Tuesday Night Open Mic for July 7, 2009

Open Mic 1And we reach another Tuesday night. I apologize for not being around much this week. Or at least I offer a minimalist apology. I don’t have the access to be able to get in here much. Even if I was Bill Gates and wanted to spend the money to be on here constantly, I simply don’t have the time with my travels. Mrs. Weapon and I hiked about ten miles yesterday into the Alaskan wilderness. We were back out this morning around 7:00 and took to the Yukon. Quite a trip thus far. I will paste in a picture from this evening as we were leaving this particular area. In about 7 hours, we will be hitting Tracy’s Arm Fjord. We will be out wildlife hunting. The area is chock full of Grizzly Bears, Bald Eagles, and Moose. Looking forward to seeing some of each (although not too close to the Bears). But what’s on everyone’s mind in terms of current events?

I have only a couple of topics to get things started. As I said the other night, I don’t have a lot of access up here, which makes it a GREAT vacation!

Advertisements

Comments

  1. USWeapon says:

    USWeapon Topic #1

    Sarah Palin announced her resignation from the governorship of Alaska this past weekend. Not many people had seen this move coming, at least not yet. And the left and right have jumped to all kinds of conclusions about why this happened. My personal belief is that she is preparing to run for the Senate in Alaska in order to gain the requisite federal legislative experience to legitimize a run for the Presidency.

    Why do you think she resigned and what do you think lies in the future for Sarah?

    • She resigned for the reasons she said. Have found her to be an honest politician which is usually an oxymoron. Many don’t like her because she says it as she sees it.

      Sarah will have a good future as she is able to draw crowds. Wish she had been at our Dallas TEA Party. Instead of 37,000 we would have had 75,000 even in the heat.

      If she does something on the national scene, my wife and I will work for her.

      • Ray Hawkins says:

        Honest? Definition of honest must be very pliable to throw her in that bucket. Sheesh!

        • There you go Ray, making me laugh again.

        • JayDickB says:

          Ray – Could you give us some examples of where you think she has been dishonest?

          I have not been impressed with Palin’s political depth or intellect, but I don’t see any dishonesty.

          • What are peoples views on the windfall tax on the profits of oil companies and then kicked backed to Alaskans?

            http://thinkprogress.org/2008/10/27/palin-shares-wealth/

            • Bob,
              Good question. Seems like Palin is more a socialist than Obama.

              This is another reason she quit – oil revenues are plummeting, meaning Alaska will have to make tough decisions, something Palin is not good at.

            • Are you two serious? Thank you for bringing this up – you are making it too easy.

              Do you understand what she did and the difference between BO’s spreading the wealth plans? Apparently not, so let me help.

              The oil production business in Alaska is huge and so for the people of Alaska to reap the rewards of their state, she gave back to the citizens of Alaska, the money that was excessive. As this article says, so much money that no income tax is even necessary. Coming from a highly taxed state, I can only imagine how nice that is for the local citizens.

              Now, to contrast Obama, he will take money from citizens and give to other citizens, mainly to punish those citizens that do well for being wealthy.

              Do you not see the difference?

              • Kathy,
                So it’s Ok to tax companies that use natural resources? So we could raise the taxes/fees charged for grazing on federal lands, or for oil, gas, & mineral rights on federals lands?

                Spreading the wealth is spreading the wealth. Making one type Ok is a pretty shallow argument.

              • Amazed1 says:

                In a way that is already being done. The government pays a timber tax for every tree on it’s property. It comes to our schools…the more government timber in your county the more money you get.

              • Todd, please read JAC’s response below and if that still doesn’t help you understand, then I just need to wish you well, I guess.

              • Why is it fair to impose taxes on a companies profits? The money is then given to people who have not earned it, when you tax the company you are then taking money from the CEO, board, shareholders and possibly the workers of the companies. Why is this fair?

              • Alan F. says:

                The nonrenewable part should be setting off bells galore. Oil companies like mines do not make they take. Why shouldn’t the people of Alaska get something rather than a resource company continuing to make hay from their ability to politic in the past. When its all gone the people will still be staying, the resource company…

            • Bob,

              I think its interesting. We are supposed to be the United States, meaning we band together to form a whole, but still have states free to act as the choose. Don’t want to get too deep on that.

              If we look at oil drilling, the federal government has passed laws making it illegal to drill 200 miles off our coasts, except where they have allowed.
              China is drilling 90 miles of Florida’s coast. Why can each state not decide if to use this resource, especially before
              a foreign country takes advantage of our
              policy?

              As for the tax, I think its good for them, it lets the people decide how to spend it, vs. a big brother deciding it must go to health care or other.

            • I think it is great. It is their oil and they can do with it what they want.

              The argument that this is “spreading the wealth” in the same context as that used by Obama is pure B.S..

              One takes from one group of citizens and transfers it to another under the belief system of “social justice”.

              The other takes a “flat tax” rate applied to “profits” of State owned resources and returns the cash value to the citizens on an equal basis.

              Seems to me the Alaskans are closer to getting the thing right than the rest of us.

              The question is whether the state can still apply the “TAX” to all profits on oil extracted from the state. If they can then the tax allows them to get paid for the resource removed from their state which happens to be under Federal Land. Land which was supposed to be given to Alaska to support itself when it was made a state. But then the Fed’s changed their mind.

              Bob, I do have a problem with “windfall profits” taxes. While that is the name applied here it doesn’t seem to work out that way mechanically. A windfall tax usually has a different rate for different profit margins. The Alaska tax takes a flat rate for all profits.

              The Windfall tax debate came over public outcry over big oil profits a couple of years back. The total numbers were huge, but the profit rates were not that much different. I never have seen a good explanation of how that worked. Volume would have had to account for ALL of the increased profit and it didn’t seem to hold.

              And by the way, I think the US Taxpayers may not be getting a Fare Market Value for the oil leases on federal lands. It is only a feeling I get when comparing private lease rates to federal rates. But we have to discount the added cost of operating on federal lands and I don’t have the numbers at hand.

              Sorry about rambling. Probably got the whole thing confused now.
              JAC

              • Wait a minute oil companies would have bid for the rights to drill that oil, they are then subject to windfall taxes on profit that they make, why should an oil company be subject to those taxes, does that not go against the ideals of a free market?

              • I don’t know how the bidding process works in AK. so can’t say yes or no on that.

                Note in the articles that the left leaning folks keep referring to it as “windfall tax” but the actual law as stated is a flat tax on profits above a certain base. But only on profits and it passes no judgement about equity of the profits.

                I would rather have seen them tie royalties or lease rates to production and price. But AK is a capitalist pro business state. Thus they went with profits and not gross revenue.

                On the Federal side you forget there is considerable Fed interference with the market place both directly and indirectly as it relates to Lease Values. The result is that “Americans” who supposedly own the oil may not be getting Fair Market Value.

                And Yes it does go against free market values but not because of the tax. It is because the state and federal govt owns the land.

                Once we decide govt land is and OK concept then the people should get Fair Market Value for the resources under that land. Then the state may assign what ever fees they wish and the oil companies may make their decisions accordingly. Thus a new free market value is established, to the extent that no other coersion is used once the deal is done.

              • JAC

                I put together an article addressing the idea of a Coalition or as I called it a movement and sent it to USW as a possible ‘guest commentary’. I would send it to you if you like, but don’t have your email. Maybe USW can send it to you.

                CM

              • Yes, tell him to send to me.

        • “C’mon Alan – is this is a trick question? Can you say William Jefferson Clinton?”

          At first glance and remembrance, that retort sounds valid.

          How long did it take for the MSM to find out about all the abuses that bubba committed against women? Like NEVER !! It was alternate media if I’m not mistaken.

          If you (and I’m sure you do) thijk that the Curic or Gibson interview was anything othe rthan a hatchet job than you are clueless. Did you watch the VP debate Palin/Biden? How many obvious LIES did Joe tell and the MSM was quiet !! GMAFB.

          And so far all negatives I’ve heard about Palin have vaporized. And you know if there was just a tiny bit of true it would be brought out.

          After Watergate, I decided to ignore all the media about OJ, Reagan (less you forgot that he’s a retard, etc ), who ever – the guy who killed his wife, the Mississippi gal in Curacao, etc.

          Oh well.. \cya later

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      I guess we’ll re-ignite from yesterday.

      Why did she resign? That is real tough to answer – apparently even she is not so sure. When you have someone such as her that lacks leadership skills, common sense, political acumen, is lazy, is ill-suited for much politically beyond being the mayor of a pimple on the ass town like Wasilla – then you get unpredictability – which oddly many conservatives latch onto as the teet of “shaking things up”.

      Her future? Another creepy Ann Coulter-type that’s going to rebel rouse the extremism that is the far right. Just as Eliot Spitzer has magically re-appeared on scene, Sarah will be given her righteous place (god help us all) as someone to craft the Republican message going forward – if for another reason than she is un-justifiably popular.

      She makes me sick – a complete whack job walking pile of contradiction who QUIT.

      • Ray, first I really do not agree with your assessment of Mrs. Palin. Second, I believe that her popularity is rooted in the fact that she is more of a regular person than most (if not all) other high profile politicians.

        • Ray Hawkins says:

          I guess I don’t know what a regular person is then. Is it somewhere who pretends to be something they are not? Is it someone who gives the middle finger to a constituency that elected her to office then watches her shirk her responsibility to them?

          • Son, I am beginning to get the impression that you really don’t like Sarah. That’s fine. She is polarizing to say the least. By normal, I mean that she is not part of the elite crowd, and comes across as “normal”…to me at least.

            • Ray Hawkins says:

              You’re equating polarizing with normal? Ugh!

              • I am not equating polarizing to normal…I am acknowledging that she is polarizing. I am what I consider normal, and if I was in a public light I would be considered polarizing with the beliefs I have…and by the way, so would you.

              • Murphy's Law says:

                Ray,

                Terry wrote: “She is polarizing to say the least. By normal, I mean that she is not part of the elite crowd, and comes across as “normal”…to me at least.”

                He equated “not part of the elite crowd” with “normal”, and you deliberately substituted ‘polarizing’ from his previous statement to make your own statement……what a cheap transparent trick.

                You are beginning to sound more desperate with each post…..come on, man! Write something worthy of our intelligence- or are you going to start to bash that, too, saying that those who don’t agree with you couldn’t possibly have any? I really had come to expect more from you….

              • Alan F. says:

                Well said!

                Note to self: no slip ups with Murph reading…

              • Ray Hawkins says:

                Nice try again Murph

                Palin is normal
                Palin is polarizing

                Suggests someone who is normal is also polarizing.

              • Murphy's Law says:

                Not at all…..you alone chose to make that connection- there was nothing in his post to connect the two.

                As I said, it was a cheap trick- one I see in the major media all the time when they have chosen to dislike someone.

              • Ray Hawkins says:

                You’re absolutely right Murphy – we make some assumptions regarding the information supplied to us – everyone here does it yourself included. My interpretation is valid – find another tree to bark up.

              • That’s a fairly stupid statment.

                I’m a human being.
                I’m a Libertarian.

                Suggests someone who is a human being is also a Libertarian.

                If only!

              • Alan F. says:

                Obama has proven himself to be polarizing. Pelosi couldn’t be any more polarizing if she made the conscious attempt to do so. You don’t see it as such because its your team of which is being spoken of.

                That she so enrages “the other team” has to be another enamoring point for Mrs Palin within those who are not of the current administration’s congregation. I’m surprised you have not leapt upon taking her husband’s name and not retaining her maiden name as being another sign of weakness while you’re grasping away. As I asked before and recieved no answer, I’ll ask again. Name the liberal who had as much attention paid to their background, affairs past and present and family members regardless of age or sex and any other detail of their having existed at all by the main stream media and pundits across America. Name “one”: Being a single entity, unit, object, or living being.

                I dare you to say president “Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.” Obama.

              • Murphy's Law says:

                Ooooh- that was gooooood, Alan!

              • Ray Hawkins says:

                Obama polarizing? Not according to the polls (at least the ones that do not target Hannity viewers alone). Try again Alan.

              • You had better be re-looking at the more recent polls…The latest Rasmussen poll indicates that 32% strongly approve of the current POTUS and 37% strongly disapprove…his numbers are going just as they should be given his policies…IMHO.

              • Ray Hawkins says:

                “Name the liberal who had as much attention paid to their background, affairs past and present and family members regardless of age or sex and any other detail of their having existed at all by the main stream media and pundits across America. Name “one”: Being a single entity, unit, object, or living being.”

                C’mon Alan – is this is a trick question? Can you say William Jefferson Clinton?

              • Alan F. says:

                Bull. You’re busy counting what? The undeniable fact the man got his rocks off in the oval office with the child of a good friend of his and the media HAD to pick that one up? So you are saying somehow that was the same? In what manner? Details. Better pick that arm up Ray.

              • Ray Hawkins says:

                Jeez Alan – thought you were better than this.

                Ho hum – Paula Jones, Gennifer Flowers, Whitewater, Vince Foster, Troopergate, his eating habits, his brother Roger – should I keep going or do I see a yella flag yet?

            • v. Holland says:

              That’s why she is being attacked because she is seen as an easy target-at first I though it was just normal political smearing because she was running for V.P. and I still believe that it started out that way-but they decided that she was an easy target-she’s not rich, she didn’t go to an Ivy League school, she doesn’t have attorney after her name, she’s from the “small” state of Alaska and she put a spot light on corruption in her own party-So they put her up as their poster child against anything conservative. They figure they can use her to damage the Republican Party and get their fellow liberals all in a frenzy by destroying this one woman-without too many of our republican representatives coming to her rescue because they are angry with her. It has became a mob mentality and they are showing just how low they can go.

              • It is a Feeding Frenzy.

              • Ray Hawkins says:

                Yep – we’re in one big ole frenzy. Needed an easy punching bag like Palin. Prior to her selection as VP running mate under McCain I was actually still an undecided voter. That a person such as her would be selected was insulting to me as a patriot and a citizen.

              • v. Holland says:

                Since you believe that Most Conservative/Women are narcissistic I’m not surprised that you were insulted by her selection but surely you have to see that the attacks on Palin have been unusually vicious and unending.

              • Ray Hawkins says:

                No – only most conservative women I have met – and there are many.

              • Alan F. says:

                But an outright lair like a Barney Frank gets you all a quiver? Wow the last round of midnight jiggery-pokery in the house must have the teeth near rattled out of your head in the throes of near epileptic ecstasy.

              • Ray Hawkins says:

                It did Alan – I was literally sweating in profuse glee, howling at the moon and humping a tree in my backyard.

              • Hope you didn’t get any splinters!! Your wife might object!!

              • Stop dutch elm disease, wear a condom.

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        Ray,

        In what way are Elliot Spitzer and Sarah Palin alike? Seems to me that their situations are completely different, and yet you bring them together in an attempt to form some sort of analogy. Since they and their situations are nothing alike, I fail to understand the analogy.

        It seems like you are saying that Palin will “magically reappear on the scene” like Spitzer (and perhaps you are saying that that is all they have in common). However, even if that is the case, Sarah Palin certainly hasn’t disappeared from the scene (and she probably won’t), so her “magical reappearance” will be unnecessary.

        By the way, Hilary Clinton QUIT her job as Senator of New York… while it is true that she already had something lined up which was higher up the food-chain, it still doesn’t change the fact that she QUIT.

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          And I forgot… Obama QUIT his job as Senator for Illinois as well…

          • Ray Hawkins says:

            Something tells me Obama may have had another job to actually go to – having trouble putting my finger on it.

            • So in your world, NOT DOING the job you were hired to do while you pursue another job working for someone else, so that you can come back to the original job if your promotion doesn’t work out is somehow more ethical than just quitting a job.

              Interesting concept.

              • Ray Hawkins says:

                To the extent you think he was not doing his job is your narrow Sean Hannity driven opinion and you are entitled to it. Anytime I have sought another job with a different employer I did not quit my current job – that is asinine.

            • Alan F. says:

              Czar of ACORN?

              • Alan F. says:

                Hey was he eligible as true king of ACORNia for the position of state senator and now as president of the United States of America can he still wear the crown in public?

            • I’ll repeat from yesterday, Ray, who was covering Obama’s Senate District when he upped and left after two years? That is OK?

              In reality, he quit on the people who elected him but continued to collect his taxpayer-funded salary? Is that your idea of honesty?

              • Ray Hawkins says:

                Debate is on Palin not Obama.

                But FTR – who was covering McCain’s district?

            • “I can unequivocally say I will not be running for national office in four years, and my entire focus is making sure that I’m the best possible senator on behalf of the people of Illinois,” then-Senator-elect Obama said the day after his election in 2004.

              Should have been the big red flag way back then that this guy’s word means nothing…..

              • Ray Hawkins says:

                I thought four years that I would never leave consulting and return to an industry job. Then the economy shit the bed and our business fell apart. Guess that I left my job makes me a liar also eh?

              • Bama dad says:

                I missed where Illinois fell apart and Obummer had to seek another job. Way to deflect answering the statement Kathy made.

              • Ray Hawkins says:

                Let me spell it out then Bama – circumstances change and people are allowed to change their career path. To suggest that makes one a liar or untrustworthy is just ridiculous.

              • Murphy's Law says:

                Ray,

                Circumstances change, and in your personal case the way you tell it, sure. But did you stand before your employer and say unequivocally that you would not leave for 4 years? You are overlooking that this was a PROMISE that Obama made to those who elected him. And that makes ALL the difference here.

              • Murphy's Law says:

                OTFLMAO!!!! Great point, and right on, Bama!

        • Ray Hawkins says:

          Peter – I think (but I could be waaaaaaaaaaaay off here) that Hilary had another job to go to.

        • Ray Hawkins says:

          Leave job under shady circumstance – reappear as though nuthin’ ever happened.

      • Richmond Spitfire says:

        Wow Ray,

        I think that you totally do not get Sarah Palin. As Garth says above, I view her as an honest person who does indeed “tell it like it is”. She represents me, middle-America, working-class with ethics. All of your negative characteristic comments except for “lazy”, I’ll give you a pass on (but I think you are wrong — way off) because they are your opinions and you are entitled to that. I don’t get the “lazy” comment though…where is that coming from…please prove to me that she’s lazy? Since she came into the national picture (i.e. into my view), I haven’t seen a lazy bone in her body.

        My children LOVE her…my 7-year old daughter writes her letters and sends her drawings. My two youngest went to her rally her in Richmond and were VERY excited. This lady speaks very clearly with a message that a great deal of us “normal” people get and support. I’ve never worked on a campaign, but like Garth, if the opportunity presents itself, I will and I know that my family will. She is a powerful presence.

        In regards to her resigning…I got the message clearly. She was doing the “right” thing for the constituents in her state by not wasting state monies anymore because she is a TARGET for left-leaning loons who are attempting to cut her hamstrings because they are scared for the powerhouse that she is and her GREAT potential. Gee Ray, doesn’t that show “Ethics” in the face of adversity? Doing the right thing — even knowing that it will be perceived as controversial? Don’t you EVER make tough decisions?

        I sincerely hope that Sarah Palin cuts ties with the Republican Party. The way she was treated by campaign staff is unaccepatable to me.

        I am so happy that you see her as a whackjob! To me, that means that my instincts over Sarah Palin are ringing true. In my humble and countrified opinion, a true whackjob is Janeane Garofalo.

        GO SARAH!

        Regards,
        RS

        • Well said Spitfire!

          As a new father Ray, how can you call the mother of five “lazy”? You know that is a load of crap.

          “a pimple on the ass town like Wasilla”? I’ve never been there, so can’t say that’s accurate or not. Suspect you have never been there and are just being mean, again.

          How about we discuss Palin on issues. She is for drilling in ANWAR, skeptic on global warming, personally against all abortion, but politically supports the right to choose,
          pro-guns and hunting, fiscal conservative. Which of those are you against?

          • Ray Hawkins says:

            Ahh – okay – that she bore five kids doesn’t mean she is the chief caregiver – in fact – if you’re going to suggest she is and is therefore not lazy – then I’m going to wonder who the hell was behind the wheel for Alaska. Try again folks.

            • Kristian says:

              I didn’t get a chance to read here yesterday or I would have posted before this. Are you nuts? I have 2 children and a 40 hour a week job and I manage both just fine. Are you seriously suggesting that she can’t do both? I think maybe you need to back up off the woman just a little bit. Until you have walked a mile in her shoes you really don’t know what you are talking about.

              • Ray Hawkins says:

                I am not suggesting she cannot – I am suggesting she probably does not. You’ll judge me for judging her? Who is the hypocrite now Kristian? I don’t need to walk a mile in her shoes any more than you need to walk in mine or I in yours.

              • Kristian says:

                Not judging, asking the question how can you judge her when you haven’t been in her shoes and had to make some of decisions and choices that she has had to make? And yes, I think before you have the right to judge her you have to see this whole thing from her perspective to understand why she did what she did. If it were your wife in the position that Mrs. Palin was in would you judge her as harshly for quitting?

              • Ray Hawkins says:

                (1) Even she apparently does not understand why she quit – else she is flat out a liar;

                (2) If your criteria for opinion or judgment is you must walk in the other person’s shoes then I’d ask you to retract every opinion you have shared about every politician on this blog – unless of course you have walked in their shoes. Stop with the double standard.

              • Kristian says:

                You are a fine one to talk about a double standard. When you can stop holding Republicans and conservatives to a different standard than a Democrat or liberal we’ll talk about double standards.

        • Alan F. says:

          Hey leave Janeane Garofalo alone. She took a check and was on 24 wasn’t she?

        • Well said Spitfire!!

          I think that the main problem with Mrs. Palin is that she is not politician enough for Ray and the other Liberal and Moderate Nabobs out there basking in the shade of Obama’s glory.

          Of course, that is exactly the part that draws me to her. If she can learn the Political side of things without becoming a crooked thief, er,um, Politician, then she sure has my vote.

          As for quitting as Governor to set up for election as something else like Senator, why that seems like a particularly HONEST thing for her to do. A lot more honest than Obama, Clinton, Biden, or any of the rest.

          • Ray Hawkins says:

            I’m not comfortable with a ‘leader’ that cannot figure out how to scratch her own ass.

            • Richmond Spitfire says:

              Well Ray,

              Perhaps you aren’t comfortable with a leader who refuses to scratch someone else’s @ss?????

              😉

              Regards,
              RS

              • But he is evidently comfortable with one who will kiss anothers…

              • Alan F. says:

                The Saudi King’s ass is in the front of his robe? They really are from another world.

              • Alan F. says:

                Plain old insults are easy.

              • Ray Hawkins says:

                And funny from time to time. Consider it a metaphor for softballs like “what is the bush doctrine” – that is akin for most Republicans at that time to scratching their own ass.

        • Ray Hawkins says:

          But she’ll say she is a fighter? What gives? I gave an example elsewhere herein with regards to her laziness when it came to doing the things she was asked to do during the campaign. I also suggest anyone who quits because (whiny crybaby voice) “these darn ethics complaints” were preventing her from doing her job – its one big crock of shit. The right is spinning this up that all the supposed ethics investigations are active and ongoing and costing millions of dollars. Uh – bullshit? She quit because she is lazy.

        • Ray Hawkins says:

          I pray she never ever runs for office anywhere – she is a classic gumby – no brains, no heart, no guts and no spine.

      • Bama dad says:

        “When you have someone such as her that lacks leadership skills, common sense, political acumen, is lazy, is ill-suited for much politically beyond being the mayor of a pimple on the ass town like Wasilla – then you get unpredictability – which oddly many conservatives latch onto as the teet of “shaking things up”.

        Dad gum Ray, change her to him, mayor to community organizer and you just descried your savior “Obummer”, you know the one that is stumbling around Washington right now. I wish he would resign. On second thought I retract that wish as it would leave us with Joe “I open my mouth without a thought” Biden.

        • Ray Hawkins says:

          President Obama has no political acumen? Um – bahahahahahahaha – that’s funny Bama – for a second I thought you were serious.

          • Alan F. says:

            Actually I have it from that bastion of truth “unnamed source” that Obama actually used his skills learned while apprenticing for Ron Popeil to become president.

          • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

            Ray,

            Don’t confuse charisma with political accumen.

            Charisma Obama has in ABUNDANCE.

            Political accumen? Sorry, he ain’t got it.

            • Ray Hawkins says:

              Really Peter? Weren’t ya’ll just patting him on the back a week or so ago for his position and approach on Iran?

          • Bama dad says:

            ac•u•men (āk’yə-mən, ə-kyōō’-)
            n. Quickness, accuracy, and keenness of judgment or insight

            He is so scripted when the teleprompter go off, he can’t stack 6 words together and make them into a coherent sentence.

            • If that teleprompter goes off, he sounds like Porky Pig. Ebdebedebdebdebeee. 😀

              • Ray Hawkins says:

                Because sounding like a bumbling dumbass in front of the world makes us more ‘real’

              • I can do without this realness thank you very much.

                I remember people, Repubs and Demos, ripping into bush because he could not get a complete sentence out when he was asked a question off the cuff. Now, you are saying because someone stutters and stammers when without the prepared\approved\vetted\politically correct answer it is a good thing? I think the word I am looking for is hypocrite, but I may also be looking for idiotic, double standard, down right ridiculous.

              • I have this vision in my head of him going “That’s all folks!!!”

              • Richmond Spitfire says:

                Me too! LOL

      • Ray….out of curiosity…would you please, for my benefit, compare Palin and Obama? Your thoughts, sir. By the way, how are you today?

        D13

        • Ray Hawkins says:

          Greetings D13. Comparing the two? That could take hours so I’ll do a quick drive-by

          President Obama – inexperienced as he may have been/seemed – was someone groomed and tooled for the job he is in – he still has to grown into it somewhat, but he came to the table with a lot of the right tools and attributes needed to succeed.

          Sarah Palin – her toolbelt is different – she was thrust into a spotlight she was ill prepared for, and was disinterested in growing into. Lacking basic and fundamental grasp of core issues she instead tried the “I’m one of ya’ll” tactic which works well in local and even some State-level forums. She could have gone back to Alaska, worked her rear off to improve her leadership, her issues management and understanding, and awareness – instead she turned into a whining crybaby that too many people were picking on her.

        • Ray Hawkins says:

          D13 – you’re ex-military right? How does the military handle or view quitters?

      • Murphy's Law says:

        Ray,

        Sarah Palin is “un-justifiably popular”? Were you being deliberately arrogant there, or did it sort of slip out and you hope no one calls you on it? Who died and set you up as judge and jury on why the American public likes someone, and whether those reasons are “justifiable”? Oh wait, I forgot, only the liberals can, from their lofty positions as…..uh…..oh that’s right, liberals……can judge the rest of us. Very intolerant of views other than your own, eh? I like reading your posts, or at least I did, but now you are turning more shrill by the day, maybe even the minute. I’ve noticed that is what people do when they run out of arguments with substance.

        Richmond Spitfire already called you out on your assessment that Palin is lazy….I notice you have not backed that up. Any other liberals who post here going to come to his rescue? Anyone?

        And, folks, I think he was trying to say, “rabble rouse” in his post. Apparently too lazy to make sure he gets his phrases straight. You can google both phrases if you want to check it out……

        The other day D13 said you make us think…….I’m not so sure any more. Well, ok, it made me think that you didn’t put much thought into that post other than making it sound like you can write well, which actually you do. Too bad the content is nothing more than the poop in the sandwich mentioned yesterday.

        • Ray Hawkins says:

          Its my opinion Murph so I am the judge. Make sense?

          Un-justifiably popular – I was trying to keep this clean from yesterday but this is stuck in your craw so I’ll reiterate:

          An overwhelming majority of conservative/Republican women I talked to liked her because they saw themselves in her (the whole hickey mom bs), she was a woman (great qualification to be VEEP), or conservative women just tend to be more narcissistic (sort of like – Sarah Palin!). Most had no idea what her positions were, what her record was and what she actually stood for.

          Conservative/Republican men liked her because she fulfills that creepy Pat Buchanan-esque VPILF ‘she’s purdy’ garbage. Again – no idea what she stood for, what her record was and what her positions for – they just saw, for the first time, a candidate they secretly could see themselves in the sack with.

          As for lazy? Okay – its well established that gargantuan efforts were made to help prepare her positionally for the campaign. Its also well established that she had no interest in putting in the sweat equity to properly prepare herself for campaigning that was not carefully scripted – e.g. interviews on the so-called MSM. That is lazy.

          Want more? Why is the good Ms. Palin ducking for cover? So you think you’re going to be a lame duck gov eh? So you quit. Idiot conservatives call her smart – I call her LAZY.

          • Naten53 says:

            Ray I am trying to form an opinion about what a lame duck governor is.

            Can you answer a couple questions for me?

            Did you vote for your current governor?
            Do you support (all/most/some/few/or none) of the governors ideas?
            What do you think of your current state’s direction? (wrong, right, or wrong on some things right on some things)

            • Ray Hawkins says:

              Yes – Ed Rendell
              Most
              Direction – mostly right – if they decide to jack up taxes rather than look for more effective government you’ll soon see a Republican back in a la Tom Ridge

              • Naten53 says:

                So what I get from this Ray is that you want your state government to be more effective, sounds fair.

              • Ray Hawkins says:

                Naten – I want all levels to be more effective because I know they can. I have worked in government before as have my parents and now my younger sister and my brother-in-law. Effective does not equal big to me. Government can be more efficient at all levels – from my experience they actively choose not to.

          • Alan F. says:

            Ray the exact same “Most had no idea what his positions were, what his record was and what he actually stood for.” can be said but with actual exit poll footage (as in video wherein those being recorded actually know they are being recorded, have a chance to think of what’s being recorded and still answered the questions anyway) to prove it with regard to your man Obama. Everything you’re saying so far swings right back at you and you’re actually doing to Sarah Palin what you went off on everyone else about regarding Nancy Pelosi and president Obama. How cool is that?

            Just a bunch of righties? Right back at you lefties. And on it goes…

            • Ray Hawkins says:

              Typical tactic Alan – debate me on the subject matter at hand – Sarah Palin – you keep trying to change it (like most conservatives) because you don’t have a leg to stand on.

              • Alan F. says:

                Actually just pointing out another round of hypocrisy. You can’t possible think its OK to use one set of rules for your opponents and another entirely lax set for your own dogs in the race? Someone’s going to point that out every time. May as well be me as any.

              • Ray Hawkins says:

                Go back to the original question – it was about Sarah. I answered the question to which you seem incapable of offering any more retort than “she doesn’t suck because look at Obama…..blah blah blah”

              • “Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.”

          • Murphy's Law says:

            Ray,

            You still don’t get it. Expressing your own opinion of her is fine, and encouraged here. You were passing judgment on OTHERS’ reasons for liking her when you pronounced her popularity as “unjustifiable”. Make sense?

            As for her being lazy……bilgewater! You haven’t backed up your argument at all. You should take a page from D13’s book, and cite sources.

            • Ray Hawkins says:

              Cite sources? Take a page from D13’s book? Huh? I am offering my opinion pure and simple on Ms. Palin – I’ll offer you examples that support my opinion. You want me to cite sources? Then play by the same rules chief. You’ll go to great lengths to support to spew that criticizes our President w/o making the same demand. Its okay when its an opinion you agree with eh?

          • Richmond Spitfire says:

            Dear Judge Ray,

            I have stood before you and you have found me guilty of being a “hickey mom” and “narcisstic” — and you don’t even know me.

            I am so sorry that I offend your sensibilities for being a “hick”. It is just that I was raised to have realistic goals and values. I was raised that I was to always do the right thing. I was raised to be responsible for myself and to not rely on others to give me what I needed. I was raised to be myself.

            Yeap…I used to shoot rats at the dump on my pappy’s lap on the tailgate of the pickemup…that sur wer fun! Fishin’ sur is the next bestest thing…

            Ray, why all the obsession over Sarah Palin being a VPILF or MILF or WWILF (or whatever ILF)…? Since you keep harping on it, perhaps you have some secret fantasy there….

            Your statements on her being lazy…that is just simply BS…try a bit harder please.

            Best Regards,
            “Hickey Mom” (aka Richmond Spitfire)

            • I love Hickey women. Of course that requires wearing shirts with a high collar.

              Nice to see you are still firing on all cylinders Spitfire.

              Big Hugs Today
              JAC

            • Spitfire, funny, funny! But to side with Ray here, could he have meant “hockey”? Or not…..

            • Ray Hawkins says:

              Huh? Back the train up Spitfire (or whatever your actual name is) – please re-read my post – I specifically said my comments were based on people I have met and talked to – which did not include you. I live in a predominantly Republican county west of Philadelphia – for obvious reasons most people I have met and will meet do not share my views.

              • Richmond Spitfire says:

                Ray,

                You said:

                An overwhelming majority of conservative/Republican women I talked to liked her because they saw themselves in her (the whole hickey mom bs), she was a woman (great qualification to be VEEP), or conservative women just tend to be more narcissistic (sort of like – Sarah Palin!). Most had no idea what her positions were, what her record was and what she actually stood for.

                ***************

                Now Ray, can you agree that you and I have “talked”/debated on issues at this site in the past? (If you can’t, I’ll go back and find the postings that we’ve traded.)

                Next question Ray…do you see me as a “conservative/Republican” woman or a “liberal/Democrat” woman?

                Now Ray, based upon what you said in your posting, you’ve lumped conservative/Republican women into a general category that describes them as “Hickey” (aka Hockey) Moms and having narcissistic characteristics. Do you see why I feel that you have judged me and have “put-down/slammed” alot of very nice conservative women at this site? I don’t think that you have judged me personally (i.e. I think Richmond Spitfire is a narcissistic Hickey Mom), but because of your prejudice against conservative women, you have indeed judged us conservative women.

                Your comments insinuate that conservative thinking women are vapid and concerned ONLY with themselves. I kinda resent that.

                Regards,
                RS

              • Ray Hawkins says:

                “An overwhelming majority of….” – sorry, but you alone do not constitute “an overwhelming majority of”. If you want to go that route did you not say you see yourself in her?

              • Richmond Spitfire says:

                Dear Ray,

                Normally, I would just throw up my arms and say, “whatever”, but I’m not going to let this one go because I feel that it really is important for you to see the reality of why Sarah Palin appeals to so called “normal” peeps of my bent and understand why people may be offended when you “bash” what they basically see as “themselves”.

                I have a High School diploma. I never went to college, but I have conservative work ethics that permitted me to do very well for myself without the benefit of a college degree. I started out as an Admin Assistant at a regional bank (acquired over time to be one of the largest banks in the nation). I took every opportunity that I could; I brought work home, I became known as a person who would “get the job done” no matter what it took. I am now a Vice President in this company that I work for. All through this time, I had three children and have at times raised them on my own. I made some mistakes; but I did do things right too – golly, who is perfect!? It has been hard work, but it is work that I am proud off. I’m plain-spoken and will ask questions when I need to – don’t always understand things, but am not too proud to admit that. I enjoy “red-neck” type things such as fishing, shooting, playing pool and hanging out with people that have the same struggles as my family. I could go on and on here, but my intent is to not bore you to death.

                When Sarah Palin came into the national picture in August, 2008, and as I learned more about her, I was relieved…Finally, here is a person that represents me…a person who has the same types of struggles that I do…Her family isn’t wealthy…she has the same personal struggles as a parent that I do…in some cases, her struggles are even tougher than mine. Ray, I just knew in my heart that Sarah Palin “got it” because she’s “living it”. I thought, “Here is a woman who has a conservative work ethic and is known to get the job done”. I thought, “This woman has managed to really do well for herself even though she doesn’t have the all important ivy-league traditional education that ‘seems’ to be a prerequisite to enter the political arena…this woman has substance because she’s managed to get ahead in a world that is not friendly to people (men or women) that don’t fit the traditional mold.” WOW! I thought, “This woman isn’t afraid to speak her mind, this woman has gone up against her own party because it was the right thing to do…This woman is a WARRIOR”. I thought, “This woman is me”.

                Do you think that I equate Sarah Palin as me? No, I don’t…I do have some differing opinions from her on some issues, but mostly, I do identify with her.

                To answer your question Ray, YES, I see myself in Sarah Palin and I really do believe that a lot of other people (men and women) also see themselves in Sarah Palin! I don’t have a crystal ball to know the direction that Ms. Palin will take, but I do believe that she is a force to be reckoned with and will have great successes in the future. I welcome her (and others like her) with open arms to make “realistic change” for the benefit of our great country.

                With great respect,
                Karyn (aka Richmond Spitfire)

              • Ray Hawkins says:

                Karyn – thanks for sharing. I’ll assume you do not use your full name because you fear some sort of retribution from your work or are afraid to publicly avail your opinion (or, perhaps you’re blogging on work time which isn’t really a conservative work ethic is it?). Most conservatives I have met want you to know what they think and do not hide behind clever monikers or alter egos – not sure why that is so pervasive here.

                I am still somewhat confused as to your perceived relationship with Sarah Palin – you state that you see yourself in her, you identify with her, so and so forth. Look, I’ll give her credit – she advanced herself up a path not taken by most, she’s earned her way to where she is (until the end of the month anyway). What I am getting at is this:

                You are a VEEP for a Bank – now please do not take this personally, but I have worked for years for Banks – and I know that they hand out VEEP titles like candy – rare was the banker I met that was not a vice president. Point is that in that vast pool of VEEPS, not all VEEPS are tooled or packing the gear to be CEO one day – most are not. There are qualities, traits and abilities that are needed to run the job. Look around you – at your other VEEPS – the ones that are “like” you – now do you picture them running this large Bank you now work for? I doubt it. The outliers are the ones usually and typically that will move to the front of that leadership line. Inherent I think in this process or way of thinking is having enough self-awareness and reality check to know where your end of the line is – to know when the water is too deep and you not only risk drowning yourself but those around you as well. Sarah Palin is that person. It struck me even more when she finally ‘tapped out’ – she is only serving the best interests of her State if she realized perhaps that even as Governor of Alaska she was in over her head.

                You have every right to continue with the “go Sarah; go Sarah” chants. Do I want to identify with my POTUS? Absolutely. But I want him/her to bring more to the table than I can or would.

              • Richmond Spitfire says:

                Continued to Posting #31 for readabilty.

    • I’m not sure what to think. She talks about being a “lame duck” governor, which I take to mean the legislature will not meet for that period, so no laws will be passed. But that is only part of job.

      With 15 lawsuits filed against her, she could not do her job well, and it likely hurt Alaska as well. So, I agree with her on that. Being a private citizen, able to generate income to pay her half million legal fees would be necessary and practical.

      I wonder if the main reasons are not personal, she and her family have been under attack. What kind of life is that for their children?

      From The Bobo Files, Palin’s Resignation is Brilliant!

      http://thebobofiles.com/

      • Here is the full Bobo files comment. Don’t know who wrote it but it resonates with me.

        I decided to take the weekend to think her resignation through before I commented on it. After lots of thought about it – it’s brilliant! Sarah Palin has put herself out there as a Conservative first – Republican second. Sure – she might still be one of those Republitards – but – her resignation has just solidified her standing as a Fiscal Conservative.

        She has proven that she is thinking about the taxpayers of Alaska by stepping aside. Those idiots on the left have been coming after her ever since her nomination as the VP elect – then they really stepped over the line and went after her teenage daughter and her handicapped child. They have no shame. In addition, they continue to file frivolous ethics charges against her that continue to be overturned. She has spent millions of Alaskan taxpayer money defending herself in addition to being away from her office to answer to these charges.

        Other than showing what a fiscal conservative she is – now that she has stepped down – she has control of the reigns now. She can now step out in to the spotlight and let those idiots on the left really have it. She can actually defend herself without having to worry about it reflecting on her as the Governor, nor does she have to worry about wasting taxpayer money.

        Unlike Obama, Biden, McCain, and Hillary – who all campaigned for 18 months – all drawing a full paycheck and benefits from we the taxpayers without performing the jobs they were hired to do – this frees Palin up and does not provide any fodder for those idiots on the left.

        In response to their charges that she quit – umm – really? Why are they not holding Obama, Biden, Clinton, Emmanuel, Sebellius, & Napolitano to the same standard? Did they not all quit their jobs that they were elected to? In fact, both Biden and Emmanuel had just been re-elected to their positions. What is the difference? Every one of them “turned their backs on their constituents” also. That’s just another lame excuse from the loony left. I personally believe they are scared to death of Palin. She recently had 20,000 people come to meet her at a parade. There are only 26,000 people in that town. Meanwhile, Biden goes out on a townhall tour and only 100 people out of a population of 103,000 showed up.

        Palin has charisma and can attract conservatives from all around the country – Republican, Democrat, and Independents alike. She scares the hell out of not only the Democraps, but the Republitards as well. I stand behind her decision to resign to take on a national presence. Go Get Em, Sarah

        • GarthD,

          She has spent millions of Alaskan taxpayer money defending herself

          Could you provide some evidence of this?

          in addition to being away from her office to answer to these charges

          This too?

          It seems to me she spends more time away from office in the lower 48 states campaigning and attending (or not attending) Republican dinners and functions.

          Why are they not holding Obama, Biden, Clinton, Emmanuel, Sebellius, & Napolitano to the same standard? Did they not all quit their jobs that they were elected to? In fact, both Biden and Emmanuel had just been re-elected to their positions. What is the difference?

          This is just stupid. The difference is they were either elected or appointed to higher office. A very common among all politicians. To equate this to Palin resigning with no plans for the future is ridiculous.

          • Todd,

            If you take a honest look at the ethics involved, Palin gains the high ground. McCain, Clinton, Obama, Biden and others were being paid to do a job, while they were pursuing another job. Doesn’t matter that its the established practice, that does not make it right. That does not mean they are performing their job to the best of their ability, like by READING the laws the are passing.

            • Alan F. says:

              With all that’s passing through the house currently with mere hours to read and decipher what’s routinely taking the media outlets themselves days just to cull portions from with clarity, the case could be made that reading what’s being passed has been struck from their job description altogether.

              This keeps up and they’ll be merely looking for a symbol, donkey or elephant, at the top of the page. I’m sure even Ray would give Sarah Palin the nod on recognizing symbols… on reflection he likely wouldn’t.

          • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

            Todd,

            Saying that Palin has no plans for the future is the thing that is ridiculous.

            She has not made it clear what those plans are as of yet, and yes, as of yet she has not been elected or appointed to a higher office, but that still does not deny the fact that Obama, Hilary Clinton, Rahm Emmanuel and others also quit the jobs which they were elected by the people of their States to perform.

          • Todd:

            Which part of “Here is the full Bobo files comment. Don’t know who wrote it but it resonates with me.” didn’t you understand.

            • GarthD,
              I understood all parts. What’s the value in posting someone else’s inaccurate opinion?

        • Ray Hawkins says:

          She has spent millions of taxpayer money – is this someone’s opinion/pure bullshit or truth?

        • Ray Hawkins says:

          BTW – Sarah herself insinuated millions ‘to be spent’ not already spent. Find me some more BS to shoot down please.

      • Ray Hawkins says:

        I just find it astonishing that someone who is pissed about ‘frivolous lawsuits and charges” is being aspired to even higher office. Much of the scuttlebutt coming from her own government is that she is vastly overstating how much time and money the ethics charges are consuming.

        • Scuttlebutt is just that…when facts are presented please let me know.

          • Ray Hawkins says:

            Four were launched by people in her party, one was launched by herself. During the campaign she stated “hold me accountable” with respect to investigations – what gives? I guess she no longer wanted to be held accountable.

      • Alan F. says:

        Thx for pointing out this site. Another novel read I’m adding to the fav’s.

      • Ray Hawkins says:

        They weren’t lawsuits, 15 are not active and she isn’t paying anything out of pocket. Add LIAR to her resume.

      • Ray & Todd,

        “that this total was arrived at by adding up attorney hours spent on fending off complaints — based on the fixed salaries of lawyers in the governor’s office and the Department of Law.”

        That is the appropriate way to apportion expenses. Obviously you guys have no financial responsibilities. But then you think when POTUS says cut taxes and actually implements massive increases either directly or indirectly, you don’t think he’s LYING !! GMAFB !!

        Or the other great federal ruse is stating that they’re reducing xxx,yyy, zzz when in some cock eyed why they MIGHT be reducing the INCREASE of the same.

        • Ray Hawkins says:

          A point Frank is that she flat out lied about the cost issue and you fell for it hook, line and sinker – quit trying to defend a lie.

    • This is from an outsider looking in, I find American politics fascinating. If Palin is looking for a chance at the presidency she is insane. She will be mauled by the other republican candidates for quitting as a governer and the image she portrayed/got labelled as when she was running for VP. It made me chuckle when someone on this site compared her to Maggie Thatcher here in Britain. I was not a big fan of Thatcher but I have to admire her for her education, intelligence and for the lack of a better word “balls”, these are things I have not seen in Palin. Anyway take everything I say with a grain of salt as I am not a resident of the US but the future looks fairly grim for the GOP and I am fairly sure Palin will end up presenting on foxnews.

      • There is nothing written in stone that she would run as a Republican…Independent is what I envision…

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        I tend to actually agree with Bob that Palin would have no chance of actually being elected President. I could see her winning an election for the House or the Senate, but I don’t think that her “wild popularity” could overcome all of her perceived negatives in a Presidential run.

        • v. Holland says:

          I personally love Sarah Palin and I would love to see her as a Senator or in the House but right now she doesn’t have enough experience to be President anymore than our current President does.

    • Vinnster says:

      The Left understands Palin is their most dangerous enemy…and she is and she will be. I look forward to watching them continue to go berserk every time she smiles.

      • Ray Hawkins says:

        No – I’d be more concerned with a Newt than a Sarah.

        • Why? Newt has pretty much jumped onto your boat and left the rest of us to drift.

          Perhaps you had better start studying actual goings on rather than listening to the political clap trap on the TV and internet.

          • JAC…what is wrong with Newt applying democratic tactics? There are many democrats in Repub clothing….why not the other way around? When in the gutter with the rats…become a rat and fight back that way.

            D13

            • I think he has become one of the rats. Perhaps he was all along.

              I actually supported him at one time and have followed him very closely.

              I will not support him again.

              I think the support he currently has from right of center indicates a problem for those of us who trully want to fix this mess. It shows they are still vulnerable to magicians.

              It is not the tactics I am concerned about. It is his stated values and how he has been performing these past few years.

              Ray is smart to fear him, and we would be also.

              Now I am guessing that may change the topic a little.
              JAC

              • You echo my thoughts on Newt. I still sometimes want to have him step out and lead…..

              • We must all fight temptation at times in our lives.

                Now is the time to fight very, very hard.

                A round of smiles for you today.
                JAC

              • Not sure rat is right but I think his name says it all.

                Newt: any of various small salamanders that can live both on land and in water

                My experience has shown slippery and fast to be two of their qualities

              • And in my part of the world we have one that is on the Endangered Species List.

                A place I where I would like to include the names of all existing elected officials in Wash. D.C..

              • Add to the endangered species list…statesman…oops….add that to the extinct list.

                Newt is to be watched and closely. I have changed opinions on him some but still watching. Deeds speak everything….so D13 is watching…watching…watching…zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

          • Ray Hawkins says:

            “Perhaps you had better start studying actual goings on rather than listening to the political clap trap on the TV and internet.”

            Okay JAC (or whatever your actual name is) – you get your head out of your ass and I’ll get my head out of mine. Newt is clearing trying to re-position himself for another conservative-masked-as-populist movement. And yes – I study this shit vociferously.

            • Alan F. says:

              Ray you read your own writings? You are getting more and more personal every round with attacks. Cool down some as you are certainly much more effective and enjoyable when not doing such. Anxiously awaiting attacks on race/religion/location/academic record/hair color/favored color/pet’s name/paper or plastic/nose hairs trimmed or plucked…

              • Ray Hawkins says:

                I typically do not start but will finish. I get it that Palin is your Obama – Ihre eigene medizin zu schmecken ist nicht angenehm

              • Alan F. says:

                My Obama? Now that’s hysterical. My dog in this hunt carries the name “call em all or not at all”. I think she got dumped on big-time during the election and the barrage continues. Name an Iranian zealot or genocidal dictator from Darfur who gets more bad press than Sarah Palin?

                I like Harry Reid for being himself in spite of past “polls” and I don’t need to agree with everything he stands for, that make him my John McCain too? I like the new kid Jason Chaffetz as he’s been on the ball and hit the ground running. Very impressed by his being exactly the man he first presented himself to be and is likely “my Obama” if I need one in American politics. Government that actually works is mechanics not theater arts. I think he gets it.

        • Smart man, Ray…smart man.

        • Whoooo — How did Newt get into this? What did he do that makes you say these things? Is this a reference to previous discussions?

          Here are a few links re: palin that I found (thanks to gmail and not deleting stuff) In retrospect – I don’t recall reading/hearing much about these points –

          http://hiphoprepublican.com/feature/2009/06/11/the-irrational-hatred-of-sarah-palin-leette-eaton-white/comment-page-1/#comment-4898

          Sarah Palin’s a Brainiac
          The former editor in chief of Ms. magazine (and a Democrat) on what she learned on a campaign plane with the would-be VP.

          http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2008-10-27/sarah-palins-a-brainiac/

          And then

          This Jew for McCain
          By Lori Lowenthal Marcus

          : http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/10/this_jew_for_mccain.html at October 29,

          As I said on air, Obama’s pastor scares me a whole lot more than anything Sarah Palin has ever said or done.

          So this Jewish pro-choice Democrat is going to vote for McCain/Palin because they know who are our friends and who are our enemies. And they are prepared to do what is needed to each.

          This was an email fwd;;

          Sent: 8/30/2008 1:50:28 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time
          Subj: thoughts on the 2008 election from a Palin fan

          Seems i am one of the few out there that knew about Gov. Palin ,and have been following her with some interest, since she kicked murkowskis butt out of office.

          Let’s concede at the outset that John McCain and Joe Biden are two crusty, vintage Washington insiders. Which brings us to the match up between Barack Obama and Sara Palin. Let’s put it in technical terms–Barack is screwed.

          Want to talk experience? Palin may come from a small state in terms of population,but it is the largest state in the union,and she actually has carried out the task of governing. She has developed and presented budgets. She has appointed senior government officials. Fact is that she has more executive experience as a Mayor and a Governor than Obama, Biden, and McCain combined. She has actually spent time in Europe and the middle east, as a Governor visiting troops she commanded(as Commander of the Alaska National Guard) from her state,who had been wounded in Iraq.

          Barack? He was so busy running for the Presidency that he had no time to hold a single hearing( of the only council he chairs) on NATO and its challenges in Afghanistan.
          How about character? That’s where she absolutely destroys Barky. Why?
          She does not come from a dysfunctional family. She was not shopped around as a child by a hippy mother who hooked up with a parade of guys only to be dumped with her grandparents.
          She is not afraid to release her birth certificate or her medical records.
          She does not have an unexplained trip to Pakistan.
          She does not feel compelled to lie about her background and upbringing (Barack’s nonsense that he was raised by a single mother is a case in point).
          She does not have a background of interfacing with nefarious characters such as Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn(in whose house Barky started his first political campaign), Rev ” Goddamn America ” Wright, and real estate snake oil man Resko.
          .
          She not only talks about values, but she lives them. Barack preaches about the need to “care for the least of these my brethern”( ”I am my brothers keeper”) but then ignores the plight of his own flesh and blood brother who lives in a mud hut in Kenya.Perhaps Barky should send his bro a twenty spot , thereby doubling his yearly salary!

          Palin says she is pro-life. She gets pregnant and discovers she is carrying an infant with Down’s Syndrome. What does she do? She carries the baby to term and brings a new life to the world. I don’t care so much what she says, I want to know what she does.

          This bit from the Wikipedia entry gives us some insight into the kind of person she is:

          Governor Murkowski appointed Palin ETHICS COMMISSIONER of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission,[10] where she served from 2003 to 2004 until resigning in protest over what she called the “lack of ethics” of fellow Alaskan Republican leaders, who igno red her whistleblowing complaints of legal violations and conflicts of interest.[11][3] After she resigned, she exposed the state Republican Party’s chairman, Randy Ruedrich, one of her fellow Oil & Gas commissioners, who was accused of doing work for the party on public time, and supplying a lobbyist with a sensitive e-mail.[12] Palin filed formal complaints against both Ruedrich and former Alaska Attorney General Gregg Renkes, who both resigned; Ruedrich paid a record $12,000 fine.[3]

          Additionally , her very first act as Governor was to sell the Governors private jet, and return the money to the people of Alaska.Her approval rating is the highest (80%) of any Governor in America

          So, she takes on the Oil and Gas industry and her own party? Give me one example where Barack Obama ever did anything like that. Just one!! .All those women that Barky SLlGHTED by not doing the obvious thing of choosing Hillary (who in fact had more votes ,as well as having won all of the biggest states), are really going to take a good look at Palin, and will like what they see.

          Strange, that the very same people of the party that hemmed and hawed, and howled and cried,had numerous episodes of gnashing at the teeth ,and severe heart palpitations, and to this day STILL LAMENT the fact that in the 2000 election , gore got more votes than Bush, are all now completely, indeed, almost utterly silent …wheres the outrage?(a 1996 Bob Dole question)……the silence is deafening…

          ….A young party hack and an old party hack, versus a maverick and reformer (who by the way is one of the only politicians to not take a single earmark for his state) and a young kick ass reformer and maverick…….Who really represents” CHANGE”?

          Palin will be surrounded by sharp , intelligent ,can- do people, just as she was in Alaska..No need to worry if she can do the Job,should Mccain kick the bucket.

          Strange also that Harry Truman (CVN-75) was not mentioned in the dem convention…I suppose because the mere mention of his name conjures up images of MUSHROOM CLOUDS,(a sure heart attack inducing subject for the party controlling leftists). Additionally , Truman FREELY ADMITTED that he was UNQUALIFIED TO BE CIC, and had met with President FDR ,EXACTLY ONCE before20the election ,and once while FDR was in office..

          History shows Truman’s ”inexperience ” to be a moot point , since the man had the CHARACTER to rise to the occasion. I should point out that Truman’s approval rating when he left office was 6 points lower than the man the left affectionately calls, Smirky- mcchimp bush/ hitler ,and 15 points higher than present day congress.

          Barky’s people are really scurrying for ideas because they were all prepared for months with shit to fling at Romney or Hucklebee, and this caught them flat footed..Brilliant move for Mcain ,but not without risks..But playing it safe, only gets you a welfare check………….

          ….For all you anti-war/ no matter what types out there- Albert Einstein once said ‘as long as there are men, there will be always be war”…. Something to ponder then ,what would happen, with a woman in charge…………….Nov. 2008, may the best WOMAN win!

    • I find all this Palin bashing as shallow for the most part. I also find that much of the popularity she has to be shallow as well.

      Palin was elected governor by the people of Alaska. She broke up the good ol’ boy political powers of the Repub. party in the state. They went after her with vengence. Yet she did some good for the state, especially with the pipeline deal. Bottom line, Alaskans were happy with her performance. Then comes a nomination for Veep. Now suddenly she is a dishonest, lazy, ignorant, incompetent……you get the idea. Most of the accusations made against her would require personal acqaintance with her, which non of her critics have. That includes you Ray. While you have some good points about her experience and skill on the national scene, your criticizms of her performance in Alaska don’t match with what Alaskans think.

      Ray above, and others, keep putting her with the “far right”. While I have heard her state her oppostion to abortion and gay marriage I have never heard her say she would support Federal laws or an amendment to make either illegal. Yet that is the position of those we call “far right”. So those who view themselves as Republicans and Conservatives declare that 70% of them would vote for Palin for President in 2012. Despite her obvious flaws as a big league politician, today. And the fact she has not openly stated she actually supports their cause.

      Ray’s comment of yesterday, or the day before, was right on in regards to conern over popularity’s effect on election results. I think much of Palin’s national popularity is that she is “one of us”, “is not one of the establishment”, “represents change in the status quo”. Of course these are some of the same traits that rocketed Mr. Obama’s popularity.

      Perhaps this all stems from a growing distrust and dislike for the entrenched politicians everywhere?

      Now I would like to address one of the biggest issues with Palin, regarding the constant legal battles. Much of these have centered around her use of Per Diem to fly her family around and to travel between home and Juneau. First, we all fail to recognize Alaska is a very different place politically as well as geographically. Their laws actually allow the use of govt money for such travel. And the Gov. is not “required” to live in Juneau. Palin has admitted to some mistakes and paid some money back to the state. But the fact she does not live in Juneau is not an issue with anyone in Alaska, except those who have been after her from the get go. My friend who recently moved from there to Anchorage in fact said it was a PIT and many politicians commute because they do not live there. So we in the lower 48 are ticked off because she used State money to fly her family around to state events and such.

      So, are we going to apply the same standard to……..lets say………the white house? Seems to me there are 4 Obamas in Russia. Only 1 was elected to represent us there. So will that family pony up 3/4 of the total cost of flying the other 3 there? And by total cost that includes all additional security, logistics, etc. And of course the costs incurred by the Russians to conduct special tours for the children.

      Perhaps it is time we start recognizing that our policies regarding travel for govt officials are NOT FAMILY FRIENDLY. If we place so much importance on the family and especially on women being able to climb the ladder, then why do we force them to be separated when doing jobs that require significant travel?

      I think what we see here are two examples of modern families trying to do a job they were elected to do while trying to maintain a strong family unit. My heart and support go out to both of them in this regard.

      And for the record, I am not a Palin fan as far as the office of President is concerned. She has powerful fundraising ability and I think that is where we will see her focus in the short term. If she tries to run for Senate in some other state she is toast. Bottom line, I don’t know and niether do most of us.

      A Great Big Good Morning to Everyone
      JAC

      • Ray Hawkins says:

        A lot in your post to respond to

        “So, are we going to apply the same standard to……..lets say………the white house? Seems to me there are 4 Obamas in Russia. Only 1 was elected to represent us there. So will that family pony up 3/4 of the total cost of flying the other 3 there? And by total cost that includes all additional security, logistics, etc. And of course the costs incurred by the Russians to conduct special tours for the children.”

        Would the overall cost of the flight be less if Mom and kids were not on the flight? You’re being petty.

        • Not at all and your response has revealed your shallow argument one again. Exactly the same standard would apply to both.

          And of course you accuse me of being petty without citing the remainder of the comment where I support BOTH of them for taking their family along. Unlike the lefties who are trying to hang her out for taking family along but ARE IN LOVE WITH THE OBAMA FAMILY.

          Unlike you, I am consistent. You are a walking and talking contradiction on this whole Palin matter. Small amounts of rationality wrapped up in emotional and unsubstantiated BullDookey.

          Your commentary is an extension of the visceral reaction that erupted when she was nominated. Some psychologist will become famous some day explaining this all is a book.

          • Ray Hawkins says:

            Rest of my posting was scraped. They are not the same thing – you’re referring to a State visit and a day-to-day business with the same logic – that is where you are being shallow my friend.

        • Can’t go with you on this one, Ray. It is not petty…it is principle. Or, will you respond with “the office of the Presidency carries with it more perks than the office of governor”. (Honestly, I really do not think you will use this comparison.) Pelosi and other members have spent far more money (planes and such) and usurped their authority far more than Palin but no one says anything.

          Anyway, I have cataloged you down in the anti Palin side and so be it. great country we have to be able to say these things without getting shot….at least yet.

          D13

          • Ray Hawkins says:

            Pelosi isn’t trying to do her job from San Fran D13 / JAC – try again guys.

            Those that are leading the fight and the battle are in the theater, not physically divorced from it.

            • No, she isn’t…but she does use taxpayer dollars to take weekly flights home and she uses the Airforce’s resources like a free taxi. Please do not attempt to defend this person, she is the epitomy of the arrogance in Washington.

              • Ray Hawkins says:

                I didn’t bring her up Terry – I thought you guys hated loosely connected analogies? Or – is that only when you don’t agree with them?

              • I never said you brought her up…just putting my 2 cents in…She is one that I amittedly dislike intensly…she is a snob and the poster child for what is wrong in Washington.

    • How could anyone take Palin serious in a future election? Whether it is Senate or President?

      Won’t the media continue to pick on her so she’ll just end up quitting again?

      I don’t think she’ll run for office. She’ll go on the republican speaking tour, be a Fox news contributor, etc. She’ll make lots of money spreading her incoherence, and not have to run for office, or follow pesky ‘ethics’ rules.

      For the ethics complains against Palin, I find many if not most of them as petty or stupid. But she is a very polarizing person, and she steps on a lot of toes and doesn’t seem to care who she offends. Those people then get picky and look for ways to bring her down.

      An example: at a snow machine race this winter that Todd Palin was in, she shows up dressed in Arctic Cat gear head to toe. Arctic Cat is one of her husband’s sponsors. What’s the big deal? Well, doesn’t it kind of look like she’s endorsing Arctic Cat?

      Is this a big deal? Not to me, but how do you think the Ski Doo and Polaris dealers feel about that? When you’re governor, you have to be careful of the image you present. That’s just a fact in today’s world.

      • Thank you Todd for some calm and essentially unemotional analysis. With the exception of the following: “spreading her incoherence” I think your comments right on.

        As for the “incoherence” I think you have not heard her complete speeches during her campaign or subsequent fundraising events. She can speak to the regular folks and she does relate to them. This is association will dwindle by the day as she becomes more of a STAR. Eventually her fans will remain her fans due to their memory but she will move on.

        That is if she has a political or stardom future. Right now I think it is just as likely her star will fizzle out in a year.

        There are still many unknowns, including her real reason for leaving office. We may never know the true reason as I suspect it may have been more Family related. Just a suspicion and nothing else. And not necessarily bad, just to much family stuff to focus on politics right now.

        And that should have been her story and she should have stuck with it. But that shows her lack of political experiene in the “Show”.

        Did you notice that the complaints over the Arctic Cat gear did not come from the competition?

        Perhaps there is another lesson in this. Alaska passed a very extensive set of “ethics rules” hoping to clean up govt. These rules seem to have provided the avenue for constant harrassment by partisans. I wonder if there is any monetary penalty for bringing legal charges which are later found to be unfounded? If not I see the potential for great abuse in any such system.

        Another example of our best of intentions creating unforseen circumstances.

        Thanks again Todd for breaking the cycle on this issue.
        JAC

      • v. Holland says:

        Correct me if I’m wrong but isn’t a lot of what we say on here about our representatives just going along with the flow, not being willing to “step on those toes”, those toes that keep stabbing the people in the back.

        • v. Holland says:

          and why would I not support her just because people are going to continue to attack her, especially if they are attacking her for just that purpose. Whether I support her,will depend on her, not the political attack machine.

      • JAC – why would you also let Todd get by with using “pesky ‘ethics’ rules”? Another one of the hypocritical slants by liberal folks. That’s a NPR radio type comment. Subtle, drip drip drip of negativity.

        • Excellant Frank

          I missed that one and attacked the use of the rules themselves.

          You caught my muffed fly ball before it hit the ground.

          Thx
          JAC

      • Alan F. says:

        Hate to burst your bubble but Cat guys are Cat guys, Polaris guys are Polaris guys, Ski-doo guys are Ski-doo guys and Yamaha guys are traitorous dogs to be run down first time they step off for a pee break.

        • Alan F. says:

          Simplified… they don’t give a hoot as their people are just that, their people.

        • Dude….you’ve been on fire all day.

          Take a break before you flame out!!!!!!!!

          Has it been cold up your way?

          Sure has turned very cool here last couple of days. July 4th was one of the nicest we have ever had but cool has set in now. It used to come before the 4th.

          • Alan F. says:

            We finally got rain and indeed summer has been way too cool and cloudy thus far. The crops are looking pretty bad in way too many portions of Saskatchewan. Of note is they’re already crapping bricks at our new bio-diesel plant as the oil seed prices will put them out of production for this cycle and back treading that well worn path to the tax teat.

        • IDK (I don’t know) if it gets me home on a snowy foggy nite , I could give a heck what it is! Even if is a Rambler ! LOL (my 1st car – Rambler station wagon! ) That’s so bad – its cool !

    • JayDickB says:

      I think she may be sick and tired of all the crap she and her family have had to endure and may want out of politics, at least out of elected office. It’s a lot more fun to be a pundit than an office-holder. She may have concluded that, if this is what elective office is like, I don’t want it.

      If she does run for office in 2012, it will be for Senate or House, not president or VP.

      • JayDickB says:

        In terms of what I think of her, right now I think she is the mirror of Obama – all form and no substance, but on the other end of the political spectrum.

    • Black Flag says:

      Do not underestimate Sarah.

      She has a multi-million mail list of people who supported her during her run with McCain.

      McCain almost won – and he was saddled with the Bush-horrific legacy.

      Without that burden, she is a force to be reckoned with.

      • Black Flag I really don’t see how you can think that Palin has a future in politics now. Any attempted ascent to another office will be picked apart by her opponent, quitting in the middle of a job leaves you quite vulnerable to attack. Also if Palin can’t stand the heat as a governor what will happen if she secures a higher office?
        She will be very successful as a conservative pundit but when it comes to holding office again she has shot herself in the foot.

        • Only time can tell for sure…we’ll see…

        • Bob, I would say your conclusions totally depend on what comes out in the next few months to a year.

          If it is nothing more and the harrassment continues then look out. It could feed her popularity, even at home. Stranger things have happened in polyticks.

          And don’t forget she currently holds 70% of Republicans and somewhere around 12% of Dems and 30% of independents. Cant be sure of exact numbers of Dems and Indep but clearly remember the Rep one.

          One thing for absolute sure. Only time will tell.
          JAC

        • Black Flag says:

          Bob,

          You are approaching the field of national politics as a lay person – with reason.

          You, therefore, are wrong. 😉

          The nature of national politics has nothing to do with the person – it has to do with marketing.

          She garnered 48% of the national vote – while suffering a horrific legacy.

          That base still exists.

          Watch her carefully.

          I am not saying she will run.

          I am not saying she will win if she does.

          I am saying she is a force to be reckoned with.

          • All I see is a woman who was picked as a VP by the GOP to try and get some of those lost Hilary voters, she was ridiculed and mocked not only in the US but internationally (not that it matters to you guys) after those disastrous interviews, outside of the republican base when people think of Palin they think of Tina Fey.
            She has then quit her role as governor in mysterious terms, some say it is due to an impending ethics investigation into building contracts mishandling, some say it is because of the media attacks blah blah blah, I really don’t see what she has in store apart from being used by the GOP to go to rallies to drum up support and being a pundit. Time will tell I guess but I am really trying to understand where you guys are coming from when you say she has a future in running for a government position. Who will support her? The GOP is already sharpening its knives and stories from the McCain camp were saying she was an emotional wreck due to postnatal depression during the election campaign. I really don’t see what she is going to do.

            • Black Flag says:

              McCain received a total of 59,934,814 (45.7%) popular vote.

              That is who will vote for Palin.

              Add the ones that left because of Bush.

              That is a victory.

              • Alan F. says:

                Again with the facts BF? What’s it with you and the facts?

              • What percentage left because of Bush? I also did not think your elections go by the popular vote but by the electoral college system instead, please correct me if I am wrong. Are the other GOP nominations going to give their full support to Palin? How is Palin going to respond to the quesions about her resignation mid term? If she is not going to run under the GOP will she run with an independent party? Which independent party? What are the chances of an independent party going against the republicans and democrats?

                I still don’t see it Black Flag, time will tell and everything but if I were a betting man I would not take on Palin’s odds, but you keep the faith there.

              • Bob:

                Its not a matter of FAITH.

                You, and some others here, confuse analysis of the situation for support for Palin. I am guessing, not really, that Flag doesn’t give a hoot what Palin does or doesn’t do. Neither do I really.

                You asked why he and I, and others, think she is a force. We can’t determine why people think what they do. We can only report the actual situation at this point in time. And given our experience with our political system.

                Today, 70% of those claiming to be Republicans say they would vote for her in 2012. That is today. After the resignation and all other garbage. And that is 14% of total vote and its almost a lock. That is better than what Mr. Obama had when he started out.

                Politics is a strange thing, like predicting the behavior of a grizzly bear. You will only succeed SOME of the time. Some time you will escape and some times it will eat you alive.

                Hope that helps clear things up a bit.
                JAC

              • Of course they say they would vote for Palin now because she has been reviled by the evil leftist media, ask the same question in 6 months and you will find that percentage to be much lower.
                Yes you have a greater insight into your political system but I have also followed your races very carefully, if Palin has a hard time with the media now just wait till she goes against the other GOP candidates. They will chew her up and spit her out, when it comes to races against other politicians all gloves are off.

                http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080128/banks

    • I saw this article in February 2008 – “America’s Hottest Governor”.

      http://www.alaskamagazine.com/images/akpalinnew.pdf

      Of course the title caught my eye, and I remember thinking she sounded quite interesting. I never imagined what has happened since then.

      When I heard McCain picked her as his VP, I was interested again. But the problem is Sarah Palin wasn’t quite ready for the national spotlight. Just imagine if McCain had picked someone else for VP, and Palin had given a keynote speech at the RNC, very similar to the one she gave (which was very good), but not as the VP candidate. She could have campaigned for the McCain ticket and built up her credibility without being the focus of attention. She could have avoided the MSM interviews where she did not perform well, and most if not all of the controversy of the past year.

      In 2-4-6-8 years, she would have been a force to be reckoned with, whether in a Senate, VP, or presidential run.

      But she jumped/was pushed into the national spotlight to fast, and now she has a steep hill to climb if she wants to get back into elected office.

      • Even Republican governor candidate’s are unsure if Palin should campaign for them.

        http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/08/gop-candidates-virginia-new-jersey-wary-palin/

      • Was she ready for the national spotlight…no. That only feeds to her appeal as being more “normal” than the vast majority of national politicians. No “normal” person would be ready for that light to shine on them. I like her, but vote for her…as with any election, I would consider all alternatives/candidates prior to casting my vote.

        The first time I even heard of her was when Glenn Beck had her on his show while he was still with CNN. The things she stood for and did in Alaska resonated with me. I suppose it is one of those first impression things…

    • It seems Levi Johnston has the inside scoop on why Palin resigned! 🙂

      http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/09/levi-johnston-palins-resignation-personal-finances/

      • I often wish that I could beat the living s**t out of some of the people I support at my job. If someone overhears this, that does not give them a basis to assume that I am a violent person who means harm to some of my problem users.

        Levi overhearsa couple of comments from Sarah about finances so he thinks he knows why she resigned. He may be right, but we all know what the word assume means….

  2. USWeapon says:

    USWeapon Topic #2

    The New York Times on Monday had a front page article discussing the upcoming federal increase in the minimum wage. The article was posing questions about the timing of the increase and whether it would have a positive or negative impact on an already struggling economy. I tend to think ANYTHING done to work around free market rules is negative.

    Should the federal government have any say in setting a federal minimum wage? After all, the pittance that the minimum wage represents currently certainly is not a wage to live on. Is minimum wage just another example of a place where government needs to get out of the way of the free market or is this a necessary requirement to be placed on businesses that have no interest in paying people better?

    • “Is minimum wage just another example of a place where government needs to get out of the way of the free market or is this a necessary requirement to be placed on businesses that have no interest in paying people better?”

      Can someone help me. Where in the constitution does it say that the federal gov has the right to set a minimum wage?

    • i honestly do not know if the feds should be setting a minimum wage or not. I would tend to state that people will gravitate to the best paying job that they can get.

      The real issue that I have with this question is the idea behind it that the business is out to screw the employee. Businesses are around for one reason and one reason only. That reason is to make money for the people who own them. One way that they will be able to accomplish this is if they provide an environment where workers realize they are a part of the solution for the organization not just a disposable commodity. If employers treat their employees as dirt, then they will have unhappy employees, greater turnover, and less productivity. In my 25+ years of working I have realized that most employers are aware of this and will do what they can given economic reality to build such a place.

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      The government should not be in the business of setting a “minimum wage”.

      First off, it is indeed a “work-around” against free market principles.

      Secondly, it is silly to set the minimum wage so low that anyone making that wage would be below the government’s stated “poverty line”, but far too many people would be up in arms if it were set high enough to be a “living wage”.

      Thirdly, anyone who wants to avoid paying the minimum wage is already avoiding it by hiring illegal immigrants to do the work. While I agree that there are some jobs that most Americans will not do, I believe that mostly it is because the wages for these $hit jobs are so low. Rather than raise the wages for a crappy job to the point where an American is willing to do it, these employers simply find people that are willing to do the job for minimal pay.

      The big problem I have with the whole scenario is that it is a great example of selective law enforcement by the government. In this case, they are choosing not to enforce immigration law, and choosing not to enforce labor law. (Sure, they raid a few places that employ illegals now and again just for show, but for the most part, they let this slide).

      If the government can elect to selectively enforce a law, then it isn’t really a law. Therefore, about 99.9% of our laws are illegitimate.

    • The Federal Government should be in no way setting minimum wage…or any other wage for that matter. It is a total undermining of the free market…along with about everything else they are currently doing…

    • Impact will have to be negative, with unemployment rising.

      We employ over 85 people, minimum wage has no real effect on our starting pay. We already pay more than min. to attract workers worth hiring. It does make it less likely we will hire inexperienced people, like just out of school, or seasonal.

      • Alan F. says:

        Yup any company hiring skills is paying for skills and no where near minimum. Anyone hiring a pair of hands and feet will reduce hours and increase workload to compensate.

    • Funny you should mention this USW. I had a recent interesting conversation with a friend of mine concerning his business is closing 75% of its USA based company and moving it to Puerto Rico. I was very curious to this as I had thought that the Clinton Administration had sunset the tax laws under Section 936 of the Internal Revenue Code, which exempts mainland companies from Federal taxes on income earned in Puerto Rico as long as it remains a commonwealth. Much to my surprise, I found the following:

      “Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Democrat of New York, gave the Administration a private warning that proved to be decisive. An abrupt change in tax policy, he told President Clinton, could push Puerto Ricans to vote for statehood — and the enhanced welfare and economic benefits that go with it — before the Senate is prepared to accept the island as a state.”

      In addition, I found the following:

      “The Administration quietly dropped its original proposal, which was to reduce the Section 936 benefits to companies like Abbott Laboratories and Bristol-Myers Squibb to a tax credit equal to 60 percent of a company’s wages paid in Puerto Rico.

      With the help of the Treasury Department, Senators Bradley and David Pryor, Democrat of Arkansas, hammered out the general outlines of the new proposal, which would allow companies operating on the island to choose between two tax credit options.

      Under one, the current 100 percent income credits would be reduced to 60 percent in 1994, and reduced by an additional 5 percent each year until 1998. The second would limit tax credits to 95 percent of wages and benefits paid in Puerto Rico, along with depreciation deductions.”

      I decided to look further into this and have found that the Obama Administration had the opportunity in the stimulus package to enact and sunset the same provision and chose not to do so. And, though I have found no reference yet but still looking, my friend told me that they are receiving a 92% tax break for going there and Puerto Rico constructed the building for them to move and is also paying relocation expenses. Now, it seems to me, that Savior Obama could have used Veto powers here to fulfill his promise to eliminate off shore tax breaks. This has not occurred and the process is still going on and it is supported by the fact that these companies are going to continue to move. SO…question for all the Obama and progressive movement supporters….do you know how to spell hypocrisy?

      Now, to take it further, raising the Federal Minimum Wage, which the Feds should not be in anyway, will give even more incentive to move offshore. Why not, given the fact that the IRS is forgiving 95% of the wages. Exacerbating this further, I found that the proposal, as indicated above, did not sunset at all. There are still 100% tax credits out there to relocate off shore. WHERE THE HELL ARE YOU OBAMA. YOU PROMISED.

      D13

      • Murphy's Law says:

        Wow, D13, well said……you raise the bar for all of us! I can tell that “lazy” is not anywhere in your vocabulary……

    • I would like to add this little bit to the whole idea of how well such govt interventions work.

      First, a few years back when the economy was rolling along the minimum wage jobs,primarily food service, in north Idaho were actually paying more than the min. wage of Idaho or Washington. On the Washington side, where the minimum wage is much higher, they were paying only slightly more. So in booming times the supply/demand of economics was working and the govt had no effect.

      But then comes a little slow down. Idaho side wages slip a little but remain above Idaho minimum. Washington side slips and hits the Wash. minimum. Layoffs ensue. Wash. unemployment rate climbs some more. Washington soon has distinction of being in the group of states with a “livable” minimum wage but somehow also the highest unemployment rate. Food service businesses keep cutting and cutting as things get tighter.

      Now Idaho side also has to reduce eventually as business slumps. But unemployment still lags behind Washington and Oregon in this industry.

      Federal minimum is the base for all. The real minimum is the state’s, if greater. Some states have circumvented the Fed minimum by including tips in the wage calculation. This is supported by the fed as many years ago they were all tied in knots over the fact that waitresses, bus boys and cab drivers were making and keeping money that “belonged to the Govt”. So now this money is given to the employer, taxed as wages and then the remainder is given to the employee as part of the minimum wage, not as an addition.

      So the Great White Father took base service jobs where folks could get by and turned them into poverty jobs. Now those productive and uneducated masses can no longer survive without AID from the Great White Father.

      Such infinite wisdom is sometimes overwhelming.

    • JayDickB says:

      As with other government intrusions into free markets, no overall good will come of this. Oh sure, a few people will get a little more pay. But how many won’t get jobs at all because they must be paid more than they are worth?

      But people can’t live on a full-time minimum wage job, right? So what? Is that the standard by which pay should be determined? Teenagers just out of high school don’t have a family to support (or at least shouldn’t), but they need to break into the work force and get some real work experience. But they have no experience, so aren’t worth much to an employer. Require the employer to pay more than they’re worth and guess what. They won’t be hired.

    • Black Flag says:

      Setting a minimum wage will increase unemployment.

      With the ‘real’ unemployment level sitting around 20% – and the government figure of over 9%, any increase in minimum wage will substantially increase these figures.

      • I think it is actually around 16.5% as of last month. Are you predicting the July numbers?

        By the way, I predicted 15% by the end of June last December. My son, the economist, claimed around 12%.

        For those who don’t know why differing numbers, if you add the unemployed and not looking for work anymore and the working part time but looking for full time, you grow from 9.5% to 16%.

        Nice to see you awake today.
        Card games over?
        JAC

        • Black Flag says:

          The figure comes from a pundit who included the ‘under’employed and those ‘no longer looking’.

          No matter how the cake is cut, its crumbling.

          …..

          Yes – (sigh).

