"What do our opponents mean when they apply
to us the label, 'liberal?'
If by 'liberal' they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft
in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned
with the taxpayer's dollar, then the record of this party and its members demonstrate
that we are not that kind of 'liberal.' But if by a 'liberal' they mean someone who
looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions,
someone who cares about the welfare of the people -- their health, their housing,
their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties -- someone who
believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies
abroad, if that is what they mean by a 'liberal,' then I'm proud to say I'm a 'liberal.'
-John F. Kennedy
Okay, I read your rant on Rosie, and for
the most part, I agree with you.
The one thing that I didn't agree with was when you said that O'Reilly would take her kids away.
A couple of months ago, the Advocate did a big interview with him and he came out for gay rights.
He said it would be better for kids to have a mother and father, but that gays can be great parents.
Especially, if no one else wants the kids. Granted, it would be nice if he went all the way,
but maybe you should give him a tad of credit for going as far as he has.
your site brings sanity to those of us that actually care about things.
Carol, you have a point.
Of all the right-wing loonies who spent years obsessing over Clinton's zipper, it's possible for O'Reilly
to have a sane thought in his head. That's his niche, that's he's not quite as crazy as the others.
Another thing, sometimes O'reilly actually lets the Democrat speak, whicvh is a rarity on TV.
O'Reilly knows that the real money is in Clinton-bashing, so he
jumped on the bandwagon,
but you are correct when you say he's not as bad as Laura, Rush, Hannity, Chris the Screamer etc.
Subject: Rosie O'Donnell
After reading your anti-Rosie rant, I pretty much have to stand by my original statement,
just because Rosie doesn't like Bill Clinton (okay, hates him) doesn't make her a Republican whore.
I thought I made a pretty good case that O'Donnell was attacking
Clinton so she could make a
media splash to announce the "bitch Rosie" was now in charge and she's available for stand-up gigs.
In my book, stabbing a hero in the back to make money is a bad thing.
I disagree with her, but I don't think calling
her a whore and using the same kind of virulent
hatred towards her that the anti-Clintonites use towards him is useful or sensible.
By the way, Rosie started the "virulent
hatred," in this matter - she could've been
and not helped Rush and Hannity so much - but she wanted to make more money.
But we can agree to disagree on this one,
I like you too much to worry about this particular difference in opinion.
Thanks, you have a good attutude.
The military hates Clinton (Democrats) for the same reason southern white men
hate Clinton (Democrats). These people think only pussies vote Democratic.
These people are more afraid of another man's penis than they are of being shot.
Steve, this hasn't been said in a while, but being in close quarters
with gay men,
why don't the servicemen want to know who's gay and who's not?
If the soldiers are so afraid the gay men might appreciate their
why not offer them a chance to shower before or after them?
Do they see some "mystery," behind not knowing who's gay?
Right now, gay men and women are in the army, navy, air force
and marines - I guarantee it.
But thanks to Sam Nunn and the homophobic GOP, it's all a big mystery...
From: Robert Irving
Ever mention something about Carville being
married to a Republican,
and not just any Republican, but a Republican strategist?
We don't mention it because it's really, really old news.
If you remember, Dole fired Mrs. Carville - said she couldn't be on his team
since she was married to a Democrat. That was in 1996
How can anyone take him seriously?
Have you ever heard him speak?
He chops Republicans into little fascist meatballs.
He and his wife must not have any real idealism
and are just in it for the money.
Bob, I think you need a different hobby besides politics.
Subject: Make the Whitehouse follow the Constitution
How would it be if all of the Bartcop readers
were to send a copy of the Constitution to the Whitehouse?
You know, just to remind them that there are some US Citizens left who don't care to live in a fascist police state.
Or maybe we should be sent to Ashcroft instead?
Printed on cat-themed stationary, of course...
Just a thought,
This is Field Marshall Ashcroft.
Send somebody to hack into BartCop's computer and get
the home and work address of this Sperry fella. Then we need
a secret torture chopper to North Hollywood as soon as possible.
There ain't nothing I like better than torturing some Hollywood Al Qaeda
Remember Michael Del Giorno?
He's that monsterously, religiously-insane Rush wannabe in Tulsa.
He got fired from the Rush station, so he went accross town and changed stations,
which means we now have rabid Clinton-haters 48/7.
Poor Michael had David Hackworth on his talk show Wednesday.
Poor Michael was hoping Hackworth was "on the team" to invade Iraq.
Hackworth sounded like Ol' Bart!
"These chickenhawks at the Pentagon who've
never worn a soldier suit want Iraq so bad
they can taste it, yet there's never been a shred of prooff Saddam and bin laden are connected.
North Korea revealed they have nukes, and they've vowed to destroy the United States, Japan
and South Korea, but we're apparently not too worried about them, that's OK, because Bush
and his gang of idiots at the Pentagon want Saddam.
One thing I learned after 10 years and
21/2 wars, and another twenty years as a reporter is that
we have to fight smart. We just can't go in with force - look at Vietnam! This business with
Saddam is just a sideshow, a distraction from the main event, with is terrorism."
Del Giorno didn't know what to do.
He's always saying Hackworth is a military genius and all that and now
his boy Hackworth was beating him in the face with a carp - on his own show!
From: Jack Butler
Subject: RE Veterans Day
I saw your article in re: Veterans Day today,
and have a response to something specific.
I am a veteran, wounded in the effort to arrest Manuel Noriega at the orders of Bush the Elder.
Personally, I'm sick of this kind of stuff:
>"It's the soldier, not the reporter,
> Who gave us our freedom of the press.
> It's the soldier, not the poet,
> Who gave us our freedom of speech."
And so on. To this, I respond that
it is the reporter, the poet, the campus organizer, and the protester,
who give the soldier something worthwhile to defend; who give the soldier a legitimate reason for being;
who make the United States something worth dying for and killing for; who make the United States soldier
(and sailor, airman, and marine) something more than, and something better than, just another armed and
uniformed minion of just another regime.
The military of this country is first, last,
and always a citizen of this country.... just like the reporter,
the poet, the organizer, and the protester, and if it weren't for the latter, the former would be pointless.
US Army (Retired)
Jack, good stuff!
A shot of Chinaco for every wounded vet!
Karl Rove claiming that the nation is moving
to Republican is like O'Reilly
stating his right-wing pseudo-populist propaganda show is a "NO spin zone"
As Gene Lyons wrote this week, subtract
just two plane crashes,
and we would still have a Democratic senate.
And as Bartcop wrote, even with 4 networks
AND cable vigorously cheering
for the Republican party (and actively suppressing Democratic party issues and
concerns with distraction issues and inflammatory, often race-baiting headlines)
the Democrats STILL picked up 10 votes to 11 Republican.
It is only by lying, race-baiting, control
of the corporate media, and character assassination
of Democratic candidates that the GOP achieved its great "mandate" in the 2002 vote.
And EVEN THEN there are widespread hints and tidings of massive, systematic vote fraud,
as evidenced by the entire VNS vote-tracking system going "DOWN" on election day,
with NO PRIOR NOTICE or CONCERNS EXPRESSED?
The New York Times and American media are peddling lies as fast as they can spit them out.
Subject: Good science and the Cato Institute
Yesterday on C-Span, CATO presented a scientist
who mocked environmentalists,
ridiculed activists as threatening, violent and murderous, then gleefully refuted the "theory" of global warming.
The point of all this, as detailed by the
next speaker, was that our environmental policy
should be commensurate with our science. I wonder: Is that why Republicans are so adamant
about teaching creationism in the public schools? What a bunch of fucking hypocrites!
I went to the CATO website, the most vomitous,
foul presence I have encountered.
Take a look at the Social Security propaganda page.
Blacks, women, and the poor are their targets. They haven't missed a beat.
Subject: Motel room intruder
Well, you and I finally agree on something.
Having been in law enforcement for 18yrs, I agree with
everything you said regarding protecting ones self from harm. I can assure you, no telephone on earth
has ever pervented an intruder from causing you harm if he so wishes. I can't tell you how many times
I raced code three to a reported intruder call and while enroute was advised by dispatch that they
could hear the sounds of a violent attack.
Not one of those poor victims believed in
gun ownership prior to the attack. But everyone of them believed
in it afterwards. I personally have stuck my 40cal S&W handgun thru the crack in a motel room door at
some drunk asshole who swore I was in there f--king his wife..I told him "try the room down the hall
while you still can." You can't imangine how fast someone sobers up when that barrel pokes them in the nose.
It works wonders. I'm not about to go toe
to toe with some idiot who thinks its his right to bust in
and have his way with me or mine. I will never be a victim. Neither obviously, will you.
First sensible thing I've ever read on your site.
Bart, everything I say is sensible.
I catch hell from the liberals because I'm sensible on guns.
BTW, you seem kinda stable - want to go a few rounds on another subject?
Subject: The Motel Room Scenario
> I've had to pull my gun out either 2 or 3 times.
> Once was in a motel room in Dallas.
> Some large sonofabitch starting BEATING on my door with a vengeance, so I picked up
> the always-ready-to-fire Glock and pointed it at the door and I mentally prepared myself.
I have to wonder how having a gun allows
you to see through motel room doors in Dallas.
It seems to me that the manufacturers would put that sort of thing into their advertising if it was true!
You caught me.
I have a shorthand style of writing, where I'm trying to aboid a lot of extra words.
I meant this was no "knock-knock," this was a "BOOM-BOOM-BOOM."
You're right, I never saw the guy, but a small man really can't make the BOOMS that I was hearing.
Anyway, I don't have a response for your
scenario -- at least not one that you would be interested in,
judging by some of the rest of your response to AM -- but if you feel better and more powerful having a gun,
that's fine with me. I hope it's still okay if I don't have one.
Uh, ...you don't owe me an explantion, but you kinda avoided
answering the question.
What would you have done in that situation? Hope the guy would get tired before the door gave in?
Is it your position that you *hope* you go thru life without ever running into a dangerous person
who is more than a match for you, physically?
You're an optimist.
Subject: The truth about tax fairness
I read with interest the e-mail from Dick
Matthews and your excellent response to it.
You made some great points about fairness, but you never challenged Dick's numbers.
I was curious, so I went right to the source--not Pigboy's website but the IRS--and was
suprised to find that Dick was actually quoting the numbers accurately!
(See http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/00in01rt.xls for all the details).
Still, Dick didn't tell the whole story:
- Sure, the top 50% of income earners paid 96%
of the taxes.
They also made 87% of the freakin' income!
- The $27,682 figure that Dick quoted as the adjusted
gross income at the 50% break?
Think of it this way: Half the taxpayers in the U.S. have to live on an income of less than
$27,682 per year. How would you like to support a family on $27K or less, Dick?
Those folks only make 13% of all the income in this country, and you're bitching because
they only paid 4% of all the taxes? I don't see why they should be paying any taxes at all!
- Dick argues that "those who paid the taxes should
get the cuts". OK, well, for the sake of
argument let's assume that our tax system in 2000 was perfectly fair (yeah, right), and that
therefore the most fair tax cut would be a flat, across-the-board cut. That means that if the top
1% of income earners (those making an average of over $1.1 million per year) paid 37% of the
income taxes in 2000, then out of fairness they should get about 37% of the benefits from the
Bush tax cuts. Well, according to Citizens for Tax Justice (http://www.ctj.org/html/gwb0602.htm),
the top 1% is going to end up with about 52% of the tax cut benefits by the time Bush's whole tax cut
plan is in place in 2010. That's right, they pay 37% of the taxes, but they're getting 52% of the tax cuts.
Since Dick is so concerned about "fairness", maybe he would like to explain how that is fair?
-Tom from Detroit
Tom, I don't "do" those kinds of
Almost always, the principle is bigger than whatever wacky numbers or examples somebody quotes,
and who has the time to chase down IRS statistics, anyway? And even if you find them, everything will
change "when compared to general GDP as a percentage of growth," or some other nutjob qualifier
that makes all the numbers useless.
Trust me, when arguing with a ditto-monkey,
if you get bogged down in trivial minutia,
there's a chance they can wear you down, so keep your eyes on the big picture.
For some reason, Dick thinks Bill Gates needs his help.
Subject: A little reality for you, Bart
Re: your Glenn Beck rant from yesterday:
> They need to be reassured every minute of every day that Bush
is snart and honest
> and Hillary is coming to shove homosexuality down their throats of their innocent children.
> That's why talk radio exists!
> That's why Fox News exists!
> The idea that this moron Beck wanted to be "fair" so the political
system would work
> better is so goddamn stupid on its face that I almost drove off the road laughing.
> Beck, you're a moron. And anyone who believes you is a moron with less money than you.
Reactionary politics are not only an easier
sell, but Dems/Progs/Libs/Greens are pedants
--they sound like they're lecturing, not talking.
Fox may be Ailes' baby and as such, a crock.
But talk radio does more than merely rally
the troops as a kind of "broadcasting moron wrangler"--it's entertainment.
Glenn Beck has a job because he can spew
easily-digested homilies and readymades to an audience
conditioned to hear them. But he and his ilk are unopposed, because the kind of people that can
articulate a progressive sentiment in the tongue of the regular person and still make it fresh is rare.
The station where I have my show has tried out a bunch of non-ditto monkeys, from Ted Rall to
Henry Rollins to Bill Maher to yours truly--they really want entertaining progressives that talk straight,
but they're as rare as a Democrat with a backbone (or Republikkkan with scruples, for that matter).
Right now, in LA, I'm it, 4-7 PM
640 AM in LA every Sunday.
On the web at www.kfi640.com
But there's Joe Jackson and Witcowski and
Bernie Ward.......yes, there are a few of us and we're
outnumbered by the shit-stirrers. But they make more money for the stations, that's all the stations care about.
It's business, not personal.
Ok, but where's the "reality" part that I don't get?
Y'all give Johnny a listen this Sunday and write in with your opinion.
Subject: why the military loves the chickenhawks
I was a Clinton lovin’ Democrat in a sea
of right wing nut-jobs for six years in the US Navy.
All I can say about why they are so stupid when it comes to what politicians to support is that they are lazy.
They vote for the guy “they feel” is the
right guy. They don’t understand any of the issues,
and they don’t care to. They have been told that republicans are good for the military and
that they should vote for them. Also, most military guys are from very small towns.
Most importantly, NO ONE IS TELLING THEM ABOUT THE CHICKENHAWKS.
These are not people reading Bartcop or
They get their info from the local news or word of mouth.
Brad, good perspective.
Maybe in ten years, the Hammer will be big enough to make s small splash...
Subject: Re: Bart and Dick Mathews (yesterday's tax rant)
Dear Mr. Mathews:
First, let me say that I am impressed with the
tone you set in your e-mail
to Bart. You present yourself a thinking individual interested in arriving
at the truth, and you seem willing to have your views challenged.
That being the case, let me offer you some observations:
1) You listen to and visit the Web site of Rush
Limbaugh. You need to be
aware that Rush lies. A lot.
This isn't a matter of opinion - it's a fact.
Bart is the last word on this,
but if you don't believe him, try Bob Somerby, Al Frankin, MWO, Salon, FAIR,
The New Republic, and many others.
Here are some of Rush's recent hits:
Rush said that the Kyoto Protocol was defeated
by the Senate 95-0. The
Senate, in fact, never voted on the Protocol. Rush said that Al Gore tried
to cop free Bruce Springsteen tickets; both the Gores and Springsteen's
people deny this. Rush claimed a story by Adam Clymer predicting Republican
wins was spiked by the New York Times - in fact, it was printed on page one.
Rush even lies on the page you cite. He say that
liberals claim that the rich don't pay taxes.
Find me one liberal who has said this; the liberal claim is that the rich are not OVERTAXED
(Bart handled that argument quite well).
So when Rush puts "facts" before you, I suggest
that you owe it to yourself, as an intelligent person,
to check them out before you accept them as gospel.
2) Paul Krugman, an admitted critic of the Bush
administration, is an economist of impeccable credentials.
He is a Princeton professor; he's been published in all kinds of academic journals; he's won all kinds of honors.
Here's his take on taxes and the rich:
"For reference: the top percentile receives about
17 percent of income, pays about 25 percent of federal taxes
(Grassley, of course, only counts income taxes), and receives, let's say, 45 percent of the tax cut."
I ask you - does this really jibe with Rush's thesis? And who are you going to believe?
Yeah, I know all the code words used to respond
to facts like these:
"Liberal, elitist, out-of-touch, pointy-headed, partisan, socialist, blah, blah, blah."
If that's your response, you do yourself a disservice.
Go ahead, Dick - take a chance.
Check it out yourself. Is Rush right, or is a real economist?
3) Let's look at one important point Krugman makes
in the above statement -
we are talking about FEDERAL INCOME TAX here - not total taxes.
As Al Franken pointed out in his book on Rush,
this is at the core of Limbaugh's economic deception.
Things would be great for the working poor (don't let Rush fool you - most of the poor in this country work like dogs)
if all they had to pay were Federal Income Tax.
But Rush conveniently leaves out payroll tax,
Medicare tax, state taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, phone taxes,
gas taxes, license fees, cigarette taxes (which disproportionately burden the poor), alcohol taxes (sorry, Tequila Boy),
and hidden taxes that are almost always regressive and get attached to everything.
And don't forget my favorite: the lottery, a tax
on the poor if there ever was one.
Every one of those taxes is regressive; every one is ignored by Rush. Gee, I wonder why?
How badly are the poor taxed? Well, it depends
on which state you live in - let's take Rush's home state of Florida,
which he recently claimed was "tax-free" (another obvious lie, and an incredibly brazen one at that).
In 1996, according to Citizens for Tax Justice
("commies, flag-burners, feminazis, etc." - yeah, I know),
the bottom 20% of families paid a state tax rate of 14%. The top 1% of families paid a state rate of 3.2%.
Remember, this is BEFORE Jeb took over - think things have gotten any better for the working poor in Florida?
4) By the way, the income of families in the top
1 percent was 10 times that of typical families in 1979, but 23 times
that of typical families in 1997. The rich really are getting richer. Did you know that? Or did Rush forget to tell you?
Gee, I wonder why?
On his Web site, Rush screams in red:
"The top 1% is paying more than ten times the
federal income taxes than the bottom 50%!"
But they're making 23 times more than the average family. Who's getting the shaft here? The rich?
5) You and I and Bart and anyone else can have
a reasoned, honest, open debate about whether or not
the rich in this country pay too much in taxes.
But the debate is absolutely, totally pointless
unless we talk about the TOTAL tax burden each of us pays.
Federal Income Tax is only one part of the story.
We can all agree on that, can't we?
Tell you what: you call up Rush, and politely
tell him that liberal thugs are ganging up on you, and you need
to know the TOTAL tax paid by the richest and poorest in this country so you can fight us off.
Don't settle for some "Well the poor don't want
to work" mumbo-jumbo. Tell him you want the straight facts.
What is the TOTAL tax burden of the richest 1% versus the average family?
See what he says.
P.S. Keep hammerin', Bart - now more than ever.
back to bartcop.com