Playing Chicken

I’m visualizing that scene in the movie “Footloose” where two teens play “chicken” with stolen tractors.  Sadly, the POTUS is the first to steal a tractor, with his cohorts that control the senate & the minority in the house, cheering him on.  But it is a different scene in reality.  First, Obama is not stealing or driving.  He sent Geithner with his budget plan of increasing spending resulting in a $1.6 trillion deficit for 2013.  He’s also planning his vacation, 20 days in Hawaii for only $4 million (what a bargain, why don’t we all do the same?)

He campaigned on working hard to fix the deficit, even with Republicans.

PELLEY: If you win, would you be willing to compromise? What are you will to give in order to complete this grand bargain on the budget that have failed?

OBAMA: Well, I — keep in mind that the trillion dollars that cut, it was a painful exercise. You know, there are some programs that are worthy but we just can’t afford right now. And I’m willing to do more on that front, because as I argued at the convention, those of us who believe that government can be a force for good when it comes to creating opportunity for folks who are willing to work hard and play by the rules to get into the middle class.

We have an obligation to make sure government works and there’s still waste there. There’s still programs that don’t work. There are still ways that we can make it leaner and more efficient. So I’m, you know, more than happy to work with the Republicans.

And what I’ve said is in reducing our deficits, we can make sure that we cut $2.50 for every $1 of increased revenue.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3460_162-57509126/face-the-nation-transcripts-september-9-2012-obama-ryan-plouffe/

And now after being re-elected, he’s back campaigning instead of meeting with congress.  He’s sent his surrogates out to pitch a proposal that doubles down on his spending agenda and ignores spending cuts until he’s out of office.

About these ads

Comments

  1. Put this up mostly for an open mic. Dealing with a lot of workus interuptus today….

  2. And no other in the Big Chair would do differently.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      I WOULD.
      :)

    • This is all your fault! If you had voted, Romney would have won those seven counties that would have cinched the electoral college. He would balance the budget and bring peace to the Middle East. (The Warp Drive would have also been discovered in a couple years, now it will be decades)

      But your position of refusing to vote would not stop them from using force to seize my money (also called taxes, enforced by the IRS) How is play but don’t play a better philosophy? Hope they get tired of taking my money?

      • True, you voting for a thief won’t stop theft, and sometimes not voting for a thief won’t stop him either.

        But in the former, you legitimized his crime and in the latter, you called him a criminal.

        There is a big difference.

  3. I am simply tired of Lies on top of more Lies on top of even more Lies. We need to just trash this entire Government and go back to starting from scratch.

    Piss on them ALL. Both Parties AND the fence sitters!

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Esom

      It is good to hear from you. Spoken in plain words with solid commitment.

      Baseball season is just around the corner.

      Now for the BIG question. Can Georgia pull off the upset and go to the Champ. game?

      • Well sure they can! Will they? I Don’t Know.

        To tell the truth though, I live real close to AL and am also a big fan of the Crimson Tide. Although I want Georgia to win this game and the National Championship, I will still be happy if Alabama does.

        As for our esteemed elected officials, I have heard more Lies, Swerves and Ducks since the election that I am sick to my stomach. I don’t believe anyone up there REALLY CARES if we go over the cliff. And I’m not sure if it really makes any difference anyhow.

        I am just biding my time right now, waiting for the Recession I know is coming. Regardless of what they do.

  4. Just posting this for the record.

    @ SUFA:

    The slavery issue had been a source of division between North and South from the beginning of the nation. That difference was embodied in the Constitution itself, which provided that a slave would be counted as three fifths of a person for purposes of congressional representation and which imposed an obligation to surrender fugitive slaves to their lawful masters. Although slavery was not named in the Constitution, it was, as antislavery Congressman John Quincy Adams said, “written in the bond”, which meant that he, like everyone else, must “faithfully perform its obligations.”

    p. 141 The latest Kearns Goodwin book, Team of Rivals.

    On the very next page, one of several instances of the hateful Fugitive Slave Law is mentioned.

    Now, I just happened to come across the above while at lunch/reading in my car. I won’t do this again, document as if YOU deserve such documentation when it is an obvious argument made by historians and scholars alike (whether it’s slavery that was the principal cause of the civil war or whether my underwear have skid marks or not). The point being, as it has always been, you (BF) do not have ALL THE ANSWERS. Nor is your life on this site and constant posting and insulting others in any way, shape or form, some kind of validation. Your arguments are every bit as flimsy as everyone else’s … you have the time and obviously the need to remind us all how you know and we don’t.

    Guess what? This was a minimal effort I undertook (actually just part of what I’m reading at the time). If it’s that easy to trip you up, imagine having the time (or desire) to further rip you to pieces?

    Not to worry. Not interested. I already know when I’m closer to right than you are. :)

    Now I’ll answer your question (if you asked one).

    • First, who is Kearns Goodwin and WHAT makes him right? You either, for that matter? And second, up yours Charlie!!! :lol:

      • Up yours, too, Rebel! :)

        Doris Kearns Goodwin (a female presidential historian) .. but ignore that because she definitely a Yankee, Democrat and a pinko.

        Nothing “makes me right” genius … that’s the ENTIRE POINT. Try reading a bit more carefully … or is the smoke from Gettysburg still in your crying eyes?

        • SIGH! No Charles. I am just tired of you Yankees still crying over slavery in the South like it is still taking place AND like the US was the only Nation ever to have Slavery. LIke it hasn’t taken place since the beginning of time and still takes place today.

          And Ms. Goodwin is a Historian eh? Then maybe she needs to stick to History and stay away from conjecture and other History that she has no idea of what she’s talking about. Like my son’s U.S. History teacher who preached Social Domocratic Policy before, during, and AFTER the election to her students to the point that I had to file a complaint against her this week.

          Y’all need to get over Slavery. It is dead and buried here long, long ago. Go get a new topic to moan and cry over. ;-)

          • How can one argue with that logic. Okay, Rebel, whatever you say.

            • Exactly Charlie. I am NOT approving of Slavery. I absolutely abhor the practice. But the fact remains that I have never owned anyone. And neither has anyone slap back to my GGGGrandaddy owned any either (after that I ain’t real sure :-) ). We don’t owe any black person or anybody else anything. Because they ain’t never BEEN slaves either. And we are sick of being beat over the head with a 150 and more year old policy that died in Blood and Terror.

              All I am trying to say is that this Nation will never move on as long as people are willing to keep it alive by talking it to death. And we NEED to get over it.

              Just like we need to get over Racism. There will always be racists in the world. And American White Males are not even the worst Bigots. We have just been scapegoated as such by others races and the MSM lately. There are FAR worse out there than us. And many more Nations as well.

    • One thing we might agree on, whenever anyone claims to know the one thing that led to the Civil War, they are wrong. It’s always many things that lead to war. If the Constitution had not included the 3/5’s provision and England had conquered either the North or South in 1812, would that have been a better world? The English Northern Colony would not have been friendly to Italian immigrants….in that reality, there would never have been a “Greater Good” born! Just the thought is making me teary-eyed right now….

  5. To get away from the dead subject of our 150 year old slavery issue, I submit this:

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/11/30/democrats-playing-chicken-in-fiscal-talks-as-tax-hikes-loom-for-all-says-gop/

    We are close to this “fiscal cliff” they all keep yammering about, yet, no one seems interested in actually keeping us from going over it. So is it really THAT bad if we go over? Apparently not to them! Or maybe they just don’t care about the REAL people in the Nation. All they seem to be concerned with is posturing for the cameras. I don’t see real concern on either side.

    Although I see more on the Republican side than the Democrat, that ain’t saying much at ALL!

    Why is it the people keep electing such pompous ASSES to office?

    STUPIDITY!!!

  6. I don’t remember a lot about the Simpson-Bowles plan. Any opinions on this idea?

    Republicans’ Ace in the Hole: Simpson-Bowles?

    Guy Benson
    Guy Benson
    Political Editor, Townhall.com

    Nov 30, 2012 02:45 PM EST

    Democrats appear to have the upper hand on the politics of the fiscal cliff, which might explain their brash pronouncements and mind-blowing conceptualization of “compromise.” This morning I outlined three possible contingencies for Republicans, none of which is especially attractive. But is there a fourth way? The GOP’s dilemma is a doozy. Their opponents, emboldened by the election, are pushing for counter-productive tax hikes on “the rich” — a politically popular proposition at the moment — while offering almost nothing meaningful in return. Meanwhile, Democrats’ allies in the media have been crafting a ‘Republicans-as-stubborn-obstructionists’ narrative for years. To a large extent, they’ve been successful; Republicans are poised to bear the brunt of an irate public’s blame if a fiscal cliff deal doesn’t get cut. Voters either don’t know or don’t care about the details. As the story goes, Obama wants a “balanced” deal, and House Republicans are the only people standing in the way of averting economic disaster. Thus, Obama is holding the public relations high card. This is why he feels liberated to shoot for the moon by serving up absurd “deals;” as he sees it, if Republicans walk away, we all go over the cliff, and the media will beat Republicans to a pulp until they either (a) relent and give away the farm or (b) get crushed in 2014.

    Short on good options, here’s one play GOP leaders might be able to make to regain some of the high ground and throw the White House back on its heels: Embrace Simpson/Bowles. President Obama established a bipartisan debt commission with great fanfare in 2010. Its leaders were Alan Simpson, a former Republican Senator, and Erskine Bowles, President Clinton’s former Chief of Staff. The panel was tasked with engineering a solution to right America’s fiscal ship. In the end, they produced a set of recommendations that received the blessing of a majority of its members. The commission’s blueprint drew a fair amount of criticism from conservatives, but was roundly blasted by liberals. Liberal malcontents like Paul Krugman torched the plan with noteworthy ferocity. The president shelved the recommendations, and they’ve been collecting dust ever since. What did the proposal actually look like?

    – The plan called for a 3-to-1 ratio of real spending reductions to tax increases. Federal spending as a percentage of GDP was capped at 21 percent, substantially lower than the Obama average.

    – The spending cuts impacted multiple sectors of government, targeting everything from discretionary spending, to defense, to Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. Some modest reforms were suggested for these entitlement programs.

    – The plan raised taxes by limiting and eliminating many popular deductions, some of which disproportionately favor the wealthy. Some of these massively hiked revenues were offset by a major, pro-growth simplification of the tax code. The proposal established three relatively low marginal income tax brackets (12/22/28 percent). It also repealed the Alternative Minimum Tax and called for lowering the corporate tax.

    – Overall, Simpson Bowles projected $4 Trillion in deficit reduction over a ten year budget window.

    Of the commission’s 18 members, six Democrats and five Republicans endorsed the final document, while the seven ‘no’ votes split four-to-three along Left/Right ideological lines. Paul Ryan was the most prominent opponent of the plan. The eleven-member ‘yes’ camp was ideologically diverse, ranging from Sen. Tom Coburn on the right to Sen. Dick Durbin on the left. Like many conservatives, I continue to harbor significant concerns about various elements of the plan. I’m troubled by some of the tax provisions, especially the revenue cap at 21 percent of GDP (far higher than the historical average of 18 percent). The defense cuts are also worrisome, as is the fact that despite some cuts and tinkering, Medicare — the largest long-term driver of our debt — escapes a desperately needed overhaul. The framework also assumes the retention of Obamacare, which Paul Ryan has cited as a primary cause of his ‘no’ vote. But here is today’s reality: (1) Unhappy tax news is coming, one way or the other. The president is not budging. (2) The fall election guaranteed that Obamacare is here to stay, at least for the foreseeable future. (3) Sequestration’s defense cuts would be even more punishing and abrupt than Simpson/Bowles reductions. (4) Democrats have shown themselves to be totally unserious about any reforms or reductions to entitlements. In short, even if the major players manage to hammer out an eleventh-hour deal before January 1, it’s probably going to reek. It will have been negotiated in secret, and will almost certainly be jammed through in a rushed and unsavory fashion. This is no way to govern.

    Simpson-Bowles, for all its faults, was conducted in an open and transparent manner and brought disparate political players into a room to forge a serious compromise. It overhauls and streamlines our byzantine tax code, takes some important first steps on entitlements, and reduces and caps federal spending. On substance, I’d wager that it would be considerably better than anything Obama and Boehner might produce after weeks of behind-closed-doors acrimony with the proverbial gun to their heads. Politically, it paints Democrats into a tough corner. Republicans could make a grand show of reluctantly supporting Simpson-Bowles for the betterment of the country. Ideally, the press conference would be led by Paul Ryan, who might explain why he voted against the plan as a commissioner, but is now willing to set aside some of his strong ideological preferences to move the nation forward. They would remind viewers that the proposal they’re now backing only exists because President Obama specifically and publicly asked for it. Plus, more Democrats than Republicans voted for it, including Harry Reid’s top lieutenant in the Senate. Put simply, Simpson-Bowles represents the very embodiment of bipartisan collaboration and problem solving — precisely the sort of thing “moderates,” the media, and the public are always demanding. It would be exceedingly difficult for Democrats to paint the plan as radical or draconian in light of the commission’s origins and participants. The GOP’s “party of no” problem would also be hugely diminished; after all, they would have just signed on to the president’s commission, with the previously recalcitrant Paul Ryan magnanimously leading the way. It would be fascinating to watch the president and his allies try to denounce and reject the very proposal he called for.

    Of course, all of this would require significant coordination and buy-in from Congressional Republicans — no small thing, to be sure. Many House members in particular find major swaths of the plan rather unpalatable. They would need to be convinced that this idea would still be the best chess move for conservatism, both strategically and tactically. Paul Ryan’s agreement and cooperation would also be essential. Furthermore, Republicans would have to be willing to stomach quite a bit of political stagecraft in unveiling their announcement. The reveal would be big, hyped, and dramatic — out of necessity. Why? To capture the media’s attention and earn heavy coverage. Basically, the public would need to know that it happened. They wouldn’t need to internalize all the specifics, but they’d have to hear that Republicans offered a “historic” compromise by agreeing to the controversial plan authored by Obama’s bipartisan fiscal commission.

    Best case scenario: Republicans catch Democrats off-guard, and (much or most of) the plan is adopted. At the very least, GOP negotiators would gain major leverage in fashioning a less horrific final compromise. Worst case scenario: Democrats firmly reject the plan, further talks stall, and the we go over the cliff. But even under this scenario, Republicans would have very prominently done their part to try to avoid the impasse, and the public’s assignment of blame would be rendered far more complex than simply, “the Republicans did it.” Bottom line: I’m not completely convinced that this is the best course of action, but given the dismal alternatives, it’s at least putting out there for consideration. I’ll leave you with a clip from last night’s Kudlow Report, where our panel discussed the fiscal cliff mess. One of my fellow panelists was former New Hampshire Senator Judd Gregg, a Republican, who served on Simpson-Bowles and supported its recommendations. Gregg told me off the air that he concurs with my assessment that his commission’s solutions would be far better than whatever the conclave of secret negotiators might churn out, and that the plan offers a lot for conservatives to like:

    http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2012/11/30/simpson_bowles

    • Just A Citizen says:

      V.H.

      Here is a link that includes a graphic comparison of Simpson-Bowles, Ryan and Obama.

      Please note that Ryan and Simpson-Bowles don’t eliminate the DEFICIT until 2035 or beyond.

      This means that the DEBT is growing this entire time.

      Now what is not clear to me is whether the “deficit” reduction and eventual balance included the payback to SS/Medicare/Medicaid which will be needed to cover current obligations.

      I know the Ryan and S/B plans did some things to these programs but don’t know how they handled the expenditure side.

      All three also include “projections” of REVENUE that include many ASSUMPTIONS about economic growth under each. Not exactly something the Treasure/Fed or CBO has been very good at in the past.

      My assessment: None of them go far enough and fast enough. The outstanding Entitlement obligations are due over the next 40 years. This means paying back what is owed with interest or we must default on the promises.

      Or…………………

      We are so screwed..

  7. Watching Charlie make a buffoon of himself is very sad to me. For the record, I , in my opinion, based on what I have read about Lincoln in the past, believe he really did “hate blacks”. Of course, it was acceptable in those times to do so and could have improved his popularity during the campaign. Not sure why this is such a bad thing to believe, after all is was 150+ years ago, and an acceptable practice.

    Slavery was not a prime issue in the beginning of the Civil War, it bacame an issue only when Lincoln was concerned about the British taking the South’s side if they ended it first. While my readings were long ago, I take the words of biographies of those who were alive back then, that my High School history teacher made us read. I can’t even remember the authors, but the class was interesting.

    Charlie, I feel your indoctrination, I mean education, was quite flawed. Maybe the asshole isn’t who you think it is after all :)

    • OH! I almost forgot. Charlie, before you decide to spout off with the mouth, make sure you have all you facts straight. Because if you don’t, you may find that the only asshole you see is looking back at you in the mirror :evil:

      • Well, to be fair, I’ve gotta say both BF and Charlie have been consistently acting like asses.

        • To be fairer..G’s second comment is also over the top and lands him in the hall of shame right with BF and Charlie. Sorry G!

          • Sorry Anita, but I anticipated this. Charlie says “G … where’s my Chivas, deadbeat?”

            I knew he would do this because he is lazy and pays little attention to reality. Please read the following:
            gmanfortruth says:
            November 20, 2012 at 11:00 am
            Chuckie,, You are correct! I found the post that verifies your claim. How about that. Send me the phone number of your nearest liquor store and I will purchase it and you can pick it up. Sound good?

            gmanfortruth says:
            November 22, 2012 at 9:45 am
            Captain Canolli, Happy T-Day to your and your family. Read all the posts above and stop acting like a Putz

            So now Anita, what does he see when looking in the mirror?

            • Still unnecessary brother. You guys all need some fresh air. But I’ll give you a cookie for being ready at the trigger.

              • Anita, Sister!, I posted a warning! I did not call him a name. I just told him what he would be if he acted as I expected, Bada-Boom, Bada-Bing! All in fun of course :) Charlie and BF have had some good one’s. They’d sit down and share some drink next to a campfire if the opportunity happened, I think :wink:

              • Who knows, you men can be weird. :) I think some of you actually enjoy this back and forth verbal fight . My husbands best friend is a guy who he got into a physical knock down drag out fight, the first time they met.

            • Okay, G, my bad. I never saw that post. contrary to popular opinion, I don’t look at EVERY post on here … :)

              I’ll find the liquor store so you can honor your bet …:)

              Now, I hope you saw some of BF’s mistaken facts … probably like myself, he typed too fast and assumed (He loves to assume) that I would understand what he meant … but enough of that for now.

              Me and my roomy from college (we were best men for each other’s first marriages) had two pretty good fights in college) … kissed and cried and made up … but guess what one of the fights was over? Politics, of course.

      • G … where’s my Chivas, deadbeat?

    • Charlie is playing nice recently.

      He is trying, so let’s give him the benefit of the doubt for awhile.
      We can try too….

      • I hate to tell you this, BF, but when G-Man (the deadbeat–he’s apparently not going to pay off a bet he lost–more facts he can’t deal with) is in your chorus with USW (does it get more biased?), you’re probably not doing very well in your arguments.

        And it’s not that I’m playing nicer. I feel I won what I was arguing and saw no reason to continue. I’m sure you feel the same way, except you never want to discontinue. I’ll say this for me, you have more stamina than me … and I type 100 wpm … :)

  8. From a big-picture perspective, why is the ‘fiscal cliff’ (more like a speed bump, really) a bad thing?

    Taxes are irrelevant overall if you’re still deficit spending. A deficit just means inflation which is a different kind of ‘tax’ and in the long-term amounts to about the same thing.

    And lower spending is pretty much always good since the current government doesn’t do anything right with anything it spends anyway.

    People get upset about the particulars – their own taxes go up in the short term, their particular ‘sacred cows’ get a small spending cut – but on the whole wouldn’t it be beneficial to drive right off this cliff (paritcularly if you’re of a conservative mindset)?

  9. Major Cool !!!!! :)

    Ethiopian kids hack OLPCs in 5 months with zero instruction
    Ethiopian kids hack OLPCs in 5 months with zero instruction

    What happens if you give a thousand Motorola Zoom tablet PCs to Ethiopian kids who have never even seen a printed word? Within five months, they’ll start teaching themselves English while circumventing the security on your OS to customize settings and activate disabled hardware. Whoa.

    The One Laptop Per Child project started as a way of delivering technology and resources to schools in countries with little or no education infrastructure, using inexpensive computers to improve traditional curricula. What the OLPC Project has realized over the
    last five or six years, though, is that teaching kids stuff is really not that valuable. Yes, knowing all your state capitols how to spell “neighborhood” properly and whatnot isn’t a bad thing, but memorizing facts and procedures isn’t going to inspire kids to go out and learn by teaching themselves, which is the key to a good education. Instead, OLPC is trying to figure out a way to teach kids to learn, which is what this experiment is all about.

    Rather than give out laptops (they’re actually Motorola Zoom tablets plus solar chargers running custom software) to kids in schools with teachers, the OLPC Project decided to try something completely different: it delivered some boxes of tablets to two villages in Ethiopia, taped shut, with no instructions whatsoever. Just like, “hey kids, here’s this box, you can open it if you want, see ya!”

    Just to give you a sense of what these villages in Ethiopia are like, the kids (and most of the adults) there have never seen a word. No books, no newspapers, no street signs, no labels on packaged foods or goods. Nothing. And these villages aren’t unique in that respect; there are many of them in Africa where the literacy rate is close to zero. So you might think that if you’re going to give out fancy tablet computers, it would be helpful to have someone along to show these people how to use them, right?

    But that’s not what OLPC did. They just left the boxes there, sealed up, containing one tablet for every kid in each of the villages (nearly a thousand tablets in total), pre-loaded with a custom English-language operating system and SD cards with tracking software on them to record how the tablets were used. Here’s how it went down, as related by OLPC founder Nicholas Negroponte at MIT Technology Review’s EmTech conference last week:

    “We left the boxes in the village. Closed. Taped shut. No instruction, no human being. I thought, the kids will play with the boxes! Within four minutes, one kid not only opened the box, but found the on/off switch. He’d never seen an on/off switch. He powered it up. Within five days, they were using 47 apps per child per day. Within two weeks, they were singing ABC songs [in English] in the village. And within five months, they had hacked Android. Some idiot in our organization or in the Media Lab had disabled the camera! And they figured out it had a camera, and they hacked Android.”

    This experiment began earlier this year, and what OLPC really want to see is whether these kids can learn to read and write in English. Around the world, there are something like 100,000,000 kids who don’t even make it to first grade, simply because there are not only no schools, but very few literate adults, and if it turns out that for the cost of a tablet all of these kids can simply teach themselves, it has huge implications for education. And it goes beyond the kids, too, since previous OLPC studies have shown that kids will use their computers to teach their parents to read and write as well, which is incredibly amazing and awesome.

    If this all reminds you of a certain science fiction book by a certain well-known author, it’s not a coincidence: Nell’s Primer in Neal Stephenson’s The Diamond Age was a direct inspiration for much of the OLPC teaching software, which itself is named Nell. Here’s an example of how Nell uses an evolving, personalized narrative to help kids learn to learn without beating them over the head with standardized lessons and traditional teaching methods:

    Miles from the nearest school, a young Ethiopian girl named Rahel turns on her new tablet computer. The solar powered machine speaks to her: “Hello! Would you like to hear a story?”

    She nods and listens to a story about a princess. Later, when the girl has learned a little more, she will tell the machine that the princess is named “Rahel” like she is and that she likes to wear blue–but for now the green book draws pictures of the unnamed Princess for her and asks her to trace shapes on the screen. “R is for Run. Can you trace the R?” As she traces the R, it comes to life and gallops across the screen. “Run starts with R. Roger the R runs across the Red Rug. Roger has a dog named Rover.” Rover barks: “Ruff! Ruff!” The Princess asks, “Can you find something Red?” and Rahel uses the camera to photograph a berry on a nearby bush. “Good work! I see a little red here. Can you find something big and red?”

    As Rahel grows, the book asks her to trace not just letters, but whole words. The book’s responses are written on the screen as it speaks them, and eventually she doesn’t need to leave the sound on all the time. Soon Rahel can write complete sentences in her special book, and sometimes the Princess will respond to them. New stories teach her about music (she unlocks a dungeon door by playing certain tunes) and programming with blocks (Princess Rahel helps a not very-bright turtle to draw different shapes).

    Rahel writes her own stories about the Princess, which she shares with her friends. The book tells her that she is very good at music, and her lessons begin to encourage her to invent silly songs about what she’s learning. An older Rahel learns that the block language she used to talk with the turtle is also used to write all the software running inside her special book. Rahel uses the blocks to write a new sort of rhythm game. Her younger brother has just received his own green book, and Rahel writes him a story which uses her rhythm game to help him learn to count.

    Read more about Nell in this paper, and if you haven’t read The Diamond Age, do so at once.

    http://dvice.com/archives/2012/10/ethiopian-kids.php

  10. THis cannot EVER be forgotten. People “voted” for this person, as Charlie would say, OY-VEY

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/01/hank-johnson-thinks-guam_n_521541.html

  11. Good Morning SUFA :)

    The deer hunt continues, today is day 6. It has been way to warm in my opinion, which isn’t helping. Today should be good, as doe season begins.

    Charlie, I’m mostly out of touch till the end of next week. I’m sure we will get everything straight. How about you try harder to be nice :lol:

    Now, off to the woods again (can’t wait to sleep in tomorrow before a short road trip :)

  12. This doesn’t sound good.

    China, India, South Korea Form Partnership Excluding U.S.

    by AWR Hawkins 1 Dec 2012, 11:14 AM PDT 48 post a comment
    On November 20, during a summit meeting at Phnom Penh where President Obama intended to push a Trans-Pacific partnership excluding China, the tables were turned and China, India, Japan, South Korea, and others announced a partnership that excludes the U.S.

    This new group is being formed by the Association of Southeast Asia Nations, and Barack Obama is persona non-grata.

    The Asia Times says of the news, “3 billion Asians becoming prosperous, while interest fades in the prospective contribution of 300 million Americans.”

    Obama had touted the Trans-Pacific Partnership as a great opportunity prior to his re-election. It was going to be a foreign policy coup of great proportions. As it turns out, however, China is throwing a party and Obama (and the rest of us) aren’t even invited.

    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2012/11/30/China-India-South-Korea-Form-Club-Exclude-Obama-and-the-U-S

    • Would you consider a trade pact between USA Canada and Mexico “bad”?

      It is a regional economic zone – it will have all the mercantilist faults, but it is not necessarily good/bad for anyone else.

      • well… it could be “bad” for us in the long run. The same way that NAFTA could be “bad” for others. In a global economy there is nothing that doesn’t impact those outside that particular regional economic zone.

        That being said, they have every right to enter into a geographical trade agreement. It simply points out yet another failure of this administration to achieve the lofty promises they lied about to get re-elected.

  13. The world is right. We are in the big game again.

  14. Bottom Line says:

    I have a few questions for everyone.

    Is there anyone here that knows someone, or were themselves, born on

    February 12, 1976 at 3:52 PM …or… March 18, 1975 at 3:05 or 3:08 PM?

    What is the city of birth?

    Does it bare the Fleur de lis in it’s symbolism?

    And is there anyone that can help me find/contact all people born in the USA on those specific dates/times?

    • I know several 75ers in my neighborhood. Give me a day or so to investigate. Why would you want to contact them?

      • Bottom Line says:

        ” I know several 75ers in my neighborhood. Give me a day or so to investigate. Why would you want to contact them? ”

        Because they may have one hell of a problem, as I am about to shed light on things.

        Go to the Interactive Online Planetarium: http://neave.com/planetarium/

        …and dial in February 12, 1976 3:52 PM, as well as get a natal chart of the same time/date in any US city. ( just Google ‘free natal chart’ and you will find many.)

        Now, look at both while reading Revelation 13.

        Revelation 13:1 And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea(West end of the Ascending line from Aquarius), having seven heads(7th house in Aquarius, which is a man with a head symbolized by the sea) and ten horns(mid-heaven/10th house in Taurus symbolized by a bull with horns), and upon his horns ten crowns(houses), and upon his heads the name of blasphemy.

        2 And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion: and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority.

        (look due North at the North Star/Polaris and you will notice that you are looking at Ursa Major/big bear and Lynx recently risen from the horizon, and the mouth of Leo starting to appear. Draw a line from Draco, tail through nose, through Vega, and it will point to the Sun in Aquarius and Jupiter. Seat = Aquarius, Power = Sun, and authority can either be Vega or Jupiter as both are symbolized by authority)

        3 And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death; and his deadly wound was healed: and all the world wondered after the beast.( Planet Mercury named as the god of healing)

        4 And they worshiped the dragon which gave power unto the beast: and they worshiped the beast, saying, Who is like unto the beast? who is able to make war with him?(Mars is the god of war)

        5 And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies; and power was given unto him to continue forty and two months. ( a full Moon cycle is 42 months)

        …etc…etc…

        My beautiful ex wife was born in Detroit on February 12, 1976. Her birth certificate was altered to show a different day. Her name means “White Phantom”

        I think I now know what made her do those awful things. And I thought it was PTSD. Sigh–

        The planets also appear to each symbolize a specific person. I have already identified Mercury, Jupiter, Venus and Moon.

        This is only scratching the surface. There is much more.

        • Bottom Line says:

          Oh, I almost forgot. This is how the numerology works for Feb. 12th 1976 at 3:52 PM…

          76 / 6 / 6 / 6 = .3518
          76 / 6 / 6 = 2.111111
          76 / 6 = 12.666666

          • Alrighty then. I have no idea what all that just said but I’ll still investigate for you ;)

            • Bottom Line says:

              Anita,

              I understand the finer points of astrology aren’t exactly common place knowledge. I am still learning myself. But it isn’t too complicated. It is essentially the position of the planets and stars relative to when and where on Earth you were born.

              What I think I have managed to crack above, is an encrypted description of a natal chart for the age of Aquarius or something. I would like input from others if I can get it.

              Over the the last year, I have literally went completely and utterly insane, but somehow have managed to discover some rather extraordinary things. I am confident that somehow I have been subjected to deep hypnotic programming of some kind. Someone brain raped me, jammed a lot of information in my head, and set me to go off like a bomb. I am pretty sure I have, at least in part, malfunctioned. It’s been a rather turbulent experience.

              This is just the first few dots of many. What little I know of truth is enormously complex. This may prove to be problematic, for myself especially, but I do so in the interest of seeking and sharing truth and knowledge. Please try to understand what I convey. I will be happy to answer any questions.

  15. Some thoughts on rational thought, Lincoln, slavery and how to rectify that in your mind(s) …:)

    http://temporaryknucksline.blogspot.com/2012/12/black-vs-white-when-rational-thought.html

    Go Bills!

  16. Another opinion on how to handle the fiscal cliff. Don’t know if it’s right or not but as a Republican it brought a Hell yea!-out of me-that isn’t necessarily a good thing :)

    To Hell With It, Let’s Jump Off the Fiscal Cliff

    Derek Hunter

    Dec 02, 2012

    To Hell With It, Let’s Jump Off the Fiscal Cliff
    We’ve all heard about the “fiscal cliff.” But what does it mean? The media won’t bother to explain it in any detail, and people aren’t looking it up on their own. So, a great many Americans think it’s a physical place, a vacation destination of some sort. I understand people are busy with their lives, but a majority of Americans just voted to re-elect President Obama, a man whose failed leadership created this harmonic convergence of economic mess that is the fiscal cliff. So I say, “To hell with it; let’s jump.”

    President Obama is still in campaign mode, traveling the country to sell his unserious proposal of $1.6 trillion in tax hikes, more insane spending and a laughably small amount of spending cuts. So much for a “balanced” plan. But the president couldn’t even be bothered to deliver his “plan” to Congress himself. He sent Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, an alleged financial wizard who claims he “misfiled” his taxes because he couldn’t properly use the near idiot-proof TurboTax.

    Democrats are unwilling to take seriously the coming crush of entitlement spending. They took entitlement reform off the table before negotiations even began, and their megaphones in the media don’t put down their pompons long enough to report honestly about any of it.

    The House of Representatives has passed an extension of the current tax rates, and the Democratic-controlled Senate has done exactly nothing with it. The Senate could vote to just extend the current rates they support and deal with it in a conference committee, but it won’t. It won’t do anything because the party that controls the Senate doesn’t want anything done.

    What few leftists will tell you is they want tax rates to increase on everyone. That’s why the president campaigned on extending them for the middle class for only one year, not permanently. They know, just like hiking rates on top earners, that will harm the failing economy, but they don’t give a damn. They want more money.

    Liberals have no interest in even inching toward a government that lives within its means because, unlike every other individual, company and entity in the world, government is the only entity that can simply vote itself more means. Max out your credit cards, then tell Visa you’re raising your own credit limit, and let me know how that works out for you.

    Republicans should start now, raising a lot of money and running ads about how Democrats are unserious and responsible for taxes going up. Spend money to explain the situation to the American public. The media never will report it, and Republican leaders, such as John Boehner and Mitch McConnell, don’t have the bully pulpit or ability to communicate Ronald Reagan did. So paid media is the only option.

    In the meantime, the people voted for Obama, so let them have Obama. Just make sure to pin every ounce of failure on his chest like a scarlet letter.

    Yes, sequestration will cause serious cuts in defense spending, but the military can handle it. Liberals become aroused at the prospect of cutting defense, and liberal voters in Virginia and Maryland would be hardest hit as defense contractors lay off Obama voters in those blue states. I say good. Sometimes voters have to take their medicine, even if it’s a suppository.

    It won’t be easy, but the military will adapt. That’s what the military does, and that’s why it is the best in the world. And half the automatic sequester cuts will come from domestic spending – bureaucracies also filled with Obama voters, who will be less able to deal with them. If they can’t adjust their spending to absorb the cuts, they’ll have to lay off people. Again, good.

    If Republicans refuse to extend unemployment benefits, these newly unemployed Obama voters eventually will get to experience first-hand the lifestyle their vote empowered. Welfare state overlords on welfare. Can you think of a better education for bureaucrats than to be forced onto the very programs they administered, so they themselves experience the soul-sucking, aspiration-killing impact of what they’ve done to others? Karma is exactly what they say it is.

    Or, if Republicans don’t have the “intestinal fortitude” for this (which leadership hasn’t displayed in years), the House should pass a middle-class tax cut but keep the top rates the same. And make them permanent. That would force Democrats to reject an actual middle-class tax cut, not the “keeping-rates-the-same” nonsense they’re now trying to sell to the American people as a tax cut.

    We know Democrats aren’t interested in cutting taxes for the people they claim to fight for, so call their bluff. Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Barack Obama like lying about middle-class tax cuts, so pass the bill and see how they react.

    But none of this will work if Republicans don’t start a smart, aggressive, expensive and sustained ad campaign that circumvents the media. The key word is “smart,” and it’s also the catch. The Republican Party needs to treat itself like Keith Richards and embrace failure and go with all new blood. If the party doesn’t shed those who brought us the debacle of Nov. 6, no strategy will work. Just like voters who re-elected a failed, incompetent president expecting a different outcome, Republicans can’t retain the same failed team and expect to win.

    Democrats have no interest in addressing our massive deficit and out-of-control spending; it’s up to Republicans. The question is this – do Republicans have the will? We’ll all have to have to take our medicine sooner or later. If we don’t take advantage of the opportunities now, that suppository will end up being like a cyanide pill.

    http://townhall.com/columnists/derekhunter/2012/12/02/to_hell_with_it_lets_jump_off_the_fiscal_cliff/page/full/

  17. December 2, 2012
    Obama wants $255 billion stimulus to offset his tax increases on the rich
    Rick Moran

    No – this is not a joke. The president is absolutely serious.

    Acknowledging that his tax increase on the wealthy will slow economic activity, the president wants $255 billion in new spending.

    Reason has left the building.

    But President Obama’s first offer to avoid going over the “fiscal cliff” holds out the hope of at least some stimulus. This would include extending the 2 percentage point Social Security payroll tax cut, boosting a tax incentive to businesses, establishing a $50 billion bank for long-term infrastructure projects, and extending unemployment benefits.

    The total bill: about $255 billion out of the federal government’s pocket – an amount the GOP would likely say needs to be offset by spending cuts elsewhere.

    The argument in favor of such stimulus? The tax measures, at least, could minimize the drag on the economy from Mr. Obama’s proposed tax increases on the wealthy.

    “The increases in the top two income tax brackets would put a drag on consumption, so I think, from the Obama point of view, the spending or tax cuts are designed to offset that drag to consumption,” says Michael Brown, an economist at Wells Fargo Securities in Charlotte, N.C.

    But to some budget experts, Obama’s list seems more like an opening round of negotiations, where he has asked for a lot more than he will get.

    “It looks to me like these are bargaining chips,” says Pete Davis of Davis Capital Ideas, which advises Wall Street firms. “Even most Democrats had given up on the prospect of getting the payroll tax cut extended.”

    Mr. Davis considers the odds of most of the stimulus proposals passing Congress “very low.”

    What’s needed most, say others, is just buckling down and negotiating an end to the fiscal cliff. “Cancelling the fiscal cliff is economic stimulus,” says Stan Collender, a budget expert and partner at Qorvis Communications in Washington.

    If tax increases are going to depress consumption, don’t do it. Simple, elegant logic that appears to have escaped those members of the administration charged with coming up with a plan to avoid the fiscal cliff.

    But the tax increases are not about the fiscal cliff, or revenue, or anything so mundane. Sticking it to the rich is a cosmic question of “fairness” and if the economy takes a hit, that’s a small price to pay for social justice.

    We have raving ideologues in charge and taking us over the cliff will be the least of our worries.

    Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/12/obama_wants_255_billion_stimulus_to_offset_his_tax_increases_on_the_rich.html#ixzz2DvB45jVv

  18. December 2, 2012
    The Asymmetry of Intolerance
    By Tom Trinko

    A group of Christians have just filed a lawsuit to have a statue of Nietzsche on Federal land near a Montana ski slope removed because they found a single person who says she’s offended.

    The vast majority of conservatives, including Christians, would find that lawsuit to be bizarre. Of course Christians, being tolerant, have done no such thing. Atheists, however, have sued to have a statue of Jesus on Federal land near to a ski slope, placed there at the request of WWII veterans back in 1955, removed. At first the litigants, a bigoted group of haters who have no tolerance for the personal beliefs of others, didn’t bother to produce anyone who was in fact bothered by the statue. When forced to, the bigots managed to dig up one person who was bothered.

    Some might question the use of “bigoted haters” to describe an organization which exists to drive the free speech expression of religious people off public property. However given that many atheists who support anti-Christian crusades also believe it’s fine for the government to fund “Piss Christ”, a crucifix in a jar of the “artists” urine, and a statue of the Blessed Virgin Mary covered in cow dung it’s clear that these atheist extremists do not believe in the free speech rights of Christians; one cannot declare Federal funding of religious statues so long as they are designed to attack faith to be okay while declaring that the same statues — minus feces — are prohibited on Federal land.

    The simple fact is that people of faith, and good people in general, are not offended by the symbols of other faiths. No Catholic has called for removing a statue of Buddha from a public spot in any major city’s Chinatown. Similarly no Protestant has ever called for the removal of a crucifix from the outside of a Catholic church. Islamic symbols aren’t common in the U.S. but Christians haven’t filed suit to make Muslims remove minarets from their mosques. In fact, Christians have been effusive in their support for Jewish religious symbols right next to Christian ones on public property.

    Finally people of faith haven’t sued to remove statues of atheists from public property. The only group in America today which has no tolerance for the symbols which represent the heartfelt belief of others are atheists. They believe that all others should tolerate atheist symbols and anti-religious art but that atheists can have a zero tolerance policy for religious expression.

    This latest atheist lawsuit is one in a long stream of such suits aimed at eliminating the free speech rights of Americans of faith. The Constitution says that the Federal, government — not state governments — is prohibited from establishing a religion. The Founders’ writings make clear that the intent was not to prevent any expression of religious belief on public property but rather to avoid a situation where the government endorsed one specific brand of Christianity, a la the Church of England.

    In fact the Founders were very clear in the First Amendment that religious speech and actions were very highly protected. The First Amendment says: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

    Notice that the First Amendment protects all aspects of an individual exercising their religion, not just an individual’s right to go to church.

    Clearly then, as Americans we have the right to have religious statues on public land, which is an exercise of our faiths, so long as we don’t restrict which religions can have statues. By supporting a diversity of statues, artwork, or tablets on public property Americans are rejecting the right of the government to pick one faith and elevate it above all others while endorsing the rights of all Americans, no matter what their faith, to have their views memorialized on public land when appropriate.

    The atheist perspective is that only atheists have First Amendment rights on public land. They base their reasoning on the dubious proposition that atheism is not a religion and that the Constitution is restricting religious liberty rather than defending it.

    The thought of atheism being a religion may sound a bit odd to most. All the same, it’s clear that atheism is in fact a full-blown religion identical in nature to any other faith.

    First note that since science cannot prove that there is no God and science cannot explain everything that goes on in the universe — it may be able to someday, but that day is far in the future if ever — atheists have to reject God based on faith; their faith that God is implausible. Atheists tend to confuse their belief that God is unlikely with fact and declare that they don’t have to defend their beliefs.

    Second while Atheists don’t have a god, neither do Buddhists, yet who would question that Buddhism is a religion? While there are dictionary definitions of religion that do seem to require a god there is also this one which is actually more accurate in that it covers Buddhism:

    …a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

    This brings up a key point. Given that people of faith do not summon lightning to smite their foes and that Heaven isn’t visible, what is religion in a purely worldly light?

    The answer is that religion, in a purely worldly way, consists of the moral principles of an individual irrespective of their source.

    Therefore, from a general diversity and tolerance based perspective, the religion of an individual consists of the moral perspectives that guide her actions in society. Everyone has moral beliefs — even serial killers, although clearly few of us would agree with a serial killer’s moral compass — so everyone has “religion”.

    Atheists attempt to introduce an artificial dichotomy based on the source of a person’s moral principles. Atheist extremists say that you can quote Nietzsche on morality but not Jesus at a public school graduation. Why? If Jesus is God then it would be smart to quote Him, and if he is not God then he’s a man, and hence no different from Nietzsche. The inconsistency in atheistic reasoning can be seen in that if one could show that Jesus was not God it would be okay to quote him at a graduation and have a statue of him on public land. Clearly saying we should honor a man more than we should honor God is a somewhat odd perspective.

    In reality, atheist extremists are attempting to do what the Constitution expressly forbids: have the Federal government endorse one particular faith above all others. Atheists wish to allow symbols of the atheist faith — that there is no god — and sayings to be allowed on public lands, in public speeches, and in government documents while banning the symbols of all other faiths. This is nothing less than having the Federal government endorse one faith, Atheism, above all others.

    In an America where we’re informed that the most vile exploitive types of pornography are protected as free speech, where it’s legal to erect a statue of a Meso-American god on public land, where it’s perfectly legitimate to erect a statue of Nietzsche on public land, we must stop tolerating the attempts by atheists to establish their faith as the one and only faith favored by the government.

    Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/12/the_asymmetry_of_intolerance.html#ixzz2DvCJcmIn

  19. Bottom Line says:

    Revelation 13:18 <—— HERE is wisdom. Let he who hath understanding calculate the number of the beast. For it is the number of a man. The number is six hundred three score and six.

    1, 2, 3, 6, 9, 18, 37, 74, 111, 222, 333, 666 <—— factors of 666.

    1 – 3 – – 18 – – 111 – – 666 http://postimage.org/image/7d3gbdkfn/

    Midheaven – 3.5 ’57 – Taurus
    Ascending – 12.44 ‘1 – Leo
    Sun – 27.36 ’13 – Pisces
    Moon – 3.22 ’55 – Gemini
    Mercury – 3.14 ‘4 – Pisces
    Venus – 28.42 ’14 – Aries
    Mars – 11.46 ’59 – Aquarius
    Jupiter – 0.0 ‘0 – Aries/Pisces
    Saturn – 11.57 ’44 – Cancer
    Uranus – 1.45 ’34 – Scorpio
    Neptune – 11.47 ’26 – Sagitarius
    Pluto – 8.10 ’57 – Libra

    • Bottom Line says:

      It didn’t do it right…sigh

      1, 2, 3, 6, 9, 18, 37, 74, 111, 222, 333, 666 <—— factors of 666.
      1 – 3 – – 18 – – 111 – – 666 <—— number sequence/pattern (every 3rd factor after 3)
      1 3 : 18 : 111 : 666
      13 : 18 : 111
      13 : 18
      13:18 – Here is wisdom…

      666 /6 /6/6 = 3.08333333… …
      666 /6 /6 = 18.5
      666 /6 = 111
      666

      Try it with "six hundred three score and six" instead. You will notice that you get the same numbers with the decimal point moved.

      666 /600 /60 /6 = 0.00308333333 ……
      666 /600 /60 = 0.0185
      666 /600 = 1.11
      666

      3 hrs and 5 minutes is 3.08333333 hrs.

      March 18 1975 3:05 or 3:08 will yield about the same results in a natal chart.

      • Great! I’m Uranus,Hahahaha! 2 questions..and don’t mistake me for minimizing your recent struggles but:

        What’s the Bottom Line here? Are you saying that since you think you’re under some hypnotic state that the person who put you there is a beast?

        Don’t you think you’re being too hard on yourself? I think that when you meet your maker he’s going to tell you to chillax, it’s ok Bottom Line, you made your life too complicated, you can relax now.

        • Bottom Line says:

          Anita,

          I honestly cannot say for sure.

          Here is the Bottom Line as best as I can tell….

          First, I am scared shitless right now.

          I fit the profile across the board according to a few different religions. I can go on for quite a while connecting the dots to prove to you as such. Because of this, people have been messing with me my whole life.

          On December 21 2011, the winter solstice of my 36th year of life, I started popping hypnotic triggers like madd. It felt like God smacked me sideways crooked.

          I started seeing and doing all kinds of things, starting with how to revolutionize water distribution everywhere, and how to move giant stones and stack them, …the most convenient shape being a pyramid.

          It is like an avalanche of information entered my conscious. It was overwhelming. I wigged out but learned a lot.

          What I know is still very little. I am trying to figure it out.

          • Bottom Line says:

            I know there are others out there like me and I would like to find them as well.

            I know there are a lot of different expertise here at SUFA – I could really use some help with a couple of things.

            There is a lot to it

          • No need to prove anything to me BL. I hope you get the answers you’re looking for and that the answers will give you peace of mind. I’ll let you know if I come up with any matches for those dates. Good luck, and chill out ;)

            • Bottom Line says:

              Anita,

              I am reading (and writing) encrypted information everywhere. Go count everything in my recent posts. There are double meanings and such everywhere.

              I am actually reading crop circles – WTF?

              I am sort of reading French although I have never taken a French course.

              I am able to read biometric features to determine approximate bloodlines.

              I have had people speak in code and identify themselves as an intel agent, threatening me to come there.

              New Age and Christian and Fraternal folks and whoever else follow me around.

              I am seeing things that I wont mention that I can show that will blow your mind if you only think about what you are actually seeing.

              A little while ago, my post got flubbed up, …was it someone trying to stop me? My comp has been running slow and acts weird when I load SUFA. I know people are watching me.

              I have been a part of bizarre experiments.

              I have experienced telepathy and precognition and visions anywhere from seconds to decades in advance. This has happened since childhood.

              It as been indicated to me that I have goodies in my blood. I am not sure exactly what.

              SOMETHING IS GOING ON AND IT IS NOT GOOD – Chill isn’t working.

              I feel like I am to vomit, often. I should smoke a joint.

              • Yeah, I think you should too. Here. :) Unless you think your life is in imminent danger, it seems like you are way over micro analyzing your life. Maybe you have sniffed a little too much paint. Everyone has telepathy and visions. It’s called de ja vu! Don’t be so hard on yourself. You’re allowing someone or something to rent precious time and space in your head. So, what needs to be asked is why are you allowing that to happen? ( I used to be a therapist in my previous life). I need to shush right here because I am not in your shoes and don’t want to sound like I’m preaching. Besides if you’re right, then I’m scared of you ;)

              • Bottom Line says:

                ” Unless you think your life is in imminent danger, it seems like you are way over micro analyzing your life.”

                I wish it were that simple. It is hard to dismiss when you are being toyed with like a puppet your whole life simply because you were borne. I dunno how much danger I am in.

                You can’t yet see because I have only shown you very little. There is a long list of things that if I were to share, would have you or anyone wondering. I dare say I can prove it to the satisfaction of many.

                I do really need to do an extensive genealogical and DNA survey as I have only traced it back a few hundred years. It all comes from north/central Europe..

                Okay, lets say I AM. So what? It’s obviously bullshit. There is no monster or whatever. But that’s not the issue, what is the issue is that people have been playing a sick game with my life because of it, and perhaps other close fitting people as well.

                Do they think I am? Are they trying to make me think I am? Am I?

                ” Maybe you have sniffed a little too much paint. Everyone has telepathy and visions. It’s called de ja vu! Don’t be so hard on yourself.”

                I have predicted and felt things things extremely accurately with no logical explanation or any way to actually calculate an answer otherwise, and since childhood. Not too often, but when it happens, it is obvious. Not sure what to call it.

                “You’re allowing someone or something to rent precious time and space in your head. So, what needs to be asked is why are you allowing that to happen? ( I used to be a therapist in my previous life)”

                It isn’t exactly a choice when you are programmed. I know when I am following triggers. Sometimes I can resist. It makes my brain fry and I have to sleep, or I experience extreme turbulence of thought and come up with something entirely different than what I want to.

                Have you any idea what it is like to write and post something to discover at a later date that it has accurate encrypted messages as well as replies of the same? I have done that often without even realizing it as if I am operating on a subconscious level. It is really scary.

                I at my grandmother’s talking with her and my aunt. She must have said the right/wrong thing because I spaced out and my mind went completely blank with no cognitive function. I was virtually a zombie for a few seconds.(I noted the time)They were concerned.

                ” Besides if you’re right, then I’m scared of you. ”

                I am just a guy, Anita, I may be a freak of nature asshole nobody loser or whatever, but there is no “beast/antichrist/appolyon” as many perceive. It’s all bullshit. the truth is something else. More likely it is describing many. I just happen to be an unusually particularly close fit.

                What’s really freaky is reading these evangelical conspiracy theory blogs where they have studied their bible well and have invested decades of research into figuring out who is their fabled beast/Apollyon character.

                They will pick a half a dozen things to pinpoint Pierre Plantard or the Pope, or Obama, etc..They will all have different things to say as to what says they are the the beast or antichrist. They are all wrong and all describe me instead.

                One of the meanings of my last name actually means ” Alternate/Instead/Anti ”

                These people are so scared of something that they are misinterpreting. If I were to show them the much longer and more concise list of things that pegs me as the guy, they would trip out. I kinda fear a witch hunt.

                I do have horns though. Seriusly. I can show you. – lol.

                What would all the good Christian people do if they were to realize that they have it in their heads to get the mark in their hands, and have been for decades? Would they laugh, or freak? Would the dollar tank, …or perhaps we could just change currency.

              • I don’t have the answers you need, but here’s to you BL, something calming, I hope ;)

              • In all honesty Bottomline, I do not know what to say about your post-I will pray that you turn to the Lord to help you through this-he is in control-not man-not you-please don’t let all the sites and people who think they have the answers mislead you. God is in control. My favorite words from the Bible. ” Be Still and Know that I am Lord.”

                “This command — “be still” — forces us to think on two things: that we are finite, and that God is infinite. That being the case, we need to drop our hands, go limp, relax, and “chill out.” Christian people ought to “come, behold the works of Jehovah,” (v. 8) that we may enjoy a calm confidence in him who gave us his Son.

                “Shall he not also with him freely give us all things?” Paul reasoned (Romans 8:32). Psalm 46:10 encourages us to reflect on what God can do in the face of what we are unable to do.

                Spiritual serenity, the psalmist admits, ought to be cultivated in spite of the shaking mountains and agitated waters (vv. 2-3; i.e., figures for the difficulties we face in life). This spiritual calm, that God commands, does not come from a lack of troubles; it derives from a steady, deep reflection on the ways God has intervened in history on behalf of his people (cf. Romans 15:4).

                So as your world crumbles around you, the call from Scripture is: don’t flinch in faith in God. Stand still — not because of a self-made confidence, not because you are the most composed person in the face of disaster, not because “you’ve seen it all.” Be still because of what you know about God.

                It is “God’s past” that provides calm for “our future.” Know that he is God! Know it, not merely intellectually, but practically, spiritually, and emotionally. He is your God. He is the ruler of kingdoms of this earth and the all-powerful Creator of the Universe.

                If you are the last man or woman standing, be still. “God is our refuge and strength, a very present help in trouble. Therefore we will not fear, though the earth do change” (Psalm 46:1-2a). Hallelujah!”

                God Bless!

  20. Bottom Line says:
    • Bottom Line says:
      • BL

        All my life I have tended to offer advice. Generally I am right on the money and just as generally, people have chosen to ignore it. So, in your case, my friend, here I go. You are obsessing. There are no ifs, and’s or buts about it. You have hooked yourself into an obsession.

        Now, this is quite normal. we all do it from time to time, be it with imagined health crises or relationships or with the people at our jobs who we may feel do not have our best interests at heart. We build and build and build on it until we have let it take over our lives. The very illogic seems logical to us. Then, hopefully, we wake up, realize what we are doing and get on with something else. The problem, is how do you stop and regain control. As you are quite aware it can take control of you. I suspect you are not sleeping much because your mind is ON all the time (been there). The very lack of sleep leads you to make false judgements.

        What we are looking at here are some very basic psychological issues which started off innocently enough but then became out of control. If you were in your late teens or early twenties I might suspect something more serious but I take it you are a bit older than that.

        I am going to make a couple of suggestions that have worked for me in the past when I start moving towards behavior that was really disrupting my life. First, talk to somebody and by that I do not necessarily mean a mental health professional since I believe that there are a great number of charlatans out there hiding behind MSW’s and PhD’s. Oh, there are some good folks but how do you know which? Over the years I, maybe because it is the Catholic in me, have found that if I sit down with a priest, not some 20 year old but someone who has been around the block and express my fears and where they came from, I feel better. Some of that may just being able to unburden myself. My thinking becomes more clear. Most of the time, it is not any particular advice they have given me but my ability in the conversation to talk and think at the same time. Sometimes, when you say it out loud, to another person, you realize where your mistakes are.

        The second thing is an outside interest. Having been booted from a really great job five years ago and never even coming close to something like it again. I’ve found myself in an on and off state of depression. Thank God, money has not been a worry because even jobs you hate pay for food and a roof over your head. The wife could have been more supportive but that’s me talking. She thinks she has done fine. Anyhow, long story short, I went through my repertoire of things that I have done in the past as hobbies. Coins, stamps, modeling, reading had all been big things at one time or another and I jumped back into them with relish. What I found was that they did not interest me enough to keep my mind occupied. Then, quite by accident, I rediscovered my interest in historically collectable (and affordable) firearms. I haven’t really played around with this for almost forty years. For the better part of the past year I have been acquiring a few, here and there, have attended a number of out of state gun and militaria shows and have done some in depth research finding out some really fascinating (to me) things. I also have struck up some very casual relationships with like minded people which, if nothing else, are good for a few laughs which I sorely needed.

        Guess what? I am obsessing, just ask my wife, she will tell you. I can now pick a rebuild or fake out at twenty paces. Have not necessarily thinned my collection but am coming close to doing so in order to add variety. This obsession, which I fully admit to having has displaced that depression I was talking about. Now, I am not going to say that the thoughts have vanished because, they never will but they are most definitely on the back burner most of the time. I am sleeping a whole lot better, find myself in a better mood and am actually, at 66 thinking of taking some history classes. So, be it an interest in woodworking, electronics, ’58 Chevy’s or whatever, rediscover it, put some effort and energy in and then rediscover your life.

        As a former almost shrink, I decided a long time ago that life is nothing but a series of 12 step programs. They all begin the same way. “Hi, I’m Steve and I have a problem.”

        I see you in a cycle my friend and you must break it. It is something you have to acknowledge for yourself nobody can do that for you. Whether you are religious or not, you need to talk to a professional who is not in it for profit hence my suggestion about a priest, Reverend or rabbi. These folks mostly do what they do because they like helping people and the good ones are not going to try and get you to join their particular denomination.

        BL, Give it some thought, don’t put it off and God Bless.

        • Bottom Line says:

          I appreciate it, SK.

          I understand that since I haven’t revealed all of what I know to be the truth, many will interpret what I have been going through as something of a mental issue. I am not crazy or obsessive by the normal clinical definition, but rather dealing with side effects of whatever has been done to me

          I know this to be true.

          (A master hypnotist skilled at deprogramming would be most helpful.)

          I don’t have a spiritual issue. I feel fine in that respect as I am comfortable with my spirituality. I am not religious. I tend to stay away from organized religion as I see it as a way for many to categorize their beliefs and some use it as an excuse to fight and argue, when instead people can be celebrating their beliefs and coming together to seek universal truth.

          This isn’t so much about religion or spirituality, but rather issues with people manipulating and exploiting myself and others and religion for sake of some sick game.

          I am still learning, but I know things. I don’t really care if people think I am nuts, because I believe it is coming and that you may very well be stunned into silence when you see.

          I can show you all things right here on SUFA that would make you realize there is something significant to this…probably will blow your mind. I choose not to fire the guns, so to speak. Something compels me to do so. I resist.

          What I am trying to do is locate others who fit the profile to hopefully find some sort of answers and resolution. I know SUFA is a collection of skilled resources and thought someone may lend a hand.

          Look at the natal chart and the great seal and the measurements. Try switching the numbers around and applying different natal charts from different times. Play with it a little. What are the odds?

          There were approximately 140-150 people born every minute in 1975. How many of them were born at around 3 PM in the US? And how many of them have a similar name,bloodline,etc…?

          What other natal charts match the angles and such?

          Who and where are they? Do they know? What have they experienced? Can they help to conquer whatever evil sick things are in play?

          I suspect I have already identified a few, but cannot contact them in any reasonable or practical manner.

          I am somehow piecing together an extraordinary puzzle. If SUFA cannot help, I will seek it elsewhere.

          • Not sure what you are asking nor implying.

            Do you believe the hour of a particular birth is meaningful?

            • Bottom Line says:

              ” Do you believe the hour of a particular birth is meaningful? ”

              That depends on the context of the question.

              As far as the ‘puzzle’ is concerned, yes.

              Think of it like ‘connecting the dots’. Each dot by itself isn’t all that significant as it does not really draw a picture. The more dots you connect, the more of the picture you see.

              The information I’ve shared thus far is only a few of many dots. There are so many that I am not sure where to start. I know there are more. And what part I see of the picture is pretty friggin’ interesting to say the least. The chart is only one of several key pieces of information.

              With respect to spiritual significance of astrology, I cannot say for sure.

              Consider this: Although borne in different years, both Edgar Casey and I were borne on the same day, and not too far apart with respect to location. I haven’t done things like he has, but I have had some similar experiences. If you care to research, you will see that the month of March has some sort of astrological significance to those that study such things.

              My theory is that perhaps gravity and electromagnetism relative to your birth location and the position of the planets acts as some sort of tuning mechanism that has at least some effect. I dunno though as I am still learning.

              I suspect you are an INTJ like myself. I also did an Aspergers test. I do not have Aspergers, but my mind is definitely geared in that direction. This allows us to see things others cannot. I believe you are one that can actually see the depth and complexity of what this is about, and I would very much like to show you in favor of getting your input.

              I have somehow been bombarded with information which is but a droplet in an endless sea of knowledge. It is overwhelming sometimes. I am seeing things I am not sure anyone sees. I am in a rather odd and scary position right now. I need answers and knowledgeable trustworthy friends.

  21. Bottom Line says:

  22. Bottom Line says:

    VH,

    You are one of my favorite people here as I believe you are a good honest person with a good soul. And I appreciate your words.

    Someone messed with me and has caused me a great deal of wasted time and sirius issues, when I could have been leading a normal healthy life. I know the organization[s] responsible and I think I can prove it. I tried contacting them in the interest of diplomacy and seeking truth. I received BS as a response, which I interpret as a rejection of said diplomacy. They have thus effectively drawn a line and put themselves on the other side of it. I don’t really trust them anyway.

    Everyone plays but refuses to call their hand. (I suspect I am the one getting ‘shafted’. I think it is a 1-4-9 pyramid thing, but I cannot say for sure.)

    I didn’t ask to be dealt in. Now what? Fold for sake of a dishonest game? Call a misdeal? Call my hand and walk? How did I get five jokers anyway? Calling my hand could get bad. I am already starting to show my cards.

    Whatever I am or what has been done to me has likely been done to others. I know of a couple that I cannot reach. I am basically sending up a flare because I know that I and others are in deep doo doo. The only thing I know to do is speak out in the interest of truth and resolution. How can I praise others for telling the truth and not do so myself?

    I must be careful though as I am afraid that it is what I am ‘supposed’ to do. I don’t like my free will violated. I don’t want it. It is not my dirty job. I feel as if I am going down a conflicting path that will lead me to misery. I want to stop it and I need help.

    I don’t want to cause problems – I just want to resolve this BS and go on with what is left of my life. As a matter of prudence, I can not continue in any normal capacity until I have put this to rest. Enough is enough. It is time for their games to stop.

    It would be nice if someone that knows what is going on would find me and tell me what the hell is happening so I can definitively discern things in order to calculate decisions and will no longer feel the need to blab and stretch my neck out.

    I have a feeling that big things are about to happen. All indications are as such. Who cares?

    I see it as such; I need to bust these people’s BS and live free, or hide never to be seen or heard from again, or find a way off this planet, …or die.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      BL

      You need to seek professional help immediately. Seriously. And I don’t mean just psychological.

  23. BL, I think VH had the best advice, be still. Don’t work yourself up to be your own worst enemy. Fix what you can and reach out to God for the rest.

    • good pick

      • Thank you. How did the hunting go? Having awful luck down here, no horns showing during daylight. Switched to coyote that were in the area & they moved out of my area. Have two ‘coon’s eating my bait that may get it just to satisfy bloodlust.

        • I didn’t go. Son went close to home, friends gun jammed, so that was a fail. He went 4 hrs north with his dad…had a shot at one of two doe but dad’s friend ruined it by shooting at one doe which scared son’s doe off..JERK! Let the kid get a shot off! He enjoyed himself and is looking forward to muzzleloading season which opens today I believe. Son in law got a doe with crossbow so he’s happy.

          • Real warm here still..50s & 60s so that’s not helping.

            • 77 here today & it’s been down to 27 one night. Think it confuses them on the rut. Agree, you take a kid, you let them have first shot unless you are a jerk wanting to prove you are better than a kid.

              • gmanfortruth says:

                Way too warm here too my friend! I harvested one (a big doe) on day one, but they are hard to get moving since then. While it may be a tough year this year, it will make things better next year, I have seen more babies than adults so far, thats good for later! :)

  24. Just A Citizen says:

    d13thecolonel, and all other SUFA activists.

    Last week I posted concerns about the Senate trying to ratify a UN Convention this week dealing with disabled people.

    As I said to the Colonel, SOUND THE ALARM. We really should DEFEAT this effort.

    Notice the editorial that appeared on Huff Po. Kerry’s statements about “protecting” fly in the face of others claiming this Convention has no “teeth”, when rationalizing their support.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-kerry/24-hours-to-decide_b_2231403.html

    • What is your concern JAC? Sounds harmless enough..of course Kerry probably only told half the story.

      • First and foremost, we should stop expecting the rest of the world to adopt any of our standards or any other standards other than what THEY choose to adopt. Second, if that was all this bill was about, I promise you Kerry wouldn’t be pushing for it to pass. I am willing to bet the farm there is something in there that benefits the USA or Kerry…

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Anita, Esom, USW, et al.

        Here is good analysis of the flaws in the treaty. As usual with these things they can appear harmless on the surface. But just think of the Geneva Convention, or the Global Warming Conventions or one we have touched on before, Sustainable Development.

        The US has a habit of instituting UN requirements through federal law, Congressional or via Fed. Regulations, to show “leadership” and achieve goals not allowed otherwise.

        So as written I see this treaty creating a layer of Bureaucracy on top of existing Federal laws and the very complicated and long time evolving State laws. I agree with the authors assessment that this could result in a Federal Agency, or guidelines, regarding the determination of “what is best for the child”. One only has to look at the more aggressive States to see the potential problems.

        And this is NOT necessary to address any problems in the USA and contrary to Kerry’s claim, it will do nothing to protect handicapped Americans over seas. At least not beyond any protection they already have under other treaties.

        This and the Rights of the Child convention have been on the shelf for some time. They have not had enough votes to ratify. But now Reid schedules a vote just after the election. WHY???? That alone makes my hair stand up and caused me to scream stop.

        http://www.parentalrights.org/vertical/Sites/%7BC49108C5-0630-467E-9B9B-B1FA31A72320%7D/uploads/HSLDA_analysis_of_UNCRPD_RUDs.pdf

        The Colonel is correct that there is no enforcement of these agreements, but that means our enforcing others. What happens is our Govt will enforce it upon US, because they can use the treaty to create new law via regulation and Executive Order.

        I hope this helps understand my initial concerns. I was also unaware of this until recently so I’m still doing some research. But given what I see, and the short notice to the vote, it seems appropriate to STOP the thing NOW.

    • I agree with JAC for no other reason that that we should NEVER pass or ratify ANYTHING that has to do with the U.N..

    • It is important to remember that NO treaty has any enforcement capability, This would be no different. But it would be entertaining to see some of our liberal law dogs try to file suit against, say, Germany for violating an Americans disability.

      There is no enforcement arm out there.

  25. Just A Citizen says:

    Federal Revenue vs. Spending, chart of the day from electric city.

  26. What is this Happy Horsedoody!?!?!?!!?

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/12/03/republicans-outraged-by-call-for-more-spending-as-part-fiscal-deal/

    Yoy must be absolutely kidding me! They cannot be seriously demanding more spending WITH tax hikes! They must be joking!

    We should just go on over the cliff then. What’s the difference if the Democrats are wanting this crap? Boy!! Talk about arrogance! Sounds to me like that is exactly what the Democrats want. I guess they believe they can still blame it on the GOP. Good luck with that. Maybe they can.

  27. The Syrian government began to move its chemical weapons in recent days, senior U.S. officials confirmed to Fox News, prompting new warnings from the Obama administration that using those weapons against the population would cross a “red line.”

    Brought to you by the same intelligence on weapons of mass destruction in Iran? Obama’s 4th and new war about to begin?

  28. Some very sage advice for many here at SUFA!!

    You are obsessing. There are no ifs, and’s or buts about it. You have hooked yourself into an obsession.

    Now, this is quite normal. we all do it from time to time, be it with imagined health crises or relationships or with the people at our jobs who we may feel do not have our best interests at heart. We build and build and build on it until we have let it take over our lives. The very illogic seems logical to us. Then, hopefully, we wake up, realize what we are doing and get on with something else. The problem, is how do you stop and regain control. As you are quite aware it can take control of you. I suspect you are not sleeping much because your mind is ON all the time (been there). The very lack of sleep leads you to make false judgements.

    What we are looking at here are some very basic psychological issues which started off innocently enough but then became out of control…

    • Definitely obsessing … but how do they rectify that in their minds?

      http://temporaryknucksline.blogspot.com/2012/12/black-vs-white-when-rational-thought.html

      • I read your article… and find that you should check your own premises before you attempt to take me to task. You assume that I somehow take the statement about white men ending slavery as some “white men were the saviors” thought. That is wrong. I merely said the statement was factually true. Therefore it isn’t absurd. Now…. It WOULD be absurd to lay the credit at the feet of “all white men”, but I didn’t do that. I merely asserted that the statement was a true statement. It would be absurd to say that because white men ended slavery, all white men are now forgiven for slavery.

        You see it was YOUR faulty premise as to what I was thinking that caused you to come to a false conclusion.

        As for the black/white vs gray thing, there are times when gray must be considered and there are times when it must not. You inject gray into EVERYTHING and, in my opinion, do so in order to “rationalize” whatever decision you have decided to support. However, on many other issues, when convenient to your argument, you take a completely black/white stance. For example, all wealthy people are there because of some unfair advantage, thus no one is entitled to wealth beyond what is needed. That is a pretty black/white position to take.

        Not trying to start an argument. Just noting that I take what you wrote in your article as something to consider for myself. I would suggest to you that you take a hard look in the mirror and reflect on how often you meet the very criteria you rail against.

        • I read your article… and find that you should check your own premises before you attempt to take me to task. You assume that I somehow take the statement about white men ending slavery as some “white men were the saviors” thought. That is wrong. I merely said the statement was factually true.

          And it’s absurd.

          Therefore it isn’t absurd. Now…. It WOULD be absurd to lay the credit at the feet of “all white men”, but I didn’t do that. I merely asserted that the statement was a true statement. It would be absurd to say that because white men ended slavery, all white men are now forgiven for slavery.

          Which is EXACTLY what the statement implies (remember the title/theme of the argument, one of those annoying mitigating factors), but you need to ignore that. I understand.

          The fact white men were the reason for slavery is another aside the article (not you) didn’t bother to mention.

          You see it was YOUR faulty premise as to what I was thinking that caused you to come to a false conclusion.

          Only if you wear blinders, which you too often do.

          As for the black/white vs gray thing, there are times when gray must be considered and there are times when it must not. You inject gray into EVERYTHING and, in my opinion, do so in order to “rationalize” whatever decision you have decided to support. However, on many other issues, when convenient to your argument, you take a completely black/white stance. For example, all wealthy people are there because of some unfair advantage, thus no one is entitled to wealth beyond what is needed. That is a pretty black/white position to take.

          Actually, it a completely gray position, especially within the confines of a capitalist society. I think you can see that if you broaden the scope of your vision.

          Not trying to start an argument. Just noting that I take what you wrote in your article as something to consider for myself. I would suggest to you that you take a hard look in the mirror and reflect on how often you meet the very criteria you rail against.

          Fair enough.

          Enough pointless debate. What are your thoughts on Kapearnick vs. Smith; Sanchez (and his getting benched); the Dog Killers (Eaglettes) debacle and finally RG III?

          • White men did not invent slavery, Charlie, no matter how much you think the opposite.

            • They were responsibile for it In the U.S., BF, no matter much you think the opposite.

              • Indians had slaves too Charlie, as did the Aztecs and Mayans.

                It was not invented by Americans, Charlie

              • Stop it, BF. You are adding in data that doesn’t fit the narrative of an easily defined argument. In other words, you are adding in gray areas instead of relying on black/white.

                There are only gray areas on your topics. There are no gray areas on Charlie’s topics.

            • Black Flag,
              Why does it matter who invented slavery?

              I didn’t invent the gun – but if I use one to kill you, you’d probably still consider that violence against you, right?

              I thought the saying was “Guns don’t kill people, people do”?

              So, “Slavery doesn’t enslave people, people do”…

          • Very most often, your fault premise IS the cause of your very faulty arguments, Charlie.

            But for reasons unknown, you cling to these errors as if it was your life.

          • A completely gray vision is indeed yours – a single color – no diffusion, no differentiation, nothing determined, no core.

            That is, indeed, a serious disease of many.

        • USWeapon,

          It would be absurd to say that because white men ended slavery, all white men are now forgiven for slavery.

          Correct – that would be absurd.

          But that’s the “dog-whistle” that’s imbedded in this statement:

          We might also note that while old white men probably weren’t the first to practice slavery, they were the first to eliminate it.

          It’s the “we may have done some bad things in the past, but we ended that (sort of) so it’s over-and-done with. No need to talk about it anymore….we’ll just sweep it under the rug and forget about it…”

          But the minute anyone on the “right” feels that their rights are being even slightly impinged, it’s holy-hell and the end-of-modern-civilization-as-we-know-it…

          See Also – that little “obsessing” thing below you didn’t understand…

          • gmanfortruth says:

            But the minute anyone on the “right” feels that their rights are being even slightly impinged, it’s holy-hell and the end-of-modern-civilization-as-we-know-it…

            Todd, only a flaming idiot would allow even the slightest infringment of their rights. While it should be all citizens, it seems that all too often those on the left think their rights are safe and will never be infringed. TRy getting on a plane lately?

            • Well Gman, then you must be a flaming idiot because your rights are infringed upon every day.

              • gmanfortruth says:

                Be careful Todd, Charlie might have to call you an asshole :lol: I’m aware of the infringments on many of our rights. I belong/support numerous organizations that fight these through the courts, as well as not stand for it when I see it directly. So, as usual, your assumption is only about the man you see in the mirror :)

              • Never fear, Todd … Charlie is on your side … so is Gman, but he’s just to blind to realize it :)

          • I would say that is how YOU interpret that statement. But there are other ways to do so. I see it as, “not all white men are evil slavers, there were some who stood up and put a stop to it.” And under that interpretation, I don’t find it absurd at all. You are welcome to interpret it as you see fit, but I stand by my statements previously, the statement is a matter of fact, not an absurdity.

            The problem is that while he rails against such, Charlie doesn’t see different interpretations or “gray areas” when they apply to topics that he believes to be true, but stands by them as necessary when it is what others believe. All wealth is unearned, all southern wealth was earned on the back of slavery, all corporations are corrupt, etc…

            • Nonsense. everything has a GRAY area somewhere USW. I disagree with your hypothesis totally … All wealth is unearned, all southern wealth was earned on the back of slavery, all corporations are corrupt, etc…

              Like BF, you need to put words in my mouth, but that’s understandable (reread my blog post a few more times) :)

              You’re wrong when you say some things are black and white. I know of no such instance when there is a cause and affect involved.

              • Charlie,
                1+1=2 whilst you claim it =16, does not mean that numbers in between are more or less “right”.

              • Sorry, Charlie, I only had time to read the post once. I really don’t mean to put words into your mouth. It seems to me that every time the subjects are brought up those are the answers that you provide. If those are not the answers that you provide, then how do you rectify your stance. If only some corporations are corrupt, how do you justify punishing all corporations with your ideal position? If all true wealth is not un-deserved, how do you justify your stances on subjects that treat those who “earned” it the exact same as those who didn’t “earn” it?

                As for black and white, maybe not for things where cause and effect are involved. I haven’t put enough thought into that specific statement. But as for where black and white is applicable: The inalienable rights of men are black and white. Despite attempts to add gray areas to them, it is a fact that those are inalienable rights and infringement on them is not acceptable.

            • USWeapon,
              And you’re welcome to interpret that statement any way you want. But there are too many “dog-whistle” comments like that from the right to give them that benefit of the doubt.

    • I haven’t been following along today…. so what exactly am I obsessing about?

      • This wasn’t directed at anyone specifically USWeapon. But it’s the general “Confirmation Bias” that exists here. Most refuse to see it (or even look), so it will continue to build.

        • I see… I don’t think that most “refuse” to see it as much as they just ignore it. I just didn’t know what you were talking about. I see the comments a little differently than most here do (they don’t show up as a direct reply to someone, just in order of posting so I don’t know what they are referencing).

  29. I cannot fathom why our people would tolerate this situation. If this is so, and they don’t want our agents to be armed, despite the fact that several of them have been killed as a reasult, then we should pull all of them out. Immediately. Period. Dot.

    http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/12/03/us-risks-another-benghazi-under-mexican-rules-barring-agents-from-arming/

    Let the Mexicans deal with their drug armies themselves. Apparently they don’t really want our help, so let’s give them their wish.

    We should also shoot the druggies on site when we catch them crossing over. And yes, I said, SHOOT ON SITE. And on sight. ;-)

  30. People will not get it! My own kids included. Watch til the end :

    • Absolutely excellent post, Anita!!

      Wake up and smell the coffee!

      Charlie – who bemoans “cowards” who do not post their name….. time to wake up to why we do not.

      • Very dramatic … and just imagine, your IP address isn’t vulnerable to guy who can hack into the Pentagon … keep dreaming.

        Wake up and smell the coffee indeed. If someone wants your information, they can get it from here without a problem. You already know that. Your reasons for being speudo names here has nothing to do with being hacked. Being annomyous permit SOME of you to say stuff you wouldn’t dream of saying to someone’s face … it’s just cowardess.

        • The guy can find my IP – so what? He might be able to find me in a particular city I happened to be in at the time … anywhere in the world, in my case. Even if I stuck around for a while, He cannot find ME in that city.

          They cannot “get it” anything other than that, Charlie.

          It has absolutely everything to do with that, Charlie. There is a difference of knowing what city I may be and my name and that city. And by that name, even more searches of may work.

          You are a foolish man, Charlie – and I most definitely ignore your advice.

          • Or, BF, it could be that hackers (professionals especially) just wouldn’t waste their time on someone as irrelevant as yourself. They might peak in here, see the nonsense and choose to have a life. Let’s face it, outside of your little “universe” nobody much gives a shit about what you have to say. Seriously, dude, this (SUFA) is obviously your life.

            So, then we’re left with a pseudo name hurling insults at people on the Internet; the ultimate act of cowardice. It’s what you are and I’m pretty sure you know it. The rest of us do (even if it pains some to admit it).

            • Charlie,
              You are an idiot.
              You do not know enough about me or anyone to make such claims, but like an idiot, you do anyway.

              Besides, you are not at all what I consider wise – and I ignore your claims and protestations completely in this matter.

              • Okay, USW … don’t forget to remind me not to call him an asshole again …:)

                Further down he can’t help himself with poor Buck.

                Buck, don’t engage. The psuedo name has NO LIFE … this is his life. SUFA is his life.

                And let’s face it … he’s an asshole …:)

        • OH, and PS:
          I say exactly what I say here to anyone’s face.

          Fact is fact, regardless of the size of your nose in person.

  31. Just A Citizen says:

    An interesting discussion on “illegal aliens”. For a change, and just because BF hasn’t had reason to poke at me lately. :)

    From American Thinker:

    December 3, 2012
    We Are a Nation of Immigrants…Sort Of
    By Charles Martel

    In any debate about immigration, the response you are likely to get will probably include the sickly-sweet mantra, “We’re a nation of immigrants.”

    Whether you’re pointing out that illegal immigrants are driving down wages, failing to assimilate, or promoting the welfare state, the answer is predictable: “We’re a nation of immigrants.”

    The “nation of immigrants” mantra is often a plea for compassion toward immigrants. The phrase reflects a desperate, well-meaning desire to rationalize the presence of people who are violating our laws and patronizing the welfare system. The trouble is that repeating a phrase does nothing to enforce our law, preserve our culture, or keep the welfare-state Leviathan at bay.

    “We’re a nation of immigrants” is an accurate description as far as it goes, but it leaves out several facts whose omission renders the phrase extremely misleading, and totally meaningless.

    We were a nation of legal immigrants, almost all of whom arrived as part of a planned legal process, many via Ellis Island. We are a nation of immigrants who, in the past, didn’t depend on the welfare state — even if for no better reason than that there was not much of a welfare state in the past. We were once a nation of immigrants who assimilated instead of maintaining multicultural divisions, as modern immigrants tend to do. There are serious differences between the immigrants who arrived to America in the 19th and early 20th centuries and those who are arriving today, Hispanics in particular.

    The late political scientist Samuel Huntington, in his classic 2004 essay “The Hispanic Challenge,” outlined six profound differences that make Hispanic immigration “the single most immediate and most serious challenge to America’s traditional identity.” Huntington wrote:

    Contemporary Mexican and, more broadly, Latin American immigration is without precedent in U.S. history. … Mexican immigration differs from past immigration and most other contemporary immigration due to a combination of six factors: contiguity, scale, illegality, regional concentration, persistence, and historical presence.

    Contiguity refers to the fact that no other first-world country has such an extensive border with a third-world country, and the wealth gap between the U.S. and Mexico is the largest between two bordering countries in the world. As for scale, the largest group of our foreign-born population in 1960 were Italians, numbering just over one million, but in 2000, the largest group of foreign-born were 8 million Mexicans. The illegality is absolutely without comparison and “is overwhelmingly a post-1965 and Mexican phenomenon,” as Huntington notes. Hispanic immigration tends to be regionally concentrated, which blocks assimilation. Unlike immigration from Europe, which slowed after World War I, the persistence of Hispanic immigration is essentially unbroken. Finally, and most troubling, our historical relationship with Mexico gives rise to the belief that the American southwest was stolen from Hispanics and should be retaken, which is a view far more common than most would like to admit. Repeating mantras about “a nation of immigrants” is child’s play in the face of these staggering problems.

    Huntington’s analysis was incredibly prescient and deserves to be the starting point of any discussion of amnesty or euphemisms for amnesty such as “comprehensive immigration reform.” There is not a single Republic politician or Beltway pundit today who better understands the impact of Hispanic immigration on American life than Huntington did.

    But for those who want a cheap and easy way to avoid critical discussion of illegal immigration, “we’re a nation of immigrants” is the go-to response. From the vapid college liberal to the compassionate conservative who wants to make a dog and pony show of magnanimity, the phrase is a quick fix of atonement. After being browbeaten for maintaining a racist society, many white conservatives are itching for an opportunity to grovel. As a result, people who are not racist are supporting self-destructive amnesty in a vain effort to show that they aren’t racist. And what better way to show racial open-mindedness than with an open border? Too many Republicans gripe about the welfare state while cheerleading the immigration that guarantees a larger welfare state.

    The “nation of immigrants” rhetoric is rarely part of a fully formed thought or constructive observation; it’s more of a pleasant noise. In that way, the “nation of immigrants” claptrap rhymes along with the “diversity is a strength” mantra. Like many clichés, these phrases are repeated so often that their meaning is totally lost, if there ever was any.

    Our essential retort to immigration mantras should be that we are a nation of laws, amnesty rewards people who disrespect our laws, and only legal immigration is welcome.

    The nation of immigrants that we once were has been changed. The nation we once were has been disunited by multiculturalism, racial grievances, and class warfare. In response, we must stop admitting people to this nation who will contribute to tribalism and the welfare state.

    • Not meaning to be argumentative here, but genuinely curious –

      Is there any actual statistics/data/evidence that illegal immigrants are more likely to be on welfare than other demographics?

      • Is there any actual statistics/data/evidence that illegal immigrants are more likely to be on welfare than other demographics?

        There doesn’t need to be any evidence – the right believes it true, and that’s all that matters.

      • Since a civil servant can be fired in NYC and in other sanctuary cities for merely asking legal status, how would we be able to gather such statistics? This is not to mention that the fact that you and say “Illegal” and “welfare” in the same sentence indicates you are oblivious (either accidentally or on purpose) to the problem..

      • Just A Citizen says:

        DKII

        Here is latest Census data:

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

        I urge everyone to enlarge the first map and look at the distribution.

        Within the data we find that there are about 50,477,594 “hispanic” or “latino” people in the USA.

        We also have data from other sources, I have not found yet, reporting the “illegal hispanic” population at from 12 million to 30 million. The latter number includes children of illegals.

        I have not found yet any hard data on illegal aliens using welfare. I doubt that is even possible given that they are “illegal” and would not claim such when accessing welfare.

        I did find several sites quoting welfare data for various states that show Blacks and Hispanics accessing welfare at higher rates than their representation in the population.

        Hispanics in the several states listed were accessing welfare at about 15 to 20% higher rate than their percentage of the general population. Interestingly, one of the highest differences, over 20% was in Massachusetts.

        Now lets look at the States who have been raising the biggest outcry.

        Hispanics make up 29.6% of AZ, 37.6% of CA, 20.7% of CO, 26.5% of NV, 46.3% of NM, and 37.6% of TX.

        If we use the lowest illegal estimate we get about 19.8% of the Hispanic population are “illegal aliens”. I think it reasonable to then apply this factor to the number of Hispanics receiving welfare. At least that is the best we have.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        DKII

        Part 2:

        Here is some Welfare Data. It is not particularly helpful except they give total number and percentage by ethnic group.

        So applying the above assumptions about illegal : legal hispanics we wind up with well over 100,000 illegal hispanics on welfare.

        I am guessing this is not very accurate, and may be an underestimate because it uses national averages and not those numbers for the STATES where the greatest population, higher % of illegals and perhaps higher welfare rates apply.

        Check out the lower table in the reference. Interesting how many states basically provide total welfare exceeding a reasonable non skilled labor wage rate. Now lets all remember BF’s point that if we reformed or eliminated welfare we might reduce the “illegal alien” migration issue.

        http://www.statisticbrain.com/welfare-statistics/

        • Thanks JAC.

          I’m not particularly convinced that it’s welfare that’s drawing in the illegal immigrants. I ‘feel’ like that’s more of an emotional argument. :) ie: we have to stop illegal immigration because they’re all lazy bums that are just draining the system.

          I would place far more weight on both the war on drugs and minimum wage (but have just as little evidence to back that up). That doesn’t make the fact that they do drain the welfare system less of a problem though.

    • I wonder if America’ first immigrants would be thought to be “legal” by the stands of the -then- dominate occupiers.

      As I repeat, immigration law is merely old immigrants trying to stop new immigrants.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        BF

        That’s an easy question. They would have been “legal” in most cases.

        And the original occupiers would have the right to expel them at their pleasure, if they could.

        Different rules for different times.

        • JAC,

          That’s an easy question. They would have been “legal” in most cases.

          Please explain this.

          And the original occupiers would have the right to expel them at their pleasure, if they could.

          Yes, “if they could”…might always makes right, doesn’t it JAC?

          Different rules for different times.

          Does this also apply to a 200+ year old document – that you seem to think we should still follow?

          • Just A Citizen says:

            Todd

            I really do wonder about you at times.

            1. There were NO “legal” requirements for migration 600 years ago. The natural and common laws of all people applied. The Native Americans held territory much like all people did. They let some people pass, others stay, and killed or chased off the rest. Comparing the human rules of conquest and migration of then and now is a fallacious argument.

            2. Might is right was the basic mode of human expansion in THOSE centuries. Humans finally abandoned that concept. This began in about the 18th century but was finally codified in the 20th. So by TODAY’s standards might is NOT right.

            3. The issue of the what our Founding Document means and its relationship to our Govt is an entirely different subject than that of the natural law of humans that existed even before that document was created. But due to their understanding of these things the Framers included that little thing called AMENDMENT to change the document as needed to fit the evolution of society.

            So once again your attack on the Constitution because of its age is a fallacious one.

  32. The Confessions of a Confused Misfit
    December 4, 2012 – 12:01 am – by Victor Davis Hanson

    The Rich

    I confess I never admired John Edwards — and used to argue with the late Christopher Hitchens about the blow-dried lawyer’s suitability for president. I didn’t think much of Al Gore or John Kerry, well before the “he lied!” vein-bulging fits and the wind-surfing spoofs. I was not surprised when Susan Rice just disclosed that she is worth considerably over $30 million — and has money in Keystone no less. Are they all part of the “one percent”? Did they pay “their fair share”? Do they “spread the wealth”? At what point in his life did Al Gore know that he had made enough money (before barreling ahead and making more)?

    Why do a Timmy Geithner and John Kerry preach about raising taxes while trying their best to break the law to avoid them? I remember the Clintons seeking write-offs for the donation of their underwear, Tom Daschle not counting limo service as income, and Hilda Solis with a lien on her husband’s property. Why wouldn’t the above pay too much rather than too little? If Barack Obama did not get free government everything, and made $251,000 on his serial memoirs, with his mansion, prep schools, and Martha’s Vineyard vacations to pay for, would he still preach that guys like him need their taxes raised?

    Of course, I accept without much worry that government service can lead to the contacts that lead to big money. Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld made millions in the private sector in between D.C. jobs. I grant too that old-boy networking is lucrative. George W. Bush’s Texas Rangers small fortune came from having powerful friends in the right places. No doubt Colin Powell and Bill Clinton are multimillionaires. Brave to them both.

    But what we cannot stomach is all the sermonizing about “fair share” and “play by the rules” and “the one percent” from those who seek to be exempt from their own rhetoric. Can’t Warren Buffett keep quiet and just leave his $50 billion to his heirs — and let the wonderful federal government do what it must with a $30 billion estate tax on his earnings? Can Bill Gates’ people really manage the Buffett $50 billion better than HUD or HHS? And if so, why a HUD or HHS? His estate will dodge more tax liabilities than what millions of his proverbial overtaxed secretaries pay. Why isn’t George Soros one of the despised money speculators of the sort that Occupy Wall Street was enraged about? Isn’t trying to break the Bank of England a bit too much money-grubbing? So weird what constitutes good and bad riches!

    I guess the rub is not big or small money, or what you must do to get it and keep it. No, the lesson instead is what you say when you get it. If I were to advise a young rich man, I would promote entering politics or the media and talking up the liberal redistributionist state, the model being a sort of Chris Matthews, Katie Couric, Nancy Pelosi, Jon Corzine, or Jay Rockefeller. You may meet and marry a rich person, while all sorts of doors will open that allow you to keep and compound what you garner — and you will feel wonderful in the bargain.

    Prejudicial Immigration

    I also confess as a misfit that I was one of the few who never understood the rhetoric of illegal immigration. Of course, “undocumented worker” leaves millions out of the definition who are not working and never applied for, or ever had any, documents to begin with, in a way that the damnably exact “illegal alien” does not. “The borders crossed us” did not make sense, given that 99% of present-day illegal aliens could not cite a California residential pedigree back to 1900.

    If we add all the contradictory declarations and try to sort out a common theme, then, it would, to be honest, go something like the following: “I am leaving my home in Latin America and crossing the border illegally into the United States, because I have that right since my cheap labor is going to be exploited. But if I do not work or cease working or go on public assistance or get arrested, I still have that that right to ignore the law to enter illegally because the American Southwest was once the land of my forefathers. True, I am leaving one land of my forefathers for another land of my forefathers that interlopers have changed. I don’t particularly like what they have done, but by all means I must go there and not return to the more pristine and unsullied land of my forefathers.”

    For immigration to be fair and without prejudice, race and skin color must alone count — not biased skill sets and education levels. Do you think an immigrant who needs public assistance and does not speak English is any less valuable to America than one with a PhD in electrical engineering, English fluency, and $10,000 in the bank?

    So the present discrimination is fair when it prejudices those by ethnic affiliation, but bad when it is color blind and adjudicated through merit-based education and skills. There is no longer such an arcane thing as a federal law that says you must enter the United States legally. Instead it is de facto assurance that if you wish to enter the U.S. with an advanced degree or capital, and if you are not crossing into the United States across the Mexican border, then you must get in line and wait years while we adjudicate your dubious case. Latino politicians who demand amnesties for illegal immigrants from Latin America are disinterested and fighting bias; all others who favor legal immigration from all countries on racially blind considerations of education and expertise are racist.

    I think that sums up the debate and will explain why the Dream Act is the beginning, not the end, of amnesty — and why a return to merit-based legal immigration will be fought most of all.

    Taxes

    Given that the president does not wish to return to the Clinton-Gingrich spending cuts, or even the Clinton-Gingrich tax hikes across the board, and given that he does not wish to embrace his own Simpson-Bowles commission’s recommendation, and given that he wishes to tax only those who make over $250,000 to reduce the deficit by 7% — and has no real plan to find the other 93% other than through new capital gains hikes, estate taxes, and commercial taxes, then all the other wisdom about making and saving goes out the window.

    Why would one farmer scrimp and save to pay off debt or bypass a new tractor or pickup to ensure that one day his heirs receive his 80 acres free and clear — only to have his survivors pay 55% of any value over $1 million to the more deserving government? Would it be all that much worse to live it up, spend, enjoy life, and leave them a farm tax-free, with a $500,000 bank debt on it? Is the man of debt morally preferable to the man of capital — the former a noble victim with the right non-monetary values, the other a suspect Scrooge hell-bent on private lucre? Will my grandchildren one day brag, “I thank my ancestors that I had no inheritance and now have zero net worth, and I thank God that I managed to keep my income under $250,000”?

    Why would anyone get another degree at night school, work weekends for another $20,000 a year, add 30 more patients, or seek to expand a sales route if it put you over the dreaded us/them limit of $250,000? Or, conversely, why would anyone on unemployment or disability or food stamps go out to find an entry-level job that paid less than government receivables?

    As I understand the Obama message, it goes something like the logic of illegal immigration: The free market quite illogically and wrongly sets salary levels. Education levels, specialized skills, experience, hard work, character, luck, accidents, good health — and all the other criteria that arbitrarily factor into one man making $250,000 and another $50,000 — are just too random and unfair.

    Therefore, a well-educated Ivy league technocracy, with lofty moral intentions, can fix what the market broke. Simply tax those who make too much at a level where they live about like those who unfortunately make too little and pay no federal income taxes. That way everyone but the technocracy can live about the same, and the economy will not be dragged down by all those unnecessary things that too much disposable income buys — from private swimming pools and assault rifles to jet skis, crew cab pickups, and Hummers. Why, though, do we not stop tax breaks for Hollywood, or have a 70% surtax on incomes over $5 million (per picture), or tax incomes of those in government who go into the private sector at 80% for the first two years of the revolving door?

    In any case, I hope there are enough Volts, Solyndra-like jobs, loan forgiveness programs, and new Fannie and Freddie mortgages to go around. I also hope that enough self-employed Californians of the despised group stay around who will soon pay 39.5% on large portions of federal income, 15.3% in SECA taxes, and from 10.3% to 12.3% in state taxes, as well as the regular sales and property taxes and assorted “user fees.” Let us hope that our schools, freeways, courts, and parks are exceptional enough for them to offset the cost of remaining a Californian.

    Race

    I have been studying the recent national conversations on race — from the Susan Rice matter to Joseph Lowery’s whites-in-hell rant — and talking to as many minority friends as I can. I think I have almost figured it out.

    There are two things going on: affirmative action and diversity. In the first case, it is not a matter of minority or majority populations. Here in California, so-called Latinos are a majority. Nor it is necessarily a matter of skin color. Rather, finding an edge as a deserving group eligible for federal and state advantage hinges on one thing: self-identification as a Latino, African-American, or Native-American who has historical claims against the collective white majority. Elizabeth Warren taught us that one can land a Harvard professorship not by a proven Indian pedigree, but by assertion now and then of “high cheek bones” — and by association the inherited trauma from Wounded Knee to the Trail of Tears. I am still confused, however, as to why Ward Churchill, who went to so much trouble to adopt Indian dress, nomenclature, and tribal affinities, was ostracized as a rank faker (inter alia), while the multimillionaire, elegant Warren pulled it off, with blond hair and business suits to boot. True, Churchill fudged federal affidavits, but so must have Warren, who never quite had a law license to boot.

    I know a lot of proverbial Bob Smiths these days with Latino mothers. They look no different than Italians or Armenians. They have a rougher time proving aggrieved status than do Juan Lopezes whose mothers are Anglos. Two of my students married Mexican-Americans and divorced, and kept their names to apply (successfully) as minorities for fellowships. And why not? After all, do we want to get in the racial pedigree business to determine that the applicant Linda Martinez is actually Welsh and Linda Jones is actually one-half Mexican-American — if we can’t tell by talking to them or examining their bank accounts?

    Ethnic emphasis of any sort helps — a trill, accent, native dress, or exotic spelling. Self-identification is important, along the lines of a pony-tailed Senator Ben Lighthorse Campbell that conveys quite a different notion that being born one Benny Campbell. I saw a bumper sticker the other day for Cuesta JC. It now reads Cuésta College — a little PC flair is all it takes. Had I only been name Thor, with a middle name Ragnar, and changed my spelling a bit — Thor Ragnar Hansson — I think I could have pulled off the Swedish exotic thing. I once had a used Volvo 544 and a used Electrolux, and ate Rye crackers.

    Diversity is another matter. My Punjabi friends, far darker for the most part than Latinos or Native Americans, complain that they get no help, even as diverse peoples. Even rich Portuguese can piggyback onto the Latino edge. But there is nothing for Pakistanis or those of the Hindu faith. I investigated all this on numerous occasions for students (one of my Egyptian students got caught, against my advice, checking “African-American” — too literal or too northern). Armenians, Greeks, or Arabs don’t qualify. So skin color, appearance, and economic status matter little.

    Still, honorific diversity is a consolation prize. There is a larger community of hyphenated Punjabis, Japanese, Koreans, and Arabs who don’t receive affirmative action and who by name and race count as “diverse,” which in the words of liberal post-election commentators meant that they are not old white guys and thus the stuff of a new coalition in America. That was the brilliance of Obama and ultimately his legacy: he redefined America by uniting rich Japanese-American orthodontists, affluent Cuban-Americans, Oaxacan illegal immigrants, African-American students, Indonesian taxi-drivers, and all sorts of others as “us” and not “them” — with the even more brilliant qualifier that for the shrinking white majority there was still one last opportunity for salvation by loudly announcing one’s Obama sympathies and deploring rampant racism. At least I think that was what all the “civility” was about — “punish our enemies,” “nation of cowards,” the Trayvon Martin and Skip Gates commentary, “my people,” “put y’all in chains,” “got your back,” white people in “Hell,” and on and on.

    Still, don’t ask me for consistent rules about who is qualified for affirmative action, or about who is part of the diverse community, given that even universities can’t figure it out: again, just note Senator Elizabeth Warren — now our first Native American female senator.

    http://pjmedia.com/victordavishanson/the-confessions-of-a-confused-misfit/?singlepage=true

  33. “It wasn’t enough because what Mr. Vix and Co. were really after, as he later acknowledged to the New York Times, was not the opportunity to express their own views but to ban those they disagreed with from expressing theirs. And they succeeded.”

    Not sure they actually succeeded, at least not completely-turns out you can have a display as long as someone is with the display. So there will be a display, unless the anti-religion crowd finds a way to change that rule.

    McGurn: A Lincoln Chafee Christmas
    Diversity isn’t aided by calling the state spruce a ‘holiday tree.’

    By WILLIAM MCGURN
    Like this columnist

    In this time of peace on Earth and good will to men, we give thanks for the little things that help to make the season bright: chestnuts roasting on open fires, tiny tots with their eyes all aglow—and the entertaining progressive pageant that is Lincoln Chafee at Christmastime.

    This performance has its origins in a public embarrassment last December, after the governor of Rhode Island decreed that the majestic blue spruce standing in the State House rotunda would be referred to as a “holiday tree”—on the grounds that calling it by its obvious name would be an affront to diversity.

    Alas, a flash mob of carolers showed up at the lighting ceremony and delivered themselves of a rousing rendition of “O Christmas Tree.” To avoid a repeat, this year Gov. Chafee announced the tree lighting ceremony only 30 minutes before it happened.

    In short, Mr. Chafee has proffered the traditional gift of the enlightened class. A joyous ceremony was transformed into an occasion of acrimony and division. The decision was justified with an addled reference to religious liberty. And the American people were again reminded of the apparent inability of so many of our bluest bloods to distinguish between upholding religious pluralism and enforcing anti-religion.

    Now, the Christian faith does not hang on whether the official evergreen of Rhode Island is called a Christmas tree. What does hang on it, says Eric Rassbach of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, is the long-standing American understanding of the proper relationship between government and religion. Mr. Rassbach notes the irony here: The tolerant and diverse society Mr. Chafee claims to champion is ill-served by a government that reads “no establishment of religion” as mandating official hostility toward even innocuous religious expressions of its citizenry.

    Yes, we are now living in an America much more religiously diverse than it was, say, 40 or 50 years ago. Protestants, Catholics, Jews and Mormons are today joined by sizable communities of Hindus, Buddhists and Muslims. The question is whether edicts such as Mr. Chafee’s help make us more or less tolerant of the differing views of our fellow Americans.

    Plainly the Constitution took a different approach. Though we think of the Founders as a homogenous group of white Anglo-Saxon males, that’s not how they saw themselves. In their own day, the 13 American colonies were among the most religiously diverse places on Earth. Yet for all the frictions and flaws, the understanding they bequeathed us in the First Amendment helped shield America from the disastrous religious wars that plagued Europe, not to mention the ones still causing bloodletting in the Middle East.

    Look at it this way. In an age when the White House quite rightly holds Diwali and Iftar celebrations, how are tolerance and diversity served by a governor who forbids acknowledging that a lighted evergreen in his state capitol is a Christmas tree?

    There’s a similar dynamic over in Santa Monica, Calif., where atheist Damon Vix campaigned against a decades-old local tradition of churches erecting nativity displays in Palisades Park. Initially, Mr. Vix and his allies responded with displays arguing their own antireligious position. That is their right even though some displays, such as the one suggesting Jesus was a “myth,” were plainly meant to offend.

    Still, that wasn’t enough. It wasn’t enough because what Mr. Vix and Co. were really after, as he later acknowledged to the New York Times, was not the opportunity to express their own views but to ban those they disagreed with from expressing theirs. And they succeeded.

    All of which only makes the labors of the Becket Fund more pressing, not only for the cause of religious liberty but for an America truly tolerant of its full diversity. Mr. Rassbach cites the famous aphorism attributed to Voltaire: “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” In our time, he dryly suggests, it is the people of the churches, temples and synagogues who have banded together to work for that kind of society.

    “Seamus Hasson, the man who founded the Becket Fund, has always said that if you put our clients together, you’d probably have a food fight because they all have radically different beliefs about the most fundamental things,” says Mr. Rassbach. “But they do understand that their own First Amendment rights to free exercise depend on ensuring that others with very different and even opposing beliefs are free to express theirs.”

    Almost a century ago, a Tennessee teacher named John Scopes was infamously prosecuted by people who feared the mention of evolution in a public school classroom. Today Gov. Chafee leads a similar effort against the mere reference to a Christmas tree in a public building. Can we really call that progress?

  34. gmanfortruth says:

    Hi Ya’ll :)

    Despite the warm weather, I managed to harvest another big doe this morning. It’s been a hard year due to weather being way to warm, but we keep trying.

    Charlie, who cares about slavery. It’s over and had nothing to do with us. I wish I could understand why you keep bringing it up :roll:

  35. Just A Citizen says:

    Bottom Line

    In your quest I suggest you ponder something. This concern you have over the relationship of your birth TIME to some sequence of numbers has an important criteria. Those who wrote the book of Revelations would have to have a CONCEPT of modern time. But they did not have such a concept.

    “Time past
    The measurement of time began with the invention of sundials in ancient Egypt some time prior to 1500 B.C. However, the time the Egyptians measured was not the same as the time today’s clocks measure. For the Egyptians, and indeed for a further three millennia, the basic unit of time was the period of daylight. The Egyptians broke the period from sunrise to sunset into twelve equal parts, giving us the forerunner of today’s hours. As a result, the Egyptian hour was not a constant length of time, as is the case today; rather, as one-twelfth of the daylight period, it varied with length of the day, and hence with the seasons. It also varied from place to place on the surface of the Earth. And of course, time as a measurable concept effectively ceased during the hours of darkness.

    The need for a way to measure time independently of the sun eventually gave rise to various devices, most notably sandglasses, waterclocks, and candles. The first two of these utilized the flow of some substance to measure time, the latter the steady fall in the height of the candle. All three provided a metaphor for time as something that flows continuously, and thus began to shape the way we think of time.

    Though their accuracy was never great, these devices not only provided a way to measure time without the need for the sun to be visible in the sky, they also provided the basis for a concept of time that did not depend upon the length of the day. But it was to be many centuries before advantage was taken of that possibility. Instead, each of these time-measuring devices carried elaborate systems of markings designed to give the time based on the sundial. Fragments of one thirteenth century waterclock found in France gave instructions on how to set the clock for every single day of the year! Because the hours of darkness are the antithesis of the daylight hours, the scale for the nighttime hours was simply the daytime scale for the day exactly half a year earlier. For example, the scale for the nighttime on July 1 was the daytime scale for January 1.

    In addition to their lack of accuracy, sandglasses, waterclocks and candles were also limited in the total length of time they could measure before having to be reset. As a result, they were largely used for measuring the duration of some activity, such as a speech made by an orator, cooking time, or the length of a legal consultation. ”

    The development of hours, minutes and seconds evolved with invention of better time keeping devices. These devices were invented long after Revelations was written.

    I also suggest you look into the Catholic Church Historian’s views on Revelations and what some of those number mean. I recall the 7 heads as a metaphor for the 7 regions of the Roman Empire. Or something like that.

    And of course, please seek professional help. I think a picture of your brain when it is fully active would be most interesting.

    • Bottom Line says:

      JAC,

      Thank you for your input. That is where I am trying to go with this – exploring the big picture, figuring it out, …not to try to convince people I am the beast.

      I fit the bill well. So? There are 7 billion people on Earth. How many more are there that fit? A couple of million maybe?

      ” And of course, please seek professional help. I think a picture of your brain when it is fully active would be most interesting. ”

      Have you ever watched the show “TOUCH” or heard of a guy named Anatoly Timofeevich Fomenko? Okay, well, that’s about what I have been doing. I dunno how, but I am able to see patterns and correlations in almost everything. It is difficult to articulate. But it has enabled me to see a whole range of things…not only this “beast” thing.

      And while I am thinking about it…I want to make it clear that I only take the religious stuff so seriously. If the situation was different, I wouldn’t care, as I cannot see how it promotes my life’s goals or pursuit of true happiness.

      It’s not like you can simply stop it, either. It is so weird to suddenly start to feel entranced for a short spell, have an unusual thought pop into your head, be compelled to investigate and find it to be accurate as well as correlating to other links to the puzzle. That’s triggers causing it. What else? God?

      There is definitely something going on, otherwise all those people wouldn’t be going through all the trouble. I think I know those that are responsible. They’re signature is all over it. And when I try to contact them to ask for help/answers, they avoid me as if I really were a monster. Are you familiar with Frankenstein?

      ” Those who wrote the book of Revelations would have to have a CONCEPT of modern time. But they did not have such a concept. ”

      Consider that they did. I’ll leave it at that.

      ” I also suggest you look into the Catholic Church Historian’s views on Revelations and what some of those number mean. I recall the 7 heads as a metaphor for the 7 regions of the Roman Empire. Or something like that. ”

      I have. I think it is about bloodlines. Indications are that I fit that too. Sigh— I am almost afraid to have my DNA analyzed.

      Something else to mention,…When I read the bible, I see double and triple encrypted meanings as well as numerical patterns and such. It is often difficult to decipher. And the ambiguity doesn’t help to discern things either, but I see something.

      .

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Suit hell, she is going to need a padded room as well.

      Some people……………. good grief.

      • She hasn’t cussed in a while..I’m trying to bait her ;)

        • They’re just showing their true colors-which is disgusting!!!!-but probably not a bad thing in the long run-They want Abortion to be Rare and Safe- their actions paint a very different picture. Between complaining about every policy change that would make abortion safer and throwing parties celebrating what they claim is such a Hard and Sad decision that woman just Must be allowed to make, just points out their real motivation.

          • …every policy change that would make abortion safe…

            Gotta throw the BS flag here — how, specifically, will these proposed policy changes make abortion safe?

            …just points out their real motivation…

            And what, pray tell, do you believe their real motivation to be?

            • Planned parenthood? Money
              The people-equality between the sexes at the expense of human life.

              The policies-will have to wait-I’m going off with my sister in just a few minutes and I have to get my stuff together to leave. But just one are those ultra sounds you guys hate so much. With abortions happening earlier and earlier they are needed. Another, making sure that policy is followed and not ignored because the leftist in power didn’t want to offend the abortion brigade, so we don’t have another case where a clinic routinely murdered fully formed babies and killed some of the mothers too.

              • But just one are those ultra sounds you guys hate so much. With abortions happening earlier and earlier they are needed.

                Hate to break it to you, but this just isn’t true. In certain circumstances, yes, an ultrasound is necessary — but this should be a determination made by the doctor and patient on a case-by-case basis, just like any other medical decision.

                Or do you now support having the government dictate private medical decisions?

              • Last week while driving I heard on the radio that there is a new test available which can now tell in utro if a child has the potential for Autism Spectrum disorder. The usual “experts” were urging expectant mothers to take advantage of the test. Why?

                I am not terribly sure that we all do not have Autism Spectrum disorder in some shape or form. Looking back at my own childhood and that of my three sons, I can certainly spot behavior that would be called today, autism spectrum disorder. So, would our little “differences” lead to us having been aborted in this brave new world?

                Growing up and even as an undergrad psych major in the ’60’s, I always looked upon autism as head banging or some other totally inappropriate uncontrollable condition.
                There were many other behaviors out there of lesser severity but they were never labeled in those days as being related to autism. What I suspect here is that the abortion crew wants to pull the same thing that they have done on Down’s syndrome and other possible, note, I said possible defects. This in turn has led to multitudes of abortions. A friend who decided several years ago to go through with a Down’s pregnancy tells me that 90% or thereabout of these babies are now being aborted.

                Ultimately, we are headed down the road Margaret Sanger and the Nazi’s set out for us. We will have perfect little Stepford children and gradually, legally, eliminate the undesirables. As Dick Shawn said in the “Producers”, “sieg heil, baby!”

              • Then why Buck is it the standard level of care at Planned Parenthood. And many other clinics. Is it your claim that it is best to let the doctors at the clinics that don’t give a crap about their patients-not give them standard levels of care? Is the fact that their might be a law which requires standard levels of care too dangerous to a patients right to die?

  36. I dang near started cussin’ myself Anita. I mean, SERIOUSLY?!?!?!?!? :evil:

    • Sorry to be on my own here, but I am having problems with my browser.

      Their policy changes will make Abortion safe by not ALLOWING them. And their motivation is to make abortion free and available to ALL. Without Parental consent and easy peasy to get.

      • The goal of making abortion safe and rare is not met by prohibiting abortion. Just like prohibition didn’t stop people from drinking.

        As for motivation, their goal is clearly to keep abortion legal and recognize a woman’s right to choose. This does mean in part having affordable access.

        • Buck,

          More bizarre reasoning from you.

          The goal of making abortion safe and rare is not met by prohibiting abortion. Just like prohibition didn’t stop people from drinking.

          The goal of making murder safe and rare is not met by prohibiting murder. Just like prohibition didn’t stop people from drinking

          As for motivation, their goal is clearly to keep abortion legal and recognize a woman’s right to choose. This does mean in part having affordable access.

          As for motivation, their goal is clearly to keep murder legal and recognize a woman’s right to choose whom to kill. This does mean in part having affordable access to the tools of killers.

          …..

          Utterly insane. You pretend evil is merely an opinion.

          • BF… you are dead wrong here and Buck has a very valid point. If the goal is making abortion safe and rare, making it illegal will not accomplish this. While it may reduce the frequency, it will, as evidenced in the past, increase the risk and decrease safety. Making murder, alcohol, drugs, etc illegal did not, unfortunately make them more rare and it certainly didn’t increase safety in any way.

            I understand your position. I won’t get into the argument about abortion being murder or even whether it is the “right” thing to do (ethically and morally speaking). So I am not addressing your second statement. I just think you are wrong on the first.

            • Sorry, USWeapon, I am not “wrong” here.

              BF… you are dead wrong here and Buck has a very valid point. If the goal is making abortion safe and rare, making it illegal will not accomplish this.

              Making it illegal will absolutely motivate millions to not attempt abortion – and not attempting definitely lowers risk.

              Further, the goal of making it “safe” dangersously implies that the act itself is worthy of safety and comfort – which is my point.

              • Making it illegal will absolutely motivate millions to not attempt abortion – and not attempting definitely lowers risk.

                There you have it. FACTS as only BF can provide them. His personal surveys on this (and all other subjects) make his word final.

                Not that it’ll help, but read it again anyway, BF … http://temporaryknucksline.blogspot.com/2012/12/black-vs-white-when-rational-thought.html

              • Right….because before abortion was legal, no woman ever had one (nor died in the process in some back alley ‘clinic’)…

                BF – yes, many women may well be ‘motivated’ to not having an abortion because it is illegal. But for the majority its illegality will have little impact, and for those women that are to seek an abortion, it will be much more risky to her own health.

              • So, your argument -applied to other killing- would be we should make murder easy and accessible for murderers because – yes, the law will not stop the really motivated- so, instead let’s make the law moot and allow murder to occur pleasantly.

                Bizarre, Buck.

                We do NOT make violent evil “easier” simply because the doer may face danger!

                You make innocent life more protected and place the burdens of consequence on the people who do the evil act!

                Your ass-backward thinking of social order -as it represents a serious size of the population – is the primary cause of the dissolution of such society.

              • Once again BF you are arguing the issue you wish to debate, not the issue actually being discussed.

              • Your position -that you claim you are discussing – must begin with this axiom:

                Murder is ‘good’.

                You wish to mitigate the consequences of that act because you believe mitigation should be done to maintain a good of that act.

                Without that assumption, your position is utterly moot and pointless.

                Why would you attempt to defray consequences of evil?

                Indeed, personally – your entire profession is about applying consequences UPON individuals and make them take responsibility for their action.

                Yet, here, you want to exercise the opposite.

                Bizarre.

              • Absolutely wrong.

                My argument is that making abortion illegal will not make the procedure safer for the woman involved.

                Your argument is that abortion is murder. As a result, you are incapable of participating in the actual argument at hand. Stick to the sidelines and when the issue of whether or not abortion = murder comes up, then by all means jump in with your opinion on the matter.

              • My argument is that making abortion illegal will not make the procedure safer for the woman involved.

                My counter is such a posit is nonsense.

                You are either debating how many angels can dance on a pin head – merely entertainment – OR you are making an argument for a real purpose – justifying legal murder.

