Impeach Earl Warren

[silenus]

Originally Posted by Kolak of Twilo

You realize Dallas and Houston, along with Austin tend to be more Blue than Red, right?

Fort Worth, Galveston and most of East Texas along the suburbs north of D-FW are pretty reactionary though.

Houston gets it just for the humidity.

[Kolak of Twilo]

Originally Posted by silenus

Houston gets it just for the humidity.

Well that I can go along with.

[FoieGrasIsEvil]

A friend posted this: With this bizarre twisting of words, the Supreme Court has revealed the nature of 21st century American political thought. Those who make, interpret and enforce the laws no longer lie on the ‘left-right’ political continuum. Instead, they are in effect at ‘right angles’ to that continuum. The ideology that drives the Supreme Court, the political administration and the Congress is not Conservative or Liberal but can best be described as “Corporatist.” This is the ideology that affirms that “corporations are citizens, my friends.” it is the ideology that drove the Roberts Court to the odious Citizens United decision. it is the ideology behind a bailout for banks that are ‘too big to fail.’ And it is the ideology that allows Congress to pass a law like the ACA that is essentially written by a favored industry. The Corporatist ideology allows the Supreme Court to uphold the ACA despite the obvious and glaring consequence: forcing someone to buy health insurance is like forcing someone to buy a used Rambler — it’s a shoddy product at an inflated price, but you must pay a tax or swallow your anger and buy it from the smirking dealer down the street.

What do we think about that?

[FoieGrasIsEvil]

Or, this: http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/06/...rporate-right/


Relevant snippet:

"The essential enigma at play here is this: the problem does not lie with the ACA; it lies with the Supreme Court decision. The ACA was not found permissible under the Commerce Clause, though it was upheld anyway, under another theory. The SCOTUS established a precedent that the clause is more limited than it has been since the New Deal era (also known as the Lochner era). Does anyone really think Roberts grew a conscience? This is pure activism on his behalf: the act is upheld and—we barely notice it, hardly object—but the law was just fundamentally changed under our noses. Why is this a big deal? All post-New Deal social and environmental regulation happens under the Commerce Clause. That is to say, the groundwork to repeal decades of legislative progress because it may be seen as undue, as “excessive regulation,” was just laid. And it was laid with silence and stealth."

[RickJay]

Originally Posted by FoieGrasIsEvil

What do we think about that?

I hate to be picky, but the word "corporatist" already has a meaning that is totally, completely different from this.

[Punoqllads]

Originally Posted by FoieGrasIsEvil

Of course that's what I meant. Everyone pays taxes on things, goods and services they buy...I meant federal income taxes. I have seen wildly varying reports as to what percentage of citizens actually pay taxes on their income. I don't know what to believe. Apparently because I am just stupid, according to some. I have my moments...just like everyone else. This is certainly not my area of expertise.

No, not sales tax. Payroll tax.

[Polycarp]

So you say that Conservatives are unhappy with Justice Roberts for not voting with the Conservative bloc on the Court. And I say, are you talking about this case?

History repeats itself.

[mister nyx]

Originally Posted by FoieGrasIsEvil

WTF is wrong with you dude? Why do you assume I have a problem with raising taxes?

Because of how you said you had a problem with raising taxes. Remember when I quoted you earlier?

I would have no problem with tax increases if it would help make the government solvent in x number of years, but....putting increased revenue into their hands makes me believe they will just spend it fruitlessly rather than pay down the debt.

Wait...I know. You think I am a Republican. Nice try.

Lol, no. I don't know why my guesses about your political views are even up for discussion here. If I had to guess, I'd say you're an independent. I never said anything about you being a Republican. I just pointed out specific right-wing sound bites that you repeated.

I never said any of the things you are saying about tax cuts. What I WAS saying is that there's a large percentage of people in this country that don't pay ANY income taxes. What the percentage is I do not know (and I don't think anyone really does). This fact alone keeps money out of the federal coffers (although I maintain they would just waste it anyway).

You heard a manipulative, deceptive sound bite about how 47% of the population "doesn't pay taxes", and you repeated it, without understanding that most of those people are, in fact, paying lots of taxes, including the payroll taxes every wage-earning worker pays for entitlement programs. And you now, from your statement, it seems you have further embellished the sound bite to concoct a belief that there is lots of potential tax money on the table going uncollected. Whereas, if you stop and think, most households that aren't paying any federal taxes aren't exactly ripe juicy fruits just a-waiting for the revenues to be squeezed out of them.

Dude, I don't care who is in office. I don't think there's a huge difference between the Democrat and Republican parties, except for maybe the right courting the craziest part of religious people for votes.

Thing is, if you actually look at the two parties, and their histories, and their proposals, you'd see that there is a stark difference between the them. Differences that you ought to care about if you're really worried about our country's debt. One of the two parties is responsible for almost all the debt we owe as a nation, including stacking up large amounts of it even when times were good and by any rational standard we ought to have been generating a surplus for later. The other party was in power last time we were actually running a surplus. And hint: it was the irresponsible ones who launched those eye-rollingly dumb complaints about how not enough households pay income tax.

You're sitting here repeating GOP talking points about how government spending is out of control (even though it's not, and you didn't even point to any examples of how it is) and how the government is wasting tax money (even though taxes keep going ever downward). Do you think that taxes can continuously go down forever without that ever causing a problem?

[mister nyx]

Originally Posted by FoieGrasIsEvil

A friend posted this: With this bizarre twisting of words, the Supreme Court has revealed the nature of 21st century American political thought. Those who make, interpret and enforce the laws no longer lie on the ‘left-right’ political continuum. Instead, they are in effect at ‘right angles’ to that continuum. The ideology that drives the Supreme Court, the political administration and the Congress is not Conservative or Liberal but can best be described as “Corporatist.” This is the ideology that affirms that “corporations are citizens, my friends.” it is the ideology that drove the Roberts Court to the odious Citizens United decision. it is the ideology behind a bailout for banks that are ‘too big to fail.’ And it is the ideology that allows Congress to pass a law like the ACA that is essentially written by a favored industry. The Corporatist ideology allows the Supreme Court to uphold the ACA despite the obvious and glaring consequence: forcing someone to buy health insurance is like forcing someone to buy a used Rambler — it’s a shoddy product at an inflated price, but you must pay a tax or swallow your anger and buy it from the smirking dealer down the street.

What do we think about that?

It's too dumb to bother responding to in any detail greater than this.

Originally Posted by FoieGrasIsEvil

Or, this: http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/06/...rporate-right/


Relevant snippet:

"The essential enigma at play here is this: the problem does not lie with the ACA; it lies with the Supreme Court decision. The ACA was not found permissible under the Commerce Clause, though it was upheld anyway, under another theory. The SCOTUS established a precedent that the clause is more limited than it has been since the New Deal era (also known as the Lochner era). Does anyone really think Roberts grew a conscience? This is pure activism on his behalf: the act is upheld and—we barely notice it, hardly object—but the law was just fundamentally changed under our noses. Why is this a big deal? All post-New Deal social and environmental regulation happens under the Commerce Clause. That is to say, the groundwork to repeal decades of legislative progress because it may be seen as undue, as “excessive regulation,” was just laid. And it was laid with silence and stealth."

This one's making a pretty obvious point. I don't think anyone who pays attention is unaware of Roberts's narrowing of the Commerce Clause or the potential consequences of it.

[silenus]

Originally Posted by Kolak of Twilo

Well that I can go along with.

I do notice that nobody objects with nuking College Station.

I have a former debater of mine who teaches there, so I'll have to give him a heads-up to be out of town.

[Clothahump]

Originally Posted by The Second Stone

Ah yes, you are correct. The nuts hate having to read an accused their rights.

Actually, Miranda has turned out to be a good thing in the long run. It's made law enforcement be more meticulous and careful. As a result, they get fewer cases kicked.

[Kolak of Twilo]

Originally Posted by silenus

I do notice that nobody objects with nuking College Station.

I have a former debater of mine who teaches there, so I'll have to give him a heads-up to be out of town.

Probably because they've met an Aggie.

[The Second Stone]

Originally Posted by Clothahump

Actually, Miranda has turned out to be a good thing in the long run. It's made law enforcement be more meticulous and careful. As a result, they get fewer cases kicked.

I would agree, but you are the first far right conservative I know of to actually take that position.

[FoieGrasIsEvil]

Originally Posted by Punoqllads

No, not sales tax. Payroll tax.

Huh? I meant income taxes...which is what I said...which are a payroll tax, no?

Originally Posted by mister nyx

Because of how you said you had a problem with raising taxes. Remember when I quoted you earlier?



Lol, no. I don't know why my guesses about your political views are even up for discussion here. If I had to guess, I'd say you're an independent. I never said anything about you being a Republican. I just pointed out specific right-wing sound bites that you repeated.


You heard a manipulative, deceptive sound bite about how 47% of the population "doesn't pay taxes", and you repeated it, without understanding that most of those people are, in fact, paying lots of taxes, including the payroll taxes every wage-earning worker pays for entitlement programs. And you now, from your statement, it seems you have further embellished the sound bite to concoct a belief that there is lots of potential tax money on the table going uncollected. Whereas, if you stop and think, most households that aren't paying any federal taxes aren't exactly ripe juicy fruits just a-waiting for the revenues to be squeezed out of them.


Thing is, if you actually look at the two parties, and their histories, and their proposals, you'd see that there is a stark difference between the them. Differences that you ought to care about if you're really worried about our country's debt. One of the two parties is responsible for almost all the debt we owe as a nation, including stacking up large amounts of it even when times were good and by any rational standard we ought to have been generating a surplus for later. The other party was in power last time we were actually running a surplus. And hint: it was the irresponsible ones who launched those eye-rollingly dumb complaints about how not enough households pay income tax.

You're sitting here repeating GOP talking points about how government spending is out of control (even though it's not, and you didn't even point to any examples of how it is) and how the government is wasting tax money (even though taxes keep going ever downward). Do you think that taxes can continuously go down forever without that ever causing a problem?

Originally Posted by mister nyx

It's too dumb to bother responding to in any detail greater than this.


This one's making a pretty obvious point. I don't think anyone who pays attention is unaware of Roberts's narrowing of the Commerce Clause or the potential consequences of it.

Look man, its obvious I don't have a complete understanding about our government's budget based on your derisive replies. But I do know that our government spends a shit ton of money, like on our military, which I generally support, that can be cut back. I also know that despite your assholish replies to my posts that reference wasteful spending that there is in fact, wasteful spending. And there are a ton of people that do not pay into the system as they should. That's a fact, not conjecture on my part. What those numbers are is anybody's guess. What I don't get is your campaign to try to tear me down as if I am some complete dunderhead posting about nothing. I have admitted my shortcomings....but the fact remains that we are 13 TRILLION dollars in debt, much of which is held by China (not our friend) and that it really doesn't matter how we got here but what we do about it.

[crowmanyclouds]

Originally Posted by FoieGrasIsEvil

... the fact remains that we are 13 TRILLION dollars in debt, much of which is held by China ...

Where "much" equals 8% of the debt (as of July 20, 2011),

Hong Kong
Percent of US Debt: 0.9%

Caribbean Banking Centers
Percent of US Debt: 1%

Taiwan
Percent of US Debt: 1.1%

Brazil
Percent of US Debt: 1.5%

Oil Exporting Countries
Percent of US Debt: 1.6%

Mutual Funds
Percent of US Debt: 2%

Commercial Banks
Percent of US Debt: 2.1%

State, Local, and Federal Retirement Funds
Percent of US Debt: 2.2%

Money Market Mutual Funds
Percent of US Debt: 2.4%

United Kingdom
Percent of US Debt: 2.4%

Private Pension Funds
Percent of US Debt: 3.5%

State and Local Governments
Percent of US Debt: 3.5%

Japan
Percent of US Debt: 6.4%

US Households
Percent of US Debt: 6.6%

China
Percent of US Debt: 8%

The Federal Reserve
Percent of US Debt: 11.3%

Social Security Trust Fund
Percent of US Debt: 19%

CITE

"It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble.
It's what you know for sure that just ain't so."

CMC fnord!

[mister nyx]

Originally Posted by FoieGrasIsEvil

Huh? I meant income taxes...which is what I said...which are a payroll tax, no?

You said "taxes", actually. And no, income tax is not a payroll tax. Words have meanings.

Look man, its obvious I don't have a complete understanding about our government's budget

I hadn't noticed.

But I do know that our government spends a shit ton of money, like on our military, which I generally support, that can be cut back. I also know that despite your assholish replies to my posts that reference wasteful spending that there is in fact, wasteful spending.

Which, still, you fail to identify in any detail. You're just sure that spending has to be cut. On something. For sure.

And there are a ton of people that do not pay into the system as they should. That's a fact, not conjecture on my part.

"Fact" means something interesting and different in your world, I guess!

Plenty of people don't pay what they should, but the 47% figure addresses hardly any of them. Look at the capital gains tax if you want to see people who really aren't paying into the system the way they should be.

but the fact remains that we are 13 TRILLION dollars in debt, much of which is held by China

Only a small percentage is held by China. (Currently 8% of it.)

(not our friend)

You don't get how global capitalism works if you think China is some sort of adversary when it comes to economics.

and that it really doesn't matter how we got here but what we do about it.

Which, in your view, is somehow figuring out how to extract income taxes from the population that doesn't currently owe them, and cut spending from . . . something. Because it's too high, so cut spending on . . . something.

[FoieGrasIsEvil]

Originally Posted by mister nyx

You said "taxes", actually. And no, income tax is not a payroll tax. Words have meanings.


I hadn't noticed.


Which, still, you fail to identify in any detail. You're just sure that spending has to be cut. On something. For sure.


"Fact" means something interesting and different in your world, I guess!

Plenty of people don't pay what they should, but the 47% figure addresses hardly any of them. Look at the capital gains tax if you want to see people who really aren't paying into the system the way they should be.


Only a small percentage is held by China. (Currently 8% of it.)


You don't get how global capitalism works if you think China is some sort of adversary when it comes to economics.


Which, in your view, is somehow figuring out how to extract income taxes from the population that doesn't currently owe them, and cut spending from . . . something. Because it's too high, so cut spending on . . . something.

Way to conveniently cut out where I support (gasp..oh noes!) slashing the military. Why do you persist in your superiority complex? I've admitted I don't fully understand the issues...what the hell is your problem NOW?

[Derleth]

Originally Posted by RickJay

I hate to be picky, but the word "corporatist" already has a meaning that is totally, completely different from this.

Except nobody cares. To a lot of people, 'Corporatism' means 'Fascism' means 'Corporations as we now know them have influence.' Therefore, the fact Halliburton can influence politics means we're a Fascist state.

It's utterly dishonest and distressingly common.

(To make it painfully clear: The 'corporations' in Corporatism have nothing to do with businesses, but were about organizing all of society into groups ultimately controlled by the government. Trying to tie modern corporations back into that is dishonestly changing the definition of a word halfway through a debate without acknowledging the definition has changed.)

[mister nyx]

Originally Posted by FoieGrasIsEvil

Way to conveniently cut out where I support (gasp..oh noes!) slashing the military. Why do you persist in your superiority complex? I've admitted I don't fully understand the issues...what the hell is your problem NOW?

I'm glad you support slashing the military. I'm also glad you understand that you don't really know anything about the budget. I think that's a great place to start from.

I'm still not going to take you seriously, due to that whole thing about how you think anyone who disagrees with your brilliant analysis of the budget has decided you're a Republican. I don't take anyone who is as invested in partisanship as you are seriously. If you can't imagine a disagreement over the budget that's not partisan in nature, you can't really discuss the budget.

[FoieGrasIsEvil]

Originally Posted by mister nyx

I'm glad you support slashing the military. I'm also glad you understand that you don't really know anything about the budget. I think that's a great place to start from.

I'm still not going to take you seriously, due to that whole thing about how you think anyone who disagrees with your brilliant analysis of the budget has decided you're a Republican. I don't take anyone who is as invested in partisanship as you are seriously. If you can't imagine a disagreement over the budget that's not partisan in nature, you can't really discuss the budget.

I also never said "anyone who disagrees with me must think I'm a Republican". I assumed YOU thought so in an earlier post, mostly due to the tone and nature of this board in general. Please, I try as hard as I might to engender a bi-partisan spirit in any discourse I might have. I also realize that the two parties are often obstructionist in nature and that it isn't helpful.

[Batfish]

Originally Posted by asterion

... Democratic control of the Senate.

I agree Democrats do have a majority... but control? I'm skeptical.

[Lobohan]

I know it's only jokes, but can we not advocate nuking the south?

We should fuel-air bomb them. Why the fuck should the sane people in the country have to deal with radioactive cousin-fucker particles raining down on our cities?

[Trinopus]

Originally Posted by FoieGrasIsEvil

I also never said "anyone who disagrees with me must think I'm a Republican". I assumed YOU thought so in an earlier post, mostly due to the tone and nature of this board in general. Please, I try as hard as I might to engender a bi-partisan spirit in any discourse I might have. I also realize that the two parties are often obstructionist in nature and that it isn't helpful.

Whoa! This is the pit! No fair trying to be reasonable. If you want that kind of action, take it to Great Debates. This is where they say Fuck, what kind of Moron follows that kind of Asswipe set of beliefs? Very important distinction!

Like wearing a Giants cap at a Dodger game.

(General agreement, by the way. It is the *duty* of the minority party to be obstructionist, at least to a degree. Some of us feel that the current brand of Republican obstructionism has ceased to be sufficiently moderate. They've lost track of the ultimate goal of seeking what is best for the whole country, and act solely upon narrow partisan self-interest. And then they have the balls to complain that Obama's killing jobs!)

[FoieGrasIsEvil]

Originally Posted by Trinopus

Whoa! This is the pit! No fair trying to be reasonable. If you want that kind of action, take it to Great Debates. This is where they say Fuck, what kind of Moron follows that kind of Asswipe set of beliefs? Very important distinction!

Like wearing a Giants cap at a Dodger game.

(General agreement, by the way. It is the *duty* of the minority party to be obstructionist, at least to a degree. Some of us feel that the current brand of Republican obstructionism has ceased to be sufficiently moderate. They've lost track of the ultimate goal of seeking what is best for the whole country, and act solely upon narrow partisan self-interest. And then they have the balls to complain that Obama's killing jobs!)

Yeah. The bolded to me seems especially true. And I hate it. Nor do I understand it. Why aren't there any modern day Henry Clays anymore?

[OttoDaFe]

Because Clay would likely be ousted in the primary by some (confirms forum) fucking Tea Party nutter. And branded a socialist to boot.

Even if he could survive the primary, he'd likely be up against someone from the America-First-Know-Nothing-Monster-Raving-Loony-Party who would split the vote. Much safer to toe the party line in the first place — after all, as we well know, the primary duty of a politician, whatever his or her leaning, is to get elected.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by Trinopus

It is the *duty* of the minority party to be obstructionist, at least to a degree.

But, it is also the duty of any conservative party not to exist, to any degree.

[gamerunknown]

Originally Posted by FoieGrasIsEvil

I meant federal income taxes. I have seen wildly varying reports as to what percentage of citizens actually pay taxes on their income.

Which really isn't all that pertinent to contributing a "fair share". As it turns out, the labour of the bottom half of the country already contributes a fair share to the top earners. Even the unemployed keep things competitive since it makes it easier for an employer to kick someone out for failing to meet a certain standard. The current economic system is a trickle up one, where the richest continually grow richer. The system of taxation does not even assuage that to any great degree and the richest want to remove any mitigation of the possibility of regression. It makes more sense to look at the quality of life impact various rates of taxation

Originally Posted by FoieGrasIsEvil

I just wonder how America is going to pay for this.

As other people have pointed out,socialist medicine is cheaper and insurance is still an option in other industrialised nations. The other option is just rescinding the requirement of hospitals to treat patients, which'd please the social Darwinist crowd, but would have serious effects on quality of life for other citizens. The ensuing riots, epidemics, relative deprivation and whatnot would probably lead to a far less productive workforce and a lowering of the quality of life for all Americans - though as with everything in the country, such impacts would be highly regressive (with a greater impact on the poor).

One of the countries with the highest quality of life indicators (Japan) also nears top on debt to GDP ratio (far higher than the US), playing a perpetual three card monte with finances. Norway gets by just fine with under half of the US' debt to GDP ratio, socialist medicine and high quality of life indicators.

[drewtwo99]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

But, it is also the duty of any conservative party not to exist, to any degree.

This is fantastic. I'm stealing it!

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by FoieGrasIsEvil

Yeah. The bolded to me seems especially true. And I hate it. Nor do I understand it. Why aren't there any modern day Henry Clays anymore?

Perhaps some people remember that Clay ran for president four times and always lost. And that the most famous "Clay Compromise" don't look good in hindsight.

[Philliam]

Originally Posted by Oakminster

Fucking brilliant way to get in a cheapshot at the South, fucktard. If you weren't a mod, you'd have made my ignore list for this bullshit. Bite me in fee simple absolute.

I'm not a mod - you can bite me in fee tail. (I've got a Black's Law Dictionary and don't usually use just to be snarky). Get over yourself.

[Derleth]

Originally Posted by Philliam

I'm not a mod - you can bite me in fee tail. (I've got a Black's Law Dictionary and don't usually use just to be snarky). Get over yourself.

Wake me when people are biting the Statute of Trusts.

[samclem]

Originally Posted by Philliam

I'm not a mod - you can bite me in fee tail. (I've got a Black's Law Dictionary and don't usually use just to be snarky). Get over yourself.

OK. I have to know what that means.

[BigT]

Originally Posted by Giraffe

No, I'm not allowed back at K-Mart. Not ever. They are...unforgiving.

That's what you get for this crap. Bastard.

[Iggy]

Originally Posted by Siam Sam

What's wrong with nuking them in 1945?

Mutually assured destruction, that's what.

U.S. Intelligence Confirms: The Hillbillies Have the Bomb

Been saving that headline from The Onion for a long time.

Actually the Southerners at Oak Ridge, TN had the processed uranium in 1945. The Yankees had the plutonium at Hanford, WA. A carefully thought out separation that has kept the peace for years.

[Iggy]

Originally Posted by samclem

...

I'll lay odds there will be such billboards erected within the week saying "impeach John Roberts." In those same hotbeds of pointy-headed ignorants.

What is the Impeach John Roberts Facebook page if not the modern day billboard?

Didn't take a week for that. What do you win?

[elucidator]

Sorrow. Despair. A dark sense of forboding...

[silenus]

Originally Posted by samclem

OK. I have to know what that means.

My take is that Philliam just told Oak to bite him and all of his descendants, forever, each generation in turn, until the end of time.

[Loach]

Originally Posted by Iggy

What is the Impeach John Roberts Facebook page if not the modern day billboard?

Didn't take a week for that. What do you win?

86 likes?