Is Barney Frank the Biggest Idiot in Congress?

Barney Frank AngryI have wanted to discuss this for a bit now and finally had a night where I was able to read a little bit and research a little bit to attempt to get a grasp of whether what I had heard was true. I was figuring that after what Barney Frank played a major role in causing the first time, there is no way he would be crazy enough to suggest the same idiotic mistakes a second time. Apparently I have far underestimated the level of stupidity that Mr. Frank and the sheer idiocy of anyone who listens to anything that this man has to say. As you recall, I gave him good marks for how he handled himself a month ago when he made a return appearance on The O’Reilly Factor. Whatever good things I said about him then, I take back. He is clearly delusional and apparently lacks the ability to learn from the mistakes of his own past and make better decisions going forward. This man is a bumbling fool and should be dismissed as a Congressman immediately…

Now I know some of you are going to get upset because I am attacking a Democratic Congressman. But C’mon man. This guy is just bad all the way around. Saying he is a good Congressional Representative for the Democratic party is like saying GW Bush was an exceptionally talented and eloquent public speaker.

Just so I don’t lose anyone, let me be clear about what I am talking about. We all know that the US went through a big housing crisis. This was caused by the fact that millions of Americans who could not afford to buy a home were allowed to buy one. This was the “sub-prime” mortgage mess. House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Frank led the government charge that created this mess. He made the famous quote as the idea of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac lending practices was discussed in terms of lowering lending standards in 2003:

I do think I do not want the same kind of focus on safety and soundness that we have in OCC [Office of the Comptroller of the Currency] and OTS [Office of Thrift Supervision]. I want to roll the dice a little bit more in this situation towards subsidized housing.

Barney Frank StupidBrilliant. He wanted to “roll the dice” with America’s financial future. The result was that he led the charge to require Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to lower the lending standards so that more low income American’s would be able to purchase their own home. Despite some revisionist history, the fact remains that Frank and Democrat Maxine Waters were leaders in this arena. Democrats like to point out that Republicans controlled Congress at this time so they could have done whatever they wanted. But some timely quotes from the two aforementioned Congressional leaders helps show their true positions.

The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) was an agency within the Department of Housing and Urban Development. It was charged with ensuring the capital adequacy and financial safety and soundness of two government sponsored enterprises — the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac). This was the agency responsible for oversight on the two giant government entities. When things were not going so well and Fannie and Freddie were found to be cooking their books, of course a hearing was called so that OFHEO could be blamed. The Director of OFHEO, Armando Falcon, Jr, was attempting to convince the panel that more oversight and regulation was needed, that fundamental changes were needed in the regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. From an exchange in Committee hearings:

Rep. Gregory Meeks, (D., N.Y.): . . . I am just pissed off at Ofheo [Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight] because if it wasn’t for you I don’t think that we would be here in the first place. And Freddie Mac, who on its own, you know, came out front and indicated it is wrong, and now the problem that we have and that we are faced with is maybe some individuals who wanted to do away with GSEs in the first place, you have given them an excuse to try to have this forum so that we can talk about it and maybe change the direction and the mission of what the GSEs had, which they have done a tremendous job. . .

Blame DemotivatorOfheo Director Armando Falcon Jr.: Congressman, Ofheo did not improperly apply accounting rules; Freddie Mac did. Ofheo did not try to manage earnings improperly; Freddie Mac did. So this isn’t about the agency’s engagement in improper conduct, it is about Freddie Mac. Let me just correct the record on that. . . . I have been asking for these additional authorities for four years now. I have been asking for additional resources, the independent appropriations assessment powers. This is not a matter of the agency engaging in any misconduct. . . .

Rep. Maxine Waters: However, I have sat through nearly a dozen hearings where, frankly, we were trying to fix something that wasn’t broke. Housing is the economic engine of our economy, and in no community does this engine need to work more than in mine. With last week’s hurricane and the drain on the economy from the war in Iraq, we should do no harm to these GSEs. We should be enhancing regulation, not making fundamental change. Mr. Chairman, we do not have a crisis at Freddie Mac, and in particular at Fannie Mae, under the outstanding leadership of Mr. Frank Raines. Everything in the 1992 act has worked just fine. In fact, the GSEs have exceeded their housing goals. . . .

Rep. Frank: Let me ask [George] Gould and [Franklin] Raines on behalf of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, do you feel that over the past years you have been substantially under-regulated? Mr. Raines?

Mr. Raines: No, sir.

Mr. Frank: Mr. Gould

Mr. Gould: No, sir. . . .

Mr. Frank: OK. Then I am not entirely sure why we are here. . . .I believe there has been more alarm raised about potential unsafety and unsoundness than, in fact, exists.

Barney Frank PointingIt certainly sounds to me like when regulation was discussed, Representatives Frank and Waters were steadfastly against them. And of course you have to love the logic of asking the heads of Fannie and Freddie if they feel that they have been under-regulated, because I would fully expect them to say “yes we have, you should make things tougher on us”. And their answers are accepted of proof that more regulation should not be pursued!!!! But of course, it is far easier to blame this all on the Republicans, and that is the mantra of the modern day Democratic politician. So that is what the apathetic voters were sold.

Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan further warned the Senate Banking Committee in 2005 that : What we’re trying to avert is we have in our financial system right now two very large and growing financial institutions which are very effective and are essentially capable of gaining market shares in a very major market to a large extent as a consequence of what is perceived to be a subsidy that prevents the markets from adjusting appropriately, prevents competition and the normal adjustment processes that we see on a day-by-day basis from functioning in a way that creates stability. . . . And so what we have is a structure here in which a very rapidly growing organization, holding assets and financing them by subsidized debt, is growing in a manner which really does not in and of itself contribute to either home ownership or necessarily liquidity or other aspects of the financial markets. . .

What is that BlackFlag is always saying? Something about government intrusion not allowing the market to operate in the way that it would normally operate and how that will cause the market to become unstable, and eventually… total collapse?

Barney Frank ChutzpahSo in the end Fannie and Freddie got no further regulations put upon them. Frank, Waters, and others successfully pressured them into lowering lending standards. The Housing boom continues with predatory lending practices and those famous Adjustable Rate Mortgages (ARMs) that got everyone into trouble. And then BAM! The housing bubble bursts when those lower income folks cannot afford to pay the mortgage on the house they should not have been permitted to purchase in the first place. Let’s not lay no blame on Republicans in this matter. I don’t mean to say they had nothing to do with the housing crisis and resulting economic downturn.

So let’s forget the partisanship here and keep things real… Barney Franks was a leader in pushing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to lower lending standards so that more high risk loans could be made. And the result was the bursting of the housing bubble which was the primary driver of the economic crisis that we are in today. Thanks for that jackass. He then spent 2008-2009 telling us all how lower lending standards drove up the market and led to loans that should never have been made. And he claimed he had nothing to do with it. We all know that is a bold faced lie.

So what is Barney doing these days? Pushing to lower the lending standards on condominiums. After all lowering the standards on housing lending practices sure turned out all roses and chocolate marshmallows for the United States and her economy. You read that right. He is AGAIN lobbying to have lending standards lowered in the housing market. He and New York Representative Anthony Weiner have sent a letter to the heads of Fannie and Freddie asking them to lower lending standards for condo buyers. Mr. Frank wants Fannie and Freddie to take more risk in condominium developments “with high percentages of un-sold units, high delinquency rates or high concentrations of ownership within the development.” Take more risk…. as in “roll the dice” AGAIN!!!

Barney Frank Rewarding IncompetenceI guess he forgets that the giant Government Sponsored Entities have already had to stick the taxpayers with tens of billions of dollars they lost in the last roll of the dice. Going forward they will likely end up losing more money, and thus taking more of ours, because in the wake of their nationalization last year their new “mission” has become to prop up the housing market. Because this is exactly what they need: someone like Barney Frank, who did so much to lay the groundwork for their collapse, telling them to play faster and looser with their lending standards as they did with single family homes.

And you want to hear the best part of this whole mess? Barney Franks will be re-elected by a large margin in the upcoming 2010 elections. No one holds him accountable for his role in the first collapse, and no one seems to mind that he is taking the same steps again while we try to recover from his first mess. This guy is a first class idiot. He has no clue what he is doing and yet he is not only re-elected over and over, he is appointed to the chair of the House Ways and Means Committee! Is there any hope left for America?

I know he likes to roll the dice with America’s future. I suggest the voters take a bit of a gamble in Massachusetts in the upcoming election. I submit that they should randomly select the next person who buys a Big Mac at the McDonalds on Boyleston Street and make them the Representative for the Frank’s district. They couldn’t do any worse.

Advertisements

Comments

  1. Good Morning!
    I can speak from experience in this category.
    Until 2005, I owned and managed an apartment complex. During the period of easy money, I had numerous tenants who had crappy credit histories, who were behind on their rent. When contacted to give a lending institution the payment history and comments, I was honest at every turn.
    In every instance, they were approved for a mortgage they could not afford and stiffed me for a few months rent in order to afford their down payment.
    It is a great thing for everyone to own a home, but not unless you can actually afford it!
    Posting from Edinburgh, Scotland.
    Home again, home again jiggidy jig on Sunday!
    Willo

  2. It just plain boggles my mind that idiots like Frank and Pelosi get reelected… But that is just proof to me that our system is broken. The main reason is that people don’t do their civic duty by voting for the best candidate. All anyone does anymore is vote for the little D or R next to the name on the ballot box. For instance, during the presidential election, Fox News polled people outside voting sites, asking them who controlled congress, etc. Top answer, republicans…

  3. Naten53 says:

    I do not have room to talk about worthless congressmen, only to say John Murtha.

    • My condolences Naten…he is truly one that needs to go. I can understand to a point, at least he is not getting arrested as the Louisiana Politicians do…does William Jefferson ring a bell?…He was at least voted out last time, but it was mainly due to poor voter turnout. His supporters have already chided his replacement several times. I fully believe that if he avoids the jail cell, they will most likely re-elect him next time around…

      • The only thing I can see about him calling his district racist rednecks and getting voted back in last year, is that they voted him back in because they think he was standing up for them when everyone else thought that he would be gone because he actually insulted them.

  4. Barney is an elitist that thinks that the citizens of this country cannot see what he supports is extremely flawed. It appears the good folks of Mass. have been fooled by this congressman as they continually elect him. Until voters can disregard political parties and vote on facts and records, this will unfortunately continue to be the case.

  5. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    What happens when government tries to engineer the economy?… economic collapse.

    What happens when government tries to engineer society?… social collapse.

    What will happen when government tries to rule the world?… global collapse.

    You get the picture.

    • True, if you want something to fail, mandate government control…

    • And Buzz Aldren wants us to go to Mars next!

      Poor Martians, they don’t have a chance.

      • LOL!

      • Morning

        Yea, and maybe the government should be the first ones to go.

        • I like it Judy.

          Now since you are here this AM.

          The other day we were discussing how govt provided health care makes choices on who gets treatment. The comment was that younger folks get preference over older folks because the old have lived most of their life and the young haven’t. This fits the economic return model, of which one provides the greatest opportunity for a good return on the investment, ie operation provided. The discussion was centered around heart transplants.

          My comment injected the concept of “unforseen” results into the equation along with the concept of “opportunity costs/benefits”.

          So you see, the young guy got the transplant and the old guy died. Thus he was not there to save all those children, who would have contributed so much to society, far and above the cost of his transplant. I could have added that one of the children who died on that bus would have discovered the cure for cancer.

          But alas, the govt gave the heart to the young guy, because the old guy had lived a good and full life, while the young one had not.

          This entire scenario is loosly related to a theory popularly called the Butterfly Effect. Thus my reference to “I love butterflies”.

          And in case you don’t know about the butterfly effect, in essence the cool winds in Russia can be tracked back to the beating of a butterfly’s wings in south america. If the butterfly were killed, all things connected from that point forward would never happen. And eventually people in Russia would die from heat stroke, due to a lack of Cooling Winds.

          Hope your day goes well.
          JAC

          • JAC

            Thank you for your answer. I’m sorry I was such a dunce last night, but like I said, we’ve been so busy at work lately, I just couldn’t think straight.

            Judy

        • Richmond Spitfire says:

          Ha…They could send Frank, Reid and Pelosi to see their relatives!

      • Now that was funny.

    • Black Flag says:

      Farmers in an eastern Indian state have asked their unmarried daughters to plow parched fields naked in a bid to embarrass the weather gods to bring some badly needed monsoon rain, officials said on Thursday.

      Witnesses said the naked girls in Bihar state plowed the fields and chanted ancient hymns after sunset to invoke the gods. They said elderly village women helped the girls drag the plows.

      “They (villagers) believe their acts would get the weather gods badly embarrassed, who in turn would ensure bumper crops by sending rains,” Upendra Kumar, a village council official, said from Bihar’s remote Banke Bazaar town.

      ——–

      We build nuclear weapons, fly in space, travel faster than sound…..

      ….and humans STILL cannot pierce the myth of the Gods…..

  6. And Buzz Aldren wants us to go to Mars next!

    Poor Martians, they don’t have a chance.
    Sorry, forgot to add great post! Can’t wait to see your next post!

  7. Ah one of my favorite Democrats to bash and one that has indeed earned every bruise he receives. Let’s start off with a truth which might make Ray and Bob’s heads explode. While Bernie Madoff is the biggest obvious thief this planets ever seen, Barney ‘A full crack pipe is a right!’ Frank had a direct hand in doing the greatest damage to the American way of life and the global economy ever.

    I’m certain that while ‘a full crack pipe’ might indeed be a happy happy time for those without braincells to spare for the payments but the drain of their indulgence on the entire system when they default on their health outweighs any “right” to that full pipe in the first place. The American people indeed have the right to self destruct but not the right burden others with the fallout from such indulgences. I for one don’t blame the street dealer banking on the excessive demand for the entirety of the crack problem when those who could stop such were more than willing to turn a blind eye because of the user’s melanin content or geographical location. Nor can I place the blame on the shoulders of the crack-a-lackin users themselves who upon being introduced to American dreams became caught up in the cycle of mortgaging their future for being in a better place today. Why not you might ask? Because both would be completely unaware of this insidious drug and its unsupportable costs were it not for the primary enablers, the cartel and its leadership, who brought such to the shores of the American market in that heinously addictive form in the first place!

    From the peasant farmer growing a legitimate crop to those who make a viable and socially responsible product from such and the end users who indeed make use of the coca plant’s bounty for the very real benefit’s of the drug used in its proper context, the product’s existence is beneficial. Its only when altered into that drug “anyone can afford” do we get to see how powerful it is and only when trying to rehab those users do we see how damaging the primary enablers truly are… ain’t that right Barney.

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      Alan (and also USW) – understand that I am not inherently a Barney fan – there is a lot of smoke around the guy and I am not certain there is not fire as well. Anyway, understand that USW provided you quotes that in the context of the posting and independently cannot be considered completely objective as they lack context. Copy/paste the quotes into Google and then see what sources you come up with. Sorry, I don’t consider the WSJ OpEd or Karl Rove objective. It’ll take me a while to unwind all this so I can understand timeline and context but may I suggest:

      http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/bank/hba92628.000/hba92628_0f.htm

      and

      http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:h.r.01427:

      and

      http://mediamatters.org/research/200902250016

      and

      http://mediamatters.org/research/200904080013

      Barney is not clean and does have some blood on his hands. I’m not ready to buy off that he owns it all. I also think he has been in Congress far too long – his voters owe to themselves to get some turnover.

      • No he does not own it all. Chis Dodd has his place in there somewhere, and to some extent the Republican Congress when it was in power. They should have pushed harder for more responsible lending.

        • The only logical/political reason is that there were deals made to get bills passed for Bush’s primary concern – Iraq war. By the time that the repubs knew that there was a real problem, Bush had lost his mandate – and spent the rest of his time fighting the MSM and dems on all fronts.

      • Amazed1 says:

        Ray,
        I think there was lots of blame to go around. Start looking at the law that forced banks to give loans to people with bad credit enacted durning the Clinton years. Then comes Fannie mae and mac which were suppose to buy up these bad loans. But the lending companies were not forced to give loans people could not afford at interest rates that sky rocketed in a ouple of years.
        True story. Young woman working for us making 11 per hour, divorced with 2 kids and bad credit history. She was offered a 250000.00 loan to buy a house. I talked to her and told her….look it does not matter what they will give you, what can you afford to pay? She brought home less than 1600 a month and her payments were going to be over 2000…..now how smart is that?
        That one law enacted in the Clinton era was like a snowball rolling down hill out of control.
        We will have the same problem with healthcare. Our congress is full of idiots…they don’t even read the bills they produce or even think about the consequences.

        • Amazed1;

          Here’s another good one for you . . . A homeless man who roamed the streets at night to scrounge food out of garbage cans and who was drawing SSI in California used the local post office General Delivery as his address (in order to get SSI one had to have a mailing address and most used the General Delivery at their local post office) received four – yes four – credit cards in the mail in 1994 worth $2,500.00 each. That free $10,000.00 was all he needed to get a round trip bus ticket to Las Vegas and he partied harty for a month and got back flat broke in time to receive his monthly SSI check. True story.

          Now you know why credit card interest rates are so doggone high!

  8. lol so true… but he is less harmless insiders who play us all with pay to play. Then after busted continue to serve awaiting action from the ethics committe. Chris Dodd, Charlie Rangel take a bow.

  9. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    I mean, what is the real harm in lowering lending standards for condos anyway? We have all of these people that lost their homes in the sub-prime mortgage meltdown that need SOMEPLACE to live! Let’s just give them sub-prime mortgages on a CONDO! I am sure as long as the sub-prime mortgage is used on a condo instead of a “real house”, everything will work out JUST FINE!

    Sounds perfectly reasonable to me… I mean, come on now, who could realistically equate a condo with a house anyway! Completely different animal! No similarities whatsoever! Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain! Here, have some Kool Aid!

  10. Posted this on yesterday’s topic, but here it is again for all those intested

    http://www.usdebtclock.org

    Make sure to hit the “about” button at the bottom for more information

    CM

  11. v. Holland says:
  12. v. Holland says:

    http://www.fha.com/condominium.cfm

    Am I reading this right-FHA loans on condo’s only applies to rentals that have been turned into condo’s and not new developments.

  13. While I believe that people on both sides had a hand in the disater we are in the middle of. I also have no doubt that Frank was leading the way on this sub prime idea. When I was in the service in CA in 2004, my neighbor in the apartment complex that I lived in bought a home. I was at home one night, and she knocked on the door. She proceed to tell me that she just bought a home and was moving out in a couple of weeks. I was a little confused, because I knew from her telling me, that she always had problems making rent from month to month. But I said congrats and asked what did she buy. She bought a 525,000 home in Fresno. She had no down payment and a sub prime loan. Her monthly payments where going to be 2150.00 a month starting. I was shocked! I said WOW no way I could afford that. She said that she only made 1575 take home a month, that she hoped that her sister would move in to help with the payment. She was allowed to buy home where her monthly payments were more than she made a month total. CRAZY!!!
    Not everyone is able to buy a home. That is a fact of life. I saved for years before I bought my home. Who gives 100% with no down payment? Shame on Frank, and anyone else involved for this!!! Sad part is he will re-elected in 2010.

    • Black Flag says:

      Ellen,

      You missed the logic behind the loan.

      A house of $525,000 that appreciates at an average of 8% per year earns $3,500 of equity a month.

      She is paying $2150 per month….to earn $3500 a month, or a ‘profit’ of $1,400 – almost more money than she earned working 40 hrs. a week.

      If I offered you a deal that said “Give me $2000 and I will give you back $3000”- would you be an idiot and say “No Thanks….”

      It is an assume deal for someone like her. Imagine doubling your income by owning a house!

      Do not blame her. If the market could go on forever, she would have done fine.

      She just happened to start playing the game when the game was coming to an end. The “Greater Fool” theory – who is the last one holding the bag.

      To find out how this all happened, you have to go way, way, way back to Carter, and Nixon and Johnston and Kennedy and FDR….

      • Black Flag says:

        And as far as the banks;

        They had two things going on.

        1) They, too, believed the appreciation would go on forever. What a great security they had – the house got more valuable over time – protecting their loan better and better.

        2) The government guaranteed the deal to be 100% risk-free. There was no chance the bank would lose money.

        So, why wouldn’t they do the deal?

      • Black Flag says:

        As far as the government;

        1) They were fulfilling the mandate – make homes available for all Americans.

        2) They were funding the economy – housing boom created a million jobs.

        3) There was a market for the large increase in fiat money – the printed money was being absorbed in the capital price of houses. If a $200,000 home was now $500,000 – it required $300,000 more fiat dollars to be ‘locked’ up – it was the financial equivalent of carbon dioxide sequestering.

        So why wouldn’t the support the deal?

      • Black Flag says:

        As far as the professional economists;

        1) Government-managed economy was creating prosperity as according to Keynes.

        2) The cycle of boom-bust was over – the FED was capable of overcoming the 2001 recession by creating the housing boom. This was a success.

        3) Low interest rates improved the stock market, created more businesses and a more robust economy.

        So why wouldn’t they think the deal was great?

      • Bama dad says:

        BF
        1977 and the CRA turned the slow ride of financial suicide into financial free fall, it just went faster and faster till it hit terminal velocity. Who was president? The peanut farmer Jimmy Carter.

        • Black Flag says:

          Yep, but he was trying to restart a stalled and nearly dead economy left to him by Nixon/Ford.

          They got the hot potato from Johnston’s Two front War (and we all know how stupid it is to have two-front war) on Vietnam and Poverty.

          He got that handed to him by Kennedy…who got that handed to him by Eisenhower’s “war” on Communism, who got that handed to him by Truman and Truman’s Doctrine (contain Communism), who got that handed to him by FDR.

          • v. Holland says:

            You seem to point out all the bad that has happened throughout our history and I assume this is to support your belief that government is bad but I don’t understand how it would be any different if we didn’t have a government-people would still be put in charge if we had a non-government controlled militia or police department or whatever and someone would have to make decisions-doesn’t someone or a group of someones have to have the power to make decisions. So wouldn’t we still make mistakes either way. In all walks of life if you can’t agree, someone has to have the final say. I just don’t understand how society can work without some type of power structure.

            • V,

              Not sure how to phrase this, but local, spontaneous management works better than distant, pre-determined management. Examples are Katrina, where the fed,N.O.’s mayor and L.A.’ governor all made massive screw-ups. Compare that to the mid-west flooding, where there was no central plan in place, common sense ruled, people did what was necessary, and it was more efficient and effective.

              Add to that, after the flooding, people went back to living their lives, not back to an office to write up thousands of procedures for the next time it happened.
              Every time we create an agency to handle something, it evolves into a parasite, that lives only to grow.

              A co-operative society needs very little management.

              • v. Holland says:

                I don’t disagree with you when we’re talking about small communities and I certainly believe that government has gotten way to big but we aren’t a small community. We are a huge country that interacts with the world.

              • Black Flag says:

                What does size have to do with anything?

                Do you believe the objectives and goals of people in New York are the same as the People of Montana?

                Why would we demand that Montanans hold the same goals, internationally, as of New York?

              • v. Holland says:

                That’s kinda the point-we don’t all hold the same goals but there are times when a decision has to be made and without some sort of power structure, some sort of procedures and rules to follow how do we make those decisions
                Reply

              • Black Flag says:

                What possible decision is required?

                If my goal and your goal are different, why do you feel the need to force me to follow your goal?

                What is this deep desire to force us to come up with a decision that entwines two distinct (and probably opposite) goals?

              • Black Flag says:

                If I want to go West and you want to go East, why does there have to be rules to determine which way we go?

                Why don’t you simply go East and I go West?

            • Black Flag says:

              LOI is right – co-operative society needs very little management. Makes sense why, of course- because it is built on cooperation, not force.

              Further, it is the centralization of power that makes it dangerous. One man, the President, can rain ultimate destruction upon almost any people on Earth – he has singular command over millions of men.

              Militias, by their nature, are a highly decentralized force. It is incredibly difficult to mass a huge military force out of the militia – too many diverse objectives, etc.

              Decentralization of power is key to the future, which is why I have stated:

              I support National government over Global government;

              State government over National government;

              Civic government over State government;

              Community league over Civic government;

              Individuals over Community.

              Decentralized violence makes the world safer for everyone.

              • v. Holland says:

                “because it is built on cooperation, not force.”

                Sounds more like majority rule but without any protections for the individual or it could very well become decision by who has the biggest gun, which sorta fits the governments power of the military. It sounds nice and it might work but there is a lot of room for force even without government.

                Centralization of power does sound dangerous and maybe the President does have to much power but wasn’t the Constitution written as a way to decentralize power-it was spread between the states, three branches of government and the people.

                “It is incredibly difficult to mass a huge military force out of the militia – too many diverse objectives, etc.” I can certainly see an advantage to this if we the people don’t like what the militia is doing but I don’t see much advantage if our country is attacked by foreign powers.

                “Decentralization of power is key to the future”

                This statement I agree with and as I said I believe it is what our Founding Fathers where trying to do-spread the power around-I still think we need a government but it needs to be smaller and we need to make sure that one man doesn’t have the power to take us to war.

              • Black Flag says:

                Sounds more like majority rule but without any protections for the individual or it could very well become decision by who has the biggest gun, which sorta fits the governments power of the military.

                How come up with “biggest gun” out of cooperation is absolutely bizarre. It is almost like you don’t know the meaning of the word.

                It sounds nice and it might work but there is a lot of room for force even without government.

                Yes there is!

                Freedom does not eliminate evil or criminals. But then again, neither does government.

                Freedom is not a case of being brain dead, V. Holland.

                Centralization of power does sound dangerous and maybe the President does have to much power but wasn’t the Constitution written as a way to decentralize power-it was spread between the states, three branches of government and the people.

                See #20 and my comments to Rowe.

                “It is incredibly difficult to mass a huge military force out of the militia – too many diverse objectives, etc.” I can certainly see an advantage to this if we the people don’t like what the militia is doing but I don’t see much advantage if our country is attacked by foreign powers.

                Please show one case where any nation has attacked the USA unprovoked.

                Even Switzerland, completely surronded by the most powerful military force in the world at that time resisted invasion purely on the strength of its militia.

                It is bizarre to believe that a country of a handful-million people, landlocked and surrounded on all sides can defend itself with a militia….

                and a nation, with thousands of miles of oceans, and 300 million people…cannot!

                :blink: :blink:

                “Decentralization of power is key to the future”

                This statement I agree with and as I said I believe it is what our Founding Fathers where trying to do-spread the power around-I still think we need a government but it needs to be smaller and we need to make sure that one man doesn’t have the power to take us to war.

  14. USW,

    Franks is my favorite example of whats wrong with our government. I think its better when you don’t talk about hating these people, as you did with Pelosi.
    I view them the same way I do a poisonous snake. I don’t hate the snake, but when it comes in my yard I kill it without remorse. I have more respect for rattle snakes, as they warn you of their true intentions. Pelosi makes me think of a cobra, her hair like its hood spread, ready to strike. Not sure which pit viper best describes Franks. Is their one that inhabits sewage ponds?
    He should go down in history as the cause of the worlds most expensive screw-up.

    I noticed this post yesterday. Have not seen a similar one about Franks.

    DaveE said
    July 24, 2009 at 8:09 am

    Hey, blame the good people of Texas and Georgia for their stupidity in backing these liars.
    Obviously, for them, they have placed a dollar value on human life. Here in Canada, we are willing to accept a very small hardship to ensure as many people as possible live as long and with a high quality of life.

    • Hey, blame the good people of Texas and Georgia for their stupidity in backing these liars.
      Obviously, for them, they have placed a dollar value on human life. Here in Canada, we are willing to accept a very small hardship to ensure as many people as possible live as long and with a high quality of life.

      You better explain this one.

      • I did not care for that comment, brought it here to see if the poster would respond.

        DaveE said
        July 24, 2009 at 8:09 am

        How about it Davey, do you stand by your words?
        Are we wrong about Franks?

        • Trying to see where this Canadian dude is coming from. In Texas, we prefer the rattlesnakes to Barney Frank and Nancy Pelosi. At least a Rattlesnake will look you in the eye before it strikes. Barney Frank and Nancy Pelosi are despicable cowards with the morals of a deer tick. One step above Jane Fonda but in the same wagon rut. I will chalk the statement up to ignorance and let it be.

  15. Bama dad says:
  16. In answer to the primary question of the day.

    NO!!

    Barney Franks is not the biggest idiot in congress.

    That’s the unfortunate truth.

    The whole bunch combined couldn’t compete with a box of rocks intellectually.

    That would require a sound grasp of reality. Something no politician I know today has been exposed to.

    I did know one once, but she is now resting in a peaceful place.

    Hope all is well this Friday afternoon.
    Feet are getting real itchy now.
    Departure tomorrow for parts never seen before.

    JAC

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      JAC,

      Be safe and enjoy the trip!

      Hopefully you can periodically check in here from time to time and share with us some of the fun you are having 🙂

    • Judy S. says:

      Hello there JAC

      So, where you headed this time? Wherever you’re going, have a fun and safe trip.

      Judy

    • JAC, have a safe trip. I know you’ve had lots of suggestions for what to do in Michigan and I’ll add one more — If you get close to Traverse City, take the drive out to old mission point and go wading — it will cure those itchy feet. Travers Bay is shaped like a W, the city lies along the base line and the point is out on the center of the W… You can wade as far as you like, I’ve been several times and never hit the drop off. It’s a peaceful dreamy kind of place, excellent for sorting your thoughts… happy trails 😉 c

      • CsM:

        Thanks. In fact I will be putting Spousal Unit Leader on a plane in Traverse City before heading home.

        So I will absolutely take this one to heart.

        JAC

    • Black Flag says:

      JAC,

      You just gotta quit insulting rocks.

      • Was goin to use fence posts but I’m partial to all things wood.

        Until later Pard. Will try to check in once and awhile.

        Meanwhile hold down the fort and keep yer powder dry.

        The best to you and the missus.
        JAC

  17. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    Since this seems to be a fairly slow day for comments, I thought I would just throw this in to stir things up. Has nothing to do with Barney Frank or Congress (or DOES it?)

    Anyway, as we all know, the atmospheric concentration of CO2 has nearly doubled from 1850-present from around 200PPM to 380PPM or so. What caused this? Industrialization? Volcanoes? Forces Unknown? NOPE!

    The truth is it REALLY IS ALL OUR FAULT!

    You see, in 1850, the population was a bit over 1 billion, and much of the globe was still well-forested. As we all know, humans breathe in oxygen, and emit CO2, whereas plants “breathe” in CO2 and emit oxygen… thus making for a nice balance.

    In the time period from 1850-present, the population of the earth has expanded by roughly a factor of 5, while the forested area of the globe has fallen by a factor of at least 3. According to my complex math, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere should have increased by roughly a factor of 15 during this time period, due to the increased number of humans exhaling CO2 and the reduced number of plants taking up CO2, so really the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere should be around 3000PPM right now.

    Of course, by this same argument, the amount of Oxygen in the atmosphere should have dropped by 2800PPM or so…. 😦

    Oh wait.. this whole theory is ridiculous… Al Gore should make a movie about this 🙂

    • Kristian Stout says:

      Peter you slay me…that was too funny!

    • Peter, not buying it.

      Nature hates voids. If the human “animal” was not present, there would be a corresponding number of animals in our place, which would emit a comparable amount of CO2, and, of course, methane.

      Question is, which produces more methane, Franks, or a cow?

      • Judy S. says:

        How about Franks, he’s a big wind bag I think.

        Sorry, I couldn’t resist that.

        Judy

      • In addition, Washington, D.C. was not the cesspool it is now…therefore, one could extrapolate that the amount of methane has increased exponentially. The more that the Washington crowd opens its mouth and tries to use the mass between their shoulders the greater the pile of poop. Of course, the greater the pile the greater the methane. Add to that, the ridiculous and forthright Al Gore. He leaves more of a carbon footprint than that of the Washington Crowd with his scam of the Century. (Better than that of Madoff). Gore has spread so much fertilizer that the ice caps have nothing to do but melt. (The more fertilizer, the more water needed). Sort of like the circle of life (insert Lion King music here)….Now, when the ever lasting circle continues to grow, the amount of methane continues unfettered, thereby giving credence to the claim of global warming. Of course, it is human made but not from reasons of SUV’s or BBQ grills. Just from open mouth disease that has inundated that crowd. Shutting their pie hole will accomplish two things…(1) no more spending, and (2) no more global warming. Shut up Washington and even BF’s theory of life might take root.

    • Just came across this.

      The US Government has spent more than $79 billion of taxpayers’ money since 1989 on policies related to climate change, including science and technology research, administration, propaganda campaigns, foreign aid, and tax breaks. Most of this spending was unnecessary.

      http://www.transworldnews.com/NewsStory.aspx?id=104031&cat=12

  18. USWeapon,
    This has been covered before. You need to site references when you copy large blocks of text. Even when you rearrange some of the sentences…

  19. Black Flag says:

    Carry over from Bob and Earl

    Another tried and true method for bending subjects to the State’s will is inducing guilt.

    Any increase in private well-being can be attacked as “unconscionable greed,” “materialism,” or “excessive affluence,” profit-making can be attacked as “exploitation” and “usury,” mutually beneficial exchanges denounced as “selfishness,” and somehow with the conclusion always being drawn that more resources should be siphoned from the private to the “public sector.”

    The induced guilt makes the public more ready to do just that.>/b>

    For while individual persons tend to indulge in “selfish greed,” the failure of the State’s rulers to engage in exchanges is supposed to signify their devotion to higher and nobler causes – parasitic predation being apparently morally and esthetically lofty as compared to peaceful and productive work.

  20. Black Flag says:

    Carry over from Bob and Earl

    Another tried and true method for bending subjects to the State’s will is inducing guilt.

    Any increase in private well-being can be attacked as “unconscionable greed,” “materialism,” or “excessive affluence,” profit-making can be attacked as “exploitation” and “usury,” mutually beneficial exchanges denounced as “selfishness,” and somehow with the conclusion always being drawn that more resources should be siphoned from the private to the “public sector.”

    The induced guilt makes the public more ready to do just that.

    For while individual persons tend to indulge in “selfish greed,” the failure of the State’s rulers to engage in exchanges is supposed to signify their devotion to higher and nobler causes – parasitic predation being apparently morally and esthetically lofty as compared to peaceful and productive work.

  21. Black Flag says:

    To G.A. Rowe

    Often you post about returning to the “Constitution”, and I rally against such a move. I hope the following short piece helps aid a bit of an answer and why a whole lot of additional thinking is needed first.

    Returning to the “Constitution” will not solve anything as it stands.

    ….

    In his Disquisition, Calhoun demonstrated the inherent tendency of the State to break through the limits of such a constitution:

    A written constitution certainly has many and considerable advantages, but it is a great mistake to suppose that the mere insertion of provisions to restrict and limit the power of the government, without investing those for whose protection they are inserted with the means of enforcing their observance will be sufficient to prevent the major and dominant party from abusing its powers.

    Being the party in possession of the government, they will, from the same constitution of man which makes government necessary to protect society, be in favor of the powers granted by the constitution and opposed to the restrictions intended to limit them. . . .

    The minor or weaker party, on the contrary, would take the opposite direction and regard them [the restrictions] as essential to their protection against the dominant party. . . .

    But where there are no means by which they could compel the major party to observe the restrictions, the only resort left them would be a strict construction of the constitution. . . .

    To this the major party would oppose a liberal construction. . . .

    It would be construction against construction – the one to contract and the other to enlarge the powers of the government to the utmost.

    But of what possible avail could the strict construction of the minor party be, against the liberal construction of the major, when the one would have all the power of the government to carry its construction into effect and the other be deprived of all means of enforcing its construction?

    In a contest so unequal, the result would not be doubtful.

    The party in favor of the restrictions would be overpowered. . . .

    The end of the contest would be the subversion of the constitution . . .
    …the restrictions would ultimately be annulled and the government be converted into one of unlimited powers….

    • Black Flag says:

      Additionally;

      It is not reasonable by any means to see how the weaker of two, unequal, parties could possibly enforce itself on the more powerful.

      Hence, the failure of all constitutions – they are invoked as a protection of the weaker from the powerful; but there exists no means for the weaker to enforce themselves – because they are weak.

      Thus, dependency on a Constitution, no matter how written, for protection from violent government is a dangerous illusion. It replaces other more active resistance with appearances – and allows the People to fall into complacency about their own freedom.

  22. Black Flag says:

    And you want to hear the best part of this whole mess? Barney Franks will be re-elected by a large margin in the upcoming 2010 elections. No one holds him accountable for his role in the first collapse, and no one seems to mind that he is taking the same steps again while we try to recover from his first mess. This guy is a first class idiot. He has no clue what he is doing and yet he is not only re-elected over and over, he is appointed to the chair of the House Ways and Means Committee! Is there any hope left for America?

    Every time I hear “Voting will change things” – I come across people who vote saying this as noted above…..

    It is good to laugh on Fridays.

  23. v. Holland says:

    “How come up with “biggest gun” out of cooperation is absolutely bizarre. It is almost like you don’t know the meaning of the word.”
    I came up with biggest gun because my reality shows that all people very rarely if ever cooperate.

    “Yes there is!
    Freedom does not eliminate evil or criminals. But then again, neither does government.
    Freedom is not a case of being brain dead, V. Holland.”

    I’m sensing frustration BF-and I don’t think I am brain dead-confused a lot of the time but not brain dead 🙂 But my point is that no matter what we do-Government or no government you cannot eliminate force, maybe through non-governmental agencies we can protect the weak but once you create a police department seems to me you are creating a power structure, so how do you plan on keeping these organizations from doing the same thing that government does now.

    I gonna read the rest of your remarks before I answer anything else.

    • v. Holland says:

      Sorry, the above is to BF.

    • Black Flag says:

      I came up with biggest gun because my reality shows that all people very rarely if ever cooperate

      Interesting. I find the opposite.

      But cooperation is not ‘force’. If people do not want to cooperate, they don’t have to. Go it alone!

      Government or no government you cannot eliminate force, maybe through non-governmental agencies we can protect the weak but once you create a police department seems to me you are creating a power structure, so how do you plan on keeping these organizations from doing the same thing that government does now.

      But, again, you’ve bait and switched. What’s the goal? I never said we could eliminate force. I have said there will always be evil men.

      The goal is not peace.

      The goal is not ‘elimination of force’.

      The goal is freedom.

      Re: Keeping Police under control (ie: defense only).

      To help align our thinking –

      What is the difference between a mugger attacking a citizen and a policeman attacking a citizen?

      • v. Holland says:

        BF

        “If I want to go West and you want to go East, why does there have to be rules to determine which way we go?

        Why don’t you simply go East and I go West?”

        BF, are you suggesting that we just don’t have any relationship with foreign countries because that is the only way I see that decisions wouldn’t have to be make on a national scale.

        • v. Holland says:

          Sorry this was in reply to a question further up.

        • Black Flag says:

          No Prob.

          What “national scale” relationship would require “force” upon you from me (or vis versa)?

          Again, if New York wants to trade with France, why should that bother Nevada? If Nevada wants to trade with Mexico, why should that bother New York?

          • v. Holland says:

            First are we talking individual rights or State Law vs. Federal Law- and the only thing I can think of off the top of my head that would be national is War

            • Black Flag says:

              So, question –

              What is the difference between a Individual’s Rights and a State’s rights?

              Where does the State get its rights?

              You have to answer these questions before you start making conclusions.

      • v. Holland says:

        Okay, maybe I’m just not getting your point but in my opinion whether you say a police department is government or just an organization for defense only they both will create the same problems, So the question is -is it even possible to have a society without a government-if government by your definition has the power to do violence on non- violent people or you look at government as a power structure as I do. I guess the main question is which way actually lets you retain the most freedom.

        • v. Holland says:

          I take back that last sentence -the question is-is it even possible to have a society without having a government-if you have any type of police or any organization that is empowered to enforce laws.

          • v. Holland says:

            Thanks BF, I know you don’t agree with me but having this conversation with you has clarified to me what I think. I noticed that I was repeating myself and I realized that it was because this is what I truly believe about government-we can’t have a society without one -so we really better try to come up with some ways to control and limit the powers of the one we have.

            • Black Flag says:

              Hold those horses, Cadillac!

              Your leap to conclusion is far too premature.

              Your assumptions are not well enough tested to make such.

              You are making changes to YOUR definition of government as it suits you.

              Pick a definition and stick to it.

              It’s ok to change a definition after you have new knowledge – but at least let’s start with One first.

              • v. Holland says:

                A government is the body within an organization that has the authority to make and enforce rules, laws and regulations. Straight from the dictionary and it fits my opinion just fine-it’s a power structure.

              • Black Flag says:

                By what right or base empowers it to make the rules, laws and regulations?

              • v. Holland says:

                #31

  24. Judy S. says:

    Thought maybe you guys could use a laugh here. Sorry I didn’t re-type this, but I don’t have a printer at home to print it out in order to re-type it. But the message is still the same. Enjoy.

    Judy

    Is sex work or pleasure?
    >
    > The Commanding Officer of a regiment in the U. S. Marine Corps was
    > about to start the morning briefing to his staff, battalion and
    > company commanders.
    >
    > While waiting for the coffee machine to finish its brewing, the
    > colonel decided to pose a question to all assembled.
    >
    > He explained that his wife had been a bit frisky the night before and
    > he failed to get his usual amount of sound sleep.
    >
    > He posed the question of just how much of sex was work, and how much
    > of it was pleasure?
    >
    > The regimental executive officer chimed in with 75-25% in favor of
    work.
    >
    > A captain said it was 50-50%.
    >
    > The colonel’s aide responded with 25-75% in favor of pleasure,
    > depending on his state of inebriation at the time.
    >
    > There being no consensus, the colonel turned to the private who was in

    > charge of making the coffee. What was HIS opinion?
    >
    > Without any hesitation, the young PFC responded, ‘Sir, it has to be
    > 100% pleasure.’
    >
    > The colonel was surprised and, as you might guess, asked why?
    >
    > ‘Well, sir, if there was any work involved, the officers would have me

    > doing it for them.’
    >
    > The room fell silent.

    • Black Flag says:

      😆

      The best jokes are the ones that are true!

      • Judy S. says:

        Hi BF

        I thought this was pretty funny. As usual, my son sent this to from work. Glad you enjoyed it.

        Judy

        • Judy S. says:

          Hey, just thought of something here, and it’s totally off topic, but if it should happen to be a slow weekend here, I really would love to read the rest of your story about Morocco,and that other one about the 8 year romance you had with that girl. That’s if you have time and want to of course.

          I’ve been wondering about the Morocco one since you told me, and I was hoping to read how it ended up for you.

          I might not be home most of the day tomorrow, might be going out to Pyramid Lake to a Pow Wow. That’s if I can find a wheel chair for my mom, she can’t do a lot of walking, she has bad hips. Plus she’s 87 next month.

          It was just a thought here on my part. Nothing like a good romantic story to get through the weekend.

          • Black Flag says:

            Indeed.

            Well, we met up at the airport – I was leaving and she arrived.

            She had lost my business card and was trying to call me – going through the permutations – for a couple weeks.

            I didn’t have time to talk – but gave her a new card – and she promised to call when I got back (about a week later).

            And she did.

            This time, dinner was just us two – and I got to chose the place.

            I had a favorite – it was essentially unreachable my car – you needed a 4-wheeler or a boat – over the volcano to the other side of the island – even many locals didn’t know it existed.

            The owner was a retired local – sorta ran the place on a lark. It had a few intrepid guests – but I was a regular. Fantastic food, no crowds, unbelievable scenery, friendly cook/waiter (the same guy).

            I took her there – and it was magical. The drive was an adventure (as always, climbing over and around a volcano) – it always appears terrifying, but exhilarating – only to show up at this pretty little restaurant in the middle of nowhere.

            She was mesmerizing – stunningly beautiful. And we talked all night. This time, she told me the truth – who she was and all. The reason for the illusions became apparent.

            Suddenly dawn was on us… ! All night?!? The owner was very observant, and didn’t interrupt the courtship and he stayed all night – he knew me as a good customer …. and smiled all the time he looked at me…

            She was completely different than before – relaxed, open, talkative… and she was someone I could get very used to!

            I drove her back to her car, back around the volcano on the other side…and she gave me her phone number – and made me promise her to call her the next day….

            • Okay BF, you can’t stop there. Don’t keep me in suspense.

              While you’re at here, remember you said you’d tell me why my comments from previous post made you say that I am a moral person.?

              I’m curious to know why you think that. What was it about my comments made you say that?

  25. Well BF, I’m going to get off for the night, but I will check in the morning to see if you have answered my requests. Hope you do.

    Please have a wonderful rest of the night.

    Take Care BF.

    Judy

  26. Just a note to Black Flag!

    Months ago, I thought you were far from reality. Now, I get it! I need not say more.

    G!

  27. watching comments, thanks

  28. several or more months ago I watched a utube about the financial/housing meltdown and the roles Barney etal played in it – with segments of their senate questions and statements, which I thought was the best summary and explanation. U

    Unfortunately I couldn’t find it. But I did find this one which doesn’t come close but might be fun to watch.

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      Bush gets all mixed up on when we thought Al Qaeda would be in Iraq: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yBx5QH3CqvQ&feature=related

      Funny

      • Ray Hawkins says:

        But more tasteless humor since Frank broke the seal:

      • Your right Ray – that should be deleted as I said I was looking for another video, found that and it was a take off of many other valid cpan segments. Such as this one which has cpan segments and I saw most of these segments posted on youtube BEFORE the election, (no wonder the Dems don’t want to allow cspan in congress, they can document how stupid they are.

        Videos like this is why I didn’t change my investments, because I didn’t think Americans were so stupid to elect someone who clearly said he would implement plans which would devastate our economy even more. The market is ALWAYS forward looking. So now I’m poor. But its my fault since I didn’t listen to myself.

      • Meant to write:

        they can document how stupid they ALL are.

  29. Ray Hawkins says:

    And so you wondered if I’d ever think President Obama to be a liar?

    Well – I am not going to call him a liar – but I have always liked the job Saint Pete times does on Politifact – and I do believe them to be objective. Careful what you promise – but be careful also to judge the entirety on six months. The no actions prolly bother more than other things.

    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/

    • Alan F. says:

      You’re kidding? As soon as I saw “Stimulus money” and where it is actually going and what it is actually doing being called “promise kept” they lost all credibility. Partisan partisan partisan. I remember all the stumping by your savior and these “promises kept” were not a part of the End Of Days “stimulus proposal” as it was sold to the American people. Maybe they were part of his promises to the faithful during one of those events but that’s a whole other kettle of fish now isn’t it.

      • Mission Accomplished.

      • Ray Hawkins says:

        “Kneejerk Alan” at the wheel again – they are one of few that actually listen to feedback from those who bother to read the finer print – which means they do try and get it right.

        • I saw the “if we don’t act this very second America will cease to exist” speech he gave. It was a lot of dire consequences if there wasn’t an immediate passing of universal pictures “The Bill That Kept on Growing!”, a black and white issue now in technicolor. All that was missing, Dr Peter Venkman’s “Dogs and cats living together! Mass hysteria!” line and he’d have relegated Jim Jones to rank amateur status. The cold war speeches of presidents Eisenhower and Kennedy were Dr Seuss readings in comparison.

          If you saw a different speech enlighten me. All the garbage which was added to it, from both sides of the fence were an affront to everything promised in both his seeking the party nomination AND the presidential seat itself. Say “kneejerk” all you want but by all means try a day, 24 measly hours, without your rose colored welding mask on.

          Of all on this board, I’m oddly enough the closest to a true centrist here. I don’t remember you jumping all over me with regards to uni-health or antipollution matters. So as long as I stay on your side of the fence, I’m not a “kneejerk” reactionary? President Obama had promised a chance for something completely new in America, a president to break ranks, yet he’s a far cry from such and pales in comparison to (love this irony) president George W. Bush!

  30. I got that “Warm Fuzzy” feeling just reading this article…

    So let’s forget the partisanship here and keep things real

    Ok, sounds good to me. Just the facts. None of that rhetoric, or name calling…except there’s just something…can’t quite put my finger on it…oh yeah, there it is – the Title:

    Is Barney Frank the Biggest Idiot in Congress?

    That really sets the stage for a good non-partisan discussion…

    So, do we have anyone else to compare Rep Barney Frank too? Just curious – were there any Republicans present during these committee hearings? Since they were like, in control of Congress at the time? What were they saying? True to their beliefs, I’m sure they were all calling for tougher regulations, but the Democratic minority beat them down…

    Oh, that’s right, you don’t like to talk about the past when it involves Republicans, and you’re not Republicans anyway…

    And we didn’t even get to consider Madam Speaker Nancy Pelosi. I’m quite disappointed with that omission.

    So, should we check the “facts”, and compare who said what, who did what? Nah, let’s just take “Vinnster’s” advise:

    If you are a conservative/libertarian then you will know what the data shows before you read it.

    Awww, stupidity – the gift that keeps on giving…

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      Todd – I had the same thoughts regarding ‘this type of article’ – to mean – if I don’t agree with the premise (Barney Frank is an Idiot) or the carefully culled snippets that lack context or timing (it should tell you something when you copy/paste the text into G and you’re returned a litany of right wing websites (e.g. rove.com) – then you have to smell a trap and slowly back away) then I am going to have a real tough time offering any reasonable debate. Then we’re back to a ‘prove he is not an idiot’ scenario which is as useful as wiping your ass with dirty toilet paper.

      • Howdy Ray….how ya doing. Thank you for the following:

        “Then we’re back to a ‘prove he is not an idiot’ scenario which is as useful as wiping your ass with dirty toilet paper.”

        Since the first part cannot be proven, then the second part is not relevant. But what a picture.

        • Ray Hawkins says:

          The phrase was burned in my psyche during a week long survival camp I attended at a Scout reservation many many years ago in Georgia. One of our lead instructors was an ex-SpecForces guy – he was trying to explain economy of movement and thought – not wasting time on useless tasks – a lesson I forget sometimes.

    • Todd:

      At the time Mr. Franks and Ms. Waters made the comments USW included in this article, the republican members of the committee were calling for action to tighten controls on Fannie and Freddie.

      Even the Administration was calling for reform in 2005. After taking credit for a record rate of home ownerhsip among minorities (campaign of 2004), of course.

      Franks and Waters, among other Dems, were very vocal that they thought it all a witch hunt. You see some of their responses above.

      And by the way, the MSM was playing tapes of the committee hearings last fall and early this year. I heard these statements myself, as did millions of others in the country.

      This article wasn’t anything close to partisan.

      Franks is the one now pushing for relaxed standards on condos. Oh, only remodeled condos that some of his “friends” are having trouble moving. At that was also in the MSM about one month ago.

      Commonly known information, released and discussed in the MSM months ago and now USW poses a question regarding Franks’ CURRENTLY pushing more of the same, in his position as Committee Chairman. And you want to criticize this by hinting at partisanship?

      And your statement “Oh, that’s right, you don’t like to talk about the past when it involves Republicans, and you’re not Republicans anyway… ” is nothing short of a distortion of reality. They have a name for that but I can’t remember it this morning.

      • JAC,
        Is plagiarism the word you’re looking for?

        You don’t think the title of this article is partisanship? It’s just a question I suppose?

        I agree the letter sent to Fannie & Freddie is stupid. But blaming Barney Frank for the entire Financial Meltdown is crazy. By 2005, more regulation would have had minimal impact. The ‘pooch was already screwed’ and it was just a matter of ‘degrees’, not stopping it from occurring.

        Both parties were involved in this. They all promoted the house boom, etc, when things were good. And many on both sides raised concerns occasionally, but no one pushed to the point of getting attention and actually making the changes happen.

        The Republicans were in control of the House, Senate, and the White House. If they really wanted more regulation, they could have pushed harder.

        So why are the Republicans against more regulation now?

  31. v. Holland says:

    BF

    “So, how can the State’s rights be different from an Individuals Rights? “

    I would have to say that Individual rights are those rights that the state has no right to mess with and that State Laws should deal with protecting those individual rights and providing the structure and laws that allow people to co-exist and prosper. The question is How do we ensure that the laws passed don’t mess with our individual rights?

  32. v. Holland says:

    BF

    “By what right or base empowers it to make the rules, laws and regulation ?”

    The same right or base that would empower any organization that was given the power to enforce, the people. You seem to agree that we would need a police department in our non-government country-which means there will be laws that they will have to enforce-who would decide what those laws are-would there have to be 100% support to pass these laws. How would we ensure that the laws passed only dealt with protection of individual rights?

  33. USWeapon,

    All of the sentences below are from this Wall Street Journal article. This is wrong on so many levels. It’s not a paragraph that was copied and a reference omitted. Sentenced were picked out, rearranged, and presented as original.

    That is blatant plagiarism.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124580784452945093.html

    two years telling us all how lax lending standards drove up the market and led to loans that should never have been made.

    You read that right.

    He and New York Representative Anthony Weiner have sent a letter to the heads of Fannie and Freddie exhorting them to lower lending standards for condo buyers.

    Mr. Frank wants Fannie and Freddie to take more risk in condo developments with high percentages of unsold units, high delinquency rates or high concentrations of ownership within the development.

    because in the wake of their nationalization last year their new “mission” has become to do whatever it takes to prop up the housing market.

    The last thing they need is someone like Barney Frank, who did so much to lay the groundwork for their collapse, telling them to play faster and looser with their lending standards.

    This really is my favorite:

    You read that right.

    You couldn’t even reword the emotional reaction?

    • USWeapon says:

      I would answer this Todd, but it is rather insulting and I have to say, childish.

      So about 5 sentences that directly explain what is being done are the same as some WSJ article that you found. I could give two shits, to be honest. I understood the claim when it was made a couple of months ago, as I had not cited an article that I clearly had used a large portion of. In this case, take a sec and read those sentences. They all describe what he is doing. Period. Because there is not a better way of describing his actions does not plagiarism make. I read about a hundred articles a day. I have a photographic memory. I am sure there are plenty of sentences that stick in my head after I read them because I thought they clearly said what I wanted to say. So about 80 words in a 3000 word article are the same. If that is plagiarism to you, then bravo. You “got” me. But to say I care would be a gross overstatement.

      And I will tell you what…. why don’t you go back and read the articles that I have written. The phrase “you read that right” appears in about 25 different articles that I have written. The most common term for shock used in written communication, and that is your fav…..

      • Ahhh, USW…you should know better than that. It was not even worth one shit much less two shits…Come now. Do not take as insulting that, which is the best shot he’s got. Remember the term “canon fodder”. Have a cold one!

      • So this is your excuse? It’s just a coincidence? You just happened to re-type those exact sentences?

        Or is that your excuse until you think of a better one?

        Then near the end of your rant you seem to imply you don’t care if it’s plagiarism.

        So which is it – your intelligence or your arrogance?

        So you must be one of those monkeys banging away on a key board that will, given enough time, eventually re-type all the great works of literature…or at least the ones you’ve read…

        And yes, we all know how intelligent you are – you tell us that every week or so.

        If you want to talk about insulting and childish, it would be your lame excuse. But it doesn’t surprise me that you won’t own up to this mistake. You get quite defensive whenever anyone challenges you.

        I have reread those five sentences – many times. One sentence is missing the word “of” to fit in your sentence. Another sentence has two words changed. But there is just too much there to explain as coincidence.

        These are not simple sentences that would automatically pop into your head and onto the keyboard. Words like “exhorting” – I was surprised you didn’t say “blackmailing” or “threatening” or “extorting” in your typical exaggeration. But no – “exhorting”. There’s a word I use everyday… But of course you’re smarter than me…

        The sentence structure, abbreviations, or lack of abbreviations – all match. And the sentence structure in news journalism is very different from your writing style, and these sentences don’t match your writing. They jumped out at me when I first read the article – something subtle changed. Or maybe it was just a stench that I detected…

        Let’s see:
        * Lie
        * Steal others’ ideas
        * Blame others for problems
        * Attack those who question you
        * Tell everyone how smart you are

        Well, you’re certainly qualified to be a politician. Especially a Republican. Maybe you should contact Sarah Palin – she’s not doing anything right now.

        Is this the ‘ethic’ that you are going to build our new government on? I’m sure that will work out great. I’ll watch for your name on the ballot.

        I have no doubt that all of your sheeple here will believe your explanation. They eat up whatever you spit out. And it’s pretty obvious you enjoy their adulation.

        • USWeapon says:

          First, stop being so sensitive. Jesus Drama….

          I never once mentioned the word intelligence anywhere in my response, but thanks for saying so.

          I did not imply coincidence. I said I read lots of articles. I am sure I read the one you linked to. I have a memory that captures what I see. I wrote 3000 words and you found some 80 of them scattered in there that I gathered from the article. For the record, when something says what I need it to say in support of my article I use it. I didn’t claim ignorance or intelligence as my defense. I laid out the best explanation that I could for an article I wrote a couple of days ago that I read about 40 articles pertaining to, but let’s not claim that you were interested in hearing what I had to say. I did not claim I don’t care if it is plagiarism. I said I believed that 80 words out of 3000 doesn’t make it so. What I said I didn’t care about was that your conclusion did not match mine. At the point where basic facts and a couple of sentences that say what I am trying to say in reference to my article are your focus, then I think you have lost focus on the issues.

          I am not going to continue bickering back and forth. If you think that my whole article was plagiarism, so be it. You have your mind made up, and that’s fine. I don’t get defensive when challenged at all. I do get defensive when I write a three page word document article and you jump in here and claim that 5 partial sentences constitute plagiarism, as though I don’t have an original thought I my head. I don’t think I have had any issue in the past admitting when I made this type of mistake. But if you want to feel superior here and claim that I don’t do so, that’s cool too. It won’t hurt my feelings all that much.

          Let’s see:
          * Lie – Yeah, I don’t think so. I am unsure what I lie about, unless you are simply pointing to not liking my explanation here as the lie. But I am unsure what other “lies” you might be implying I am guilty of.
          * Steal others’ ideas – Again, no ideas taken from anywhere that I see. I am going to have to say that my thousands of words trump those 80 that merely support my position, but you’ll believe what you want and I will have to live with it. I can do that.
          * Blame others for problems – Such as? If you mean blaming politicians for the problems of today, you bet your ass I do. But I don’t recall blaming anyone for my personal problems.
          * Attack those who question you – You mean debate the topic from my point of view? Isn’t that the point? Or do you mean in reference to this situation? In which case I don’t think I “attacked” you. I attempted to answer your question. You don’t believe the answer, so I will drop it.
          * Tell everyone how smart you are – I am certainly proud of my intelligence. It is one of the few things I have going for me. Sorry that this bothers you. I am also well aware of what I don’t know, which I feel is plenty. I think that there are a lot of people reading here who are smarter than I, but I certainly feel I am intelligent enough to hang in the conversations.

          You feel the way that you do about those 5 sentences (I have thrown out “you read that right” since I use that phrase all the time) and I feel differently. Was my defensive use of the word childish harsh or unfair, perhaps. So I apologize for that. But you leveled a quite vicious attack on me up there, and I was floored by your accusation. That I wrote 3000 words up there and you focused on those 80 words was a bit insulting, especially when you level the claim that I have stolen someone’s “idea”. I took no one’s idea. I wrote the article myself, offered up my personal take on the situation, and did my best to support MY idea for an article. I have honored what I said when the issue came up previously. When it gets to the point where someone else’s work becomes the basis of my article, I give credit where it is due. Your claims gave me no credit what-so-ever, and vastly overstated the impact of those sentences to the overall article.

          Overall Todd, you have your mind made up as to how things go down in my head. And you clearly have your mind made up that this is plagiarism, some intentional attempt by me to pass off other people’s ideas as my own. If that is your take on what I do here, then I imagine you will go somewhere else and to read. I understand, and hold no ill will towards you for it. There is certainly no reason for you to debate anything with me, as you obviously give me no credit or benefit of the doubt. I hold no ill will over this either. As for your insults towards me, that is fine. I write the site and will take the criticism of me and will deal with the accusations leveled at me.

          But your sheeple comment was out of line. I don’t at all think that the readers here just show me adulation. They all have their own minds to analyze the articles and come to their own conclusions. For you to imply otherwise is disrespectful towards all of them, and makes you no better than those who wrongly believe that anyone who likes Obama is a sheeple. For you to level that claim against everyone here simply because many don’t believe what you believe is nasty and certainly uncalled for.

          I am going to drop this discussion at this point. As I said we both have made our position clear and I imagine that we have made clear as well that we define things differently. Despite your somewhat nasty attack on my character, I respect your positions and hope that you find yourself a place to discuss the issues where you can hold a better opinion of the author than you do me.

          • USW….there was no reason for you to even answer this guy on this topic. He has no other come back other than to insult. Forget it and do not engage in back n forth. Those of us that comprehend understand where you are going. Keep it up.

            • USWeapon says:

              Thanks for the support D13. I will always have trouble ignoring someone who questions my integrity and finishes up with calling me a liar, a thief, a victim, a bully, and arrogant.

              A couple of thousand people read this site, and if someone is going to accuse me of plagiarism in a comment, here for everyone present and future to read, then I feel I have to defend myself from accusations that I feel are unwarranted or inaccurate. This was such a case. I appreciate that there are many who don’t hold as low a view of me as Todd apparently does. Giving people the benefit of the doubt goes a long way, and some people choose to never do that for me. Goes with the territory I suppose.

          • USWeapon,

            I did not say the entire article was plagiarism, or that you don’t have an original thought in your head. I read your article and then did a little research on my own.

            In a search on “Barney Frank Fannie”, the third hit was a WSJ article. I started reading it, and it sounded very familiar. I wasn’t looking for plagiarism, it was just there.

            I’m just a calling it as I see it. A statement I read fairly often here.

            I’m not discounting the 3000 words you wrote. It actually surprised me you’d write 3000 words and then copy those 80. I still don’t get that.

            If you had explained that you copied a lot of text as you were researching and those 5 sentences must have got included as part of the article vs just used for reference, I could accept that. But the photographic memory just doesn’t sit with me.

            For the sheeple comment – I hear that quite a bit in the comments referring to Obama’s supporters, which includes some of the posters on your blog… Why is it so nasty when it’s applied to your supports?

            This blog is publishing, and you are required to follow laws and rules. Failure to do so can cause problems for a lot of people and could get your blog shutdown. I don’t think that’s what you want.

            Usually you say Liberals are such wimps and won’t debate you on the “facts”. Your last couple of paragraphs are a pretty obvious invitation for me to go else where.

            Maybe I’ve touched a nerve.

            I can take a hint.

            • USWeapon says:

              On the contrary Todd, it was not an invitation to go elsewhere. It was nothing more than my summation that you were going to do so. I figure you have your mind made up about who I am and what I am about. If I believed what you seem to believe about me, I probably wouldn’t bother reading that site anymore, so I assumed that would be your choice. Your *’d accusations seem to indicate that you have your mind made up that I am a liar, a thief, a victim, a bully, and an arrogant jerk. I assumed that meant you wouldn’t respect anything I had to say going forward. I know I would bother reading someone I thought that of. So I made the statement that “I imagine you will..”

              I’m not discounting the 3000 words you wrote. It actually surprised me you’d write 3000 words and then copy those 80. I still don’t get that.

              And you apparently won’t get that because you aren’t willing to take me at my word on the explanation. If my intent was to steal someone else’s work, I certainly wouldn’t have bothered writing 2920 words of my own. If I was attempting to plagiarize someone’s work, or steal their idea, the “copied” text would have been far more extensive than these 80 words. And it doesn’t make sense to you because you can see that I cited 3 or 4 different sources of material in this article, and why would I offer so many citations if I was trying to pass off other’s work as my own. What you accuse me of doesn’t jive with my behavior in the rest of the article, which is why it doesn’t make sense that I would intentionally do something like that for these mere 80 words. Someone offering 3 or 4 citations in their work doesn’t intentionally “steal” a miniscule amount of words in an attempt to pass off someone else’s ideas as their own. My guess is that underneath your anger with me and your accusations, you know that what you are accusing me with doesn’t jive with my behavior throughout the rest of the article, hence why you “still don’t get that”. Not trying to psychoanalyze, just a thought.

              I am smart enough to have thought of the excuse that I copy pieces of articles over and they got left in there. But, while more plausible to you and probably others, I didn’t think to use it because it wasn’t the honest answer. I do copy a lot of text at times so that I don’t have to keep jumping between windows, so that could have been what happened. But it wasn’t in this case, because I don’t recall doing that when writing this article, especially given that it was an article that was largely an opinion piece. While I read a lot of articles in preparing, I don’t recall copying anything other than the large dialogue from the committee meeting. Even the rest of the quotes were done from memory. I chose instead to give as honest an answer as I could come up with. While it is implausible to you, I know that I read entire paragraphs once and quote them word for word to my wife. So I gave an answer that was as honest as I could give instead of the one you were most likely to swallow. You don’t accept that answer, fair enough. You think that makes me someone intentionally stealing someone’s ideas, fair enough. I have no choice but to live with your assessment, as it is apparent that my explanation is not sufficient to satisfy you. What else would you have me do? Make up a story that you will believe rather than telling you the truth?

              I took issue with your comment about sheeple simply because you chose to attack the people on this site in an effort to get under MY skin. You were talking directly to me so I answered directly to you. I have let many other instances where similar things are said about the people on this site go, as well as instances where it is said as a reference to Obama supporters. With some days over 500 comments, I often have days where I struggle to read them all, let alone reply or correct people. I did make it clear in my statement that I think the use by both sides is wrong.

              I am aware that I publish a blog, and I am aware of the “rules”. As I said we disagree on what happened and whether it was plagiarism. I tend to think most people would see it my way, but maybe I am wrong. To that end if you would like me to remove the sentences you question, certainly just say so, that way no future reader can become offended or lose the ability to discuss the topic of the other 2920 words.

              And yes I do claim that people don’t debate the facts. And it is attacks such as this that I mean. Instead of addressing any of the ideas I presented, or the facts I offered, you instead spent significant time attempting to discredit me personally by claiming some pretty far-reaching things about me: liar, thief, bully, victim, arrogant. I wrote 3000 words about Barney Frank (although I understand that you only give me credit for 2920 of them), and you instead took me to task because you thought that some 80 words, which were little more than descriptive statements, were an attempt by a person with zero integrity to steal ideas from someone else. Look at how many times the only argument I am getting is that I said something bad about Pelosi, that my sourced information is Fox News so it doesn’t mean anything, or that I am simply too dumb to understand reality. When I am trying to have reasoned discussion on the facts, it is frustrating to have to spend so much time on something like this instead of using my limited time to debate the topic at hand.

              And yes you did hit a nerve. No one who spends 4-5 hours a night reading articles and digging for information and writing an article likes to be accused of plagiarism. No one who prides themselves on integrity likes to have his integrity questioned, and then to further be called a liar, thief, etc… Look how angry your response was when I called you childish (which I did apologize for), and now imagine being called those 5 things you put a star next to. It hits a nerve, like a sledgehammer. And go back and read your initial comment on this subject, that was an outright assault, without ever first asking me to explain anything. Granted you would have accepted my explanation anyway, but it would have been a much more civil conversation. Because when have I not, in the past, done my best to rectify any situation pointed out to me. In the previous incident, brought forth by you as well, did I not immediately own up to my mistake and correct the situation? You had your mind made up about my intentions and integrity before you even wrote that first accusation above.

              I am not sure what hint you are taking, unless you mean the hint that I don’t want you here, which I wasn’t trying to imply. As I said, it was simply my assumption of your future course of action regarding this site.

  34. Black Flag says:

    v. Holland

    “So, how can the State’s rights be different from an Individuals Rights? “

    I would have to say that Individual rights are those rights that the state has no right to mess with

    Why should the State mess around with any rights at all?

    What gives the State the right to destroy your rights?

    and that State Laws should deal with protecting those individual rights and providing the structure and laws that allow people to co-exist and prosper. The question is How do we ensure that the laws passed don’t mess with our individual rights?

    How do we ensure the Mafia doesn’t pass laws that don’t mess with our rights?

    By never giving any entity the legitimacy to pass laws that do mess with any rights

    <

    The same right or base that would empower any organization that was given the power to enforce, the people.

    But the People cannot give this ‘entity’ any more power than the People hold, right?

    You seem to agree that we would need a police department

    No.

    I believe the free market will supply the necessary protection services.

    in our non-government country-which means there will be laws that they will have to enforce
    -who would decide what those laws are-would there have to be 100% support to pass these laws.

    Precisely, Who does decide what laws there are?

    How do we know the law is a ‘good’ law?

    How would we ensure that the laws passed only dealt with protection of individual rights?

    The question, V., is exactly that…

    What is our measuring stick to know such a thing?

    What do you think it should be?

    • v. Holland says:

      BF
      “ Why should the State mess around with any rights at all?”

      They shouldn’t, but here I think you’re just being a little picky about word usage-do you prefer the word privileges.

      ‘What gives the State the right to destroy your rights?’

      Nothing, they just choose to abuse their power.

      “How do we ensure the Mafia doesn’t pass laws that don’t mess with our rights? “

      Don’t be too sure they haven’t 🙂

      “By never giving any entity the legitimacy to pass laws that do mess with any rights. “

      As I’ve stated before I don’t feel it’s possible to live in freedom as a society without laws and if you have laws the right to enforce is there, which creates Government and unfortunately the possibility that our rights will be messed with.

      “But the People cannot give this ‘entity’ any more power than the People hold, right?”

      Yes, I agree although thinking about this in a philosophical way just gives me a headache and the point in my opinion isn’t that we give them the right to infringe on our God given rights it’s that they (meaning man) take rights they weren’t given, they abuse the system.

      “No.
      I believe the free market will supply the necessary protection services. “

      You really need to explain how this will work.

      “Precisely, Who does decide what laws there are?

      How do we know the law is a ‘good’ law?
      How would we ensure that the laws passed only dealt with protection of individual rights?”

      I’m been watching The Best Little Whore House in Texas today and in one of the songs they say:Don’t let your mouth overload your capabilities, so with that thought in mind I’m gonna say-how the heck do I know. Seems if we knew the answer to those questions our problems would be solved.

      “The question, V., is exactly that…
      What is our measuring stick to know such a think?
      What do you think it should be?”

      We’ve discussed this before and I know what my measuring stick is -The Word of God, or love your neighbor as you love yourself, or even do unto others as you would have them do to you-from reading your posts this seems to be pretty well accepted in most societies but there still seems to be a lot of difference in the conclusions that other societies or just other people draw when using this same basic core principal.

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        “I don’t feel it’s possible to live in freedom as a society without laws…”

        That is exactly what the government wants you to believe.

  35. Hi BF

    Now, I thought I was going to get the rest of the story here today, What happened? You can’t leave a person hanging here, you know. It’s like watching a movie and not knowing how it ended. Please tell me the rest BF, I’m really interested in it. Or do you not want to tell?

    Judy

    • Black Flag says:

      Ah the story develops at the speed of the writer.

      • Okay, BF, here’s the deal, if your willing. You go ahead and tell the rest of the story, and I will check again in the morning. I would wait, but I had a very busy, busy day today, plus a couple margaritas at dinner tonight, and I am absolutely wiped.

        Just so you know why, here is my day today. Like you’re interested right. But here goes anyway.

        First, I went grocery shopping, whooppie huh. Then we went to the Pow Wow today for about 2 to 3 hours, and that was just fabulous, watching them all doing their dancing, and listening to the drumming and singing. Then, after we came home, went with my youngest son to do more shopping, but this time for his new apt, so he could get some stuff, and he wanted my help on things. Then went to his place to set stuff up, stayed there for a bit, his older brother also helped out with hings. Got home here around 6 p.m., went to dinner, had to have those margaritas, came home, then ended up talking with my sister on the phone for an hour.

        Now, I am ready to call it a day, and it’s only 8:30 p.m. I have been on the go since 8:30 this morning. Tomorrow, I have house work to do,plus a shit load of other stuff. So, if you will pardon me here, I would LOVE to read your story in the morning, plus I would still like to know about those morals you said I have. Would that be okay with you?

        So, on that note, I will say goodnight to you, until the morning.

        Have a great night BF, and a wonderful tomorrow.

        Take Care Okay.

        Judy

    • Black Flag says:

      So, of course I called – and started our love affair.

      She was from Morocco – her mother lived there – and (obviously), she was Arabic.

      She spoke Arabic (mother tongue), German, French, Italian and Dutch (fluently) and was working on English (almost fluently). She had married a Dutch business man, and ended up on the island following all his business adventures. They divorced when he began drinking and beating her.

      We’d adventure all over the island – I had a huge advantage over even the locals.

      For my projects, I need communication towers and oceanic landing points, and had chartered a helicopter company to overfly the island countless times with me searching for key locations.

      I knew all the hidden coves and beaches – areas that were impassable except by 4×4 that hid some of the most beautiful areas of the island. There were failed beach hotels, long abandoned, and forgotten – their shells making wonderful redoubts for the intrepid adventurer.

      We spent many nights, way out in nowhere, pitch dark – no light – huddled on some beach or inside some concrete shell that was something amazing, but abandoned, 20 years ago.

      It was magical. And we fell in love.

      She taught (or tried to) me Arabic – it is a very romantic language. It is almost like singing all the time. I’d ask her how to say some of those “sweet nothings” you say as pillow talk, and she blush all the time. I’d look up the sentences on the ‘net – and try to repeat them – and she’d blush some more – and correct me a bit. But she always loved when I spoke them to her.

      But as part of their culture, we rarely showed affection in public. She’d almost never hold my hand, and would walk slightly behind me when we went anywhere.

      But privately – well, there is a reason the Crusaders did not go back home after they conquered the Holy Land.

      I was trying to buy a property at the time – located on cliff that was adjacent to the US Consulate. It had been abandoned and it looked like it – the house – what was left of it – was open and roofless. But the view! The best in the Caribbean. The land was worth high six-figure — and the cost of rebuilding — on top of that. I brought her there one night to show her – and see what she thought – along with a couple of bottle of champagne.

      Of course, one thing led to another – and as we were ‘making out’ and having a very pleasant time – guess who showed up?

      The Consulate security had been watching us (of course) and sent a few men over to see what we were doing. Rather embarrassing …. they knew who I was (almost everyone knew who I was) and we left, of course, with the guards snickering behind us.

      The next day, of course, EVERYONE on the island had heard the gossip – every meeting for the next few weeks I’d be greeted with ‘winks’ and ‘smiles’. Our secret was out – Black Flag and the Ambassador’s Daughter were ‘officially’ a couple.

      • Is this the same island that you recommend as one of the last outposts of freedom? If so or not – to which island(s) were you referring?

        • Black Flag says:

          Yes!

          And No!

          They are by orders of magnitude less obtrusive than any First World Government….

          …but they are still insane.

          I fought many wars against governments across the Caribbean and Latin America – won many, lost quite few badly.

          If you want to retire there, with only the minimum of government interference, yes, it was good.

          If you wanted to work there, government was very bad. I mean, the level of bad that they would send hit men to kill you.

      • Black Flag says:

        One day, I became aware that she was living with me.

        It didn’t happen by design or demand. It was that she was spending all her time with me, and living at my home.

        She would always keep her own house. Experience taught her that she always needed her own ‘castle’. I didn’t contradict that. I knew where she came from in her experience.

        But, 24×7, she lived with me. And I loved it.

        I would come home – my home (not typical of me – chaos, papers all over the place, clothes piled up anywhere they fell) was clean, organized, pleasant, peaceful — and decorated with her cultural artifacts.

        I’d come home – devastated and exhausted – to my home; it smelled beautiful with her herbs and spices – our dinner, laid out, hot and ready to eat exactly at 6pm every day – my house, clean and in order.

        I fell completely into a trace of relaxation – nothing of my desires was withheld.

  36. An email that seems interesting. I will be out of touch for a few days, kind regards to all. Illusion

    >
    > Born 1776, Died 2008
    > It does not hurt to read this several times.
    >
    >
    >
    > Professor Joseph Olson of Hemline University School of Law, St. Paul , Minnesota , points out some interesting facts concerning the Presidential election:
    >
    > * Number of States won by: Democrats: 19 Republicans: 29
    > * Square miles of land won by: Democrats: 580,000 Republicans: 2,427,000
    > * Population of counties won by: Democrats: 127 million Republicans: 143 million
    > * Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by: Democrats: 13.2 Republicans: 2.1
    >
    > Professor Olson adds: “In aggregate, the map of the territory Republicans won was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens of the country.
    >
    > Democrat territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in government-owned tenements and living off various forms of government welfare…”
    > Olson believes the United States is now somewhere between the “complacency and apathy” phase of Professor Tyler’s definition of democracy, with some forty percent of the nation’s population already having reached the “governmental dependency” phase.
    > If Congress grants amnesty and citizenship to twenty million criminal invaders called illegals and they vote, then we can say goodbye to the USA in fewer than five years.

    Hi Fred,

    While some may find just-reasoning in this, unfortunately their emotions have been politically “played”, as this email actually began back in 2000 (Bush/Gore) and Professor Olsen has been trying to debunk it — and any relationship to it — ever since, including on his personal website.

    Factcheck. org (http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/whats_the_deal_with_prof_joseph_olsons.html), Snoops and other internet hoax providers have all supported Professor Olsen’s claims and have traced this piece extensively while also providing the actual numbers that prevail as correct.

    Olson: There is an e-mail floating around the internet dealing with the 2008 Obama/McCain election and the 2000 Bush/Gore election, remarks of a Scottish philosopher named Alexander Tyler, etc. Part of it is attributed to me. It is entirely BOGUS as to my authorship. I’ve been trying to kill it since December 2000. For details see: http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/tyler.asp.

    Hope this keeps us all, regardless of political preferences, grounded in the pursuit of truth, and that all who passed this hoax along will do the right thing by also passing along the fact that it is, sadly enough, a hoax, not to further democracy, but hate and fear from within.

  37. Judy S. says:

    Good Morning/ afternoon BF

    Just got through reading your story, and it sounds so romantic. But that can’t be the end now, can it? There has got to be more to the story. What happens in the next chapter?

    I would love to be able to go to the Caribbean sometime, and just sit and lay under one of those canapes and listen to the sounds of the ocean. Nothing more relaxing I think than that. I have always enjoyed being by the ocean, with the sun shinning, the birds flying by and watching them landing, and running back and forth on the beach. There’s something really romantic about the beach, especially at night, laying there looking up at the stars, and just gazing at them, trying to see things like the big and little dipper and so forth.

    But living here in Reno, if you want to see something like that, you have to go to Lake Tahoe, which we don’t get to very often. You’d think we would, since it’s only 45 minutes away. Only time we really get up there is if anything is going on that we might be interested in, or just passing through to get someplace else.

    But, back to you and your lady love. Please, do tell. Can’t wait until you say more. Until the next chapter then.

    Hope you’re having a great day.

    Judy

    • Black Flag says:

      We’d been living together for about two amazing and wonderful years.

      My companies were on a roller coaster, some days great, other days nearly bankrupt – it was a very stressful time, business-wise.

      One day I came home late – I had called to let her know I’d be missing her supper -again-.

      I finally got home around 10PM -exhausted-

      Before I opened the door to my house, she opened it. She was dressed in a gorgeous traditional robe. She silently beckoned me in.

      She took off my shoes and socks and led me to a chair, where there was a basin of warmed water on the floor. She softly washed my feet and dried them, then placed some house slippers on me (I didn’t even own house slippers – so this was different).

      Silently she led me to the dinner table where there was a single setting. She seated me, and served me an amazing traditional dish, and sat silently while I ate.

      She served me a very precise sized portion – not too much to make me feel ‘too full’, and enough to chase away any feeling of hunger, and kept my glass full of light lime and lemon water.

      After I was finished she silently led me to the washroom. I had a full washroom – shower stall and a extra large bath tube. The toilet and hand basin was built into a different room – so this bath room was really like a large swimming pool.

      She had drawn up a hot bath (when did she do this? I don’t know – sometime between serving me dinner). She stripped me, placed me in the tub and washed me.

      Now, the only woman who had ever washed me before then was my mother, and I don’t really remember that – so this was completely new to me. I was so thoroughly washed, even my eyelids were gently hand washed.

      After a very long slow washing, she dried me and led me to our bedroom. Silently. She had yet to say one word since I came home.

      She removed her robe and joined me in bed and made love to me with a passion I had never seen before.

      After God knows how long – I was allowed to go to sleep – completely physically exhausted. She softly slid beside me, entangling herself in my arms, and – finally – whispering in Arabic to me, saying:

      “You are my love, my heart, my desire, my dream, my wish, my heaven. I love you so much. I will be forever yours – anything and everything I am is yours. I will be whore, your lover, your wife, your companion, the mother for your children. There is nothing that I have or nothing that I am that is not yours.”

      And then she went to sleep. I was wide awake for quite awhile after that little speech.

      From that day on, I called her my wife, and she called me her husband.

      • Judy S. says:

        Oh! BF, I believe that I was blushing as I read this. WOW! You hold nothing back, do you? That’s okay though. So, is this the woman you married for real, or was she someone you called your wife?

        I hope that isn’t the end of the story, but if it is, I hope you are a truly happy man, for it sounds like she is the love of your life. Is she?

        I know that everybody I’m sure has that one true love in their life, but nothing may have never became of it, because it may only be known to that person, and to no one else. It might be because that person might already be married and has that secret deep within their heart, or maybe it just wasn’t the right time for them to be together, who knows. But I do know, that once you meet that person, you’ll know it, and you will never forget him/her, even if nothing can become of it.

        • Black Flag says:

          Well, it is what she said – it was her telling me that there was nothing she wouldn’t do for me – in any way shape or form.

          She would be my plaything anytime I wanted. And everything else too. Often I’d wonder later, who did the playing? 😉

          As I pointed out before, there is a reason the Crusaders refused to go back home – there is no story in Playboy’s fantasies that could even come close.

          We’ve lost something in our Western culture regarding intimacy -both emotional and physical- between a man and a woman. I think this “Victorian” attitude has harmed us in ways we do not know until some of us accidentally trip into the ways of other cultures. It turned everything I thought about love, sex and intimacy upside down.

          —–
          As I’ve posted before – though I respect anyone else’s choice for themselves – I refuse to invite into my relationships a man who believes God only talks to him or a government thug.

          She was my wife because I said so.

        • Black Flag says:

          We visited her family in Morocco often.

          She came from a family of 14 siblings and half-siblings – all children from her father’s three wives.

          She was the oldest of her mothers (2nd wife) children, and had two grown brothers, two grown sisters, and a youngest brother was (at the time) only 10 and a youngest sister who was 6!

          My Arabic was terrible, so there was lots of translating necessary, but it was a wonderful time. The country is beautiful – they lived in small town in the mountains and she and I would stay in her brother’s house, he’d leave it and move in with his other brother so we could have the whole place to ourselves. The area wasn’t typical image of desert – it was cool and green most of the time.

          They treated me like a brother or son – it was obvious that she was the favorite sister of all the 14 kids – it was a huge family celebration every time we came back there to see them.

          We’d been happily living our life – my wide-open crazy hectic life matched with her gentle, soft unhurried life.

          She loved to shop – but she wasn’t a spendthrift. She like to spend money, but it was always small amounts – like coffee with her friends or some small ornament for a couple of dollars – or a pretty dress she thought I’d like her to wear. She’d putter around, buying the goods and vegetables for that day’s meals – almost every meal was made from that days’ shopping in the market. It was always fresh.

          One night, she wanted to go to bed early – and obviously not because she was tired.

          Hours later, as she spooned herself into me -who was, again physically spent and felt like I had been run over by the Love Boat- she wrapped my arms around her, took my hands and spread my fingers and palms to cover the largest area possible over her body, and then placed her hands on top of mine.

          I had learned that any of these rather different things she did usually meant she had something important to say.

          I was right. As she was slowly slipping into sleep, she whispered:

          “My love, you should start planning for a family”

          And then she went to sleep, leaving me with another eyes wide-awake night to ponder life…..

          • Judy S. says:

            Don’t stop there, keep going. Did you have that family with her?

            What and how do you mean that we’ve lost something in our Western culture regarding intimacy, both in emotional and physical, I don’t quite understand that part. Is it or could it be that people are so flippant about their relationships, that they can’t hold onto that one person, or that they don’t want to?

            Let me ask you something, hypothetically of course, okay. Suppose I met someone who absolutely knocked my socks off, fell madly in love with him, can’t stop thinking about him day and night, knowing that nothing can ever become of that, but yet making me want him even more? What then? Do you walk away never to look back, or what? That is a possibility for some, to meet someone like that, but never following through.

            I met my husband when I was 15 years old, still in high school back in 1968, he was still in the Army. It was a blind date that someone had fixed us up with. We didn’t like each other when we first met, but we gave it another try to see what would happen. Well, we did end up liking each other. In fact we stayed our all night getting to know each other, learning a lot about each other that night.

            We went together all the next year while he completed his last year in the Army. He had asked me to marry him 6 months after meeting each other. I was only 16 then, but I said yes anyway. Well he got out, went back to L.A., went back to work for Lockheed where he worked until he retired in 1990. Anyway, we got married in 1969 when I was 17, he was 21,been together ever since.

            I won’t lie to you, we did have our problems, really big ones, almost divorced after 10 years, but we worked through it. We’ll be married for 40 years coming this October. So, even if one of us met somebody that knocked our socks off, but didn’t follow through with anything doesn’t necessarily mean we don’t love each other and that we aren’t happy. Remember, I said at the top it was hypothetically.

            • Black Flag says:

              We are measured by our duty and honor and by our love.

              It is always very tough when love and honor are crossed.

              I believe, though, love should win. In the end, I believe it would dishonor someone to live falsely with them, simply out of duty.

              There are many ways to both hold the duty and honor, and reach out take love somewhere else. It’s hard work, though.

              • Judy S. says:

                And how does one do that, if I may ask. How can you reach out to some one else if you are committed to another? But, what if you do love the person you’re with, but still love another? Then what?

                Do you take that chance to be with the other person, knowing full well that the person you are committed to might find out?

                Back to the hypothetical question here. Okay, I meet the person who I truly believe that I’m in love with, we spend time together, not a long time, but enough time. We both want the same thing, but yet we both know it’s wrong, he says he loves me and wants to be with me, knowing that I would never leave my husband, having to decide what I truly want.

                Would that be considered a sexual attraction towards one another, or would that be considered love towards one another? If two people who feel that it’s really love, it’s a hard decision to make.

                You can’t help the feelings you have for another person, but you know in your heart it’s wrong to follow through with them. But then you have the feelings of wanting to follow through knowing they are wrong. What if it’s just because you lost that feeling of what it’s like to be held again, and being made love too, and the closeness you once had with the person you are committed too? Lust, sexual attraction, or could it be love, or all of the above? You tell me.

          • JUDY JUDY JUDY !!!

            Thank God I found you again !!

            Oh well .. My Judy lived in Vermont ! LOL

            • Judy S. says:

              SO, Frank, what happened to your Judy?

            • Well Judy, That was my sense of humor about finding you…

              However.. I’d always thought I’d find a Judy ! I think it was because one of my sisters friends when she was in junior high or so was a Judy. So from that time on, my father seemed to call all her friends “Judy”. She/we knew who he meant and it sure was easier for him !!

              My ‘Judy” will have to be when we all have a standupforamerica gettoghter !

              • Judy S. says:

                Ok, sorry I didn’t know you meant it as a joke there.

                We have some friends in Cali, and he always called me JUDY! JUDY! JUDY!, and I hated that. I think it was because everybody said that Cary Grant once said that in a movie, but it turned out, he never said it more than once.

                I told that friend of our I hated being called that, but he continued until I told him to buzz off then. He never called me that again, Judy used my name the one time after that.

                I was also called Judy Canova by one of my girlfriends dad all the time too. Never knew who she was until I got older.

                I guess my name must have been pretty popular back in the day. I always hated my name when I was younger though, but now I like it.

              • Sorry

                that was my seconary reference – so found this – who knew .. http://www.carygrant.net/articles/judy.htm

                And how do you enter a post when its less than a character !!

              • Judy S. says:

                See, I told you so. As for your question, I haven’t got a clue.

        • Black Flag says:

          About month or so after I learned I was going to be a father, she got a call. H

          er mother was gravely ill and dying.

          The timing was bad. I was in the midst of some severe business issues and I felt I couldn’t leave to Morocco.

          She would follow her duty, and stay with me. If I didn’t give her permission to go, she would stay with her husband.

          But I knew, too, she would forever regret not going.

          I knew she felt she had a duty, too, to her mother – and to her two youngest brother and sister who were still living at home with her mother. She’d stay with me, if that was my wish, but that regret not being with her mother would burn inside her for the rest of her life.

          But I didn’t want her to go. I wanted her with me – quite selfish, of course – but I also felt I shouldn’t let her go for some other reason I couldn’t articulate.

          But I couldn’t let her suffer either. So I said Yes. I’d try to organize my business affairs as soon as possible so I could join her with her mother.

          She was so happy — and so was I. I’d bring in some of my management team from other locations and set them up here to cover for me – it would take a month or two – but it would be manageable.

          The day she flew to Morocco – she was dressed in a all-white pant suit – stunningly beautiful as always. I sat with her in the waiting area (pre-9/11 security allowed us to do that). Finally her plane was boarding.

          As I stated previously, she was always very shy about public displays of affection – occasionally only holding hands underneath a table in a restaurant. If we parted in public, she would give me a light kiss on my cheek and accept only the same back.

          But this time, she threw herself into my arms, hugged me tightly and gave me an incredibly passionate kiss – right in the waiting room surrounded by hundreds of people! She was all smiles as I watched her walk and board her plane.

          It would be the last time I kissed her.
          It would be the last I held her.
          The last time I would ever see her.

          About a month after that, she was killed instantly in a car accident in Morocco when a truck crossed into her path and brutally destroyed my life.

          I accepted the advise of my then brother-in-law not to view her body – it had been so mangled and butchered by the force of the accident.

          Ironically, I had been working with my management team to take over my duties, and they were mostly in place when this happened. I fell apart, but the business puttered on without me.

          I cried myself to sleep every night for nearly two years after that.

          • Judy S. says:

            Oh BF, I’m so sorry, I don’t know what to say, except how sorry I am. She was the love of your life, wasn’t she? It’s not fair that when someone meets their one true love, live the life you wanted, was truly happy with that person, and then their life gets snuffed out in an instant.

            How did you ever recover from that? I know it must have taken more than the 2 years to do that. I bet there isn’t a day that goes by, that you don’t think of her too, right? I’m sure she will always remain in your heart until the day you die, always.

            You can never forget some one that you loved so strongly for so long no matter what comes your way. Even I know that. I hope that what happened to you, has made you a stronger person today. Sounds like when you love some one, you love them very deep and hard. Am I right?

          • Black Flag says:

            It was devastating on everyone.

            Her mother, who had asked for her to come over – and found out that she was going to be a grandmother for the first time – now had to bury her daughter and unborn grandchild, then only to die herself a week or so later.

            How much cruelty could a family suffer with one tragedy?

            You never get over it, you simply deal with it and go on.

            And then Life is.

            If this didn’t happen, I wouldn’t have my life today. I wouldn’t have my greatest joy, my daughter or my loving wife.

            But the impact of her love on me will echo over many lifetimes, I’m sure.

            I wrote this about six months after she died.

            There was once a Boy who thought he was a Man, who met and fell in love with a beautiful woman.

            She said, “If you want to be with me, you must be a real Man. Take my hand and I will teach you”.

            He was Angry! How dare she insult him! He was a Man he said! She was patient as she held out her hand for him to take.

            He was furious, but she was beautiful, so grudgingly, he took her hand.

            In the beginning it was very hard and difficult.

            Almost everything he knew about being a Man was wrong. It took a long time, but slowly things seemed to get easier, until one day….

            She came to him and knelt before him and said:
            “You are a Man. Everything I am as a Woman is yours. There is nothing I will not give you.”

            He gazed upon her with love as he lifted her to his eyes.

            He said softly “You made me a Man, therefore you must be a Queen”.

            She smiled at him with love and said “To be with a Queen, you must be a King. Please take my hand so that I may teach you”.

            He hesitated. He remembered how difficult it was the last time.

            But he loved her, and so he took her hand.

            It was hard, but not as hard as before. Much of what he thought he knew was wrong, but he was eager to learn. One day….

            She came to him and knelt before him and said:

            “You are my King. Everything I am as your Queen and your Woman, my heart, my soul, my body is yours. There is nothing I will not give you.”

            He gazed upon her with the greatest love as lifted her to his eyes.

            He said “You made me a King, therefore you must be a Goddess”.

            She smiled at him with the greatest love, and whispered, “To be with a Goddess, you must be a God. Please, my love, hold my hand so that I may show you”.

            He did not hesitate.

            –For Halima

            • Judy S. says:

              Is that what you meant before, when you said those two words, Life Is? It was a while back when we were talking about something, now I forget what it was, but I do remember you saying that.

              But, now you have some one in your life that you do truly love and cherish, your wife and daughter. There is nothing greater than that. I’m glad you found love again BF, and it sounds like you are a very happy person again. I know you will never forget your other love that you lost, for she will always be with you, you know that.

              There is nothing greater than finding the one you are meant to be with, and build your life with that person. There is nothing also greater than creating a life with that person as well.

              Besides my wedding day, there was nothing greater that happened to me, but giving birth to my two son’s who have given me nothing but happiness and joy they brought into our lives. I don’t know what I would do if I didn’t have them in my life, or if I lost one of them. They have become every womens dream. They are gentle, loving, caring, respectful, helpful and care a great deal about people, and are always there when and if I should ever need them. They care about people’s feelings, and they make sure they don’t step on anybody’s toes either.

              My oldest son was married for about a year and a half. She was the love of his life, but it didn’t work out. He wanted children, she didn’t. They were both hoping the other would change their minds about that, but neither did. He’s in the Army, and she could deal too well with him not being home every night, but instead he was at Ft. Irwin Calif for 24 months, and she was here. They would meet each other every other week either at Bishop, or he would come home for a weekend. Things would be great for them then, until he came home after his stint at Ft. Irwin, then things started going bad for them.

              They would fight and argue all the time because she couldn’t understand that he wanted to spend time with his brother when he came home on leave, or if he wanted to spend time with his best friend doing something together they enjoyed doing like panning for gold and fishing or something.

              They would argue about the money he might spend on something, but it was okay for he to spend it on for whatever she wanted. She was a shopaholic, and couldn’t understand why he would get angry buying things she didn’t need. It went on for quite a while, until he couldn’t take it anymore, and he left.

              The ended up getting a divorce, but he still loved her, he just couldn’t live with her. Now he has somebody else that he met 3 years ago, that he loves with all his heart. She too is in the Army, plus she has 3 boys of her own, and my son loves those boys as if they were his own. Their father doesn’t even want them to go back to Maine so he can spend time with them. They were suppose to go there for the summer, but it didn’t pan out. Needless to say, they were very disappointed to think that their own father doesn’t want to spend time with them.

              They have come to think of my son as their dad now, and they love him as much as he loves them. I think he found the one, not sure, but he sure acts like it. But, the thing is, he still loves his former wife too, but in a different way now. His new love has given him what he couldn’t find with his wife, and that’s trust, something he didn’t get with his wife. She wanted him to spend every waking minute with her, and she couldn’t understand why he couldn’t because she was smothering him to death.

              He is a lot happier now, than he was with his wife even though he loved her with everything he had. Does that make any sense to you? Maybe it’s because they are both in the Army and they have that in common, I don’t know, but what I do know is they have trust in each other and if you don’t have that, then you have nothing.

            • Richmond Spitfire says:

              Dear Black Flag,

              Thank you for sharing your beautiful history. I am deeply affected it.

              Best Regards,
              Karyn

            • Ray Hawkins says:

              BF – WOW

  38. Totally off-topic but this is driving me nuts. What is the deal with the Harvard Professor and the Cop? Id this gut stuck in 1962 or what. I feel that African Americans (whatever that is supposed to mean) have been given a lot of opportunities in our society. We still have a long way to go in race relations, but who keeps stirring up these things?

    If someone were breaking into my home, I would hope the Police would show up and protect my property. Not “I’ll talk to YO MAMA on the porch”. This reminds me of the Cynthia McKinney situation. You don’t know who I am? At least the people had the common sense to not re-elect her.

    Anyway, here we go again on the TV. Obama had to jump on the bandwagon (even without facts) and the reason is obvious. Now they’re going to have a beer and kiss and make up. In the meantime, what multi-trillion deal will be passed in the middle of the night while we’re focused on this BS?

    I think this is one of the problems with America and our media / govt. Look at the right hand but don’t watch the left as the Health Care Reparations bill goes through. How stupid do these people think we are.

    Sorry to rant, but tell me what you all think. If I’m way out in left field, I’d like to have information to correct my bad attitude.

    • Damn, Wasabi….pay very little attention to this story. It is not worth the effort. The “racism” card is becoming so time worn and there is nothing to replace it with, that those of us that grew up with it, now laugh at it. This is something that has to be expected when one does not get their way…just claim racism and political correctness will take care of the rest. Put political correctness where it belongs…in a big hole in the ground covered with lime, like the rest of the shit.

      1,000 years from now, “racism” will still be used. We can all live in a perfect world and when that happens, the perfect world will be labeled racist. I pay no attention to this phraseology any longer. Like Chicken Little….when isolated worthwhile claims of racism do surface, no one will pay attention.

      • Judy S. says:

        Good evening everybody

        Racism will never, ever go away. It’s been around for who knows how long, and it will be here until the earth stops, and we are no longer on it. Too bad really.

      • Ray Hawkins says:

        D13 – I agree and disagree with you – I have not walked in his shoes less I understand his plight. We creatures are very good at noting many times what is different between us – and some even better at using that fulcrum for some real or imagined advantage. I’ve always wondered how individualism to the extreme reconciles dilemmas such as this (and yes – racism sources by all races in different ways). I do think racism, like conspiracy theories, will never go away – ever.

      • Ray Hawkins says:

        According to a NYT/CBS Poll (which I know most of you will simply dismiss as bs because it isn’t from FUX news, Karl Rove’s gut or Cyndi’s mess hall gossip), but anyway:

        “Have you ever felt you were stopped by the police just because of your race or ethnic background?”

        All Whites: 7% Yes / 93% No
        All Hispanics: 30% Yes / 70% No
        All Blacks: 43% Yes / 57% No
        White Men Only: 9% Yes / 91% No
        Black Men Only: 66% Yes / 34% No

        Hard to be too critical of that black man if you’re that white man eh?

        • USWeapon says:

          I certainly won’t dismiss the poll. But Asking a black man if the reason he was stopped was because of race is like asking a feminist if it is women or men that are the problem in America. I have been accused more than once of firing a shitty worker because he was black when race had nothing to do with it. OF COURSE black men say they were stopped only because of their skin color. Hell half of the blacks in this country seem to believe that everything negative that happens to them is race related. I don’t doubt the accuracy of the numbers in your poll, I do doubt the conclusions that you seem to draw from it.

          • Ray Hawkins says:

            USW a Racist?

            USW – sorry – but you need to be taken to task here.

            1. I read the survey as having at least some bias. I would expect a higher than normal number in the affirmative for black men due to the proximity to the Gates incident – that may be a reflection of positive association to events that have occurred in one’s past of mere association (a false positive). Net is I think 34% may be a tick high – we will not know for certain unless they collect additional data and inject other variables (e.g. geography)

            2. “But Asking a black man if the reason he was stopped was because of race is like asking a feminist if it is women or men that are the problem in America. I have been accused more than once of firing a shitty worker because he was black when race had nothing to do with it. OF COURSE black men say they were stopped only because of their skin color. Hell half of the blacks in this country seem to believe that everything negative that happens to them is race related.”

            My emotional response – now you sound like Cyndi who seems to think that 95% of all blacks and ‘most’ all whites voted for Obama voted for him only because of the color of his skin (her ignorant words, not mine).

            My reasoned response – you’re equating one view sourced supposedly in race to one sourced in ideology/politics. Suggesting that all black men are predisposed to assuming every time they are stopped by a police officer, that it is racially motivated or, they are somehow precluded from assuming anything but…..

            – You give legs to a wrong-headed idea. I would presume some blacks feel this way, not many nor all. Perhaps that is sourced in their own real/perceived mistrust of the police or they were raised that way. By covering all blacks with that blanket you give validate it which makes easier for people otherwise not in that camp of thinking to become predisposed to thinking its ok.

            – It would seem you hold hard feelings regarding an employee termination (or two) that went sour. Not to worry USW – I have had the same thing happen to me, both race and age discrimination charges. However, and this is key, you are attributing a negative characteristic (call it whatever you want, ‘lack of judgment’ or something else – your statement “OF COURSE black men say they were stopped only because of their skin color” is what I am pointing to specifically) to an entire group of people based on the color of their skin (Racism being the belief that race is the primary determinant of a human traits and/or capacity). By definition, that is racist.

        • JayDickB says:

          “Have you ever felt you were stopped by the police just because of your race or ethnic background?”

          What do “feelings” have to do with anything here? The poll is irrelevant. It has no objectivity except to judge how the respondents “feel”. I don’t care very much how they feel.

          If they really were stopped only because of their race, it’s a problem that we should try to fix. But I can’t see that this poll tells us anything about that issue.

          • Ray Hawkins says:

            So how would you word the question Jay Dick? Should we collect police reports and look for the checkbox under “Reason for Stop” and see if “Race” was checked? Perception testing is well vetted and recognized within polling and survey methodology and where properly done (e.g. using a Likert Scale) is considered statistically valid.

            • JayDickB says:

              In an extensive questionnaire with lots of validating questions, you might get a handle on this. To do it right, you’d have to have both the target and the police officer take the survey. You’d also have to have questions to measure their underlying views of race to better evaluate other responses.

              I’m not a social science researcher, but have worked with them enough to know that this is would be a very difficult process that would take lots of time to do properly. Even then there might be large margins for error.

              A simple single question tells you nothing valuable.

              • Ray Hawkins says:

                A perception test as such does not require input from any other actor – to do so would induce bias.

                If I use your criteria then I should automatically dismiss anything posted that is the same or close (e.g. ‘a majority of Americans feel that:

                Obama is a liar
                The ‘spendulus’ bill has failed
                Obama is not popular any more
                Obama is not a US citizen

                Catch my drift? Can’t have it both ways)

              • JayDickB says:

                I don’t care very much about perceptions; I care about reality.

                The only person who might know if race was involved in a police stop is the police officer. Even he might not know if it’s subconscious.

      • I know it’s pretty much a joke anymore. Still bugs me because it seems like just another distraction.

  39. Anyone knowledgeable enough to validate / refute this? Interviewee sounds knowledgeable.

    I probably won’t be able to post on next subject – think this is important. Thanks

    Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2009 5:20 PM
    To: Terry
    Subject: Page 425 of Health Care BIll

    Page 425 of Health Care Bill – Listen to this interview Fred Thompson’s Radio Show interviewing Betsy McCaughey (pronounced Mc Coy). Or look it up on http://www.fredthompsonshow.com, under interviews.

    On page 425 it says in black and white that EVERYONE on Social Security, (will include all Senior Citizens and SSI people) will go to MANDATORY counseling every 5 years to learn and to choose from ways to end your suffering (and your life). Health care will be denied based on age. 500 Billion will be cut from Seniors healthcare. The only way for that to happen is to drastically cut health care, the oldest and the sickest will be cut first. Paying for your own care will not be an option.

    Now, CALL YOUR PEOPLE IN WASHINGTON! Tell them to read page 425 if they don’t read anything else. Surely some of them have parents.

    “ON PAGE 425 OF OBAMA’S HEALTH CARE BILL, the Federal Government will require EVERYONE who is on Social Security to undergo a counseling session every 5 years with the objective being that they will explain to them just how to end their own life earlier. Yes…They are going to push SUICIDE to cut medicare spending!”

    http://fredthompsonshow.com/premiumstream?dispid=320&headerDest=L3BnL2pzcC9tZWRpYS9mbGFzaHdlbGNvbWUuanNwP3BpZD03MzUxJnBsYXlsaXN0PXRydWUmY2hhcnR0eXBlPWNoYXJ0JmNoYXJ0SUQ9MzIwJnBsYXlsaXN0U2l6ZT01

    Fred Thompson: Interviews
    (BE SURE TO CLICK ON THE ABOVE LINE!)

  40. Black Flag says:

    v. Holland

    BF
    “ Why should the State mess around with any rights at all?”

    They shouldn’t, but here I think you’re just being a little picky about word usage-do you prefer the word privileges.

    No.

    The problem is the flip-flop. First, there is an assumption that we need the State – yet, the State attacks our rights – yet, we say the State can’t attack our rights – but, that is all the State can do is attack our rights…

    See the circle?

    ‘What gives the State the right to destroy your rights?’

    Nothing, they just choose to abuse their power.

    If that is what ALL STATES DO then why do we support the State?

    “How do we ensure the Mafia doesn’t pass laws that don’t mess with our rights? “

    Don’t be too sure they haven’t 🙂

    They have. But that’s the point.

    What is the difference between the Mafia and the State? Nothing except the latter has legitimacy.

    If we are to free ourselves, we must end the legitimacy of violence – which includes removing that legitimacy from the State.

    “By never giving any entity the legitimacy to pass laws that do mess with any rights. “

    As I’ve stated before I don’t feel it’s possible to live in freedom as a society without laws and if you have laws the right to enforce is there, which creates Government and unfortunately the possibility that our rights will be messed with.

    Again, the circle.

    You support the destruction of rights while claiming you are protecting them.

    Contradiction.

    You can have laws without the State. Nature seems to do rather well without government.

    “But the People cannot give this ‘entity’ any more power than the People hold, right?”

    Yes, I agree although thinking about this in a philosophical way just gives me a headache and the point in my opinion isn’t that we give them the right to infringe on our God given rights it’s that they (meaning man) take rights they weren’t given, they abuse the system.

    So why do you support the State if it destroys what you want protected?

    “No.
    I believe the free market will supply the necessary protection services. “

    You really need to explain how this will work.

    You’ve never seen a security guard?

    “Precisely, Who does decide what laws there are?

    How do we know the law is a ‘good’ law?
    How would we ensure that the laws passed only dealt with protection of individual rights?”

    I’m been watching The Best Little Whore House in Texas today and in one of the songs they say:Don’t let your mouth overload your capabilities, so with that thought in mind I’m gonna say-how the heck do I know. Seems if we knew the answer to those questions our problems would be solved.

    “The question, V., is exactly that…
    What is our measuring stick to know such a think?
    What do you think it should be?”

    We’ve discussed this before and I know what my measuring stick is -The Word of God, or love your neighbor as you love yourself, or even do unto others as you would have them do to you-from reading your posts this seems to be pretty well accepted in most societies but there still seems to be a lot of difference in the conclusions that other societies or just other people draw when using this same basic core principal.

    So, if we measure such actions by this yard stick, and it fails – why do we still chose to support such actions?

    We have proved the action is evil – yet, it appears you continue to support it.

    What does the Book of Christ say about supporting evil?

    • v. Holland says:

      Actually, I’m not supporting government I’m just acknowledging that as a society we are going to have some form of government, I think it’s unavoidable unless I want to live a life of only the strong survive.

      You can continue to tell me that government is evil but the truth is the government is just a devise that evil men use to do evil or sometimes what I judge as evil and other people think is good. The point is I agree that any form of government will become evil to some degree but I see no way to stop that from happening because without government man will still find ways to take our rights because man is the ingredient that causes the evil.

      So unless you can show me how our country can function without any laws to counter the evil done by man, I see no real difference, except with laws, I at least have the vote, the police, the military, and the court system to try and defend my rights. Without law, all I can see as a defense is the gun. So,in my opinion we have to figure out a way to keep our government small and I figure it will be an ongoing fight to keep it under any kind of control. That is why I’m on sites like this one to try to find ways to stop our government from over stepping the bounds that our Founding Fathers tried to put in place.

      • VH, If I had to ask one question to you or anyone else it would be simple. If we became a nation that was governmentless, and only the strong (as you put it) will survive, why do you not you consider the “morally strong”? Are we not a compasionate people? Will that compasion just go away without government?

        I think not, although at the beginning it may seem that way, but the morally, compassionate, intelligent strong will overcome in the end, I think your vision of the strong may be defined bt fear, rather than what we as a people really are made of. Just because someone is 6’8″ and 350 lbs of pure muscle, he is not what I see as the “strong”, just a easier target if he leaves his morallity behind.

        G!

        • Sorry, more than one question.

          • Judy S. says:

            Hey G-Man

            We are know for our compassion. Isn’t that why we help all these other countries because of it? We are one of the most compassionate countries out there, and if you think otherwise, well, just think about it.

            If I see a fellow human being in need of help, I do offer my help provided I can give it. If I am turned down, at least I know I made an effort, and I feel good inside.

            What about the Bible quote ” THE MEEK SHALL INHERIT THE EARTH”. I don’t think I can believe in that now, especially now, know what I mean?

            • Look a what happened to the Native Americans. They were a strong compassionate people, yet their freedom and land was taken away from them. Yes, I know, they could be a ruthless people too. They were forced on reservations to live out the rest of their lives for the most part too.

              I don’t know about you people, but I don’t want this government or any government for that matter, to be weak willed, but it looks like this one has become a weak government, and I am afraid for this country, and what could happen to it if we don’t make a stand now.

        • v. Holland says:

          I realize that our conversation has made me sound like I think man is evil but I know that man is also good. I do believe that there are good people who will do everything in their power to protect those who can’t protect themselves. I don’t believe my feelings are defined by fear-I think they are defined by reality-Please tell me if there are any countries without government, I don’t know any-Why is that? Please look at humane nature-What happens after these weaker people start depending on these stronger people and start demanding safety-not only will they form a power structure but the people will demand one and the stronger people at least some of them will be happy to have the power. I hate to sound so negative but humane nature seems to support my belief.

          So I look at humane nature, mans desire for power and I choose the form that recognizes the evil that is in man and tries to give us ways to overcome that evil-our Constitution. Obviously, it isn’t perfect and it has been corrupted but surely we can find ways to bring our government back to what it was supposed to be, give the power back to the states and reduce the size of the federal government and try to figure out what loop holes they used and make the needed changes. I realize that government can never be made perfect and we may have to take back control and years from now have to do it again.

          • Let’s hope we live long enough to see that happen.

            • v. Holland says:

              It’s either gonna be a very slow hard process or it’s gonna be done by a process that actually does scare me, or the worst possibility of all it may be to late.

              • Can’t give up now V, it’s never too late. I rather it be a slow process than one that is too fast and non productive like it is now.

                I have faith that we will overcome all what is happening now. We have to rebuild this country back up the way it was meant to be, not the way it is now, and it’s weak now.

              • v. Holland says:

                Oh, I’ll never give up-We Americans have our weaknesses but we also have our strengths and giving up isn’t one of them at least in my experiences.

  41. Hi Judy and VH. I find it very enjoyable discussing the many issues here, it has helped me learn much about peolpe and myself. This weekend, me and Dad harvested green beans from the garden and canned 56 quarts! Next up, tomatos and potatos. good garden so far.

    I get to think alot about the posts here, I study the legislation that we are befronted with and talk about. As I sit back and really think about what is written, I often ask myself why we do this. I am always a straight shooter, and will ask folks like Black Flag and JAC and others what on earth they are talking about. I’m getting alot better at understanding them, as well as others, but I cannot get one thing out of my mind; why won’t we REALLY stand up and make our voices heard? My only conclusion is the fear of the unknown, fear of repercussions, fear, simply put, just an inbedded internal fear of what we feel we can’t control.

    I have, like many like me, removed fear from my life to every extent possible. I do not fear death or failure, nor do I fear any other person on this planet. I have very little, just enough to be happy, but I do not fear losing it, therefore I have nothing to lose. People with nothing to lose, tend to have no fear. Possessions are meaningless and can be replaced.

    I say this because our freedom is under attack, and has been for a very long time. That is the one thing I have to lose, and I’m not willing to live without it. I’m not alone. That I do know. Fear is your biggest enemy, remove it from your life and you can live free, and have the courage to make it happen.

    There are 80 million gun owners with 280 million guns. Our sons and daughters have the jets and tanks and missiles. WHY then should we fear a government we can remove?

    G!

    • v. Holland says:

      I agree with your sentiments and I think we don’t stand up because we are unorganized and most people just don’t know what to do-Funny how we humans seem to need a leader-I would be lying if I said the government in it’s present form doesn’t scare me and the process of removing this giant that our government has become is scary because this government is also our fellow citizens-Civil War should be feared but it may be necessary.

    • I agree with what you said G, and we are some of the many who own several guns, and are not afraid to use them if needed. I think what some of my fear is, that this government may want to take away or lessen our military. Heck, they already want to cut the defense budget, and if they do that, just how are they going to defend this country?

      I don’t know if you read any of the things that Black Flag and I were discussing earlier, but what happened to him made me feel that it made him a stronger person. Yes, why are we afraid to stand u p to this government? What are they going to do, put us all i n jail? I think not, not enough jails or room is reason enough for me. My youngest son put his life on the line when he went to Iraq twice, and I’ll be damned if it was for nothing. If we lose our freedom, then we lost everything.

      I don’t know who will be the first one to stand up against this government, but who ever it is, I hope it will be a super strong person who can face what may be thrown at him. I’m just one little person, but I do have a loud strong voice, and if I knew it would do any good, then I would scream my loudest. I hate what’s happening to this country, and I hate to see what might happen, but I will put all my muster and faith that we will get back on the right road.

  42. I’m going to get off this thing, been on it all day. Too bad you guys weren’t on earlier then we could have talked more about things, but what can you do. Tomorrow is another day, and hope to be able to talk with you then. That’s if it’s not super busy at work like it has been for us.

    You all have a good night and pleasant dreams for a better tomorrow.

    Take care

    Judy

  43. To Black Flag this is for you.

    I want to thank you for sharing what you did with me today, I’m sure it hurt you to talk about it. But for what it’s worth, I think it made you a stronger person, at least that’s what I got out of it anyway. I am also glad that you felt you could open up and tell your story to me. I am also glad that you felt that I was a friend to you for listening to your story. I also think of you as a friend as well BF. Anytime you want to talk about those special things, I’m here for you, and I will listen, I’m good at that.

    Please have a good night and I hope we can talk again tomorrow.

    Take care BF

    Your friend Judy

  44. I DO NOT OF ONE NATION THAT COULD SURVIVE THE BEATING WE HAVE TAKEN BY THE LEFT FOOLS, ALL THE MONEY, SO FAST AND THEN DON’T SPEND, JUST LET SIT IN BANKS, ALL THE STRANGENESS OF OUR REPRESENTATIVES, WE SHOULD HAVE HAD TERM LIMITS YEARS AGO, BUT WE TRUSTED THESE PEOPLE WE HAD VOTED IN, MANY FOR MANY TERMS, THEN PELOSI, REID, FRANK, WHO WEIRD ARE THESE FOLKS, PELOSI SO BIASED, THE ALLEGED PRESIDENT, NOT AFRICAN AMERICAN HE IS ARAB-AMERICAN AND SAYS SO IN HIS BOOK, HOW HE LOVES THE 5 CALLS TO PRAYER, AND HIS DAD WAS A KENYAN (BRITISH) NATIVE WHO PASSED HIS CITIZENSHIP TO HIS SON, THE BABY FOOL WHO GETS IN WITH THE ISLAMIC BILLIONAIRES, IS TRAINED, BRAINWASHED BY THEM TO TAKE OVER AMERICA, AS HE BLACK AND OUR POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WILL ACCEPT ANYBODY WITH A BLACK SKIN AS WE DON’T WANT TO BE CALLED RACISTS, SO HE IS NOT VETTED AS THE WHITE MAN IS, I BOUGHT A HOUSE I COULD AFFORD, NO LATE CHARGES, NO FORECLOSURE, BUILDING EQUITY AND STILL AFTER 7 YEARS IN MY HOUSE, SHOULD HAVE BOUGHT A 500,000. HOUSE THEN HAVE A FORECLOSURE, THEN ACORN COMES AND SQUATS IN AND KICKS ME OUT, BUT NO, I USED BY OLD BRAIN AND ONLY BOUGHT WHAT I COULD PAY MONTHLY, AND FOR 30 YEARS. GUESS THIS IS ALL I CAN THINK OF, MIGHT TAKE MY OLD CAR DOWN, BUT NO I WILL TAKE CARE OF MY OLD CAR, DRIVE RESPONSIBLY AND MAKE LAST FOR A FEW MORE YEARS, NO MORE CAR PAYMENTS, I AM TRYING TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR MYSELF, WHY DONT SOME THESE FOOLISH PEOPLE TRY THE SAME.

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      Goldie – the foolishness of people spending above their means (a great by product of our capitalist system) is no less than the foolishness of clinging to the idea that our President is anything but a U.S. citizen and rightfully elected to the office he holds. Quit perpetuating ignorance.

  45. AS the only open Gay Senator, the problem with Barney is he has taken it in the rear so many times he has brain damange.

  46. Spanning a period of 6 years, President Bush and his Administration have not only warned of the systemic consequences of failure to reform GSEs but also put forward thoughtful plans to reduce the risk that either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac would encounter such difficulties.

    Over the years, the President’s repeated attempts to reform the supervision of these entities were thwarted by the legislative maneuvering by those who emphatically denied there were problems with the GSEs.

    Back in 2003, House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Frank led the government charge that helped create the GSE meltdown (time line here).

  47. Barney Frank was not the problem. Wall Street got into the unregulated home financing business and packaged their loans into derivatives that were sold all around the world. Most of Frank’s actions were unrelated to the meltdown as far the recklessness goes. If the Wall Street guys were not involved, this meltdown would never have happened regardless of what Frank did. You might dig a little deeper next time and see who came up with getting the derivative thing going. It was Phil Gramm (GOP) and signed into law under Clinton. The GOP has led the country down the deregulation path over the past 25 years and the country is near collapse. 1% control 75% of the wealth. Get a clue. It’s the rich and powerful that control everything, not a ranting dem in congress. Who supports most of the very rich and powerful? The GOP.

    • You are living in a partisan dream. It is both parties. More corporate donations to Obama than any other presidential candidate in history.

%d bloggers like this: