Said Donald Trump, addressing the graduating class at Liberty University.
He also said: "Here I am, standing before you as president of the United States. I am guessing that some people here today thought that... would really require major help from God.”
Watch the whole thing:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
195 comments:
Trump is 100 percent right. And for those who object to a government employee uttering the term "God", well this country was founded on religious principles. It was freedom to worship as they pleased, not as how the King told them to worship. Freedom OF RELIGION, not 'from religion'.
Trump said the truth and the snowflake liberals can just go cry some more.
Why was Trump not wearing an academic robe? He received an Honorary degree. As is customary. But just as it is customary, for the speaker/recipient to be robed.
Is there a transcript yet?
Trolling the Left again. I get the impression Trump is enjoying his Presidency.
Historically, it is better to worship an extra-universal entity that favors individual dignity, recognizes intrinsic value, and condemns committing abortion for causes other than self-defense, forcing a reconciliation of often diverging interests, than it is to worship terrestrial-bounded divine entities and mortal wannabes.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Trump is not Congress, nor is he proposing laws. So what's the problem?
Are we so used to Presidents factoring out religion from their speeches that this shocks us? Sad
Why was Trump not wearing an academic robe?
Regale us with which robe Trump should be wearing, Chuck.
Good speech.
Now think - and compare - to a commencement address that President Hillary would have given.
And also consider if Hillary would have kept the taping system Obama had in the Oval.
In America, we do not worship government, we worship God.
I wish that were true. I don't think it is. We worship ourselves, and in our democratic republic, the government is the community of selves.
What CL said at 12:29PM.
Now think - and compare - to a commencement address that President Hillary would have given.
Hillary would have given the best gosh-darn speech money could buy.
Chuck: Why was Trump not wearing an academic robe? He received an Honorary degree. As is customary. But just as it is customary, for the speaker/recipient to be robed.
Is there a transcript yet?
Chuck has reached the stage of trolling himself.
Tonto voice: "What you mean 'we', superstitious man?"
That silver tongued Scotsman has mastered America's soul.
If they can't shoot him or impeach him, I doubt a Democrat will bother to run against DJT. Remind me how FDR's 1936 reelection turned out.
“The more that a broken system tells you that you’re wrong, the more certain you must be that you must keep pushing ahead."
Trump the "Why Not?" President. So many times in the last 4 months, I can imagine a conversation that goes like this:
Trump: {action or words}
Representative of the Status Quo Ante: You can do (say) that?
Trump: Why not?
RSQA: It's just not the way we do things. It will have (unspecified) disastrous consequences.
Trump: The more that a broken system tells me that I'm wrong, the more certain I am that I must keep pushing ahead.
2 Corinthians walk into a bar..
chickelit said...
"Why was Trump not wearing an academic robe?"
Regale us with which robe Trump should be wearing, Chuck.
It would be a Liberty University robe, in this case where he'd be receiving an honorary degree. Alternatives would be a plan black robe, or a University of Pennsylvania robe.
I have a feeling that Trump's own vanity might have swung him against a robe. But that's all; just a feeling.
I expect that Professor Althouse has her own NYU robe, having gone to a number of commencement ceremonies.
The "I" count was low. Obama would not approve.
"In America, we don't worship Government, we worship God."
Robes are optional.
Chuck felt: I have a feeling that Trump's own vanity might have swung him against a robe. But that's all; just a feeling.
Thanks for the regalia trivia, Chuck -- interesting facts. But I didn't need your opinionated feelings because I've heard them umpteen times.
trump and the republicans seem more in leauge with satan than god.
Here's a picture of Trump with a framed degree from Dr. Ronald Hawkins, who is robed and who is the provost of Liberty.
http://ww1.hdnux.com/photos/61/15/00/12898340/3/1024x1024.jpg
And here is the Google Images search result for 'Barack Obama commencement speech':
https://www.google.com/search?q=barack+obama+commencement+speech&rlz=1C1QJDB_enUS621US626&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwibtLvNuO3TAhUG6YMKHS_dA5wQ_AUIDCgD&biw=1366&bih=638
In order to really show the stark differences between themselves and the GOP, at their 2020 convention the delegates should be allowed to boo the boy scouts, boo God, and maybe spit on the flag while wearing pink pussy hats.
That oughtta get 'em back in the White House!
He's getting better with the dual, right-left teleprompter set-up.
trump and the republicans seem more in leauge with satan than god.
Yet, Lefties keep on dedicating their books and their lives to Satan. Strange.
Chuck fellates Obama. Still. That's why we got Trump.
Lewis Wetzel said...In order to really show the stark differences between themselves and the GOP, at their 2020 convention the delegates should be allowed to boo the boy scouts, boo God, and maybe spit on the flag while wearing pink pussy hats.
Remember LA Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa getting booed at the DNC convention when the word "God" was restored to the DNC platform? link
Chickelit-
Yeah, I remember that, and their booing of the Boy Scouts carrying the flag in 2004. But the scouts have become gay-friendly (meaning it will become all-gay in a few years), so I suppose they wouldn't boo them today.
Darrell said...
Yet, Lefties keep on dedicating their books and their lives to Satan. Strange.
5/13/17, 1:00 PM
i'll refrain from commenting on these books, because i like most people, i've never heard of them. i will say, though, that it's one thing to dedicate your book to satan, and another to dedicate your lives, as the republicans all seem to have.
Robes are Graduation regalia showing academic degrees achieved. Wear them if that's all you've got.
Or win the Presidency.
A highly promoted Army General from Weat Point with the Silver Star and 2 bronze stars now wears a business suit and servers the USA at War Room 1. It's the man and not his awards that deserve our respect.
McMaster is a leader of leaders and he serves us because Trump knows men.
"Worship God"! Scared Ann, after all since the 60s you and your cohorts thought you had eliminated Him. Ratchet up the rhetoric one more notch, Critical Theory has run it's course, and PM is following suit.
Life-long Republican: it would be helpful to you to google "how to embed a link in HTML".
No robe?
And no styrofoam Greek columns either. Nor a well-earned Nobel Peace Prize (cough). Nor Time's man .... er .... person of the year award (twice). Nor the Profile in Courage award.
Ah, the things I do miss about BHO and his lovely bride Bruno.
The Russians would have hacked Hillary's speech by turning reversing the 'N's and 'R's and scattering Swears throughout.
Not a surprise our beloved LLR is concerned about the dress code. It's style baby, not substance.
"As long as I am President, no one will ever keep you from practicing your faith or preaching what is in your heart."
But they will try their damnedest. If you can't see the article behind a paywall, it is by Ezekial Emanuel. Here is the worst of it:
Health care professionals who are unwilling to accept these limits have two choices: select an area of medicine, such as radiology, that will not put them in situations that conflict with their personal morality or, if there is no such area, leave the profession. To invoke conscientious objection is to reject the fundamental obligation of health care — the primary duty to ensure patients’ continued well-being.
For Emanuel, "well-being" encompasses abortion on demand, sex incongruent hormone therapy, and sex reassignment surgery. He doesn't explicitly state that physicians have to provide every and any treatment demanded by a patient whether we think it is harmful or not, but that is the logical conclusion of his stance. If I have a patient who has a binge eating disorder who wants bariatric surgery, by his logic I would have to refer her for it, even though binge eating disorder patients don't do well long term with the surgery. And woe to you who believe a surgeon would screen for it.
The best political speech I ever heard was Reagan's address to the Republican convention when Goldwater go0t nominated. I was pretty much a-political then until Reagan stated, "We will have to explain to future generations what we valued more than liberty." No "liberal" that I know has ever come up with a satisfying answer to that. I guess for modern Democrats, the answer would be "Universal health care." They're regular Patrick Henrys.
And I presume Emanuel's edict would apply to euthanasia, too, in states where it is legal. Might as well just throw out the Hippocratic Oath. Physicians are only pawns of the State now.
Vicari doesn't know much about God or Satan. Hint: the people who try to remove crosses from public land, references to God from public speech, and try to turn Jesus into a proto-socialist aren't likely to worship God. And like He said, either your serving Me or your serving Satan. Is that clear enough?
" Might as well just throw out the Hippocratic Oath. Physicians are only pawns of the State now."
Many medical schools, including mine I think, have stopped using the Oath for students.
I just knew that the Trump dipshits would become deranged if I posted a link to Obama's wearing academic robes at a dozen or so commencement addresses. And I should reall have guessed that the First Among dipshits would be Darrell.
So anyway, I cued up the same Google images search for the 43rd President, following 44.
https://www.google.com/search?q=president+bush+commencement+speech&prmd=vni&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjNsJuq0e3TAhVDxCYKHToiByUQ_AUIDCgD&biw=320&bih=356
I wasn't "fellating" Obama, but perhaps Darrell you'd like to meet me and discuss it personally.
Chuck, there are a few photos in your link of Bush II addressing graduates without regalia.
How do you "feel" about that?
@ Chuck
Are you going internet tough guy?
It was a nice speech by DJT. He'll get a few Religious colleges (because they have manners) and the military colleges (because they follow orders), but probably won't get the commencement address at Harvard or Yale (because they are spoiled little twerps)
A dipshit is a guy that guarantees that Trump won't win Michigan and threatens a retired medical doctor and a female cable newswoman. You must be looking into a mirror like the Lefties around here are doing today.
Obama likes playing dress up, so what? A suit and tie is proper dress always for any Presidential speech.
Of course to State-cultists, God and the State are one.
“Nothing is easier or more pathetic than being a critic,” Mr. Trump said. “They’re people who can’t get the job done. The future belongs to the dreamers, not to the critics.”
I wasn't "fellating" Obama, but perhaps Darrell you'd like to meet me and discuss it personally.
It would seem, Darrell, that Chuck would like to fellate you.
Thread fixated on Trump's threads?
Trump is God. Trump is... life.
"Wow. That's very deep. Thank you, Vinnie."
@ mockturtle
Where I saw a threat of violence you saw an offer of affection. That's why I keep coming to Althouse; all the different viewpoints are fascinating.
Chuck is one tough LLR, reminds me of Chuck Norris ... well no. Maybe pajama boy.
Nice speech Trump. So, when do we get the Border Fence?
Old IRS saying:
In God we trust, everyone else we audit.
I find it interesting how Trump, of all presidents, really seems to pay attention to the interests of the Evangelical & religious wing of the Republican Party.
Let's face it: Trump is not an especially pious man. He was not raised in a pious household. His life has certainly, to say the least, not been an example of Christian probity.
But, no president, not even Reagan, has paid his dues to that community like Trump has. His cabinet appointments right out of the gate paid his dues to the religious wing of the Republican party.
Is this just a Republican paying politics to an interest group who backed Trump's candidacy in spite of their misgivings? Or, is there a part of Trump's brain & soul that has actually been moved by the moral witness of the religious right in a political world that is all too often about the Benjamins? I honestly don't know, but I'm not so cynical to write-off the second option.
@ YoungHegelian
It may be every bit as likely that Trump was repulsed by the Left in all its neo-religious hatred of the Political Other. What brings a person to see the righteousness of one side is often having previously witnessed the other side.
There may be stories in some old books about that.
Trump worships himself.
Don't you have the dignity to understand that?
"Well I say God is the ultimate. You know you look at this?" Trump said, motioning toward an oceanfront golf course that bears his name. "Here we are on the Pacific Ocean. How did I ever own this? I bought it 15 years ago. I made one of the great deals they say ever. I have no more mortgage on it as I will certify and represent to you. And I was able to buy this and make a great deal. That's what I want to do for the country. Make great deals. We have to, we have to bring it back, but God is the ultimate.
--Trump on God.
Well, he's half right.
In America, we worship the TSA.
We even print money for them.
Oh, and HAIL SATAN!
I mean, now that the cat is out of the bag and all.
Trumps likes money and he doesn't hide it.
You know who else likes money - and who never works for it? The Clintons.
@ TTR
With what part of the following statement do you and other Leftists disagree:
"All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state."
Be precise.
The part where you left Trump outside of it.
Only a fool fails to see that we got Trump because we didn't want Clinton. And we didn't want Bush III either. Trump played on that knowledge. If the Dems could only make HRC go away, but they won't. In fact, they are stupid enough to keep propping her up for another go round.
He is becoming, albeit slowly, the office.
I think he is sincere.
chickelit said...
Chuck, there are a few photos in your link of Bush II addressing graduates without regalia.
One was from Bush 43 addressing graduation at West Point. No robes there. The other was from graduation at the Coast Guard Academy. Again, the uniform of the day is uniforms and not academic robes.
Or, is there a part of Trump's brain & soul that has actually been moved by the moral witness of the religious right
Yes. It's called the hypobannonimus.
Only a fool fails to see that we got Trump because we didn't want Clinton.
Any other obvious details you have for us? Does a square have four sides?
He is becoming, albeit slowly, the office.
I think he is sincere.
Me too.
He captured my vote when the news reporter asked "What happens if you don't win?".
Trump's response "What a tremendous waste of time this will have been!"
"We are a Nation of Laws." - Hammurabi.
@ Chuck
Are you offering violence, blow jobs or violent blow jobs? Or big talk on the internet?
@ TTR
Credibly name a single thing in the quote above with which you and the modern Left disagree.
Be precise.
Grab your carry on.
Trump answers the people attacking him by characterizing them as parts of a broken system and asserting that he will continue to fight to replace the system. Great to see.
Sometimes the past week has been like watching Trump fighting some creature of the black lagoon. He vanishes, disappears underwater. Supporters like me are left gazing anxiously at the swirling churning turmoil which is all we can see. Like Beowulf's followers. Then BAM, he's back ... and swims ashore, leaving behind a gross dead monster. Hillary can't be beat. James Comey is too big to fire. More to come.
A lot of Washington government figures don't have their own ideas, I think. They are creatures of their staffs. This week the White House staff seems to have suddenly realized that they work for Trump, he doesn't work for them. He has ideas, goals. Staff are supposed to achieve Trump goals - or, if they don't like Trump goals, they are supposed to quit.
New Concept: President Trump was not elected to make unknown White House staffers look good at Wapo (where democracy dies in darkness.) The staff is writhing in horror - our guy wants to do what he promised. A shudder passes over the arrogant faces sneering round the dinner tables of Georgetown. "God, imagine if they all tried that," whispers one and another chokes on her wagyu thinking of how bad things could get if any attention were paid to American voters - ugly, racist, misogynist, homophobic, scum that they are, good for nothing but being taxed. With lying to them for light relief.
A little OT, but there is a headline in today's MN Star-Tribune that says that now the Dakota Access pipeline is complete "There is an oil boomlet in North Dakota" The sub head said "more jobs than workers ". Our "do-nothing" presidency at work for real people.
Wasn't Obama taking encores in Germany and doing his apology tour in the ME about now. All places with innumerable electoral votes and far, far, from Hillary's deplorables.
Birkel lives in such a bubble that he not only can't discuss how it is that Trump doesn't see HIMSELF as the state, but he thinks he's going to turn that around and interrogate all non-Trumpers instead.
And this in response to nothing having to do with politics or ideology. Or even anything having to do with Birkel. Just a quote where his leader, when asked about the Heavenly Father, provided a disquisition about himself and how successful he is. On the Christian Broadcasting Network.
The idea that Trump is to be defended by (impoverished) Burkeans and minarchists is some of the most hilarious shit the wrong-wing ever invented.
2018 looks like it will be a very fun year.
Looks like lifelong Republican Chuck is in quite a tizzy tonight. I haven't seen him this riled up since he fantasized about throttling female television news personalities.
@ TTR
I ask you again with what in that quote, above, do you and the modern Left disagree. Be specific, please.
I invite you to join me in the pursuit of a diminished central government, if you disagree with that quote. Do you?
Grab your carry on.
I don't care about your stupid quote, and I am no representative of any party - let alone the majority of the country that you will now call "the modern Left" (whatever that means) that now will roast you and your "Superior" for their lawless, incompetent recklessness. You have no credibility, and no one's joining you in anything - until you hold your Superior accountable - but you obviously won't. Here's a more fundamental quote, and the applicable one that you keep running away from like the dishonest coward that you are:
L'etat, c'est moi! (I am the state).
Trump seems to believe that, and your idiot faction of "the modern Right" seems to agree and to be ok with that.
So, "I ask you again with what in that quote, above, do you and 'the modern Right' disagree. Be specific, please."
But you won't. You can't answer direct questions, and believe you have a right to put people into your own terms. And that's why you are a low-income, low-info poverty case who has no interests or accomplishments in life other than to obsess on abstract irrelevancies rather than the actual tyrant in charge of running them who's committed a Vulcan mind-meld with the government.
...And with his first comment, Chuck descends beyond all parody.
@ TTR
I have no superiors. I am an American. There are no titles of nobility. My rights are mine and do not flow from the State. The belief that I am inferior - despite your wildly wrong and delightfully misplaced fantasies - is a very Leftist thing to believe.
As for the State being a man, I cannot imagine how a person who wishes to devolve power so that individuals are not subjugated by people like you who believe themselves superior could be confused with a Leftist, Collectivist, Statist such as yourself.
You are not grieved that the state has too much power. I am. You are angry that your side does not wield the power of the state. I would see that power diminished so it is less a threat to Liberty - yours and mine. Your anger is palpable.
And I mock your impotence.
President-Mom-Jeans said...
Looks like lifelong Republican Chuck is in quite a tizzy tonight. I haven't seen him this riled up since he fantasized about throttling female television news personalities.
Such a nasty slander. I think readers here have gone through this before; with people like you making allegations that I somehow "threatened" or "fantasized" about attacking Greta van Susteren. When in fact it all arose as a direct result of Greta's televised proclamation that what Corey Lewandowski did to reporter Michelle Fields could never be assault. (And so I simply posited the notion of doing the same to her.)
But no more, of course, since now that Greta is whoring for MSNBC, she's reversed herself and now says that it is just as clear that a black woman protester who was escorted out of a Trump rally WAS assaulted.
I urge no one to lay a glove on Greta, now that she's changed her claims.
I have no superiors. I am an American. There are no titles of nobility. My rights are mine and do not flow from the State. The belief that I am inferior - despite your wildly wrong and delightfully misplaced fantasies - is a very Leftist thing to believe.
As for the State being a man, I cannot imagine how a person who wishes to devolve power so that individuals are not subjugated by people like you who believe themselves superior could be confused with a Leftist, Collectivist, Statist such as yourself.
You are not grieved that the state has too much power. I am. You are angry that your side does not wield the power of the state. I would see that power diminished so it is less a threat to Liberty - yours and mine. Your anger is palpable.
And I mock your impotence.
You are a fool who believes Trump as if he were an honest man (he has no ideology - either and will go right or left depending on how it furthers his power), can't see a damn thing he's doing, and don't understand that his model of royalty/loyalty is very old and obvious. You are a dupe. The eighties are over. So are the twenties. You can't address a single concrete reality and blather on about abstract things as if you were imprisoned in some cell writing manifestoes in blood with a shoelace.
But you must, you see. Because your financial worthlessness requires you to pretend I or anyone else really give a damn about how free you think you are. You are a hamster who has been given a wheel, that's what you are. You think Trump tells you the truth. The man never told the truth to anybody. You probably lie to yourself, also. You must, to think that your proud fixation on political ideology makes you any less poor and powerless than you are and always will be.
"Such a nasty slander."
Did you mean libel, there, Chuck? Or are you no longer pretending to be an attorney as well as a lifelong Republican?
Trump is a traitor. He has a number of dupes but they are dropping by the day. They will be outnumbered soon enough.
They were outnumbered from the beginning. But soon their "enemies" will grow (like Trump's have) to the point where they will be a political George Custer.
It will be fun and very healing. These fucks have fucked stuff up long enough. Their current leader/incarnation is a treasonous abomination and he's taking himself down with every next lie he tells.
Shorter Ritmo: Trump will resign any day now and the Clinton party will sweep back into power in 2018.
Good luck with that one, Nancy.
Jason:
Liberty's 2016 commencement speaker, Rashad Jennings (Liberty grad and NY Giants RB):
http://www.liberty.edu/archives/public/photos/20160514_24697652MB.jpg
Liberty's 2015 commencement speaker, Jeb Bush:
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/QzQyu5Sp2b8/maxresdefault.jpg
Liberty's 2014 commencement speaker, Bobby Jindal:
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/0c9CLlQX4_Q/maxresdefault.jpg
Liberty's 2013 commencement speaker, Fox News anchor Shannon Bream (Liberty alumna):
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/65JPXi2A9UA/maxresdefault.jpg
Liberty's 2012 commencement speaker, Mitt Romney:
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/uT2HAluw63Q/hq720.jpg
Liberty's 2011 commencement speaker, Randall Wallace (Braveheart screenwriter)
http://www.liberty.edu/media/1617/may2011/grad2.jpg
Liberty's 2009 commencement speaker, the great Ben Stein:
http://www.liberty.edu/media/1617/april/20090509_steinspeaking.jpg
Liberty's 2008 commencement speaker, CHUCK NORRIS:
https://znanichrzescijanie.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/chuck-norris-speech.jpg
Liberty's 2007 commencement speaker, Newt Gingrich:
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2011/images/12/09/c1main.gingrich.liberty.gi.jpg
Liberty's 2006 commencement speaker, John McCain:
http://cbsnews2.cbsistatic.com/hub/i/r/2006/05/15/4c3bba63-a642-11e2-a3f0-029118418759/resize/620x465/ea27738bf76fed8cc7718cc6c24f9109/image1617987.jpg
That's ten years of Liberty commencement speakers, every single one of them robed. But not Trump. This was no accident. It had to be Trump saying that he would not wear a robe.
It's fine if none of you care. I just think it's interesting.
It's fine if none of you care. I just think it's interesting.
Great!
But you do come off as a hopeless pedant. More fun would be for you to speculate on why Trump didn't wear a robe...robes don't flatter his look?
Ritmo is sounding all "end times" for Republicans and for Trump. Politics is a religion for him.
Hell if I am Satan I guess I have to rape/murder/steal and give you fools something to talk about.
Good thing I ain't damned Satan then the way I figure it.
But keep on saying it, you never know.
Your dreams could come true, it could happen to you, if you'ah young tart.
@ President Mom Jeans
Chcuk, so called fopdoodle, believes you can defame an anonymous commenter on the internet. His legal opinions are very valuable, as are his political prognostications.
@ TTR
Your drunken rantings are the most fun; I enjoy reading them. It is funny to watch such a learnéd man as yourself devolve into a cursing fool. Can you make no argument from first principles?
Again, with what in the above quote do you disagree?
Grab your carry on.
@ chickelit
I think Trump was worried that a robe would make him look decidedly larger than he would prefer to look. He is girthy.
That, or he just prefers a suit and always wears a suit in public appearances (as opposed to playing golf or other less formal, semi-public appearances).
"No King but Christ. No Lord, but God." -- Parliamentary Forces battle cry, British Civil War.
Still valid.
Stick to your chemistry set and inhaling the volatile organics, Cuckenlittle. You lack the basic decency, integrity and insight into human affairs to run a treehouse club.
"Cuckenlittle" That's a good one! You do have a way with words.
Michael McClain: "No King but Christ. No Lord, but God." -- Parliamentary Forces battle cry, British Civil War.
Still valid."
Well, yeah. But it was unfortunate that Cromwell ended up as a dictator himself and after 10 years tried to transfer the power to his son. Not that it worked of course.
Naturally the Irish "ain't" too fond of him either.
"Cuckelit" would have been better tho...
Your drunken rantings are the most fun; I enjoy reading them. It is funny to watch such a learnéd man as yourself devolve into a cursing fool. Can you make no argument from first principles?
Yeah, here's a principle: Never argue with a man who is only arguing to carry another, richer, more powerful man's water. You are a footsoldier on behalf of the "People's Billionaire."
His epitaph writes itself.
Stop changing the subject. If you'd gone to school, made some money, learned how to be responsible, you'd know that it's about Trump and religion.
Of course, if you had something defensible to say about that, you wouldn't keep changing the subject.
My right to not be annoyed and harassed by you is mine and does not "flow" from anyone.
Stop being so poor and ignorant and then maybe you'd stop being so easily recruited and duped into richer and cleverer mens' agendas.
TTR: "You lack the basic decency, integrity and insight into human affairs to run a treehouse club"
Treehouse clubs can be stickier wickets than one might suppose.
"No King but Christ. No Lord, but God." -- Parliamentary Forces battle cry, British Civil War.
Similar at the Battle of Lexington.
"Cuckelit" would have been better tho...
I think I've tried that one on for size also.
Treehouse clubs can be stickier wickets than one might suppose.
Indeed they can, Drago.
TTR: "Yeah, here's a principle: Never argue with a man who is only arguing to carry another, richer, more powerful man's water."
Well, I can't imagine a scenario where you would want to argue with a man who is only arguing to carry another, poorer, far less powerful man's water.
Which leaves only arguing with a man who is only arguing to carry another, equally wealthy, equally powerful man's water.
And we haven't even begun addressing dames yet!
Look, I think we would all be best served by stepping away from the barrel of 'shine' and dropping our ladles where we stand.
Well, I can't imagine a scenario where you would want to argue with a man who is only arguing to carry another, poorer, far less powerful man's water.
Why not? Doesn't the satisfaction of the people matter to maintaining social stability?
TTR: "Why not? Doesn't the satisfaction of the people matter to maintaining social stability?"
In my best Monty Python 'whisper voice': Well....up to a point....
Look, why don't we call it a draw and all head out for some ice cream?
(I'll be the only one having 2 scoops, btw)
Ice cream? Ok.
Three scoops for me. With maple syrup. And chocolate sauce. And blueberries.
@ TTR
It is amazing how many assumptions you make. What need is served by this desire to denigrate? And why do you put so much stock in wealth, power and social position? I hope you gather some self-respect and learn to be charitable.
I would like to devolve power. In what way is that carrying water for anybody except average people who would prefer to exercise their God-given freedoms without government interference? I guess being pro freedom is now, in true Orwellian fashion, being pro slavery.
Now how do you disagree with the quote above, precisely?
Grab your carry on.
What need is served by this desire to denigrate?
Here are Trump's most notable insults so far in the 2016 campaign:
Former President George W. Bush: — “You mean George Bush sends our soldiers into combat, they are severely wounded, and then he wants $120,000 to make a boring speech to them?” asked Trump on July 9, after reports the former president charged a vets group for a speech. “Bush didn’t have the IQ [to be president],” he added on June 16.
Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush (R) — “I’m not a big fan. The last thing we need is another Bush,” Trump said on June 16. Trump's Twitter account also retweeted an insult to Bush’s wife on July 4: “@RObHeilbron: @realDonaldTrump #JebBush has to like the Mexican Illegals because of his wife.” It was later deleted.
Hillary Clinton — “Hillary Clinton was the worst secretary of State in the history of the United States," Trump told Business Insider.
His Twitter account on April 16 also retweeted an attack on Clinton: “@mplefty67: If Hillary Clinton can’t satisfy her husband what makes her think she can satisfy America?” Trump said a campaign staffer was responsible and deleted the tweet.
Anderson Cooper — “What a waste of time being interviewed by @andersoncooper when he puts on really stupid talking heads like Tim O'Brien-dumb guy with no clue!” Trump tweeted on July 22 after his interview with the CNN anchor.
During his interview, Trump told Cooper: "The people don’t trust you and the people don’t trust the media."
Des Moines Register — After the paper called on Trump to drop out, he dismissed it as a "sophomoric editorial" and called their coverage "uneven and inconsistent, but far more importantly, very dishonest."
And why do you put so much stock in wealth, power and social position?
Because that's what runs the government. Duh. Just ask your celebrity game show host pretend-billionaire president.
I hope you gather some self-respect and learn to be charitable.
Lol. Why don't you learn to be decent and civil first. If you want to have conversations with people you're not in a position to demand things of them. Apparently your parents didn't teach you this, or manners generally.
I would like to devolve power.
Who cares what you would like? Your president, the one you believe in soooooo much, can't even bother to avoid fomenting a constitutional crisis less than five months into office. You're too dumb to see that your cronies and the people whose water you carry are too incompetent to implement any agenda, because their only agenda is corruption. They just use you to parrot ideological talking points in service to that corruption.
What need is served by this desire to denigrate?
Forbes Magazine — “Why does a failed magazine like @Forbes constantly seek out trivial nonsense? Their circulation way down. @Clare_OC,” Trump tweeted on July 9.
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) — "What a stiff, what a stiff, Lindsey Graham. By the way he has registered zero in the polls,” Trump said, at a campaign speech in Bluffton, S.C., on July 21. “A total lightweight. In the private sector, he couldn’t get a job. Believe me. Couldn't get a job. He couldn't do what you people did. You're retired as hell and rich. He wouldn't be rich; he'd be poor.”
Trump also shared Graham's personal cellphone number and said Graham had begged him to help get on Fox News's "Fox and Friends."
"What's this guy, a beggar? He's like begging me to help him with [the show] 'Fox and Friends.’ ” Trump said of Graham on "CBS This Morning," on July 21.
Jonah Goldberg — “Jonah Goldberg @JonahNRO of the once great @NRO#National Review is truly dumb as a rock. Why does @BretBaier put this dummy on his show?” Trump tweeted, criticizing the conservative columnist on April 20.
Joaquin "El Chapo" Guzman — Trump said the Mexican drug lord would be no match for him. “Can you envision Jeb Bush or Hillary Clinton negotiating with 'El Chapo', the Mexican drug lord who escaped from prison? ...Trump, however, would kick his ass!” he tweeted on July 12. Trump later called in the FBI after a death threat from a Twitter account associated with Guzman.
Arianna Huffington — “The liberal clown @ariannahuff told her minions at the money losing @HuffingtonPost to cover me as entertainment. I am #1 in Huff Post Poll,” Trump tweeted on July 18.
Penn Jillette — After the magician and comedian criticized Trump, he responded on July 16, tweeting: “I hear @pennjillette show on Broadway is terrible. Not surprised, boring guy (Penn). Without The Apprentice, show would have died long ago.” He then followed up with, “I loved firing goofball atheist Penn @pennjillette on The Apprentice. He never had a chance. Wrote letter to me begging for forgiveness.”
Ohio Gov. John Kasich (R) — “What people don’t know about Kasich- he was a managing partner of the horrendous Lehman Brothers when it totally destroyed the economy!” Trump tweeted on May 20.
Charles Krauthammer — “One of the worst and most boring political pundits on television is @krauthammer. A totally overrated clown who speaks without knowing facts,” Trump tweeted about the conservative writer and Fox News contributor on June 4. A tweet a day later called him a "dumpy political pundit" and took issue with Krauthammer's support for the Iraq war. Krauthammer brought on Trump's ire by mocking his then-low standing in the polls.
Bill Kristol — When the Weekly Standard editor belittled Trump’s chances against Hillary, Trump responded on July 23, tweeting, “Bill, your small and slightly failing magazine will be a giant success when you finally back Trump. Country will soar!”
Mitt Romney — “Why would anybody listen to @MittRomney? He lost an election that should have easily been won against Obama. By the way,so did John McCain!” Trump tweeted of the 2012 Republican nominee on July 18.
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) — “He’s not a war hero,” Trump said at a rally on July 18. “He was a war hero because he was captured. I like people who weren’t captured.” This followed a July 16 tweet saying, “@SenJohnMcCain should be defeated in the primaries. Graduated last in his class at Annapolis--dummy!” The insults came after McCain said Trump had "fired up the crazies" on immigration.
What need is served by this desire to denigrate?
Macy’s — Trump called for a boycott after the department store dropped his men’s clothing line. "I hope the boycott of @Macys continues forever. So many people are cutting up their cards. Macy's stores suck and they are bad for U.S.A.,” he tweeted on July 16. “Boycott @Macys, no guts, no glory. Besides, there are far better stores!” he tweeted later.
Mexico — Trump lambasted the southern neighbor. “The U.S. has become a dumping ground for everybody else’s problems,” he said on May 30 at his campaign launch. “When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.” The remarks led a number of businesses to cut their ties with him.
He doubled down after the escape of a top drug kingpin. "It's a corrupt place," Trump said on July 17. "It's a terrible court system." "Let's put it this way," he added, "I'm not going to Mexico."
President Obama — Trump has long said he is not sure Obama was born in the U.S. and slammed his policies, calling him the "worst ever president." Obama hit back at the 2011 White House Correspondents Dinner, mocking Trump, who was in attendance.
But Trump hasn't let up. During the Baltimore riots in April this year he tweeted: “Our great African American President hasn’t exactly had a positive impact on the thugs who are so happily and openly destroying Baltimore!”
He also urged Obama to leave office early and golf on one of his many courses. “If he’d like to play, that’s fine. In fact, I’d love for him to leave early and play. That’d be a very good thing,” he said at his campaign launch in June.
After the Chattanooga shooting, Trump pressed Obama to lower the flag for the victims. "We have a president who just can't say a few words: 'Put the flags at half-mast for the five Marines that were just killed.' Why? Why? Why?” Trump said at a South Carolina rally on July 21. “It's almost like, does he read the papers? Does he watch television?"
Lawrence O’Donnell — “Dopey @Lawrence O’Donnell, whose unwatchable show is dying in the ratings, said that my Apprentice $ numbers were wrong. He is a fool!” Trump tweeted on July 16 of the MSNBC host.
Former Gov. Rick Perry (R-Texas) — Perry has been a tough critic of Trump's rhetoric on immigration. “Rick Perry failed at the border. Now he is critical of me. He needs a new pair of glasses to see the crimes committed by illegal immigrants,” Trump tweeted on July 5.
On July 16, he added, “@GovernorPerry failed on the border. He should be forced to take an IQ test before being allowed to enter the GOP debate.”
"He's doing very poorly in the polls. He put on glasses so people will think he's smart. And it just doesn't work! You know people can see through the glasses," Trump said at a rally on July 21.
Former Gov. George Pataki (R-N.Y.) — Trump tweeted that Pataki "couldn’t be elected dog catcher if he ran again—so he didn’t!” Trump tweeted July 1. He followed up with: “.@GovernorPataki was a terrible governor of NY, one of the worst -- would’ve been swamped if he ran again!”
Karl Rove — Trump went off on the Republican strategist's record in 2012 record. “@KarlRove wasted $400 million + and didn’t win one race—a total loser.@FoxNews,” he tweeted on July 16, followed by “Irrelevant clown @KarlRove sweats and shakes nervously on @FoxNews as he talks ‘bull’ about me. Has zero cred. Made fool of himself in '12.” Trump even called out the network: “@FoxNewsYou shouldn’t have @KarlRove on the air—he’s a clown with zero credibility—a Bushy!”
Kristen Stewart — “Robert [Pattinson] I'm getting a lot of heat for saying you should dump Kristen- but I'm right. If you saw the Miss Universe girls you would reconsider.” Trump tweeted of the stars of the "Twilight" series on July 16.
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) — “[Sanders] knows the country is ripped off. And I know the country is being ripped off,” Trump told The Hill on July 23. “The difference is that I can do something about it and he can’t. He’ll never be able to negotiate with China.”
Republican National Committee — “The RNC has not been supportive. They were always supportive when I was a contributor. I was their fair-haired boy,” Trump toldThe Hill on July 23. “The RNC has been, I think, very foolish.”
Chuck Todd — “I hear that sleepy eyes @chucktodd will be fired like a dog from ratings starved Meet The Press? I can't imagine what is taking so long!” Trump tweeted on July 12 about the "Meet the Press" host.
Univision — “@Univision cares far more about Mexico than it does about the U.S. Are they controlled by the Mexican government?” Trump tweeted on June 26 after the network cut ties with him over his immigration remarks. “Has anyone seen the financials of @Univision. They are doing really badly. Too much debt and not enough viewers. Need money fast. Funny!” he followed up on July 11.
The Wall Street Journal — Trump has had a long feud with owner Rupert Murdoch. After the paper questioned his candidacy, Trump tweeted on July 20: “The ever dwindling @WSJ which is worth about 1/10 of what it was purchased for, is always hitting me politically. Who cares!”
George Will — “Shouldn’t George Will have to give a disclaimer every time he is on Fox that his wife works for Scott Walker?” Trump tweeted, taking on the Washington Post columnist on July 22.
Juan Williams — “@TheJuanWilliams you never speak well of me & yet when I saw you at Fox you ran over like a child and wanted a picture,” tweeted Trump on July 3 of the Fox personality.
@TTR: What an impressive litany. You're as good as Chuck with his regalia links.
He asked a question, I gave an answer.
TTR: Here are Trump's most notable insults so far in the 2016 campaign:
Former President George W. Bush: — “You mean George Bush sends our soldiers into combat, they are severely wounded, and then he wants $120,000 to make a boring speech to them?” asked Trump on July 9, after reports the former president charged a vets group for a speech. “Bush didn’t have the IQ [to be president],” he added on June 16.
Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush (R) — “I’m not a big fan. The last thing we need is another Bush,” Trump said on June 16. Trump's Twitter account also retweeted an insult to Bush’s wife on July 4: “@RObHeilbron: @realDonaldTrump #JebBush has to like the Mexican Illegals because of his wife.” It was later deleted.
Hillary Clinton — “Hillary Clinton was the worst secretary of State in the history of the United States," Trump told Business Insider.
His Twitter account on April 16 also retweeted an attack on Clinton: “@mplefty67: If Hillary Clinton can’t satisfy her husband what makes her think she can satisfy America?” Trump said a campaign staffer was responsible and deleted the tweet.
Anderson Cooper — “What a waste of time being interviewed by @andersoncooper when he puts on really stupid talking heads like Tim O'Brien-dumb guy with no clue!” Trump tweeted on July 22 after his interview with the CNN anchor.
During his interview, Trump told Cooper: "The people don’t trust you and the people don’t trust the media."
Des Moines Register — After the paper called on Trump to drop out, he dismissed it as a "sophomoric editorial" and called their coverage "uneven and inconsistent, but far more importantly, very dishonest."
They all resonated with me and I suspect with a majority here.
(smokin' volatiles in my treehouse)
@ TTR
You keep pretending I want President Trump, or any president, to have lots of power. I don't.
If you repeat things, they are not more likely to be true. The option to President Trump was not the perfect or even the good. The option was intolerable: consolidation of power under President Hillary. I wanted better than intolerable and there was only one choice.
Do me a solid and work to give me a better option next time. Donate all that money you have to people who want and express their strong desire for single payer, repealing the Second Amendment and whatever else you believe has to be controlled by the state. (Given your inability to name things outside the state, I am not sure what those things aren't.) Go forth and conquer the political world with your Leftism. But be sure to grab your carry on first.
Finally, I really do hope you learn some charity. That is not a demand. It is a hope that you become a better person. You're unhappy and that makes me sad for you.
@TTR: Speaking as a longtime observer (and fan, really) of you, your talents would be better served reforming the D-party rather than just blandly attacking Trump.
"They all resonated with me and I suspect with a majority here. "
I read those and they increased favorability of Trump. Why? They're not political bullshittery from a class of people who think themselves our betters and speak in a calculated, anodyne way. They're real. I don't agree with all of them, but they are real.
NOTE to so-called Chuck:
Royalty wear robes. Academics wear gowns.
Further NOTE to so-called Chuck:
When making a multi-comment mountain out of a molehill, if you don't want to look even more ridiculous than making a multi-comment mountain out of a molehill already makes you look, consider ascertaining and using the correct terminology. It helps with credibility.
Finally, I really do hope you learn some charity.
Here's some charity: I don't work for the DNC and have no say over their stupid decisions.
mike doesn't know that most young conservative alt-righters are devout atheists. mike has never been on reddit, apparently.
Ritmo, why don't you just start your own blog?
@ TTR
With all your financial resources, surely you could influence them. I wish you great success.
Grab your carry on.
I don't doubt that I have way more to contribute to them than you do, Birkel. But I have better things to spend my resources on.
I did at one time, mockturtle. You might ask the same thing of some of the right-wingers here who believe their job is to censor voices for political reasons that Professor Althouse would never see any reason to censor. They're the ones who seem to be at odds with her rules.
So you gave a blog but nobody came?
See, because I respect property rights (I guess it's my liberal nature), I looked up and noticed that Birkel didn't own the blog. (Neither does he seem to contribute much to it - apart from personally attacking other commenters [a blog rule violation] and derailing its threads with obsessive abstractions on what he seems to think is a well thought-out philosophy that he tries to adhere to).
So it never occurred to me that he should be allowed to run me out of town.
So you gave a blog but nobody came?
What are you trying to get at? You seem to have trouble understanding things or staying on topic.
If you're not able to defend your beliefs don't you think that you should be the one to set up your own blog? You can ban any voice to the left of Atilla the Hun that you want to ban, that way.
What are you trying to get at? You seem to have trouble understanding things or staying on topic.
Waaahahahaha!
I know you didn't mean it to be, but christ that's funny.
Waaahahahaha!
I know you didn't mean it to be, but christ that's funny.
Perhaps - if you're not able to read. There's a difference between changing the subject and responding to that change.
I guess it's in your conservative nature to not know the difference between who started a new trend and who did not?
@ TTR
My comments related to religion and the Left. The Left believes in the State. That was precisely on topic. I tried to explore your religious beliefs but all you did was insult Donald Trump. That is a fine strategy except nobody cared to engage, much as you declined to engage my point about Leftist State religion.
I believe consistently that many things are outside the state. The state is not a religious concept to me.
Grab your carry on.
@ TTR
Further, I am kind enough to capitalize State when referring to Leftist religion. It is a courtesy.
My comments related to religion and the Left.
That's not the topic of the post. The topic of the post was Trump, rhetoric, religion and the state. Look at the tags.
The Left believes in the State.
No they don't. They just don't think mindless hostility to it is meaningful. By your logic, the Founders "believed" in the state, as they not only made use of one, but founded one to carry out a number of useful functions.
Maybe that will tick you off. My Swiss Army knife also performs a number of useful functions. Doesn't mean I worship it. Although it might mean that you resent usefulness.
That was precisely on topic.
As we can see above, it was not.
I tried to explore your religious beliefs but all you did was insult Donald Trump.
1. Trump is in the tag. He's fair game.
1. a. Why do you get offended about "insulting" Trump, anyway? Are you here on his behalf? Did he send you out? Does he get to have thin skin so that you don't have to? It's pretty bizarre and sort of lends credence to the charge that you see yourself as his lackey.
2. No need to ask anything personal about me at all. That's "ad hominem."
2. a. You don't care about my beliefs. You just want a platform for your cheesy 35-year old worn-out talking point.
That is a fine strategy except nobody cared to engage, much as you declined to engage my point about Leftist State religion.
I made two comments. One that was 11 words long, and a short follow-up to illustrate it that was a complete paragraph of Trump's talking about god. So it was a quote of Trump's, talking about Trump, and how he has trouble not thinking about himself when asked about god. There you go: Trump, religion, rhetoric. Three of the tags. All satisfied by going right to the source. Do you have trouble trusting his own words?
By contrast, your own harangue of me took up TEN comments - where you personally fixated on going after me through personal attacks, like an autistic Rottweiler, and that's only so far, i.e. assuming you haven't gotten over your silly attacks and accusations.
So again: Two initial comments on the precise tags of the post, one of them not much more than a quote by a specific tag. (Plus however many defenses I had to mount against your retarded personal attacks).
Vs. your own ten personal attacks on me. None of which had anything to do with Trump and religion.
No wonder you talk about drinking so much. If off-topic personal attacks were something to be addicted to, they'd have put you in rehab by now.
@ TTR
Trump is making a political statement and touches on religion. The religion of the Left is the State. Nothing is outside the State, as good Leftists have explained in the past.I
I see the courtesy of capitalization escapes you.
Grab your carry on.
@ TTR
Asking a question is now ad hominem?
I suppose words mean precisely what you want them to mean. Nothing less. Nothing more.
The religion of the Left is the State.
Obviously not, because you obsessively demand me to confirm that for you and can't stand that I don't. So it's obviously just some stupid shit you want to say to distract from how horrendous your own heroes are at running them, and not something that anyone educated or with a brain believes.
Grab your carry on.
Since you obsessively add this to your every comment, I take it it's a sign that you're talking to yourself. It's like a signifier/reminder to prove that you actually made the comment.
You didn't ask a question. You made a blanket assertion that you applied to me and only added question mark punctuation rhetorically to pretend that there was any suspense in waiting for an answer to your foregone conclusion.
But that's because you are "poorly educated," as Trump calls you. Actually learning information or honestly asking a question of someone that you're curious for an answer to - that's above your pay grade. Your poor capacity for it is what makes you a bad citizen. You need to believe that the majority of your country is to be warred against in order to feel strengthened in this belief of yours, this belief that ordinary things like states are what keep you down and the scapegoat for the 30% of America who blame it for their lack of success in life.
Because people like you are such a beleaguered minority, you have to attack more stridently, vituperatively and sloppily.
@ TTR
Grab your carry on is a combination of 'grab your wallet' and 'carry on' which have been used by your fellow travelers on this site for months on end. Did that really escape your incredible powers of observation?
I do not ask you to define Leftist religion, by the way, but I do ask you to define its limiting characteristics. Leftists have generally described the State as without limit, and that all things without the State cannot be. I take Leftists seriously. If they tell me there is nothing outside the State, I take them at their respective words.
We are discussing religion in a conversation started by Donald Trump who indicated religious belief is outside the Leftist State religion and should be defended from State encroachment. If, as Leftists have posited, the State demands all things within and nothing without, then Donald Trump stands against State encroachment on non-State religion.
Donald Trump is full of bullshit and says things just to get attention and redirect criticism away from himself. It seems amazing that you haven't understood this by now. He's been appointed "troll president" by his followers, so apparently even they agree.
I'm a fan of the Bill of Rights. I'm a fan of separation of powers. I'm a fan of limiting the powers of the state - and in all sorts of ways where I'm sure you want to give the state unlimited power - over incarceration, execution (talk about state power - the power to kill people sounds pretty harsh on rights), expansion of the military warfare state, and belief that policing should be about violence instead of about decent community relations. You probably also agree with Cracker Sessions in expanding the so-called War on Drugs - a huge disaster when it comes to replacing a rights-abusing war on citizens with a rational regime that is less paranoid about what people do to their own bodies and minds. These are specifics, they help refine and define argument. But if you prefer to just have a conflict for its own sake, or for how energized it makes you feel, I can't help that.
The term "leftist" is itself pejorative, unhelpful and poorly defined. I am a liberal. I believe in the post-enlightenment words of Locke, and update past the 19th century to account for the extremes of wealth inequality that exacerbated the access the aristocracy gained to the government over the concerns of citizens. I don't think government should be more responsive to the wealthy than to people who just want their food and water safe, their consumer products honestly labeled, and their workplaces with proper, human boundaries.
Is there anything left that you want clarified or did that provide you enough response to believe something additional that you had made up?
@ TTR
It is not pejorative to note the beliefs of people who wish to further and expand the power of the state over individuals. If you wish government to be less helpful to those with great fortunes who wish to capture the regulations for their own ends, you should join me in my Quixotic notion that the power of a centralized government should be limited. Great fortunes should be made and lost.
Wealth disparities are a good and great thing so long as the people who achieve that great wealth do so by offering freely entered economic relationships that benefit, ex ante, both sides of the bargain. If those fortunes can be lost in short order ( "...shirt sleeves to shirt sleeves in three generations..." ) because they are not protected by a strong centralized state, then it is not the matter of wealth but inability to change one's station that matters. In other words, you are measuring something that doesn't matter when the thing that does matter - the fluidity of wealth - is protected by the thing you wish to give greater power.
And that is the religion of the State.
Here is one incontrovertible fact that you should consider: the wealthiest interests in this country support Democrats who seek to expand the size and scope of government because it protects the advantages they hold far longer than those interests would be protected in a free market system. The voting patterns of the very wealthy reveal their strong preferences.
As for the rest of your conjecture about the things I believe: Piffle.
you should join me in my Quixotic notion that the power of a centralized government should be limited.
What is there to join? The constitution's already written. If you don't like it, tell your Republicans to start some amendments, or to write a new constitution preventing any taxation, or whatever you think it is that's not already in there defining scope.
Great fortunes should be made and lost.
Wealth disparities are a good and great thing so long as the people who achieve that great wealth do so by offering freely entered economic relationships that benefit, ex ante, both sides of the bargain. If those fortunes can be lost in short order ( "...shirt sleeves to shirt sleeves in three generations..." ) because they are not protected by a strong centralized state, then it is not the matter of wealth but inability to change one's station that matters. In other words, you are measuring something that doesn't matter when the thing that does matter - the fluidity of wealth - is protected by the thing you wish to give greater power.
And that is the religion of the State.
Exactly. A state that you've made through right-wing social engineering. The state you and your Republicans dominating power legislatively since 1980 has made America one of the most income IMMOBILE countries in the industrialized world. Fact. These things can be measured. Maybe you might not find facts and figures as exciting as revisionist political philosophy, but lo and behold. Check out Richard Wilkinson or even Charles Murray. The results are in. The U.S. has put itself at the bottom of the list for changing fortunes - up OR down. These are the effects of the Reagan-era policies realized. It didn't used to be like this, though. It BECAME like this as a result of your "freedom" policies. So that fortune you thought America was going to make it possible for you to make? Not going to happen. More likely for you to get rich or simply rise up the economic ladder in Denmark now. That idea that the Waltons and the Kochs and the rest of your billionaire families are as susceptible to the whims of the market with their fortunes? Also not going to happen. Their classes are now as entrenched as your own. This is what the right-wing did, through its religion of right-wing social engineering. It loves inequality just like it does class and people who love those things also love the structural rigidity that comes with them. This is the rigid wealth hierarchy that they built.
Here is one incontrovertible fact that you should consider: the wealthiest interests in this country support Democrats who seek to expand the size and scope of government because it protects the advantages they hold far longer than those interests would be protected in a free market system. The voting patterns of the very wealthy reveal their strong preferences.
You don't have a free market. Such things are as utopian and theoretical as controlled markets. You have the legislative agenda of the Koch Industries and ALEC pushing through all the relevant legislation that's been chipped up into the state. Those are right-wing groups who spout the same rhetorical nonsense that you go on about. It may be too late for you to get the training to raise your income, but you need to educate yourself son. They have won. You let their Trojan horse in. You can't name any left-wing agenda affecting economic activity that I can't counter with ten passed pieces of legislation written specifically by ALEC. They control you now. They control the state. We can show this with the facts and the legislation. But if you prefer to go ahead and just make political speeches to people who aren't listening to you on a semi-obscure blog, and despite the fact that you're writing under a pseudonym and not running for office, knock yourself out.
@ TTR
So the voting patterns of the very wealthy are nearly monolithic and you hang your hat on the small fry Koch Brothers? That is pathetic.
Government grew starting under FDR and quickened every time the Democrats had it maintained power (in Congress that was 1933 they 1994). Republicans slow the growth, at best, but are still governed by the 1974 Budget Reconciliation Act passed by Democrat majorities.
You know so little of these things because willful blindness and blaming boogeymen is somehow easier for you. One imagines you, the wealthy guy who claims to be much richer than all we foul beasts, should know something beyond pitiable rhetoric.
1933 thru 1994
So the voting patterns of the very wealthy are nearly monolithic and you hang your hat on the small fry Koch Brothers? That is pathetic.
Doesn't matter who votes for whom. It matters who funds the campaigns to get the job to stay in office and the legislative agenda they get for it in return. People don't vote their interests if they don't know what they are and how they translate into policy. Many poverty cases vote against their own economic interest.
Government grew starting under FDR and quickened every time the Democrats had it maintained power (in Congress that was 1933 they 1994). Republicans slow the growth, at best, but are still governed by the 1974 Budget Reconciliation Act passed by Democrat majorities.
That's not when your position on the economic ladder became stagnant. The GI Bill, unions and other post-WWII "Democratic" agendas were part of the greatest wealth builders ever - leading to the entire emergence of the American middle class.
You know so little of these things because willful blindness and blaming boogeymen is somehow easier for you. One imagines you, the wealthy guy who claims to be much richer than all we foul beasts, should know something beyond pitiable rhetoric.
I'm sure you need to do much imagining to believe the nonsense that you do. Keep using terms like "bogeyman." You just flunked the basics of when American wealth became immobile and who funded the policies that made it way, at that time.
You must like it that way, though. You're voting for pride over pocketbook. You can continue doing that for as long as you like and for as long as you want to remain poor. Pretty amazing that you actually think FDR policies made you that way. There's not a single historian stupid enough to deny the wealth generated according to his policies. The entire middle class was built this way. Before that, there was the poor and the rich. You are hilarious arguing without even understanding how the middle class came about. Maybe you're just that young and naive, though. Too young to remember such a thing as the middle class.
You are voting yourself into economic oblivion. I guess it's no big deal, though. After you've voted your own economic suicide, perhaps a newer, smarter, and less proud and destructive generation will see the light and turn back all the damage done. Ever since Reagan was when your class's fortunes reversed - obvious. He cared about the rich, not you - or those "Welfare Queens" he tried to convince you you were better than. You can't find a single chart that will mark the reversal of your class's fortunes prior to the 1980s, let alone show how Reagan's supposedly libertarian agenda turned things around. The decimation of your economic class has been a steady trend for 40 solid years. Nothing to do with FDR.
Kill off the middle class!
"Aggregate wealth for middle-class households is also shrinking according to Pew's research, from 62% of all wealth in 1970 to just 43% as of 2014."
Cool! Let's do more of what doesn't work! Reagan's and the RNC's policies have never been tried! There is not enough freedom for the billionaires!
"Most mass affluent households and college-educated professionals tend to be center-right or conservative on fiscal issues."
The facts are staring you right in the face.
But as with every other issue - evolution, planetary physics, morals... you name it - the right-wing has decided to deny facts and the reality of its country's own national economics and what policies led to what.
So let's get this straight.
The right-wing went from thinking that the poor are poor:
1. Because they're lazy, to thinking that the poor are poor:
2. Because Democrats took wealth away from the rich by taxing them excessively, to thinking that the poor are poor:
3. Because the state is big (whatever that means), to thinking that the poor are poor:
4. Because Mexicans clean hotel rooms and pick produce for cheap, to thinking that the poor are poor:
5. Because (fill in the blank -- with whatever bullshit).
You do seem creative in coming up with excuses. I guess you'll never figure out which party's legislative and executive agendas have been in charge for the past 40 years when all of your income bracket's wealth was decimated.
The poor are poor because the party that doesn't mind seeing them way keeps getting voted into power.
But Trump is a billionaire "man of the people" so I'm sure he will change all that.
Oh. The irony.
Blogger The Toothless Revolutionary said...
"The poor are poor because the party that doesn't mind seeing them way keeps getting voted into power."
The cumulative total dollars spent to eliminate poverty in this country has been ten trillion dollars.
Perhaps politics is the problem and not the solution.
Of course nobody is stopping you from opening your wallet and helping someone out.
The cumulative total dollars spent to eliminate poverty in this country has been ten trillion dollars.
Oh, don't worry. If you hate welfare, there are still ways to keep the poor in poverty!
Attacking unions, phasing out pensions, opposing minimum wage increases that keep pace with productivity and COLA gains, opposing insurance portability and options in the individual market (a feature prior to the ACA) are all great ways to keep poor people poor.
There are options! Luckily, the GOP tends to pursue every one of them.
I don't notice the comparable if not greater amounts spent on military being attacked based on the fact that war and conflict still exist.
Individual and organizational charity has been around forever. But prior to 1933 child and elder poverty was commonplace, as was their succumbing to disease that they could not pay to have treated. We are slowly returning to that traditional American "baseline." And people say Republicans no longer care about traditional American "values!"
@ TTR
1970 to present, eh? Huh, it's almost like the Great Society programs have wrung the wealth out of the middle class, grown the size of government, and allowed regulatory capture to enrich the already wealthy. No wonder the rich people like you (I am game to play along.) support Democrats so thoroughly.
And of course the Budget Reconciliation Act of 1974 that gave us baseline budgeting and a necessarily growing bureaucracy is the law of the land, passed through a Democrat controlled legislature. Thanks Grand Kleagle Robert Byrd and murderer Ted Kennedy, both Democrats in good standing! Whatever would a country do without 8 of the 10 richest counties being the bedroom communities of the capital, from which no wealth is created, merely distributed?
It's funny that you think you're covering any new ground with anybody here above the age of 30. We've heard all your rhetoric before and you've remained willfully ignorant of any arguments that lead away from consolidated federal power. The State is your religion. And nobody but nobody gives up their religion over facts.
I'm not seeing how anything you've ranted about addresses the decreased quality of life and access to mobility of the poor, Mr Birkel Esquire, but you go right ahead and keep fucking that chicken! If forty years of attacking and downsizing government hasn't brought back 1970 (when government was pretty "big" already - as it had been during the 40 years previously that brought the U.S. unprecedented wealth and growth of the middle class and declines in poverty), then maybe 40 more years will!
40 more years! 40 more years! 40 more years!
I no longer have a dog in this fight. Protest on behalf of your own pride-and-poverty-maintenance-program as much as you want. I showed you the facts, you can't address them. When you're talking to yourself, you can change the subject and goalposts as much as you want.
You get the government results you deserve and apparently the last 40 years of Repuppetcanism has been great for you. So why do you even argue with me? I'm glad you think you've got things to work out as well as you have.
And of course the Budget Reconciliation Act of 1974 that gave us baseline budgeting and a necessarily growing bureaucracy is the law of the land, passed through a Democrat controlled legislature.
So not only is government too big by 1790 standards, it's too big by 1974 standards! (When U.S. population was 33% less than it is now!) Good gosh! Maybe we should go back to 1974 or 1790's GDP, too! Or 1974 or 1790's military! (Seeing as how the military is a THIRD of the "government" by budget)
@ TTR
You typed downsizing government without irony. Do you have any idea how stupid that is? Have you noticed what federal government spending as a percentage of GDP is? Have you noticed in real dollars? The lunacy that you believe your party, that believes in the State, has done anything but resist calls to pare the federal government to a sustainable level is remarkable.
You believe in the State. You think the State will provide. I'd be surprised if some on your side were far from sending burnt offerings to the State so that crops grow in the Whole Foods.
The topic is religious belief. You believe yours hard.
@ TTR
Nothing in your 6:13 PM scream was worth thinking or typing. You display your utter misunderstanding of the underlying issues and aren't even trying to educate yourself.
And why would you need to educate yourself when the State provides whatever the true believers need?
@ TTR
Military and Homeland Security spending, combined, is roughly half what you believe spending on the military alone is. Given that this thread is about unshakable religious faith, I'm relatively certain you will be unwilling to acknowledge your mistake.
Of course, if you would like to privatize airport security and air traffic controllers and the like, perhaps we could cut that spending down to 12% or less. Given my stated goals, I'm game.
You typed downsizing government without irony. Do you have any idea how stupid that is? Have you noticed what federal government spending as a percentage of GDP is?
Have you noticed how this obsession of yours isn't doing anything to keep you out of poverty?
You believe in the State. You think the State will provide. I'd be surprised if some on your side were far from sending burnt offerings to the State so that crops grow in the Whole Foods.
No. But I believe you are obsessed with it as a way to distract you from something more productive that you could focus on, but apparently failed at. Go run for office, you government secularist, if you feel so strongly about it. Of course, that would take charisma and an ability to listen to other people and respect the majority of the citizens - skills you lack. (Along with, I'm sure, a whole bunch of others). But at least you'd be putting your meager share of money where your massive mouth is.
Talk about Leviathan. Your own frame of reference for such largeness must be your massive lips and mouth.
The topic is religious belief. You believe yours hard.
I believe you care obsessively about things I and most normal people don't give a fuck about. That's your fault and your failing. Not mine.
@ TTR
Did you forget to admit you were wrong about military spending?
Trump wants to cut meals on wheels, science research, already meager protections for health and the environment, and completely offset those cuts with increased spending on the military and tax cuts for multi-millionaires and billionaires. That's no downsizing, that's just the same rearranging that your Republican friends have done for decades, and with an increased deficit as well - just like before. You people aren't serious and neither is your superior. If you want less government go live in Somalia. There are many countries that make do with much less than that 20-whatever percent that you consider to be a magical number. I suggest you go live in one of them. Perhaps you lack the travel budget to move there, though. What a pity and a shame. After Republicans are decimated in 2018 I predict that 20-someodd percent will probably go up to 30% or more! Just to piss you off. Oh joy.
@ TTR
The State is your religion. You know the mantras. You sing the chants. Your fact free rant will make the State Deity happy.
I see my hope that you learn charity is as yet not pleasing to the State you worship.
Mandatory "other" spending amounts to 3.1% of GDP and discretionary non-defense spending amounts to 3.3% of GDP. That compares to military, which is 3.2% of GDP (2016).
No one who is serious about shrinking that "other" and non-defense who is boosting defense spending by 10% is not serious. Even if you kept defense the same and stopped the billionaire's tax cut nonsense I'd say you were probably worth taking seriously. But if you have a budget that's net neutral or even worse spends greater than it takes in than before, then it's not worth taking seriously and your stupid government "shrinking" plan is DOA. Next time come up with something that people will take seriously and that gives you credibility coming into it, not just a bunch of empty holsters and blank rounds to go bang-bang with.
Unfortunately for you, you live in a society where compromise and priorities other than your own are at stake. But if that's not to your liking you can always become a Somali pirate and just hijack people to get what you want.
The State is your religion. You know the mantras. You sing the chants. Your fact free rant will make the State Deity happy.
I see my hope that you learn charity is as yet not pleasing to the State you worship.
This is why your cause is losing. You are immature and are not only not funny, you can't get a new joke. You think in soundbites. Just insulting people is playground stuff. Doesn't work in the real world.
Now, in the real world, people can hear your bitching and moaning about how "GDP percentages" EQUAL "government." Ok. Trump just increased those. (Or so he tried and miserably failed). So even he was increasing the government. All that military spending was not NOT-government, you retard.
And then apart from that, people look at the entire budget as outlays vs. what's not received in income. No one takes your government rhetoric seriously when you further increase the deficit with tax cuts for billionaires.
So this is why you have no credibility and why your cause has always been toast. Just in case you wondered why and wanted to do better next time. But if you just want to make some noise instead, I can't stop you.
Whatever would a country do without 8 of the 10 richest counties being the bedroom communities of the capital, from which no wealth is created, merely distributed?
That's an obscene fact.
@ chickelit
And true. It is verifiable.
@ TTR
The mathematical lies you are telling by focusing on discretionary spending show you either a fool or a liar. I am willing to concede you are both. Military and Homeland Security spending is roughly 16% of total federal outlays.
Military and Homeland Security spending is roughly 16% of total federal outlays.
0.16 x 20% total GDP = 3.2% GDP, genius.
You're not even capable of having a conversation or getting your terms right.
Let me know when you're ready to talk about these non-religious things that are so important to you, Mr Wanna-be Budget Director.
@ TTR
Here is a fun game. You tell me what percentage of the GDP the federal government can extract from the citizens. And we will look at the projections to see if that is sustainable in light of "non-discretionary" (i.e. promised to be broken at an as yet undetermined future deadline) spending projections.
Then you tell me how the middle class fares under any of those scenarios.
@ TTR
Federal outlays are not 20%. You underestimate. Try again?
Discretionary spending is still spending. You don't get to push it aside to a magical column where it somehow equals money not spent. Half of the "goodies" you want to go after are non-defense discretionary spending and half is non-SSI/Medicare/Medicaid mandatory. All of Trump's cuts (and increases/boosts) were to discretionary. To change mandatory you'd have to go after a different legislative process.
Here is a fun game.
Actually, this is not fun. It's tedious and stupid. You have no say in it unless you run for office (which you're too boring and obtuse to be able to do) or at least contact your rep or senator. I am not that person. Which state do you live in? I can forward their contacts if you're having trouble figuring out to be an effective citizen and communicate to your congressional rep.
Then you tell me how the middle class fares under any of those scenarios.
Why don't you start by telling me if you finally figured out how the middle class even came to be. Seeing as how you failed that earlier.
It was policy, not budgeting. If you're worried about budgeting, contact your congressional rep. I am not him.
Or run for office.
@ TTR
It is part of your religion that heretics such as I must speak in the terms you prefer. I refuse.
Your math was wrong. I will wait patiently for your religious conviction to be proven wrong. Perhaps you will be dead before proof comes. There will be other adherents to your religion of State to whom I will offer my I told you sos. No loss, here.
Why you ascribe to me, who wishes power be distributed broadly, a belief that federal spending must not be cut in some areas is odd. It is as if you simply BELIEVE that I cannot want total spending brought in line with tax collections. Your old times religious convictions are wrong. Pray harder to State.
What's the matter? Did your congressional rep. put a restraining order on you and bar you from contacting them? This is your religion of Government-as-Satan that we're talking about here. If it's that important to you, contact them.
0.16 x 20% total GDP still = 3.2% GDP
a belief that federal spending must not be cut in some areas is odd.
It's reality. SSI/Medicare/Medicaid will not be cut. Politically it's not something that you'll convince a majority of Americans to agree to, novice.
Work on the other areas. Just friendly advice. But if you insist on political failure, then take responsibility for it.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYONGDA188S
Not 20%. Under Obama, it was always over 20%.
And if we talk about non-budgetary spending... Well...
@ TTR
A belief that those things won't be cut will lead to calamity. Your State religion will protect you. Pray hard.
https://www.cato.org/blog/federal-spending-debt-1790-2050
I have the Cato Institute on my side. Damned right wingers.
@ TTR
A belief that those things won't be cut will lead to calamity. Your State religion will protect you. Pray hard.
The above is Birkel's religious belief that in a democratic republic he can force things on a majority of the people that they don't want and won't agree to.
Obviously he knows this, and his taking his frustration at not being able to organize or communicate effectively with his congressional delegation on fellow citizens.
His ilk have been driving the gov't agenda since 1980. Look at how wonderful things have gotten since then.
Insanity is trying the same thing and expecting different results. Insanity and Republicanism.
Must be frustrating. Blame others. Yes, that will save you.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1658543
Uh oh.
Greece. Spain. Ireland. Iceland. Italy. Portugal. Brazil. Argentina. Puerto Rico.
They want to know more about your theory.
"Interest payments on that debt represent a large and rapidly growing expense of the federal government. CBO’s baseline shows net interest payments more than tripling under current law, climbing from $231 billion in 2014, or 1.3 percent of GDP, to $799 billion in 2024, or 3.0 percent of GDP—the highest ratio since 1996. The rising debt accounts for some of that increase, but much of it stems from CBO’s expectation that—largely owing to the improving economy—the average interest rate paid on that debt will more than double over the next 10 years, from 1.8 percent in 2014 to 3.9 percent in 2024."
https://www.cbo.gov/publication/45684
That looks sustainable. If we pray to State.
Greece. Spain. Ireland. Iceland. Italy. Portugal. Brazil. Argentina. Puerto Rico.
What are these? Other countries where you're not able to vote and where the representatives have taken out a restraining order on you?
I told you: Somalia! That's your model. GO FOR IT! Very sustainable!
@TTR
Those are countries in which people believed math had been repealed. Like you do.
@TTR
And they believed it hard, too.
Post a Comment