In my daily travels across the blogosphere I happen upon a comment from the Dictatorship of the Online Commentariat that is the epitome of what it means to be a Progressive Social Democrat.

Comrades, I give you today's COMMENT.

This comment comes from a reader of Tina Brown's The Daily Beast. This toiling member of the Commentariat shares her frustration about a posted Rush Limbaugh clip:

(The emphasis is always mine)

empressaw wrote: I didn't listen to this clip, but I already know I didn't miss anything. Why can't we just figure out a way to get rid of this pig and everybody who listens to him and make the world a better place?

Indeed!

Glorious Chairman!

I was afraid you had been kept away by the excesses of Meow Begone currently in use. Do you have a link to this fantasically Progressive blog? The tinfoil tells me that The People's Google logs each one of my searches and determines which of FEMA's death lists I'll be on, so I'd prefer not to have to search for it myself.

Actually, I don't need to view the full article because, as Comrade empressaw proves, one must only have the Soros Talking Points, not the entire story. Limbaugh is bad. What more do I need to know?

"Why can't we just figure out a way to get rid of this pig and everybody who listens to him and make the world a better place?"



This is the story of communism. Let's kill everyone we don't agree with, and then the world will become a beautiful paradise for all of us who follow the correct ideology.

Here is your link, Comrade Obamissar:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/video/item ... y-reporter

AhHa!



Again El Rushbo debunks the Left! Take a gander at this comment on the link the Chairman provided, fellow travelers. They are discussing the "homeless children"

Comment by Gary 2012:
"This is one of those statistical assertions that you know is BS before you even set out to show it's BS. If you just live here and go around with your eyes open you know it's BS. Sure enough, it's BS! Chappell's question is based on this study by an anti-homelessness advocacy group with every incentive to maximize the estimate of the problem."

In other words, it's a bogus, biased and self-serving study that's about as accurate and reliable as a call-in poll on Keith Olberman or Bill O'Reilly.

What losers!
Once again Limbaugh is correct, as he says he is 97% of the time! Score: Rush - 1, Libs - 0.

Most Grand Chairman,

I propose we request that Madam Pelosivich call this legislative act to get rid of Nonperson Limbaugh and his dissident radio-listening thought criminal audience the "Freedom of Speech Restoration Act" (No more of that wishy-washy Fairness Doctrine). And who could possibly be against freedom of speech?

Che Gourmet wrote:AhHa!



Again El Rushbo debunks the Left! Take a gander at this comment on the link the Chairman provided, fellow travelers. They are discussing the "homeless children"

Comment by Gary 2012:
"This is one of those statistical assertions that you know is BS before you even set out to show it's BS. If you just live here and go around with your eyes open you know it's BS. Sure enough, it's BS! Chappell's question is based on this study by an anti-homelessness advocacy group with every incentive to maximize the estimate of the problem."

In other words, it's a bogus, biased and self-serving study that's about as accurate and reliable as a call-in poll on Keith Olberman or Bill O'Reilly.

What losers!
Once again Limbaugh is correct, as he says he is 97% of the time! Score: Rush - 1, Libs - 0.

Comrade Che, Mickey Kaus (who considers himself a moderate Democrat) may be the original source of that comment: http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/kausfi ... lodes.aspx He does more damage to the BS as noted below:

This is one of those statistical assertions that you know is BS before you even set out to show it's BS. If you just live here and go around with your eyes open you know it's BS. Sure enough, it's BS! Chappell's question is based on this study by an anti-homelessness advocacy group with every incentive to maximize the estimate of the problem. 1) The report apparently counts all people who are "homeless" even one night over the course of a year. That's very different from saying that one-in-50 are homeless at the same time--e.g., "now." 2) More significantly, the report counts as "homeless" families who've "doubled up"--e.g., moved in with relatives--apparently on the grounds that while these children in these families do have a home, they don't have "a home of their own." That's not what most people mean by homeless, and not the image Chappell conjures (tent cities, sleeping under bridges). Will I be "homeless" if "Fire Mickey Kaus" succeeds and I have to move in with my brother's family? Don't answer that. ... The study also counts families living in motels and trailer parks--again, lousy living arrangements, maybe, but not what we usually mean by "homeless."

P.S.: "Doubling up" counts for fully 56% of the "1 in 50" estimate. (See page 9). "Hotels/motels" counts for 7%. In other words, right off the bat almost two-thirds of the study's once-a-year "homelessness" isn't actually homelessness. ...

Update: Taranto, who called out the "National Center on Family Homelessness" weeks ago, has more detail. It turns out they also count children in "substandard housing"! The numbers may also have been inflated the year chosen, which coincided with Hurrican Katrina. As Taranto notes, if you "spent a single night ... staying with cousins in Houston or Shreveport as a result of Katrina" you counted as "homeless." ...

P.P.S.: This study uses every trick in the liberal antipoverty advocacy playbook: Focus on children, not adults? Check. Gin up inflated numbers? Check. Include state-by-state breakdowns to interest local reporters? Check. Appealing pictures of tots? Check. Hyped-up language? ("A storm is moving across the country ... ") Check. Gloss over all the moral and policy dilemmas involved in giving cash to single mothers who aren't working? Check. It's a formula well-designed to get lots of mentions in the MSM. But it works less well in terms of actually getting policies enacted. You're not going to bowl over the American political system by engineering a wave of naive, guilt-tripping compassion. Did Marion Wright Edelman prevent welfare reform? I don't quite understand it. It's not as if homelessness isn't a real problem. An organization that gained a reputation for not hyping it might have real impact on legislation. But that doesn't seem to be what the world of non-profit grantsmanship rewards. ...3:46 A.M.

So, I guess Mickey Kaus is just another pig the left has to be rid of in order to make the world better. So, may we infer the world will be perfect when there's only Tina Brown, Micheal Moore and Keith Olberman left in it?

empressaw wrote: I didn't listen to this clip, but I already know I didn't miss anything. Why can't we just figure out a way to get rid of this pig and everybody who listens to him and make the world a better place?

In the good old times in the Motherland, whenever a new "public outrage" was artificially created by the Party in order to punish a heretic like Limbaugh, this turn of phrase was the most common. "I haven't read his book, but I think the author has no place in our society..." or "I haven't heard his songs, but I believe he should have no right to write any more songs..." or "I haven't seen the article, but I'm as outraged as everybody else..."

The trick was too obvious - the speakers made a show of how zealously they toed the Party line, while at the same time they cleverly protected themselves from potential accusations of taking interest in a blasphemy and possibly being infected by it.

So this turn of phrase eventually became a joke and then a cliche on which people were building jokes.

I'm sure empressaw is not aware of this history. She and millions of fellow Obamabots are doomed to repeat it.

Rowland wrote:Gary2012, in addition to being the only person who comports himself with calm and reason, is exactly correct. Read the Kausfiles post from slate that he posts (https://tinyurl.com/dlfbk6). That's why he doesn't need to resort to schoolyard insults and rhetorical flourishes.
And for the record, I never listen to Rush. He doesn't factor into my life except inasmuch as The Beast posts his remarks. The Beast exposes me to exponentially more Limbaugh than I'd ever have in my day-to-day life.
And the reason I don't listen to him, ironically, is that he, too, has a tendency to pull stats out of thin air.

This Comrade denies Thought Crime as well, but at least he did the research to find out what Capitalist Class Enemy Rush was talking about. And thanks to our Esteemed Chairman for the link.

Democracy would run so much more smoothly if the conservatives weren't constantly making a fuss and sometimes even trying to take over.

Lenin 'n' Things wrote:"Why can't we just figure out a way to get rid of this pig and everybody who listens to him and make the world a better place?"



This is the story of communism. Let's kill everyone we don't agree with, and then the world will become a beautiful paradise for all of us who follow the correct ideology.

(off)
Well, as Marx put it "Peace is the absence of opposition to communism."

Speaking of Mickey Kaus...

Mickey has obtained a thread from the much talked about Journolist which he has so graciously posted at Kaus Files. A must read for all of you interested in the intellectual back-and-forth between America's reigning journalist glitterati and toiling intelligentsia.

Mark Twain: "There are lies, damned lies, and statistics."

I recall how my heart strings were tugged by stories of hunger in America. "How," Theocritus, "can you live in your plush Rancho de Rio Grande, stuffing delectable viands in your mouth when people are hungry?"

I found that the definition of hungry is someone who has been, uh, hungry. Not doesn't have enough food to eat, but who is hungry.

A woman on a diet, a man trying to lose weight: both are hungry. In my case when I decide to drop tonnage, I'm hungry <i>all</i> the time and therefore am worthy of caring 'n' compassion.

And all your money. Because I'm hungry.

Here is a fine example of Doublespeak, without having to change one word into another/other word(s).

While I'm NOT against feeding the needy, those who can't afford food, or those who simply can not get the food themselves. What I am against are so called charities exploiting people to get money just for the charity's gain, or better yet, for themselves.

As you have stated Commissar Theo, "Mark Twain said 'There are lies, damned lies, and statistics.'" There is a saying "89.9%" of statistics are made up on the spot. The funny thing is, I could say 59%, 69%, 77% ,95% etc. and it would be made up anyway.

Commissar_Elliott wrote:Here is a fine example of Doublespeak, without having to change one word into another/other word(s).

While I'm NOT against feeding the needy, those who can't afford food, or those who simply can not get the food themselves. What I am against are so called charities exploiting people to get money just for the charity's gain, or better yet, for themselves.

And still, let me rephrase it a bit to make a point that is opposite to the author of the quote:

I'm NOT against feeding the needy, those who can't afford food, or those who simply can not get the food themselves. What I am against are the government bureaucrats exploiting people to get money just for the government's gain, or better yet, for themselves.

Red Square wrote:

Commissar_Elliott wrote:Here is a fine example of Doublespeak, without having to change one word into another/other word(s).

While I'm NOT against feeding the needy, those who can't afford food, or those who simply can not get the food themselves. What I am against are so called charities exploiting people to get money just for the charity's gain, or better yet, for themselves.

And still, let me rephrase it a bit to make a point that is opposite to the author of the quote:

I'm NOT against feeding the needy, those who can't afford food, or those who simply can not get the food themselves. What I am against are the government bureaucrats exploiting people to get money just for the government's gain, or better yet, for themselves.

In other words, taxes.

Some years ago 72% of every dollar meant for welfare was absorbed by the government bureaucracy in doling it out. Talk about power grab. Think: extract money by force. Let 72% of it feed a bureaucracy whose job security demands loyalty to the system, and the 28% that does get out insured dependency and therefore more loyalty. Simon Legree would be proud.

I have heard people in the Olympia Collective claim that a person should not be allowed to make more than a certain amount of money each year (the cap ranges from $250,000 to one million tops depending on whom you are talking with) and that the government should take anything over that cap through taxes. The rational behind this is that if there are hungry people in this country, a person has "no right" to make millions or billions a year.

The foolish err enlightened people fail to see that wealth is not finite, and that just because one person has millions while another is living on the street, the millionaire is not taking from the homeless person.

How their minds can conceive of such notions and call it just is beyond me.

7.62, moonbats are informed solely by resentment. Their rage against the world is informed solely by resentment. Their demand to control everything is fueled by resentment that the world does not confirm to them. Their activism--resentment.

Resentful people, envious people, do not believe all that much in creative work. Some of them may create but most of them still chinagale (never seen it written; it is TexMex for "fuck you over") you when they can.

To moonbats the pie is of one size, and their resentment demands that it be reapportioned instead of being allowed to grow. Also the fact that some people can make money, that the time of some people is worth more than others, bothers them.

This position instantly collapses when you realize that if it were true, we'd still be living in caves.

Conservatives believe that the pie is infinitely expandable; see the caves above.

Moonbats believe that the pie of rights is infinitely expandable. Give one group rights and in the next breath give another group rights, and ignore that the rights may be mutually exclusive. It's a childish pose. Heinlein calls it "socialist disease." Rights to food. Rights to shelter. Rights to health care. This is not to say that one cannot be generous, or merciful, but the only rights that I believe that I have are

1. Right not to be interfered with.
2. Right to have contracts enforced.
3. Right not to have Achmed blow up the US.

One of the things that bothers me about the Olympia Collective, and others of its ilk, is that compassion has become professional, and compulsory. It's work to give out money. Ask any very rich person. (I don't know from personal experience.) But it's no work at all to strike a pose. And it feels good. People saying things like that are merely wearing designer-brand sentiments in addition to their Birkenstocks.

Comrade Theo, you have hit the progressive nail on the glorious head with the socialist hammer. Indeed, a local charity for aiding the homeless lost a major grant needed to stay open because THEY DIDN"T FILE THE PAPERWORK ON TIME. And the complaint of the failed board of directors? They didn't even like having to have a board of directors, but it was required to get the HUD grant. The collectivist mindset of those running the place kept any one person from taking direct charge, and in the end nobody did anything.

I rather like your bill of rights. Have you perhaps read the rather good books capitalist drivel by the thought criminal Michael Z. Williamson? His novel "Freehold" describes a quite fascinating system of government, or rather lack thereof. Plus it has a really cool interstellar war to make for an entertaining read.

I'm now rereading the books of Robert A. Heinlein, a libertarian. Some of this sexual freedom is a bit free, even for me and I'm hard to shock, but bear in mind that he created the word TANSTAAFL.

There Ain't No Such Thing as a Free Lunch.

Ahh Heinlein. Yes very libertarian. I agree some of his sexual freedoms are a bit on the far side, but hey it's between consenting adults. Also, about half of what he writes I simply can't stand. The Mark of The Beast for instance. An interesting notion, and it could have been written in a fashion that doesn't remind a person of a bad drug trip.

Michael Williamson is also very libertarian and pays homage to Heinlein by naming one of the spaceships in the book Freehold "Heinlein".

<i>The Number of the Beast</i> was indeed odd but I wound up reading it twice. It was just interesting enough to do it. A romp really through his favorite books.

But <i>The Moon is a Harsh Mistress</i> is without doubt his finest. I read that in the 8th grade. Do you recall when Mike the computer is asked if he has spare memory? Yes, a memory bank he'll use to record their conversations. It's <i>12.5 megabytes</i>.

Well, <i>2001</i> has Dave lobotomizing Hal by pulling out circuit boards. One of Clark's very few slip-ups, or perhaps Kubrick knew its dramatic value. Even then very fast computers used ECL (Emitter-coupled logic) and in only about four or five years some of the Cray computers were fast enough that lengthening a signal wire an inch would introduce a speed-of-light lag enough to make the machine stop working. The Iliac V was similarly constructed.

But this is carping. Wonderful books.

The Moon is a Harsh Mistress and the short story The Green Green Hills of Earth are two of my favorites.

Commissar Theocritus wrote:Some years ago 72% of every dollar meant for welfare was absorbed by the government bureaucracy in doling it out. Talk about power grab. Think: extract money by force. Let 72% of it feed a bureaucracy whose job security demands loyalty to the system, and the 28% that does get out insured dependency and therefore more loyalty. Simon Legree would be proud.

That's disturbing, that's really disturbing. Think about it another way, if an 8 oz glass of water were taxed that way between two people, a person who isn't thirsty and a person who is thirsty, about 6 oz would go to the person who isn't thirsty and the other 2 oz would go to the thirsty guy. The only reason it goes to the not thirsty guy is to keep him not thirsty, i.e. satisfied and well. The thirsty guy must than come back for more water, let's just hope he finds another source.

Not only would Simon Legree be proud, but I think I saw Ciacco smirk, if even for a moment.

Obamissar 7.62 wrote:I have heard people in the Olympia Collective claim that a person should not be allowed to make more than a certain amount of money each year (the cap ranges from $250,000 to one million tops depending on whom you are talking with) and that the government should take anything over that cap through taxes. The rational behind this is that if there are hungry people in this country, a person has "no right" to make millions or billions a year.

The foolish err enlightened people fail to see that wealth is not finite, and that just because one person has millions while another is living on the street, the millionaire is not taking from the homeless person.

How their minds can conceive of such notions and call it just is beyond me.

(off)
The most core prinicple of socialism, except everyone is as poor as the dirt.

It is possible that socialism started as concern for the poor but it nearly instantly transmogrified into just another power grab.

Put people on the payroll and you have a built-in constituency. And you get to be self-righteous.

BTW, I've fired eBay. PayPal advertises that you can pay with a credit card but they insist that I let them into my bank account. Again. Not fucking likely. The owner is a leftist, which is obvious from the lying. AmEx, which will take care of you, testimony on request, charges more money than a bank draft. And so PayPal wants to get its hooks into my bank account.

When Obama doesn't need a TelePrompTer.

The biggest problem is the organizer of the movement was probably at one time as poor as the people he's rallying, the problem is once they get any power, even if it's just the leader of the movement, this corrupts him/her.

Absolute power corrupts absolutly.

With this corruption, guess what happens when the movement is successful? The leader of the movement is promoted leader of the nation.

George Orwell is right again.

Orwell is right again because the cycle will repeat.

If you ask me, what eBay is doing is what the SOBama wants to do to everyone. The only difference is with eBay, it's a private infiltration.

Red Square wrote:And still, let me rephrase it a bit to make a point that is opposite to the author of the quote:

I'm NOT against feeding the needy, those who can't afford food, or those who simply can not get the food themselves. What I am against are the government bureaucrats exploiting people to get money just for the government's gain, or better yet, for themselves.

Comrade! I fear you've overdosed on your state-sponsored meds again! You do not take Thioridazine with your vodka!

It is our AIM to manipulate the masses into keeping us in power! Nero did it with food and circuses! Sharpton and Jackson are the modern-day masters of it!

Ahhh, I feel a tingle whenever I say those two names. The thrill of the Current Truth^tm!

On a semi-related note--I started reading "Atlas Shrugged" for the first time. To really get in the heads of the capitalist exploiting oppressors!


And I am enjoying it very well so far. "Who is John Galt?"

It's a typical comment from a far left loon. They want freedom of speech....but only when it pertains to their agenda. Any dissent from the left is not tolerated. Imagine if GWB has done the type of closed door politics that Obama is doing. It be the top story on the loony "news".

I found your link on https://www.obamasfailures.com

DDR, I am shocked, <i>shocked</i>, that you would read the work of the reactionary Ayn Rand. If you finish <i>Atlas Shrugged</i> make sure that you do not read <i>The Fountainhead</i>. It is not the philosophical magnum opus that Atlas is but it is more approachable and I find it less repulsive.

Also so not read the libertarian, and pardon me while I spit, works of Robert A. Heinlein. He has a few sexual freedoms which even I find a bit strange, but the worst thing is that he actually expects people to be responsible.

In his horrible worlds, actions have consequences! To the barricades!

Lenin 'n' Things wrote:"Why can't we just figure out a way to get rid of this pig and everybody who listens to him and make the world a better place?"



This is the story of communism. Let's kill everyone we don't agree with, and then the world will become a beautiful paradise for all of us who follow the correct ideology.

We have never killed any people. Comrade. Anyone who disagrees with the Party is a non-person, so it's OK to Purge them.


Yes, that is the story of Communism. 100 million dead to date and counting. Most people don't truly grasp how heinous its crimes are, because as Stalin said, "One death is a tragedy. One million deaths are a statistic.". People simply cannot wrap their mind around the sheer numbers of people who were murdered by it.

"One death is a tragedy. One million deaths are a statistic."

A $10000 AmEx bill is a tragedy. A $830 billion bill is a statistic.

Commissar Theocritus wrote:DDR, I am shocked, <i>shocked</i>, that you would read the work of the reactionary Ayn Rand. If you finish <i>Atlas Shrugged</i> make sure that you do not read <i>The Fountainhead</i>. It is not the philosophical magnum opus that Atlas is but it is more approachable and I find it less repulsive.

Also so not read the libertarian, and pardon me while I spit, works of Robert A. Heinlein. He has a few sexual freedoms which even I find a bit strange, but the worst thing is that he actually expects people to be responsible.

In his horrible worlds, actions have consequences! To the barricades!

I have just finished the first hundred pages or so of Atlas Shrugged. Normally I can read a book fairly nonstop when I dedicate the time to it (and I planned to spend the whole of today going through the book) but it was so disturbing in it's accuracies and predictions that I had to stop for a bit. It was somewhat overwhelming which I rarely will admit to in a book.

Now I need to acquire a dozen trade paperback copies of it and distribute it to progressives I know in Olympia...

Obamissar 7.62 wrote: I have just finished the first hundred pages or so of Atlas Shrugged. Normally I can read a book fairly nonstop when I dedicate the time to it (and I planned to spend the whole of today going through the book) but it was so disturbing in it's accuracies and predictions that I had to stop for a bit. It was somewhat overwhelming which I rarely will admit to in a book.

Now I need to acquire a dozen trade paperback copies of it and distribute it to progressives I know in Olympia...

I'm having the same problem with 1984.

7.62, if you want to commit the heresy of distributing Ayn Rand, you might find <i>The Fountainhead</i> more approachable. First, it's about 70% as long. And also it's novelistic. All the philosophy is there. AS is I freely admit heavy going. Love it, but it's heavy going.

Thank you Commissar Theo for the advice. Yes, I shall set out and commit this thoughtcrime.

[ off ]I read <i>The Fountainhead</i> again, in 2006, for the first time in 20 years. I'd read it perhaps six times before. I was in a restaurant and laughing so hard that people asked me what I was reading. It's savagely funny, if you have the same feelings for Progressives that I have.

{off} My feelings for progressives involve baseball bats and direct contact with their knees. :p Ok seriously not violent feelings, more like disgust mingled with pity. Kinda like seeing roadkill.

[ off ]I am less generous than you. I quite seriously have fantasies of beating these people, and I've never hit <i>anyone</i>. First. Never had to. I'm a big boy and intimidating as long as I keep my mouth shut.

There is something in me which loathes this childish tantrum that I hear--the refusal to see reality. The moonbat who sticks his fingers in his ears and screams, "Lalalalala! I refuse to accept that!" And sometimes they even say, "And it's your responsibility to make my desires my reality." Those who don't say it mean it.

Liberalism is the tantrum of a child who never grew up and my fantasy is holding them down and <i>forcing</i> them so say, "It's not all about me."

Commissar Theocritus wrote:7.62, if you want to commit the heresy of distributing Ayn Rand, you might find <i>The Fountainhead</i> more approachable. First, it's about 70% as long. And also it's novelistic. All the philosophy is there. AS is I freely admit heavy going. Love it, but it's heavy going.

I agree that <i>The Fountainhead</i> would make a better start. But I didn't find it heavy going. It does start slowly, but then I was unable to put it down.

But then I used to find Victor Hugo's books exciting too, and no one reads them here. I was trying to find The Laughing Man in Barnes & Noble and couldn't. At 17, that became my gateway book to more serious reading. Before that it was all history, mythology, and sci-fi.

Also ETA Hoffman. I mentioned before on the Blog that his Little Zaches is a great metaphor of a liberal politician. I even fantasized about adapting it as a fantasy movie in a modern American setting, but what liberal producer will agree to that?

[ off ]I started reading Rand when I was perhaps 13 or 14--and she gave me the ammunition to break away from the church I was immerded in. I hope that no Cubist knows the type, except Pinkie who has told me that she does. You go to church. You are a kid. You do nothing wrong. You are revoltingly good. And you're going to hell all the time because you are a sinner. Even though by all standards you are the sort of kid who would be beaten to a pulp if you weren't one of the biggest ones there and with the sharpest tongue. But you're still going to hell.

It took me <i>over 40 years</i> to flush that guilt away, and the anger at it. And Rand gave me the ammunition, even though it took the better part of a half century to do it.

{off} I am thoroughly immersed in Atlas Shrugged now. Once I got over the more disturbing accurate aspects of it it really started rolling. I've just gotten to the discovery of ruins of The 20th Century Motor Works, and regretted having to put the book down to go to work.

Work? There's your problem...

Vodkavich, do not worry. Eventually no one works in <i>Atlas Shrugged</i>. And the whole world collapses into resentment, jealousy and finger pointing. A consummation devoutly to be desired.

7.62, if you read <i>The Fountainhead</i>, you'll find a character named Ellsworth Toohey, who says that it's impossible to kill all the strong flowers so all you have to do is make an environment where it's impossible for one to grow. How perceptive of Rand--to make a world where we spend all of our time agonizing over what other people think and if we're good enough, and not wanting to stick our heads up and be proud. Instead of self-righteous.

{ off }Today I read a good short article by Sarah Standing in <i>The Spectator</i> in which she has a had a belly full of a variant of Munchausen's by Proxy. This is Political Correctness by Proxy. Where people are offended on behalf of other people. A very good point.

Comrade Commissar,

I do indeed worry. There was a certain amount of WORK going on in Galt's Gulch. Cigarettes were smoked that did not support SCHIP. Hamburgers were eaten that did not have their fat content regulated by Mayor Bloomberg. Green energy was consumed that was developed via innovation rather than government grant. We must find this place and DESTROY it. Now Comrade Toohey- there's the personification of the NYT.

I found this article and think we need a tremendous amount of government funding to find the cause of PCBP and ENCOURAGE it!

My god, Vodkavich, you bring back memories. When Dagny had her sprained ankle and was the houseguest of John Galt, <i>she was expected to earn her way</i>. TANSTAAFL. How very unprogressive. In a fair and just world, the entire populace of Galt's Gulch would have taken out every single curb there which might impede her progress. Even curbs to places where no one went.

[ off ] Here in Pecos the mothers are tearing up curbs FOR THE THIRD TIME IN 20 YEARS to make them compliant with ADA. I'm not making this up. The only explanation is that concrete that's left in the sun goes off, like cheese. Or that the Feds or TexDOT are fucking morons. Which one do <i>you</i> think is more likely?

Commissar Obamissar V wrote:Work? There's your problem...

Yes my dear Commissar, work. Not only work, but commissioned sales work at that. I must denounce myself for not showing concern for my fellow man. My boss has assured me that she would need two people to do the work I do, so I must be depriving a more deserving person from a job. Clearly so, since I am well qualified for my work I must not deserve it. What is even scarier is I can cash my commission checks and not feel the urge to give all my filthy money to some person who makes less than I do. Oh what a horrible person I am. Tell me Commissar, please tell me how much time I must spend in the beet field, and how many Jifi Lobos I need in order to correct the errors of my evil, evil ways?

Commissar Theocritus wrote:My god, Vodkavich, you bring back memories. When Dagny had her sprained ankle and was the houseguest of John Galt, <i>she was expected to earn her way</i>. TANSTAAFL. How very unprogressive. In a fair and just world, the entire populace of Galt's Gulch would have taken out every single curb there which might impede her progress. Even curbs to places where no one went.

[ off ] Here in Pecos the mothers are tearing up curbs FOR THE THIRD TIME IN 20 YEARS to make them compliant with ADA. I'm not making this up. The only explanation is that concrete that's left in the sun goes off, like cheese. Or that the Feds or TexDOT are fucking morons. Which one do <i>you</i> think is more likely?

{off} The Feds and TexDOT are fucking morons.

Comrade Obamissar,

It's going to take quite a bit of shoveling as not only are you taking work from another prole, but also supporting materialism...

Commissar Obamissar V wrote:Comrade Obamissar,

It's going to take quite a bit of shoveling as not only are you taking work from another prole, but also supporting materialism...

Not only that, I sell newspaper delivery. I'm destroying the planet. Murder of trees, blah, blah, blah. It is quite funny. Small town local rags are not very political, except maybe on the opinion page where strangely enough opinions go. Yet in the space of a day I can hear people complain that my product is too liberal, and the next person whines that it is a "conservative tool." Then they complain about the letters to the editor that are printed. Now Commissar, 99% of all letter received are printed. Printed letters are chosen at random, and when there are a lot of letters on a topic, an effort is made to present equal for and against the matter. Yet people complain about the "bias" in the letters. I then smile and ask them when was the last time THEY wrote a letter to the editor. They look real confused and say "Never." I smile again, a little nastier this time and say "Well, there is your problem right there." These proles expect to see what they want in the letters page, or twist what they see to fit their beliefs of how things are ran, yet they NEVER TAKE STEPS THEMSELVES to get their voice heard.

Talking to people who believe foolish things about small newspapers or see conspiracies (liberal or conservative) where there are none is one of the more entertaining aspects of my oppressing job. I could tell stories of liberals and conservatives that will make you laugh and cry at the same time. All over the same little small town paper...

{ off } I believe it. Everyone thinks it's all about him, all the time, 24/7. The reason that I'm a conservative is that it's not enshrined in conservatism that it be all about me, or my received opinions.

Conservatives say, "Well, it's never worked before. Why should it now?" And Progressives say, "Give me everything that you hold dear and I'll play with it and tell you that it will get better despite there being utterly no track record."

Here is my credo: I know that I'm not the biggest thing on earth. I don't care that there are other people who have more money, who are smarter, who have more illustrious friends. <i>I am not the fucking center of the universe</i>. Which is to say, "I don't need you to exist. I exist all by myself. In a room alone."

And once I realized that, I was free. Free. Free. Because I accepted myself. All of these people seem to be wanting some sort of approval from other people. I don't mean to keep harping on it but I learned this by being gay. I had to make my peace with the world from a different plane. And it doesn't matter.

I exist. I am. I take responsibility for that. I don't want to be licked because of, or despite of, being gay. I don't need other people's approbation.

And all of the twisted, sick bastards on earth who would prescribe for you, lecture you, and in good conscience steal everything from you, from your property to your freedom (which are the same thing), are scared little people who cannot look at themselves as autonomous beings. They do not exist except by telling you what to do.

{off} Well said Comrade Theo. I call myself a libertarian as it seems to fit best. I have noticed people like you who have accepted themselves for who they are are perhaps the happiest. Not only are they at peace with themselves, they are at peace with the rest of the world. It is when the rest of the world does not wish to be at peace with you that problems arise. My overriding philosophy is that an adult should be free to do as they wish, so long as in doing so, they do not directly infringe on the rights of others. Pretty simple. We have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That's it. There are some other rights that go along with those three, but those are the important ones. I'm assured of my life and liberty. I am not assured of my happiness. That I must pursue, and that is where the problems arise. The liberals wish to impose their ideal of happiness on everyone through force of law if needed. They see a person who has what they do not have and blame that person for their shortcomings or bad luck. It is horrible.

When I go into town on my days off, I wear a sidearm openly. It is legal, and it is my right. Do I expect to use it? Heaven forbid. But it is there just like a seatbelt or fire extinguisher. Things you do not want to have to call upon for their intended use. Some people don't bat an eye, others give me kudos, and others ask me why I feel the "need" to be armed. Those are the ones who don't get it. They cannot understand how or why I chose to take responsibility for my own safety. Rather than operate on the simple trust that "no one in Olympia is going to hurt you" or that "The police will protect you" I make the choice to be responsible for my own safety. That is confusing and terrifying to the small minds that fear individuality. And I hate it. It bothers me that people can be so petty and shallow, and reliant upon outside forces to protect them and tell them what is OK.

When I moved to Olympia I thought it was a cool little town with a lot of diversity. And on the surface it is. I like diversity, it makes life interesting and exciting. But when you scratch the surface the diversity goes away and you have a lot of petty groups, mainly liberal and progressive, and a good bit of them are pretty far left. Their dominance of the local political scene in turn makes the right wing bitter and shallow. Meanwhile the leftist groups don't all get along, and they compete for attention. All the while they preach how open and accepting they are, but the truth is they are only open and accepting to those who agree with them. I was kicked off a local community website that was supposed to be open and accepting. Well it wasn't and they didn't like what I had to say about Our Lord and Savior Obama. So I started my own community forum, declared it wide open, put up a forum for people to be assholes to each other if they wanted, and imposed just enough rules to keep trolls, spammers and porn down. Guess who is thriving and who isn't? I don't get many progressives who want a carefully groomed world view that appeals to them, but I get everyone else, and I am happy.

Freedom is all I wish for, and I am happy to accept any person's life choices so long as they don't infringe on other's rights. Sadly the progressives will not grant others the same respect. It disgusts me. That's why I'm moving to Alaska at some point. I don't expect to find a free thinker's utopia there either. As much as I would wish to settle in a Galt's Gulch I know it isn't there. I believe I will find a greater percentage per capita of people who think like me there than I do in Washington State.

Maybe I'm running away, or maybe I'm running to something. I don't know. I know I wish to be free, and I will do every fucking thing I can to ensure that. Perhaps it is simply a strategic withdrawal. I wish I knew.

I like your credo. I wish others would adopt it. Or that a way could be found to scream it from the very heavens unto the entire world.

{ off }My mother had a lapidary phrase: "Your rights end where my nose begins." And she believed it.

One of the contradictions of the left is how, as you said, they preach freedom but are anything but free. It is I think a lack of self-confidence. My mother was not a pretty woman, or was in her early years according to the lights of the time. Never beautiful.

But if she looked at a door men rose to open it. She never complained; she valued herself enough that others understood it, and she was treated to the end of her days as a lady. She never lost an argument because she never had one, except a final one with a tumor. People could sense her worth, and just let her be. It didn't hurt that she was well-intentioned and sharp as a whip either.

One of the odd things that I learned is that when I was (unnecessarily) fretting about coming out, I thought, with good historical reason, that I'd lose business and people would stare. Insofar as people care, it's had no effect. But the odd thing is that something in me, owing entirely to that change, has made my life a good deal easier.

When I go into a store I often have to tell the clerk, "No, he was ahead of me." I often get perks from people I don't know. Something tells people.

I have a great sympathy for spymasters. I know that we need them, but imagine running people whose entire lives are based on deceit. They could be ideologically opposed to the regime that they're betraying, and for the best of reasons, but still it's deceit. They could be doing it for money--and how nice would it be to have to help those people pretend that they're doing something that's not soul-destroying? Being a spymaster is one of the worst jobs that I can think of.

Commissar Theocritus wrote:{ off }I don't want to be licked because of, or despite of, being gay.

Oh, for Freud's sake, Vlad! That's a pretty funny slip!

{karakter off} Something in this thread pretty well sums up what's been bothering me lately.

Even tho we're satirizing and lampooning the lefties' ideas, there's some of them out there that actually believe this $#!+!! How far is the divide in the US, when there are partisan outlets for news, and each side only believes what's on "their" news, and "the other side" is a bunch of lying biased bigoted propaganda? I'm deeply afraid that we are destined for a true civil war, when folks get their news and opinion from either Daily Koz or the O'Reilly Factor, and never the twain shall meet, building righteous indignation and outrage toward the opposition!

The NewGov sure ain't afraid of the People, or of lying to us, and then imposing policies based on those lies, despite any outcry and protests. I fear the only way to restore our Constitutional Republic is armed revolt, and that it won't happen all at once like it needs to, meaning the NewGov could squash it like a slave uprising, giving the NewGov more lies and distortions to bring forth more impositions and policies. It's all so distressing and depressing.

Kinda getting back to the thread, the only Rand I've read is <i>We the Living</i>, about her life in post-Revolution Soviet Russia, seeing everything she and her family owned and worked for destroyed by her "comrades", also very depressing until she escapes. I think this influenced a near-nightmare I had a couple of months ago, where I was in a work/re-education camp. It was like a bad version of summer camp, with bunk beds 5 high and barbed wire around the outside perimeter. Perhaps summer in Siberia? I was trying to find some way to dig out and escape, but there was nowhere better outside worth escaping to anymore.

(off)
1. You wonder why George Washington warned of partisanship?

2. I've always said, and will preach, "everyone has their own opinion, no matter how stupid". If only everyone had this approach, to some degree.

3. When the Civil War comes, well, I'll grab my guns and go out with them.