Medicare: A comparison

Medicare proposals analyzed by D13.

I tried to be as unbiased as I could in comparing the two programs and this is what I came up with in my research and my own pencil and calculator, to which I say that I can and will be more accurate than the supposedly independent (cough cough) CBO.

The Wall Street Journal defines it best: “To make the Medicare program fiscally sustainable, reform must: (1) place limits on spending growth and (2) change the program to hold actual spending growth to these limits.”
D13: This makes perfect sense to me in that it matters not how much you tax. You can tax 100% and never pay for health unless there are limits and there are spending controls.

“There are two major approaches to achieve these ends. On April 6, 2011, House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan put forth a plan that transforms Medicare into a marketplace of regulated, private-insurance policies with government-provided support for insurance premiums. On April 13, 2011, President Barack Obama proposed an alternative that retains the program’s current structure with the overlay of a new, centralized bureaucracy.”

D13: In breaking this down, I see that there are simply two fundamental approaches here. The Ryan proposal simply is putting more of the market into the system designed around the successful Part D of the Medicare program. President Obama’s approach is exactly what it says….”centralized government bureaucracy.” This is what it all boils down to…….fundamental changes in direction. One is market oriented and one is government control….in either case, what we have now is not working. Both plans place limits on spending growth that are far below that projected under the current Medicare law. The most important difference between the plans is their approach to containing spending within these limits.
WSJ reports: The Ryan plan builds on the approach of the Medicare Part D prescription drug benefit, which has been widely recognized as a success. It encourages competition among private insurance plans and provides incentives for cost-conscious choices among plans by beneficiaries.
The Obama plan would empower a new Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) to analyze the drivers of excessive and unnecessary Medicare spending and recommend policies to Congress to limit it.

D13: Here is how I see this particular item. The market approach, as Part D currently does, has an immediate effect. The prices for prescriptions in this plan have fallen an average of 45%. I can personally attest to this using my own parents still living. Their prescription costs have fallen almost 60% and are almost comparable to Mexico. It seems that this model has worked and I see no reason why this approach would not work with the rest of Medicare. I see the centralized board not working in the immediate future and recommending policies to Congress is like asking the fox to guard the hen house. It will stall and go nowhere as is proven right now and there will be no cuts nor savings. Ryan’s approach would be more effective. The Center for Economic Research says, “It vests ultimate responsibility for cost containment with individuals and families, who have a more limited ability to spend beyond their means than the government. It commits the government to spending a specific dollar amount, rather than an amorphous promise to eliminate unnecessary care—a promise that has been made and broken by politicians many times before. Without a credible commitment to cost control, the incentives of doctors, hospitals and patients will be to spend more and more.” With this I have to agree.
The WSJ says: “The Ryan plan has other advantages. It would result in better health services for each Medicare dollar because it uses market prices to allocate resources rather than a government-determined fee schedule. Politically determined prices cause too much spending on some items and too little on others.

D13 concurs in this assessment. Any time the market can work is always best IF that market is allowed to do so unfettered with government regulations. In addition, D13 points to the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC) in a research that was done in the years of 2008 thru 2010, in that, “Medicare’s overpayment for imaging services contributed to rapid spending growth. Although the new health-reform law seeks to address this problem with the IPAB, there is little reason to believe that it will succeed substantially better than MedPAC, which was created in 1997 in part to insulate Medicare policy from political meddling.”

Further research suggests the following: “Finally, the Ryan approach would better protect older beneficiaries and those with poor health or low incomes. Such protections are implicit in the Obama plan, which simply promises not to harm access or quality of care. But they are explicit in the Ryan plan, which would give older and sicker beneficiaries a larger premium support payment and wealthier beneficiaries a smaller one.”

D13 agrees here as well. The main reason is that any plan that is explicit allows for future planning and organization. I read the Obama plan very carefully trying to find where this conclusion is not applicable and I could not find one. Nowhere is the Obama plan explicit. It only “promises” not to harm…etc. It does not say how….anywhere. I do not have to piss into the wind to know it is not the thing to do. In addition, Centralized, government-run insurance systems faced with resource constraints ration care by restricting eligibility for treatment. The Independent, a London newspaper, reports that cataract operations in Britain’s National Health Service are being withheld until patients’ sight problems “substantially” affect their ability to work. Hip and knee replacements are only being allowed when patients are in extreme pain. It seems to me that this is rationed care and a forerunner to the so called “death panels” and it seems that this unfairly hits the elderly. IF you withhold anything until the pain becomes unbearable…is this not a quality of life issue? Are you not forcing someone to suffer needlessly? If a panel can do this……they can certainly withhold treatment on a terminally ill patient or deny treatment to someone “who will die within a year anyway”. (That is a quote).

The WSJ and the CBO concur in the following: “There are also differences between the two plans in how they set limits on spending growth. The Obama plan starts limiting spending growth earlier, in 2014, rather than in 2022. It caps spending per beneficiary at the rate of growth of GDP per capita plus 0.5%, while Mr. Ryan’s plan caps spending per beneficiary at the growth in the consumer price index. As a result, in later years the Obama spending growth rate is likely to be slightly higher than the Ryan plan’s, with the difference contingent on the growth rate of real GDP per capita. For example, if per capita income growth in the United States is 1%, then the Obama plan would increase Medicare spending by 1% more per year than the Ryan plan.

D13: The numbers tell the story. I have nothing to add.

Conclusion: I think that the Ryan plan is over all better for the economy and the medicare program other than just austere cuts and higher taxation. The other thing that is being reported by the msm is that the Ryan plan throws granny off the cliff. It does no such thing. Anyone that is already on Medicare will continue to receive it with no changes and all those whom qualify in the next ten years will receive it with no changes. Under 55, gives everybody a chance to change for the future. The current plan is not sustainable even if you taxed everyone 100%. The numbers show that it is not there. There must be substantial change and the government is not the way. The FDR days need to be thrown in the can. They are out lived.

About these ads

Comments

  1. “The other thing that is being reported by the msm is that the Ryan plan throws granny off the cliff.”

    No one is saying that. Rather, they are saying the Ryan plan throws future granny off the cliff….

    Two questions perhaps you can shed light on from your analysis:

    1) If the Ryan plan is so great, why not implement it now? Why not transition current recipients of Medicare to the voucher system? Why allow the next 10-yrs to go by before implementing this change?

    2) What happens when the voucher does not cover the insurance premiums necessary for the average elderly person? This is not an ‘if’ but a ‘when’. From my understanding there is absolutely no cost containment in Ryan’s plan…except insofar as the government’s own spending. Any increases in premiums, deductibles, co-pays, costs of uncovered procedures and tests, etc. will necessarily be borne by the patient, correct?

    • Buck, the government is basically bankrupt. I doubt any govt run social programs will exist in 10 years. Too bad the MSM won’t tell the truth.

    • Buck,

      Why not now? Kinda wasteful. We have no telling how many millions of blank checks for Medi-Care/Caid. Be a shame to waste them. It takes time to plan and shift from one insurance company to another. Have to make sure your medical providers accept who you intend to switch to and such. Be difficult to have vouchers issued for payment before the voucher program is set up, funded and running.

      “What happens when the voucher does not cover the insurance premiums necessary for the average elderly person? ” I think his plan states the difference will be paid by the government.

      • “the difference will be paid by the government.”

        Where does it say that? It seems the difference is to be paid by the individual, not by the government. If the government were to simply pay the full freight regardless of actual cost, then why change to a voucher system at all?

        Also, on the issue of why not now — Do you really believe it would take a minimum of 10-yrs to get a plan in place? The real reason, in my opinion — seniors would vote overwhelmingly Democrat!

        • Sorry, can’t pass this up. Elderly thinking 101 = ObamaCare = Death Panels, RyanCare = vouchers (but no death panels). And you think they will vote Democrat, OY VEY!

          • Given a choice between No Medicare and Medicare — absolutely!

            • Exactly – called “Public Choice Doctrine”.

              No one will vote themselves out of what they see as an entitlement, no matter if it will come crashing down in a worse way in the future. “Kick the can” down the road.

              Thus, nothing changes – ensuring a systemic, devastating collapse.

    • 1) Because there are embedded interests that are unable to transition – the upheaval is too great. Removing knifes out of a body cannot be done instantly or the patient bleeds out. One at a time, slowly, is probably the best way – but the knifes must be removed.

      2)…as it should be. Until the cost of goods is borne by the consumer of the goods, there is no cost containment, nor service improvements, nor sustainability.

      • 1) So its too much for a 55-yr old to take, but that 54-yr old will be just fine?

        2) So you agree this plan would result in higher costs to the elderly? Or are you saying that somehow costs will magically come down (assume the same level of care)?

        • 1) It is not what age – it is how long until that age – and yes, for a few, it may be sucky – but that’s life too.

          2) No, I do not agree – it could be as likely as lower costs. The point, the cost must be borne by the consumer of the good for that good to be sustainable – a law of economics, sir. Anything else is unsustainable, and when it no longer can be maintained it stops … suddenly.

          Your choice; sustainability or an unpredictable, sudden collapse.

          Yes, I know, you are a Democrat who believes in repealing the laws of nature and think there is some sort of middle ground of infinitely long un-sustainability.

          • 1) So 10 yrs, no can do, but 11-yrs, now we’re talking? Seems pretty arbitrary to me. I’m still not sold as to why we need to wait 10-yrs to implement this wonderful plan of his.

            2) Care to explain how costs will come down in this scenario?

            3) I do love repealing the laws of nature. Our next target will be gravity…

            • Buck

              1) So 10 yrs, no can do, but 11-yrs, now we’re talking? Seems pretty arbitrary to me.

              It is arbitrary, but only to some point.

              The goal is a grant of information of an assured future event.

              Here are your three choices;
              1) Buck, in 6 months, you will be evicted from your house.
              2) Buck, next week, you will be evicted from your house.
              3) Buck, I am evicting you from your house now.

              The fact – eviction – is assured. But you understand that the more time you, Buck, have to prepare for it, the better. But the eviction cannot be denied.

              Same here. The funding will end.
              Prepare now, or it will end with you unprepared.
              The latter is very painful.

              2) Care to explain how costs will come down in this scenario?

              Firstly, I did not say they would.

              I said it is AS LIKELY they will come down as they will go up.

              The closer a system moves to the free market, the more accurate prices become as a measure of cost and value. If that means that prices go up, then that is what the prices needs to do and if they go down, that is what the prices needs to do ….

              Some thing government subsidizes – which means they are presenting an artificially low price to you. The truth has not changed – it still costs $X … but the government is lying to you saying it costs $X-%Y. Stop government, the lie disappears and you see the truth – it costs $X and from you POV the price appears to have risen.

              Some things government overprices – which means they are presenting an artificially high price – and the opposite occurs.

              But in all cases, it is government action that induces the artificial price and removing government brings the consumer price in alignment with the true price.

              3) I do love repealing the laws of nature. Our next target will be gravity…

              I assure you, that will be as equally futile as “your” attempts to repeal the laws of economics has been.

            • Buck,

              …and oh, do not believe that I believe anything will be done.

              It will not.

              Rand will fail, like the Tea Party has failed, since they all play politics and Rand is a politician first and foremost above everything else.

              Public Choice Doctrine is the rule in play here – it is the single dominating factor of US politics; nothing else, including that certainty of economic collapse is stronger then Public Choice Doctrine.

              It is the artifice of all “Democracy” – even Plato recognized it “…when the people vote themselves and their dogs rich…”

              When people believe they have the power to vote themselves rich from the looting of other people (which is, of course, themselves), there is no power other than economic collapse that will dissuade their ignorance.

              • Black Flag,
                It wasn’t too long ago you were declaring the Tea Party a force to be reckoned with and the future of American politics.

                What happened?

              • Todd,

                Oh, they are.
                They started a new conversation on the meaning of government.

                But as a PARTY organized politically, they will do nothing but maintain the status quo. This is what I said a long time ago, too.

              • Black Flag,
                So they “started a new conversation on the meaning of government,” but “they will do nothing but maintain the status quo”?

                Sounds like a contradiction to me…what good is a new conversation if it changes nothing?

              • Todd,

                It has changed things.

                Read the whole post I made.

                They are trying to create a political party — this will fail, for they suffer the same Public Choice Doctrine failures that plague all politics.

                But there conversation and ideas are beyond mere party politics – they are asking fundamental questions about the role of government in human life.

      • Doesn’t really answer my question as to why we need to wait 10-yrs…

        • Maybe because it was written while the asylum was being run by the worst of the nutcases and that was the only way to maybe get a budget passed during Obamaloni’s first term. That didn’t even work because Harry Ried is a complete moron who really needs fired!

        • Just A Citizen says:

          BUCK

          The answer is POLITICS.

          If you did not know that then you should have.

          This is what you get thanks to decades of Democratic Party demagoguery on the Medicare and Social Security issues.

          A situation where the solutions MUST NOT affect existing or near retirement Seniors. Otherwise you might as well be pissin in the wind.

          • Politics — umm…that’s what I’ve been saying all along. There is absolutely no reason (other than politics) to wait 10 yrs. If Romney/Ryan really believes this is the best direction to take, then they should man up and call for an immediate start!

            • Doesn’t really matter if they believe it is the best plan, or whether it factually is the best plan. You can’t win an election promising to take away something from a strong voting base, even if it necessary or inevitable.

            • Just A Citizen says:

              Buck

              There are OTHER reasons but politics is no doubt the strongest.

              But so what?

              Nice strawman on your part it seems to me. Your argument against Ryan’s plan is “well if it is so good then do it now”.

              Your guy hasn’t done a damn thing to address the problem. Except create a massive loadstone around our necks. All in hopes of getting us to swallow Govt Health Care to SOLVE the mess he and the Dimwits created.

              • I don’t really see that as a strawman argument. As you admit there is absolutely no reason to push this 10-yrs down the road. If they believe this is the way to go, then go for it. Place everything on the line, explain the benefits of this plan, and see if you get people’s support.

                It is pure cowardice and demonstrative of their understanding that this plan is DOA…unless they can convince people to vote for it because it doesn’t affect them.

                What other reasons are there?

              • But you were so in favor of ACA which doesn’t really get moving til ’14. You knew that back in ’10. Double standard.

              • Well Played, Anita, well played….

              • Hate to break it to you Anita, but while I believe the ACA is a step in the right direction, it’s not my ideal plan. Also, I don’t recall ever saying its a good thing waiting until 2014. But regardless, there’s phasing in a plan and then there’s a 10-yr time delay.

              • It’s the same thing, Buck. Who do you think you’re fooling?

              • Even if it were exactly the same, why do you believe I supported a waiting period prior to implementation?? Have I ever advocated a ‘need’ to wait until 2014?

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Buck

      There is an inflation index in Ryan’s plan. I believe it is GDP plus Population growth.

      But the question is the increase in costs above that index. NOT all increases from today.

      Cost containment is “assumed” by having the patient handle their decision regarding value of services.

  2. Well done Colonel :) By now anybody with half a brain knows that the Democraps and the MSM are full of monkey poop, I seem to remember all the doodoo about death panels awhile back, which is where Obamacare will eventually end up. However, with the mopuntain of debt that has been created, the government and all it’s programs are not sustainable anyway. Greece is just an example of where we may be heading (and a great big example of how socialism is a failure).

    @Charlie, we help provide venison to needy families in our local area anytime the State Conservation Officers request it. We have a large herd and taking does to lesson the buck to doe ratio makes hunting much better and the herd healthier. It’s been going on for about 10 years with great success. We have more trophy class bucks and larger deer as a whole, a win/win.

    @USW, Don’t fret over Captain Canolli, he’s a paid troll :wink:

    • As a note, a 150 grain ballistic tip .308 round at 200 yards does an amazing amount of damage. The heart was gone and the exit wound was big enough to put my fist through, and she still ran 40 yards!

    • G, you bambi-shooting wildman … having fun with you (but I still want to see you with that grizzly someday) :)

      USW needs to get over himself. A bit paranoid, you ask me.

  3. Austerity is not a choice – either it is undertaken now, or it will happen on its own; the latter will be much much more painful.

  4. Here are the top nine comments made by NBC sports commentators during past Summer Olympics that they would like to take back:

    1. Weightlifting commentator: “This is Gregoriava from Bulgaria . I saw her snatch this morning during her warm up and it was amazing.”

    2. Dressage commentator: “This is really a lovely horse and I speak from personal experience since I once mounted her mother.”

    3. Paul Hamm, Gymnast: “I owe a lot to my parents, especially my mother and father.”

    4. Boxing Analyst: “Sure there have been injuries, and even some deaths in boxing, but none of them really that serious.”

    5. Softball announcer: “If history repeats itself, I should think we can
    expect the same thing again.”

    6. Basketball analyst: “He dribbles a lot and the opposition doesn’t like
    it. In fact you can see it all over their faces.”

    7. At the rowing medal ceremony: “Ah, isn’t that nice, the wife of the IOC president is hugging the cox of the British crew.”

    8. Soccer commentator: “Julian Dicks is everywhere. It’s like they’ve got eleven Dicks on the field.”

    9. Tennis commentator: “One of the reasons Andy is playing so well is that, before the final round, his wife takes out his balls and kisses them…Oh my God, what have I just said?”

  5. Cost estimates from Washington are invariably unrealistic. Medicare was a good example. In 1990, twenty-five years after Medicare was signed into law, the GAO analyzed the actual cost of the program compared to projected cost. Congress was just a liiiittle bit off: the true cost was 854% over what Congress promised.

    And where do those 3.5 billion “free” Medicaid dollars go? They pay for bureaucracy, information and authorization systems, regulations, compliance, and oversight, but not for patient services or providers.

    Is Medicaid expansion good for people’s health, as my colleague proclaimed? “Of course it is! It is always better to have health insurance than not to have health insurance!” That is a statement of faith — proof of being in sync with company ideology — a public demonstration of political correctness. But is it true?

    What does the hard, unfeeling, objective, politically neutral scientific evidence show?

    A 2010 study from University of Virginia showed that after surgery, patients with Medicaid coverage were 13% more likely to die than those with no insurance at all. An earlier study in California of HIV-infected patients showed an 8% higher likelihood of death among Medicaid patients than those who had no insurance whatsoever.

    Let’s review the evidence before deciding what to do with Medicaid. Massive increase in the bureaucracy? Check. Unaffordable, unsustainable cost structure? Check. Harms patients? Check. Makes care less accessible? Sadly, check again.

    Clearly, we should not expand Medicaid. What, you ask, should we do?

    The answer comes from root-cause analysis and evidence. Since the root cause is disconnection — of people from their money, and of incentives from desired outcomes — the solution is reconnection. Evidence proves that this works.

    In the 1970s, when California was going bankrupt with more and more people on welfare rolls, Bob Carleson implemented a welfare “reconnection” program that cut the welfare dependency cycle and brought the State back from a financial brink. More recently, five counties in Florida reconnected Medicaid patients with their money. The result was simultaneously better and cheaper: expanded services and reduced costs. Had the entire Sunshine State used this plan, it would have saved almost $1 billion.

    Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/08/medicare_and_medicaid_rip.html#ixzz23YG7FsY0

  6. Thought this was quite interesting. http://www.prisonplanet.com/rome-burned-will-we.html

  7. :|

  8. @ Buck…..First of all…throwing red flag here for major penalty…please observe this clip http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnnaeOHXFyI…NOWHERE does it say future….it implies immediate and it also implies that medicare will be gone….and that is pure bullshit. Do you think for a minute, that I would be for something that would eliminate what my 90 year old parents are getting?

    NOw, to answer your question, sir. Why ten years. The only answer that I have is it is a starting point. It is pain management vs sharp pain now. In addition, all business planning, as you know, usually runs in ten year cycles..and 10 years is plenty of planning time. It addresses the problem and does not just kick it down the road. It is not the best but it is something to start with when no one….Obama, Bush Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, Johnson, Kennedy, Eisenhower….and the list goes on…..HAS NEVER DONE. The FDR days are out moded and over. it is time for change and it has to be economic. Put the pencil to it yourself and use the CBO numbers. I did…..taking the entire military budget, tax rates at 90%…pays 7 years under the Obama plan…..SEVEN years.

    Question Two……yesthe elderly will pay more. Not the current ones but the ones in the future. However, it is also dollar for dollar tax deductible as well under the Ryan plan. It is simply deferred payments back to the elderly. Under the ACA/Medicare section, the elderly are going to pay, in 2014 26% greater costs for health care. Under the Ryan plan, the cost is an increase of 18%, tax deductible. Now, I would implore you and others to look at the real un*reported CBO numbers. I found in my research, that the CBO does just like the Unemployment numbers….they change in the second week. The CBO shows that the Obama plan does not reduce the deficit by one nickel. Not one. It increases by 1.2 trillion….the Obama plan does not reduce the debt one penny. Neither does the Ryan plan on debt but it does on deficit.

    Now, no one has addressed one key issue. Part D is successful…and it is a market plan. Why would you fight a successful model? I do not understand. It is there for all to see and it is ignored…….WHY?

    • Colonel — If you wouldn’t advocate switching your own parents over from the current system to this proposal, is that an indication of your belief that the proposed plan is somehow inferior to the current system?

  9. I have another question. In my research, I found that the Obama budget had his plan in it. It was submitted to the Senate. It was not filibustered….it was not a vote on party lines….it was defeated 97-0……Why is that? Not one Democrat voted for it….why?

    • Because they knew the Tea Party would roll over them when their number came up!

    • As with the 10-yrs on Ryan’s plan — political calculation.

      • Reasons for a ten year plan.
        1. It doesn’t matter because it will be the Romney plan put forward. Some Ryan influence will be included and Ryan will likely be the pitchman….
        2. Five year plans have been tried and failed…Not an example to follow.
        3. They have to pass it so we can read it!!! (Ooops, bad example. Ryan has stood out because he put exact details on paper as a proposal. Not vague promises, specific this will be cut to this and the decimal point is where it will always be! No games, no croney capitolism)

    • D13,
      No Democrat voted for that because they were researching Romney tax returns or looking into possible doping of Mrs. Romneys horse or, you know, important stuff…..

  10. Something you don’t hear too often: a democrat was part of the medicare redesign…

    So much for evil republicans trying to “throw granny off the train”…

    http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/08/14/13279164-wydens-medicare-collaboration-with-ryan-puts-him-center-stage-for-2012?lite

    “As Wyden explained in an op-ed piece for The Huffington Post last March: “Wyden-Ryan doesn’t privatize Medicare because Medicare beneficiaries already have the option of enrolling in private health insurance plans. Wyden-Ryan makes those private plans more robust and accountable by forcing them to – for the first time – compete directly with traditional Medicare.”

    People in Medicare would get “premium support” payments from the government to help pay the premiums in those privately-run Medicare plans.

    Wyden added that “Wyden-Ryan would adjust premium support payments each year to reflect the actual cost of health insurance premiums. In addition, low income seniors, including dual-eligibles (those eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid) will receive additional benefits to cover out of pocket costs – ensuring that seniors have the same choices regardless of income.”

    Wyden said private plans might be able to “devise a way to provide the same health benefits as traditional Medicare for less money.” In that case, “a senior might have to pay extra if he or she still wants to enroll in the government option. But if you could get the exact same benefits for less money, why would you want to pay more?””

  11. All this chatter about Medicare and Ryan is silly. Didn’t Obamacare steal 700= billion from Medicare? Oh, thats right, it did. It seems the democraps are full of shit again. OY VEY!

  12. Just A Citizen says:

    The Obama Care bill delayed full implementation until 2014. WHY???

    Because it had to be delayed to HIDE the true cost/benefit of the program. In other words, to hide the true expected costs. Same trick Clinton used to get his “balanced budgets”.

    Now this does raise a legitimate question on the Ryan plan. Does delaying the voucher system for another ten years result in hiding any costs.

    It does not appear so to me. The bill is actually implemented right away. It is only the voucher system that is delayed. And it seems everyone is analyzing the “effects” on seniors ten years or more from now due to the plan.

    But it does beg the question.

  13. A simple question – If Paul Ryan’s plan is so good, why doesn’t Romney just adopt it?

    • I’m still trying to figure out any differences between Romney and Ryan on this issue. I don’t think even Romney knows what those differences are!

    • Because Public Choice Doctrine rules; no plan other than “more of the same as yesterday” plans can be used.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      If Obama Care was so good then why did the Dems have to pass it via the backdoor?

      Why did they have to pass it before anyone could actually read it?

      I would prefer to see NO PLAN put forth by Romney because the Pres has NO AUTHORITY to make such a plan anyway.

      I would rather see him lay down key principles which he will not violate and then explain how he intends to help get Congress to move on these issues.

      Romney’s success is as a MANAGER and EXECUTIVE. That is why he would make a better President than the guy there now.

      • If Obama Care was so good then why did the Dems have to pass it via the backdoor?
        Why did they have to pass it before anyone could actually read it?

        Oh come on JAC, they did this stuff because they needed 278 votes to pass it. That’s a completely different issue.

        Paul Ryan’s “claim to fame” is his budget proposals. Why would Romney select him as VP if he’s not going to adapt his budget proposal – or at least have a modified version ready to roll out they can both agree on?

        What else does Ryan’s bring to the campaign? A clean cut middle aged white guy who’s a self-described dork? I think Romney had all the covered! They even look like brothers – or father & son – on the campaign trail. Maybe Romney’s planning a slipping one of his sons in to replace Ryan in October!! :)

        I would prefer to see NO PLAN put forth by Romney because the Pres has NO AUTHORITY to make such a plan anyway.

        Oh, yeah, except when it’s Obama, then you demand a full budget!! ;)

        I would rather see him lay down key principles which he will not violate and then explain how he intends to help get Congress to move on these issues.

        But his “key principles” change so often, he doesn’t have any he won’t violate.

        Romney’s success is as a MANAGER and EXECUTIVE. That is why he would make a better President than the guy there now.

        That sounds great JAC, but government and business aren’t the same. Have you ever heard of a company where the board of directors is split in two with two different visions of how the company should proceed? That’s almost unheard of, and when it happens, one side “wins” pretty quick and the other side is voted out.

        That may be one of Romney’s problem – he expects voters to behave like stockholders & the board of directors – that’s not how government works.

  14. August 15, 2012
    America: Still the Best Hope

    Amil Imani

    I just finished reading Dennis Prager’s new book Still the Best Hope – Why the World Needs American Values. I have been trying to fit political issues together all my life, and Prager seems to be doing that job admirably.

    The book’s jacket gets it right: “In this visionary book, Dennis Prager, one of America’s most original thinkers, contends that humanity confronts a monumental choice. The whole world must decide between American values and its two oppositional alternatives: Islamism and European-style democratic socialism.”

    On the first page, Prager states, “Few Americans can articulate what is distinctive about American values or even what they are. There is … a thirst among Americans for rediscovering and reaffirming American values. … A lot of Americans realize we have forgotten what we stand for.”

    Prager not only explains our values, but he compares our values in detail to the reasoning of the left in each arena. His analysis is so well done that it may even get converts from the left, and it will certainly aid independents and conservatives in grasping the big picture.

    It is clearly a must-read for Romney and each member of his team because Prager has explained the left and Obama unlike anything I have ever read. If Romney can find a way to use this author’s theories, the independents will become conservatives.

    Paul Ryan’s “thank you” speech to Mitt Romney copied a concept from Dennis Prager’s book, a combination of political science and philosophy. It is a wonderfully powerful book loaded with notable jewels such as this concept adopted by Ryan in his speech.

    The book contains an unwinding explanation of things with which many of us have struggled, such as the concepts of religion, God, conservatism, and liberalism. Prager also analyzes Islam in great detail and explains why none of the arguments in support of it changes the immorality of Islam.

    The first paragraph of Chapter 9, “Still the Best Hope,” states: “The USA is not merely a geographical location. And unlike most of the world’s nations, Americans are not, and have never been, a race or an ethnicity. America is and has always regarded itself as an idea. That idea is a value system. And that value system — unique to America — can be called the American Trinity.”

    Ryan copied this concept in his speech, stating: “America is an idea, and that idea is Liberty and God.”

    Prager defined the term “American Trinity” as “Liberty, God and E Pluribus Unum” (out of many, one), each of which Prager includes in many pages of discussion. Ryan used the concept but shortened the expression and left out the last portion — which is fine, as E Pluribus Unum is a bit too complex for a short speech.

    Prager notes, “E Pluribus Unum rejects tribal, ethnic and blood ties and elevates the individual. It is the individual who matters, not any group to which the individual may belong. Anyone can become an American because America, unlike other nations, is not defined by territory, religion, or ethnicity, but by an allegiance to a set of ideals. It is telling that the ‘hyphenated-American’ only became a part of political speak with the ascendency of the Left. For two centuries, Americans, whatever their place of origin, were just Americans.”

    It is very encouraging to me that the Romney camp seems to know about Prager’s new book and will use it as a source for their campaign. It could prove to be as valuable to Romney in this election as de Vattel’s book Law of Nations was to the Founding Fathers in the lead up to our War of Independence.

    The author expends significant effort in defining liberty. Simply stated, it is our well-known five familiar freedoms plus two: political, religious, assembly, speech, and press, plus economic freedom and as much freedom as practical from government interference in our lives. Prager’s first jewel regarding government interference is that “[i]ndividual liberty exists in inverse proportion to the size of the state.”

    Prager’s case for small government is overpowering:

    1. The Founders believed that unnecessary government is dangerous and destructive of the moral character of its people.

    2. Character begins in taking responsibility for oneself. State involvement, when a person can care for himself, damages moral character and reduces care for the truly needy.

    3. Government entitlement programs have terrible moral consequences. These programs lead to a loss of self-worth, an attitude of entitlement, and a lack of gratitude for what is provided. Why work if the government provides a handout?

    4. People need the emotional reward of feeling needed. Men especially have been denied rewards for their involvement. When the State becomes totally responsible for the financial support of their women and children, men are denied this reward. As the State expands its role, nothing is left of liberty and dignity.

    5. American churches and other voluntary groups have been an essential part of American culture that becomes denigrated when government expands into their role. Charity and volunteerism are reduced substantially in leftist states, a detriment to the needy and to the volunteers’ sense of community contribution.

    Another jewel. “There are fine individuals on the left and selfish individuals on the Right. But as a rule, bigger government increases the number of angry, ungrateful, lazy, spoiled and self-centered individuals.”

    And another jewel. “The Left’s altruistic motives have created the Welfare state, and the Welfare state creates selfishness.”

    Prager’s book discusses all the many underlying philosophical differences between conservatives and the Obama left, and in my opinion, he discloses the fallacy underlying all the liberal concepts. Prager discusses how the Age of Reason’s and the Enlightenment’s rejection of religion and God resulted in the rejection of the concept of the inherent immorality of man — a rejection which took over Europe. Contrary to this European post-Enlightenment concept, the Founders retained in the Constitution the concepts that man is immoral and that the essence of man is most interested in self-satisfaction. This led the Founders to incorporate Montesquieu’s advice in the Constitution and to create three branches of government in which each branch had equal power. This was their attempt to counter the inherent self-interest and immorality of man.

    It is my dream that a clear-thinking philosophy major would use Prager’s book to generate a short version for consumption by independents. Such a text would help the world appreciate the inherent weaknesses underlying the social democracy of the Obama administration

    Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/08/america_still_the_best_hope.html#ixzz23bAKooKY

  15. August 15, 2012
    True Colors: Our Post-Constitutional, Liberal Fundamentalist President
    By Jim Gammon

    As the years go by, our president exposes more and more of his true philosophy, Liberal Fundamentalism. This is not to be confused with liberalism or the Democratic Party. It is a distinct extremist faith-based religion in which no rules are written and yet no compromise is acceptable.

    We need to explore this philosophy, and how better than through Obama’s own words?

    The problem in quotations is that individual sentences can easily be taken out of context. To prevent this, every single word he spoke on this occasion is given, in the correct order.

    This speech took place this past Sunday.

    Too many folks still don’t have a sense that tomorrow will be better than today. And so, the question in this election is which way do we go?

    Do we go forward towards a new vision of an America in which prosperity is shared?

    Or do we go backward to the same policies that got us in the mess in the first place?

    I believe we have to go forward. I believe we have to keep working to create an America where no matter who you are, no matter what you look like, no matter where you come from, no matter what your last name is, no matter who you love, you can make it here if you try. That’s what’s at stake in November. That’s what is why I am running for a second term as president of the United States of America.

    It is no revelation that people are uncertain of the future. But in these words you can see that Obama clearly believes that the course that this country is on needs to be changed and that the problems which exist are not due to his policies.

    Do we go forward towards a new vision of an America in which prosperity is shared?

    This second sentence is chilling. Karl Marx or Joseph Stalin could have written this. Obama is saying a lot here. His philosophy is clear: our present system is unfair, and his solution is to change the “vision,” the fundamental values and goals of America.

    First and foremost, Obama states that prosperity is not shared today. This is saying, in these few words, that the successful today are not paying taxes (sharing) and are unwilling to. He is saying that the poor are being cheated and deserve more than they receive.

    But he then attempts to blur this declarative and revert to traditional American philosophy, but his choice of words says far more than he means for them to.

    I believe we have to keep working to create an America where no matter who you are, no matter what you look like, no matter where you come from, no matter what your last name is, no matter who you love, you can make it here if you try.

    Read this through twice. The way he defines this “new” vision sounds awfully like our time-honored old one. But he doesn’t wish to change, fix, or improve America — rather, he wishes to “create.” To create is to invent, to start over again. Is this a poor choice of words? I don’t believe so. What specifically is “new” about equal opportunity? What is “new” about equal rights? Haven’t we already addressed these issues? What needs to be created? Shouldn’t he be speaking of correcting things, not making new ones?

    This is a man who has not only read the Constitution and the amendments, but given lectures on the laws resulting from them. He is an expert, telling us our system is wrong and a new and different one is needed.

    This speech is clarifying. It discloses Obama’s true colors as a post-Constitutional candidate. He envisions an America that is very different from what we have today. He proposes no amendments to the Constitution. He proposes no changes of any kind.

    He speaks of creating a new America with new vision. He doesn’t believe in the old vision of America. He doesn’t describe this new America except to say that the government should take more than in the past from the successful and “share” more with the unsuccessful. He clearly denounces the old vision, America, past and present.

    It is interesting how Liberal Fundamentalists never describe life under the system they propose, except in platitudes. You would not much like a picture of the world as they would like it to be. Take 1960s Britain. The Beatles wrote “Taxman” about the 95% tax rate they faced, which didn’t solve all the problems as it was supposed to.

    In liberal utopia, there is little reward for hard work. The government decides which companies win and lose.

    In liberal utopia, political connections rule the day, because there is little in the way of democracy, since the government chooses what is right and wrong, winners and losers. It has never worked, and it never will.

    But liberal utopia is not so far away. Go to YouTube and look up Nigel Farage for how the EU is already there. So many in the EU now realize that it was a terrible mistake to put bureaucrats in charge.

    Examples:

    A bureaucrat-run country is exactly what Obama seeks.

    The simple truth is that humans work best in semi-organized, legally restricted chaos. Our founding fathers called it a free Republic. Nothing the world has ever seen has ever worked better, but political extremists never cease to believe that they have a better way.

    According to Liberal Fundamentalists, if a little government is good, then a big one is better. People cannot be trusted with making their own decisions. After all, Liberal Fundamentalists are smarter than we common rabble, hiding behind religion-based morals and ethics.

    Is this what we want for our country?

    Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/08/true_colors_our_post-constitutional_liberal_fundamentalist_president.html#ixzz23bCvN9gf

    I am really interested in what, those on the left heard, when Obama said these words. I listen to him and his un-American ideas simply Scream at me and I can only figure you guys hear the same words but somehow interpret them completely differently.

    • Do we go forward towards a new vision of an America in which prosperity is shared?

      I thought the same thing when I heard the speech..This ‘new vision’ is actually the same vision that we have been living by for 200 yrs..but he wants to suddenly take credit for forming the vision :roll:

      Or do we go backward to the same policies that got us in the mess in the first place?

      The same policies that you are now trying to take credit for.

      Rush has been on a kick..thrilled that Ryan came in speaking about ideas..he even said in the speech, something that I thought JAC invented..either JAC didn’t invent it or Ryan reads SUFA :) , that America is an idea. Then Obama stole the thought. Obama is talking out both sides of his mouth. His hope and change seeks to change everything that he is trying to take credit for….at the same time he’s destroying everything that IS right. So no matter what.. he is trying to box us in to believing he is right. I believe that’s narcissism.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Anita

        I doubt I “invented” the term, although I have tried to express it more concisely here. Don’t know where I first heard it.

        But I find it strange when a supposed “conservative” uses the phrase. Because it denies the exceptional nature of the Nation State we call the USA. It denies their notion of “ordered Liberty”.

        So I believe they are using it in a little different sense than I am. But at least they are finally discussing CORE PRINCIPLES and we may finally have a debate on WHAT we the people think those should be in the future.

  16. The simple truth is that humans work best in semi-organized, legally restricted chaos. Our founding fathers called it a free Republic. Nothing the world has ever seen has ever worked better, but political extremists never cease to believe that they have a better way.

    Our founding fathers called it a free Republic, some had slaves, permitted slavery, etc. Nothing the wordl has seen has ever worked better … if you weren’t the slaves or the native population that was wiped out. “Some” political extremists must not be blind …:)

  17. ‘TAKE YOUR CAMPAIGN OF DIVISION AND ANGER AND HATE BACK TO CHICAGO’

    YEAH!

  18. @USW (from yesterday):

    USW: I went searching through this post twice for a place where I put words in your mouth and just couldn’t find any. I address some of what you said yesterday and if you can beyond some of my angrier responses and make it to the end (or read that first), we can move on?

    These were some of my lines where I assume you think I’m putting words in your mouth.

    Most here are already in the GOP camp (whether they admit it or not).

    Why anyone less than a rich person would want him anywhere near power is beyond me, but … that’s what SUFA is all about.

    This was on one of your responses: Republican, Socialist, Marxist, Democrat, Government Official…. all equally bad adjectives in my opinion. But you claim he isn’t a socialist because he isn’t socialist enough for your tastes. That doesn’t mean he doesn’t have some policies that are socialist in nature.

    Now you’re quantifying it. No different than my assumption that Zimmerman’s profiling a black kid makes him perhaps not racist enough for you? You need him to utter the N word a few times, etc.? Or am I putting words in your mouth again?

    Cruel and Unusual Punishment … which some of yous here put me through … Actually, you USW, first suggested I read Atlas Shrugged (but I used the proverbial “some of yous” to be fair (because others had also). I read Fountainhead first and then tried AS.

    Me: used by her and her ilk (SUFA) to propose “individualism” vs. the “greater good” (i.e., screw thy neighbor, take care of your own)

    A reference to SUFA. This must be what USW is talking about (since I’ve found no direct reference to him yet). When I use SUFA I mean (in general) but perhaps need to clarify that more clearly?

    You: See what I mean. I haven’t seen anyone here at SUFA espouse screwing their neighbor.

    And here we have another example of perception (like above). I see much of what many hear (not just you–I certainly didn’t point to you) propose as screwing their neighbor; yous might call it individual responsibility (and in many cases I’m sure it is), where I see it as absolute greed and/or indifference (and in many cases I know it is). It’s one perspective over another. Somehow you take that very personally (even when it wasn’t directed at you). Again, either you’re a bit touchy, paranoid or you have no answer for others perceptions.

    You: My, and many other’s, position is not screw thy neighbor, Charlie, and you know it full well in spite of the bullshit you attempting to peddle here.

    I know it full well … therefore (according to you yesterday), you’re now accusing me of being a liar. Sweet Jesus, USW, do you have any idea how often you do this? I don’t take it to heart the way you do because I assume it’s your opinion (that you don’t see what you agree with as screwing your neighbor). I happen to see some of it that way. It’s a difference in perspective.

    You: I also have links to the Democratic Party as well as about 30 other websites. I hardly think that a single link among all the others qualifies as an altar. What a ridiculous statement. But as usual, don’t let the facts get in the way of you making your point.

    Just out of curiosity … how many books espousing democratic principles have you suggested I read from those links? I once suggested you read George Bernard Shaw’s The Intelligent Woman’s Guide to Socialism but I seriously doubt you took the time.

    You: According to Chaz, I knew I was lying when I typed it and only did so to intentionally mislead the readers of SUFA, because so many of them are on the fence as to where they stand politically that I need to persuade them to lean my way.

    See? You actually accuse me of the same thing before we got to this. How funny is that?

    You: You are the largest hypocrite in the world regarding the “black and white issue.” While constantly denouncing BF for only seeing black and white, you do the exact same thing on a regular basis

    Actually, no, I have always suggest a hybrid of socialism/capitalism (with a social democracy government) but have also always pointed out that the 1% would never permit it. I can see capitalism being put to better (not good) use for the greater good, but I can why you’d be blind to this (you’re one dimensional, maybe?).

    You: Get a new schtick Charlie. This one is wearing out. Either you are able to have conversations where you listen to people’s thoughts and ideas, accept that when they say I believe part of what she says, they mean that THEY BELIEVE PART OF WHAT SHE SAYS, or you are just going to continue flapping at the jowls attempting to debate what you want to claim we believe instead of what we actually believe.

    Really, when did that happen (someone pointed out prior to my post they believe PART of what she says–I don’t recall). I think I addressed this yesterday. You’re the one using the same bullshit over and over … either from being touchy, paranoia or an inability to comprehend.

    You: Now, are you ready to stop playing your little games where you tell me what I believe and debate that position? Or are you going to grow up, debate like a grown up and ask me what I think, accept that I said what I really think, and debate on the merits of the facts rather than continuing to fall back on “you are walking it back, you really believe something other than what you say you believe.”

    You might want to practice this on someone you can intimidate?

    You: You don’t have to attempt to portray me as someone intentionally trying to mislead people and lead them astray

    What was that Regan line: There you go again …

    You: How about you consider this little fact while you process your claims about me:

    Once again, you’re being paranoid (I think), you must assume my world revolves around you. Trust me, it doesn’t. If, as I said earlier, you’re taking my use of SUFA as an attack on you (even when you didn’t make the original post?), I’ll have to be more clear in the future (or you’ll have to be less paranoid).

    But the long and short of it is this: I believe that some of the concepts she put forth of men or women working to get ahead only to have government feel they are entitled to reap the benefits are correct. I agree with some of the tenants behind individualism and objectivism. I believe that the solutions she offered were largely unrealistic and at times border on an un-needed cruelty to other people who are trying to scrape by. I also believe that despite her deep seated ideals, she was somewhat hypocriticial in her actions (although I think there is a stark difference between espousing that this is the way it SHOULD BE and actually operating effectively in the environment that actually exists. Adapting to today’s reality while striving for a different reality in the future is not necessarily hypocritical)

    Well, thank you for stating this. I appreciate it.

    When you do that, I say you do it. It has nothing to do with whether I like what you have to say. It has to do with you telling me what I believe as a reply to me telling you that I believe something different. When I say I believe “X”, then I believe “X”. Heck I may have believed “Y” yesterday, but that isn’t really the point, is it? You are free to point out that I changed my position if you think I have. You are not free to claim that what I just said I believe is not what I believe.

    Well, I’ve gone through this thing twice now and unless I missed where I put words in your mouth (maybe I did and can’t find it), I think you’re saying this without just cause (which makes me think it’s something else bothering you). I don’t know. I just don’t know.

    I can understand that being your perception, but look a little closer and you will find that all of us have differing levels of belief along those lines. This is why JAC always espouses defining things up front rather than allowing your opponenet to define your position for you…

    This is fair, USW … and relates to what I mentioned above regarding perception.

    Perhaps I do. I will look in the mirror and think about that. But I don’t necessarily think I do it as much as you think that I do. I know I have done it to you in the past, but I think that it has been more along the lines of “you know that isn’t what that person believes” as opposed to “you are intentionally lying to people to sway opinion.” That isn’t to say I have NEVER done that to you, but I think I have done it less than you think I have. On the flip side, that seems to be something that is said about me regularly by both you and Todd. The other folks on the left here seem to tell me I am wrong, but they rarely claim that I am intentionally lying.

    More fairness. Okay, so let’s move on the debate the way we have at times in the past …

  19. Good Morning All :) Just looking for some opinions on a little discussed subject. The Govt is purchasing millions of rounds of ammunition as of late. The DHS has already purchased 40 million rounds of .40 cal hollow point and now soliciting for 750 million rounds of different calibers. NOAA, yes NOAA has purchased 46,000 rounds of hollow point bullets and now the Social Security Administration wants 174,000 rounds of .357 hollow points rounds.

    Now, the govt buying ammo in large quantities is not unusual on it’s face, the type of ammo (hollow points) raises a flag for me, because they are more expensive and deadly than normal “ball” training ammo. Looking forward to some opinions on this.

    • Hard to believe, but it appears our government made a mistake. And they have admitted doing so….The ammo is for the agency that has been destroying our fishing industry. I wonder if all the angry, out of work, mostly white, ex-fishermen are considered a threat? Hollow point is standard for law enforcement, if they shoot you, they intend you to die. The amount does make me wonder, ammo has a five year shelf-life. GSA could do a bulk purchase and send it out as needed without having so many different agencies stockpiling so much on their own. It is very likely they will not use the ammo by the date it’s considered “safe”, and will have to destroy it or sell as obsolete. If you can afford it, it’s better to practice with the same ammo you intend to shoot in real life. “Ball” or other types of ammo shoot differently. Most of my 9’s shoot a 124gr hollow-point more accurately than 115 fmj. Doesn’t make sense on aerodynamics, but the paper doesn’t lie….
      (hows that for opinion/discussion points?)

      Interesting but not accurate. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/post/national-weather-service-ammunition-solicitation-triggers-confusion/2012/08/14/3dc6b67e-e62a-11e1-936a-b801f1abab19_blog.html Clerical error – ammo for fish and wildlife — and they need a lot of it considering they run into marijuana growers a lot.

      Due to a clerical error in the federal business vendor process, a solicitation for ammunition and targets for the NOAA Fisheries Office of Law Enforcement mistakenly identified NOAA’s National Weather Service as the requesting office. The error is being fixed and will soon appear correctly in the electronic federal bidding system. The ammunition is standard issue for many law enforcement agencies and it will be used by 63 NOAA enforcement agents in their twice annual target qualifications and training.

      Update: Further confirmation from official sources, via Elizabeth Weber Levy:

      I shared [this blog] with U.S. Rep. Rodney Alexander’s office. The following is from Rodney’s D.C. staffer, Patrick Barron.

      Ms. Levy,
      I was forwarded a message from Tommie Seaton in our Alexandria office regarding the solicitation of ammunition by the National Weather Service. I looked into the issue, and it appears that there was a clerical error in the solicitation for ammunition.
      The ammunition was intended to be acquired for the National Marine Fisheries Service, Office of Law Enforcement. However, it accidentally listed the National Weather Service as the agency acquiring the ammunition. Both agencies operate under the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). If you read through the solicitation on fbo.gov, the addresses that it lists as having requested the ammunition belong to the Office of Law Enforcement, not the National Weather Service. NOAA has acknowledged the error and said that it will be corrected soon.

      Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/08/unusual_government_agencies_stockpiling_ammo.html#ixzz23cMVAhx5

      • OK, so fishermen are now terrorists, LOL. What about the Social Security purchase? Just for fun, my opinion is that the GSA could do this, but the govt wants to scare people again so they do this, leak it out so the people know about it. The good part about all of this is that most people in govt with guns are not the most accurate shooters (at targets), make them nervous and they’d shoot their feet off :lol:

  20. I can see capitalism being put to better (not good) use for the greater good, but I can why you’d be blind to this (you’re one dimensional, maybe?).

    No, you can’t because you are blind.

    Your measure of better is terribly distorted, your calculation of “greater good” is individual, and thus provides “great death and destruction” when applied over a large mass of people.

    You are one dimensional since you are devoid of reason.

    You are hopeless.

    • charlieopera says:

      And you remain a buffoon. :)

      • I provide economic calculation and reason.

        You provide a fart.

        You will always lose.

        • charlieopera says:

          Lose this, putz.

          In eye-talian we say, Bufone (pronounce the e) … :)

        • Well that was straight to the point now wasn’t it? I like watching you and Charlie go back and forth but it seems to me of late the 2 of you are getting awfully personal in your attacks. One of the reasons that I came to this blog a few years ago was because I didn’t see the kind of disrespect that I had seen on other blogs. I could learn here. I’m still learning and you BF have been one of the best teachers because you are so objective. If I’m wrong, you point it out but you don’t do so in a way that makes me feel like an idiot. That is very much appreciated. I know that you tried to do the same thing with Charlie and I applaud your patience. I like Charlie, I really do, but please don’t stoop to name calling, you’re better than that.

          • charlieopera says:

            @Kristian. Sorry to say I’m not sorry to disappoint you. You’re one of BF’s choir. If you’re learning from him, that’s fine and dandy. I find the guy to be a condescending asshole. I choose to use the word Buffoon instead. That’s pretty much what I think of anyone who can’t admit a mistake; who assumes he/she are right nearly 100% of the time (as he’s often said here). That’s as much of an explanation as you’ll get from me — end of story. And I suggest you go back and look at how often Mr. Flag (what’s in a name?) has chastised in condescening language pretty much everyone on here who disagrees with him). Others may choose to put up with it. I have neither the time nor desire to do so. Again, end of story.

            Now, Maureen Dowd on Ryan and Rand …

            http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/15/opinion/dowd-when-cruelty-is-cute.html?_r=1&ref=opinion

            • Charlie,

              I’ve challenged you to demonstrate such “mistakes” – but you cannot. You’ve only demonstrated your own, repeatedly, and that angers you.

              Many here can attest to finding my errors in fact, and a few can attest to even finding errors in reason. It may be rare, but I am certainly not immune.

              The difference between you and me.
              You refuse to acknowledge those errors and correct them.

              I do acknowledge those errors and I do correct them. In fact, it is the most fundamental thing I did in my life was to correct a systemic belief system when it shown to be in contradiction – even at the cost of my wealth, career, friends and family.

              I do not hold anyone to even a fraction of that commitment. But I do hold others to grasp reason and principle.

              You are anti-reason.You espouse out-and-out lies – especially upon facts that demonstrate the depravity of some of your principle beliefs.

              I’ve pointed out that you are keenly observant.
              It is sad that you do not match that with keen understanding.

            • I wouldn’t say that I’m a member of his choir but I will say that I find what he believes a little bit easier to digest than some of what you have said you believe. I’m sorry Charlie, I just don’t believe in the greater good, there is no such animal. I believe in do unto others as you would have done unto you. I believe that if you work hard and earn your keep you feel better about yourself. I believe that if I am able to help someone that I will because there is going to come a time when I am in need and I believe that someone will be there for me. The best part about all of these beliefs that I hold? I’ve seen them all work for me. Most of that flys in the face of BF’s philosphy and that’s ok, I can still learn from him and maybe even apply some of what I’ve learned. The man is smart. Just because I don’t always agree with him doesn’t make him wrong. He has his philosphy and I have mine. BF is one that you don’t find often, a principled man whether it hurts him finacially or otherwise. I’m just not that brave and I don’t know too many who are.

              The point to my earlier post, as it seems that both of you missed it, is that some of us come here to learn. If I wanted to be subjected to a bunch of childish name calling I’d go back to the blogs the USW found me on. Think maybe we can act like adults and not 8th graders?

              • charlieopera says:

                I’m sorry Charlie, I just don’t believe in the greater good, there is no such animal.

                You’re certainly entitled to be wrong  … we see things differently, as do BF and I (although we’re probably close on some issues); the difference being I refuse to deal with someone who depends on assumptions to prove a point all the time (especially when I don’t agree with those assumptions—whether they come from a “universe” or not..

                I believe in do unto others as you would have done unto you.

                Nothing wrong with that, my friend.

                I believe that if you work hard and earn your keep you feel better about yourself.

                Unless you work hard and get screwed … over and over … which is what many people feel these days (although, I agree, work is certainly a GOOD thing and for many more reasons than survival alone – dignity comes to mind).

                I believe that if I am able to help someone that I will because there is going to come a time when I am in need and I believe that someone will be there for me.

                Careful, you’re starting to sound like a socialist 

                The best part about all of these beliefs that I hold? I’ve seen them all work for me. Most of that flys in the face of BF’s philosphy and that’s ok, I can still learn from him and maybe even apply some of what I’ve learned. The man is smart. Just because I don’t always agree with him doesn’t make him wrong. He has his philosphy and I have mine. BF is one that you don’t find often, a principled man whether it hurts him finacially or otherwise. I’m just not that brave and I don’t know too many who are.

                I don’t doubt BF’s smarts (or his inability to accept the world cannot exist without government at all — it would be nice, as would anything else utopian in nature). I have no idea what you’re talking about regarding his jeopardizing anything (I don’t know the man). I admire principal, but arrogance is something I don’t have much use for.

                The point to my earlier post, as it seems that both of you missed it, is that some of us come here to learn. If I wanted to be subjected to a bunch of childish name calling I’d go back to the blogs the USW found me on. Think maybe we can act like adults and not 8th graders?

                I suggest skipping the name calling and read the next post. I’ve tried a few times to stay engaged with BF’s posts but he ultimately resorts to the same old thing and my schedule doesn’t permit playing that game (or taking insults from someone I don’t respect enough to allow it). Sorry if that doesn’t work for you.

            • Now, for my two cents:

              Back when I was a young boy, my father would constantly “test” me by throwing things at me that were hard to understand. For instance, which is heavier, a ton of bricks or a ton of feathers? As I got a bit older, things got more complicated.

              Around the age of 12 or so, I came to him with a question where it seemed that there could be no negotiation on either side. Both sides were just so set in their way that they not only couldn’t see the other point, they weren’t even listening anymore. He described that situation as one where an immovable object is struck by an irresistible force. Charlie, you and Flag fit that description perfectly.

              Flag, is so right on many things. He reminds me of two very good friends I had in High School who were sharp as tacks on many issues and taught me a great deal. Both were phenomenally successful in their careers, highly adaptable with only one major drawback. They were totally obnoxious. Smart, correct, right but their delivery left a lot to be desired. Fortunately for them, their knowledge paved the way for them. I am still in touch with both and they have not changed very much in 50 years. Neither needed to work beyond their late 40’s but continue to do so today because the wheels in their brains still spin at light speed. I try not argue politics with either, both are very conservative but when talking to them, I come off as a Bolshevik at the very least and you know something? They are right….but. Like Spock, their logic trumps their humanity.

              Charlie, you are the quintessential New York tough guy. A throwback to the gangster movies of the ’30’s,’40’s and ’50’s, a little Mickey Spillane maybe? Like Flag, you know a great number of things. But, in your case, your logic is trumped by your humanity. You see yourself as not tolerating fools lightly (a trait I sort of share) but your definition of fools leaves a lot to be desired. You are so damned sure of the fact that you are right all the time, thinking I believe with your heart not your head that you just don’t hear anyone else. I’m still flabbergasted that you keep coming back to the same old, slavery issue in your critiques of this country. There is not a single human being alive today in this country who was a slave here or held slaves here. Now there are people living here today who were slaves and slave masters just not here. You refuse to reply when it is pointed out that slavery was the normal human condition everywhere, still continues today and may in fact be a growth issue. Nor can you seem to accept that native peoples everywhere, not just in North America held slaves, abused slaves and sacrificed slaves. In addition, they were not above raping, pillaging and stealing land from their neighbors from time to time. This is the human condition. Screw the romanticized, abstract noble savage BS, I got over that one a long time ago.

              As I said, an immovable object struck by an irresistible force. The two of you have to really start listening.

              • charlieopera says:

                Plainly, I’ll always listen to you (as you know) … not necessarily agree, but I’ll listen … so, onward …

                Charlie, you are the quintessential New York tough guy. A throwback to the gangster movies of the ’30′s,’40′s and ’50′s, a little Mickey Spillane maybe? Like Flag, you know a great number of things.

                For the record, I’m not a Spillane (or a fan of his characters). My tough guy days are long gone. Unlike Flag, I don’t suggest that I do know a number of things … I’m not a dumbski nor an intellectual, but I can usually hold my own.

                But, in your case, your logic is trumped by your humanity. You see yourself as not tolerating fools lightly (a trait I sort of share) but your definition of fools leaves a lot to be desired.

                Wasn’t sure what you meant by this. If it’s to BF’s intellect, I don’t doubt his intellect. I doubt his arrogance and authority. Sorry, but you’re all gonna have to live with that. His word isn’t gospel to me.

                You are so damned sure of the fact that you are right all the time, thinking I believe with your heart not your head that you just don’t hear anyone else.

                Not at all (I’m sure of nothing but refuse to accept someone else’s “facts” as truth because they declare them from on high).

                I’m still flabbergasted that you keep coming back to the same old, slavery issue in your critiques of this country.

                Here we come to genuine disagreement, Plainly. I use the slavery issue, etc., when people here use the Founding Fathers, Constitution, etc., as some form of authority because (whether you’re tired of hearing it or not—all of you—they/it is FLAWED—not in principle, but in actual effect) and therefore, is subject to attack. I’ve gone through this explanation several times and don’t have the time to do it again now.

                There is not a single human being alive today in this country who was a slave here or held slaves here. Now there are people living here today who were slaves and slave masters just not here.

                If you’re discounting (and discounting is the operative word, it seems to me) the fact that the voting rights act was 1965 legislation (and there are certainly many alive today who were born prior to that year), it’s a pretty callous discounting. I won’t get into the after-effects of slavery, etc. on a race of people (although it seems much easier to be white and disregard it than black), but to hold up the Founding Fathers as some authorities on purpose, morality, etc., and then discount the facts of what they engaged in/ignored is absurd (to me). It is no less absurd to ignore the native population (I have to wonder how you’d feel if you were a Sioux or an African American).

                You refuse to reply when it is pointed out that slavery was the normal human condition everywhere, still continues today and may in fact be a growth issue.

                How that fact is somehow supposed to eradicate the point I’m making as regards slavery in the U.S. continues to evade me, Plainly. Whether it exists elsewhere or not is irrelevant to the point I’m making. It seems (the way you’re describing it—or I’m reading it) as an excuse for its existence in the U.S. past; somehow because it happened, it should be ignored because it’s in the past (whether or not the effects of it are felt today or not—and, yes, I am a firm believer in the effects remaining today). I know there’s disagreement on that here, but that kind of disagreement is expect here.

                Nor can you seem to accept that native peoples everywhere, not just in North America held slaves, abused slaves and sacrificed slaves. In addition, they were not above raping, pillaging and stealing land from their neighbors from time to time. This is the human condition. Screw the romanticized, abstract noble savage BS, I got over that one a long time ago.

                Once again, how these facts listed above somehow negate the legitimacy of the argument pertaining to the U.S. is something I’m unable to comprehend. Just because everybody was/is doing it makes it right? I know you don’t think that, but that’s how I’m seeing it.

                I guess if you could see it from my perspective (try). You’re not a big fan of a society ruled by a ruling class (where money does what it wants) … it is in fact guilty of operating with actual slavery and wiping out an indigenous population … and then there are comments pointing to the “genius” of the founding fathers (genius for whom, I say)? That’s about as obvious as I can state it.

                As I said, an immovable object struck by an irresistible force. The two of you have to really start listening.

                Perhaps I’ll give it one more try. Frankly, it depends on my schedule. SUFA is a break from my routine during the day (whether it’s at work like now or at home working on my own garbage). I enjoy political discourse … and I am a ball-breaker (I guess sometimes it shows) … but I am not one to take arrogance lightly (never mind fools). The one thing life has taught me, Plainly, is whenever someone is certain of something (and I have stated many, many times that my belief in socialism is not the answer), they’re usually wrong.

                Sorry for delay in responding … lots of work today (had to do this at lunch).

              • Charlie,

                There is that old phrase, “the past is prologue”. I take it to mean that what we have today a result of what went before. Society, like automobiles is a work in progress. Those guys in 1776 were doing the best they could with what they had. They expected us to improve on it. With fits and starts, we have. Now, that old saw about one step forward, two steps backwards is true. I have a pretty fair knowledge of American History and cringe when I think about certain things like Governor Earl Warren’s insistence that the Nisei be rounded up and shipped off. The lies about earning equality that were told by the Wilson Administration to the immigrants, Indians and Blacks who fought in his “War to End All Wars”. Jim Crow and all its manifestations. The cowardice of the democratic party in its effort to keep the “Solid South”. The courage of the Republican party in providing the votes necessary to pass the Civil Rights bills of the 1960’s. All works in progress.

                Yesterday, Biden did it. There it was, out for all to see who have eyes, the Massa himself telling the slaves just how good they had it and if they didn’t give ole Massa their support, they’d be sold down the river by those evil rascally republicans to something far worse. Yessa boss man, I knows just hows good I done got it here wit my welfare and no future.

                I don’t know Charlie, maybe you are right. Maybe Obama is acting as the front man for some giant 1% conspiracy. On that I think maybe you and Flag could agree cause that clown in the White House is about as dumb as a log. Just another pretty boy to fool.

  21. SUFA,

    In the past, we’ve dialogued about the future – whether it will be hyperinflation or government default (collapse).

    There are still a few who – and a lot out in the Web – who posit hyperinflation.

    I do not think so – hyperinflation would destroy Western Civilization, and the banker’s know this.

    Further argument:

    Hyperinflation cannot last long – when money dies, the People quickly find a new “money” – no instance of hyperinflation has lasted more than a couple of years – most only a few months.

    Hyperinflation in the US$ will only occur if it benefits the US government – all government policies are instituted to benefit government, not the people. If it does not benefit the government, it is not done.

    The biggest debts by orders of magnitude are government obligations to Medicare and Social Security – est. to be as high as $220 trillion. The key term — “obligation”. This debt is artificial.

    To explain:
    All tax money is fungible. That means that it does not matter why the government claims to tax, the money gained by tax is thrown into a big pot and from that pot the budget of expenditures is made.

    Gasoline tax is said to be to repair the roads. But it isn’t. The money is tossed into the big pot, and the Dept. of Highways argues for a budget out of that pot – and not based on the amount gained by the gasoline tax.

    So it matters not that SS taxes are supposed to be allocated to SS payments. They are tossed into the big pot.

    But to comply with the law that government made to sell SS, the government still has to account for its promise – obligation – to SS. So it writes an IOU to itself.

    This IOU, unlike anything anywhere in the free market, establishes that obligation.

    But the feature of these obligations – and the calculation – is over 50 to 75 years. These obligation terms are much longer than any period of hyperinflation. Therefore, they cannot be dismissed by the collapse of money – the new money will appear and the obligation remains.

    Hyperinflation only eliminated “free market debt” – that is, IOU’s given into the market place in return for money out of the market place.

    So your mortgage debt, credit card, car, etc.
    Also your pension plan ( a credit to you!), etc.

    These are dismissed by the destruction of money.

    But if you wrote an IOU to yourself, is this equally dismissed by the fact of the death of money?

    Well, no. You can hold yourself to repay your own IOU to yourself.

    The only way THIS particular (and very bizarre) situation can be dismissed is by you tearing up the IOU. Only you can set the terms of dismissing the debt to yourself.

    …same with government.

    Government cannot dismiss the debt to itself by using inflation.

    But it can dismiss it by writ.
    This is called a “default” ….. “we ain’t going to pay squat”.

    A default in payments by government would mean no one would trust government – and government would, overnight, contract to a fraction of its size. This is known as a “government collapse”.

    So, once again, the scenario is very unlikely to go to hyperinflation – but the Great Default is looming ever closer.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      BF

      Hyperinflation may not address the problem but INFLATION does help.

      Thus we see high inflation in the future. They will have to manipulate all three legs of the stool.

      Taxes
      Spending
      Inflation

      I am not convinced that hyperinflation will not occur, or that the elite will always try to avoid it. When those who want to rule the world with their new order have the sticks they may just decide it is a good tool to force the old system to die quickly.

      More likely is they allow inflation to run a bit in hopes of making things look better and then they lose control. Because you can’t fool nature all the time.

    • Another point to ponder. I am more a free market supporter, but it seems we are heading towards a cliff. The dollar is fiat currency, as is nearly every world currency. That means it’s “value” is made up, bases on what those who want to trade for it, what they think it’s worth. Now they have created “derivatives”, another fiat “currency”. Banks and investors are trading derivatives, buying and selling. All the time showing
      the exchange of this financial fiat has real world value. If it does have such value and is based on the real world, how can there already be 20 times more derivatives being owned or traded than all the money in the world?

      http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/05/top-derivatives-expert-finally-gives-a-credible-estimate-of-the-size-of-the-global-derivatives-market.html

  22. Just A Citizen says:

    Saw great video last evening of Mr. Obama, in 2010, telling people it is unproductive to criticize the other side every time they try to propose “entitlement reforms”.

    He claimed that “Demagoguery” is counter productive to finding solutions.

    Just ONE MORE LIE by the POTUS.

  23. @ Black Flag :wink: The govt has been warning the megabanks to prepare for an economic collapse via govt edict. They know it’s coming because they are making it come. While the extent is unknown, the govt is preparing for massive unrest. It’s possible that a Civil War may occur if enough people will wake up to how corrupt the govt is. The rest is a big guessing game. If Obama feels his reign is threatened, the collapse will come and we can kiss the election goodbye. Hail King Obama :roll:

  24. @ Charlie,

    Please define the Greater Good to me, because I’m danged if I have ever seen it. Don’t give me “The needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few”, That is what charity is for. I just don’t happen to believe that I should be forced to give. I have a family to support, the government doesn’t need to take money out of my pocket that could be used to feed and clothe my children because some idiot wants to lay around and have babies in order to make a living. How is that fair? I work my butt off to take care of my family but Uncle Sam wants to take part of the money I worked my butt off for and spend it on programs that promote dependency on the government.

    It’s really that simple for me. Now, I know that there are people out there who really do need assistance. I have a sister in law and a nephew with Downs Syndrome. I have absolutely no issue with situations such as that. I also have people in my family who receive assistance because they just don’t want to work. Hell, one of them is on it because he’s too fat! Seriously!?!? I’m a bit on the heavy side, maybe I should apply for social security disability too and let good folks like you support me Charlie.

    Sorry for the rant, but this is a subject that just burns me up! So, if you can give me an example other that the words of Spock, please enlighten me.

    • I believe we have to keep working to create an America where no matter who you are, no matter what you look like, no matter where you come from, no matter what your last name is, no matter who you love, you can make it here if you try.

      Read this through twice. The way he defines this “new” vision sounds awfully like our time-honored old one. But he doesn’t wish to change, fix, or improve America — rather, he wishes to “create.” To create is to invent, to start over again. Is this a poor choice of words? I don’t believe so. What specifically is “new” about equal opportunity? What is “new” about equal rights? Haven’t we already addressed these issues? What needs to be created? Shouldn’t he be speaking of correcting things, not making new ones?

      This is a man who has not only read the Constitution and the amendments, but given lectures on the laws resulting from them. He is an expert, telling us our system is wrong and a new and different one is needed.

      This speech is clarifying. It discloses Obama’s true colors as a post-Constitutional candidate. He envisions an America that is very different from what we have today. He proposes no amendments to the Constitution. He proposes no changes of any kind.

      He speaks of creating a new America with new vision. He doesn’t believe in the old vision of America. He doesn’t describe this new America except to say that the government should take more than in the past from the successful and “share” more with the unsuccessful. He clearly denounces the old vision, America, past and present.

      It is interesting how Liberal Fundamentalists never describe life under the system they propose, except in platitudes. You would not much like a picture of the world as they would like it to be. Take 1960s Britain. The Beatles wrote “Taxman” about the 95% tax rate they faced, which didn’t solve all the problems as it was supposed to.

      In liberal utopia, there is little reward for hard work. The government decides which companies win and lose.

      In liberal utopia, political connections rule the day, because there is little in the way of democracy, since the government chooses what is right and wrong, winners and losers. It has never worked, and it never will.

      But liberal utopia is not so far away. Go to YouTube and look up Nigel Farage for how the EU is already there. So many in the EU now realize that it was a terrible mistake to put bureaucrats in charge.

      Examples:(video’s deleted to allow post)

      A bureaucrat-run country is exactly what Obama seeks.

      The simple truth is that humans work best in semi-organized, legally restricted chaos. Our founding fathers called it a free Republic. Nothing the world has ever seen has ever worked better, but political extremists never cease to believe that they have a better way.

      According to Liberal Fundamentalists, if a little government is good, then a big one is better. People cannot be trusted with making their own decisions. After all, Liberal Fundamentalists are smarter than we common rabble, hiding behind religion-based morals and ethics.

      Is this what we want for our country?

      Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/08/true_colors_our_post-constitutional_liberal_fundamentalist_president.html#ixzz23dhfXwFv

    • charlieopera says:

      I have a family to support, the government doesn’t need to take money out of my pocket that could be used to feed and clothe my children because some idiot wants to lay around and have babies in order to make a living.

      See, this is some silly shit. I really tried (it’s my lunch break at work and I’d rather read a book right now) to follow this and hope to respond, but your generalization (I assume you’re referring to welfare) as “some idiot wants to lay around and have babies in order to make a living) is too dumb to argue. If that’s how you truly feel about all those on welfare, good luck, Kristian.

      If I get a chance I’ll try and read the rest of what you wrote. I just skipped to the bottom, saw the sarcasm and you know what, it’s not worth a response. You have all the answers, my friend. Good luck fighting the war with all us dumbski liberals …

      • It’s not what I believe Charlie, it’s what I’ve seen with my own 2 eyes. So I’m to believe what I hear in sound bites on TV but I’m not supposed to believe what I’ve seen? It’s not dumb and that you would resort to calling it such says to me that you don’t have an answer to my question. You can’t define the “Greater Good” because it doesn’t exist. It also tells me that you cherry picked what you wanted to comment on in that post rather than take the time to read the entire thing, so when you do get around to it Captain, I expect an apology.

        • charlieopera says:

          I’ll look it over, but don’t expect an apology, pal. You’ve seen it with your own eyes, huh? So, is the implication that all those on welfare are having babies to avoid work or just the “ones” youv’e seen?

          It’s an idiotic statement and argument, but I’ll read further when I get home (if I have the time).

          • In 1965 when John V. Lindsay was elected Mayor of NYC, the welfare rolls were at about 350,000 in an 8,000,000 population. In his second term, they topped 1,000,000.with the overall population shrinking. I was there and it was not pretty. Going on welfare brings a lot of baggage along with it. My experiences in and out of government were very instructive. Six kids with different last names, 42 year old great grandmothers. Abandoned kids left alone in a City paid for welfare hotel room with the cops shooting accusatory glances at me while the lady cop was holding the 1 year old with scissors sticking out of his head. Kids OD’ing on Mom’s drugs,kids beat to within an inch of their lives, people back in their welfare hotels for the third time in two years after their third fire, totally renovated apartment buildings on Boston Road vacant again and stripped one year after the highly publicized ribbon cutting ceremony. Oh yes, and there were those multiple threats on my life from time to time for enforcing the rules.

            So cute how people today forget the Bronx burning back in the ’70’s like it didn’t happen. There used to be this big talk of how the owners and landlords torched their own buildings for profit which as a young fool I believed. That was until I met some of those landlords whose life savings went up in flames along with the buildings so the junkies could strip out the copper. There was 500 West 176th Street in upper Manhattan. It was run by the tenants association after the landlord walked away and torched by an evicted tenant. Evicted by his fellow tenants for not paying rent for two years. 5 gallons of gas on a roof can do some amazing things to a structure. It was other landlords in the neighborhood who came together with me, the tenants association and a bunch of Not-for Profits who saved that building. The other landlords, all capitalists, every one of them, called it “enlightened self interest”. Nobody wins being the neighbor of a vacant building.

            Government’s place (me) was in bringing them together. My reward, by the way was getting an involuntary transfer since I broke a cardinal rule, the one that says landlords and tenants must be at each others throats. That little trick works wonderfully for politicians, usually those of the democratic clubhouse type. Some 30 plus year later, that building stands as a well run tenant low income co-op. Across the street are government owned and managed rehabs done a few years later that are the bane of the neighborhood and have had to be renovated again and again due to vandalism.

            I have very good friends of the Liberal persuasion who were alongside of me through all this and their take is 180 degrees opposite mine. They came, they saw and they learned nothing, absolutely nothing. For them, their world view of how things should be trumped reality.

            Do not ever dismiss first person accounts. Don’t believe ‘em? Get out there and check it out yourself. Not some guided Potemkin village tour but something you do yourself. Here’s how for anyone who wants to try it. . Get yourself a dark blue windbreaker, get a baseball cap with something official looking on it or just pick up a pair of Captains bars at your local Army-Navy store and pin them on. Wear 3/4 boondockers (black). Not completely necessary but helps is to wear cargo pants. Get yourself a legal sized clipboard. On the back of the board, using a two inch high stencil, spray paint any three letters you want in yellow. FBI, DEA, ATF, ICE work well but they can really be anything including your initials. It is true, you can go anywhere in the world carrying a clipboard. Nobody wants to know who you are or why you are there.

            Have fun!

            • So cute how people today forget the Bronx burning back in the ’70′s like it didn’t happen. There used to be this big talk of how the owners and landlords torched their own buildings for profit which as a young fool I believed. That was until I met some of those landlords whose life savings went up in flames along with the buildings so the junkies could strip out the copper. There was 500 West 176th Street in upper Manhattan. It was run by the tenants

              I’ll read more of this later, Stephen, but my grandfather owned buildings in the South Bronx (Fort Apache) and what you say is true. He actually used the mob to donate them to the church … Father Louis Gigante’s buildings there … were once Poppa Carmelo Stella’s buildings.

              A quick question, though … and I’m not assuming everything you say applies to all on welfare, but what is the alternative to helping people? Social darwinism … you know, when you go that route, people will organize and they just might have a bit more rage than you think you can muster … I’m just saying.

              • He donated them as tax deductions and took a beating (my grandfather) but I’ll suggest things were handled very wrong. Workfare could always have been a way to go … education fare … etc.

              • There is no problem with helping people, the problem is in helping them without ruining them. My 42 year old great grandmother in the Bronx for example. Every block in the city has a “Mayor” someone who knows the ropes and is relied on for advice. She was my tenant and knew the system backwards and forwards. Sharp as they come and a nice person to boot. The problem was she was fourth generation on Public Assistance. She had her first kid at 13, as did her daughter and granddaughter. Her daily goal? To figure out a way to supplement inadequate welfare payments and raise her grand kids. If you had given her half a chance, forced her to look at options at an early age, made her into a Capitalist, the woman would have been unstoppable. Another tenant of mine, a West Indian woman, in East Harlem, sucked into the system, pregnant at 15 who never finished school. She had the most marvelous ability with languages., Spoke Spanish like a native, French too and was picking up Arabic by talking with storekeepers. I used to rail at her to go back to school and major in language and get a job at the UN or something but she was broken by the system. The only positive thing, and I really hope it worked out was she knew what she had done wrong and shepherded her daughter through high school. But, to be 32 years old and say, “It’s too late to change”. My God, what have WE done?

                Gigante. the priest that is was a piece of work. The City was totally afraid of him and us Housing types were ordered to give him a wide berth. He could have done so much more if he hadn’t been so full of himself and if he had pulled back from the mob. He had the original chance to have the Nehemiah plan ( look it up ) implemented in the Bronx but he got into a pissing match struggle with I.D. Robbins a white knight who was willing to pour his own money into building single family row houses on donated vacant, city-owned land in the South Bronx. The houses were to sell for $ 50,000 each in the ’80’s but Gigante wanted to “pad” the price to take care of the wise guys. Crazy stuff.

                The Nehemiah project eventually worked like a charm in Brooklyn where Bishop Mugovero rammed it down City Hall’s throat. (Ed Koch, God Bless him, did not object too much). Over 1,800 houses were built, on time and under budget in Brownsville and East New York. Eventually the project was abandoned when the 1% ers in the real estate industry got scared. You see, they were charging the city $ 80,000 to renovate a vacant one bedroom apartment in a vacant building and Robbins was building a whole frigging brick house for $50,000 limiting himself to a $ 500.00 profit per. Within months, Nehemiah, which just about every City in the country was clamoring for, disappeared from the housing lexicon. The excuse? Robbins was insensitive to the poor! Yeah, really insensitive developing low income housing in the worst neighborhood in the City for the working poor. Man, when they want to get you, you are got.

    • charlieopera says:

      That’s okay, champ, I’m danged if I’ve ever seen all men are created equal …:)

  25. @Kristian, The greater good is a fairytale made up to brainwash people into being controlled. It is communist propaganda, nothing more, nothing less. Do not fall for the bleeding heart bullshit that the left will always hand you. Charlie needs to quit his troll job and get a real job :wink:

    • Wuddya mean a fairytale…Julia lives there!

      • You two are funny!! I know that Charlie believes in the greater good and it is noble, it just isn’t realistic. I guess that’s where he and BF part ways.

        • charlieopera says:

          And BF’s anarchist utopia … where the truly free market reigns supreme and hard work is rewarded? Where is that going on these days (any days)? Please …

          • Charlie,

            I have weighed in on this before and agree with you, it does not exist and cannot exist in today’s world. The one difference is your vision has been tried multiple times and has always ended with massive loss of life. The Pilgrims tried “collective” farming and nearly starved. They switched to private ownership and began to prosper.

            At the end of the Greater Good/BF argument, you can’t prove his society cannot work. Nor can he prove it would, great theory but no proof. He can “prove” you society will fail, again and again.

            “where the truly free market reigns supreme and hard work is rewarded? Where is that going on these days ” try googling, countries that have raised their poverty level by embracing the free market

            • charlieopera says:

              The one difference is your vision has been tried multiple times and has always ended with massive loss of life. The Pilgrims tried “collective” farming and nearly starved. They switched to private ownership and began to prosper.

              Baloney. Even under dictatorships the system itself worked (and, no, I’m no proposing dictatorships (but see Chomsky’s arguments on the situation in Russia, third world, etc.) agrarian production went up dramatically in most cases.

              As to the Pilgrims … if you think they had it bad, ask the Indians how they felt about it once the Pilgrims switched to “private” ownership (writing it takes some pair of balls, my friend).

              At the end of the Greater Good/BF argument, you can’t prove his society cannot work. Nor can he prove it would, great theory but no proof. He can “prove” you society will fail, again and again.

              More baloney. You’re sold on his view. I can’t help you.

              as to your google question, I respond “at who’s expense”?

              • “As to the Pilgrims … if you think they had it bad, ask the Indians how they felt about it once the Pilgrims switched to “private” ownership”

                Kinda hard to have a conversation here Charlie, if that’s what you want. We were talking about the collective society vs an individualized society. If you can put aside the tragic treatment of the Indians by later settlers and look at the history of settling the US. The first colonies failed. They were nearly all men looking to find or loot gold. They tried to feed themselves while seeking their fortune and most died. I think this happened a couple times.

                JamesTown was different, with families and true settlers wanting to create their ideal of a good society. They elected a governor aboard ship, who ordered them to farm collectively. Married men had family demands, so would not work as much in the fields as the single men. The single men were resentful and withheld their labor, doing just enough to escape punishment. They barely survived two years of this, before switching to individuals owning and working their own land. These highly religious men could not work together even when their lives depended on it! This is the same story repeated large with every collective society attempted.

                You rail against BF’s utopia (and I have agreed with YOU, not him) but how about you put up or shut up! Where is this collective society in today’s world you would want to live in or one in the recent past? Where’s you utopia, given that it has been attempted. Flag has an out, that no one has tried his vision of a truly free society.

                “as to your google question, I respond “at who’s expense”?” I posted a link that shows how free market societies raise themselves out of poverty. Poor societies that receive foreign aid stagnate in their poverty. How to answer “at who’s expense”? Those that lift themselves do so at their own expense. Those that accept handouts, but refuse a hand-up, do so at theirs and our (was long as we support them) expense.

                I have answered with logic and historic fact. I think this is where you start calling me names.
                Be creative, keep us entertained.

            • LOI,

              At the end of the Greater Good/BF argument, you can’t prove his society cannot work. Nor can he prove it would,

              This is a common mistake people make – some concept of “proof” about something around society that “works” or “not works”.

              What is your standard of proof?
              What do you define as ‘working’?

              Neither of these are even provided in an vague concept, let alone coherently explained.

              Charlie’s ilk are dismissed on arguments of principle, not some vague, incoherent standard of “proof of working”.

              You cannot hold equally both a concept of voluntary action and freedom while supporting violence and coercion and theft.

              Charlie tries to do this, and will always fail. He is not alone here on SUFA, he is merely the most exaggerated example.

          • nd BF’s anarchist utopia … where the truly free market reigns supreme and hard work is rewarded? Where is that going on these days (any days)? Please ..

            Right under your nose, and … (gasp) you are the one doing that.

            • charlieopera says:

              And here we lefties all thought this wasn’t a true free market. So, it takes the government form of capitalism for hard work to be rewarded? Interesting, buffone. (gasp) me thinks you’re buffooning out of both sides of your pie hole.

              • You fail to learn.

                Free market is scalable. Do you know what that means?

                It means it occurs in small little corners of a street as well as it occurs across international borders.

                It does not need to occur “everywhere” to exist.

                When government blocks free trade across borders, free markets pops up as “smuggling” – the name applied to it affirms government’s hatred of it, but all it is is people in voluntary trade of goods the government doesn’t want traded.

                When government blocks trade within a border, free markets pops up as “black markets”, for the same reasons.

                You know of these things given your history – you are a natural free trader, even in the face of government prohibition against it, right?

                Yet, you do not WANT TO UNDERSTAND what you are doing because it would invalidate some bizarre brain-twist philosophy you have.

    • charlieopera says:

      Charlie probably work 3x’s harder than you, my brother in trolldom … :)

  26. Ammunition request by the Department of Homeland Security. The quantities are now being blacked out (maybe they have something to hide) on new orders. But —–

    As you can see for yourself, this DHS contract requests huge quantities of all the following ammunition (and much more):

    • Over one million rounds of hollow-point .223 rifle ammo
    • Over half a million rounds of non-hollow-point .223 rifle ammo
    • 220,000 rounds of 12 gauge shotgun #7 ammo (target ammo)
    • Over 200,000 rounds of 12 gauge shotgun #00 buckshot ammo (tactical anti-personnel ammo)
    • 66,000 rounds of 12 gauge shotgun slugs (tactical anti-personnel, anti-vehicle rounds)
    • Over two million rounds of hollow-point .357 Sig JPH (hollow-point) pistol ammo (anti-personnel)
    • Over four million rounds of .40 S&W JPH (hollow-point) pistol ammo (anti-personnel)
    • Over 60,000 rounds of .308 match grade anti-personnel sniper rounds (BTHP)
    • Plus, hundreds of thousands of additional rounds of .38 special, .45 auto, 9mm, 7.62×39 (AK rifle) ammo, and others.

    A d v e r t i s e m e n t
    This is on top of the massive 450 million .40 S&W hollow point rounds the DHS has already requisitioned

    • Homeland Security supposedly has about 200K employees. The FishPolice are supposed to qualify every six months, so assume the same for all homeland agencies…. How many rounds would/could 200K officers shoot to qualify twice a year? Is this stockpiling and use not higher than the military use in training and fighting a war? Or at least comparable to that? We know they won’t shoot or arrest illegals that cross the border, so who are they shooting or planing to shoot? (PS, the NOAA included 500 paper targets with their ?180K of .40 ammo–somehow the math on targets and ammo does not add up)

  27. http://www.buzzfeed.com/jpmoore/barack-obama-is-a-wizard

    How many jobs did the stimulus save? My crystal ball says… 640,000!

  28. Just A Citizen says:

    Black Flag

    My old pirate friend, I do not share your view that the Tea Party failed.

    Your obituary is a little like declaring your effort to put out the wildfire failed on the first day when the crews have just arrived.

    In fact, there have been substantive changes in many house and senate seats due to the “tea party” movement. Not Tea Party Express.

    More importantly, there have been major shifts in some State Legislatures and the behavior of Local Councils and Mayors. Hell, even some Dem Mayors are finally biting the bullet on cost containment.

    I think it to early to judge whether it was successful. But so far it has won some battles and lost some. But the debate has changed. Without the “awakening” that would not be the case.

    As I have said before, can they sustain the efforts? Can they maintain holding Electeds accountable?

    The system depends on the PEOPLE becoming tired and distracted. If they do not, then the “system” will in deed suffer……….. eventually.

    • JAC,

      As I said, they created a new conversation. This is good.

      But as a political movement, they are no different.
      They want to keep their goodies “old age pensions, Social Security” but cut everyone else’s goodies “welfare, medicare”.

      In this they are no different then any other politics – my goods, your cost.

  29. Just A Citizen says:

    How can a society that is willing to sacrifice certain individuals for the benefit of the rest actually create anything resembling “greater good”?

    As each member sacrificed must eventually be replaced by another, and another, and another. Until All of society is equally uniform in their standing and thinking.

    Thus the “greater good” becomes the good of the few who get to decide who will be sacrificed, and of course what the meaning of “good” is for the rest of us.

  30. Just A Citizen says:

    Here is how the leftist distorts the rules of nature to their notion of “society” and “who built that”.

    The truth of the following phrase is turned on its head: “Insofar as it is collaborative, a society can enable its members to benefit in ways that would not otherwise be possible on an individual basis; both individual and social (common) benefits can thus be distinguished, or in many cases found to overlap.”

    The key to the distortion is in ignoring the word “collaborative” which of course means “voluntary” as nobody collaborates under duress. This has to be hidden in order to reach the conclusion that we must “force” people together via GOVT actions. And then we can declare that SOCIETY (aka Govt) is the true provider and NOT the individuals who comprise the group.

    It is also worth noting that two things are needed to rationalize the murder of millions.

    Establish Group identity vs Individual identity.

    and,

    Dehumanize the group.

  31. charlieopera says:

    Last call before lunch is over: The greater good is a concept … not an attempt to make everything equal. More an attempt to make everything accessible; where we all attempt to work together for the benefit of all … yes, a very lofty concept and one that involves a bit of stargazing … but permitted what we have here in the good old US&A … rule by the 1% … seems dumb by comparison. Why not strive for the better of the hole than be ruled by the few? Have a nice afternoon …

  32. Just A Citizen says:

    One more thought, comment, for the day.

    If you go back and follow what happened during the health care debate, between the POTUS and the Republicans, as well as the debt extension debate, you will discover the reason things do not get fixed in D.C..

    In fact, the debates here the last few days reflect the EXACT SAME problem.

    That is that the two sides START with positions and then start negotiating from there. This causes B.S. Positions to be put forth and all kinds of manipulation and confusion to be spread during the process. It usually breaks down or results in a fix that looks like that horse designed by committee.

    Two initial steps are critical to any lasting and meaningful settlement.

    1. Agreement on the PROCESS for negotiating. This must be viewed as FAIR by all parties.

    2. Agreement on basic facts about the PROBLEM.

    These two steps have never been done. This is what Romney could do to break the stalemate. That is if he asserts his Executive Self and puts aside the Partisan Self.

    He does not have to “move to the center” or “reach across the isle” (which means adopt the other sides view). He has to be the MODERATOR or the FACILITATOR in Chief.

    Mr. Obama has no credibility in this arena. Not in his prior experience nor as POTUS. So it is up to Mr. Romney to make the case he can take on this role.

  33. charlieopera says:

    @ LOI You rail against BF’s utopia (and I have agreed with YOU, not him) but how about you put up or shut up! Where is this collective society in today’s world you would want to live in or one in the recent past? Where’s you utopia, given that it has been attempted. Flag has an out, that no one has tried his vision of a truly free society.

    Where did I ever use the word utopia to describe Socialism. Seriously, look back at all your posts (and mine) and find it. You won’t … so it’s your term and a very weak strawman argument (so I won’t address it).

    “as to your google question, I respond “at who’s expense”?” I posted a link that shows how free market societies raise themselves out of poverty.

    Does it show how they exploit? If not, I don’t have much interest in them (i.e., free markets (although most of you here claim there is no such thing so maybe you need to find a better description) seem to lean toward exploitation of one for the benefit of the other (see the third world).

    Poor societies that receive foreign aid stagnate in their poverty. How to answer “at who’s expense”? Those that lift themselves do so at their own expense. Those that accept handouts, but refuse a hand-up, do so at theirs and our (was long as we support them) expense.

    It’s that simple, huh? And you know this because you’ve lived in poverty in some other society? Feel free to visit Apalachia someday.

    I have answered with logic and historic fact. I think this is where you start calling me names. Be creative, keep us entertained.

    Yeah, your logic is impeccable (sarcasm intended). Stay convinced, my friend … and thirsty … remember, when his beard reaches the perfect length, it stops growing … he’s the most interesting man in the world.

    I try to keep you entertained, LOI … because so many of you keep me entertained … fair’s fair :)

    Now I have to drive home …

    • Charlie, could you define for us..capitalism or free market? Just stay with a definition not an assault on the concept. Please ;)

    • so it’s your term and a very weak strawman argument (so I won’t address it).

      Sounds like a copout. So define using your terms (setting your own definitions rather than allowing others to) and answer the question.

      • I thought your response to Naom Chomsky (something like: that he didn’t know what capitalism was) was the ultimate copout. Of course if I am misquoting or misrepresenting you here, please clarify why Chomsky was so easily dismissed.

        The closest thing to the socialism I believe in (not the strawman utopia argument you’re all so dependent on “putting words in my mouth” with) is Holland. But I’d take France and pretty much most of the European governments over what we have. And please don’t bother to tell me about their economic crisis (in my opinion those were caused in part by our economic crisis) and most important, at least their people are treated with more respect than their banks.

        • I thought your response to Naom Chomsky (something like: that he didn’t know what capitalism was) was the ultimate copout.

          Chomsky DOES know what capitalism – that is why he distorts his definitions. He cannot accept voluntary trade, yet he cannot argue against the voluntary trade of men – so he must change the definition to be something else, and argue against that.

          That is why, in that matter, he is easily dismissed — and he is by a large segment of his own ilk.

          He is listened to only when he moves back into arguments that are consistent.

          But I’d take France and pretty much most of the European governments over what we have.

          Economic ignoramus.

          Europe is about to collapse into an orgy of monetary nightmare trying to maintain Socialism across the continent.

          With little surprise, the experiment concluded into a group of defunct nations who thought borrowing to rich was rich, as long as the working nations paid.

          With little surprise, the working nations stopped paying.

          With little surprise, the spendthrift nations are angry at not getting their free money.

          This is the world of Charlie.

          He believes this represents “respect” – people who do not earn, getting what they did not earn.

          Europe will show how deep this respect actually goes.

          • charlieopera says:

            Economic ignoramus.

            See, Plainly?

            Why he’s a buffoon … and always, always, always will be.

            • But Charlie, you are economically ignorant.

              You been offered ample hearings to give your economic theory, and you do nothing. Like above, you can’t even respond coherently to Anita.

              So, ya “See!” — exactly Charlie, you are an economic ignoramus.

  34. Just A Citizen says:

    Charlie

    “The greater good is a concept … not an attempt to make everything equal. More an attempt to make everything accessible; where we all attempt to work together for the benefit of all … yes, a very lofty concept and one that involves a bit of stargazing …”

    The “greater good” of a given population, lets say the USA, can only occur in one of two ways.

    1) The cumulative result of individuals acting in accordance with what they consider the greater good for them. Each of us acting in voluntary ways with others.

    2) A third party deciding what is the “greatest good, for the greatest number, in the long run”. This of course means SOMEBODY OTHER THAN YOU gets to make that decision. It means that THEIR view of good may or may not be good for you.

    You continue to rant against a small group controlling the world. But you argue for political systems that involve a small group controlling the world. The only way to escape this reality is to argue that a PURE DEMOCRACY would resolve the conflict.

    But such a system simply replaces one group with the one who gets 50% plus 1 vote on any given day. So the result remains the same, SOME deciding what is good for the OTHERS.

    In other words, there is NO ESCAPE from the reality of Option 2.

    Very few of us have the time and resources to “work for the benefit of all”. First of all I have no idea what that “benefit” might be for the guy across the street, let alone someone living in New Jersey, or the population as a whole. Second, I have limited time and resources so I can only work for my family. If I have excess time/funds then I can might try to help a few others I know are truly in need.

    I don’t need some guy in D.C. making that decision for me. In fact, his/her decisions usually interfere with my ability to help others. Especially given the burden on my income created by those decisions.

    • You continue to rant against a small group controlling the world. But you argue for political systems that involve a small group controlling the world. The only way to escape this reality is to argue that a PURE DEMOCRACY would resolve the conflict.

      I’m afraid to say you’re putting words in my mouth, JAC … that’s a touchy issue here at SUFA. But, no, I don’t argue for a small group; on the contrary, I’d prefer smaller localized governments made up of working class people as well as the ruling class (in direct proportion to population size). A national government stripped of overreaching power is fine by me, but I do not believe in much of what the capitalist system is based on (private property, etc., outside of a home, say … or a small business). I don’t believe in inheritence and/or someone benefitting forever on an idea (or risk, if you prefer) that turned windfall. I understand you abhor this stuff and that’s fine. Let’s agree to disagree. The accumulation of wealth in the U.S. is the problem (as I see it), not the welfare state you fear it is becoming.

    • Greater Good arguments are never about what is the greatest good for people.

      It is always about what is the greatest good for the guy demanding the Greater Good.

      He doesn’t give squat about other people – because he needs to steal from them to achieve his goal. You can’t care about someone you are about to steal or kill.

      It is always about taking without earning – and there is nothing great or good about that.

      • Mathius™ says:

        Howdy Mr. Flag!

        It is always about what is the greatest good for the guy demanding the Greater Good.

        I give more than I get from the system. If it’s about what’s best for the guy doing the demanding (ie, myself), then I should be a net receiver. As I am a net payer (and happy to be one), your argument fails on it’s face.

        Now, there may be other arguments to be held against Greater Good Theory (as it has lovingly come to be known in these parts) but this isn’t one of them. You essentially accuse all proponents of being disingenuous. We don’t do it because it’s “best for us.” We do it because it’s “best for everyone, hopefully including us.” Now, it’s entirely possible that we’re wrong and that it’s NOT best for everyone. But you can’t infer from that that our MOTIVES are flawed.

        • Mathius

          I give more than I get from the system. If it’s about what’s best for the guy doing the demanding (ie, myself), then I should be a net receiver.

          And that is the folly of it all.

          You are playing the game – as a loser – hoping that by playing the game, you can turn it into a winner.

          People vote themselves rich, so to be rich by not working. But people do understand at a core that not “everyone” can be rich doing this. Someone has to lose.

          So it is a game of rigged musical chairs.

          You participate because you hope, one day, that you benefit from the game.

          You are the Charlie Brown trying to kick Lucy’s football. No matter how many times you fall on your back, you are back up thinking “this time, she’ll let me kick that football”.

          As I am a net payer (and happy to be one), your argument fails on it’s face.

          Nowhere did I claim you would GET from the system, sir.

          I claimed you argue for it TO GET from the system. There was no mention of the assurance of you achieving it.

          Indeed, you cannot get from it – if you thought about it. Which is why Charlie clings to it; he cannot think.

          • Mathius™ says:

            You are playing the game – as a loser – hoping that by playing the game, you can turn it into a winner.

            No.

            I am playing the game as a loser, expecting to continue being a loser.

            I have no hope to turn into a ‘net winner’ because that it NOT MY GOAL.

            My goal is to lose in a controlled fashion an amount which does a minimum of damage to myself and which helps others.

            I can afford to lose. Others NEED to win.

            You like poker. Imagine you’re playing with a group of good friends. One friend, however, is almost out of chips. You have tons of chips. You know that if he goes home broke, he’s in trouble. So, maybe you deliberately lose a big hand and double him up so that his wife doesn’t kill him.

            People vote themselves rich, so to be rich by not working.

            That’s true. But I don’t.

            Charlie doesn’t.

            Buck doesn’t.

            Todd doesn’t.

            In fact, most liberals are located in Blue States (obviously) and those are the ones which are net payers to the Red States. The LIBERALS are giving money to poor CONSERVATIVES. We’re not ‘voting ourselves rich’, we’re voting OTHER PEOPLE rich less poor.

            You participate because you hope, one day, that you benefit from the game.

            I benefit from the game by knowing that I have made the world a better place for people who are less fortunate than myself.

            I claimed you argue for it TO GET from the system.

            But I DON’T GET from the system. I don’t WANT to get from the system. I GIVE to the system. I WANT to give to the system.

            • charlieopera says:

              because that it NOT MY GOAL.

              Bada-boom, bada-bing, but he’ll never be able to digest this. He’s a friggin’ robot that can only repeat what he needs to hear himself say … until the rest of us run into a wall head first … or opt for not making ourselvls crazy and call him a buffoon and smile :)

            • Just A Citizen says:

              Mathius

              But I DO NOT want to give to the system, nor do I want to take from the system.

              Now what???

              Do I get the choice??

              Hell NO!! Because those who WANT to give to the system believe WE should ALL BUNDLE.

            • Mathius,

              No. I am playing the game as a loser, expecting to continue being a loser.

              In Poker, you are know as a “fish”. You know the type, those that go to Vegas planning “only to lose $1,000″

              So, maybe you deliberately lose a big hand and double him up so that his wife doesn’t kill him.

              You DEFINITELY have no idea how to “play” poker.

              100% absolutely never would I lose a big hand to save him from his wife.

              Why would I insult him that way, if he was my friend?

              He makes his own choices, one way or the other, and he has already decided to risk the ire of his wife. Why in hell do you think I think I know more than him, and should save him from his own choice?????

              I understand you have some sort of God-knowledge mental disease, believing you know better of other people’s choices for themselves, but that is truly your problem, not mine

              . I GIVE to the system. I WANT to give to the system.

              Bullcrap.

              You are lying to me and to yourself.

              You are playing a fool’s game. You believe you can fool the people by saying “look, I’m letting them steal a dollar from me, so you should too!”

              It is merely a feint – you -and especially Buck- wish me to believe you are giving out of the goodness of your heart.

              But that’s a lie. Because if you were, you would! You would choose a different, moral path of “giving” – like, actually going and giving your money, time and talent to charity.

              But that’s not what you are doing.

              You are lying to me – making a big play out of doing nothing, and turning it into an excuse to justify stealing from me so that you can use my money for your own nefarious reasons – as all Socialists end up doing, because the stolen loot is always fungible.

            • Mathius,
              But I do hope to gain something! I hope to gain a stronger, more stable society so we all, including me, can continue to gain.

              That part about the Blue States continually paying the Red States is starting to get old though!!

              • Todd,

                Please explain how systemic theft over a large population improves societal stability.

              • That part about the Blue States continually paying the Red States is starting to get old though!!

                “THUD” Way to go Todd! .I can’t believe my eyes. Dissent in the ranks, but it sure makes my day! Just for you Todd ;) :

              • Anita,
                Sorry, I wasn’t clear. I meant: “As a resident of a Blue State, constantly paying money to the Red States is getting old.”

                Thanks for the Smiley!!!

              • Black Flag,
                I never mentioned theft. I give freely of my time, talents, and money. I hope others will do the same and continue to “pay-it-forward.”

                You know – the GREATER GOOD!

              • Todd,

                That is not the “Greater Good”.
                Greater Good is force upon others to surrender their property, wealth and often lives for someone else. It is a subjective determination that someone else’s life is more important than an other innocent person’s life.

                Yours is a description of charity.
                You chose when, where, how much and to whom you wish to give such a grant.

                The evil of the Socialist is the pretending these two acts are the same – thereby claiming the virtue of charity while using the bloody evil of violence to accomplish their aims.

    • Way to go Eric Bolling and the whole panel of The Five on Fox News, including lefty Bob Beckel for denouncing the city’s actions, and big kudos to Bolling for picking up the lady’s $1000 fine.

  35. Just A Citizen says:

    Individual Liberty vs. Society

    “The object of this essay is to assert one very simple principle, as entitled to govern absolutely the dealings of society with the individual in the way of compulsion and control, whether the means used be physical force in the form of legal penalties, or the moral coercion of public opinion. That principle is, that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinions of others, to do so would be wise, or even right.”

    John Stuart Mill

    • JAC,
      Who gets to decide when “self protection” warrants an action to “prevent harm to others”?

  36. @Stephen:

    You’ll get no argument from me regarding the political parties of our day (both GOP & DEM), including Obama. I want him to lose for what he’s done to labor (not just unions–they’re almost gone now and his extra push by ignoring them in WI shouldn’t be forgotten–in that regard, many here are correct regarding how corrup they’ve become) but they pale in comparison to the corruption the 1% yields. Now, 2 wrongs don’t make a right, so maybe a different government (one without monetary interest) would help. No panacea and no way it’ll happen while I’m alive, but the truth of the matter is, cut off the spigot and you’ll have warfare in the streets. And so long as the spigot get turned on and off by the ruling class, it deserves what it gets (violence or otherwise).

    • Just A Citizen says:

      As long as you use Govt to get what you want you will have a “ruling class”.

      It will only be the faces in the chairs that change.

      • The alternate is anarchy. I have no problem with the concept, but that’s as likely to happen as my Bills winning the super bowl this season, the next, the one after that and the one after that (making up for the 4 straight losses).

      • The faces will change and more people will benefit from the change than before …:)

  37. @Charlie, I had much time to think about your “concept of the Greater Good”. THe concept is very admirable, just not realistic. To explain, we are part of the animal world, and NATURE rules. There are the strong and weak in every species on this planet, including us, the humans. We are quite smart, but we cannot ever change nature. Sorry, but prove me wrong, just like the rest of nature and all living things, only the strong will survive. Governmet can’t change nature, neither can people.

    • There are the strong and weak in every species on this planet, including us, the humans.
      Sounds like social darwinism … and under that paradigm, the strong will survive (the ones with the biggest bombs and coldest hearts). I think our ability to think is the stopgap to that scenario. Ayn Rand is closer to that paradigm than me, G. It’s one of my issues with her (that violence is abhored long after it was part of the expansion of the capitalist society she’s so fond of). I can’t prove you wrong, G. Nor can you prove yourself correct (that thinking bit the human mind can do to avoid social darwinism. Capitalism (to me) is another form of it, because (again, to me), money is every bit the weapon a gun is.

  38. Anybody watch the last word on MSNBC last night? Wow, what a great piece on Ryan and Rand. Boy, this boyscout Ryan seems to be as good a bullshitter (Liar) as his running mate; he loved Ayn Rand (made his staff read her books), then ran for cover when the catholics pointed out she was an atheist and he came out “strong” against her. What a flat-leaver.

    Romney the flip-flop machine and Ryan the Ayn Rand loving/then hating liar.

    I say they lose by the equivalent of a landslide … not that Obama isn’t a liar, but he’s so much more likeable, no? :)

    • OMG! You are brainwashed by MSNBC, the far left wing corporate whore want to be news outlet who’s two most famous people (a guy who gets a tingle down his leg when he see’s Obama and a supposed female who may really be a guy), you fall hook line and sinker (just like you did during the Martin shooting) for their outright bullshit and make some rediculous claim about an election 3 months out! :lol: A chimp could be trained better, but you do make a good troll :wink:

      • charlieopera says:

        Finally, Gman applies the monkey strategem to white folk (moi)! I’m proud of you, G.

        Maybe I should watch Fox … because they’re so fair and balanced? I do listen to Marc Levin for about 3-5 minutes each night during my drive home from work … it’s about all I can take of his insanity, although every once in a while he says some funny shit (usually during a rant) and I have to think he knows it’s all bullshit and he’s counting his coins.

    • Mathius™ says:

      I say they lose by the equivalent of a landslide …

      If he weren’t black… (yes, SUFA, I said it. Deal with it!)

      If he didn’t have a middle name like Hussain…

      If he weren’t from somewhere exotic like Hawaii Kenya..

      If there weren’t so many conspiracy theories circulating that people inexplicably believe..

      If the media would do a better job of calling out the Romney campaign on it’s total BS.. (good job, Solidad, btw)

      If he had done a little more for his base and a little less to “compromise” with people whose only interest is in seeing him fail..

      If he weren’t up for election during a shit-tastic economy (regardless of the fact that he didn’t create the situation and has, in fact, massively improved it)..

      If he had done a better job of educating people about the truth of what is and is not in the ACA (ObamaCare)..

      Yea.. I’m going to call it a win.. but closer than anyone’s predicting.

      not that Obama isn’t a liar, but he’s so much more likeable, no?

      I sure like him a lot more…

      • charlieopera says:

        He’s win BIG, Matt … this clown act the GOP is fielding will crumble long before election day.

      • If he weren’t black………. PLEASE!. Go preach that shit to your lefty sites would ya? No one on SUFA has ever complained about his race. Same thing with your Hussein shit. If you can’t DEAL WITH all the reasons folks on SUFA dislike Obama, that’s your problem. But don’t label us as racist, mkay? :roll:

        (I was in a decent mood til I read that..even while reading Charlie’s BS)

        • Anita, That’s all those on the left have. He’s the worst President ever! They can’t praise his record, cuz it sucks. All they can do is make excuses. Reality is, Obamaloni sucks.

        • Mathius™ says:

          No one on SUFA has ever complained about his race.

          Sufa is an anomaly.

          I remember seeing a survey that 30-something percent of people in Tennessee (Kentucky? South Carolina? One of those backward states) said they’d never vote for a black man. What really interested me about this wasn’t that 30% wouldn’t vote for a black man, but that 30% were so comfortable with this fact that they didn’t even bother lying about it.

          Don’t tell me racism is dead in America. It’s alive and well in many parts of the country. Sure, no one on SUFA would complain about his race, but that doesn’t mean that no one else would.

          And… (some quick googling)…

          Don’t care what any of you say, I dislike this zebra a lot

          Want to guess where I read that? Probably some troll on Red State?

          NOPE! It was right here on SUFA!

          • charlieopera says:

            Good Lord, Matt, you’ll give USW a friggin’ heart attack!

          • Some context please. I’m thinking that was GMan complaining about his WHITE half too..not that he is black.

            • Mathius™ says:

              I’m thinking that was GMan complaining about his WHITE half too

              NOPE! ::GONG!!::

              Some context please.

              Here you go!

              Goldie, circa October 2009:

              Don’t care what any of you say, I dislike this zebra a lot, he has brought more problems to America than I have noticed and I have been on this earth longer than any of you, 85 years and he is the worst president I have ever seen, read about etc. I do not like him, he is an arrogant narcissis meglomanic and some day you people who like him will be able to admit it. To spend money taking his wife out and have a fleet of helicopters fly with them for protection, why does he love abortion, black babies aborted, took the ban on partial birth abortion off, I challenge him to witness a partial birth abortion, oh wait he will have to get an ok from some of his handlers via the teleprompter, maybe soros can tell him not to watch, my anger is so wild at this time, I can’t say how much I hate this person, Jesus says we shouldn’t hate, but when we are wearing head scarves and burkas and have to walk behind a man, then I will say, God bless Obama, please change his Muslim heart into a decent, kind, compassionate heart as a Christian has. Amen. Can you other posts say anything that agrees with me, NO!!!!!!!!!

              So, let’s see…

              Zebra…
              Arrogance..
              Spending money on secret service protection..
              “Loves” abortion..
              Teleprompters..
              Soros..
              Sharia law..
              Muslim..

              Looks like we hit all the high points..

              And this was only 8 months into his first term.

              • Real cute. You know exactly what I’m talking about, Matt. Play your games dude!

              • charlieopera says:

                But I have to give the G’ster some credit … at least he isn’t hiding behind a fugazy moniker (that really pisses the fraddy cats on the wingie side of the “liberty” discussion off) … :)

              • Mathius™ says:

                Sorry, Anita, what games?

                I said that the election will be closer, at least in part, because he is black.

                You asserted that there is no racism in SUFA. (not that that was my point – my point is that there’s racism in America, not SUFA)

                But then I showed you a post where the woman used a racial slur before tearing into him for, amongst other things, being a Muslim.

                So you tell me: what games am I playing, exactly?

              • Just A Citizen says:

                Matt

                The issue on the table was whether anyone has used his RACE as an issue in itself.

                The ZEBRA reference was discussed extensively when it was used. It seems to me that Goldie was making the point raised by Anita. The guy is both black and white yet all we here about is BLACK and his BLACKNESS was used to win the election.

                It is now being used to try and win again. And to keep this country ANGRY and DIVIDED.

                The rest of list is not related to the issue raised. But you should post them below because they ALL STILL APPLY to this FASCIST PROGRESSIVE ASS-CLOWN.

                You know, the guy who told the Republicans at their first sit down “I won” so get used to it. Yep, that would be the working with those who only wish to derail his presidency.

          • I know that you read it here. If you read that whole thread, Goldie was chastised for this. I also eventually asked Goldie to not post at SUFA any longer because I found her comments both offensive and irrational. SUFA cannot be held accountable for some troll that jumped in here and said something stupid :)

            • Mathius™ says:

              True. Very true. I did read the thread and was personally quite involved in that chastising. That, however, is not the point.

              Interesting that you asked her not to post here. I heartily approve of that decision on your part. I’m glad to hear that that is why she is not here anymore (she was 85 years old.. I was wondering…)

              Anyway, while certainly it is unfair to just SUFA as a whole accountable for a single troll, that’s beside the point. Anita asserted that no one at SUFA has ever objected to his race. I showed her post to prove this false. And, further, with the goal of pointing out that while SUFA is a sheltered harbor, I was trying to demonstrate that America at large still has a very real problem with racism. Specifically, that his being black is going to be a major problem for him in certain areas. Do you disagree?

              • Just A Citizen says:

                Mathius

                Here is the flaw in your argument.

                He was BLACK last time.

                His middle name was Hussein last time.

                Last time he was elected with 55% of the vote.

                So I say neither of these factors will have anymore effect this time than last time. They may actually be less of a factor, as others have taken the front seat.

                My only caveat is this. If he is perceived as favoring “blacks” in some egregious way or if he is viewed as using his race to stifle debate and questions, then it will act against him. But again, it is not his color that will be the loadstone, but his actual actions relative to racial issues. But because he IS black it will be claimed that holding him to account is racism in and of itself.

                The sad part is that his actions will probably be responsible for increasing racial tensions in this country, rather than helping to diminish them further. And as I see it, those tensions are rising faster in the black community than in the white.

              • Mathius™ says:

                Last time he was elected with 55% of the vote.

                Last time he was running as the insurgent outsider against the most unpopular President in history (Obama ran against Bush, not McCain) right after the biggest financial collapse in generations amid two wildly unpopular and protracted wars.

                If Obama had been white, McCain’s electoral math would have looked a lot more like Mondale’s.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Matt

        Solidad’s rebuttal was BULL SHIT. Sunnunu nailed it. She is in the tank for POTUS and it shows in everything she does and says.

        Crappy journalism from someone who is supposed to be a journalist and not a pundit. Also to be expected from journalists in general. They can find source information but have no basis to understand the details and then put it all in context, and thus reach BAD conclusions.

        Her own argument was to cite reports that ADMIT that certain things were “reduced in Medicare”. This “reduction” was used to counter the costs of Obama Care. Then She wants to argue this is not a cut of medicare but a “savings”. Because ACA is somehow going to reduce the cost to medicare. But that cost was already reduced by assigning the 713 to the ACA.

        So why is something like using “vouchers” as an option withing Medicare called “destroying Medicare as we know it” but taking out 713 of covered services, transferring some services to ACA, double counting the saving, NOT considered “destroying Medicare as we know it”?????

        Please explain that to me and put it in the context of Obrien’s argument.

      • I’m rather surprised to see you write this, Matt. Usually, your posts are very reasonable. I may not always agree with you, but I have to give you props for that. This post, however, is a bit below you.

        If he weren’t black… (yes, SUFA, I said it. Deal with it!)

        If he didn’t have a middle name like Hussain…

        If he weren’t from somewhere exotic like Hawaii Kenya..

        Fair enough. There are some crazy people out there. Don’t forget, however, that the crazies exist on both sides. I saw numerous examples last election of black conservatives stating they voted for Obama because he is black. Your awe that people are ok with racism should extend both ways, to be fair.

        If there weren’t so many conspiracy theories circulating that people inexplicably believe..

        If the media would do a better job of calling out the Romney campaign on it’s total BS.. (good job, Solidad, btw)

        This is where you lose me. Do you honestly believe that there are any fewer conspiracy theories about conservatives like Romney than there are with Obama? How about “Romney killed my wife”? Ideologues will vote along party lines and believe whatever crap they are sold from their side.

        If he weren’t up for election during a shit-tastic economy (regardless of the fact that he didn’t create the situation and has, in fact, massively improved it)..

        This one is funny. Obama massively improved the economy? Really? When I was speaking to one of my liberal friends before the election I stated up front, the economy will get better. No matter who is in office, that was a fact. Whoever was in office would claim it was because of them, but the truth is that the economy is cyclical. A drop is always followed by an upswing. I doubt very much you could prove that it was because of Obama policies. The same would have been true for Republicans if they had been in office.

        This is akin to the sheer idiocy of claiming that the stimulus kept us from going over a cliff. You simply cannot prove it one way or the other. Perhaps the recovery could have been better without the stimulus. I’m sure I could find a reasonable amount of literature supporting both sides. Making silly claims like that make you sound like a partisan, my friend.

        If he had done a better job of educating people about the truth of what is and is not in the ACA (ObamaCare)..

        Like he really knew what was in ACA (does anyone really, even the ones who wrote the damn thing?)… I guarantee you that health insurance issues will not get better with ACA, but that is a discussion for another day.

    • Remember that Bill Buckley kicked her to the curb when he figured out what she was all about. Interesting ideas but that’s all they are, interesting ideas.

      • charlieopera says:

        Kicked her to the curb because she was nuts, yes. :)

        • Actually because she dissed him for believing in God. See, there is that dichotomy between believers and non-believers when it comes to responsibility for your fellow man. I can only speak for myself but I think once you take the big guy out of the equation, then you get human action based on human frailties. Now, that might work out fine in some cases for awhile but I fear that in most cases it will eventually lead to craven self-interest.

          When one dismisses God or his existence or considers him a human invention, one must ask the WHY question. Why, and for what purpose did man invent God? I think a logical answer would be that a “higher power” was needed, not to control people but to appeal to our higher rather than our baser instincts.

          • Mathius™ says:

            I think once you take the big guy out of the equation, then you get human action based on human frailties.

            If you leave the Big Guy in the equation, then you get human action based on human interpretation of the will of the Big Guy. And, historically, this has also shown itself to be pretty flawed.

            Now, that might work out fine in some cases for awhile but I fear that in most cases it will eventually lead to craven self-interest.

            It’s very interesting that at the height of the power of The Church, the most powerful and wealthy were those stood for the “interests of the Big Guy.” That is, the human beings who were charged with being intermediaries with the Big Guy somehow because rich and powerful.. odd, no?

            People are selfish and they will seek selfish interests regardless. Religion is just one avenue. But it is a powerful one. Without religion, they will use government or economics, but with religion, they can threaten your soul. Boy, talk about leverage – the mob threatening to break your knees is nothing next to that. The government threatening to put you in jail has nothing on eternity spent in a lake of fire.

            When one dismisses God or his existence or considers him a human invention, one must ask the WHY question.

            Because there is zero evidence.

            Every falsifiable claim made by religion gets knocked down by science. And religion retreats. And science advances. And religion retreats. And science advances.

            Why should I believe in the existence of someone who I have never had a single shred of credible evidence of, who is magically all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-present? Why should I believe he exists when 1,000 different religions all make wildly conflicting claims with absolute certainty and an equivalently absolute absence of proof?

            Why is your Big Guy any more credible than the ancient Greek’s Zeus or my Giant Space Walrus? I don’t say this to belittle your faith, but you have just as much to verify your assertion than they did, but somehow you are right and they are wrong? How can you reconcile this? And if you can’t, why should I believe in any of it?

            Why, and for what purpose did man invent God? I think a logical answer would be that a “higher power” was needed, not to control people but to appeal to our higher rather than our baser instincts.

            I would assert that we created God in order to explain the unexplainable. It’s intellectually lazy to say “because I said so.” Why are bird in the air? Because God said so. Why do people get sick? Because God said so. Why was this hunt successful and that hunt not successful? Because God said so.

            It’s telling, I think, that a study of superstition in baseball players revealed that the more heavily a player’s position depends on luck, the more superstitious he is. That is, pitchers, for instance, are highly superstitious – lucky socks and all that. Whereas outfielders, who don’t require as much luck, aren’t really that way. What can we ascertain from this? Well, if like me you equate religion with superstition, it shows that these are a way to cope with the things with are beyond your control/understanding. Does this make sense?

            We didn’t understand how / why the world works or why things happened, so we built up a rational and a belief structure to explain it. Though, of course, there’s a lot we still don’t know, it’s becoming clearer and clearer (especially to successive generations who weren’t born into overly-religious societies) that the answers come from science. With answers coming from elsewhere, there’s no longer any need for God.

            not to control people but to appeal to our higher rather than our baser instincts.

            Perhaps. People are selfish animals. Perhaps God was necessary once upon a time to carrot and stick people into proper behavior. Government can provide the carrot and stick these days, though. At least to a comparable extent. And I’d much rather that power being wielded by men based on a 200 year old document and who are (at least theoretically) answerable to We The People than by a men appointed by “god” and who are answerable to no one and who operate on a 2,000 year old text of dubious authenticity.

            Now, this is just my opinion, and if I came across as harsh or condescending, please forgive me. I’m just too lazy to go back and smooth out what I just wrote.

            • Yes Matt, but are people really that stupid? Can you constantly fool the majority over and over again. I do wonder about that.

              The church, all churches are run by men and are corruptible. That corruption can exist for hundreds of years eventually however,the circle turns. I have no idea of your take on John Paul II and his vision of of man’s freedom and his contribution in crashing the Soviet Union.

              Yeah, society can use a carrot and stick and has. the result has been a whole lot worse than the Inquisition.

              • Mathius™ says:

                Yes Matt, but are people really that stupid?

                Yes.

                And, actually, even more stupid.

                Can you constantly fool the majority over and over again.

                Yes.

                I do wonder about that.

                I don’t.

                People are idiots.

                The church, all churches are run by men and are corruptible. That corruption can exist for hundreds of years

                Check.

                eventually however,the circle turns.

                Probably. Or the system collapses. Corruption is unstable in the long term.

                I have no idea of your take on John Paul II and his vision of of man’s freedom and his contribution in crashing the Soviet Union.

                I have no take on him.

                However, just because an institution is corrupt doesn’t mean it can’t have good individuals within it.

                Further, even acting immorally, certain good things can be accomplished. Ie, our decision to engage in the Korean War was a terrible thing (a pissing contest with the USSR).. yet out of it came a good thing (South Korea). Not saying this was the case with JPII (I have no idea), but it’s just something to keep in mind generally.

                Yeah, society can use a carrot and stick and has. the result has been a whole lot worse than the Inquisition.

                In some ways yes, in some ways no.

                But, to reiterate, if someone is going to be offering me carrots and beating me with a stick, I’d rather it be someone who is at least theoretically answerable to me rather than some ‘higher power’ which only they can interpret.

              • This is where we disagree, I believe Lincoln and you don’t. I trust my fellow man and live by the dictum my father taught me. “Trust everyone until they prove otherwise.” If they are no damn good, they will show it soon enough.

      • Mathius™ says:

        I really liked Buckley (I went to a high school named for him). Too bad he wouldn’t have stood a chance in today’s Republican party.

        • charlieopera says:

          Marc Levin tried crucifying him when he admitted Iraq didn’t work (tried to inform Bush).

  39. @LOI

    If you can put aside the tragic treatment of the Indians by later settlers and look at the history of settling the US.

    Plainly, do you see how convenient this is? Loi, once you get beyond the tragic treatment of the Indians, you walk head first into slavery and a civil war … but don’t let that bother you … or the continuation of rule by the wealthy over the poor (that has only intensified to this day). You’re comfortable with that. I’m not.

    • Mathius™ says:

      … look at the history of settling the US…. put aside the treatment of the Indians…

      Huh?

      If we look at the history of the moon landing, but put aside the cold war …

      If we look at the development of personal computing, but put aside Microsoft’s involvement…

      If we look at the history of Charlie, but put aside the canolis..

      You can’t “look at the history” of something while “putting aside” one of it’s most defining characteristics. How does that even make sense?

      ——————–

      PS: I’M BAA-AACK!

      • charlieopera says:

        He’s baaaack! And thank God there’s a voice of, dare I say it, “REASON”!

      • Matt,

        Shut up and read all of your homework! Borrowing Buck or Charlie’s notes will end with a failing grade. Charlie was attacking Flag on his vision of a free society. I compared that to a “Greater Good” society and Charlie can’t answer, so he changes the subject.
        PS, you walking Ok? Not hurt badly?

        • charlieopera says:

          I compared that to a “Greater Good” society and Charlie can’t answer, so he changes the subject.

          Parroting USW here: “I”m sick of your bullshit putting words in my mouth … ” … :)

          I was asked a question (you liarface) and responded (you liarface) and you attacked me (you liarface) …:)

        • Mathius™ says:

          Not nice to tell me to shut up when I’m the glue that holds this place together..

          Borrowing Buck or Charlie’s notes will end with a failing grade

          Oh please. Like there was ever any chance y’all weren’t going to give me a failing grade regardless.

          DPM, however.. well I suppose he might get a passing grade – depends on who does the grading..

          • charlieopera says:

            Oh please. Like there was ever any chance y’all weren’t going to give me a failing grade regardless.

            Reminds me of how USW chastised me the other day for trying to convince a wingie site of something other than wingie doctrine.

            Oh, please, USW, if I used your words out of context, please, please, please don’t give me another lecture …

          • Matt,

            I apologize. It was rude and uncalled for behavior.

            As to your grade, the test question is to compare a “Greater Good” society with a Black Flag individualist society in the context, which can be shown to provide the best standard of living for the most members?

            Didn’t answer on your injury, so assume you’re Ok. Good thing it wasn’t front carry!

            • Mathius™ says:

              A greater good society is the worst possible society. Except for all the other options.

              A Black Flag society collapses in on itself because not all people are intrinsically good and the ones who are not can do a LOT of damage. A BF society will inevitably devolve into a de facto dictatorship (where the power is economic) and then, probably, an actual dictatorship. That’s assuming they don’t pollute themselves into oblivion first. No SCALED society such as this can exist. At most, it can be a few dozen families. A city of thousands (forget millions) is impossible.

              What injury? Huh?

              • charlieopera says:

                On a grander scale (such as the U.S. today) the economic power is concentrated in the 1% & corporations they own). As that power increases and the middle class continue to fall into poverty, perhaps not in our lifetime (maybe within our lifteim), a form of dictatorship will eventually become an outright dictatorship … not to worry, though, folks, some lunatic will probably start a nuclear war first anyway.

                Now, what’s the point of argument with a guy who knows everything, even if his “reason” is based on assumptions he’s configured in his head after talking to the universe? Answer, none. Unless you want to practice your typing.

              • Just A Citizen says:

                Mathius

                I would like to here your explanation as to why BF’s concept is NOT SCALABLE.

                He and I have posted various examples of societies that existed according to his concepts. Others that were darn close.

                The only difference between then and now is the advancement of technology. The same tech. which should help such a society SCALE UP rather than hinder it.

                So please explain your reasoning.

              • Mathius,

                A Black Flag society collapses in on itself because not all people are intrinsically good and the ones who are not can do a LOT of damage.

                You keep raising this point over and over again, and every time you provide a fallacy.

                BF society does not depend at all on being “good”.

                Your society depends on it, not mine

                You keep invoking a dependency of yours as if it was a dependency of mine and every time, you get it wrong.

                A BF society will inevitably devolve into a de facto dictatorship (where the power is economic) and then, probably, an actual dictatorship.

                A baseless assertion.

                Why does this happen?

    • YOU LIE!!!! lol

      It’s not convenient Charlie, to talk about one subject and have you change the subject without answering on the original subject. Is there or has there ever been a “Greater Good” society? I used the Pilgrims as a historically accurate comparison of the failure inherent in collective vs individualistic societies. You cannot answer or rebut my logic, so you try to muddy the debate or change to what is a different topic.

      “once you get beyond the tragic treatment of the Indians,” What a load of crap! How can you with any shred of honesty accuse ME of ignoring the treatment of American Indian’s? I researched and wrote an article on the subject because of my interest in how they are treated today. As I recall, you would not talk about today, only how they were treated in the past. What is it with you Charlie? All this mock outrage over the sins America was built on, stealing the Indian’s land, using slaves for hundreds of years. All true. What do you want us to do about it today? We can’t get up and leave, Europe would not accept a mass migration of Americans. DO the African-Americans get to stay? My grandmother was 1/4 Blackfoot, that makes me as much a Native American as Elizabeth Warren.

      Do I have to start every sentence with a “I hate how America treated all these people in the past” before talking about anything happening today? How ’bout you try that first? You are very vocal in you praise and support of unions, what about all their atrocities in the past? How many began as a organized effort to stop the hiring of immigrants or blacks? How much violence have they been a party to? How many innocents were killed by union thugs? What’s that saying, imitation is the highest form of flattery? How ’bout every time you make any remark about the unions, I go find some vile act they committed decades ago and demand you answer for that before we can discuss today?

      Your style reminds me of how some meetings are conducted, where they read the minutes of the last meeting before they can start. Most vote to suspend the reading, you are the guy that shouts out and demands the minutes be read, from every meeting in the past. And you would be Ok if that meant going back a few years or a hundred. Your goal is to stop discussion and sew discord. Maybe that gives you your jollies or something, but it makes having a real discussion with you impossible. Should all of us treat talking with you like it’s a running joke?

      • charlieopera says:

        I’ve answered it about 2,000 x’s here … but you wingies refuse to acknowledge it … and fall on your “utopia” sword over and over again.

        I don’t have time to answer how YOU treat native Americans (the only REAL Americans, by the way) with a dismissive attitude (although Matt did a fine job of it earlier) … I’m working now, LOI … later, you liarface :)

      • charlieopera says:

        You are very vocal in you praise and support of unions, what about all their atrocities in the past?

        More lies!!!!!! Just this morning I mentioned how corrupt they can be/are. Or they’d NEVER support Obama for what he’s done to them. Seriously, dude, find SOME reality in your accusations.

      • charlieopera says:

        LOI Your goal is to stop discussion and sew discord. Maybe that gives you your jollies or something, but it makes having a real discussion with you impossible. Should all of us treat talking with you like it’s a running joke?

        Now that’s funny … you need to change your FUGAZY moniker to STRAW MAN

  40. August 16, 2012
    Who really unchained Wall Street?
    Jean-Claude Groulx

    In keeping with the left’s blaxploitation enterprise, white Northerner Joe Biden feigned the hemistichical rhythm of a Southern black preacher for his largely black audience in Virginia yesterday:

    They’ve said it. Every Republican’s voted for it. Look at what they value and look at their budget and what they’re proposing. Romney wants to let the-he said in the first 100 days, he’s going to let the big banks once again write their own rules. Unchain Wall Street! They gawn’ put y’all back in chains.

    For all the bluster of Obama, pre- and post-2008, as well as that of Attorney General Eric Holder concerning the alleged criminal activities on Wall Street, there have been zero Wall Street prosecutions under Obama/Holder. Compare that with his predecessors Bush and Clinton:

    GAI [Government Accountability Institute] details how the George W. Bush and Bill Clinton administrations both actually took down financial criminals – unlike the Obama administration. Between 2002 and 2008, for instance, GAI points out how a Bush administration task force “obtained over 1,300 corporate fraud convictions, including those of over 130 corporate vice presidents and over 200 CEOs and corporate presidents.”

    “Clinton’s DOJ prosecuted over 1,800 S&L (savings and loans) executives, senior officials, and directors, and over 1,000 of them were sent to jail,” GAI adds.

    But, despite having “promised more of the same,” especially in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, the Obama administration’s DOJ has not brought criminal charges against a single major Wall Street executive.

    The Bush and Clinton administrations’ track records on prosecuting white-collar crime, and the Obama administration’s failure to do so, Schweizer said, is “evidence that this has less to do with some sort of partisan or philosophical issue.”

    Bush – 1,300 convictions;

    Clinton – 1,000 convictions;

    Obama – Zero attempts.

    And why the difference in prosecuting the law? The GAI report reveals that the Department of Justice upper echelon is stacked with attorneys, including Eric Holder, from law firms representing the very same companies involved in the financial meltdown of 2008, as well as financial corporations with questionable actions during the Obama administration…AIG, Goldman Sachs, Wells Fargo, J.P. Morgan Chase, Bank of America, CitiBank, Deutsche Bank, ING, Morgan Stanley, UBS, Wilmington Trust, and John Corzine’s MF Global.

    These very same DoJ attorneys also happen to be some of Obama’s biggest bundlers for Obama’s 2008 bid for president.

    “When we think of cronyism and the problems of cronyism and crony capitalism, we think in terms of economic loss and gain,” Schweizer said in a phone interview. “What we’re showing here is that cronyism is now permeating our justice system. So, it’s not just a question of dollars and cents, it’s a question of whether you’re going to face legal jeopardy or not on what you’re doing.”

    Unchain Wall Street, Joe? There is no more corrupt and capricious “unchaining” of Wall Street that President Romney could possibly effect. Under Obama and Holder, “the chains” are dependent on not the Rule of Law, but rather the Law(lessness) of Men.

    Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/08/who_really_unchained_wall_street.html#ixzz23iB93Vaw

  41. Good Morning SUFA :) It’s a great day to be alive and in the country. It started with reading this from Todd (trying so hard to school JAC) “That may be one of Romney’s problem – he expects voters to behave like stockholders & the board of directors – that’s not how government works.”

    WOW! This is how government works Todd! We’re going to be “gifted” with a health care plan we are forced to purchase and FINED if we don’t, Which purportedly covers at least ten million more people, without adding a single new doctor, but provides for 16,000 new IRS Agents, written by a committee whose chairman says he doesn’t understand it, passed by a Congress that didn’t read it but exempted themselves from it, and signed by a Dumbo President who smokes, with funding administered by a treasury chief who didn’t pay his taxes, for which we’ll be taxed for four years before any benefits take effect, by a government which has already bankrupted Social Security and Medicare, all to be overseen by a surgeon general who is obese, and financed by a country that’s broke!!!!!

    ‘What the hell could possibly go wrong?’

    Todd, our government is broken, both sides suck.

  42. JON STEWART, HOST: Let’s talk about Paul Ryan. All I have heard from the news divisions across network platforms is how thrilled they are to have Paul Ryan – now they can finally talk substance. When is that going to start happening?

    (Laughter)

    BRIAN WILLIAMS, HOST: As soon as we exhaust all of our reporting on his driving of the Wiener Mobile while a young man.

    (Laughter)

    STEWART: I know. I’m watching it all weekend. They’re all like, “Finally we’re going to get to talk about serious stuff. Did you know he works out on the PX90?”

    WILLIAMS: I don’t know this workout program.

    STEWART: The PX90 program?

    WILLIAMS: Drudge breathlessly reported yesterday he has body fat between 6 and 8 percent.

    STEWART: Oh, to be a pair of calipers. (Laughter) Why, why can’t they? What is preventing the media from discussing more substantive issues before the introduction of Paul Ryan, and then since the introduction, and then, let’s say, you know, after the election? What, is there an edict from above of is it lack of interest?

    WILLIAMS: Well, as you know, there are a lot of distractions in this world…

    STEWART: No, I don’t.

    WILLIAMS: …our pets. And I think as, you know, the great Sy Syms, the clothier here in New York, had my greatest, my favorite expression – radio commercials you and I grew up with – Sy Syms, “An educated consumer is our best customer.” And I thought, “Well good on the late Sy Simms because he was right about being a haberdasher, but he was also right about our business.” I say “our” meaning mine and not yours. So…

    (Laughter and applause)

    STEWART: So, I guess, let me reframe the question: When are you going to start making nice suits?

    Exactly. If you’re not going to apply Sy’s edict to the news, you might as well just become a haberdasher and sell cheap clothes rather than misinforming the public day in and day out.

    Just saying.

    Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2012/08/16/jon-stewart-asks-brian-williams-whats-preventing-media-discussing-mor#ixzz23iVnI2cJ

  43. Just A Citizen says:

    Todd

    Reply to your comments:

    “Oh come on JAC, they did this stuff because they needed 278 votes to pass it. That’s a completely different issue.” IT IS NOT DIFFERENT BECAUSE THE ISSUE IS THE USE OF FAULTY LOGIC IN POSING SUCH A QUESTION, NOT THE DETAILS OF ANY GIVEN PLAN. IF YOUR QUESTION IS VALID THEN MINE IS EQUALLY VALID.

    “Paul Ryan’s “claim to fame” is his budget proposals. Why would Romney select him as VP if he’s not going to adapt his budget proposal – or at least have a modified version ready to roll out they can both agree on?” I DO NOT RECALL ANY “DETAILED” PLAN BY MR. OBAMA WHEN HE RAN. RYAN’S “CLAIM TO FAME” IS NOT JUST HIS BUDGET, AND FOR SOME IT IS NOT HIS BUDGET AT ALL. IT IS THAT HE KNOWS THE NUMBERS AND CAN ARTICULATE SOME BASIC PRINCIPLES THAT ALIGN WITH MANY REPUBLICANS. AND I AM GUESSING WILL ALIGN WITH MANY INDEPENDENTS AND CONSERVATIVE DEMOCRATS. HIS SELECTION BY ROMNEY IS CONSISTENT WITH ROMNEY’S MANAGEMENT STYLE. GET YOUNG, ENERGETIC AND DAMN SMART PEOPLE. THEN LISTEN TO THEM IN DEVELOPING YOUR PLANS.

    THAT DOES NOT MEAN SIMPLY ADOPTING THEIR PLANS.

    “What else does Ryan’s bring to the campaign? A clean cut middle aged white guy who’s a self-described dork? I think Romney had all the covered! They even look like brothers – or father & son – on the campaign trail. Maybe Romney’s planning a slipping one of his sons in to replace Ryan in October!!” RYAN BRINGS KNOWLEDGE OF THE BUDGET, ENTITLEMENT PROGRAMS AND THE WORKINGS WITHIN CONGRESS. HE ALSO BRINGS MORE ENERGY, YOUTH AND AN ABILITY TO EXPRESS PASSION ON KEY PRINCIPLES.

    “I would prefer to see NO PLAN put forth by Romney because the Pres has NO AUTHORITY to make such a plan anyway……………Oh, yeah, except when it’s Obama, then you demand a full budget!!” YES, AS PRESIDENT HE IS REQUIRED TO SUBMIT A BUDGET.

    “I would rather see him lay down key principles which he will not violate and then explain how he intends to help get Congress to move on these issues…….But his “key principles” change so often, he doesn’t have any he won’t violate.” I HAVE TO GIVE YOU THIS ONE. I DO NOT THINK HE REALLY CHANGES THEM, BUT HIS HANDLERS HAVE HIM TIED IN KNOTS AT THE MOMENT.

    “Romney’s success is as a MANAGER and EXECUTIVE. That is why he would make a better President than the guy there now………….That sounds great JAC, but government and business aren’t the same. Have you ever heard of a company where the board of directors is split in two with two different visions of how the company should proceed? That’s almost unheard of, and when it happens, one side “wins” pretty quick and the other side is voted out.

    That may be one of Romney’s problem – he expects voters to behave like stockholders & the board of directors – that’s not how government works.” TODD, DID YOU FORGET HE WAS A “GOVERNOR” FOR FOUR YEARS? IN A DEM DOMINATED STATE? HE GOT THINGS DONE THAT WERE SUPPORTED BY BOTH PARTIES BECAUSE HE WAS WILLING TO DRAW SOLUTIONS FROM BOTH SIDES. I SUGGEST YOU GOOGLE “GOVERNORSHIP OF MITT ROMNEY” ON WIKIPEDIA.

    SO LETS ADDRESS THE ALTERNATIVE, FLASHBACK 4 YEARS. YOUR GUY HAD ZERO EXPERIENCE RUNNING ANYTHING. BACK TO TODAY………YOUR GUY STILL HAS ZERO EXPERIENCE RUNNING ANYTHING :wink:

    • Wait…I thought we weren’t allowed to speak of his time as governor? Can someone please let me know what we can speak about in terms of Romney’s biography?

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Buck

        Being kind of juvenile aren’t you? You can discuss anything you want to here about Romney’s record.

        But please put it in context and show how it is even relevant to what ever connection you are trying to make.

        • Here, yes that is true. But Romney and his campaign have been putting in a pretty sizable effort to make his past off topic. He’s all but said that we cannot discuss Bain, the Olympics, his governorship, his taxes, Rifalca (sp?), etc.

          • Just A Citizen says:

            Buck

            I think you will find that for the most part that is the LEFTY press telling you that Romney said………

            Not Romney himself saying these things. Nobody said you couldn’t discuss these things. They just refuse to participate.

            Now, there is no doubt a lot of “handling” and “positioning” going on in the campaigns.

            Diversion from certain topics because they are harmful or a distraction.

            BOTH sides, however, are guilty of this Buck. So pointing at ONLY Romney is not very honest.

    • JAC,
      Maybe it’s just the ALL CAPS, but you seem kinda agitated…

      DID YOU FORGET HE WAS A “GOVERNOR” FOR FOUR YEARS? IN A DEM DOMINATED STATE? HE GOT THINGS DONE THAT WERE SUPPORTED BY BOTH PARTIES BECAUSE HE WAS WILLING TO DRAW SOLUTIONS FROM BOTH SIDES. I SUGGEST YOU GOOGLE “GOVERNORSHIP OF MITT ROMNEY” ON WIKIPEDIA.

      Yes, and as governor he was pretty liberal and willing to COMPROMISE, and Democrats were willing to work with him, to get things done. If he wins in November, I hope he’ll continue to follow that KEY PRINCIPLE.

      SO LETS ADDRESS THE ALTERNATIVE, FLASHBACK 4 YEARS. YOUR GUY HAD ZERO EXPERIENCE RUNNING ANYTHING.

      Yes, let’s flash back four years ago, when “my guy” had to work with “your guys” who’s stated goal was to see “my guy” fail. See any difference there?

      BACK TO TODAY………YOUR GUY STILL HAS ZERO EXPERIENCE RUNNING ANYTHING

      Oh no, he now has 3.5 years of experience putting up with the petty antics of “your guys”…

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Todd

        I’ve explained it before. I use CAPS to easily identify my comments from yours or others. I don’t know how nor want to take the time to highlight, block or italicize. It is simply easier to hit the Cap Lock button.

        Your guy hasn’t tried working with the R’s from day one. You seem to want to forget that the R’s explicitly told their minions to support Mr. O when he took office. We need to try and work with him, was the message sent from the RNC and the leadership.

        It was ONLY people like Hannity and Limbaugh he made it their “public” mission to undo him.

        But then Mr. O called the R’s to the white house to talk about budgets and healthcare.

        “I WON, GET OVER IT”.

        Soon after that McConnell made his statement about getting him out of the white house.

        Now the one possible exception to this was Boehner and Obama trying to bang out a compromise on the debt ceiling. But BOTH did not have the support of their side. It was doomed for the reasons I posted the other day about how to build lasting compromise.

        Quite frankly, Mr. Obama’s worst enemy is himself in these matters. His narcissism takes over and he can’t help but TALKING about HIM when he should stay quiet and work behind the scenes. You can’t negotiate from a podium. The other side will get ticked off and then it devolves to pointing fingers.

        • Mathius™ says:

          I don’t know how nor want to take the time to highlight, block or italicize.

          Well I can’t help with your not wanting to take the time, but I can help with your not knowing how.

          To bold/italicize/block, the codes are, respectively b, i, and blockquote.

          What you do is us an open bracket (shift comma) then your code, then close bracket (shift period). When you’re done, you do a open bracket then backslash (above the enter key) then command and close bracket.

          So it looks like:
          [b] bold text here [\b]
          or
          [i] italics text here [\i]
          or
          [blockquote] block text here [/blockquote]

          (NOTE: the brackets are replaced with the sideways triangle things – I just can’t type them here or it will use them as code and it won’t show up)

          Enjoy!

          • Mathius™ says:

            That close of the blockquote is using the wrong slash.. please disregard. It should say [\blockquote]

          • Just A Citizen says:

            Mathius

            I appreciate your effort, but I have no clue what you are talking about.

            Where do I perform these commands?

            • Right inside the comments itself

              So you’d type;

              With the < represented by the [ because if I actually type that, it would react and do the bold.

              So to bold, you type on your keyboard

              shift-comma (the ) then ‘Hi Jac’ shift-comma (the )

              [b]Hi JAC[/b]

              which shows
              Hi JAC

              • See, the < causes the command, so in my post, you see missing things, because the forum interpreter thought I was doing commands, not comments.

              • Just A Citizen says:

                BF

                You still have me confused a bit. What is (the)? Is that the code Matt gave me?

                So I type shift-comma and then the command code?

                Then what? Do I type the shift-period before I type the message itself?

                Simpler question. Does each “[" or "]” represent the “shift comma”or the “shift-period” key stroke?

                Also, you used a slash instead of a backslash per Matt. I assume the backslash is correct. So is this the instruction to “turn off” whatever code I use?

              • Mathius™ says:

                Simpler question. Does each “[" or "]” represent the “shift comma”or the “shift-period” key stroke?

                Yes.

                Type the following:

                This is [b]bold[\b], but this is not.

                Where you replace the “[" with shift-comma and the "]” with shift-period respectively. They’re the sideways triangle thingies.

                It will post like this: This is bold, but this is not.

                Also, you used a slash instead of a backslash per Matt.

                He was wrong.

                I assume the backslash is correct.

                Correct.

                So is this the instruction to “turn off” whatever code I use?

                Also correct. See my example above. When you post that, only the word “bold” will be in bold because you “turn off” the code afterward. If you did not, it would just stay on and everything would keep being bold until told otherwise. Same, of course, with italics and blockquotes.

                Note, by the way, that for blockquotes, you can put

                blockquotes

                inside
                of
                other
                blockquotes

              • Oh the fun we can have!

                Let’s see if that worked — learn something new every day!

              • Just a shame I’ll forget all of this by Monday…

                oh well…

              • wait a sec Mathius, is this how you broke SUFA the other day?

              • Mathius™ says:

                Yes. But it wasn’t by NOT putting a close at the end. It does that automatically. I put the close incorrectly with a space in the bracket somewhere. I think this tricked wordpress into thinking that it was already closed when it was not.

                Adding, another thing you can do is strike through. Instead of b or i, just use the word ‘strike’, ie [strike]something[\strike]. I’m not sure why, but you can’t underline. Odd.

                Just a shame I’ll forget all of this by Monday…

                Well if you forget, just come back here and figure it out again.

              • Dang! Tried to break SUFA and fell flat….oh well.

                Alright, beautiful August Friday….I think I’ll head on home for the afternoon! Enjoy the rest of your time in the asylum today…

              • I can’t help but think we’re trying to teach an old dog new tricks here…but here’s my try! :)

                These are the most common commands – bold, strike-out, box.

                You text here
                
                You text here
                
                
                You text here

                I order to display these commands, I used the “pre” command:

                
                
                You text here

                Definition: preformatted text – displays exactly as typed

                You can also “nest” the commands. So this:

                You text here

                Displays as this:

                You text here

                To make this easy, I keep these commands at the top of the email I use to compose messages. I just copy-n-paste them when needed.

                A long time ago I found all the HTML you can use in Word Press listed somewhere. But I don’t remember where.

                PS – I hope this displays correctly, cause HTML is really a pain!

              • Crap! Never mind – the “pre” command didn’t work!!!!

        • JAC,
          Yes, I understand your use of ALL CAPS. Always seems like YELLING to me!! :)

          Yes, that was a stupid comment, but I don’t think that is a valid reason for the Republicans to trash the economy in retaliation.

          The Republicans have opposed everything Obama proposed just because he proposed it.

          • Just A Citizen says:

            TODD

            I don’t think that is the only reason they have opposed everything. I think the Tea Party affect on the party had a lot to do with that.

            But I agree with you that to oppose needed legislation just to harm a President is wrong.

            Also remember, I have never accused the Republican leadership of being very bright. Walking right into the debt limit deadline is a case in point. I think the Dem leadership is better at playing the hard ball politics. That may change but not until the R’s get some smarter people running the show.

  44. charlieopera says:

    @JAC and his BLACKNESS was used to win the election.

    What drug do you take in the morning? His BLACKNESS was used to win the election. It had NOTHING to do with Bush’s incompetency … or Sarah FRIGGIN’ Palin?

    Never mind, I think I see a Russian taking aim at us. Thank goodness my house faces the water …

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Furthermore, his BLACKNESS and his having been (still is) Muslim has been used to stifle any serious debate about his abilities or policies.

      • Mathius™ says:

        (still is) Muslim

        Am I misunderstanding this or are you saying that you believe he’s secretly a Muslim?

        What, pray tell, do you base this on?

        stifle any serious debate about his abilities or policies.

        They’re not debating his abilities because his abilities are superb. He’s an excellent politician.

        They’re not debating his policies because, once you get past the hype, his policies are actually pretty centrist.

        It’s much more effective to attack him for being “foreign” or “extreme” or “intellectually snobby” or for “apologizing for America” or for “wanting to take your guns” or for “wanting to give checks to people without requiring them to look for jobs” or blah blah blah blah blah blah. That stuff fits on bumper stickers and even though it has no substance, it’s great red meat. Get into a serious policy dispute and Obama wins 8 times out of 10 (amongst MOST Americans, not just the ones on this blog).

        • Just A Citizen says:

          Mathius

          I addressed the Muslim thing long ago. I have been told, by Muslims, and I have read comments, by Muslims, that a person does not get to simply “declare” themselves as NOT MUSLIM and certainly not something else.

          Is he a “practicing” Muslim? NOT given any evidence that I have seen.

          He IS a politician. But he is NOT an Executive and he is a dismal failure at governing.

          He has NO POLICIES that anyone can articulate. Even his media supporters. He has RHETORIC. His actual policies are only revealed by investigating what is going on in the depths of Govt where his minions control the levers.

          Rhetoric and platitudes and slogans are not unique to Obama’s critics. So your whining in this dept. is poorly served.

          I think your assessment of the popularity of his “policies” is grossly overstated. Perhaps that is because you hear what you want from the words he speaks. Words strung together in ways to deliberately hide his real intentions.

          • “…a person does not get to simply “declare” themselves as NOT MUSLIM and certainly not something else…”

            Of course someone can simply declare themselves as not Muslim. Who cares what anyone else thinks on this issue? If I were to say I no longer consider myself Jewish, then I don’t care that a bunch of Rabbis somewhere may still consider me Jewish, and neither should you. It is my own beliefs that count, just like it is Obama’s own religious beliefs that count.

            • Just A Citizen says:

              Buck

              I WISH that Mr. Obama’s “religious beliefs” did in fact count. But they are not to be discussed because it would be RACIST to bring up his Church and his Pastor and Spiritual Mentor for over 20 years.

          • Mathius™ says:

            I addressed the Muslim thing long ago. I have been told, by Muslims, and I have read comments, by Muslims, that a person does not get to simply “declare” themselves as NOT MUSLIM and certainly not something else.

            To become a Muslim, all one needs to do is state “there is no God but Allah and Mohammad is his prophet.” You then have all the time in the world to learn everything else you need to know. That one line magically transforms you, instantly. No one inducts you, no one admits you, you don’t register anywhere, you don’t join a mosque. Say that, and you’re in. (keep this in mind in case you’re ever about to be executed by Muslim extremists… better practice saying it in Arabic, just in case they don’t understand the words in English..)

            To stop being a Muslim, you simply need to stop considering yourself a Muslim. The idea that others can claim you and somehow ‘make you be a Muslim’ is as laughable as the Mormons who keep posthumously ‘converting’ Jews who died in the holocaust. The Muslims you spoke to are incorrect.

            Just stop for a second and think about it – what power or right does another religion have to force you to be a member? If you wanted to quit the Catholic church, would they somehow be able to force you so be a Catholic anyway? And, even if somehow, they insisted on considering you one – would that actually make you one? Does what they think matter in any way, shape, or form?

            • Just A Citizen says:

              Mathius

              I do believe the same holds for Catholics. Only the Church can throw you out, once baptized into the church.

              So it may not matter to you or the person declaring otherwise, but it matters to the Church and those that follow its doctrine.

              Mormon’s are even worse. Not only can you not quite but they can grab you up after you died, even if you NEVER joined in the first place.

              You and Buck are confusing American values relative to religion and what those Religions mean to those who control them and those who practice in the rest of the world.

              So if the Muslim religion does not allow you to denounce your Muslim status then Mr. Obama is a Muslim in the eyes of Muslims. Nothing you can say will change that.

              He can say he is a practicing Christian, and that can ALSO be true. IN AMERICA and many “western” countries.

              • Mathius™ says:

                I was baptized Catholic.

                I was also bar mitzvah’d Jewish.

                I may not be a very good Jew, but like hell am I Catholic.

                You’re telling me that I’m Catholic unless I call up the pope and get his permission to leave?

                Mr. Obama is a Muslim in the eyes of Muslims.

                How is that relevant to anything?

                In my eyes, you’re a turnip.

                Does this make you a turnip?

              • Just A Citizen says:

                Mathius

                I don’t think it is relevant to anything except perhaps how he is perceived in the Muslim world. But it is his actions that really matter.

                I did not try to make it into a relevant matter. I simply was identifying this bizarre situation as it relates to Islam, Catholics and Mormons.

                But as I understand it YOU ARE CATHOLIC. Apparently you are also a JEW. But since you JEWS were the original Christians I don’t necessarily see a conflict.

              • Now JAC why did you have to call him a Christian? He’s going to have a stroke. ;)

              • Mathius™ says:

                as I understand it YOU ARE CATHOLIC

                As I understand it, you really must be a turnip.

                No, sir. I am not Catholic.

                No way.

                No how.

                No, the only opinion on this subject which matters one bit is my own. Not yours. Not the pope’s. Not God almighty himself’s. No one’s opinion but mine is worth a warm bucket of spit when it comes to my religion.

                JAC, you are out of your goddamned mind.

            • Just A Citizen says:

              Mathius

              Since my friends are Muslim and come from that part of the world where Islam was invented, I think I will put more stock in what they say than you.

              Haven’t you ever wondered why Catholics will respond to you when questioned about their faith, ” I am NOT a practicing Catholic, but I am Catholic”?

              • Mathius™ says:

                They are Catholic because they SELF-IDENTIFY as Catholics. Not because someone else decided for them. If you could turn people Catholic just by decree, we’d all be f***ing Catholics.

                Seriously, you’re messing with me on this, right?

              • WRONG! Most Catholics, like me, were baptized Catholic at birth, then they reaffirm their faith along about 8th grade…still to early to make an informed decision about their faith. So, yes, their faith was chosen for them.

              • Mathius™ says:

                Anita,

                We’re not talking about children. Children have no real choice in matters of religion. They believe what their parents tell them to believe and they are what their parents say they are.

                If you want to be technical, I suppose you could assert that I was “Catholic” until I was 10 or so and started seeing through the BS at which point I became an atheist. At 13, I was bar mitzvah’d and became Jewish (really just culturally Jewish, while religiously atheist).

                We’re talking about ADULTS who can make up their own minds. ADULTS are whatever religion they decide they are. And the opinions of others matters not one iota.

      • JAC, please tell me that you are not one of those loonies who honestly believe Obama is a Muslim…not that there’s anything wrong with being a Muslim…

        • Mathius™ says:

          Right.. not that there’s anything wrong with that….

        • Just A Citizen says:

          Buck

          I do not believe he is a practicing Muslim. I do believe that some in the world, not USA, think he is one of theirs, however. As I explained to Matt.

          Being a MUSLIM is NOT OK by me if you are running for POTUS, or any other elected Govt position, or want to sit on the BENCH. You would have to answer many, many questions and convince me that you reject many of the tenants of Islam before I would support you for such a position.

          • I’m sorry JAC, but that sentiment, that no Muslim can be qualified to serve in government absent answering a series of questions as to their loyalties and religious beliefs, is absolutely horrendous.

            Would you similarly require a Roman Catholic to answer questions as to their loyalties to the Pope?

            • Just A Citizen says:

              Buck

              Yes, depending on what I know of the particular Catholic. Kennedy addressed the question directly.

              I would NEVER have voted for Santorum because of his answers to these questions. I got the feeling he would gladly have signed onto laws based on his faith that would have violated certain founding principles. Maybe not, but he left me with that sense.

              I find Catholic Republicans to usually be acceptable, as they separate their faith and govt., EXCEPT FOR ABORTION. Catholic Democrats on the other hand think Govt is an extension of the Church’s doctrine in all things, EXCEPT BIRTH CONTROL AND ABORTION.

              And the same holds for anyone belonging to a Religious sect that espouses adherence to doctrine that flies against the principles on which America was founded. It is adherence to religious dogma and their view of its interaction with Govt that is of concern to me. Not WHICH religion.

              But as for the Muslims, their doctrine is a “mixing” of Govt and religious law like nothing that has existed in this country since the Puritans faded into history. So yes, I would be concerned and I would think we should all be concerned.

              I think your comments reflect the impact propaganda, aka political correctness, have had on us. To think that questioning a Muslim about his “loyalty” to the USA and the Constitution is “horrendous”, just because he is Muslim. Yet we question others on these points all the time.

              • The questions should be about their political views, where they stand on the issues. The questions should not be borne out of some misguided fear that the individual is a Muslim, or a Catholic, or anything else.

                It isn’t about the Catholic’s religious beliefs that make you support or oppose them — it is their political beliefs. This is why you generally support a Catholic Republican and generally oppose a Catholic Democrat.

              • Just A Citizen says:

                Buck

                So now you do not find my view so “horrendous”. Which is it?

              • No, I find it horrendous that you believe a Muslim needs to be questioned due to their being a Muslim. I find it horrendous that you would require a Muslim to reject their own faith.

              • Just A Citizen says:

                Buck

                So you believe that their faith is not consistent with the Constitution or our founding principles and laws???

                Otherwise, why would they have to denounce their faith?

                A person belongs to a religion whose doctrine is antithetical to American values and laws and I am supposed to ACCEPT them BECAUSE they are Muslim??? I am to be castigated for questioning their allegiance BECAUSE they are Muslim???

                What an irrational position.

                Do you hold the same standard for someone belonging to the White Supremacist Church?

              • I am supposed to ACCEPT them BECAUSE they are Muslim??? No.

                I am to be castigated for questioning their allegiance BECAUSE they are Muslim??? Yes.

                The mere fact that they are Muslim (or Christian or Jewish or Atheist or….) should have nothing to do with their qualification for office and shouldn’t result in your questioning their allegiance to the USA. Vote for them or against them based on their political views, not their religious identity.

              • Just A Citizen says:

                Buck

                Your admonishment is irrational.

                HOW do you separate somebody’s religious beliefs from politics?

                If their religion calls for imposing a law that is inconsistent with USA law, you are telling me their Religion has nothing to do with it. That is absurd.

                Just as the White Supremacist Church has a doctrine that Whites should rule the world, I would not vote for a person claiming membership of such religion without knowing how they meshed that with their political views.

                POLITICS AND RELIGION go hand in hand. You can not separate them.

                So the question becomes, how does their religion affect their political positions. It is a FAIR question of ANYONE running for public office.

                I find it absurd to claim that such investigation is off limits because they are Muslim but the same standard is not applied to all other religions.

              • Perhaps you are just clarifying where you stand and I didn’t understand your original statement. I took your original statement to mean that you would seek to require any Muslim to stand and pass some sort of religious test as a prerequisite to being able to run for office. This I fundamentally disagree with. Now I am seeing that you are merely asking of any candidate of any religion that they explain their views and how their religious beliefs intersect in determining whether or not you would personally support their candidacy. That’s a very different thing.

              • Just A Citizen says:

                Buck

                I think you misunderstand but then you qualify it in ways that make me unsure.

                I would make any Muslim to stand and pass an “allegiance to the US Law test”.

                But I would do the same for any person claiming to hold to a religion that has doctrines that could be contradictory to the same test.

                So I am not restricting my bias to ONLY Muslims. But due to the doctrines of that religion it causes me to raise the questions I might not immediately have with others. This is not because I hate Muslims or hold any ill feelings towards them.

                Most Protestants, for example, have long accepted our “separation” of Church and State. So it does not throw up an automatic Red Flag. But such flags could appear during their campaigns.

                Santorum, for example, adequately addressed the questions. But he did not instill confidence in me that he would not impose laws on us based on his religion. Although this really was centered around the contentious issue of abortion, I was not comfortable that he would stop there. Prayer in school for example.

                I think we are on the same page Buck. But I am willing to admit that Muslim is a red flag for me. It simply causes me to be alert more quickly. Although the same is true for anyone claiming they are a PROGRESSIVE. :)

              • “I would make any Muslim to stand and pass an “allegiance to the US Law test”.”

                And you lost me again. What do you mean by a ‘test’? I gather you mean something more than the oath to uphold the Constitution, correct? What would suffice? Are you proposing making that a federal law, a national requirement to run for office, or is this something that you would personally like explained to you by each candidate in garnering your individual support for their candidacy?

                “I am willing to admit that Muslim is a red flag for me.”

                I don’t doubt you are sincere when you also state that you do not hate Muslims or hold any ill feeling towards them. But it is strange to me that anyone who is a Muslim immediately raises some red flag and is somehow subject to closer scrutiny in your eyes simply because they are Muslim.

              • Just A Citizen says:

                Buck

                The “test” is the one I first identified. I will want answers to my questions regarding their view on USA laws, the Constitution and how they reconcile their religious views with those laws.

                I have heard a couple of Muslims talk here locally on the radio that do not reconcile this. They believe Sharia is THE LAW and WE SHOULD ADHERE TO IT.

                My point is that this view is the FUNDAMENTALIST DOCTRINE of the Religion. Thus it is cause to ask questions when someone declares they are Muslim. I hold the same standard for all “declared” and “organized” religions.

                But MY Muslim friends do not share this view. One is from Iraq and one from Iran. They understand the reasons for and accept the notion of Separation of Church and State in Govt. They, however, have confirmed my thoughts on this matter. They say it is a red flag for them as well because you must sort out the fundamentalists from the Americanized versions. Their terms, not mine.

                By the way, I also have a friend (American born) who was a Catholic who converted to Islam. And Mathius thinks he has conflicts.

          • charlieopera says:

            I do not believe he is a practicing Muslim. I do believe that some in the world, not USA, think he is one of theirs, however. As I explained to Matt.

            And why on earth would that make a difference (POTUS) or not? Sweet Jesus, is your brain that friggin’ frigid? So much for liberty, huh?

            • Just A Citizen says:

              charlie

              Do you think if POTUS were a JEW it would matter to anyone else in the world? Do you think it might affect how “others” might view him/her?

              If it mattered to them, would you not consider what that might mean when making your decision to support them or not?

              • Do you think if POTUS were a JEW it would matter to anyone else in the world? Do you think it might affect how “others” might view him/her?

                Are you seriously worried about what OTHERS might think of him? What an inclusive mind you have, JAC. Here I thought it was because he was the socialist in the house. Please, you’re absurd. If a Jew were to run for President (and in all likelihood lose) here, it would have more to do with OUR (within the U.S.) prejudice (yeah, I used that word) than it would with our genius population (you really think they give it this much thought?) decided it would upset the Arabs. Christ, this is when you sound foolish.

                If it mattered to them, would you not consider what that might mean when making your decision to support them or not?

                Answered above. Nonsense.

      • JAC,

        his having been (still is) Muslim

        This – and your entire justification for it – is one of the ridiculous things I’ve ever read.

        • Bada-boom, bada-bing. Point, set, match, Todd.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          Todd

          I was not making a JUSTIFICATION for anything. It is NOT MY argument.

          It is a position I was given by people who are Muslim.

          But notice how all the lefties here pounced on the “still” part and skipped over the primary point.

          Which is that his Blackness AND his prior Muslimness are used to STIFLE dissent and debate.

          • Mathius™ says:

            It is a position I was given by people who are Muslim.

            If they want to be idiots, I can’t help that. He is what he considers himself to be.

            You, however, seem to be of the opinion that he’s (still) Muslim based on the opinion of some idiots who aren’t Obama.

            Most Muslims (I haven’t taken a survey, but I assume) don’t think Obama is a Muslim because OBAMA DOESN’T PURPORT TO BE A MUSLIM.

            Yet, somehow, you seem to side with the ones who do? Why is that, exactly?

            If I believe that everyone is a Jew whether they think so or not, does that make it true? And, further, are you then obliged to consider everyone a Jew because I do?

            Adding, and this is completely unnecessary. Obama was never Muslim to begin with, so it’s unclear how he could STILL be Muslim. But that’s entirely beside the point.

            • Just A Citizen says:

              Mathius

              Actually that would be a VERY relevant point, if it is true.

              Because then it would remove the entire argument, whether you consider it rational or not.

              • Mathius™ says:

                No, it’s irrelevant. What other people THINK my religion has no impact on what my religion is. So arguing whether they’re right or wrong in their own heads within their own little mental framework is IRRELEVANT. I believe that you become Jewish if you say the word “shazam.” However, it doesn’t make sense to get into a debate over whether you ever said shazam. What makes sense is to tell me to get lost because the only person who decides what JAC’s religion is is JAC.

                What matters – the only thing that matters – is what Obama thinks about his own religion.

          • JAC,
            Do you think a former leader of a CULT should be eligible to be president?

            Romney was a leader in the Mormon Church. Many Christian leaders feel the Mormon Church is a cult – so therefore it is, right?

            Shouldn’t that exclude Romney from being president?

            POLITICS AND RELIGION go hand in hand. You can not separate them.

            Has Romney explained his religion cult?

            Does your “test” apply to him?

            • Just A Citizen says:

              Todd

              How is Romney’s “cult” any different than Obama’s “cult”??

              But your argument is NOT the one I was presenting. To be consistent the issue would be whether the Mormon Church still recognized Romney as Mormon if he publicly stated otherwise.

              It is NOT what others OUTSIDE the Club think but those INSIDE the club.

              Yes, MY test applies to Romney and ALL MORMONS. The only ones I have found who FAIL my test are those running for local or state offices. But that is generally in areas where the Mormon Church pretty much controls everything.

              Why do you insist on using “cult” in place of “religion” or his “church”? I never claimed Islam was a “cult”.

    • Terry Evans says:

      Charlie…you’re still scared of Palin…please let it go man!

  45. charlieopera says:

    $4.00 a month to get rid of BF? Sign me up for that anti-robot protection!

  46. Just A Citizen says:

    Todd

    “Who gets to decide when “self protection” warrants an action to “prevent harm to others”?”

    ALAS, THAT IS THE QUESTION! And it is the distinction between BF’s village and the VDLG village and the Progressive’s village we suffer today.

    My answer is WE decide “when” based on OUR selection of a rational and objective measure of “harm”. The answers to “harm” can vary by community but as you move up the hierarchy of Govt the meaning must be easily identified and WIDELY accepted. The vast majority of Americans will agree on “murder” = “harm” for example.

    But lets also recognize the obvious next questions that are related. HOW will this decision be made? How will the decision be administered?

    The current weakness in our decision making and administration process is that a “minority” gets to decide. On the absolute best day it might be a simple majority. But TRUE social/cultural rules require much greater acceptance. Certainly at least 2/3 as a minimum.

    Yes, 2/3 is as arbitrary as any other number. Maybe 75% would be better, given that 25% of our population always lies outside the “Normative” standards anyway.

    • Dread Pirate Mathius says:

      Maybe 75% would be better, given that 25% of our population always lies outside the “Normative” standards anyway.

      Why should those 25% have their rights trampled by the 75%?

      Why does “there’s more of us” mean “your opinion no longer matters”?

      Whether it’s 25% or 49% or 99.99%, why is it ok to trample some people’s rights at the behest of others?

      • Just A Citizen says:

        DPM

        They would not have their “RIGHTS” trampled. But they would be prevented from imposing some nonsensical, irrational and evil definitions upon the rest of the world.

        It does not mean that their “opinion” does not matter. It means that society is not required to accept IRRATIONAL arguments as REALITY, just because they are stated by someone.

        The answer to your inquiry lies in identifying WHEN does the Common Law become “common” among your tribe? Or the TRIBE OF HUMANITY?

        I don’t have the answer to that question, but I would bet billions it is much larger than 50% plus 1.

        • Dread Pirate Mathius says:

          A man walks into a bar. He is well dress and
          obviously very well off. He Addresses a
          beautiful woman, checkbook in hand, “would
          you sleep with me for one million dollars”?

          The woman thinks it over. But a million
          dollars is a lot of money and she agrees.

          “Great,” says the man. “Would you sleep with
          me for $100″?

          The woman, insulted, angrily responds “what
          kind of woman do you take me for”?!

          “Well we’ve already established what kind of
          woman you are. Now we’re just negotiating
          the price.”

          ——-

          VDLG, USA, Communism, Socialism, they’re all just shades of the same thing. You’ve already revealed yourself to be a statist, now you’re just negotiating over extent.

          • Just A Citizen says:

            DPM

            So what is your point?

          • Just A Citizen says:

            DPM

            OK, skip the snarky response.

            Your conclusion is FALSE as it relates to the question of WHO decides WHEN and what is HARM.

            I suggested that it is perhaps at that point where Common Law becomes Common. The definition of Common Law is that it is NOT GOVT LAW. Thus it is NOT STATIST in any regard.

            However, the answers to these questions would inform a more civil and rational form of Govt. At least that is one theory.

          • Exactly

            When one agrees that violence on non-violent people is a valid method of problem solving, all the debate becomes is what problem needs violence.

            With little wonder, eventually all problems become solved by violence and society collapse.

            • Just A Citizen says:

              BF

              Care to address my question?

              How many people must agree before Common Law become Common Law?

              Any ideas?

            • Just A Citizen says:

              DPM

              I thought you guys argued that Boycott and Shunning is not causing harm. That it is NOT imposing upon anyone.

              Your position is ridiculous as my question relates to a very HUMAN and HISTORICAL construct of rules called “common law”.

              Yes, the group imposes its rules on those who do not comply. But it became a form of ACCEPTED laws among people.

              So HOW MANY did it take before the ONE, or TWO, or 25% decided, HELL YEAH THAT SOUNDS FAIR.

              • JAC

                DPM I thought you guys argued that Boycott and Shunning is not causing harm. That it is NOT imposing upon anyone.

                Correct – it is an exercise of a right – right of association. It is non-violent, and in this case, a non-action – the act of “not interacting”.

                Yes, the group imposes its rules on those who do not comply.

                Maybe your group does that, but don’t include others into that mess.

                A Common Law is one that presents justified acts of violence to mitigate, prevent, and/or repair acts of violence.

                Other Common Laws beyond that are really not Law at all – but society MORALS – and are a completely different set of circumstances and evaluations. It is in the MORES of a society that shunning exists.

                Shunning is a NON-VIOLENT response to a NON-VIOLENT breach of a social norm.

                And the minumum number is:
                One.

                I shun you if your action crosses my social norm – no matter what that norm is, or what that breach may or may not have been

    • JAC,

      The current weakness in our decision making and administration process is that a “minority” gets to decide. On the absolute best day it might be a simple majority.

      And you’ll never be able to change that.

      Maybe 75% would be better, given that 25% of our population always lies outside the “Normative” standards anyway.

      Because 25% don’t fit your view of “normal,” you can just ignore them?

      Remember this when you complain about Progressives forcing their views on you…you obviously lie outside their “Normative” standards anyway…

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Todd

        I did not say that I believe they should be ignored. You asked a key question about WHO decides. This is the most relevant of questions once we accept the notion of legitimate “authority” over others.

        I tried to provide a starting point for that discussion. I raised the question. How many would be appropriate?

        Obviously a simply majority is to small. Whether that can be changed is irrelevant. Although I do not know why that would be impossible.

        Unless your position is that things are what they are and therefore must never change, because they are what they are. I doubt that is your view so I await some response.

        I am fully aware that if 75% agreed I would probably be part of the 25% not agreeing. But that is not the question. The question is would I ACCEPT the results more willingly if it were 75% as opposed to 50%?

        Would OTHERS accept the results as well? Would YOU accept VDLG if 75% of the people supported it? What if it were 60% or only 50%?

        Now would you care to have an actual discussion about this question or do you wish to simply take pokes at pieces and parts as suits your need to ridicule?

        • JAC,
          The problem is that in any society someone or some group is going to make decisions that some people don’t like.

          You feel a simple majority is too small. But if you set the percentage too high, nothing will ever get done, and we’ll end up with Black Flag’s Anarchy!

          So the real issue is now do we contain the majority so they can rule, but still respect the rights of the minority.

          Maybe 3 branches of government with checks and balances?

          I’d love to have an actual discussion…

          • PS – If you’re not will to accept the “fair” rules of the “majority,” then you want no government? Or what?

            • Just A Citizen says:

              Todd

              I think the size of the majority should vary depending on the importance of the decision. It seems that many of the BIG decisions that are occurring are also banging up against the Constitution. So on these, a bigger majority should be required.

              Getting nothing done is not necessarily a bad thing. Because when things REALLY, REALLY need to get done, they usually do. We may, however, be witnessing the breakdown of this paradigm. The next 6 months are going to be interesting and possibly historic. Although my bet is that Congress will fall back to its historic position of pushing something through at the last minute. And we will later find out it is a bunch of crap.

              The reason 50% is not working well now is partly due to the weak representation of the people. The numbers alone don’t work out, let alone the selection process.

              Montana, for example, is a State of about 1 million people represented by ONE Congressman and Two Senators. It is very large.

              There is no way that one Congressman from either the D or R party is able to represent the diversity of people in that State.

              Now add to that the stranglehold the parties have on the process and the massive amounts of money by special interests and you get a system that has lost the confidence of the people.

              The Founders often spoke of the need to gain Consent of the governed. We seem to have abandoned that word and replaced it with “consensus”. Which seems to mean, those with a simple majority.

              Also remember that we are talking about 25% to 40% (really good turnout) of the population actually making the decisions via their REPRESENTATIVES.

          • Todd

            So the real issue is now do we contain the majority so they can rule, but still respect the rights of the minority.

            HA!

            You tripped into it, and you don’t even see the evil of it.

            You want to rule – you want to dictate to other people how they must live their peaceful lives.
            YET!
            You believe you are, at the same time, capable of respecting their rights.

            You are a mess of contradictions.
            You want to tell people what to do – your “rules”
            You do not want other people to tell you what to do – your “rights”.

            And you think you can do both of these at the same time, because you have some bizarre structure, like “constitution” or “checks and balances”, that will somehow overcome contradictions.

            Nah.

            The Devil cannot be buried in paperwork – you cannot abate the evil manifested by contradictions by surrounding it with structure.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Buck

      The Stimulus had a STATED GOAL.

      It did not conform with the STATED GOAL, neither in its construction or its execution.

      Therefore it is a FAILURE.

      What we now have is a rationalization for success based on criteria that were not used to justify the legislation.

      But reveal much of the truth about the effort. It was an accumulation from the Progressive and Dem Party wish list and had LITTLE to do with stimulating the economy.

  47. charlieopera says:
    • Mathius™ says:

      Really, unless someone discovers that Bain Capital secretly shelled the Golan Heights, that subject is off the table.

      I nearly fell out of my chair over this one.

      • charlieopera says:

        Instead of “screw my neighbor today” … it’s screw them 10 years from now. I just sent the same article to my 52 year old wife with a “Ha, ha, you’re screwed!” message. Sometimes it’s great being 56 …

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Mathius

        Can’t you see the major flaw in this ladies argument?

        It is the same mistake O’Brien made in her attack on Sunnunu.

        Good grief!!

  48. charlieopera says:

    @Matt: I can attest, JAC is a turnup.

    Desperate times ….

  49. Just A Citizen says:

    An example of Charity given freely by greedy Capitalists. Yeeehaw!

    http://portlandtribune.com/sl/113731-direct%20from%20field-to%20food-bank

    Now whether the program is feeding those who are ACTUALLY hungry or malnourished is another matter. But that was not the point.

    • charlieopera says:

      I wonder how many of those wonderful capitalists benefitted from the bailout … talk about charity.

      • Not one capitalist benefited – they all paid a dear price for it.

        Now, mercantilists benefited – but you do not know what or who that is, right Charlie?

        • The Buffoon is back! He promised yesterday he wouldn’t deal with me, then went back on his word (because he’s a warrior and evil must always be confronted) … so now I have to respond because BUFFOONS must always be called out.

          But to answer your question (you buffoon), those who “earned” off the bailout, including those who ran the joints they bankrupted (CEO’s), aren’t much concerned with your choice of symantics (you buffoon); investors “earned” (and I use the term very sarcastically) their profit and care not one iota what you choose to call it (buffoon). In the end, buffoon, the same 1% class of people took a major dump on everybody else and you, buffoon, defend the method by which it happened … capitalism led to mercantalism (or the 1% would’ve overthrown whatever government saught control of trade, you putz), the same as rain (to a capitalist) leads to most flowers blooming; they saw a way to make money with protection (you putz) … which is what any investor would seek (protecting their investment).

          Mercantalism is your “get out of the mess my economic philosophy has led me to” card. You flash it at every opportunity and ASSUME you have a clue and that everyone else doesn’t .. which is why you’re a BUFFOON.

          BF: See, Charlie, you don’t know what you’re saying. It’s Mercantilism that is ruining the economy and evil socialists ruining America … but if you buy a cup of coffee, that’s capitalism (makes no difference in mercantalism was involved in the process (THAT IT CAME FROM A THIRD WORLD COUNTRY WHERE PEOPLE ARE EXPLOITED FOR THEIR LABOR) because MERCANTALISM serves my (BF’s) purposes in this argument, I’m showing you how it’s not free market capitalism … and on and on and on …and you’re an economic ignoramus (did I mention that lately, Charlie)?

          Remember to pronounce the “e”, bufone … :)

          • Charlie,
            Evil must be confronted, even if it disgusting to do so.

            those who “earned” off the bailout, including those who ran the joints they bankrupted (CEO’s), aren’t much concerned with your choice of symantics (you buffoon);

            So, if a murderer calls himself God, you will argue that God must be evil.

            Definitions do matter, Charlie, or else everyone would turn into you – unable to make any coherent statement.

            In the end, buffoon, the same 1% class of people took a major dump on everybody else and you, buffoon, defend the method by which it happened

            In the end, if you argue that Saints are thieves and thieves are saints, then argue thieves need to be hung and Saints need to be revered – then definitions are darn important, Charlie

            …because that is your tactic – redefine something good (but you hate) to be something that is bad, you then attempt to invoke real violence against it, where you could not justify it otherwise.

            … capitalism led to mercantalism

            Capitalism is not the cause of mercantilism – mercantilism existed as the normative for most of human civilization.

            In fact, Adam Smith’s tome argued against mercantilism and in favor of free market capitalism.

            Government leads to mercantilism – without the force of legal violence, mercantilism cannot exist.

            Mercantilism that is ruining the economy and evil socialists ruining America … but if you buy a cup of coffee, that’s capitalism (makes no difference in mercantalism was involved in the process

            Correct.
            Each transaction in an economy stand alone, Charlie.

            No more than I measure my good or evil on what you do or do not.
            I measure my good or evil on what I do or do not.

            You try to entangle some bizarre theory that because Charlie does evil, BF -doing anything with Charlie- must also be evil.

            Do you believe that, Charlie?

            • charlieopera says:

              So, if a murderer calls himself God, you will argue that God must be evil.

              I don’t need the murderer, putz. I already consider God evil. (i.e., that the concept has caused more harm than good–something i argue with my relgious wife with at times).

            • charlieopera says:

              So, if a murderer calls himself God, you will argue that God must be evil.

              Asked and answered (I don’t need the murderer; it is MY belief that a God (or Gods/religion) cause more harm than good.

              Definitions do matter, Charlie, or else everyone would turn into you – unable to make any coherent statement.

              You’re a buffoon.

              Me: In the end, buffoon, the same 1% class of people took a major dump on everybody else and you, buffoon, defend the method by which it happened

              You: In the end, if you argue that Saints are thieves and thieves are saints, then argue thieves need to be hung and Saints need to be revered – then definitions are darn important, Charlie

              WTF are you referring to, you buffoon. Where was that argued? I argue (and believe it correct) that PEOPLE CREATED GOVERNMENT TO PROTECT THEMSELVES AND THEIR PROPERTY/ASSETS AND THAT IS WHAT LED TO MERCANTALISM (AN OFFSHOOT OF CAPITALISM BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE INHERENTLY GREEDY) … if you can’t understand that, I can’t help you.

              …because that is your tactic – redefine something good (but you hate) to be something that is bad, you then attempt to invoke real violence against it, where you could not justify it otherwise.

              And here you go again (Regan), putting words in my mouth (USW) … :)

              Me: capitalism led to mercantalism

              You: Capitalism is not the cause of mercantilism – mercantilism existed as the normative for most of human civilization.

              Except I believe it was an extension of capitalism (a place capitalism HAD to lead because of the inherent greed of people intend on hording assets/capital/cash/profits, you name it, bozo).

              You: In fact, Adam Smith’s tome argued against mercantilism and in favor of free market capitalism.

              See Chomsky on Adam Smith (if you really read Chomsky, you’d know how Smith was turned upside down by buffoons like yourself to suit your purpose.

              Government leads to mercantilism – without the force of legal violence, mercantilism cannot exist.

              And people make up the government, those owned by the most successful/wealthy capitalists and without government, capitalism can’t exist (no such thing as a free market—hell, you should recognize that argument, bozo).

              Mercantilism that is ruining the economy and evil socialists ruining America … but if you buy a cup of coffee, that’s capitalism (makes no difference in mercantalism was involved in the process

              You: Correct.

              No, it was sarcasm.

              Each transaction in an economy stand alone, Charlie.

              Only if you put on blinders, BF.

              And that’s enough of you for today, BF … :)

              • Mathius™ says:

                And that’s enough of you for today, BF …

                I don’t know how you made it even that far…

  50. Just A Citizen says:

    I was just reviewing the earlier discussion about how poor Barack would win in a landslide if not for all these things the poor ass-clown can’t control, like his skin color.

    I also just heard a quote on the radio from some talking head on MSNBC claiming that Romney’s statement about it being time to take the politics of hate, anger and division back to Chicago was the most egregious case of covert racism yet from the R’s. It is the “niggerization” of the campaign by the Republicans.

    Well at this moment I don’t give a damn what the reasons are for people voting against this asshole. As long as the SOB leaves D.C. next January and disappears, I don’t care the reason.

    In fact, I will chip in the money for his one-way plane ticket to the European country of his choice. Unless he prefers to return to Indonesia. I’ll help out there as well.

    • JAC! MSNBC is a fricking joke. Those that listen and believe them are a bigger joke (hint, hint, troll) I’ll gladly donate to his ticket back to Indonesia. I’ll even donate to have his America hating bitch of a wife to join him.

    • I saw that clip today too. That Touret or however you say it is , himself, a race baiter. Matt fired me up early then that guy really pissed me off. Heard him around 4 this afternoon and I’m still mad. SE Cupp tried to strike back but Touret and the hostess ganged up on her. We Are So Screwed :evil:

    • I’ll chip in to send the cult-leading-race-baiting-asshole-SOB Romney and his America hating bitch of a wife back to Mexico were he came from.

      • Hooold up! I hope you’re just taking your anger out at GMan for his comment. Surely you can’t defend Touret for his below the belt comment.

        • Anita, Todd may be right! Let’s see if the next First Lady says that she didn’t like the USA before she had a real shot at being First Lady. If she does (which I highly doubt) I will help Todd send her bitch ass on her way too. Moochele should have just smiled and kept her mouth shut. Who knows, maybe Todd id the real paid troll :wink:

        • Anita,
          I’m using JAC’s, Gman’s, and your words to simply show how STUPID you all sound.

          • OK I guess we’re stupid then but can you defend the guy’s statement?

            • Anita,
              I’m not defending the guy’s statement. But the 3 of you are using someone else’s comments to “prove” Obama shouldn’t be reelected.

              The “European country of his choice. Unless he prefers to return to Indonesia” is just a childish comment to (wink, wink) point out that Obama really is a SOCIALIST and a MUSLIM…

              Now would you care to have an actual discussion about this question or do you wish to simply take pokes at pieces and parts as suits your need to ridicule?

              • Just A Citizen says:

                Todd

                I want to be perfectly clear on this. I am NOT using this one person’s comments to tag Mr. Obama.

                I am tagging him because of his connection to all the race baiting and other divisive BS that has been coming from his surrogates for the past three year. And some of it from HIM directly.

                My reference to Europe was as you say, kind of, that being to send him to a place he seems to dream about. So if he loves that system so damn much he can live there, because this is the United States of America and WE ARE DIFFERENT. At least I hope we will be for a while longer.

                The reference to Indonesia had NOTHING to do with him being or not being Muslim. It was because he lived there for many years, has claimed he has fond memories of the place and the people there seem to love him. And their form of Govt would probably be more consistent with his views.

    • The best part of all this will be listening to all of you piss-n-moan and make up excuses for the next four years after Obama wins reelection.

      • Piss-n-moan…is that normal?
        Sound effects are not part of my normal pissing. Now sometimes, if I’ve had to hold it for a while, I might sigh. Moaning while you pee, might want to get yourself checked. You may have even more problems than the rest of us thought….

        • LOI,
          You’re the one who will be pissing-n-moaning, so you better get checked out.

          Lucky for you, ObamaCare will cover it!

          • charlieopera says:

            Reminds me of the poor woman on Romney’s campaign who spoke the truth … if only they’d lived in Mass … :) I know Coulter, et al, were demanding she get fired. Anyone know if they did fire her? I know within the next few days, Romney chose Ryan … ha, what a joke.

          • Todd, pissing does not cause me to moan. If I have any medical needs, I pay for it myself. My insurance is Blue Cross Blue Shield and I am very unhappy with that. Just got a letter from them informing me that they are dropping the hospital in my town because of a dispute over billing. Community health Systems is charging rates higher than BCBS will pay, so the eight hospitals in Arkansas are being terminated on Sept. 1st. And this is after my rates have gone up more than two grand in the last two years….

            My healthcare has gotten less affordable. My insurance cost has increased. It appears the hospitals expenses have increased. (I was told by the CEO of the hospital that they wrote off 10 million in ER un-collectable bills last year) Great future I’m looking at, Obama will cover my med bills, but the closest ER will be 45 minutes away after my local goes broke.

            • LOI,
              So the free-market capitalist health insurance THINGY isn’t working out so good for you?

              Maybe if EVERYONE had INSURANCE, Community Health Systems won’t have to write off $10 million in ER un-collectable bills each year.

              But how could we ENCOURAGE everyone to have insurance? Have any ideas??

              Maybe you should talk to D1 and move to Texas. He seems to think the ER at county run hospitals is just great for “health care”…

              • Todd,

                But how could we ENCOURAGE everyone to have insurance

                Please explain how everyone can have insurance while also everyone can make a claim on that insurance, and do so without bankrupting the insurance company.

    • Don’t you find it absolutely amazing how racist we must have become in the past three and a half years to suddenly discover that Obama’s skin color is now a disqualifier? I guess that’s evidence that Biden is right about the chains thing.

      • Mathius™ says:

        how racist we must have become
        Correction: how racist we must have become still are.

        As one, exceedingly brilliant and highly respected observer put it:

        Last time he was running as the insurgent outsider against the most unpopular President in history (Obama ran against Bush, not McCain) right after the biggest financial collapse in generations amid two wildly unpopular and protracted wars.

        If Obama had been white, McCain’s electoral math would have looked a lot more like Mondale’s.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          Mathius

          And I say that if Obama had been white McCain would have won with 58%.

          • Mathius™ says:

            And to that, I say this.

              • Mathius™ says:

                In an interview with Ebony magazine, Jackson explained, “I voted for Barack because he was black. ‘Cuz that’s why other folks vote for other people — because they look like them … That’s American politics, pure and simple. [Obama's] message didn’t mean [bleep] to me.”

                And that, too, is racist. Not that I was the hugest Sam Jack fan in the world, but this just made me lose a lot of respect for him.

                But here’s the thing. African Americans are outnumbered in this country 10:1 or so. If many of them are racist (only voting FOR black candidates) and many white people are racist (only voting AGAINST black candidates), then the whites are going to swamp the blacks. Simple math. There’s more of us than there are of them – a lot more. If both sides are racist (and they are), then our side’s racism is far more powerful.

              • Fair enough, Matt. I wonder how the percentage works here. It seems to me, on a superficial level, that a large proportion of black people celebrate black culture (BET, Black Expo, etc). On the other hand, a good deal of white people distrust black people (I would postulate this is partially because of TV and partially because of how the population is segregated). I don’t find it hard to believe that more whites are racist simply based on statistics (it’s less than to 7:1 by the way).

                One thing I would point out, however is that 98% of black voters going Democrat is not surprising, no matter the race of the candidates. Similarly, those back-woods hillbillies (or the more subtly) racist would probably not be voting for a Democrat regardless of the race. It is a terrible problem (for both sides), but probably does not have quite so much an impact as you might think.

                Glad to see we’re in a post-racial America now…

          • JAC, did “reason” bring you to that 58% … if so, maybe you should give that bullshit up and start dealing with REALITY.

            Palin would’ve sunk anybody, including that tax raising former communist sympathizer and union president (and probably alzheimer patient during his 2nd term), Ronald Reagan …

            I almost wrote RR … the initials to my latest book, Rough Riders … blurbed by your favorite, Ward Churchill …

            • Just A Citizen says:

              Charlie

              I pulled the 58% from thin air. To make the point that my number had no more basis in reality that Matts claim that a white guy would have won in a landslide.

              You seriously over state the negative impact Palin had on McCain’s race.

              • I don’t think so.. she scared the bejesus out of a lot of people.. especially given how old McCain is..

  51. Awe, just heard Janet Napalitano may step down. Now if only Pelosi, Wasserman-Shultz and the rest of the foul looking lefties would join her, things would really be looking up. We won’t be that lucky, but it’s worth a wish :)

  52. (CNSNews.com) – The Social Security Administration posted a blog on Thursday to explain why it was planning to purchase 174,000 hollow point bullets.

    SSA posted a “Request for Quote for Ammunition” on the FedBizOps.gov website on Aug. 7. The request listed the commodity that SSA desired as “.357 Sig 125 grain bonded jacketed hollow point pistol ammunition.” The quantity listed was “174 TH.”

    The SSA’s Office of the Inspector General’s said it posted a new blog on the agency’s website, “Beyond the Numbers,” “as we strive to be a transparent and accountable government organization for all of our stakeholders.

    “With those goals in mind, we thought it would be appropriate to address recent media reports regarding the organization’s purchase of ammunition for our special agents’ duty weapons,” the blog post states.

    The blog states that the SSA has 295 special agents who work in 66 offices across the United States.

    “These investigators have full law enforcement authority, including executing search warrants and making arrests,” the blog post states. “Our investigators are similar to your State or local police officers.

    “They use traditional investigative techniques, and they are armed when on official duty,” the blog post states.

    (My thoughts, a 1,000 rounds a year would be closer to my expectations on staying proficient, so around 300,000 is what should be purchased. Does not explain all the other numbers)

  53. Mathius™ says:

    BF / Charlie,

    Mercantilism that is ruining the economy and evil socialists ruining America … but if you buy a cup of coffee, that’s capitalism (makes no difference in mercantalism was involved in the process

    Correct.
    Each transaction in an economy stand alone, Charlie.

    Mr. Flag,

    If you knowingly engage in a transaction where the history was immoral, you are absolved from (indirect) culpability in that immorality?

    How so?

    It seems to me that if I knowingly buy stolen goods, that I am supporting and encouraging theft. This, perhaps, does not make me a thief, but it sure doesn’t seem to be morally clean.

    If then you cannot buy a stolen good, and if you consider mercantilism to be evil, then buying a good where the upstream source was mercantilism seems to be de facto support of that mercantilist system.

    Perhaps you can elaborate how you arrived at the conclusion that each transaction stands alone when no transaction occurs in a vacuum.

    • Mathius

      Mr. Flag, If you knowingly engage in a transaction where the history was immoral, you are absolved from (indirect) culpability in that immorality?

      All human action is individual.
      I do not measure my good based on what you do – ever

      So, your argument equally would be that if you are good, and I interact with you in any manner at all, I must be doing good too?

      Well, no, of course not.

      So the opposite of that is equally true.

      Now, it may be your choice to view thru the transaction into the heart and soul of the one you are transacting with – but that is a subjective choice of your own morals and not a debate of economics or free men.

      It seems to me that if I knowingly buy stolen goods, that I am supporting and encouraging theft.

      But you were talking morality – here, you are talking violence

      Charlie does not like that the choices of a farmer is to work or starve. He wants some other choice manufactured out of thin air by his violence on behalf of the farmer – that is, do nothing and get paid.

      The issue with the farmer has nothing to do with robbing a bank, or beating up an old woman for her watch.

      • charlieopera says:

        that is, do nothing and get paid.

        Geez, you’re smart, Mr. BF. It is amazing (putting words in someone else’s mouth aside–did you read that USW?) how brilliant you really are. That’s what I want … to get paid to do nothing! Pure genius!

        • Charlie,

          I have to put words into your mouth, since you never offer any coherent argument of your own.

          At least when I say it for it for you, it makes some sort of sense – even if it is still evil.
          When you spew, it is utterly incoherent – come to think of it, I should send you a bill for helping you.

        • charlieopera says:

          @Plainly: and with total respect. Agreeing with BF (that all I want is for people to get paid for doing nothing) … is that what would make me less hard-headed? Is that the issue, that I don’t agree with the right wing ideology on this site? I’m curious, because even when you don’t agree with X phiolosphy here, you are always reasonable about it. Just curiosity here.

          • Charlie,

            is that what would make me less hard-headed?

            Oh hell, NO!

            I do not want your agreement, nor do I seek it.

            I want REASON married with your arguments.

            Not the irrational mush that you present and pretend makes sense.

            I do not want you to agree with me 2+2=4, simply because I said so.

            I want you to reason it out for yourself – because then, you being a smart guy, could reason a whole lot of other interesting things that perhaps I haven’t thought of.

            But as long as you hold 2+2=5 or 15, or anything else, no matter what else you present based on that is equally utter nonsense.

            • Mathius™ says:

              I want REASON married with your arguments.

              The reason you don’t see reason in his arguments is that you reject the premises upon which his reason is constructed.

              The reason he doesn’t see reason in your arguments is that he rejects the premises upon which your reason is constructed.

              Hope this clears things up.

              • charlieopera says:

                More than has for me (forever now), but BF does not accept the possibility someone rejects his arguments (as you know).

                But, hell, yes, sign me up for that pay for nothing … do we get chicks for free, too?

              • Yes, but only if you live in the 80s.

              • Mathius,

                The reason you don’t see reason in his arguments is that you reject the premises upon which his reason is constructed.

                That is not true.

                This is the same issue as with Buck – a refusal to supply a root premise.

                With Buck, I know it is purposeful, because he knows the ones he holds contains a contradiction – and he knows he would be pulverized in this forum for it.

                So he simply avoids providing it as a weak attempt in avoiding the pulverizing.

                Charlie, however, has no fear of being pulverized. He is used to it – day in, day out.

                His issue is he cannot articulate his premise in any coherent fashion.

              • Charlie,

                Reject arguments – with reason – I’m all ears.

                Rejecting arguments because you do not like the conclusions of their truth – sign of immaturity and harbinger of disaster.

        • Mathius™ says:

          I’d love to get paid to do nothing.

          I’d be awesome at that job!

      • Mathius™ says:

        if you are good, and I interact with you in any manner at all, I must be doing good too?

        I would disagree somewhat.

        Your action (whether to trade or not trade) is de facto support (or lack of support) of me, personally. That is, you are rewarding or punishing (.. or rather, not rewarding) me with your business.

        If you have the choice between two vendors, one who is evil and one who is good, you will opt to trade, presumably, with the good one. Even if he is more expensive, you may still make that choice – why? Because you are encouraging / rewarding his behavior while refusing to do so for the other, correct?

        If I encourage an evil act, even if I myself do not perpetrate it, I cannot absolve myself from some responsibility. Just reduce it to a simpler scenario – you goad someone into robbing a liquor store. Did you rob the store? No. Are you guilty of robbery? No. But do you hold some moral responsibility for the action? After all, it wouldn’t have happened if it weren’t for you. Maybe you can’t know that with absolute certainty, but it’s at least a strong possibility.

        So, the converse must also hold true (as you say). If someone is good, maybe giving to charity, and I opt to use their services over their competitor, I can rightly consider that an indirect contribution to charity. It was my (fungible) money which eventually made its way into the pockets of the needy. If it weren’t for me, that money wouldn’t be there.

        The key factor here, I think, it intent and knowledge. If I don’t know, it’s not my fault per say (unless I was grossly negligent) what happens with that money. If I do know, then I bear some responsibility, whether good or bad.

        Now, it may be your choice to view thru the transaction into the heart and soul of the one you are transacting with

        No….

        It is my opinion that you have to view through the transaction to the extent reasonably foreseeable.

        If you tell me (point blank) that you need $100 in order to buy a gun which you are going to use to murder Charlie, then offer to sell me something for a $100, I think I would have to consider myself culpable when you use that money to buy the gun and commit murder. After all, I knew what was going to happen, and I helped make it happen.

        If you don’t tell me, and I don’t know.. well then it’s not really my fault, now is it?

        view thru the transaction

        Side topic: What’s with the word “thru”? Since when did this become an acceptable replacement for the world “through”? I know it’s a non-issue, but I received an official memorandum yesterday with this substitution and it just seems to me that this is grossly informal. Comparable to using L33T-speak or using texting shorthand (LOL!) or dotting your i’s with little hearts. HARRUMPH!

        • Just A Citizen says:

          Mathius

          I am not going to get in the middle of your discussion with Flag on this. But I do have one question.

          Do you really believe this?

          If so then I do not understand why you have heartburn over our nuking of Japan.

          • Mathius™ says:

            Do you really believe this?

            Of course I believe this.

            why you have heartburn over our nuking of Japan.

            I have heartburn over the nuking of Japan because it was unnecessary to kill innocent people. Now, one could make the argument that, by supporting the war effort, they themselves had become culpable for the war and therefore are combatants. This path leads you to the ‘total war’ mentality whereby terrorists justify flying 747’s into office buildings.

            It’s hard to get away from the slippery slope, but to say that paying taxes or failing to revolt is grounds for culpability to the extent that you may justifiably be killed.. well that’s a bridge too far. I wouldn’t be against, say, holding them accountable for reparations, however.

            That said, let’s move away from the tax payers and, even, the workers in war-effort-related factories. Just as a microcosm, consider that there were 250k+ people killed. Of those, undoubtedly, many were children. You can’t get away from this fact at the very least. Many were children. And they died just as absolutely as the “guilty.” Add to this that the radiation caused generations of birth defects, cancers, et cetera, and the kill count of the 100% completely innocent is easily in the 5-digit range.

            Now, to me, a single innocent death is unacceptable, but that is outrageous.

            • Just A Citizen says:

              Mathius

              I couldn’t have done a better job myself of showing the contradictory philosophy that supports leftist thinking. And I use “leftist” here to distinguish Statists of all varieties from us “Radical Right Wing Liberals”.

              Re: the children. Seems to me you have supported Charlie’s arguments about OUR GUILT for the way the Indians were treated by our ancestors. So their children and ALL their future heirs must suffer the guilt. Is that somehow different than those children of the children of the children of the men who slaughtered Chinese, Koreans, and other SE Asians?

              You should really consider just giving in and adopting the DPM personality. That Pirate has his shit together. I think you would be much happier. Certainly less conflicted. :)

              • Mathius™ says:

                You should really consider just giving in and adopting the DPM personality.

                That pirate may have his act together, but he thinks you’re nuts.

                Seems to me you have supported Charlie’s arguments about OUR GUILT for the way the Indians were treated by our ancestors.

                What’s the argument? I’ll let you know where I stand.

                Generally speaking, the guilt is diluted, but yes, we benefit today from a wholesale slaughter of an entire people and what was probably the single largest theft in human history (that is, an entire continent worth of land).

                By enjoying something I know to be stolen, I am certainly doing something wrong. How wrong… well not very.. there are no living survivors (by a dozen generations) who were directly wronged. It would be as if you bought a stolen iPod. Is it yours? Well, I suppose not – it belongs to the rightful owner.. but it’s not like you know who to give it back to, or you could make it right with the original victim. You shouldn’t have bought it.. by doing so, you validated and enabled the thief.. but by the time you got there, the crime was already done, the thief had already sold it to a fence, and you’re buying it third hand. Yes, you ABSOLUTELY are still wrong. But just how much wrong?

                It’s why receipt of stolen goods is a crime. But nowhere near as serious as the original theft.

                Shades of gray, JAC, old boy, shades of gray…

              • Just A Citizen says:

                Mathius

                I have far more in common with DPM. Besides………

                I AM nuts.

  54. Aside from the clear and present danger the Obama regime places the military and their families in by ongoing intelligence leaks, the most telling part of the video Dishonorable Disclosures is how Obama invited Hollywood to the White House for a briefing days after the killing of Osama bin Laden.

    Still shots in the film depict the lanky frame of Tom Hanks sprawled over a front row seat, with director Steven Spielberg at the other end of the front row of the White House Movie Theatre. Today Hanks and Spielberg play pivotal roles in the reelection campaign of President Barack Hussein Obama.

    The highly controversial OPSEC Dishonorable Disclosures: Why Congress must hold Obama accountable for national security breaches is going viral on the Internet.

    “America’s politicians need to recognize that the right and proper role of the U.S. military is for defense and national emergencies only, not political gain,” writes the Washington Times. “While politicians in air conditioned rooms jockey for electoral capital, someone’s father, mother, brother, sister, son or daughter is wearing the uniform and is in harm’s way on behalf of those politicians.”

    Dishonorable Disclosures finishes the true story that not only did Obama take full credit for the Navy SEAL raid that led to the death of Osama bin Laden in May 2011, but that the world-viewed photograph of a casually dressed Obama posing with VP Joe Biden and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton watching the raid on bin Laden’s compound in Pakistan in the White House Situation Room, was merely the forerunner for a coming Hollywood film intended to lionize Obama as bin Laden’s killer three weeks before the November 6 election.

    Following the raid, Obama refused outright to release any pictures of bin Laden’s corpse—but had already granted full access to ‘the vault’—a CIA installation where some of the planning for the bin Laden raid took place to Director Kathryn Bigelow and screenwriter Mark Boal for a film, titled Zero Dark Thirty.

    The only good news in the entire staged saga is that the film has been forced back from an October 12 release to a December 19 one.

    Without the brilliant investigative work of Judicial Watch, whose documents were obtained through a lawsuit filed under the Freedom of Information Act, the Obama/Hollywood movie deal would never have seen the light of day.

    Without the courage and savvy of the OPSEC Intelligence and Special Operations Team, the public at large would never have known about the current administration’s sellout of intelligence for sheer political gain.

  55. charlieopera says:

    Charlie,

    Reject arguments – with reason – I’m all ears.

    Rejecting arguments because you do not like the conclusions of their truth – sign of immaturity and harbinger of disaster.

    You’re a buffoon. How’s that work for you?

  56. Mathius™ says:

    JAC,

    God, I love Wikipedia!

    What constitutes apostasy in Islam

    The orthodox conditions of apostasy are that the person in question (a) has understood and professed the shahada, (b) has acquired knowledge of those rulings of the shariah necessarily known by all Muslims, (c) is of sound mind at the time, (d) has reached or surpassed puberty, and (e) has consciously and deliberately rejected or consciously and deliberately intends to reject as untrue either the shahada (and what it is commonly known to entail) or those rulings of the shariah necessarily known by all Muslims.[40][41] Maliki scholars additionally require that the person in question (f) have publicly engaged in the obligatory practices of the religion.[42]
    For example: if a sane adult Muslim, knowing and professing that God exists and is one, were to then declare that God does not exist, then this would constitute apostasy. Another example: if a sane adult Muslim, knowing that salat (prayer) is fard al-ayn (personally obligatory), were to then declare that it was not personally obligatory, then this would constitute apostasy. By contrast, for example: if a sane adult Muslim, knowing that consumption of alcohol is haram (forbidden), were to consume alcohol knowing and professing that it was forbidden, then this would merely constitute disobedience and not apostasy. Another example, if a sane adult Muslim carelessly and thoughtlessly makes a statement of unbelief, then this would not constitute apostasy.[43]
    In traditional Islam, there is a distinction between private and public apostasy. Private apostasy is the satisfaction of the above conditions, but without any public declaration. For example, if a sane adult Muslim performed daily prayers, professed them to be obligatory, but personally believed them to not be obligatory, then this would constitute private apostasy. Or for example, if a person professed the shahada with knowledge of its meaning, but in their home secretly worshiped idols, then this would constitute private apostasy. Public apostasy is the satisfaction of the above conditions by means of public declaration.

    ———-

    In other words, to become an apostate (in this case, one who has abandoned Islam), you just have to stop believing in Islam. You can do this privately (just stop) or publicly (declare your disbelief).

    Now, it’s interesting that, per Wikipedia, there are some caveats, but they make sense – you have to be sane, an adult, understand what you’re doing, etc. I would still consider that it doesn’t matter whether you’re sane or not, but even with this ‘exit protocol’ it seems quite clear that it’s entirely possible to stop being Muslim. In fact, it seems tougher to stay Muslim than to stop being Muslim.

    ———

    I look forward to your retraction.

    • Mathius™ says:

      From the Saudi school curriculum:

      “An Apostate will be suppressed three days in prison in order that he may repent ….. otherwise, he should be killed, because he has changed his true religion, therefore, there is no use from his living, regardless of being a man or a woman, as Mohammed said: “Whoever changes his religion, kill him”, narrated by Al-Bukhari and Muslim.”

      Catch that? “Because he has changed his true religion.” Hell, even the official Saudi Arabian rules allow you to change your religion.

      But this, still, is beside the point. The point, again, is that your religion is what YOU decide it is, not what other people consider it to be. Otherwise, I declare you to be a Buddhist.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Mathius

        It seems you have anticipated my question.

        Your claim to be able to declare my religion is a FAILURE of logic in this debate. Except for the Mormons :) .

        The argument was that once a person had JOINED that the CLUB, FAMILIA, ETC would always thereafter consider them part of the CLUB, FAMILIA, ETC. Regardless of what the person wanted.

        Now this is either TRUE or FALSE.

        Your posts regarding Islam seem to confirm this as true. Otherwise why would the Club have any authority to KILL someone for leaving the Club. Sounds like the MOB to me.

      • NO. The point is that if you leave Islam you will be killed if you don’t repent. Just like JAC said…you can’t leave the religion..well you can but nice knowing you. I looked this same stuff up the other day.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Mathius

      How can I retract something that is not mine to retract?

      I am not a member of any of these clubs. So when a member of a club tells me that once a member always a member then who am I to argue with them?

      I can certainly make the same points you did yesterday about the Individual being the sovereign, but if that means nothing to them there is nothing I can do to change their view.

      I simply shared it with you.

      You provide information that appears to contradict their statements. BUT, I am not an EXPERT in their Religion or how the Fundamentalists treat these things. So if they say “I believe” then I must take them at their word.

      I never argued that their belief was rational, reasoned, logical or even ethical. Only that it was their view and they claim that view is shared among many of their faith who live in the middle east.

      By the way, do you happen to know the penalty for Apostasy in Islam? I know what I have been told by some but I want to here your version first.

      • Mathius™ says:

        So if they say “I believe” then I must take them at their word.

        Great, and “I believe” that you are a turnip.

        I trust you will take me at my word.

        I mean, I know it’s not rational, reasoned, logical, or even ethical, but hey.. that doesn’t seem to be a requirement for you.

        By the way, do you happen to know the penalty for Apostasy in Islam? I know what I have been told by some but I want to here your version first.

        The Koran is somewhat hazy on this. There’s no justification for death, though many fundamentalists believe there is. What there is is a justification for “severe punishment” IF the apostate actively tries to convert others away from Islam (but what that means, exactly is not stated). If not, then the Surah on infidels would seem to rule – that is, “to you your way, to me mine.”

        BUT, I am not an EXPERT in their Religion

        I don’t think I’d qualify as an “expert” but I’m sure as hell pretty well versed.

        What happens in organized religions is that there is a foundation – the rock upon which the religion is built. That is, the Koran, or the Bible, or the Torah, or whatever. Then people come along with opinions and color to elaborate. This leads us to the Talmud and the like. These can become canonical amongst certain practicioners.

        This is why, for example, a papal decree is the law of heaven and earth even though the pope is never mentioned or authorized in the biblical text.

        The thing about Judaism, Islam, and many Christian sects is that they are not centralized. That is, there’s no primary authority to make decisions. Therefore, within these, practicioners are free to establish the extent of their faith and confidence in the validity/accuracy/import of the surrounding beliefs beyond the core text. In the case of Judaism and Christianity, even the core texts are up for debate since they were passed down orally and may be subject to human error (Islam specifically notes this as a resolution to any internal conflicts between the texts). So, as a result, the only thing that can be said “for sure” about these religions is what is specifically and explicitly stated in the core texts – and even then, subject to interpretation.

        When you ask what “Islam” says about apostates, I can only point at the Koran and say that it mentions punishment for it in certain circumstances, that Muhammad declined to punish an apostate in one part, and that it preaches tolerance so long as the individual is not attempting to convert others away from Islam. Whatever anyone else may opine is outside the scope of what is universally defined as Islam and can more readily be considered Person X’s Personal Interpretation of Islam. When a group of people with similar interpretations come together, you get a sect such as Sunni or Baptist or Orthodox, but that again, is not Islam/Christianity/Judaism (respectively).. that’s Group X’s Collective Interpretation of Islam/Christianity/Judaism (respectively).

        And, in Mathius’s Personal Interpretation of Judaism, you are still a turnip.

        • The Pope is only “law” when he speaks ex cathedra which does not happen very often. It’s how most Catholics “fudge” birth control. Maybe a sin but not going to get you thrown out bell, book and candle.

          FYI, years ago, I found the best take on understanding the middle eastern mind was T.E. Lawrence’s “Seven Pillars of Wisdom”. He was one hell of a lot brighter than most of us. Weird, but bright.

          • Mathius™ says:

            The Pope is only “law” when he speaks ex cathedra which does not happen very often True. HOWEVER, the point was that even that is not mentioned anywhere in the bible. The whole pope-thing is something PEOPLE added after-the-fact. It’s not part of “Christianity” – it’s part of the subset “Catholicism.”

            T.E. Lawrence’s “Seven Pillars of Wisdom” Never heard of it..

            Maybe a sin but not going to get you thrown out bell, book and candle. I’m not sure, but I would be willing to bet that it’s exceedingly rare for someone to be excommunicated in this day an age..

            • “Thou art Peter and upon this rock I shall build my church and the gates of helkl shall not prevail against it”. Now Catholics have always more or less looked at this as the founding of the Papacy. Non Catholics, especially denominations who have split from the Catholic Church tend not to. I wonder why? Duhhh. There is also the issue that Popes are elected and that the pope is, sorry, I forget the Latin, the “First among equals”.

              See, that’s the problem today, nobody knows spit about history. Revolt in the desert, Lawrence of Arabia stuff like that. watch the friggen Peter O’Toole movie first on widescreen, then read a bio or two, then read Lawrence’s book. I doid it that way in the early-mid sixties and nothing that has happened in that pert of the world since then has surprised me. That’s why I mentioned the phrase “The Past is Prologue” the other day. Or, I could quote Shakespeare, “There is nothing new under the sun Horatio”. Lawrence was many, many things., His observations are fascinating unless you want to dismiss them because there was a better than average chance that he was a gay guy into S & M. I like to think not on this but the evidence is stronger than that for J. Edgar Hoover wearing a dress.

              They tend to excommunicate people really going over the line. Can’t name the last few but there was the break-away bishop who started ordaining people and there was this other anti-semetic guy. Maybe some nuns for abortion soon though. I wouldn’t mind losing some politicians. You could start with the governor of Maryland and then move on to any of the Kennedy’s. Problem with the Kennedy’s though is that they make it possible to diss the church since, among other things, they seem to be able to get marriages, even those with children annulled as if they never happened. Not something easily done for a non-Kennedy Catholic.

              • Mathius™ says:

                I forget the Latin, the “First among equals”.

                Primus inter pares

                Probably more accurately translated as first among peers.

                Now Catholics have always more or less looked at this as the founding of the Papacy.

                I don’t see how you derive a lineage of elected leaders with divine authority. Just because Jesus bestows that position to one person doesn’t mean that the job continues into perpetuity. He sure gave him a lot of authority “Whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” But there really doesn’t seem to be anything about a successor.

                In any event, it’s not made crystal clear. Thus why some denominations accept this as the foundation of the papacy and others do not. Because of this, and because all these denominations are, collectively, Christianity, the papacy cannot be said to be a “christian” belief, but rather a Catholic belief as a subset of Christianity.

                A square is a rectangle, but a rectangle is not a square. A subset can hold traits not held by the larger group, but not the inverse.

                Not something easily done for a non-Kennedy Catholic.

                For an organization representing the will of god, it sure is interesting that certain people get special treatment.. I mean, you know, it’s odd that God is more willing to cater to the Kennedies than non-Kennedies.. I guess he doesn’t love us all equally..

              • Just A Citizen says:

                SK

                Was “helkl” supposed to be “hell”? If not, what was it?

              • JAC,

                Yep, I didn’t proof the thing. So it is Hell or probably more correctly Hades. I am incredibly slow at these things. I am a two finger typist, a trait I learned in the Army when I filled in for the Company clerk when he was on leave, ( First Sgt. to Trynosky, “Hey Trynosky, you a college man right?”, Trynosky to 1st Sgt. “Yes Sergeant but I don’t type.” 1st Sgt. to Trynosky, “You’ll learn”) I loved the Army. In the days before white out or correct type, with multiple carbons, I usually finished the morning report by about 11PM. I had REAMS of forms.

                Matt,

                There was supposed to be subtle humor in the question of break away groups who did not accept the primacy of the papacy (I like that phrase, has the makings of a catchy tune). See, it’s that lawyer thing in you. The succession was implied since every organization since the beginning of time needs a CEO but a good lawyer could easily argue that since it’s not in the contract, it does not exist and the 9th Circuit would back him up.

                Ya see, the Kennedy’s have always been so good to us poor folks that I guess God just thinks they should be cut some slack. Certainly in cases of rape, murder, homicide, and driving your wife to alcoholism/suicide, civil authority does.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          Mathius

          You are still struggling with a logical argument.

          “So if they say “I believe” then I must take them at their word.

          Great, and “I believe” that you are a turnip.

          I trust you will take me at my word.” YES, I WILL. I WILL ACCEPT YOUR STATEMENT THAT YOU BELIEVE I AM A TURNIP. BUT YOU SEE MATT, THAT IS NOT A DEBATE OVER WHETHER I AM A TURNIP. ONLY THAT YOU BELIEVE I AM A TURNIP. AND THAT I ACCEPT YOUR STATEMENT AS BEING TRUE……..NAMELY THAT IS WHAT YOU BELIEVE.

          “I mean, I know it’s not rational, reasoned, logical, or even ethical, but hey.. that doesn’t seem to be a requirement for you.” ALL THESE THINGS MATTER TO ME IN DETERMINING IF SOMETHING IS TRUE. BUT IF YOU BELIEVE IN SOME IRRATIONAL THING, MY APPLICATION OF LOGIC CAN NOT PROVE YOUR “BELIEF” FALSE. I CAN PROVE THE “THING” YOU BELIEVE MIGHT BE FALSE. BUT THAT WILL NOT NECESSARILY CHANGE WHAT YOU BELIEVE.

          • Mathius™ says:

            So. To turn full circle at looong last.

            Do you, JAC, personally believe that the President is or (still is) Muslim.

            Not, do you believe that others believe. But do you believe.

            • Just A Citizen says:

              Mathius

              I do not believe he is a practicing Muslim, as I stated yesterday.

              Now, do you have evidence he was “never” Muslim?

              • Mathius™ says:

                do you have evidence he was “never” Muslim?

                He says he wasn’t.

                In the absence of evidence, I see no reason to doubt this. Can you prove he was never an acolyte of the Giant Space Walrus?

                I do not believe he is a practicing Muslim, as I stated yesterday.

                That’s not what I asked.

                I didn’t ask if you thought he was a practicing Muslim. I asked if you think he’s a Muslim – at all.

            • Just A Citizen says:

              Mathius

              The answer to that would depend on:

              1. Was he ever a Muslim.

              2. If yes, then according to Muslim rules does he become NOT Muslim just because he says so?

              There seems to be some conflict on this second point. And as you point out, this conflict could be due to the differing “sects” or “churches” of the broader Islam. I am not sure “apostasy” itself means you can NOT BE MUSLIM once you have become a member of the club.

              If the rules of the club allow you to simply walk away and thus NOT be Muslim then I would say he is NOT MUSLIM. Absent any other evidence, of course.

              I wonder why he took on and kept Hussein as a middle name?

              • Mathius™ says:

                If the rules of the club allow you to simply walk away and thus NOT be Muslim then I would say he is NOT MUSLIM. Absent any other evidence, of course. So what is your personal take on this? This is a yes / no question.

                I wonder why he took on and kept Hussein as a middle name? Because it’s his middle name. I wouldn’t give up my middle name. Would you?

            • Just A Citizen says:

              Mathius

              It is not a yes/no question as I do not have enough expertise in the are to make a judgment.

              Given your evidence I would say the answer is No. But those fellas I told you about said otherwise. So now I must ask them WHY they make such a claim.

              I NEED MORE INPUT…………………MORE INPUT…………..
              :)

            • I believe he’s an Atheist who periodically makes nice noises about God and religion. He is a very pragmatic politician and my take on most of those guys is that God and Religion are about the last things on their minds no matter what they say. Claiming religiosity is nothing more than a means to an end.

  57. charlieopera says:

    Food for thought …:)

    http://art-bin.com/art/omodest.html

    • Mathius™ says:

      I heard this was implemented as part of ObamaCare..

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Mathius

        Not true. Obama Care is designed to keep the kids so the Death Panel can harvest the OLD PEOPLE. More a Soylent Green thang than what Swift is proposing.

        This of course there is productive work for those between babes and old. If not, then I suppose the “Panel” could change the definitions to allow earlier “culling”.

  58. :) for everyone (even Todd) :wink: Just for you Charlie :twisted: for JAC, since we are both nuts :cry: for Obamaloni, cuz he’s a loser

  59. charlieopera says:

    And for you, crazy G:

    Movie Reviews … The Lost Children … Best Political Article of the week … Don’t Roof Rack Me, Bro/Dogs Against Romney … Paul Ryan’s Modest Proposal …

    http://temporaryknucksline.blogspot.com/2012/08/movie-reviews-lost-children-best.html

  60. Just A Citizen says:

    Mathius

    I have done some checking on what it takes to become Muslim. The info so far supports your claim that all you need to do is follow certain steps and this requires no witnesses.

    BUT ………….. then there is this little ditty on the same site.

    “If you wish to go for Hajj (pilgrimage), a “certificate of Islam” may be required to prove that you are a Muslim. (Only Muslims are allowed to visit the city of Mecca.) Contact your local Islamic center to obtain one; they may ask you to repeat your declaration of faith.”

    This sure looks like “joining the club” is really required, just like the Catholics and the Mormons do.

    • Mathius™ says:

      Mecca is a city controlled by a government. That government may require this certificate. I am not aware of any such certificate, and I assure you no such item is mentioned in the Koran.

      So, if you want to “join the club” in a sense which is acceptable to the Saudi government, that’s one thing. If you just want to “join the club,” that’s another. The Saudi government, much as they’d like to disagree, is not the arbiter of Islam – it is merely a state run by subset denomination called Wahhabism. But the part is not equivalent to the whole.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Mathius

        Is a trip to Mecca included in the Koran?

        Does the Koran require that only Muslims are allowed to visit Mecca?

        How do all the other books of Islam fit here. You keep citing only the Koran. But I thought the other books also make up the “laws of Islam”.

        • Mathius™ says:

          Is a trip to Mecca included in the Koran? Yes, it’s called the Hajj and is required of every able-bodied Muslim (with, I believe, hardship exemptions). It’s not just the trip, but the trip is the core part of it.

          Does the Koran require that only Muslims are allowed to visit Mecca? I don’t think so. I’m somewhat hazy on this point. But I think this is just a rule set up by the Saudis. I’m sure if the orthodox had their way, Israel would only allow Jews to visit Jerusalem. That wouldn’t make it a “Jewish” rule.. just something imposed by people with control over the state. Does this make sense?

          How do all the other books of Islam fit here. You keep citing only the Koran. But I thought the other books also make up the “laws of Islam”.

          Right, it’s instructive to look at Judaism here. We have the Torah. This is the bible. It is the word of God and is the absolute rule in Judaism. However, it’s unclear in certain points. It needed to be fleshed out or it wouldn’t really be possible to follow God’s instructions (ie, what does He mean by X…?).

          So, early on, a group of rabbis got together and hashed it out. It took some of them their whole lifetimes (so the story goes, anyway). They wrote the Talmud. The Talmud (literally translated as “the law”) does just this. Line by painstaking line, they debated and argued (Jews do love to debate and argue) over the meaning of the whole Torah. So the Talmud, considered a sacred text, is just some people’s learned opinions. They could be right – they could be wrong. To their MASSIVE credit, they wrote down all their differences of opinions, so that you can have rabbinical dissent over a passage and not consider the majority opinion to be canon if you so choose… how cool is that? In fact, you are free to reject the Talmud in its entity, though many stricter Jews would no longer consider you Jewish (as if they had the right to determine who is and is not in “their” club).

          Anyway, back to Islam. Islam has something similar. The Koran is The Book. It is The Bible, the word of god. It is directly passed to Muhammad by the angel Gabriel direct from God himself. It is perfect and infallible. In fact, it is considered so perfect, that translations are considered merely commentary since they are not the exact language and words used by God/Gabe/Muhammad and can therefore be corrupted (ie, there might be a translation error or a nuance might be missed, or even just the sound of the cadence). That’s the starting point.

          Then there are some other texts. There’s the Hadith. This could reasonably be compared to the Talmud. I haven’t read this one (I’m not that bored), but it’s a collection of traditions and laws as DERIVED from the Koran and from the preaching of Muhammad. There were hundreds of thousands of these things (mostly just “Muhammad once said…”), and someone somewhere sat down (just like the bible) and decided what is and is not canon. Though the text, like the Talmud, is considered holy, it’s not infallible or (necessarily) perfect. It’s from this that Sharia law derives (amongst other things). Thus why someone can be Muslim but not believe in Sharia law – to be Muslim, you need only technically follow the Koran as that and that alone is the word of God.

          There are a few others that are important to the various sects, but I don’t know too much about them to be honest. I’m sure you could do some digging. But the important thing to keep in mind is that while they’re binding within a given sect as holy or correct or whatever, they aren’t binding outside of that sect. So a Sunni holy text could not be applied to all of Islam any more than the preachings of a Greek orthodox saint must be applied to all of Christianity.

  61. Just A Citizen says:

    Mathius

    Re the what if game with Obama and McCain

    04 Total K B 08 Total O Mc
    White 77% 41 58 74 43 55
    Black 11 88 11 13 95 4
    Hispanic 8 53 44 9 66 31
    Asian 2 56 43 ??????

    The increase in the Black vote was over 2 million voters. There was a slight decline in total White voters, not just the percentage of the total. This was among “conservatives”. You know, the ones who would NOT have voted for a Lefty White Democrat anyway.

    Obama also had significantly more turnout and percentage of the young voters than Kerry did. Vast majority was for Obama.

    Now for the real interesting stat. Obama received 41% of the WHITE MALE vote, which was the FIRST time since Carter that a Democrat exceeded 38% of white men.

    All analysis of the demographics have concluded THREE segments were key to his election. None of which would be guaranteed to a White Man running on the same platform, aka Gore and Kerry. These were Blacks, Hispanics and Women.

    Is it any surprise that he has been dividing this country along those very lines for the past three years?

    If we use a weighted avg for white, black and Hispanic in 08 then Obama beats McCain 50 to 44, a six point spread.

    Now if we assume that the split in the “white” vote in 08 would have stayed the same, because the war was the real issue, but if we use the 04 demographic splits, and the 04 vote distribution by race, then the White Dem would beat McCain 47 to 45. Only a two point spread.

    So my prediction of 48% was probably overly optimistic. And we have no idea what the electoral college split would have been. But there is no way the WHITE DEM would have won by a landslide. The most firm demographic splits in the votes, for every election are along male/female and liberal/conservative splits. There is no indication that a white man would have carried any more votes from either of these groups that Obama. Especially since he set records in both.

    I anxiously await for your retraction.

    • Mathius™ says:

      Again, you’re ignoring that this compares ’04 (gung ho America-F**K-yea with us or with the terrists bubble economy) vs ’08 (holy crap the economy just fell off a cliff, there are TWO wildly unpopular wars, massive deficits, and the unemployment number just shot up two points).

      Yes the black vote spiked. Yes, much of this was due to black racism (ie, vote for Obama because he’s black). To be fair, some of it was also probably due to the fact that blacks were dispropotionately hit by the suddenly terrible economy (particularly black males).

      I would argue that the WHITE vote should have spiked massively too given these circumstances but we suppress by Obama’s race.

      I haven’t gone over your numbers in depth or even really read through (just skimmed) what you wrote – it’s 4:25 here and that’s the busiest part of my day. This is just my first reaction, but I’ll give you a better answer when I get a chance.

      • Black males have been screwed since like forever by both sides. the original expansion of the welfare state in the ’60’s made them superfluous except as sperm donors. I believe there was a fairly good James Earl Jones film on this where he got into a serious relationship with a welfare Mom and she had to hide gifts he gave her from the welfare inspector.

  62. Just A Citizen says:

    Mathius

    What is the command code for lining out text?

  63. @JB Glad to see we’re in a post-racial America now…

    Bada-boom, bada-bing.

  64. Hi Charlie,

    Could you clear up my confusion on something? You’ve directed several comments to me throughout these comments, but I haven’t made any comments on anything here. I am just today catching up on all the comments on this posting……

    I am lost. lol. :)

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 137 other followers

%d bloggers like this: