The RNC Wants Your Opinion…

RNC LogoNot a giant topic tonight, as I have a lot to get accomplished at home this evening. I have a hectic week coming up and it may eat a lot of my time. So this week could end up with some spotty posting of articles. For tonight’s topic, I decided that I wanted to share with everyone the absolutely ridiculous questionnaire I got from the RNC. I received in the mail the other day, a “2010 Congressional District Survey” from the Republican National Committee. I found it odd that it was sent to me since I re-registered as an Independent two years ago. But none-the-less, I decided I would sit down and read it, see what it says. As I read the welcome letter from Michael Steele, I was a bit glad to hear that the Republican National Committee was interested in learning how I felt about the issues as they decide on how to go forth in the political world.

72271809AW018_Meet_The_PresChairman Steele let me know that my opinion was important. The RNC was attempting to get a firm grasp on what people feel. Where do average Americans stand on the issues? My participation in this poll would help the Republican party determine their course forward.

Then I started to read the questions. There were 17 of them. After the second I realized that I had been tricked. The Republican National Committee was not at all interested in finding out what the average American citizen thought on the key issues of the day. Every single question they asked was loaded in some way. I will list them all with the reply that I would give if Chairman Steele had the gumption to approach me and ask these questions directly. Each of the first 16 questions gave you the opportunity to fill in one of three boxes:

  • Yes
  • No
  • Undecided

1. Do you support the Obama Administration’s efforts to eliminate further testing and deployment of an intercontinental missile defense system?

No I do not support the effort to eliminate this. I am all for any development of a defense only system that will allow us to eventually fall back to a defensive position and stop feeling the need to get “offensive” in order to stop someone from coming at us. I did find it interesting that the RNC didn’t really tell us the situation. As far as I have read, the Obama administration changed the system they were developing, which I also disagreed with, but didn’t eliminate all defense systems. I know D13 was following this, so perhaps he could weigh in.

2. Should Republicans continue fighting Congressional Democrats’ efforts to grant full unconditional amnesty to illegal immigrants?

Yes, they should. But they should also not take that to mean that I would support the idea of not granting illegal immigrants conditional amnesty. Most of the Democrats that I have heard on this issue aren’t talking about unconditional amnesty. But they are talking amnesty. And that is a legitimate debate that should be had.

Property Tax Cartoon3. Do you agree with Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi’s efforts to impose massive tax hikes on the American people?

No I do not. I also do not support the Republican party’s efforts to impose massive war spending on the American people. I have been fairly clear that I support very little in the way of taxes. The bare minimums. However, I want to go a different way here. As I understand it, the Democrats plan is not to impose massive taxes on the American people. Their plan is to impose massive taxes on the wealthy producers in America. The other 95% don’t get massive taxes imposed on them. BUT… I also do not agree with Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi’s efforts to impose massive “hidden taxes” on the other 95%. Some examples would be cap and trade, health care reform, sin taxes, etc. The Democrats are killing us taking more money, they are being more creative than calling it a tax. I don’t support that either.

4. Do you believe that the federal government should maintain a permanent ownership stake in large American banks?

No. But I don’t think their intent is to maintain ownership in large American banks. How about a real question. Do I agree with the federal governments permanent ownership of the fruits of my labor through an ever increasing tax burden? Or do I agree with the federal government’s manipulation of the economy through the Federal Reserve and corporate taxing strategies that continue to push the American economy further towards a non-recoverable state?

Mr Goodriddance5. Are you in favor of the federal government using tens of billions more of your tax dollars in an effort to further bailout the U.S. Auto industry?

I have been clear on this one before. I didn’t like the first auto bailout. So I certainly don’t want to see more money taken from the Treasury and handed to inept companies that put themselves in a position to fail. Sorry auto workers.

6. Do you support expanded exploration and drilling for fossil fuels off of U.S. coasts and on federal land?

Yes I do. In fact I will do you one better. I support the repeal of all legislation that stood in the way of exploration and drilling by government having anything at all to do with exploration and drilling on land off the US coasts. I also support the repeal of all legislation that seized massive amounts of land in the US and claimed it as federal land. So, no I don’t support your RNC position either.

7. Do you support the Democrats’ efforts to create a massive new federal government bureaucracy that would be run by unionized government employees and would have complete control of your health care costs and choices?

No. I also don’t support the Republican National Committee’s complete mischaracterization of what is being debated in the health care arena. There is enough madness without more misdirection in a supposed “survey”. I will do you one better, RNC. I don’t support the federal government running social security or medicare either. Because they, both Democrats and Republicans are far too inept to run anything efficiently or effectively.

Vet Ribbons To Save VA HC8. Should Republicans in Congress make expansion of veterans’ benefits a priority?

I certainly support the expansion of veteran’s benefits. But I don’t think it should be a priority. How about as a priority, we work on making the benefits that veterans are supposed to get actually work efficiently and effectively. There is a priority for you, RNC. Why don’t you fix the VA system, and update the rest of the benefits we were promised to modern times. Once you prove government can run the VA health care system better than the private world runs health care, we can come back to question #7 again.

How about this, Republicans should make resignation of all members of Congress a priority.

9. Do you support maintaining anti-terrorism laws that give law enforcement and intelligence agencies the far-reaching powers to track, detain, and prosecute terrorists and their accomplices?

Absolutely not. What you are asking is if I support the Patriot Act. And I don’t. Anti-terrorism laws that give law enforcement far-reaching powers has resulted in illegal wire taps, surveillance of American citizens, and the harassment of millions to protect us from hundreds. You Republicans gave us the Patriot Act. And I think you are complete assholes for doing so.

PrivacyI also, given Janet Napolitano and the current liberal movement’s definitions of terrorist, extremist, and radical, don’t trust for a second that more time isn’t being spent securing political power through the use of these tactics than actually securing America.

10. Should the U.S. government normalize relations with Cuba?

Sure, why not? When was the last time that little island did anything other than get side-swiped by a hurricane? There comes a time when we are going to have to ask ourselves whether we can submit to the idea that anyone who has a different form of government is our enemy. The Cuba we hated was less socialistic than where this country seems to be headed. They were communists backed by the communist empire USSR. USSR is gone. Cuba is not a threat to us. Why wouldn’t we normalize relations with a country that is 70 miles off the coast of Florida?

11. Do you believe that Barack Obama and Democrats in Congress have the best interests of you, your family and your community in mind?

NO I DO NOT!!!! I also do not believe for a second that the Republicans in Congress have the best interests of me, my family and my community in mind. You are all hyenas looking to steal whatever food I can gather for myself. Quit pretending that you care one bit about anything but power and re-election. Assholes.

Free Market Bull12. Do you believe that American business and industry will be able to compete in the world economy if the Obama administration bends to pressure from radical environmentalists and implements draconian regulations on emissions, energy consumption and transportation beyond what is required in other industrialized countries?

A couple of thoughts here. Draconian? Load your questions much?

Last time I checked, the Obama administration is facing the fact that we haven’t begun to take the measures that other industrialized countries have already taken. They aren’t looking to go beyond what other industrialized countries are doing. They are looking to finally participate and be part of “the solution”.

That being said, I think all the other countries are just as dumb and small minded and we are now moving to match their level of incompetence. The environmentalists ARE radicals and all of the steps we are taking have nothing to do with climate change and everything to do with power.

And further, I don’t believe American business and industry will be able to compete in the future because of the actions of the federal government (both sides) to ruin our economy, implode with debt, and handcuff private industry in ways that will force our best and brightest to make economic decisions to move businesses abroad. The “sociofascist” movement in America today will ruin this country. And it will do so even quicker so long as Americans fail to reject personal responsibility, self reliance, and hard work while accepting entitlement attitudes and class warfare.

madoff-cartoon13. Do you support raising the age of eligibility for Social Security benefits?

I think this is a waste of a question. Social Security won’t be there when I get to the age anyway. I support the repeal of the social security act immediately. Make the cutoff age 45. Anyone under that age will not get social security. They also will not pay another dime into it. Sorry they lost what they paid in so far.

14. In you opinion, should Democrats like Representative Barney Frank and Senator Chris Dodd, who were in charge of congressional oversight committees that refused to pass tighter regulations on banks and financial institutions such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, share responsibility for the housing crisis caused by high risk mortgages?

Fannie Freddie Here to HelpI have made this clear. I absolutely think that those two assholes should be heal accountable for the housing crisis. However, I also have another 533 names I would like to add to your list of people who need to share in the responsibility for ruining this country. You can try to pin the housing crisis on two Democrats if you like, but we all know that the mess we found ourselves in was caused by ALL OF YOU.

15. Do you believe that this nation’s founding fathers intended for the federal government to micro-manage state and local functions such as setting education standards, health care, child care, and unemployment assistance?

No I don’t. I also don’t believe that the founding fathers intended for the federal government to micro-manage state and local functions such as defining marriage, regulating intra-state business, or protecting us from the decline of religion. I think the founding fathers did not intend for the federal government to create any of the following federal laws that are forced on the states:

  1. Federal abortion law.
  2. Federal crime and punishment laws (Including the death penalty and hate crimes)
  3. Federal drug laws
  4. Federal education laws
  5. Federal employment laws
  6. Federal…. You get the point. There is very little the founding fathers felt was supposed to be handled at the federal level. And both parties have trampled all over the founding father’s intentions. So please stop pretending it is only Democrats.

Congress Monkeys16. Do you feel that total Democrat control of both chambers of Congress and the Presidency will make our nation more prosperous, safe and free?

No. I also found that total Republican control of both chambers of Congress and the Presidency did not make out nation more prosperous, safe and free. Quite the opposite actually. I think that the only thing that will make our nation prosperous is the massive reduction in federal government that I have espoused in the past. Democrat, Republican, it is all the same. There is one party wearing two different shirts in Washington DC. So lets not pretend that splitting the Congress and Presidency between the two different shirt helps anything.

But my favorite part was when I got to number 17. Number 17 was different. There were only two options for answers. Here is question 17:

17. Are you ready to actively support Republican candidates in your area and across the country who are fighting to stop the liberal Obama agenda and reinstitute conservative Republican policies and principles such as personal responsibility, lower taxes, cutting government waste and keeping our defense strong?

Well my answer to this is that I haven’t seen a Republican candidate that met those criteria in many, many years. Perhaps if one comes along who actually supports, and further lives, those conservative principles that were mentioned, I might consider supporting them. But they sure are far and few between. And I will find them and support them personally, rather than trusting the RNC to support the candidates that I could believe in. (As a side note the article on a candidate that I am supporting and want to present to all of you is coming very soon!). Unfortunately there were no ovals to fill in for my answer. I was given two choices:

Yes! I want to join the RNC’s effort to win control of the U.S. House and U.S. Senate in the fast-approaching 2010 mid-term elections, safeguard our values and principles, and get America moving towards a strong, prosperous and secure future. I am enclosing my most generous contribution of: $500, $250, $100, $50, $25, $___ Other (Choose one)

OR

I cannot pledge my support this year, but would like to include a contribution of $11 to help the RNC fund this survey and its tabulation.

Politicians Feeding PigsYou got that right. If I wanted the Republican National Committee to hear my voice on the issues, at a minimum I had to contribute $11. There wasn’t an option for “because of you jackasses I have no job and no money but my opinion still matters, right?”

I have to say that I was really kind of pissy by the time I was done reading the RNC survey. It showed me, yet again, that they are not at all interested in my opinion. They aren’t interested in the opinion of anyone else either. Go back and do a quick read of those questions. Is there a single one that they don’t know how every Republican will answer or how every Democrat will answer? Of course not. They weren’t trying to get a finger on the pulse of their base. They were trying to get a hand in my pocket. They wanted my money, nothing more and nothing less. In the end I was given two choices. I could pay $11 to have them hear my opinion on questions they already know the answers to. Or I could pay more than $11 to have them hear my opinion on questions that they already know the answers to.

I imagine that if I receive a 2010 Congressional District Survey from the Democratic National Committee, it will be just as loaded. My guess is that it would have more emotional appeals to saving the poor, protecting vulnerable turtles, and stopping big bad capitalists from oppressing the world. But the message would be the same: We are going to do what we want. Give us money.

Need any more proof that the Republican party is no longer a bastion for values and principles?

About these ads

Comments

  1. I agree with you USW. They are totally clueless. I registered Independent a couple of years ago. I have no plans to rejoin the GOP. Like you said one party-two shirts.

    Have you considered posting this topic and following comments to the RNC website? Not that they’ll likely give a crap how we here feel about it all, but what the hell, what have you got to lose?

    • Posting for email comments, short on time this AM.

      G!

    • Sorry, Cyndi, they’re not clueless. That would be too easy. They know exactly what they’re doing and they know that the vast majority of the electorate are cattle who will never bother to learn the issues and think for themselves, let alone vote for a third party. Thus “polls” such as this. Because, say it with me: People. Are. Dumb. And the DNC and RNC know it.

      • No, Matt, they are not clueless.

        They know they are the other side of the same coin, and the dupes of Americans will vote either side back into doing exactly what they all have been doing since day one.

        As long as people believe their vote will change something, nothing will change.

        • Agreed, though I happen to like America and where it’s headed..

          But curious, in lieu of voting, what would you advocate? Violent revolution is out, so what does that leave?

          • Matt

            Correct. Violent revolution only empowers the Elite – they would then have (in their eyes) legitimate power to slaughter the citizens at will.

            The key word is “legitimate”.

            The loss of legitimacy will bring down the structures of power – no different then in Roman days, when the Praetorian Guard no longer felt the Emperor was legitimate – they no longer defended him (or occasionally, killed him themselves).

            Today, we are more civilized and hence the action are more subtle – such as non-voting – and mass, non-violent civil disobedience and mass non-violent marches. Like in the ending of the movie “V” – all the yelling and screaming of orders to ‘kill’ are ignored – and the power structure collapses.

            The key to the next paradigm will be attacks -not of violence- but of legitimacy. Here is where the future battlefield of politics will be waged.

            • The problem with the ending of the movie V for Vendetta is that it’s not how it would have ended. It would have gone the way of Kent State.

              You’ll note that nobody gave the kill order because the heads of the government were dead already, leaving only a mid-level guy who didn’t want to be responsible for killing that many people. So would you kill Congress and POTUS in order to fell the government? I know you wouldn’t.

              Non-voting just empowers those who do vote – the government is not concerned with the quantity of votes, just which side gets more than the other side. You delude yourself to think otherwise.

              Note also, that the people of 1984 didn’t think their government was legitimate (they knew it was an oppressive regime forced on them against and regardless of their will), but it seemed to hold up just find despite this. You cannot wish away a government you do not view as illegitimate. Something must be done. Do you think a mass protest (ie the 9/12 thing) will actually cause the government to scale back? Not if it were 100 times the size and occurred daily. You said it the other day, you’ll roll over in your grave when the government scales itself back.

  2. Rara Avis says:

    Power operates only destructively, bent always on forcing ever manifestation of life into the straitjacket of its laws. Its intellectual form of expression is dead dogma, its physical form brute force. And this unintelligent of its objectives sets its stamp on its supporters also and renders them stupid and brutal, even when originally endowed with the best of talents. One who is constantly striving to force everything into mechanical order at last becomes a machine himself and loses all human feeling”

    Rudolph Rocker

    I just wanted to share that with everyone here…

  3. That’s not an opinion poll, it’s a push poll. They wanted more than just your money, they wanted you to join in their group-think.

    You are right about similar Democratic polls, I have received them and found them equally moronic.

    • The biggest issue I have with both of them is that their ultimate goal in most (if not all) communications is to get money…now is not a good time.

      I am a registered Republican, but will change that soon.

    • They need the money. If the other side has more money, they can put up more signs and buy more commercials which is all the average person uses in order to decide who to vote for. Thus, the side with more money wins, thus the constant requests for donations.

      Your opinion is irrelevant, because you are a minority of a minority within a minority. What matters are the teaming masses who are too stupid or too lazy to have an informed opinion. They will out-vote you every time. So the DNC/RNC use your money to buy the masses’ votes. And nobody is served well.

  4. Ray Hawkins says:

    Great post USW – I was hoping to offer that I would like to see a similar poll sent to me, as a registered Democrat – but then I’d be kidding myself into thinking that, since they’re in power now, they’d actually give a shit how I felt about issues.

    Well done sir!

    • What are you talking about? The Democrats are the party of the people! Why else would they place an icon of humanity such as Nancy Pelosi in such a position of power?

      And, of course, we all know that the Democrats in Congress would gladly sacrifice for the good of The People. Just look at how they… er, um… how they.. and then they… and after that they…

      hmm..

  5. I’m confused by something, USW, and perhaps you and the other veterans here can shed some light on it for me. With all due respect to your sacrifices, why is it that I should pay for your VA health insurance? If you were injured (physically or psychologically), I would agree that the government for which you were injured should have to pay for the repair of damage. Where I lose the logic is when you get life-long benefits despite no longer being a member of the armed forces. (Note, it is entirely possible I have misunderstood the nature of this arrangement, in which case, please set me straight). But if you do not believe that the government should provide health care to the everyone, why should it provide to you simply because you once served it? Why is that different than a civil servant who has left the DMV?

    I am not trying to be hostile here, I am honestly just trying to understand.

    • bottom line says:

      1. Soldiers/sailors/marines/airmen serv you(tax paying citizen.) when they legitimately DEFEND the country.
      2. Long term benefits help recruitment.
      3. DMV employees don’t swear on their life to die in battle if need be, to defend a reduction in harmful emissions.

      • bottom line says:

        clicked submit too soon…

        add to 3. Traffic flow, auto liscencing and registration.

      • 1. The DMV worker serves his country. Just not in battle. There are many types of service. By the view you seem to be advocating, a soldier who does not serve in combat (a supply clerk, for example), should be excluded.
        2. Valid.
        3. DMV employees risk their lives every time they get in the car with a 16 year old new driver. I have never been in combat, but I have been in the car when my sister was driving and I am not convinced that war could be much worse. Joking aside, they serve a cause, but because the downside risk is not violent death, they should not be treated equally?

        I understand lifelong benefits for injuries you sustain in service. But if you make it through your tour unharmed then come home and cut your hand while making yourself a bagel, I do not view that as my problem.

        I have a problem with the government making open-ended commitments like this. If they have trouble recruiting, I would think they should pay more. But I will accept your second point as valid non-the-less.

        • Matt….all federal empolyees have benefits about like those of a vets. Lots of corporate employees get those kinds of benefits….why not the American service men and woman? I would much rather give these benefits to the military and take them from the lazy Represenatives we have. You have to serve in the Military alot longer to get the benefits than the Represenatives do, and our Military follows orders better than our reps.

    • Military service puts one’s LIFE on the line. That entitles them to a great deal!

      • See, the word I’m having a hard time with here is “entitles.”

        Firstly, military service puts some lives on the line. The aforementioned supply clerk is not risking his life. He has the same risk as the DMV worker who could get hit by a bus when the inexperienced driver does something stupid. Both have the same risk of death, both are serving their country (albeit in different capacities). So why does the clerk get life-long benefits, but the DMV guy gets bupkis?

        Secondly, we are talking about the people who do not die. We are talking about the people who live. If I take a huge risk and do not die, I do not see why the risk itself “entitles” me to anything. Let’s say I take a big risk in the stock market and don’t get wiped out, but don’t make anything either. Should someone be obligated to give me money because I risked a lot?

        If you lose your leg protecting me, then we should buy you a new leg, and pay for the attendant medical care in perpetuity. But if you slice your hand making me a bagel, that’s your problem, not mine.

        That said, I have the utmost respect for the armed forces, but if you think you shouldn’t be obligated to pay for social entitlements, I fail to see how you can be for military entitlements for after you leave active service.

        • Mathius
          I will use the example that I am able to relate to. I was in the Navy.

          Yes we had supply clerks on the ship,they operate the supplies of the ship. Seem boring, most likely to most people. But if the ship is bombed, everyone is called to save lives and the ship. Including the supply clerk.

          Well that doesnt happen people say. Really, I give you the USS Cole. I am sure that didnt believe that was going to happen that day in the harbor of Yemen either.

          I am just saying no matter what your job in the military is, everyone knows how to fight. If they need you to do something else, you are going to do something else.

          • But is your job in your non-combat role more dangerous than our friend the DMV driver? What if you’re sitting at a desk in Kansas?

            • Kristian Stout says:

              Regardless of what role you play in the military, you are trained the same. So if you are a supply clerk in Kansas the possibility of being called for service that would put you in harms way still exists. It’s part of being in the service, whatever your job the job that you were trained for, to defend your country, is the one that has priority.

            • Kristian Stout says:

              By the way, a DMV worker is a civil service job. Completely different than the military in that the DMV person never has to worry about going to combat and gets paid a hell of a lot better than his or her military “counterpart”.

            • Hi Mathius

              When my son was in the Marines, he job was in supply, but that was when he was stationed at Camp Pendleton. Once he got to Iraq, he did see combat, and he did fight, and yes, he even killed Iraqi’s. Just because you’re in supply, doesn’t mean you don’t see combat, and that all you do is issue out supplies.

              • Perfectly fair. But he received higher combat pay, no? (If no, tell me, I’m just guessing here).

                “Because I’ve seen combat” is not sufficient to mean that Uncle Sam should pay for your health care in perpetuity. And especially not, “because I might see combat.”

                My point is that we should not be giving out life-long “entitlements.” If he was injured, the government should pay to fix it. If not, then he provided a service for which he was paid. If he wasn’t paid enough, then he should have been paid more.

              • If you wish to claim it as a recruitment tool, then I guess I’m ok with that.

              • Mathius

                Yes, he got paid more, it’s called hazardous duty pay, but the life long entitlements that you say should not be given unless injured, I say you are wrong. It’s part of the being in the military and serving your country, and yes you are entitled to full service from the VA whether you see combat or not. Try telling the veterans how you feel and see what they say.

              • But Judy, what did they do (if they didn’t see combat) that civil workers did not? Why should a clerk who works in the military receive life-long benefits when a clerk in the judicial branch should not?

                There has to be a reason for the difference. Both serve their country. Both are paid for their service. If there is no physical or psychological harm, then what’s the difference that justifies this?

              • If both clerks retire at full retirement, they get health benefits as part of their retirement plan. Only full retirees get the tax-payer funded healthcare. This is true not only of the military, but of all public service jobs. It’s not fully taxpayer funded, as a military retiree, my husband and I pay premiums and co-pays for our health insurance and medications.

    • CWO2USNRet says:

      Mathius, your average veteran that has no service connected medical conditions is not eligible for VA care. Those with service connected medical conditions receive care for only those conditions for as long as it takes to fix the problem. Care for other problems is not covered. As for retired veterans, they are provided life-time health insurance via Tricare as an earned benefit for 20+ years of service.

      Hope that helps.

      • See, that helps. This I am OK with.

        Thanks.

        No more questions here.

      • My husband is a vet, served in the Army during the Vietnam war, although he didn’t go there was in Korea , anyway, he has been going to the VA for several tests, and medical checkups, and just had cataract surgery without costing him a dime. The only thing he had to pay for, was $70 for high cholesterol pills.

        Where do you get they have to serve 20+ years in order to get service from the VA? My husband only served his 3 years, and is still getting full service from the VA.

    • Mathius,

      Good question.

      Those who serve in the military do so for very little in terms of pay. When I was in, enlisted soldiers qualified for food stamps up through the rank of E-5 (sergeant). The average rank of a 20 year retiree in the enlisted ranks is E-6. So pay is a major thing, as soldiers do a job that requires deployment at any point (separation from family), long days (16 hour days were the norm for me), and very little in the way of recognition.

      The reason that people join the military is that they qualify for benefits that will serve them long after their military career is over. Money for school, health care through the VA, VA Loans, etc. For soldiers who serve their country, these benefits are part of the package, and the primary reason many of them join.

      I could go with the only benefits that they get are health care for conditions that were incurred while in service. That would be fine. But if that is the route that we go, then I would say that they should be paid on par with what the private market pays for someone who does that job. Private firms like Blackwater currently offer 6 digit salaries to those who fight for them. Enlisted soldiers are in the 20k-30k range. Providing better long term benefits after service is over is a far more cost effective solution than paying soldiers what they are worth.

      USW

      • So you take it back to a recruitment tool. I’m ok with that. I just don’t like thinking of it as an “entitlement.”

        • All those citizens speaking of being “entitled” to that free money in interviews before the election, at the inauguration itself and lately in Detroit proved the outlandish excellence that is American hilarity to the nth… what do you mean they were serious?

        • bottom line says:

          Entitlement suggest that it isn’t earned. Are you saying that service persons didn’t earn the benefits?

      • Hi guy’s,

        Was reading along today when I could, and reading Mathius’s comments about a “supply clerk” and combat. I havn’t the posts over the last half hour, but wanted to post a link to quite a famous “Supply Clerk” and give a kind reminder to Matt that there are NO jobs in the military that will keep out of harms way if your name is called.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jessica_Lynch

        G!

        • But here’s the thing G-Man. I do not mean to belittle what happened to her. But the DMV driver could have been hit by a truck. Which is more likely? Because bad things can happen does not mean that everyone should enjoy permanent benefits on my dime. She didn’t become “entitled” because she took the risk of possible harm, she she became “entitled” when harm befell her.

          Why does the possibility of harm mean the guarantee of life-long benefits that do not relate to any injuries actually sustained during service?

          • Matt, I respect your opinion, I feel the same way about welfare. I’m a vet, and I bye my insurance through work. I do so to allow the vets that really need their “earned benefits”. I don’t want to add another body to an already understaffed system.

            As I said, there are no military jobs that can keep one out of harms way. If your name is called, you go to battle, you may get shot at by bullits, or by missiles, or someone could try to blow you up. When a man or women takes the oath of service, it is like writing a check. Pay to the order of the citizens of the United States of America, in the amount of: Up to and including my life. Signed: The American Veteran.

            You only have “your dime” because of those that signed that check, all gave some, and some gave all.

            I hope you can understand how military life effects a person, it’s not an easy life, it’s hard to maintain relationships, and your always travelling to some screwed up country where noone really wants to be.

            Despite all that, the pay is low, and the rewards are more personnal then they are appreciated by others (not all).

            I wish you could have shared in my experiences, as well as others that post here, I believe you would see things alot differently. The memories never go away and the bad ones seem to be a constant reminder of the past that noone would choose to relive.

            Hope that helps alittle!

            G!

  6. USW,

    I also received these poll in the mail. It just confirmed why I left both parties. Neither one has any intention of wanting to actually hear what we have to say. Both of them are equally guilty of these games they try to play on us. I plan to fill it out and send back without any money.
    Ellen

  7. bottom line says:

    Me doing the same survey:

    1. Do you support the Obama Administration’s efforts to eliminate further testing and deployment of an intercontinental missile defense system?

    Only if DARPA came up with something better to defend against ICBM’s.

    2. Should Republicans continue fighting Congressional Democrats’ efforts to grant full unconditional amnesty to illegal immigrants?

    Step 1. Build the fence on our southern border. Build it from the Gulf Of Mexico to San Diego. Make it complete with barbed-wire, land mines, watch towers, land & air patrols, cameras & sensors, and big angry ugly mean hungry man eating dog zones.
    Start air/land patrols along the northern border.

    Step 2. Announce the deadline. Initiate massive multi-langual media campaign to make it well known to all illegal immigrants that they are to apply for citizenship no later than the deadline. Applicants will wear GPS devise until the day they are granted citizenship or deported. Give them 6 mo. – 1 yr. to apply.

    Step 3. Upon deadline, start setting up checkpoints at interstate intersections, on main highways, at transportation hubs, ect…basically everywhere. Also cunduct massive intel. gathering on locating condensed illegal immigrant populations. Start up anonymous hotline for citizen informant program.

    Step 4. Through checkpoints and raids, filter illegals and send them to FEMA camps for processing. Disregard GPS’d citizenship applicants in the round-up(leave them be as you would citizens). Murderers and rapist are to be given a fair trial BEFORE taken out back and shot. Drop off the rest on the other side of the fence with a bag of food and water, and/or provide tranportation to non-bordering countries.

    3. Do you agree with Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi’s efforts to impose massive tax hikes on the American people?

    No. In fact, We should ONLY be taxed for what is ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY. Which means getting rid of about 90% of all goverment programs. VDLG!

    4. Do you believe that the federal government should maintain a permanent ownership stake in large American banks?

    HELL NO! That’s exactly as described by USW…“sociofascist”. I prefer free market CAPITOLISM.

    5. Are you in favor of the federal government using tens of billions more of your tax dollars in an effort to further bailout the U.S. Auto industry?

    HELL NO! Should have let ‘em fail. FREE MARKET CAPITOLISM!! America needs cars. Someone would have replaced them.

    6. Do you support expanded exploration and drilling for fossil fuels off of U.S. coasts and on federal land?

    No. Proceed with getting ready to drill and process oil, but don’t touch it. As the world’s oil supply dwindles, the value will increase 10 fold. Buy foreign oil until our oil is all that is left. Sell it for the price that we’ve paid for 75 years plus the production cost and profit margin. Leave 2100 A.D. N.A.U. making bank and living phat off of oil even more than the arabs are now.

    7. Do you support the Democrats’ efforts to create a massive new federal government bureaucracy that would be run by unionized government employees and would have complete control of your health care costs and choices?

    I don’t support any new massive government bureaucracy. What we need to do is get rid of most of the existing massive government bureaucracies. VDLG!

    8. Should Republicans in Congress make expansion of veterans’ benefits a priority?

    Since I am a veteran, I’m inclined to say yes. But as Mr. Weapon has pointed out, that all that really needs to be done is improve the current system. It doesn’t really need to be expanded just tweaked a bit. More money would do some good. Prosthetics aren’t cheap.

    9. Do you support maintaining anti-terrorism laws that give law enforcement and intelligence agencies the far-reaching powers to track, detain, and prosecute terrorists and their accomplices?

    ?!?!?!?! ARE YOU #*&%ING KIDDING ME ?!?!?!? THIS QUESTION IS CLEAR INDICATION THAT THE GOP IS A COMPLETELY ILLEGITEMATE CROCK OF SH*T, AND THAT ANY CURRENT/FURTHER PARTICIPATION IN THIS SURVEY IS A WASTE OF TIME! !!!!!GO READ THE CONSTITUTION GOP!!!!!

  8. In your vision of VLDG America, should the government be in the business of deciding who can and cannot come to America? Should it be responsible for tracking them and giving them “legal” status? If not, then why do you care about whether they’re legal or not? They are violating a law which you view to be illegitimate.

    Adding, your answer to #2 would seem to create a huge amount of government, along with a multi-billion dollar fence. Doesn’t this go against your principles of VLDG?

    • Not a designer of VLDG (as I am a co-founder of the NDGAA “No Damn Government At All), however, no – government is not in the business of who can or cannot come into America.

      Yes, that may mean international criminals may reside here – but let’s look into history about that….

      In nearly every outpost of havens, that haven has been (1) wholly guarded and protected from violence by those that are keen to do violence because even those that are ‘bad guys’ need a safe place to rest. (2) are incredibly wealthy, since the trade of contraband of other jurisdictions occur here, with a large profit being extracted due to the contraband status (3) becomes the gateway of innovation and knowledge due to being the center point of trade and commerce.

      • As the founder of ARCGHASTBCS* (A Royal Crapload of Government Held Accountable by Substantive Transparency and Bound by Common Sense*), I still think the government should make it easy to become a citizen, or be a guest worker. I do not understand why so many people think that immigrants should all be treated like dangerous criminals (GPS anklets?! The border fence with land mines?! Are you kidding me?) Most came here to find a better life, and our economy depends on them, especially in California. They came here illegally because the kind of irrational phobia and manic hatred that we see above has led to nonsensical laws which make this almost impossible.

        *A subsidiary of WALNUT, Inc.

        • bottom line says:

          I don’t think that they are bad people. I just know that they are causing a sh*tload of problems. And yes, GPS anklets …Not because they are dangerous criminals, but because they need to be accounted for and sorted.

          Example: An illegal applies for citizenship, then goes back to continue his normal M.O. A month later his information(fingerprints) are ran through the system to reveal that his fingerprints match several violent unsolved crimes.

          Wouldn’t it be nice to call the cops and say he’s right there?

          Example: a single illegal mexican mother of two wears GPS long enough to have a background check done wile she is taking citizenship classes. She proves to be asset to American society and is granted her deserved freedom to roam America.

          Mathius – “The border fence with land mines?!”

          Yes. It’s about risk vs reward, learned behavior, and deterrence…as well as effectiveness

          Mathius – “Most came here to find a better life, and our economy depends on them, especially in California.”

          California’s economy depends on it because California is lazy. I know. I am a resident of southern California. When I first moved out west, it was the first thing I noticed. Compared to the rest of the country…VERY relaxed work ethic/atmosphere. Hell, Arnold and Hollywood pretty much says on the commercials…come to CA. and chiil & be lazy. I think I’m moving to Montana.

          • California’s economy depends on the cheap labor. There you go again, painting entire populations with one brush. Do you not see how ridiculous you sound doing that?

            California is lazy? Crap.

            • bottom line says:

              Your right Mathius. I retract my Ca. is lazy statement. We both know that Ca. has it together…which is why Ca. is doing so much better than the rest of America.

              • So economies only do poorly because their people are lazy? Wow, Americans must have gotten pretty lazy around october of last year..

                I’m done wasting my time with you.

              • bottom line says:

                No they got lazy(and greedy) when they had a cheap labor force at their disposal. And it isn’t just about economics. You and any other soCal. resident knows how many problems illegals cause. Do you save the agry rampant elephant that’s just scared? No, you break out the .50 cal. and put it down. Nevermind WHY it’s rampant…It’s rampant and it’s stepping on people. Kill it. Or at least tranquilize it if possible.

              • bottom line says:

                And in terms of economics and geo-politics…

                Q:what happens when you keep building schools for non-tax paying people?

                A: you have to start laying off teachers like California has because your budget is in the red.

                But they just want a better life. So it’s justified. Right? Nevermind the children who’s parent’s actually paid for the school. They should have to share a class with 100 students because they just want a better life.

              • bottom line says:

                Don’t hire an illegal to clean your house or tend to your garden. Get up off of your lazy azz and do it yourself. Take the money that you saved and spend it somewhere besides “Made in China-mart”. Right?

            • bottom line says:

              Mathius – “Most came here to find a better life, and our economy depends on them, especially in California.

              • Actually most came because the standard of living CURRENTLY

              • Actually most sneak on in because the standard of living enjoyed by American welfare recipients drastically exceeds their own in spite of pulling an 80 hour work week. Others came because things have gotten too dangerous for them in their own country.

                Canada takes in a great many under the “refugee” umbrella programs. I’ve spoken at length and painfully so at times to those having emigrated from Bosnia-Herzegovina who have expressed nothing but awe over things we take for granted in Canada every single day.

          • Bottom Line,

            California went through a Golden Age, spending close to 85% of their money on infrastructure, 15% on entitlement. Over the years, as liberal policies were enacted, things were reversed until it reached their current state. And this is a good example of Pelosi/Reed?Obama’s policies and what their effect on the nation will be.

        • I also think it should be easier to become a citizen. I think as well that if you want to become a citizen that you would adhere to the laws of the country.

          I actually immigrated here (from Canada :P). Mine was a much easier process, granted, but it is not painful, just lengthy.

          • See, you’re confused.. Canada is actually just part of North Montana.. not actually a different country..

            • Actually we’re just awaiting Montana and North Dakota going onto eBay. Expect Alberta and Saskatchewan to push south in the coming years.

      • Yea…like Hot Springs AR???? It was guarded! And so corrupt it stanks for 50 miles around.

    • bottom line says:

      Answer to #7, second sentence, tenth word. “most”. In my idealistic VDLG I’d replace the “Department of Offense” with the “Department of DEFENSE” and use it for exactly that…DEFENSE, as in our borders… not invading countries for _______ BS reason. We’d have a bigger military that uses less $$$. We could afford the fence and round up.

  9. (From another blog)

    I believe this is a valid assessment of the future. I would suggest that one start building their contigency plans for the future based on this article.

    ——————

    Health care is a life-and-death issue for a few people. It is a lifetime finance issue for millions of people with no health care insurance.

    If any bill passes, Obama will sign it into law. The Democrats have the votes. They only need to get the two bills compromised. Pelosi will be in a position to do this. She says she will not back down on the government’s provision of a program. We’ll see. Obama could publicly back the Senate’s version of bill: no government option. This would force her into a hard place.

    A bill that gives much-desired money to millions of voters will be untouchable, just as Medicare is. The Republicans will not dare to repeal it if they ever have the votes to do so. The voters who get their benefits cut off will be the swing vote.

    Once the government offers a subsidy, there are takers. These people will exact revenge on any politician who votes to pulls the plug on the subsidy. Congressmen know this.

    Obama knows that he can sign any bill to get the government’s foot in the health insurance door. If the Democrats have the votes, they can add more subsidies later. If not, they still will get credit for having passed something.

    This is the ratchet effect of all large government programs. They never return to zero. They ratchet upward.

    The Democrats know this. So do the Republicans. The Republican moderates will be able to let the program alone, once it becomes law. They will be able to let voters forget the Party’s opposition today. They can vote against it as a bloc this time, but then roll over forever, once it is the law.

    Obama has staked his Presidency on a health care bill. It is his #1 priority. Unless the Democrats self-destruct over an impasse, they will be in a position to give Obama a victory.

    Opposition to most bills is diffused. Support is focused. This favors bills that promise substantial benefits. This one offers huge benefits to voters who live in fear of a bankrupting disease or condition.

    Will this law bankrupt the government? No. The government is already going to go bankrupt. Medicare will do the job all by itself. This law will just speed up the process.

    Congress does not care at this point. One more program will not make any difference. There is no roll-back of Medicare. So, there might as well be a rollover on health insurance, once the bill becomes law. Spending keeps rising. There is no sense of urgency at the margin. We are beyond the point of no return. Congress concludes, “Let’s party!”

    I think some version of the bill will pass. I think Obama will sign it. He will call it a first step. There will be more steps.

    Bush proved that a first step is just that. His prescription drug plan vastly expanded the liability for Medicare. Republicans never talk about canceling it. It’s forever.

    Medical costs will rise with this bill. The government will look for ways to cut these costs, as Obama has promised. Health care providers will bear the brunt of the imposed savings: price ceilings.

    There will be rationing. That is what price ceilings require. There is more demand than supply. The government will allocate supply. This will force a call for a government option. Pelosi will get her way. She may just have to wait a few years.

    Health care will become more regimented. This is why you must find a health care provider who is outside the Medicare system and who does not depend on private insurance payments. You need a fee-per-visit physician. They are hard to find now. They will become more hard to find after this law is signed.

    Where can you find one? Members of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons are more likely to refuse payments from third-parties, meaning health insurance companies.

    Ultimately, for catastrophic health insurance policies, we will be trapped by this law, if it is passed, which I think it will be. If we need elective surgery, we will have to look outside the U.S. At that point, we will be dependent on the value of the dollar. That value is likely to fall.

    We have a partial free market today. It will be less free after universal health care coverage becomes law.

  10. These “surveys” are just ads and disguised fund raisers. They are not worth the stamp to return them. That said, I did get a robo call from my local congressman asking if I wanted to join an active telephone townhall event. You could listen live to the congressman answering questions and even qeue up to ask on yourself. It was interesting.

  11. I received a similar RNC survey months ago, the 2009 Obama Agenda Survey.
    I was surprised to get it, since I am also an independent. Had the same format, yes, no or no opinion for 15 questions. I got a kick out of the ending:
    “To have an immediate impact, make a secure online contribution at http://www.GOP.com/NewMember.” Wow, I can have an immediate impact on our governments actions. Can I buy a bridge or some Arizona ocean front property while I’m at it?

    1. Do you agree with Barack Obama’s budget plan that will lead to a $23.1 trillion deficit over the next ten years?

    2. Do you believe the federal government has gone too far in bailing out failing banks, insurance companies and the auto industry?

    3. Do you support amnesty for illegal immigrants?

    4. Should English be the official language of the United States?

    5. Are you in favor of granting retroactive Social Security eligibility to illegal immigrants who gain US citizenship through an amnesty program?

    6. Are you in favor of the expanded welfare benefits and unlimited eligibility
    (no time, education or work requirements)that Democrats in congress are pushing to pass?

    7. Do you believe that Barack Obama’s nominees for federal courts should be immediately and unquestionably approved for their lifetime appointments by the US Senate? ( I’m sorry, but what idiot made up these questions? )

    8. Do you believe that the best way to increase the quality and effectiveness of public education in the US is to rapidly expand federal funding while eliminating performance standards and accountability?

    9. Do you support the creation of a national health insurance plan that would be administered by bureaucrats in Washington, D.C. ?

    10. Do you believe that the quality and availability of healthcare will increase if the federal government dictates pricing to doctors and hospitals?

    11. Are you confident that new medicines and medical treatments will continue to be developed if the federal government controls prescription drug prices and sets profit margins for research and pharmaceutical companies?

    12. Are you in favor of creating a government funded “Citizen Volunteer Corps” that would pay young people to do work now done by churches and charities, earning Corps members the same pay and benefits given to military veterans?

    13. Are you in favor of reinstituting the military draft, as Democrats in congress have proposed?

    14. Do you believe that the federal government should allow the unionization of Department of Homeland Security employees who serve in positions critical to the safety and security of our nation?

    15. Do you support Democrat’s drive to eliminate worker’s right to a private ballot when considering unionization of their place of employment?

    And this is an example of one good reason for not joining the NRA, ( I’m a life member)they send these BS questionnaires out on a regular basis, all asking for money to fight the D.C. gun banners latest play. And is it just me, or is it off a little that so many of these questions ask what you believe, not what you think?

    • I’d like to see the Democratic equivalent of this:

      1. Do you support having sex with young boys and certain Republicans in Congress have?

      2. Do you support slavery as certain Republicans in Congress have?

      3. Do you think that social security is a socialist institution which is dangerous for America as Republicans in Congress have?

      etc..

      Nevermind that Foley (was it Foley?) resigned, the Republicans haven’t supported slavery since the civil war, and thay are presently unanimously in favor of social security.. This would make for a good poll.. we should ask something about kicking puppies and poor hygiene too.

      • Matt

        I think you have your history confused.

        Lincoln was a Republican.

        • There were Republicans before Lincoln, unless I’m much mistaken..

          • Your fallacy is: because there was slavery in the past, the Republican must have supported it, when in fact it was the Republicans who ended it.

            …and you don’t see any problem with your logic???

            • My point is that it’s a ridiculous “poll” and deliberately misleading questions are a part of it. Thus the pro-slavery Republicans (I’m sure there few a few)

          • Matt:

            Lincoln and his friends created the “Republican” party. The only other party with that name was the “Democratic Republican” party created by Jefferson. Thus both modern parties claim Jefferson as part of their heritage. As Jefferson’s party was also called “Democratic” the modern Democrats think they have more right to the heritage of Jefferson than the Republicans. Yet both parties stand firmly on the foundation built by Hamilton, not Jefferson.

            The “Republican” party was always anti slavery. But that party is also the root home of the “Progressive Movement” which led to the fascist movement which led to the modern “liberal/progressive” now housed in the Democratic Party.

        • And southern democrats wanted slavery to be a states’ rights issue.

      • 1. Do you support having sex with young boys and certain Republicans in Congress have? ( Matt, not like you, you haven’t thought these questions out very far)

        Barney Frank, a Democratic U.S. congressman for nearly 30 years and the first openly gay member of the House, almost undid his career in 1989 after an affair with Steve Gobie, a male prostitute.

        http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/article/0,28804,1721111_1721210_1883878,00.html

        • Fair enough, I’m just offering up ridiculous, and suggestive push poll questions that might be offered by the DNC

        • 4. Do you advocate for the stabbing of prostitutes and hobos and burying their bodies in Arlington as Republican Vice President Richard Cheney frequently did while in office?

    • My husband to had a problem with the NRA mailings….he quit them for several years because he said they wasted money.

  12. Matt

    All good observations. Let’s extend the picture a bit…

    You’ll note that nobody gave the kill order because the heads of the government were dead already, leaving only a mid-level guy who didn’t want to be responsible for killing that many people. So would you kill Congress and POTUS in order to fell the government? I know you wouldn’t.

    You ar correct, however, look at it from this point of view.

    The loss of the ‘heads’ is the same effect as the loss of legitimacy of the ‘heads’.

    Why?

    Because – at the end of the day – it is the guy at the other end of the barrel that has to pull the trigger. If he doesn’t believe his “commander” is legit, he will not fire.

    In “V”, he wasn’t legit, because he was ‘dead’ – in the future, the Elite will not be thought to be ‘legit’ either.

    Non-voting just empowers those who do vote – the government is not concerned with the quantity of votes, just which side gets more than the other side. You delude yourself to think otherwise.

    Au contraire.

    The government is VERY CONCERNED about the quantity of votes.

    (1)If your statement was true, there would be no promotions of “go out and vote!” advertisements – constantly – by all political parties – for a reason.

    (2)If your statement was true, election “turn out” statistics would be meaningless and not worth being provided. However, they are provided and studied and discussed around and around – for a reason.

    Why (1) – let’s think rationally, in an example.

    I want to win the election against you. Therefore, I want more of “my people” to come out and vote and I want more of “your people” to stay at home and not vote. Therefore, I would produce advertisements directed towards “my people” and not your people to come and vote.

    EXCEPT – go look at every one of these “Go out and Vote” advertisements. They all target everyone. They target All Citizens…. so, this is not a ploy to win the election – it is a ploy to legitimize the election.

    Why (2) – bring up any election, anywhere – including North Korea. They all talk about turnout. The first thing North Korea advertises about its latest election was “…99% voter turnout…”

    Why bother it, according to you, it is pointless?

    Because it validates the winner as being legitimately chosen. If we saw “…1% turnout…” no matter who won, we’d know it was illegitimate.

    Further, consider Parliamentary governments – the “non-confidence” vote, where the members of Parliament can take down the ruling government party and force an election. This is another example of loss of legitimacy.

    Note also, that the people of 1984 didn’t think their government was legitimate (they knew it was an oppressive regime forced on them against and regardless of their will), but it seemed to hold up just find despite this.

    That is not “1984″ – the people were brainwashed into accepting the legitimacy of government – only the ‘hero’ saw through that, but lost in the end.

    You cannot wish away a government you do not view as illegitimate.

    Mine is not the ‘wish’ – it is an action – a withdrawal of acceptance.

    You have experienced this in your own personal life – I am sure – in some personal relationship that failed.

    It your belief in ‘voting’ that is merely the wish.

    You are praying that you can find and elect a politician who will cut his own throat.

    Something must be done.

    Many times the most important and powerful action is to do nothing, because doing something WRONG is infinitely worse than doing nothing at all.

    Do you think a mass protest (ie the 9/12 thing) will actually cause the government to scale back?

    No – because a one-shot pony is pointless.

    HOWEVER, it got their attention. It was grassroots. It was partisan. It was not another political parties exercise. It was leaderless and coordinated. It was anarchy (my definition) – leaderless society in cooperation with a cause.

    Not if it were 100 times the size and occurred daily. You said it the other day, you’ll roll over in your grave when the government scales itself back.

    Correct. That is what you are praying with voting….that you will vote in some politician who will slit his own throat. Of course, that will never happen.

    A politician without legitimacy is man standing on a soap box on the street. No one pays attention to his screams.

    Withdraw support by not voting.

    • Bah Humbug.

      Allow me to ask. Let us presume that voter turnout was a paltry 5%. Some pencil pusher does some math and establishes that, despite the small number, it is still representative of the population (Stats 101), and thus valid. Jeb Bush gets sworn in, but only a handful of people bother to show up. But that’s ok, because it’s 15 degrees outside, so he make a 2 minute speech and head inside. Society continues on until….

      One day the IRS calls you up. “Mr. Flag, we haven’t received your tax form. Could you please send that in for us?” “Nope. I do not recognize your legitimacy to tax me.”

      Two days later, someone knocks on your door. “Mr. Flag, I have come here to collect your tax documents.” “Nope. I do not recognize your legitimacy to tax me.” And you close the door in his face.

      What happens next is the point of contention. You would say that, hearing this, 1000′s of people would choose to act similarly. I would say that they’ll watch and see what happens to you first, then decide how to act.

      The next knock on your door is a cop. You could shoot him for trespassing, but you’re not that nuts, so you let him arrest you. You go to trial for tax evasion, are convicted, and sent to jail. Everyone else watching sends in their form because they don’t want to join you.

      Now, you would say that the cop won’t arrest you because he believes, with you, that the government isn’t legitimate. But the government signs his paycheck, and you would be amazed what a man will believe when his paycheck depends on it.

      You see, your recognition of legitimacy is irrelevant, you need millions to simultaneously agree with you AND act with you. And you shall never have it. Without the act, you still pay your taxes, and the government doesn’t care what you think. Without the millions, your act means nothing.

      And all the while, you don’t vote, so the government moves in the direction of the people who do vote, and not as you and your ilk would have it. At the very least, you should have your own third party candidate. In that way, you’d at least be a statistic instead of a ghost floating around the edges of democracy.

      • Mathius

        Bah Humbug.

        HuH?

        Look, Matt.

        I’ve been very patient.

        I’ve provided political theory of voting, voting turnout and the reasons it is important -reasons of legitimacy.

        Every political text – and I mean every political text discusses the core requirement of legitimacy in government.

        It is the failure legitimacy that prevents any conclusions to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The central governments are viewed to be stooges of the US – and the locals refuse to accept their edicts.

        You have utterly failed to provide any reasoning or theory to why you believe those that call themselves government do not need legitimacy to call themselves government.

        You fail to establish the difference between the Mafia and the US government.

        Your only argument rests on the use of violence to enforce edicts – which both entities unarguably do.

        But you do not provide the functional difference that establishes that the Mafia are criminals and the government is law.

        You fail to explain why voter fraud or election fraud is an issue. If your claim was true – then these issues would be non-issues.

        Yet, factually, they are issues core to the establishment of legitimate government.

        If you have some political theory to back up your concepts of illegitimate government capable of rule, please forward a link or two.

        Allow me to ask. Let us presume that voter turnout was a paltry 5%. Some pencil pusher does some math and establishes that, despite the small number, it is still representative of the population (Stats 101), and thus valid. Jeb Bush gets sworn in, but only a handful of people bother to show up. But that’s ok, because it’s 15 degrees outside, so he make a 2 minute speech and head inside. Society continues on until….

        One day the IRS calls you up. “Mr. Flag, we haven’t received your tax form. Could you please send that in for us?” “Nope. I do not recognize your legitimacy to tax me.”

        Your circular argument fails on its premise.

        You start by assuming that government would stand on merely 5%. Since this is also your conclusion, you merely made it your premise. The verbiage in the middle is redundant.

        Your premise – “government will stand on 5%, therefore -‘this and that will happen’.

        Your conclusion – ‘this and that has happened‘ proves “government will stand on 5%”

        Your argument on why government will stand on 5% – non-existent, because your argument is circular.

        You base your argument on a fixed premise – government exists without legitimacy – to prove (fallaciously) that government exists without legitimacy.

        I hope one day you’ll provide some non-circular argument of merit.

        • Firstly, voter fraud is a non-issue unless it affects the outcome. People just get hung up on it.

          Secondly, in your worldview, there is no difference between thugs and government. And government has power and you don’t. Thus you cannot overthrow it simply by withholding legitimacy. I am trying to figure out how you think it would fall. No sarcasm here. How? Would people just stop showing up to their government jobs? Would people ignore government laws? Where is the point at which it fails?

          It is not gone simply because the massed don’t think it legitimate. The buildings are still there, they still pay people, they still enforce laws. There has to be an act that goes with your belief in its illegitimacy. I assume it’s where you stop paying taxes, but you tell me. If you stop though, they will arrest you. You need everyone to stop simultaneously, and I would like to know how that happens.

          Thirdly, I apologize for my flippancy.

          • Mathius

            Firstly, voter fraud is a non-issue unless it affects the outcome.

            By fact, it is an issue, or no one would complain.

            It affects the outcome -not by the numbers of votes- but by the appearance of legitimacy!

            It doesn’t matter if a million or a thousand fraudulent votes, the fact that there were fraudulent votes is the concern. The reasons are rooted out and destroyed (if possible).

            Secondly, in your worldview, there is no difference between thugs and government. And government has power and you don’t. Thus you cannot overthrow it simply by withholding legitimacy.

            Yes, because I give legitimacy to action based on a civilized moral code. Thus, I do not legitimize initiation of violence. Period.

            However, I do recognize legitimate actions of violence for defense.

            Think about what I just said, and you will begin to understand the importance of legitimacy.

            Government has violence – so far, no different from the Mafia.

            Again, Matt provide your political theory that defines the difference between the Mafia and the Government – without using legitimacy.

            If you do so successfully, you’ll win a Nobel Prize.

            I am trying to figure out how you think it would fall. No sarcasm here. How? Would people just stop showing up to their government jobs? Would people ignore government laws? Where is the point at which it fails?

            It is not gone simply because the massed don’t think it legitimate.

            If I had a 2×4, your forehead would be hit.

            I didn’t say they’d be gone – I said they would be seen as criminal.

            Think closer to Yugoslavia under Nazi occupation – the latter was never legitimate – hence the people battled the Nazi’s constantly.

            Now consider Vichy France – where there was no resistance from the population to German occupation.

            What is the difference, Matt?

            The buildings are still there, they still pay people, they still enforce laws.

            Yes, like the Mafia enforces laws…..

            There has to be an act that goes with your belief in its illegitimacy.

            Yes, resistance. Similarly your resistance to criminal elements in your area.

            If you are faced down with a criminal mob doing a shakedown, I doubt you’d resist.

            If you had the fortitude, you’d gather up a posse of citizens and depose the criminals.

            If you didn’t, you’d suffer under their thieving – but you’d never chose their side in a fight.

            I posted a video of the cop and the kid. Everyone came on the cop’s side automatically because people automatically give government the right to violence.

            But if it was a gang-banger vs. the kid, do you think everyone would jump on the kid – or would they attack the gang-banger? The difference is legitimacy of action – even if the action is evil.

            I assume it’s where you stop paying taxes, but you tell me. If you stop though, they will arrest you. You need everyone to stop simultaneously, and I would like to know how that happens.

            It never requires “everyone” – even your system doesn’t require “everyone” – so, will you please stop wasting argument time with this idiocy?

            It requires “some” – even the American Revolution was only a small percentage of activists (I believe the quoted figure was 10%)

            The rule of government wholly depends on the consent of the people. Government cannot put a solider on every corner of every street.

            The government is, in fact, an incredibly small minority. A very small number of resistance is capable of overthrow.

            Gandhi did it – and he was only one man.

            Again, I ask – please provide the political theory that demonstrates government without the requirement of legitimacy – any Google link will be fine.

            • I see where our disconnect is.

              You are arguing that without legitimacy, the government would still exist, but it would be criminal (more so, in your view). Not that it would cease to exist. I thought you were arguing the later, but the former makes perfect sense and gets no argument from me.

              Also, re Ghandi, there’s a great quote: “One man with courage is a majority.” I don’t remember who said that.

              Adding, you wouldn’t hit me with the 2×4 because that would be the use of non-self-defense violence. Also, you don’t know who I am or where to find me in order to hit me…

              • Mathius

                I see where our disconnect is.

                You are arguing that without legitimacy, the government would still exist, but it would be criminal (more so, in your view).

                Close. They would not be a government – that would require legitimacy – they would be usurper criminals.

                I know this appears merely theoretical, however, it is vital to understand.

                When Holland fell to Germany, the Dutch government went into exile. They were still the government of Holland.

                Do you understand the nuance of this fact?

                When you can get your mind around this example, you’ll be 85% there in understanding the requirements of legitimacy to be a government.

                Adding, you wouldn’t hit me with the 2×4 because that would be the use of non-self-defense violence. Also, you don’t know who I am or where to find me in order to hit me…

                I’d just invoke my ‘government brain’ and whack everyone until I hit you, and let “God find his own” from the ‘collateral damage’

        • To clarify. A building which is not structurally sound will fall, granted, but it does not simply exist then cease to exist. At some point, a support girder fails due to a stress induced fracture which causes the building to list a few degrees. This causes more stress which causes more failures, which causes more listing. Eventually, the center of gravity is no longer over the base and the rigidity cannot support it. The whole thing crashes.

          So you say a lack of legitimacy is a structural problem, and I’ll accept that, but I would like to know what the first failing support girder is.

          • The lack of a mandate from voting.

            Even Hitler came to the ReichStag every 4 years to have the Enabling Act reaffirmed. He was never late.

          • KABUL (Reuters) – Afghan politicians on Tuesday expressed frustration over delays to the outcome of the August presidential election, held up by elaborate efforts to wipe clean the widespread fraud that marred the vote.

            Nearly two months after polling day, Afghanistan’s election watchdog is still sifting through mountains of dubious ballots to determine if President Hamid Karzai is the outright winner or must face a second vote against his runner-up.

            The protracted process has kindled tension between Karzai and his Western backers, left Afghanistan in political limbo and helped delay a decision by President Barack Obama on sending the extra troops his battlefield commander has said he needs.
            ….

            Western ambassadors have lined up to back the ECC, irritating Karzai who has criticized “outside circles” for interfering in the Afghan election. In an interview with ABC, he cast doubt on the ECC, saying “it needed to prove it is impartial and fair.”

            ….

            “I have told him (Karzai) repeatedly there is no other agenda here than to get this process done and over with and also to see that the result has legitimacy,” he said.
            ….

            “Unfortunately there are some indications of a wavering of support of the international community and of patience running thin … To win this war we need to ensure firm determination will jointly continue to the day of final victory.”

            Diplomats said the ECC was having to balance the thoroughness of its review with getting out a result quickly to enable any second round to take place before winter sets in. Many Afghans would be cut off by snow, pushing the vote into next spring.

            “If the ECC takes an entirely purist approach that had the impact of disenfranchising large communities, that would also delegitimise the election,” said British Ambassador Mark Sedwill.

            The reputational blight to Karzai from the ballot stuffing by his supporters, and uncertainty over how he will react to the ECC’s ruling, has given strength to voices in Washington calling him unreliable and for a U.S. force pullback in Afghanistan.
            ….

            GOVERNMENT SPECULATION

            Karzai’s standing would be diminished if there were a second round, but Afghanistan’s ethnic arithmetic still makes him clear favorite to win. He has said little publicly about the shape of his future government, but others have begun speculating.

            Abdullah on Monday opened the door to talks on a broad-based government, having previously refused outright to consider cooperating with Karzai, who he worked under from 2001 to 2006.

            Western governments fear the government will be shaped less by competence than by the pre-election deals they think were struck with warlords and ethnic chief to deliver support in return for a share of power.

            But international pressure for an inclusive government would not necessarily deliver the effective, non-corrupt partner the West was looking for.

            “The commitment of President Karzai is to build an effective and credible government and I hope that our allies are beginning to recognize this reality,” said Spanta. “Including everybody is not an effective government.”

            ////

            I love the last claim – government that includes ‘everyone’ is not effective. Sigh….

  13. I’m sorry, but this is becoming a bitter pill with me anymore. How many more lives must we lose over there? We just lost a local in Afghanistan on Oct. 3rd. he was part of the group of 8 that died that day. His funeral is planned for this Saturday, and I don’t think I could possibly attend another soldiers funeral.

    He worked at a store close by my house and although I didn’t know him personally, he did help me a few times when I shopped there, and he was a very friendly young man. He was only 22 years old. My thoughts and prayers are with his family, friends, and the people he worked with. Kevin will be greatly missed.

    I’m getting to the point where I don’t think we’ll ever get out of Iraq or Afghanistan. Yes. I am very upset and yet bitter at the same time. These lives are being taken and for what?

    Judy

    In an unannounced move, President Obama is dispatching up to 15,000 additional U.S. troops to Afghanistan beyond the 21,000 he announced in March.

    The additional troops are primarily support forces — such as engineers, medical personnel, intelligence experts and military police.

    A Washington Post report published Tuesday said Obama dispatched 13,000 additional troops, but an unnamed defense official familiar with the process told Fox News that the number is closer to 15,000.

    “Obama authorized the whole thing. The only thing you saw announced in a press release was the 21,000,” a defense official, speaking anonymously, told the Washington Post.

    But in an interview with Fox News on Tuesday, a defense official refuted that the dispatch was “unannounced,” saying the decision to send 15,000 additional troops was part of a larger move to reach 68,000 troops in Afghanistan by year’s end — a move that Defense Secretary Robert Gates cleared with Obama in March, the official said.

    The revelation comes as Obama weighs a request from the top U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan, General Stanley McChrystal, for more combat, training and support troops, with several options including one for 40,000 more forces.

    But the Washington Post noted that the maximum number of U.S. service members expected in Afghanistan by the end of 2009 — 68,000 — would remain the same.

    Major deployments of support troops have not been publicized by the Pentagon and the White House in the past. When former president George W. Bush announced a U.S. troop increase in Iraq, he only mentioned 20,000 combat troops and not the accompanying 8,000 support troops.

    The troop increase approved by Obama brought the level of U.S. forces deployed in the Iraq and Afghanistan theaters to a total greater than during the peak of the surge in Iraq in late 2007 and early 2008.

    Top Republican senators have escalated their call for Obama to grant McChrystal’s request for more troops in Afghanistan, and one prominent Democrat warned that a failure to do so could jeopardize U.S. forces.

    The Obama administration is deep in deliberations over whether to build on its counterinsurgency strategy with thousands more troops in Afghanistan or focus more on taking out top Al Qaeda targets, particularly in Pakistan. The bloody clash this weekend at the Pakistan army headquarters, where commandos freed dozens of hostages early Sunday after militants attacked the facility, underscored the instability in the region.

    Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said the attack emphasized the “danger of the Taliban not only in Afghanistan but in Pakistan as well.”

    But he said any attempt by the administration to scale back the fight against the Taliban in favor of a tactical battle against Al Qaeda would damage security.

    “They are different. But they are inter-connected,” he said on CBS’ “Face the Nation.”

    He said Republicans would “almost overwhelmingly support” the president if he opts to grant McChrystal’s request for more troops, estimated to be for about 40,000.

    Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, also said the counterinsurgency strategy pursued by McChrystal is “really critical.” She said the American people don’t have the stomach to stay in Afghanistan for another 10 years, but that the mission there is in “serious jeopardy” and Obama has an obligation to follow his commander’s advice.

    “I don’t know how you put somebody in who was as crackerjack as General McChrystal, who gives the president very solid recommendations, and not take those recommendations if you’re not going to pull out,” Feinstein said on ABC’s “This Week.”

    “If you don’t want to take the recommendations, then you put your people in such jeopardy.”

    She suggested some elements of the Taliban could be won over, but warned that the Taliban in Afghanistan will have a “dramatic impact” on Pakistan if allowed to flourish.

    Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., also said on CNN’s “State of the Union” that the Taliban and Al Qaeda will become “inextricably tied.”

    McCain, the ranking Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, said the president is right to take his time and deliberate but that a failure to accept the advice of his military commanders would be “an error of historic proportions.”

    • Common Man says:

      USW, JAC, D13, BF and others with experience.

      I watched the interview on 60 minutes Sunday of General McCrystal and the comment he made in response to the questions about time lines was 10-15 years in overthrowing an opponent like Al Qaeda provided it was conducted appropriately. This gives me great concern.

      It gives me concern because I believe he believes that given the circumstances of engagement, and the ideal to “win the hearts and minds” of the people we are looking at a war that could involve my grandson. (I don’t think I could handle both my son and grandson going to war. My son was tough enough)

      I was also concerned about the rules of engagement the military is forced to obey. Focus on NOT killing civilians verses focusing on ridding the country of Al Qaeda… isn’t that kind of counter-productive

      Did any of you mentioned above watch the report last Sunday and if so what were your thoughts on McCrystals comments, and the overall campaign rules?

      I have said it before, both my son and nephew said the same thing after their two tours:
      “We are wssting our time, we are not going to change those people”

      CM

      • CM

        Thank you for your comments, my son said the same exact thing, and he did two tours there, and that was back in 2004-05. Please thank your son and nephew for me for their service, for they hold a special place in my heart.

        Judy

        • Common Man says:

          Judy;

          Ditto to your son as well. Was he Army or Marines? How is he doing since his return?

          I kind of ask all those parents I meet about each returning Vet’s mental state since I have noticed that the majority struggle some upon returning home.

          My son was initially there for the invasion as part of the Army’s 3rd ID and back again in 2005 stationed near a town called Balad.

          Matt, my nephew was there initially just before my son came home from the first tour, and he went back again in 2006.

          Both are home again and both are out of the military.

          It was interesting that the two of them actually ran into each other in Kuwait as my son was getting ready to deploy home and Matt was getting ready to go into Iraq. They got two days together and I think it helped Matt acclimate.

          Since they have been home they have made both my brother and I Grandfathers. Seems they were in a hurry to accomplish something ‘normal’

          Anyway ‘God’s speed to you and your hero

          CM

          • CM

            My son was in the Marines, and is now in the National Guard Reserves, but strictly for school. He got out of the Marines in 2007, shortly there after joined the N.G. He is going to the University of Reno and is in pre-med right now, with another year to go before he gets accepted into med school. My son’s name is Matthew, small world.

            He seemed to be doing okay, but has some depression that he goes through once in a while. I told him to go talk to somebody to see if maybe his tour, and seeing 5 of his biddies get killed , which I’m sure is part of it, and if that’s why he has the depression. It’s not a constant thing, just every so often it comes up. He is inclined to thinks it’s because he has such a heavy load at school, and that’s why he has it. I told him, with what he’s been through, and what he saw, is enough to make anybody depressed.He finally agreed with me. I just hope it’s not a long term thing with him.

            When he went in the Marines, he was only 17, and 18 when he did his first tour. He was in Najaf back in 2004 when that heavy fighting was going on with that Al Sadar and his men. That’s where he lost his buddies at. Didn’t hear from him for 3 weeks, didn’t know if he was dead, alive or wounded, and believe me I was a mess, and talk about being stressed out.

            He will talk about some things that happened there, and there are some things he will not talk about, so we never question that.

            Thank you for sharing about your son and your nephew, nice to have some one to talk with about that.

            Judy

            • Common Man says:

              Judy;

              It is good to hear your son is involved in school and staying busy; I think it helps.

              My son is also in school full time working toward his RN degree, although he may change that to something in pharmacuticals?

              In his last tour 2005-2006 he buried 12 brothers some of which he treated on the battle field. My son was a combat line medic.

              After his discharge from active duty in 2006 he had some bad dreams and couldn’t sleep. He won’t go to funerals, says he just can’t.

              He seems to be doing better and I think school, a wife and an 18 month old son keep his mind else where.

              My nephew is now working on getting his Journeymans license in sheet-metal and raising his daughter.

              Neither one of them talk much about what they saw althoug my son brought home an external hard drive he had at base camp with 80-90 gig of pictures, videos and other loaded on it. I have been going through it and catiloging and all I can say is “Bring Them HOme”.

              I would encourage you to keep encouraging your son to seek out someone to talk to, but make sure that person has experience dealing with Vet’s. It will help.

              CM

              • CM

                Here is a link you can go to and watch the video that Matthew and his friend SGT. Chapman put together, and at the very end is what he added to it. It has the pictures of the 5 guys he knew that died over there. Matthew said he was going to update it, but hasn’t had a chance to. If you do watch it, make sure you have your sound on. If you hear this guy say Roger at the beginning, it’s my son Matthew.

                I don’t blame your son for not going to any funerals with what he’s been through. We just lost a local here on the 3rd of Oct, and his funeral is this coming Saturday, not sure if I can even go, it hit me really hard. This has to be I think the 4 local we have lost in the past 3 years. I guess you read the post I put up earlier about him, and what I found on Fox underneath that.

                I just hope your son, nephew and my son will be able to have a normal life after what they have been through and saw.

                October 10, 2009 at 10:17 pm

      • Common Man

        First Al Qaeda has been long pushed out of Afghanistan and into Pakistan – it merely acts as a propaganda tool for further involvement there. There wasn’t more than a few hundred fighters there in the first place….

        The US isn’t there because of them or the Taliban (directly) – it is there for a base of operations vs. Iran and an oil pipeline. Both of these factors are still in play.

        Allow me to quote Eric Margolis – he is very astute in understanding the region as he fought along with the Afghanistan vs. the Russians.

        President Barack Obama and Congress are wrestling with widening the war in Afghanistan. After eight years of military operations costing US $236 billion, the US commander in Afghanistan just warned of the threat of `failure,’ aka defeat.

        Truth is war’s first casualty. The Afghan War’s biggest untruth is, `we’ve got to fight terrorists over there so we don’t have to fight them at home.’ Politicians and generals keep using this canard to justify a war they can’t otherwise explain or justify.

        Many North Americans still buy this lie because they believe the 9/11 attacks came directly from the Afghanistan-based al-Qaida and Taliban movements.

        Not true. The 9/11 attacks were planned in Germany and Spain, and conducted mainly by US-based Saudis to punish America for supporting Israel’s repression of the Palestinians.

        Taliban, a militant religious, anti-Communist movement of Pashtun tribesmen, was totally surprised by 9/11. Osama bin Laden, on whom 9/11 is blamed, was in Afghanistan as a guest because he was a national hero for fighting the Soviets in the 1980’s and was aiding Taliban’s struggle against the Afghan Communist-dominated Northern Alliance afterwards.

        Taliban received US aid until May, 2001. The CIA was planning to use Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaida to stir up Muslim Uighurs against Chinese rule, and to employ Taliban against Russia’s Central Asian allies. Most of the so-called `terrorist training camps’ in Afghanistan were being run by Pakistani intelligence to prepare mujahidin fighters for combat in Indian-held Kashmir.

        In 2001, Al-Qaida only numbered 300 members. Most have since been killed. A handful escaped to Pakistan. Only a few remain in Afghanistan. Yet President Obama insists 68,000 or more US troops must stay in Afghanistan to fight al-Qaida and prevent extremists from re-acquiring `terrorist training camps.’

        This claim, like Saddam’s non-existent weapons of mass destruction, is a handy slogan to market war to the public. Today, half of Afghanistan is under Taliban control. Anti-American militants could more easily use Somalia, Indonesia, Bangladesh, North and West Africa, or Sudan. They don’t need remote Afghanistan. The 9/11 attacks were planned in apartments, not camps.

        However backwards and oafish its Pashtun tribesmen, they have no desire or interest in attacking America. Taliban are the sons of the US-backed mujahidin who defeated the Soviets in the 1980’s. Taliban never was America’s enemy. Instead of invading Afghanistan in 2001, the US should have paid Taliban to uproot al-Qaida – as I wrote in the Los Angeles Times in 2001.

        The Pashtun tribes want to end foreign occupation and drive out the Afghan Communists and drug lords, who now dominate the US-installed Kabul regime. But the US has blundered into a full-scale war not just with Taliban, but with most of Afghanistan’s fierce Pashtun tribes, who comprise over half the population.

        This conflict is now spreading into Pashtun regions of Pakistan. Last week, the US Ambassador in Islamabad actually called for US air and missile attacks on the Pakistan’s city of Quetta, where some senior Taliban figures are said to be located.

        The US is sinking ever deeper into the South Asian morass. Washington is trying to arm-twist Pakistan into being more obedient and widening the war against its own independent-minded Pashtun tribes – wrongly called `Taliban.’

        Washington’s incredibly ham-handed efforts to use US $7.5 billion to bribe Pakistan’s feeble, corrupt government and army, take control of military promotions, and get some sort of control over Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal, sparked a firestorm of anger. Pakistan’s soldiers are on the verge of revolt.

        So, too, Washington’s plans to build a 1,000-person fortress embassy in Islamabad, a consulate in Peshawar that will clearly serve as an intelligence base, and the deployment of growing numbers of US mercenaries in Pakistan.

        It’s all a neat circle. Washington says it will need more personnel and a bigger embassy to supervise the distribution of the increased aid to Pakistan, and more mercenaries (aka `contractors’) to protect them.

        President Obama has been under intense pressure to expand the war from flag-waving Republicans, much of the media, and the hawkish national security establishment. Israel’s supporters, including many Congressional Democrats, want to see the US seize Pakistan’s nuclear arms and expand the Afghan war into Iran. Israel’s hawkish foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman, recently identified Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq as the main threats to Israel.

        President Obama should admit Taliban is not and never was a threat to the west; that the wildly exaggerated al-Qaida has been mostly eradicated; and that the US-led war in Afghanistan is causing more damage to US interests in the Muslim world – now 25% of all humanity – than Bin Laden and his few rag-tag allies. The bombing in Madrid and London, and conspiracy in Toronto, were all horribly wrongheaded protests by young Muslims against the Afghan War.

        We are not going to change the way Afghans treat their women by waging war on them, or bring democracy through rigged elections. We are not going to win hearts and minds by imposing a Communist-dominated Kabul regime on pious Muslims, bombing their villages and sending Marines to kick down their doors and violate their homes.

        US Afghan commander Gen. Stanley McChrystal is demanding 40,000-80,000 more troops. Even this number will not win the war in which Washington cannot even define the terms of victory. The only way out of this morass is through a negotiated settlement that enfranchises and includes the Pashtun and their fighting arm, Taliban.

        If the Afghan resistance ever gets modern anti-aircraft and anti-tank missiles, the western occupation forces will be cut off and doomed. Today, they can barely hold on against the lightly-armed Taliban.

        I wish President Obama would just declare victory in Afghanistan, withdraw western forces, and hand over security to a multi-national stabilization force from Muslim nations. Good presidents, like good generals, know when to retreat.

        • Common Man says:

          BF:

          Oil for the lives of our children is another reason to demand our government STOP.

          I was told many years ago by a former Viet-Nam veteran ‘Spook’ that the real reason we went off to Viet Nam was because it has one of the largest off-shore oil reserves in the Asian arena…that true?

          Why in God’s name would we send our children to war for oil when we have so much at home. This maybe an over simplified question, but how many sons and daughters do we need to kill to justify drilling in the gulf, Alaska and offshore? How many spotted owls, swamp mice, and seals need to be saved to equal the life of one son or daughter?

          How many more times must we stick our noses into the affairs of third world nations, before we learn to stay at home and focus on our own problems?

          Here is a radical idea: All those fine young men and women thinking about enlisting in the Armed Forces…don’t. Or, before you take the pledge first talk to one who has walked a couple of patrols, get there impressions of our current approach, and if spending the next 4 years is really serving your country, or if it is serving a moronic government.

          If the young stop enlisting and the Vet’s stop re-enlisting we won’t have anybody to send.

          BTW: The draft is un-Constitutional.

          I don’t mean any disrespect to any who have or are serving; I hold your courage and honor at the highest level. You are all REAL Heros! But if this government is really sending our children into a war they cannot, or won’t be allowed to win, for oil, then those in congress can just plan go to hell!!!!!!

          Sorry to vent, but somedays you just got to ask “What the f…?”

          CM

          • CM

            You have every right to vent, and I am with you on this war bit. I don’t and can’t believe that so many have died for oil, when we have plenty right here in our backyard so to speak.

            Here I heard on our local news, that recruitment’s have gone up, instead of down, go figure. I think a lot of them are signing up because they can not find work, or afford to go to school and that’s why they are joining the military. To get an education, a trade, and a steady paycheck.

          • It is not so much the matter that North America is awash with oil….

            …its that controlling energy, no matter where in the world, controls the economic hearts of other nations.

            Mercantilism at its finest.

      • CM:

        I did not see the 60 minute interview. Remember, I have no TV. While staying with a friend on fishing trip I did get to watch the entire Lonesome Dove movie over two nights. While at other friends we watched Florida whip LSU.

        Rumsfeld said immediately following our action in Afghanistan that this would take 20 years or more. He restated the same thing when we entered Iraq. Regardless of what else you think of the guy I believe he was trying to tell the American public what the reality of the situation was.

        Nobody wanted to hear it at the time.

  14. BF:

    Just lost a wonderful reply to the ethernet. Well here goes a shorter version.

    I disagree that efforts to increase voter turnout is “a ploy” to increase legitimacy of the existing govt, or situation. Most folks who push this agenda actually believe the result will be a more representative govt, one that reflects the “true” values of average Americans. They are idealists and lack any form of Reasoned thought in this position but it is not a “ploy” so to speak.

    Regardless of the motivation, participation does impart some legitimacy to the outcome. Not to the extent it might in a one sided negotiation process, but it does give the winner some backing in this department.

    NOT VOTING would require a massive and abrupt movement to be effective. A turnout of 20 to 30% is enough for the winners to rationalize their victory as a “mandate” by the “educated and well informed”. Without a massive response to a NO VOTE effort, the politicians would just continue handing out cookies to those who DID vote. By the time you got enough NO VOTERS to particpate the whole game would be lost. I know you think it probably is already but lets try to be a little strategic here.

    I offer this as an alternative. Those who want to vote need to get the “None of the Above” option included on your state ballots. That includes Congressional races. Ideally, require a new election if N/A wins. Otherwise just get it on the ballot.

    Politicians fear losing to N/A much more than winning 51% of a 25% total voter turnout. Nothing says “your are not legitimate” like a vote of “None of the Above”.

    Those who read this site must grasp one constant in this debate about voting. DO NOT ACCEPT any Party’s nominee as your choice if you ABSOLUTELY DO NOT SHARE THEIR VALUE AND THE VALUE OF THE PARTY. And I do not mean 50% consistant. I mean absolutely share, or vast majority shared. Differences should be on only very small issues. Like whether the budget should be balanced in 5 or 7 years. It is the CORE values that you must discover and then RUN THE OTHER WAY if they are not consistent with Individual Freedom, Liberty and Justice for All.

    If you wish to vote, and you think voting will make a difference then I offer you this one other fact. It will only matter if you get involved in the selection of candidates and actively support (work/time/money) the candidate you want to win. JUST VOTING IS NOT ENOUGH TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE.

    DIFFERENCE MAKER No. 3: STOP giving money to any of the major parties or special interest groups, unless you do in fact support the majority of what that party or group stands for. CUT OFF THE MONEY. Talk to your company managers, write letters to CEO’s and the Board of Directors. Tell them to CUT OFF THE MONEY to the parties and to all special interest groups, including your own, until our govt wakes up. You see, stopping the flow of money may be easier than getting 80% of the people to not vote. MONEY should be given to individuals, not groups, and it should be given BY individuals.

    Enough for now. Warming trend today. All the way up to 30.
    Hope Everyone is Well Today.
    JAC

    • I disagree that efforts to increase voter turnout is “a ploy” to increase legitimacy of the existing govt, or situation. Most folks who push this agenda actually believe the result will be a more representative govt, one that reflects the “true” values of average Americans. They are idealists and lack any form of Reasoned thought in this position but it is not a “ploy” so to speak.

      So your argument to why all political parties in every election go and spend millions of dollars urging the vote is a matter of idealism!

      :blink:

      I would like to read a link that backup your political theory for this incredible claim.

      Regardless of the motivation, participation does impart some legitimacy to the outcome. Not to the extent it might in a one sided negotiation process, but it does give the winner some backing in this department.

      It gives the winner all the backing – not ‘some’.

      A government without a mandate is either a lame duck, or tyrannical – both lead to an establishment of a new government, in one manner or another, that is legitimate to the people.

      NOT VOTING would require a massive and abrupt movement to be effective. A turnout of 20 to 30% is enough for the winners to rationalize their victory as a “mandate” by the “educated and well informed”.

      Please demonstrate your contention by providing a government that can hold power with merely 30% voter turnout.

      None exists. Even modern tyrannies like North Korea require voter turnout – even if such turnout is forced at gun point.

      Without a massive response to a NO VOTE effort, the politicians would just continue handing out cookies to those who DID vote. By the time you got enough NO VOTERS to particpate the whole game would be lost. I know you think it probably is already but lets try to be a little strategic here.

      No politician in modern Western politics has ever survived a meager turnout vote. Even a small majority of turnout voters is insufficient to carry a government – it is a powerful – in fact the most powerful – delegitimizing attack on a government.

      To argue the opposite, you must provide reasoning against these following facts

      (1) extensive advertising to promote voting
      (2) political concern of dropping voter turnout
      (3) voting requirements in tyrannies such a North Korea, USSR and Nazi Germany
      (4) the power and strategy behind ‘voter boycotts’

      If your contention was correct, none of these factual occurrences and events would matter.

      Yet, they are core discussions upon the actions and discussion of all governments.

      I offer this as an alternative. Those who want to vote need to get the “None of the Above” option included on your state ballots. That includes Congressional races. Ideally, require a new election if N/A wins. Otherwise just get it on the ballot.

      Politicians fear losing to N/A much more than winning 51% of a 25% total voter turnout. Nothing says “your are not legitimate” like a vote of “None of the Above”.

      It might be a reasonable possibility – though currently there exists no legal way to provide a non-candidate on any ballot.

      To get on a ballot requires certain documentation to prove identity, citizenship and residency. I cannot see how a non-vote option could overcome this.

      It would take a significant change in elections law. Probably the extent of that effort would be equal to changing the entire system of government anyway.

      • BF

        Sorry for delayed response. Had to run to butcher shop to give them the specifications for cutting up my dead steer.

        First. My comment about motivations for legitimacy was specific to that group you mentioned that push for increased turnout for the sake of increased turnout. My point is that they are not motivated by some inate need to legitimize govt. They want legitimacy in a different sense. Namely they want everyone to vote because they think then that a majority of 100% is more representative of America. They fail to realize that on any given day and any given set of issues there is no such thing as a majority or “American Opinion”. It changes all the time.

        The two parties seek greater turnout in order to first WIN and second to claim legitimacy in their victory. Here I agree to an extent with your assessment.

        Where I differ is your assumption that “legitimacy” is needed in the USA as it is sought after by other countries. Especially those that are not representative or democratic in nature. Their need for legitimacy stems from fear of Coup and need for outside recognition. Thus your Afghan example fits here.

        I think you ignore the culture and phsycology of US Citizens regarding the effect voting has on legitimacy. I certainly don’t see any govts failing due to low turnout. I am guessing that voter turnout during the first years of this country were near or less than 30%. Yet the govt was not made ineffective. And that is the measure I am using. Does the percieved lack of legitimacy reduce the effectiveness of Govt to impose its will upon us?

        As for the 30% number, I just threw it out there as an example. But as you asked I went back and checked on voter turnout in US elections since about 1980. There are several States that have had 30% or less turnout in non-presidential elections. Yet those State govt’s continued to function and were not viewed as illegitimate. Mississippi hit a low of 20.2% in 1990, yet continued to function as usual. USA total turnout in 1986 was 38.1% and 41.1% in 1994.

        My claims about motivations and use of voting for legitimacy are based on my experience in the political arena. Your stated facts do occur but they may or may not play a role in any given situation. As I said, the motivations of Parties for turnout is different than those who are on a mission to reach 100%. Everyone who has an agenda assumes that increasing turnout will increase their chances of winning.

        There may be some threshold where turnout would affect Govt but in this country it would be very low and would have to occur over a long time frame, in my opinion. At present we would just go about our business getting screwed by Govt and complaining about it.

        When banging this concept around we need to recognize differences in the cultures and situation of other countries compared to USA and other democratically elected govts. We also need to recognize the difference between Federal, State and local govts. I would bet that the vast majority of local govts are elected with less than 40% of total eligible vote.

        And to be specific here. I am not discounting the Govt’s desire and/or need for legitimacy and that voting does impart such. The thresholds for what that is vary greatly.

        Some states already have the N/A option, or at least they did. However, it is not binding in that the second place guy gets the seat. Election laws are hard to change but easier than the entire system, because the States control the election laws. If we can affect change there then we are on our way to changing the system.

        As I have said many times before. In order to resurrect this country, the one where liberty was the key value, we need to control 75% of the State legislatures. NOT VOTING will not make that happen. Neither will voting for one of the two jackasses provided by the circus masters.

  15. Common Man says:

    Mathius, BF, JAC;

    The number of voters or non-voters does in fact make a difference provided it is a subject of debate and/or the media addresses it as an issue. We (the people) need to make sure it is a subject and it is addressed as an issue. We need to let everyone that will listen know that we are selecting “None of the Above” because….I suggest it be an all incompassing reason like “WE NO LONGER TRUST ANYONE IN WASHINGTON TO REPRESENT US!”

    Stop the cash flow is an excellent idea and a good place to start. Instead of ignoring those mailings, phone calls and other solicitations sent by our non-representing representatives, respond with a specific response. “You and your peers, the tyrannical government you have developed, and the acts against the Constitution are no longer acceptable and will not be tolerated. I will not vote for you or your opponent, but I will cast my vote for ‘none of the above’ as action declaring my liberty and freedom against an oppressing government.”

    I agree with JAC along the lines of supporting someone that believes as you do and will cast a vote in support of that 1 or 2 individuals. But at the same time I will let those individuals know that should they ‘go to the dark side’ I will withdrawl my support and at the same time use every legal method available to me to inform all that will listen that person violated the voters, and should be shunned.

    A 20-30 % “none of the above” turn out can help to turn the tide. It starts at the local level and builds from there. The key is in the numbers and how we make those numbers known.

    CM

  16. Common Man says:

    BF;

    This is not part of today’s discussion, but wanted your thoughts on alternatives to Gold. Is Silver as safe and secure? What about jewels and diamonds? Relative to either gold or silver what are your thoughts about rare coins versus ingots; is one a smarter buy than the other?

    Also if you are going to buy metals (gold/Silver) should you insist on getting and having them in your possesion, or is a certificate secure?

    I appreciate your thoughts

    CM

    • Common Man
      Comment:

      This is not part of today’s discussion, but wanted your thoughts on alternatives to Gold. Is Silver as safe and secure?

      Silver has good and bad points, IMO.

      Good Point: smaller denominations – easier to sell for quick, small cash needs. This can be a bad point, too – it takes a lot of silver to equal one ounce of gold for transportability.

      Bad Point: incredibly volatile – it largest use is industrial, then second as jewelery, then a distant third as a store of wealth.

      Gold is far less volatile – as it’s first use is jewelery followed by a close second as a store of wealth and a very distant third as an industrial metal.

      So silver and gold are ‘decoupled’ – that is, they are not dependent on the same conditions for increase or decrease in prices.

      I have a lot of silver, for small transactions, but vastly more gold in ratio ( like 50 to 1 Gold to Silver in value)

      What about jewels and diamonds?

      I am now talking about me, personally.

      I do not have the skill or practice to know the difference between a ‘good’ diamond and a ‘bad’ diamond.

      I depend on a reputable dealer who tells me his opinion. I can take that same diamond to another reputable dealer, and I will get a different opinion on its quality.

      In diamonds and jewelry, quality equals value.

      But I have no personal skill to determine what is quality or not quality and have to rely on a third party. Will that third party be trusted in a time of crisis?

      An oz. of gold is an oz. of gold.

      That is easy for me.

      So I, personally, stick to what I can establish, objectively, for myself. Others may be better skilled in regards to jewelry, so it may make more sense to them to invest in precious gems.

      (This is also way I do not like competitive figure skating. I cannot tell a great move vs. a really good move. I can only tell if they fall down equals “bad”. So, the whole sport is too subjective for my taste.)

      Relative to either gold or silver what are your thoughts about rare coins versus ingots; is one a smarter buy than the other?

      Again, rare coins are valuable to coin collectors. How many coin collectors are there compared to the total population? That would be your market.

      Common Joe would look at a 1932 Gold Eagle 1oz. coin, face value $20, as if it was either a) $20 or b) 1 oz. of Gold. He would not see a coin so rare to be worth $5 million.

      Ingots vs. gold coin. Selling an ingot would entail a longer transaction. Because anyone could remelt an ingot with impurities, it would need to be assayed. This takes time and a fee.

      A gold coin is far easier. Most dealers have a mechanical device to prove authenticity.

      Every major coin has a specific diameter for its weight. The dealer takes the “Maple Leaf” mechanical weight and drops the coin in the slot. The coin must fit precisely in the slot, and balance at that same time.

      If there was an impurity, the coin would need to be bigger to carry the weight, and would not fit in the slot OR would fit in the slot but be lighter, and would not balance. It is simple, with no fee, no significant time to prove authenticity.

      However! There is a large numismatic fee on a coin, vs. on an ingot. BUT! That fee is carried forward from buyer to seller on every transaction, so usually it evens out.

      Thus, for ease of selling, I like coins. For very long term holdings, I like ingots.

      Also if you are going to buy metals (gold/Silver) should you insist on getting and having them in your possesion, or is a certificate secure?

      A certificate is a promise to deliver.

      In a crisis, how much power do you have to enforce that promise? What happens if no one can find the issuer of that certificate, due to bankruptcy or a fraudster on the run?

      I like the feel of gold in my hand.

      • Common Man says:

        BF;

        Thanks for your thoughts and input.

        CM

      • Just so you know, there are EFTs for all sorts of cool stuff.. I’m been looking at a water ETF, a power ETF, and there’s even a uranium ETF. This lets you trade against things you can’t possibly take delivery of.

        But flag is correct, in the total collapse of society, a promise to deliver is useless.

        That said, since society isn’t going to collapse, it’s fine.

        • Be careful with ETF’s – most do NOT take delivery, but are certificate based as well.

          So, now you have a promise to deliver a promise to deliver gold (or some commodity).

          There are times to sell gold — not many, but some. There are reasons to sell gold — not many, but some. There are reasons for holding gold coins and claims to gold (you hope).

          I cannot see reasons for buying gold in such forms as an ETF.

          Here is my thinking.

          First, gold coins leave fewer digital trails. If you buy and hold, you retain considerable privacy.

          Second, a legal claim to gold may not be enforceable in a major crisis, such as a currency crisis or a major terrorist attack.

          An ETF may not have hedged its position by holding gold bullion. Only Canada’s GTU fund does.

          This is why I like GTU for a retirement fund, assuming the fund holds gold.

          Third, coins are easily passed down to heirs.

          Fourth, there is a higher transaction fee for buying and selling coins. If you need money fast, sell the exchange-traded legal claim.

          Fifth, if there ever were a really life-threatening breakdown of the banking system, coins would function as money at some point in the rebuilding phase. In the midst of such a breakdown, a safe location and tools will count for more than gold. That is not the time to sell coins except as a last resort.

          Gold comes in several forms. Think through what form will be most valuable under which conditions.

          Gold coins are the ultimate buy-and-hold investment. Buy and sell other forms of gold for speculation purposes.

          • I sure hope the Uranium ETF won’t let you take delivery….

            Agree with the safe location and tools, would add the below mentioned stockpile of dog food and ammunition.

            First thing to do during the collapse is loot your nearest vitamin shop. Take all the multivitamins you can get your hands on. The idiots will go for the massage chair in Brookstones, but they forget that the power will also be gone soon. Make sure to have your ammo in advance, because that’s not a good store to try to loot. The grocery store is going to look like a Kosovo, so be stocked before hand. You should have at least 5 years of Britta filters and Iodine tablets as well. Also, stockpile antibiotics if you have the means – they have a shelf life, but they’re still probably better than nothing afterward. Remember, manual tools, you want the essentials: two good claw hammers, several saws, 40+ boxes of nails (various sizes), chisel, pick axe, machete, crow bar. Kerosene is also a good idea, or butane, unless you really like rubbing sticks together.

            • For fire starting, check out firesteels. They are fairly cheap, so I would buy extra (especially of the little tiny one), I think they would be a good barter item.

              http://firesteel.com/

              Amazon has some also, as well as other sites.

          • Oh, and seeds. That’s the big one. Bags of seeds. I’m not sure how, but you should make sure that they’ll preserve for a while so you can plant in the spring.

            • For seeds, you want the open pollinated varieties. That way you can save seeds from year to year, in the event food become scarce.

              Also, you will need to preserve that garden produce, get a pressure canner and learn how to use it. Oh, and stock up on jars, lids and bands, especially lids, you cannot reuse the lids. You will need LOTS of lids.

            • Many seeds can be stored at near freezing temps for more than a year. Make sure it is dry. Mold is a no, no.!!!

              But each season in storage reduces the viability. Thus it takes more seed for the same crop.

        • Mathius,

          What makes you so sure society won’t collapse? I don’t think it’ll collapse in the near future but if the economy continues down the hole, all bets are off. Have you been reading BF’s posting of When Money Dies? If you haven’t, I suggest you do. Its a lot to take in but is well worth the effort. Kudos to BF for posting the link.

          • When I bought insurance for my apartment, they offered me flood insurance. There were two options: basic and premium. Basic covers all manner of stuff.. the boiler leaks, the sink overflows etc. The premium version covered all that plus rising flood waters. Rising flood water, you see, is the far more dangerous and damaging of the two, thus premium.

            I opted for basic.

            Now, why would someone as paranoid as myself not opt to protect himself from rising flood waters? Because I live on the fifth floor of my apartment building, and if the rising flood waters reach the fifth floor, we have far bigger problems.

            If society collapses, then gold will not save you. Historical parallels be as they may, there are 6.5 BILLION people on this rock and we are not all surviving the collapse. Period. My money would no more save me than it did the passengers on the Titanic who tried to buy their way onto the lifeboats in the movie. If you have food, you’ll hoard it. If I have “money” it’s not worth the risk of starving through the winter to you. No price is sufficient. You can’t eat gold. If you think society is collapsing, stock up on canned dog food and a ammunition – you’ll need both. Dog food has all the vitamins and nutrition that a human body requires, otherwise you’ll need supplements or risk scurvy. And you’ll need the ammo to protect what you have. I’d also suggest a CB radio, tons of batteries, a generator, and a few odds and ends.

            Oh, and with regards to my apartment, I just went to contract on a house! I’m about 2 months away from being a home owner!

            • Congratulations on the future home ownership.
              The ammo is a good ideal, when talking about gold and silver, any ammo or firearm is a viable trade good. Funny, lead is now a precious metal.

            • Guns are fine for now, but in the long run, it’s a bow and arrow or sword that you want. You want to either have unlimited ammo, or replaceable ammo. Nobody is going to be making new rounds for you – and if they are, it won’t come cheap.

              You don’t want the gun for trade, you’ll want it to hold off the hordes who immediately organize to rape and pillage.

              And remember, only silver bullets can kill Rahm Emanuel or Barney Frank. You could try some kind of tracer round, with Pelosi, but I think your best bet there is to run.

              • Just a thought for the not to accurate shooters. Put a drop of mercury in a hollowpoint, cover with hot wax let dry. If the bullit don’t kill’em, the mercury poison does the trick just fine!

                G!

              • I’m telling you, it just won’t work on the House Leadership.. you need something stronger.. Hell, before he died, Kennedy used to mix his scotch with mercury just for kicks.

                Mortar rounds maybe?

              • Dear Government Surveillance Program,

                Please know that we here on this site to not advocate for any violence in any form against anyone for any reason. The previous statements were made in an ironic tone with the intention of being humorous and should be viewed as such.

                Also, please know that I am a card carrying liberal and member of WALNUT who is trying to convert the heathens of this site. Take them, not me! I’m on your side.. honest.. Obama, Obama, he’s our man, if he can’t do it, no one can! See? Please tell Pelosi I was only kidding… honest.. gulp..

                Sincerely,
                Mathius

              • Matt, If you havn’t noticed, noone is listening to us, and havn’t been for years, But CYA anyway.

              • Yea, but I just looked out my window and saw Harry Reed sitting in a parked car across the street pretending to reed a newspaper.. Then he quickly drove off.

              • You should have thrown a rock at him.

              • To quote a great movie:

                “How can you shoot [or throw a rock at] the devil? What if you miss?”

                Two points to whoever names the movie.

              • bottom line says:

                “How do you shoot the devil in the back? What if you miss?”

                The Usual Suspects

              • Matt:

                Ghostbusters!!!

                Its “how can you shoot the devil in the back? What if you miss?”

              • Correct, you are awarded two points, bring your total score up to -12,626,983,417.

              • No, JAC, BL was correct. Fortunately, you still have many more points than him. I must, unfortunately subtract two points for the incorrect response as in JEOPARY!. I think your current score is around 8.

          • Cyndi P:

            Could you re-post the link for “When Money Dies”. I did not see this.

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      Gold is rare in that there is not much of it on the planet.

      Diamonds are rare in that DeBeers has all of them and will not tell anyone how many billions of karats there would be if there was a free market of diamonds.

