Time to Add a Thought or Two

Well now, I am back from a blistering trip to South Africa (blistering because every day was filled with lots to do). Mrs. Weapon and I survived the sharks, the Cheetahs, the Lions, the Rhinos, the Leopards, the Crocs, the Baboons, and all the other creatures of the continent. I will share a bit more of the trip as we go, but I wanted to take some time and add a few thoughts to the fray as we near yet another election of the person to “Lead” this country. I put lead in quotation marks because leadership has not thus far been a very strong characteristic of those in the position. I think the last few have preferred to “Rule” as opposed to “Lead.” I have to tell you up front that I am severely disappointed in this election cycle, just as I have been in others in the past. But it really does seem like each election cycle gets exponentially worse. I could be wrong, but I don’t think I am…

So let me start by saying that I don’t “like” either Mitt Romney or President Obama. I don’t think that either of them is a good choice for the office. In fact, I would rather swim with sharks than be forced to choose one of these two. So that is what I did! While in Africa, Mrs. Weapon and I did a little shark diving and safari-taking. We shot a ton of pictures and a lot of HD video. Here is my first attempt at creating a short movie using the shark footage from our dive:

It should be noted that Mrs. Weapon did, in fact, get in the cage. I wasn’t convinced that she would have the nerve to do so, but she didn’t hesitate and that reminded me that I married the right woman. I, on the other hand, couldn’t get enough. They literally had to tell me to get out of the water. I loved every minute of it.

Now on to the points… We are now through two Presidential debates and a VP debate. My thoughts on the winners so far:

Presidential Debate #1 –  I really felt that Mitt Romney took Obama to the tool shed in this one. He was on point, threw out facts and left Obama dazed and stumbling over words. I think that what this really showed us is that Obama is not a good “debater”. He is great at being a likable guy. He is great at presenting pre-thought out ideas and speeches. But put him in a real debate where he has to think on his feet and he is well below standard. Winner… Romney

VP Debate – I would say in terms of actually dealing with policy and facts, the debate was a virtual tie. But I think that the sheer childishness and disrespect displayed by Biden was a real turn-off for a lot of people. He literally acted like what Democrats are attempting to run against: a spoiled frat boy. As a result, I think he actually turned off a lot of women voters, who don’t like that type of behavior in a candidate. Winner… Draw

Presidential Debate #2 – I felt as though Mitt was winning this early and Obama rallied back in the second half. The turning point was the moderator’s false interjection claiming Romney was wrong. From that point on, Romney wasn’t as confident and ended up appearing weak. I actually believe that the exchange with Crowley was pre-planned by the Democrats (there is some great analysis of this being potentially true out there). And it was effective. Dirty trick? Sure. But the reality is that a man who wants to be President shouldn’t get flustered like Romney did. Winner… CNN

But I do believe overall that Romney has seen the most gain through the first two Presidential debates. I think he has often made Obama appear far less polished than the Obama we are used to seeing and he further appeared for more knowledgable and likable than I think many thought he could be. HOWEVER, I still believe that the best debate between Romney and Obama was one that hasn’t been on National TV:

I am looking forward to the last debate. It will focus on Foreign Policy and that is one of the areas that is of interest to me. I believe Romney will be stronger here, but time will tell. I also believe that I will disagree with both of them in this arena. They will be playing to their bases, and neither will offer the non-interventionist policy that I would agree with.

What is really making me sad in this election cycle is the devolvement of the debate to talking points and social networking pictures that are all playing to the dumbest among us. Of course the talking points issue has always been around over the last half century. But I believe it is getting worse. The discourse in this election has again fallen to the level of personal attacks, mockery, and blatantly misleading talking points and sound bytes. A few of the highlights:

  • Mitt Romney did not say he wouldn’t represent 47% of the country. He was talking strategy on votes and correctly said that he can’t worry about the 47% who will vote for Obama no matter what. That an incumbent President would latch onto this and maliciously portray it falsely speak volumes about how far the office has fallen.
  • President Obama did not say business owners didn’t build their business. He was talking about the infrastructure that supports business (roads, shipping, etc) and correctly noted that this infrastructure wasn’t built by those businesses but they benefit from it. That a presidential candidate would latch onto this and maliciously portray it falsely says tons about how crappy the alternative is.

Those are just an example on each side of how childish and elementary this Presidential campaign has become. 30 years ago the full clip would have come to light and the candidate who falsely portrayed the other would have taken a really negative hit in their numbers for intentionally lying to the American people. Now, each side accepts this as part of the game. How sad is that?

Let’s be honest with each other here. We have seen childish games in the past. Gotcha politics isn’t something new. But honestly, can anyone remember a time when when an entire political campaign, on both sides, was so centrally based on nothing but propaganda? There is literally not a bit of substance in this entire campaign. No one is debating the issues earnestly. The game at this point is to find a way to portray the other side’s position in the worst possible light without any semblance of attempting to at least trying to portray the other’s position accurately.

And let’s be honest as well…. The accurate position of each party on certain issues is certainly bad enough without having to falsely twist that position beyond reality. I really believe that had either side in this election actually refrained from these tactics while simultaneously repeatedly pointing it out on the other side, they would have gotten a 5%-10% swing in their direction for doing so. There are a lot of Americans who see through this stuff and hate it, but they aren’t given an alternative because both sides are doing it!

And to take this election’s ugliness to another level, we have Facebook and other social networking sites. As a regular follower on Facebook, I am forced to digest the constant flow of misleading and ridiculous postings that get “shared” by every non-critical thinker that agrees with that party. Want a few examples?

All of these above are bullshit in one way or another. Many are simply vast over-simplifications that only tell part of the story or attribute all the blame to only one side or person. All of them were pulled off of Facebook postings or shares within the last two days. THIS is the primary source of political information for an entire group of people. And how sad is that? As I said, every single one of the things up there is misleading in some way, some more blatant than others (for example Romney would support overturning Roe, but cannot do it, so this is attempting to falsely scare people to vote against him). And we find all of this acceptable discourse in modern politics.

To quote our good friend JAC… We are all Screwed.

About these ads

Comments

  1. Now that you know you are – time to work to unscrew.

    Forget Washington – work on the city or county you live in.
    The task of unwarping US politics will take generations – about a third as long as it took to screw it up.
    So if you figure 1865 – 260 years – that’s 80 years of work.

    The longer one delays the worse it will be and the longer it will take.

    • ’bout time you got back, huh?

      • Yes… It really is. Work just eats so much of my time these days. And I cannot afford to be unemployed. But I will be trying to at least participate a little more.

        • Unemployed = not good.

          PS: There are thousands of jobs where I am habitat that go unfilled – just have to like being really cold, like -45…. and no sunshine…lots of snow…..polar bears…..

    • I can certainly understand your sentiment here BF. It is definitely far more productive to focus on the local level, where one can actually have an impact. I will be posting my thoughts on voting third party soon. I know we will disagree on that point, but if we didn’t disagree, where would the fun be :)

      • I don’t know if you caught it but some days back I suggested that if you wanted to protest the slate of candidates, then write in John Doe Nota. Mr. Nota stands for None Of The Above. The vote will be tossed but if enough people do it, maybe the powers that be will start getting the message.

        • It will be tossed out and no one will notice.

          • So are you saying it would be useless to do so? If so do you think that contradicts your belief that not voting at all would have an effect. I would find it hard to conceive of not voting having an impact, but voting for no one and having it thrown out (getting the same result) would have no impact. At least with the second option they would know people were passionate enough to get to the polls and say eff U.

            • Yes, counter productive.

              They count spoiled ballots as “voters” and “turn out”, which -for politicians- is important.

              I have worked many elections to understand this

  2. Welcome back USW, glad you had a good time :)

  3. Welcome back, USW. Great video. Funny stuff.

    Now, onto the political nonsense.

    Let’s be honest with each other here. We have seen childish games in the past. Gotcha politics isn’t something new. But honestly, can anyone remember a time when when an entire political campaign, on both sides, was so centrally based on nothing but propaganda?

    I can’t remember much of anything to do with politics that wasn’t based on propaganda, but I do beg to differ on Romney’s 47% comments. He wasn’t just talking political strategy, USW. He was labelling 47% of the voting public deadbeats without using that word. Semantics, I know, but I can see how many who make up that 47% he spoke of would and should be offended.

    JAC & Stephen still haven’t addressed the depression era levels of poverty we’re now engaged in, trying to extropolate the 1930 depression to an anology of today’s veer toward the abyss, but you know how those parasites can be … always wanting more.

    I’m still waiting for someone to call Obama out on his turning his back on unions, but that isn’t going to happen, especially during a presidential debate where the media is mostly in the tank for him and the GOP candidate doesn’t dare go there.

    I made a point of point some of that stuff out in my last blog post: http://temporaryknucksline.blogspot.com/2012/10/the-debate-round-two-goes-to-obama-boy.html

    Bottom line: If you have to vote for one of these two clowns, vote for the guy who wouldn’t strap his dog to the roof of his car. Dogs against Romney rocks …

    • I can’t remember much of anything to do with politics that wasn’t based on propaganda,

      I can remember Propaganda being part of the equation, but I don’t ever remember a campaign where it was so blatant that the issues are getting ZERO play. Everything about these two candidates is gotcha manipulation of mis-spoken words or out of context quotes or whatever. This is the most vile campaign I can remember.

      but I do beg to differ on Romney’s 47% comments. He wasn’t just talking political strategy, USW.

      He was talking political strategy. Look at who he was talking to. Every candidate behind closed doors says whatever they think the potential donors want to hear. This was no different. What he said may be offensive to some, but that doesn’t take away that the overall message he was trying to convey is that he can’t focus on the 47% that won’t vote for him no matter what.

      He was labelling 47% of the voting public deadbeats without using that word. Semantics, I know, but I can see how many who make up that 47% he spoke of would and should be offended.

      In some ways he was labeling them deadbeats. The only real thing I found offensive in his words were the comments that he won’t convince them to take personal responsibility for their lives. But again, remember the audience. I have a feeling that it this were Obama, you would’t be quite as tough on the statements made. I could be wrong on that. That isn’t to say you are in the tank for Obama. I just think you give him more benefit of the doubt and would consider all the factors and you may not be doing so here.

      Keep in mind, I don’t support Romney either. But I do see the way that Romney’s statements were manipulated and presented in a less than honest way. Let’s not forget that the message from the Obama campaign regarding this was instead to claim that Mitt Romney said he wouldn’t represent that 47%. And he did not say that. THAT is what I am talking about with the false representation of all these attacks. If Obama said Romney doesn’t respect that 47% or even said Romney thinks they are deadbeats, that would have been one thing. But that isn’t the message that came out of the Obama camp. They instead misrepresented it in the exact same way that the GOP misrepresented Obama’s “you didn’t build that” statement.

      JAC & Stephen still haven’t addressed the depression era levels of poverty we’re now engaged in, trying to extropolate the 1930 depression to an anology of today’s veer toward the abyss, but you know how those parasites can be … always wanting more.

      I have missed this line of discussion, so I can’t really comment.

      I’m still waiting for someone to call Obama out on his turning his back on unions, but that isn’t going to happen, especially during a presidential debate where the media is mostly in the tank for him and the GOP candidate doesn’t dare go there.

      Agreed. It won’t happen. Shame is that I would count that as a positive for Obama ;) You know I am not a fan of the unions as I don’t believe they any longer serve the purpose you deem them necessary for.

      • I have a feeling that it this were Obama, you would’t be quite as tough on the statements made

        I certainly loved his redistribution comments … :)

      • “There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it — that that’s an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what. … These are people who pay no income tax. … [M]y job is not to worry about those people. I’ll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.”

        Campaign strategy, huh?

        One wonders if the veterans and/or families of veterans “not paying taxes while risking/losing their lives and/or getting maimed in the process feel the same way? Romney, as you all well know by now, protested for the war in Vietnam, then conveniently slipped off to France on a religious “mission” (where he proceeded to write love letters to his wife in the sands of France’s beaches) … and none of his 5 sons, true patriots all, no doubt; always anxious to support wars they don’t have to participate in, not one of them has joined up.

        So, on second thought, campaign strategy my ass. He was playing to “his” crowd ($50K a plate) … reminding them how much better they are than the parasites (as JAC and BF like to call them) who don’t pay taxes are. Maybe that’s why he proposed a $10K bet with that imbecile from Texas during the primaries (rather than, say, $10) … or why he roof-racks his dog …

        I’ll tell yous this much … veterans voting for Romney prove my point … Kool Aid drinkers who perhaps unknowingly (perhaps not unknowingly) accept their place in American society … as lackies the rich send off to fight their wars, to protect their loot and then get the shaft when they return to a society that could care less outside of a lot of media hype and patriotic hyperbole.

        Let’s not get into the people who’ve paid into SS their entire lives being called parasites …

        • Right, and Bozo wants to represent only the 12.5% of African Americans in this country in his speech. It is all bullshit said in front of audiences demanding red meat, no matter who says it.

          That stupid 47% number has been bandied about for quite a while. As you and I know it is inaccurate. If I had been speechifying, I would have said something like……..

          “We all know that there is something like 40% of the population that will never vote for me no matter what. Included in that number are the hardcore democrats that would vote Mickey Mouse if he were on the democratic line. there are others, who have, in some cases spent generations receiving various forms of public assistance who think that their only future rests with more of the same. These are people who will never vote for me and I accept that and cannot waste time reaching out to them now. It is only after I am elected, when I am President of all the people that I can demonstrate, I can show that what I offer promises a better future for them and their children than anything my opponents party has offered in the last 50 years.”

          Now that’s what he should have said.

          THE other day I actually got a political poll on the internet. They kept asking me a series of similar questions which all came down to, “Do you think you could do a better job than either of the current candidates?” I’m sure that my poll went into the sewer when I kept answering YES.

          • I like your speech, Stephen, except I suspect the 40% number is a bit high. Good job. The Romney camp should’ve sought you out.

            And the other guy is a bozo, no doubt, although I suspect we agree for very different reasons (or mostly different reasons).

            We are all screwed (again for and from different perspectives) so I almost have to admit even JAC is right about that.

            The bottom line is NOTHING will get done in Washington if Obama wins … and there will probably be a ton of new minimum wage/low paying jobs available if Romney wins (as corporations seek to make him look good) … but there will be zero trickle down crumbs for the middle class (the low paying jobs won’t keep up with personal debts, cost of living, etc.) and much will be taken in the form of entitlements, leaving even more of a mess when an angry poor and middle class realize just what a shaft they’ve bought into. Now, would that realization do anything for future elections? Not just yet … we’ll have to go over the edge before that happens, I suspect. It’s one reason I don’t envy the youth in this country. If you think we’re screwed …

            • The only thing I am hoping for is sanity in regulation on energy policy. I just see that as the key to bringing back jobs. My old man, the uneducated one, was just so spot on with his comments. You want to cut pollution, want to make energy cleaner, save the environment? Then give industry and science a set date to meet a reasonable goal. No pie in the sky 55MPG (skateboard with lawnmower engine) but a reasonable goal in a reasonable time frame. Don’t intermix the idea of “energy independence” with “pollution”. They should be exclusive. If there is a gazillion gallons of oil out there, billions of tons of coal, and trillions of cubic feet of gas, then energy independence solves itself. Our job should be to then make it clean.

              Those whose lives and fortunes are intertwined with man made global warming are gradually being pushed to the background by real scientists who point out it ain’t man. Science is a wonderful thing. Like Stalin, like the Soviet Union, you can order scientists and thereby science around for awhile but ultimately the “facts” come back to smack you in the face.

              So let’s just do this thing and do it right.

              • The only thing I am hoping for is sanity in regulation on energy policy.

                Nonsense!

                You want an government energy policy! You believe government can and should manage the energy policy of the country.

                Your only debate is which button to push – but you have no qualms about distorting the economy so to favor your funny little game.

                I just see that as the key to bringing back jobs.

                You want jobs – lots of jobs!? Is that all you want?

                I can get you 100% employment in less than 60 days.

                My old man, the uneducated one, was just so spot on with his comments. You want to cut pollution, want to make energy cleaner, save the environment? Then give industry and science a set date to meet a reasonable goal.

                Nonsense!

                You cannot dictate these things – the people by the free consumer choice can dictate these things.

                The best you can do is the worse thing – muck it all up senselessly.

                If there is a gazillion gallons of oil out there, billions of tons of coal, and trillions of cubic feet of gas, then energy independence solves itself.

                And here comes the economic illiteracy showing its spinning head.

                I can tell you, for a fact, there is over one hundred million trillion barrels of oil “out there”.

                Using your economic theory, this should guarantee energy independence.

                What you fail economically is asking this question: …at what cost

                You want two opposite things:
                – cheap
                – energy independence.

                And because you what these two things equally, you will use violent force to try to do it – and end up with neither.

      • I tend to think that I actually did address the depression era comments rather well in my last few postings on the previous topic. Point is it could happen again when all the money runs out. Can it happen the way it did before, no. The social safety net protects folks from the bottom falling completely out but when the money is either gone or about as valuable as that 500,000,000 Reichsmark note I have in my collection, all bets are off.

        Standing up tall on my old Testament Prophet pulpit, I could say that greed brought us all down. Now is there a difference between screwing a rich guy to get ahead or a poor guy? Good question. One might say the poor man had more to lose but then again a number of people who invested with Bernie Madoff were rich but are no more. How about we just all agree that screwing anyone is wrong. Ripping off the insurance company may seem like a really swift idea because, at the worst, it will only cost each insured a few cents more yet the mere act of ripping it off will result in slowly moving the concept “rip off” from the “less acceptable” to “more acceptable” column. And I am pretty sure you would all agree that that is the way we are all headed.

        Anyway, I think it is fair to say you can revisit my rather lengthy comments on the great depression, in the “got Popcorn” posting. There is nothing out there now that resembles those times yet. If Charlie has a beef, so do I. Where is his answer to my question on the damage unfettered immigration has caused to both individual workers as well as unionized workers. If people are always willing to work for less and there is always a pool of unskilled labor available willing to work, under the table, for less than an economic rate, how does anyone ever get ahead?

        Regarding the current campaign, I must say that I have never seen more obvious bias in the press in my lifetime. Even the Goldwater debacle in ’64, with Barry’s comments cherry picked by personages as famous as CBS’s Uncle Wally (the most trusted man in America). was nothing like this.. Th Democrats actually had to pay real money to run commercials to say nasty things that they are getting for free today.

        That last debate when Candy interrupted Romney on the issue of the word “terrorism” used by Obama after 9/11 was especially interesting. Watching it, and watching it again, Romney was on a roll. It almost looks collusive the way her interruption was used to break his concentration and throw off his timing. Obama’s comment to Romney before the charge was leveled and then to the moderator make one wonder just how “spontaneous” the whole thing was. Sure looked like a set-up. If not, it was the best accident in the entire campaign.

        • Where is his answer to my question on the damage unfettered immigration has caused to both individual workers as well as unionized workers. If people are always willing to work for less and there is always a pool of unskilled labor available willing to work, under the table, for less than an economic rate, how does anyone ever get ahead?

          Good point, Stephen … and I agree with you here. We need to our house in order before letting more people in … and, AND … i prefer they come in legally myself (and we do away with the born here/automatic citizen nonsense). I am especially happy to see you champion the right of workers (as regards the pool of cheap labor) … taking manufacturing of goods outside the U.S. is particularly heinous, in my opinion … and it really can’t be blamed on unions exclusively anymore (7% union workforce doesn’t cut the numbers) … so let’s be honest and say it’s greed that seeks cheaper labor anywhere it can find it … and in a global economy, there will always be cheapter labor outside the U.S. … which is one reason why our poverty level now exceeds or is equal with that of the great depression. It keeps going in the same direction and we’ll get there for sure … back to a depression … only it’ll be uglier this go … the numbers alone will provide the ugliness.

          • That is phase two after we control the borders. Remember my triad for manufacturing, Cost of labor, cost of materials, cost of energy. If energy can be brought down to offset higher labor costs, manufacturing can thrive. Just the reduced transportation costs, from manufacture to market, alone (not part of the triad) would make a huge difference.

            Your Pine Barren Bush/Obamaville residents, once you read deeply and start thinking, make the pint quite well. Too much cheap labor. there was a time in that area when the “Adult Communities” were going up when labor was at a premium skilled or just hod carriers. Everybody was doing quite well. I had a friend into kitchen cabinetry down there . When things got really hot, the influx of cut rate people cost him his job.

            Also, lets either decide to have a gloves off war on drugs. Hang the dealers from the lamp posts or to completely call off the war and let anybody OD who wants to. Anything in between just costs us a fortune and destroys lives. .

            • Also, lets either decide to have a gloves off war on drugs. Hang the dealers from the lamp posts or to completely call off the war and let anybody OD who wants to. Anything in between just costs us a fortune and destroys lives.

              I opt to legalize all of it already, let the government get some revenue from it and provide some security regarding safety …. yeah, they’ll screw it up, but you’re right about the rehab stuff … we personally deal with this stuff and it is a revolving door … they go in, come out, wait a few months and go back … never ending costly cycle. I’m not for turning them away at the door, but something better needs to be implemented (like those prenancy chips installed that at least keeps them from reproducing while completely unable to fend for themselves and/or on drugs) … but libertarians would probably take issue with the state interceeding …

              • From my 65 years of hindsight, just gotta let em kill themselves off. You and I can try top convince them. I lost a very good friend to drugs who was very smart. Spent years telling him that as well as he was able to control it and be functional, (and he was, I said he was smart) eventually, it would kill him. At 42 it did.

                That’s why I said life is a 12 step program. Gotta want to do it man.

              • NG prices are cheaper because it is hard to ship off the continent. That said SKT is correct, if energy prices come down, local manufacturing can be more attractive. As as result of lower NG prices there are now 6 ethylene steam crackers on the drawing boards. We have been losing this industry for the last 20 years. Ethylene is a prime feedstock for plastics. Steel production is also up due to lower NG prices.

                Oil will be priced closer to the world price since it is easily shipped. Politically and strategically ownership of the tap is a big deal. Remember back to the ’73 and ’80 oil crises and the resultant lines. We were held hostage for political reasons by ME oil. It was in part the threat of North Slope and North Sea oil that stopped that. The true cost of ME oil is much higher than the price we pay at the dock. It is payed in blood. I vote with SKT, let’s produce our own energy and let the eat it or find other buyers. Let those other buyers defend the oil fields and put up with the political BS in the ME.

                A couple of years ago, BF we went through some of these same arguments. I argued that the ME Potentates could not drop the price of oil too low since they had promised too much to their people and had too many commitments. Your response was that we could not compete with their $10 production costs. Strange how you now make the same argument I made back then.

                As for transportation costs, once a product hits our shores, transportation costs are at local domestic rates for all parties. If you are getting a cheaper rate from overseas, it is probably because they are not calculating the costs the same as we do here.

              • T-Ray

                t. That said SKT is correct, if energy prices come down, local manufacturing can be more attractive.

                That makes no sense.

                The price of this Good is “X”, and pretty much everyone everywhere has to pay “X”.
                Under that condition, we have this current economy.

                You drop the price of “X” to “Y”.

                The price of this Good is “Y”, and pretty much everyone everywhere has to pay “Y”
                Why do you think this new price -somehow- substantially benefits you and not anyone else, …. when everyone else also pays the same price?

                I am winning our economic condition – and we both require oil to produce.

                You say “Heck if oil was only half the price, I could lower my costs and compete with BF!”
                …except that oil would be half price to me too – my costs go lower, and you’re still out!

                We were held hostage for political reasons by ME oil.

                That is wholly untrue and false – absolutely no basis in fact.

                The US$ was taken off the gold standard and Nixon’s deficits were being paid by FED printing press.

                By threat of US military force, oil countries has to accept US$ and a fixed price per barrel.

                As inflation grew, the price of oil was fixed so these countries were losing their shirts – so the said “Forget this!” and threatened to not accept US$.

                So the US let the price go up with inflation.

                Do not fall for the politicians blaming “greedy oil countries” for undermine US$ purchasing power.

                It was in part the threat of North Slope and North Sea oil that stopped that.

                Nonsense.

                The rise in price made these location viable.

                Strange how you now make the same argument I made back then.

                The argument has not changed.

                We cannot compete with their $10 oil costs.
                They utterly require $100/brl oil price.

                What both of you forget is that this is a US government policy, started back by Eisenhower or so.

                One of the lessons of WW2 was that oil was strategic.

                It cost Germany the war – she went after the oil fields in the Caucasus instead of Moscow because she needed oil for the war machine.

                It made Japan enter the war – the oil embargo of the US on the Dutch East Indies forced Japan’s hand to attack – she was out of oil.

                The US policy was easy.
                “We use up everyone else’s oil in peace time and keep ours in the ground available for war”

                This policy is still active.

              • Once again Flag you use selective editing to counter my arguments. See my example. Ethylene is a worldwide commodity as is steel. Our production costs have gone down relative to the rest of the world because NG is NOT a worldwide commodity due to the shipping difficulty. Thus we have a production advantage compared to the rest of the world. That advantage is real and a direct result of NG prices.

                As for the $10 production costs, we do not compete with that, we compete with the $100 price at the dock. You say N. Sea and N. Slope oil became viable because the price went up in ’73. So by the same argument, NA oil such as the Bakken, is now viable because of the $100 base price. Once again, I had the arguments right two years ago which I am now glad see you agree with me. NS & NS oil did not lower the price when they came on line but they did take some of OPEC’s clout away.

                BF, what is the cost to our economy every time we have to send the fleet to the ME to protect the shipping lanes, or troops there to protect the oil fields? What is the cost to our economy every time there is an embargo? Yes the ’73 oil embargo was over price but also over the ’73 war with Israel and politics. The ’80 crisis was the iran-Iraq War. Virtually ever run up in price since then has been due to unrest in the ME. We need to break our dependence on ME oil. It is more than just economics.

                What good is local oil as a strategic reserve if it take 5-10 years to produce? We need the production capacity in order for it to be strategic. The next war will be over before we can produce one drop.

                As long as ME oil is cheap and peacefully obtained, buy it. But those times are gone.

              • T-Ray

                Ethylene is a worldwide commodity as is steel. Our production costs have gone down relative to the rest of the world because NG is NOT a worldwide commodity due to the shipping difficulty.

                It is a world wide commodity – anywhere where they find oil. Second it is shippable, and if the world wants more NG, they will figure out how to ship it more and cheaper. But right now, few want it at that price.

                Once again, I had the arguments right two years ago which I am now glad see you agree with me.

                I do not think I disagreed.

                The point of fact is -at this time- you are making up stories.
                Such production is not online nor near online. It is far away, even if someone starts now – and why would they?

                NS & NS oil did not lower the price when they came on line but they did take some of OPEC’s clout away.

                No more than another competitor takes “clout” away from an incumbent. It was merely the next low hanging fruit.

                BF, what is the cost to our economy every time we have to send the fleet to the ME to protect the shipping lanes, or troops there to protect the oil fields?

                Lots – but that is political choices, not economical. Mercantilism carries no economic argument for me as you know.

                What is the cost to our economy every time there is an embargo? Yes the ’73 oil embargo was over price but also over the ’73 war with Israel and politics.

                Not one bit.
                It was happenstance that those events occurred and it was used as a convenient straw man for the politicians to pull the wool over your eyes – it worked it seems.

                I suppose you believe Nixon in his speech closing the gold windows was that it was due to “wild speculators challenging the integrity of the US$”

                We need to break our dependence on ME oil.

                US is independent of ME oil – most imports come from Canada, Mexico and Venezuela – Canada by itself exports more than all the ME combined – should that stop, easily filled by the former sources.

                It is more than just economics.

                Agreed!
                It has absolutely nothing to do with economics.

                It is 100% political.

                What good is local oil as a strategic reserve if it take 5-10 years to produce?

                Do you truly think in a national crisis it would take 5 to 10 years? Do you know what nation you are talking about?

                This is a country that went from a 5th rate military power to #1 in 12 months – and in 24 months was rolling off its production lines more military arms in month then its enemies were manufacturing in a year.

                We need the production capacity in order for it to be strategic. The next war will be over before we can produce one drop. As long as ME oil is cheap and peacefully obtained, buy it. But those times are gone

                And, N. Dakota is booming – when the price is right, the oil is found.

              • “People have tended to exaggerate how much oil we imported from the Middle East,” says John Duffield, an energy expert and professor of political science at Georgia State University.

            • SKT

              You are no different then any other politician – sorry, but economically confused and sociopolitical contradicted – yet, expect such a condition will yield a positive outcome….

              First and foremost, the blatant use of “if”

              No “if”, bud. Explain how you can bring energy costs down when “you” do not control the world’s energy supply.
              So you posit a fairy tale right out of the gate.

              Why do you believe the people of the country should pay MORE for local labor? Explain why your neighbor should be subsidizing your lief style at his cost?

              Manufacturing thrives when it produces value. You do not want that – you want it to produce wasteful “jobs” – thinking that if we all rip off each other, we will all get rich.

              You posit strange things = like “reduce transportation costs” .. how? You do not control transportation nor its costs!

              You want big government SKT, you want big bureaucracies of think tanks that ponder how to control this or that, and subsidize this over that, and take from here and stop that…

              You got your wish already! Why do you want to change it?

              • Ok, all I’m saying is that you can get things to Chicago from Peoria cheaper than from China, or Taiwan, or Korea or Mexico even.

                You are the great supporter of “free” markets. Well, I believe that history teaches us that not only does demand increase as supply increases but prices fall. Hence, abundant energy, cheaper energy. Maybe some cartels can juice up the price (like OPEC) but, eventually this collapses.

                People should pay more for local labor so that they can pay less in taxes. people should pay more for local labor so that they are safer in their homes. People should pay more for local labor so that their children can find jobs some day (not everybody is going to teach Physics at MIT nor Economics at Wharton). Notice that in deference to Randites, I have not said one thing about being my brother’s keeper.

                I do think I mentioned or at least implied that I want government control to back off and start making some sane, scientifically valid decisions since they ain’t going away anytime soon.

              • Economic illiteracy!

                Ok, all I’m saying is that you can get things to Chicago from Peoria cheaper than from China, or Taiwan, or Korea or Mexico even.

                FALSE

                I get things from Hong Kong, shipped to me, that costs 1/10 then something a few hundred miles away.

                You base your economic program on believing that you can “know” the “value” of goods on behalf of other people that you do not know!

                You are the great supporter of “free” markets. Well, I believe that history teaches us that not only does demand increase as supply increases but prices fall. Hence, abundant energy, cheaper energy.

                You mistaken the concept of abundance.

                The ocean has more gold in it then all know gold on land. Very abundant. Not cheap.

                History teaches us that when the price of one commodity goes up that of another commodity that solve the same problem, the economy switches to the cheap source.

                We used wood. Started getting expensive (lack of trees), so we used coal. Started getting expensive (deep mines) so we use oil.

                To think oil is the “end of the energy line” is not supported.

                Maybe some cartels can juice up the price (like OPEC) but, eventually this collapses.

                There is two co-linked issues that will keep oil @ $100 or so a long time.

                Many national government and tyrants budgets are based on royalties from oil – they remain in power as long as they lavish their people with oil money.

                If oil goes down much under $100, these government budgets cannot be met.
                If oil shipments goes down much under 3 million/brrl a day, these government budgets cannot be met.

                The price goes too high, shipments go down – price goes too low, royalty payments go down.

                People should pay more for local labor so that they can pay less in taxes.

                Nonsense!

                People should not pay anything more than they have to!

                And taxes, if they distort your economy, should be eliminated because of that reason, and not mitigated by distorting another part of the economy to try to fix the tax distortion.

                . People should pay more for local labor so that their children can find jobs some day (not everybody is going to teach Physics at MIT nor Economics at Wharton).

                You have a badly distorted economic view of labor. You treat labor as a wholly different economic good than, say, a car – and that labor obeys a wholly unique and different set of economic laws.

                Until you grasp that labor is nothing more than another economic good – obeys the laws of ecnomoics, all of them, and has no economic law unique unto itself – you will continue to make this grievous economic error about “paying more for jobs so people can have them”

              • So let me get this straight, your shipping cost from Hong Kong is less than from a supplier 200 miles away?

                Oil is now being recovered from No. Dakota and Canada at affordable prices. Estimates are that this will if anything get better.
                You ignore natural gas and the fall of prices. they are making a comeback but will not come near to where they were ten years ago. I calculate in inflation and do not expect to see 1970 prices again. Would like to but find that highly unlikely. Seems to me a few years back, after oil went to $ 130? per bbl. it dropped down all the way to $ 40. That $ 40 number was the genesis, I think of the comparisons being made about the cost under Bush vs. the cost under Obama. Nobody mentions the previous Bush price spike.

                Coal was supplanted over price but new technology plus oil prices make coal competitive. There is the BTU issue too.

                Nobody, especially me, ever said oil was the end game, merely a stopping point along the way.

                Who cares about the Middle east monarchies and tyrants? Not me. Let them eat it. You sound like some kind of “statist” here.

                I Love competition, US Oil, Canadian oil, Mexican oil, Russian oil, So. China sea oil, No. Sea oil, and probably a load in Africa. Try keeping a lid on that once the barriers are lifted.

                Well, when you manage to eliminate taxes, let me know so I can jump on your bandwagon. In the interim we feed ‘em, educate ‘em , house ‘em, incarcerate ‘em etc. I know that you live on a mountaintop but someday come down and visit some of our smaller cities and go through neighborhoods full of un and under-employed young men who are not here legally. Idle hands are the devil’s workshop. If you can’t make a buck to survive legally, you can and will find another way.

                Labor is not a car, labor is not a rock. You have a wonderful almost Czarist sense of labor. I don’t. I am a great believer of something called enlightened self-interest. That which does improve the lot of my neighbor will ultimately improve my lot. I am not talking about some phony-baloney government program but rather real jobs making real things that then produce real income which becomes real capital which then gets recycled back into the economy. What was that old saw? “A rising tide lifts all boats”.

              • So let me get this straight, your shipping cost from Hong Kong is less than from a supplier 200 miles away?

                …of this product, yep, you got it straight.

                Oil is now being recovered from No. Dakota and Canada at affordable prices.

                Your opinion of affordable is irrelevant.

                Oil is being recovered at a price = true.

                You ignore natural gas and the fall of prices

                I ignore nothing about that at all.

                NG prices have nothing to do with “oil” prices.

                . I calculate in inflation and do not expect to see 1970 prices again.

                Good guess.

                Would like to but find that highly unlikely. Seems to me a few years back, after oil went to $ 130? per bbl. it dropped down all the way to $ 40.

