The 12 members of the Super Congress may never meet at all. There is no chance they will come up with anything that will help the situation. I expect them never to convene and kick the issue down the road to automatic cuts. The Republicans are having too much fun with this party, they do not want it to end. They believe all this delay and fighting hurts president Obama more than it harms them. They feel secure in that their financial sponsors will give them enough money to drown out the campaigns of reasonable men and women. Therefore they will keep up the fighting. Mark my words, there will be no meetings of this committee, no should there be. There is nothing in this for the Democrats. I expect the Democrats to boycott the meetings. Do you remember what happened to the peace talks regarding the Vietnam war? The parties could not even agree where they would be seated so the talks never began. Same thing different war.

So now, rather than saying you are disgusted by people who smoke, you say that you are sorry for my mother's death. That's kind of you, isn't it?

I get your point: you are offering up the old republican "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" argument, the one they always trot out when they are trying to excuse hyper wealthy people stealing money from the middle class and the poor. Free Market Rules, dude! Well, I'll tell you something about the "Free Market:" it's only a free market if you own it. Everyone else has to pay. And pay. Milton Freedman and the other "economists" who blather about that crap have never been on the shit end of the "free market" stick that they like to wave around. Or if they have been on it, they decided that rather than trying to make things better for the middle class and the poor, they would join and help the wealthy thieves.

And about my mother: it's always the fault of the addict, isn't it? It is never the fault of the corporate executives who hire chemists, medical doctors, and psychologists, to do clinical trials that help them determine what chemicals to put into cigarettes and how to genetically engineer tobacco so that cigarettes are more addictive than heroin. In Asia and third world countries, cigarette makers give cigarettes away for free, to get people hooked. And they specifically target children. You know, just like illegal drug dealers do: "Here, have some of this cocaine. Hey, no charge, I'll just give you some out of th kindness of my heart." But then, when the person gets addicted, the dealer says, "Sorry, but now that you are addicted, it's not free anymore. It's going to cost you." And it does cost them.

The only difference between cigarette manufacturers and illegal drug dealers is that cigarette manufacturers are smarter: they pass out massive amounts of money every year (which only amounts to a small percentage of their incredibly huge profits), to fund propaganda programs, (such as the program that is almost undoubtedly paying you to make ridiculously insupportable posts on Thom's web site), bribe congress to keep cigarettes legal, and pay millions of dollars every year to lawyers to defend themselves against the lawsuits that inevitably come up when you sell poisonous products that, if used according to the manufacturer's directions, kill about a third of the people who use those products.

Don't be coy. I think you're a republican because you debate like one. If it has feathers like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck. And I have to tell you, I didn't get any aerobic exercise jumping to that particular conclusion.

You're right that most of the time I spent in psychotherapy was wasted, and you are also right that I should get most of my money back. And you know why most of that money was wasted? Because many of the psychologists and psychiatrists out there are like you: all talking points and no substance. All smoke and mirrors. All fertilizer and no food. I often found myself forced to leave therapists because their mental problems were preventing them from helping me deal with mine. In fact, some of them actively tried to impair my healing process. You know, sort of like republicans saying, "All we want to do is help America," when if you look at republican voting records over the past 30 years it's quite clear that they have been selling America to the wealthy, tricking the middle class and the poor out of lots of their money and outright stealing most of the rest of their money. And when the results of their crimes become obvious in terms of the breakdown of economic viability in black, latino, and now even white communities, the republicans blame the victims.

You know, I'm glad you brought up the subject of mental health, because you could find out all about corporate executives and other republicans by reading psychiatrist Scott Peck's seminal book, "Children of The Lie." In that book, Peck reveals why corporate executives and other republicans tell the huge lies that destroy people, families, and economies, and why they blame all of their destructive actions on other people. The therapists I had to leave must have been republicans, because they take shameless advantage of the most helpless people in our society: people with mental illnesses. They get rich, and their patients stay sick. You know, like Nurse Ratchet in "One Flies Over the Cuckoo's Nest," who, when she succeeded in undermining the mental health of her patients, would put that smug, tight little smile on her face, and you could just tell it wasn't her smile, it was the smile of her neurosis.

Look, MaryMary, I understand you posting silliness on Thom's blog if it's the only job you could find, because everyone needs to eat and pay the rent. But if this is in fact the only job you could find, you might consider which group of people it is who have reduced America to this sad state of affairs. I'll give you a hint: it's the republicans-the very people who are paying you to help the cigarette corporations kill more people and the bankers steal the rest of everyone's money. And what exactly is it that makes you think they're not going to want the rest of your money? And if you get your way and they win, who exactly do you think will defend your rights?

Ok, now you can repeat your talking point that I need help. But if you would like this conversation to continue, you're going to have to do better than that.

President Wilson RE-segregated the military. The military was de-segregated after the Civil War. Wilson believed in separation of the races - the Negro race was (like the Slavs) not quite human.

That was the re-election of Richard Nixon. In 1973, the bumper sticker, "Don't Blame Me I'm from Massachusetts" was in response to Nixon having resigned because of Watergate. Massachusetts was the only state along with D.C. that voted the majority for McGovern.

Sad to say, Massachusetts went for Reagan. In 1980 Ted Kennedy challenged Carter and lost.

Re: Securities and Exchange Commission

Didn't the Securities and Exchange Commission have it's offices in Building 7 (World Trade Center)? It seems to me that that building & the records it held may have been "shredded" as well.

Let's put a label on republicans, that says, "I can't tell the difference between eating lemons and smoking cigarettes."

You're not preaching to the choir here, son. Maybe you should go to Ann Coulter's website and try to to help her convince people that nuclear waste is the breakfast of champions. And here are some more slogans you could promote: loss of freedom is freedom, war is the only way to get to peace, everyone hates us because God loves us and He doesn't love them, God wants us to kill foreigners, the Ten Commandments only apply when I am trying to force you to believe exactly as I believe but the Ten Commandments do not apply when it comes to imprisoning, torturing, and killing innocent people.

Why, there's no limit to the nonsense you could promote, so come on, get to it!

Right on, and the same after Nixon. I am from MA and had a father who was a very liberal and active citizen. The bumper sticker after Nixon's re-election, I believe, said "Don't blame me, I'm from Massachusetts". We were the only state that didn't vote for Nixon.

It is called Taxachusetts, but it is a progressive state and like NY, Calif. and VT has lead the way towards a more civilized society. Even with the Boston corruption, there has been enough fundamental soundness to deal with it and function. The nature of things in Democracy is to be imperfect, you just can't ever be too tired to deal with it.

Let's just go back to 2008 budgets (that was the last year Bush was at his most spendthrift year) and pledge to just stay at that level for one year and work from that base.

Regarding the discussion of Massachusetts vs. Texas. Don't forget that Massachusetts was the ONLY state that DID NOT go for Reagan in 1980. They had a bumper sticker: "Don't blame us, we didn't vote for him".

Republicans substitute repetition for debate. No logic required, just repeat those talking points, and keep them short and accusatory or fear-mongering. You are free to keep repeating your claim that I need help.

"The craziness" of my statement? So it's uncontrovertible evidence of psychosis on my part, that I feel it would be fair for people who are responsible for the deaths of millions of people, to face the reality of what they have done? I don't think that very many psychiatrists would agree with you on that point. In fact, I know two mental health professionals, whose job it is to determine when people are a threat to themselves or other people and to order those people to be placed in mental institutions; and these mental health professionals tell me that my statements could not possibly be construed as evidence of serious mental illness. (You know, in Russia, China, and other totalitarian countries, one of the ways they deal with people who state uncomfortable truths, is to accuse them of being mentally ill and confine them to mental institutions.) Admittedly, my idea of dumping their victims' dead bodies on their doorsteps, is extreme. And in point of fact I wouldn't do it. AS I SAID, it was a fantasy, a joke. And my awareness of the fact that it is a fantasy, is both legally and psychiatrically what separates me from people who would act out such an idea. Another thing that republicans do, is to not hear the opposing side's reasoning. No logic required, just keep repeating those talking points and you're certain to hypnotize some of the people. But not all the people and not all the time.

Let's talk about "a better world." According to Christian, Buddhist, Taoist, Hindu, Hebrew, and Muslim scriptures, one of the things that happens when people die, BEFORE they go to "a better world," is that they are faced with what they did in their life. Are you saying that it is generically "crazy" for all of those scriptures to state that people have to face what they have done to others in order to pass certain points in their process of spiritual growth? Or are you saying that it's specifically "crazy" for me to joke that people who murder other people for money, should be faced with the results of their actions?

One of the things that honest practitioners of the above-cited spiritual paths do, is to fast-track their spiritual growth process by here and now facing what they have done and resolving it, healing themselves before they die. My fantasy, admittedly based at least partly in what those sociopaths did to my mother, was for the cigarette industry executives to be "fast-tracked," karmicly speaking, thereby getting a jump on the afterlife and thereby preventing them from murdering more people. And in point of fact- although it's certainly not my job to do it- if cigarette industry executives were forced to face the murders they are responsible for, and forced to face the emotional sequelae in the lives of their victims' families and friends, statistically speaking it is likely that some of them would begin to engage in what psychiatrist Scott Peck called genuine suffering. Peck said that avoiding genuine suffering causes neurotic suffering, the difference being that genuine suffering creates healing, while neurotic suffering is simply a repetition, over and over, of the same suffering, with no healing. (Which reminds me of republicans, with their eternal wars on this, that, and the other thing, and cigarette industry executives, with their murders- over decade upon decade- of so many millions of people.) Psychiatrist Carl Jung said, "Neurosis is always a substitute for legitimate suffering." The people who run the cigarette industry have, for a very long time, avoided the suffering inherent in their chosen career of murdering people for money. Physically speaking they live in gated communities, but more importantly, they live in emotional isolation from the people they harm. And based on my 13 years of psychotherapy and from closely observing the people around me going through cycles and evolutions and healings in their lives, I feel comfortable saying that it's not only statistically likely that some of the corporate sociopaths would truly reform if faced with the reality of what they have done, it is certain.

You say that you detest people who smoke. So you would have detested my mother, even though she never did anything to you or to anyone you know? Why would you say that to someone whose mother died from smoking? Is that some aspect of the "better world" you mentioned?

In conclusion, I would like to quote Opus the penguin: "PPHGSTHP!"

There is absolutely NOTHING the least bit "horrendous" in pitting the common people against the rentier. The _FACT_ is that economic rent does indeed belong to the people and that it takes a properly functioning government to collect and redistribute it. The oil under the inherited Texas ranch is as much the rightful property of a dude living in Delaware as it is the "owner" that inherited the ranch. All naturally occurring resources are rightfully accessible to all naturally occurring persons because no one ever EARNED such resources; they are a gift to all. Rightful private ownership comes into being in the hands of those who PRODUCE that which is to be owned. Even then, the rest of the community must be compensated for the natural resources that were taken in the production process and thus no longer available to the rest of the community. It might make sense for the oil to "belong" to the oil company that is actually "producing" products from the oil. It makes _NO_ economic sense for the oil to belong to a ranch owner, or for money to be bestowed on the "owner" for simply being the "owner".