This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

Public Opinion Of US Supreme Court Deteriorates Following Obamacare Decision

Tyler Durden's picture




 

While we are still collecting various public polling results showing popular sentiment in the aftermath of the Supreme Court's surprising Obamacare ruling last week, the first results out of Rasmussen show that if Judge John Roberts' goal was to somehow restory credibility in the supreme judicial entity, following his alleged flip flopping on the ACA, whereby he passed the Individual Mandate in a format never intended by the Obama administration, he has failed. From Rasmussen: "A week ago, 36% said the court was doing a good or an excellent job. That’s down to 33% today. However, the big change is a rise in negative perceptions. Today, 28% say the Supreme Court is doing a poor job. That’s up 11 points over the past week."

More:

Public opinion of the Supreme Court has grown more negative since the highly publicized ruling on the president’s health care law was released. A growing number now believe that the high court is too liberal and that justices pursue their own agenda rather than acting impartially.

 

A week ago, 36% said the court was doing a good or an excellent job. That’s down to 33% today. However, the big change is a rise in negative perceptions. Today, 28% say the Supreme Court is doing a poor job. That’s up 11 points over the past week.

 

The new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey, conducted on Friday and Saturday following the court ruling, finds that 56% believe justices pursue their own political agenda rather than generally remain impartial. That’s up five points from a week ago. Just half as many -- 27% -- believe the justices remain impartial. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

 

Thirty-seven percent (37%) now believe the Supreme Court is too liberal, while 22% think it's too conservative. A week ago, public opinion was much more evenly divided:  32% said it was too liberal and 25% said too conservative.

 

In the latest survey, 31% now believe the balance is about right.

Not surprisingly, the SCOTUS is merely the latest entity to fall cleanly into the political class divide, showing that when ideology is concerned, Justice is certainly not blind:

A week ago, Republicans were generally positive about the court. Forty-two percent (42%) of GOP voters gave the justices good or excellent marks, while 14% said poor. Now, the numbers are strongly negative — 20% say good or excellent and 43% say poor.

 

Among Democrats, the numbers went from mixed to very positive. A week ago, 35% of those in the president’s party gave the high court positive reviews and 22% offered a negative assessment. Now, 50% are positive and only 11% give the high court negative marks.

 

As for those not affiliated with either major party, the positives remained unchanged at 31%. However, among unaffiliated voters, the number rating the court's performance as poor doubled from 14% a week ago to 30% today.

 

Among Political Class voters, positive ratings for the Supreme Court soared to 55%, compared to 27% a week ago.

 

Among Mainstream voters, the court’s ratings headed in the opposite direction. A week ago, 34% of Mainstream voters said the court was doing a good or excellent job and 17% gave it poor ratings. The numbers have now reversed — 22% positive and 36% negative.

 

Democrats are now fairly evenly divided as to whether justices pursue their own agenda or remain impartial. However, by lopsided margins, Republicans and unaffiliated voters believe that they pursue their own agenda.

Next up it is Germany's constitutional court to confirm that when it comes to preserving the status quo, impartial and objective ethics and values, not to mention laws and mores, are irrelevant. The only problem, there and here, is the one day at a time, taking liberty with the heretofore endless supplies of other people's money, which allowed everyone to keep a blind eye to the government's encroaching take over of all seemingly impartial institutions, is slowly ending, as the above mentioned "enablement" money is now practically gone.

And no amount of "collateral expansions" by the ECB or other central banks can fix this realization at the heart of all modern-day problems.

 

- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Sun, 07/01/2012 - 13:23 | 2578707 Yes_Questions
Yes_Questions's picture

 

 

Public Opinion Of US Supreme Court Deteriorates Following Obamacare Decision.  A long slide of decline since Bush V. Gore highlighted along the way with Citizens United V. FEC.

 

 

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 13:32 | 2578738 Jay Gould Esq.
Jay Gould Esq.'s picture

"Public opinion ?" Inconsequential.

J. Glover Roberts Jr. is now the toast of the Beltway cocktail party circuit, which is of much more "professional" import.

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 13:36 | 2578743 El Viejo
El Viejo's picture

Extra, Extra:  It's unanimous. All three branches of govt now support big business over personal freedoms!

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 13:45 | 2578781 Tirpitz
Tirpitz's picture

But that's very understandable: There's more than 300 million of us suggers, expendables, cannon fodder, while the personhood-corporations reach numbers only in the thousands, and thus need the extra protection of bought law, over-reaching over-regulation, and state-guaranteed, state-supported monopolies to operate in.

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 17:19 | 2579189 DeadFred
DeadFred's picture

The primary respect the three branches get now comes from their monopoly on the use of force. Do what they say or else they will shoot you or stuff you in a cage.

I'm somewhat embarrassed to say I really expected more of them. One more notch up on the jaded scale.

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 20:02 | 2579481 narapoiddyslexia
narapoiddyslexia's picture

From what I've read of the man, Roberts couldn't care less what we think about him. His intended audience hasn't yet been born.

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 07:17 | 2580094 GetZeeGold
GetZeeGold's picture

 

 

Turns out the hooker was a whore....didn't see that coming.

 

Wonder what the dollar amount was? I'm gonna say at least seven zeros.

 

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 13:50 | 2578796 IAmNotMark
IAmNotMark's picture

Extra, Extra: It's unanimous. All three branches of govt now support big government over personal freedoms!

There.  Fixed it for you.

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 13:57 | 2578821 Manthong
Manthong's picture

All of the veils are down now.

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 14:59 | 2578925 Yes_Questions
Yes_Questions's picture

 

 

Lifted.

 

Apocalypse.

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 16:29 | 2579110 Future Jim
Future Jim's picture

The shroud of the dark side has fallen. Impossible to see the future is.

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 15:19 | 2578973 GOSPLAN HERO
GOSPLAN HERO's picture

It is the America Abe Lincoln wanted.

... Federal power uber alles!

... the states are just bill payers.

... obey me or I'll kill you.

 

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 15:33 | 2578998 Mr. Fix
Mr. Fix's picture

@I am not Mark:

That needed to be fixed,

You beat me to it.

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 15:35 | 2579005 CatoRenasci
CatoRenasci's picture

As the Brits used to say, Roberts "ratted".

 

Oh, somewhere in this favored world the sun is shining bright;
The band is playing somewhere, and somewhere hearts are light,
And somewhere men are laughing, and somewhere children shout;
But there is no joy in America - mighty Roberts has sold out.

 

(apologies to Ernest Lawrence Thayer)

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 15:55 | 2579045 bobnoxy
bobnoxy's picture

Oh please! If the court had struck down Obamacare, you, Sarah Retard Palin, Beck, Limbaugh, Hannity and your other opinion setters would be hailing them as beacons of freedom and everything that's still right about America.

It's just when they do something you...excuse me, they don't like, which always means bad for their corporate sponsors, then you get all upset. When they do something the hard right doesn't like, they're activist judges.

When they do something the radical right agrees with, they're true constructionists and heroes, as Roberts was consitently hailed as until last week.

Get a grip. Sometimes democracy doesn't go our way. You don't get to pull it all down when one goes against your mal-informed opinions.

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 16:23 | 2579097 Silver Bully
Silver Bully's picture

Wow, nice partisan bomb-throwing. You'll fit right in on Drudge or Huffpo.

However, this is ZH.

Last I checked, no one HERE is suggesting democracy is going anyone's way, except for the parasites in the Eccles building and Wall St. Most people here don't buy into the 'vote for the lesser of 2 evils' system. Obamacare is a product of that system. If you think anyone HERE also wants to replace our republic with a theocracy, you need to go back to Huffpo where you belong. There's nothing liberal or conservative about it, it is a pure unconstitutional power grab.

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 16:57 | 2579129 blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

It's repeated a lot around here, but it isn't true.  There's a strong Republican leaning on the ZH forums. 

Perhaps it's because the 'Pub-lovers are the loudest and most apt to junk their opponents, but you can't read these comments here for more than a few days without realizing that any "Democrat-positive" message will be beat down like Rodney King while the "Republican-positive" messages are more often left alone.

It may be that the Dem-lovers just don't want to post on boards populated by our resident neo-Nazis and John Birchers.

Or maybe many of the residents are actually stupid enough to believe the Republicans are more "libertarian" than the Democrats.

Whatever.  If Bobnoxy's a partisan, he won't be around long.

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 17:31 | 2579219 Bollixed
Bollixed's picture

Perhaps you're reading your own biases into the responses. What I see is a general distain for persons/entities who think they are entitled to OPM as a god given mandate to 'save' others from themselves. In other words, to userp the power of the individual in favor of the status quo, whether that be big government or big business.

Personally I think it's a toss up between the Dems and Repubs as to which party has more shit for brains.

The fact that a person such as Ron Paul wears a Republican hat is certainly cause to make the case that at least some of the Repubs hold at least a sliver of belief in personal responsibility vs the overwhelming nanny state attitudes held by socialists who predominantly see themselves as Dems.

For the record I see both parties has having very little differences and consider them two sides of the same coin. Additionally, buying into the belief that we have two parties that oppose each other is pure nonsense in my book.

They both want the same thing...MORE power for them, and LESS power for the individual. My personal belief is that the more power individuals have the less misallocation of money, resources, and energy we'll see. I don't see either puppet party espousing that view.

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 17:56 | 2579265 lakecity55
lakecity55's picture

I think most of us here either work or want to work to be productive. That does not entitle someone to take our stuff at (IRS) gunpoint.

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 17:39 | 2579230 Goner
Goner's picture

<--- Supports the Smaller Gov, less taxes, true free market (Republican Platform but NOT the Republican Party)

<--- Support the Republican party

There might be people who lean towards some of the Republican ideals (you know, smaller Government, less taxes, a TRUE free market) But since the Republican party only gives those ideals lip service you cant label those ZH'ers as supporting the Republican Party.

But maybe I am wrong and just projecting my thoughts on the collective

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 17:49 | 2579248 dougngen
dougngen's picture

the truth is the truth.....

Democrat= idealist

Conservative= realist

You can't solve world hunger or medical coverage with other peoples money. It's a nice dream, but ZH'rs understand the reality of the situation.

So if we sound conservative I.e. repub.... it's because the truth lives here.

Call us Libertarian

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 21:02 | 2579568 Galactic Superwave
Galactic Superwave's picture

Gee, I wonder what news outlet you listen to....the "unbiased" Fox News.

Think about the root emotion in the word Conservative. It is Fear. Conservatives are fearful people.

The "truth" is that -almost- everyone forms their opinions on things they see or hear that feeds their own Self Interest. It's the rare individual that can see the "truth" in the shared helping of others who are less fortunate. Granted, many of the less fortunate made poor choices to get in their situation but many did not.

 

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 21:41 | 2579608 nmewn
nmewn's picture

"It's the rare individual that can see the "truth" in the shared helping of others who are less fortunate."

Oh, how true...lol.

I pulled up at an interstate off ramp the other day and there was some guy (in his twenties and obviously healthy, it was very hot) standing there with a cardboard sign...Stranded, Hungry. Please Help. Thank You.

I carry a can of peas around with me for just these occasions, I rolled down the window and said here ya go friend...I got a blank stare.

He was a "conservative" no doubt...as all he cared about was my money, not my offer of charity ;-)

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 22:05 | 2579635 mjk0259
mjk0259's picture

I guess you only need one can as it comes back through your rear window

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 06:47 | 2579665 nmewn
nmewn's picture

Never had that problem...they always turn it down.

Gonna have to "invest" in another can of peas though, the label is getting a little faded & torn...maybe thats the problem...they're stranded, starving and begging...but still have their dignity ;-)

///////////////////////////////////////

For those who didn't get the point of my little morality play...lol...what about this beggar preying on peoples emotion...based entirely on a lie?

He isn't starving, he rejected food.

He's also healthy, young, completely shameless and clearly only wants money he has not earned.

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 23:50 | 2579790 jumbo maverick
jumbo maverick's picture

How's yous axpect me to cook dees heer peees theys all raws and shit motherfucker.

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 18:43 | 2579374 nmewn
nmewn's picture

"...without realizing that any "Democrat-positive" message..."

What is a democrat positive message anyways?

Is that like...pssst, hey you'ze, over here. You wanna maybe get in on da ground floor of some pump & dump solar stocks? Da sucka's will be comin in by da tousands, you buy now, you dump lata...capice? Ya in or what?

Or is it more of a tax & spend sorta thing like its always been, with a "shovel ready" chaser these days ;-)

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 20:23 | 2579522 Freddie
Freddie's picture

Dems and Repubs suck but it was Obama and Holder that pushed Fast and Furious with the goal of ending the Second Amnedment.  Not one Democrat has said a peep.  They all back Obama and Holder.

The Repubs suck but all the Democrats support Obama.  Name one Democrat that is remotely like Ron or Rand Paul. 

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 17:53 | 2579256 lakecity55
lakecity55's picture

We have a Republic. Not democracy.

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 18:33 | 2579357 dbomb12
dbomb12's picture

Maybe during the 1800, s but not anymore

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 16:18 | 2579087 max2205
max2205's picture

Bad is good when reading through 1%'ers glasses

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 17:51 | 2579251 lakecity55
lakecity55's picture

Cloward-Piven. Crash the entire economy thru impossible demands, establish New Communist State.

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 18:37 | 2579368 dbomb12
dbomb12's picture

That is part of the plan, the other is to discredit all branchs of Government

The communist agenda, Current Communist Goals EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. A. S. HERLONG, JR. OF FLORIDA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, January 10, 1963 .

#29. Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis.
 
#30. Discredit the American Founding Fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the "common man."
Sun, 07/01/2012 - 13:24 | 2578711 F. Bastiat
F. Bastiat's picture

It seems clear that John Roberts sacrificed his oath for political expediency.

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 13:30 | 2578731 Temporalist
Temporalist's picture

He sacrificed the constitution and the American people to corporate interests.

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 13:36 | 2578747 F. Bastiat
F. Bastiat's picture

And which "corporate" interests are those?

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 13:39 | 2578755 CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

Those who will profit from government mandated "healthcare," of course.

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 13:50 | 2578800 F. Bastiat
F. Bastiat's picture

Name some names. Be specific.

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 13:59 | 2578824 LowProfile
LowProfile's picture

Easy.

Just go see which healthcare stocks soared after the supreme deciders decided.

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 14:48 | 2578927 Harbanger
Harbanger's picture

If a law forces every person in the Country to buy a product what do you expect the stock to do( in the short term)?  Don't you know the timeline and particulars of the Law?  The 1st thing to go will be employer provided health plans because it's cheaper to pay the fine.   By design, the specifics in the Obamacare law are going to make it impossible for any private sector health insurance company to stay in business.  It all shifts to Govt. in a few years and you can have your Utopian dream of banana Republic free HC.

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 15:43 | 2579024 Miffed Microbio...
Miffed Microbiologist's picture

Absolutely by design! They couldn't get single payer the first time around so they created a situation where it is inevitable. God these assholes make me sick and people are so blind to it. People at my work were cheering when the ruling went down. They deserve their fate but I'm going to suffer as well. Truth doesn't always sit you free.

Miffed:-)

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 16:22 | 2579093 LowProfile
LowProfile's picture

Go to cash.  Buy gold, food, and enough guns to keep them at bay.

You may not suffer as much as you think.

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 11:32 | 2580738 PeterSchump
PeterSchump's picture

Until you need a doctor.

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 16:55 | 2579154 bigkahuna
bigkahuna's picture

Yep, single payer is on the way. The "regulated" plan will cause a crisis that will bring in healthcare from big brother and only big brother. 

I guess you can hope you don't get sick.

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 18:02 | 2579284 tmosley
tmosley's picture

When a plot that is too complex to understand is carried out, the best way to tell who was behind it is to assume it went according to plan, then look at who benefited.

The government won't be providing health insurance directly.  They will contract with 1-5 large companies, and throw the rest under the bus, in typical fascist fashion.

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 21:35 | 2579597 F. Bastiat
F. Bastiat's picture

Occam's razor and spontaneous economic order beg to differ.  But of course you somehow magically know better than three hundred years of experience.

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 14:09 | 2578851 Bob
Bob's picture

My 30 second search:

Hospital operators, and companies that own hospitals, celebrated the ruling. HCA Holdings (HCA, Fortune 500), United Health Services (UHS, Fortune 500), Community Health Systems (CYH, Fortune 500), Health Management Associates (HMA, Fortune 500) and Tenet Healthcare Corp (THC, Fortune 500) surged between 5% to 10%.

Providers of Medicare and Medicaid also got a substantial lift. Wellcare Health Plans (WCG, Fortune 500) rose 9% and Amerigroup (AGP, Fortune 500) jumped 5%. Centene Corp. (CNC, Fortune 500) rose 2% and Molina Healthcare (MOH, Fortune 500) rose 9%.

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 14:14 | 2578868 F. Bastiat
F. Bastiat's picture

So you're claiming that John Roberts is somehow magically beholden to the people making up the organizations you've listed above.  What evidence can you provide in support of your assertations?

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 14:40 | 2578902 LowProfile
LowProfile's picture

LOL, demand answers to things you can easily look up yourself, change the subject, create a straw man for beating (thanks duncangraper) and then demand incontrovertible proof..!

You understand you're a rancid fucking statist cunt tool, right?  And a shitty one at that?

LOLOLOL  ur a shitty TROLOLOLOLO

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 14:36 | 2578903 duncangraper
duncangraper's picture

Seems like you claimed a magical connection when confronted with who benefited explicitally form the ruling.  At least try to straw man with a little more deftness

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 21:36 | 2579599 F. Bastiat
F. Bastiat's picture

The English language is certainly not something benefitted, explicitly or otherwise, in your presence.

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 17:41 | 2579235 A Lunatic
A Lunatic's picture

How about the fucking IRS?

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 17:58 | 2579272 tmosley
tmosley's picture

Here is a good starting point: http://sunlightfoundation.com/projects/2009/healthcare_lobbyist_complex .  The spider hole goes DEEP.

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 02:32 | 2579952 CaptainObvious
CaptainObvious's picture

Okay.

Blue Cross/Blue Shield in all its incarnations

United Health Group

Aetna

Wellpoint

Humana Care

Cigna

Glaxo Smith Kline

Merck

Pfizer

Johnson & Johnson

Astra Zeneca

Eli Lilly

Bristol Myers

Bayer Health

 

I'm sure there are more, but these are the ones who will benefit the most...the biggest healthcare providers and the biggest pharmaceutical corporations. 

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 06:50 | 2580057 Disenchanted
Disenchanted's picture

 

F. Bastiat imposter said:

 

"Name some names. Be specific."

 

For one, WellPoint whose 'former' executive VP Liz Fowler basically wrote the legislation(ACA). This below written before the decision was handed down:

 

The ACA is designed to bail out the for-profit healthcare industry before their profits flat line and the court’s decision will reflect how best to do that.


The health insurance industry spent $1 million a day to influence the national healthcare reform debate in their favor. Written by Liz Fowler of the nation’s largest insurer, WellPoint, the law delivers 30 million new customers and $447 billion in taxpayer subsidies directly to the private health insurance companies.


If fully implemented, the ACA will leave at least 23 million people uninsured, egregious insurance company practices such as charging older people more for policies, denials and delays in approving care, and high rates of medical bankruptcies due to inadequate insurance plans, will continue.

 

 

excerpt from:  Constitutional or Not, It’s a Win-Win for the Health Insurance Industry

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 07:19 | 2580096 Disenchanted
Disenchanted's picture

 

 

Further down in the article at that link it says this:

 

4) Upholding the law: This Supreme Court has a track record of ruling in favor of the corporate interests (see Citizens United), and the ACA is based on legislation crafted by the health insurance industry. This should not be a surprising outcome. If the law is thrown out and the status quo in healthcare continues, the insurance companies are left with a playing field stacked in their favor without regulations that may eventually threaten profits. Costs will continue to skyrocket; more people will be without insurance.

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 13:41 | 2578761 cossack55
cossack55's picture

What else. Big Med and Big Pharma.  Better fascism thru chemistry.

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 13:50 | 2578798 Yes_Questions
Yes_Questions's picture

 

 

Fascism.

 

It has electrolytes.

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 13:51 | 2578803 F. Bastiat
F. Bastiat's picture

Feel free to define "fascism".  I don't think you can do it.

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 14:00 | 2578828 LowProfile
LowProfile's picture

Inexperienced troll is inexperienced.

TROLOLOLOLO

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 14:05 | 2578840 F. Bastiat
F. Bastiat's picture

Apparently you can't either.  When you're able to define the terms you bandy about, people might start taking you seriously.

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 14:26 | 2578887 LowProfile
LowProfile's picture

I've always been partial to this portion of the subject of fascism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism#Authoritarianism since it seems to most accurately describe what we are becoming.

You rancid fucking statist cunt.

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 16:49 | 2578956 Manthong
Manthong's picture

Define “fascism”? 

Maybe it’s like “art” but I’ll give it a try..

Fascism: “A form of despotic government that blends the primacy of the state with the interests of a dominant financial and industrial elite to exploit the citizenry and the markets through the deception that its policies are designed for the good of the citizenry and markets, therefore, what is good for the state is good for the citizenry.”

(I made a little edit on this, and I think it is pretty close now.)

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 15:03 | 2578946 cossack55
cossack55's picture

Define people.  Define apparently. Define seriously. What an ass.

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 01:11 | 2579456 F. Bastiat
F. Bastiat's picture

I thought you'd like that one. 

The best overview I've seen are the 18 neo-socialist tendencies that Stuart Chase laid down in "The Road We Are Traveling". Political System X he called it.  "Free Enterprise into X" for the "fundamental transformation" process.

The ghost of Stuart Chase lives on in the Hawaiian Allende.

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 15:07 | 2581392 vened
vened's picture

 

Fascism ( /?fæ??z?m/) is a radical authoritarian nationalist political ideology.[1][2] Fascists seek elevation of their nation based on commitment to an organic national community where its individuals are united together as one people in national identity by suprapersonal connections of ancestry and culture through a totalitarian state that seeks the mass mobilization of a nation through disciplineindoctrinationphysical training, and eugenics.[3][4] Fascism seeks to eradicate perceived foreign influences that are deemed to be causing degeneration of the nation or of not fitting into the national culture.[5]

Fascists have commonly presented themselves as politically syncretic—opposing firm association with any section of the left-right spectrum, considering it inadequate to describe their beliefs,[6][7] though fascism's goal to promote the rule of people deemed innately superior while seeking to purge society of people deemed innately inferior has been noted as being a prominentfar-right stance.[8] Fascism opposes multiple ideologies: conservatismliberalism, and the two major forms of socialismcommunism and social democracy.[9] To achieve its goals, the fascist state purges forces, ideas, people, and systems deemed to be the cause of decadence and degeneration.[10] Fascism promotes political violence and war as forms ofdirect action that promote national rejuvenation, spirit and vitality.[3][11] Fascists commonly utilize paramilitary organizations to commit or threaten violence against their opponents.[12]

The fascist party is a vanguard party designed to initiate a revolution from above and to organize the nation upon fascist principles.[13] The fascist party and state is led by a supreme leader who exercises a dictatorship over the party, the government and other state institutions.[14] Fascism condemns liberal democracy for basing government legitimacy on quantity rather than quality, and for causing quarreling partisan politics, but fascists deny that they are entirely against democracy.[15][16]Fascists claim that their ideology is a trans-class movement, advocating resolution to domestic class conflict within a nation to secure national solidarity.[17] It claims that its goal of cultural nationalization of society emancipates the nation's proletariat, and promotes the assimilation of all classes into proletarian national culture.[17] While fascism opposes domestic class conflict, fascism believes that bourgeois-proletarian conflict primarily exists in national conflict between proletarian nations versus bourgeois nations; fascism declares its opposition to bourgeois nations and declares its support for the victory of proletarian nations.[18]

Fascism advocates a state-controlled and regulated mixed economy, the principle economic goal of fascism is to achieve national autarky to secure national independence, through protectionist and interventionist economic policies.[19] It promotes the use and primacy of regulated private enterprise and private property contingent upon service to the nation, but where private enterprise and private property are failing, inefficient, or unable to fulfill fascist goals, it supports the use of state enterprise andstate property in those circumstances.[19] At the same time, fascists are hostile to financial capitalplutocracy, and "the power of money".[19] It supports criminalization of strikes by non-Fascist union employees and lockouts by employers because it deems these acts as prejudicial to the national community.[20]; only the Fascist unions were allowed to strike

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

 

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 14:09 | 2578856 Harbanger
Harbanger's picture

Fascism?  There is no comparison between the amount of damage a corrupt business can do and the amount of damage a corrupt Govt can do.  The State cannot go out of business and a corrupt businesses cannot print money or arrest you.  I don't understand the equivalence?

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 14:14 | 2578863 F. Bastiat
F. Bastiat's picture

That's because there isn't any.  The sheer ignorance of those who equate the two is perhaps the most dire threat to the Republic.

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 14:39 | 2578912 LowProfile
LowProfile's picture

Bigger than a central banking system who's only purpose is to keep private megabanks from going b/k, which keep multinational corporations expanding, all of which buy off our politicians to insure their existence (and a military industrial complex that enforces the whole shebang)?

Oh, and BTW...  What "Republic"?

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 21:40 | 2579605 F. Bastiat
F. Bastiat's picture

Good grief; who here is defending central banking? 

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 15:13 | 2578962 Harbanger
Harbanger's picture

I'm just not in the mood for coward bootlickers today.  My flag is upside down under the Gadsden this week.

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 16:28 | 2579109 Silver Bully
Silver Bully's picture

Holy crap, did MillionDollarBonus suddenly have a little brother?

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 16:36 | 2579115 Red Heeler
Red Heeler's picture

F. Bastiat

Feel free to define "Republic".  I don't think you can do it.

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 16:57 | 2579160 Harbanger
Harbanger's picture

Don't fuck with him and avoid the crossfire, just let it be, he can crush you.

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 17:27 | 2579206 Red Heeler
Red Heeler's picture

Oh, I'm sure many have been crushed, simply crushed, by F.at Bastiatard's mighty keyboard fingers of death and F.at Bastiatard, in a moment of diefic largesse, is letting me of the hook.

But thank you for your concern. Please accept this post as a token of my gratitude.

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 19:45 | 2579463 F. Bastiat
F. Bastiat's picture

Most people are easily fooled, obviously.  I guess I'm guilty of trick questions, trying to get "definitions" for complex social phenomena such as "fascism", "socialism", and other forms of primitive collectivism.

That said, there's no "definition" of a "Republic" per se either - only a representative set of characteristics such as democratic processes and horizontal and vertical checks and balances.  Minimized central coercion and maximum private property rights would also seem to be important characteristics of a functional Republic.

The characteristics of primitivism, whether top-down fascism or bottom-up Bolshevism would be the opposite characteristics of those which characterize functional Republics.

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 20:44 | 2579551 Red Heeler
Red Heeler's picture

Noah Webster would no doubt be left dumbstruck as you wax loquacious.

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 21:44 | 2579609 F. Bastiat
F. Bastiat's picture

Which part are you having trouble with? 

Stuart Chase's 18 characteristics of fascism as described by Political System "X"? 

Or perhaps the characteristics of a functional republic including minimized central coercion, private property rights, and matrixed checks and balances?

Where does your confusion lie?

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 16:48 | 2579136 blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

You may as well accuse people who hold such unacceptable opinions of being "treasonous" at this point, moron. 

In for a dime, in for a dollar.

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 17:20 | 2579195 HungrySeagull
HungrySeagull's picture

I'll keep the dime, you keep the dollar.

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 17:27 | 2579204 blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

It's not for the guy who doesn't know to say when.

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 13:47 | 2578770 Haole
Haole's picture

The same ones that financed the Bolshevik Revolution, Hitler, etc., etc., etc.  The same old folks that own our asses via financial institutions and markets, big pharma and oil, Franken-Ag, etc. facilitated through the gangs we call "governments"... 

Surprised you need to ask.

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 13:52 | 2578805 F. Bastiat
F. Bastiat's picture

Well, name some names.  I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but apparently you are.

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 13:54 | 2578809 Haole
Haole's picture

If you want to jerk yourself off as a virtual down arrow waiting to happen, don't drag me into your sordid little ignorant distortion of reality.  Please and thank-you.

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 14:02 | 2578833 LowProfile
LowProfile's picture

Inexperienced troll is inexperienced.

TROLOLOLOLO

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 14:41 | 2578915 Haole
Haole's picture

I'm honored to have been branded with my first TROLOLOLOLO on ZH because that guy never gets old.

 

 

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 14:42 | 2578917 LowProfile
LowProfile's picture

Sorry, that was intended at F.(uckface) Bastiat.  Maibad!

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 14:44 | 2578921 Haole
Haole's picture

... too bad the link and the "edit" functionality are both broken.

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 16:24 | 2579098 LowProfile
LowProfile's picture

Would be nice to be able to append a comment with an *edit*, but once someone replies, the comment is locked. : p

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 14:02 | 2578834 F. Bastiat
F. Bastiat's picture

If you're capable of making a positive contribution to the discussion - feel free to do so.  So far at least, you don't appear capable.

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 14:10 | 2578860 Killtruck
Killtruck's picture

Now THAT is how you do irony, kids.

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 14:34 | 2578904 LowProfile
LowProfile's picture

And THAT is how you do brilliant, kids.

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 07:07 | 2580083 Disenchanted
Disenchanted's picture

 

Bastiat imposter said:

 

"Well, name some names."

 

Rothschilds, Rockefellers, Schiffs, Warburgs, Morgans, Harrimans, and Milners.

 

WALL STREET
AND THE
BOLSHEVIK
REVOLUTION


In brief, this is a story of the Bolshevik Revolution and its aftermath, but a story that departs from the usual conceptual straitjacket approach of capitalists versus Communists. Our story postulates a partnership between international monopoly capitalism and international revolutionary socialism for their mutual benefit. The final human cost of this alliance has fallen upon the shoulders of the individual Russian and the individual American. Entrepreneurship has been brought into disrepute and the world has been propelled toward inefficient socialist planning as a result of these monopoly maneuverings in the world of politics and revolution.


This is also a story reflecting the betrayal of the Russian Revolution. The tsars and their corrupt political system were ejected only to be replaced by the new powerbrokers of another corrupt political system. Where the United States could have exerted its dominant influence to bring about a free Russia it truckled to the ambitions of a few Wall Street financiers who, for their own purposes, could accept a centralized tsarist Russia or a centralized Marxist Russia but not a decentralized free Russia. And the reasons for these assertions will unfold as we develop the underlying and, so far, untold history of the Russian Revolution and its aftermath.4

 

 

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 07:16 | 2580093 Disenchanted
Disenchanted's picture

 

 

 

Created Conflict and the Dialectic Process
Staged left/right conflict to consolidate power

http://modernhistoryproject.org/mhp?Article=SkullBones&C=3.1

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 22:06 | 2579638 mjk0259
mjk0259's picture

The Supremes do not care about political expediency. No elections for them.

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 14:34 | 2578900 sosoome
sosoome's picture

"It seems clear that John Roberts sacrificed his oath for political expediency"

how so?

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 14:54 | 2578935 wee-weed up
wee-weed up's picture

A Supreme Court justice is supposed to vote a case up or down base solely on the merits of the case as presented. Period.

Roberts made a NEW case!

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 15:34 | 2579000 sosoome
sosoome's picture

I disagree with your supposition, mattering not, it doesn't explain how anyone knows it was for political expediency. How does one know his reasons?

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 17:15 | 2579187 wee-weed up
wee-weed up's picture

I don't give a rat's ass WHY he did it! HE DID IT and gave us all the finger!

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 20:41 | 2579546 Freddie
Freddie's picture

My guess is he was threatend by the Chicago gang.

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 21:37 | 2579601 F. Bastiat
F. Bastiat's picture

And he caved in like a coward.  Or at least that's what it seems right now. Constitution be damned; civilization be damned.

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 19:47 | 2579467 F. Bastiat
F. Bastiat's picture

Of course, I'm assuming he switched his vote. Which seems to be a reasonable assumption.

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 21:18 | 2579579 Ned Zeppelin
Ned Zeppelin's picture

Those who think the Supreme Court sold out are both supremely ignorant of the standard of review that is applied to this kind of legislation and also are so brain addled by their bias they can't even handle the facts.  The reaction that this decision has engendered tells you alot about the inhabitants of this land and it is not good. 

Read the decision, it explains it.

Ypu may not like Obama healthcare -I don't - but your remedy is political not judicial, numnutz. Storm the Capital, call your Senators, your congress critter, etc. but don't look for help from the Court.  It has been supportive of the Commerce an tax clauses for literally decades.

 

 

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 13:24 | 2578712 world_debt_slave
world_debt_slave's picture

the separation of powers, yeah, right

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 13:26 | 2578718 veyron
veyron's picture

Dems still pissed off over citizens united, not that impressed by ACA

 

Reps pissed off over ACA, dont care about CU

 

net result: more people pissed off about SCOTUS

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 13:38 | 2578751 derek_vineyard
derek_vineyard's picture

the more pissed off / unemployed / or just confused =  rally time spx

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 13:27 | 2578720 acidradio
acidradio's picture

So what are we going to do, vote them off the bench? It was easier to get rid of even Kim Jong-Il!

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 14:19 | 2578878 Bob
Bob's picture

Turley has been talking alot about reforming the SCOTUS for the past month:

A BIGGER AND BETTER SUPREME COURT

http://jonathanturley.org/latest-column/

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 13:27 | 2578721 Ancona
Ancona's picture

Roberts is a fucking clown. Since when can the US Government create commerce simply so that it can regulate it? That's some seriously bizarre mental gumnastics to come up with that interpretation of the constitution.

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 14:50 | 2578929 sosoome
sosoome's picture

not to mention he re-defined liberty to, "do as I say or pay a tax".

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 13:28 | 2578725 roadhazard
roadhazard's picture

 I'm just glad that now the health care industry can't take everything I own to pay an inflated beyond all reason bill.  You all carry on.

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 13:43 | 2578774 CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

But Obama adviser Robert Reich said that the goal of government "healthcare" is to make young people pay more and then when they get old just let them die. In what way does that benefit you or hurt the "healthcare" industry?

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IT7Y0TOBuG4

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 14:29 | 2578892 Bob
Bob's picture

If you're very old, we're not going to waste all the expensive technology and [treatment] to keep you alive for a couple more months.

That's a radical challenge to the "sanctity of life" or "liberty" in some way?  Are there people here who don't agree the vast sums of money spent prolonging those "golden vegetable years" are wasted?

Are "the socialists" saying that if you wanna waste your own money you aren't free to do it?

Seriously.

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 15:47 | 2579023 CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

It should not be up to the government to determine who will or will not receive medical care. If an individual makes an agreement with an insurance company that in exchange for a lifetime of premiums that individual will receive expensive end of life care then that is between that individual and the parties with whom they have contracted.

Robert Reich wants the government to step in and stop this activity. He wants individuals to have to pay higher premiums when they are young and healthy and then he wants to cut off medical care for those same individuals as they age and need treatment. So yeah, it's a threat to individual liberty. Seriously.

 

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 20:18 | 2579507 mjk0259
mjk0259's picture

Pretty much every government has already decided that everyone gets medical care to some degree regardless of if they pay or not. This just makes a few more pay. Most insurance policies already have lifetime expense limits.

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 21:35 | 2579596 CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

 

 

Pretty much every government has already decided that...

 

And if pretty much every government decided to jump off a bridge...

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 22:08 | 2579641 mjk0259
mjk0259's picture

then there would be a new government less inclined to bridge jumping

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 22:25 | 2579656 CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

Governments don't exactly have a history of learning from their mistakes. The world is currently going to hell and governments are doubling down. The WMDs are now in Iran and more debt is being accrued to solve the debt crisis.

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 16:21 | 2579091 nmewn
nmewn's picture

If you're very old, >>>we're<<< not going to waste all the expensive technology and [treatment] to keep you alive for a couple more months.

The emphasis is on we...but we who? Who are the "New Deciders"?

But it does kinda sound like Death Panels doesn't it?

It'd be far more deviantly satisfying if they made the elderly patient appear before them (the family in the gallery, sobbing softly)...then a buzzer sounds...trap door swings open...and down the hatch they go...next stop a box.

Wouldn't it?

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 17:08 | 2579122 Bob
Bob's picture

Great story! 

OTOH, there's the exploitation of families that is daily practiced by the "health" industry for "extraordinary care" in the entirely private sector context which largely explains the, what, 8% annual rise in medical care expenses projected to consume, what, 70% of GDP in the next ten years . . . without Obamacare. 

Suppose the profit-driven health industry comes out with a golden drug that extends every life by 6 months for the low, low price of $100k per month.  You think private health care insurers will pay that?

It's gonna come down to money, regardless of how it's dressed or who delivers the news.  I worked five years in the health insurance industry, so I'm far from clueless. 

Funny that the "liberty" community is so passionate about fighting evil labor unions but gives the monopoly of the AMA upon doctor supply a free pass.  Stranger still, to me, that serving a status quo they ruthlessly define ends up playing like a 4th of July celebration, minutemen fifing as we all tearfully recite the Declaration of Independence. 

And "death panels" are the problem.   

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 17:18 | 2579180 CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

 

It's gonna come down to money, regardless of how it's dressed or who delivers the news.

 

Right. Individuals have a right to spend their money as they see fit. The money which an individual earns and may spend on medical care is not simply up for grabs in some great pool of community money. It's private money and the individual should be able to spend that money according to their own needs and desires. Simple as that.

If all the money which individuals voluntarily spend on medical care is to be pooled and divied up between everyone then perhaps all Americans should pool their food money or gas money or beer money and let everyone draw a share regardless of their input or needs. But of course, that's the way to destroy an economy and reduce the available amount of goods and services for everyone. "Today we will make shoes," is no way to run an economy or a government.

 

Funny that the "liberty" community that is so passionate about fighting evil labor unions gives the monopoly of the AMA upon doctor supply a free pass.

 

But the liberty community has long been vocal about the power of the AMA. You see, libertarians are not nearly as cartoonish as you make them out to be.

 

100 Years of Medical Robbery

 

This weekend (June 11-13, 2004), the American Medical Association (AMA) will celebrate the 100th anniversary of its Council on Medical Education. The medical establishment understandably sees the formation of the Council as a good thing. However, some patients aren't ready to celebrate yet, and their instincts may be good.

 

http://mises.org/daily/1547

 

Here's more: https://www.google.com/#hl=en&output=search&sclient=psy-ab&q=site:mises....

 

And "death panels" are the problem.   

 

If you believe that rehypothecation of money you've saved or invested for your old age is a good thing then just send me a check. Put your money (which you don't really believe is yours to begin with) where your mouth is. Then go ahead and die as you don't see that as a problem.

 

 

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 18:04 | 2579274 Bob
Bob's picture

My point about the "liberty" movement is that much of what gets done in its name, as far as I can see, benefits monied pirates, in spite of the sincere and comprehensive values of many of its thinkers. 

It's good to see that some of those thinkers are indeed thinking like it seems to me they should be, if only for consistency's sake, but that is not what's getting public attention or what is getting the financial support necessary to generate public attention.  This is true, imo, across the board. 

Hey, "canaries in the coalmine" perform a vital function in any society (to employ a dangerous "statist" concept).  When they are exploited to inflame public fears and distract from larger issues, however, I see them as a problem.  Justification of that via the high-minded rhetoric of liberty doesn't change the on-the-ground reality.  

Just as neoliberal globalization yielded severe problems that somehow surpised many of its cheerleaders when the consequences came back to bite them in the ass, the same is going to be true for healthcare. 

It makes no difference if your insurer is controlled by the government or by simple "free market" economics.  An insurance pool is an insurance pool and costs are going up.  Unless the young and healthy in your private insurance pool are either paying more or are far more numerous than the sick and elderly, your treatment is gonna be cut back when it gets too damn expensive . . . or the company is going BK.  Of course then the goobermint will be expected to clean up the mess. 

But, hey, maybe the Liberty community is gonna turn its guns from the little guys to the anti-freemarketeers who make most of the money from our current predicament as a "society" . . . which will eventually, probably sooner than later, affect even that most sovereign individual  in the blessed liberty of his private health care plan.

But I think we both know there's no money to support that from the people upon whom the Liberty Movement depends.  Nor any sustained attention from the angry local organizers who spearhead so much action and just can't seem to get their sights off the little guys and "freeloaders."  And, oh yeah, "Death Panels."

 

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 18:28 | 2579353 CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

 

 

It makes no difference if your insurer is controlled by the government or by simple "free market" economics. 

 

If it makes no difference then why bother with government regulation?

 

or the company is going BK.  Of course then the goobermint will be expected to clean up the mess.

 

Not in a libertarian system.

 

But, hey, maybe the Liberty community is gonna turn its guns from the little guys to the anti-freemarketeers who make most of the money from our current predicament as a "society"

 

The liberty movement is already doing that. That's what I find attractive about it.

 

And, oh yeah, "Death Panels."

 

But Robert Reich said "let the old people die," the Berkley crowd cheered and you agreed that he was right. Isn't it a bit disingenuous to say that you support letting the older demographic die but anyone who calls that a "death panel" is a nut? How can you pretend that  government 'death panels" won't exist when you say you're in favor of them coming into existence?

 

Justification of that via the high-minded rhetoric of liberty doesn't change the on-the-ground reality. 

 

The human need for liberty is absolute just as the human need for proper nutrition and protection from the elements is absolute. Do you consider eating your dinner or coming in out of the rain to be some kind of "high minded" activity unrelated to basic human needs? No man owns me. I doesn't matter whether you find that to be convenient for your personal agenda or not.

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 19:56 | 2579474 Bob
Bob's picture

Convenience?  lol. 

 

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 19:19 | 2579431 nmewn
nmewn's picture

Great story!"

Coming to a city near you...lol.

"OTOH, there's the exploitation of families that is daily practiced by the "health" industry for "extraordinary care" in the entirely private sector context which largely explains the, what, 8% annual rise in medical care expenses projected to consume, what, 70% of GDP in the next ten years . . . without ObamaTax."

What exploitation? You mean like driving up the cost of insurance because doctors are afraid if they don't do a test they run the risk of being sued? My health insurance has gone from a steady rise of 5-10% increase per year to 20-30% jumps and less coverage since the ObamaTax passed.

Yes, I fixed it. Its no longer ObamaCare...everyone now knows its a massive tax increase across the board.

"Suppose the profit-driven health industry comes out with a golden drug that extends every life by 6 months for the low, low price of $100k per month.  You think private health care insurers will pay that?"

As long as we're engaging in hypotheticals, do you think someone who can afford it should be taxed higher just because they have a so-called Cadillac Plan? Oh wait, its not hypothetical at all, the ObamaTax does just that. So on top of paying through the nose for high end care for six months, Obama comes along and taxes at a higher rate, not because of your income, but because of your friggin health insurance plan?...but we were talking about profit and revenue motives weren't we?

"It's gonna come down to money, regardless of how it's dressed or who delivers the news.  I worked five years in the health insurance industry, so I'm far from clueless."

If I recall, you are a psychiatrist...so I'll pass, heh.

"Funny that the "liberty" community is so passionate about fighting evil PUBLIC labor unions..."

You left out an important detail in your diagnosis there doc...I fixed that as well ;-)

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 16:49 | 2579140 blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

       I'm just glad that now the health care industry can't take everything I own to pay an inflated beyond all reason bill.

Wherever did you get this idea?

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 13:49 | 2578791 Haole
Haole's picture

I have a dream...

 

...every time I read ZH, etc. these days.

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 13:30 | 2578733 JPM Hater001
JPM Hater001's picture

They lost me when Darby vs US came down in 1938.  The cheif justice called the 10th Amendment was a "truism" and didnt add anything to the constitution that wasnt already said elsewhere.

 

I wasnt born but that was the nail, meet coffin, moment.

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 13:35 | 2578742 nah
nah's picture

does this descision by SCOTUS mean we dont have to vote anymore

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 13:42 | 2578767 cossack55
cossack55's picture

Close. It reaffirms that you have not needed to vote for the past 50 years.

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 13:45 | 2578779 El Oregonian
El Oregonian's picture

Oh, you can still vote but the candidates/puppets are attached to the same string.

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 13:57 | 2578820 Yes_Questions
Yes_Questions's picture

 

 

Yeah, but my puppet can beat up your puppet!

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 13:37 | 2578749 Seasmoke
Seasmoke's picture

why any man , thinks its ok for another man to decide how they live, is beyond me

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 13:45 | 2578782 CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

It's for the children, you hater!

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 14:02 | 2578807 Temporalist
Temporalist's picture

I love that line.  And what if the children are feral self-absorbed greedy psychopaths that want to kill their elders to give themselves more stuff? (rhetorical I recognize the sarc)

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 14:03 | 2578838 FleaMarketPete
FleaMarketPete's picture

Good thing children can't vote.  Unfortunately the feral self-absorbed greedy psychopaths baby boomers can.  You better learn a value skill grey hairs or there will be more than just pink slime in my hamburgers!

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 14:10 | 2578859 veyron
veyron's picture

Soylent red

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 16:04 | 2579057 RockyRacoon
RockyRacoon's picture

Hey, Pete, just because you have no skills doesn't mean that nobody else does.  It's likely that I've already forgotten more than you'll ever know.  I'm working on my 4th career.  You?  Blaming others for your misfortune can only mean that you'll end up like one of those you are criticizing.  Skills?  Ha!  Either you have it or you don't.  Learning "stuff" is just the tasty nougat filling of a fulfilling life.

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 20:44 | 2579554 nmewn
nmewn's picture

Kids.

Whatcha gonna do with them? They got it all figgered out, just like we did at their age.

At eighteen they know it all and think their parents are stupid. At twenty five they realize they don't really know it all. At thirty they realize their parents were right all along. At forty they try to be just like them. At fifty they want to be eighteen again. At sixty they're lucky if they're not back in diapers...lol.

I'll be fifty three this year...I want another motorcycle like when I was eighteen ;-)

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 14:08 | 2578853 Uncle Remus
Uncle Remus's picture

[W]hat if the children are feral self-absorbed greedy psychopaths that want to kill their elders to give themselves more stuff?

Coming to a dystopia near you.

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 07:24 | 2580103 WTFx10
WTFx10's picture

Because the men who do the deciding ALWAYS live better than the ones who don't? Why is that? Once you have that power (rothchilds) you do everything in your power to make sure it never changes.

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 13:38 | 2578753 billwilson
billwilson's picture

Rasmussen = Bullshit These guys are right less often than a broken clock. I have no idea why anyone even reports their findings.

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 13:43 | 2578773 cossack55
cossack55's picture

Isn't Rasmussen a branch of Moody's?

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 13:44 | 2578778 JR
JR's picture

This is just the beginning… This has been a bad week for Obama’s re-election -  Arizona first and now this. By election time, even the Democrat numbers will begin to go more negative.

“Barack Obama has done more for the banks and the people who control them than any sitting president in the history of the United States.  So, basically, Barack Obama was used to engineer the bailouts -  depending on how you what to count them, 12 trillion to 27 trillion -  and the banks have been richly rewarded for doing what they were asked to do which is the fraudulent inducement of America. Barack Obama is here to help the banks, not here to control or stop them. Now the question for the American population is, now that that’s how it’s turned out, what do they do?” – Catherine Austin Fitts -  Euro Zone, The Centralization Battle Rages On  in an On the Edge interview with Max Kaiser June 30, 2012 (Fitts – solari.com - spent $6 million and 11 years of her own time and money trying to stop the housing bubble…)

http://maxkeiser.com/2012/06/30/on-edge-catherine-austin-fitts/

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 13:50 | 2578797 Pumpkin
Pumpkin's picture

The poeple most certainly did not defeat the most powerful military on earth only to creat a government that they would have to serve.  How could anyone argue agaist this?

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 20:20 | 2579510 mjk0259
mjk0259's picture

There was almost as many Americans on the British side. French beat them.

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 13:50 | 2578799 Heroic Couplet
Heroic Couplet's picture

Hm, I think Jesse parined Robert Reich's prediction and description of why Obama Won. The Supreme Court doesn't have any money powers (Congress) or military power (Executive Branch).  Their approval rating before Obama Won was 40%, given the ire over Citizens United and Bush v. Gore.

I think GOP and teabaggers, the Republican leaders should whip themselves into a frenzy over Obama Won. I told one wing nut. "Paint Rush Limbaugh's face on your ass and see if anyone can tell the difference." The more the wing nuts whip themselves into a frenzy, the more Obama Won.

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 14:18 | 2578876 Hedgetard55
Hedgetard55's picture

Fuck off, shit for brains.

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!