ABOVE: Governor Tim Pawlenty seconds before being delivered a vicious series of noogies by a bunch of really smart kids. It's for your own good, Governor; take it like man.
There's really not much more to say about how completely out of touch, heartless and totally fucked the Republican party is today that can't be summed up by this quote from Governor Tim Pawlenty.
"Take a nine iron and smash a window out of big government."Pawlenty said that this morning. This morning. Yeah.
Only one day after a crazed "domestic terrorist" did his damndest to try and kill hundreds of federal employs by crashing his plane into an IRS building.
Gov. Pawlenty: You are a worthless piece of shit. A "retard" of the highest order, to quote the great Rush Limbaloney. To even use such a metaphor as an elected official, is reprehensible. Yes, I understand it's supposed to be a catchy, hip reference to Tiger Woods, about a month too late for it too really be catchy or hip. Doesn't matter. It's one thing for a crapmaster like Grover Norquist, who's never held office in his life, to use a drowning-baby metaphor to describe his fetishes about the size of government, but it's another thing entirely for the governor of a state to do so. In fact, I call it treason.
Oh, I know, that one man's treason is another man's witty remark, but it's always only okay if you are a Republican, isn't it? If a Democrat had said the same thing during the Reign of Bush the Second, a call would have went out for his or her head, for a hanging, a lynching, a firing squad at dawn!
Damn, but this crap makes me so tired.
10 comments:
The first thing I thought of when I heard of that asshole flying his plane through the Gov't building wasn't terrorism. It was that this is the beginning of the real crumbling of this country. People are losing their shit big-time due to the economy and a feeling of hopelessness. And the "Fox news" loons are inflaming the flyover state denizens. The whole "big gov't is destroying us" shpiel is going to fan the flames. That guy in the plane was the shot over the bow... Oklahoma City part two isn't far off. And that scares the crap out of me.
If a Dem had advocated smashing the window out of big gov't when W. was Prez., he'd've been on McCain's short list for veep.
krid! How's it going, Mr. K? Are you suggesting McCain has an affinity for treason? ;)
Or that he just makes dumb calls for veep?
Nice to hear from you - have a great day!
Well played, gomo. I suppose I left myself wide open for a couple more of your pedestrian cheapshots, but before you jizz yourself imagining Pawlenty blindfolded cum cigarette, you might want to consider that in the United States, to advocate for big (federal) government is to advocate against the Constitution.
Never understood that reasoning. The Constitution is about providing a framework for government. How is it a framework only for small government? Unless you are a states-righter?
Now, now Gomo. You're being glib. Of course you understand that line of reasoning, because presumably, you've read the document. You just have a pathological aversion to limited, decentralized government--and that is patently anti-Constitutional. From there it's no stretch, technically speaking, to label any consequential action taken to further that view as "treasonous," but I won't cross that line just yet.
What I can't get my head around is the motivation. Either you want government bureaucrats in my face every time I turn around or need them in yours. Or maybe you just haven't thought it through. It should be obvious, though, that you're going to get both.
I think maybe we are arguing definitions of government's role, really. I see very broad applications available to the government under the Constitution, that are part and parcel of basics like national defense. Let's start with that. (Otherwise, most of what the government does is probably un-Constitutional because most of what it does is not specifically written into the Constitution but created legislatively).
I'd include national health care under the umbrella of defense, for instance. We cannot defend ourselves with an unhealthy population to draw our military from. There was an article on the front of a local paper yesterday about the debilitating effects that national health standards are having on the quality of our military recruits. Too many are unfit for service for too many health-related reasons. If we want a strong national defense, we need strong national health care, is my argument.
I could make the same argument regarding the need for the EPA, for cap and trade, for huge investments in alternative energy sources, etc. All of these help to secure the nation - either by providing a healthier environment and reducing environmental causes of illness (and helping to reduce the need for medical treatment for such, reducing the amount of money spent on treating such too) or by relieving us from the threat of energy embargoes by unfriendly nations. All of the above, I call national defense.
I pick this example because I keep hearing Teabaggers (and I'm not saying this is where you come from philosophically or politically) hollering about reducing the government to its basics and limiting spending and the first thing they always yell about is national defense. "Keep defense - But get rid of [insert anything else here]"!
Another way to look at it to me is to use the Commerce Clause to enact health care. Health care is a for-profit, commercial enterprise that is nationwide, crossing all state borders. And it's out of control, it's beggaring the nation. I think the CC gives Congress the ability to control it. And if we can control it through the creation of a national health care system that brings down costs through competition and regulation, then go Commerce Clause! (Of course, I'm broadly defining commerce here, way more than some would. The Supreme Court under FDR refused to define "mining" as commerce, for example. I guess it was just digging in the ground for fun. No financial purpose or gain. They gave the coal away, if I remember right).
Living in Illinois, your insurance covers infertility treatments--but what if you're not infertile, not worried about becoming infertile, already have all the kids you're going to have, or never plan to have kids? Wanna save a few bucks and buy, say, an Indiana plan that doesn't cover infertility treatments because its not required by law in that state? Sorry. You live in Illinois, so you must have that coverage--and a whole bunch of other crap you don't need that makes your policy cost more than your groceries every month. Thanks to a system of mandated coverage, you can not--as the Progressive Insurance ad says--"build your own" health insurance policy. It's against the law. That's why health insurance costs are, as you put it, "out of control" and "beggaring the nation." Try this: go to an auto insurance online quote site, check every single coverage box they offer and get your quote. Compare that amount to what you're now paying for car insurance. I don't know about you, but I'd be pretty mad if the state suddenly forced me to buy maximum coverage for my '92 Volvo.
How about we try "portability" or let people "purchase insurance across state lines." These are real reforms, but they're viciously opposed by Democrats along with almost everything else that will actually "bend the cost curve downward" by giving consumers more options and control. Dems oppose this because right now--even without Obamacare--they are the puppetmasters of a system of mandates, red tape and regulation whose real purpose is not to "improve health" but to give them political leverage and keep money flowing into their campaign coffers from the whole gamut of special interest groups affected by their decisions.
Commerce Clause? Are you serious? There is no interstate commerce clause. It was nullified during WWII when the Supreme Court told a farmer that the surplus wheat he grew to feed his chickens affected interstate commerce because afterall, since he didn't have to buy it on the open market, he impacted supply and demand and affected the interstate price. Next time you read Article I, Section 8, just cross out the words "and among the several States" and replace them with "within the United States," and replace the word "commerce" with "economic activity." Oh, but I forgot: America-hating pinkos like it when the Constition is amended by judicial fiat to give Washington a say about what they wipe their asses with in the morning.
Portability and buying insurance across state lines are EXACTLY WHAT Dems have been proposing while their conservative opposition have, well, opposed it. Opposed any change, any reform, any possibility that people without insurance can get insurance, that insurance companies should be legislated to act responsibly, that small businesses could buy into affordable insurance packages for their employees, that self-employed people can even afford insurance. The Republicans have said nothing but NO! NO! NO! for a year now to every piece of legislative reform, but especially to anything that will hurt the short-term profits of their beloved benefactors, the insurance pirates.
I'm confused. Didn't Obama in the summit just reject allowing people to buy insurance across state lines because it will cause "a race to the bottom"?
The entire healthcare debate is about whether or not to prop up and crystallize a corrupt, oppressive DEMOCRAT system at the expense of real reforms that help real people, which Republicans are finally advocating thanks to conservative pressure.
Post a Comment