Gay Patriot Header Image

How come whenever there’s a problem, the Democrats’ solution is to raise taxes and increase spending?

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 1:26 am - May 13, 2010.
Filed under: Big Government Follies,Health & medical

Michelle Obama’s obesity report: Tax pop and candy, subsidize fruits and veggies.

Now, I certainly salute the First Lady for her commitment to combating child obesity, but why can’t she manage to come up with a solution that doesn’t involving taxing one product and subsidizing another?

It seems that those on the left identify problems in order to come up with government solutions.

Share

88 Comments

  1. It’s called screwing over the dumbasses who voted for them while making them believe that the liberals actually give a damn about them.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — May 13, 2010 @ 2:40 am - May 13, 2010

  2. they can solve childhood obesity but cannot stop terrorists from entering our country, shut off an oil leak, fix the economy, end crime, eliminate poverty, end drug abuse….yeah, sure, why not add it to the list?

    Comment by AZ Mo — May 13, 2010 @ 3:22 am - May 13, 2010

  3. Now, I certainly salute the First Lady for her commitment to combating child obesity…

    I don’t. The federal government has absolutely no business whatsoever trying to combat child obesity, and she is insisting they should. Indeed, no level of government, and none of us has any business trying to tell other people what to eat or what to feed their children.

    Butt OUT!

    Comment by American Elephant — May 13, 2010 @ 3:23 am - May 13, 2010

  4. Why are taxes and spending always the Democrats’ answers to everything?

    It’s in their DNA.

    Comment by Classical Liberal Dave — May 13, 2010 @ 5:24 am - May 13, 2010

  5. When the only tool you know is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.

    Comment by V the K — May 13, 2010 @ 6:59 am - May 13, 2010

  6. Children are obese as much because they sit in front of TV’s playing video games the vast majority of the day-maybe they should tax video games too.

    Comment by just me — May 13, 2010 @ 7:19 am - May 13, 2010

  7. I favor having the schools send the little fatties off for state liposuction and billing the parents for the process, plus imputing a 200% tax on money saved to keep them slim. Naturally, certain groups would receive tax assistance for being made fat by Cheney and Halliburton.

    Let’s get some hip and thigh measurements on the Obama women so we have a national benchmark to work from.

    Comment by heliotrope — May 13, 2010 @ 7:47 am - May 13, 2010

  8. The Federal government was not created to get into the food business.

    The Federal government was not created to get into the nutrition business.

    We do not need another tax or regulation. Not now. Not ever.

    We need to cut taxes and reduce government.

    MEchelle Obama doesn’t give a damn about nutrition, this is another way to generate revenue for the State while getting the government to control the food service industry. Once the government gets more control of the food service industry, SEIU steps in, unionizes the workers, and a percentage of every paycheck automatically goes to Liberal Progressives.

    Comment by Black Sabbath — May 13, 2010 @ 8:58 am - May 13, 2010

  9. V the K its a little more than just hammer/nail. When your mission in life is to control everyone else’s life you will seek to hammer the nails with the regulations, taxes, rules, fees, etc… you can. You the individual CANNOT be allowed to make decisions for yourself. There are no consequences to anything in life (except for the consequence of failure to follow THEIR rules).

    Comment by Delusional Bill — May 13, 2010 @ 9:19 am - May 13, 2010

  10. It seems that those on the left identify problems in order to come up with government solutions.

    The fascist impulse.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 13, 2010 @ 9:26 am - May 13, 2010

  11. When I was raising my 3 children (now all in college–one wants to be a doctor,) I worried about “stranger danger.” Because my husband was active duty military at the time, we moved around. Once when we lived in Florida, a registered sex offender lived two streets away. Throughout my children’s childhood, I always monitored them at their activities. I think if you want to reduce childhood obesity without more taxes, give parents peace of mind about allowing their children to run and play. Thus, fast track the building of more prisons–this solution gives construction jobs and guard jobs afterward–help the economy!

    Comment by Louise B — May 13, 2010 @ 9:27 am - May 13, 2010

  12. Let’s see–raising taxes and increasing spending in AZ to enforce unjust and unenforceable laws is OK….?

    Increasing taxes so that everyone has access to health care–BAD.

    Increasing taxes to deport brown people–GOOD.

    Comment by Ashpenaz — May 13, 2010 @ 9:27 am - May 13, 2010

  13. When the only tool you know is a hammer,

    and a sickle.

    Increasing taxes so that everyone has access to health care–BAD.

    Increasing taxes to deport brown people–GOOD.

    Let me simplify this for you:

    Government getting involved in something which dosen’t fall under their Constitutional duties: BAD

    Enforcing the laws, protecting Americans and carrying out their Constitutional duties: GOOD

    Lying to people and instilling fear: BAD AND ASININE.

    Long story short, ASS, you’re lying about the AZ law and nobody’s buying it. Your position is bullshit and you damn well KNOW it. There’s no sense in continuing your pissing and moaning here.

    Perhaps the hate filled racist Commies at La Raza would love to hear from you.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — May 13, 2010 @ 10:50 am - May 13, 2010

  14. Increasing taxes so that everyone has access to health care–BAD.

    Yes it is.

    Because, Ashpenaz, everyone has access to health care; unfortunately, you and your fellow Obama Party liberals don’t want to pay for it.

    Because you are lazy and fat, you are stealing from families with children instead of going out and working to pay for it yourself. Because you don’t want to work, you are trying to use the power of the government to steal from others.

    How much did you pay for your health insurance last year, Ashpenaz? How much did you take out of your pocket to pay for other peoples’ health insurance?

    And if you can’t or won’t answer that question, you have no business trying to steal it from others.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 13, 2010 @ 11:20 am - May 13, 2010

  15. On a similar note, the Santa Clara County Board of Stupidvisors voted to ban certain fast food restaurants in our county from giving toys away with some of their higher calorie meals. Ken Yeager is a typical progressive nightmare who “represents” my area. I emailed him my dislike for this ban and he replied that we need to “protect our children from big companies who prey on the kids by purposely trying to tempt them toward high calorie foods”. And so the progressive “bad” food ban begins in our state.

    Comment by Annie — May 13, 2010 @ 11:29 am - May 13, 2010

  16. Government has 3 legitimate functions: police, courts and military. And they are only legitimate when exercised in an impartial and limited fashion to protect the life, liberty and property of American citizens. But, assuming they are legitimate, then so are the taxes needed to pay for them.

    Those legitimate functions include securing America’s borders from influxes of criminals. In the case of AZ, the Federal government has been derelict in its duty, forcing AZ to deal with an influx of drug dealers, rapists and other criminals, i.e. to secure its own border.

    Unfortunately for Ash, the legitimate functions of government do NOT include redistributing wealth – not for Ash’s benefit, nor GM’s, Goldman-Sachs’, mine, or anyone else’s. Redistributive taxation is not a legitimate function of government – period. It is morally equivalent to theft.

    I think someone needs to remember Exodus 20:15 and Matthew 19:19. (Not to mention Exodus 21:16, remembering that all measures which exploit others by force are the moral equivalent of kidnapping.)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 13, 2010 @ 11:44 am - May 13, 2010

  17. Ken Yeager

    Dated him some years back; wasn’t impressed.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 13, 2010 @ 12:02 pm - May 13, 2010

  18. I emailed him my dislike for this ban and he replied that we need to “protect our children from big companies who prey on the kids by purposely trying to tempt them toward high calorie foods”.

    My response to that: “If you are not capable of doing something even as basic as that for your children, hand them over to Social Services right now and let someone who actually knows how to parent do the job.”

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 13, 2010 @ 1:44 pm - May 13, 2010

  19. Why can’t the government leave those offshore drillers alone?

    Why can’t the government leave those mining companies alone?

    Why can’t the government leave Toyota alone?

    Why can’t the government leave those meatpacking companies alone?

    Why do we need highways, schools, national parks, food inspection, minimum wage, child labor laws, anti-slavery laws, gay marriage, anti-discrimination laws anyway? If we just leave business to itself, it will take care of all those things in a fair and just manner!

    “Government has 3 legitimate functions: police, courts and military.”

    Comment by Ashpenaz — May 13, 2010 @ 2:06 pm - May 13, 2010

  20. I’m with you, NDT. If we can’t tell our kids “No, you can’t have a high fat Kiddie Meal for the 5th time this week even though the big evil corporate CEOs are preying on you” then we’ve got bigger issues to deal with!

    ILC, too bad Mr. Yeager didn’t pick up your common sense while you were dating!

    Comment by Annie — May 13, 2010 @ 2:14 pm - May 13, 2010

  21. Hey Ashpenaz, I have a question for you.

    Why did you give all other countries but USA a free pass on immigration laws?

    Comment by The Wasp — May 13, 2010 @ 2:15 pm - May 13, 2010

  22. #20 Annie – Well it was only 2 dates. Heh.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 13, 2010 @ 2:38 pm - May 13, 2010

  23. Why do we need [government not only attempting to provide, but even worse, GOVERNMENT MONOPOLIES on] highways, schools, national parks, food inspection, minimum wage, child labor laws, anti-slavery laws, gay marriage, anti-discrimination laws anyway? … business… [could] take care of all those things in a fair and just manner!

    With the slight corrections I interpolated, the whole statement is now quite correct. Thank you, Ash, for FINALLY starting to catch on.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 13, 2010 @ 2:43 pm - May 13, 2010

  24. Well, getting rid of those pesky child labor laws will solve the child obesity problem!

    Comment by Ashpenaz — May 13, 2010 @ 3:05 pm - May 13, 2010

  25. P.S. on giving other countries a free pass on immigration–Remember the Alamo? Why not look up what the Alamo was all about?

    Our country wouldn’t be here if the Iroquois hadn’t had open borders.

    Comment by Ashpenaz — May 13, 2010 @ 3:07 pm - May 13, 2010

  26. Our country wouldn’t be here if the Iroquois hadn’t had open borders.

    So, basically, you are advocating open borders and foreign conquest… as happened to the Iroquois?

    Comment by V the K — May 13, 2010 @ 4:22 pm - May 13, 2010

  27. V, he is – but would never admit it.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 13, 2010 @ 4:25 pm - May 13, 2010

  28. Our country wouldn’t be here if the Iroquois hadn’t had open borders.

    Yeah, and look what those open borders got them! They were overrun by foreign invaders, their lands were stolen, they were killed in their homes, their children were expected to learn the language of their invaders and their entire culture and way of life was basically destroyed. Sounds kind of like what is going on in this country today, only today the invaders aren’t European whites, it’s South American, Central American & Mexican illegal immigrants.

    Comment by Kristie — May 13, 2010 @ 4:27 pm - May 13, 2010

  29. And in point of fact, the Iroquois actually didn’t have open borders.

    Claiming that they did, is just more Ashpenaz ignorance – he imagines it’s clever, but of course most of know it isn’t.

    Another example of Ashpenaz ignorance is his attempted crack about child labor. People who know something about capitalism – that is, people who are not ignorant – know that it is what made the abolishment of child labor possible; in fact, child labor was probably abolished 90% or more in the United States, by businessmen, before the first pretentious, bloviating, “progressive” fascist ever thought of passing a law against it.

    Likewise, capitalism is the system that made possible the abolishment of human slavery. No system in all of world history has done so much good.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 13, 2010 @ 4:32 pm - May 13, 2010

  30. Sorry, typo, “but of course most of -the readers here- know it isn’t.”

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 13, 2010 @ 4:33 pm - May 13, 2010

  31. And this was supposed to be the link: http://rfester.tripod.com/iroq.html

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 13, 2010 @ 4:34 pm - May 13, 2010

  32. Ash,

    Your argument is so deeply illogical, it’s ridiculous: “Government has some legitimate functions, therefore EVERYTHING anyone tries to do through government is good”

    Please! I think you’re smart enough to know better than that. Aren’t you? Or perhaps you aren’t. Maybe that’s what makes you a Democrat.

    Comment by American Elephant — May 13, 2010 @ 5:39 pm - May 13, 2010

  33. P.S. on giving other countries a free pass on immigration–Remember the Alamo? Why not look up what the Alamo was all about?

    Obviously you have no fcking clue wat that was about.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — May 13, 2010 @ 6:18 pm - May 13, 2010

  34. So, you know about the Iroquois Wars but not the Mexican War? Interesting historical blind spots. Please explain to me your understanding of the Alamo–since it couldn’t have been about illegal American immigrants on Mexican soil.

    I believe that the Iroquois Federation was used as a model for the United States, as well as our Constitution. They were actually rather helpful to our Founding Fathers.

    Comment by Ashpenaz — May 13, 2010 @ 6:43 pm - May 13, 2010

  35. It wasn’t. It was about allowing Americans to settle in Coahuila y Tejas to do work the Mexican government couldn’t do, fight the indians.

    How do you have “illegal American immigrants” when you allow them to settle the land?

    As I said, no fcking clue.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — May 13, 2010 @ 6:52 pm - May 13, 2010

  36. OH!!! You’re talking about the Mexican-American War, which came AFTER the Alamo and Texas Independence, slick. No, that had nothing to do with eeeeevil whitey as “illegal immigrants”. That was Mexico, once again, reneging on their agreements.

    No matter what your asshole history teacher taught you, we won Texas fair and square. I highly recommend you go back and kick that teacher in the balls and demand a refund for your ingrained stupidity.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — May 13, 2010 @ 11:01 pm - May 13, 2010

  37. “It was about allowing Mexicans to do work the American citizens wouldn’t do, such as meatpacking and picking lettuce. How do you have ‘illegal Mexican immigrants’ when you allow them to settle the land?”

    Did we win California, Utah, New Mexico, and Arizona “fair and square?” No fair using The Turner Diaries as your source.

    Comment by Ashpenaz — May 13, 2010 @ 11:32 pm - May 13, 2010

  38. Well besides the $10M Gadsden Purchase and the fact Mexico ceded (on several occasions) vast parts of CA, NM and AZ in exchange for an end to hostilities (which they provoked or initiated)…they were also given $15M and forgiven $5M in national debt for these territories. Some small areas were purchased from the French in conjunction with the Louisiana Purchase. Thus TX stands alone in that they seceded from Mexico as a separate republic before this particular set of hostilities.
    So, in short, we either won in war, had ceded to us in exchange for cash and other consideration or purchased outright these territories to which you refer.

    Comment by rodney — May 14, 2010 @ 1:53 am - May 14, 2010

  39. Better quit while you’re sooo far behind, ASS.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — May 14, 2010 @ 5:52 am - May 14, 2010

  40. And all of this justifies Democrats infantilizing the American people to the point that they want government making dietary decisions for them — how again exactly???

    Ash, really. Why are Democrat voters so irresponsible, so incompetent, so infantile that they need government to not only ensure a safe food supply, but to tell them what foods to eat?

    How much longer will Democrats be able to go to the bathroom without mommy government there to wipe their bottoms? I give the lot of you 2 years, tops. You’re all already sucking at the government tit — government might as well put you in diapers too!

    Comment by American Elephant — May 14, 2010 @ 6:12 am - May 14, 2010

  41. Long story short, re: Tex-Rev -

    Mexico allowed Americans to settle in Coahuila y Tejas to fight the indians, which the Mexican government was unwilling/unable to do. The government made all sorts of promises to attract them. Then the government welched on their promises, moved the capital 500 miles away and started dictating what crops they could grow and who they could sell to.

    One thing that’s ignored or glossed over is that the Mexican people were pissed at their government because they wanted federalism instead of a central government.

    The Texians made a stand and said “Enough”. They fought Santa Ana at Misión San Antonio de Valero and lost. Eventually they defeated him at San Jacinto and won their independence.

    A few years later, Mexico tried to welch on THAT deal and brought about the Mexican-American war and that’s another story.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — May 14, 2010 @ 6:12 am - May 14, 2010

  42. TGC,

    So when the national government of Mexico abrogated their obligations to the people of Texas, the People of Texas took it on themselves to honour the obligations themselves?

    Wow, that sounds familiar…

    Comment by The_Livewire — May 14, 2010 @ 6:44 am - May 14, 2010

  43. Ashpenaz has trouble with “history.” Henry Ford screwed the buggy whip industry big time. Edwin Drake (Titusville Oil) screwed the whale oil industry big time. The Maori bumped into New Zealand as set about populating it until they signed the Treaty of Waitangi and took the hatchets and blankets and gave up the islands they found unihabited. The “Mexicans” were hardly the indigenous population of Aztec-land. They came much later and as in all of history, the stronger force took power. Then, they met a stronger force and …. as they say …. the rest is history.

    How many Iroquois mentors are still around to guide us? I guess the warring Indian tribes just treated them like Switzerland until the bad white man came and chopped them up like so much kindling. Oh, yeah, I know the great liberal fairy tales of how the Iroquois were the founding fathers behind the Articles of Confederation and all that tommy rot. (The Iroquois Archives are so massive. Especially considering they had no written language. But you can piece their glorious history together from bark and a bits of hide. The beads were provided by the French.)

    Hey, Ashpenaz, look what the “allies” did to the Germans for just trying to get their people and lands back together and pushing the gypsies and the Jews and the blacks and the gays and the gene pool corruption out!!! Now there is a government. Reclaim what is “rightfully” yours and clean up the mess.

    Viva! Aztecia! Except, I think they didn’t play well with others, either.

    Ashpenaz, sometime you must tell us how you would clear up all the tribal crap in Africa.

    Comment by heliotrope — May 14, 2010 @ 9:33 am - May 14, 2010

  44. Ashpenaz has trouble with “history.”

    His ideas are a discombobulated hash, and he “shares” of them to provoke, i.e. for attention.

    Up next: Something anti-Obama, to bait readers for the next round, notwithstanding that Obama is probably his dream President in secret, because his opinions on most subjects effectively support Obama.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 14, 2010 @ 10:20 am - May 14, 2010

  45. All the land where we are currently having trouble with immigration used to be part of Mexico.

    Americans, including Mormons (Glenn Beck), went into that land as undocumented immigrants.

    We invaded that part of Mexico and stole the land under false pretenses.

    Now, we are suffering the consequences for that “undeclared” war.

    I hope that simplifies things for you. If not, I will try to put together a puppet show.

    Comment by Ashpenaz — May 14, 2010 @ 12:30 pm - May 14, 2010

  46. YOU ASK:

    “How come whenever there’s a problem, the Democrats’ solution is to raise taxes and increase spending? ”

    ANSWER:

    Why does the dumb bee sting? It’s what they do.

    Comment by Sonicfrog — May 14, 2010 @ 1:26 pm - May 14, 2010

  47. #45: The land was ceded by Mexico under treaty and they were paid for it. Do a little research before spouting cliches.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican-American_War

    At least you are conceding that the Reconqista is real.

    Ash: why do you think it just that a corrupt oligarchy in Mexico is allowed to export its noble, if problematic, brown people to the US? Or do you just think that the wealthy in this country should be allowed an endless supply of cheap nannies and gardeners? Or do you dislike black youth and desire to permanently exclude them from the entry level jobs that kids used to take in order to enter the workforce?

    If you’re going to constantly play the race card…

    Comment by SoCalRobert — May 14, 2010 @ 2:29 pm - May 14, 2010

  48. I hope that simplifies things for you. If not, I will try to put together a puppet show.

    Seriously. Go back to your school and kick your teacher for your stupidity.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — May 14, 2010 @ 4:53 pm - May 14, 2010

  49. To say the Mexicans ceded the land under a treaty is like saying you freely gave your lunch money to a bully after he kicked you into submission.

    Comment by Ashpenaz — May 14, 2010 @ 5:14 pm - May 14, 2010

  50. To say the Mexicans ceded the land under a treaty is like saying you freely gave your lunch money to a bully after he kicked you into submission.

    Yeah – and we bullied Germany, Japan, and Italy after WW-II.

    Are you saying that Mexico wasn’t competent to enter into a treaty? Why’s that?

    Oh, never mind. This is pointless.

    Comment by SoCalRobert — May 14, 2010 @ 6:14 pm - May 14, 2010

  51. To say the Mexicans ceded the land under a treaty is like saying you freely gave your lunch tax money to a bully Ashpenaz’s medical insurance after he kicked you into submission got the government to steal it from you, then publicly gloated about it.

    Not that I agree with the central premise there on Mexico – I don’t – but I thought the interpolations would be interesting to try out. You know… highlighting hypocrisy and all that.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 14, 2010 @ 7:28 pm - May 14, 2010

  52. No, the health insurance thing is like everyone at the table pooling their lunch money so everyone can have the same amount of food.

    Comment by Ashpenaz — May 14, 2010 @ 8:31 pm - May 14, 2010

  53. Against their will, whether they like it or not. Very Democratic, Ash.

    Comment by The_Livewire — May 14, 2010 @ 9:19 pm - May 14, 2010

  54. No, because the group at the table has a written constitution which asks them all to participate in the common welfare, and the majority of people at the table have voted that food needs to be distributed equally to everyone as part of the common welfare. If you don’t like the constitution at that table, find another table where you don’t have to worry about anyone’s welfare but your own.

    Comment by Ashpenaz — May 14, 2010 @ 9:31 pm - May 14, 2010

  55. No, the health insurance thing is like everyone at the table pooling their lunch money so everyone can have the same amount of food.

    … at gunpoint, gun held by fat and lazy bully who contributes nothing.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 14, 2010 @ 9:33 pm - May 14, 2010

  56. the group at the table has a written constitution which asks them all to participate in the common welfare

    … which the bully violated by holding up the others at gunpoint.

    You can’t put lipstick on a pig, Ash. I mean, keep trying, but why should you expect us to go along? Your ideas are discombulated and ignorant, your politics a direct violation of Christianity.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 14, 2010 @ 9:35 pm - May 14, 2010

  57. (sorry, “discombobulated”)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 14, 2010 @ 9:36 pm - May 14, 2010

  58. It’s so ironic, Her Rumpiness leading the fight against child obesity. She needs to look in a mirror and realize her butt is the size of a bus.

    Comment by John in Dublin CA — May 14, 2010 @ 10:42 pm - May 14, 2010

  59. Everybody at the table had an equal vote, and those who wanted to distribute the food equally won.

    Comment by Ashpenaz — May 14, 2010 @ 11:32 pm - May 14, 2010

  60. We have illegal immigration because big business wants the cheap labor. That’s why the federal government is not and has not done anything about it. People would not risk their lives to get into a country where there were no jobs for them once they got here. Building a fence would help, but a lot of people are here illegal by overstaying tourist ans student visas, not by crossing illegally. Stop the exploitation of illegal labor, and most of the illegals would stop coming.

    Comment by Houndentenor — May 15, 2010 @ 6:18 am - May 15, 2010

  61. Ashpenaz proclaims:

    To say the Mexicans ceded the land under a treaty is like saying you freely gave your lunch money to a bully after he kicked you into submission.

    Reality check for Ashpenaz: The United States acted in its own self interest. The Mexican government acted in its own self interest. The fickle finger or history wrote that chapter and moved on.

    You, for some inane reason, want to reopen the issue and settle the score according to your point of view. As a typical liberal whiner, you side with the Mexicans (but not the Aztecs.) I suppose you carry a flame for the Seminoles and the Cherokees and the Eskimos and the free roaming buffalo and the virgin forests of yore as well.

    Where are the Mexican borders you propose? And how come the American Indians don’t get a prior claim over the polyglot Mexicans in your little playlet? And how about the no borders Indians who lived on both sides of the Rio Grande: do you have reparation plans for them? And how about the riparian rights to the water?

    You really should chair a “human rights” commission in Africa or China or Malaysia or Indonesia or Sri Lanka or Iran. But, then, the living there is not so easy.

    Comment by heliotrope — May 15, 2010 @ 7:51 am - May 15, 2010

  62. Houndentenor tells us:

    Stop the exploitation of illegal labor, and most of the illegals would stop coming.

    Well, name some names. If this is so obvious, you obviously know some of the businesses engaging in the practice. So, out with it: name a few.

    It would seem that “sanctuary” cities would be humming through this depression with all the cheap labor the businesses there are exploiting. Do tell us. Do.

    Comment by heliotrope — May 15, 2010 @ 7:56 am - May 15, 2010

  63. #59. to use an often misattributed quote: “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.”

    There is nowhere in the constitution that says the enumerated powers of the Federal Government include taking my labor and the labor of my godkids to pay for the health care of another.

    Or to put it another way, my partner’s sister is being a bitch and taking the car. Why aren’t you buying me a new one?

    Comment by The_Livewire — May 15, 2010 @ 8:24 am - May 15, 2010

  64. #62 Tyson Chicken comes to mind. Of course they were ignored in the 90′s… wonder why?

    Comment by The_Livewire — May 15, 2010 @ 8:25 am - May 15, 2010

  65. I grew up in the Black Hills of SD which is a disputed territory. The treaty says the Lakota still own it. So, I think the Mexicans have a case for the Southwest. We were the illegal immigrants there first. Then we stole the land and now they’re the “illegal” immigrants.

    Of course, there are all those Asian-American families we’d need to deport first, since they came here illegally to build the railroad. So, who gets the land? The Native Americans? The Mexicans? The Texans? The Asian-Americans? The current residents? Who gets to say who’s there illegally?

    Comment by Ashpenaz — May 15, 2010 @ 12:46 pm - May 15, 2010

  66. P. S. Abraham Lincoln, a Republican (and our first gay president) was against the Mexican War:

    http://americanhistory.suite101.com/article.cfm/abraham_lincolns_opposition_to_the_mexican_war

    Comment by Ashpenaz — May 15, 2010 @ 12:50 pm - May 15, 2010

  67. Getting back to taxes, have they taxed viagra? Or is it covered by Obamacare?

    Comment by Roberto — May 15, 2010 @ 12:52 pm - May 15, 2010

  68. Ashpenaz, I am not a fan of Pat Buchanan but I highly recommend reading his book, State of Emergency. He puts the situation in perspective. The ¨gringo¨ was invited to settle Texas in 1821 when Mexican authorities ceded the land to Moses Austin, who moved 300 families with only two conditions; they had to become Roman Catholic and swear allegiance to Mexico. As more settlers came to work the land and develop the territory they wanted representation in the National Assembly. (Sounds like what happened in Boston, ¨taxation without representatiion¨) Don´t buy into the Aztlan Plan that alleges we stole it from them. Antoniio Villaraigoza is a member of MEChA, and esposes reconquista. As long as he is Mayor of L.A. illegals will have sanctuary.

    Comment by Roberto — May 15, 2010 @ 1:16 pm - May 15, 2010

  69. I like Lincoln and Thoreau’s take on the Mexican War better than Buchanan’s.

    Comment by Ashpenaz — May 15, 2010 @ 3:21 pm - May 15, 2010

  70. P. S. The statement many conservatives use to explain conservatism, “That government governs best which governs least” comes from Thoreau’s Civil Disobedience, an essay against the Mexican War. Thoreau spent his famous night in jail protesting the Mexican War.

    Comment by Ashpenaz — May 15, 2010 @ 3:23 pm - May 15, 2010

  71. None of which in any way changes the facts of the matter that others have pointed out.

    Your “logic” is, as usual, nonexistent. The Mexican-American war was controversial in America at the time; therefore we today should be happy about Reconquista and about the influx of drug dealers, rapists and other criminals into Arizona who prey on its good citizens, and should call Arizonans racist if they wish to protect themselves from criminals. Just pathetic.

    Everybody at the table had an equal vote

    Nope.

    and those who wanted to distribute the food equally won.

    Nope, wrong again. The Democrats have no interest in “distributing the food equally”, only in grabbing it for themselves and their clients – by force, and in clear violation of the Constitution.

    It’s a question of morality and rights, Ash. You truly think they should be put up to a vote? You truly think that if, say, I could get people to vote to steal from you and enslave you, the fact that people voted for the stealing and the enslavement would somehow make it OK?

    Reading the Bible, Jesus almost certainly wouldn’t think that. He preached for people to love their neighbors – Not to enslave them. Not to rape them, steal from them or exploit them – as you believe in doing, e.g. with Obamacare. He upheld the major commandments – like not stealing. He advocated that people help each other from their hearts, i.e. by choice. Not that they use Caesar to exploit and enslave each other, while themselves sitting fat and idle. Have you given away YOUR money, Ash, to help people less fortunate than you? Not other people’s money… but YOURS. Jesus had pity for individual government oppressors as sinners, and He advised people against getting in trouble with Caesar, but He never once approved Caesar’s oppressive acts. For all these reasons, your politics fly in the face of the known teachings of Jesus. You’ve made big advertisements before on this blog, Ash, of His importance to you. Were you being entirely truthful?

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 15, 2010 @ 8:28 pm - May 15, 2010

  72. Stop the exploitation of illegal labor, and most of the illegals would stop coming.

    And as I have posted already, the gay and lesbian community and Obama Party OPPOSES enforcing the laws that, quote, “stop the exploitation of illegal labor”.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 15, 2010 @ 9:06 pm - May 15, 2010

  73. Ashpenaz, here is the core of the issue: If Mexico got shafted in the halcyon days of Thoreau, so what? A lot of time has passed and for whatever reason, Mexico has not had the power to overwhelm the US and make the US atone or pay reparations.

    For whatever reason, you are mired in an historical dispute of little import. If the Mexicans have stayed hostile and combative over the alleged slight, they have shown precious little evidence. You seem to blame Marie Charlotte Amélie Augustine Victoire Clémentine Léopoldine and that whole crazy quilt aftermath of the European revolutions of 1848 on the United States. Fine. You have your tea-pot so make a tempest.

    Ask your little brown Mexican brothers about the fifth of May, Carlotta, Belgium, the US reaction to Napoleon III and the screwy back and forth concerning Benito Juárez.

    That you have taken sides with the conservatives and Catholics of old Mexico is quite a surprise to me. But then, just maybe your whole history of Mexico came from a rather condensed comic book version of the intricate whole.

    I suggest you learn the history of Chapultepec from the Aztecs to the current museum. Maybe you will broaden your horizons a tad.

    Comment by heliotrope — May 15, 2010 @ 10:29 pm - May 15, 2010

  74. ILC–uh, what?

    Heliotrope–Slavery was a long time ago. The Indian Wars were a long time ago. People are still mad. The Mexican War was a long time ago. The Asian-American influx to work on the railroads was a long time ago. The sodomy laws were a long time ago. People are still mad. The Japanese internment camps were a long time ago. People are still mad.

    When we switch to 50-50% people of color to white in around 2040, America will have half the country with a different view of what it means to be an American based on a completely different history of how they got here. Continuing to impose the white version of history on those whose experience tells them it isn’t true isn’t going to help.

    Comment by Ashpenaz — May 16, 2010 @ 2:13 pm - May 16, 2010

  75. Ash,

    Thoreau was never near a mexican. He wrote his essay and his opposition to the war to justify not paying his delinquent taxes. Maybe I should use my oppostion to socialism to justify my not paying taxes. At least Buchanan has researched the subject from hispanic sources how mexican children are taught to believe the souhwest was stolen from them.
    One of my biggest disappointments was to hear the former Mexican President, Vicente Fox, the first from the right to be elected, telling the U.S he was going to send more of the poor here. I expected him to ask the we send him economist to help make his country more productive to keep his people at home and prosperous. Economists educated by Dr. Milton Friedman at the University of Chicago, applied his theories and Chile is the most prosperous countriy in Latin America. How many chileans are here illegally? I never met one. I´ve known argentines, colombians, venezuelans (before Chavez, now they can´t get out). As former President Bill Clinton, used to say, ¨it´s the economy stupid.¨

    Comment by Roberto — May 16, 2010 @ 2:47 pm - May 16, 2010

  76. You´re wrong again Ash, as long as the real history is taught, and respect for the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence and an appreciation of the struggle the Founding Fathers had to make this Republic a reality, and as they assimilate, the essence of what it means to be an American will not change. I know. I speak from experience. I and my parents arrived here legally on the last banana boat from Italy. I am proud of my heritage ,and though as a adolescent was resentful at being dragged from his native land to a new home, new people, I studied and learned and I´m equally proud to be an American and Viet Nam era veteran gay though I am. Any attempts to redefine what it means to be an American by revising history by watering down the facts, holding our Constitution and Declaration of Independence in derision will Balkanize this country. I will oppose it with every fiber of my being.

    Comment by Roberto — May 16, 2010 @ 3:09 pm - May 16, 2010

  77. I am proud to be an American, too–and I am more than happy to offer citizenship to those who come here to find a better place. I am happy to make is as simple as getting a guest worker pass. However hard it might have been for my Welsh and German ancestors to get here, my love of America and what it has to offer makes me want as many people to have a place here, as simply and as quickly as possible.

    Comment by Ashpenaz — May 16, 2010 @ 6:57 pm - May 16, 2010

  78. ILC–uh, what?

    Translation: No. You weren’t serious.

    You knew perfectly well what I was saying, and asking you. And you couldn’t give a straight answer.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 16, 2010 @ 7:22 pm - May 16, 2010

  79. (so to speak)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 16, 2010 @ 7:23 pm - May 16, 2010

  80. ILC:

    Deuteronomy 24

    17 Do not deprive the alien or the fatherless of justice, or take the cloak of the widow as a pledge. 18 Remember that you were slaves in Egypt and the LORD your God redeemed you from there. That is why I command you to do this.

    19 When you are harvesting in your field and you overlook a sheaf, do not go back to get it. Leave it for the alien, the fatherless and the widow, so that the LORD your God may bless you in all the work of your hands. 20 When you beat the olives from your trees, do not go over the branches a second time. Leave what remains for the alien, the fatherless and the widow. 21 When you harvest the grapes in your vineyard, do not go over the vines again. Leave what remains for the alien, the fatherless and the widow. 22 Remember that you were slaves in Egypt. That is why I command you to do this.

    Matthew 2

    13When they had gone, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream. “Get up,” he said, “take the child and his mother and escape to Egypt. Stay there until I tell you, for Herod is going to search for the child to kill him.” 14So he got up, took the child and his mother during the night and left for Egypt, 15where he stayed until the death of Herod. And so was fulfilled what the Lord had said through the prophet: “Out of Egypt I called my son.”

    Matthew 25

    31″When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. 32All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.

    34″Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’

    37″Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’

    40″The King will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.’

    41″Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’

    44″They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’

    45″He will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’

    46″Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”

    Comment by Ashpenaz — May 16, 2010 @ 10:57 pm - May 16, 2010

  81. Thus proving, Ash, that you knew perfectly well what I was saying. Thank you.

    AND: None of which addresses what I said. Not even remotely. Because, you see, unlike you Ash, I actually believe in justice. I actually believe in TAKING ACTION to help people. Using my own resources. Not other people’s; my own.

    Thus, what I said still stands unchallenged:

    I think someone needs to remember Exodus 20:15 and Matthew 19:19. (Not to mention Exodus 21:16, remembering that all measures which exploit others by force are the moral equivalent of kidnapping.)

    Reading the Bible, Jesus… preached for people to love their neighbors – Not to enslave them. Not to rape them, steal from them or exploit them – as you believe in doing, e.g. with Obamacare. He upheld the major commandments – like not stealing. He advocated that people help each other from their hearts, i.e. by choice. Not that they use Caesar to exploit and enslave each other, while themselves sitting fat and idle… Jesus had pity for individual government oppressors as sinners, and He advised people against getting in trouble with Caesar, but He never once approved Caesar’s oppressive acts. For all these reasons, your politics fly in the face of the known teachings of Jesus.

    Ash, you have yet to answer, or even address, a single one of my questions to you on four separate topics:

    1) You can’t put lipstick on a pig, Ash. I mean, keep trying, but why should you expect us to go along?

    2) It’s a question of morality and rights, Ash. You truly think they should be put up to a vote? You truly think that if, say, I could get people to vote to steal from you and enslave you, the fact that people voted for the stealing and the enslavement would somehow make it OK?

    3) Have you given away YOUR money, Ash, to help people less fortunate than you? Not other people’s money… but YOURS.

    4) You’ve made big advertisements before on this blog, Ash, of Jesus’ importance to you. Were you being entirely truthful?

    Your own Bible quotations condemn your poltiical ideas, Ash. For example:

    40″The King will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.’

    What did YOU do for your brothers? That is the question. Not: what forms of Obama raping, exploiting and enslaving your neighbors, did you support, for your own personal gain.

    Caesar is government. Caesar socializes medicine. Caesar reassures you that you don’t have to do good works, because he’s doing them for you. I suspect with good reason that, your protestations to the contrary, you believe in Caesar rather more than you believe in Jesus.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 17, 2010 @ 12:19 am - May 17, 2010

  82. So, going back to socialized medicine and summing it up. Here is the lie that you tell yourself, Ash, as you worship Caesar – pretending he is Jesus:

    [It's] like everyone at the table pooling their lunch money so everyone can have the same amount of food… the group at the table has a written constitution which asks them all to participate in the common welfare… Everybody at the table had an equal vote, and those who wanted to distribute the food equally won.

    And now for the truth. It’s a fat, lazy bully pointing a gun at the other kids, most of whom had bought lunch from their own lawn-mowing or paper-route earnings. It is theft, of course. The school rules (constitution) say it’s wrong. The bully lies and pretends he is just making things “equal”. Through those lies, and through some arm-twisting, he got a few of the kids to go along. But, polls show that most opposed it – and rightly so. Because the reality is: the bully eats most of the lunch. It isn’t equal… because the other kids wait for lunch, and wait, and wait, until they starve. It isn’t just. It isn’t moral. It isn’t constitutional.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 17, 2010 @ 12:30 am - May 17, 2010

  83. (My last comment for the night – To my friends who didn’t necessarily know I had it in me: My normal practice, unlike some, has been to avoid revealing anything of my religious views on this blog – and especially not to boast about them to try and justify wicked, unconscionable political positions.)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 17, 2010 @ 12:47 am - May 17, 2010

  84. We have checks and balances. If the majority voted to enslave you, the Court would vote it down as unconstitutional. If, however, the majority votes through their duly elected representatives to distribute the lunch money, and the Court says it’s constitutional, then it’s a law–and you have to render unto Caesar.

    If our constitution is meant to promote the general welfare, and everyone having access to health care can be considered the general welfare, then it’s perfectly constitutional to mandate that health care, the same way we mandate the funds for the military. Our freely elected representatives have voted it in, expressing the wills of their constituencies. And I’m pretty sure the Supreme Court will find it constitutional.

    So suck it up already.

    Comment by Ashpenaz — May 17, 2010 @ 11:12 am - May 17, 2010

  85. #84:”If our constitution is meant to promote the general welfare, and everyone having access to health care can be considered the general welfare, then it’s perfectly constitutional to mandate that health care, the same way we mandate the funds for the military.”

    Ash, I can’t believe Obama chose Kagan over you.

    The fact that your razor-sharp analysis above actually begins with the premise that “our constitution is meant to promote the general welfare” is a chilling reminder of the hopeless ignorance that terminally infects you and your ilk (ummm, I mean ill-k). The purpose of the Constitution is not to promote “the general welfare” and if that was its purpose then we would already be enslaved by whatever the statists in DC happen to whimsically think is for our own good on any given day. The purpose of the Constitution is actually the polar opposite of what you have described. It doesn’t authorize the federal government to steal from individual citizens and redistribute wealth at its whimsical and “general” discretion–i.e. in the form of freebie healthcare insurance. To put it bluntly, the Constitution more accurately empowers individuals to tell you and the politicians you support to GO FU*K YOURSELVES if for some reason you get the harebrained and immoral idea that confiscating massive amounts of wealth from some individuals to pay for gifts to other individuals is your job. In short, the Constitution doesn’t give a bunch of idiot civil servants the power to decide what’s best for all of us. It makes it clear to those same bureaucrats that they have largely two jobs: (1) defend this country and its citizens from psychotics foreign and domestic; and (2) stay the fu*k out of our business with regard to just about everything else.

    The fact that you reject these concepts makes you an irredeemable, worthless piece of garbage and an immoral, utterly replaceable cog in the machine of tyranny. Get it? You = bad guys. Us = good guys.

    Comment by Sean A — May 17, 2010 @ 12:13 pm - May 17, 2010

  86. Ash,

    Are you a hebrew scholar

    ? I have long since disposed of my set of the Interpreter´s Bible which gives the OT words in Hebrew. I can´t give the exact translation of Deuteronomy 24, but I believe you have inserted your own interpretation ¨alien,¨to justify social programs for the illegals. The KJV uses the word , ¨stranger,¨which is an unknown person, not necessarily of the community. The RSV, which claims to have made a detailed analysis of ancient hebrew, uses the word, ¨sojourner,¨which is a traveler or someone who stays in a place temporarily.

    As many have said, you can justify anything in the Bible I like verse 5 of of Deuteronomy 24, almost makes me want to get married. anewly wed gets to stay home for a year; no work, no military service, just enjoy my bride. Only question is who is supposed to pay the bills and put food on the table? I am more familiar with koine greek and from what I have read, St. Paul is not only gay but by today´s standard a pederast.

    Comment by Roberto — May 17, 2010 @ 12:19 pm - May 17, 2010

  87. So suck it up already.

    Translation – this time, not from bullsh*t to English, but from bullsh*t to German: Arbeit Macht Frei.

    If the majority voted to enslave you, the Court would vote it down as unconstitutional.

    Let’s pray for exactly that outcome, in the case of the unconstitutional, and frankly evil theft and enslavement that are ObamaCare.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 17, 2010 @ 1:29 pm - May 17, 2010

  88. To put it bluntly, the Constitution more accurately empowers individuals to tell you and the politicians you support to GO FU*K YOURSELVES

    To put it precisely, the Constitution promotes the general welfare by LIMITING GOVERNMENT. The power to steal from the People in the name of “sharing” and “equality”, is nowhere part of it.

    To say it yet another way, the Constitution is not a suicide pact. It is a pact to protect life, liberty and property – not a pact to establish any form of fascism, socialism or communism, their opposite.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 17, 2010 @ 1:34 pm - May 17, 2010

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.