There's Hope for The Delusional

The Symptoms:
Making false accusations, and libelous statements
about citizens being, Marxists, Communists, & Socialists.

The Cure:



Phase 3 tester said...

I've read studies about delusions like this. One theory postulates there's a mechanism in OTBL user's brains that overproduces a compound called Bullshitomine. There are plans to test this theory directly on OTBL users because they don't want to endanger Rats.

not not not not a socialist said...

Dr. Phil:

Don't you think you're being a little personal and mean toward the OTBL'ers?

Let's try to be a bit civil on this blog, and stick to the issues.



Cato said...

Dr. Phil never completed the courses he was told to take by the Texas board of Psychologists examiners for his ethics violations. Since he was inappropriate with previous clients, alledgedly carrying on a sexual relationship with a 19 year old, I think OBTL should be warry. He may go for the pants.

Cato said...

oh and

Making false accusations, and libelous statements about citizens being, Marxists, Communists, & Socialists.

ought be

Making false accusations and libelous statements about citizens being Marxists, Communists, & Socialists.


CW said...

Let's not forget the threatening letters, late night phone calls and irrational e-mails.

not not not not not not a socialist said...


I think you are being a little personal and mean to the Marxists, Communists and Socialists on this blog.

I know you are good and kind and only have the best intentions at heart. So please respect our respectful respectability.



AndyRand said...

Alright, since you guys couldn't behave, group hugs are now mandatory.

Marx Smith said...

Socialist are know for their kindness and helping hand for all those in need. The socialists slammers point out the warts and forget the beauty marks.

Cato said...

No, socialists are known for using other people's hands to help those in need.

Adam Marx said...

Isn't that called "teamwork?"

Cato said...

No, "teamwork" occurs when people willingly work together.

If I do work and you take the fruits to give to some random other person that isn't "teamwork". That's called "slavery".

Adam Marx said...


You say "slavery," I say "synergistic leveraging." Let's call the whole a "mixed economy" -- partly "free market" and "partly politics."

AndyRand said...

I agree with Adam,
After all we elected those who instituted the mixed economy.

Cato; you said

"No, socialists are known for using other people's hands to help those in need."

I say "NeoCons are those known for using other peoples blood the help their own greed."

Cato said...

I'm sure descendants of chattel slaves would not take too kindly to your comments. While today the bonds may not be so brutal, it is still slaving nonetheless.

Parasites upon your body ought be killed not placated.

AndyRand said...


"I'm sure descendants of chattel slaves would not take too kindly to your comments. While today the bonds may not be so brutal, it is still slaving nonetheless."
I will never understand your views on this. Even Ben Franklin said there are 2 things to be sure of in life Death and Taxes. It's one thing if the taxes were taken to enrich a monarch. It quite another to redistribute wealth for projects that for the most part benefit many.

We keep coming back to the same impass. I don't see were this is worth arguing about. I'll just agree to disagree.

Cato said...

Only someone who viewed people as means not ends would find death and taxes desireable.

Agree to disagree all you want. You cannot, however, deny that someone taking the fruits of your labor from you and giving it to someone else makes you a slave to the person whom is reaping the fruits of your labor.

AndyRand said...

I tacitly consent to have the fruits of my labor redistributed. If I didn't, I would refuse to allow them to be taken and accept the consequenses. Fine, Jail whatever.
since I find paying taxes more desirable than jail or fines I CHOSE the option to pay my taxes which appearently you do as well since I'm assuming you're not bloggin from a cell.
Since I still choose, that make me free.
If not, I guess that makes you a slave too.

AndyRand said...

One more thing CATO:

I'll see if Dr. Phil can get you a prescription :-)

Anonymous said...

Andyrand, that is the most asinining view of free choice I have ever seen. When a robber sticks a gun in your face and says "give me your money or your life", under your logic you would say that the robber at least gave you the freedom to choose. Where in the world do you learn this stuff, or more likely what do you have to smoke to come up with such nonsense.

AndyRand said...

Anon said:
"Andyrand, that is the most asinining view of free choice I have ever seen."

Thank you. I assume you mean asinine. But it's the thought that counts.

"Where in the world do you learn this stuff, or more likely what do you have to smoke to come up with such nonsense."

I'm glad you asked. Actually, I learned it from author, pyschologist, and holocaust survivor Viktor Frankl. Theres a book he's written. (I know you probably
don't like books) entitled "Man's Search For Meaning".

Much more enlightening than The Von Mises Capers. Although I think Frankl was actually Austrian as well.

A few quotes of his are available here:

I don't smoke ANYTHING! However, I may have been enjoying a fine cup of Fair Trade coffee as I was blogging.

Anonymous said...


Do you believe stealing is a moral right or wrong?

Anonymous said...

Well the OTBL'ers are so gooooood, (In Their own smallll minds) they would solve all crimes. Just ask Curt. But then they would simply distort, or change facts to fit their smallll opinions.

cato said...

Andy, you just said that if you are blackmailed you have total choice in the matter.

I agree with anon, where do you learn such things?

I had fair trade coffee once, since it was the "coffee of the day" at Caribou. What a waste of my money; it was terrible.

AndyRand said...

Anonymous said...


Do you believe stealing is a moral right or wrong? "


I'm really a sick and tired of the "all taxation is theft" argument.
Let's move on.


You seem to selectively find your freedom. When I am coerced, manipulated, decieved and robbed by the Cel phone corporation, that "Free Enterprise"
If I'm taxed, I'm a slave.
As you've told me ,
"You always have a choice". Yes even if it's a bad choice. (In referrence to the cel phone co.)

That's true. I'm only using your argument.

As for the coffee. You was robbed.
Paying $2-3 bucks a cup for coffee that's $5.00/lb. is no longer Fair Trade.
As for where do I get this stuff. I anwered that. Viktor Frankle.

AndyRand said...

One more thing,
You guys outta go on the comedy circuit. You're telling me I should have oil stocks in my portfolio like you, you're bloggin on an expessive computer, you commuting in you car on Interstate 94 to another state, you're drinking your latte's at Caribou, you're going home to watch you favorite TV shows on your Tivo and you're telling me that you're a slave?

That's hilarious!
And you're asking ME what I'm smoking?

Anonymous said...

andyrand, why is the concept of theft so hard for you? I will ask again a simple yes or no question: Do you believe stealing is morally right or wrong?

AndyRand said...

I said:
"I'm really a sick and tired of the "all taxation is theft" argument.
Let's move on."

Are you illiterate? I answered your question! I know where you're going with this. You might as well ask me if I stopped robbing banks yet.

I'll let you guess if I think theft is right or wrong.
Then you're going to tell me the Ayn Rand morality fable about the government confiscating your property. Like I said let's move on.
I'm not falling for your cheap trick.

cato said...

Andy --

You choose your cell phone company. Do not blame me for your mistakes.

A man does not choose to be robbed. If given the choice I would give the government zero dollars, but I value my physical freedom. Their coeresion of physical force wins.

Will you admit you are wrong and that if you are coersed you do not have a choice in the matter?

"I will not shoot you if you give me a million dollars."


Anonymous said...

andyrand, let's try a differnt approach. How do you define theft by which you guage right and wrong? In order to form logic, there must be certain principles which are applied. I would say theft is when property is taken without the willing consent of the owner, whether the taking is by force, deceit, or some other means.

AndyRand said...


To be honest, I don't like the fact that I always have some choice because I may only have choices that produce bad consequences. However, you do always have a choice. You choose to pay taxes over the consequences of what would happen if you didn't. You can't say you have no choice. You can say you have no choice that you like.

AndyRand said...


you said:

"I would say theft is when property is taken without the willing consent of the owner, whether the taking is by force, deceit, or some other means."

For the most part this seems a reasonable definition. However, if you include deceit many sales people and especially used car dealers would be behind bars.
It's so obvious where you're going with this. When I agree to your definition of theft you will tell me the government is stealing your money.
But they are not, we still happen to have these things called elections. They are not stealing because the people who determine taxation do so through laws enacted by people who are democratically elected. As a society we've decided accepted the rule of the majority, (or as CATO and JS Mill would submit the tyrany of the majority) Regardless, it's the best system devised so far and that's what we operate under, at least in theory in this country.
A more specific example. The School district cannot arbitrarly start taxing to build new schools without a referendum.
If the referendum passes we the citizens as a group, collectively (oh those dreaded collectivists) agree to tax ourselves. Most of us probably don't really like it, but we do so for that stupid thing called the greater good, which I'm sure both of you deny exists.
You cannot steal from yourself.
So, that's all I have to say about whether theft is morally right or wrong. Please don't ask me again to try to trap me in your logical parlor game.

666 said...

Anon says: "I would say theft is when property is taken without the willing consent of the owner, whether the taking is by force, deceit, or some other means."

I need a little more background on this logic. OK, I live in the USA, drive to work on public roads, call the fire department to put out the grass fire that I can't put out that was caused by a lit cigarette flicked from a passenger in a car.

Without anon's definition of theft, my field would have burned up, as would my house and my neighbors. Because of theft, I was able to called the theft-supported fire department to drive to my house on public roads paved by theft. Is this what you mean by "theft?"

smokey joe said...


You forgot to mention the theft supported water that the fire dept. used to save your house which is probably the same theft supported water that you drink without fearing it's polluted with toxins.
Then again, if your house caught on fire by a different cause in the middle of winter. The theft supported fire dept. would have to drive on roads cleared of snow by theft supported county snow plows with theft supported employees.

Cato said...

So Andy --

When you CHOOSE to live instead of die when someone has a gun to your head (quite literally) and you must hand over all your possesions it is a CHOICE?

Yes or no?

I am still confused as to where you stand.

You say that we as a people collectivley consented to redistribution of wealth. This is NOT so. The people collectivley established a US Constitution that gave no such authority to the government. I will agree that in the case of local taxation you are correct however I will not agree that such thinking carries on to the larger picture.

As for 666: no it wouldn't have. Fire departments can be private. Maybe your neighbors house would have burned but if you had one brain cell your house wouldn't.

666 said...


Where does the "one brain" cell comment come from? Maybe you can provide a few details on the model where private fire departments are working well and the trucks are driving down private roads to get to the fire? Is this the way it works in Italy -- where you keep telling us about the private road system.

As for the gun to your head, jeez maybe you should move to a neighborhood where you don't have to fear that? Maybe that neighborhood dosen't exist in this world?

Norseman said...

I've viewed this Blog over time, and have commented on occasion as one of the many "Anonymous" posts. You tend to send mixed messages,and I'm not sure yet if much of what you're saying is "tongue in cheek".
I do agree that there is a need for both free enterprise, and a public infrastructure (roads, utilities, emergency services). I do not think of that as robbery, nor do I believe the majority of the populous consider that to be the case. The reason we elect local, regional, state, and national representatives is to insure that what we do pay in taxes is based on a legitimate need.
I don't know if you are a user on the OTBL, but even though I disagree with you on some issues (Faith, and objectifying people), I give you credit for your willingness to discuss topics. Fortunately this Blog allows that oportunity (unlike the OTBL).

AndyRand said...


"So Andy --

When you CHOOSE to live instead of die when someone has a gun to your head (quite literally) and you must hand over all your possesions it is a CHOICE?

Yes or no?

I am still confused as to where you stand. "

I guess I can anwer this quite simply. Yes ,it is a choice.

If you have a gun to your head, as many terrorist kidnapping victims have lately. They do have choices. Not comfortable or good ones, but choices. You should read Frankle's book. It's not very long.
Take Jill Caroll Iraqi kidnap victim. She had guns at her head literally, many times. Yet somehow she seemed to choose the right actions and words to survive. As you are fond of saying CATO you prefer liberty to security. Well, I won't argue that she had liberty, but she had choices.
As far as all taxation being illegal, immoral etc.
I guess there's the choice to follow in the path of other tax protestors, like Tim McViegh etc. None of them have been very successful and have paid an awfully high price defending their principals. Not worth it to me, even if I thought they were right!
Also, I think it's rather arrogant to assume that your interpretation of the Consitution is more valid than the etablished institutions of the U.S. Government which include congress and the Supreme court.
I think you have a losing battle on your hands, no matter how correct you may believe you are.

Fat Jon said...

This slavery/thievery talk is so much twaddle (the Brits have swell words that don't start with b and end with t.)

This is the USA. There is no Berlin wall here. Adios, sayonara, auf wiedersehn, don't let the door hitcha. If you VOLUNTARILY stay, all your bluster about slavery & thievery is just so much hot dish. The rest of us will grumble but pony up for publicly-funded infrastructure & services. It's called pulling your weight & hauling your freight, a concept which doesn't sit too well with some.

And we'll keep a progressive tax system, despite the temporary dominance of the reich-wingers. The reason for this is simple: as you build wealth, with the enormous assistance of publicly-funded infrastructure and services, you become, through ownership of businesses and property, heavier and heavier USERS of publicly-funded infrastructure and services (INCLUDING defense and security, I might add.) The wealthiest citizens are by FAR the heaviest users of taxpayer-funded infrastructure and services.

Now what part of "you USE it, you PAY for it" doesn't anyone understand?

Oh, and BTW, rugged individualists -- you are welcome to try to build wealth WITHOUT using publicly-funded infrastructure and services. Good luck to ya.

1776er said...


You should know that Cato stands up for his free-market, libertarian ideals by not using public transit or receiving welfare -- that makes 99% of use libertarians. Of course, I'm sure he commutes to his job on a government road and crosses those government bridges that are part of public transportation -- but he doesn't ride the bus. Of course, being that little of public transportation is convenient for those mighty white free-marketeers in the outlying areas, who would use public transportation?

norseman said...

When you're on the top, it's not easy to see all those socialists further down, until you meet them on that slippery slope. I've known more than a few of those OTBL'ers that have been more than happy to have the BIG BAD SOCIALISTS THERE WHEN THEY NEEDED THEM.

juliomachado said...

To fatjhohn, 1776er and norseman:

I like the sarcastic cut of your jib. Glad to read some commenters other than that hard working andyrand who seems to be trying to save cato through reason when there is no reasoning that could change cato. But give it to andy for trying. The debate shall continue. I like this blog because it actually allows debate. Kilber's local circle jerk would never allow the cato's and andyrands to have this much good discussion. I give cato credit and I hope he keeps commenting.
Keep it up guys, with the Packers sucking, this site has been a good diversion.
And one more thing, not a socialist should let his balls drop and go soak his head.

Cato said...

1776er: whether or not I use government services that I am required to use does not mean I cannot argue against them existing. I have to pay SS. I will recieve the check a long time from now (supposedly) as it is "my money" that I put into savings to supplement my retirement. Apparently anyway. The money would be better spent by me had the government not forced me to put it into their "savings" plan. There is really nothing I can do abnout that. Furthermore the government has a monopoly on the roadsystem and I have to use them if I am to get anywhere -- I am opposed to FEDERAL funding for roads, btw (although I would support the privitazation of state roads), as I mentioned several times and will not discuss this matter again (the matter of childish jabs by the same person with a multitude of names (666)).

Norseman said...

have you ever used private roads, or experienced their quality??? I'm shure that you are aware that all roads are built by private contractors, mediated by the GOVERNMENT via competitive bids. Those bids insure timeliness, and budget constraints. Often failure to meet standards, and time constraints results in noncompliance fees.
That I would say is the melding of private and public entities in a cost effective, and efficient service to all. On this one Cato, you're way off.
Cato; I'm soooo disappointed.

Cato said...

No, I am not way off. There is no authority to spend money of roads by the federal government, therefore it is illegal. Furthermore, the 'interstate' in Italy runs just fine (unlike their government). By monopolizing the interstate they have placed all their own food joints along the road and whatnot and made a profitable buisness venture whcih people can use rather cheaply. They are expanding across Europe and thanks to recent legislation that allows for toll roads on US interstates... well, lets just say this government has an oppurtunity to sell some of it's holdings to pay down the debt.


AndyRand said...


Again, I don't really think you and your interpretation of the Constitution and the law are the final arbitors of what is legal and what is not. There are many legitimate authorities who have interpreted the Constitution differently than you and act on that authority whether you think it legitimate or not. I think you can argue on and on, and even if you are logically correct, practically you view will never become reality unles you can convince a mojority of U.S. Citizens that you are right. I don't want private roads.
Only the wealtiest and thus the most powerful will determin where they go, what condition they will be in etc. You won't have parallel roads competing with each other. It's just a dumb idea in my humble opinion.
I remeber my 5th grade teacher telling us how there were toll roads everywhere in the late 1800,early 1900's. Even as children we immediately was public roads as a better idea and as progress.

Cato said...

Children are easily controlled by government propogandists. Clearly you can see that forcing children to goto government run schools at least runs the risk of the Hitler Youth.

"Only the wealthiest..." did you not goto the link? You are incorrect as that has not happened in the past.

As for other people's so-called inerpretation of the Constitution: they have reading comprehension problems and do not understand, as some other people here do, that the writers of words give them specific unchanging meaning. If laws change on a whim there is no need for law (indeed, it would be worse to have law than to not for those who weild it would only weild it in their best intrests not everyone's nor the individual's). Anarchy in the US of A!

AndyRand said...

You've said in the past you're not
an anarchist. Then why the sloganeering.
"Anarchy in the US of A!"

you said:

"As for other people's so-called inerpretation of the Constitution: they have reading comprehension problems and do not understand,,,,"

You're proving my point that your arrogance is overwhelming. You flaunt you interpretation and understanding of the Constitution as being superior to Supreme Court Justices who actually hold appointments to that court. Sorry,
I'm not buying into your interpretation and even you can see the odds are stacked against you 99 to 1.
"Clearly you can see that forcing children to goto government run schools at least runs the risk of the Hitler Youth."
Agreed but a very very small one. I worry far more about the mediat consolidation and people like Rupport Murdock controlling the "News" that he wants you hear.
Another instance just yesterday.
The BBC is headlining with the foil terror attempt on our embassy in Syria, and the morning new shows open with the the weather and baseball standings. We're are being destroyed by a culture of entertainment distraction for idiots.
I can't wait till there are 5 competing parallel highways between here and Eau Clair. Let's see should I drive the CATO express or the Randy Raceway?
One more thing: Don't you find it interesting that people like Kennedy and Pawlenty are campaigning like Democrats when, if they are elected, they'll cut the throats of the middle class like sacrificial lamb. What hypocricy!!!!!!! Kennedy defending pensions, Pawlenty raising school budgets???? Pathetic.

Anonymous said...


Could you provide a few examples of the government propaganda being into the minds of public school children in the US?

FZ said...


Which variety of anarchy do you prefer? Free-makert, corporate anarchy or socialistic anarchy?

Norseman said...

OK Cato, now I know that much of what you're saying is tongue-in-cheek. Even in Europe there is government involment in road infrastructures, how it is funded is a preference ultimately based on a majority opinion. Cato, I'm amazed, Europe is even more Socialistic than the good old USA.
I don't like toll roads (especially being from Wisconsin and going into Chicago!!!). But that is my opinion, along with the majority of voters in the state.

Cato said...

Andy, the "sloganeering" had to do with the statement immediately proceeding that one about how if laws can change on a whim of whomever is in power it is better to not have laws at all (which is true). I don't "perfer" any "type" of anarchy; not only do I not fancy it but there is only one type that can possibly emerge and that would be wonderful if it were not for the lack of certian laws.

So the risk is "small." I suppose you think it is "acceptable." Well they may not have become the Hitler Youth but the youth in this country are decidedly on the left (Republicans are on the left because they gave up the fight, and the kids, even if in the "middle" of what the Press calls it, are far on the left).

Anon, you asked for an example?

"I pledge allegience to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all."

This is not a Republic -- it WAS. The brazenness of some people... that God thing in there... it's all rather sad. They teach kids global warming theories as if they are "fact." Some school districts have "alternate theories" regarding the fact of evolution. Kids write about the wonders of recycling and not about how it's a waste of their time and many places in this country employ people to dig through the trash to get the aluminum... recycling it costs 95% less than getting new aluminum... let the corporations pay for it not tell the youth to do it...

As for the roads, I just know that the spending for roads by the US government is illegal. State roads CAN be privitized but they do not NEED to be. I can see using the government to procure land for roads but the roads would not be created nor maintained by the federal government. The feds should sell them all and pay down the debt, either sell them to the states or sell them to private intrests. No there would not be competing interstates. THere are always other paths one can take, but to use the interstate you will have to pay whatever they charge. Just like now when you use say, AMTRACK.

As for Pawlenty... I would never vote for that man if I could. kennedy is a yes man to President Bush and I wouldn't vote for him either.

AndyRand said...


So kids are taught to recycle? That's your road to the Hitler youth? I'll grant you they spend way too much time on it. I think you forget where the basics of some of these ideas come from. In the 60's-70's. before your DNA had compbined, there was a different Zietgeist than today. It was one that sought to make the world a better place, as opposed to who can I make a buck off of today.
I concede that once these ideas became institutionalized the gravitated toward the rediculous. (ever been to a diversity training workshop?) But I'm at a loss to understand the venim spewed by the right against trying to have a better environment.
Speaking of right, I think you need to get your political spectometer recalibrated.
There's no doubt kids today are far more conservative than 20-30 years ago and to me that means rightwing not left. To call today's Republicans
left wing is silly.

Cato said...

This "Republican" President, with a "Republican" Congress spends more than Clinton did, even in his first years. The Republicans have sold out principles for power.

Democrats did a LONG LONG time ago, just to clear. ;)

My "political spectometer" is fine. The left is state control the right is individual control. There is no way that someone could with a straight face call "Republicans" "right wing". Ha! Perscription pills? No Child Left Behind? You probabbly argue it's not doing "enough" but the fact of the matter is it goes against all principles that the Republicans used to have.

"Why do you spend so much Mr. 'Republican'?"

"Well son, all politcs are local and we need to spend alot to keep in office."

"I see. So why should I want you in office."

"Well to control the out of control spending in Washington."

"Uh, umm, sir, you spend more than the Democrats did on social programs and on pork for Christmas tree bills."

"Oh look, take some pills! They're cheap! See here ya go son, some Adderall. Take all ya want. That's it... excellent."

AndyRand said...

Yes CATO, it's getting more and more expensive to buy Republican votes.
As far as prescription drugs, the pharmaceutical companies might as well have written the new medicare plan. Oh wait, they DID right the new medicare plan, just like the oil companies determine energy policy.
Hey, we've inadertently returned to the thread TAKE YOUR MEDS,(or did you plan that?)
I'll take it that you concede Recycling =/= Hitler youth!

As for easier ways to get tax money to your Republican buddies, (your referring to congressmen, not Cato).
Check out:
Alaska Native Corporations.
This is the fast track for no-bid contracts to your favorite political buddies. Government contracts to other entities are limited. Contracts to Alaska Native Corp: allow no limit no bid contracts that are inturn subcontracted to companies like Lockheed.

Sorry I can't find the link that explains this better right now.

In the book "Blood Money" the process of building a cell phone network in Iraq using you best buddies technology funneled through an Alaska Native corp. is unveiled.
Who say's War isn't good for business?

Norseman said...

Actually roads are maintained by county services via states. Municipalities also have jurisdiction for emergency services on any portion of a road going through, or abutting that jurisdiction.

Cato said...

I wouldn't call shoving money into the pockets of local municipalities to maintain the roads "local municipalities maintaining the road." Federal government still pays and that is illegal. If they didn't pay I really wouldn't have anything to say other than "you should considering selling the road, but I'm okay either way really. But I think it might be nice to sell it. Really, look into it."

New Comer said...


I'm now to this site and trying to follow along. When you say the "federal government still pays and that is illegal," are you saying that if the local governments pay its not illegal? Could you explained how what the federal government does is illegal.

Cato said...

Yes -- there is no authorization in the Constitution, which is "the Law of the Land."

New Comer said...


What do you mean when you say "there is no authorization in the Constitution, which is "the Law of the Land."

Are you saying that everything we need to run our country is included within the words of the Constitution? The Constitution doesn't say anything about speed limits on federal highways. So is it illegal for a government-paid state tropper to stop me, give me a ticket and force me to pay $140 or go to jail? Is this a valid example of illegal theft by the government?

Cato said...

Federal highways are illegal. Try a different subject.

The Constitution is very flexible but at the same time it has specific limits on authority.

State troopers can enforce the speed limit; the owner of the road can enforce rules. However, the problem lies with the federal funding of the road in the first place.

Fat Jon said...

The interstate highway system was built as a defense measure. Civilian/commercial use is secondary. Research it; it ain't hard.

Defense most certainly is a federal responsibility under the Constitution.

Badabing, badaboom.

Cato said...

Fat jon, back when they actually tried to find a constitutional authority for such things, yes, they did use "defense" as a reason (they don't even acre any more). Of course "defense" could be used to justify just about anything with this streach. Defense sepnding is itself controlled as follows:

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy;

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

None of that is for "defense" but for specific aspects of it, the army, the navy and the milita.

The Father of the Constitution vetoed the 1817 transportation bill because federal monies for roads was unconstitutional; there is no authorization for expenditure of funds for roads in the Constitution.

Read the Constitution it ain't hard.

Fat Jon said...

Ike got the idea from seeing the autobahn and how swiftly troops and materiel could be moved.

It was conceived by the 20th Century's greatest American military mind as a DEFENSE measure, proposed to Congress as such, passed and ratified as such, and built as such.

Now, whose expertise on national defense should I take seriously? Ike's? Or yours?

F In Pinko said...

I'm with Cato, Eisenhower was just a socialist who could golf. Read on FJ:

"Socialist Norman Thomas stated in 1947: "The creation of one world under one government might conceivably deprive lovers of liberty of any asylum from tyranny, any area of fellowship beyond the reach of the God -- or Devil -- state. From far corners of the globe men who dreamed of liberty would echo Elmer Davis's cry, 'No world if necessary.' The solution requires more than emotional fervor for a world united under federal government."

In 1953 Norman Thomas, who was the Socialist candidate for President in 1928 and for every election thereafter for twenty years, said: "(H)ere in America more measures once praised or denounced as socialist have been adopted than once I should have thought possible short of a socialist victory at the polls."

Thomas, a six-time Socialist party candidate for President, in 1957, said that "the United States is making greater strides toward socialism under Eisenhower than even under Roosevelt (FDR)."

In 1962 Norman Thomas added: "The difference between Democrats and Republicans is: Democrats have accepted some ideas of socialism cheerfully, while Republicans have accepted them reluctantly."

Link to the truth:


Fat Jon said...

"Eisenhower was just a socialist who could golf."

Holy cow -- haven't heard THAT one since the Birchers. Suppose we should start a flouridated water debate now.

Fat Jon said...

See, the thing about the Constitution is that it provides an arbiter on questions of constitutionality. It doesn't say, "Fat Jon gets to decide what's constitutional and what isn't." It doesn't say, "Cato gets to decide what's constitutional and what isn't."

So if you're convinced that the interstate highway system is unconstitutional, you hie thee hence to your friendly neighborhood Federal Court and mount a constitutional challenge. THAT's the remedy provided for by the Constitution itself.

Maybe ya don't like that. Too ... constitutional. But if ya do, lemme know how it comes out. I'd be interested to know.

f in pinko said...

Wake FJ:

Fluoride emissions? Fluoride, as in toothpaste?

Well, yes. Fluoride was the pollutant primarily responsible for the Akwesasne devastation.5

For nearly 50 years, the U.S. government and media have been telling the public that fluoride is safe and beneficial--it is supposed to reduce cavities, especially in children. Manufacturers add it to toothpaste, municipalities put it in the public's drinking water. The only people who question the safety of fluoride, says the government, are quacks and lunatics--particularly of the far-right-wing variety.

But fluoride has another side the government never mentions. It is a toxic industrial pollutant one of the oldest and biggest of them all. For decades, U.S. industrial plants have rained heavy doses of waste fluoride on people, such as the Mohawks. The nation, however, has been successfully conditioned to think of fluoride solely as a benevolent substance and to dismiss as a crackpot, anyone who claims otherwise.

In recent years, because of rampant environmental damage, some of the worst fluoride pollution plants such as those at Akwesasne have been forced to reduce their emissions, but not terminate them. At Akwesasne, cows still live only half their normal lifespan.6 Nationwide, fluoride remains one of industry's largest pollutants. By the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) last estimate, at least 155,000 tons a year were being released into the air by U.S. industrial plants.7 Emissions into water lakes, rivers, and ocean have been estimated to be as high as 500,000 tons a year.8

While people living near and/or working in heavy fluoride-emitting industrial plants have received the highest doses, the general population has not been spared either. Fluoride is not biodegradable; whatever comes around stays around, gradually accumulating in the environment, in the food chain, and in people's bodies, where it settles in bones and teeth.

If this general increase in fluoride dose were proved harmful to humans, the impact on industry which pollutes both air and water would be major. The nation's air is contaminated by fluoride emissions from the production of iron, steel, aluminum, copper, lead and zinc; phosphates (essential for the manufacture of all agricultural fertilizers); plastics; gasoline; brick, cement, glass, ceramics, and the multitudinous other products made from clay; electrical power generation and all other coal combustion; and uranium processing.

As for water, the leading industrial fluoride polluters are the producers and processors of glass, pesticides and fertilizers, steel and aluminum, chemicals, and metals.10 The metal processing industries include copper and brass, as well as titanium, superalloys, and refractory metals for military use.

Read the truth:

Fat Jon said...


norseman said...

Actually fluoride has a component in it that enables "THE BIG BAD GOVERNMENT" to track youuuuu. It's all a conspiracy don't you seeeee.
More seriously, perhaps government services should be allowed to run like private businesses. For a profit (including incentives), less regulations & red tape (usually done politically) to run more efficiently.

Cato said...

Fat Jon

The Constitution actually does not say that the Federal Courts get to decide what is constitutional or what is not.

As for flouride, it is great for your teeth. I would not drink it though.

Cato said...


No, it's not about tracking. From what I have read about flouride is that it can make you more docile, has been shown to lower IQ, and has been shown to cause memory and other cognative problems.


norseman said...

And all along I thought it was age, silly me!

AndyRand said...


I have to admit when all this floride talk started I just laughed. As I looked at the link you provided, it seems there are serious scientific questions about flouride use.

What occurs to me though is how many enviromental agents are we exposed to daily, and can we really understand the health implications of all of them?

Cato said...

I know you laughed. I laughed too. And then I read a bit on it. Even if it isn't meant to be evil -- which I doubt it is -- if there is any doubt about it's consequences it should be looked into, either by yourslef or by the community in general (most people laugh though since they've been buying toothpaste for so long it "has to be good for you").

There are plenty of things, both from nature without man meddling and from his meddling, that you are exposed to and probabbly has some bad effect on you. While some things we can't help -- like the sun which can break apart DNA --we can help some things. And yes, you're right, we can't really be aware of everything. But one can try.

I don't want the city of New Richmond's water, I'm fine as is.

AndyRand said...

Just to play the devil's advocate,
I suppose, like any other drug or substance that's ingested, you have to way the risks against the benefits.
I'm guessing a lot a tooth decay has been prevented, who knows how many have been adversely affected by floride and how seriously. I've been drinking water with it my whole life and I don't think it's affected my brain. I'm guessing you'd beg to differ with that accessment:-)

Cato said...

Like I said -- flouride on the teeth does not bother me and I use it. I just don't drink it and recommend you don't, but hey, if you want to go ahead. I'm not going to act like a crazy person about it -- it seems to have shown some ill effects but I don't know really how bad they are -- so you can do what you like.

Anonymous said...


People are interesting creatures. I love it when someone tells me eating meat is bad for you as they stub out their cigarette. Likewise, it's amusing to be told by someone wearing leather shoes that it's wrong for humans to kill animals. To paraphrase Kris Kristopherson, "we are walking contradictions, partly truth and partly fiction."