                . Coal was supplanted over price but new technology plus oil prices make coal competitive.

                I’d agree

                Who cares about the Middle east monarchies and tyrants? Not me.

                You better care, they keep it possible to put food on your table.

                Let them eat it. You sound like some kind of “statist” here.

                They do “eat it”, just like you “eat steel”.

                They trade it for the stuff they want and you trade your stuff for what you want.

                I Love competition, US Oil, Canadian oil, Mexican oil, Russian oil, So. China sea oil, No. Sea oil, and probably a load in Africa. Try keeping a lid on that once the barriers are lifted.

                Barriers are lifted – oil is fungible internationally – doesn’t matter where you go, the price “there” is the same as the price “here”.

                Venezuela “pays” the same for their oil as you do.
                Chavez subsidizes it so the gallon of gas only costs 5c

                Well, when you manage to eliminate taxes, let me know so I can jump on your bandwagon. In the interim we feed ‘em, educate ‘em , house ‘em, incarcerate ‘em etc. I know that you live on a mountaintop but someday come down and visit some of our smaller cities and go through neighborhoods full of un and under-employed young men who are not here legally.

                You attack the man who is here, because he is here.

                You do not understand why he is here, so your attack will only make what you fear worse – increase violence.

                . Labor is not a car, labor is not a rock.

                No, it is labor.

                But IT IS an economic good, no different than a car or a rock.

                You have a wonderful almost Czarist sense of labor. I don’t.

                Which is why you make serious and grave economic errors.
                People are not numbers and are not rocks.
                Your labor is an item you trade in return for goods you want.

                That trade, its value, its supply, demand, price – all of it acts under exactly the same laws of economics as money, car, oil, cows, wheat, etc.

                You trade this to get that.
                You trade labor to get a car.

                Your grave mistake is believing that because you think humans are not rocks, that their LABOR invalidates the economic laws of trade and value.

                You cannot separate the two.

                I am a great believer of something called enlightened self-interest. That which does improve the lot of my neighbor will ultimately improve my lot.

                The basis of all trade is exactly that.

                At the end of the trade, both parties are improved – they both dispose of what they wanted less for what they wanted more. Both gain.

                You do not accomplish this by taking goods by force from one man, and giving it to another, pretending the gain of the man repairs the loss of the former.

                I am not talking about some phony-baloney government program but rather real jobs making real things that then produce real income which becomes real capital which then gets recycled back into the economy. What was that old saw? “A rising tide lifts all boats”.

                You accomplish this by increasing productivity and value and not by artificially forcing your neighbor to pay more for you work.

              • Don’t want to interrupt this conversation, just a quick question-Since each Country is sovereign and illegal immigrants aren’t supposed to be here-why do you not consider them a governmental influence on the free market ? Didn’t ask that too well but hopefully you will understand what I’m asking :)

              • V.H.

                Don’t want to interrupt this conversation, just a quick question-Since each Country is sovereign and illegal immigrants aren’t supposed to be here

                Countries may be sovereign with other countries, but it is not sovereign over men … so “illegal” immigrants ..no, just immigrants.

                -why do you not consider them a governmental influence on the free market ? Didn’t ask that too well but hopefully you will understand what I’m asking :)

                Yes they are!
                (Good for you!)

                Government pays poor people money, so – with little wonder – poor people come to get that money….whether they were born on this side of an artificial line or the other side.

                This certainly creates massive social problems – but it is not due to immigrants – they are but a small fraction of the social issue.

              • Nice point VH, nice point.

                I love the way my friend cherry picks. By the numbers:

                1. Of “THIS” product it is cheaper to ship…. but what about “THAT” product.? What about 1,000, 500lb widget modulators?

                2. Affordable price means production price equal or less than average world production price.

                3.Natural gas is an energy commodity increasingly supplanting oil because of cost advantages. Over time this increases oil supply availability driving down prices.

                4.Your oil graph did not come through. Here’s another showing $ 140 bbl spike in late ’07 drop to $ 40 in late ’08.

                http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Brent_Spot_monthly.svg&page=1

                5.Point is to replace middle east tyrants and monarchs vis a vis oil supplies.

                6. I mean eat it literally. I want out of the mid east period.

                7. So, now Chavez pays the same as I do but, with the profits from the artificially high price he gets he subsidizes it in his own country. Ditto I guess for other producers. That is an interesting way to look at it. One could say that he discounts the artificially high price to his own country. Since the price is not a factor of production but rather an artificial construct there is no “real” price for a barrel. Only what you can extort.

                8. People who cannot afford to shelter/feed themselves commit violence on others (directly or indirectly) to accomplish those goals. It is you who encourage that violence by guaranteeing a surplus of labor far beyond what is necessary.

                9. labor is an economic good. Agreed, but can labor, through negotiations set a value on itself and enforce it?

                10.Same question as # 9. If OPEC can set prices why can’t the IBEW?

                11. Same as # 10. How do I continually increase my productivity without raising costs? Fifty hour weeks, sixty hour weeks, eighty hour weeks?
                Increase value, sure I can do that by decreasing the number of possible competitors (unionizing) or decreasing the cost of my labor (starvation).

                Sorry but I think you might have been right at home in the economics ministry of Nicholas I or Nicholas II. We all know how that turned out.

                Here’s a question for you, when you go out, do you tip?

              • No cherry picking numbers! I didn’t give any for you to make such a claim!

                1. Of “THIS” product it is cheaper to ship…. but what about “THAT” product.? What about 1,000, 500lb widget modulators?

                That’s the point – your claim is specious (superficially true, but found to be false under closer examination) – each and every good or service has its own price and cost, and due to the high division of labor the global economy operates, that cost and price vary wildly.

                If you pick “this” – you get that “here” at “this price” vs. “there” at “that price”. The major determination of choice is probably the price, not the location.

                2. Affordable price means production price equal or less than average world production price.

                Affordable price means “the good is not priced at higher than the ability to pay for it”

                3.Natural gas is an energy commodity increasingly supplanting oil because of cost advantages. Over time this increases oil supply availability driving down prices.

                Nope, unless NG fueled-auto hit the roads.
                NG is a gas – not a liquid – at normal human temp. which makes it difficult to transport, store and consume. It takes energy to turn it liquid, takes energy to keep it liquid.

                It has its place – and who knows? Maybe someone will figure a cost-effective way to use it.

                4.Your oil graph did not come through. Here’s another showing $ 140 bbl spike in late ’07 drop to $ 40 in late ’08.

                The point of the graph is that there is really no such thing as an average price, nor from it a way to say what the price “should be” or what it will be in the future.

                The gyrations are supply/demand and incredibly complex other stuff like geopolitics, etc.

                5.Point is to replace middle east tyrants and monarchs vis a vis oil supplies.

                They will fall on their own.

                The oil will flow and the price will remain essentially the same.

                6. I mean eat it literally. I want out of the mid east period.

                Then advocate for US withdrawal of military and increase in US trade instead of war.

                7. So, now Chavez pays the same as I do but, with the profits from the artificially high price he gets he subsidizes it in his own country.

                No, he is not.
                He is going into debt to do it.

                Oil is not cheap, sir. It always “appears” that the oil companies are rolling in the dough – but you have to separate oil production from retail fuel sales.

                “Real” Oil companies are like gold companies – there is not a large margin between cost and profit.

                Only what you can extort.

                No.

                It is a commodity like anything else.

                It has a value, imputed by individuals.

                The producer holds X value for it.
                The consumer holds Y value for it.

                As long as what consumer will pay (which is always LESS than his value, Y) is higher then X, the value of the producer, a sale will happen.

                There is no extortion.

                8. People who cannot afford to shelter/feed themselves commit violence on others (directly or indirectly) to accomplish those goals. It is you who encourage that violence by guaranteeing a surplus of labor far beyond what is necessary.

                Labor is an economic good.
                You can only have a surplus of labor if you are attracting it.
                Stop attracting it – not by attacking the people who seek a better life, but ending the attraction to those that seek “free money”.

                9. labor is an economic good. Agreed, but can labor, through negotiations set a value on itself and enforce it?

                Yes, exactly the same way you set a value on the car you are selling.

                If the deal is too low, you say No, thanks to that price and ask for more in trade.

                10.Same question as # 9. If OPEC can set prices why can’t the IBEW?

                OPEC cannot set the price – that’s the point – no one can.

                It is a media myth that OPEC sets the price – the price is negotiated like any other economic good. There is no cartel in oil, except in name.

                11. Same as # 10. How do I continually increase my productivity without raising costs? Fifty hour weeks, sixty hour weeks, eighty hour weeks?

                Yes, you do more for the same price.

                You improve yourself – improve your skills or capacity or both.

                You do more per hour.
                Or as you show, do more hours.

                Or best, do both.

                Increase value, sure I can do that by decreasing the number of possible competitors (unionizing) or decreasing the cost of my labor (starvation).

                Correct re: Unions …but only if you apply government violence to stop competition.
                You do not starve by decreasing your cost of labor – you can improve your capacity or your skill which increases your production – which, if the unit price remains the same, you produce more units – increasing your pay.

                …or you move to where your labor is more valuable.

                Do you sell apples into an over-supplied apple store? If you do, do you wonder why you have to sell your apples dirt cheap?
                Or
                Do you sell apples to guys who have no apples? If you do, do you wonder why you can sell your apples at a premium?

                Replace apples with labor – and then you know why I am contracting up where the sun don’t shine much. (joke intended)

                when you go out, do you tip?

                If the service and the food warrant it, sure.

              • We could have this fun all night but I am shutting down to celebrate (small, very small celebration 39 years with the bride) but, before I go, want to hit a couple of points.

                Natural gas is supplanting Oil as a heating fuel in very large apartment buildings in NYC. The main reason? The pollution fines are astronomical and # 6 oil has been banned. NYC buses are running on NG as are many City vehicles.

                Shipping to Chicago from China, (anything) requires a long sea or air voyage which is a cost. When it arrives here, it has to be transported locally by either a freight carrier, a package delivery company or the USPS. So, when I say it is cheaper to ship from Peoria to Chicago I am probably right unless the package is very small and can be shipped regular mail. Don’t know overseas Chinese postal rates nor the deal that Foreign post services make with USPS.

                Back later.

              • SKT

                Natural gas is supplanting Oil as a heating fuel in very large apartment buildings in NYC. The main reason? The pollution fines are astronomical and # 6 oil has been banned. NYC buses are running on NG as are many City vehicles.

                So what?

                Shipping to Chicago from China, (anything) requires a long sea or air voyage which is a cost. When it arrives here, it has to be transported locally by either a freight carrier, a package delivery company or the USPS. So, when I say it is cheaper to ship from Peoria to Chicago I am probably right unless the package is very small and can be shipped regular mail. Don’t know overseas Chinese postal rates nor the deal that Foreign post services make with USPS.

                You are not right – as you admit in the last sentence.

                It does not matter how far or close, or what it is.

                There is a price.

                And that price is not dependent on how far or close it is.

                The price is dependent on the value the people view the product. Period.

              • Seems to me that you have gone from a purely economic argument to a freedom argument-Last time I looked apples nor oranges walk themselves across those “imaginary” lines. Although up to a point I understand your labor is just a commodity like any other-I have to say man, being a commodity with a mind-has a lot more effect on the free market than an apple.

              • V.H.

                Seems to me that you have gone from a purely economic argument to a freedom argument-Last time I looked apples nor oranges walk themselves across those “imaginary” lines. Although up to a point I understand your labor is just a commodity like any other-I have to say man, being a commodity with a mind-has a lot more effect on the free market than an apple.

                And you idle right by the important insight – difference between actions of men and choices of men

                You bet – men make choices, such as not wanting to move to better job. Fair enough, do not move – your free and fair choice.

                But by such an choice you created a series of actions and those create consequences.

                So you not moving -for your reasons, is not a field of economics – means you will find no or poor paying jobs – That is economics!

                So you complaining “my job’s pay sucks” is therefore stupid. You made a choice -stay- and not go to where jobs are scarce. Economics says, expect lousy pay! And *like magic* that is what you get.

                Making a choice is human – no explanation necessary to anyone why you made such a choice.
                The consequences of that choice are economic calculations – sure as God wrote them.

              • “Labor is an economic good.
                You can only have a surplus of labor if you are attracting it.
                Stop attracting it – not by attacking the people who seek a better life, but ending the attraction to those that seek “free money”.”

                You need to explain this comment to me-I get that offering government goodies will attack illegal immigrants-but it seems to me so would our standard of living without government goodies. So what are you suggesting-that we should lower our standard of living so people won’t walk across the borders? Or that we should allow people to walk across the border based on freedom and if doing so lowers our standard of living -to bad-Freedom demands it?

              • V.H.

                You need to explain this comment to me-I get that offering government goodies will attack illegal immigrants
                -but it seems to me so would our standard of living without government goodies.

                That’s how your parents or grandparents got here – was in search of a better life – and without government goodies.

                It worked for you, it will work for people today too.

                Why do you worry about a man who earns his living?

                So what are you suggesting-that we should lower our standard of living so people won’t walk across the borders? Or that we should allow people to walk across the border based on freedom and if doing so lowers our standard of living -to bad-Freedom demands it?

                Nonsense.

                A man who works and earns never lowers your standard of living – he increases it.
                He is creating value.

                What you are saying is a “Charlieism” – that working makes people poor!

                End welfare – more than one problem disappears.

              • It may well be true that a man who works is always creating value-But We are talking about the economic affect of the over supply of labor, when men can’t work. And per you, we are talking about it in a purely economic way-so if government goodies or our standard of living brings about an over supply-than the only way to fix the problem is to increase production or reduce labor. Seems in our ‘imaginary lines” society, not to mention every Countries imaginary lines, immigration laws were passed partly to handle the supply of labor. Without that tool, how do we stop our standard of living from dropping?

              • V.H.

                It may well be true that a man who works is always creating value-But We are talking about the economic affect of the over supply of labor, when men can’t work.

                What is the economic effect of too many apples in the grocery store?
                The price of the apples falls – or they rot on the shelves not sold.

                Labor -exactly the same thing- the job are low paying or you waste away on your couch, hungry.

                And per you, we are talking about it in a purely economic way

                Because it IS only economics.
                You want to solve an economic problem – poor pay/no jobs.
                You have a choice:
                – the club and chase away your competition
                – improve productivity and earn your way.

                You really, really want to use the club – ok, fine – as long as you understand the consequences:
                That club will be used to beat you, too.

                But you don’t like being beaten with a club?? Then why did you use it in the first place?

                -so if government goodies or our standard of living brings about an over supply-than the only way to fix the problem is to increase production or reduce labor.

                Government goodies vs high productivity are not the same thing as you posit in that statement.

                Government goodies brings men over wanting government goodies.

                High productive society brings men over who want to earn by producing.

                The outcomes are totally opposite.

                Seems in our ‘imaginary lines” society, not to mention every Countries imaginary lines, immigration laws were passed partly to handle the supply of labor. Without that tool, how do we stop our standard of living from dropping?

                Not to “handle” – but CONTROL labor – because it produces, government wishes to seize it for its purposes.

                That government causes a drop in your living standards, not free men looking for a job.

            • Stephen, I need to know what you mean by reducing the costs of transportation of goods to the marketplace. The reason that I ask is because my new husband is an over the road truck driver and I am about to become one. I have also spent the last 4 years in the transportation industry so I know how this works. One of the ways that you reduce the rates of trucking companies is to reduce the price of diesel at the pumps. That is one of the largest factors in determining rates per mile for a load. The weight of the load even the commodity being transported play into it as well but the fuel is the largest factor. If the company has to pay 4$ a gallon for diesel it’s definitely going to afftect the rate they charge for transport.

              • You have to backtrack to my first post. Should we increase domestic manufacturing, one of the cost savings (a minor one) is cost of transportation. Flag has a habit of confusing me from time to time by being a shape shifter. For instance, below, he talks about a surplus of apples causing the price to drop yet when I use a surplus of oil for the same purpose, he attacks the concept. Apples, oil, it does not matter. A surplus will drive down the price. There is obviously a bottom line. If people can’t sell apples for the cost of production, they will not grow them. If they can’t sell oil at the price of production, ditto. The fun thing is though, that expansion or technology usually brings down the price. So, for instance if it costs me $ 80.00 per barrel to produce oil from tar sands and the price is routinely below that, I will not produce at a loss. But, if the expansion of tar sands production or technological advancement brings that price down by $ 10, $ 29, $ 30, then I continue producing. If I have 20 acres of apples under cultivation but buy two adjacent orchards increasing my holdings to 100 acres, I may be able to afford mechanization reducing my handling cost, Simple. Quick analogy, cost of big screen TV’s ten years ago vs. today. Massive production brought down unit cost. Lower price resulted in more sales, more sales brought larger production, cost goes down further. When I was a kid my daddy explained it all to me by showing me that a new Chevy Impala cost $ 2,500 off the assembly line. If I bought all the parts separately and assembled them myself, the price went to $ 18,000.

                Regarding transportation, my sole argument was that if I have produced 1,000, 500lb. widget modulators the actual cost of shipping them from Peoria to Chicago should be less than shipping them from Shanghai. The reason I called it a minor point before is that the real problem with American manufacturing is the cost of energy,. That plus labor and raw material drives up the price and makes us non-competitive. There are other factors. Transportation should be one, on the negative side, Chinese manipulation of currency and dumping push our cost up. Everybody forgets how the Japanese broke into the US markets in electronics , motorcycles and autos.

                Your points are excellent. If we had a surplus of diesel, and the price fell by 50%, What would that do for you? My original point is that the widget modulators have to be shipped to a port in china, loaded on a ship, sent across an ocean, unloaded, loaded on a truck/train to be delivered. Sending them 200 miles from point of manufacture to point of use should be a lot less. Can’t just slap a stamp on them. Maybe that works for teeny-tiny computer chips but not for durable goods.

                There are many hurdles to overcome. We need more refineries for example. We need more competition within the energy community. Flag says “so what” to gas heat. Well, that’s a lot of WHAT where I come from, . In NYC, the average apartment uses between 800 and 1,000 gallons of heating oil per year. If 50,000 buildings, average size, 30 units switch over, that , in NYC alone, at the high number, is 1,500,000,000 gallons per year not used. Con Edison is running around all over the city running larger diameter gas lines these days.

                For emphasis, I will repeat that, at 50,000 buildings converting in NYC alone, with an average of 30 units each, this results in using 1 billion, 500 million less gallons of oil per year. Assuming half is number 2, what does that do for you as a trucker you think?

                I can fight Flag all day. he has a habit of never being wrong. I admit I am wrong sometimes. I think drill, drill, drill is a great idea. Flag is Mr. Open market, competition, capitalist. Charlie is Mr. game is fixed. I fall somewhere in between. I do believe that any combine, any monopoly can be blown wide open. It is like trying to prevent people from learning to read. Can’t be stopped. Every time one form of technology is supplanted by another some huge monolithic monopoly dies. Telegraphs, railroads, coal mines, horse breeders, the whaling industry, trolleys, etc.

                Regarding the “price” of oil, graphs and manipulation, In my early years taking those endless rides with my dad in the ’51 Plymouth Cambridge, I remember gas at $ .29 per gallon. In 1973, the year I got married, I remember gas at $ .29 per gallon for my ’70 Nova. Then there was the oil embargo and the beginning of price manipulation unrelated to supply/demand.

                There are a lot of factors involved in anything. Our problem, as Americans I think, is that we want that “magic bullet” solution. Oh yes, and the lawyers.

              • “We should…”

                You sound like Charlie.

                Who is this “we’ – and why should that “we” group force themselves on others?

                “We” “should” do nothing – let manufacturers figure out what THEY should do all by themselves – they are the experts in their field right?

              • Wait – now you’re going to blame the lawyers for gas prices!? Is there no end to this madness!??

              • Nah, you guys just keep stopping me from building refineries and drilling. I know it is important to feed your growing family but, give the rest of us a break.

              • We, is being used as in “We the People”. Why you should presume that I mean the government I don’t know. I am an American Citizen, I have a retirement plan and am a stockholder. If some of my holdings are in energy does that not then imply that I and my other stockholder associates (WE) should not be pushing, urging, recommending that the management of the Corporate entity go in this direction? I do not see this as forcing myself on others since, theoretically, I am an owner.

                Your arguments are getting progressively weaker.

    • I saw this the other day. Spencer Hughes from Fox News shared it on his Facebook page. I thought it was GREAT! Poignant is a good word for it as well.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      AWSOME.

      Thanks for sharing that BF.

    • Thanks for that one Flag. As a military history buff, I was shocked to see, in the picture of German Soldiers surrendering to GI”s, GI”s wearing what appears to be Marine cammies. First time I have ever seen photos of that in the ETO. Wonder if anybody knows why or how?

      • http://www.theworldatwar.info/uscamouflage.html

        Camoflage uniforms in Normandy
        Just prior to the Normandy invasion there was a limited experimental issue of HBT camoflage uniforms to elements of the 2nd and 30th Infantry Divisions, the 17th Engineer Batalion and the 41st Armoured Infantry regiment, of the US 2nd Armoured Division.

        Although the uniform seems to have provided good camoflage for the troops wearing it, the unfamiliar uniforms were often mistaken for the camoflauge smocks worn by the German Waffen SS. This resulted in a number of ‘friendly fire’ incidents.

        The uniforms were withdrawn from the ETO, although troops were often still issued with the camoflage uniform as their original ones wore out, and period photos show the type in use until well into August 1944; not always with matching sets, as jackets can sometimes be seen mixed with M1937 wool trousers.

        Most photographs of GIs in camoflage uniforms show the M1 helmet garnished with a net and burlap scrim.

  4. Welcome back boss, any interesting sunburn stories you or the misses want to share? I think you are off on “But honestly, can anyone remember a time when when an entire political campaign, on both sides, was so centrally based on nothing but propaganda? ” That is much of our history. Everyone relied on newspapers for ALL their information. Mudslinging, violence & fraud is oldschool in American elections. Maybe the big difference is now those who want can seek information on their own. We know Obama at best implied the Libya attack was terrorism. His main point was about the video inciting violence. We can guess he’s been trying to delay this and any other negative events from being reported until after Nov. 6th. The film maker has been held a month now & his next trial date is three days after the election. But we also know about RomneyCare. Obama’s foreign policy has been a disaster. What we don’t know is specifically what Romney means with his statements on supporting Israel or not ALLOWING a nuclear Iran. And a funny story, what happens when the POTUS makes a BS statement?
    “check please”

    Nearly 2,000 pro-lifers called local Planned Parenthood clinics Oct. 18 to schedule mammograms, after President Obama implied the organization offers the service.

    “When Gov. Romney says that we should eliminate funding for Planned Parenthood, there are millions of women all across the country who rely on Planned Parenthood for not just contraceptive care, they rely on it for mammograms,” said Obama Oct. 16 during the second presidential debate.

    Planned Parenthood does not actually provide women with mammograms, but refers patients out to other facilities for the exam.

    “Call it for what it is … if you’re not doing mammograms, don’t say that you do them,” Kate Bryan, communications director for Live Action, told EWTN News Oct. 19.

    In response to the implication that the organization provides mammograms, the pro-life groups And Then There Were None and Live Action organized “Call Planned Parenthood to Schedule Your Imaginary Mammogram Day.”

    Read more: http://www.ewtnnews.com/catholic-news/US.php?id=6384#ixzz29wKjUqIX

  5. Welcome back USW…..well, let’s see…..I have crawled in underground bunkers that were booby-trapped, I have waited in ambush for hours and watched animals, snakes, and the Viet Cong walk by, I have been in close combat where I have seen my enemy close enough to use a knife or .45, I have performed HALO jumps into South and Central America in search of and blowing up drug labs, I have crawled through drug tunnels on the border of Texas, and looked drug runners and cartel members in the eye, I have seen a man’s arm taken off by a Hammerhead (Princeville, Hi during the run of the sea turtles) and I have seen sharks used in interrogation techniques in Nha Trang…….but I have NEVER…repeat NEVER…..EVER EVER EVER……….knowingly jumped into a shark cage hanging over the side of a boat in the waters off South Africa or Australia…….NOR…will I EVER EVER EVER do that. So accept this low bow and sweeping gesture of my stetson…….and then I will say…..ARE YOU DAFT, MAN? I would be asked to leave that tour because as soon as I jump into a shark cage and see the open mouth of a great white….the waters around me would become so cloudy no one would see anything for a century and no amount of EPA procedures NOR mother nature could clean it up.

    Now..BF and I have always agreed on the local levels and it would take a couple of generations to do this…..but I am looking forward to this debate and I hope it centers on the incompetence of the Libya issue. I hope it centers there not because of the fact that this one Libya issues is worse than any ten lies of Romney, Bush, Clinton, Carter…..COMBINED….far worse than the taken out of context 47% comment that has Charlie so riled…..

    Libya is exactly as I predicted long ago….we help take out a dictator and put in a group of psychopaths under the misbegotten lies of revolution……the Arab Spring that Obama touts, has put the Muslim Brotherhood into power in Egypt, al-Qaeda in power in Tunisia, Yemen, Somalia, Erithea, the Taliban in charge in Afghanistan, and the Iraq war is just starting……it is not ended. But set all of this aside…..I will even disregard Charlies attempt at disparaging the American Military……Charlie is just Charlie. I will even disregard the stupid assumption that Romney wants to bomb Iran…..he does not…..no one does. ( I do not give a rat;s ass about Israel and will not make them a part of this discussion)….I can even count as stupid that the weapons that the US has given this revolution….did not end up in the hands of the rebels at all……al-Qaeda has them

    I cannot disregard the wanton and merciless act of sending Diplomats into a civil war, as an Ambassador….and then watching them die and doing nothing to help them get out nor support them. I cannot disregard the callous attitude that Islamic militants are a “small part” of Islam….they are not and there is NO diplomatic effort that will work…..none. I cannot disregard the flying of a drone over the supposedly impromptu “demonstration” against a phantom video that has been out for months and, as the New York post says, “watch them (our representatives) die”…I cannot disregard the pleas for security that are in evidence since FEBRUARY this year….I cannot disregard the lies from each end of the administration and the “we did not know” attitude…… I personally know how the diplomatic security reporting works…I have done it. I know where it goes and who sees it. IT DOES NOT STOP WITH THE STATE DEPARTMENT……it stops at the White House security briefing that is given DAILY…..to the POTUS. Period.

    Do not come back at me with what has happened in the past…….I DO NOT CARE…as it pertains to this one item. The WHITE HOUSE did watch these men die and that is fact and did nothing to prevent it. This I believe because I know how it works. This one act alone….should fire this man and his entire staff regard less of what has happened in the past. This is beyond criminal. They did nothing because of Obama’s belief that the ME is not a problem.

    • Could you explain that a little more clearly :)

      I was bored this a.m. so watched a little of G. Stephanopoulos. He had Wasserman Schultz and Van Jones on and some others. I think the studio needed mucking out afterwards. The more I learn about the situation in Benghazi, the more I feel this administration has been criminally negligent. The Brits fortified their embassy there. The Red Cross pulled out. We removed most of our security and then refused more when requested. This was not the first assault but the third and obviously the largest and deadliest. The problems stated last February, so there is no doubt in my mind that this administration knew there were serious problems. I will ask again, why did we post an openly gay ambassador to a troubled Muslim country?

      The dance of the MSM around all of this has been comical. They want to report the truth but it contradicts their support of O. It is fun watching them squirm. Unfortunately, I fear that many will let O slide by on this despite the fact that see the truth. It is being compartmentalized and not being seen as indicative of the overall foreign policy of this administration.

    • I’ve heard reports the attack lasted 6-8 hrs & we had forces in Italy that could have responded. I would think air support alone would/could have made the difference. Also heard Egypt wants Iran to help them go nuclear…..

    • I saw that too, this morning, about the drone…..amazing to realize the administration actually watched in real time while our ambassador and 3 others were killed. And it took Obama two weeks to admit even part of the truth, that it was a long-planned attack. I agree, this is criminal negligence and any POTUS, I don’t care which party, should be impeached over it.

      But the MSM is silently choking on the truth….outside of the NY Post (for a while this morning, now it is gone) and Fox News, no one is mentioning it…..imagine that.

      Murf

  6. I totally agree that this election is full of propaganda-BUT some of the statements made by the candidates are not just total BS, that should be ignored. Look at Obama and his “just bumps in the road” comment, then add in “Not Optimal”-then think about the passion with which he criticized free speech-his insistence in criticizing free speech much more than condemn the actual killing of Americans. Sometimes it is an accumulation of statements which show a man’s true concerns. One statement might just be not thinking or just getting too into your rant and going further than you meant too, making you say something you don’t really mean. But after awhile an accumulation of poorly chosen words and poorly chosen actions-aren’t just mistakes-they speak volumes.

    Now someone else can say whatever they want to about Romney’s words-but I haven’t seen any consistent statements that make me believe that he hates or thinks 47% of this country’s people are worthless. But I have certainly heard a lot of words from Obama which are intended to make the so-called 99% hate the 1%.

  7. @BF Labor -exactly the same thing- the job are low paying or you waste away on your couch, hungry.

    Only so long as the owner gets to earn for doing absolutely nothing, whether he/she built the business all by their lonesome (which is bullshit) or not.

    Which is why it will fall apart … government can only sustain it … take government out of the equation and capitalism is an anecdote to world history.

    Bada-boom, bada-bing.

    • Charlie,

      Just because you are ignorant of what he does or does not makes your opinion of it worth nothing.

      • BF,
        Just because you are ignorant of what he does or does not makes your opinion of it worth nothing.

        • Alea
          Quote
          “I have, which will surprise you not a little, been speculating – partly in American funds, but more especially in English stocks, which are springing up like mushrooms this year (in furtherance of every imaginable and unimaginable joint stock enterprise), are forced up to a quite unreasonable level and then, for the most part, collapse. In this way, I have made over £400 and, now that the complexity of the political situation affords greater scope, I shall begin all over again. It’s a type of operation that makes small demands on one’s time, and it’s worth while running some risk in order to relieve the enemy of his money.”

          — Karl Marx: letter to Lion Philips – 25 JUNE 1864

  8. I’ve seen these posts on facebook and some of them make me so damned mad I can’t see straight! I have a friend that I used to work with and he is, bless his heart, a dyed in the wool hardcore Obama fan. I don’t care about that what I do care about is his complete inablility, or maybe unwillingness is the better choice of word here, to look at both sides. I’m aware that not everyone is a Romney fan, I get that, but that he won’t look at the last 4 years and see that Obama has done nothing to make things better and has in fact made some things worse makes no sense to me. I think that’s the point that US is trying to make. Those ads and posts aren’t making things better and may in fact be making things worse. There are those who only pay attention to politics when a policy directly affects us or it’s an election cycle. Well, it’s an election cycle and my friend is all hyped up. I never heard anything about politics from this man until this year and the closer to the election we get the more I hear from him. The problem, as I see it, is that he’s only getting his info from one source and that appears to be Rachel Maddow’s blog. He went so far as to tell me that they fact check everything before they put it out there. I almost peed myself laughing when I read that. He’s not researching or asking questions of those who know more about it than he does. All he knows is what he’s told on these blogs and facebook. Unfortunately that is the case for the majority of people. Why research when someone else seems to have done it for you? Why ask questions when someone is telling you what you want to hear. You don’t even have to watch soaps because you get all the drama you can handle and then some.

    The thing is, you can’t stop it. Freedom of speech. You can only hope that they will research and not just blindly believe. Blind belief is what got us Obama. I stopped responding to that friend because had I continued we would have lost the friendship. While I can’t say that this person is my best friend I know him to be a good, hardworking man that takes care of his family. That says a lot more to me than his political leanings, even if I do know that he’s wrong(LOL)!!!!!!

  9. Crude Imports and domestic production (2011):
    Total Imports: 4,198,172,000 bbl
    US Production: 2,065,172,000 bbl
    Imports from the Persian Gulf: 679,406,000 bbl (16% of total imports)
    We would need to increase US production by 32% to replace ME oil.

  10. BF,

    I believe you may be wrong about something. The cost of transporting merhcandise, no matter what it is, is indeed factored into the price of said merchandise. We’ll use apples, since they seem to be your favorite. When the apple farmer sells his apples to a wholesaler they have to be shipped from point A to point B. The wholesaler is going to factor cost of transport into the sale price when they sell those apples to a grocery chain. The grocery is also going to factor that into the price of the apples when they put them in the stores. Now you are correct they are going to try to price them to sell but the simple fact is, transport was indeed factored into the price as it is with anything that is shipped. Whether it’s produce or oil, transport is factored into the cost. One of the reasons that the cost of food has gone up is because the cost of diesel went up. I work in this industry, I know.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Kristian

      The only point BF is trying to make is that the price of oil is a Global Market as is the price of GAS.

      So if your diesel costs rise, so does the diesel costs for the Chinese shipping company.

      So theoretically, if we double domestic production and thus drive down gasoline costs, those costs drop for the WORLD, not just us. We GAIN NOTHING in comparison to relative costs between us and China, for example.

      Now this also assumes free markets for the oil/gas. So differences in pricing are due to Govt, not supply/demand.

      So, if we as in the USA really wanted our GAS prices to be less than other people, in order to give ourselves a competitive advantage, then we should ELIMINATE TAXES on Gasoline and TAXES on Oil Production.

      • Yes, sorta.

        Gasoline/Fuel prices have nothing to do with oil prices.

        The high cost of fuel is due to the shortage of refineries, not oil. There is oil surpluses everywhere, but few places to refine it.

        Diesel especially constrained as government rules make a requirement of a certain blend. Less than 5 refineries in all of North America can produce it – the others are forbidden to upgrade due to environut action.

    • It is but a factor – but it is not, either.

      All of it is “rolled up” into a concept of value.

      You look at this thing you made, and you give it a value – all that calculation is wholly subjective to you – you can judge the worth of your time, say, between $5 and $500 an hour – and who could argue? Eventually you make up a price in your head, but it is opaque – if someone offered 10% less, you still might take it, whereas someone else may offer 5% less and you would refuse.

      The price of a good is the price of the good – it represents a number HIGHER then the value of the producer, and he hopes LOWER then the value you place on buying that good.

      So, a man selling apples in China to me for a penny each, shipping included means ……. what? about the shipping?

      • So. lets get off the dime and build refineries. You obviously have an excellent point about apples and China. Note where most of the apple juice comes from these days. Maybe they can’t compete selling fresh apples but they sure are tanking the domestic juice and applesauce industry. Deeper digging is needed though on Chinese government subsidies and dumping below cost to destroy the domestic market. There always seems to be that nasty issue of quality control on things like lead and arsenic. But as the Soviets used to say, a good capitalist will sell you the rope you use to hang him.

        • If the Chinese are subsidizing you to buy their food – cheer!

          A Chinese fellow is paying you money to eat! What a deal!

          But because you got some bizarre economic theory pushed into your head, you are thinking “Hell, that guy buying my lunch – he is putting out the diner across the street out of business – that evil guy buying me lunch! I must shoot him!”

          • When all my domestic apple orchards have been plowed under and I cannot get a supply of applesauce for the kiddies anywhere but from the Peoples Republic and THEN they decide to triple the price, Your theory takes a hit. This is referred to as short sightedness. Incredible, laughable, insane short sightedness.

            Don’t say it does not happen. This is how the big boys eliminate the little guys and then they have the market to themselves and can do whatever they wish. I could almost paraphrase Dietrich Bonhoffer’s comments about the Nazi’s first they eliminated Motts, then they came for Apple and Eve, then Pathmark and Shoprite brand and finally, I could only buy theirs there were no others left.

            • SKT

              When all my domestic apple orchards have been plowed under and I cannot get a supply of applesauce for the kiddies anywhere but from the Peoples Republic and THEN they decide to triple the price, Your theory takes a hit.

              No it does not, because no one is plowing under apple orchards – do not use argument by fantasy.

              Local apple suppliers simply stop shipping apples – they do not burn their trees. Tree can sit there for a hundred years just fine.

              Your economic crackpot theory has been repeated by men for 300 years to rationalize trade barriers – and not once has such a barrier improved the lives of the nation – it has improved a very slim number of people who benefit from the rest overpaying for goods.

              Don’t say it does not happen. This is how the big boys eliminate the little guys and then they have the market to themselves and can do whatever they wish.

              You make up stories.

              There are no cases you can show.

              Companies have undercut others to seize market share by losing money = true.
              They got market share = true.
              They raised their prices = true.
              Competition returned = true.
              Companies lost their shirts and didn’t do that one again. = true.

              • Yes and farmers are quite willing to let the land sit fallow for a hundred years until apple prices recover. They continue of course to prune their trees, spray for insects, prevent blights and then the land is seized for something called non payment of taxes. I see you are back to your czarist working for nothing again theory.

                Now, regarding showing cases, Ahem!

                Back to the coal fields of Pennsylvania! If you look at maps of individual mining tracts in the 1840’s for example you will note that everybody and their brother was a mine owner. If you then look at the maps in the 1880’s you will note that the mines are now all owned by conglomerates. These conglomerates are by and large related to the railroads who have set prices on the shipment of coal (and other things). This in turn has forced small mine owners to sell out to the conglomerates. There was this movement back around the turn of the last century to apply the brakes on things called trusts. I would join you in arguing that some trusts are beneficial . For example ATT, being a monopoly was able to build the best telecommunication system in the world. The Government Courts broke it up. There were dire predictions of doom and gloom when this occurred, even from me, ( see, I can be wrong) but what was unleashed by this illegal, unconstitutional, usurpation of individual rights was a technological revolution the likes of which had never been seen. None of this would have happened because, frankly, ATT was just too fat, happy and lazy. I was too but when they broke up, I became owner of shares in all the baby bells. My modest little investments grew by leaps and bounds.

                One thing that everybody seems to miss is that times change. What was a good idea few years ago may no longer be good ATT is a good example. The government acceding to their monopoly all those years was a good thing, it allowed the creation by industry of a unified telecommunication system. However, 100 years into this, somebody, somewhere decided that those protections had become counter productive. So, the government did a 180 degree reverse. people I know quite well, even family members were hurt by this because they had the option to stay 100% with the parent company or go equally with the six? new companies. I chose the latter course. They took the former and eventually saw their holdings drop to $ .10 on the dollar. But then again, stock is nothing more than a gamble anyway. Better odds than craps but still a gamble.

            • SKT

              What really happens.

              Supplier drops price (or is artificially subsidized).
              He gets more and more customers.
              Supplier expands his business to support more and more customers.

              Supplier decides he needs to make a profit (or subsidy ends).
              Price rises.
              Customers leave.
              There is a value to an apple, and if the price rises above that, people do not buy
              The extra production and plants and employees all hired during the subsidy are draining the company.
              Plants close, people are fired, business may go bankrupt.
              Supply goes down
              Price rises, and new competition re-enters the market, and more apples are found.

              There is no good or service in the world that can be monopolized -period- let alone by price drops.

              Anytime you get a lower price for your good – it is good!
              If after awhile the price goes to high – you don’t buy!
              And when the price is valued again, you do buy!

              Do not fall into economic crackpottery.

  11. ???????????????

    Overnight Outrage: The Federal Government’s $300-Plus Million Bankruptcy Gift to Obama Bundlers

    By Tom Blumer | October 22, 2012 | 01:20
    2 29 Reddit0 1
    A A
    Tom Blumer’s picture

    Let’s get the easy part out of the way first. The New York Times and the Associated Press are only covering the outrages emerging in Solyndra’s bankruptcy in the vaguest of terms. The only related Times item I could find was a sentence at the end of an October 11 Green blog post indicating that “the I.R.S. and the Energy Department argue in court papers” against the company’s bankruptcy plan. The AP’s Randall Chase was a bit more specific that day, writing that “The plan allows for two private equity funds that control Solyndra to potentially reap hundreds of millions of dollars in tax breaks after Solyndra emerges from bankruptcy, using net operating losses.” Beyond that, the details are news only in the business press, and even then not to a great extent.

    Are the private equity funds (you mean they’re sort of like the eeeevil Bain Capital?) getting hundreds of millions in “tax breaks” as in tax deductions or tax reductions? Unbelievably, it’s the latter (the former is almost $1 billion), as an October 15 Wall Street Journal editorial and an October 17 Bloomberg News item which seemed to be simultaneously trying to catch up to but then cover up what the Journal revealed.

    The Journal laid out the gory details (bolds are mine throughout this post):

    The Solyndra Memorial Tax Break
    How Energy passed out tax-loss credits that mean taxpayers will pay twice for failure.

    Perhaps you thought the Solyndra scandal amounted to a $535 million government loan that will never be repaid. No such luck. In the latest twist, Solyndra’s investors could be rewarded for their failure, thanks to a tax benefit the Administration handed out in a bid to evade political accountability.

    … Having sold off its manufacturing plant, fired nearly 1,000 workers and proven the non-viability of its business model, Solyndra’s only real assets are what the IRS calls “tax attributes.” These are between $875 million and $975 million in net operating losses that can reduce future taxable income, which the IRS values as high as $350 million. Before it went toes up, Solyndra also accumulated $12 million in solar tax credits that can reduce tax liabilities dollar for dollar.

    Tax-loss carry-forwards are routine but worthless if a company can’t turn profits to pay taxes on. So Solyndra’s owners are asking the court to liquidate the rest of the business and contribute a net $6.7 million to pay off creditors for pennies on the dollar. A holding corporation will then emerge from Chapter 11 that won’t make products or employ workers, but it will get the Solyndra tax offsets.

    The dummy company is owned by Argonaut Ventures I LLC, Solyndra’s largest shareholder and the primary investment arm of the George Kaiser Family Foundation. Mr. Kaiser is a Tulsa oil billionaire who bundled campaign checks for Mr. Obama in 2008. The other owner is Madrone Partners LP, a California venture outfit.

    … In February 2011, Energy signed off on a deal that would subordinate its repayment interests to a new $75 million loan to Solyndra from Argonaut and Madrone. The two owners would open this tranche of senior debt to other investors for equity warrants. But under the Energy term sheet, those warrants would then bounce back to the Argonaut-Madrone holding company if Solyndra became defunct. That gave Argonaut-Madrone 99.9% control of the net operating losses.

    … The irony is that the law that created the loan program specifically bars the Energy Department from taking a junior debt position. So Energy simply produced a novel legal analysis claiming that this prohibition applies only when a loan originates, not when it is modified.

    … Under the bankruptcy plan, taxpayers will recoup $27 million at most on Mr. Obama’s $535 million “investment.” The IRS and Energy Department are now asking the courts to reject the deal, because bankruptcy is designed to give a business a second chance, not goose a tax return.

    But this is little more than an ex post facto double-cross. Energy created the tax avoidance problem in the first place by gifting Argonaut and Madrone the net operating losses to delay the Solyndra crack-up that was fast becoming inevitable. That left taxpayers worse off than if they simply let Solyndra fail.

    … does he (President Obama) have to stick it to taxpayers twice for the same failed investment?

    It would appear that the answer is: “If it concerns someone helping my campaign, heck yes!”

    Given the circumstances, to quote a Shakespeare’s “Hamlet,” the IRS doth protest too much.

    Bloomberg’s report by Michael Bathon two days later was very circumspect about the lede, and distracted readers by concentrating of the fate of regular creditors:

    Solyndra LLC, the solar-panel maker that received a $535 million U.S. Energy Department loan guarantee before going bankrupt, won’t be able to provide lenders ranking ahead of the government with a full recovery, the company’s financial adviser Eric Carlson said today.

    The failed solar-panel maker generated about $117 million from assets sales, including the proposed sale of its manufacturing facility to a unit of Dublin-based Seagate Technology Plc (STX) for $90.3 million, subject to competing offers at a Nov. 14 auction, Carlson testified under questioning from Solyndra lawyer Maxim Litvak.

    The company incurred about $46 million in costs to achieve those sales, giving it about $71 million in net distributable assets. Lenders who rank ahead of the government, Argonaut Ventures I LLC and Madrone Partners LP, are owed about $77 million, about $6 million short of a full recovery, said Carlson of Imperial Capital. The company has maximized the value of its assets and the costs were necessary to do so, he said.

    Those of us who remember the company throwing millions of dollars of specialty glass straight into dumpsters without even trying to find a buyer for the material would beg to differ.

    Continuing, Bloomberg’s Bathon finally got to the loss carryforwards in his report’s fifth paragraph, and gave a false impression that the company was somewhat viable until 2011:

    The U.S. Internal Revenue Service objected to Solyndra’s bankruptcy plan, arguing it can’t be approved because its principal purpose is to allow Argonaut and Madrone to avoid taxes.

    While Solyndra will be liquidated under the plan, its parent, 360 Degree Solar Holdings Inc., will exit court protection with net operating loss carryforwards of as much as $975 million to use against future income, according to court papers.

    The potential tax breaks of as much as $341 million could be used by Argonaut, the investment arm of billionaire and Obama fundraiser George Kaiser’s charitable organization, and Madrone.

    Solyndra’s collapse prompted congressional scrutiny of President Barack Obama, who praised the company during a May 2010 tour of its facilities. It was the first company to receive a loan guarantee under Obama’s stimulus program.

    By early 2011, the fledgling solar startup began to face competition from foreign companies and plummeting prices for materials used in rivals’ products.

    Nonsense. Solyndra was already in serious trouble when the Department of Energy was rushed into approving the company’s loans in 2009.

    The bottom line: Obama cronies “invested” $75 million to get $350 million in future tax reductions at profitable companies. Am I the only one dead tired of hearing Obama and his Gangster Government (Michael Barone’s term coined in 2009 as disfavored creditors were getting the shaft during Chrysler’s bankruptcy) hypocritically complaining about the rich “not paying their fair share” while passing out millions in breaks to fat cats they like?

    According to Bloomberg, “Solyndra will have to wait until Oct. 22 (i.e., later today) for its fate to be decided.” Well, if the courts approved the plan of General Motors, which essentially did the same thing by carrying “old GM” losses into “new GM” and saving “new GM” billions of dollars, how can the judge justify stopping this similar though more blatant subterfuge?

    Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2012/10/22/overnight-outrage-solyndras-300-plus-million-bankruptcy-gift-obama-bundl#ixzz2A0sugLD7

  12. Early voting starts today through Nov 2 in Texas…….ID REQUIRED.

  13. @ JAC…..you did not tell me how much fun Huffpo can also be……BF was right…..give them facts and they self destruct.

  14. you_picked_a_fine_time-1.wmv

  15. Ah, this is the SUFA that I remember..

    Welcome back, Wep. This place needs you.

    I really believe that had either side in this election actually refrained from these tactics while simultaneously repeatedly pointing it out on the other side, they would have gotten a 5%-10% swing in their direction for doing so. There are a lot of Americans who see through this stuff and hate it, but they aren’t given an alternative because both sides are doing it!

    Naw… there are a lot more uninformed idiots than there are competent people. For every “rational” vote you picked up (mine might be included), you’d lose three “knee-jerk” votes. This would equate to unilateral disarmament.

    Though I, personally, would love to get away from this, I just don’t see it happening. It’s worth remembering, however, that “fair and balanced” is a relatively new concept in American media – the old model was even more blatantly biased than anything “main stream” today – Hannity would have been considered a moderate. You should really read some of the old stuff – it’s amazingly libelous.

    Mrs. Weapon and I survived the sharks, the Cheetahs

    Interesting side note: cheetahs make great pets. Just saying….

    All of them were pulled off of Facebook postings or shares within the last two days. THIS is the primary source of political information for an entire group of people. And how sad is that?

    Very sad. (See Mathius’s 1st and 3rd laws)

    As I said, every single one of the things up there is misleading in some way, some more blatant than others

    Yup, but that’s how most people take in their information. Politicians know that most people will never dig in. They’ll never apply any sort of critical thought. They’ll just take the sound-bite and swallow it whole.

    I think Americans, for all their bravado about being the best in the world at pretty much everything, are a bunch of slack-jawed intellectually lazy arrogant knee-jerk reactionaries. Americans don’t bother working hard to get to the truth because they simply believe they already know it – then they use confirmation bias to support it. It’s why overtly biased outlets like Fox do so well – they give people the “facts” that they want in order to support the opinions they already believe.

    (for example Romney would support overturning Roe, but cannot do it, so this is attempting to falsely scare people to vote against him).

    I don’t know this. Romney may be strongly “pro-life” today, but he wasn’t always. There is some truth to the question “who is Mitt Romney” – hell, here’s something:

    [...]“Who is this guy, really, and what in the world does he truly believe?”

    The evidence suggests no clear answer, or at least one that would survive Romney’s next speech or sound bite. Politicians routinely tailor their words to suit an audience. Romney, though, is shameless, lavishing vastly diverse audiences with words, any words, they would trade their votes to hear.

    Link

    That’s from the SALT LAKE TRIBUNE. If that’s not friendly turf, I don’t know what is. I don’t know how anyone can look at Romney and claim “he would support x.” Romney is a pragmatist who will support whatever is politically expedient for him to support at the moment.

    “I believe abortion should be safe and legal in this country. I have since the time that my mom took that position when she ran in 1970 a US senate candidate. I believe that since Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years, that we should sustain and support it. And I sustain and support that law.” – Mitt Romney, Oct 1994

    And we find all of this acceptable discourse in modern politics.

    We do? I sure don’t.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Mathius

      Good to see you back. Hope the family is well.

      • Jac,

        The family is great. The little one (3 months old) has started her liberal conditioning training – we give her milk-stamps. She already feels entitled to unlimited diaper changes, free housing, health care, and free toys. She even believes it’s other people’s job to clean up her messes. Yup, things are progressing nicely.

        On the other note: Jac, I’m not “back” because I wasn’t away. I just wasn’t participating. After the abomination of a “conversation” I had here a while back, I really just didn’t see the point in SUFA anymore. Sure, I followed along, but truth be told, I honestly wonder (and still do) if this is the same place as it was 3 years ago. Too many people are using the mindless distortions (like the ones Wep posted from Facebook) and parading them as truths. And too many people here insist on painting “my” guy in the most negative light possible (there are plenty of legitimate criticisms), while giving their guy a pass on everything. Confirmation bias was on such strong display that, well, I just couldn’t bring myself to stomach it anymore. What’s the point of discussing things under those circumstances?

        • Exactly!

          When children are mindless and ignorant, they adhere to Socialist Democratic ideals – everyone owes them a living.

          But eventually many of them grow up and realize you have to earn your living.

          But, sadly, quite a few never leave the infant stage no matter how old they get – and the accumulate in the Democratic Party to cry about how the world isn’t working for them.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          Mathius

          I think you may have over reacted a bit. This place has in fact changed but the dislike for Obama by most has remained pretty much constant.

          So I think perhaps the pressure of the election season may have gotten the better of you.

          Besides, YOUR guy is evil and MY guy is not. :wink:

          • Jac,

            The dislike has, I agree, remained somewhat constant (interesting though that you seem to stipulate that people disliked him this intensely even before he had done anything..).

            What has changed is the ability/willingness to have a reasoned discussion. I gave detailed sourced timelines with full in-context quotations, and people (yourself included, I believe) just kept insisting that Romney was right or that he wasn’t being an opportunistic hack or that Obama had sympathized with those who attached us or that… screw it.. I’m not getting back into it. But nobody once said “I think Romney was referring to X” where they offered up the actually quote to which he was referring, they simply just kept insisting that it must be true and that there must be something – anything – that I was missing. That’s not reasoned discourse. They just ignored everything I posted and plowed ahead. So why waste my time?

            It should be telling to you that all the liberals all felt exactly the same way:

            I agree with Mathius – but it’s not just today. This is becoming more and more common here at SUFA… – Todd

            And this is why I stayed on the sidelines today… – Buck

            Charlie didn’t weigh in, but I’d be willing to bet he feels the same way.

            I think you have to consider that there may be a systemic problem here. The true value of SUFA is that it’s NOT an echo chamber (or at least, not supposed to be) – that all sides are given due consideration. If there are only three or four liberals here (and dozens of y’all), there is a problem when we all see the same issue.

            Besides, YOUR guy is evil and MY guy is not. :)

            My guy might be Gary Johnson.. I’m mulling it over. He’s not perfect.. but he’s closer. On some stuff though, well he’s just in crazy town.. But on a lot of other stuff – the things where a theoretical President Johnson could make some progress – well, there he’s right on the money.

            Then again, I live in NY, so my vote doesn’t really matter, and I’m too lazy to move to Ohio. So, again, why bother?

            • Just A Citizen says:

              Mathius

              There may be hope for you yet. I’ll send you a membership card to the Safe Choice Voting Club.

              You should bother because PRACTICE is needed to create a winning team in the long run.

            • Mathius,
              I’ve been on the sidelines too – for the same reason.

              Now I browse thru SUFA for entertainment – who posted the “funniest” comment today? Sometimes I think about responding, but then I realize it’s not worth the effort.

              “Confirmation Bias” is the standard here. Over 3 years ago I called it “Mob Mentality”, but of course they had a fit that I could suggest such a thing.

              This is a typical “diversion” comment from JAC:

              So I think perhaps the pressure of the election season may have gotten the better of you.

              No JAC, it’s not the election, it’s the stupid stuff that gets taken “seriously” here at SUFA.

              A couple weeks ago JAC (the self-declared “objective” one) was “offended” because Charlie was “insulting” (making jokes about) Sarah Palin and Mitt Romney, but he doesn’t seem to notice the constant insults hurled at Liberals here…

              But Life of Illusion’s reply was the best:

              Not offended, but I find these constant personal insults to be petty. I think most of us are trying to have a fairly serious discussion and this takes away from that

              Yes, because all of LOI’s discussions are so serious…

              • Confirmation Bias-seriously-I see many things people disagree about on here who are on the right side of the aisle. We have our anarchist vs. small government, our pro-choice vs pro-life. Libertarian vs. Conservative-vote vs. don’t vote. Which is just some examples.

              • It would be sad to lose our left side of the aisle people-and I get that you guys are out numbered and I know that can be frustrating. I hung out at Huff Post for about a year. :) I also understand sometimes feeling like it’s a waste of time because you’re probably not gonna make any serious changes to people opinions when you have been talking to them for 3 or 4 years. But what exactly do you expect to accomplish by these conversations. I just hope for a little more understanding between the sides. I need an outlet that reminds me that democrats are people too :) People I like-not just my political enemy.

              • VH,
                Yes, many on the “right” disagree about how-far-right-is-correct, but that’s the problem – the crazy right-wing conspiracy theories are winning that war.

                It’s not about being out-numbered, it’s the general state of the conversations.

              • @Todd… unfortunately, the same holds true on the other side. The far left crazies are winning that war.

              • Not really sure what you mean by the state of the conversation. But if the left side of the aisle wants to change the state of the conversation-they need to make their own points and bring in more people on the left. Or not, depends on whether or not you want SUFA to continue or eventually disappear. Because it will if more people quit talking. Up to ya’ll.

              • No one should be confused, please. When I call Sarah Palin a moron, I mean it. In my heart and head … the woman is as dumb as a rock and the fact she was on a national platform is pretty telling about those who supported her. As for Romney, I’m baffled how veterans can even consider this ass-clown of patriotic fury (remember the beaches in France vs. Vietnam?) … never mind his five spoiled brats and their contribution to “freedom and liberty” … please.

              • USWeapon,
                But the “lefties” here on SUFA do not support the “far left crazies”.

              • I understand that. Not all of the people here support the far right crazies either. I certainly don’t think that I do. I lean far more libertarian than Republican and oppose a lot of the far right positions such as anything to do with the religious aspects, anything opposing gay rights, etc.

              • VH,

                Not really sure what you mean by the state of the conversation.

                Even within this post, there are probably a dozen “crazy” comments and conspiracy theories. And many people just “jump in” and chase-the-rabbit-down-the-hole.

                But if the left side of the aisle wants to change the state of the conversation-they need to make their own point.

                I’ve tried – so have others. But I’ve run out of time and energy because I can’t disprove the crazy theories, and they don’t want to be dissuaded – they want someone to CONFIRM their ideas.

                and bring in more people on the left.

                I’ve tried this too – friends from the right and left. My friends from the “right” think you’re all nuts and they don’t want to get tagged as “lefties” because they’re more moderate, and my friends from the “left” just laugh and ask why I’m wasting my time…

                I have two friends from the “right” that have followed SUFA (closer than I do) since I suggested it to them 3 1/2 years ago. They constantly bombard me with “Look what someone posted now” and “you should respond to this” emails. They have long emails and conversations about the topics, but will never post anything on SUFA! They’re afraid they’re going to be tagged as “lefties” because they don’t agree with the general “far-right” attitude on SUFA (probably rightfully so!).

                Have you tried to bring in new people?

                Or not, depends on whether or not you want SUFA to continue or eventually disappear.

                No, it doesn’t depend on me. As I said, I’ve tried – they don’t want to listen to me. It’s up to those on the ‘right’ to temper and dissuade those comments, and keep the discussions at a higher level. You don’t have to say “Stop it” – just don’t join in. If they get no response, those comments will stop on their own.

                Because it will if more people quit talking. Up to ya’ll.

                You’re right, it might disappear. Or at least get pretty boring if it’s only people from the “right” are commenting. But that’s not up to me – it’s up to you! :)

                PS – Thanks for a good discussion!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

              • Charlie,
                I kind of agree in general, but you’ve made these comments many times and it’s getting to the point of “beating a dead horse”. I complain about those on the “right” going off on stuff, and sometimes it seems you like to post this stuff just to get a “rise” out of them.

                I understand the urge to do that – I’ve been guilty of it too – but if I’m going to play “Good Cop”, I have to play it on both sides! :)

        • Besides the fact that our guy has no ..repeat no..responsibility for the mess our country is in today. Give it a few weeks. I’m sure you’ll bash our guy for four years..

          • It’s true that Romney bears no responsibility for the current situation – this gives him a lot of room to maneuver.

            However, as Weapon so astutely pointed out above, many of the attacks against Obama are nonsensical, disingenuous, or outright lies. And Romney stands behind many of the on the knowledge that most Americans will never bother to fact check and that confirmation bias will lead them to believe regardless. It’s why he can say things like the price of gas has gone up by so much (only if you ignore the previous few years) or that Obama didn’t call the Libyan attacks terrorism (outright lie) and so on and so forth. It’s why when something good happens under Obama (ie, killing of Bin Laden), credit is given to Bush (Bush started the hunt, etc) as if Democrats were just on autopilot. But when something bad happens (the economy is sluggish), credit is given to Obama (he isn’t fixing it!) as if there were no Republicanism involved in the process.

            I see no reason to waste my time playing this game.

            ———–

            In a few weeks, you can start bashing Obama during his second term. Brace yourself.

            PS: good idea to invest in gun/ammo companies – the second Obama is re-elected, those things are going to shoot through the roof. Then sell in a month or two when things settle down. My free, unsolicited, no-special-knowledge advice.

            • Just A Citizen says:

              Mathius

              So you think WE suffer from this affliction “confirmation bias”. Well what do you call this: “Obama didn’t call the Libyan attacks terrorism (outright lie)”

              Show me WHERE Obama called the attack on Benghazi a “Terrorist Attack”?? or that “The attack in Benghazi was an “act of terrorism”.

              He DID NOT. That is the problem. That is why it left an opening for Romney. However, Romney fumbled the ball in playing this the way he did. Obama gave him a big hole and he veered off course and ran into the back of his own lineman.

              The “opening” was the issue of a “planned attack” and that is where Romney should have run. Instead he took the “calling it terrorism” path. Bad advice and bad running on his part. But that does not change the fact that this Administration tried to diminish the facts as they knew them from day one. But instead of asking WHY and digging into this we are engaged in a debate of who said “terrorism” and when.

              I’ll bet you dollars to doughnuts that if there was an outcry about Obama calling this an act of terrorism he would have just as easily been able to say “I did NOT call the Benghazi attack an act of terrorism”.

              • Show me WHERE Obama called the attack on Benghazi a “Terrorist Attack”?? or that “The attack in Benghazi was an “act of terrorism”.

                As Americans let us never, ever forget that our freedom is only sustained because there are people who are willing to fight for it, to stand up for it, and in some cases lay down their lives for it. Our country is only as strong as the character of our people and the service of those, both civilian and military, who represent us around the globe.

                No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for.

                Today we mourn for more Americans who represent the very
                best of the United States of America.

                That was on the next morning – his first public comments.

                See that? Right there in bold? No acts of terror. In his speech on Libya. Talking about Libya, he says no acts of terror will deter us. Really, what do you need, should he have opened his remarks with “First, I’d like to formally declare this to be an act of terrorism.” Would that have satisfied you? Should he have written it on POTUS stationary and taped it to his forehead before walking up to the podium?

                Not good enough? The next day he gave to remarks (Las Vegas and Colorado) where he referred to an “act of terror” (singular).

                The “opening” was the issue of a “planned attack” and that is where Romney should have run.

                Regardless. The point (per the above) is that Romney is lying with impunity and people are just letting him get away with it. Because people are constantly looking for any way to possibly absolve “their” guy.

                Not to say Dems don’t do it to. But, right now at least, the red-shirts seem to have it down to a science.

                And I’m tired of it.

            • Welcome back grasshopper.

              Actually hold the guns and ammo. Prices never returned to normal after they spiked four years ago. maybe a result of the hidden inflation but I think not. Am currently, after a bit of research, thinking of cornering the market on British Enfield .303 No. 1 Mk. 5 jungle carbines. as a collectable and a neat little rifle, they are woefully undervalued. Just rebuilt one and bought another.

              • 1. Better to invest in the company.. personal opinion. That way you can sell out easily, won’t take a loss on “used equipment,” and don’t have to pass a government background check. Plus, if you were so inclined, you could run leverage.

                2. I’m not back. I think I’ll be moseying along again. My conversation with JAC… well I’m just not feeling it.

  16. Just A Citizen says:

    BF

    By the way, I find your comment that the price of oil has nothing to do with the price of gas LAUGHABLE.

    • But it doesn’t.
      Oil price changes makes no change to gas prices.

      Gas prices are under local supply/demand, not due to oil price up and down.

      If your case was true, gas prices everywhere would be the same (before taxes) – but they are not the same

      • Flag,

        Oil price changes makes no change to gas prices.

        Huh?

        Gas prices are due to BOTH.

        The price of oil establishes a baseline on which supply & demand fluctuates. All you have to do is ask yourself: what would happen to the price of gas if oil went to $1,000 / barrel? What if the price fell to $0.01 / barrel?

        • Just A Citizen says:

          Mathius

          You don’t even have to be that extreme. Just go back to 2007 when oil hit 120 and spiked above that.

          As I see it Oil establishes the new standard deviation within which other considerations determine the price of gas. But oil sets the sideboards.

        • But Mathius, you are arguing by fantasy once again.

          It will never go to 1 penny nor $1,000/brl.

          The price of oil goes up and down +-$40 or more – with no change to gas prices.

          Gas prices are local supplied, and subject to local supply and demand, not world wide demand, like oil.

          • Oil price changes makes no change to gas prices.

            Then you say oil prices never change…. enough….

            Which one are we discussing. Oil used to be much, much cheaper. And some day it will be much, much more. You can argue that gas price isn’t particularly sensitive to the price of oil (that is, a change in the px of oil won’t affect the px of gas unless the change is extreme) – and then you could make a case. But to say the px of oil makes “no change to gas prices”… well that’s just wrong.

            • We are dialoging a particular local aspect, not geopolitical events for the next 50 years.

              Keep the focus and do not be so easily strayed. You’re a dad now.

              • The words I’m looking for are “I, Black Flag, made an overly broad statement. This statement was in error and is, factually, incorrect. What I meant to say was [...].”

                Give it a try. I promise it won’t hurt.

              • Nope.

                Repeat “I, Mathius, out of context and out of the scope of the dialogue infused an utterly irrelevant point – I apologize, and will not do it again”

              • Never mind. Once again, I seem to be wasting my time.

              • Yes you are – that’s the point.
                You are wandering way over there where it is irrelevant to this dialogue – where does it end? Need to take into consideration the near-term explosion of the sun too?

                Within the scope, sir, stay within the scope.

            • Just A Citizen says:

              Mathius

              On this one I agree with you. You are wasting your time and so am I.

              The discussion started as a Regional thing, was moved to a more Global thing by BF, but now has suddenly become local again.

              Funny how the Anarchist so often talks like a POLITICIAN. :)

      • I think you are splitting hairs here. You are technically correct with the recent California spike as an example. Special blend required there, two refineries down and no alternative supply.

        If taxes are removed and the raw price of gas is figured, based on a $ 3.00 average price per gallon, what are the percentage differences in price? We all know that when up in really rural areas that prices are higher. Those of us in Jersey have lower prices because we are closer to the refineries (says something about transportation cost, doesn’t it?)

        the question becomes more of: is the price differential statistically significant?

  17. The United States had an unmanned Predator drone over its consulate in Benghazi during the attack that slaughtered four Americans — which should have led to a quicker military response, it was revealed yesterday.

    “They stood, and they watched, and our people died,” former CIA commander Gary Berntsen told CBS News.

    The network reported that the drone and other reconnaissance aircraft observed the final hours of the hours-long siege on Sept. 11 — obtaining information that should have spurred swift action.

    But as Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three colleagues were killed by terrorists armed with AK-47s and rocket-propelled grenade launchers, Defense Department officials were too slow to send in the troops, Berntsen said.
    VIEW TO A KILL: As terrorists attacked the consulate in Benghazi, a US Predator drone was reportedly observing from above.
    EPA
    VIEW TO A KILL: As terrorists attacked the consulate in Benghazi, a US Predator drone was reportedly observing from above.

    “They made zero adjustments in this. You find a way to make this happen,” he fumed.

    “There isn’t a plan for every single engagement. Sometimes you have to be able to make adjustments.”

    The Pentagon said it moved a team of special operators from Central Europe to Sigonella, Italy — about an hour flight from Libya — but gave no other details.

    Fighter jets and Specter AC-130 gunships — which could have been used to help disperse the bloodthirsty mob — were also stationed at three nearby bases, sources told the network.

    When the attack began, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Martin Dempsey and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta “looked at available options, and the ones we exercised had our military forces arrive in less than 24 hours, well ahead of timelines laid out in established policies,” a White House official told the network.

    Even as the administration continues to vow that the perpetrators will be brought to justice, the man identified by witnesses as a ringleader in the attack continues to walk the streets of Libya without fear of arrest.

    Ahmad Abu Khattala has admitted being at the consulate during the horrific attack but has yet to be questioned by any Libyan authorities.

    Abu Khattala spoke to a New York Times reporter Thursday from a hotel patio as he sipped a strawberry frappe and mocked the US and Libyan governments.

    “These reports say that no one knows where I am and that I am hiding,” he boasted. “But here I am in the open, sitting in a hotel with you. I’m even going to pick up my sister’s kids from school soon.”

  18. Just A Citizen says:

    Mathius

    “Any thoughts on the rest of my post?”

    YES! I’ll offer a little now but will give some more thought as well.

    I do think you are generalizing and that some of your reaction is due to your own bias, just as is mine or anyone else. We tend to call others illogical just because they don’t agree. Posting political statements as proof of some logic of politics is a bit of an Oxymoron.

    In the world of politics multiple answers are often available. Politicians make sure this is the case. This allows you to see what you want, or think you see, and me to see what I want, or what I think I see. Thus you get differences over things like the Benghazi attack being called an act of terrorism in the Rose Garden speech. See my other comment above on this topic.

    Another example was the way in which the Admin had Ambassador Rice speaking about the video and its affect. Now I think she was lying about what was known. But there is no way to say that given her “Actual Words”. Because those were constructed in a manner to give the Administration and ESCAPE later. On this one I don’t know if that was to cover their tracks or to actually set Romney up for a later fall. Given what I know of these people (those behind the curtain) it could be both.

    And another was Obama’s “they did not build that” comment. I saw it as much more than just talking about infrastructure. But MY opinion of that is based on a more complicated understanding of our history than most people have, and of how these political types operate. This is why that is relevant to your comment.

    When I say Obama was in fact saying MORE than just infrastructure you think I am displaying confirmation bias. I am displaying my bias. That is my opinion based on my knowledge of reality. So the question is whether I have an accurate view of the reality that is “underlying” the statement. Not the precise use of words in the statement itself.

    Romney’s 47% comment was no different than anything Obama said in his private fundraisers. Unfortunately BOTH are fair game in political war.

    I recently did try to explain this type of “nuance” in some of Romney’s comments. It was taken by Todd and I think to some extent by you as a “blanket” defense of Romney. It was not. I just happen to think he was being excoriated for the same type of comments you guys have been defending on Obama’s part, as well as some other Dems. Notice all the lefties crying about Romney not letting cell phones or cameras in his fund raisers? Yet Obama has been doing this for months, without a single complaint from the left.

    I do not think that SUFA is an “echo chamber”. Even the dislike for Obama has not been “unified” nor has it been a “constant intensity” for everyone here. Personally, my dislike for the “Man” and those around him was as strong as it could be then and has not changed. I think I have been very honest in my reasons for this and I have never seen anyone provide evidence that my views were in error. This Administration’s actions have not caused me to feel “stronger” about my views, they have only “confirmed” my views.

    But many others here have changed. My evidence is this that even among the many here who are obvious die hard “Republicans” they are now admitting that Romney is just the “best option” available at this time. That Romney is just a “stop gap” or a means of “slowing” the erosion. I think some of the SUFA folks would have been much more “vested” in him three years ago “just because he was a Republican”.

    I also think that sometimes you get reactions to what is seen as “always attacking Romney”. Just as you see others “always attacking Obama”. I think this situation has increased here as the election draws closer. Not because everyone is simply echoing the same viewpoints.

    In fact, it is much the same on all the political blogs right now. Tensions and “defensiveness” has increased greatly in the last month. Especially with the closing of the polls.

    Happy Monday

    • Romney’s 47% comment was no different than anything Obama said in his private fundraisers. Unfortunately BOTH are fair game in political war.

      Romney’s commets here were taken out of context. He was clearly talking about his job a candidate was to not care about them since they wouldn’t vote for him. It was construed to mean that he as President or personally doesn’t care about them, and that was in no way supported. It was a juicy sound byte Romney’s detractors ran with it.

      I recently did try to explain this type of “nuance” in some of Romney’s comments. It was taken by Todd and I think to some extent by you as a “blanket” defense of Romney.

      Unlikely that it was taken this way by me, especially since I agree.

      It was not. I just happen to think he was being excoriated for the same type of comments you guys have been defending on Obama’s part, as well as some other Dems.

      I would defend Obama on this type of comment for the exact same reason I defend Romney on it.

      Notice all the lefties crying about Romney not letting cell phones or cameras in his fund raisers? Yet Obama has been doing this for months, without a single complaint from the left.

      I haven’t been crying about this. It makes perfect sense to me. Doesn’t mean I don’t like it, but private events are private events and people can set their own rules. I think it makes them look bad, but maybe not as bad as when their comments are snipped and shown out of context.

      And another was Obama’s “they did not build that” comment. I saw it as much more than just talking about infrastructure.

      I think you’re nuts on this one. Obama’s quote:

      If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business—you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.[7]

      The whole context of the paragraph (in fact, the whole section of the speech) is about infrastructure. But I’m not going to get into this with you. I’m just not. But, for some reasons, when I look at these two comments I see both of them as being deliberately misinterpreted and then used as attacks, whereas you seem to excuse Romney but follow the attacks on Obama.

      But hey, I could see that maybe the point was lost in the somewhat awkward phrasing. So maybe the point is in the next paragraph or two:

      The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together. There are some things, just like fighting fires, we don’t do on our own. I mean, imagine if everybody had their own fire service. That would be a hard way to organize fighting fires.

      So we say to ourselves, ever since the founding of this country, you know what, there are some things we do better together. That’s how we funded the GI Bill. That’s how we created the middle class. That’s how we built the Golden Gate Bridge or the Hoover Dam. That’s how we invented the Internet. That’s how we sent a man to the moon. We rise or fall together as one nation and as one people, and that’s the reason I’m running for President — because I still believe in that idea. You’re not on your own, we’re in this together.

      Yet you see, somehow, that the next paragraphs mean nothing, that he is disparaging or writing off entrepreneurs, that he is taking credit for any business successes, or whatever.

      Now maybe – I have to grant at least the possibility – you’re right and Romney’s was benign while Obama’s was not. But when you take it over the scope I’ve seen here – everything Obama does is evil and nefarious – everything he says that’s borderline to question what he meant is interpreted in the worst possible light, while everything he says that people agree with is just a lie or part of his secret plan. On the flip side, conservatives (which occasionally includes Romney) are given every conceivable out. I’m tired of it, and as I said, I’m just not going to play that game anymore.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Mathius

        Here is a perfect example of why I see things differently and how you misconstrue my comments. I’ll put my comments in CAPS.

        “And another was Obama’s “they did not build that” comment. I saw it as much more than just talking about infrastructure.

        I think you’re nuts on this one. Obama’s quote:

        If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business—you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.[7]

        The whole context of the paragraph (in fact, the whole section of the speech) is about infrastructure. I SEE IT DIFFERENTLY AND IN FACT THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS YOU ADDED SHOW THIS TO BE TRUE, GIVEN MY STUDIES OF THIS.

        But I’m not going to get into this with you. I’m just not. But, for some reasons, when I look at these two comments I see both of them as being deliberately misinterpreted and then used as attacks, whereas you seem to excuse Romney but follow the attacks on Obama. YES, BOTH OF THEM ARE “MISREPRESENTING” THINGS. BUT THAT IS NOT THE SAME AS LYING. AND SOMETIMES THE REPRESENTATION IS ACCURATE WHEN YOU LOOK AT BROADER CONCEPTS.

        But hey, I could see that maybe the point was lost in the somewhat awkward phrasing. So maybe the point is in the next paragraph or two:

        The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together. There are some things, just like fighting fires, we don’t do on our own. I mean, imagine if everybody had their own fire service. That would be a hard way to organize fighting fires. THIS IS WHERE MY OWN BACKGROUND COMES INTO PLAY. THE FIRST PART IS FINE, BUT THEN HE ADDS FIRE FIGHTING FOR A REASON. THIS IS THE LEFTS STANDARD REBUTTAL TO “INDIVIDUALISM” AND A DESIRE FOR “SMALLER GOVT.”. AND IT HAS LITTLE TO DO WITH FEDERAL POLICY OR INFRASTRUCTURE, EXCEPT ON FEDERAL LANDS.

        So we say to ourselves, ever since the founding of this country, you know what, there are some things we do better together. That’s how we funded the GI Bill. A SPECIAL GOVT PROGRAM. That’s how we created the middle class. WE DID NOT CREATE THE MIDDLE CLASS. HE IS CLAIMING THAT GOVT CREATED THE MIDDLE CLASS. That’s how we built the Golden Gate Bridge or the Hoover Dam. SEE, MORE GOVT PROJECTS. That’s how we invented the Internet. ANOTHER PET GOVT PROJECT RESPONSE TO THE LESS GOVT CROWD. That’s how we sent a man to the moon. MORE GOVT PROGRAMS. We rise or fall together as one nation and as one people, and that’s the reason I’m running for President — because I still believe in that idea. You’re not on your own, we’re in this together. WE MEANS GOVT. THAT IS WHO OBAMA HAS BEEN, IS AND WILL ALWAYS BE. THAT IS HIS MESSAGE. BUT HERE IS WHERE GOOD POLITICAL SPEECH WRITERS COME IN. WITHOUT ANY KNOWLEDGE OF WHO HE IS OR THE POLITICAL BELIEFS OF THOSE AROUND HIM, YOU CAN TAKE THIS COMMENT AS NOTHING BUT REAFFIRMING THAT WE ARE ALL CONNECTED IN OUR DAILY EFFORTS, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY. OR YOU CAN TAKE IT AS AN AFFIRMATION OF THE CENTRALIZED GOVT VIEW OF SOCIETY. IN OTHER WORDS, SOCIETY MEANS FEDERAL GOVT. IN EITHER CASE IT IS A DIRECT REFUTATION OF THE PRINCIPLE OF INDIVIDUALISM THAT THE LEFT SEEMS PREOCCUPIED ATTACKING THESE DAYS.

        Yet you see, somehow, that the next paragraphs mean nothing, that he is disparaging or writing off entrepreneurs, that he is taking credit for any business successes, or whatever. BUT YOU SEE HERE MATT, I DID NOT TAKE IT AS DISPARAGING ENTREPRENEURS. I TOOK IT AS CONFIRMATION OF HIS BIG GOVT CENTERED SOCIETY PHILOSOPHY. SO THIS IS WHERE MY PERSONAL COMMENTARY MAY DIFFER FROM OTHERS BUT WHERE YOU LUMP ME IN WITH THOSE OTHERS. YOU ASSUMED I WAS MAKING THE SAME CONNECTIONS.

        THE R’S TOOK THE SINGLE LINE AND DID IN FACT TURN IT INTO AN ATTACK ON ENTREPRENEURS. AND THEY HAD GREAT FUN WITH IT AT THE CONVENTION. IT MADE FOR SOME GOOD THEATRICS.

        I AM NOT CLAIMING ROMNEY BENIGN AND OBAMA AS NOT BEING SO. I HAVE BEEN TRYING TO EXPLAIN HOW POLITICAL SPEAK AND CAMPAIGNS WORK AND HOW THEY AFFECT WHAT WE THINK, AND HOW OUR REACTIONS AFFECT WHAT OTHERS THINK.

        I GUESS I COULD CUT THE DISCUSSION AND SIMPLY CALL THEM BOTH LYING SACKS OF CRAP AND BE DONE WITH IT. BUT THEN I WOULD BE CONFUSED FOR BLACK FLAG AND WE WOULDN’T HAVE MUCH TO KEEP US ENTERTAINED.

  19. STK

    Back to the coal fields of Pennsylvania! If you look at maps of individual mining tracts in the 1840′s for example you will note that everybody and their brother was a mine owner. If you then look at the maps in the 1880′s you will note that the mines are now all owned by conglomerates. These conglomerates are by and large related to the railroads who have set prices on the shipment of coal (and other things). This in turn has forced small mine owners to sell out to the conglomerates.

    It did not “force” anything.

    The Mine owners were paid a whole lump of cash — and not have to do any mining!

    Consolidation is not predatory, nor evil, nor wrong and …ps… . there are a lot of coal mines owned by different people, still.

    You seem to believe that everything has to be owned by a small mom and pop, or its wrong!

    There was this movement back around the turn of the last century to apply the brakes on things called trusts. I would join you in arguing that some trusts are beneficial . For example ATT, being a monopoly was able to build the best telecommunication system in the world. The Government Courts broke it up.

    There you go again!

    ATT was a monopoly because government made it one, not because it was some sort of company that undercut competition.

    Bell was nearly bankrupt until saved by government writ.

    • The small mine owners could not get product to market. That, is violence.

      ATT, two sides to the same coin. Monopoly is good (for a time) Monopoly is bad (for a different time).

      I’m still waiting on the apple farmers holding their fields fallow.

      • Wonder how they got coal to market before the train?

        Also remember that government did two things: gifted land for the trains and stop competition of other trains.

        There is no case -none- of a free market freeze out of any business.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          BF

          Kind of like the Canada pipeline now under construction in the USA.

        • Barges down the Lehigh. Don’t know what the deal was on the land for Railroads early on in Eastern PA . I would bet it was not the same as the transcontinental deals. Do know that Iron/Coal/Railroads had tremendous political clout in Harrisburg and were mostly HQ’d in Philly.

          When one becomes a trust and purchases all the railroads or barge canals or inkwells, one has tremendous power. Again, that is why the US Govt. got in the Trust busting business.

          • No, the gov’t did not get into the trust busting business to break up “monopolies” – none existed.

            They were examples of cronyism – where government was used to attack competitors.

            The Sherman Anti-trust acts was merely a tactic to implement even more tariffs against foreign competition – in fact, a new tariff bill was introduced 3 months after the Sherman act.

            Dilorenzo writes: “Protectionists did not want prices paid by consumers to fall. But they also understood that to gain political support for high tariffs they would have to assure the public that industries would not combine to increase prices to politically prohibitive levels. Support for both an antitrust law and tariff hikes would maintain high prices while avoiding the more obvious bilking of consumers.”

  20. Just A Citizen says:

    Mathius

    re Libya and Romney and the question of BIAS.

    “Regardless. The point (per the above) is that Romney is lying with impunity and people are just letting him get away with it. ”

    First, for this to be true you must apply a standard of “clarity” and “honesty” to politicians that exceeds reality. That is the real problem here and the one that causes you to see a “lie” and me to see the “nuance” that makes it “not a lie”. What I see is political manipulation. It operates within the world of Fog that is created by political speak.

    For example, if I were Obama I would have come straight out and said: “Yesterday there was a terrorist attack on our consulate in Libya.” then moved onto the broader comments he made about 9/11 and terrorism in general. But he did not do that, and thus opened up the door to the comment by Romney. But it was not just this lack of “clarity” in the wording. It was that combined with Ambassador Rice’ and Carney’s comments the following week.

    Because you see, politicians attack actual words and not concept or context when it suits them, and they attack concepts and context when that suits them.

    Does that make it a lie in reality? Is it really a lie to say that Obama did not call the attack an act of terrorism when he in fact NEVER used that “precise” combination of words? Or is it only a distortion or stretch of the context and/or meaning?

    You see it as a lie because you have decided that the red shirts are distorting Obama’s record to their advantage. The red shirts see it as truth because the “actual words” do not exist. This is where you are correct in that the distortion or stretching is effective if “confirmation bias” is involved. But so is the blue shirts immediate conclusion that “he did say that”. However, the role of confirmation bias depends on the audience members. In this example the blue and red teams immediately went to their corners. But they were already in those corners. The question is what happened to the white shirts who are confused?

    In this case I suspect absolutely nothing. If they are truly white shirts they will be looking for more “facts” or “emotion” that they are seeking.

    Now please do not misunderstand my discussion here as some justification or defense of Romney on this. I am simply saying that he is NOT lying if you apply the standard rule of Political Speak to both candidates. And therein lies our real problem Mathius. We have come to expect it, and we are far to selective in condemning it.

    • NYTimes Forwards Fog-of-War Excuse for Obama’s Botched Libya Response, Ignores His UN Speech

      Is the New York Times engaging in some front-page pre-debate inoculation Monday on behalf of Obama regarding his administration’s contradictory reaction to the Benghazi massacre? Reporter Eric Schmitt gave the administration the benefit of the doubt in its contradictory responses to the attacks in Benghazi, Libya, which it first blamed on a YouTube clip: “How the Gap Arose Between Talk and New Intelligence.”

      Schmitt forwarded fog-of-war-style excuses for the administration, but failed to mention Obama’s United Nations speech on Sept. 25, a full two weeks after the attacks, in which the president still blamed the uprising on an anti-Mohammed YouTube clip.

      Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/clay-waters/2012/10/22/nytimes-forwards-fog-war-excuse-obamas-botched-libya-response-ignores-h#ixzz2A3RevJgC

  21. In other news…..

  22. As to the mention of oil…..remember that we (our family) are wildcatters….meaning we lease private land and drill for oil and natural gas…….(we love it when the price of oil goes up.)……Problem is the supply. There is PLENTY of domestic oil right now (our storage is full as there is no place to put it) The logistics of oil is over looked. There are not enough refineries to take our oil. China is paying a premium for oil but,as a family, we have made a decision not to sell to China on the spot market. It is not in our best interest.

    One thing this administration has done…..it is disallowing permits for the building of refineries. In other words, government is creating demand by not allowing more supply. The reason I know this, is that several Texas business men have formed a partnership and have applied for permits to build a refinery to produce only one thing…..gasoline. No diesel fuels or number two heating oil…just gasoline. The Federal Government has said no….and the land to build the refinery on is private land.

    In fairness, the Bush administration also refused the permit as did the Clinton administration.

    • I concur – this info is exactly what others in the industry have said to me as well.

    • So, how do we get past this roadblock? Who has to be buttonholed. Should the states who are willing to build sue the feds, if so, what is the likelihood they would triumph. I am suspecting that the disallowal is all related to environmental “concerns” though they seem to have no problems in building solar/windfarms on Federal lands larger than the state of Rhode Island!

      • Several years ago, the voters of eastern NE or SD (can’t remember which) overwhelmingly approved a referendum to allow a new refinery there. it was fought by the enviros during the run up to the election. After the election, they swore to use every legal tactic they could to stop it. It has not been built. Lots of alky plants have been built with our tax subsides. In my recent trips back to IA & IL see my Mom and to attend her funeral, I saw lots of windmills (also subsidized until the end of this year) and a few alky plants. The wind mills are ugly. I always liked the clear unobstructed horizons of the prairie.

        BF mentioned above that in a national emergency we could get to the our oil in record time WWI style. While, I know that drilling rigs can punch holes much faster than a couple of decades ago, we still have a limited number of drilling rigs. As mentioned here, we are also short of refining capacity. On top of that several east coast refineries have been shut down and 2 more are for sale. Most of these are old refineries. Refineries are often kept running just to avoid having to clean up the site. I am skeptical that we can mount a WWII style push for more oil or refining in an emergency because the enviros will again object. Environmental impact studies and all the other nonsense will need to followed. So much for rapid response.

        It will take a new administration that is willing to reign in the EPA and to make it more difficult for enviros to sue thus blocking action. I am not holding my breath.

      • Stephen……this is where full and unfettered competition would be the answer. Private property with private money. It is not an environmental issue at all…..everyone is willing to protect the environment…..with in reason. (No one in Texas gives a shit about an imported fire ant,… they eat quail eggs)…but it is not the environment. It is a deliberate attempt by the Federal Government to stifle drilling and refinement. Obama is the bag man this time….just as Bush was….just as Clinton was……Bush I encouraged more drilling and refinement as did Reagan.

        Texas alone has enough shale oil capacity for over three hundred years…there are other states out there in the same arena. The permits for drilling on private land are easy enough to get….but no where to take the oil. Permits for additional refinery capacity…..impossible to get. On top of that, the spot market will sell to China at a premium. Sometimes as high as 30%. It is hypocritical for the United States to enforce almost impossible EPA regulations on its own people and then sell oil to China who cares less. Open the market and the oil prices and gasoline prices will fall like a homesick brick.

  23. @Mathius……hang in there, my friend. I luv ya man.

    • Hang in there….. no, I don’t think so.. I took a month and change off from SUFA, came back and I feel the same way within a few hours. I don’t know, chief.. what’s the point?

      Then again, I would miss hearing about your early morning rifle drills..

      • Though I’m sure you don’t miss having to watch them!

        • But what you did not know is that I have moved the all girls drill team to the front yard….Mathius does not mind…he is just not telling you. I do miss talking to you guys though….but I understand.

      • If you have been following along today, you understand the beating your head against the wall thing. Always slightly shifting the question, answering something different. When I see something like “there were no trusts” I fall off the chair. Nonetheless, it does keep me away from loose women, gambling and excessive drinking.

        I hope you pop in from time to time kid, I think I have learned something from you and hopefully you from I.

      • Oh, lefty, don’t leave me! Even if I’m nuts (but not “as” nuts as BF), I enjoy reading you in here … yes, it’s banging one’s head against the wall … even when they assume an exclusively “reason and logic” argument is teaching them/learning them … I refuse to argue with BF anymore on most issues because it’s pointless … he can’t feel the same way about arguing with me because he has to confront “evil” wherever it appears … oy vey.

        JAC can make me angry at times … but that’s my emotional side (and we all know how well that’s disregarded here … double oy vey) … I don’t like it when people in need are called parasites … so I now call those in control parasites … yes, more head banging … but I don’t make this my priority in life … some arguments I skip altogether … some I stir the shit with … and some I can’t ignore … I am not an Obama fan and really won’t vote for him, but I sure and shit rather see him win than Romney … why? Two reasons (and I mean this). 1) Paul Ryan … anything to do with Ayn Rand makes me upchuck my cannoli … 2) Romney roof-racked his dog. What kind of an asshole does that?

        At least poke in and stir the fryer once in a while … or take another break until you’re bored and feel like stiring the fryer … you’ve got a kid now, you’ll be busier than you can imagine. Buona fortuna on that. It’s a beautiful thing.

        Besides, if I’m the only one calling capitalism what it is, they get to play the Plutonian card all the more … even if you defend it (capitalism), at least you see the grey areas encompassing this life (the real life BF refuses to acknowledge). It’s why I can’t argue with BF, the man lives in that universe of his … very isolated and absolutely foolish (because total anarchy will never happen) … and what’s the point of arguing small vs. big government if he’s always going to blame government anyway?

        No more Go Bills … they pissed me off for the rest of the season yesterday.

        Whatever you decide, good luck with it, brother.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          charlie

          Here is you biggest problem on these subjects. I NEVER called those in NEED parasites or vampires.

          That was YOUR assumption. YOU assumed that I was using parasite to describe only those in the 47% as you call them.

          Parasites are those who take what they have not earned in free trade with others Charlie. Those who use Govt to carry out their bleeding of the producers are the parasites. They can be poor, middle class or rich. Their economic status is not what determines whether they are of the Vampire Class. It is their political philosophy.

          Unfortunately they control the Dem Party and have controlled the Rep Party. The latter is undergoing a little Civil War over this issue at the moment. It is looking like the Vampires will remain in control of the R’s for one more election cycle, however.

          • JAC, you called me a Vampire (never mind those in need). I work two jobs. So does my wife. Always have, probably always will. I pay taxes. So does my wife. I’ve been a good boy for a while now … and although I don’t like the waste in government as much as you, I can see the alternative (what the tea party is calling for–no new taxes) as more hardship for those who do the actual work of the country (not those sitting on their asses collecting on “investments”).

            On the other hand, if I mischaracterized, I apologize, but I really don’t think I did …:)

            Now I gotta watch this last sideshow debate …

            • Just A Citizen says:

              charlie

              Yes I called you a VAMPIRE. But not because YOU take personally but because you support the notion that taking from others is righteous. And that you know this won’t work down deep because you want to keep the victim alive so you can get more from it. That is the irony of the left’s arguments.

              They realize that they need to keep just enough freedom and Capitalism going to feed their appetite.

        • A Puritan Descendant says:

          “I am not an Obama fan and “REALLY” won’t vote for him, but I sure and shit rather see him win than Romney “, or do you mean you WON’T vote for him? or maybe you really really really won’t, but might vote for him?
          LOL!, I suppose we can read that “really” in more than one way, but I bet it will be Charlie instructing his hand to pull the Obama lever come election day.

  24. Just A Citizen says:

    Talk about having a potentially CHILLING affect on Scientific discourse:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/22/earthquake-scientists-jail-conviction-italy_n_2002848.html

    • This is just so frigging annoying. This insane society that we live in that insists, absolutely insists that someone has to blamed for everything that happens. No such thing as accidents anymore, no natural causes, no acts of God. Blame somebody and then hang them. Does this remind anyone of the Salem witch trials? We really live in an anti-scientific world.

  25. Just A Citizen says:

    Mathius

    You say you withdrew from commenting because of Irrational knee jerk defense of Romney while condemning Obama for everything.

    Now you seem to be saying that because of our discussion today you see no hope and intend to withdraw again.

    I ask you then, HOW did I defend Romney today? How is my commentary irrational?

    It seems to me your frustration centers around my unwillingness to agree with you that Romney is a LIAR. I apply a pretty strict standard on what comprises a LIE Matt. It requires deliberate false statements about something someone KNOWS is false. I simply disagree with you on calling Romneys statement a LIE.

    Had you said it was wrong, that it ignored Context etc, I would have agreed. In fact I tried to explain how we need to consider both “precise wording” AND the “context”. Problem with calling someone a LIAR over Contextual Stretching is the problem of “eye of the beholder”.

    But here is my frustration with that whole “terrorism” argument. IT DESTROYED the discussion of the real issues. It was used to divert the discussion and that diversion was DUE TO Romney screwing up the argument. IT WAS ROMNEY’S fault, he blew it, he failed on this one.

    So now lets deal with the bigger picture. Or is that off limits because it criticizes the Administration?

    The White House sent Rice out on the following Sunday to talk about the stupid “video”. Carney did the same thing. Obama reinforced this “video narrative” days afterward. They piled on all the caveat speak to allow them to wiggle out later but they still spun a FALSE narrative. Testimony to Congress indicates they KNEW this was FALSE. But again, they left some wiggle room with “we are investigating” and “based on what we know now”.

    So do you think this is a FALSE criticism of the Obama Administration, or do you think it has some merit?

    And before you respond just let me say that Romney’s response on this has been pitiful in my view.

    • I simply disagree with you on calling Romneys statement a LIE.

      So when he said to a room full millionaires that he could ignore 47% of the population, was that campaign strategy, as USW believes … and if so, was he then lying during the debate when he opened that can of worms by claiming he was being depicted erroneously by Obama and was for 100% of the people?

      Pick your lie, JAC. One he obviously knew when he told it.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        charlie

        You misrepresented his statement. As YOU presented it, it would be more truthful, or at least more accurate. That is that 47% will vote for Obama come hell or high water and therefore he doesn’t need to worry about trying to get their vote. But getting a vote and “governing” are different matters.

        However, Romney was not that accurate in his first statement. He mixed up the 47% who don’t pay taxes with the 47% who will NEVER vote for him no matter what. The latter include those who are in the first group but who also pay taxes. The first group includes many of the second group but also many who WILL vote for Romney. His statements about the “entitlement class” are dead on, but his comments made it sound like these were ALL the 47% who don’t pay taxes. That would be FALSE. But did he KNOW that was false or did he simply mash up the various points?

        Given the entire recording of his comments, his tone, etc I do not consider either of your examples a LIE. I think he made some mistakes in his comments to donors. Just as Mr. Obama has done and just as about every politician has done from time to time.

        By the way, you have presented a FALSE choice with respect to him lying or not. Both of his statements can be true. If his comment was really about campaign strategy then the Obama campaigns portrayal of his comment is FALSE. Making his second statement equally TRUE.

        In your world Charlie is it possible for someone to simply misspeak or is any such mistake just a lie?

      • I just think he garbled his message. Not unusual. A lot of the stuff Obama screws up is the same. You don’t get that high up by being stupid but we have all said things the wrong way from time to time. I think the phrase is “that did not come out the way I meant it to.” the nice thing about Joe Biden is he proves my point. His mouth is so much faster than his brain and he never apologizes. I’m sure he knows that we never went to war with Iran.

  26. Just A Citizen says:

    DEBATE PREDICTIONS………………..Comments

    If Obama does not clean Romney’s clock tonight he may lose the election, Electoral College be damned.

    No sitting President should ever lose the foreign policy debate with a challenger. They have ALL THE INSIDE information. They have the power and aura of the Commander in Chief.

    If I had been advising Romney I would have coached him to make himself look like a more reasonable and knowledgeable version of Obama on foreign policy. But his advisers took him down the “adversarial” path because they think they have to disagree with EVERYTHING. So now Romney is stuck and should come out of this looking a little to BUSH LIKE. That should lose him some “undecided” votes.

    If Romney avoids the Bush tag then he has a chance. But the odds should be heavily in favor of Mr. Obama.

    Now comes the NEXT big question. WHO THE HELL IS GOING TO WATCH????

    Cardinals vs. Giants at 8:00, Bears vs. Lions at 8:30 and the debate starts at 9:00.

    I know what I will be watching, and it isn’t the two Politicians talking to the irrelevant OLD GEEZER from the MSM!!!

    I hope I don’t break my “last channel” button on the remote tonight.
    :)

    • :) I’ll be watching.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        V.H.

        Why??

        I doubt your undecided. So why not enjoy DA BEARS?

        • So I can judge for myself instead of relying on the media.

          • Just A Citizen says:

            V.H.

            Well then, I suggest a fine Kentuck Bourbon to go with that!

            You can fill us in when its over. I will look for your commentary BEFORE I listen to any of those on the Tely.

            • I’m not sure there is enough Bourbon-little past halfway mark and Romney is losing. If he doesn’t stop letting Obama control the conversation and putting him on defense he will continue to lose. Romney must make Obama go on defense to win and he isn’t doing so!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

              • My take is a little different, only caught part of it so far but he had the prez doing Me too! Me too! on Syria. Remember, all he has to do to win is not lose. I’m listening on radio.

              • I am so tired of Obama’s stories

              • Romney has been doing better the last about 30 minutes or so. :)

              • Awww, Obama sunk Mitt’s battleship…

              • Who do I think won-wow-I have a problem deciding based on what the undecideds will think. I think Obama won the first half hands down-the second half I think Romney did Very well. His ending statement was great in a “we are Americans” way- while Obama in the last half just keep making personal attacks-which I suspect everyone is SO, SO tired of hearing. And some how the end sticks with me more than the beginning. But after all the media examining every word-I think Obama will be declared the winner. But I’m not at all sure it will have much affect on the independents.

                But honestly, I’m not sure what is important to independents-but his ending statement-talking about working with both sides is a biggy to the undecideds in my opinion, And Romney managed to make that point in his final statements.

  27. Just A Citizen says:

    Baseball Lovers.

    Playoffs always have a great story but this is almost beyond the dream of every little kid.

    This Giants player named Scutaro. Been in the Bigs for something like 11 years, just doing his job, never getting to the Series.

    Now through 6 games of the National League Championship and with THREE at bats so far tonight, he is hitting ………….. .500. If this guy doesn’t get the MVP I’m sicking Charlie Stella on the powers to be.

    Also saw something I have never seen before, although the super slow motion was not around in the day. The fella for the Giants who busted it open with a single past Short Stop. The slow mow replay shows the bat shattering when he hit the ball, then the broken end hits the ball again and the ball rolls up the barrel before being launched towards short stop. In a different direction than when it was first hit.

    If it were Golf he would have been lying THREE. But in baseball it counted as a three RBI single with a double on the throw to home.

    For those that didn’t see this I suggest tomorrow you look for some YouTube or ESPN replays or something. It was simply unbelievable. As McGarver said, it “proves the Giants are getting ALL the breaks”.

    Now since the Giants are up by 7 it is time to watch them LIONS gut the Bears. Maybe!!!

    • Been switching between debate and Lions..Lions are running good but can’t catch the ball..luckily it’s still close.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Anita

        The LIONS have some serious problems. Haven’t seen them since pre-season. What the hell happened???

        This game should be tied or the Lions up by now. Good grief.

        • Turnovers and they just couldn’t catch the darn ball! :( Bring it on SF Giants!

          • Hey Anita, can you let Stafford know he ruined my fantasy league team? First pick and he’s been very disappointing ..

            • I’m not done beating him up myself yet..back-o-the-line! ;) My Spartans let me down over the weekend too! Go Tigers!

  28. @Buck. Where you been, brother?

    Good one (battleship). Could his Mittness agree anymore? Obama just won back the blowout. So long roof-racker …

    • I’ve had my hands full lately; I guess a newborn will do that to you!

      I’m sure Fox et al will claim a tie or perhaps even give a slight edge to Obama…when we all know this was pretty much a blow out. Obama schooled Romney in that one segment and throughout the rest, Romney sunk himself, demonstrating his complete lack of knowledge when it comes to foreign affairs. The visual will probably be the worst for him — he just looked uncomfortable tonight.

      Off to try to get at least dome sleep tonight. Have a good one!

  29. Just A Citizen says:

    HUFF PO headline reads Poll: Obama Trounces Romney.

    But here is the actual story under the headline.

    CNN Poll Declares Obama Debate Winner

    A CNN poll of registered voters who watched the debate found that 48 percent said that President Barack Obama won the debate and 40 percent said Mitt Romney did.

    Registered voters in the CNN poll were more likely to say Obama outperformed their expectations than Romney did, perhaps reflecting expectations set by Obama’s poor performance in the first debate.

    Fifty-nine percent of respondents said Obama performed better than expected, 15 percent worse than expected, and 23 percent said he performed the same as expected. Romney outperformed the expectations of fewer respondents: 44 percent said he did better, 26 percent worse, and 26 percent the same as they expected.

    — Emily Swanson

  30. Just A Citizen says:

    Now here is another Poll from CBS.. Good lord, how can you get such variation in polling if they are BOTH supposed to be statistically sound?

    Obama Wins Debate, CBS Poll Says

    Uncommitted voters in a CBS instant poll handed President Barack Obama the victory over Mitt Romney in Monday’s debate. Of those polled, 53 percent said Obama won, 23 percent said Romney won and 24 percent it was a tie. OH WAIT, I SEE. THIS IS “UNCOMMITTED” VOTERS WHILE CNN WAS “REGISTERED VOTERS”.

    The result is similar to the first debate, when 46 percent of uncommitted voters told CBS that Romney won. The CBS poll showed the second debate was largely a draw.

    Uncommitted voters’ trust in both candidates on foreign policy improved during the debate. The percentage believing Romney could handle an international crisis rose three percentage points, from 46 percent pre-debate, to 49 percent post-debate. Obama saw a far more dramatic jump, from 58 percent to 71 percent.

    Post-debate, voters said Obama would do a better job on terrorism, by a 64 percent to 36 percent margin. The two men were equally trusted on China, with 50 percent of uncommitted voters favoring each to deal with the world’s most populous nation.

    The CBS News post-debate poll was conducted using the GfK KnowledgePanel, a representative Internet panel, among about 500 uncommitted voters who watched the debate. Uncommitted voters in the CBS poll include those who were either totally undecided before the debate or who were leaning to a candidate, but said they may still change their minds.

    — Ariel Edwards-Levy

    SORRY, BUT THERE IS SOME RESULTS HERE I FIND VERY FISHY. REALLY MAKES ONE SCRATCH THEIR HEAD.

    • @JAC – don’t scratch your head – your hair will keep falling out. They’re all in a race for rating and to say the most ridiculous things and claim it as sound science. Complete nonsense.

    • I thought that neither party delivered a knock out punch. So as in boxing, draws go to the champ. However, Romney did not come off as rash or dangerous. But he also did not challenge the President on some things I thought he could have. On the other side, Obama did not show me how we can improve things in the ME. I saw no plan or coherent philosophy. Apologizing for our freedom of speech does not cut it with me.

  31. Just A Citizen says:

    HERE IS A PHOTO WORTH A THOUSAND WORDS.

    LETS HAVE A CAPTION CONTEST. ANYONE THINK ROMNEY WAS GETTING THE BETTER OF THE PRES AT THIS MOMENT. OR WAS THE MODERATOR JUST TRYING TO HOLD BACK SOME GAS?

    http://www.cnn.com/

  32. Sen. McCain
    “I think so, in a way, he did because I think that when you look at the president’s Rose Garden statement, that it really wasn’t talking about that act. And the reason why I don’t think he was: because he later went on “The View,” went on Letterman and others and kept repeating what they had sent his UN ambassador out to say, and say this was a hateful video that triggered this demonstration, or we don’t know what caused it. We knew – we knew within hours, Anderson, that this was a coordinated attack with heavy weapons and we now know that one of the leaders of one of the Al Qaeda-related groups was even there. It was obvious that this was not a — there was no demonstration whatsoever. And when they keep saying, well we’ll wait until we have a full and complete investigation, some facts are obvious now.”
    “I’d like to mention one other aspect if I could. Back in April and June, there were attacks on the U.S. embassy, one an IED, very serious. The British ambassador was attacked. The British closed their consulate. The Red Cross left. Was the president briefed about the danger there? I don’t expect him to know whether 16 people stayed or went, but shouldn’t he have been briefed about the deteriorating situation in Benghazi, where it was obvious that Al Qaeda were coming in across the border. That’s what we need the question to be: what did the president know and when did he know it and what did he do about it? Obviously not much.”

    http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/10/mccains-version-of-the-benghazi-answer-138870.html

    Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said the White House is the one that put Rice on the Sunday shows to push the narrative that the attack was spontaneous.
    “They kept that up for an unacceptable length of time when there was no demonstration. … It was an eight-hour attack,” he told Fox News. “They are either deceiving the American people or they are so incompetent that they don’t deserve to serve.”
    McCain and other lawmakers, meanwhile, continued to raise questions about what the White House knew regarding security at the Benghazi consulate, even as Clinton took responsibility. They pointed to earlier attacks on the consulate in April and June.
    “My question is did anyone ever inform the president of the United States about these terror attacks on our consulate,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C. “What did he know, when did he know it, and what did he do about it? It would be stunning to me for our national security team not to inform the president back in April and June.”
    Graham added: “If that’s the case, I have no confidence in our national security team.”

    Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/16/rice-blames-intel-talking-points-for-faulty-libya-story/#ixzz2A5soGvUW

  33. Just A Citizen says:

    OK, here is the video of that Double I told ya’ll about. About 40 seconds in is the hit, then the super slow motion. Scutaro got the MVP, ended with .500 for the 7 game series.

    http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/10/23/hunter-pences-screwball-the-big-blow-for-giants/

  34. Just A Citizen says:

    A good lesson in not putting things off for another day, because that day may never arrive. I was supposed to meet with Mr. Means but things kept getting in the way. Now I have left a promise to my brother unfulfilled.

    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1012/82704.html?hp=r16

  35. Just A Citizen says:

    Well here is someone who certainly didn’t think Romney did very well. And who was pretty much disgusted with the whole thing. From American Thinker

    A Most Pathetic ‘Debate’
    Michael Filozof

    The best word I can come up with to describe the final presidential debate is “pathetic.” No matter who wins, we’ve had it. What you just witnessed was the bipartisan abdication of American global leadership.

    Obama certainly “won” on style and personal attacks — insofar as such things actually matter. Romney gave his worst performance of the three debates, Obama his best. But if Obama “won” anything, he won the title of America’s Clement Attlee — the British Prime Minister who defeated Winston Churchill in 1945 and transitioned Britain from the greatest world empire since Rome into a second-tier socialist welfare state.

    A month after the American ambassador to Libya was murdered by Islamic terrorists he helped put into power — via an illegal war clearly in violation of the War Powers Resolution of 1973 — the President of the United States was talking about “roads and bridges” and “class sizes” in a foreign policy debate – and his Republican challenger talked about promoting “small businesses.” (If I hear Obama say “roads and bridges” one more time, I’m going to scream).

    On the crucial matter of Iran obtaining nuclear weapons, both candidates gushed over “sanctions” that have proven utterly ineffective. Both candidates refused to give the mullahs a clear deadline to halt nuclear enrichment — after which they’d get the opportunity to personally greet Allah, courtesy of a Tomahawk missile. You can bet money they’re laughing their butts off in Tehran at the American paper tiger and high-fiving each other after watching the debate. Clearly, Iran is pretty much guaranteed to get nuclear weapons nuclear weapons at this point.

    Sickeningly, Romney spent most of this time talking about how much he agreed with Obama. Rather than humiliating Obama for blowing off Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to meet with Jay-Z, Beyonce, and Letterman, Romney actually stole a line from Obama by saying he’d “have Israel’s back.” And rather than calling out Obama’s lousy performance as commander-in-chief in Afghanistan, where our troops (that Obama professes so much ersatz concern for) are getting shot in the back by our supposed Afghan “partners,” Romney genially agreed with Obama’s 2014 deadline and unconvincingly professed that everything in Afghanistan was going just swell.

    The whole sordid affair ended with Romney professing his love of teachers, and moderator Bob Schieffer mockingly replying “Well, I guess we all love teachers, don’t we?”

    This presidential campaign has devolved into a plastic, synthetic, insincere, focus-grouped attempt to pry defined constituencies — blacks, women, autoworkers, teachers, what have you — away from their iPhones long enough to put one party or the other into power. Nothing more, nothing less. There’s no serious contemplation of the real issues here, no honesty, and no ability on either side to unify the American public to meet the crises that surely and predictably lie ahead.

  36. Just A Citizen says:

    Another reluctant Romney voter, but a Romney voter non the less.

    And a good summary of where the Tea Party is at today.

    http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/10/would_a_president_romney_start_the_drive_for_team_freedom.html

    And with that ladies and gentlemen, I bid you a Good Night.

    • Hmmmm-sounds like someone might be changing his mind. Then of course you could just be putting up something to talk about. Here’s hoping the first possibility is the correct one. And with that I too am going to bed and it’s only 1:16-much better than 3:30 or 4:00 Night-to anyone who is still up. :)

  37. Italian court convicts 7 scientists for failing to predict earthquake

    Published October 22, 2012

    FoxNews.com

    Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/science/2012/10/22/italian-court-convicts-7-scientists-for-failing-to-predict-earthquake/?test=latestnews#ixzz2A7kIVXB3

    Ya gotta love it….this from a left leaning country that is multi party….where the High Council of Judiciary is presided over by the President. It is a sign of things to come in Europe.

  38. The debate from my viewpoint……..those that like Obama…slam dunk. Those that like Romney…slam dunk. November 2 will tell.

    On the first day of early voting, Texas found 34 early voting fraudulent ID’s. 12 of the Id’s were from dead people, the rest of the ID’s did not match the Federal or State data base….and this is just the first day of early voting.

  39. Finally..a second term agenda:

    After weeks of being challenged by Democrats and Republicans to lay out his second-term agenda, President Obama’s campaign is releasing a 20-page booklet called “Blueprint for America’s Future” on Tuesday and airing a new television ad to support it.

    The 60-second spot, called “Determination,” outlines several policy initiatives the president will tackle if he were to get reelected. Calm and poised, speaking over soft music and images of soldiers coming home, farmers in the fields and manufacturing workers in factories, Obama makes a pitch directly to the camera in the ad.

    “There’s just no quit in America and you’re seeing that right now,” Obama says, before going on to lay out several first-term accomplishments. He continues, “We’re not there yet, but we’ve made real progress and the last thing we should do is turn back now.”

    Obama then describes his plan: “Making education and training a national priority; building on our manufacturing boom; boosting American-made energy; reducing the deficits responsibly by cutting where we can, and asking the wealthy to pay a little more. And ending the war in Afghanistan, so we can do some nation-building here at home. That’s the right path.”

    some good charts at the link:http://hotair.com/archives/2012/10/23/new-obama-ad-dude-i-found-my-second-term-agenda/

  40. JAC…..perhaps the best thing is to let things lie…….I agree with BF that the best thing for the conservative thinking is to have the progressives win the election and do all the things they want to do., The wealthy will weather the storm that will happen just fine….the middle class will get so hammered..but they will have nothing to blame it on but the dems and the progressives,….we are ready and have already made our changes to prepare for the changes in the tax code,…we will not be hurt and we will make mountains of money under the progressive movement, just as we did under Carter, but that does not solve the problem. The middle class people that I have talked to, do not even understand that their taxes are going up tremendously when they can least afford it.

    What I wonder will happen….let me run this by you……..are all these doctor consortiums that have been formed, They are not going to take medicare nor medicaid and they are building their own hospitals. What will the government do about this, I wonder. The good specialists (heart surgeons, etc,) are leaving the hospitals in droves to form their own business’. They are establishing their own payment and financial terms and conditions as a private enterprise. It is amazing the number of doctors doing this and this includes OB/GYN and general health care doctors as well….they are not going to take any Federal money whatsoever. No EBT cards…..nothing. Wonder what the government will do about this?

    • “Let the Progressives win the election”

      I have two names to throw out there regarding that comment and a short comment of my own.

      Salvadore Allende

      Hugo Chavez

      Once you elect them you can’t just “unelect” them.

    • Answer to your second question, the government will throw you in jail. the regime, and do not mistake that, it is a regime will cast them as counter revolutionaries, revisionists, enemies of the people (probably not in those exact terms) and will put a few away until the rest fall in line.

      I think, when t comes to foreboding, the most foreboding thing I heard last night was how the big O promised sequestration will not happen. Are we thinking executive order here? I heard mealy mouth McCain go on about how he couldn’t stop it, it’s a law he signed, it’s illegal blah, blah, blah. The Senate has already proved that they are the new Castrati and about an effective a group as the Roman senate under Caligula or Nero.

      They do not have the guts to try the man for treason should he try something like that and they could not even define the word. Imagine Harry Ried or Charley Schumer on the defense. “Well the meaning of the word is not the real meaning of the word because the word has changed and of course these are extraordinary circumstances which were not envisioned by the founders which would probably not rise to the level of treason in their minds because only Republicans and Bradley Manning can be treasonous”. Sound about right? .

    • Totally agree, D13, regarding doctors.

      Right now, you better become friends with a doctor – he will not treat strangers in the future. They will not take new patients and they will not take Medicare patients

      • Who licenses doctors?

        • States to the licensing.

          • See, this is this common denominator thing. States license but what power do the feds hold over them? The feds provide Medicaid re-reimbursement. It is a bad deal for the states and has gotten progressively worse but they are pretty much locked in. There is that old line about taking the Kings shilling.

            • True…..but if doctors refuse medicaid and medicare……wonder what the government would do……we shall see. Just like our banking system is beginning to see……no FDIC. Huge amounts of money being removed from FDIC banks to local banks……interesting.

              • We have this Jersey bank, Hudson City Savings which is being merged. Not that I understand much about banking but apparently they were one of the few banks that weathered the storm really well since they never made BS mortgages. they have been killed by the low interest rates and have been forced to do certain things by the fed which have pushed them to the point of needing a white knight.

                The feds can get what they want merely by tightening the screws.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      d13

      Good morning Sir. Hope you and yours are well this morning.

      Answer: The “Medical Access Fairness Act”. It imposes a DEATH TAX on medical facilities that do not accept Medicaid or Medicare patients.

      Then comes: The “Medical Reform Act”. It eliminates Obama Care by providing Medicare as an option to ALL Americans.

      Once the Govt has the vast majority under their programs the Doctors will find they have to accept Fed Insurance.

      This trend you mention is old news in our part of the world. The Doc’s started building outpatient hospitals years ago and are now investing in full blown hospital care. However, they DO take Medicaid and Medicare. Without these they can’t make it float.

      Here is the 300 lb. gorilla in the room. DEMOGRAPHICS. The Doc population represents the greater population in terms of AGE. We will soon have a drastic shortage of Doc’s of all kinds. This will compound the current shortage of GP Docs.

      But the Progressives will still declare that EVERYONE NOW HAS AFFORDABLE ACCESS TO MEDICAL CARE.

      • It will be interesting to see what happens. Doctors will not take patients except friends…..like BF states. I believe that will happen. Substandard care will be the norm…………………………………except those that can afford it.

        Many doctors are moving to San Miguel Allende Mexico….where many wealthy people have gone,…..almost an American enclave in Mexico. A new American Hospital has been built with the latest in technology….( We have a ranch in that area where my parents live most of the time now )…..as I said, fortunately, we can afford other care because national health care will become sub standard. But this does nothing to help the middle class….nothing at all……and nobody sees this.

  41. Just A Citizen says:

    Interesting thought for this morning. In honor of Mathius’ list of rules.

    When a candidate for public office faces the voters he does not face men of sense; he faces a mob of men whose chief distinguishing mark is the fact that they are quite incapable of weighing ideas, or even of comprehending any save the most elemental — men whose whole thinking is done in terms of emotion, and whose dominant emotion is dread of what they cannot understand. So confronted, the candidate must either bark with the pack or be lost… All the odds are on the man who is, intrinsically, the most devious and mediocre — the man who can most adeptly disperse the notion that his mind is a virtual vacuum. The Presidency tends, year by year, to go to such men. As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart’s desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.
    — H.L. Mencken

  42. I don’t see a “win” for Obama unless you believe everything he said. Is America “stronger” today than when he took office? I don’t think so, but would like to hear other opinions. True, we are no longer fighting in Iraq. Is that what makes us stronger? It looks like Iraq is verging on a failed state with violence increasing. So another ME country will be taken over & run by extremists. This is a result of Obama’s foreign policy. He went public demanding the Egyptian president/dictator step down. He attacked Libya which has been very peaceful to the US for a decade and is now ruled by small militant groups. The “central government” cannot even insure foreign embassies are safe from attack. They have no army or police force capable of responding to large scale violence. Again, this is Obama’s foreign policy.

    Iran is still working on nuclear weapons. Egypt wants their help in going nuclear & has violated their treaty with Israel. Russia has announced they are withdrawing from the non-proliferation treaty. China has their first aircraft carrier, a second in the works. China is also forcing confrontations with Japan, S. Korea & the Philippines.

    And then there’s that mandated cut to our military. I do think we could/should cut military spending. I don’t think this is the right way to make those cut’s and again, do you believe what he said was true?

    Fact-check: Woodward wrote that Obama administration proposed sequester

    Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/10/22/fact-check-woodward-wrote-that-obama-administration-proposed-sequester/#ixzz2A82cbTjp

    • LOI……you will see a serious shift to confrontation in the Asia Pacific if Obama gets re-elected. Chine is betting on this…..and will make serious uncontested moves in the region. If Obama gets re-elected, we will lose the Asia Pacific. Pretty simple really….from one hegemonic power to another. In addition to carrier forces, there is a substantial nuclear submarine force that the Chinese have built and their new prototype will be out early next year….and ..if Obama wins….watch Taiwan very carefully. They will cease to be an American protectorate (my prediction). In addition, you will see the retirement of two carrier fleets of the United States.

      Now, of little attention, China has recently made moves into the Asia Pacific that never would have been made under a more aggressive administration. Last week, China took the unprecedented move of deserting the annual IMF meeting and World Bank in Tokyo. This is, of course, not making news here and for good reason, Obama does not need this. The reason for the snub is China’s move towards taking the Senkaku Islands from Japan (the Chinese call them Diaoyu Islands). Taiwan also claims these islands but Japan has them now….largely uninhabited but now sitting right on top of a huge natural gas reserve just recently discovered by Japan. China and Japan needs the energy very badly. Japan is an American protectorate as is Taiwan. Obama will do nothing and China knows this. After the election, and the finished construction of the new Chinese carrier fleet scheduled for June 2013, if Obama is President, China will move and no one is in position to stop them.

      One can argue….is it our business? The answer is not particularly EXCEPT that the US is pledged to Japan and Taiwan. If we do nothing to prevent the Chinese movement….we cease to be a power in the Asia Pacific. Combine that with the fact that the US, Japan, and China are the top three in economic powers. US is first, China second, and Japan third. China will overtake the United States thanks to improper trade imbalances and currency manipulations in about three years….this is why China is banking on an Obama win…..it becomes a China win and a loss of the Asia Pacific.

      • There is like no way out of this thing. We have been the global Superman and are tired of it and rightfully so. But to pull back means that we go from the top of the heap (whether we want to be there or not) to the bottom.

        His defense comments last night made me want to kick the radio (I listened, not watched). That smirking excuse for a president going on about bayonets, horses and aircraft carrier groups. Maybe someone should explain to him that carriers can’t sail without people and that boots on the ground have been proven and proven and re-proven over the past decade. I guess he is too enamored of his drone strikes, another damned “magic bullet.”.

        The only solution, long term, I guess is some type of serious counterbalance to China from So. Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Vietnam and a few others. Be nice if the Aussies took the lead but I don’t think they would be taken seriously. If it were not for the long standing, lingering hatred of the Japanese by everybody over there, they are the obvious choice to run the show.

        Oh, how I wish that we never blew it with the Russians after the wall fell.

        • I would think we could inform them we are getting out of the protectorate business and give them time to prepare their own defense. We know Japan can be a handful! If they enter into treaties with So. Korea, Taiwan & Vietnam, China might keep that peaceful, easy feeling….

          • While the Chinese have had issues with all these nations historically, The 1930,s to ’45 period really sticks in everybody’s craw regarding Japan.

            If you think about it, everybody around China has worries, from India through Southeast Asia, to Australia, Taiwan, The Philippines, Japan, Korea and Russia. Problem, is getting them all on the same page. Right now, China is poised to neutralize or take them apart one by one. Just can’t see any scenario though where they would all cooperate to hem in China.

            • China is trying to become a “superpower”. They appear to have studied history in the last decade and come up with a “plan”. It looks to include using intimidation or military force to secure desired resources. Necessity can be a real motivator. No one wants to fight a nation that may attack you with more soldiers than you have bullets….

      • Colonel – interesting you’d not mention the USS George Washington carrier group exercises in the very same disputed area. Any reason why?

        • No….it is there as part of the protectorate treaty we have with Taiwan and Japan and it is part of the South Pacific fleet. There is also another carrier fleet there as well…..and another one not too far away…..

          Two of these fleets, including the George Washington are on the short list for de-commission in 2014 under this so called sequestration or whatever it is. If we are to get out of the protectorate business as Obama wants, then we need to be prepared to release super power status. Being a Super Power is not only related to military and nuclear..,,,,,influence and economics are a part of it as well. Watch for it.

      • Colonel,

        I agree that is their intentions. Russia will also move to claim arctic oil/gas claimed by the US, Canada & others.

        I was wondering how much and what type of information Al-Quaeda got from us in Libya? The report is nothing was destroyed before the attack so, would it have been in plain English or in code? Would they be able to use it against us in later attacks?

        “CIA agents and other intelligence officials were operating out of Benghazi conducting delicate missions, including the search for over 20,000 deadly shoulder-fired missiles previously owned by Muammar Qaddafi’s Libyan forces.

        The work they conducted to seize those deadly weapons, known as MANPADS, was part of a broader and public effort by the State Department to secure them. The major concern is those weapons could be used to bring down a commercial jet.

        These officials added that the number of CIA operatives in Benghazi clearly outnumbered that of the diplomatic staff. It took two military cargo aircraft to lift everyone out of Benghazi when the fighting was over. ”

        Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/22/cia-installation-hit-in-libya-terror-attack/?test=latestnews#ixzz2A8TsVcT6

        • LOI………”Russia will also move to claim arctic oil/gas claimed by the US, Canada & others.” I don’t think even Obama would do this.

          “I was wondering how much and what type of information Al-Quaeda got from us in Libya? The report is nothing was destroyed before the attack so, would it have been in plain English or in code? Would they be able to use it against us in later attacks?” There is nothing there that could hurt us anywhere else. However, everyone above the pay grade of PFC knows where the missiles are. Our CIA knows, the administration knows, the Mossad knows…….the kindergarten class in New Jersey even knows. As to the codes and things….those things were changed the minute the drone saw the consulate compromised. Standard procedure. The names of the Libyan friendlies are already dead probably…..just like the doctor we left in Pakistan, the US did not pull them out. Even the cryptography and the digital codes were cancelled…so no worries there.

          I just hope that the total truth about Benghazi gets out before the elections….however, I am surprised that Obama has not declared a National Emergency lid on this.

  43. Colonel, I’ve always thought you would have had more sense than this!

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/23/nyc-pedicab-fares-city-council-442-for-a-ride_n_2004770.html

    “Even in an era of $500 hotel rooms and $18 cocktails, the $442 that a Texas family paid for a ride in a New York City pedicab has become notorious.”

  44. Just A Citizen says:

    Written by Rob Natelson on 21 October 2012

    The Obama administration’s “American Jobs Act”—a token measure forgotten by all but a few—is back in the news.

    Just over a year ago, I reported on the constitutional defects of the AJA, a bill clearly designed to force Republicans to vote against it, thereby giving the President political “cover” on his poor handling of the economy. (See here and here.)

    Apparently, the trick has worked. In an editorial endorsing the President for re-election, the Denver Post sought to defect criticism of Obama’s economic performance by blaming Republicans for rejecting the AJA.

    Of course Republicans had to reject it. The AJA was less about jobs than about imposing even more regulations on the economy and providing opportunities for trial lawyers, a key part of the Democratic constituency.

    And, as I mentioned in my post last year, key parts of the bill were unconstitutional, and the courts would have voided them even if (by some miracle) it had passed.

    In Congress, some bills are introduced in hopes that their passage will solve real problems. Other bills are introduced merely to box in political opponents.

    Citizens and journalists need to understand the difference.

  45. Obama has published his plan for the next four years. It mentions him inheriting the biggest deficit in history (not sure how that is part of any plan). His plan is to cut the deficit by four trillion in the next ten years. His plan is to saddle the next POTUS with an even bigger deficit than he inherited? Hasn’t he already accomplished that today? He doesn’t need another term….

    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1012/82746.html

  46. University of North Carolina Bans Term ‘Freshman’ For Sexism

    by Ben Shapiro 23 Oct 2012, 12:15 PM PDT 21 post a comment
    The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill has decided that the word “freshman” is no longer appropriate to describe first-year students. Why? The word includes “man,” and thus is not “gender inclusive.” According to statement administrators, UNC is “committed to providing an inclusive and welcoming environment for all members of our community. Consistent with that commitment, gender inclusive terms (chair; first year student; upper-level student, etc.) should be used on University Documents, websites and policies.”

    Undoubtedly, the school will now call for the city name to be changed, since Chapel Hill sounds too Christian.

    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/10/23/UNC-bans-term-freshman-for-sexism

    Oy vey!!!

  47. Media Hypocrites Stifle Free Speech of Stimulus Recipients

    by Joel B. Pollak 23 Oct 2012, 1:32 PM PDT 0 post a comment
    The mainstream media, and public radio in particular, made much of Mitt Romney’s “47 percent” remark, mocking the idea that some people had become so dependent on the federal government that they could not bring themselves to vote Republican. And yet the Cleveland Plain Dealer and American Public Media’s Marketplace argue that those whose businesses received federal stimulus funds ought not donate to Republicans.

    Marketplace’s Jeff Horwich spoke to the Plain Dealer’s Stephen Koff today, who wrote: From a Cincinnati garbage hauler to some of Ohio’s more prominent manufacturers, company executives lined up to get taxpayer money from the stimulus. Then they joined or rejoined the chorus of fiscal restraint, supporting candidates running on that platform including, in the case of some donors, GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney.

    Koff’s article, as Horwich noted, picks up the charge of hypocrisy that Vice President Joe Biden hurled at Rep. Paul Ryan in their debate on Oct. 11, referring to the fact that Ryan opposed the stimulus but wrote letters on behalf of constituents who had sought stimulus grants. Koff also amplified the Obama campaign’s theme of attacks on GOP donors, which has frequently singled out private citizens for public attack and abuse.

    Note that only Republicans are singled out–not Democrats, although eleven joined the vote against the stimulus in 2009. And Koff does not ask an equivalent question of Democratic donors–i.e. whether they donate to Obama despite opposing particular Republican policies from which they may have benefited–such as wealthy liberals who benefited from the Bush tax cuts and failed to return the difference to Washington.

    Liberals who want the government to impose higher taxes are perfectly within their rights to hold onto their money regardless. And conservatives who oppose massive government spending are perfectly entitled to apply for federal funds, especially when not doing so might put them at a competitive disadvantage.

    What Horwich and Koff are suggesting is not only one-sided, but deeply illiberal: that your right to dissent depends on whether you have received government benefits, in which case you ought not do so.

    This is exactly the conformity the left wishes to enforce. Strategists such as Robert Creamer, for example, proclaim that implementing Obamacare will stifle complaints against it.

    It is Democrats’ agenda to create a subservient class of beneficiaries that cannot speak out. And it is the media’s agenda–for some, apparently–to assist.

    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2012/10/23/Media-Hypocrites-Stifle-Free-Speech-of-Stimulus-Recipients

  48. JAC-per this national poll only 1% of women think abortion is the #1 issue-makes the Swing State poll sound like ……………propaganda!

    New Gallup Poll Shreds CNN’s Speculation on Women, Abortion, and the GOP

    By Matt Hadro | October 23, 2012 | 18:23

    After a USA Today/Gallup poll showed women in swing states thought abortion the top election issue, CNN hyped the news and cast a wary eye toward “controversial” Republican positions as the possible catalysts. Five days later, however, Gallup reported that, nationally, abortion is near the bottom of importance among voters.

    CNN hosts Erin Burnett and Anderson Cooper led their October 18 shows with the swing state poll, and anchor Carol Costello touted it the next morning. Costello wondered if “controversial” statements by certain Republicans were to blame for women suddenly treating abortion with utmost importance.

    “And that has more than a few women asking, abortion? Why now? Maybe it’s because there’s been so much controversial language surrounding the issue lately, like Congressman Todd Akin’s legitimate rape comments,” Costello played into the Democratic talking points.

    Burnett and Cooper used the swing state poll as an occasion to fact-check Mitt Romney’s past record on abortion, labeling it contradictory and “a little confusing.” Cooper did nail President Obama for misrepresenting Romney’s abortion record, but he focused more time on Romney’s contradictory positions.

    On October 22, Gallup reported, “Abortion was the top issue named by women voters in 12 key swing states as ‘the most important issue for women in this election,’ according to a recent USA Today/Gallup poll. By contrast, 1% of women and less than 1% of men, nationally, consider it the most important problem facing the nation.”

    Gallup acknowledged that both candidates have spent time on “women-centric issues such as abortion, birth control, and, more recently, gender equity in the workplace.” However, they added that “women and men put nearly identical emphasis on the economy and unemployment as the nation’s most important problems, suggesting that these are the issues they will consider most when voting.”

    Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matt-hadro/2012/10/23/new-gallup-poll-shreds-cnns-speculation-women-abortion-and-gop#ixzz2AAP42F8Z

  49. Jeremy Rozansky
    What Austerity Looks Like
    Bankrupt San Bernardino’s new, skeletal government
    22 October 2012

    Three interconnected forces brought the working-class, inland Southern California city of San Bernardino to insolvency: a burst housing bubble and lethargic economic growth; high police and firefighter salaries mandated by the city’s charter; and compounding pension obligations. Bankruptcy should give San Bernardino leverage to deal with the last two, but the big, structural changes required will not be easy or pleasant. Absent such changes, though, salaries and pensions will continue to grow faster than the city’s revenues, crowding out most other government functions and services. San Bernardino offers a telling illustration of austerity’s causes and effects: a tragic failure to think beyond the short term eventually necessitates painful reforms.

    We already know something of what San Bernardino’s government will look like in the age of austerity. The city, with a poverty rate equivalent to Detroit’s and a homicide rate that has quietly surpassed Chicago’s, declared a fiscal emergency in early July and officially filed for bankruptcy on August 1. Deferring payments to bondholders just to make payroll, the city has been forced to trim its budget radically.

    As a bridge to the bankruptcy proceedings, interim city manager Andrea Miller attempted to reduce the deficit by proposing a new budget called a pre-pendency plan. Her austerity budget, which passed with only a few changes after much haggling, will form the basis of the plan submitted to the bankruptcy court. The city projects a $45.8 million budget deficit, which the pre-pendency plan would reduce to $7.5 million by making “draconian” and “catastrophic” cuts, in the words of some city council members. Even then, the budget wouldn’t be balanced, and the plan doesn’t address an $18 million cash deficit from the previous fiscal year. Approximately $7 million in deficit reduction comes from transfers, either from special funds—for, say, road work or sewer repair—to the city’s general fund or from the federal government. The city would save another $9.4 million by continuing a 10 percent pay reduction for some municipal workers. The remaining $21.9 million in reductions comes from drastic cutbacks to services or deferred payments, mostly to the pension fund.

    In cutting overall expenditures nearly 25 percent, the city leaves virtually no department untouched—including city hall, which will operate with a skeleton crew. Since 2006, the mayor’s office has gone from ten employees to three, counting the mayor. The city eliminated six positions from its information-technology department, cutting to the point at which “core” functions would be threatened. The city has combined departments, contracted out services, and even closed down its successful Operation Phoenix program, an anti-crime initiative Mayor Pat Morris launched shortly after taking office in 2005. San Bernardino’s community-policing effort will thus lose its two headquarters, which also served as community centers. Three of the city’s four libraries will close, while layoffs will hit 32 parks department employees and one-third of the city’s code-enforcement officers.

    These savings, however, won’t be enough to erase the deficit. San Bernardino spends about three-quarters of its budget on public safety—meaning police and firefighters. Very little in the police budget is devoted to non-personnel expenses, so the cuts inevitably affect staffing levels. The new budget leaves the department with 320 employees, down from 379. Most of the reductions were to civilian support staff, not sworn officers. But the police will have a great deal more work, especially now that the department will pick up the slack from laid-off code-enforcement officers. Residents can assume that crime rates will continue to climb, especially given the demise of Operation Phoenix.

    The firefighters’ union has been the most stubborn and transparently self-interested in San Bernardino. The average firefighter earns about $150,000 per year, and the union has resisted making any salary concessions. The city manager’s initial proposal would have eliminated 20 positions and either closed down a battalion or implemented rotating brownouts (that is, temporary shutdowns) of stations. City council members, some elected with help from the firefighters’ union and many worried about angry constituents facing slower response times, postponed a decision to explore alternative proposals. According to the city, the San Bernardino Fire Department has among the highest call loads in the country for a department its size.

    San Bernardino’s austerity plan leaves an atrophied city government, but essential functions remain in place. Crime will likely go up, but it won’t necessarily skyrocket. Greek-style looting and arson appear unlikely. Closing three of four libraries isn’t ideal, but it isn’t the end of civilization, either. At the same time, however, the deep cuts do make San Bernardino an even less hospitable place. Businesses will be even more skeptical about moving to a city where the government can’t afford to fill potholes or respond quickly to crimes because it has been compromised by decades of poor decision-making. Much of the city’s deficit reduction is in deferred payments that have recently earned the ire of the California Public Employees’ Retirement System and the Securities and Exchange Commission; under a “best-case scenario,” the budget is unlikely to be balanced even with these cuts and deferrals. San Bernardino can balance its budget only by boosting revenues, which requires more businesses, not fewer. It’s not clear how long the city can continue on this unsustainable path.

    Perhaps bankruptcy will prove the ultimate salve, cutting away the structural inefficiencies (from pensions to high municipal salaries) that went unaddressed for years. The city’s options are now limited, because it waited too long to address these problems. The United States has many structural problems of its own—most notably Medicare—and, as San Bernardino shows, myopia is never recommended. San Bernardino is a tragedy—and a warning to the rest of the country.

    http://www.city-journal.org/2012/cjc1022jr.html

  50. Email Alerts Describe 9/11 Benghazi Consulate Assault Unfolding

    A series of email alerts sent as Obama administration officials monitored the attack on the U.S consulate in Benghazi last month are the latest to shine light on the chaotic events that culminated in the death of U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans.

    The names of the individual recipients of the emails, first reported by CBS News but independently obtained by ABC News Tuesday evening, are redacted. A source who requested anonymity said it appears they are sent by the State Department Operations Center to distribution lists and email accounts for the top national security officials at the State Department, Pentagon, the FBI, the White House Situation Room and the office of the Director of National Intelligence.

    The first email, with a subject line of “U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi Under Attack,” sent at 4:05 PM about 25 minutes after the attack began, describes an assault on the compound by 20 armed people.

    “The Regional Security Officer reports the diplomatic mission is under attack,” the email states. “Embassy Tripoli reports approximately 20 armed people fired shots; explosions have been heard as well.”

    “Ambassador Stevens, who is currently in Benghazi, and four COM (Chief of Mission) personnel are in the compound safe haven,” the email continues. “The 17th of February militia is providing security support.”

    The next email sent at 4:54 PM states that the shooting has stopped and the compound was cleared, adding that a response team was “onsite attempting to locate COM personnel.”

    The third email updates officials that Ansar al-Sharia claimed responsibility for the Benghazi attack on Facebook and Twitter, and has threatened to attack the Tripoli embassy.

    The timing of the emails is consistent with what a senior State Department official told reporters at a briefing on Oct. 9.

    http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/10/email-alerts-describe-911-benghazi-consulate-assault-unfolding/

  51. Saw this-and thought it was funny! Hope it’s true!!!!!!

    Uninstalling Obama……… █████████████▒▒▒ 90% complete.

  52. I’ll give you lunatics on the right this much: The fact these Benghazi emails came out after the last debate is very suspicious. Depending on how the media pursues this, it could be the game changer.

    • The nice thing to see, regardless of party affiliation would be for everybody to acknowledge that this is the most inept president in the history of the United States. His administration staff equals or even surpasses his ineptitude. After falling on her sword, I have not seen anything further from Hillary. Bill is relatively quiet. While acknowledging that he “supports” Obama, Colin Powell has been silent.

      If you don’t like Romney, that’s fine but there is no defense for this guy at all. None. This is not president of the Junior Class at Theodore Roosevelt High School here, it is the presidency of the United States of America. That the country could have been so easily tricked into voting for this empty suit sends alarm bells off in my head that you would not believe. I do not care if you hated George Bush, I don’t care if you despised Hillary or if you thought that McCain was damaged goods from his Vietnam War captivity. Rocky Raccoon as a write in would have been better.

      I’m still listening to fools and I guess tools on the radio defend the President on his inane, inaccurate and deceitful comments on the Mohammed video. The guy who made that stupid thing is languishing in jail. He, for all intents and purposes is like Bradley Manning, a political prisoner. Where the hell have we gone? Eric Holder is still “holding out”. These people have to go and they have to go now.

      • gmanfortruth says:

        SKT, Good Morning :) I believe that Obama and many members of his adminstration should be arrested for high treason. Obama is a complulsive liar and he can’t stop. Too bad so many beilieve this moron. Obama is an embarrassment.

  53. The nice thing to see, regardless of party affiliation would be for everybody to acknowledge that this is the most inept president in the history of the United States.

    Most inept? I’m not so sure, although I believe he has been inept (probably for very different reasons). I don’t know how you so easily discount Bush’s foray into Iraq … lots of Americans were killed and maimed for what was the reason(s) again? His ignoring Afghanistan while he started the 2nd fiasco was pretty inept too.

    The fact Obama has been Bush on steriods in too many areas proves his ineptness … but getting us out of one disaster puts him ahead of Bush for me.

    • I see the bottom three as Obama, then Bush then Carter. Obamas legacy on Iraq and A’stan will be he “lost”. Not that anyone could have “won” but, he was there. .

      Iraq was, no doubt a mess. Should have apologized after not finding WMD’s, canned the entire CIA, asked for Cheny and Rumsfeld’s resignations, and left. Instead the schmuck started “nation building”. I dunno about A’stan. Personally, we could occupy the place for 100 years with 500,000 troops and the day we left it would collapse again. Another place where I think the best bet would have been to go in, displace the Taliban, kill Al Queda and leave telling them we would not be so nice the next time if we had to come back.

      I have always wondered what it is in the Progressive’s heart that makes them think they can impose their ideas of peace, justice and freedom on people who have no history of same or no desire for it. Now that they are talking about Obama’s apology tour, specifically where he talked about the US “imposing” things. It becomes laughable looking at his idea of foreign policy. You have to reach back to Kennedy and Eisenhower to find as much delusion. As a 12 to 17 year old (’59 to ’64), I bought it back then but, when I focused on our efforts in SE Asia, I knew we couldn’t really pull it off without doing things that we had no heart or stomach for, either an eternal occupation or brutality far beyond what the French did in Algeria. They proved it could work but, look what it did to them.

    • But Charlie….out of one disaster into three more hardly qualifies that statement or do you not see Egypt, Libya, Yemen, Erithea as disasters?

      • Compared to what it’s cost us in life and coin, Colonel? Iraq & Afghanistan will far exceed whatever Obama does for a long time to come … and thanks for reminding me to remind Stephen how Bush put BOTH WARS ON A CREDIT CARD. Come on, fellas, this is an absurd argument. You know I’m no Obama fan, but how can you come close to comparing him to Bush? No contest.

        • I didn’t know we ‘saved up’ for wars. They are all on credit aren’t they?

          • Nope … so many on the right speak of responsibility and how much they love our military, etc., etc. … how about a special tax to support the wars? Not even mentioned. Bush said, “Go shopping.” Brilliant S.O.B. he was.

            And again (see my last post to Stephen) … romney/Vietnam … the beaches of France rather than Vietnam … his 5 sons, none of them served … it’s good to be rich in America … you can let the suckers die and get maimed to protect the big money. Why I favor a draft … for everyone, no exceptions (other than serious physical ones) … and the sons and daughters of politicians voting for war get to send their kids to the front lines first …

            Mr. Romney, you paying attention?

        • Everything’s been on a credit card since Vietnam. look at the history of inflation. The only sympathy I have for Carter, if I have any, is that he was the guy it first fell on.

          Anita, WW 1 and WW 2 were pay as you go ostensibly. Remember the “buy war bonds” clips at the end of the old movies “sold in this theater”.

          It is not just the wars in Iraq and A’stan, it is what he has set us up for in the future with his well intentioned meddling. As Al Jolson said in “the Jazz Singer”, “You ain’t seen nothin yet”.

          • Understood…as I have for the several other comments you’ve left me recently. You just stump me SK, with lessons well taken ;)

        • No, Charlie…..you cannot measure is a war is ok in life and coin…..if One…just one life is lost…it is still a war. One or one hundred….it does not matter. There is no measure to war…

  54. A European-based human rights group will monitor U.S. elections in November, The Hill reported Saturday.

    Let’s see…..isn’t this an oxymoron?

    • Just A Citizen says:

      d13

      And according to the reports I read last night the TEXAS Sec of State has told them to pound sand. But in a nice southern gentleman kind of way, of course.

      • @ JAC……update. The State of Texas will not allow UN monitoring…..period. If they show up, they will be escorted away from all polling places. The State of Texas does not need outside help, according to our Governor and the Attorney General. The Southern tone went away yesterday…there will be no civil rights groups, KKK, Black Panther’s, or any protest group allowed anywhere close to any election station…..it will be enforced.

  55. Just A Citizen says:

    I just watched 5 minutes of the Libya email coverage on CNN. I think that ex reporter who called them out was correct.

    It was sickening watching their reporter and the host make excuses, obfuscate and dilute the importance and the implications. The willingness to “give them the benefit of the doubt” is overwhelming and makes me ANGRY.

    Basically, we need to be careful because we still don’t know the whole story. Hillary Clinton responding to questions again puts out the story that “we are still investigating and until we know the WHOLE story people should stop speculating and “” Cherry Picking”” the information”.

    Right ……. Cherry Picking. So now the VAST RIGHT WING CONSPIRACY as morfed into a problem with people picking cherries.

    This has the potential to not only sink Obama but to destroy any last remaining credibility the MSM may have with Joe/Jill Public. But then who is going to expose the media??? The media???

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Here is the current article at ABCnews website.

      The White House this morning attempted to down-play the significance of emails sent to top national security officials during the attack on the diplomatic post in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11, one of which suggested a known terrorist group claimed credit for the attack in its immediate aftermath.

      As obtained by ABC News’ John Parkinson and posted last night, the emails seem to be ones sent by the State Department Operations Center to distribution lists and email accounts for the top national security officials at the State Department, Pentagon, the FBI, the White House Situation Room and the office of the Director of National Intelligence.

      One of the emails reported that officials that Ansar al-Sharia claimed responsibility for the Benghazi attack on Facebook and Twitter, and had threatened to attack the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli.

      In the first couple weeks after the attack, the White House and Obama administration generally blamed the attack on a demonstration an anti-Muslim video that got out of control. On September 14, White House press secretary Jay Carney asserted that “we have no information to suggest that it was a preplanned attack.” Only later would the Obama administration say the attack was planned.

      White House officials maintained that the emails don’t contradict what the White House believed at that point, based on the intelligence community’s assessment of the attack. The views of the intelligence community are valued far more than Facebook and twitter claims, officials said, describing that email as an unclassified ops alert email, not a vetted intelligence assessment. It was not definitive, but rather the act of flagging open source reporting referencing a Facebook post, and – officials noted — on September 17, Ansar al-Sharia denied responsibility for the attack.

      Carney today told reporters that there were emails about all sorts of information that was coming available in the aftermath of the attack. “There was a variety of information coming in,” Carney said. “The whole point of an intelligence community and what they do is to assess strands of information and make judgments about what happened and who was responsible.”

      Moreover, officials said, the intelligence community still believes there wasn’t a tremendous amount of planning before the attack. A terrorist group carrying it out doesn’t mean it wasn’t an opportunistic attack, officials said.

      The first email, with a subject line of “U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi Under Attack,” sent about 25 minutes after the attack began, states: “Regional Security Officer reports the diplomatic mission is under attack. Embassy Tripoli reports approximately 20 armed people fired shots; explosions have been heard as well. Ambassador Stevens, who is currently in Benghazi, and four COM (Chief of Mission) personnel are in the compound safe haven. The 17th of February militia is providing security support.”

      The next email sent at 4:54 PM states that the shooting has stopped and the compound was cleared, adding that a response team was “onsite attempting to locate COM personnel.”

      -Jake Tapper and John Parkinson

      ANYONE NOTICE HOW THE ADMINISTRATION IS CHANGING THE “STORY” AGAIN. ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF USING WEASEL WORDING TO ALLOW TAKING ANY POSITION LATER. VERY MUCH LIKE I WAS TRYING TO EXPLAIN TO MATHIUS THE OTHER DAY.

  56. Whoa dang..Trump is putting his money where his mouth is:

    • Just A Citizen says:

      A STUPID STUNT.

      Or should I say ANOTHER stupid stunt!

      This kind of stuff right now will BACKFIRE.

      • JAC and I finally agree … on the second part (backfire) one can only hope …

      • Not so sure JAC,
        #1, Trump likes to talk. This will get him a lot of attention that he seems able to turn into money for himself. Bet he gets more than $5 million worth of publicity from this stunt.
        #2 Getting Obama or any of his defenders talking about this subject will hurt Obama. Even if Obama was born in Hawaii, if he registered in college as a foreign student it will cast a lot of doubt.
        #3 This is like the demands for Romney’s tax returns. Even if everything in them is legal & proper, it provides ammo you did not have before. Not returning a library book will somehow be a past felony….Grades, school organizations (was he a socialist or communists?)

    • This is what we have been waiting for?

  57. Everyone ready to pay their “cow tax”?

    http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/50524

  58. D13, questions for you. How do these drones work? Report that there was one “over” Benghazi. Who authorizes them, how long does it take to get them in position and how much/far can they “see”? Would this drone already have been in place? Is it common to have them just out and about anywhere?

    The after response has been ridiculous, but I am also curious about why this crew was there. Red Cross had pulled out and read (I think) the Brits had as well. Stevens clearly had concerns about safety, yet he was flown INTO there, on or the day before 9/11. Why?

    If we were watching this attack in real time, why didn’t we send in help? From anywhere? From our own sources or other foreign consulates that were there. It apparently lasted 7 hours. Are we really that defenseless that we couldn’t even respond when we knew it was happening? Was told they couldn’t even get to the Benghazi site to investigate afterwards for several days because it was too unsettled. Yet CNN and other media were able to get there and, among other things, find Stevens diary.

    What really was going on here, that this Adm. is so willing to lie, lie and lie again? And what is up with Petraeus? Have no illusions about getting truth out of O and Hillary, but hoped he was better than that.

    • I’m just going to throw this out there knowing it’s probably far fetched and I’ll probably catch hell for it .

      Stevens was gay. Rumors abound about Obama and several male encounters..bath houses, etc, Did Stevens know something about Obama that would cast him in a bad light..maybe a bath house round or two together? Why would you leave an (gay) ambassador unprotected, then cover it all up with things like a video and whatever else? It has to be something big..I’m jus sayin…..

      But then.. Obama killed Osama. that means we won the teror war, right. He said he was going to get Osama. Mission Accomplished. But, oops, terrorists blew that plan. How can we call it terrorism when we took out Osama?

      • I wouldn’t go there. Personally I think that our hubris as Americans lets us do something stupid like sending a gay man to an Arab country. If it is alright for us then it should damn sure be alright for them. That we insult them never enters the picture. I keep harping these days on the stupidity of progressives in thinking that because they want it or wish it to be so, then, like a magician, it is so. These are the most delusional people in the universe.

        Until the daddies of those little girls in Afghanistan are willing to stand up and fight for their daughters right to be educated, we sure as hell will not be able to impose it and in fact are probably sentencing a good number of them to death once we are gone.

        The sixties generation, my generation, was NOT going to make the mistakes of their fathers and mothers. They were not going to be drunks, not going to self medicate, not put the almighty dollar or power first on their agenda and not tell the rest of the world how to live their lives. Today, they look around and claim that they did not and yet are leaving an even bigger mess for their children and grandchildren than they claim was left for them.

    • @ Kathy…ok here ya go…….Drones, as you know, are flown by remote control, They can be controlled from one mile away or they can be controlled from 10,000 miles away. On the Texas border, we control them from Killeen, Texas and Dallas/Fort Worth. Killeen is 150 miles from the border and DFW is 300 miles from the border. Drones are normally assigned to specific areas and are flow very much like AWACS are flown….24/7 depending upon the mission. There are three types of drones….(1) Offensive, (2) Defensive, and (3) Intelligence gathering…..again depending upon the mission. The drone flown over Benghazi was intelligence gathering. All have laser optics. Intelligence gathering drones can be flown as high as 5,000 ft and can zoom in close enough to read shoulder patch or a cigarette package. The actual speed of drones is classified but they can fly as slow as 35 mph….top speed is classified no matter what Wikileaks tries to tell you….they do not know. Drones are mission dependent…for example, on the Texas border we have offensive and Intelligence gathering drones. Drones are commonly used in hot spot areas and Libya (Benghazi) would be a 24/7 operation. I know this as fact. The drones over Benghazi know everything. They are commonly directed over trash dumps and landfills and pictures routinely taken. Wrappers and food labels tell us who is in the area.

      You asked about the Brits and the Red Cross and why they pulled out. They pulled out because they knew what was happening and so did we. The Consul employees are directed by the State Department and the State Department rolled the dice and up comes snake eyes. They basically sentenced the consulate to death.

      You asked why help was not sent. Unlike what the MSM reports, military intervention in these cases is NOT left up to the generals. It is White House directed. The State Department (Clinton) does not have military intervention authority. It has to come directly from the President. Unlike what is reported and what is touted by the left, the President knew exactly what was happening and when it was happening. He is briefed daily and briefed on Air Force One each and every time it lifts off. There is no way that the term “plausible denial” can be used in this case. None. I know the procedure verbatim.

      The reason is very simple. This administration did not want the fact that Al Queda is stronger now than it has ever been to be realized by the American people. The taking out of Bin Laden, while necessary, was only one head of the hydra….and another one grows in its place. It is an election year and the Benghazi contingent was expendable. There is nothing more to say. Hope this helped.

      You will have some proclaiming that what I said is bullshit…so be it. I know what happened, I know how it happened, I know the decision making process, and I know why it was made.

      Another fact on drones…they have now developed the stealth capability beyond that of what was captured in Iran….drones today are more silent and more radar resistant than ever. They can fly into your kitchen while you are in the den and you will not know it….metaphorically speaking, of course.

  59. gmanfortruth says:

    @Charlie, Bush was a puppet. Obama is a puppet. Next up will be a puppet. It matters not who you vote for, they are just puppets!

  60. Just A Citizen says:

    I wonder why I have never seen any of this information shared on a major network, newspaper or web site?

    Barack Obama: Soft on Rapists

    By: Dan McLaughlin (Diary) | October 24th, 2012 at 11:25 PM | 0

    President Obama – having nothing better to talk about in his record – spent tonight on Jay Leno taking wildly out of context Richard Mourdock’s defense of his pro-life position even in cases of rape and incest, a position that may not be politically poll-tested but is morally admirable. Obama, desperate to stem the bleeding with female voters, is trying to cast Republicans as somehow sympathetic to rapists.

    But it’s Obama who has a voting record of being soft on rapists and other sex offenders. Erick covered this in 2008, but it’s worth revisiting here because it illustrates how Obama, four years into his tenure as President of the United States, is willing to stake his entire presidency on hoping nobody notices his actual record:

    In 1999, Barack Obama was the only member of the Illinois State Senate to vote against a bill that prohibited convicted criminal sex abusers from getting early release. The amendment to the “County Jail Good Behavior Allowance Act” provided that a person in a county jail may not receive a good behavior allowance if he is convicted of criminal sexual assault against a minor who is also a family member or if the criminal were to be convicted of criminal sexual abuse or aggravated sexual abuse. The legislation, S.B. 485 (IL 1999), passed 54-1.

    Likewise, Barack Obama refused to support Illinois Attorney General Jim Ryan’s effort to toughen laws on pedophiles and rapists by revamping the “Sexually Violent Persons Commitment Act.” The legislation, among other things, required disclosure of mental health records of a person being prosecuted as a sexually violent person. It also beefed up crimes against incarcerated sexual predators by employees of prisons. The legislation, H.B. 2008 (IL 2001) passed 47-1.

    Obama also refused to support legislation in 1999 that would protect the privacy of sex-abuse victims by allowing the victims to request the trial records be sealed. Naturally though, he later reversed himself.

    In 2003, Obama would not vote at all on H.B. 338 when it crossed over to the Illinois Senate. That legislation made sex offenders ineligible to sit on school boards.

    Perhaps most troubling though, was Obama’s 2001 vote against H.B. 1912. The legislation came about in response to a brutal gang murder in Chicago and was designed to put gang members who kill in furtherance of gang activity on death row. Obama voted against the legislation and he even spoke out against the bill on the Senate floor. He claimed to be concerned that the term will be used to “target” certain neighborhoods. The legislation passed 44-9.

    Consistent with that theme, Obama voted no on creating the offense of “unlawful contact with street gang members.” The legislation provided that it would be a Class A misdeamenor for a person who is sentenced to probation to knowingly have contact with a street gang member if a condition of probation was for the person to refrain from contact. The legislation, S.B. 1846 (IL 1998) passed 54-3, but not with Obama’s support.

    It’s all well and good for Obama to say he is against rape. But when he had the opportunity to vote for tougher crimes against pedophiles, gang members who murder, and sexual violent criminals, each time Obama stuck up for the criminals and not the victims.

  61. Just A Citizen says:

    Some good tongue in cheek but also some very good things to consider.

    Todd……… you are one of the environmentally concerned. Do you see some truth in this?

    October 24, 2012
    Environmental Protection: The Enemy of Green
    By Anthony J.Ciani

    Most people would be surprised to discover that the laws, regulations, and mandates designed to protect our environment may actually be harming it instead. Long gone are the days of sooty smog, acid rain, brown sunsets, leaded children, and rivers on fire. The new environmental challenges are almost imperceptible, and until the development of highly-advanced, highly-sensitive atomic mass spectroscopy systems, unmeasurable. To combat these nearly invisible and unmeasurable problems, new regulations and mandates have gone into effect. But these new regulations and mandates may actually be hindering our attempts in dealing with the more measurable and easily observed problems, as well as our economy.

    The Earth is like a giant conveyor system. The inside is full of useful things and nastiness, which are emitted from holes in the ground as gases (e.g. water, carbon dioxide, and sulfur dioxide) and solids in the form of volcanic ash and lava. These materials are then absorbed or leached by surface water, and eventually end up inside living things. The living things die and become dirt and then rock, which is very slowly either re-leached by water or pushed back down inside the Earth. Pollution is caused by human activity when we dig up these resources and put them back on the surface of the Earth, faster than water and life can put them back inside. Of particular concern are the gases released from burning fossil fuels; carbon dioxide and sulfur dioxide.

    Sulfur dioxide is one of the big nasties, responsible for smog, haze, and acid rain. We hear very little about acid rain nowadays, but it still exists. We still emit one-third of the sulfur dioxide we did at the peak of the problem, and our sulfur recovery technologies are just about maxed out. The only way to reduce sulfur dioxide and carbon dioxide emissions further is to use less fossil fuel, which means alternate energy sources or greater energy efficiency, which requires technology, but technology often has issues with those more invisible environmental problems.

    After fixing the problems with burning lakes and rivers, environmental protection found a new enemy: toxic metals. Metals are purified from ores that are extracted from the ground. Many different metals tend to be found in the same ores. For example, lead and cadmium are usually found with zinc, and zinc may be found with copper. Much of that zinc (with lead and cadmium) was once part of living organisms, and was concentrated into ore deposits during metamorphic transformation of the limestone (calcium carbonate) that was created by those organisms. How did it get into the living things in the first place? It was leached out of rocks by surface water. All of the toxic metals are found naturally on the surface of the Earth, in water and living things, and frequently at levels higher than what the EPA considers “safe”, but significantly lower than what causes adverse health effects.

    So what has a radical crusade against toxic metals gotten us? One company wrote a proposal to the Department of Energy to investigate a way to make cadmium telluride (CdTe) solar cells more efficient. Many of the reviewers thought it was a good idea, but one reviewer said, “nothing with cadmium is any good.” The proposal was not funded, probably beaten out by a shrimp treadmill, but at least that reviewer prevented all of that cadmium getting from our environment back into our environment. You see, whether it is used to make solar cells or not, all of that cadmium comes as a byproduct of zinc smelting. It has to go somewhere.

    Lead is used to make batteries, and batteries are needed to store energy for when the Sun goes down or the wind stops blowing, or when you unplug your electric car. Lead was one of the cheapest metals around until the lead crusade started. Now the batteries alone make solar cells and electric cars too expensive. Yes, putting lead into gasoline and creating a lead vapor smog over the entire world was not a good idea; neither was using lead as a paint pigment, but the crusade continued. Do you seriously expect your child to munch down your cell phone, eat your kitchen faucet, consume your car battery, or rip apart your computer to make motherboard pasta? The lead crusaders did. The result is called RoHS (Restriction of Hazardous Substances), which defines minimum levels of toxic metals in electronic devices, often as ‘no detectable amount’. Then along came measurement methods that could detect single atoms. Thanks to Mother Nature, our entire world is a toxic waste dump. We were only just able to notice.

    As new health studies observe toxic effects down to levels even below those naturally present, the limits on allowable toxic metals get even lower, and technology gets even more expensive. Talking about lead and cadmium, did you know that the toxic effects of these metals are very similar to chronic calcium deficiency? Their method of action is to displace calcium, and when calcium is lacking, they come in. Did you know that about 70% of children and 50% of adults are calcium deficient? What have those studies actually been measuring?

    While we torture ourselves with possibly baseless, excessive environmental protection, business has already found its own solutions: foreign countries. When businesses feel as though they are “under attack from our own government”, they find nicer governments. Many people think that businesses move to China for the cheap labor, but this is simply not the case. The difference is that China does not attack its businesses: the business of China is business. To start a factory in America, you need millions of dollars in lawyers and several years to get through all of the permitting and regulation issues. If you are working with pollutants, you need a workforce that is certified, in multiple ways. Most of your applicants are probably unqualified due to the certifications alone. Meanwhile, all of the unskilled Chinese labor is more than qualified to run a clean shop, in China, if you choose to run a clean shop.

    How to fix it? First, we might get rid of certifications. All they do is make our workforce unqualified, and put money into the deep pockets of big education. Look at Chicago’s failing public schools, staffed by certified teachers who fail at teaching. Very few of the teachers in private schools are certified, and yet they are generally considered superior. The same is true of all certifications.

    Most definitely, listen to the concerns of small businesses. Big businesses like onerous mandates; big government harassment is a good way to kill potential competitors. Just because a business complains about the rules, regulations and mandates does not mean they “just want dirty air and water.” Business sees a flaming hoop, with no valid justification, not a reasonable rule to prevent pollution. Politicians should listen, not make ridiculous accusations.

    • JAC,
      You might be surprised that I do see some truth in this, but not the conclusions most on the ‘right” have reached – to eliminate the EPA.

      I realize the earth is naturally full of environmental hazards, but we are digging them up and concentrating them exponentially faster than anything “natural.” Black Flag likes to use the analogy “how much sewage is acceptable in your water?” His answer is zero.

      So how much pollution is acceptable to you? Would you be ok with a 19th century zinc mine and smelting operation in your backyard? After all, it is all “natural”…

      Anthony needs some REAL facts to back up his claims. I just love all the qualifiers he puts in here:

      While we torture ourselves with possibly baseless, excessive environmental protection, business has already found its own solutions: foreign countries. When businesses feel as though they are “under attack from our own government”, they find nicer governments. Many people think that businesses move to China for the cheap labor, but this is simply not the case. The difference is that China does not attack its businesses: the business of China is business. To start a factory in America, you need millions of dollars in lawyers and several years to get through all of the permitting and regulation issues. If you are working with pollutants, you need a workforce that is certified, in multiple ways. Most of your applicants are probably unqualified due to the certifications alone. Meanwhile, all of the unskilled Chinese labor is more than qualified to run a clean shop, in China, if you choose to run a clean shop.

      If he doesn’t know if the “excessive environmental protection” is baseless or not, then he’s just making assumptions.

      China is not a nicer government to do business with. He points out the generic hassles of starting a factory here, but ignores the hassles and politics of stating a factory (or any business) in China. The cheap and abundant labor, and the lax environmental laws are the reasons business move production to China.

      And how is this choosing to run a clean shop working out? China is fast becoming an environmental waste land. Not a standard I want to replicate here.

      I’m always amazed how the “right” uses China as their example of “freedom”. Last I checked it was a Communist country. Doesn’t that go against your ideals of “freedom”? Or do you want us to move in the direction of China’s economic and political systems?

      Business sees a flaming hoop, with no valid justification, not a reasonable rule to prevent pollution. Politicians should listen, not make ridiculous accusations.

      I think politicians should listen to people, not businesses.

      Maybe Anthony should stop his “ridiculous accusations”?

  62. Anita/JAC;

    Well now that the Giants have knocked the cob webs out of our heads and spanked the bench dust off our asses, it is time to play “real” baseball.

    Win tonight, come home and knock the beanstalk our from under the Giants and then party.

    CM

  63. Sandoval clubbed us to death..against Verlander, eek! I’m happy for him though..something he can tell his grandkids. But it’s time to get down to bizness.

    • Anita;

      Just lucky, had the “V’s” number, especially when you consider that the guy only hit 12 dingers all year. Hopefully Fistor has his eye, the Big Boy Bats come out and we can come back home with 1 win under our belts. With the weather changing those thin blooded Giants might have some problems warming up. Plus then they get to play in a real ballpark.

      The wife and I will be locked onto the TV from 8:00 pm on wearing our Tiger jersey’s.

      Go Tigers!

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Anita and Common Man

      The Giants have momentum and as CM pointed out, the Tigers are rusty from sitting a week. But right now the Giants should be favored to win this.

      Both clubs obviously have great pitching. It is in the BATS that the Giants seem to have the edge right now. Hitting is a momentum thing and the Giants are on a roll. Their hitters are adjusting to the various pitchers faster than the other guys. Think of how close and low scoring the Yankee/Tiger games were. Once the Giants figured out what the Cards were doing they hammered the pitching.

      Look to the bullpens. The Giants scored three on the Tiger pen last night.

      The Tiger hitters still look anxious. When you see so many guys biting on the two strike breaking balls low or low and away you know they are over amped.

      The questions is whether the Tiger hitters adjust and then whether they can break the Giants MOJO. Once broken the Tigers have a good shot. Because baseball is a game of “streaks”.

      One more thing. We will not see the Tiger’s closer the rest of the series. Just a wild guess….

      • JAC;

        Our guys are use to pitchers who throw fast balls equal to the major leagues, not little league. 85 MPH does not a fast ball make, so you are right they are in need of adjustment. Sandoval has only 12 regular season HR’s so I am sure Justin’s 95 mph helped put a couple of luke warm hit balls over a 400 foot fence.

        The Big Boy Bats need to breath and relax or we are going to find ourselves in a pickle. Fistor should do fine tonight since his pitching style is different, and Justin did admit that he was “off” last night.

        I know momentum is trouble, but we have been behind the 8 ball all year, so they should rally like they did in the 4th game against NY.

        If we can win tonight then we will have a very good chance to close it out at Comerica Park. If we don’t we will be at a significant disadvantage. Also, weather in Detroit is going to effect SF. Daily temps going down to the 40’s all next week starting tomorrow.

        And God I hope we don’t see “Two-run Valverdee” ever again. Smily and Coke can cover.

        CM

  64. All I can say is Damnnnnnnn!!!!!! If only half of this stuff is true-we are doomed.

    October 25, 2012
    Obama’s EPA Plans for 2013
    By S. Fred Singer

    The November elections will determine the direction of US climate policy — and therefore also energy policy and the pace of economic growth: jobs, standards of living, budget deficits and inflation. Obama has already promised to make climate change the centerpiece of his concern — with all that implies: “Green” energy policy, linked to loss of jobs (Keystone pipeline disapproval), rising gas prices (ethanol mandates), and crony capitalism (Solyndra).

    By contrast, Romney is a climate skeptic — and Ryan has been quite outspoken: the perfect anti-Gore. The science supports Romney-Ryan — notwithstanding the UN-IPCC, and the bulk of the climate scientists living high on the hog on government grants.

    All of this emerged from campaign rhetoric — but it needs to be spelled out more clearly. Note that Obama no longer promises to “heal the Earth and stop the rise of the oceans.” He has also been uncharacteristically quiet about his efforts to “make electricity prices skyrocket.” But there is more in store if he is re-elected and unleashes the full regulatory apparatus of the EPA.

    Senate report

    Earlier this month, Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla.), Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, released a new EPW Minority Report entitled, “A Look Ahead to EPA Regulations for 2013: Numerous Obama EPA Rules Placed On Hold until after the Election Spell Doom for Jobs and Economic Growth.”

    This report enumerates the slew of environmental regulations that the Obama-Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has delayed or punted on before the election while President Obama is trying to earn votes; but the Obama-EPA plans to move full speed ahead to implement this agenda if President Obama wins a second term. As this report reveals, these rules taken together will inevitably result in the elimination of millions of American jobs, drive up the price of gas at the pump even more, impose construction bans on local communities, and essentially shut down American oil, natural gas, and coal production.

    “President Obama has spent the past year punting on a slew of job-killing EPA regulations that will destroy millions of American jobs and cause energy prices to skyrocket even more,” Senator Inhofe said. “From greenhouse gas regulations to water guidance to the tightening of the ozone standard, the Obama-EPA has delayed the implementation of rule after rule because they don’t want all those pink slips and price spikes to hit until after the election. But President Obama’s former climate czar Carol Browner was very clear about what’s in store for next year: she told several green groups not to worry because President Obama has a big green ‘to-do’ list for 2013 — so they’ll get what they want. As a result, hard working Americans will lose their jobs and be subjected to skyrocketing energy prices

    “This report also importantly puts the spotlight back on an Obama-EPA that has, as the Washington Post said, earned a ‘reputation for abuse.’ It serves as a stark reminder that President Obama has presided over a green team administration that works every day to ‘crucify’ oil and gas companies and make sure that ‘if you want to build a coal plant you got a big problem.’

    Rules Delayed or “Punted” until 2013 by Obama-EPA

    Greenhouse Gas Regulations: These regulations — which President Obama himself warned would be worse than global warming cap-and-trade legislation — will be an enormous burden on the American people. These rules will cost more than $300 to $400 billion a year, and significantly raise the price of gas at the pump and energy in the home. It’s not just coal plants that will be affected: under the Clean Air Act (CAA), churches, schools, restaurants, hospitals and farms will eventually be regulated.

    Thus far, EPA has issued regulations governing permit programs and monitoring requirements. Earlier this year, EPA proposed the first source-specific greenhouse gas regulations — emissions standards for new power plants. The proposal paints an ominous picture for rate payers: the requirements are so strict, they virtually eliminate coal as a fuel option for future electric power generation. In a thinly veiled political move, the agency has put off finalizing the proposal until after the election. Similarly, EPA has punted on standards for existing power plants as well as refineries — standards which will further drive up electricity and gasoline prices. Once these regulations are in place, EPA will proceed to issue regulations, industry by industry, until virtually every aspect of the American economy is constrained by strict regulatory requirements and high energy prices.

    Take for example, farms: under federal permitting requirements, sources (i.e. a farm whose aggregate emissions exceed CAA permitting thresholds) would be required to comply with costly permitting mandates and pay an annual fee for each ton of greenhouse gas emitted on an annual basis. Known as the “cow tax”, there would be a cost-per-animal outcome. EPA itself estimates that in its best case scenario, there will be over 37,000 farms and ranches subject to greenhouse gas permits at an average cost of $23,000 per permit annually, affecting over 90% of the livestock production in the United States.

    Ozone Rule: As the New York Times reported last year, President Obama punted on tightening the ozone standard until after the election, admitting that the “regulatory burdens and regulatory uncertainty” would harm jobs and the economy — but he still pointed to the fact that it will be reconsidered in 2013. EPA itself estimated that its ozone standard would cost $90 billion a year, while other studies have projected that the rule could cost upwards of a trillion dollars and destroy 7.4 million jobs. By EPA’s own projections, it could put 650 additional counties into the category of “non-attainment,” which is the equivalent of posting a “closed for business” sign on communities. Affected counties will suffer from severe EPA-imposed restrictions on job creation and business expansion, including large numbers of plant closures. The Times concluded: “The full retreat on the smog standard was the first and most important environmental decision of the presidential campaign season that is now fully underway. An examination of that decision, based on interviews with lobbyists on both sides, former officials and policy makers at the upper reaches of the White House and the E.P.A., illustrates the new calculus on political and policy shifts as the White House sharpens its focus on the president’s re-election.”

    Hydraulic Fracturing: Today the Obama administration — through no less than fourteen federal agencies, including the EPA, the Department of Energy (DOE), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the Center for Disease Control (CDC), the Department of Agriculture (USDA), and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) — is currently working to find ways to regulate hydraulic fracturing at the federal level, so that they can limit and eventually stop the practice altogether. In order to curtail hydraulic fracturing on public lands, BLM, under Secretary Salazar’s control, will be finalizing new regulations sometime after the election, which will have serious impacts on domestic energy production. According to one study, “The total aggregate cost for new permits and well workovers resulting from this rule would range from $1.499 billion to $1.615 billion annually. This is a conservative estimate of the delays and costs associated with the proposed rule which equates to about $253,800 per well, and $233,100 per re-fracture stimulation.” The Obama Administration’s anti-hydraulic fracturing agenda doesn’t stop there. In the months following the election, we can expect the EPA alone to: issue guidance for the usage of diesel fuels during hydraulic fracturing, which will strip states of the primacy granted to them through the Safe Drinking Water Act; complete a study — highly criticized and unsupported by multiple state and federal agencies — desperately attempting to link hydraulic fracturing to water contamination in Pavillion, WY; answer countless petitions filed by radical environmental organizations potentially leading to the back-door regulation of hydraulic fracturing through the Toxic Substances Control Act, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, and Clean Air Act; and potentially introduce Effluent Limitations Guidelines for both shale gas extraction and coal-bed methane.

    Florida Numeric Nutrient Criteria: As the Associated Press reported, “When the Obama administration agreed to set the first-ever federal limits on runoff in Florida, environmental groups were pleased [...] Nearly three years later — with a presidential election looming and Florida expected to play a critical role in the outcome — those groups are still waiting.” In 2009, EPA issued a Clean Water Act (CWA) determination that it would set federal numeric nutrient water quality standards for Florida. The proposed standards EPA unveiled in 2010 were criticized for being technologically and economically infeasible. Florida established its own nutrient criteria, and in 2011, petitioned EPA to withdraw the agency’s January 2009 determination that numeric nutrient criteria are necessary in Florida, repeal federal rulemaking completed in 2010, and refrain from proposing or promulgating any further numeric standards. In June 2012 a Florida administrative law judge ruled that the state acted within its authority by establishing Florida-specific numeric nutrient standards for the state’s inland waters. Florida certified its standards on June 13, 2012 and submitted it to EPA for approval. EPA had 60 days from this date to approve the rule or 90 days to disapprove it. EPA has only sent back an “initial response” that gives no indication whether or not EPA will approve the Florida rule. EPA has thus far punted both on enforcing their own standards and on responding to Florida’s petition to establish their own standards.

    EPA’s Water Guidance: EPA’s proposed new guidance document for waters covered by the CWA, proposed in April 2011, reinterprets recent Supreme Court decisions to allow EPA to expand federal control over virtually every body of water in the United States, no matter how small. EPA’s own analysis of the document estimated that up to 17% of current non-jurisdictional determinations would be considered jurisdictional using the new guidance. Further, the guidance applies to the entire CWA, which will result in additional regulatory responsibilities for states. This dramatic expansion has received tremendous push-back from the regulated community, states, and municipalities who do not want to have extensive new federal authorities and the costs associated with additional CWA compliance pushed through in guidance. As Inside EPA reported in the spring of 2012, the guidance looks to be delayed until after the election. This guidance, much like greenhouse gas regulations, failed to pass as legislation when Democrats enjoyed overwhelming majorities in the House and the Senate.

    Storm-water Regulation: In 2009, EPA announced, as part of the Chesapeake Bay Settlement Agreement, that the agency would propose new nationwide storm-water rules by September 2010, with final action by November 2012. EPA’s advanced notice of proposed rulemaking proposed to expand the universe of federally regulated storm-water; establish a first-time standard for post-construction storm-water runoff; require first-time retrofit requirements on storm-water systems — which could include mandates on cities to change existing buildings, storm-water sewers, and streets; and mandate the use of “green infrastructure” techniques (like “green roofs,” rain gardens, permeable pavement) to replace conventional stormwater management practices. All this will put enormous cost burdens on states and municipalities and on anyone who owns property or wants to develop property. If the final rule does everything EPA has proposed, it could be the most expensive rule in EPA history. According to EPA’s website, the proposal has been punted until June 2013, and the final rule is due in December 2014.

    Tier III Gas Regulations: EPA is preparing to propose a rulemaking called Tier III, which reduces the content of sulfur in gasoline from 30 ppm to 10 ppm. The cost of this rule could be up to $10 billion initially and $2.4 billion annually, and it could add up to 9 cents per gallon in manufacturing costs; these costs would inevitably be passed on to consumers at the pump. As a recent Energywire article explained, many on the far left believe that political motives caused President Obama to delay this rule until after the election.

    Boiler MACT Rule: EPA’s Boiler MACT (Maximum Achievable Control Technology) standards are so strict that not even the best-performing sources can meet them, so many companies will have no choice but to shut their doors and ship manufacturing jobs overseas. The rule has been projected to reduce US GDP by as much as 1.2 billion dollars and will destroy nearly 800,000 jobs. Because of bipartisan Congressional opposition to the standards, the agency is now reconsidering certain aspects of the rule. In what can only be seen as another politically calculated move, the new rule is now being held by the White House, presumably until after the election. Not only is this creating uncertainty among the regulated community, it is also fueling speculation that very few changes have been made to the rule and that the White House would prefer that it not be made public until after the election.

    Cement MACT Rule: EPA’s Cement MACT rule could cause 18 plants to shut down, throwing up to 80,000 people out of work. As more and more cement has to be imported from China, concrete costs for the construction of roads, bridges, and buildings that use cement could increase 22% to 36%. As with Boiler MACT, due to Congressional opposition, EPA is now reconsidering certain aspects of the rule, which will not be seen until after the election.

    316(b) Cooling Towers Rule: EPA is planning to require the use of strict protections for fish in cooling reservoirs for power plants under the Clean Water Act. EPA’s own estimates put the draft rule costs between $384 million and $460 million per year and have benefits of just $17 million – a cost benefit gap of more than 22 to 1. As the Washington Guardian noted about the delay, “In its latest election-year delay of regulations, the Obama administration said Tuesday it will defer until next year acting on a Clean Water Act rule that could require expensive new construction at power plants to lower fish deaths. The postponement by the Environmental Protection Agency was not unexpected, with the agency having only recently completed a public comment period on its latest data. Still, the move to add another 11 months to the rulemaking marks the latest step by the administration to delay potentially controversial environmental rules until after the November election.”

    Coal Ash: EPA’s proposed coal ash rule could cost $79 to $110 billion over 20 years, destroying 183,900 to 316,000 jobs; this will have disastrous impacts in states like Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Ohio and Missouri. As the Charleston Gazette reported, “Despite initial tough talk on the issue, [EPA administrator Lisa] Jackson issued a regulatory proposal that did not settle on a particular strategy. “Politico also noted, EPA is sitting on proposed regulations to declare coal ash to be a hazardous substance…Administrator Lisa Jackson has said the agency will issue a final coal ash rule by the end of the year, but environmentalists and coal ash recyclers aren’t convinced.”

    Farm Dust Regulations: EPA has been regulating farm dust for decades and may tighten the standards as part its review of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for coarse particulate matter (PM10). Tightening the PM10 NAAQS would have widespread implications for rural America, as it could be below the amount of dust created during normal farming operations, and therefore be impossible to meet. If the standard is tightened, the only option for farmers to comply will be to curb every-day farm activities, which could mean cutting down on numbers of livestock or the tilling of fields, or they may have to shrink or even end their businesses altogether.

    Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) Rule: EPA’s Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) Rule would require farmers and ranchers to develop and implement costly oil and gasoline spill prevention plans, placing a tremendous burden on the agricultural community. The original deadline was set for November 2011, but the rule was delayed due to pressure from Congress. EPA set a new SPCC deadline of May 10, 2013.

    Summary

    This lengthy catalog of EPA horrors does not include schemes being hatched but not yet disclosed. Nor does it include initiatives by “junior EPAs” — such as the cap-and-trade plan by CARB (Calif Air Resources Board).

    Clearly, if Romney-Ryan are elected, they will have their hands full just reining in the EPA – an essential step in restoring economic growth. They will need all the help they can get from the next Congress.

    Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/10/obamas_epa_plans_for_2013.html#ixzz2ALL2HywO

    • They don’t need to “rein in” the EPA. They need to DO AWAY with them. The EPA has become the scourge of the American people.

    • Michigan has this proposal on the ballot:

      PROPOSAL 12-3
      A PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE STATE
      CONSTITUTION TO ESTABLISH A
      STANDARD FOR RENEWABLE
      ENERGY
      This proposal would:
      • Require electric utilities to provide at
      least 25% of their annual retail sales of
      electricity from renewable energy
      sources, which are wind, solar, biomass,
      and hydropower, by 2025.
      • Limit to not more than 1% per year
      electric utility rate increases charged to
      consumers only to achieve compliance
      with the renewable energy standard.
      • Allow annual extensions of the deadline
      to meet the 25% standard in order to
      prevent rate increases over the 1% limit.
      • Require the legislature to enact
      additional laws to encourage the use of
      Michigan made equipment and
      employment of Michigan residents.
      Should this proposal be approved?

      I’m voting NO

      • Just A Citizen says:

        I certainly hope so.

        Oregon and Washington adopted the 25% standard. Rates have gone through the roof.

        So the tax payers PAID to have the windmills built, via TAX CREDITS used over and over, and then pay higher rates for the more expensive electricity. You see, here the hydro power is NOT green. Oh, and now we may have to pay the windmill companies if the hydro system loses a lawsuit because the Dams created excess energy last year during the high runoff. The windmills had to shut down because nobody would buy their expensive juice.

        • In CA, 30% of electricity must be from green sources. So they build solar plants with subsidies and then contract the electricity at inflated prices to the utilities. Just another way to fleece us mortal taxpayers. By all means vote no.

          My electric bills have remained fairly constant over the years but that is only because I have 3 less people in the house and conserve where ever I can. The next big push is time of use rates followed by the utility taking control of your appliances remotely. They have already tried to make that grab here once. We do have the digital meters now. Theoretically, I can log onto to the provider and see my usage in real time.

          Big brother is getting evermore intrusive. They can track your location via cell phone & GPS, they want to track your car via GPS and RFID’s, they know when and how much power you are using, they want to control your heat and appliances. They get all your credit card and bank transactions, emails and phone conversations. What’s next, brain waves? Think I’ll start lining my hats with tin foil.

  65. The Fund for American Studies releases video parody depicting world without capitalism
    3:52 PM 10/24/2012

    The Fund for American Studies released a short educational film aimed at young adults on Oct. 17, titled “It’s a Wonderful Life! (with capitalism),” to show what a world without capitalism would look like.

    The film, written and produced by Steve Andrus of Freethink Media, follows a young activist, played by actor John Crowley, who is at first against capitalism. In the morning, he shuts off his iPhone alarm clock, gets out of his comfortable-looking bed, chooses between various hair products and shirts, eats two types of cereal for breakfast and video chats a woman on his iPad who asks him if he is heading out to the protest.

    He waves at two neighborhood children selling lemonade before driving to the protest. “People, not profits!” he yells. “Life would be so much better without capitalism.”
    Ads by Google

    The activist is then knocked in the head and the scene switches dramatically. He wakes up with his wish fulfilled—a world without capitalism. A sparse and dingy-looking apartment with exactly one, substandard hygiene product, one choice of cereal and one outfit have replaced his previous luxuries in a capitalism-filled world. He uses public transportation, spots a long line for coffee rations, gets his belongings stolen by children and runs from a policeman in a gas mask holding a raised baton.

    TFAS executive vice president Steve Slattery said the video is a clever and interesting take on the concept of ‘be careful what you wish for.’

    “We want to educate young people about the benefits of capitalism, because so often they’re misinformed about what capitalism brings them in terms of quality of life,” Slattery told The Daily Caller.

    Slattery said young people are not being taught enough about the benefits of capitalism, especially since economics is not a required course in many colleges and high schools.

    “As a result, you have a lot of anti-Wall Street demonstrations that are largely populated by young people, and we find it ironic because they’re the very ones who take advantage of a lot of the products of capitalism such as the internet, cell phones, YouTube, et cetera,” Slattery said to TheDC. “We’ve done another video that asks young people if they would give up the internet for a million dollars, and overwhelmingly they said no.”

    Slattery said he hopes the video generates discussion about capitalism and inspires young people to explore relevant topics on their own.

    TFAS will be releasing another video later this year about the benefits of capitalism.

    Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/10/24/the-fund-for-american-studies-releases-video-parody-depicting-world-without-capitalism/#ixzz2ALVOtWVV

  66. “But it’s not just Delphi. As the Wall Street Journal reported in a lengthy story back in April, the workers at a highly successful GM plant in Moraine, OH didn’t just lose their pensions; they lost their jobs — again, because they were not members of the UAW.

    Despite being one of GM’s most productive and cooperative factories, Moraine was closed following the company’s 2007 labor pact with the United Auto Workers union. Under a deal struck by the UAW during GM’s bankruptcy two years later, Moraine’s 2,500 laid-off workers were barred from transferring to other plants, locking them out of the industry’s rebound.”

    I have to ask-Just What is it about Obama that people like?

    Workers Hurt by Obama

    By Quin Hillyer on 10.25.12 @ 3:24PM

    While Barack Obama repeatedly claims credit for supposedly saving the auto industry (a bogus claim if there ever were one), the dark side of his actions are increasingly coming out. The true scandal starting to get more attention, in part thanks to the efforts of Speaker John Boehner, is the way the administration wiped out pensions for workers who were non-members of the United Auto Workers at the Delphi auto plant in Ohio, while saving the pensions for UAW members. Here’s a Washington Free Beacon story about it. And the Detroit News covers it here:

    Troy-based Delphi, while in bankruptcy in 2009, terminated the pension plans of 70,000 people and left a $7.2 billion shortfall. … In a move
    that’s brought harsh criticism from Congress, GM topped up the pensions of most union Delphi hourly workers and retirees, largely those of the United Auto Workers union, at a cost of $1 billion.

    GM said it took the action because it had agreed to do so as part of the 1999 spinoff — even though it wasn’t legally obligated to do so during the bankruptcy.

    GM did not do the same for Delphi’s 20,000 salaried retirees and pension participants. The automaker also didn’t agree to top up pensions of smaller unions.

    And “in a growing scandal,” Liz Peek at the Fiscal Times says, “Obama’s former auto czar and two Treasury officials appear implicated in the decision to eliminate the pensions of 20,000 non-union workers at GM’s Delphi unit, while protecting benefits for UAW members.”

    Let Freedom Ring has aired several web ads about the topic, and related General/Govenrment Motors stuff, including investments in Chinese Communist propaganda films. Moving stuff.

    But it’s not just Delphi. As the Wall Street Journal reported in a lengthy story back in April, the workers at a highly successful GM plant in Moraine, OH didn’t just lose their pensions; they lost their jobs — again, because they were not members of the UAW.

    Despite being one of GM’s most productive and cooperative factories, Moraine was closed following the company’s 2007 labor pact with the United Auto Workers union. Under a deal struck by the UAW during GM’s bankruptcy two years later, Moraine’s 2,500 laid-off workers were barred from transferring to other plants, locking them out of the industry’s rebound.

    The trouble with Moraine: Its workers weren’t in the UAW.

    This comes on top of a raft of politically inspired dealership closures forced during the bailout — based not on which dealerships were profitable, but which had the better political connections.

    And, of course, the unions were given huge ownership stakes in GM and Chrysler, while secured creditors were illegally given pennies on the dollar. Meanwhile, taxpayers have lost something like $25 billion on the bailout, with no chance of recouping it, and also lost a few billion dollars on “green energy” boondoggles to politically connected cronies.

    Seton Motley of the “Less Government” organization has been keeping tabs on all this, by the way, at the Breitbart site.

    Every one of the stories linked in the above text, by the way, have truly bothersome details in them about crony capitalism and union favoritism run amuck.

    The Delphi and Moraine stories, especially, should be continuing major news stories in the next few weeks — if the media has any integrity at all. (Yeah, right.)

    http://spectator.org/blog/2012/10/25/workers-hurt-by-obama

  67. Just A Citizen says:

    I had a notion a couple weeks back about this Taxmagedon come the first of January.

    My thought was this. They don’t intend to kick the can down the road. They intend to LET IT HAPPEN.

    This allows both sides to blame the other for the negatives AND take credit for REDUCING THE DEFICIT.

    I think they ALL know just how bad our Fiscal situation is and despite their caterwauling at each other, they have arrived at a compromise means of reducing the deficit and blaming the other guy for the downside.

    I thought better of posting this idea as I had nothing to go on but my own opinion of one possible scenario.

    Then today I heard that the “off the record” interview Obama gave to the Iowa paper included some claim that he would have the DEFICIT taken care of within the first 4 months of his NEW TERM. The combination of letting the Bush Tax Cuts expire and the automatic budget reductions will be the means of achieving this goal. I heard this on Limbaugh’s radio show today. But have not heard any other source discuss it.

    I would note, however, that the agencies I keep tabs on have NOT been given any instructions to prepare for the kind of cuts that would come with sequestration. Although they were told 2 years ago to prepare for a 20% cut in their 2012 and 2013 budgets. But the 2012 cuts did not happen.

    So there you are. One possible scenario. Now if it is true that the ONE did say this to the Iowa paper I wonder why he wouldn’t MAN UP and take credit for cutting the deficit in 4 months??? Doesn’t he think the “conservatives” will love him for it? Or the deficit hawk Democrats??

    • Both BF and I have been warning to get in shape for next year…..it is coming. What is the most appalling………the middle class is going to get slaughtered. Absolutely slaughtered.

      • What about cash in the bank? Comerica. Start stuffing the mattress? Join a credit union?

        • Most people that I know, including me, have a large amount of cash kept in a safe outside of banks and credit unions. IF…and I say IF…..there is a sudden run on banks, they will close their doors and shut down ATM’s…..you will not have access to your cash…even through credit or debit cards. Gold and Silver and Metals, while a hedge against inflation….will most likely not be used as barter or cash. No one will take it much less give you a value for it…..if there is a run on the banks. Cash will still be King if you have it…..in your hand……IF there is a run on the banks.

          • Just A Citizen says:

            d13

            Good morning Sir. Wicked Cold Front came through here early in the week. Looks like it is headed for a rendezvous with that little tropical storm on the east coast. Spousal Unit Leader is on Stand By and expected to be mobilized tomorrow.

            Now to the topic. Given the large infusion of CASH from the Fed to the Banks, what would precipitate a run on the banks?

            I do agree that cash in hand is a GOOD thing in uncertain times. But was just wondering how you see things unfolding.

            Myself, I am stuck in a hard spot. Toooo much Real Estate and a market where I cannot move it fast enough to avoid the inevitable INCREASE in Cap Gains taxes coming next year.

            I would only add that Gold or Silver Coins are a good thing to have in possession. They are US money and could have increased value in CRASH times if gold and silver is valued above paper and tin coins. But I agree that bars of gold and silver are of little value except as inflation hedge and/or short to mid term investment.

            • Run on banks…….pretty good question….but I will relate that to the stock market…..if the adjustment is as predicted by the doomers and gloomers (a 90% correction) I think that will trigger all sorts of things. Remember what just a 5% adjustment did at one time. People really panicked big time because they think in the now…..not the future and they think of the past. I think, and the family agrees with me, that if Obama is re-elected, there will be a huge margin crash…..for those who dwell in margins….and I think that the Industrials correct downward at least 25%. I think the Nasdaq will self correct in the 11% range. Metals will be largely unaffected. I think the dollar devalues in the 15% range in the short term (12-24 months). What is not publicized, and since you are in the real estate market, there is a POT LOAD of underwater mortgages just sitting out there and not being bundled or sold because there is no market right now. No one (banks or lenders) is divesting themselves…..they are sitting on worthless paper right now. Banks are not loaning and are not going to loan unless you bleed cash. If Obama is re-elected, the housing will take another huge hit and no bailout will help it. The stimulus has done nothing to date and only prolonged the inevitable, as I see it. As you know, we preferred to stay liquid in cash because, there are going to be huge deals next year. Obama policies are going to have the effect of making the rich…..a whole lot richer and the middle class…..is going to be hammered in the worst way possible. Investment will stagnate and people with cash will sit on it. People will need it and will go get it. I do not foresee a run on banks like the 30’s…but I see credit tightening up more so and I see cash dwindling in spite of infusion of the Fed. Banks will have cash in hand but that is where it is going to stay. With credit gone….what will people do/….cash in. EBT cards will become worthless because people will quit taking them. Most do not agree with me, but…that is ok. We have done pretty good in out forecasting and we are staying with it.

              If Romney is elected, there will not miracle turn around as a lot of the damage has been done..however, I do not think you will see a market fluctuation (correction) greater than 3%, if that. If the EPA is reigned in, you will see a greater infusion of capital in the Industrials and you will see a loosening of credit. If Obama care is reigned in where the penalties and the new taxes are minimized, you will see a resurgence of cash infusion from the private sector. The wounds will not get worse and the bleeding will be at least controlled until a positive correction in cash from the private sector hits. But, you still have a wounded economy…….it is not hemorrhaging but it is still wounded and an open wound at that but the bleeding is controlled.

  68. Excuse me..I’m feeling ill….

  69. Just A Citizen says:

    Boy, every day we get another Republican candidate for Senate or House or some State seat that has stepped on his/her tongue. Now Sununnu links Powell’s endorsement of Romney to race. Good grief…………….as I said months ago. The R’s are very capable of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

    But I do have one related question. Are the Dems the most disciplined bunch you ever saw? I mean NOT ONE SINGLE flub, fupa, gaff, etc during these past few months. A republican a day but NO, NONE, NADA Dems saying anything stupid. Well except Warren and her Indian ancestry. But that was some time back.

    So is it that the Dems are that well disciplined, or is the MEDIA in the tank????

  70. RIP Emanuel Steward..trainer for Tommy The Hitman Hearns and Oscar de la Hoya. Bunch of sad people at the Kronk Gym in Detroit today.

  71. Rolling Stone: Have you ever read Ayn Rand?

    President Obama: Sure.

    Rolling Stone: What do you think Paul Ryan’s obsession with her work would mean if he were vice president?

    President Obama: Well, you’d have to ask Paul Ryan what that means to him. Ayn Rand is one of those things that a lot of us, when we were 17 or 18 and feeling misunderstood, we’d pick up. Then, as we get older, we realize that a world in which we’re only thinking about ourselves and not thinking about anybody else, in which we’re considering the entire project of developing ourselves as more important than our relationships to other people and making sure that everybody else has opportunity -– that that’s a pretty narrow vision. It’s not one that, I think, describes what’s best in America. Unfortunately, it does seem as if sometimes that vision of a ‘you’re on your own’ society has consumed a big chunk of the Republican Party.

    • shakes head

      rolls eyes

      walks away dejected

      • During the safety instructions prior to take off, what do they say? “Put on your mask before helping others.”

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Ray

      I am betting he never read any of her stuff. That is completed the reading, if he even started.

      This is why it is fun to follow the leftist thinking. They crave to have the YOUNG vote and to bring the YOUNG into the fold. But then they use YOUNG as an excuse for what they view as obnoxious values. When we were young we flirted with these silly notions. Really? Then why does not that same criteria apply to the YOUNG who flirt with the Altruistic ethic or the Greater Good mentality?

      Besides, I never met a 17 or 18 year old who has read Rand’s major novels or her other stories and essays. That usually comes in college or later. For all her supposed hold on the college age crowd of the 60’s and 70’s the fact is I NEVER heard of her while in college. Her philosophy was never discussed in class. I saw the movie Fountainhead years before I knew there was a book and who wrote it.

      I “discovered” Rand in my late 20’s. When I started realizing that the Left Liberal thinking had serious flaws and would lead to disaster in the long run. So in my case, the story was just the OPPOSITE of the one told by Mr. Obama.

  72. Very interesting……Obama’s champion Warren Buffet…………George Soros…….and others are quietly dumping their stocks in consumer oriented companies. Money News has reported the following:

    ” Warren Buffett, who has been a cheerleader for U.S. stocks for quite some time, is dumping shares at an alarming rate. He recently complained of “disappointing performance” in dyed-in-the-wool American companies like Johnson & Johnson, Procter & Gamble, and Kraft Foods.

    In the latest filing for Buffett’s holding company Berkshire Hathaway, Buffett has been drastically reducing his exposure to stocks that depend on consumer purchasing habits. Berkshire sold roughly 19 million shares of Johnson & Johnson, and reduced his overall stake in “consumer product stocks” by 21%. Berkshire Hathaway also sold its entire stake in California-based computer parts supplier Intel.

    With 70% of the U.S. economy dependent on consumer spending, Buffett’s apparent lack of faith in these companies’ future prospects is worrisome.

    Unfortunately Buffett isn’t alone.

    Fellow billionaire John Paulson, who made a fortune betting on the subprime mortgage meltdown, is clearing out of U.S. stocks too. During the second quarter of the year, Paulson’s hedge fund, Paulson & Co., dumped 14 million shares of JPMorgan Chase. The fund also dumped its entire position in discount retailer Family Dollar and consumer-goods maker Sara Lee.

    Finally, billionaire George Soros recently sold nearly all of his bank stocks, including shares of JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, and Goldman Sachs. Between the three banks, Soros sold more than a million shares.

    So why are these billionaires dumping their shares of U.S. companies?

    After all, the stock market is still in the midst of its historic rally. Real estate prices have finally leveled off, and for the first time in five years are actually rising in many locations. And the unemployment rate seems to have stabilized.

    It’s very likely that these professional investors are aware of specific research that points toward a massive market correction, as much as 90%.”

    Not only that, they are aware of the new taxes on the horizon that will hit them right between the eyes. So, all these Obama supporters seem to be abandoning ship………..rats deserting.

  73. Texas has once again told the UN….You better heed our warning…..stay out of Texas and our elections….we will not warn you again.

    • Texas has a message for international election observers planning to watch over the Lone Star vote Nov. 6: “BRING IT.”

      Texas officials this week launched a prickly and very public dispute with the Organization for Security and Co-Operation in Europe, which plans to send monitors to polling sites across the U.S. on Election Day. The group has done this since 2002 — but this year, Texas took exception to what officials perceived as a challenge to the latest wave of voter ID laws.

      Attorney General Greg Abbott is now threatening to prosecute any observer who breaks state law by getting too close to any polling site.

      “The OSCE may be entitled to its opinions about Voter ID laws, but your opinion is legally irrelevant in the United States,” Abbott wrote in a letter this week to the OSCE.

      He went on to remind representatives that they are not allowed to enter a polling place, and cautioned against going within 100 feet of the entrance. “Failure to comply with these requirements could subject the OSCE’s representatives to criminal prosecution for violating state law,” he wrote.

      The letter touched off a flurry of testy tweets and correspondence that brought in Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to play ref. Janez Lenarcic, director of the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights, fired off a letter to Clinton to complain — which was followed by a letter from Abbott to Clinton reiterating his concerns.

      “The threat of criminal sanctions against OSCE/ODIHR observers is unacceptable,” Lenarcic said in a statement. “The United States, like all countries in the OSCE, has an obligation to invite ODIHR observers to observe its elections.”

      The United States is one of dozens of members of the Organization for Security and Co-Operation in Europe.

      State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland on Thursday acknowledged Clinton had received letters from both sides and tried to offer assurances.

      She said the plan to send observers “isn’t any different” than in past years.

      “We had, I think, about 15 states that they were going to go to,” she said. “To my knowledge, (Texas is) the only state that came forward and said please reassure us that you’re going to follow our state electoral law. And they have now been reassured.”

      On Twitter, Abbott didn’t sound reassured.

      He tweeted: “UN-related vote monitors warn Texas: Don’t mess with us. My response: BRING IT.”

      Gov. Rick Perry also chimed in, saying “No UN monitors/inspectors will be part of any TX election process.”

      • Oh, and before anyone asks what we have to hide……..Nothing at all. It is very simply NOT the UN’s business at all to monitor anything in the US much less Texas. In addition, we have no obligation to anyone to prove we have nothing to hide. GO home……leave us alone…we can and will take care of ourselves.

        • What, none of that famous Texas Hospitality for nosy foreigner who want to tell you how to run your state? So intolerant! I bet you won’t even let foreign nationals to vote when there visiting! Remember, we are the world, one world, no borders, blah, blah, blah….

  74. New York Times reporters Jonathan Weisman and Michael Cooper both suggested Mitt Romney would be hurt by comments made by Indiana’s Republican Senate candidate Richard Mourdock at a debate Tuesday night. While explaining why he doesn’t support abortion in the case of rape, Mourdock said: “I’ve struggled with it myself for a long time, but I came to realize that life is that gift from God. And even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen.”

    Democrats and their media allies pounced, devoting more airtime to Mourdock’s comments than to damning emails showing the White House was informed within hours that the Benghazi attacks were terrorism, not a spontaneous reaction to a YouTube video. The paper’s get-Romney attack line was clear from the headline in Thursday’s edition: “Rape Remark Jolts a Senate Race, and the Presidential One, Too.”

    A Nexis search indicates this is the seventh Times story that has allowed Mourdock’s Democratic opponents to paint him as “extreme” or “extremist.

    Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/clay-waters/2012/10/25/new-york-times-eager-paint-mourdock-rape-comment-dilemma-making-it-diff#ixzz2APwSWEWM

    “I came to realize that life is that gift from God. And even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen.”

    Is this such an extreme statement? He certainly does not condone rape. He states after the moral struggle deciding life is a gift from God. Would any of these “outraged” liberals tell a child conceived by violent rape, “you should have been aborted”? Is any/every child beget of rape tainted or evil? Do they all carry some sort of mark of the beast like the anti-Christ?

    I personally do not agree with Mr. Mourdock. I do not think he or I should mandate to a rape victim that they must carry a child to term. But I can respect his position and how he has stated it so far. I also think the big picture on this issue is not rape or incest abortions, but those of choice, such as accidental pregnancy. Ooops, forgot your birth control? And that’s over 90% of abortions in the US. Focus on the big picture. Another issue is adoption. Most state run adoption services are awful. But then, what government run program isn’t?

    • I don’t mean to be hateful -But what exactly is the big picture? Seems to me that rape is simply the exception/justification for all the other abortions. Life either begins at conception or it doesn’t. It is either okay to kill babies in the womb or it is not.

      The Republican Rape Dilemma

      Mark Davis

      Oct 26, 2012

      As Richard Mourdock’s Indiana Senate fate hinges on how voters absorb his views on rape, all conservatives have an opportunity for a look in the mirror.

      Just how pro-life do we want to be?

      The Mourdock controversy is nothing like Todd Akin’s self-inflicted wound in Missouri, the result of an embrace of just plain bad medical information.

      Mourdock is in hot water for accurately (if not particularly skillfully) articulating what God instructs about the life of the unborn.

      If he is on politically shaky ground, it is because he had the courage to stand on the rock of moral truth.

      That truth presents conservatives with a challenge, whether running for office or not.

      What does it mean to be pro-life? Is it a universal view that every life created is a gift from God and a sacred thing to be protected by law? Or shall we begin a list of exceptions slightly less jarring to those around us?

      I cannot imagine what it is like to be a victim of rape or incest. I have endless prayerful support for anyone carrying that burden. But that support does not include a permission slip to extinguish the resulting newly created life.

      That is the required stance for anyone who is truly pro-life. It is a hard view to hold in a culture that has placed women’s interests above a baby’s right to be born.

      The moral bankruptcy of the rape and incest exceptions has long permeated the ranks of otherwise socially conservative Republicans. The usual drill is to declare a wish to protect the unborn, then to rapidly add that those protections would be suspended if the new life is the product of an admittedly horrible event in the life of a woman.

      The politics of this is simple. Many voters will recoil at the notion of laws removing the abortion option for rape and incest victims. Our natural empathy for them diverts our attention from the unborn, voiceless party in the proceedings, causing many to rush to reassure potential victims that we would never, as the saying goes, “force them to have the baby.”

      If that seems harsh, compare it to the harshness of a deadly extraction from the womb. But fetuses don’t vote, so priorities remain weighted for political expediency.

      There is a route for candidates, or individuals, who simply cannot remove the abortion option for rape and incest victims: it’s called being pro-choice.

      Not radically pro-choice in some Susan Sarandon/ Barack Obama way, but observant of a narrow window within which a woman may terminate pregnancies for rape, incest, or any other reason– a birth control mishap, a lapse in judgement, or she has all the kids she wants already.

      If those justifications seem to be a lower bar than the horrors of rape or incest, that’s correct. But here is the ultimate truth: newly created life is either sacred or it is not.

      If it is not, abortion becomes permissible for a wide range of reasons.

      If it is, abortion is never permissible, except to save the life (not the health) of the mother.

      Good luck with that on the campaign trail. But this is not about what is expedient, it is about what is morally sound.

      It is far easier to straddle the fence and profess various anti-abortion views from bans on federal funding to parental consent, all the while parroting the calming song of the rape and incest exception.

      But those exceptions are a death sentence for the babies who have no say in the circumstances of their creation.

      Every Republican– every conservative– must pick a side. Will it be the safer option of placing asterisks alongside any stated passion for protecting the unborn? Or will it be the more challenging, tougher to sell yet morally principled side of acknowledging that “sacred” is not an adjective to be trifled with, even to get votes?

      Like the slow enlightenment toward our societal rejection of slavery, it will be a long journey for those seeking to make this view the default setting of a nation. Arguments are one tool. Examples are another.

      I have had the pleasure in recent years of adding a profound blessing to my circle of friendships. James Robison of Life Outreach International is both a friend and neighbor, with a Texas-based broadcast empire that has welcomed me as I have welcomed him to various shows of mine. We have enjoyed many discussions of faith and politics, on and off the air.

      Purely personally, he and his wife Betty are an inspiration. In word and in deed, they are living examples of what Christianity teaches.

      If you are thinking that James and I have had some discussions about this issue which have given me clarity, you would be right.

      But it is not his words that should open your eyes. It is the fact that he is here to speak them.

      James Robison is the product of rape. The years he has spent enriching countless lives, mine among them, would be erased if his mother had chosen to compound the atrocity of what happened to her by eradicating the resulting life.

      Richard Mourdock, and all who are truly pro-life, do not condone rape by wrapping it in the justification of God’s will. But any resulting pregnancy is God’s miracle, and we are the stewards and protectors of it.

      No one said that stewardship would be easy. The choices are hard, for rape and incest victims themselves, and for the politicians who need the spine and clarity to speak challenging truths if they wish to say they are genuinely pro-life.

      http://townhall.com/columnists/markdavis/2012/10/26/the_republican_rape_dilemma/page/full/

  75. Just A Citizen says:

    Along the lines of LOI’s post, did anyone else hear about CBS 60 Minutes sitting on interview comments by Obama that HE believed the Benghazi attacks to be a deliberate attack? He made the statement in their interview on ………………. 9/12/12. This means that Obama LIED when he tied the attack to the video days later. :wink:

    YET NOT ONE MENTION OF THIS FROM CBS over the past 5 weeks while the “IT WAS A VIDEO” bull shit was being spread high and low.

    One more question that has not been asked of POTUS, and I BLAME ROMNEY for lacking the brass to ask it.

    Since the Video in question was public long enough for the “middle east” to become inflamed over this “insensitive” work, then WHY was the producer not arrested SOONER for his supposed parole violation? WHY was he not arrested until AFTER the White House started linking the riots to the tape? WHY is he still under arrest? His violation as I understand it is not normally handled by JAIL TIME. Is he STILL in jail?

    OK………..I realize that is not ONE more question. But you get the idea.

  76. As noted on a billboard outside of Ottawa County Michigan (wish I knew how to post it) the intersection of M-40 near Saugatuck, MI

    Romney’s Free Market vs Obama’s Socialism

    Bain Capital invested PRIVATE MONEY in AMC Entertainment, Burger King, Burlington Coat Factory, Clear Channel Communications, Dominoes Pizza, Dunk n Donuts, Guitar Center, Sports Authority, Staples, Toys R Us, and Warner Music Group…..all while under Romney’s watch.

    Obama invested TAX PAYER MONEY in Solyndra (bankrupt), Ener 1 (bankrupt), Beacon Power (bankrupt), Abound Solar (bankrupt), Amonix Solar (bankrupt), Spectra Watt (bankrupt), Eastern Energy (bankrupt).

    Underneath the Obama side it says: All of these companies were Obama campaign contributors.

    The bill board goes on to say: The choice is clear. Do you want a businessman who has generated BILIONS or a President who has wasted TRILLIONS.

    • Check this one out: http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2012/10/voter_fraud_billboards_that_dr.html

      For the record, a radio station where I live checked and surprise, surprise, these billboards were not just posted in “urban” areas, they were posted in “rural” counties around us as well. What exactly is racist about these? Being a minority myself, I personally was NOT offended.

      • It’s kinda funny if you think about it. The first billboard simply stated a truth. The second one, meant to counter it is a lie. Voting is a right but it can be a crime. Perfect solution-combine them. Voting is a right but Voter fraud in a crime punishable by…………….

    • President Barack Obama was asked for photo identification before he could cast his ballot Thursday in Chicago.

      Obama voted at 4:20 p.m. local time, “punching his choices into a touch-screen machine after signing forms and showing his driver’s license,” according to the White House press pool report.

      “Now ignore the fact that there’s no gray hair on that picture,” he told the elections official. “I’m just glad I renewed my driver’s license.”

      Obama also encouraged Americans to take advantage of early voting.

      “For all of you who have not yet early voted, I just want everybody to see what an incredibly efficient process this was thanks to the outstanding folks who are at this particular polling place,” Obama said.

      “This was really convenient,” he added, referring to the early voting process. “I can’t tell you who I voted for. But I very much appreciate everybody here. It’s good to be home back in the neighborhood.”

      Obama and other Democrats — most notably, Eric Holder and other Justice Department officials — have railed against voter ID laws, claiming they serve as barriers to minority voters’ participation in the electoral process.

      Obama’s Justice Department has sued several states for enacting voter ID laws like the one in place at his polling precinct.

      Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/10/25/barack-obama-votes-early-in-chicago-is-asked-to-show-id-video/#ixzz2AQsgxwMb

  77. Good questions by Gutfield. If this movie causes mob violence, will Weinstein be hauled into jail? Ha!

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/10/25/greg_gutfeld_why_can_you_political_bin_laden_and_not_benghazi.html

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Buck

      Perhaps you could enlighten me on this one:

      ” “It’s now re-edited to make the president’s role more prominent. According to The New York Times — a paper — Obama-backer Harvey Weinstein, who owns the rights to the film, personally stepped in to help recut it to strengthen Mr. Obama’s role. Weinstein and director John Stockwell deny that the changes are politically motivated.””

      How can someone “own the rights to a film” when no other intellectual property existed prior to the film? I understand he could own the copyright on the film itself, but before that, what is it he owns??

      Seems that something is missing from this story. Like a Book that the movie is based on???

      • JAC…this film will be historically incorrect.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          d13

          How do you know?

          I am guessing it will “over emphasize” some points for sure. But HOW do you know it will be inaccurate?

          Did I hear you on Limbaugh’s radio show today??

          I was thinking of you as the guy explained the inside scoop on how the protocol and procedures work for something like Benghazi.

          Of course, it was nothing new to those at SUFA. If they were reading your comments carefully that is. :)

  78. Will be interesting to watch the changes.

    India’s new approach lets individual states take the lead on development

    By Simon Denyer, Published: October 24

    NEW DELHI — For more than two years, India’s splintered coalition government struggled to reach a consensus on whether to open the country’s doors to foreign retailers.

    Beholden to powerful regional bosses, the government appeared almost incapable of strong leadership, and the prospect of a long-promised round of economic reforms seemed to vanish over a distant horizon.

    But in the past few weeks, the government has not only found new determination, it also seems to have discovered a way to break the impasse. Last month, it decided to let in the likes of Wal-Mart and Britain’s Tesco, but with one important caveat: It circumvented regional opposition by leaving it up to individual states to decide whether they wanted to go ahead.

    In an era when small parties, based on regional or caste loyalties, increasingly hold the balance of power in Parliament, a new narrative is emerging in India. A growing number of economists and political analysts say the path to development lies not in an all-powerful central government calling the shots but in individual states showing the way.

    It is a narrative that could point to a brighter future for India’s economy, but also one that demands a deeper understanding of the country from foreign investors and policymakers alike. India, analysts say, must be seen not as a homogenous nation run from the capital but as a collection of states with different languages, different governments and different attitudes toward economic policy and foreign investment.

    To Arvind Subramanian of the Peterson Institute for International Economics in Washington, the government’s approach exploits “competitive liberalization,” the idea that instances of successful economic policies in a few states can set a powerful example for others.

    Capital and labor, he said, will flow to the best-performing states, pushing the lagging ones to raise their games.

    As was the case with foreign investment in the retail sector, that means the central government can often be more an enabler of reform than the sole driver of that process.

    Foreign retailers looking to enter the Indian market know they need to show that their presence will bring real benefits, said Ron Somers, president of the U.S.-India Business Council.

    “Proof of concept is essential. Our companies know they are going to have to make this successful,” he said. “As investment comes, and infrastructure starts getting built, warehouses start getting built and shiny new buildings start coming up, we are hopeful more and more states will see the benefit and put politics aside, joining what we believe will be a wave of progress — for farmers and consumers alike.”

    ‘Enabling’ measures

    India is a country of huge regional diversity and massive income inequality, with 22 official languages and 28 states, each with different social, cultural and political traditions, as well as vastly varying levels of industrialization and infrastructure.

    Under India’s constitution, states have always held considerable powers, playing a leading role in law and order, electricity, education, land, and roads.

    Several states have begun holding regular summits to advertise themselves to foreign investors, while chief ministers jet off to places such as China and the United States to sell their states as investment destinations.

    The chief minister of the southern state of Tamil Nadu, J. Jayalalitha, reacted with dismay last year when told that South Korean carmaker Hyundai would build its next factory in the western state of Gujarat rather than expand in her state, amid reports that unreliable power supplies contributed to the decision.

    “She was unhappy, pulling up her entire team working on electricity, saying, ‘We’ve got to solve this,’ ” said Ajay Shah of the National Institute of Public Finance and Policy. “If politicians feel this kind of pressure, it’s very good.”

    Columbia University professor Arvind Panagariya said the economic reforms of 1991, which unleashed two decades of rapid growth, also were based on the principle of decentralization, with the government relaxing central planning and investment licensing rules and allowing states to compete for investments.

    It was Manmohan Singh who announced those reforms as finance minister 21 years ago. But with Singh as prime minister since 2004, his government seems to have forgotten those lessons, rolling out centralization policies regarding state subjects such as education, employment and health care, Panagariya said.

    “Ultimately, everything from water to electricity has to be provided at the level of the state,” Panagariya said, adding that states will sabotage central government policies they do not agree with. “But if you do enabling policies, I think things will move more smoothly.”

    Last month, Indian Power Minister Veerappa Moily unveiled a multibillion-dollar debt-restructuring package for state electricity companies, with relief conditional on the states improving their performance in delivering power. Using the new buzzword, he talked of “enabling legislation” to give states incentives to reform.

    “If such reforms are framed in this way, state governments and the people will always appreciate it,” he said. “Initially they will resist, but in the course of time, they will definitely improve. That is the history of reforms in this country.”

    A complex marketplace

    Shah, the public policy expert, said he is disappointed that few ideas about governance and reform flow from one state to another. Nevertheless, he said, “we are starting to see ‘best practices’ emerge in India.”

    Rather than less democracy and a stronger central government, Shah said, India needs more decentralization and democracy, with more power devolved to city governments in particular.

    More devolution and complexity might seem daunting to outsiders, especially investors who have had success in China and want to try to apply lessons learned there to India. The Indian market can be just as fractured and complex as the European market, its states as different as Germany and Greece.

    “I still hear people talk about India or Indians as if it is one monolithic decision-making entity, either on the political side at one end or consumer side at the other,” said Gunjan Bagla, managing director of California-based Amritt Ventures, which advises American investors on how to do business in India.

    “Neither approach works very well. Understanding the differences between the states can make the difference between a grand success and a challenging time.”

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/in-india-rise-of-regionalism-offers-alternative-path-to-prosperity/2012/10/24/85e87c60-0c56-11e2-bd1a-b868e65d57eb_story_1.html

  79. Must be something about being a Colonel, some of the damnedest things they’ll say!(oh, and be right)

  80. A little old, but very pertinent … for you wingie weekend pleasure …

    • gmanfortruth says:

      VH, Of course Obama knew. This was a hit from day one. The amount of weapons funnelled through the Ambassador is staggering, he knew too much. Now, let me add some fun to your weekend imagination :) Conspiracy theory 101 says, Hurricane Sandy, aka, Frankenstorm, is a government made storm, through weather manipulation and control (maybe HAARP). It is designed to cause great damage to the folks on the East coast and NorthEast US. This will force Obama to cancel the elections for at least 6 months (as I have predicted for a longtime now). It only gets worse from there, as the banks take a huge amount of damage, EBT cards don’t work, as well as many credit cards and bank cards. Civil unrest begins. Here’s a good interview to see whats next: http://www.shtfplan.com/headline-news/national-guard-whistleblower-doomsday-preppers-will-be-treated-as-terrorists_10252012

      • Just A Citizen says:

        BULL DOOKEY!!
        :)

        • gmanfortruth says:

          Interestingly, the facts are on my side. :)

          • Just A Citizen says:

            gman

            What facts? Put them out there.

            First of all, where is there any proof that ANYONE can control the Climate?

            Look at all the posting here to the effect that mankind is far to small to WARM the Climate. It is not possible everyone screams. Global Warming is a hoax.

            Next thing is the Govt can control Weather. Good lord man.

            As for the pending storms, the President has NO authority to delay the elections. Federal Emergency or not. If he did it would be the last thing he did as POTUS. Congress, on the other hand could delay the elections. But they would have to AGREE. What are the chances of that?

            Where are there ANY FACTS to support your claims or your prediction??

            I see nothing but SPECULATION. Ironically it is EXACTLY THE SAME speculation that was put forth when Bush was running for term #2 and the same speculation again in 08. Bush was going to suspend the election because Obama was in the lead.

            Look how that turned out.

            There are enough REAL conspiracies to deal with, we shouldn’t start repeating the far fetched.

            • gmanfortruth says:

              Dang JAC, Can’t a guy have fun? I don’t believe that we can control weather, that’s why it’s a fun conspiracy theory, it’s not likely at all. Yes, I stated the facts, as in “let’s have some fun”. With a :) to boot. Geez, relax, take a valium or something :roll:

              • Just A Citizen says:

                gman

                OK, but a glass of wine instead. Sorry for raining on your fun parade. Guess I’ve been hangin out to much with the crazy people lately. It can affect one’s sense of humor.

              • gmanfortruth says:

                No problems JAC. The weather control theory is quite a stretch indeed. I heard the theory on the radio, thought it was funny :) Now, the Libya issue is not funny at all, and folks should hang over this, in my opinion. Wine can be relaxing, enjoy! We have crap weather coming, lot’s of rain from the West, then still not sure about old Frankenstorm, LOL. Could be getting blown out proportion quite a bit, time will tell. CHEERS :) Have a great weekend!

      • Fun to my weekend!-if I start believing the government can use the weather to attack us-I would have to take a pill and go to bed.

    • Well, since this is out on Rush, let me explain what “flash traffic” is….Whenever a consulate official gets into trouble, there is a digital immediate contact that takes place. An Ambassador has the same privileges as a four star general and is the POTUS representative. Now, when an Ambassador triggers a distress response….(Red Dragon***)…..that means his life is in danger. Flash traffic (Red Dragon***) immediately goes to the white house situation room. There is a flash officer that has the sole responsibility to immediately get to the President or his military aide that is always….ALWAYS….right there. ( His military aide even sleeps on the same floor as the President ). The other military officer that is present is carrying the “football”. (Nuclear button). Flash traffic is an immediate response item and the word Red Dragon*** is immediately told to the President.

      The immediate protocol is to scramble aircraft that is always on strip alert. Strip alert means that the planes are in taxi position and the pilots are on the premises 90 seconds away for immediate response, The second immediate protocol is to scramble special ops which are readily available in the ME area.

      In short, the President knew immediately that the Embassy was under attack. He knew immediately of the requests for help. I have no problem saying that he could have prevented their deaths very easily.

      • Oops…forgot the caveat……*** means that Red Dragon is not the real code word but to emphasize there is an immediate code.

      • I had first thoughts that I didn’t throw out, not wanting to be that arm-chair quarterback. Most were StarWars/movie one’s where there’s a magic button that saves the day. In this case I was thinking hitting the streets was dooable with Tomahawk missile’s, fighter/bombers or gunships. For that matter, a strafing run by any fighter would do the job. That was all before the media reported we had two special forces groups that could have responded. The highest levels of our government had a large terrorist group concentrated in a small area where we have complete freedom in our military operations and choose to allow our ambassador & possibly all Americans there to die.

        Someone, decided to let terrorist live and our Ambassador to die on 9/11, giving OBL’s followers a huge propaganda victory.

        Now there are reports the military has Libya all but surrounded. Will we see a major invasion just before the election to make Obama look heroic? He’s just been waiting for actionable intelligence. We’ll be told they have identified the bad guys and are now going after them. Wonder if he’ll wear a cool jacket like GWB? Mission Accomplished!

  81. Just A Citizen says:

    Wanted to share what I saw on Stossel last night.

    He had a Dem on to defend Obama and Ann Coulter on to defend Romney. He then hammered each guy for promises made and not kept and/or promises made that make no sense or are contrary to freedom.

    It was fun to watch the two try and rationalize their guys’ positions.

    Basic summary.

    Dem: Obama inherited a big mess and that is why he spent so much. Nobody knew how bad it was.

    OBAMA MET WITH PRES BUSH AND THE SEC OF TREASURY, COMMERCE AND FED CHAIR TO BET BRIEFING. IF YOU RECALL THAT WAS HIS MOMENT WITH MCCAIN, WHO CAME OUT LOOKING LIKE A FOOL. THERE WERE MANY PEOPLE WHO PREDICTED HOW BAD IT WOULD GET, INCLUDING A DROP OF 30 TO 40% IN THE HOUSING MARKET. SO USING A LOOSE DEFINITION OF LYING THIS IS A LIE.

    Rep: Romney is really a free market guy and is just saying all this stuff to get elected. Because that is what you have to do to get elected. Specific example was Rand Paul’s comment about the Civil Rights Act and how he had to back track to get elected.

    SO LETS ASSUME MS. COULTER IS IN THE KNOW. ROMNEY IS A FREE MARKET GUY WHO IS GOING TO TAKE ACTION, INCLUDING CUTS TO THE BIG THREE. WELL THEN THAT WOULD MAKE HIS CAMPAIGN PROMISES AND PROPOSALS A LIE.

    THE WORST PART IS THAT COULTER CAME RIGHT OUT AND ADMITTED THAT POLITICIAN MUST LIE TO GET ELECTED. THE DEM THEN BASICALLY SUPPORTED THIS NOTION WHEN ASKED WHY CUTS CAN NOT BE MADE. “BECAUSE EACH PROGRAM HAS A CONSTITUENCY THAT VOTES” WAS HIS REPLY.

    SO THERE YOU HAVE IT. A BASIC SUMMARY ON THE STATE OF OUR POLITICS TODAY.

    THEY ARE BOTH LYING!!

    SO THIS LEAVES US WITH THE HOPE THAT YOUR GUY’S LIES WILL ACTUALLY BE LIES SO HE WILL DO WHAT YOU HOPE BUT HE HAS NO COURAGE OR CONVICTION ENOUGH TO ADMIT WHAT HE REALLY WANTS TO DO.

    End of my equal opportunity Rant and Insults for this afternoon.

    Hope everyone is well and prepared to keep warm this weekend.

    Ray, Buck, Mathius, USW, Essom, Spitfire, Puritan and anyone else on the east coast.. Best thoughts are with you these next few days. May you remain safe and warm.

  82. Petraeus Throws Obama Under the Bus
    6:05 PM, Oct 26, 2012 • By WILLIAM KRISTOL

    Single Page Print Larger Text Smaller Text Alerts

    Breaking news on Benghazi: the CIA spokesman, presumably at the direction of CIA director David Petraeus, has put out this statement: “No one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate. ”
    Barack Obama

    So who in the government did tell “anybody” not to help those in need? Someone decided not to send in military assets to help those Agency operators. Would the secretary of defense make such a decision on his own? No.

    It would have been a presidential decision. There was presumably a rationale for such a decision. What was it? When and why—and based on whose counsel obtained in what meetings or conversations—did President Obama decide against sending in military assets to help the Americans in need?

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/petraeus-throws-obama-under-bus_657896.ht

  83. Jon Stewart on what “really meant” by those 47% …
    Chris La Tray in the house … Crazy Cop … Nurse Annie … Bullshit Mountain … TK’s locks of the week …

    http://temporaryknucksline.blogspot.com/2012/10/chris-la-tray-in-house-crazy-cop-nurse.html

  84. Gallup Shows an 11-Point Swing in Party Affiliation Since 2008
    2:02 PM, Oct 26, 2012 • By JEFFREY H. ANDERSON

    Newly released figures from Gallup show that the demographics of the American electorate (age, race, sex, etc.) have changed very little since 2008 except in one way: Party affiliation has swung dramatically toward the Republican party, and away from the Democratic party, during President Obama’s term. Gallup’s tallies on the composition of the electorate show that, among likely voters, Democrats held a 10-point advantage over Republicans in party affiliation in 2008 — 39 to 29 percent. Four year later, Gallup’s tallies show that, among likely voters, Republicans hold a 1-point advantage over Democrats in party affiliation — 36 to 35 percent. That’s an 11-point swing in just four years.
    gop

    Gallup writes that “the largest changes in the composition of the electorate compared with the last presidential election concern the partisan affiliation of voters.” It adds, “In fact, the party composition of the electorate this year looks more similar to the electorate in 2004 than 2008.” In 2004, according to Gallup, Republicans enjoyed a 2-point advantage over Democrats in party affiliation — 39 to 37 percent.

    When independents who lean toward a given party are included, the changes in party affiliation are even more striking. In 2004, Gallup showed that Republicans and Democrats were tied in party affiliation when leaners were included — at 48 percent apiece. In 2008, Democrats enjoyed a 12-point edge when leaners were included — 54 to 42 percent. In 2012, Republicans enjoy a 3-point edge when leaners are included — 49 to 46 percent. That’s a 15-point swing since 2008.
    Related Stories

    To be sure — despite these swings — Gallup still shows Republicans with only a 1-point edge in party affiliation (without counting leaners). But given how well most recent polling has shown Mitt Romney doing among independent voters, the GOP nominee would presumably be quite happy to supplement his apparent advantage among independents with even a 1-point advantage in turnout.

    In short, if Gallup is right about likely voters’ party affiliation — and especially if it’s right about the 11-point swing toward the GOP since 2008 — that’s very good news for Romney and very bad news for Obama.

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/gallup-shows-11-point-swing-party-affiliation-2008_657871.html

  85. Aaaah, we’re already bombarded with Tommy/Tammy, Duffy/Kreitlow, and plenty of Romney/Obama ads.

    We don’t need anymore – and I’m not sure there is any TV time available. The ads are already running back-to-back-to-back-to-back-to-back-to-back-to-back-to-back-to-back! They’ll have to start cancelling shows and just run ads!

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/26/mitt-romney-2012-campaign_n_2026484.html

  86. Colonel,
    Didn’t anyone think about the hogs when they were building the highway? Time to add fences along the highway.

    http://www.kxan.com/dpp/news/drivers-hit-wild-hogs-on-sh-130?hpt=us_bn8

    • Mornin’ Todd…..keep in mind that this toll road has been open for some time. This article makes it sound like it was just opened. I have been on it twice earlier this year…..but the new speed limit was just opened. When I was on it the limit was 80…just like in west Texas….speed limit is 80….and our average highway speed is 75.

      But to answer your question about hogs. The largest and most danger on our highways is not speed but wildlife. Deer and hogs. Our insurance rates in Texas are also predicated on animal collisions….and PIP is rated because of this. There is no way to prevent deer and feral hogs from getting on the highways. Last year alone in Kerr County, 1500 deer carcases alone were removed from the highway and that was just one county and that was just what was reported. It is the same for feral hogs. Texas has the largest deer and hog population in the United States. In Llano county, 81% of the body work done on the cars was from deer collision. We just learn to drive with it. Every Texan knows that at night, you have to be especially vigilant about the wanderings of hogs and deer.

      I, personally, have had a deer run into my car on the highway and I saw it coming and was able to come to a complete stop and the damn thing still ran into the side of my car. Our safe driving courses in Texas teach drivers what to look for at night when driving. How to spot the eyes of animals and what to do. Most of us that drive in deer and hog country, (which is just about everywhere out side of the metroplex areas) have in our possession a whistle that we can attach to the grill of our cars. We cannot hear it inside but the deer and hogs can hear it and it helps alert them to on coming traffic. Out of state drivers do not know how to handle these type of collisions and will try to avoid hitting the animal by swerving and thus, rolling over. We know to drive at night with our hands in the 10 and 2 position and we do not swerve if the collision is inevitable. Hit the animal and pull over and report it. Sometimes the collisions will trigger the airbags, even at 35 mph, and a lot of people get broken arms and noses from not having their hands and arms in the correct driving position. Pennsylvania is right behind Texas in deer collisions. Last year in Texas, it was reported that 111 deaths were a direct result of animal collisions. That number is probably higher because a one car roll over on the highway where no animal is found is still probably the result of swerving.

      It does not matter the speed of the highway and game fences do not work. Hogs go right through them or dig under them. This time of year, when the first cold snap hits, both the hogs and the deer go into rut and stupidity reigns. The first cold snap hit day before yesterday and the male animals are going absolutely stupid. They are even wandering into larger towns and being hit on residential roads at 30 mph. There is nothing more stupid than deer or cattle on the highway. They will walk right into a car lights. The hogs….well….they are pretty stupid as well but are not very agile. And, how many times have you seen a squirrel take off to cross a street only to turn around and run back across it and, voila, smacko…..the same with hogs. They will see headlights and instead of running across or even turning back….will run right down the highway like it is a pathway…and swerve right and left while running down the highway. We just have to slow down until we past them and then go again. Deer, on the other hand will run right beside a car and then turn into it. As I said before, the term “a deer in the headlights” is a true and accurate term. They will run right to it. Very few Texans fall asleep at the wheel on the highways because we are constantly looking for deer. Our favorite saying is “keep yer head on a swivel lest you have a deer in the front seat”.

      The only reason that I can see that it is reported on this stretch of toll road is only because of the speed limit being raised to 85. I do not know why outsiders do not like our speed limits. The speed limit between Abilene and El Paso has been 80 for years and our average speed has been 75 since the Federal Guidelines were rescinded, on 90% of our highways. You should see the number of reporters down here going through our driving records simply because we raised a speed limit to 85. There is talk of the Abilene to El Paso speed limit being raised to 85 or 90. The distance between those two cities is 390 miles of nothing but ranch land and a straight highway that is four lanes wide with loops around the only two cities that are out there. Anyway, we have to deal with the animals all the time and are a part of our way of life here.

      • Oh….all ranch land in Texas does have fences. Land owners are required to fence their land but it is usually a five strand barbed wire fence. Deer go over it and hogs go through it. Even a 7 foot game fence does not keep them off the highways and if you have 60 miles of highway running through your ranch, you cannot afford a 7 or 9 foot game fence and most ordinances prevent fences that high anyway. Four foot fences are required unless you are a game preserve and even then, you must be able to have unrestricted vision through the fence.

  87. Saw this on Fox yesterday and figured I’d give some kudos where they are due. Our very own Cyndi P was directly involved with this successful mission. Go Cyndi!

    Ballistic Missile Defense System Engages Five Targets Simultaneously During Largest Missile Defense Flight Test in History

    http://www.mda.mil/news/12news0011.html

    • Yeah Cyndi!

      Anita, just gettin’ my red on and heading out soon to Camp Randall, (along with my knitting bag!!!) Hope we’ve learned to defend the hail mary!

  88. Just A Citizen says:

    A headline from the NYT that sums up the SAD state of affairs regarding our collective understanding of economics.

    Rise in Household Debt May Bode Well for Recovery
    By ANNIE LOWREY

    Americans are taking on more debt than they are shedding, indicating a more resilient recovery is near.

    • Right or wrong “we are all Keynesians now”

      • gmanfortruth says:

        I wouldn’t say “All” :) I have no debt, none, nada. I will not play their debt games, I have what I need and the ability to purchase what I want. I pay in advance for my conveniences, such as cell phone, internet and cable TV. If you would, please explain how I fall into being a Keynesian? I would love to know. By the way Flag, hows that elbow doing? Hopefully your close to being healed. :)

        • Re: Elbow

          With the change of activity on this new contract, all my old injuries -from accident to semipro-baseball (albeit short) career are making themselves felt. I hurt in all my major joints.

          Gettin’ old I guess.

          • gmanfortruth says:

            I know the feeling very well. This low pressure over us now is not helping and this Frankenstorm about to come over us as well will be aggravating the joints big time. Getting old is a painful thing sometimes, the beer helps :)

  89. @Todd. Mia Culpa … I’ve been accused of beating dead horses on liberal sites as well … usually when I point to how Obama turned his back on unions and how unions (Trumka in particular) make it easy for the right to accuse them of being completely corrupt by never calling “their” president on his turning his back (Wisconsin). I’ve also been told I’ve beaten dead horses when pointing to how Obama received more gelt from Wall Street in 2008 than any president in history; that his bailout of Wall Street without protecting workers (outsourcing, bonuses, etc.) was the worst act of any president in my lifetime (the damage it did to labor), which I still believe, by the way. I’ve been told I beat a dead horse when pointing to the lack of scrutiny by the press on Obama’s maintaining Bush policies (what I label as Bush on sterioids and still believe). Now, was I beating a dead horse or a drum my liberal friends didn’t want to hear (which is why they watch MSNBC and the wingies here watch FOX), because it’s what they “want” to hear (in my opinion).

    I am a shit stirrer, make no mistake, but not always. Sometimes the discussions are interesting. I won’t waste my time arguing “reason and logic” with someone who plans his foundation on pure anarchy because it’s a waste of time, but sometimes I’ll engage over issues that interest and or provoke me. Nor will I discuss much with people who can only see black and white (the Javert’s of the world) … that’s just ignorance wrapped in hubris sprinkled with self made glitter and/or “a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.”

    I can’t think of any political blog that doesn’t have the problems here at SUFA. I’ve been to war with liberal democrats over their insistance on their party vs. what I believe needs to happen (voting third parties that truly represent the people), and as much as I can align with them (liberal dems) vs. the GOP, both to me are absurd choices (one a public hair to the left of the other). I don’t expect to convince anyone in here of anything. And, as I’ve said, I come here when I’m bored or interested. I have plenty in my life that takes most of my time anyway.

    I have learned a few things here, not much I agree with, but even reading crazy Ayn Rand (two books of hers) taught me how much I despise her philosophy and reconfirmed my own belief in socialism and/or social democracy. Like pretty much everything in life, you get what you want from something, whether it’s a book, a movie … or a blog featuring political discourse. In the grand scope of things, compared to what I love to do, it’s a waste of time … but obviously not enough of one or I’d be watching television instead (a bigger waste of time {unless it’s Netflix foreign movies}). As for the name calling … you’re not going to escape that anywhere you go, I don’t think. Passionate people tend to follow politics/sports, etc. and when fuses blow, there isn’t much one can do but let them run their course. I’m guilty of it … so it goes.

  90. gmanfortruth says:

    Good Afternoon SUFA, :)

    Just some info and thoughts. For those on the East coast who will be affected by “Frankenstorm”, good luck and prepare accordingly. If your not sure how to do that (Charlie) just ask :) The weather guessers are predicting a weather event that has never occurred in written history, while predicting that many places will be without power for 7 to 10 days (this is also new, predicting how long power will be out by the weather channel). I have recieved 3 calls from PennElec about storing water, O2 that Pops is on and available generator power, just today. This is also unprecedented. So they are very serious that we will not have power. I am prepared for this event, as expected.

    I do want to wish those affected the best of luck. Remember, no power means no grocery store, no banks, no gas. Prepare for the worse and hope for the best. They are TELLING us that we will not have power for an extended time. I tend to believe those that man the switch, you should too!

    • A Puritan Descendant says:

      “7 to 10 days”

      Ten days from today is election day. Imagine living in a dark city election night if Obama was to lose……. Scary thought…

  91. gmanfortruth says:

    Let’s have some more fun. From the tin hat wearing folks out there, here’s the latest on the conspiracy theory I mentioned yesterday (JAC, this is for fun!) So accordingly, here are the recent HAARP readings: http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2012/10/highest-haarp-readings-ever-10-in-the-northeast-2486154.html

    • Ahhh….Give Gore some time…..it will be global warming…….and probably designed as a disenfranchisement storm.

      • gmanfortruth says:

        Good Morning Colonel :)

        Obviously, Sandy is a racist Tea Partier as well, since she is attacking mostly Democratic strongholds :roll: Have you noticed how amazingly accurate the forecast has been?

  92. http://www.nytimes.com/1987/11/22/magazine/who-s-in-charge-here.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

    D13TheColonel,

    Do you know any of the individuals in this old article? I will not name anyone specific but one of them is local and a frequent letter writer to the local paper.

    • I am not familiar with most of them and only some names in passing. I was not involved in this operation at all although many similar to this type of operation. I did not ask questions as to whom the pilots were or whom the contacts worked for……they were our support for interdiction raids into various drug operations in various countries in Central and South America.

  93. How is everyone holding up on the east coast?

    • So far just some wind at 12:31 am no rain yet. Lucky that most of the leaves on my 80 year old oaks blew down today so we don’t have a repeat of last October 29th. I’m 13 Miles due West of NYC. Hoping for the best. An unusual storm, a throwback to the ’50’s and ’60’s when I was a kid and they came inland then ran up through PA.

  94. gmanfortruth says:

    Good Morning SUFA :)

    Frankenstorm is whats on our minds today. I’m expecting tropical storm force winds beginning this afternoon and lasting into Wednesday. It will be worse along the coast, so all you folks in the path of this beast, I hope your prepared. Good luck to all!

  95. Hunker down out there…..hope everyone makes it ok. Not much wind, it seems, but your storm surge is going to fairly decent. Sorta like our flash floods in thunderstorm season…(doesn’t last long but wipes out power)….stay safe and keep yer powder dry.

  96. Was reading about various schools (most on the West coast) that are outlawing Halloween costumes at schools and Halloween parties for the following reasons:
    1) Some kids cannot afford costumes and therefore, disenfranchises them.
    2) Some kids cannot afford candy and therefore disenfranchises them.
    3) because of culture issues some are disenfranchised
    4) it is all about devils and demons, therefore,some are disenfranchised

    One group in California says the same thing should apply to Valentines Day, Mother’s Day school activities, Father’s Day school activities…all because some students do not have as many friends, or a mom, or a dad…….HOWEVER….this same group advocates that schools observe other culture holidays and observances as this teaches about other cultures. Sigh…….

    This same group said that the schools should observe Dia de Muertos……(Day of the Dead). This is where people go to the grave yards and have picnics on the graves of their loved ones remembering……and this is observed during Halloween…….and this is ok to dismiss school for and they wear all kinds of costumes. Go figure.

  97. gmanfortruth says:

    Mychal Massie is a respected writer and talk show host in Los Angeles .
    The other evening on my twitter, a person asked me why I didn’t like the Obama’s? Specifically I was asked: “I have to ask, why do you hate the Obama’s? It seems personal, not policy related. You even dissed (disrespect) their Christmas family picture.”
    The truth is I do not like the Obamas, what they represent, their ideology, and I certainly do not like his policies and legislation. I’ve made no secret of my contempt for the Obamas. As I responded to the person who asked me the aforementioned question, I don’t like them because they are committed to the fundamental change of my/our country into what can only be regarded as a Communist state.
    I don’t hate them per definition, but I condemn them because they are the worst kind of racialists, they are elitist Leninists with contempt for traditional America . They display disrespect for the sanctity of the office he holds, and for those who are willing to admit same, Michelle Obama’s raw contempt for white America is transpicuous.
    I don’t like them because they comport themselves as emperor and empress. I expect, no I demand respect, for the Office of President and a love of our country and her citizenry from the leader entrusted with the governance of same. President and Mrs. Reagan displayed an unparalleled love for the country and her people. The Reagan’s made Americans feel good about themselves and about what we could accomplish. Obama’s arrogance by appointing 32 leftist czars and constantly bypassing congress is impeachable. Eric Holder is probably the MOST incompetent and arrogant DOJ head to ever hold the job. Could you envision President Reagan instructing his Justice Department to act like jack-booted thugs?
    Presidents are politicians and all politicians are known and pretty much expected to manipulate the truth, if not outright lie, but even using that low standard, the Obama’s have taken lies, dishonesty, deceit, mendacity, subterfuge and obfuscation to new depths. They are verbally abusive to the citizenry, and they display an animus for civility.
    I do not like them, because they both display bigotry overtly, as in the case of Harvard Professor Lou is Gates, when he accused the Cambridge Police of acting stupidly, and her code speak pursuant to now being able to be proud of America . I view that statement and that mindset as an insult to those who died to provide a country where a Kenyan, his illegal alien relatives, and his alleged progeny, could come and not only live freely, but rise to the highest, most powerful, position in the world. Michelle Obama is free to hate and disparage whites because Americans of every description paid with their blood to ensure her right to do same.
    I have a saying, that “the only reason a person hides things, is because they have something to hide.” No president in history has spent millions of dollars to keep his records and his past sealed.
    And what the two of them have shared has been proved to be lies. He lied about when and how they met, he lied about his mother’s death and problems with insurance, Michelle lied to a crowd pursuant to nearly $500,000 bank stocks they inherited from his family. He has lied about his father’s military service, about the civil rights movement, ad nausea. He lied to the world about the Supreme Court in a State of the Union address. He berated and publicly insulted a sitting Congressman. He has surrounded himself with the most rabidly, radical, socialist academicians today. He opposed rulings that protected women and children that even Planned Parenthood did not seek to support. He is openly hostile to business and aggressively hostile to Israel . His wife treats being the First Lady as her personal American Express Black Card (arguably the most prestigious credit card in the world). I condemn them because, as people are suffering, losing their homes, their jobs, their retirements, he and his family are arrogantly showing off their life of entitlement – as he goes about creating and fomenting class warfare.
    I don’t like them, and I neither apologize nor retreat from my public condemnation of them and of his policies. We should condemn them for the disrespect they show our people, for his willful and unconstitutional actions pursuant to obeying the Constitutional parameters he is bound by, and his willful disregard for Congressional authority.
    Dislike for them has nothing to do with the color of their skin; it has everything to do with their behavior, attitudes, and policies. And I have open scorn for their constantly playing the race card.
    It is my intention to do all within my ability to ensure their reign is one term. I could go on, but let me conclude with this. I condemn in the strongest possible terms the media for refusing to investigate them, as they did President Bush and President Clinton, and for refusing to label them for what they truly are. There is no scenario known to man, whereby a white president and his wife could ignore laws, flaunt their position, and lord over the people, as these two are permitted out of fear for their color.
    As I wrote in a syndicated column titled, “Nero In The White House” – “Never in my life, inside or outside of politics, have I witnessed such dishonesty in a political leader. He is the most mendacious political figure I have ever witnessed. Even by the low standards of his presidential predecessors, his narcissistic, contumacious arrogance is unequalled. Using Obama as the bar, Nero would have to be elevated to sainthood… Many in America wanted to be proud when the first person of color was elected president, but instead, they have been witness to a congenital liar, a woman who has been ashamed of America her entire life, failed policies, intimidation, and a commonality hitherto not witnessed in political leaders. He and his wife view their life at our expense as an entitlement – while America ‘s people go homeless, hungry and unemployed.”

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 135 other followers

%d bloggers like this: