Search






Jeff's Amazon.com Wish List

Archive Calendar

November 2024
M T W T F S S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
252627282930  

Archives

The end of American Exceptionalism?

The Obama Administration seems to believe so:

Congressman Mike Pence suspects that the Administration, despite [Hillary] Clinton’s denial, really does believe that America is in decline. At the Conservative Political Action Conference this year, he said, “I am told that officials in this administration will actually admit in private that they see their job as ‘managing American decline.’” If true, the Administration’s approach is extremely chilling.

Actually, what’s most chilling is that the administration seems to consider America’s decline a worthy goal to pursue.

It’s the great “progressive” dream of a leveled track — with the leveling not coming at the starting blocks but rather at the finish line.

Me, I can’t wait until the US is told by the rest of the world that it needs to share the burden of, say, malaria. For “fairness.” That kind of quota system might finally wake up some of our more aggressively ignorant rote “social justice” types to the practical dystopian implications of their Utopian world view.

0 Replies to “The end of American Exceptionalism?”

  1. JD says:

    It would be a decline that their policies and philosophies created.

    But, considering they apologized to China for Arizona’s human rights abuses, this should surprise nobody.

  2. JD says:

    Trolls never fail to be trollish.

  3. sdferr says:

    How would one end what never was? Seen from Obama’s point of view, there’s no there there.

  4. FYI says:

    It’s an exceptional America where the rights of big industry are deemed more important than the individual citizens. Would you expect anything less from Republicans? In the face of the worst oil spill in US history, Republicans blocked a bill that would have raised the maximum liability for oil companies after a spill from a paltry $75 million to $10 billion. Meanwhile, BP reps are going door to door in the LA fishing communities trying to get fishermen to sign waivers of liability for a $5000 check.

  5. Mikey NTH says:

    That kind of quota system might finally wake up some of our more aggressively ignorant rote “social justice” types to the practical dystopian implications of their Utopian world view.

    Doubt it. Such a thing would be considered justice because the arrogant sinner is getting exactly what it deserves. Not that ‘social justice’ has anything to do with justice – if it did, it wouldn’t need the adjective. It has everything to do with envy and revenge.

  6. dicentra says:

    Are they really looking to even the playing field or is that just an excuse to take control control control?

    Because that’s what it all comes down to: the rhetoric about WHY is just window-dressing.

  7. agile_dog says:

    where the rights of big industry are deemed more important than the individual citizens.

    And just what are the legal limits of liability when sueing an individual? Does it change when the liability is to another individual or to a business? And if business have more rights than people, how come both can be taxed and sued, but only people can vote? You might wish to consider stating the relevant facts of both sides of a comparison, rather than saying: “Thing X (with a value of Y) is so much worse than Thing Z (no value specified.)” Or are you just practicing being a troll?

  8. dicentra says:

    the rights of big industry are deemed more important than the individual citizens

    You got it all wrong, FYI. The Dems are just as much in bed with Big Biz as the Republicans, probably moreso.

    Follow the money, dude. Most corporate donations go to Team D, because Big Biz just LURRRVES them some regulations. Big Biz writes the regs that keep their smaller competitors down, and then they perform this Kabuki theater about how the gubmint steps in to prevent the rapacious capitalists from ruining us all.

    It’s called corporatism, and it was the invention of Benito Mussolini, who figured it was better to just bring industry on board instead of taking it over outright.

    This way, big biz and big gubmint (and big labor, and big enviro, and whoever else wants a seat at the table) gets to pretend that they’re at each others’ throats when in fact they’re quite cozy in bed.

    At our expense. Always at our expense.

  9. Bill Ayers & Rev. Wright says:

    “American Exceptionalism?”
    How can anyone find anything “exceptional” about this racist, homophobic, gun-toting, social-justice abhorring, patriarchal excuse for a country?

  10. t’s an exceptional America where the rights of big industry are deemed more important than the individual citizens.

    Well yeah. Unless those individuals are in a Union. Then you can tell the corporations and the individuals to get bent, we gots governing to do.

  11. Urgh. Wake me when they move the Capital to Ravenna.

  12. Kresh says:

    “I am told that officials in this administration will actually admit in private that they see their job as ‘managing American decline.’” If true, the Administration’s approach is extremely chilling.

    It’s not chilling if you’ve been paying attention. After all, a promise to bankrupt the Pennsylvania coal industry wasn’t made in jest by our Jester-in-Chief. A promise is a promise.

    Isn’t it?

    So I’ve been told.

  13. FYI says:

    FYI. The Dems are just as much in bed with Big Biz as the Republicans, probably moreso.

    It was Democrat Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ) who introduced the bill to extend liability for oil companies that spill, it was REPUBLICAN Sen. Lisa Murkowski that has blocked this bill.

  14. Jeff G. says:

    And if oil companies fight back against such punishments by raising prices on consumers, the government should step in and fix prices. And limit profits. And if that doesn’t work, they should just take over the industry.

    It’s been done before, you know.

  15. DarthRove says:

    Shorter FYI:

    We’ve got spirit, yes we do!
    We’ve got spirit, how ’bout YOU?!

  16. Chairman Hussein Teh Magnificent says:

    Me, I can’t wait until the US is told by the rest of the world that it needs to share the burden of, say, malaria. For “fairness.” That kind of quota system might finally wake up some of our more aggressively ignorant rote “social justice” types to the practical dystopian implications of their Utopian world view.

    You’re kidding, right? They would do no such thing, just as MikeyNTH said. But, they’d just keep all the quinine for themselves.

  17. JD says:

    I wonder if FYI would be cool with BP just writing a check for $75,000,000 and washing their hands of this. Maybe the MMS should do the same, since they approved the procedure done. But this fucking asshat troll is just spamming its talking points like a good little twatwaffle.

  18. JD says:

    Barcky took more money than anyone in the last 20 years, FYI, so you can take your Republicans are evil talking point and shove it up your ass. That is all.

  19. sdferr says:

    Or in the alternative, unshackle the oil drillers and allow them to drill on land where oil may be found, produce the hell out of the stuff and lower the prices for everyone, while reducing the higher risks run when we force them to drill in exceptionally deep water.

  20. FYI says:

    Isn’t it great to be apologists for Republicans who want to help big oil avoid liability for the worst environmental disaster in US history? Must be a great role to have in life.

  21. JD says:

    Blasphemy, sdferr. Blasphemy. meya/RD/bdam/pfar/soa/inyoursoup will have nothing of the sort. Punish them. And bad.

  22. JD says:

    Fuck you, FYI. Fuck you. That was a lie and you are a liar.

  23. DarthRove says:

    FYI’s threadjacking notwithstanding, what rankles me is not that the US isn’t achieving at the top in most fields the way it used to. In competition, there’s no shame in being honestly beaten or outdone by a better opponent. What’s disheartening is that the US government has successfully hobbled its own citizenry and industry through over-regulation, punitive taxation, and poor general education. Vonnegut>/a> warned us a long time ago.

  24. Pablo says:

    American exceptionalism? We’ve got the Gulf of Mexico being murdered by the minute, taking the livelihood of millions of people down with it. And what has our President done? Wah, wah, wah. Nuthin’.

    Bush woulda nuked that sumbitch already. We suck, from the top down. For now.

  25. DarthRove says:

    Grrr. Put that first > through a reflection about the y-axis please.

  26. Pablo says:

    Isn’t it great to be apologists for Republicans who want to help big oil avoid liability for the worst environmental disaster in US history?

    Who said that?

    Must be a great role to have in life.

    I suppose imagining things into beig as you go along must be pretty cool. I’m still waiting for my free gas, though.

  27. Spiny Norman says:

    what rankles me is not that the US isn’t achieving at the top in most fields the way it used to. In competition, there’s no shame in being honestly beaten or outdone by a better opponent. What’s disheartening is that the US government has successfully hobbled its own citizenry and industry through over-regulation, punitive taxation, and poor general education.

    American achievement in most fields that matter will always be bottom rung so long as the NEA runs the show.

  28. Spiny Norman says:

    It’s just more populist Kabuki theater from the Democrats, FYI, you fucking idiot. Just like their “investigation” of their own moneybags at Goldman Sachs…

  29. Pablo says:

    The White House came out ahead of the vote with an announcement on Wednesday with proposed legislation to allow the federal government to collect more damages from companies responsible for the spill. But the Obama administration didn’t propose a specific increase in the cap on damages, and on Thursday refrained from offering support for the measure from Sen. Bill Nelson (D., Fla.) , Sen. Bob Menendez (D., N.J.), and Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D., N.J.). The Democrats must now go back to the drawing board.

    Y’ever consider reading the whole thing, FYI?

  30. Blake says:

    FYI you ignorant talking point slut. You’re not worth arguing with, so, why don’t you go back to looking at internet porn while spanking the monkey? Or head over to DU and engage them in a “evil Republican backs big business” circle jerk of a debate.

  31. Spiny Norman says:

    Y’ever consider reading the whole thing, FYI?

    And damage the “impact” of his talking points?

  32. Blake says:

    Just so’s you know, FYI, I sincerely doubt a raise in the cap on damages would pass judicial review. A little something called ex post facto might come into play.

  33. FYI says:

    Pablo demonstrates his ignorance. The Dem introduced bill raised the liability cap to $10 billion.
    http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-oil-spill-new-20100514,0,6291548.story

    Analysis shows Obama’s response was aggressive, showing little resemblance to Bush’s poor response to Katrina:
    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_gulf_oil_spill_obama_s_response

    The Associated Press, based on documents, interviews and public statements, shows little resemblance to Katrina in either the characterization of the threat or the federal government’s response.

    The AP review found that the administration moved early with rescue efforts. Also, the government knew within days that while no leak had been found, the potential for environmental harm existed.

    From day to day, as the situation evolved from devastating fire and dramatic rescue to a possible environmental hazard, the response activities changed, too, according to documents and interviews.

  34. Pablo says:

    A little something called ex post facto might come into play.

    Which negates the pressing need to HURRY UP AND PASS SOMETHING, despite our knowledge that all Democrat bills are packed with the best intentions and that the consequences are all fluffy bunnies and rainbow Skittles. Who runs the Senate again? What sort of majority? Was there some filibuster I was unaware of?

  35. David R. Block says:

    Courts aren’t too happy with retroactive BS.

  36. Spiny Norman says:

    Spin, troll, spin!

    From starting out annoyingly off-topic then veering into the patently ridiculous, this one’s a winnah!

  37. Blake says:

    Wow, the comparisons to Katrina has the little Obama minions all a scurry, running from site to site with spambot talking points, trying to get control of the narrative.

    I’ve a new narrative: President Obama is a dunce who’s in thrall to George Soros. Soros is looking to gain power and money through the destruction of the US and President Obama is more than happy to oblige Soros.

  38. Pablo says:

    Pablo demonstrates his ignorance.

    By quoting your source?

    The Dem introduced bill raised the liability cap to $10 billion.

    And the Obama administration declined to support that bill. Which is what I quoted from your link.

    The Associated Press, based on documents, interviews and public statements, shows little resemblance to Katrina in either the characterization of the threat or the federal government’s response.

    True. Bush didn’t let Katrina go on for 3 weeks and counting, pumping out death minute by minute.

    Eight days later, from Air Force One, Obama told advisers he wanted an aggressive response to what had suddenly become a more menacing threat to the ecology and economy of the Gulf Coast. The president made no mention of the new developments when he strolled to the back of the plane to chat with the traveling press pool.

    The fresh concerns would be outlined by the Coast Guard at a news conference that evening. It was not until the next day — nine days after the explosion and five days after first word the well was spewing oil — that the government would declare it a “spill of national significance.”

    I though we were getting a superhero. Feh.

  39. Spiny Norman says:

    FWIW, anytime something starts out “an Associated Press analysis”, you know unintentional comedy is sure to follow…

    o_O

  40. mojo says:

    The equality of a field of grass. The lowing herd.

  41. FYI says:

    This is what Blake and the Tbaggers are being told and believe:

    Levin and Limbaugh: oil spill caused by environmentalists, beginning of Obama takeover of oil industry

  42. Pablo says:

    Eds: SUBs 5th graf to CORRECT that Katrina was five years ago, sted six.

    I luv the AP.

  43. bh says:

    What’s it with tools and their inability to use blockquotes or quotation marks?

    Is it that complicated?

  44. Pablo says:

    This is what Blake and the Tbaggers are being told and believe:

    This is where you should stop pretending you know anything about who you’re talking to. You really suck at this, FYI, and you should go practice someplace else until you get some chops, k?

