The Idiots on the Fringes

avatar-flagI was looking through some news stuff tonight. Somewhere I stumbled across an audio clip of our favorite village idiot Jeanine Garofalo. Seriously, does this woman not look as though she just crawled out of a crack den to deliver her arrogant and completely false claims each night. I try not to be hateful. But you have to call a spade a spade sometimes. Garofalo is a nasty partisan hack. And it would be easy to simply blow her off as a greasy, dirty, homeless looking crackpot, if so many people were not packing into her shows and listening to her hate and giving her a standing ovation for it. I am no fan of Ann Coulter. But at least she has some semblance of reality to her rants. Coulter is hateful and nasty, but she brings facts to the table and 50% of the time the facts are presented honestly (at best). But Garofalo isn’t even close to presenting facts. I know those on the left are going to skewer me for offering up Garofalo as an example, but she was merely the thing that got me thinking on this subject.

The line that got me in Garofalo’s rant was when she referred to all the “teabaggers” yet again. We all remember her saying that the tea parties were nothing but racist rednecks gathering because they are upset about a black man in the White House. at a performance at the 9:30 Club in Washington DC (one of the absolute best places in the world to see a concert, for the record) the other night, she ranted:

“The functionally retarded adults, the racists – with their cries of, ‘I want my country back,’ You know what they’re really saying is, ‘I want my white guy back.’ They apparently had no problem at all for the last eight years of habeas corpus being suspended, the Constitution being shit on, illegal surveillance, lied to on a war or two, two stolen elections – yes, the John Kerry one was stolen too. That’s not tin-foil hat time. That’s just fact”

garofalo-greaseThe sad part is that she actually believes what she is saying. She really believes it. Just as she truly believes that the left has no voice in the American media. Yes she really said that. After walking off stage in the UK when the crowd didn’t find her rants funny, she gave an interview to the BBC, in which she said, “Mostly the media in the States is much more to the right. I mean there is almost no liberal outlet for news commentary and editorializing.” And the even more saddening part is that there are a good many people on the left who are actually buying her bullshit. She got a standing ovation for that rant at the 9:30 Club. As many of you may guess, I engage a lot of people in political conversation. It is stunning to me the number of people who consider themselves Democrats who actually believe all these types of horrible things.

I routinely get told that the town hall protesters or tea party folks are racists. I regularly get told that Republicans or conservatives in America are hypocrites because they support socialism on the right but have a seizure when it is done on the left. I even hear on a regular basis from folks that the media in America is too far skewed to the right!

Despite claims by BOTH parties (because they don’t want to admit that the public is starting to see them as not legitimate), there have been significant increases in the number of Independent voters. Even in heavily liberal Kalifornia, the number of people registered as Independents is at an all time high. As I pointed out in the article the other night, I believe this stems from a voting population that is beginning to see that both parties are full of shit. Neither wants to really help Americans. BlackFlag likes to say they are both exactly the same, just different shirt colors. I disagree. They both share the same goal: power over the people, expansion of government, and erosion of freedom. However, they have two entirely different views on how to accomplish those goals. The bottom line remains, regardless, that neither party is good.

Destroying America... With 1 Finger

Destroying America... With 1 Finger

As someone who used to be a Republican, and who falls on different sides on many issues, I think it is time we stopped letting the talking heads like Garofalo, Olbermann, and members of Congress define us. Because this is driven by the members of Congress. When you have the speaker of the House saying protesters are unAmerican, you have the root of the problem. Back her up with hateful rhetoric from people like Bob Cesca, and you can see how the country is being divided.

For me…. I found the things that George Bush did horrible. I hated the Patriot Act, as I have said many different times on this site. I despise the two wars, although I do feel it necessary to remind liberals that while they are unpopular wars and perhaps even immoral wars, they are NOT illegal wars. So stop using that term. They are Congress approved and funded, and therefore, like it or not, legal. Your sitting President voted FOR them. I think the 2000 election was a mess, and no matter who won, the other side could claim it was “stolen”. But it wasn’t. If you want a stolen election, check out the facts on that Franken debacle in Minnesota. I think Donald Rumsfeld was an idiot. I supported Colin Powell resigning and his reasoning. Overall, I am NOT happy at all with the last 8 years of Bush.

And I am not alone. MANY Americans, both Republican and Independent, feel that way. We are not upset with Obama because he is black, or because he is a Democrat. We are upset with him because he is a liar. And he is trampling all over the Constitution, just as the Republican administration before him did. We are upset with what is going on because IT IS WRONG, no matter which side of the aisle it is coming from.

Ann CoulterNow, before I go too far, allow me to say that I don’t think it is any better on the far right. Coulter, Limbaugh, etc., are just as hateful, just as misleading, and just as damaging. I know people on the right who fall back on the rhetoric that all those on the left are drugged out hippies who want free pot and think animals are more important than people. When the reality is that many on the left believe no such thing. They don’t like what Obama is doing any more than I liked what Bush was doing.

So here is the bottom line, for all those that wonder where I am going with all of this. I have written about the “March Towards Socialism”. I have made my stance clear. EVERY administration has increased the size and scope of government. EVERY administration has taken away freedom and liberty in the name of serving their cause on the left or right. And that is the key thing that we ALL need to remember. When I say Obama is taking the country towards socialism or fascism or fasciolism, I am correct. HE IS. BUT SO DID EVERY OTHER PRESIDENT, WHETHER DEMOCRAT OR REPUBLICAN, FOR THE LAST 100 YEARS!

It has become the inevitable fall of government in general, not just government from one side or the other. Barack Obama, in my opinion, is the most far left, marxist leaning President we have ever had. But he is simply the latest in a long line of Presidents that looked to expand government, increase its “legitimate” theft of our money and liberty, and increase the power of the elitists in Washington. I have a serious problem with the sentiment of Americans and the way that the politicians have played us all against each other. I will have an article soon on how the current trend of demonizing the rich is a faulty thought process. A little bit of “Atlas Shrugged” in a pill form. But don’t fall into the trap of thinking the far right in America has any less of a role in creating the “Atlas Shrugged” world we are heading towards.

Smells Like BullshitSo as we look towards the future, remember this rant. Remember that if we are going to fix this country, fix this drain on liberty, we are going to have to work together. There are those on the far right that are racists. There are those on the far left that are communists. Ignore them for now. You can’t change their mind with any law or any argument. Those who are here, discussing the future of this country, are with us, not against us. They have differing ideas, and are sometimes misguided in their endeavors. But we are no different. We all want the same thing, a better country. A better life. Ultimately, true freedom. Rhetoric and falsehoods against the other side will not convince anyone to change their mind or even think about their position.

Mathius has some differing thoughts, but he is here sharing them and debating the merits. He wants a better country. Ray is here doing the same (although to be brutally honest Ray, you have got to stick to the issues and give a bit of benefit of the doubt rather than just calling me a liar, playing semantics, and calling me a closet conservative, really dude). BlackFlag is as far from many people’s beliefs as can be, but he is consistent and debates with integrity and honesty. I think you all get the picture: We all have a lot to learn from each other. And it will take us all to get where we want to go. Freedom and liberty is our RIGHT. We were born with it, and we have allowed politicians to take it from us bit by bit. Our quarrel is not with each other, it is with the politicians, media, and idealogues who have spent decades poisoning our minds towards one side or the other.

And allow me to throw a thanks out to all who come here and discuss and debate, for I wanted a place where respectful conversation could being to find a way forward, and no matter the topic or the frames of reference, everyone has discussed honestly and respectfully. I cannot tell you how proud it makes me that this site continues to be a beacon of civility in an otherwise uncivil segment of American discussion.

So if you all want a challenge, there it is. Seek out the rhetoric. Look for the falsehoods presented on BOTH sides. And call it out. You hold more sway as a conservative to persuade your conservative friends that much of what we are hearing and being taught about the left is false. You hold more sway as a liberal to persuade your liberal friends that what we are hearing about the right is false. Don’t let Garofalo, Olberman, Limbaugh, Coulter, Hannity, Cesca, or the politicians define who Americans are.

It isn’t Republicans against Democrats. It isn’t left against right.

It is Americans against an out of control federal government. Remember that and pass it on. It will take us all to beat Washington DC.

Advertisements

Comments

  1. Good Morning all!

    Got article USW, I would agree that it is US against Them, but they have the Left fighting the Right, with everyone else stuck in the middle. So many things I hear do give Mathius’s ignorant masses thoughts some credibility.

    I would agree that if we prove government wrong, then the masses can get educated, and change for the better.

    I’ll follow along at work today and post later today.

    PEACE!

    G!

    • G-Man: does that mean you’re finally coming around to my opinion on the Ignorant Masses?

      USW: I agree wholeheartedly with your article and the sentiments behind it.

      Pete: I was looking at my bookshelf and thinking about our conversation and it hit me. You’ve read Heinlein’s The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress one time too many. Everything makes sense now.

      And a good morning to all. I have a heavy day ahead of me, so I may be somewhat intermittent today, but I would love to pick up where we left off on Friday on some of our debates.

      • Mat,

        I think I will wait for open mic night before picking up on earlier discussions. Warning, I am planing an ambush that includes name calling and such.

      • I look forward to it, but just know that I am not above calling my opponents doo-doo-heads.

        • I am a little more creative than that, good sir, dude, a little credit please. Its also helpful to stay on topic,
          early on, not hijack our host’s posting topic.

        • True. Bad form on my part, and my apologies to USW. This is the first and only forum I’ve ever been involved in, so please forgive the learning curve.

          Unfortunately, I have nothing to add on his subject as I am in full agreement.

          Well actually, I have one thing to add. I am from California, and we usually spell it with a C.. just saying…

      • Mathius,

        Not so fast my friend, didn’t you list Jon Stewart as one of your primary sources?

        O’REILLY: When we cover the town hall meetings, we don’t describe the protesters as loons.

        STEWART: Of course you don’t describe the protestors are loons. What kind of monster would describe honest Americans voicing their political opinions that way?

        O’REILLY: Surveys show many protesters are simply loons.

        STEWART: To be fair, those were protesters he disagrees with.

        (END VIDEO CLIP)

        O’REILLY: To be fair? Ha. Once again, Jon Stewart took the loon clip out of context. Here’s what I really said.

        http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/08/22/bill-oreilly-takes-jon-stewarts-critique-fox-news

        So Mathius, is Stewart an “Idiot on the Fringe”?

        • I like Stewart. He is very funny. But he should be watched as comedy. Though his statements and “news” should not be automatically rejected because they came from him, you have to understand that he doesn’t present himself as a legitimate news source – just as we can’t accept Stephen Colbert as one either. He is, at core, a comedian – and a very good one at that.

        • But yes, I did in fact say that Stewart was my primary news source. One should understand that the single greatest thing missing missing from the internet is a sarcasm html tag.

          • Oh come on, you thought Tina Fey was Palin’s spokesperson, didn’t you. I understood you to mean you regarded it as humor, just twisting the wording a bit.( I said source, not news, could be source of entertainment) Stewart is very clear, that it’s a “fake” news show, but its amazing how much he and SNL can influence peoples opinions, as you have said, the un-informed.

            Just as Garofalo is a comedian, but thousands of people listen to her, and never check for themselves to see if her words are true. They will believe the gun protesters are racially driven, while MSNBC edits out it being a black man holding the AR-15.

            • I am getting annoyed by this agreement.

              USW: I demand more divisive topics!

              PS: Tina Fey looked gooood as Palin, and her rendition of the Couric interview nearly killed me.

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        Mathius,

        I have read a LOT of Heinlein, but I have never actually read “The Moon is a Harsh Mistress”. If I did read it, I suspect I would like it a lot, but nope… never. Not even on my bookshelf.

        Heinlein was a major statist early in life, but later in life it is quite apparent he became a “libertarian” for lack of a better description.

        I believe that he came to realize that government is always the problem and pretty much never the solution.

    • Richmond Spitfire says:

      Good Morning all,

      Posting to receive email comments!

      Best Regards,
      RS

    • Here’s the deal people. Go to a KKK rally or a New Black Panther one and all you’ll hear is hateful speech given to a hateful audience absolutely free of those individuals who disagree with what’s being said. So why in the name of god would anyone be stupid enough to believe there’s a danger of the loons becoming more looney when they are already there? All those involved, whether its union thuggery, PETA “Human breath takes away O2 from the animals, so if you’re a human don’t breathe!”, ACORN ranting about “Everyone deserves a house even those who won’t work and save towards one!” or Greenpeace “The Arctic is ice free by 2030 according to our scientists Ouija Board!” are never going to change their tune nor infect others with their idiocy whom are not already like minded. The only “danger” here is wasting too much time on them when other matters deserve real consideration and debate.

      POTUS using h1n1 to create another “crisis” to push forward his health agenda is one very real subject coming around the corner as the Chinese have already spoken of it being a problem in their country come flu season. He’ll play it just like all the other “Do it now or you’ll die!” and you damned well know the main stream media will be helping him. I wouldn’t be surprised after Contessa Brewer’s outright lies getting nothing for a reprisal that POTUS’s pals in Hollywood are cooking up a newscast showing thousands of Americans dead in the streets from h1n1. After all what harm a fake newscast come the day they are voting on health care? As the level of bull keeps ramping up without consequence by the propaganda machine its not a far stretch to see the Misinformation Czar spending billions to scare the living sheite out of America every time the citizenry raises a voice against POTUS and his cronies.

      There’s your real threat. Not some idiot humping it up a mountain with an RPG strapped to his back, not a humorless comedian who wasn’t that funny before her radicalization nor is it any “opinion pitcher” on any media outlet but someone’s elected official right there in America.

      • Alan,

        Top marks this AM. “according to our scientists Ouija Board” LOL

        I was surprised they released that disaster movie about the earth freezing, instead of warming. Expect the Dustin Hoffman one about plague to air this fall. Or a new one to hit the box office soon.

  2. Good Morning Ya’ll!!

    Great Article USW. I agree 100%. It’s time Americans took their Country back away from the Politicians. Left or Right makes no difference in the end. It’s about Freedom. I’m going to be busy today too, it being a Monday. Will check periodically if I get the time.

    Adios Compadres!!

  3. Well said USW. I do think it is the people vs. Washington. The trouble is though that the people themselves are so divided. Perhaps we need to talk more about our common beliefs and goals than about our differences, though the debating won’t be nearly as fun. 🙂

  4. Good article US,

    It seems funny the media keeps playing up how the Republicans are stopping health care for a political agenda, when they have control of all three branches of government. Democratic members of the house and senate have refused to support this bill, knowing it would cost them re-election. The left fringe is fighting the Blue Dogs, and refuses to compromise, and it may cost them the majority in the next election.

    Lynn Woolsey (D-CA), a member of the Progressive Caucus claimed at a news conference today on Capitol Hill that she had a letter with 53 signatures, attesting to that. “We have gathered here today to demand that the final health-care legislation has a robust public option and to vow we will vote against it if it does not,” she said.

    http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/07/30/2015571.aspx

    • We on the left are good at shooting ourselves in the foot. (Perhaps this explains our love of gun control?).

      Still, the progressive caucus is just trying to force the Blue Dogs to go their way. It is no different from what the far right does to moderate Republicans. Still, I don’t consider 53 votes to be “fringe,” maybe “far,” but not fringe.

      I think, perhaps there is an issue in this: there is little money in being reasonable. If you push an extreme position, you may find a sponsor (organization, corporation, etc), but if you try to find a measured solution, who beside The People will support that (and we don’t pay as well).

      As for costing the majority, the man said it best: It’s the economy, stupid. If the Dow is up and unemployment down, Dems will gain, otherwise, we’ll lose (don’t know if we’ll lose enough to lose control either way though). For the record, however, I am a huge proponent of divided government – so I kind of hope this does happen. (as long as they don’t get power-crazed and impeach the Big O).

      • This is where you and others here are wrong.

        The extremes do not stake out their positions based on getting money or support or anything else.

        They are in fact the only truly honest people in the debate. They have principled positions and they stick to them. Come hell or high water. They are TRUE to their dogma or ideology.

        The rest of us keep seeking middle ground for the sake of being “independent”.

        If you want Liberty, Freedom and you Country Back you had better figure out what your principles are and stick to them. And those principles had better be consistent with the goal of Liberty and you had better apply them in a consistent manner. Of course the minute you do you are a fringe.

        I do not hate the fringe for their looney behavior. I admire them for their stead fastness. I hate them because they truly believe in what they want and what they want leads to slavery.

        They also know how to play the rest of us who are seeking “compromise”, “consensus” and “middle ground”. The ideologues fighting for control of the hearts and minds of the Pragmatists. A very toxic recipie.

        And Mathius I am not targeting you alone with this comment. You just happened to be the one who presented the need to say something. It applies to everyone, and especially those on this site who keep claiming they want their freedom back yet keep proposing solutions that are not consistent with the very values they espouse.

        • JAC,

          You are coming off a little strong today, Dr. Pepper time?
          I feel a little chastised with your words, as I am not so strong in my stands on principle. I see too many gray areas where reality begs or requires some compromise.

          About half way through “Lever Action”. Thank you or damn you for that, haven’t decided which yet.

          Where does principle stand on “forcing” anyone to comply with their wishes? Our system breaks down there, since there will always be a Flag, or a Pelosi, who will not agree to what the rest decide, and by your principals, may not be forced to participate?

          • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

            Just because a majority of people decide something does not automatically make it the best decision. In fact, quite often, a majority will make what is demonstrably a bad decision.

        • So the pinnacle would be the jihadi who goes BANG for Allah then as he’s stuck to his guns right up to the point where he painted them and the neighborhood with his entire blood supply.

      • Mathius:

        This one is for just you. Please describe what you consider “far right”.

        You and USW have decided to ingore the admonishment of the other day so you need to explain to me how those folks you consider in this position are the opposite of those on the other end.

        In fact you can go ahead and describe what you consier “far left”. It might help speed up the discussion.

        Thanks, and I hope you had a great weekend.
        JAC

        • JAC,

          I ignored something from you the other day? I apologize if so. I am happy to answer now.

          As for the far left question. I see the far left and the far right as two sides of the same coin. Both look to take freedom away in the name of the state. They are polar opposites in how they do so in only some cases. But the bottom line is that the reason I acknowledge them as far left or right is because the lengths they are willing to go to get the outcome they desire. The far left believes steadfastly in a form of socialism or communism. The far right believes steadfastly in a form of fascism. Both are bad. Tough to explain.

          To use a comparison I am sure you will get. The far left is Balph Eubank or Bertram Scudder from Atlas Shrugged. Perhaps even James Taggart. The Independent in that case is Hank Reardon or Dagny Taggart. I don’t recall a far right character in the story, but my memory may be failing me.

          • USW – I take exception to your definition of the far right. Some religious extremists have been called far right, but this description is not accurate.

            I see the definition of far right as those who want as little government intervention in citizens’ lives as possible; that government which is necessary should be as close to the people as possible, i.e., state and local. To me, libertarians are far right.

            Some conservatives want a strong national defense and a foreign policy that is not hesitant to use military force. I would not call that position far right because they are too willing to expand government power. Conservative is to the left of far right. Got that?

            All these terms are vague; defining them for a particular debate is a very good idea.

            For Mathius, below, Ron Paul is far right. Rick Santorum and Dick Cheney are conservative, not far right. Also, add Barack Obama to the far left group.

            In my view, George W was way too liberal; I had to hold my nose when I voted for him.

            • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

              What you are pointing to here is a flaw in the way that we have let others define what is far left and what is far right. Your definition of far right (the less government the better) is pretty accurate, but it is not the ACCEPTED defition.

              By the current ACCEPTED definition, both the far left and the far right are Statist – they just merely want the State to enact different laws to serve their own viewpoints.

              Therefore, one of the things that we need to do is redefine the terms to be more accurate.

              Right now, by the accepted definitions, the far left and the far right genuinely are two sides of the same coin, so voting for heads is not much different than voting for tails. The best we can hope for is when the coin is flipped it lands on its side and rolls away.

              • Maybe, but I don’t accept the “accepted” definition. Who said it’s accepted anyhow, the MSM?

              • BAH!

                Don’t argue semantics. If you don’t like the “accepted” definition, clarify what you mean. When I discuss “the right,” that way lies fascism. When I discuss “the left,” that way lies communism. If you want to discus more/less government, say so, but you don’t get to redefine the English language to suit your purposes. Only Mirriam Webster gets to do that.

              • Black Flag says:

                But what is the difference between fascism and communism?

                Both demand State control of the economy.

              • Once again for those in need of such…

                http://www.lawrence.edu/sorg/objectivism/socfasc.html

              • Oops BF, meant it for Mathius’ further education.

            • Anarchists are actually the far right. How they get mixed in with the socialists, communists and facists is beyond me. Remember, socialists, facists, and communists are are just different flavors of the same totalitarian soup. You can also throw the so called “religious right” into that same pot. As JDB said above, the far right wants as little government as possible, preferably none. The far left wants total control over your life, even down to the power of birth and death for EVERY person.

              This country has been moving to the left ever since the ink on the Constitution dried. Most of the time the drift has been gradual, but there has been three “Great Leaps” in the past (1860s, 1930s, 1960s) and we are currently in the 4th, which started on 9/12/2009.

              • Black Flag says:

                Does Redleg fly a Black Flag?

              • BlacK Flag is to the right of the founders, I’m just slightly left of him.

              • Sorry, hit the wrong key. I menat to complete my statement that I believe that there is SOME use for government. I think that a government that actually FOLLOWED, and did not exceed, the US Constitution of 1870 (post 15th amendment) with the 19th amendment thrown in would be about perfect.

              • I would agree with this definition Redleg

              • I agree with this definition as well. As for the “accepted” definition it was written into America’s text books and taught to generations of school children and that is why it is currently “accepted”. Want to guess who put it in the text books?

        • Morning, JAC,

          Far Right: Rick Santorum, Dick Cheney
          Far Left: Nancy Pelosy, Diane Feinstein

          So far as I am concerned the far right and far left are those who are bound by ideology first and reason second (if at all).

          The right is actually several parts: Fiscal, Cultural and Religious (Moral Majority), Military Hawks, and probably a few I am missing. The far right are those who see any or all of these as an absolute, non-negotiable imperative. That is, something along the lines of “all taxes are evil, there can be no question,” or “we have the absolute right to attack anyone any time for any perceived threat regardless,” or “Christianity is the de facto national religion, so it must be taught in our schools as the literal truth,” or “all illegal immigrants should be arrested and shipped out”, or “hi, my name is Black Flag.”

          The left, too, is several parts: Fiscal, cultural and religious (or lack thereof), doves, hippies, etc. Again, the far left are those who view any or all of these as absolutes. That is, “the government should take control of all businesses and possessions,” “religion should be banned,” “there is no legitimate reason to ever make war and the military should be disbanded,” “meat is murder,” etc.

          There are no absolutes, everything is a shade of gray. Everything. You shouldn’t admire people who stake out absolutist positions. You should fear them as the irrational beings they are. They cannot see the other side because they know that they are right and you are wrong. This country was built on pragmatism, not idealistic folly – how many compromises can you find in the Constitution?

          • Putting religion into the mix is where you go wrong. The far right view of religion truly is “I won’t tell you how to worship, and you won’t tell me how to worship, and the governement certaintly dosn’t get a say” remember tha tthe freedom of religion clause in the first amendment was to restrict the FEDERAL government from DIS-establishing the already existing STATE churches (IIRC Virginia and Massachussets)

          • As we’ve covered elsewhere, your version of “right” does not conform to the accepted definition. For reference, feel free to check the Infallible Arbiter of Truth (wikipedia, conservatism).

            • Don’t confuse “Conservatism” with “right-wing”. Don’t care what the accepted definition is, but if someone is a real “liberal” then they are on the “right”. I know that isn’t what the “accepted” definition is, but it is the real one. I think that Black Flag is the only real “liberal” here, and the rest of us are somewhere to the left of him by varying degrees.

          • Slam Christianity and do the PC duck on “Islam: Not the best religion, the only religion or else die die die!” is pretty weak soup. So what are they then if not the uber right worthy of being slammed by the left? So far to the right they’ve circled the globe and are now sitting just a bit left of the far left? That make all uber lefties closet Muslims? When they realize this will their first action be to behead all of the atheists? With the far left then too dangerous a place for an uber left atheist, will they then seek asylum from those right of themselves? If the radical Muslims created a hunting show where the prey were atheists for OLN would the ladies wear cammo burkas?

            Come to think of it, would a Charlie Brown ghost costume burka (peppered with many eye holes for those culturally starved) be construed as sexy or too revealing?

        • USW and Mathius

          Once again and then I will let it rest.

          All, as in 100%, of Statism is on the left.

          All, as in 100%, of Freedom is on the right.

          If we continue to let the left dictate who is on left and right we will never be able to have an intelligent discussion with the American people.

          Left and Right are opposites on a continuum of political power. Communism, Socialism and Fascism (corporatism, mercantilism) are all Statist systems. They belong on one side.

          That is part of the design. Divide part into right and left. Then those who think they are the “reasonable” ones are forced to stake out the middle. But no one can be exactly in the middle. So they wind up shifting back and forth, because they do not have a firm philosophical base.

          And Mathius, if you think the founders operated strictly out of pragamatism you should ask your college for a refund.

          • JAC – Right on the money.

            But please, don’t let it rest. Repeat as often as necessary.

            If you don’t, I’ll have to.

          • I also, am “just a citizen.”

            It has been remarkable to watch the “left” get to define all of the “acceptable” definitions in the last decades.

            Even our friend Mat, who says there are “no absolutes” . . . claims to have the right to define the positions (and definitions) for the rest of us. Lack of absolutes or assuming to be arbiters of truth?

            • Anoninnc:

              You have stumbled, or perhaps discovered through solid thought, a possible mechanism for spreading our little resurrection idea.

              Congratulations for being the first here to acknowledge it.

              Any ideas on how to use your new power?

              JAC

              • This will be entirely too simple and radical for some . . . but a simple return to the origianl doucument would solve much much of this . . .

              • Black Flag says:

                The consequence of ‘that document’ is the world you live in today.

                Therefore, nothing changes.

      • Mathius,

        Have you not heard, gun control is simply hitting the target you are aiming at?

        Left fringe, I dis-agree, just as pro-life that advocate NO legal abortions would be fringe, either side that will not allow compromise is not trying to reform anything, they are pushing their agenda.

        “I think, perhaps there is an issue in this: there is little money in being reasonable. If you push an extreme position, you may find a sponsor (organization, corporation, etc), but if you try to find a measured solution, who beside The People will support that (and we don’t pay as well).”

        Damn, that steals all my thunder, silent agreement.

        And further agreement, when neither party has the majority, stalemate. We would all be better off if they just play golf seven days a week. I pray Obama does not get assassinated, as bad as I think he is, his # 2 & 3 would be so much worse. Wonder if that’s why he chose Biden, shoot me and this idiot will be running the country.

        • HA.. now there’s a conspiracy theory I can get behind..

          Sorry, I’ll try to be less agreeable in the future.

    • I think part of the reason we are debating so hard over definitions of left and right and liberal and conservative is that those definitions are in the process of changing. They are being re-defined if you will. What you used to think of as conservative no longer is, the same is true of liberal.

      America’s political landscape is turning into an out and out battlefield and sides are coalescing, changing. I think we have to be careful about our definitions for awhile.

      The two major political parties are very changed as well. Neither is what they used to be just a few years ago.

  5. Here’s an example of what those considered on the fringe are doing to get what they want.

    Max Baucus has now suddenly started talking about a “public option”?

    http://montanamaven.com/2009/08/23/rancor-in-the-ranks-rebellion-from-the-montana-democratic-central-committees-2.aspx

    The other US Senator from Montana is also a Dem and up for re-election in 2012. You think he’s not watching this with bated breath?

    • P.S.

      If you go to the article make sure you read it through to the list of “criteria” that will be used by the Left to determine if the solution is “acceptable”.

  6. Good job USW

    For sure we cannot allow the politicians and the fringe fools to define who citizens are that make the attempt to determine the truth. I would say as a correction to your post that every president for the last 148 years has slowly taken away our freedoms, not just the last 100 years.

  7. Good Morning Al

    Good article USW. But, you say it’s not about the right verses left, Dems verses Repubs, it’s about Americans who want their country back. That I agree with, who doesn’t want their country back? You have to be a little off balance not to want it back.

    In my opinion, it’s always been right verses left, and visa versa, Dems verses Reupbs, always has been, and always will be. Everybody here, well most everybody, says it’s time to change government or get rid of it. That it’s time we have a government that works for or with the people, not against the people. That I totally agree with. But, my question is. HOW? How do we get this or any government back on the right track so to speak, where they are making an honest effort in helping this country get back to the roots from which it began?

    Why even have a constitution anymore if they are not going to abide by it? It’s like they want to change it to the way they want it, not the way it was written. I don’t see this government doing anything to better this country, but instead tearing it down. If they truly want us to believe in them, then they had better start to listen to the people in what we are saying. Because I think if they don’t, it will be a matter of time before they have a big revolution on their hands, and they will not be able to stop it. Or will they? That’s my opinion anyway.

    Hope all will have a good day.

    Judy

    • meh..

      There will be no revolution because The People are far too lazy and complacent. Most of them are also relatively satisfied in their lives. A “revolution” cannot occur without the majority support and you simply don’t have it. What you would have is a coup.

      If they really were unhappy, they would endeavor to get more informed and involved and this, en masse, would make a difference so that no revolution were necessary.

      I, by the way, am just fine with the way things are – I think there’s a lot of cleaning up to do, a lot of slight changes to make. But overall, I think it’s fine.

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        Mathius,

        A vast majority of the citizens of the 13 original colonies were “just fine” with the way things were under George III, yet somehow a revolution occurred anyway. It is perhaps true that EVENTUALLY a majority came to agree with the revolutionaries, but it certainly did not start out that way.

        • It was so only because British rule was pitched and bought as “foreign rule”. Had they been seen as the “parent of” rather than an “outside oppressor”, the revolution never would have happened. America and Canada started off in much the same way. Here though we were never pitched a succession line by anyone of merit and you indeed were by many worthy of being listened to. It only takes a few and the right pitch.

          With that in mind I can clearly see a revolution of sorts from those who realize America is being relegated to taking the back seat while the EU drives and China rides shotgun. Oh and please no America “leading the way into the future with green technology” idiocy from anyone. FROM THE LEFT ITSELF: http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/solar-panels-take-100-years-to-pay-back-installation-costs-917202.html

      • I’m glad you think things are fine just the way they are. But there are those of us who think otherwise, and that is why we are speaking up against this government, and they way they are handling this country, and how they want to take control of everything.

        If you want to be told on how your life should be run, fine, go for it. But I do not want the government sticking their noses in my life and dictation to me on how I should live it.

      • Mathius,

        It just takes a single issue to cause the people to unite for a time, we may drift apart soon after. Remember the Tea Party was a protest on taxing tea, there might not have been a war if not for that. And remember, congress has also spoken about taxing fast foods. You think America will not rise up to protect their Big Mac’s and Happy Meals. You can’t have a “twinky” is fighting words. Congress had better choose its battles carefully.

      • All fair, and yet, how do you explain the lethargy from the great independent middle? You would force your views on them in hopes that they would “come to agree?” How does that make you any better than those you oppose?

        • Exactly.

          Now follow through and apply the same standard to your views.

          I told you there was a spark of the force within. Let it grow.

          • Close, but no cigar.

            The fatal flaw in your argument does not exist in mine.

            To wit: you say that you may not force your ideals on others, yet you would force the government not to force its ideals on others.

            We say no such thing: we say sometimes the government must impose its will on the people for the greatest good. And we are willing to force the government to do so.

            I’ll provide you with some perspective which is slightly off topic. When Bush was on top, many conservatives shut down the left on the grounds that “questioning the commander and chief in a time of war is un-American.” The left, of course, made no such claim (obviously because they were the ones attempting to do the questioning). Now that we are in charge these same conservatives say it’s ok. We always said it was OK, but think they should shut up on the grounds that they’re flaming hypocrites. A little convoluted, I admit, but you’re a smart guy, I’m sure you’ll see what I’m saying.

            If I use a tenant of your belief system to create a logical paradox within that system, it does not hold that it should carry to mine if I do not hold that same belief.

            • Black Flag says:

              Mat,

              “would force…. not to force”

              We usually call this “Self-defense”

              The confusion is that you believe resistance is the same as initiation.

              I propose an experiment – I get to punch you in the face first, and we’ll test to see if you feel that this is the same thing as ‘defending yourself’.

              🙂

              • The last guy who tried that particular experiment was my brother – he wound up in the hospital. I like you more though, so you’d probably only wind up pinned on the ground. 🙂

                You can call it whatever you like, but defense/offense is in the eye of the beholder.

              • Black Flag says:

                It is not.

                For a fight to exist, there must be a start or ‘initiation’.

                It can be no other way.

                We live in a physical world.

                All things start with an action and because of this, we have cause and effect, and the direction of time.

              • I reject that.

                Where does cause begin? We say we went to war with Japan because they attacked us. They might say they attacked us because they knew eventually we would attack them. And round and round it goes. Who is right? Where do you draw the line?

              • Black Flag says:

                Your rejection of the Universe is irrational.

                Cause always makes effect. It is a universal law – (thermodynamics).

                What you are confused about is finding the root cause – certainly that takes a lot of work sometimes – in science, too.

                To your example of Japan (and most other causes of aggression).

                It is very hard to determine who-to-what-to-do.

                Thus, the best answer is not to act with violence.

                If either party simply did so at any stage, no war would have occurred.

            • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

              “yet you would force the government not to force its ideals on others.”

              Mathius,

              You are totally and completely WRONG, sorry to be that blunt, but there it is.

              The government is not an individual, therefore the government has no individual rights. Your attempt to imbue the government with rights makes no sense.

              Also, I would not force the government not to force it’s ideals on others. Again, the government is not an individual, and therefore it has no ideals as you state.

              • Peter, better to say the Government has no ideals period.

                And if the government tells you they are doing something for your own good, if nothing else experience has taught us that they are lying.

                After all the lies you can no longer believe in anything that is said. The Government NEVER has OUR best interests at heart.

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          Who is the “you” you are referring to?

          Many of us hold to our views very strongly, and we certainly hope to convince others of the correctness of our views through logical, consistent argument and description.

          HOWEVER, I have absolutely NO desire to force my views upon you.

          If you read my views and suddently come to the realization that my viewpoint is consistent, logical, and moral then huzzah for you.

          If you persist in holding your viewpoint even though I can show you the places where it is not logical, not consistent, and immoral, then that is fine.

          FORCING you to accept my viewpoint would make my viewpoint invalid, so you are in no danger of being forced to accept anything that I say 🙂

        • Very interesting concept.

          If I tell the slave he is free and that I will not use govt to maintain him as a slave, I am imposing freedom upon him. Therefore I am a hypocrite and the only moral solution is of course to maintain his slavery, by force.

          This is the definition of “reason” by those on the left?

      • Mathius….I agree completly….people are to lazy to read, they allow a commentator to lead them around by the nose. They are so busy making a living they don’t stop to realize why they are having such a hard time putting food on the table. Unless the people of America wake up and stand up…..our prognoises only gets worse.

      • Mathius,

        One of the reasons we haven’t had a revolution is due to the fact most people still have a comfortable standard of living. If the bottom really falls out of the economy to the point where food doesn’t get to grocery stores, gasoline doesn’t get to gas stations, electricity doesn’t get to the light bulb and the police can’t get paid, we might just have that revolution. There’s still some slack left in the system, but once its gone, things will get dicey. Most Americans don’t think it can happen, thus the complacency. Let the brown and stinky hit the fan and see what happens.

    • Judy,

      The Constitution isn’t followed by government, but the Constitution was never written with the expectation that government would voluntarily confine itself to the principles therein. The People must understand and defend the Constitution. The opinions of people and the voluntary consent of the people to the government are essential for any government to exist and function. The problem isn’t that we don’t have the means, the problem is that up to now we have not had the will or desire to rock the boat. That’s changing.

  8. For those that think Mr. Obama is the first to use strong arm tactics I suggest you read this:

    http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/08/24/johnson.lbj.health.care/index.html

    LBJ had the dirt on everyone in D.C. and kept a list. He would use that information to force folks to support whatever it was he wanted.

    The last is a parphrase of a story told to me by a U.S. Senator who served while LBJ was Majority Whip in the house. He also said he hadn’t changed one bit after becoming President.

    So the only real difference is the modern habit of demonizing Citizens by name in order to reduce the power of the opposition. The Good Ol’ Boys used to limit their blackmail and bullying to each other.

    • Thugs, the lot of them.

      Still, it’s good to be on the side with more thugs than less..

      • Black Flag says:

        It is never good to support evil, even if good is outnumbered.

        • Evil will always triumph because Good Is Dumb. – Darth Helmet

          • Yeah, but you can’t take him seriously after his brain was shoved down into his feet when his ship went into ridiculous speed and went plaid.

            And that sudden stop had to hurt too.

          • One would think. Perhaps he had some kind of inertial dampener?

        • I feel that if I have to have evil,* I would rather that evil support my viewpoints than yours.

          *I do not stipulate that government is evil.

          • Black Flag says:

            I do so, by definition.

          • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

            Mathius,

            It is not required for you to stipulate that government is evil.

            Just answer the following questions:

            1. Do you believe that it is evil to kill someone that has not posed any threat to you?

            2. Do you believe that it is evil to steal from someone else so that you may have more, even though you have done nothing to honestly earn it?

            3. Do you believe that it is evil to use the threat of force or actual force to make others conform to your will or your desires?

            For me, the answers are:

            1. Yup, that is evil
            2. Yup, that is evil
            3. You Betcha (to quote Sara Palin), that is evil as well!

            I can demonstrate to you that government routinely engages in all 3 of these activities on a daily basis.

            You might attempt to say, “well yeah, government does all three of those every day, but they have good reasons for doing so in most cases!”

            My reply to that would be, “When you attempt to justify the use of evil to promote good goals, you are not engaged in rational thought, you are engaged in rationalization, which is a different beast entirely.”

            If you wish to assert that a certain amount of institutionalized evil is necessary in order for society to function properly, you are welcome to make that assertion.

            Just don’t expect agreement on that point from me 🙂

            • Well played, salesman.

              It’s all so easy when you look at the small picture. I am just trying to get you to look at the big picture. Look at it! LOOK! Don’t you see, you aren’t the only one here. Is it not also evil to allow such suffering in the world when, by a small loss to some, you could help, you could save and, in doing so, eradicate more misery than you cause?

              Do you not see that the trees, together, comprise a forest?

              If, by the slightest of injuries to you, every major disease could be cured, would the government be unjust in inflicting it? BF would say no, but it’s so easy in the abstract. Surely some measure of pragmatism must be taken into account.

              • But see the BIG difference is that you would use the government to FORCe me to do good, while I want to CONVINCE you to do good. That is the big difference. There is a reason that, in general, Americans have been to most charitable people in history.

              • See, this goes to one of my First Principles: people are selfish.

                If I could trust you and everyone else to do sufficient amounts of good, I would see no need to force you. Since I can’t, I do see the need.

                There is almost no way to convince half the population to give up 30-50% of their income to charity. Now, certainly, there is legitimate debate on whether that much should be necessary, but since that’s what it currently it, I challenge you to tell me that you would give so generously.

              • Even the bible only asks for 10%, why do you want more?

              • Because the bible was written by a committee and that is the number they came up with.

              • Kristian Stout says:

                Mathius,

                I think that’s the only thing that you’ve said thus far that I take exception to.

              • But If I decide to just blow my 30-50% on junk doesn’t that allow someone to have a job making or selling junk instead of just waiting in the government handout line? (FTR, I haven’t made enough in the last 10 years to pay any federal income tax, and I give about 20% of my income to charity.)

              • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

                Mathius, you completely miss the point that when you force someone to do good, it is no longer good.

              • Black Flag says:

                It is because people are selfish that theft is immoral.

                Organization of society must embody principles of self-ownership, which leads to property ownership.

                Without such principles, selfish people will attempt to enslave others.

              • Black Flag says:

                Attempting to justify harm with a case that cannot exist in the Universe is a fallacy.

                It would be no different than trying to use an analogy of Easter Bunnies and Fire-breathing dragons as a ‘proof’ of your position.

                If I said, “but by the breath of fire dragons would solve all humanity suffering, should we not spend billions looking for fire dragons?” – you think me insane.

                So, there does not exist a case for doing harm which cures humanity’s (fill in the blank).

              • But there does, just not one so extreme. This is just an argument reduced to the absurd in order to derive the logical conclusion: that, were the circumstances correct, a rational person would have to conclude that it is acceptable to “do harm” to another for the greatest good. Once you allow for that, it’s just a question of degrees.

              • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

                Mathius,

                You confuse “the greater good” with something that can actually be demonstrated to exist.

              • Black Flag says:

                But there does, just not one so extreme. This is just an argument reduced to the absurd in order to derive the logical conclusion: that, were the circumstances correct, a rational person would have to conclude that it is acceptable to “do harm” to another for the greatest good. Once you allow for that, it’s just a question of degrees.

                But no such determination can be made – it is irrational to suggest that harm=good.

                You cannot prove that your ‘harm’=’good’ nor can I prove my ‘harm’=’good’.

                The ONLY thing I can demonstrate is that you are inconsistent or in contradiction.

                Thus, if you hold a position in an argument, and in that argument, contradict your position – I know your position is evil.

              • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

                The big picture is not materially different from the little picture.

                Your attempt to make them different makes no sense.

              • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

                Mathius,

                It is not evil to completely ignore someone else, even if they are suffering.

                If I did not CAUSE the suffering, I am not responsible for alleviating it either.

                Does this make me EVIL? No, not at all, it simply makes me a selfish bastard. You confuse selfishness with evil – they are not always the same.

                If I see someone suffering, and I CHOOSE to help them, then that is my choice.

                If you see someone suffering and YOU DECIDE THAT I MUST HELP THEM WHETHER I WANT TO OR NOT, you are the one engaging in an evil act.

                I realize that you do not see it that way, but it is still factual, whether you see it that way or not.

              • I beg to differ. The small picture is you, your family, the food on your table, your house, your car, your dog (you strike me as a dog person), your retirement, etc. You have to be concerned with these things – they are central to your life. When a tsunami kills tens of thousands in Indonesia, it doesn’t effect you. So it would be easy for you to ignore it. It is big, but removed from you. Who keeps your air clean, your food safe? You would do it? You could do it? You and I are bit actors on a very large stage – we need someone/something to concern itself with the big picture, and it is very different from what we see.

              • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

                Sorry Mathius, If a Tsunami hits Indonesia and tens of thousands of people die, what effect does that have on me personally and why should I do anything about it whatsoever other than by my own choice?

              • Exactly my point. Because it doesn’t affect you you would do nothing. But these are people – human beings! who are suffering, who need help. How is it not evil to allow this to happen when you can help? All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing, no?

                So if your “generosity” needs to be forced, so be it.

              • Black Flag says:

                But I think not having enough socks causes me to suffer.

                Do I get to steal from you?

                Or maybe I need more apples than you

                I get to steal from you?

                Who decides what is “enough”? Me or you?

                What if after all this stealing, there is still more suffering?

                Now what?

                I get to kill you because you failed?

              • Now, now. There is a reason I don’t get to decide, and it is the same reason you don’t get to decide. We are not objective. One must take into consideration what there to spare and what is needed.

                If I have 10,000,000,000 socks, and you have none (and are incapable of buying them, and are for some reason in dire need of socks), I would suggest that maybe the government is justified is instituting a “sock tax” to help redistribute* the wealth.

                *I am fully aware of the alarm bells that just went off in your head due to my use of that word. However, redistribution of wealth is important – without it, all the wealth accumulates at the top and everyone else gets le screwed.

              • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

                Another falsehood is that an entity is necessary to ensure clean air, water and food.

                No such entity is required.

                China pollutes on a scale 14x greater than the US currently, and yet we are told WE must limit our carbon emissions.

                So, what are YOU going to do about the Chinese when they pollute their air 14x more than we currently pollute ours?

                How are you going to enforce what you claim you will do to prevent them from doing this?

              • I push my government to do something about China, because they won’t listen to me. If they won’t listen to my government, perhaps that is an argument for a world government (yes, I know you just wet yourself, sorry).

              • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

                Mathius,

                You just hit on the key. There must be a world government in order for you to force EVERYONE to behave the way you wish them to behave. Even then it won’t work though.

              • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

                Actually I am not much of a dog person… I strongly prefer cats.

                You see, If I had a dog I would have to walk it, clean up after it when it crapped in the yard, on the sidewalk, in the park, or what have you, and I would have to let it in or out when it whined.

                With cats, I simply have to allow them to exist and empty their litterbox periodically (I have yet to master training any of my cats to use the toilet, though I am told it can be done).

              • I want a pet Cheetah. Like a cat, but much, much cooler. Plus I could race it in my car.

  9. There’s outrage at POTUS on what is seen by the right as the looney left topo:

    http://www.weaselzippers.net/blog/2009/08/air-america-calls-obama-the-absolute-fascist-nightmare.html

  10. Black Flag says:

    Chris Devine

    So if the physician chooses to treat the patient with a better chance of survival, but he is told not to because the patient is uninsured, how should the physician respond?

    The guy who is footing the bill – therefore it is his money and his property – dictates how his property and money is spent.

    If the physician does not like this, he can withdraw his services.

    If the man who is paying does not like this, he can withdraw his funds.

    Any other answer is slavery. You will be forcing a man to surrender his property or forcing a man to serve another.

    And, if you think you have a right to force a man to surrender his property for your desire, others will claim their right to force you to surrender your property for their desires.

    If you force a man to serve you for your desires, others will enslave you to their desires.

    I am confident you would not like that.

    Thus, my complaint – you want freedom for you but not for anyone else.

    I’ll just cut to the chase and save everybody some time: do you think that patients who can’t afford treatment should be denied treatment solely on those grounds?

    As I have said many times – the decision is not mine to make.

    It is the decision of the owner of the property on how he may or may not feel he wishes to dispose of it. To force my decision or your decision upon the owner of the property is slavery and evil – no matter what excuse you make up for it.

    Once you excuse slavery for a reason – any reason will be used for slavery.

    How would you feel about a child being denied treatment? If a physician has specified a course of treatment should he be prohibited from prescribing it because the patient can’t afford it?

    The person whose money is being spent is the only person who has a right to say how it is spent.

    Any other scenario is theft and evil.

    Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction (13th Amendment)

    How can a society that can collectively afford to treat everybody deny some people treatment because they can’t afford it individually?

    I have purposely highlighted the greatest fallacy of socialist thinking.

    …that society can treat everybody …. The complete lack of economic understanding that surrounds socialist thinking is the reason economic collapse always follows socialism.

    Economic scarcity seems to be an impossible concept for socialists.

    Because of that, they are always surprised by it, and then are thrust into analysis that is political and not economic. The result always is complete exhaustion of the service/good and poverty for society.

    Even Jesus couldn’t heal everybody.

    The supposed morality of choice that you claim free-market capitalism provides is nothing but a license to exploit. It’s got to be the biggest cop-out of all time. You claim moral superiority based upon some notion of free-choice, all the while people suffer as a direct result of this philosophy you espouse.

    My philosophy rests fully on freedom. Any perversion placed upon freedom is enforced slavery. The choice is binary.

    You wish to seize the property of others just because you believe your cause is more important then their cause!

    You make judgments – without any human right to do so – upon free people.

    The consequence of your belief system – that only the elite get to be free – always ends enslaving humanity and perpetual conflict.

    Poverty isn’t inevitable and advocating an economic system that makes it so is about as despicable as anything I can think of.

    Poverty is a state of mind and subjective

    The poorest of America are richer than the richest 500 years ago in economic terms. But to you, they are still poor. And you do not know why the poor today live better than kings 500 years ago.

    Jesus said, “The poor will always be with you.” – Why? Because there will ALWAYS be differences between people, and differences in attitudes and ability.

    The only economic system that has created such prosperity and wealth for the common man has been free enterprise.

    Advocating the socialist, government-run, economic systems that dominated humanity for the 5,000 years before will result in the economic growth of those era’s – stagnation and rampant poverty.

    I’m sure you’ll go off on some rant about how all taxes are theft and as long as you don’t resort to physical violence then all is copacetic. But for me any system that allows people to abuse and exploit others without even raising a hand in anger is much worse than any black-eye or broken bone. Pretending violence only takes the form of direct physical harm is a sham. Letting someone starve due to your own greed is pathetic.

    It is not “letting” someone starve ….

    It is the moment you believe you have a right to steal from someone so to fund some cause you think is worthy you have destroyed yourself…..

    ….For you will have given the right for others to enslave you.

    You have all the power to help the causes you believe in. I assume you have many human comforts such as a home, car, plenty of clothes, TV’s, DVD’s – and obviously a computer.

    I find it strange that you have not committed these resources you control to resolve the earthly suffering of other. It shows that you are not willing to do as you demand but are more than willing to force others to do what you demand

    Before you cry foul and say I’m unduly appealing to emotion please evaluate why you think emotion should be left out.

    You can be as emotional as you wish.

    You can use emotion as your excuse for you to act within your freedom to do whatever you wish to freely do. I have no right or cause to debate any decision or reason of that decision of a free man.

    However, any claim upon me must be by reason.

    What is your reason you demand on me? If you cannot reason your demand you are simply are arbitrary and irrational and I shall ignore you (or actively defend myself from your attacks).

    • Good day to you mon’ Buccaneer! Already up defending the righteous this day I see.

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      “But for me any system that allows people to abuse and exploit others without even raising a hand in anger is much worse than any black-eye or broken bone. ”

      In attempting to describe anarchy, which Chris did a terrible job of in this quote, he inadvertantly described government VERY well! 🙂

      • Chris Devine says:

        I wasn’t referring to anarchy. I was referring to 100% laissez-faire capitalism. Letting one group of people accumulate wealth in an unrestricted manor using whatever means they like (provided physical violence is avoided) is in essence free reign to exploit. Wealth begets wealth and marginalization of the masses is practically inevitable. Public policy should encourage innovation and hard work, not reward de facto dynasties.

        • Black Flag says:

          I wasn’t referring to anarchy. I was referring to 100% laissez-faire capitalism. Letting one group of people accumulate wealth in an unrestricted manor using whatever means they like (provided physical violence is avoided) is in essence free reign to exploit.

          If one can justify violence on free men, simply because they earn more than the spend, one can justify violence on all men, no matter how they earn.

          Wealth begets wealth and marginalization of the masses is practically inevitable. Public policy should encourage innovation and hard work, not reward de facto dynasties.

          Such ‘dynasties’ do not exist without massive mercantilism.

          Great fortunes in free enterprise are usually consumed by the avarice of the heirs. Those that succeed in retaining wealth do so only by using the wealth to create more.

        • “Letting one group of people accumulate wealth in an unrestricted manor using whatever means they like (provided physical violence is avoided) is in essence free reign to exploit.” is a inane statement at best. You’re not “letting” a worker or businessman be far superior to yourself in generating wealth with their skills. You’re not letting them burn that midnight oil to further their business model or skill set to take advantage of market shares or shortages in specific trades. You’re not letting them shine while you sit in the shadows. Were you capable of such yourself, you would BE one of them. If you are one now and not donating all your income save that necessary to get you through the day in moderate means…

          • Chris Devine says:

            There is nothing stupid about that statement.

            At one point Sam Walton was a hard working business man. He looked for good ideas and incorporated them until he had created the most efficient retail enterprise this world has ever seen. The wealth he accumulated through his efficiency eventually gave him the resources and power to dictate terms to his suppliers, employees, and the communities he operated in. Several of the top-ten richest people in America are the offspring of Sam Walton. Now they wield the power that their father worked hard to amass. Being rich doesn’t necessarily mean you worked hard to get that way (just as being poor doesn’t necessarily mean you are lazy).

            Hard work and innovation should be rewarded. Being rich in and of itself is nothing to revere.

            You also seem to ignore the fact that many people (like Thomas Edison and Bill Gates) stole ideas from others and made their fortunes that way. There are many examples of people who had a good idea dying in the poor house while their unscrupulous competitors rise to be considered captains of industry. Take off your rose colored glasses.

            • Take off your own rose colored welding mask. The majority of millionaires in America are first generation fortunes. Speak of a few to carry your argument and neglect the vast majority wielding new money, new ideas and indeed an aggressive business stance. That’s what it is to be better than those around you. I myself am doing stellar and my main contractor has made himself in the last 20 years more money than every person he is related to made throughout their family history. He did so by being infinitely better at the game than those around him and any negative I’ve ever heard about him came from envious individuals who thought they “deserved” a taste of his success.

              If you ever won out on a job above others you’ve engaged in the very same practice on a tiny scale. If you’ve ever successfully dickered on a price you were exercising you having monies the seller was in need of. If you’ve ever bought at an auction you’ve done the same but in a more obvious manner. If you’ve ever dickered over the price on a car you’ve once again played your wealth against another needing to possess it. Its all just a matter of scale and you’re unwilling to see that as it is.

              As for myself, I’m working a 24 hour week after decades of that being 60+ hours, money is not anything I worry of at all and my opportunities are still growing. A deal I’ve made just last week Wednesday and the subsequent trip to Germany in November for training has already paid off in a contract doubling my business’s annual gross. Rather than being very good at what I do, I must indeed then be evil.

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      “Letting someone starve because of my own greed” is one of my favorite arguments.

      Let’s say I am rich (I wish… lol).
      Let’s say that you are poor.

      Let’s say I have an abundance of food.
      Let’s say that you have none.

      If I was not the cause of your lack of money and lack of food, then I cannot be held directly responsible for providing you with either money or food. To attempt to hold me responsible by the use of force or the threat of use of force is theft.

      If I choose to share my wealth and my food with one who is poor and starving, that is wonderful. If I choose not to share my wealth and my food with one who is starving, I am a yucky individual, but it is still my choice.

      The moral error made by most people is BLAMING ME FOR THE DEATH OF THE STARVING PERSON SIMPLY BECAUSE I DID NOT CHOOSE TO SHARE MY WEALTH AND MY FOOD.

      If I am responsible for the person’s destitution, then I can be blamed for his death. If I am in no way responsible for the person’s destitution, then I cannot be held responsible in any way for his death even though I had the means to potentially prevent it.

      If the standard of law is going to be, “you will be held personally responsible for anything that happens that you could have potentially prevented” then I strongly suspect we are all going to jail really soon.

      You cannot force a selfish bastard to be anything other than a selfish bastard. Being a selfish bastard is not NECESSARILY evil (though some selfish bastards are indeed capable of evil acts). However, it is indisputable that when you use force or the threat of force to try to make the selfish bastard behave the way you want him to, you are engaging in an evil act.

      • Chris Devine says:

        It’s called enlightened self-interest. Take care of the poor now: clothe them, educate them, teach them to work hard by example. That way you can rest easy knowing you did everything you could to make this world a better place.

        The alternative is to marginalize them, vilify them, and ignore them until they take what they want rather than earn what they need. There’s a practical choice for you. Build schools and hospitals now or prisons later, take your pick.

        • Black Flag says:

          Your enlightened self-interest is laced with slavery.

          Certainly, charity and compassion are positive traits.

          However, force and coercion masked by false charity and false compassion is merely masked violence and evil.

          Yours is a false dichotomy and a false vision.

          No matter how much charity, there will always be suffering

          No matter how much education, there will be theft and violence

          To claim that “with enough ‘good’ theft and ‘good’ violence upon non-violent people” will make the world a better place is irrational.

          The free market and free men build hospitals and all valuable goods and services for other free men to voluntarily trade.

          A group of men, who by their acts of initiation of violence are the ones that prisons are made for – and until we recognize that those in politics are such men, mankind will always be under risk of slavery.

          • Chris Devine says:

            …and your version of freedom is laced with exploitation and greed.

            The free-markets you talk about never existed. They are a fiction, a myth. They are only useful in propagating a destructive policy justifying the basest of all human desires.

            Look up ‘contract of adhesion.’ I’ll say it again: giving someone a choice between working for starvation wages or dying isn’t much of a choice.

          • Chris Devine says:

            “UNCONSCIONABLE so unreasonably detrimental to the interest of a contracting party as to render the contract unenforceable. The common law rule rendering unconscionable contracts unenforceable was codified in the Uniform Commercial Code in §2-302. “The basic test is whether, in the light of the general commercial background and the commercial needs of the particular trade or case, the clauses involved are so one-sided as to be unconscionable under the circumstances existing at the time of the making of the contract.” U.C.C. §2-302 Official Comment.
            The term refers to a bargain so one-sided as to amount to an “absence of meaningful choice on the part of one of the parties together with contract terms which are unreasonably favorable to the other party…Ordinarily, one who signs an agreement without full knowledge of its terms might be held to assume the risk that he has entered into a one-sided bargain. But when a party of little bargaining power and hence little real choice, signs a commercially unreasonable contract with little or no knowledge of its terms, it is hardly likely that his consent…was ever given to all the terms. In sucha case the usual rule that the terms of an agreement are not to be questioned should be abandoned and the court should consider whether the terms of the contract are so unfair that enforcement should be withheld.” 350 F. 2d 445, 449-50.” (emphasis added)

            “ADHESION CONTRACT a contract so heavily restrictive of one party, while so non-restrictive of another, that doubts arise as to its representation as a voluntary and uncoerced agreement; implies a grave inequality of bargaining power. The concept often arises in the context of “standard-form printed contracts prepared by one party and submitted to the other on a ‘take it or leave it’ basis. The law has recognized there is often no true equality of bargaining power in such contracts and has accomodated that reality in construing them.” 347 F. 2d 379, 383.” (emphasis added)

            Gifts, Steven H. Law Dictionary. 4th ed. New York: Barron’s, 1996.

            • Black Flag says:

              So what part of

              “signs a commercially unreasonable contract with little or no knowledge of its terms, it is hardly likely that his consent” do you not understand?

              Are you in the habit of signing contracts that you do not know the terms?

              What part of
              “that doubts arise as to its representation as a voluntary and uncoerced agreement” do you not understand?

              Contract is unenforceable if it is coerced and involuntary – kinda puts government in a sticky wicket doesn’t it, since it depends on coercion and involuntary action!

              Whether or not government sees a ‘take or leave it’ contract as valid does not concern me. We are talking from the POV of government – where freedom is a foreign concept and ‘extreme’.

              • Chris Devine says:

                The question is whether the economic system you espouse provides real choice (and by extension, freedom) given that it often provides unfair advantages to one party thereby allowing it to dictate the actions of the other party. What part of that don’t you understand?

                You pontificate about freedom and choice all the while ignoring the fact that someone who is starving has no real freedom or choices. This lack of freedom and choice is a direct result of laissez-faire capitalism. The whole point of contract law and government regulation is to ensure that freedom and choice remain. The absolutist versions you advocate are nothing but self-serving rationalizations for conquest and exploitation.

        • Chris said:
          “Take care of the poor now: clothe them, educate them, teach them to work hard by example. That way you can rest easy knowing you did everything you could to make this world a better place.”

          Show me anywhere in the government welfare program that this is accomplished. All government welfare does is assure reliance on a handout and no self responsibility.

          • Chris Devine says:

            Most welfare recipients are white single mothers who find themselves in a bind due to the loss of a spouse or other source of income. This is usually due to them making the courageous choice to leave an abusive partner or as a result of an unforeseen tragedy. Furthermore, the majority of people receiving assistance from the government do so for only two years (long enough to get back on their feet). This was the case before Clinton signed the so-called welfare reform act (the only lasting effect of which was to put people into McJobs and suppress wages even more).

            Check out Barbara Ehrenreich’s Nickel and Dimed or a movie called The American Ruling Class.

            • Chris said:

              “Most welfare recipients are white single mothers who find themselves in a bind due to the loss of a spouse or other source of income. This is usually due to them making the courageous choice to leave an abusive partner or as a result of an unforeseen tragedy.”

              In an ongoing series of public policy reports, the Urban Institute in Washington, D.C. has collected data and research profiling the U.S. welfare population. The welfare population is characterized as mostly single mothers in their 20s and 30s with one or two children. The population is fairly distributed among the major ethnic groups and covers a wide range of educational attainment. Most welfare recipients have some work experience.
              A General Profile of the Welfare Population – Urban Institute
              90% of welfare parents are single mothers
              10% married
              36% divorced/widowed/separated
              54% never married
              Most welfare mothers are in their 20s and 30s
              6% under 20 years of age
              24% 20-24 years of age
              22% 25-29 years of age
              35% 30-39 years of age
              13% 40 years of age or older
              Welfare mothers are distributed among the major ethnic groups
              37% White
              36% African-American
              20% Hispanic
              6% Other
              Academic levels of welfare recipients cover the full range of educational attainment
              16% some college
              42% completed high school
              42% less than high school
              Most welfare recipients have 1 or 2 children
              41% 0-1 children
              33% 2 children
              16% 3 children
              10% more than 3 children

              While 58% of TANF recipients claim to have high school diplomas or equivalencies, the remaining 42% report not completing high school. The National Institute for Literacy reports that the average welfare recipient reads on a sixth grade level. (NIL) Additionally, sampled assessments of the population do not support skill equivalencies to self-reported grade levels.
              In an Urban Institute study of basic skills, almost two-thirds of welfare recipients tested on the Armed Forces Qualifying Test (AFQT) – a measure with strong indicators to future employment and earnings – scored in the bottom quartile (lowest 25%) of the AFQT distribution. Low skills correlate to low-wage jobs, and therefore to a continued need for income supports.

              • Chris Devine says:

                Thanks for providing the data to support my claims.

              • Wow! if you can spin that to support your claims, no need to talk further.

              • Black Flag says:

                Chris wants to remove consequences of bad decisions and push those consequences on people who chose better.

                The end result will always be more of those that chose badly and less of those that chose better.

              • Chris Devine says:

                Explain to me then how it refutes my claims.

              • Black Flag says:

                I did not say it did.

                I merely offered the continueing consequences of such a plan.I did not say it did.

                I am explaining the consequences of rewarding certain behavior and punishing other behaviors.

              • Black Flag says:

                Darn squishy replies – sorry for the cho.

              • Black Flag says:

                ECHO

              • Chris Devine says:

                I wasn’t talking to you, BF.

              • Black Flag says:

                Darn squishy replies. Hard to tell who is still in the chat

              • 37% White
                36% Black
                Does not qualify as most.
                There are many more Caucasians in this country than Black.
                54% of single women with children have never been married, so the “courageous choice to leave an abusive partner or as a result of an unforeseen tragedy” is nothing more than a play on emotions for lack of an argument.
                As to your post that we need to “educate them”, billions have been spent and 2/3s of the welfare recipients scored in the bottom quartile, not hardly a success.
                Besides my original question was “Show me anywhere in the government welfare program that this is accomplished. All government welfare does is assure reliance on a handout and no self responsibility.
                Does this mean you have no answer?

    • Chris Devine says:

      The freedom you talk about is nothing but passivity. Pretending that there aren’t consequences (both direct and indirect) to your actions doesn’t make you a moral person. Recognizing that everything you do has repercussions beyond your small circle is the first step in improving this world. Hiding out and pretending that the suffering all around you is inevitable and not directly your fault is just moral cowardice.

      I understand economic scarcity very well. The fact that unfettered accumulation of wealth makes abject poverty inevitable is a direct result of scarcity. With wealth comes power. The lack of wealth creates desperation. When power and desperation collide, exploitation is inevitable. You can call it free choice, but if you make a man work starvation wages because they’re “what the market will bear” doesn’t make anyone free. Submit to exploitation or die isn’t much of a choice.

      Get a grip, Milo.

      • Black Flag says:

        Chris Devine

        The freedom you talk about is nothing but passivity. Pretending that there aren’t consequences (both direct and indirect) to your actions doesn’t make you a moral person.

        Unlike you, who must have been touched by the fingers of God, I cannot know what is better for my fellow man then that man himself.

        My actions are guided by voluntary action. It is hardly passive – where yours is rooted in violence and coercion – yours is hardly compassionate.

        Recognizing that everything you do has repercussions beyond your small circle is the first step in improving this world. Hiding out and pretending that the suffering all around you is inevitable and not directly your fault is just moral cowardice.

        Suffering is inevitable – it is irrational to believe otherwise. Using such inevitable suffering as an excuse to create more suffering is evil.

        I do not hold the power of God – I only hold my freedom and respect the same on my fellow man. That is all any man, morally, can do.

        I understand economic scarcity very well. The fact that unfettered accumulation of wealth makes abject poverty inevitable is a direct result of scarcity.

        Again, economic ignorance.

        Wealth is created by the actions of free man upon the resources God made available.

        Since all men can act upon the earth, all men can create wealth. There is no zero sum game.

        I can make a house from a tree as you can make a house from a tree.

        My house does not make your house impossible.

        With wealth comes power.

        What power? Only the power of voluntary action and voluntary trade.

        If you wish to do nothing with a wealthy man, nothing is done.

        The lack of wealth creates desperation. When power and desperation collide, exploitation is inevitable. You can call it free choice, but if you make a man work starvation wages because they’re “what the market will bear” doesn’t make anyone free. Submit to exploitation or die isn’t much of a choice.

        All men have the choice to earn and create wealth. Only by force and violence are such men prevented from doing so.

        Government prevents free men from earning wealth.

        Save your discourse for that enemy – the enemy of freedom.

        • Chris Devine says:

          To say that suffering is inevitable does not mean that it can’t be mitigated. We can’t stop people from dying, yet we try to prolong and improve their lives.

          Men are often prevented from earning and creating wealth through the market forces you talk about. Opportunities are often limited by the capricious nature of luck. If your parents are wealthy and you have access to good health care, schools, and a network of successful people, then the odds are you’ll succeed despite your best efforts. If our last president hadn’t been the fortunate son of a wealthy family he would likely have ended up on skid row drinking ripple. How many otherwise talented and hard-working kids are prevented from succeeding due to the circumstances they were raised in?

          Just because I don’t buy your extreme version of economics doesn’t mean I don’t understand the dynamics of human interaction. You cite your laws of economics as if they were on par with the laws of physics. Economics as espoused by you is nothing but a new religion. But it’s worse because you and others try to give it credibility by using mathematical models based upon unproven assumptions. Supply and demand is not the same as gravity.

          You don’t seem to understand economics at all if you can’t concede that wealth creates power. The power to limit the choices of others is about as powerful as it gets. You complain that voting is a useless act because you didn’t pick the candidates. Why then can’t you see that many economic choices aren’t really choices at all?

          • Chris says: How many otherwise talented and hard-working kids are prevented from succeeding due to the circumstances they were raised in?

            D13 answers: NONE. You can spout rhetoric all day long and the bottom line is, the lowest of the low can get out of the slums. It takes personal fortitude. NO ONE and I repeat NO ONE is forced to stay poor. To accept such a notion is pure hypocritical Bulls***!!!To sit around and say “poor me” and to criticize the wealthy IS the Cowards way out, Chris..

            Chris says: Just because I don’t buy your extreme version of economics doesn’t mean I don’t understand the dynamics of human interaction.

            D13 responds: And just because I don’t buy your definition of “share the wealth” does not an ogre make. But your point of human interaction is well taken. However, you want to blame human interaction on circumstances and not reality. The reality of life is…..it is what you make it. If you feel sorry for yourself, then you will wallow in self pity. If you (not you, personally, of course) get off your ass and accept the fact that there are others that are more powerful and more wealthy and strive to do the same thing, then that is choice and you can do that. To accept the fact that it is unattainable is laziness. To want to make everyone equal is folly. I don’t want a world of robots waiting to be fed. I will work to become one of the wealthy and there is nothing wrong with that.

            Chris Says: Economics as espoused by you is nothing but a new religion.

            D13 Says: I do not normally agree with BF on very much but your statement that economics (his brand) is a religion. My answer to that is….so? Your opposite view is nothing more than your religion, correct?

            Chris says: Supply and demand is not the same as gravity.

            D13 Responds: Hmmmm…not the same under the definition of science…perhaps….but both are events and both can be changed and are different…the locations may be different but both are events that are naturally occurring.

            Chris says: You don’t seem to understand economics at all if you can’t concede that wealth creates power. The power to limit the choices of others is about as powerful as it gets. You complain that voting is a useless act because you didn’t pick the candidates. Why then can’t you see that many economic choices aren’t really choices at all?

            D13 (drinking his DP) says: Of course wealth is power. So is knowledge, so are talents, etc. As a military Colonel, I have lots of power and can exercise it over others should I choose. But that does not stop the lowest of privates in becoming a Colonel him or herself and I cannot stop that from happening. All they have to do is, as NIKE says, JUST DO IT. Don’t whine and don’t bitch..just do it. Economics is a choice. Each individual can choose to be poor or rich…it is within them. Everyone has the power to be what they want to be but the problem is in harnessing that power and directing it. I am not going to be a Bill Gates…nor do I want to be. I am very happy at my level of income and do not want more….but if I do want more, I will do something about it and go get it.

            You and I are in complete agreement over one thing, tho…and that is voting. Don’t complain about it and say it does no good…make it good.

  11. Not a hijack, its health related.

    Two young boys walked into a pharmacy one day, picked out a box of tampons and proceeded to the checkout counter.

    The man at the counter asked the older boy, “Son, how old are you?”

    “Eight,” the boy replied.

    The man continued, “do you know what these are used for?”

    The boy replied, “not exactly, but they aren’t for me… they’re for him.
    He’s my brother. He’s four.

    We saw on TV that if you use these you would be able to swim and ride a bike. Right now, he can’t do either.”

  12. Black Flag says:

    BlackFlag likes to say they are both exactly the same, just different shirt colors. I disagree. They both share the same goal: power over the people, expansion of government, and erosion of freedom. However, they have two entirely different views on how to accomplish those goals.

    Indeed.

    One taxes and spends, the other spends and taxes.

    Under any rational analysis, you will find that there is no measurable difference between the Party’s.

    And then, you admit it (correctly)

    HE IS. BUT SO DID EVERY OTHER PRESIDENT, WHETHER DEMOCRAT OR REPUBLICAN, FOR THE LAST 100 YEARS!

    They are Congress approved and funded, and therefore, like it or not, legal.

    Interesting. As a Constitutionalist, you must find your statement a contradiction. I’ve looked everywhere, but I see no Declaration of War……

    Barack Obama, in my opinion, is the most far left, marxist leaning President we have ever had

    I do not. FDR was by far more ‘marxist’.

    Obama simply has more opportunity to act in this manner.

    Government elite have always been moving society into a government-controlled entity. All of them have advocated 100% control – they, however, have had fewer means to accomplish their goal.

    Bush, then Obama have had a series of self-created events to shove society more that direction.

  13. Black Flag says:

    LOI

    Where does principle stand on “forcing” anyone to comply with their wishes? Our system breaks down there, since there will always be a Flag, or a Pelosi, who will not agree to what the rest decide, and by your principals, may not be forced to participate?

    If my actions do not impose, why do you want to impose upon me?

  14. Black Flag says:

    Mathius

    Evil will always triumph because Good Is Dumb. – Darth Helmet

    But this cannot be true by observation.

    It takes a minute to destroy a building and years to build one.

    If evil dominated, we would not have civilization.

    But we have civilization and lots of buildings.

    Good is massively stronger than evil – because evil contradicts itself, it ends up consuming itself.

    The Universe does not support contradictions – the Universe actively destroys them all by itself.

    • Firstly, quoting Spaceballs can hardly be cause for serious debate. Still some might argue that we are at a temporary point and that, sooner or later, entropy will take over. Like a man who jumps off a cliff can claim to fly for a moment, the forces of destruction will take hold sooner or later. After all, in terms of the existence of man, civilization is just a momentary blip. I can’t make any claims on this point, but it seems just a few nukes could undo 10,000 years of progress in a matter of hours.

      Secondly, there exist perfectly good contradictions about which there is nothing you can do. Consider:

      Statement 1: Statement 2 is false.
      Statement 2: Statement 1 is true.

      I’ll just sit back and wait for you and/or the universe to destroy that.

      • Black Flag says:

        I am not the one who used the quote, sir.

        If in a sword fight, you chose wet noodles as your weapon, it is not my fault.

        Still some might argue that we are at a temporary point and that, sooner or later, entropy will take over.

        That may be true – we’ll see.

        HOWEVER, the fact remains building exist as does civilization. Both would be impossible if evil dominates.

        Like a man who jumps off a cliff can claim to fly for a moment, the forces of destruction will take hold sooner or later.

        Interesting example, for I can jump off a cliff and fly, and not be destroyed – because I know gravity and use it for my will.

        When one grasps understanding of the immutable law of nature, it is useful for mankind.

        When mankind attempts to contradict the Universe, the Universe responds – immutably – and denies it.

        After all, in terms of the existence of man, civilization is just a momentary blip. I can’t make any claims on this point, but it seems just a few nukes could undo 10,000 years of progress in a matter of hours.

        Precisely, and evil may claim victory. Do note, however, which entities threaten mankind – governments –

        Secondly, there exist perfectly good contradictions about which there is nothing you can do. Consider:

        Statement 1: Statement 2 is false.
        Statement 2: Statement 1 is true.

        That is irrationality is created out of a linguistic trick. It makes nonsense (no sense) in reality (that is, you cannot bring into existence any material representation of your claim – it exists solely in your imagination)

        This is the same as claiming “Black is White” – on its face, it is irrational. You simply broke yours down into two sentences.

        I’ll just sit back and wait for you and/or the universe to destroy that.

        Go give it a try to make it real – the Universe will respond appropriately.

        • Some day, you and I have got to get together and get drunk.

          I choose to fight with wet noodles because my bare hands are quite sufficient for the likes of you, and oh so much more satisfying.

          This is akin to Pascal’s Wager: I do not know if God exists, so I will assume He does. If I am right, I win. If I am wrong, nothing. I cannot prove that eventually the world will destroy itself, because if it happens, then the world will be destroyed and I will incapable of proving anything. Unless/until that happens, you will be in the stronger position.

          You claim the government threatens this with their nukes, but what would happen to all those nukes without government?* Would they not fall into individual hands? If one of those hands were so inclined, would they not use them? Government holds the chaos at bay.

          *yea, yea, they would exist in the first place. Except maybe they would. Some enthusiast would have figured it out anyway, and someone else would have built it.. it just might have taken a little longer.

          • Black Flag says:

            Whereas I have found weapons-at-a-distance create a better survival success rate – and cleaner hands. Yours has only one advantage – if you get hungry, you can always eat your weapon.

            Getting drunk together would be fun – more so if I can convince you to buy all the drinks 😉

            This is akin to Pascal’s Wager: I do not know if God exists, so I will assume He does. If I am right, I win. If I am wrong, nothing.

            Ah, God exists – however, you need to define what “God” means to you…..

            I cannot prove that eventually the world will destroy itself, because if it happens, then the world will be destroyed and I will incapable of proving anything.

            Whether the mankind is destroyed by nukes or an asteroid, the Universe holds both to be ‘natural’ and ‘good’.

            It is our weak human perspective that seems to see a difference.

            The only evil that can exist is to attempt to make a contradiction real.

            Since contradictions are against the immutable law of the Universe, an attempt to pervert the Universe can only be the “Universal Evil”.

            All human suffering that is self-inflicted by man all derives from an attempt to enforce a contradiction.

            You claim the government threatens this with their nukes, but what would happen to all those nukes without government?* Would they not fall into individual hands?

            Perhaps – but one must remember that having or building even a single nuke is far beyond the capacity of any person.

            If you got one ‘for free’, it would be worthless in a year or two without an incredible financial expenditure.

            If you had that much money, why would you need a nuke?

            *Much why I could never understand Dr. No.

            He owned an island with a hundreds of beautiful female groupies, hundreds of security guards (armed with the latest weapons), a mansion under the sea, nuclear power, and space launch capability. With that amount of capital in excess what the hell more do you want?? And why would you want to kill yourself trying to destroy the world, when you have everything in the world? He obviously earned it using the commerce of the world – why destroy what made you wealthy?

            Thus, Dr. No’s do not exist – however, their personality exists in government where wealth is stolen, where attitude is enslavement, and where power is the goal.

            If one of those hands were so inclined, would they not use them? Government holds the chaos at bay.

            It was government that made it.
            It was government that used it.
            It is government that holds them at the throat of mankind.

            One can hardly claim that government is holding ‘chaos’ at bay.

            *yea, yea, they would exist in the first place. Except maybe they would. Some enthusiast would have figured it out anyway, and someone else would have built it.. it just might have taken a little longer.

            • Black Flag says:

              Missed your last *

              Some enthusiast did figure it out – but the capability necessary is so extensive that it can be thought to be impossible for a man to build one.

              Anyone who has that amount of money to do so would spend it on wild women first.

            • I would, and you would. But we aren’t (completely) nuts.

            • Oh, and I reject your conclusion that God exists – as a given. I have heard of proof for and against his existence. I would say that regardless of whether he does exist or not, it is unlikely that he cares at all about the specifics of our lives. We are, at best, drones which he set in motion eons ago, so our actions would derive precisely from his choices – thus nothing would be unexpected or upsetting to him. If an all-power being doesn’t like something, he would simply change it.

              “God does not play dice.” – Einstein*

              *More powerful than a wet noodle.

              • Black Flag says:

                God would not contradict himself. A contradiction would be a measure of a mistake, God does not make mistakes.

                Therefore, the only LAW of the Universe is one of non-contradiction.

                Our Universe exists because the laws of nature are ‘consistent’. If we see a ‘difference’ in how a natural law ‘operates’ we know the Universe did not change – we know our understanding was faulty

                Godel demonstrated that Consistent Sets must be incomplete – that is, must have an unprovable premise.

                Complete sets – that is, a set that includes all proofs (including the proof of the proof) would be inconsistent.

                Since the universe is consistent, it has an unprovable premise at its root.

                As far as God and dice.

                God loves to play dice – if we anthropomorphized him, He would be as excited to see what tomorrow brings as we puny humans are…. tomorrow is NOT determined –

              • Mat, I and many others have experienced God’s work in our lives and heard his small, still voice in our minds before.

                I cannot prove to you or anyone else that he exists though. If you want to believe you will, if not then you won’t. But I can tell you that he exists. And that he CARES about the people he created.

                Free Will – the reason God does not change something just because he doesn’t like it. He gave us free will.

              • I submit that you do not know any better than I, the nature of God and existence.

                Before Man knew how flight worked, he posited that God held up the birds.

                Before he knew about evolution, he posited that God created the creatures of the Earth as are and always would be.

                Before he knew otherwise, he knew that the Sun revolves around the Earth.

                Before he know about bacteria, he posited spontaneous evolution.

                Before he knew the shape of the Earth, he knew that it was flat.

                Before he learned better, he knew the black man was a different, inferior race.

                Before he knew better, he said man could never go to the moon.

                Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. Ad nausium.

                We do not know how the universe came into being, so you would posit a God. I say that if we do not know how the universe came into being, it is probably because of some scientific principle which we do not know. In the absence of evidence, should we not accept the most likely explanation? Which is it? Yet one more scientific detail to be discovered and explained or a vast, all-knowing, all-powerful, ever-present being pulling all the strings? Which does our experience suggest is more likely?

              • Black Flag says:

                We do not know how the universe came into being, so you would posit a God.

                Define God – you throw the word around but I do not know what you mean by it.

                We cannot know what ‘was before’ the Universe since we have no frame of reference.

                However we can know this Universe by observing and experimenting with it.

                I say that if we do not know how the universe came into being, it is probably because of some scientific principle which we do not know.

                In fact, we know it could not be a scientific principle since all scientific principles came into existence when the Universe was created

                As Stephen Hawking suggested, that before the existence of THIS Universe, an infinite number (understanding that this still would be a gross misunderstanding of infinite) attempts to create a Universe – popped in, and then dissolved – because the creation was inconsistent.

                THIS Universe ‘stuck around’ because the LAWS were immutable and immutably consistent.

                The core and root essence of the Universe is consistency – that is, without contradiction.

                In the absence of evidence, should we not accept the most likely explanation? Which is it? Yet one more scientific detail to be discovered and explained or a vast, all-knowing, all-powerful, ever-present being pulling all the strings? Which does our experience suggest is more likely?

                As Godel demonstrated, you cannot prove the premise of a consistent set.

                It just ‘is’.

              • I am not suggesting that we can prove this answer. I only ask which is more likely.

                Incidentally, regardless of my current arguments, I am undecided whether to believe in God or not. I lean toward no, but I see no reason to write it off entirely. I just see no reason to learn toward yes either.

                Something in the way people are wired makes us think that the things we do not know are unknowable. A cursory examination of the history of human knowledge suggests otherwise.

                If an elderly but distinguished scientist says that something is possible, he is almost certainly right but if he says that it is impossible, he is very probably wrong. – Arthur C. Clarke

              • Black Flag says:

                Until one has defined “God”, it is impossible to even discuss, let alone prove one.

                I agree with the human’s innate ability to anthropomorphize almost anything.

                It is a successful survival mechanism – it charges us equally with understanding ourselves as much as understanding the Universe.

                Again, you cannot prove a premise.

              • No God? How do you explain cotton? Mankind has used this for clothing for 4,000 yrs.

                Theory of evolution explains how we evolved. Not how life first began.
                The simplest
                organism requires 42 protein strings to match up perfectly. Only God can roll dice that perfectly. FYI, Ben Stein’s movie,
                Expelled, is worth watching.

              • Clearly you’ve never stood at a craps table with me – I can hold onto the dice for an hour

              • Black Flag says:

                I don’t gamble unless I control the odds.

                Dice is for wimps.

              • You control the odds. Play consistently and correctly and the odds will normalize over time. Craps gives you the best odds at a casino. You will still lose, but slowly. As such, I find that I am paying a small amount for an extended period of excitement and fun.

              • As I said, you either believe, or you don’t. It’s not MY concern whether you know more than me or not. I believe all I need to know. And I know what I believe is true.

              • Therein lies the rub. I don’t want to argue with you your personal beliefs. I feel you’re entitled to them, but this is a self-reinforcing belief. “I know what I believe is true.” If you believed the opposite, this would still hold.

                And, again, I neither believe, not don’t believe. I am undecided, awaiting more information.

              • Mat. Sittin’ on de fenc’ll give a man a sore craotch. 🙂

              • So that’s what it is.. I thought maybe it was hemorrhoids..

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        Mathius,

        I can use a perfectly constructed mathematical proof to demonstrate to you that 2 = 1.

        All I have to do is divide by zero.

        The problem is, dividing by zero is undefined, so the proof is invalid.

        Just because you can divide by zero and derive any answer that you like to life’s problems does not make your solutions valid.

        • I can use math to do all kinds of cool stuff. Consider this one if you haven’t already, it is my favorite:

          Girls = Time x Money
          Time = Money
          Therefore Girls = Money x Money = Money^2
          Money is the root of all evil, thus Money^2 = (Root of all evil)^2 = All Evil
          Thefore girls are all evil.

          QED.

          • Black Flag says:

            Your formula is incomplete – you forgot Girls=Sex

            Try again 😉

            • Black Flag says:

              AND ….

              Money is not the root of all evil. Invalid premise.

              The correct quote is:

              “The LOVE of money is the root of all evil”

              But I don’t agree to that either.

              • Black Flag says:

                “For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.”

                Actual evil here is “coveting”, not money, nor love.

            • Listen, I don’t need you to spoil my “proof.” I can do that all on my own (note that “Time and Money would better be translated as Time + Money, not Time x Money). Can’t we just agree to accept that women are evil, and move on with our lives?

              • Black Flag says:

                Women:

                They are quirks of nature and perfect Quantum machines – totally unpredictable.

              • Yea, we like to keep you guys guessing.

              • From As Good As It Gets:

                Woman: How do you write about women so well?
                Jack Nicholson: I think of a man. Then I take away reason and accountability.

                Flawless.

          • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

            By George, I think you’ve got it!

            Here is a test just for giggles… given what you know my position to be on several issues, derive my position (BREIFLY PLEASE) on the issue of “Gay Marriage”. If you can successfully derive my position on this issue in 1 succinct paragraph, you get bonus points.

            *DISCLAIMER – Bonus points are not valid for anything whatsoever and are not redeemable, you just get to collect them and feel good about yourself 🙂

            • Where’s the fun in that? My wife give out “brownie points” which are redeemable for real brownies.. now that’s a system.

              I would assume that your position is as follows: I may not impose my beliefs on others. Thus, they are free to do as they like so long as it does not impact on me. As a personal matter, I do not support it, and thus do not partake or encourage. However, you do not specifically judge either. Further, government should not be in the business of interfering in the interpersonal relationships of two consenting individuals.

              I would offer you points if you can tell me my opinion, but I think that’s an easy task – only worth one point.

              • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

                Mathius,

                I would suspect that you personally want the government to explicity recognize gay marriage, but I only suspect it.

                Your summary of my view is nearly correct, but not completely.

                Marriage is one of two things. It is either:

                A) A religious sacrament

                or

                B) An agreement between people to form a family

                If it is A, and your particular religion frowns upon same-sex marriage, then it is up to you to deal with the consequences. Also, if it is A and we have true separation of Church and State, then the State has no business in marriage.

                If it is B, then any aggregation of people that decides it is a family is a family. Also, if it is B, then no intervention by the State is required.

                If some guy in Utah decides to have 2 or 3 wives, it has no effect on me personally. If some guy in San Francisco decides to have 3 husbands, it has no effect on me.

                If some guy decides to procreate with his sister and run the risk of birth defects in his kids, this likewise has no effect on me. (I find the idea abhorrent personally, but you never know with some guys :))

                Humans routinely inbreed other animals to come up with one that has the desired traits and in the process routinely cull the defectives. I would certainly not advocate this as good human breeding practice, but humans ON THEIR OWN figured out long ago that inbreeding led to a high incidence of defectives and largely eliminated inbreeding on their own… government intervention was not required (other than perhaps in certain parts of Eastern Kentucky :))

                Sorry… living in Indiana I just had to throw in SOME Kentucky love!

              • BLAST! Another point of agreement.

                And close, but I do not necessarily advocate for government recognition of gay marriage (or polygamous marriage), only that, if they recognize any marriage, they should recognize all. I would personally prefer if they stayed out entirely.

                I would say that being married to one woman is no easy thing. Two or three, and I would probably long for the sweet release of death.

                My only point of contention in the above would be incestuous relations – I would suggest that they should be prohibited from breeding. This because the risk they take is not their own. They are risking creating another person who would likely face severe problems through no fault of their own – when the time comes that we can screen for and repair these, I will be supportive of that as well. Until that time, I cannot approve on the grounds that playing Russian Roulette with children is still child endangerment even if the chamber turns out to be empty.

              • Black Flag says:

                Actually two or three would make it a whole lot easier.

                When one gets owlishly, you simply go and visit another.

                The odds that all 4 (muslim law) get owlish is incredibily low.

                The financing side, however, would be the challenge – muslim law says “All the must be treated the same – no favoritism”

                (Sigh) Bankrupcy…

                Re: incestuous.

                Why? There is no reason to prevent this at all.

                We husbandry animals via inbreeding – and get majestic and useful animals.

                There is NO medical reason to prevent it.

                In-breeding was prohibited in government law due to confusion of LEGAL hereditary and survivor rights.

              • You missed a crucial point of biology. The women on this site can probably back me up, but women who live together tend to find their *ahem* cycles synced up. That is, without birth control pills which create an artificially stable cycle, the four wives would eventually become “owlish” at the same time.

                And yes, you get useful majestic creatures, but you also get freakish, deformed creatures. Unless you advocate for the culling of defective humans, shouldn’t be willing to accept this risk.

              • Black Flag says:

                Women and Wives:

                YOU FOOL!

                You do not let them live together – that makes them a gang and you would be doomed!

                Deformed:
                If you haven’t noticed, we get the same results with ‘normal’ breeding.

                Your ‘test’ by observation fails.

              • No BF. I have to agree with Mat. More than one, and I too would long for the sweet release of death.

              • And you’d have to remember four sets of birthdays! And they’d all want your credit card! And they’d all want to talk about their feelings!

                No, my friend, that way madness lies..

              • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

                I disagree with both BF and Mathius on the inbreeding issue somewhat.

                Inbreeding does produce animals with highly desireable traits. However, inbreeding also produces defective animals.

                On that basis, I wouldn’t reccomend it for humans unless we were willing to cull the defectives like someone engaging in animal husbandry does.

                I don’t think you would even get abortion rights activists to go for human culling though (even though that is exactly what they are engaged in regardless of whether the fetus is defective or not, but I digress….)

              • Just 1 minute too slow, Pete.. see above.

              • Man, Ya’ll are makin’ me sick with all this talk of sex with your sister doody. enough already!!

              • Black Flag says:

                Peter,

                Since we see the same occurrences with “normal” breeding, your test by observation fails.

              • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

                See # 22

          • Richmond Spitfire says:

            If a man is alone in a field and speaks, and there is no woman to hear him, is he still wrong?

  15. It would be interesting to see if Baldwin actually follows through.

    _______________________________________________________________

    Lieberman to Alec Baldwin: ‘Make My Day’

    Monday, August 24, 2009 8:10 AM

    Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman has a message for actor Alec Baldwin, who is reportedly considering a move to Connecticut to challenge Lieberman in 2012: “Make my day.”

    Lieberman addressed the issue Sunday on CNN’s “State of the Union.” He says that he respects the “30 Rock” star as an actor and comedian.

    Baldwin told Playboy magazine that he was considering moving to Connecticut to run against Lieberman, saying he has “no use” for the independent senator.

    Lieberman was re-elected to the Senate in 2008 as an independent after he lost the Democratic primary. He was the Democratic nominee for vice president in 2000 and spoke at last year’s Republican National Convention.

  16. Black Flag says:

    Up to 11,000 U.S. veterans may have been mistakenly infected with HIV

    Friday 21st August, 2009

    11,000 veterans who had colonoscopies at U.S. Veterans Affairs hospitals may have been exposed to hepatitis B, hepatitis C and HIV.

    The veterans were advised equipment used during their treatment was not sterilized. Of those so far that responded by having follow-up blood checks, 8 have tested positive for HIV. Twelve of the veterans have tested positive for hepatitis B, and 37 have tested positive for hepatitis C.

    This week it was learned a 55-year-old North Miami man, Juan Rivera, a thirteen-year Army veteran with a wife and 5 children, filed notice last month that he will sue the Federal Government claiming he was infected with HIV during a colonoscopy at the Miami Veterans Administration hospital. He had a colonoscopy at the hospital in May last year.

    Rivera is suing the government for $20 million.
    On March 28, the VA department wrote to more than 3,000 veterans who had colonoscopies at the Miami VA hospital advising them that improperly cleaned equipment might have exposed them to hepatitis B, hepatitis C and HIV.

    VA officials say endoscopy equipment was rinsed instead of being sterilizing as was required by the manufacturer’s directions.

    Similar problems were uncovered at VA hospitals in Murfreesboro, Tenn., and Augusta, Ga. The total number of veterans subsequently blew out to more than 11,000.

    Following congressional inquiries, Miami VA hospital director Mary Berrocal disciplined up to 10 employees
    Friday 21st August, 2009

    11,000 veterans who had colonoscopies at U.S. Veterans Affairs hospitals may have been exposed to hepatitis B, hepatitis C and HIV.

    The veterans were advised equipment used during their treatment was not sterilized. Of those so far that responded by having follow-up blood checks, 8 have tested positive for HIV. Twelve of the veterans have tested positive for hepatitis B, and 37 have tested positive for hepatitis C.

    This week it was learned a 55-year-old North Miami man, Juan Rivera, a thirteen-year Army veteran with a wife and 5 children, filed notice last month that he will sue the Federal Government claiming he was infected with HIV during a colonoscopy at the Miami Veterans Administration hospital. He had a colonoscopy at the hospital in May last year.

    Rivera is suing the government for $20 million.
    On March 28, the VA department wrote to more than 3,000 veterans who had colonoscopies at the Miami VA hospital advising them that improperly cleaned equipment might have exposed them to hepatitis B, hepatitis C and HIV.

    VA officials say endoscopy equipment was rinsed instead of being sterilizing as was required by the manufacturer’s directions.

    Similar problems were uncovered at VA hospitals in Murfreesboro, Tenn., and Augusta, Ga. The total number of veterans subsequently blew out to more than 11,000.

    Following congressional inquiries, Miami VA hospital director Mary Berrocal disciplined up to 10 employees

    ======

    Welcome to Government Health Care

    • Hey BF

      Don’t know if you realize it, but your post here is twice said. Just thought I’d let you know.

      BTW, you didn’t happen to see or read anything about that for Reno, or Nevada did you?

      Judy

    • Although this is shocking, this is not a surprise. They have been exposing our military to all types of diseases, ect. for several decades. This is so sad and just goes to show that this is not about Protection of the American people but the DESTRUCTION of the American people. Watch closely…no point of listening anymore since all we get are lies. What would you do if you knew the truth? What would you do if you realized everything you have been told all your life was a lie?

      • Black Flag says:

        What would you do if you knew the truth? What would you do if you realized everything you have been told all your life was a lie?

        You turn into a Black Flag.

        • Our points differ slightly and you seem a lot more rounded than I but overall…My flag is waving in the wind proudly.:-)

    • Black Flag says:

      And going The other way
      1,200 veterans wrongly told they got fatal disease
      AP

      By P.J. DICKERSCHEID, Associated Press Writer P.j. Dickerscheid, Associated Press Writer

      CHARLESTON, W.Va. – At least 1,200 veterans across the country have been mistakenly told by the Veterans Administration that they suffer from a fatal neurological disease.

      One of the leaders of a Gulf War veterans group says panicked veterans from Alabama, Florida, Kansas, North Carolina, West Virginia and Wyoming have contacted the group about the error.

      Denise Nichols, the vice president of the National Gulf War Resource Center, says the VA is blaming a coding error for the mistake.

      Letters dated Aug. 12 were intended to notify veterans who have Lou Gehrig’s disease of disability benefits available to them.

      Calls to the VA were not immediately returned Monday.

      Lou Gehrig’s disease, or ALS, is a rapidly progressive disease that attacks the nerve cells responsible for controlling voluntary muscles.

  17. Black Flag says:

    NHS staff paid overtime when off sick

    NHS workers who take sick leave are claiming tens of millions of pounds a year in overtime and anti-social hours allowances while off work, the Daily Telegraph can disclose.

    By Rebecca Smith, Medical Editor
    Published: 10:00PM BST 21 Aug 2009

    More than one million NHS staff are paid well above their basic salary when they are ill under a contract which guarantees them a far better deal than those working in the private sector.

    The generous terms mean that when they are on sick leave they receive full pay, plus a selection of benefits. These include supplements for unsocial hours and overtime for six months, with half pay for a further six.

    Related Articles: Over 45,000 NHS staff call in sick each day

    The deal means when an NHS worker – such as an ambulance worker, nurse, porter, or midwife – goes off sick they are paid according to an average of their total pay for the previous three months, rather than just their basic salary.

    In many cases, workers have boosted their income by working nights or extra hours, or are paid a ‘recruitment and retention’ bonus, which can add tens of thousands of pounds to the basic salary of a middle grade worker living in London.

    ======

    Without market discipline, bizarre situations become the norm

  18. Obama Administration Sets Up New Interrogation Unit
    A new interrogation unit will be created and will report to the White House-based National Security Council.

    Monday, August 24, 2009

    President Obama has approved the creation of a specialized interrogation unit that would focus on key terror suspects, the White House confirmed Monday.

    Deputy Obama press secretary Bill Burton told reporters that even though the new unit will be supervised by the White House, that does not mean the CIA is out of the interrogation business.

    Burton, who is stationed in Martha’s Vineyard while the first family is on vacation, said the new unit would include “all these different elements under one group,” and that it will be situated at the FBI headquarters in Washington.

    FOX News had earlier confirmed that the new unit would be created, and that it would report to the White House-based National Security Council.

    Though such work typically falls to the CIA, one senior U.S. official told FOX News that the CIA did not want to house the new initiative.

    “They’re glad to be out of the long-term detention business,” the official said.

    According to The Washington Post, the new unit would be named the High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group and would be composed of experts in this field from the law enforcement and intelligence community. Obama was said to have approved creation of the unit late last week.

    The unit’s structure would depart significantly from such work under the Bush administration, when the CIA had the lead and sometimes exclusive role in questioning Al Qaeda suspects.

    One official, who spoke on grounds of anonymity, said such a unit would not alter the administration’s decision banning harsh interrogation techniques, such as waterboarding, that were authorized by the Bush administration.

    The White House confirmed the new unit would be created on the same day the Justice Department is expected to release a report on the alleged prisoner abuse at the hands of CIA interrogators.

  19. I agree with your post and it is well written. As stated, all American Presidents has a part in this socialism/fascist movement we seemed to be entering into at warp speed now with BHO, but the only problem that I have is…why did the American people not carry this same message when Bush was in office? I love the stamina now that is being shown by the American people, but we should have started this movement 8 years ago. I guess we were all so caught up in the lies, false-flags, and proproganda, of the last 8 years that we are able to smell BS when the aroma entered the office. The protests are not just about Healthcare but all of the outrageous policies being introduced and some signed under our radar. Bush really set the path to socialism (examples below), Obama (the great puppet that he is) is trying to finish the agenda that our great leaders(Presidents)have created…We have to come together as Americans and fight the tyranny that is trying to control our lives and well-being. We have to look past race, age, creed, ect…we have to unite as one. Together we stand, divided we fall. The Obama Administration knows that if we are divided they will conquer and they are doing a damn good job right now. As we are having debates about healhcare, ACORN, Socialism, ect, they have prepared and/or planning for another false-flag (the only way they can get the American people on board with them and this in turn will give them the right to take even more of our freedoms in which we don’t have much left). They did it because of 9/11 in which I think was a set-up but I am sure I am ruffling feathers so I will leave that alone. I foresee and I pray to God that I am wrong:
    1. Shortly, Israel will be attacked by a false flag operation blamed on Iran
    2. Israel will attack Iran
    3. US troops pre-positioned in Afghanistan will attack Pakistan
    4. US controlled operatives in Pakistan will launch a nuke
    5. WWIII will kick off.
    6. The swine flu will mutate and in the UK and US and elsewhere mass vaccination will take place, those refusing seen as unpatriotic will be put in camps.
    8. World economy will collapse. Elite will buy the world at fire sale prices with false new money they print themselves then charge us for it via taxes.
    9. People will finally wake up, it’s been too long but then, it will be far too late as America will be a third world country with hyperinflation greater than Zimbawae.

    So WAKE UP NOW or forever hold your peace!

    Let’s reflect on the wonderful regulations Bush passed:
    In a stealth maneuver, President Bush has signed into law a provision which, according to Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont), will actually encourage the President to declare federal martial law (1). It does so by revising the Insurrection Act, a set of laws that limits the President’s ability to deploy troops within the United States. The Insurrection Act (10 U.S.C.331 -335) has historically, along with the Posse Comitatus Act (18 U.S.C.1385), helped to enforce strict prohibitions on military involvement in domestic law enforcement. With one cloaked swipe of his pen, Bush is seeking to undo those prohibitions.

    Public Law 109-364, or the “John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007” (H.R.5122) (2), which was signed by the commander in chief on October 17th, 2006, in a private Oval Office ceremony, allows the President to declare a “public emergency” and station troops anywhere in America and take control of state-based National Guard units without the consent of the governor or local authorities, in order to “suppress public disorder.”

    President Bush seized this unprecedented power on the very same day that he signed the equally odious Military Commissions Act of 2006. In a sense, the two laws complement one another. One allows for torture and detention abroad, while the other seeks to enforce acquiescence at home, preparing to order the military onto the streets of America. Remember, the term for putting an area under military law enforcement control is precise; the term is “martial law.”

    Section 1076 of the massive Authorization Act, which grants the Pentagon another $500-plus-billion for its ill-advised adventures, is entitled, “Use of the Armed Forces in Major Public Emergencies.” Section 333, “Major public emergencies; interference with State and Federal law” states that “the President may employ the armed forces, including the National Guard in Federal service, to restore public order and enforce the laws of the United States when, as a result of a natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition in any State or possession of the United States, the President determines that domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the State or possession are incapable of (“refuse” or “fail” in) maintaining public order, “in order to suppress, in any State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy.”

    For the current President, “enforcement of the laws to restore public order” means to commandeer guardsmen from any state, over the objections of local governmental, military and local police entities; ship them off to another state; conscript them in a law enforcement mode; and set them loose against “disorderly” citizenry – protesters, possibly, or those who object to forced vaccinations and quarantines in the event of a bio-terror event.

    The law also facilitates militarized police round-ups and detention of protesters, so called “illegal aliens,” “potential terrorists” and other “undesirables” for detention in facilities already contracted for and under construction by Halliburton. That’s right. Under the cover of a trumped-up “immigration emergency” and the frenzied militarization of the southern border, detention camps are being constructed right under our noses, camps designed for anyone who resists the foreign and domestic agenda of the Bush administration.

    An article on “recent contract awards” in a recent issue of the slick, insider “Journal of Counterterrorism & Homeland Security International” reported that “global engineering and technical services powerhouse KBR [Kellog, Brown & Root] announced in January 2006 that its Government and Infrastructure division was awarded an Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract to support U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facilities in the event of an emergency.” “With a maximum total value of $385 million over a five year term,” the report notes, “the contract is to be executed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,” “for establishing temporary detention and processing capabilities to augment existing ICE Detention and Removal Operations (DRO) – in the event of an emergency influx of immigrants into the U.S., or to support the rapid development of new programs.” The report points out that “KBR is the engineering and construction subsidiary of Halliburton.” (3) So, in addition to authorizing another $532.8 billion for the Pentagon, including a $70-billion “supplemental provision” which covers the cost of the ongoing, mad military maneuvers in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other places, the new law, signed by the president in a private White House ceremony, further collapses the historic divide between the police and the military: a tell-tale sign of a rapidly consolidating police state in America, all accomplished amidst ongoing U.S. imperial pretensions of global domination, sold to an “emergency managed” and seemingly willfully gullible public as a “global war on terrorism.”

    Make no mistake about it: the de-facto repeal of the Posse Comitatus Act (PCA) is an ominous assault on American democratic tradition and jurisprudence. The 1878 Act, which reads, “Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both,” is the only U.S. criminal statute that outlaws military operations directed against the American people under the cover of ‘law enforcement.’ As such, it has been the best protection we’ve had against the power-hungry intentions of an unscrupulous and reckless executive, an executive intent on using force to enforce its will.

    Unfortunately, this past week, the president dealt posse comitatus, along with American democracy, a near fatal blow. Consequently, it will take an aroused citizenry to undo the damage wrought by this horrendous act, part and parcel, as we have seen, of a long train of abuses and outrages perpetrated by this authoritarian administration.

    Despite the unprecedented and shocking nature of this act, there has been no outcry in the American media, and little reaction from our elected officials in Congress. On September 19th, a lone Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont) noted that 2007’s Defense Authorization Act contained a “widely opposed provision to allow the President more control over the National Guard [adopting] changes to the Insurrection Act, which will make it easier for this or any future President to use the military to restore domestic order WITHOUT the consent of the nation’s governors.”

    Senator Leahy went on to stress that, “we certainly do not need to make it easier for Presidents to declare martial law. Invoking the Insurrection Act and using the military for law enforcement activities goes against some of the central tenets of our democracy. One can easily envision governors and mayors in charge of an emergency having to constantly look over their shoulders while someone who has never visited their communities gives the orders.”

    A few weeks later, on the 29th of September, Leahy entered into the Congressional Record that he had “grave reservations about certain provisions of the fiscal Year 2007 Defense Authorization Bill Conference Report,” the language of which, he said, “subverts solid, longstanding posse comitatus statutes that limit the military’s involvement in law enforcement, thereby making it easier for the President to declare martial law.” This had been “slipped in,” Leahy said, “as a rider with little study,” while “other congressional committees with jurisdiction over these matters had no chance to comment, let alone hold hearings on, these proposals.”

    In a telling bit of understatement, the Senator from Vermont noted that “the implications of changing the (Posse Comitatus) Act are enormous”. “There is good reason,” he said, “for the constructive friction in existing law when it comes to martial law declarations. Using the military for law enforcement goes against one of the founding tenets of our democracy. We fail our Constitution, neglecting the rights of the States, when we make it easier for the President to declare martial law and trample on local and state sovereignty.”

    Senator Leahy’s final ruminations: “Since hearing word a couple of weeks ago that this outcome was likely, I have wondered how Congress could have gotten to this point. It seems the changes to the Insurrection Act have survived the Conference because the Pentagon and the White House want it.”

    The historic and ominous re-writing of the Insurrection Act, accomplished in the dead of night, which gives Bush the legal authority to declare martial law, is now an accomplished fact.

    The Pentagon, as one might expect, plays an even more direct role in martial law operations. Title XIV of the new law, entitled, “Homeland Defense Technology Transfer Legislative Provisions,” authorizes “the Secretary of Defense to create a Homeland Defense Technology Transfer Consortium to improve the effectiveness of the Department of Defense (DOD) processes for identifying and deploying relevant DOD technology to federal, State, and local first responders.”

    In other words, the law facilitates the “transfer” of the newest in so-called “crowd control” technology and other weaponry designed to suppress dissent from the Pentagon to local militarized police units. The new law builds on and further codifies earlier “technology transfer” agreements, specifically the 1995 DOD-Justice Department memorandum of agreement achieved back during the Clinton-Reno regime.(4)

    Source:
    (1) http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200609/091906a.html and http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200609/092906b.html See also, Congressional Research Service Report for Congress, “The Use of Federal Troops for Disaster Assistance: Legal Issues,” by Jennifer K. Elsea, Legislative Attorney, August 14, 2006

    (2) http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill+h109-5122

    (3) Journal of Counterterrorism & Homeland Security International, “Recent Contract Awards”, Summer 2006, Vol.12, No.2, pg.8; See also, Peter Dale Scott, “Homeland Security Contracts for Vast New Detention Camps,” New American Media, January 31, 2006.

    (4) “Technology Transfer from defense: Concealed Weapons Detection”, National Institute of Justice Journal, No 229, August, 1995, pp.42-43.

    • Black Flag says:

      As all tyranny do, they forget that the power of the People is immutable.

      The collapse of economy and the failure of the wars is a sign that the Elite are losing control.

      They are frantic and desperate – thus dangerous.

      • BF
        I agree…there backs are up against the wall and that is why I foresee another false-flag much like 911. We as Americans have to keep up the fight and continue to do it peacefully.

        I agree with you on your discussion with Mathius. I think the problem is that we have been so brainwashed to think that Government is good…that the evils are bypassed. It stated in the Bible that the ends of times “as we know it”…good will be evil and evil will be good. Mathius explained it so perfect; the tyranny of government has most believing that what Government is doing is good.

        Sorry Mathius, but I must disagree with you.

    • Good day to you Nubian. I have heard a few rumbles about this new emergency powers thing being used by Obama under a ruse to get cooperation from most of the public. Something like the swine flu or some terrorist act.

      I hope to God you’re wrong, but as the world turns, I think you may have some traction.

      Obama also is setting up a new program for public brainwashing to get what he wants. It’s called HR3247.

      • Hey Esom.
        Hope all is well with you. Getting ready to research HR 3247. You know I am going to start making a list of bills that are being introduced because there is so much going on, that I can’t keep up with you of them. Yet, I feel that this is how the Government wants it. Keep them all confused and we will just pass everything while they are protesting and fighting the Healthcare bill. Wow…they are doing such a great job of “divide and conquer”

      • I could see emergency situation(s) arising just before election time, which would of course, cause us to put aside the elections for the “good of the country.”

  20. A U.S. Marine squad was marching north of Fallujah when they came upon an Iraqi terrorist, badly injured and unconscious. On the opposite side of the road was an American Marine in a similar but less serious state.

    The Marine was conscious and alert and as first aid was given to both men, the squad leader asked the injured Marine what had happened.

    The Marine reported, “I was heavily armed and moving north along the highway here, and coming south was a heavily armed insurgent. We saw each other and both took cover in the ditches along the road.

    I yelled to him that Saddam Hussein was a miserable, lowlife scum bag who got what he deserved, and he yelled back that Ted Kennedy is a fat, good-for-nothing, left wing liberal drunk who doesn’t know how to drive.

    So I said that Osama Bin Laden dresses and acts like a frigid, mean-spirited lesbian!

    He retaliated by yelling, “Oh yeah? Well, so does Nancy Pelosi!”

    “And, there we were, in the middle of the road, shaking hands, when a truck hit us.”
    ———————————–

    Thought I would inject some humor here.

    By the way, Mathius, you are not fooling me at all….you have footprints all over the blog sites. And, you sir, are as far left as they come…maybe even in a world of your own…but you are entertaining and, while you appear very well read, I venture to say you need a little experience to blend. I hope that you get that far.

    D13

    • Wonderful. Any joke that mocks Ted and Nancy at the same time is one I can get behind.

      And, no, honestly, I’ve posted here and there, but never participated like here anywhere else. Where would I go? Where is like here?

      I am nowhere near as left as they come – though I would hesitate to argue that I’m not in my own little world.

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        Mathius,

        We all are in our own little worlds. To try to care for the entire world all at once would be exhausting!

        That is why most of us react to problems that impact us the most directly.

        For example- A tornado hits my house. Major tragedy. If I am alive, I find out if everyone else is alive, and do what is needed to ensure their continued survival.

        A tornado hits my neighborhood, but misses my house. Major tragedy. Once I know my home is secure, I will likely seek out my friends and my neighbors to see if they are alive, and as safe and secure as possible.

        A tornado hits my city, but nowhere near my neighborhood. Major tragedy. Once I am reasonably certain that my family is safe and secure and so are my friends and neighbors, I MIGHT CHOOSE to go to the other part of town to help out, but I am going to make the assumption that they all have families, friends, and neighbors that would act as I would act in the case of such an emergency. Also, it might be dangerous for me to go to the affected part of town to help out, and my getting injured or killed would be a severe blow to my family, so I must weigh this heavily in my decision to help out. I might even contribute some money or bottled water or what have you for the people in the affected area in lieu of going there to help out myself.

        A tsunami hits Indonesia- tens of thousands die, many more are homeless and without proper food, water, and sanitation. Major tragedy, but one that I cannot really do anything about. Even if I were to give our government money to give to their government, what assurance do I have that any of that money would actually get to the people who needed it? NONE WHATSOEVER!

        So, it is futile to concern myself with tragedy and human suffering half-way around the globe. I can recognize it as a tragedy, and I can recognize the tremendous amount of human suffering happening there, but most likely, I cannot do anything about it.

        The fact that governments exist does nothing whatsoever to ensure that anything will be done about it either. Our government cannot force their government to use any money we give them for our desired purpose. If it turns out that their government misuses the money and very little if any of it gets to the people who need it, our only recourse is to say, “Our bad… I guess you just don’t get any more money in the future regardless of what happens to you.” Not a very efficient way to help out.

    • bottom line says:

      damn you guys post some good ones. I’m telling everyone this joke.

  21. Black Flag says:

    From the How can you spot an Elitist?

    Anti Gun N. C. State State Senator Shoots A Home Invader</b.

    North Carolina State Senator R.C. Soles, 74, the longest-serving lawmaker in the General Assembly, shot an intruder as he tried to break into his home Sunday. He shot 22-year-old Thomas Kyle Blackburn in the leg as Blackburn and another man allegedly tried to break down his door. They apparently were both legal clients of the senator.

    The Senator, who has made a career of being against guns for you and me, didn’t hesitate to defend himself with his own gun when he believed he was in immediate danger, and was the victim of a crime against himself.

    In typical hypocritical liberal fashion, the “Do as I say and not as I do” anti gun Democrat picked up his gun and took action in what apparently was self defense shooting, something he doesn’t want you be able to do.

    His life must and personal safety must be be far more valuable than yours or mine.

    But, this is to be expected from those who believe they can run our lives, raise our kids, and protect our families better than we can.

    • I’ll just be danged. When I heard this I just knew it would wind up being news because he would be an Anti-Gun moron and hypocrite.

      I guess since he was Against guns, that was the reason he shot the dude in the laig huh?

      I wonder how he’ll feel about that when the fellow sues him for injuries recieved during the break in? 😉

    • Another definition of an elitist

      Sen. Edward Kennedy, who is battling brain cancer, is urging Massachusetts officials to change a law to allow for an immediate temporary replacement should a vacancy occur for one of his state’s two Senate seats.

      Under a 2004 Massachusetts law, a special election must be held 145 to 160 days after a Senate seat becomes vacant. The winner of that election would serve the remainder of a senator’s unexpired term.

      Before 2004, state law allowed the governor to appoint an immediate replacement in the event of a U.S. Senate vacancy. The heavily Democratic Legislature changed the law, however, after Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts was expected to become the Democratic presidential nominee.
      Critics said the Legislature changed the statute to prevent then-Gov. Mitt Romney, a Republican, from picking a replacement for Kerry in the event he defeated President Bush later that fall.

      Now guess who pushed to change this law in 2004. Edward Kennedy.

  22. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    BF,

    You say that we see the same results with “normal” breeding as we see with inbreeding. The problem that I have with that argument is I am pretty sure it can be demonstrated that the percentage of defectives is higher with inbreeding than it is with “normal” breeding.

    Since the risk is greater, I believe that that is why humans figured out on their own that inbreeding wasn’t the best choice. It seems to me that people just said, “Hey, if I breed with someone not in my immediate family, birth defects happen once in a while, but if I breed with someone in my immediate family, birth defects happen more often, so maybe that’s a bad idea.”

    I could be wrong on this, so I guess I will have to look up any studies that have been done to see if the incidence of birth defects is really higher with inbreeding or not.

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      Why am I telling you this… you are a poker player. You go through the process of evaluating the risks of a particular course of action and then deciding whether to act or not act based on your evaluation all the time 🙂

      So, I guess my question to you would be if there is solid experimental evidence that inbreeding produces a higher incidence of defect than “outbreeding” then why take the risk?

      If experimental evidence shows the exact same incidence of defects regardless of inbreeding, then I would agree that since the risk is equal, it makes no difference.

      • Black Flag says:

        To the extent of genetics;

        As much ‘bad’ you claim, has the same chance as ‘good’.

        Dominate genes are not ‘always bad’ nor ‘always good’.

        Defects one hand, Enhancements other hand. The averaging to the mean still occurs.

        “Bad” genetics gets culled naturally. “Good” genetics are promoted. Does not matter how “good” are promoted.

        Nature shows that aberration is independent of breeding – thus, the process of natural selection is supreme.

        Finally, all of us are related by mathematical fact. Within the last 32 generations (or about 500 years), we all share the same grandparents.

        Again, the misunderstanding of ‘inbreeding’ is repaired by math 🙂

        • Are you saying that defects are as common as enhancements, or have I misunderstood? Defects are much more common than enhancements since it is much easier to screw up something that works than to make it better when you are making random changes.

          Mathematically it may appear that if you go back 500 years everyone has the same grandparents, but I don’t think in real life it works that way. If you take may pedigree back 500 years you would find all of my ancestors in Europe, but if you did the same for someone in Africa you would find theirs in Africa. I think geography makes this not really true. That said, we are all certainly related.

  23. Mathius, I made my comment this morning giving you “some” credibility about your ignorant masses position. Garofalo would fall very deep into that catagory. I also equate that to anyone who thinks they can decide the “greater good” on behalf of anyone. The “greater good” is nothing more than an opinion, which we all have. We express our opinions here everyday, but we don’t force anyone to change theirs. Free thinking is a great thing.

    Do you think that you can decide for the “greater good” and force your opinion on others?

    I’ll await your answer with an open mind!

    G!

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      If everyone was in total agreement as to what the greater good actually was, it wouldn’t be an issue. The force becomes necessary because not all people are in agreement on what the greater good actually is.

      There will never be a global consensus on what the greater good actually is, so in order for one particular view of the greater good to propagate, force will always be required.

      This is why the concept of “the greater good” is evil.

    • Yes, but I can tell you what is *probably* in the greatest good. Because even the wise cannot see all ends, I cannot give you any certainty, but I do know that if you eat your veggies you willprobably be healthier. So it is with a society.

      If you support and sustain the weakest and most vulnerable, if you help your neighbors, if you pool to achieve bigger results (SOCIALIZED results), like police and fire protection and public schools, if you pool to create organizations to help keep everyone safe and healthy, you will *probably* have a greater good than if everyone goes it along. And as I always say, if this needs to be forced on some, then so be it.

      Can I guarantee it? No. But does that mean we should take our chances? You tell me what the logical conclusion is.

      • Black Flag says:

        Mathius</b.

        Yes, but I can tell you what is *probably* in the greatest good. Because even the wise cannot see all ends, I cannot give you any certainty, but I do know that if you eat your veggies you willprobably be healthier. So it is with a society.

        Your fallacy is wrong.

        I can test, experimentally, that veggies are healthier than arsenic.

        You cannot test that what you MAY believe is a greater good (thus justifying evil on SOME people) is better than not doing evil on some people.

        You are merely making an arbitrary guess based on what YOU BELIEVE is better FOR YOU.

        If you support and sustain the weakest and most vulnerable, if you help your neighbors, if you pool to achieve bigger results (SOCIALIZED results), like police and fire protection and public schools, if you pool to create organizations to help keep everyone safe and healthy, you will *probably* have a greater good than if everyone goes it along. And as I always say, if this needs to be forced on some, then so be it.

        Not if our believe system is rooted in a contradiction.

        You want freedom, but deny it for others. The end, will always be, slavery for you.

        Can I guarantee it? No. But does that mean we should take our chances? You tell me what the logical conclusion is.

        Taking chances on doing evil, in the hope that -somehow- a ‘good’ will appear is illogical.

        Good comes from good. Evil begets evil.

        Pretending ‘a little evil’ will do a great good is illogical.

      • Ah, my dear friend. There is no way for you to probably tell me what the greastest good is, for you and I can never know that. Each individual has different needs and desires, therefore it is impropable that you can determine the greater good, for anyone other than yourself and family.

        The logical answer is to let people live, or die, succeed or fail on their own merits, not on the backs of others. Families will take care of the handicapped, we are that kind of people, without the coersion of anyone else.

        Question for you, if I decided that it would be for the greater good to imprison the elite, and accomplished that, to the betterment of the greater good, I take it you’d be OK with sitting in jail to prove that if it’s for the greater good, and was forced upon you, it is OK?

        G!

      • Too much Star Trek, Mathius.

      • I you are so sure it will result in Good then why do you feel in necessary to compell such “pooling” by using the force of govt?

        Why not let those who wish to pool to do so and thus give themselves an advantage?

  24. Black Flag says:

    Mathius

    Now, now. There is a reason I don’t get to decide, and it is the same reason you don’t get to decide. We are not objective. One must take into consideration what there to spare and what is needed.

    So ‘who’ gets to decide? Based on what right (or reason)? How do they know (Knowledge from God?)?

    How do they know how much YOU need?

    How do they know how much I need?

    What happens if there is not enough for both needs?

    I would suggest that maybe the government is justified is instituting a “sock tax” to help redistribute* the wealth. *

    What ‘justification’? How do they know I don’t need 10 million socks? or a hundred or one? How do they know what is enough?

    I am fully aware of the alarm bells that just went off in your head due to my use of that word. However, redistribution of wealth is important – without it, all the wealth accumulates at the top and everyone else gets le screwed.

    Do not confuse the Zero-sum game of Socialism with Free Enterprise.

    The creation of wealth comes from the free action of men, not in its theft.

    Here is some thinking for you… (via Hans Hoppe)

    If person A were not the owner of his own body and the places and goods originally appropriated and/or produced with this body as well as of the goods voluntarily (contractually) acquired from another previous owner, then only two alternatives would exist.

    Either another person, B, must be recognized as the owner of A’s body as well as the places and goods appropriated, produced or acquired by A, or both persons, A and B, must be considered equal co-owners of all bodies, places and goods.

    In the first case, A would be reduced to the rank of B’s slave and object of exploitation.

    Person B would be the owner of A’s body and all places and goods appropriated, produced and acquired by A, but A in turn would not be the owner of B’s body and the places and goods appropriated, produced and acquired by B.

    Hence, under this ruling two categorically distinct classes of persons would be constituted— “slave” such as A and “slave-owner” such as B—to whom different “laws” apply.

    Accordingly, such ruling must be discarded as a human ethic equally applicable to everyone qua human being (rational animal). From the very outset, any such ruling is recognized as not universally acceptable and thus cannot claim to represent law. For a rule to aspire to the rank of a law—a just rule—it is necessary that such a rule apply equally and universally to everyone.

    Alternatively, in the second case of universal and equal co-ownership, the requirement of equal law for everyone would be fulfilled.

    However, this alternative would suffer from an even more severe deficiency, because if it were applied, all of mankind would instantly perish. (Since every human ethic must permit the survival of mankind, this alternative must also be rejected.)

    Every action of a person requires the use of some scarce means (at least of the person’s body and its standing room), but if all goods were co-owned by everyone, then no one, at no time and no place, would be allowed to do anything unless he had previously secured every other co-owner’s consent to do so. Yet how could anyone grant such consent were he not the exclusive owner of his own body (including his vocal chords) by which means his consent must be expressed?

    Indeed, he would first need another’s consent in order to be allowed to express his own, but these others could not give their consent without having first his, and so it would go on.

    This insight into the praxeological impossibility of “universal communism,” which demonstrates the idea private property as the only correct solution to the problem of social order.

  25. I just received this in my email box. Thought I’d put this up, since Black Flag put up that article about that Senator shooting an intruder.

    _________________________________________________________________
    August 24, 2009

    Dear Gun Rights Supporter,

    The dog days of summer are in full swing, and many conservatives are focused on the ongoing debate over Obama’s plan for socialized health care.

    But lost amid the summer white noise are two more serious dangers to gun rights.

    Another anti-gun Obama nominee?
    David Michaels, freshly nominated to be the next administrator of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), believes guns should be treated like asbestos and banned in the name of the “public good.”

    Luke has posted some of Mr. Michael’s more shocking comments on the National Association for Gun Rights Blog.

    Click here to read about David Michaels, and join the discussion on his anti-gun views.

    Hoplophobia is contagious
    D.C. Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton is so offended by the peaceful political free speech of gun rights activists at Obama town hall meetings that she wants to ban all guns around the President.

    Next on Norton’s list of “expiring” Constitutional rights?

    Due process.

    You can read the details in all their free-speech-hating glory on the blog here.

    In Liberty,
    Dudley Brown
    Executive Director
    National Association for Gun Rights

    • It’s not enough they want to ban guns, now they want to go after your constitutional rights. Haven’t they already started?

    • Judy…come on down to Texas. It matters not what the Fed government does with gun rights….we WILL have them in Texas…period. I think we are only one of two states that do not keep records of gun ownership…once approved, records are destroyed. If the Feds wish to take them away….come and get them…They will leave….without the guns.

      • D13

        How can records get destroyed once your guns are registered. I just asked my husband that, and he said that they keep records forever, and they don’t destroy the records. He said that is nation wide.

        He said, suppose your gun was stolen like 10 years ago, and you report it, and it was used to kill somebody. He said, who’s door do you think they’re going to knock on. Hey, your gun was used in a robbery and somebody was killed by it. Yea, great,I Reported my gun stolen 10 years ago, and you’re just now coming to tell me it was used in a robbery. Why didn’t you do something when I reported it stolen.

        So, like I asked, how can they destroy records. How can they not keep records of who bought any guns. If you buy a gun, don’t they take down the serial number, and next to that number is the name of the person who bought that gun so they know who owns what. My husband has a concealed weapons permit, took a class for it, and carries it everywhere he goes. So he doesn’t understand how Texas can destroy the records after you have bought a gun.

        • Judy, Hi and how are you tonight?

          I, don’t own one gun that the govt. has knowledge of, and never will. I own a bunch. Sometimes one has to decide what they want known. My answer is: nothing!

          G!

          • Hi G

            I’m fine tonight, just tired. My mom was like a fly this morning between 4 and 5 A.M.. Kept trying to get back to sleep, but just cat-napped. She just goes to bed too early, plus she naps throughout the day, so that doesn’t help.

            I was just going by what Jim said. My guess is, is that is what they were told during that concealed weapons class. I too always thought that you had to register your gun after purchase. OH Well, live and learn.

  26. “BlackFlag likes to say they are both exactly the same, just different shirt colors.”

    I like to think of it as two different teams playing the same sport.

    • Black Flag says:

      You believe they are playing against each other.

      But they are playing AGAINST YOU.

      Think of it as World-wide Wrestling Tag team – you against both of them – and you’re alone.

  27. Sorry for the change of subject but how STUPID can our government be…Sure sounds like they got all Americans best interest at heart and will go beyond any means to protect us and our country.

    Let me get a HOORAY for GOVERNMENT!

    Report: Virus lab planned for tornado area

    WASHINGTON – Washington used a flawed study to select a tornado-prone area of Kansas for a $700 million infectious-
    pathogens biosecurity lab, a government report says. The Department of Homeland Security’s analysis was not “scien-
    tifically defensible” in concluding Kansas or any other U.S. mainland location could safely handle dangerous animal
    diseases, the Government Accountability Office said in draft report obtained by The Washington Post. The department —
    whose responsibilities include protecting U.S. territory from terrorist attacks and responding to natural disasters
    — used “unrepresentative accident scenarios,” “outdated modeling” and “inadequate” information, greatly underesti-
    mating the chance of accidental release and major contamination from lab research, the GAO report said. Such research
    has been conducted only on remote Plumb Island, N.Y., off the northern tip of Long Island. The site-selection criticism
    comes as the proposed National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility, proposed for Manhattan, Kan., was expected to win construc-
    tion funding in the congressional appropriations process. Homeland Security officials had also considered Georgia,
    Mississippi, North Carolina and Texas locations. The GAO also criticized Homeland Security for downplaying the pro-
    posed facility’s risks, the Post reported. Department officials met privately with congressional staff members to try
    to convince them the GAO report was unfair, the Post said. But the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s oversight and
    investigations subcommittee, chaired by Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., decided otherwise and plans to hold a hearing
    Thursday on the risk analysis, the Post said.

  28. Mike M. Houston Texas says:

    Great topic. In reading some of the responses I very quickly realized why I have been having the thoughts I have had since the election. I believe that I am living in a “crisis driven” age. There are people on the fringe on both sides. Those in power get the barbs and the fringe for the side do the defending. We just change roles every so often. I have read many brilliant ideas and some that I am not sure how a thinking mind conjured them up but at least this is a place that embraces differences.

    Now I ask my question! How in a crisis driven age can we “take back America”? I would be willing to bet that the people posting here are registered voters who exercise that right but are all part of the silent majority. Being “silent” is the exact opposite of “crisis”. We will never have media attention, we will never have anyone in office, we will never change this as our DNA is simply not “crisis” driven. You never hear about the 13,809 planes that landed safely today. Just the one that crashed — because its a crisis. You dont hear about the 2.8 million people who went to work today and are doing their level best to raise their children and provide for their families. Because thats not a crisis. Let one of us who doesnt have a job shoot someone else who doesnt have a job and 4 news outlets will be at your door. I guess this is our outlet for our frustration.

    I want the best for everyone as long as you damn well earn it. I dont want you taking my money that I earned and giving it to anyone. I dont want this damn healthcare bill to pass because the government cant do but about 3 things right. I am tired of being called a racist because I disagree with something Obama wants to do.

    How do we change it so we can see the fuits of our labor in our lifetime? That is what I am out here looking for.

    What if I were in total control of the whole world. Dangerous I know. I would spend my time asking people questions on national televison with a bullshit detector that went off everytime they lied. I think the rest would take care of itself.

    Sorry for the rambling but even if we came together tomorrow how do we make meaningful changes?

    • To take the country back, we need to find honest people who are willing to serve in public office who will stick to their principles, and do (or atleast attempt to do) EXACTLY what they told you they were going to do during their campaiogn. Ideally, these people that we elect will stick to the principles of VDLG, but if they don’t then at least you can say that your mahyor, state representative, congressman, etc. is HONEST. Once their are honest people in office who will ONLY do what they said they were going to do, then more people might actually VOTE.

      • And just where do we find these people? There hasn’t been one politician that I’m aware of that has actually kept their word. But, I do agree with you on what you said.

        Judy

        • GOtta start locally, you or someone you know run for mayor, town council, even the schoolboard. Get you friends and family to vote for that candidate, do you said you were going to do, stay true to your principles, and then just ride the wave.

          • Black Flag says:

            Somebody has been reading ahead in class.

            • Nope, I just know my history.

            • “THUMP” That was D13 hitting the floor. BF actually agrees with him for if BF really is astute as D13 hopes, it is working within the system. Ahhhhhhh……..

              • Black Flag says:

                Don’t get your hopes up, D13.

                I do not support government at any stage –

                As I’ve said before,

                National government before Global government,

                State government before Civic government,

                Community government before Civic government,

                Individual before Community.

                “To get THERE from HERE” requires many steps –

      • bottom line says:

        I think you nailed it redleg. When gallup pole asked me what I think the biggest problem in America is…I responded with “a lack of proper representation”. We’re all sick of the bullshit.

    • Mike, You must answer your own questions first, by understanding your principles and your core beliefs. That’s where it all starts, understand self, and then you can move toward the solutioons that you desire.

      My Uncle Fred told me when I was in my early teens, “take care of yourself first, and everyone else will be fine”.

      Never a more truthfull statement, but getting there takes work. Discover who you are first, then solutions come much more easily.

      Nice to talk to you!

      G!

  29. WASHINGTON — Millions of older people face shrinking Social Security checks next year, the first time in a generation that payments would not rise.

    The trustees who oversee Social Security are projecting there won’t be a cost of living adjustment (COLA) for the next two years. That hasn’t happened since automatic increases were adopted in 1975.

    By law, Social Security benefits cannot go down. Nevertheless, monthly payments would drop for millions of people in the Medicare prescription drug program because the premiums, which often are deducted from Social Security payments, are scheduled to go up slightly.

    “I will promise you, they count on that COLA,” said Barbara Kennelly, a former Democratic congresswoman from Connecticut who now heads the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare. “To some people, it might not be a big deal. But to seniors, especially with their health care costs, it is a big deal.”

    Cost of living adjustments are pegged to inflation, which has been negative this year, largely because energy prices are below 2008 levels.

    Advocates say older people still face higher prices because they spend a disproportionate amount of their income on health care, where costs rise faster than inflation. Many also have suffered from declining home values and shrinking stock portfolios just as they are relying on those assets for income.

    “For many elderly, they don’t feel that inflation is low because their expenses are still going up,” said David Certner, legislative policy director for AARP. “Anyone who has savings and investments has seen some serious losses.”

    About 50 million retired and disabled Americans receive Social Security benefits. The average monthly benefit for retirees is $1,153 this year. All beneficiaries received a 5.8 percent increase in January, the largest since 1982.

    More than 32 million people are in the Medicare prescription drug program. Average monthly premiums are set to go from $28 this year to $30 next year, though they vary by plan. About 6 million people in the program have premiums deducted from their monthly Social Security payments, according to the Social Security Administration.

    Millions of people with Medicare Part B coverage for doctors’ visits also have their premiums deducted from Social Security payments. Part B premiums are expected to rise as well. But under the law, the increase cannot be larger than the increase in Social Security benefits for most recipients.

    There is no such hold-harmless provision for drug premiums.

    Kennelly’s group wants Congress to increase Social Security benefits next year, even though the formula doesn’t call for it. She would like to see either a 1 percent increase in monthly payments or a one-time payment of $150.

    The cost of a one-time payment, a little less than $8 billion, could be covered by increasing the amount of income subjected to Social Security taxes, Kennelly said. Workers only pay Social Security taxes on the first $106,800 of income, a limit that rises each year with the average national wage.

    But the limit only increases if monthly benefits increase.

    Critics argue that Social Security recipients shouldn’t get an increase when inflation is negative.

    They note that recipients got a big increase in January — after energy prices had started to fall. They also note that Social Security recipients received one-time $250 payments in the spring as part of the government’s economic stimulus package.

    “Seniors may perceive that they are being hurt because there is no COLA, but they are in fact not getting hurt,” said Andrew G. Biggs, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, a Washington think tank. “Congress has to be able to tell people they are not getting everything they want.”

    Social Security is also facing long-term financial problems. The retirement program is projected to start paying out more money than it receives in 2016. Without changes, the retirement fund will be depleted in 2037, according to the Social Security trustees’ annual report this year.

    President Barack Obama has said he would like tackle Social Security next year, after Congress finishes work on health care, climate change and new financial regulations.

    Lawmakers are preoccupied by health care, making it difficult to address other tough issues. Advocates for older people hope their efforts will get a boost in October, when the Social Security Administration officially announces that there will not be an increase in benefits next year.
    “I think a lot of seniors do not know what’s coming down the pike, and I believe that when they hear that, they’re going to be upset,” said Sen. Bernie Sanders, an independent from Vermont who is working on a proposal for one-time payments for Social Security recipients.

    “It is my view that seniors are going to need help this year, and it would not be acceptable for Congress to simply turn its back,” he said.

    • Interpretation…. shrinkage=cut…but that cannot be possible because B.O. said there would be no cuts in SSN or Medicaid/Medicare….hence the term shrinkage…. another diversion for health care cram down.

  30. Black Flag says:

    Too squishy – moved here.

    Mathius

    You control the odds.

    Because I am an argumentative SOB – …. 😉

    You do not control the odds in Craps – they are fixed. All you can do is either place a fixed bet or not.

    Play consistently and correctly and the odds will normalize over time. Craps gives you the best odds at a casino.

    No, Poker does. In No Limit, you control the odds (as well as a number of alternative plays).

    You will still lose, but slowly. As such, I find that I am paying a small amount for an extended period of excitement and fun

    From what I understand, there is a play on the “Come / No Come” line that offers a 1.5% advantage to the player. The house protects themselves by limiting the amount of the bet.

    • Black Flag says:

      So, quick research – the best play on Craps is a play on the Pass/No Pass which will reduce the house to merely a ….

      0.013636% advantage.

      So, Craps is a long-term losing strategy.

      I’m glad I play poker :0

  31. Obama opposed healthcare reform before he was for it
    Chad Groening – OneNewsNow – 8/24/2009 6:00:00 AMBookmark and Share

    Obama healthcareA Republican senator says President Barack Obama has consistently opposed Republican proposals that would make healthcare insurance less expensive and more accessible to the American public.

    President Obama recently visited the Democratic National Committee (DNC) headquarters to talk about healthcare. He told an audience at the DNC and thousands watching online and listening by telephone that “winning the election is just the start.”

    Obama says he is still looking for Republican support for a comprehensive healthcare bill, but Democrats privately are preparing a one-party push. Some Democrats say a strong-arm tactic on Senate healthcare legislation, one that would negate the need for any GOP votes, might be more effective than previously thought.

    Senator Jim DeMint (R-South Carolina) has been one of Obama’s staunchest critics on this issue. He says the president opposed meaningful Republican legislation while he still a member of the Senate.

    Sen. Jim DeMint (R-South Carolina)”I want Americans to be clear that I have introduced major healthcare reform every year I’ve been in the Senate. Barack Obama did not introduce any that I’m aware of. He voted against Republican reforms that would have made it less expensive and more accessible for individuals to have their own insurance if they didn’t get it at work,” DeMint points out. “He’s done everything he can to maintain the status quo so that he could call for government intervention — and we need to expose that to the American people.”

    DeMint says healthcare overhaul is a critical battle for Americans and there is no need to rush to pass such important legislation. He recently released his new book Saving Freedom: We Can Stop America’s Slide into Socialism.

  32. Black Flag says:

    Jennie

    Are you saying that defects are as common as enhancements, or have I misunderstood? Defects are much more common than enhancements since it is much easier to screw up something that works than to make it better when you are making random changes.

    Defects are more common in all cases – including from so-called “normal” relations. Again, there is NO statistical difference between a RANDOM series of mates – period.

    Mathematically it may appear that if you go back 500 years everyone has the same grandparents, but I don’t think in real life it works that way. If you take may pedigree back 500 years you would find all of my ancestors in Europe, but if you did the same for someone in Africa you would find theirs in Africa. I think geography makes this not really true. That said, we are all certainly related.

    If I go back 500 years, the number of grand parents exceeds the entire population of the Earth from beginning of history.

    I do not need to go back 500 years, if I shorten the scope to merely Europe. 300 years more than covers all of that population.

  33. v. Holland says:

    I like quotes and I think it’s time for a break.

    “The world is now too dangerous for anything but the truth and too small for us to be divided.”

    “If you think the world is all wrong, remember that it contains people like you.” — Mohandas

    “When the power of love overcomes the love of power, there will be peace.” — Anonymous

    “If at first you don’t succeed, skydiving is not for you.”

    “Use what talents you possess; the woods would be very silent if no birds sang except those that sang best.”
    ~ Henry Van Dyke ~

    We have to live today by what truth we can get today and be ready tomorrow to call it falsehood. ~William James

    Always when judging
    Who people are,
    Remember to footnote
    The words “So far.”
    ~Robert Brault,

    Face what you think you believe and you will be surprised.~William Hale White

    I thought growing up was something that happened automatically as you got older. But it turns out it’s something you have to choose to do.~From the television show Scrubs

    “It’s what you learn after you know it all that counts.”— John Wooden
    Hall of Fame Basketball Coach

    Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don’t.

    Courage doesn’t always roar. Sometimes courage is the little voice at the end of the day that says I’ll try again tomorrow.
    – Mary Anne Radmacher –

    If you are out to describe the truth, leave elegance to the tailor.

    No snowflake in an avalanche ever feels responsible.

    The surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that it has never tried to contact us.  ~Bill Watterson, Calvin and Hobbes

    “I know that you believe you understand what you think I said, but I’m not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.”

  34. Dear Friend:

    Are Obama and his friends taking you as a fool?

    You have to wonder what they really think about the intelligence of the American people.

    Obama repeatedly has out-and-out lied about his healthcare plan.

    Here are just 5 of the big whoppers.

    Lie #1: ‘You Keep Your Doctor, You Keep Your Insurer’

    This is a complete fabrication.

    Under plans Obama has backed in the House and the Senate, almost any business can opt their employees into the “public option” — the government health plan.

    That means you could lose your insurer. And if your doctor is worth his salt, you’ll lose him or her as well.

    Why? Because great doctors probably will not want to get the very low rates the government will pay private doctors who are part of the new government system.

    So, without your consent, you very easily could lose your insurer and your doctor.

    Lie #2: The Elderly Will Not Face Rationing or Medicare Cuts

    More baloney.

    In fact, just last week, The New York Times, a very liberal and very pro-Obama newspaper, admitted that fears of rationing for elderly patients are “not irrational.”

    The truth is that Obamacare would almost 50 million new patients to government care.

    Who would pay for it. You would!

    Seniors on Medicare will be the first hit.

    Here’s what the Times reported: “Bills now in Congress would squeeze savings out of Medicare, a lifeline for the elderly, on the assumption that doctors and hospitals can be more efficient.”

    This means that faceless bureaucrats will decide the type and quality of your care.

    It is a very dangerous thing to give your life and well-being over to government bureaucrats!

    Imagine if you or a loved one is older than 80 years and critically needs heart surgery.

    Instead of getting the heart procedure, you or that loved one could be informed that you are simply too old.

    We at the League of American Voters have been warning of this danger and have a powerful TV commercial exposing the risks to seniors.

    You can see the ad by Going Here Now

    Lie #3: There Will Be No “Death Panels.”

    More lies.

    Sure, they don’t call them “death panels” in the legislation, but that’s what their job will be.

    These committee members will set guidelines with which faceless bureaucrats will make decisions about you and your healthcare.

    They will decide who lives and who dies. They decide who gets critical procedures and expensive medicines.

    Again, according to the New York Times, the Democratic plans call for saving money by creating new oversight committees.

    The Times says that Medicare and insurers would be expected to follow “advice from a new federal panel of medical experts on ‘what treatments work best.’”

    Again, this very liberal paper concluded: “The zeal for cutting health costs, combined with proposals to compare the effectiveness of various treatments and to counsel seniors on end-of-life care, may explain why some people think the legislation is about rationing, which could affect access to the most expensive services in the final months of life.”

    Expose the lies — Go Here Now.

    Lie #4: The Obama Plan Contains Costs

    Absolute nonsense.

    The Obama plan will cost more than $1 trillion in new federal outlays, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

    This past weekend, Sen. Joe Lieberman claimed that most of this cost comes from adding 50 million people, currently uninsured, to the government health system.

    But as Lieberman pointed out, we just don’t have the money to do this right now.

    You can add only so many people to the government system by cutting medical care to seniors on Medicare and raising taxes.

    Democrats clearly plan to do both.

    Lie #5: Illegals Are Not Covered by Obamacare

    President Obama has stated time and again that illegal aliens are not covered under his new plan.

    Still, Democrats say they want to add almost 50 million uninsured. Yet almost one-quarter of these uninsured are illegal aliens.

    None of the Democratic plans excludes illegal aliens.

    In fact, when Republicans proposed an amendment to the House plan to block illegals from getting free government healthcare, Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her minions soundly defeated the motion.

    Many, many lies are emanating from Washington today.

    This is why the work of the League of American Voters is so critical now.

    Dick Morris, the famous Fox News analyst and campaign strategist, says the League is the No. 1 organization today fighting Obamacare.

    “Every American who wants to stop Obamacare should join with the League,” Morris says. “They have the best strategy to stop it from becoming law.”

    Just two weeks ago, the League’s powerful new TV ad went on the air.

    Thanks to your help, it’s already running in 12 states — and it is affecting millions of people.

    We believe it is one reason some Democrats are starting to retreat.

    But our job is not done.

    We must fight the lies.

    We must expose the dangers of Obamacare to all Americans.

  35. I would love and stay here and chat with you all, but I’ve got a kitchen floor that needs mopping. My oldest was here, and he’s not the neatest of people, plus I have a boxer that just slobbers all over the place. Constantly on the prowl for tidbits.

    Will get with you all tomorrow.

    Hope all will have a good night.

    Until then good night and sleep tight.

    Judy

  36. Black Flag says:

    What Soviet Medicine Teaches Us

    by Yuri N. Maltsev

    In 1918, the Soviet Union became the first country to promise universal “cradle-to-grave” healthcare coverage, to be accomplished through the complete socialization of medicine. The “right to health” became a “constitutional right” of Soviet citizens.

    The proclaimed advantages of this system were that it would “reduce costs” and eliminate the “waste” that stemmed from “unnecessary duplication and parallelism” — i.e., competition.

    These goals were similar to the ones declared by Mr. Obama and Ms. Pelosi — attractive and humane goals of universal coverage and low costs. What’s not to like?

    The system had many decades to work, but widespread apathy and low quality of work paralyzed the healthcare system.

    In the depths of the socialist experiment, healthcare institutions in Russia were at least a hundred years behind the average US level. Moreover, the filth, odors, cats roaming the halls, drunken medical personnel, and absence of soap and cleaning supplies added to an overall impression of hopelessness and frustration that paralyzed the system.

    According to official Russian estimates, 78 percent of all AIDS victims in Russia contracted the virus through dirty needles or HIV-tainted blood in the state-run hospitals.

    Irresponsibility, expressed by the popular Russian saying “They pretend they are paying us and we pretend we are working,” resulted in appalling quality of service, widespread corruption, and extensive loss of life.

    In order to receive minimal attention by doctors and nursing personnel, patients had to pay bribes. I even witnessed a case of a “nonpaying” patient who died trying to reach a lavatory at the end of the long corridor after brain surgery. Anesthesia was usually “not available” for abortions or minor ear, nose, throat, and skin surgeries. This was used as a means of extortion by unscrupulous medical bureaucrats.

    “Slavery certainly ‘reduced costs’ of labor, ‘eliminated the waste’ of bargaining for wages, and avoided ‘unnecessary duplication and parallelism’.”

    To improve the statistics concerning the numbers of people dying within the system, patients were routinely shoved out the door before taking their last breath.

    Being a People’s Deputy in the Moscow region from 1987 to 1989, I received many complaints about criminal negligence, bribes taken by medical apparatchiks, drunken ambulance crews, and food poisoning in hospitals and child-care facilities.

    I recall the case of a fourteen-year-old girl from my district who died of acute nephritis in a Moscow hospital. She died because a doctor decided that it was better to save “precious” X-ray film (imported by the Soviets for hard currency) instead of double-checking his diagnosis. These X-rays would have disproven his diagnosis of neuropathic pain.

    Instead, the doctor treated the teenager with a heat compress, which killed her almost instantly. There was no legal remedy for the girl’s parents and grandparents. By definition, a single-payer system cannot allow any such remedy. The girl’s grandparents could not cope with this loss and they both died within six months. The doctor received no official reprimand.

    Not surprisingly, government bureaucrats and Communist Party officials, as early as 1921 (three years after Lenin’s socialization of medicine), realized that the egalitarian system of healthcare was good only for their personal interest as providers, managers, and rationers — but not as private users of the system.

    So, as in all countries with socialized medicine, a two-tier system was created: one for the “gray masses” and the other, with a completely different level of service, for the bureaucrats and their intellectual servants.

    In the USSR, it was often the case that while workers and peasants were dying in the state hospitals, the medicine and equipment that could save their lives was sitting unused in the nomenklatura system.

    At the end of the socialist experiment, the official infant-mortality rate in Russia was more than 2.5 times as high as in the United States and more than five times that of Japan. The rate of 24.5 deaths per 1,000 live births was questioned recently by several deputies to the Russian Parliament, who claim that it is seven times higher than in the United States. This would make the Russian death rate 55 compared to the US rate of 8.1 per 1,000 live births.

    After seventy years of socialism, 57 percent of all Russian hospitals did not have running hot water, and 36 percent of hospitals located in rural areas of Russia did not have water or sewage at all. Isn’t it amazing that socialist government, while developing space exploration and sophisticated weapons, would completely ignore the basic human needs of its citizens?

    “The filth, odors, cats roaming the halls, drunken medical personnel, and absence of soap and cleaning supplies added to an overall impression of hopelessness and frustration that paralyzed the system.”

    The appalling quality of service is not simply characteristic of “barbarous” Russia and other Eastern European nations: it is a direct result of the government monopoly on healthcare and it can happen in any country. In “civilized” England, for example, the waiting list for surgeries is nearly 800,000 out of a population of 55 million. State-of-the-art equipment is nonexistent in most British hospitals. In England, only 10 percent of the healthcare spending is derived from private sources.

    Britain pioneered in developing kidney-dialysis technology, and yet the country has one of the lowest dialysis rates in the world.

    The Brookings Institution (hardly a supporter of free markets) found that every year 7,000 Britons in need of hip replacements, between 4,000 and 20,000 in need of coronary bypass surgery, and some 10,000 to 15,000 in need of cancer chemotherapy are denied medical attention in Britain.

    Age discrimination is particularly apparent in all government-run or heavily regulated systems of healthcare. In Russia, patients over 60 are considered worthless parasites and those over 70 are often denied even elementary forms of healthcare.

    In the United Kingdom, in the treatment of chronic kidney failure, those who are 55 years old are refused treatment at 35 percent of dialysis centers. Forty-five percent of 65-year-old patients at the centers are denied treatment, while patients 75 or older rarely receive any medical attention at these centers.

    In Canada, the population is divided into three age groups in terms of their access to healthcare: those below 45, those 45–65, and those over 65. Needless to say, the first group, who could be called the “active taxpayers,” enjoys priority treatment.

    Advocates of socialized medicine in the United States use Soviet propaganda tactics to achieve their goals. Michael Moore is one of the most prominent and effective socialist propagandists in America. In his movie, Sicko, he unfairly and unfavorably compares health care for older patients in the United States with complex and incurable diseases to healthcare in France and Canada for young women having routine babies. Had he done the reverse — i.e., compared healthcare for young women in the United States having babies to older patients with complex and incurable diseases in socialized healthcare systems — the movie would have been the same, except that the US healthcare system would look ideal, and the UK, Canada, and France would look barbaric.

    Now we in the United States are being prepared for discrimination in treatment of the elderly when it comes to healthcare. Ezekiel Emanuel is director of the Clinical Bioethics Department at the US National Institutes of Health and an architect of Obama’s healthcare-reform plan. He is also the brother of Rahm Emanuel, Obama’s White House chief of staff. Foster Friess reports that Ezekiel Emanuel has written that health services should not be guaranteed to individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens. An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia.[3]

    Socialized medicine will create massive government bureaucracies — similar to our unified school districts — impose costly job-destroying mandates on employers to provide the coverage, and impose price controls that will inevitably lead to shortages and poor quality of service. It will also lead to nonprice rationing (i.e., rationing based on political considerations, corruption, and nepotism) of healthcare by government bureaucrats.

    Real “savings” in a socialized healthcare system could be achieved only by squeezing providers and denying care — there is no other way to save. The same arguments were used to defend the cotton farming in the South prior to the Civil War. Slavery certainly “reduced costs” of labor, “eliminated the waste” of bargaining for wages, and avoided “unnecessary duplication and parallelism.”

    In supporting the call for socialized medicine, American healthcare professionals are like sheep demanding the wolf: they do not understand that the high cost of medical care in the United States is partially based on the fact that American healthcare professionals have the highest level of remuneration in the world. Another source of the high cost of our healthcare is existing government regulations on the industry, regulations that prevent competition from lowering the cost. Existing rules such as “certificates of need,” licensing, and other restrictions on the availability of healthcare services prevent competition and, therefore, result in higher prices and fewer services.

    Socialized medical systems have not served to raise general health or living standards anywhere. In fact, both analytical reasoning and empirical evidence point to the opposite conclusion. But the dismal failure of socialized medicine to raise people’s health and longevity has not affected its appeal for politicians, administrators, and their intellectual servants in search of absolute power and total control.

    Most countries enslaved by the Soviet empire moved out of a fully socialized system through privatization and insuring competition in the healthcare system. Others, including many European social democracies, intend to privatize the healthcare system in the long run and decentralize medical control. The private ownership of hospitals and other units is seen as a critical determining factor of the new, more efficient, and humane system

    • “In Canada, the population is divided into three age groups in terms of their access to healthcare: those below 45, those 45–65, and those over 65. Needless to say, the first group, who could be called the “active taxpayers,” enjoys priority treatment.” Too simplistic as I myself have bumped an emergency c-section and a teen suffering something nasty enough to be in isolation with my own special illness. There’s a lot more to Canadian triage than merely age.

  37. Black Flag says:

    Chris Devine</b.

    . Now they wield the power that their father worked hard to amass. Being rich doesn’t necessarily mean you worked hard to get that way (just as being poor doesn’t necessarily mean you are lazy).

    It is Sam’s money. What he did with it and to whom he gave it is his right because it is his.

    Hard work and innovation should be rewarded. Being rich in and of itself is nothing to revere.

    Hard work digging ditches is meaningless – thus hard work is irrelevant in measuring wealth.

    Innovation where none is needed is meaningless – thus innovation is irrelevant in measuring wealth.

    Why should we revere anyone?

    You also seem to ignore the fact that many people (like Thomas Edison and Bill Gates) stole ideas from others and made their fortunes that way.

    Like freedom, I do not believe you understand theft at all.

    To steal, I must lose it. You steal my car, I don’t get to use my car.

    You cannot steal an idea. If I steal your idea, do you forget? No.

    There is no loss – you still have your ‘idea’ – thus, there is no theft.

    Same with knowledge – you cannot ‘steal’ knowledge.

    There are many examples of people who had a good idea dying in the poor house while their unscrupulous competitors rise to be considered captains of industry. Take off your rose colored glasses

    It is meaningless to have a ‘good idea’ if you cannot make it real. It is in the ‘making it real’ that makes it real – nothing else.

    Those that do, get paid for it.

    • Chris Devine says:

      Your continual oversimplification of these topics is frustrating to say the least.

      It is indeed possible to steal someone’s idea and market it as if it where your own. For instance, suppose you spent all your money on research and development only to have your marketable product stolen from you and marketed by someone who did nothing to see the product to its fruition (e.g., Tesla’s tungsten filament).

      For once I wish you would stop trying to drown opposing voices in a sea of text and respond concisely and without taking things out of context. You never give anyone else a charitable reading and you consistently pick apart your opponents’ ideas using your own terms. It is my honest opinion that you have no desire to understand anyone else’s position and are merely concerned with stroking your own ego. Why I continue to try and argue with you is beyond me and may be the only proof of my own irrationality.

      Heaven knows I try to understand where you are coming from. The fact that I disagree with your starting premises doesn’t make me disregard your conclusions offhand. In contrast, you just make assertions regarding my ignorance without any proof (as if your authority on the matter excuses you from doing so). Seriously, why do I bother?

      • He can be frustrating, can’t he? But recognize it for what it is, Chris. Talk…that is all. He is a philosopher…end of sentence.

        However, I will answer your allegations directly because you and I disagree vehemently on governments role in private lives.

        Chris says: For instance, suppose you spent all your money on research and development only to have your marketable product stolen from you and marketed by someone who did nothing to see the product to its fruition (e.g., Tesla’s tungsten filament).

        D13 is backatcha with: Ok, let’s suppose you spent your money on research and development, why did you not protect your investment from theft? It is common knowledge that most companies have “rights of first refusal” or “non-compete” arrangements. Why would not an individual negotiate his own non-compete clause to protect his ideas if they were developed on the premises? If that is not possible, and it is what you want, go down the street. Work somewhere else. It is still a choice. If you expect someone or company to “honor” your work and not take it, then you are naive. Protect it….it is human nature for survival of the fittest…not sit around the campfire, hold hands, and pretend that the wants and needs of the many out weigh the wants and needs of the few or the one. (to quote Spock). Like it or not, then entire world is out for themselves….I have been all over the world and seen it. I do not agree with it and I will not steal someone’s idea…BUT I am not naive enough to think that it will not be done. Reality sucks…but it is reality.

  38. Black Flag says:

    Chris Devine

    …and your version of freedom is laced with exploitation and greed.

    Greed is good. It creates a sense of unsatisfaction with merely standing still.

    Exploitation can only occur in slavery, hence, is a dominat feature of socialism.

    The free-markets you talk about never existed.

    A true free market is rare, because government perverts it.

    They are a fiction, a myth. They are only useful in propagating a destructive policy justifying the basest of all human desires.

    Freedom is the basest desire of all men.

    Look up ‘contract of adhesion.’ I’ll say it again: giving someone a choice between working for starvation wages or dying isn’t much of a choice

    Versus your goal of slavery for all, expect for you.

    • Chris Devine says:

      Hunger should be enough from keeping you from standing still.

      Regarding greed:

      “Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell.”
      -Edward Abbey

  39. Black Flag says:

    Chris Devine

    Most welfare recipients are white single mothers who find themselves in a bind due to the loss of a spouse or other source of income. This is usually due to them making the courageous choice to leave an abusive partner or as a result of an unforeseen tragedy.

    Perhaps they are a warning to others to make better choices in the future.

  40. Black Flag says:

    Chris Devine

    :To say that suffering is inevitable does not mean that it can’t be mitigated. We can’t stop people from dying, yet we try to prolong and improve their lives. Men are often prevented from earning and creating wealth through the market forces you talk about.

    No man can be prevent from earning in a free market. That takes violence and force – conditions of government – to do that.

    There is no market force that prevents a man from earning. If his product is unsatisfactory (for many reasons) it simply does not meet the needs of the consumer.

    In your socialist world, however, he would demand -by violence- compensation for shoddy work.

    Opportunities are often limited by the capricious nature of luck.

    Rarely is luck a significant factor – and regardless – luck does not justify forcing your product down my throat.

    If your parents are wealthy and you have access to good health care, schools, and a network of successful people, then the odds are you’ll succeed despite your best efforts.

    Many conditions are required – but most of all, an attitude of servicing your customer – because as long as he is free to chose or not, he is king.

    In socialism, no such mechanism exists – thus, bad products push good products out of the market place because the former is subsidized by the success of the latter.

    If our last president hadn’t been the fortunate son of a wealthy family he would likely have ended up on skid row drinking ripple.

    I always find it strange that you support government while ripping at it.

    How many otherwise talented and hard-working kids are prevented from succeeding due to the circumstances they were raised in?

    Talent and hard work are only two of many components that are necessary for success.

    Just because I don’t buy your extreme version of economics doesn’t mean I don’t understand the dynamics of human interaction.

    Freedom is extreme to those that depend on slave labor.

    You cite your laws of economics as if they were on par with the laws of physics.

    In fact, sir, I do not. This exposes your near lack of understanding of economics.

    Economics is not a science like physics by which mere formula offers insight.

    Economics is wholly the science of man’s actions. Because you are confused about what that means, you misunderstand economics and freedom.

    Supply and demand is not the same as gravity.

    Strange, never said it was.

    However, supply and demand are economic factors that are influenced by actions of men.

    You don’t seem to understand economics at all if you can’t concede that wealth creates power.

    You do not understand power what you say. I believe you think you do not know what ‘power’ is and misuse it in this context.

    The power to limit the choices of others is about as powerful as it gets.

    Man requires resources to live – and there are only two ways to obtain them.

    Earn or Steal.

    By earning, a man creates wealth, improves his life and those around him and trades his wealth with other free men for other resources he requires.

    By stealing, a man creates nothing.

    Your system requires the latter – and, as it always does, decays to absolute poverty and disaster.

    You complain that voting is a useless act because you didn’t pick the candidates. Why then can’t you see that many economic choices aren’t really choices at all?

    All things cannot be delivered to all men, though you believe it can.

    Economic choices are a combination of need and capability and trade offs, no matter how wealthy or poor one may be.

    You belief yourself superior by your choices and wish to displace choices of free man in favor of your choices.

    But since you cannot convince any free man of your superiority, you require coercion and violence to enforce your choices over them.

    • Black Flag says:

      “You do not understand power what you say. I believe you think you do not know what ‘power’ is and misuse it in this context.”

      Wow, wasn’t that badly typed.

      You do not understand power. I believe you do not know what ‘power’ is and misuse it in this context

  41. Chris Devine says:

    Regarding the 9:30 Club, did you know they moved it? It used to be in Georgetown and now it’s over by Howard University. Still a good place to see a concert, though.

  42. Black Flag says:

    Chris Devine

    The question is whether the economic system you espouse provides real choice (and by extension, freedom) given that it often provides unfair advantages to one party thereby allowing it to dictate the actions of the other party.

    An economic system that is wholly free choice must espouse free choice! That is why the world “free” precedes the word “marketplace”.

    You are trying to convince readers that some form of coercion, force, violence and enslavement delivers freedom.

    What part of that don’t you understand? You pontificate about freedom and choice all the while ignoring the fact that someone who is starving has no real freedom or choices.

    You cannot solve misery and suffering by applying misery and suffering to others. You are merely transferring it.

    By what right do you claim for you to inflict harm upon another innocent person so to fix the suffering of someone else??

    This lack of freedom and choice is a direct result of laissez-faire capitalism.

    To Statist, it is freedom that causes a lack of freedom.

    You do fear freemen, Chris. Because you cannot have what others can earn, your only choice is to take – by violence if necessary.

    The whole point of contract law and government regulation is to ensure that freedom and choice remain.

    The establishment of the destruction of rights cannot save rights.

    It is logically inconsistent.

    The absolutist versions you advocate are nothing but self-serving rationalizations for conquest and exploitation.

    Conquest requires violence and coercion – those are your tools, and hence, your consequence.

    Exploitation requires coercion and enslavement – again, those are your tools and hence, your consequence.

  43. Black Flag says:

    Chris Devine

    Your continual oversimplification of these topics is frustrating to say the least.

    Freedom is really a simple concept, except for Statists.

    It is indeed possible to steal someone’s idea and market it as if it where your own.

    Theft … “taking of another person’s property without that person’s consent”

    So please prove that an ‘idea’ is property.

    Air is not property since it is not scarce. You do not own ‘air’ nor do I.

    An idea is not scarce. 1 billion people can have the same idea, and the idea is not reduced or consumed. An idea can be infinitely shared without exhaustion.

    You cannot steal an idea – as I asked, Do you forget if I have your idea?

    For instance, suppose you spent all your money on research and development only to have your marketable product stolen from you and marketed by someone who did nothing to see the product to its fruition (e.g., Tesla’s tungsten filament).

    The latter made it real. Good for them.

    POTENTIAL does not equal REALITY.

    may be the only proof of my own irrationality.

    I try to be very specific in my terms and demand the same of others.

    You often attempt to muddle up concepts and terms in an effort to provide some emotional and irrational justification for theft and force.

    I do admit I’m rather a brick wall against such attempts.

    Heaven knows I try to understand where you are coming from.

    I know exactly where you are coming from, Chris.

    You fear freedom and free men. It means a society where those that earn, get and those that do not earn, do not. You want what you cannot earn. Therefore, the only path you see is to steal it.

    But you fear violent resistance, so you wish to entangle others to do your bidding instead – and call it ‘justified’ and ‘legal’, because others who are like you participate.

    There are only two way to obtain the resources for a man’s survival.

    Earn it or Steal it.

    You support the latter.

    • Chris Devine says:

      You have some pretty warped ideas if you think being required to pay your dues is ‘stealing’ and letting people exploit others is ‘earning.’

      Why is it so hard for you to see that I am advocating hard work and innovation? How does that equate to me being in favor of theft over earnings?

      I know you like to paint me as some socialist or statist (or whatever other ‘ist’ suits your fancy). The fact is I am in favor of balance and pragmatic solutions to real problems. You on the other hand seem to be the real extremist in these matters. You fail to see that governments are nothing but human institutions (just like markets) and as such are no better or worse than any other institution. The invisible hand you are in favor of is just a metaphor for the results of human interactions. You keep going on about how governments create all these problems when the culprit is human selfishness. We need checks and balances, not a free-for-all.

      • Black Flag says:

        You have some pretty warped ideas if you think being required to pay your dues is ‘stealing’ and letting people exploit others is ‘earning.’

        I have no issue of paying for a service/good so delivered voluntarily.

        Why is it so hard for you to see that I am advocating hard work and innovation? How does that equate to me being in favor of theft over earnings?

        You also advocate taking from someone who earns to give to someone who did not. A man who earns owns his own produce.

        To justify taking his produce against his will under the guise of ‘helping’ enslaves him.

        I know you like to paint me as some socialist or statist (or whatever other ‘ist’ suits your fancy). The fact is I am in favor of balance and pragmatic solutions to real problems.

        Pragmatism is the first sin.

        The compromise between freedom and slavery is slavery.

        You on the other hand seem to be the real extremist in these matters.

        Yes, freedom is always seen as extreme for those that demand the enslavement of others.

        You fail to see that governments are nothing but human institutions (just like markets) and as such are no better or worse than any other institution.

        It is institutionalization that perverts.

        Institutionalization of spirituality creates religions and conflict.

        Institutionalization of freedom creates government and conflict.

        Institutions attempt to create a false premise – that the institution itself is greater than the individuals.

        The invisible hand you are in favor of is just a metaphor for the results of human interactions.

        Yes it is. You are getting better.

        You keep going on about how governments create all these problems when the culprit is human selfishness.

        It is not.

        It is the desire to have what one has not earned.

        “Coveting” is the disease.

        There is no Commandment against selfishness – it says “Thou shalt not steal; Thou shalt not covet”

        We need checks and balances, not a free-for-all

        When a man is forced to give up the results of his own effort, he is a slave.

  44. Black Flag says:

    Chris Devine

    Hunger should be enough from keeping you from standing still.

    Hungry or not, it is still wrong to steal.

    Regarding greed: “Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell.”-Edward Abbey

    Grow or die.

    Everything you have (including the computer you have) is the result of someone unsatisfied with his lot in life.

    • Chris Devine says:

      Everything I have is the result of someone being forced through economic pressures to do more than just work toward his own subsistence.

      Fish will grow to a size in proportion to the size of their surroundings. Only humans think that we can expand forever without consequences.

  45. Hey gang! Some pretty colorful stuff here, eh? I must admit that I could not contain my laughter at the description of Garofalo and I commend the writer who put those words together…btw, I’m still bustin’ up.

    However, I exercise my 1st Amendment rights to disagree with the assumption or statement that “…this is not a Democrat v Republican thing’…’left v right thing.” As for me, what America is experiencing today far transcends either of those two characterizations.

    And finally, pursuant to this statement:

    Coulter, Limbaugh, etc., are just as hateful, just as misleading, and just as damaging.

    I would only ask for some examples of how misleading or hateful these two are. Fair enough? Cool. Cheers!

    jps

    • With all due respect too my learned (learn-ed) colleagues, this is precisely the answer I thought I would receive. Although messages have there way of being delivered — and the more I study communication the more I understand how some people are very skilled with their personal delivery.

      Therefore understanding the true writer’s emotion to get a point across versus being able to be called for citation in this case are two different matters.

      The difference: Limbaugh and Coulter espouse on matters of truth; notwithstanding however, Coulter is a little less polished than Limbaugh with retorts. All things being equal, Ms. Coulter is a brilliant advocacy lawyer who specializes in Constitutional rights. Limbaugh, on the other hand has become the ‘American Icon’ for conservatism, a title which to be certain one gains by not being hateful.

      Every writer should take caution when espousing factual data; there is always going to be someone out there who wants to know where the information came from.

      For instance, I don’t doubt BF in the least, albeit, some of the ideals he believes are rather Utopian at best; however, in a dignified fashion he expresses them without much retort. For example: “No government” is really a opinion or desire, although not at all realistic.

      Just one other issue: Chris Devine: Whether one likes it or not; moreover, agrees with it or not…BF makes an astute assessment vis-a-vie “Welfare Mothers.”

      I saw Ann Coulter on the disasterous program (actually a tape) The View making the point that over 60% of black males in prison are from single parent family homes. Subsequently, looking into other options for any person, male of female, doesn’t sound like a bad idea. What do you think?

      jps

      • Black Flag says:

        The single mother phenomena is a consequence of the State replacing the family.

        It has relived Fathers of the responsibility of family.

        Fathers, traditionally, bring home the good/services for his family to survive while, traditionally, the Mothers tended to the care of the children.

        The State removed the necessity of most of the care (called Public School) from the family, and with welfare eliminated the requirement of provisioning resources.

        Fathers are now redundant to such provisioning. His children will survive without any of his effort. Without this responsibility, the male is free to roam without burden. With no surprise, many do.

        Without an adult male mentor, young boys – instinctively fighters – have no one who is capable of educating the differences between warrior and savage, nor a dominating male capable (physically and mentally) of pummeling the young studs (gray-back theory) back into line.

        Remove the adult male from the family, the family descends into savagery.

        • Hey BF!

          A great response indeed! Moreover, I couldn’t agree with your assessment more. Over at my blog(s) I write incessantly about “Lowering the bar of Acceptable Standards” which I believe is totally out-of-control in this country.

          Revisiting your comment again: Tradition, cultural norms, ethics, virtue, and the manner of laws in this country are changing year after year, decade after decade, ad infinitum and it is simply ridiculous!

          I remember when the liberal sitcom people started pushing and pulling for the “No need for a man” routine, compliments of the show, Murphy Brown with Candace Bergan. It just seems as though when someone from Hollyweird or even makeshift celeb status begins promoting any tradition then…like the Piper’s call, or ‘in herd fashion’ there is the rest of society.

          If one were to look say…just at the last generation and tried to make sense out of the changes in America, I believe, most would be at a loss for reasoning.

          Quick example: I think it was the early 1980s when Murphy Brown hit #1 on the sitcom circuit. So whatever moral or immoral message that the lot espoused became like freezing cold water to the person in the desert! Therefore, the State is influenced at this mass media message and our manner of laws changes (or lowered) subsequently, men have no rights to their children…think about it.

          I am positive that this is the precise equation for the same-sex marriage rubbish running rampant in the media these days. I’m having a rant here, sorry. The issues that bother me most is that gay-marriage has little or nothing at all to do with love, partnership, or making a vow or oath with a supreme being. It has everything to do with greed and money.

          Thanks again for the response! Cheers mate!

          jps

          • jps,

            I think Murphy Brown took off in the late 80s. If you recall there was a big snafu between her and Dan Quayle, who was VP at the time under Bush 1. That would make it some time between 88 and 92.

            Excellent observation on the changed in society though! I always enjoy your comments.

            USW

            • USW!

              As do I enjoy your comments as well! Many kudos my friend, your site has become like the proverbial ‘speeding bullet’ insofar as growth, quality, and audience. Cheers!!

              jps aka onemorecup

  46. WOW! Now THAT is the kind of talk people NEED to HEAR, even if they don’t listen. It needs to be out there… People who work hard for a living ARE conservatives even if they call themselves something else… I consider myself to be Libertarian, but any party has it’s issues …( I find the Libertarians to be a bit short sighted and too willing to toss out the baby with the bathwater). The Democratic party AND the REPUBLICAN PARTY have BOTH betrayed the trust of the PEOPLE… DOOM ON THEM ALL! It is time to WAKE UP ! Catherine, your writing, knowledge and logic is exceptional. TRULY! Perhaps there IS hope after all…

Trackbacks

  1. […] The Idiots on the Fringes « Stand Up For America […]

%d bloggers like this: