What is the REAL State of the Political Landscape?

GOP Dead LogoTonight I sat here and thought for quite a while about what I wanted to write about for tonight’s topic. I read all kinds of articles, and hadn’t decided on a topic as of 1:45 am. But I did notice a common theme in articles throughout the different news sites and blogs out there. There were a ton of articles that discussed the upcoming elections that are occurring as you read this. And they all had an opinion one way or another as to what the results from this election will mean going forward. Obviously the results will be interpreted and then given a biased spin by all sides. But the key question seems to be whether what looks like it could be a bad day for Democratic Candidates is a sign of the future or a message being sent to the Democrats. I find that interesting. What message exactly do the national folks think it sends when the races are being determined by such a small percentage of the national population?

GOP MuseumLet’s face it. It is interesting to watch. But we are essentially watching the state of Virginia, the state of New Jersey, and a single district in New York (the 23rd). Let’s put that in perspective shall we? New Jersey has a population of 8,682,661, 76.4% of which are of voting age. Virginia has a population of 7,769,089 with 76.5% are over 18. New York’s 23rd District has roughly 654k folks and we can assign a similar mix of voter eligibility. If we eliminate the under 18 crowd and give the very generous prediction of a 60% eligible voter turnout (which is very doubtful), we will hear from roughly 3.98 million people in New Jersey, 3.57 million folks in Virginia, and 300,351 in New York’s 23rd. A grand total of 7.85 million folks would have a say tomorrow in those three elections. A whopping 3.4% of the US population. But pundits, being the brilliant folks they are, will debate for the next two months what this means as far as Obama popularity, the pulse of the two parties, etc.

The results tomorrow will show an important trend in the political spectrum of New Jersey, Virginia, and New York’s 23rd District. Nothing else. But should we even accept any longer that these results even show trends in the political spectrums in those three places? I would argue that we shouldn’t. Because these races, like any other race these days, are tainted by political machines, upstart third parties, and scandals. Let’s face the fact that the results of the elections in these three areas tomorrow will tell us little more than who ran the least shitty campaign. All the candidates weren’t great. None of them ran a campaign platform that was the deciding factor. The results will merely tell us which political campaign tactics were the most effective in those three areas. And it will tell us that regardless of the fact that many Americans seem to have no trust of the two parties in power, they aren’t yet willing to latch on to a candidate from another party.

Obama-corzineNew Jersey has the ability to give us a little bit of insight into the power of the President at this point. A heavily Democratic state with a incumbent Governor who had the best speaking President in history working in his state for his reelection. If Corzine loses. I do think that it will tell us that the President’s power isn’t nearly as strong as it was a year ago.

But these elections, regardless of what the political talking heads will claim tomorrow, won’t tell us a thing about where the average American’s head is at in the political landscape. Because 96% of the population will not be represented in those votes. I suspect we will see a sweep by Republicans. And the right wing talking heads will claim it shows America is beginning to wake up and smell the rat that is the Democratic party. I tell you they are full of it. While that may be a true statement or it may not be, the fact is these elections mean nothing to the rest of us. The two big ones are for Governor positions. Governors get to impact federal law how exactly?

But the question that I have for everyone is what do you feel is the pulse of today’s political landscape? Obviously the tea parties have made a very vocal point that there are many in today’s America that are unhappy with both parties. And that seems to be backed up by voter registration data. In 2008, 36% of American voters were registered as Democrats. Interestingly, that same 36% are Independents, while only 27% are Republican. Compare that to 2004, when Democrats were 35% of the spectrum while the Independents and Republicans were tied at 33%. As far as those Independent voters go, in 2008, the way that they leaned was 15% Dems and 10% Reps. In 2004 they each had 10% leaning their way.

Voter Registration TrendsThat would appear to show us that the Republican party has been consistently losing members to the Independent ranks. Simultaneously, the Democrats have held quite steady in their portions of registered voters, actually moving up from 35% to 36%. Overall that 4 year swing was +1% for Democrats, +3% for Independents, and -6% for Republicans. So is the Republican party in real trouble these days?

I would answer that they are not in real trouble yet. Their recklessness cost them the Congress in 2006, and Obama helped to increase that lead in 2008. But 2010 may see a quick reversal in Congress. The Democrats in Congress and in the White House have done enough shenanigans to cause a massive shift away from their party. But much like 2006 and 2008, I believe the voters would be sending a message that they are fed up with the incumbents, as opposed to actually believing in the core principles of the Republican party.

I remember in 2004 thinking that the Democrats were done. They had put Kerry up as the Presidential candidate. They ran an entire campaign on never stating Kerry’s positions. Every campaign speech was nothing more than Kerry criticizing Bush’s positions and tactics, but never telling America why he was better, or what he would do as President. I just watched that completely inept party go forward with no solutions, only complaints. If buried Kerry. The Democratic party showed no leadership, no vision for the future. They were a party, in my mind, on their way out the door, to be replaced by some other liberal leaning party. Then Bush did everything in his power to resurrect the Democrats from the ashes. He was so bad, Americans were willing to accept any alternative.

And now, after two election cycles of Democratic victories, there are many who are proclaiming the Republican party as dead. The reality is that they are awful weak. They have no leadership (because Limbaugh is not their leader). They have no plan. They have no ability to change their stance on key issues to remain relevant to the political landscape. Fortunately, the Democrats in Congress are doing for Republicans what Bush did for Democrats. Today’s Democrat congress is once again showing how bad their party is, as well. As a result, the Republicans are once again regrouping and beginning to assert themselves.

I thought the Dems were dead 6 years ago. I was obviously mistaken. Now it feels like the Republicans are dead.

US Flag CrossThe Republicans can get back in the race, and perhaps even dominate the political landscape if they would renounce certain parts of the GOP platform that simply don’t sit well with the American public. For example, Republicans could embrace gay rights, acknowledge that a woman’s body is hers to make decision about and attempt to change with the times. The Christian far right used to be a very powerful entity. However, the younger population today doesn’t have nearly the same commitment to the church or its teachings. So the christian right is losing power quickly, because they hold little sway with today’s younger voter.

I say the Republicans need true leadership, something they have been sorely lacking for quite a while now. And then they need to reevaluate their party platform. By switching back to being a party of values and principles, the GOP could resurrect the independent voters to their side, and perhaps get back in power. And they need to come up with some solutions. Another area that they have failed miserably in over the last 5 years.

So what do all of you think? Is the Republican party really as dead as the MSM makes them out to be?What are the key things that you think they need to do?

Advertisements

Comments

  1. These elections have as much value as the Afghanistan election. Some crook will win, and be hail by obama as being the true voice of the ignorant electorate same as obama

  2. Last night here, there was repeat I think of Michael Moore on Larry King saying how nice it was that there was smart person in the WH. How would he know, a chimp is smarter than Michael Moore!!! For being an ex auto worker he has figured out how to game his way into being a CELEBRITY. A chimp would not waste his time!!!

  3. Good morning, my battlefield friend…..

    I do not think that any vote now or in 2010 will be anything but a repudiation of the incumbent, no matter the party. To answer your question, there is no leadership in the republican party and even less in the democratic party….both parties are like trying to sail a Hobie Cat with a broken boom….

    I am tired of the right wing spin that it is a wake up call….for what? There is no leader and I am tired of the left wing spin, with numerous blow hards but no definitive leader either (they are fighting among themselves now) that they speak for the country. Both are 14 carat BS. Neither have the country at heart.

    Today, we are getting people to the polls for we have 11 Constitution issues in Texas and one of the main ones addressing Imminent Domain issues that we fought so hard to defeat last time when we killed the Trans Texas highway. So, I will be out of pocket. My group is picking up 410 voters and getting them to the polls today….oops…make that 412…just got two more.

    Have a great day.

    • D13 I looked up and found the 11 amendments listed here.

      http://www.dallaschamber.org/files/ContAmendElections.pdf

      Can you clarify which Eminent Domain are you support or do not support?

      Proposition 1 – basically, allow eminent domain for military installations to create infrastructure outside of their base.

      Proposition 2 – basically, make property appraisals for homes based on their residential value and not their potential value for example if someone’s house is next to a mall and is worth a lot of commercial value then their taxes could be higher than what their house is worth.

      Proposition 3 – basically, create a board to make property appraisals uniform across the state.

      Proposition 9 – basically, private property owners cannot restrict access to public beaches from their property.

      Proposition 11- basically, the state can’t use eminent domain to take someone’s property to turn it over to a private developer, it can only be for public use, and that a condemned property must be done on a parcel to parcel basis.

  4. Fred is correct.

    Two sides of the same coin – and which ever side comes up – “The People lose”

  5. Reps aren’t dead. They’re alive and well (weak), but well. As the Governator said: they’ll be back.

    But I do agree wholeheartedly with something you said:
    USW Said:

    The Republicans can get back in the race […] if they would renounce certain parts of the GOP platform that simply don’t sit well with the American public. For example, Republicans could embrace gay rights, acknowledge that a woman’s body is hers to make decision about and attempt to change with the times.

    Get rid of the xenophobic immigrant bashing too (I’m looking at you, Tancredo), and I would be sorely temped to join them. Add in a healthy dose of compassion for the underclass and you’ve got my vote. Tone down the military hawkishness (don’t abandon it, just tone it tone it down). Ditch the “war on drugs.” Start making more sense with the “war on terrorism,” and I’ll contribute my time and money to the RNC.

    • Oh, and they have to get rid of the proud anti-intellectualism. Nothing makes me want to disavow a politician and their entire party as much as them proclaiming themselves to believe the Earth is 6,000 years old and that Evolution is hogwash*. Nothing personified this better than W, but Palin just as bad in my eyes. I don’t care how folksy she is, or how insanely attractive Tina Fey is, I don’t want to be led by someone who is proud of her ignorance. When said started talking about “the real Americans” as if we on the left are somehow unpatriotic or less than her supporters, I wanted to throw something at my TV. The way they treat universities as the enemy – as bastions of liberal brain washing** – and act as if the only true Americans are blue collared residents of the heartland – it makes me nauseous.

      *I can tolerate when they say there are holes and issues which need to be addressed, but when they say it’s wrong or that evolution is what should be taught instead.. Bah Humbug
      **Yes, I know there’s a liberal bent at a lot of universities, but knowledge is a good thing and I saw plenty of conservatives make it through the four-year gauntlet without ever once voting for democrat, hugging a tree, going vegan, or anything else

      • For someone that is asking conservatives to be more tolerant and accepting you sure seem to be pretty prejudice, and stereotypical toward said conservatives. If we are to have respectful conversations that accomplish something everyone will have to get past there preconceptions of those with oppossing views and consider each others stand points.

        • Seed, if it came across that I was painting all conservatives with a single brush, I apologize. I was merely advocating for the party jettisoning the portions which hold these views and try to impose them on the party as a whole (and by extension, the country as a whole).

          Likewise, we on the left should disavow the extremist tree-huggers and a few others.

          • I was just making sure we all maintain respect for each other and the different veiw points. There are valid reasons behind everyones point. Had the statement been about liberals and the those with “extreme” positions I should call that out as well. There are reasons people are xenophobic, and do not believe in evolution, and reasons people are tree huggers.

            I happen to be a person of faith who does not believe that humans evoled from a creature similar to an ape, and a person that believes the earth is young somewhere on the order of 6,000 to 10,000 years. I have no problem with people being taught about evolution, however what I do have a problem is the religous intensity it is presented with in school (evolution is right and everything else is wrong). If evolution was taught with respect to others who have different beliefs there would be less controversy on the subject.

            • fair enough, but what I said was “can tolerate when they say there are holes and issues which need to be addressed, but when they say it’s wrong or that evolution is what should be taught instead.” I’m ok with it being taught in addition to, but not instead of.

              Though honestly, I cannot understand how that does not open the door for all sorts of other views to be taught as well. Where do you draw the line? Shiva? Flying Spaghetti Monster? What is the standard of evidence that you would require of science being taught in our schools?

              • Im not advocationg teaching other beliefs. What I am advocating it teaching it as a possible solution. Present both sides of the science to students not just the side that implies evidence for evolution. Present the evidence along with the flaws. Schools have been teaching geology for a long time without the issues that evolution has, yet the current scientific principals behind our understanding geological time have the same implications against a young earth that evolution does. From what I can tell the difference in how the two sciences are viewed is how the two are presented.

          • RWBoveroux says:

            Matt:

            Curiosity question: Would you advocate that those who are on the far left should be jettisoned by the Democratic party? If not, why?

            • RWBoveroux says:

              All:

              Sorry for the post. I did not read all of Matt’s post where he answers my question before I ask it. I will try to engage the brain before the fingers…

      • Matt:

        Are you trying to say that only the Pots are capable of making the decisions on behalf of the Kettles?

        As an obviously self proclaimed Pot are you calling the Kettles “stupid”?

        • I’m a pot? OK.. but I don’t think I’m calling all Kettles stupid. What I’m saying is that when I look for Kettles and I go to the Kettle Store, and I see a few very large, very stupid, very ignorant, or very dangerous Kettles, it sort of puts me off on the whole Kettle buying experience even though there are, assuredly, many very good Kettles in the mix.

          Thus the Kettle Shop owner, should throw out the bad ones, or put them down in the basement where they can’t be a problem to anyone.

          • Matt:

            And when the Kettles go shopping they see all these arrogant intellectual Pots hanging in the store. They think if only the owner would put these “intellectual snobbish” pots in the basement perhaps they could all figure our how to get dinner prepared without burning down the house.

            Matt, our current National condition is a result of the “intellectuals” control over our politics and economy. Is this your defense of intellect against the common “uneducated blue collar types”?

            Give me the farmers, miners, loggers, plant workers, electricians, plumbers, small business owners and firemen and I will build a great nation, while the intellectuals argue over the proper size and makeup of the committee on economic growth policy.

            • Any failure of the intellectual leadership in this country is a evidence that the leadership was not intellectual enough, or that our economic/scientific/ecological/etc knowledge was not sufficiently advanced.

              We can try our two-island theory and see what happens. We’ll put your farmers et al on one island and my brainiacs on another and see what the societies look like in 100 years. It should be interesting.

              But I’ll say this: Clinton is a Rhodes Schollar and the country was fine with him at the helm. Bush was a C-student and we all see how that turned out. Extrapolate, if you will.

              • Mathius

                The problem with your theory is that you infer that someone – or a group – can actually Centrally Manage Society and the economy – if they were “smart enough”.

                There are 6.2 billion SKU’s in New York city alone.

                There is no way any person or group could possible organize, price and prioritize New York’s economy – or even a fraction of percentage of it – let alone the Nation.

                By believing it is merely ‘not smart enough’ = you will forever search for the God-On-Earth which does not exist – but in that search continually place mere mortals who in their attempt to centrally manage what cannot be managed, turn the Nation into a tyranny while destroying the economy.

              • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

                Mathius,

                In your 2-island experiment, the farmers would grow food, the miners would mine ore, the loggers would cut trees, the carpenters and steelworkers would build buildings, and the society would prosper.

                “Brainiac Island” would sit there philosophising about the “plight” of the workers on the other island while they themselves starved.

              • Once I make my first billion, I’m going to commission this study.

              • My take on things is if you are not willing to do something then you lose the right to bitch about it and will have to make do on the scraps of the former. Plain and simple.

              • We have no idea what Obama’s grades were because the records are SEALED. Look at the state of the country now. MUCH worse than under Bush. Extrapolate, if you will.

                Sorry Mathius, I couldn’t resist that one….

                😉

              • We shall see.. we shall see.. I think we’ll find things better than before

              • They are only sealed because upon seeing his grades, EVERYONE WOULD WANT TO BE INCLUDED IN AFFIRMATIVE ACTION.

              • The farmers will survive…..lots of them have PHd’s.
                The Brainiacs will starve because they don’t want to get there hands dirty. All societies need a mixture in order to grow and survive.

            • JAC, I agree.

      • Nothing makes me want to disavow a politician and their entire party as much as them proclaiming themselves to believe the Earth is 6,000 years old and that Evolution is hogwash*.

        So basically, you will vote against anyone who has a strong Christian background.

        Sounds like tolerance to me…

        Shall I disavow any candidate and their party if they believe humans came from gelatinous goo. Does a person’s religious views or lack thereof really disqualify them for anything? Isn’t that freedom of religion? Or are you just saying anyone who doesn’t believe as you do is an idiot?

        And people say Christians are hypocritical…

        • Please read the asterisk before replying.

          • I did. It doesn’t change anything. You still stand by your statement that you will not support anyone who believes evolution is wrong, don’t you?

            • Not 100%. If they acknowledge the merits of evolution, and believe otherwise for their own reasons, but have no urge to push those views on the rest of us, they can still have my support. Maybe, I’d have to see what the rest of their views are, I don’t like my representatives to side with religion over accepted scientific theory – if they do it on evolution, whose to say they won’t do it elsewhere?

        • Here, I’ll copy it for you:

          *I can tolerate when they say there are holes and issues which need to be addressed, but when they say it’s wrong or that evolution is what should be taught instead.. Bah Humbug

          And just to clarify. You and I may lack sufficient evidence to say with 100% certainty which is the case, but I do know that all the evidence I have seen points to evolution. I also know that every time science conflicts with religion, it seems that religion is the one that loses. (see, Copernius, flat earth, etc)

      • **Yes, I know there’s a liberal bent at a lot of universities, but knowledge is a good thing and I saw plenty of conservatives make it through the four-year gauntlet without ever once voting for democrat, hugging a tree, going vegan, or anything else

        So you admit there is bias in universities, but think nothing should be done about it. Yes, knowledge is important and people can make it through without converting to liberalism (I did), but shouldn’t we try to address this? Shouldn’t a conservative not have to be mocked and estranged for his or her political views (I was)?

        You’re tirade against anti-intellectualism is off base. I don’t think many in the Republican party are against knowledge as you put it. Rather they are against some bits of “knowledge” that conflicts with what they believe is true. Isn’t that intellectual discourse? Shouldn’t that be encouraged? Which is more persuasive; you’re an idiot for believing in the literal Word of God, or perhaps God used evolution to create life?

        By trying to suppress creationism you are in effect saying that you do not wish to consider anything other than what you believe. Isn’t that exactly what you are criticizing them for?

        Just to set the record straight, there is no reason that evolution should conflict with creation. The Bible says God created things in “one day,” but it also says, “to God a day is as a thousand years” (2 Peter 38). I don’t know if evolution is true or not. I think the world is older than 6000 years, but I may be wrong. What happened to politeness (did it ever exist?) and when was it replaced by hateful antagonism?

        • A lot do. There are also conservative universities. No one should be mocked or estranged for their political views. This is a problem with political intolerance in the universities. I do not object to dealing with that. But W was famous for his anti-science intellectualism (there’s a great quote I can’t seem to find about not needing books when he knows the right thing regardless).

          I do not wish to suppress creationism. I am happy to debate it on the merits. But I will no more accept it as truth until proven otherwise than I would accept the flat Earth theory. If you want to make the statement that it’s an analogy for evolution, that’s fine, we can go with that. But I see no evidence that God’s sitting behind the curtain pulling the strings and I will require evidence before I buy that.

          • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

            In the beginning, God did a whole bunch of stuff.

            Doing all of this stuff took God 6 days.

            One day to God is tens of millions of years to the likes of you and me.

            There… problem solved. Creationism and Evolution are perfectly compatible.

            • .. sure ..

              But what evidence do you have that God did anything? If we agreed on the rest of it, then great, but where do you get that God created it? Why not, and I am not trying to be offensive here, a Flying Spaghetti Monster? Can you show me one scrap of evidence that supports your theory over the satirical FSM?

              You have faith. And that’s great for you, but I cannot accept that as grounds for teaching something to kids.

              • God told us He did all this. There is your evidence.

              • God told me no such thing. The only evidence I have that God told anyone anything is in a heavily edited book written a long time whose authenticity no one can vouch for.

                Just because it’s written down somewhere does not make it so. There are written accounts of creation stories from dozens of faiths, why do you discount them and not yours?

              • Common Man says:

                Matt;

                We do not have anything but theories and scientific speculation that man/woman evolved from anything. There is no more hard factual evidence that man/woman evolved from the proverbial slime than that of man being created.

                Why then would you disagree with children learning the history of religon. Each and every being should have an absolute right and ability to learn anything and everything they so choose. They can then make up their own mind.

                What are your beliefs relative to the afterlife? From your perspective what happens once they put your body into the ground or an urn.

                CM

              • There’s plenty of evidence. There are fossils, bone fragments, stone tools, cave drawings, Lucy and Ardi, etc. These, collectively, show our long march from ape to man. We see evolution on the micro scale, and somewhat on the macro scale (there have been some interesting studies on fish). Would I welcome more evidence? Sure. But there’s plenty of evidence that man was not created as is.

                Why then would you disagree with children learning the history of religon. [sic] Because you aren’t teaching them the history of religion. You are teaching them religion. I am all for teaching students the history of religion – it forms the backdrop of much of what happened over the last few thousand years. But you are advocating for teaching on equal footing a religious belief and a scientifically based one. I do not oppose efforts to teach creationism as a counterpoint to evolution, but in terms to science, they are not equals.

                What are your beliefs relative to the afterlife? From your perspective what happens once they put your body into the ground or an urn. Irrelevant, and faulty question anyway. Once dead, I plan to have everything of use harvested and donated. Then, what’s left can be cremated and tossed out the car window on the ride home – I require no urn – it’s just a waste of shelf space. That said, when I’m dead, I strongly suspect that I will simply cease to be. As before I was born, so shall I be again: nothing. But I have no special knowledge – I could be wrong. And since I have no evidence either way, I refrain from teaching it to others as though it were true.

              • Common Man says:

                Matt

                Spend some time in the woods alone. Preferably atop a ridge line or moutain top. I suggest mid-Spring

                It will serve you well and it gives a spirit peace.

                CM

              • From my buddy Buck The Wala, who is following along, but doesn’t want to post for fear of addiction (a wise course of action, indeed):

                http://www.slate.com/id/2195683/
                http://www.slate.com/id/2124952/

              • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

                Mathius,

                I do not have faith. I do not “believe in God”. God simply IS. The universe is orderly, proveable, and explainable. No “faith” is required.

              • You say “God IS” as fact. I see nothing to provide evidence to this fact. That the universe is orderly and provable proves nothing. There is nothing to make me believe that it cannot be explained by (as yet undiscovered) physics.

                Every time we say something is unknowable and the work of God, we eventually figure out a way to know it and decide it isn’t the work of God after all. How many times has this happened? Remember how that child died the other day because her parents opted for prayer instead of medicine? That’s because illness is biology, not God. People used to believe a God rode a flaming chariot across the sky, but this was shown to be the sun and it’s path charted by physics. Everything boils down to physics – time and again we see this – but people just keep moving the goal posts, how could I ever convince you?

              • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

                Mathius, you miss the point. EVERYTHING IS KNOWABLE… we just don’t know it all yet.

                The FACT that everything is knowable means that the universe is orderly and proveable, and NOT random and chaotic.

                The fact that it is not random and chaotic proves my point.

                However, you and I are not defining God in the same way for the purposes of this conversation, so what I am saying isnt making any sense to you.

              • Actually the argument for a lack of evidence is man’s own limited scope. We’re brand spanking new when held to the age of the cosmos and all that’s in it. What we know now is what compared to 100 years ago? 100 years is as what to the age of this planet let alone the cosmos. take a gander at what Hubble has shown and realize how pathetic that technology will be to us in another 50 years.

                The only thing we can say with any certainty is our limited time here has amounted to us knowing the tiniest fragment more than absolutely nothing.

      • The problem with your statement is that it really doesn’t matter what a particualar canidate believes, what matters is how those beliefs will shape their efforts in office. Sarah Palin may well believe that the Earth is only 6,000 years old, and that Creationism should be taught in schools, but she took NO action as either a member of her local school board, Mayor or Governor to try a make any changes in the shcools of Alaska regarding those beliefs. That is what matters.

    • Matt:

      If we are going to have rational discussions about these issues then you need to drop the political rhetoric and start embracing reality.

      Please provide proof of “Get rid of the xenophobic immigrant bashing too (I’m looking at you, Tancredo),”

      Of course in order to provide such proof you must also prove that an illegal alien is an “immigrant” according to the laws of this country.

      As for “compassion for the underclass” you must first prove that we have true “classes” in this country as opposed to individuals who’s economic status or condition changes with time. Then you must prove that supporting economic policies that expand the economy and thus jobs is somehow less compasionate than providing a welfare check for doing nothing but staying in the city like good little sheep.

      On the military stance I think we could agree to some extent, but you would first have to describe what you mean by such generalities as “tone down” and “start making more sense”.

      Good to see you up and at it so early this morning.
      Hope your weekend was good.
      JAC

      • Oh, JAC, you sure do make life interesting..

        Alright, fine.

        Prove that illegal immigrants are immigrants according to the laws of this country. I’m not exactly sure what that means. The laws of this country to affect the definition of the word immigrant. Immigrant: a person who migrates to another country, usually for permanent residence. Is this what they’re doing? Yup. OK, then. They’re immigrants.

        I assume what you meant was “prove that they have a right to be here and should be treated with the respect and courtesy accorded to lawful citizens.” In that case, it’s simple. Ready for this? Illegal immigrants are people, too. Whoa! I know it’s deep, but where a person is from is really quite irrelevant. We have very little practical means for letting people into the country (I’m from California, remember, I know a little bit about this). They come here and they do jobs that most people can’t/won’t do. They do it cheap and they are VITAL to the economy. Want to see the US economy implode? Try kicking out all the illegal aliens. Now, they have committed a crime by crossing the border without permission, thus they should be charged (with due process of law) and penalized, but does sending them back to the third world seem an appropriate penalty? If you jay walk, you get a ticket. Why should politicians be the ones who get to decide who can and cannot be an American? It wasn’t always that way.

        So there you have it. From an ethical standpoint, they’re human beings and you have no right to tell them where they can and cannot live. And from a practical standpoint, they are vital to the health of our economy. And from a legal standpoint, I do not recognize the right of the government to institute impractical barriers to citizenship. But always remember, they are people, too. They came here for a better life and did not have the good fortune to be born here like the rest of us – you should applaud that.

        As for “compassion for the underclass” you must first prove that we have true “classes” in this country as opposed to individuals who’s economic status or condition changes with time. This is tough to do. There are certainly poor people, I don’t think you’ll argue that, and there are certainly wealthy people, I don’t think you’ll argue that either. And in between, are the people in the middle – or the middle class. It is true that there is movement between the three “classes,” but here I am not concerned with making under-class middle-class. I am not concerned with their long-term ups and downs. What I am speaking to here is the fact that, right now, at this moment, person X is poor. Person X has no political power. Person X has no media influence. Person X has no legal power. Person X also has insufficient food, shelter, medicine, heating, and clothes. Yes, we can debate the meaning of “insufficient” in this context, but I think we can agree that these are minimal requirements for living, no? Then you must prove that supporting economic policies that expand the economy and thus jobs is somehow less compasionate[sic] than providing a welfare check for doing nothing but staying in the city like good little sheep. and I get that, you can make that case. And I would generally agree for employable people. There should be a safety net for people who get fired or whatnot, but I am not talk about them. I am talking about people who can’t provide for themselves. I am talking about people who, for whatever reason, are unable to get or hold a job. Your paradigm would sentence them to starvation and eventual death. That is what I mean by compassion for the underclass. Not everyone is as smart or capable as you. Not everyone is employable. Where they are unable to provide for themselves, we must do so. Cutting welfare (as opposed to cutting welfare abuse and waste, which I suppose doing), is a cruel in inhumane solution to a legitimate problem. And calling welfare recipients sheep is not helpful either. These are by and large unfortunate people who seek to do something but lack the ability to. You only hear about the welfare queens, but for every one of them, there are probably a dozen legitimately needy people.

        On the military stance I think we could agree to some extent, but you would first have to describe what you mean by such generalities as “tone down” and “start making more sense”.True, but I’ll leave this for the military people among us. I do know that saber rattling doesn’t help anyone (see, cold war), nor does invading countries which did not attack us on false pretenses (see, Iraq I, II). I do know that having every American remove their shoes at the airport is stupid. I do know that sealing our borders is impractical. I do know that treating the entire Muslim world like on homogeneous backward barbaric society is foolish and won’t win us any friends. I know that blind support of Israel will not help us or Israel. So we can debate this, but I think tone down and make more sense are good generalities.

        • If someone broke into my house (illegally) I would throw them out, not provide them with a home, food and medical care. The illegals have broken into our country and need to go home and follow the process of legal immigration.

          • Ah, but it’s not your house. It the house of everyone who lives in it. Isn’t that the point of the melting pot? Who are you to say who can and cannot enter?

            • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

              Mathius, it doesnt matter who Wasabi is to say who can and cannot enter.

              The US LAWBOOKS clearly state who can and cannot enter, but the US is demonstrably failing to follow its own LAW.

              Therefore, you advocate that your government should ignore its own laws when it is convenient to do so.

              How do you propose to build support for a government which will not even follow its own laws?

              • I don’t. I think they should change the laws because the laws are wrong. Until such time though, I would have to advocate for following them – though not too enthusiastically since they’re bad laws and would devastate the economy and a millions of people.

              • Matt, are you suggesting that we should allow just anyone to enter and leave our country at will? The laws concerningimmigration were put in place to protect US citizens not the illegal. So which is it do we protect ourselves by inforcing the law, or do we protect illegals and just wink at the law?

              • We uphold the law. I hate to say it, but the law is the law. So we are obligated to round ’em up and boot ’em out. But the law is a bad law and should be changed as soon as possible so that we are not obligated to do so.

                Yes, anyone not known to be a criminal or terrorist should be free to take up US citizenship. That is the point of this country.

                Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
                With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
                Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
                A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
                Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
                Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
                Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
                The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
                “Keep ancient lands, your storied pomp!” cries she
                With silent lips. “Give me your tired, your poor,
                Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
                The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
                Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
                I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

              • Matt:

                “Yes, anyone not known to be a criminal or terrorist should be free to take up US citizenship. That is the point of this country.”

                This is NOT the POINT of this country. It may be the consequence but it is definetly not the POINT OF.

                And by the way, we are not a nation of immigrants. The vast majority of us were born in this country. At any given time in our history the number of “immigrants” never came close to what we have had this past decade.

              • Of course we’re a nation of immigrants. If you were born here, your parents might not have been, or their parents, or theirs. But at some point, you came from somewhere else. My great grandparents hail from Yugoslavia and Poland via Ellis Island.

                Unless you’re a full-blooded Native American, you owe your citizenship to immigration. And, by the way, the Native Americans aren’t native either, they came over an ice bridge during the last ice age. They’re immigrants, too.

        • Matt:

          You once again confuse the arguments. YOU are the one that claimed certain Republicans, esp. Mr. Tancrado, was guilty of “xenophobic immigrant bashing”.

          Your claim is FALSE because according to the laws of this country, that would be the laws passed by the govt you support for all other things, those folks who are the target of such “bashing” are not “immigrants”, they are “illegal aliens”.

          So to accuse someone of being “xenophobic” because they want the law enforced is intellectual dishonesty, something I thought only the “undeducated blue collar types” were guilty of committing.

          You have accused Mr. Tancredo and others who share his view of being racist against hispanic people. That is not the case with Mr. Tancredo nor most people I know who want the borders controlled and immigration managed.

          The rest of your discussion regarding immigrants and ethics is not relevant to the origianl accusation you made. You are accusing someone, or a group, of being “xenophobic immigrant bashers” based on a “definition of immigrant” that you selected outside the context in which they expressed their opinions.

          So lets change the focus on this issue. Do you agree that a Nation has the right to establish guidelines governing immigration to said Nation?

          Regarding the “welfare” issue I challenge you to find a single Republican or Conservative leader that has publicaly called for the abolition of ALL welfare or “safety nets” as you call them. They always stop short of the “libertarian” view and make exceptions for the “truly helpless”. Which of course means that your original accusation was again FALSE.

          • So lets change the focus on this issue. Do you agree that a Nation has the right to establish guidelines governing immigration to said Nation? Yes and no. A nation, probably. Us, no, not particularly. I do recognize the need to keep track of who enters and who doesn’t, and to keep out criminals. But that’s really it. We are a nation of immigrants – this is central to our national identity. Anyone who wants to be a US citizen should be free to become one easily and without years-long delays and quotas. Round ’em up and kick ’em out makes no sense.

            • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

              Mathius, round ’em up and kick ’em out has been our immigration policy since before my grandparents came here from Eastern Europe in the late 1800s.

              If you don’t LIKE that law, get it CHANGED. Otherwise IT IS THE LAW.

              That being said, I DO NOT LIKE IMMIGRATION LAW THE WAY IT IS EITHER. However, I am intelligent enough to recognize that if a government chooses which of its own laws to enforce and which to ignore, most people will see that government as an illegitimate farce (which is a GOOD thing in my view).

              At any rate I find it highly hypocritical for you to be an avowed Statist and yet be in favor of the State ignoring one of its own laws. That makes me smile 🙂

  6. If Republicans did what you suggest regarding abortion, gay rights and denouncing lunatics like Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck, they’d walk take the 2010 and 2012 elections wholesale.

    I’m not sure they’ll do it. In fact, I doubt they’ll do it. Obama will still be tough to beat in 2012 but mostly because the Reps (as you say) have a leader that can attract independents.

    Imagine where that leaves me and my choice, Ralph Nader … probably as good a chance at winning as my New Jersey Governor choice (Greg Pason, the socialist candidate) … we’re completely outside the box … but no further out than conservative republicans (who are the ones who can (and probably will) ruin it for the wider Republican Party come 2012).

    DOC (my very conservative buddy) is coming over for beers today … we intend to have our own “tea” party (so to speak). It won’t be very good for my diet but it’ll make listening to cable news pundits a lot easier to deal with.

    I do suspect Democrats are nervous today, though, because as I point out on my blog today, the Obama honeymoon is officially over. Last night Maddow & Olbermann made that very clear to me:

    http://temporaryknucksline.blogspot.com/

  7. I would like to challenge a piece of conventional wisdom that this is a center-right country. Given the graphs above, wouldn’t it appear to be a center-left country?

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      Mathius,

      When surveyed about voting tendencies, the country does indeed appear to be center-left (by US standards anyway), but when surveyed about VALUES, the results come out that a large percentage of the country is either conservative or leans conservative on many issues.

      I think that this dichotomy (values vs. voting trends) comes up because neither party truly represents the people at all.

    • Matt:

      You are confusing political party alignments at any given point in time (last 4 years) with personal values held by the electorate.

      Recent polling has shown:

      Small majority oppose abortion.
      Larger majority oppose late term abortion.
      Majority oppose open borders and want illegal aliens to leave.
      Majority want controlled borders and legal immigration applied in a fair and just manner.
      Majority consider themselves “Chrisitians” and support values of such.
      Majority say they support “self responsibility”.
      Majority oppose Gay marriage.

      All of these would be considered as “right of center” by those on the left.

      Now, these are the results of various polls over the past few years while the “middle” was realigning with the “left”. Like all such information it does not tell the whole story. On abortion and gay marriage for example, a majority oppose, but a majority also oppose using govt to create laws banning such things. Thus you get a “conservative” or “right of center” person (based on personal values) aligning with the Dem party on those issues.

  8. I meant to say they (Reps) would have a cake walk.

    And … (typo mania this morning, sorry) … Reps don’t have a leader (you’re right about that too).

  9. “They have no plan. They have no ability to change their stance on key issues to remain relevant to the political landscape.”

    The Republicans should not change their stance on key issues important to them as a party. Individual rights, liberty and freedom, a true free market/capitalism and adherence to the Constitution should remain core values. If the Republicans believe in these values and regard them as core values, then they should never get off them.

    The problem is that society has changed and no longer believes in the Constitution, hence the Progressive Movement and bigger and bigger government. We have evolved from a Republic to a Democracy where the majority rules. If the majority wants abortion on demand, welfare, food stamps, health care, free college education and other things from government, then Congress must find a way to provide it. At this time, Democrats are better at providing goodies to the electorate. Republicans are seen and portrayed by the Democrats and media as the party of “no” with no “solutions” to the electorate’s demands. When Republicans get off their core values (if they have any), they are also guilty of large spending programs and government expansion. This leads to the “big tent” argument made recently by Newt Gingrich and others who believe the Republicans need to become more like Democrats to expand the party.

    The Republican Party needs to decide who they are and what they stand for. What are their core values? They should not blow with the political wind. Stand on your core values. If that means the party goes out of existence then so be it.

    • Mike M. Houston Texas says:

      Wow. There is some truth to what you say. The people want the “goodies”. When I read that I thought of my daughter at 10 years old “who wants the goodies”. She gets told NO because “the goodies” cost money and that money has to come from somewhere. If we are truly a society of 10 year olds then all is lost. We can talk about this party and that party but if the people voting only want the “goodies” its no wonder repubs have been spun as the party of NO. The 10 year olds dont want to hear that. Sooner or later it will be time to pay up though. Lets hope the people of this country understand that NO means NO because we dont have the money. Everyones daily life is driven by what you have in the bank account. I am sure everyone who writes here has been told or heard “we cant we dont have the money”.

      Conversely you make a point. The Democrats are a bunch of 16 year olds with a week old drivers license and Americas gold card. They are spending like daddy is out of town. What a mess that has made.

      It all makes me sick but maybe “NO” is what we need right now. Please dont start with the repubs have spent argument. We all know Obama is spending 3X to 4X that amount.

  10. Common Man says:

    USW

    ARe you hoping/looking for a Republican Party re-birth? I hope not.

    We (the people) don’t need a re-birth of either party, because both are corrupt at the soul. Since we all know that politicians lie, anything coming from their mouths is just more BS to get the sheeple to follow and support whatever BS they are spouting. Regardless of what they say now, or what they do, we will get shafted again in time. A snake can no more stop biting than a liar can stop lying.

    Maybe a total collapse of either would initiate further advancement of an independent minded citizen. Maybe if there was only one party people would be less likely to vote along party lines. Maybe if we could affect the collapse of one party we could go for two.

    My biggest fear is that the masses will just change party lines out of spite and we will see the same BS with a slightly different spin; SOSDD

    CM

  11. Common Man says:

    BF and All;

    I know it is not yet “Open Mic Night”, but I may very well be in a tree tonight looking to put more meat in the freezer.

    So, I post my question to BF

    Dear sir;

    You have been indicating we are likey headed toward a national collapse and that we should prepare. I was watching Beck last night and it appears that he too is expecting a like event.

    He seems to believe that things are really going to get ugly in the next couple of months and will be tell tale signs of a impending disaster. He even made the statement that the stock market’s current trend is a ‘false’ indicator because the funds used are from the government.

    What are your thoughts:

    Will the Health Care Bill pass?
    Will this regime get Cap and Trade pushed through in some form?
    Are our debt holders about ready to call in their markers?
    How do you think the government will react to the ramifications should all of the above happen and things go to sh.t?

    I know I am kinda of asking for you to look into your crystal ball, but you must have an idea and are planning accrodingly

    CM

    • Common Man

      You have been indicating we are likey headed toward a national collapse and that we should prepare.

      We will need to define “collapse”. It is becoming overused in the MSM and people are misunderstanding what it means.

      “Collapse” of society – no, I do not think this will happen. The Elite depend on the high division of labor and its failure will slaughter them. They will do their damnedest to prevent this – even if it means abandoning government.

      “Collapse” of federal government – possibly, or at least it will become highly irrelevant.

      Medicare is in the hole for $14 trillion. It will be abandoned.

      Social Security is in the hole for $24 trillion. It will be abandoned.

      US Military is spending almost a $1 trillion a year – it will be substantially cut.

      Anything funded by the Federal Government will be cut massively.

      He seems to believe that things are really going to get ugly in the next couple of months and will be tell tale signs of a impending disaster.

      Government owes $7 trillion in T-Bills. They will default.

      This will stop international trade.

      Imports will disappear.

      Dollar will fall like a rock.

      It probably will not go away, however.

      The collapse of money will destroy price calculation – which will destroy divisions of labor – which will stop the economy dead. No fuel – no shipping – no food – starvation – death for millions. The Elite will not allow this – they are the biggest gainers of the divisions of labor.

      But high inflation will strike hard.

      To see how devastating it will be to you personally go here:

      http://www.hellodollar.com/archives/2005/10/inflation_calcu.html

      Put in $100 @ 15% for 10 years and see what things will cost.

      Then change it to 25% inflation for 5 years.

      Fiddle around with some numbers – so that you get a sense of the disaster.

      He even made the statement that the stock market’s current trend is a ‘false’ indicator because the funds used are from the government.

      He is correct.

      Will the Health Care Bill pass?

      Yes. There is no stopping this.

      Will this regime get Cap and Trade pushed through in some form?

      Yes. It will be stuffed into a emergency funding bill so to pass without resistance.

      Are our debt holders about ready to call in their markers?

      No.

      This would cause a run on their debt and turn it worthless. They will slowly dump their debt back to the FED ….very slowly.

      How do you think the government will react to the ramifications should all of the above happen and things go to sh.t?

      Martial Law.
      Wage and Prices controls.
      Mass shortages and rationing coupons.

      Think America Home Land in WW2 or Germany, 1946 to 1960.

  12. I find it odd that everyone seems to want Republicans to disavow the Christian right. By this I mean you want them to drop their positions against gay marriage and abortion. If this happens, the Republican party would lose most of its base! That would mean the sure destruction of the party as we know it. If that were to happen, about 1/3 (maybe half) of this country would be without a party. I wonder what would happen then?

    To tell the truth, I would rather see the destruction of both parties. I think people go into the polls thinking they are voting for D or R and don’t even bother with learning who the candidates are and what they stand for…

    • JB:

      What is a “political base”?

      The Republican party was relevant before the “christian coalition” joined so why would their disaffection be a mortal wound?

      When making such analysis one must also consider the state of the opposition.

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      I feel it would greatly BENEFIT the Republican Party if they simply said, “The Federal Government has no business deciding whether you can get an abortion or not, and the federal government also has no business deciding who can get married and who cannot. These issues should be left to the States or to the people.”

      If the Republicans said that, they might alienate SOME of the “Christian Right”, but I don’t think they would lose ALL of the “Christian Right” by saying this, and they would probably pick up quite a few “independents”.

      • I agree Peter.

      • So the federal government has no business protecting a human being from being murdered…

        Sounds great!

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          JB,

          The federal government does NOTHING to “PROTECT” _ANYONE_ from being murdered.

          People get murdered CONSTANTLY. The best the government can do is INTERVENE AFTER THE FACT and attempt to catch and punish “the guilty party”

          I believe that you can prove logically that abortion is murder. As such, it probably SHOULD fall under the obviously moral stance that murder is the ultimate violation of individual rights. However, the issue has been greatly confused by the people that would have you believe that a fetus is merely a “tumor” that is a “parasite” within the body of the mother, and since it is “her” body, she can do with it what she likes.

          Ultimately though, the key fact is that any law formulated by government does not protect anyone against anything whatsoever. This is KEY and you must realize this. Until you realize this, you will BELIEVE that GOVERNMENT IS NECESSARY FOR YOUR PROTECTION, when, in fact, government does nothing whatsoever to protect you at all.

          • Government bans abortion. Some children who would be aborted are not killed. Sounds like the government did a little protecting…

            Government creates a law that outlaws murder. Though I am enraged by your actions against me, I do not murder you out of fear of the law. Sounds like protection…

            I know you have no faith in the government, but your statements are absolutely false. The government may not be necessary to save me from murder, I can do that myself in most cases, but it certainly CAN do so!

            • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

              JB,

              I do not murder you because I know murder to be immoral.

              “Fear of the law” has absolutely nothing to do with whether I murder you or not.

              If someone WANTS to murder you, they are going to do it, irrespective of what the “law” says.

              • I throw the BS flag on this.

                “Fear of the law” has absolutely nothing to do with whether I murder you or not.

                Really!?! If the law keeps someone from murdering because they don’t want to go to jail it certainly matters what the law says.

              • JB,

                I do not murder because jail scares me.

                Jail doesn’t scare people who murder.

                Jail may scare YOU – but if the circumstances are such, I am sure there are far more scarier things then jail.

            • JB:

              You are also confusing Law with Government.

              Not necessarily the same, and in fact were not for some time in human history.

              As for the effort to “ban abortion” please tell me how that worked when it “was banned”?

              And what of the life lost due to the banning of abortion? Is the loss of the mother considered “murder” by the govt?

  13. We all need to be very careful making general statements about political matters. Politics is about people and there are over 300 million different views of the world in this country. Grouping these into general categories to support or deny any given position is mostly silly.

    Only when the numbers get big, such as 70% or more on any given position, and they stay there despite recouching the issue, do you truly have some idea of what “the people” are thinking.

  14. Morning All:

    I wish I could believe that the Republicans will get back to being the conservatives they were like in the Reagan era, but I think the times have changed. VLDG is a wonderful pipe dream but I fear that will never happen. I like the NY23 guy, Hoffman, tho. He’s not a politician. Wonder how long he will last in that “good old boys and girls network” they call Washington DC?

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      If Hoffman is elected, he needs to probably vote NO on at least 95% of the things brought up in Congress, and then he needs to clearly explain exactly WHY he could not support each piece of legislation that he votes against. Both parties will see him as “obstructionist”, but the people of his district probably would actually have some respect for him if he did that.

      He should also come up with some plans that actually represent increased freedom and liberty, and attempt to explain how and why his plans were superior to anything thrown up there by the Statist parties. Sure, his ideas won’t gain significant traction with 85% of the current members of congress, but that is exactly what the people need to see in my opinion.

      • I agree Peter about what Hoffman ‘should’ do but yes, the others entrenched in the political machine will see him as an obstructionist. That makes me sad and mad all at once. Someone actually trying to buck the stupid system and the powers that be will block him at every turn.

    • Willo:

      If you believe this to be true: “VLDG is a wonderful pipe dream but I fear that will never happen.”, then it will be true.

      The key to your salvation is YOU.

      And you + you + you + you + you……………….. = Resurrection of a Free Nation.

  15. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    I would love for a group of politicians (not even necessarily a “party”) and say,

    “We are for freedom and liberty. Here is what we see as the legitimate role of government, and here is what we see as the issues that government should have ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with…” Then these politicians should list off exactly what they feel the government should and should not do, and they should promise not to meddle in anything on the “government should not be involved in that” list or face an immediate recall election.

    I am sure the MSM would go out of its way to try to squash such a political movement as quickly as possible, and the 2 established parties would try to as well, but among the PEOPLE it would probably gain traction a lot faster than it could be stamped out.

    I personally don’t think that “religious conservatives” would be all that turned off by candidates who say, “It should not be for the federal government to decide whether abortion is legal or not, nor should it be for the federal government to decide who can get married and who cannot. That needs to be left to the States and the People.” I could be wrong – there could be a lot of “religious conservatives” that actively WANT the federal government to legislate things like this, but hopefully they could be convinced that it would be much better handled on a local and State level.

    I see lots of VDLG (VLDG?) rumblings, but eventually someone is going to have to pick up the ball and run with it. Whoever does is going to have to have strong character and be prepared for an all-out assault from both parties and from the media, but hey, it COULD be a fun hobby 🙂

    • Peter:

      I saw this type of comment yesterday and in USW’s post today. Now you have presented it so I will comment.

      “I see lots of VDLG (VLDG?) rumblings, but eventually someone is going to have to pick up the ball and run with it. Whoever does is going to have to have strong character and be prepared for an all-out assault from both parties and from the media, but hey, it COULD be a fun hobby”

      Once again we seek a KING, a LEADER, a SAVIOR.

      All are antithetical to a free people. What we need is a POPULATION of INDIVIDUALS dedicated to Liberty and Justice for All.

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        JAC,

        Nature abhors a vacuum. Humanity naturally seeks leadership.

        One CAN be a great leader and still be completely in favor of freedom and liberty.

        Don’t confuse LEADERSHIP with KINGSHIP.

        Without a great quarterback, and a great defensive captain, the football team is probably going to suck, regardless of the talent levels of its players.

        Most PEOPLE probably do favor freedom and liberty. Most people are not going to be ACTIVELY DEDICATED to freedom and liberty without a leader or leaders to show them the way.

        A leader does not have to be a “ruler”. A leader can easily be someone who can just point out, “You all KNOW this country was founded on freedom and liberty, and you all KNOW that freedom and liberty are best for society, so LETS GET TO IT!

        The revolution didn’t happen on its own. It required leadership of strong individuals willing to stand up for what they believed in. This will be no different.

        • I remind you that no one led our first revolution. It was a group of men and women who organized and then took action, as a group.

          A revolution built on the Leadership factor, as in one or only a few, will eventually fail. That is because those who feel they need a leader will be living on the values of others and not their own. They will eventually turn on the leader when they find another leader who’s values seem more familiar on that particular day.

          The Leadership sought by most is little different than Kingship, in the end.

          “Most PEOPLE probably do favor freedom and liberty.” I do not believe this to be true. I do believe they think they favor freedom but in fact they do not. Most do not even understand what it means.

          What we need are teachers.

          • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

            JAC,

            We do need teachers. Many teachers would obviously be preferable to just one or a few.

            However, just about everyone here recognizes that a certain rather large portion of the population falls into “the masses”. The masses CAN be taught, but for whatever reason, the masses seem to pretty much be willing to go with the flow of whatever is happening.

            Everyone from Charlie to Mathius all the way to BF seems to recognize the existence of “the masses”.

            In the past, BF has indicated that you need to structure society based on moral principles, and the masses will just naturally follow. Not sure if that is EXACTLY how he put it, but it was something along those lines.

            Does this indicate that we need not only teachers of these moral principles, but also leaders as well? I am asking because I do not necessarily know the answer to the question myself.

            • Peter:

              I would say we need leaders in the sense of those willing to help folks become organized.

              What we do not want but what many are crying for is the “follow me” or “I have the answers” leader(s).

              As for the masses, I think you will find that they usually stand on the side lines, or at least try to. There are those who share but need others to point them or as you say, lead them over the wall. They are not the masses in the true sense.

              If we were trully free and if we remained a republic we wouldn’t want “political leaders” would we. What we would want is someone with enough integrity to “represent” us not make decisions on what they believe is our best interest.

              I am fearful of the crys for the “need for a leader” at this point. That is exactly what the progressives were crying for 3 years ago. They got their wish. Do we want to follow in the same footsteps?

              A revolution to support liberty has to be constructed much differently. At least that is my view at this point in time. And of course assuming we want it to be peaceful.

  16. posting for comments

    • Mathius is watching us, be very careful.

      • He’s supposed to be watching Ray, remember? 😉

        BTW JAC, where are my damn pina coladas????? I’m waiting. There’s a beautiful tropical white sand beach just down the street calling my name…….

        Jealous yet? 🙂

        • I’m watching all of you..

          And you’re welcome to come visit Mathius’ Investment Vehicles and Tiki Bar anytime you like

        • Cyndi:

          I left your Pina Colada on the bar for you.

          Maybe Matt drank it, or that darn Janet Reno.

          Not envious just yet, a beautiful fall day with mountains of green and yellow.

          But give me another month.

          Best to you.
          JAC

          • Here, JAC, let me help you along with that.

            😉

            http://www.kwajaleinscubaclub.com/

            Make sure you check out the photos page….

            • Listen, if you leave drinks unattended around me, I cannot assure you that they will still be there when you get back. You should have taken more care.

              But you’re welcome to come visit Mathius’ Investment Vehicles and Tiki Bar, too. First round’s on me.

  17. USW

    I am going to take exception to the following:

    “The results tomorrow will show an important trend in the political spectrum of New Jersey, Virginia, and New York’s 23rd District. Nothing else.”

    I disagree concerning the New York 23rd District. Republican career politicians rammed career politician Scozzafava down the peoples throat and said this is your candidate, whether you like her or not. The people did not like her nor did they want her. The Tea Party people and others got behind Doug Hoffman, a man who has never held public office and never thought that he would. He said. “I was fed up with what’s happening to our country. I was fed up with the out-of-control spending, taxes, government regulations on us and businesses, and I thought somebody had to step up and do something about it.” Now I don’t know anything about this man and if he gets elected he might go to Washington and turnout to be like the other 535 crooks there. But is this not the kind of person (a non career politician) that a lot of us have said we need in Washington for months on this blog? Could this be the beginnings of a people’s movement away from career politicians? Now some will say that this is a fight within the GOP, but it could be a fight against the GOP and the DEMS. Already the GOP is playing politics and are trying to jump on Hoffman’s wagon and claiming him as one of theirs after they for weeks have been pounding him. If I were he I’d tell them no thanks, I am a candidate for the people not a Republican. I would give him one piece of advice, take the C that stands for The Conservative Party and call it C for the Constitutional Party and keep saying it, who knows it might just catch on and grow.

    • Good Post, Bama.

    • CWO2USNRet says:

      “But is this not the kind of person (a non career politician) that a lot of us have said we need in Washington for months on this blog? Could this be the beginnings of a people’s movement away from career politicians? ”

      The one movement with the best chance of this: GOOOH. Still needs some tweaks. Still not at critical mass but still growing. I would love to see it work.

  18. Morning Everyone

    Just reading along for now

    Hope all is doing well today.

    Judy

  19. OK, Why is it that the Republican Party has to mimic the Democratic party to win? Exactly why is that?

    The most important race today in NY 23. Here we have an unapologetic Conservative who forced a Republican, (just the kind Mathius and Charlie want) out of the race. Why?, Simple, she is not relevant. Who the hell wants Democrat light anyway?

    Back in 1970 we elected James Buckley (Bill’s Brother) to the US Senate in NY on the Conservative Party line. The Conservative Party in NY was founded and is composed of some of the brightest thinkers I have ever met. They are in no way Neandertals. Jim won because we had two liberals cancelling each other out. Six years later, to get him out the Dems had to nominate Daniel Patrick Moynihan, he who believed welfare was a cancer, he who believed in the Viet Nam War, he who God help us, had worked in the Nixon administration. They really wanted to nominate Bella Abzug the Commie but knew that she would lose badly to an articulate, principled conservative. So, the democratic party in NY was forced rightward to select a candidate who would normally be anathama. Most Conservatives I know, from party leaders to ordinary foot soldiers in the trenches are far from anti-intellectuals. If anything they are better grounded in history, politics, economics and philosophy than their liberal peers. We feel that the bulk of the support for the democratic party are the real anti-intellectuals. They who want it all, want it now and have no clue how to pay for it. I love to use the Golden Goose fable as an analogy, the left is willing to kill the body politic and rip it open to find those golden eggs. Tomorrow? Who cares?

    Bush, I think we all agree, was an unmitigated disaster. Despite running as a “conservative” it was obvious, from his first term that he was not. What he did do, and here is where my paranoia cuts in, was severely trash the conservative brand to the bulk of American voters. same thing Nixon did. The reality is that both were statists and as we now say, progressives. Joe McCarthy, Nixon and Bush did more for the democratic party than they would ever be able to do for themselves.

    And another thing, while I am busy being pissed off, what is this bullshit about compromise. If I have 100% of something and you want 50% I compromise and give that to you. You then come back and say you want half of what I have left. I then compromise and give it to you. A few years go by and you again want 50% of what I have as a “compromise”. Well, you should be able to see where I am going. Always remember how well the compromise method worked on the slavery issue.

    If I believe abortion is murder and I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman only and I believe that sneaking into the country is as wrong as sneaking into a bank vault then how can I compromise and more inmportantly, why should I? How about you compromise with my beliefs by making abortion a crime, gay marriage an impossibility and putting land mines on the border? You laugh, and rightly so but then again, I laugh at you. We both hold firm beliefs based on our sense of morality. It is your job to convince the majority you are right and my job to counter you. You may note that I have set a trap for you since abortion and gay marriage have not been brought about by convincing a majority to change a law but rather by judicial fiat. Illegal aliens have been given rights by those same courts not by the will of the people.

    Those who are willing to be governed by unelected judges are oligarchs, not democrats.

    Yes, Charlie and Matt, people who do not agree with you are neither lunatics nor cavemen no matter how much you would like to portray them as such. Come, on, let’s deamonize those evil right wingers. People who believe in God do not by and large hate sinners so much as pity them and do not all believe that the dinosaurs walked the earth with homo sapiens in , let’s say 4,386 BC unless of course you prefer using BCE because you are offended by the Christ reference.

    • Yes, Charlie and Matt, people who do not agree with you are neither lunatics nor cavemen no matter how much you would like to portray them as such.

      I classify Limbaugh and Beck as lunatics and Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow as carnival barkers, but they’re all pretty much interchangeable.

      I voted for Bush both times so I must classify myself as a lunatic. I don’t, but I do classify myself as wrong for those votes (not that the alternate choice was better, but I don’t believe we would’ve gone to Iraq if Gore were elected and the cost of Iraq (in lives and coin) has been insane.

      Come, on, let’s deamonize those evil right wingers.

      I think it is important to note that not all who vote Democrat are socialist (as a socialist, I’m offended by Democrats being classified as such—they’re a pubic hair to the left of Republicans as far as I’m concerned). That said, it’s a free country so call them what you want.

      People who believe in God do not by and large hate sinners so much as pity them and do not all believe that the dinosaurs walked the earth with homo sapiens in , let’s say 4,386 BC unless of course you prefer using BCE because you are offended by the Christ reference.

      My wife is very religious … although I do provoke fun arguments with her, I don’t think she’s nuts (except for marrying me). Now, I’m probably a lot less offended by political incorrectness than yourself, but as regards any reference to God (any God), I ignore such references because I’m an atheist. I don’t hold anything against you for being religious, but you don’t get to use the Bible, Christ, Alah, some Sun God or Buddha as documentation when making a political point (with me). I don’t buy it/them. I have no problem with Christmas trees, crosses, mosques, etc. To each his own.

      So, you were saying …?

      • >>’d vote for Ralph Nader first and Ron Paul 2nd (polar opposites) to avoid the Republicans and/or the Democrats.

        Several times in the past coupla years I;ve tried to justify that i SENSE THAT i SHOULD support Ron Paul and Dennis Kuchinich !! I really dont know enuf about their positions but I sense that they;re honest tho sorta crazy !! Well Paul is ok and Kuchinich is crazy but honestly sincere.

    • And another thing, while I am busy being pissed off, what is this bullshit about compromise. If I have 100% of something and you want 50% I compromise and give that to you.

      You need not compromise. I’m not going to compromise and vote for the Socialist candidate in Jersey for Governor (which should make you happy since it will take a vote from the Democrat) … don’t compromise. I could care less how you vote (seriously). But, if conservatives stick with the Plain-Limbaugh, et al plan, they’ll find themselves on the short end of the stick. Forget NY’s 23rd. It was Republican for 100 years. The state is blue. Democrats are loving what’s going on there. So, no, don’t compromise. Vote your conscience. I wish the country would do the same (maybe we’d have 4 or 5 parties instead of 2). My point about Reps having to ignore Palin, etc., is that Obama is doing so poorly now, independents may well abandone him … but not for Palin. Trust me on this, she’s dead meat politically. She’s a curse to the Republican Party. Whether you agree with her or like her or not, that woman’s SNL skit will haunt her forever because “those were her words” Tina Fay used.

      • It does not answer my point about Jim Buckley winning the Rockefeller, left state in 1970. To win, you have to stand for something. My problem is that the Republican Party has convinced itself it does not have to stand for anything. It has become a me too party. People change, positions change over time. the latest polls on abortion are showing a majority against. Sure that poll can be sliced and diced and probably rightfully so but if a cadidate comes along and can sell that concept with respect, he can win. When it’s your ox being gored, there is no such thing as a red or blue state. I was far more surprised with Rudy Guillaini winning re-election in NY after people knew him that I was when he first won.

        Yesterday Glen beck said that the Democratic party would not and could not nominate someone like John Kennedy today. He took it a step further and said the same of Republicans. The 1960 Kennedy, not his loon brothers, would be too conservative. It certainly made me think harder about something I have thought about before.

        I carry no water for Sarah Palin. No matter how she morphs nor how much she learns, she will always be considered rightly or wrongly a joke and probably unelectable. Once you have been tarred and feathered, everybody tends to remember it. Do you remember the number Chevy Chase did on Gerald Ford? the Ford we tend to remember today is not the incredibly decent man who presided over a bitterly divided country but the golf ball hitting, tripping buffoon Chase made him out to be. What’s that last line line from “Liberty Valance”, “When the truth becomes legend, print the legend”.

        We do agree on something, I am not going to vote for Christie, outside of “lower taxes” he stands for nothing. Why hell, if he stood for something he might offend someone.

        • Speaking of Print The Legend. A dear friend of mine (and he’s a conservative) has a new book coming out in 2010 about Hemingway called Print The Legend. The author is Craig McDonald and he’s one of the best around today (seriously).

          I like the idea of standing for something, so good for you. Trust me, I could live with a non-government paradigm before I could ever accept the two parties we currently have. I’d vote for Ralph Nader first and Ron Paul 2nd (polar opposites) to avoid the Republicans and/or the Democrats.

          Frankly, after seeing a 60 minutes show on medicaid fraud, I’m having my doubts about government controlled anything but … and it’s a big but … my socialist paradigm would true rank and file workers having a lot more to say than the so-called professional ranks of cut throats and leaches.

          • If you have worked in the poorer neighborhoods of NY and I have for some 35 years, the extent of the fraud and corruption is unbelievable. Ten or so years ago we rented office space in an apartment building to a shrink. The neighborhood had become predominently Spanish speaking. He, in turn, imported Argentinian psychiatrists to provide Spanish language counselling. His deal was that the State of NY would pay $ 150.00 per hour and he would pay the psychiatrist $ 75.00 pocketing the renmainder. He provided, for a small fee, group housing for the Argentinians and they stayed the six months or so their visas allowed them to. There is apparently a never ending supply of Argentine shrinks. the joke among Argentines is that they have plenty of Professors and vDoctors but no plumbers.

            I have described before the habit of prescribing a six month supply of drugs for a medicaid recipient who will probably have their prescription changed next week, the cases and cases of Ensure that we throw away when a tenant dies and the never ending supply of disposable underpads and Depends. I won’t even bring up the rental equipment and it’s cost vs. purchase or the newest fad, a scooter for everyone!!! Two years ago medicaid fraud cost NY State 1.5 billion dollars, and that figure was from the comptroller. Fix the fraud first, then we talk health reform.

          • Charlie, the issue / fact that medicare / medcaid is fraudulent ridden, has been around for years – just the fact that it took so long for a 60 minutes show, is sad.

        • Dumb Palin, Crooked Nixon (he ended up living in an upper middle class house – 100 or 200 foot frontage !! in ridgewood or somewhere – not a multi-imillionaire like Clinton etal – heck – Poor New jerseyites have more !! ) That is just one of the many negative labels attached to NON-liberals by the MSM over the years. I;ve been talking about it for over 20 years.

  20. Wow, when you get to the postings a little late in the morning, all you have to do is go along and agree with the great comments!

    I think the most interesting situation is in NY for just the reasons Bama said above. The left has tried to portrait Dede’s ousting due to her more liberal social views, ie abortion and gay marriage, however, the focus from the right has been on her very liberal fiscal and other stances, ie taxes, stimulus and pro-union. She is a liberal and in some cases more so than the Dem candidate! She’s been found out and called out on it. This would not have happened a year ago – the people are on to the scam of politics.

    I do hope the Repubs win in Virginia and NJ – not because I necessarily believe they are any better, I really have no idea. But a Republican “sweep” in these 3 votes would at least be a wake-up call to Washington and since job preservation is at the top of their list of priorities, it may slow down and hopefully even stop some of the expensive, debt increasing votes they have coming up. Washington is a train wreck ready to happen and I don’t know if it can be avoided, but at best try to slow it down and minimize the impact.

  21. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    Mathius,

    You continually (anytime the subject comes up) point to illegal immegrants being integral to our current economy. This is hogwash.

    Illegal immegrants do the jobs that US Citizens are “unwilling” to do because they (illegal immegrants) generally still come from a culture which raises kids to have a strong work ethic and value productivity. As such, they are still willing to do an honest day of labor for an honest (or even less-than-honest) day’s pay.

    Americans, on the other hand, are now raised to believe that they are entitled to have a reasonably high standard of living simply becase they were born. They no longer believe that effort is required. The expect “an honest day’s pay” and THEN SOME without ANY work whatsoever.

    If you would remove the “entitlements” from American society and go back to teaching that hard work is needed in order to succeed in life, Americans would do these jobs which make illegal immegrants “integral to our ecomony”.

    What we have currently set up is that we are paying person #1 to NOT BE PRODUCTIVE, and then paying person #2 (who is here in violation of our current laws) to do the same job that person #1 COULD HAVE EASILY BEEN DOING.

    The net effect of this on the economy is NOT positive.

    Now, if you want to change our current laws regarding immigration, I am all for that. However, right now we are stuck with the laws that we have….

  22. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    I think that the MOST IMPORTANT message in this election is probably going to be from NY-23. If Hoffman wins, the PEOPLE should all rise up as one and shout, “Hey Demicans and Republicrats, YOU BOTH JUST GOT TEABAGGED!!!”

    It may not make much difference in the long run, but we can always hope it is the start of a big trend.

  23. I think the trend in our political landscape will be the rise of independents.
    Both parties have lost touch with their base, and will lose members. The Tea Party or 9/12’ers might grow into something. By 2012, I think both parties will have about 30%, leaving independents the largest voter base.

  24. Political observers say today’s gubernatorial races in New Jersey and Virginia don’t bode well for either Democratic candidate — due in part to President Obama’s declining popularity and his policies that don’t resonate with the voters.

    Chris Christie (NJ Republican)A pollster and political scientist at the State University of New Jersey says today’s gubernatorial race in the Garden State is a tossup that will won by the candidate with the best organization on the ground to get voters to the polls.

    Republican Chris Christie leads incumbent Democrat Jon Corzine 47-41 in Public Policy Polling’s final poll of the New Jersey governor’s race, with Independent Chris Daggett at 11 percent.

    David Redlawsk is director of the Rutgers University Eagleton poll and a political science professor at the school. He says polls indicate New Jersey voters are uncertain, unhappy with high property taxes, and potentially willing to take a chance on something new. However, he says there is another reason why Republican Christie could win in such a liberal state.

    “Voters don’t like Jon Corzine very much,” he states bluntly. “Some of that’s tied to the economy — it’s kind of a bad time to be a governor — [and] some of it’s tied to Corzine’s personal characteristics. He’s not seen as a particularly warm and fuzzy kind of guy, so his ratings have been as low as any New Jersey governor since that kind of thing has been kept track of.”

    Gov. Jon Corzine (D-New Jersey)Redlawsk contends that because President Obama has spent so much time campaigning for Corzine, the contest could be viewed as a referendum on the president.

    “The president has clearly tied himself to this election by coming in as he has,” the educator points out, “and it wouldn’t be unreasonable for anyone to say if Jon Corzine loses, maybe Barack Obama doesn’t have the pull everyone thought he did.”

    Christie leads Corzine 42-40 in the latest Quinnipiac poll, with 12 Daggett garnering 12 percent. Six percent remain undecided.

    An unpopular president
    In Virginia, political analysts are predicting the Democratic candidate will suffer a resounding defeat in the state’s gubernatorial election today.

    Bob McDonnell (VA)Noted University of Virginia pollster and political scientist Larry Sabato is predicting that former Virginia Republican Attorney General Bob McDonnell will defeat Democratic opponent Creigh Deeds today in a “landslide.” A Richmond Times-Dispatch poll released Sunday showed McDonnell leading Deeds by 12 points. Other polls have yielded similar results.

    Dr. Charles Dunn, dean of the Robertson School of Government at Regent University in Virginia Beach, says even if President Obama had spent more time campaigning for Deeds, it would not have mattered. (Listen to audio report)

    “Barack Obama’s popularity is going down,” says Dunn, “and you can imagine in Virginia — which has a strong conservative voting base — that it has gone down more than in some other parts of the country.”

    Creigh Deeds (Virginia gov. candidate)And the president’s policy ideas are “very unpopular” in Virginia, he adds. “So on two counts, his own popularity and the popularity of his policy ideas are causing him serious trouble,” the Regent educator suggests.

    Dunn says Deeds has failed to put together the same coalition that enabled Democrats Barack Obama, Governor Tim Kaine, and Senator Jim Webb to carry the state — a high turnout of black, independent, Hispanic, and younger voters.

  25. NEXT FALL—- WHICH PARTY WILL LAND MAJORITY OF CONTROL

    http://www.onenewsnow.com/Politics/Default.aspx?id=749752

  26. Matt,

    “Oh, and they have to get rid of the proud anti-intellectualism. Nothing makes me want to disavow a politician and their entire party as much as them proclaiming themselves to believe the Earth is 6,000 years old and that Evolution is hogwash*”

    Only a small fringe of the religious right has sought to stop teaching evolution. A growing number have called for teaching Creation or intelligent design(not the same thing)along with evolution. The justification for this is evolution is a THEORY. The shortcoming of evolutionary theory is it cannot explain creation, how did life first begin on earth. Evolution explains everything after that point, but not the initional “spark” where life first began.

    The sad fact is those who advocate evolution fight like rabid animals any attempt to bring other theory’s forward for discussion. The normal tactic is to make personal attacks, instead of allowing discussion of the issues. Seems similar to me to how AGW debate is handled, those who believe say the debate is over, and start name calling (how does disagreeing with a scientific conclusion get tied to mass genocide).

    I do recommend “Expelled”, by Ben Stein.

    And as for “a healthy dose of compassion for the underclass “. I think my Friday article proves the liberals are deliberately maintaining and even growing the underclass. And they seem to be who you favor.

    • Life of Illusion,

      There are many theories that explain the initional “spark” where life first began. A puddle, pond, or swamp covered in the right combination of ‘gooh’ heated to the right combination of temperature/pressure by a meteorite, and POW primitive life begins…

      Can you provide any evidence that supports the theories of creation or intelligent design?

  27. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    JB,

    I hate to pick on you, but pick on you I must… don’t feel bad.

    You assert that the reason one person does not murder another person can often be attributed to “fear of the law”.

    I am sorry… you have been duped. You BELIEVE that government has the power to prevent evil men from acting evilly. Sorry, that is not the case.

    If I am a man of moral principles, I realize that I CANNOT murder you, for to do so would be to violate your rights. If you INITIATE VIOLENCE against me, then yes, I can certainly defend myself, up to and including the use of deadly force IF IT IS WARRANTED.

    “Government Law” has no bearing on my understanding of this subject.

    No matter what the government imposed penalty for murder might be, “government law” DOES ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO PREVENT AN EVIL PERSON FROM MURDERING YOU if that is what the evil person wants to do.

    The ONLY case where “fear of the law” prevents murder is when someone is basically moral, but is either so uneducated or so misinformed that they do not even understand their own moral basis. Even in this case, if the uneducated or totally misinformed person still has moral principles, it is those principles that prevent them from comitting murder, not “government law”.

    You claim you would not murder someone else. Is this because:

    A: You know that all people have the right to life

    or

    B: You are afraid of going to jail or being sent to the electric chair.

    I strongly suspect that A is a MUCH BIGGER REASON for you not killing someone else that B ever could be, but I suppose I could be wrong….

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      I need to clear up a few things that you said earlier too JB:

      “Government creates a law that outlaws murder. Though I am enraged by your actions against me, I do not murder you out of fear of the law. Sounds like protection…” You argue under a false premise here, which is that government CREATED A LAW that outlaws murder. Government “created” no such law. This is NATURAL LAW. You have a right, as a human being, to live. Murdering you would obviously violate that right.

      “I know you have no faith in the government, but your statements are absolutely false. The government may not be necessary to save me from murder, I can do that myself in most cases, but it certainly CAN do so!” First of all, no, I do not have FAITH in the government. Faith requires belief without proof or reason. I most CERTAINLY do not have “faith” in the government. Secondly, NO, the government CANNOT save you from being murdered. There are 2 kinds of people in the world: good ones and evil ones. The good ones are not going to murder you because they are good. Most of the evil ones are not likely to murder you, because you have probably not done anything to attract their attention and personal animosity. HOWEVER, if you do something to attract the attention of an evil person, and that evil person decides that they want you dead, they are going to try to kill you irrespective of the existence or non-existence of a “government”.

      • v. Holland says:

        Peter, no offense but I have to say that people are wayyyyyyyy to complicated to say they are either good or bad. There is good and bad in all of us and fear of punishment tames the bad in, I would say, all of us to one degree or the other.

  28. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    Since the ever-popular subject of abortion has “reared its head” again today, I feel that I must point out that even among “Libertarians” there is a difference of opinion on whether abortion can be seen as a moral practice or not.

    One group states that the baby is NOT A LIFE INDEPENDENT OF THE MOTHER, and therefore, the mother can do what she likes with HER BODY, thus making abortion HER DECISION.

    The other group states that the baby IS AN INDEPENDENT LIFE FROM THE MOMENT OF CONCEPTION, EVEN THOUGH THAT INDEPENDENT LIFE RESIDES WITHIN THE MOTHER’S WOMB AND DEPENDS ON THE MOTHER FOR EVERYTHING. This group states that as an independent life, the zygote is a PERSON from the moment of conception, and therefore has NATURAL RIGHTS, the foremost of which is the right to life. This group is of the opinion that abortion is initiation of violence upon the non-violent, and is therefore totally unacceptable.

    Of these 2 groups, I fall squarely into group 2, so I believe abortion to be immoral on the grounds that it is depriving an individual of the right to life. However, this does not mean I want the “government” to “ban” abortion.

    • Hi Peter

      I agree with you on #2, and I also agree, even though I am 100% against abortion, they should not ban it because it will end up in back street abortions and would I think, be very dangerous for the woman, not to mention if anything goes wrong, then what. The government has to stay out of patient/doctor care. In fact, the government needs to stay out of the medical field. I have said this numerous times and I will keep saying it, and until they get their medical license, they need to steer clear of it totally. But that’s just MHO.

    • v. Holland says:

      Please explain Peter, if you think that abortion is taking an independent life, which per your description would be murder, why shouldn’t it be banned?

      • Hi V

        Okay question for ya here. If a woman gets an abortion and it isn’t considered murder, then why if that said woman got murdered and so did her baby, then why is the person brought up on a double murder charge? What’s the difference, it’s still murder in my eyes, whether it be an abortion or being killed by another human being? Murder is murder.

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        V. Holland,

        I guess I should have been more clear, I apologize. I do not want the FEDERAL government to ban it.

  29. Good afternoon, USW.

    I hope that you understand that I am not attacking you personally, just a few of the things that you have said in your post.

    I think that this election, even though it is a “small” one and mostly on the east coast, will let the rest of the Republican voters across this nation know just how much their individual votes do count. You see, I think that after all the media hype about how Obama was the greatest thing since instant peanut butter, and the simply defeatist campaign that John ran (even after showcasing Palin), the average Republican voter simply just did not go out and vote. After all, the saying really is “divided we fall”, and divided we were – big time!

    What does the Republican party need to do to get the conservative voters back? Well, let me tell you that it sure isn’t by embracing the so-called Gay Rights Movement or endorsing the unmitigated wholesale slaughter of unborn Human Beings aka Abortion Rights! Most of us Conservative Republicans believe that life actually begins at conception and that all homosexuals and lesbians have the right to practice their sexual lifestyles within their own homes just like heterosexuals do and that they have the same rights as any other legal American citizen (remember, marriage is not a right guaranteed to all).

    If the Republican Party wants to get the conservative majority back to voting for them, here is what they actually need to do;

    1) State that their position is to secure America’s borders even by using our National Guard troops if necessary – then once elected, do just that!

    2) State that their position is to reduce the size of the Federal Government by eliminating all those ridiculous social programs and the bureaucracies that run them – then once elected, do just that!

    3) State that their position is to eliminate all that pork-barrel spending – then once elected, do just that!

    4) State that their position is to round up and deport all illegal aliens (because illegal means illegal) regardless of where the aliens have come from – then once elected, do just that!

    5) State that their position is to throw out the entire income tax code and replace it with a 10% only “earnings” tax with absolutely no exemptions what-so-ever (meaning no more tax exempt status for any kind of an organization, be it religious or otherwise) – then once elected, do just that!

    You see, USW, for most of us conservative Republicans actions speak much louder than words. We want politicians who will do exactly what they say they want to do. We also want our borders secure, our taxes drastically reduced, and the invasion of our privacy by our government brought to a complete halt. Yes, most if us are Christians, but that should not mean anything as far as who we vote for because we mostly believe that religion is a personal right of all Americans. We also want this wholesale slaughter of the unborn to come to a complete stop because it is not only immoral, but murder by any other name is still murder. Now that does not mean that we are against all abortions, just those that are for no other reason than to end an “unwanted” pregnancy. We would agree to abortions that were for a pregnancy that was the result of a violent rape, incestuous sexual act, or that would kill the mother if allowed to go to full term.

    If the Republican party wants to get back on top, they need to get back to their conservative ways and stay there. That means to drop all this progressive BS and other crap like the Democrats Marxist trend that seems to have gripped literally every politician in this country as of late.

    There you have it. Just my not-so-humble opinion.

  30. Bottom Line says:

    Mathius,

    Rationalizing a problem wont make it go away. It just makes you blind to the problem.

    You won’t notice the 800 lb. gorilla in the room until it bashes your skull in.

    Pay attention. Quit rationalizing in accordance to your idealism.

    • Not sure which gorilla you’re referring to… maybe that’s because I’m blind to it..

      But I do know there are several 800lb gorillas in my corner, one is wearing a shirt which says “SCIENCE,” another’s says “The Needs of the Many Outweigh the Needs of the Few,” and another dozen or so are just sitting there eating bananas..

      But they’re all staring out the window and growling at a passing pirate ship.. wonder what that’s about..

      Adding, I’m not worried about the gorilla bashing my skull in, as everyone here knows, I have an unusually thick skull 🙂

      • That’s because we’re liberals, very low on the evolutionary tree

        Oh wait, that should be creationary tree… 😉

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        Mathius,

        SCIENCE is valid (usually, provided that it actually QUALIFIES as real SCIENCE.

        “The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few” is completely and farcically invalid. The NEEDS of every individual are pretty much the same, so by definition, the needs of the many and the needs of the few are the same.

        When you make the silly argument, “would you sacrifice 10 people you know very well in order to save 10,000 people that you do not know at all?” You pose a dumb question.

        Most people, when ASKED this question in the HYPOTHETICAL are going to say “I would save 10,000 people that I did not know at all!” However, when faced with the situation in REALITY, people are going to SAVE THE TEN PEOPLE THAT THEY KNOW. First of all, they realize that there is no way they can individually save 10,000 (except under very bizzare and unique circumstances which almost no one will EVER face), and secondly, people DO feel that they have enough control over the situation to TRY to save 10 people that they know.

        So, the main problem with your hypothetical is that it almost NEVER translates over in reality.

        Secondly, what are the NEEDS of the many?

        1. Life
        2. Food/Drink
        3. Shelter
        4. Clothing
        5. Basic sanitation

        What are the NEEDS of the “few” or of the “one”?

        1. Life
        2. Food/Drink
        3. Shelter
        4. Clothing
        5. Basic sanitation

        Gee, I don’t see a difference in those 2 lists, do you?

        Anything BEYOND those lists and you are getting into WANTS and not NEEDS.

  31. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/ambroseevans_pritchard/6480289/It-is-Japan-we-should-be-worrying-about-not-America.html

    It is Japan we should be worrying about, not America
    Japan is drifting helplessly towards a dramatic fiscal crisis. For 20 years the world’s second-largest economy has been able to borrow cheaply from a captive bond market, feeding its addiction to Keynesian deficit spending – and allowing it to push public debt beyond the point of no return.

  32. Mike M. Houston Texas says:

    I guess its time to throw my hat into this one and not avoid this fray.

    BF you always make good points. However, its the doom and gloom that get me. Sometimes when reading your posts I see the guy on the corner with the “end is near sign” I get a taste of the nostradomas effect in my mouth when reading the posts. There were many times in this countrie’s history that times were extremely bad and yet “WE ARE STILL HERE”. Please provide some solutions from that great mind of yours other than “DO NOTHING”. With all your knowledge I am sure there is something we can do other than sit at home and wait for it to get better. If you shoot for the stars and hit the moon, it’s OK. But you’ve got to shoot for something. A lot of people don’t even shoot.

    JAC. We dont need a leader? The original revolution? We need people to do this? The people may be made to follow a path of action, but they may not be made to understand it. Most people are followers they just need to follow the right one. So yes we need a leader who will do the right thing. It was much easier back in the 1700’s to ring the church bell and get the townfolk to come out and send a rider to the nearby town. Maybe they didnt need a leader but someone was there to convince the 87 townsfolk that we were gonna do this. So the ananology to the old old old days does not apply here. How do you motiviate cities of millions? Not by ringing the church bell. You get someone to lead them. We see this today the organizer of any event of any size is in fact leading it.

    Today’s reality is that there are far more sheep out there. There are very few independent thinkers. There are only about a dozen folks in here that even make any sense and there are hundreds of millions of people on the internet in just America. We just need to move them in the right direction and they will only move if we have the right leader. These hundred million can vote but I doubt they will instinctively all move in the right direction with out some one leading the way. Yes to your point they have to be the right leader and not more of the same.

    • JMHO, I would rather have a group of like minded “leaders” and build from there. One leader is too scary for me to walk next too, but a group is more pallatable, and is better suited to reach out to more people.

      G!

    • Maybe he has good reason….take it for what its worth to you.

      The Great “Recovery Rip-Off,” Part One:
      Guess Who Owns Your Retirement?

      Let me start by asking you a question…

      “No one can know the precise level of net debt… at which the United States will lose its reputation… but a few more years like this one and we will find out.”

      — Warren Buffett

      Do you even know who “owns” your retirement?

      If you think it’s you or your spouse or the 401k-plan manager who sends you statements, you’re sadly mistaken. See, a long time ago, people in Washington in Wall Street got together and started carving up America’s future financial security… to sell it off to the highest bidder.

      And they continue to sell off huge chunks of that wealth — the collective savings of Americans like you — today. How do I do it without you noticing? Using these “swindle” events on the dates I just told you about.

      The government calls these “Scheduled U.S. Treasury Securities Auctions”… you might know them better as “bond auctions”… but either way, they’re essentially swap meets for debt.

      Mutual funds and pension funds, state governments, Wall Street banks, foreign central banks — they’re the buyers. And the seller is our Treasury, who essentially gives away shares of your future savings… in exchange for huge cash loans, redeemable today.

      This is the cash our government uses to prop up the fake “recovery” with stimulus and bailouts and “cash for clunkers”… but it’s also cash you and your grandchildren will have to pay back down the line… out of the personal savings you thought you were setting aside.

      Who will you owe this money to?

      * Little Luxembourg, no bigger than Rhode Island, gave us $104.2 billion. Russia has us on the hook for another $120 billion. Brazil, nearly $140 billion. Secretive banks in the Caribbean, nearly $190 billion…

      * Those thugs that run Iran, Iraq, Libya, Nigeria, Indonesia, and Venezuela? So far — along with a half-dozen other oil-producing nations — they’ve got us dangling for another $191 billion in I.O.U.s.

      * Great Britain just loaned us $214 billion. D.C. borrowed $523 billion from bankrupt state governments. And, as if the bank bailouts weren’t bad enough, we’re in hock another $630 billion to Wall Street financial firms and other buyers.

      * Japan owns a $712 billion slice of America. China owns a staggering $776 billion call on our capital. And guess who tops the list? The Fed itself, which uses dollars they print to buy up $4.785 TRILLION of their own debt, just to keep the prosperity illusion alive.

      I ask you, how long do you think someone can pile up “cash advances” before a creditor comes and asks for his money… or threatens to cancel the credit line?

      “It is well enough that the people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system for, if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning.”

      — Henry Ford

      Not long at all.

      When that bill comes due, you can bet it slides across the table to you. And you’ll pay it, like it or not. Either with rising taxes… shrinking dollars… or cancelled promises, like withheld Medicare and Social Security.

      I’m betting you’ll see all three, combined.

      And that’s devastating.

      But even this is just the beginning of the “swindle”…

      The Great “Recovery Rip-Off,” Part Two:
      Secret Wealth Transfers
      That Keep the Scam Running

      While our foreign lenders might LOVE having America on the hook…

      They HATE the idea of never getting paid back.

      When that happens, they lose faith and start threatening to cut us off…

      * “We’ve lent a huge amount of money to the U.S. Of course we are concerned about the safety of our assets,” says China’s Premier Wen Jinbao. “To be honest, I am definitely a little worried.”

      * Meanwhile, Russia has already dumped the dollar as its main reserve currency. And Beijing says the rest of the world should think about doing the same. Europe also looks worried.

      * And during a recent speech at Peking University, Chinese students even burst out laughing at Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner when he called China’s dollar-backed assets “very safe.”

      “The earlier we take action, the better”

      — Paul Volcker, former Federal Reserve Chairman

      You can guess what happens when the “money” at a poker game stops showing up.

      That’s it, game over.

      When lenders threaten to expose our “sham recovery” by not showing up with cash to lend… the bond auctions I told you about threaten to fail. At least once this year, that’s already happened.

      Even one more failed bond auction could signal to the rest of the world that the gig is up… that the U.S. is done for and that it’s time to bring the lend-borrow cycle to an end.

      With the bailouts and this fake “recovery” already looking like it will cost $23.7 trillion before it’s all said and done, you can bet the Fed and the Treasury don’t want to let any more failed bond auctions show up in the headlines.

      Which is why they’ve taken their “swindle” to a whole new level… by deciding not to just to fake the “success” of the recovery… but to fake the success of the bond auctions that are supposed to pay for it!

      How?

      By transferring billions of dollars to our lenders… then paying them interest while we borrow back our own cash! See, for this scam to keep working, it has to look like foreigners still crave our debt.

      “When you can’t service your debt, you’re finished.”

      — Paul O’Neill, former U.S. Treasury Secretary

      So the Fed hits a few keystrokes… prints out billions of dollars… then uses a clever buyback strategy to stuff those billions into one of our foreign lenders accounts… so they can keep on pretending they want to buy more of our debt.

      What’s the strategy the Fed uses to make these huge cash transfers?

      It works almost like a money laundering scam. We write the foreign government for big chunks of bad “agency debt” — like bonds sold by failed agencies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — then they write us a check, using the cash we just gave them, to buy more of the Treasury’s bonds.

      Just so long as our government can pretend the buyers still show up.

      With the U.S. borrowing up to $100 billion through these bond auctions per week… and another bond auction happening, on average, every three days… that’s a lot of opportunity for the Fed to “launder” money in the way I just described.

      So far, the Fed has already used this backdoor cash swap strategy to snap up over $640 billion in toxic assets from our foreign lenders… with the implied promise they’ll show up at the next bond auction and throw some of that cash back our way.

      When that happens, you take a beating twice over — first as all that printed money weakens even more of your saved-up purchasing power… and second, because our Treasury now has to pay interest on the money it borrowed back!

      Dimwit finance? You bet.

      Which is why I urge you to let me rush you the five “financial self-defense” resources in the FREE Rescue and Recovery Bundle we talked about.

      Just give me your permission and I’ll get it to you right away.

      But before you do…

      The Great “Recovery Rip-Off,” Part Three:
      Outright THEFT, Backed by the Fed

      What’s the boldest “swindle” of all?

      It’s when the Fed just throws care to the wind…

      And writes themselves a check, made out to cash.

      “We can’t afford to pay all these bills and if we just pay them by printing money, it will destroy the currency…”

      — Dr. Ron Paul, Congressman, TX

      For instance, just recently — on a Thursday in early August — agents for the Fed stepped into one of their own bond auctions and snapped up $7 billion of their own 7-year Treasury notes.

      That’s after buying more than $7 billion worth the day before… over $14 billion in all… and they paid the tab the way the Fed always does, with freshly printed cash.

      That’s like whipping out your Visa card to pay your American Express bill!

      Of course this isn’t the first time.

      Early this year, the Fed announced it would buy up to $300 billion worth of its own debt.

      They call this “monetizing the debt.”

      And it’s a dangerous strategy — like taking opium to cure a headache.

      “A ‘tough love’ lesson
      in financial responsibility… ”
      — The Los Angeles Times

      CNN

      Addison warns CNN,
      “We’re not through this yet!”

      Six years ago, my colleague William Bonner and I warned this would happen… from the waves of foreclosures and unemployment spikes, to the property meltdown, waves of debt, and a tempest of destruction for the U.S. dollar.

      Brian Sullivan of Fox Business News even “accused” us of having a “crystal ball.”

      Well I’m here to tell you, that simply isn’t true. No crystal ball exists. And nobody can tell you with 100% certainty what comes next.

      However, with the work we’ve done lately to research this crisis, I’m confident enough to guess…

      A real “recovery”? Not for a long time coming. Most stocks? Trouble. And the dollar? That’s destined for trouble too. Perhaps most dangerous of all, the borrow-and-spend “fix” our government has locked into is the opposite of a solution. If anything, you face a monumental, government-backed “swindle” that’s will slowly drain your savings over the years ahead.

      What I hope is that you’ll let me send you a brand new resource that can protect you.

      It’s called the Rescue and Recovery Bundle. It includes a free copy of our brand new book, the 437-page sequel to our 2004 bestseller, and it’s called Financial Reckoning Day Fallout.

      When we last shared our findings, in an award-winning documentary called I.O.U.S.A., Henry Kissinger saw it and called our message “a terrific idea…” The Los Angeles Times said it was a “tough-love lesson in fiscal responsibility.” And the New York Times called it “enlightening and alarming.”

      I hope and expect everything you’ll find in your free copy of Financial Reckoning Day Fallout just as eye-opening… and I can think of no time better than right now to get this research into your hands. Again, it’s yours free… along with four other FREE “financial self-defense” resources I’d like to rush you immediately… see the end of this special letter for details.

      All told, says the Wall Street Journal, the Fed’s looking to pump up to $1.15 trillion back into bond purchases… on top of the $1.25 trillion they plan to blow on toxic mortgage-backed security.

      But how long can you print monopoly money to pay your bills?

      This is the most blatant theft of all… because printing money to jolt the economy now… is a cost you always have to live up to later. Think about it.

      Just over the last year, our pals at the Fed doubled the number of paper dollars in circulation — from $800 billion in August 2008 to $1.7 trillion today.

      You know what happens when the supply of anything goes up too fast. Value goes down.

      Governments love that because they get to pay back today’s debts with tomorrow’s weaker dollars. But if you’ve got savings, you get stuck on the other side of the formula.

      Every $10,000 you had saved this time a year ago has already lost $211.32 in purchasing power… go back five years, and you’ve lost $1,205.06… ten years, and it’s $2,259.19…

      Forget losses in the stock market.

      That’s money that might as well have been stolen directly from your account!

      And it was, in a way, because that’s how governments transfer the cost of the reckless borrowing from the public to the private individual… by sticking it to anyone unlucky enough to hold dollars as they unleash the stages of their well-crafted scam.

      Don’t get me wrong.

      I’m not out to change America or Washington.

      I can only tell you the risks of ignoring what it is that they do.

      Washington policy makers are mortgaging your future… our future… and our children’s future. It’s unsound, immoral, and unsustainable. If nothing else changes, Washington will owe over 240% more than every business in the U.S. makes each year… and it will happen in less time than it takes a child born this morning to reach age 35!

      Save America?

      How about saving an American… yourself… instead.

      Don’t wait for politicians to figure this out for you. Don’t wait for Wall Street, either. They’ve both proved their interests have little or nothing to do with you.

      Instead, let me send you the entire free Rescue and Recovery Bundle we talked about, including a brand new hardcover copy of the sequel to our bestseller — Financial Reckoning Day Fallout. Inside you’ll find out exactly what you can do.

      Not only to protect yourself from this massive government-backed “swindle”… but so you can find out for yourself how a handful of smart individuals have discovered how to turn this crisis on its head and get two to three times richer even as millions of other Americans fall behind.

      • Mike M. Houston Texas says:

        The Great Depression was a severe worldwide economic depression in the decade preceding World War II. The timing of the Great Depression varied across nations, but in most countries it started in about 1929 and lasted until the late 1930s or early 1940s.[1] It was the longest, most widespread, and deepest depression of the 20th century, and is used in the 21st century as an example of how far the world’s economy can decline.[2] The depression originated in the United States, starting with the stock market crash of October 29, 1929 (known as Black Tuesday), but quickly spread to almost every country in the world.[1]

        The Great Depression had devastating effects in virtually every country, rich and poor. Personal income, tax revenue, profits and prices dropped, and international trade plunged by a half to two-thirds. Unemployment in the United States rose to 25%, and in some countries rose as high as 33%.[3] Cities all around the world were hit hard, especially those dependent on heavy industry. Construction was virtually halted in many countries. Farming and rural areas suffered as crop prices fell by approximately 60 percent.[4][5][6] Facing plummeting demand with few alternate sources of jobs, areas dependent on primary sector industries such as cash cropping, mining and logging suffered the most.[7]

        Countries started to recover by the mid-1930s, but in many countries the negative effects of the Great Depression lasted until the start of World War II.

        All of these facts were true as well however “WE ARE STILL HERE”. I am sure that similar comments from the great depression could be made. As a member of the corporate world I can spin any set of facts to tell you any story I want. Dont get me wrong I agree this is not the best situation. However, I cannot go forward thinking “the end is near”, “there is a great conspiracy”, “there is a room of black robed men running the country”. What you are suggesting is I take my money and shove it under my mattress.

        Are things good? No they are not. I think we all agree on that. It is just that I believe things will get better they always do.

        Do you know there have been ~75 recorded predictions of the “END of the WORLD” starting back in 1 ~ 100 AD? ~75 predictions and yet “WE ARE STILL HERE”. While it will not be a thing of beauty, things will change and they will get better. How do we make it better? That is the question.

        Maybe I have good reason. Take it for what its worth.

        • “How do we make it better?”

          Don’t look to government for answers to any problem. They are the problem – so stop dealing with them in any and every way.

          Do your job well.
          Increase your productivity.
          Show your boss that you are a profitable employee.

          The only way out of economic downturn is to increase productivity. You’ll be doing your part.

          Proving you are profitable will ensure your job – which will provide the most important thing – food and shelter and security for your family.

          Doing this you will accomplish more and important things than ever trying to change government.

          • Mike M. Houston says:

            I am doing those things. Great minds think alike. If the government is doing us harm we get people in there who will undo this mess. I am not looking to them to help. I am looking to get someone in there to undo the mess.

  33. Holy Cow!

    Gold – new high $1085 and climbing

    • Bottom Line says:

      It’s still not edible.

      • That’s quite true, but its an excellent indicator of what’s realy going on. And it isn’t what the media and Obama what you to know. They want you to think that everything if fine just like they told you. That way, you continue to be unaware of how you’re being set up. Ignore the warnings at your own risk BL. I know you don’t believe things can get any worse for you, but they can. Believe that.

      • But it can buy things that are, and it doesn’t rot.

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        Gold may not be edible, but it will get you a HELL of a lot more food than dollars will!

  34. Hi Ya’ll!

    Another election day almost done, other than 3 issues on state Constitutional amendments, some more taxes (which I voted no on all of them) and the city Mayor primary, rather uneventful. I voted to reward our State war vets, against some stupid PETA related amandment, and for casinos in 4 cities (we really need a better class of hookers, LOL). I also voted write in for mayor, as I said I would months ago, I wrote in “Elmer Fudd”. Our mayor has been useless since he was elected, Elmer could do a much better job, especially if he adds Bugs Bunny to his staff! I think I actually enjoyed writing in old Elmer, but I’m sure I’ll be called a racist because I voted for a short, fat, bald white guy, instead of the black man holding office.

    CHEERS!

    G!

  35. Buck The Wala says:

    Mathius,

    Thanks for the shoutout. I have been reticent in posting as I am sitting at work reading along and am trying not to get too addicted. Obviously its not working. Maybe its time I get in on the action and stick up for Matt a bit. Its been very interesting to read through all of your arguments on various issues the past few days since Matt mentioned the site (though obviously I cannot say I agree with most of what is written here).

    I would be curious to hear your collective takes on the articles by Christopher Hitchens which Matt had posted above.

    –Buck

    • Hi Buck, welcome to the site. I read the article that Matt posted, I also enjoy and am amazed by nature. My guess is your question is about “evolution vs God”. It is well known that animals adapt to their surroundings, as stated in the article, the hard part is why. One side says “God made them capable of adaptation, the other side will say it proves the theory of evolution. Problem is, both sides may be right and wrong, and noone can prove anything other than it happens.

      Seems to me that the subject is never going to be solved, and the argument will just continue on, needlessly. Just like we need to save the Polar Bears from Global warming, oh, wait, we know they can adapt, therefore do not need saved. Is it God’s will, or natural evolution? My answer, who cares! Just believe in what you believe in, and move on to more pressing problems.

      PEACE!

      G!

      • Buck The Wala says:

        G-Man, thanks for the warm welcome.

        I agree that we do not, and possibly will never, know why. Religion provides a great explanation. At this moment evolution does not provide that answer. However, I would argue that there is an inherent difference between creationism and evolution: creationism (religion) is grounded in belief and faith whereas evolution is grounded in scientific reason and fact-checking. Religion is static, evolution itself evolves as we learn more about life. As Matt had argued earlier, eventually evolution may well provide the answer to this question.

        • I think we can agree here. I’ll add one more possibility to evolution providing the answer, maybe God will appear and just say that it’s both. Wouldn’t that be something special!

          I like Matt, but I think the “greater good theory” that he proposes is not what nature wanted. JMHO!

          G!

          • Buck The Wala says:

            You got my vote on that one. Let God come and tell us…it’d stop a lot of arguing!

            • God is telling us all the time – just need to listen.

              God says “Time changes everything” and that the best way to know God is by science.

              Just because evolution doesn’t answer all questions today does not make the theory ‘wrong’ – merely incomplete. Everyday, we learn more.

  36. Mike M. Houston Texas

    I guess its time to throw my hat into this one and not avoid this fray.

    BF you always make good points. However, its the doom and gloom that get me. Sometimes when reading your posts I see the guy on the corner with the “end is near sign” I get a taste of the nostradomas effect in my mouth when reading the posts.

    If there was good news, I’d been on the street corner with the sign “Good times are here!”

    But I call it as I see it.

    You do not need another cheerleader blowing smoke up your arse.

    There were many times in this countrie’s history that times were extremely bad and yet “WE ARE STILL HERE”.

    And we will “Still be here” – just poor, miserable and suffering.

    Please provide some solutions from that great mind of yours other than “DO NOTHING”.

    I do not control the banking cartel that has caused the economic disaster that will ruin the country.

    I do not control the education system by which to teach the masses the complexity of the cartel banking system that has destroyed their wealth.

    This joke gets to the heart of the matter about as well as anything. This joke is at the heart of democracy. Those who benefit directly from government largesse have an incentive to learn how the system works. They care deeply, so they find out.

    I try to educate the few that have but a slight interest is these things – but the vast most masses are ignorant of government and every boondoggle this entity of evil creates.

    There exists no cost-effective way to organize against this situation.

    The more anyone knows, the more frustrated he becomes over the ignorance and apathy of the voters and the perversion of government.

    The cost of organizing masses of voters against a government program or legistlation is very high.

    In contrast, the cost to the special-interest group of paying off Congress is low, compared to the potential benefits.

    The system will collapse – there is nothing that can stop it.

    Picture this:

    Your plane has disintegrated in the air because you trusted a monkey to fly it.

    As a consequence, you find yourself plummeting to the ground at 200mph.

    While falling, are you going to waste time wondering how you can glue the plane back together?

    OR

    Are you going to figure out how to put on your parachute?

    With all your knowledge I am sure there is something we can do other than sit at home and wait for it to get better.

    Yes, prepare for the disaster. Do you think I am merely sitting at home?

    If you shoot for the stars and hit the moon, it’s OK. But you’ve got to shoot for something. A lot of people don’t even shoot.

    Shooting at the moon and the stars is futile. The bullets will still fall back to earth.

    Best shoot at something real. You may hit it.

    The best thing is to prepare one’s self to survive to the future.

    Wasting energy trying to save government is simply trying to glue the disintegrated plane while plummeting.

    It was much easier back in the 1700’s to ring the church bell and get the townfolk to come out and send a rider to the nearby town. Maybe they didnt need a leader but someone was there to convince the 87 townsfolk that we were gonna do this.

    You should expand that analogy to what really happened.

    Do you know TWO riders went out to alert? The other was William Dawes – who was immensely unsuccessful in rounding up the citizens.

    Paul Revere is remembered – because not of what he did that night – but what he did all his life.

    Unlike Dawes, Revere was intensely involved in his community. Everybody knew Paul – so when he rode, everyone already knew him and were ready to listen.

    Almost no one knew Dawes.

    We remember Revere, not Dawes.

    Moral of the story – get involved IN YOUR COMMUNITY, leave the Federal Politics to waste in its own sewage.

    • Mike M. Houston Texas says:

      yes you do not control any of those things but you do control somethings. I know many people who are very happy work hard and make enough money to make them happy. Some of them require more money to make them happy than others.

      I do not see collapse. I do not see poor miserable and suffering. No one promised any one a bed of roses but I like to think about how to fix things. Can anyone fix the government? Since there are infinite possibilities, it is possible. Is it likely? probably not. Continuing down this course will it be catastrophic? Maybe. One cannot say for certain. I am sure those in the great depression could not have imagined the lifestyle we live today.

      I think you are well read and have many facts at your disposal. However, who is to say that the plane is disintegrated? Or is there a large crack? Would this be worth the effort to save everyone on board? Can this crack be patched? If we dont try then surely it cannot. However if we dont try we wont know.

      I guess you see the plane as already gone and you are entitled to that. Have you ever been wrong?

      • “Have I ever been wrong?”

        Depends on your time scale.

        I predicted the collapse of the real estate market over 10 years ago (along with everything else as a consequence).

        For 9 years and 11 months, nearly everyone thought I was wrong.

        Yes, I might be wrong here too. And I also might be wrong when I say there are no aliens on the Moon.

        The possibility of Aliens on the moon is a lot higher than me being wrong about the state of the economy.

    • Black Flag:

      What country are you now living in?

      Other than becoming a survivalist, what else can we do to prepare for the future?

      What is your best guess for the amount of time that we have to prepare?

      • “Country”
        I am in transition at the moment.

        “Future”
        Get to know your neighbors. Become more involved in church (for contacts) and community groups. Localize. No one helps a stranger.

        “Time”

        Minus 6 months. If you are just starting now, you need to move a whole lot faster.

        • Black Flag:

          I’m one of the unemployed at the moment. I’m not sure where I will end up living. It all depends upon future job offers. I will eventually move out of MI and end up in some other state.

          I have some basic preparations but I’m not in a position to spend much money at the moment. How much food and other supplies are you storing (3 months, 6 months, a year)?

          Less than 6 months time to prepare is scary. I really hope you are wrong on the amount of time that we have. I was hoping for 3 to 5 years.

        • Just chiming in. My father and I started preparing in March (garden), at last count there 280 quarts of veggies on the shelf. We split the cost of a 1/4 cow, it’s in the freezer. Deer season is here, and we have 5 tags to fill, at 35 quarts per deer (canned) that’s 175 quarts of canned venison. Dad’s home borders 36000 acres of forest in Pa., unlimited natural resources (food, wood for heat, ect.).

          Even if nothing bad happens, the food stays good as it is replaced each growing/hunting season. Preparation for catastrophy is a small cost with huge returns, it only takes effort and alittle knowhow.

          G!

  37. Just have to post this:

    More truth than fiction in this one!

    If a conservative doesn’t like guns, he doesn’t buy one.

    If a liberal doesn’t like guns, he wants all guns outlawed.

    If a conservative is a vegetarian, he doesn’t eat meat.

    If a liberal is a vegetarian, he wants all meat products banned for everyone.

    If a conservative sees a foreign threat, he thinks about how to defeat his enemy.

    If a liberal wonders how to surrender gracefully and still look good.

    If a conservative is homosexual, he quietly leads his life.

    If a liberal is homosexual, he demands legislated respect.

    If a person of color is conservative, they see themselves as independently successful.

    Their liberal counterparts see themselves as victims in need of government protection.

    If a conservative is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his situation.

    A liberal wonders who is going to take care of him.

    If a conservative doesn’t like a talk show host, he switches channels.

    Liberals demand that those they don’t like be shut down.

    If a conservative is a non-believer, he doesn’t go to church.

    A liberal non-believer wants any mention of God and religion silenced. (Unless it’s a foreign religion, of course!)

    If a conservative decides he needs health care, he goes about shopping for it, or may choose a job that provides it.

    A liberal demands that the rest of us pay for his.

    If a conservative slips and falls in a store, he gets up, laughs and is embarrassed.

    If a liberal slips and falls, he grabs his neck, moans like he’s in labor and then sues.

    If a conservative reads this, he’ll forward it so his friends can have a good laugh.

    A liberal will delete it because he’s “offended”.

    G!

  38. Birdman,

    Glad to help, canning is time consuming, but well worth it. I have found that the meat is much more tender and does’nt have that wild taste many do not like. I try, weather permitting, to let a deer hang, head down for as many days as possible (5 if I can). Ilso never freeze the meat with the bone, all my meat is deboned, really helps with the wild taste.

    Dad and I are at the southwestern end of Forest County, just over the Clarion County border. The land we hunt is vast, with only one public access road to our south about 5 miles. Access from there is tough, it’s a mile up a steep mountain to the top, and still can’t get near us. The hunting pressure is small compared to many other areas because of this.

    When the state adde antler restrictions and expanded the doe season in 2000, it has really paid off in the size of deer and the size of antlers (I regularly see wall hangers when scouting and bow hunting). Ofcourse deer are deer, and there’s nothing easy about harvesting one. I’m out scouting beginning the 1st of July. Good luck on the 15th, I’ll be out for a week right after Thanksgiving.

    Good Hunting, shoot straight, and be safe!

    G!

  39. Top Dems: Obama Won’t Get Health Care Bill in 2009
    By JONATHAN KARL
    Today, 5:31 PM EST
    President Obama?s holding the line at an even division in public views on health care reform, boosted by support for two key elements ? a personal mandate and a public option ? and aided by continued weakness in the opposition party.
    Senior Congressional Democrats say reform before end of year is highly unlikely.

    Senior Congressional Democrats told ABC News today it is highly unlikely that a health care reform bill will be completed this year, just a week after President Barack Obama declared he was “absolutely confident” he’ll be able to sign one by then.

    “Getting this done by the by the end of the year is a no-go,” a senior Democratic leadership aide told ABC News. Two other key Congressional Democrats also told ABC News the same thing.

    This may come as an unwelcome surprise for the White House, where officials from the president on down have repeatedly said the health care bill would be signed into law by the end of the year.

    “I am absolutely confident that we are going to get health care done by the end of this year, and Nancy Pelosi is just as confident,” Obama said Oct. 27 at a fundraiser for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

    Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi may still be confident — and her spokesman Brendan Daly said today, “We are going to get our part done” — but the reason for the delay can be found in the Senate.

    Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has yet to release the bill he eventually plans to bring to the Senate floor. Reid is still waiting for the Congressional Budget Office to come up with an estimated cost of several possible variations of his bill before deciding which one to introduce in the Senate.

    That cost estimate, Democrats tell ABC News, is not expected until next week.

    Asked directly by ABC News, “Will you pass health care reform this year?” Reid pointedly did not answer “yes.”

    Instead, he replied, “We are not going to be bound by any timetables,” adding, “We are going to do this as quickly as we can.”

    The delay is causing some frustration among Reid’s fellow Democrats, but Reid said of his colleagues, “They want us to do this the right way, not the fast way.”
    Health Care Reform Won’t Be Finished This Year, Democrats Tell ABC News

    After Reid made his comments, his spokesman said the goal remains getting a health care bill passed by the end of the year.

    “Our goals remain unchanged,” Reid spokesman Jim Manley said. “We want to get health insurance reform done this year, and we have unprecedented momentum to achieve that.”

    The White House has pushed hard to get a bill passed this year, getting it done before the beginning of the Congressional campaign season. But the delay in the Senate will almost certainly push the health care debate into 2010.

    The White House has tried to avoid that because passing major legislation in a Congressional election year is considered more difficult.

    The best hope, Congressional Democrats now say, is for Democrats to pass Senate and House versions of the health care bill by the end of the year, pushing off House-Senate negotiations for a final bill until January.

    • I hope Reid and Pelosi choke on it, a ugly slow painful choke would be fine by me!

      G!

      • Yea, but he’s not your state Senator like he is mine. Trying to say he created jobs here in Nevada, would like to know where, and also saying what he has done for the state. AH, Nothing. People here especially in Reno do not want him to get re-elected in 2010, but the problem is in Clark county, which is the Vegas area and they’re all pretty much blue for now.

        Pelosi, well, what can I say about her, Hope the people in Cali. will finally wake up and see the light, vote her out.

        • Who ever said jackasses don’t talk are missing out on this! Just about all of them have lost their collective minds.

          G!

          p.s. Tell everyone I said hello!

          • Will do G I will tell them.

            I don’t think they do have collective minds, not sure if they have any left at all.

            I tell you G, it’s getting to the point where something had better happen soon because we are in the midst of losing everything if we don’t.

            If a 3rd party is going to happen it better get moving, that’s all I can say. I am so disgusted with what’s going on, I can’t think straight, just pi$$es me off.

  40. Birdman

    I have some basic preparations but I’m not in a position to spend much money at the moment. How much food and other supplies are you storing (3 months, 6 months, a year)?

    I committed enough cash to jump-start to 6 months. I then added to it via buying on sale to reach a year. (If it’s on sale, I bought 3 times the normal quantity I consumed, stored 2)

    With a rotation scheme, you can now buy almost exclusively things that are on sale. The high-consumables tend to go on sale regularly every 6 months, so one now can buy almost everything while it is on sale – and thus make huge savings.

    Less than 6 months time to prepare is scary. I really hope you are wrong on the amount of time that we have. I was hoping for 3 to 5 years.

    You misunderstand.

    You are 6 months BEHIND. You needed to start at least 6 months ago.

    Many knowledgeable pundits are saying 2012 – just after the Prez. election – they believe the elite will hold on until then by hook, crook, lying, cheating and stealing. Then they will drop it on the latest fool to hold the hot potato.

    I am not so optimistic. One small “bump” and away we go.

    CIT is going bankrupt. If it goes down, it will the 5th largest in history. It could cause a chain reaction – but who knows? Austrian economists can tell what will happen but not when – when you drop a rock in a river, you know the rock will -eventually- move. Nobody really knows exactly when.

    Same here. I can say what will happen – but the elite can hold it off with tricks for ‘a time’. But not forever, or for very long. A few months? A year? 5 years?….

  41. In ealrier discussion, there was talk of laws and how the “government” is going to protect everyone. The laws about making murder a crime protects noone, but in fact even states such. The state cannot convict anyone until a crime has occurred, thus, until someone is murdered, no crime was committed. People kill other people because they lack good moral values, but make up a very small percentage of our society.

    To those who believe that government is there to protect you, read this recent news article from Cleveland, Ohio. It seems there are some families who may disagree with your position.

    http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/11/03/ohio.cleveland.bodies/index.html

    G!

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      Totally agree G!

      I have been pointing out for some time now, the government is not designed to PROTECT anyone from anything at all, and the government, when questioned, will freely admit this.

  42. Something to think about here. Made me mad when I read it.

    Subject: Holiday Tree at the White House this year
    Hello all,

    Thought you might be interested in this information from the White House… This isn’t a rumor; this is a fact.
    We have a friend at church who is a very talented artist. For several years she, among many others, has
    painted ornaments to be hung on the various White House Christmas trees. The WH sends out an invitation to send an ornament and informs the artists of the theme for the year. She got her letter from the WHITE HOUSE recently. It said that they would not be called Christmas trees this year. They will be called Holiday trees.. And, to please not send any ornaments painted with a religious theme. She was very upset at this development and sent back a reply telling them that she painted the ornaments for Christmas trees and would not be sending any for display that left Christ out of Christmas. Just thought you should know what the new residents in the WH plan for the future of America. If you missed his statement that “we do not consider ourselves a Christian Nation” this should confirm that he plans to take us away from our religious foundation as quickly as possible.

    • If I had the funds I’d rent a billboard as close tothe Wh as possible. It would say “It’s Christmas trees, a$$holes”.

      Gee, wonder why there is so much crime in the innercity black neighborhoods? Lack of morals maybe? With religion, at least most that I know of, it provides a moral strength. O’buttf%$k can’t seem to understand that, what a shame.

      G!

      • It’s really getting pitiful when you can’t say CHRISTMAS anymore, and have a Christmas vacation, now it’s called a winter break. Kids can’t have Christmas programs anymore in schools, because it might offend those who don’t believe in it, well too freaking bad I say. When I go shopping and they say Happy Holidays to me, I then ask them, which one? I tell them there’s Easter, the 4th of July, Thanksgiving, pick one. Then they say very quietly to me, Merry Christmas, that they aren’t allowed to say that anymore. Isn’t that shameful? I Say always say Merry Christmas, not Happy Holidays, wasn’t brought up that and I will not change that. IT’S MERRY CHRISTMAS dammit, not happy holidays.

        • Another thing that pi$$ing me off, is when I apply for jobs now, if you don’t speak Spanish, then you are royally screwed. There are 2 openings at the university for office work, like I did at the lab, but sorry, you don’t speak Spanish and we’re looking for a bilingual person.

          If they come to this country, anybody that is, then by God, learn to speak our language. Don’t we have to learn their language when we go to any other country? Wasn’t this country built on the English language? Not the other way around.

          There, now that I ranted for the night, I feel better.

  43. India dumps dollars for IMF gold – is China next in line?

    The news that the IMF has sold virtually half the gold it has approved for sale to India surprised some observers although the growing Asian giant is, on reflection, a logical purchaser.
    Author: Lawrence Williams
    Posted: Tuesday , 03 Nov 2009

    LONDON –

    The IMF announcement yesterday that it had sold virtually half of its planned 403.3 tonnes of gold, destined to increase its resources for lending to low-income countries, to India came as something of a surprise to the market. Not perhaps that a Central Bank had made the purchase, but the hard money had been on China to do so, not India.

    Indeed, the market seemed, in retrospect, little affected by the news of the sale, which apparently involved daily sales that were phased over a two week period during October 19-30, with each daily sale conducted at a price set on the basis of market prices prevailing that day. It reached around $1,066 an ounce before falling back initially this morning in Europe to just below $1,060 at the time of writing.

    However, once the North American markets opened there has obviously been a different take on the Indian purchase with the gold price moving up sharp to hit a new record over $1,080.

    One suspects that when the news really sinks in it will be positive for the gold price with at least a part of a significant prospective overhang being taken out of the marketplace. It would also seem likely that the IMF is negotiating with other Central Banks for the sale of the remaining 203.3 tonnes of gold. The IMF said in its press release that it “is standing ready for an initial period to sell gold directly to Central Banks and other official holders that may be interested in such sales.” Under the Fund’s Articles of Agreement, all gold sales must be conducted at prices based on market prices, including direct sales to official holders as in the case of this transaction.

    Perhaps surprisingly, among observers Chris Powell of GATA expresses some caution over the sale. In a note he says “But whether the Reserve Bank of India will use the gold for market intervention, open or surreptitious, is another question, and such use must be suspected. After all, India is the biggest market for gold, and the transfer of IMF gold to India could facilitate the dampening of that market if the Reserve Bank of India is inclined to try intervention to support the rupee or the U.S. dollar.”

    In effect though the sale may actually undermine the dollar in the short term. Reuters reports that an IMF official said that the sale was concluded at an average price of about $1,045 an ounce and that the transaction would be paid in hard currency and not in IMF Special Drawing Rights. This effectively means US dollars as India’s reserves are reportedly mostly held in U.S. Treasuries. Given the perceived continuing weakness of the U.S. dollar this would seem a logical move by India where the gold proportion of its $285.5 billion gold and currency reserves had slipped back to only 3.7%. 15 years earlier gold had accounted for 20.86% of the country’s reserves. Even with the addition of the 200 tonnes – at this morning’s gold price – the country still only holds about 6.3% of its reserves in gold. For a country where gold ownership is built into the national psyche this seems a very small proportion.

    What faces the market now is what will happen to the remainder of the IMF gold overhang. There have been unconfirmed reports that China is in discussions with the Fund, but also speculation that there are a number of other countries which might also be interested in boosting their reserves by purchasing all, or some, of the remaining amount scheduled for sale. No other countries keep anything like the proportion of their reserves in gold that the U.S. and some key European countries do. With a growing distrust of paper currencies it would be logical for others to follow India’s lead.

    Given both China and India are both allowing state institutions to peddle small gold bars and coins to the general populace as a good investment (see: China pushes silver and gold investment to the masses and In India even the Post Office sells gold coins) supporting the market in terms of gold purchases would seem to be a sensible move, particularly given both economies are relatively strong, while the West and Japan remain in economic turmoil. China may be quietly building its own reserves anyway through purchasing domestically mined gold – it is now the world’s top producer. It may also make sense for other countries – mainly in the Far East and Middle East, where gold has always been an important element in wealth preservation among monied individuals, to follow suit – not only by buying from the IMF, but also building holdings by small and steady purchases in the open market. This may already be happening given the considerable support being seen for gold every time it dips back a little from its recently much higher levels

  44. Charlie

    Hope you see this before your drunk run with DOC.

    Stun and amaze him with your intellect by telling him the apostrophe was actually an invention of the British printing establishment to save signage space and ink!

    (Yes, sir, its true).

  45. Just in case I missed the news – or missed their completely out of control liberal bias , they send this (bias especially apparent when you see previous and normal (non – political – at least negative in a liberal sense) ) Scary.. even in emails..

    Breaking News Alert
    The New York Times
    Wed, November 04, 2009 — 12:27 AM ET
    —–

    Conservative Concedes in Upstate Congressional Race

    A staunch conservative conceded defeat to a moderate Democrat
    early Wednesday morning in a hard-fought contest for New York
    State’s northernmost Congressional seat, a race that exposed
    divisions among Republicans over how far outside the party’s
    base they should reach as they look to rebuild.

    With 88 percent of precincts reporting, the Democrat, Bill
    Owens, was leading with 49 percent of the vote, while the
    Conservative Party candidate, Douglas L. Hoffman, had 45.5
    percent.

    Read More:
    http://www.nytimes.com?emc=na

%d bloggers like this: