"In January of this year, they formally controlled both houses of Congress and the executive branch. Every single thing they’d ever promised was now possible. They now had the power to enact every single spending cut they’d ever solemnly pledged. All those wasteful programs designed to fill the liberal sandbox — PBS, NPR, Planned Parenthood, NEH and the rest of the alphabet soup; all the hundreds of billions of dollars in corporate welfare to multi-billion-dollar corporations; all of the hundreds of billions of dollars directed toward leftist social engineering — poof! All of it could come to an end with a stroke of a pen. They now had the power to restore fiscal tax sanity too. Remember the flat tax? The fair tax? Slashing the highest corporate taxes in the world? Giving you a tax break? All of it could be done with a snap of the fingers.
Repeal Obamacare? Check. End illegal immigration? Check. Build the wall? Check. Crush the Deep State? Done, by God, done! There was not a damn thing the Democrats could do to stop them from draining the swamp. Except the Republican leadership didn’t mean it. With the exception of the Freedom Caucus in the House, and literally a handful in the Senate, the rank-and-file didn’t either. Not one word of it."
Mr. Bozell is correct. And that is why I have not been a Republican for several years now. I donated a few dollars to what I assumed were worthy candidates here and there, but I'll be damned if the GOP ever gets a single nickel in donations from me ever again until they KEEP THEIR PROMISES!
Mitch McConnell, Paul Ryan, and the rest of the congressional leadership begged for the voters to give them the senate so they could enact a republic-saving agenda. We gave them the senate. They then asked for a Republican president that would sign their bills into law. Even though I refused to vote for President Trump, we gave them the White House. And still we flounder with all of the difficult large agenda items that were solemnly promised to us would finally be dealt with and fixed.
The Democrats are weak and inept, but the Republicans are cowardly and spineless. Congress is broken and until we hold our elected officials accountable by removing from office every damn one of them that failed to keep their promises on these vitally important issues, we will only continue to get more of the same.
In that vein, the Republicans should be very afraid. They think that because the Democrats are worse, that we will keep voting for them. They are wrong! 2018 will prove to be a blood shed for the GOP if they do not come together soon and start doing the work that the people elected them to office demanded of them. They will fall back into minority status having accomplished nothing of significance, and it won't be the Democrats fault. No, the blame will be squarely on the shoulders of the spineless cowards that failed to deliver on their promises, despite having the power to finally do so. Shame on them yet once again.
62 comments:
The dumbest idea the Republicans ever came up with is trying to get rid of PBS. There is no other place in all of TV that comes close to the quality of shows that PBS broadcast.
From Nova and the National Geo series to the best mini series to music and the arts, PBS is simply the best that humanity offers.
Turning PBS into a political football and making it a LIBERAL thing is too stupid for words.
Right. The PBS and NPR boogeyman. People who've never actually watched PBS or listened to NPR parrot the whole liberal bias meme. PBS/NPR caters to the community it broadcasts from. PBS/NPR in the D.C. Metro area is wildly different than PBS/NPR in the Texas Hill Country. Different populations with different needs.
It's unfortunate. PBS Kids and old Julia Child episodes really are innocuous.
TB3 & Woodenman, as far as I am concerned, you gentlemen are missing the point. I agree that Nova and some of the programming on PBS is very good indeed. (Albeit there have been shows that are definitely politically biased to the left.) The point for me is not so much about the content of the programming for PBS or for NPR but the fact that they are subsidized with tax payer dollars at all. Shouldn't these shows stand on their own merits on commercial broadcasting channels? If there is a public desire for such shows, they will survive and thrive.
The fact is that there is no constitutional authority for tax dollars to be spent on public broadcasting. It serves no overarching national public interest. I am sure that many more progressively-minded folks would throw this into the "general welfare" category and thereby justify the expense. Frankly, as I have long said, the general welfare clause in the constitution has become the catch-all for any ambiguously "qualifying" programs that some folks want funded via tax dollars. It has morphed from the general welfare clause into the "good & plenty" clause. It is certainly not in keeping with the intent or spirit of what the founders envisioned with our constitution.
We are $20 trillion in debt as a nation right now. Frankly, I think anything that is not specifically enumerated in our constitution as being a duty/expense of the federal government should be rolled back and eventually eliminated. This is certainly true for more inconsequential things such as NPR, PBS, and the national endowment for the arts. We are on the verge of financial collapse, and yet we are still whining about NPR and PBS. It is this mindset that makes it impossible to cut any expenses and return to constitutionally governed fiscal responsibility. It is why our nation will collapse from within.
Mr. Paine,
As has been my practice I will continue to vote for the most conservative candidate from the two major political party's.
Money, that's another question.
Of course a liberal would misunderstand you, that have yet to admit that ANTIFI is their shock troop. That is how deep they are into their "cult".
We are all missing the point here. Cutting funding for PBS, Planned Parenthood and other such "liberal" programs and ideas is a distraction from the real changes that need to be made at the federal funding level. These kind of cuts are promoting the principle that the government should not be funding these type programs, yet, the public says otherwise. These kind of cuts are minuscule to the needed cuts to balance the budget and pay of the long term debt.
Republicans have never had the votes, or public support for killing off the federal safety net programs started by FDR and enhanced by LBJ. So they starve the beast by making cutting taxes popular. That's putting the cart before the horse. The people supported these type programs by their votes and raising taxes on themselves to pay for those programs. The people need to reject these social programs to stop the spending and Republicans have not led, or been successful in changing the public's mind about these programs. It's irresponsible for Republicans to cut taxes before leading the public support for ending these programs and driving us into dangerous debt.
Over the decades, not once did I hear a Republican elected leader push fiscal responsibility of not going into debt. As long as their ideology was winning it didn't matter the debt was continuing to grow. Gov. Palenty took over Minnesota from a wrestler Governor who left Minnesota with a 600 million dollar surplus. By the time Palenty was voted out he had left Minnesota with a 5 Billion dollar debt, yet, he was the Republican poster boy who ran for president on his fiscally conservative record. Minnesota was one of the most liberal States with the most generous benefits to the public, yet, still had a budget surplus. Palenty cut those public benefits in half, yet, created that huge debt. He cut State taxes, but that caused local taxes to escalate. The people were not willing to give up their high nationally rated public schools, their reputation for the cleanest State in America, or its compassion for its less off citizens. Now Minnesota is just another broke State.
Republicans can't even kill off the ACA, because they have misread the public. The ACA passed because prior to Obama's election polls said almost 75% of Americans wanted the federal government to get involved in health care insurance. The ACA is horrible legislation, yet, not even Republican majority in all three branches of government can get rid of it. There has been no meaningful legislation passed since Trump was elected, even with Republican majority. Mainly, because Republicans have no meaningful bills to offer.
Now Republicans have an inappropriate president they have to defend on just about every thing he says and many times they are at odds with him. If we are to believe the news about Muller's investigation, Republicans will have to defend a president found guilty of crimes, or ask him to resign like Nixon. Democrats have plenty of blame, but Republicans are in charge in every aspect of government including the Supreme Court.
Commitment to principles and ideology is one thing, but Republicans need to put country before party and stop looking so inept and being so selfish. .
Mr. Paine misses the point of public broadcasting.
Commercial success has little to do with quality and corporate news has little or no checks and balance. They work for advertisers and political access. This puts them off an objective path from the start.
I thought more people understood that, but then again...
There is also an inherent corporate, status quo bias in corporate media. Public broadcasting is sustained by donations and government money. One side wants to gut that funding because there is no profit for them in quality news and programming.
Even the damn Kochs support PBS, but this raises the doubt they can be fairly covered in news and programming.
Even on PBS. You have FOX for Republican propaganda and everyone else for corporate bias.
This is why public funding is crucial.
Republicans and corpo-dems will always have their Wall Street/corporate masters to pay their way. They are just doing their job.
Paul, first I want to thank you for your thoughtful comment.
You are absolutely right that funding for PBS and NPR are a drop in the bucket of our spending; however, it represents a mindset that all things become the federal government's responsibility to fund. You are further correct though that almost every GOP politician has been for the status quo rather than real spending cuts. The Democrats laugh at the idea of cutting spending though, while the GOP simply pays lip service to it. That said, until we have elected officials that realize what the government's true CONSTITUTIONALLY enumerated spending items should be, we will continue to fund every entitlement program, corporate welfare handout, and special interest boondoggle that comes along. There are whole departments of the federal government that should be frozen, rolled back, and ultimately eliminated. Of course that will NEVER happen.
And that won't happen because We The People are no longer taught civics, history, and economics. We allow the status quo to continue. Most citizens have the mindset, as indoctrinated by our education system and culture, to look to the government to solve all of their issues. THAT is why we are also $20 trillion in debt. FDR and LBJ might have meant well with some of their programs, but all they did was to foster and encourage people to look to government for what they ought to be doing themselves. Now that is not to say that we should eliminate all safety nets, but I am here to tell you that a third to half of our population does not NEED a safety net. Many simply look at the cost benefits of government assistance compared to working and decide that the government teat is the way to go. Because of politics, the thought of welfare reform to get rid of those capable of working from the public dole, is characterized as mean-spirited, racist, or being for the rich though.
Last, you are absolutely correct that Republicans need to put the country before their party; so do the Democrats. Sadly, neither will do so.
Dave, as you mentioned, giant corporations like Monsanto and the Kochs fund PBS along with tax payer subsidies. And yet, Bill Moyers and the like are still firmly in the far left camp. You need not worry.
By your standards, is there anything other than corporate welfare that the government should NOT be funding? Perhaps the military?
Most citizens have the mindset, as indoctrinated by our education system and culture, to look to the government to solve all of their issues... I am here to tell you that a third to half of our population does not NEED a safety net.
I’m guessing these are opinions, rather than documented facts?
I’m totally with you on our need for more mandatory history and civics education. Economics should be available as an elective. And how about Ethics? What are we teaching about basic human decency and fairness? Our politicians and the free market have certainly failed in that regard.
Bill Moyers is a very reasonable and informed man. You would probably lose a battle of facts against him.
anything other than corporate welfare that the government should NOT be funding?
Yes, our country’s failed and cruel war on drugs. And other countries’ war on drugs and their militaries.
I would also end “red state socialism” where Republican states bitch about the federal government, yet draw off more money than they pay in taxes. Why do I never hear conservatives gripe about that? As you accuse “lazy taker individuals”, I accuse “lazy taker states”. Who would you say is the greater hypocrite?
The government should also not be funding private prisons and mercenaries for war. Justice, the military, and law enforcement are not “free market” commodities to privatize. I would think even you would understand these fall under the general welfare duties of government. I’m on the losing side of this issue. Corporate government of, by, and for the corporations is here.
If I had a list of federal expenses, I’m sure I could find more waste, fraud and abuse.
Interesting, so you don't want the government interdicting drugs from entering or being produced in this country. We are already a nation of idiots. I guess it doesn't matter if we are all high too.
I don't want red or blue state socialism either. Let states raise taxes to fund programs that their citizens hold as priorities that are not the responsibility of the federal government.
If California wants a 60% state income tax so that they can fund LGBTQ illegal immigrants owning their own homes, then that is their prerogative. If Wyoming wants a 10% state tax so they can repair state infrastructure and fund schools only, then that is their prerogative.
Last, I do agree that the military, justice and prison systems should be administered by the government and not by contractors.
I could find whole departments that could be cut: the Department of Energy, Housing and Urban Development, and the Department of Education are just three off the top of my head that should be handled on the state level. I am on the losing side of this ever happening though too.
"law enforcement are not “free market” commodities to privatize"
Dave, you still working as a corrections officer in MI? That might explain your position.
Here is an article I wrote back in 2011 that spelled out all of the agencies I would cut.
http://savingcommonsense.blogspot.com/2011/04/cutting-federal-government-down-to-size.html
Sorry Mr. Paine,
The fact that these programs have been through legislative vote and approval, then Supreme Court approval makes them Constitutionally legal according to the process described in our Constitution. Based partly on the proclamation in the Constitution that what is Constitutionality is based on what the people vote for through their elected representatives. Not to mention, that the Constitution states that the laws are to be for the good of the people and protect the people. You can certainly disagree with those decisions and programs, but you have no basis to say they are unconstitutional.
Of course the Democrats have to take blame, but the Republicans are in majority (as your headline points out) and it is their responsibility.
As it was Reagan's responsibility when he got tax cuts passed knowing he could not get spending cuts passed, therefore, he was responsible for the debt he left. He knew he would not get spending cuts passed, so he had a choice to go ahead with tax cuts and create a huge debt, or not.
The people speak for what kind of government they want through their vote. They voted for both the Democratic programs and the Republican tax cuts. To me, that shows a lack of leadership in elected officials to allow the debts instead of leading the people to either eliminate the programs, or raise taxes to pay for the spending. It is easy, irresponsible, and cowardly to simply push for tax cuts and allow the debt. Call the people stupid if you want (I do) but don't make the problem worse by allowing the spending to go unpaid for.
Over the last 40 years the Republicans have had majority (in Congress, the White House and the Supreme Court) much more than Democrats, so blame is slanted towards the Republicans. As I said before, where has the Republican leadership been on fiscal responsibility? At least the Democrats have been honest about telling the American people that taxes must be raised to cover the spending and have voted for tax hikes. The Democrats knew the people would not allow them to simply kill off the programs they had become used to over the last 80 years. If the people want these programs, taxes are lower now than they have been since 1948, so their monetary sacrifice is not out of line to match the spending for the programs they obviously want.
....you don't want the government interdicting drugs from entering or being produced in this country.
Not true. Pharmaceuticals need monitoring for safety and street drugs are a public health issue. We need to enforce against manufacture and importation of street drugs.
And this is the point. Drugs and drug abuse are public health issues. Treatment is always a better solution over incarceration. It is ineffective, costlier, and more destructive to families to punish users as criminals.
Drug gangs depend on their products being illegal to be in business. Street sales, not possession, should remain criminalized. If an addict had cheaper access to a legal prescription, with treatment as an option, that would take a lot of crime out of the equation. The costs of treatment and even legal maintenance doses is far cheaper than crime and incarceration.
Decriminalization of simple possession and employing treatment over arrest and incarceration are the sane, compassionate, and most effective solutions.
Spain and Italy are showing this to be reality, not theory.
"The fact that these programs have been through legislative vote and approval, then Supreme Court approval makes them Constitutionally legal according to the process described in our Constitution." ~ Paul
For some of these programs I will concede your point, but certainly not for all. Just because something passes congress, gets the president's signature, and then is approved by the SCOTUS, may technically make it "constitutional"; however, sometimes these "constitutional" programs run contrary to the spirit, if not the actual words of our Constitution or Declaration of Independence. I will give you such "constitutionally approved" decisions like Dred Scott, Plessy v. Ferguson, Citizens United, Roe v. Wade, and the ACA as examples. While some programs may not necessarily violate specific language within the constitution, I guess that would make them "extra-constitutional" instead of un-constitutional. That said, all rights not specifically enumerated to the federal government belong to the states or the people.
The rest of your well-reasoned argument I have little reason to contest. Reagan was promised spending cuts by Tip O'Neil's congress, but he should have known better. I further agree that we should be paying for the expenses we incur. A balanced budget amendment would help to ensure that happens, but evidently, living within our means as a nation is indeed too controversial these days. Further, you are right that most Democrats have been fairly upfront about wanting to create more programs and raise taxes to fund them. I won't get into the unsustainability of most of their ideas in this post though. You are right though in your characterization and the laying of blame on most of the GOP. As I indicated in my post, I have little use any more for the cowardice and integrity-deficient GOP any more.
Dave, regarding your more nuanced approach as you describe it regarding drugs, I can now understand and follow your logic. I don't necessarily agree with it all, but at least it isn't simply the uneducated Libertarian approach of decriminalizing all drugs so "I can get mine".
As for your distinction between the BLM movement and its thuggish co-opting of the BLM organization, I do get your point. If I had such a violent and racist co-opting of my organization, considering the platform I had built, I would be denouncing that hate and violence from the mountain tops. I have seen minimal lip service paid to that end thus far by the "organization" though.
"Conservative white men have a hard time with nuance and distinctions within the black community." ~ DD
Yeah, well that is because we all just ain't as derned smart as all you enlightened progressive non-racist folk.
Mr. Paine,
We know the war on drugs is a costly, brutal, unjust and and deadly failure. I say the best way to win the "war on drugs" is to end the war on drug users. Treat drug abuse as a medical, rather than law enforcement problem, which is really the bottom line. Perhaps you have a better solution?
At least you are open to discussion.
Southern Poverty Law Center has this to say:
https://www.splcenter.org/news/2016/07/19/black-lives-matter-not-hate-group
Black Lives Matter Is Not a Hate Group
Richard Cohen
President
Each year, the Southern Poverty Law Center, of which I am the president, compiles and publishes a census of domestic hate groups.
Our list, which is cited extensively by journalists, academics and government officials alike, provides an important barometer—not the only one, of course—to help us understand the state of hate and extremism in America.
In recent weeks, we’ve received a number of requests to name Black Lives Matter a hate group, particularly in the wake of the murders of eight police officers in Dallas and Baton Rouge.
Numerous conservative commentators have joined the chorus. There is even a Change.org petition calling for the hate group label.
In our view, these critics fundamentally misunderstand the nature of hate groups and the BLM movement.
Generally speaking, hate groups are, by our definition, those that vilify entire groups of people based on immutable characteristics such as race or ethnicity. Federal law takes a similar approach.
While it’s no surprise, given our country’s history, that most domestic hate groups hold white supremacist views, there are a number of black organizations on our hate group list as well.
A prime example is the New Black Panther Party (NBPP), whose leaders are known for anti-Semitic and anti-white tirades. Its late chairman, Khalid Abdul Muhammad, famously remarked, “There are no good crackers, and if you find one, kill him before he changes.” Bobby Seale, a founding member of the original Black Panther Party, has called the NBPP a “black racist hate group.”
We have heard nothing remotely comparable to the NBPP’s bigotry from the founders and most prominent leaders of the Black Lives Matter movement and nothing at all to suggest that the bulk of the demonstrators hold supremacist or black separatist views. Thousands of white people across America – indeed, people of all races – have marched in solidarity with African Americans during BLM marches, as is clear from the group’s website. The movement’s leaders also have condemned violence.
(Cont.)
(Cont.)
There’s no doubt that some protesters who claim the mantle of Black Lives Matter have said offensive things, like the chant “pigs in a blanket, fry ‘em like bacon” that was heard at one rally. But before we condemn the entire movement for the words of a few, we should ask ourselves whether we would also condemn the entire Republican Party for the racist words of its presumptive nominee – or for the racist rhetoric of many other politicians in the party over the course of years.
Many of its harshest critics claim that Black Lives Matter’s very name is anti-white, hence the oft-repeated rejoinder “all lives matter.” This notion misses the point entirely. Black lives matter because they have been marginalized throughout our country’s history and because white lives have always mattered more in our society. As BLM puts it, the movement stands for “the simple proposition that ‘black lives also matter.’”
The backlash to BLM, in some ways, reflects a broad sense of unease among white people who worry about the cultural changes in the country and feel they are falling behind in a country that is rapidly growing more diverse in a globalizing world. We consistently see this phenomenon in surveys showing that large numbers of white people believe racial discrimination against them is as pervasive, or more so, than it is against African Americans.
It’s the same dynamic that researchers at Harvard Business School described in a recent study: White people tend to see racism as a zero-sum game, meaning that gains for African Americans come at their expense. Black people see it differently. From their point of view, the rights pie can get bigger for everyone.
Black Lives Matter is not a hate group. But the perception that it is racist illustrates the problem. Our society as a whole still does not accept that racial injustice remains pervasive. And, unfortunately, the fact that white people tend to see race as a zero-sum game may actually impede progress.
Well that settles it for me, if the Southern Poverty Law Center says BLM is not, a hate group, then they must not be a hate group.
LOL!!!
How "not racist" can an LOL get, laughing out of pure hate and ignorance.
Does Mr. Paine share this sense of "humor"?
As for your nuanced distinction between BLM's "organization" and "movement", it seems there is a pending lawsuit against one of the organizers, Mr. McKesson, from one of the injured officers that happened because of the "peaceful protest" of BLM supporters.
The "lawsuit claims Mckesson was 'in charge of' a July 9 protest that 'turned into a riot.' Mckesson 'did nothing to calm the crowd and, instead, he incited the violence' on behalf of Black Lives Matter, the suit alleges," according to the right-wing LA Times story.
From what I have read, I think the plaintiff has a compelling case against the BLM "movement's" Mckesson.
http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-black-lives-matter-20170708-story.html
As for your laughable essay from The Southern Poverty Law Center, that organization is a radical far left group that just recently got called out for wrongly labeling many conservative groups as "hateful". They are shameful in their left-wing bias and are about as reliable a source to me as Breitbart would be to you, Mr. Dubya. Their blog's stated purpose is that "Hatewatch monitors and exposes the activities of the American radical right." Because we all know that antifa and other radical left-wing groups are not hateful and dangerous. Gimme a break.
Laughable?
If SPLC is wrong, why don't you tell us how? You cannot, of course. A cop's lawsuit is not evidence...oh wait. Accusations from cons is evidence enough. That I have learned.
How about where they call the New Black Panthers a hate group? Not good enough for you? Nothing is, apparently.
Well, then. You share Major's position. I take it you are back on the "BLM is a hate group" wagon?
Sad. You've fallen into your ignorant hate-fueling mindset again.
SPLC and I have presented facts and reason. No wonder you can't see it.
You have "beliefs". In your self-righteousness you have your own hate that allows you.
Mr. Paine,
I would never say, or believe that just because something passed the Constitutional process that it was correct in fact, or moral. The founders own words in the founding documents contradict what they practiced and set in law. What is Constitutional one day can become unconstitutional the next day. But we are a society built on the rule of law and our only accepted means of changing law is through the Constitutional process. If that fact ever changes we will truly be doomed as a country.
That's why I keep saying that what is Constitutional is what the Supreme Court says is Constitutional. It is your Constitutional right to say something is unconstitutional when in fact it passed all processes of constitutionality and is constitutionally legal.
My response to your 10th amendment argument remains the same. Certain individual rights cannot be determined by where one lives within our country. Because those rights were not expressly enumerated in the Constitution does not mean they are untouchable by federal law. Slavery would be the prime example, but there are many other examples.
One of the complaints about Roe/Wade is that the Supreme Court claimed a right to privacy that is not written in the Constitution. Opponents say the Supreme Court invented a right to privacy that does not exist. That's a legal argument of an interpretation of the Constitution by the Supreme Court, which of course, has the final say on interpreting the Constitution. If a right to privacy is found to be unconstitutional, then I would support amending the Constitution to include a right for individual privacy. In fact many say it's time for a Constitutional rewrite to match 21st century life to the laws (Constitution) we live by. In theory I would agree with that, but I wouldn't trust present day elected legislators to be able to write such unbiased laws. I would rather the court/legal fights continue.
Should driving be a Constitutional right, not just a privileged? One could certainly make a case for the necessity of being able to drive just to be able to get food and life sustaining medical care in 21st century America. Of course making it much harder for a State, or the government to take away that right. But, if driving is a Constitutional right, then does the government have an obligation to supply cars to those who cannot afford them?
Should health care be a right in our current day society? Certainly a life sustaining necessity. If yes, then can the government tax the people to pay for health care for all?
Once something becomes a federal Constitutional right, then the federal government has an obligation to create processes and spend what is necessary to protect and provide for that Constitutional right. That creates the slippery slope of spending that a society cannot afford.
The Constitution says all have a right to be represented by an attorney. That created an expensive process to ensure that right, paid for by all citizens. It's not something people can vote not to pay for, like a school bonding bill. Yet, who would support amending (eliminating) that Constitutional right to eliminate that spending?
I've gone on much longer than I intended.
Always nice to discuss these issues with you Mr. Paine.
I’m about ready to give up on trying to reason with you. Facts don’t matter to you. You spew slogans and beliefs and accusations and blame without evidence. Did you know that is how fascists operate? Come on history student...man up and admit the truth.
Their blog's stated purpose is that "Hatewatch monitors and exposes the activities of the American radical right."
That is the only the “Hatewatch” section. It’s not their fault the vast majority of hate groups are on the Right, is it?
Here’s what SPLC says:
The SPLC is the premier U.S. non-profit organization monitoring the activities of domestic hate groups and other extremists – including the Ku Klux Klan, the neo-Nazi movement, neo-Confederates, racist skinheads, black separatists, antigovernment militias, Christian Identity adherents and others.”
You have scorned reason and facts. You fail to make a sense. “SPLC is liberal, so they are wrong” is your response. But you cannot argue your case with facts.
You can lead a cultist to water, but they only drink their koolade.
Here is what Trumpist Breitbart Hate looks like.
The president challenged the patriotism of many of the mainstream correspondents, news anchors, reporters, and producers in the mainstream media, but clarified that there were a few “very good reporters” and “very fair journalists.”
“They’re bad people and I really think they don’t like our country,” he said. “I really believe that.” (Full- on Nazi-inspired “Lügenpresse”).
This was how Nazis demonized the press. But you don’t care to understand this glaring similarity, Mr. History Student, because you share that hate. You share that evidence-free pattern of blame and accusation.
Here’s your Breitbart hero: Sebastian Gorka
http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2017/08/30/gorka-afghanistan-speech-represents-resurgence-flawed-thinking-last-16-years/
Just another “good conservative Breitbart hero?
=
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/sebastian-gorka-made-nazi-linked-vitezi-rend-proud-wearing-its-n742851
Sebastian Gorka Made Nazi-Linked Vitezi Rend ‘Proud’ by Wearing Its Medal
"When he appeared on U.S. television ... with the medal of the Vitez Order ... it made me really proud," Vitezi Rend spokesman Andras Horvath said in the Hungarian capital of Budapest. Vitezi Rend is also known as the Order of Vitez.
During the war, the State Department listed Vitezi Rend among a group of "organizations under the direction of the Nazi government of Germany." And Horthy, its founder, once said that "I have always been an anti-Semite throughout my life," according to "The Jews of Hungary," a 1995 book by Hungarian-Jewish historian Raphael Patai.
Last month, three Vitezi Rend officials told American-Jewish newspaper The Forward that Sebastian Gorka was one of their order.
=
The fascism reeks.
Trump promoted for years his racist birther lie about our Black President, drawing the cheers and support of the Klan and Nazis.. Trump refused to rent to Blacks and violated a court order to do so. Trump said a judge wasn’t qualified because of his Mexican parents.
You know who can't see the racism there? Racists.
I’m wasting my time with someone who can’t see Trump’s hate and racism. And the hate is directly promoted by Breitbart.
And you wonder why I compare you to Trump? I think he says what you believe. Why not embrace him? You are helping him make America hate again.
And this is not laughable. It is tragic.
Dave, here is an excellent article that explains how the ORGANIZATION of BLM has been co-opted with violent and thuggish behavior by some members of the MOVEMENT. It greatly fosters the perception of many observers that BLM's message is drowned out by their less-than-peaceful approach to the issues. These are not the morally unimpeachable peaceful protests from civil rights activists in the 1960's. This is an angry, antagonistic, destructive, and even violent group that marches under the BLM movement banner.
http://thefederalist.com/2016/07/12/black-lives-matters-violence-undermines-its-credibility/
As Barbara Reynolds, a minister and 1960s activist, wrote last year of the current movement:
Many in my crowd admire the cause and courage of these young activists but fundamentally disagree with their approach. Trained in the tradition of Martin Luther King Jr., we were nonviolent activists who won hearts by conveying respectability and changed laws by delivering a message of love and unity. BLM seems intent on rejecting our proven methods…[A]t protests today, it is difficult to distinguish legitimate activists from the mob actors who burn and loot. The demonstrations are peppered with hate speech, profanity, and guys with sagging pants that show their underwear. Even if the BLM activists aren’t the ones participating in the boorish language and dress, neither are they condemning it.
Dave, I am about done with you. I stopped frequenting your blog a while back because of your complete unreasonableness, name calling, and projection. When you and JG started questioning Majormajor's Christian salvation because he had the temerity to disagree with you both, that was it for me. (And yes, I understand he also can be provocative.)
Regardless, I certainly didn't mean for you to follow me into my own backyard to continue the baseless accusations. (By the way, I noticed that since Majormajor and I haven't been commenting on your site, the comments in your progressive echo chamber have really dwindled. It must not be as fun to simply agree with everyone when you can throw rhetorical bombs and accuse others of projecting hate, huh?) Perhaps this is why you have ventured out from your own domain?
I'll make one last futile effort.
SPLC recently labeled many good and decent groups on the right as "hate" groups. Why? Well, for some, it was because they had the indecency to say that they supported traditional marriage, just like Obama did in his first term and Hillary did in the past. How hateful is that?
They have gone after other watchdog groups such as Judicial Watch when they have tried to hold politicians accountable. The fact that this included the corrupt Obama administration and his congenitally lying former Secretary of State Clinton evidently was cause enough to earn Judicial Watch the "hate group" label. We get the message. Agree with our progressive politically correct platform, or you are hateful. Yep. We got the message.
Last of all, for the umpteenth time... because I have the audacity to point out hate everywhere, including on the left, does not mean that I condone it of Trump or the far right racist groups that espouse hate and violence. I agree with you, Trump has said and done some racists things. If only you could take off your partisan goggles and see the same of antifa and some of the people in the BLM movement.
Please, please, please, by all means present your arguments. List your sources and facts. But if all you wish to do is name call and condemn anyone that disagrees with you (even when they DO agree with you on some concepts) then please just find a different place to frequent.
Jerry Critter, TB3, Paul, Jim Marquis and other good folks on the left come to my site and we will often disagree on issues. But we are doing so without resorting to hateful rhetoric. If you wish to do debate you are welcome here. If not, go to the Daily Kos site. Cheers!
Mr. Paine,
You shall have the last word, sir. I take it you wish to declare BLM a hate group after all the information I have shared.
I'm hoping you read this first:
Even if the BLM activists aren’t the ones participating in the boorish language and dress, neither are they condemning it.
This is false.
Black Lives Matter Leader Condemns Violence at St. Paul Protest
http://time.com/4400330/st-paul-protests-philando-castile-black-lives-matter/
==
In Dallas, many gathered to do the same, joining in a day of action with friends, family, and co-workers. Their efforts were cut short when a lone gunman targeted and attacked 11 police officers, killing five. This is a tragedy–both for those who have been impacted by yesterday’s attack and for our democracy. There are some who would use these events to stifle a movement for change and quicken the demise of a vibrant discourse on the human rights of Black Americans. We should reject all of this.
Black activists have raised the call for an end to violence, not an escalation of it. Yesterday’s attack was the result of the actions of a lone gunman. To assign the actions of one person to an entire movement is dangerous and irresponsible. We continue our efforts to bring about a better world for all of us.
http://blacklivesmatter.com/the-black-lives-matter-network-advocates-for-dignity-justice-and-respect/
==
Jeff Hood, an organizer in Dallas, described hearing shots and seeing officers fall as he marched with hundreds of people through downtown after a rally Thursday night.
"This is a devastating time for us as activists and organizers. We cannot bring about justice through violence," said Hood, a pastor.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/dallas-shooting-black-lives-matter-leaders-respond/
If the actions of the few justify the condemnation of the many as a hate group, then the Catholic Church is a hate group.
So why isn’t the Church a hate group? Because its stated principles run counter to hate. The same is true for Black Lives Matter.
Do you understand?
====
Judicial Watch hate? Whatever could SPLC be thinking?
Judicial Watch Founder, racist Bundy militia nut supporter, and Trumpist Birther Larry Klayman had this to say:
“This president is not a president of We the People; he’s a president of his people. … I do not advocate violent revolution; to the contrary … I call upon all of you to wage a second American nonviolent revolution, to use civil disobedience, and to demand that this president leave town, to put the Koran down, to get up off his knees, and to figuratively come out with his hands up.”
“No other Muslim has done as much, particularly given his power as president of the United States, to further Allah’s goal of a Christian and Jew-free world.”
“I am more than embarrassed and appalled as a Jew to see my own people at the forefront of a number of scandals now perpetrated by the Muslim-in-Chief, Barack Hussein Obama, and his leftist Jewish government comrades and partners in crime.”
“This country belongs to us, not you. This land is our land! And, we will fight you will [sic] all legal means, including exercising our legitimate Second Amendment rights of self-defense, to end your tyranny and restore freedom to our shores!”
Wow.
Now show us that BLM hate speech, please.
"And yes, I understand he (who me?) also can be provocative."
Just doing the free speech thing...
LOL
Paul, I have a lot on my plate at the moment but will address your latest comment tomorrow afternoon when I have a chance. As always, thanks for your thoughts on this.
Majormajor, (who me?) LMAO. Yes, my friend -- YOU! :)
AMERICANS SPEND MORE ON TAXES THAN FOOD, CLOTHING COMBINED
and liberals like Dave want more.
A"mericans on average spent more on taxes in 2016 than they did on food and clothing combined, according to data released this week by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
The same data also shows that in three years—from 2013 to 2016—the average tax bill for Americans increased 41.13 percent."
CNSNews.com
Blame Obama!
Hi Paul. I have a few minutes before my day gets crazy so I thought I'd give a more thorough response to you, sir.
I didn't suspect that you equated what was technically deemed constitutional with what was correct factually, let alone morally. Sadly, there are some folks that adhere to the "principle" that if the SCOTUS ruled on a subject to their liking, then it is constitutional. That is a trap that could come back to capture them in the future though. As you pointed out, even some our founders acted contrary to the ideals they espoused when creating this greatest of nations.
We are indeed a nation built on the rule of law, and for the most part that works well. Frustratingly there are some elected officials (from both major parties) that have circumvented the law and seemingly gotten away with it in recent years. That serves to undermine the law and the foundation of our republic. It erodes public confidence and makes us more like a banana republic. That is one of my concerns with President Trump seemingly continuing this trend of skirting the law. We can no longer accept this type of "might makes right" cavalier attitude when it comes to executive authority as stipulated in the constitution.
Next, I concur that the federal government has a duty to secure our rights as stated in the Bill of Rights and the rest of the constitution as well as the founding principles of our nation of the rights to all people being created equal with the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The issue of slavery being legally eliminated, therefore, does fall to the federal government's purview, in my opinion. Slavery, especially as practiced in the 18th and 19th century America, did not reconcile with the Declaration's statement that all men are created equal. And it surely did not allow for the rights to liberty and the pursuit of happiness. As such, the federal government's right to enforce the dissolution of the institution of slavery trumped a tenth amendment state's right argument. The principles espoused in our founding document as a nation trumps the 10th amendment on the issue of slavery.
I think the same case can be made as regards Roe v. Wade. Once again, our founding document as a nation proclaims we all have a right to "life". This obviously refers to all of humanity. As such, the life of an unborn human child should be afforded that same protection, in my opinion. This once again trumps a state's right argument. Sadly the issue is far too contentious for us to clarify the right to life for even the unborn in the form of a constitutional amendment, but it is my fervent wish that some day this might be so. It is interesting that I read an article recently that stated how some folks were clamoring for rights for robots, and yet unborn human life is seen as little more than a mass of parasitic cells unworthy of legal protection to some of them. I find that very hard to reconcile.
(cont.) I too share your grave concern about present day politicians re-writing parts of our constitution. Too many on both sides of the political spectrum are beholden to party ideologies and special interests to ever ensure that natural law and human rights are protected in such a re-write.
You bring up a good point with the "right" to drive and medical care etc. If those are deemed legally to be a right, then it is indeed easy to see where the next step is to insist that the government provide folks with cars etc. Where does this line of argument end? Aren't we all entitled to the rights of basic human survival? Shouldn't we all have food, shelter, and clothing? What if I cannot or will not provide those items for myself? Does that then become incumbent on the government to furnish those things to me in order to secure those "rights"? To a certain extent, we already do those things. In my opinion, we as a society have an obligation to help those that are incapable of helping themselves, but not to those that simply would rather not work to provide for themselves.
Slippery slope indeed, my friend.
Thanks for the discussion!
Majormajor, it is sad that with our current tax burden we are still in such a huge federal deficit, with our debt rising to dangerous levels. I guess the "evil rich" still aren't paying their fair share in some folks' eyes.
Has anyone else noticed the "fleet" of electric cars, trucks and power boats saving & rescuing lives on the Gulf Coast due to Harvey?
Me neither.
Has anyone noticed the huge amount of tax dollars going into helping the victims of the storm?
Didn't think so.
In fact Texan Lyin' Ted Cruz refused funding to aid Hurricane Sandy victims. He lied about the bill's content.
Now guess who wants federal funding? Liar and hypocrite Ted, a big favorite on the far Right.
Anyone notice that?
Republican "values".
Has anyone notice that President Trump is giving $1 million of his own money to the Harvey relief fund? Has anyone noticed that neither the Clinton's, Kennedy's or Bernie Sanders have given a dime?
Socialists are always good at spending other peoples money!
I hope this isn't too provocative, but here's some financial news about one of Dave's favorite organization.
"Southern Poverty Law Center Transfers Millions in Cash to Offshore Entities.
Left-wing nonprofit pays lucrative six-figure salaries to top management.
The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), a liberal, Alabama-based 501(c)(3) tax-exempt charitable organization that has gained prominence on the left for its "hate group" designations, pushes millions of dollars to offshore entities as part of its business dealings, records show.
Additionally, the nonprofit pays lucrative six-figure salaries to its top directors and key employees while spending little on legal services despite its stated intent of "fighting hate and bigotry" using litigation, education, and other forms of advocacy." LOL, rich tax cheating liberals.
Joe Schoffstall
Source (cause TB3 and Dave must discredit anyone who finds dirt on the left)
The SPLC's Form 8865, a Return of U.S. Persons With Respect to Certain Foreign Partnerships, from 2014 shows that the nonprofit transferred hundreds of thousands to an account located in the Cayman Islands.
SPLC lists Tiger Global Management LLC, a New York-based private equity financial firm, as an agent on its form. The form shows a foreign partnership between the SPLC and Tiger Global Private Investment Partners IX, L.P., a pooled investment fund in the Cayman Islands. SPLC transferred $960,000 in cash on Nov. 24, 2014 to Tiger Global Private Investment Partners IX, L.P, its records show.
The SPLC's Form 926, a Return by a U.S. Transferor of Property to a Foreign Corporation, from 2014 shows additional cash transactions that the nonprofit had sent to offshore funds.
The SPLC reported a $102,007 cash transfer on Dec. 24, 2014 to BPV-III Cayman X Limited, a foreign entity located in the Cayman Islands. The group then sent $157,574 in cash to BPV-III Cayman XI Limited on Dec. 31, 2014, an entity that lists the same PO Box address in Grand Cayman as the previous transfer.
The nonprofit pushed millions more into offshore funds at the beginning of 2015.
n March 1, 2015, SPLC sent $2,200,000 to an entity incorporated in Canana Bay, Cayman Islands, according to Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) records and run by a firm firm based in Greenwich, Ct. Another $2,200,000 cash transfer was made on the same day to another fund whose business is located at the same address as the previous fund in the Cayman Islands, according to SEC records.
Hey Dave, enjoy!!
Obviously SPLC is a tax cheat and a fraud and Dave believes them.
Enough said.
Now show us that BLM hate speech, please. And make a rational argument against SPLC's claim on BLM or the JW militia nuts.
Betcha won't. Betcha can't.
Crickets...
Note Republican shill Major(Party over country)Major has dodged the subject of this post entirely. LOL!)
Sure Dave, dodge the fact that your source, the SLPC is a tax cheat and a fraud, and then you expect us to believe a word you post. Your source is tainted.
BLM's record of hate stands on it's own regardless what the SPLC or you say.
Crickets are chirping. The con-servative brain shuts down to accusation without evidence mode.
So authoritarian. "'CUZ I SAID SO!" is all they have.
Trumpists have only their alternative facts.
First, Majormajor, please be as "provocative" in your free speech as you wish, my friend. Your comments regarding the SPLC are good fodder which will obviously be ignored. I don't want to come off as... I am not even sure how to articulate it. You absolutely have a right to defend yourself by all means when you are attacked with hateful and false accusations by others, as do we all. I guess I would prefer it if we could all discuss and debate without resorting to the adversarial nastiness that too often occurs. I know I have been guilty of this too in the past. That said, there are some that will ignore all facts, history, and morality and simply wish to do nothing more than burn down your world. We, particularly as Christians, should always try (as difficult as that may sometimes be) to respond with good humor, good will, and good facts. The result is that they will play their hand and the world will see them for what they truly are, my friend.
Next, Dave, I was wrong. (Oh how I would love for you to admit that when it so often occurs too). I misspoke. It wasn’t Judicial Watch that I should have referenced. I actually am only tangentially aware of their organization. The one I meant to reference was Liberty Council. I am sure you will now go search for whatever dirt you can on that group.
As for your ridiculous contention that there is no hate speech, vandalism, destruction, and violence associated with the BLM organization/movement, all you have to do is look at the news reports showing the riots in Baltimore, Ferguson, and other towns where “peaceful protests” started out and then were turned into riots. Cops – good cops that put their lives on the line daily to protect us – are afraid in some towns now because of the hateful and evil done by SOME folks that march with the BLM movement. (And of course this does not excuse the evil done by a small handful of cops in the unlawful shooting of people. The reason for SOME protests is definitely warranted.)
Martin Luther King led marches and insisted on peaceful resistance. In that manner, any violence seen would have been at the hands of the racists arrayed against them. If any civil rights marcher had fallen out of line and began to be destructive or violent back then, what do you think the rest of the group would have done? Do you think they would begin to chastise and condemn him at that very moment and explain that he was hurting their cause? Yep. Evidently the BLM organization and movement do nothing more than pay lip service after the fact when violence has already occurred.
The Charlottesville group of KKK members, neo-Nazi’s and other racists that gathered to protest the removal of Robert E. Lee’s statue were also joined with other non-racist good people that simply were proud southerners that did not wish to see the statue removed. (These are the good folks that President Trump has referenced.) The problem is that they associated with these racist scum and thereby were lumped in with them. It is too hard for the general public to discern who is the racist and who is simply trying to protect a beloved historical statue.
So too for the undoubtedly good and well-intentioned folks that marched to protest against perceived (and sometimes real) police violence against people of color. When violent thugs march with them and start rioting, is the BLM organization’s message heard by the public, or is it drowned out with the riot that ensues? Fairly or unfairly, the BLM is co-opted each time by violent thugs. This then becomes the public face of the movement, just as the otherwise innocent Southerners were lumped in with the racist scum in Charlottesville. In other words, even if your motives are pure, when you lie down with filthy dogs, you are apt to wake up with fleas.
I truly hope you get my point and can see the distinction I am making here, Mr. Dubya.
"There is nothing innocent about willingly marching with Nazis." ~ Dubya
I would concur. By the same token, there is nothing innocent about willingly marching with rioting thugs either.
(Oh, and you proved my other point. Liberty Council is obviously a "hate group" because they are "homophobic" by supporting traditional marriage, just like President Obama did in his first term and Hillary did in the past.)
SPLC is a far-left hack group, sir.
"No justice no peace.
"
Yeah, well that isn't really "meant" as a threat of violence and vandalism, Majormajor. That is just militant far left activism. ;)
I would concur. By the same token, there is nothing innocent about willingly marching with rioting thugs either.
This is what I mean about your backwards assessment. BLM never "joined" in behind rioting thugs. And still you blame the majority for the minority, who are NOT members of the organization you smear.
As long as you declare BLM to be a hate group I can call conservatives and the Republican Party hate groups, by your standards, not mine.
The leader of the Republican Party is a racist birther and conservative whites have murdered innocent blacks, liberals and abortion doctors is church. Again, your standards, not mine. Nobody in the BLM organization have shown any hate like that.
Here is the truth. A few criminals have supported BLM. BLM the organization rejects violence, by peaceful marching, and by their words. And YOU call BLM a hate group because of the actions a few non-affiliated thugs.
Anything in error here? Pleas inform me if so.
The hurricanes Sandy and Harvey have exposed Republican selfishness, hypocrisy and dishonesty.
Cruz claimed this week: “The problem with that particular bill is it became a $50 billion bill that was filled with unrelated pork. Two-thirds of that bill had nothing to do with Sandy.”
But that’s not correct, is it?
Why does our Republican shill shy away from the words of this shameful liar? Hmm, I have a theory...
Would Mr. Paine care to voice his opinion on that vile Republican?
I'm guessing not, because Cruz is a hero to conservatives.
Yes sir. Many things are in error. It really doesn't matter. At the end of the day if I don't abandon all reason and logic and agree with you 100%, then I am a racist in your eyes. Again I say to you that my Hispanic children will be alarmed to learn such a thing.
Dave, you argument about who joined whom is little more than semantics. If every time you try to peacefully protest, you are joined by violent thugs whom evidently you cannot control or scared to try to control to behave, then wouldn't you abandon that method of protest?
( I wonder how Dr. King and the civil rights protesters in the 1960's got everyone to march peacefully? Hmmm...)
That said, how about Black Lives Matter leader Chanelle Helm's recent article? https://www.leoweekly.com/2017/08/white-people/
That doesn't sound racist to me at all. How about you, Majormajor? Dave Dubya?
Let me recap her list of "requests":
"Some things I’m thinking about that should change (in that Southern, black grandmama voice):
1. White people, if you don’t have any descendants, will your property to a black or brown family. Preferably one that lives in generational poverty.
2. White people, if you’re inheriting property you intend to sell upon acceptance, give it to a black or brown family. You’re bound to make that money in some other white privileged way.
3. If you are a developer or realty owner of multi-family housing, build a sustainable complex in a black or brown blighted neighborhood and let black and brown people live in it for free.
4. White people, if you can afford to downsize, give up the home you own to a black or brown family. Preferably a family from generational poverty.
5. White people, if any of the people you intend to leave your property to are racists assholes, change the will, and will your property to a black or brown family. Preferably a family from generational poverty.
6. White people, re-budget your monthly so you can donate to black funds for land purchasing.
7. White people, especially white women (because this is yaw specialty — Nosey Jenny and Meddling Kathy), get a racist fired. Yaw know what the fuck they be saying. You are complicit when you ignore them. Get your boss fired cause they racist too.
8. Backing up No. 7, this should be easy but all those sheetless Klan, Nazi’s and Other lil’ dick-white men will all be returning to work. Get they ass fired. Call the police even: they look suspicious.
9. OK, backing up No. 8, if any white person at your work, or as you enter in spaces and you overhear a white person praising the actions from yesterday, first, get a pic. Get their name and more info. Hell, find out where they work — Get Them Fired. But certainly address them, and, if you need to, you got hands: use them.
10. Commit to two things: Fighting white supremacy where and how you can (this doesn’t mean taking up knitting, unless you’re making scarves for black and brown kids in need), and funding black and brown people and their work."
Yep, Ms. Helms sure doesn't seem to be perpetrating hate with her BLM group and her "requests".
"As long as you declare BLM to be a hate group I can call conservatives and the Republican Party hate groups, by your standards, not mine." ~ Dave Dubya
Dave, if you are truly honest with yourself, you must admit that you have long thought the GOP to be a hate group, even before BLM existed; my standards having nothing to do with it.
Anyway, I will continue to denounce hate and racism from all sides. The fact that I acknowledge that there is more than one side will inevitably lead me to be branded a "racist" by some folks from the far left. Frankly, I really don't care what some fringe radical loons think of me. They can continue to stew in their hate and oppressed world. Sure wish you would join me in condemning all hate and racism, regardless of the source.
Semantics? How? I told you the difference. Explain.
If every time you try to peacefully protest, you are joined by violent thugs...
So in YOUR world it's "every time you try to peacefully protest"? That is wrong. You say this in utter ignorance of hundreds of peaceful BLM marches.
I didn't see the angry black woman say she hated any race, did you? No, you didn't.
Well maybe she hates Nazis. So that's "racist" now?
You suggest she is the racist. Is she denying a white person equal rights? Is she threatening white people? You sound angered and frightened of her. Why is that?
How "many things" did I say in error? You couldn't cite one? If you can't tell me where I'm wrong, or how the SPLC's point on BLM is wrong, just what are you telling me?
It tells me I'm correct.
You oppose racism and hate. Good. I do too.
I'm telling you racists judge a large group by the actions of a few.
As long as you say BLM is a hate group, you are doing just what they do. BLM's message is not racist hate, but you and angry white men have that belief.
I'm sure the Klan and Nazis would call BLM a hate group. I would be disturbed if I agreed with them.
Now feel free correct any of my statements. You can't just say I'm wrong without offering a reason why.
Republicans are not a hate group, despite the evidence to the contrary. So what if Republicans elected a thug who assaulted a journalist?
That doesn't make them a hate group. But the hate from many Republicans is clear. This is because they believe the lies about those whom they do not understand, or those who disagree with them.
Still that doesn't make them all a hate group.
Take it from an "America-hating commie". ;-)
But that seems to be the pattern around here.
Face it Dave, your trying to defend BLM by using the SPLC has punched a LARGE hole in your creditably.
Face it guys, the Catholic Church has molested more children than the SPLC.
Face it guys, conservatives have killed more Americans than the SPLC.
Shall I continue?
I suppose deflection is all you really have. I can play too.
President Trump donated a million dollars of his own money to help the victims of Hurricane Harvey. Does that make him "human" finally in your eyes, Dave?
And if you cannot see the hate and overt racism in the "requests" from the Ms. Helms, the BLM leader, then there really is no sense in arguing with you any more Dave.
You are beyond hope.
"No justice, no peace!" Right Dave?
Oh, and if we are going to go to body counts, socialism and communism has killed far more millions of people in the 20th century than all of the wars fought since we have even been a nation. And yet, you seem to think they are preferable alternatives to capitalism.
I am done here for the weekend. Cheers!
Dave, you are really really really grasping for straws.
Tough having a reality check like this but you have been had.
No justice no peace!!!
Mr. Paine is forced to abandon rational discourse to play the commie card, proving once again he has no reasonable leg to stand on.
Mr. Paine also ignores another white hate group in Germany that killed millions. But to his brainwashed cult of hate, Nazis are "liberals". And liberals are Nazis...and commies...and whatever the hell their ignorant hate cult tells them we are.
I'm using his standards when I say white conservatives are a hate group, especially those who defend Trump and accuse every Black American who supports BLM of being in a "hate group".
We get it. Trump supporters are not racists. Trump is not racist. But those scary Blacks... Sure, some white conservatives are decent folk, but they are still in a hate group, co-opted by Nazis, Klansmen, thugs and church killers.
This is con-sense back at you.
Mr. Paine's beam in his eye is a Redwood.
Con-servatism is absolutely a hate cult. They demonize liberals and minorities, lie, cheat and kill, therefore they are a hate group.
Watch Mr. Paine and his lapdog get angry and call me a commie again for using their own stupid illogical bigotry against them. They are hypocrites and everything is OK if you are a con. They are a cult wrapped in alternative facts, ignorance, fear and hate. Every accusation they fabricate in their frightened angry brain is a fact to them.
And that is the truth.
At some point, all one can do is shake one's head and walk away from the nonsense. When sincere and truthful discussion along with real-world examples are constantly ignored in favor of a dangerous far left-wing political agenda, then all one can do is smile with the knowledge that one tried. Sometimes There sometimes exists insurmountable ignorance that one simply cannot climb over in order to bring truth to that person. I think we have finally reached that point here. (The truth be told, that point was reached a long time ago.)
Logic, reason and facts have failed to resonate.
Some of us choose to judge the many by the acts or words of a few. If I was as similarly fact and reason-impaired I could say white con-servatives are a hate group. Every Klansman and Nazi is a white con-servative.
Those white con-servatives who are not of those groups live in denial of science and reality. They think liberals are commies and believe in a vast Conspiracy of Evil Climate Scientists. Many support or voted for, and even love Trump. Shall we judge them all for supporting for a racist birther? Why not?
Debate and discussion is useless in communicating with a cult of false beliefs and blanket condemnation of the many for the acts of a minute minority.
All condemnations of violence by BLM are ignored by white bigots who can't see past their prejudice, willful ignorance or outright hate. AWC's refuse to debate the facts and resort to damning the thousands of innocents for the acts of a few dozen. They fear and hate what they do not understand. See amygdala and conservatives.
If BLM is a "hate group", Angry White con-servatives are worse. I can show hundreds of cases of racism, hate, and violence from AWC for evey so-called BLM act of violence.
For I am free to judge exactly the way AWC's judge, am I not?
Here is how AWC's act like fascists and dehumanize those they hate:
Black Lives Matter protested a police officer named Officer Ryan Pownall who shot not one, but two black men in the back. This annoyed angry white con-servative, and Philadelphia Fraternal Order of Police President, John McNesby, who called them "a pack of rabid animals" and said, “These are not activists, they are racist hate groups determined to instigate violence.”
Got the message? It serves those protesters right. Let’s dehumanize BLM and have more cops thinking it’s fine to shoot black men in the back. It doesn’t bother birther Trump, why should it bother all the other angry white con-servatives? After all, those black men are the real racists for protesting good white cops shooting Blacks in the back.
This is ugly racist core of con-servativism. Just own it and be done with it. At least white supremacists and Nazis are not as blatantly hypocritical.
So liberals are commies and BLM are "a pack of rabid animals" and a "racist hate groups determined to instigate violence.”
That is a lot of hate, and it has Mr. Paine's sympathies.
He is on the same page.
Yes, Mr. Dubya, we get it.
We must agree with you completely that there is no hate and racism associated with the "organization" of BLM or we are racists ourselves. The SPLC is noble but Liberty Council is a hate group because they support traditional marriage.
We must agree with you completely that man-caused global warming is "settled science" or we are ignorant Trumpist authoritarians believing in a Chinese hoax.
We must agree that socialism is an unfairly maligned economic system despite the fact that untold millions were killed by it in the 20th century alone. If we don't acknowledge that it is far better and "more fair" than capitalism, then we are greedy Trumpist supporters.
We must agree with you completely that Trump is guilty of all charges every leveled against him, but Hillary is innocent of all charges against her despite mountains of damning proof or we are once again con-servative Trumpist supporters.
George W. Bush started a war based on lies and falsified data including that of "aluminum nukular tubes" but Barack Obama saved the world from the unfairly maligned Iranian regime by giving them billions of dollars and allowing the leading state sponsor of terrorism in the world to maintain a nuclear program for "peaceful power purposes". If we don't agree with your assessment stated above, we are ignorant war mongers supporting the military industrial complex.
Have I hit all of the high points?
Please... please...please... don't bother to answer. I can already right your answer for you, probably nearly verbatim. All I have to do is abandon common sense and reason to do so.
Yep, I was right. I could have drafted that reply point for point. :)
Yep, I was right. I could have drafted that reply point for point.
So you could have drafted the points, yet cannot refute them.
That would make it another opinion, I see. ;)
Again, you mean. I cannot refute them "AGAIN".
Well, actually I could once again, but you would ignore my points in favor of your own opinion as bolstered by ONLY far-left sources AGAIN, my friend.
I really don't see the point in wasting that time with you yet AGAIN, sir.
Post a Comment