                If you are truly meaning to entertain and waste time – go for it.

                But you are not. You have a real purpose – legalizing broad murder of millions of innocent human babies.

              • Sigh. The lengths you go in your attempts to recharacterize a debate in your favor. Pretty impressive really…

              • Simply say you are debating angels on pin heads and I’ll leave to your pleasure.

                Debating how make murder easier – you have my attention and discourse.

            • When They Say… You Say…”

              Argument 4:
              If abortion, is made illegal, women will die.
              By Olivia Gans and Mary Spaulding Balch, J.D.

              In the late 1960’s advocates of legalized abortion used as their rallying cry the argument that “thousands” of women died from self-induced abortions or in the “back-alley” from illegal abortions. They mobilized around the image of the “coat hanger,” and insisted that five to ten thousand women died every year from “botched” illegal abortions. They used this argument (and still do) to bolster support for “safe,” legal abortion on demand.

              However, some of the best evidence that this was a myth has come not from pro-lifers but from advocates of legal abortion. Dr. Mary S. Calderone, a former director of Planned Parenthood wrote in the American Journal of Public Health, “Abortion is no longer a dangerous procedure. This applies not just to therapeutic abortions as performed in hospitals but also to so-called illegal abortions as done by physician. In 1957 there were only 260 deaths in the whole country attributed to abortions of any kind…Second, and even more important, the conference [on abortion sponsored by Planned Parenthood] estimated that 90 percent of all illegal abortions are presently being done by physicians…Whatever trouble arises usually arises from self-induced abortions, which comprise approximately 8 percent, or with the very small percentage that go to some kind of non-medical abortionist…So remember…abortion, whether therapeutic or illegal, is in the main no longer dangerous, because it is being done well by physicians.” This was written in 1960!

              Another stunning admission about the manufacturing of illegal abortion numbers comes from Dr. Bernard Nathanson, former director of the National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws (now known as the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League – – NARAL). In his classic 1979 book Aborting America, Dr. Nathanson wrote, “How many deaths were we talking about when abortion was illegal? In NARAL, we generally emphasized the frame of the individual case, not the mass statistics, but when we spoke of the latter it was always 5,000 to 10,000 deaths a year. I confess that I knew that the figures were totally false and I suppose that others did too if they stopped to think of it. But in the ‘morality’ of our revolution, it was a useful figure, widely accepted, so why go out of our way to correct it with honest statistics? The overriding concern was to get the laws eliminated, and anything within reason that had to be done was permissible.”

              A powerful debating point is to explain to your audience that for 1972, the year before Roe, the federal Centers for Disease Control (CDC) reported 39 maternal deaths from illegal abortion. Those 39 mothers and their 39 children were very real tragedies that should have been prevented by providing support and care for the mother and her unborn child. The number 39 however is a far cry form those exaggerated figures of thousands, even tens of thousands, used by abortion advocates in their cause.

              It is also important to remember that women today still die. They die from so-called “safe” and legal abortions. According to the CDC and the Alan Guttmacher Institute (a “special affiliate” of Planned Parenthood) over 200 women have died from legal abortions since 1973. These numbers are also cited in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, vol. 171, no.5 (November 1994), pp. 1365-1352. Common sense would also suggest that it has never been in the abortion industry’s self interest to report all the deaths from legal abortion.

              Legalizing abortion simply gave the back-alley physician/butcher permission to put his shingle on the front door. Abortion remains very much the same today as it was in 1960, particularly regarding the first-trimester abortion techniques. The risk now comes from the huge increase in the sheer numbers of abortions done on a daily basis.

              In other words, what was once a horrible, but confined, tragedy has become a nationwide holocaust! Abortions are done in an assembly-line production in abortion facilities all over the country. Again, the evidence for this often comes from abortions supporters, as we shall see.

              Ask your audience this question: How can there be any real safety in an environment where the main concern is to perform as many abortions as possible in order to increase the abortionist’s profit margin?

              A related contention of abortion advocates for legalizing abortion was that “safe” legal abortions reduce the maternal deaths. The reality, as suggested by the numbers above, is that the number of maternal deaths had dropped dramatically prior to abortion’s legalization. The real explanation for the decline was the introduction of overall better maternal health care, particularly antibiotics and blood transfusions. These improvements, and the capacity of modern medicine to cope with emergency medical complications arising from abortion, were the real reasons why women’s lives were saved.

              Powerful evidence that it is really advances in standard medical care that saves mothers’ lives and not the legalization of abortion comes straight from the World Health Organization. According to 1994 figures the two countries with the lowest maternal death rates are Ireland and Malta, where health care is advanced, but abortion is illegal. Whereas the U.S., which has legal abortions, has a maternal death rate that is four times greater than Ireland and Malta.

              Common sense can prevail in this question if it is remembered that pregnancy is a natural condition, not a disease. Abortion is always an unnatural interruption of that condition.
              When you are discussing this with people, make clear that the bottom line is that every death from abortion is a tragedy. In fact, with every abortion, someone dies. Every mother that dies, every baby that dies – from a legal or an illegal abortion – will never exist again and is lost to society forever. Every abortion stops a beating heart – sometimes two!
              The underlying theme in all these pro-abortion arguments is that making abortion legal makes it safer and easier for women to cope with. But there is growing evidence from women who have experienced legalized abortion that it is anything but easier or safer. Legalizing abortion has not made it any less degrading for the mothers involved.

              Quote the real voices of these women when addressing those who are unsure of this position and even to supporters of abortion as well. One particularly stunning quote appeared in the Washington Post recently:

              “The counselor patiently explained that the reason this clinic can perform the Procedure so cheaply, a third of the price of other clinics, is its assembly line method. By the time the doctor gets there, everyone is prepped, counseled and waiting. He therefore has only to do Procedure after Procedure until 7 p.m., with a minimum of downtime. It seems brutal, but it’s efficient.”

              Women who have organized post-abortion support groups consistently state that had abortion been illegal they would not have sought one. It is important to point out that in poll after poll women suggest that the real reason they aborted their children was that they felt they had no option and that abortion was legal. Emphasis needs to be placed on the pro-life mother-helping centers that are available to these moms.

              Abortion may be currently legal, but it is anything but safe for either mother or child. Once again it is necessary to restate that in every abortion someone dies.

              *This article originally appeared in July 8, 1998 NRL News

              http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/facts/responseargument4.html

              • The Truth About “Back Alley” Abortions
                Posted on March 9, 2011 by EI

                With the arrest of Dr. Kermit Gossnell and his associates for running an abortion “house of horrors” in Philadelphia, and legislative proposals to strip Planned Parenthood of government funding at the state and federal levels, abortion advocates are falling back on the claim that any effort to regulate the abortion industry will lead to the closing of clinics and a rise in dangerous “back alley” abortions.

                But these claims are based on myths. The truth is that legal abortion has increased, rather than prevented, the pain, suffering and exploitation of women.1

                5 Myths About “Back Alley” Abortions

                Myth #1. Illegal abortions were performed by unlicensed, unskilled hacks. Prior to legalization, 90 percent of illegal abortions were done by physicians.2 Most of the remainder were done by nurses, midwives or others with at least some medical training. The term “back alley” referred not to where abortions were performed, but to how women were instructed to enter the doctor’s office after hours, through the back alley, to avoid arousing neighbors’ suspicions.

                Myth #2. Tens of thousands of women died from illegal abortions every year. This pseudo-fact was much repeated by the media. The late Dr. Bernard Nathanson, one of the co-founders of the National Abortion Rights Action League and the obstetrician/ gynecologist who directed what was in the 1970s the world’s largest abortion clinic, later revealed that leading abortion proponents knew this figure was false but considered it to be “useful” in their public relations campaign.3 Even Planned Parenthood’s own leading statisticians admitted that the official statistics on deaths resulting from illegal abortion were very accurately reported prior to 1973. In 1972, there were only 39 maternal deaths related to illegal abortion, not the thousands proclaimed by pro-abortionists.

                In fact, deaths from illegal abortions were already declining or leveling off prior to 1973. After legalization, this trend remained unchanged. Deaths eliminated from the illegal abortion column were replaced by deaths resulting from legal abortion.

                The number of women dying from legal abortions is probably several times what it was when abortion was illegal. For many compelling reasons, deaths resulting from illegal abortion were accurately reported on death certificates. Independent studies have confirmed this. But ever since 1973, whenever a legal abortion results in a maternal death the underlying cause is often, and perhaps usually, ignored or disguised on death certificates.

                This occurs for many reasons: to spare the surviving family members embarrassment, to limit liability exposure, to avoid tarnishing public perceptions of abortion, and simply because the death is no longer related to a criminal activity.5

                Independent studies have confirmed the fact that the official statistics on maternal mortality following legal abortions are woefully inaccurate. Most recently, a single researcher examining public records was able to document 50 percent more deaths related to legal abortion than had been reported in the “official” government reports.6 The researcher, Kevin Sherlock, insisted that even his efforts have uncovered only a small fraction of these misclassified abortion related deaths. Further, researchers in Finland who linked women’s death certificates to their medical records found that 94 percent of maternal deaths associated with abortion are not identifiable as such when looking at the the death certificates alone.

                Myth #3. There were a million illegal abortions performed each year. This was another made-up number intended to shock the public with the “overwhelming” dimensions of this unstoppable problem. Scientific estimates based on known deaths and complications related to illegal abortion show that the actual rate of illegal abortions was in the range of 60,000 to 200,000 per year.

                Surveys of women who sought illegal abortions at that time confirm this much lower estimate for the overall rate of illegal abortion. These surveys also showed that less than half of women who sought an illegal abortion actually persisted in obtaining one. In addition, among those women who did procure an illegal abortion, the reported rate of physical complications was almost identical to the complication rate related to legal abortions. This last fact is not surprising since most illegal abortions were already performed by physicians.7

                Myth #4. If abortion becomes illegal, women will seek out illegal abortions. Surveys of women undergoing legal abortions confirm that only 6 to 20 percent would have considered seeking an illegal abortion if it was not legally available. This finding also confirms that legalization of abortion has replaced every illegal abortion that we sought to avoid with between ten and fifteen legal abortions.8

                Further, research and anecdotal evidence finds that most women having abortions are pressured or coerced to do so by someone else — and that most abortions are likely unwanted. Before 1973, women could refuse an unwanted abortion on the grounds that it was illegal, unsafe and immoral. Legalization has made it easier for those around her to insist that because abortion is legal it must be “safe,” and because it is “socially approved,” it must be moral. It makes it easier for them to refuse to support her desire to continue the pregnancy and insist that she abort anyway.

                For example, when actress Hunter Tylo was fired from the TV show Melrose Place after she became pregnant, her pregnancy discrimination suit quoted a producer as saying, “Why doesn’t she just go out and have an abortion? Then she can work.” 9

                Myth #5. Legal abortions are safer than illegal abortions. Any marginal improvements in the safety of legal abortions, as compared to illegal abortions, are more than offset by the astronomical increase in the number of women exposed to the inherent risks of induced abortion, legal or illegal. While the percentage of women dying from abortion is lower, the actual number of women dying has increased. The actual number of women suffering physical complications has increased. The actual number of women suffering psychological complications has increased. The suffering of women, men, and families has not been reduced by legalization; it has been increased.

                There are also many deaths which are indirectly caused by abortion. Women with a history of abortion are 3.5 times more likely to die following abortion and six times more likely to commit suicide than are women who give birth. They are also more prone to substance abuse and other forms of risky behavior that may lead to death. Indeed, more than 30 studies published in the last five years alone have linked abortion to higher rates of mental health problems, including depression, substance abuse, suicidal behavior, and anxiety disorders — including symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder.
                More abortions, not safer abortions

                As these basic facts illustrate, the claim that legalized abortion will save women from “unsafe abortions” is without merit. The basic flaw in this argument is the false assumption that a change in legal status can make safe a medical act that is inherently unsafe. It is also absurd to believe that legalizing abortion will not increase the abortion rate or expose a whole new group of women to the danger of being pressured into unwanted abortions.

                Society has overlooked the fact that not a single study has ever been published which shows that abortion, for any given reason, actually benefits the physical, emotional, economic, or social health of women. Indeed, the available evidence shows that abortion is instead associated with a worsening of the physical, emotional, economic, and social well-being of women.

                Legalized abortion has contributed to the feminization of poverty and increased dependency on welfare.10 Easy access to abortion has made it easier, not harder, for men to abandon their wives and girlfriends. In addition, women with a history of abortion are more likely to experience breast cancer, substance abuse, sleep disorders, sexual dysfunction, suicidal impulses, psychiatric hospitalization, and other problems.

                The only ones receiving any tangible benefit from legalized abortion are not women, but rather, the elitist population controllers. Through the legalization of abortion, they have succeeded in reducing the birth rates among the “lower classes” and racial minorities, which was exactly their goal. But the cost to women has been tremendous.

                The exploitation of women is made worse by the fact that abortion clinic counselors routinely withhold information about risks and alternatives from their patients. Deceptive business practices, negligence, and even sexual abuse of patients are well documented throughout the abortion industry.11 Kevin Sherlock, author of Victims of Choice, has accurately described the present situation with this memorable comment: “While abortion is legal, it is still practiced with the ethics of the back alley.”

                The truth is that legal abortion still hurts, traumatizes and even kills women and girls. In a letter posted at Fredricksburg.com, Eileen Roberts, president of Mothers and Advocates for Mothers Alone, and the mother of a teen girl injured by abortion, wrote:

                How can we be so naive to think that every surgical procedure of abortion is safe and use the argument that women would resort to back-alley abortions? Legalizing abortion simply gave the back-alley physician permission to put his shingle on the front door.

                … Abortion may be currently legal, but it is anything but safe for either mother or child. In every abortion someone dies.

                My 14-year-old was told she was going to the best abortion clinic in Virginia. Her boyfriend and a so-called adult friend, who transported her 45 miles from our home, did not know her as her parents did.

                She suffered emotional and physical consequences from a so-called safe, legal abortion.

                To add insult to injury, my husband and I were responsible for more than $27,000 in medical costs to repair the damage done by the abortionist.

                In my opinion, this was an example of a legal back-alley abortion.

                http://afterabortion.org/2011/the-truth-about-back-alley-abortions/

  37. Funny-while we give away our rights and yell gimme, gimme. These people are saying words like these:

    “Freedom or we die,”

    “Down with the sons of dogs. We are the power and we are the people” They chanted.

    Thousands ready to march on Egypt president palace
    Email this Story

    Dec 4, 10:04 AM (ET)

    By HAMZA HENDAWI

    (AP) Egyptian protesters chant anti-Muslim Brotherhood slogans during a rally in front of
    the…

    CAIRO (AP) – Thousands of Egyptians massed in Cairo Tuesday for a march to the presidential palace to protest the assumption by the nation’s Islamist president of nearly unrestricted powers and a draft constitution hurriedly adopted by his allies.

    The march comes amid rising anger over the draft charter and decrees issued by Mohammed Morsi giving himself sweeping powers. Morsi called for a nationwide referendum on the draft constitution on Dec. 15.

    It is Egypt’s worst political crisis since the ouster nearly two years ago of authoritarian president Hosni Mubarak. The country has been divided into two camps: Morsi and his fundamentalist Muslim Brotherhood, as well as ultraconservative Salafi Islamists versus youth groups, liberal parties and large sectors of the public.

    Hundreds of black-clad riot police deployed around the Itihadiya palace in Cairo’s district of Heliopolis. Barbed wire was also placed outside the complex, and side roads leading to it were blocked to traffic. Protesters gathered at Cairo’s Tahrir square and several other points not far from the palace to march to the presidential complex.

    (AP) An Egyptian walks past a stand displaying state-owned newspapers in Cairo, Egypt, Tuesday, Dec. 4,…
    Full Image
    “Freedom or we die,” chanted a crowd of several hundred outside a mosque in the Abbasiyah district. “Mohammed Morsi! Illegitimate! Brotherhood! Illegitimate!” they also yelled, alluding to the fundamentalist Muslim Brotherhood from which Morsi hails.

    “This is the last warning before we lay siege on the presidential palace,” said Mahmoud Hashim, a 21-year-old student from the city of Suez on the Red Sea. “We want the presidential decrees cancelled.”

    Several hundred protesters also gathered outside Morsi’s residence in an upscale suburb not far from the Itihadiya. “Down with the sons of dogs. We are the power and we are the people” They chanted.

    Morsi, who narrowly won the presidency in a June election, appeared to be in no mood for compromise.

    A statement by his office said the Egyptian leader met on Tuesday with his deputy, prime minister and several top Cabinet members to discuss preparations for the referendum. The statement appeared also to suggest that it is business as usual at the presidential palace despite the planned rally.

    (AP) An Egyptian newspaperman arranges state-owned newspapers being sold on the street in Cairo, Egypt,…
    Full Image
    A large turnout would signal sustained momentum for the opposition, which brought out at least 200,000 protesters to Cairo’s Tahrir Square a week ago and a comparable number on Friday, demanding that Morsi’s decrees be rescinded. Hundreds of protesters also have camped out in Tahrir, birthplace of last year’s uprising, for close to two weeks.

    The Islamists responded by sending hundreds of thousands of supporters into Cairo’s twin city of Giza on Saturday and across much of the country. Thousands also imposed a siege on Egypt’s highest court, the Supreme Constitutional Court.

    The court had been widely expected Sunday to declare the constitutional assembly that passed the draft charter on Friday to be illegitimate and to disband parliament’s upper house, the Shura Council. Instead, the judges went on strike after they found their building under siege by protesters.

    The opposition has yet to say whether it intends to focus its energy on rallying support for a boycott of the Dec. 15 vote or defeating the draft with a “no” vote.

    “We haven’t made any decisions yet, but I’m leaning against a boycott and toward voting ‘no’,” said Hossam al-Hamalawy of the Socialist Revolutionaries, a key group behind last year’s uprising. “We want a (new) constituent assembly that represents the people and we keep up the pressure on Morsi.”

    The strikes were part of a planned campaign of civil disobedience that could bring in other industries.

    Already Tuesday, at least eight influential dailies, a mix of opposition party mouthpieces and independent publications, suspended publication for a day to protest against what many journalists see as the restrictions on freedom of expression in the draft constitution.

    The country’s privately owned TV networks planned their own protest Wednesday, when they will blacken their screens all day.

    Morsi’s Nov. 22 decrees placed him above oversight of any kind, including the courts. The constitutional panel then rushed through a draft constitution without the participation of representatives of liberals and Christians. Only four women, all Islamists, attended the marathon, all-night session.

    The charter has been criticized for not protecting the rights of women and minority groups, and many journalists see it as restricting freedom of expression. Critics also say it empowers Islamic religious clerics by giving them a say over legislation, while some articles were seen as tailored to get rid of Islamists’ enemies.

    http://apnews.myway.com/article/20121204/DA2V12302.html

    • What’s odd V.H., is that we are ready to just toss our freedom away and give ourselves over to Barack Obama’s Socialist Democrats and their freebie public bribe system. Sad what this Nation has come to. I guess we have just had our freedom and liberty so long we have forgotten how wonderful it is.

      Well, we are fixing to find out what it’s like to lose it before too many more years. Then watch folks scream and yell after it’s too late.

      • I suspect your right Esom- these people yelling for their freedom-want it bad-because they have been forced to live without it-and sadly, in all probability will continue to do so. To bad people get so used to having something so valuable -they can’t see that they are losing it.

    • Thousands ready to march on Egypt president palace

      Because they were so much better off under a dictator friendly to the U.S.?

      • Didn’t say they were better off under any dictator-you missed the point I was trying to make-You know that we are giving up our freedoms while people in other Countries are fighting for theirs- and here’s a different point-once you allow your self to be governed to the point it becomes a dictatorship it is really hard to reclaim your freedom.

  38. Good news JAC:
    Senate rejects United Nations treaty for disabled rights in a 61-38 vote

    http://thehill.com/blogs/global-affairs/un-treaties/270831-senate-rejects-un-treaty-for-disabled-rights-in-vote

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Anita

      I saw that earlier today at Huff Po. Engaged some there over it.

      Funny…………. They were all jumping on me for opposing it, but they had no good reason to support it except:

      A) The Republicans were opposed.
      B) The crazy Glenn Beckers were opposing it and since they are “crazy” it must be right.
      C) We are part of the World and not Islands. Not sure how that one isn’t just more of A and B, but it was one argument I got back. I think more related to B.

  39. gmanfortruth says:

    @Charlie, It looks like the case against George Zimmerman is falling flat on it’s face. He will be found innocent and I hope he sue’s the hell out of NBC for how he was portrayed.

    @V.H. and Anita, Abortion is sickening, but alot of the same people people who support a woman’s choice will also deny that same woman choice by supporting gun control. But we all are told that guns are the problem, so here it is : The Gun Did It! http://personalliberty.com/2012/12/04/the-gun-did-it/

    • We shall see, Gman … one of the greatest gray area debacle laws of all time (stand your ground) … I look forward to it be wiped out, but it’ll take more than one black kid getting whacked (even by an irresponsible wannabe) to change it. Wait’ll somebody with the gelt loses a kid … then the wheels of “american justice” will start spinning, that’s for sure.

  40. @ USW:

    @USW:

    It seems to me that every time the subjects are brought up those are the answers that you provide. If those are not the answers that you provide, then how do you rectify your stance. If only some corporations are corrupt, how do you justify punishing all corporations with your ideal position? If all true wealth is not un-deserved, how do you justify your stances on subjects that treat those who “earned” it the exact same as those who didn’t “earn” it?

    Good point, USW. I often do drop a line or two (when answering without a long commentary and/or stirring the pot) that suggests all corps are corrupt and/or that or all wealth is undeserved and or should be shared equally.

    Let me try and be clear since I have a few minutes this morning.

    Corporations: so long as there are laws on the books relieving investors of personal “so-called” risk, I believe them to be corrupt (i.e., corporations are set up to relieve liability). Contrary to Romney’s gaff (except I don’t think he thought it was one, corporations are not people too). If there’s anything I feel is black and white (or close to it), it’s the separation of principals from liability. Another issue is their influence in Washington, but that has to do with the corruption inherent to a government protecting an economic system. I know, another argument for another day. It’s my position that our government protects the economic system or it collapses. Nothing black and white here. I understand there are many factors involved. Why I call for a hybrid of capitalism and not a switch to pure socialism. I don’t claims someone is wrong or stupid for thinking otherwise. I simply don’t agree with their position. I don’t see my position as the only one on the table.

    As to wealth vs. what you call “true wealth”. I don’t believe in someone “earning” the majority of profit off the backs of workers. There’s nothing black and white about that either. If I thought there were, it would mean absolute and total redistribution (everyone earning an equal share). I don’t believe in that, but I don’t believe investors should be rewarded with the majority of profits for nothing more than their “investment”. I simply don’t “believe” in the investor gets paid the bounty forever principal. It isn’t a black and white issue to me. I don’t say it’s automatically wrong. I just don’t see it surviving modern circumstances. The government could provide the same investment and let the workers who perform the actual work share in the profit (or use portions of it for other government sponsored services). The Hostess example is a wonderful way for the government to open the shop and put the workers back to work.

    Now, you may not agree with those statements. That’s fine, but they are not black and white arguments/positions I’m taking. I don’t insist capitalism is wrong, therefore it is foolish or makes you a dum-dum or economic idiot (some of my favorite quotes from BF). There are arguments for capitalism I simply don’t agree with, but the fact I believe in a hybrid of it for now (at this time in our life) suggests I don’t have a black and white position.

    It seems to me that anything that involves people (something I left out in an earlier statement regarding cause and effect), will have some level of gray involved because a total picture has to be taken into account.

    The inalienable rights of men are black and white. Despite attempts to add gray areas to them, it is a fact that those are inalienable rights and infringement on them is not acceptable.

    I agree … but … as practiced in REALITY (which was what my blog post was pointing out), they are far from not acceptable. That is the bigger picture I mentioned. All men are created equal (another factual yet absurd posit). Yes, by some higher moral law, we are all created equal. In fact, however, anyone born into poverty, isn’t an equal. Nor is someone born into slavery or prison (i.e. , 60 Minutes last week about North Korea). The inalienable rights and equality are factual in principal/theory, but in reality, not even close in far too many instances. That is where gray enters the picture; where 1+1 = 16 … unless one chooses to close his or her eyes to the reality of a situation.

  41. gmanfortruth says:

    Good Morning SUFA :)

    Just some random thoughts this morning. All men are created equal! In nature, all people are created the same way, and yes, once creation takes place, what happens next is far from equal, but rather a human action/decision.

    Abortion – Eugenics of minority peoples disguised as “a womens choice, because it’s her body”. The immoral taking of an equal creation.

    Government- An entity of psychpath conttrol freaks who believe they know whats best for the masses.

    Voters- The brainwashed masses who believe the lie that they have a voice in society.

    Gun Control- The removal of a womans choice to protect her body :) An example of why Progressive/liberals are walking contradictions :)

    Back to deer hunting :)

  42. Gun sales at record highs in Texas….no, not handguns nor assault type weapons. Shotguns and high powered rifles….. 12 gauge shotguns up 27%, 20 gauge shotguns up 55%, 28 gauge shotguns up 18%, 4-10 gauge shotguns up 26%. Shotgun reloading equipment, powder, shot, and shell casings up 76%.

    .222 cal.rifles up 14%, .243 cal rifles up 44%, .270 cal rifles up 34%, .300 cal rifles up 21%.
    High powered reloading equipment, bullets, powder, shell casings, and primers up 88%.

    Sale of all types of handguns down 14% and sales of automatic assault type weapons down 34%, however, .30 cal carbine ammunition sales up 47%.

    Makes you wonder, doesn’t it. There is a reason.

    • I just bought my 17 year old a 7mm Magnum for Christmas. It came with Hornady 154gr. Ballistic shells. But he will have to keep hunting with my 30-30 until Christmas. Poor him. :-)

      • lol……nothing wrong with a 30/30….there was no movement on those sales…..and no movement on 7mm either.

        Note: You know you are in Texas when the conversation at your Thanksgiving dinner is how good the BBQ is, guns, and football.

  43. @ Buck…….a gracious good morning counselor……question….any movement in your part of the country to let the generation skip method of inheritance sunset?

    • Morning Colonel!

      Are you talking about having the GST exemption revert to the 2001 threshold amount of $1M? Most in my neck of the woods (at least people I’ve spoken to) are advocating maintaining 2009 levels at $3.5.

      Or am I misunderstanding your question?

      • We have heard that the entire GST exemption is going to sunset in 2014. No exemptions to be allowed at all. Wondering if you have heard anything similar.

        • Haven’t heard anything about that recently in this area, but seriously doubt the entire exemption would be abolished. There’s always been a slight push to abolish the GST exemption entirely and it never takes root.

          • That is our take on it as well…..we heard that there was a tax provision in the ACA…but I have read all of it three times and found no references to that one. I would like to go back to the 5mm.

            • I’m in the 3.5 camp.

              And Colonel, there are a lot of rumors out there as to things in the ACA that you should know by now are just not there.

              • I know…I counted the tax increases and came up with 18 real increases and not 30 plus the 3.8% surcharge, however. The one that scares me the most since it pertains to my parents…are the medicare part b eliminations and the increased costs to the elderly which will affect just us by an increase of approximately 18%….which we can afford. Some are going to go up more than that and the subsidy to help offset the costs sunsets 2013, Our supplemental insurance increased 22% in premiums. In addition, they do NOT get to keep their doctors because as of January 1, 2012, they will no longer accept medicaid and medicare. We are beginning to see an exodus of doctors. Texas is a State that will not use any State funds in the exchange program and if the government wants to come and run it with Federal dollars….that is up to them. I will even rent them some space.

                We are under the thresh hold on employees and we will miss the medicare surcharges on employee costs because we eliminated the issue.

                The other one not tax related that really bothers me are the panels. They have entirely too much power from what I have read. Everyone complained that insurance companies have panels that decide what is covered and what is not…..I see nothing more than a transition from insurance companies to the Fed on their panels and decisions on what to pay and not to pay and what to cover and not cover. Under medicare/medicaid part B…there is a plethora of things that are no longer going to be covered for the elderly. It is those that bother me the most. The rest, we can alleviate out impact…but not for the elderly.

  44. Egypt’s Arab Spring…part two….

    Egypt’s embattled Muslim Brotherhood regime is paying gangs of thugs to rape women and beat men who gather in Tahrir Square to protest the power grab of President Mohamed Morsi, say activists.

    In a bitter replay of the Arab Spring protests that brought down President Hosni Mubarak nearly two years ago, protesters have flooded the Cairo square to denounce Morsi, who has stripped the judiciary of power and is rushing through an Islamist constitution. And while Mubarak is now in prison for using violence to quell protests targeting him, Morsi’s regime is now accused of doing the same.

    Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/12/05/egypt-muslim-brotherhood-accused-paying-gangs-to-rape-women/?intcmp=trending#ixzz2EBrEix8E

    So, let me see if I have this straight…….Hilary Clinton, on behalf of the United States, goes to Egypt to praise the new democracy…..and gives legitimacy to Egypt’s new president and endorses his Presidency…..and the Muslim Brotherhood. And, you thought Bush was bad…..

  45. gmanfortruth says:

    Good hunt today, as some snow is finally flying, Came across a good article on the lame NBC talking point from Bob Costas which is totally stupid. http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2012/12/05/Bob-Costas-My-Mistake-Was-Time

    Regardless, the basis for Costas’ entire line of thinking is a complete fabrication. He claims we have a “gun culture’ in America when everyone knows that what we really have is a “violence culture.”

    What’s almost as destructive as our violence culture, however, is the culture Costas apparently belongs to that’s desperate to blame violence on anything other than the individual who commits the violence.

    Gee, and what a mind-blowing coincidence that (just like Global Warming) every left-wing solution to our violence problem fulfills every left-wing wet dream for more welfare spending, public education spending, government control, and a violation of the Second Amendment.

    Finally, when Costas brings up the Colorado movie theatre shooting to push his gun control point, it truly betrays his intellectual dishonesty and cold disregard for the victims of violence:

    [America's gun culture] demonstrates itself in the Wild West, Dirty Harry mentality of people who actually believe that if a number of people were armed in the theater in Aurora, they would have been able to take down this nutjob in body armor and military style artillery. When in fact almost every policeman in the country would tell you that that would have only increased the tragedy and added to the carnage.

    Point 1: My guess is that if that “nutjob” thought for a moment a few people in that movie theatre might be armed, there’s a good chance he never would’ve committed the crime.

    Point 2: Costas is apparently okay with the fact that everyone in that theatre was a sitting duck; that no one was armed and able to defend himself. By his way of thinking, that’s one of the pluses to come out of that tragedy.

    Point 3: You think if Costas had been in that theatre, he would’ve been thinking, “Thank God only the madman is armed!”?

  46. Let’s see here. Obama and his Democratic minions not only want to raise taxes on the top 2% (uh-huh), they also want to increase spending and have another “stimulus” (uh-huh).

    The GOP wants to not raise taxes on anybody, instead getting more revenue through closing loopholes, and want to cut spending including in SS and Medicare and Medicaid (uh-huh). They also want to make a lot of other cuts in spending in places where they say MUST be cut.

    I say BOTH Parties are full of HorseDookey. Neither Party wants to REALLY cut anything. All both are after is getting more money either through closing loopholes or actually raising taxes and neither one have any plans to CUT anything!!!

    You are right G and BF. This election meant nothing. Neither side learned a dadburned thing. Look out Recession, here we come. Maybe even a DE-pression.

  47. Obama says he won’t play that game. Sounds to me like they are ALL playing that game. And we are the ones who will pay for it. Don’t worry Republican’s, we won’t JUST blame you. We’re going to blame ALL of you, Dems and Repubs both!

    http://news.yahoo.com/dems-grapple-renewed-gop-debt-limit-threats-193406109–politics.html

  48. gmanfortruth says:

    In the following link, which is a long read but really interesting, the progressive/liberal media should be completely ignored at this point in time. They cannot report the facts without distorting them to fit their political interests. DISCUSTING BASTARDS! ALL OF THEM!

    http://oathkeepers.org/oath/2012/12/03/montana-courtroom-incident-proves-wild-fire-can-burn-twice/

  49. Whether you like it or not, you are an investor in the electric vehicle (EV) battery of tomorrow.

    Late last week, the Department of Energy announced plans to spend $120 million to establish a major battery research center at the Argonne National Lab outside of Chicago. The stated goal: to create a new “Manhattan Project” that will develop an EV battery in the next five years that lasts five times as long and costs one-fifth as much as current EV batteries.

    And they say it’s all in the interest of national security.

    Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/leisure/2012/12/05/taxpayers-footing-bill-for-next-generation-electric-car-batteries/?test=latestnews#ixzz2EECjdjC9

    It is not going to stop, is it.

  50. A Detroit city council member is asking President Obama to bail out the financially troubled city in return for residents’ overwhelmingly supporting his successful re-election bid.

    “There ought to be a quid pro quo,” said Councilwoman JoAnn Watson, according to My Fox Detroit.

    Nearly 75 percent of voters in Wayne County, which includes Detroit, voted for Obama on Nov. 6.

    Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/12/05/detroit-councilwoman-to-obama-voted-for-now-bail-us-out/?test=latestnews#ixzz2EEFDEarl

    THe White House is still for sale. Nothing has changed…only worse.

    • I saw this, too, Colonel. The problem is that this has been done in the past, so it isn’t anything really new. What it is, is far more blatant. A clear statement that “you bought our vote, now pay up!” More of the entitlement mentality at work…

      • This state is full of lunatics right. now, The Detroit city council has been the same bunch of recycled corruptocrats for years, only changing to replace those who have gone to prison.

        Then there’s the lunatic unions pulling a mini Wisconsin circus in the Capitol Rotundra protesting the mere discussion of legislation for Right To Work.

      • As opposed to the Koch brothers … they wouldn’t buy the white house, now would they? Me thinks they did a long time ago … more of the wealthy’s interest dictating the terms mentality at work … :)

        • Hey Charlie….that was my point. Same song, different verse.

        • I don’t disagree, Charlie. I am no fan of the Koch brothers, either, or the Republican party that they are a part of, for that matter. The best part is that the Koch brothers are part of the equation no matter which party is in power. They may be GOP, but you can bet they are just as involved with this President as any other.

          • Totally agree. If you saw my Facebook post yesterday about Citigroup laying off 31,000 employees, you’d know how I feel about Obama (he did more AGAINST labor in his first 2 years than any president in my lifetime (probably we don’t agree why, but that’s how I feel). He gave up workers for Wall Street and the losses to labor won’t be regained for years and years … and years.

  51. Here are many things that keep many doctors awake at night:

    1. A new wave of new patients.
    Now that insurance companies must accept people with pre-existing conditions, and dependents under the age of 26, there is a new floodgate that has opened, which will bring more people into the system to see a primary care physician. In addition, many states will be expanding their Medicaid rosters, which will also introduce a greater volume of patients all competing for a limited number of physicians.

    The projected shortage in primary care physicians between now and the year 2020 is expected to exceed 90,000 by some estimates, which means we have a real supply and demand issue. Either physicians will have to extend their hours and see more patients, or patients will have to wait longer to get an appointment.

    2. The paycheck could start shrinking.
    Although one would think that a rise in patient volume would correlate into higher income, reimbursements for many specialties could, in fact, be reduced under ObamaCare. There are proposed cuts of almost $718 billion out of Medicare, which will be based on reduced reimbursements and reduction in fraud and waste in the health care system. There is no question that there is room for improvement in reducing the number of unnecessary or duplicate tests being done, but the real concern for doctors is a lot of these decisions will be made by IPAB, the Independent Payment Advisory Board, which will dictate the standards.

    3. The wonders of technology.
    Every physician is now required to implement an electronic medical record as a means of standardizing information gathering and sharing in the health care industry. This is a good idea. The problem is that in order for a physician to effectively implement a new system, they need to cancel patients for a few months in order to accommodate the transition in learning, which in turn, creates a backlog.

    There is, of course, the cost of implementing a new system that will eat into the profits a doctor already earns (and is potentially diminishing). Doctors may even need to hire newly skilled staff to manage these systems and convert their manual records to an electronic one. Technology is important, but the road to success will be rocky.

    4. Decreased face time.
    With a increasing volume of patients and increased demands on technology and reduced reimbursement, what might ultimately happen is that patients spend less time with their doctor – less than even the average seven minutes. The domino effect from here is that patients get less questions answered, and doctors are more exposed to missing things in the process. In addition, there is the likelihood this could lead to more tests being ordered because there is simply no time to take a good history that is often the crux of an accurate diagnosis.

    5. Staying connected.
    A major part of the new delivery system is accountable care organizations, which are designed to improve coordination between doctors, hospitals, patients and care takers. Many doctors will soon be reimbursed through a bundled fee for the services that are delivered for an individual for all of the doctors responsible. It will now be critical that doctors are able to understand what tests and evaluations were done before and after a patient’s visit in order to best be able to coordinate care.

    Hospitals will be penalized if patients come back within a certain period of time, and it will be very important for them to be able to communicate with the primary care doctors to make sure the patient complies with their appointments, medications and any other care.

    7. The doctor-patient relationship.
    As insurance companies try to get more market share, many of them are buying up doctors’ practices and aligning themselves with hospitals to create a monopoly. This is not very different from the days of managed care. Most of us are used to physician choice, and there is nothing more special than the relationship with our doctor. The trend remains that with future consolidation of the market, many doctors could be excluded from certain networks , and you may no longer be able to see the doctor of your choice.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Let me just comment on one thing. A thing I propose shows the idiocy of the people putting this all together.

      The BIGGEST argument for reducing health insurance costs was to FORCE EVERYONE to get insurance. Thus INCREASING the POOL so that AVERAGE COSTS could be reduced.

      This was the selling point for the whole MANDATE for crying out loud.

      So what do these bozos do.

      The allow 18 to 26 year olds to stay on their parents policies. The very people who would post the LOWEST risk and LEAST COST to health insurers. All those “kids” could have been buying policies at low cost to them, increasing the pool, but costing little in payouts.

      Further evidence that Pelosi, Reid, Obama et al are just a bunch of freakin LIARS.

      • Hate to break it to you JAC, but being covered under their parents’ policy is still being covered and having insurance, which is better than the alternative of no coverage.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          Buck

          Actually, having the young without insurance didn’t cost us much at all. So your entirely wrong in your assertion.

          But you ignore the entire point, as usual, in order to rationalize your support.

          The CASE for the mandate was to INCREASE the pool. Keeping the Young on Parents policies does NOT increase the POOL. It only increases the PAY OUT side of the equation.

          Kids in that age bracket simply don’t cost that much on their parents policy. I’m sure that was a factor in whom ever lobbied for this idiotic requirement.

          • JAC,

            I’m not ignoring your point do much as trying to understand what you are getting at.

            Having these individuals have the option to stay on their parents’ policies, while may being cheaper for these individuals than purchasing on the open market, still results in increasing the pool of insured. Yet you seem to be arguing otherwise.

            • Just A Citizen says:

              Buck

              The purpose of increasing the pool was not to increase the number of insured, as in get them health care.

              It was to decrease the AVG. COST of insurance to the pool.

              So letting young adults stay on their parents policy did not increase the REVENUE to the Pool, which was needed to reduce the AVG COST.

              My point is that if the MANDATE was in fact to reduce the POOL COST then the young adults should have NOT been included on their parents policies. They should have simply been subject to the MANDATE as ADULTS.

              Now I will grant you this generality may not apply to specific policies. But I can tell you our policy premiums don’t change very much for having our 24 year old on the policy, or taking her off. If she had her own insurance her policy cost would probably be greater as an individual.

              Thus reducing the AVG POOL COST of health insurance.

              This tells me that cost was not really the primary goal. The ACA was a pot of special interest cookies.

              The only way this policy would be consistent with the stated goal is if the young adult’s individual policy was CHEAPER than the increase in the parent’s premium. If that is the case, then this is even more obnoxious. Because it amounts to a deliberate transfer of wealth from the parents, that is hidden from them.

          • Actually, having the young without insurance didn’t cost us much at all. So your entirely wrong in your assertion.

            Who does this sound like? If I did it, everyone else must be able to so therefore “your entirely wrong in your assertion” … oy vey.

            Who does it sound like? Pretty much most of SUFA’s wingies … every anecdotal story they have is proof that lefties are wrong. Often VERY WRONG.

            vey iz mir …

            • Just A Citizen says:

              charlie

              Your comment, or accusation, makes no sense. I don’t see how it relates to my discussion with Buck.

              I simply pointed out the fact that young adults are the “least costly” age group when it comes to health care. So having them “uninsured” does not cost We The People that much money, if we assume they access health care via emergency rooms, etc, and then skip on their bills.

              But we know that situation would only apply to those NOT attending University or College, or those that have completed the same. Because most states now required some type of health insurance coverage while they are in school.

    • Have you noticed in the last year that doctors now spend more time typing on a computer during your appointment then talking to you?

      • Not at all. :)

        • I have a buddy who is a dentist. He has two employees who do nothing but paperwork for him. He is a one man operation. Wonder why bills are so high?

          • My doctor (in Brooklyn) has a staff working for him and he’s with a group, but he’s my doctor. The waiting room is always crowded, but I never wait more than 30 minutes. End of story. Therefore, my anecdote refutes yours … :)

            • So? Point being what? Is he free?

              • The point being, Stephen, as regards T-ray original post. Waiting time isn’t longer. I pay the co-pay $20.00 … don’t see or have a problem with either.

              • Point I am trying to make is part of the reason that Medicine and for that matter higher education is so expensive is the layers upon layers of bureaucracy added on since the ’60’s. Neither you nor I ever experienced medicine without these added costs. What was interesting to me, before most of my relatives passed on was hearing about their relationship with their doctor, pre-medicare/medicaid and hearing what the costs used to be. Your $ 20 co-pay and my $20.00 co pay do not mean a hill of beans

                Somewhere in my attic is the hospital bill for my delivery in Nov of ’46 that I found in Mom’s apartment after she died. A normal delivery and ten days in the hospital with Mom was $ 60.00 ! The Doctors bill was $ 40.00! Even adjusted for inflation, those numbers are astoundingly low. My granddaughter, born two years ago, with a decent health plan was still $7,000 out of pocket for my son and his wife. They practically went home the next day. Ditto with education before student loans. A full year at Manhattan College as a day hop in ’64-’65 was $ 900.00, $ 450.00 per semester! You know the school, part of the triumvirate, Manhattan, Fordham, St, Johns they all run around $ 35,000 for the same today. That is almost a 4,000 percent increase!,

                To re-iterate my point over and over again, This is a nation built by the scum of the earth tossed out of every decent country on the planet. We will learn how to take advantage of any program, government or otherwise, it is in our nature to do so. Actually it is why we are the nation that we are. We will not wait, we will not stand in queues like our Brit cousins. We are as impatient as hell and in a hurry to get the job done and on to the next thing. Government only slows us down. Fine, even I acknowledge the need for a safety net but keep it small.

              • Stephen,
                There are so many other things that contribute to the increasing costs than just layers of bureaucracy. There are also improvements in care and quality of education that go into those costs.

                Like T-Ray, you’re using a microscopic sample size to support your conclusions.

                This is a nation built by the scum of the earth tossed out of every decent country on the planet. We will learn how to take advantage of any program, government or otherwise, it is in our nature to do so. Actually it is why we are the nation that we are.

                And if this is true, it will solve all the problems you’re talking about. So instead of complaining here, get out there and scam the system to your advantage. Then someone will eventually see that and “fix” the system. Which you’ll scam again…Repeat as needed!

          • Stephen,
            Maybe he needs to more into the 21st century and stop pushing paper. There more efficient ways of doing that – even for a small office.

      • T-Ray,
        What is your sample size here? Exactly how many doctors have you visited and observed this?

        And what is the problem with this? Would you rather your doctor was scribing down notes, that are then transcribed, and your doctor reviews the next day – after seeing many other patients?

        Which method is more efficient? And more accurate?

        • 4 out of 5 doctors that my wife has gone to recently have followed this pattern. They spend about 2/3 of the visit interacting with the computer instead of talking to us. Yes, the computer should be more efficient and accurate, but when it becomes the primary focal point instead of the patients problems, then I suspect that care will ultimately be lacking. I work with technology everyday. One has to be careful not to let the computer become the primary goal rather than the technical problems that need to be solved. Computers have been a great tool but they do not replace thinking.

          • Another anecdote … but why would using a computer replace thinking? I don’t see the correlation. My doctor talks to me about many things unrelated to my health, then examines me and gives me his opinions (all of 3 minutes). I understand it’s more comfortable if he can spend more time discussing the Mets, politics, etc., but what’s the goal here?

            • Sometimes I wonder about you guys and A.D.D. ……… The point is that the involvement of the government in education and medicine has both driven up the associated costs and also increased the fraud. In NY State, the State itself has estimated that almost 15 Billion dollars per year is ripped off from the Medicaid system. My mention of a 4,000 percent tuition increase should cause you to all not only ask but think why?

              MRI’s used to cost a fortune, both the hardware and the procedure. As they became more common, the prices came down. That is a normal market function. What is abnormal is the vast increase in the number of MRI’s done. Again the Why question emerges. partially because we are a litigious society and Doctors must cover their asses but the other part is because Medicare and medicaid pay for it and make it very profitable for everyone except the taxpayer.

              Here is a fact right from Son # 1. The VA pays $ 8,000 for a mobility scooter. The cost of a mobility scooter twenty years ago was roughly $ 8,000. Today because just about everybody in a mall has one and is trying to run you down with it, the cost is about $ 2,000 per copy. But…. the VA still pays $ 8,000 per unit. Why? It does explain those TV commercials though where they offer to get you one and if you are rejected by the government,m you get to keep it anyway.

              Computers are not ever going to replace a good diagnostician and they are not what is chewing up a doctor’s valuable time nor causing him to increase staff. Government inspired paperwork is.

              A buddy of mine from Brooklyn stationed North of Chicago in the Air Force during the ’60’s put it well. In the old Chicago Daley political machine, the machine stole 5% right off the top and ran the city with the rest. At the same time, NYC under a reform Mayor took forever to get something done and spent 25% on preventing fraud (which they could not do) . Ed always asked, in the end, which was the better system?

          • T-Ray,
            Yes, I see that too. But what did they do in the past? Review your paper chart? Write notes on your paper chart? Do dictation about your diagnoses? Pull out a medical desk-reference to look up some symptoms, medication, or dosage? Leave the room for a few minutes to get a bigger book?

            All these things have occurred with me…

            Now the doctors are doing these same things, but just on a computer (OR maybe they’re coming out to SUFA to get medical advice from BF & JAC!).

            but when it becomes the primary focal point instead of the patients problems, then I suspect that care will ultimately be lacking.

            Yes I agree. But is this really what’s happening? I don’t remember the details, but you’ve mentioned your wife’s medical issues in the past. If she’s seen 5 doctors recently, I’m guessing her medical issues are not something simple. Were the doctors looking up symptoms, treatments, studies, etc?

            I work with technology everyd ay. One has to be careful not to let the computer become the primary goal rather than the technical problems that need to be solved.

            I do too – and I agree. But is this occurring?

            Computers have been a great tool but they do not replace thinking.

            Absolutely. But is this occurring? So far all you’ve done is describe how the doctor’s method of performing his/her job has changed.

            Has the quality of care gone up or down?

  52. Just A Citizen says:

    Speakin of LIARS and DISHONESTY.

    Boehner’s proposal to CUT COSTS is as I understand it is BULL DOOKEY.

    Another cutting of the “rate of increase” NOT REAL CUTS.

    And Obama calls this Math that doesn’t work??

    Two LIARS, LYING to the American PEOPLE, and the other one swearing to it.

  53. Save the Country! Tax the Rich!

    By William Tucker on 12.3.12 @ 6:09AM

    They all live in the bluest of states.

    There’s one tax benefit for the rich that I can’t see why anyone would possibly want to defend. That’s the deduction of state and local taxes on your federal income tax.

    This is a racket perpetrated by the bluest of blue states — the whole Northeast and
    California — in order to foist their profligacy on the rest of the nation. Nearly all the beneficiaries of this deduction are high-income people living in New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maryland (i.e., the suburbs of Washington) and California. And you can bet the vast majority vote Democratic and spend their days congratulating themselves on how progressive they are. Meanwhile, they end up foisting the bill onto the financially responsible Republican states that have nothing to deduct because they have no income tax at all! Try Texas, Florida, South Dakota, Wyoming, Nebraska, Tennessee, and Alaska for starters.

    The theory is that the deduction of state taxes prevents citizens from being taxed twice for the same government services. Whoever thought that one up? There is no overlap of services in high tax states that doesn’t exist in every state. All the exemption does is allow politicians in profligate blue states to tell their constituents, “Don’t worry about our high taxes. You can always deduct it from your federal income tax.” (I know, I live in one.) In other words, you can stick it to the rest of the country. If you don’t believe it, just listen to Chuck Schumer howl the next time anyone mentions eliminating the deduction.

    Charles Lane of the Washington Post has calculated that the exemption cost the federal government $67 billion in 2011. Is that anything to sneeze at? Moreover, an incredible 30 percent of all deductions came from residents in two states — New York and California. And wouldn’t you know, they just happen to be the most highly taxes states in the nation. New York ranks #1 overall and California #2. Others ranking near the top — Connecticut (3), Massachusetts (5), New Jersey (7) and Maryland (10). Moreover it is the richest people in these states — and only they — who benefit. According to the Congressional Budget Office, 73 percent of the deductions went to taxpayers with incomes over $100,000 and 20 percent to people making over $1 million. What more surgically targeted strike on tax breaks for the rich could you possibly ask?

    More than that, it’s important these people feel the full weight of their spending habits because they are on the verge of heading off a fiscal cliff and taking the rest of the country with them. Predictably, the states with the highest tax rates are also those that are in the deepest debt. Massachusetts leads the pack with $11,000 per capita. Rhode Island, Connecticut, Delaware, New Jersey, New Hampshire, New York, and Vermont are all in the top 10. And the New York State figure is misleading because it doesn’t include New York City, whose $8,700-per-head debt is greater than every state except Massachusetts and Alaska ($9,500).

    What states have been most prudent about borrowing? Try Tennessee, which only taxes interest and dividends and has an unbelievably low debt burden of $773 per capita. Texas (no income tax), Georgia, Nebraska, Arkansas, Nevada (no income tax), Alabama, Minnesota, Arizona, and Kansas round out the bottom ten. None of these states are run entirely by Democrats (although Minnesota just voted to go that route). The 18 states with all Republican legislatures and a Republican governor have an average debt of $2,874 per capita and a median rank of 36th. The 14 states that were all Democratic before the last election have exactly twice as much debt — $5,744 — and a median rank of 11th. There could hardly be a more dramatic contrast.

    There is yet another way that high-spending states use the tax code to shift the burden onto the more financially responsible states. That is through the exemption on municipal bonds. Walk into any financial advisor’s office in New York City and they will immediately try to steer you into “triple-tax-exempts.” That means New York State or New York City bonds, whose interest income is exempt from federal, state, and New York City income taxes, which can add up to more than 40 percent. Holders of municipal bonds in every state are exempt from federal taxes but the exemption only works really well in states with high income taxes. The whole system is designed to steer money away from the private sector and into the government. Given this advantage, states and cities are encouraged to borrow even more money. It also shows how governments at all levels work in concert, favoring each other. After all, they are all in the same business — extracting more money from taxpayers.

    All this is soon going to come to a head. Keep in mind, Europe didn’t hit its financial woes because the whole European Union overspent. It was undermined because one country — Greece — dug itself too deep a hole. Things then cascaded and soon Germany was being asked to bail everyone out.

    That’s the way it will happen here as well. It won’t be the entire U.S. government that runs into trouble, just one or two states that finally go over the edge. Illinois is the prime candidate. The state ranks only 12 in general obligation debt ($4,424 per head) but has been raiding its pension funds since the feckless administration of Governor Rudy Blagojevich and now has unfunded liabilities of $83 billion. Only 45 percent of its pension obligations are covered, the worst performance of any state. Only California has a lower credit rating and Illinois is now borrowing $8 billion to cover unpaid bills, many of them to small businesses. Observers predict the state could be asking for a federal bailout before Obama finishes his second term.

    So what happens then? Will Obama turn his back on his home state? Or will Republicans be demonized for not allowing him to rescue Illinois taxpayers? And if the federal government assumes Illinois’ pension burdens, how many other states will quickly be in line?

    So there are rough times ahead. And it’s the liberal blue states that are dragging us down the chute. There’s only one way to go. Wealthy liberals in the Northeast, California, and the Chicago suburbs who congratulate themselves on their “progressive” voting patterns have to be shown there’s a price to be paid for all this profligacy. Tax the rich! It’s the only way to head off the crisis.

    http://spectator.org/archives/2012/12/03/save-the-country-tax-the-rich

    • This is why I am in favor of the fiscal cliff happening. It will hit those states really hard. The states that do not do fiscal responsibility are the ones that need to suffer. Texas will escape relatively unscathed. Our governor is also doing the fiscal responsible thing in not taking on debt with the implementation of the ACA. Texas will not fund through state taxes anything associated with the ACA. If the government wants this…..come on in and do it.

      Another issue that is going to happen to New York, New Jersey, Illinois, California, etc. We used to be really big into tax free municipal bonds from the largest cities in America. With the implementation of the ACA, there is a tax provision that makes the tax free municipals no longer tax free. There is a surcharge being placed on tax free municipals to fund the ACA. The largest of the Stock firms down here (Merrill Lynch,etc) have now moved tax free municipals to the not recommended on investment list. As a family, as I told you earlier, we have divested completely out of the bond and stock market to include tax free municipals. Most of our acquaintances have done the same thing. When the bonds for the largest cities are not being sold on the market or sales go way down, the cities and the states have only two options with no bond money coming in. Raise taxes in those areas or cut spending.

      Bring it on….let the fun begin.

    • Tax the rich! It’s the only way to head off the crisis.

      Nope, just a fairer way to attempt to do so …

      • gmanfortruth says:

        Let me see, The govt has built a debt of almost 17 trillion dollars. They have proven that they cannot manage our treasury, yet YOU and your ilk want to steal more money for them to mismanage :roll: And people wonder why this countries economy and govt are all FUBAR’d.

        • Me and my ilk would redistribute it to those who earned it most. We’d also provide universal health care and cut the defense budget down to peanuts. And we’d put some of the white collar criminals who were never even persecuted behind bars … in blue collar prisons …

          • Interesting…..more of the same. Who gets to make the decision on who gets the redistribution?

            • Very true, Col.

              His ilk does not see that they are the very ilk in control, merely a difference of wallet size.

            • Proportionately, I guess. If all those who work for Micrsofoft (for example), were given equal shares of the $600,000 an hour Bill Gates “earns” … or better, spread the wealth to others too … so let Bill Gates “earn” $100.00 an hour and use the rest to distribute … a beautiful thing.

              • Why?

                The trade was for them to give their labor for cash TODAY – because they wanted it today.

                If they wanted their payments in the future, like Gates, then they could have traded their labor for shares and taken the same risks as Gates.

                But they did not want that.

                So now you think you are so smart so to reward people who refused the risk with the payment that actually goes to those that took the risk.

                And because you have no sense of action/consequence, you do not understand what will happen if you actually force the condition you demand.

          • gmanfortruth says:

            Problem Charlie :roll: You and your ilk are not in charge of the soon to be stolen loot, yet you condone the theft. Shame shame :evil:

            • I’d argue in many (probably most) cases, the loot was stolen from us in the first place. :)

              • gmanfortruth says:

                Charlie, you would likely lose that argument. Not to mention that two wrongs don’t make a “right”. Then again, with all that gray matter circulating, you may think so :lol:

  54. Why do I not see, from the left, an outcry of the President trying to take control of the debt ceiling? Is it possible to get a “NO WAY” from the left on this? IF I am reading this correctly, that part of the so called negotiations is the POTUS have supreme power over Congress on the debt ceiling.

    • After thinking about it…..go ahead. That sword cuts both ways…..that would mean that a Republican President could unilaterally lower the debt ceiling and cut funds without approval.

    • Colonel,
      The debt ceiling is a joke. Congress has to authorize the money the federal government spends. Why do they also have to authorize the borrowing to carry out the spending they have already approved?

      It’s like your wife telling you to go buy a new car – but then telling you that you can’t borrow the money to buy it…

      Doesn’t that sound stupid?

  55. The tea party … influencing insanity (from the already insane) daily …

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/06/opinion/collins-santorum-strikes-again.html?ref=opinion&_r=0

    • Just A Citizen says:

      I hope everyone reads the comments attached to Charlie’s article. You will get a sense of what I saw earlier this week.

