If what IBD says is true, it's probably bad news for Hillary 2016.

I admit, I don't hold IBD in high regard, they have long been notorious for selling people expesnive but mostly unfounded investing programs, and these days there is a strong conspiracy element to their publication.

But if this does turn out to be accurately reported then hell yeah, that would be devastating to me and presumably many other people.

I tend to view Obamacare and the TSA as examples of how the government acts like a bad parent. When their kid screws something up, bad parent comes in and instead of instructing the kid as to how to fix the problem, he pushes the kid out of the picture and takes over the operation themselves, communicating to the child, "You've just proven yourself so incompetent that you can't be trusted to even help fix the mess you created."

The TSA is the government saying, "Obviously, you can't be trusted to keep terrorists off the airlines, since you blew it on 9/11, so we have to take over the security because you're just too fucking stupid."

Obamacare is the government saying, "Obviously, since you seem to think it's okay to drop peoples' care when they get sick, or just say, 'preexisting condition, you're shit out of luck,' you're just too fucking stupid to manage healthcare, so we're just going to have to take it over ourselves."

With this in mind, we only have to wonder what's coming next.

The problem with this is that at least in case of the healthcare, the government's implied complaint about the incompetence of the insurance companies is not unjustified.

And while I'm on the subject of the incompetence of the U.S. citizens, I'd like to address, "Why, Edward Snowden is a brave stalwart patriot, exposing the corruption of our government."

Bullshit. He's a coward and a traitor, and if he were so brave, he'd face the music instead of running like the pansy he is. He can spend the rest of his life in a Siberian airport for all I care.

There is absolutely nothing illegal about the NSA. And if you think otherwise, I have two words for you: "Patriot Act."

You let that despicable piece of legislation pass without a peep, because Bush is a Republican, consequently as sweet as candy, and never thought, did or even dreamed about a single corrupt from the day he was born.

Can't come down too harshly on anything Republicans do, even though Bush was wiping his ass with with the Constitution the day he was inaugurated. But, oh, no! Only Democrats do that. Let's just soften our criticism of all things Republican, and traipse through the fields picking daffodils while Bush flushes our Constitutional rights. Because we must never admit that Democrats might be the lesser of the two evils.

> There is absolutely nothing illegal about the NSA.

That's a funny statement Patrick. A judge has just ruled that their phone program is likely unconstitutional. See:

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/12/national-security-agency-phones-judge-101203.html

From what I've seen, there are at least 4 class actions against the NSA arguing that their actions are illegal. Obviously it is too early to tell if they will be successful, but it is not a slam dunk for the NSA either.

"Obamacare Will Keep People From Being Covered When They Travel"

This is not a problem.

All we need is another grand proclamation (or just a press conference) changing/updating/downgrading/upgrading/amending/repealing the law from POTUS, the HHS Secretary, or some lesser bureaucrat.

Bullshit. He's a coward and a traitor,

Patrick to you the state is never wrong, even when a cop zip ties a five year old for defending himself against being illegally detained by said cop

Quite frankly, Patrick, you strike me as the type of guy who would have championed McCarthys harassment, the use of US military against striking miners, and Japanese internment camps

Lately when I read Patrick's posts all I hear in my head is Buzz Lightyear saying, "You are a sad, strange little man."

In part, this is an unintended consequence of convincing the public that "routine medical care" should be covered by insurance.

Lately, when I read sara's posts, I realize that she puts no thought into any of hers, at all.

Bye, sara. No more responses to anything you say. You're less than useless.

Snoopy wrote: That's a funny statement Patrick. A judge has just ruled that their phone program is likely unconstitutional.

Good. I hope they win. That perhaps that despicable Patriot Act that all our elected officials so adore could be recognized as the unconstitutional tripe that it is.

Please note, I said the NSA actions were not illegal. According to the Patriot Act, they're not. Until such time as the Courts rule that they are unconstitutional those laws remain in effect.

There is absolutely nothing illegal about the NSA. And if you think otherwise, I have two words for you: "Patriot Act."

You let that despicable piece of legislation pass without a peep, because Bush is a Republican, consequently as sweet as candy, and never thought, did or even dreamed about a single corrupt from the day he was born.

The Patriot Act was an amalgam of several security bills that were introduced in Congress in the wake of the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. It was signed into law by President George W. Bush on October 26, 2001.

The Congress was nearly evenly split in October 2001. The Patriot Act was passed with an overwhelming majority of votes. 98 Senators voted for it, 1 voted against it, and 1 abstained. In the House, 357 voted for it, 66 voted against it, and 9 abstained (that's 432 - I'm not sure where the last vote went).

But the law is all Bush's fault?

When the Patriot Act was passed, it contained an expiration date (as laws like this should). The law was set to expire in December 2005. The Patriot Act was subsequently reauthorized in 2005 (under Bush) and in 2011 (under Obama).

In fact, the Congress which renewed the law under Obama had 240 Democrats vs. 192 Republicans in the House and 53 Democrats vs. 47 Republicans.

But the law's continued existence is all Bush's fault?

==============================

Can't come down too harshly on anything Republicans do, even though Bush was wiping his ass with with the Constitution the day he was inaugurated. But, oh, no! Only Democrats do that. Let's just soften our criticism of all things Republican, and traipse through the fields picking daffodils while Bush flushes our Constitutional rights.

Other than the controversy over his expanded use of signing statements, what exactly did Bush to do "wipe his ass with the Constitution."

Unlike his predecessor and successor, Bush asked Congress for authorization to use the military in foreign adventures. The Constitution says he is required to ask for declaration of war. The War Powers Act says he is required to ask Congress for authorization within 90 days of committing troops. Bush asked before committing troops. Clinton and Obama sent troops into harm's way and never once consulted Congress.

Unlike his successor, Bush's recess appointments were made only when Congress was actually in recess. When Harry Reid kept one person in Congress through the breaks to avoid going into recess, so Bush could not make any recess appointments, he respected the fiction and did not make recess appointments (unlike Obama who simply declared Congress in recess and made his recess appointments).

George W. Bush was nowhere near an ideal president (he was a big spending, big government Republican). But he was also nowhere near the Constitution-burning tyrant Democrats and liberals like to portray him as.

==============================

Because we must never admit that Democrats might be the lesser of the two evils.

Republicans share the blame for a number of problems we face today. Republicans have helped create many of the entitlement programs that today are threatening to bankrupt country (Medicare, Social Security, etc.). Republicans have happily acceded to higher taxes with only the promise of spending cuts to come later.

Bush was a big-spending, big-government Republican (foreign aid, Medicare prescription drug benefit, nationalized education standards and funding, etc.).

He tried to trim entitlements somewhat with Social Security reform and Healthcare spending accounts, but Democrats made sure those reforms were dead on arrival.

Despite the Republicans' shortcomings, Democrats as the "lesser of two evils" is laughable.

When it comes to creating and sustaining large government run spending programs as well as defending entrenched entitlements, Democrats take a backseat to no one and stand shoulder-to-shoulder with the most ardent socialists.

Democrats demand civility in political discourse and then call Republicans thugs, Nazis, slavery apologists, racists, and other vile epithets for expressing opinions that do not conform to the politically correct Democrat dogma. Democrats can't resist caling Tea Party supporters every name in the book. "Tea bagger" anyone? It wasn't Republicans who came up with the scatalogical definition of "santorum."

The Democratic Party has become so left-leaning that old school Democrats like Zell Miller, Tip O'Neal, Sam Nunn, Sam Ervin, and Daniel Patrick Moynihan would not be welcome in the party today. Just ask Joe Leiberman. He went from being a VP candidate to being cast out of the party.

==============================

In their zeal to crush the other party, both parties have forgotten to actually govern. Tip O'Neal and Ronald Reagan had some barn burning political donnybrooks, but at the end of the day, their objective was to govern the country, not to smash the opposition party and rule like dictators. Somewhere along the way both parties lost that.

The Paul Ryan - Patty Murray budget deal is awful. But at least it's an attempt to govern rather than crush the other party.

"Lately when I read Patrick's posts all I hear in my head is Buzz Lightyear saying, "You are a sad, strange little man."

That's interesting Sara. When I read Patrick's posts I see a picture of Pajamacare boy.

@Dave - I admit I had to google it, but OMG, that was funny!

Speaking of travel, I saw this today and thought "Nooooooooooooooooo~!"

http://tinyurl.com/kwsxtqd

Crella- I want one.

$200.

The blog should by this for me. On Amy's account.

"Bye, sara. No more responses to anything you say. You're less than useless."

Annnd yet another poster earns this badge of honor from our resident authoritarian and fan of the "two wrongs" fallacy.

How's that Obamacare cost calculator treating you, Patrick?

Conan: When the Patriot Act was passed, it contained an expiration date (as laws like this should). The law was set to expire in December 2005. The Patriot Act was subsequently reauthorized in 2005 (under Bush) and in 2011 (under Obama).

Yes, a scared people is a people that will forfeit their Constitutional rights.

And, no, Conan. Laws like that should not come with an expiration date. They should not be passed at all.

Conan: Other than the controversy over his expanded use of signing statements, what exactly did Bush to do "wipe his ass with the Constitution."

Unbelievable. You just answered this question in the first part of your post, and you're actually asking this?

Seriously?

Okay, let's throw something else out there. Free speech zones.

Conan: Republicans share the blame for a number of problems we face today. Republicans have helped create many of the entitlement programs that today are threatening to bankrupt country (Medicare, Social Security, etc.). Republicans have happily acceded to higher taxes with only the promise of spending cuts to come later.

Get your brain around this fact, Conan: Social Security and Medicare are not entitlements. With comments like this and your "class warfare" comment a few weeks back, you're starting to sound like Sean Hannity. All you need to do is say, "I'm not going to listen to your talking points!" -- which is staggering irony coming from Sean Hannity, who is nothing but talking points -- and I'll be completely convinced.)

You do pay for Social Security and Medicare; you don't even get a choice about it. They are not entitlements. Do you think they're entitlements because you get a greater return on them? So, what? So do investors. Do you think returns on other investments are "entitlements"? Actually, they might be, at that. They're certainly not taxed like income, though they should be.

Conan: The Democratic Party has become so left-leaning that old school Democrats like Zell Miller, Tip O'Neal, Sam Nunn, Sam Ervin, and Daniel Patrick Moynihan would not be welcome in the party today. Just ask Joe Leiberman. He went from being a VP candidate to being cast out of the party.

Zell Miller earned his own way out of the Democratic Party and richly deserved it. You admire him so much? Take him. Please. Just watch your back.

Do you think they're entitlements because you get a better return on them?

-----

Check that, Patrick. Plenty of people don'tt a better return on those. The people who do get a better return on SS and Medicare didn't earn it by making better "investments"--they are entitled to more than they paid in by virtue of being disabled, or old. So, yes, SS (especially SS-D) and Medicare are entitlements.

Someone who is statistically less likely to live past 75 (oh, hey, like black men) and/or doesn't plan to have a non-working spouse would be better served by saving/investing his own money so he can enjoy it while he's alive and have the balance go to whomever he sees fit when he dies. But instead he's entitled to pay for the golden years of his neighbors who made the same "investment" but won just by living longer.

Don't even get me started on people who die at 51 with no (or only grown) children. "Here, for the tens of thousands "invested", you are entitled to $400."

It's sold as an investment when they take it from you, but returns on investment go to the investor in life, period, regardless of his/her health, and to his/her named heirs when the investor dies. SS and Medicare are entitlements.

Jenny, to add to that: The program was originally structured with the expectation that most contributors would die before they had a chance to collect benefits. However, there were also people who became eligible for SS disability from day 1, and started collecting as soon as the program went into effect, without ever contributing a dime. So from both perspectives, input was very much decoupled from output.

Just keep in mind that a private pension program structured like SS is would violate dozens of laws.

Be careful up there on that high horse Patrick. It's a long way to fall.

=========================

What Jenny said on Social Security and Medicare being entitlements.

It's not an investment when someone puts a gun to your head, takes your money, and promises to return it to you in smaller amounts over time ... if you live long enough. That's robbery or, if done by the government, a tax.

If I die with actual investments, my heirs can inherit my portfolio. If I die with unpaid Social Security, my heirs (beyond my spouse and, in some cases, my children) are hosed. I could have actually invested that 12% of my income (6% from me and 6% from my employer) and done quite well. Studies have shown that the return I would get from the stock market (even with its recent volatility) would far exceed what I am going to collect from Social Security.

=========================

Patrick, Bush's expanded use of signing statements was not "wiping his ass with the Constitution." It was part of the normal back-and-forth struggle for authority between the legislative and executive branches.

In so struggling, both branches keep the other one from gaining too much power - as the Founding Fathers intended. It's the overall expansion of government power that's been going on for decades that would disturb them.

Signing statements pre-date Bush and have been used by many presidents. James Madison was the first president to issue a signing statement, but their use was rare until the 1980s (only 75 were used prior to Reagan). Reagan, Bush, and Clinton issued 247 between them. Clinton issued 140. Bush issued 157. (One source says Clinton issued more than Bush, but doesn't give numbers.) The use of signing statements has continued under Obama (despite a campaign promise to never use them).

Most of Bush's signing statements were assertions that Congress cannot pass a law that undercuts the constitutionally granted authorities of the President to oversee the unitary Executive branch - basically the usual power-struggle between Congress and the president.

Bush did not ignore the Constitution and try to rule through regulatory agencies without consulting Congress - as is being done by a certain president and party whose policies you vehemently defend while claiming to be politically neutral.

=========================

Bush didn't invent the "free speech zone." The Secret Service did expand their use after 9/11. Media coverage of the free speech zones was limited - and Bush's administration was rightly criticized by both the left and the right for that.

Free speech zones were used by colleges in the '60s and '70s to corral out-of-control Vietnam war protests. They were used by the Democratic Party in their 1988 convention and by both parties in their 2004 conventions. International gatherings like the G8, WTO, and others have used free speech zones to limit disruptions and ensure the safety of delegates and, in some cases, the protestors.

The Constitution guarantees the right to free speech and free assembly, but it doesn't say speakers and assemblers have the right to conduct a protest by blocking the door, occupying the office, or harassing passersby.

=========================

Zell Miller earned his own way out of the Democratic Party....

As Reagan put it, Miller did not abandon the Democratic Party, the Democratic Party abandoned Miller - as well as the other non-leftist Democrats who found themselves being ignored or marginalized by the party.

Steny Hoyer's tactic in the 2008 election was to run faux-conservatives in Republican districts to capture those districts. He and Nancy Pelosi never intended to let those Potemkin candidates actually have a voice in Congress ... and they didn't, which contributed to their widespread defeat in 2010 and gave the Republicans back the House.

Democrats love to point out the rightward drift of the Republicans while ignoring their own leftward drift (more like a full-bore race to the left).

One thing the Democrats and their apologists don't seem to grasp is that the Republican Party is actually three parties (the Democrats used to be, but have ousted or neutralized most of their moderates and blue dogs). The Republican Party consists of fiscal conservatives (Goldwater), social conservatives (evangelicals), and liberal Republicans (Rockefeller). That diversity makes the Republicans seem almost dysfunctional in the face of the Democrats' single-minded unity and leads them to sometimes commit acts of near political suicide - like the recent government shutdown.

Both parties, as I put forward earlier, have been putting so much of their time and effort into crushing the other party that they've forgotten to actually govern. Neither party escapes that charge unscathed.

=========================

And, no, Conan. Laws like that should not come with an expiration date. They should not be passed at all.

Unfortunately, Patrick, we live in a world that sometimes has days when you do have to make a reasoned trade-off of liberty for security. September 12, 2001 was one such day.

When those days come, the trade should be short-term (i.e., have an expiration date), respectful of the foundation of individual liberty underpinning this country, and have a specific objective (not simply a hate- and fear-filled "let's lock up all the Japs!"). Adams, Madison, Lincoln, Wilson, and Roosevelt all passed liberty-infringing (and sometimes cringe-inducing) laws during wartime.

Even by October 2001, we still weren't sure what we were facing, so the Patriot Act seemed to many to be a necessary imposition on individual liberties.

Despite all, the Patriot Act never sank to the level Adams' Aliend and Sedition Acts, Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus and arbitrary jailing of political opponents, Wilson's mail laws and Palmer Raids, Roosevelt's imprisoning of perceived potential enemies. The Patriot Act required FISA Court oversight and was limited in duration.

What's truly disturbing is the ongoing expansion of government surveillance and oversight-free use of drones to kill people in foreign countries (even US citizens) - all under a president who campaigned so vociferously against his predecessor's intrusions into civil liberties and "unconstitutional" expansions of presidential authority. I will give Obama credit for reducing the use of extraordinary rendition, but too many of his other policies are frightening and reminiscent of a nascent police state.

"Bush Without Hysteria"

Matthew Hennessy reviews Peter Baker's Days of Fire: Bush and Cheney in the White House, calling it a "masterpiece of objectivity."

http://www.city-journal.org/2013/bc1213mh.html

Excerpts:

"The Bush that emerges from Days of Fire is a decent man, a thoughtful executive with a knack for facilitating debate and an unfailing devotion to the trust placed in him by the American people. He feels the weight of his office, and the many impossible decisions he must make, deeply. His capacity for self-reflection and self-correction - though never self-pity - is on full display."

"Though Baker gives Bush more credit than most, his treatment falls well short of hagiography. Bush was great in crises, Baker notes, but he was often responsible for causing them."

Conan wrote: Unfortunately, Patrick, we live in a world that sometimes has days when you do have to make a reasoned trade-off of liberty for security. September 12, 2001 was one such day.

Benjamin Franklin wrote: hey who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

If the yellow streak fits, Conan, wear it.

And both Jenny and you are wrong about Social Security and Medicare. They are not entitlements. You are compelled by law to participate in this program. You must pay into it, like it or not.

Conan, congratulations. You're the first person I've seen on this forum (or any other) who just argued with himself.

You wrote: Other than the controversy over his expanded use of signing statements, what exactly did Bush to do "wipe his ass with the Constitution."

Here you're suggesting that signing statements was an instance of Bush "wip[ing] his ass with the Constitution." And I did not address signing statements, one way or another.

But then you said, "Patrick, Bush's expanded use of signing statements was not 'wiping his ass with the Constitution.' It was part of the normal back-and-forth struggle for authority between the legislative and executive branches."

You just argued against yourself. Pray continue, Conan, and do let us know who wins.

Patrick, you are tiresome at times.

They who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. ~ Benjamin Franklin

This was first written by Franklin for the Pennsylvania Assembly in its Reply to the Governor (11 Nov. 1755)

Franklin never said security should be ignored in favor of liberty.

Here's a little context to better understand Franklin's comment (from Benjamin Wittes):

The words appear originally in a 1755 letter that Franklin is presumed to have written on behalf of the Pennsylvania Assembly to the colonial governor during the French and Indian War. The letter was a salvo in a power struggle between the governor and the Assembly over funding for security on the frontier, one in which the Assembly wished to tax the lands of the Penn family, which ruled Pennsylvania from afar, to raise money for defense against French and Indian attacks. The governor kept vetoing the Assembly’s efforts at the behest of the family, which had appointed him. So to start matters, Franklin was writing not as a subject being asked to cede his liberty to government, but in his capacity as a legislator being asked to renounce his power to tax lands notionally under his jurisdiction. In other words, the “essential liberty” to which Franklin referred was thus not what we would think of today as civil liberties but, rather, the right of self-governance of a legislature in the interests of collective security.

What’s more the “purchase [of] a little temporary safety” of which Franklin complains was not the ceding of power to a government Leviathan in exchange for some promise of protection from external threat; for in Franklin’s letter, the word “purchase” does not appear to have been a metaphor. The governor was accusing the Assembly of stalling on appropriating money for frontier defense by insisting on including the Penn lands in its taxes–and thus triggering his intervention. And the Penn family later offered cash to fund defense of the frontier–as long as the Assembly would acknowledge that it lacked the power to tax the family’s lands. Franklin was thus complaining of the choice facing the legislature between being able to make funds available for frontier defense and maintaining its right of self-governance–and he was criticizing the governor for suggesting it should be willing to give up the latter to ensure the former.

In short, Franklin was not describing some tension between government power and individual liberty. He was describing, rather, effective self-government in the service of security as the very liberty it would be contemptible to trade. Notwithstanding the way the quotation has come down to us, Franklin saw the liberty and security interests of Pennsylvanians as aligned.

The full quotation, in its context:

In fine, we have the most sensible Concern for the poor distressed Inhabitants of the Frontiers. We have taken every Step in our Power, consistent with the just Rights of the Freemen of Pennsylvania, for their Relief, and we have Reason to believe, that in the Midst of their Distresses they themselves do not wish us to go farther. Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. Such as were inclined to defend themselves, but unable to purchase Arms and Ammunition, have, as we are informed, been supplied with both, as far as Arms could be procured, out of Monies given by the last Assembly for the King’s Use; and the large Supply of Money offered by this Bill, might enable the Governor to do every Thing else that should be judged necessary for their farther Security, if he shall think fit to accept it. Whether he could, as he supposes, “if his Hands had been properly strengthened, have put the Province into such a Posture of Defence, as might have prevented the present Mischiefs,” seems to us uncertain; since late Experience in our neighbouring Colony of Virginia (which had every Advantage for that Purpose that could be desired) shows clearly, that it is next to impossible to guard effectually an extended Frontier, settled by scattered single Families at two or three Miles Distance, so as to secure them from the insiduous Attacks of small Parties of skulking Murderers: But thus much is certain, that by refusing our Bills from Time to Time, by which great Sums were seasonably offered, he has rejected all the Strength that Money could afford him; and if his Hands are still weak or unable, he ought only to blame himself, or those who have tied them.

The next time you use a quote to call me a coward, Patrick, use it correctly.

Conan, I'll stand by my broad interpretation of the Benjamin Franklin quote, thanks. And the conclusions I reached. You seem to have an unresolved argument with yourself, however. So, were signing statements "Bush wiping his ass with the Constitution" or not? I didn't say whether they were, but you've asserted both sides.

And both Jenny and you are wrong about Social Security and Medicare. They are not entitlements. You are compelled by law to participate in this program. You must pay into it, like it or not.

Then, I can pull my money out whenever? I don't need to reach a milestone to be entitled to it? And I'm not limited in how much I can withdraw, because it's my money?

Wait, you mean I have to reach a certain age, before I'm entitled to any benefit? And my entitlement to that benefit is based on the fact that I paid into the system?

From "A Glossary of Political Economic Terms" Paul M Johnson, PhD, Auburn University:

The most important examples of entitlement programs at the federal level in the United States would include Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, most Veterans' Administration programs, federal employee and military retirement plans, unemployment compensation, food stamps, and agricultural price support programs.

From Wikipedia (with a cite referring to "What Is Driving Growth in Government Spending?" by Nate Silver. The New York Times. 16 January 2013):

Originally, the term "entitlement" in the United States was used to identify federal programs that, like Social Security and Medicare, got the name because workers became "entitled" to their benefits by paying into the system. In recent years the meaning has been used to refer also to benefits, like those of the food stamps program, which people become eligible to receive without paying into a system.

Patrick, you may not want to call Social Security and Medicare "entitlements" but the rest of the world recognizes them as such.

Conan, I'll stand by my broad interpretation of the Benjamin Franklin quote, thanks. And the conclusions I reached.

Patrick, by now I expect nothing else from you than rigid adherence to an erroneous interpretation in order to support a poorly thought out position.

"You're not only wrong, you're wrong at the top of your voice." ~ John McCreedy (Bad Day at Black Rock)

==============================

You wrote: Other than the controversy over his expanded use of signing statements, what exactly did Bush to do "wipe his ass with the Constitution."

I'll own up to my poorly-constructed sentence. Your deliberate literal reading of it to prove a false superiority, however, is childish.

I assert in the body of the post that the use of signing statements was not an example of Bush "wiping his ass with the Constitution" and should not be held up as such.

You also forgot to point out that I should have ended that sentence with a question mark.

You are becoming very tiresome, Conan. When you invoke "the rest of the world," you already know you've lost your argument.

For a taste, bearing in mind the one link minimum.

http://www.standard.net/stories/2013/03/04/social-security-not-entitlement

That's it? That's what you use to bolster your argument? A letter to the editor? The green ink brigade?

Not an economist, think tank, or recognized expert? Not even an opinion column? No. A letter to the editor of small newspaper in Ogden, Utah is is the support you provide for your assertion that Social Security, contrary to the opinions of economists everywhere, is not an entitlement?

Even with the limitation of one link, you should have done better than that. I'm disappointed in you, Patrick.

Conan, you're disappointed? Conan, how do I break this to you? Ever since you invoked Sean Inanity's favorite term, "class warfare," my attitude toward you is contempt. I esteemed you intelligent once. Once. But by invoking a neologism that is dragged out every time corporate entitlements come under fire, you planted yourself firmly among the lightweights.

In case you didn't notice, I haven't taken this discussion with you at all seriously. And your poor showing (and sportsmanship) have done nothing to redeem that.

I view the Franklin quote as occurring within a narrow context, but applying a standard that is universal. In much the same way, I apply a broad interpretation to Romans 14:14, to use one example.

I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean.

Some have argued that the verse is talking about food. And indeed the surrounding verses are talking about the Jewish dietary laws with its concepts of "cleanliness" and "uncleanliness."

However, the Greek word used in this verse, "broma," does not mean food. It means "thing." Paul is persuaded that no thing is unclean in and of itself. He invoked a universal standard in a narrow discussion about dietary laws.

I could come up with better sources. I just Binged "social security not entitlements" and came back with a bunch of hits.

But you know, when you make idiotic statements like what "the rest of the world" thinks, it doesn't take a think tank, recognized expert or an opinion column. Just one person.

So, whether you are "disappointed" in me or not, that one letter does defeat your premise. The "rest of the world" does not think as you do. The person you should be disappointed in is yourself.

I could find an opinion column or recognized expert. I got the hits for it. But I'll let you do that.

And finally, ordinarily I wouldn't have bothered with your contradictory statements, but frankly, I was amused that you felt the need to go off on a tirade, directed at me, over something I never said.

That happens around here every so often, so don't think you're the first. And the fact that you're the only one who called signing statements an instance of "Bush wiping his ass with the Constitution" made the irony simply too delectable to not have some fun with.

If that makes me "childish," so be it. You could help me be less "childish" if in the future you didn't set yourself up so elegantly.

...go off on a tirade, directed at me, over something I never said.

"...even though Bush was wiping his ass with with the Constitution the day he was inaugurated." ~ Posted by: Patrick at December 19, 2013 3:41 AM

[By the way, I never once said or implied that you held signing statements as an instance of that - I merely acknowledged at the outset of my statement that there was some controversy over Bush's use of signing statements to preclude.]

"And both Jenny and you are wrong about Social Security and Medicare. They are not entitlements." ~ Posted by: Patrick at December 20, 2013 2:33 PM

Where exactly is it that i "went off on a tirade" about something you "never said."

...that one letter does defeat your premise. The "rest of the world" does not think as you do. The person you should be disappointed in is yourself.

Oh man. Some guy in Ogden, Utah disagrees with me ... and with a majority of economists, political scientists, journalists, and commentators on calling payments one is entitled to entitlements.

And you said there were other links on Bing (I checked, most of them are also letters to the editor). That means ... it means ... nothing. It's still flimsy support for your argument that those programs are not entitlements.

And my use of "the rest of the world" may have been hyperbolic, but you've failed to prove me wrong on the entitlements nomenclature. So, go ahead and attack my hyperbole instead, if that makes you feel better.