Gay Patriot Header Image

“Civility” Is Just Another Word For Nothing Left To Lose

(With apologies to Bobbie McGee for the headline….)  (And h/t to Instapundit for the articles that inspired this post)

You may recall that in the early days following Jaren Loughner’s (the pot-smoking anarchist) shoot-up in Tucson, I joined with Glenn Beck in his challenge.  I ask you to read it again carefully.  What I am about to write, in my opinion, does not violate that challenge.  But I’m open to interpretation.

Ladies and gents, this call from the Progressives and the liberal media for “civility” is total bullshit.  Please note I rarely use profanity in my posts or comments here.  But yes, I call total and utter bullshit.  This is a ploy by the Left to silence the 40% of Americans who told Gallup last year that they hold conservative principles.

It is easy for Progressives and Democrats to ask for “civility” when they are the ones who call for violent revolution and have been since their halcyon flower-sniffing, pot-smoking, anti-American days of yore.  Us GenXer’s refer to those days as The Sixties.  When we say “The Sixties” — it is with the derisive tone of voice usually reserved for the phrase: “um… this is escargot?”

Oh yeah, and “civility” is easy to call for when your Marxist-taught President’s best buddies are an admitted terrorist (William Ayers) and a black liberation preacher who repeatedly damns this nation (Rev. Whose-Name-Must-Never-Be-Uttered-By-Media).

One calls for “civility” when one’s ideas are soundly rejected in an historic legislative landslide the likes of which few living Americans are cogent enough to remember.

Now those same people are asking that the free peoples of the United States of America disarm themselves in favor of the tyranny of “civility”.  Well, I say HELL NO!  I don’t want violence, but I certainly don’t want these people dictating the terms of my Constitutional surrender.

So I invoke THIS passage of Glenn’s challenge:

  • I denounce those from the Left, the Right or middle that sees violence as a viable alternative to our long established system of change made within the constraints of our constitutional Republic.
  • There can be, in my view, nothing more violent in the long-term than straying from the limited government principles of the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution.  What the Left has systematically proposed to do since the Progressive movement was born is to violently shred our American Republic and tell you to shut up while they do it.

    Not on my watch.

    -Bruce (GayPatriot)

    Share

    48 Comments

    1. Um so civility is the new evil? Isn’t crude slander really just the weak fallback of people to unintelligent to base their debates on rationale discussion? I find to often that slanderous libel is commonly used by those to used to blind faith, either in their political leaders, ideology, or their church. When their unquestioned ideals are finally questioned they grow angry that they have to defend them because to themselves they seem self evident. Let’s strive for civility, for one thing people look a lot better when they are not screaming obscenities and slander and two more people take you serious if they think you aren’t ruled by your base emotions.
      I remember reading about conversations of communist jews in New York who found out that Stalin had betrayed the communist and either executed them or sent them to the gulags and quite a few of them became violent and said that anyone that would say such things must be the enemy. I find the radicals of both spectrum’s do the same thing. Let’s show people what rational people can do.

      Comment by Tim — January 26, 2011 @ 5:09 pm - January 26, 2011

    2. Peace (“civility”) without freedom isn’t justice.

      Comment by GayPatriot — January 26, 2011 @ 5:13 pm - January 26, 2011

    3. [...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Doug Welch, GayPatriot, DNC Fail!, Kevin McKeever, Allen Ness and others. Allen Ness said: GayPatriot » “Civility” Is Just Another Word For Nothing Left To Lose: http://bit.ly/ijltff #tcot #consnc [...]

      Pingback by Tweets that mention GayPatriot » “Civility” Is Just Another Word For Nothing Left To Lose -- Topsy.com — January 26, 2011 @ 5:15 pm - January 26, 2011

    4. It really was the American people saying, “We’re tired of you politicians name-calling and screaming at each other.” That shrill Tea Party, hard-right Republican attitude I don’t think will fly in this season. Tucson was a game-changer.

      – Douglas Brinkley

      Starting to sound more and more like Tuscon was manufactured by the left.

