Friday Talking Points -- Biden Goes Big

[ Posted Friday, April 30th, 2021 – 17:44 UTC ]

President Joe Biden is either a radical, far-left socialist who hates many things about America and lied to everyone in his campaign about "unity" (because deep down he really just wants to divide us to foster his own political ambitions)... or he is not. If he isn't, then he just might be a moderate Democratic centrist who has been thrust into three simultaneous crises and who has reacted by abandoning his former timidity and instead decided that the time is now to prove to the American public that the federal government can indeed be a force for good in their lives, in the biggest way possible. Joe is going big, even though his natural instinct would be to sit down with Republicans and hash out a compromise that fell far short of what the Democratic side of the aisle thought was necessary.

That is the state of our political divide. Either you believe the first sentence in that former paragraph, or you believe the rest of it. The problem for the Republican Party is that a majority of the American people believe (to some degree or another) the more-reasonable interpretation of Joe Biden. This is why his job approval poll numbers are still higher than Donald Trump ever managed even once. Joe Biden looks and sounds like a moderate. But he seems determined to rise to the occasion, and he has shown a surprising amount of steeliness (and impatience) when confronted by GOP stalling tactics. This is likely due to the lesson he learned full well while serving as Barack Obama's vice president, when Obama was stymied multiple times by GOP bait-and-switch tactics. Obama, most notably on Obamacare, gave in on all sorts of issues in the hopes of forming a compromise plan that Republicans would vote for. This effort took up an enormous amount of time, and in the end, the Republicans refused to vote for it anyway. Biden learned the lesson: "put them on a timetable, and if they can't deliver enough GOP votes to matter in the Senate when that time is up, then feel free to ignore them and use budget reconciliation rules to get it done -- because all people will remember later is whether you got it done or not, and not how you got it done." That's an excellent lesson to have learned, when dealing with today's Republican Party, which is even worse than they were back in the Tea Party era under Obama.

The political week in Washington centered around President Biden's first address to a joint session of Congress. Biden spoke in front of a much-reduced crowd (due to COVID restrictions) in classic Biden fashion. Ted Cruz, who was caught on camera snoozing during the speech, later called this style: "boring, but radical." That's a pretty good description, actually. Biden delivered his speech with his usual folksy charm, getting emotional where appropriate and at other times almost whispering. And it was fairly boring to watch -- at least, compared to the clown show of watching Donald Trump attempt to read off a TelePrompTer. But then again, boring is what the American people wanted and voted for, so it's not like that's a bad thing. Biden is comfortably boring, to put it another way. But his plans are pretty radical, at least to a Republican like Cruz. Biden, in fact, is acting bolder than any Democratic president since Lyndon Baines Johnson, in terms of proposing what the federal government should do for its citizens. Biden even directly declared Reaganism dead in his speech: "My fellow Americans, trickle-down economics has never worked." No wonder Republicans like Cruz are scared.

Senator Tim Scott, who gave the GOP response to Biden's speech, darkly warned of what the Democrats wanted to accomplish, versus how Republicans thought things should be: "Our best future won't come from Washington schemes or socialist dreams. It will come from you -- the American people." The GOP's problem, however, is that virtually every single item in Biden's impressive agenda is actually wildly popular with the public -- most of them poll northwards of 60 percent. To put this another way: the voters aren't as scared any more when Republicans try to use demonizing words, because they can immediately see how what Democrats are proposing would actually help them and their families. They balance the idea of two years of free pre-school for their children and, later, two years of free community college against "it will come from you -- the American people," which, translated, means what it has always meant coming from Republicans: "no government money for you, we're giving it all to your boss and your company's owners instead -- you are on your own, pal." Calling something "socialism" just doesn't pack the rhetorical punch it used to, in other words. Not when Joe Biden is proposing such sweeping beneficial changes to average families.

The Republican Party cupboard is bare, when it comes to both ideas and counterattacks on Biden. This is becoming more and more evident every week, when the right-wing media echo chamber has so few things to successfully demonize that it just starts making stuff up to scare their viewers ("Joe Biden is going to limit you to only eating one hamburger per month! Ahhh! Everybody run!!!"). Their latest grasping attempt to take Biden down a peg is worthy of a Pennsylvania pretzel-maker -- Biden promised "unity," but now that he's president he is incapable of unifying Congress (because Republicans are never going to agree to anything he proposes, ever). This is somehow supposed to be Biden's fault? The Republican Party is saying, in essence: "We won't work with you on anything, and it's your fault for dividing the country so much!" It's just laughable.

Here's a good take on it all, from a Washington Post speech review:

Maybe "unity" doesn't mean that Republicans and Democratic politicians agree on everything.

Or that a handful of Republican lawmakers get veto power over any policy.

Or that no one ever faces a tax increase.

Maybe it just means: Treat your fellow Americans with dignity, even when you disagree. At least, that was the subtext of President Biden's speech to Congress on Wednesday -- and a theme of his presidency so far.

Biden has proved a challenging adversary for Republicans to vilify. He's a generally congenial and empathetic politician, who has a compelling personal story rife with loss. He has working-class bona fides and has resisted conscription into Republican-framed culture wars. Republicans have tried caricaturing him as old and ineffectual -- yet also somehow unusually effective at transforming the country into a socialist hellscape. (GOP strategists appear aware that these critiques are somewhat at odds.)

So, Republicans keep returning to a Swift-boat-like attack: Strike at his strength -- his compelling message of "unifying" the country -- and portray it as a devious ploy to divide Americans instead.

Republicans argue that Biden offered a bait-and-switch, that he ran on healing our divisions but now plans to... pass a bunch of social programs benefiting the poor and middle class. If you're wondering how that latter agenda supposedly contradicts the former, you're not alone. The connective tissue, according to Republican officials, is that programs redistributing money to help the poor and middle class are somehow inherently divisive (class warfare!), regardless of the polls suggesting their popularity; or, in the GOP telling, only the programs Republican lawmakers vote for should count as unifying.

In other words, Republicans have decided that the test of Biden's desire to unify the country is whether Republicans themselves defect from the project -- and they have made clear their decision to always do so. As Republicans learned during the Obama years, the easiest way to ensure a president fails at achieving promised cooperation is to refuse to cooperate.

Biden, meanwhile, has taken the rhetorical battle to another level. He reminded Republicans that America does not live in a vacuum, and countries like China were out there competing with us. The absolute gridlock in Washington is hurting our country in this worldwide competition, which is why he is so determined to prove democracy can still work. Which he is planning on doing with or without Republican politicians:

"We have to prove democracy still works," Biden said during his speech. "That our government still works -- and can deliver for the people."

It all feels so reasonable. Why shouldn't Americans get to have democracy and get to have a functioning government, especially since we pay for it? Why shouldn't we want, as Biden said, "the wealthiest one percent of Americans to pay their fair share"? Why shouldn't we try to eliminate child poverty, an idea that made Republicans in the chamber so salty they refused to clap for it? Why shouldn't the wealthiest country in the world be able to provide its citizens with the same standard of living so many other less wealthy countries do with ease?

The thing is, these are the same exact arguments that progressives have been making for decades, and yet Republicans -- aided by a loud right-wing media, the racism of the majority of white voters, and a mainstream media addicted to false equivalencies -- were successful at demonizing such reasonable points as basically communism. Why then does it seem like Republicans suddenly can't land a glove on Biden?

Part of the credit should go to Biden himself, who is rising above what doubters like myself thought of him. He was able, as John Harwood of CNN said, to speak "in plain, non-political, non-ideological language invoking the people he wants to help."

By doing so, this article notes, he is directly attempting to poach all the blue-class voters that not only voted for Trump but have voted for Republicans going all the way back to Ronald Reagan (the original "Reagan Democrats"). Joe Biden was in the Senate before Reagan ever became president, so he remembers a time when things were different.

His strategy is pretty simple to understand: give people what they want. Help them. Make their lives better. Then, come election-time, remind them which party did this for them and which party fought it. That is real populism, not just the snake-oil version Trump touted. And it can work.

This week, Biden proposed the third in his trio of legislative proposals to (as he puts it) "build back better." The first, the American Rescue Plan, passed Congress without any Republican support. The second two are his American Jobs Plan and the American Families Plan he unveiled for his big speech. They would spend an additional $4 trillion on all sorts of things that would make life better for tens of millions of Americans. Biden would raise this money by raising taxes on corporations and people making more than $400,000 per year. Not a lot of blue-collar workers make that kind of money, to state the obvious (the only "regular guy" job we can even think of which would qualify would be: "football coach at a famous college," although we admit that there may be other esoteric examples).

Biden is offering things like home healthcare being covered by the government. Free pre-school and free community college tuition. Child tax credit extensions, to keep those $300 checks arriving in parents' mailboxes until 2025. Rural broadband. Guaranteed paid family leave for all workers. Funding child care. Increased subsidies to purchase Obamacare policies. Building wind turbines here instead of in China. How much of that really sounds all that bad to the public, even when Republicans scream "Socialism!" until they're blue in the face?

Even Fox News host Chris Wallace admitted as much, immediately after the speech:

"You know, I think this is going to be a popular speech with the American people," the veteran newsman declared. "He offered a lot of stuff. Four trillion dollars will buy a lot of stuff, from millions of jobs to child-care to community health centers, all kinds of stuff, community colleges."

[Chris] Wallace also suggested Biden's promise that middle-class Americans will not see their taxes increased to pay for these plans would be "pretty popular."

"Big corporations are going to pay for it," Wallace noted. "People making more than $400,000 are going to pay for it but the vast majority of people watching tonight aren't."

The Fox News Sunday anchor went on to say that the administration has made a "calculation" that after the coronavirus pandemic "people come to have a different feeling about government" and that "they now feel more trusting and more in need of government."

That is functionally admitting that what is "radical" to Ted Cruz actually sounds pretty reasonable to most American families -- even those that normally vote Republican. And this is Biden's ace in the hole, because he has insisted on redefining "bipartisan" to mean "across-the-aisle support from voters," instead of Washington politicians.

So far, it seems to be working. Biden's poll numbers are healthy (a lot healthier than Trump's were, by roughly 10 points, at this time in his tenure). The poll numbers for his ideas area even healthier. Biden can continue making the claim that his agenda is bipartisan because it has bipartisan support from the American people, and eventually the mainstream media is going to be forced to admit that he's right.

We are in for a gigantic battle over what the scope of the federal government should be. Biden is saying it should do far more for working-class families. Coincidentally, this is a similar argument to the one Donald Trump used to use. Helping the "forgotten" workers out there. Making people's lives easier with tangible help. Progressives have been arguing this for years, and they've finally got a rather unlikely champion in Joe Biden. He's not going to get everything done at once -- already several cherished items (such as lowering the eligibility age for Medicare) got left on the cutting room floor. Biden promises he will return to these things later, but the reality is that he probably won't get the chance. The two big proposals he has made will be the main subject of debate in Washington all summer long. But for once, it's going to be a straight-up "big government versus small government" battle, and for once the public seems to be a lot more open to letting the federal government do a lot more for them personally. So although it's going to be very tough, it looks like the chances for success are higher than they've been since L.B.J.'s time in office. And that's a pretty good way to wrap up Biden's first 100 days in office, really.


Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week

This one's pretty obvious this week. President Joe Biden is the clear winner of the Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week for both his speech to Congress and for his new American Families Plan. Biden had a great week all around, specifically timed to his 100th day in office. [For more details, see the entire rest of this article.]

[Congratulate President Joe Biden on his White House contact page, to let him know you appreciate his efforts.]


Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week

This one was also (sadly) pretty obvious. Senator Joe Manchin is going to rack up a record number of Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week awards, at least for the foreseeable future.

This week, Manchin essentially killed any hope of making Washington D.C. the 51st state any time soon:

Sen. Joe Manchin III told reporters in his home state of West Virginia on Friday morning that he does not support the bill to make D.C. the nation's 51st state, according to audio provided by the Democrat's office and a report from WVNews.

Manchin, a key swing vote in the closely divided Senate, said he believed a constitutional amendment, rather than legislation, would be required to admit D.C. as a state. His stance deals a major blow to statehood advocates who were hoping for his support after the bill passed the House last week.

Manchin cited findings from the Justice Department under Presidents Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter and comments from then-Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy in reaching his decision.

It should be noted that it is even less likely that statehood for D.C. would ever happen, if a constitutional amendment were indeed necessary -- a fact Manchin is well aware of. However, no amendment really would be necessary for Congress to at least make the attempt (the Supreme Court may ultimately decide the question, but that certainly doesn't preclude Democrats from trying).

Which is why Manchin gets yet another MDDOTW, to add to his growing collection. Thanks for nothing, Joe.

[Contact Senator Joe Manchin on his Senate contact page, to let him know what you think of his actions.]


Friday Talking Points

Volume 616 (4/30/21)

Before we get started, we have to share a political quote that just didn't fit anywhere else today. We also apologize for largely ignoring the rest of the political week -- a week in which Rudy Giuliani's house got raided by the feds!) -- but Biden's speech so dominated the political discourse that we had to devote almost all of today's column to it.

But we have to at least mention the news that California is going to hold its second-ever recall election in a few months. Now, barring any unforeseen scandals appearing between now and then, Gavin Newsom will be just fine. He's got an approval rating in the high 50s, and that will likely go up even further when the entire state (and all the schools) fully reopen once again.

But just because Newsom is all but certain to beat the recall, that doesn't mean we're not going to have a three-ring circus before it does. The last time this happened -- which resulted in the election of Arnold Schwarzenegger -- there were a whopping 135 candidates on the ballot (including people such as Larry Flynt, Gary Coleman, and Arianna Huffington). This time around, there may be even more. Caitlyn Jenner has already thrown her hat in the ring, and so has one person who ran back then as well: porn star Mary Carey. And her campaign kickoff statement is worth quoting, just for a laugh: "Last time I ran I was young, dumb and full of fun. This time I have more experience and will not be taking this position laying down. I am ready to be on top!" In other words, let the circus begin! Bring in the clown car! Step right up, folks!

Amusements aside, here are our suggestions to combat the clownish complaints coming from Republicans over Joe Biden's sweeping agenda. This really is like shooting fish in a barrel, since they really have yet to latch on to any one (possibly imaginary) aspect of the plan to hammer him with (see: Obamacare, "death panels"). For now, though, the Republican arguments are pretty easy to counter.



Biden made this one pathetically easy to defend.

"Republicans are going to lie to you -- they are going to tell you that Democrats are going to raise your taxes. For everyone except the absolutely wealthiest, this is false. How do I know it's false? How can I prove that to you? Well, let's see... are you a giant corporation? No? Then your taxes won't go up. Under the tax laws Republicans passed -- the last giant giveaway to corporate America -- we now have the largest corporations in the country paying zero taxes. And Republicans think that is just fine -- they don't want to change it a bit. Or how about... do you make over four hundred thousand dollars a year? No? Then don't worry -- your income taxes won't go up. Joe Biden has sworn he will not raise taxes on anyone making less than that per year, and no matter how many times Republicans lie about it, it still will be true. So don't worry -- your taxes won't be going up, period."


   Partisan? Who cares?

The big GOP complaint is that Biden is passing things on a purely partisan basis. Fortunately, there's a very easy answer to this.

"Republican politicians in Washington love to complain that Joe Biden isn't being bipartisan. But you know what? People do not care who voted for a bill and who didn't, when they see the results. They just don't. Don't believe me? Well then, here's an easy way to prove it: how many people who got their $1,400 checks in the mail ripped them up in protest because no Republican voted for it in Congress? I'm pretty sure the answer to that one is 'zero.' People just do not care what happens in Washington, instead they just want to see things get done."


   Socialist? Who cares?

Another big complaint is also just as easy to shoot down.

"Republican Senator Tim Scott, in response to President Joe Biden's speech this week, denounced the Biden agenda as, quote, Washington schemes and socialist dreams, period. Seriously? I mean, nice little rhyme and all, but seriously? Republicans have now taken to calling anything that taxes pay for 'socialist,' because they know the word used to scare the voters. But you know what? By their definition, we'd have no cops, no firefighters, no public schools, no public libraries -- because all of it would somehow be evil socialism. Biden is just proposing extending the list of what the government does a bit, so that it includes things that help average families out. They can call it whatever they want, but there is wide public support for these new programs, because voters are tired of seeing everything the government does only help out Wall Street and the ultra-wealthy. So, no, it's not 'class warfare' or 'socialism' to say that we as a nation should spend money on a few other priorities -- ones a lot closer to average Americans' kitchen table."


   Infrastructure or not? Who cares?

This one is the silliest of the bunch, really.

"Republicans are saying we should all reject major portions of the American Jobs Act because they complain there are projects which are not technically 'infrastructure' -- as if that were some kind of big deal to the voters. You know what? It isn't. People just do not care whether Republicans split these hairs one way or the other. Who in their right mind is going to complain: 'My aging mother now gets her home healthcare covered by Medicare... but I personally cannot define this help as 'infrastructure,' therefore it is a bad thing and I am going to inform her to reject it completely and continue paying out of her own pocket'? Nobody! Nobody cares whether Mitch McConnell thinks it qualifies as infrastructure or not -- they just care whether it makes their lives easier or not. That's it, period."


   Reject the scare words

Just push right on by all the bluster, and talk specifics instead.

"OK, let's start with this -- I do not care what you call these programs. You can call them anything under the sun, I'm not going to argue with any of it. Whatever lights your candle, OK? But after you get done, can you answer specifically which of these programs you support and which you don't? Take any part of Biden's American Jobs Plan or his American Families Plan and let me know whether it is a good idea politically or not. Because that is what people really want to hear -- a debate on the policies themselves, not whatever scare word you come up with to demonize them. If you're going to attempt such demonization, let's at least do it on the merits, OK?"


   Throw it right back at them, with details

Force the conversation from the generic to the specific.

"Socialism? What, am I supposed to roll up into a ball of fear when you say that? Really? As you can see, I am not -- instead I'd like to ask you, specifically: is providing two free years of pre-school socialism and therefore evil? How many voters think like that? Is providing two free years of community college some sort of Washington scheme to remove all freedom from your life and therefore evil? Or would it actually help out tens of millions of people in your home state? If these two programs are evil socialism, then why should America provide free public school from kindergarten through twelfth grade? Isn't that equally as socialistic and therefore evil? It is absolutely impossible to square those two stances, in other words -- if K-12 public education is a worthwhile thing for the government to provide, then why not expand it two years in either direction? I mean, you can argue it'd cost too much or whatever else, but you cannot say that public education of a 5-year old is ideologically allowable when public education of a 4-year old is some socialist plot to takeover America. That just makes no sense whatsoever."


   Far left? Don't make me laugh

And finally, we saved our favorite one for last.

"Republicans are falling all over themselves to fling the term 'far left' at Joe Biden and his agenda. They use this term, along with the words 'extremist' or 'extreme,' to try to paint Biden as some sort of wide-eyed radical looking to tear the system down. In the first place, they're not having much luck with this effort because I mean... well, just look at Joe Biden! Does he seem like a radical to you? Yeah, me either. Second, characterizing his agenda as 'far left' has worked pretty well to hoodwink the mainstream media into using the same language, but it's just not true. Take any one of Biden's proposals - free college, broadband expansion, whatever. Pick one at random. Then go ahead and check the actual poll numbers. These policies are supported by a huge majority of the public -- 60 percent, 65 percent, sometimes even higher. By definition that is not 'far' anything! That is instead mainstream. If you classify these ideas as 'far-left' then you also have to admit that America is now a 'far-left' country -- you can't have it both ways. It's all the other positions that are not mainstream, in fact. Biden's proposals are the mainstream, the Republican position has moved to the far right, and I'm betting that this time around the media won't get bamboozled into not noticing this rather glaring fact."

-- Chris Weigant


Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

Cross-posted at: Democratic Underground


36 Comments on “Friday Talking Points -- Biden Goes Big”

  1. [1] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    good points, but not one of them takes into account joe biden's support of pie. for shame.

    get pie. get edible.


  2. [2] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Biden's favourite pie? Ice cream pie, of course. :)

    And, I got edible - not too impressed, so far ...

  3. [3] 
    John M from Ct. wrote:

    Really nice. Really nice. Thanks for this.

  4. [4] 
    Kick wrote:

    CW: This is somehow supposed to be Biden's fault?

    Of course it is. It all makes sense if you just keep in mind that Joe Biden is the new Barack Obama.

    The Republican Party is saying, in essence: "We won't work with you on anything, and it's your fault for dividing the country so much!" It's just laughable.

    Exactly what they did to Barack Obama... a plan they concocted in the Caucus Room of an upscale DC restaurant the day Obama and Biden were inaugurated in 2009. Same song, second verse. Republicans have no ideas beyond "whatever Donald Trump says" and have long since ceased to govern. A Party has to have policy ideas in order to govern... the GOP doesn't and therefore can't.

  5. [5] 
    Mezzomamma wrote:

    Perhaps TP2 could be condensed further: The American Jobs Plan/ American Families Plan/ other Biden plan is bipartisan with the American people, it's only over-paid do-nothing politicians and hack journos who think it's not.

    Keep repeating: It's bipartisan with the American people.

  6. [6] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    CW TP3

    Interesting that you list as the most wonderful prospective benefits of Biden's "Let's go BIG" plan for the federal government to improve American's lives, "Cops, firefighters. public schools and public libraries", not a SINGLE ONE OF WHICH has traditionally been considered a proper function of the federal government, but rather the responsibility of the states!

  7. [7] 
    Kick wrote:

    C. R. Stucki

    Interesting that you list as the most wonderful prospective benefits of Biden's "Let's go BIG" plan for the federal government to improve American's lives, "Cops, firefighters. public schools and public libraries"...

    You're just confused again, Stucki. Those things were listed simply as things that taxes are used to pay for and as examples of what Republicans refer to as "socialism"... e.g., anything that taxes pay for.

    ... not a SINGLE ONE OF WHICH has traditionally been considered a proper function of the federal government, but rather the responsibility of the states!

    Incorrect on multiple levels, Stucki. Did you perchance shout that out in all caps to ensure that everyone would take notice of your glaring stupidity? Rhetorical question.

    The largest employer in America -- and indeed the world -- is the government of the United States. It would be interesting to find out how somebody could manage to live eight plus decades in America without managing to learn that the United States employs a shit-ton of cops and firefighters. Particularly with the recent spate of events, it just seems to me like that would have involved someone's head having spent an inordinate amount of time up their own backside to have missed that fact. Just saying.

    As for public schools and public libraries, after/if you're able to wrap your head around the ever-present and obvious multiple centuries old existence of federal law enforcement and federal firefighters, we could then move on to a robust discussion about the Department of Education and the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and how Americans' federal tax dollars have been used for decades to fund them.

    CW's actual point was that when government uses our taxpayers' dollars to invest in welfare like corporate grants/incentives, oil subsidies, agricultural subsidies, and similar, Republicans refer to that as "capitalism," but when taxpayers' dollars are invested in health care, housing, education, etc., Republicans demonize that and refer to it as "socialism."

    The Republican governor of South Dakota, Kristi Noem, appeared on Fox News to explain that pipes and housing don't count as infrastructure, and that dipshittery right there sums up everything you need to know about the lunacy and shortsightedness of today's Republicans who believe that pipes are only "infrastructure" if oil is running through them.

  8. [8] 
    John M from Ct. wrote:

    CRS on [7]

    Chris was not saying that Biden's big proposals this year are to federalize (or 'socialize') local government services. That's an odd misreading of his Talking Point that says something about how one reads political discourse.

    Anyway, from the other side of the looking glass, I understood that Chris was just pointing out that local government services are as inherently socialistic as any others are, if one distorts socialism as weirdly as the Republicans do these days. To the GOP, "government is socialism" - along the same lines as "taxation is theft".

    It's not a winning proposition for a majority of the country, but it's got a large minority who, uncritically, buy into it because they understand the subtext: "government that helps anyone who's not like me is socialism" and "taxation of my money is theft - but not taxation of other people who I don't know or identify with."

  9. [9] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    John M Ct. [9]

    You're correct, I was just sorta skimming on the TPs, probably misinterpreted Where Chris was going with the non-federal services.

    kick [8]

    Agreed, the feds are heavy into law enforcement (that's actually the mandate of the exec branch), but nobody other than you would refer to The fed. Narcs, the FBI and the ATF types as "cops".

  10. [10] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:


    BTW, Who are the federal "firefighters" these days. Even the Forest Service no longer believes in fighting fires.

  11. [11] 
    Kick wrote:

    C. R. Stucki

    Agreed, the feds are heavy into law enforcement (that's actually the mandate of the exec branch), but nobody other than you would refer to The fed. Narcs, the FBI and the ATF types as "cops".

    The DEA, FBI, and ATF... "not a SINGLE ONE OF WHICH" I actually did refer to, but if it help you wrap your head around facts, the Capitol Police are indeed federal cops.

    As for the DOJ, Qui pro domina justitia sequitur... he who takes legal action on behalf of Lady Justice... or "top cop" if you prefer. I'd like to take credit for inventing the term, but some Anglo-Saxon closer to your age will have to cop to that one.

    BTW, Who are the federal "firefighters" these days. Even the Forest Service no longer believes in fighting fires.


    * FS
    * BLM
    * NPS
    * BIA
    * DOD

  12. [12] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:


    Sorry, I just checked with the BLM people working on the George Floyd case. They claim they never do any firefighting!!!

  13. [13] 
    John M wrote:

    [13] C. R. Stucki wrote:

    "Sorry, I just checked with the BLM people working on the George Floyd case. They claim they never do any firefighting!!!"

    Ummmm... even I was able to figure out here that the BLM being referred to was the Federal Bureau Of Land Management.

    You're Welcome

  14. [14] 
    John M wrote:

    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    "Re "tax cuts for the rich" also deserving designation as "freebies".

    By definition, not taxing, or cutting taxes (for anybody) is a case of letting people keep what they've earned. You are not thereby "giving" them anything, you are rather failing to confiscate what they already have, right?"

    Again, you deliberately missed my point. What I was talking about was government services or goods being a "freebie" in the sense that it is provided to those people who had not paid any commensurate tax or fee for the construction or support of that item or service, but who still benefitted from the use of it anyways.

    If I pay a 100 dollar tax to support an airport that I use, and you, as a millionaire, get a 100 dollar tax cut, and are still allowed to use the same airport, then I am in effect, subsidizing your millionaire's use of that airport and the befits that you derive from its use. That 100 dollar tax cut in effect becomes your equivalent of a "freebie." Not in the sense of a tangible good provided to you...say a welfare check, but still in the sense of a tangible service that you are either getting for free or at a substantially proportionally reduced amount compared to the rest of us. A freebie is a freebie, class distinction notwithstanding, whether provided to the poor, or the corporate elite. They only differ kind, I.E. food stamps, VS corporate write offs, like the 3 martini lunch.

    As CW said, why is it (so called government "socialism') good when it comes to supporting Wall Street, and not when it comes to providing benefits to the Middle Class?

  15. [15] 
    John M wrote:

    Sorry, in the line above that should be "benefits" and not "befits." Apology for the typo.

  16. [16] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    John M

    Taxes to support real property facilities (airports, schools, stadiums, and the like) are kinda poor examples for this sort of a discussion, because they are not normally financed by income taxes, but for the things that are funded by income taxes, (nat'l defense, interstate hiways, etc.), its pretty much inevitable that the super-rich guy paid FAR more than you or I did, usually to the extend that even after you cut his tax by that $100, he STILL pays more than we do.

    But my point in this discussion is that in order to declare a tax cut to be a "freebie" (especially when the rich guy STILL pays more than the poor guys even AFTER the cut), you have to define ALL INCOME as the property of the gov't (the collective, the people, the public etc.), which definition I reject.

    Why am I entitled to the fruits of someone else's labor merely by virtue of the fact that he produces (earns) more than I do? However, Re the sort of things that fall under the "three martini lunch" concept, that is a different principle. If you feel that the income tax rules are 'unfair/defective', or that the IRS doesn't enforce them fairly, you gotta take that up with congress. That has no connection to what I'm trying to explain here that got this thing started..

  17. [17] 
    James T Canuck wrote:


    Both refreshing and tiresome, sadly.

    What Biden is proposing (and I assure you all he will get most of this, and with less friction than one might expect, considering the GOP intransigency. Manchin might rack up a few more awards, but he's not lasted this long without being able to sense the political need to toe not just the party line but the public sentiment, surely only the GOP seem to think voting down popular policy is the key to re-election?) is common sense democracy in action.

    My sense of American political change seems to always come after a national crisis provides itself its own unity. You folks turn on one another in the good times but tend to unify when the nation itself feels a common threat... Wars, two world wars, Vietnam and 911 all ushered in new (radical) ideas. Throw a couple of economic implosions and you have your engines of change. Why Americans need to get to rock-bottom to enact sober government use of their tax dollars mystifies me. I suspect that most of this is born out of the Pan-American mythos of anyone can make it in America if they put the effort in. That's a pile of bullshit and you know it is. The truth is that many people work their asses off and get nowhere and remain there until they drop dead. The American dream is and always was just that...a fucking dream. The sooner your right-wing comes out of their collective delusion that 'all is well', the better... Because as it stands, the GOP are in the way of the public's desire to get value for their tax dollar directly and not through some magical process of trickle-down economics. Reagan's version of the big lie had 30 plus years of trials and did exactly what it designed to do, enrich the wealthy... It's high time, and certainly, their due that the working-class benefit from the fruits of their labour. The 1% sure as shit don't need the benefits of public spending, they won the game and are therefore irrelevant in the big scheme, Biden is just reminding them that the same system that they feast off demands a sacrifice... In this case, fewer bucks to put away for the rainy day that never comes.

    No one likes to pay taxes, and before ww2 had never paid federal income tax. Kennedy described in jingoistic terms 'ask not what your country can do for you — ask what you can do for your country. 'He wasn't telling Americans to sit on their arses and go on welfare. He was saying put down your breakfast cheeseburgers and get an education, get a good job, pay into the system that will have your back in the good times and the bad. Somewhere down the line, America forgot that it was built on hard work and toil by people from all corners of the world who wanted freedom above all else, not freedom from taxation though. In fact, most of the fresh Americans that the GOP loath are eager to pay tax and do that thing their country asks of them... Maybe that's what scares the GOP most, being out-patriotised by Mohamad Smith.

    I suppose we're lucky here, our Conservative party is as self-defeating as a Trump campaign promise. Their leader's most recent gaffs include a failed caucus vote on whether global warming is a real thing or not and most hilariously, a suggestion it would be good for Canadians to be mandated to

    Do you wish for simpler times. They're never-ending elsewhere.


  18. [18] 
    Kick wrote:

    C. R. Stucki

    Taxes to support real property facilities (airports, schools, stadiums, and the like) are kinda poor examples for this sort of a discussion...

    You're going to make me do this again, right!? You've been alive and living in this country for eight plus decades and seem blissfully unaware that United States taxpayers' dollars are indeed used to fund "real property facilities"! I'll let you in on a little (not really) secret: United States taxpayers' dollars are not only used to fund real property facilities in the United States of North America but are also distributed globally to fund real property facilities worldwide. You should come down out of the mountains sometime and get to know US!

    But my point in this discussion is that in order to declare a tax cut to be a "freebie" (especially when the rich guy STILL pays more than the poor guys even AFTER the cut), you have to define ALL INCOME as the property of the gov't (the collective, the people, the public etc.), which definition I reject.

    Incorrect. Particularly when the "rich guy" is allowed to forego paying a tax because of the fact he is the "rich guy." There are government concessions wherein the "rich guy" isn't required to pay a tax that is still collected from all the other "guys" who aren't given the same grants/incentives/freebies. Surely you can understand the concept of a grant and/or an incentive wherein government foregoes the taxing of the "rich guy" while regressively taxing the hell out of the "poor guy" or "middle class guy" who is offered no such concession/grant/incentive/freebie?

    Why am I entitled to the fruits of someone else's labor merely by virtue of the fact that he produces (earns) more than I do?

    If you're going to continue to falsely equate higher monetary earnings/value being necessarily due to greater production, then you're utterly hopeless and not worthy of our lengthier paragraphs, Mr. Smaller Word Producer. Heh. :)

  19. [19] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    John M [14]

    Yeah, actually, I figured it out too, just a (lame?) attempt at humor.

  20. [20] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:


    Sorry, there is no way to NOT "equate higher earnings with higher production" (although I would agree to using 'productivity' in place of production if you prefer).

    What criterion do you think the economic system utilizes to set income levels, if not productivity? Let me guess you're gonna say 'greed', right?

  21. [21] 
    Kick wrote:

    Don Harris

    The sooner the conservative supporters here that think they are not conservative because they support the Deathocrat half of the collective delusion come out their delusion, the better.

    I'm going to do you a favor today and explain to you in no uncertain terms that this shit right here is why the author doesn't (and need never) take your fantastical ramblings seriously. Not content with your regular standard operational false equivalency spewage, you're now insisting that the author and his readers are conservatives and prattling on and on about mass delusion.

    , and that makes

    and most likely never will. likely

    Biden is NOT reminding the oligarchy that the system they feed off requires a sacrifice. That is just part of the show and the Deathocrats part of the show is to pretend to be on the side of ordinary citizens to prevent real opposition to the big money interests from gaining any support.

    The 30 plus years of the experiment of choosing between two big money divisions of the same conservative party is what has been a failure for ordinary citizens and an unparalelled success for the oligarchy.

  22. [22] 
    Kick wrote:


    Don Harris

    The sooner the conservative supporters here that think they are not conservative because they support the Deathocrat half of the collective delusion come out their delusion, the better.

    I'm going to do you a favor today and explain to you in no uncertain terms that this shit right here is why the author has stated in the past that he cannot take you seriously. But not content with your regular standard operational false equivalency spewage, you're now upping your ante to suggest that the author and his readers are unwitting conservatives, and you are prattling on and on about mass delusion.

    If this blog is simply a group of unaware conservatives under some sort of mass delusion, that makes you quite the moron for spending years and years trolling this particular venue in order to shill your idea.

    Also, to reiterate:

    Don Harris -

    You're really getting more than a little tedious, my friend. I mean, this isn't exactly the way to convince me your crusade has merit.

    You're "Dems are just as bad as GOPers" and "there's no difference between the parties" refrain continues to ignore relevant facts.

    How many Democrats -- even the "big money Dems" you love to decry -- voted for this bill? Hmmm? If you're right, then a whole bunch of them must have done so, to repay their fatcat donors. I mean, it's your own logic I'm using, here.

    What's that? NONE of them voted for it? Not a one?

    I judge politicians on their records. Talk is cheap, but votes in Congress show their real priorities. Which is why, every Friday, I castigate Dems who stray from the straight and narrow.

    For you, on the other hand, a purity so virgin and crystal-clear that even Saint Francis of Assissi would have been impressed by it is required before you even allow them to assume the mantle of "Democrat."

    Seriously? Please name ONE such Democrat, in real life. Just one. Pure enough for you, in other words, untainted and like unto the driven snow.

    My blog is dedicated to "reality-based politics," not Utopia or some fantasyland where unicorns fart rainbows and the pixies frolic in the meadow. And I believe in both hitting politicians when they err as well as praising them when they do the right thing. For whatever motive, a vote is a vote in Congress. And yet NONE of their votes added to this swamp monster. But that's somehow not remotely good enough for you? Wow.

    Sure, money in politics is a problem. Sure, things could be better. There are indeed ideas for how to achieve these things (many of them, in fact, some more achievable than others). But only the most naive would call for all other politics to essentially come to a grinding halt until such perfection is achieved. You advocate not just a litmus test, but sanctification, it seems.

    Yes, there are differences between Democrats and Republicans. Sure, Democrats don't always walk the walk as well as we'd all like to see. Sure, the Clintons' DLC ruined the party for over a decade, in a lot of ways. But they're struggling to find their way back these days.

    But when they take steps towards that goal, in my opinion, they deserve more than just another heaping helping of scorn. At least, in the real world.

    NO Democrat voted for this swamp monster. So please tell me, how does that fit into your sweeping condemnation of them all? Why, if they truly are bought and paid for, lock, stock, and barrel, did not ONE of them vote to please their Big Money masters?



    [Wednesday, December 20th, 2017 at 23:39]

    Sometimes things need repeating.

    The 30 plus years of the experiment of choosing between two big money divisions of the same conservative party is what has been a failure for ordinary citizens and an unparalelled success for the oligarchy.

    This is indicative of the repetitive mindless drivel wherein you whine incessantly your claims that the parties are the same, and when you're called on it by the author or anyone else, you claim you aren't.

    So to recap: You've correctly identified the problem as delusion; you need only check your mirror for the source.

  23. [23] 
    Kick wrote:

    Don Harris

    You obviously did not get that comment in the way you meant to.

    You are correct. I got called away and returned to find my computer is haunted and posting my unfinished comments on its own.

    Not that it will make difference or make any more sense if you do try again, but please do try as it is entertaining and usually just proves my points by exposing your delusions.

    Two things:

    * While it's a fact that I am magical in many ways, I cannot make stupid people comprehend simple English. It might "make difference" if you "consult dictionary."

    * You have essentially conceded that you're trolling for entertainment... as if that needed any clarification to the regular readers. *can't stop laughing*

    So to recap: Please proceed, governor. :)

  24. [24] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:


    Which Biden policies are conservative? Can you name them?

  25. [25] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    My favourite Biden quote (uttered during some Senate Foreign Relations/Judiciary Committee hearing or other) -

    "I'm not on the left, I'm not on the right, I'm Joe Biden in the middle. Come join me!"

    Of course, that doesn't say anything about whether he's liberal or conservative. Right, left, concervative or liberal seem like tired old terms that don't tell a lot about who or what a politician is.

    Up-wing vs down-wing is a better classification system for these times in which we live, with the up-wing leader having both eyes on the future and all that will be needed to win it!

  26. [26] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Don H [24]

    Re employers wanting to hire the person willing to work for the lowest wage constituting "greed".

    Isn't that a manifestation of the same thing that motivates buyers to buy their car (or their bread beans and potatoes) at the lowest price they can find? I suppose that's, by that definition, also "greed", right?

    And it appears we are not both using the same definition of 'productivity'.

    To measure a person's productivity in terms of quantity of widgets, or lbs of potatoes, has some merit for particular specific purposes, but not in the sense of theoretical economic analysis.

    If widgets or potatoes have no value in the marketplace (a way of saying, they contribute nothing to the welfare of society), it matters not in the least how 'productive' he is unit-wise, in reality he's totally UNproductive.

  27. [27] 
    Kick wrote:

    C. R. Stucki

    Sorry, there is no way to NOT "equate higher earnings with higher production" (although I would agree to using 'productivity' in place of production if you prefer).

    Well, that is at least a good start. But what you do regularly on this board is reiterate the false equivalency that the general principles of economics as applied to the masses as a whole are equally applicable to one individual as compared to another. They're not. An individual is no more productive because he pays more income tax than a company is unproductive because they consistently pay zero income tax, e.g.:

    TAX RATE, 2018-20......COMPANY

    -22.8%.............................Telephone & Data Systems
    ?15.5%.............................Duke Energy
    -11.0%..............................DTE Energy

    Consistent negative effective income tax payment percentages equals shitty production, am I right? Nope, and neither are you.

    What criterion do you think the economic system utilizes to set income levels, if not productivity? Let me guess you're gonna say 'greed', right?

    No. But I do say without doubt that the answer isn't the either/or scenario you seem determined to define it and also isn't constrained to the principles of economics you learned last century... fast forward to 2021, and women are still being paid less than men due to no attributable reason other than gender. This gender pay gap is wider still for women of color, and there is likewise a pay gap between "White" men and those of color that has absolutely nothing to do with production or productivity, which you seem blissfully determined to define "production" in America as a measure of the payment of an individual's income tax.

    Based on your definition -- repeat: your definition -- I could not be any less productive than I am since I'm not on anyone's payroll and earn zero wages, but I can assure you I pay a shit-ton of income tax... all while producing absolutely nothing. In the alternative, if Fatcat CEO manages to negotiate himself a bigger paycheck whether via direct windfall, incremental cash payment, or stock options, he/she doesn't somehow magically become instantly more "productive" nor would he/she become less productive on the day the bull market takes a deep dive or ends. :)

  28. [28] 
    Kick wrote:

    Don Harris

    Biden is a conservative. That is a fact borne out over forty years of Biden in politics.

    Everyone is a conservative on Planet Harris where "unicorns fart rainbows and the pixies frolic in the meadow." CW was quite clear and dead on accurate that there are no Democrats pure enough for you and "untainted and like unto the driven snow." We've known this about you for years... just to state the giant honking obvious.

    So those here supporting Biden are supporting a conservative no matter how much they want to believe they are not conservatives.

    Incorrect and also obviously ignorant.

    You don't get to define other people's choices to fit your desires.

    ~ Don Harris

    One can definitely support a conservative without being one. It's called "picking your opponent." Todd Akin. Good times.

    The only false equivalency is you making the claim of false equivalency.

    Referring to you as "Planet Harris" is indicative that somebody thinks you're out there in the universe all by yourself. Making a claim of false equivalency would require claiming incorrectly that you were the same as someone else; however, I find your particular type of purity fantasy unequalled in its ignorance... so why would I do falsely equate you, the "Planet Harris" with anyone? Rhetorical question.

    No matter how many times I point out that saying the Deathocrats and Republikillers both take big money so in that way they are the same does not mean they are exactly the same in every way. There are differences in the degree of evil- but they are both evil.

    You do realize you meet your own definition of conservative for supporting conservatives, right? Rhetorical question. And those who support this "evil" (your term) are unwitting conservatives whether they are aware of it or not... because Don Harris said so. Yet they must be different degrees of "conservative" since you've made the concession that there are differences in the degree of "evil."

    It does not make me a moron for spending years trying to reach those in the cult.

    I don't think you quite understand that you're already in the cult for supporting Democrats. You meet your own definition of conservative.

    It is the only way to save those that can be or are willing to be saved no matter how long it takes.

    You meet your own definition of evil and fail your own purity test, and that makes you Pure Evil. What kind of moron would believe that Pure Evil could save them?

    /sarcasm off

    The purpose of a comments section is to exchange opinions and ideas. That is not shilling.

    I never accused you of not being ignorant, and I verifiably did suggest you consult a dictionary for concepts you admitted in writing that wouldn't make sense. Also, insisting that a board full of Lefties and Independent voters are unwitting conservatives isn't an opinion, it's just pure unmitigated dipshitting stupidity.

    Shilling is purposely being deceptive as when CW shills for the big money Deathocrats.

    Congratulations. You have now proven:

    You can lead an idiot to a dictionary, but you can't make him think.

    ~ Kick


    Once again you troll with CW's nonsense dodge as if it were somehow an intelligent rational comment. It's not. I responded to that comment by CW and pointed that out but you pretend that did not happen.

    Me not providing your ignorant rebuttal to CW's brilliant and dead-on-accurate summation is in no way equivalent or even indicative whatsoever of pretending it didn't happen. Please deposit a quarter into the slot if you wish to remain living in my head. Actually, don't do that; in no way whatsoever do I wish to become "productive" in the manner that Stucki defines it.

    But that is all you are capable of- trolling and dodging because you can't make a rational argument.

    I didn't dodge you. I made a rational argument, and I followed that up with CW's rational argument that needed repeating because you were exhibiting exactly the type false equivalency that prompted his original comment.

    For whatever reason I cannot fathom, you seemed to have now calculated that doubling down on your original stupid and upping the ante to defining everyone here as a conservative will somehow help your long ago lost cause.

    And you have once again proven my point.

    Only if your point was to prove how ignorant it would be for you to double down on your previous stupidity as if doing that would somehow produce a different response than the one you've already received from CW, which I then nicely quoted for you because you seemed to have forgotten said opinion.

    So to recap: Doubling down on that same purity and false equivalency argument that have previously delivered you nothing beyond the most excellent depiction of you living in a "fantasyland where unicorns fart rainbows and the pixies frolic in the meadow" isn't just stupid, it is exponentially so. :)

  29. [29] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:


    None of that is classically conservative it's just does not meet your personal progressive litmus test.

    But hey, the Utah GOP just labeled Romney a communist. That should be left enough for you. Maybe you should jump ship to his camp...

  30. [30] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Alright, kids - time for another CW Sunday Night Music Festival and Dance Party!

    For me, it might be just a few 'full concerts' or long performances, like this one at the 1989 Montreux Jazz Festival. Enjoy!

    Miles Davis

  31. [31] 
    Kick wrote:

    Don Harris

    If widgets had no value no one would pay money for them and there would be no business or employer or employees.

    I call bullshit on your widgets theory since people buy into things with no value every day. Except for your bullshit, of course; no one is buying that.

    If the employer could deliver the goods or services themselves they would not need to hire employees.

    I denote a learning opportunity here:

    No one is buying the widgets you are attempting to sell from Planet Harris. What do you do? Attempt to draft an "employee" to shill it for you... except without pay. Shitty Widgets 101.

    If an employer can't run a profitable business while paying a living wage for the labor they require to do the work they can't do themselves then they have a business model that does not work and should go out of business.

    How might this apply to the product that Planet Harris is attempting to sell to CW of Weigantia that he quite obviously is unable to sell himself?

    Class dismissed. :)

  32. [32] 
    Kick wrote:

    Don Harris

    Once again just repeating nonsense.

    Well, I do indeed quote Don Harris a lot so that repetitive repeating is rather unavoidable, as he is a one-man echo chamber full up to his eyeballs in nonsensical nonsense.

    Nothing of any substance or rationality worthy of bothering with.

    Said the piffling troll who is indeed back here and most definitely "bothering."

    Don't you get tired of making an ass of yourself?

    Said the Red, trolling a blog full of unwitting "conservatives" attempting to force them to shill for his Bolshevism bullshit.

    ASS dismissed.

    Yes, you actually were; we remember that well:

    [17] Chris Weigant wrote:

    Kick [10] -

    You know what?

    You're right.


    I am, for the first time ever, flashing a yellow card.

    To Don Harris -

    You have now been yellow-carded.

    For the next week (approximately, we'll see how it goes...), you have been frozen out of your account. All I've done (so far) is to change your password.

    This means all you have to do to log in is guess what password I've now assigned to you. Good luck with that.

    I sat down tonight to answer some comments, fully intending to go back over the last few weeks, but you know what? It only took one day's comments for me to tire once again of your endless stream of moosepoop.

    This site is not a public service which allows you to heap abuse upon me and your fellow commenters. It (like Twitter) is a private entity with its own rules. You have absolutely ignored them. You have also ignored all entreaties for you to change your ways, from me and from plenty of others, as Kick points out. So you are now in the penalty box for a week (or so).

    You have a clear choice to make, here. You have three paths to choose from.

    (1) You can change your ways and redefine yourself as a constructive voice here. If you do so, you'll be allowed back into the universe. After one week's penalty, of course. This means not trying to create other usernames or any other spamming techniques, and gracefully re-entering the conversation in a week's time, having seriously changed your ways.

    (2) You can accept that you are not welcome here, and go elsewhere. If you do this gracefully and exit the stage responsibly, then all your previous comments will remain intact on the site's archives, to boost your tilting-at-windmills political philosophy.

    (3) You can continue to be a pest. In this case -- for whatever reason I determine -- then I will simply DELETE YOUR ACCOUNT entirely. This means that EVERY SINGLE COMMENT you've EVER posted here will magically disappear from the archives.

    Call option (3) the "red card," if you will.

    It's up to you, dude. You have been warned more times than I (or Kick, for that matter) can count. You have ignored these warnings. So you are now paying the price. Deal with it and change your ways, and you'll be welcomed back. Continue down the path you've blazed, and you will be completely erased from the memory of this site.

    That is your choice.

    You'll get an email from me in a week's time with a new password you will be able to use to log in again. And from then on you'll still be on VERY thin ice.

    Doing this brings me no pleasure, I should point out. As I have said, this site is now 14 years old and you are THE FIRST commenter who has ever warranted this penalty, which I have been resisting for longer than I can now even remember. But I think everyone else here can fully agree, you have more than deserved it.


    [Wednesday, June 10th, 2020 at 23:32]

    You seem determined to earn that "Red Card" mentioned as Option 3. When it is thrown, we will remember you fondly as that Red who got red-carded. :)

  33. [33] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:


    You seem determined to earn that "Red Card" mentioned as Option 3. When it is thrown, we will remember you fondly as that Red who got red-carded. :)

    Now if we can only get the ref on the field!

  34. [34] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Ah, I'd like to have a few of my comments magically disappear from the archives ... Chris? Kick?

  35. [35] 
    Kick wrote:

    Don Harris

    That just shows how completely out of touch with reality you are.

    Those are real posts by real people, including the author; I simply reposted them, and they are firmly rooted in reality... not something I suspect you'd agree with, obviously, despite the fact that in my estimation it is a dead-on-accurate assessment of your repetitive drivel and spew. The author nails you with surgical precision and impressive pinpoint accuracy. Also: Do I need to keep explaining that quoting your posts is going to automatically inject an air of fantasia?

    You refer to CW's darkest hour as if it were something to be admired when it actually makes his shilling for the big money Deathocrats seem pale in comparison on a scale of decency.

    Decency? You troll and disparage this author near daily, and you deign to lecture anybody on "decency"? Are you just determined to keep insulting him and his readers for their political views and then somehow, some way expect some kind of ultimate fantastical epiphany? You remind me so much of the QAnon nuts awaiting "the storm." Poor Q... tilting at windmills, just like you, Don Q. Heh.

    The author is posting his political views while you drone on and on endlessly twisting dang near his every blog post into the same drivel and spew in advertisement for your views and an insult-a-day toward him, and you're somehow expecting a positive result? Talk about not living in reality!

    As for "shilling," allow me to clear up your seeming constant state of confusion since advising you to consult a dictionary proved to be too much of a heavy lift on your end. It's his blog wherein he posts his own political opinion and his beliefs, and therefore his "shilling" for somebody/anybody would require him promoting or giving credibility to political views with which he does not agree. As a reminder, the author's views regarding your political point of view have been conveniently reposted for your information, and it's accurate.

    Since you're seemingly in a state of ever-present confusion and/or need your nose rubbed in it in order to comprehend what constitutes reality, the author described your views as "tilting at windmills." Since you don't appear to understand the meaning of that phrase, allow me again to assist. "Tilting at windmills" denotes a self-perceived "Don Quixote" -- Don Q! -- who is at battle with imaginary enemies because he perceives them as ferocious and evil giants and whereupon he defeats them, he will then be the recipient of the spoils and glory as a conquering knight. I cannot (can definitely) put my finger on it, but this comparison of Don (you) to the satirical and farcical Don Q fits like a proverbial glove, and CW nails it again.

    Still waiting for the apology, CW, as well as manning up to address One Demand without the dodges that Kick likes to cut and paste out of context.

    Apology? He has nothing to apologize for; you, on the other hand keep insulting him on his own blog as if that will somehow magically produce some ultimate payoff for you... Weigantia's very own trolling Don Q.

    Out of context? Dodges? No one is dodging you. Ignoring you? He stated as much, and when that failed he carded you and banned your ass. Dodging you? Only if simple written English is confusing to you. Oh, right! :)

  36. [36] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    New column up!

Comments for this article are closed.