Gay Patriot Header Image

Obama’s Failure to Live up to Youthful Hype

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 12:34 pm - October 13, 2011.
Filed under: Obamania

Over at National Review’s Campaign Spot, the ever-insightul Jim Geraghty considers the mind-set of those youthful protesters “occupying” various cities:

I think two big factors are driving this — the first is the realization that electing Obama, the Munificent Sun-God, didn’t actually do much to fix many of the problems young people were upset about in 2008. The job market still stinks, wage growth is a distant memory, the drop in housing prices hurts current homeowners and not enough young earners have the resources to take advantage of lower home prices and oh, by the way, gas is $4 per gallon instead of $3 per gallon.

Read the whole thing. (Decided to post this quotation because it relates to a piece I’ve been working on — and hope to have up this afternoon.)

Share

146 Comments

  1. Hi ILC,
    Yes, it took time for our posts to clear! Good correction, but the rearmament issue remains, and that was started much earlier than 1938.

    Comment by Cas — October 19, 2011 @ 2:38 pm - October 19, 2011

  2. Yes, it took time for our posts to clear!

    Are you claiming that yours was held up in the spamfilter? Or are you trying to make it sound like I somehow didn’t correct my own error on the historical date?

    the rearmament issue remains

    No, it doesn’t. Hitler was a socialist. His party was a mass workers’ movement, the National SOCIALIST German WORKERS’ Party. He rose to Fuehrer und Reichskanzler, on that. He did NOT rise with the support of the Reichswehr. As social conservatives (many of them traditional Prussian nobles), they were indeed very skeptical of Hitler. They thought he wanted to push them out. Hitler bought them off i.e. showed them that, although a socialist, he wasn’t going to push them out… by killing Rohm and deprecating the SA. That was a LATE change to Nazism, i.e., AFTER Hitler had achieved power. But, because he did that, THEN he had enough trust from the Reichswehr to proceed with the rearmament.

    Really, Cas – This is not hard. It’s called history.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 19, 2011 @ 2:56 pm - October 19, 2011

  3. Hi ILC,

    Are you claiming that yours was held up in the spamfilter?

    I don’t know. I took some time to formulate a reply to your post, and by the time I had posted it, you had apparently already posted. I say “apparently” because when I posted, your comment wasn’t in the #97 slot (at least from where I was). It then appeared there when I looked back a while later. This is weird, I agree, but it isn’t the first time that has happened to a post of mine. It posts, and then things shift around, so, that is what it looked like from my viewpoint, in this instance as well.

    He did NOT rise with the support of the Reichswehr. As social conservatives (many of them traditional Prussian nobles), they were indeed very skeptical of Hitler. They thought he wanted to push them out. Hitler bought them off i.e. showed them that, although a socialist, he wasn’t going to push them out… by killing Rohm and deprecating the SA. That was a LATE change to Nazism, i.e., AFTER Hitler had achieved power.

    I am glad you came back with some ideas, so we have the makings of a conversation. I will start by asking you what you mean by a “late change” for Hitler. Hitler used the SA to get leverage on the Weimar Republic’s officials and politicians. But he was ALWAYS aware that the army represented one institution that could seriously block his aims, if he were injudicious. Thus, from the start of his time as Chancellor in January 1933, Hitler made it clear that he wanted the army on his side. Thus, in February and March 1933, Hitler made speeches showing respect for the army’s traditions and position in German society, and followed it up with a new army law in July 1933 that removed some irritating oversight of the army, and the army really dug it when Hitler withdrew Germany from the Disarmament Conference in October of that year. The impediment was the SA to fully getting the army on his side (and with this, I agree with you). However, the army was complicit in cementing Hitler’s rise to power in the early regime. When the army made clear in the Spring of 1934 that something needed to be done about the SA, Hitler knew he had to act. There is little doubt that the action on the SA was carried out with the knowledge AND support of the Army Officer Corps (they provided logistical support and reserve troops in case the SA was difficult to deal with). And there is no doubt that Hitler knew that if he wanted to be President of the Republic when Hindenburg died, he needed to liquidate the issue of the SA. The army could block him, if it chose to do so, from taking that position. So, there was a convergence of interests. The army declared its loyalty in early August, 1934, and Hitler cemented his position with the army’s acquiesence.

    It is hard for us to really appreciate how “in-flux” the early rule of Hitler was.

    Comment by Cas — October 19, 2011 @ 11:27 pm - October 19, 2011

  4. Oh look; after lying, spinning, and arguing dishonestly, Cas tries to get in a last word — by ironically reversing itself.

    Or, put differently, it tries to rewrite history.

    You lose, Cas. ILC and HT win.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 21, 2011 @ 7:30 am - October 21, 2011

  5. I am glad you came back with some ideas, so we have the makings of a conversation

    Cas, you are so full of bullsh*t it is unbelievable. I’ve been saying the same things all along. Now **you finally** choose to engage a fragmant of the substance, including the climb-down that NDT points out; and to save your pride, you make it sound like you are deigning to do so because I finally decided to be reasonable. Pathetic.

    I will start by asking you what you mean by a “late change” for Hitler.

    But I have already exactly what I mean by it:

    Hitler was a socialist. His party was a mass workers’ movement, the National SOCIALIST German WORKERS’ Party. He rose to Fuehrer und Reichskanzler, on that. He did NOT rise [to Fuehrer und Reichskanzler] with the support of the Reichswehr.

    So that your spin:

    from the start of his time as Chancellor in January 1933, Hitler made it clear that he wanted the army on his side.

    is correctly translated to English as what I’ve been saying: At the start of his time as Chancellor in January 1933, HITLER MOST DECIDEDLY DID *NOT* HAVE THE SUPPORT OF THE ARMY.

    You are just pathetic, Cas.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 21, 2011 @ 10:17 am - October 21, 2011

  6. It is hard for us to really appreciate how “in-flux” the early rule of Hitler was.

    Translation: HITLER WAS A SOCIALIST… but, you desperately do not want to admit it.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 21, 2011 @ 10:19 am - October 21, 2011

  7. I noticed the Cas reversal yesterday morning. I started to blow a gasket and set in to respond. Then, I thought about the ramifications of Cas getting a second wind and closed the window.

    Marx, Lenin, Castro, Hitler, Mussolini, Mao all ended whatever propelled them with big, dictatorial government. Whether the pervasive, all controlling government takes from the rich and funnels the residuals to poor, it is still an elitist oligarchy in which “we the people” have restricted say and only get what the government giveth.

    In the respect that communism is a leftist ideology, then so was what Hitler believed and engaged in setting up. His extermination of the Jews, Gypsies, gays, blacks, etc. was just Social Darwinism gone full eugenics and the ends justifying the means.

    For Cas to come here and say that Hitler’s form of national socialism is conservative is to turn a blind eye to the mass murders of inconvenient people. Even the Ayres crowd in the Weatherman days was fully cognizant that recalcitrant people who wanted to preserve the old order would have to be reeducated or exterminated.

    These clowns on OWS and in rapture over rupture of the order in Italy, England, Greece, etc. have no plan other than chaos and the confusion of near anarchy.

    They are demanding that other people’s money be spent on them (the protesters) and they have no interest in how the confiscated money is generated. They only care that some people accumulate “too much” money. So, Cas and clowns favor confiscating more of other people’s money to expand access to things that marginally increase the socialist benefits to Cas and the clowns.

    Cas and the clowns are stuck on the stupid notion of utopia financed by unicorns and the tooth fairy.

    If I ran welfare, I would put the recipients in camps and I would see that they got reeducation which focused on how to get your arse off welfare. For those who prefer to do drugs and birth babies and watch TV, I would accommodate that as well. They would have barracks, a mess hall, basic recreation facilities, room to stroll, medical care and careful supervision to make sure they don’t get hurt playing with the concertina wire. If one is determined to suck off the teat of the government hog, so be it. Nothing says they have to get the Hilton.

    Comment by Heliotrope — October 21, 2011 @ 1:57 pm - October 21, 2011

  8. Every socialist leader desires the support of the army. EVERY one. No exceptions, no matter what branch of socialism she represents. Why? Because the very nature of her enterprise (enslaving the citizenry) requires police and military force, or it can’t be done.

    Saying “Hitler wanted the support of the army” is just like saying that Lenin, Castro, Mussolini or Mao wanted it. In other words, like saying “The sky is blue”, or “Water is wet.” To the extent that the socialist leader can’t hope to get it, she builds her own army – say guerrillas, or a paramilitary like the SA – and plans to fight the regular army. But she’d always prefer not to; she always *wants* “the army on her side”.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 21, 2011 @ 5:26 pm - October 21, 2011

  9. Hi ILC and HT,
    I would remind you that I asked you both to put up your views about Hitler and his rise to power, and to answer the question as to why the conservative German Army Officer Corps would work with a equivalently expropriating socialist leader. HT’s approach was to suggest that I was being “unreasonable” since I was “assuming” that the Corps was conservative in the first place. What twaddle! We all agree about that. You are just annoyed HT because I wouldn’t do the thread by your rules (e.g., “gender up & …”). Sorry about that. In a nutshell–you had no intention of mixing it up, so now stand finally back from the brink of “blowing a gasket” because I say something you don’t like. I’ll reconcile that in a minute, mate.

    ILC, you get all kinds of snarky when I point out that Hitler got the support of the Corps early in his rule. It is not like you actually made an historically based argument prior to this. And I note a happy reliance on assertions. Good for you! You want to beat me over the head with the idea that Hitler had a strained relationship with the army at the start. Well, if you read your history, you would see–the Army didn’t give a fig about Hitler’s supposed socialism; they gave a fig about the possibility that the Army would be superseded by Hitler’s SA, as the traditional guardian of the State–hence the speeches he made (which had nothing to do with socialism, or downplaying expropriation (excessive regulation). That does not fit your narrative.

    For ILC and HT–any socialist pretensions were cast off after June 1934. It wasn’t only Rohm that got liquidated; the “leftist wing did as well. Fascist Germany came into crystal clear focus at that point. Want to argue Hitler is a socialist after 1934–be my guest. But I want to see more than you relying on “regulating industry” as your crutch, I think you need a bit more than that! Because what I think you get is a set of totalitarian characteristics that do not bear “socialist traits” per se. So, shower me with your evidence. Because you haven’t done so in this thread, sport.

    Comment by Cas — October 21, 2011 @ 7:26 pm - October 21, 2011

  10. Cas,

    Here is how history works: Hitler forced himself to the dictatorship of Germany without the benefit of hindsight. He encountered what he encountered and planned strategies according to circumstances. He had a Reichswehr to contend with which was a truncated and defeated military charged with the national security. There was also the Black Reichswehr that illegally played footsie with Russia and was engaged in fudging the numbers vis a vis the oversight of the Treaty of Versailles commissions. The SA served a purpose for Hitler and succeeded in exceeding their usefulness. They had support of part of the Reichswehr, but so did Hitler.

    It became clear to Hitler that he had to throw the SA under the bus in order to get increased support of the German people. for this, he used the Reichswehr with a lot of trusted confidants. The Rohm Putsch occurred at the end of June and beginning of July of 1934. In September of 1934, the 6th Nazi Party Congress was held in Nuremberg and Leni Riefenstahl made her incredible film Triumph des Willens which gave minimal attention to the Wehrmacht. Many Wehrmacht generals were agitated by the “snub” and Riefenstahl returned to make a film in 1935 that was exclusively about the Wehrmacht: Tag der Freiheit: Unsere Wehrmacht.

    By 1936, the Reichswehr ceased to exist and the Wehrmacht took its place. Hitler remade the army officer corps in effect to respond favorably to his highly successful propaganda campaign about the supremacy of Germany.

    Whether Hitler was more motivated by national socialism or militant dictatorial zeal is beside the point.

    If Obama can triumph over the constitutional representative democracy military and force them to serve his purported national socialism ambitions is more of the point. Obama has spoken often about the cumbersome attributes of representative democracy in his drive to drag the recalicitant part of America kicking and screaming into the fundamental transformation of society.

    Dictators are all the same. Obama, still a wanna-be dictator, has not yet dared to show his true colors. He has no Mein Kampf other than his Ayres written Dreams of My Father. Whether he will pull some sort of Rohm Putsch on his useful idiots to gain a solidifying second term in which he finally brings down our system is anybody’s guess.

    You insist on using valence terms which are good only for extending mindless, circular arguments over the definition of terms. Fascism, justice, equality, fairness, and so many more subjective forays are argued only when important matters would crush the interlocutor. Whether you plan that or you play the game instinctively, is not important. The important point is that you are not capable of taking a stand and defending it. You are without principle. Or at least principle with a clear definition.

    Meanwhile, the useful idiots who comprise OWS are easily herded by Soros, the SEIU leadership, the Communist Party and a field of professional agitators. The medium is the message: Occupy, chant, trash, cause chaos, blubber, and, when directed, do violence and mayhem.

    That is who you defend. Rebels without a cause.

    Comment by Heliotrope — October 21, 2011 @ 9:25 pm - October 21, 2011

  11. Hi HT,
    That is more like it!
    As for the OWS, it is pretty clear that they have articulated a set of grievances, and they have a narrative; but they do not have a unified set of solutions; so I do not see them as rebels without a cause–they just don’t have a clear articulation about what they want to do about it–and whether they use “valence” words like “justice” or “fairness” does not invalidate their use. One might as well argue that Greek philosophy was a waste of time because they did not have a nice neat definition of “justice.” And if you want that, one can go with Rawls, but I have a feeling that you do not like Rawls’ arguments or definition.

    As for Hitler’s Germany–Hitler was still pretty cagey with the Army, right up to 1938 (rather than 1936, as you appear to suggest), when he took direct control (and sidelined a number of older, “less responsive” leaders, and replaced them with yes-men like Keitel). I will grant there was a cadre of those who resisted Hilter’s designs (culminating in the July 1944 assassination attempt), and they did so, not with a liberal persuasion, but following a decidedly conservative, illiberal, and anti-democratic stance. The majority of the armed forces’ Officer Corps took the oath of 1934 seriously, and enjoyed the benefits of rapid increase in armaments and army size (promotion, et al), which also included an influx of soldiers long indoctrinated with NSDAP thinking.

    As for why Hitler threw the SA under the bus, though I can grant that there was some discontent concerning the SA’s antics amongst the general population, Hitler’s calculation was more to do with positioning himself for the army’s support as well as worries over an independent Rohm’s effect on his own power base–the worries of an attempted coup, then anything else.

    As for the Reichswehr and “Black Reischswehr”, I think you give the impression that the BR were involved in Russia. That is not my understanding. Von Seeckt was the author of that arrangement with Russia–i.e., at the highest level of the Reichswehr, and it revolved mainly around the training of regular (not “black”) pilots, tank command tactics and doctrine, and (regular not black) officer training. The Black Reichswehr were not the focus of this work, being as they were the “work-commandos” that helped supplement trained members of the Reichswehr (within Germany), as a violation of the Versailles Treaty (on this, I agree with you).

    Note: The Reichswehr (at least the Army Corps) detested the Weimar Republic (consider von Seeckt!). Hitler’s reception was a lot warmer than the Weimar Republic ever got, and they were just a liberal democracy, SPD inspired as it was…

    Comment by Cas — October 22, 2011 @ 12:40 am - October 22, 2011

  12. Ugh!

    it is pretty clear that they [OWS] have articulated a set of grievances

    They [OWS] have “articulated” nothing. The same goes for the “grievances” at the G-8 meetings. They are bashing away at capitalism, that old bogey man “greed,” “too much” wealth accumulation and the law and order that protects those against whom they demonstrate. Those are not grievances. The ones demonstrating are not denied access to capitalism. They are not denied the opportunity to accumulate “too much” wealth, they are not singled out by law enforcement for “occupying” and parading without a permit and (in the case of the G-8 “grievers”) they are not singled out for setting fire to automobiles, breaking store windows and rioting among a diverse and representative crowd of citizens who are doing the same for entertainment.

    Soros, SEIU, the Communist party, and left-wing groups feed, organize and prompt these useful idiots. They are not, as of yet, wearing brown shirts or black shirts or green shirts, but they are also not spontaneous and amalgamated by any set of common goals other than defiance and chaos.

    What I wrote in #110 is not in contradiction to anything in this long and winding thread. You chose to call me a fascist. You have no idea of what the word means outside of its pejorative value to rather plain minded leftists who use it a weapon of name-calling in their arsenal of ammunition that will always arouse the useful idiots to do a group taunt.

    Then you went on some tangent about Hitler’s form of socialism not being liberal. Then you painted the near eunuch Reichswehr of left-over malleable foggies as a conservative force against national socialism and Hitler in particular. That is to entirely misread the role of the national police power in a cataclysmic time of hyper-inflation when local currency replaces trust in and the order provided by a sound national currency. To the extent that the Reichswehr was engaged in law and order and trying to preserve the nation, it was conservative. But you can not use the term conservative in those times and that place as interchangeable with conservative in the United States of today or as applied by leftists to the TEA Party.

    That last point in the continual point of many threads that have dealt with the CAS problem. Cas has no sense of honesty in the use of terms and meaning. And when Cas is confronted with the eely aspects of the Cas “chat” or “converstation” Cas ignores and blathers on.

    Liberals shift the topic, ignore the corrections and proceed to name calling. Cas is a master of the art.

    Comment by Heliotrope — October 22, 2011 @ 11:08 am - October 22, 2011

  13. At #! we hear this from Cas:

    I agree that some of what is motivating OWS folks is a disappointment with Obama’s performance, but I think the larger picture is one that suggests that they are unhappy with the economic-political structure of this country as a whole

    After all the goes before this point in the thread, Cas has assiduously avoided spelling out just what aspects of the “economic-political structure” of this country (USA) makes the “OWS folks” “unhappy.”

    Our Constitution allows for us to be a socialist nation. We can achieve it by Constitutional means and make it an aspect of our constitutional representative democracy.

    A critical component in socialism is the agreement on how to pay for the general welfare. The USSR, Cuba, The PRC have all wrestled with it and ended up with nations of wealthy bureaucrats and massive populations in state controlled poverty.

    European socialism has had a bit different history, but under the EU, it is becoming clear that it is a mare’s nest to try to unify the socialist practices of Italy, Spain, Portugal, Greece and Ireland with the socialist practices of Germany, Belgium, The Netherlands, and France. As an important side note, if moderately wealthy English were to abandon their residences in Spain and France, France would have a faster collapsing economy and Spain would be an even worse financial basket case.

    The United States has critical work to do to address the bankruptcy of Social Security and the Medicare/Medicaid system. To this, Obama has unleashed Obamacare that is a burden of additional entitlement debt of unknown and unthinkable magnitude. It is like Greece of today lowering the retirement age to 40 and ordering the flat broke pension system to pick up the load.

    The leftists see this moment in time as ripe for state socialism in which “we the people” are controlled by the state in nearly every aspect of our lives and we work for the state and instead of receiving payment for our labors, we get allowances and benefits from the state. (Nancy Pelosi, for example, got to fly her grandchildren in a government jet which was stocked with a five star bar and serviced by state employees who bowed and scraped. That alone is indicative of the perks the managers of the hoi polloi must have in exchange for the hard work of managing the masses.)

    That is my read on Obama and the fundamental transformation of America. If there is an argument to be had, it is not about the Reichswehr of a dead and gone time, but the door to the future and what lies behind it.

    The Obama people know full well they do not have enough leftists in the country to effect the fundamental transformation openly and honestly according the to Constitution and the two party system. So they are ruling by fiat and chicanery. They “deem” bills to have been passed. They demagogue. They regulate. They lie. They fund rabble-rousers. They cheat at the voting booth. They steal political money from the treasury through front groups they fund by crooked legislation. They specialize is the worst practices of politics as it has developed over the years in the US.

    There. That is something worth having a “chat” about.

    Comment by Heliotrope — October 22, 2011 @ 11:45 am - October 22, 2011

  14. Heliotrope – Agree, our focus should be on the present and future. I’m trying to identify why I would have spent any time on Cas, in this thread. There is a certain horrific fascination to seeing how low a leftie will go, in pretending to be noble – how shamelessly they will twist words and use the other tactics you mentioned. Part of me wants to assume human beings are better than that. When I have a negative conclusion about lefties, I sometimes go “Wait a minute – can that be true? Can people really be that bad?” Then I probe into what Cas or Levi or the others have to say, and yes, they are as bad as I feared – and worse. It’s a kind of data-gathering mission, to make sure my conclusions about them are just. They are.

    For ILC and HT–any socialist pretensions were cast off after June 1934…

    Bullsh*t, Cas. Yet another example of your being filled with unbelievable and vile bullsh*t. Hitler proceeded after 1934 to implement the very economic program that YOU advocate: Massive social spending, “stimulus”, money printing, regulation, mandates and regimentation of what could and could not be done with property.

    You, Cas, are in fact a fascist in the realm of economics. You stand for the economic ideology/program of Mussolini and Hitler. And you desperately need people to not notice.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 22, 2011 @ 12:09 pm - October 22, 2011

  15. (the overarching characteristic of fascists and all other socialists, being: worship of State power. Subordination of the individual to the State – sometimes euphemized as “the community” – as the answer to all problems, real or imagined.)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 22, 2011 @ 12:15 pm - October 22, 2011

  16. Lest we forget: Hitler also raised taxes on industry, undertook “shovel-ready infrastructure projects” (Autobahn), and either harassed or confiscated the property of those designated as State enemies. All elements of the Obama-Pelosi-Cas economic program.

    In 1934 Hjalmar Schacht, the Reich Minister of Economics, introduced the Mefo bills, allowing Hitler to spend money on rearming without giving the big businesses money, therefore gradually getting Germany into more and more debt. Between 1933 and 1939, the total revenue was 62 billion marks whereas expenditure (at times made up to 60 % by rearmament costs) exceeded 101 billion, thus creating a huge deficit and national debt (reaching 38 billion mark in 1939) coinciding with the Kristallnacht and intensified persecutions of Jews and the break-out of the war.

    They massively increased spending (not just rearmament; also social programs) and they borrowed 40% of every mark spent. That’s like 40 cents on the dollar. Hmm, why does “40 cents” happen to sound so familiar?

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 22, 2011 @ 1:52 pm - October 22, 2011

  17. Hi ILC and HT,

    You chose to call me a fascist.

    Well HT, I think you have made that claim twice in this thread. Where do you think I said that? Can you point that out to me? What I said, at #31, was that:

    I am as much a Marxist as you are a fascist.

    ILC went on to say, at #32, that he thought that:

    in the realm of economics, Cas, you are in fact a fascist, rather than a marxist.

    You appear to be under a misapprehension, unless you think I am a Marxist. But ILC thinks I am a fascist. You might want to get that straightened out between you…

    And I would add–you give NOT ONE shred of evidence to back the claim that the Reichswehr Officer Corps was in fact not conservative, as I have argued. And I would expect that any serious historian versed in German history would politely ask for the backing for this claim. As for this, HT:

    you painted the near eunuch Reichswehr of left-over malleable foggies as a conservative force … That is to entirely misread the role of the national police power in a cataclysmic time of hyper-inflation

    you seem to conflate 1923 with 1934. Out of curiosity, what would have made this group “conservative” enough in your eyes? Or is it a function of “enough strength” that drives you here–your meaning is unclear from what you wrote. Hitler seemed to believe that he needed them enough to tread very lightly and to liquidate the SA issue. Your claim of “left-over malleable foggies” is not supported by the historical record.

    Agree, our focus should be on the present and future

    And why talk about the past, when you so strenuously state that the time of importance is the present and the future, HT & ILC? Because, when you do, you talk about the past as a straight line affirmation of what you believe–evidence to the contrary. That is why I have been looking at history (and dragging you both–kicking and screaming, to do the same). You want to claim a historical narrative that is linear, simplistic and misleading. That is my point. The historical record doesn’t support your contentions, even if Goldberg and others want to tie a pretty little bow around it to say otherwise.

    Also,

    But you can not use the term conservative in those times and that place as interchangeable with conservative in the United States of today or as applied by leftists to the TEA Party.

    Both of you–HT & ILC, are guilty of doing exactly this–you both (to varying extents) equate current US liberal politicians with fascists and Marxists of the day. So, crying about this seems disingenuous at best. And at worst, it poisons any attempt to discuss issues. Believe in any collectivist impulse disapproved of by you–clearly, totalitarian; and those who disagree with you must be totalitarian. Sad. After all, HT, when you do say:

    The Obama people know full well they do not have enough leftists in the country to effect the fundamental transformation openly and honestly according the to Constitution and the two party system. So they are ruling by fiat and chicanery. They “deem” bills to have been passed. They demagogue. They regulate. They lie. They fund rabble-rousers. They cheat at the voting booth. They steal political money from the treasury through front groups they fund by crooked legislation. They specialize is the worst practices of politics as it has developed over the years in the US.

    I can almost feel the spittle through the computer monitor. I would only point out that a simple majority is no longer enough to pass legislation in this country. One needs at least 60%. I grant that Dems AND Repubs did and do this. The point is–as you tar one side–look to your own conservative side of things. It is absolutely amazing to me that even as you say what you do–in good faith, I might add–that others on the other side of the political spectrum say exactly the same things about the conservative side of politics. Can only one side be wrong here?

    I don’t think so.

    Comment by Cas — October 22, 2011 @ 2:24 pm - October 22, 2011

  18. Cas, there is a world of difference between arguing the fine points of the Reichswehr and comparing how the Ayres saturated Obama has significant parallels of likeness to the Mein Kampf narcissism of Hitler and how he proceeded to fundamentally transform Germany.

    The original subject always concerned the useful idiots who flock to do the bidding of Hope and Change and Superior Race and Workers of the World throwing off their chains and Social Justice and other such siren songs sung by manipulators and masters of deceit and the art of the demagogue. The OWS are useful idiots unhappy with the economic-political structure of this country as a whole. They are being played, payed and fed by leftist radicals and when they must be quelled for the gain of the puppet masters, they will be squashed like bugs.

    But you can’t take time to look at how Hitler, Mussolini, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Castro, and others manipulated their useful idiots. Nope. You have to first settle your little Reichswehr point. You can not find Gandhi, Martin Luther King, or even the Children’s Crusade in OWS, because those movements involved clear grievances with clear solutions. The radical left can not afford such principled actions.

    Jonah Goldberg made a remarkably good case for calling fascism a liberal concept. Take it up with him. All I know is that leftists can neither define fascism nor identify why it is “conservative.” They simply use fascism interchangeably with calling someone a racist or a Nazi or a Neanderthal or any of their other list of pejorative terms which, in their hands, are not considered politically incorrect. (Double standard, anyone? Or is it just blatant hypocrisy?)

    I called you a Marxist. You may not know what that is, but your views are decidedly Marxist. You may be a Leninist, but I have not plumbed what there is of your alleged wit and wisdom to determine that. I stand by my label: You, Cas, are a Marxist.

    You told me back: “I am as much a Marxist as you are a fascist.” That is neither nuanced nor subtle. “If” you are a Marxist, then you determine that I am a fascist. Had you wished to escape the branding, you would have used a facetious form of denial such as: “I am no more a Marxist as you are a pterodactyl.” Your non-denial, however, only parses syllogistically to return the favor of your being identified a Marxist with an identification of me as a fascist.

    What is trifling about this is that we can easily determine what characterizes a Marxist, but not even you in all your self vaunted high intellect can come close to making a clear definition of fascism.

    Cas, you are a typical, tedious intellectual wanna-be who can neither frame an argument nor stay on topic nor accept even small defeats. You represent a long line of liberal blunderbusses who, like Joe Biden, never learn and prefer to just blunder ahead rather than to reflect and be circumspect. That is at the heart of narcissism.

    Comment by Heliotrope — October 22, 2011 @ 5:13 pm - October 22, 2011

  19. Hi HT,
    Thanks for the explanation. I will just say that I don’t consider myself a Marxist (so my comment should be seen in that light). But then, I don’t think that Obama is a National Socialist either. I think that is just hyperbole. I don’t like what Obama has done in many areas, but I find that kind of rhetoric unnecessarily incendiary. As for the Reichswehr, I would point out that if ILC wants to make the case that Obama is a fascist, and that Hitler is a socialist, then he is going to have to accept that he can be challenged on his notions of history. The Reichswehr plays into this because it was a conservative organization. It swore its allegiance to Hitler. My question was for ILC to reconcile that apparent problem with his viewpoint. So, if you don’t want to hear me talk about the Reichswehr, then folks on this website should stop comparing Obama to Hitler, and saying Hitler is a socialist. Because, I am going to make cause against that set of claims. We might as well say that Bush was like Hitler (and I know some on the left did exactly this) but that was as dopey a claim as now comparing Obama to Hitler–having it come from the right doesn’t make it smell any sweeter, HT.

    As for a definition of fascism, I think you have a legitimate concern; it is an open question, and one that deserves consideration, though it does not do the work of delegitimizing that you think it does. I accept that its a bit broad and characteristic driven; and work needs to be done to narrow it down. Out of curiosity–what would you like to see in such a definition of fascism? Basically, it doesn’t have an economic ideology, as I see this subsumed within its essentially totalitarian and opportunistic structure.

    And HT, before you throw your stones, be aware that I have raised my points about inquiries you yourself raised. So, whether you think it is tedious, at least I supported my historically based arguments, not something you showed much of an appetite for, I might add. And as for tedious, please understand that whilst there are many on your side of the fence that enjoy hearing you state your points over and over again, to others on the other side–it also can be a little tedious. I do not begrudge you this–you believe these things. In any case, I appreciate the lesser heated nature of your rhetoric these last couple of posts.

    Comment by Cas — October 23, 2011 @ 12:31 am - October 23, 2011

  20. if you don’t want to hear me talk about the Reichswehr, then folks on this website should stop comparing Obama to Hitler, and saying Hitler is a socialist.

    Oh, my. A dictate.

    Poor, Cas. Hitler was a narcissist. He was a socialist. He found his way to become dictator. He was a propaganda expert and used it expertly. He morphed into one of the world’s great genocidal murders. (However, both Stalin and Mao outdid him in that department.) Like all socialist dictators, he finally short circuited the ends and just kept working at the means.

    Obama is a socialist. He is a narcissist. He has found a way to short circuit the Constitution through czars, a complicit Senate that will invent rules and ignore others and by issuing executive orders and manipulating by regulation. He is also engaged in money laundering borrowed money raised by selling bonds and taken from the US Treasury and given to crony causes in exchange for political kickbacks. Obama is good with the propaganda of setting forth non-ideas through valence terms like “hope” and “change” and “fundamental transformation” and “social justice” and whatever the focus groups reveal will cause the malcontents to drool. That is always the main power of the demagogue who would be dictator if the opportunity arose.

    This much is not an outlandish comparison with Hitler. Now that Obama and his radical friends are stocking up the useful idiots to occupy and demonstrate across the US and the Western world, it certainly puts one in mind of the socialists of the 1930’s in the US who held a huge American Nazi Party rally at Madison Square Garden in New York City at which Charles Lindberg spoke amidst swastika flags and Hitler salutes.

    I do not expect Obama to reignite the Nazi Party, but frothing socialists would be more than welcome in his camp.

    So, Cas, if you want to hammer away at how Obama dare not be compared to Hitler in any manner until your molehill of concern over the Reichswehr is fully excavated and studied and determinations are made, you go right ahead. That makes you a carbuncle on the ass end of intelligence.

    Out of curiosity–what would you like to see in such a definition of fascism?

    George Orwell wrote an essay entitled “Politics and the English Language” in which he noted: “The word Fascism has now (1946) no meaning in so far as it signifies ‘something not desirable.'”

    I made reference to Jonah Goldberg and I see no purpose to attempting to out think his answer concerning the meaning of Fascism:

    Fascism is a religion of the state. It assumes the organic unity of the body politic and longs for a national leader attuned to the will of the people. It is totalitarian in that it views everything as political and holds that any action by the state is justified to achieve the common good. It takes responsibility for all aspects of life, including our health and well-being, and seeks to impose uniformity of thought and action, whether by force or through regulation and social pressure. Everything, including the economy and religion, must be aligned with its objectives. Any rival identity is part of the “problem” and therefore identified as the enemy. I will argue that contemporary American liberalism embodies all of these aspects of fascism.”

    Marxism, fascism, socialism, progressivism are all aimed at a “New World Order” that embrace Utopian ideals of “liberty,” “equality,” “fraternity,” “social justice,” “unity,” “community,” “fairness,” “compassion,” and on and on and on.

    These are nobel ideals that are only possible by making war on “poverty” and making war on “poor health” and making war on “obesity” and making war on “ignorance” and making war on “discrimination” and making war on “greed” and making war on the politically incorrect issue de jour.

    Who better to make these wars than a totalitarian government carrying the banner of social enlightenment onto the battlefield where people who cling to their Bibles and guns and old fashioned concepts like limited government refuse to be “enlightened?”

    Fascism is the end of political debate and the Triumph of the Will to set the old world aright.

    Finally, you will note that Goldberg says that Fascism “…longs for a national leader attuned to the will of the people.” Since the state is supreme, obviously Fascism can not wait for representative democracy to turn to it. It has to impose itself through whatever means on representative democracy and then move forward (think “progressive”) to eliminate the enemies of the state. Therefore, “the will of the people” is not a conditional aspect of Fascism.

    Onward, socialist soldiers, marching as to war,
    with the ideals of Utopia going on before.
    Marx, the great Idealist, leads against the foe;
    forward into battle see his banners go.

    Onward socialist soldiers, marching as to war,
    with the ideals of Utopia going on before.

    Comment by Heliotrope — October 23, 2011 @ 10:21 am - October 23, 2011

  21. Let’s make this absolutely clear.

    – A socialist is anybody who thinks government should provide private goods (food, medicine, bailouts, monopoly privileges, union subsidies, etc.).
    – Hitler was a socialist. His party was the National SOCIALIST German WORKERS’ Party. He practiced that sub-species of socialism, called National Socialism at the time and Fascism by some today, which expropriates property de facto via regulation, mandates, systematic deficit spending and money printing, etc., rather than expropriating property de jure as with Marxist socialism.
    – It is the same economic program practiced or advocated by Obama, Reid, Pelosi and Cas.
    – NOT coincidentally, that political party also harbors the people in the U.S. today who call for suspension of the Constitution, democratic elections, etc.

    Examples of the latter are becoming increasingly common:
    – NC Gov. Purdue calling for suspension of elections.
    – Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr. calling for suspension of the constitution.
    – Left-wing “economist” Paul Krugman indicating that a massive, World War-scale rearmanent program would be just the thing for the economy.
    – President Obama periodically whining that the U.S. isn’t more like China (a repressive dictatorship).

    Cas, your doctrines (and games) are an example of human evil.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 23, 2011 @ 12:37 pm - October 23, 2011

  22. (type, “NC Gov. P-e-rdue”)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 23, 2011 @ 12:39 pm - October 23, 2011

  23. Oh, ILC, can’t you see that Cas can not possibly accept your words or mine until this Reichswehr obstacle is removed? After all, we are ideologues trying to foist our “stuff” on the purity of Progressivism which transcends politics and replaces silly elections and electioneering with a universal religion of state primacy. What does it take to indoctrinate people like us? Perhaps we can think it out over time in a reeducation camp where we can toil at a menial job for the good of the state and arrive at an epiphany that causes us to be champions of the Progressive Way. Or maybe we will just have to stay in the gulag and obey.

    Comment by Heliotrope — October 23, 2011 @ 1:58 pm - October 23, 2011

  24. Heh 🙂 Needless to say (and to your point), the “Reichswehr obstacle” was removed many comments ago – or never existed.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 23, 2011 @ 2:23 pm - October 23, 2011

  25. Gentlemen, we must also remember that Cas is desperately trying to spin its way into establishing some credibility and intelligence when it was exposed as a lying idiot so easily above.

    I personally find it amusing that something like Cas can pretend to pontificate on the nuances of history when, as pointed out above, it can’t even read or understand basic English or mathematics. But what we need to remember is that in the universe of the Obama “progressive” such as Cas, facts are only facts inasmuch as they comport with the predetermined narrative. Your re-education, as demanded by the Obama Cas “progressive” movement, will consist of essentially beating you until you lose any capability to think beyond that which you are told by Obama.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 23, 2011 @ 3:54 pm - October 23, 2011

  26. Hi ILC & HT,

    Cas, your doctrines (and games) are an example of human evil.

    Thank you for making my point about being unnecessarily incendiary, ILC. Its a common tactic here, and one I cannot take seriously.
    a complicit Senate that will invent rules and ignore others and by issuing executive orders and manipulating by regulation. 60% to get anything passed. I don’t remember anything about that in the Constitution, HT. It used to be 50%; now we need super-majorities. Reconciliation could only work if there was a simple majority; like what used to be normal, way back when…

    – A socialist is anybody who thinks government should provide private goods (food, medicine, bailouts, monopoly privileges, union subsidies, etc.).

    To me, this is a serious hole in your logic. According to this, if I could provide it privately, as in the past, government shouldn’t do it now, even if there is a prima facie case of economic efficiency in doing so (firefighters, etc). That is just not sensible, in my opinion. Further, as you write this, you appear to be saying that if a government just does some intervention–its socialist. There is no degree of difference between a government that has its hands on the production of all private goods, and one that has much less influence. So, what happens when the government gives up a stake in a public company, as with GM? Can we agree that it is less socialist; or, temporarily socialist? This is important, because it is this move that allows you to smoothly move from Obama to Hitler with such facility. And I just don’t buy it.

    Oh, ILC, can’t you see that Cas can not possibly accept your words or mine until this Reichswehr obstacle is removed?

    There you go again–exaggeration. I raised a point you didn’t want to deal with, even as it is germane to the topic at hand–as it was discussed in its historical context. We did talk a little, but again, you boogied out. In any case, you have yet to convince me of the efficacy of your point–HT & ILC. We can talk about other issues, HT, as well.

    Like OWS. I do not think that these are necessarily Obama supporters. Why? Because, there are plenty of folks on the left who see them as equally as misguided as you do. This is not a Democratic Party institution, HT…

    Comment by Cas — October 23, 2011 @ 11:39 pm - October 23, 2011

  27. 60% to get anything passed. I don’t remember anything about that in the Constitution, HT.

    That is because you do not understand the Constitution. Nor do you understand the operation of the Senate. This is not a deficiency resulting from not “chatting.” It is a deficiency as basic as not understanding our system of government.

    (firefighters, etc).

    Classic! When you socialists are cornered, you immediately claim that fire fighters, police, the road maintenance department, the water system, etc are all in danger of returning us to the dark ages.

    you appear to be saying that if a government just does some intervention–its socialist.

    The intervention is socialist, which compromises laissez faire. No one here, that I know of, has ever promoted pure laissez faire capitalism. If you don’t understand the Constitution and Senate rules, then you probably have only passing knowledge of capitalism and surely no real understanding of Adam Smith.

    Rather than go on with more, I will just note that your slip is showing. Your ignorance of the basics here makes your pontifications in subjects as arcane as the Reichswehr stand brightly as just bull session chatter.

    Comment by Heliotrope — October 24, 2011 @ 8:15 am - October 24, 2011

  28. To me, this is a serious hole in your logic.

    Only because you’re you, Cas. You cannot afford to acknowledge that Hitler was a socialist… therefore, you must pretend not to understand (or perhaps you can make yourself really not understand, _1984_-style; I’m not sure which) what I’m saying. In the present case: you must (and you do) obscure/deny/ignore the distinction between public and private goods.

    you appear to be saying that if a government just does some intervention–its socialist.

    Already answered up at #54:

    Prime example of the Cas bullsh*t twisting [of words/concepts]. Did Adam Smith advocate the provision of private goods by public means? No, of course not. Just as I do, he advocated the provision of public goods by public means, and private goods by private means. I never said that a socialist was a person who advocated *any* role for government in the economy; only a person who advocates that government planners seek to provide PRIVATE (as opposed to public) goods.

    Really, Cas, you need to try a lot harder. You’re not even close to hitting your marks now. I’m not even going to bother with the rest of whatever you said; waste of my time.

    Onto Heliotrope:

    No one here, that I know of, has ever promoted pure laissez faire capitalism.

    Umm… I do. But I think we are just using the terms differently. Time to clarify them. To begin with, I do not promote anarchy; some people claim to be anarcho-capitalists and I am not one of them, as I find it a contradiction in terms. Government is essential for the impartial protection of individual rights to life, liberty and property. (Note that rights and justice, though they benefit individual e.g. crime victims, are public goods.) If it does its job there, government creates the field in which people can do productive things and will naturally proceed to. Having created that field, however, government ought to do as little as possible, because anything more that it does will inherently undermine the rights which it just ensured (making government the oppressor). Such a government lets people “do as they choose” or is laissez-faire, and is what I advocate.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 24, 2011 @ 10:46 am - October 24, 2011

  29. For the sane people: I do NOT fully endorse the following Wiki article on public vs. private goods, as it is wrong on some points, but it is a decent quick-n-dirty intro to the distinction – it not as demented and Left-biased as it might be (I suppose Cas should get to work on it): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good

    Interesting tidbit:

    Social goods are defined as public goods that could be delivered as private goods, but are usually delivered by the government for various reasons, including social policy, and funded via public funds like taxes.,

    Yeah… they are called SOCIAL (as opposed to public) goods, because they are private goods to be delivered by government planners, and the advocates of such delivery/planning are therefore SOCIALists.

    But I digress. I wanted to say something about fire protection services. They are in effect an insurance service. They could be provided privately. However, they are #68,026 on the list of things to be privatized in the laissez-faire Utopia. Job #1 is to repeal ObamaCare. Job #2 is to return to sound money. I believe in having a sense of priorities.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 24, 2011 @ 11:01 am - October 24, 2011

  30. Hi HT,

    That is because you do not understand the Constitution.

    BY all means show me the 60% rule in the Constitution, HT. And, I love that rhetoric of “cornered”! A wild beast is on the loose… arghhh…what silliness.

    You cannot afford to acknowledge that Hitler was a socialist…

    Please note that if you already assume this, you of course get your outcome; I remember HT complaining vociferously about these holes in logic back in the thread. It isn’t going to help you to claim as correct the very thing we are arguing about in this thread, ILC. If we agree on the premise, you can get to use it as a base for a claim. We don’t.

    Yeah… they are called SOCIAL (as opposed to public) goods, because they are private goods to be delivered by government planners, and the advocates of such delivery/planning are therefore SOCIALists.

    ILC, the key insight of pure public goods is that they be non-excludable and non-rivalrous (look it up). However, lighthouses were once provided privately (as they were can be considered a club good). No longer. Do you see them as “social” goods, “private” goods, or “public” goods? Hard core libertarians see defence as a privately provided good. Defense can also be provided socially and publically. Again, what say you? If you can provide defence privately, will you call a government who provides it, socialist? Where is your end point here, ILC? According to some views–all goods are private. It seems that definitions of public and private goods are a movable feast–depending on custom and imagination. So, what standard will you use to determine what is a REAL public good, and what is not, ILC? Because, I have no idea what “little as possible” would mean in this context… And at what point is a government who provides such a good deemed socialist?

    HT, thanks for your thoughts on fascism. I will think about it some. The one thing that strikes me as worth following up, is the ambivalent relationship that it has towards capitalism. Fascism is most comfortable with corporatism (& monopoly capital in general), and that might be the fruitful path in articulating fascism as a right wing phenomenon (don’t worry, I am not suggesting you agree with that thought!). Fascism is drawn to capitalism because it is the most efficient mode of production. If the aim is to turn the state into a paean of state sanctioned violence, then rearming is something that needs to be done as quickly and efficiently as possible; something that the capitalist mode of production can be very good at, when given the right kinds of state derived incentives. An interesting avenue to pursue.

    Comment by Cas — October 24, 2011 @ 11:43 am - October 24, 2011

  31. BY all means show me the 60% rule in the Constitution, HT.

    Oh, the hilarity.

    What the fascist Cas doesn’t realize is that it’s showing its colors quite nicely; it insists, for example, that the filibuster is “unconstitutional”, but ignores the fact that it and its fellow “progressives” in the Obama/OWS Party insisted before that it was an essential and constitutional part of our democracy.

    And therein we see the silliness of the pathetic fascist Obama and his puppet child Cas. These two fools are so desperate for power that they don’t realize they’re contradicting themselves. Obama and Cas both insist that the filibuster is unconstitutional and a grab of power away from the executive branch, but endorsed wholeheartedly its unlimited use when Obama and Cas were in the Senate minority.

    And then the desperate Cas fool tries to lie.

    According to this, if I could provide it privately, as in the past, government shouldn’t do it now, even if there is a prima facie case of economic efficiency in doing so (firefighters, etc).

    No. That is not what ILC said. You are a liar, Cas, and you are trying to lie and smear your way out of the trap you’ve found yourself in.

    And you know what, Cas? I will continue to show what a lying fool you are, because you can’t answer. You have been completely humiliated time and again in this thread. All three of us have used your own words to trap you and show the world what a helpless, ignorant, pathetic fool you are.

    Isn’t that wonderful, fool Cas? You can’t lie your way out. You can’t scream your way out. Mommie can’t save you. Pissing your pants and starting to fling feces are the only thing you have left, and all three of us are sitting here watching you and laughing at you as you do it.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 24, 2011 @ 12:42 pm - October 24, 2011

  32. Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a member.

    Get it? Each House of Congress writes its own rules of procedure.

    60% to get anything passed. I don’t remember anything about that in the Constitution, HT.

    Well, Cas, that is because it is not in the Constitution. But, if you had a wee bit of understanding of the Constitution, you would understand that “60% to get anything passed” is a Constitutionally recognized rule of procedure in the Senate. As a point of interest, were you all exercised over the “60% threshold” when the Democrats had a filibuster proof majority that locked the Republicans out?

    Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.

    Obamacare had to pass the House of Representatives and then pass the Senate and then go to a Conference Committee to reconcile any differences. After the Conference Committee finished its reconciliation bill, that bill had to pass the House of Representatives and pass the Senate without any changes whatsoever. Then it would go to the President for his action.

    Surely you can point out where this process was carried out in the case of Obamacare. In fact, I would love for you to explain the method used to send Obamacare to the President, because I could then send it on to Senator Jim Webb of Virginia. Webb admitted in a public forum I conducted before political science students that he was not at all clear how Obamacare squared with House rules and Senate rules or if any member of the Congress could show how the process used in Obamacare could withstand scrutiny in a legal sense.

    Many of here could help you gain the basic education you need to first comprehend before you launch on one of your dictates or proclamations. The point is, this is not a free university where you chat your way to basic epiphanies.

    Comment by Heliotrope — October 24, 2011 @ 3:16 pm - October 24, 2011

  33. Hi HT,
    How does your quote have anything to do with what follows? You just gave me the part of the Constitution dealing with vetos HT? So … huh?

    If the two bills are identical, then there is no need for that bill to be reconciled, right? And if the bills are mandatory spending or tax bills only, they do not need more than 50 votes. So, from what I read, I have to say–sorry, no enchilada for you. And as for Senator Webb, since I have no independent ability (do you have an official transcript that you want to share?) to confirm what was said and how, I have no idea what he said and IN WHAT CONTEXT he said it. With all due respect to you HT, you would never accept something like that from me, so why try and argue from your lofty heights, especially since you know I don’t think your heights are that, um, “lofty.” It may also be the case that if the shoe was on the other foot, you wouldn’t give a brass farthing whether Repubs used Reconciliation to get a bill through (that you liked) that would otherwise be filibustered or threatened with filibuster. Well?

    As for the 60% rule, because that is what it is, the level of obstruction is unprecedented (and used on just about every occasion, not just occasionally)–feel free to object, but come with your stats on cloture votes from various Congressional sessions–OK?

    Comment by Cas — October 24, 2011 @ 11:18 pm - October 24, 2011

  34. If the two bills are identical, then there is no need for that bill to be reconciled, right?

    But they were not. You lie in saying so, Cas, and that is easily provable.

    And if the bills are mandatory spending or tax bills only, they do not need more than 50 votes.

    Irrelevant. No bill “needs” more than a majority of votes; Senate rules simply state that it requires a vote of 60 to cut off debate on a bill. Furthermore, as Heliotrope sets out, the Constitution explicitly and specifically allows each house of Congress to set its own rules.

    The hilarity, Cas, is that your blabbering about “reconciliation” and the like depend on — surprise! – a series of rules passed by the Senate, including the Byrd rule, named after your fellow KKK supporter and Obama Party member Robert Byrd. All of which you now deem unconstitutional, since you insist that the Senate and the House have no ability to make such rules.

    This is where your ignorance and desperation trip you up, fascist. Your blabbering and spin is easily unraveled by anyone not similarly blinded by your ideology of power uber alles; hence you are easily led into traps such as the one Heliotrope set for you to force you to invoke rules of procedure such as reconciliation — after insisting that any and all rules are unconstitutional.

    And as for Senator Webb, since I have no independent ability (do you have an official transcript that you want to share?) to confirm what was said and how, I have no idea what he said and IN WHAT CONTEXT he said it.

    And yet, you refuse to provide a single link or reference to verify all of your statements taken from various “sources”.

    So again, childish fascist, you are demanding of others rules you refuse to follow yourself.

    And again:

    With all due respect to you HT, you would never accept something like that from me, so why try and argue from your lofty heights, especially since you know I don’t think your heights are that, um, “lofty.”

    And yet you scream and cry and throw tantrums and demand that we take everything you say at face value, without providing any sources, any links, or any indication of your own credentials.

    So again, childish fascist, you are demanding of others rules you refuse to follow yourself.

    Choking yet, Cas? You and your fellow Obama Party fascists are having every trick, every game, every rule change you ever tried forced down your throat, and you’re screaming and bawling and bleating about how unfair it is.

    Childish little brat. We know your games, and we can all play them better than you can. You’re being humiliated every time you open your mouth in this thread, and we are making you dance like an idiot puppet on a string, tricking you into contradicting yourself and pulling up fact after fact to demonstrate your absolute lack of intelligence and education.

    If you weren’t such an ass, we might start feeling sympathy at some point. But unfortunately, you are an ass, and as a result, you’re going to be treated like one.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 25, 2011 @ 1:37 am - October 25, 2011

  35. So, I click on the link Cas provides and I come up with reconciliation goobledy-gook on the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities website that strains the credulity and clearly is written to exonerate any and all actions the Democrat Senate might take to shove Obamacare through the keyhole. If you read it, you will find where Cas gets the talking points.

    Then I went straight to George Soros in search of the rat and there it was:

    Soros and his foundations have had a hand in funding noteworthy leftist organizations. Since 1999, Soros’s Open Society Institute (OSI) has given grants to Center for American Progress ($1.8 million), Center on Budget and Policy Priorities ($3.7 million), Economic Policy Institute ($3 million), Institute for America’s Future ($965,000), and the Center for Policy Alternatives ($1.4 million), the Tides Foundation ($20 million).

    Other leftist groups Soros funds includes the following; [14] the American Constitution Society for Law and Policy, the Tides Center; the National Organization for Women; Feminist Majority; the American Civil Liberties Union; People for the American Way; Alliance for Justice; NARAL Pro-Choice America; America Coming Together; Campaign for America’s Future; Amnesty International; the Sentencing Project; the Center for Community Change; the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People Legal Defense and Educational Fund; Human Rights Watch; the Prison Moratorium Project; the Malcolm X Grassroots Movement; the National Lawyers Guild; the Center for Constitutional Rights; the Coalition for an International Criminal Court; The American Prospect; MoveOn.org; Planned Parenthood; the Nation Institute; the Brennan Center for Justice; the Ms. Foundation for Women; the National Security Archive Fund; the Pacifica Foundation; Physicians for Human Rights; the Proteus Fund; the Public Citizen Foundation; the Urban Institute; the American Friends Service Committee; Catholics for a Free Choice; Human Rights First; the Independent Media Institute; MADRE; the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund; the Immigrant Legal Resource Center; the National Immigration Law Center; the National Immigration Forum; the National Council of La Raza; the American Immigration Law Foundation; the Lynne Stewart Defense Committee; and the Peace and Security Funders Group.

    Then I went to Wikipedia and not surprisingly found that the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities entry takes great pains to describe it as the go-to think tank for unbiased and credible budget information.

    The Soros Goebbels arm is amazing and reaches deep into every niche where one-world-socialist-government propaganda can reach.

    Nice useful idiot work, Cas. You have carried the water like a trained ass, even if you do not have a clue about what you are talking about.

    Now come tell us how the 2,000 bill was in the hands of the Parlimentarian and every member before the vote was taken. There must be a Soros site you can cite. Link away.

    Comment by Heliotrope — October 25, 2011 @ 10:16 am - October 25, 2011

  36. That should be: 2,000 page bill ….

    Comment by Heliotrope — October 25, 2011 @ 10:18 am - October 25, 2011

  37. Hi HT,
    Glad to see you looking for who pays for an institute (do I get brownie points if I point out those behind right-leaning think-tanks?. Or would you point out what I am about to say…). Whether that is relevant or not is depends on whether the information offered is relevant or not, biased or not. I notice that you dismiss the link with out actually explaining why you think it is biased or not relevant, apart from saying: “goobly-gook.” Excuse me if I don’t feel inclined to think that is a winning argument, or much of an argument at all.

    As for “exonerating” a Dem Senate–I believe that both sides will sometimes work within the bleeding edge of what is allowable, or stretch rulings, or overturn established procedural precedent to get what they need done. How about acknowledging that your side of the aisle does the same–and that currently, it is offering an unprecedented level of obstruction, HT? Or are you going to maintain the fiction that this is solely a “Dem issue”?

    And as for your Soros “argument,” you sound like those on the left who excoriate the Koch brothers. So, let the defence that this website and many right-leaning commentators offer for the Koch Brothers provide inspiration and a road-map for those who desire to spend the time and effort to defend Soros…

    Comment by Cas — October 25, 2011 @ 11:41 am - October 25, 2011

  38. Oh, my.

    The existing order is a constitutional representative democracy. Soros and his minions are engaged in overthrowing the existing order. The Koch brothers are engaged in preserving the existing order.

    Fundamentally transforming America can be done by Constitutional means with openness and transparency according to the rules of both Houses or it can be done by the chicanery or legislative sleight of hand, ignoring the process, hiring voters, demonstrators, infiltrating and manipulation.

    We conservatives believe in openness. The Obamanauts have circumvented openness and engaged in widespread demagoguery, propaganda and outright lying.

    When you ignore Soros and rely on the “equivalence” game by calling in the Koch brothers you tip your hand. You are welcome to come to this site with all manner of actual facts concerning the Koch brothers attempting to overthrow the existing order of an open constitutional representative democracy in order to establish ….. ? …..

    Reread your link and you will note that Social Security, Medicare, Food Stamps, Public Housing, WIC, Earned Income Credit, Section 8, Head Start, Affirmative Action, Americans with Disabilities Act, the EPA, the Civil Rights Act(s), the WPA, the TVA, the NRC, TARP, the Stimulus bill and all the other major social welfare programs DID NOT come into being by “reconciliation” shenanigans. If any had been “tricked” into existence, it surely would have been referenced as a model.

    Obamacare is equal to and exceeds any social welfare program ever enacted. Your little special interest group from the Soros camp draws a pathetic outline of how the “reconciliation” sleight of hand is perfectly normal.

    I did not blindside Senator Webb. I asked if he felt he could write a paragraph or two explaining how Obamacare became law that would be readily understood in a citizenship study guide and by all high schools students not being left behind in their quest for a GED or high school diploma.

    Senator Webb is a practical man and a fine citizen. He did not pretend to say that the job could be done. In fact, he chose to be quite honest by saying that if he had to explain the process on the spot that he would fail the test.

    Perhaps, Cas, you can write that entry for the civics text book. I would love to read it.

    Comment by Heliotrope — October 25, 2011 @ 1:15 pm - October 25, 2011

  39. Glad to see you looking for who pays for an institute (do I get brownie points if I point out those behind right-leaning think-tanks?.

    You have already stated, Cas, that information from sources you deem “right wing” or who are funded by the “right wing” is always biased and never factual. You have clearly established that funding or affiiliation alone, NOT relevance or bias, is what matters.

    So what Heliotrope has again manipulated you into doing is demonstrating your basic hypocrisy, duplicity, and contradictory assertions. You quoted a source that by your own definition is invalid.

    As for “exonerating” a Dem Senate–I believe that both sides will sometimes work within the bleeding edge of what is allowable, or stretch rulings, or overturn established procedural precedent to get what they need done.

    Which you have already stated is unconstitutional.

    So what you are acknowledging is that your Obama Party engaged in unconstitutional theatrics to pass Obamacare and that it unconstitutionally filibustered whenever it was in the minority.

    Again, Cas, Heliotrope has easily manipulated you into showing off for everyone your rank and bigoted hypocrisy. Bluntly put, you support and endorse methods that are by your own definitions extralegal and unconstitutional in order for your Obama Party to get its way.

    No surprise, your fascist Obama has announced this morning in one of his usual blabbering speeches that he will ignore Congress and the Constitution and do as he pleases.

    That is called assuming dictatorial powers, idiot Cas, and it is patently unconstitutional. Furthermore, it is epic-level hypocrisy, given that you, your fellow OWS Obama Party members, and Obama himself shrieked during Bush’s entire Presidency that ANY action taken without the consent of Congress was unconstitutional and grounds for impeachment.

    You have ripped off the mask and gone full-bore fascist, Cas. You and your Obama Party have made it abundantly clear that you want to abolish elections, that you want Congress eliminated, and to utter hell with the Constitution if it doesn’t let Chancellor Obama do as he wants.

    If you want to retain a shred of power in this country, Cas, I strongly suggest that you and your OWS Obama Party repudiate Dear Leader. You’re already hiding from him on his bus tours; now you just need to take the next step and state that he’s a con artist who lied to you about his intentions.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 25, 2011 @ 1:42 pm - October 25, 2011

  40. And, HT, my point still stands–please I would love the official transcript of your public forum with Senator Webb. That way, I can read for myself what was said, in relation to what, and in what context. As it stands, your comments can be read as an argument supporting the “complexity” of an explanation, rather than an unwillingness to engage with something that was “illegal” or of “dubious validity according to the rules of the Senate.”

    As for saying:

    and all the other major social welfare programs DID NOT come into being by “reconciliation” shenanigans.

    That is great HT, but would they have come into effect, had they been filibustered with a solid 40 minority? Why were they not filibustered? I know there are some on the Right that wished that they had been, if they had had the opportunity then, that they now have to do this sort of action. So, your examples don’t fit the issue.

    Soros and his minions are engaged in overthrowing the existing order. The Koch brothers are engaged in preserving the existing order.

    I do not “ignore” Soros, but, and as would hardly surprise you, I do not have the same view of Soros that you and others here do. I just have zero interest in comparing, attacking, and defending either one or other of these right and left bugbears, especially on the field you want to lay before us. They are all extremely rich individuals who like to use money to support the causes they like. If we want to talk about the provable illegality of their actions, that at least is something (hopefully) supportable with proof. But I haven’t seen any of these individuals frog-marched in hand-cuffs, so I am dubious about finding the goods on any of them! And pray tell, what would an argument about the nature of “openness,” Koch, & Soros do here, apart from telling us that our basic assumption sets are very different, and create more heat than light?

    Also, even the idea of “openness”–sounds a bit like “justice,” “fairness,” and other such words, HT…

    Comment by Cas — October 25, 2011 @ 3:36 pm - October 25, 2011

  41. 140.And, HT, my point still stands–please I would love the official transcript of your public forum with Senator Webb. That way, I can read for myself what was said, in relation to what, and in what context.

    Oh, isn’t that entertaining.

    Because Cas certainly wasn’t capable of providing any actual links, page numbers, or references for all the bull it was supposedly pulling from its magical book on Germany.

    Once again, the brat won’t live up to the standards it demands of others. Just another example of how Cas is a failure at logic and a complete and total hypocrite.

    And one more thing, fascist Cas; your Obama and his minions just called for political opponents to be put on trial and executed.

    Who does that sound like? Hm?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 25, 2011 @ 4:37 pm - October 25, 2011

  42. Cas,

    1.) Write the simple explanation of how the Obamacare bill became law that can be readily understood by people seeking to pass the citizenship examination and by students seeking a GED or high school diploma. You have nothing to learn from Senator Web. He said he could not do that task. He said he was not even prepared to take the mike and explain exactly how Obamacare proceeded to the President’s desk no matter how convoluted and long the explanation might be. The idea that you can review his understanding through a transcript, is ludicrous. All you could possibly achieve is calling me a liar or mistaken as to the Senator’s meaning in his words. That does not address the point in any manner whatsoever. You are shifting the topic, which is one of the three key plays in the liberal play book. That dog won’t hunt.

    2.) The Democrats filibustered the daylights out of the Civil Rights Act. But more importantly, you have failed to excoriate the Democrats and The Won for peeing all over the Republican Senators when the Democrats had a filibuster proof Senate. What, pray tell, is the difference between the arrogance of operating under filibuster immunity and using the filibuster to try to pry the Democrats into accepting some bipartisanship by threatening a filibuster. Furthermore, why don’t the Democrats have the Moxie to let the Republicans filibuster and wear themselves down? And why did the Democrats drag judicial nominations into the realm of the filibuster during the Clinton Presidency? And why did the Democrats rewrite the cloture rules and the vote size required for cloture? And why can’t the Democrats take as good as they have given time and time and time again in the whole filibuster history? They have become world class crybabies over having to take what they so liberally dished out and crowed about.

    3.) Soros has plenty of money to have a legion of lawyers who keep his actions legal. I never, ever said he has acted illegally, So, Cas, lets not take your shift the topic train to that station.

    Soros wants to put European socialism into practice in the US. Read his books. Like Mein Kampf, he is quite direct. Soros wants to create one world bank and one world currency and one world government. In the process, he nearly wrecked the British Pound, has got the Euro on the skids and has created a lot of pressure on the US Dollar. He caused the Asia panic of 1997 in Malaysia and Thailand. He weakens economies to make huge hedge fund profits in a manner that would enrage the average Wall Street Occupier if the useful idiot occupier had any concept of what real Wall Street greed is all about.

    He has made enormous profits in the money laundering through banks in Colombia, Switzerland, France and the Caymans by buying into shady banks and manipulating their transactions. If there is dirty money anywhere, Soros is there too. He is like a pay-day lender charging usurious amounts for check cashing or short term loans. He made a fortune off of manipulating the war in Kosovo. Check up on his Southeast Europe Equity Fund to understand his gyrations in Kosovo.

    I will merely mention that there is voluminous information and speculation of Soros taking a direct action in being positioned to profit mightily from the legalization of drugs.

    4.) I beg you to bring to us the equivalent information concerning the Koch brothers. You guys are so desperate to nail them, I would think you would being all a-drool at the opportunity.

    5.) “Openness.” This is hardly a valence term. Something is open or it is not. An open meeting is available to all. An open statement is neither laced with guarded terms nor shielded from challenge or questions of clarification. An open hearing is possibly televised, but at least subject to the Freedom of Information Act.

    We have a long history of “openness” in our country. Our trials are public, our government meetings are public, our House of Representatives and the Senate are required to keep journals and records. The rules of both houses call for reading the bills into the records and reading the bills to each house. Committees have open hearings. C-Span is predicated on the concept of openness.

    You are completely off base in trying to compare openness with “fairness” and “justice” which are extremely subjective terms. But this does not surprise me, as you continually stretch semantics out of shape in order to fit your conclusions. But, then again, that is typical of liberals in general, because clear meanings are the worst enemy of topic shifters and folks who “think” via their feelings.

    Comment by Heliotrope — October 25, 2011 @ 4:45 pm - October 25, 2011

  43. NDT,

    I am quite familiar with the writings of the Founding Fathers and I have always been pretty impressed with their clarity of thought and expression. I have also read the reactionary writings of many of the Loyalists of the time who supported the king in what they viewed as a civil war.

    I bring this up, because our Founding Fathers were fighting for a liberal replacement of a colonial government. Now we are engaged in defending what the Founding Fathers fought for by defending against a powerful state government “leviathan” that will regulate every walk of our existence.

    Standing up for clear principles and the process of Constitutional representative democracy is fairly easy and does not call for revolutionary rhetoric, demagoguery or lying.

    It is the state socialists who have to invent enemies, slop around in valence terms, emote through gushing feelings and strive to manipulate the psyche of the common man.

    The peril is clear. The socialists have created a populace that is dependent upon the state and which largely has no skin in the game in that they are net welfare recipients rather than tax payers.

    Illegal immigrants pour in to grab the brass ring of the welfare merry-go-round which automatically and immediately elevates them to a level of “poverty” that would make them local princes in their home countries.

    Cas is a Marxist and dedicated to the socialist leviathan. The poverty of spirit among bottom feeding socialists is palpable. The “safety net” is so comfortable and embracing, they venture nothing because there is little to gain from risking their welfare nest. They have no ambition to escape the communal porridge and create a world of opportunity for themselves.

    Socialists are always locked onto misery as they see it. There is no trifle too small that can not be cured by unleashing a whirlwind of bureaucracy fueled by other people’s money.

    Therefore, Cas can not really debate the issues, because everything is subject to change on the moment of a whim. State socialism is just feudalism with the state bureaucracy as the aristocracy.

    If we do not stop this movement now, we can not win. The tipping point has been reached where people will vote for the state goodies over their own best interests and the posterity be damned.

    Cas says it doesn’t see it that way. Big deal. In the end, what difference is the view of a useful idiot dedicated to stuffing its gut at somebody else’s expense. It is amoral and lustful to be such a person. ILC used the term evil, which is the correct term in Western philosophy. But liberals can not accept the razor thin bright line between good and evil. They like to babble about the wide divide that permits acts to be judged by them as relative. They will not allow themselves to understand that we all must recognize evil and strive to avoid it and atone when we do not. That requires way too much responsibility and self reliance. That is why they turn themselves over to the state for maintenance. That is why they can not debate. They live in an upsidedown world which is just wasting energy unwittingly waiting for a powerful force to crush the vacuum that has formed between their ears.

    Comment by Heliotrope — October 25, 2011 @ 5:41 pm - October 25, 2011

  44. Hi HT,

    The idea that you can review his understanding through a transcript, is ludicrous.

    Interesting. I guess that there is no point reading books by dead people who cannot tell me directly what they mean, because its to–what— complicated? What silliness. The proper course is to say a.) you have the transcript but you don’t want to share it; b.) you don’t have a transcript; or, c.) you have the transcript and you are willing to share it. Three choices, and we avoid the inflammatory statements about accusations of lying, etc. If you don’t have a transcript, we drop it, because I dislike arguments to authority, especially when I cannot read them myself, to make up my own mind,. At the moment, its an interesting eyewitness account, but it is unclear what weight to give it. Sorry, to quote you: “That dog won’t hunt…
    As for giving you my opinion of the manoevurings, I will admit right now that I am not up on the arcane rules of the Senate. That the bill passed, and was not stopped by Repub Senators for being in clear violation of Senate rules, says more than anything else. Dubious? Maybe. Ambiguous? Possibly. Outright violation–unlikely. Given the fact that Repubs have been creative when using reconcilaition themselves in the recent past, I can hardly think that this process is etched in unbreakable stone, HT. May-haps, it is a case of the pot calling a kettle black. If you think it was out and out illegal, explain to us why you think ythat. As it stands, you just appear to be saying: “Cas, its really complicated what they did. I don’t like it because I smell a rat. Can you explain it to us?” I agree. It is complicated, but I am not smelling that dead rat, HT

    But more importantly, you have failed to excoriate the Democrats and The Won for peeing all over the Republican Senators when the Democrats had a filibuster proof Senate.

    What is there to excoriate exactly, HT? That the democratic process enshrined in the constitution (even counting the super-majority requirement in the ad-hoc senate rules), together with majorities in each house, and the Presidency worked as it was meant to? If you had had 60 plus votes, and the whole enchilada, I could not excoriate Repubs for dismantling Social Security because “they ran roughshod over the minority.” I might not like it, HT, but I would just think that the American people were wrong to allow it to happen by allowing so many Repubs with that intent. Fix it at the ballot box with a majority voting decision–next time–if I could. I think that will be the way it gets handled in Wisconsin, if it gets handled. Maybe the majority of people in Wisconsin want what the governor wanted–we will see! But this Congress takes us to the brink over debt default, doing something we have never seen before–not a majority–but a MINORITY, actively setting out to play chicken with the country’s economy… uh, no thank you. I don’t even pretend to see these as similar events. Sorry.

    I never, ever said he has acted illegally

    I know. I said I thought this was the only way we could have a vaguely rational discussion of these left and right bugaboos. I still maintain that. Since the Kochs haven’t been indicted on anything as yet (just like Soros, I am sure they have tons of lawyers, right?), I have no interest in that pissing contest. So my drool and I will await another opportunity, thank you very much.

    Openness; an interesting term. You point to one aspect of the “openness” of the political system. Well, bucko, both sides are part of that process, so, I don’t see this as a beacon of conservative light. Plenty of progressives want light and space. We don’t get it always.There was a lot of bitching and moaning over this term, when the last Repub President and his VP were holding the reins of executive power. You talk about all the things that we can see. But there is much we cannot see, and which is hidden from us, in the name of national or financial security; political or electoral considerations (do you know the funding lists and amounts for the Super-PACS?–wait till the end of December, when much of the primary race will probably have been decided…); or in the name of self-interest. I disagree with your sense of the “openness” tag, when it comes to this, because (for example) the very mantle of national security hides much that might otherwise benefit from the antiseptic nature of light. The issue of what to share and what not to, is a serious one, so I get the objections. We have argued about this already–“enhanced interrogation” or “torture” depending on one’s view; “illegal” or “necessary” electronic surveillance, depending on one’s views. Security for the nation versus violation of civil rights. “Openness” varies depending on one’s view of it, and the value of the trade-offs one has to weigh–and what should be included or not included in “openness”. Again, much like the concepts of “justice” and “fairness” which are also easy to see on first light, until one starts asking questions about what exactly one means by these terms and how they should be applied; as well as thinking about ideas such as what constitutes “dessert” etc. So again, I don’t share your level of certainty about “openness” HT.

    Comment by Cas — October 26, 2011 @ 1:18 am - October 26, 2011

  45. That’s it.

    You are scraping bottom, now. You are down to the level of arguing what the “meaning of ‘is’ is.” That level of intellectual disintegration is indicative of pure obstinacy.

    You no longer have a point. You have only your narcissism to hang onto. So, I will leave you patting your back in the smug satisfaction that you threw the hook another two thousand times. That is fine by me. You are easy to hook and easy to play, but I have no idea of what I would do if I actually hauled you aboard. Now drop back to the bottom and feed away and lurk around.

    Comment by Heliotrope — October 26, 2011 @ 8:44 am - October 26, 2011

  46. You’ve got a point, HT.

    Cas has acknowledged that Obamacare was passed through use of the Congressional rules that Cas previously stated were unconstitutional.

    Cas is insisting that “appeal to authority” arguments are invalid after having spent numerous posts citing Craig as an authority.

    Cas is demanding that you provide a written and labeled transcript after adamantly refusing to provide any statement, page number, or reference from the Craig book it invoked in its appeal to authority.

    Cas is blathering on about the importance of “openness” even as it endorses and supports Obama’s argument for Federal agencies completely exempting themselves from freedom-of-information acts.

    And Cas STILL won’t even answer for its most basic screwups.

    Fortunately, your persistence has now made completely and blatantly obvious that Cas is acting, not out of any sort of intellectual or rational motivation, but out of sheer narcissism and obstinancy.

    And as a result, we have won. Cas is silenced because it is incapable of and unwilling to answer my posts, and because you have cut it off. The petulant, spoiled brat is now exposed as exactly that, with no one here seriously believing its credibility in any way, shape, or form.

    Well-done, HT. And that is what it will take to recapture our country from the Cas types. Just as before, the American public is being asked to shoulder the burden of a lazy, unproductive entitlement class that thinks it their birthright to demand from others what they refuse to lift a finger to get themselves.

    Before they called themselves the nobility. Now they are the welfare addicts like Cas, convinced that the world owes them a living based on who they are, not on what they do.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 26, 2011 @ 11:42 am - October 26, 2011

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.