      Comment by ThatGayConservative — January 26, 2011 @ 5:22 pm - January 26, 2011

    5. Of course it was.

      Comment by Bruce (GayPatriot) — January 26, 2011 @ 5:47 pm - January 26, 2011

    6. The hard Left is violent. Communism, socialism, and Nazism/facism are all hard Left and involve violence as a basic method of gaining and exercising power.

      American hard leftists often claim to be non-violent but often show a surprising sympathy for communism, socialism and/or fascism under various names and masks. They thrive in an environment of “free speech for me, but not for thee.” The post-Tucson ‘introspection’ about America’s ‘violent speech’, which has been largely dishonest, is a gambit to de-legitimize anyone who doesn’t agree with the hard Left.

      Violence is still bad. Except when it becomes necessary in self-defense. I support(ed) the Beck pledge, with the caveat that the following be added to its other points: “I denounce those from the Left, Right or middle who wish the government to pit groups of Americans against each other and/or to engage in legalized violence against their law-abiding neighbors, for their own gain or the gain of some alleged ideal they hold.”

      End of class.

      Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 26, 2011 @ 6:00 pm - January 26, 2011

    7. Has Obama or anyone in the Democrat party/Liberal media rebuked Steve Cohen yet? No? Then, we may safely assume ‘Civility’ is just a euphemism for “Conservatives need to STFU.”

      Meanwhile, enlightened progressives write plays in which they fantasize about murdering their (caricatured) conservative opponents. And others who are committed to “social justice” send their love and support to a man who tried to attack the Republican Governor of Missouri with a knife.

      And neither the Democrat Party nor the liberal media give a hoot.

      Comment by V the K — January 26, 2011 @ 7:31 pm - January 26, 2011

    8. ILC & VTK – Correct.

      Comment by Bruce (GayPatriot) — January 26, 2011 @ 7:37 pm - January 26, 2011

    9. Drunk posting agains, Bruce?

      Comment by Auntie Dogma — January 26, 2011 @ 9:52 pm - January 26, 2011

    10. Care to rebut with facts, not personal attacks, Dogma?

      Or at least defend Piven?

      Bueller…Bueller…

      Comment by Bruce (GayPatriot) — January 26, 2011 @ 11:45 pm - January 26, 2011

    11. Great post.

      Demanding “Civility” when their policies are being rejected
      …calling people who challenge their policies “racist”, “sexitst”, “hater” etc
      …labelling speech “extremist” or “violent rhetoric”
      …using children and victims as spokesmen/human-shields

      these are among the many, many BULLYING tactics the left has developed to silence debate and make people scared to challenge them.

      Its straight out of Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Raicals — which every Republican should check out from the library (dont want them to profit from it) and read — and which every member of the Democrat leadership has already read and is very familiar with — Obama used to TEACH it for crying out loud.

      Its Alinsky’s rule #12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy.

      They ARE radicals, their ideas cannot stand up to the light of day so they must lie, cheat, steal and destroy to get their way, and once they have done so to force their way on a country that doesn’t want it, they call for “civility” and “compromise” to keep what they lied, cheated, stole and destroyed to get.

      What we should do is NOT to acquiesce, but to EXPOSE. Reject their premise and tell the American people what they are up to, about the book of radical tactics that it came from and read the rules to the American people so they can recognize the tactic for what it is — and reject it, instead of falling for it.

      Its one thing to call people radicals when you have little evidence other than your disagreement, its quite another thing altogether to call them radicals and hold up their very own playbook as evidence.

      When people see that Democrats actions are exactly what the book calls for, their tactics will be rendered useless, they will be exposed as self-identified radicals, and their credibility destroyed.

      Comment by American Elephant — January 27, 2011 @ 12:20 am - January 27, 2011

    12. Hi Bruce,

      I wrote a post (http://bkivey.wordpress.com/2011/01/10/where-angels-fear-to-tread/) on 10 January taking note (with pictures) of the leftist ‘civility’ you mention.

      Comment by Blair Ivey — January 27, 2011 @ 12:40 am - January 27, 2011

    13. They would scream on every street corner to defend your freedom to the end for your right to say it, even tho they I abhor your views?

      who used to say that?

      Comment by Pamela — January 27, 2011 @ 12:48 am - January 27, 2011

    14. Drunk posting agains,

      Yes, apparently you are.

      Comment by ThatGayConservative — January 27, 2011 @ 3:31 am - January 27, 2011

    15. I understand how today’s parlance equates progressive with liberal. Still American Progressivism is not an ideology like Conservative or Liberal, but rather a pragmatic methodology/worldview. Perhaps you rail against the late 20th century social progressives who focus on identity politics. Since the late 19th century, there have been significant advances in U.S. society on account of progessive movements headed up by Republicans and Democrats alike…ones without which we all would have a lesser country.

      BTW I think you mean “cognizant” and not “cogent” in your sentence about the party changes in our recent elections.

      Comment by Bryan — January 27, 2011 @ 4:01 am - January 27, 2011

    16. Good for you! It is indeed bullshit and for every reason you name. Plus more. It’s also not going to happen. We haven’t been fighting all this time to be silenced by demagogues now. No, no and hell no. This does not make us irrational, it does not make us uncivil, it does not make us violent; it means we will not be silenced. It means we will not go down quietly; we will rage against the dying of the light. Even if that ends up being me and me alone; I won’t go down quietly. I think that’s called speaking truth to power ;)

      Comment by Anniee451 — January 27, 2011 @ 5:32 am - January 27, 2011

    17. Outstanding take. I have no nickel in the gay-vs-whomever fight, because I think one must judge by the actions of a person, not by their words. I could probably be described as a constitutionalist with libertarian ideals or vice versa.
      Bruce, you have rung true as supporting the values and ideas I do. Therefore – got your six. Read you at least 1/week, and enjoy your work. Thanks, amigo.

      Comment by The Old Man — January 27, 2011 @ 7:04 am - January 27, 2011

    18. Civility is rage, a 10 year war is peace, clean air is pollution, taxes are sin, respect for your fellow man is a weakness. Oh yes Christianity is about serving the rich.

      did I miss anything?

      Comment by Tim — January 27, 2011 @ 10:42 am - January 27, 2011

    19. Is this the party line with you homocon gals now?

      Chris Barron tweets to Porno Pete LaBarbera: “@PeterLabarbera Dan Savage is a pathetic freak.”

      Comment by Auntie Dogma — January 27, 2011 @ 10:43 am - January 27, 2011

    20. My favorite comment from the link to “free peoples of the United States of America (asked) to disarm themselves” which is 2/3rds of the way down Bruce’s post:

      “Funny how Republicans are gun mad assassins, yet every single dangerous neighborhood in America is overwhelmingly composed of Democrats.”

      Comment by Heliotrope — January 27, 2011 @ 10:50 am - January 27, 2011

    21. Tim @18 asks if he missed anything. Yes. This:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EC3XxN0pdkg

      Comment by Heliotrope — January 27, 2011 @ 11:00 am - January 27, 2011

    22. Tim was too busy trolling 15 year olds to see that, Heliotrope.

      Comment by The_Livewire — January 27, 2011 @ 11:03 am - January 27, 2011

    23. American Progressivism is not an ideology like Conservative or Liberal, but rather a pragmatic methodology/worldview.

      With a pragmatic objective of progressively transferring power, wealth and freedom from the mainstream of society to a self-selected political and economic elite; the precise result of all “progressive” policies.

      Comment by V the K — January 27, 2011 @ 11:53 am - January 27, 2011

    24. @V the K so the very clear accumulation of wealth in the hands of a few over the last 20 years in Wall street is a subtle plan by those who call themselves progressives, to get Democrats elected who pledge to tax the rich more? while the Republican pledge to reduce taxes on the rich is in fact a clear win for the middle class who are being squeezed by corporations who are effectively corning the market on the distribution of goods and services thru globalization?
      Also the fact that the Republicans publicly denounced bank reform despite previously denouncing the TARP bail out (but voting for it) which has led to the ever expanding Banks that are now even larger than before when we termed them “to big to fail” is in fact a clever plan to slowly decrease the danger of another catastrophic financial catastrophe by allowing them to do exactly what they did before?

      Comment by Tim — January 27, 2011 @ 12:15 pm - January 27, 2011

    25. V the K so the very clear accumulation of wealth in the hands of a few over the last 20 years in Wall street is a subtle plan by those who call themselves progressives, to get Democrats elected who pledge to tax the rich more?

      Tim, as Timothy Geithner, Kathleen Sebelius, Charles Rangel, and John Kerry show, Obama Party members don’t have to pay taxes.

      And as the Obamacare waivers handed out like candy to Obama donors and “progressive” think tanks show, Obama Party members don’t have to follow the laws they impose on everyone else.

      And as shown by the bailout of GM, where primary Obama donor the UAW took virtually no loss and both bondholders and taxpayers took massive losses, Obama Party members don’t have to worry about business risk.

      If you knew anything about the Soviet Union or Cuba, you would recognize right off the bat the nomenklatura — basically put, those Party ideologues who shriek the loudest about equality and sacrifice while being driven around in their limousines to their dacha in Napa.

      Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 27, 2011 @ 12:34 pm - January 27, 2011

    26. “Also the fact that the Republicans publicly denounced bank reform despite previously denouncing the TARP bail out (but voting for it) which has led to the ever expanding Banks that are now even larger than before when we termed them “to big to fail” is in fact a clever plan to slowly decrease the danger of another catastrophic financial catastrophe by allowing them to do exactly what they did before? ” I suppose we’ll just ignore this part and say that didn’t happen either?

      Comment by Tim — January 27, 2011 @ 12:36 pm - January 27, 2011

    27. V the K so the very clear accumulation of wealth in the hands of a few over the last 20 years in Wall street is a subtle plan by those who call themselves progressives,

      Sure, look who accumulated it:
      - Major banks and financial institutions like Goldman Sachs who donate generously to the Obamacrats and have revolving door jobs in Democrat administrations. They get massive government bailouts from progressive Democrats and Republicans.

      - Entertainment industry moguls and media companies, who are also major Obamacrat donors.

      - Investors like Warren Buffett and George Soros. Nuff said.

      - Big Education: The endowment funds of elite liberal institutions have never been fatter, and tuition costs have readily outstripped inflation.

      - Public employee Unions. Who give hundreds of millions to progressive Democrat causes and whose employees are now far better compensated than their counterparts in private injury.

      Now, let’s examine who’s gotten reamed over the last 20 years.
      - Working class white males; as the industrial base is shipped off to China in the name of progressive globalist economics and unskilled illegal immigrants drive down wages for any jobs they haven’t already taken. What party do working class white males vote for?

      So, what is the result of generations of progressive politics? The richest suburbs in America ring Washington DC, liberal elites in Manhattan have never been richer, and the industrial heartland is gutted.

      Comment by V the K — January 27, 2011 @ 1:32 pm - January 27, 2011

    28. Y’see, when the political elite control the wealth of a nation, they don’t distribute it according to some hippie ideal of fairness, they pass it out to the people who can help keep them in power.

      Comment by V the K — January 27, 2011 @ 2:01 pm - January 27, 2011

    29. @V the K, white males got reamed the worst? Um isn’t unemployment with blacks at 20%, and don’t white males make up the majority of wall street, congress, the movie industry, and aren’t government employees ( who are paid less than their counter parts (just look at the SEC) promised compensation with pensions that are in fact so underfunded that they make social security look like it’s solvent? Your tired conspiracy theories belie the fact that everyone one of us on this website are in fact quite well paid? Yes the industrial complexes of this country were gutted, and paid for by government subsidies that encouraged them to do so, not to mention the bottom line which continues to drive said jobs oversees or risk the life of the business? We could touch on the fact that even if they stayed modernization would still put hundreds of thousands out of work as robotic processes reduced the number of employees to a fraction of what it was.
      You could also note that Union membership is at an all time low and even unions have bowed to the pressures of globalization and cut benefit requests and increased productivity.
      I lived in PA i saw what the unions did to the major industries there, that was self inflicted on their part.
      As for political donations, are you saying the Supreme Court was wrong in deciding that corporations and unions have a vested interest and right to donate to politicians? Besides both sides benefit from donations fairly equally over the long term so I don’t think that is really the crux of the matter.

      Comment by Tim — January 27, 2011 @ 2:04 pm - January 27, 2011

    30. @V the K y’see when the wealthy elite control the politicians they don’t distribute the money to just anyone, they distribute it such a way that they stay wealthy. I mean who else gained from the nonrepeal of the bush era tax cuts? It certainly wasn’t the middle class which just got signed up to pay for them.

      Comment by Tim — January 27, 2011 @ 2:06 pm - January 27, 2011

    31. white males got reamed the worst?

      Nice editing job there. I didn’t say “white males,” I said “working class white males” get the worst of a progressive political economy. They get it coming and going. Globalist economics (a progressive concept intended to spread wealth from developed to underdeveloped countries) and illegal immigration take away their livelihoods, and Affirmative Action puts everyone else in line ahead of them for educational and employment opportunities.

      Besides both sides benefit from donations fairly equally over the long term so I don’t think that is really the crux of the matter.

      Empirically false. Unions have benefited massively from public spending and large, connected companies like GE get huge bailouts. The people who suffer are entrepreneurs and smaller businesses without influence. Progressives actually like it this way; a small number of large businesses are easier for the Government to control than a large number of small businesses.

      I don’t think the Supreme Court erred because I always favor more political speech, more political opinions, and less Government control over them. I am uncomfortable with the notion that the Government picks and chooses who is allowed to speak and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. I think everyone should be concerned if the Government is deciding who gets to participate in political debate and who does not.

      Comment by V the K — January 27, 2011 @ 2:28 pm - January 27, 2011

    32. @V The K “Globalist economics” is a capitalist term used and developed by the wealthy nations to exploit locales of cheap labor to under cut their competitors producing identical products in the first world.
      Aren’t hippy progressives the ones spear heading the “eat local, buy local” ??? I mean I’d like to blame this all on nag champa smelling hippies and their drum circles but your really stretching the truth in this.

      So let me get this straight Government is controlled by progressives, who planned globalization, which destroys small business, but only benefits big companies who donate to the government, which is trying to destroy big business by shipping it over seas?? Or is it Progressives hate white people so they ship jobs over seas to benefit the rich white people who own the companies, in an attempt to break the middle class who pay taxes so that the government has more control by using fear of insolvency to keep people in line? Insolvency primarily caused by two unfunded wars, unfunded tax cuts, Medicare prescription drug benefits, and no cuts to entitlement programs? Let’s not mention that the military budget has swelled from 450 billion dollars to 850 billion dollars in 10 years and easily swamps the rest of the world combined? Maybe we don’t need so many air craft carriers, subs, fighter jets, and nukes? Maybe we are just lining the pockets of rich white people who use fear to stoke profits.

      Are you also opposed to the fact that the government gets to control who is allowed to sue it? (just curious)

      Comment by Tim — January 27, 2011 @ 2:44 pm - January 27, 2011

    33. “Besides both sides benefit from donations fairly equally over the long term so I don’t think that is really the crux of the matter.

      Empirically false.”
      this statement was referring to the political parties and their donations.

      Comment by Tim — January 27, 2011 @ 2:45 pm - January 27, 2011

    34. I’m curious, how does one “corn the market”?

      Comment by ThatGayConservative — January 27, 2011 @ 3:37 pm - January 27, 2011

    35. @ThatGayConservative lol I was going to correct but i thought that summed it up anyway

      Comment by Tim — January 27, 2011 @ 3:43 pm - January 27, 2011

    36. “Civility” is a code word for Conservatives, Republicans, & the Tea Party to sit down & shut-up. Anyone who follows this advice is a fool. I’m talking to you Senator Maverick McCain.

      Comment by Sebastian Shaw — January 27, 2011 @ 3:48 pm - January 27, 2011

    37. while the Republican pledge to reduce taxes on the rich is in fact a clear win for the middle class who are being squeezed by corporations who are effectively corning the market on the distribution of goods and services thru globalization?

      Ah, we see. Timmy wants the government to be the one who parcels out the distribution of goods and services. Timmy in fact opposes corporations and private businesses providing goods and services, and believes that these should all be run by the government.

      You seem obsessed with “the rich”, Timmy. Why is that? Why do you and your fellow “progressives” hate rich people? Do you believe that the only way a person becomes rich is to steal from others? Do you believe that the reason other people have more than you do is because you stole it from them?

      Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 27, 2011 @ 4:46 pm - January 27, 2011

    38. @ND30 *blinks* who hates the rich? We’ve already experienced full on capitalism and our parents and their parents rejected it. Now your saying that the last two generations didn’t know what they were doing because obviously they just didn’t understand the blessings of complete capitalism. Honestly as a humanist I don’t think it’s write but even as an armchair economist I know it’s foolish.

      I’m saying that with the reduction of corporate competition the middle class and the poor are squeezed harder both by a looming tax burden, an aging work force, and increasingly monopolistic practices of the few remaining mega companies. You think deregulation is always great? Enron and the wall street crash were both clear examples of what can happen with unregulated capitalism. There is no reason for a monopoly to lower costs or fear risks when there is no downside to being greedy.

      Comment by Tim — January 27, 2011 @ 5:02 pm - January 27, 2011

    39. Progressive elites always take care of their own.

      Comment by V the K — January 27, 2011 @ 5:17 pm - January 27, 2011

    40. I wish the leftists would get their wish already…
      kill all the rich and successful people in the USA. Then everything will be better right?
      Then we’ll be just like, well just like Columbia, Haiti and Tektecistan.
      Liberal heavens. Everyone is the same.

      Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — January 27, 2011 @ 5:19 pm - January 27, 2011

    41. Aren’t hippy progressives the ones spear heading the “eat local, buy local”

      You mean, the people who drive Priuses and buy furniture from IKEA? Those hippie progressives?

      Meanwhile, those same progressive hippies support the Draconian and unnecessary environmental, employment, and financial regulations that drive businesses overseas in the first place. Labor cost is not the sole driving factor, American workers are vastly more productive than foreign workers. However, if their productivity is outweighed by the cost of complying with regulations, paying higher energy costs because of “Climate Change” regulations, they pay the highest corporate taxes in the world (because of the progressive mantra that the productive must be punished), if their employers must wait years for approval to expand facilities while progressive hippies file lawsuits to save smelts and grasshoppers, other progressive hippies will sue if the composition of their employers’ labor force is thought to be insufficiently diverse, financial regulations that make it harder for entrepreneurs and small/medium sized businesses to get credit … at some point, the productivity of American workers is outweighed by the vast expense of complying with progressive hippie regulations and paying progressive hippie tax rates.

      So, who is really hurt when operations are off-shored? Not progressive hippies, they come closer to their “green” utopia. Not rich businessmen and investors, they still make money off their foreign operations. No, the people who get hurt and the press for progressive utopia are the people in the working and middle class.

      For people who complain about income inequities, rich trust-fund progressives seem to be hellbent on making everyone but themselves worse off.

      Are you also opposed to the fact that the government gets to control who is allowed to sue it?

      Yes, I think that’s another example of the political elite putting themselves above the peasant class they rule over. At the same time, it is a difficult problem to overcome given that the state must by definition have monopoly over the instruments of law and justice. It is a conundrum, I would not say otherwise.

      Comment by V the K — January 27, 2011 @ 5:37 pm - January 27, 2011

    42. In other news of civility, latest media Palin-smear goes down in flames.

      Comment by V the K — January 27, 2011 @ 5:48 pm - January 27, 2011

    43. I’m saying that with the reduction of corporate competition the middle class and the poor are squeezed harder both by a looming tax burden, an aging work force, and increasingly monopolistic practices of the few remaining mega companies.

      First, the poor only pay sales taxes and the corporate taxes hidden in the price of consumer goods, but the poor are net recipients of welfare. Enormous welfare.

      Second, the work force is becoming ever more skilled with fewer and fewer jobs open for knuckleheads. If your whole town is employed in building RV’s and those who can afford them button down on their purchases, then what is the RV factory to do? Build stables for unicorns?

      Third, manufacturing can not pay the costs of production in the US and compete with foreign made goods.

      Fourth, mega companies (I will leave it to Tim to name them) can easily just leave the US and engage in manufacturing overseas.

      Tim, you have a public elementary school dropout’s view of how an economy works.

      I would love to see you name names of the nasty corporations and propose solutions. So far you just tar and feather your demons.

      Comment by Heliotrope — January 27, 2011 @ 7:01 pm - January 27, 2011

    44. Item: Obama (Progressive Policy) drilling moratorium to cost 125,000 oil jobs by 2015. Who hurts? Middle class oil workers. Who supports the policy? Progressive hippie trustafarians.

      Comment by V the K — January 27, 2011 @ 8:08 pm - January 27, 2011

    45. Maybe those oil workers can get jobs building solar panels and wind turbines and compact fluorescent bulbs. Oh, wait… those are all being made in China.

      Comment by V the K — January 27, 2011 @ 9:11 pm - January 27, 2011

    46. I’m saying that with the reduction of corporate competition the middle class and the poor are squeezed harder both by a looming tax burden, an aging work force, and increasingly monopolistic practices of the few remaining mega companies.

      Oh please. I think this says it best:

      Tax Day is a dreaded deadline for millions, but for nearly half of U.S. households it’s simply somebody else’s problem.

      About 47 percent will pay no federal income taxes at all for 2009. Either their incomes were too low, or they qualified for enough credits, deductions and exemptions to eliminate their liability…….

      The result is a tax system that exempts almost half the country from paying for programs that benefit everyone, including national defense, public safety, infrastructure and education. It is a system in which the top 10 percent of earners — households making an average of $366,400 in 2006 — paid about 73 percent of the income taxes collected by the federal government.

      The bottom 40 percent, on average, make a profit from the federal income tax, meaning they get more money in tax credits than they would otherwise owe in taxes.

      Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 27, 2011 @ 10:44 pm - January 27, 2011

    47. @Heliotrope um it was V the K who was simultaneously blaming manufacturer’s for leaving the country and saying that we should all buy local. I import lots of things from overseas to resell it’s how I make my bottom line.

      as for the tax line the poor don’t pay much in income tax but pay a higher percentage in retail taxes, cigarette taxes, and loosing games like the lottery. Besides payroll taxes, they still have a sizable chunk of their income go to SS, state taxes, and the like http://tinyurl.com/y535yww
      So despite the urge of many in this thread to blame the poor or take part in pointless class warfare, Why is it that speaking in a civil tone to your fellow citizen such a threat to your existences?

      Comment by Tim — January 28, 2011 @ 10:05 am - January 28, 2011

    48. Brilliant post. E.g., I’m not the biggest Sarah Palin fan around, and would prefer that she not run for President in 2012 even though I agree with probably 80% or 90% of her policy positions. However, the venom dumped on her by the so-called mainstream media and other elements of the unhinged left is beyond uncivil. Yet they think it’s just fine. But any disagreement with Obama — that’s not only uncivil, but racist, in their deranged minds.

      Comment by Jack W. — January 28, 2011 @ 7:25 pm - January 28, 2011

    RSS feed for comments on this post.

    Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.