRITING the Constitution, starting with post # 202. Trying to make it into me saying he had NOTHING to do with the Constitution is your deflection."

Let's go to the replay...

Bob and his hoof in mouth disease claims Washington had nothing to do with writing the Constitution, but he is not saying Washington had nothing to do with the Constitution? HTF did I miss that?

HTF did I miss that?

#232 | Posted by crispee_oc at 2012-02-13 08:48 PM | Reply | Flag:

HINT: You have a little mind.

"That's why you are a little mind. You can't hold very much. Run along, boy."

---That boy's as strong as an ox and just about as smart ---
---Smart boy, got a mind like a steel trap-full of mice
---Boy's got a mouth like a cannon, always shootin' it off---

#234 | Posted by crispee_oc at 2012-02-13 08:54 PM | Reply | Flag: Thinks Washington wrote parts of the Constitution

#230 | Posted by Zatoichi at 2012-02-13 08:41 PM | Reply | Flag Thinks Washington wrote parts of the Constitution

#222 | Posted by JeffJ at 2012-02-13 08:27 PM | Reply | Flag: Thinks Washington wrote parts of the Constitution

You guys are funny. Seriously. It's just sad for our country fools like you the right to vote.

What part did he write---put up or shut up.
#231 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2012-02-13 08:47 PM

"Arrived May 25 and was present through the signing of the Constitution. He spoke only once near the end of the deliberations, but the record suggests that he had a profound influence on the scope and direction of the discussions."

"William Pierce stated that "having conducted these States to independence and peace, he now appears to assist in framing a Government to make the People happy. Like Gustavus Vasa, he made be said to be the deliverer of his Country."

"It's just sad for our country fools like you the right to vote."

Get back to us when you can construct a sentence liar.

#235 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2012-02-13 09:02 PM

Who is the only fool claiming he had nothing to do with writing the Constitution? But also had something to do with the Constitution?

#236 | Posted by crispee_oc at 2012-02-13 09:07 PM | Reply | Flag: Thinks Washington wrote parts of the Constitution

You funny. That's another way of saying--you are a joke.

;-)

You funny. That's another way of saying--you are a joke.

;-)

#239 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2012-02-13 09:09 PM |

Yet not the butt end like you for the umpteenth time?

Get back to us when you can construct a sentence liar.

#237 | Posted by Zatoichi at 2012-02-13 09:09 PM | Reply | Flag: Thinks Washington wrote parts of the Constitution

Get back to us when you find out what parts of the Constitution Washington wrote.

;-)

PS - healthcare/medicine existed before the constitution was even ratified (airplanes did not). Your argument is a massive non-sequitur.

Ah, but you are mistaken. I chose "aircraft" for a reason.
The first hot air balloon flight was made in 1783, four years before the Constitution was written.
Now, our modern air force is to those hot air balloons as modern health care is to health care of that era.
So let's put the health care debate into "public welfare" terms of 1789.

Are you suggesting the Founding Fathers meant to bequeath to us a nation prohibited from exercising Federal power to contain an outbreak of plague?

Yet not the butt end like you for the umpteenth time?

#240 | Posted by crispee_oc at 2012-02-13 09:13 PM | Reply | Flag: Thinks Washington wrote parts of the Constitution

Most people know Washington had nothing to do with writing the Constitution, and that anyone paying attention knows you are the fool I claim you to be.

#240 | Posted by crispee_oc at 2012-02-13 09:13 PM | Reply | Flag: Thinks Washington wrote parts of the Constitution

Maybe in your delusional mind. I never posted he "wrote" anything. You on the other hand seem to be running from what you said. Which was he had nothing to do with writing the Constitution. Not what did Washington write in the Constitution...

Ironic how you pretend that isn't what you said, and at the same time believe Bush knew about 9/11, because the same delusional mind only comprehended the exact wording, and not the meaning.

Reminds me of a Brady Bunch episode when Greg tried the same tactics...

Our country was founded on the principles of an extremely limited and divided federal government.

Whiskey Rebellion much?

Modern liberals seek the exact opposite - a massive centralized state.

Well, no. You're putting the cart before the horse.
A strong state is necessary to maintain basic human rights.
It's not all that is necessary, but it is a requirement.

For example, basic human rights for blacks did not happen organically in this country. It took, literally an Act of Congress.

The reason to invoke need what you call a "massive centralized state" is because without it, certain basic requirements, such as not being lynched, were not being achieved when left to the States.

The South had about a century to admit niggers are human beings, and they just couldn't bring themselves to say it. 'Course, considering they all owned slaves, maybe that's exactly how the Founders wanted things.

But then Lincoln went and violated the Constitution like Thomas Jefferson on Sally Heming, and we ain't got no time machine, so here we are today, and what are you going to do about it?

Do you try to gauge a sense of right and wrong, or do you just interpret the Constitution and once that's done, assume that must be right? Is that what it means to be a conservative, to not worry about the outcomes, so long as the procedure is followed?

You on the other hand seem to be running from what you said. Which was he had nothing to do with writing the Constitution.

#244 | Posted by crispee_oc at 2012-02-13 09:33 PM | Reply | Flag:

I stand by what I said, and have stood by it all along. It is you who seems to be running from what YOU said, since you are opposing what I said. The point stands.

Washington had nothing to do with writing the Constitution.

Signing it isn't writing it. Presiding over the convention is not writing it. Jefferson did neither. Jefferson wrote most of it.

Do you try to gauge a sense of right and wrong, or do you just interpret the Constitution and once that's done, assume that must be right?

Civics 101 - That is how our country was constructed: Limited federal powers with non-enumerated powers deferred to the states.

Is that what it means to be a conservative, to not worry about the outcomes, so long as the procedure is followed?

#245 | Posted by snoofy

Once adherence to the Constitution becomes dependent upon some academic's view of appropriate 'outcome' the rule of law ceases to exist.

the rule of law ceases to exist.

#247 | Posted by JeffJ at 2012-02-13 10:03 PM | Reply | Flag:

The rule of law exists in our large and powerful central government, which is based on the Constitution, and codified by all the courts in the land. When the country was founded, the population was mostly unprotected. Limits on the rat shit in your food? Nope. Limits on the safety of the machinery people use every day? Nope? Limits on insider trading? Nope. Limits on doing what got us into the recession? Nope. Limits on the urine in your water? Nope. Limits on dumping toxic chemicals in the water? Nope. Limits on how little you are paid? Nope. Limits on asbestos in building your house? Nope. Limits on price fixing? Nope. Limits on lying in advertising? Nope. Limits on how much smog is released in the air? Nope. Limits on burning crosses on front yards? Nope. Slavery? Yep.

Once adherence to the Constitution becomes dependent upon some academic's view of appropriate 'outcome' the rule of law ceases to exist.

No, not a chance. Outcomes explains everything. Yet you refuse to take a long look at them.

The rule of law begins to be questioned by people with sufficient conscience and knowledge to ask questions like....

"What Were We Thinking?"
"Are Black People Humans, Or Not?"

I can understand why the Founders codified slavery and gave the Southern states a representation bonus in the Federal government.

Can you?

Are black people humans?

BuffaloBob, I suspect JeffJ conflates the rule of law with the rule of a guy with a gun.

Then, he turns around and cries that the government coerced him to drive on the right side of the street.

THEY ARE FORCING CATHOLICS
TO DRIVE ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE STREET
EXCEPT IN JAPAN, ENGLAND, AND AUSTRALIA,
AND MAYBE I DUNNO HONG KONG.
WHERE THEY ARE COERCED AT GUNPOINT
TO DRIVE ON THE LEFT.

Why is this not an issue?
Is it because your rhetoric is moronic?
No, despite your serving as mouthpiece, that's not it.
The reason is because it does not involve a woman's vagina.
And controlling a woman's reproductive process is Catholic dogma.

Sorry, but it just is.

No, not a chance. Outcomes explains everything. Yet you refuse to take a long look at them.

Desired outcome (which is what you are really talking about) is a construct created by leftists as a means of circumventing the rule of law; the Constitution. We (leftists) desire x outcome. The Constitution prohibits the federal government from attempting to achieve said outcome. Therefore we must ignore the Constitution and achieve said outcome (unintended consequences and the rule of law be damned) via any means necessary - conveniently ignoring the fact that the Constitution empowers the states to do pretty much whatever they want. But states' rights isn't enough for the power-driven leftist. Living by their own dictates isn't good enough for a statist. EVERYONE must bow to a leftist's ideology hence liberals fetish for massive centralized power.

You are advocating lawlessness all in the name of a bullshit term called "progressivism".

The reason is because it does not involve a woman's vagina.
And controlling a woman's reproductive process is Catholic dogma.

Sorry, but it just is.

#251 | Posted by snoofy

Actually, Catholic dogma on this issue is about protecting the unborn from butchers coming along and scraping out their brain with a pair of shears.

"Reproductive rights" (sic) is no more accurate than "unborn slaughter rights".

Like most pro-abortionists you assign the most nefarious motives to those with whom you disagree and simultaneously assign the purest motives to those who seek to innoculate themselves from the consequences of their choices by slaughtering a developing person.

It's bad enough that you legalized what is tatamount to state-sanctioned murder in the eyes of a pro-lifer, but now you want those very pro-lifers to PAY for the costs of slaughtering the unborn!

Pro-abortionists are truly repugnant in the lengths they will go to dehumanize developing life in order to justify slaughter; and this is coming from someone who is pro-choice.

Actually, Catholic dogma on this issue is about protecting the unborn from butchers coming along and scraping out their brain with a pair of shears.

False.
If that were true, Catholics would be loath to live in states that support the death penalty, and loath to live in this nation which permits the death penalty at a Federal level.
Yet I've never once heard Catholic whining about being coerced at gunpoint to pay the taxes which pays the salary of the executioner.
So, you see, this isn't about life. Life is a plot device, but it's not the struggle.
This is about who gets to lay down the rules by which women manage their reproductive capacity: The Church, or women themselves.
It's amazing to me that people can't see the struggle for what it is. I hope I'm doing a good job of explaining it.

and this is coming from someone who is pro-choice.
But not pro-choice enough to think women should have access to choices if their employer thinks otherwise.
You'd let a corporation's whim take away the choice of a person.
In other words, you are very the fuck far from pro-choice.