Offering A Rebuttal…

I have some work to do tonight on a speech for a friend, so I didn’t have the time to really research and write a full article the way that I would have liked. I have lately been trying to do more research on the health care stuff and the series I promised is coming very soon. Wednesday or Thursday night will bring an article about a candidate in a local election that I think we can all get behind. We talked about supporting local candidates that can make a difference in terms of what many of us believe. This candidate is one so I want to make sure you get introduced to her personally. Tonight, since I have little time and wanted to respond to this, I make it my topic! Bob Cesca, who I wrote about from the Huffington Post the other night, decided that he would write about me on his site. Which is cool with me. I deserve it. I took him to task. He has the right to do the same. I certainly wish he would take a second and do so with some sort of informed opinion rather than making assumptions and trying to marginalize me with blatantly false claims about who I am, but hey, beggars can’t be choosers…

So, allow me to respond to Bob Cesca, who felt it important to single me out in his blog (should I be honored or embarassed? ), but who at the same time blocked me from responding to his flimsy defense. You can read his quick article about me and the comments from his minions that follow HERE . I tried to respond to him and his readers who commented but I was unable to do so. I will try again before I publish this. In the likelihood that I will still be somehow blocked from doing so, I will respond here and hope that someone who reads him regularly will pass it on to him and his fans. Bob, to you who would call me a hateful far right wingnut, perhaps you should check that posting again. I offered 5 examples of what you said that was offensive and hateful. Sorry that it hurts your feelings that I called you a jackass for posting an article that was a prime example of you acting like a jackass.

Cesca... The Idiot Child

Cesca... Living in La La Land

First to your claim that I did nothing to prove you wrong. To the contrary, You claimed Fox and Malkin gave out this girls name and hometown and endangered her life. Go watch the clip of her asking the question again. She gave out her name and hometown HERSELF. Second, you compared her treatment to predatory behavior when they said nothing personally hateful about her. They merely pointed out that she wasn’t a random little girl. Again, your theory of them preying on children in this case disproved, twice now. As I said, compare that to the treatment of Palin’s children by the left. Did you condemn those who did that as well? Or were you one of them that did it?

Finally you ended with this little jab: In this case, the paranoid wingnut is named “USweapon.” I rest my case. Perhaps you should find out what you are talking about before you make that claim. I have nothing to be “paranoid” about. Not sure where you got paranoid out of an article that simply highlighted your rhetoric and hate filled rant. USWeapon has nothing to do with guns. It has to do with serving my country, but I won’t bother explaining it again. What have you done for your country besides bitch and whine about anything that you don’t like? I personally do not own a gun. Not a single one. Stick that in your stereotyping hatemongering pipe and smoke it.

As for your readers, who I wasn’t permitted to respond to tonight when I tried. Pass these answers on to your adoring fans:

DaBomb: Anyone who refers to Michelle “Our Lady of Perpetual Outrage” Malkin has lost all complete credibility. USWeapon is fragile idiot. I didn’t refer to her, Bob did, so I agree with you. I personally find her amusing most of the time. Same for Hannity and Limbaugh. As for fragile idiot, c’mon over and debate at the site and let’s find out. (Isn’t DaBomb worse than USWeapon as a moniker, Bob? )

Dan in DE: When your premise is that the opponents are vitriolic and hateful, try relying a little less on the word ‘asshole’ bolster your arguments, you prick! I didn’t use the word a**hole, I used the word jackass. But boy your use of the word prick sure helps prove I was wrong about the vitriolic and hateful part.

Special Kind of Stupidexklodexian: These wingnuts are such a predictable group. How many times did he refer to Bob as “hateful”? A dozen? Yet when has Bob ever written anything from a standpoint of hate? Never that I’ve seen. It’s just so absurd. This clown gets his talking points from Limbaugh who constantly says liberals hate. It’s a form of brainwashing. Actually I referred to him as hateful two times. And perhaps you missed the 5 examples I pulled from the very article I was talking about. Sure sounded like hate to me. I haven’t listened to Limbaugh in years, but I certainly understand why a far left liberal would assume everyone gets their opinions from the media… since that is what the far left does and that is what they tell you about the folks on the “right”. The far right is no better, for the record.

GItheJOE: I am proud that you are taking this fight to FOX News, Glenn Beck and all the others. You may have saved this girl’s life or her entire family. Please don’t stop calling out this type of insanity. People are only going to get hurt from this bullshit. Saved this girls life? Are you kidding me? By writing a hate-filled hit piece on Fox News, Michelle Malkin, and conservatives in general? If this girl had been in any danger from anyone (based on having her name and hometown, which she gave out in the video clip shown on every channel, and which the NYTimes was the first to expose who she was, FTR), then I submit all that Bob did was further infuriate whatever “wingnut” out there meant her harm. That is like saying the person who fanned the flames put out the fire.

Alinsky Rule #13I know there are a couple of you reading who read Bob’s articles and blogs regularly. I hope that you will copy all of that and pass it on to Bob and his readers. I am actually quite flattered that Bob would take the time to single me out. It proves to me that he at least has feelings and gets hurt when his hate speech is pointed out to the world. As my wife said, you haven’t arrived in the world of blogging until a prominent far left site takes notice and responds.

But to be fair, I don’t read Bob Cesca’s stuff regularly. Perhaps he doesn’t write stuff like this all the time and he is usually a fair and honest guy. Perhaps this issue was simply a hot button one for him. I know I wouldn’t want to be judged based solely on the article I wrote when Obama threatened to make veterans pay for private insurance to cover wounds received in combat, a hot button for me. So don’t base all of your opinion of Bob on what I write. If you are going to dislike him, read his stuff yourself and judge for yourself. All I can do is point to what I see and make my observations public, a small caveat available to those who write a blog of their own. I read about 5 of his articles and this is what I saw. Perhaps they were the exceptions.

But I would say to Bob, if you are going to label someone a “radical right wingnut” and further a paranoid one, perhaps you should find out if that is true. A small sampling of my writing would point out that I am no fan of the far right, the christian right, the Republican party, or even the conservative movement (at least not completely). I am pretty all over the place with what I believe. And I think that everyone who has read here has found me to be fair, not too radical, and certainly not a paranoid crazy person (except for BF who thinks I am crazy for believing a moral government can exist). For him to write that about me, in my opinion, is simply the same use of Saul Alinsky’s rules for radicals that I see being used all over the place these days, namely:

Rule #5. Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.

Rule #13. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.

Alinsky Rule For RadicalsI am not looking to pick a fight with Bob Cesca. But I am certainly not afraid of one either. Anyone who is willing to rely solely on the talking points of the far left, play the game by attacking the person rather than their points (which he did to me), and to make outrageous conclusions from false premises (as he did in his article), is certainly no match for someone like me who is willing to hear the argument, debate it based on logic, and stick to attacking the points he makes rather than him personally (which I admittedly only half did in my initial argument, I did attack him personally somewhat, but also tore his facts apart, which he couldn’t seem to accept or understand). He seems to be well read enough to be writing for the Huffington Post, but I don’t see anything that would render him capable of sticking to logic in debate. He seems more stuck in ideological rhetoric in an attempt to argue against anything the other side of the aisle has to say.

As for his readers. I am sure there are smarter and more respectful ones out there than the ones who posted about me. After all he only got 16 responses and two were off topic. I imagine the rest came here and read and found that I wasn’t that far off base. But those ones that commented would never make it here in my own little tiny corner of the net where respect is required of those you are debating with.

So I imagine I will let this kind of die. As I said I wasn’t looking for a fight. I will take it if it comes. If he writes another article about me, I will certainly respond. Perhaps he will even have the guts to allow me to respond on his site where he and his readers can see things from my point of view. I still couldn’t respond to his article about me, but I was able to offer a rebuttal to his stats on health care, so maybe it was a glitch that I couldn’t respond to what he said about me. But I have a feeling he isn’t interested in that happening. It seems that none of the ideologues are very interested in actually debating the issues honestly or risking exposing their adoring fans to an opposing point of view that might prove that his opponents are not all that crazy after all.

Comments

  1. Hey USW,

    Good for you on deciding to let it die. The guy isn’t worth your time. I’ve come to the conclusion, that no Leftist on the planet is worth anyone’s time. All they can do is make untrue accusations of racism and hate. No amount of reason can get through to them. No amount of respect gets their attention. No number of facts will be acknowledged. Its like arguing with a fourteen year old, spoiled brat. So what to do? We are the intellectual grwon ups here. We have numbers on our side, at least least until OBAMAdoesn’tCARE starts culling old people. We need to focus our energy on defeating and out manuevering the Left. We need to claim back our power. We need an effective means of removing the Left from power. I’m not sure the election will do it. I have a feeling that either ACORN will ensure a Leftist victory, or there will be a manufactured crisis requiring martial law. I believe that Americans are being forced to choose sides; Left, or Right. What will that lead to? I’m afraid it will lead to a civil war. So, to avoid this, we’d better figure out how to stop the Left in its tracks, and soon.

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      Cyndi – please narrow up your paint brush a little – all to the left are no more the same than all to the right. Be careful as well at hinging on the critical nature of fact and then stating “We have numbers on our side, at least least until OBAMAdoesn’tCARE starts culling old people.” – the notion of culling old people – I am fairly certain that has been demonstrated to be false – please point me in the proper direction if I do not have that correct.

      Thanks and cheers from hot & humid Pennsylvania

      • Morning Ray,

        At least for me here in the Pacific time (4am) zone. Here’s the link for the conservatives point:
        http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/52602 As for the culling of old people, I’m pretty sure that’s what the administration is up to. Less old folks mean less Social Security to pay, and fewer medical expenses. Then let us not forget Obama’s czars. I’ve done a bit of reading about John Holdren, Cass Sunstein and Van Jones. I don’t have enough coffee in me yet, nor time at the moment, to hunt for the links. I’m sure you can find them. Holdren, in the past, has advocated population control. He was going for unborn babies at the time. Well, that’s pretty unpopular, cuz’ babies are really cute. Old people; not so much. Van Jones is an avowed communist and is anti white. He’s going after Glen Beck for saying that he (Beck) believes Obama is a racist. If Jones is an anti white racist, (which I believe he is) follows black liberation theology, and is OK with the Greens movement, we can probably expect to see old white people being denied care. The reason I feel this way: I’ve heard from individual blacks, out of their own mouths, how white people are haters, racists, evil, responsible for all the black people’s problems, etc. Then you have public figures spouting the same crap. I don’t have the link, but no too long ago I read a UK article about the Greens movement calling for an outright cull of the global human population in order to stop global climate change. I’m pretty sure the plan is to go after Americans because of our “excessive” usage of natural resources. We caused the problem so we should pay the price. And of course since, allegedly, most whites are wealthy…..

        I realize this is not the mainstream Left position. However, that doesn’t mean it can’t happen. I still believe that regualar folks are being forced to chose sides. What do you think the reaction will be if Congress passes HR3200 or something similar? What will be the reaction if Cap and Trade is voted in? We’ve already had Bailouts, TARP, Stimulus, and Big Three Auto done against the will of the people. Any opposition to what Obama is doing, is labeled racism and hate. So what are reasonable people to do? Choose sides, that’s what. Add to that some sort of crisis, be it banking, race riots, food or gas shortages, whatever. We’ve got a nation of angry people and a lot of tinder.

        • These are the same people who let us decide if a baby is worthy to be born, why not old folks too?

          I saw a guy on TV yesterday talking about how Health Reform is as important as Civil Rights.

          So tired of hearing how it’s all about race.

          • esomhillgazette says:

            I too am sick of hearing race. Apparently, and I hoped we were beyond that, race is the only thing the radical left can scream if you don’t agree with them.

            I have news for all the racist lefty wackos. Racism and racists are a dying breed. People with common sense are beyond that crap. Oh, and in case someone may misunderstand, that goes for the righty wackos too. They’re never going to go completely away as that is human nature, but no one can HONESTLY say we are still mostly a racist nation.

            • Esom:
              Divide and conquer is there motto. They will continue to play the race card because together we can overthrow them but separated, they can kill us all. This is not about black or white, or left or right…this is about TRUTH. Once everyone realizes this, progress can be made but until then, we will continue pointing fingers and screaming “your the blame”.

            • Ray Hawkins says:

              Esom – please re-read this portion of the thread – I said absolutely nothing about race. I’m still trying to figure out why Cyndi wanted that included in any debate regarding ‘death panels’.

          • Ray Hawkins says:

            Wasabi – your comments merit attention:

            “These are the same people who let us decide if a baby is worthy to be born, why not old folks too?”

            – You are incorrect in establishing linkage b/n Healthcare reform, SCOTUS decision and Federal & State level policy and law. The links do not exist and I’m curious what evidence you have that they do….

            “I saw a guy on TV yesterday talking about how Health Reform is as important as Civil Rights.

            So tired of hearing how it’s all about race.”

            – You have made a leap in illogic. Healthcare reform is seen, as an issue, as important as Civil Rights. That is not saying Healthcare is about race – why would you draw such a conclusion? I had a baby boy who went from newborn to 8 weeks old with no Health Insurance due to a paper work glitch. To me – that was as important as life/death and had nothing to do with race.

        • esomhillgazette says:

          Cyndi, I would say that you’re nuttier than a Squirrel turd, but with the last few months as an example, I find myself afraid to even argue, much less call you crazy.

          I have seen things happen and get passed in the last 8 to 10 months I never thought I would see.

          • Esom,

            I love your humor. Nuttier than a squirrel turd. LOL! Keep it coming!

            🙂

            I wish I was nuts cuz then I could start taking the Pills!

        • Ray Hawkins says:

          Cyndi – I’ve read through your post several times and am really trying to wrap my head around this w/o seeming fragmented, emotional or hateful. Each time I get through I can only say “huh”?

          Let me start by saying that my work and training and academia (current) is in information security and by extension, risk management. My job requires me to understand, weigh and assess risk – things such as occurrence likelihood and impact severity. My approach to your post thus precludes for me I think from understanding or accepting your position since it would seem impractical to assume every worst case scenario will always come true (maybe that isn’t what you’re doing, but that is how I read it).

          When I try to look up what you pass as a fact on the likes of Van Jones and others I find no original source material that can be objectively assessed – to me it seems too easy to accept what a middle man tells me is fact w/o using some skepticism.

          As they say – ‘oh well’.

          • Ray,

            Let me begin by thanking you for giving me some benefit of the doubt. I stated that I know that what I put forth was NOT common to all Leftists. I can see it becoming that way, however.

            I believe that, on the Left, anti white racism is very acceptable now. Obama was given a pass by Leftists, on his BLT church memebership. Please recall what BLT preaches.

            I believe that, on the Left, extreme measures to save the Earth from humans is very acceptable. A group of Environmentalists in Europe support culling the human population. There was no outrage expressed to this suggestion.

            It is common, on the Left, to accept that Americans are primarily responsible for climate change.

            Even the US Government believes Social Security and Obama’s proposed health care plan are not financially sound. Given all that, why is it such a stretch to connect the dots as I have done? I’m not saying it is definately going down that way, I’m saying it could possibly, and we need to guard against it. There are several examples in the last 100 years of a goverment using genocide against its own citizens.

            As for ignoring the czars, remember that the German survivors of WWII claimed not to have known about the concentration camps. Nevermind that the Jews knew. Please recall that Jews were leaving Germany or going into hiding. The only people who claim not to know what was going on, were Hitler’ supporters. All the information was there. They just chose not to believe it becuase it was too crazy.

    • I’m with you on martial law. That is perhaps the scariest possible scenario. Being in the military makes this prospect even worse. I know how easy it would be for the government to take total control. It happens all over the world, and it can just as easily happen here. How important is their agenda? How far will they go to cram it down on every American until we are all living under their direction? We will find out in 2010 when we see how far they will go to remain in power.

      http://american-loudspeaker.blogspot.com/

      • Hey there Nate,

        What do you make of the National Guard recruiting Internment/Resettlement Specialists? Combine that with the rhetoric of the Aministration and the Left, and I get a very bad feeling in my gut. I heard about an Army Times article talking about the military preparing for massive civil unrest. I didn’t mange to get my hands on the issue so I wasn’t able to read it myself.

        Now Atlas Shrugs is saying that Obama will announce plans for his Civilian Nation Security Force as big and well armed as the US military, on September 11.

        What are all of Obama’s czars getting up to? We don’t hear anything about that. I keeping hearing snippets of stealth legislation being passed. I feel like a zebra watching the lions build a hoding pen around my herd.

        Not good.

        • Cyndi P:
          I added an article here called Militarization for Swine Flu Preparation below. I have been warning people since I have been commenting on this site about Martial Law. It’s not if it is going to happen but when.

          Nate:
          Are you willing to fight for “True Patriotic Americans”? Will you turn your back on your orders if Big Bro gave you orders for Martial Law in America?

          • Hey Nubian! Glad to see your still hanging around. You’re one person who I don’t expect to call me crazy. I figured I’d get slammed for my 12:15 pm post. Esom came close, though!

            This swine flu thing is a bit worrying. I’m not so afraid of catching it. I’m more concerned with being caught up in governmental reactions to it. My dear friend is going to visit her family in China this November-December, and has invited me to join her. Its quite tempting, but I’m concerned that I might get stuck there or somewhere in between since there are no direct flights from here to there. There are a couple of other reasons I hesitate to go but that’s a big one.

      • Martial law in this country is mathematically impossible.

        • Please explain. Thanks.

          • There just isn’t enough personnel for it on a national scale, even assuming you have a government that was capable of conducting a massive nation-wide operation of that scale (the same government that can’t effectively control violence in the relatively tiny and poor countries of Afghanistan and Iraq, no less). You would have to get all of the local law enforcement intimately involved, and particularly in rural areas most would not go along with it. You could see it happen in limited areas (say, a single state) or in the major cities perhaps, but on a national scale? No way.

            • That sounds reasonable, but what if Obama manages to create his Civilian National Security Force? He said it needs to be as big and well armed as the US military. If he manages to create it, won’t that change things up a bit? I also have a feeling there’s alot of stealth legislation that’s being passed that we haven’t heard much about. Those two things could game changers, right?

            • Black Flag says:

              I’m not so sure – but I will defer to the ‘grunts’ of the crowd – but a small force plus a lot of fear can control a very large population.

            • Cyndi P, BF –

              Would still need to pull back basically all troops abroad sitting around in the hundreds of foreign bases out there, let alone the two wars going on. And I think it’s more a matter of land mass than population between the coasts. Same reason an invading force could never really “conquer” the entire territory of the country.

              • So what if non socialists figure that out and decide to go for it? The US government/Socialist/Marxist/Communist/Whatevers, can have the large cities with the free people having the rural areas. We would be very similar to Afghanistan. I find that pretty scary to think about.

                So what happens if Obama keeps ramming unpopular legislation into law? What about the election next year? If O doesn’t care about our feelings on specific legislation, will he honor our votes? If he does, then great, but if he doesn’t or people believe he doesn’t, do we have a situation like what happened in Iran recently?

              • Then people would flee the cities.

                In reality nearly any large-scale disaster, manmade or otherwise, would decimate the cities first. This would be no different.

                I suggest you simply keep an eye on things, be prepared for emergencies as always, and don’t let fear rule your day-to-day thoughts, or you are not free anyway.

