“Soft despotism is a term coined by Alexis de Tocqueville describing the state into which a country overrun by "a network of small complicated rules" might degrade. Soft despotism is different from despotism (also called 'hard despotism') in the sense that it is not obvious to the people."

Friday, October 30, 2015

Israel’s Obscene Chokehold On The US Taxpayer In One Chart


  1. Israeli Police Repeatedly Raid East Jerusalem Hospital, Seeking Shot Teen

    Police Vow to Indict Palestinian 15-Year-Old for ‘Rioting'

    by Jason Ditz, October 29, 2015
    Print This | Share This
    Israeli police have carried out multiple raids against a hospital in occupied East Jerusalem over the past two days, seeking the location of a 15-year-old Palestinian protester who they’d shot, and who they accuse the hospital of “unlawfully” hiding.

    The hospital denies the boy was ever there for treatment to begin with, but says that the police are questioning doctors on all teens being treated, and combed over their surveillance footage trying to find evidence of patients injured in the increasingly violent military crackdown against Palestinian neighborhoods. They reported no arrest made.

    Police are insisting they have evidence the hospital has treated “hundreds”of injured patients who participate in the “rioting” against the government, and also claimed to have secured files relating to the 15-year-old in question, vowing to see him indicted.

    Several hospitals have reported similar pressure to provide evidence against their wounded patients, and the hospitals are calling on the International Red Cross and other aid agencies to prevent Israel from using raids as an attempt to coerce them into providing their records.

    1. America bombed a hospital in Afghanistan killing 22 for the same reason....

      I guess israel is much more gentle.

  2. Wow you are obsessed...

    Seriously, seek medical attention...

  3. deuce your "charts" are nonsense.

    Maybe you should DO something to improve those you support positively?

    Have you invested in education? Hospitals? or infrastructure of the Palestinians?

    Have you shown any leadership is stewardship of integrating the folks you support into the community of nations?

    Or have you excused their culture of hate and death?

    All you do is bash Israel, Jews and those that support it.

    Maybe you should take your energy and figure out a way to improve the lives of those you support positively.

    After all, your way? The path of jihad, knives and terror? Is just getting them killed..

  4. Step number one:

    End all military and economic aid to Israel

    Step number 2

    End all automatic vetoes in the UN Security Council

    1. Step number one

      Stop supporting the jihadist nations of the world.

      If you did that?

      all things are possible

      As for your idiotic statement?

      There is ZERO economic aid to israel at this time, Bibi ended it years ago.

  5. Replies
    1. What is obscene is the US support of the fake nationalistic people called "palestinians" and their savage cousins in arabia and iran.

  6. Republican Platform:

    1) Cut Social Security

    2) Eliminate Medicare

    3) Give More Money to Israel

    4) Fight More Stupid Wars

    did I miss anything?

    1. Yep.


      Try not drinking so much early in the day..

  7. There are other topics on the face of the earth than Israel bashing.

    It really does get tiring.

    Taxes ?

    I'm not worried by the small amount, in there is any, that might go to Israel.

    I'd rather get rid of the capital gains tax, and my state's sale tax....both brought to me by the Democrats.......then I'd have a lot more money in my pocket to do with as I please.....

    This might not please Rufus, but it would help me out at lot, and please me.

    1. Meanwhile, over at Jihad Watch, the daily chronicle of muzz atrocities around the world continues.......

  8. The is no "Jewish Watch", "Hindu Watch", "Christian Watch" that I am aware of..........

    Why is that ?

    1. .

      I guess because you haven't looked. This is a surprise given that list of neo-nazi, skinhead sites you put up a while back.

      From Wiki,

      Jew WatchJew Watch is an antisemitic[1] website that promotes Holocaust denial[3] and makes many negative claims about Jews, which include allegations of a conspiracy that Jews control the media and banking industries,[4] as well as accusations of Jewish involvement in terrorist groups. The site contains a large amount of propaganda, according to Sam Varghese of The Age, similar to that used in Nazi Germany.[5] It is widely considered a hate site.[1] Jew Watch has received support from Stormfront, a white nationalist and neo-Nazi site.[6] The site describes itself as a "not-for-profit library for private study, scholarship, or research [that keeps] a close watch on Jewish Communities and organizations worldwide".[7]

      Gee, the operation sounds very similar to Jihadwatch.


    2. Gee, the operation sounds very similar to Jihadwatch.

      Tell you what Quirk, when Jews are cutting off the heads of folks across the globe?

      Then you might have point, once again you prove yourself to be a dick.

  9. There is no.....

    The reason is that none of these groups are inherently violent.

