This site is dedicated to everything that can be disagreed about. There are appropriate swear words and graphic descriptions so PLEASE, keep your children off this site. In fact, don't let your kids look at anything with a screen.

Monday, December 12, 2005

Sweeeeet. Plumber May Disagree With Self!

I told a buddy about my last post and he asked me what the legal definition of treason and sedition are. Well, to be honest, what I knew was limited to the U.S. Constitution and dictionary definitions. After reading the comments of the gonadally-challenged Dimocratic leadership, I was ready to join the firing squad. This is an emotional response to people who hate this Country or whose words can be detrimental to our troops. I'd still like to see Dean or Kerry in a dark alley.

The Dimocratic party leadership is the only good thing happening for the GOP, but I don't give a damn about the GOP. I care only about the men and women on the ground. We are there (Iraq), we must stay till the "War on Radical Islam" is over, and anything that emboldens the enemy, in any way, should not be tolerated. Can you imagine the "pump" our enemies got upon reading Howard Dean's remarks? F**KING BALL-LESS PRICK!!

This male (not man) should be heckled and harassed by hundreds of thousands of citizens, his every waking moment, until he hole's himself up, only to come out after the conclusion of war. But I digress. Emotions should be treated with the utmost disdain with regard to the making, enforcing, and judging the Law.

What is treason? How does one get convicted of treason? What does the Court say about Third Article of the Constitution?

Article Three, Section Three of the Constitution says,

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

The last paragraph is straightforward. It means that the descendants of traitors cannot be punished for the crimes of their forefathers. As well, while Congress can confiscate the property of traitors, that property must be inheritable upon the traitor's death.

The first paragraph is the "money" paragraph. It has been argued several time's in our Nation's history. In Ex parte Bollman, the SCOTUS determined that treason is essentially a "military"
offense and that no amount of anti-government speech can qualify as treason, although giving away military secrets can. I guess according to this view, Dean cannot be convicted. I'll bet there are some folks in the Clinton Administration who those responsible for giving military secrets to China and North Korea. The Dim's are lucky that Starr focused on corruption and nepotism rather than National Security.

During the Civil War, Article Three was obviously argued more than a couple of times. The most interesting case was one against a former Congressman Clement L. Vallandigham(Ohio) who had been tried, and convicted (though not a death penalty), before a military tribunal for a speech he gave in Mount Vernon, OH on May 1, 1963. In Ex parte Vallandigham, the SCOTUS said that since the Constitution says nothing about the SCOTUS having authority over extra-legal tribunals (military tribunal), that the decision of said tribunal will stand.

Now what did Congressman Vallandigham say? Boy howdy! It's a doozy! He said,

"that the present war was a wicked, cruel, and unnecessary war, one not waged for the preservation of the Union, but for the purpose of crushing out liberty and to erect a despotism; a war for the freedom of the blacks and the enslavement of the whites; and that if the administration had not wished otherwise, that the war could have been honorably terminated long ago; that peace might have been honorably made by listening to the proposed intermediation of France; that propositions, by which the Southern States could be won back, and the South guaranteed their rights under the Constitution, had been rejected the day before the late battle of Fredericksburg by Lincoln and his minions, meaning the President of the United States, and those under him in authority.
Also charging that the Government of the United States was about to appoint military marshals in every district to restrain the people of their liberties, and to deprive them of their rights and privileges, characterizing General Order No. 38, from headquarters of the Department of the Ohio, as a base usurpation of arbitrary authority, inviting his hearers to resist the same, by saying, the sooner the people inform the minions of usurped power that they will not submit to such restrictions upon their liberties, the better; and adding, that he was at all times and upon all occasions resolved to do what he could to defeat the attempts now being made to build up a monarchy upon the ruins of our free government, and asserting that he firmly believed, as he had said six months ago, that the men in power are attempting to establish a despotism in this country, more cruel and oppressive than ever existed before."

Boy, the only differences between Vallandigham and the modern Dimocratic party leadership is that the Congressman probably had both of his balls, and his opinions are more thoughtful. I wonder, does this mean that we could put Pelosi down in GITMO and try this America-hater in a military tribunal?

No. The SCOTUS ruled a few years later in Ex parte Milligan, that, "the suspension of habeas corpus was unconstitutional because civilian courts were still operating, and the Constitution only provided for suspension of habeas corpus if these courts are actually forced closed. In essence, the court ruled that military tribunals could not try civilians in areas where civil courts were open, even during wartime."

So it looks like we are stuck with these jackasses until we can prove that there is malice (I don't think that the Dim's are smart enough to realize that their words are malicious), or the Court changes the definition of "aid and comfort".

What about sedition? The first instance of sedition in Law goes all the way back to 1798 to the Alien and Sedition Acts. From Wikipedia, "Under the Sedition Act, anyone "opposing or resisting any law of the United States, or any act of the President of the United States" could be imprisoned for up to two years. It was also illegal to "write, print, utter, or publish" anything critical the president or Congress. (It was notable that the Act did not prohibit criticism of the Vice-president. Jefferson held the office of Vice-president at the time the Act was passed.) While it appears harsh to current Americans, the act was actually much more lenient that the traditional British law of seditious libel. For instance:

1)The act required the defamatory words to be false, and it permitted the defendant to plead truth as a defense, unlike traditional seditious libel law, in which truth actually made the offense greater ("The greater the truth, the greater the libel."). In other words, as long as someone uttered or published the truth, he could not be convicted under the Sedition Act.

2)The act required the defendant to know of the defamatory words' falsity. In other words, someone who uttered a falsehood believing it to be the truth could not be convicted.

3)The act permitted the use of a jury to determine both the facts and the law in the case, unlike traditional seditious libel.

Despite these modifications, however, Jeffersonians denounced the Sedition Act as a violation of the First Amendment of the United States Bill of Rights, which granted the right of free speech. Although the Federalists hoped the Act would muffle the opposition, Democratic-Republicans still "wrote, printed, uttered and published" their criticisms of the Federalists. Indeed they strongly criticised the act itself, and used it as an election issue. The act expired when the term of President Adams ended.

So I guess it does't matter what dumbass thing these limp-wristed pussies say, we just have to view them like we might a lunatic who masturbates in the public square; and inform our soldiers that these yellow cowards represent a minority party that will do anything to assure that status.


Blogger JCHess said...

So. . . if I read this correctly Ramesy Clark could be tried for treason, for working for Saddam Hussein's legal team.


Now why hasn't The Coloradoan reported this? Because, simply, they are too busy stoopin' for the Democratic party with their almost-daily drumbeat of letters to the editor against Marilyn Musgrave, among others.

6:16 PM

Blogger ctindel said...

Wow. Here I thought you were a libertarian, but it turns out that you don't even love freedom of speech. It isn't right to want to silence someone just because they say things that contradict the Government's party line.

We are constantly involved in military actions somewhere. Does that mean anti-war/anti-imperialist speech should always count as treason, sedition, libel, etc?

Do you not see that the ability to criticize our own government is one of the greatest strengths of our country? It is what allows us to change and improve without resorting to bloody revolutions.

And before you get around to the "America: Love it or Leave it" argument, I suggest reading up on the fallacy of the False Dilemma.

10:03 PM

Blogger The Plumber said...


Ramsey Clark hates the United States. It's hard to find a man with more self-loathing. I don't know if providing legal defense exempts him. Though that may be a good post for another day.

I can't read the Coloradoan. They have been leftists shills for the 25 years I've lived up north. ColoradoPols is the same way, though they try harder than most to remain impartial.

10:05 PM

Blogger The Plumber said...


you know me better than that. You ought to know that in war, one ought to root for the home team, even when things look grim.

What the Dimocratic leadership is doing, currently, is telling the coach and his staff that they suck. They are also telling the team that they can't win, even though that team is up by thirty points and it's only half-time.

Here is what it sounds like in the opposing team's locker room,

Asst. coach Abdul: These guy's are a bunch of women! Their own "fans" are against them. Mohammad over-heard the president of the Glee Club telling them that they can't win against us, and they should quit before anymore of them get hurt. The Drama Club made a banner that says that the coach is an idiot!

Sure we're down more men than they are, and sure our coach and most of the staff have to call plays from under the bleachers, and sure we are viewed as cheaters...but hey, we have history on our side. Look what happened with the Viet Nam Cougars and the Somalia Snakes. Hell guys! Half of their "fans" are homosexuals and almost all the rest are metrosexuals!

It won't be long before the "fans" get tired of the injuries and this team throws in the towel. It's the toughest team we will ever beat, but after them, nobody can beat us! Now let's go out there and kick some ass!

Player 1 (Hakim): What we ought to do is go into their stands and cut the throats of their sons and gang rape their daughters and wives before we kill them too.


10:49 PM

Blogger The Plumber said...

That's pretty good. I think I'll post it. Thanks for stopping by ctindel.

10:53 PM

Blogger ctindel said...


You're right, that is pretty good. You can usually make me chuckle. The information in your story isn't really that useful though. The other side will always look for ways to indoctrinate their "players" with hatred for the other side. Our actions at home matter very little to them. I think even if we packed up and came home right now, and never returned, they would still want to slit our throats and gang-rape our wives and daughters.

But back to your first point, that one is obligated to "root for the home team in war". Can you expand your thoughts here? Specifically:

1. Is this a moral obligation? If so, what are you using as the basis of your morality?

2. Is this a legal obligation? I don't think you believe this given your previous post.

3. Does it imply that Germans who supported the Nazi miltary were moral, immoral, or neither?

4. Does it imply that Germans who opposed the Nazi military were moral, immoral, or neither?

5, 6. Same as 3 and 4 but about Iraqi citizens supporting/opposing Saddam Hussein.

7. Do I not have a moral obligation to speak my opinion, even when it is contrary to US Policy?

8. Is "hatred of the US" only defined by whether I support the policies of those currently in power? Such that I might go from "loving the US" to "hating the US" without changing my behavior or opinions at all?

9. Is the US morally justified in using military power to impose democracy (or in abstract terms, "our way of life") in other countries?

10. Would the Chinese government be morally justified in using military power to impose
Communism ("their way of life") in other countries?

I'm interested in your logical argument because I know a lot of people think the same way as you do. I know you are a lover of rationality and impartiality and I am hoping you can help me to understand the framework of your argument.

11:23 PM

Blogger The Plumber said...

Good questions.

I'll answer them tomorrow, promise.

11:40 PM

Blogger The Plumber said...

one is obligated to "root for the home team in war".

No, I don't think "obligated" is the right word. I do think that it is evil to demoralize our troops. Demoralizing the troops is exactly what is happening, along with emboldening the enemy.

Critics should choose their words very carefully or shut up. I have seen no indication of either. Quite the opposite is happening.

1)1. Is this a moral obligation? If so, what are you using as the basis of your morality?

Yes. I have a relative over there. Many citizens have relatives over there. Anything that puts them in danger should be eliminated or supressed. It is no different than killing a terrorist, or disarming an IED (respectively).

3. Does it imply that Germans who supported the Nazi miltary were moral, immoral, or neither?
4. Does it imply that Germans who opposed the Nazi military were moral, immoral, or neither?

The Germans were aggressors. They invaded sovereign nations. Supporters were immoral, opposition was moral.

I won't go into why we are not the aggressors in Iraq but I do think Iraq is the right place to be in the Middle East. I don't think we should leave until the War on Islamic Fascism is over, or at least relegated to fringe status.

5, 6. Same as 3 and 4 but about Iraqi citizens supporting/opposing Saddam Hussein.

That's a tough one. I suppose that if he was a benevolent leader and loved by his people, We'd still be fighting in a nation-wide conflict.

Hussein was malevolent however. Supporting him is immoral.

I will say that the Administration should come clean with the real reasons we are in Iraq.

7. Do I not have a moral obligation to speak my opinion, even when it is contrary to US Policy?

No. We all have opinions that we keep to ourselves. Most of these opinions are benign (like, "Damn, that is the biggest zit I've ever seen). Opinions that get people killed or maimed should be kept to ourselves. Not only does it minimize injury, but it also helps keep society civil.

So long as jackasses like Kerry and Dean endanger our troops, I will come out fighting.

8. Is "hatred of the US" only defined by whether I support the policies of those currently in power? Such that I might go from "loving the US" to "hating the US" without changing my behavior or opinions at all?

No. There are a host of reasons I claim that leftists hate the United States. Mostly because they are collectivists rather than proponents of individualism. The United States should be about equality of opportunity, not equality of outcomes.

Believe me, there are tens of millions of people more qualified than Bush to be President. I disagree with most of the bills that he has signed into law, and I've made it known. However, opposition to the Highway Bill or the expansion of Medicare won't get anybody killed.

9. Is the US morally justified in using military power to impose democracy (or in abstract terms, "our way of life") in other countries?

No. Not if that is the only reason for invading a soverign country. It worked out better for the world in the case of Germany, Japan, and South Korea, but democracy isn't the reason we went to war with them.

One could argue that there is no way to win the war on terrorism without establishing a Middle East democracy. There is some validity to the argument.

10. Would the Chinese government be morally justified in using military power to impose
Communism ("their way of life") in other countries?

No. See answers 5,6,9. This assumes that they are not provoked.

9:08 AM

Blogger Black Bear said...

I've never known so much about treason and sedition. Thanks.

But I have a couple of questions.

1. Why is Iraq the "right place to be"?

2. What are the "real reasons" we are in Iraq?

3. I like your zit comparison. Doesn't questioning the manhood of Democrats hurt civil society?

4. Why is democracy important to the war on terrorism?

4:25 PM

Blogger The Plumber said...

Hi Black Bear,

I answered questions 1,2,&4 in the comments section of this post.

Question 3. It would if it weren't recognized by real men that leftist males are eunuch's; castrated by leftist females (who often are more manly).

I have been putting up with their stupid comments for nearly three years now without saying much at all. Eventually real men get pushed into action. It is these leftist males who drew first blood. I will continue to question their patriotism and manhood until they shut the f**k up.

9:12 AM

Blogger ctindel said...

1. Well, presumably the people you know over there were prepared to die when they signed up for a job in the army. It isn't like the job hazards are a secret. I summarily reject your statement that criticisms of the war are immoral because it makes their jobs more dangerous. The war itself is what put their lives in danger. Why aren't you in favor of ending that? Perhaps critics of the war care more about the lives of people in the military than you do.

2. I don't see how the US is not the agressor. I have never seen an Iraqi Army batallion on American Soil without our permission. I'm not saying that I'm not all for us killing as many people as it takes to make sure I have cheap oil and money that is worth something internationally, but that is orthogonal.

3. I believe I have a moral obligation to speak my opinion. There is no way to know whether speaking my opinion will cause more people to die than if I kept silent. You make a claim that silence minimizes injury but give no formal proof for how that happens.

4. So you're not really saying that leftists hate the United States. You really mean that leftists hate YOUR vision of how the United States SHOULD be.

5. Opposition to the expansion of Medicare will cause the death of people who might otherwise have benefitted from it. Every action causes a reaction. Being silent has downstream effects and so does stating your opinion. Collectivism has downstream effects and so does libertarianism.

Will you please stop saying that there are actions which have no negative effects on anyone?

12:20 AM

Blogger The Plumber said...

1. I recognize the need for a military and I know what they were designed to do. You ignore both.

If criticism emboldens the enemy, it is immoral.

I suggest you spend some time on Al Jazerra and other Arab media for a couple of weeks. Check out which public figures are given the most inches of space.

I'll give you a ain't George Bush, or any supporter of the war.

2. Cheap oil. Hm, funny. Maybe I better check out the link I left Black Bear. I thought I answered that pretty well. I'll update if not.

3. You're probably right. Bagging on the Commander-in-Chief probably has no effect on the moral of our troops. And I'm sure that it, and media glamorization of every death, in no way emboldens terrorist's.

And I'm sure that the day's worth of coverage regarding the elections, and the complete and utter silence of anything else that is good happening in Iraq, and throughout the region, has no effect either (really).

I stand corrected.

4. Yes. Mine and the Founder's.

If we are lucky, Ginsburg and Stevens will leave before '08. Of course, if the Left continues down the path they are currently on, '08 won't matter. The GOP would be wise to play hardball with the Left, instead of caving in to a good op-ed in the Washington Post.

I know I'd friggin' rake the Left over the coals. Hell, I'd have two commercials of Iraqi's waving U.S. flags. I'd have Reps. from the newly elected Legislature giving positive, glowing statements about U.S. policies and in the same commercial, the words of Leftist leadership in this country.

In fact, I think I'll send the idea over to the RNC. Heh, heh, heh.

5. Yeah. The difference is that I recognize human nature as a constant, and I can live with it.

Collectivists view human nature as malleable. Plastic. Something that can be molded into something "better". Despite the history of man and animals to the contrary.

Everything Collectivists say and do should not only be viewed with skepticism, but assumed wrong.

You'll have a hard time convincing me that subsidizing the healthcare industry results in better care or more complete coverage.

I don't know that I ever said that there are no negative effects. In fact, quite the opposite. I've done several posts on how Leftist policies have ONLY negative effects.

12:28 PM

Blogger ctindel said...

1. Under what moral system can you possibly defend the statement that "any criticism of a war is immoral if it emboldens the enemy".
Especially criticism about whether a war is just. I do not take it for granted that our leadership engages only in just wars, and I feel justified in questioning whether we should continue. Exactly the same as I would if I were living in Nazi Germany in the 1940s. I see no difference here.

2. To understand cheap oil you need to take into account how much it would cost us if the international oil market was traded in euros instead of US dollars. An intuitive analysis tells us that would heavily weaken the strength of the dollar.

3. Morale of the military is a secondary worry at best. I'm more concerned with whether we're fighting a just war, and if not then I think we should rail against the leaders to get us out of it as soon as possible. I'm not ignoring the need or purpose of the military, and your saying so doesn't make it so.

4. As you've pointed out in other posts, the founding fathers disagreed on many things. They were drawn together only by compromising all around. How can you make a statement that your vision of the US is the same as the founding fathers? Which Fathers are you referring to?

12:02 PM

Blogger The Plumber said...

The war may or may not be "just". It's irrelevant now, n'est pas? Any snipping now has no positive effects.

The actual supply of oil is inexhaustable as it is formed by plate tectonics. Oil would be as cheap as water if we were allowed to extract and process it. Something that neither the environmentalists or the oil companies want. Politics makes strange bedfellows.

Founding Fathers? You take your pick. I'd take Hamilton any day over any Leftist leader who has raised his ugly head since JFK.

The Federalist Papers were assurances to the Anti-Federalists that their fears were unfounded. They (the Federalists) were wrong.

Thank goodness the Anti-Federalists prevailed and got the Bill of Rights. Regardless, even the Federalists believed in individual liberty a damned site more than the current leftist movement, which seems hell-bent on their own marginalization.

I have heard nothing from the leftist yahoos to indicate that they are ready to be put back in power. They are intellectually inferior even to me...and I'm just a dumb ol' plumber.

6:52 PM

Blogger The Plumber said...

I applaud the fact that you have the balls to go toe-to-toe with me. Usually I have to go to leftist blogs to get any action. I've already been kicked off moveon and dailykos. The dnc emailed me a warning.

btw, did you hear the prez's speech? It could have been written by me. Ditto the "white flag" commercial.

7:38 PM

Blogger ctindel said...

Oh please... like it takes balls to go head to head with you... you're just a dumb ol' plumber! :) Thought I'd throw those words out there. Actually it is fun because you're actually educated and know what you're talking about. I still want to buy you that beer by the way, but it will be january before I have time.

The justness of a war we are currently fighting is extremely relevant. Just as the Nazi campaign was unjust, it would have been better for them to end it even after it started than to keep fighting it. Just like corporations are constantly questioning whether the current businesses they engage in are the right ones, we should constantly be questioning whether the wars we are engaged in are the right ones. I don't believe we can just pick and choose where to question and challenge our leaders to improve.

I don't believe that the oil supply is inexhaustible. Please point to serious peer-reviewed geologic journals (real, not on-line) that have made this claim and have real proof that has been verified by other researchers.

Well, the federalists were only wrong because they allowed the double-edged swords of constitutional amendments and the creation of a court which can literally interpret the constitution however they feel like. I mean really, if they had wanted the country to never have an income tax, they could have stated so explicitly and allowed no room for change. And if they didn't want SCOTUS allowing abuses of power like the commerce clause, then they ought not have created a SCOTUS.

This is why I hate when people say "that goes against what the founding fathers wanted". Because that doesn't make any sense... if they didn't want it, then they wouldn't have created a system that allowed it.

You're always railing against leftist yahoos and how they don't give a damn about individual liberty, and yet you ignore the fact that the so called "conservatives" are so fiscally un-conservative that they have expanded the national debt faster than any president in our history ( And that is with control of the executive AND both houses of congress!

And don't even get me started on the reductions of individual liberty that President Bush and the "right"/"conservative" party that he leads have signed into law.

You mean the president's speech where he would supposedly "admit his mistakes" and then spent the whole time justifying current actions and maintaining the status quo whilst providing no actual timeline for withdrawal? Please... republicans are going to get slaughtered in the next election because nobody believes in this war. I'm not even convinced that piling on the anti-gay referenda will get people to come out and vote republican this time.

1:30 AM

Blogger The Plumber said...

War: no, justness is no longer relevant. We are there, and it is pretty much over. Bagging on the Commander-in-Chief, and the effort itself, has only two effects now: demoralize troops, embolden enemy.

Justify the words of the cowards anyway you want, the actual effects of the critism won't change...they only deepen.

Like I've said, if it weren't for the fact that critism at this point only prolongs the war, I'd tell Dean, Pelosi, Kerry, and etc., to keep digging their hole. Heck, it's so deep now that the dirt is falling back on them.

Oil: OK, gimme some time. I'll get to this in a couple of days.

SCOTUS: Your kinda right. There would be less room for error if the Justices referred to the original debates for their decisions. Very few ever do. Hopefully that will change.

That said, what makes you believe that the Founders envisioned a direct tax on income or a massive cradle-to-grave welfare program? I have never seen any indication that any Founder would view the idea, "from each according to ability, to each according to need", favorably.

BTW, have you ever read the history of the 16th Amendment? How it was sold to the Western states as a tax that would only affect wealthy, Northeastern elitists? How it was improperly ratified? Did you know that the current tax code is over 45,000 pages long? Do you think that the Founders would have envisioned a tax code that is thoussnds of times longer than the documents that established the government in the first place?

GOP: You'll never catch me defending their current spending policies or the taking of civil liberties. I may have ignored the GOP in this post, but the GOP isn't what the post was about. It was about how I have to be tolerant of males who have no testicles.

The title of the post admits my previous error.

Last election cycle, the Dems believed that there were about 15 contestable seats (House). They now believe that number to be over thirty. However, the Democrats have no vision or platform. All they have is the "Bush lied" mantra. Good luck running on that "agenda".

I want to hear the Dems demand higher taxes and more government spending. I want to hear them say that nothing is wrong with Social Security and Medicare that higher taxes can't cure. I want to hear them say that they want to redefine marriage to include whomever they want. I want to hear them say that a woman has a Constitutional right to jam a pair of scissors into head of a 8-month-old, partially born baby. Oh wait, I guess I was wrong (see it's that easy). The Democrats DO have a vision.

Also, in the past two weeks the Prez and the GOP have come out fighting, thanks to people like me writing in and calling them a bunch of pussies. As a result, Bush is now back up to a 50% approval rating.

11:59 AM

Blogger ctindel said...

There is a limitation to how much sense it makes to refer to the original debates. Times change, popular views change... slavery is no longer legal, for one (big) example.

I never said the founders envisioned a direct tax on income. But the system they created (obviously) allows for it to be a possibility, so they must not have thought it was that evil. It doesn't matter how it was "sold to the western states". The amendment is there now. Deal with it. If you want to fight the man, don't pay your income taxes and see how good your life becomes.

Why do you keep blaming higher taxes/government spending and social security/medicare on dems?

You seem to be ignoring my previous post showing that president bush has a worse record at this point than any president in history.

You also seem to be ignoring the fact that president bush can't even get his entitlement reform through congress even though his party controls both houses. Don't blame the democrats for the inability to fix social security and medicare, blame your beloved big-balled "rightists".

So stop blaming stuff on Dems when president bush and his party have the power to fix the problems and choose to make them worse instead.

And where do you get your data from? With the exception of one poll, they all seem to show below 50%:

5:53 PM

Blogger The Plumber said...

What doesn't change is the nature of man and the nature of government. No amout of Leftist-utopic dreams can change this. The Founding Documents are written for the ages.

If they didn't envision a direct tax on income, how could they have thought it was evil, or not? I thought I knew what the Founder's thoughts about taxation were, maybe you have more insight than me.

I do deal with the income tax, but only because of the coercive threat of the government. I'm not sure where you are going with this.

The explosion of government programs are the result of Democratic control of Congress and the White House in the years during and after the Great Depression (and let's not forget court-packing). The Congress expanded their power (greatly) in the mid-70's by creating committees and subcommittees and "devolving" power from a few powerful committee chairmen. I'll have to chec my numbers again, but I think the House went from around 30 committees (total) in 1970, to nearly 300 in 1990. Oh yeah, that's real efficient! The Democrats were the ones in charge of Congress at that time.

The Congress made more laws between 1965 and 1995 than had been made in the previous 150 years. Though Reagan could have vetoed most of this BS at the time, it wasn't a fight he was willing to get into. The Democrats were the ones in charge.

Now what happened when the GOP took control of the House and started reducing the rate of growth of the bureaucracy? Who was vilified? Who was blamed for the government shutdown? Who did the blaming? Which party does the MSM and the bureaucracy support by a margin of 3-1 (actually higher)? Why would weak-spined Republicans put themselves through that again?

I'd jam the elimination of government programs and entitlements right down the throats of the MSM, the bureaucracy, and the government apologists. Who would whine the most about this turn of events, Democrats or Republicans? If the GOP said tomorrow that we are going to privatize SS, and eliminate subsidies to the education and healthcare industries, who'd bitch the most, Dems or Reps?

Hell, those weak bastards couldn't even eliminate the NEA or PBS. Even the mere mention of reduced funding brings out the Chicken Little crowd (like Alec Baldwin). The GOP pussies then cave in to these intellectual dynamo's.

There, does that make you happy? I just called weak-spined Republicans a bunch of pussies for giving a damn what the Left says, does, or cares about.

The GOP is weak because they can't handle bad press. They thought that they could get along with the Dems (ex. Bush asking Kennedy to write the No Child Left Behind legislation). The GOP is starting to realize that the Dem's hate them and will do anything to get back into power (including demoralizing the troops and celebrating and exploiting every American death or downturn. I'd be willing to bet that most Dems are sickened to think of portraits of GWB hanging in Iraqi and Afghani schools). Hopefully the GOP will start playing hardball, but it has to be a 24-7-365 effort if they plan on countering the MSM.

I heard the poll on ABC last Thursday. I have no idea who conducted it.

It doesn't matter, two months ago, I would have answered negatively to an approval poll because I think the Prez and the GOP were pussies for letting a bunch of idiots (Dems and their MSM shills) dictate the rules of the game. Now that the GOP may have pulled their heads out of their asses, I would be more inclined to give them a favorable opinion (especially now that the House has passed meaningful immigration reform).

I'm not ignoring the GOP for not being aggressive in slashing and burning the multiple layers of bureaucracy as we know it. That is just not the topic of this post. Do you want me to find posts that I do criticize the GOP?

11:16 PM

Blogger The Plumber said...

That is ABC radio. 630 KHOW, during the Peter Boyles program.

11:19 PM

Blogger ctindel said...


It seems as though you talk about the evil "leftists" as those responsible for our current state of affairs with taxes, debt accumulation, etc. Let's ignore the Republicans' ability to slash any of the bureacracy for now. Their cash burn rate is higher than it ever was when the dems were in control.

I'm just wondering what good it can possibly do to rail on the dems for something they did in the past when your beloved Bush not only isn't fixing it, but is actually making it worse?

Believe me, I used to like a lot of the stuff in Gingrich's Contract With America. However, they totally failed to execute on that, and given the track record since Bush took over, I'd say they've completely failed to execute on anything that could be remotely called "conservative".

I could give a shit what Bush says on TV. What matters is that he doesn't reform SS/Medicare, reduce spending, or work to save basic individual liberties. So in my mind, republicans today are like the democrats of the 60s and 70s, only worse.

8:48 AM

Blogger Holly said...

Indeed. The GOP is in control, but EVERYTHING wrong with the Nation is the Dem's fault.

You are so very angry with the left, Plumber. Sometimes reading your blog is like when I'm channel surfing and land on something about really grotesque. And as awful as it is, I just can't stop watching it (or in this case, reading it).

Peace and Merry Christmas.

1:41 PM

Blogger The Plumber said...

ctindel and Holly,

Neither of you reads my comments very carefully.

I actually agree with your criticism of the GOP. Please re-read my previous comments.

There is no need to answer the questions in my last comment here. I suggest you at least answer them to yourselves.

If we lived in a vacuum, the effects of 70+ years of Democratic dominance of government and media wouldn't matter. I personally cannot ignore history.

Yes, most of the problems that plague our government are a direct result of those who were at the helm when the problems were created, expanded, and defended.

12:02 PM

Blogger ctindel said...

I'm sorry, I just don't buy that. If Democrats are guilty for the creation/expansion of the current problems, then Republicans share an equal amount of blame for the continued existence of said problems. Clearly anybody with the power to get rid of something is to blame for not getting rid of it.

10:44 AM

Blogger The Plumber said...

Sad but true. Democrats started screwing up the government with the election of Woodrow Wilson. You could even go back further and say that the Federalists were wrong and the Anti-Federalists were right.

They wielded unpresedented power starting in the Thirty's, and the bureaucracy (the Beast) they spawned is now uncontrollable.

You can blame the GOP all you want...even make the ubsurd claim that they are "equally" to blame, it will never make it so. The GOP hasn't controlled the Congress and the WH in decades.

If you think ten years of a GOP majority in the House (where spending bills start) can erase nearly a hundred years of institutionalized bureaucracy, well, I think I'd have to question your common sense.

10:51 PM

Blogger The Plumber said...

That should read "obsurd"

12:45 AM


Post a Comment

<< Home