The GTL™ Sunday Guest Column — “Following The Funny Money” By Christopher L. Doster

DON'T MISS ANOTHER ARTICLE: JOIN HUNDREDS OF OTHER GTL™ READERS BY SUBSCRIBING TO OUR SYNDICATED NEWSFEED OR RECEIVE A PERSONAL EMAIL EACH TIME A NEW ARTICLE IS POSTED -- CLICK ON THE APPROPRIATE IMAGE BELOW:

READERS DON'T BE SHY -- HAVE YOUR IMAGE SHOW UP ON EACH OF YOUR COMMENTS FOR FREE BY CREATING YOUR OWN GRAVITAR BY CLICKING HERE. IT JUST TAKES A COUPLE OF MINUTES AND IT WORKS ON EVERY OTHER GRAVITAR-ENABLED SITE ON THE WEB. NO AGENDA -- WE JUST WANT TO SEE YOUR SMILING (OR FROWNING) MUG...

 Click Here For A Printable Version Of This Article -

• The GTL™
  2:46 pm on September 20th, 2009 1

  This was a great point, Mr. Doster:

  Yes, some came to the table with a big bankroll for sure. But where does that leave the average American, one that may want to be “all in”? Outside looking in it seems, that is if you want to get in the game. No $5 minimum here, high rollers only, and the longer they stay in office, the more they seem to have in the bank…

  We can thank Senators McCain and Feingold for driving the silver nail into the coffin on that one. “McCain-Feingold campaign reform”, INDEED!

  

  The GTL™ Reply:
  September 20th, 2009 at 2:46 pm

  @The GTL™, Another “bipartisan” act, BTW

  

  Joe Lovell Reply:
  September 20th, 2009 at 3:27 pm

  @The GTL™, And another law based on emotion – ‘get the eeee-vvviilll corporate money out of politics.’ Except that as with just about all laws based on emotion the Law of Uninteded Consequences raises up and bites us in the ass. Again.

  Congress needs to have a session or two (full congressional season, not just a day or two) where other than the budget, they pass no new laws, but go through all the federal laws on the books and get rid of the bad laws based on emotion, all the feel good but do nothing laws, and all the crap giving special favors. And then a session rewriting the ones left into something that anyone, even a member of Congress, can easily understand. Including the tax code.

• Mike 300 spartans
  3:51 pm on September 20th, 2009 2

  @CLD- First of all, thanks, I’ve seen a number of comments you have made to my posts in the past, I just never clicked on a reply to thank you. Nothing like someone saying you are dead on, and such.

  With regards to your post, the timing seems remarkable as I saw just this morning on C-Span some congress person from Michigan putting Health Care CEOs on the spot to verbally tell him what their pay was. I’m sure this was a re-broadcast as it is Sunday. A few of them answered stating salaries ranging from $500K to upper $700K. A couple of them said they would provide the information in writing. Despite the fact that I felt they were slick to verbally state salary and not include possible bonuses, I would have loved to have seen one rip into (Conyers perhaps?) him with and answer like: “Exactly point 4372 of one percent of what Pelosi requested for her fleet of airplanes, which comes out to X number of dollars. To be honest, I’m pretty sure if I was making 500K a year plus perks, I wouldn’t get snarky with politicians, I’d be all humble and polite and then subconciously take it out on my chauffer for not having my drink cold enough when I got out of there.

• bad dog
  4:10 pm on September 20th, 2009 3

  Not bad, Doster! You make a clear thesis. But while it shows that rich people–who do not share the same interests as the middle class, nor possibly in many cases even understand what it’s like to be in the middle class–have disproportionate representation in the government, you miss the real problem.

  The real problem is money in politics, not in politicians. Would you agree that we need public financing for elections, which would encourage more parties to participate and eliminate corporate influence on government?

  P.S. Last I heard, the Speaker of the House had a jet owned by the public, not “a fleet of private jets.” What is the source for your accusation. Also, Al Gore flies commercial planes and buys carbon offsets, so he’s not the hypocrite you try to paint him as.

  

  Mike 300 Spartans Reply:
  September 20th, 2009 at 8:10 pm

  @bad dog,
  In support of the task the U.S. Air Force has in toting around our congress people, the Air Force asked for one single new jet in upgrading its fleet. The congress was pushing for the number to be increased by eight planes. My link is of Huff Po citing the Wall Street Journal.http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/07/congress-orders-private-j_n_253912.html

  

  bad dog Reply:
  September 20th, 2009 at 8:40 pm

  @Mike 300 Spartans, But how does that translate to a “fleet or private jets” for the Speaker? They weren’t her jets. They are jets for Congress.

  Are you, or is Chris, saying that Congress should not have publicly owned jets for use by members of Congress?

  And will you, and Chris, be equally upset by this when, God forbid, there is a Republican Speaker of the House? Will you, as Palin pretended she did, insist they be sold on E-Bay?

  

  Mr Furious Reply:
  September 20th, 2009 at 11:05 pm

  @bad dog, After 9/11, Bush himself ordered that the Speaker (third in line of succession) must travel on secure military aircraft instead of commercial for security reasons. When Pelosi became Speaker the size of that military plane had to increase in order to fly non-stop to California—again, for mandated security reasons. Previous Speaker Hastert only had to go back and forth from Georgia and flew in a smaller military plane.

  

  bad dog Reply:
  September 20th, 2009 at 11:48 pm

  @Mr Furious, I did some Googling and found out this is a major source of wingnut rage. I honestly can’t keep track of all the non-events, non-problems and non-things that get these people riled up.

  

  Fandb Reply:
  September 21st, 2009 at 10:02 am

  @Mr Furious, Hastert was from Illinois. Minor point, but we’re very proud of him here.

  

  Mr Furious Reply:
  September 21st, 2009 at 5:02 pm

  @Fandb, Gah. Yeah, it was Gingrich from GA. Followed by Hastert…

  

  Gunboat Reply:
  September 21st, 2009 at 11:44 am

  @bad dog,

  “The real problem is money in politics, not in politicians. Would you agree that we need public financing for elections, which would encourage more parties to participate and eliminate corporate influence on government?”

  Then how to you get around that pesky thing called the First Amendment? As we have seen, limiting political speech in any way is a road to ruin and gives the establishment way too much advantage – exactly the opposite of what you would intend!

  Too much money in politics is a symptom, not a cause. You need to back up one step. Why is there so much money in politics? It’s because the government has so much power and money. Since the government has such a significant impact on everything, everyone has a financial interest in what the governemt does. And anyone with lots of money will spend it to influence the lawmakers to bend things in their favor. The only REAL way to get big money out of politics is to reduce the power of government to make people rich.

  

  bad dog Reply:
  September 21st, 2009 at 12:44 pm

  @Gunboat, Why do you think corporations should have any protections under the “First Amendment”?

  Come on, guys. I always hear conservatives talk about the Constitution as if they actually like it (except for the stuff about separation of church and state, and the parts of the Bill of Rights they don’t like, and the powers of Congress—but the rest they’re really into—okay, well, just the Second Amendment, then).

  Corporations are a legal fiction. How is it Constitutional that they should have the same legal protections as citizens? More so, in fact. They have the money, the power and the influence to enforce their legal protections. If you want to meet the Oligarchy, they are it.

  So my solution would be to pass an explicit law denying corporations the same rights as citizens. Corporations should have zero rights of free speech because they are not people. Period. (And they wouldn’t lose a dime in profit, only power to influence government decisions.) That would be an enormous step to solving the problem.

  As for your solution, how do you really think that would work? It’d be like trimming the grass, which would only grow back. The only way to make your solution work would be to 1) have no government and live in anarchy in peace and harmony with benevolent corporations, basically a pipe dream, or 2) rewrite the Constitution to fit on one page and disallow Amendments, and even then the grass would grow back.

  No, Gunboat, no matter what you do, government will always have the power to make people rich, because we agree to be governed by the Constitution, and the Constitution says Congress can raise money by taxation and spend it as it sees fit.

  

  Joe Lovell Reply:
  September 21st, 2009 at 12:56 pm

  @Gunboat, who wrote: “You need to back up one step. Why is there so much money in politics? It’s because the government has so much power and money. Since the government has such a significant impact on everything, everyone has a financial interest in what the governemt does. ”

  And how does the federal govt. get so much power? Because We the People took our eyes off the mark and let it exceed its Constitutional limits.

  I see…with the deepest affliction, the rapid strides with which the federal branch of our government is advancing towards the usurpation of all the rights reserved to the States, and the consolidation in itself of all powers, foreign and domestic…aided by a little sophistry on the words ‘general welfare,’ a right to do, not only the acts to effect that, which are specifically enumerated and permitted, but whatsoever they shall think, or pretend will be for the general welfare.

  JEFFERSON, THOMAS, Letter to W. B. Giles, 1825

  Note especially: “aided by a little sophistry on the words ‘general welfare,’ a right to do, not only the acts to effect that, which are specifically enumerated and permitted, but whatsoever they shall think, or pretend will be for the general welfare.” Jefferson did not think, as the capons do today, that the general welfare clause was a blank cheque to circumvent the limitiations of congressional powers, but a general guiding principle. We need to beat the capons about the head and shoulders with the 10th Amendment reminding them that they need to take the plain and simple meaning of the Constitution, not see what they can twist it to mean, and to strictly limit them to the letter of the powers in Art. 1 Sec. 8 of the Constiution. Neither major party seems to have read it recently.

• Mr Furious
  10:54 pm on September 20th, 2009 4

  When I’m barking about, “Rich fat cat Republicans”, I’m talking about the general population…

  I’m well aware just about everyone in Congress is rolling in it.

  

  bad dog Reply:
  September 20th, 2009 at 11:21 pm

  @Mr Furious, Actually, that reminds me of another problem I had with the column. Chris seems to think, for some reason that would probably become clear if I got my news from the same wingnut sources as him, that liberals hate money or people with money. I’m not sure how support of progressive taxation translates to hating rich people but wingnut mythology has its own logic apart from that of sane people. Me, I love money. I just don’t think government policies should cater to the rich, and I think private money has systemically corrupted our political system.

• vegofish
  12:46 am on September 21st, 2009 5

  Of course liberals love money, especially other peoples money, particularly other peoples money that they don’t have to work to hard to get. Like thieves.

  

  bad dog Reply:
  September 21st, 2009 at 1:06 am

  @vegofish, Well I think conservatives are lying ***holes. So I guess we both know how to generalize.

  I seem to be a major exception to your generalization about liberals. I wonder if you’re an exception to my generalization about conservatives?

  Hmmmm….

  

  bad dog Reply:
  September 21st, 2009 at 3:42 am

  @bad dog, I take that back, Vego. As a capitalist, I do like making as much money from other people as I can for the least amount of effort. Yes. The “thief” comment I assume was just you doing your wingnut thing.

  

  vegofish Reply:
  September 21st, 2009 at 10:06 am

  @bad dog My reference sir, was to the progressive liberals lack of respect for the concept of personal property, and their uncontrollable urge to take hard earned personal property of some and “spread it” amongst the masses. Always under the moral guise of the “common good”. What I really find interesting is the liberal progressives ability take as much as he can for himself, give very little of it to the needy, as the statistics on giving to charity obviously demonstrate. They apparently have an aversion to paying taxes as well, if the present gang of commies occupying the executive and legislative branches at all represents their constituency.
  All this while sneering out the other side of their oh so hypocritical pie holes about “greedy corporations” trying to make that terrible evil “profit”.

  

  bad dog Reply:
  September 21st, 2009 at 12:08 pm

  @vegofish, Let me correct some really weird assumptions you’re making. Trust me, you’ll sleep better at night knowing these basic things:

  1. Liberals do not hate corporations and profit, which is not evil.

  2. Liberals believe corporations are neither moral or immoral institutions, but amoral, which means they don’t care if they kill you to make a buck, as long as killing you costs 90 cents and they can still make a dime. They produce wealth, employment and innovation for society, but also dump their externalities on society, such as pollution, etc., and could care less about worker rights or giving a fair share of profits to labor.

  3. Because corporations are as potentially dangerous to individuals and society as they are potentially beneficial, they must be regulated.

  4. When markets are deregulated and existing regulations are not properly enforced, as started during the Clinton years and accelerated full speed under the Bush years, we get disasters like what happened with the financial crash.

  5. Case in point: If some banks are “too big to fail,” meaning if they failed, the U.S. economy would completely collapse, how can that be reconciled with the concept of trusting a free market?

  6. The Obama Administration are not communists. You are not going to be assigned to Collective 109. I assume you’re trying to be funny, because I’d prefer to laugh with you, not at you.

  7. All government takes money “by force” (taxes) and “spreads it amongst the masses” (redistributes the wealth). We have a middle class in the U.S. thanks to this. So, you’re welcome.

  8. Regarding the charity stats, now I’d be disappointed to confirm my suspicion that you’re also GDA, the man of many personalities, because that would confirm that either 1) he’s completely pathetic or 2) he’s paid by somebody to be here. I don’t mind either way, just try to consolidate your personalities into one, please.

  9. Regarding the charity stats, I don’t trust polling done by a right wing hack. Or should I show you my liberal poll that says Republicans are lying ***holes? 90% of Americans agree.

  10. It’s not what you pay in taxes, it’s what the government spends it on. During the Bush years, I paid a lot in taxes and got massive debt, optional wars, a massive bloated Kafkaesque nightmare called the Department of Homeland Security, and torture. During the Obama years, if you’re in the middle class, you will pay less in taxes and get massive debt, healthcare, bridges, roads and new buildings. If you think a police state engaged in unending war is a better investment in the middle class getting screwed by a deregulated economy, all evidence to the contrary, then knock yourself out. But I will be laughing at you, not with you.

  

  GawdDayumAmerica Reply:
  September 21st, 2009 at 6:14 pm

  @bad dog,

  point:

  1.) This is true and it is false. The Democrats are demanding the Banning of Corporate Welfare. The question is in Bad Dogs world the true liberal does not exist. Therefore we are stuck with reality…Liberals do indeed dislike corporations and what they stand for.

  2. Once again now Bad Dog is affixing the Lassiere Faire Liberal to liberals in general.

  3. This is the liberal Orthodoxy of the NON Lassiere Faire Liberals and goes to the heart of progressive punishment of Corporations and Corporate Welfare.

  4. This is in fact the truth. I personally believe that on a massive world wide scale in which corporations are as powerful as they are that they do need to be regulated.

  5. America is no longer a free market. We are now a mix of socialism and A consumer driven free market. Big difference. Free Markets do not exist in America…why? See Number 4.

  6. Most likely true.

  7. All Government spending is a tax. The moral of the story is that spending is always a tax. The inflation tax, though hidden, only makes things worse. Taxing, borrowing, and inflating to satisfy wealth transfers from the middle class to the rich in an effort to pay for profligate government spending, can never make a nation wealthier. But it certainly can make it poorer.

  8. Not material.

  9. This simple sentence destroys any credibility you might have entertained in the prior 8 points.

  10. This is not worth discussing because its not rooted in facts because Obama has not been in office long enough to declare what he will and will not give us. However lets not forget one thing. Cap and trade was just announced by treasury to cost every American family 1700 dollars per year. I dont know about you but sounds like a tax hike to me. The only ones not complaining? The rich. 1700 dollars to them is chump change. To the poor struggling lower classe, borderline poverty thats a hefty tax increase.

  Just remember one thing when Bad Dog discusses politics with you…his version of Liberal and the accepted version of liberal are two different beasts. What he has pretty much used 4 or 5 versions of liberal in these 10 talking point rejoinners.

  

  bad dog Reply:
  September 21st, 2009 at 8:15 pm

  @GawdDayumAmerica, who says, “Just remember one thing when Bad Dog discusses politics with you…his version of Liberal and the accepted version of liberal are two different beasts.”

  Hey, everybody, read this! GDA is an expert on liberals and is here to define what the “accepted version of liberal” is. He’s amazed that I define “liberal” differently than the “accepted version.” What credentials make him an expert? He’s a right winger who hates liberals. And his “accepted version of liberal” was carefully crafted by right wing propaganda. What is the “accepted version”? A caricature, of course.

  “What he has pretty much used 4 or 5 versions of liberal in these 10 talking point rejoinners.”

  Or 1 or 1 versions. But you would know better than me, as you’re the expert.

  

  GawdDayumAmerica Reply:
  September 21st, 2009 at 9:36 pm

  @bad dog, Wrong Bad Dog.

  I am right of center. I do not hate liberals. In fact im married to a liberal.

  

  bad dog Reply:
  September 22nd, 2009 at 2:47 am

  @GawdDayumAmerica, LMAO. Now I’ve heard everything.

  

  GawdDayumAmerica Reply:
  September 22nd, 2009 at 9:09 am

  @bad dog, Bad Dog I know this might come as a shock to you but many of us who do not like liberal POLICY do not hate liberals.

  I happen to love my wife very much. She immigrated from Czechoslovakia….LEGALLY…and her father was in the union for 50 years in Rhode Island and later in Texas. Very Democratic, Very blue, very liberal….and her and I still laugh at each others parties on TV when we see stuff happen.

  I have voted for many Democrats in my life. My wife has voted for many Republicans.

  I know you cant fathom anything but conservatives hating liberals with such passion that they lose their ability to reason (much like you possess in your incessant rants)but trust me on this…..if that were the case we would be killing each other in the streets.

  Even on our bad days, Americans are better then that.

  

  bad dog Reply:
  September 22nd, 2009 at 11:20 am

  @GawdDayumAmerica, Saying, “Bad Dog defines liberalism a certain way but that’s not the way it’s defined” is just incredibly condescending. If your stereotype of liberal is based on your wife, seriously, I think you should be arguing with her, not me.

• Mike 300 Spartans
  1:16 am on September 21st, 2009 6

  I’ve seen democrats portray Big Oil as bad guys, complain about auto industry executives, bank executives, and health insurance executives. All within one year* (I’m not sure the calender month last year when their was all the hoopla about gas prices). All these executives pay progressive taxation. So progressive taxation may not translate to hating the rich, but constantly pointing the finger at the wealthy, trying to make them look like the problem, well, that certainly isn’t giving them a lot of love. Do republicans do this? Who do they blame for every problem? Of course the answer is Clinton, with the exception of some bipartisan fussing about AIG executives. Just today I saw democrats on C-Span (yes it was a rerun as I previously mentioned) saying the reason some company paid 11 million (I believe it was Signa) was money the insurance company made from denying claims. So there they are, our poor health care system, while congress strives to fix it (the good guys) they point us to the villains. Is 11 million going to fix health care, times 7 major company execs being grilled? 11 x 7 = 77 Hey! I just got an idea, if 77 million can fix health care, the speaker of the house can be protected with one $57 million dollar plane and we don’t get the other 7 planes for all them fact finding trips congress wants to take, a savings of 493 million, problem solved.

  Perhaps democrats don’t hate the rich, they just like to blame the rich for all the ills of society.

  

  bad dog Reply:
  September 21st, 2009 at 2:35 am

  @Mike 300 Spartans, I’m laughing reading your last sentence and Vegofish’s minor little screed. I make incendiary generalizations? Pot, meet kettle.

  Mike, I’m beginning to wonder if you know any Republicans. Republican politicians like to tap into main street populism just as much as Democrats. Why do you think all liberals are “limousine liberals”? The difference is the Republicans do even less about it than the Democrats.

  I wouldn’t say the rich are the problem. But they are certainly a symptom of it.

  If you think Democrats sit around thinking of ways to stick it to their rich friends, then you are another symptom.

  As for planes for Congress, I don’t see the fuss. They are the government. They should have secure transportation. Or do you not agree with that? It’s not like people are getting lap dances on the jets. At least not on the public dime. Er, at least not officially, anyway. Is the problem that the Speaker of the House gets a jet and asked for more for Congress, or the fact that the Speaker of the House is a Democrat and asked for it. Because, you know, it’s funny, but I just don’t remember any outrage over Tom Delay’s antics–including outright corruption–a few years ago.

  

  GawdDayumAmerica Reply:
  September 21st, 2009 at 8:59 am

  Bad Dog wrote…..”"” If you think Democrats sit around thinking of ways to stick it to their rich friends, then you are another symptom.”"”

  This is true. There is a big difference between Democrats and the FAR LEFT. There are many on the far left that would be members of the SOCIALIST or COMMUNIST party if there was one that had any real power and could affect any real change. Most democrats love money as much as the next person which makes them hypocrits and makes them NOT want to CURE poverty.

  Republicans and the Far right are not the same thing. Most on the FAR RIGHT would join the FASCIST party if there was one in the USA that had any real power and influence.

  Within the Republican party is some splinter groups that have power and influence. The Religious Right. The Far Right. Just as within the Democratic party you have splinter groups all seeking power and influence over a more moderate arm of the party.

  Moderates prevail. That is why after the next 4 years you will see the GOP membership increase and the Democratic membership decrease. The public debate is being driven my the Far Left and the Far Right and while I can say that the Democrat and the Republicans do not necessarily want this they are BOTH beholden to those influential wings of their party.

  

  bad dog Reply:
  September 21st, 2009 at 12:20 pm

  @GawdDayumAmerica, You start off so rationally, then jump off the deep end. Wait, there’s no water under there–

  OUCH I’M A SAD RIGHT WINGER!!!!!!!!!!!

  Yes, there is a Far Right and Far Left.

  Yes, the Far Right dominates the Republican Party.

  If you say things like, Obama is not a U.S. citizen or he’s a Communist who’s going to put me in FEMA Collective 109 (after he just lowered taxes on the middle class), then you’re in the Far Right, and you’re a nutjob.

  No, the Far Left does not dominate the Democratic Party.

  This may surprise you, but I am not Far Left. I know some Far Lefties from when I lived in New York, and they sound a lot like the wingnuts I meet here. I am definitely a liberal, though. Not “moderately left of center look at me I know how to find common ground, I’m a cool guy” liberal. But a real liberal. Period. Now note that that would probably change if we truly had a real liberal President who went too far Left with the nation’s policies. I’d probably become more conservative. I believe many Americans are like this. They have an innate sense of balance. The country’s political system, unfortunately, is not reflecting this.

  Let me explain: Obama is not a liberal. Most Democrats are not very liberal either. The Far Left is completely marginalized in this country. This is why wingnuts have to make up wacky things to get mad about–because Obama really isn’t doing much that today’s wingnut would hate (but real conservatives definitely would, just as they would almost all of Bush’s policies). Obama is continuing Bush’s worst economic and military policies, he’s expanding the police state, and we’re never leaving Iraq. Regarding healthcare, he wants to make general reforms in the general direction of a public system, completely weak and wishy washy. He’s giving massive sums of money to banks without accountability. He’s not re-regulating markets, which means we’re in for worse than we’ve gotten.

  So when you say “moderates prevail,” I think you mean to say, “The Democrats took a majority in the Congress and the White House as a response to eight years of right wing policies that hurt the country.” Because the moderates are in charge. I just wish they were actually liberal, because a majority of Americans voted for liberal policies last November.

  

  GawdDayumAmerica Reply:
  September 21st, 2009 at 1:57 pm

  @bad dog, This may surprise you, but I am not Far Left.

  Explain to me your version of Liberal.

  

  bad dog Reply:
  September 21st, 2009 at 2:34 pm

  @GawdDayumAmerica, In its simplest definition, a liberal believes in maximum liberty and equality.

  The trick is it would probably be impossible to achieve 100% liberty and 100% equality unless a society has unlimited resources. The result is many types of liberals. Most liberals believe equality should be promoted through progressive taxation and redistribution of wealth, although they would disagree on how much because of concerns about liberty. Some believe equality should be promoted through teaching respect for other cultures in school, but that can go too far. For every issue, and every combination of liberty/equality, you have five liberals, five opinions.

  On other issues, though, there is little debate. For example, liberty trumps security every time. On issues where core principles do not need to be reconciled, you are likely to see liberals agree more often than they disagree, but again the devil is in the details.

  I might agree with a few things somebody Far Left says but like right wingers such as the Birthers and Tea Parties and Oh-God-Obama’s-Black-Hide-The-Guns-And-White-Women crowd, Far Lefties are ideologically motivated, meaning they can’t absorb anything that contradicts their narrow view of the world. These people are likely to be 9/11 Truthers and even when the facts say they’re wrong, they think they’re right. Some Obama supporters come across this way: Obama can do no wrong (they are learning otherwise as they find out he’s not the liberal they voted for).

  You don’t hear me complain about the Far Lefties very much because 1) I almost never see them in the media and 2) they helped get Obama elected but Obama really doesn’t care about doing anything for them as he continues Bush’s worst policies that should be considered an abomination to any American, Democrat or Republican. They are not influential in the political process. The only place in fact I’ve ever seen them having any real influence is in some ultraliberal areas of the country such as where Joe Lovell oddly decided to make his home, and on college campuses trying to promote diversity, PC views of history, etc.

  This is the funny thing to me. Obama has done more to piss off liberals than he has conservatives, if you consider the reality of his policies: continuation of torture, continuation of the occupation of Iraq, ramping up the war in Afghanistan (which I give lukewarm support), massive bailouts for the companies on Wall Street that crashed the economy, refusal to proper re-regulate the financial markets and other industries, weak healthcare reform that may end up a massive giveaway to the health insurance industry, continuing discrimination against gays, continuing police state powers which Obama is seeking to expand, and so on.

  What has he done to piss off conservatives? Give tax cuts to the middle class instead of rich people? Wow, what a commie. Move prisoners from Guantanamo somewhere else to get tortured? That bastard. Try to reform healthcare? Oh Lord, I just crapped myself.

  I guess that leaves: the government is riddled with communist, Obama is a communist, the White House is spying on Americans using an email address, death panels, Kenyan birth, death books for veterans, forced euthanasia, fictitious ACORN crimes, taking his jacket off in the Oval Office, giving free healthcare to illegal immigrants, criticizing town hollers for being jerks, and who knows what else, all of which are simple propaganda and aren’t true.

  This is what gets me about the Tea Party movement. People are protesting a guy who lowered their taxes and is continuing the worst policies put in place by the guy they blindly worshipped for eight years. These are people who don’t mind the government listening to their phone calls and reading their emails and encouraging people to report their neighbors for suspicious activity during the Bush years, but run around with their hair on fire when the White House asks people to tell them about misinformation spread around about healthcare so their communications office can respond quickly to the latest batch of lies. These are people who said anybody who criticized the President during the War on Terror was a traitor during the Bush years, but invent one imaginary crisis after another to criticize the President during the War on Terror during the Obama years.

  WTF is up with that? WTF is wrong with these people? Seriously. WTF?

  

  The GTL™ Reply:
  September 21st, 2009 at 2:51 pm

  @bad dog,

  Well-stated, BD!!! AMEN!

  

  Fandb Reply:
  September 22nd, 2009 at 1:33 pm

  @The GTL™, If not entirely from your … errrr …. I mean “Bad Dog”s “definition” of liberalism, but also including his stated positions on a number of issues from other rants and posts, what “Bad Dog” is actually describiing fits more in line with “Social Democrat” than “liberal”.

  This is just another reason why all these labels are so meaningless. There are no absolutes, everything is on a spectrum. Because of their own personal experiences, everyone will have a slightly different view. On the political spectrum, “Bad Dog” matches up better with Social Democrat than liberal. Other “liberals” will fall on other places on the spectrum. So as “Bad Dog” would say, there’s nothing wrong with being a Social Democrat, just admit who you are.

  

  The GTL™ Reply:
  September 22nd, 2009 at 2:15 pm

  @Fandb, This is the modern definition of “Social Democrat” from WikiPedia:

  … modern social democracy has deviated from socialism, and supports positions that include support for a democratic welfare state which incorporates elements of both socialism and capitalism, resulting in a mixed economy combined with a comprehensive welfare state.[2] Social democrats aim to reform capitalism democratically through state regulation and the creation of programs that work to counteract or remove the social injustice and inefficiencies they see as inherent in capitalism. This significantly differs from traditional socialism, which aims to replace the capitalist system entirely with a new economic system characterized by either state or direct worker ownership of the means of production.

  Hmmm… doesn’t sound “dirty” or “filthy” to me, bro… that is, as long as the “Welfare State” is also highly regulated and overseen by The People, I’m okay with that to a certain degree.

  That stated, I also abhor the fact we have way too damned many social programs we spend way too damned much money on for tiny little fringe groups. So, yeah — regulate the social programs a lot better and regulate the publicly-held corporations a lot better and I’d be a happy camper. If that makes me a “Social Democrat”, then I yam what I yam what I yam

  

  Fandb Reply:
  September 22nd, 2009 at 2:24 pm

  @The GTL™, I never said it was dirty and/or filthy, just that it seemed to fit “Bad Dog”s ideology and dogma better than “liberal”.

  

  bad dog Reply:
  September 22nd, 2009 at 5:54 pm

  @Fandb, Wow, the nitpicking is reaching a new high. I’m a liberal. If you want to call me a Social Democrat, then knock yourself out. But don’t demand honesty from me like I’m trying to get away with something nefarious. Who do you think I am, Bobby Jindal?

  http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/09/jindal-ends-non-existent-state-funding-of-acorn.php

  By the way, the definition of social democracy sounds an awful lot like the United States. Are you going to confuse it with Russia now?

  

  Fandb Reply:
  September 22nd, 2009 at 8:23 pm

  @Fandb, Is your problem with reading in general, or just comprehension? I already explained my comment to GTL, I won’t be explaining it again. You can call yourself whatever you want, your dogma matches Social Democrat better than it matches liberal.

  

  bad dog Reply:
  September 23rd, 2009 at 12:31 pm

  @Fandb, I know I can call myself whatever I want, I have no “dogma,” and my political beliefs are liberal regardless of your insistence they be called “Social Democrat.” That term is never used here. Where do you think we are, Germany?

  

  GawdDayumAmerica Reply:
  September 21st, 2009 at 3:06 pm

  @bad dog,

  So you are a Rosseau follower. I will continue to read your posts to glean insight into your political views.

  

  vegofish Reply:
  September 22nd, 2009 at 2:53 am

  @bad dog, What has he done to piss off conservatives?
  Initiated what was essentially a hostile takeover by the gov’t, using tax payer dollars, in which the head of the company was fired by the executive branch of the government. Then, like an overindulgent parent pampering a spoiled child, they gifted the spoils of this theft to the UAW. Remember, most conservatives reject the notion of “to big to fail”, and were opposed to President Bush’s policies concerning bailouts in the financial sector as well.
  Initiated passing in three days the largest spending bill ever generated by a Government of any nation in history, IN THREE DAYS, I guess we just forgot about the promise to post all legislation for public perusal for at least 5 days before going to vote. This was supposedly to stimulate the economy, but there is little evidence that it has had any effect in the short term, and in fact is predicted by the CBO to decrease GDP in the long run.
  Initiated the thus far unsuccessful hostile takeover of the medical insurance industry specifically and the entire medical industry in general.
  Has put the security of the nation at risk with a waffling, confused and apologetic foreign policy reminiscent of the Clinton years when the terrorist individuals were allowed to develop into the terrorist organizations that attacked the country on 9/11 and that we still fight to this day.
  Continues to alienate moderates with sneeringly arrogant dismissals of any opposition to his policies or philosophies as unenlightened dolts, easier lied to than debated or reasoned with.
  Showed us what the meaning of double standard is when he came to Mr. Gates emotional rescue.
  Has shown a mastery of subterfuge, distraction and distortion.
  Van Jones, Cass Sunstein, Illinois Senate seat, Acorn
  What is next for Eric Holder? Reagan era investigations?
  This is just a short list, think of it as the readers digest version, because it is late and I am tired.
  But really, is the left so shallow, so completely obtuse and ignorant of their neighbors, that they actually think that the opposition to Obama is because he is Black? Really? Are you really that simple? Really?

  

  GawdDayumAmerica Reply:
  September 22nd, 2009 at 9:21 am

  @vegofish,

  The one that annoys me Vego is the hostile witch hunt over at the CIA.

  Or how about the world apology tour.

  How about agreeing to talk to Iran.

  How about doing nothing…not even a peep other then some vague and weak statement when N. Korea fires missiles at Hawaii.

  How about Killing a couple pirates then having the entire left wing dancing in the streets over freeing a captain of a private boat as being akin to winning world war 2.

  How about coming into office and immediately having the entire left declare Barak Obama the next JFK…FDR repeatedly…over and over and over again.

  How about Telling us that everything was a CRISIS…CRISIS after CRISIS after CRISIS…were all going to die unless we pass the budget, pass the stimulus, pass the bail out.

  How about Barak Obama orchestrating questions from the press so that he knows whose going to ask what question so someone doesnt ask him a tough question that he hasnt rehearsed.

  How about Barak Obama refusing to talk to Fox news. A decidely Right news organization. Yet Republicans are always on MSNBC a decidely left news organization….

  How about Obama standing up in congress and telling us we are liars for spreading supposed lies about his lies.

  I could go on till I had to go to bed Vego….the list of this guy and his administration is a mile long and hes barely been in office 8 months.

  NO reason to piss of the right? The problem with Obama guys…..

  Listen to me GTL and Bad Dog….he is doing EXACTLY what Jimmy Carter did….PISSING OFF BOTH SIDES….this guy is a one term president unless he learns to govern like Clinton did. AT the rate hes going his numbers will be under 30 percent by the end of his term and guess what.

  YUP….WERE ALL RACISTS!!

  

  vegofish Reply:
  September 22nd, 2009 at 10:06 am

  @GawdDayumAmerica, Well we certainly can’t get after North Korea too much now.
  They are, after all, the worlds last shining example of
  of the lefts grand experiments in utopic collectivism,
  a real workers paradise. A wonderful example of what we can achieve If we stay on the path of government takeovers and entitlements.

  

  vegofish Reply:
  September 22nd, 2009 at 10:20 am

  @vegofish, I agree with your assessment of the CIA investigations as well.
  In fact I believe their actions have been treasonous,
  and should be thoroughly investigated by the next Administration. And when found to be the enemies of the state that they are punished accordingly.

  

  bad dog Reply:
  September 22nd, 2009 at 11:22 am

  @vegofish, See, when you say things like this, I can only conclude you 1) hate liberals, 2) don’t know how to listen, and 3) live in an alternate U.S.

  

  vegofish Reply:
  September 22nd, 2009 at 12:54 pm

  @bad dog, I don’t hate any individual, liberal, communist or otherwise, but I do hate the philosophies or dogma of Progressive Liberalism, fascism, Communism, Statism, or any other form political activism that promotes the needs of the Government above the god given rights of the individual.

  I listen very well, and see clearly too, you should take off the blinders of the “useful idiot” and take a look around. Perhaps then you would see the destruction your form a governance caused the world through the 20th century. For Over 100 years your Dogma has been proven to be a failure again and again, yet you persist in defying human nature.

  

  bad dog Reply:
  September 22nd, 2009 at 9:38 pm

  @GawdDayumAmerica, Sorry GDA, I can only talk to half of you today. Don’t have much time.

  

  bad dog Reply:
  September 22nd, 2009 at 5:59 pm

  @vegofish, GDA and Vego: Like watching multiple personalities agree with each other.

  If investigating the CIA is “treason,” and moderate healthcare reform is “fascism” and “communism,” and liberal policies that made America a superpower in the latter half of the twentieth century were actually destructive, and that your vicious brand of social Darwinism is indeed human nature, then we really don’t have anything to talk about because your views frankly are irrational, ignorant and destructive.

  Have a nice day in the land of the fruitloops.

  

  bad dog Reply:
  September 22nd, 2009 at 9:37 pm

  @vegofish, who tries to answer my question, “What has [President Obama] done to piss off conservatives?”

  “Initiated what was essentially a hostile takeover by the gov’t, using tax payer dollars, in which the head of the company was fired by the executive branch of the government.”

  So we should have let GM fail along with the major banks and many other major corporations that would have dissolved shortly thereafter. And hundreds of thousands more people would have been out of jobs. Instead of nationalize the company, hold its executives accountable, and then later sell the company back to the private sector after it was cleaned up. Okay, you don’t like this. I can see there’s a bit of a judgment call. But to get so riled up about it is beyond me. If Bush had done this, or not done this, I might have grumbled but I wouldn’t have freaked out like my hair was on fire. It just shows you don’t like Obama, so no matter what he does will be an abomination to you. You’re the guy, after all, who thinks mild healthcare reform and tax cuts for the middle class is communism.

  “Then, like an overindulgent parent pampering a spoiled child, they gifted the spoils of this theft to the UAW.”

  If by spoils, you mean, they get to keep their jobs, then I guess they were “gifted” the “spoils.” Which brings up another problem with right wingers. You get riled about things simply because a symbol is involved. Case in point: The non-crime, non-event, non-sting thing with ACORN. ACORN helps get liberal politicians elected and helps the poor, and right wingers hate this, so if ACORN farts, it’s recast as the Fall of the West. Case in point: Nationalization of GM. The unions, which helped build a middle class in the country in case you ingrates are interested in learning some history, weren’t destroyed, and GM is in a blue state whereas the Japanese automakers are in red states, so you hate GM and especially the unions. It’s just more Party before Country crap from the right wing. You can keep it.

  “Remember, most conservatives reject the notion of “to big to fail”, and were opposed to President Bush’s policies concerning bailouts in the financial sector as well.”

  That’s an easy position to take when you are benefiting from the bailouts. How about opposing the horrible deregulating free market policies that got us into the mess in the first place? Got any extra rage for that? No? Wow, you’re much more forgiving a person than I thought. My apologies.

  “Initiated passing in three days the largest spending bill ever generated by a Government of any nation in history, IN THREE DAYS, I guess we just forgot about the promise to post all legislation for public perusal for at least 5 days before going to vote. This was supposedly to stimulate the economy, but there is little evidence that it has had any effect in the short term, and in fact is predicted by the CBO to decrease GDP in the long run.”

  No, and no. The stimulus is generating jobs in some cases and preserving them in others. It could have been larger, and it could be spent faster, but it’s generating jobs. My field is construction, and industry studies are showing that the Stimulus has not yet produced job growth, but has preserved many jobs and kept them from being lost. I’ll take it.

  Again, how about directing some of that rage at the horrible “free market” policies that got us into this mess in the first place, so a massive spending bill would not have been necessary? No? Ah, I see. That wouldn’t fit your right wing ideology.

  “Initiated the thus far unsuccessful hostile takeover of the medical insurance industry specifically and the entire medical industry in general.”

  There is, and has never been, a “takeover” of the health system. So far the things you have mentioned have actually happened. If you’re going to delve into mythology, save it for your favorite Freeper site. We’re a reality-based community over here.

  “Has put the security of the nation at risk with a waffling, confused and apologetic foreign policy reminiscent of the Clinton years when the terrorist individuals were allowed to develop into the terrorist organizations that attacked the country on 9/11 and that we still fight to this day.”

  Once again, there is no possible common ground with somebody this ignorant and ideology-driven. For your information, my wingnut friend, yet again as you don’t know how to listen, Clinton took terrorism very seriously. Look it up. I know the actual history of what happened contradicts your favorite breathless viral email about how Clinton let “Osama get away,” but it never happened, so get over it already. What DID happen is 9/11, which happened WHILE BUSH WAS PRESIDENT, so put the blame where it belongs.

  As far as Obama being weak or waffling or apologizing to anybody, if you say so. I don’t see it. Again, nothing to get upset about except things only right wingers can see.

  “Continues to alienate moderates with sneeringly arrogant dismissals of any opposition to his policies or philosophies as unenlightened dolts, easier lied to than debated or reasoned with.”

  Not interested in playing this game with you. Obama is a moderate. If you don’t see that, again, there’s no common ground.

  “Showed us what the meaning of double standard is when he came to Mr. Gates emotional rescue. Has shown a mastery of subterfuge, distraction and distortion. Van Jones, Cass Sunstein, Illinois Senate seat, Acorn.”

  Boring, boring, boring non-scandals. Do you ever get mad at real things? I fear for your sanity if you ever did actually get mad at something real. I mean, if you get this mad at things that don’t matter or never happened, what would happen if you actually got mad at something real? Your head would explode and the Internet would lose a promising young propagandist.

  “What is next for Eric Holder? Reagan era investigations?”

  So much for the GOP being the law and order party. Break the law, let’s forget about it. Right.

  “This is just a short list, think of it as the readers digest version, because it is late and I am tired.”

  I’m exhausted just reading it. But I thought you were going to tell me something that actually happened that conservatives should get so mad about they have teabagging orgies?

  “But really, is the left so shallow, so completely obtuse and ignorant of their neighbors, that they actually think that the opposition to Obama is because he is Black? Really? Are you really that simple? Really?”

  For many southern conservatives, and the GOP is largely a southern conservative party, it’s all about Obama being black. Really. Yes. Really. There’s no other explanation for your clownish non-rage at non-things and non-scandals. Well, there is. You could all be ****ing nuts. That would explain it, too.

  

  vegofish Reply:
  September 23rd, 2009 at 2:25 am

  @bad dog, You Claim Obama as “a moderate”and immediately end the debate on that subject with a sneeringly arrogent dismissal. “Not interested in playing this game with you. Obama is a moderate. If you don’t see that, again, there’s no common ground.” ignore his associations, ignore his political philosophies, ignore his senate voting record, ignore his rhetoric, ignore all the evidence to the contrary, Obamah is a moderate, thats it, final.

  You offhandedly refer to a government takeover of a significant portion of the economy, “moderate health care reform”

  You refer to the obviously liberty freedom, and economy destroying policies of collectivism as “liberal policies that made America a superpower in the latter half of the twentieth century”

  You answer my end question definitively. You are just that shallow, just that obtuse, just that ignorant of your fellow humans. In one thing I can agree, their is no common ground to be found between you and I.

  

  vegofish Reply:
  September 23rd, 2009 at 2:34 am

  @vegofish, “Indeed, under careful
  scrutiny, liberalism’s distortions of the normal ability to reason
  can only be understood as the product of psychopathology. So
  extravagant are the patterns of thinking, emoting, behaving and
  relating that characterize the liberal mind that its relentless
  protests and demands become understandable only as disorders of the
  psyche. The modern liberal mind, its distorted perceptions and its
  destructive agenda are the product of disturbed personalities.”

  From “The Liberal Mind”
  Lyle H Rossiter JR MD

  

  vegofish Reply:
  September 23rd, 2009 at 2:39 am

  @vegofish, Seems to be an accurate appraisal of Dog, difficult to have constructive conversation from one suffering from a form of psychopathy.

  

  bad dog Reply:
  September 23rd, 2009 at 3:42 am

  @vegofish, Yeah, I’m going to get my definition of “liberal” from a right wing quack.

  Here’s Dr. Bad Dog, Jr.’s definition:

  “Indeed, under careful scrutiny and observation spanning decades in the field and under carefully constructed laboratory conditions, the right wing fruitloop’s mind is a minefield of bedwetting fears, memories of being bullied in childhood, and slavish devotion to Big Strong Men Who Promise to Protect Them. So slavish is their devotion to these authority figures, a slavishness born out of fear of things they don’t understand, that they are willing to vote against their own material and political interests and accept a twisted, self-contradicting, blatantly insane view of the world.”

  What do you think? Am I on the money?

  Maybe I should write a book. Then I can be a pundit like CLD and Dr. Wanker J. Rossiter!

  

  bad dog Reply:
  September 23rd, 2009 at 3:55 pm

  @vegofish, who said something so revealing about what’s wrong with the right winger mind I’m going to simply reprint it, here, without any comment, as it speaks volumes for itself:

  “Of course you wouldn’t, because you are in denial of the facts. Your political philosophy is a miserable failure. You ignore history. You ignore the destruction and failure and poverty your ideology has wrough the and the blessing of liberty and individual freedom that the free market system has allowed this country to achieve. You make statements like “I wish the Government would take over health care” ignoring the obvious negative consequences of gov’t interference in the free market. You talk about the evils of the free market economy, while ignoring that it is actually the gov’t regulations that condone and reward greed and failure. How many times do progressive liberals, or socialists or communists or whatever you want to call them have to be wrong before they finally realize that their system defies everything we understand and cherish about being human beings.”

  

  bad dog Reply:
  September 23rd, 2009 at 3:38 am

  @vegofish, who says, “… ignore his associations, ignore his political philosophies, ignore his senate voting record, ignore his rhetoric, ignore all the evidence to the contrary, Obamah is a moderate, thats it, final.”

  If there is evidence to the contrary, I’m still waiting for it. His Senate voting record does not make him “the most liberal Senator.” That’s a title like “Anti-Christ” and “Hitler”—whoever the leading Democrat is, they get named these things because right wingers have to dehumanize their opponents so they can justify doing all the evil things they convince themselves that liberals do to them. So no evidence there. As for his past associations, he has no more association with Reverend Wright than McCain did with that wackjob preacher, can’t remember his name but I’ll look it up if you want, and no more association with Ayers than McCain did himself. So no evidence there. As for his political philosophies, he thinks government can help people, but that’s hardly communism and I’d love to see his actions back up his big talk. As for his rhetoric, well, that’s the problem. He talks a good liberal game and immediately over-compromises because he’s a spineless moderate.

  “You offhandedly refer to a government takeover of a significant portion of the economy, “moderate health care reform”.”

  No, I offhandedly referred to moderate healthcare reform as moderate healthcare reform. The government is taking over nothing. I wish they would!

  “You refer to the obviously liberty freedom, and economy destroying policies of collectivism as “liberal policies that made America a superpower in the latter half of the twentieth century”.”

  Yes. Only I wouldn’t put it the way you did—the way a lunatic would say it.

  “You answer my end question definitively. You are just that shallow, just that obtuse, just that ignorant of your fellow humans. In one thing I can agree, their is no common ground to be found between you and I.”

  You got the last part right. I have nothing in common with people whose heads are stuck so far up their own ideological ass they don’t know that the answer to “What stinks in here?” is themselves. When you say things like “collectivism,” and attribute to American liberals, you talk like a nut. And you really want to have a “civil debate”? Either 1) grow up and talk like a person instead of a John Birch Society nutcase or 2) go back on your meds, and we can talk. Until then, have a nice day with your fruitloop view of the world.

  

  vegofish Reply:
  September 23rd, 2009 at 1:10 pm

  @bad dog, “Only I wouldn’t put it that way”

  Of course you wouldn’t, because you are in denial of the facts. Your political philosophy is a miserable failure. You ignore history. You ignore the destruction and failure and poverty your ideology has wrough the and the blessing of liberty and individual freedom that the free market system has allowed this country to achieve. You make statements like “I wish the Government would take over health care” ignoring the obvious negative consequences of gov’t interference in the free market. You talk about the evils of the free market economy, while ignoring that it is actually the gov’t regulations that condone and reward greed and failure. How many times do progressive liberals, or socialists or communists or whatever you want to call them have to be wrong before they finally realize that their system defies everything we understand and cherish about being human beings.

  

  Mike 300 Spartans Reply:
  September 21st, 2009 at 10:37 am

  @bad dog, I don’t think I’m bothered by the planes as much as it may sound but I’m trying to use it to make a point. Is the Air force liberal, conservative, or neutral? Of course depending on who is doing what, the answer could be any of the above, but theoretically is is neutral. So a non-partisan entity says we only need one plane, for the USE (not private ownership) by the speaker of the house, be that speaker democrat or republican. But congress wants 8 instead of one, and if they got them, even if they were owned by the public, the public would never get to use them, only the privileged congress burning all that carbon at tax payer expense.

  Two questions, regardless of the rightness or wrongness of them doing it, I claim democrats often point the finger at executives and executive pay of all kinds of different businesses, do you disagree?

  Question two, perhaps republicans have their own scapegoats for all the ills of the world rather than looking in the mirror as you say and admitting their own problems. But I say they don’t blame executives and their pay. Do you disagree?

  

  bad dog Reply:
  September 21st, 2009 at 12:26 pm

  @Mike 300 Spartans, I would hope the Air Force was neutral.

  The Constitution says Congress has the power of the purse. They pay government agencies to make recommendations, and then they make decisions. Congress wants eight planes. So what. This happens all the time. Every day. Since the founding of the Republic.

  Again, what’s the problem? Please tell me what the problem is. We both know it’s not any phony concern among the Right about carbon emissions. We both know it’s not about the public buying something for Congress that they can’t have.

  If so, boy, Mike, conservatives sure are weird about their priorities. They won’t accept an offer of the same healthcare that Congress gets, but they want free plane rides. Um, right.

  I think you’ll have to admit this is another non-issue, non-event and non-thing that the Right got upset about it for no reason other than they hate Obama for no other reason than he’s Obama, he’s a Democrat and, for many, he’s black.

  

  bad dog Reply:
  September 21st, 2009 at 12:35 pm

  @Mike 300 Spartans, Now, about Democrats pointing fingers at executives and their pay, here’s what happened.

  These executives crashed the economy with bad decisions driven by pure greed.

  Since their firms were “too big to fail,” which cannot be reconciled with the ideology of a free market, but there it is, they got a big government bailout.

  The executives promptly took the bailout and paid themselves huge bonuses.

  My contention is that it’s actually government’s fault, because children will do what they do, and parents must be proper parents. To explain the obvious analogy, government should regulate business, but due to our corrupt political system, which rewards corporate influence, it does not do so properly anymore.

  So the executives at the financial companies ruined the lives of millions of people and get to keep their jobs. I’d say they could take some criticism, don’t you? Why are you defending them, anyway? You’re not a rich executive from what I can tell. Or do you feel sorry for them? I always knew you were a bleeding heart, Mike!

  But even before the financial crisis, I thought these people were jerks. I’ve worked for big companies long enough to learn some things firsthand. For example, in the last 20 years we’ve seen wave after wave of mergers and acquisitions. And yet all research says that most M&As fail, some break even, and only a few succeed. So why do it? Because it makes the stock volatile, and the executives don’t get paid their millions unless they make it volatile. So as in the case of the financial firms, it’s all about incentives. If I can make millions ruining your life, I will have incredible incentive to do so. Instead of running corporations well, basically these people are playing Russian roulette with billions of dollars (trillions actually, as last I heard the economy lost a trillion due to the current debacle) and millions–hundreds of millions at least count–of lives.

  These are people who are marketed to you on magazine covers as geniuses.

  So, Mike, if you want to trust these people with YOUR health and YOUR money, feel free.

  Me, I wouldn’t trust them to wipe their own ass properly.

  

  Fandb Reply:
  September 21st, 2009 at 1:26 pm

  @bad dog, The left often rants and raves against all the evil corporations and how terrible they are, how terrible their practices are, how greedy and corrupt they are. But all I hear from the left are apologists and deniers when ACORN, another big corporation, does all the same things the left accuses other corporations of doing. Why do the liberals let ACORN off the hook for their despicable corporate practices?

  I mean other than because of the fact that liberals are hypocrites.

  

  bad dog Reply:
  September 21st, 2009 at 2:39 pm

  @Fandb, I’m not aware of any crime committed by ACORN. I am aware that Wall Street crashed the economy because of a gambling addiction. Slight difference. You’ll be happy to know, however, that I believe both should be properly regulated and held accountable.

  I’m also not aware of ranting and raving about how evil corporations are. Perhaps you are thinking of instances where a corporation does an evil thing, and a liberal group attacks them for it. In those cases, if the corporation did something bad, they deserve criticism, and I frankly don’t get it why you would defend the corporation if they did something wrong. When you watched the movie Erin Brokovitch, were you cheering for the utility to win?

  

  Fandb Reply:
  September 22nd, 2009 at 1:39 pm

  @bad dog, Even Obama has admitted to Acorn’s criminal activity when he threw them under the bus, along with his mentors and colleagues like Rev. Wright, Bill Ayers, Rod Blagojevich, to name a few. Pretending that all those tapes don’t exist, in other words denying the obvious, won’t change any of the facts. So I’ll just take your inability to respond to this issues as surrender.

  

  bad dog Reply:
  September 22nd, 2009 at 9:43 pm

  @Fandb, It’s weird, you keep accepting my surrender because I won’t say something you want me to say. I’m going to have to assume, since you keep trying to accept my surrender, that I haven’t surrender.

  There is no evidence of a crime nor has there been a conviction in a court of law.

  Obama did throw ACORN under the bus, which is because the guy is a spineless jellyfish when it comes to dealing with irrational right wingers.

  The fact is right wingers hate ACORN for two reasons. First, they help poor people and we can’t have that. Second, they help poor people vote, and not everybody’s a moron willing to vote against their own wallets like right wingers, so they vote Democrat, and help get liberals elected, and we can’t have that either. So they target ACORN with a non-scandal and the President, and one could see this coming like it was a scripted event, threw them under the bus just like he did Van Jones.

  So unless you’d like me to start taking your surrender, you might do two things. First, show me evidence that ACORN is a “criminal organization.” Second, hold other corporations actually convicted in a court of law with equal disdain.

  We know that both of those things will never happen, so I might as well take your surrender now.

  

  Fandb Reply:
  September 23rd, 2009 at 1:33 pm

  @bad dog, I know you never admit to the truth, that’s just not what you do. I knew what you were going to say before you even say it. You’re even more predictable than most other so-called liberals. Hide your head in the sand if you want, the truth about ACORN is coming out whether you like it or not.

  

  bad dog Reply:
  September 23rd, 2009 at 5:38 pm

  @Fandb, I probably sound predictable because I have to repeat myself to you constantly, as listening and comprehension of facts that contradict your neat little story are not relevant to you. So far, we have a “sting” that produced a video of some girl goofing around, she got fired, the right wingers went nuts, the spineless jellyfish in the Senate crumbled and singled out a single organization for punishment by cutting off funding to ACORN that is received through intermediary contracts, Republicans called for a witch hunt on a scale as if this were the greatest threat to the Republic, governors like Bobby Jindal cut off non-existent funding to ACORN to keep the lie going.

  All because ACORN helps poor people remove lead paint from their houses and avoid foreclosure, and helps them vote, and they tend to vote for Democrats. Talk about a bunch of vindictive sons of bitches. That’s today’s GOP.

  BTW, another lie you keep predictably spouting off about is some fictitious tie that Obama has with ACORN. As there’s nothing wrong with ACORN (based on, you know, facts), I had no problem with your claim other than flinching at the shrill glee you pointed at their association, which was about as pleasant to read as hearing nails on a chalkboard. But even that is a lie. Here are the facts, so you can find them irrelevant and continue lying as that’s your MO:

  * Obama never worked for ACORN. He worked for a different organization.
  * Obama was never ACORN’s lawyer; his firm once represented a coalition of organizations, including ACORN, to win better enforcement of the National Voter Registration Act in Illinois.
  * The Obama campaign did not contract ACORN during last year’s election.

  Not that I would care if Obama did work for ACORN at one time or represented them; they’re a great organization and the more wingnuts like you hate them and lie about them, the more I’m convinced that they’re not just great, but fantastic. But facts are facts, and lies are lies.

  I guess you just had one of your “teabagger estimating moments.” Either that, or you’re one of the most gullible people I’ve ever met, willing to believe and pass on any lie, no matter how small or large, just to try to win a cheap political point. But then, you tried to use the tragedy of 9/11 to question my character in the most whorish manner imaginable, so I wouldn’t put anything past you.

  

  Fandb Reply:
  September 23rd, 2009 at 5:51 pm

  @bad dog, BD: “Talk about a bunch of vindictive sons of bitches. That’s today’s GOP.”

  And after 8 years of all the lies spread by liberals and the DNC about President Bush, it’s also called “Paybacks are hell.”

  Get used to it.

  

  bad dog Reply:
  September 23rd, 2009 at 10:50 pm

  @Fandb, who says, “And after 8 years of all the lies spread by liberals and the DNC about President Bush, it’s also called “Paybacks are hell.” Get used to it.”

  First, it’s refreshing to see you admit you’re a liar and that you willingly and knowingly lie just for cheap political gain–or revenge, as you put it.

  Second, if you’re going to use liberal “lying” during the Bush years as justification for being a liar for the next 4-8, put up or shut up. Let’s see a list of these “lies,” please and proof that they aren’t.

  Otherwise, I’m going to assume you lie because winning is more important than the truth, your country and your own worth as a human being.

  

  Fandb Reply:
  September 23rd, 2009 at 11:47 pm

  @bad dog, I don’t care what you assume “Bad Dog”. I don’t lie about anything, unlike you who lie about nearly everything. And unlike the liberals and the liberal media who lied about President Bush for eight years and now can’t seem to stop whining when people tell the truth on Obama and his liberal lackeys.

  

  bad dog Reply:
  September 24th, 2009 at 12:14 am

  @Fandb, I’ll withdraw the assumption, which doesn’t matter anyway. The fact is you admitted you lie about President Obama because you think mean liberals lied about Bush while he was President, so now it’s “payback time.”

  Hey everybody, check it out! You’re about to watch a right winger pedal backwards.

  ME LIKEY!!!!! SO FUNNY!!!!!!

• GawdDayumAmerica
  8:44 am on September 21st, 2009 7

  Another scandal is fixing to break in the next day or so.

  Keep an eye on the NEA.

  

  bad dog Reply:
  September 21st, 2009 at 12:21 pm

  @GawdDayumAmerica, Wow. Another “scandal.” Obamagate XIIIIIII. No. Wow. Oh, the rage. The rage. So angry. Hate him. Commie. Evil. FEMA. Tea Party. Angry.

  

  Fandb Reply:
  September 21st, 2009 at 1:18 pm

  @GawdDayumAmerica, After I watched Obama throw ACORN under the bus yesterday, nothing will surprise me GDA.

  

  GawdDayumAmerica Reply:
  September 22nd, 2009 at 2:17 pm

  @GawdDayumAmerica, Did the Obama administration use the National Endowment for the Arts to try to gin up some support for health care and cap and trade in a recent conference call?

  It surely looks like it. And if that’s the case, then the NEA appears to have violated the Hatch Act that prohibits government employees from soliciting political activity from people who get government grants.

  More Trouble for the White House.

  

  Fandb Reply:
  September 22nd, 2009 at 2:28 pm

  @GawdDayumAmerica, You might be old enough to appreciate this one GDA. After I saw this post I had a mental image of Vinnie Barbarino from the show Welcome Back Kotter as a democrat confronted with the NEA issue, or ACORN’s criminal activities. What… Where…
  Sorry, I guess you had to be there.

  

  GawdDayumAmerica Reply:
  September 22nd, 2009 at 9:55 pm

  @Fandb, remember it well.

  

  GawdDayumAmerica Reply:
  September 22nd, 2009 at 9:56 pm

  @GawdDayumAmerica, PISSING ON THE CONSTITUTION.

  Oh they dont do that. If one of theirs even appears to be tainted they drop them. At the end of 4 years Obama will be his own secretary because their will be no one left in the government he hasnt thrown under the bus.

  

  bad dog Reply:
  September 23rd, 2009 at 3:44 am

  @GawdDayumAmerica, That’s a brilliant analysis, Vegofish. Thanks for sharing.

• Mike 300 spartans
  1:34 pm on September 21st, 2009 8

  @B.D. – While contending with some, but not all of your substance, I can’t help but really want to heap praise on your responses. Since my time is painfully limited here is what I most liked about what you wrote: “..Right got upset about it for no reason other than they hate Obama for no other reason than he’s Obama, he’s a Democrat and, for many, he’s black.” To me this is sharing your thought in a non-infamitory way. I hear you say essentially that opposition to the President of the United States Obama has multiple sources. What I hear you saying also is that you contend almost all the opposition is groundless, some just because he is the other party, many because he is black. I like your expression this way far better than a statement like: (Many not be a quote here, but as I remember it) The reason so many southern conservatives hate blacks is because they fear them. A statement like that, and this is what I hear. This person thinks 100% of southern conservatives hate black people, perhaps 80% because of fear and the other 20% hate them for some other reason. That is the kind of statements that make me want to tune you out. The responses you wrote to me and a couple of others I read today, in my opinion where great. I couldn’t agree with you more when you say “To big to fail” and Free Market Capitalism are incompatible terms. You are right, therefore, we MUST, despite the pain, allow the Big ones to fail and not bail them out. I would say: A) the anticipated pain would be far smaller than proclaimed (proclaimed I suspect from some of those big executives that have the money and influence to be heard by the government) B) The process of a big giant failing my allow a bunch of little operations to flurish. Those that cry about Big giant Walmart crushing all the little mom and pop stores, what if Walmart failed? Could that not create some stores in it’s place and possibly save a bunch of “Mom and Pop” businesses? I think Walmart has been an economic blessing to this country, I’ve never seen a business that seems to try so hard to hire handicapped people. People that might have it tough getting a job elsewhere are earning a paycheck at Wal-Mart, but in no way would I ever want the government to bail them out. If they fail, we’ll just have to find a way to do without all that made in China plastic.

  

  bad dog Reply:
  September 21st, 2009 at 2:47 pm

  @Mike 300 spartans, If the biggest banks had been allowed to fail, the economy would have crashed. Credit is the grease in the machine. Without it, the machine freezes up. So we can have your free market capitalism, Mike, as long as you don’t mind a market that serves its own mechanics rather than the needs of people, and therefore you don’t mind being crushed by its volatile swings. As for me, I’d rather not turn the clock back to 1929. America tried unfettered capitalism; it didn’t work. The USSR tried communism backed by a police state; it didn’t work. America tried a regulated market economy backed by republican democracy; it ain’t perfect, but it works.

  Note that when I write my columns, often I am simply dishing it back and seeing how wingnuts like being attacked. If they had any self-awareness, they might reconsider doing it themselves. Alas, I appear to be failing. They seem to be hopeless nuts. If you tune me out, I respect that, but I will keep trying.

  

  Mike 300 spartans Reply:
  September 21st, 2009 at 6:22 pm

  @bad dog, Lunch time! A few more moments to respond to your comments. Pure, unfettered capitalism, is amoral and has no care for damage to others, I agree, yes we have to have a government to make and enforce laws to keep a chemical plant from “saving money” by just dumping poisons anywhere it finds conveniant and such. I don’t have the research or statistics to prove my next statement, but my opinion is that your assertion that we had to bailout the banks to keep credit flowing is false in two ways. 1)The big banks who started freezing up lending because of losses, despite being bailed out have not significantly changed their lack of lending Pre-bailout policies. 2)Had these big banks been allowed to fail, lending problems could have been solved other ways, such as credit unions , many of which have been doing fine as they avoided the excessive risks the big banks took. I conceed that I’m not offering any evidence of this, just sharing my view.

  

  bad dog Reply:
  September 22nd, 2009 at 2:51 am

  @Mike 300 spartans, There you go again, Mike, being a liberal.

  All I can say is my preference would have been outright nationalization, fire the executives, pay off the creditors, keep credit flowing, sell the bank to the highest bidder when it stabilized, and then properly regulate the banks afterwards and properly enforce those regulations.

  But of course we could have none of that. The free market knows everything. These idiots who created this mess are “talent.”

  

  bad dog Reply:
  September 21st, 2009 at 2:49 pm

  @Mike 300 spartans, By the way, Mike, why aren’t you accusing CLD of the same? Looking at many of his stalking messages that are basically nonsensical rants and personal insults, one would think you would ask him to adjust his message similarly. Nobody has, which confirmed by understanding of a Republican double standard.

  Just curious.

  

  Mike 300 spartans Reply:
  September 21st, 2009 at 6:54 pm

  @bad dog, After reading your definition of liberalism, I’m reminded of what I believe is the main, if not the only big difference between conservatives and liberals. You believe in maximum liberty and equality. Equality, and the liberals attempt to impliment their view of equality is where I suspect most of the contention comes from. The Declaration of Independance declares that all men are created equal. It isn’t the government that bestows equality nor is it the government’s job to try to create equality. It is that we are equal, the government’s job does include protecting and implimenting justice. If someone is unjustly kept from being hired because of the color of their skin, religion, or sex, that is injustice, the government needs to fight against injustice. But trying to create equality is very different. I know this isn’t probably the best example, but I keep envisioning some liberal politican chasing an Amish farmer with a tractor saying: You must have this tractor, I’ve got to make things equal.

  

  bad dog Reply:
  September 21st, 2009 at 10:17 pm

  @Mike 300 spartans, Mike, if you really believe liberals have as much power as the wingnuts say they do, then there wouldn’t be the wealth disparity we have right now in this country. Nobody chasing any Amish farmers.

  

  Mike 300 spartans Reply:
  September 21st, 2009 at 6:58 pm

  @bad dog, I’ll be happy to answer the question about CLD posts, I’m not ignoring it but don’t have the time at the moment, perhaps tommorrow.

  

  Mike 300 spartans Reply:
  September 22nd, 2009 at 6:59 pm

  @bad dog, With regards to CLD posts- I’m a little uncomfortable answering to start with because it reminds me of my own guilt when I drifted off a while ago talking about silly things like bowties and birkshires. I think I apologized for that already. That being said, the banter you have with others is something I rarely follow, but I would say generally speaking it is up to the individual what they tolerate or don’t tolerate. If we were kids in a sandbox and you are throwing sand that is hitting me, I say: “If you keep hitting me with sand, I’m not playing with you anymore.” You certainly can tell me to go pound sand and keep playing your sand throwing games with CLD, or you can choose to direct your sand that hits him and doesn’t hit me. CLD isn’t hitting me with any sand. My tactic is no secret, I communicate what I can’t accept and if I keep getting hit I intend to ignore that person. You could do the same thing if you would like. BTW- to be clear on this-What I objected to was in an article, not in a comment to someone else. If you are replying to CLD in a comment or to anyone else as a reply, I’m not holding those comments against you, even if they are generalized in their wording, I see that as you and them just having your sand fights.

  

  bad dog Reply:
  September 23rd, 2009 at 3:47 am

  @Mike 300 spartans, Thanks, Mike. I get it. You will just have to retroactively ignore my last column, as I meant every word of it. I have no common ground with right wingers and I’m sick of them ruining a country I love.

  For the record, I don’t consider you a right winger.