damn_registrars's Journal: How dare you logically evaluate the health care bill!

We won't have any such logic like that around here!

Right on!

[Red4man]

Cause I totally deserved to have my premiums doubled! Yeah! Fuck me!

And me busting my ass to get a 4% raise? Didn't even cover the cost of my premiums doubling!

CHANGE I CAN BELIEVE IN. CAN I HAS SOME MORE PLZ?

It's a river of lies

[smittyoneeach]

Commencing with the one stating that this was ever a federal task to begin with.
Die, evil: die, die, die.

Re:

[damn_registrars]

You can make an argument that the federal government should just ignore the problem completely, if you want. However I know that I am not alone in wanting to at least have an option of a program that works across the country and is not managed by morally bankrupt corporate executives who receive salary bonuses for killing customers.

That said, this bill failed me on that aim in particular quite badly, and others similarly badly.

Re:

[smittyoneeach]

However I know that I am not alone in wanting to at least have an option

Speaking of liberty, I wish I had an option to just walk away from all of these federal entitlements, to wash my hands of every bit of overreach that's occurred in the last century, no questions asked. But this government would sooner make it OK for me to marry a horse than support liberty liberty.

Re:

[damn_registrars]

However I know that I am not alone in wanting to at least have an option

Speaking of liberty, I wish I had an option to just walk away from all of these federal entitlements

Nobody forces you to use any "entitlements". You are free to turn down government services at any level. You don't have to use public education, public roads, public libraries, or public transit. You don't have to collect social security when you are eligible. If you don't want them, don't use them.

The only entitlement we have no choice but to accept is the military-industrial complex. I don't want their services but my tax dollars support them regardless. If we think it is being used poorly, we ge

Re:

[smittyoneeach]

It might be nice to imagine an a la carte tax system, where the taxpayer dictates what their taxes are used for. That would, of course, be nearly impossible to implement.

Only if you hire a no-talent rodeo clown to oversee implementation.

Re:

[damn_registrars]

It might be nice to imagine an a la carte tax system, where the taxpayer dictates what their taxes are used for. That would, of course, be nearly impossible to implement.

Only if you hire a no-talent rodeo clown to oversee implementation.

Well, if you find any, make sure they aren't placed in charge of the federal budget, because that would probably be a disaster. Or maybe it would be amusing in an ironic way?

If we could actually be serious about it though, the overhead to manage an a la carte taxation system would cause the entire system to collapse under its own weight. If total federal collapse was your goal then that might be a way to do it, but if your goal was to allow citizens to pick and choose their favorite services then it wo

Re:

[smittyoneeach]

make sure they aren't placed in charge of the federal budget

What federal budget / phony dog poo [youtube.com]?

the overhead to manage an a la carte taxation system would cause the entire system to collapse under its own weight

Open source all of the coding and logic. Only the data proper are private. The real threat is that if the will of the people were expressed that clearly, all of the phony-baloney jobs would go away.
Here's the litmus test: does activity X identify an individual citizen in any way? Then that activity should be fully supported at the state level, with federal oversight to preclude tyranny from above, and voters precluding tyranny from below. Student and housing loans are tw

Re:

[damn_registrars]

the overhead to manage an a la carte taxation system would cause the entire system to collapse under its own weight

Open source all of the coding and logic. Only the data proper are private.

That doesn't really do squat to address the problem of the number of people required to collect taxes, process taxes, and ensure that the people are paying for what they are getting. You remind me of a certain politician from not too long ago who seemed to think he could solve all of his state's problems by eliminating half of its elected government.

Here's the litmus test: does activity X identify an individual citizen in any way? Then that activity should be fully supported at the state level,

So who then manages interstate highways? Who makes sure that trade terms used in Alabama mean the same thing in Alaska? Who manages national parks and monu

Re:

[smittyoneeach]

You remind me of a certain politician from not too long ago who seemed to think he could solve all of his state's problems

You remind me of the vast swath of people who think political problems are "solvable".
We need to agree that government maintains problems, or, optimally, moves the pain point. This hooey about "solving" problems through government is a precursor to much, much, idiocy.

Here's the litmus test: does activity X identify an individual citizen in any way? Then that activity should be fully supported at the state level, with federal oversight to preclude tyranny from above, and voters precluding tyranny from below. Student and housing loans are two of the more egregious examples of federal overreach.

You godforsaken clown, read what I wrote: I'm arguing against individual involvement by the federal government in housing, retirement, education, health care--the gamut of truly contentious issues that render our federal government so inert--

Re:

[damn_registrars]

You have meandered quite a ways away from the matter we were discussing not very many comments ago. Indeed, you have meandered right back to the old routine of slinging silly insults at me instead of discussing anything.

The point I brought up that you danced your way around is how a government could possibly handle collection and distribution of taxes that are collected a la carte - in particular how to ensure that people are not collecting benefits they are not paying for. Some cases are easier to deal

Re:

[smittyoneeach]

I'm not dancing around anything. You model the challenge and assign the issues to the correct level of government--federal tasks to the federal government, state tasks to the state, local to local.

If I paid taxes a la carte and hence did not pay for the military

National defense is a federal Constitutional requirement. Stop deep-throating the federal scope creep of the last century. Sober up. Clarity will come, trust me.

Re:

[damn_registrars]

If I paid taxes a la carte and hence did not pay for the military

National defense is a federal Constitutional requirement.

So then I should be able to oppose my taxes being used to pay for non-defensive uses of our military. We haven't used our military for legitimately defensive purposes in over half a century now.

Stop deep-throating the federal scope creep of the last century. Sober up. Clarity will come, trust me.

... and back to the dance you go. So tell me, are you still opposed to the 17th amendment now that your guys have majority in the senate?

Re:

[smittyoneeach]

So then I should be able to oppose my taxes being used to pay for non-defensive uses of our military. We haven't used our military for legitimately defensive purposes in over half a century now.

Indeed, the lack of formal declarations of war since WWII are something that all right-thinking Americans should despise. But let's be clear--mine is far from the majority opinion among the hawks.

... and back to the dance you go. So tell me, are you still opposed to the 17th amendment now that your guys have majority in the Senate?

Really? Do you think me so utterly bereft of principle? Of course I still despise all the Wilsonian idiocy afflicting us.

Re:

[damn_registrars]

So then I should be able to oppose my taxes being used to pay for non-defensive uses of our military. We haven't used our military for legitimately defensive purposes in over half a century now.

Indeed, the lack of formal declarations of war since WWII are something that all right-thinking Americans should despise.

That isn't the same as being opposed to non-defensive use of the military. What you wrote could be read as support of any action as long as war is declared; I would not have supported the invasion of Iraq (in particular) under any circumstances and never did. There is no particular reason why congress could not have declared war on Iraq as part of their continuous stream of white house supported bullshit to support the takeover of that (previously) sovereign nation.

... and back to the dance you go. So tell me, are you still opposed to the 17th amendment now that your guys have majority in the Senate?

Really? Do you think me so utterly bereft of principle?

I am not aware of you having opposed t

Re:

[smittyoneeach]

What you wrote could be read as support of any action as long as war is declared;

It would seem that if the question were put to the representatives of the people; and there were debate; and a vote were taken, that that should indicate sufficient evidence had been offered, discussion ensued, and constituent feedback heard.
I'm unsure that any of the substantial interventions undertaken since WWII would have occurred. The validity of our adventurism seems to have waned over the decades. The War Powers Resolution seems to have been Congress phoning it in on a permanent basis.

I am not aware of you having opposed the 17th back when your party had the white house and both chambers of congress.

For the bazill

Re:

[damn_registrars]

What you wrote could be read as support of any action as long as war is declared;

It would seem that if the question were put to the representatives of the people; and there were debate; and a vote were taken, that that should indicate sufficient evidence had been offered, discussion ensued, and constituent feedback heard.

It is debatable whether or not such a thing happened prior to the invasion of Afghanistan. I will admit that even I got caught up in the patriotism and bloodlust to the point where I thought that the invasion was justified.

However there is no argument to be made that such a thing happened before congress was forced to authorize the invasion of Iraq. The administration came in with all guns blazing and a giant pile of lies in support. They then amped up the distorted patriotism to 11 and made it the ne

Re:

[smittyoneeach]

hey then amped up the distorted patriotism to 11 and made it the new national pastime to label anyone who dared to question the invasion as a "traitor", "terrorist", or just simply "Un-American".

Yeah, that was about as disgusting as calling anyone not voting for BHO a 'racist'. Intellectual dishonesty just knows no partisan bounds.
The overarching fallacy of any of W's adventurism was that the idea of nation building was even tenable. Next guy that even tries to float that idea needs defenestration.

Not once before the dawn of the Lawnchair Administration did you voice support for overturning the 17th amendment.

So. Effing. What. I cannot express to you the depth of my contempt for your authoritarian attempts to preclude my access to certain ideas based upon the timestamp of my first espousing them.
And you're n

Re:

[damn_registrars]

hey then amped up the distorted patriotism to 11 and made it the new national pastime to label anyone who dared to question the invasion as a "traitor", "terrorist", or just simply "Un-American".

Yeah, that was about as disgusting as calling anyone not voting for BHO a 'racist'.

Those would be true IF that was the officially endorsed policy of the administration AND those who were subjected to it were also subjected to violent rounds of demonization and humiliation. You've tried to support the notion before of it being that way, and fallen flat on your face in your attempt to do so. You can try again if you want but there is no reason to expect that you would get a different outcome.

Intellectual dishonesty just knows no partisan bounds.

Although from 2001 - 2008 it was official sport that only your party was allowed to compete in.

The overarching fallacy of any of W's adventurism was that the idea of nation building was even tenable.

Re:

[smittyoneeach]

The point is that there is no reason to suspect you ever considered the 17th amendment to be a bad thing when it benefited your political worldview. Now you see a chance to secure more power for your side by writing it out of the constitution and you are parading it as if it were the greatest idea since inhalation.

It's called "learning". It's something that I wish I could somehow encourage you to do. I've said previously, and I'll re-iterate, that I wasn't deeply partisan or given to following the political fracas while I was on active duty. This is a good thing. "Politics in everything" is cancerous, but a politicized military is stage 4.
Toward the end of the Bush Administration, when it was obvious that things were systematically wrong with our government, I went on a self-education course that involved a lot of r

Re:

[damn_registrars]

The point is that there is no reason to suspect you ever considered the 17th amendment to be a bad thing when it benefited your political worldview. Now you see a chance to secure more power for your side by writing it out of the constitution and you are parading it as if it were the greatest idea since inhalation.

It's called "learning". It's something that I wish I could somehow encourage you to do.

So were you not aware of the existence of the 17th amendment until the dawn of the Lawnchair Administration then? I'd be wiling to bet you're young enough that it was law before you were in high school, you should have learned it in civics. If you're bragging about only having started to pay attention to the text of the constitution in the past 6 years, that isn't something many people would take great pride in. And considering the way you like to cherry-pick your way through other texts it suggests you

Re:

[smittyoneeach]

So were you not aware of the existence of the 17th amendment until the dawn of the Lawnchair Administration then?

Do you understand the distinction between "aware of the existence" and "aware of the significance"?

Sounds like you're just making an excuse for why you loved the previous POTUS and hate the current one who has the wrong consonant after his name.

Sounds to me like you're making it up as you go.

It's a shame that you seem to have only put real effort into reading tertiary sources. If you had looked at primary sources instead you might have actually learned something.

I wouldn't promote you above a senary or septenary source, given your overall disinformatzya level.

You're cute when you pretend that the tea party isn't just an extreme faction of the GOP.

I love it when you literally use the word 'extreme' as though there were literal extremism afoot.

Turn away from the blogs for a while and look at the original documents instead.

Your assertion that I haven't is the height of condescension. How about a little less bloviating, and a little more work on the Communist Manifesto, so your butt doesn't

Re:

[damn_registrars]

So were you not aware of the existence of the 17th amendment until the dawn of the Lawnchair Administration then?

Do you understand the distinction between "aware of the existence" and "aware of the significance"?

I am well aware of the difference. I reach for the more significant of the two as you haven't given any argument against it.

Sounds like you're just making an excuse for why you loved the previous POTUS and hate the current one who has the wrong consonant after his name.

Sounds to me like you're making it up as you go.

You never argued for a reduction in federal power when your guys had all the power.

It's a shame that you seem to have only put real effort into reading tertiary sources. If you had looked at primary sources instead you might have actually learned something.

I wouldn't promote you above a senary or septenary source, given your overall disinformatzya level.

You repeatedly parade as an expert on texts that you can't be bothered with reading.

You're cute when you pretend that the tea party isn't just an extreme faction of the GOP.

I love it when you literally use the word 'extreme' as though there were literal extremism afoot.

You have exhibited many extreme viewpoints on your interpretation of various documents (including ones you have no useful knowledge of). This is of no significant difference from other forms of extremism that we see

Re:

[smittyoneeach]

You never argued for a reduction in federal power when your guys had all the power.

I AM TOTALLY ARGUING FOR IT THE LAST HALF DECADE, and will continue to argue for it, you obtuse, backward-looking schmuck.

You repeatedly parade as an expert on texts that you can't be bothered with reading.

I'm quoting them as deeply as you are, or did you somehow manage to privilege yourself when no one was looking? It's fascinating, in these discussions, how the burden of proof remains 100% on me. Almost strange, in fact.

You have exhibited many extreme viewpoints

Name. One.

Re:

[damn_registrars]

You never argued for a reduction in federal power when your guys had all the power.

I AM TOTALLY ARGUING FOR IT THE LAST HALF DECADE, and will continue to argue for it, you obtuse, backward-looking schmuck.

And how long has the Lawnchair Administration lasted to date? The last half-decade. Thank you for not refuting my point in any way, shape, or form. Nice touch doing it in all caps, too.

You repeatedly parade as an expert on texts that you can't be bothered with reading.

I'm quoting them as deeply as you are

You are "quoting" them while pretending to be a great expert on them. I don't pretend to be an expert on texts I have not read.

It's fascinating, in these discussions, how the burden of proof remains 100% on me.

Your selective reading makes it easy to reach that conclusion.

You have exhibited many extreme viewpoints

Name. One.

I've named many. I will leave it to you to find them while pointing out that your request disproves your fact-free assertion of w

Re:

[smittyoneeach]

Obtuse

Re:

[damn_registrars]

That word. You use it. I don't think it means what you think it means.

Re:

[smittyoneeach]

I submit that you're a representative sample.

Re:

[damn_registrars]

Then perhaps you meant to use a word other than obtuse? The comment you used it in reply to was certainly not in support of you using it as a label towards me.

Re:

[smittyoneeach]

"obtuse
bt(y)oos,äbt(y)oos/Submit
adjective
1. annoyingly insensitive or slow to understand."

Re:

[damn_registrars]

1. annoyingly insensitive

Why should I be more sensitive to hatred and hate mongering? Just because I am willing to turn the other cheek does not mean that being struck again will cause me to embrace the hatred behind the strike; nor does the former require the latter.

Re:

[smittyoneeach]

Why should I be more sensitive to hatred and hate mongering?

I'm not saying you should. On the other hand, books that are bereft of such, for example those of Jonah Goldberg, merit attention.

Re:

[damn_registrars]

Why should I be more sensitive to hatred and hate mongering?

I'm not saying you should. On the other hand, books that are bereft of such, for example those of Jonah Goldberg, merit attention.

Did you mean "those of an author other than Jonah Goldberg instead? Because his books are overflowing with hatred, that is a plain and simple fact. Your Goldberg is no better with facts than This Goldberg [wikipedia.org] yet you are pitching the books of only one of them. There is no gray area here, Jonah Goldberg is in the business of hate mongering.

Re:

[fustakrakich]

I AM TOTALLY ARGUING FOR IT THE LAST HALF DECADE...

EXACTLY HIS POINT you blithering bumbling boob! Your boys 'lost' power a half decade ago. Now that they are back, we will hear little more about it, except the part where you want to let them steal my earned pension... All about the person... You fool no one. Not even him... even after he eats a spoonful of algae he can see what everybody else does.

obtuse

projectiiiing... the new normal with you, or maybe the old normal, but always consistent, like the famo

Re:

[smittyoneeach]

Because his books are overflowing with hatred, that is a plain and simple fact.

No, it's not. You're asserting crap. Again. Your modus operandi.

Re:

[smittyoneeach]

Well, you haven't understood the Tea Parties, so it follows that you don't understand the fundamental shift in the equation. The hard-fought primaries this year in Kansas and Mississippi were NOT about people just rolling over for the Vichy GOP.
You want to watch someone get their feet thrown in the fire? Watch John McCain's primary, if that old warhorse doesn't find a more pleasant pasture in the next two years.

Re:

[damn_registrars]

Because his books are overflowing with hatred, that is a plain and simple fact.

No, it's not. You're asserting crap. Again. Your modus operandi.

I'm sorry that you cannot distinguish fact from crap. I plainly demonstrated to you how Goldberg is openly cultivating hatred. There is no arguing against this; he has no interest whatsoever in aiding intelligent discussion. Nobody wanting intelligent discussion would label large numbers of people they disagree with in such hateful and overreaching ways.

Re:

[smittyoneeach]

You ain't demonstrated jack. You're just entrenching yourself on a silly battlefield. Not clear how exactly you win anything here, but then, you seem to be something of an abnormal psychology case anyway, so, go figure. Lord grant you some peace, buddy.

Re:

[fustakrakich]

It's called "learning".

:-)Tell us when you actually do learn something... The suspense is murder

Reciting some political putz's fiction over and over doesn't count. And gobbling down mass media propaganda to repeat here is not self-education. Either you're holding out, or your 'self-education' is complete lopsided farce. You may as well tell us that Fab Morvan and Rob Pilatus really did sing. We have a different name for 'education' based on Madison Avenue hype.

Re:

[damn_registrars]

Since you've taken a fondness to self-referencing, allow me to direct you to where I most recently demonstrated that Goldberg's text is indeed hate speech [slashdot.org].

Re:

[smittyoneeach]

Tell us when you actually do learn something... The suspense is murder

I would never suspend you so.

Reciting some political putz's fiction over and over doesn't count.

And neither do cheap assertions such as yours.

Re:

[smittyoneeach]

Claiming to have demonstrated something is not demonstrating something. You have not, for example, actually quoted Mr. Goldberg, EVER. I guess random assertions constitute fact in your fantasy realm.

Re:

[damn_registrars]

I quoted the title of his book. I cited the reviews on Amazon and the summary on the dust jacket of the book he sells. There is plenty of hate to go around between those three. Even if you want to discredit the reviews as being unbalanced, you can't honestly tell me that the dust jacket would be allowed to go out to sale in a way that would not be helpful to the book, can you?

Re:

[fustakrakich]

And neither do cheap assertions such as yours...

Not enough time in the world to post it all hear. Your JEs and comments are a pjmedia mirror site. If they don't report it, it didn't happen, nothing outside your box ever does.

And you are right, I should charge much more for my assertions, especially since they're all true!

Re:

[fustakrakich]

Oops... 'here'... don't shoot!

Re:

[smittyoneeach]

You're phoning it in.

Re:

[smittyoneeach]

I only ever shot the sheriff, and, yes: I winged the deputy.

Re:

[fustakrakich]

OK for me to marry a horse...

You've been beating that poor old dead horse for quite some time now. You ever think you can let it rest in peace? Or will you forever maintain your extremism against liberty for all? You did ask somebody what extremist views you put out. This would be one of them. Another one is the attempted robbery of a pension I already paid for.. If I thought it would matter, I suppose I could post a few other things, but life's too short...

Re:

[smittyoneeach]

Or will you forever maintain your extremism against liberty for all? You did ask somebody what extremist views you put out.

The view, to put it specifically, is that we should not be duped into accepting hedonism for liberty. This was explored at novel length by Huxley. Now, tough guy: where am I extreme in this view? Stand and deliver, or Study Taciturnity Fully Understood.

Re:

[fustakrakich]

Pfft! Your 'hedonism' is bullshit. You speak in half truths, always ignoring, sweeping aside the unpleasant half that makes you feel so uncomfortable. Again you are only displaying just another form of partisanship, nothing to do with 'liberty'. You define it as the stereotypical 'southern gentleman' would. If you want me to shut up, you have to answer the question, What makes you so special?

You are extreme in believing it is appropriate to deny the rights of others. Your objections are frivolous, simply de

Re:

[smittyoneeach]

It's not my hedonism: it's an accurate reflection of how our purported "elite" have destroyed the culture in the name of power.

If you want me to shut up, you have to answer the question, What makes you so special?

a) I've neither power nor interest in silencing you.
b) There is nothing remarkable about me. The existential lucidity I'm sharing with you is commonly available. See the all-time best-seller in human history.

You are extreme in believing it is appropriate to deny the rights of others.

You still haven't show a right that I have personally denied anyone.

You exhibit bigotry.

Against whom, specifically? Name the purported target of my alleged infraction, whatever it was.