              • Thanks DKII. I’m more concerned for my 21 year old daughter. I’m overseas on an Army base, in the middle of nowhere. If things get really bad, I’ve already picked out the nearby country to head off to. Like I said, its my daugher I’m worried about. She isn’t politcally oriented at all. I’d hate for her to get caught up in some bad stuff. I’ve talked to her about preparing for natural disasters, and hinted that riots could happen and to remain aware of that. I don’t say much else, because one, she’d probbly think I’m nuts (like Esom’s squirrel turd), or two, she’d totally freak out.

  2. You wouldn’t be talking about me, now would you? 😉

    I’ll happily pass along your sentiments some time today.

    • Alas, I seem to be unable as well to post. Perhaps he’s closed the thread? I suggest you email him directly. I would be very interested in reading a direct back and forth between the two of you. His views (in general – I think he’s nuts in certain areas) are closer to my own than are yours, but I do not get the sense that he can compete with you in an honest debate – I would like to see that.

      It seems you have to sign up for an account before you are able to post (I have never posted there, so this is news to me).

      And, BF, just be aware that I’ve been around for just only one day and already I’m having an impact on the content of this site 😛

      • Good Job Mathius….we all like thought provoking writing. Hope you stick around.

      • Black Flag says:

        Absolutely, Mathius!

        USWep attracts a good crowd that can express themselves well with the written word.

        I hope you do stick around and throw your brain into this ‘collective’ – something good is stewing here.

    • Hi Mathias….welcome to the site. You will pardon me for not responding immediately. I will read where you are coming from for awhile. You and BF will have some fun…I have BF in a category all by himself…(this is where he prefers to be anyway..but he is entertaining.) But did want to welcome you to the sight..ummm…site.

  3. I’m getting tired of the same old argument, that is a non-argument. Calling someone a far ____ wing nutjob/loon is not an argument. Saying that they spread lies and fearmongering is not an argument. Insulting the person is not an argument. Stating facts alone is the only way to win the argument. Why someone believes their opponent will submit to logic when they repeatedly insult them is beyond me. If you want to convince someone, it’s probably a bad idea to use mean rhetoric. USW, you’re guilty of this as well as Cesca and pretty much everyone else. I understand how emotion can be a major influence, but we need to start unifying this country around what is right (this doesn’t mean right wing), not polarizing along the same old lines. Personally I side with you on this whole debacle, but not based on the insults traded, just on the facts.

    Also, what kind of argument is it that something is false because Rush Limbaugh says it… Though he is usually pretty far right, I’m sure he says some things that are reasonable. For instance, I don’t really agree with much that Rachel Maddow says, but I agree with her on topics like AIDS research and the brutality against the Iranian protesters. Just opposing something because of who said it is setting yourself up for ridicule…

    • JB….you are right. Everyone has something of value to contibute. As I remember from an old cop show…”just the facts sir, just the fact”.

  4. Congrates USW…you are now a celeb. If he is the most read he just sent thousands to your site. You were right on after reading his article I came to about the same conclusions as you did and his rant at you confirmed my belief that I was correct in my assessment. I find it very laughable that liberals think that anyone who does not believe the same way they do are right wing nuts. I would like to know who they think is going to hurt the young lady. If they studied all the beliefs of criminals they would find they are all over the board in what drives them nutts. The thing is they are criminals and they are nutts.
    I think visitors from his site will find that the people on your site are very intelligent and they to want a better world but they think it can be done with less government intervention not more.
    You do a great job here USW and all the contributors do a great job to. It is the one place anyone can come to and post without being screamed at, cussed or called names. The intellect here is awsome.
    Once again congrats on hitting the big time.

    • I think you’ll find that this holds true for the left and the right (a point USW has made repeatedly). It is easier to demonize your opponent than it is to argue on the merits. Note, that I consider myself a liberal and am fully capable of debating with the denizens of this site without calling them (or even necessarily considering them to be) wingnuts. Certainly some of them they are out on the far branches of the political spectrum, but they can be there and still have good points and be worthy of respect. What I think is important to note is that the liberals of whom you speak are just the loud liberals. Likewise, we on the left tend to see and hear only the loud conservatives.

      Cesca’s point, though flimsy, is not without justification. Tiller was demonized extensively on Fox News, and it is hard to miss the connection between that and his murder (the murderer had commented repeatedly on O’Reilly’s blog in incendiary terms agreeing that “something must be done”). If news sources demonize this child as a shill for the administration rather than say, the administration, they are saying to the lunatics out there that she is an enemy threat. These people are not rational, and they are not representative of the conservative right, but they still have to be taken into consideration. This is like saying that you shouldn’t wear your seat belt because everyone on the road should be driving safely (yes, great in principle, but how does that work in practice?)

      • Mathius,
        Please see #8 I posted the response in the wrong area….sorry.

      • Bee in my Bonnet says:

        Mathius,

        The only connection between Tiller’s murder and Bill O’Reilly was Scott Roeder’s mental illness. If we were to extrapolate your argument, then Sarah Palin and her family should go into hiding, pronto!

        The little girl from the town hall meeting was not demonized. It was merely pointed out that she was a plant, thus shining a light on the hypocrisy of the left’s hysteria regarding ‘manufactured’ protests. To use the word ‘demonize’ is left-wing hyperbolic language to shut down debate.

        BTW, welcome to the site.

  5. Ok, USW…before I chose to respond to this one, I had to go read this guy. I never heard of him until you mentioned him…so I went there. I read several of his postings and articles…..now, tell me why I want to read him any further? I have pride in the fact that I like to read left and right leaning articles and see where the fringes are…but this guy Cesca, seems to be a little out towards Pluto..proving to me that E.T. does exist. However, I will give him his due and freedom to express his opinion (after all I have defended his right to do so), but I see no further reason to keep him on my list of reading for opinions. He is no different than the far right when it comes to vitriolic BS….I am having a hard enough time leaving CNN and others on my list but do so.

    So, in retrospect, he is gone from my list of reading.

    BTW, I have tried to go to a couple of town hall meetings in my area only to find that they are limited to invited guests only and I have seen, first hand, the buses bringing in ACORN. Hard to miss them…they have their name on all of it…. but ACORN was not invited in either..so at least it was consistent.

    I am now reading the new proposal about the new gun tax…..where we are supposed to list our guns on our income tax forms…..LOL….like I am going to tell the government how many guns I have. (By the way, if you need one…let me know. I can fix you up). Geez…..trying to tell Texans to list their guns…LOLOL….that is a hoot.

    • D13,
      Can you provide a link to this? Tell me this is a joke….who in their right mind is going to tell anyone where and how many guns they have? Lord I don’t tell the neighbors that info. The criminals would have possession of them within 15 minutes of me leaving the house. Geeze how stupid can the Feds get.

    • D13, Would the gun bill be HR 45?

      I do agree that the rantings on Cesca’s site are alittle far off. Even the comments lack any value as far as knowledge, just name calling and rhetoric. Well, after reading some postings on that site I am happy about a few things, we have the guns and the brains LOL.

      • Hi G Man…how are you…sorry..I got sucked into the Satire mantra…caught it, albeit too late for posting…but I corrected my mistake. Maybe I should run for Congress? What a breath of fresh air to admit one was wrong…not misspeak..not misinterpretation….just flat out wrong….sigh.!!!

        Second time I have been wrong in my life…first time was when I thought I was wrong..but, alas, even Colonels can make mistakes.

        Hey Richmond…sorry to have given you a heart attack…I had to jump start mine again.

        • Richmond Spitfire says:

          Awww..D13…It’s okay!

          You know something though…It does illustrate how CONFUSING it is to understand what the heck is up before the House and Senate to be made into law…I’ve gone out to the House & Senate to try to look up Bills and haven’t had much luck with finding them, and when found, understanding them!

          Lots of Reform could be done there! Heck, maybe even “normal” people could “get it”.

          Thanks,
          RS

    • Richmond Spitfire says:

      WHAT!!!!

    • Hold it…..it appears that I am guilty of putting mouth in gear before brain engaged…this was an article about Senate Bill 2099 introduced in the 2000 Senate meeting. The article was actually a satire that I mistakenly thought was coming up again. This bill was introduced by Senator Jack Reed but it is NOT on any list…..MY BAAAD !!!! Sorry!!! At least I will admit MY mistakes.

    • D13, I remember that one from way back. HR 45, sent to committee this past winter was far worse, although it never made it out of committee because it was totally unconstitutional. Fear not my friends, at this point our guns are safe.

      G!

      • Yessir….HR 45 was pretty bad. Just made me send in my NRA dues earlier. Sorry for the error.

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      Gun tax? I am no fan of guns – many of you know that – I’m more than happy to defend myself with my hands, feet, elbows and knees – but a gun tax? WTF?

      • Hi Ray…howzit going? Please read my responses…I erred in an article. This was proposed waaay back in 2000….not now.

        By the way, if you get tired of hands, feet, elbows, and knees…let me know. Willing to jump in and help when you want it.

        • Ray Hawkins says:

          Whew! Thanks D13 – nice to know there is backup in case I break my foot (have done a few times at least).

    • Not so fast my Texas Ranger, there can still be danger.
      (I crack myself up)

      “Senate Bill SB-2099 will require us to put on our 2009 1040 federal tax form all guns that you have or own. It may require fingerprints and a tax of $50 per gun.
      This bill was introduced on Feb. 24. This bill will become public knowledge 30 days after it is voted into law. This is an amendment to the Internal Revenue Act of 1986. This means that the Finance Committee can pass this without the Senate voting on it at all.
      The full text of the proposed amendment is on the U.S. Senate homepage, http://www.senate.gov/ You can find the bill by doing a search by the bill number, SB-2099”.

      • esomhillgazette says:

        Well all I can say is, ‘dey gots to know ’bout ’em fust!

        And i’m not planning on telling the govt about any firearms I may or may not posess.

        “Flying under the radar”. Hmmmm….. how typical of our current govt to try to pull this while the debate rages on health reform. IF it’s happening. Sure wouldn’t br the first time this has happened since January though, would it Bama?

      • SB 2099 is a internet hoax, and there is no truth to it. Senate legislation is read S ###, not SB ####. Don’t get yer undies in a twist over this. LOL.

        G!

        • nah…got enough wrinkles there already. S 2099 was a joke back in 2000…still is today…however…bears watching.

        • Ray Hawkins says:

          I think the SB designation is at least used in CA to denote a State Senate bill.

      • WHOA!!!! Folks….this is something that was introduced back in 2000…not now. It is still on a watch list but is NOT introduced now. I posted a response to satire…realized my mistake. Don’t get hyped here…. this is not up for consideration now at all. IT WAS but not now.

    • Final note on HR 45.
      I jumped the gun (no pun intended) on this one myself. Did some diligent research and came up with this:

      1. Reintroduced 6 Jan. 2009
      2. Still in committee
      3. No cosponsor
      3. Prospects of coming up for vote before 2010 elections very slim

      Read the bill and it is ugly, if they ever sneak this one by, say goodbye to legal firearms ownership.

  6. esomhillgazette says:

    Congrats on your new celebrite’ USW!! Before long they’ll be thousands flocking to hear the wisdom put forth by the great USWeapon, JAC, LOI, BF, Ray, And others of us smaller fish in the sea of SUFA and their VLDG Government beliefs.

    Heck, with people like this Cesca dude recognizing the danger you represent to their carefully crafted liberal world, you might find yourself soon attacked by such august personalities such as Robert Gibbs, Rahm Emmanuel, and dare I say it? The Pres-i-dent hisself!!!!!! Wouldn’t THAT be special?

    Maybe you ought to start setting up to run for Prez in 2012? You’ll get my vote. I don’t completely agree with everything you say, but then I’m not a Lemming either. 🙂 But you’re plenty close enough to represent the VLDG Party.

  7. USW…..one further post to this. I have been reading a lot of his past writings. This guy cannot be for real, is he? He has THAT many readers? Surely, people do not take him seriously. And I thought that I have seen it all…..(heavy sigh)….just goes to show that you never stop learning.

  8. “What I think is important to note is that the liberals of whom you speak are just the loud liberals. Likewise, we on the left tend to see and hear only the loud conservatives.”
    This is true and people tend to grab the far left or right when they are trying to demonize a group of people.

    “Cesca’s point, though flimsy, is not without justification. Tiller was demonized extensively on Fox News, and it is hard to miss the connection between that and his murder (the murderer had commented repeatedly on O’Reilly’s blog in incendiary terms agreeing that “something must be done”).”
    So saying “something must be done” means you have a criminal act in your heart? Boy, I better watch what I say…let me explain how I feel about this….no one “drives” anyone to do anything! We make a choice all on our own. If there was any truth to the thought that the news media drives people to the fringes and causes them to make a choice then we need to disband the news media completely, they all incite anger in one form or another. What happens to accountability for our selves when we say someone else made us do something?

    “If news sources demonize this child as a shill for the administration rather than say, the administration, they are saying to the lunatics out there that she is an enemy threat.”
    You will have to give a source here because what I heard and read the administration was the ones being demonized for planting a child in a grown ups environment.

    “These people are not rational, and they are not representative of the conservative right, but they still have to be taken into consideration.”
    Surely you are not suggesting that only the “conservative right” has their fringe of irrational people. Peta and tree huggers have some of the most liberal and violent people in the news and surely you do not consider them conservative?

    • Oops I meant to post this under #4 to Mathius. Sorry.

    • Not a worry, I found your response anyway.

      I think it’s important to understand what you’re saying is correct, within limits. You and I, and the vast overwhelming majority of people make our own decisions. We are not lemmings. We are also sane. Roeder (the murderer) is not. He hears “something must be done,” and reads this as a call to arms.

      As for the little girl, I was unable with casual searching to corroborate my claim, so I formally retract it. (For the record, I do recall seeing footage of someone calling her a shill, but since I didn’t find it, it doesn’t count). I did, however, find footage of O’Reilly calling her dumb and mocking her. Not exactly the pinnacle of journalism, but far off what Cesca alleges.

      Nonetheless, I feel that the overarching take-away message should be that people should behave responsibly, since their actions do have consequences. This holds true as much for the left as the right. In my post, I was specifically arguing that the right is not the only place to find lunatics – they are everywhere. It is just worth noting that there are 300,000,000 people in the US, and with just 1 in 10,000 being nuts (just for argument’s sake), we are left with 30,000 people who can be driven to violence by irresponsible speech. It only takes one of them to act on this impulse.

      Does that make O’Reilly responsible? You could make a case either way, but I would say in general no. But that doesn’t mean he shouldn’t be more careful anyway.

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        Mathius,

        I was attending to family matters over the weekend and am just now catching up on what I missed.

        Welcome to the site! I hope that you find all of us to be pretty much polite, intelligent, and willing to disagree on a lot of things without debasing the people we disagree with.

        Prepare to have a lot of your ideas/points of view challenged in a lot of ways.

        You may not ever change your position on anything, but your position will darn well be challenged!

        My own position on several issues has changed quite a bit since I joined this site, because I have come to realize that my former position on certain issues was not conisitent with my core belief. If you haven’t already, at some point someone here will challenge you to find your core belief and see if your positions that you currently hold are really aligned with that core belief or not.

        When you take that challenge and really follow through with it, you might be very surprised at how some of your positions no longer make sense. I know this was a big surprise to me at first when it happened to me!

        Glad to have you here, and glad to see you have jumped right in. As you can already see, the water is fine, and the sharks don’t bite, they just challenge you a lot. 🙂

      • Beware my dear Mathius. You have now met the one who may soon be the greatest pirate of all those who guard the cave. His mind has not yet suffered the fog of age and he is full of passion and finely honed skills.

        He is correct in that the sharks will not rip and tear. Just little nibbles, one small nibble at a time.

        Of course you could just repent now and save some time.

        The best to you this fine day.
        JAC

      • Black Flag says:

        Mathius,

        If you’ve ever watch the “Princess Bride” – Peter is the Spaniard….. spent his whole life practicing the sword and engaging in the revenge business – until a better offer came along …. 🙂

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          My name was Inigo Montoya… some 6-fingered guy killed my father… he died.

          I have since taken up the post as associate dread-pirate Roberts.

          Good night Wesley, sleep well… I will most likely kill you in the morning 🙂

  9. Black Flag says:

    You labeled him correctly, USWep

    Any guy whose entire rebuttal is simply an ad homenin is a child.

  10. Ray Hawkins says:

    USW – so you know I disagree with you on many things – sometimes its style and substance – other times its we’re simply on opposite sides of the same fence. I’d like to think I am well-read but had never really read Cesca – maybe I’d run across him on Huff before but concluded – “not much here”. I read a few more on Huff and then some on his own page. His style is the shotgun, drive-by Malkin-style which simply isn’t my cup of tea – you know – say something controversial in 8-10 sentences without much in the way of facts then move onto the next target. I agree with some of what he says, not all – but generally would not come back to his writing. I can appreciate that at least an effort is made here to research, support your position and engage. Not your typical blog but I guess that’s why it is what it is. Bob’s article/post you referenced was a wee bit to the far left – your posting was largely on target.

    And to Bob Cesca – I guess you’re already aware of it – but when folks engage emotionally and not always factually with the right & far right as you do from time to time – you may want to consider if its wise to allow Network Solutions to post what appears to be your home mailing address, business address and telephone for anyone to look up under whois – I know a motivated attacker could still find it if they really wanted to but why make it easier?

  11. Keep up the self defense. It does no good for people to publish non-factual and disturbing things about us. It does even less to let these things go unreported, unacknowledged, un-countered.

    http://american-loudspeaker.blogspot.com/

  12. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    This is going to be an interruption of the topic today, for which I apologize. I missed a lot of the stuff over the weekend because I was busy with family stuff 🙂

    One thing I noticed going over some of the stuff from the weekend, is that several people are espousing the idea that there is some set of qualifications necessary to not only be able to determine what is good for you personally, but to determine what is good for others as well.

    Stop and think about this for a moment… taken to the extreme, if someone is completely unqualified to make a determination, for themselves, what is good for them, are they not, in essence, too stupid to live? If that is the case, is it better to let them die of their inability to make sound decisions as to what is good for them instead of trying to force them to live in a certain way (which they are unlikely to do anyway even if you attempt to force them)?

    That position is, of course, taking it to the point of ridiculous, but I hope it provokes some thought.

    Now, here is an exercise for those of you that think certain people are uniquely qualified to determine what is best for others:

    First of all, list me all of the qualifications you can think of that would make someone as well-qualified as possible to determine what is best for the greatest majority of people (e.g. tell me what the best qualifications are for determining what “the greater good” is). List any qualifications you can think of… education level, level of compassion, innate talent, life experiences, etc. etc.

    I am sure some of you can come up with some pretty good lists.

    Now, once you have come up with your lists, the question THEN is should these not be the OBVIOUS qualifications that we DEMAND from anyone that wishes to GOVERN US?

    If we can determine that there are indeed qualifications necessary to determine not only what is good for yourself but good for “the unwashed masses” as well, then by golly everyone wanting to be a politician should be automatically disqualified if they do not meet the qualifications that we spell out.

    Until you can show me that all politicians meet whatever requirements that all of you intelligent people on this site can come up with, I submit that the government IS NOT QUALIFIED to make such determinations.

    I look forward to seeing your lists of qualifications. 🙂

    • You infer more than I imply, Peter.

