Gay Patriot Header Image

We need just 40 seats to fire Pelosi

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 1:12 am - October 14, 2010.
Filed under: 2010 Elections,New Media

So, let’s say you’re sitting at home and you just can’t wait until November 2 so you can vote against the Democrats.  You want to do something to help defeat congressmen (and -women) who support ever larger federal government and consistently vote to limit our freedom.  Well, here’s a solution, dash on over to 40seats.com, 40 seats being the number of seats Republicans need to regain control of the House.

There, on their handy-dandy map, you can pick a congressional race near you — or just type in your zip code and they’ll help you take a seat.  In my case, it was a Democrat who, in a sure sign of desperation, has been making racial appeals to save her seat.  The site organizers provide details of the Democrat’s voting record, in Loretta’s case, votes for Obamacare, Cap and Trade and the “stimulus.”

Then, they give you a series of choices to solve the problem (i.e., of a Democrat representing you — or your neighbors).  You can choose to donate money, slap a bumper sticker on your car, put a sign in your yard, make calls, walk precincts or give money.  Can’t seem to find a link though to the Republican candidate’s web-site.  In this case, that fine conservative is Assemblyman Van Tran, an advocate of free market solutions to the Golden State’s economic woes.

Click here to support his campaign.

And go to 40seats.com to find a race near you!

Share

41 Comments

  1. and you just can’t wait until November 2 so you can vote against the Democrats.

    Mailed my ballot last week. Damn it felt good.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — October 14, 2010 @ 1:20 am - October 14, 2010

  2. The closest district to me is Fl-8, DisGrayson’s district. I thought this option to help was odd:

    Board a campaign volunteer in my home

    Call me old fashioned, naieve or whatever, but I think campaign volunteers should be in their own district.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — October 14, 2010 @ 1:24 am - October 14, 2010

  3. consistently vote to limit our freedom.

    I mean, what is this crap? Who is voting to limit your freedoms? Which freedoms are being limited? Your life has been affected by these votes…. how, exactly? Huh? Whaaaa?

    Congratulations Republican Party – you’ve managed to cry hard enough and stamp your feet loudly enough that the increasingly stupid electorate is willing to give you the keys to the government again in the hopes that it will shut you up. It seems to me that you shouldn’t be as excited as you are about this, because being in a powerless minority has been your most effective advantage since Obama took office. It’s really easy to pretend like you’ve got all the answers when you’re in a position where your best move is to do absolutely nothing.

    To see all of you swaggering around like you’ve got your groove back, like you’ve restored your credibility on issues like national security and economics… it’s a laugh riot. You think you’ve been proven correct? You think you’re vindicated? Tossing around absurdities about the scary, scary bad men that ‘consistently vote to limit our freedom?’ Whatever dudes. I’d tell you to get ready to feel the disappointment – but who am I kidding? You’ll support the Republicans no matter what they do.

    Comment by Levi — October 14, 2010 @ 1:42 am - October 14, 2010

  4. Levi said: “…stupid electorate …”

    And you WONDER why us Independents are not voting for Democrats. Keep insulting our intelligence and see where that gets you.

    Comment by Brian — October 14, 2010 @ 2:37 am - October 14, 2010

  5. The left is always out for blood; not sure it makes a world of difference to them where it comes from. They eat their own too. It’ll all end in apologies and tears, I guess.

    Comment by Anniee451 — October 14, 2010 @ 5:32 am - October 14, 2010

  6. Who is voting to limit your freedoms? Which freedoms are being limited?

    Oh, where to begin?

    Did the progressives in Congress vote to take away my freedom to use incandescent light-bulbs? Yes, they did?

    Did the progressives in Congress vote massive new health care regulations and mandate, under penalty of law, that I had to have a policy that conformed to those regulations, thus limiting freedom to choose a policy of my own liking? Yes, they did.

    Did the progressives in Congress vote massive new restrictions on my freedom to make contracts for financial services? Yes, they did.

    Did the progressives in the House vote in massive new restrictions on my ability to use energy (Cap and Tax)? Yes, they did.

    Is Obama’s Justice Department limiting my freedom to participate in the electoral process by giving the new Black Panthers the green light to harass me at the polling place? Apparently, yes, they are.

    Are the Obamacrats appointing activist judges who will eagerly overturn my vote and that of others to satisfy their own social agenda? Yes, they are.

    Are the Obamacrats limiting the freedom of workers in the oil industry to have jobs and livelihoods? Yes, they are.

    Are the Obamacrats limiting my future economic freedom by running up punishing deficits with no end in sight? Yes, they are.

    Did the progressives in Congress vote to limit the political speech of myself and others (the DISCLOSE Act?) Yes, they did.

    Did the progressives in Congress vote to limit the freedom of minorities in the failing DC Schools to opt for better schools? Yes, they did.

    Over a year ago, I made a list of freedoms the progressive left want to take away. It is still in effect, and has, in fact, grown.

    Comment by V the K — October 14, 2010 @ 5:59 am - October 14, 2010

  7. Oh, and now the Obamacrats on the warpath against banks who want to foreclose on houses whose mortgages are in default, thus punishing (i.e. limiting the freedom) of those of us who bought homes within our means and kept our mortgages current in order to reward those who were less responsible.

    Comment by V the K — October 14, 2010 @ 6:28 am - October 14, 2010

  8. Also, note the administration’s latest fascist bully-boy tactics of trying to force organizations critical of their agenda to publish their donor lists; so their donors can receive the level of harassment as Prop 8 supporters. Freedom to assemble peaceably to petition the Government for a redress of grievances — the Obamacrats want to limit that one, too.

    Comment by V the K — October 14, 2010 @ 6:35 am - October 14, 2010

  9. [...] Obamacrat Ass-Clown Levi at Gaypatriot simpers, What is this crap? Who is voting to limit your freedoms? Which freedoms are being limited? [...]

    Pingback by A Liberal Idiot Asks How the Obamacrats Are Limiting Freedom, and I Answer It « Good Morning Patriots — October 14, 2010 @ 6:45 am - October 14, 2010

  10. V the K,

    Those aren’t limiting your freedoms. Those are the actions of people ‘smarter than you’ who want to ‘drag you kicking and screaming into the future’.

    Of course Levi doesn’t see them as limiting your freedoms. They aren’t freedoms the little socialist approves of, so they’re dangerous.

    Comment by The_Livewire — October 14, 2010 @ 6:48 am - October 14, 2010

  11. And let us not forget the thousands and thousands of agricultural workers in California’s central valley whose freedom to farm and earn a living was taken away from them by the environmentalist radicals of the Democrat base… all for the sake of a not-so-endangered, inch-long fish.

    Comment by V the K — October 14, 2010 @ 7:28 am - October 14, 2010

  12. Congratulations Republican Party – you’ve managed to cry hard enough and stamp your feet loudly enough that the increasingly stupid electorate is willing to give you the keys to the government again in the hopes that it will shut you up.

    Said “stupid electorate” has discovered that they were better off the last two times Republicans held Congress. If liberals are so damn proud of what they’ve done, how come NONE of them will campaign on it? Why do they keep running away from Chairman Obama?

    People should know when they’re conquered.” -Quintus

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — October 14, 2010 @ 9:07 am - October 14, 2010

  13. Is having to fork over more of your dollars to the government an enhancement of freedom? I suppose so. You choose not to go to prison and thereby soak up government dollars by giving dollars to the government to spend freely on the salaries of bureaucrats who are hired to make sure that your choice to pay higher taxes is carefully monitored and investigated when it goes missing.

    You may have fewer dollars for yourself, but you have many more government angels looking over your shoulder and giving you even more choices between doing what is right or going to prison.

    Choices you make when a gun is pointed at your head are really, really fundamental choices of freedom. Don’t you agree?

    Levi must have gone to the Pol Pot School for Juvenile Achievers and True Believers.

    Comment by Heliotrope — October 14, 2010 @ 11:10 am - October 14, 2010

  14. Oh, where to begin?

    Did the progressives in Congress vote to take away my freedom to use incandescent light-bulbs? Yes, they did?

    lol, this is where you’re starting? Oh, what a nightmare! First, I can’t buy lead-based paint covered toys for my kids, then I can’t order dolphin meat at a restaurant, NOW I CAN’T BUY INCANDESCENT LIGHT BULBS? Oh, the humanity.

    Did the progressives in Congress vote massive new health care regulations and mandate, under penalty of law, that I had to have a policy that conformed to those regulations, thus limiting freedom to choose a policy of my own liking? Yes, they did.

    If you want to live in a country like the United States, you have to pay taxes. If you’d like the freedom to not have to pay taxes, you’re free to go set up on some deserted island somewhere.

    Did the progressives in Congress vote massive new restrictions on my freedom to make contracts for financial services? Yes, they did.

    ??????

    Did the progressives in the House vote in massive new restrictions on my ability to use energy (Cap and Tax)? Yes, they did.

    ‘Massive new restrictions?’ What, do you own like, some kind of power plant or something? Did Obama send G-men to force you to turn down your A/C this summer? In what way, exactly, has your ability to use energy been compromised?

    Is Obama’s Justice Department limiting my freedom to participate in the electoral process by giving the new Black Panthers the green light to harass me at the polling place? Apparently, yes, they are.

    ??????

    Are the Obamacrats appointing activist judges who will eagerly overturn my vote and that of others to satisfy their own social agenda? Yes, they are.

    What?

    Are the Obamacrats limiting the freedom of workers in the oil industry to have jobs and livelihoods? Yes, they are.

    No?

    Are the Obamacrats limiting my future economic freedom by running up punishing deficits with no end in sight? Yes, they are.

    By this logic, Reagan and Bush are major-league freedom abolishers, aren’t they?

    Did the progressives in Congress vote to limit the political speech of myself and others (the DISCLOSE Act?) Yes, they did.

    I’ll admit to not knowing enough about this to mock you derisively for listing it here. I’m sure it’s a million times worse than the Patriot Act though!

    Did the progressives in Congress vote to limit the freedom of minorities in the failing DC Schools to opt for better schools? Yes, they did.

    How did they do that?

    Over a year ago, I made a list of freedoms the progressive left want to take away. It is still in effect, and has, in fact, grown.

    Your definition of freedom is absurd. Just because a law or regulation has some kind of social consideration that requires that you give up some of your own income or prohibits you from some kind of behavior doesn’t mean your freedoms are being abridged. The ironic thing is that the Obama administration really is doing a number of things that compromise people’s freedoms, many of which are carry-overs from the Bush years – and all you can find time to complain about is what kind of light bulbs you can buy. It reflects the utter childishness of the conservative movement – you don’t want to pay any taxes and you don’t want to think about the consequences of the American lifestyle. Bush was wiretapping American citizens, Obama is ordering assassinations of American citizens in secret based solely on his say-so… but light bulbs! They charge you five cents for plastic bags at the grocery store! Your precious freedoms!

    Comment by Levi — October 14, 2010 @ 11:17 am - October 14, 2010

  15. Just because a law or regulation has some kind of social consideration that requires that you give up some of your own income or prohibits you from some kind of behavior doesn’t mean your freedoms are being abridged.

    Soneone explain to Levi what ‘abridged’ is?

    Since he believes in dragging people kicking and screaming and that the minority should always rule the majority, I’m pretty sure there’s no hope to explain to him what ‘freedoms’ are.

    Clearly Levi supports the Patriot act, since it “requires that you give up some of your own income or prohibits you from some kind of behavior.”

    Clearly Levi supports DOMA since it “prohibits you from some kind of behavior.”

    He did beautifully prove my point in #10 though.

    Comment by The_Livewire — October 14, 2010 @ 11:39 am - October 14, 2010

  16. Just because a law or regulation has some kind of social consideration that requires that you give up some of your own income or prohibits you from some kind of behavior doesn’t mean your freedoms are being abridged.

    Actually, that’s kind of the definition of a freedom being abridged.

    Contrary to what Levi and the gay left believe, there are freedoms other than the freedom of one man to stick his pecker in another man’s pooper. Some of us extremists believe these other freedoms may actually be of greater importance.

    Comment by V the K — October 14, 2010 @ 11:45 am - October 14, 2010

  17. Actually, that’s kind of the definition of a freedom being abridged.

    Contrary to what Levi and the gay left believe, there are freedoms other than the freedom of one man to stick his pecker in another man’s pooper. Some of us extremists believe these other freedoms may actually be of greater importance.

    You’re about 8,000 years too late to the Earth if you’re looking for pure freedom. If you want to live in a stable society and take advantage of the benefits of civilization, you’re going to have to follow certain rules and philosophies, chief among them being that we are much stronger and resilient as a community than as individuals. If you just want to consume as much as you want and never have anybody tell you that you’re being a needlessly wasteful and inconsiderate duechebag, I fully recommend that you ‘go Galt’ and withdraw your productivity. Go live in the woods and do what you like if you hate all these leaders and scientists trying to figure out how to identify and solve meta-level problems that a 300 million citizen superpower is confronted with. That will show me!

    Comment by Levi — October 14, 2010 @ 11:56 am - October 14, 2010

  18. Hmm, in addition to abridged, Levi doesn’t seem to understand how to comprehend.

    Then again, Levi doesn’t believe that brown people should be self governed, or really anyone else should either. With every post he proves this more and more.

    Comment by The_Livewire — October 14, 2010 @ 12:09 pm - October 14, 2010

  19. then I can’t order dolphin meat at a restaurant,

    Sure you can. There’s a place right down the street that serves dolphin.

    NOW I CAN’T BUY INCANDESCENT LIGHT BULBS?

    The irony is that the liberals have forced us to buy toxic, mercury filled lightbulbs MADE IN CHINA. Americans won’t be allowed to buy bulbs made in the USA. Good job, assholes.

    I’m sure it’s a million times worse than the Patriot Act though!

    And that stifles political speech…..how?

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — October 14, 2010 @ 12:10 pm - October 14, 2010

  20. Levi, my dear man…

    Your ability to compose long, insightful examples of progressive bullshit notwithstanding, the fact remains that Granny Rictus Botox’s days of celebrating herself are, indeed, rapidly coming to an end.

    I could frankly give a shit about your impressions of the GOP and conservative principles, nor do I think you care much for what anyone here has to say to you about whatever nonsense you believe. You’re a troll, but a fairly lucid one, which I suppose is why you’re still here (that collosal douchebag “Little Kiwi” comes to mind).

    Having said that, I’m noticing the length and tone of your fervent missives is growing in intensity as we approach November 2nd. I assure you, dear Levi, we’ll still respect your right to dissent once Pelosi’s gone like a fart in the wind, although we’ll continue to reserve the right to laugh at the futility of your worldview.

    I’m sure you’ll understand, yes? :-)

    Comment by Eric in Chicago — October 14, 2010 @ 12:37 pm - October 14, 2010

  21. Then again, Levi doesn’t believe that brown people should be self governed, or really anyone else should either.

    It took about 8,000 years for human history to arrive at the American system of Federated self-governance. Most of human history, and most humans today, live(d) under oligarchical systems under which an elite few ruled over the majority absolutely; because their class was entitled to decide what was best for everyone.

    Levi may be eager for a reversion to the norm, but I am not.

    Comment by V the K — October 14, 2010 @ 12:37 pm - October 14, 2010

  22. If you want to live in a country like the United States, you have to pay taxes. If you’d like the freedom to not have to pay taxes, you’re free to go set up on some deserted island somewhere.

    Or you just join the Obama Party, in which case you don’t have to pay taxes, don’t have to follow the laws, and can take as many bribes and kickbacks as you want. You can break whatever laws you want, watch pron on your government computer all day, and Levi will scream about how your job is absolutely essential.

    What the American people have figured out, Levi, is that you and your Obama Party are nothing but hypocrites, liars, and moochers.

    You demand everyone else pay higher taxes as you dodge your own.

    You shriek about “climate change” as you hopscotch the country on private jets and fire up Air Force One for hundred-mile flights.

    You insist that people consume too much while demanding Wagyu beef for your fundraisers.

    You deliver finger-wagging lectures about how people should drop their thermostats while you hike yours up high enough to grow orchids.

    And then when people point out your lies and hypocrisy, you scream that they’re all stupid.

    What you are, Levi, is a Communist lackey. You are desperate to hold on to your welfare check/government job, and you know damn well that you don’t add one dime of productivity or usefulness to society that justifies you having it.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 14, 2010 @ 1:01 pm - October 14, 2010

  23. NDT,

    I have to defend Levi (sigh) on one point. He’s not a government employee, he works for Verizon.

    It’s about the only thing he demonstrates knowlege of.

    Comment by The_Livewire — October 14, 2010 @ 1:28 pm - October 14, 2010

  24. I look forward to the Botox Queen Speaker, Nancy Pelosi riding her needle broom back to San Francisco defeated, yet she will insist the voters are too stupid to know anything with the Democrat Holocaust coming in the November midterms. President Obama also plans to be out of town, vacationing 2 weeks in India beginning November 4th.

    Comment by Sebastian Shaw — October 14, 2010 @ 3:07 pm - October 14, 2010

  25. Levi at #3 starts off with:

    I mean, what is this crap? Who is voting to limit your freedoms? Which freedoms are being limited?

    Then, Levi at #17 swings back with a “slight” modification:

    You’re about 8,000 years too late to the Earth if you’re looking for pure freedom.

    Liberals are so ham-handed with their loosey-goosey argument shifts. Levi asks for just one freedom being limited and then argues that the whole argument is about unfettered freedom. (Pure freedom.) Whew!

    I suppose that Levi does not believe that freedom exists if any bit of free will is truncated in any manner. So, America is not and has never been the land of the free except when the first human migrant arrived alone.

    Comment by Heliotrope — October 14, 2010 @ 5:40 pm - October 14, 2010

  26. Heliotrope, there’s also a difference between consenting to having one’s freedom’s restricted as part of a social contract and having the political powers decide to take away freedoms strictly because they do not approve of the way you are using them. One way is democracy, the other is autocratic; and the vision of the progressives is increasingly, unrelentingly autocratic.

    Comment by V the K — October 14, 2010 @ 7:16 pm - October 14, 2010

  27. V the K: Your point (#26) goes to the SCOTUS test of “compelling state interest.” For some, anything the state can compel is of interest to their agenda of statism.

    “Put down that Twinkie!_ …… “Don’t ‘taze me, bro!”

    Comment by Heliotrope — October 15, 2010 @ 8:33 am - October 15, 2010

  28. Liberals are so ham-handed with their loosey-goosey argument shifts. Levi asks for just one freedom being limited and then argues that the whole argument is about unfettered freedom. (Pure freedom.) Whew!

    I suppose that Levi does not believe that freedom exists if any bit of free will is truncated in any manner. So, America is not and has never been the land of the free except when the first human migrant arrived alone.

    Heliotrope, my problem with these idiotic statements about Democrats voting to limit our freedoms is that it completely trivializes the concept of freedom if your definition is so broad as to include ‘the freedom to purchase incandescent light bulbs.’ When you look at the course of human history and how much oppression there’s been, not being able to buy a certain kind of something just doesn’t register as problem so long as we can still do things like vote, criticize the government, hold whatever faith you choose to hold, have the right to trial, etc. Those are freedoms. If you’re complaining about light bulbs and fuel efficiency standards and buying plastic bags at the grocery stores, you’re more than likely just upset that you feel like you’re being talked down to by someone from academia – you’re certainly not defending the concept of freedom in any meaningful sense. You’re dumb hillbillies that don’t like to be reminded that there are people more intelligent than you.

    Conservatives like to imagine themselves as staunch freedom lovers, but more often than not, you’re only ever talking about the freedom to be wasteful and inconsiderate, while allowing real threats to freedom go uncriticized. The anti-environmentalism among the movement is the best example of this; conservatives seem to take pride in their belief that issues like climate change, pollution, and energy are not important or legitimate political issues, and that they should be able to use however much of anything they want whenever they like. Meanwhile, Bush and Obama have been torturing people in secret prisons all over the world – and this is met with yawns. Yeah – you guys are real freedom hawks, aren’t ya?

    And because it’s you, I’d suggest that the conservative movement’s indifference to conservation and environmental issues owes quite a bit to the religious thinking that permeates the right. Why bother protecting the environment if you’re going to spend eternity in some other, ethereal, perfect plan of existence? Who cares about biodiversity when you think that the world is coming to an end?

    Comment by Levi — October 15, 2010 @ 9:57 am - October 15, 2010

  29. And because it’s you, I’d suggest that the conservative movement’s indifference to conservation and environmental issues owes quite a bit to the religious thinking that permeates the right. Why bother protecting the environment if you’re going to spend eternity in some other, ethereal, perfect plan of existence? Who cares about biodiversity when you think that the world is coming to an end?

    Levi, I’m disappointed…

    The first two paragraphs of your comment above were absolutely spot-on, well-stated and based in reason, and I find in them common ground.

    That last one, however, is just about as ludicrous as my stating that liberalism secretly advocates human extinction for the good of the planet.

    Comment by Eric in Chicago — October 15, 2010 @ 10:16 am - October 15, 2010

  30. Addendum:

    While I do believe there is common ground to be had between conservatives and liberals, I must take issue with Levi’s notion that conservatives don’t believe conservation and environmental issues are important.

    We may disagree vehemently with how those issues are addressed, but I resent the implication that somehow, tragedies like Bhopal are simply a part of doing business, and are therefore to be expected and brushed off.

    Comment by Eric in Chicago — October 15, 2010 @ 10:20 am - October 15, 2010

  31. Heliotrope, there’s also a difference between consenting to having one’s freedom’s restricted as part of a social contract and having the political powers decide to take away freedoms strictly because they do not approve of the way you are using them. One way is democracy, the other is autocratic; and the vision of the progressives is increasingly, unrelentingly autocratic.

    Okay – healthcare. Why can’t you believe that a public healthcare system is a legitimate reason to limit one’s freedoms ever so slightly for the social contract? By many metrics, our healthcare system is terribly inefficient given the cost. We spend twice as much per capita as other countries do, and yet we die much younger, we have much higher rates of obesity and heart disease, we’re woefully behind in infant mortality rates, etc. If we’re spending twice as much and getting much worse results, shouldnt’ this be a problem we could all agree needs to be addressed?

    Far too much of our economy is devoted to spending on healthcare, it’s not providing a good enough return, and millions of people don’t even take part. This is causing all kinds of problems; lost productivity, the opportunity costs of people having to spend huge amounts on healthcare, higher insurance rates to pay for those of us that do get sick, even the military has said that childhood obesity is causing difficulties in their recruitment efforts. Again, we’re paying more for worse results – so why shouldn’t we follow some of the examples from around the world, and from our own popular and successful public healthcare programs in our own country?

    Does this not meet the criteria for a worthwhile social contract? Everyone pays into the system so that everyone can get healthcare? Isn’t the paltry increase in taxes more than worth it for universal coverage and access?

    (Psssst…. this is where you start stammering on about death panels!

    Comment by Levi — October 15, 2010 @ 10:28 am - October 15, 2010

  32. See I find Levi funny (in a sad sad sort of way) about his Global Warming aspect. Global warming activists insist on talking about killing children who disagree with them, are afraid of debating their critics, and scientists calling out the global fraudsters, Levi blindly clings to his faith that only toxic lightbulbs will save us.

    Levi is the Seana-Anna of the global warming movement.

    Comment by The_Livewire — October 15, 2010 @ 10:33 am - October 15, 2010

  33. And lets not forget Levi’s support for the Patriot Act and Prop 8 since they’re “a legitimate reason to limit one’s freedoms ever so slightly for the social contract? ”

    After all, the courts have upheld the former, and Baker v. Nelson addresses the later, and we all know how Levi says that the courts are the supreme arbiters of American law.

    Come on Levi, admit that you’re just afraid that people smarter than you are dragging you kicking and screaming into the future.

    Comment by The_Livewire — October 15, 2010 @ 10:35 am - October 15, 2010

  34. “and from our own popular and successful public healthcare programs in our own country?”

    Medicare has highest claim rejection rate
    Medicare Fraud
    Greek Amputations
    Seniours losing benefits
    More tax increases Hint: in case Levi is mathmatically impared as well as reality impared. an Increase means we’re paying more.
    Britain decides to let people with bowel cancer die.
    An actual plan to cut costs, but that would require Levi to read.

    Comment by The_Livewire — October 15, 2010 @ 10:58 am - October 15, 2010

  35. And lets not forget Levi’s support for the Patriot Act and Prop 8 since they’re “a legitimate reason to limit one’s freedoms ever so slightly for the social contract? ”

    Excuse me while I fetch some popcorn…I can’t WAIT to hear his response to this one…:-)

    Comment by Eric in Chicago — October 15, 2010 @ 11:43 am - October 15, 2010

  36. Eric, Levi will ignore it, like he always does.

    For some reason, he has issues when people use his own words against him.

    Comment by The_Livewire — October 15, 2010 @ 12:08 pm - October 15, 2010

  37. Levi,

    All laws restrict freedom. Ask any arsonist or person who prefers to drive on the sidewalk or folks who like drinking cyanide.

    Some women do not like laws restricting killing their own private fetus. Some people might like a law permitting them to kill their nuisance child up to 48 months. Etc., Etc,. Etc.

    Sensible laws and regulation enhance the functioning of society. One man and one woman in marriage could be one of those. Maybe not.

    Now, tell me again about banishing the incandescent light bulb? How about banishing meat. The man-made global warming crowd hates cow flatulence. A case can be made. A case can be made for sterilizing idiots. A case can be made for putting everyone over 65 on hospice. A case can be made for restricting couples to one child and killing the rest.

    Universal health care is a total impossibility. You have to have a match for every heart transplant. Shall we shift hearts from those who are not productive to those who are? How about replacement liver after liver after liver to alcoholics?

    When you start engineering society through coercive regulation, you create a panel of bureaucrats who watch over us. Qui Ipsos Custodes: who watches the watchers? Who controls the politburo?

    You liberals are all for racing through the mine field first and seeing what the effect is after the race is over. Then you tell us that the ones who got blown up helped clear the mine field.

    The bad thing about common sense is that among elitist liberals, it is not so common and to liberal elitists what is common is the playground for idiots, any way.

    If you want to do your typical Levi-eely argument about health care, set the parameters first. Who do you include? What are your limits? Who decides? How is it financed? Where does it rank in the top ten priorities for government?

    Comment by Heliotrope — October 15, 2010 @ 2:13 pm - October 15, 2010

  38. Levi,

    All laws restrict freedom. Ask any arsonist or person who prefers to drive on the sidewalk or folks who like drinking cyanide.

    Some women do not like laws restricting killing their own private fetus. Some people might like a law permitting them to kill their nuisance child up to 48 months. Etc., Etc,. Etc.

    Sensible laws and regulation enhance the functioning of society. One man and one woman in marriage could be one of those. Maybe not.

    Now, tell me again about banishing the incandescent light bulb? How about banishing meat. The man-made global warming crowd hates cow flatulence. A case can be made. A case can be made for sterilizing idiots. A case can be made for putting everyone over 65 on hospice. A case can be made for restricting couples to one child and killing the rest.

    Well, I haven’t commented on the wisdom of a federal ban on incandescent light bulbs. All I’ve said is that it’s absurd to assert in a serious way that ‘freedoms’ are being compromised by said legislation. No one is living and dying on whether or not they have the ability to buy incandescent light bulbs, and as I’ve said, saying that this constitutes a violation of one’s freedoms marginalizes the concept of freedom at all.

    And certainly cases can be made to do those things – that doesn’t mean we have to do them, or even that they’re being made. No one is trying to make strictly utilitarian decisions here and trying to force everyone to live some kind of dystopian nightmare. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to address the myriad of inevitable social problems that accompany a capitalist economy, issues like energy consumption and healthcare.

    Universal health care is a total impossibility. You have to have a match for every heart transplant. Shall we shift hearts from those who are not productive to those who are? How about replacement liver after liver after liver to alcoholics?

    These are issues that need to be addressed, of course. Organ transplants are going to be a difficult scenario in any scheme, but we need right now is to try to get more value out of what we’re spending on healthcare. Again, we’re spending far too much to be trailing behind the rest of the developed world in health as badly as we are.

    When you start engineering society through coercive regulation, you create a panel of bureaucrats who watch over us. Qui Ipsos Custodes: who watches the watchers? Who controls the politburo?

    Well, that’s kind of the idea behind democracy, isn’t it? We watch the politburo, we can vote people out, we can vote people in. And you’re simply being naive if you think that the government is the only institution that wants to engineer society – corporations want to do that as well. At least with the government, there are some ways for a well-informed electorate to guide social engineering in positive ways.

    You liberals are all for racing through the mine field first and seeing what the effect is after the race is over. Then you tell us that the ones who got blown up helped clear the mine field.

    The bad thing about common sense is that among elitist liberals, it is not so common and to liberal elitists what is common is the playground for idiots, any way.

    If you want to do your typical Levi-eely argument about health care, set the parameters first. Who do you include? What are your limits? Who decides? How is it financed? Where does it rank in the top ten priorities for government?

    It will be financed by taxpayers, it will be a high priority of government and will dovetail with education and urban planning, and it includes everyone. Obviously, there are going to have to be considerations in certain situations. How many livers should an alcoholic get? Should he/she get any? Those are tough moral questions, but the current system, which sticks families with hundreds of thousands in medical bills, is creating terrible moral choices as well. And again, the bottom line is that we just aren’t getting out of our healthcare system what we’re putting into it. If you were paying twice as much for cable as your neighbor and getting a fifth off the channels he was, wouldn’t you want to make a change?

    Comment by Levi — October 15, 2010 @ 5:42 pm - October 15, 2010

  39. Levi,

    Can you grasp the idea that banning incandescent light bulbs in stealth legislation is just an exercise of raw power over the lives of the little people? I do not want to argue the merits of the ban, I am merely pointing out that such micro-management of lives serves no purpose and is indefensible. It is emblematic of nutty political social engineering.

    Your health care comments are strange. Apparently, you would give full blown healthcare to an illegal alien. Wouldn’t that be an automatic magnet for sick illegal aliens? Shouldn’t the US taxpayer supported free healthcare travel to Mexico, Haiti, Africa and save the poor people the troubles and rigors of sneaking into the US?

    You are dealing on the dream level and mighty reluctant to face reality. I do not know about these people who are being forced out of their homes with medical expenses. Perhaps you can direct me to places in the US where people are dying on their front stoops because they are denied quality, life saving health care.

    I am serious about this, Levi. Show me where the pre-Obama health care was burning people through all their money and denying quality care to those in medical need. I am not interested in the scattered anecdote which can not be confirmed. I want the verifiable evidence.

    Comment by Heliotrope — October 15, 2010 @ 6:35 pm - October 15, 2010

  40. Heliotrope,

    Asking Levi for data is like asking me for weight loss tips. Note how he babbles incessantly, yet is afraid to confront raw data and facts like I post. He can’t refute facts, so he pretends they aren’t there.

    Remember the last time he was asked to back up his statements, it took 109 days for him to admit that he was making stuff up from the start. That evil BP closed the well faster.

    Debating Levi is like pushing Sisyphus’ rock. You get to the top of the hill, and then start all over again.

    Comment by The_Livewire — October 15, 2010 @ 8:10 pm - October 15, 2010

  41. Livewire, I hear you. Utopians build their mare’s nest and then blame the horse for not laying eggs. Their castles in the sky always fall dead into the lap of Gertrude Stein’s discovery: When you get there you discover there isn’t any there there.

    Is there a better description of what they have “discovered” about Obama?

    And, Levi,

    I got a horse right here, his name is Paul Revere,
    I tell you Paul Revere
    Now this is no bum steer
    It’s from a handicapper that’s real sincere
    Can do, can do, this guy says the horse can do.

    Comment by Heliotrope — October 15, 2010 @ 9:18 pm - October 15, 2010

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.