      Not a single one can make a rational or logical case FOR the treaty.

      And of course, how can one over look the hypocrisy of these same people crying that we should stop telling the world what to do and mind our own business. You know, so we can spend that money at home on Socialist Cookie programs.

      • Read over and over again. Try and focus on REALITY … do your best :)

        http://temporaryknucksline.blogspot.com/2012/12/black-vs-white-when-rational-thought.html

        • I would only hope you’d listen to your own words:


          Can rational thinking be dangerous? A very common problem in human endeavor is that you can make rationally deduced decisions, but base them on quite irrational premises.

          That’s precisely your issue, Charlie. Your premises are often terribly faulty.

          Like above, where you believe politics is a better calculation of economic outcomes then economics… what bizarre premise is that?

          You do not start from a principle and apply reason.

          You start from an emotional appeal and apply nothing else.

        • PS: I will be referring and responding to your knuckline in more detail later.

          • I can hardly wait! The world awaits your wisdom, BF. How has it managed without you?

            The point of the article was for you and your ilk, my brother … to attempt to see how reality shades black and white; that you can’t see the bigger picture with so narrow a focus … but that’s what you do … over and over again … then point to others and say they are irrational. Quite comical actually.

            • There are shades, when it comes to opinions.

              There are black and white, good/evil when it comes to actions.

              You convolute one to the other, which is your err.

              • You’d have to define good and evil and I’d love to see it done without shades of gray. One man’s good is another man’s evil. Same goes for morality. Look in here regarding abortion; many differences of opinion on the subject. I myself find life beginning at conception, yet feel I (as a man) have no right to tell a woman what to do with her body/bady. Irrational if you look at the situation with blinders; reality changes things.

  56. Just A Citizen says:

    OK, for those interested in the POLITICAL this is very, very, very, interesting.

    Remember, Freedom Works was the outfit that quickly hi-jacked the TEA PARTY brand and then created the Tea Party Express.

    It seems that Romney’s loss is having far more “reaching” impact on the elephants of all stripes than previous Republican losses.

    http://cdn.rollcall.com/news/activists_question_freedomworks_direction-219716-1.html?popular=true&cdn_load=true

    • It sounds to me like the Tea Party is being hijacked by the Greedy Political bigshots. The exact opposite of what they were supposed to be. And the real Tea Partyers are running from it.

  57. @ Stephen: To re-iterate my point over and over again, This is a nation built by the scum of the earth tossed out of every decent country on the planet. We will learn how to take advantage of any program, government or otherwise, it is in our nature to do so. Actually it is why we are the nation that we are. We will not wait, we will not stand in queues like our Brit cousins. We are as impatient as hell and in a hurry to get the job done and on to the next thing. Government only slows us down. Fine, even I acknowledge the need for a safety net but keep it small.

    Stephen: It isn’t the 1950’s anymore. Nor is it 1776 … there are too many people, etc., to have those kinds of doctor-patient relationships these days (unless one can pay for them out of pocket or with private insurance) … and I doubt there’d be any house calls unless you’re out of pocket (somebody say, Michael Jackson rich?). I understand your point, but bring it into focus. I agree that things in general have become weaker over time (education, healthcare, etc.) … and I also agree that it has to do with bureaucracy and government interference, but it’s all been under one umbrella – profit (and the government in place now, both sides of the aisle, are already there to protect the system—not serve the people). I don’t know that removing government from the equation would ever get us back to where we assume we want to be (and I say assume, because I often agree and wish it was still 1970, never mind 1950) … but medicine has advanced dramatically. Other countries (not as big, but they do it) manage with universal health care (and I can provide as many anecdotes about some of them being good with it as you can provide with some of them hating it). I have to wonder why we can’t eliminate profit from the equation. The other night 60 Minutes did a show on rising hospital costs and how one corporation running hospitals demands their doctors slam patients into rooms and provide unnecessary tests for the sake of profit. Health insurance is out of hand … so why not socialize it with an agency outside this particular government’s reach? Until the government is cleaned up, nothing they run can be clean. So, eliminate this government and replace it with one with severe term limits and genuine consequences (real jail time) for those who are found corrupt. No, it wouldn’t become optimal overnight, but at least everyone would be covered and could eliminate that concern from their lives. Too much a fantasy? I guarantee it’ll happen here in a matter of years (20 at the most).

    • Just one more addition, When Medicare/medicaid allow themselves to be ripped off because, it is too hard to stop it. then we all wind up ripped off. You said it yourself, the Medical Industrial Complex will do unnecessary tests to pad the bill. If everyone had to pay the bill themselves, they might just have a few questions about said bill. I remember when my Dad was in the hospital and Medicare received and paid a $ 300 bill for a consultation from a Dr. I had never heard of. This was at NYU mind you. Turns out the guy stuck his head in the room, said “Hi Nick, how you feeling?” and left. After I complained Medicare said they disallowed the bill. Who knows?

      The current system really sucks and yes, there is time for doctors to deal with their patients if they are not doing paperwork for reimbursement. The other thing is if there are so many more patients then there should be so many more Doctors simple logic. Why aren’t there? Lord knows we have lawyers coming out of our ying-yang for no good reason at all.

  58. If I’m understanding this correctly-GM and the Governments of the US and Canada lied to the Court?

    Bailout on the Brink
    Judge Set to Rule on Case that Could Reverse Auto Bailout
    GM, Judge Robert Gerber

    GM, Judge Robert Gerber

    BY: Bill McMorris
    December 6, 2012 3:03 pm

    A New York federal judge may rule imminently on a case that could reverse the General Motors (GM) bailout and send the company back into bankruptcy, according to sources close to the case.

    At issue is a backroom deal hatched by GM to fulfill the Obama administration’s demand for a quick bankruptcy, draining the automaker of nearly all of its cash on hand and leaving it in worse shape than it was when it collapsed in 2009.

    One condition of GM’s bailout was to shore up its overseas subsidiaries. On the eve of entering bankruptcy, the company cut a $367 million “lock-up agreement” with several major hedge funds to prevent GM Canada from failing. The agreement ensured that GM could spin-off its liabilities to “old GM,” while using a multi-billion dollar bailout to create a new company.

    All of that could be reversed if bankruptcy Judge Robert Gerber reopens the process and rules in favor of old GM trustees, who are suing the hedge funds at the center of the lockout agreement.

    “In this particular situation, there’s $1.3 billion in liabilities, but that’s just what’s officially back on the table if the court rules for old GM,” said a bankruptcy expert close to the negotiations. “If those go back on the table then everything could be back on the table and [new GM] would have to address them.”

    Those liabilities, which include old GM’s debt and product liabilities that pre-date bankruptcy, are valued at $30 billion, a sum that would wipe out the company’s $34.6 billion cash reserves.

    Negotiators representing both sides of the case met in New York on Thursday to try to settle the suit through mediation rather than a court order.

    “They’re feeling pretty good about it,” said an industry insider who spoke to one of the hedge fund negotiators on Thursday.

    Gerber, the federal judge who initially approved the sale with little hesitation, now has the power to reverse the entire auto bailout. He has expressed deep frustration with the company for failing to disclose the deal, leading some to speculate that he may overturn one of President Barack Obama’s signature achievements.

    “When I approved the sale agreement and entered the sale approval order I mistakenly thought that I was merely saving GM, the supply chain, and about a million jobs. It never once occurred to me, and nobody bothered to disclose, that amongst all of the assigned contracts was this lock-up agreement, if indeed it was assigned at all,” Gerber said in July.

    “The judge has made it very clear that he is greatly dissatisfied with the process,” one analyst told the Washington Free Beacon in October. “He’s basically implying that GM hid it from him and that reopening the sale is a possibility.”

    If Gerber takes that course the company could be forced to return the $30 billion taxpayer bailout that it received through the course of bankruptcy, on top of the new liabilities.

    “It’s nice to see that GM is profitable again, but if all the liabilities come back to roost, short that stock,” the bankruptcy expert said.

    A GM spokesman declined comment since the litigation is pending.

    The Canadian and American governments played vital roles in the deal and pushed GM to negotiate as quickly as possible.

    “Officials from the U.S. and Canada were very much involved—they were in the building when the deal was being negotiated,” an insider familiar with the deal said in October.

    The Treasury Department, which oversaw the auto bailout, did not return emails for comment.

    The company is taking the possibility of a negative ruling from Gerber very seriously. GM attorneys filed court documents saying that the lawsuit “could create a chaotic situation for GM Canada, spawn new litigation in other forums, and potentially provide a windfall to the noteholders.”

    The bankruptcy expert said if the two sides cannot come to an agreement on Thursday, Gerber could preside over one of the most historic rulings in bankruptcy court history.

    “This has tremendous implications for future of American business and bankruptcy precedent,” he said. “It means more than just GM—this is the rule of law and how creditors are treated in the United States legal system.”

    http://freebeacon.com/bailout-on-the-brink/

  59. Hmmmm, I wonder if the little creeps put any thought into creating another charity to take the place of the one they are trying to destroy!

    Berkeley students seek Christmas ban on Salvation Army bell ringers
    Oliver Darcy

    By Oliver Darcy, on Dec 06, 2012

    The student government at the University of California-Berkeley (CAL) passed a resolution last month that would ban Salvation Army bell ringers and their iconic red kettles from campus this Christmas because of the Christian organization’s alleged bias against homosexuality.

    UC Berkeley is “reviewing” whether or not they will prohibit the Salvation Army from operating on campus this Christmas, after students passed a resolution condemning the charity.

    The resolution, cleared on November 14, accuses the charity of openly discriminating against gay individuals.

    “Salvation Army church services, including charity services, are available only to people ‘who accept and abide by the Salvation Army’s doctrine and discipline,’ which excludes homosexuality,” reads the bill, SB 176.

    In the resolution, the student body also demands school administrators revoke the Salvation Army’s permit, which currently allows them to collect donations on the Berkeley campus.

    “Allowing the Salvation Army to collect donations on campus is a form of financial assistance that empowers the organization to spend the money it raises here in order to discriminate and advocate discrimination against queer people,” it adds.

    In a statement to Campus Reform, the Salvation Army adamantly denied these charges, saying the allegations are based solely on “internet rumors.”

    “The notion that we require those we help to ‘accept and abide by the Salvation Army’s doctrine and discipline which excludes homosexuality’ to receive assistance is totally false,” wrote Kathy Lovin, a spokeswoman for the Salvation Army.

    She added that “the only requirement for service from The Salvation Army is demonstrated need and our ability to meet it.”

    According to the bill, the student government also wants to formally express “disapproval of the presence of Salvation Army donation containers on campus” because “queer students…may take offense to the presence of collection containers operated by a discriminator religious organization in their places of living.”

    A CAL spokesperson told Campus Reform that school officials are reviewing the matter, but declined to state whether the charity would be banned from campus.

    The bill was authored by an openly gay student, Matthew Enger. He could not be reached for comment by Campus Reform.

    On his public twitter account, however, he has hurled similar attacks at other organizations for supporting traditional marriage, writing that the Boy Scouts “can go f**k themselves” for refusing to admit homosexuals into their organization.

    Enger has also used the popular social media platform to profess that he “hates the Republican Party,” later adding he hopes all conservatives leave the country.

    http://www.campusreform.org/blog/?ID=4534

  60. They really know how to treat burglars in rural Texas.

    http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/burglar-calls-911-himself-163618126.html

  61. To the new generation

    Ok, it is now official, the United States of America is no longer a functioning Republic; we have now leaped into Socialism. The majority of American’s voted for more ‘free’ stuff from the government. How ironic….

    America wanted more stuff so they reelected obama as their representative to ensure they get more free stuff. As a result we get more debt, higher taxes, increased welfare benefits, government healthcare, increasing fuel costs, higher unemployment, enhanced Washington corruption, a weaker military, additional corporate outsourcing of jobs, the further decline of our public schools, and the continued erosion of individual and Constitutional rights. Oh and we also get free obamaphones.
    But, as Struther Martin’s character the Captain said in the movie Cool Hand Luke – “What we have here is a failure to communicate. So, this is the way he wants it, this is the way he gets it”.
    Truer words could not apply and at the same time be more appropriate; especially when you consider Luke, played by Paul Newman, was imprisoned and was only allowed that which the authorities granted.
    What happened to the values and standards of our parents and grandparents?
    What happened to the ideal that you earned your own way, built things with your own two hands, that you worked for a living; providing an honest day’s work for an honest day’s pay?
    What happened to the principles that parents taught their kids to be responsible for their actions and that adulthood came with responsibilities?
    What happened to the ideologies that drove innovation in medicine, technology, human rights, science, the arts and education?
    Well, they have been replaced, or fundamentally ignored in order to pursue material and/or cosmetic stuff’s. Stuff’s garnered and redistributed by a cancerous government who only asks that we further empower it to continue its efforts to grow and provide more stuff’s.
    As a nation we have sold out….sold out our liberty, our children and possibly our children’s children.
    Not only have we sold out our children and our own individual liberty we have given the cancerous government absolute freedom to flourish and continue its repressive and tyrannical efforts. This will surely lead to an already hastening economic collapse, because when the takers outnumber the makers eventually stuff’s run out.
    So, I am done. I have decided that I no longer participate, or for that matter care. Good Luck!
    Since times are going to get tougher I must focus my attention on me and mine. I must ensure that I protect both the lifestyle and those chosen family/friends I have placed within my circles.
    As the senior my efforts must be focused on the foundations and structures that ensure the well being of who & what I have chosen to protect and nurture.
    That starts with shoring up any and all loose ends, while focusing financial efforts towards the ‘core’. Efforts to secure the home base and alternative dwellings are a priority. Although I have been eliminating debt, I shall expedite the effort and be debt free by the end of 2013. Home provisions will be beefed up significantly, as will home and personal defense tools. Lead is now as valuable as silver and gold; maybe more so.
    I will be investigating alternative power sources. Wood burners look real smart as a primary heat provider, but not yet sure about power alternatives. My objective is to get off the grid.
    Investing has taken on a whole new paradigm – gardening, food storage, livestock and a reinforced root cellar seem to be wiser choices.
    Charity is no longer. Those monies need to be directed toward the ‘core’.
    I am renewing my subscription to Backwoods Magazine and periodicals like it.
    I have stopped any and all efforts to redirect or educate those who stand on the opposite side. I no longer care about their salvation or well being.
    I will concentrate efforts to further increase personal and ‘core’ wealth.
    Bartering and trade are now alternatives to purchasing goods and services.
    Although I have always been pretty health conscious, exercise and nutritional efforts are now more specific.
    I will learn and become proficient at reloading.
    I have developed a relationship with a neighbor who is a retired mechanic who has his own home based garage. Since he is also a ‘gun-nut’ I will exchange reloading for vehicle repair.
    I have a large smoker and have taught myself how to jerk meat and prepare it for long term storage. My wife is furthering her knowledge of canning and dehydrating foods. We now make our own bread. We are educating ourselves on buying and storing dry goods.
    I am looking into an alternative way of drawing water from our well as a backup to the standard electric pump.
    I shall pick and choose carefully those who I associate with and only invest in those that share my values. Those I bring into the inner and outer circles shall be few.
    I no longer spend any time watching news, I don’t trust any of the information and time has now become far too valuable to waste.
    My hobbies are also contributors to further ensuring the stability of the home front.
    It all boils down to the fact that since the majority of Americans have become ‘takers’, I as the primary provider of my family, must prepare for an overall social decline. It may or may not take place in the years I have left, but by doing so those I leave behind will be better off.
    So, Good luck America. If you turn it around great, but if you chose to suck the government tit my doors are locked.

    • What happened to the values and standards of our parents and grandparents?
      What happened to the ideal that you earned your own way, built things with your own two hands, that you worked for a living; providing an honest day’s work for an honest day’s pay?

      Sounds like you want your country back, CM … very funny.

      I have developed a relationship with a neighbor who is a retired mechanic who has his own home based garage. Since he is also a ‘gun-nut’ I will exchange reloading for vehicle repair.

      I have a large smoker and have taught myself how to jerk meat and prepare it for long term storage. My wife is furthering her knowledge of canning and dehydrating foods. We now make our own bread. We are educating ourselves on buying and storing dry goods.
      I am looking into an alternative way of drawing water from our well as a backup to the standard electric pump.

      I shall pick and choose carefully those who I associate with and only invest in those that share my values. Those I bring into the inner and outer circles shall be few.

      Now you’re sounding as paranoid and as crazy as G-man! You two should form your militia!

      It all boils down to the fact that since the majority of Americans have become ‘takers’, I as the primary provider of my family, must prepare for an overall social decline. It may or may not take place in the years I have left, but by doing so those I leave behind will be better off.

      So, Good luck America. If you turn it around great, but if you chose to suck the government tit my doors are locked.

      Now you sound completely crazy … but, hey, it’s a FREE country.

      • A Puritan Descendant says:

        We will see if you are still laughing when the SHTF Charlie. Especially where you live, I can only imagine a Hell beyond description, even if it is a slow rather than fast descent. Hollywood should make a movie now while they still can.

        Keep those blinders on Charlie!

        • The world is too cruel to laugh at … which is why I come here! At times this place is a laugh-a-thon. Obama was re-elected, the world is coming to an end! Build a compound, get extra ammo, hord the jarred and canned goods … sweet Jesus, it’s funny.

        • PD;

          I am not entirely doing this because I fear an ‘Armagedon like’ collapse, although it is a concern, but more from a preparedness perspective. And because I just don’t have the energy or desire to try and change that which I cannot. Attempting to sway or educate morons is an energy draining endeavor; and one that usually fails.

          I see the economy getting progressively worse. I have friends and business owners pulling in the reins. No more investment, no more spending. Some are cutting staff to ensure steady cash flow, while others are cutting employee hours to deal in part with the changing insurance laws. Interestingly these are good hearted people that historically have always been more than fair with thier employees. Owners who have historically belayed thier own earnings to ensure thier employees got a pay check. But now they have all but given up and are changing the way they operate. I have been told that as much as they hate to see thier employee’s suffer, thier first allegiance is to thier own family’s.

          We already seeing numerous layoff’s throughout the country, so it will be interesting to see what the unemployment rate goes to in January.

          Experts in my industry (I work in the IT Staffing/Agency industry) are still indicting that unemployment in IT is below 3% nationwide, however hiring is slowing in the midwest. These same experts are telling us that the need for IT professionals is going to increase some 12-15% in 2013 over 2012 numbers; and the demand for IT pro’s in 2012 was an all time industry high. But the hiring has slowed in the last 2-3 months.

          In my community there have been a number of long time companies shut thier doors, and in most cases it was a surprise to most in the community.

          Those in my inner circles are pulling in on the reins and no longer spending money even though they have it to spend. And those that are spending cash are buying things to shore up the home front.

          I think a lot of it that those of us who have for so long preached individual liberty and freedom are fed up. Since nothing we have done to ‘right the ship’ so to speak has had any positive effect, we have grown weary of the battle. I think we have come to the conclusion that it is time to pull back, shore up our own, and see what happens when and if the shit hits the fan.

          It is kind of like the old question about deer herds: How many of the 100 head herd survive the winter when there is only food enough for 50?

          I am leaving the herd and making sure there is enough for me and mine to push through the winter.

          Hope you are well my friend.

          CM

  62. gmanfortruth says:
  63. Just A Citizen says:

    HERE YOU GO SUFA. DIRECTLY FROM THE MOUTH OF THE GREATEST ECONOMIC SAGE IN THE WORLD. WE KNOW THIS BECAUSE HE HAS A NOBEL PRIZE.

    NO WORRIES……………. BE HAPPY..

    P.S. There is one little grain of truth contained herein at it involves the hypocrisy of the Republicans.

    Op-Ed Columnist
    The Forgotten Millions
    By PAUL KRUGMAN
    Published: December 6, 2012 339 Comments

    Let’s get one thing straight: America is not facing a fiscal crisis. It is, however, still very much experiencing a job crisis.

    It’s easy to get confused about the fiscal thing, since everyone’s talking about the “fiscal cliff.” Indeed, one recent poll suggests that a large plurality of the public believes that the budget deficit will go up if we go off that cliff.

    In fact, of course, it’s just the opposite: The danger is that the deficit will come down too much, too fast. And the reasons that might happen are purely political; we may be about to slash spending and raise taxes not because markets demand it, but because Republicans have been using blackmail as a bargaining strategy, and the president seems ready to call their bluff.

    Moreover, despite years of warnings from the usual suspects about the dangers of deficits and debt, our government can borrow at incredibly low interest rates — interest rates on inflation-protected U.S. bonds are actually negative, so investors are paying our government to make use of their money. And don’t tell me that markets may suddenly turn on us. Remember, the U.S. government can’t run out of cash (it prints the stuff), so the worst that could happen would be a fall in the dollar, which wouldn’t be a terrible thing and might actually help the economy.

    Yet there is a whole industry built around the promotion of deficit panic. Lavishly funded corporate groups keep hyping the danger of government debt and the urgency of deficit reduction now now now — except that these same groups are suddenly warning against too much deficit reduction. No wonder the public is confused.

    Meanwhile, there is almost no organized pressure to deal with the terrible thing that is actually happening right now — namely, mass unemployment. Yes, we’ve made progress over the past year. But long-term unemployment remains at levels not seen since the Great Depression: as of October, 4.9 million Americans had been unemployed for more than six months, and 3.6 million had been out of work for more than a year.

    When you see numbers like those, bear in mind that we’re looking at millions of human tragedies: at individuals and families whose lives are falling apart because they can’t find work, at savings consumed, homes lost and dreams destroyed. And the longer this goes on, the bigger the tragedy.

    There are also huge dollars-and-cents costs to our unmet jobs crisis. When willing workers endure forced idleness society as a whole suffers from the waste of their efforts and talents. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that what we are actually producing falls short of what we could and should be producing by around 6 percent of G.D.P., or $900 billion a year.

    Worse yet, there are good reasons to believe that high unemployment is undermining our future growth as well, as the long-term unemployed come to be considered unemployable, as investment falters in the face of inadequate sales.

    So what can be done? The panic over the fiscal cliff has been revelatory. It shows that even the deficit scolds are closet Keynesians. That is, they believe that right now spending cuts and tax hikes would destroy jobs; it’s impossible to make that claim while denying that temporary spending increases and tax cuts would create jobs. Yes, our still-depressed economy needs more fiscal stimulus.

    And, to his credit, President Obama did include a modest amount of stimulus in his initial budget offer; the White House, at least, hasn’t completely forgotten about the unemployed. Unfortunately, almost nobody expects those stimulus plans to be included in whatever deal is eventually reached.

    So why aren’t we helping the unemployed? It’s not because we can’t afford it. Given those ultralow borrowing costs, plus the damage unemployment is doing to our economy and hence to the tax base, you can make a pretty good case that spending more to create jobs now would actually improve our long-run fiscal position.

    Nor, I think, is it really ideology. Even Republicans, when opposing cuts in defense spending, immediately start talking about how such cuts would destroy jobs — and I’m sorry, but weaponized Keynesianism, the assertion that government spending creates jobs, but only if it goes to the military, doesn’t make sense.

    No, in the end it’s hard to avoid concluding that it’s about class. Influential people in Washington aren’t worried about losing their jobs; by and large they don’t even know anyone who’s unemployed. The plight of the unemployed simply doesn’t loom large in their minds — and, of course, the unemployed don’t hire lobbyists or make big campaign contributions.

    So the unemployment crisis goes on and on, even though we have both the knowledge and the means to solve it. It’s a vast tragedy — and it’s also an outrage.

  64. Just A Citizen says:
  65. Hey! Big kudos to Michigan! Right to Work! Yeah! Hopefully WI will be right behind you – along with eliminating same day voter registration and getting voter ID out of the courts, where it was conveniently kept through the election. We also rejected OCare exchanges. Little by little getting our state in order.

    • Little by little returning to slave wages :)

    • …along with eliminating same day voter registration…

      Because why allow a citizen to exercise their most fundamental of rights if there is a fear they will vote for the other guy!?

      …rejected OCare exchanges…

      Because why establish your own state run exchange when you can cede even more authority to the federal government to do so on its own terms!?

      • And they did it without debate and behind closed doors (because they were so sure everyone in the state would approve) …

        Try taking your SUFA-ite adoring eyes for Ayn Rand for one day and read something like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Jungle

        Maybe have a cup of coffee first.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Buck

        Same day registration: Good, it is about time. Same rules for everyone. So your argument is BS. Unless of course your admitting the shenanigans on the left with registering sheep.

        Exchanges: Your sarcasm has prevented critical thinking. If they set up the exchange the FED’s dictate the conditions and thus future costs. So by letting the Feds handle the exchange the FED STILL dictates the conditions but incurs the total cost.

        That is the choice these States are facing.

        If there is a weakness it is the failure to recognize the purpose of the Fed exchange is to Condition the sheep to accept Govt Health Care.

        • Same day registration — there is absolutely no reason to restrict a citizen’s right and ability to vote. End of story. There is no valid reason to prohibit same day registration.

          Exchanges — True in that a lot can and will be dictated by the Feds, but by establishing the state exchange, there is at least some leeway and discretion granted to the States from my understanding.

          • Just A Citizen says:

            Buck

            Once the State accepts the exchange they are committed to meeting the Fed requirements.

            The Fed schedule is to “reduce” Fed support over time.

            So the best solution, if a State wants to provide this service, is to do what the Colonel says Texas is doing.

            Simply kick the Feds out and establish their own State program.

            This is much like other Fed programs, including Medicaid. Once the “partnership” is formed, the Fed can then back out and stick the State with obligations for future money.

            Eliminating same day registration is not “restricting” a citizen’s right to vote. They could register anytime during the other 364 days of the year.

            • Fair enough concern — so then why in your opinion are these States not following Texas’ lead? Why are they instead turning even more authority over the Feds?

              No, it is still restricting a citizen’s right to vote. Not eliminating, but definitely restricting.

              • Just A Citizen says:

                Buck

                How is a “right” being restricted just because you can’t register the same day? I’ll bet they can’t register on Sundays either.

                I think these states are opting out because they don’t have the economy to do their own programs independently.

                Those States with Dem Governors are buying into it, regardless of the financial risk. It will be interesting to see how it unfolds. Montana, for example, can’t afford it if the Feds reduce their share. But the political pressure is great for all Dems to conform.

              • Just A Citizen says:

                Buck

                Just came across this. It includes the things I mentioned plus some others. It also gives a somewhat sad summary of Medicaid today and where it is headed.

                http://www.healthpolicysolutions.org/2012/12/04/opinion-medicaid-expansion-may-be-more-costly-than-advertised/

              • Allow me to clarify…….the Feds require that the State MUST UNDER ALL CIRCUMSTANCE continue the exchange under federal guidelines and take over funding. Texas has a balanced budget requirement. The Federal cannot require a State to violate its own consitution. The ACA calls for the Fed to do the exchanges if the States do not. Texas says, we will not take on the debt nor raise the taxes to do so nor institute a state tax……if the Feds want an exchange…go for it. Texas will do its own and the citizens have the option within its own budget.

  66. gmanfortruth says:

    @Commonman55 – Welcome to the party! I have found much solice in the life you have now chosen. If the SHTF, as many are predicting, me and mine will be just fine and well fed. I will feel bad for those who have been indoctrinated to the point of being brainwashed, because it’s going to really suck to be them.

    @ Charlie and Todd – I will never be like you, I would chose suicide over that any day.

    @Buck – Voting is useless. The system is so corrupt now, it can’t be fixed at the polls.

    @Everyone – Happy Hannuka and Merry Christmas to all :) If I missed any religious celebrations, enjoy those as well :)

    • would chose suicide over that any day.

      Feel free, G … anytime … really. I’m all for ethical suicide parlors … maybe convince a few of your friends to join you?
      :) Happy Festivus for the rest of us!

  67. So now you think you are so smart so to reward people who refused the risk with the payment that actually goes to those that took the risk.

    Here he goes again … as if those who worked for him had the option to take the risk … what a putz … but that’s an aside … this guy should collect the bulk of profits forever? I don’t think so.

    But we aren’t going to agree, so I’m dropping it. Tired of proving you wrong, time and time again. Blowing you out of the water, over and over … you live in a virtual reality :)

    Stay there, please!!!!!!!

    • Here he goes again … as if those who worked for him had the option to take the risk

      Of course he did!
      Are you mentally ill?

      Microsoft shares are public – even you can buy them, Charlie!

      … what a putz … but that’s an aside … this guy should collect the bulk of profits forever? I don’t think so.

      What you think -given your mental tornado – really is irrelevant.

      That is what “present risk, future profit” means – you get you reward time-displaced into the infinite future by accept the risk of not getting anything.

      This why you – a short-time preferenced person – always loses in the long term. You do not understand this fundamental law of nature.

      You need to watch the Marshmallow lesson.

      You couldn’t prove anything “wrong” – you have no sense of reason, Charlie.

      But in your relatively insane mind, with fairy tales and god-mothers, only God knows what you dream.

  68. Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays from me to You! :)

  69. gmanfortruth says:
  70. Please pay attention to this graphic

    This is the specific proof that the Austrian economic theory is correct and the Keynesian economic theory is wrong.

    Each and every recession has a longer and longer ‘tail’ of recovery – the repeated infusion of monetary stimulus to overcome the correction of the last monetary stimulus has less and less effect to “bump” the economy – precisely as Mises and Hayek claimed, and contrary to Keynes.

    The fundamental, the bump that has created this laggard recovery will create another recession – one that given the graphic, will have no Keynesian cure. That is, no matter how much money is pumped into the economy, it will not recover.

    Now consider what that means – if the FED and government believe in Keynes, and continue to futilely liquify the market with more and more money manufacture – which gives no real effect…. will they stop and discard Keynes? Or continue to the end pumping money, praying for Keynes?

  71. gmanfortruth says:

    @ Charlie, sorry Dude, not going to die anytime soon! I’mm the “Anti You” I promote freedom and liberty, you promote theft and slavery. I can see why you want me and my “ilk” gone. But, that just ain’t gonna happen. :)

    As far as Black Flag, I believe his economics is spot on. I also believe in the Austrian economics, but still learning more about it. Your economics, well, that’s just a disaster that can’t be taken seriously. :lol:

  72. “In addition, the national parent organizations of the CFT and CTA also benefit from widespread property tax exemptions on their ownership of lavish real estate used for union brass vacations and retreats. Fox Business Network reporter Elizabeth MacDonald’s investigation of IRS records earlier this year shed light on several tax-sheltered, union-owned luxury hotels, golf courses and country clubs — including the “swanky” AFL-CIO-owned Westin Diplomat resort in Florida and the UAW’s $33 million lakeside resort and golf club in Onaway, Mich.”

    Say what-Unions own Hotels and resorts! Why in the world would they need to buy resorts to run a Union? Do they use Union money to buy these resorts or are they just exempt from property taxes because they let Unions use them?

    Hey, Fat Cat Unions: Pay Your “Fair Share”

    Michelle Malkin

    Dec 07, 2012

    Hey, Fat Cat Unions: Pay Your
    Message for wealth-bashing millionaire actor Ed Asner: Man up and take responsibility for lying to America’s schoolchildren.

    Confronted by a producer for Fox News Channel’s “The Sean Hannity Show” this week, the left-wing celebrity claimed he couldn’t remember “a thing (he) said” on a vile propaganda video produced and published by the California Federation of Teachers. Asner narrated the unforgettable eight-minute anti-capitalist screed geared toward children.

    Think Occupy Wall Street meets Sesame Street. “Things go downhill in a happy and prosperous land after the rich decide they don’t want to pay taxes anymore,” Asner warbles in a folksy grandpa voice. After education reform journalist Kyle Olson of EAGNews.org blew the whistle on the film’s vulgar cartoon depiction of a “rich” man urinating on the “poor,” the teachers union whitewashed the animated images from the video.

    While the Occupy-cheerleading teachers have to concoct such fantasy scenes, informed Americans remember that it was the Occupiers themselves who openly defecated in the streets. What’s even more grossly comical is the sight of pampered Asner shilling for the “progressive” war on prosperity while ignoring Big Labor’s own self-serving evasion of their “fair share” in taxes.

    The California Federation of Teachers, an AFL-CIO affiliate that rakes in an estimated $22 million in coerced dues, enjoys nonprofit, tax-exempt 501(c)(5) status. So does CFT’s larger counterpart, the California Teachers Association, which collects a whopping $300 million in annual dues. While they burn through mountains of dues lobbying for everyone else to pay higher taxes, these Democratic partisan heavies pay nothing in either federal or state income taxes. Zero, zip, nada. In theory, the unions are entitled to this special status because their “primary” purpose is to “secure better working conditions, wages and similar benefits” for their members.

    In practice, of course, the unions are Democratic Party front groups that shovel hundreds of millions of dollars to liberal causes and candidates — against the will of their rank-and-file members and often without their knowledge.

    Mark Levin’s ever-vigilant Landmark Legal Foundation has pressured the Internal Revenue Service for more than a decade to force national teachers unions to file proper federal reporting and IRS statements regarding their hidden political expenditures. (The overwhelmingly Democratic donations are not tax-exempt.) As a result of Landmark’s investigative work, the Wisconsin Education Association admitted in 2006 that it had failed to pay more than $171,000 in federal taxes on Democratic political expenditures.

    Given the immense difficulty that dissenting teachers across the country have had in challenging the abuse of their dues for political purposes, it’s clear this is the tip of Big Labor’s tax-evasion iceberg.

    In addition, the national parent organizations of the CFT and CTA also benefit from widespread property tax exemptions on their ownership of lavish real estate used for union brass vacations and retreats. Fox Business Network reporter Elizabeth MacDonald’s investigation of IRS records earlier this year shed light on several tax-sheltered, union-owned luxury hotels, golf courses and country clubs — including the “swanky” AFL-CIO-owned Westin Diplomat resort in Florida and the UAW’s $33 million lakeside resort and golf club in Onaway, Mich.

    “What the documents don’t show,” FBN noted, “is whether union members like teachers, firemen and cops get invited to these junkets — or even approve of or know about the use of their dues to outright buy and run resorts, or spend on junkets, among other things.”

    Then there’s the Obamacare Cadillac tax exemption for unions. Delivered behind closed doors and out of sight of C-SPAN cameras, the Obama White House cut a lucrative sweetheart deal with AFL-CIO, Service Employees International Union and other labor groups to shield them from the federal health care mandate’s steep 40 percent excise tax on high-cost health care plans. The 90 percent of Americans who don’t belong to unions and participate in these plans must pay their “fair share” beginning in 2013.

    But Big Labor’s cozy Cadillac tax escape clause is effective until 2018. Even after that deadline, union dental and vision plans will remain exempt. The cost? $60 billion in foregone tax revenue.

    Who are the greedy, selfish, filthy-rich tax evaders pissing on the poor and politically unconnected now?

    http://townhall.com/columnists/michellemalkin/2012/12/07/hey_fat_cat_unions_pay_your_fair_share/page/full/

    • gmanfortruth says:

      V.H. – Merry Christmas to you and your family :)

      You have a good knack for finding articles that slam the Liberals. Well done! Sadly, there are an equally amount of articles slamming the Conservatives. Not sure who would win the numbers game, it is very clear that there is a serious devide in our country. This devide is all propoganda, designed to keep people against one another while the two political parties rape and pillage the people who falsly believe they “represent” them. It’s not a joke, but the saddening truth.

      The “Political Parties” are not out to help you or I, but to enrich and empower a select few. If you are not a wealthy contributor, you have no say in government. When that realization becomes common knowledge, things will then change. Until then, everyone will be at the mercy of the Elite.

      • I posted the article because I really want to know why a Union would own a resort!

        • Actually, the same reason the Teamsters built Las Vegas. Investment property with special deals to special friends (Think Godfather I, II, III)

        • gmanfortruth says:

          V.H. I may suggest asking Mr.”workers unite”, AKA Captain Canolli. Other than that, I think Unions are just corrupt entities protected by a corrupt government. Without government, they would be extinct. :)

    • HELL YEAH!! VH is rockin tonight.! That’s a good playlist you have going :)

      • Moved on to TV but thought I would share. Anyway, I think we could all use a little break -things are getting a little stressful around here lately.

  73. Redneck Freezer

  74. Rigging the electoral college?
    posted at 7:01 pm on December 8, 2012 by Jazz Shaw

    This is a somewhat troubling question which I first noticed being addressed by Dr. James Joyner over at Outside the Beltway. He’s talking about a definitely hyperbolic entry from Mother Jones which accuses the GOP of trying to rig the electoral college through various acts of villainy in advance of the 2016 elections. The basic crux of the story is a renewed plan to try to move the Keystone State from the winner takes all model to a split decision such as is used by Maine and Nebraska. Mother Jones sees it as a plan to undermine democracy, but Joyner isn’t so sure.

    Changing the rules in September would have been blatantly unfair, since the campaign had been waged under existing rules and the likely outcome was predictable. But, surely, changing the rules nearly four years out—well before the campaign has commenced—isn’t inherently a bad idea.

    This proposal is, as I said, similar to the split used in Maine and Nebraska, but not identical. They award theirs based on who wins each congressional district, plus a two point bonus to the overall winner for the Senate based seats. This new plan for Pennsylvania would just break up the electoral votes based strictly on the state’s popular vote, with – again – a two vote bonus to the winner. So is this undemocratic, Dr. Joyner?

    To the extent that Pennsylvania’s 20 electors are a lock for the Democrats, he current system is “rigged” (to use Baumann’s scare word) in their favor. After all, while a 5 point statewide margin is substantial, it’s nonetheless the case that 47% of Pennsylvanians are disenfranchised by the result. Obama should have gotten 10.3 electors to Romney’s 9.7; or, since that’s not possible, 11 to Romney’s 9. And even that would substantially overstate Obama’s margin of victory. Since Pileggi is proposing a 2 point “bonus” (actually, just an awarding of the 2 electors based on the Senate) to the winner, the 11-9 outcome would make sense.

    I can see Joyner’s point, but this question looks very different depending on whether you’re examining it from the state level or the national level. Anyone who is a fan of states’ rights should recognize that the Constitution allows each state to allocate their electoral votes however they choose, but it also serves as a reminder of a larger issue. I’m talking about the difference between state elections for state offices and state elections for a national office. If New Hampshire decides to elect their governor by having citizens drop colored stones into clay pots, that’s their business and they have to live with the results. But state by state differences in how we elect the President and Vice President leave certain possibilities open which are troubling to say the least.

    In the example given above, it’s noted that the GOP is trying to switch both Pennsylvania and Wisconsin to a split electoral college vote. It doesn’t take much imagination to guess why, given that both of them are states with a significant number of EC votes which the GOP has been losing consistently by small margins, while essentially gerrymandering the state level structure to give them control of the local government. (Don’t get upset by that last sentence. New York and other states do the same thing to favor the Democrats. It happens all over the country on both sides.) And it is also noted in the article that there mysteriously seems to be no effort by the GOP to push for such reforms in reliably red Texas.

    The long and the short of it is that if the Republicans can force the Democrats to split the electoral votes in the states where Democrats win and keep the red states winner take all, it provides a decided advantage. But is that fair? Would you want to win under those circumstances? I suppose the immediate question is, could the Democrats manage the same feat? I’m not sure if we have any examples of states where Democrats lose the presidential election but control the state government. Joyner asks that question as well, but doesn’t provide any examples. Perhaps some our more experienced readers can suggest some.

    All in all, it’s yet another thing which nudges me toward the idea of having some sort of national standards for elections which only apply to the Presidential race. It’s an ugly thought and sounds very much anti-states’ rights, but there are just so many variables in election laws that the system begins to look a bit suspect the more you tamper with it. So what do you think? Is this even a problem? And if so, what should be done about it?

    http://hotair.com/archives/2012/12/08/rigging-the-electoral-college/

  75. Figured I’d share an email I got from my sister. She is a CRNA, Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetist.She just returned from Haiti, on a humanitarian mission with some other people she works with. She sent along some pictures but also a few facts. It was cool to see a picture of her in action during surgery, something I’d never seen before. Sometimes we need to just count our blessings.

    Hi guys, I wanted to show you a few of the pictures I took during my trip to Haiti last week. First is a picture of the nurse, her husband who acted as a handyman, a surgery resident and the general surgeon that I traveled with. There is a little girl in the recovery room after we cleaned out an infected sore on her neck; the surgery team in action, the orphans gathered to sing a song for us, and the surgeon and resident trying to fix the anesthesia machine with a surgical headlight and hemostats. A pretty good trip overall.
    The poverty in Haiti is overwhelming. A few statistics:

    The water/electric/sanitation/streets of the city of Port-au-Prince were built for 600,000 people. 2 million live there now.
    10% of the population in Port-au-Prince died in the 2010 earthquake.
    65% of the economy consists of people lining the streets selling fruit, food, shoes, clothes, etc out of wheelbarrows or tubs.
    60% of the people are on septic/sewer systems, the rest are not.

    The people themselves were quite impressive. There is a certain dignity in the way they carry themselves, always looking well with clean clothes in good repair, perfect posture, bright teeth, considerate to each other. Traffic and roads were a nightmare, and I would never drive myself there. Fortunately we had a very good driver. People are still pretty shell-shocked over the earthquake. It must have been terrifying.

    I’m glad to be home.

    • Bottom Line says:

      ” The water/electric/sanitation/streets of the city of Port-au-Prince were built for 600,000 people. 2 million live there now. ”

      I have been conceptually developing a system that I believe can help them(and others) if implemented. I’ve played with the math a bit, and everything seems to fit rather easily with respect to feasibility, but I haven’t actually built a prototype.

      …IF it actually works…

      It requires no electricity…as in there is no electric pumps, yet it will ‘pump’ water uphill and over long distances.

      It’s design is flexible enough that you can make it out of a number of materials, including garbage if you had to and can find a way to sterilize it.

      You don’t necessarily need a water source other than rain. And it can be built almost anywhere, including desert regions.

      It is simple enough for almost anyone to understand and build, and ca be built in large or small scale, for a community or single family dwelling. It could effectively free anyone from “water bills”, with the exception of relatively low maintenance costs.

      I am willing to share. I think I will perhaps try to draw a few simple diagrams on the comp and post it online for everyone to see, perhaps test and see what they can come up with.

  76. This is what the unions do for us… yet another example of employees who should not have the job, yet are reinstated because of the union.

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/12/08/chrysler-workers-canned-for-drinking-on-job-reinstated/?test=latestnews

    • One has to wonder why FOX noise didn’t do an investigation of Wall Street investment bankers high on cocaine while they were supposedly “working” … when you think about the damage the alcoholics and cocaine addicts on Wall Street caused the country, it seems kind of petty going after workers (union or not). It’s not like we don’t know cocaine and booze are in huge consumption in the white collar world (where there are NO unions). That’s not a defense of workers who should be canned and stay canned, but one has to wonder why it is unions that so upset you when it was Wall Street that sunk the economy. Or do you really think it was unions that caused the 2007-8 economic crisis?

      Somehow the same kind of abuse as shown by FOX regarding unions doesn’t seem to bother anyone at SUFA when it pertains to the scions of capitalism (i.e., bankers).

      Real Sports recently did a show about the brain trauma suffered during football seasons in the NCAA … guess why they still hit 3x’s a week in practice vs. the NFL’s once a week?

      Right, unions.

      Hopefully, none of your kids play NCAA football and suffer brain damage.

      There are good and bad in everything (shades of gray, if you will), but so long as you wear blinders, you’re only going to see what you want to see. Is that really “all” unions do for us, USW?

      • Is that all you have Charlie? A scathing example of where the source of the article didn’t cover a similar situation the same way? That is called “diversion” and, further, it is a prime example of that other tactic I have pointed out repeatedly: attack the messenger when you cannot attack the story…

        • I replied to the “story” … obviously, all you have is parroting a Fox news report. Bravo. You do SUFA proud this morning.

          But you still haven’t answered the question: How do you feel about investment bankers ruining the economy … obviously, it hurts too much to deal with …:)

          • I didn’t answer the question because I have already answered it several times for you. I believe the investment bankers, as well as the politicians who made their actions possible, should be jailed for what they did.

            I don’t place all the blame on them of course. But they were part of the problem. Government is a far larger “cause” of our ruined economy. And by that I mean both parties.

            See, you shouldn’t assume to know what I think. Moreover, you should remember when I tell you what I think and then you won’t have to be told you were wrong about my stance more than once. :)

            • So you agree corporate America deserves the bad press, at least more than unions. Cool beans. :)

              • Black Flag® says:

                Absolutely.

                Corporations are the spawn of government – and from government grant, is immune to most of the consequences of its actions.

                End Corporations, I say.

      • @Charlie

        The problem with unions is the same as with corporations – government protection from competition and risk leading to irresponsible behavior. Unions in and of themselves are no better or worse than business are.

        • Exactly!

          Organized men for a purpose is perfectly “fine”. Call it a “union”… (shrug). They have a purpose – to enforce their own perception of labor value to their customer – great!

          Organized men for a purpose is perfectly “fine”. Call it a “company”… (shrug). They have a purpose – to produce a profitable solution to some sort of human problem – they want the min. cost possible – great!

          But once evil government uses violence to support one over the other, the outcome is disastrous to both and all.

    • USWeapon,
      I’m not really a fan of unions – with all the corruption, etc. But the thing is, the alternative (no unions) is so much worse.

      Kinda like politics – I’m not really thrilled with Democrats, but the alternative is so much worse…

      Yes, this situation is wrong. But it’s only a symptom. Focusing on this like its “THE PROBLEM” takes your eye off the real problems.

      • But the thing is, the alternative (no unions) is so much worse.

        Why they exist in the first place … but fear not, Mr. Obama’s abandonment of the working class with his bailout of his buddies on Wall Street 4 years ago (not to mention his turning his back on them in WI after promising to put on some comfortable shoes and walk the picket lines with them) continues to destroy unions across the board … right to work states are growing in number while unions decrease proportionately. Thanks a lot Dems …

      • That is a fair assessment on your part, Todd. I don’t think everything the unions do is bad. But I disagree that no unions is so much worse. I think the unions have outlived their usefulness.

        As for Dems vs. GOP. I can certainly understand your position that Dems are so much better than the GOP (I disagree, but I understand we have different positions so that is the case for you). However, I disagree that ALL alternatives are so much worse. There are TONS of things that would be better than these two parties…

        • I don’t think everything the unions do is bad. But I disagree that no unions is so much worse. I think the unions have outlived their usefulness.

          Really? This was the first line of your original post: This is what the unions do for us…

          Funny, I didn’t see any mentions of the “good” things they do … :)

          • I am confused by this post. I think that when I said this is what unions do for us, I was being pretty clear that I don’t think that what they did here is good for us. I wasn’t aware that I have to outline all the good and bad actions of unions each and every time that I mention them.

            However, if you are looking for what I think they do good, I would offer increasing training opportunities in certain industries as an example. But I think the harm they do is far greater than the good. They are in no way concerned about the economic impacts of their stances, much like the corporations. Oddly, you only think one of the two is “bad” while the other is “good”. I just think they are both “bad”.

            • You shouldn’t think for me :) … they both do bad things, but one (unions) is a direct result of unregulated industries. Now they are as corrupt as those who abused their workers, but they remain a better choice than “right to work” laws that will crush workers and all unions fought to gain. That I blame most directly on Obama and his corporate deals prior to 2008. Unions vs. right to work, the lesser of two evils … but the demonization of them while ignoring management/corporations is over the top. As I’ve posted many times (here and on my blog), I don’t know how any dues paying member of any union could support Obama after what he did to labor in 2008. But if they were going to play the Rep vs. Dem game, even Obama was better than Romney for them. When those are your two choices, it’s time to vote green, socialist or communist.

              • Black Flag® says:

                they both do bad things, but one (unions) is a direct result of unregulated industries

                This is factually untrue.

                Unions were created to prevent migrate workers from accessing jobs of current workers.

                “By that time journeymen also outnumbered masters in New York and Philadelphia.[10] This shift occurred as a result of large-scale transatlantic and rural-urban migration. Migration into the coastal cities created a larger population of potential laborers, which in turn allowed controllers of capital to invest in labor-intensive enterprises on a larger scale.[11] Craft workers found that these changes launched them into competition with each other to a degree that they had not experienced previously, which limited their opportunities and created substantial risks of downward mobility that had not existed prior to that time.[12]”

                It was just another ploy to prevent immigrants from competing for jobs with old immigrants.

                How things stay the same….

  77. Bottom Line says:

    One of the things I have been doing in my state of insanity is decrypting all kinds of symbolism.

    This symbol;

    …although simple in appearance, actually has a very complex meaning that ultimately represents support for family, which is a concept I can agree with.

    I cannot say for sure, but I think he may even be a distant cousin or something…probably on his mother’s side.

    I am still uncertain what to make of him. But some peculiar things indicate he is probably an alright guy…like the symbol. Let us hope he is a good man.

    I believe there is good in everyone.

  78. Bottom Line says:

    V,

    To share…

    I went into an atheist chat room recently, with the simple intention of being thought provocative in the interest of truth and knowledge. I suppose I also did it for the sake of entertaining myself. I succeeded in a sort of guile-ish way.

    When I entered, they were relaxed and chatting about all the usual simple topics. I asked a series of deeper philosophical questions, as well as made a few antagonistic, yet not so disrespectful comments.

    Within a few minutes, the pot was all stirred up. I provoked a bunch of atheists into intensely debating and arguing among themselves as to how to define “what is God?”

    One woman started to figure what had just happened and began to insult and curse at me out of frustration. They basically shut me down.

    But I left them all with questions in their minds that may very well lead to greater knowledge. I essentially tricked them into learning something.

    !!! HA HA HA HA HA HA !!!

    What a concept.

    • Or, you made a fool of yourself and only “think” you fooled somebody other than yourself. :)

      • Bottom Line says:

        Those thoughts and questions are now somewhere in their minds. On some level, at some point, they may start to wonder…which may lead to answers. Several were already actively engaging as such. They already learned from each other through sharing ideas.

        I didn’t go in there preaching religion, in spite of their wanting to accuse me of it. I even made it clear that I didn’t believe in fairy gods and goblins(their terms…or something like that).

        It was all in the interest of thought provocation, which I also made clear to them.

        Whether they define ‘God” as a physics thing or a nothing, or whatever they come up with, the important thing is that thought provocation can lead to answers, …that they may actually come up with something they hadn’t thought about or realized before.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      BL, Maybe you could use your little trick and get Charlie and Todd to learn something :lol:

    • BL,

      I went into an atheist chat room recently, with the simple intention of being thought provocative in the interest of truth and knowledge. I suppose I also did it for the sake of entertaining myself. I succeeded in a sort of guile-ish way.

      You contradict yourself right from the start.

      I asked a series of deeper philosophical questions, as well as made a few antagonistic, yet not so disrespectful comments.

      And you contradict yourself again…

      “Deeper philosophical questions” and “antagonistic, yet not so disrespectful comments”? Right. Based on your comments here at SUFA, I doubt your questions were very “deep” and I imagine your comments were plenty disrespectful.

      But I left them all with questions in their minds that may very well lead to greater knowledge. I essentially tricked them into learning something.

      Sure…sounds like you’re still a little “delusional”…

      Have you switched to some new/different/stronger pot or other drugs recently?

    • What exactly were you trying to get them to learn? You state that you don’t believe either, yet you were being a little antagonistic in order to teach them something. I have to wonder what-what were they suppose to learn?

      • Bottom Line says:

        Do you believe in fairy gods and goblins? I don’t want to be so arrogant as to say i know they don’t exist, because I have not logically and definitively proven to myself as such. But so far, I haven’t seen any reason to believe they do…unless you metaphorically count strange animals as goblins. I mean, really..what is a platypus?

        The purpose was to push their buttons enough to get them to wonder within their own thoughts. I also had the added benefit of getting perspective from them. Perhaps I have misrepresented a little.

        I believe there are answers, but there has to be a question in order to have an answer. Thus it starts with wonderment.

        I basically went into the middle of some atheist and simply asked “What was here before the universe? How did it get here? What was here before that? How did it get here? Where did it all start? Can you make a tree or a universe from nothing? What is God, etc…”

        It provoked thought and wonderment. It was fun. Thought I’d share. That’s all.

  79. gmanfortruth says:

    @ Charlie, Good Morning Captain Canolli :)

    I think that alot of banjkers should be in jail, as well as every politician in the District of Criminals. Considering the Lefty’s hatred of Capitalism, why don’t MSDNC, NBC, CNN or any other left wing faux media rag do an investigation? Last I saw, the Liberals have the White House and the senate for the last 4 years, but where’s all the action? There is no actiopn because the democrats are in it just as much as the Repugs. They are all thieves!

    Unions are nothing more than an extension of government, which both entities are equally corrupt. A few “good” things that one union might do doesn’t change that, it’s all window dressing to fool people like you. :roll:

    • gmanfortruth says:

      @ Bottom Line, Been reading your posts, keep searching :) One thing that you might want to avoid is using “logic” with Charlie. For him there are too many gray areas to comprehend such a thing as logic :lol: (I love you too Charlie!)

      • Hey, G … spoke to the liquor store yesterday. they won’t do what you want, so you’ll have to honor your debt the way we assumed you would originally (why you asked for and I sent you my home address). So, you gonna do the right thing or what?

        And let me just say that considering the logic used in here in general, but especially yours, G, I’m sure glad you’re on the other side, brother ….:)

        • gmanfortruth says:

          OK Charlie, I will deal with it tomorrow when the store opens. :) I’m REALLY glad your on the other side too! THat’s OK, I still think you can be unbrainwashed someday :lol:

      • Bottom Line says:

        Sup G,

        I dunno what hit me. But it hit me hard. The benefit was extraordinary knowledge. The price was a year of complete insanity. I feel as though I am snapping out if it and coming in to some sort of balance. It fades in and out. I hope the turbulent aspects are over.

        That was some wicked shit, bro, lemme tell ya. I am not sure humans are made for this sort of thing. It is hard for our rational minds to understand, hence all the turbulence in my head for the last year.

        It is so complex. It is rather difficult to describe some things. I feel that if I were to try to articulate it, it would fill a thick book…or a few zillion billion gazillion google of them if I had the time to learn and convey.

        That’s what all the symbolism is about. You can convey information more efficiently through mathematics and geometry.

        And as far as all the conspiracy theories and such…I see things, G, ..and I think I figured out a few of them. I don’t want to say as it might perpetuate more evil in the world. But, I can tell you that there is some misinterpretation and subsequent irrational fear happening. I am still learning. A lot of it is still unclear, but it is fun to read the conspiracy blogs with knowledge they don’t have.

        That’s what the smirk on the Mona Lesa is about. You can’t help but to smile.
        :)

  80. This is what guns do for us… yet another example of a child who should be alive, but is not because of guns.

    http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/12/09/police-boy-was-buckling-booster-seat-when-dad-gun-fired-killing-him-outside-pa/

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Certainly a tragedy, as will be all the kids that die in car accidents today. To blame an inanimate object for the actions of a human is lame. You could also say “This is what SUV’s do for us” after the next one flips over and kills a family. As far as your comments to Bottom Line, why is it you must always attack the person? Are a narcistic prick or what?

      • Bottom Line says:

        “As far as your comments to Bottom Line, why is it you must always attack the person? Are a narcistic prick or what?”

        The intent is not to be a prick, if that was what was implied about the conspiracy blog comment. Please don’t take that personal.

        To be honest, I feel like somewhat of an ass, or perhaps like a turtle sticking it’s neck out right now. I have been overwhelmed with something I am only beginning to understand. I feel that I have already been sloppy as a reaction to my confusion. Who knows what kind of mess I may have created?

        Consider this…

        Let’s say someone or something anonymously proves to you what you thought was impossible, as actually being possible. And they do it by means of logic in a way that you cannot deny. You think it out and rethink it out, over and over, but you come to the same conclusion. It has been conveyed to you in a way that cuts off other possibilities.

        Now, although it is only bits and pieces, you have powerful knowledge that blows your mind and is difficult to accept. It changes things. What do you do with it?

        There is a temptation to try and convey it to others(if that’s even possible), but a fear that if others actually see, they may react badly. There exists the possibility of messy consequences as an inhibition to not convey.

        What if billions collectively and simultaneously went through what I have just been through over the last year? Get it?

        Perhaps I will just shut up and go away and consider some stones are better left unturned.

        • Be a prick.
          Annoy people.
          Say what you think and see what happens.

          It’s all feedback and learning.
          Often what other think is “prickish” is really their own misunderstanding and stupidity, not yours.

          Seek root principles. Live them. This is the only path to a moral, purposeful life.

    • Don’t ever really hear any stories about how someone carrying a gun saved lives, either, guess that must mean it never happens.

  81. gmanfortruth says:

    HEY CHARLIE – GO RAMS :)

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 139 other followers

%d bloggers like this: