01.09.09

. . . but his counterpart in the House is giving him a run for his money

Posted in U.S. Constitution at 6:25 pm by Administrator

San Fran Nan is deeply concerned that some free people are going to be successful and keep the fruits of their success.  Can’t have that in a totalitarian dictatorship.

  • Share/Bookmark

20 Comments »

  1. MR. Dings said,

    January 10, 2009 at 1:27 am

    Totalitarian dictatorship? Isn’t that engaging in a slight bit of fear mongering you neo-cons are so qood at and which, if you really think about it, as it did for Chicken Little, damages your cause.

  2. Bentnotesmanhisself said,

    January 10, 2009 at 1:39 am

    I mean exactly what I’m saying here. She wants to use the state’s monopoly on the legitimate use of force to take the overwhelming majority of the income of a certain segment of the American populace – based on income, which ought to be none of her God-damn business – to seize those citizen’s assets and redistribute them ot others she deems deserving of them.
    Will these successful Americans be able to say, “I don’t think I want to opt into this program?”
    Not only is this immoral, it’s a recipe for wrecking what’s left of our economy.
    I am indeed a neocon, and we’re right about the Freedom-Haters.

  3. MR. Dings said,

    January 10, 2009 at 5:00 am

    Death and taxes, my dear neo con bloggie. Who and what do you hate? Hate hate hate, shake your booty. So this invisible hand, when is it going to grace us all with its love?

  4. MR. Dings said,

    January 10, 2009 at 5:02 am

    Hey, we got us a centennial here this year:

    The origin of the income tax on individuals is generally cited as the passage of the 16th Amendment, passed by Congress on July 2, 1909, and ratified February 3, 1913; however, its history actually goes back even further.

  5. MR. Dings said,

    January 10, 2009 at 5:05 am

    I’m burnt too, rendering unto all of them, now OASI is not going to be there in our old age, who knew? Say, tell me, how do we finance our defense machinations?

  6. MR. Dings said,

    January 10, 2009 at 5:22 am

    Read just the black print here:
    Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debt and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts, and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.
    –US Constitution, Article 1, Section 8

    Now call your elected representatives of these your United States jack booted totalitatians for doing their job. All will be put to a vote. And subject to bitching and worse…

  7. Bentnotesmanhisself said,

    January 10, 2009 at 12:41 pm

    That little excerpt from the Consititution you cite doesn’t say anything about using the tax code for redistributive purposes or to conduct social engineering by means of incentives and disincentives, or to foster resentment between citizens of different income levels.

  8. Bentnotesmanhisself said,

    January 10, 2009 at 12:42 pm

    I don’t hate anybody and you know that.

  9. MR. Dings said,

    January 10, 2009 at 1:07 pm

    Hey, we’re all included here, aren’t we? Let’s get on the bandwagon then, if we need to, gee, wonder what the pay and bennies are gonna be?:

    Obama announced the report on his weekly radio and Internet address. He had previously said his American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan would create or save 3 million jobs, but said the analysis from his advisers showed that number would range between 3 million and 4 million.

    “The jobs we create will be in businesses large and small across a wide range of industries,” Obama said. “And they’ll be the kind of jobs that don’t just put people to work in the short term, but position our economy to lead the world in the long-term.”

  10. MR. Dings said,

    January 10, 2009 at 1:15 pm

    Correcto, the tax code is kinda broad, and, in our Country tis of US (as opposed to a totalitarian state) we still can choose (but oh the machinations there, the way it’s all evolved here to find us here/now in, oh Lord, the shape we’re in) what course to follow, including no taxation at all. Are you not confident in the Constitution? These matters will be placed on the table and subjected to a vote. They can even be repealed. That’s freedom, ain’t it? I understand your fears. Something other than representative democracy has evolved here. That is a deep and controversial subject for an extended and ongoing debate. And, yes, I have my misgivings, fears and forebodings….

  11. MR. Dings said,

    January 10, 2009 at 3:50 pm

    Just asked if you hated anyone because you are so quick to point out the other haters in our country and on the globe. We’re still movin’ on globally, ya hear, just takin’ a different tack, a different track. It mattered to some of us how our neighbors viewed us.

  12. MR. Dings said,

    January 10, 2009 at 7:05 pm

    On the other hand, perhaps I miss the hyperbolic humor in your insults, but, really, speaking for myself, when you refer to totalitarian dictators, Hitler, Stalin and Mao come to mind, not elected representatives of the people of the Republic of the United States of America, who pledge.
    At the start of each new U.S. Congress, in January of every odd-numbered year, those newly elected or re-elected Congressmen – the entire House of Representatives and one-third of the Senate – must recite an oath:

    I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

    Not that it isn’t fodder for attempts at humor in this, our free Republic:

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2160288/posts

  13. MR. Dings said,

    January 11, 2009 at 2:05 pm

    da man
    he be
    selfish
    he be mean
    which sucks
    he be greedy
    want you needy
    he not nice
    thinks he’s special
    wants you docile
    plays his games
    at the table
    life’s a joke
    and you aint
    left laughing

  14. Bentnotesmanhisself said,

    January 11, 2009 at 3:25 pm

    Different tack, my ass.  What the FHers have in mind is a very different end result.  And there’s no attempt at humor in my term “Freedom Hater.” I couldn’t mean it more directly. And I don’t hate them. Believe me, if Harry Reid and TCM and San Fran Nan and the Berkeley City Council and CBS and Rolling Stone would see the light and do a 180 and embrace freedom and dignity nothing would make me happier. But since they won’t, they must be fought. With single-minded ferocity. And with a prayer for God’s mercy on them on our lips.

    Your poem or whatever it was still didn’t do much to elucidate on just who Da Man is.

  15. MR. Dings said,

    January 11, 2009 at 7:13 pm

    Da man’s an a-hole
    He be mean
    He insist on his own way
    or he will fight with might
    made more for him by you
    Da man do things
    Don’t let them be
    Da man content with himself
    He get what he want
    First
    Da man never turn other cheek
    Unless it’s yours
    Da man knows he knows
    What’s best for him’s
    Best for you
    Da man make da rules
    You play or pay
    Da man revel in looking out
    at da outsiders
    Da man love
    Under his conditions
    Da man pat u on da back
    You know da man when u see him
    You know da man don’t see u

  16. MR. Dings said,

    January 11, 2009 at 7:21 pm

    Now, is what you perceive as “the very different end result” your so-called FHers (is that a world wide conspiracy linin’ up those dominoes again?) have in mind express or implied? Can they reserve the right to admit mistakes were made and that they acted on faulty intelligence?

  17. Bentnotesmanhisself said,

    January 11, 2009 at 9:10 pm

    It’s pretty much express. They are socialists, you see, and hate the idea of people being in charge of their own economic lives.

    Hey, while we’re on the subject of imaginary bogey-men such as Da Man, here’s one for you:

    Da polka-dotted bunny rabbit
    He be bad
    He cause leprosy and menopause hot flashes
    Mortgage defaults and Hamas rockets,
    You can look to da polka-dotted bunny rabbit fo’ da cause
    He make analog TVs go koo-koo
    He mess up da masses’ minds so dy don’t understand basic economics
    Dat polka-dotted bunny rabbit, he one fascist homophobe greedy white dude

  18. MR. Dings said,

    January 11, 2009 at 10:50 pm

    Love your verse! Chuckles!! You should go with it. I am roaring here. Thanks.

  19. MR. Dings said,

    January 11, 2009 at 10:58 pm

    The state has no business messing with the tortoise’s tellie!

  20. MR. Dings said,

    January 12, 2009 at 12:09 pm

    http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Da%20Man

    da man normally is in reference to “The Corporate World”. This does not specifically target “Corporate America” as it is country specific if it is not taken in the global sense.

    da man works on many levels of the Corporate World. the lowest common denominator is the boss that an employee reports to, to the company he/she works for, to the corporate working world as we know it.
    Joe : “Hey Bob did you see that game last night”

    Bob : “Nah Joe, I was too busy workin’ for da man and didn’t get home until it was over.”

Leave a Comment