      In an economic crisis, people will still recognize the gold coin as having value. If the crisis is big enough, you will get more money for the gold ring than you will for the rock sitting in the setting.

      Gold and silver coins are RECOGNIZED EXCHANGE MECHANISMS, that is, they can be readily traded for the things that you want in most economic situations.

      Diamonds are not an exchange mechanism. In an economic crisis, you could potentially have a very hard time trading diamonds to anyone for anything.

  17. USW, just read your post. I have to say I agree with a lot of what you said. I also feel the two parties are two sides of the same coin. We might be at opposite ends of a possible solution but it’s good to see people start to drop the two party solution.

    Hope all is well by all of yous.

    naive question here: What was all that stuff about BF tributes? I’m in the dark (try to suppress the obvious one liners to follow that) …

  18. bottom line says:

    I interupt this regularly scheduled topic for an unimportant yet interesting message.

    I just wanted to share something that I thought was a little odd.

    I was going out to my truck a few weeks ago when I passed by the living room TV. There was some cartoon with kids talking about how they are free to do whatever it is that they were planning because they are free in America. One of the children added by very excitingly saying that “it’s not just America…it’s NORTH America!”

    Was this cartoon suggesting that there are other countries that are free?
    No, because it would have included many others.
    Was it suggesting that north america is the only free place on earth?
    No, because that’s not even close to true.
    Was it about the freedoms of the US?
    No, because they would have just agreed that america is free or used “UNITED STATES” instead of America.
    Was it subtly indoctrinating a ten year old audience to accept and support the NAU when they are 20 something?

    I think so. But I only got a chance to see a minute or two of it.

    I’ll try to find the cartoon on utube in hopes that someone saw what I did.

  19. Ray, I told you I would quote Chris Matthews if he ever said anything I agreed with. Surprise, surprise.

    “Then Matthews declared that the stimulus was nothing more than a Democratic-controlled Congress using a bad economic situation to force through items they couldn’t get passed with a Republican in the White House and/or the Republicans controlling one of the two houses of Congress.

    “But it didn’t go to construction projects, which people could smell and see,” Matthews said. “I believe that’s what bugs people, and that’s why Pelosi’s not popular. She’s not popular because she presided over the creation of a big grab bag of stuff – from condoms to god knows what. No, I’m serious.”

    http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jeff-poor/2009/10/13/chris-matthews-rude-awakening-787-billion-stimulus-big-grab-bag-stuff

    Did he really say that “from condoms to god knows what”?

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      Other than the fact he is a Phillies fan for which I give him props, Matthews consistently proves to be a windbag. Wish he would have run for Congress so he could lose the race and lose his show.

  20. BF

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think the US has the right to control other countries for anything. Am I wrong in thinking this way?

    • Hi Judy!

      I would agree with you. This government has things so screwed up it’s nuts. If they takeover healthcare, I think I’ll take up Voodoo, then I can fix em.

      G!

      • Hi G

        You take up voodoo, hell I’ll even help make the little dolls for ya. If they take over health care, then I see a lot of doctors walking out of their profession, then we are in trouble for sure. I just hope Matthew isn’t getting in the wrong profession here.

        Hope your day has been good for ya.

        • Judy, what’s the deal with BF’s tribute. I’m in the dark.

          • Charlie, Are you talking about Friday night?

            • I think so. I’m not sure I understand what was happeing (a tragic flaw most of my adult life).

              • I can explain. Music is a big part of my life, love it dearly. As I have come to know people on this site, sometimes I listen to a song that reminds of one of the posters. That song just reminded me of Black Flag so I put it up in an act of respect and kindness. A hobby of sorts, I hope to find a song for everyone that frequents here. It’s just for fun, and relax the debate alittle.

                I’ve come to really enjoy talking with everyone here, very enlightening. Don’t worry, I’ll find one for you, and it will be nice as well!

                G!

              • Sounds good to me already :).

                I play drums … let’s start a band!

          • Hey Charlie

            G started it, I went along with it because I have a lot of admiration for Black Flag, and I wanted to put how I felt and thoughts down as well,and I wanted BF to know that. But I think he already knew.

            We had some really good talks, some maybe more intense than others like putting prisoners to death and stuff. Plus some other talks when nobody else as on, and we just started about things. I have learned a lot from him and I just wanted him to know that, and I didn’t care who knew what I thought and felt about him, \

            I find him to be very knowledgeable with what he brings to the table, and if I have any questions, he has always answered me to where I can understand him.

            That was my tribute to him and I wanted him to know that.

            Judy

  21. OLYMPIA SNOWE, YOU GOTTA GOWE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  22. Today’s song is for everyone who gives a damn about this great nation of ours!

    • bottom line says:

      Saw Ozzy with Alice In Chains and Sepultura. Awsome show. Ozzy rules! Rock on G-man!

      • BL, Music has played a huge roll in my life. It has helped get through alot of tough times. I love the motivation some songs provide, especially when you going into potential hell. Saw these guys early in ’92 at the Boathouse in Va Beach. They had alot of fun rockin. With that said, I dedicate this song to you!

        Enjoy

        G!

    • Sorry G, I can’t make out anything what he says except for Hellraiser.

  23. Mathius

    I’m sure I’m wrong here, but I’ll take a guess and say Ghost Rider. It dealt with that.

    • bottom line says:

      “How do you shoot the devil in the back? What if you miss?”

      The Usual Suspects

      • Sorry guys.

        Its Ghostbusters

        • Sorry JAC, but it looks like Bottom Line wins.

          Now that is so strange. I Googled the quote at it came up attributed to Ghosbusters on the first round and The Usual Suspects on the second try. Something funny going on at Google?

          I’ll accept my 2 pt deduction with humility Matt.

          • bottom line says:

            JAC,

            When I saw that you had posted that above, I thought that I was wrong because ghostbusters(1984) was made before the usual suspects(1995). If that was said in Ghostbusters, then matt and I are both wrong and you are right. Right?

            • BL”

              I think you got it. I ran the search several more times and never got the ghostbusters reference again. I think I might have misread the search results or someone had something screwy. I did get The Devil Wears Prada several different times by shortening the phrase.

              But The Usual Suspects comes up most often so I’ll take my punishment.

              You got braggin rights until next time. Did come across this one though.

              “How can we use sex to get what we want when sex is what we want?”

              You seemed a little testy this morning. Has the quickening taken hold of you also?

  24. I would like to answer Mathis 2 things, 1. I was in the military u.s. marine corps. female, I served entire time at Camp Lejeune and El Toro, No injuries. But in 1973 Congress passed a bill that veterans with honorable discharge could and would be considered for injuries not service related. Well, mine is osteoporosis related, a completely crushed vetebrae, VA Doctor said so crushed would never regenerate. Also I was a Democrat for 47 years, when I suddenly noticed just what Democrats were doing to our government, so thanks to O”Reilly, I changed to Independent and I try to vote only for the character of the person. I don’t really think the voting people had much of a choice in the last election, but guess what Acorn went in and did their thing. After seeing an Acorn fellow saying he had registered 77 people, (not sure who voted with those registrations) but he also said he was paid 5.00 each for these and that is quite good money. I don’t like Obama, in my humble 85 year old opinion, the only way to take back our government is to covertly take him out, put him someplace he cannot harm anybody else. 15 million unemployed, do the Democrats not have a brain, if these people can’t pay taxes, because they are unemployed and he made them this way, I do think Beck is correct, complacency(sp) is robbing our country of its freedom. yours as well as others.

    • bottom line says:

      Goldie – “…the only way to take back our government is to covertly take him out,…”

      lol.

  25. Doing some searching and found this video, put to music. These are the folks that were a part of my life for quite some time. In the middle of the video, one jet has the tail letters FF, that vid was shot in Saudi during the first Gulf War, I was with them. I got to fly in one in ’92 and do all the tricks and stuff, sure brought back some memories!

    So, I will share:

    G!

    • Great video G, I love watching jets and planes like that flying. Maybe it’s because my dad was in the Air Force, and later on, he used to take us kids flying, I don’t know, can’t explain it. When the Ari races were here last month, I was just memorized watching them all, especially the Blue Angels, they were absolutely fabulous.

      Thanks for sharing that.

  26. The Senate Finance Committee is voting on health care today. After five months of vigorous and often acerbic debate, lawmakers in Congress are still managing to get it wrong. Not only that, they’re leaving many concerns unaddressed and lots of problems unresolved. Here’s what you need to know as we watch Congress embark on a roller coaster ride that will last for weeks:

    #1. Questions Still Remain — What About Taxes?

    Many lawmakers remain unconvinced that most of the plans that Congress will mandate will be affordable. The Senate and the House are also at odds on how to pay for the legislation, with the Senate preferring a tax on high-value insurance policies as the primary source of revenue, and House leaders favoring a surcharge on millionaires. Democrats on the far left want to impose fines on companies that do not provide coverage to their employees and middle of the road Democrats favoring a more toned down model.

    #2. This Is Just the Beginning

    Keep in mind that despite the hype over today’s Finance Committee hearing, the Baucus bill is not the final product. After the vote, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will summon both Senators Baucus and Dodd — the author of another piece of legislation that moved through the Senate Health Committee in July — to his office discuss options about how to reach a compromise.

    #3. Keep Your Eye On These Lawmakers

    Senator Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) and liberal Republican Senator Olympia Snowe (Maine) are the two women to watch. It’s likely they will vote for the Baucus bill, and when they do it will send a message that the principles included in the bill will likely be the ones that Democrats will be forced to defend in the 2010 midterm elections to their constituents. With 13 Democrats and 10 Republicans on the committee, Baucus can only afford to lose one member of his party if Republicans vote to block his bill.

    #4. Speaker Pelosi’s Role

    Typically the House votes first on legislation and then sends a bill to the Senate. But this time it was different. The House needed to go second because it was unlikely that House moderates and Blue Dog Democrats would cast their vote on controversial legislation that might never make it through the Senate, let alone become law.

    There’s no question Speaker Nancy Pelosi wanted to go first. Her liberal penchant is for the House to lead (in other words, for her to lead the charge) and set the marker by which every piece of policy is judged going forward. But the legislative reality was different. The Speaker simply didn’t have the votes. And she decided early on in the health care fight to cut the vote pool in half by making this a partisan bill, winnable only with Democratic votes (we knew that was the endgame at the beginning, but she sure went there quickly).

    She still believes this is a “message win” for her party. That’s why she’s gone gangbusters. Watch her misstep on the public option since she’s so blind to public opinion on this point in particular.

    #5. Plenty of Doubts Persist

    Despite a public outcry for smart health care reform and less government control, the bill in consideration still reflects a move to give the government more control of one sixth of our economy and our health care decisions, along with original concerns like ballooning costs, mandates and subsidies. And guess what else awaits? Every bill put forth on health care would result in higher taxes.

    While there is a manufactured sense of extreme urgency to get something done, it’s crucial that our lawmakers in both houses get it done correctly. Keep in mind that even if the Baucus bill passes the Finance Committee today, the fight is far from over, and Congress is still far from getting it right.

  27. According to Matt, she isn’t human ;)

    Born with half a brain, woman living full life

    http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/10/12/woman.brain/index.html

    • She’s just as human as you and me. Just because she was born with only a half of brain, look at what she’s accomplished. I can’t understand how some people can think she’s not human. What were they suppose to do, just let her die.

      Why do you say according to Matt, she’s not human?

      • Just one of his past “proofs” of personhood required brains.

        • He does have a way about him doesn’t he. I was trying to explain something to him today, but he kept questioning me about it. Like I didn’t know what I was talking about. I think G answered him to where he could understand. Don’t know if you saw it or not, but it was kind of bugging me that he had his doubts.

        • Average White Guy says:

          Sounds like a half-brained idea to me. (ouch)

  28. Reminds me of the “surveys” I get from the NRA. They present a false dichotomy to try to get the respondents to agree with them. I used to write my own answers. Now I just throw them away. NRA: America’s largest gun control organization.

  29. I would like to pay a special tribute to our President and current and past members of congress. You can foll some of the people some of time, but ya can’t fool all of us!!!!

  30. Matt, If what I wrote earlier is hard to grasp, maybe this will help:

    Stay Free!

    G!

  31. I would like to say something here for Matt and others who might not believe what the Vets and their families have to say here. Why do you feel you have to question everything they say? Why do you doubt it? If you haven’t been in the military, been where they have been, done what they have done, and seen what they have seen, why do you question that?

    It’s the same for the families of those who have served, are serving and will serve in the future. You can’t possibly know how we feel, what we think, and have been there with them when they tell us everything that has happened to them while over seas. When we hear the stories about those who have been wounded, killed or missing, our hearts , at least mine anyway, just sinks, the tears, the heart ache of losing a loved one, is beyond anything you can imagine. You don’t want to believe it, but you know you must.

    When you question about whether or not they deserve to have VA care, it makes me wonder how you or any one else can possibly think that way. Just because they might not have seen combat, they still served this country to protect you and others from harm, and when they are honorably discharged, they get the care they need from the VA

    Take it from this mom who has been there when her son was in harms way. Yes, We were lucky he came home in one piece after doing two tours, but think of those families that weren’t so lucky. The ones who had to bury their son’s, daughters, uncles brother’s, cousins, friends, and so on. I find it insulting that you can even ask that question.

    I hope you will be more understanding when G, Common Man, or anybody else tries to make you understand better what they and the families have gone through. I may not have worded this very good, but I was speaking from my heart and telling you how I feel,and I hope it helps you to understand.

    Judy

    • Well said Judy! I will end my night with just one more. A moment forever etched in my mind!

      I do want to say that I went off on this subject tonight, and to USW and everyone else, I’ll try to do better tomorrow. For some reason, I have much on my mind about our brothers and sisters overseas that are in harms way, so I just did what I do best, lay it on the line. I will sleep tonight with a worried heart, but a strong one.

      Here’s God Bless America:

    • I believe Matt was trying to understand what constituted the difference between entitlements allocated to military personal and those allocated to civilians.

      I see his point – it appears government largess is offered “over here” as a RIGHT, but denied “over there” under the excuse “government money shouldn’t be used that way”.

      His point – either government money is redistributed from taxation to the People, or it is not. He sees the ‘military’ exception as a hole in the argument against welfare – which is commonly my point as well.

      If you allow the introduction of an exception – that is it “ok” to steal money to give to Veterans, then he can justify stolen loot to give to the poor.

      Once one exception leaks in to accept an immoral action – everything can be an exception.

      “Thou shalt not steal, except by majority vote” is the greatest sin of this country.

      • Don’t know if you’ll see this or not, but, I was only saying what I felt in my heart BF. I do not wish to go into this matter with you because all we’ll do is dance around it. You feel one way, and I feel another, and no matter what either of us says, will only go around in circles.

        • The point, Judy, is that if someone wishes to argue rationally (that is, using reason rising from a premise), you must be prepared to defend that position consistently.

          Halfway through your defense, if you suddenly ‘switch sides’ because you are ‘following your heart’ and now support precisely what you have been arguing against, you must expect everyone else around you to start ‘scratching their heads’.

          Such a flip-flop devastates all of your earlier complaints.

          This is Matt’s point.

          Matt and Charlie are following their hearts too – so why does your heart win, and their hearts lose?

          On one hand – you passionately argue that “the welfare bums” shouldn’t get government loot. Then, suddenly, you argue “these guys” SHOULD get government loot.

          With arguments like that, you must expect that you will lose – you will either lose that latter argument; thus, your ‘guys’ will no longer get the loot – OR you will lose the former argument;thus, those that you do not like getting the loot, will get the loot.

          No matter which way to toss the ball, you will lose your argument, and be disappointed – no matter what. That’s the problem with contradictions – you simply cannot beat the Universe.

          It is very difficult to live within a framework of consistency to one’s principles – often, things are suddenly in your benefit – but wholly against your core principles – will tempt you.

          It is very hard to step aside and watch wealth and riches, immorally provided, pass by; especially so when you are in a position of desperation (personal experience).

          So, don’t be surprised if Matt keeps pulling these arguments against you regarding military benefits whenever your rail against welfare benefits.

          He has a trump card now. He gets to use his heart as an argument now too.

          • Will answer in a bit.

          • Okay BF, do you think that I contradicted myself, and if yes, where? I don’t recall saying anywhere in my statement that these bums don’t deserve it, then turn around and say they do. Where did I say that?

            I am not saying I won, and they lost, I was merely saying what I believe. All I was saying is, that the Veterans deserve to have full benefits, that even includes you too BF, after all, are you not a veteran? Why do you consider that thievery? I don’t understand that. Isn’t that what the VA is for, to take care of the vets?

            Why is it that when I say anything I feel and say it with a passion as you say, or from the heart, why do you question me on that? And why do you say that I will lose the argument, if we are merely debating on what each of us think or feel? Is there not anything that can be said without you thinking that it’s being stolen from somebody else, or that they didn’t earn it, or that they deserve it?

            Sure what I said was with passion and from the heart because this is something I feel very close to. If it’s so wrong to get benefits from the VA, then why do they even have it?

            Now, I suppose you’re going to tell me that I contradicted myself again, aren’t you. See, this is why I don’t like having these debates with you because you make me feel that everything I say is wrong. Certain things I will discuss with you and certain things I can’t because like I said, we don’t seem to agree, and it just seems to go round and round. You believe your way and I believe in mine.

            So, what’s the answer here on how we can come to an agreement?

            • I’ll just tell you how I see it.

              You are just saying that welfare is OK for this “type” of person, and not OK for this other “type” of person. Since anything government gives to anyone must be taken by force or threat of force from the person who created it, then all welfare is financed through theft. It is contradictory to support the theft for one reason and oppose it for another.

              “They” have the VA (and other forms of welfare) because government has no ethical basis.

              To acknowledge that something is wrong, especially when it “benefits” you personally, takes a strong character.

              • Sorry I disagree, dammit, it’s not welfare or theft. They earned it by defending this country. I suppose you think that the GI bill is theft too then, and they don’t deserve that either, or that they pay for schooling is theft, and stealing from others as well.

                How about bonds? If you buy bonds, is that stealing too, or thievery too, or do you consider that legitimate?

              • it’s not welfare or theft.

                It is the proceeds of theft.

                If the Mafia steals money from a business, and gives a bit to the cop on the corner, do you think this is ‘ok’ – since the money is going to the cop?

                They earned it by defending this country.

                You earn what is given in trade voluntarily.

                There was nothing voluntary in obtaining that money given to soldiers.

                I suppose you think that the GI bill is theft too then,

                Yes.

                and they don’t deserve that either,

                “Deserve” is irrelevant.

                Do you think the Mafia’s wife deserves the money he steals, just because she cares for their children?

                or that they pay for schooling is theft, and stealing from others as well.

                Yes.

                If money is taken by threat of violence and not voluntarily, it is theft – no matter how ‘noble’ yo may believe the cause

                How about bonds? If you buy bonds, is that stealing too, or thievery too, or do you consider that legitimate?

                If you give your money voluntarily, it is not theft to recieve it.

              • If they earned it, why does the money to pay for it have to be taken from a third party?

                I don’t know enough about how bonds work to really comment on that, but I am supposing that is a consentual agreement. However, I would never help finance government voluntarily.

  32. I too, am going for the night.

    Will see you all again tomorrow.

    Good Night All

    Judy

  33. Hi Black Flag,

    If you have a couple of minutes, can you please look this over and give me your take? Thanks.

    http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/10/benankes_bomb.html

    • Thanks!

      The FED is immune to the concern he raises. Remember, the FED prints the money. They can monetize anything they want.

      Consider: You bought a diamond for $50,000 – with no intention to ever sell the rock. Do you care if the price falls to $5,000? No. It doesn’t matter – you’re not going to sell your rock.

      The FED can claim the value of their holdings to be what ever they deem. Who is going to test them? How would they?

      The FED is in a rotten position. They risk inflation – by buying up this junk. They risk depression if they do not.

      They will buy the junk until inflation starts to rise dangerously, and then they will toss the economy into a depression to save the country.

      • Alert in Michigan says:

        “They will buy the junk until inflation starts to rise dangerously, and then they will toss the economy into a depression to save the country.”

        Do you have any best-guesses on a timeline? Next week? This winter? Next year? Five years from now?

        By “save our country” do you mean that the ensuing chaos and pain will eventually mean a decentralized, leaner, more productive country with a renewed chance for entrepreneurship and fulfillment of “The American Dream”? Or will a depression result in the USA’s break-up, a European-like socialist state, or something worse?

        This is sort of like riding a roller coaster, not sure when the ride ends, not sure if it’s safe, not sure…well, of much of anything. But, it’s definitely not boring.

        • Do you have any best-guesses on a timeline? Next week? This winter? Next year? Five years from now?

          I cannot see the future any better than you.

          They have the power to manipulate to a massive degree. It may be possible they could hold things off for 5 years – or maybe 30 days.

          So, one needs to keep their ear to the ground – you will be able to hear the rumbling.

          For example, gold prices – not good for Central Banks. There is threshold where the bullion banks will be in deep trouble.

          Or maybe the FED audit – and they find no gold, or some other funny business.

          Or maybe Israel hits Iran and oil goes to $400/brl.

          Or maybe the derivative market collapses.

          And to add to your worry – Oct. is traditionally the month of disaster. Black October….1929.

          But, the system is on a knife edge – a weak wind could knock it off.

          But if I had to bet, I believe they will hold the game up until Obama is voted out next election.

          Then it will be the next guy’s disaster.

          By “save our country” do you mean that the ensuing chaos and pain will eventually mean a decentralized, leaner, more productive country with a renewed chance for entrepreneurship and fulfillment of “The American Dream”? Or will a depression result in the USA’s break-up, a European-like socialist state, or something worse?

          Save the country means “millions of people will not die in the streets”.

          I define hyperinflation as price increases above 50% per annum. I define mass inflation as price increases above 20% per annum.

          There has never been hyperinflation in any industrial nation that has not lost a war. The rulers know that when money dies, their power dies. They have bet the farm on money that still functions as money, which the central banks control. They will not surrender this power. They will not allow fiat money to be replaced by gold or by another nation’s currency. That would transfer economic control to either the free market or a foreign nation.

          Barter would kill us, literally: the collapse of the division of labor. Barter means the end of the central government.

          The central bankers will risk recession/depression when there is no way to avoid a dollar of zero value. A dollar of zero value means the ruination of all banks, all retirement programs, and all central bank power to manipulate the economy.

          Those who predict hyperinflation do not understand politics. If you do not understand politics, you do not understand fiat money.

          There can and will be price controls and rationing. There are both for medical services today. This will spread to the rest of the economy.

          The politicians will blame waste, just as they do today for Medicare’s shortcomings. They will blame price gougers. They will blame greed.

          The shortages are the threat, not price increases of 100% per annum. The rationing system will be the threat to your financial future, not wheel barrels filled with paper money.

          What we experienced during World War II will be with us long before we get price increases of 100% per year.

          If the government imposes price/wage controls, it stops prices from rising — official, white market prices. This stops the rise in cost of living indicators (Social Security). “Sorry, granny, prices have stabilized. No cost of living increase this year.” But granny can’t buy much. “Blame evil speculators, granny. Don’t blame Uncle Sam.”

          This worked in World War II. It will work again.

          The public can be scammed. Blame can be shifted. Never forget this.

          The economy will become like the emergency waiting room in an urban hospital. We will wait our turn. There will be greater demand than supply.

          Price controls are difficult to apply to used goods. This is why the wise man wants to be in the used goods market when price controls are declared. The Good Will, the Salvation Army, and the junk yard dealers will be where people get what they need, at least for a while.

          Garage sales will boom. Craigslist will be where the action is.

          Think politics before you think economics. That which reduces political power is what threatens politicians. Hyperinflation breaks central power. It destroys the lever of control that the existing Establishment possesses over the lives of the masses.

          Prepare for price controls and rationing. Both will be imposed before hyperinflation arrives.

          You will stand in line, as they did in the USSR. You will not pay $3 million for a loaf of bread. You will also not pay three silver dimes. You will pay two hours in line. Or you will pay $20, plus a ration coupon.

          Counterfeiters will print ration coupons, not dollars.

          We are not headed toward Germany in 1922. We are headed for Germany in 1947 under the Allied occupation currency.

          We are headed toward Cuba.

  34. History 101

    For those that don’t know about history … Here is a condensed version:

    Humans originally existed as members of small bands of nomadic hunters/gatherers. They lived on deer in the mountains during the summer and would go to the coast and live on fish and lobster in the winter.

    The two most important events in all of history were the invention of beer and the invention of the wheel. The wheel was invented to get man to the beer. These were the foundations of modern civilization and together were the catalyst for the splitting of humanity into two distinct subgroups:

    1. Liberals, and
    2. Conservatives.

    Once beer was discovered, it required grain and that was the beginning of agriculture. Neither the glass bottle nor aluminum can were invented yet, so while our early humans were sitting around waiting for them to be invented, they just stayed close to the brewery. That’s how villages were formed.

    Some men spent their days tracking and killing animals to B-B-Q at night while they were drinking beer. This was the beginning of what is known as the Conservative movement.

    Other men who were weaker and less skilled at hunting learned to live off the conservatives by showing up for the nightly B-B-Q’s and doing the sewing, fetching, and hair dressing. This was the beginning of the Liberal movement.

    Some of these liberal men eventually evolved into women. Those became known as girlie-men. Some noteworthy liberal achievements include the domestication of cats, the invention of group therapy, group hugs, and the concept of Democrat voting to decide how to divide the meat and beer that conservatives provided.

    Over the years conservatives came to be symbolized by the largest, most powerful land animal on earth, the elephant. Liberals are symbolized by the jackass.

    Modern liberals like imported beer (with lime added), but most prefer white wine or imported bottled water. They eat raw fish but like their beef well done. Sushi, tofu, and French food are standard liberal fare. Another interesting evolutionary side note: most of their women have higher testosterone levels than their men. Most social workers, personal injury attorneys, politicians, bureaucrats, journalists, dreamers in Hollywood and group therapists are liberals. Liberals invented the designated hitter rule because it wasn’t fair to make the pitcher also bat..

    Conservatives drink domestic beer, mostly Bud or Miller. They eat red meat and still provide for their women. Conservatives are big game hunters, rodeo cowboys, lumberjacks, construction workers, firemen, medical doctors, engineers, corporate executives, athletes, members of the military, airline pilots and generally anyone who works productively. Conservatives who own companies hire other conservatives who want to work for a living.

    Liberals produce little or nothing. They like to govern the producers and decide what to do with the production. Liberals believe Europeans are more enlightened than Americans. That is why most of the liberals remained in Europe when conservatives were coming to America . They crept in after the Wild West was tamed and created a business of trying to get more for nothing.

    Here ends today’s lesson in world history:

    It should be noted that a Liberal may have a momentary urge to angrily respond to the above before forwarding it.

    A Conservative will simply laugh and be so convinced of the absolute truth of this history that it will be forwarded immediately to other true believers and to more liberals just to tick them off.

    And there you have it.

    Let your next action reveal your true self.

  35. Judy S.

    Okay BF, do you think that I contradicted myself, and if yes, where? I don’t recall saying anywhere in my statement that these bums don’t deserve it, then turn around and say they do. Where did I say that?

    No, you have said they do not deserve it, but other government beneficiaries do.

    Both groups demand access to the stolen loot of government.

    I am not saying I won, and they lost, I was merely saying what I believe.

    Belief is unsupportable. People belief in Santa Claus, too.

    Reason is required. Why do you believe one group deserves stolen loot and another group does not?

    All I was saying is, that the Veterans deserve to have full benefits, that even includes you too BF, after all, are you not a veteran?

    Deserve… why? Why does one group get access to stolen loot and another group does not?

    And, no, I get no support from any government.

    Why do you consider that thievery? I don’t understand that. Isn’t that what the VA is for, to take care of the vets?

    And the Mafia Retirement Program, funded by crime, is to take care of the Mafia. That makes that ok, then too!?

    Why is it that when I say anything I feel and say it with a passion as you say, or from the heart, why do you question me on that?

    Because if that is your reason, it will be used by Matt for his reasons.

    If your heart is a good enough reason for you, his heart is good enough a reason for him.

    And why do you say that I will lose the argument, if we are merely debating on what each of us think or feel?

    Because it is not thinking – it is feeling. There is no reasoning, but mere emotion, to your decisions. This is dangerous. If you give emotionalism credibility to justify action, then actions like “crime of passions” become no longer crimes.

    Is there not anything that can be said without you thinking that it’s being stolen from somebody else, or that they didn’t earn it, or that they deserve it?

    The only thing ‘deserved’ is what is earned, not stolen.

    Do you believe a Mafia hit men deserves his pay because he “earned” it, even though it comes from proceeds of crime?

    Sure what I said was with passion and from the heart because this is something I feel very close to. If it’s so wrong to get benefits from the VA, then why do they even have it?

    Because “they” have no problem stealing loot from the People and giving it to anyone who wants it.

    Now, I suppose you’re going to tell me that I contradicted myself again, aren’t you. See, this is why I don’t like having these debates with you because you make me feel that everything I say is wrong.

    I am merely encouraging you to think about what you are saying because what you say will be used against you.

    Remember, if you agree to one assault on a person, you agree to assaults on other persons too – including yourself. Stealing money is an assault on people. If you agree it is ok to do, so to pay veterans – then others will say it is ok to do to pay welfare.

    Certain things I will discuss with you and certain things I can’t because like I said, we don’t seem to agree, and it just seems to go round and round. You believe your way and I believe in mine.

    So, what’s the answer here on how we can come to an agreement?

    By the use of reasoning. There are many things that are true, but very disappointing to a person. Just because it is bad, or disagreeable, or unfortunate – it is still a truth.

    • BF

      I love ya, but I think at this point, we’re going to have to agree to disagree. All I can say is, you have your beliefs and I have mine, what more can I say here. You are just as much strong willed as I am, maybe not about everything, but for some.

      There are places you have taken me to where I thought I was right, but you have made me think about certain issues to show me I wasn’t, and for that I am grateful to you. But this one, I just can’t see it your way, I’m sorry. So, can we just agree to disagree here?

  36. BF, I have a question for you, I know we talked about this before, but I can’t remember how you feel about this one. Now, please, I don’t wan’t to get into any arguments with you about this, just a simple answer if you can.

    Come the end of this month, I will no longer be working here at the lab. John, my brother in law, sold it to his cousin. And since his cousin wants to hire all new people, my question for you is this. Do you think it’s wrong for me to collect unemployment? I worked here for 2 and a 1/2 years and paid my taxes, paid into SS, and medicare, and I’m on the payroll. What say you?

  37. Stephen R. Silber says:

    January 23, 2010

    Chairman Michael Steel;

    The Republican Party had been in control of both houses for eight years, but many of the important issues were not addressed.

    1. No effort was made to stop illegal immigration. It can be done. Three of our previous presidents did it; Presidents Hoover, Truman, and Eisenhower. If they could do it then, we certainly should be able to do the same with all our sophisticated equipment.

    2. In 1977 the Community Reinvestment Act was passed by the Clinton administration in 1977. The theory was that people would take pride in owning a home. Those poor soles would more likely think “what fools”; we’ll take advantage of them. The Dr of Psychology that thinks that why has never bin on the ground floor working with those people, he has never had a business and had to fight for survival. Soon the middle class caught on, (those that could afford $600 homes) and they didn’t have the self control to be moderate in their desire. You republicans could have imposed down payments for that class of home buyer, but you let fools like Barney Frank help his greedy friends in the loan companies go on their marry why. How’s to blame for the housing debacle.

    3. Several adjustments to taxes- form a list of 12 that I have. Real middle –income tax relief, reduce business tax rate to 12.5% to keep jobs in America, Balance the Budget, Abolish taxes on Capital Gains, Protect the Rights of American Workers-forced unionism.

    4. Make the Republican Party the party of the Constitution and perhaps I and many
    Others will be willing to support and contribute to the party.

    5. In 2000 when we were in England the head lines in “The Daily Telegraph” were
    “As per the attachments to this Email”; you can see the efficiency of Government
    Health Care.

    Besides the items listed above we “conservative independents” would like to see some real aggressive action from the Republican Party. It seems like there are no starters; everyone is to lay back.

    Sincerely Yours

    Stephen R. Silber

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 119 other followers

%d bloggers like this: