The Right has been going batshit nuts over the Supremes upholding the Affordable Care Act. They are talking about crap again such as "Second Amendment solutions" and arguing whether or not that is appropriate.
Get a grip, people. The guy you didn't want won the election in 2008. His party controlled the House from 2006 to 2010 and had enough people in the Senate to get what he wanted, though he needed a couple of people from your party to get it done.
Well, he got it done. And the Supremes upheld it. That's how the Constitution set up the government.
You don't like it? That's fine. You're free to your opinion. You're free to support the politicians who promise to reverse things. That is how it is done under our political system.[1]
But because you lost this one political fight, you're now talking about tearing the government down? That makes you sound, in essence, like dangerous children. You lost at the game, this time, and you're now talking about kicking over the board and scattering the pieces to the winds?
Are you all fucking nuts?
________________________________
[1] Although choosing as your standard-bearer the former state governor who enacted virtually the same system in his state may not be the smartest thing.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
28 comments:
No, not nuts, although I understand how comforting it is for you to think so. The fact is we now inhabit two different countries divided by the answer to the question, Does the government serve the people or the people the government? This difference cannot be finessed, it cannot be negotiated. It is the the difference between liberty and slavery. How then does history teach us that such fundamental differences are resolved? Almost always with violence, until one side or the other backs down or is defeated.
I understand that your worldview cannot understand ours, but your comprehension of reality should at least extend to the fact that even if we are crazy, we are still armed and schooled in the use of those arms so that just complicates your problem, doesn't it?
Mike Vanderboegh
Mike, you guys lost an election and you're talking about violent revolution? Get a grip. You don't like the way this country is going, then organize and win control the way that the Constitution provides for.
And, by the way, if you think that you guys on the Right own all of the weapons and are the only ones who know how to use them, you are sadly mistaken. Lots of people swore an oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and we mean to uphold our word.
Ah, slavery. Because around 2% of the population will have the CHOICE of paying 2.5% higher taxes or buy something they should have, anyway. Slavery. An optional, tiny increase in taxes for a tiny percentage of the population. Slavery.
This from a political party that thinks the 1950's (when we had a top income tax rate of 90%,) was the good, old days.
Get real. Yeah, you ARE batshit crazy. She's right. You LOST the election and the guy who won made a HUGE effort to solve one of the great problems that our nation and our economy has, the FACT that between 30 and 50 MILLION Americans have no health care insurance and they, without any question, are a huge burden on us all because they are going to to get health care at emergency rooms and that is both the most expensive and the least efficient health care available. Furthermore, this is the same kind of mandate or tax (whatever you care to call it) that the Republican candidate for President put into effect as governor of Mass. FURTHERMORE it is the kind of plans that Republicans suggested...Only NOW, that the black guy actually did it, it is "slavery." Ironic, that word, dontcha think?
Ma'am, we actually have a lot in common as far as our interests. Your movie list and mine have a significant overlap. I, too, an very much into airplanes. I am not wealthy enough to fly real planes but I do have a scratch build simulator running Microsoft Flight Simulator 2004 equipped with a good $600 worth of Saitek modules for user interface. But it seems our worldviews diverge somewhat.
Counselor, to the best of my knowledge the Dutchman has never advocated "tearing the government down". Aside from some rather mild acts of civil disobedience - throwing bricks through Democrat Party offices - to the best of my knowledge he has never advocated offensive action of any sort. If you look at "The Doctrine of the Three Percent" in the right hand sidebar of Mike's Sipsey Street Irregulars Blog - http://sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com/ - you will see clearly that does not advocate offensive operations against the Government. What he DOES say is
"We will not disarm.
You cannot convince us.
You cannot intimidate us.
You can try to kill us, if you think you can.
But remember, we’ll shoot back ."
I would never take up arms against the Republic to which I gave a decade of my life and for which my son sacrificed his health. However. Anyone who directly threatens me or mine instantly converts to a target. Period! It matters not what clothes they are wearing or how those clothes are accessorized. If someone or something demonstrates a present intent to harm myself or my family they instantly become a target. And we know what targets are good for. But I say that not out of animus for any one or the government. I believe it to be my duty before Creator God.
The Christian Bible says explicitly that a man who does not provide for his own family has denied the Faith and is WORSE than an infidel. I believe that providing for one's family means more than providing financially. I am utterly convinced that it includes protecting and defending one's own family from anyone who threatens hearth and home, kith and kin. As firstborn and eldest son, I believe I was detailed by Creator God to protect my folks in their old age as well as my younger siblings. When I elected to become first a husband and then a father, I accepted the duty of protecting my family. And that protection is against ANY enemy.
I consider the decision Thursday to be yet another milestone on the path towards a gray, Soviet-style, statist/socialist future. I expect that somewhere along the way the government will take some action that offends enough people to trigger an insurrection. It may be in en-FORCE-ing the healthcare mandate. It may come when the powers that be decide that - the Second Amendment not withstanding - they can no longer continue to allow private ownership and possession of firearms. I do not know precisely WHEN it will happen but I believe that it WILL happen.
Note to Nangleator: Do you truly advocate government mandates for EVERYTHING some politician or bureaucrat believes that you "should have, anyway"? Think about your answer carefully. Do you truly advocate the government treat us out here in "flyover country" as children; to be looked after by our wise, kindly, benevolent "Uncle Sam"? Really?
BadCyborg, with all due respect, get a grip. If you think that the choices are either a Soviet-style society or insurrection, then I fear that you are a little adrift of your moorings.
See, we have in this country a thing called "elections". If you don't like the way the country is being run, then persuade other people of the correctness of your views. Elect politicians who share your views. Hold them accountable.
If that is too much, then emigrate to a place more to your liking, as Mitt Romney's great-grandparents did.
We'll see, "comrade", won't we? BTW, I hope I'm wrong. Would LOVE to be, in point of fact. I'f I'm wrong then that almost 2 year old grandson of mine that I've been babysitting since he was 5 weeks old and that 4 month old great-granddaughter I'm driving 800 miles to hold in 3 weeks get to grow up in a world of 21st Century technology.
But what if I'm NOT wrong? Answer me that? Does your worldview completely prevent you from considering the possibility that the government will do something to spark a rebellion? Speaking of "possibility" as opposed to "probability", do you even consider an insurrection, sparked by an (to many folks) accelerating slide towards socialism/collectivism/statism and away from individual liberty to be a possibility? Can you even conceive of a scenario where we the people might consider it necessary to defend ourselves from an overweening state? Or do you consider any action taken by our government to be right, proper, justified and/or lawful? In your worldview, CAN our government do something which might justify armed rebellion?
Oh, and you never did reply to my main point, which was that Mike Vanderboegh is not advocating "tearing the government down". Do you still maintain that he is?
Once again, you silly people think this is about parties and elections. It's not. It's about principle irrespective of party. I didn't lose an election. I don't belong to the GOP. I despised Dubya for his attacks on the Constitution as much as I despise Obama (and his predecessor Clinton) for his. Proud to say I've been on the enemies lists of the past three White Houses. Insofar as a Fourth Generation Warfare insurgency vs. the Obamanoid-run FedGov, we'll win hands down. (Since you probably have no idea what that is, I suggest you look it up. We've been studying the concept for the past twenty years.)
"Lots of people swore an oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and we mean to uphold our word." Ah, well, that's the thing, isn't it? Your interpretation of the Constitution and ours as well as who we consider "enemies foreign and domestic" are two different worldviews, aren't they. Ours conforms more perfectly with history and the Republic of the Founders. Yours conforms with your "democracy" prejudices. You think that by merely naming us as "enemies" that we can be defeated by an administration that thinks it commands the military? Who do you suppose makes up the tip-of-the-spear outfits of the military? Why it is the sons and daughters of us, the traditional Americans, who raise our children to service and sacrifice. How do you suppose they'll react to unlawful, unconstitutional orders to go shoot Grandpa or Uncle Mike?
Unlike you, we are not trying to force you to do anything. For our part, we just want to be left alone. But collectivists can't do that because, well, they're collectivists and they are compelled to force people into their belief system, or else. Gun control, "health care" -- same, same. You think because you won an election and held control over WH, Senate and House for two years and then were able to coerce one Supreme Court Chief Justice that it gives you right to force us to violate our deepest held principles? You don't know much about people other than your own, do you?
Remember that people who are willing to die for their principles are most often willing to kill in righteous self-defense of them as well. You may not like it. You may not agree with it. But bleating that we all need to "get a grip" merely reflects your inability to understand our reality. It does not negate it. We, on the other hand, understand the violence inherent in your Leviathan -- Waco, Ruby Ridge, Fast and Furious -- and we are willing to take the risk. We are also willing to make the trade: our lives, and those of Leviathan's minions, for liberty and victory. Let's just not go there.
Vanderboegh
I maintain that he, and you, are talking about just that. You're the ones talking about violent rebellion because you haven't gotten your way.
What I love is that your "worldview", a word that both of you guys seem to have fallen in love with, would seem to be disassociated from any understanding of what it takes to have a successful armed insurrection. Do you really think that a few thousand cranks with guns will do anything, for 99.9% of the people who are running their mouths about "Second Amendment solutions" will fail to show up when you call them for your little armed tea party.
Go ahead, engage in your little fantasies about armed rebellion and standing up to the government with your M-1As and your AR-15s. They'll stand you in good stead when an AGM-175 drops out of the skies onto your position.
Go ahead with your fantasy world of an armed rebellion against the Federal government. You have no sanctuaries beyond the reach of the Feds in a war, for neither the Canadians nor the Mexicans will have any truck with you. You have no source of long-term supply, no foreign patrons.
George Washington's Continental Army had the French government and the French Navy backing him. Cornwallis would not have had to surrender at Yorktown if de Grasse and the French fleet had not forestalled the Royal Navy from lifting the siege. Conversely, Bobby Lee had no support from a foreign power, no reliable means of supply and no secure rear area (a point driven home by William Sherman's mighty host).
Go ahead, start your little rebellion. I've heard this kind of talk from you guys (and the white supremacists) for decades, now, and all I ever see whenever some crank tries to do something, he ends up spending the rest of his life in a prison somewhere, if he doesn't get shot to pieces by a deputy sheriff.
I'm with Comrade. We may not agree on the details and what is the best but:
I'm not a fan of the mandate but I see it as not any different from requiring
auto insurance. The insurance is not to protect you though it will, it's to protect you from the other guy. If you have a family or support others than
providing for their medical care is a personal responsibility to do so. The
problem is medicine and medical care has gotten completely out of the reach of
those unemployed and the under employed. Morally we cannot card every sick
person at the door and say no card, no care, that's not how this country ever
worked. By the same token we who are working are paying more and more of that
pay check to fund insurance directly or indirectly. So the rules have been
no free rides for those that can and support for those that can't. We aren't
talking the smaller numbers of people that make a bigger effort to scam the
system than work. Don't forget the unfunded users only make it more expensive
for the funded ones (directly or by proxy though increasingly expensive
insurance) in the end we pay as tax or increased cost it's all the same and
we have less choice in the case of rising prices due to unfunded users leading
to increased cost.
I'm not saying that that is the right way to fix it but it's one way that may need further work to be right. It beats doing nothing and denying the problem.
IF your not happy then set about fixing the problems, first understand them.
IF your not happy with the current crop of elected idiots, you have the option to run for the positions, any and all! If you qualify.
In the end I'll keep the rifle for defense. Those that advocate violence are
the problem and not the solution.
For those that think there is a possible rebellion, forget it. There is one
word you need to learn, LOGISTICS! This country has won many wars internal
and external because it could out supply and sustain supplies until the other
side broke. In the end a rebellion is at best symbolic, and likely fatal.
There are better ways but those take effort, perseverance and singular personal
risk to pursue.
Eck!
"Go ahead, start your little rebellion. I've heard this kind of talk from you guys (and the white supremacists) for decades,"
Oh, here we go again. Dismissiveness and a bonus KKK-association smear job.
Think what you want, and we'll think what we want. An opinion is not the same as an action.
Thanks for playing.
Do you deny, Peter, that the same sort of rhetoric has been offered up by various white supremacist groups for decades? So why should I not make that comment? For the sake of discussion, I said "from each according to his means, to each according to his needs", I doubt not at all that it would take all of a femtosecond for the screams to start "we knew that she's a Communist!!!1!"
When people talk about amassing weaponry, killing those that they disagree with (how else do you interpret comments about "killing for their beliefs"), 4th generation guerrilla warfare and all the rest, you tell me: Are they just a bunch of armchair commandos running their mouths? For that it what it sounds like to me.
The plain reality about guerrilla warfare and terrorism in general is that without significant outside aid, it fails. Terrorism in particular (that's what the "4th generation" nonsense really is) is a tactic doomed to failure. Al Qaeda did not break this country, the Brits or the Spaniards, the Sunnis engaging in it did not break Iraq and Hezbollah has not broken the Israelis.
The plain fact of history is that engaging in terrorism does not break the other side, it hardens their resolve and pushes them even more to the opposite point of view.
So when the Right babbles on about "second Amendment solutions" and "we'll resort to the cartridge box" and the rest, they are only illuminating the fact that they are living in Ya-Ya Land.
Me thinks some people listen a bit too much to Misters Limbaugh, Hannity, and Levin. Try tuning in some music sometimes.
It'd be funny if it wasn't so ironic.
Priceless!
Eck!
You may find my reply to this statement at here: http://diogenesfreeholder.wordpress.com/2012/07/02/in-reply/
EBM, the plain and simple fact is that these right-wing cranks whining about 'tyranny' and shit like that share one trait in common: They hate democracy. The fact that 75% of Americans want universal healthcare, the fact that this health care plan was surveyed to death over and over again and every single survey shows that a supermajority of Americans (over 2/3rds) supports every piece of it other than the mandate (which alas is necessary to pay for it since there is unfortunately no free lunch) doesn't matter to these right-wing cranks, they simply whine about the "tyranny of the majority" at that point. Which makes clear their true colors: They are, at heart, wanna-be petty tyrants who want to impose their world view at gunpoint upon the majority while donning the cloak of Patrick Henry, a man who hated petty tyrants with a passion and who would have spit on these people if he'd ever met them.
The funny thing is that they are so delusional they don't even recognize that hating democracy makes them outside the mainstream of America, indeed, makes them an enemy of America, because America is a nation which has traditionally had no tolerance for tyranny (at least domestically). They are utterly incapable of the meagre amount of self reflection needed to understand that imposing their minority viewpoint upon the majority at gunpoint is un-American and would be an act of tyranny.
So it goes. It isn't as if they'll ever get far with their exercise in imposing their minority views upon the majority at gunpoint. As I mentioned, America has long had little tolerance for petty tyrants of any sort, and that sort swiftly gets narced on and neutralized if they ever attempt to act upon their loud talk of armed insurrection against the will of the majority.
- Badtux the Democracy-lovin' Penguin
Someone named Obvious Moniker posted a reply which, for some reason, is not showing up here, although it is in my comments list. In short, he said that his response could be found here.
(Unfortunately, his blog requires a WordPress account for a reply.)
As for the tyranny of paying a penny more in taxes so that poor, brown people can ALSO get the same care...
You are already paying for them. Paying more, as has been said above, because ER care is the most wasteful of spending. And you've been paying the bill all along. You had no choice in that, if you wanted healthcare in the United States. It wasn't optional.