      As the Supreme Court once said of pornography, I do not know how to define it, but I know it when I see it. Stupidity should be ignored.

      I do not propose to IQ test our leaders, nor do I propose a standardized set of criteria (though honesty and integrity and a lack of hypocracy would be nice). I simply suggest that, when the angry misinformed / under informed masses call to shout down an idea like health care reform because of Death Panels which were never part of the plan, they should be ignored by our leaders. When they say “I don’t want your socialized heath care, but keep your government hands off my medicare,” you have to recognize that these are people you do not want foisting their opinions on those who are elected to lead you. So, if our leaders need their leaders to provide the backbone necessary to risk electoral upset, then so be it.

      And no, I do not believe that all people vote for the people who they think will do the best job. I think a great number of people vote for the guy they would most like to have a beer with. This falls under the category of under informed. Many voters do not take the time to familiarize themselves with the issues and policy beliefs of their leaders, rather they simply vote for who they like.

      When the woman stood up in the McCain town hall and said that Obama is a Muslim and can’t be trusted. I have to ask myself, why is her vote equal to mine, to yours, to black flag, g-man, USW, and the rest? (A) Why is his religion an issue at all given separation of church and state (B) he’s not Muslim, he’s christian, recall how he got blasted for Rev Wright (3) why can’t you trust Muslims? Are they inherently dishonest? A person this shallow, this poorly informed, this loud gets her voice heard. I think the politicians she speaks to should be free to say, “ok, thanks for your thoughts, now go away and take your tin foil hat with you.”

      • Mathius, Would you say that “stupid” people should not have the right to free speach?

        G!

      • Which is exactly what Mr. McCain did, if you recall.

        These people have the same voice as the ones who answered questions about Mr. Obama’s policies with “he is for hope and change” or “I love you Barack” or….you get the idea. Lunacy has no limits as to where it resides.

        I think you need to set aside the obviously charged rhetoric used by some in the townhalls, and any public meeting for that matter, and try to hear what the underlying issue really is. It is hard sometimes, especially because the media rarely shows the rest of the discussion. Most common folks have a pretty good sixth sense when it comes to knowing “something is very wrong here”.

        What happens is they don’t have enough info to put it into words so they fall back on the rhetoric they are fed by those they think share their concerns. This is not a unique problem to those who have been featured in recent news clips.

        There was a time when govt officials and even some electeds would take the time to feret out the underlying concerns of a citizen. You know, help them express what is really eating at them. But now it is easier and it fits the political agenda better, if we simply dismiss them as ignorant.

        • McCain’s response failed on two counts. He responded that no, Obama is a good man and he loves America. Good, but not good enough. He (A)didn’t clarify that he is a Christian or (B) that there is nothing wrong with being a Muslim. Wesley Clark called him out on this after the fact.

          He did this because he knew that Americans are afraid of Muslims, that we are a xenophobic country and that just debunking part of her statement was insufficient. He wanted people like her to continue think that way so that they would vote for him. This is identical to when Hillary said that Obama is a Christian “as far as I know.”

          Because they need to pander to these people, they play them like violins and are, in turn, played.

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        Mathius,

        Perhaps you missed the point of my post entirely.

        The point is, should we not demand of our leaders that they be the best qualified people to determine the greater good (what is best for the largest possible majority of people)?

        If our system of selecting leaders at this time does not succeed in selecting people with the appropriate qualifications, then does this not indicate a flaw in the system?

        If our current leaders are indeed NOT the best qualified people to determine what is best for the greatest majority of people, should we accept it when they claim that they are and that they know what they are talking about?

        So, firstly, what ARE the qualifications that enable one person to determine what is best not only for himself, but for others as well. Secondly, how do we ensure that our leaders are selected only from among the subset of humanity that meets those qualifications.

        If I am going to be told what to do/how to live by someone else, they had better demonstrably be more qualified than I am in making that determination, or I see no point in following their lead.

        So, the actual point of my post was as follows:

        If government as it is currently set up is NOT comprised of individuals that are best qualified to determine what is best for you, me, and everyone else, is that government legitimate? If you argue that yes it IS legitimate, WHY?

        • Oh but do not abandon your initial thrust my young pirate friend.

          I too would like to know what qualifications are required for someone to be given the authority to control my life.

          • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

            No worries JAC, the first question STILL is, “What are the qualifications?” That is the most important one of all of the questions!

            I still want to see answers to that one from Mathius and anyone else who cares to come up with a list.

            I am sure we will have some great lists if we can get some participation! 🙂

            • I would say that you have to be well informed.

              It helps to be smart, coherent, empathetic, non-hypocritical, honest, civic-minded, et cetera. But the big thing, I think, is that if you are going to open your mouth on a subject and attempt to impose your views on my elected leaders, you should know what you’re talking about.

              • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

                Mathius, the people do not ever impose their views (informed or otherwise) upon their elected leaders. What power does the average person actually have to IMPOSE their views on an elected leader?

                However, the elected leaders FREQUENTLY impose their views (informed or otherwise) upon the people, which is the actual problem.

              • These people attempt to appear more numerous than they are, and my extension, threaten the leader’s ability to get reelected. Likewise, they try to control the flow of the conversation. These are very real threats to those in power.

                Remember, thou art mortal.

              • I didn’t notice you rejecting my point, however.

                Just because they don’t have much power independently, does that mean that collectively, they should be able to scare our leaders into following them?

              • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

                See #20

        • It is a slippery slope, and I do not claim to have all the answers. But would you take investment advise from an idiot? Would you an ignoramus to fix your car? Would you allow criminals to program your alarm system? There are prerequisites which are obligatory in order to be taken seriously. One of these is (should be) a working knowledge of the facts about which you are speaking.

          • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

            Quite often people do take investment advice from an idiot, allow an ignoramous to fix their cars, allow criminals to program their alarm systems, and allow those who are UNIQUELY UNQUALIFIED TO DO SO to govern them. Happens every day 🙂

            • Does that net the best results? If the ignoramus takes your engine apart and can’t put it back together, how does this help you? The right tools are necessary to perform the right task. In this case, a working knowledge of automotive repair.

              • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

                No, that usually nets horrible results. My point is that most people will try to do something about it if an ignorant man tries to fix their car and instead makes it worse, but many people don’t seem to care if 545 ignorant men attempt to run their lives and instead make their lives worse. There seems to be a logical disconnect there somewhere. 🙂

          • Black Flag says:

            But let’s talk factually.

            How are you able to select a candidate that meets your criteria?

            You cannot ‘deselect’ the two options thrust on the ballot.

      • Mathius, dude,

        You still feel frustration with the un-informed? Why, its not something new.

        Obama supporters did not know he won his first office by legally getting his opponents thrown off the ballot(I verified that for myself before the election). Thought Pelosi was cool, but did not know who Barney Franks or Harry Reid was, and thought the Rep’s had control of congress. But they knew Palin was wearing $150,000 worth of clothes and had a pregnant teenage daughter.

        • The left is no better than the right. In many case, they are less informed. The wingnut-right just seems to be louder and more disciplined in getting its message out than the wingnut-left. They should all be (largely) ignored.

          • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

            Mathius,

            That sentiment is something that pretty much all of us can agree on. Too bad the wing-nuts on both sides are so damn loud… makes it hard to ignore them for a lot of people unfortunately, and makes intelligent conversations like we try to have here almost impossible to have in most venues.

            • Too true, but we seem to have found a safe haven here. Note how different the discourse is here than you would find at Red State or HuffPo.

              • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

                We try 🙂

                Even some of us here get somewhat irate from time to time and might even post something that could be perceived as insulting, but we try hard to avoid that sort of behavior!

          • The exact opposite (wingnut-left) was louder just a few short years ago, so it does work both ways….still makes it harder to discuss things inteligently when you have someone screaming in your face though. Been there, done that LOTS of times here in Cali.

          • How so? You have ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, the vast majority of magazines and newspapers vs Fox, a few digital and a bunch of old school analog radio stations? The HuffPo claims to be the most viewed online resource on the planet and you’ll throw what as the counter?

            The “Town Halls” bothering you? Try some footage of ACORN going hard outside a bank executive’s home in front of his children ranting away or any the months of real time footage of all those Unions during the primaries. I seem to remember McCain dealing with protesters at his events far more than Obama did and a Google search should yield results for you. That should make you feel better and you’re most certainly welcome.

          • I think you might perceive that the right wingnuts are louder, because:

            a) you are on the left, so perception is biased to see the conflict in what the right says

            b) the left is in power now, so the left wingnuts aren’t angry and shouting

  13. Good Morning All

    This has nothing to do with the topic at hand, but I feel I need to do this, so please bare with me.

    I would like to apologize to those who may thought that I offended them yesterday in any way.

    To Ray. From last night, I didn’t mean anything by what I said about that letter thing that was compared to Obama and Hitler. For that, I apologize.

    To JAC, the same as to what I just said to Ray, I’ apologize, and no you didn’t ruin my mood, I was in kind of a bad one anyway, because of an argument I had with my sister the day before.

    To BF. I didn’t mean anything bad by calling you a spider waiting for your next victim. The way I meant that, was the way you challenge anybody here about what they may be talking about, and how you like facts behind those comments. I truly enjoy reading what you have to say to everybody, and if I offended you in any way, for that I apologize.

    There, now I feel better and I hope my apologies are accepted by all.

    Hope you all will have a wonderful day today.

    Judy

    • Judy:

      You did not offend me in anyway but I accept your apology in hopes it lightens your load.

      I guarantee BF took no offense at the spider as your intent was quite clear to those of us who had been in the cave story.

      I posted my comments for two reasons. One was to support Ray where support was deserved. If I am to swing my sword at him when I feel it is justified then I must also be willing to stand at his back when that is justified.

      My second was to educate you as to how things like that are deliberately constructed to affect our thinking and emotions. I do not want you to fall vicitim to such things. I get dozens of things by email each day that ridicule Mr. Obama or the Left and most are quite funny. Even the vile ones can hit a funny bone. But I rarely pass them on because I can see how they are constructed for the purpose of inflamming or obfuscating the discussion.

      Now you can be on the look out for such things and join me in killing them when you find them. We have enough on our plate. We don’t need to add to it by helping spread such diversions around.

      Cast off the load my dear lady. Breath easy and steady.
      The best to you this wonderful day.
      JAC

  14. Let’s buy the 2012 election. So says Obama.

    http://www.thefoxnation.com/president-obama/2009/08/17/obama-calls-americans-against-amnesty-demagogues

    I guess if there are any questions as to whether the illegal immigrants will be covered under the healthcare fiasco, this might answer your question.

    G!

    • I’m not sure it matters much if they are covered or not. We already pay for their health care when they go to the ER. Unless emergency rooms are allowed to turn people away, we will continue to pay for them one way or another.

  15. Black Flag says:

    To BF. I didn’t mean anything bad by calling you a spider waiting for your next victim. The way I meant that, was the way you challenge anybody here about what they may be talking about, and how you like facts behind those comments. I truly enjoy reading what you have to say to everybody, and if I offended you in any way, for that I apologize.

    I doubt you could offend a fly.

    No need to apologize at all!

    I understood your analogy – I took it as a complement!

    I do try hard to hold a balance between attacking and challenging – and my good friends like USWep, JAC, Peter, etc., and you all help me maintain that balance.

    • “a balance between attacking and challenging”

      Ahh, the subtle distinction between the slashing full frontal attack and the simple stab to the chest.

    • Judy, Actually you gave me a good laugh at a time when I needed one…..I thought you were complementing BF. You have a good day and a wonderful evening.

      • Thank you Amazed, but I’m not going anywhere just yet, except to work in about an hour, but I will be lerking around and reading the posts here.

        You too have a good day and evening.

        Judy

  16. Richmond Spitfire says:

    To all of my dear online friends here,

    😉

    At the risk of having all of you make fun of me, I just want ALL of you to know that I thank you from the bottom of my heart for being you!

    For sharing your ideas, for not calling me stoooopid (or making me feel stupid), for being supportive, for teaching, for correcting, for challenging me, for caring…I thank you!

    US Weapon…a special thank you for hosting this forum!

    I wish you all a wonderful day!

    RS

    • RS….hum…I find you very intelligent, a wonderful thoughtful person and I enjoy your posts. Have a wonderful day.

  17. Black Flag says:

    “Offering A Rebuttal… “.
    https://standupforamerica.wordpress.com/2009/08/18/offering-a-rebuttal/

    Mathius

    When they say “I don’t want your socialized heath care, but keep your government hands off my medicare,” you have to recognize that these are people you do not want foisting their opinions on those who are elected to lead you. So, if our leaders need their leaders to provide the backbone necessary to risk electoral upset, then so be it.

    I do not see this as a sign of ‘stupidity’. I see this as proof that the government propaganda machine is functioning as planned.

    When people are confused about government and its redistribution of stolen goods, it is due to generations of education by the government about these subjects.

    How can you blame a man, whose entire purpose in life is simply to try to provide for his family, to be confused by the contradictions and the mumblings of government?

    And no, I do not believe that all people vote for the people who they think will do the best job. I think a great number of people vote for the guy they would most like to have a beer with. This falls under the category of under informed. Many voters do not take the time to familiarize themselves with the issues and policy beliefs of their leaders, rather they simply vote for who they like.

    But, sir, do you not – equally – fall into such the same category?

    Do you really believe your vote matters?

    Do you really believe you chose your representation?

    Do you really believe you have some sort of control over those that claim to be your representative?

    <blockquote cite I have to ask myself, why is her vote equal to mine, to yours, to black flag, g-man, USW, and the rest?

    Hers, nor any of the others have a vote equal to mine. My vote is far superior to anyone else’s….because I refuse to vote for anyone I have not, personally, authorized or placed on a ballot.

    See my guest Post – https://standupforamerica.wordpress.com/2009/08/08/how-to-get-there-from-here-part-1-guest-commentary/

    (A) Why is his religion an issue at all given separation of church and state

    But why should it not be an issue? If a man is to represent me – should he not hold as close to the same beliefs as I do?

    What criteria should I use for a person who is to represent me?

  18. Black Flag says:

    “Offering A Rebuttal… “.

    Mathius

    When they say “I don’t want your socialized heath care, but keep your government hands off my medicare,” you have to recognize that these are people you do not want foisting their opinions on those who are elected to lead you. So, if our leaders need their leaders to provide the backbone necessary to risk electoral upset, then so be it.

    I do not see this as a sign of ‘stupidity’. I see this as proof that the government propaganda machine is functioning as planned.

    When people are confused about government and its redistribution of stolen goods, it is due to generations of education by the government about these subjects.

    How can you blame a man, whose entire purpose in life is simply to try to provide for his family, to be confused by the contradictions and the mumblings of government?

    And no, I do not believe that all people vote for the people who they think will do the best job. I think a great number of people vote for the guy they would most like to have a beer with. This falls under the category of under informed. Many voters do not take the time to familiarize themselves with the issues and policy beliefs of their leaders, rather they simply vote for who they like.

    But, sir, do you not – equally – fall into such the same category?

    Do you really believe your vote matters?

    Do you really believe you chose your representation?

    Do you really believe you have some sort of control over those that claim to be your representative?

    <blockquote cite I have to ask myself, why is her vote equal to mine, to yours, to black flag, g-man, USW, and the rest?

    Hers, nor any of the others have a vote equal to mine. My vote is far superior to anyone else’s….because I refuse to vote for anyone I have not, personally, authorized or placed on a ballot.

    See my guest Post – https://standupforamerica.wordpress.com/2009/08/08/how-to-get-there-from-here-part-1-guest-commentary/

    (A) Why is his religion an issue at all given separation of church and state

    But why should it not be an issue? If a man is to represent me – should he not hold as close to the same beliefs as I do?

    What criteria should I use for a person who is to represent me?

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      BF,

      Thank you for the simple re-statement of my earlier question in an even simpler form. “What criteria should I use for a person who is to represent me?” is exactly what I was trying to get at in #12.

      • Peter, This was a tough one, and I’ve thought about it since you posted it. The criteria I would accept is in one word, ME! I won’t relinquish my right to make my own decisions to anybody, and when someone tries, then the fights on.

        G!

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          Dammit G!

          You aren’t supposed to immediately jump to THE CORRECT ANSWER! That takes away all of the fun!

          🙂

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          G-Man,

          Is it safe to assume then that you do not vote?

          By voting, you are tacitly agreeing to give your rights to making your own decisions to someone else.

          • Peter, I’ve learned alot in the last half a year or so. I’m going to allow my favorite write in get my vote next year. The thought of this individual and Kim Jong III in the same room just cracks me up. His name is “Bugs Bunny”!

            G!

      • esomhillgazette says:

        Peter, I cannot give you a list. My biggest criteria for a representative is honesty. Unfortunately, this has not only become scarce in Washington, it is non-existent.

        So I do not have ANYONE I fell qualified to represent me in Washington.

        The Democrats and Republicans BOTH, Liberal and Alledgedly Conservative, all have their own agenda and Party line to stick to like glue.

        And I can hear it now before it’s even said. You have to pick someone. My answer is the same as BF’s would be. If given a choice between two dog turds, I’ll just go hungry.

        No Government at all is better than what we have right now. When they feel like they can listen to their constituents who elected them, then maybe things will change for the better. Until then it will continue to worsen until Anarchy, or Civil War, or Jesus breaks the eastern sky. I haven’t yet decided which will be better. I would say the 3rd option though. 😉

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          Esom,

          There are several problems:

          Problem #1

          No one can give a completely exhaustive, all-inclusive list of the qualifications needed.

          Problem #2

          Your list and my list would likely not be the same (nor would JAC’s list, BF’s list, or anyone else’s list) as my list would be.

          Problem #3

          It is unlikely that we could reconcile everyone’s different lists even if everyone could come up with one.

          • esomhillgazette says:

            My soul for one honest man.

            He could be moderate in his beliefs. (I don’t mean the Wahington style of Moderate)
            He could pass legislation I did not agree with (as long as most of my fellow constituents agreed).
            He could not have a college education. (As long as he had common sense)
            He could make mistakes. (As long as he was honest and owned up to them).
            He could speak plainly. (I’d really prefer it)

            These are just a few. How many of the a$$holes in Washington meet even ONE of these qualifications?

            Even though we here could not agree to all qualifications, we could probably agree to those above. If one would just be honest with us above all else, he would not have to be perfect, as that is an impossibilty anyway.

            How many qualify with this?

  19. To BF and JAC

    Thank you both for accepting my apologies, it means a great deal to me, more than you know. JAC, I will try very hard to follow your advice and not get caught up in any traps that may lie in wait. Believe it or not, I have learned a great deal from you, even though I may not show it.

    BF, I want you to know, that I have learned a great deal from you as well, for you are a good teacher like I told you before, and I appreciate everything you have taught me, for that I am grateful, thank you.

    Just so everybody here knows, I want to say how much I have grown very fond of each and every one of you, and I sincerely consider you all to be my friends, and that comes straight from my heart.

    With that said, I will now try and stay on the topic for today.

    Judy

  20. That’s it! I can’t take it anymore. I’m bringing in one of my oldest friends to see if he can’t help sort you out. 😉

    • Mathius said

      The left is no better than the right. In many case, they are less informed. The wingnut-right just seems to be louder and more disciplined in getting its message out than the wingnut-left. They should all be (largely) ignored.

      Wow, a strait, no BS acknoledgement that both sides are screwed up. Dude, you better flee this site, or you will face the consequences of free thinking.

      PS, did you see my post yesterday on VDLG? Think it was on #19.

      • esomhillgazette says:

        LOI

        Did you see my endorsement for USW for President above? I would have tried maybe you or JAC, but you don’t have the political clout USW seems to have garnered into his corner. 😀

        • Esom,

          Having internet problems, sorry for delayed response. I think I like USW better than Ted Nugent, not sure if he runs against Palin. LOL, Not sure I deserve to be up there with JAC and co., some of their high brow talk makes my head hurt.

  21. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    Matius,

    You seem to indicate that a large enough, loud enough mass of ignorant people would be able to scare an elected leader into behaving or voting a certain way.

    So, if healthcare reform passes, you see an actual threat to Barney Franks or Nancy Pelosi getting re-elected?

    Sure, a few politicians in districts that are fairly evenly split might lose their jobs, but the majority of the politicians will get re-elected just fine.

    Trust me, they aren’t scared of what a loud ignorant mob on either side of any particular issue says or thinks.

  22. I agree with many on here that the left is no better than the right. I think both parties share a lot of the blame for many of the problems in this country, especially the economic ones. And now the govt is trying to recreate a debt bubble that has already burst because that is what the financial elite who support them politically want them to do. The govt is therefore going to continue to print money and debase the currency in order to fund the bailouts and stimulus programs, and one of the only ways for the average person to protect him or herself is by owning gold and gold related assets, as the gold price moves inversely to the value of the dollar. For a further discussion on these issues and more analysis, see http://www.goldalert.com/

  23. PeterB,

    Your qualifications requirement doesn’t really make sense. To say that a representational government requires qualifications to lead undermines the concept of democratic rule. Yes, intelligent people should strive to aid in political action for all individuals, but that doesn’t mean you need to start getting the low-level statistics of human beings before you determine they are qualified to lead. Some of our greatest leaders have had no experience, beneficial attributes, or intelligence.

    To say that a government is not legitimate is fine. Stop paying your taxes. Engage in resistance of whatever kind you wish to. However, I can’t agree with the argument that simply because you don’t like who is in power that the power itself is not legitimate. A power may be legitimate, but you can reject it because you don’t agree with it. Agreement is not the same as legitimacy.

    Politics is self-selecting. Sadly, people who we may not consider qualified are in office. However, they got there, therefore they are qualified. In the end, it matters only that the individual is in power. Either deal with that or don’t. Complaining about qualifications doesn’t benefit anyone.

    As for the initial topic, I don’t really follow TV news because of stupid actions such as the townhall itself and the ensuing arguments regarding the child.

    Any news source should have standards of decency and quality. What is gained by pointing out that the little girl was reading a staged question? We already know most of these questions are screened ahead of time. Does it make a difference if the question comes from an adult or a child? I believe any “news source” that selected the child as the focus was simply taking advantage of the sensationalism present. It’s about the viewer numbers, not the information.

    That brings in both arguments of common sense from the voters (who know most of the townhalls are staged) and that the media has a strong influence among individuals.

    Media has a strong influence because we depend on it for many things, news among them. There should be a responsibility in delivering it. Many commentators on multiple stations have so-called news shows that feature continuous opinion-editorial material. What is gained from any of this?

    Malkin was stupid for bringing up this point. Cesca was stupid for even addressing it. USWeapon was also at fault for even trying to address the “wingnut” comment in such a lengthy style.

    Why is everyone hung up on this? Why isn’t there a deeper discussion on the healthcare plan itself, rather than the stupid comments by commentators referring to a child asking a question about signs?

    This kind of attention is the same as those who stalk celebrity movements. Yes, feel ashamed.

    P.S. Yes, I have nothing better to do at the moment than reply to this thread.

    • Hi Ozy, welcome to the show

    • OZY, Your quote:

      Your qualifications requirement doesn’t really make sense.

      You are correct.

      Do you believe that anyone is qualified to make YOUR decisions?

      G!

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      Ozymandius,

      My question about the qualifications of a good leader makes no sense?

      Perhaps that is because, innately, you realize that NO ONE is qualified to lead you. This it true, no matter who YOU are! The best-qualified person to lead me is me, the best qualified person to lead you is you, etc.

      Does this automatically mean that everyone is going to make good, sound, moral decisions about what they do? Nope. Surprisingly, our current form of government ALREADY FAILS TO PREVENT people from making bad, unsound, and immoral decisions anyway, so what is the difference?

      My personal problem is not that I disagree with the current leadership of the government as you incorrectly surmise. My personal problem is that regardless of who the leaders are of our government, it fails to function in the way that most people think that it should.

    • “Any news source should have standards of decency and quality. What is gained by pointing out that the little girl was reading a staged question? We already know most of these questions are screened ahead of time. Does it make a difference if the question comes from an adult or a child? I believe any “news source” that selected the child as the focus was simply taking advantage of the sensationalism present. It’s about the viewer numbers, not the information.”

      Horribly incorrect. The little girl was used in the same manner she would be for any commercial, to sell. I’m certain there were more than a few hideous CHUD’s in the audience whom could have read for this weeks episode but that wouldn’t tug the heart strings for that “Oliver” moment in the same manner as the cute little girl. I know, so what’s wrong with a contrived “little girl” moment from the Obama campaign machine? I ask you, what was right about it?

  24. I just received this via e-mail, and wanted to share with all of you, especially my fellow vets. Thought the message was quite sincere.

    It’s well worth a look>

    G!

  25. Black Flag says:

    Ozymandius

    Your qualifications requirement doesn’t really make sense. To say that a representational government requires qualifications to lead undermines the concept of democratic rule.

    I believe Peter was not referring to generic qualifications – but more on what are the qualities that one (as in the personal “you”) look for in a representative.

    that the power itself is not legitimate. A power may be legitimate, but you can reject it because you don’t agree with it. Agreement is not the same as legitimacy.

    What makes power legitimate?

    Politics is self-selecting. However, they got there, therefore they are qualified. In the end, it matters only that the individual is in power.

    But it does matter. Legitimacy rests upon it.

    Politics may be self-selecting, but it does NOT follow that they are qualified.

    Qualification is measured by OUTCOME – that is, you may be self-selecting yourself as a pilot on a plane, but that does not QUALIFY you to fly a plane. Your ability determines the latter – not merely sitting in the left hand seat.

    This kind of attention is the same as those who stalk celebrity movements. Yes, feel ashamed.

    Now, I agree with that!

  26. G-man,

    I make my decisions. I’m a citizen of the United States. A representative makes a decision either in their own context as someone supported by the electorate or based upon the wishes of the electorate. I don’t understand why the two decisions are being mixed up. Just because my voice isn’t acted upon doesn’t mean that I don’t have a voice and that I do not use it.

    Black Flag,

    Generic qualifications don’t make sense. Just because a person is honest, kind, and trustworthy doesn’t make them “qualified” to make political decisions. I vote based on an individual’s support of policy rather that their personal traits. If I support a person’s policies more than anyone else in the field, then that person gets my vote.

    Through the lens of a republic, I have to argue that being elected into office establishes the qualifications for that office. Saying someone who was elected is not qualified to represent those people who elected the person to represent them doesn’t fit. You may address this view by contending that people do not elect representatives with some relevant support.

    The self-selection portion of my argument is that we don’t establish a pool of qualified individuals, then select politicians from that pool. Instead, we look at a pool of self-selected politicians and select from that pool.

    Legitimacy is a set of words on paper that was agreed upon by some group of individuals in the context of political structure in America. Legitimacy generates power because people believe in legitimacy. Disagreeing with those in power doesn’t make their role illegitimate, it begins to strip the power arising from legitimacy.

    • I’m not especially concerned if my representative is an axe murderer who like to kick puppies and hasn’t brushed his teeth since the 80’s. If he supports my views, I’m happy. To that end, I agree with Ozy.

      Beyond that, I think the initial point being made, if we can remember that far back, is that demonizing your political opponents doesn’t get us very far.

      My initial point was only that words have consequences and, when you have the big microphone in your hand, you should be responsible in how you use it. This is Cesca’s point that started all of this and, though he may take it farther than I do, I think there is some truth to the concept.

      As for my points from yesterday about being qualified to hold office, I never made this point. All I said is that once in office, you should be free to ignore the ignorant. I stand by this and am still waiting to hear why it is that your opinion should count if your only qualifications are a US passport and a pulse.

      • Mathius, If you are elected, and you choose who is ignorant or not, and then choose to ignore the ignorant that you have decided are ignorant (now there is a sentence to try to write), then you have achieved narcasism (sp). The one most used word in that sentence is “you”.

        Why not just abolish the 13th Amendment?

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        Mathius,

        If a person is so ignorant as to not be able to determine what is best for himself, then that person is technically incompetent.

        At what point do you define a person as ignorant enough to not hold a valid opinion?

        I have seen rocket scientists that are PLENTY IGNORANT about damn near anything outside of the field of rocket science, and I have seen ditch-diggers who possess great wisdom and common-sense in spite of a lack of what you would call “formal education”.

        Who determines who is qualified and who is not qualified to have an opinion on any given issue?

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          Keep in mind… it has been proven time and time again throughout history that the so-called experts are quite often wrong.

          Always remember what an expert is:

          X is the unknown quantity

          and

          Spurt is a drip under pressure

          Do not put your faith in the so-called experts! 🙂

    • I make my decisions. I’m a citizen of the United States. A representative makes a decision either in their own context as someone supported by the electorate or based upon the wishes of the electorate. I don’t understand why the two decisions are being mixed up. Just because my voice isn’t acted upon doesn’t mean that I don’t have a voice and that I do not use it.

      Interesting, Since you brought up the healthcare issue, and that issue involves mandating that you must purchase health insurance, if it becomes law, you no longer can make that personnal decision, it has been made for you.

      Once freedoms begin to be lost, it becomes a domino effect, and you would have legitimized it. I doubt that would be your intent, but the collateral damage could be placed upon your shoulders to bare.

      G!

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      Ozymandius,

      Let us say, for example, that you vote for someone because they support gay marriage, and you yourself support gay marriage.

      Then, when that person who you voted for votes that marriage should be between a man and a woman only, what recourse do you have?

      Note: I could have selected any random issue… this is just the first one that came to mind.

    • Kiboshed by your own sentence. “Saying someone who was elected is not qualified to represent those people who elected the person to represent them doesn’t fit.” Earlier it was pitched that once in power, the politician no longer “represents” the wishes of his constituents whom know not what’s best for them as they are misinformed, right Mathius? On the subject of health care the majority of poles show the majority of voters as being against in its thousand page form yet their right to vocalize that sentiment became null and void upon having made their choice of the two evils on election day? That’s lunacy.

      As for the election process itself, it’s all salesmanship! Arguing against that is foolhardy. It is not a meeting of the intelligentsia nor is it a deity on high handing down “the will of…” to those in America. We’re speaking of merely the swaying of a very fluid group of minds in the middle of your electorate. The true centrist carries your elections and from those I know personally to whom I speak with (not type as I choose to hear the voices of my friends) in Tempe AZ, Burbank CA, Golden CO and New Orleans LA, they all have the same thing to say which is when they cast their vote for Barack Obama it wasn’t because they were sold what he IS doing but what he was SUPPOSED to. So now they’re speaking out about that purchase and its bothersome to the point of questioning their intellectual prowess and their right to do such? How un-American.

      Neither those on “the right” nor those on “the left” have anything to do with the government’s decision to change their course so that nixes your voice along with USW’s. Its a bitter pill to swallow but you’ll get over it. To the centrist POTUS is listening and its imbecilic to think otherwise. All of my friends have at one time voted Republican, for the individual not the party, and as such are true centrists bending either direction without breaking. The very Americans on whom elections DO swing.

      Hard left and right, get over yourselves.

  27. haven’t had time to read for a while but stopped by because I wanted to let you know (as if you hadn’t already) that the dems have changed from healthcare reform to health insurance reform

    From: Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee
    Marlon Marshall, DCCC National Field Director

    Since I just shared my story, we need you to share yours and help President Obama fight the Republican lies with the real facts on health insurance reform.

    There’s still time to take action in the fight for health insurance reform.

    …….

    But further don’t they forgot to replace it !!!

    P.S. From Sarah Palin’s fictitious ‘death panels’ to Rush Limbaugh’s revolting use of swastikas, the Republicans are doing everything they can to keep this debate from being about the real facts on health care reform.In addition to engaging your friends and neighbors,…..

  28. G-Man,

    If it came to a big issue that I cared significantly enough about, I would move to another country.

    I don’t view health insurance in the realm of personal freedoms. Additionally, even if you were to consider it such, I still live in a democratic republic. As such, there will be decisions made for the whole that I don’t individually make. Just because I make my decisions doesn’t mean I make every single decision that affects me. It’s just basic social contract theory.

    There is no black and white, as your example attempts to portray. Each issue has a varied level of impact upon an individual. I have the option of following the law or not. If there is something that I disagree with to a great enough degree, then I can choose to oppose it or leave the country.

    Please don’t tie freedom to a slippery slope effect.

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      But freedom IS tied to a slippery slope effect, whether you WISH it to be or not, so your desire for us to NOT tie it to a slippery slope effect is illogical.

      Also, for you personally, why is health insurance NOT in the “realm of personal freedoms”?

      Finally, what is a “social contract”? I do not understand “social contract theory” because I do not understand your idea of “social contract”.

  29. Black Flag says:

    Study: Ocean net heat flow is connected with climate shifts – CO2 not correlated – no “warming in the pipeline”

    http://www.rochester.edu/news/show.php?id=3420

  30. Black Flag says:

    Ozymandius

    I make my decisions. I’m a citizen of the United States. A representative makes a decision either in their own context as someone supported by the electorate or based upon the wishes of the electorate.

    But it is not the wish of the electorate – that would require 100% vote ‘for’ – in fact, most (if not all) representatives do not even get 40% of the possible votes.

    Further, a representative – by definition – does not make decisions from their own context. That is a ‘dictatorship’.

    I don’t understand why the two decisions are being mixed up. Just because my voice isn’t acted upon doesn’t mean that I don’t have a voice and that I do not use it.

    If your voice is not heard, why do you believe you still have a voice?

    . Just because a person is honest, kind, and trustworthy doesn’t make them “qualified” to make political decisions.

    Not necessarily, but it certainly helps in evaluating the worth of a representative.

    I vote based on an individual’s support of policy rather that their personal traits. If I support a person’s policies more than anyone else in the field, then that person gets my vote.

    But their policies are chosen at the whim of the party. Essentially, your evaluation is not much better than a Roulette wheel

    Through the lens of a republic, I have to argue that being elected into office establishes the qualifications for that office. Saying someone who was elected is not qualified to represent those people who elected the person to represent them doesn’t fit. You may address this view by contending that people do not elect representatives with some relevant support.

    As I repeat, simply sitting in the left seat does not qualify you as a pilot. Your argument says it does. I do find that bizarre.

    The self-selection portion of my argument is that we don’t establish a pool of qualified individuals, then select politicians from that pool. Instead, we look at a pool of self-selected politicians and select from that pool.

    Then you have not made any real choice. My favorite analogy – if I offer a choice between peas or carrots for dinner – do you have a real choice in selecting what you eat?

    Legitimacy is a set of words on paper that was agreed upon by some group of individuals in the context of political structure in America.

    I strongly disagree. Legitimacy is not mere words – it active agreement to conditions.

    Legitimacy generates power because people believe in legitimacy. Disagreeing with those in power doesn’t make their role illegitimate, it begins to strip the power arising from legitimacy.

    Ok, so it’s not words – but a belief- I can meet half way there on that. Disagreement does not impact legitimacy at all – I do not have to agree with you however, you still have a legitimate right to speak.

    It is the moral measure of one’s action that determines legitimacy.

  31. Black Flag says:

    Ozy

    It’s just basic social contract theory

    No such contract exists. To base legitimacy on a fallacy makes legitimacy fallacious.

    You do not have a option to follow the law or not. You have to follow the law – or violence is put upon you.

    The option of not following or following is an option only if compulsion is not required for either choice to be made. In other words, if – without compulsion, I can follow or not follow then and only then is it a choice.

    To pervert the concept of ‘choice’ as one that embeds an acceptance of compulsion warps the meaning of choice to be nonsense.

    • esomhillgazette says:

      I agree with this BF. Ozy, I am so glad that you have the resources to move out of the country to someplace else if the need arises as you see it. Some poor old folks, like me however, are stuck here living with the consequences of the moronic actions of a few people living in a coastal swamp on the east coast that we didn’t vote for to begin with.

      Following, or not following, the law is not an option for us. That is, unless we want to be fined, or go to prison, or worse. So to say that we can just either do it or not is ridiculous.

      And if the majority of the people do not want legislation to be passed, it should not be passed. Not done anyway because “they know what best for us”. No one knows what’s best for me and my family but me and MY FAMILY.

      I just know that if given the choice between peas or carrots as BF says, I’ll have a steak.

      • To make the argument that you need money to resist or move means that you have just decided that the cost of moving is not worth it. As offensive as that may sound, it does have truth to it. Why do you stay where you are?

        Look at the most oppressed peoples on this planet. They protest the law. They move. Sometimes, they are successful in their endeavors.

        • esomhillgazette says:

          Anywhere I move in the US leaves me with the same problem. Whether or not to comply with a Federal Law.

          Since I have a Family I can’t just up and move out of the country.

          Even if I did, move where? What other country? I’d rather stay here and fight for my home.

          You may not be tied to the land Oz, but I am.

          • esomhillgazette says:

            And no Ozy, it has no truth at all. Rather, it’s worth staying and fighting for my home than just running away to somewhere else.

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          And look at the SOURCE of the oppression for the most oppressed people on the planet.

          Care to guess what the main source of oppression is?

        • Black Flag says:

          Why do you stay where you are

          Because I live here.

        • Ozy, I fear you’re missing or ignoring the obvious … The following is my own, lifted from my family history work.
          …………………………………………………………………………………………………
          I have always had a very strong sense of home. Growing up, it never occurred to me to question from where I had come or where I belonged. I knew beyond a shadow of doubt. My interest was drawn to what lay beyond the boundaries of my known world, because I knew that there was a place to which I could run when the world overwhelmed me or where I could hide while the self-inflicted wounds of youth or arrogance or folly healed. A place to which I belonged as much as it belonged to me or to my family. While it was not always entirely comfortable, or in sync with my dreams and aspirations, it was there, and my place in it irrefutable. After all, home was literally the home of my people; built by my great-grandfather on land held by the family even before his time, handed down to my grandmother, and then, in her turn, to my mother.

          I was close to my third decade and, quite secure in the knowledge that I had a place to which I could return, had explored quite a bit of the world, its byways, and a few dark alleys before I realized that not everyone had that same bone-deep sense of home as I. That fact appalled me. What would you do if you could not go home again? How would you cope if your world collapsed and there was no generations-old shabby brick house to run to? It was then that I began to understand how very much I valued my family and the gifts they had bestowed upon me.
          …………………………………………………………………………………………………

          Home — what does that word mean to you? The original inspiration for this piece was a narration on NPR which detailed the story of a woman living in the Chicago projects whose child was killed under ugly, inhumane circumstance by other children in the neighborhood. She left her apartment and moved in with her mother a few blocks away — IN THE SAME NEIGHBORHOOD.

          I was horrified that she stayed, thinking, if that happened to me, I would just go home. Which is what she did, but her home and mine were worlds apart in many ways and that was the first time I truly understood that.

          ‘Land is the only thing worth fighting for, worth dying for, Katie Scarlet’ Because there you can build a home and make a life.

          • Richmond Spitfire says:

            My Dear Mr. Gerald O’Hara…

            You said it so well with that one sentence…If only I weren’t a married woman!

            Best Regards,
            RS

  32. Black Flag says:

    Swine Update (not the flu, not Congress)

    “Now the Washington Post confirms that most of the swine flu vaccines that will be available in the fall, probably in October, will contain thimerosal

  33. Black Flag says:

    Swine Update (the flu, not Congress)

    “Now the Washington Post confirms that most of the swine flu vaccines that will be available in the fall, probably in October, will contain thimerosal

    • Black Flag says:

      …an extra ‘not’ sorta reverses the whole statement….

      This is the correct post

    • And if you want to know the effects of it are, go to Wikipedia, and read those.

    • It took corporate media swine flu hysteria to ram through a martial law bill in Massachusetts. S18 gives the Governor the power to authorize the deployment and use of force to distribute supplies and materials and local authorities will be allowed to enter private residences for investigation and to quarantine individuals.

      The Associated Press reports:

      The Massachusetts Senate has unanimously passed a pandemic flu preparation bill that has languished in the Legislature before the recent swine flu outbreak.

      The 36-0 vote today sends the measure to the House. Both branches have taken it up in past years, but have not been able to agree on the details.

      The new Senate version would allow the public health commissioner — in a public health emergency — to close or evacuate buildings, enter private property for investigations, and quarantine individuals.

      The bill specifically mandates the following:

      (1) to require the owner or occupier of premises to permit entry into and investigation of the premises;
      (2) to close, direct, and compel the evacuation of, or to decontaminate or cause to be decontaminated any building or facility, and to allow the reopening of the building or facility when the danger has ended;
      (3) to decontaminate or cause to be decontaminated, or to destroy any material;
      (4) to restrict or prohibit assemblages of persons;
      (5) to require a health care facility to provide services or the use of its facility, or to transfer the management and supervision of the health care facility to the department or to a local public health authority;
      (6) to control ingress to and egress from any stricken or threatened public area, and the movement of persons and materials within the area;
      (7) to adopt and enforce measures to provide for the safe disposal of infectious waste and human remains, provided that religious, cultural, family, and individual beliefs of the deceased person shall be followed to the extent possible when disposing of human remains, whenever that may be done without endangering the public health;
      (8) to procure, take immediate possession from any source, store, or distribute any anti-toxins, serums, vaccines, immunizing agents, antibiotics, and other pharmaceutical agents or medical supplies located within the commonwealth as may be necessary to respond to the emergency;
      (9) to require in-state health care providers to assist in the performance of vaccination, treatment, examination, or testing of any individual as a condition of licensure, authorization, or the ability to continue to function as a health care provider in the commonwealth

      Any person who knowingly violates an order of the commissioner or his or her designee, or of a local public health authority or its designee, given to effectuate the purposes of this subsection shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than 6 months, or by a fine of note more than one thousand dollars, or both.

  34. Black Flag says:

    http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/web/home/home/index.htm

    If you are smart enough to read, you can get a full, self-education equal to any university grad.

    MIT for free.

    This is proof to the academic world that MIT regards its program as the best, and dares any other institution to prove otherwise.

    If they can give away their material – and still get students – it means the quality of the classroom unsurpassed.

    Well, take their bet. I know I will.

  35. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    “The self-selection portion of my argument is that we don’t establish a pool of qualified individuals, then select politicians from that pool. Instead, we look at a pool of self-selected politicians and select from that pool.”

    Ok you just proved my point. We are not the ones establishing a pool of qualified individuals to represent us. The politicians are SELECTING THEMSELVES (and we do not know how THEY are determining the qualifications) so we have no way of knowing whether they are actually well qualified or not, or if they have any intention of adequately representing our views or not, because we have not set forth the qualifications and we have not done the selecting of individuals.

    Precisely why it makes no sense to then expect any of them to actually represent you in any meaningful way!

    • Peter B,

      I said we select from the self-selecting pool of politicians (you don’t need to be elected to be a politician).

      Please don’t warp my words.

      If you want to find out more about your elected representative or people running for office, contact them. It isn’t hard. I know this because I’ve done it.

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        I did not warp your words, I quoted them.

        I fail to see how directly quoting you is warping your words.

        You still proved my point. I am not doing the selecting, and the selection is not based upon my criteria.

  36. Ozymandius said

    “Why isn’t there a deeper discussion on the healthcare plan itself?” We have had that discussion, see archives and it also comes up a lot on open mic’s. Now to the attack.

    Flag, you were WRONG!!! I said any real attempt at health care reform would have to start with tort reform. You stated it would have little impact. Heard on talk radio(can’t confirm)that insurance costs in NY are over $12,000 for a family of four, but less than $6,000 in NJ, partly due to them having tort reform.

    I can confirm, for a family of three, the following costs;

    $559.70 for NJ, Blue Cross
    $2,286.82 for NY, Blue Cross
    $641.98 for cheapest non-rated equal

    What I would have chosen if buying there would cost $250.00 more a month. That’s three grand a year, enough for Mrs. Illusion (wife of Delusional) to buy at least an extra purse and shoes!! That sir, is significant.

    • Black Flag says:

      Well, I’ll give up “a little bit” on the fact you providde good evidence

      … however…

      The real solution is to remove the monopoly on medicine by the AMA – that would solve the tort reform AND decrease the ‘death by doctors’ AND increase the availabilities of all health care AND decrease costs.

      • I will agree to compromise, good sir. Lets remove their monopoly and pass tort reform.

      • Could you clarify what you mean by “a monopoly on medicine”? Do you just mean the ability to prescribe medication or do you mean the ability to call oneself a medical doctor?
        Your idea that doctors have no incentive to not kill their patients is ridiculous. They may not fear being replaced as a whole by chiropractors, but it is certainly in their best interest as individuals to not kill their patients, since that would risk them losing their license or getting their pants sued off, not to mention that most of them would probably feel bad about it if they made an error that resulted in someone’s death.

        • Black Flag says:

          Could you clarify what you mean by “a monopoly on medicine”?

          By writ of government, doctors are immune to competition not sanctioned by the AMA.

          Hence, only those so allowed by the AMA get to ‘practice’ medicine – and prevent all others from engaging in such provisioning.

          This is a monopoly.

          Do you just mean the ability to prescribe medication or do you mean the ability to call oneself a medical doctor?

          Yes and yes.

          Your idea that doctors have no incentive to not kill their patients is ridiculous.

          I do not mean they go out and purposely kill patients.

          However, let’s look at the facts.

          Death by doctor exceeds death by car by a fact of two (100,000 patients die due to medical mistakes vs 50,000 die in car accidents). Death by doctor is the #1 accident death for Americans… and it is getting worse, not better.

          There is no motivation for the medical industry to change – where are you going to go?

          They may not fear being replaced as a whole by chiropractors, but it is certainly in their best interest as individuals to not kill their patients, since that would risk them losing their license or getting their pants sued off, not to mention that most of them would probably feel bad about it if they made an error that resulted in someone’s death.

          Without the consequences of the market place, the industry does not change.

          All it took was for one bad hamburger to nearly bankrupt Jack-in-the-Box, with the whole fast-burger industry was sent reeling from the incident.

          You’d think 100,000 A YEAR would motivate somebody…. but without market discipline, it is not as likely to occur.

          • Sorry, I’m still not buying that medical mistakes are due to a lack of incentive to prevent them. I would be interested to know more about the 100000 deaths a year statistic. Are these all people with non-life threatening conditions that go into the doctor and die as a result of treatment? If you are dragged into the ER half dead and the doctor fails to save your life, did you die of a medical mistake if in hindsight it appears that a different treatment might have saved you? Anyway, I’m just curious what this statistic actually represents.

            It would be interesting to see how your anarchic medicine would look. I’m not sure it would have all of the effects you claim. I can see it lowering prices, but I don’t think it would do anything for medical mistakes. Probable more that 100,000 would die the first year trying to play doctor on themselves and prescribe their own medicine. I’m not against letting people kill themselves with their own stupidity, but it’s not going to be popular with a lot of people.

            Nurse practitioners can prescribe medicine too, by the way. I think having more of them would be helpful in bringing down the cost of health care.

    • LOI

      Tort reform is a “short term” fix we need to think of as part of the holding action.

      In the long run it is political and the complete legal reform that solves the problem.

      We need to make sure “tort reform” is not used to shelter bad doctors/hospitals/ etc from legitimate malpractice suits.

      At the same time, insurance companies should pay a price for unilaterally breaking the Policy/contract because someone gets sick. Or my favorite, their decision to pay a bad claim rather than fight in court, then they drop you because they decided to pay instead of fight.

      Eliminate the govt supported monopoly and these issues will probably clear up quickly. But I would like to see major legal reform. That means changing the philosophical basis for much of our law.

      And it means funding our court system so that the Big Boys can’t drag out litigation forever. If you sue the SOBs you should get your Jury trial in a timely manner.

      Just some rambling thoughts on the legal issue.
      Congratulations by the way.
      Getting a concession if even “a little bit” from the Flag is really big.

      JAC

  37. Black Flag says:

    The Pentagon has approached Congress to grant the Secretary of Defense the authority to post almost 400,000 military personnel throughout the United States in times of emergency or a major disaster.

    This request has already occasioned a dispute with the nation’s governors. And it raises the prospect of U.S. military personnel patrolling the streets of the United States, in conflict with the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878

    But NorthCom’s Congressional fact sheet refers not just to a “major disaster” but also to “emergencies.” And it says, “Those terms are defined in section 5122 of title 42, U.S. Code.”

    That section gives the President the sole discretion to designate an event as an “emergency” or a “major disaster.” Both are “in the determination of the President” alone.

    • according to this site

      http://www.barefootsworld.net/war_ep1.html

      we are in three (3) states of emergency at this moment. This claims there’s some confusion about undeclaring said emergency… c

    • esomhillgazette says:

      Uh huh. Here we go.

    • Blackflag,
      I discussed this a while back and GA Rowe wrote me off as a conspiracy theorist and that the article was BS. I placed an article here that is relevant to this article called the Militarization of Swine Flu Preparations.

      • Black Flag says:

        Don’t worry about G.A. – he is army in mind spirit and soul – so they can do no wrong.

        If he writes you off like that, it simply means you hit too close to home. He’d rather not hear it because it will hurt too much.

        Nubian, you are our local “Cassandra” – just when you get to say “I told you so!” it will be too late for everyone to listen to you….

  38. Black Flag,

    For your responses on points 1 (election percentages/numbers) and 2 (representative/dictatorships), look either to representational modes in US government or simply pragmatic analysis of available case study.

    Point 3 (voices). I can hear myself talking. If you’re reading this, I’m guessing you can “hear” me too.

    Point 4 (evaluation of representatives). I think we’re reached a point where it’s no longer moot to carry on argumentation on this point.

    Point 5 (analysis of policy for representational selection). There is a write in spot, abstention, and a host of third party candidates. I haven’t run into a situation where I haven’t found a candidate worth voting for. Does your Roulette wheel have a “00” or just a “0”?

    Point 6 (self-selection of politicians). The problem is that you are using analogies. They are horrible to use to explain situations in depth. Pilots and politicians are two vastly different groups. Argue in the context of politicians, since that is the group we are speaking of.

    Point 7 (choices of politicians). Yes, you have a choice between either or neither. You can also go out and obtain something else if you want. Your examples is another poor analogy because it establishes an either or dichotomy. Again, this is not a black and white situation.

    Point 8 (legitimacy). No, you don’t have to agree with me. Your definition of legitimacy implies subjectivity since you incorporate both morality and agreement. I disagree with a subjective definition because I think it incorrectly defines the word.

    You can approach this from a textualist method and use a dictionary definition if you wish. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/legitimate

    Legitimacy is derived from the law. Law does not have to be moral and actively agreed upon.

    Black Flag,

    1. Why doesn’t social contract theory exist? Please explain why it does not and why it is a fallacy.

    2. You should read some Thoreau. This is not just theory, but is practiced across the world. Peaceful resistance exists and has been around for a while. Again, you are attempting to create a binary system with lawfulness or unlawfulness. If such a dichotomy existed, then law would never progress, new societies would never be formed, and revolution would never occur.

    3. I don’t understand your point here. Your argument seems to be that that you only have a choice when you are not compelled to do something. Are you trying to argue that there is no such thing as choice because we are always compelled?

    Philosophically, you have a choice at all times. Pragmatically, you may accept alternative choices when you are being compelled.

  39. Got this in my email basket, and it does sound a lot like what some of you here say, I think. You decide.

    ________________________________________________________________
    Potential U.S. Senate candidate Peter Schiff has a very simple plan for Washington D.C. Get rid of the politicians.

    “We need citizens, people who are in the private sector, to come to Washington, to really get a job done, and then to leave,” Schiff told Newsmax TV’s Dan Mangru.

    Individuals who become career politicians, such as his potential opponent Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn), are what’s wrong with Congress in Schiff’s opinion because eventually they get assimilated into Washington D.C. culture.

    Schiff points out that Dodd has never actually worked in the private sector, never ran a business, and has never had to live under the regulations that he writes.

    On the other hand, Schiff has worked in the private sector all of his life and is currently the President of Euro-Pacific Capital.

    Whenever the government becomes involved, runaway costs result, notes Schiff.

    “If we cancelled student loan programs, universities would charge a lot less,” he says.

    He also applied the same principle to healthcare costs, which could reach as much as 20 percent of GDP by 2017.

    “Prices for insured medical procedures are rising three times as fast as those for uninsured procedures,” Schiff observes. “With insured procedures and low co-pays, no one cares what the procedures cost.”

    Schiff points to the “cash for clunkers” car rebate program as another example of government intervention gone wrong.

    “We are spending money to take an asset that works … and destroy it,” he says.

    “What’s probably going to happen in a couple of years is we’ll need a bailout for all the people who bought cars with their cash for clunkers money and can’t afford to make their payments.”

    Schiff believes that the administration is inefficiently reallocating capital through its various stimulus programs to all of the wrong places.

    “The government is taking money away from people who are doing it right and giving it to people who are doing it wrong. That’s a recipe for disaster,” Schiff says.

    According to Schiff, government stimulus is the problem, and that eventually it may lead to the creation of another financial bubble.

    “As painful as it is, this recession is necessary,” Schiff told Newsmax.

    “We’re never going to have a vibrant economy if we keep concentrating on reflating a busted bubble.”

    • esomhillgazette says:

      And he’s right Judy. And he won’t be listened to and will be derided precisely because of it.

      • I thought he made sense, and like what you say, nobody will listen to him either. I thought he made an honest evaluation of what he said, and I agree with him on it.

  40. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    Company X and Company Y make cars. Each company has 10 designers and each company asks each of its designers to come up with a new car design. Company X rejects 5 of the designs out of hand. We are not sure what criteria they use for acceptance/rejection, but we assume that they use some logical criteria. Company Y rejects 6 of their designs out of hand. Again, we assume some set of logical criteria.

    Each company then holds a popularity contest. If you generally like the designs of company X, you can vote for car A, B, C, D, or E as the one you like the best. Ir you generally like the designs of company Y, you can vote for car F, G, H, or I.

    Based upon the results of these popularity contests, it is determined that Car B from company X and Car H from company Y are the most popular designs.

    The two companies then hold a joint popularity contest, and the results of that popularity contest show that overall, car H from company Y is the most popular design. As a result, company X decides not to produce any cars at all, and company Y produces only car H.

    Would you accept the fact that Car H from company Y was the only car available to you? Would you buy that car under those circumstances?

    If not, then why do you find it ok to select your political representation in exactly this way?

    • Build your own car.

    • And don’t forget to eat your veggies.

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        Only if I choose to eat the veggies 🙂

        • Eat ’em or we’ll make you eat ’em.

          You’ve got your choice between a plate full of broccoli and The Man shooting you with a tranquilizer date and giving you IV vitamins. Either choice is fine by me. So yes, the choice is yours.

          • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

            I see you are very adept at proving black flag’s point that choice is invalidated by compulsion!

        • Let me ask you, Pete, (can I call ya Pete?), how would you respond to the following situation:

          You live in a small town. If everyone in the small town practices good hygiene, the Swine Flu will not gain a foothold and you will all be spared. If even one person does not, he may get infected and, by extension, infect you and your family.

          Do you have a right to force him to wash his hands? Why does he have an absolute right to choice when it imperils others?

          Or should you choose to move instead?

          • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

            Yes, you can call me Pete, many people do 🙂

            Your question is a VERY good one, and I mean that sincerely. Since it is a good question I will stipulate to the idea that everyone practicing good hygiene would completely prevent the flu, just for the sake of this argument.

            The key to the argument is, just how immoral is the choice that the non-hand washer is making, and how much does it directly effect me and my family?

            If I determine that this one guy not washing his hands presents a clear and present danger to me and my family, then it is my responsibility to defend myself and my family against this threat, probably by going and washing his hands myself if necessary 🙂

            If I determine that one guy not washing his hands is not really that big of a danger, then I can choose to live with the risk involved in tolerating him not washing his hands, or I can take alternative precautions to try to mitigate the risk even further, such as sanitizing my house more thoroughly, or perhaps even moving if I deem it necessary.

            What I CANNOT do, is suddenly and arbitrarily institute a rule stating that everyone is REQUIRED to wash their hands X number of times per day, or they will be punished for not complying with this new rule. The people that were already practicing good hygiene were doing that anyway, and the one guy that wasn’t practicing good hygiene is probably not going to suddenly change his ways just because I said he HAS to, and then one of the people praciticing GOOD hygiene is going to get caught washing their hands only 4 times a day when my new rule said you had to do it 5 times, and they are going to be punished for their transgression!

          • Black Flag says:

            The Spaniard cut and slash was perfect.

            Clear and Present Danger – free men aren’t stupid and have to wait for harm before they act.

            They can test for dangerous likelihoods and act (or not) upon them.

          • Mathius….you said “You live in a small town. If everyone in the small town practices good hygiene, the Swine Flu will not gain a foothold and you will all be spared. If even one person does not, he may get infected and, by extension, infect you and your family.”
            The reasoning is faulty…at its surface it appears that by everyone washing hands they won’t get sick…so if you wash your hands it does not matter if one doesn’t he will get sick and you will not because you wash your hands. Therefore I do not have to make him do anything….I just have to wash my own hands.

      • Mathius, some words from those under educated.

        ABRAM: I think the problem is this, Benjamin Franklin had said that compassion can be counterproductive. And I’m a compassionate person. You know, we give money to different charities, I volunteer at church, and what can happen is compassion — well, he said that compassion that allows a drunk to increase his drunkenness is counterproductive.

        Compassion that allows weakness and dependence is counterproductive. And all these things that the government has been doing over the years, completely counterproductive. And it’s taking the drive out of people. I mean, if you have two hotdog stands, like my friend Karen told me this, she said if you have two hotdog stands, you got a $2 hotdog over here and a free hotdog over here, which line are you going to go to? I’m going to the free hotdog line.

        http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,540264,00.html

  41. Militarization of Swine Flu Preparations
    Written by Alex Newman
    Friday, 14 August 2009 14:00

    The increasing militarization of preparations for an outbreak of swine flu is proceeding rapidly and without very much public debate, despite the relatively mild nature of the disease so far and the fact that many experts believe the panic has been overblown.

    Earlier this week, Republican Representative Paul Broun of Georgia warned a town hall meeting that a “socialistic elite” may be preparing to declare martial law in the United States using a pandemic disease as the pretext. “They’re trying to develop an environment where they can take over,” he told attendees according to an article in the Athens Banner-Herald. “We’ve seen that historically.”

    In another alarming development this week, National Guard troops are involved in a drill to take over a high school in Maine to deal with potential riots and panic over distribution of treatment for the H1N1 virus, the Maine Sun Journal reported Thursday. “The National Guardsmen will take on the roles of panicked citizens and military police and practice what they would do, such as using tear gas, in the case of a riot,” said the newspaper article entitled “National Guard Drill at High School to Prepare for Possible H1N1 Riot.” The story also noted that local law enforcement would be involved.

    This is all despite the fact that the Maine Center for Disease Control has reported just one death tied to the swine flu, and the man actually died from “underlying conditions complicated by H1N1,” according to Dr. Dora Mills, the center’s director.

    “This is just a component of moving the stuff from point A to B,” assured the director of Oxford County’s emergency management agency, Scott Parker. He told the Sun Journal that the plan would only be put in place “if needed.”

    Apparently concerns about panic and disorder were raised during a conference in April, so the governor and the adjutant General of the Maine National Guard decided to formulate a plan to bring in military police.

    But if state military police preparations weren’t bad enough, the federal government now wants to usurp state forces for domestic use under the Pentagon’s command. Though at least the states are fighting back on this issue.

    The National Governors Association wrote a letter to the Department of Defense last week criticizing the proposals to take control of their National Guard units for domestic disasters. “Strong potential exists for confusion in mission execution and the dilution of governors’ control over situations with which they are more familiar and better capable of handling than a federal military commander,” the letter stated.

    But no matter who retains control of the National Guard troops preparing to deal with swine flu, the federal government’s increasingly militarized “emergency preparations” for the virus are developing quickly and mostly under the radar. Just last month CNN and Fox News reported online that the U.S. military was drawing up plans to deal with a spread of the swine flu. “The Pentagon is preparing to make troops available if necessary to help the Federal Emergency Management Agency tackle a potential outbreak of the H1N1 virus,” according to a July 29 Fox News article entitled “Military Poised to Help FEMA Battle Swine Flu Outbreak.”

    And as early as last year, reports also began to surface that federal troops were preparing for “homeland defense” missions and would be operating on American soil — in what would appear to be a violation of the Posse Comitatus Act, which prohibits the use of military forces in domestic law enforcement.

    “They may be called upon to help with civil unrest and crowd control,” noted the Army Times in a 2008 article entitled “Brigade homeland tours start Oct. 1.” The soldiers will also be responsible for things like knowing how to set up road blocks and the use of “nonlethal” weapons normally reserved for war-zones to subdue Americans.

    Additionally, the Obama administration has recently resurrected the heavily criticized Bush-era proposal to “update” quarantine regulations, while the U.S. Army advertises jobs for “internment/resettlement specialists” on its website.

    The federal government’s health authorities operate quarantine centers from Anchorage to Miami, and in 2005 George W. Bush used an executive order to add flu that has the “potential” to create a pandemic to a list of quarantinable diseases. Will the military be used to enforce the quarantines? It is appearing increasingly possible, if it comes to that.

    This is all happening at a time when countless experts are warning that fears about the swine-flu virus have been blown out of proportion. In many places the disease even seems to be dissipating. “We’ll probably see something that won’t be that bad,” said Ontario’s former chief medical officer, Dr. Richard Schabas. “We would not expect it to be as bad as the flu year was in 2003 with the Fujian strain.”

    He noted that a pandemic would be expected to kill thousands just in Canada, but so far the swine flu has claimed 66 lives there. “You tell me how overblown that is.… Our preparations always have to be advised not just by the sense of possibilities, but by a sense of probabilities.”

    England’s chief medical officer, Liam Donaldson, recently announced plans to scale back the National Pandemic Flu Service from about 1,600 call-center workers to less than 600 as the number of cases there continues to fall. He warned of the potential for a “second wave,” but so far the disease has been less deadly than even the regular seasonal flu.

    Australian National University microbiologist Peter Collignon told ABC News the H1N1 virus was no worse than annual influenza strains. “My major concern about what’s happening is the fear is out of proportion to what the data shows,” he said, adding that the use of the word “pandemic” was creating unnecessary concern.

    But here in the United States, the emergency preparations continue to expand along with the power of the federal government. There has already been discussion of forced vaccinations. And an inspection of so-called “executive orders” issued by past presidents and continuing under Obama reveals that the executive branch already claims sweeping “emergency” powers to deal with health concerns.

    Unless Americans start demanding some transparency and accountability, the trend towards bigger and more aggressive government will likely continue. This time the excuse happens to be swine flu, but there will always be some “crisis” not to be “wasted,” as Obama’s chief of staff Rahm Emanuel put it.

    The preparations currently under way to deal with swine flu are not only unconstitutional, they are probably more dangerous than the virus itself. It is time for Americans to take personal responsibility for their health and their government and to say enough is enough.

    • Nubian,

      Good to hear from you again. I posted something similar yesterday (#24). Have not followed total US deaths, think there have been 49 in NY. I am waiting for results of their test studies before deciding if my family will take vaccine. Hope our concerns are unfounded.

      • Do not, I repeat DO NOT take the Vaccine Life of Illusion.

        Why? Please read this article.

        The U. S. government has paid pharmaceutical companies $7.9 billion* since 2004 to develop the capacity to mass vaccine the entire U.S. population by 2011. Under the perceived threat of H1N1, these plans have been accelerated to include the use of a non FDA approved chemical adjuvant suspected of causing Gulf War Syndrome, circumventing the FDA approval process for this potentially life threatening chemical.

        In 2005, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) published a plan with two specific goals that relate to vaccines. The first goal was to have in place by 2011 domestic production capacity sufficient to supply vaccine to the entire U.S. population within six months of the onset of a pandemic. The second goal was to stockpile enough doses of vaccine to inoculate 20 million people as soon as possible after the onset of a pandemic.

        As of September 15, 2008, HHS had yet to determine how best to build and develop the capacity to create the hundreds of millions of doses necessary for such an ambitious undertaking. Three options were identified which could possibly achieve the stated goal by 2011:

        Continue to fund and expand funding for the egg-based vaccine antigen production currently utilized in the production of seasonal flu vaccine (viruses are grown in hens’ eggs). Toward this end, HHS has budgeted $600 million to offer capital subsidies to manufacturers to build egg-based production facilities in addition to $176 million already awarded.

        Continue to fund and expand funding for cell-based vaccine antigen production (for example, viruses grown in the kidneys of dogs) widely used to manufacture vaccine against polio, chicken pox, measles, mumps, and rubella. To date, HHS has obligated $1.3 billion to promote the development of new cell-based influenza vaccines.

        Fund next generation vaccine manufacturing, based on the use of recombinant-DNA technology. Recombinant vaccines are made by splicing antigen producing genes into the DNA of another organism (pigs, monkeys, birds, insects, etc.) The modified organisms then reproduce to provide bulk quantities of antigen. Recombinant techniques are already in use to make vaccines against hepatitis B and human papillomavirus.

        All three scenarios had major drawbacks.

        Using egg-based vaccine antigen to provide the quantities necessary to vaccinate all 300 million Americans with 2 doses each would require massive infrastructure build up. Despite the $176 million already awarded to manufactures, additional funds would be needed and FDA approvals (not expected until 2011) are necessary in order to even begin to approach the desired number of vaccine doses. It is estimated that the two companies awarded egg-based funding combined could produce only 125 million doses, even after the infrastructure upgrades, and not until 2011.

        Using cell-based antigen to provide the quantities necessary to vaccinate all 300 million Americans with 2 doses each would also require massive infrastructure build up. A plant could produce 25 million pandemic-influenza doses at 90 micrograms per dose. It would take about nineteen plants with that capacity to produce 475 million doses. If the cost of construction, bringing the plant online, and obtaining the FDA’s approval averaged $400 million per plant, the total cost of the expanded capacity would be $7.6 billion. If each plant cost $600 million, the total would be $11.4 billion. This capacity would not be available until 2011-2012.

        Next generation or recombinant-DNA is not an attractive option, as most recombinant influenza vaccines have not yet advanced past early-stage clinical trials. These vaccines could be 10 years or more away from the market. HHS has yet to fund their development for use against influenza, in part because it has chosen to build on the decades of experience in using cell culture to produce other vaccines. However, HHS plans to award contracts worth $155 million for the development of next-generation vaccines in the near future.

        So where does the capacity to mass vaccinate the entire population stand after our $7.9 billion investment?

        We currently have a stockpile of 22.5 million doses of the H5N1 antigen for the feared Avian flu pandemic that never materialized. The cost to maintain this stockpile for just two circulating strains of H5N1 is about $2.2 billion annually. Influenza vaccine typically expires after two years; 15 million doses have expired or will expire soon.

        In addition, we have stockpiled 268 million doses of what appears to be the wildcard in the whole equation. This is what is known as an adjuvant. An adjuvant is a chemical that can be added to vaccines to reduce the amount of active ingredient (antigen) needed per dose of vaccine by “turbo-charging” the immune system response in the recipient. This could potentially stretch the supply, providing six times as many doses from the same quantity of antigen.

        This would solve many, if not all of the issues regarding capacity to mass vaccinate the entire population. Instead of investing in building additional plants and hiring workers to produce antigen, the funds could be used to purchase proprietary, patented chemical adjuvants.

        The only problem is: these chemicals are not FDA approved. They have not been FDA safety tested. We have no idea if they are safe and in fact have every reason to suspect that they are not.

        Despite this fact, the U.S. has already purchased at least 312 million doses of two proprietary, patented adjuvants: MF59 from Novartis and ASO3 from GSK. These purchases took place despite the fact that neither chemical has been FDA approved for use in a vaccine. The manufacturers have not yet even obtained FDA approval for Phase I clinical trials in the U.S., the first step toward approval of any new drug, vaccine or adjuvant.

        On average, it takes a little over a decade for a drug to move from preclinical development to the marketplace. Before a vaccine enters human testing, the developer conducts laboratory (in vitro) and laboratory animal (in vivo) testing to determine whether the product will be safe enough for researchers to proceed to clinical trials.

        The developer must obtain the FDA’s approval to begin clinical trials through the submission of an investigational new drug, or IND, application. Clinical trials typically have three phases. Phase I focuses on the vaccine’s safety and generally involves fewer than 100 human subjects. The purpose of Phase II, which typically involves several hundred subjects, is to expand Phase I safety data and identify whether and at what dose the vaccine elicits a protective immune response. Phase III typically involves thousands of people and is used to document effectiveness and develop additional safety data (notably concerning the incidence and severity of side effects) required for licensing. Clinical trials generally last five to seven years. If all three phases of the clinical development are successful, the developer may submit a biologics license application, or BLA, to the FDA for review. If the FDA approves the application, the developer launches the new vaccine, a process that includes training its sales force and increasing production capabilities to meet the anticipated demand.

        It appears that the U.S. is prepared to skip all of the normally required safety and efficacy procedures and allow for the massive testing of this novel adjuvant on at least 25% of the 12,000 Americans serving as paid clinical trial participants in tests of the new H1N1 vaccine, despite documented U.S. government warnings that adjuvanted vaccines can induce more pronounced side effects than ordinary vaccines, a definite downside because vaccines, unlike most other pharmaceuticals, are given to healthy people.

        To date, the Food and Drug Administration has never approved an adjuvanted vaccine for influenza. Other adjuvanted vaccines currently licensed for use in the United States—against diphtheria, tetanus, hepatitis A, and hepatitis B—are made with aluminum. But aluminum adjuvants do not reduce the amount of antigen needed by enough to substantially increase the amount of vaccine that would be available during a pandemic.

        The FDA has not approved a human vaccine containing a new type of adjuvant in many years, as all other types of adjuvants have thus far produced too many side effects to meet the FDA’s standards.

        The reason introducing this chemical without the required safety and efficacy testing is so objectionable is that both of these proprietary adjuvants contain squalene.

        Oil-based vaccination adjuvants like squalene have been proved to generate concentrated, unremitting immune responses over long periods of time according to a 2000 article in The American Journal of Pathology.

        A 2000 study published in the American Journal of Pathology demonstrated a single injection of the adjuvant squalene into rats triggered “chronic, immune-mediated joint-specific inflammation,” also known as rheumatoid arthritis. The researchers concluded the study raised questions about the role of adjuvants in chronic inflammatory diseases.

        What happens when Squalene is injected into humans?

        Your immune system recognizes squalene as an oil molecule native to your body. It is found throughout your nervous system and brain. In fact, you can consume squalene in olive oil and not only will your immune system recognize it, you will also reap the benefits of its antioxidant properties.

        The difference between “good” and “bad” squalene is the route by which it enters your body. Injection is an abnormal route of entry which incites your immune system to attack all the squalene in your body, not just the vaccine adjuvant.

        Your immune system will attempt to destroy the molecule wherever it finds it, including in places where it occurs naturally, and where it is vital to the health of your nervous system, according to award-winning investigative journalist Gary Matsumoto, who explains there is a “close match between the squalene-induced diseases in animals and those observed in humans injected with this oil: rheumatoid arthritis, multiple sclerosis and systemic lupus erythematosus.”

        “There are now data in more than two dozen peer-reviewed scientific papers, from ten different laboratories in the US, Europe, Asia and Australia, documenting that squalene-based adjuvants can induce autoimmune diseases in animals…observed in mice, rats, guinea pigs and rabbits. Sweden’s Karolinska Institute has demonstrated that squalene alone can induce the animal version of rheumatoid arthritis. The Polish Academy of Sciences has shown that in animals, squalene alone can produce catastrophic injury to the nervous system and the brain. The University of Florida Medical School has shown that in animals, squalene alone can induce production of antibodies specifically associated with systemic lupus erythematosus,” writes Matsumoto.

        We got our first hint at the dangers of these proprietary adjuvants when they were secretly tested on soldiers during the Gulf War.

        Gulf War veterans with Gulf War Syndrome (GWS) received anthrax vaccines which contained squalene. MF59 (the Novartis squalene adjuvant) was an unapproved ingredient in experimental anthrax vaccines and has since been linked to the devastating autoimmune diseases suffered by countless Gulf War vets according to data published in the February 2000 and August 2002 issues of Experimental and Molecular Pathology.

        The Department of Defense made every attempt to deny that squalene was indeed an added contaminant in the anthrax vaccine administered to Persian Gulf war military personnel – deployed and non-deployed – as well as participants in the more recent Anthrax Vaccine Immunization Program (AVIP).

        However, the FDA discovered the presence of squalene in certain lots of AVIP product. A test was developed to detect anti-squalene antibodies in GWS patients, and a clear link was established between the contaminated product and all the GWS sufferers who had been injected with the vaccine containing squalene.

        The Pentagon never told Congress about the more than 20,000 hospitalizations involving troops who took the anthrax vaccine from 1998 through 2000, despite repeated promises that such cases would be publicly disclosed. Instead, generals and Defense Department officials claimed that fewer than 100 people were hospitalized or became seriously ill after receiving the shot, according to an investigation by the Daily Press of Newport News.

        A study conducted at Tulane Medical School and published in the February 2000 issue of Experimental Molecular Pathology included these stunning statistics:

        “ … the substantial majority (95%) of overtly ill deployed GWS patients had antibodies to squalene. All (100%) GWS patients immunized for service in Desert Shield/Desert Storm who did not deploy, but had the same signs and symptoms as those who did deploy, had antibodies to squalene.

        In contrast, none (0%) of the deployed Persian Gulf veterans not showing signs and symptoms of GWS have antibodies to squalene. Neither patients with idiopathic autoimmune disease nor healthy controls had detectable serum antibodies to squalene. The majority of symptomatic GWS patients had serum antibodies to squalene.”

        According to Dr. Viera Scheibner, Ph.D., a former principle research scientist for the government of Australia:

        “… this adjuvant [squalene] contributed to the cascade of reactions called “Gulf War Syndrome,” documented in the soldiers involved in the Gulf War.

        The symptoms they developed included arthritis, fibromyalgia, lymphadenopathy, rashes, photosensitive rashes, malar rashes, chronic fatigue, chronic headaches, abnormal body hair loss, non-healing skin lesions, aphthous ulcers, dizziness, weakness, memory loss, seizures, mood changes, neuropsychiatric problems, anti-thyroid effects, anaemia, elevated ESR (erythrocyte sedimentation rate), systemic lupus erythematosus, multiple sclerosis, ALS (amyotrophic lateral sclerosis), Raynaud’s phenomenon, Sjorgren’s syndrome, chronic diarrhoea, night sweats and low-grade fevers.”

        Clearly bypassing the FDA requirements for safety testing of these new adjuvants and the vaccines which contain them puts the entire population at risk for serious, possibly life threatening side effects, particularly any of the 12,000 trial paid trial participants (6,000 children) who are unfortunate enough to be randomized into the adjuvant containing groups.

        Still, on July 23, 2009, the FDA announced, “Currently, no U.S. licensed vaccine contains the adjuvants MF-59 or ASO3. It is expected that a novel influenza A (H1N1) vaccine manufactured using the same process as U.S. licensed seasonal inactivated influenza vaccine but administered with MF-59 or ASO3 will be authorized for emergency use only.”

        And that, “Two of the manufacturers (Novartis and GSK) have proprietary oil-in-water adjuvants (MF-59 and ASO3, respectively) which have been evaluated in a number of clinical studies including studies with influenza vaccines. These manufacturers will include an evaluation of the utility of the adjuvant for dose sparing and enhanced immunogenicity in their clinical studies. While there may be exceptions, in general, studies which include an adjuvanted arm(s) to evaluate dose sparing and enhanced immunogenicity may be conducted concurrently in the adult and pediatric age groups in order to have timely immunogenicity results to guide pediatric dose recommendations.”

        The same document indicates that vaccines containing the un-approved adjuvants will be given to 100 children 6 months to 3 years old, 100 children 3 years old to 8 years, 100 individuals 18 to 64 years old and 100 individuals 65 and older in each of the multiple clinical trials. In addition, 700 individuals in each trial will be given non-adjuvanted vaccine.

        Since the government has recruited 12,000 paid “volunteers” for the trials, it would be possible that as many as 10 trials could be conducted simultaneously.

        Oddly, 60% of the world’s confirmed cases have occurred in people age 18 or younger, yet this age group (between 8 and 18) have been excluded from the clinical trials, with the results for this age group to be extrapolated from the other study data.

        Given the fact the U.S. currently owns 268 million doses of the non-approved, non FDA tested adjuvant, the vaccines that contain this novel chemical will likely be found to be completely safe in these industry run trials. Unfortunately, the effects on the soldiers that experienced injury sometimes appeared long after the planned duration of the current trials.

        *$5.6 billion in funding occurred in 2006 alone. The $5.6 billion spent for vaccine development in 2006 is 100 times the $515 million the FDA spent in 2006 for all FDA activity related to drug safety and efficacy for the entire drug industry including: pre and post approval testing, approval and regulation of over-the-counter and prescription drugs, biological therapeutics and generic drugs and personal care products such as fluoride toothpaste, antiperspirants, dandruff shampoos and sunscreens, monitor the more than 10,000 drugs on the market to be sure they continue to meet the highest standards, monitor TV, radio, and print drug ads to ensure they are truthful and balanced and provide health professionals and consumers information to use drugs appropriately and safely.

        Other articles:
        http://www.infowars.com/swine-flu-vaccines-contain-live-h1n1-virus/

        • Nubian, thanks for all the info. At this time, it is not likely I will take the vaccine. But, there is every reason to take this serious, a true pandemic would be much like a-bombing most major cities, loss of life would be in the millions. John Ringo’s The Last Centurian has this in its story line(a good read).

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          If the H1N1 virus does indeed mutate and become truly deadly, then I suppose ANY vaccine is better than NO vaccine; however, if the government mandates that everyone MUST take the vaccine, there are indeed going to be riots on a scale that has not been seen before I imagine.

    • OMG that is too scary! Help! Someone, anyone who is not in government.

  42. Black Flag says:

    Ozy

    For your responses on points 1 (election percentages/numbers) and 2 (representative/dictatorships), look either to representational modes in US government or simply pragmatic analysis of available case study.

    Changes nothing of my point. Representation of ‘electorates’ cannot occur unless 100% agreement. One person cannot represent all views at the same time.

    Point 3 (voices). I can hear myself talking. If you’re reading this, I’m guessing you can “hear” me too.

    That is not what we were talking about. You can yatter all you want to no avail. Do you still claim “you’ve been heard?”

    Point 4 (evaluation of representatives). I think we’re reached a point where it’s no longer moot to carry on argumentation on this point.

    So, I understand your position that the quality of the person is irrelevant to their ability to represent?

    Is that your final answer? 🙂

    Point 5 (analysis of policy for representational selection). There is a write in spot, abstention, and a host of third party candidates. I haven’t run into a situation where I haven’t found a candidate worth voting for. Does your Roulette wheel have a “00” or just a “0”?

    No, I don’t play roulette – but most definitely that is the only numbers on the wheel of voting.

    Point 6 (self-selection of politicians). The problem is that you are using analogies. They are horrible to use to explain situations in depth. Pilots and politicians are two vastly different groups. Argue in the context of politicians, since that is the group we are speaking of.

    The analogy holds.

    You are talking about qualifications, so am I.

    Simply sitting in chair does not grant qualifications. The pilot chair was chosen precisely and not on a whim. You can sit in that chair, and not be a pilot, and still manage to fly the plane.

    But you were talking specifically about qualifications. I do not think you would want to fly with someone who did not have the qualifications to fly.

    Why would you allow a person to rule over your life who did not have the qualifications either?

    Point 7 (choices of politicians). Yes, you have a choice between either or neither. You can also go out and obtain something else if you want. Your examples is another poor analogy because it establishes an either or dichotomy. Again, this is not a black and white situation.

    It is a black and white – which is why I chose it.

    The ballot is not yours to make. Did you ‘write in’ a person for President? Do ya think if you did he’d win?

    Point 8 (legitimacy). No, you don’t have to agree with me. Your definition of legitimacy implies subjectivity since you incorporate both morality and agreement. I disagree with a subjective definition because I think it incorrectly defines the word.

    Legitimacy is wholly based on morality. This why we understand that the Nazi regime was illegitimate though wholly legal, in their actions. The Nazi’s broke none of the laws they made.

    Legitimacy is derived from the law. Law does not have to be moral and actively agreed upon.

    I do not agree because that makes the definition circular. As we have seen as well, government acts illegitimately even if it is the law.

    1. Why doesn’t social contract theory exist? Please explain why it does not and why it is a fallacy.

    A contract of any sort requires consensual and non-coerced agreement.

    Further, a contract requires an exchange of mutual benefit. It cannot be altered unilaterally.

    So, please prove your theory that such a social “contract” exists.

    PS: Legitimizing action on an unsubstantiated theory is a fallacy.

    2. You should read some Thoreau. This is not just theory, but is practiced across the world.

    I have read Thoreau – I quote him: “What is it to be born free and not live free?”

    I think you have Thoreau confused with Rousseau – the latter argued for the requirement of social contracts.

    Peaceful resistance exists and has been around for a while. Again, you are attempting to create a binary system with lawfulness or unlawfulness.

    By definition it is binary. There does not exist a state called “lawful -unlawfulness”

    If such a dichotomy existed, then law would never progress, new societies would never be formed, and revolution would never occur.

    Progress is not conditional on law.

    3. I don’t understand your point here. Your argument seems to be that that you only have a choice when you are not compelled to do something. Are you trying to argue that there is no such thing as choice because we are always compelled?

    No, I am saying that there is no choice if one is compelled.

    Philosophically, you have a choice at all times. Pragmatically, you may accept alternative choices when you are being compelled.

    Philosophically, you do not have choice if you are compelled.

    Definition of choice: The power, right, or liberty to choose. Compulsion invalidates choice.

    Pragmatism is the original sin.

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      Pragmatism has a very close acquaintance named “the greater good”. They have known each other and been quite chummy for quite some time now.

      Pragmatism and the greater good recently decided to get married, but the state would not allow it since the state did not recognize pragmatism and the greater good as persons.

      As a result, Pragmatism and the greater good continue to live together under a social contract.

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        Black Flag and JAC probably got the complete irony of what I just wrote in addition to laughing about it. If you also saw the complete irony as well as laughing, you get bonus points. If either JAC or BF missed the irony, I hereby summarily deduct points from their scores 🙂

      • What kind of point do you get for thinking ‘good, we don’t have to buy them a present’? just thinking c

  43. OT maybe or maybe not. There is finally an alternative to AARP. A conservative group called teh American Seniors Association. Their four pillars are:
    • Social Security Reform
    • Medicare Reform
    • Tax Reform (Fair Tax)
    • Keeping Citizen Benefits
    out of the hands of illegal
    aliens
    I am liking that! Their web addy is http://www.americanseniors.org

    Hello to all new and residents, been trying to stay cool, which means not getting all het up spitting out my opinions here for a few days 😉

  44. Black Flag,

    Point 1. I disagree with your view, but you are entitled to it. I don’t it is a very pragmatic one, especially in the example of politicians that have made decisions based on frequent polling of constituents. Again, I refer your to representational theory and case studies. 100% is the ideal. We don’t live in a textbook.

    Point 3. That was my point. I am vocal, and I try to engage in discussion with people to explain my views and learn from their views. I don’t have to get my way all the time. There are others in the country that have differing opinions. Since I believe in democracy, I accept most of the decisions that come around by consensus.

    Point 4/6. You stated last time that qualifications were not necessary but aided in selection. I thought at that point we had reached a common ground.

    Does a nuclear physicist need to understand addition? I don’t see how the same question applies to a politician. A politician must represent a group, either directly passing their wishes or acting with the power they have granted that politician.

    Point 7. My candidate doesn’t always have to win. I still have a choice to support whom I wish to support. That doesn’t mean that I expect everyone else to support my candidate.

    Point 8. Do you have a definition to back you up? I don’t know enough about international or German law during the Nazi era to comment on the legality, but it was immoral. I don’t see the two as the same. Slavery was once legal (legitimate). That doesn’t make it moral.

    I simply disagree on your distinction on illegitimacy and legality being disconnected. Please provide a definition of these words that explains your argument.

    Part the Second

    1. I can leave the US if I wish. I can act outside of society. I can engage in resistance of multiple varieties. None of these requires money. However, if I choose to act outside of our society, I don’t expect the benefits of our society.

    2. My reference to Thoreau was acting in resistance to the law. There are options. You do not have to simply accept that there is the law and there is against the law. There is also changing the law.

    I agree, progress is not always conditioned upon the law, but it can be. However, change in the law is conditioned upon progress.

    3. Compulsion does not preclude other options. It just adjusts the situation so that one may feel there are no choices. Just ask New Hampshire. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/compel

    Out of curiosity, what do people here view as an idea form of government? It seems many of you are advocating for some sort of anarchy, which also has its compulsions that restrict free choice.

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      One of the things which we seek here is to find the ideal way to organize a society. I hesitate to call it “an ideal form of government” because even Thomas Jefferson realized that all government eventually degenerates into tyranny, so quite a few of us do not see the solution as what is currently defined as “government”

      The key thing that you, and anyone else on this site, will find is that there are several of us “dread pirates” that will always argue that regardless of how you organize society, you are going to fail miserably at preventing human suffering, and you are going to fail miserably at preventing bad people from doing bad things. So the question you must ask yourself is do you prefer a society in which bad people doing bad things (often under the guise of claiming to do good things) has become institutionalized to one degree or another, or do you like to be free?

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      “A politician must represent a group, either directly passing their wishes or acting with the power they have granted that politician.”

      What recourse do we have if the politician chooses to not directly pass the wishes of his consituents or acts outside of the power that the people have granted that politician?

    • Ozy:

      “Out of curiosity, what do people here view as an idea form of government? It seems many of you are advocating for some sort of anarchy, which also has its compulsions that restrict free choice.”

      You were working so hard to get to the other side and then you had to go and slip into the deadly mud pit.

      Perhaps you could enlighten me as to what “compulsions” a system such as anarchy, which is based on liberty and an ethic of non-initiation of force on others, places on free choice.

      And before I forget.
      A warm and hardy welcome.
      JAC

      • You know, JAC, I’m starting to wonder about all these warm and hardy welcomes when the place is covered in trip wires, mud pits, Burmese tiger traps, claymores and the like..

        Also, and this is just a thought, how is anarchy working out for my favorite societal example: Somalia?

        Yes, I know this is coming from the CIA, but take a special look at infant mortality rates and life expectancy. Tell me that we would be any different.
        CIA Factbook

        • and lest we forget, Black Flag guarding all the cave entrances when he’s not busy in the mines of Moria

        • Citations work better when you include the citation:

          https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/so.html

          and my 12 hour workday is over, so I bid you all goodnight

          • You do appreciate the irony don’t you of someone on the “left” using CIA data to support their position?

            Couldn’t help myself.

            I think BF addressed the Somalia argument as I knew he would. Don’t feel bad. All of us, including me, stepped on that one.

            Keep smiling and be free
            JAC

        • Black Flag says:

          Despite the lack of effective national governance, [No, because of a LACK of government] Somalia has maintained a healthy informal economy, largely based on livestock, remittance/money transfer companies, and telecommunications.

          Agriculture is the most important sector, with livestock normally accounting for about 40% of GDP and about 65% of export earnings. Nomads and semi-pastoralists, who are dependent upon livestock for their livelihood, make up a large portion of the population. Livestock, hides, fish, charcoal, and bananas are Somalia’s principal exports, while sugar, sorghum, corn, qat, and machined goods are the principal imports. Somalia’s small industrial sector, based on the processing of agricultural products, has largely been looted and sold as scrap metal. Somalia’s service sector also has grown. Telecommunication firms provide wireless services in most major cities and offer the lowest international call rates on the continent.[In fact, they had the cheapest international rates in the world]

          In the absence of a formal banking sector, money transfer/remittance services have sprouted throughout the country, handling roughly $2 billion in remittances annually.

          Mogadishu’s main market offers a variety of goods from food to the newest electronic gadgets.

          Hotels continue to operate and are supported with private-security militias.

          ….One wonders where they’d be if other governments, who felt threatened by such success, didn’t invade.

        • Mathius:

          There are no claymores in the caves. And most traps are avoidable if one moves slowly and deliberately.

          But if you start flailing around, swinging your sword wildly you will find yourself exhausted yet still not free.

          I am getting a big kick out of you and Oz though. You guys have stepped into most of the hazards in two days that it took the rest of us months to discover.

          I am thinking you have employed a defense by attempting to trip as many traps as rapidly as possible, hoping the pirates will be so occupied that you escape and they go insane. But it won’t work my dear friend.

          By the way, you decided to repent your lefty ways yet? Maybe tomorrow.

          LOL
          Sleep Well Tonight, because your nights will become restless very soon.
          JAC

      • JAC,

        Idealistic anarchy makes sense. But that assumes all individuals are moral.

        That, sadly, is not the case.

        When I think anarchy, I think of a system that will devolve into feudalism.

        PeterB,

        We can use the power of recall. I think that you may be hinting at larger power which is harder to shift, such as the President. Hopefully, checks and balances defeat that.

        If those parts fail, I turn to paragraph 2 of the Declaration of Independence. However, I think we have progressed past that point in America. We may go back, but I don’t see it happening immediately.

        • “Idealistic anarchy makes sense. But that assumes all individuals are moral.”

          Oh but that is where you are wrong. I am not the Anarchist in the cave so perhaps I should let the others speak. But I have learned much from them these past few months. You will find they are idealists, much like me, but they are not stupid.

          I have learned enough to know I would put my future in their hands before I would put it in the hands of those who are running our government today.

          Wasn’t feudalism the result of strong central Govt? That is not even close to anarchy so I am curious why you think with modern technology that a system based on freedom and non violence would devolve to feudalism.

        • Oh Ozy I almost forgot.

          You didn’t answer my question.

          I like taking one thing at a time, so if you please?

          Thanks
          JAC

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          Anarchy makes no such assumption that all people are moral.

          Just because all people are NOT moral doesn’t automatically imply it will devolve into anything whatsoever.

          It just implies what you are able to do about the people that are not moral and what you are not able to do about them.

    • Black Flag says:

      Ozymandius

      Point 1. I disagree with your view, but you are entitled to it. I don’t it is a very pragmatic one, especially in the example of politicians that have made decisions based on frequent polling of constituents. Again, I refer your to representational theory and case studies. 100% is the ideal. We don’t live in a textbook.

      You’ll find that I hold pragmatism as one of the great evils of mankind. I do so because often pragmatism is the excuse used to contradict one’s principles.

      You’ll also find that I hold contradictions and inconsistency as the greatest evils of mankind.

      So when I see some claim of ‘electoral’ representation where none exists – except in theory, I will usually call “foul”.

      Point 3. That was my point. I am vocal, and I try to engage in discussion with people to explain my views and learn from their views. I don’t have to get my way all the time. There are others in the country that have differing opinions. Since I believe in democracy, I accept most of the decisions that come around by consensus.

      The consensus between freedom and slavery is slavery.

      Point 4/6. You stated last time that qualifications were not necessary but aided in selection. I thought at that point we had reached a common ground.

      No – but perhaps I typed wrong somewhere aiding in the confusion – I was referring to “qualities” for representation.

      I believe you were addressing “qualifications”.

      The point I believe you were supporting was that because they got elected, they are qualified to be a representative.

      My point that I am making is that merely holding a position does not mean you are qualified. I offered an analogy – but I’m sure everyone knows of someone who is holding a position in business, for example, that is simply not qualified for the job.

      Does a nuclear physicist need to understand addition?

      As a physicist, he has to understand far more than that.

      I don’t see how the same question applies to a politician. A politician must represent a group, either directly passing their wishes or acting with the power they have granted that politician.

      For a person, as you agreed, has the power to make decisions about my life without my direct approval, it would be utterly bizarre not to demand by what qualifications he holds that would enable him the ability, knowledge and experience to control my life.

      Point 7. My candidate doesn’t always have to win. I still have a choice to support whom I wish to support. That doesn’t mean that I expect everyone else to support my candidate.

      But how is he “your” candidate? Did you go and pick him out of a crowd, interview him, etc. – OR

      – Did he show up on a ballot already picked for you.

      Point 8. Do you have a definition to back you up? I don’t know enough about international or German law during the Nazi era to comment on the legality, but it was immoral. I don’t see the two as the same. Slavery was once legal (legitimate). That doesn’t make it moral.

      Exactly. It was never legitimate but it was legal.

      Again, you are holding a circular definiton – “any action of government is legitmate.” Yet, we know that is not true.

      Therefore, your definition must be faulty.

      I am not trying to push words down your throat – I’m simply noting an inconsistency.

      I simply disagree on your distinction on illegitimacy and legality being disconnected. Please provide a definition of these words that explains your argument.

      Actually, you provide your definitions.

      I have shown how above the inconsistency of usage.

      Since we have two distinct words – legitmate and legal – there must be a difference. You claim there is not. Hopefully you can explain when one word is useful when the other one is not.

      I can leave the US if I wish. I can act outside of society. I can engage in resistance of multiple varieties. None of these requires money. However, if I choose to act outside of our society, I don’t expect the benefits of our society.

      I agree! Therefore society has no reason or call to impose upon me.

      But, yet, it does. Why?

      2. My reference to Thoreau was acting in resistance to the law. There are options. You do not have to simply accept that there is the law and there is against the law. There is also changing the law.

      But what is Law?

      Law is the use of violence to enforce an edict.

      What moral right does a man have to use violence?

      I agree, progress is not always conditioned upon the law, but it can be. However, change in the law is conditioned upon progress.

      And, most often, blocks progress.

      Progress is the consequence of free men’s actions. Stagnation is the consequence of government action. Government resists change as do all entrench bueracracies.

      3. Compulsion does not preclude other options. It just adjusts the situation so that one may feel there are no choices. Just ask New Hampshire. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/compel

      “To drive or force irresitably” – what choice do you claim exists when one is compelled?

      Out of curiosity, what do people here view as an idea form of government? It seems many of you are advocating for some sort of anarchy, which also has its compulsions that restrict free choice.

      I believe you have a misconception of freedom.

      Freedom is a verb – and it is when a man is not imposed upon by another man.

      A man is free when he is alone on an island, because no one imposes upon him.

      A man is free when he is in a society when no one imposes upon him.

      Anarchy is simply “no right to rule”.

  45. Well, if you all just started off saying you were anarchists so much time would have been saved…

    • Black Flag says:

      Do not lump ‘all of us’ into that group – there may be a riot.

      There is me – and another regular, Kent.

      I’ve been working hard to turn Peter to the ‘dark’ side – the Force is strong with him.

      JAC, too – I’m not sure he is turning, because perhaps he is already there – and the Force is strong with him, too.

      USWep – nope, he’ll thump you badly if you call him anarchist.

      Epsom – soon, I think.

      If there are others, they haven’t stepped forward to claim the Black Flag.

      (PS: Didn’t the flag give you a clue?)

    • Black Flag says:

      Which, by inference, you believe some one does have a right to rule?

    • Ozy…. Please hold the word “anarchist” to a select few here. You will find we are a very diverse group. By the way welcome
      glad you are here and hope you come back often. You’ll figure us all out in a few days.

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        I agree, we are an extremely diverse group! There are a few “anarchists” (for lack of a better term), but as a group we are about as diverse as they come in the blog-world.

        About the only thing we don’t have here are hard-line socialists or communists or fascists. They wouldn’t be able to stand up to the logic 🙂

    • We are a large group of refugees searching for truth and a way to resurrect a government dedicated to the protection of liberty and justice for ALL.

      We are diverse in our politics, culture, economic status, religion and our faith in the possibility of finding such a government.

      We have dedicated ourselves to the search and welcome all who wish to join. But you must know that we all have one thing in common and thus one criteria for you to join our quest. We crave freedom and liberty.

  46. Black Flag says:

    Ozy

    Anarchy…devolve into feudalism

    That is interesting – perhaps this may clear up where feudalism came from….

    From Inflation and the Fall of the Roman Empire

    The peasantry, known as the coloni, these were leaseholders on both imperial and private estates.

    They, too, formerly a free class were now under the same kinds of pressures that all smallholders were in this situation, and they began to drift away trying to find better opportunities, better leases, better occupations; and so under Diocletian the coloni were now bound to the soil. Anyone who had a lease on a particular piece of land could not give that lease up.

    More than that, they had to stay on the land and work it. In effect, this is the beginning of what in the Middle Ages is called serfdom, but it actually has its origins here in the late Roman society.

    We know for example from studies of Palestine, particularly in the Rabbinical writings, that in the course of the 3rd and early 4th century the structure of landholding in Palestine changed very dramatically.

    Palestine in the 2nd century was largely composed of small peasant landholders with very small acreage, perhaps an average of two and a half acres. By the 4th century those small holders had virtually disappeared and been replaced by vast estates controlled by a few large landowners.

    The peasants working the estates were the same people, but they had in the meantime lost their land to the larger landowners.

    In other words, landholding became a massive kind of agribusiness. In [the] course of this the population of Palestine, still principally Jewish, also changed in that the ownership of land passed from Jews to Gentiles; and the reason for that undoubtedly was that the only people with large amounts of cash who could buy out these smallholders who were in distress were, of course, the government officials.

    And we hear of them being called potentates, “powerful ones”.

    In effect there is a shift in the distribution of wealth in Palestine; and obviously, from other evidence, similar things were happening in other places.

    With regard to taxes, they naturally increased across the board, but Diocletian decided that it was a very inefficient system that he had inherited; every province more or less had its own system of taxation going back to pre-Roman times, actually. And so he, with his military mind, demanded standardization. And what he did was to have all wealth, which was of course landed wealth, assessed in units of productivity.

    In other words, every person who had land was either singly, if he was a large landowner, fit into a particular unit, a tax unit called iugum, and those who were smaller landowners were collectively put into a iugum. This meant that the emperor for the first time had the basis of a national budget, something the Romans never had until Diocletian, and therefore he knew at any given time how many taxable units of wealth there were in any province, and he could simply levy an assessment and expect to get a fixed amount of money.

    Unfortunately, this took no account of the fact that in agriculture productivity varies considerably from season to season, and that if an army has passed through your district it may take years to recover. The result is, we hear of massive petitions from whole regions asking the emperor to forgive them their taxes, to remit five years of past dues and so on and so forth; or to reduce the number of units of productivity to reflect the loss of population or the loss of materials. As a matter of fact, when people began to say “it used to be I had five people paying this unit of taxation, but two them have fled and it’s only half the land in production,” the response of the government was to say, “that doesn’t matter, you still have to pay for the land that is now out of production.” So, I mean, there’s no relationship between taxes and actual productivity.

    How did people protect themselves from this? Well, first of all, mortgages virtually ceased; long-term mortgages virtually ceased to be given. Long-term loans of any kind disappeared. No one will lend unless they are guaranteed payment in gold or silver bullion.

    In fact the government itself, under Diocletian and Constantine, refused to accept gold coins in payment of taxes, but insisted instead on gold bullion.

    So that the coins that you bought in the marketplace had to then be melted down and presented in the form of bullion; and the reason was [that] the government was never sure how adulterated its own gold coinage really was so they insisted on bullion.

    Pledges and securities for crops and for loans were always in either gold, silver or indeed in crops themselves. In Egypt we have a document in which the banks have been refusing to accept coins with the divine image of the emperor; in other words, state issues.

    The government’s reaction to that, of course, was to force the banks to accept the coinage. This led to wholesale corruption in Roman society as the black market became a normal part, as people refused to pass, to exchange, coinage at the officially fixed tariffs but instead coinage was passed on a market principle.

    There were, obviously, flight from the land, massive evasion of taxes, people left their jobs, they left their homes, they left their social status.

    Now, Diocletian’s final contribution to this continuing disaster was to issue his famous Edict on Prices [of] 301, a very famous instance of a massive effort by the government to control inflation by price controls.

    You have to realize that there is a little problem: the Roman Empire was a vast region running from Britain in the west to Iraq, Mesopotamia in the east; from the Rhine and the Danube to the Sahara. It included areas of very sophisticated and very primitive economies, and the result of that was the cost of living varied considerably from province to province.

    Egypt seems to have had the lowest cost of living, Palestine had a cost of living twice that of Egypt, and [Rome in Italy] had a cost of living twice that of Palestine.

    Diocletian ignored that; he just issued a single standard price for the entire empire. The result was that in Egypt the effects of the Edict probably didn’t exist because the price, the maximum price fixed in the Edict, was very rarely reached in Egypt.

    But it was the people in Rome, of course, [who] had the maximum price lower than the market price. The result of that, of course, was riots in the street, disappearance of goods; the penalty for violating the law was death, a very common penalty in Rome for almost anything; and the mentality of Diocletian comes out, and the cause of [the] maximum price edict comes out in the preface to the law.

    …as things change, so things seem to remain the same….

    But the point being, government – by its policies, turned citizens of Rome into serfs.

  47. v. Holland says:

    I really have to say this-There has been a lot of talk today about how worthless people feel voting is-I have said this before but I must say it again-We should VOTE-it is better to vote against the lesser of two evils even if you really don’t have much of a choose-we have government-other people are going to vote-so not voting to protest is not going to accomplish anything except letting the worst of the two evils win-Yes it would be great to find and get people of like core principals to run and to support them but until we do we need to use the power that we do have to try and limit the damage done. Believe me the people on the left couldn’t be happier if you don’t vote

    • V.H

      I agree that we need to try and limit damage as much as possible. First I would say focus on those things that would be the hardest, near impossible, to reverse. Health care was such an issue.

      If you want to use your vote, or threat of changing your vote, to affect change then you must vote ONLY for someone who gets it. Someone who will at least fight to hold the fort until the cavalry arrives.

      At this point a vote “for the lesser of two evils” could destroy any chance we have. Becasue once the lesser is elected they are no longer the lesser, they are the evil. And they will quickly merge with the others who are already there.

      If you want your vote to count, you must work hard to make it count….for something you are proud of.

      • v. Holland says:

        “At this point a vote “for the lesser of two evils” could destroy any chance we have. Becasue once the lesser is elected they are no longer the lesser, they are the evil. And they will quickly merge with the others who are already there.”

        They might-they probably will-but it is going to happen anyway-if I don’t vote, and a worse person gets into office -I have contributed to things being worse-not contributed to the evil and and it is possible to luck up and get a good person in office.

        If I am going to be robbed, I would rather them steal the few bucks in my purse than to steal my whole savings account.

        Please explain to me how not voting will actually help, what can it accomplish? You keep talking about evil and not being represented etc. but what actual value does not voting do.

        • v. Holland says:

          Oh, I especially think we need to vote to keep some kind of balance in the Congress and in the Supreme Court.

        • Black Flag says:

          As with the discussion with Ozy…

          Legitimacy

          A government is merely a gang of thugs without legitimacy

          Without a ‘mandate’ (I’m sure you’ve heard all the politicians talk about their ‘mandate’ for action) by vote, politicians fear their actions will be seen as illegitimate.

          Yes, it may force them to act via dictatorship and tyranny – but the mask would have been removed and the people made aware of exactly whom they are dealing with….

          • v. Holland says:

            I suspect a good deal of people already know whom they are dealing with but even if they don’t-how long do you think it would take to convince people to not vote and how much worse can it get if we continue to allow the left to stay in power-or to give either party control of the house and senate -and I hate to think of what could happen if the left got complete control of the supreme court.

            The parties consider they have a mandate no matter how small of a percentage of people actually vote.

            I like your idea of getting good people that have the same core principal to run and to support them but that takes time and just because I haven’t personally selected every candidate does not mean that they are evil-We need to do what you are saying but in the meantime we need to work within the system. The people are waking up, I truly believe that but I also truly believe that we must take away the total control that the democrats have right now, and we cannot do that if people don’t vote.

            • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

              The system is inherently broken.

              Working within an inherently broken system doesn’t provide the capability of fixing the system.

              • v. Holland says:

                So what do you suggest-I’ve read much about how bad and evil the government is-so what are we to do-I keep hearing about a VDLG Party or tying to influence the Republican Party but anytime anyone talks about what we can do to change the system-I hear you can’t change the system-so please help me understand just what we are talking about.

        • You will have retained your integrity and along with it your “stamp of approval” on what ever it is they decide to do.

          You can stand before your fellow citizens and truthfully claim, “I told you so” and “I didn’t vote for the SOB”.

          So many here argue about the power of a single person taking action. One, then the other, then another, until the avalanche of change can not be stopped. I have been personally chastized for not “getting off my arss and doing something”.

          Yet V.H. the most meaningful thing we could all do, vote ONLY for someone who shares our values, we are unwilling to do. We are all afraid to be the first. But WHY????

          If you continue doing the same thing, you WILL get the same results.

          Its time for Change V.H., time for the revolution to start. Step up and use your vote in a way that trully means something. You may not elect the best but you will have at least saved your soal my dear friend.

          • v. Holland says:

            I respect you a lot JAC, but my integrity tells me I should vote-for the reasons I have stated. I certainly respect your viewpoint but I simply do not agree-perhaps one day I will -situations change-but I do appreciate your explaining your viewpoint.

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      V.

      Why should I vote for the lesser of two evils? Instead of voting for Dr. Evil I should vote for Mini-me because Mini-me isn’t QUITE as bad?

      Mini-me will still take you to hell, he will just take you there more slowly than Dr. Evil. You might as well just vote for Dr. Evil and get to hell quicker just to avoid the slow, painful trip.

      In fact, that is what I might start advocating! If you DO decide to vote, vote for THE MOST AWEFUL candidate available! Maybe if we make the trip to hell as fast as possible, more people will realize how bad it is much more quickly!

      Taking a long, slow trip to hell just numbs the senses so that people don’t really fully realize what they are getting themselves into!

  48. To answer Mr. Flag, I love my country and the people in it. I also despise our government for what they have become. As I understand my core beliefs, anarchy is the only logical step to achieve those beliefs fully. Does that mean that a better form of organized society can’t replace government? I believe it can happen. Will all hell break loose if this happens? Probably.

    Will we survive as a country, I totally believe so.

    If there are any other questions, I’m not far from this keyboard and will gladly answer them.

    PEACE my friends, and a special big PEACE to JUDY

    G!

    • Hi G

      I just read your post, and thank you, but I have to ask. Why a special big peace to me? Curious.

      Judy

      • Just cuz I haven’t said Hi today. Thought I’d say Hi alittle differently, isn’t change (of this kind, LOL) nice?

        G!

        • Yes it is G, and I appreciate it. I Thought you had jury duty this week. Or are you just on stand-by just in case you’re needed? Just been kind of down the last couple days, as well as a little peeved at the same time. That’s one of the reasons I really haven’t been on too much today.

          That, and I really don’t have much to say about today’s topic, but I have been reading though.

          I just have this feeling of having a good cry, and then maybe I’ll feel better.

          Judy

          • Sounds like it is time to mow the lawn and clean the house.

            Works for me.

            Big Hugs to You Judy

            JAC

            • Thanks JAC, just having a couple down days. I think it has to do with the big argument I had with my sister on my mother’s birthday Sunday.

              I can’t mow the lawn anyway, got a bad back, and I have to be careful in what I do. Besides, our oldest son does it for us. The house is clean, thank you.

              I’m sure I’ll be in a better mood tomorrow. Hope so anyway.

              Thanks for caring.

              Judy

  49. What JAC said
    __________________________________________________________________
    I have learned enough to know I would put my future in their hands before I would put it in the hands of those who are running our government today.
    ___________________________________________________________________

    I would too JAC. Wanted to let you know that.

  50. Black Flag says:

    >b?The State can only survive as long as a majority [of the citizenry] is mentally programmed to believe that theft is not wrong if it is called taxation or asset forfeiture or eminent domain, that assault and kidnapping is not wrong if it is called arrest, that mass murder is not wrong if it is called war. ~
    Bill St. Clair
    <b.
    It is time for people to understand that governments not only are not necessary, but are harmful and most highly immoral institutions, in which a self-respecting honest man cannot and must not take part, and the advantages of which he cannot and should not enjoy. ~
    Leo Tolstoy


    He or she who supports a State organized in a military way – whether directly or indirectly – participates in sin. Each man takes part in the sin by contributing to the maintenance of the State by paying taxes. ~

    Gandhi

  51. Black Flag says:

    The State can only survive as long as a majority [of the citizenry] is mentally programmed to believe that theft is not wrong if it is called taxation or asset forfeiture or eminent domain, that assault and kidnapping is not wrong if it is called arrest, that mass murder is not wrong if it is called war. ~
    Bill St. Clair

    It is time for people to understand that governments not only are not necessary, but are harmful and most highly immoral institutions, in which a self-respecting honest man cannot and must not take part, and the advantages of which he cannot and should not enjoy. ~

    Leo Tolstoy


    He or she who supports a State organized in a military way – whether directly or indirectly – participates in sin. Each man takes part in the sin by contributing to the maintenance of the State by paying taxes. ~

    Gandhi

  52. We interrupt our regular programming for the following announcement:

    Ladies and Gentlemen, I would like to express my sadness (at least a little) over the frequency with which our long timers on this site have used the term left and right these past couple of days.

    We have two new guests who claimed to be somewhere Left of center in their opening introduction. They then started making comments about the “Right” or “Far Right” and many of us fell into agreement. Destroying months of hard work and learning.

    But alas I am hopeful we will all see the error in our ways and repent immediately. I think I might have even done it myself.

    Remember, ALL Statists are on the left. I care not how they arrange themselves over there (left right/right left). But none of them occur at the center point of our scale. This includes those calling themselves conservative who wish to use government to dictate their values upon others. The supposed “Religeous Right” is not on the right at all. They are on the left as long as they want to use govt to impose their religion on others. That also includes those who hold the belief that we should use our military to intervene in the affairs of others based on some ill defined goal of protecting our interest, when it really amounts to nothing more than control of their economy or politics. Such a policy required state control of economy and freedom to keep the public from rejecting it.

    Everytime we let someone describe a type of statist as “right wing” or “radical right wing” we allow them to perpetuate the lie created by the communists many decades ago in their attempt to classify the fascista’s as right wingers. Remember, traditional “radicals” were the liberals who wanted liberty. It was the “reactionaries” who existed on the right, and they wanted to maintain the monarchy/oligarchy. By calling the fascist rightist the socialists and communists were trying to stake out a claim they were “left” and thus “liberal” and thus stood for “freedom and liberty”.

    Those who have been here awhile can appreciate the trick that was played. Unfortunately the progressives and American socialists maintained the trick. Since they want the title of the Left I think we can concede it. However we must work hard to eliminate the false choices presented by their classification.

    Next time you get ready to agree that “the far right is just as bad” you need to remember that I am a RADICAL RIGHT WING LIBERAL. I would really appreciate it if you did not lump me with those who would destroy your freedom under the name of socialism, fascism, progressivism, or pragmatism.

    That now concludes our network admonition for the evening.
    We now return to our regular programming.

    • Black Flag says:

      One of the nice things of my position on the scale – I know everyone else is somewhere else!

      I can look in one direction and see almost all of you!

      🙂

    • Sorry Jac I forgot who I was for a minute. Thanks for reminding me. 🙂

  53. I want my freedom to be able to live my life the way I see fit. I’m tired of being told how, what, where, and that it’s in my best interest.

    I’m tired of government coming up with so called new ideas, like new health care, and then for them not doing it them selves. Why is it okay for us, but not for them Yea, I know, they don’t have too.

    I’m just plain tired of them all, and all their lies they keep telling ALL THE TIME. Isn’t there one good person in the whole bunch? I’m beginning to think none of them are.

    How did we let this happen? I am very concerned for this country, and we the people who live in it. I never thought I would live to see the day where this country is fast approaching into a bigger chaotic mess than it’s already in, and it keeps getting worse by the minute.

    I know it will get better, but just how long will it take to turn it around again?

  54. Hi All,

    This is off topic but…….

    http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aeD0JMxdEA_c

    Black Flag, are we another step closer?

  55. Black Flag says:

    Judy,

    When anyone talks about the US$ losing its ‘reserve status’ you have to ask “ok, so what is going to replace it?”

    No currency wants to replace the US$ – it would cause a massive depression in that currency.

    That currency could no longer be used to pay for local national government adventures. Why? Why would any one leave the US$ for something that is just as bad?

    Therefore, that currency would have to be so prudently and strictly managed – the local economy would have to become a ‘real’ economy – none exists anywhere in the world, which is why the whole world is going to hell.

    Going to gold? No government would ever be constrained by reality.

    So, where is the “reserve currency” going?

    It’s all for one, and there is only one, and when it tanks there will be no one.

  56. Black Flag says:

    Woman gives birth on pavement ‘after being refused ambulance’

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1207151/Woman-gives-birth-pavement-refused-ambulance.html#ixzz0OawPjoVf

    • Good Lord, what if she had a bullet wound, would they still have told her to find her own way? That’s horrible to do that to somebody.

  57. Black Flag says:

    Thousands of surgeries may be cut in Metro Vancouver due to government underfunding, leaked paper

    http://www.vancouversun.com/story_print.html?id=1878506&sponsor

  58. Black Flag says:

    “Always love your country — but never trust your government!

    “That should not be misunderstood. I certainly am not advocating civil disobedience, must less insurrection or rebellion. What I am advocating is to not expect too much from government and be wary of it power, even the power of a democratic government in a free country.

    “Ours is one of the mildest, most benevolent governments in the world. But it too has the power to take your wealth and forfeit your life. … A government that can give you everything can take everything away”

    Robert Novak
    RIP

  59. RIP Mr. Novak, My thoughts and prayers are with you and you family.

  60. Okay, Time for me to get off, quite tired. Besides, my computer is slowing up, I think it’s tired as well.

    Good Night Everyone and Pleasant Dreams.

    Take Care

    Judy

  61. Hey BF,

    You said: Yes, it may force them to act via dictatorship and tyranny – but the mask would have been removed and the people made aware of exactly whom they are dealing with….

    Some people will acknowledge what they a re deealing with, but I’m afraid many more won’t. I’m reminded of Germany after WWII. The survivors claimed not to have known that 6 million of their countrymen had been murdered by their government. Jews were escaping if they weren’t being rounded up. THEY knew. How could the rest of the German people not know? I’m guessing they chose not to believe because it was ‘crazy’. My point, don’t count on enough people to wake up and stop the madness.

  62. Curious question to Mr. Black Flag;

    Have you ever heard anything about the “One World Credit System”, whereas everyone on the planet would be issued a planetary credit/debit card at birth with that persons identity number on it(something to do with DNA registration). Everyone would be paid in planetary, global or world credits that would be electronically added to their bank account. Sinister and science fiction like, I know, but there have been rumors.

  63. v. Holland says:

    🙂 Need the emails today

%d bloggers like this: