Journal smittyoneeach's Journal: No wonder the Left foams at all orifices 168
Imagine winning three elections (one being a recall election that public sector unions poured thousands upon thousands of dollars into) in four years in the deeply divided blue-collar progressive Utopia of Wisconsin. Imagine breaking the back of the organized heart and soul of the Democrat party and dispatching AFL-CIO leader Richard "Morrie The Wig Salesman" Trumka back to the White House to show the President the "W" shaped scar carved into his forehead as a warning to anyone else who stepped foot in the state.
Imagine doing all this after Democratic state legislators fled for the safe harbor of Illinois to avoid voting on your legislation. Imagine having woken up every day to phone calls relating tales unionized shock-troops on your parentsâ(TM) front lawn and threats not only on your life but the lives of your kids. Now imagine having the real heroes, the brave national media, mock and ridicule you over this. Imagine accomplishing all of this while a partisan Milwaukee District Attorney authorizes the illegal invasion of the homes of your friends, supporters and aides, lawlessly confiscating private property, all while colluding with Lois Lerner and the IRS.
I happened to catch his announcement speech live on OANN yesterday. The Left will be invoking Cthulhu in most maniacal tones trying to call down some unfortunate demise on this Walker.
I'm laughing myself (Score:1)
Everybody denies the psychology that makes it happen. Very simply the man appeals to base instincts. He's not quite as good as Trump, but he can evolve. Actually he might be better. He wins elections. Trump never has...yet.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Like all politicians he serves his money, and indeed he is following through. Truly I am ambivalent about him. He has the approval of the majority of Wisconsin voters, so who am I to argue, right? Same bullshit on the national level. When they win, they win, that's it... But one of the better things about republicans is that when they say they're gonna fuck you, it's a promise they will keep! Since we know the democrats will also, they would get more respect, from me anyway, if they would just say the same
Re: (Score:2)
having empirically positive results to show for doing what he says he'd do
Has the Kevlar Kandidate taken the actions that he said he would take? Unquestionably. Have they lead to the outcomes he promised? For the most part, unquestionably no. He promised thousands of new jobs, and yet the net change of jobs in his state is still in the negative during his tenure. He also promised a bold turn-around in the state's budget, and yet their books still don't balance.
Action? Yes. Results? No.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Two states that come to mind as recent examples of being laid to waste are Wisconsin and Kansas. Both of them have deeply conservative governors who wanted to implement Reaganomics 3.0 in a hurry, promising that all would bask in the infinite glory of the light of the free market. Both of them then reached for various clever accounting tricks to try to convince people that red ink is the new black ink. Both of them eventually realized that
Re: (Score:2)
I know you're not fond of literacy any more - particularly when we're talking about reading what I write - but still that is quite the slip for you.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
genuinely Progressive
What does that mean at the moment, by the way?
It means the same thing it has meant for a long time - at least, to people who don't use it as a blanket insult. Progressive legislation is concerned with giving equal opportunities of social and economic mobility to the lower classes who have been oppressed and denied opportunity for some time now. While we will likely never pass Singly Payer Health Care or the Second Bill of Rights that you so dearly love to hate, we can at least try to make strides towards opportunity.
Re: (Score:2)
Wait, so now you're going to claim that Progress is about "equality of opportunity", and not "equality of condition"?
I have never claimed otherwise.
Granted there is much that falls under the former that you would likely swear to be a part of the latter instead. Universal Single Payer health care is likely one of those things. Taxpayer funded post-secondary education is likely another. I expect any taxation system other than our current regressive structure would likely be yet a third.
Re: (Score:2)
What, you're a stealth Tea Partier, then
That's hilarious. The Tea Party is approximately as far from equality of opportunity as you can get. Everything the Tea Party has ever proposed has been in favor of accumulation of wealth, power, and opportunity for the very top echelon of the economic distribution. Trickle-down-economics didn't work in the 80s, and it isn't going to work at any other point in time either.
Let me know when I can opt out entirely (front and back end) of the entitlements
Opt out of "entitlements"? Just don't take them. Done. Don't collect social security when you're old enough. Don't send your kid
Re: (Score:2)
So, your basic pattern seems to be to just assert the opposite of reality.
Only the opposite of this strange fantasy that you call "reality", where the math that is used in physical reality some how is magically not applicable to economics, and fundamental sociological concepts don't apply because they are inconvenient counters to your belief structure.
So, don't stay in my own country and seek to purge the Progressive cancer, then?
Is democracy not supposed to reflect the will of the people? You don't have to accept the thesis that politics is supposed to be about improving peoples' lives, but if democracy is supposed to be a government that reflects the wi
Re: (Score:2)
Is democracy not supposed to reflect the will of the people?
What do you mean by 'reflect' in this context?
The interests of the people should be the interests of the government. Contrast with your strategy where the interests of the elite are the interests of the government, and the people can eat cow shit while dreaming about winning the lottery.
Re: (Score:2)
The interests of the people should be the interests of the government. Contrast with your strategy where the interests of the elite are the interests of the government, and the people can eat cow shit while dreaming about winning the lottery.
Total strawman.
Brushing off a reply like that does little to show that you have any interest in an actual conversation.
the government has such interests as are delegated TO IT by the people.
Try reading what I said.
We labor under a cart-horse inversion here
It is unclear that even you know what you are trying to say with that vague statement.
Not redistribute the wealth of future generations
The people getting the best treatment from government are the ones in the top 1% of all wage recipients. Wealth is being redistributed, for sure, but not in the direction you are likely trying to accuse it of going.
Re: (Score:2)
How, given the detailed response, do you claim you were "brushed off"?
Because your response started with a silly jab at me, and then wandered away from the topic completely.
The people getting the best treatment from government are the ones in the top 1% of all wage recipients.
I submit that the election results refute your claim
How does that make sense at all? The top 1% still get the best deal out of all of us, and they continue to make sure that the rest of us know as little about that as possible. The electioneering that is conducted by the top 1% and their preferred party is working exactly as they want it to.
If the rest of us were more aware of how badly stacked against us the system really is, we would have actual l
Re: (Score:2)
Your federal government Is. The. Fruit. Of. "Liberalism".
I wish that were the case. Instead we have a government that keeps handing out more money to the richest people in the country, under the notion that it will "trickle-down". We have learned before that there is a warm feeling associated with being trickled upon, but it does not help the well-being of the recipient in any way.
Indeed your assertion to the contrary is based upon nothing but your own faith. Whether it is because you are seeing the government fail and you can't handle the fact that the fai
Re: (Score:2)
why I contend we need to redistribute power, not wealth
The government still redistributes more money up than down the economic ladder.
You seem to behave as if the government giving money to over half the population
You should try reading the article you linked to. It points out plainly that many of those people you see the government as "giving money to" are ones who are only getting back the money they paid in (social security). They also are counting people on medicaid, medicare, or the ACA subsidy as being given money to. It might not be possible to compile those numbers and not include veterans who use the VA medical system, either
Re: (Score:2)
So, the government is pushing money, some paid in taxes, a substantial amount just borrowed, all up and down the economic ladder--not merely to the "richest people".
You took the time to quote me, but you didn't take the time to read what I wrote. Interesting. The facts are that your claim of "wealth redistribution" is simply not supported by the facts. So very little of the money that the government pays out goes exclusively to the lowest economic classes that it is nearly a rounding error, and most of what goes to the middle section of the economic distribution is actually saving money in the long run for the majority of Americans.
unsustainable
The part that is unsustainable i
Re: (Score:2)
You realize that mandatory spending, increasingly, blows away the rest of the budget?
Again, would it actually kill you to read what you link to? They specifically mention that mandatory spending is dominated by social security. This is not free money, or "wealth distribution". You have to pay in to social security to get money back out of it. Same with unemployment. Knock that part out as half of the 2.4T and the next big chunk is Medicare & Health, which is mostly paid for as well. That leaves you with easily less than 1/4th of the 2.4T as being outside that region, we'll genero
Re: (Score:2)
Nice job abandoning the rest of the discussion, as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Granted, Bush was also made impeachment-proof once his party took exclusive ownership of the terms "American", "Patriotic", and "Constitutional".
Re: (Score:2)
That is not comparable.
I juxtapose "57 states" and "mis-underestimate". They stand compared. Please elaborate on the way you feel that which I've done is un-doable.
I never saw anyone - comedian, pundit, or otherwise - who took a Bush misquote and tried to use it to push for his impeachment.
Impeachment? Far too good for that one. Anything short of having him atomized and deployed along the orbit of Uranus by a unicorn-shaped spacecraft simultaneously emitting his speeches in a loop in the RF spectrum would just be a kindness.
By which I mean simply to mock your assertion that anyone EVER called for your girl's impeachment over her stoned non-command of th
Re: (Score:2)
By which I mean simply to mock your assertion that anyone EVER called for your girl's impeachment over her stoned non-command of the number of States.
Wow, do you get extra points for contradicting yourself in your own statement?
You pretend that impeachment has not been called for, when you rarely go more than a week without calling for it yourself. Unless, of course, you are saying that since you have for some time instead been shouting for extralegal removal instead of impeachment, you technically are no longer calling for impeachment. That said, you still were calling for it earlier (say, before the administration had entered its second year).
Re: (Score:2)
By which I mean simply to mock your assertion that anyone EVER called for your girl's impeachment over her stoned non-command of the number of States.
Wow, do you get extra points for contradicting yourself in your own statement? You pretend that impeachment has not been called for, when you rarely go more than a week without calling for it yourself. Unless, of course, you are saying that since you have for some time instead been shouting for extralegal removal instead of impeachment, you technically are no longer calling for impeachment. That said, you still were calling for it earlier (say, before the administration had entered its second year).
And I've been pointing out that impeachment is a waste of time. The literacy you've demonstrated here would probably mean that your low-information types would be all: "Why are they taking the President to Georgia and burying him in fruit?"
Re: (Score:2)
I've been pointing out that impeachment is a waste of time
So, sometime after I pointed out that you had well passed the point in time where you would likely be able to successfully impeach and remove the POTUS by the prescribed methods, you finally realized I was right. Gotcha. Now you're admitting that you are indeed advocating for extralegal methods to get him out any way you can.
Nice to see you are in this rare case factual, and we have the same understanding of your wishes as a result.
It is worth pointing out that you were calling for impeachment ba
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The audience has a question for you, though. Now that you claim to no longer be trying for impeachment, at what point would you say you had that change of heart and decided to commit instead to extralegal removal of the POTUS? I had told you some time ago that you had run out of time for impeachment, and you replied by claiming that not to be the case. I've seen some waffling and revisionist history from you before, I'd like to know what degree of that is present in this
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I do expect to collect.
Expectations in this hand; crap in the other: which fills first?
Re: (Score:2)
people who are systematically denied the same privileges you and I enjoy are entitled to some form of compensation.
You want the realpolitik? You and I are not entitled to a clean death.
All of the drum pounding and speechifying aside, that is ground truth. Look at Greece, and see what these appeals to "entitlement" are worth.
I mean, I've played the 401k game and all that. These jackwagons are going to blow up the economy, and I guess my "privilege" is going to amount to some digits on a web page that used to be worth something. Whoopdy effin' doo.
Be wise, live modestly, avoid debt, and pile up your treasure in Eternit
Re: (Score:2)
Their demands are legitimate, and can easily be met, and are sustainable.
They are? Why should the Germans get up and go to work everyday, only to be called Nazis by a bunch of Mediterranean freeloaders?
You are here following mass media and blaming the victim.... and that's that.
I am? I can muster some sympathy for the common folk, I suppose, except that they've voted for louts for years and years. Kinda like us, in fact.
You are just playing the Reagan/Thatcher *Welfare Queen* angle.
And you are playing Socialism as the highest form of passive aggression, just like your brother, damn_registrars.
In this absolutely prosperous society we certainly are.
"I was?" asked Ambassador Stevens and the Unborn Chorus. Your vain repetitions are the height of amusement.
Re: (Score:2)
You are voting away our social security. I guess that's one of the risks of majority rule.
I think Social Security should be available to those WHO CHOOSE IT and anybody who knows a bogus game of Three Card Monty on sight should have the liberty to Walk. The. Fluke. Away.
But you H8 liberty, don't you?
Re: (Score:2)
What audience?
Me. I don't really expect that anyone else is reading at this point. Once in a while you chime in but mostly it's just smitty and I. Actually, an argument could be made that it is just me, as smitty is mostly a write-only participant here.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I guess that's one way of keeping your plantation going.
You do like the taste of the whip, don't you?
Re: (Score:2)
You are just in denial that liberty for some is liberty for none. Wake me when you believe in liberty for all, until then you are merely a punchline.
See, now: liberty to roam the entitlement plantation is a "managed" liberty of only the finest ersatz variety. And I don't deny you the right to crave such; I only would that I could be emancipated from it.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm just curious to know at what point you came to accept that time had marched along too far for impeachment to be a useful tool for removing President Lawnchair from office.
As with W. in 2004, the re-election of Occupy Resolute Desk should be seen as tantamount to a pardon by the voters. If the righty crybabies couldn't muster a candidate and the gumption to do something other than keep the no-talent rodeo clown cluttering the Oval Office, well, then: blame the victim, say I.
This may be too simple, sane, and clear for you to grasp, but that's my opinion of President Jarrett's meat puppet and this electorate.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed, such is a strategy.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm just curious to know at what point you came to accept that time had marched along too far for impeachment to be a useful tool for removing President Lawnchair from office.
As with W. in 2004, the re-election of Occupy Resolute Desk should be seen as tantamount to a pardon by the voters.
I distinctly recall you still calling for impeachment after the 2012 election.
Re: (Score:2)
Your vote is your consent and approval.
You sure are selling your anti-voting strategy hard, here. Apparently to you, skipping elections makes you completely infallible in regards to disagreeable decisions made by politicians. Some of us, however, rather value participating in the voting process.
Re: (Score:2)
Your feeble attempts at guilt tripping me into voting
And you always reaffirm my reasons for staying away.
Apparently, I pissed you off enough for you to admit that indeed you don't vote at all. Thanks for playing. Feel free to ask for your door prize on the way out.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Just shining light on your idiocy
So now you claim that voting is "idiocy". How, then, do you expect anything to change? If you just want to sit and watch while the world burns, that is your choice, but don't blame the outcome on the people who actually take the time to vote while you are instead trying to discourage voting.
I'm fine with you choosing not to vote. You do have that choice. But I am not required to sit and listen to your holier-than-thou shtick while knowing that you intentionally do no participate in elections.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Imma help your puctuation. (Score:2)
You should expect nothing =>,<= less.
If you expect good ROI from government, you're simple.
Has potential (Score:2)
"All hail the power of Regan's name .
Let angels' prostates fall. .
Re: (Score:2)
If you want, you could try to bring it all back home by telling us why the failings
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you want, you could try to bring it all back home by telling us why the failings of The Kevlar Kandidate are all actually the fault of President Lawnchair.
The first step on the road to recovery is that you quit blaming others. There is certainly much political power to be garnered in going all Stompyfoot McPointyfinger, but this leads to the rampant childishness seen today.
Adults are wont to:
- Assume responsibility
- Dispassionately analyze history
- Admit fault
- Ask forgiveness
- Forgive
- Sow peace
- Eschew revenge
- NOT seek to prioritize their selfish desires
Pretty much the antithesis of our current process is what's needed for recovery.
Re: (Score:2)
Contrary to your stated beliefs, you are serving man.
You're welcome to visit my church for a dose of truth.
Re: (Score:2)
There is no 'debt'.
Yanis Varoufakis, is that you?
I guess since only rubes pay taxes and we don't budget in an mature, sane, adult fashion, I must substantially concede your point.
Re: (Score:2)
I have zero (0) interest in "legislating from the church", irrespective and disrespective of your strawmen.
Rather, I would that all grow up, and legislate themselves along adult human lines. And I will continue to pray and offer positive encouragement that this occur.
Great troll, though.
Re: (Score:2)
- Assume responsibility
He has never, to the best of my knowledge, assumed responsibility for the job losses and state debts that have come to pass under his administration. In fact, he is known for trying to pass of utterly bogus numbers in their place.
- Admit fault
The only fault I have seen him to admit has been when he believes someone else is at fault.
- Sow peace
There are several thousand people who had non-political public-sector
Re: (Score:2)
Actually that is pretty much the antithesis of any campaign I have seen in the past decade.
Nolo contendere. Thus we arrive at the lemma: do something different, or embrace the suck.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
do something different, or embrace the suck.
Did fusta suddenly inhabit your body for that comment? While we haven't made it very far into the current electoral cycle I haven't yet seen a candidate present themselves as the alternative to "the suck".
Re: (Score:2)
And you will probably enjoy a pseudo-success. Under the sun, anyway. Best wishes on that!
Re: (Score:2)
Article V, baby.
Re: (Score:2)
The point you're missing is that this system has no feedback loop in the hands of the people.
Until the analysis includes an honest look at the feedback in the system, we're just whinging here on
This is the Information Age, but our mentality is mired in older ways. Use Article V. Be your own Reagan. Redistribute the power. Or not.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And no: I reject "mass media" opinion.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Seems like what you want.
Me? Astroturfing? No. I vote for the guy who least wants me serving out my life in debtor's prison. If I can't make a living, then there is no other issue that matters.
That said, it would make no sense for a socialist such as myself to run an astroturfing campaign. The ones who most oppose a socialist are the corporate bigwigs who fund astroturfing campaigns. They fund your campaigns instead and tell you the astroturf is Kentucky blue.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I vote for the guy who least wants me serving out my life in debtor's prison.
Both parties are turning the country into a vast dole/debtor's prison, I'm not sure what we can do to make you aware that:
(a) You can't overspend what you take in (sustainably) and
(b) You can set taxes well as far as you want above confiscation, and succeed in making tax evasion a national sport, as in Greece.
Unless I'm missing something.
Re: (Score:2)
Facts ain't no "conspiracy", Sparky.
Re: (Score:2)
So, it's a "conspiracy" if its about a Democrat (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's a "conspiracy" if its about a Democrat
No, it becomes a conspiracy when the facts are left behind and assumptions are substituted in their place. When you insist that the email debacle is a high crime because it is associated with a democrat and you want it to be associated with other conspiracies that you have helped propagate for some time, then it becomes a conspiracy.
You can drop the name "Powell" without any URL
I'm going off of other [slashdot.org] comments [slashdot.org] that were posted here on slashdot. Not that you ever follow links that I post anyways.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
demonstrably more conservative
I guess if you think #OccupyResoluteDesk is conservative, then you probably think Bernie Sanders is right of center. I'm curious if you could offer an example of a "sane" web site.
Re: (Score:2)
I guess if you think #OccupyResoluteDesk is conservative
President Lawnchairs actions will go down in history as demonstrably conservative. Not merely conservative, but more conservative than any president who came before him. You can debate his inner philosophy all you want, but the bills he has signed into law speak for themselves.
then you probably think Bernie Sanders is right of center.
No, Sanders is indeed left of center. His voting record as a senator mostly supports that.
I'm curious if you could offer an example of a "sane" web site.
The main reason why I don't consider this to be a "sane" web site is because they refuse to acknowledge their profound bend towards conser
Re: (Score:2)
The main reason why I don't consider this to be a "sane" web site is because they refuse to acknowledge their profound bend towards conservatism.
Well, this is certainly not a social conservative website, and thus comes off as more libertarian to me.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)