          Almost a rerun of 2005 – pocket K’s – a kid on my right posts a raise – I reraise – table folds to the kid who calls.

          Pot: $25,000 his stack about $375,000 – mine $225,000

          Flop: K47 rainbow.

          Kid goes all in – easy call for me. Trip K’s!

          He shows trip 4’s! Smokin’!!!

          But of course, this is poker.

          There is but one card in the deck that he needs for him to win – the last 4.

          Want to guess the river?

          Anyway, this year, $11,000 profit. Not my goal, but better than a kick in the groin (though, when that 4 fell – that’s what it felt like 🙂 )

  3. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    I know that there are great disparities in population, land area, etc. between California and Indiana…

    However, I found it highly amusing that the current deficit for the State of California is roughly equal to the 2-year budget for the State of Indiana 🙂

    • It works out like that when there are way fewer public entitlement programs to support and way fewer illegal aliens to support, not to mention having to expend resources for MJ’s funeral!

    • Alan F. says:

      Hey quit knocking their system and pay attention to who made money on their “green shift”. It’s going to be forced upon you soon enough.

    • Some are happy with how they got into the situation.

      My sister has lived very successfully in Calif for more than 50 years and I have never heard her complain about the rampant spending and she is one of those who has produced.

      I left over 30 years ago.

  4. Made me wonder just what is she being sued for? First one I found.

    Palin is being sued for violating the law by failing to issue the 2007 Juneteenth Proclamation. While the lawsuit is frivolous, it does raise questions about Palin’s views on race, and how they may clash with RNC chairman Michael Steele’s plans to expand the GOP base.

    For those of you who don’t know, which included me before I looked it up, Juneteenth, which I know as Freedom Day, is an official holiday in 29 states, that marks the freeing of the last remaining slaves on June 19, 1865. It became an official holiday in Alaska in 2001. The civil rights lawsuit was brought by Jazz musician Gregory Charles Royal who said, “The focus of this action is to hold Governor Palin accountable and to uphold the integrity of our emancipation holiday. Can you imagine the dangerous precedent of public officials deciding which legal holidays they choose to observe when carrying out their ministerial duties?”

    Palin’s office called this a clerical error, and part of the relief that Royal is seeking is for Palin to apologize and retroactively issue the proclamation. Royal is also seeking $75,000 for losses to individuals and organizations because the holiday did not occur.

    http://www.politicususa.com/en/Sarah-Palin-Lawsuit-Juneteenth

    • Alan F. says:

      Only in America.

    • #2

      Defense Fund for Sarah Palin

      The frivolous lawsuits by bloggers have caused a necessity for a defense fund to collect money to payoff the debt ($500K) that has mounted for the governor’s legal fees.

      An article was written earlier on this blog about Palin and the attack by certain bloggers to bring frivolous lawsuits that demand defense no matter how silly the lawsuits are. The lawsuits have come from bloggers such as Celtic Diva, but the list below gives you an idea of the anti-Palin bloggers that will work against Palin. The blogs below use baseless facts against Palin in the slam- style of Huffington-Post.

      These anti-Palin blogggers include: Mudflats, Immoral Minority, Writing Raven, Celtic Diva, Progressive Alaska, Alaska Report, What Do I Know, and Just a Girl From Homer.

      The latest frivolous compalint against Palin was for attending the dinner in Evansville,Indiana as follows:
      Complaint filed against Palin for Evansville trip

      A complaint was filed Wednesday against Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, claiming work with her political action committee violates state ethics laws. The complaint alleges Palin has violated two provisions of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act by misusing her official position and accepting outside employment. end quote

      The biggest shame in all of these lawsuits is that the taxpayers pay for these frivolous lawsuits. The legal fees will be taken care of by Palin supporters who contribute to the Defense Fund .

      http://helpmejoseph.typepad.com/sarah_palin_tundra/

    • A one min. video on lawsuits

    • Public Safety Commissioner dismissal
      Main article: Alaska Public Safety Commissioner dismissal

      Palin dismissed Public Safety Commissioner Walt Monegan on July 11, 2008, citing performance-related issues, such as not being “a team player on budgeting issues.”[106] Monegan said that he had resisted persistent pressure from the Governor, her husband, and her staff, including State Attorney General Talis Colberg, to fire Palin’s ex-brother-in-law, state trooper Mike Wooten; Wooten was involved in a child custody battle with Palin’s sister that included an alleged death threat against Palin’s father.[107][108] Monegan stated that he learned an internal investigation had found all but two of the allegations to be unsubstantiated, and Wooten had been disciplined for the others—an illegal moose killing and the tasering of an 11-year-old.[108] He told the Palins that there was nothing he could do because the matter was closed.[109] When contacted by the press for comment, Monegan first acknowledged pressure to fire Wooten but said that he could not be certain that his own firing was connected to that issue;[108] he later asserted that the dispute over Wooten was a major reason for his firing.[110] Palin stated on July 17 that Monegan was not pressured to fire Wooten, nor dismissed for not doing so.[106][109]

      Legislative investigation

      On August 1, 2008 the Alaska Legislature hired an investigator, Stephen Branchflower, to review the Monegan dismissal. Legislators stated that Palin had the legal authority to fire Monegan, but they wanted to know whether her action had been motivated by anger at Monegan for not firing Wooten.[111][112] The atmosphere was bipartisan and Palin pledged to cooperate.[111][112][113] After she ordered her own internal investigation, Palin stated on August 13 that “pressure could have been perceived to exist, although I have only now become aware of it.”[114] Palin announced that officials had contacted Monegan or his staff about two dozen times regarding Wooten,[109] that she had only known about some of those contacts, that many of those contacts were appropriate, and that she had not fired Monegan because of Wooten,[115] who remained employed as a state trooper.[116] She placed an aide on paid leave due to one tape-recorded phone conversation that she deemed improper, in which the aide appeared to be acting on her behalf and complained to a trooper that Wooten had not been fired.[117]

      Several weeks after the start of what the media referred to as “troopergate”, Palin was chosen as John McCain’s running mate.[112] On September 1, Palin asked the legislature to drop its investigation, saying that the state Personnel Board had jurisdiction over ethics issues.[118] The Personnel Board’s three members were first appointed by Palin’s predecessor, and Palin reappointed one member in 2008.[119] On September 19, the Governor’s husband and several state employees refused to honor subpoenas, the validity of which were disputed by Talis Colberg, Palin’s appointee as Alaska’s Attorney General.[120] On October 2, a court rejected Colberg’s challenge to the subpoenas,[121] and seven of the witnesses, not including Sarah and Todd Palin, eventually testified.[122]

      Branchflower Report

      On October 10, 2008, the Alaska Legislative Council unanimously voted to release, without endorsing,[123] the Branchflower Report, in which investigator Stephen Branchflower found that firing Monegan “was a proper and lawful exercise of her constitutional and statutory authority,” but that Palin abused her power as governor and violated the state’s Executive Branch Ethics Act when her office pressured Monegan to fire Wooten .[124] The report stated that “Governor Palin knowingly permitted a situation to continue where impermissible pressure was placed on several subordinates in order to advance a personal agenda, to wit: to get Trooper Michael Wooten fired.”[125] The report also said that Palin “permitted Todd Palin to use the Governor’s office […] to continue to contact subordinate state employees in an effort to find some way to get Trooper Wooten fired.”[125][126]

      On October 11, Palin’s attorneys responded, condemning the Branchflower Report as “misleading and wrong on the law”;[127] one, Thomas Van Flein, said that it was an attempt to “smear the governor by innuendo.”[128]

      State Personnel Board investigation

      The State Personnel Board (SPB) reviewed the matter at Palin’s request.[129] On September 15, the Anchorage law firm of Clapp, Peterson, Van Flein, Tiemessen & Thorsness filed arguments of “no probable cause” with the SPB on behalf of Palin.[130][131] The SPB hired independent counsel Timothy Petumenos as an investigator. On October 24, Palin gave three hours of depositions with the Board in St. Louis, Missouri.[132] On November 3, Petumenos found that there was no probable cause to believe Palin or any other state official had violated state ethical standards.

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

      • Please, LOI, take wikipedia with a dose of salts…it is often misquoting, however, I do not endorse Palin and her motives at all. She is no different than Washington in these matters. What I do like about her, disregarding her power trip, is she appears to be more home spun than most and appears to be, disregarding her power trip, basically honest. (She is, after all, a politician).

        I still think she will run for Senate, and much like David Crockett of Tennessee, her home spun approach will probably win her the Senate seat. Time will tell.

        D13

        • D13,

          I do not hold wiki in high regard, there is not much info out there on these lawsuits. I would think it would be newsworthy to check up on them by reputable journalist, but what do I know? I see bias in what they don’t report.

  5. Alan F. says:

    My wife I just had an enlightening conversation with another couple, old friends we hadn’t seen since they went off playing “keeping up with the Jones'”, whose spending has “just” (I almost laughed aloud) put them into a big big hole. The entire conversation was wrapped around themselves and their kids “deserving” their lifestyle and all the things they’ve done and bought since we used to hang out together. This to me was an unusual event as I rarely waste that much time (while I write on this blog I’m going through my orders for upcoming jobs) on the boo-hoo’s of others but on this occasion I came away with their liberal spending habits ruling the day and the excuses they heaped upon the mound were simply amazing and actually I’ll admit interesting in how far they were willing to reach. The kicker here though occurred at the end of the evening. Knowing we have four daughters we’re financially carrying, knowing we’re helping out my brother during his costly divorce, they hit us up for a sizable loan and in those final moments my wife came to the realization I had foreseen when they phoned us earlier out of the blue, we only thought we knew them.

    I would think that today in America a similar thing is taking place. An awakening to those around you being more like you or less than you previously thought. So has this grand alteration of the American economic landscape presented any of you with a similar epiphany?

    • By epiphany, if you mean are there friends out there that have all spent themselves into oblivion and then blame the system and society and Bush for their ills???? Yeppers…they are everywhere. But the most important thing that I am finding, is that these friends and associates are not taking the blame. They feel “entitled” and they feel as if they have been let down by the system. Most also feel that B.O. is going to fix it and do not understand why it is not fixed yet. Welcome to the microwave world of..” I want it and I want it now”…” I am entitled”. They want sympathy but I tell them it is in the dictionary between Sh– and Syphilis. I am also not very nice when I tell them to get off their ass and work two jobs if necessary as they are all filing bankruptcy to get out of debt. I loan no money and will only help family members if in dire “legitimate” (health, emergency type)straits. Not to pay off their WiFi or internet bill or TIVO or all the other nonsense that they could not afford.

      D13

    • Alan,

      When I visited the L.A. area a few months back, a local struck up a conversation, went on and on about how bad things were there. Then asked how the economy was for me. Told him things were going pretty well, maybe he should relocate. He looked at me like I started speaking some foreign language, which maybe to him, I did. He and his wife had “bought in” to a lifestyle, and could not picture living differently. At least he didn’t hit me up for a loan.

      Met another guy there, he was from Mississippi, retired, traveling a bit. He and his family were doing well, work ethic, don’t spend what you don’t have, etc.. Much better conversation.

  6. TOPIC: Where is the incentive to alleviate illegal immigration with the enactment of the higher minimum wages?

    Without enforcement of our immigration laws, by not fining the companies that hire illegals, by not closing the apartments that rent to illegals, by not boycotting the car companies that sell to illegals without proof of insurance (yes, it happens all the time), by not not picking up the illegals (men, women, and children), by not shutting the illegals out of our welfare, school, and health system, and by not not criminalizing as felonious, the counterfeiters of false ID’s…….please tell me, as a company, why I would not fire every American citizen and hire an illegal immigrant? With no enforcement…why should I be afraid? Do you think for one minute that a “wetback” (yes, I said it and stand by it and I do not give a tinker’s damn about political correctness)is going to complain to the Feds or State government that they are not receiving minimum wages while in this country illegally? Do you think they would risk deportation by doing this? The going rate for illegals in Texas is $50 per day and lunch and this is a 10 hour day. No overtime pay, no health pay, no social security deductions, no worker’s compensation pay…no cost to the employer except $50 per day and lunch. Such companies do not care if the welfare system picks up the tab because it is then borne by all.

    I did not think there could be a bigger dumb ass move that Washington could make. But, there I go again..thinking.

    If Atlas has not shrugged yet…it should now.

    D13

    • Atlas will shrug when enough producers have shrugged.

    • Time again for Operation Wetback (same type of operation has been done twice before in U.S. History):

      Operation Wetback

      From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
      1 History
      2 Operation Wetback in action

      Operation Wetback was a 1954 operation by the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) to remove about three million illegal immigrants from the southwestern United States. It focused on Mexican nationals.[1]

      [edit] History
      Burgeoning numbers of illegal aliens prompted President Dwight D. Eisenhower to appoint his longtime friend, General Joseph Swing, as INS Commissioner. According to Attorney General Herbert Brownell Jr., Eisenhower had a sense of urgency about illegal immigration upon taking office. In a letter to Sen. William Fulbright, Eisenhower quoted a report in The New York Times that said, “The rise in illegal border-crossing by Mexican ‘wetbacks’ (rooted from the watery route taken by the Mexican immigrants across the Rio Grande) to a current rate of more than 1,000,000 cases a year has been accompanied by a curious relaxation in ethical standards extending all the way from the farmer-exploiters of this contraband labor to the highest levels of the Federal Government.”[2]

      The operation was modeled after a program that put pressure on citizens of Mexico to move back to Mexico during the Great Depression because of the bad economic situation in the United States. (See Mexican Repatriation.)

      Operation Wetback in action
      The effort began in California and Arizona and coordinated 1075 Border Patrol agents, along with state and local police agencies, to mount an aggressive crackdown, going as far as police sweeps of Mexican-American neighborhoods and random stops and ID checks of “Mexican-looking” people in a region with many Native Americans and native Hispanics.[3] 750 agents targeted agricultural areas with a goal of 1000 apprehensions a day. By the end of July, over 50,000 immigrants were caught in the two states. Around 488,000 illegal immigrants are claimed to have left voluntarily for fear of being apprehended. By September, 80,000 had been taken into custody in Texas, and the INS estimates that 500,000 to 700,000 had left Texas on their own. To discourage re-entry, buses and trains took many deportees deep within Mexico before releasing them. Tens of thousands more were deported by two chartered ships, the Emancipation and the Mercurio. The ships ferried them from Port Isabel, Texas, to Veracruz, Mexico, more than 500 miles (800 kilometers) to the south. Some were taken as far as 1,000 miles. Deportation by sea was ended after seven deportees jumped overboard from the Mercurio and drowned, provoking a mutiny which lead to a public outcry in Mexico.[4]

    • Those sneeking into the US from the north must cross miles upon miles of forest instead of a river. So would these be called “Green Backs”?

      Oh, but I forgot. A Alan said before, the “those sneeking” are now headed north, not south. So Canada has become the beneficiary of the “green back” migration out of the U.S.

      Thinking, thinking, thinking
      OTFLMAO

      JAC

      • Oh my…..got to add that to my dictionary of metaphors… “green backs” dual meaning…..not to mention the brutal winters up there. And, perhaps I should no longer use the term wetback….as the river is so low now…”wet ankles” would be more appropriate.

        • Or perhaps “mud backs”.

          • Another T shirt idea.

            Green backs with legs, arms and hardhats running across the border to Canada.

            “I’m a Green Back” proudly adourned on the front and back.

            We can sell them to all the US folks working in B.C. and Alberta.

            Maybe we can give Alan F. a little commission for running the store?

            • COOL !!!!!

            • Alan F. says:

              Just so long as it doesn’t bump me into the next tax bracket. This season ate up the last of my truck and the reno’s on the office.

              • Doesn’t matter Alan, Obama’s tax level will drop to the poverty line soon enough…but that is where we will all be.

  7. Texas Billionaire Pickens Blows Off Plans for Wind Farm

    HOUSTON — Plans for the world’s largest wind farm in the Texas Panhandle have been scrapped, energy baron T. Boone Pickens said Tuesday, and he’s looking for a home for 687 giant wind turbines.

    Pickens’ company Mesa Power ordered the turbines from General Electric Co. — a $2 billion investment — a little more than a year ago.

    In Texas, the problem lies in getting power from the proposed site in the Panhandle to a distribution system, Pickens said in an interview with The Associated Press in New York. He’d hoped to build his own transmission lines but he said there were technical problems.

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,530649,00.html?test=latestnews

    My bet is environmentalist blocked him from putting in power lines.

    • LOI….those of us in Texas, very familiar with T Boone….knew this was not going to happen. If you have never been here, the panhandle is so immense and crosses so many acres, it would be impossible to lay the transmission lines and, us Texans, do fight the imminent domain issues here almost at a point of the gun. Example, I, we, a lot of us, put a screeching stop to the Trans Texas Highway from Mexico to Canada because of imminent domain. It was going to be open warfare here.

      So, yes, there are “technical problems”.

      D13

  8. D13-

    I will have agree with you on this one. Unless we properly deal with the companies that hire illegal aliens, we are getting no where. Its not just major companies either. My cousins husband in Chicago, has run a successful lawn & garden for years. He started it with nothing, and has grown to have 45 employees. But he has people who will leave his service to hire illegal aliens to do the work. It cost about half. But of course, they have no insurance if something happens. We need to stop everyone from doing this. Otherwise nothing changes.

    • Black Flag says:

      Why people are so concerned about other people’s actions that are made free and non-violent always puzzles me.

      If your competitor is beating you, it’s your fault, Ellen. It is not the fault of the man feeding his family by his own effort.

      You do not complain if some product is shipped to you for half the cost of another – you love it!

      Yet, when the same is chosen by your (ex)customers, you are livid!

      No sense of contradiction?

      • So you’re saying its okay not to obey the law? Or is this only when applicable to migrant workers?

        • Black Flag says:

          Yes, it is okay to disobey laws that inflict violence on non-violent people.

          People who work, voluntarily in peace, are no harm to you.

          Making a law that makes it illegal to work will be applied to you and you will not be able to work without a license from government.

          Take great care making laws against innocent people.

          • I am sorry BF…illegal immigrants are not innocent here feeding there families. Why don’t I send them to your yard and YOU feed them. They are breaking our law. In my post, I did not only say something about the illegals but I also said take out the companies and the apartments and whatever that support it. I am sorry but they need to stay home and I have zero sympathy for them. Follow our laws or change them. In the meantime, enforce them.

            D13

          • Murphy's Law says:

            BF,

            You said: “Making a law that makes it illegal to work will be applied to you and you will not be able to work without a license from government.”

            A license from government? How about citizenship? Or at least coming here legally? Legal immigrants are the innocent ones, not the illegal immigrants. Sure we should take care making laws against the innocent, but illegals are not innocent- they are……..oh, what’s the word? Oh, yeah………illegal.

            Hey, how’s this- a checkbox on our income tax forms that asks if the taxpayer is willing for all the illegal immigrants to stay here- all those who check it then have an additional tax on their income to pay for the medical care, education (including college), food stamps, etc, etc, etc. to support the illegals who don’t pay their own taxes. Those who don’t check the box would not have the additional tax. And of course, if the numbers of illegals continue to go up, that tax could easily be increased. That way, those who wish for them to stay would get to help out these “innocent” people…..

      • Flag,

        Illegal aliens being exploited here in the US should not concern her?
        Where was that sweatshop where they were kept prisoner? While I don’t agree with all our laws, I do feel refusing to enforce them on illegal aliens is a big problem. They use our emergency rooms free of charge, so we pay their cost, and don’t even pay taxes. Not as simple an issue as you portray.

        • Black Flag says:

          Exploited? They are feeding their families! Hardly “exploitation”!

          If they are being forced by threat of violence, than, yes, that is evil.

          But that is not your argument, right?

          It is simple, LoI.

          The problem is not ‘free’ medicine – the problem is being taxed.

          • The problem is not ‘free’ medicine – the problem is being taxed.

            Yup – the FairTax may be an unintended solution to some of the issues with illegal migrant workers.

            Illegal workers are unfair to businesses who follow the law (primarily tax laws, safety regulations, etal)

            And as a practical financial issue in CA today – spends an outrageous amount incarcerating illegal immigrants. Wow – when I read it before it was something like $5-600 million a year – just did search – there’s 19,000 inmates @ almost $50k per – that;s almost a billion there !! (at least on paper)

            • Black Flag says:

              Illegal workers are unfair to businesses who follow the law (primarily tax laws, safety regulations, etal)

              The consequences of following immoral laws may also include suffering personally.

          • Yes, exploited. They come here and our own population exploits them. I see it EVERY day. Again, you feed and clothe and house them. I cannot see your rationale at all. You will have to explain it better than call them “innocents who want to feed their families”. It is MORE than that and you know this. Our own population and locals here are suffering GREATER than these innocents. We do not get free education, free housing, free lunches, free medical, free tuition in colleges. America and Americans come FIRST AND FOREMOST. THAT to me is simple.

            D13

            • Black Flag says:

              Worry not about what other people get.

              Worry about tending your own garden.

            • Ok grasshoppper

            • with a smiley !! ;=}

            • I started to tear up when I read this – only because its so ridiculous – and I somehow sense that miscellaneous, seemingly unassociated issues will destroy our society.

              The only reason I can fathom why these benefits are passed for illegals, is that there are more people who really dont want America to be the beacon to the world, thus they want it to become a failure.

              The other group are folks who feel guilty about slavery and there is a transference somehow. (that others more eloquent may be able to express)

  9. Reaganomics vs. Obamanomics, by Ann Coulter

    Dear Fellow Conservative,

    Ann CoulterYou know what really irritates me about liberals? (Besides the fact that they’re spineless little girls in pretty dresses who can’t play rough because it musses up their hair…)

    They always think liberalism fixes the problem — even when it was liberalism that caused the problem in the first place!

    Case in point, the Financial Meltdown of 2008 (and counting). To hear liberals tell it, it all goes back to Ronald Reagan — who with his seductive “B-actor” charm fooled America into thinking that by slashing taxes, regulation, and government spending we could unleash free enterprise and create a new wave of prosperity.

    Sure, liberals concede, that seemed to work for, oh, the better part of three decades, but now we’re paying the price for all that “greed.” The solution? A return to the pre-Reagan policies of Jimmy Carter, LBJ, FDR… Speaking of which, what will victory look like in the “War on Poverty”? When are they going to produce an “exit strategy” from that quagmire?

    Unfortunately, the facts — as always when you’re talking about liberal theories — tell a different story. A story in which all the major villains, it turns out, have one thing in common: government.

    That’s right. From the “Community Reinvestment Act” that pressured banks into affirmative-action lending, to those “government-sponsored enterprises” Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — who bought up all the resulting subprime loans and repackaged them as “investment grade” securities — the greasy thumb-prints of government were all over this fiasco from beginning to end.

    But those, as I say, are facts. And facts have no place in the fantasy world of Democratic policy-makers. Nor does history — true history, that is, as opposed to the public-school propaganda that teaches, for instance, that FDR’s New Deal got us out of the Great Depression, when in reality it only deepened and prolonged it.

    I don’t much care for Ann, her name calling and such.(Besides the fact that they’re spineless little girls in pretty dresses who can’t play rough because it musses up their hair…) Reminds me of someone else??? Little help here Ray? LOL

  10. Judy S. says:

    I give Sarah Palin the beneifit of doubt for the reasons she gave for resigning. Maybe she just got fed up with all the BS from everybody, and the all the nasty remarks being made about her and her family and the jokes as well. Okay, if you’re a politician, I guess you’re fair game with all the jokes and remarks, but when does it stop. They have been riding her butt since she was put on the ticket with McCain, and it just keeps on going. Maybe she should have told them all to just shut up, and to go about their lives, I don’t know. I like her, and she seems to have a great repore with people, but it appears that there are those who don’t and didn’t like what she had to say about things. She talked from the heart about the issues and what concerned her, but I guess it rubbed others the wrong way, must not have gone with their venue about the way they saw issues and what they said they would do. Whatever she decides to do in the future, I wish her and her family all the best.

  11. Alan, Bob,

    Its interesting there are conflicting reports on this. I would think that it could be proven one way or another. I am outraged with you Alan, over Canada
    taking our oil. I hold you personally responsible.

    Will you be going after Gull Island next? Or maybe the Destin FL natural gas field shell found?

    Have you ever heard of Gull Island near Prudhoe Bay, Alaska? I hadn’t until I started digging more in to this whole oil crisis. Well, apparently, there is a drilled and capped well that taps in to enough oil that could make us energy independent TODAY!
    http://thebobofiles.com/?p=173

    • LOI

      There was a video posted on this site some time back of the “Chaplain” giving a speech on this subject. In that speech he names those present in the room when the Companies were told to shut er’ down.

      Can’t remember who posted it? If it wasn’t BF then it was one of our resident “conspiracy” folks.

      OK somebody, step up and post it again.

      I wonder what the public’s reaction will be if this is ever proved to be true?
      JAC

    • The Destin Dome lies 25 miles south of Pensacola, Florida. It contains more than three trillion cubic feet of much needed dry natural gas. Chevron acquired leases at Destin Dome in 1984 during the Reagan administration.

      http://kevincolby.com/2008/07/15/do-you-know-what-the-destin-dome-is/

      • On TV yesterday, T. Boone Pickens said “we have 2000 Trillion cubic feet of natural gas”

        • I have been told by a former oil field worker that there are many capped wellheads in Texas. Seeing the Destin Dome and Gull Island stories makes you wonder.

    • Alan F. says:

      An actual oil company like Suncor Energy is drilling there or the Cuban government is using a drilling service like Perbercan? We’ve been in the front of directional drilling tech here for quite some time and as the poster child for socialism-lite, more than willing to work apparently with any of the hard core socialist countries. Likely another piece of the Trudeau legacy. Sorry about that.

      A friend of mine’s son has done such for years but has been contracted the last 2 years to the Russian oil fields. I’ll ask Dwayne about Cuba next chance I get. We have a lot of cutting edge gas, oil and mining tech developed here of which we seem to be exporting to any unsavory country with a buck. Our capitalist leanings might be the driving force behind Canadian industry but our socialist acceptance allows us to do business with nearly anyone. Damned that sucks to admit.

      • Alan, I forgive you. Would you consider going ahead and drilling of the California coast for us as well, and then sell it to us please?
        You can even put a windfall profit tax in to pay healthcare costs.

        • Alan F. says:

          We’ve already trained the migratory whales to be our covert delivery system for spare parts. All we’ll ask in return is that Perez Hilton is restricted to movement within the continental US only, that you never recognize French as your second official language and that you quit making fun of Canadian Football… ok you can still make fun of our version of your game.

  12. “I am encouraged that Administrator Jackson agrees that unilateral action by the U.S. will be all cost for no climate gain,” Sen. Inhofe said. “With China and India recently issuing statements of defiant opposition to mandatory emissions controls, acting alone through the job-killing Waxman-Markey bill would impose severe economic burdens on American consumers, businesses, and families, all without any impact on climate.”

    http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2009/07/08/huge-co2-emissions-disagreement-between-epa-energy-dept-ignored-msm

  13. From 912 Project

    By David Morgan

    WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The top U.S. military officer warned on Tuesday that time is running out for dialogue with Tehran to avoid either a nuclear-armed Iran or a possible military strike against the Islamic Republic.

    Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, said it is critical for diplomatic efforts to reach a solution before Iran develops a nuclear weapon or faces an Israeli or U.S. strike to turn back its nuclear program.

    “That window is a very narrow window,” Mullen told an audience at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington think tank.

    “There’s a great deal that certainly depends on the dialogue and the engagement,” he said. “I’m hopeful that that dialogue is productive. I worry about it a great deal if it’s not.”

    Mullen noted that some forecasters believe Iran could be as little as a year away from developing a nuclear bomb, adding: “The clock has continued to tick.”

    http://in.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idINIndia-40879020090707

  14. One for Bob,

    There were up to 8,000 forced marriages reported last year in England, with the Forced Marriage Unit dealing with an 80 percent increase from the previous year. Most of the victims are teenage girls from Pakistan and Bangladesh, with some as young as 13 forced to marry in order to preserve “family honor,” or to allow foreign nationals to emigrate to Britain as a spouse.

    http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/3998

    • Yes a terrible situation, a lot of my family are teachers and they have been given training to help spot teenagers being forced into marriage so they can report it to the correct authorities. A lot of the arranged marriages are done behind closed doors, not much can be done about it unless it is reported.

      • Shows why assimilation is necessary with immigration.

        • Its not that easy, complete assimilation into society would be ideal but as for arranged marriages you have customs that have been practiced by families for centuries, I am not agreeing with it but I do not expect a immigrants to give up their customs in the first or even second generation. Things will change in time though.

  15. Personally, I don’t think there should be a minimum wage, I mean, who really pays minimum wage anyway? If you apply for a job, the usual starting pay is about $7.50 to $8.00, at least it was when I applied for a jobs a couple years ago. Even here at the lab I work at, the starting pay was $10.00 an hour, it may not seem like much to some, but for me it was more than I was making before, which was nothing an hour. Well, I take that back, I did work for Long’s for a while there, until I quit. I say, why do we need the federal government to decide the minimum wage, and why not just leave that to the employers to decide on what to pay their employees.? That’s my thoughts about this topic.

  16. Some John (Stossel) says;

    Paul Krugman misleads, as he often does, in today’s New York Times:

    “Universal health insurance should be eminently affordable. After all, every other advanced country offers universal coverage, while spending much less on health care than we do. For example, the French health care system covers everyone, offers excellent care and costs barely more than half as much per person as our system.”

    But the French freeload off American innovation! Can you name any new drugs or medical devices that are invented in France? Nearly all the world’s innovation comes from the relatively profit-driven American system. If we relied on government healthcare, the world would still be getting 1950’s quality care.

    Also, it is by no means clear that the French get “excellent” care. When you account for “Fatal Injury” rates (mostly car accidents and murder), US life expectancy is higher than in nearly every other industrialized nation, including France. And this doesn’t even account for the fact that Americans are four times as likely to be obese.

    What sounds at first like a daunting prospect — extending coverage to most or all of the 45 million people in America without health insurance — should, in the end, add only a few percent to our overall national health bill.

    Adding a few percent is okay? What about the fact that Medicare is already trillions of dollars in the red? We need to cut, not add.

    Employers would also have to chip in, with all firms employing more than 25 people required to offer their workers insurance or pay a penalty.

    Chip in? That sounds voluntary. Paul, do you not see that such rules have nasty consequences? What boss employing 25 workers will ever want to hire one more?

    The “centrist” senators, most of them Democrats, who have been holding up reform can no longer claim either that universal coverage is unaffordable or that it won’t work.

    Sure they can. They’ve been to the post office and the motor vehicles department. They’ve seen the waste and coming bankruptcy of Medicare and Medicaid. They are wise to be skeptical of the schemes of the self-anointed.

    http://blogs.abcnews.com/johnstossel/2009/07/healthcare-from-dr-krugman.html

    • That John Stossel better look out or he will lose his job at the All Barack Channel…….

      • They silenced him during the Obama health special. He had a show ready to air. I think that’s why they offed MJ, started the smoke and mirrors.

        • Alan F. says:

          Strange, I said the exact same thing off handed to my wife upon seeing the idiot box ablaze with so much news of Michael Jackson’s death and Sarah Palin’s quitting… “In need of another distraction but for what this time?”

          • When all the pizaaz runs out of MJ kickin’ the bucket, I wonder what our next distraction will be?

            • Esom,

              A very good question. Chairman of Joint Chiefs says the “window” is closing to act
              on Iran nuclear issue, diplomatically or militarily. N.Korea may have attacked US gov. offices computers.

              Sorry, hit and run post, its beer 30 time.

    • JayDickB says:

      Rationing anyone? That’s the only way for big cost reductions and that’s what the Dems want to do, make everyone’s lives dependent on government decisions.

    • I shamelessly stole this from another forum I visit, its a fun but long read:

      There have been a lot of debates and discussions recently, both on this forum and in other venues, about the state of healthcare. Looking at the rising costs of health insurance, and at the growing numbers of the uninsured, many are calling for government intervention, and the institution of a system where care is guaranteed to all – usually described as “universal” healthcare. It’s a fascinating topic – the issues involved include humanitarian, financial and ideological ones. Unfortunately, debate on the subject is characterised by a startling phenomenon: one side is right, and the other is completely wrong.

      Given the importance of medicine, I feel that it would be useful to clarify this issue. I will explain clearly, and with evidence, why it is that universal healthcare of any sort would be better than the current system in every significant way. If you find yourself disagreeing with this assertion, I ask that you read on before replying, as all conceivable objections will be addressed and resolved.

      Why The Current Situation Is Bad

      At the moment, healthcare in America is provided mostly by private entities, who charge high fees. These fees can be attributed largely due to the difficulty and expense of the medical profession, and although they are significantly higher than those of similar nations this difference is only a small portion of healthcare costs. There then exists the health insurance industry, a loose network of corporations that charge individuals or organisations premiums and will pay for their health costs if any are incurred.

      Unfortunately, this system has enormous problems. As of 2006, 44.8 million people in America do not have health insurance. Many are unable to afford it, many are denied coverage by insurers who believe that as customers they will not be economical, and others choose not to purchase it. Without health insurance, the up-front costs of health care are impossible for most people to afford. In fact, 50.35% of all bankruptcies were caused, at least in part, by medical fees. In 2001, this was 2,038,549 bankruptcies.

      Furthermore, health insurance does not fully cover medical expenses. Different insurers and different plans have many exemptions, co-pays, threshholds and other expense-minimising devices. As a result, 62% of those two million bankruptcies occurred despite the debtors having health insurance coverage for the duration of their illness.

      As well as failing to provide care, and driving individuals into bankruptcy, the existing system is also exorbitantly expensive. Health care spending is now 15% of U.S. GDP – the highest in the world. The costs to businesses, who commonly pay premiums for their employees in lieu of salary, rose by 13.9% in 2003. The annual cost increase has been above inflation since at least 1981. Paying more doesn’t result in more value, either – obesity, diabetes, and similar disorders are more common in the United States than anywhere else in the developed world, the U.S. is ranked 72nd in overall health, and life expectancy is below that of 41 other countries.

      What Is Universal Health Care?

      Universal Health Care, or UHC, refers to a wide range of different systems, the common characteristic of which is that a nation’s government guarantees all its citizens access to healthcare. Every developed nation (OECD member) in the world, apart from the United States, has a UHC system. There are three main types:

      In a fully public system, there is no or little private healthcare, and the health insurance industry is not a significant one. Medical service providers are government employees, and the education of doctors is also subsidised. The most well known example of a fully public system is the original English NHS, although a private sector is now developing in the U.K. as well.

      In an optional public, the government provides the same services, but a private health services industry also exists (generally regulated), and . Sometimes health insurers exist, used by people who prefer private services. This is the most common, and examples include Australia and Sweden.

      In a subsidised private system, the government pays for health care, but it is provided by private entities. Either the government acts as a health insurer for the populace, or it pays the fees for private health insurers to do so. This is done in Canada.

      For the purposes of discussion, I will be assuming the characteristics of an optional public system, like those used in most of Europe. However, the benefits of UHC apply to all of the above types of organisation.

      How UHC Will Improve Things

      The single largest problem with healthcare in America is that many people don’t have it. It’s obvious how UHC solves this: by providing it to all citizens directly (or paying for it to be done). By definition, this is no longer a problem under UHC. All developed nations other than the United States make this guarantee to their citizens, and have so far been able to uphold it. The two reasons which make a person uninsurable – insurer decisions and lack of money – will no longer exist.

      The second major problem with the current system is its high cost. This can be divided into two parts: individual cost, and government cost – which to the individual shows up as taxation. UHC is inherently cheaper – far cheaper – due to economies of scale, the bargaining position of monopolies with regard to drugs and salaries, reduced administrative costs, and the lack of a profit motive. When it comes to individual health care costs:

      According to the World Health Organisation, average American individual spending on healthcare is $3371 per year. Since this includes the uninsured and those covered by their employers, actual costs are higher. For comparison:

      Australia: $1017
      Canada: $916
      Sweden: $532
      United Kingdom: $397

      The first of those is the second-highest in the world – meaning that Americans pay, not including taxes, more than three times as much as citizens of any other nation. This would be somewhat justifiable if they received better healthcare, but again – 28% have no care at all, life expectancy is below all other developed nations, and general health rating is below all other developed nations.

      It is commonly assumed that this difference in cost is because under UHC systems, higher taxes are required to fund the system. Not so. As mentioned, UHC is a great deal cheaper than private healthcare, and as a result America’s health-related taxation is also the highest in the world. According to the OECD, in 2006, American government spending on healthcare was $2887 per person. For comparison:

      Australia: $2106
      Canada: $2338
      Sweden: $2468
      United Kingdom: $2372

      American healthcare taxes are in fact the highest in the OECD, with France second at $2714. In conclusion, every single UHC system in the world costs less money for individuals, requires lower taxes, and provides better care to more people than the American health care system. By implementing UHC in the U.S., things can only get better.

      Frequently Raised Objections

      There are many incorrect arguments against the implementation of UHC in the United States. In order to better facilitate discussion, I will explain the errors found in the most common.

      “America isn’t Europe!”, or It Won’t Work Here
      The argument from American exceptionalism states that what works in Europe will not work in the U.S. It’s said that this is because European nations have more people in less space, resulting in less logistical difficulties, and because European government is more competent.

      Firstly, not all developed nations are European. The most obvious example that counteracts the logistical argument is Australia, where there are 20 million people in only slightly less space than America’s 300 million. This does indeed affect prices, as can be seen by comparing Australia to Sweden or the U.K. – but it doesn’t bring them anywhere near the levels currently experienced in America.

      The argument that American government is uniquely incompetent, and cannot do things that every other nation in the world can do, is simply nonsense. Not only has America, and American government, achieved many things that other countries have not, America has so many resources and the improvement in care and cost from moving to UHC is so large that even with incredible inefficiencies it would still be a good idea.

      “It is immoral to force me to pay for others’ healthcare.”
      You are already paying for others’ healthcare. Furthermore, you are paying far more than you would be under UHC. The U.S. government incurs massive costs from paying hospital fees when ER visitors have no money, and from the limited coverage that it provides, which cannot take advantage of economies of scale and which has to subsidise corporate profit.

      As demonstrated above, U.S. taxes devoted to healthcare are the highest in the world. Even if you choose not to have health insurance, under the current system, you are still paying more for others’ healthcare than you would be paying for theirs plus your own under UHC.

      “This is socialism.”
      It is not socialist to recognise that there is a service the free market is inefficient at providing, and to decide it should better be provided by the government. Even the most staunch libertarian admits that there are some services in this category, such as national defence.

      Secondly, it is irrelevant whether this is a “socialist” policy; it’s effective. It costs less and provides better care to more people, and as a result is used literally everywhere else in the entire world. Those who want to ensure that society remains ideologically committed to market capitalism need to look for other issues, as if they cling to this one they will only end up providing evidence against their position.

      “I don’t want more government bureaucracy.”
      UHC will involve much less bureaucracy than is commonly assumed, as it can replace the existing partial systems like Medicare and also the plethora of state-specific programs. Regardless, the lives and money saved are more important than any potential expansion of the state.

      “Why don’t we try making the system even more private instead? That might help.”
      It might. However, there’s no evidence to suggest it, and many reasons to presume it wouldn’t. By its nature, the less publicly-supported a system, the more people will be unable to purchase health services.

      The only potential gain would be reduced costs due to some sort of market mechanism, and in practice this has never occurred; every private healthcare system that has ever existed in world history has proved inefficient and been replaced by public systems, and given the demonstrable gains that have resulted the U.S. must follow.

      “Doctors will be paid less.”
      They probably will. In nations with UHC, doctors often earn less – for example, U.S. doctors earn 30% more than Canadian doctors – but this isn’t an inherent problem. It is still one of the highest-paying professions in the world, and there are many other ways of attracting skilled people to medicine – such as subsidising their education.

      It is sometimes claimed that doctors paid less in a country with UHC will instead go elsewhere where they can be paid more, but once the U.S. has UHC there will not be an elsewhere to go.

      “Medical research is funded by the payments of the rich in the current system, and will be reduced.”
      It is not true that most medical research is done in the United States. In 2000, U.S. research spending was $46 billion, but European spending was also $43 billion. And although U.S. research spending doubled in the last decade, the funding’s efficacy has actually decreased.

      Secondarily, if the option for private healthcare still exists – and there is no reason why it should not – there will still be people choosing to pay more for a higher quality of care, faster service, et cetera. Their profits will still be reinvested in the development of new drugs, equipment and understanding of the human body, as they still are in nations with UHC today. Even in the United States, private spending accounts for only 57% of research spending.

      “With the option of private healthcare, the rich will ‘opt out’ and costs will go up.”
      This isn’t necessarily true at all; although private healthcare is usually allowed in UHC nations (for good reasons), it doesn’t have to decrease the taxes paid by all to support the public system!

      “Other countries fix drug prices, so the US has to pay more for drugs.”
      This is another common misconception. U.S. healthcare does not include higher pharmaceutical spending than other countries; it’s around the average or even slightly lower. From the OECD:

      Canada: 17.7%
      Germany: 15.2%
      Iceland: 13.3%
      Australia: 13.3%
      US: 12.4%
      Sweden: 12%
      Ireland: 11.6%

      In Conclusion

      Thank you for reading. To those who were not previously supporters of UHC, I apologise if anything seemed condescending, but there’s no shame in being wrong due to not having all the facts or having been misled. If anyone has questions feel free to ask, and hopefully we can now discuss what sort of UHC system ought to be implemented or how the political will for it can be gathered, rather than being bogged down by misconceptions about its desirability.

      • Black Flag says:

        As in all economic things, any product that is artificially priced lower than its real cost will be exhausted.

        Certainly, you or any other person can trumpet any reason to force some people to pay for a good or service of another.

        You can also create an extensive paper trail of how ‘good’ this is for ‘most people’.

        The economic fact is unmoved.

        It will bankrupt the nation.

        • And it will eventually destroy the quality and quantity of Medical Care available.

        • How long will it take to bankrupt the nation? Some countries have been using UHC for several decades.

          • Black Flag says:

            Economics can tell you what will happen.

            However, it is not a science, like Physics, where you can calculate a cause/effect over a scale of time.

            I knew the housing bubble was going to explode. I knew this over 10 years ago. I advise my friends and family to dispose of the property and do not buy – I said this 10 years ago.

            For nearly a decade, I looked like a fool while my friends became house rich. Some even called me that.

            Today, they are suffering – some quite badly. I can’t even say “I told you so”, because why would I rub salt into a gaping wound of friends in dire need?

            The same situation here.

            Some nations can muddle along for quite a long time – some, not so long.

            Regardless, it will end badly.

            Ironically, the ones that were able to muddle along the longest will suffer, in the end, the worse.

            Their fall will be from a higher height.

            There will be lots of blame, gnashing of teeth, moaning and complaining – and with nearly everyone yelling “Why didn’t anyone tell us?”.

            Sadly, the answer will be -“There were, but you were deaf”

            • What is the real cost of health care? Are we talking about drugs, doctors fees, hospital visits?

              • Stop lumping everything into “health care” and start separating Health from Medical.

                Most of the complaints about skyrocketing costs is linked to Medical Care. And many of the stories you here over there are being driven by Political agenda, not necessarily truth.

                Medical care does not necessarily promote health. It only prolongs life beyond what would normally happen. That is why it is in such great demand.

                The skyrocketing costs are more related to demographics and government intervention in the markets than anything else.

                But here is the real kicker, from a Traditional American point of view. The arguments about costs and efficiency and life spans are moot. They have nothing to do with the real issue.

                Your Medical Care is provided at the point of a government held gun. Such a system violates my freedom and Liberty.

                I don’t care if your system works or not, or any other such system. I am not willing to sacrifice my freedom and liberty for the false security of a govt provided Medical Care system that allows my govt to rob my nieghbors.

                And that my dear British Friend is why some of us continue to oppose it with such vehemance, even in the face of the “facts” that you provide.

                It is about “Root” or “Foundational” principles, not the cost.

                I will actually go on the line and pick a timeframe for failure. All govt provided systems in the much touted “industrialized nations” will fail within 20 years.

                Best Wishes To You and Yours
                JAC

                P.S.: Most of our actual “cost” problems stem from that fact that many of our citizens have become “stupid” when it comes to making rational economic decisions. Of course our govt helps maintain this, along with reducing meaningful choices that could help cut costs.

              • Government held gun? Give me a break think you need to turn down the drama just a tad. Well you can do whatever you like, your health care costs will increase, as more people lose their jobs there will be more uninsured which will lead to more medical caused bankruptcies and further strain on your system.

                On what basis do you think all UHC systems are going to fail? How many years is your current system going to last?

              • I forgot for a minute where you are. OK at the point of a nightstick. When one group gives govt the authority to take property from another group how do they enforce that authority? Its called coersion or violence. No drama required Bob. If you don’t pay they will take it and/or you.

                I find it interesting that all the ills you think will cause our system to fail (increased unemployment etc) will somehow not effect a system supported by tax dollars. The same economic rules apply no matter who is playing with the cards. Govt just tries to cheat, thus causing greater problems in the long term.

                The collapse will come due to demand exceeding available supply by a large margin. And our current system will fail at the same time because it is essentially tax or govt supported.

              • I really dont understand what you are getting at in that first paragraph.

                Yes if everyone was unemployed the system would be ineffective, but our medical care is much cheaper than what is provided in the US so we can last for longer.

                The NHS has been running for 61 years, I think its got some legs.

      • Bob, thank you for sharing, but I’m throwing the BS flag on parts.

        that 10 million of the 46 million are non-U.S. citizens and illegal immigrants. He said he estimates the number of uninsured Americans to be about 20 million.

        U.S. officials estimate the number of uninsured illegal immigrants at more than 7 million. And some 12 to 13 million — about a fourth of the total uninsured — already qualify for government health care under Medicaid or SCHIP for children but choose not to sign up.

        I also do not buy the US ranking, I know the figures are genuine, but other countries do not count stillborn births as a death, where the US counts everything.

        Also, it is by no means clear that the French get “excellent” care. When you account for “Fatal Injury” rates (mostly car accidents and murder), US life expectancy is higher than in nearly every other industrialized nation, including France. And this doesn’t even account for the fact that Americans are four times as likely to be obese.

        I agree we need to improve our health care, but it should start with tort reform and deporting illegal aliens and see where that leaves us.

        • Well if you cook the statistics and remove murders, car accidents, poor people, fat people, ethnic groups, the uninsured then I am sure your health care is excellent. Can I start removing things that are decremental to my statistics too?

        • That’s the problem, Bob, you include outrageous issues to make a point, and if people just skim – which is probably the majority, it SOUNDs good

          You remove whatever you what.. lol

      • Bob:

        I would like to add by asking this one question.

        Why are so many folks OUTSIDE the U.S. of A. writing and discussing about how our medical system is busted and we need to adopt a universal health plan?

        Gee whiz, I don’t recall our pundits spending one minute discussing anyone else’s plans except when someone tries to put them on us.

        Do you see any strange coincidence in how the cacaphony of talking heads has picked up in Europe once the Obama put the issue on the table for this year? OK, that was two questions.

        Perhaps there is much more at play here.
        JAC

        • I read on this site and others that UHC means that you have to wait 8 months to see a doctor and when you hit retirement age you are wheeled into a corner to die if you need medical attention. I thought you would like the views of someone who is living in a country with UHC. We are puzzled that is all, you manage to spend far more money per person than us but manage to get worse results.

          • Black Flag says:

            Yes, the British system

            – because they removed price as a measure of economic value, lost all means of evaluating economic value.

            – instead, used ‘wait time’ as a measure of ‘good economic value’.

            – wait times are abysmal and getting worse.

            Answer: kick people out of the waiting room and make them ‘reenter’ the hospital – restarting their wait time.

            • If anything the wait times have improved, since the crap that the tories pulled in the 90’s, things have greatly improved over the last few years. If you are talking about a couple of busy hospitals I don’t see how it is really fair, do you not have any waiting in any of your ER’s around the country? I have been to the ER for a couple of injuries and I have had to wait 2 hours at the most, I have never been kicked out of hospital, in fact I don’t know anyone who has.

              • Black Flag says:

                I work and lived in many countries.

                I have health insurance that pays only for the most extreme costs.

                I pay my own way otherwise.

                When having a need for medical services (and I seem to have quite a few breaks and damage) I have never had to wait. I have cash. I get the front of the line.

              • Go to a hospital in England with a cut finger and see how much money you have to pay to get in before the guy who just cut his hand off. When you go to the ER in America do you just slam a wad of notes on the desk and demand to see a doctor immediately no matter your ailment and those surrounding you?
                I have also lived and worked in America and Canada and experienced the medical systems.

      • Alan F. says:

        The taxation claimed here regarding Canada is idiotic. Rounding, the 2005 Health care costs were $142 billion for a total population of 32 million and the public paid for 69.6% of that bill which is $3088.50 for every man woman and child in public taxation. The other 30.4% or $1349.00 per person was picked up by corporate taxation. The total per person was $4437.50 per man, woman and child for the year 2005 using data from a presentation created for:

        Fiscal Space and the Financing of Universal Health Care Systems in the Americas
        PAHO/WHO Regional Workshop, Washington, D.C., November 29-30, 2007

        By:

        Gregory P. Marchildon, Ph.D.
        Canada Research Chair in Public Policy and Economic History
        Johnson-Shoyama Graduate School of Public Policy, University of Regina, CANADA

        • Alan

          “The taxation claimed here regarding Canada is idiotic”.

          Were you talking about here on this site or in Canada?

          And Good Morning my Northern Cousin
          JAC

          • Alan F. says:

            Bob’s data. Its misses way too much. We pay for our ambulance rides, prescriptions, crutches and much more out of pocket which is outside of the data he presented.

            • I still have my Ontario health card from when I lived in Canada, yes there are things that you still have to pay for but they are usually relatively small payments. I pay £7.20 for prescriptions here in the UK but I can get multiple meds in that prescription.

              • Alan F. says:

                I had a 50 mile ambulance run cost me $735.00 last year. My monthly on my own meds is $120.00 and the total monthly for my girls is always another $200.00+. My wife’s father, the year her mother passed away, was over $8,000.00 after his Blue Cross picked up a portion on just ambulance rides alone. His own heart regime was a fiver short of $250.00 every month after another adjustment which I believe was because of his veteran status and age.

                The talk of Canada’s Health Care System by outsiders never seems to include these all too expensive details which is why I pipe up on the issue when I see it. Mind you I’m certainly not bitching about it, just being truthful. I have 14 months of my Canadian life spent in hospitals, I and my parents were not awash in uber debt because of my misfortune and life is still very good.

                On Unihealth Care my take is:

                – Make no mistake, its very expensive.
                – Make no mistake, its a life saver in far more ways than the obvious.
                – Make no mistake, its worth every penny.
                – Make no mistake a paid option for an improved level of service being made available to those who can afford such while maintaining their common coverage would perfect the whole apparatus.

              • Black Flag says:

                Yes, it is very good for you when someone else foots the bill, isn’t it?

                Hurray for all of us to do that too!

                …but that’s the rub, isn’t it.

                We all cannot.

                The system cannot support it.

                So the system has to steal from someone, take their money and spend it on someone else and their family.

                Who cares about that poor slob, right?

                Yes, you’re getting away with stealing. Good for you.

                Your children will hate you for it when they have been driven into abject poverty by your ‘good life’.

              • I’ve paid for it several dozen times over BF. Rough calculations put our business’ contributions at well past $300,000.00 in taxes within the last 3 years alone. Let me use just my E&H payments and I’m easily squared up. I’ve paid back my system in spades and left enough to take care of a dozen others like myself. Assume I’m a deadbeat all you want but I’ve too made a fortune from the February market low with just what I had sitting in currencies. Capital gains will nail me again next year but such is life for us social parasites.

              • Alan:

                It was not an accusation that you are a deadbeat. It is an admonishment that you require govt to steal from one to give to another, yet seem to support the concept of freedom and liberty.

                That is an inconsistent position.

                And good morning to you.
                JAC

    • Amazed1 says:

      What really irks me about the health care problem? We offer health insurance and pay 100% of the employees cost. But because it will mess with families medicade and our kids insurance some of our employees refuse to take it. Whe the costs got so high and we had so many employees we changed the policy for all new hires and asked them to pay $25 per week on their health insurance….every new employee has turned it down….they want it for free or it will mess up other government hand outs they get. Some of these guys are making 16-17 bucks an hour and will not pay $25 for insurance…..makes me sick.

      • Amazed1 – UFB – And what is your cost per employee for insurance?

        If its what I think it may be, can I come work for you?

  17. Decided to check in on Congressman Jason Chaffetz, who sleeps on a cot in his office. Not everyone in D.C. has their head up their behind.

    Obama Administration’s “Cap and Tax” Proposal: Bishop and Chaffetz Opposed to $3.01 Billion Tax Increase on Utahns
    March 26, 2009 4:48 PM

    Washington, DC – Data released today by the House Committee on Ways and Means demonstrates that every state in the Union – and every American – will be hit hard by a new and highly regressive “Cap and Trade” tax.
    The President’s recently-released budget imposes a $3.01 billion tax on Utahns. On a per capita basis, each Utahn will be hit with $1,115.47 in new taxes on their electricity bill alone. Families will be hit even harder. The data show this new tax will increase the average Utah family’s (3.08 people/household) annual electricity bill by $3,435.65 or by nearly $290 per month. While other energy costs are low as a result of the recession, all energy costs will increase as the Administration increases the velocity of its frontal assault on American energy security.

    http://chaffetz.house.gov/2009/03/obama-administrations-cap-and-tax-proposal-bishop-and-chaffetz-opposed-to-301-billion-t

    • Alan F. says:

      LOI this kids been impressive since day 1. His using the American Postal Service to do the census in place of ACORN is genius. It’s financially thrifty, uses people neighborhoods are already familiar with and adds a little intervention removing the temptation for ACORN to commit more crimes. How can anyone disagree is beyond me.

  18. On every occasion that I get to stop by and leave a few words I have never failed to compliment US Weapon and those of you who make up this site’s audience. In fact, many times I’ve been every bit as interested in the comments as the feature articles one espouses about. That was until today.

    Although I did see one or two comments of merit, nonetheless, the majority of them should be waiting in line for induction to the Hall of Shame. I will ask every one of you who have commented here today and yesterday to make one simple comparison – and as difficult as it may be – be honest!

    Before anyone sticks their foot straight into their mouths, please read the following; reflect a bit on it, critically think about it, and try and muster up some kind of reality rather than bashing up some one you don’t know and probably will never know.

    “The abuses being perpetrated by our government are just as obvious now as they were then (1776 – Colonial Era), but instead of rising up with a collective voice, we sit idly by and watch as our hard-won freedoms slowly dissolve into a puddle of apathy, political correctness, and outright corruption.

    We feel helpless and alone as we hear confusing debates over obscure issues play out on the airwaves daily. But that’s the lie. The infighting and the purposeful division promoted by our political parties is a simple ploy to keep us from uniting. After all, a citizenry that fights among itself over petty differences is too busy to notice the real cause of it problems.”

    What do you think? Ring true?

    jon-paul

    • Black Flag says:

      Is that not my mantra, Jon-Paul?

    • Actually I disagree with the underlying premise of “The abuses being perpetrated by our government are just as obvious now as they were then (1776 – Colonial Era),”

      Part of the dilemna is that they are not as obvious to as many people as they were then. Yes a minority helped start the Revolution. But most citizens were aware. Just not all were willing to split up the family. We now have over 100 years of culturization that has deadened the senses of most. That is a key difference between then and now, and it affects the rest of your statment:

      ” but instead of rising up with a collective voice, we sit idly by and watch as our hard-won freedoms slowly dissolve into a puddle of apathy, political correctness, and outright corruption.”

      Namely, until there is collective understanding of the abuses there will not be a collective voice. Once that understanding is gained, all the petty discussions in the world will not provide a large enough distraction.

      Nice to see you stop in again. You should make an effort to do it more often
      JAC

      • Just A Citizen: Loved your reply; however, I think that there is a lot of postulating rather than critical thinking going on. As I wrote the comment out I had two basic premises that are clearly seen and supported by the preceding comments and replies of others.

        The two basic premises are in the notions of who, if anyone here, actually knows Sarah Palin? This was the opening of my comment regarding bashing up someone who we will never meet or know…As for me, it is simply a waste of precious time and good form to go about attacking someone who doesn’t deserve it. Whilst I grant you that each is entitled to their own opinions – the second premise of the writing supports the first claim.

        I can’t nor would I ever speak for anyone here, but I believe this nation of ours is in bad shape. Anytime we have a government that is more interested in acquisitions and ostensibly hostile takeovers of America’s publically owned companies – moreover, at the expense of the citizenry there is a huge problem. One need only look as far as a trillion here a trillion there rubbish. Have you every bought stock in anything and not received something that supported that ownership such as stock certificates, confirmation advises, and the like?

        And finally as long as there is stipulation by special interest groups, (La Raza, Muslims, and ACLU) then what has been lost is not ‘collective’ as much as it is identity. When an individual has lost who or what they are, they indeed have lost that voice which joins in with the collective.

    • Black Flag says:

      A solution which merely replaces one evil with another – no matter who “homegrown” – merely ensures evil.

      A real solution to evil is not more of it.

    • Jon-Paul;

      I am not going to criticize or attack, but I am going to ask that you paticipate verses exercising your ‘drive-by’ opinion. I myself am only a rookie compared to some of those who have been writing in this site for some time, however this is the first time I have seen your written word.

      Over the course of the last several years the American population has become somewhat lethargic, and to a great degree empathetic about the actions and efforts of government. It started around FDR and has progressively gotten worse due to an entitlement mentality.

      It is the nature of the human being. It is sad, but a lot of it has been influenced by various entities dedicated to manipulation and control.

      You can fault the average citizen as a whole, but it is also a calculated plan developed, and ever evolving by a progressive influence; an entitiy bent on power and control dedicated to self promotion.

      While we on this site do tout our issues and opinons, we also strive to seek improvement and solutions. We invite all those who think and question, but we also ask of all to contribute, not just opine.

      You seem to have a grasp of the written word, and are intelligent. I invite you to read more on a regular basis, review as you suggest and post thoughtful ideas and suggestions

      CM

      • Common Man:

        Thank you for your lovely words – in the salutation that is – however, as for the rest of your reply what are you doing other than what you stated you wouldn’t do?

        Example: “I am not going to criticize or attack, but I am going to ask that you participate verses exercising your ‘drive-by’ opinion.” Furthermore comments such as this one are not gaining any confidence or newly found friends: “… writing in this site for some time, however this is the first time I have seen your written word.”

        Again, what’s with the: “You can fault the average citizen as a whole…” who is faulting anything or anyone? And finally, “… but we also ask of all to contribute, not just opine…” seriously, it is this kind of rhetoric that is condescending, disrespectful, and I’m sure just encourages people to spill their guts out here.

        If you are NOT criticizing or attacking then what is it exactly that you’re doing?

    • Alan F. says:

      How could that even be when mere literacy was an issue? Today you are the politician’s worst nightmare. You are exchanging ideas faster than they can misdirect, period. You have access to data, read/researched/refined large data sets and are deliberating the same weeks before your own representatives have even gotten past the cover page. A mere 20 years ago this level of misdirection would have gone for the most part unnoticed and the president wouldn’t have needed to screen a question asked by John Q Public. You guys are getting better at being informed and that’s the current turmoil and level of friction.

      I know for a fact here in Canada, the exchange on blogs and boards has all parties hiring readers galore as they have actually admitted it on the idiot box. The don’t want to be “left behind”.

  19. First Jon-Paul said:

    “Although I did see one or two comments of merit, nonetheless, the majority of them should be waiting in line for induction to the Hall of Shame.”

    Then Jon-Paul said:

    “muster up some kind of reality rather than bashing up some one you don’t know and probably will never know.”

    Touche

    However, to reply to your information in quotes. I agree with that assessment. Many on this site, myself included, are perhaps a little late in realizing what this whole politics game is and now many of us are “stuck” in that position of what do we do?

    BF suggests we do nothing and remove government from our lives as much as possible. I truly admire his living his advice. For most of us, that doesn’t seem like an option and we are more of the “how do we fix (eliminate) this mess”?

    The action part is where I struggle, I’m not a politician and have no desire to be one. I write, call, show up and share information with many. MadMom has motivated me to step outside my comfort zone and do more.

    I appreciate your chiming in and would ask that you do so more often, but I need to ask, what are your answers?

    • Black Flag says:

      “Tend your own garden” – from Voltaire’s Candide.

      Working to change government will only make it stronger and more evil.

      If you wish to do good in the world and do good for other people, simply take good care of what you do.

      • And what I do is attack windmills that have offended my sense of freedom and liberty.

      • BF

        You seem to have adopted John Wooden’s mindset. Don’t try to be better than someone else, just be the best you can be and work each day to improve and strive for perfection.

        A grand and righteous philosophy, but one in reality leads; and leads by example. Should we deem you a leader of the movement?

        CM

    • Okay for Kathy:

      Answers to your questions and mine: On your first question I agree that many are relatively new to the wonderful world of politics in America; albeit, I can see that the ‘Tea Parties’ are productive means to show political activism and getting involved.

      Furthermore, we the people are fighting a great deal more than ‘misinformation campaigns’ and a runaway spending government. We have (as USWeapon has identified) a very irresponsible media in our country. And again I believe that being in touch with the issues (not so much on the micro scale; rather, on the macro scale) and standing steadfast for what is right rather than to pale, shrink, and go off like the masses or in ‘herd fashion’ as Kierkegaard espouses.

      Therefore in answering your first question – I suggest being as well informed as possible. There are many blogs here at WordPress alone that are above are above a biased press and media. That’s a great way to start. At times I get overwhelmed when I read from the likes of Fox News contributors, talk show hosts, political pundits, all just by clicking my finger.

      Pursuant to your second statement vis-a-vie BF; one, I don’t know him well enough to know when he’s joking or being serious; therefore, to mention anything would be rude and condescending to him and quite openly, I respect him far too much to do any such thing. However, nothing ever got fixed by ignoring it, right?

      In my humblest opinion the best example I can think of in recent history (last decade) was how the citizenry rose up on the Immigration Comprehensive Reform Bill of summer two years back. Personally, illegal immigration – immigration as a whole – in this country is beyond a mess! It is a mess with laxatives! No one seems to know anything and furthermore, the politically correct far left is doing everything in it’s power to somehow justify or validate the existence of ‘undocumented persons’ in our country. Hell call it what it is at the very least – criminal activity aided and abetted by the U.S. Government who simply refuses to do anything to correct it.

      Hope this helps and I will definitely stop by more often (I do almost daily) and leave some comments. Cheers!

  20. Black Flag says:

    Murphy’s Law

    BF, You said: “Making a law that makes it illegal to work will be applied to you and you will not be able to work without a license from government.” A license from government? How about citizenship?

    Nope.

    As soon as you agree that it is ok to make it illegal to work – you have agreed to contradict freedom.

    Thus, there is no freedom that you hold that will not be under attack, including you feeding your family by doing work.

    Mark my words, friend.

    The moment you support doing harm to non-violent people, you will suffer the same upon you in spades.

    Or at least coming here legally? Legal immigrants are the innocent ones, not the illegal immigrants.

    Both are innocent.

    Evil manifests the moment you fail to see that.

    • Murphy's Law says:

      BF, it’s clear that you and I will not agree on this. You seem to believe that as long as a person does not do violence, he/she is innocent. I’m fairly new to this blog, only the last couple of days, so I don’t know you very well yet. Do you not recognize the right of a government to make immigration laws and enforce them? I’m asking this honestly, not as a dig at you. You seem to define the enforcement of immigration laws as being harmful to innocent people. But you do not recognize that the illegal immigrant who pays no taxes yet uses our programs to educate, feed, clothe, and care for the medical expenses of his family is harmful to those here legally? Is theft not harmful? Or is it only harmful if you are injured by the thief in the process of being robbed?

      What’s your answer on the income tax check box I suggested? You willing to check that box?

    • Birdman says:

      Black Flag:

      This is off topic. I know you are successful as a consultant and wanted to know if you would be willing to take on an apprentice. I am seeking work and I am ready for a career change. I would be willing to learn your trade/profession. I’ve worked 25 years in Human Resources and Labor Relations and I am ready for something new.

    • BF, let me turn that around. You are espousing freedom as the right to do what ever you want as long as it is non violent…I think that is what you are saying. You also seem to espouse that any country that has the freedom to make their own laws contradicts their freedom by making laws concerning immigrants entering this country illegally. You seem to espouse the theory that the United States is wrong in passing laws within its borders and, therefore, manifests evil (your words), by enforcing laws that deprive “innocent” people, not from our country, from earning a living and circumventing our system, therefore, depriving our own citizens. You seem to espouse that any law that is passed to protect its own citizens is wrong if it infringes on non citizens.

      Were the 60’s good for you? I think your pipe is still there. Sorry, I like you but cannot agree with your reasoning at all.

      Go USA..

      D13

      • Murphy's Law says:

        Well said, as usual, D13, and I couldn’t agree with you more.

        Murf

      • But you (we) still need to address the basic question BF is raising.

        How do we contain the evil of govt?

        If we can not contain it, then we must abolish it or we will have evil.

        Immigration, illegal or otherwise is only the example used late in the day. Any of the other discussions will work equally well.

        Once you give govt the authority to use force for one purpose it will be able to use that authority to use force against you in a related purpose.

        JAC

      • D13: This is another concept that is missed in this discussion all to often.

        While I personally have a problem with others coming here to work and use free or subsidized services then send our money to their relatives somewhere else, there is a fundamental flaw in our argument.

        We forget that in a VDLG world there wouldn’t be any such programs for them to use. So if everyone had equal standing with regard to access and cost of private sector benefits, would there still be such a concern for illegal immigration?

        I don’t think the “they are taking our jobs” argument holds for 90% plus of the situations. This is due to my own observations regarding Americans willingness to do meaneal labor, or to show up and give a full days work for a full days wage. We have our own erosion of work ethic and ethics in general to blame for some of this, in my humble opinion.

        This is kind of like my argument that if we take away the polytickshuns power then we don’t need to worry about who they are or what they think/say. They can practice their tickness on each other.

        Best Wishes this evening.
        Hope the heat is at least tolerable.
        JAC

        • Amazed1 says:

          Well JAC for a long time I agreed with you….I didn’t think they were taking jobs either….but now I have to differ. The illegals will come to our place looking for work. We make everyone fill out the line for what they want to make per hour….two men both unquilified and the non-national will take at least $1 per hour less than the going rate. Skilled labor….I have seen in the construction business where 5 years ago they were all non hispanic crews now they wil be mostly hispanic crews who can not speak two words of english and they work for about $3 per hour less.
          So yes at this point they are taking some jobs. The fact that they do not speak english has really caused some serious problems on some of our job sites…..I guess we are going to have to require that all subs have 100% english speaking crews so they understand when you tell them something is not code and can not be done in certain ways.
          Yes I understand about freedom and law ect. I understand they just want to work and make a living…but why should my neighbor starve, or lose his house because he was laying brick for $10 an hour but now unless he takes $7 all the jobs are full. There comes a time when you have to protect your own. Or we could let all the illegals set the pay scales and all of us lose our homes and cars and go to the government for healthcare.
          It seems to be an unending circle that gets worse the faster we go around.

          • Amazed:

            The assumption here is that if all things, and I mean all, are equal then there is less advantage for the alien to take less. There would in fact be a greater chance the native could take less and still feed his family. Because his costs would be less and the economy wouldn’t be on its backside.

            Remember, my comment requires that reforms are in place.

            I have seen the changes in construction but I can tell you it had more to do with employee problems than lower wages. As one contractor said, the natives come to work hung over, high and bitching about everything. The aliens come to work with a lunch box.

            If all things are equal, in terms of govt interference–namely none, then I have no problem with an employer picking someone who will take less. It is his problem if the guy can’t do the work as well or screws up on quality control. He could also pick the guy who wants more if he so chooses, for whatever reason he has.

            I also don’t have a problem with you requiring English speaking Subs to make sure your contract obligations are met. That would be a reasonable expectation of any rational businessman.

            Now, I do recognize we are CURRENTLY in a pickle. Because of Govt the economy is in the tank, folks are looking for work and we have aliens here taking jobs for less. That makes it hard to talk about principles of freedom and liberty in the context of an ideal or near ideal when the OOMPAH is hitting the fan. Sudden increases in unemployed semi and skilled labor then add a migratory work force with the same skill sets and you get anger, racism, etc. No different than what the Oakies went through who migrated to California and Oregon after the Dust Bowl. They were not treated kindly as they would undercut wages of local folks who also needed work.

            That is why I think we need to focus our ideal discussion on over all growth rates in population and how would, or even should, a truly free country control immigration. I think most arguments against are rooted in life style issues rather than true economics.

            In the short term the answer is to fix the economic situation. But that isn’t going to happen. So buckle up, there is worse coming. Especially in the housing sector.

            Perhaps downturns like this will help re-instate a work ethic in the natives. If that happens the aliens will no longer have an advantage as most employers would hire a very hard working native for a little more money.

            Rambling a little, sorry. I hope in the coming days we can discuss this issue from the perspective of a desired situation not the current situation. We need to focus on the long term goals and not let our discussions become distracted by the here and now, which is a distortion created by govt .

            This is the hardest part as evidenced by how everyone still uses current experience to defend or attack each issue. The task at hand is to create something new. That requires thinking of new concepts and figuring out how to make them work. We can’t use our experience based on a bad system to predict the outcomes of a good system. We can use them to help in the analysis but we can’t just assume the same outcomes will play out.

            And of course, we must be consistant with our core values. Because once we give any power over to govt we now have proof govt will use it against all of us eventually.

            I have rambled enough on this tonight. Perhaps we will get a chance to go farther tomorrow or friday. I have a long drive tomorrow so won’t be on as much.

            Take Care and Until Then
            Best Wishes
            JAC

            • Amazed1 says:

              JAC…”As one contractor said, the natives come to work hung over, high and bitching about everything. The aliens come to work with a lunch box.”
              I have to agree with this…..most are extremely hard workers.
              I understand the precept….it is just hard to watch. QC is our main issue with all employees and their work.
              Seems lots of people have put QC on the back burner. $$$ first then they might talk QC….but do not follow through.

    • “As soon as you agree that it is ok to make it illegal to work – you have agreed to contradict freedom.”

      lets put in mathematic terms – a minus minus make it a positive.

      two negatives make a positive..

      well a half an hour ago that made sense..

    • I understand the reasons for your stance but I would like you to address the interim reality.

      In today’s current situation how could a nation of free people with economic status greater than most survive the influx of people if its borders were opened?

      It seems to me that the growth rate in people could be nearly catastophic.

      Thoughts?
      JAC

  21. Judy S. says:

    Totally off topic here, but I wanted to share this. Talk about death by chocolate. Here’s the story.

    A 22-year old factory worker dies Wednesday after he fell into a vat of boiling chocolate at a manufacturing plant in New Jersey, police said. The unidentified man, who worked at the Camden facility, had been in the melting pot for about 10 minutes by the time crews arrived. By the time he was pulled out of the tank just after 11 a.m. he was already dead. The plant is owned by Lyons and Sons. The cause of death was not immediately known. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration was called in to investigate. I’m sorry, but doesn’t falling in a vat of boiling chocolate for 10 minutes qualify as the cause of death? Poor guy, but what a way to go. Every chocoholic’s dream. Falling into a vat of chocolate, but not dying.

    • Yummm.. Can you say drugs. Bet family sues for a zillion. Wouldn’t be surprised that their primary customer is Hersey ! (or that Hersey owns them) Bet they pay minimum wage.

  22. Judy S. says:

    I have to chime in here about the illegals and legals. Why should they be allowed to come here without doing it the legal way? If they want to come here, work, live, or whatever, do it the way everybody else has too the legal way. Why should they be given a free pass here and get all the goodies, when everybody else has to work for it. Why should we have to work our butts off in order to support them, like with free medical care. Do they not get the jobs above everybody else who might apply for them. And don’t tell me that nobody else will take them, give them a chance. Everywhere I go, whether it’s shopping, out to dinner, or just out, they’re there, and they can’t speak English either, if they do, it’s not very good. If they’re going to come into this country, I don’t care who or where, learn to speak our language. When you go to another country, do you not have to learn their language? Of course you do. Okay, here is a story that is 100% true, and it has to do with my cousin and her husband. They moved to Mexico about 8 years ago. They own a business, but they could not work in it, they have to live there 5 years before they could even get their citizenship, she is a manicurists, but couldn’t work in their shops, she did it on the side where Americans live at. So, what’s wrong with this picture? They can come here, work, open a business, not pay taxes, get free medical services, and whatever else. Doesn’t seem fair to me at all. I’m sick of these people coming here and expecting freebies. I’m not just talking about the Mexicans either. I’m also talking about anybody who comes here from any country. When our parents and grandparents came here, they had to do it the legal way, why can’t they? When my husbands father came here from Italy,they had to go to Nellis Island first, same as my mother’s parents who came from Poland. What makes them so special I ask? I’m tired of it, and it needs to stop. I say close the borders or at least put more patrol on them.

    • Sorry Judy – its Ellis Island and if you’re a pollack – what do you expect?

      I betcha when and if I go to Poland, they’ll speak better English than the folks to which you’re referring.

      BTW – my 1st line is supposed to be humorous !

      BTW2 – please break up your posts with new paragraphs (2 enters)

      • Judy S' Son says:

        Frank,

        The difference is: Americans or other English speaking individuals do not illegally enter Poland, invade their economy, milk their government’s metaphorical teat and attempt to subsist off their citizens’ hard work, all the while complaining that they can not get around well enough in society because Poland isn’t conforming to their demands and posting everything in English as well as Polish.

        However, I would be willing to bet that persons born in Poland to foreign parents are not automatically granted Polish citizenship. Furthermore, I would be willing to bet that if one wishes to be naturalized and take a Polish citizenship test, one must do so in Polish.

        • S’ Son

          I agree whole heartedly ! good analogy. Everyone should read.

          But my comment was to the issue (somewhat tongue in cheek) that when we (USA) go to another country – THEY know English, which is another whole theoretical and value system topic.

          But back to the US and Mexican immigrants whose children raise the mexican flag over the US flag, don’t even try to assimilate, learn English, etc etc

          What about the majority of Americans, whose forefathers did NOT speak English, but knew that to be one, it’s important to know the primary language.

      • Judy S' Son says:

        Hi Frank, Yea, I know it was suppose to be a joke, just a slip of the fingers, that’s all. No problem.

        • Judy S' Son says:

          Oh, and about breaking up my paragraphs, sorry, I get on a roll, and really don’t think about it. I promise, I’ll try and do better, but don’t expect miracles, okay.

  23. Black Flag says:

    A multitude of replies…

    Common Man

    A grand and righteous philosophy, but one in reality leads; and leads by example. Should we deem you a leader of the movement?

    Geronimo, seeing the US government killing his people, simply picked up a rifle and went to fight the US government.

    He ordered no war, no warriors – no one – to follow him.

    He couldn’t make such an order, since he held no power to do so. Even if he had the power, he probably wouldn’t have ordered anyone do to so, anyway.

    He just went, by himself.

    He simply did what he thought he needed to do.

    The Apache followed him.

    Murphy’s Law

    BF, it’s clear that you and I will not agree on this.

    Agreement, not necessary.

    Thinking and fully understanding your position – necessary.

    You seem to believe that as long as a person does not do violence, he/she is innocent.

    No, just not guilty of a crime worthy of being attacked with violence.

    Violence begets violence. But those that do not use violence, by what right do you claim you can use violence against them?

    I’m fairly new to this blog, only the last couple of days, so I don’t know you very well yet.

    I am one of the heavier antagonists on the blog.

    I tend to ask a lot of questions, along the lines of Socrates Drilling – continue to ask questions until no question can be asked.

    Do you not recognize the right of a government to make immigration laws and enforce them?

    No.

    I do not recognize anyone’s right to inflict violence on non-violent people. Period.

    I’m asking this honestly, not as a dig at you. You seem to define the enforcement of immigration laws as being harmful to innocent people.

    Yes.

    If you agree that there is a reason to inflict violence on non-violent people, any reason will be used to inflict violence on non-violent people.

    In the end, you will be attacked, too.

    But you do not recognize that the illegal immigrant who pays no taxes yet uses our programs to educate, feed, clothe, and care for the medical expenses of his family is harmful to those here legally?

    It is not the fault of people earning a peaceful living.

    It is the fault of those that chose to steal from you, called taxes, and to use your funds in a way you do not agree.

    Argue against those that take your money by theft, not the man who works to feed his family by working.

    Is theft not harmful?

    Sure is. Then fight the taxman. He is the one who is taking your money.

    What’s your answer on the income tax check box I suggested? You willing to check that box?

    I have no box to check.

    Birdman

    This is off topic. I know you are successful as a consultant and wanted to know if you would be willing to take on an apprentice. I am seeking work and I am ready for a career change. I would be willing to learn your trade/profession. I’ve worked 25 years in Human Resources and Labor Relations and I am ready for something new.

    I can help prepare you establish a independent career in any area you have a calling.

    I cannot give you your calling.

    D13

    You are espousing freedom as the right to do what ever you want as long as it is non violent

    More specifically….

    You can do what ever you want as long as you do not impose upon another.

    A man alone on island is free because no one imposes upon him.

    It doesn’t mean he gets to be happy. It doesn’t mean he gets everything he wants. It doesn’t mean it won’t rain on his parade, nor does it mean he won’t be burned by the sun.

    It only means, there is no one imposing their will upon him.

    You do not impose upon me, and I do not impose upon you – we are both free.

    You also seem to espouse that any country that has the freedom to make their own laws contradicts their freedom by making laws concerning immigrants entering this country illegally.

    Freedom does not grant anyone the right to impose upon another’s freedom.

    You seem to espouse the theory that the United States is wrong in passing laws within its borders and, therefore, manifests evil (your words), by enforcing laws that deprive “innocent” people, not from our country, from earning a living and circumventing our system, therefore, depriving our own citizens.

    The most important understanding of what it means when you say “We need a law….”

    It means you will be using violence or supporting the use of violence on another human being.

    “Law” is an edict enforced by violence.

    There are very, very few allowances that allow you to use violence.

    They are 1) in defense against violence 2) mitigate an initiation of violence 3) act against a Clear and Present Danger.

    Any “Law” that contradicts the above – that is, initiates violence upon non-violent people so to enforce an ‘edict’ is immoral and evil.

    You seem to espouse that any law that is passed to protect its own citizens is wrong if it infringes on non citizens.

    No, any law that is passed that allows either the public or the government to attack non-violent people so to enforce a mere edict is wrong – whether that edict is applied against citizens or non-citizens alike.

    Were the 60’s good for you? I think your pipe is still there. Sorry, I like you but cannot agree with your reasoning at all.

    The 60’s was good enough. I survived.

    I believe if you actually understand your own reasoning, you will find yourself agreeing with the slaughter of non-violent people.

    I do not believe you will like the position that you find yourself – defending the killing of innocent people.

    You are, however, doomed to do so while holding the beliefs you do.

    I do not judge you. I condemn the contradiction that your belief forces you to hold.

    FrankC

    “As soon as you agree that it is ok to make it illegal to work – you have agreed to contradict freedom.”

    lets put in mathematic terms – a minus minus make it a positive.

    two negatives make a positive..

    well a half an hour ago that made sense..

    And a half an hour longer, you’ll find that if you use the wrong math, you get the wrong answer.

    10-7 is not the same as 7-10.

    It is a common mistake to assume that it does, when using words to describe a situation instead of math symbols.

    Just A Citizen

    I understand the reasons for your stance but I would like you to address the interim reality.

    In today’s current situation how could a nation of free people with economic status greater than most survive the influx of people if its borders were opened?

    It seems to me that the growth rate in people could be nearly catastophic.

    Who says it would be catastrophic?

    I would suggest that almost everyone here is because of an immigrant family.

    The greatest explosion of wealth in this country was due to the explosion of immigration – the USA was built on immigrants.

    To suddenly reverse such an attitude is a contradiction to the powerful example of history.

    A nation, beholden to freedom, can do nothing but gain enormous prosperity from the influx of people in search of a betterment to their lives.

    These are people who are willing to rip a generation of roots – leaving what they know for merely a promise – for a mere and barely visible hope that they can do better here then there, and to do what ever they need to do, no matter how demeaning and base that may mean.

    We should open our arms wide and welcome such a spirit.

    • Black Flag says:

      My Grandfather was an aristocrat in Russia – and saved only two of his younger brothers, himself and his wife – losing all of the rest of his family – all of them; brothers, sisters, parents, cousins, uncles and aunts, grandparents and all his in-laws … all of them… to death at the hand of the Soviets.

      A ‘prince’, who worked with his hands as a coal miner. And raised a family.

      Another grandfather who was a school teacher who became a pioneer and a farmer. Whose original pioneer land is still owned by his great-great-great-great grandchildren.

      Immigrants are the nation.

      To attack them today under some guise of moral righteousness is appalling.

      • BF, this showed up earlier today on Karl Denninger’s Market Ticker

        I understand that the premise described below is technically feasible (please correct me if that’s wrong)
        I’m curious on your thoughts on this … please & thank you c

        Something really ugly popped up on Daily Kos yesterday late in the afternoon…..

        http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/7/7/750786/-Incredibly-Shrinking-Liquidity-as-Goldman-Flushed-Quant-Trading

        …GS, through access to the system as a result of their special gov’t perks, was/is able to read the data on trades before it’s committed, and place their own buys or sells accordingly in that brief moment, thus allowing them to essentially steal buttloads of money every day from the rest of the punters world.

        Two things come out of this:

        1. If true, this should be highly illegal, and would, in any sane country result in something like what happened to Arthur Andersen…

        (2. … is way off point….)

        God help Goldman if this is true and the government goes after them. This would constitute massive unlawful activity. Indeed, the allegation is that Goldman alone was given this access!

        God help our capital markets if this is true and is ignored by our government and regulatory agencies, or generates nothing more than a “handslap.” Nobody in their right mind would ever trade on our markets again if this occurred and does not result in severe criminal and civil penalties.

        There apparently is reason to believe that Sergey might have been involved in exactly this sort of coding implementation. Specifically, look at the patent claims cited on DailyKos; his expertise was in fact in this general area of knowledge in the telecommunications world……

        This is precisely the sort of thing that a Unix machine, sitting on a network cable where it can “see” traffic potentially not intended for it, could have an interface put into what is called “promiscuous mode” and SILENTLY sniff that traffic!

        ASSUMING THE TRAFFIC IS PASSING BY THE MACHINE ON THE WIRE THIS IS TRIVIALLY EASY FOR ANY NETWORK PROGRAMMER OF REASONABLE SKILL TO DO. IF THAT TRAFFIC IS EITHER UNENCRYPTED OR IT IS EASY TO BREAK THE ENCRYPTION…..

        Folks, I have no way to know what the code in question does, but if there’s anything to this – anything at all – there is a major, as in biggest scam of the century – scandal here – something much, much bigger than Madoff or Stanford.

        What would this mean, if it was all to prove up?

        It would mean that Goldman was able to “see” transaction order flow – bid, offer, and execute messages – before they were committed in the transaction stream. Such a “SNIFF” would be COMPLETELY UNDETECTABLE by the sender or recipient of the message.

        The implication of this would be that they would be able to front-run any transaction where the data was visible to them, thereby effectively “stealing pennies” from each transaction they were able to front-run.

        Again: I have absolutely nothing on the content of the allegedly-stolen code nor can I validate the claim made that Goldman had “special network access.” Nothing. All I have to go on with regards to “market manipulation” (which such a program would be, writ large!) is the statement of the US Attorney that I cited in my earlier Ticker.

        This may be nothing more than a crazy conspiracy theory put out by someone at Daily Kos. But consider the following:

        The last few days the the market has traded “organically.” I and many other market participants have noted that prior to the week before July 4th the market had been acting “very odd” – normal correlations between interest rate, foreign exchange the the stock markets had been on “tilt” for the previous couple of months, with the amount of “tiltage” increasing dramatically in the last three or four weeks. In fact, many of my usual indicators that I use for daytrading had become completely useless. Suddenly, just before the July 4the weekend, everything started correlating normally again. I have no explanation for this “light-switch” change but it aligned almost exactly with the day the NYSE had “computer problems” and extended trading by 15 minutes. Was there a configuration change made to their networking infrastructure, one asks?

        Zerohedge’s information, if you believe it, seems to point toward some sort of distortion. The cite above claims statistically “as likely as an asteroid hitting earth it is not true” proof of distortion in the market. I have not analyzed the data to independently validate that conclusion, but even if the odds of these “effects” in the market being random chance are only as good as getting hit by a tornado this afternoon……

        Every market participant deserves answers on this point. Specifically to the NYSE and all other markets where colocation connections are made and allowed:

        1.
        Was it possible for message traffic to be “seen” by computers on your network and colocated into your infrastructure by other than the originator and recipient? That is, was it physically possible for anyone to “sniff” messages to and from other market participants.
        2.
        If it was possible, is it no longer possible, and if so, when was that change made?

        I believe the SEC and FBI must direct a subpoena at all market exchanges for an under-oath answer to question #1. If the answer to that question is “yes” then every market participant who had or has equipment colocated on the NYSE infrastructure must be immediately served with a subpoena for a true and complete copy of all software operating on every machine connected to said infrastructure for immediate forensic investigation to ascertain if any participants were indeed “sniffing” traffic and front-running orders.

        The charge made on the pages of Daily Kos is incredibly serious. If this happened it is a case of literal robbery of every market participant for the entire duration of the time that the code in question was executing on the network, with losses to market participants potentially running into the hundreds of billions of dollars.

        Market participants deserve an answer to these questions.

        • Black Flag says:

          I’ll read it and respond tomorrow.

          If it is true, it would probably be the beginning of the end of the faith in the regulated market place.

          • TexasChem says:

            Go back to “stop this legislative madness topic.”Not finished with you yet. =)

          • Thanks, BF. Take your time, I’m guessing that you will have a few responses for other topics. I’ll be out for the next few hours, but I am looking forward to your response. c

    • The catastrophe comes in the timing. I believe the disparity between the opportunities in the USA and central america is much greater today. I know people working down there and they honestly believe that if we threw the door open the numbers migrating north could be well over 50 million in a few months and over 100 million within a year.

      That is the current day reality I am asking about. Mass migration larger than any humanitarian crisis caused by flight from war in Africa or anywhere else in recent times.

      I would also like to get your thoughts on how total population growth fits in the picture. There is a huge lifestyle issue regarding space available. Is there a point where the shear number of people becomes to much?

      You have also not addressed the fact that our current population is much greater than when most of our relatives came to this country. This kind of goes to the previous population question.

      How fast can a population grow without causing adverse strains on its economy both in short and long term? I understand that the long term historical averages are around 2.5 to 3% (USA). Not sure if this is true, just what I read somewhere.

      Perhaps an article on this subject is required to fully explore. I think it deserves serious evaluation as it is one very big issue with regards to foundation validation (did you like that mouthful?).

      JAC

    • Birdman says:

      Black Flag:

      I would be interested in any help that you could provide in establishing an independent career. How would we communicate with each other? Is there a way that I could privately obtain your e-mail address?

    • BF….wow. You are indeed a Trekkie. However, your insight is somewhat amazing and waaaay far out there and does not deal with reality at all but….ok…you have that right and I will protect it, whether you want me to or not.

      They are 1) in defense against violence 2) mitigate an initiation of violence 3) act against a Clear and Present Danger.

      Any “Law” that contradicts the above – that is, initiates violence upon non-violent people so to enforce an ‘edict’ is immoral and evil.

      well, if I choose to squat on your property, then any violence you use to throw me off contradicts you as it does not fit any of your edicts….for I would squat non violently and really need a place to live. Because, a law against trespassing would be the same as establishing a law against illegal entry into the United States. Using that logic, if I decide to pitch a tent and work down the street for substandard wages, then you would not call the police (that would be initiating a violent action, then the police would carry out that violent action). Interesting.

      Anyway, if anything, you are entertaining. Oh, by the way, I do not believe that anywhere in my post did I say anything about “killing” innocent people at all. Unless you wish to stretch it to mean that law enforcement could mean killing in the end. If that is the case, then I can pitch my tent and you can’t do anything about it.

      D13

      • Oh, BF, curious about one thing….your item number 2) mitigate an initiation of violence….could this be interpreted as a pre-emptive military strike if one believes that it is to…ummm….mitigate and initiation of violence?

        So, the publicly stated objective of Iran is to eliminate Israel off the face of the earth, one could perceive that this is an initiation of violence, so, #2 would be appropriate?

        D13

        • Black Flag says:

          No.

          Initiation of violence is clear.

          It is the actual start of violence – the first punch, if you will.

          Preemptive strike: – that is measured by the Clear and Present Danger.

          But this is an incredibly tough standard to meet.

          Clear – not vague, not cloudy, not suspect, not ‘a maybe’

          Present – now, not in the past, not in the future, not merely possible

          Danger – to us, not others.

          • Black Flag says:

            And PS: Iran has said no such thing. Don’t fall prey to MSM misinformation.

      • Black Flag says:

        When you speak of “reality”, all you are doing is claiming that ‘pragmatism’ is more important to you then moral and principled behavior.

        In other words, you are willing to be a savage, if savagery gets you success.

        What amazes me, is then you are stunned when other people become savages toward you. You demand that THEY act morally and principled in their actions toward you!

        As always, there is a contradiction between your belief and your proposed action. It is there that all human-created evil exists.

        As far as my property – a man as a physical being requires space to live, exclusive from everyone else, from which he takes the resources he needs to live. This is where the right to property derives.

        Your squatting directly threatens my ability to live. Hence, I have a right to remove you. The extent of my actions MUST BE MEASURED however to the level your threat.

        First, I ask you to leave. I do not shoot you first. Why? You are not a direct violent threat.

        If you refuse, I will physical assist you in moving. I do not still yet shoot you. Why? You are still not a direct violent threat, however, you are a savage (by not respecting my right), so I will help you leave, since you are not understand, nor are knowledgeable nor are clear about civilized behavior.

        If you resist with violence, I will shoot you.

  24. Ray Hawkins says:

    Would simply like to add this evening that I relish the next steps in determining whether the CIA did intentionally mislead Congress. As you all recall this was the diversionary tactic used by the Republicans to divert attention away from the Bush Administration criminals who sought to legalize torture. By supposedly pointing to Rep Pelosi being briefed by CIA they could ostensibly show that since she did not counter that position she was briefed on at the time, then she must have approved the enhanced-interrogation-techniques. That whole premise is coming closer to being classified as complete and utter bullshit. Cannot wait to see where this goes.

    • That all depends on your definition of torture…I believe I can see what yours is.

      • Ray Hawkins says:

        How one defines torture is part of the debate – I am not sure the opinion of Ray Hawkins matters in where this goes. You’d have to agree that a consensus is building that at least waterboarding passes the torture litmus test.

        • I don’t “have to agree” that waterboarding passes the litmus test. In fact I do not agree that it does. Call me heartless, but if it saves American lives IMO it is warranted.

          • Ray Hawkins says:

            Would be curious where you draw the line then – a dangerous chasm to cross.

            • Not really, Ray. There is a very definite line out there. I will be the first to say that I do not like it but there are lines out there (see below). However, given prisoners Perrier water, pretty jump suits, movies, and amenities while in captivity does not win hearts and minds. It is sad, but there are times when other methods are needed.

            • From a personal point of view, I do not draw a line. Understand that is my opinion, and I realize it is not mainstream…as I said before…call me heartless, but any prisoners that the current opposition has taken has received much harsher treatment.

        • I would agree that a “consensus” is building but it will never be reached.

          I don’t think it matters what any of us think is torture in the end. What matters is the “legal” definitions provided in the treaties and laws.

          As you recall, when we covered this topic from the Treaty stand point there was not a hard and fast definition that could be used. The Treaty was written by lawyers and leaves an escape, as most such laws do. Thus more lawyers are needed to provide their view of what was meant. And around and around it goes.

          It is for that reason that I get just a little upset with rhetoric accussing the Bushies of being “criminals” in the abscence of a formal conviction. It is not “criminal” to use lawyers to clarify behavior within rules that are not precise. Whether their goals were ethical or moral may be subject of debate, but not criminality.

          Now for the real issue. Did the CIA lie to Congress? I am sure they did somewhere along the line. In my experienc, all Govt agencies “mislead” Congress. Hell, Congressmen use Agencies to mislead other Congressmen. Just look at the recent testimony on the effect of Cap & Trade on long term Temps.

          I will not respond as yet beyond that because I do not know what it was they were “misleading congress” about nor how egregious it was. I do know that if it was bad enough some folks could be facing jail time.

          There is another reality that gets ignored in this discussion as well Ray. Agencies have their own culture and view of their long term mission. They have and will continue to, undermine Administrations and the Legislative branch when they feel short term political winds are against them. They will resist long term changes as well but if the change is lasting they eventually move with the wind.

          I hope you are in a better mood today.
          JAC

        • Oh Ray….you knew I would not pass this one up, didn’t you. You sly old dog. As part of the debate…well…I do not think that you, or anyone, can define torture if you have not been through it or part of it. Torture does take many levels, does it not? You are “tortured” every day you pay a tax, have road rage, stub your toe…whatever.

          Here is my best shot at this and I have been silent up to now on this very topic. Did the CIA lie? Who knows? Did Pelosi know of this…you bethcha she did and she went to the side that was popular at the time. She twists in the wind more than a kite in a tornado….however….torture.

          –noun
          1. the act of inflicting excruciating pain, as punishment or revenge, as a means of getting a confession or information, or for sheer cruelty.
          2. a method of inflicting such pain.
          3. Often, tortures. the pain or suffering caused or undergone.
          4. extreme anguish of body or mind; agony.
          5. a cause of severe pain or anguish.

          Water boarding does not fit item 1 of the definition. There is no pain. (Before you ask, yes, I have been water boarded 4 times in training and truly water boarded).

          Item 2….still, there is no pain.
          Item 3….still, there is no pain.
          Item 4….I will say there is anguish of the mind and not the body and there is no agony of pain/dying. The mind thinks that you are drowning and I have done that before falling off water skis at 40 MPH, and drinking half of a lake.
          Item 5….Cause of severe pain, no…cause of anguish..yes.

          Now, I have seen the results of true torture and I have actually been present in interrogations of prisoners where torture, in the form of pain, was used. I can categorically state that water boarding is not torture, per se, at all…and this is my opinion of having been water boarded and seen pain inflicted in real life and seen the atrocities of same.

          So, therefore, what interrogation techniques do we use. I do not advocate the pulling of finger nails, knee capping, drilling teeth without anesthetics, skinning a person alive and nailed to a tree, using rubber hoses to break bones, raping daughters and children in front of husbands and dismembering them, etc. etc. I think you get the picture.

          But, I will say to you, there are methods to use. Nudity, sleep deprivation, water boarding, and starvation. I will further state, that I do not know you except for this blog. But I would strip a person naked (this is demeaning but not painful), not let him sleep by pounding his head with Jimmy Hendrix tunes incessantly (not painful, unless you hate Jimmy Hendrix), not let him eat (weakens the soul and transfers reason to food), and then water board him ( no pain at all but the mind thinks otherwise )….all to save your life. I would do that because you are a citizen that I have sworn to protect and you are my friend. You, as my friend and as an American, would come above all other reasons. Give me my info and you walk away swearing never to listen to Jimmy Hendrix again.

          Anything can be torture. Listening to the alarm in the morning can be torture. Drinking bad coffee or eating bad food at a restaurant. So, semantics cannot be used in time of war or the protection of citizens.

          BF will have issue at this by saying something philosophical. But I would do the same for BF….I usually do not agree with him and do not share is view of the world and universe, but I believe in his right to do so.

          Sigh….sorry, you asked me what time it was and I told you how to make a watch. I rambled. Just know this….I would do what is necessary to save your life and the life of your loved ones….whether you would want me to or not…because you are an American and my friend….same for you, BF..and all of you out there.

          D13

          • Ray Hawkins says:

            No worries D13 – and thanks for sharing. There will apparently always be two sides to this – the counter that offers that the same info can be obtained w/o the invasive techniques you describe. Neither can be stated to work 100% of the time so imho it comes down to the ethics and morals of your people/government/etc.

            • With that statement, I agree. Unfortunately, there are times that questionable ethics are called for in an imperfect world. Barbaric is not something that I would use in any form but, as you said, it is a matter of interpretation. Having seen the world for what it really is numbs me. I wish that more people could see what the reality is out there. It is mean and dangerous. We can be a beacon but in doing so, there are times that require a changing of the bulb. You can only turn the cheek so many times when slapping becomes punch drunk.

              Have a bodacious day…good morning to ya.

              D13

          • JayDickB says:

            WOW! I’m impressed.

            I reached the same conclusions you did without any of the experiences you have had. But, you speak with real authority.

            Thank you.

          • Ya know, in re-reading my post, I need to make sure that everyone understands that the torture that I saw was not being inflicted by American soldiers or interrogators…it was Vietnamese style. We were invited to watch and it was not pretty. I can still see and hear some of what went on. The tortures I described were seen in villages that we went into and that was done by Viet Cong to their own people.

            In Bosnia, I did see the torture chambers that were set up in the guise of ethnic cleansing and saw the tattered and mutilated bodies of thousands.

            Enough of this..point is…it was not American induced.

            D13

          • I would want you covering my back, D13.

            Again, thank you for your service.

  25. TexasChem says:

    On the Sarah Palin quitting issue…

    Here we have a talented, rising politician who was asked to volunteer that talent, drive and energy to the betterment of Country and party. She did so and was repaid by having her freedom surrendered to “handlers”, her privacy violated, herself subjected to ridicule and her family turned into fodder for tasteless idiots who style themselves as comedians (far beyond anything any other politician had to endure). She then decides to call it a day and get out?

    Silent no more, the previously Silent Majority will be making their disgust of an out-of-control government, unethical and unaccountable, a vocal gathering in TEA parties across the nation today. In the spirit of our founders, American patriots are rising up against the tyranny of taxation without representation.

    Governor Palin has sounded the trumpet of liberation. She is now free from nuisance ethics charges, all of which have been dismissed as frivolous or non-founded, and freed her state from the bruising costs of partisan attacks. She will no longer allow her state’s wealth to be depleted in foolish litigation, nor deflect the governance of Alask to be focused on issues that have nothing to do with the success and prosperity and governance of that state.

    She will be free to travel and spread the conservative message to those who thirst for integrity and the spirit of service, not power-grabbing, in government. She will be free to speak outside the confines of her state without being subject to petty, vicious attacks from within that were designed to hamstring and thwart her resonating message.

    Palin has shot up the flare for Liberty and invites the like-minded to rally around a flag to act on their convictions.

    Is she going John Galt?

    I am laughing at you dhimmocratic political newbs for your shallow thought processes.Keep on thinking in that box you have built for yourselves.

  26. Ray Hawkins says:

    TexasChem (or whatever your real name is) – lets take this point by point:

    “Here we have a talented, rising politician who was asked to volunteer that talent, drive and energy to the betterment of Country and party. She did so and was repaid by having her freedom surrendered to “handlers”, her privacy violated, herself subjected to ridicule and her family turned into fodder for tasteless idiots who style themselves as comedians (far beyond anything any other politician had to endure). She then decides to call it a day and get out?”

    – She was asked to be VEEP because she fit a demographic and McCain needed some campaign-Viagra to get him back up in the polls – it worked but their efforts quickly turned flaccid again once those of us that could see through the down home-iness and golly-gee-shuckiness of the mavericky beauty pageant contestant cum politician. I’d like to call a halt to the double standard hypocrisy that demands deep probing of candidates from the left or of the left (Daschle, Sotomayor, etc) yet when the same is applied to someone like Sarah you all get up in arms and pissed that her ‘privacy was violated’ or they attacked things off limits. BS I say – stop the hypocrisy.

    “Silent no more, the previously Silent Majority will be making their disgust of an out-of-control government, unethical and unaccountable, a vocal gathering in TEA parties across the nation today. In the spirit of our founders, American patriots are rising up against the tyranny of taxation without representation.”

    – I can only offer a good luck and godspeed – it seems that the TEA party concept has dried up but maybe I am wrong.

    “Governor Palin has sounded the trumpet of liberation. She is now free from nuisance ethics charges, all of which have been dismissed as frivolous or non-founded, and freed her state from the bruising costs of partisan attacks. She will no longer allow her state’s wealth to be depleted in foolish litigation, nor deflect the governance of Alaska to be focused on issues that have nothing to do with the success and prosperity and governance of that state.”

    – Again – I smell a heavy dose of hypocrisy here. The wealth of Alaska is not being wasted here sir – that is far overblown in terms of numbers as Todd has already offered. There must exist a process wherein ethics charges can and should be investigated – what is the same argument you use now had been used with former Governor Blago? Feel different now?

    “She will be free to travel and spread the conservative message to those who thirst for integrity and the spirit of service, not power-grabbing, in government. She will be free to speak outside the confines of her state without being subject to petty, vicious attacks from within that were designed to hamstring and thwart her resonating message.”

    – Careful here – she may be the prime ticket at the next Randall Terry pool party – but conservatives are now shunning her because she is not what the see themselves to be – maybe there is hope for some conservatives.

    • TexasChem says:

      Invalidating your points Ray…

      “She was asked to be VEEP because she fit a demographic and McCain needed some campaign-Viagra to get him back up in the polls – it worked but their efforts quickly turned flaccid again once those of us that could see through the down home-iness and golly-gee-shuckiness of the mavericky beauty pageant contestant cum politician. I’d like to call a halt to the double standard hypocrisy that demands deep probing of candidates from the left or of the left (Daschle, Sotomayor, etc) yet when the same is applied to someone like Sarah you all get up in arms and pissed that her ‘privacy was violated’ or they attacked things off limits. BS I say – stop the hypocrisy.”

      -So what evil did the deep probing of Sarah Palin unearth Ray?Last I heard all ethics charges had been beaten and/or dropped.
      -Where is the hypocrisy?

      “I can only offer a good luck and godspeed – it seems that the TEA party concept has dried up but maybe I am wrong.”

      -Dallas Texas July 4th Tea party had 35,000 attendees.THIRTY FIVE THOUSAND.You sir are wrong.

      “Again – I smell a heavy dose of hypocrisy here. The wealth of Alaska is not being wasted here sir – that is far overblown in terms of numbers as Todd has already offered. There must exist a process wherein ethics charges can and should be investigated – what if the same argument you use now had been used with former Governor Blago? Feel different now?”

      -Holy smokes Batman did you ReAlLy just compare the corrupt Chicago political practices to the false ethics charges against an innocent?Ethics charges that were used un-ethically to place Palin under financial duress?

      “Careful here – she may be the prime ticket at the next Randall Terry pool party – but conservatives are now shunning her because she is not what the see themselves to be – maybe there is hope for some conservatives.”

      -I did not know that you had seen the error of your ways Ray and had changed your political stance to the right.I mean, you must have pulled a reverse Arlen Specter on us to be able to speak for the conservative right now! ! Kudos my man! !

      • Ray Hawkins says:

        Where is the hypocrisy? In the very idea that it is being used as a fulcrum that supposedly drove her from office – once the charges are proved false does that, in our mind, necessitate that they never should have been able to bring them to begin with? Remember one thing – the charges started long before she was named VEEP running mate. The hypocrisy is that the folks here HARANGUE over any politician from the left that has the slightest ethical issue arise – Daschle? Sure, he f’d up and I said fine – throw him under the bus, maybe they’ll learn better next time. An Ensign or Sanford or Palin comes up and all of sudden we from the left are the assholes because we suggest they suffer the same fate or should at least defend themselves properly to the charges? That is hypocrisy.

        “Holy smokes Batman did you ReAlLy just compare the corrupt Chicago political practices to the false ethics charges against an innocent?Ethics charges that were used un-ethically to place Palin under financial duress?”

        First off, she is not under financial duress – that is pure bullshit and you know it. She has a legal defense fund that is helping pay any legal expenses the State is not covering. My point with Chicago is that there must be a process by which ethics charges can be processed and investigated – you seem to suggest that since nothing has stuck to Teflon Sarah then the process itself must be scrapped – sounds like a lawyer for John Gotti.

        Lastly – I’ll never pretend to understand the conservative mind – but clearly the candidates in NJ and VA want nothing to do with this trainwreck.

        • TexasChem says:

          Nope, never said nor suggested the process of ethical investigations be scrapped.Although I do believe they need revamped much as the civil court system does with regards to frivolous lawsuits! =)

    • You know Ray you make some good points but even I am disgusted with your first response.

      There is no need for all the sexual context. You simply lower yourself to the standard of the far left when you do this.

      And don’t give me the hypocrisy garbage as a response. You don’t see that coming from serious people here.

      Your comparison of criticism of Palin with the others you list is Apples to Oranges. Each differs in the critique and for differing reasons. Your complaint lumps all harsh criticism together regarless of content or context. That is intellectualy dishonest.

      We all slip from time to time and sometimes do it for a humorous break. But you have gone far beyond that these past few days.

      You are capable of solid thought and explanation. Stick to it would you please. Of course a little sarcasm and twisted humor will still be appreciated.

      Sincerely;
      JAC

      • Ray Hawkins says:

        I’m solid JAC (or, whatever your real name is), always on, always me and always plugged in. And I do apologize – I forgot that conservatives don’t like sex, or sex jokes, or sexual connotations. But anyway – I will stop digressing. You’re quick to dismiss any comparisons that don’t draw a one to one match – all things are equal and all things are the same and then dismiss me as intellectually dishonest? How about you back that up? Before you insult me ask me if you need me to explain further – I try not to write a book every time out here so I apologize if you cannot always connect the dots (I actually think you just don’t want to with certain issues).

        • Hey! I am a conservative and I enjoy sex, sexual jokes and or connotations, but there is a place for everything, and this is not the place for that.

          • Ray Hawkins says:

            Fair enough Terry – I’ll join the police force herein that stomps out any notion of fun. I always enjoy a high pucker factor.

            Please everyone – no more goddamn smiley faces, no more f’ing winking faces, song quoting or other half-hearted attempts at humor – this is all business here.

            • Ray;

              Dude, you seem to be stressed or over tired. Need to take a chill pill there is nothing wrong with a little levity, it helps the mindset, and it is good for the soul.

              Relative to ‘Pen Names’ I chose to minimize who I send my email address too simply because I get an average of 150-200 each day now not including those from this site. It is purely a mater of time management.

              I am not hiding and have no problem expressing my views to anyone.

              Take a breath buddy…

              • Ray Hawkins says:

                I don’t use my email address in the “Name (required)” field – I just use my name – my actual name. I use my real email address and do not receive any additional email beyond what I ask for from this site or others.

                I know there is nothing wrong with levity – but others here seem to disagree with you.

            • Must you take everything to the extreme? If I ruffled you feathers, my apologies…

            • Please Ray, take a break. It’s not worth it.

              I want to learn from you, to try to understand how the “left brain” works, and I’ve asked before and will again, for you to consider doing a guest post on how you feel things are going, why the policies of this administration make sense, how they will help our country.

              Stay calm, Ray, and have a good day.

        • Ray:

          “I’m solid JAC (or, whatever your real name is),”: So what is with the issue over real names? I see this on other blogs when folks run out of good arguments. Is it supposed to be an insult? Does it somehow take away from content?

          “And I do apologize – I forgot that conservatives don’t like sex, or sex jokes, or sexual connotations.” The old apology followed by insult. But you have failed in the primary attack. I am NOT a Conservative. If you don’t know that by now then you have not been paying close attention. And I think most of us here appreciate a little sexual joke once in awhile. You crossed the line in that first paragraph, even for my sensibilities. It wasn’t necessary and it was not humor.

          “You’re quick to dismiss any comparisons that don’t draw a one to one match – all things are equal and all things are the same and then dismiss me as intellectually dishonest?” I don’t think I am all that quick to jump on such things. I usually let them go until I see a pattern. As we have argued before I am quicker to jump than I would for someone new to this site.

          “How about you back that up?” I suggest you simply go back and re-read your posts the last few days on the Palin issue. Do it when you are calm and rested. Then tell me if you presented what looks like an objective well reasoned argument.

          “Before you insult me ask me if you need me to explain further” I did not intend to insult you, just your argument.

          “I apologize if you cannot always connect the dots (I actually think you just don’t want to with certain issues).” Actually I think I am pretty good at connecting dots. Are you trying to invoke the Chris D. defense by claiming I am unwilling to consider your view? I assure you I listen and think about it. Don’t confuse my rejection of an argument as lack of consideration or lack of desire to connect the dots.

          If you think I am unwilling to consider certain connections with certain dots please feel free to bring it to my attention. But you also must remain open to fully considering my argument as well. I don’t know if you always are or if we are just wired so differently that we see different things when looking at the same object.

          So Until Later
          I Hope You Have A Good Day
          JAC

          • Ray Hawkins says:

            Real names? Have been wondering for some time actually why most of you don’t tell everyone who you are. I could have brought it up here or elsewhere. The site asks for your name – not your nickname – simple question. I usually find that those afraid to use their names are usually hiding something – sometimes legit, usually not.

            Sex? Okay – I’m busted. I know you’re not a conservative – you just don’t like sex with your politics right? I feel bad for you of you think that crossed the line – honestly I think you’re being a whiny crybaby (sorry USW words not mine – but hey – if he can use it to to jump on asinine arguments so too can I).

            My arguments regarding Palin – listen – I’m not writing my dissertation or a business proposal here. If you think I have offered conflicting statements then show me were I erred in my ways. Telling me to just go re-read everything is as useful as asking me to make a list of all numbers………..

            The Chris D. defense? Okay – why a potshot at Chris? As I stated – I am not going to write war n peace in every post. I usually expect that my postings, regardless of length, will not always be read in full by everyone – I’m okay with that. I also know there is ample cherry picking by all here (by all – I include me – we liberals are funny that way – you know – self reflection and admitting when we’re wrong). If you think I erred in my opinion (read: O-P-I-N-I-O-N) then tell me where I fumbled and we’ll hit the replay button.

            I’m really not sure what your argument here is other than trying to say I’m wrong because you don’t like the way I argue.

            Balls in your court. (I don’t mean that sexually either)

            • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

              It is my OPINION that liberals engage in self-relfection and admitting when they are wrong when the offense is minimal, and yet they seem to have a strange disregard for this practice when the offense is catastrophic.

              Just my OPINION… lol.

            • ” we liberals are funny that way – you know – self reflection and admitting when we’re wrong). ”

              I have no doubt that you might fit that statement, but all liberals???…or conservatives. Does Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, or Nancy Pelosi not fit the liberal label.

              • Ray Hawkins says:

                Irony in that you wouldn’t say “yeah, me too” but rather use the convenient low ball of Pelosi, Dodd, Frank,……

          • Chris Devine says:

            I didn’t realize I had my own patented line of defense. Nonetheless, I’d say your inability to offer any philosophical position not related to Ayn Rand shows your ignorance and choice to totally disregard opposing viewpoints.

            My $.02

  27. Birdman says:

    Interesting article from American Thinker:

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/07/hating_palin.html

  28. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    “There is no worse tyranny than to force a man to pay for what he does not want merely because you think it would be good for him.”
    – Robert Heinlein

    “I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do.”
    – Robert Heinlein

    These two quotes are things that everyone on this site should be thinking about (quite a few of us have thought about them already).

    If you disagree with one or both of the quotes above, try to articulate WHY you disagree. Likewise, if you agree with either or both of the above quotes, try to articulate WHY you agree.

    I will add some of my thoughts later after I see some responses 🙂

    • Peter, the following has been a favorite of mine for a long time;

      People are always blaming their circumstances for what they are.
      I don’t believe in circumstances.
      The people who get on in this world are the people who get up and look for the circumstances they want, and, if they can’t find them, make them.

      George Bernard Shaw

      • TexasChem says:

        Confucius say-“Man who stand on hill with mouth open will wait long time for roast duck to drop in.”

    • Judy S. says:

      I don’t know if this is in realm as to what your quotes here are, but these are just my thoughts about it.

      I believe everyone’s life is already designed even before they are born. Everybody has a path that is laid out for them, and depending on what path you take in life is your responsibility, and no one else.

      If you choose to go down the wrong path, and your life is not the way you like, then change it.

      If you go down the right path, and you are happy with the way your life is going, then don’t change it.

      If you come across an obstacle in your path, then find a way to go around it, or remove that obstacle.

      Only you can choose to live your life, no one else can make that decision for you, whether it be right or wrong.

      If you see somebody who needs help, would you not stop to try and help that person? Or would you continue on, and not look back. I would stop and ask.

      Whatever path you take in life it is your responsibility, for you chose that way to go.

      If you do a bad deed, is it not your responsibility to own up to that deed, and pay the consequences?

      If you do a good deed, would you always expect to get rewarded for it?

      You have to choose the path you want to take in life and make the most of it, for God only knows how it will turn out in the end.

      Hope all will have a good day, today, and always.

      Judy

    • There is no worse tyranny than to force a man to pay for what he does not want merely because you think it would be good for him.”
      – Robert Heinlein

      I agree. It is not for me to determine what is good for another person and vice versa.

      “I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do.”
      – Robert Heinlein

      I agree. I do not expect anyone to be responsible for me and do not want to be responsible for anyone else. On second thought I will be responsible for BF because he will not let me take that responsibility. Not sure how many really believe that they are responsible for what they do or is it always someone else’s fault. If you do the crime (set by those that think they can govern others) you may do the time.

      I expect to get ticketed/arrested one of these days for smoking, no seat belt and demonstrating inappropriately about the individual and constitutional rights we are losing (prior to now, the only time I demonstrated was about not putting Caryl Chessman (the red light bandit) to death in San Quentin. Got me expelled from high school for a few days).

      I expect to be expelled/leave shortly from my church for speaking/distributing info on the TEA Party. It is my Pastor’s choice but we would not have this country if our forefathers had not discussed treason against Britain in and around churches. That was and still is one of the main times that people meet. I guess I need to find a church where the pastor stands up for what is right.

  29. Black Flag says:

    Just A Citizen

    The catastrophe comes in the timing. I believe the disparity between the opportunities in the USA and central america is much greater today.

    The thrust of my point is to properly identify where the issue lies.

    It does not lie upon the shoulders of a man who is working to feed his family.

    The problem does lie in a system the rewards non-effort (welfare).

    The biggest complaint I’ve seen on this blog stems not from the influx of humanity but that some get ‘free’ services without paying tax.

    The problem is the ‘free’ services and the ‘tax’ – not the humanity.

    Frankly, some do come for the ‘free’ stuff, and have no other major motivations.

    But attacking those perceived ‘parasites’ also means we are attacking those that come here to work.

    Fix the real problem, and the imaginary problems are likely to disappear too.

    That is the current day reality I am asking about. Mass migration larger than any humanitarian crisis caused by flight from war in Africa or anywhere else in recent times.

    I cannot agree that such a move would occur. There has to be more than a difference of a few bucks for a wholesale move in that manner.

    That is why war invokes such a move of humanity – it is a matter of life and death and utter annihilation. Mexico hardly qualifies.

    There is a massive disparity of incomes within the USA – yet we see no mass migration internally.

    I would also like to get your thoughts on how total population growth fits in the picture. There is a huge lifestyle issue regarding space available. Is there a point where the shear number of people becomes to much?

    An influx of productive people can only improve the economic outlook of all people. More the merrier.

    Does this cause consequences?

    Sure – but all human action creates consequences.

    Consequences of productivity are far better than the consequences of non-productivity or of stagnation or of violent enforcement upon non-violent people.

    If by mere fear of consequences of productivity, we build a violent system – of which THAT consequence will severely, and potentially fatally, effect all people and your children, grandchildren and their children for generations.

    A man who is willing to mow my lawn cheaper than I mow my own lawn allows me to do what I do for another two hours – increasing the aggregate economic output massively, improving my life, his life and your life.

    A man who is willing to kill the man mowing my lawn because the lawnmower-man crossed a line on someone’s map is a great and grave threat to us all.

    An article is probably appropriate – the core point of my position is to focus on the root of the issue – rewarding non-productivity. It is an attraction to all parasites – external and internal.

    Remove that reward, and the major issue which seem to concern most people disappears.

    Birdman

    You can ask USWep to forward my email to you.

    • BF, are you sure that the freedom is not the larger draw to the U.S.

      We still have more freedom than most 3rd world countries.

      Isn’t a minimum wage or no job situation in a free nation better than a minimum wage or no job in an oppressive nation.

      • Black Flag says:

        There are far more ‘freer’ countries than the USA.

        It takes a lot to uproot from generations to move to a promise.

        You live in an oppressive nation – so ask that question of yourself – why aren’t you moving?

        • If I had thought there were freer countries, I would have considered doing so. I have been lots of places in the Navy and personal travel and have yet to find a country I liked better than the U.S. (which is really 50 countries).

          Would probably not have moved as I have been able to live without much interference from government. In those cases where we intersected, I was at odds with my principles (not sure I have a core one yet) so I accepted the punishment.

          What is going on with the country today will have no effect on me as I have most likely only up to 3 years to live. It will effect my wife tho. I am ready for that freedom land. Oh GOD Almighty hold my hand. If there is no freedom land, I will not know the difference.

          What countries do you find freer. I can investigate them and maybe she might want to go there and do some missionary work.

  30. Black Flag says:

    Bob

    Go to a hospital in England with a cut finger and see how much money you have to pay to get in before the guy who just cut his hand off.

    EXACTLY MY POINT!

    I do not go to a hospital to take care of a mere cut on my finger!

    Why? Because it costs me a lot of money without any real value!

    I take care of my own finger.

    Your system is doomed – because there is no cost in going to the hospital with a cut finger. Or stubbed toe. Or a hangnail.

    Exhaustion of the scarce resource is a guarantee if there is no cost to the resource.

    When you go to the ER in America do you just slam a wad of notes on the desk and demand to see a doctor immediately no matter your ailment and those surrounding you?

    When I go to the doctor, it is because I need a doctor – by the nature of me having to pay out of my own pocket, I make sure my aliment is worthy of spending the dollars. It will not be trivial.

    Hence, that is pretty much what happens. I move to the front of the line – I can pay, and it is not trivial.

    Pretty amazing system this free market, huh?

    • TexasChem says:

      BF I responded to your question in the “How do we stop the Legislative madness?” article, if you have the time to respond.

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:
    • Take my situation earlier this year, I found what I thought were lumps near my armpit, just to be on the safe side I booked an appointment to see a doctor after work that same day. Had an exam and it turned out to be nothing. Had peace of mind and carried on, now in some peoples minds that would have been a frivolous visit but when it came to the doctors visit and exam, money did not even enter my head. No forms to fill out, walked in and walked out 15 minutes later. If I had to pay for that doctors visit I most likely would not have gone.
      What is the best situation spotting and treating major ailments early or waiting till the patient winds up at the ER months later because they could not afford to see a doctor, which costs more?

      Also I have read old comments on how the NHS is going to fail since it first started which was 1948 it has apparently been going to imminently fail for the past 61 years.

      • Black Flag says:

        Any persons decision is their own to make – I cannot make that judgment for them.

        Since they would bear the cost, whether they wait or go early is fully their cost to bear. My input is meaningless to your question of your own expenses.

        61 years is a blink in economic measures. As I said before, do not confuse economics as a science like physics.

        Economics is a matter of human action, not a measurable ‘thing’ like a law of the universe.

        Human action is not a math formula.

        People will endure much suffering, how much suffering? Who knows?

        But eventually, the water will move the rock.

        Eventually, the system will collapse and take everyone with it.

        • So when someone who is uninsured goes to a hospital for treatment and cannot afford the treatment who foots the bill?

          • Black Flag says:

            If I go to a car dealer, and can’t afford to buy the car, who buys the car for me?

            • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

              No one.

            • The government will give you $4,500 if you have an old one with bad gas mileage.

            • No Black Flag this is not a hypothetical question, when an uninsured person goes to the hospital for emergency treatment does the hospital turn them away or do they get treated. If they do get treated who foots the bill?

              • Black Flag says:

                If they go to a car dealer and are desperate for a car, do you expect the car dealer to say “Sure! Because you really need a car here is one for free!”.

                You can imagine how long that car dealership would be in business after that….

                Now, some car dealerships do listen to hardship stories and do give cars away for free. Rarely, and the need has to be really, really, extreme or the situation exceptional.

                So, to answer you directly:

                1) It’s completely up to the hospital. If they do or do not, I am no judge of their decision.

                2) If they do accept, they foot the bill, not me. It’s their charity, not mine, that they gave.

          • Black Flag says:

            If I go to the food store, but have no money for food, who buys the food for me?

          • Black Flag says:

            If I cannot buy food, do I have the right to kill you for your money so I can eat?

            • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

              No, but apparently you have the right to take my money indirectly through taxation by the government and spend it to buy your food (see above).

          • Black Flag says:

            Exactly, Peter, exactly.

            As long as ‘we’ believe ‘we’ have a right to steal and kill our neighbor (directly or indirectly) to fund our own benefits, tyranny will be our lot.

            • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

              BF,

              I agree totally. It is not my responsibility to see that you survive, that is YOUR responsibility.

              It IS my responsibility to ensure that you do not die through the cause of my actions; however, if you cannot or will not make enough to pay for your own food and medical bills, it does NOT then automatically become my responsiblity to feed you and pay your medical bills to ensure your survival.

              The place where the liberals trick people is by convincing them that if they do not feed people that cannot or will not feed themselves and if they do not pay medical bills for people that cannot or will not pay there own, we somehow become RESPONSIBLE for the deaths of these people, which is bulldookey.

              In response to this, a liberal would say that I “lack compassion” which is also bulldookey.

              If I choose, of my own free will, to donate to a cause which will help to feed needy people or help to pay their medical bills, then that is compassionate.

              If the government takes my money and gives it to other people to pay for their food and their medical bills without my consent, that is theft.

              I believe that this is part of what you have been trying to explain to some of the people here.

              • To take from Peter to pay Paul is immoral

                But, it assures you of Paul’s vote

  31. Richmond Spitfire says:

    Continued from Post #1 (near bottom)…
    ***********
    Ray,

    In regards to using a “handle” on the Internet, I think that “surfers” have become conditioned to do so for safety reasons.

    For example: If you were interested in meeting, say, a VPILF on Match(dot)com, would you include your full name as your User ID on your Profile? I know that I wouldn’t. Doing so would open me up for all kinds of nutjobs in an unsafe way.

    I personally have NOTHING to hide here at USWeapon’s awesome site…that’s the reason that I put my real name on the post above, not because you “baited” me. At one time, I did use my full name, but I did have something to gripe about in regards to my employer, so I chose to go to a “handle” instead. I did not want retribution because I complained about one specific incident.

    Nice try on the veiled (and useless) attempt to attack my work ethics. You know as well as I know Ray that large corporations have “ways” of knowing when their employees are performing “no-no’s” on the Internet…so I would be totally stupid to try that…

    In regards to my VP Title, I wasn’t “bragging” as your tone indicates. I was merely trying to say that if you work hard, you can get ahead even if you don’t have the “credentials” to do so. You are so correct in stating that Banks hand-out titles like it is candy…they do this NOW as a effort to retain employees because of the extra perks associated with the so-called “higher titles”. There was a time (about 10 years ago) though when it really did mean something…I’ve been with my company going on 22 years).

    Ray, this is not about getting into a pi$$ing contest with you. I was just hoping that I could help you with understanding the mindset of a person who supports a candidate like Sarah Palin. If in anyway, I helped you see this (from my perspective), then I feel like I’ve been successful…

    Please understand that I am not in any way expecting you to “embrace” that perspective (that would certainly be arrogant of me), I just simply wanted you to see it from my eyes.

    As far as I am concerned, our disagreement on this particular posting and its associated replies have gone about as far as it can…

    I wish you a wonderful day.

    Kind Regards,
    RS

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      I don’t think you were bragging about being a VP and it should not have come across as such. I have met too many 25 year old VPs to know the difference. I do not agree that simply using your full name is going to place you at any additional risk – your name is already public record, esp if you have already used it here – its unfortunate you fear retribution from work for airing dirty laundry (weird – something else conservatives are usually loath to do for that exact reason – its that authoritarianism again).

  32. Black Flag says:

    As far as exposing personal information on a public system, including your name –

    – is not a good idea.

    So much additional information can be gleaned by simple conversation that a potential, motivated threat could locate you and do you harm.

    • TexasChem says:

      Yeah I agree Black Flag…the Acorn shills might be watching !! LOL

      I say that jokingly but after thinking bout’ it…I wouldn’t be surprised if the powers that be ie..”Department of Homeland Security” do have teams looking for right wing extremists on conservative blogs!Janet from another planet prolly has em’ looking for Elvis and aliens on these blogs too!

      • I think Black Flag was referring more to identity stealing rather than government agencies but I may be wrong. Never, ever give any personal information across the net its amazing what people can get from a name and vague location.

      • They are looking but only if you are an ex-serviceman.

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      Impact severity – medium to high
      Occurrence likelihood – low

      • TexasChem says:

        LOL

      • Ray Hawkins says:

        Odd that so many people in here who seem to have quite the arsenal at home are concerned with someone hunting them down and doing bad things to them because they offer their opinion. Some things I should not try and understand.

  33. Black Flag says:

    TexasChem

    Carry over from previous thread

    I believe the human mind to be far more complex than to have only one core premise to judge right/wrong BF.

    If you believe you hold more than one core principle, then you haven’t found your core belief.

    You cannot have two measuring sticks.

    Which measuring stick will be “right” if you get two different answers to the same question?

    There will be THE ONE THAT IS ALWAYS RIGHT. It rules the others.

    It CANNOT BE JUDGED. It is immutable.

    It always will be the one that you use to judge all moral action.

    You cannot have two masters

    You may build a series of ‘cheat sheets’ that establish your moral behavior and judgement without having to peel them all to a core. This is fine.

    But that which built the ‘cheat sheets’ – the ‘thing’ that you used to measure the truth, and the good – that is the core.

    When a question that does not match an answer on your ‘cheat sheet’ comes up – where do you go to get the answer?

    Can you base a society upon one core premise and then build off that one premise and expect it to be successful without taking into consideration other factors?

    Yes. That is exactly how it works.

    When a problem is recognized, and a solution is proposed, you will be able to know if that solution is a ‘good’ by testing it against the core principle.

    Keep this in mind: the solution is an answer to a problem.

    An example: you are a problem to me.

    My solution: putting a bullet in your head.

    Simple concept: problem->solution.

    If I do not measure my solution against my core principle, how do I know that this is a ‘good’? If all my test is :Does my solution work? – Yes! You are no longer my problem!

    But there is far, far more to it, right?

    Is it a ‘good’? No. Thus, we do not use that as a solution.

    There are an infinite number of solutions to every problem in the human experience.

    Out of those solutions, there are very, very few solutions that are moral.

    In fact, there are some problems that have no moral solution at all!.

    This fact is among the hardest things to accept and acknowledge by most people. It means that some human suffering will always exist. The mere acknowledgment of this causes suffering in compassionate people.

    We MUST understand that if no moral solution exists, we have no right to act and that we must endure and suffer the problem.

    The alternative – sometimes called ‘practical’ or ‘pragmatic’ solutions – always create evil as a consequence of the solution – and a far, far, far worse problem then the one you were attempting to solve. There will be more and far worse suffering than what you were trying to solve.

    I could be a non-violent person yet if I had the monetary backing and political power to manipulate money markets could I not indirectly cause a foreign nation to poverty, starvation and civil war?

    How many people did Hitler kill?

    How many people did Madoff kill?

    If we cannot be clear on what is or what is not evil, we will suffer the confusions that your question above creates.

    If you cannot test against a moral core, you cannot know the difference between what is disgusting and what is evil.

    You decide to go on a cruise with your loved ones to enjoy yourselves far away from a fast paced world.

    You and your family are in your stateroom when you decide to go up to the casino to play a few hands of blackjack while they rest from the days activities.

    You would never find me at a Blackjack table. It is a loser’s game.

    Poker table – 😉 – and the way I play, it’s not gambling.

    On your way up to the casino you feel a jolt as the ship strikes an iceberg and begins listing, water is already pouring in to the upper deck you are on so you know the lower deck is flooding much faster!

    You rush down to your stateroom to aid your family.

    The water is already almost up to the level of the ceiling of your deck and you gasp for breath as the cold water engulfs you to your chin yet you push on towards your goal.

    You hear a multitude of people yelling for help from the door right next to your stateroom door.

    You know there are twenty five crewmembers berthed behind that door hot-bunking with another twenty five crewmembers becasue you had spoken to them since you first got on the ship and were neighbors.

    You only havetime to wrest one door open before the water level is so high you cannot hope to save anyone let alone yourself.

    Do you save the twenty five crewmembers or your wife and child?

    What is your core, moral premise that you use to make your decision?

    Simple.

    My moral imperative, and solemn vow was given to my wife.

    My wife and I have shared a solemn vow that our child is paramount.

    If we are separated, it is my job to attempt to rescue my family up to, but not further then, hopelessness. My death after their death is futile and pointless.

    If we are together, my wife has vowed that her duty is to save herself – it is my duty to save the child.

    Reason: I cannot, potentially, save both.

    We have made the decision, so to maximize survival, that I cannot concern myself with the safety of my wife if the safety of our child is also at threat. She must save herself while I attempt to save our child.

    If she makes it, she has vowed not to attempt to save me or our child – for it would put her right back into threat and contradict our plan. It may mean she lives and child and I die. We both understand this.

    If the child is safe, my moral duty is then towards my wife.

    If then the wife is safe, my moral duty is to myself.

    If I am reasonably safe, my moral duty is to others, up to, but not over, the risk of my life. To risk my life would risk the survival of my family, and that would break my vow.

    • BF,

      On which site do you play.

      I use Full Tilt but do not play for your stakes.

      • Black Flag says:

        I only play two sites:

        Full Tilt and Pokerstars.

        Both have proven to be trusted and honest. The rest are either yet unproven or have proven otherwise.

    • TexasChem says:

      BF…

      Do you agree that biological evolution, based on the survival of the genes, has favoured selfishness and nepotism: maximizing one’s own profit, with a disregard for others (unless those others carry one’s own genes: close family)?

      • Black Flag says:

        Yes – and no.

        The human species survives because we promote our own self-interest. The reason that is successful is because we truly have no idea what is the interest of others whereas, most of the time, we know our own.

        If we place other’s interest in advance of ours, we will probably be in error – due to ignorance. Ignorance in the universe equals death.

        However, man has intelligence. We can calculate.

        We have calculated that maximizing our own self-interest can be achieved by considering the interests of other. Helping you live allows you to help me live. We both live.

        This created civilization. It has been a good thing for humans to have.

        • TexasChem says:

          Exactly my point; Civilization: the growth of culture, societies, and voila: GoVerNmenT!!

          Government is a necessity in some form.

          • Black Flag says:

            No.

            I believe you hold a definition of government that is not truth.

            Please offer your definition of government.

            • TexasChem says:

              A government is the body within an organization that has the authority to make and enforce rules, laws and regulations.

              People in a community create and submit to government for the purpose of establishing for themselves, safety and public order.

              • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

                TexasChem,

                I would submit that that is what most of us WANT government to be.

                I would also submit that most governments bear LITTLE TO NO resemblance to what you just described (including our government).

              • Black Flag says:

                Indeed.

                Most people have a fantasy to what they wish government was – hence, their deep desire to try to ‘fix it’ to become their wish.

                Sadly, they do not realize it can never be that wish – by the core premise of all government.

          • Black Flag says:

            Government is the antithesis of and is at war with civilization.

            • v. Holland says:

              Whenever you have more than one, it seems that there would have to be some sort of structure in order to accomplice anything or just to keep order-if not government-what?

              • Black Flag says:

                First, you embed a belief that government = order.

                It is not.

                2nd, you embed a belief that order is necessary.

                It is not.

                Break those two illusions first.

                Then let’s start with your moral principle – can you articulate it?

              • v. Holland says:

                Well, first of all, I’m not sure that the need for order is an illusion, but for the benefit of discussion, okay-as far as my moral principal, I believe in the Lord and the Bible, I don’t think I’m capable of stating what that means in a few words.

              • Black Flag says:

                See my response in #23 to you.

            • TexasChem says:

              BF without government and religion in some form we would not have civilization today.

              Civilization would not have been able to flourish without and end to the chaos of small self-governing communities.

              Once the small self governing communities became large nationalized communities it allowed for growth through the use of more skills and resources.

              This eventually lead us to a common identity with community on a continental scale has it not?

              • Black Flag says:

                No, that is not correct.

                Civilization came first. It provided a great abundance.

                A segment of humanity believed it is easier with violence to gain resources then earn it.

                They seized the produce of civilization. We call their children our ‘government’.

                Again, your definition of ‘government’, sir.

                It appears you are assigning numerous concepts to this ‘thing’ – now it is an ‘identity of community’.

                That is usually referred to as “A People”.

                I do not see the government as ‘my identity of community’.

                Are you a citizen of the United States or are you a citizen of the US government?

    • v. Holland says:

      I was asked what my core principal was yesterday, I believe,and I answered freedom because I was referring to the Constitution and government but after reading your post, I realize that my core principal in life is belief in the Lord.

      So I agree with most of what you have said in your post except the following:( The alternative – sometimes called ‘practical’ or ‘pragmatic’ solutions – always create evil as a consequence of the solution – and a far, far, far worse problem then the one you were attempting to solve. There will be more and far worse suffering than what you were trying to solve.)

      In my opinion, sometimes the practical is the moral choose. I hate that there are children in orphanages but I can not adopt all the children and if I tried I would end up not being able to help any-that is basically why I am against most socialistic programs like national healthcare and why I believe that our borders should be closed and immigrants should have to come through legal channels.

      • Black Flag says:

        Allow me to be bold – your core principle is not a belief in the Lord.

        Your belief in the Lord exists because it aligns to your core principle.

        This is why you do not believe in the religions of pagans. They do not align with your core belief.

        So, dig deeper, friend.

        The orphans:
        The question of your adopting is not a matter of morals at all.

        This is not a moral question. It is a question of desire (emotion) and economics (capacity).

        The moral question is: do you treat adopted children like your biological ones? Why or why not?

        • v. Holland says:

          You are allowed to be bold-without boldness discussions are usually useless-I’m going to start at the bottom and work my way up-Whether I treat adopted children like biological children is a moral question but it only concerns whether I as an individual should adopt children, even if I can afford to.

          My original example is also a moral question even if it is based on economics-if I decide to adopt numerous children and I am incapable of taking care of them, my original intend even though morally “good” will turn out to be morally wrong because it is my moral responsibility to be responsible in my decisions and not cause more harm by trying to do the right thing. Which I know is part of your arguments but in your arguments you seem to leave out economic reality as a basis to make moral decisions and I believe in that you are wrong.

          As far as my belief in the Lord, which came first the egg or the chicken, I believe that the Lord put in me the knowledge that he existed and he has been trying to reach me my whole life-so in that way you are correct, the Lord and the Bible do match up to my core belief but , and you knew there was gonna be a but 🙂 after I finally humbled myself enough to actually talk to him and read the Bible many of my beliefs, perceptions changed -so no, I don’t believe in him because he says what I already believed, I believe in him because he is.

          • Black Flag says:

            In a sentence, what does he say?

            • v. Holland says:

              In a sentence-you do try to make things hard don’t you. I guess it I have to say it in a sentence, wait for it-He says: love thy neighbor as you love thy self.

              • Black Flag says:

                Excellent.

                Basically the same core I hold.

                “Do unto others as you have them do unto you.”

                Ok. Next question.

                Push come to shove – what will break – your principle or practicality.

                If holding your principle means that you will suffer, your family will suffer – will you hold to the principle or abandon it?

              • v. Holland says:

                The only way I can answer that question honestly is to say that I have and do pray that I would have the God given strength to overcome my fears and never betray that core principal.

              • Black Flag says:

                Ah, then, good sir, the above principle is NOT your core.

                You hold another, even deeper core – one that is so deep you are willing to do unto others great harm.

                You wouldn’t want to, but you would if you had to.

              • Black Flag says:

                OR.

                You would live in contradiction to your core principle – and it is then contradictions that evil is created.

              • Black Flag says:

                OR (and the final ‘or’)

                You would suffer and hold true to that principle – as described in the story of the Nazarene – until death.

                Pick one of the above. You can only pick one.

              • v. Holland says:

                Obviously, I would pick #3 but since I don’t hold the belief that I am basically good, I will hope and pray for the Lords strengh,because I won’t be sure of my actions until I am tested.

              • Black Flag says:

                See #43

          • Black Flag says:

            As far as economics and morals.

            They are about as similar as trying to assign a color to a musical note.

            If you assume a certain economic ability, and chose to act (such as adopt) and then your economic ability degrades – are you claiming your adoption was immoral because you failed to predict the future?

            • v. Holland says:

              No, I’m saying that before you make a decision you should consider all the relevant factors and then make the best decision you can based on all the information and looking at the likely outcomes-not just is adopting children a good thing to do-of course it is-but most issues aren’t that simple-the questions you should ask are much more complicated. If you try to simplify them too much you may miss the actual moral answer.

              • Black Flag says:

                It is simple.

                It is a measure of desire and capacity.

                This is not a moral decision – a right/wrong. Morals are that way – it is binary – it is either right or it is wrong.

                If you can’t place the question in the light, it ain’t a moral question. It is some other question – but it isn’t a moral one.

              • v. Holland says:

                Your point being- that there are moral absolutes, I agree with but many of our big societal questions bring with them moral dilemmas,I agree that there is only one correct moral answer but as a society all we can do is look at all the info. and hope we make the right decision, and that means using all relevant information-in my opinion. only one moral answer but finding out what that answer is depends on whether we as a society make t

              • v. Holland says:

                Should have checked take a little better. Can’t see what I’m writing right now but please ignore everything after in my opinion.

              • Black Flag says:

                I do not agree that such dilemma’s exist.

                Your actions either are in alignment, or contrary to, you root principle.

                All one must do is test such action against that principle. Does it fail or succeed?

                You are not required to predict the future.

                Your action will lead to other decisions.

                You still may fail and you may die.

                BUT you will act with principle.

              • v. Holland says:

                It looks like we will have to respectfully disagree

  34. JayDickB says:

    BF – I find this topic fascinating, but I still have not been able to come up with a single, core principal (see my response on the “How Do We Stop Legislative Madness” thread, item #38). I came up with several principals there that do not seem to conflict, but they seem to supplement each other rather than replace each other.

    How about this?

    Do harm to others only with clear justification. Physical harm requires the greatest justification, but other types of harm also should be well justified.

    But, does this cover the notion of freedom? Maybe, because if no one is doing harm to others, wouldn’t that assure maximum freedom? Also, it’s pretty subjective, but maybe a principal at this high level of abstraction has to be that way.

    • Black Flag says:

      Jay,

      Pick a moral dilemma.

      Starting answering why or why not a particular solution would be justified or not. How did you figure that out?

      Then ask that question again upon the solution of “how did I figure that out”? You will get another answer.

      Then ask that question again upon THAT answer – you will get another answer.

      Then ask that question again upon THAT answer…. until you reach a point that you cannot ask that question any more.

      Congrats – you’ve probably have your core principle.

      Then you present that here on the blog for me to see.

      I will then ask a question – and we will start the process again, but even deeper.

      When I can no longer ask a question of you – you have your one, core principle.

      Then the secret of human experience is in your hands – and yours alone.

      Do you live in contradiction or in principle with that core?

  35. All

    I thought I would share a little levity with you today if you don’t mine. These were sent to me by my son.

    #1. LETTER FROM THE BOSS:

    As the CEO of this organization, I have resigned myself to the fact that Barrack Obama is our President and that our taxes and government fees will increase in a BIG way. To compensate for those increases, our prices would have to increase by about 10%.

    But since we cannot increase our prices right now due to the dismal state of the economy, we will have to lay off sixty of our employees instead. This has really been bothering me, since I believe we are family here and I don’t know how to choose who would have to go.

    So, this is what I did. I walked through our parking lots and found nearly sixty Obama bumper stickers on our employees cars and have decided these folks will be the ones let go. I can’t think of a more fair way to approach this problem. They voted for change, I gave it to them.

    I will see the rest of you at the annual company picnic.
    __________________________________________________________________________________

    #2. Will I Live To See 80?

    I recently picked a new primary care doctor. After two visits and exhaustive Lab tests, he said I was doing ‘ fairly well’ for my age.
    A little concerned about that comment, I couldn’t resist asking him, Do you think I’ll live to be 80?
    He asked, Do you smoke tobacco, or drink beer or wine. Oh no, I replied, I’m not doing drugs either.
    Then he asked Do you eat rib-eye steaks and barbecued ribs? I said, no, my former doctor said that all red meat is very unhealthy.
    Do you spend a lot of time in the sun, like playing golf, sailing, hiking, or bicycling? No, I don’t I said.
    He asked, Do you gamble, drive fast cars, or have a lot of sex? No, I said.
    He looked at me and said….. Then why do you even give a shit?

    Hope that might have lightened the day for you.

    Judy

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      Judy,

      Particularly liked #2! Thanks for sharing those.

      I have often said that I would rather live on my own terms and die at 75 than live on someone else’s terms and live to be 80.

      Why would you want to live the extra 5 years if you were living a lifestyle that you did not choose?

    • v. Holland says:

      Made me laugh-thanks.

      • Judy S. says:

        Glad you both liked them. They made me laugh as well.

        Peter, To answer you, No, I would not like to live an extra 5 years if it wasn’t my life style. I want that choice to make on my own. My mother will be 87 next month. She has emphysema, smokes like there’s no tomorrow, has to use Advair everyday to help her breathe. The doctor said, normslly I encourage people to quit smoking, especially with what she has, even though it’s not a severe case. BUT, he said, that at the age she is, and there’s nothing major wrong with her, why not let her continue. In fact, he said, if he were to have her quit, it might do her MORE harm than good. So, at this age she is at, what’s the point in having her quit. She eats like a horse, gets plenty of sleep, walks around quite a bit, weighs all of 84 LBS. I should live so long. Don’t get me wrong, I hope I live to be a ripe old age.

        • Black Flag says:

          You must live another 10 or 15 years.

          By then, medicine and technology will be in place that will offer life extension, realistically, into the hundreds of years.

          It will be that the only way you will die is by accident or premeditation – (that is, someone killing you). Death by ‘natural causes’ or disease will be solved.

          • Judy S. says:

            BF, You really believe that?

            • Black Flag says:

              Yes.

              Please watch this video.

            • Black Flag says:

              PS: The beginning is economic, but later in his talk is the real story.

              • Judy S. says:

                Okay, I watched the video, and it’s very interesting. But, my question for you BF, is this. Would you really want to live, say maybe 100 or 150 years, or longer? I know this is just a movie, but it reminds of Bicentennial Man with Robin Williams. Have you ever seen it? I don’t know if I want to live that long. I don’t think I would want to, not saying they would or not, but I don;t think I would want to outlive my son’s, or their kids, or their kids. If my time is up, then it’s up. I don’t want to have all these robotic parts in me just to let me live longer. I’m not saying that it’s wrong, it’s just not right for me, you know. Is that why you said to live another 10 to 15 years, because of that? Hey, I don’t plan on dying any time soon. At least I hope not anyway.

              • Judy S. says:

                BTW, BF, I don’t want to embarrass you here, but I saw your picture on face book, and you’re a very handsome man. Now, don’t let that give you a big head now,okay.

              • Black Flag says:

                (blush)
                Thank you

              • How do you get to the Face Book site?

              • Black Flag says:
  36. Black Flag says:

    I like this response to the G8 declaration of keeping the Earth down to only 2C change…

    The leaders of several G8 countries suffer from a psychiatric disorder. They have commanded the Earth and the waters to keep their temperature within two degrees.

    I suppose that for many teenagers, it has been always a better option to drink, smoke, and take drugs outside the school and be sure that you can still become a president of a country even if you are an uneducated moron.

    And it turns out that they were right.

    Unfortunately, the list of fundamentally uneducated morons includes [those] political representations of many countries that are flooded with people who lack basic science education.

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      Well, the great thing is, no matter what we do, the mean surface temperature is EXTREMELY unlikely to rise 2 degrees C in anyone’s lifetime.

      The fact that government have the extreme delusion that they can assert any form of control over it is, however, laughable.

      The fact is, we just went through a very warm period, and it is far more likely that the mean surface temperature will drop by 2C as opposed to rising by 2C within the next 30 years. The governments of the world aren’t going to be able to do anything about THAT either.

      However, if they wish to maximize their power and wealth, they had better find some human activities to demonize very quickly that allegedly cause Anthropogenic Global Cooling just in case…. 🙂

      • Black Flag says:

        Yes, and Russia called the agreement ‘asinine’.

        They are committed to a 20% per year growth in Co2.

        If the rest of the G7 actually do what they say, and cut back their Co2, by 2030, Russia will produce more Co2 then the rest of the G7 combined.

        Good for Russians. They’ll be laughing all the way to our funeral.

    • BR:

      How true you is…and I have always said that the world is filled with morons…because they chose to be so.

      Stupid people should not breed, but it is their right to do so.

  37. Black Flag says:

    TexasChem

    A government is the body within an organization that has the authority to make and enforce rules, laws and regulations.

    Where did this ‘body’ get its authority?

    People in a community create and submit to government for the purpose of establishing for themselves, safety and public order.

    So if public order is destroyed by government, and safety is destroyed by government – does the government still exists, by your definition?

    • TexasChem says:

      BF:

      “Where did this ‘body’ get its authority?”

      -The body gets its’ power from the people.

      “So if public order is destroyed by government, and safety is destroyed by government – does the government still exists, by your definition?”

      -Yes it still exists.It is just not the type of government I would want to live under.

      • Black Flag says:

        Do you agree that:

        You cannot grant a power or right that you do not hold yourself.

        • TexasChem says:

          yes/no

          In regards to the armed forces I grant the power to military leaders to protect my possesions and family.I do not have access to minuteman missles tipped with nuclear warheads to use as a detterrent against nuclear nations.

          In regards to political agendas I have allowed our elected officials to determine policy since they are supposedly better trained with diplomacy and have the necessary skills.

          I understand where you are going with this and agree with you.It seems as if the checks/balances have not worked to keep the powers that be in-line with my interests and the interests of the majority of Americans.

  38. Black Flag says:

    CSM – regarding Daily Kos article.

    Certainly it is possible with these constraints:

    – the system is secured by point-2-point encryption, so a key is required to decrypt. It is possible to get the key.

    – it requires a node in the midst of the transaction to ‘sniff’ the transactions. It is possible to locate such a system.

    – the catch – it has to be able to capture, decrypt, reconstruct the transaction, create theirs, and insert it faster than the endpoints can transact the original message. Hmmm…. that’d be tough.

    It is one thing to capture and copy. The NSA already does that for most of the USA (illegally of course).

    It is entirely another to do that and then insert a transaction faster then the original one – you’d probably have to delay the original.

    It’s possible – not likely, though.

    If it IS the case, it’s the end of this iteration of electronic transactions.

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      Flag – are you sure they are even encrypting? I don’t think they are in that type of traffic – the houses usually bitch like crazy on any perceived overhead. In work I did with some exchanges 3-4 years ago – inter-messaging was rarely encrypted and the regs did not require it.

      I would hope this article is not pointing to something larger. I already think the absolute worst of Goldman, they are scum sucking crooks.

  39. Black Flag says:
    • Thanks for that one! Still laughing…

      • Judy S. says:

        Just goes to show you, doesn’t matter who the guy is. They all look.

      • I don’t recall them catching Bush or Reagan – and u know if there was ANY embarrassing pic – it would be non ending.

        It’s not that they Don’t look, its that as POTUS they should live to the highest ideal they can. I find it just unconscious able how BHO treats the presidency and the office as his gang hideout, and other heads of state as a teenager would.

        • Judy S. says:

          Maybe he thought he wouldn’t get caught looking, who knows. We don’t know if Bush or Reagan didn’t look now do we. They probably just didn’t get caught if they were looking.

        • JayDickB says:

          Any man who doesn’t steal such a look now and then is either dead or gay. Obama is obviously neither.

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      Funny and intriguing – but mere shenanigans by someone who snared a still from a video to make someone look silly. It was later stated that the girl everyone thinks he is looking at is only 17.

  40. Black Flag says:

    Over five thousand years ago, Moses said to the children of Israel “
    pick up your shovel, mount your asses and camels, and I will lead you to the
    promised land”.

    Nearly 75 years ago, Roosevelt said, ” Lay down your shovels, sit on your
    asses, and light up a camel, this is the promised land”.

    Now Obama has stolen your shovel , taxed your asses, raised the price of
    camels, and mortgaged the promised land.

    ‘Life’s tough……it’s even tougher if you’re stupid.”
    – John Wayne

  41. TexasChem says:

    On Thursday, the US released 4 Iranian detainees who are suspected of being members of an Iranian Special Forces team that facilitated the smuggling of explosives and explosive devices into Iraq, including shaped charges that could penetrate US armored vehicles. A recent article on the National Review Online, by Andrew C. McCarthy entitled “Negotiating with Terrorists” outlines one of the actions these men are suspected of planning, equipping and executing.

    “On Jan. 20, 2007, five American soldiers were killed and three seriously wounded in Iraq. As Bill Roggio relates at the Long War Journal, it was a daring operation: a twelve-man terrorist team disguised as U.S. servicemen attacked our troops as they held a previously arranged meeting with local officials in Karbala. Four of the soldiers were alive when they were abducted from the scene. They were handcuffed and murdered in a remote location when the coalition forces attempting to rescue them closed in.”

    A few months later Qais Qazali, Laith Qazali and Ali Mussa Daqduq were captured, along with documents that confirmed they were agents of Iran responsible for organizing and directing terror cells in Iraq. Hundreds of US servicemen and women and thousands of innocent Iraqis died horribly because of them. What these Iranians did were war crimes, from the killing of civilians to the execution of prisoners. They likely took part in operations themselves; in fact the attackers in Karbala were so expertly disguised as American soldiers their equipment and vehicles were very likely supplied directly by Iran.

    McCarthy continues;

    “About two weeks ago, the Obama administration released Laith Qazali after extensive negotiations with the Asaib al-Haq terror network. That network has long been in negotiations with the fledgling Iraqi government, dangling the possibility of laying down its arms, renouncing violence, and integrating into Iraqi society, provided that its top members – particularly Qais and Laith Qazali, as well as Ali Mussa Daqduq – be released.”

    Now that has been done, below the radar, and over the graves of our soldiers. These war criminals are being called diplomats in an attempt to hide the release from the American public. They are being set free to reunite with friends and family and continue their work for a brutal murderous regime that is our mortal enemy. What the US may receive in return is a temporary lull in terror attacks, so the precipitous withdrawal of US troops by the Obama administration won’t be seen for the blunder that it is. Our soldiers and their grieving families will not receive justice; their murderers are now a tool of the Democrats, their release a stratagem for political gain.

    All this should make Americans realize just what kind of people are in the White House and in Congress. They do not respect or honor our foundational principles; they do not respect or honor America’s values. You do not let a crime go unpunished. You do not reward evil; it cannot be appeased. We will inherit no goodwill; we will enjoy no diplomatic concessions; we are the “great Satan” to the regime in Teheran and treating with us is an immoral act. Their ideology and their policies are based on hatred. To think otherwise is not merely naïve, it is idiotic.

    We are in the awful situation were an American President and his administration sides with our enemies, where crimes against us are ignored for petty political gain. How much more American and Iraqi blood will be spilt because of their adolescent leftist ideology? Can they truly be so blind to the horrific consequences of releasing terrorists in an attempt to secure peace? Or do they hate our soldiers so completely that they do not care?

    The Obama Administration has betrayed this nation’s servicemen and women. They have sold our soldiers lives for a pittance, for short term political expediency. They are dealing with the devil, and are comfortable doing it. By their actions the Obama administration has set the stage for the killing of more brave young Americans and countless innocents.

    • Amazed1 says:

      Texas….I figure a few more years like this and won’t anyone sign up willingly for service…..they will have to be hog tied and hauled to war kicking and screaming…..and I do not blame them. I am really starting to believe in a closed nation….we fight for no one but ourselves.

  42. TexasChem says:

    I like the hat Black Flag… I wear a Resistol Black Gold low crown when I take the wife out dancing.

  43. v. Holland says:

    I just wanted to mention-if you haven’t seen the last entry on “operating without a net” by Roper-you might want to go back an take a look.

  44. Black Flag says:

    V. Holland

    So, if we act in contradiction to our core principle, we know we are doing evil – correct?

    • v. Holland says:

      Yes

    • Black Flag says:

      So, if we see an entity whose essence and operation contradicts our core belief – we recognize that entity as evil – correct?

      • v. Holland says:

        I’m not sure if the entity itself would be evil, the people running the entity certainly could be evil or they might not have the same core principle as I do-So if they are running the entity in step with their core beliefs are they truly evil or are they just evil in my eyes.

      • Black Flag says:

        If it contradicts your belief, then it is evil to you and cannot be supported by you.

        If the people who are operating the entity are doing so in contradiction to their principle then they are acting evil.

        So far so good?

  45. Black Flag says:

    Judy S.

    I would love to live as long as possible – think of what I could accomplish and learn!

    • Judy S. says:

      HEY BF, Sorry if I made you blush there. Yea, but what if it isn’t what you might expect it to be, and it’s worse than you thought, then what? Imagine, everybody being a somewhat robot, even you BF, would you like to be that way? I don’t think I would, but yet it might be kind of exciting. BTW, if my typing is screwed up or I don’t make any sense here, it’s because I had a couple glasses of wine when we went to dinner, and believe me, I needed it. Don’t ask.Getting back to what I was saying. I really can’t comprehend what it might be like living that long. Sure, you can learn a hell of a lot, and even maybe invent some wonderful thing to help mankind, BUT, I don’t really think I could go on and live forever. I don’t know if I want that or not. Maybe if they make sure you have the feelings of what love is, and feeling of hurt, and what it’s like to remember what it was like to have that feeling of being held, caressed, and remembering your family, and all that has happened. That’s if you lost or lose your memory banks. You know what I mean, don’t you. BF? I think of not knowing what your future could be, but then you don’t know what your future is now either. I think the wine I had has gotten to me here, and I’m starting to ramble on here, sorry. It’s really hard to say what it would be like to live forever, or at least a few hundred years anyway.I can’t phantom that.

      • Judy S. says:

        BF, I really have to get off this computer, I am absolutely wiped. Had a very busy day at work, so I am calling it a night. Will be looking for your answer in the a.m.. Nothing I enjoy more, than talking with you about all kinds of things, and getting your input on them.

        Wishing you a very pleasant rest of the night.
        Will be looking forward to more talks with you tomorrow about anything you wish, if I can keep up.

        Until then, my friend, Good Night.

        Judy

  46. Black Flag says:

    http://www.codexsinaiticus.org/en/

    This is very interesting. It is the effort to document the oldest copy of the corrected text of the New Testament.

  47. Ray Hawkins says:

    Murphy – I had to move this down:

    Murphy said:

    “Ray,

    Circumstances change, and in your personal case the way you tell it, sure. But did you stand before your employer and say unequivocally that you would not leave for 4 years? You are overlooking that this was a PROMISE that Obama made to those who elected him. And that makes ALL the difference here.”

    I worked for a Company A for several years and left for different opp, more money, diff challenges. While at Company B, Company A pursued me to return very agressively. Company A offered the right comp and incentives for me to return so I said lets talk. We talked – Company A was willing to step out and make me an offer I could not refuse with the caveat I make a definitive commitment (read: promise) to stay for the long run this time around, to stay through thick and thin. If they did contracts I would have been asked to sign one. Fast forward. Economy dumps, company A implodes (6 layoffs in 1.5 years) and I leave (I could have stayed and been a shitbag and prolly been laid off and collected a severance – but I guess thats my loss). My entire staff and had been chopped, I was being forced into working 70 hr work weeks and my bonus plan and annual comp review were eliminated. Circumstances changed so I did what I felt was proper and remained a contributing member of my profession – I could have waited and collected a severance that would still have me sitting on my ass with nothing to do.

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      “I make a definitive commitment (read: promise) to stay for the long run this time around, to stay through thick and thin. If they did contracts I would have been asked to sign one. Fast forward. Economy dumps, company A implodes (6 layoffs in 1.5 years) and I leave”

      So basically, it is ok to break your promises if it is in your own best interest to do so?

      • Ray Hawkins says:

        You’re really clever Peter – don’t think I don’t realize you’re trying to jackpot me with the good old Sean Hannity approach (select part of the story as a ‘set up’).

        My former employer had lost close to 75% of its workforce and I was ‘on the list’ for round 7 of layoffs. I already had plan B lined up in case I was to lose my job sooner – I could have stayed on, drawn a severance and then gone to my next job (where I am now) and had some fat cash in my wallet (money that could have stayed with Employer A to avoid laying more people off). Tempting as it was I left because I knew it was the best decision I could make (employer agreed with and thanked me) although it left me w/o my little parachute.

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          Yes, I am really clever, because you just proved my point.

          It was in your best interest to leave company A even though you had promised not to do so. It turned out to be in the best interest of company A for you to leave as well, even though they had originally thought that that would never be the case.

          I submit that it was also in the best interest of Sarah Palin to leave her position of Governor of Alaska, and that it was in the best interest of the State of Alaska that she do so as well, so what is the problem?

          • Ray Hawkins says:

            Why do you think it was in the best interest to her State?

            • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

              Ray,

              I think that it was in the best interest of the State of Alaska that she resign because I believe that she was incapable of focusing on doing the work that the people of the State elected her to do because of all of the outside distractions.

              If she indeed could not focus all of her attention on the matters which were important to the State of Alaska, then it was proper for her to resign her post as Governor.

              This is one of the reasons that I feel she may NOT run for a House or Senate seat, because the same thing could potentially happen again.

              I could be wrong, and she could still have political aspirations, but we will see. Hopefully, if she does still have aspirations to political office, she can find a way to either minimize or ignore the outside distractions and focus on the position she gets elected or appointed to.

              Since, in this particular case, she seemed to feel that the outside distractions were insurmountable and were hindering her efforts to do her job, she was right to resign. In some ways, she was the direct CAUSE of at least some of the outside distractions, which, in my opinion, makes it even better that she decided to resign.

        • Actually I believe it is OK…Nobody else is going to look out for you. You must do what is best for you at that particular time with as much of a forward view as possible. I absoloutely think you were perfectly within reason by moving to a different company.

    • Murphy's Law says:

      Ray,

      I’m with you here.

      You were hired back by Company A with a fabulous offer, then later when the economy tanks, company implodes as you put it, they axed your staff and made you do your work and theirs, and I bet they didn’t pay you any more for it, and to add insult to injury they take away your bonus plan and annual review upon which future raises and possible promotions were based…….I don’t have any problem with anyone leaving under those circumstances. I think the company broke the promises they made, and that invalidated any commitment you had made.

      It used to be, long ago, that companies honored commitments and long service of their employees, but no more. Most company heads feel no loyalty to their employees and will run their business into the ground, shaft their employees, but make sure they walk away with their millions. Peter, I have to disagree with your implication here that Ray was automatically wrong to leave after making a commitment- it would seem the company he left was not the company that hired him.

      In my opinion, there’s still quite a large difference here in Ray leaving his job, or anyone else in the business world making a decision based on the realities of economy, direction of the company, etc. Obama was elected as a public servant and he voluntarily made the promise that he WOULD NOT seek another elected office in the next four years. If he had said “I have no plans to run for another office at this time” we’d know he was open to it…..but he made an “unequivocal” promise. Unequivocal was his word…..Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary definition: not doubtful; not ambiguous; clear; sincere.

      And then he broke his not doubtful, not ambiguous, clear, sincere promise. Just like any other d**ned politician (Reps and Dems included here), he made a promise, and broke it.

      • Murphy's Law says:

        And FTR the more I think about Palin’s resignation (since this post has gone more to talking about her than Obama’s broken promise) the less I like it. To resign saying she’s been attacked too much gives the attackers the victory, and they will only attack her more if she decides to run for another office. A valid argument will be, why vote for someone who has a track record of leaving when political opponents’ attacks stack up? I agree that the lawsuits are mostly frivolous and stupid…..but that never stopped anybody.

        All in all, I’m rather irked at her.

        Murf

  48. So there is USW up at the top of the world conniving to get Sarah Palin to collaborate with him in starting up the VLDG party!

    Well, USW, you beat me on that cruise by two years. Enjoy yourself young man, enjoy yourself.

  49. TexasChem says:

    Black Flag:

    My core belief is: Love the Lord your God with all you are, and then love your neighbor as yourself…

    After trying to decipher my core beliefs I have come to the conclusion that if everyone looked at every member of society as a family member the world would be a much better place!

    If you break down core family belief systems in the various different societies of the world they all hold the basic values needed to ensure survivability.This is a self evident truth.

    By respecting all people, being humble, honest, and generous without being hypocritical, self righteous nor grudge holding; a man can be virtuous and forgiving with an assurance of a loving fulfilled life.This is the essence of living your life with values taught from christian ideals.

    I composed a list of 10 values stemming from my core belief in regards to promoting family ethics within my core family group.

    1)A universal tendency to help close relatives without expectation of return.

    2)A universal tendency to promote growth and knowledge above your own.

    3)A universal tendency to forgive any transgressions.

    4)A universal tendency to have concern for well being.

    5)A universal tendency to prevent harm.

    6)A universal tendency of benevolent good.

    7)A universal tendency of being fair and just.

    8)A universal tendency of trust and honesty.

    9)A universal tendency of responsibilty.

    10)A universal tendency of mutual respect.

    Ok Blackflag:

    My brain is hurting now.I hope this post brings you the satisfaction of knowing you caused me to think this hard!

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      I don’t want to cause your brain to hurt any more than it already does, but are there any contradictions caused by any of the values you listed? I am not saying that there are necessarily any contradictions there, just want you to look them over critically for yourself and see if you spot any contradictions or potential conflicts caused by either the core belief or the values listed below it.

      • TexasChem says:

        After reviewing I do not see any contradictions or conflicts but am willing to listen to any critique.

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          I am not as good as BF at identifying if your stated “core value” really does constitute a core value or if you still need to peel more layers away from the onion, so I will leave that to him 🙂

        • Let me start with this:

          A “tendancy” towards something is a very weak value.

          As for “core belief”, you are not looking for just a belief. You are looking for a “truth”.

          Something that seems to be consistent with the known truths of the Universe, as established by God in your case.

          I would like to point out that the search for “core” does occur at differing levels, in philosophical terms.

          Go back to the next to last post on Philosophy series and read Any Rands summary of her philosophical system. You will see a core for metaphysics, epistemology, ethics and politics.

          The metaphysics supports the others, then epistemology, then ethics.

          We need to recognize that it is the ETHICS that we are often discussing here and we are usually trying to validate it through some POLITICAL examples.

          First check your ethics against the other two foundation blocks to make sure they are consistent there.

          The other thing to guard against is mixing ethics and morals. There are subtle differences. The search for morality is generally viewed as that for good and evil, or at least good and bad. Ethics deals more with standards of conduct between men.

          And, you can have core values/principles within each category, with others heaped on top. Such as a core ethic with other ethics that flow from it.

          Tex, if you haven’t checked out the series for awhile I think the second Philosophy article included some definitions of this stuff. I suggest you copy them and set them next to you as you work out your thought processes. It will help organize things a bit.

          You are doing a good job and yes, this is hard work.
          Keep it up.

          Best Wishes this Fine Day
          JAC

  50. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    On BF’s subject of being able to live an extra 100, 150 or even more years:

    Sure, why not? If I could live to be 250 and do so while being healthy, productive, and reasonably happy a decent portion of the time (and hopefully not look like an old coot… lol), then I see no reason NOT to live that long.

    Most people fear old age because they fear decreptitude. Remove the decreptitude and you remove the fear of old age.

    I would suggest people read Methusula’s Children and Time Enough for Love by Robert Heinlein for a bit of an “education” on this living for a long time thing.

    I don’t necessarily agree with all of Heinlein’s philosophy in these books, but they REALLY make you think!

    • TexasChem says:

      I read most of Heinleins work when I was in the eighth grade in school.The Cat Who Walks Through Walls and the Puppetmasters being two of my favorites.Heinlein has some weird philosophical ideas of family relationships!

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        Yes, some of his ideas of family and relationships are “weird” by current standards. However, some of those ideas also make sense, in spite of the fact that they are “weird”.

        If you read Heinlein back in eigth grade, I would suggest you go back and re-read some of his stuff again… I suspect you might get a bit more out of it now than you did back then 🙂

        • TexasChem says:

          I read the entire volumes A-Z of the World Book Encyclopedia my 6th grade summer.Graduated 3rd in my highschool graduating class with an advanced curriculum and never “cracked a book”.I was blessed with the ability to speed read.Tested in the 8th grade at an IQ of 145.I’m not a genius just borderline. 🙂

          I have never been able to read the same book twice since it drives me mad to rehash something I have already learned.
          My problem is not digesting knowledge it is being able to access it.My mind constantly jumps from subject to subject.

          The guys at work keep comparing me to the dog from the new animated film “Up” since I change topics so much when having discussions.

          • Usually defined as ADD (don’t have to be hyper)! Good company there, as Einstein, Ben Franklin etc evaluated to have that type of mind/perception also.

            So do most dogs !! LOL And cats don’t.

    • Morning all,

      My opinion backed by absolutely no knowledge is it is possible. Stem cell treatments seem to work not by healing so much as by making new again. An example, many heart attacks result in damage, meaning parts of the heart do not receive blood and “die”. They now inject stem cells grown from the patients own blood directly into those dead area, bringing them back to life.
      So the ideal that failing organs or body parts could be rejuvinated is rapidly becoming reality. The big question will be if it can be done with the brain. Mine, for example, has become quite full, overflowing with wisdom. Or some $hit.

      • I think those adult beverages kill off some of those cells as well so I think all breweries should be in the stem cell business!

        • Adult beverages, that explains my “full feeling”.

          Great ideal!! Budweiser can add stem cells to replace those it kills. Bud will make you wiser. Maybe they will bring back those frogs.

      • Black Flag says:

        We are just on the cusp of fully understanding stem cells – but my feeling at this point is that this is where we get our sense of ‘life’.

        Take that cell and put it on heart cartilige and they organize themselves to be a beating heart.

        Same cell on an ear, they become an ear.

        On a bladder, they become a bladder.

        Imagine in 10 years – imagine if they took a fraction of AGW monies or AIDS monies and put it into this research……

        There are looking at testing treatments for Alzheimer’s – and if it works there – then, yes, it will repair the brain.

        Some futurists say, that with stem cells and Resveratol – people 100 years old will look and feel like they were 35…

        Can’t wait~!

        • Alan F. says:

          They’ve come a long way here in Canada regarding the use of adult stem cells, eclipsing what’s been done with embryonic if Medline and Medscape are to be believed and that’s been with a pauper’s pocketbook.

  51. How about a new subject for Friday morning? gun control

    Concerning the Blair-Holt proposed legislation.
    Senate Bill SB-2099 will require us to put on our 2009 1040 federal tax form all guns that you have or own. It may require fingerprints and a tax of $50per gun.

    This bill was introduced on Feb.. 24. This bill will become public knowledge 30 days after it is voted into law. This is an amendment to the Internal Revenue Act of 1986. This means that the Finance Committee can pass this without the Senate voting on it at all.

    The full text of the proposed amendment is on the U.S. Senate homepage,

    http://www.senate.gov/ ;

    You can find the bill by doing a search by the bill number, SB-2099.

    You know who to call; I strongly suggest you do.

    Please send a copy of this e-mail to every gun owner you know.

    http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h45/text

    Congress is now starting on the firearms confiscation bill. If it passes, gun owners will become criminals if you don’t fully comply. It has started.

    Very Important for you to be aware of a new bill HR 45 introduced into the House. This is the Blair Holt Firearm Licensing & Record of Sale Act of 2009.

    Even gun shop owners didn’t know about this because the government is trying to fly it under the radar.

    To find out about this – go to any government website and type in HR 45 or Google HR 45 Blair Holt Firearm Licensing & Record of Sales Act of 2009.

    You will get all the information.

    Basically this would make it illegal to own a firearm any rifle with a clip or ANY pistol unless: It is registered -You are fingerprinted -You supply a current Driver’s License -You supply your Social Security # -You will submit to a physical & mental evaluation at any time of their choosing -Each update – change or- ownership through private or public sale must be reported and costs $25 – Failure to do so you automatically lose the right to own a firearm and are subject up to a year in jail. -There is a child provision clause on page 16 section 305 addressing a child-access provision.

    Gun must be locked and inaccessible to any child under 18. The government would have the right to come and inspect that you are storing your gun safely away from accessibility to children and fine is punishable for up to 5 yrs. in prison.

    I was contacted by the NRA last night on these, give us money please. I think there is little chance either will pass. The issue to me is this is exactly how gun confiscation has been done in other countries. I also face a dilemma if this passes. I have a concealed carry permit, so I am already in the governments data banks. So I will have to register, at least some of my firearms.

  52. One for Ray, the Palin hater.

    On AOL Politics Daily, long-time White House reporter Carl Cannon bluntly declared that the political press gave Sarah Palin a raw deal in the 2008 campaign, and seriously failed to scrutinize Joe Biden, especially his fact-mangling and odd statements in the vice presidential debate.

    http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2009/07/10/reporter-we-took-sides-straight-simple-against-palin

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      Not sure what your point is – do you want a separate Joe Biden debate? The worth of Joe Biden isn’t going to change my opinion of Sarah Palin – and frankly – I give two shits about a reporter who all of sudden grows a pair and wants to throw himself under the bus because he was not fair and objective.

    • TexasChem says:

      Wow, I believe the political press forgot to scrutinize Obama as well by conveniently leaving out his past political beliefs and history.

      • Ray Hawkins says:

        Huh? Is that like making a non-deal out of Todd “Secessionist” Palin?

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          Yes Ray,

          Ignoring Todd Palin’s views as a “secessionist” and ignoring Obama’s past political associations, beliefs, and history would be roughly equivalent. However, most people do not view secession and sedition as the same moral equivalent.

          • Disagree, Peter

            Ignoring Todd Palin’s views as a “secessionist” and ignoring Micheal Obama’s being ashamed of her country until her spouse was nominated would be roughly equivalent.

            Now what is strange/funny, during the campaign, why was there so much Obama/Palin comparison? McCain was running against Obama. Why was there so little on Biden/Palin? The article I posted, look at the comparison’s of who made the most mistakes.

            • Ray Hawkins says:

              As I recall Michelle made a one time statement that taken out of context by the conservative hacks. Palin espoused a political philosophy – which honestly – I gave two shits about and called it a non-issue as such. I don’t know why there was such Obama/Palin comparison – or even if there was. Seems to me that McCain v. Obama wasn’t looking good for McCain so they sicked the bulldog from Alaska into it. And Biden? I live practically next door to Delaware. Joe – is a career politician – his value is behind the scenes where his relationships can be leveraged and he can be wheeled out for carefully scripted moments. The guy annoys me – the big toothy, eye squinting smile makes me want to smack him – even though I voted his ticket.

    • My point is – fair and objective. First from the MSM. Second from you.
      What are your main political issues? Say the top five. Have you compared
      her to Obama?

      Economy, look at the stimulus. I believe you have indicated you are not pleased with the stimulus. Do you really favor Obama’s policy of passing the largest spending measure ever, without even reading? Compare that to a fiscal conservative.

      Environment, Obama is pushing Cap & Trade. Palin does not believe it is proven to be manmade, and is against such measures.

    • An interesting article that refutes many of the conservative beliefs about Palin.

      http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124716984620819351.html

      • Todd, Todd, Todd,,,,

        I found no substance to this “article”.

        Mrs. Palin’s supporters have been ordering her to spend the next two years reflecting and pondering. But she is a ponder-free zone. She can memorize the names of the presidents of Pakistan, but she is not going to be able to know how to think about Pakistan. Why do her supporters not see this? Maybe they think “not thoughtful” is a working-class trope!

        “she is not going to be able to know how to think about Pakistan.”

        Its really sage advice to judge someone before they even commit the crime.

        Same questions for you:

        Economy, are you satisfied with the stimulus, both how it was passed and its effectiveness?

        Environment, do you favor Cap & Trade as being proposed?

        Unemployment has risen past what Obama claimed it would reach if the stimulus was not passed. Five percent is being spent on infranstructure. Are you really happy with this?

        China & India have rejected any CO2 caps, Russia will not comply. Cap and trade is economic warfare directed against the US, which will make a few special interest rich. Again, are you happy with what you are being told compare to reality?

        • LOI,
          I think Palin has already committed the “crimes”. She has shown little interest in learning how the world works, cries foul when anyone questions her, and quits when the going gets tough.

          I find it interesting that you pick one line from the article, and then go on a rant about Obama.

          Do you think this is just more of the liberal MSM attacking Palin?
          Do you think the Wall Street Journal and Peggy Noonan are just part of the liberal MSM?

          Maybe you should reread the last part of the article (copied below) and decide if you want to continue defending Palin, or start looking for true leaders for the future.

          Here’s why all this matters. The world is a dangerous place. It has never been more so, or more complicated, more straining of the reasoning powers of those with actual genius and true judgment. This is a time for conservative leaders who know how to think.

          Here are a few examples of what we may face in the next 10 years: a profound and prolonged American crash, with the admission of bankruptcy and the spread of deep social unrest; one or more American cities getting hit with weapons of mass destruction from an unknown source; faint glimmers of actual secessionist movements as Americans for various reasons and in various areas decide the burdens and assumptions of the federal government are no longer attractive or legitimate.

          The era we face, that is soon upon us, will require a great deal from our leaders. They had better be sturdy. They will have to be gifted. There will be many who cannot, and should not, make the cut. Now is the time to look for those who can. And so the Republican Party should get serious, as serious as the age, because that is what a grown-up, responsible party—a party that deserves to lead—would do.

          It’s not a time to be frivolous, or to feel the temptation of resentment, or the temptation of thinking next year will be more or less like last year, and the assumptions of our childhoods will more or less reign in our future. It won’t be that way.

          We are going to need the best.

          • Define “true leader” for the Republican party? One would have to take it as meaning someone who will lose the next election cycle to your own side. Or maybe its someone “just like me” but wearing an elephant pin. It’s certainly not someone who is a conservative. Try again.

            • I’m not looking for a “true leader” for the Republican party. That’s up to the conservatives and Republicans. If you want to stick with Palin, that’s fine with me (and most Democrats, I think) because she would fit your definition of “someone who will lose the next election cycle.”

  53. Ray Hawkins says:

    D13 – am refreshing this because I am interested in the military’s view of Governor Palin’s action. How would such be viewed in a military context? (Military leader, assigned to a base perhaps for a fixed length of time, has contraversy (some unfounded) surrounding them, is well liked and revered by their constituents (soldiers), aspires to higher calling (I dunno Joint Chiefs maybe, cushy Pentagon post), is denied higher calling, goes back to base, things seem business-as-usual, then suddenly quits before their duty has ended and gives conflicting and confusing reasons for leaving – how do the soldiers feel about that leader?)

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      Ray,

      The point you are missing is that we ALL quit things from time to time. Sometimes we have a good reason for quitting something, and sometimes we quit something because “we just don’t feel like it anymore”, and sometimes we quit things just because the going got rough and we decided to seek greener pastures.

      None of those factors necessarily make quitting the wrong thing to do.

      • Ray Hawkins says:

        You are partially correct Peter – but why lie about it? I also would not be so quick to equate quitting as Governor with, say, quitting leaving the toilet seat up. In the universe of ‘things to quit’, not all ‘things to quit’ are on the same level.

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          True,

          But you yourself gave an example above where you had made a promise to stay with company A through thick and thin, and as soon as it became apparent that things were looking pretty thin, you made the decision that it was best for you to quit, even though you had promsied them you would not do that.

          It was probably the right decision for you.

          Quitting when things got “thin” was probably the right decision for Sarah Palin as well. You may not like the way she articulated her reasons for quitting, but it sounds to me that she and you are an aweful lot alike.

          • Ray Hawkins says:

            Nice try Peter –

            I didn’t lie about my reasons for leaving for my former company;

            I was already tagged to be released in the next round of layoffs;

            I was not elected;

            My decision was driven from internal and external influences – with her no one is quite sure.

            • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

              No one is quite sure if her decision to quit was driven by internal and external influences?

              I think that it is quite clear that her decision to quit was driven by both internal and external influences.

              The only thing that I am left with is that you thought her explanation for why she quit was not articulated well enough and/or you just didn’t buy what she was saying.

              Also, the fact that she was elected really isn’t an issue. People quit elected or appointed posts prior to the “expiration date” for those elected posts all the time.

              You seem to argue that this is OK if the person leaving is elected or appointed to a higher position, but not OK if this is not the case.

              What is your feeling when an elected or appointed official leaves before the expiration of his/her term in order to take a high-paying private sector position? There are many examples of this happening in both Republican and Democrat Administrations… is that a valid reason for leaving an elected or appointed post?

              If a politician feels that they are no longer able to perform the duties of their elected or appointed post due to outside distractions/interference, is that a valid reason for resignation?

              • Ray Hawkins says:

                Peter:

                “I think that it is quite clear that her decision to quit was driven by both internal and external influences.”

                – I agree – just not sure what the truth is because she is playing with the truth

                “The only thing that I am left with is that you thought her explanation for why she quit was not articulated well enough and/or you just didn’t buy what she was saying.”

                – Look – I’ll stop being a dick about her lack of articulation – I understand she is a terrible orator or speechwriter or both. Big deal. Problem is I don’t buy all of what she is saying and find her reasons for leaving contrived and full of holes. I struggle to think of another Gov who has resigned because they were afraid of being a lame duck. Have we all assumed that her LT will not also be a lame duck?

                “Also, the fact that she was elected really isn’t an issue. People quit elected or appointed posts prior to the “expiration date” for those elected posts all the time.”

                – Core is the position and reason why – people in her role do not do what she did so I am not sure why we present there is some deep history of this behavior;

                “You seem to argue that this is OK if the person leaving is elected or appointed to a higher position, but not OK if this is not the case.”

                – Not sure what you mean. Are you thinking that any existing politician should resign current office before pursuing higher or other office? I am not.

                “What is your feeling when an elected or appointed official leaves before the expiration of his/her term in order to take a high-paying private sector position? There are many examples of this happening in both Republican and Democrat Administrations… is that a valid reason for leaving an elected or appointed post?”

                I’m okay with an appointed person leaving, not so much with an elected person leaving.

                “If a politician feels that they are no longer able to perform the duties of their elected or appointed post due to outside distractions/interference, is that a valid reason for resignation?”

                – Not a good question Peter – outside distractions/interference means what? Whatever the person decides? She could and was weathering the storm – again – her responses just don’t add up.

        • Black Flag says:

          Ray,

          All politicians lie all the time, even when they don’t have to.

          Why does this surprise you?

    • That she’s not “wasting a crisis”.

    • Bama dad says:

      Ray it is asinine to try and compare military service with an elected official. As you said they are assigned a post, not elected. Controversy will get them relieved, not bad press. Soldiers do not get elected to a higher calling; the good ones earn it with experience and knowledge. There are many more out there with more military experience than I, but if my Co decided to quit, no problems with me. In fact if he was having problems in his mind about being an effective leader and quit, I would thank him for doing so as his distractions and conflicts could get my butt killed.

      • Ray Hawkins says:

        Just trying to understand other perspectives Bama Dad – stop your whining

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          Ray,

          Where in Bama Dad’s comment do you detect whining? I know you have a small kid now and are probably well familliar with the concept of whining, but I really didn’t see it in Bama Dad’s comment anywhere.

          Oh, and my 3 year old and 5 year old are expert whiners, so I am pretty good at detecting it.

          • I agree Peter. Seemed to be a fair rebuttal. He could take issue with “asinine”, but the context was “it is asinine to try”, not a personal attack calling Ray “asinine”. My whiners are 6 & 9.

        • bama dad says:

          Ray:
          If you can find whining in this statement, you need to start a magic show as people would pay money to see what wild things you could pull out of a hat.

          • Ray Hawkins says:

            Don’t slam me because I ask the opinion of someone I have inherent respect for (D13) then tell me I am asinine.

            • bama dad says:

              Ray I said:
              “Ray it is asinine to try”
              Now if I said:
              “Ray you are asinine”, you would have a leg to stand on. Don’t pull that progressive double speak on me when you have no rebuttal, it lowers your credibility when debating.

    • Gosh, ray…I am good at smelling out ambushes and here you go setting one up, however, I am equally good at breaking ambushes…am alive to day to prove this, but, here is my answer.

      Not a great analogy (military and civilian) but I will give you the military answer from a Colonel forced to play politics, point of view.

      As an 0-6 (full colonel) the aspiration of getting to general officer is great. Hell, who would not like to wear a star on their shoulder and have Colonels on down to 2lt quake in their boots…so take away the power trip that goes with this. The ONLY way for an 0-6 to make general officer is to be appointed. You get appointed by a board of your peers. Here is the process…the officers that sit on the board are usually general officers with a West Point or VMI ring on their finger. There is a common joke that the West Point protection society is alive and well. So, that means, that general officers are appointed by West Pointer in most occasions. Now, throw in the mix that I am a Mustang, a Maverick…this is to mean that I was an enlisted man first (e-6) and became an officer. This makes me a pariah among West Pointers because I am not “special”. Forget the fact that I graduated #1 from OCS and chose to go to OCS other than take a direct commission, because I did not know about being an officer and needed to learn things if I was going to put others in harms way.

      From being a 2nd LT on up to Colonel, I was well liked by my men and women because I had dug the ditches, cleaned the honey pots, did KP, and a variety of things that enlisted men did. But, I understood the enlisted side, therefore, very popular. Having been put into life making decisions in combat, my troops trusted my judgment and followed my orders without recompense or remorse. They also knew that I would not leave them on the battlefield. All this to say, that I had it easier than most officers because the enlisted trusted. I was a leader and my troops hung on every word. This is an awesome responsibility and makes for many a sleepless night.

      Now, to be in context, as a commander aspiring to be a general officer, (governor), I had the respect of my men however, I did not have much respect from West Pointers and VMI gads (fellow politicos) because I was not of their class. (Despite being a top graduate from war college as well). In being sent before a selection board, I knew that I would face scrutiny and hardship because I did not have the elite ring on my finger. (politics at its finest). I was a mere University of Texas graduate with a masters degree but did not have that (tap,tap,tap)ring. Naturally, I was turned down despite having several medals of valor, etc. etc. Now, herein lies the parallel. I was more than qualified and up coming but lacked that damn ring. (sort of like being a female governor that aspired to be VP)

      Being sent before a board three times and being not selected for general officer (despite perfect ratings on all my OER’s (officer evaluation reports), it still did not happen. So, basically, I remained a full colonel. Now, in this situation, it is easy to be bitter and distracted from your continuing responsibilities as a colonel. Failure to keep your eye on the ball (job duties) will get people killed and many a Colonel has elected to retire other than fight the system and keep on going. Their reasons were varied. But because they chose to quit or retire, is not looked on as a quitter or coward. After all they made it that far. But, they simply got tired of military politics and the politics of the system itself. They got tired and ego hurt because of the negativism of being turned down…and in the military once turned down is usually a career ending thing. So, no, it is usually viewed the opposite, meaning no one cared as far as stepping aside. For the good of the unit and unit morale, it was better to retire because of attitude.

      Now, in my case, I did not have an ego and kept right on commanding and prospering in my military career knowing full well that I would not get to general officer but wanting to reach that magical 40 years. I had plenty of pressure put on to retire because I was “in a slot that was holding someone else up”. I simply held on because I felt a greater responsibility to my troops than my personal ego. But I have seen greater men resign or quit. But was also readily understood that they were not quitters nor any less a person. They chose to quit fighting the system. I chose to not fight the system but had a greater sense of responsibility to my troops and mission. When my 40 years came up, there was no milestone to reach after this and I would have been “rifted”. So, I retired.

      I do not know if I answered you or not but this was the only way to address it since politics are alive and well in the military. So, I personally do not see a problem with her quitting or stepping down, whatever her reasons, and I do not think her a less person. However, I do not think she should have quit..unless the distractions were so great as to make her ineffective for the future but being less now.

      D13 RETIRED

      • Ray Hawkins says:

        Thanks for sharing D13 – no ambush meant – just wanted to some different perspective. It would seem to me that had you hung the boots up after being turned down once people may have looked at you different.

        • Nah…just pisses me off because I am different. Hung up the boots because I did not want a “rift” on my record and I am 60 years old and feel that 40 years of a persons life is enough…and it is a young man’s game now. I still run 8 minute miles in combat boots with 45 pounds on my back…but now I hurt like hell afterwards. The bod has said ENOUGH!!

          I can still teach and instruct and lead…just not in uniform.

          Just teasin’ about the ambush, Ray. But I do keep an eye on you. 🙂

          D13

        • Ya know Ray….upon further reflection, since my troops knew me as being pretty strong and, above all, fair…I think some would have had a slightly different opinion if I had simply said…..to hell with this, I quit. But, further reflection, also made me look back on officers that just said, I am outta here after 20, led me to question their reason for being there..Do my 20 and get out…..interesting when I thought back on it. I did not look at them as a quitter (they did their time) but I did look at them differently in the sense that their motivation was wrong for being there. Interesting. Made me think…quit that…it is the weekend.

          D13

          • Ray Hawkins says:

            D13 – I think you have hit the nail on the head – I’m 15:19 right now and too close to a cold one (or five) and my grill – time for me to wind it down.

  54. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    My final take on the whole Sarah Palin thing is this.

    First, some people say that what she did was “bad” because she “quit”.

    It was then pointed out that other people, such as Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama also “quit” the positions that the people had elected them to perform.

    This was justified as “OK” because they had a good reason for quitting- they were elected or appointed to a higher office.

    Ok, by this reasoning, it would have been OK for Sarah Palin to quit had she been elected Vice President, but it is not OK for her to quit, since she was not elected or appointed to a higher office. That is bulldookey.

    Ray then brought up that he quit a position which he had promised not to quit because it was better for him, and better for his company for him to quit even though he had made a promise not to do so.

    This makes sense. I submit that Sarah Palin was unable to perform the duties of Governor of the State of Alaska to the best of her abilities due to all of the current distractions; therefore, it was in her best interest and the best interest of the State of Alaska for her to resign her post. The fact that she could not articulate it in simple terms like this is unfortunate.

    As far as her having a back-up plan; perhaps her plan is to sit back for a while, spend some time with her family, and consider exactly what she wants to do next. If that is indeed the case, sometimes doing just that is a pretty good plan.

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      Peter – oddly I agree with most but not all of what you are saying. My exceptions:

      “Ok, by this reasoning, it would have been OK for Sarah Palin to quit had she been elected Vice President, but it is not OK for her to quit, since she was not elected or appointed to a higher office. That is bulldookey.”

      – I find it very unfortunate that we would hold the bar so low for a leader as such – someone that was so close to being elected VPOTUS or even as Governor of Alaska. You’re making a final assessment over incredibly and astonishingly narrow logic – but hey – if it makes it more palatable to you then go for it.

      “I submit that Sarah Palin was unable to perform the duties of Governor of the State of Alaska to the best of her abilities due to all of the current distractions; therefore, it was in her best interest and the best interest of the State of Alaska for her to resign her post. The fact that she could not articulate it in simple terms like this is unfortunate.”

      – Let’s make the leap that it was in her best interests and the State to resign. I’d offer only that (a) she is an idiot if she thought her candidacy was not going to attract additional attention and scrutiny, even if her ticket lost. She was new enough and different enough that her mere presence would up the ante – to pretend like it would not or should not is asinine. (B) she could have returned to her State and focused on governing – she had become a lightning rod yet she choose to still stick her neck out. You stick your neck out people are going to shoot at you – just ask the current POTUS. She set herself in this position then refused to acknowledge that the game has any rules. When she bucked at the rules (which – I will state – is needed from time to time) she got pissed when anyone would challenge her. Now, tired of the game she allowed herself to be thrust into, tired of answering the bell, she assed out. Maybe that was the best and right thing to do – but there’s no need to lie about it. Everyone has applauded her for being “real”, “one of us”, “tell it like it is”. Well – she hasn’t told it like it is. If you’re going to step of the bus just be honest and tell us why – don’t make up bullshit excuses when you know, you know that everyone will micro-analyze everything you say and fact check you to death.

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        Ray,

        Actually you and I agree on a bit more here than you realize. It is true that Sarah Palin brought a lot of these outside distractions on herself.

        Right or wrong, she SHOULD HAVE KNOWN that she was going to get pilloried by the press and have every single facet of her life exposed and investigated. The fact that she either thought this was not the case or thought that she could handle it and then turned out not to be able to handle it is a sign that she is pretty politically naive, and probably not fit for a run at the Presidency unless she somehow manages to CONVINCINGLY overcome this problem.

        I think that it is possible that she could run for House or Senate, since these offices are not subjected to anywhere near the scrutiny that VP or President get subjected to, but even if she runs for House or Senate, she had better be more prepared for the tactics of the media and her opponents next time!

        I can agree with you that to not realize the $hitstorm she was in for was naive and a sign of poor preparation for leadership, but where I disagree with you is the fact that I feel her decision to resign as Governor at this time and admit that she was not able to dedicate the time and resources needed to perform her job well was actually a step back in the right direction as far as leadership qualities go.

        A good leader would have known the storm was coming and would have prepared better. Sarah did NOT do that.

        However, a good leader also knows when to fish and when to cut bait, and in my opinion, her decision to cut bait when she did was the right one.

        I am by no means a Sarah-worshipper, and would most likely NOT vote for her in a primary or general election if she ran for President in 2012. If she makes more good decisions in the future and shows good leadership, would I vote for her in 2028? Maybe, but only time will tell.

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          Also, I will agree with you when you say she shouldn’t make up bullshit excuses for resigning. Her somewhat rambling press conference didn’t do much to clarify her actual reasons for her resignation.

          It would have been better, in my opinion, for her to simply say, “I thought that I would have the time and energy to devote to governing the great State of Alaska after running for Vice President, which was a great honor. Unfortunately, with all of the outside distractions that have ocurred as a result of my Vice Presidential candidacy, I must admit that I currently lack the time and focus which I feel I need to perform my duties as Governor of Alaska to the best of my ability; therefore I find it necessary to resign my post.”

          If she had said something simple and to the point like that I think people would have respected her decision more.

        • Bama dad says:

          Peter I have read the text of her resignation but have not watched the video. It was long, but I see nothing in there to cause all of this controversy, I fact it made sense to me. Where am I wrong?

          • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

            Bama Dad,

            I actually think that what she said did actually make sense. I think it is more the WAY in which she said it that is causing some people to question whether or not she is being truthful. That is the main reason why I thought she would have been better off boiling it down to more of a simple, direct statement.

            • Alan F. says:

              Far less fodder for the “out of context” police to draw their charges from at the very least.

              • I’ll agree with this. The speech jumped from one reason to another, and left me wondering “what’s the real reason behind this?”

                Time will tell if there’s something bigger…

  55. TO: BF, RAY, BOB, JAC…..curiosity on something, if you do not mind answering. Want only your opinion and do not intend to take issue back, unless asked, of course.

    Genocide…. I am interested in your drive by philosophy on respecting a state’s (country) sovereign status in the world where Genocide is prevalent. Does the world, or individual country, have the moral obligation to interfere in a sovereign state where the annihilation of an entire race or ethnicity is prevalent.

    Also, in answering, please…no history lessons. I think that this question is a simple yes or no.

    D13

    • Black Flag says:

      It’s a bit hard for me, since I don’t recognize the State to begin with….

      However, no government has the right to force its citizens to interfere with the affairs of another country. Period.

      No government has a right to use its military in foreign adventures if that country is not a threat to this country and there is no Clear and Present Danger.

      If you want to organize a regiment of volunteers and go over and fight for the lives of others – good on you – I might even give money to pay for it.

      • D13

        I hope yyou don’t mind me chiming in as it is also a bit of a quandry for me as well.

        BF;

        To some degree I am good with your principle, although I am wondering about another like circumstance. A classmate or co-worker is being abused by another student or co-worker. It is only obvious to you and despite repeated complaints from the individual being abused administration does nothing. You are aware of the events and have the ability to stop them without reprisal from the abuser. Do you get involved. If speaking to the abuser proves to be a wasted effort, do you take the next step?

        I would, as my core says I have a responsibility to a fellow being to aid and deter further harm.

        What say you?

        • Black Flag says:

          Common Man

          Waayyyy to many forks in the road in your example – let’s trim it up.

          Student or administration?

          What ‘abuse’?

          What ‘complaint’?

          Many times, in evaluation, though it may appear that someone is abusing another, it is a confusion over what someone believes is their ‘right’ and when it really is not.

          • BF;

            OK, I will make it simple. You come upon one man mugging another man, is it your core responsibility to stop the mugger?

            I’m asking because even though we are a world of nations are we not a world of individuals first. Were we not enowed by a creator to tend to one another as we ourselves would want to be attended?

            If in fact that is true and the individual is more signifigant than the country are we not therefore beholding to the other individuals; as they would be to us?

            I understand that a government cannot subject’s it’s nations people to a war that poses no threat to that nation, however if the people requested, as caretakers, our government intervene to help another people wouldn’t that be righteous?

            CM

            • Black Flag says:

              OK, I will make it simple. You come upon one man mugging another man, is it your core responsibility to stop the mugger?

              To answer, one must be perfectly clear to what one’s core responsibility is!

              Take a minute before you read further and think about that.

              …..

              One minute later….

              My core responsibility is to …. my family.

              I would contradict my core responsibility if I acted in a way that risked my life in favor of strangers, risking my families survivability. I am core to my families survivability. My death would be devastating to them.

              Now, you’re core may be different from mine.

              I’m asking because even though we are a world of nations are we not a world of individuals first. Were we not enowed by a creator to tend to one another as we ourselves would want to be attended?

              No, for that would mean I know what you want.

              Even I don’t have an ego that big to know that.

              All I can do is let you do what you need to tend to yourself as long as you offer the same back to me.

              If in fact that is true

              It is not a fact, nor is it necessarily true.

              and the individual is more signifigant than the country are we not therefore beholding to the other individuals; as they would be to us?

              No, since that would require knowledge that cannot be gained.

              All I can do is not impose upon you and not allow you to impose upon me.

              however if the people requested, as caretakers, our government intervene to help another people wouldn’t that be righteous?

              Not if a government did so – for it forces others to act in a manner they may not agree with.

              It maybe righteous for YOU to act – and that is yours to figure out if it is or not.

              You also may be disgusted by those that you may believe should act but do not.

              But you do not have a right to force anyone to act righteous.

              • BF;

                I understand your position and dedication to family. No disgust felt as it is everyone’s right to act as they see fit based upon their individual belief’s.

                I on the other hand I would and have intervened. Although my intervention techniques have lessened as my age increases.

                CM

              • Black Flag says:

                Ah, I didn’t say I wouldn’t intervene

                Your question was about ‘core responsibility’.

                If I felt that I had little or no risk, then I may intervene.

                But the question you offered has other assumptions that may not be true.

                For example, How do you know one is the mugger and the other is not?

                In real life, they do not have cartoon balloons over their heads pointing out good vs bad.

                Intervention is a very, very tricky thing – often it is a mistake – whether you are an individual or a nation. No one or entity has all the information necessary to make such an important decision.

                This is why both as a person or a nation – “Stay out of other people’s business” is the golden rule.

        • Don’t mind you or anyone else coming in at all. since I have been on this blog, I have seen a variety of stances that have become intriguing….from both spectra. There are those that espouse intervention for moral good and those that espouse hands off… until it becomes a “clear and present danger”, which is a subjective thought. Who decides what is clear and present? I ask this because I see this (genocide)happening shortly. Call it a feeling or call it insight from years of intelligence briefings and experience. there are those on here that say…unless my ox is getting gored, it is none of my business and there are those that say, becoming a world policeman is not our job.

          Is a clear and present danger a nuclear armed terrorist or rogue state that sells nuclear and fissionable material to third world a clear and present danger? Does a State that carries out genocide and then begins to export it become a clear and present danger?

          Kind of like medicine…I prefer to be proactive instead of reactive. Throwing money (bribing) at a situation does not solve problems. But, I see a storm coming and it will gain speed because I feel that the “world” will do nothing except talk.

          But I was curious as to thinking out there.

          Thanks all

          D13

          • Black Flag says:

            until it becomes a “clear and present danger”, which is a subjective thought. Who decides what is clear and present?

            Sorry, I have to admit I laughed…. 😆

            “….Clear and Present Danger….is quite unclear to what it means….”

            Please, I’m not insulting you – but it is a very common refrain by many…

            Actually, it is incredibly straight forward. I agree it is subjective – there exists no math formula (which is why it is often abused) – however, sane and reasonable men will find it easy to deal with.

            Clear – not cloudy, not vague, not obscure, observable, ‘right in your face’

            Present – not yesterday, not tomorrow, not chance, now, immediate, here, to us, not over there to them.

            Danger – harm, damage, death, destruction, not rhetoric, not weaklings, not pinches, not spitballs.

            You are holding a knife. Are you a Clear and Present Danger to me for me to kill you – before you kill me.

            Is it Clear? Is the knife in your pocket all folded up? Or are you waving it around, or jabbing it towards me in a forceful manner? Are you threatening me verbally or simply cutting your steak?

            Present? Are you in my house now, or halfway around the world? You could be in China, jabbing the knife, claiming you’re going to ‘get me’ – well, you’re not present so nope – no attack.

            Danger? Is it a toy knife? You could be jabbing it my way, in my face, threatening me, while holding on to a rubber knife. Can I shoot you now?

            All three need to be answered beyond reasonable doubt or you cannot act. Any one that fails the test cancels your preemptive action.

            Is a clear and present danger a nuclear armed terrorist or rogue state that sells nuclear and fissionable material to third world a clear and present danger?

            Not yet…. bears watching and preparedness, but is insufficient to act preemptively.

            Does a State that carries out genocide and then begins to export it become a clear and present danger?

            Is it a threat to you?

            Kind of like medicine…I prefer to be proactive instead of reactive. Throwing money (bribing) at a situation does not solve problems. But, I see a storm coming and it will gain speed because I feel that the “world” will do nothing except talk.

            Jaw-jaw is infinitely more better a path to take then war-war.

            But I was curious as to thinking out there.

            Thanks all

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      D13,

      You didn’t list me specifically on your list of desired respondants, but I am taking a shot at this one anyway 🙂

      Genocide is obviously morally reprehensible. Regardless of race, everyone has individual rights. Any State which condones or sponsors Genocide is (obviously) in direct opposition to the individual rights of those being killed.

      The crux of your question is, does “the world” or any other state, have the moral obligation to interfere when this is occurring.

      I would say that that depends entirely on your definition of “interfere”. I am not saying that just to be a jackass, I am actually being serious!

      If said genocide is a direct threat to me or my family, I have the moral obligation to defend myself and my family. If the genocide is occurring half-way across the world and is not a direct threat to myself and my family, do I still find it morally reprehensible? You bet! Would I find it acceptable for myself or my family to take part in defending those against whom the genocide was taking place? If we were to do so through our own choice and by our own free will, that would be ok. If we were told by a “government” that we were required to defend the people against whom the genocide was taking place, I would object.

      Is it a horrible thing when a State decides it is ok to murder people simply on the basis of their race, color, or creed? Certainly! Is it my job to ensure that everyone else on the planet behaves in a moral and responsible way? Nope. It is my responsibility to ensure that I (and I alone) behave in a moral and responsible way, and to highly encourage these traits in my family and try to raise my kids to hopefully behave in a moral and responsible way. Beyond that, I can express the desire that everyone else behaves in a moral and responsible way, but I cannot force them to do so. If their immoral and irresponsible behavior threatens me or my family directly, you better believe I will defend myself and my family against them.

      Some would argue that we have a “moral imperative” to defend those against whom genocide is being committed, because they do not have the ability to defend themselves. I personally do not subscribe to that position.

    • NO. There is no moral obligation of the government or state to another, except to not use coersive force against it unless attacked by the other.

      I may elect to fight against it as an individual but I can not use the Power of govt to make others do so.

      And by the way, I am fully aware of the god awful consequences of what this means.

      Hope you have a great day
      JAC

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        I agree JAC.

        What happens when we choose to not interfere? Most likely a lot of people are probably going to die.

        This is indeed a God Aweful consequence, and yet your statement is correct. I may elect to fight against it as an individual, but I cannot use the power of government to force others to do so.

      • Black Flag says:

        As I stated above:

        One of the hardest things for humans to understand –

        There are human problems that do not have any moral solutions and thus, there shall always be human suffering.

        What is hard is to do is to accept this.

        What is the most important thing, I believe, for a person to do – is to accept this, and continue to act, work and live and solve human problems with moral solutions, where such solutions exist

        • JayDickB says:

          Based on the above, with which I agree, I have a new proverb:

          Not every problem needs a solution and very damn few problems need government solutions.

        • Damn, BF….you calling me human? Crap, I thought all us Colonels were inhuman sadistic beings. All this time and now I am human…..SIGH!!!!!

          Have a great day. good talkin’ to ya.

          D13

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-5723-Albuquerque-Libertarian-Examiner~y2009m7d7-What-if-people-dont-do-the-right-thing

          I posted this link earlier, but thought that it would be appropriate to post it again here.

          I have NO WAY of ensuring that you do the right thing. I can hope that you do the right thing, I can even offer you encouragement to do the right thing, but I cannot force you to do the right thing.

          However, if you are doing a wrong thing, and that wrong thing is a direct threat to me or my family… THEN I can most certainly use force against you!

    • Alan F. says:

      Yes, the division into “countries” is our imposition on the globe. Us being so “different” is our narcissism imposed on humanity. Some things just crush political boundaries and genocide is such.

      My brother is going back to Darfur next January.

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        Is your brother going back to Darfur of his own accord or is he military and being assigned there?

        Just curious…

        • Alan F. says:

          Asked for duty there. He’s a sweet deal where he is right now at CFB Winnipeg and could just as easily go back to training tactical with the RCMP too but decided on a year contract training the constabulary in Darfur. I don’t think he’s been “sent” anywhere since Bosnia-Herzegovina.

    • D13:

      Not so fast my dear colonel. What is your answer to the question.

      Feel free to pontificate a little if you like.

      JAC

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      D13 – my response:

      First off – to set a definition for genocide (from Wiki):

      “a legal definition is found in the 1948 United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG). Article 2 of this convention defines genocide as “any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.””

      Do we “interfere”?

      Yes – interference may be meant solely in a military context here (or not?) – but I would extend this to include all matters of intervention to include direct and indirect diplomacy up to and including military action. Problematic then is – what is a group and who is the other primary actor? I take the primary actor to be a State and the group to include 5 or more people.

      The bigger question is: if you were a member of such a group – would you want outside help?

      • Gee whiz, all these years the Progressives were committing genocide against conservatives and libertarians and I didn’t even see it.

        ” causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group”. Emphasis on mental harm of course.

        Perhaps the U.N. could step in and help.

  56. Good Morning All.

    May I chime in this conversation about quitting jobs, or should I call it Retiring from a job?

    My husband used to work for Lockheed in Burbank, Calif. for 25 years, minus the 3 years he did in the Army. That was back in 1965 thru 1990 when he held a pretty good position. Two years before they closed the doors for good there, he was offered to go to Marietta, Georgia,or to Palmdale Calif., even though it would have been a higher paying job, he turned it down.

    Why you might ask. Because he didn’t want to take that chance of those two places closing, and having to deal with looking for another job. He chose to retire from there permanently, and pull up stakes to move to Reno, Nevada.

    Since he had family here, he decided to go work with his brother at his environmental lab, even though it wasn’t the same amount of money he was making at Lockheed. The money wasn’t so hot when he first started out, and we had to really watch our pennies, but we managed to survive that period. That was 19 and a 1/2 years ago, and he is still there.

    The business has really expanded over the years, and the lab now makes good money, and so does my husband, me too for that matter. We have a steady flow of regular clients, some pretty big ones at that. Plus a steady stream of people who come in and want their water tested. We do all kinds of testing at the lab.

    We do regular drinking water, well water, sand/oil separators, diesel, metals, plus a multitude of other things that are tested at our lab. We don’t charge a huge amount for tests, because then our clients would find another place to take their business, and that would be bad for our lab.

    When my brother in law, first started his business, he only had a one room lab, with only a couple pieces of equipment. Now, we have more equipment to be able to do more testing on a variety of stuff.

    Moving up here was the right call for us, and we feel it was the right thing to do. Who knows what would or could have happened if my husband took those jobs in Georgia or Palmdale Calif. We are both happy being up here, and you couldn’t pay us enough to go back to Calif.

    My husband handles the business end, plus runs some tests, while my brother in law runs the majority of the tests, since he is the chemist. Me, I do a variety of things there, like secretary work, type up reports, dealing with clients, logging in samples, and occasionally, prep samples and get them ready for testing. I love my job, couldn’t be happier at it.

    • Black Flag says:

      Lesson:

      1) When times are tough, move closer to family or get them to move closer to you.

      2) Work for family – there is a far greater resistance to firing family and more of a chance of ‘sharing suffering’ then amputation during down turns.

      • You know BF, if it wasn’t for this job working with my brother in law, I wouldn’t be able to bring my mom with me everyday. Since she has Dementia, and we really can’t afford a senior day care for her, he doesn’t mind in the least. Where else could I work and be able to bring her with me everyday like that? Besides, everybody there knows the situation, and that makes it so much easier for me.

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      Ahh, an environmental lab… my favorite kind of place to work!!

      I wish I could find a private environmental lab with the right combination of people and location… worked in one in Chicago… loved the people, hated the location. Then I worked in one in Colorado… loved the location, but the people running the lab were totally clueless…

      That is why I ended up back here in Indianapolis stealing money from myself and all of the other tax-paying citizens again 🙂

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        Oh, and I forgot to mention, my wife has family here, and my wife and I both have friends here, and we are reasonably close to my family here as well. Family/friends was definitely another factor in my decision to come back here 🙂

        • After Jim’s mom passed away in 1977, his two brother’s moved here, his older brother is an accountant, opened his own business with his partner from Encino, Calif., doing really good. Jim’s twin is the one that has the lab that we work with. His dad moved here in 1990, until he passed away in 1995. He was 88 and a half years old when he passed. If it wasn’t for his brother’s moving here, we wouldn’t have, and who knows where we would have ended up. We didn’t want to stay in Calif, there wasn’t any other family really left there. Most of his aunts and uncles live in Michigan, what’s left of them anyway, most have passed on. All he really has left are a bunch of cousins, and they really don’t have any contact with them. We are a close nit family up here, in fact, we now have several nieces and nephews and they have families of their own. So we really grew over the years, and things couldn’t be better.

          • Peter, I forgot to mention, there are only the 3 of us who work there. Me, my husband, and his brother. Oh, our cousin works there too, but not for the lab. He has his own business that runs out of there until we move our lab to a new location sometime early next year. It’s in the process of being built now. Not just the lab, but there are several other businesses moving there, including the other brother who is the accountant.

            By the way, the name of our lab is, Great Basin Environmental Lab, and if you ever need any water tested or anything else, just give us a call, we’ll give you a deal. The number is ( 775-323-4822 ). Of course, it depends on what you want or need testing. Just thought I’d pass that along in case anybody else might need something tested.

  57. Black Flag says:

    Peter and Ray

    I am really enjoying your discussion Palin – in a sitcom way!

    You guys both miss the whole extent of national politics and have fallen head over heals into idol (or anti-idol) worship.

    You both believe Palin will win or lose (if she runs at all) based on HER.

    She could come out tomorrow and be the identical twin to Paris or Perez Hilton wouldn’t matter one wit regarding her run for Prez.

    Peter, she is not a leader. No President has been a leader since Washington. The rest have had followers, but in the sense Sun Moon and Jim Jones had followers.

    Your debate infers that both of you believe that the People, whoever they are, actually elects the Prez. and that there is ‘some quality’ that makes her better than Obama better than Bush. I dunna, I can’t find anything significantly different between any of them – except physical attributes. Palin is prettier.

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      Palin being prettier is a good reason why SOME people would probably vote for her 🙂

      I personally do not vote in any elections… Haven’t voted in any since I was 22. There are never any candidates that represent my beliefs or my morals and values, so I cannot vote for any of them.

      I do tend to like Republican lies better than Democrat lies, since the Republicans lie about wanting smaller and less intrusive government, but I still don’t vote for any of them.

      In spite of my personal choice to not vote, I do feel that Palin would be electable in some capacity in our current system.

      • Peter,

        Our voting records are similar. Have not voted since I was 21 (45 years ago).

        Similar reasons to yours.

        • Black Flag says:

          So where were you guys when I was arguing that voting was futile? Huh? Huh?

          😆

          I have voted once in my life. I regret it.

  58. Richmond Spitfire says:

    Good day all!

    Received this in an email, thought I would share it:

    Ed McMahon died recently/ He was a great entertainer, but prior to his stage accomplishments he was a distinguished Marine Corps fighter pilot in WWII earning six Air Medals. He was discharged in 1946 and volunteered to fly again in the Korean War. He joined the CA Air National Guard and was later promoted to the rank of Brigadier General.

    Farrah Fawcett died recently after a long career in Hollywood as an actress. After she was diagnosed with cancer, she became an activist for cancer treatment and devoted her last remaining years encouraging people to seek treatment. She documented her plight on film and used it to encourage others to stay positive and upbeat despite their diagnosis and suffering.

    Karl Malden died recently after a long career in Hollywood as an actor. He also served in the US Air Force during WWII and also served on the US Postal Service committee to review and recommend commemorative stamps. In 2005, the US House of Representatives authorized the US Postal Service to rename a Los Angeles post office the Karl Malden Postal Station.

    Michael Jackson died recently after a suspected abuse of prescription drugs. He was perhaps one of the greatest singers of modern time. He will also be remembered for his eccentric lifestyle that included sleeping with a chimpanzee, living in a carnival-like atmosphere at Neverland, his fascination with Peter Pan, and his numerous masks and costumes. He also admitted to finding pleasure sleeping with young boys and paying out millions of dollars in settlements to the families of these boys despite being acquitted by a court on one allegation of sexual molestation.

    QUESTION 1) Which of the above did the House of Representatives declare a moment of silence for today? (Hint – It wasn’t the first three)

    QUESTION 2) Which of the above’s family received a personal note of condolence from President Obama? (Hint – It wasn’t the first three)

    • Black Flag says:

      And yet, so many people still kneel at the alter of government – regardless of how bizarre such an entity acts.

  59. Ray Hawkins says:

    Moved for readability:

    “Kristian said
    July 10, 2009 at 12:16 pm

    You are a fine one to talk about a double standard. When you can stop holding Republicans and conservatives to a different standard than a Democrat or liberal we’ll talk about double standards.”

    – Care to explain what you are talking about?

    • Kristian Stout says:

      Sure. You hold conservatives to a higher standard than you do liberals. I don’t know if it is because you think they should be better than what they are or if it is blind loyalty to the left. I’ll admit that there have been times that I could be accused of the same thing. I think the difference is that I don’t hold the hatred of them as people that you do. I’ve been thinking about this for the last couple of days and trying to figure out why you seem to be taking this so personally. I mean you have really got your tail in a twist about this and I don’t understand the vitriol that is being spewed over this woman quitting her job. I’ve said before that I don’t like Obama, I believe that I even made the unfortunate statement that he was the Anti-Christ, I think though that I just do not agree with the man’s policies and I don’t believe that he has the necessary ablilites to lead. In fact he scares me to death. But, there are a lot of politicians that scare me to death right now and they aren’t all democrats. The senator from my state is one that scares me.

      So, can you explain the hatred that you have for Palin? Can you tell me why we haven’t seen the same level of anger from you over the things that Obama is pushing? Cap & Trade, a second stimulus bill? I’m curious because her quitting her job just really doesn’t affect you and I on a personal level but these bills that are being passed do. Help me understand Ray. I too want to learn from you but when you say things like some that you have said on this blog it makes it hard to take you seriously.

      • Ray Hawkins says:

        Sure – the question was about Sarah Palin not anyone else – that is why I try to direct my answers to/about her instead of redirecting the point using some Democrat as a whipping post. If you don’t want to know what I think about her then do not ask. I do not have blind loyalty to the left – just go to todays readings and you will figure that out.

        • Kristian Stout says:

          Ray,

          Just because we compare to Obama or any democrat does not mean that they are a whipping post. I was under the impression that this blog was supposed to be about learning from one another. I have learned a lot but the one thing that I see that bothers me more than anything else is there seems to be no meeting of the minds. I’ve read your responses to D-13, Richmond Spitfire and a whole host of others and all I see is a back and forth that solves nothing and some of it sounds or rather reads as condescending. I could be mis-reading them and if I am I apologize, that is simply how they come across to me. You have stated that you do not understand the conservative mind and honestly Ray, from your writings, I don’t think you want to. Am I wrong about that too?

  60. Black Flag says:

    TexChem

    Continuing from above

    I have this image of your mental feet spinning in circles like a cartoon Roadrunner about to take off…. 🙂

    So, forgive me if I yank you back – you’re off to the races a bit too quick.

    Your core truth:
    “love your neighbor as yourself” (interestingly, as I will show below, this is NOT what Jesus (New Testament) said – this comes from the Old Testament (Jewish) text)

    If you accept,

    “Do unto others as ye would have them do unto you”

    Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.” Matthew 7:12, King James Version.

    “And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise.” Luke 6:31, King James Version.

    “…and don’t do what you hate…”, Gospel of Thomas 6. The Gospel of Thomas is one of about 40 gospels that were widely accepted among early Christians, but which never made it into the Christian Scriptures (New Testament).

    Of course, this is quite the universal mantra of almost every known religion, in one way or another.

    Brahmanism: “This is the sum of Dharma [duty]: Do naught unto others which would cause you pain if done to you”. Mahabharata, 5:1517 ”

    Buddhism:
    o “…a state that is not pleasing or delightful to me, how could I inflict that upon another?” Samyutta NIkaya v. 353

    o Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful.” Udana-Varga 5:18

    Confucianism:
    o “Do not do to others what you do not want them to do to you” Analects 15:23

    o “Tse-kung asked, ‘Is there one word that can serve as a principle of conduct for life?’ Confucius replied, ‘It is the word ‘shu’ — reciprocity. Do not impose on others what you yourself do not desire.'” Doctrine of the Mean 13.3

    o “Try your best to treat others as you would wish to be treated yourself, and you will find that this is the shortest way to benevolence.” Mencius VII.A.4

    Ancient Egyptian:
    o “Do for one who may do for you, that you may cause him thus to do.” The Tale of the Eloquent Peasant, 109 – 110 Translated by R.B. Parkinson. The original dates to 1970 to 1640 BCE and may be the earliest version ever written.

    Hinduism:
    o This is the sum of duty: do not do to others what would cause pain if done to you. Mahabharata 5:1517

    Humanism:
    o “(5) Humanists acknowledge human interdependence, the need for mutual respect and the kinship of all humanity.”

    o “(11) Humanists affirm that individual and social problems can only be resolved by means of human reason, intelligent effort, critical thinking joined with compassion and a spirit of empathy for all living beings. ”

    o “Don’t do things you wouldn’t want to have done to you, British Humanist Society.

    Islam:

    “None of you [truly] believes until he wishes for his brother what he wishes for himself.” Number 13 of Imam “Al-Nawawi’s Forty Hadiths.”

    Jainism:
    o “Therefore, neither does he [a sage] cause violence to others nor does he make others do so.” Acarangasutra 5.101-2.

    o “In happiness and suffering, in joy and grief, we should regard all creatures as we regard our own self.” Lord Mahavira, 24th Tirthankara

    o “A man should wander about treating all creatures as he himself would be treated. “Sutrakritanga 1.11.33

    Judaism:
    o “…thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.”, Leviticus 19:18

    o “What is hateful to you, do not to your fellow man. This is the law: all the rest is commentary.” Talmud, Shabbat 31a.

    o “And what you hate, do not do to any one.” Tobit 4:15 6

    Native American Spirituality:

    o “Respect for all life is the foundation.” The Great Law of Peace.

    o “All things are our relatives; what we do to everything, we do to ourselves. All is really One.” Black Elk

    o “Do not wrong or hate your neighbor. For it is not he who you wrong, but yourself.” Pima proverb.

    Roman Pagan Religion:
    “The law imprinted on the hearts of all men is to love the members of society as themselves.”

    Shinto:
    o “The heart of the person before you is a mirror. See there your own form”

    o “Be charitable to all beings, love is the representative of God.” Ko-ji-ki Hachiman Kasuga

    Sikhism:
    o Compassion-mercy and religion are the support of the entire world”. Japji Sahib

    o “Don’t create enmity with anyone as God is within everyone.” Guru Arjan Devji 259

    o “No one is my enemy, none a stranger and everyone is my friend.” Guru Arjan Dev : AG 1299

    Sufism:

    “The basis of Sufism is consideration of the hearts and feelings of others. If you haven’t the will to gladden someone’s heart, then at least beware lest you hurt someone’s heart, for on our path, no sin exists but this.” Dr. Javad Nurbakhsh, Master of the Nimatullahi Sufi Order.

    Taoism:
    o “Regard your neighbor’s gain as your own gain, and your neighbor’s loss as your own loss.” T’ai Shang Kan Ying P’ien.

    o “The sage has no interest of his own, but takes the interests of the people as his own. He is kind to the kind; he is also kind to the unkind: for Virtue is kind. He is faithful to the faithful; he is also faithful to the unfaithful: for Virtue is faithful.” Tao Teh Ching, Chapter 49

    Unitarian:
    “The inherent worth and dignity of every person;”
    “Justice, equity and compassion in human relations…. ”
    “The goal of world community with peace, liberty, and justice for all;”
    “We affirm and promote respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part.” Unitarian principles.

    Wicca:

    “An it harm no one, do what thou wilt” (i.e. do what ever you will, as long as it harms nobody, including yourself). One’s will is to be carefully thought out in advance of action. This is called the Wiccan Rede

    Yoruba:
    (Nigeria): “One going to take a pointed stick to pinch a baby bird should first try it on himself to feel how it hurts.”

    Zoroastrianism:
    o “That nature alone is good which refrains from doing unto another whatsoever is not good for itself”. Dadistan-i-dinik 94:5

    o “Whatever is disagreeable to yourself do not do unto others.” Shayast-na-Shayast 13:29

    Philosophers’:

    Epictetus: “What you would avoid suffering yourself, seek not to impose on others.” (circa 100 CE)

    Kant: “Act as if the maxim of thy action were to become by thy will a universal law of nature.”

    Plato: “May I do to others as I would that they should do unto me.” (Greece; 4th century BCE)

    Socrates: “Do not do to others that which would anger you if others did it to you.” (Greece; 5th century BCE)

    Seneca: “Treat your inferiors as you would be treated by your superiors,” Epistle 47:11 (Rome; 1st century CE)

    And yes, even….

    Scientology: “20: Try to treat others as you would want them to treat you.” This is one of the 21 moral precepts that form the moral code explained in L. Ron Hubbard’s booklet “The Way to Happiness.”

    So, can we agree that this ranks among a Universal Truth?

    However, it is derived from a Natural Law – Confucius (which is why I highlighted it above) hit the nail — reciprocity — or as I have said in before on this blog, “the Law of Mutuality”.

    What I do to you gives everyone the right to do to me

    Are we still standing on the same line at this point?

    • JayDickB says:

      I’m with you. This was one of the semi-random thoughts I expressed a few days ago in response to your encouragement to find a “core moral principal”.

      Another slant that seems to me to be about the same thing:

      Do harm to others only upon clear and sufficient justification.

      The golden rule way of expressing it seems clearer, however, less subjective. Reciprocity sounds good to me.

      Of course, this becomes highly personalized. Different people would undoubtedly interpret it differently. And, of course, many would be totally dishonest about it until the evil they perpetrated on others was actually perpetrated on them. Then, they would squeal like a pig.

      But, that’s probably true of any basic moral principal, no matter how expressed.

      • Black Flag says:

        JayDick,

        Allow me to go further, by going backwards.

        The moral principle of “…do unto others…” is not the root – it is a consequence of reciprocity.

        As with all laws of nature, there exists an equal and opposite reaction.

        1) What I do to you, you do to me – therefore, I better be incredibly careful of what I do to you

        2) What I do to you, you do to me – therefore, I couldn’t care less what you do to me

        • JayDickB says:

          I’m not sure I see the difference between reciprocity and “do unto others……”

          Aren’t they different ways of expressing the same concept?

        • Black Flag says:

          If I follow Route #1, we both are free – for me to be free, I must let you be free. To be free is to not be imposed upon, therefore, for me to be free, I cannot impose upon you – so that you do not impose upon me.

          But follow Route #2….

          I do unto you as I want. I punch you, so you punch me back – but I’m not at all afraid of your punches – so I pummel you into submission.

          Both paths stem from the same root –

          Government (root premise: centralization and monopolization of violence) derives from Route #2.

          Freedom (root premise: no one imposes upon another) derives from Route #1.

          At this point – at a very basic roots, one can see that the reconciliation of government (ie: centralized violence) and freedom (ie: no impositions) cannot occur.

          When you or USWep or others begin discussions on how to ‘fix’ the country and ‘fix’ government – and you or others start from the POV of government – and offer this or that solution to fix its abuses – as all before you, for the last 10,000 years -it will (and must) fail because it cannot be done.

          The roots of government contradicts the roots of freedom. They both derive from the same Natural Law.

          You can only go one way, Route #1 or Route #2 – and the paths never intersect.

          It is always a war between government and freedom. For 10,000 years, government has been winning.

          If you wish for a nation based on freedom – you must start on the Route of Freedom first. You cannot achieve it by traveling on Route #2.

          • BF;

            Maybe that should be the Coalition/Movement’s core message to others “Freedom”

            • Black Flag says:

              Message or Principle?

              If it is merely a message – not interested. Mouth and hands move differently in most people – in politics what one says and does usually are opposite.

          • v. Holland says:

            You seem to be saying that government is evil so we should have no government but although I agree that government has components of evil in it, so does everything else that is controlled by man. If we got rid of government total chaos would ensue, eventually man would gather togeather in small groups because there is safety in numbers and right then a new government would be formed because some type of stucture is needed for man to survive, without some form of government we would be living a survival of the fittest type of existence or living like the animals-So in my opinion Government is a necessary evil and all we can do is try to fix it and keep it as small as possible. If man was perfect than maybe we could live together in peace without rules but man isn’t perfect.

            • Black Flag says:

              v. Holland

              You seem to be saying that government is evil so we should have no government but although I agree that government has components of evil in it, so does everything else that is controlled by man.

              First, what is your definition of government?

              Second, does your definition actually apply to reality? (For example, USWep’s definition is ‘…the protector of human rights….’ but which he cannot find, in 10,000 years of example, a case where such a government existed). My point is if you cannot find an example of your definition in 10,000 years of cases, it is unlikely your definition is true.

              Thirdly, does government within a real definition is premised in a moral principle?

              I am not concerned about humans at all. I am a very principled person – and I make a lot of mistakes and errors in judgment too.

              Making mistakes in judgment is a wholly different thing then holding an immoral principle.

              Like me playing Poker – I try to play the very best I can – I play ‘good’ poker. Sometimes I make mistakes playing poker – but it is not a mistake in principles. There are other poker players that play ‘bad’ poker, but they win. Does this mean they are ‘good’ poker players? Does this mean I should play like them?

              In the long run, playing ‘good’ poker is a long term winner.

              In the long run, playing ‘bad’ poker is a long term loser.

              In the long run, living with principles is a long term winner.

              In the long term, living with pragmatism is a long term loser.

              It matters what we chose as our principle – how that happens is humanity – but if we make a core mistake, no amount of ‘fixing’ will save us.

              If we got rid of government total chaos would ensue

              Why do you believe this?

              Government creates chaos – you have, yourself, example many such instances in these blogs.

              Government demands obedience which for many people creates an illusion of order.

              For example, if I order you to stand up, then lie down, then stand on your head, then on one foot, and then do that over and over again – and if you fail, I beat you senseless….

              … you see very clearly an ‘order’ is established…quite predictable…with direct and obvious consequences if you disobey.

              But this is still bizzarre.

              Arbitrary rules and laws may establish an illusion of ‘order’ – but it is bizarre, and perverse and evil.

              , eventually man would gather togeather in small groups because there is safety in numbers and right then a new government would be formed because some type of stucture is needed for man to survive,….

              Lions Club is a organization with structure – but it is not the government.

              You are implying a definition here, V. Holland – please articulate your definition clearly and then test to see if it fully defines what entity you are describing.

              • v. Holland says:

                I’ll be more than happy to discuss my definitions and philosophical feelings about these issues but right now I would really like you to tell me what you think would happen in this country if we abolished the evil government.

              • Black Flag says:

                And explosion of prosperity.

                Imagine everyone getting a 85% raise in wages.

                Imagine the flood of new products on the shelves and prices 1/10 of what you see today.

              • v. Holland says:

                And the evil people in the world what do we do about them.

              • Black Flag says:

                What did they do?

              • v. Holland says:

                Perhaps it’s time you give me your definition of the government. I include the police department in mine.PerhAnd the evil people in the world what do we do about them.

  61. HOW TO START EACH DAY

    WITH A POSITIVE OUTLOOK

    1. Open a new file in your computer.

    2. Name it ‘Barack Obama’.

    3. Send it to the Recycle Bin.

    4. Empty the Recycle Bin.

    5. Your PC will ask you: ‘Do you really want to get rid of

    ‘Barack Obama?’

    6. Firmly Click ‘Yes.’

    7. Feel better?

    GOOD! – Tomorrow we’ll do Nancy Pelosi

  62. Sixteen million dollars of the stimulus money was appropriated to take care of the salt marsh harvest mouse.

    The salt marsh harvest mouse. GOP leaders say funding for Speaker Pelosi’s pet project is coming out of your stimulus money. Will this furry critter, along with bad press over the lack of stimulus jobs, kill any chances for a stim plan two?

    This is clearly a pork barrel bill, as you just reported, $16 million to San Francisco for a mouse, I think probably indefensible in the current economic environment.

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,531432,00.html

  63. ACLU files suit over gun rights

    Jay Vise Reporting
    A New Orleans man is suing the city and its district attorney for refusing to give back a gun that police seized when he was arrested on drug and firearms charges.

    The American Civil Liberties Union on Thursday filed the federal suit on behalf of Errol Houston Jr., who was arrested last year following a traffic stop.

    The suit says the district attorney’s office declined to prosecute Houston but has refused to return his .40 caliber firearm.

    Houston claims Orleans Parish District Attorney Leon Cannizzaro has instituted a policy that firearms seized during arrests will not be returned to their owners.

    The ACLU says that policy violates Houston’s constitutional rights.

    Cannizzaro says his office decides on a “case by case basis” whether to return confiscated guns.

    http://www.wwl.com/ACLU-files-suit-over-gun-rights/4728222

  64. Black Flag says:

    http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20090707_robert_scheer_july_8_column/

    This is government.

    Why not speak ill of the dead?

    … it was the stark evil he perpetrated as secretary of defense that must indelibly frame our memory of him.

    … mock the memory of the millions of innocent people McNamara caused to be maimed and killed in a war that he later freely admitted never made any sense…..

    … Perhaps if McNamara had been held legally accountable for his actions, the architects of the Iraq debacle might have paused….[BF: but because it was government, such acts are acceptable)

    Instead, [such acts] are honored with the Medal of Freedom by President Lyndon Johnson, ….

    He knew it then, and, give him this, the dimensions of that horror never left him. When I interviewed him for the Los Angeles Times in 1995, after the publication of his confessional memoir, his assessment of the madness he had unleashed was all too clear:

    “Look, we dropped three to four times the tonnage on that tiny little area as were dropped by the Allies in all of the theaters in World War II over a period of five years. It was unbelievable. We killed—there were killed—3,200,000 Vietnamese, excluding the South Vietnamese military. My God! The killing, the tonnage—it was fantastic. The problem was that we were trying to do something that was militarily impossible—we were trying to break the will; I don’t think we can break the will by bombing short of genocide.”

    We—no, he—couldn’t break their will because their fight was for national independence.

    They had defeated the French and would defeat the Americans who took over when French colonialists gave up the ghost.

    The war was a lie from the first.

    ….. Irrational, as President Richard Nixon acknowledged when he embraced détente with the Soviet communists, toasted China’s fierce communist Mao Tse-tung and then escalated the war against “communist” Vietnam and neutral Cambodia.

    It was always a lie and our leaders [ie:government] knew it, but that did not give them pause. Both Johnson and Nixon make it quite clear on their White House tapes that the mindless killing, McNamara’s infamous body count, was about domestic politics and never security.

    What McNamara did was evil—deeply so. [He was the epitome – the star – the ‘wiz kid’ of government]

  65. Black Flag says:

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_congress_secret_briefings
    Lawmaker says CIA director ended secret program

    CIA Director Leon Panetta has terminated a “very serious” covert program the spy agency kept secret from Congress for eight years,

    “The program is a very, very serious program and certainly deserved a serious debate at the time and through the years,” Schakowsky told The Associated Press in an interview. “But now it’s over.”

    “It’s not as if this was an oversight and over the years it just got buried. There was a decision under several directors of the CIA and administration not to tell the Congress,” she said.
    …..

    Beyond any doubt, the CIA and NSA must be disbanded.

    • So what we appear to have here is Govt no longer trusting Govt. If they can’t keep their face shut we just won’t tell them.

      I am guessing you can find thousands of examples within our Govt of them not telling Congress about certain things, programs, efforts, problems, etc.

      Now how do we TWEAK this to IMPROVE EFFICIENCY or EFFECTIVEESS?

      • If the rumors I’ve read about this secret program are true, this could be very BIG…

        I hope they’re not true…

    • Alan F. says:

      “kept secret from Congress for eight years” as in your enemies didn’t find out about it until…

  66. Black Flag says:

    The honest man must be a perpetual renegade, the life of an honest man a perpetual infidelity.

    For the man who wishes to remain faithful to truth must make himself perpetually unfaithful to all the continual, successive, indefatigable renascent errors.

  67. To All, as it relates to the ethial philosophy discussion today.

    I ask once again whether you think we can “cage the beast” we call govt?

    If so please feel free to say how.

    If not, then why would we continue to live with the beast?

    • Black Flag says:

      I will be quiet on this, as my thoughts have already been well documented.

      (Picture Black Flag – fingers trembling to type – ‘…I am in control of my own fingers!!…arrgg….’ Control! Control!….arrgg….)

  68. Black Flag says:

    Followup on Bum-Gate and Obama.

    So Obama is off the hook. It was merely a well-timed, out of context, clip.

    See the whole video here.
    http://www.nypost.com/seven/07102009/news/nationalnews/tail_to_the_chief_178552.htm

    Obama was turning to offer his arm to another woman who was coming down the stairs behind him. Sarkozy craned his neck in order to get a better view of the young woman’s derriere….

    Ah, the French….

  69. Black Flag says:

    Global Warming….

  70. Peter, Black Flag, Garth…..I will admit disappointment in your choices not to vote. It is, of course your right to do so and I, suppose, a form of protest. I have read Black Flag’s reasons…do not agree with him but have read them. Do not know the reason that none of you vote and it is none of my business. But, it seems to me, the height of hypocrisy to deride our government without offering leadership in solutions. It seems to me that by refusing to get involved in out voting process, you are inviting and supporting some of the very things you seem to be against. You claim to be involved, but are not except by spoken word that, to me, breeds the very thing that you seem to be against. (For example, Black Flag appears to be a total pacifist to the point that if it endangered his life at the expense of family, he would not offer to help fellow man in violent trouble, whereas, I, and most people, would jump into the fray uninvited and help.) Again, his choice and the right to make it but it seems that by not being ready to be involved it dilutes any argument or quotes that you put on here. It appears that you are preaching sedition (noun 1.incitement of discontent or rebellion against a government. 2 any action, esp. in speech or writing, promoting such discontent or rebellion.)

    Am I wrong?

    D13

    • Black Flag says:

      (For example, Black Flag appears to be a total pacifist to the point that if it endangered his life at the expense of family, he would not offer to help fellow man in violent trouble, whereas, I, and most people, would jump into the fray uninvited and help.)

      Ah, there ya go – more bad assumptions – and among the type that will get you killed.

      I’m hardly a pacifist – dare not cross my path with violence or threaten my kin.

      BUT, what is inexcusable is your willingness to leap into a fight with no knowledge of the fight.

      – How do you know who is the good guy and who is the bad guy?

      – How do you know you are not the bad guy when you leap in?

      – How do you know adding more violence to a situation is helping?

      And most importantly,

      How can you justify abandoning your core responsibilities in such a frivolous manner?

      As far as voting, You seem to believe that voting makes a difference in changing government- yet, cannot demonstrate such a thing.

      So, in essence, you are claiming that futile action has a purpose. I’m interested in your reasoning.

      • Black Flag says:

        Sedition and other government law –

        When Rudy Giuliani was a federal prosecutor in New York 20 years ago, his staff members used to play a game in which they would pick a high-profile and popular person like Mother Teresa and figure what federal crime they could pin on her or him.

        No one could escape and in the end, no person that they named was able to slide away without having committed at least one crime for which a stretch in prison was in order.

        This game was immensely helpful as they sought to find ways to charge Michael Milken, the successful investment banker, and prosecutors found that leaks to the press served as a great weapon in their favor.

        Leaking but prosecutors don’t indict themselves, and the New York Times was more than eager to aid and abet a felony, especially when prosecutors needed all of the favorable press they could obtain.

        Milken ultimately went to prison, pleading guilty to a set of six “charges of crimes” that prosecutors had never brought against anyone before, and have not again since Milken pleaded 19 years ago.

        (Prosecutors had told Milken that unless he would plead guilty, they would go after all his family members and imprison as many as they could.)

        Most Americans never have seen a federal court, much less have found themselves in the federal dock, and they are not familiar with how the system works.

        Indeed, when they read of another federal guilty plea or see a federal conviction in the news, they usually assume that the person was guilty of something, otherwise, he or she would not have been charged in the first place.

        In an effort to dismiss argument, when one tries to pull the ‘government law’ trick – be forewarned of how pitiful such a play actually is.

        It takes government no effort to find anyone a criminal.

        Don’t even pretend you are immune.

        • Black Flag says:

          Beria – head of Stalin’s Secert Police

          “Show me the man, and I will find you the crime.”

      • BF…what in YOUR opinion is a core responsibility?