Democratic Congresswoman almost killed in Arizona

[Yukon Jack]

I tried reading Ayn Rand back when I was a callow youth: her ideology of selfishness really resonated with someone who, at the time, had no life experience. But even then I couldn't get past the turgid prose, the wooden characterizations and, of course, the comic book plot points (I'm pretty sure Rearden metal was what they made Wolverine's claws out of, right?)

Ann Coulter, on the other hand, makes fuggin' Rand look like Deleuze. If Ayn is Marvel Comics, Ann is Bazooka Joe.

That's not what your mom said last time I was raw dogging the hell out of her.

HAPPY FRIDAY YOU GUYS.

You should have remained a "callow youth". Like Churchill said, if a person is not a liberal when he is twenty years old, he hasn't got a heart, and if he is liberal, when older, he hasn't got a brain. (paraphrased)

The sign of true genius is being able to correctly asses a person without ever meeting him. Churchill was clearly talking about you.

I ignore your second last sentence as a clear indication of your mind in the gutter. You are a Typical liberal.

Edited February 11, 2011 by Yukon Jack

[WIP]

Corporations being granted "personhood" occurred in the late 1800's so didn't apply prior to that.

Rockefeller had a hand in establishing that so I suspect it has it's failings.

Corporations do tend to support Democrats more than Republicans as they know that Democrats will make legislation that regulates them, protecting them from competition and granting them a privileged place in the market. Republicans are more likely to allow more competition and less regulation.

This is neither here nor there since the two parties have cooperated to engineer the Two-Party system, and shut out outside competition. So, corporations make deals with Democrats and Republicans...this is not exactly breaking news! The only clear difference between the two parties now is that Democrats feel a twinge of guilt and try to hide where their money comes from, while Republicans proclaim their slavish devotion to corporate masters on the floor of Congress. The point is that the power of the corporations has grown to levels where they violate democratic principles.

I was reading the link you supplied and they are anti-corporate. I could support some of their position but their singular view of corporations as entirely concerned with profit and nothing else is something I can't take as serious. They do have to look at the effect of all policies on profit. Cuurrently, corporate image is important to profit. So they are concentrating on image - going green, giving back to the community, being socially and environmentally responsible, blah,blah,blah....all of that is a cost calculated to balance out in customer support and loyalty. All it does is increase the cost of doing business. The costs are paid out of increased prices to consumers. These types of things limit competition by making the cost of doing business too expensive for emergent and thus marginally profitable enterprises. All the regulation and licensing and requirements help the big corporations by limiting the competitive field. If you want fairness and equality in this area you have to stop protecting those that wish to limit their competition through the hoops and red tape of regulation.

Bullshit! Corporations have other responsibilities besides their shareholders. If you are referring to oil companies here, these are the most profitable industries in the world; in fact 7 of the 10 largest profit-making corporations in the world in 2009 were oil companies, and that's why they don't want to see their joyride come to an end...regardless if they destroy civilization in the process. They need to take on the environmental costs that their industries leave to the environment and society to take care of. Since you mentioned Democratic and Republicans in your first paragraph, I should add here that both parties cooperated to limit BP's liability for the Global Horizon disaster....guess who has to pay any additional costs for damages and cleanup costs over the coming years?

And, once again we are reminded of why the big oil companies started running a reactionary campaign against reducing carbon emissions: BP put a fair bit of money into wind energy and other renewables back when they were in their "Beyond Petroleum" phase. The company fired the CEO, scrapped the green program because they realized wind power and other energy sources cannot produce the profits that oil does. So, under Tony Hayward's direction, they doubled down on oil to get the deep sea, and the dirty oil instead. Once again, a carbon tax would have had an effect regarding which sources of energy they would consider profitable.

I think that poeple can see what corporations are doing if they support a political party. Actually, Unions are likely to support the corporate view politically as it benefits them. Of course, corporations don't always argue for more regulations. An established cartel may want less regulatory intrusion once their positions are well established in the market.

Yes, those unions are really seeing the benefits of the multinational corporate agenda as their jobs have been outsourced to China and India. And there needs to be an examination of the differences between conservative rhetoric and what they actually do with political power. They can wax poetically about free enterprise and entrepreneurship, but in actual fact they award lucrative contracts for building weapons to defense contractors, resource development contracts to other corporations (i.e. Haliburton), contract out public services to other corporations, and most importantly of all: fight against efforts to reign in corporate concentration, such as in investment banking. Conservatives pretend they are for fair competition, when in reality they move in and out of the corporate world and use their time in politics to advance their business interests.

Capitalism doesn't have to grow annually. It should be flexible enough to downsize if necessary. However, it isn't looked upon as a societal benefit as there is less emplyoment and less in tax revenues, hurting social entitlement liabilities that governments have promised to fund.

What did capitalism do before the era of modern finance and globalization? Now, we here that an economy that isn't growing at least 3% a year is actually in decline, why is increased economic growth necessary just to stay even? Once again, if the world was able to expand with economic and population demands, it might be worthwhile; but there's no more room to grow.

I don't think so. Large multinational coroporations have contractual rights to exploration and extraction of resources but ownership for the most part is with the government. The US is probably one of the only countries in the world where private ownership of resources is allowed.

What the hell are you talking about? Most of the world is part of the globalized banking and corporate ownership system...even Cuba to some extent, since they have foreign-owned hotels and resorts. And when a small third world nation bucks corporate owners, the CIA comes in to try to overthrow the government....as they did successfully in Honduras, but have so far failed to do in Bolivia...so let's not kid ourselves about who owns who! Even the U.S. answers to corporate ownership, since most U.S. foreign policy initiatives, such as actions against particular governments, or free trade deals, are done at the request and in the interests of corporate benefactors.

Because governments can't kill the golden goose and must make up for shortfalls with increased fees, fines and levies against those who can least afford them. They have to offload some of their costs to the private sector such as in policing, health care and education. Parents are asked to supply more of the costs of education to their kids, there is a more critical look at what will be paid for under helaht care, and private security guards and other quasi-police forces are thriving.

This is pure fiction since it doesn't account for why the post-WWII boom occurred at a time when the rich had to pay higher taxes, as well as corporate taxes being much higher. Your so called "golden goose" has grown fatter, while most people have been working longer hours just to maintain the same level of prosperity.

of course they are unemployable. Victimhood is a self-prophesizing state.

What would I do? I am not an expert but they must in some manner have their self respect restored to them and thus enabled. They must reject the sympathy that holds them in and fosters their position as victims. They are probably not up to being responsible in any way for their state of affairs but they must not be told they have absolutley no responsiblity or they will never be able to say they are responsible for their state of affairs.

You're not a politician by any chance are you? Because that answer had nothing to do with the question: do you cut off support, or continue providing minimal support to people who for whatever reasons are not working?

It does have something to do with the wealthiest members of society. Aristocracies cannot be maintained in the face of oppression and exclusion from opportunity. If you cannot protect the property of the rich and feel obligated to relieve them of their property then you will not be able to protect the property of the poor either for if ever they should be able to rise above their position they will be beaten back because they are now rich.

Aristocrats rarely lose control of property, except in cases of revolution. But the fiction that there is equality in principle between the very wealthy and the poor, is used to create the myth of the level playing field. If there is real upward mobility, that may be enough to keep the underlings in line, even if the odds of them joining the super-rich are as slim as Joe-The-Plumber's. But, now that we are finding that rules which entrench wealth, along with reduced access to higher education, is taking away a realistic opportunity to join the rich class, these contrivances are going to be accepted by fewer and fewer people as the years go on. The rich are either going to have to reign in their greed and accept a greater share of the tax burden, or they may end up facing open revolt and attempts to forcibly relieve them of their wealth.

What has to be left open to all equally is opportunity. If you feel money is what creates opportunity, and you obviously do, then your soultion will be to attempt to redistribute money equally. Opportunity, is in someone's ability to recognize it and create it. They won't recognize it or create it if someone is going to hand them a living or mollycoddle them all their lives complaining of the unfairness of life and society and the selfishness of others. It becomes the only thing they recognize.

I heard an historian comment about the 50th anniversary of the launch of the Space Race between the U.S. and the Soviet Union -- that the U.S. wasn't only concerned about the Soviet military threat, but also the Soviet economic threat, since after WWII, the Soviet Union had one of the fastest growing economies before slowing down in the 1960's. Maybe it is mere coincidence, but it seems odd that our business leaders were in a much more generous mood with their profits during the time they were concerned about an economic system that expropriated private property, than they were after the fall of the Soviet Union, and their system of business became the only game in town for the entire world. Without a real threat of losing their ill-gotten gains, they are now solely motivated by greed and have no respect for the majority.

[WIP]

Ann Coulter is a multiple time best selling author. You should be as dumb as her. Good luck!

Liberals love and admire Margaret Sanger, the racist founder of Planned Parenthood. Ayn Rand admired a child murderer? Your icon is responsible for the butchering of over thirty millions innocent babies.

Ann Coulter is only a best-selling author because conservative organizations buy up the crap, along with other misfits like Hannity, and give these books away to members. Has the hag written any bestsellers lately though? Her act is getting old, and she looks like a pathetic loon in her old age as she still insists on appearing in black miniskirts. She is getting so lazy and tiresome now that she has gone from plagiarizing others to just repeating verbatim stuff from her own past columns.

[Shakeyhands]

That's not what your mom said last time I was raw dogging the hell out of her.

HAPPY FRIDAY YOU GUYS.

LOL... PURE GOLD!!!!!

[bush_cheney2004]

Ann Coulter is only a best-selling author because conservative organizations buy up the crap, along with other misfits like Hannity, and give these books away to members....

Yea...they even invite her to speak in Canada...LOL!

I guess the liberal "misfits" don't read as much as the conservatives.

[Yukon Jack]

Ann Coulter is only a best-selling author because conservative organizations buy up the crap, along with other misfits like Hannity, and give these books away to members. Has the hag written any bestsellers lately though? Her act is getting old, and she looks like a pathetic loon in her old age as she still insists on appearing in black miniskirts. She is getting so lazy and tiresome now that she has gone from plagiarizing others to just repeating verbatim stuff from her own past columns.

Anyone who can get past the second line of that vile garbage is truly what the "article" purports Ann Coulter to be. Especially the pathetic and pitiful sub-human trash who quote "articles" loaded with profane obscenities.

But to each his own.

[Black Dog]

You should have remained a "callow youth". Like Churchill said, if a person is not a liberal when he is twenty years old, he hasn't got a heart, and if he is liberal, when older, he hasn't got a brain. (paraphrased)

The sign of true genius is being able to correctly asses a person without ever meeting him. Churchill was clearly talking about you.

Is mis-attributing quotations also a sign of genius?

I ignore your second last sentence as a clear indication of your mind in the gutter. You are a Typical liberal.

I should have stuck with gay and/or bestiality jokes like a real Klassy Konservative like you.

[bloodyminded]

Ann Coulter is a multiple time best selling author. You should be as dumb as her. Good luck!

Like I said in my post, Coulter is not as dumb as those suckers who buy the books she probably doesn't even believe in.

Ayn Rand admired a child murderer? Your icon is responsible for the butchering of over thirty millions innocent babies.

No, not my "icon." I never mentioned her.

You, however, did say admiring things about an awful novelist (seriously...she's a poor writer, whatever one thinks of her ideas), who expressed deep admiration for a man who kidnapped a young girl, killed her, and threw her body parts in the street when her father came to get her.

She admired the "selfish virtue" of the sociopath. Quite explicitly, actually, and in fact this is evident even aside from her admiration of the child killer.

Ayn Rand. What a degenerate. Oh well, you're the one who likes her, not me, so no skin off my back.

You should have remained a "callow youth". Like Churchill said, if a person is not a liberal when he is twenty years old, he hasn't got a heart, and if he is liberal, when older, he hasn't got a brain. (paraphrased)

The sign of true genius is being able to correctly asses a person without ever meeting him. Churchill was clearly talking about you.

Actually, there is no indication that Churchill ever said this. Not one. So it's likely a myth.

Edited February 11, 2011 by bloodyminded

[Yukon Jack]

Like I said in my post, Coulter is not as dumb as those suckers who buy the books she probably doesn't even believe in.

No, not my "icon." I never mentioned her.

You, however, did say admiring things about an awful novelist (seriously...she's a poor writer, whatever one thinks of her ideas), who expressed deep admiration for a man who kidnapped a young girl, killed her, and threw her body parts in the street when her father came to get her.

She admired the "selfish virtue" of the sociopath. Quite explicitly, actually, and in fact this is evident even aside from her admiration of the child killer.

Ayn Rand. What a degenerate. Oh well, you're the one who likes her, not me, so no skin off my back.

Actually, there is no indication that Churchill ever said this. Not one. So it's likely a myth.

I clearly indicated in my post that i was paraphrasing.

Get a load of this:

http://thinkexist.com/quotation/if-you-re-not-a-liberal-at-twenty-you-have-no/347162.html

How does your foot taste?

If you are liberal, by definition you are an abortionist. If you never mentioned Margaret Sanger and so you claim that she is not your icon, you just once again display what liberals are so well known for: IGNORANCE.

Edited February 11, 2011 by Yukon Jack

[WIP]

Anyone who can get past the second line of that vile garbage is truly what the "article" purports Ann Coulter to be. Especially the pathetic and pitiful sub-human trash who quote "articles" loaded with profane obscenities.

But to each his own.

I love the RudePundit. You call his stuff vile, while you read the crap that Ann Coulter spews forth. Coulter would probably love to use profanity also, but Human Events and other places that feature her columns probably have rules against such things. But, you can use RudePundit's language as an excuse to avoid the fact that his sources are verified!

[Black Dog]

I clearly indicated in my post that i was paraphrasing.

Get a load of this:

http://thinkexist.com/quotation/if-you-re-not-a-liberal-at-twenty-you-have-no/347162.html

How does your foot taste?

Oops!

Onoes!(see: second last letter)

Edited February 11, 2011 by Black Dog

[bloodyminded]

I clearly indicated in my post that i was paraphrasing.

Get a load of this:

http://thinkexist.com/quotation/if-you-re-not-a-liberal-at-twenty-you-have-no/347162.html

How does your foot taste?

No, you don't understand; there is no evidence that Churchill ever said this.

You found someone online who believes what is propbably a myth...and you think that cinches it?.

Do believe the Holocaust never happened? You could find several "sources" to verify this belief, you know. doesn't make it true.

Oh, wait, you like Ann Coulter; you probably think she's witty and insightful.

Now it's all clear.

[bloodyminded]

Oops!

Onoes!(see: second last letter)

Oh no! It's been attributed to a...to a...Frenchman!

Now, no self-respecting North American conservative will ever cite it again.

And since it is a self-evidently stupid bit of political self-gratification, and is thoroughly meaningless...I say good riddance.

Edited February 11, 2011 by bloodyminded

[Yukon Jack]

No, you don't understand; there is no evidence that Churchill ever said this.

You found someone online who believes what is propbably a myth...and you think that cinches it?.

Do believe the Holocaust never happened? You could find several "sources" to verify this belief, you know. doesn't make it true.

Oh, wait, you like Ann Coulter; you probably think she's witty and insightful.

Now it's all clear.

I would never deny that the Holocaust happened. In fact it is still happening each and every day: "bloodyminded" so-called doctors butcher thousands of unborn babies every day.

Quite OK with liberals. Too bad your mothers did not think the way you do.

[bloodyminded]

I would never deny that the Holocaust happened. In fact it is still happening each and every day: "bloodyminded" so-called doctors butcher thousands of unborn babies every day.

Yeah...I don't think your analogy works.

Quite OK with liberals. Too bad your mothers did not think the way you do.

Ah...so you don't think abortion is bad, and you do support it.

You support what you deem a "holocaust".....

Are you sure you're thinking your responses through before you post?

[Black Dog]

I would never deny that the Holocaust happened. In fact it is still happening each and every day: "bloodyminded" so-called doctors butcher thousands of unborn babies every day.

Quite OK with liberals. Too bad your mothers did not think the way you do.

Quite OK with Nancy Reagan too, as long as the stem cells from those murdered babies are bing put to good use in stem cell research.

[Yukon Jack]

Yeah...I don't think your analogy works.

Ah...so you don't think abortion is bad, and you do support it.

You support what you deem a "holocaust".....

Are you sure you're thinking your responses through before you post?

Mea culpa, mea maxima culpa!

Yeah, sometimes I do what you ALWAYS do: Post before I think.

[Yukon Jack]

Quite OK with Nancy Reagan too, as long as the stem cells from those murdered babies are bing put to good use in stem cell research.

Stem cell research does not have to be done on aborted babies. In fact more successful results were obtained from research done with adult stem cells.

BING, BING!!

[Black Dog]

Stem cell research does not have to be done on aborted babies. In fact more successful results were obtained from research done with adult stem cells.

BING, BING!!

Which has nothing to do with Nancy's support of embryonic stem cell research. "Tear down this fetus!"

[Jack Weber]

I'm watching Yukon Jack "argue" and call everyone who disagrees with him "liberal"...And slurp the intellectual majesty of Anne Coulter...

Is he related to The Professor???

[guyser]

...And slurp the intellectual majesty of Anne Coulter...

Man, thats just foul.....not to mention it would amount to a mere appetizer.

[WIP]

Stem cell research does not have to be done on aborted babies. In fact more successful results were obtained from research done with adult stem cells.

BING, BING!!

Look up "pluripotent" and add the ability to reproduce indefinitely, and you'll have your answer why adult stem cell research is limited in comparison. And "aborted babies" was the biggest bullshit red-herring story that the anti-science mob concocted in the last ten years. Fertility clinics across the U.S. have (as of three years ago) more than half a million frozen fertilized eggs that are left over after the best eggs are chosen for baby-making. But the imbeciles who believe these frozen embryos are babies, refused to allow these eggs (most of which will not develop) to be used for stem cell research. So, they get left indefinitely in cold storage and end up useless for any purpose.

[bloodyminded]

double post

Edited February 12, 2011 by bloodyminded

[bloodyminded]

Mea culpa, mea maxima culpa!

Yeah, sometimes I do what you ALWAYS do: Post before I think.

If I ever say something stupid--like "Ann Coulter is smart" or "Ronald Reagan was not a vicious little gangster," then you will be proven correct.

So far, we only have your fascinating circumstance to draw upon on this matter: the anti-abortionist wishing that people with whom he disagrees had been aborted, thus saving him the awful trouble of having someone dispute his opinions.

Good stuff.

Edited February 12, 2011 by bloodyminded

[jbg]

Deleted - Double post.

Edited April 25, 2011 by jbg