A good Democrat?

[MicroBalrog]

Actually, it's a fair comparison.

We're free to argue against gun laws and drug laws; not to randomly decide they're 'written by flawed humans' and make with snorting crack off the dust covers of GPMGs.

The leftists are free to argue against, or work to amend amend, the Constitution; it's ignoring/reinterpeting it outright that's entirely illegitimate.

[Perd Hapley]

Good Democrats are those who show their true colors, leading to their arrest, resignation - and best of all, they lead to investigation of other crooked politicians.  In that vein, we have three nominations from the Show-Me State. 

1. Jeff Smith
2. Steve Brown

ST. LOUIS, MO (KTVI - FOX2now.com) - Two democratic Missouri state lawmakers have pleaded guilty to federal charges and have resigned. Former state Senator Jeff Smith of St. Louis and former state Representative Steve Brown of Clayton now face serious federal prison time. But more democrats could get swept up in this investigation. Smith and Brown both pleaded guilty to lying to federal investigators about whether they had worked with a shady political operative, a man with a record of drug and gun arrests and who is part of a probe into a pipe bombing.

The Feds swooped down on former Missouri State Senator Jeff Smith and former state Representative Steve Brown because both of them lied about whether they used Milton Ohlsen, nicknamed Skip. When Smith ran for congress in 2004, Brown suggested Smith use Skip Ohlsen to prepare anonymous postcards attacking Smith's opponent, Russ Carnahan. That's illegal.

When Skip Ohlsen was busted by the Feds on unrelated fraud charges, he told them about Brown's role. Brown then implicated Jeff Smith, his old friend. When asked Tuesday if it was hard to assist the prosecution against his old friend, Brown responded, "It certainly was, yes." 

Former State Senator Smith said Tuesday, "I apologize first and foremost to my constituents. I apologize to my colleagues in the senate."

But the saga of Skip Ohlsen and top democrats in Missouri may be far from over. John Gillies with the St. Louis office of the FBI said Tuesday, "We will continue to vigorously investigate all corruption that comes to our attention." When asked if he thought there was significantly more of this going on in state government right now, Gillies said, "I'm telling you what we're doing is we're uncovering more of it."

http://www.fox2now.com/ktvi-jeffsmith-folo-democrats-investigation-082509,0,279664.story


3. T.D. El-Amin

Missouri state Rep. T.D. El-Amin today pleaded guilty to a bribery charge in federal court. He faces between 18 and 24 months in prison. He pleaded guilty to accepting a bribe of $2,100 from the owner of a gas station. After the hearing he announced his resignation.

The federal investigation may not be over.

A collection agency recently sued El-Amin for about $13,000 in debt.

El-Amin’s father-in-law, Eddie Hasan, is currently in federal prison on tax evasion charges. Hasan ran a minority contracting consulting group, MoKan.

http://www.stltoday.com/blogzone/political-fix/political-fix/2009/09/el-amin-pleads-guilty-to-bribery-charge/


Oh, the schadenfreude.  Missouri Republicans have their own sort of monkey-business to contribute.

http://www.blackamericaweb.com/?q=articles/news/the_state_of_black_america_news/12863

[Gewehr98]

Last time I stepped into a topic like this it ran for weeks and became one of the most lengthy threads in APS history, and I don't think it deserves that kind of drawn out discussion.

Whoa.

Time out.

You can't hop into here and simply dictate that you aim to increase our taxes based on your sense of entitlement, and then say the topic doesn't warrant attention or lengthy discussion from the membership.

Not even.   

[mellestad]

Whoa.

Time out.

You can't hop into here and simply dictate that you aim to increase our taxes based on your sense of entitlement, and then say the topic doesn't warrant attention or lengthy discussion from the membership.

Not even.  

I have to respond to every derail people bring up, rather than making my point, responding to pertinent questions, then retiring gracefully?  Like I said, I have had my say, had a couple rounds of questions and answers, and now I would rather move on.  Otherwise I will be stuck in this thread responding to the same comments about how I want to burn the constitution over and over until Ragnarok.

I'll humor you a bit though, because I am a nice guy.

It is disingenuous to say I want to raise your taxes based on my sense of entitlement.

1) I would not be the likely beneficiary of the services I am pushing for, I would be one of the tax payers.  I am a middle-income adult with private insurance and my own private retirement package.  I have never gone without gainful employment, I have always payed my taxes and been a 'good' citizen.  I do not hate America, and I don't hate you, and I don't hate your ideals, and I am not a 'liberal' because I woke up one morning and thought it was a good idea.  Besides the fact that political tests show again and again that I would best be labeled as a centrist anyway.

2) Many times I get this response that if I want to raise your taxes, I am stealing from you.  Great, so we have two choices a) Tax nothing b) Only tax for the things you think are appropriate.  You ignore the reality of politics by saying that if people want a system that runs contrary to your ideal, it is automatically a crime against humanity.  If you really think it is your way or the highway, we cannot have any legitimate discussion on the matter.  Then the only question is what are you going to do if democracy fails to return your desired result.  Is that the discussion we are having, or can you admit that your ideal America is not the only possible option?

3) I don't support Libertarianism for the same reason I don't support Communism.  Both assume an idealized human that will cooperate autonomously for the betterment of humanity.  I think you need controlled capitalism.  Capitalism is good because it helps generate wealth and gives humans an outlet for the instinctual desire to compete, and controlled because if you leave capitalism alone it degenerates into pure exploitation because of the same human nature.  In small, like-minded groups either system can possibly lead to a near utopia, economically but they just don't scale.  I would love it if Libertarianism could be empirically shown to work well at the level of a nation, but it has not and I suspect it will not.  A nuclear armed superpower is not the appropriate place to test an idealistic model of governance.

4) I think healthcare, specifically, should be a government service.  I think it is too important to leave it to the whim of monetary success.  Will such a system be 100% perfect?  Absolutely not.  Is it better than dying because you are broke, or being financially ruined because you get hurt or sick?  In my opinion, yes.

This discussion has been filled with me stating my opinion, explaining myself, then being called a constitution hating liberal criminal who wants to destroy everything you hold dear.  I cannot have a discussion with that attitude, it is unproductive.  Even your language in your request...'sense of entitlement' is loaded with spite.

As I said, I am not here to convert you.  Some of you have rational reasons for being conservative, some of you are dogmatic about it.  I have no illusions about convincing you I am correct, and would never try to force you into a discussion where I could 'prove' to you that I am right.  Heck, I am even willing to concede that you may be right, because I don't pretend that I have all the answers, or my ideal government would lead us to a utopia.

I understand your opinion and your reasoning.  I have written out my opinion and my reasoning in the best way I can.  Now we can all a) reject b) accept c) analyze.

So do we end this and let people get on with their lives, or drag this out on and on without any benefit to either side?

(Edit, because I missed a word and it may have been confusing)

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

I have to respond to every derail people bring up, rather than making my point, responding to pertinent questions, then retiring gracefully?  Like I said, I have had my say, had a couple rounds of questions and answers, and now I would rather move on.  Otherwise I will be stuck in this thread responding to the same comments about how I want to burn the constitution over and over until Ragnarok.

I'll humor you a bit though, because I am a nice guy.

You can come here and try to make whatever point you want.  You can run away after you think you've made it.  But if you want to actually succeed at getting a point across, you're gonna have to be willing and able to back up your assertions and reasoning.

This ain't the kinda place that deals in quick one liners and platitudes.  We actually try to discuss and reason through the complex issues we debate.

And copping the "I'll humor you" 'tude isn't going to get you very far, either.

[Perd Hapley]

You can come here and try to make whatever point you want.  You can run away after you think you've made it.  But if you want to actually succeed at getting a point across, you're gonna have to be willing and able to back up your assertions and reasoning.

This ain't the kinda place that deals in quick one liners and platitudes.  We actually try to discuss and reason through the complex issues we debate.

