“Let them eat CAKE!”
Such is the image I get when watching Queen Nancy strolling down the avenue with the huge hammer in hand, laughing all the way to her elitist offices on-the-hill. “Look at all those little people protesting! Let then eat cake!”
Marie Antoinette was reputed to said the above phrase, though slightly different, of course and the ‘cake’ was not exactly the dessert variety you and I have come to be accustomed to. What the Queen is espousing is that ‘cake’ for her and her hooligans, whom are exempt from the so-called ‘laws’ they foist upon the masses, is the ‘dessert variety’, and the ‘cake’ for you and I are the ‘pot scrapings’: At the time that whoever-she-was uttered the infamous quotation “let them eat cake,” the word “cake” did not refer to the familiar dessert item that the modern-day French call le gateau. The operative term was brioche, a flour-and-water paste that was “caked” onto the interiors of the ovens and baking pans of the professional boulangers of the era. (The modern equivalent is the oil-and-flour mixture applied to non-Teflon cake pans.) At the end of the day, the baker would scrape the leavings from his pans and ovens and set them outside the door for the benefit of beggars and scavengers. Thus, the lady in question was simply giving practical, if somewhat flippant, advice to her poor subjects: If one cannot afford the bourgeois bread, he can avail himself of the poor man’s “cake.”
Well, Queen Marie likely threw women under the bus, and this will become clear in time…..what was this ‘hard fought’ victory anyway? Hard fought in her own party, the carrots and sticks were always there but the Dems had to tighten the noose on those ‘mavericks’ before dropping the carrot.
Maybe I am a little befuddled, but I cannot grasp where the ‘hard fought victory’ occurs when one has to buy off the votes of their own party. Pelosi said it truly when she stated that “We need to pass this bill so you can see what’s in it.” A more elitist and bourgeois statement was never made regards a bill the so-called ‘peoples’ representatives had on the dock. Their presumption is breathtaking. Tell me, do you send your ‘representative’ to Washington to step over into ‘Alice in Wonderland’? The fact of the matter is that congress now represents a minority of the American people and that is easy to do when you are going to lost your next election anyway.
With the liberal MSM in cahoots with Obomination and Congress one could not expect to hear any dissent until the ship begins to sink, which by then, will obviously be too late.
Coucy a la merveille: The battle cry of the family Coucy
Their motto:
Roi ne suis,
Ne prince ne duc ne comte aussi:
je suis le sire de Coucy.
Translation:
Not king nor prince,
Duke nor count am I;
I am the Lord of Coucy
For four hundred years, during the Middle Ages, the family Coucy controlled a promontory above the valley Ailette and the greater valley of the Oise; they challenged kings, the church, and married royalty, they fought and controlled their territory and scorned all titles.
I think Queen Nancy of Porn and Perversion should take stock of the common people who oppose her. Perhaps she might read of the family Coucy. It is nearly impossible to stop people who know they are right; and like a wounded Grizzly, once their blood is up, there is Hell to pay.
SKOOKUM mais c’est une tres bonne histoire merci beaucoup… 🙄
And we learn more of the mysterious Bees, Freudian Underwear visible at twelve kilometers, “Ah so”, said Charley Chan.
And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself.
And he said, Who told thee that thou was naked?
Genesis 3:10- 11 😛
That’s a great photo and the one I was referring to! If you look at the lower left, you’ll see he’s actually carrying his handbag! 😛
Looks like the group that just got off the short bus.
These elitists need to be removed systematically as you would any varmint or roach. They are sick beyond repair and have NO CLUE what it means to be a citizen in this country. They make the rules, but don’t have to live by them. Do as I say, not as I do doesn’t even work with children so governing a nation by it is just a flat out bad idea.
Rush was right. We need these bastards OUT…….. 🙄
WTH is with the dude carrying the purse and holding the black mans hand??? OMG….LMAO….they’ve really gone over the cliff now. Can’t wait for November.
Try again there is a lady next to him holding the purse,,,,,,
We know there is a lady next to him holding the handbag, but the point of the whole thing is the visual import……………..
In fairness, it appears that the purse is being carried in the left hand of a woman who is almost completely out of the frame on the left side of the photo.
The appearance of Steny carrying a man-bag was enough for me to dig into the archives for a classic Seinfeld episode.
Roll the tape:
AYE I use to watch that show it is very funny 🙄 bye
Hmmm! When I first saw the picture I thought they must have just won the National Croquet Invitational.
The leftwingers lied about Marie Antoinette two hundred years ago to gain power and foist their statist horror on the people of France, just like their heirs in the democrap party are lying today about the teapartiers, in order to keep and maintain and expand their statist agenda.
An interesting & informative post, Mssr. Esdraeloin, but marred by lamentable lapses in grammar & a number of factual errors. For instance, “who” is the proper subject of subordinate clauses, not “whom”, you should have used “her”, not “their”, in referring to Ms. Pelosi, and the corrrect term is “regarding” rather than “regards”.
On a more substantive note the attribution of the quotation to Marie Antoinette is apocryphal. Rousseau included the phrase in his Confessions, written when Antoinette was only nine years old and it’s likely to have originated even earlier. No genuine famines occurred in France, when she was Queen; and furthermore she was sympathetic to the poor. In a letter to her family, for example, she wrote, “It is quite certain that in seeing the people who treat us so well despite their own misfortune, we are more obliged than ever to work hard for their happiness,” a far cry from “Let them eat cake”! Finally it’s hard to understand the viewpoint of someone like you, who condemns Nancy Pelosi as “elitist” in spite of her steadfast support for vital middle class programs like Medicare and Social Security. I assume that you consider John Boehner and Mitch McConnell, who openly despise these and other New Deal programs, as defenders of the common man. A more absurd contradiction would be hard to imagine. There’s something truly bizarre – even macabre – about someone who vehemently criticizes those who labor on his behalf, while supporting people who miss no opportunity to enrich themselves at his expense.
@AJ Hill:
If you’re going to show up on a blog to criticize someone based on their grammar etc… you’re more likely to be taken seriously if you demonstrate the ability to correctly spell the name of the person you’re criticizing.
Just sayin’.
AJ Hill, you didn’t get it? It’s done with the intent to show you the CONTENT,
IT WAS MADE IN OLD FRENCH ‘S OLD ENGLISH TRANSLATION,
BYE
@ ESDRAELON, good POST for today also.
It’s incredible how FA authors make posts that are living POSTs, always in tune of any day in the future
today august 10 2011
AYE, I could swear the fur coat is the one I purchase at SALVATION ARMY TODAY.
BYE
FYI, Aye, that’s a typo! (Note that “i” and “o” are adjacent keys on QWERTY layouts.) Now, if you want to indict me for inadequate proofing, you might have something, but grammar was only a minor part of my post. My primary theme was the curious parallel between Esdraelon’s unjust (and inaccurate) criticisms of Marie Antoinette and Nancy Pelosi,. I went on to say how baffling it is that right wing adherents, most of whom are solidly in the economic middle class, are such vitriolic critics of Democrats/ liberals, who generally try to benefit the middle class. Beyond that, I find it incomprehensible that so many ostensible Christians seem willing to ignore one of the most beautiful and meaningful passages in the Gospels (that is, in Matthew 25) by supporting a party that celebrates such “goatish” behavior.
AJ Hill,
what is your point to attack one of our RESPECTFUL AUTHOR ?
SO If It’s not the grammar ,
what do you have to come up better from the side you want to protect,
oh you bash the CHRISTIANS TOO, and you think with one quote of the bible will be enough to win your insulting attack on the AUTHOR,
YOU lost this one, you have nothing to show, and we’re not buying
@ilovebeeswarzone: Such touching loyalty!
But I wonder: to whom or what is your revered AUTHOR “respectful”? Did you mean “respected” instead? You see, an adequate command of language makes a difference. I criticize things like bad grammar, because so few people today can speak or write intelligibly, so effective communication becomes almost impossible.
I should point out, by the way, that I did not “attack” Esdraelon. Rather I assailed his ideas and the claims on which they were predicated. Am I to understand that certain contributors to this blog are beyond reproach? That would be an intellectual disgrace!
If I followed his rambling diatribe correctly, Esphaedron accuses Nancy Pelosi of being an elitist (whatever that’s supposed to mean) and compares her to Marie Antoinette, based on something that she probably didn’t say. Is it improper to point out the inaccuracy? Is it wrong to wonder why a member of the middle class would oppose someone who has worked tirelessly on his behalf? You might ask yourself too: what have the Republicans done for me besides enact policies that benefit the wealthy at my expense?
As for Christians, I didn’t “bash” them. I have great respect for genuine Christians, as I do for Christ himself; but I’m unimpressed by those who profess to follow Christ, yet deliberately and contemptuously disregard his most important teaching.
@AJ Hill:
Uhh… I know what it is. Thus, the reason that I pointed out the childishness of your criticisms based on style.
The point that I was making is that if you’re going to dash in and demonstrate that you’re an arrogant, pompous ass then you’d better make sure you’ve got all your details worked out such as spelling and proper paragraph breaks, line spacing, etc. Otherwise, you run the risk of making a complete fool of yourself.
Furthermore, if you’re going to bash people for selectively ignoring the scriptures, might I suggest that you read to find out what the Bible teaches about hunting and fishing and mans’ God given dominion over the earth. You can begin in Acts, specifically Acts 11. In Genesis 9:1-3 it’s made clear that “every moving creature will be food.” Then you can flip back into the New Testament and read about the feeding of the 5,000 and what they ate… Hey! it was fish wasn’t it? And didn’t Christ eat fish (Luke 24:42-43)? Also, didn’t Christ tell Peter where to cast his nets? Why yes, I believe he did.
You can’t pick and choose what you want to believe and then criticize others for whatever you imagine their beliefs to be.
Finally, you don’t anything about the author of this article do you? You don’t know whether the author is a Christian. You don’t know if the author is middle class. You don’t even know whether the author is male or female, although you engage in a series of presumptuous assumptions in order to form footing for your criticisms.
Now, as to your assertion that Christians are ignoring Matthew 25 and engaging in “goatish” behavior, well, that’s just silly and has no basis in reality.
Christians give away vast amounts of their own money and property each and every year around the world in order to reach others who are less fortunate or those who are in need. Look at the relief efforts that were undertaken for the tsunami victims. Or Katrina. Or the Japanese earthquake. Or the tornado in Joplin. How many shoe box gifts does Samaritan’s Purse distribute around the world each year? And the list goes on and on and on.
Christians, and Christian organizations, have always been on the forefront in relief efforts and in charity.
Tell me where in the scriptures it’s declared acceptable for the gov’t to confiscate the wealth of one person in order to give that wealth away to others. You won’t be able to do that because it’s not there.
@Aye: So you know what a typo is. I’m impressed. Then you should also know that there’s a substantial difference between the trivial formatting issues you mention ( like line spacing, forsooth!) and choosing the proper case for nouns and pronouns, which Esdraelon repeatedly fails to do. If you can detect instances where I’ve made similarly egregiious mistakes in grammar or even spelling (as opposed to typos), then you’ll have made a point. Otherwise you’re just being ridiculous.
My critique was directed at Esdraelon’s primary thesis, an invidious comparision of Nancy Pelosi to Marie Antoinette, based on something the latter is presumed to have said about the poor. However, the attribution is apocryphal and the characterization of Marie Antoinette is false, which effectively invalidates Esdraelon’s argument. The remainder of his attack on Ms. Pelosi consists of the usual litany of unsubstantiated slurs that right wingers seem to find so diverting.
If you read my post more carefully, you’ll note that I don’t condemn anyone for selectively ignoring Scripture. Indeed anyone who doesn’t is arguably a lunatic. Do you, for example, endorse the notorious prescriptions for capital punishment in Leviticus and Revelations? As an atheist I find it easy to disregard most of the Bible, which is replete with nonsense and vile immorality (like the sections you cite from Acts.) “Recreational” hunting is a disgusting activity pursued by cruel and repulsive cowards and I couldn’t care less about what the Bible suggests about human domination of the Earth, which is an insane policy leading us ineluctably toward global disaster.
On the other hand the Gospels contain a great deal that’s both profound and beautiful, perhaps none moreso than the Parable of the Sheep and the Goats, which expresses the core of Christ’s teaching better than any other Scripture I know. Do Republicans (among others) routinely ignore those teachings? Undoubtedly (Would Jesus have withheld unemployment benefits from out of work families?) and I have no compunction about calling them on it.
You’re right. I don’t know Esdraelon’s gender, nor do I care, because it’s irrelevant. Since English lacks gender-neutral forms in most cases, I used the default masculine form. Like most modern writers I often use female pronouns too, when I’m in doubt,; but your attempt to make an issue of this is simply idiotic. The same goes for Esdraelon’s religious persuasion, if any, since my remarks about religion were aimed at people in general.
Basically, Aye, you’re out of your depth here, straining to find a basis for criticizing me where none exists. You may not like what I say, but you can’t catch me out on errors that I don’t make.
I’ll respond separately to your last point, Aye, since my previous reply was overlong. Like most right wingers you make the absurd and ahistorical assumption that government is some kind of foreign authority imposed on an unwilling population. That may be true in other countries, but not ours! We created our government in order to accomplish collectively what we can’t do as effectively as individuals. Disagree? Try reading the Declaration of Independence, which explains:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”
Whenever radical conservatives dislike the collective judgment of our democratic republic, they forget Jefferson’s pellucid prose and portray the government as an alien interloper, but that’s just malarkey. I will note that neither Jefferson nor any other Founding Father declared the need for a scriptural basis for the government they brought forth.
Many Christians (as well as others) contribute generously to worthwhile causes – I didn’t assert otherwise – but many Republican Christians demand the right to abstain from suppporting causes or people whom they dislike; and they’re outraged, when the community to which they belong employs the authority of government to compel them. This is infantile, ignorant, and uncivilized behavior and hypocritical as well, since these same people are usually happy to use the power of government in other circumstances.
“Goatish” behavior? Absolutely! Denying unemployment benefits (for which workers have already paid handsomely, I should add), jiggering the tax code to shift revenues from the poor and middle class to the wealthy, attempting to privatize (i.e. coopt and destroy) Medicare and Social Security, using leveraged buyouts to take over companies, cash out (steal) their pension funds and turn their workers onto the street (ala’ Mitt Romney!) … I have no doubt that Jesus would have declared these and other right wing enthusiasms to be goatish in the extreme. If you think otherwise, maybe you should consult the nearest priest or minister for a refresher course.
Hill: Quite frankly, I had forgotten this article, but since you presume to use it as a soapbox for absurd ‘ramblings’ of your own, it is now brought to mind again.
I am a bit busy just now, however, rest assured you will get a response.
And may I note that, for some time, I have been under the impression that there are no longer any ‘liberals’, they have renamed themselves ‘progressives’. If you care to note, those burning down and looting London call themselves ‘progressives’ also, and I am certain you will put yourself in the thick of it when those flash mobs in Philadelphia start to branch out. Nothing enrages a ‘progressive’ on the government dole more than when those people actually paying the taxes for your handouts and easy money say ENOUGH!
And maybe you don’t like my style, but I guarantee you will have no problem understanding what I am saying.
Esd
AJ Hill,
you’re stuck on grammar, while the content elude you,
that is a lack of brain function ,that led you to insult and diminish other people you don’t agree with,
and what you type in long empty pages, could be resume in one line,
you are an grammaniac, and fail to see the destruction of you party,
which try to regain their power by insulting and blaming other, which happen to be the good AMERICANS
LIVING IN THE SAME AMERICA, as you and are exposing the destructive use of the one in power,
demanding a change of behavior abused and a stop of abuse on the working people,
demanding a stop to spread the hate and division on this NATION ,
you have a lot more to assail on your side of the medal
you fail to see the straw on you’re eyes and arrogantly come here to focus on a hair
get going to clean up on your side, you have a long task ahead, then we will see if you have gain weight on your messages. but right now they count as empty words.
and even with the grammar don’t reach the audience.
@AJ Hill:
Haven’t attempted to “catch you out” on errors that you haven’t made. What I’ve done is point out that if you’re going to attempt, however unsuccessfully, to place yourself in a position where you wish to judge and cast stones at others then you should be prepared to endure your own standards.
I won’t bother to point out the multiple typos in your most recent posts, but they’re there. At least you’re consistent on that part.
Now to the rest of your scribbling. Let’s see who is out of his depth:
You really should scroll back up to the main body of the post and read what Esdraelon had to say. It was made clear that the now headless queen was “reputed” to have made that statement.
Thus the basis of your argument is not really an argument at all but instead an agreement with the author on that point.
Really? You point to people who you presume to be Christian and then accuse them of ignoring what you claim to be the “most important” teaching of Christ.
Of course, you have no evidence whatsoever that Christ espoused gov’t involvement in charity, etc.
Nor do you have any evidence whatsoever that the Founders espoused gov’t involvement in charity, etc.
You also cannot point out any particular instance in which the politicians whom you wish to point fingers at have ignored this “most important” teaching in their personal lives.
Basically, you’ve constructed a straw man argument and I’ve torched it for you.
It’s really not my job to judge the mind of God or His concepts of what justice entails.
I will tell you this though. If you, as an atheist, don’t understand the Bible and the teachings contained therein then I would suggest you study up on the topic in order to better yourself and your own understanding prior to pointing fingers or casting aspersions on others based on what you don’t understand.
Specifically, you should study what the Bible teaches about the nature of God as well as the relationship between Old Testament teachings and the new covenant established by Christ.
Well, there you go picking and choosing the things you like and don’t like again. How is your behavior any different from those you wish to criticize? Oh, that’s right. It’s not.
You whine about “vile immorality” based on what? You’ve already said you’re an atheist. You’ve already said you find it easy to “disregard most of the Bible.” So if you’re godless, and you disregard inconvenient, or uncomfortable, teachings then what are you basing your morality on?
If you find recreational hunting to be a “disgusting activity” then I humbly suggest that you not go hunting.
And, of course, there’s no “vile immorality” in the portion of Acts that I cited. Why are you choosing to be dishonest?
Well, therein lies part of your problem. You’re making assumptions about “people in general” and then holding them to Christian standards. How does that work exactly?
The Founders of this country believed that gov’t should have the consent of the governed.
The photograph, and the genesis of this post, are both directly related to the passage of the health care bill. Hundreds of thousands of people assembled around the country to protest its’ passage. Public opinion during the debate was opposed to the bill.
Even now, public opinion remains dramatically against this legislation. A federal court has declared it unconstitutional.
Yet, the gov’t imposes it nonetheless.
So, yes, in this particular instance this authority is being “imposed on an unwilling population.”
Which is why, of course, you’ve gone on and on judging politicians for not governing based on scriptural standards right?
In addition, you’re far from the mark when it comes to what the Founders, and Jefferson specifically, believed about the power of gov’t and the cautionary approach they took to keep that power carefully harnessed.
Republicans didn’t withhold unemployment benefits. They simply demanded that the Dims live by their own self stated PAYGO rules. The Dims, of course, have never been able to live by their own standards. They just spend, spend, spend like there’s no tomorrow.
There are only three states in which workers pay anything at all for unemployment benefits. Even in those states, their contributions are very minimal. If you’re going to pontificate on a topic, it’s always good to have an effective working knowledge of it.
Oh, wait…I thought you said that the Founders didn’t prescribe a scriptural foundation for our gov’t.
There you go arguing with yourself again.
You can’t, on one hand, say that there is no scriptural foundation for our gov’t and then turn around and criticize politicians for not governing on a scriptural basis.
Oh, you mean the way the tax burden has shifted to the upper income brackets as the tax code has been jiggered? Are you pointing out the fact that the lower 50% of income brackets pay practically zero in income taxes?
Are those facts the ones that you are pointing to?
Both Medicare and Social Security are on a path that will lead them to fiscal destruction, pulling this nation into the abyss along with them if nothing is done.
No one is attempting to “coopt and destroy” either of these programs. That’s nothing more than a weak attempt to demagogue the issue.
There are serious proposals on the table which will stabilize them and allow them to exist in a somewhat altered form into the future.
I will ask you this question though: Why shouldn’t the American people have the right to control and invest a portion of their own money rather than entrusting it to a gov’t that has proven that they cannot be trusted to not steal it for purposes that it was never intended for?
Sort of like how the bondholders got screwed over when the gov’t took over GM, eh?
Of course, you likely have no problem with that one.
@ilovebeeswarzone: Sigh! I’m going to assume charitably that English is a (distant) second language for you; but either way your post is an incomprehensible muddle. If you are capable of coherent thought, you’re completely incapable of expressing it in English and I have neither time nor inclination to translate the mess.
AYE,
this is a proof of what the schools teachers which where impose new rules to equalyse the system of education on an even margin,
making those who cannot or will not try to learn get the same chance to pass their miserable test, no matter what they study or not, as oppose to the brilliant students which are loosing the need to compete
and are no more driven to be the top, which render them on the same level of mediocrity ,
then you see them wandering the blogs to assail the other with the only thing they know,
that is GRAMMAR, they shove on the AUTHORS OF SMART POSTS, and other commenters, just as AJ Hill is doing here
AND SHOWING THEIR ARROGANCE IN TRYING TO EXPLAIN THAT POST WHICH THEY IGNORANTLY FAILED TO UNDERSTAND.
they have not learned to perceive the message
deep in the text, because they haven’t learned to use their intellect; UNFORTUNATLY some will end up in GOVERNMENT JOBS demanding deeper thoughts and best judgement they don’t have,and will become the pest of
a smart society, suffering from their decisions consequences,
ending up in a miserable ignorant leadership.
but knowing their GRAMMAR, YES SIR
@Esdraelon: Your “style”, as you put it, doesn’t concern me. Your sloppiness with the language does as well as your carelessness with facts. The London riots are a sad spectacle, as are the radical conservative provocations that have led to them. I’m not a proponent of violence, so your jibes on that score mean nothing. I also don’t put any stock in labels, although, like most right wingers, you seem pathetically fixated on them. You’re also sadly misinformed about the entitlement programs that you detest so much. You’re aware, I assume, that unemployment insurance premiums are paid from employees’ wages. So are social security benefits, which means your implication that recipients are somehow receiving an unjustified largesse from “taxpayers” is unfounded. In fact middle class and poor workers contribute more to Social Security than wealthy people, whose FICA withholding is capped at an income of $106K. You needn’t bother to suggest that I have any personal interest in entitlement programs. I’ve been retired on a comfortable six figure income for fifteen years, and I’m still not drawing Social Security benefits.
I look forward to reading your rejoinder (as soon as your busy schedule allows) but I hope you can produce something more impressive and interesting than sophomoric ad hominems and unsupported right wing talking points from Rush Limbaugh’s webpage. It would be nice to have a challenge.
AJ Hill, I don’t have time either, but I will take this time to tell you that you should not feel humiliate because you don’t understand a comment or a POST.
YOU ARE NOT ALONE in that lack of intelligence power to understand what is outside you’re reality,
much of it has been programed by nefarious MEDIA which cover a failed party of abnormal big spenders of AMERICAN’S MONEY,
and the arrogant one are the most know it all persona that will sink with the ship,
@Aye:
Esdraelon may have recognized that the attribution of that statement to Antoinette was questionable, but that didn’t stop him from claiming without proof that “Queen Marie likely threw women under the bus … “ and using both these weak reeds to prop up his attack on Nancy Pelosi. It’s a poor excuse for a polemic and, no, I don’t agree with him.
Where do I assert that Christ espoused government involvement in charity or that any of the Founders did? Such claims appear nowhere in my post. However, now that you mention it, you’re dead wrong about the Founders. Thomas Jefferson included in the Virginia State Constitution a provision that young men coming of age be given fifty acres of land (by the State!) in order to help those who were too poor to afford property get started in life. In his last great pamphlet, called Agrarian Justice, Thomas Paine provided a detailed outline of a system of government run charity financed by a federal bank with income derived from inheritance and other taxes. Paine’s system is remarkably like our current Social Security program. Look it up and broaden your mind. Paine and Jefferson weren’t alone in their beliefs. The Founders were a liberal bunch in spite of what Glenn Beck says.
Having read the Bible twice through in my youth, I concluded there was nothing much to learn from it. It’s not that I don’t understand the contents, which were written by a bunch of primitives nearly two thousand years ago. Most of it’s just hogwash. The Gospels and some of the Psalms have something to offer; the rest is merely Jewish history larded over with a bunch of bronze age superstition. You may consider this worthwhile, I find it a collosal waste of time. For the second time, I don’t criticize people for using discretion in judging the Bible; in fact, I state explicitly that this is the only rational approach to take. You need to read more carefully. As to atheism and morality, only a supremely naïve and ignorant person believes that these are antithetical. Many of history’s great men have been atheists, like Albert Einstein, Ben Franklin, Abraham Lincoln ….
I’ve got to skip ahead. There’s too much BS in your post to cover it all. Prior to the passage of the healthcare bill more than 70% of Americans responded in favor of government sponsored healthcare. You’re right though: after its passage a majority stated that they disliked Obama’s bill, but Fox News didn’t give you the complete story on that. When asked in follow-up why they disliked the bill, most respondents stated that it didn’t go far enough! Taken altogether a significant majority of Americans either approved of the healthcare bill or believed that it wasn’t aggressive enough. You really need to look beyond the simple bullet points.
I never recommend governing from a scriptural basis. I criticize self avowed Christians for not following Christ’s precepts. You keep injecting things that I simply don’t say, which means either that you don’t understand plain English or that you’re lying to annoy me. Well you’ve succeeded; debating with an idiot is definitely frustrating, but I’ll tackle a couple more issues. You trot out the stale chestnut about lower income people paying no income tax. Well, that’s because they have so little money, they can’t afford to pay it. However income tax contributes only 40% of federal tax revenue. The other 60% comes from FICA taxes and federal sales and excise taxes, which fall much more heavily on the poor and middle class than on the wealthy. As a result, the United States has the highest level of income and wealth inequality among all industrialized nations.
If you believe that the Republican schemes to take over Medicare and Social Security are well intentioned, you’re a bigger fool than I thought. The Republicans want to privatize these programs, turning them over to the bankers and stock brokers who nearly destroyed the country’s economy. They also want to convert Medicare to a voucher program, giving elderly people a few thousand bucks to pay for private healthcare policies that typically cost triple that amount and denying any cost of living increases, which means that buying those policies will become increasingly difficult with time. The diversion of the Social Security trust fund (which was initiated by Ronald Reagan!) is a travesty and should be abolished, but that’s not a valid critique of the program itself, which should have a more than $2 trillion surplus. Added to that, if the cap on FICA withholding were eliminated, the Social Security program would be more than fully funded forever. That’s not “demagoguing”; those are facts.
You did catch me in one error. Federal unemployment taxes are paid by employers – 6.2% on the first $7000 of workers’ wages – with supplementary federal support during extended periods of unemployment. One could argue that these contributions are considered to be part of workers’ pay by employers, but that’s a debatable point. I was misinformed and I’m grateful for the correction. That’s one of the benefits of debating issues, although you don’t seem to recognize it.
Last item and then I’m done with you. Do I have a problem that the GM bondholders weren’t given priority, as they are in legal bankruptcies? No I do not. You’re right about that. Most of those bondholders could afford the loss. (If they couldn’t, they had no business getting into the investment game without covering their potential losses.) but the millions of middle class working men and women who would have been jobless, if GM had gone under, would definitely not have been okay – and my sympathies lie with them. Yours would too, if you hadn’t drunk so much right wing KoolAid. Why would you care about rich bondholders rather than workers? You’re not in the bondholder class, I guarantee it. You’re neither sophisticated nor well informed enough to belong to the fraternity of wealth. My guess is you’re just another working stiff (highschool graduate?) who doesn’t know enough to oppose the corporatists and plutocrats who are sucking the life out of the country. Do you imagine you’ll be one of those rich sobs one day? Is that why you inveigh against people, like Nancy Pelosi, who support working class folk and try to give them a decent break? Do you know that nearly twenty percent of Americans believe they’re in the top one percent and another twenty percent believe they soon will be? That’s forty percent, a tight squeeze and a truly pathetic delusion! I’m worth a couple of million bucks and haven’t had to work for nearly fifteen years; but I have a better sense of priorities than you do. Why is that, Aye? What led you to sell your soul for such a pittance?
AJ hill,
wow, I bet that after this comment, you are crying of emotions
all alone in you’re corner, and IT’S time for you to write a check to the GOVERNMENT to redistribute you’re wealthty MILLIONS TO THE POORS,
TELL THEM SPECIFICLY NOT TO TAKE A PENNY FROM IT,
or charge a fee to the poor which they will give it to.
as JESUS SAID; GIVE YOU’RE MONEY TO THE POOR AND FOLLOW ME.
just returning you’re previous arrogance back
@AJ Hill:
I only have a few couple of minutes available right now so I’m only going to hit one high spot in your most recent post:
You should read more carefully. I never said that atheism and morality are antithetical. I did, however, ask what your morality is based on.
Read slowly and carefully.
Really now? Albert Einstein was an atheist? Are you sure? Here’s what Al had to say:
Pretty clear and unequivocal, eh?
In fact, Einstein was very clear about how he felt about being quoted by atheists in support of atheistic views:
Ben Franklin was an atheist? I’m sure that would be news to him. Here’s just one of many things he had to say about his beliefs:
Abraham Lincoln is included in your list too?
Man, you whiffed that one big time.
And there’s much more in your post that you missed by a country mile as well but I’ll have to save that part for later.
Hill: For the matter, Bee espouses far more intelligence than the likes of you, who with your Pollyanna perspective and rose colored glasses, does not have a clue. You are simply a troll using flash point wording in your attempts to elicit emotional responses. After looking over your last rambling diatribe, branching off onto subjects not even mentioned in the post you claim to be responding to, I am taking a pass. Aye has done far more to chew you up and spit you out that I ever could and as I stated, I am quite busy, which is why it has been some time since I posted here.
Ad hominem? As usual, its only ad hominem when it comes from others. You have royally besmirched the character of every person who has responded to your drivel here, but unfortunately, it increases your value only in your own eyes. Coming up against inflation such as yours is a sure guarantee of amusement. You’ve provided your amusement, now I’m certain there are plenty of rocks around……
@Aye: Two things, Aye: First, I owe you an apology. I shouldn’t have called you an idiot. You seemed to be trying to make me angry by repeatedly misconstruing what I said and, if that was the casxe, you succeeded. Sorry, nevertheless, for the gratuitous insult. I should be less abrasive. This website is head and shoulders above Townhall, where all anyone posts are hysterical insults, when they’re contradicted. Here at least you attempt to argue the facts, sometimes successfully.
Regarding religion you wrote this:
“You whine about “vile immorality” based on what? You’ve already said you’re an atheist. You’ve already said you find it easy to “disregard most of the Bible.” So if you’re godless, and you disregard inconvenient, or uncomfortable, teachings then what are you basing your morality on?”
It would be hard to imagine a clearer implication that I have no basis for my morality, which means you must read very little philosophy. It also means that once again you didn’t read my post with any care or clarity. I stated quite plainly that I admire the Gospels and the moral teachings of Jesus, although I regard the remainder of the Bible as mostly garbage. If you prefer to accept it all uncritically,. that’s your business; but I’ve spent a lifetime (longer than you’ve been alive, I warrant) constructing my own ethics using as many sources as I could find, including in addition to the Christian Gospels, Humanism, Unitarianism, natural science, and the writings of Santayana, Diderot, Chomsky, Hume and others. I’ll match mine any day against a rote superstition dropped down from some Sugar Daddy in the Sky!
I was mistaken to claim Franklin and Lincoln as atheists. They just weren’t Christians. Neither was Jefferson for that matter. As for Einstein, I’ve read a great deal of his writings, many of them in the original German and he was indeed an atheist, even if he found the term uncomfortable. Einstein implied at one point that he subscribed to “Spinoza’s God:, but Spinoza was a Pantheist, a doctrine which Einstein specifically disavowed. In fact, his views were subtle, often contradictory, and he struggled throughout his life to give them adequate expression. When you read him carefully, he professed a devout faith in only one thing: a universal order that is accessible to man’s understanding. This profound belief is essentially the credo of science, not a religion. You’ll have to take a draw on this one.
@ilovebeeswarzone: Good grief! Your posts are nothing but “word salad”. Look the phrase up. And by all means enroll in an English class. You really need it!
@Esdraelon: Now that I’ve read another of your posts, I couldn’t care less, whether you respond again or not. The execrable grammar and inelegant style in your original post was clearly no accident. Basically you just don’t know how to write.. Aye’s much better in this respect than you and I’m beginning to see he’s a more effective debater too. You’re more like the brain dead folk on Townhall.com who substitute billingsgate for substance. By all means get back to your pressing business. I won’t miss you.
AJ Hill, there you are again attacking the AUTHOR, you are used to roam the blogs under class with the mob, that’s why you started the attack as you enter,
but you will learn that this FLOPPING ACES IS from an upper standard then the gutter you come from,
we don’t attack our AUTHOR HERE, we respect them highly because they serve us a nice dinner and we like the food for our brain here, we don’t spit it out like animal are on some liberal blogs you visit.
so you must behave and mind your manner in this place, as a new visit,
then you will enjoy the debate a lot better, than your attitude of now.
you apologize to AYE,
and you should apologize to the AUTHOR even more so.
that would be showing CLASS, and you said ,you where going to be less abrasive,
@ilovebeeswarzone: Youe seem to know a lot about me and the websites I frequent., So, let’s do a little exercise in intellectual honesty. Which “liberal” websites do you visit and how often? What examples can you give of the animal” behavior that you claim takes place there? Please be specific. You see, I contend that you don’t read anything except the talking points on right wing websites and that you don’t know anything about liberals, their values, or their ideas.. You’re just blowing smoke out of your rear. But, go ahead; prove me wrong!
AJ Hill,
how poor you are about the right wing, those who have a word you can trust are right here and operating very useful blog for the people of this AMERICA
the CONSERVATIVES DON’T SPREAD LIES AND HATE FEELINGS, It only come from the left wing to do it AGAINST ANYTHING THEY CAN THINK OF TO TRY TO DIVIDE THIS COUNTRY INTO DIFFERENT UNITS,
to be used separatly, the solid values are there, right here where you are; they don’t need
media’s propaganda,affiliate with the liberals lies
if they would tell the truth ,don’t you think they would need the propaganda to convince
the people, that should tell you a lot of their VALUES RIGHT THERE.
do you think that you need someone to prepare you’re speech for you, if you are telling what’s in you’re gutts’s feeling, that’s the real transparency, for a leader to come in front of an audience made of all people not selected ones who agree already, but the real people who sweat to send their taxes
to be spread WITHIN a multitude of agencys and subagency and sub sub agency, on the payroll of GOVERNMENT NEVER ENDING THEIR NEED TO SPEND THE MONEY OF THE PEOPLE.
and why should I give you my source on those libs blogs, you just have to find them yourself
they are very easy to find, just get to work at it,
I called your bluff and you failed, as I expected. You know nothing about liberals, can’t name a single liberal website, can’t even enunciate conservative talking points clearly, much less the liberal policies and positions you presume to criticize. At first I thought you might be a recent immigrant, for whom English is a second language, because your posts are so incoherent and poorly written, but that’s no excuse. Any immigrant of normal intelligence, whether Moslem, Oriental, Hispanic … whatever, would have a better command of English than you do.. Basically you’re just unintelligent. Even that would be okay, if you knew enough to shut up and remain civil,, but you don’t. You’re like one of those nasty, loud mouthed little dogs that run out of people’s houses to bark at strangers and bite at their ankles – annoying, but otherwise a waste of time.
AJ Hill,
hi, yep,,, that’s exactly what I think about you,
you’re grammar is better suited to express your own profile,
but I don’t need so much words as you do.just to say that you’re an arrogant lib, same as the other who sometimes come to trash and bully their way in attacking the smart people,
because that’s who they are,” bulley’s bulshither” that is a new word ,I just create for you’re GRAMMAR
@AJ Hill:
To be quite honest with you receiving insults from people who don’t matter doesn’t matter. You have some sort of value or significance in order for your opinion of me to be a blip on my radar.
Did you not see the question marks there? (That’s the curvaceous punctuation mark with the dot underneath that occurs at the end.) Your defensive response not withstanding, what I posed to you were questions. Nothing more. Nothing less.
Well, let’s see what we have here. On one hand we have Einstein clearly stating the he was NOT an atheist. His words were unequivocal.
On the other hand, we have an Interwebz commenter extraordinaire with an overgrown sense of his own opinion and ability to interpret the beliefs of others.
Hmmm…. which to choose?
Since you’ve been repeatedly proven wrong I think I will go with what Al had to say because, after all, you’ve already proven that you’re no Einstein.
@AJ Hill:
Sigh. Let’s begin at the beginning and see if I can draw you along slowly and carefully. This will be as close as I can get to the crayon drawing that you seem to need so read at a comfortable pace and repeat as needed.
First you criticize Republican Christian politicians for what you deem to be “goatish” behavior, thereby attempting to apply to politicians the standards established by Christ in Matthew 25.
Then you claim that you never “recommend governing from a scriptural basis” but you “criticize self avowed Christians for not following Christ’s precepts.”
Beyond arguing with yourself, you have three problems here:
1) Matthew 25 was not based on gov’t, but rather, personal involvement.
2) You have no evidence that the politicians you choose to criticize are not following Christ’s precepts in their personal lives which is what Matthew 25 was all about.
3) There is no evidence that the Founders ever intended for gov’t to be involved in charity. Quite the opposite is true actually.
Actually, that’s incorrect on two counts. First, it was a draft of the VA constitution that was rejected. Second, Jefferson’s idea for land ownership idea was not at all related to charity but rather to the right of suffrage since land ownership was a prerequisite to voting rights.
As a side note, this idea would also not constitute redistribution because Jefferson specifically referred to unclaimed or forfeited land rather than taking from one to give to another.
Incorrect.
Paine specifically stated multiple times that he was advocating for a right, not charity. Paine also made clear that the proposed payments would be distributed equally to both rich and poor. Hardly a charitable approach.
Finally, the plan that Paine proposed was not written with America in mind. It was actually written and directed toward France.
Go back and re-read what Paine had to say because you are woefully inaccurate in what you’re representing here. Look it up and broaden your mind.
Citation please.
Citation please.
It’s a little matter called the “rule of law.” We are a nation of laws, not of men. Our founding documents guarantee equal protection and equal justice regardless of socioeconomic standing. One cannot enforce or disregard the law as it suits their purposes. That is a distinctly un-American idea.
The bondholders had legal rights that were trounced upon and you’re perfectly fine with that. That speaks volumes about you.
Aye, I remember reading of a problem in Mexico that had caused dissension in the modern age of communication a few decades ago. Two cities were boasting of a cultural attraction: each city had the skull of Pancho Villa encased in a glass display case. Rightly or wrongly, Pancho is a cultural hero in Mexico and eventually, people began to ask about the implausibility of the two skulls of Pancho.
A committee from the university, made up of men of letters and science was convened to determine which skull was actually that of Pancho. The skulls were moved to the university for the deliberation and analysis.
It was obvious that one of the skulls was considerably larger, but other than that, there was only the legend concerning each particular town.
With Mexican aplomb and diplomacy and characterizing a Mexican standoff, the committee was able to determine that both skulls were indeed those of Pancho: the smaller skull was Pancho as a younger man and the larger skull was Pancho as a more mature man. Thus the riddle was solved; at least, to the satisfaction of an illiterate compaesano and the more astute Mexicans with a sense of humor.
Hill is trying to use the Mexican committee system to create a Mexican standoff. It is humorous if you don’t take his aphorisms and braggadocio seriously. His self-characterization of a Falstaff man of letters is designed to invoke the protasis of an intellectual creating a false and condescending pathos by taking the time to deal with us lesser mortals; the humor is within the devises he employs in his pompous and periphrastic word patterns that take paralipsis to the level of a master of the craft.
Thus he has set his symbolic protagonist upon the sands of the arena of ideas, armed with an arrogance of spirit and an anemic epiplexis style; a style that is polished on the surface, but forged from inferior materials.
Those that he wanted so desperately to impress can only be amused and feel pity rather than respect for the ambiguous and dubious Hill. A more appropriate aptronym might well be bog or mud as we visualize the bewildered Hill crying out Antony’s desperate plea in Julius Caesar, “O Judgement! thou art fled to brutish beasts…”
Hill has at least provided humor with his oafish arrogance and condescension, for that we should be grateful.
Skookum: As usual, you are spot on.
Aye: Good job, I simply did not have the patience with this joker. I was tempted though..:-)
Bee: Pay no attention to that liberal cretin (actually that’s redundant, but will give another example of my ‘inelegant’ writing.) You’ve done an excellent job calling him to task.
Thanks, Folks, and as we all know: When you’ve seen one liberal, you’ve seen them all. There is nothing new under the sun on the left. Absolutely nothing.
@Aye: For want of time amid a deluge of abusive posts, I’ll have to hit the high spots and let the rest go. You share the general tendency to grasp desperately for any lapse and then inflate your imagined coup beyond any reasonable ambit. By trying too hard you make silly mistakes. To whit:
(1) As an atheist I put no stock in religion, nor do I endorse the application of specifric scriptural precepts to governance; the Bible is replete with monstrous edicts. However Christ was an extraordinary moral philosopher and I do expect any professed Christian to apply his teachings to all aspects of life. You can’t find a contradiction, when I make no distinction.
(2) Do you suggest that the legislature’s rejection of Jefferson’s draft proves he didn’t mean it, when he wrote it? I noted that the land grants were intended to give young men a start, when they came of age. Whether this was related to voting rights or any other advantage of land ownership is irrelevant.
(3) There’s something wierdly pathological about right winger’s fixation on “charity”. There are many other applications of social support than outright charity, but all you jokers seem to see is that one, probably because you consider it to be discreditable. You’re so shallow! Did Paine’s proposal include support for both rich and poor? Well, so does our modern version of Social Security, which pays benefits to Bill Gates (if he wants them) as well as the poorest ghetto dweller. So what? Once again you’re left limping along without a valid point. Maybe, if you weren’t so pathetically desperate …
What a cacophonous concoction of BS this turns out to be. For anyone to consider either Medicare or Social Security as a program that benefits the middle class, you have to buy into the idiocy that paying in advance for a health insurance package you can’t benefit from until your 65 is a wise move. Nor a package that, when you do qualify, will offer anything in benefits that may fit your desires or financial capacity.
It becomes even more absurd to pass over SS FICA taxes to the government in return for a 3% possible return… again only if you reach retirement age. Nor are said benefits transferrable to heirs but in the most limited of conditions. Love to see a financial consultant sell that bill of goods to a paying customer. Likely be arrested as a predator.
An individual would financially benefit more investing his own, making not only a larger windfall that he/she can immediately enjoy, and spend whatever way he wants, and can also be left to chosen heirs.
SS was a tax scam to be used for a Congressional piggy bank for spending on other than SS benefits from it’s inception. Nor was it a popular measure with the public at the time.
And only a fool would willingly choose to pay money for an insurance plan that they cannot use immediately, and unknown benefits when they are able to use it. Thus the reason it had to be a government mandate.
Both of these programs are a detriment to middle class growth, topped with the insult a central government can better invest/handle the taxpayers money than the individuals can do on their own. I doth believe the gross mismanagement of the taxpayer funds is more than evident today… the bulk of which are directly traceable to these two programs specifically.
Then, of course, there’s the deliberate lib/prog spin about a very necessary reform of both Medicare and SS. Those on, or near retirement age, would experience little if no difference. The young could avail themselves of the more profitable options by having a say in how their investments are handled, not to mention have the option of picking an heir who is not the central government.
It becomes obvious that the lib/prog mentality is incapable of long term vision, since they would have foreseen that the mandated entitlement programs, as implemented, would lead us to this day. To that same end, I find it amazing those still beating the dead horse, glorifying these entitlement programs, care not that the historic birthrates in the US portend young generations, supporting the older generations (the ol’ rob Peter to pay Paul scenario), will be doomed to the same runaway debt after boomers are gone. This is exacerbated when you consider the economic climate is not friendly to increased earning capacity in the foreseeable future.
Let’s see how long it takes AJ to run away from this thread like he did the other one.
BTW AJ, you still haven’t addressed my last two posts from the “rich” thread. Can’t find a way to lie or spin your way out, huh?
@Skookum: You deserve credit for consulting a dictionary if nothing else; (actually a thesaurus, I suspect); but there’s more to good writing than larding your prose with arcane verbiage. It requires pace, balance and sensitivity to the cadences of the language. You lack these, which turned your post into a lurching, awkward, sophomoric exercise. I’ll give you a C for effort … and for creativity. If you knew how to write worth a d_mn, it could have been quite good.