Friday, August 30, 2013

Every So Often the Nation Gets GREAT News!...

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Liberty-vs-Tyranny


Life is Grand! If You're a Multi- Millionaire Collectivist Progressive

Hot damn! A great thing for the nation... ! Looking to the likely future realities (based on the recent past) of the no doubt Republican failure to reclaim political relevancy.

NationalJournal - NJ Do you want to be speaker again?

PELOSI No, that's not my thing. I did that. {Read the Full Interview Here }

Perhaps we will be so lucky as to see her next announce retirement? Naw, likely not. She's a power broker and no doubt loves the rush.

Via: Memeorandum

53 comments:

  1. And John Boehner isn't? Come on. Pelosi isn't unique in that department. The GOPers love their power rush as well. And we liberals would be just as thrilled if Boehner said the same thing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Damn "Wicked One", don't be so sensitive. Of course I realize this, and as you are aware have said so.

      Relax, Boner with be out of the House Speaker Ship soon enough.

      Delete
    2. If someone thinks RN is some sort of defender of Boehner.... well, hm.

      Delete
  2. Worst job in the world: A politician. Everyone hates them.

    ReplyDelete
  3. So true, especially nowadays. Methinks there is a rational explanation. But whose listening? Or thinking?

    ReplyDelete
  4. It is a loss for the nation that she isn't Speaker right now. Nancy Pelosi was one of the most effective Speakers to ever serve. And, just because she says she doesn't want to do it again doesn't mean she couldn't be persuaded to take the job for the good of the country.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. YEP! She sure was effective. We gotta give her that.

      Effectively EVIL, that is.

      I will say this on Nanny's behalf, however. She is now SEVENTY-THREE or SEVENTY-FOUR years old, and regardless of her politics, which I think stink to high heaven, of course, she is a truly BEAUTIFUL looking WOMAN. And never mind all the stupid cracks about Botox and face-lifts, etc. The kind of beauty she has is more than skin deep. The woman, whether you agree with ideas or not, has STAR POWER.

      I just wish she were making movies instead of playing caroms with our lives in congress.

      Delete
    2. And we have to pass that bill so we can know what's on it.

      Damn straight. Star Power indeed.

      Delete
    3. This old canard again? We've been over this before, RN. On 7/27/2013 Dennis "fact checked" me about this statement. He even linked to a YouTube video he THOUGHT proved he was correct. But again, Nancy Pelosi NEVER said that. What she actually said was "We have to pass the bill so *YOU* can find out what is in it". YOU, as in the public, not WE, as in the legislators who voted for it. In response RN said "Okay Colonel, acknowledged you are technically correct". So, I'm correct, but it doesn't matter because RN will just keep insisting Nancy Pelosi said something she actually didn't?

      By the way, to refresh your memory, you then asked what the difference was, adding "so the bill must pass before YOU, the PEOPLE can know what's in it. PATHETIC don't you think Colonel?"

      My reply was as follows...

      No, it is not "pathetic", it is reality. Many people work hard and are thus not able to follow things of a political nature closely. These people will only become aware of the impact (for the good) that the ACA will have on their lives when it actually starts affecting their lives.

      As for me pointing out the truth of the matter, RN had no response. But he goes back to repeating this Conservative talking point here... and probably many times again in the future. Why is that, RN? Certainly there are other things you could criticize Nancy Pelosi for? Other things that have more of a basis in fact instead of quotes that were dishonestly doctored to make her look stupid?

      Delete
    4. Well Canardo the Dervish, the American public IS the government, through it's REPRESENTATIVES, is it not?

      Of course for those of us who understand our REPRESENTATIVE form of government is it not logical for us to expect our REPRESENTATIVES to fully understand that which they are voting on IN OUR BEHALF?

      Or, as the progressive collectivists seem to believe, is it enough to just accept as an ARTICLE OF FAITH that our representatives are enacting legislation that is the best alternative for the American people?

      Sorry Canardo, I have a basic distrust of government whether it be liberal or conservative. I simply want to understand the goods, or the crap, before it is delivered.

      Enjoy your day Canardo.



      Delete
    5. And, if they fully UNDERSTAND it is it too much to ask they explain it cohesively and to our satisfaction?

      Madame Pelosi is simply brighter light in a otherwise very DIM room.

      Delete
    6. Correction FT, Madame Pelosi was once, years ago attractive. But now, after what is likely more than one even of plastic surgery she looks drawn and indeed like a plastic witch. And by the way she ain't "Wicked."

      Delete
    7. El Canardo said: ""We have to pass the bill so *YOU* can find out what is in it""

      I admit I mixed up Pelosi with John Conyers, another rep who admitted he was too lazy and careless to read what he votes on (a man who will vote on something and never bother to find out what is in it, before, during, or after). What you don't realize is that your exactly corrected quotation is FAR FAR worse.

      Her words are a lot more like those of a dictator than of a representative. RN is correct to remember that these people are our rulers first, with the arrogance that comes with it. Them actually being representatives is a goal, an ideal.

      Delete
    8. So what you mean is that you both going to continue misquoting her, right? Don't give a damn what she actually said? FYI, Dennis, Nancy Pelosi was elected by the voters and is therefore not a "dictator". Surely this "dictator" slur is an arrogant insult to the voters. Also, as for this "goal", no doubt you would continue calling it that unless the exact government that YOU wanted was elected. Only a government that did exactly what RN and Dennis wanted cold possibly be "representative" in their minds.

      As for NP's looks... ageism is apparently a method of attack RN finds acceptable. Read that post Dennis linked to that "defended" Israel by bashing Helen Thomas for being old.

      Delete
    9. Canardo, I reiterate: "... the American public IS the government, through it's REPRESENTATIVES, is it not?

      Of course for those of us who understand our REPRESENTATIVE form of government is it not logical for us to expect our REPRESENTATIVES to fully understand that which they are voting on IN OUR BEHALF?

      Or, as the progressive collectivists seem to believe, is it enough to just accept as an ARTICLE OF FAITH that our representatives are enacting legislation that is the best alternative for the American people?"

      Read S L O W L Y and when you understand the words we'll discuss the issue. Until then Canardo have a nice day.

      Delete
    10. If you're referring to the film La haine, in which the character Saïd says, "Canardo. Señor canardo" and "Hey, I see skinheads. f**k Hitler!"...

      I never called (or said) you looked like a skinhead, that was Steve (and I'm not Steve).

      Did you and Dennis get together and come up with that?

      Delete
    11. I refer you to my immediate prior response to you. It shall remain my comment response to your present method of discussion and attempt to evade the truth.

      Simply referring back to already stated posistion save me time over cut and paste.

      Delete
    12. Yes. I am "evading the truth" by not giving a response you like even though I don't know what the hell you're talking about. Your prior response indicated that you were going to continue to lie about what NP said... got it.

      Delete
  5. I've never once seen any rational example of the vitriol against Nancy Pelosi. She's always served her constituents very well, and left always saw her as rather mainstream and a little uninspiring. But the the silly goofballs on the right always saw her as some kind of lefty bogeyman, believing whatever they were told by the sleazy morons on FOX News and Angry White Curmudgeon Talk Radio.

    JMJ

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Can I call you a sleazy white moron jmj? It does sound so uppity intellectual. After all.

      Delete
    2. I have a question for Jersey if RN does not mind... if he does he can simply not publish. No offense taken by me nor no need to get mad by RN. My question has to do with an accusation made by Steve/Anon on Joe Kelly's blog, which is... does Jersey ONLY comment on the Rational Nation blog? Steve/Anon said that he'd never seen Jersey on any other blogs, and that because of that he concluded that Jersey is a sock puppet of RN. I have no idea what the truth might be, but it made me wonder... does Jersey comment on other blogs and if not, why not? Why only this one? And if he does comment on other blogs, which ones? He made a comment once that he read a post of mine about Keith Olbermann, but I never saw a comment by Jersey in reply to this post.

      Delete
    3. Have you watched FOX lately, Les?

      JMJ

      Delete
    4. I listen to Hannity and O'Reily at night to put me to sleep.

      Can't wait till Kelly bumps Hannity from his slot and I like McCallum and Wallace.

      Oh, and Greta as well. Occasionally Stossell.

      Watch the CNN roundup as well. MSNBC, on par with Hannity and O'O'Reilly.

      The news today is primarily entertainment. Watch the local NEWS at 6:00 PM, mostly ABC.

      Then there is the net. all sorts of degenerates there on both sides of the great divide.

      Anymore questions jersey?

      Delete
    5. Dervish, I go way back. Years ago I blogged on Hannity's board, then on Eric Golub's, and a bunch of others.

      Les, then you see my point?

      JMJ

      Delete
  6. I'll never forget when Nancy accepted the speakership surrounded by her grand-daughters. What a shining moment for all feminists, including myself.

    One moment in our recent history which actually dwarfed that triumph for sheer ecstatic joy; when Bill Clinton played, "Your Mama don't Dance," at his inauguration. Don't stop thinking about tomorrow, people.

    Why are we discussing the possibility of a democratic speaker before the 2014 elections? I think the republicans stand a good chance of hanging on. Now that Olympia Snowe has retired, who is the most important republican female politician today? How many are there, maybe a half a dozen? Without looking it up, I would guess that although there are more women in congress today than ever before, most likely the number of republican women actually dropped in spite of the tea party revolution.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Why are we discussing the possibility of a democratic speaker before the 2014 elections? I think the republicans stand a good chance of hanging on. ..."

      Okay, maybe you're right FJ, although I haven't a clue why this should be so. 2020 then and hopefully the Libertarian Party will be a major player by that time.

      Not holding my breath for that one either.

      Delete
  7. And she has a plan for Medicare. It's called Medicare, I'm told (a plan that currently pays out 3 times as much per enrollee as it taxes them). Genius!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not having a lot of luck fact checking this via Google (must be plugging in the wrong search terms), but this doesn't sound right to me Will. What about the people who die? Surely they aren't getting back three times as much. Not sure what difference it makes anyway. It's a government service and those cost money. I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that people should only get out what they pay in.

      Delete
    2. Damn Will, when will ya get it? It's a human right that all living breathing human being have access to lifetime platinum plated health care like our federal officials.

      But since that is quite expensive Medicare is a limited liberal compromise to provide a certain segment of our population with a almost but not quite facsimile of what works so well for our elected officials.

      Did I mention retirement? Nope, that is saved fr a different day for discussion on hypocritical government.

      Damn, isn't it my right to enjoy the same benefits our elected officials give themselves?

      The frigging liberal politicians. Damn them all. Oops, that's right, the conservative "voice in defense for hard work and equitable return for comparable effort conservatives" forgot to refuse the preferential treatment set aside for the ELITE GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS we elect to office.

      Oy Vey, life is a riddle and a contradiction.

      Delete
    3. And goddamn-it, I'm entitled to get everything out of the system even if I don't put a frigging thing into it simply because I exit. It is my HUMAN RIGHT after all! Don't you know?

      Delete
    4. http://www.nbcnews.com/id/40851739/ns/health-health_care/t/what-people-pay-medicare-wont-cover-costs/#.UiPVfz97-ME - Here it is, wd; $114,000 in and $355,000 out (ON AVERAGE!). Lotsa luck with that one moving forward.............Yeah, I hear ya', Les. I just gotta be more compassionate like, wd, I guess (and not be so damned concerned about those tens of trillions in unpaid liabilities).

      Delete
    5. Its insane to give this kind of welfare to anyone other than the disabled, poor, etc. It serves no good purpose at all to do so.

      Delete
    6. Will said: " more compassionate like, wd, I guess (and not be so damned concerned about those tens of trillions in unpaid liabilities)."

      All we need to do is tax the rich a lot more and the budget problem vanishes, right?

      Delete
    7. Lotsa luck with that one moving forward? So what, you're predicting the end of Medicare? Don't give a damn about the thousands of people who die every year due to a lack of healthcare? The article you linked to is BS, by the way. Not the authors pointing out that an "average" person gets out more than they put in, but the claim that "we know that this system is totally unsustainable". It is sustainable, we just need to put a stop to the free ride the rich leeches are getting at the expense of the rest of us. All we need to do is tax the rich a lot more and the budget problem vanishes (Dennis actually got that one right).

      Delete
    8. NBC news you don't trust? How 'bout the Washington Post, the Chicago Sun Times, insurancenewsnet.com, Cleveland.com, the Seattle Times, Money.usnews.com? The numbers are the numbers, wd, and yes, Medicare will bankrupt the nation (Medicare and Medicaid are the 2 largest drivers of future debt) unless it is majorly overhauled.......As for your other 2 rants, a) there are thousands of people who die every year in Britain, too, from waiting for care in your stupid single payer concept (that, and I'm not in any way advocating for the status quo anyway) and b) taxing the rich "a lot more" actually brings in LESS revenue. Antony Davies from Duquesnes crunched the numbers and the government got more than twice as much revenue per capita when the top tax rate was 50% than it did when it was 90% (adjusted for inflation). Yes, maybe we can raise a little more in revenue but this whole idea of yours that we can tax and spend our way to prosperity has zero in terms of historical evidence. Hoover raise the top tax rate by over 150% and how good that that for him, wd?

      Delete
    9. I never said anything about not "trusting" NBC News (nice bit of spin to make me look ridiculous, though). This story is by an AP reporter (not NBC's story)... and ANY news organization will publish (and has published) articles that I and even YOU will disagree with.

      I could think of some ways Medicare could be reformed. Single Payer would be the number one reform I'd back. Let Medicare negotiate with the drug companies, just like the VA can. I'm sure there are others. Cutting benefits (as you seem to want to do) isn't a "reform" I'd support (don't know what else you'd be advocating with your pointing out of people getting more out than what they put in).

      The Conservative/Libertarian myth that raising taxes results in less revenue (the Laffer Curve) has been debunked. Antony Davies from Duquesne is a Libertarian "fucking academic" (your words) who "crunched the numbers" with an agenda.

      Delete
    10. The numbers that Laffer came up with as the point of diminishing returns I agree are probably off (I agree that they're probably too low) but the notion that there ISN'T a point of diminishing returns ever is moronic (let's raise the top rates to 99%)......And I'm not going to let you skate on that little slight against Professor Davies. Yes, the man has a perspective but he did absolutely nothing underhanded. He took the total amount of revenue when the tax rates were 50% and 91% respectively and he divided those numbers by the total number of tax-payers and he found that the average amount of revenue collected by the federal government per person was $2,600 when the top tax rate was 91%, and that when the top tax rate was reduced to 50% in 1984, that amount had grown all the way to $5,700 per person, a 119% increase (adjusted for inflation). The numbers are the numbers, wd.......And that little crack that I made against Reich had to do with the fact that that 70% top rate of his wouldn't have applied to him. Surprised that you you didn't comprehend that (no, not really).

      Delete
    11. Will said: "but the notion that there ISN'T a point of diminishing returns ever is moronic"

      It is very moronic. Of course the more you tax something, the more you discourage it. This is the logic used for "sin" taxes against cigarettes, tanning salons, etc. It is no less true everywhere else. Further overtaxation forces businesses and investors to move offshore, or, if they stay, to move activities to areas that aren't taxed. Returns diminish because people avoid the activity that gets clobbered by the tax.

      Delete
    12. I'm not sure what the magic number is, Luther, but I'm pretty sure that it isn't 70. My suggestion is 3 rates; 10% on the first $50,000, 20% on $50,000 to $500,000, and 30% on everything over $500,000, with NO deductions and capital gains being treated as regular income indexed for inflation. That way a person making a mill a year living in a million dollar home in Rhinebeck NY would pay pretty close to half of what they make to the 3 levels of government. That to me is MORE than fair enough and probably too fair (though, no, the progressives probably wouldn't think it fair ENOUGH).

      Delete
    13. Sounds good to me. Cut out all those loopholes that the rich slip through, also. Agree? Very anti-wealthy, that.

      Delete
    14. Yeah, I would get rid of all deductions and make it so that the tax return could fit on a postcard.

      Delete
  8. Yes, El Canardo, we discussed it in approximately 80 emails over the course of the last week. Steve gave his opinion, along with two anons, and a birdwoman.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Whatever, Dennis. This "el canardo" is supposed to be an insult, I take it? However it means nothing to me and simply strikes me as weird. YOU being weird isn't insulting to ME.

      What I want to know is why you don't want people refilling their ink cartridges? I say people should be able to do whatever they want with items they own. If they want to be able to refill THEIR ink cartridges they should be able to.

      Delete
    2. Weird El Canardo, I recommend a pet octopus for solving the problem you mention.

      Delete
    3. Weirder El Lexi: I recommend a pet octopus for solving the problem you mention.

      It's a problem associated with you, Lexmark. The ink from an octopus wouldn't work, nor would anyone be able to place it into a Lexmark ink cartridge because it is prevented. Allow the customer to do what they want with what they own I say. BTW, it is you who is weird, Dennis.

      RN: 2020 then and hopefully the Libertarian Party will be a major player by that time.

      I predict that will not happen. Hopefully (if we're voiced our pie in the sky dreams) is that the Republican Party dies and the Progressives split off from the Dems to become the dominant political party... and then, by 2020 the first Progressive president is elected and his (or her) first order of business is to pass FDR's 2nd Bill of Rights.

      Delete
    4. Just my luck. Joe Truth 101 Kelly prognosticates on wd/DS being a shithead and points out his shitheadedness and the next thing I know Dervish Sanders finds.his way over here to be a shithead.

      But, as Anon/Steve pointed out on Truth 101 Dervish could actually be RN. Or was it the other way around? Oh yeah, same difference.

      Dervish, or is it RN?, seemed pretty focused on discrediting Steve/Anon.

      Anyway, hopefully wd/DS has finally found inner peace over being anointed a shithead for all his shitheadedness and finds some solace in the fact we were at RN have never considered Derv a shithead. Occasionally a few dimes short of a dollar but never a shithead.

      Delete
  9. Talk about pie in sky Canardo. Good luck with that one.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Or no luck, I hope. The so-called "2nd Bill of Rights" is mostly a codification of the rights of greed, and the right to steal.. .a right of entitlement. Which makes it markedly different from the actual Bill of Rights, which tells what can't be taken from the people.

      Besides, ask Japanese-Americans what FDR's record on the real Bill of Rights was. The incarceration of so many of them by FDR during WW2 can be taken as a fulfillment if the 3rd bullet of the "2nd Bill of Rights": FDR gave them housing, didn't he? The 2nd Bill of Rights conflicts with the real one, and in an ugly way.

      Delete
  10. Also, yesterday RN said: " And goddamn-it, I'm entitled to get everything out of the system even if I don't put a frigging thing into it simply because I exist. It is my HUMAN RIGHT after all! Don't you know?"

    Seems like he understands FDR's "Second Bill of Rights" perfectly.

    ReplyDelete
  11. "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy." Disraeli, Tytler, de Toqueville, or Petersen.......I think that it's fair to say that FDR was aiming for something along those lines with the NRA (which was ultimately voted down 9-0 and which actually garnered laughter in the court room), the AAA, his court packing scheme, his utilization of the IRS as a weapon (just ask poor Huey Long), etc.. Thankfully the way that the system is set up halted him.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But don't expect progressives, or modern conservatives to get it.

      Delete
    2. I've said it before, Les - Truman, Kennedy, Clinton, and Cleveland were 4 very good Democratic Presidents and Al Smith would have been a darn good one, too. FDR, except for his having being a very good war President, not so much.

      Delete
  12. I tend to agree. Although the world can only guess at what Kennedy might have accomplished had his life not been cut short by an assasins bullet.

    ReplyDelete

As this site encourages free speech and expression any and all honest political commentary is acceptable. Comments with cursing or vulgar language will not be posted.

Effective 8/12/13 Anonymous commenting has been disabled. This unfortunate action was made necessary due to the volume of Anonymous comments that are either off topic or serve only to disrupt honest discourse..

I apologizes for any inconvenience this necessary action may cause the honest Anonymous who would comment here, respect proper decorum and leave comments of value. However, The multitude of trollish attack comments from both the left and right has necessitated this action.

Thank you for your understanding... The management.