And copping the "I'll humor you" 'tude isn't going to get you very far, either.

I don't think "I'll humor you" implies a 'tude.  But mellestad, you misunderstand what Gewehr said.  He didn't say you have to stick around.  He said that your comments DID merit more discussion than you thought. 

[Gewehr98]

I'd really like to think this isn't a drive-by, where you stir the pot and then depart, neither entertaining nor condoning further discussion.

IOW, I'm approaching this from an administrator's angle. Threads with value don't get arbitrarily killed just because the OP doesn't like them anymore.

Now, as somebody who spent 20+ years in the military, I'm not entirely keen on government-run, or government-provided healthcare.

I have plenty of horror stories to relate, as does my then-dependent wife, and as stated before, the government can't even run a whorehouse, let alone nation-wide healthcare.

That ain't group-think, or all of us ganging up on you.  It's me quite seriously asking ANYBODY why I should pay for their healthcare if they're capable of doing so themselves. I work hard for my income, and am busting my butt for a second retirement because I don't think Social Security will even be solvent when I turn 67 in a few years.  I've already been to Communist and Socialist countries during my military career, and I see nothing I want for my life from those regimes. Nor do I care that we're already paying for roads, Cash For Clunkers, AIG bailouts, crack whore babies, or ACORN surveys with appropriated tax money.  Two (or more) wrongs don't make a right, and coming into a forum exclaiming in no uncertain terms that you're prepared to make us pay taxes to support your healthcare desire is very much akin to Rex Cramer in the Danger Seekers scene from Kentucky Fried Movie.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U38HmSSAGSo

As HTG mentioned, please don't patronize us by saying you're "humoring me".  Retiring gracefully?  Not with that little jab. This is an internet discussion forum, not a "I'm taking my ball and going home because I don't like the answers" type of deal.  We discuss things here, Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, men, women, cat-lovers, dog-lovers, Windows, Linux, Mac, one big APS melting pot.  Saying the thread no longer serves a purpose to you smells of something, and I'm very much tempted to remove the smell to a different location, in it's entirety.  However, if you started the thread as some sort of social experiment via stirring the pot, my decision shall be sooner rather than later.

The thread will continue, as long as it remains civil.  Much valuable discourse has been injected into the discussion, with or without the OP and/or their consent.    

[Regolith]

Just went through and read the entire thread, and something jumped out at me; specifically, using Swedish and other countries' life expectancy rates to harp on our health care.

Turns out, our health care has nothing to do with our shortened life expectancy.  It is entirely because of our lifestyle, most notably our smoking and eating habits.  You are more likely to die in this country due to high rates of heart disease and cancer.  This is caused by our rich diets and the fact that we had the highest smoking rates in the world until 1985.  If you do actually make it to 80 in this country, you are far more likely to live longer than people in other nations, precisely due to our good health care.  The problem is that too many people sabotage their own health, which quite frankly isn't anyone's fault but their own.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/22/science/22tier.html?_r=3&ref=instapundit

[French G.]

The thread will continue, as long as it remains civil.  Much valuable discourse has been injected into the discussion, with or without the OP and/or their consent. 

The OP notes that it is largely possible to talk about Democrats for many pages without too much bashing. (Except for the Missouri bushwhacking contingent of course. :D) I guess, knowing the mission of this board, I shoulda seen the thread drift coming.

On the one thread drift subject I will say that I have had excellent care within the military medical system, currently quite happy to pay $180/month to cover my family under Reserve Select. Motrin was ubiquitous of course, but one can choose not to take that crap. I am sure that Obamacare will somehow muck up my current choose my own docs, low co-pay, low premium health insurance that I a) pay for, and b) feel I have somewhat earned through 14 active and continued reserve service.

So for that... BAD DEMOCRAT!!!  (feel like I need a rolled up newspaper)

[erictank]

I have to respond to every derail people bring up, rather than making my point, responding to pertinent questions, then retiring gracefully?  Like I said, I have had my say, had a couple rounds of questions and answers, and now I would rather move on.  Otherwise I will be stuck in this thread responding to the same comments about how I want to burn the constitution over and over until Ragnarok.

Perhaps until you actually adequately respond to those comments...

It is disingenuous to say I want to raise your taxes based on my sense of entitlement.

These ARE your words, Mellestad: "Using the resources of a collective body to further that bodies own goals is what modern government is all about.  I think the government should do more than provide self-defense and a court system.  You might want a return to 1776, but I do not, nor do most citizens.  I am prepared to pay more taxes to make that happen, and I am prepared to make you pay more taxes to make that happen."

That's you saying that you want to raise my taxes to pay for something you want.  How is that not *EXACTLY* your wanting to raise my taxes based on your sense of entitlement?  You don't have to personally profit from it for it to be wrong.

Besides the fact that political tests show again and again that I would best be labeled as a centrist anyway.

Centrists don't want to take money from those who produce to give it to those who do not - and that's EXACTLY what you're proposing to do.

2) Many times I get this response that if I want to raise your taxes, I am stealing from you.  Great, so we have two choices a) Tax nothing b) Only tax for the things you think are appropriate.  

The Constitution actually does provide for taxation to support a number of national functions.  Amazingly enough, universal health care is not enumerated among those.

4) I think healthcare, specifically, should be a government service.  I think it is too important to leave it to the whim of monetary success.  

It is, however, not a function which the government has any legitimate authority, under the Constitution - therefore, taxing to pay for it is unconstitutional, as well as unethical.  If you wish that to be changed, there's a process for it.  Try following it.

[ronnyreagan]

That's you saying that you want to raise my taxes to pay for something you want.  How is that not *EXACTLY* your wanting to raise my taxes based on your sense of entitlement?  You don't have to personally profit from it for it to be wrong.

Aren't you saying (as mellestad mentions in his 2nd point) that ANY tax is the result of someone's "sense of entitlement?"  Whether or not it's in the constitution doesn't change the fact that people have to pay taxes for something they don't necessarily need or want because someone's "sense of entitlement" deemed it necessary.

[mellestad]

You can come here and try to make whatever point you want.  You can run away after you think you've made it.  But if you want to actually succeed at getting a point across, you're gonna have to be willing and able to back up your assertions and reasoning.

This ain't the kinda place that deals in quick one liners and platitudes.  We actually try to discuss and reason through the complex issues we debate.

And copping the "I'll humor you" 'tude isn't going to get you very far, either.

My point was a) I am not a drive by.  If I were, I would have thrown out one post and left...how many have I posted in this thread so far? b) I genuinely think we understand one another, now we are at an ideological impasse and I don't know what I can say that will add value to this discussion.  Getting into a circular discussion is not helpful, and my experience has been that once it starts going in circles it just keeps going until people get bored with it.

I'd really like to think this isn't a drive-by, where you stir the pot and then depart, neither entertaining nor condoning further discussion.

IOW, I'm approaching this from an administrator's angle. Threads with value don't get arbitrarily killed just because the OP doesn't like them anymore.

Now, as somebody who spent 20+ years in the military, I'm not entirely keen on government-run, or government-provided healthcare.

I have plenty of horror stories to relate, as does my then-dependent wife, and as stated before, the government can't even run a whorehouse, let alone nation-wide healthcare.

That ain't group-think, or all of us ganging up on you.  It's me quite seriously asking ANYBODY why I should pay for their healthcare if they're capable of doing so themselves. I work hard for my income, and am busting my butt for a second retirement because I don't think Social Security will even be solvent when I turn 67 in a few years.  I've already been to Communist and Socialist countries during my military career, and I see nothing I want for my life from those regimes. Nor do I care that we're already paying for roads, Cash For Clunkers, AIG bailouts, crack whore babies, or ACORN surveys with appropriated tax money.  Two (or more) wrongs don't make a right, and coming into a forum exclaiming in no uncertain terms that you're prepared to make us pay taxes to support your healthcare desire is very much akin to Rex Cramer in the Danger Seekers scene from Kentucky Fried Movie.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U38HmSSAGSo

As HTG mentioned, please don't patronize us by saying you're "humoring me".  Retiring gracefully?  Not with that little jab. This is an internet discussion forum, not a "I'm taking my ball and going home because I don't like the answers" type of deal.  We discuss things here, Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, men, women, cat-lovers, dog-lovers, Windows, Linux, Mac, one big APS melting pot.  Saying the thread no longer serves a purpose to you smells of something, and I'm very much tempted to remove the smell to a different location, in it's entirety.  However, if you started the thread as some sort of social experiment via stirring the pot, my decision shall be sooner rather than later.

The thread will continue, as long as it remains civil.  Much valuable discourse has been injected into the discussion, with or without the OP and/or their consent.   

See my above post.  In that spirit, do you have a question I should answer that will further this debate?  I get that you don't like socialism, you get that I do, you have explained why you don't like it, I have explained why I do like it.

I'm not trying to be glib, I have spent literally hours reading this particular thread and responding to it.  That is the definition of 'not a drive by'.

But if I am going to get in trouble if I don't answer some specific questions, fine.  Ask some specific questions and I will try to be constructive.  I'll try not to be patronizing or snide.

Aren't you saying (as mellestad mentions in his 2nd point) that ANY tax is the result of someone's "sense of entitlement?"  Whether or not it's in the constitution doesn't change the fact that people have to pay taxes for something they don't necessarily need or want because someone's "sense of entitlement" deemed it necessary.

This was my point.  Either taxes in any form are wrong, or they aren't.  If they aren't then we are back to politics and we can have a rational discussion.  If both sides are dogmatic, someone will win 100% and someone will lose 100%.  If both sides are willing to moderate a bit then we reach a solution that is not so one sided.

To Eric: This is what I mean by circular.  I have already responded to this idea, and if I 'have to' respond to every post like this the thread will never end.  If you don't know my opinion by now, you never will, and if I don't accept your particular objections by now, I doubt another ten pages of posting will make a difference.

[makattak]

This was my point.  Either taxes in any form are wrong, or they aren't.  If they aren't then we are back to politics and we can have a rational discussion.  If both sides are dogmatic, someone will win 100% and someone will lose 100%.  If both sides are willing to moderate a bit then we reach a solution that is not so one sided.

To Eric: This is what I mean by circular.  I have already responded to this idea, and if I 'have to' respond to every post like this the thread will never end.  If you don't know my opinion by now, you never will, and if I don't accept your particular objections by now, I doubt another ten pages of posting will make a difference.

Your statement is a false dichotomy.

Either taxes in any form are wrong, or SOME TAXES ARE WRONG, or none are wrong. You think no taxes are wrong. That's fine, but the opposite of your position is not the only other position.

My position (and many in this thread) is that only constitutionally authorized taxes are right. If you want to tax and spend on other things, change the consitution. Instead you seem to be fine with: I can get enough people to vote for what I want, but not enough to actually change the constitution. So, I'll just ignore the constitution.

In other words, you want to change the rules of the game and then claim that because no one stopped playing everyone must be fine with it.

He's a hint: enough of us see the writing on the wall and are making contingency plans to stop playing. What happens when you don't have enough people left to steal from?

(Incidentally, we don't even have to stop playing to get to this point now. Current projections on Medicare is that it will run out of money in 2017. I estimate, ceteris paribus, they might be able to squeeze another decade and a half out of borrowing. Medicare CANNOT be sustained past 2030. My bet is it cannot even last that long. Social Security is in the best shape of all the entitlements, but I doubt it can last much beyond Medicare's 2030 implosion.)

[mellestad]

Your statement is a false dichotomy.

Either taxes in any form are wrong, or SOME TAXES ARE WRONG, or none are wrong. You think no taxes are wrong. That's fine, but the opposite of your position is not the only other position.

My position (and many in this thread) is that only constitutionally authorized taxes are right. If you want to tax and spend on other things, change the consitution. Instead you seem to be fine with: I can get enough people to vote for what I want, but not enough to actually change the constitution. So, I'll just ignore the constitution.

In other words, you want to change the rules of the game and then claim that because no one stopped playing everyone must be fine with it.

He's a hint: enough of us see the writing on the wall and are making contingency plans to stop playing. What happens when you don't have enough people left to steal from?

(Incidentally, we don't even have to stop playing to get to this point now. Current projections on Social Security is that it will run out of money in 2017. I estimate, ceteris paribus, they might be able to squeeze another decade and a half out of borrowing. Social Security CANNOT be sustained past 2030. My bet is it cannot even last that long. And social security is in the best shape of all the entitlements.)

Actually, your point was my point.  I am arguing that some taxes are fine and some are not.  Hence, we can have a political discussion that does not involve armed citizens killing other citizens.

The constitution has been interpreted the way it is.  It has been the status quo for a very, very long time now.  You are a strict constitutional literalist, I am not.  Democracy has not upheld your political opinion.  It has not upheld mine either, there are many things about America I think are flawed and I don't ever see them changing.

Life, politics and democracy are not utopias.  Never have been, never will be.  You make the best of what you can.  Have you joined phone banks?  Have you been working in Washington DC as a lobbyist?  Have you run for local office?  Do you hold regular town hall meetings, and volunteer for national libertarian projects?  Have you joined the Free State Project, and moved?  Do you regularly write to your political representatives, and to local and national newspapers?  Donate regularly to your preferred causes?  Protested and marched?

[MicroBalrog]

Oh, but Mellestad, you do not understand. Liberals don't have jobs! We conservative have jobs, we don't have times for protesting. :| :|

[mellestad]

Oh, but Mellestad, you do not understand. Liberals don't have jobs! We conservative have jobs, we don't have times for protesting. :| :|

Lol

(Edit: The tea party people had the right idea a couple weekends ago.  The question is how many people actually support that platform, and if they have enough money and influence to either change the Republican party or create a new party large enough to be effective.  We'll find out!)

[Nick1911]

Oh, but Mellestad, you do not understand. Liberals don't have jobs! We conservative have jobs, we don't have times for protesting. :| :|

Community Organizer is a respectable job.  Have you learned nothing from last US presidential election? 
 

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Oh, but Mellestad, you do not understand. Liberals don't have jobs! We conservative have jobs, we don't have times for protesting. :| :|

You may have noticed that the recent conservative protests were held on weekends.  This is not a coincidence.

[Gewehr98]

Have you joined phone banks?  Do you regularly write to your political representatives, and to local and national newspapers?  Donate regularly to your preferred causes?

Yes, yes, and yes. 

I'm also a Friends of the NRA organizer, a volunteer range safety officer, and now own The Carnival of Cordite, getting ready to ramp it back up again.

Where in this thread, exactly, did somebody threaten to kill you?   

[roo_ster]

Where in this thread, exactly, did somebody threaten to kill you?   

Some people are so tactical, they ooze potential homicide out of their pores.

Or, it could be the Hoppes they dab behind their ears...

[Viking]

Yes, yes, and yes. 

I'm also a Friends of the NRA organizer, a volunteer range safety officer, and now own The Carnival of Cordite, getting ready to ramp it back up again.

Where in this thread, exactly, did somebody threaten to kill you?   

I think it was somebody who said that if he was willing to steal money from them, they would be perfectly happy about giving him a free .45 caliber lobotomy, or words to that effect.

[mellestad]

Some people are so tactical, they ooze potential homicide out of their pores.

Or, it could be the Hoppes they dab behind their ears...

Lol, nice.

[Perd Hapley]

 Hence, we can have a political discussion that does not involve armed citizens killing other citizens.

Killjoy. 

[mellestad]

Killjoy. 

We could try having a political discussion *while* citizens are killing other citizens.  Sort of the best of both world...Gladiator meets C-SPAN!

[Perd Hapley]

As long as it's Congress-folk killing each other, I'm down.