A Simple Conscience

Confronting Socialists with Facts & Logic; Extremists with Scorn
NOVEMBER 16, 2012 3:10PM

Congratulations On the OS Boycott!

Rate: 6 Flag


OSers are mostly a socialist and progressive lot.  As such, they often reason and act as if they have no understanding of free-markets, free-enterprise, and businesses as largely self-regulating, cost-efficient institutions. 


To accomplish this, they must argue from emotional, subjective grounds.  They must ignore common sense, logic, facts, and history.  Because change is what most Liberals actively seek, they generally treat the Constitution as a list of suggestions in order to remove it as an impediment to National Socialism.   


Bye Bye Ms. Open Salon!!!! 


Indeed, this chattering class seems blissfully unaware how their constant calls for more government result in the increased forcible takings that invariably accompany such demands.  They can't, or don't, forsee that larger governmental takings in the socialist effort to feed the hungry reduce the ability of many taxpayers to feed themselves.  Their misplaced empathy overlooks how the involuntary contributions of taxpayers to subsidize the housing of those who would claim to be otherwise homeless reduce the ability of the givers to make their own mortgage or rent payments.  It doesn't occur to them that taking from workers to provide the retirement benefits of non-workers often robs the workers of any ability to provide for their own retirements.  The list of such hypocrisies is practically endless. 


Further, it's no wonder OSers are largely poor.  They often seem to be the beneficiaries of multiple, but stingy, governmental benefits, so well funded by the rich, whom they despise.  One cannot blame either class for voting for their own interests. 


OSers cannot see that the rich are the charitable ones, since government, largely funded by the wealthy, spends its entire, annual, $2.2 trillion, revenue stream on welfare entitlement programs alone, while having to borrow, every year, the $1.4 trillion it spends on everything else, including our military ($800 billion).  In spite of the fact that we spend $3 at the national level taking care of the many unfortunate beneficiaries of government welfare for every $1 we spend on our military, the logic of the OS class is, of course, that we need to reduce military spending and enlarge welfare spending. 


Nothing has brought this inanity to the fore more than the recent suggestion that Arizona taxpayers, for example, should object to their national tax dollars continually being used to rebuild the houses of those who remain vulnerable to hurricanes on the east coast.  After all, nobody on the east coast is similarly obligated to subsidize the electric bills of Phoenicians during the annually recurring weather conditions of the Sonoran Desert summers.  What "logic" works one way, apparently, does not work the other.  


Yet, to their credit, those who populate this site, seeking the Socialist Nirvana, understand what every business needs – customers.  In boycotting OS, they hope that they may deprive their non-functional, but highly cherished, forum of exactly what it needs to continue as it has.  Truthfully, thus sank Air America. 


There isn’t any doubt that OS deserves their scorn.  Just like any governmental welfare program, it is a wonderful concept, implemented with a great deal of incompetence.  In this case, the incompetence is technical.  However, that hardly matters. 


What matters here is that all businesses die without customers.  While OS deserves this chain yank, and, if found unresponsive, its inevitable demise, I am certain that most OSers still find security in the fact that no government welfare program will ever be short of beneficiaries.  For those who think as I do, however, such welfare programs will all die, to one degree or the other, in the forthcoming American bankruptcy. 


It just astounds me that OSers did not call upon the national government to regulate OS into well being.  I am flabbergasted that OSers did not call upon taxpayers to buy OS new and better computer hardware and software. 


Instead, OSers chose a self-regulating market mechanism to force OS compliance with customer needs and demands without involving government.  OSers are 'voting with their feet'. 


This is truly, truly, truly amazing.  The boycotters probably don't understand how their embargo mocks the current and hugely excessive regulation of our capitalist system that they so willingly embrace. 


So, while I recognize, appreciate, and congratulate the wisdom associated with the well-deserved OS boycott, I will never cease to be amazed that such economic insight on the part of OSers never extended to other parts of our wealth creation systems.  


If such insight would have permeated what passes for intellect on this site, then Elizabeth Warren and Barack Obama would have long been exposed for the idiot dividers they are in expounding their philosophies of “you didn’t build that”.  If it had permeated the emotional and subjective reasoning that pervades OS, then the same rational kitchen arithmetic employed around personal OSer check book registers would have quickly motivated our subscribers to find common ground with those who point to the inevitable consequences of our profligate spending at the national level. 


The day will probably never come when most of the participants at this site will also enroll in the realizations of the foregoing paragraph.  If it does come, then it will almost certainly be too late. 


If it did, however, we would have moved the conversation onto how every government taking reduces the liberty with which the deprived taxpayer can dispose of his or her wealth.  We would have also discussed how every government welfare disbursement enslaves the beneficiary. 


Hey, if we never meet again, it's been real . . . . .


Your tags:


Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Recipient's email address:
Personal message (optional):

Your email address:


Type your comment below:
This sentence is why I am commenting:

"They must ignore common sense, facts, history, and, because change is what most Liberals actively seek, they generally must ignore the Constitution."

That is false on every level as I do know, am related to, and love many, many Liberals as well as many, many Conservatives. None of them would rant so illogically as you have.

This American, this Land-of-the-Free-loving-Liberal, in order to form a more perfect union of differing states of minds, to ensure justice for all other Patriotic Americans who have the right to free speech anywhere they want, to also ensure domestic tranquillity in what I wish were a more perfect Union, provide a common defense for and simultaneously promote the general welfare of my fellow writers who wish to leave OS. I offer blessing on their Liberty to do so as I do to you for writing whatever you wish....but to say that in this Union of States there are not Liberal citizens who have as much common sense, patriotism, money, and love of history as your average Conservative does, is only showing your own ignorance.
Speaking just personally, on around $200k a year, from publishing, I decided to go to a place that makes more sense.

I applaud what JT said.
a ps : 48% of what I make goes in taxes.
But then, I live in Australia.
Below $20k ~ no tax at all. Problem with that ?
"It just astounds me that OSers did not call upon the national government to regulate OS into well being. I am flabbergasted that OSers did not call upon taxpayers to buy OS new and better computer hardware and software."

Once again the world befuddles UncleChri.
"...provide(s) a common defense for and simultaneously promote(s) the general welfare of my fellow writers..."
"...provides a common defense for and simultaneously promotes the general welfare of my fellow writers..."

Thanks, as always for stopping by; and for your comment this time.

There are a thousand recent anecdotes backing the claim you quoted. You might check out my recent exchange with Pierre Angel for one fine example of no common sense, no facts, and no history.

His claim is that we can spend our way out of debt. Perhaps he is Greek.

Of course, there is PJOR whose claim regarding the Constitution is that if our Supreme Law doesn't prohibit it, then it is allowed to our national government. The guy apparently can't, or won't, understand the plain language of the Tenth Amendment.

However, I won't argue much with you on these matters. Everyone has the right to be wrong. Everyone has a general right to speak what they wish and assemble where they wish.

Good luck to you. It sounds as if you have a great preamble to whatever document you are trying to write.

Best of luck to you. . .

BTW what do you get for a 48% tax rate on $200k?

If you missed my most blatant sarcasm in this post, chances are that you didn't understand any of it.

Nevertheless, best of luck to you as well.
Good piece. Rated.

My only purpose in contributing to OS was an effort to promote the election of a candidate who was wise and experienced enough to understand the source of America's past glories. To that end I was willing to endure the sophistry and ignorance of those expressing OS's dominant collectivist orientation.

My efforts were in vain and now we're stuck for another four years with this juvie Santa Claus who is clueless about everything but gutter politics.

Therefore, I'm retiring from the fray and will be sad to observe the inevitable and truly nasty consequences of Obama's re-election, fortunately from afar. The collapse is already beginning as the details of Benghazigate continue to unfold.

Obama's mind is a lost cause, but I wish his body well considering who his VP is.
@JustThinking...thanks for saying what I thought as I read Chri's words.

@Chri...the kind of hyperbole and refusal to be reasonable that you exhibited in your remarks...and which Gordon applauded...is a greater contributor to the kinds of trouble we are having in this country than the liberal stuff you mentioned.

We'd better all get with the program...or this ship is going to sink. But I am beginning to think the people on your side of the aisle would love to see it sink just to spite the people who helped re-elect Barack Obama...of which I am one.
Uncle Chri,
For 48% I get free health care for myself and my family, free ( public ) education to year 12 for the kids, an independent broadcaster ( abc.net.au ), good roads, public service and peace of mind, same as those below $20k.
A proportion goes into defence, of course, and subsidies to industries I may not support, but overall I'm ok with the deal.
Blah, blah, blah... dittohead blah.
Uncle Chri,

This post is like an application for admittance to an insane asylum. For example, you cross yourself with the following statements.

1. "OSers are mostly a socialist and progressive lot. As such, they often reason and act as if they have no understanding of free-markets, free-enterprise, and businesses as largely self-regulating, cost-efficient institutions. "

2. "Instead, OSers chose a self-regulating market mechanism to force OS compliance with customer needs and demands without involving government. OSers are 'voting with their feet'."

Statement #1 is your opinion with no basis in fact, presented as though it were fact.

Statement #2 is actual observed fact which disproves your opinion/theory stated in #1, yet you try to wrap them together with the common theme being an attack on your target. All it goes to show is that you are irrational.
a lot of assumptions mixed with hyperbole
i've never experienced such whining and crying since my children were teething
but you did attract comic [Gordon O] relief
no pie for you
I didn't go looking, so while not replying specifically to those you mention.....a thousand anecdotes among millions of citizens is not a bad ratio.
It's the same on the Conservative side. Some are more extreme than others in their opinions, some are more attached to reality than others. My biggest admiration goes to those willing to cross the aisle, either way, and work toward viable solutions. This country, the people of this country, all of us, are worth it. At very least, we are all in it together (yes, Texas, even you) so we ought to start deciding we're worth it.

'United' ought to be our mantra, not 'Us vs. Them.'

Am I idealistic?
Maybe, although I'd say I am most sensible. The Founders were idealistic too.
I do agree with you here -- everyone does have the right to be wrong.
Look at Karl Rove on election night...(snicker). : )

Kim: I am jealous of your healthcare...and I don't get jealous much.
I see those who actually care about humans run your country.
What does that feel like?
Oh, you said.
You Aussies are okay with that deal.

I am complimented by your comment here. Hopefully you will rethink your retirement.

The consequences of the re-election are already apparent. Thousands have been laid off, or have been demoted to part time status, to avoid the large costs that ObamaCare will soon impose on employers, for example.

Our on again, off again, president has decided, for the moment, to jump on the bandwagon of fiscal responsibility again. It is likely just lip service, as it has been before. It remains to be seen if he has the energy to hang on this time until the end.

You're being cheated. Trust me, nothing is as expensive as what government seeks to provide for free. We get everything but the "free" healthcare here for 24% (average).

However, you are entitled to your delusions.


You successfully missed the main thesis by isolating the contrasting statements that make the point of the post. Perhaps you thought I threw in the "This is truly, truly, truly, amazing." sentence as a useless grace note.

You should join Tom Cordle. Maybe both of you together could think your way out of a paper bag.
UncleChri - I took a closer look and can see how the section I quoted works as sarcasm. So on that point I stand corrected. Little else in the post fits that description and your characterization of most OSers is is sort of clumsy caricature that prevents you and your ilk from understanding why the Repub agenda has now twice lost out.

You duplicitous old goat . . . . I love you like my brother from another mother.

To the extent that I can determine your support of BO, it consists of your opining approximately 556 times that he would NOT be re-elected. Some support! You make critics like me superfluous.


Perhaps it occurs to you that reelecting BO solves nothing. Perhaps the irony of reelecting the guy who added 60% to the national debt, thereby making him, alone, responsible for nearly 40% of it, has crossed your mind – like hiring the fox to repair all the holes in the hen house.

Apparently, the President has become scared shitless again of what this $16 trillion debt implies for America. In his self-centered and shallow way, he understands what his legacy will be if the nation comes to a general understanding of what Mr. Obama has done to harm the full faith and credit of America.

As Gordon claims, it's likely Mr. Obama hasn't the intellectual capability to address this problem as a leader. That’s been his record so far.

In fact, what has been obvious is that Mr. Obama has little propensity for leadership. What’s worse is that he has been notably absent during any efforts to reconcile the huge financial problems of our national government, preferring instead to run around the country with his favorite solution: “Tax the rich! Tax the rich!”

Nevertheless, this President will have my full approval for every dollar he eliminates from the national social welfare entitlement system. Overall, my wish is that it’s not too many more years before the spender-in-chief understands that the only way out of this mess is to balance the budget for the next 30 years.


Now, it’s laughable that you suggest the people on one side of the aisle are the obstructionists. That was not the message of the electorate in 2010.

Just think of how much worse off we might be if we had retained the Congress that passed ObamaCare – a program that will cost us trillions. Thank goodness for the “other side of the aisle”!!!!!!!!!!!


Thanks for commenting, and best of luck to you. . . .
If I felt I was being cheated I'd move. As it is, we're more than happy to support people who can't work ~ all of us except Rupert Murdoch that is, who we donated to your fair shores.
I had to check this out. After all, I am, shall we say, unusually involved with this voting with our feet thing. And I am in business for a living.

Your assessment of our leaving is the closest thing to correct in this post. It shows that you understand at least a corner of how business works and how the economy works. However, there's way too much you apparently don't get.

Yes, I am left of center like most people on OS. However, unlike most people on OS or most people anywhere, a lot of that is for business reasons.

There's one overwhelming reality that Republicans don't seem to get these days. It's a reality Henry Ford got. What does business need most to stay healthy?


The last numbers I saw, the top 20% of the population had 84% of America's wealth. The top 40% had 95% of America's wealth.

The bottom 40% had 0.3% of America's wealth.

Did you see that figure? Two out of five Americans account for well under half a percent of America's wealth.

Do you really think America's businesses can survive on a customer base like that? Particularly when that number represents the way our economy is trending?

Where exactly do you think most of America's Welfare really goes? You can look at the program entitled Welfare or you can look at who the government really subsidizes, and you find the wealthy are currently subsidized way, way more than the poor are. You think if a major oil company pays the equivalent of 0% in taxes, that doesn't constitute a subsidy? Why is your outrage about welfare restricted to downward welfare?

You think the rich are job creators? Bush gave them a huge tax break. If that were true, they would have taken that money and created jobs. Instead, we got something called a Jobless Recovery.

In other words, they pocketed the money.

Why? Because they don't need to spend it. Trickle down doesn't work, and that's why. It matters where you inject money into an economy. Give it to people with less and they have to spend it, and it is their spending that creates jobs, which means it is their spending that creates taxpayers.

Which is where deficit-reducing revenue comes from. That's why we spend our way out of deficits and practice austerity in flush times. That's why Greece is backward and doomed to fail.

When the government spends money on anything, where do you think it goes? Where do welfare checks and social security checks go? Where does spending on government contracts go?

Straight to the private sector. Not into a hole in the ground. It is good for business. It is good for jobs. It is good for creating employment and, as these people with jobs spend money, that money creates more jobs and, as a result, more tax revenue.

Austerity creates unemployment. Unemployment reduces the number of taxpayers, which undermines the government's ability to earn money, which in turn undermines the government's ability to reduce its long-term deficit.

I'm not living in business dreamland. When I sit down to have a conversation with someone I do business with, the question is
How's business?

It's never

How's taxes?

Within limits, if business is good, we can deal with higher taxes.
If business is lousy, a tax break won't help enough.

What determines our health isn't how taxes are. It's how business is. Which means that we need to nurture the customer base.

You're suggesting we undermine it. Bad idea. We desperately need to invest in it. You guys are suggesting we choke it.

That's fiscal suicide.

Not that the Dems get this. Oddly enough, they don't have to. They just help people at the bottom more than people at the top for social reasons and Voila! the deficit normally shrinks during Democratic administrations and rises during Republican ones, going back at least to Jimmy Carter. Circumstances during the current administration are so screwed up by the unprecedented amount of Congressional resistance to anything that I don't even know how to evaluate it. Things are different now that the Republican party has gone so far off the deep end that they're willing to throw their own country into default to prevent tax rates rising on the wealthy at all. Even Ronal Reagan would have recognized that as complete insanity. It would have turned him back into a Democrat.

Yes, I voted Democratic. I had to.

Republicans are too awful for business.

You saucy sausage . . . . .

You will become my archetypical example of the OSer who debates without facts and disregards history.

First, the wealth disparity about which you whine was far greater in the Golden Age of Carnegie, Rockefeller, Gould, and Morgan than you can hope to justify today. Rockefeller’s ultimate wealth was $150 million in his time. That’s $260 BILLION today. The richest men today are worth a quarter of what Rockefeller was.

From the Golden Age through the empire builders of Ford, Edison, Stanford, etc., wealth was concentrated among far fewer people, relative to the American population, than it is today. All of this makes your implied disaster about where, and among whom, wealth is concentrated today a tempest in a teapot.

Second, men like Ford didn’t turn to government, as you do, to transfer wealth from the rich to the poor in order to develop customers. He cheapened the Model T sufficiently so that his workers could afford to buy his products.

Third, your Keynesian wool gathering disregards the fact that such thinking has led us to where we are today -- $16 trillion in debt. Your allusion to government practicing austerity in flush time is the joke of the day.

Fourth, let me clue you in. The society you desire is here.

At the national level, we spend $2.2 trillion each year on social entitlement welfare. In addition, we are a nation of about 300 million people.

Do the division, Kosher. That’s nearly $7,500 for each man, woman, and child in America. That’s $7,500 each year, for each man, woman, and child in America. Each year, every American. . . . .

If we further recognize that only about half of all households receive such benefits from the national government, then, for grins, we will apply the ‘47% rule’ and derive the net, annual, benefit of our current welfare state as $15,603 for each national government beneficiary. To me, that’s incredibly stupid. To you, I am certain that you believe it’s not enough.

So what happens when we follow your plan and invest $784 billion in a four year stimulus plan? Annually, that amounts to about $653, for each citizen, for each of four years. What is that to the existing $7,500 annual per person amount? What is that to the existing $15,603 welfare recipient amount?

The only correct answer here is “nothing”. Even if you want to argue with me that the $784 billion was spent in two years. It’s “nothing”. It’s what economists describe as the diminishing utility of invested funds.

This is your society, Kosh. This is the explanation for why stimulus packages (that we can afford) no longer work, even if they are narrowly focused. Remember, the more focused they are, they less good they do for the general economy.

This is what happens to those who forget history and argue without facts.

Nevertheless, thanks for your comment. You were a useful tool.

Best of luck to you at the new location.
I do enjoy your obsession with me, Chris, and though you say goodbye, I know the fixation will live on. I suppose you will be reminded of my superiority a few times a week as you struggle to pass those size 11 shoes I've left planted up your wazoo.

You know nothing about the Constitution, nor have you ever displayed even a remote familiarity with the aspects of logic. However, just for fun, I'll remind you that what isn't disallowed is permissible, and the 10th amendment is inert and has nothing to do with defining federal power.

After raising the Constitution and 10th Amendment above, you immediately jump to the only defense of your uppity ignorance, which is to say you won't argue those matters. In this case a retreat is as good as going on the offensive, because I've seen your attempts to argue Constitution and the 10th. You can't even argue those matters when you "argue those matters."

You should always avoid "arguing those matters" because raising the issue -- writing the words Constitution and 10th Amendment -- is as close as you'll ever get of convincing anyone you know something about either.

Of course most anyone seeing this exchange or reading your post knows you can't substantiate what you say. But I have come to truly believe you think that doesn't matter, or worse, that your claims are granted an axiomatic Holy Edict waiver from reality.

So to convince YOU of your profound ignorance of the Constitution and Amendment 10, I'll ask you to explain a few things. Surely after all the bluster and bombast you have delivered with this post and comments you will not tuck tail and run. That would prove you have no substance and so would negate every effort you have made here to support your self-image as a Knowledgeable, Powerful Thinker.

1.-- If what the Constitution does not allow powers that aren't disallowed, explain the clause or passage or terms used in the Constitution describe those limits. If you can't show that in the text or jurisprudence, then my claim must be true. There are no alternative explanations. You claim to have one, but unless you show us, you obviously do not. Show us.

2. -- As you seem to be claiming the 10th defines those limits, show us in the text or jurisprudence how the 10th has been used to define those limits. I know you can't find it in the text, so show us the jurisprudence. I don't mean to cite a Commerce Clause violation that, by extension, violates the 10th. You need to cite a case where the 10th is used exclusively to define the limits YOU say it applies.

3. -- There has only been one 10th Amendment case ruled on in recent history. In that ruling the state lost. Name the state. (You might find this one, so observe my generosity.)

4. -- Bonus question: How many 10th Amendment claims has the Supreme Court tossed out on their asses in the last 20 or so years?

Now, Mr Logic and reason-the-liberals-don't-have, either you can respond specifically to those questions or not. If not, then all the insulting you're done here is the defensive cry of the exposed jackass.

This is your chance to prove you aren't just braying, even as your limited audience holds buckets of oats at the ready.
Thank you. Will you be joining us?

The problem with this math is you're far more worried about where the people are than where the money is. You're giving figures of what it is for each man, woman, and child. Like our expenses are going to be evenly distributed.

But money isn't. What you'd like to do is, in terms of what are called entitlements, put the burden on everyone equally, even though two out of five of those everyones have, collectively, less than 1/200th of our money. As math goes, that doesn't work.

Yes, wealth was more concentrated during the age of the Robber Barons. But that's not when America was economically at its most healthy. That was during Eisenhower, when conditions were vastly different than what you described.

By the way, when I spoke about Henry Ford, I wasn't talking about the price of his cars. Ford insisted on paying his people high wages because he wanted his employees to be able to afford his cars. He could have gotten the same people way cheaper, but he understood that employees and customers are the same people. Currently, most businesses don't get that. If the private sector were behaving like Henry Ford, there would be no reason for the public sector to get involved.

The economy is in the crapper for the opposite reasons from some of what you seem to think. The downhill slide actually started during the Arab Oil Embargo following the 1973 Yom Kippur War, when both energy costs skyrocketed and Japan started exporting a whole lot of cars here. Competition with Japan, a lot of which wasn't normal competition but was a mugging of American industry by a combination of Japanese industry in cooperation with the Japanese government, put us into a slide for a while. During this, Reagan got elected, and his people blamed our problems on high taxes and too much regulation, neither of which were the problem. That started government policies that led to the extreme skewing of wealth, which took money out of the hands of average people and hurt the economy.

Thinking that the way the economy functioned leading up to Teddy Roosevelt's administration was superior to during Eisenhower takes some very strange thinking. Also, 100 years ago, wealth was just being created. More recently, it's been redistributed, not created.

Anyway, if you're staying, enjoy.
Uncle Chri,

You're too clever by half. The only one not getting your post is yourself. You make certain base asumptions that are false. Irrespective of how "truly, truly, truly"...whatever they are, they are fundamentally contradictory assumptions by you. They were not accurate to begin with. That is the point. That is what you do not get. Your assertion about OS'ers, liberalism, socialism, or whatever is false to begin with. That is why the observation stated is not irony. It is a refutation of your thesis. Rare or not, it is evidence. The first statement was your opinion, not fact. It does not reflect liberals, Open Salon...and never did. The second statement is evidence of that. Like I said, this post is more of an application for certification of insanity. Your hauty explanation does not even make sense.
Ohhhhhhhhh Paul,

I am so sorry that your application to be on “Are You Smarter Than a Kindergartner?” was rejected.

Your questions are as uninformed and stupid as any I have seen from you. Here you are again at your ‘WTF?’ best. . .

“If what the Constitution does not allow powers that aren't disallowed, . . .”. . . .

I have handed you a can of whup ass on this matter so many times, Paul, that you have been reduced to a babbling idiot. This makes most of your questions incomprehensible gibberish.


Look, why don’t you dig up Madison and Hamilton and argue with them this time? You probably don’t know this, but each had a lot to do with drafting and adopting our Constitution.

Alternatively, let me dispose of you quickly by just quoting the Wikepedia coloring book for you:

“The idea that the reach of the federal government would be restricted to a few enumerated powers is articulated by Madison in Federalist No. 45:"

“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.”

“Alexander Hamilton relied on the same view when later arguing, in Federalist No. 84, against inclusion of a Bill of Rights in the Constitution. Hamilton was wary of articulating specific restrictions on federal power, for he felt it was clear that the default position of the federal government was an ABSENCE of power, and any specific power existed only by grant from the Constitution:"

“[A Bill of Rights] would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?”


Your knowledge of jurisprudence regarding the Tenth seems as vacuous as your understanding of what powers are disallowed to the national government.

The Tenth Amendment was used in 1883 to invalidate the federal Civil Rights Act of 1875. It was used again in 1909 to strike down the federal While Slave Traffic Act.

Again, in 1918 it was used to strike down a federal law prohibiting the interstate shipment of products that had been manufactured by certain businesses that employed children under the age of 14. However, Congress later reregulated child labor used to produce products shipped interstate under the Commerce clause.

It was used in 1976 to declare unconstitutional certain provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 which the federal government sought to apply to State and local governments. This decision was partially overturned when OSHA was allowed to govern workplace safety at State, local, and non-governmental locations.

Of course, the Tenth Amendment has been used many times to prevent the national government from imposing costs of national legislation upon the States.

So much for your claim that “There has only been one 10th Amendment case ruled on in recent history.”


You’re just an idiot, Paul. You've had plenty of time to inform yourself of the meaning and jurisprudence surrounding the Tenth; but you just can't get it done. You simply don’t know your ass from a hole in the ground.

What you mock is any role for the States under the federal system drafted in the Constitution. The absence of your understanding and logic here only leads to complete authority and power by the national government in all areas – something every first grader knows was never the intent of the Framers.

Yet, this is exactly what Socialists need to eliminate the Constitution as an obstacle to their agenda to determine in DC what is best for those in Montana. The Constitution is an impediment to mandating how much broccoli each citizen must consume, for example.

You seek solace in the many times you believe that Tenth has been ignored. In your heart of hearts, you well understand the meaning of its text:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

However, it’s beyond your stubbornness to admit its meaning. Thus, we understand why the mascot of the Democratic Party is a donkey. Your oats await.


And, listen, while you are trying to ask these incoherent questions of me, let me ask you one that you must answer before I spend anymore time with you on the Tenth and the powers allowed the national government.

Specifically, Paul, on what date, and at what time, did you stop beating your wife?
You're braying for oats, I see, as you did not fulfill my simple request. Instead, more gasbaggery was presented. As you are a stupid man, I expected nothing more and you delivered.

Before spanking your petulant ass, let's reduce your simpleton's argument to its essence...or assence, as that better applies --

Congress' powers are limited to what Chris says because Madison claimed Congress' powers are limited and defined. How did Madison define those limits? Why, ask Chris!

The Ask Chris constitutional interpretation standard. What a jackass. Those quotes are absolutely meaningless to the topic at hand...at least mine--the one you can't effectively respond to. Neither define limits, just that they exist. Well, duh...

Anyway, let's go over the cases you cited, none of which cite the 10th as a stand-alone arbiter of federal power.

The SC ruling on the Civil Rights Act of 1875 did not cite the 10th Amendment, but the 13th and 14th.

The "White slave traffic act" or as it's known, the Mann Act, was upheld by the SC. Check your copy-paste source and drop that one from your list.

Hammer v. Dagenhart, the 1918 case you cite, was ruled upon based on the Commerce Clause, and the 10th was cited, though the Court awkwardly inserted "expressly" into the clause where it does not exist. Again, the 10th didn't define what the Court saw as overreach anymore than the CC did. So, again, you have not met my "exclusively" qualification.

Your best shot is National League of Cities v. Usery , 1976 There, the 10th was cited as forbidding federal commerce clause regulation of state employee wages. In that case the Court used the 10th as defining, but the 10th is only defined by what powers Congress doesn't posses, so you can play chicken-egg to some degree, but ultimately, there HAD to be a commerce clause overreach in order to make a 10th claim. So, again, the 10th was cited, but not used exclusively.

NLof Cities v. Usery was obliterated 9 years later with Garcia v. San Antonio MTA, the Court saying whatever protections from federal supremacy states have come from politics, not the 10th amendment. That was with Roberts joining the "liberals" and Kennedy and Alito concurring. That is where jurisprudence stands today...which is very much the original intent of the 10th.

With a few stray forays into citing the not-often-cited 10th, the Court has never ruled the 10th was violated based exclusively on its self-definition. That is why you can't cite a case where it does, as I requested, though you stupidly delivered a clumsy bit of gasbaggery about cases where it was cited.

Unlike a ruling of a 1st amendment free speech violation, the 10th does little in the way of defining itself, and relies on rulings on separate constitutional clauses. It is what Madison said, a redundant repetition of what the Constitution implies--all powers not granted are reserved to the states, or people. It is a Truism, not a separate declaration of state powers. In fact, it affirms federal supremacy over the states and leaves what powers the states didn't surrender to the states, or people. Remember the Constitution removed powers from the states, it did not increase or leave them unchanged.

In all fairness you can call those cases that actually exist 10th amendment cases. That's because the rulings are about federalism and the 10th encapsulates that concept, but necessarily relies on other elements of the Constitution and its definition of federal powers, not the 10th's non-definition. The 10th, despite your whining and babbling, only affirms.

So, rather loosely, the 10th represents the inability of the federal government to commandeer the states to perform federal functions, and the limits of intrusion on what are traditionally and functionally state prerogatives. However, that's just a general statement, and fed supremacy can be expressed in less direct ways. Persuasion by funding usually works well enough to get states on board, for example.

I know you don't have a logical mind, so my request that you cite cases where the 10th is used exclusively was to show you, through your attempt at application, that no such beast exists. In all the cases you cited the 10th was tangential. In other words...and you seem to need more than most...the 10th merely represents the federalism the Constitution itself defines -- it doesn't define what was already defined.

Now I am well aware that you're not used to arguing with intelligent people, and are not intelligent enough to participate in this argument. The whole section where you say...

"What you mock is any role for the States under the federal system drafted in the Constitution. The absence of your understanding and logic here only leads to complete authority and power by the national government in all areas – something every first grader knows was never the intent of the Framers."

...is as good an example of fallacious argument and childish disconnection from logic and even the simple elements of adult reasoning. This is the all-or-nothing babbling of a simpleton and, in your case, a bloviating gasbag simpleton. If you had half an idea of what logical argumentation looks like you'd never offer such a train wreck of strawman suppositions and idiotic arbitrary assignment of thoughts to others (which is what this entire post was about). You're again arguing with yourself.

I find it really hilarious that a dumbass like you supposes to know what a far more intelligent person believes. It's the same as saying I'm as stupid as you are. That entire passage is nothing more than an old fool rambling about the apocalyptic march of his toasted imagination.

You know nothing about why we have a Constitution, nothing of the philosophy of the Constitution, nothing about the drafting of the Constitution and nothing about its true "original intent." You ascribe a sort of brain-damaged Tea Party, airheaded, low quality ignorance to The Founders. In fact, like other political morons, your only argument is "They Must Have Thought Like I Do, Not Like You Do." When pressed, you cannot describe why that is true. That's convenient, because it isn't.

You really have a couple of dumbed-down, simplistic arguments, Chris. One is that stupid analysis of federal debt and how to "fix" it. The "checkbook arithmetic" all economists ridicule as macroeconomic fumbduckery. The other is that doofus version of They Thought Like Me, where Madison is reduced to a bumbling idiot and his non-definition of federal powers defines federal powers based on the Chris standard.

You're not smart, so you don't get the respect you aren't due. You're not witty, as that is a product of unavailable intelligence, which is why you try to insult. But insults don't work if nobody thinks you're intelligent, so yours are as impotent as a nutted hog.

You're just a windy old horses' ass who thinks bloviating embellishments can turn toddler's milquetoast into a ribeye dinner. I have never seen somebody try to get some much milage out of a pissant's gas tank of simplistic suppositions. Maybe I should do a post showing a representative sampling of your foolish arguments and my destruction of each one. People did enjoy me tearing you one new asshole after another, until you looked like nothing more than a shitty Chia Pet.

I'd tell you to shut up, but if I told you to speak only about what you know it sounds nicer and serves the same purpose.

Go peddle that ass-brained blather on some new website where it hasn't been ridiculed yet. You did nothing but expose yourself as a jackass here.
It's late.
One correction to the above. The SC ruling that continued the current jurisprudence on the 10th was US v. Comstock, (2010) where Roberts joined the majority opinion and Alito and Kennedy concurred. Same basic outcome--the 10th is but a truism, affirming what the Constitution implies. From the ruling:

"(4) Respondents’ contention that §4248 violates the Tenth Amendment because it invades the province of state sovereignty in an area typically left to state control is rejected. That Amendment does not “reserve to the States” those powers that are “delegated to the United States by the Constitution,” including the powers delegated by the Necessary and Proper Clause. See, e.g., New York v. United States , 505 U. S. 144 . And §4248 does not “invade” state sovereignty, but rather requires accommodation of state interests:"

So, Chris, your version of the 10th just isn't in style because it never existed. This is a good place to repeat your original assertion:

"Of course, there is PJOR whose claim regarding the Constitution is that if our Supreme Law doesn't prohibit it, then it is allowed to our national government. The guy apparently can't, or won't, understand the plain language of the Tenth Amendment."

I asked, but you COULD NOT SHOW where the text of the 10th describes the limits you say it does. But here's one more chance....show where "the plain language of the Tenth Amendment" describes those limits. This is YOUR assertion, so back it up. Your jurisprudence bombed out, so let's see you support your claim about "plain language." That will be as fun to watch as the other flaming Hindenburg of gasbaggery.

Answer directly or admit you don't have a hair on your hiney.
Upon realizing you can't, and didn't, then STFU as you're nothing but an ignorant poser.

In shorter form what you are saying is that you like to roll poop into little balls, put them in your navel, and gaze adoringly. Procede.

In shorter form what you are saying is that you like to roll poop into little balls, put them in your navel, and gaze adoringly. Procede.

You really know so little, and argue so incoherently, that you should cease embarrassing yourself.

The Mann Act wasn’t passed until 1910. Hence, it could not have been the act to which I referred as having been nullified by the Tenth in 1909. Here is some reading material for you:


Consider your ass whipped again.


Now my hope is that you are participating in the boycott of OS. I really don’t look forward to another incoherent 1,300 words from you, followed by a 300 word “correction”, all issued in the middle of the night, when most well-adjusted people sleep.

The original 800-word post here, Paul, didn’t even mention you in passing. In fact, I didn’t mention you until the eighth comment here, in a paragraph that didn’t exceed 40 words.

This all sounds a little too much like an obsessive stalker, Paul. It's amazing that you spend this much time on me when you consider me so stupid.

Therefore, try to control your emotions. Get some rest, buddy. And, by all means, try to contribute something coherent to the political conversation, OK?


Now, I didn’t see your response to my question . . . . about when you last beat your wife.

Thanks for reading and commenting.

Comments like yours, and Bill's, convince me that I am correct in my assertions regarding the bases from which many OSers generally argue. Further, such emotional reations convince me that I have hit close to home in most of the other claims made in the post.

Please feel free to reread the posts and the comments and contribute a well-reasoned opinion to something specific, instead of just calling names.

On the other hand, if you are no longer here, then, I won't miss you.
Who would have thought a long, disjointed and inadequate comment from you would prompt a long response? I know when the Mann Act passed, I just figured you made a mistake in the usual way.

I'll make this easy for you because you require it, even though you'll ignore it, just as you ignored the questions I asked.

The 10th obviously reflects and represents the issue of federalism. However, despite your claim it does nothing to define the details of federal powers. That is obvious in the "plain language," a term you used because you think it sounds smart. And because you're a blowhard.

If we take an issue like child labor and the SC ruling it's a Commerce Clause overreach, that ruling would apply without any involvement of the 10th. To say every issue of federalism is a 10th amendment issue is accurate, but it's the rulings on other elements of the Constitution that define the limits of federalism, not the 10th.

That's why your claim the 10th is some powerful bulwark against federal encroachment is silly. The 1oth is about allocation of powers, not a "right," like others in the Bill of Rights. Your 1st amendment freedom of speech can be violated without violating any other element of the Constitution, but that's not true of the 10th, as your poor research into jurisprudence shows clearly.

The 10th by definition and intent relies on other elements of the Constitution, or popular will. That's why Madison and many others made the obvious claim-- the 10th is tautological; a repetition of what the Constitution implies in obvious ways. A truism that what powers aren't granted, or --pay attention -- that Congress chooses to not express -- are retained by the people of the states (more accurately) or The People in their powers of dual --state and federal -- sovereignty.

I know you don't have any true understanding of the Constitution and/or the 10th. You simply repeat crap from, in this case, the Heritage Foundation or some similarly dumbed-down ideological propaganda site. You've never read anything about the philosophy of the Constitution or its history or much American history. If you had, you would know how lame and risible is your idea of the Libertarian Founders who-thought-like-you-do.

You know nothing worth knowing and attempt to elevate your childishly simplistic perception of political and economic issues to adult plausibility by smothering them with superfluous verbiage and "as if" declarations of your (gotta laugh) intelligence and the deficits of others. Your straw man, self-arguments are displays of illogical and fallacious pettifogging. I know you've never been educated in logic and the required elements of valid argumentation because nobody who had been would shame themselves with such obvious inadequacy.

The Internet is chock-fill-o' internuts. You're just another one of them. A wannabe too lazy or too incapable of enlightenment to effectively argue those issues and too stupid to realize your gross inadequacies are transparent.

You can keep the shoes.


You have come off your idiotic ‘what isn’t disallowed is allowed’ philosophy again. I am sure this is just another momentary lapse, like our President’s current epiphany regarding the fiscal nightmare he has created for the national government.

However, I will take the victory, brief and Pyrrhic again though it may be. I will cherish your recognition of federalism as specified by the Tenth Amendment. Someday, maybe you’ll even understand that this concept implies that some things are disallowed the national government in favor of the States, or the people.

You parse everything into nonsense, Paul. You argue about the color of the back of the beetle that feeds on the green, as opposed to the red, moss on the bark of one tree. In doing this, you miss the forest of the Founders intention to have small, non-intrusive, national government.

You have no common sense, Paul, while you write thousands of words of what you think you know about the jurisprudence regarding the Tenth. The only thing about which you are consistently correct is that Madison (and Hamilton) thought the Tenth was unneeded. Perhaps they changed their minds when they met one of your similarly obtuse ancestors.
What isn't disallowed by the Constitution is allowed, Chris. That is still true and always will be, though I understand why you speak "as if" that has changed. Remember, you haven't shown what clause, passage or term says that is wrong, and answering that by saying there are limits isn't specific enough and therefore you are still wrong. You also didn't show what in the "plain language" of the 10th defines those limits. I guess you have a hidden "Get Out of Jail Free" card that immunizes you from substantiating your claims. Do you not realize that not being able to do so defines your responses as laughably aggressive ignorance?

All you have done is run around in circles waving your chicken wing and flapping. Your only and stupid response is to say anyone saying that is true believes in a Congress with unlimited power, which is a all-or-nothing logical fallacy. However, because you are an idiot who doesn't know anything about the Constitution, you have to stupefy the issue to an all-or-nothing framework because that's all your atrophied mind can deal with.

So you have to respond by arguing with yourself, which is one idiot arguing with another, fabricating my position so it's stupid enough to meet the thumb-sucker level of your knowledge. As my familiarity with logical constructs, reason and valid argumentation comes from exposure to Catholic intellectualism, and as you're a Catholic, I know, beyond doubt, you must have avoided Catholic schools like the plague. I'm sure if a Jesuit ever heard you argue he would have browbeat you into some knowledge and recognition of logic. Then you wouldn't argue like an idiot. You would choose silence over trashing any element of integrity you might have and as you have done here, and on this site from day one.

Maybe it's not too late. See if you can sit in on a class in logic. Maybe there's a senior discount and some government program in the ADA that will help pay for it.

You don't know what you're talking about, Chris. That would be fine if you left your attempts at merely being wrong. It's the claims of knowledge, insults and circumlocution that make you such a fat, juicy target for those whose knowledge and abilities exceed yours by light years.

You launched a weak insult at me with your initial comment, and then proved you couldn't back up the claim you made. You rambled and babbled, but never substantiated your claim. What's new?

Now take your baby brain back to the chat rooms where the average IQ is far more aligned with your double-digit disposition. You aren't close to my level and never will be.
Somehow, I knew that your recognition of federalism would be brief, Paul.
Hey, Chri,

You duplicitous old goat . . . . I love you like my brother from another mother.

To the extent that I can determine your support of BO, it consists of your opining approximately 556 times that he would NOT be re-elected. Some support! You make critics like me superfluous.

Thanks, I love you, too. I did predict Obama would lose… but I did support him in other ways in hands-on ways. And each time I predicted his loss, I tried to mention that I wanted very much to be wrong. Sorry you see this as duplicitous, but I see it as being honest.

Perhaps it occurs to you that reelecting BO solves nothing.

Well, it does solve the problem of having a conservative dominated Republican elected. But you are correct in that many of the “problems” have solutions that are so complex, I doubt most will be essentially effective. Major revisions to our economic system are needed to “solve” the “problems” that most plague our country.

Perhaps the irony of reelecting the guy who added 60% to the national debt, thereby making him, alone, responsible for nearly 40% of it, has crossed your mind – like hiring the fox to repair all the holes in the hen house.

I certainly appreciated the irony of re-electing Ronald Reagan who tripled the national debt. But I am of the opinion that most of the national debt problems are the direct result of foolish Republican moves. I do not think Obama will “solve” those problems, but he will not add to them nearly as much as a Republican might…and I think most Democrats will try to make the impact of the debt fall more appropriately on the people with the money rather than on the people who are poor. We’ll see how things go. In any case, Obama was re-elected.

Nevertheless, this President will have my full approval for every dollar he eliminates from the national social welfare entitlement system. Overall, my wish is that it’s not too many more years before the spender-in-chief understands that the only way out of this mess is to balance the budget for the next 30 years.

I agree that reining in or altering the structure of some of the entitlement programs will play a part in any solution. Raising revenues will be required also…and the Republicans have finally got to come to grips with that. I suspect Obama is more likely to make concessions on the former than Republicans on the latter.

Now, it’s laughable that you suggest the people on one side of the aisle are the obstructionists. That was not the message of the electorate in 2010.

It is laughable, Chri, that you do not recognize the obstructionism that Republicans have adopted as their major tactic.

Thanks for commenting, and best of luck to you. . . .

You’re welcome. Best of luck to you also.

There are bits of evidence that you can access which make the argument for obstructionism. In addition to that, you are making a statement about a mid-term election as a "statement" by the electorate, as compared to the presidential cycle? It is a silly, silly statement. What's more is, the districts are so severely gerrymandered that if this cycle had the same district configuration as 2008, the Democrats would have won control of the House. Yes, the law is the law, and the result is what it is. But numbers reflect any "statement" as you call it, and not a gerrymandered result. Democrats won a majority of votes in the 2012 races. Clever district line drawing kept the GOP from becoming the minority party. Your argument fails on pure facts, as well as logic.

We end this debate as we always do. Your claim is that if (a power) is not disallowed (in the Constitution to the national government) then it is allowed to the national government. Eliminating the double negative could easily convert your statement into the triviality that if a power is allowed, then it is allowed.

Not only is that a simpleton’s triviality, a thing we all have come to expect of you; but it also fails to come close to reflecting the meaning of the Tenth. As a reminder, Paul, the meaning of the Tenth is that if a power is not mentioned as being allowed to the national government, then its absence from the Constitution prevents it from being exercised by the national government. Further, the unmentioned power belongs to the States, or to the people (unless it’s been disallowed to them .. . blah, blah, blah).

Everybody, but you, seems to know this. Nobody, but you, believes there was an intent to list the powers prohibited to the national government as the primary manner by which the authority of the national government was limited. All first graders know that the power of the national government is limited by the powers allowed it, which thereby prevent it from assuming powers not listed.

Of course, in your clumsy and imprecise way, you may wish to carve the niche that the national government may assume all powers unless it is a power expressly prohibited to it. However, this stands the Tenth on its head, as everybody knows (except, for you, of course).

If what you believe is, or was, true, then, for example, Article 1 Section 8 would have been shortened to eliminate all words after its second reference to the “United States”. There would be no need for the specific list of powers that follows. Instead, the PHILOSOPHY, Paul, of making that grocery list of specific powers that follows in this section was to LIMIT the powers of the national government to those listed – a concept you clearly do not seem to understand.

Again, Paul, you’re simply an argumentative idiot whom most understand cannot string a coherent sentence, much less a logical case, together to support your cause. You leverage the flimsiest events to declare that the Founders wanted to greatly expand the powers of the national government after the Confederacy, when, again, everyone knows that wasn’t true. You rest your claim of the impotency on the Tenth on the basis that it seldom is the only issue upon which a Supreme Court appeal is based, as if most appeals aren’t predicated upon multiple issues at law or equity.

You must have been stunned at the Keller case. You’ve made multiple mistakes in what you have presumed in your questions to me and in how you have responded to my replies. You’ve forgotten, or mangled, both history and facts.

Further, you seem to have run out of things to say that aren’t simply insults without anything further as substance. Hence, your previous comment has been deleted, since it was simply a litany of personal insults without a single substantive point.

If you stopped beating your wife, maybe you could do better, Paul. I know that you must be slapping her around because you haven’t addressed my question on this issue and that, according your logic, means you are still assaulting her.

Now, add something of substance from here on out, and minimize the insults, or else you’re outa here.

Oh. . . and somebody sent me a PM claiming that you rated my post, Paul. I can imagine the narcissism that motivated you to do that; but, nevertheless, that makes you a traitor to your cause.

Until next time, Buddy.
"Now, add something of substance from here on out, and minimize the insults, or else you’re outa here."

That's a good an imitation of Gordon O as I've seen, Chris.

I'll respond, but not here.
I only had one comment on my latest post. From a SPAMMER

I have contacted CNN


Because they have had Salon on as guests many times.


Let me know when you stop playing ‘small ball’. If your thinking cannot rise above the proffer of your opinions regarding Democrats and Republicans, gerrymandering, what might have been, who won the last election, and the difference between mid-term expressions of voter discontent versus expressions of voter discontent at other times, then you and I aren’t going accomplish anything more than Congress does.

Instead, try to deal with the BIG ideas, Bill. Try to make it to ‘The Show’. Try to play ‘large ball’.

For example, think about arithmetic, Bill. Like the concept that 2.2 – 3.6 = -1.4 and the connection this equation has to the country’s impending bankruptcy.

See, Bill? No Democrats. No Republicans. No political tactics or strategy, no blaming, no labeling, and no name calling. Nevertheless, in the terms of our eloquent Vice-President, this deficit thing is big, fucking deal.

Think about the concept, Bill, of taxing those who can barely pay their mortgage or rent payments in order to subsidize housing for those who claim that they would otherwise be homeless. Try to contemplate this, Bill, without dragging in the canard of people living or dying on the sidewalk.

Try, Bill, to get out of the smelly marsh in which no one in our nation’s capital can gain the traction to overpower the other side. Focus your attention instead on the mountain tops. Then the problems become relatively simple to understand and their associated universe of solutions becomes relatively easy to define.

Once you get beyond those things upon which your most recent comment focuses, you will find it much easier to discover common ground with those whom you now so conveniently classify as your enemies. Try to master your emotions, Bill. Try to chat with me without prejudices. Don’t try to guess who I am, or what I think. Read what I write, and forget about reading between the lines.

You’ll find life with me much easier.

If you don’t want to do this, then I will certainly understand.
Chri, in response to Bill, you wrote:

Don’t try to guess who I am, or what I think. Read what I write, and forget about reading between the lines.

You’ll find life with me much easier.

If you don’t want to do this, then I will certainly understand.

I just did that in my last post (and am doing it here. I am actually quoting your words and suggesting alternative perspectives.

Yet you did not respond to what you say you want...and did respond to what you said you do not want.

Why is that?

Happy Thanksgiving, everyone.
Libs don't ignore the Constitution, they just want to change the interpretation to suit their agenda.

I am having a hard time decoding what you want of me. Perhaps you could clarify your most recent comment.

Remember, I didn't respond to you. I responded to Bill.


Your most recent post is worth a read by everybody -- regarding the nature of the athiest's complaint of creche scenes in a park, which they may avoid if they don't wish to be 'offended'.

It's funny how some use the detail of the Constitution when it suits their purpose, but avoid it like the plague when it does not.

Nothing about my comment was emotional. Every single piece of it referred to facts about the past two election cycles, 2010, and 2012. Those are facts. The change is the way the districts are drawn is a fact. The results of the different district boundaries are facts. The fact that two main parites divide the house is a fact. The statement by you regarding a "statement by the electorate" was answered by me with facts regarding the aforementioned elements. I did not mention them any more than you did. I referred to your use of them in your thesis.

You may call that "small ball." That has no emotional value for me one way or the other. What it is is a basis in fact. You must acknowledge each and every one, prove them to be inaccurete, or concede the factual/logical apsect of the discussion.

Your statement about "statement" is a bad one. The numbers defy you. The comparison of an off Presidential cycle to a Presidential cycle is bad logic because it invoves fewer voters. It is logical that a larger sample represents a clearer "statement by the people" than a smaller one. That is not emotion, Chri. I think you have the meaning of emotion confused. Big ideas, small ball, or otherwise, those are unimpeachable facts. If they are inaccurate, say how with facts. Don't try to characterize it with reference to emotion, or swamps, or whatever. That is just more silliness.

2.2 - 3.6 = -1.4 . . . . fact

4 x 1.4 = 5.6 . . . . fact

Let's see how you handle this grounder.
I appreciated from the start that you were being a bit satirical in your writing. But I think you need to do some internal examination, as you appear to be clutching too much at your set of ideological blinders. Without a dash of realism and objectivity, you are in danger of falling into the same trap that old line communists used to fall into.

There's more to life than just the party line.
Or in other words, Chris simply and hilariously doesn't know WTF he's talking about.
Does Frank know the ship already sunk? Good piece UC, too bad most don't get it. Rated
Wow you must really be a rich and maybe even famous guy who did a lot of really big things. You philosophy is so exemplary and inclusive.

I'll tell you what: when your social security check comes in, or medicare, or medicaid, or for health insurance on your family, or unemployment, or to pay for the nursing home, you can send it to me and I'll see to that it buys plenty of guns and ammo. No charge.

You deal in such generalities as to render yourself impotent. Thank God you guys have been put in your place for at least awhile.

If I ever meet you in person, can I have your autograph?
By the way, I don't want you to think I am unsympathetic. My taxes also went up over 3 per cent due to Obama.

I have decided to take the money out of my son's allowence. He hasn't been performing at school lately, and this will teach him a lesson.

But maybe you don't have any sons.