This was the problem the ACA was written to solve, for fuck's sake.
So, given the choice of paying more money for a worse outcome, or less money for a better outcome, which would you choose? Well, the rest of us just made the obvious choice for you. You call it tyranny. We call it democracy.
I was mistaken. The ACA wasn't written to solve the problem of paying for other people's healthcare... we have no choice in that. We either pay at ER costs, or we fund a government program at a much lower rate.
The ACA was designed so we just pay the lowest rate.
No clue as to exactly why WP and Blogspot aren't getting along very well or why my comment doesn't appear for you while it appears for me. Odd.
Regardless, I'll point out that the blog in question is Dio's blog, I'm merely a guest poster. I created a WP account so I could reply to some of the bloggers I read when they don't accept anonymous or name/URL comments and really had no intention of ever really blogging on my own.
They are always forgetting that the 2nd applies to the left just as well. Land of the majority boyos ! I would not have it any other way. Of course here in Florida majority sometimes does not rule.
I listen to all, left and right. Else how can one decide what is truth ?
Wut happened with Rule #2 here ?
Seems that a few snuck under the wire LOL
OM, I don't understand why it isn't showing up for me. I've looked with Firefox, Internet Exploder, Opera and Chrome and none of them show it.
I didn't want you (and your readers) to think that I deleted your comment. I do appreciate our posting it on Dio's blog, as it was a bit long for a comment.
Spud, maybe so. I've let them stand, though, because they are kind of proving my point for me.
the Right is so properly trained in their belief system. there is no alternative for them in this beleif system. that's the simple truth.
so many things are incompatible to their belief system. some think guns would/will change things, make things "Right." funny how that works out.
funny how the Right likes scamming by the Health system we have now. paying more for less, come to an ER room and see the " reality" of outrageous costs and wasting money. i would have thought the Right would be for Medicare for All as it would save us all tons of money. but no, apparently feeding the Rich Insurance and Drug companies is their wish. the idea of saving money is what appeals about Medicare for All/Single Payer, rather than for "bureaucrats in Private Business and their Death Panels" from the Rich INsurance and Drug companies.
yes there is a lot of misperceptions about the real world. with all the BS from Fox/Business, INc., to keep the Gravy train going as it is, i don't expect the "reality" of saving money to register, or be allowed in our consciousness, with these well fed blind goldfish trained behavioral responses. Pavlov's dog is what Americans have become, which does upset their pride. thinking themselves better than trained rats/dogs is part of the "fight" all of us are party to.
in the meantime, does anyone think their "group" of American Constitutionalists can survive the force of the State or Federal Government/the DEA/FBI and State Police would wipe their ashes out in no time
this idea of somehow taking on the US ARMY/Forces is always good for a laugh at how naive these "patriots" are.
voting for Fascism got us in this state, it may be too late for saving America anyway. at least politically. screwed thanks to the Military/Congressional Complex. Eisenhower warned us. but Business won out.
EBM, these gun-stroking reich-wingers will never shoot anyone, unless it's people in their own family when they freak out in a murdeRage. It makes them FEEL strong, to write about killing people online and blather to selected fellonuts about how great that would be. But they don't have the courage to actually carry out their sick desires.
What they WILL do is cheer when American government forces start mowing down other American citizens (as long as it's dirty stinking hippies being killed.) They are supporters of authoritarianism, not committers of it. There have always been a Silent Majority of USAcos who like the idea of murdering dissidents, as long as they don't have to get their hands dirty. Next time you're debating one of these people -- good onya for that, but I don't have enough hours in my life to waste with that -- ask them how they'd feel if a bunch of Occupy protestors got machine-gunned by police for blocking traffic by a sit-in at a major intersection. They'd LOVE it! As long as they didn't have to clean up the blood or listen to the screams themselves. Bloodlust at a distance is their thing.
Post a Comment