Violent Revolution
In an earlier post, I said this in reference to the health care bill:
I’ve said in the past that I think we will see violent revolution in our nation within my lifetime. If this passes, I will be certain.
I must say that the comments from lefties have been highly entertaining. No, I am not advocating violent revolution. No, I don’t think that people will rise up with pitchforks and bazookas tomorrow. But I am a student of history.
Revolutions rarely happen because of single incident. There have to be certain conditions in place that are sparked after years, decades, centuries of grievances. Just look at our DOC and see the entire list of grievances. It wasn’t the Stamp Act, the Intolerable Acts, or any one thing that sparked it. It was a compilation of things.
At this point, America is still too fat and happy to be revolutionary. But we were already facing that decline. Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, etc. are all heading quickly to insolvency. At the same time, our demographics are trending badly to support such a welfare state. Our birth rate has been stronger than most Western countries, but we have also relied on strong immigration. That immigration is driven by our strong economy.
So we get to the health care bill and the now nearly inevitable socialized health care system… it will stagnate our economy. Just look at European countries and their economies. The economic condition will reduce immigration and our birth rates will likely drop (the evangelical movement is the wild card). So we are headed down a path with exploding entitlements funded by taxation and the prospects of a less robust - or declining - economy and a demographic shift. Fewer and fewer people paying more and more to support out of control entitlements that are tweaked at the whims of politicians. It’s a powder keg.
So I stand by my statement that I expect to see violent revolution within my lifetime. If I had to pick a date, I think it’ll be around 2035 or 2040. That’s when the crushing weight of what we are doing will no longer be able to be sustained and it will only take a small spark to ignite a conflagration.
I don’t want this. I don’t wish this. But mankind is not so evolved to thwart our nature and America is not immune to these things. Our nation was a gift from our forefathers. We have a responsibility to preserve it. If we choose not to do so, we will reap the whirlwind.
Out.of.your.mind.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 22, 2010 at 2321 hrs
Wow. That’s an argument, George.
Obviously, you can’t put together a thought, have no knowledge of history, or are just another troll. Given your past comments, I think I have you pegged.
Posted by Owen on March 22, 2010 at 2323 hrs
Oh ye of little faith.
Our democracy is strong enough, our economy is resilient enough and our people are innovative enough to be able to manage an expansion and reform of our health care system. If there is going to be a violent overthrow of a contemporary highly developed welfare state the good ol’ U. S. of A. certainly won’t be the first to fall.
But… nothing lasts forever, and the US in 2040 probably isn’t going to look exactly like it does today, just like the US in 2010 doesn’t look like the US of 1950, nor should it.
Change is inevitable just like history teaches us.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 22, 2010 at 2342 hrs
2035? I think you’re being optimistic. We won’t make it that far. We might have without the “reform” this bill provides, but when you figure that by all reasonable measures we have saddled the economy with an additional $250 billion/year and rising bill at a time when Social Security has swung into permanent red ink, we’re screwed.
I don’t know if it will be violent revolution, but it will certainly be a bloody political fight that might well devolve into violence. You’ll have the old and politically active fighting to confiscate the wealth of the younger crowd.
What, 3rd way, you don’t think it’s that bad? Look at the numbers, the CBO scored almost $1 trillion in spending for the next 10 years, but we’re getting taxes immediately and only spending for the last 6 of those years. And that’s not even counting the fact that there’s no way the Democrats will stick with the fiscal discipline required to keep cutting Medicare as the bill requires; it’s already tough for folks on Medicare to get doctors, and cutting reimbursement further will only worsen the situation.
Add that to all the other structural deficits Obama and the Democratic leadership have already instituted and without massive tax increases this country will run massive deficits. With tax increases the economy will slow even further, but without the tax increases inflation will run rampant (even China can’t keep buying all the debt Obama is floating) and that in itself is a tax on capital.
My bet: another financial collapse by 2020, this one even more spectacular than the present one and even harder to recover from. We won’t have politicians with the guts to restructure “entitlements” until the whole system collapses, and even then they probably won’t do it.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 23, 2010 at 0132 hrs
We’re likely to go down that same, revolutionary path as Denmark and Sweden?
Your Aggie wet-dream isn’t very likely, Owen. The truth is more likely to be that further social safety nets are put in place—as called for by St Ronnie the Enunciator and America can, once again, take its rightful place among cilvilized nations.
The demographics have been shifting for decades, Owen. It’s just not that hard to predict the past. The only thing you’ve said that makes marginal sense is that the Evangelicals are the wild card, and I just don’t think theey’ll stay whipped to a froth for another 25 years.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 23, 2010 at 0707 hrs
Revolutions are historically those of the have-nots against the haves. You are complaining in this bill that the have-nots are getting a little more and that this will lead to a revolution. Could you explain how this works?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 23, 2010 at 0749 hrs
Free Lunch: First, nobody’s getting any more money because we have none. Second, if you would listen to the have nots, they are losing some more liberty. It is the state that is the “have” and that is gaining from this deal.
2035-2040 is far too late for a revolution to happen. By then we will have solved our problems or been destroyed by them. More likely we will see a financial crisis between now and 2020 that will radically alter the political landscape as we know it.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 23, 2010 at 0801 hrs
“But mankind is not so evolved to thwart our nature”
Wait, I thought we didn’t like evolution ‘round these parts?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 23, 2010 at 0909 hrs
We’re likely to go down that same, revolutionary path as Denmark and Sweden?
Revolutions are historically those of the have-nots against the haves.
Seriously.
I’m not predicting a a ‘revolution’ of any kind. But i am predicting short-term violence, some time between now and when Obama finishes his second term. Some rightwing idiot will blow up a building, or someone will try to shoot the president. (And I further predict that those spewing the way irresponsible and overheated rhetoric in the media will be aghast that anyone holds them even slightly responsible.)
Posted by scott on March 23, 2010 at 1003 hrs
@BVBigBro (and others)
The freedom and liberty argument is a waste of time. The people who understand and care about such things, already get it. Those who don’t, aren’t going to now. It’s sad, but it’s true.
This policy gets defeated by informing people just what crap is actually in it (especially totally unrelated things like the elimination of a tax credit on paper waste) and by showing how it does not do what they promised it will do. In particular, it is not remotely deficit neutral and most important of all, it does not address the single biggest problem with health care - the rising costs. That needs to be priority 1 through 10 because it is the multiplier which makes everything else worse.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 23, 2010 at 1007 hrs
Good grief, what a load of hooey.
Violent revolution, huh? How far do you think a couple hundred of your fellow nutballs will get on the way to Washington? I’m guessing you get turned around about, oh, Nashville. The Feds aren’t even going to bother to arrest your treasonous asses—just pat you on the head and tell you to come back when you get a clue. And, if some of you get hurt tripping over your racist signs along the way—don’t worry. You’ll have the same access to newly affordable health care as the rest of us. No, don’t thank us. You’re welcome.
Your problem isn’t with phony notions of “tyranny” or some fabricated attack on your self-serving definition of “liberty”. Whatever you disagree with is tyranny and whatever you support is liberty. But your real problem is with democracy. Health insurance is the result of nothing but the democratic process. You ran against it in 2006 and 2008 and you got trounced. Deal with it and stop whining like a bunch of babies.
Posted by Mike Plaisted on March 23, 2010 at 1056 hrs
You ought to avoid making spurious predictions spawned during an emotional frenzy. The paranoia is one thing, but revenge fantasies tend to undermine your credibility.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 23, 2010 at 1120 hrs
Given that the United States is not a democracy I fail to see how anyone having a problem with democracy is some sort of vice, Mike Plaisted. Continue not to listen to them.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 23, 2010 at 1127 hrs
Y’all lefties seem awfully concerned about my credibility.
Interesting…
Posted by Owen on March 23, 2010 at 1139 hrs
I’m not. But I would get a kick out of you predicting violent revolution on the radio. (And I don’t doubt you do it—I’ve heard several of your previous appearances.)
Posted by scott on March 23, 2010 at 1144 hrs
There is already plenty of violence in a lot of these socialist nations, every time entitlements and union jobs get taken away. Hell, they happen here, just check out the UAW…
- - - -
Tea partiers did an awesome job in Washington. My wife and daughter were gone for the weekend. Had I found someone, I may have road tripped to DC. Non-violent protests and well behaved with extremely few exceptions.
- - - -
I totally agree that America is too fat and complacent right now. The people rising up right now realize this spending cannot continue. There is no way to pay for it.
- - -
The vote Sunday was basically one last act of ‘civil disobedience’ by the hippies. Rather now reject the establishment, they are the establishment rejecting the people…
- - -
This anger is not going to subside any time soon. My prediction… 50/50 if Obama passes cap and tax, and other than that, his domestic agenda thru Congress is finished for good.
- - -
November the lefties will appeal to all of the couch potatoes living in their parents basement. These would be the ‘hope and change’ college kids now graduated without jobs. ‘Paul Ryan wants to take away your free health care’...blah blah blah
- - - -
I predict violence in 2012 in the months prior to the election. The lefty base, made almost entirely of people who receive more from gov’t than they receive, will see the end of the gravy train… I see asassination attempts against Palin, Ryan, (Romney)... It’ll be the lefty base inciting the violence….Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 23, 2010 at 1215 hrs
The truth is more likely to be that further social safety nets are put in place—as called for by St Ronnie the Enunciator and America can, once again, take its rightful place among cilvilized nations.
Interesting. I really had no idea that, until this passed by our government, that all of us, democrat and republican alike were knuckle dragging neanderthals. Oh wait, that’s right, only republicans are the cavemen stuck in the 1600’s or something.
Will there be a revolution? Not sure, but we keep going down this road of the namecalling and branding of people, then we won’t have a revolution, we will have an all out civil war. Democrats are sick of being called socialist and republicans are sick of being called backwards racists. Democrats are sick of “lies” of the republican lawmakers and so on and so forth. This country is split, I’m afraid, beyond repair. It is more and more sharply divided by the “Us vs. them” mentality and people care more about their interests and their party as opposed to what is right for the country. They claim they listen to everyone, but it is a dog and pony show. It’s a constant steam of lip service that makes the mindless masses feel good in the short term, but harms people in the long term.
Until republicans and democrats stop playing these games and actually listening to other opinions than their own, then there is nothing the “common” man can do and then god help us all.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 23, 2010 at 1244 hrs
Owen, when did all these idiots find your blog? I have to say I rarely even come over anymore because I can’t even have an adult conversation with most of the commenters. I know you brush it all off easily, but it really shouldn’t be funny. They aren’t really trolling, THEY REALLY BELIEVE ALL THIS SHIT! That’s not funny, it’s frightening.
Oh, and on-topic, I doubt our collective patience will last until 2035 or 2040.
Posted by M Gallo on March 23, 2010 at 1345 hrs
why are you so afraid that people might get a little help from their government for a change? i pay into the common coffers twice a month when they deduct taxes from my wages, i finally feel like with this legislation i’ll be getting some return on my contribution.
and those teapartiers may not have taken a swing at anyone but their representatives certainly didn’t behave in a way that anyone could be proud of. since when do you spit on a congressman? seriously.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 23, 2010 at 1346 hrs
It is more and more sharply divided by the “Us vs. them” mentality and people care more about their interests and their party as opposed to what is right for the country.
Never cared for that argument. This is all about a clash of two cultures. To say that we should somehow meet in the middle is just… for want of a better term… “have-a-nice-day-ism”. There is a strong socialistic progressive movement in the country and it is coming to battle against the forces of capitalism and liberty. It’s an all out ideological battle for our future… there is no happy middle ground there and no moderate way around that hard reality.
Our democracy is strong enough, our economy is resilient enough and our people are innovative enough to be able to manage an expansion and reform of our health care system.
Perhaps it is soothing to view things with rose colored glasses, but it won’t prepare you for the reality of things to come.
They say that the problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people money. That seems quite true. The European social democracies are a fine example. Several of them are on the verge of collapse right now. There is great unrest in France, Spain, and Greece. To their benefit, most Europeans are used to the stagnant social system that they have had for many centuries. The idea that you can get ahead and improve your economic position is not the staple of their societies that it is in the US. We expect the pursuit of happiness, and they simply expect work and social care. When they can’t afford the care anymore, that’s when the rocks and tear gas comes out.
In the US, some segment of our population has bought into the European model of servility and a life at the governments table, but most folks have not. Obama’s people are already lowering the bar and telling us not to expect the unemployment numbers to improve much for the next year. They are trying to soften the blow of a possible (likely) second economic turn down. Add to that the now uncontrolled central government spending that is keeping local governments afloat by borrowing astronomical sums of money. Eventually, that well runs dry and we are forced to overtax, monetize, or cut benefits. All three outcomes will worsen an already miserable economy. Soon, we are likely to see the same revolutionary zeal used to institute statutory health care turned toward a take over of the energy distribution system, and the banking industry… both areas are already being worked on by the Pelosi-Obama-Reid axis. Add that gasoline to the fires of social anger felt by the large pro-liberty movement and we have a real powder keg.
Owen has a very good point here… violence may not be around the corner, but our nation is powder keg… and the continued repressions and edicts from the central government will eventually start a fire. You liberals can hoot and sneer while your leaders rub our noses in it and proclaim “We won, now shut up and obey”, but it will be your future that burns as well as ours.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 23, 2010 at 1355 hrs
newton - the problem is it’s not just pay in a little & get a little back. It’s unsustainable - the only way to actually pay for it is to take not just a little, but a really enormous amount of money from somewhere. And all the while, rather than address the single biggest problem - escalating costs - it will compound the problem and lead to even further increases in the costs.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 23, 2010 at 1357 hrs
Socialist Muslim death panels have been instructed to bureaucratically eliminate violent revolutionaries, so I wouldn’t sweat it too much.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 23, 2010 at 1425 hrs
Owen, I think you only have it half right. There will be violence, but it will be perpetrated by liberals. If court challenges and legislative challenges work; if the mid-terms in November bring about a change of power in the Congress and a refusal by a Republican Congress to fund these mandates, THEN you’ll see a lashing out by liberals from sea to shining sea. Those who feel entitled and don’t get what they want will explode. After all, there is ample precedent for liberal violence. And we all know that the members of the Weather Underground are held in high esteem by the current administration.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 23, 2010 at 1439 hrs
Too funny! The jokes just write themselves, man. You don’t need to parody this, it’s self-parodying!
Posted by scott on March 23, 2010 at 1441 hrs
The Artist known as The Family Guy,
Yes, it may be “Have a nice day is”, but what is wrong for wishing that for my kids and grandkids. I grew up in a violent world, but I don’t wish my kids too.I think for the most part is that the worst thing as that people are no longer going to put up with the lies. I’ not a Washington insider, yada, yada, etc etc. Hell, one has to look no further than here in Wisconsin. You have a lawmaker who makes the laws, then breaks the very laws that he helped make and acts like he is above them. Throw in his co-horts who act as enablers and do nothing about it, that is what the people are going to get fed up with. The issue is that people do not think for themselves anymore. They blindly follow the “good guy”. Unfortunately, the “good guy”, no matter what side of the aisle they are on only care about the “good guy” too. Not you, not me, not the general public. Just look at the Milwaukee County board. They screwed over some of their supporters, yet the same supporters they screwed look to blame someone else. This is what I see. Do I have an answer for any of this? No. Have I seen what has been going on in this country for the past 10 years? Yes. Have I been telling my friends starting 3 years ago, that there will be an armed conflict in this country? Yes I have. When you have some of the hateful rhetoric the past few years, something is bound to happen. Why? Because noone is doing a damn thing to settle things down. Instead the name calling goes on. People using the N-word, or leveling unfounded accustations of racism against someone. Sometime down the road, a few people are going to get fed up and when dialouge doesn’t work, then course of action will. God help us all when it comes to that.
Scott,
I hope you are enjoying yourself. I’ll remember all of this when a republican president extends the Patriot Act again.A question to everyone as well. I have seen some things in this new law that has me scratching my head. For instance, I read somewhere that in 6 months from now, there will be a 10% service tax on tanning salons. Is this true and if it is, how does this have to do with health care?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 23, 2010 at 1510 hrs
Owen -
The American Revolution was started by far less than this and had very few supporters. We know how that turned out.
Only time will tell if the fire has been lit in the minds of men. It appears that is what they’re doing by ignoring the people.
We should pray that there will be no need for it to happen.
PS If brains were dynamite Mike Plaisted wouldn’t have enough to blow out his nose.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 23, 2010 at 1530 hrs
People using the N-word, or leveling unfounded accustations of racism against someone. Sometime down the road, a few people are going to get fed up and when dialouge doesn’t work, then course of action will.
I understand why you don’t like all the fighting. I really do. If it were just name calling, I could live with that. It’s just words after all. The reality here is far harsher than those words. There is a very serious movement in the US to head us toward a strong socialist (they say progressive… same thing) government and culture. The real battle, and the real reason that the wheels may come off the wagon, is that those folks want to force their rules and their control on the rest of us… Constitution and original intent be damned. Perhaps the progressive hate the open display of liberty, but at least under that tone of governance people are allowed… for the most part… to do as they please. Continued repression after repression will eventually leave those who seek liberty with less and less alternatives.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 23, 2010 at 1543 hrs
“The American Revolution was started by far less than this and had very few supporters. We know how that turned out.”
Remember though, we would have lost the revolution had it not been for the French, and I doubt they will help us out this time.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 23, 2010 at 1610 hrs
Yeah. With all their socialist health care, they’re all probably on their last legs anyhow.
Posted by scott on March 23, 2010 at 1611 hrs
What is all this “ignoring the people” nonsense? Since when does the right give a damn about public opinion? Certainly not when the Iraq invasion dragged on or when Junior Bush was tanking in his last 4 years.
Is the idea that a poll that shows temporary oppostion to a measure that has been demogouged for a year by 24/7 radio and cable insurance industry errand boys means that a Congress elected a year ago should not act on one of the primary issues on which they were put into power? In what world? Polls consistently say that those more well-off should pay more in taxes. I’ll be waiting for that to happen.
There is no democracy in America? Well, I guess one-person-one-vote is just not working for you. You lose an election and spend the next eight years conducting a brutal campaign of personal destruction against Bill Clinton because YOU CAN’T WIN AT THE POLLS. You lose an election and spend will spend the next eight years calling Obama all kinds of names, a socialist and worse, because YOU CAN’T WIN AT THE POLLS.
Your problem isn’t that there is no democracy; it’s that your crackpot ideas can’t win in a democracy. So you grab your racist signs and your little toy guns and you try to intimidate us into submission by threatening violence. Typical bully tactics by people who know they are wrong.
And I’ll do what I’ve always done with bullies: Laugh at them. Because you guys are funny. Truly amusing. Especially when you lose. I haven’t watched anything but Fox “News” for a week. You can’t make up comedy like this.
Now, if you’ll excuse me, I have to go blow my nose…
Posted by Mike Plaisted on March 23, 2010 at 1616 hrs
We live in a republic, Mike Plaisted, not a democracy. That’s the entire point.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 23, 2010 at 1618 hrs
Tyranny, liberty…democracy, republic…are these semantic games really getting you guys somewhere? At some point, you’ll have to convince somebody outside your smug little circle. Or, maybe not—at the point of a gun, who needs understanding, right?
Posted by Mike Plaisted on March 23, 2010 at 1636 hrs
If they are semantic games to you Mike Plaisted, then I now have an understanding of you. Nevertheless a republic and a democracy remain different objects and that is the entire point of the debate over this health care measure. I don’t recall threatening anyone.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 23, 2010 at 1641 hrs
Well, they still have elections in republics, right? And you lost those elections in this republic in 2006 and 2008, right? And you still don’t like the result and, what I’m hearing from Owen and the other whack-jobs is that, that if you big babies can’t get your way in the structure of this republic, you think it would be OK to take up arms.
By the way—call it a republic, democracy, whatever—WHY are you failing in this system? Are we doing something wrong? Please do tell so we can adjust to whatever rules of governing that you think might be more friendly to your quackery.
Posted by Mike Plaisted on March 23, 2010 at 1659 hrs
I haven’t lost any elections or failed in any system, Mike Plaisted. I am not advocating any violence or asking for anything. If, however, you wish to understand the reaction of some people to this health care bill you need to understand those people. You neither understand them nor have any interest in understanding them. You, predictably, attribute their position to racism, treason, etc. and you are incorrect in each case.
I don’t fear the Owens of the world either, because I have some idea of the circumstances under which they would act out violence and know they would not choose to do so. I fear people like you, who would blunder us all into a conflict through ignorance.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 23, 2010 at 1710 hrs
@Mike: I assume by your statements that, should Republicans win a large number of seats in the next election, you will support the majority and come out in favor of dismantling the health care edicts? Obviously, if Republicans win, then it’s the will of the people? I’ll look forward to you recanting in November and joining the “Repeal and Replace” movement.
I mean, to do any less would be quackery… wouldn’t it, Mike?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 23, 2010 at 1711 hrs
you will support the majority and come out in favor of dismantling the health care edicts?
It isn’t at all clear that the majority of voters are against the passage of HCR, actually the inverse will more than likely be true in November.:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/126929/Slim-Margin-Americans-Support-Healthcare-Bill-Passage.aspx
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 23, 2010 at 1722 hrs
If you goofs win control of Congress in November (which is entirely possible—I mean, the electorate was stupid enough to elect Junior Bush once, in 2004), I don’t have to agree with you. And I won’t. And I’ll work to win the next election to throw the bums out. But—a hijacking of the election like the Bushies pulled in Florida in 2000 notwithstanding—I won’t be squawking on the street corner about tyranny, liberty, freedom, facism and all those other lovely and ultimately meaningless buzzwords you folks love to throw around. Contrary to some of the silly comments above, lefties will not be taking to arms to accomplish things we can’t get done within the democratic process.
And, I wouldn’t say things I don’t believe just to stir up some of my less bright bretheren. That’s what happens every day, you know—on the radio, on Fox “News” and, dare I say it, on blogs like this one. Right-wing mouthpieces talk and write for hours a day. They are too smart to believe the things they say—like this is tyranny, an attack on liberty, socialistic, etc. It’s all a lot of hooey and they know it. But they prey on the weakness of their intended audience—those who are economically and otherwise powerless and need someone to blame.
So, we play by different rules. We respect the result of democracy and work for better. You don’t.
Posted by Mike Plaisted on March 23, 2010 at 1908 hrs
Mike,
You assume to know more than you do about others, which is your Achilles heel. Embrace your ignorance of your opposition and you’ll be more substantive. Otherwise, you’re just another fool commenting on blogs.
Posted by Owen on March 23, 2010 at 1920 hrs
Yawn, Mike Plaisted. I support the constitution and the Republic, knowing knowing that work outside it’s boundaries is rarely better.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 23, 2010 at 1924 hrs
Owen:
Oh, I think I have you guys pretty well figured out. If I took everything you, Sykes, Behling, McKenna, et. al., say at face value, I’d dismiss you as a bunch of clueless idiots, baying at the moon. But I know better. You are all smart, well-paid demogouges, on RNC talking-points, driving the same points in the same way every day, in the cynical hope that your angry white male demographic actually believes all this bullshit.
Violent revolution in 2035, Owen? Really??? Why not just try it now and see what happens? We could all use a good laugh.
Posted by Mike Plaisted on March 23, 2010 at 2305 hrs
Wow Mike. Scott & some of the others around here who disagree at least make some points and for the most part, it comes down to just a difference of philosophy and ideals. You’re just cooky. Well that’s not right either - you quite literally seem delusional - you’re imagining all kids of things that just aren’t there. We’re all well-paid demagogues, huh? Where’s my paycheck?
You belittle people to whom liberty and freedom really mean something. It’s sad that they are only “semantic games” to you. But the fact that you cannot even grasp how it could mean something to others shows either a pathological lack of empathy or a stunted mental capacity.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 24, 2010 at 0001 hrs
It isn’t at all clear that the majority of voters are against the passage of HCR, ...
3rd base, note the way the question was phrased: was passing the bill a good thing? Not was the bill a good thing, but rather the question asked if passing it was a good thing. If you believe that the Congress should have been spending its time trying to fix the economy rather than on health care you might answer a different way.
Bloomberg asks the question differently and the bill is underwater in approval 38/50 when people are asked if the bill was a good one.
Gallup knows how to get the answer they want, and they did CNN’s lackey work here yet again.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 24, 2010 at 0020 hrs
Plaisted is so shallow or distorted that he’s incapable of properly perceiving that this is like a spouse being so arrogant that they betray you right in front of your own eyes to many people.
It’s not a small insignificant thing.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 24, 2010 at 0547 hrs
You belittle people to whom liberty and freedom really mean something.
No, I belittle people who think they can hijack historical, patriotic language and use it to beat people over the head who are just as patriotic as they are—more so, since we are not the ones who want or assume violent revolution. In the right-wing echo-chamber, “liberty” is what we agree with; “tyranny” is whatever the other guy is doing. I can talk about the freedom to be free from fear of losing your house to medical bills and the tyranny of oppressive debt due to illness—now where are we? Your claiming of the language for your side means nothing other than a weakness of your other arguments.
For more on and about this thread, see my post at http://plaistedwrites.blogspot.com/2010/03/you-say-you-want-revolution-really.html
Posted by Mike Plaisted on March 24, 2010 at 0654 hrs
I can talk about the freedom to be free from fear of losing your house to medical bills and the tyranny of oppressive debt due to illness—now where are we?
Where are we? Well, at least now we understand that you equate tyranny with personal insecurity rather than equating tyranny with government oppression. We were a free nation built upon the idea of personal liberty and personal responsibility. We did not seek the invasive security and servility of cradle to grave care by a government that feels it “knows best” what is good for us. If that is what you seek, then I understand why you fear people who wish to be free.
I never understand though, why people who seek that governmental parental level of care always wish to impose it upon others. That’s always where tyranny follows. Perhaps they just know that money and productivity will be needed to support the lifestyle they wish, so they need to force everyone to pay for this socialist cocoon.
Government control of our lives and legislated oppression is tyranny. Fear of the future is not.
For more on and about this thread, see my post at
I always love when someone tries to siphon traffic from other successful blogs to their own… especially when it comes with cheesy veiled ads for that persons business. Very poor netiquette Mike.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 24, 2010 at 0727 hrs
“Your claiming of the language for your side means nothing other than a weakness of your other arguments. “
You’re proving to be the big idiot that I thought you are. The fact is that we had affordable health care until you liberal wacko’s decided to ruin it for everyone. Prior to Medicare medical costs were in line with people being able to afford it.
Your liberal ideas create the crisis to put people on there knees to accept your silly ass solutions and then expect them to keep there mouths shut. Guess what, people throughout the country are not keeping there mouths shut and are rising up to tell you to shove it up your a**.
I just pray it doesn’t go to far, you idiot.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 24, 2010 at 0952 hrs
This isn’t just a right wing issue either. Lots of privileged groups are getting agitated lately. For instance, I can think of one cohort who never gets what they want, everybody is always against them, they’re totally misunderstood and totally underappreciated and they suffer this victimization in absolute obscurity because everyone else is just soooooo immature - teenage girls. Take it from a son of liberty, parents just don’t understand.
You put a gang of teenyboppers together with a bunch of talk radio culture warriors and the screeching, whining, cattiness and name-calling will make a teabagger rally look like a tea party. Viva la Revolucion!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 24, 2010 at 0957 hrs
I’m guessing that most teen age girls have fewer restrictions and controls over their everyday lives than our central government now has control of over it’s people.
Welcome to France. Enjoy your sty… that’s an order.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 24, 2010 at 1154 hrs
Welcome to France. Enjoy your sty… that’s an order.
Well, it was supposed to say “enjoy your STAY… but perhaps sty is even more appropriate. Must have been a Freudian slip.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 24, 2010 at 1156 hrs
Welcome to France.
I think it’s more appropriate to say “welcome back from Camaroon!” or maybe Bolivia. Some place really great where they have the freedom to not have health insurance.
Posted by scott on March 24, 2010 at 1202 hrs
3rd way, yet more proof that CNN/Gallup is an outlier who don’t know how to ask questions: CBS finds a plurality still disapprove of the bill even after a small bump with passage.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 24, 2010 at 1318 hrs
I don’t think that people will rise up with pitchforks and bazookas tomorrow. But I am a student of history.
Posted by Basement Waterproofing on March 31, 2010 at 0032 hrs
I think it’s more appropriate to say “welcome back from Camaroon!” or maybe Bolivia. Some place really great where they have the freedom to not have health insurance.
If you feel that your health care is on a level that would be the norm in those two nations, then I’d suggest that you should have seen a different doctor…. but that won’t really be an option available to you for all that much longer…. perhaps after the shortages begin, you actually WILL be seeing a doctor from Cameroon though.
I’ll also note how sad it is that you must pick such nations to compare Obama’s America to in order to seem that we have done the right thing. How ironic that you chose that tactic to actually support the Obamacare Edict.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 31, 2010 at 0654 hrs
You prize the freedom not to have health insurance. There are some south american and african nations where you can exercise that freedom to your hearts content.
By the way, do you think it’s evil that my taxes have to pay your wages? Wouldn’t it be better if we just stop with the nanny-state soshulizmz and have people pay for their own fire and rescue services?
Posted by scott on March 31, 2010 at 0706 hrs
You prize the freedom not to have health insurance. There are some south american and african nations where you can exercise that freedom to your hearts content.
There is nothing productive about statements like this. They misrepresent the United States and the views held by the majority of Americans that opposed socialized health care…
... and then to place fire departments and health care in the same category ... for shame ... another one-dimensional misrepresentation…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 31, 2010 at 0754 hrs
You prize the freedom not to have health insurance. There are some south american and african nations where you can exercise that freedom to your hearts content.
Since when did the left adopt the “Love it or leave it” slogan? Is that who you have been forced to become in order to side with your president? How sad for you.
I prize the freedom to make my own choices… good or bad. I prize what was offered to us in 1776… a limited framework of government that allowed for an abundance of personal liberty and a bountiful crop of states rights.
By the way, do you think it’s evil that my taxes have to pay your wages? Wouldn’t it be better if we just stop with the nanny-state soshulizmz and have people pay for their own fire and rescue services?
Isn’t this the argument where we either have total government control or anarchy as our two choices? Either we cede control of our health care or we eliminate fire, police, schools… the whole ball of wax? Is that really the best you can do?
I’ll note two things. First, city services are a local issue. It’s not the central government exceeding it’s bounds and violating it’s own basic laws. It’s your local government that provides public safety services… and not all of them do. Many places still have free volunteer fire departments… and you certainly may suggest this for a referendum by the people of your municipality (something else that we never got with health care).
Second, I suspect that our Milwaukee Mayor might agree with you on your proposal to end public fire/rescue services. He has certainly done the yeoman’s work in ridding the city of nearly 1/3 of the services you would prefer to see privatized. Maybe you are on to something.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 31, 2010 at 0835 hrs
Either we cede control of our health care or we eliminate fire, police, schools… the whole ball of wax? Is that really the best you can do?
Either we go forward with a system where one in six Americans has no health insurance or we become communists, complete with death camps, government bureaucrats administering prostate exams and the death of liberty itself…the whole ball of wax? Is that really the best you can do?
Apparently it is, as this has been the argument from the far-right all along. If we do this, then we’re ceding all freedom; we’ve become “socialists.”
It’s not the central government exceeding it’s bounds and violating it’s own basic laws.
So you say, but I believe you know as much about constitutional law as you do about beekeeping. What I’m hearing is that there’s virtually no chance that this will suffer a serious constitutional challenge. (And if you disagree, would you like to place a friendly wager on it?)
First, city services are a local issue.
The argument has been made here many times that health insurance is a matter best left to individuals and private insurers. That government should “get out of the way,” both state and federal regulatory agencies. They’re the problem after all.
I don’t see why it’s unfair for me to ask your opinion, based on these sentiments, of an industry where the government truly has taken over. An it’s unionized, too I bet! Surely you have at least a little of that anti-government, anti-union ideology to aim at this example of unfettered socialism.
As for me, I like my fire services just a they are thanks. I recognize that sometimes the most efficient and just way to deliver something is to do it publicly.
Posted by scott on March 31, 2010 at 0910 hrs
Either we go forward with a system where one in six Americans has no health insurance
Never start out with a bald faced lie… it does little to win an argument.
or we become communists, complete with death camps, government bureaucrats administering prostate exams and the death of liberty itself…the whole ball of wax?
Unless you follow it up with disjointed nonsense…. then it doesn’t really matter.
Besides, YOU were the one who brought that up… either we allow a takeover of healthcare or we end basic government services… you must be reading too much WEAC literature “More money or music, art and sports gets the axe!”.
no chance that this will suffer a serious constitutional challenge. (And if you disagree, would you like to place a friendly wager on it?)
Again, as always, I don’t bet… but you might already know that. I suspect that I know more about bee keeping than you do about our Constitution though. What experts have you consulted to find an opinion that you liked? What I’m seeing is a large number of the States Attorneys General are already filing suits, and some states are going a step further by actually working on laws to ban forced central government health care laws from affecting their citizens. Might be a 10th amendment fight brewing. I’ll take the expertise of those fellas any day. Your side views the Constitution as a nebulous list of negative rights nowadays, so any real opinion that you offer on it is overshadowed by your innate lack of respect for it.
I don’t see why it’s unfair for me to ask your opinion,
Did I say it’s unfair? I told you to go ahead and offer your plan up for public debate and referendum by your neighbors. You’ve already got the Milwaukee Mayor’s vote. In that light though, why not offer the same consideration on health care if you believe the issues are similar? Let each state or locality decide what it wants to do by public referendum.
By your Fire/Rescue example, the Obama regime would enact a law that every municipality be required to hire a fully staffed fire department… regardless of whether those people want, need, or wish to pay for such services.
An it’s unionized, too I bet! Surely you have at least a little of that anti-government, anti-union ideology to aim at this example of unfettered socialism.
While I am forbidden these days from making my thoughts on my own union known by the threat of sanctions (In Wisconsin, you have no choice but to be in the union…by law), I don’t find that to be socialism. When the government seizes control of the private economy, that is most certainly socialism though.
I will have to say again to you (and again and again and again) that I have never advocated a total end to all governance and all government services. That is the most idiotic argument that those on the left (and now you) have now come up with to back the health care edict. There are certain things that can not be provided by private industry, as there is no profit in it. Those things are often provided by local governments at the wishes of their residents…local governments ....local….got that part now? There are other things that are part of those basic laws that I often refer to… you should try reading them sometime… things that are to be provided by the Federal Government that bound our states as a union. Anything not specifically tasked to that Federal Government is denied to it.
If you folks think that Obamacare should be a new right, a new basic law, then offer it as a Constitutional amendment and see if it passes the muster. Anything short of doing that is exactly what I called it… a tyranny.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 31, 2010 at 1123 hrs
I prize the freedom to make my own choices… good or bad.
And are willing to accept the consequences of such choices. For example, choosing to engage in unhealthy behavior (drug use, etc) may well cause your health insurance premiums to go up. The health care law passed now limits insurers from factoring in anything other than geographic location, age and smoking in how they vary premiums. So no matter how you treat your body or what sort of unhealthy choices you make, you won’t have to pay more. And the flip side is equally true - there’s no reward of lower premiums for keeping yourself healthy and in good shape. Sure that won’t cause problems. That won’t cause health care expenses to go up. Or frustration & anger for the healthy guy who pays the same premiums as the meth head robber or sky-diving, dirt bike racer.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 31, 2010 at 1256 hrs
Does the current system adequately punish the sick and reward the healthy? That’s the question that should be foremost in our minds.
Posted by scott on March 31, 2010 at 1327 hrs
Does the current system adequately punish the sick and reward the healthy? That’s the question that should be foremost in our minds.
maybe in your world
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 31, 2010 at 1340 hrs
While I am forbidden these days from making my thoughts on my own union known by the threat of sanctions
Giving up your first amendment rights for a paycheck?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 31, 2010 at 1359 hrs
Giving up your first amendment rights for a paycheck?
I didn’t give them up, I lost them to some friends of yours that only like one kind of speech… their own.
So no matter how you treat your body or what sort of unhealthy choices you make, you won’t have to pay more.
Does the current system adequately punish the sick and reward the healthy? That’s the question that should be foremost in our minds.I hate to say it (truly I do) but I have to agree with Scott here… if I am reading his statement correctly.
One of the problems with our current (er, former) insurance system is that, in the case of non-group health insurance, it leaves insurance companies with way too many openings to drop people when they become high risk, or when they get extremely sick. Clearly that is when we need the insurance that we paid for while we were healthy. We are all different, we lead different lives, and we have different genetic make ups. I’ve always been against the idea of age/risk/employment/illness based testing by health insurers… it’s never fairly done, and it always leaves innocent people to bear the burden of arbitrary rules. I’ve certainly seen that in my own line of work… ever tried to get disability insurance as a firefighter? The premiums are higher than the benefits in some cases.
Just another reason that I hoped there would be a few reasonable Democrats who would look at the Paul Ryan plan…. large group insurance for everyone who wants it. That way, you need not worry about losing your health insurance when you actually need it, and you’d still get quick high quality care… the insurers would be protected from the costly members because of the size of the pool they were drawing from. Too bad the Democrats preferred control over quality when it came to the needs of the people.
I expect Locke will get his way soon enough… there are already calls to regulate everything from fat and salt, all the way to taxing sweets like cigarettes. It’s all part of the reason that so many people hate the Obamacare edict. Control is the opposite of liberty.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 31, 2010 at 1448 hrs
I didn’t give them up, I lost them to some friends of yours that only like one kind of speech… their own.
Wow, that’s really manning up to that freedom of choice you prize so highly.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 31, 2010 at 1755 hrs
Son - either you missed my point or I didn’t make it clearly enough. In no way do I want to see everything regulated. I agree - such regulations are the inevitable outcome of the increased control of health care in an already awful piece of legislation.
I want people to be able to do whatever they want to their bodies. But in the case of things that are clearly conscious decisions, choices have consequences. Again, why should health and lifestyle decisions not have the same effect on health premiums that the same sort of decisions have on life, home or auto insurance?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 31, 2010 at 1838 hrs
Ok Locke… I do get what you mean. Consequences for chosen actions that are clearly deleterious to your health. I can see how you could make a case for that…. but I always worry that such things would be used against people who were not the intended targets… sort of like New York going after salt and fat in foods. No matter how well written or how well intentioned your rules… the next guy in office might be a Democrat, and he will DEFINITELY read them differently than you did.
@Opinion If conservatives quit every job that had been screwed up by some over-controlling pencil dicked liberals, there would be very few jobs left for us. You guys are like toenail fungus… you never stay on just one toe and you are damned hard to get rid of.
I am, however, a member of the National Right to Work Foundation that fights against forced union membership. Check them out at http://nrtw.org/ if you are stuck working in a union shop.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 31, 2010 at 1938 hrs
You guys are like toenail fungus… you never stay on just one toe and you are damned hard to get rid of.
I feel your pain. That is just how I feel about over payed, benefited and pensioned public service sector employees.
I am sure you can agree with that?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 31, 2010 at 1956 hrs
I actually do, Scott-like clone of opinion. I wish I had a private pension and I wasn’t forced to trust the benevolent hand of people like you to watch over the money for me. It’s unfortunate, but it’s all part of the game… Luckily I have my own savings to cover me when you folks finally bankrupt the nation and all the pensioners find out that a government that gives you everything is only to quick to take it all away.
There is plenty of fat to cut in the public sector, though I doubt that you actually believe that yourself. You seem to be just another fungus like troll without any thoughtful argument to forward and no opinions but the ones you are fed by the party.
Did you wind up here after DKos tossed you out for being too moderate?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 31, 2010 at 2144 hrs
Let’s see here is a SOL guy who is, 50 something, I think you stated here?
So you have been with MFD for how many years?
You don’t like your union, you don’t like the pay/benefits package you get and you don’t like the cuts made to your department to reduce the tax revenue required and to operate the service more efficiently.
Why did you ever take the oath of office? You must be a real treat to work with.
After the service, I worked as an independent contractor and business owner. I am 60, as retired as I want to be, self sufficient, comfortable and a lot happier than you seem to be.
When someone calls you on your obvious duplicity and bs you start with the insults and run for the cover of partisan hackery.
And I am a supposed to be the troll?
Get a clue.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 31, 2010 at 2221 hrs
Wait, you think he’s me? That’s rich.
Posted by scott on March 31, 2010 at 2252 hrs
A clone is not you… a clone is a copy of you. Would you prefer I said Doppelganger? He seems to operate under a very similar mindset though.
Only Owen knows for sure who is who.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 01, 2010 at 0718 hrs
You don’t like your union, you don’t like the pay/benefits package you get and you don’t like the cuts made to your department to reduce the tax revenue required and to operate the service more efficiently.
Why did you ever take the oath of office? You must be a real treat to work with.
Ergo Troll. QED
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 01, 2010 at 0720 hrs
Total Entries: 20002
Total Comments: 134060
Most Recent Entry: 05/25/2012 07:41 pm
Most Recent Comment on: 05/25/2012 06:18 pm
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 111
Total anonymous users: 3
Most Recent Visitor on: 05/25/2012 07:58 pm
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).