  45. Spiny Norman says:

    Ooh lookie! Now we have the strawman clown circus!

    [cue the calliope]

    Root doot doodle-doodle root doot doo….

  46. Freedoms Truth says:

    Hey, FYI is Mr Hyperbole-Man … “Worst oil spill in American history” Worst oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico was IXTOC. That was an oil well blowout that went on for 9 months.
    This one is about 1/40th the size so far.

    Even when he’s ireelevent he’s wrong. Putz.

  47. bh says:

    I mean, even #43 was unattributed cut and paste.

    Is it that hard to type a sentence composed of one’s own thoughts?

  48. FYI says:

    Thanks for pointing out it took Obama just one day after the extent of the oil spill was noted to declare it a “spill of national significance.”

    Pablo, you need to get yourself a new name, it doesn’t fit with the TBaggers. BTW… everyone saw Katrina coming.

  49. sdferr says:

    The evidence would seem to suggest bh, that yes, it is that hard, when as in one such as FYI, one hasn’t any to begin with.

  50. Blake says:

    Awwe, shucks, FYI, you didn’t have to go and mention me. Gosh, I’d no idea my posts had gotten under your skin.

    You embarrass me with such praise.

    Thanks for the recognition, though. I appreciate it.

  51. Spiny Norman says:

    BTW… everyone saw Katrina coming.

    Except for Ray Nagin and Kathleen Blanco, apparently.

    But the horrible Bush kept them in the dark until it was too late…

  52. JD says:

    FYI is really lousy at this.

    FYI – are you in favor of retroactive application of new laws?

  53. bh says:

    I suppose so, sdferr.

    Of course, I probably shouldn’t complain about such things. His response to Pablo was one of the funnier things I’ll probably see today.

  54. JD says:

    FYI believes unknown laws to be written at a future date, subject to political calculations, should govern the affairs of men. What could go wrong?

  55. Leftover eggplant and garlic pizza says:

    It’d be nice to get a look at said legislation. Thomas doesn’t seem to have any bill of that description listed.

  56. Slartibartfast says:

    Stupid socks.

  57. Blake says:

    I’ll take Obamacare for $150 billion over budget and counting, JD.

  58. JD says:

    I wonder what FYI thinks the consequences would be if the Dems tried to change the rules after the fact.

  59. Pablo says:

    Except for Ray Nagin and Kathleen Blanco, apparently.

    And the nitwits that were too stupid to leave, the ones whose lives the Coast Guard was saving as soon as the storm cleared. How many lives has Obama saved, FYI? And how many innocent civilians has he murdered in cold blood in his illegal war on Pakistan?

  60. Spiny Norman says:

    (Going after the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Pakistan is about the only thing the Obama Administration has done right…)

  61. bh says:

    By the way, in regards to meya, a fairly easy way to tell when someone is thinking of externalities too simplistically is that they’re always identified as negative.

  62. Spiny Norman says:

    …the ones whose lives the Coast Guard was saving as soon as the storm cleared.

    Hey now! I thought that was Sean Penn… well, after he bailed out the rowboat with a red plastic cup, anyway.

  63. FYI says:

    Isn’t it great to be apologists for Republicans who want to help big oil avoid liability for the worst environmental disaster in US history? Must be a great role to have in life.

  64. sdferr says:

    Annnnnd print….. that’s a wrap.

  65. Blake says:

    Someone smack the spambot, it seems to be stuck in a talking point loop.

  66. Spiny Norman says:

    …the record’s stuck…the record’s stuck…the record’s stuck…

  67. JD says:

    FYI is a fucking liar. Still waiting on you to explain your position on ex post facto laws.

  68. FYI says:

    JD, if you want an example of an ex post facto law, look at when GW Bush violated federal law and the Constitution by enacting his own law in violation of FISA. Legislative GOP leaders took steps to enact legislation to retroactivly protect the President from prosecution.

    learn

  69. JD says:

    FYI – simple scenario. Company A was operating under a limit of liability of $75,000,000 at the time of an incident. What should their limit of liability be?

  70. JD says:

    FYI is dummerer than a sack of Mike Tysons.

  71. Blake says:

    Wow, someone must have smacked our little spambot. Unfortunately, spambot was hit so hard, it’s making even less sense.

    Didn’t think that was possible.

  72. bh says:

    Compare:

    “Legislative GOP leaders took steps to enact legislation to retroactivly protect the President from prosecution.”

    with:

    “Legislative GOP leaders are taking steps to enact legislation to retroactivly protect the President from prosecution.”*

    Title of the DU post? “Ex Post Facto – Is the GOP decriminalizing Bush’s NSA wiretapping?”

    What a deep thinker. Ex post facto? Well, let me google those words. Oh, here’s a DU link. Change a couple words and voila.

  73. JD says:

    Just so we are clear here, FYI – you are a dishonest lying little fucktard that prolly molests goats and diddles sheep. You plagiarize other people’s words, and spam links that are not on topic. Stupidity like you display should hurt, and is best used to teach hilljacks how to play the skin flute. That is all.

  74. bh says:

    Hilljacks!

  75. Blake says:

    JD, you gotta love these obamaspamalotbots..always pointing to President Bush as the source of all that is evil in government while ignoring the minor fact their guy is doing the exact same thing.

  76. cranky-d says:

    It seems like most of the threads that go long these days involve thread-jacking, though the intentionalist stuff gets good traffic too.

  77. Spiny Norman says:

    This post once had the possibility of an interesting discussion, until the obamaspinbot shit on it almost immediately.

  78. Blake says:

    bh,

    In reading through the DU post, the fine legal minds at DU are conflating a shield law with ex post facto.

    Then there’s the little fact the post is from March of 2006.

    Rip Van Spambot just woke up, I guess.

  79. cranky-d says:

    Their goal is to distract us. It’s working.

  80. bh says:

    Well, just for fun, I’ll mention that if you search “LA fishing communities trying to get fishermen to sign waivers of liability for a $5000 check”, you find this blog.

    Hi, Willy!

  81. Squid says:

    The spambots want exceptionalism to be over so that they won’t feel so inferior. If you guys would just stop trying so hard, the trolls could rest easy, knowing that they were part of one vast, lumbering herd.

  82. JD says:

    Bh – they are nothing if not predictable.

    Still waiting on your fucking answer, FYI.

  83. bh says:

    It’s Willy the guitar-playing, cat-serenading midget, JD.

    Paella!

  84. Blake says:

    bh, that’s too funny.

    So, the latest in PW trolls is only able to copy and paste without attribution.

  85. onyourbus says:

    I don’t need oil.

  86. JD says:

    Willie the racist skin flute player who is afraid afraid afraid of brown people that can spell and cooks PAELLA. Hello, you lying littlecowardly fucker.

  87. bh says:

    Heh, old troll actually, Blake.

    You can learn every boring detail of his life here.

  88. Danger says:

    Good work bh,

    Keep this up and you’ll get that lunch room assignment you’ve been asking for ;^)

  89. bh says:

    Sweet!

  90. Slartibartfast says:

    Oh, it’s Yelverton.

    I knew the tiresomeness seemed familiar. Dunno why he doesn’t just post under his name, though.

  91. JD says:

    My favorite willie the skin flute player moment was when he was writing post after post about how that willie the midget guitar teacher was going to try out for the middle-aged midget track team, because Forest could run.

  92. Danger says:

    Hey I thought William said he was giving up on political blogging. He wouldn’t lie to us, would he?

  93. Danger says:

    Hey any of you knuckle draggers live near or commute through Baltimore?

  94. JD says:

    Danger – lying is its default setting.

    Am I the only one that was gobsmacked when I saw that we apologized to China for Arizona’s dreadful human rights record?

  95. JD says:

    Sadly, no. But if you are ever in the midwest …

  96. Blake says:

    bh,

    So, dear William has multiple blogs.

    I wondered if it was that William.

    I looked in his “about me.”

    William lists “The Outlaw Jose Wales” and “Fahrenheit 9/11 as two of his favorite movies.

    Damn, that’s just wrong.

  97. America says:

    Who you callin we JD?

  98. America says:

    Who you callin “we” JD?

  99. B Moe says:

    Maybe we should make note of the fact that the exceptionalism we are discussing is different from the exceptional classes you attend when you ride the short bus to school.

    fyi

  100. bh says:

    Nope on Baltimore, Danger.

  101. America says:

    In the event that anyone else (Bob Reed?) that is near Baltimore is interested. I will be arriving there around 1700 on 19th.

    I’ll be spending the night at Baltimore and then I have a short stop at Charlotte on the 2Oth before continuing to Pensacola.

  102. Blake says:

    JD,

    I’m so jaded when it comes to the current administration, they can’t really surprise me any more.

    Some people consider the apology for AZ’s “human rights violation” to be doubling down on stupidity. Me, I consider it more of the same.

  103. Danger says:

    Second the motion on stupid Sock puppets ;^)

  104. bh says:

    Sorry, I can’t help but link this.

    Later, all.

  105. JD says:

    Blake – they are imbeciles. That is all.

  106. cranky-d says:

    It doesn’t get more cliche than that picture at bh’s link.

  107. Curmudgeon says:

    I can’t wait until the US is told by the rest of the world that it needs to share the burden of, say, malaria. For “fairness.”

    Our immigration policies will likely re-introduce it. We have already brought TB back via mass 3rd world immigration

  108. Blake says:

    That picture looks like my ex-brother-in-law. The ex brother-in-law also played a classical guitar and lived in spaces like the one in the picture.

    He too was a pretentious ass.

  109. Kresh says:

    Am I the only one that was gobsmacked when I saw that we apologized to China for Arizona’s dreadful human rights record?

    Rest assured that China doesn’t give a tinker’s damn about Arizona.

    They just like all the bowing and scraping from our feckless little President.

  110. geoffb says:

    This way, big biz and big gubmint (and big labor, and big enviro, and whoever else wants a seat at the table) gets to pretend that they’re at each others’ throats when in fact they’re quite cozy in bed.

    The intramural version of “We’ve always been at war with Eastasia”. Gets those lefty suckers drooling every time it’s used.

  111. JHo says:

    FYI is a fucking liar. Still waiting on you to explain your position on ex post facto laws.

    Post facto? But meya is a konstitushinul expertz!

  112. Mike LaRoche says:

    William lists “The Outlaw Jose Wales”…

    Damn illegal aliens are even stealing Clint Eastwood’s job.

  113. JD says:

    That pic of Willie the midget racist skin flute player serenading a cat is all sorts of teh ghey.

  114. B Moe says:

    “Are you gonna pull those pistols or whistle La Cucaracha?”

  115. JD says:

    Meya/inyoursoup/bdam/pfar – explain to us, in your words, the point of changing limits of liability after something has already happened. If you are going to do that, aren’t you basically making the idea of limits of liability moot, since they will be subject to change after the fact due to political considerations? Do you think BP should be held to the limits of liability in place at the time of the incident?

  116. bastiches says:

    /troll wash

    All caveats aside, the revelation is disturbing and indefensible, despite what the Lefties may wish. Whether they like it or not, our American half-century turned out to be one of the most peaceful, prosperous, and enviable successes.

    Riddle me this, trite and predictable trolls; are you looking forward to more regional wars with lots and lots of brown people killing each other? Are you tickled pink with the thought of the world’s economies reversing course? Do you masturbate at the thought of autocracy becoming the default option among 3rd world states?

    I’m simultaneously curious and not at all. Amuse me.

  117. Spiny Norman says:

    bastiches,

    The Left is perfectly fine with oppressive autocracies, so long as they are the autocrats.

  118. Mike LaRoche says:

    Progressivism is just gradual Stalinism.

  119. Spiny Norman says:

    And the Left sees no problem with the USA becoming a second-rate regional power, because their worldwide socialist revolution has been thwarted by American power for 65 years now.

    How dare we stand in the way of Utopia.

  120. Mike LaRoche says:

    That pic of Willie the midget racist skin flute player serenading a cat is all sorts of teh ghey.

    That pic would scare Richard Simmons straight.

  121. bastiches says:

    The Left is perfectly fine with oppressive autocracies, so long as they are the autocrats.

    No doubt, but they are put to the contortionists test when they’re caught in this diminutive construct. It tends to screech on the public blackboard… At least I hope it still does.

    I hope we haven’t become the 2 America’s that John ” my other ride is a coke whore ” Edwards mistook for a rich versus poor situation. I’m in the pessimistic mood that we have become 2 Americas: one ‘for the State and nuthin’ but the State,’ and the other wondering what has happened to Freedom, Justice, and Liberty for all.

  122. Carin says:

    Progressivism is just gradual Stalinism.

    Progressivism is Stalinism w/o the revolution.

  123. ak4mc says:

    …officials in this administration will actually admit in private that they see their job as ‘managing American decline.’

    As an American, I will not decline to take exception to this.

  124. JD says:

    If that is the case, meya, why fucking bother putting a number on a limit of liability, if a dishonest political foe can just go back, after the fact, and change it by over $9,500,000,000. Does that not render the use of $75,000,000 in the original law, the law in force at the time, and the law they were operating under, anything other than meaningless. Nevermind. You are just a lying fascist twatwaffle.

  125. The Lost Dog says:

    HEY!

    It’s MY fuckin’ fault!

    How would I ever dare, in “His Arrogance’s” kingdom, to say that I think that my stuff and your stuff” should be be taken care of by “us”?

    UH-UH!!!!!

    Mr. “I never had a real job in my life”, says “I AM AN ASSHOLE BECAUSE I DON”T WANT TO TAKE CARE OF LAZY MOTHER ______S AND CRACKHEADS! AT YOUR EXPENSE!

    You idiots! Work hard so MR. ARROGANCE CAN DESTROY YOU AND THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!

    I have never registered to vote, because I live in Chris “Waitress Sndwich” Dodd’s overwhelmingly blue state, but I have had enough of this shit.

    Obama is staring fixedly at the tubes that will take us to Hell, and is so fucking arrogant that he thinks that working for a living is beneath human dignity. Pelosi said today that, because health care is now free, that we should quit our jobs, and pursue our “dreams”

    What the ****?

    We are well and truly fucked, because the Proggs have spent the last fifty years brainwasshing our children in the public schools.

    Anybody disagree?

    Nobody with half a brain could.

    If I had known what my stupid ass behavior in the sixties was leading up to, I probably would have had to shoot myself.

    Unfortunately, too late for this man to repent the fact that these Progg morons effected a change that very few of us “hippies” really wanted.

    Happy cruising, my pals…

  126. Merovign says:

    Why do people let fucktard trolls change the subject?

    If they show up in a thread about roadbuilding and start blathering about abortion, you LEAD with the “fuck off,” there’s no point in arguing since they don’t care about facts anyway.

  127. SDN says:

    Tell you what, FYI, when you generate the electricity for your computer by pedal power, we can talk. Until then, FOAD.

  128. SDN says:

    Which is what they did, soupy. FOAD.

  129. JD says:

    No, meya. That is a fucking lie. People who operate under such limits operate under the assumption that the limit in place means something. They do not operate under the idea the the dishonest reactionary leftist fascists will change the rules after the game is over. So, meya, fuck off, you lying dishonest fucking twit.

  130. JD says:

    Meya/RD/bdam/pfar/soa/inyoursoup/etal – how many different names do you plan on using?

  131. The Bewildered Lost Dog says:

    Obama has NEVER had a real job. That is why he is so sensitive to those who can’t find any work. I HATE this arrogant asshole, and it’s got nothing to do with his birth place or his color.

    HE IS ABSOLUTELY CLUELESS!!! He thinks he was born to put his head up your ass, and screw you if you object. I hear him talk, and my skin crawls the same way it does when someone runs their finger nails across a blackboard.

    I just don’t understand why he wants to punish those who have to work for a living.

    “YOU FUCKING ASSHOLES!!!!!! GIVE ME ALL OF YOUR MONEY!!! AND THEN TELL ME WHY YOU HAVE NO INCENTIVE TO WORK ANYMORE!! YOU SELFISH BASTARDS!!!!”

    Love,

    Obamalamadingdong – YOUR FUCKING PRESIDENT!!!!

  132. Matt says:

    The interesting thing is, this BP problem could be handled in court. BP will pay a judgment for doing whatever stupid thing they did. That’s the way our judicial system works. But, its like, paying civil damages is not enough for some people. They want to make a big political statement. Which is “we should never drill for oil again, ever anywhere, because its bad.”

  133. Bob Reed says:

    Sorry Danger, but I won’t be in that vicinity any time soon; I’m heading upstate Wednesday night for our nephews twins first communion this weekend.

    But, let me congratulate you on your successful deployment, and offer you a hale and hearty welcome home!

    Some other time perhaps; maybe next fall when we travel to Florida to drop my mother-in-law off so she can winter in Florida with my wife’s brother.

    All the best

  134. BuddyPC says:

    Everything old is new again. Everybody, sing along.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeP220xx7Bs

    God save the king
    The fascist regime
    They made you a moron
    Potential H-bomb

    God save the king / He ain’t no human being
    There is no future
    America’s dreaming

    Don’t be told what you want
    Don’t be told what you need
    There’s no future, no future,
    No future for you

    God save the king / We mean it man
    We love our king
    God saves

    God save the king / ‘Cause tourists are money
    And our figurehead
    Is not what he seems

    Oh God save history / God save your mad parade
    Oh Lord God have mercy
    All crimes are paid

    When there’s no future / How can there be sin
    We’re the flowers in the dustbin
    We’re the poison in your human machine
    We’re the future, your future

    God save the king
    We mean it man
    We love our king
    God saves

    God save the king /
    We mean it man
    And there is no future /
    America’s dreaming

    No future, no future,
    No future for you
    No future, no future,
    No future for me

    No future, no future,
    No future for you
    No future, no future
    For you

    It is pretty cathartic. As you clean out your Remington 1100.

  135. Darleen says:

    Tell you what, FYI, when you generate the electricity for your computer by pedal power, we can talk

    SDN

    You need to add that the ‘puter contains no plastic whatsoever, too.

  136. cynn says:

    Yes, it is the end of America’s imagined exceptionalism. We ended it around the time of the Vietnam war and never recovered.

  137. Social justice advocates don’t neessarily intend for everyone to be worse off under their policies, but their spurious premise that desirable, equal social outcomes are a function of political will are led by logic to eventually conclude that a system which fails for everyone is more “just” than a system which succeeds for almost everyone.

  138. Bagram Dewclaw says:

    You know what, Cynn… I have seen and lived in a LOT of different places around this world, and can tell you with quite a bit of certainty that America WAS and IS exceptional… regardless of what that mob of sludge you call a brain manages to come up with.

    From a Desert Sheild/Storm vet currently in Afghanistan on the front line on the Global WAR on Terror, GO FUCK YOURSELF, you half drunk twatwaffle.

  139. JHo says:

    cynn’s world. Obvious lies but no matter, let the flagellations from these shameless elected liars continue.

  140. LTC John says:

    cynn, bzzzt. wrong.

    I have seen a fair lot of the world, and what the people of the Balkans, Central Asia, Southwest Asia, etc. want is what we have. They want to be like Mike.

    Your ilk want them to remain down. Me and mine want to let them be like us … you know, exceptional.

    I’d prefer we not be exceptional, but the norm – the norm that everyone else emulates.

  141. Slartibartfast says:

    Except for the time he trolls us, Yelverton just doesn’t exist for me, for weeks at a time. Sometimes months.

    Which might chafe someone who imagines that pretty much everything he does is Of Interest, or might not. I don’t really care.

  142. inyoursoup says:

    So JD you ever figure out what ‘ex post facto’ means in the constitution?

  143. Slartibartfast says:

    3d. Every law that changes the punishment, and inflicts a greater punishment, than the law annexed to the crime, when committed.

  144. JD says:

    Meya/RD/bdam/pfar/soa/inyoursoup/etal – how many different names do you plan on using?

  145. JD says:

    Meya/RD/bdam/pfar/soa/inyoursoup/etal – how many different names do you plan on using?

    So, we can mark you down as a lying douchenozzle who supports changing the rules after the game has been played. Fuck you.

  146. inyoursoup says:

    Laws can change. Welcome to America.

  147. JD says:

    I should have known better to even attempt to discuss something with this fucking fascist. As Mark Knoller notes, they should add an asterisk to the Constitution that says *unless a hostile Congress changes its mind and tries to apply a penalty after-the-fact.

    Are you going for double digit banning, meya?

  148. JD says:

    Nobody is changing whether laws can be changed, you dishonest little twit. So, go fuck yourself, swordfish-style. Your type of passive-aggressive feigned willful obtusity should be visibly painful.

  149. JD says:

    Nobody is arguing whether laws can be changed … you dishonest little twit. So, go fuck yourself, swordfish-style. Your type of passive-aggressive feigned willful obtusity should be visibly painful.

  150. Slartibartfast says:

    So why did JD bring this up?

    JD didn’t. Please read again, this time with comprehension.

    Laws can change.

    Thank you, Captain Obvious!

  151. JD says:

    I did not bring it up, you lying fucking twit. Go get banned under yet another name.

  152. Slartibartfast says:

    He’s certainly asking about it.

    No, he’s not.

    Do you speak English?

  153. JD says:

    How many names have you been banned under, you lying fucking twit? FYI brought it up, not I. Now, go fuck yourself.

  154. Slartibartfast says:

    Here:

    Reading comprehension is not your strong suit.

    JD is not looking to have FYI explain things to him, he’s looking for FYI to reveal just exactly what his thinking is.

    Now, get thee to a liberal arts institution, stat!

  155. JD says:

    I knew then, and I know now exactly what it means you disingenuous lying little fascist. You are cool with that. Our Constitution is not.

  156. Slartibartfast says:

    What part of No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed says “criminal”?

  157. JD says:

    I await the section of the Constitution that says this applies to criminal matters, multiple-named banned fascist liar. The actual words are quite clear, and do not include the word criminal.

  158. JD says:

    The 1st tee awaits … See ya.

    Maybe another personality will be banned when I return. Seek help, fucking fascist.

  159. not bh says:

    The reference is to Calder v. Bull, I assume.

  160. Slartibartfast says:

    You can argue with the Constitution all you want, meya, but it still says what it says.

  161. Slartibartfast says:

    Ah. Meya is now conflating case law with the Constitution.

  162. not bh, he's working says:

    The sentiment that ex post facto laws are against natural right, is so strong in the United States, that few, if any, of the State constitutions have failed to proscribe them. The federal constitution indeed interdicts them in criminal cases only; but they are equally unjust in civil as in criminal cases, and the omission of a caution which would have been right, does not justify the doing what is wrong.*

  163. JD says:

    Maybe meya/RD/bdam/pfar/bloopy/soa/inyoursoup/fuckingliar can explain to us why Congress should be allowed to change a stated limit of liability? Did not the 1990 Dems intend the make a hard limit of $75,000,000 or was there a note that said that figure did not really mean anything and that future Courts and Congresscritters should feel free to increase it by billions retroactively?

  164. Slartibartfast says:

    Slart you were quoting calder v. bull up above.

    More misadventures in reading comprehension.

  165. not bh, he's working says:

    Well, if I’m following, the argument is that the omission of a caution justifies doing what is wrong.

  166. Slartibartfast says:

    Slart you were quoting calder v. bull up above.

    Ah, so I was. It’s best, when mentioning a thing, to point to that thing.

    So, you’re saying that Calder v. Bull does not apply in this instance? Why bring it up, then?

  167. ak4mc says:

    Comments by TrollHammered trolls are like zero-volume upturns in the Dow. There’s a number there but no content.

  168. Danger says:

    “Some other time perhaps; maybe next fall when we travel to Florida to drop my mother-in-law off so she can winter in Florida with my wife’s brother.”

    Bob,

    A drop in would be most welcome; my home e-mail is dangerdave at bellsouth dot net. Send me a NOTAM and I’ll have the ready truck standing by ;^)

  169. Slartibartfast says:

    We already knew what ex post facto meant, meya.

  170. not bh, he's working says:

    I’m saying it applies in that it tells us what ‘ex post facto’ means.

    I’ll note that Jefferson wrote that letter (quoted above) fifteen years after Calder v. Bull. And he’s clearly referring to it as he speaks of ex post facto laws being wrong in regards to civil cases. Calder v. Bull is merely laying out guidelines towards criminal cases.

    This tendency to assert that the government can do anything not explicitly forbidden in the Constitution is simply wrong.

  171. not bh, he's working says:

    Beyond the law, there’s the simple matter of what sort of business climate we’d like in this country. Currently, we’re delaying investment and hiring because of uncertainty over future laws. Only the naive or malicious would look to expand to that uncertainty to current laws.

  172. not bh, he's working says:

    “look to expand to that uncertainty”, above.

  173. not bh, he's working says:

    Arghh. Forget it. Typo followed by bad html correction. I suck.

  174. JD says:

    What would give you the idea that meya and its multiple personalities are not malicious?

  175. Blake says:

    inyoursoup, I mentioned ex post facto.

    So, you’re wrong on that account.

    Calder v Bull does not define ex post facto. Rather, ex post facto appears to have been used to adjudicate the case.

    There’s a difference between defining a law and using a law to define a case.

  176. JD says:

    Banned lying fucking twatwaffle – you have been asked many direct questions above. Respond. Or go fuck yourself. And quit fucking lying.

  177. Slartibartfast says:

    And he clearly refers to what it means under the constitution: “The federal constitution indeed interdicts them in criminal cases only”

    What it was made to mean under case law, you mean? Because Jefferson said that AFTER Calder v Bull. It’s almost as if one of the Founders had born witness to his intent after the courts had incorrectly divined it.

    Or, more accurately, exactly like that.

  178. serr8d says:

    “I am told that officials in this administration will actually admit in private that they see their job as ‘managing enabling American decline.’”

    Someone prolly fixed that long before, but it glares alarmingly and had to be fixed yet again.

  179. Slartibartfast says:

    It’d be interesting to see how Calder v Bull holds up in the event that stakes get raised to the point where it might be a whole lot cheaper to pay lawyers to fight the fine than to actually pay the fine.

  180. JD says:

    Slarti – this one, and all of its variations, are aggressively mendoucheous.

  181. Slartibartfast says:

    I think she’s just trolling, and using excessive glibness to barely avoid making a point whilst simultaneously enraging some of the regulars. You, for example.

    So, just give her glib back. Throw out some half-bakedmade points that you just know she’s going to have to inquire further about. It’s what she does.

  182. Slartibartfast says:

    you’ll see that the argument is that this meaning is what that term meant in the constitution

    Sure. But he doesn’t back that argument up with anything. It’s pure argument by assertion.

    As the quote shows, it is even treated as only applied to crimes in the federalist papers.

    Eh? You’re going to have to run that by me again.

  183. Blake says:

    Wow, I make an off hand comment and the thread takes off. I feel like career singles hitter who hits his first grand slam.

    inyoursoup, you assert ex post facto is defined by a case. Wrong again. Ex post facto is not defined by the case you mention. The case defines the limits of ex post facto.

    Quite obviously, raising the limits cap will injure BP and Calder v Bull makes it very clear that passing a law which adds injury is considered ex post facto.

    Besides that, inyoursoup, you’ve obviously no problem with government changing the rules as it goes along, proving the ox being gored isn’t yours.

  184. Slartibartfast says:

    Like he talks about blackstone, and the federalist papers (“the author of the federalist”), you didn’t notice that?

    What’d he say, again? Make an argument.

    Or, as you’ve been doing, not.

  185. serr8d says:

    @Mike LaRoche, #122: you’ve gotten credit for Internet Bridge Troll Smackdown of the Day. )

  186. JD says:

    In meya/RD/bdam/pfar/soa/bloopy/soupy’s world, legal limits of liability are minimums, not maximums. Meya is the only one arguing about a definition, and doing so in a mendoucheous manner, which is its norm. It wants to change the rules, it wants to increase the punishment, after the fact. The legislation the Dems passed in 1990 might as well have just left the actual limit of liability blank. This is a noxious use of language, and it is not the least bit surprising that lying fucking fascists approve. You are glib, meya. Glib.

  187. Slartibartfast says:

    I quoted it.

    You did. You quoted bare assertions, though. The claim that “the author[sic] of the Federalist” said something-or-other doesn’t actually connect the conclusion with any basis.

    What Blackstone thought in the matter isn’t completely irrelevant, but it’s not overridingly relevant. There were intentional differences between the structure of our government and that of Great Britain.

    But if you can’t read this case and find what the arguments are, and find what arguments you’d have to counter in order to challenge this reasoning, then I’m sorry

    There are more than adequate counters here; if you’re at all familiar with any controversy at all surrounding this decision, you’ve seen these. Calder v Bull hasn’t really had an important enough challenge yet, I think.

  188. Pablo says:

    It will have to overcome a filibuster, for example, and other tactics against it.

    It will? How’s that?

  189. JD says:

    So, the lying twatwaffle is alright with changing the rules after the fact, provided there is a hostile Congress and they have to go through some procedural roadblocks. None of those change the fact that given what you and yours want to do, to punish BP let’s be very clear on that, would render almost any numerical figure in law meaningless, as you could just go back and claim that since it did not involve a criminal matter, you can just change shit as you wish retroactively. I would love love love for you to actually lay out a position, in your words, defending this as being right, just, honorable and decent. You cannot, so you will not.

    So, through all of this, we have learned that people with multiple personalities, abandonment issues, and non-compliant medication-takers are glib mendoucheous twatwaffles.

    Now … swordfish-style.

  190. Blake no longer Pres Obama says:

    inyoursoup,

    I read Calder v Bull. After further thought, I realized I mis-interpreted the case. The justices held ex post facto did not apply in that particular case, due to the plaintiffs not being harmed by the law.

    Your original assertion is based on a quote from Wikipedia, “The holding in this case still remains good law: the ex post facto provision of the Constitution applies solely to criminal cases, not civil cases.” See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calder_v._Bull

    Wikipedia remains a dubious source, at best, especially for a blanket assertion about application of the law.

    You’re flat out wrong and completely misrepresenting what is contained in the SCOTUS ruling for Calder v Bull.

    So, you’re either lying, or, you decided to trust the synopsis given by Wikipedia rather than read the original ruling.

    I’m going with lying.

  191. JD says:

    “The legislation the Dems passed in 1990 might as well have just left the actual limit of liability blank.”

    I don’t see why.

    You and yours wish to render the actual hard limit of liability meaningless. If you can go back after the fact and change it to whatever you wish, you have changed it from a limit of liability to a minimum liability. But you are either too stupid or too obtuse to realize that. Or both.

  192. Blake no longer Pres Obama says:

    inyoursoup, I sincerely doubt the ruling you cite, Adam Walsh works the way you think it did. Just because the plaintiffs tried to claim ex post facto doesn’t make it so.

  193. JD says:

    Blake – Doubting the words from this multiple-personality liar should be your default position.

  194. JD says:

    Filibusters have to actually exist prior to being overcome, you lying dishonest twat.

    It should not be difficult to do change a law after the fact, SFAG, it should be impossible. I await, patiently, your detailed response to the queries posed above to you.

  195. Slartibartfast says:

    blackstone’s definition of a term of art

    It’s only a term of art because the Calder v Bull decision says it is.

    You’re tailchasing, here.

  196. Blake no longer Pres Obama says:

    Good God, inyoursoup, you really are an idiot, aren’t you? I told you I read the case you cite. The justices do not explain what ex post facto means. The justices decided how ex post facto should be applied.

    What part of that don’t you understand? (that’s a rhetorical question, because quite obviously you’ve some serious problems with reading comprehension)

    The justices decided ex post facto didn’t apply in Calder v Bull, because the plaintiffs were not materially injured.

    By definition, an ex post facto law is any law passed which is retroactive. The justices decided ex post facto didn’t apply and cite several instances to explain why the justices didn’t think it applied.

    You really like to interpret things according to you your wishes and whims, don’t you?

    I think I’ll the advice of JD and just accept that you’re a mendacious twatwaffle of douchebag and go on my merry way.

  197. Slartibartfast says:

    It should not be difficult to do change a law after the fact, SFAG, it should be impossible.

    No, that’s not so. What is so is that it should be impossible to change a law after the fact and have that law apply to events occurring before the law changed.

  198. JD says:

    Point taken, Slarti.

    Yes, Blake. That is a good path to take. Point and laugh. Mock and scorn.

  199. Blake no longer Pres Obama says:

    inyoursoup, you’re rather amusing and you obviously don’t understand this site.

    If I was wrong, I would have people on this site, such as JD, Slartibartfast, bh, Pablo etc., all pointing out where I got it wrong, not just you.

    You I’ve already discounted because you couldn’t get right who originally mentioned ex post facto and you quoted, almost verbatim, a blanket assertion from Wikipedia.

    This site isn’t quite the echo chamber you seem to think it is.

  200. Squid says:

    I content myself in the knowledge that soon, we shall pass a law that makes mendoucheous twatwaffling a capital offense.

    Retroactively.

    And don’t worry, trolls — we’ll make certain that mendoucheous twatwaffling is a well-defined term of art before we sentence you to death by Marcotting*. Hell, we may even translate it into Latin!

    And I don’t wanna hear any complaints from the MT’s about fairness. In the immortal words of the kid whose stash got discovered by his dad: “IT WAS YOU, ALL RIGHT? I LEARNED IT FROM WATCHING YOU!”

    * (Which is to have “???SUCK THIS, BITCH???” tattoo’d on your belly before being thrown into a pit with Amynda.)

  201. JD says:

    Multiple alias troll thingie – you still have not answered any of the queries posed directly to you. And go fuck yourself, after you seek help.

  202. JD says:

    Sorry. Nice try. You again failed to answer the multiple queries posed directly to you. Nice try deflecting.

    Simple question – do you think BP’s limit of liability should be $75,000,000? Why or why not? Show your work. Did the 1990 Dems not mean to limit liability @ $75,000,000? Why or why not? Show your work. And fuck you, you sick twist.

  203. Squid says:

    I mean, really — can you imagine a SCOTUS that would decide against the execution of trolls for past trolling? I sure can’t. I doubt the ACLU would even raise its voice when the NSA started identifying the culprits.

  204. JD says:

    Squid – meya/bdam/pfar/RD/soa/bloopy/soupy would be one of the first to go.

  205. JD says:

    Nice non-answer answer. What do you think their legal limit of liability was at the time of the incident? Do you think it should be able to be changed after the fact? If you think it should be increased, after the fact, what was the point of placing a limit on it in 1990 when the Dems chose to do so?

  206. B Moe says:

    Why is this so hard for you?

    Because he understands the concept of  “limits”.  

    Which seems to be one of the primarty things that distinguish Conservatives from Progressives, coincidentally.

  207. Bob Reed says:

    meya, you sophist attorney wanna-be, either use your normal handle or GTFO…

    We all grow weary of your pathetic reincarnations.

  208. Pablo says:

    You want to get cloture on this you’ll need 60 votes. That’s a very strong bias in favor of the status quo.

    So every bill ever has to overcome a filibuster unless there’s unanimous consent? Uh, no.

  209. serr8d says:

    The limit should not change ex post facto. If Leftists felt that limit was shy of what’s needed to clean up an inevitable oil disaster (how many Exxon Valdez examples did you need?), then they should have pushed to have it increased, say, sometime in the ’90’s. Instead of whatever else Bill Clinton’s time-wasting administration accomplished (let’s see: he burned Waco, bombed aspirin factories and fondled interns) he might have pushed harder to get things such as damage liability limits increased.

  210. JD says:

    Stupidity like this should be visibly painful. Why do you believe it to be right or just to change the limits after the fact, douchenozzle? I find it amazing, truly amazing, that you think that changing the limits after the fact, increasing the limit by billions, is in any way proper.

    How many different names have you used, and how many more do you plan on using?

  211. JD says:

    That is not an answer. That is just more douchebaggery from you. It is simply amazing that you think that businesses can operate in any type of manner when you and your ilk want to come in after the fact and add $10,000,000,000 to the liabilities column. How are they supposed to insure themselves? How are they supposed to budget? Nevermind. You are a fucking imbecile.

  212. Squid says:

    Remember, kids: The NSA will be happy to pull the identification of soupy for us once we’ve changed the penalty for mendoucheous twatwafflery. Every time soupy advocates that penalties can be changed to apply to behavior that occurred before the change, he adds a little more ink to his Marcotte tattoo.

    You’d think soupy would think twice about adding to the evidence against himself, but for soupy to think twice would be about three times more often than he’s used to.

  213. JD says:

    Fuck you, you lying twit.

  214. JD says:

    Increasing a limit of liability by $9,925,000,000,000 is clearly not any type of punishment, Squid.

  215. JD says:

    You clearly do not understand the idea of “just”.

    How many names have you commented under, and how many more do you plan on using?

  216. Jose Wood says:

    proteinwisdom.com’s done it once more! Incredible post.