    I really belong formally to none of the groups I just mentioned, either.....I'm listening to Country/Western, and the rain falling.....

    1. "she was big star, she sang karaoke at the bar every night"

      Not a jihadi........

    2. I like that much better than hearing all the god damned time about how the muzz wish to take over the world, and impose their idiot ways on me, and you..........

    3. "anyway your look at it,,,,,,it's a hell of a view......if you got love......sitting at......The Top Of The World"

      muzz hate

      I don't.


      don't hate

    4. anyway you look at it.......if you got are at the top of the world......

  10. .

    From the last stream, I forgot to mention that my opinion is that Snowden is a fool if he believes some non-binding resolution by the EU will in any way protect him from the clutches of the US. If the US applies the pressure, someone there will fold, Snowden will be wrapped in blanket, thrown in a van, and hussled off to aome airport for his flight ot the US.

    We saw it the last time he tried to get to Cuba or South America. We saw it when the Brits held Greenwald's partner for hours and confiscated his tapes. We saw it when the Guardian was forced to give up what tapes and papers it had.



    Washington (CNN)The United States is set to deploy troops on the ground in Syria for the first time to advise and assist rebel forces combating ISIS, the White House said Friday.

    White House spokesman Josh Earnest said that the U.S. would be deploying "less than 50" Special Operations forces, who will be sent to Kurdish-controlled territory in northern Syria. The American troops will help local Kurdish and Arab forces fighting ISIS with logistics and are planning to bolster their efforts.

    The deployment of U.S. Special Operations forces is the most significant escalation of the American military campaign against ISIS to date.

    1. .

      This was inevitable. Syria is the head of the snake when it comes to ISIS.

      At this point, the number is small, but, if as most people believe, this fight will go on for years the numbers are bound to grow. Even if Obama is able to contain the numbers, in a little over a year he will be gone. The next president will be stuck with the problem and will also have a built in excuse. Obama started the war and it's left to the new guy to clean up the mess. What choice does the new president have?

      All very predictable.


    2. You did not predict it, Hindsighter.

      You Yesteryear.

      You have not actually 'predicted' one damn thing.

    3. Go take a real look up your asshole, "Predictor" and see what 'prediction' you can pull out of there.

    4. I am waiting, but not enthusiastically.

    5. actually, Quirk is famous for his "Drip Drip Drip" comment.

      I am hopeful that with Russian and Iranian involvement there would be less reason for US involvement but....

      The Right get all trigger happy and gung ho when Ruskies are involved and want to define American ground errr, influence, in the sand pit. Can't let the Ruskies steal all that black gold

      The Left think we can work/fight with Russians and the Iranians because we are all on the same 'side' when it comes to ISIS.

      I still hope for less US involvement....

  12. In September 1950, US President Harry Truman sent the Military Assistance Advisory Group (MAAG) to Viet Nam to assist the French. The President claimed they were not sent as combat troops, but to supervise the use of $10 million worth of US military equipment to support the French in their effort to fight the Viet Minh forces.

    On October 22, 1957, MAAG Viet Nam and USIS installations in Saigon were bombed, injuring US military advisers.

    1959, Communist guerrillas staged an attack on a Vietnamese military base in Bien Hoa, killing and wounding several MAAG personnel.

    1960, the number of official US military advisers in the country was increased from 327 to 685 .


    60,000 killed, 150,000 wounded, and some 1,600 missing.


  13. It's a complex issue, Vietnam.

    It was a Democratic Party War.

    Started really by LBJ, fought to a stalemate by Nixon Administration, then the funding was pulled by the Democrats, who got us in there big time in the first place......

    I wonder if you remember the 'boat people'.......

    The 're-education camps'.....

    The whole thing was the shits.....

    And I get dissed here for standing for the draft lottery.........and studying Shakespeare........

    I say again......

    My compassion, what I have left, goes out to nearly everyone......

    The commies killed endlessly.........

    But choosing between the Vietnamese and the Cambodians......

    Easy choice.

    Life is cheap in the East.

    Far as Syria is concerned, we should take in Christian refugees, support the Kurds, and let the rest kill one another.

    I've gotten old and despairing thinking of it all.

    1. We should always support Israel.....


    2. My Niece. speaking of the muzz....

      "The ones in the Middle East are the worst, Uncle Bob"

      She knows.

    3. 80,000,000 millions of Hindu dead.......


      She knows.....

    4. ummm, b00b, you are showing your lack of knowledge of rather basic history.


      According to my calculation Muslims killed over 600 million people. I can substantiate these numbers with facts. For example, Aurangzeb killed 5 million in 20 years. Bahmani Sultans had an agend to kill 100000 every year for 250 years only is South India. that itself makes 25 millions. And murdering civilians was going on throught the country simultaneously. Bahamni Sultans were only tip of the iceberg. Babur killed 1 million in 3 years. Even emperor Akbar killed 2 millions during initial decades of his rule, though he softened a bit later. Timur Lang [Tamerlane] killed 1 million in 1 month. Qasim killed 2 million people. Ghazni Mohammed and Gauri Mohammed together killed nearly 30 million during their added total of 30 invasions. Tipu Sultan in south killed 10 million. In Bengal Muslims killed nearly 30 millions. Regular incursions from the Arabs, Iranians, etc killed nearly 50 millions. Nadir Shah killed 100000 civilians in one day.

      The list is endless..........

      Muslim rascals kept on killing people. But people are very strongly bound to their original religion, so could not completely annihilate them. Muslim beasts started coming here nearly 1200 years back. Divide 600 millions by 1200 or 1/2 millions per year. That means Muslim killed 500,000 people per year. It is a reasonable estimate.

      If you want recent proof: In Bangladesh, Pakistan's Muslim-soldiers killed 3 million Hindus in one year in 1971. The total Bangladesh population in 1971 was 60 millions [50 million Muslims and 10 million Hindus.] Out of 10 million Hindus, Muslims killed 3 million. This is done in the recent times in spite of so much of media exposure, international observation, and monitoring. Then you can easily understand how many millions of Hindus, Muslims would have killed between 800 and 1800 AD.

      In 1947, Muslims were 9% in India,
      Hindus were 10% in Pakistan and 25% in Bangladesh.
      But in 2008, Muslims are 18% in India,
      Hindus are 1% in Pakistan and 10% in Bangladesh.


      [CALCULATION: Muslim invaders appeared in India in the 8th century. Killing, raping, looting, kidnapping, etc were the common habits of Muslims although their rule. They devastated and brutalized India for 1200 long years. Assume they killed half a million people every year or 500,000 people a year. Then multiply that number by 1200. It becomes 600 millions. Muslims killing 500,000 people a year is quite a reasonable estimate [the real figure can be even higher]].


    7. Hey ASHole.... Sounds like you don't know shit about history...

    8. shit, you only get 3 lines in before the lack of historical understand starts. No need to read beyond that

      "It's a complex issue, Vietnam.

      It was a Democratic Party War.

      Started really by LBJ,"

      Started by LBJ, really? That display the shallowness of understanding right there.

    9. Ash,

      serious question....

      SO when will you be honest and admit you are a Jihadist?

    10. wow, brilliant comeback.

  14. This is interesting:

    Labor Report Silver Lining? ZPOP Ratio Continued to Rise in September

    We have received several requests for an update of our ZPOP ratio statistic to incorporate September's data. We have also been asked whether the ZPOP ratio can be constructed from labor force data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS).

    The ZPOP ratio is an estimate of the share of the civilian population aged 16 years and over whose labor market status is what they say they currently want (assuming that people who work full-time want to do so). A rising ZPOP ratio is consistent with a strengthening labor market. We constructed the ZPOP ratio from the microdata in the BLS's Current Population Survey, but we can also construct a very close approximation from the BLS's Labor Force Statistics data. Here's how (using data that are not seasonally adjusted):

    Take total employment, and add those not in the labor force who do not currently want a job. Then subtract those who were at work from one to 34 hours for economic reasons. The ZPOP ratio is this figure as a percentage of the civilian population 16 years and over.
    The following chart shows the history of the resulting ZPOP ratio over 20 years, seasonally adjusted.

    Macroblog Article and Chart

  15. Ash, you stupid youngthingling, when, and by whom, were the first really large contingents of USA troops sent to Vietnam ?

    Read here, son.......

    2,800,000 resultsAny time

    Johnson announces more troops to Vietnam -

    President Lyndon B. Johnson announces that he has ordered an increase in U.S. military forces in Vietnam, from the present 75,000 to 125,000. Johnson also said …
    1965 - U.S. Sends Troops to Vietnam - Education › Decade By Decade › 1960 - 1969

    ... 3,500 U.S. Marines land near Da Nang in South Vietnam; they are the first U.S. troops arrive ... U.S. Sends Troops to Vietnam ... President Lyndon B. Johnson, ...
    Biographies · The Holocaust · Vietnam War Timeline · Jennifer Rosenberg · Events
    Lyndon Johnson and Vietnam - History Learning Site › Vietnam War

    Lyndon Johnson succeeded ... Johnson was encouraged by his advisors to take up a more forceful approach to the Vietnam conflict and to send in US troops to bolster ...
    Why did President Johnson decide to send combat troops … › Categories › History, Politics & Society

    Why did President Johnson decide to send combat troops to Vietnam? ... The first president to send a fighting force into Vietnam is president Lyndon B. Johnson ...
    The History Place - Vietnam War 1961-1964

    The Vietnam War. America Commits 1961 ... you're going to have to send troops ... the bombing of North Vietnam. President Johnson approves only the ...
    U.S. sends first combat troops to South Vietnam

    By submitting your information you agree to receive emails from HISTORY and A+E Networks. You can opt out at any time. More details: Privacy Policy
    The History Place - Vietnam War 1965-1968

    The Vietnam War. The ... use the pause to repair air defenses and send more troops and supplies into the ... Cam Ranh Bay in Vietnam, President Johnson ...
    1965: US orders 50,000 troops to Vietnam - BBC News

    President Johnson has commited a further 50,000 ... By the end of the year 180,000 US troops had been sent to Vietnam. ... US orders 50,000 troops to Vietnam. ...

    1. sure he escalated but the claim you naively stated was "started".

      Please don't bother us with any other claims to your knowledge of history.

    2. 'escalated" ????????????

      John Kennedy escalated, in a minor way.

      President Johnson sent the big effort.

      You are a MORON.

      Even Quirk would agree.......he KNOWS who sent the major American effort to Vietnam.....he ain't a dumbfuck....contrary to appearances......

      Recall for us all, asshole, the name of the naval 'incident'...

      You might remember, if you really try....

      The .....what....incident....

      Out there in the Ocean somewhere....

      Rufus would remember....

      What was that, shithole....???????

    3. What was the name of the 'incident', AssHole ????

  16. You were hardly born then, and it is a minor tragedy that you were born at all, the majority of us agree.

    Rufus fought in this war.

    He now thinks it was a bad mistake.

    I would never ever say Rufus is a 'warmonger'.

    I missed the 'conflict' .....good draft lottery number.

    I would never criticize those who were called and went, or supported the effort.

    This includes Deuce, the family of WiO, all the others.....

    It was a major event in all of our lives, even me, who lucked out.......

    You need a good mugging by some muzz, or street thug......

    You are a punk, an asshole....

  17. Quart, prove your metal, if you have any mettle.

    Historical Questions

    1) What President of the USA first ordered the large USA troop contingents to Vietnam

    2) What was the name of the incident in the Sea :that he used as a pretext for this adventure

    3) To which political party in USA did this President belong

    4) What does the political slogan "Guns and Butter" mean to you

    5) In the aftermath, how many dead, how many sea people, how many in the commie re-education camps.

    Your input will be appreciated.

    1. No wonder I dream of my Hindu Niece....

      The Woman at the End of the Sea on the Isle of Life...........

    2. Incestuous delusions or online roll playing:

      Uncle Bob’s Puta Patch

    3. .

      I don't have time to answer your questions, Spud. It should be easy enough for you to google a detailed timeline/chronology of the Vietnam war that will answer your questions. Here for instance...

      But to answer your question, every president of the era shared the blame for Vietnam.

      Ike may not have sent in any troops, but he bought into the whole 'domino theory' meme. After Dien Bien Phu, he took over from the French in supporting Diem and South Vietnam.

      Kennedy followed Ike's lead and started sending 'advisors'. From that point on, everything else became inevitible. Kennedy's damage was only limited by his death. The guy gets a lot of credit for doing a lot of stupid stuff. He probably set up or acceded to Diem's death before his own assassination.

      LBJ lied us into full scale war. He then escalated the war to its peak. He was the first to start bombing Cambodia.

      Nixon promised to reduce the number of US troops and eventually did. He also was the guy who expanded the war, carpet bombing Laos and Cambodia. He was the guy, using the dark eminence Kissinger, who sold South Vietnam down the tubes in Paris.

      Every US leader involved in Vietnam played their role in screwing it up. A failure to recognize the lessons of history in the region, supporting brutal dictators (until they didn't), installing puppet regimes (until they abandoned them), using US troops and the Vietnamese people as cannon fodder, and then selling them down the tubes at the 'peace negotiations'.


    4. Nice try.

      Epic fail.

      There was only one US President who really sent USA troops to Vietnam.

      The Democrats got us into it, and then, fled.

      Congress defunded it.

    5. .

      Once again, you display your lack of insight and your superficial grasp of history.

      What is the qualitative difference between LBJ and Nixon?

      With LBJ, you have a president who posed as a peace candidate when running against Goldwater and then in 1964 lied us into full blown war in Vietnam.

      With Nixon, you have a man that while running for president in 1968 convinced South Vietnam to withdraw from promising peace talks with Hanoi under the lie that they would be able to get more favorable terms during a Nixon presidency. A good political move as Nixon went on to win the presidency. Nixon also lied in posing as the 'peace candidate'.

      That political moved guaranteed that an additional 22,000 US troops would die over the next 5 years. In addition, Nixon expanded the war to Laos and Cambodia.

      Then in 1973, he sold out the South Vietnamese in the Paris Peace Conference. That agreement was also rushed to conclusion with tragic result because of election politics. Thieu said we sold him out and we did. Hell, under the agreement, the 150,000 North Vietnam troops that were in South Vietnam at the time were allowed to stay there.

      It was also in 1973 that the Case-Church Amendment was passed, a bipartisan amendment overwhelmingly passed by both Houses of Congress that stated that the US could not engage in any further military action in Southeast Asia without congressional approval.

      The Vietnam War was over in 1973. Everything that followed just added additional embarrassment.

      When will you learn, grasshopper? They are all dicks.

      Grab the pebble, grasshopper.

      Grab the pebble.


  18. .

    So the RNC pulled the plug on NBC/CNBC/MSNBC participation in upcoming GOP debates. Evidently, they didn't like the questions or the tone from the CNBC moderators (no surprise). John Harwood for heavens sake.

    I didn't see the debate but evidently Rubio did pretty well. I've said I expect he will likely one of the guys who will be standing tall at the end of this thing. However, the following link talks of the GOP problem with NBC. It specifically addresses a question regarding Rubio's tax plan. It provides a chart with the Tax Foundation analysis of the Rubio plan.

    If you get a chance to look at the analysis, tell me, isn't this one more example of the middle taking it in the ass compared to the top and bottom ends of the income spectrum?


  19. Are We Allowed to Say That Marco Rubio Is Lying About His Tax Plan?

    I've written a couple of posts about Marco Rubio's debate tiff with John Harwood, which revolves around the question of how the poor and the middle class fare under Rubio's tax plan. Harwood wanted to know why it was so much better for the rich than the middle class, and Rubio responded by saying his plan would help the very poor a lot.

    In other words, Rubio declined to answer the question and instead answered a different one. But today Dylan Matthews digs into this a bit and concludes (surprise!) that Rubio's plan probably doesn't even help the poor all that much:

    How is Rubio helping the poor so much? Well, Rubio's plan would replace the standard deduction and personal exemption with a $2,000 credit ($4,000 for couples)....But Rubio's proposal, as originally laid out, is not a plain old credit. It's a fully refundable credit. Think about that for a second. Rubio's original proposal would give any household in America $2,000 or $4,000, no questions asked. It was a basic income. It was a massive increase in the welfare state of a kind that no Democratic candidate, including Bernie Sanders, is proposing.

    So it's perhaps no surprise that when I asked his team about this, they insisted that this was a mistake, and the credit was in fact much more limited. "Rules would be tailored to ensure that our reforms would not create payments for new, non-working filers," a Rubio aide told me in April.

    It's unclear what exactly that means....Here's the problem, though: The Tax Foundation assumed that Rubio had proposed a basic income....Given that Rubio will not, in fact, create a massive new welfare program, this finding is pretty dubious.

    How about that? Rubio misled the Tax Foundation into concluding that his plan would help the poor, and for some reason he's never gotten around to correcting the error. In fact, he's been aggressively touting the Tax Foundation analysis to "prove" that his plan helps the poor. He even accused John Harwood of misrepresenting his plan on national TV even though he knew perfectly well that he was the one misrepresenting his plan. If I were the Tax Foundation, I'd be pissed.

    Still, I'm sure this was all an honest mistake on Rubio's part, and he'll rush to give the Tax Foundation updated information now that he realizes what he's done. Right? He's an honest young man, after all.


    Kevin Drum

    1. So, here's the deal - he's a lyin', fucking sissy. If he's lying about that part, what else is he lying about?

    2. To clarify, I'm not saying there Should be a $2,500.00 Refundable tax credit; I'm just saying that he's representing his plan by implying that there is.

  20. Deuce ☂Fri Oct 30, 06:44:00 PM EDT

    Incestuous delusions or online roll playing:

    Uncle Bob’s Puta Patch

    Am immature attempt to attribute a genetic relationship where none exists.

    I am much further departed from my Niece than you are from Mohammed.

    Both of us, my Niece and I, are happy of this division.

    You suck.