Tuesday Night Open Mic for May 18, 2010

Open mic night is again upon us and I have once again found myself with less time than I would prefer when writing. The discussions on the Arizona immigration laws has been both exhilarating and sometimes frustrating. I thank each and every one of you for your thoughts and comments on that topic. You are obviously welcome to bring continuing conversations forward to today’s thread. Because of my limited time this evening, I am only going to offer three topics instead of the usual four. I will attempt to add some other topics during the day on Wednesday. I also intend to have a guest commentary for Thursday night as well. I have several submitted and merely need to work on formatting them and working with the authors on any changes. For tonight we begin with some incumbents and favorites losing out on primary seats, Reverend Wright crying about his treatment from the White House, and the GOP blocking some financial reform stuff in Congress.

Advertisements

Comments

  1. USWeapon says:

    USWeapon Topic #1

    Tea Party Favorite Rand Paul Leading Senate GOP Primary in Kentucky

    Tea Party favorite Rand Paul is leading Secretary of State Trey Grayson in Tuesday’s GOP Senate primary in Kentucky, with an eye toward giving the anti-big government movement its most significant political victory yet.

    The Kentucky primary is one of several high-stakes Senate races in three states that political analysts are closely watching to determine the mood of the country’s electorate less than five months before November’s elections in which Republicans will seek to regain control of both houses in Congress.

    Sen. Arlen Specter is fighting for his political career in Pennsylvania against Rep. Joe Sestak in the Democratic primary. And Sen. Blanche Lincoln is trying to save her job in Arkansas against Lt. Gov. Bill Halter.

    In a fourth race with national implications, Republican Tim Burns and Democrat Mark Critz vied to fill out the final few months in the term of the late Rep. John Murtha in southwestern Pennsylvania.

    In Kentucky, Grayson is backed by the state’s Republican establishment while Paul enjoyed the support of the Tea Party, former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, retiring Sen. Jim Bunning and conservative Sen. Jim DeMint of South Carolina.

    Read the rest of the article here: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/05/18/tea-party-favorite-rand-paul-wins-senate-gop-primary-kentucky/

    I simply found this interesting when put with some of the other results that we saw out there. Since I posted this article initially in my draft, Paul was declared the winner. I have to wonder what kind of signal this will send to Republican leadership. Grayson was backed by the “Republican establishment” and ended up losing. That says a ton that the party NOT in power, and NOT being blamed for the current situation by many voters still couldn’t get their candidate past the fringe candidate.

    Couple this with Arlen Spector being treated exactly the way that he should have been treated after his little defection and screwing those that voted him into office last time. He didn’t even make it out of the primary. And I have to tell you, I don’t think the guy that beat him was really even that strong. People just were not going to send Specter back to the hill.

    So I will begin asking the questions of all of you. What do you REALISTICALLY think is going to happen in November? Will the GOP get back the Senate and House or only one of them based solely on backlash against the Democrats in office? Or will we see an overall vote against any incumbent no matter what their party affiliation. Will the voter turnout be strong or weak?

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      @USW – not sure I can read Sestak over Specter or Rand Paul’s win and determine yet how November will shape up – that is a long ways away and at least the PA primary/special election cannot be read as backlash against the Democrats. If anything Critz’s victory shows that the supposed backlash is not universal.

      I did vote yesterday since I am still registered as Democrat (for time being). Arlen Specter would never get my vote. Sestak does not have my guaranteed vote come November.

      • Ray

        I absolutely agree. Far to much time between now and then.

        Both parties are scrambling to do something the sway the masses.

        This summer the Stimulus funding will ACTUALLY kick in on many public works projects. Will the anti-incumbent trend hold if unemployment starts to drop?

        Come on Ray, take the plunge. I dropped out of the Republican Party this spring and it feels great. Send in your “resignation” and tell them what you think. 🙂 🙂

        Both sides are overplaying and misrepresenting the outcome of these elections. Critz’s victory or his loss would not have been about Obama. And while he is an “experienced” politician he is not an incumbent Congressman. If the “newbie” Republican had won then I would have been amazed given the district involved.

      • Ray….I am not sure how I read it yet but I do think there is a tremendous move to the center on the way….from BOTH sides. I think that the established hierarchy is in trouble…..even those that have been centered, so to speak. I think the defeat of Specter reads volumes. I think it reads that nobody likes a traitor and a coward and I think that Specter represented both of those….as I think that anyone who changes sides for the pure aspect of political expediency represents both. My opinion, of course. Critz’s victory means very little other than there are enclaves all over the the United States like that of Critz’s district.

        I do not think Paul’s election means that the Tea Party is going to win anything. I think that the Tea Party has done one thing….and that is moving elected officials towards the center. I think that the public is using the Tea Party to move the winds to the center…to send a message. I think that Obama and his administration had better pay attention. And I think that he is…..he has thrown some of his close friends under the bus, publicly (maybe not privately), for nothing more than pure expediency. I think that his administration is more corrupt than that of Richard Nixon and Lyndon Johnson. I think that he has misread the public. He takes a 53% vote and calls it a mandate. (This is, of course, laughable at best.)

        I think that this movement, whatever it is….it is certainly not a republican movement because I think they are in the same cross hairs. I know that in Texas, Kay Hutchinson, a strong republican incumbent, will probably not win re-election. We do not like cowards here either. (Said she was going to resign and is not).

        BF and others do not like the vote and are against it…..that is their choice…but like it or not, the vote is changing America yet again. I think people voted for Obama for change from the status quo….only to find….status quo but a bigger grab for power far larger than anything I have seen in my life time.

        It will prove interesting, will it not?

        BTW…hope you are well, sir.

        • Ray Hawkins says:

          @D13 – agree on all points. The story is just being written – there are many chapters to go. I am thrilled Specter will be gone – but am not at all sold that Sestak is anything but more of the same. He will be skewered over his positions by Toomey and we will see if the Pennsyl-tuckey (where USW, Chris and I all lived) will rise up and go the route of Toomey.

          • Ray, my veterans group received a request today to endorse Toomey. Can you tell me anything about him that I don’t read on the pundit stage?

            Beholden to ya, sir.

    • A Puritan Descendant says:

      I think Republicans will have a big edge in November but incumbents from either party better watch out. Any candidate will score points by being a deficit hawk but by cutting spending and not by raising taxes. Any candidate preaching real job creation should do well also.

      I think people are big time POed over a lot of issues. This ilegal alien stuff certainly has many people Red Hot.

      To go one more step, our next President could easily be someone like Gov. Chris Christie of N.J. a man with a spine.

    • General response then opinion:

      I do not think Paul’s election means that the Tea Party is going to win anything.

      What do you mean?

      The Tea “party” is not a party. So the “party” doesn’t exist to win anything.

      The Tea party is a “political movement”. It is enforcing the taxpayers will of fiscal restraint on government.

      It does not care about Dem or Rep. It cares about $$.

      Those that spend pork will be tossed. Those that cut will be elected.

      The color of the ‘team shirt’ will not matter.

      I think that the Tea Party has done one thing….and that is moving elected officials towards the center.

      Not one bit.

      The Center is where the government is now.

      I

      I think that the public is using the Tea Party to move the winds to the center…to send a message. I think that Obama and his administration had better pay attention. And I think that he is…..he has thrown some of his close friends under the bus, publicly (maybe not privately), for nothing more than pure expediency. I think that his administration is more corrupt than that of Richard Nixon and Lyndon Johnson. I think that he has misread the public. He takes a 53% vote and calls it a mandate. (This is, of course, laughable at best.)

      I think that this movement, whatever it is….it is certainly not a republican movement because I think they are in the same cross hairs. I know that in Texas, Kay Hutchinson, a strong republican incumbent, will probably not win re-election. We do not like cowards here either. (Said she was going to resign and is not).

      BF and others do not like the vote and are against it…..that is their choice…but like it or not, the vote is changing America yet again. I think people voted for Obama for change from the status quo….only to find….status quo but a bigger grab for power far larger than anything I have seen in my life time.

      It will prove interesting, will it not?

      BTW…hope you are well, sir.

      • Well, that’s what happens when the dog decides to walk on the desk, he hits the submit button! 🙂

        Continuing:

        I think that Obama and his administration had better pay attention.

        Actually, everyone better pay attention. There are no longer Rep or Dem lines – the line is “spend or cut” and the politicians choice will be “spend=out, cut=in”

        BF and others do not like the vote and are against it…..that is their choice…but like it or not, the vote is changing America yet again.

        The reason I do not vote and it is futile is that there is no way to enforce the vote upon the elected.

        The Tea party may elect a fellow who CLAIMS he will cut, but when he gets there will spend like a drunk sailor. Reagan/Bush comes to mind.

        The Tea movement IS changing the nation, but it will not be by voting.

        It will be by witnessing the futility of the vote.

        It does not matter who they vote in, the Public Choice doctrine dictates that the cuts necessary to recover the nation cannot be done because the cuts will essentially burn the cities to the ground. No politician will act in a manner to do this

        Therefore, they will stay the status quo and by their inaction to reign in past financial mis-allocations the cities will burn to the ground.

        When 2013/2014 rolls around and the spending is out of control and economy is in even worse shape, the voters will -finally- give up and same “this simply does not work”.

        THEN real change will happen.

        • A Puritan Descendant says:

          Well done BF, I now am hearing Ominous music in my head…

        • Sorry Bf…it is the vote and the vote is going to change it.

          Continue your cynicism…and your criticism of the government (I am with you on that part, anyway) but do not under estimate what is happening….it takes the vote and the vote will do it. Without the vote in the forefront, nobody would be doing anything.

          This Nation will recover..make no mistake about it. But..you sit on your side of opinion and I will sit on my side of opinion but I will not give up and I will never lose faith in my country…. for to lose faith is cowardly and I am not that in the slightest. I will do what I can do to change things and then I will fight when necessary.

          I will agree with you on the lines that are drawn….it is not dem and it is not repub, as you said….it is quit spending…the only thing that will stop the spending is doing exactly what is happening……vote the bastards out. Nothing else is going to stop the spending.

          • D13,

            Nothing will come of it.

            If you believe it will, please offer your Public Choice theory that will need to demonstrate that politicians will willingly create massive political uncertainty and upheaval by impoverishing millions of Americans with cut backs.

            Please show how men will cut their own throats.

            • D13,

              There is a HUGE difference between the consequences TO A POLITICAN between

              (1) acting and immediately destroying the properity and lives of millions of dependent Americans.

              and

              (2) doing nothing and allowing the natural law of economics destroy the prosperity and lives of millions of dependent Americans.

              Between the choice of being BLAMED for the impoverishment of millions and you BLAMING “Capitalism” for the impoverishment, which one do you believe a POLITICIAN will work for?

              • Ahhhh, but you assume we are going to keep electing POLITICIANS.

                That may soon stop, and when it does things are going to get very damn interesting.

    • Haha, this is good, from Specter:

      Like a typical loser, Arlen Specter directed some sour grapes towards the Tea Party. He was on MSNBC with Andrea Mitchell saying that the Tea Party must be beaten!

      “If we’re not careful, if you don’t field the strongest candidate — frankly, like Arlen Specter — they’re going to take over,” Specter said of the tea parties. “Beating the tea party gang is more important than who does the beating.”

      “They want to go back to the gold standard,” he added. “It’d be an 18th-century America.”

      http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3096434/ns/msnbc_tv#37214386

      • Cyndi P says:

        “They want to go back to the gold standard,” he added. “It’d be an 18th-century America.” What’s he sniveling about? Isn’t an 18th Century America the goal of the Algorians and the climate change crowd? Gimme a break! BTW, I think the gold standard is much better than the toilet paper standard we are presently converting to…..

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      In the long run, it will not matter what happens in November.

      The only SLIGHT hope that we have is that people who truly understand and believe in freedom and liberty will accept the burden of being elected, and then go about dismantling the vast majority of the system.

      I don’t hold out much hope for that happening.

    • Bottom Line says:

      USW – “What do you REALISTICALLY think is going to happen in November? Will the GOP get back the Senate and House or only one of them based solely on backlash against the Democrats in office? Or will we see an overall vote against any incumbent no matter what their party affiliation. Will the voter turnout be strong or weak?”

      BL – I think there will be just enough seats filled with independents to create some balance.

      I suspect we will see more like what happened in KY.

      I like Rand Paul’s victory in KY. Whether or not he is ‘The Real Deal’ is yet to be seen, …but I like the message being sent to Washington. When the inexperienced anti-establishment Tea Party candidate wins by such a margin, it says something.

  2. USWeapon says:

    USWeapon Topic #2

    Rev. Wright: ‘Obama Threw Me Under the Bus’

    The Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Barack Obama’s controversial former pastor, said in a letter obtained by The Associated Press that he is “toxic” to the Obama administration and that the president “threw me under the bus.”

    In his strongest language to date about the administration’s 2-year-old rift with the Chicago pastor, Wright told a group raising money for African relief that his pleas to release frozen funds for use in earthquake-ravaged Haiti would likely be ignored.

    “No one in the Obama administration will respond to me, listen to me, talk to me or read anything that I write to them. I am ‘toxic’ in terms of the Obama administration,” Wright wrote the president of Africa 6000 International earlier this year.

    “I am ‘radioactive,’ Sir. When Obama threw me under the bus, he threw me under the bus literally!” he wrote. “Any advice that I offer is going to be taken as something to be avoided. Please understand that!”

    The White House didn’t respond to requests for comment Monday about Wright’s remarks. Several phone messages left by the AP for Wright at the Trinity United Church of Christ, where he is listed as a pastor emeritus, were not returned. Wright’s spokeswoman, his daughter Jeri Wright, did not immediately comment on the substance of the letter.

    Read the rest of the article here: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,593043,00.html?test=latestnews

    File this under Barack Obama is a politician. As a politician, he will throw anyone and everyone under whatever bus he needs to in order to gain the office he is seeking. That Wright wants to make this statement is absolutely no surprise to me, because a public “throwing under the bus” is exactly what was needed in order for the campaign to succeed.

    The question is how legit is this? There are two trains of thought I have been following out there on the blogs. The first is a bit of a stretch, but I figured I would throw it out for all of you to judge. That scenario has Wright still being within the inner Obama circle in private, but putting on this public display of angst because there was no other choice after his comments and sermons became public. There are quite a few people who believe this train of thought. It basically follows the thread that Obama has publicly distanced himself from all the radicals while privately still seeking their counsel and helping them where he can. People like Beck were on to the radical affiliations, so the President was forced to take them underground.

    The other, and the one that far more believe, is that the radicals like Wright served no further purpose for Obama once he had the national spotlight. They served his purpose on the local levels, but once his popularity grew, they became expendable. At which point, you can’t really blame the President for distancing himself from a guy that claimed the government planted AIDS in the black community, spent ample time espousing the virtues of Farakhan, and making “God Damn America” Videos.

    • Going from memory and I don’t have time to look it up-but wasn’t Wright one of the people on the list of frequent visitors to the White House or not?

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      The Rev. Wright issue will always cause me to twitch uncomfortable. I just cannot fathom that the Obama’s somehow missed out on anything off the charts that Wright said over the years – then last minute everything comes to bear and he is all of a sudden toxic. My bottom line is that Rev. Wright needs to shut his piehole and look for answers rather than blame. As for the Obama’s – guess I’ll have to wait after his 8 years are up and some memoirs are written.

      • Ray

        Sneaky my friend, that was sneaky……..”his eight years are up”……..OUCH!!

        • Ray Hawkins says:

          @JAC – ooops! That eight may easily become four – need to see a viable challenger emerge. Just seeing if ya’ll are paying attention!

          • Been gone all day today, will be gone all day tomorrow and possibly most of the day Friday. That ought to make the liberals happy . . . So here’s my thorn for the week, Ray; She is already out there, her name is Sarah 🙂

            • Ray Hawkins says:

              G.A. – surely you jest. The Democrats would salivate uncontrollably should the former Governor-elect somehow fumble/stumble/bumble her onto the lead of the ticket.

              Joe Sestak won largely, I think (as do many others), solely due to the creepy “change parties to get re-elected” ad they ran against Specter (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNc150bdByQ&feature=related). There is an ever growing, deep and equally influential library of Sarah quips, gaffes and utter-idiocy to ensure that while she may eventually be a challenger, she will not be very viable.

    • Ahhhh,,,USW..there was only a slight bump when that happened…there will be more bumps when his resume’ is finished. Obama is a coward and he will do exactly what the rest of the politicians have done….sacrifice the minions. There is no hope from this administration but there has been change….spending like Red Light sale day at Walmart and a takeover of power greater than this country has ever seen.

  3. USWeapon says:

    USWeapon Topic #3

    GOP Blocks Three Key Anti-Wall Street Amendments

    Senate Republicans blocked Democrats from voting on three amendments Tuesday that are strongly opposed by Wall Street.

    Sen. Richard Shelby of Alabama, the top-ranking Republican on the Banking Committee, rose to object to a vote on one of the most talked-about amendments, cosponsored by Sens. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.). Levin-Merkley would ban commercial banks from trading for their own benefit with taxpayer-backed money.

    Shelby also objected to an amendment from Sen. Kay Hagan (D-N.C.) that would rein in predatory practices of payday lenders and one from Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.) that would have banned naked credit default swaps, which were at the heart of the financial crisis. Dorgan’s amendment was expected to fail, but Levin-Merkley had been surging in recent days.

    When it looked as if Levin-Merkley had at least 50 votes, the threshold was moved up to 60. Now that it appears within striking distance of 60 votes, the new tactic is to deny it a vote altogether.

    Negotiations around Levin-Merkley have been going on throughout the day, with Levin and Merkley working out details of the bill with holdouts. But without an opportunity for a vote on the floor, those successful negotiations add up to little.

    “Republican Minority Leader Mitch McConnell is yet again doing the bidding of Wall Street and is blocking the Merkley-Levin amendment that will ban high-risk trading inside the lending and depository institutions from coming up for a vote today,” said Merkley after the blockade. “They won’t even allow a vote with a 60 vote threshold. On a day two Democrats are missing from the chamber. Wall Street lobbyists, and consequently Senator McConnell and the Republicans, want to kill the Merkley-Levin amendment by attrition because they’re afraid of losing a vote. If this isn’t a sign of the Republicans having the backs of the big banks on Wall Street over the American people, I don’t know what is.”

    Read the rest of the article here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/18/gop-blocks-two-key-anti-w_n_580747.html

    I have to say it is becoming a rather regular occurrence to see a headline where the GOP has blocked some sort of legislation in Congress. And I am glad to see that happening in this case. At the risk of being labeled the “party of no”, they continue to fight and block the Democrats at a lot of turns. I know that there have been a higher than normal number of filibusters and blocks by the GOP in this Congress, but I hardly think that this fact is telling in a Congress that has passed more legislation than any other Congress. I never see the MSM give me the statistic I am looking for though: percentage of blocks or filibusters as a ratio to number of proposed laws or amendments. I am betting they are fairly even with the last several Congressional sessions.

    As for the three in question here, I don’t know whether it was a good thing or a bad thing to have them blocked from an economic perspective. I understand what the three amendments were about and what they mean. What I don’t know really well is what the arguments are for and against each one. The only one I can comment on is Hagan’s proposal to reign in predatory practices on payday lending companies. Much like ARM loans and other things, people who walk into those establishments know full well what they are getting into when they walk through the doors. It seems to me that this is simply another bill where Congress is saying that consumers are too stupid so they will babysit them.

    I guess the question that I have for folks here, is when is the line crossed between blocking what they are against and simply being obstructionists? On a principle level, I am all for anything that bogs Congress down and limits their ability to pass any laws. The Senate was supposed to do just that originally. So I don’t care which side is doing it, I am happy to see anything that slows them down and doesn’t allow them to pass legislation. I have not seen a GOOD piece of legislation in years. We would be better off if every Congressional action of the last 15 years was simply purged and voided.

    • Cyndi P says:

      I’ve just spend two hours over at Zero Hedge. I now have a sick feeling in my stomach. Black Flag can probably explain in simple terms.

      http://www.zerohedge.com/

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      @USW – so I understand this correctly – the amendments are still in committee – and being blocked from even being voted on at that level. And you advocate this? Stunning.

      I’d like to see our elected officials at least vote on legislation. To advocate that they should not be allowed to vote on properly proposed legislation (for some end political gain or capital) completely undermines the institution.

      • Ray

        Actually it is part of the “institution” called the Senate and has been for a long time.

        Huffington Post and others are trying to stir up shit where it doesn’t exist yet. They are trying to portray the R’s as the party of NO at the beginning of the process. This is how Senators get their issues on the table. It WILL work itself out, just like the other bills did.

        For those of us who see little good coming from Congress, gridlock is a good thing. I know that it seems knee jerk but that’s the reaction you get from abuse.

      • Yo Ray…..I have become very cynical at both sides. All of this voting without reading and taking stands without understanding….even in committee’s. You used the term “properly proposed legislation”….I don’t think there is such right now.

        IO also do not want obstructionist standards either…..but whoever is in power, the other side is always obstructionist and as such, is a sad commentary.

        when I see the political donations to both sides of the aisle in the amounts that are there….it really sucks. Wall street has a lot of power and even though I am not a proponent of heavy legislation…..there are changes that need to be made…my opinion, of course.

        • D, once again I’m with you brother … but USW’s statement here I don’t understand: Much like ARM loans and other things, people who walk into those establishments know full well what they are getting into when they walk through the doors. It seems to me that this is simply another bill where Congress is saying that consumers are too stupid so they will babysit them.

          The net effect to the working man (here I go again) and everybody else not wealthy beyond reason took it on the chin because of the effects of what Wall Street pulled (because a) what regulation was there was ignored and b) because they had their lackies in the gov’t bail them out). 401K’s took beatings across the board … that’s retirement money that won’t likely come back.

          The gov’t screws up a lot, I’ll stipulate to that, but what those banks did and were rewarded for is beyond criminal. I’m still for shooting them and everyone who voted for their bailout. The American worker was left holding his jock strap once again and the net result is “be happy you have a job–no raise, no bonuses, reduced benefits” …

          This is where I can’t agree with Libertarians … the balance of power has never left those with the means to run the show (and please don’t give me the “sweat of their brow” argument; most of the stiffs on Wall Street making billions produce NOTHING but paper.

          As much as government has proved itself inept at pretty much everything, the fact remains they’re corrupted my money and it isn’t the working man providing the bribes.

          Hope all of yous are well. I’ll have more time to break your shoes again soon … I hope.

          All best.

          • USWeapon says:

            What don’t you understand about it Charlie? The people who walk into those payday loan places know exactly what they are getting themselves into.

            • Maybe I read you wrong. The problem is that what happened there affected all of us (not just those who bought in over their heads). And are we going to say it’s okay that banks (or anyone) pulled a fast one? I’m sure not everybody walked into something they thought was okay. There was a sales pitch angle to many of the home loans that is being ignored.

              Either way, the net affect was everybody suffered for it … not just those who did something they shouldn’t have (scammed or not). We got to pay for the banks.

              I have to say I’m surprised at the Tea Party for not going more ballistic over what happened. Forming a Tea Party over bailouts is one thing … but accepting it is another. Ron Paul’s kid won and good for him, but I’m afraid the Tea Party is going to accomplish one thing above all else come 2012 and that is to re-elect Fredo President.

              • Charlie

                If we had a Congress full of men and women who actually understood the Constitution and were faithful to its principles, it would not matter who was in the white house.

                They wouldn’t have enough power to be of any major concern.

                We need to destroy the concept of the “Imperial Presidency”. A concept I might add that was created by a Republican president who was a “Progressive”.

              • The only problem with sticking to the constitution is interpretation of it; too many differing views. The ambiguity, I suspect, is what granted folks too much power. Either way, more or less government, the banks were AT LEAST 50% responsible for what happened to this economy (I suspect much higher than 50%) and they were rewarded for it. The rest of us paid for it (and in more ways than just cash). How there wasn’t a “real” revolution continues to astound me.

              • Bottom Line says:

                Charlie,

                I hear ya.

                Charlie – “The gov’t screws up a lot, I’ll stipulate to that, but what those banks did and were rewarded for is beyond criminal.”

                BL – What those banks did and the way they’re being rewarded for it, is called Fascism.

                Charlie – “The problem is that what happened there affected all of us (not just those who bought in over their heads). And are we going to say it’s okay that banks (or anyone) pulled a fast one?”

                – “Either way, the net affect was everybody suffered for it … not just those who did something they shouldn’t have (scammed or not). We got to pay for the banks.”

                BL – Yeah, that’s what burns me up about bailouts. I bear absolutely ZERO responsibility for the mess, yet I am required by law to bail out a bunch of irresponsibilitards.

                Like I have suggested in the past – we need a full blown tax revolt and/or corporate boycott. The alternative is acceptence of Fascism.

    • USWep,

      To judge whether it is good or bad, here is the analogy to simplify it.

      A bunch of drug-crazed, drunk, teenagers with AK-47’s are driving a Magnum SRT-8 with the gas pedal buried.

      While driving, they are target practicing with the AK-47 to see if the can hit the tires.

      The driver – who is switched out every 4 miles (or every 75 seconds) – is swerving in the game to try to avoid the bullets fired at the tires.

      The brakes are managed by another fellow, who is switched out every 75 seconds under the orders of the man behind the wheel.

      NOW new rules come in that says the brake man must have ear plugs.

      Good or bad rule?

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      “I have not seen a GOOD piece of legislation in years. We would be better off if every Congressional action of the last 15 years was simply purged and voided.”

      Say 150 years instead of 15 years and you might be on to something.

  4. Common Man says:

    All;

    While returning from a 4 day Bass fishing attempt (2 bass for 4 days effort) my buddy and I listened to the theatricts of Bloomenthal. In my minds eye it was a farce and a slap in the face of any and every Vet across this nation. This man and his supporters went way out of their way to minimize what I believe could have been a minor hicup had Bloomenthal handled the situation with real honor.

    Instead of standing tall and admiting he screwed up he followed the path of a true fork tongued polititian and attempted to sidestep the issue.

    Although this man may have historically accomplished a great deal to benefit the Vet’s of our nation, the approach he took yesterday only managed to demonstrate his true character. A character unworthy of the support of any and all Vet’s. He is a lier and yesterday’s theatrics only solidified his true core.

    I was appalled listening to his pitiful attempt to belittle his lie by referring to it as a ‘misspoke’. Kind of reminds you of Clinton’s “I did not have sexual relations with that women”.

    It is a shame, because Bloomenthal was/is an advocate for our Vet’s, and may have done more to assist the finest Americans in our nation. Now it seems he has only managed to ensure his political dimise; which, based upon this major character flaw is appropriate.

    I am interested in the thoughts of the Vet’s commenting here. Please let me know your thoughts about how this man handled his response.

    CM

    • CM

      I’m a little behind on this story-Did he actually say he was a Vietnam vet or just a veteran-as in served in the forces.

      • Common Man says:

        VH;

        The NY Times published an article supported by actual quotes from Bloomenthal over the course of a few years indicating that he served in Viet Nam. He did not ever set foot in Viet Nam. Instead of saying he served ‘during’ Viet Nam he said ‘in’ Viet Nam.

        My issue is that instead of standing tall and telling everyone that he screwed up by indicating that he served in Viet Nam, he tried to minimize the whole lie by saying he “mis-spoke”.

        Although I am not a Vet those I know who did serve in country frown on others claiming they did.

        CM

        • Not saying it makes much difference was just curious if he actually said it or just let people assume it-either way was a very dishonest thing to do.

        • Just as bad as the Malingering john Fitzgerald Kerry who managed to get 3 Purple Hearts for paper cuts so he could come home and trash our Military. What a scum bag.

    • CM: Off Topic but you win. It was very windy at my lake over the weekend so I didn’t even cast one time. A friend did pull in one 4 inch bluegill.. 😦

      • Common Man says:

        Anita;

        We too fought the wind, but this past weekend it came out of the East where normally it is out of the West or North West. And although we had sunshine the water tempature was only 53. All in all we spent the better part of 10 hours searching all the normal spots and came up empty. Of the two bass one was about 15 inches and the other probably 16. We even trolled for Walleye Sunday night and got skunked.

        I can only assume the water temps kept most of the critters deep. Even the pan-fishermen were struggling.

        But we are back up there Memorial Day weekend so hopefully the fishing will improve.

        Regardless, a bad day fishing is better than a good day at work.

        CM

        • A Puritan Descendant says:

          I used to fish for Bass and trout almost everyday in New England. I learned it was best to stay home if the wind was out of the east.

          • Common Man says:

            P;

            Yes, but being a Northern native you know that ones love for both critters forces us out more often than not in not-so-perfect weather. It is a fact that those of us with ‘thicker blood’ realize since sunny, 75 degrees and calm winds are more the exception than norm.

            And you folks unfortunately get to deal with Noresters or Northeasters, which ever way you say it, and my hat is off too you for being hardy enough to do so.

            CM

            • A Puritan Descendant says:

              Yes, I always was a bit sick that way, having to go fishing with the chilly wind out of the east just to make sure the fish really were not biting.

    • Sorry about the fishing…Texas is huge bass fishing territory. I, too, have been skunked several times while angling.

      To answer your question….I have seen the clips of his speeches….as a Vietnam Vet..it sucks. He was grand standing for attention. No different than a military person wearing ribbons and medals he did not earn. So…..my opinion, he has violated public trust and does not have my respect.

      How are you, sir? Hope all is well.

      • Common Man says:

        D13;

        Doing well, but working too much and fishing too little. Since we had a rather cold winter and spring the water temps have not yet gotten to appropriate ‘Bass’ levels. I suspect it will delay the spawn. Usually by this time of year the gills and crappie have bedded, but even that is delayed.

        Did you know that even though bass critters get 30-50 % bigger down your way, they actually live about half as long. A 5 pounder up here is on average twice as old as a 5 pounder down your way.

        Anyway keep a tight line

        CM

        • Our Blue Gills and Crappie have already bedded here…catching a Blue on a 3 pound test line fly rod is exhilarating.

          • Common Man says:

            D13;

            One of the critters we have and you Texican’s lack is Trout. Michigan boast’s a diverse population: Rainbow, Browns, Brook, and then you get into the Salmon species.

            As I have told our good friend JAC, you should head to Arkansas and the Norfork River Resort for a long weekend of some of the best Trout fishing in the world; especially if you enjoy whipping around a fly rod.

            The White and Norfork river are not only pristine, but you will hook and land 50 – 60 fish a day. I have fished those rivers now for 10 years and it is a trip of addiction; go once and you will return. So far I still hold the group record with a 10.5 pound brown measuring almost 30 inches. He was caught using a live sculpin in the early morning just up stream from the Norfork River resort lodge.

            Or if you like you can head North to my stomping grounds around the 2nd week of June and cast a 6 weight rod into a variety of Trout streams across Michigan during the Hexagenis Limbata (Giant Mayfly) hatch and hook into 4, 5, and 6 pound ‘Booger Browns’. This is an event in Michgan that brings Trout fishermen from miles around all scouting spots during the day and fishing at night. It is quite the fishing adventure.

            Tight lines,

            CM

            • TexasChem says:

              Ahhh… but we do have trout! You forget that Texas has 3,359 miles of tidal shoreline!Spotted trout, Sand Trout and Silver Trout!Sabine lake is chocker block full of em!

              • Common Man says:

                TC;

                Yes, my bad I had forgotten those beloved ‘Specs’ along the shoreline. Although I have never fished them down your way I have caught a fair share around Tampa and farther south.

                Still though ya’ll should check out Arkansas and/or Michigan.

                And if you really want to have you socks knocked off come up our way the 3rd and 4th week of September for the King Salmon run. I have stood on the banks of the Pere Marquette in the early morning sun and watched hundreds move by in a few hours, sometimes so thick you could walk across their backs and never get your ankles wet. And if you can imagine standing in 3 feet of crystal clear stream and hooking a 20 – 25 pound King on a 10 weight flyrod…well let’s just say WOW!!!!!

                Oh, and if you choose to attempt this adventure be advised, you will in the course of possibly landing one of those 25 pounder’s float your hat at least once. It is therefore advised to only use tight fitting neoprene waders or otherwise you might be a ‘BOB’.

                CM

              • Yessir…..fished for salmon in Vancouver….sitting where a river runs into the sea catching them critters heading up stream….loads of fun.

                We keep introducing trout in the Trinity River in Fort Worth….but they do not last…the Alligator Gar get them quickly.

              • Godzilla says:

                Prince William sound in Alaska when the pink salmon are running. Tie on a spoon, cast, count to 7, reel in slowly, fish every cast. Had to keep the fish away from the seals, they kept trying to steal them.

    • Military men are “dumb, stupid animals to be used” as pawns for foreign policy

      – Henry Kissinger.

    • SK Trynosky Sr/. says:

      CM

      Huge mistake and an even bigger one claiming he mis-spoke. As a Viet Nam era vet who got no further west than Missouri, I have often proudly pointed out that not a single Viet Cong crossed the Mississippi while I was on watch.

      I don’t know why it is that people who did serve honorably feel that they have to embelish their record. To be in public life and do so is tantamount to committing suicide.

      In my many conversations with people who went and those who did not, it is painfully evident that there is a very poorly healed scab over that war, even 35 years (has it really been that long?) later. No one mis-speaks on whether they were in Viet Nam or merely served during the Viet Nam war, nobody.

  5. TexasChem says:

    Optimism in the midst of bad news…

    May 16, 2010
    By Herman Cain

    We learned some more bad news last week about ObamaCare. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has now reported that ObamaCare is projected to cost an additional $115 billion, and will exceed $1 trillion over the next 10 years.

    This latest revelation about ObamaCare is just another installment on a coming financial and health care disaster. The legislation was supposed to reduce the federal deficit, according to the president and the Democrats in Congress, but it will not.

    I will repeat a previous observation. No social program in the history of the United States of America has ever hit or come in below projected budget.

    As more and more people have gone from “concerned” to “fearful” about the future of this country due to fiscal irresponsibility and the current lack of effective leadership in Washington, D.C., there are still some compelling reasons to be optimistic about the future of our nation.

    The Founders of this nation did not put “In God We Trust” on all of our currency by accident. It was a bedrock belief, and it still is today despite the liberals’ attempt to have people believe otherwise. The president’s declaration on his first world apology tour that we are not a Christian nation is dead wrong. We are indeed a Christian and God-believing nation, based on the faith of an overwhelming majority of Americans.

    Disagreeing with the president makes me a racist according to liberal political correctness. But I guess it depends on their definition of racist, because the last time I looked in the mirror I was still a very black American not afraid to speak up and speak out.

    Even though the Democrats’ latest legislative actions have ignored the will of the people, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, those founding documents still confirm that we the people are in charge of this country. We just have to exercise our voices louder and stronger for those founding conservative principles, and vote the right way at voting time.

    Too many people were fooled by President Obama’s promise of “hope and change” without knowing what kind of change he was talking about. Now they know, and many of them, not all, will make some changes in November 2010 and November 2012.

    The recent elections of Governor Chris Christie in New Jersey and Senator Scott Brown in Massachusetts are two more compelling reasons for optimism. They were not supposed to win, but the majority of the voters thought otherwise.

    We can also be optimistic about the fact that Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada, the Majority Leader in the Senate, is trailing at least three Republicans running in the primary race to be decided in June. That’s no guarantee that a Republican will win in November because of dirty politics and Harry Reid’s sizable campaign war chest, but this is the first time in a long time that the chances have been this great.

    I also continue to be encouraged by the consistent Gallup poll result that conservatives outnumber liberals two to one, and moderates outnumber liberals nearly two to one. That means that if only half of the moderates have seen the light on this president and the Democrats, then conservatives can win in November and re-establish some balance of power in Congress. Right now there is no balance of power. It’s all about the Democrats’ insatiable grab for power.

    In a recent commencement speech at Hampton University, the president said that people having access to too much information was putting a strain on democracy. On the contrary, people who are becoming smarter about what they are being told by the president and the Democrats are helping to liberate our representative democracy.

    Oops! I disagreed with the president again. My bad!

    Optimism in a sea of bad news is our real hope for the right kind of change.

    • Well since I am pointing out how we are manipulated by false information in the media I must point out the little falsehood in this article as well. Here it is:

      “The Founders of this nation did not put “In God We Trust” on all of our currency by accident.”

      FACT is that the “Founders” did not put the term on our money nor did they adopt it as a National Motto. In fact their preferred phrase was E PLURIBIS UNUM.

      Here’s the details from Wiki:

      “”In God We Trust is the official motto of the United States, the U.S. state of Florida and the Central American nation of Nicaragua.[1]

      In the United States, the motto first appeared on a coin in 1864 during strong Christian sentiment emerging during the Civil War, but In God We Trust did not become the official U.S. national motto until after the passage of an Act of Congress in 1956.[2][3] It is codified as federal law in the United States Code at 36 U.S.C. § 302, which provides: ‘”In God we trust” is the national motto’.””

      • Mathius says:

        I don’t know about the rest of y’all, but I start looking over my shoulder when I hear declarations like “[w]e are indeed a Christian and God-believing nation[.]” It makes me skittish, like someone’s going to drag me before an inquisition..

        I AM NOT A CHRISTIAN AND I AM EQUALLY AMERICAN TO YOU!

        I AM NOT GOD-BELIEVING AND I AM EQUALLY AMERICAN TO YOU!

        TexasChem’s follow-on that this is based on the beliefs of the majority of Americans does not negate the fact that we are officially, legally, by statute and practice, not a Christian country. If we had a massive influx of Muslims into the US such that “an overwhelming majority of Americans were” Muslim, would you concede that America is an Islamic nation?

        You can say that we are a country made up of a majority of God-believing Christians”, but this is not the same thing as saying we are a Christian nation. A square is a rectangle, but a rectangle is not a square – follow?

        We are all guilty from time-to-time of similar lapses but, for the love of God, Christians need to get over this idea.

        Mathius has spoken.

        • What you just said is why so many of us are so adamant about the importance of freedom based on individual rights especially when we have majority vote to make decisions. If we base our laws on individual rights it would not matter whether the majority where christian or muslum.

        • TexasChem says:

          thius stated:”TexasChem’s follow-on that this is based on the beliefs of the majority of Americans does not negate the fact that we are officially, legally, by statute and practice, not a Christian country. If we had a massive influx of Muslims into the US such that “an overwhelming majority of Americans were” Muslim, would you concede that America is an Islamic nation?

          TC:Your statement does not negate the fact that the founders of this American governments principles were influenced by their christian heritage.Which one of the principles was freedom to worship how any citizen wanted.

          Be glad you live in America where you have the choice to believe in God or not Mathius for if you did live in an Islamic nation governed by Sharia law you would be given the death sentence for your belief in no “Allah”.You Infidel! LOL

          • Mathius says:

            TC: Your statement does not negate the fact that the founders of this American governments principles were influenced by their christian heritage.

            Mathius: Our founders were also influenced by British Law. Does this make America a British nation.

            • TexasChem says:

              Nope but the British were predominantly Christian so you do the math there pal!

              • Mathius says:

                They were also influenced by the Romans and Greeks. Should we consider ourselves a Zeus-believing nation?

              • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

                Reductio ad absurdum much Mathius?

                Just because you are OFFENDED by the notion that America was at one time by and large a “Christian” nation and our laws and customs are a product of that heritage doesn’t mean that you need to go into such deep denial over it simply because you are offended by the concept 🙂

              • Mathius says:

                Below.

              • TexasChem says:

                Well…no Mathius because those founders did not have the spiritual belief in Zeus but they did in fact have spiritual belief in God therefore your arguement stands proved incorrect!

              • Mathius says:

                Zeus was a god.

                A sizable number of the delegates were not Christian. Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin, for example, were deists.

              • “Zeus was a god.”

                Only in Greek Mythology . . . And to you, of course.

        • Matt,

          Yep. You are just as American as the Christian guy. Why are you mad at the Christian guy? Is he actually harming you? Does he scare you? Is he inflicting violence on you?
          Has he threatened to harm you? You can not believe in God all you want. No harm to the Christians. But you’re just spinning your wheels crying about it. The constitution does not ban religion. No congressman is going to try to pull any fast one on you having to do with religion. So what is your point?

          IN GOD WE TRUST –That’s the motto –It does not harm you. It may hurt your feelings to say it, so don’t say it. But it does not harm you. If you don’t like it you are free to leave. Get over it.

          • Mathius says:

            My problem is that it is not an accurate description by any metric unless you also willing to accept some other unsavory titles.

            I’m not mad at Christian-guy, but I do not like him mis-labeling my country in order to make his beliefs appear to be the official/standard beliefs when they are not. See our conversation below for more.

            • I don’t like anyone mislabeling my country. I certainly don’t want the land of the free to be relabeled as the land of free government funds. Its the same thing, only worse, because its not just a label, its direct action.

          • Ray Hawkins says:

            “In God We Trust” is, rightfully, considered ceremonially deist. If anything it should be scrubbed due to the establishment clause (imho) – and due to its origins (monetarily) from the Civil War. (Thanks a lot Rev Watkinson)

        • I must agree, Matthius. WasabiCat also agrees

      • TexasChem says:

        You are correct JaC.Herman should have researched a bit more before placing that in his post!The sentiment remains the same whether he had stated correctly that we as a Christian Nation had implemented the motto into federal law or his misinterpretation of the “gist” of what he was espousing.As a matter of fact that statement makes his point that much clearer in my opinion!Thanks for pointing that out!

  6. Ray Hawkins and rest of SUFA

    I came across this last night and thought of our previous discussions about how we are manipulated by the Press and those in Govt. The following is an excerpt from an article at Fox on climate and CO2. My point is not about global warming but about how a statement is made by a public official that is a flat lie, yet goes unchallenged by the Press. Thus giving it the air of truth. First the excerpt:

    “There is a systemic bias in the computer models,” said Michaels, whose research suggests that the U.N.’s adjusted computer modeling data, rather than actual observed data, is what connects the rise in temperatures to manmade causes. When one takes away the computerized modeling enhancements, he said, mankind’s contribution to global warming is virtually nil, approximately .03 degrees, rather than .07 degrees, over the last 50 years.

    Thus, he said, most of the planet’s warming is not from manmade sources. “This idea that most of the warming is due to greenhouse gases caused by man just isn’t right,” he said.

    But Catherine C. Milbourn, a spokeswoman for the EPA in Washington, disagreed with Michaels’ conclusions.
    “The U.S. Supreme Court ruled three years ago that greenhouse gas emissions constitute air pollution, and EPA set out to determine whether that pollution threatens the health and welfare of Americans,” she told FoxNews.com, explaining that the EPA ruling was based on a comprehensive review of available science from an array of peer-reviewed sources across the globe.

    “The conclusion: The scientific evidence of climate change is overwhelming, and greenhouse gases pose a real threat to the American people. The question of the science is settled,” Milbourn said.”

    OK, here is the evil lurking in the dark waters. “The U.S. Supreme Court ruled three years ago that greenhouse gas emissions constitute air pollution,…..”. The Supreme Court DID NOT rule that C02 was pollution but that it must be evaluated as such under the rules of the Clean Air Act. The Supreme Court does not declare anything to be a pollutant, it only rules on the legality of the process used by the agency in making such a determination. In effect, SCOTUS revealed a weakness in the Clean Air Act. Anything in the air can be classified as a pollutant by the EPA per the rules of the Act.

    But notice that the “spokesperson” presents a case that SCOTUS decided so all EPA did was quantify the effect. This lie is used by govt leaders to give credibility and deflect attack to someone else. It is the same as the final conclusion but more sophisticated. “The matter is settled”. We are just doing what “they” required.

    The assertion is not challenged in the article by the Press correspondent. This statement has now been validated as true in the minds of most who read the article but do not know the details of how this stuff works. I submit that is most of the people.

    Here is the link to the full article.

    http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/05/18/epa-carbon-dioxide-threat-human-welfare/

    Keep an Active Mind
    JAC

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      This may be a poor analogy or compare – but bear with me……

      I am a daily reader of the Philadelphia Daily News – one of the two primary newspapers in Philly. I read it purely for the Sports and because in a way I am old-fashioned – I like the feel and touch of the newspaper with a good cup of coffee – rather than trying to read it one a digitized screen. Much of the same content that is in the hardcopy paper is pushed out online via Philly.com. I have read several times, from some of my long-in-tooth writers such as Bill Conlin, how the online world has pushed the infamous “deadline” perilously close to the actual occurrence of the event or story – people want near real-time (keep hitting F5!), the want it right and the want the same quality of writing as before. I fear this has created a scenario where facts in a story become “hoped for” rather than scrutinized for validity. Reporters and writers are forced into stream-of-conscious writing – hoping they took copious notes, and hopeful that the ‘facts as given to them’ are actually the facts. I’d rather you get it right so I can still pick that paper up from my driveway, ink still fresh enough to stain my fingers, so I can enjoy it with my first cup of coffee and know that you didn’t just write a good story, but you got the facts right.

      Cheers,

      Ray

      • Ray

        We are on the same page on this. I do like the longer, actual newspaper articles published on the web much better than these “bullet copies”.

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      The SCOTUS CANNOT rule that something IS OR IS NOT a “pollutant”. No one on the Supreme Court has the scientific background required to make such a determination.

      ALL that the Supreme Court can do is determine whether or not the EPA has the authority to regulate something as a pollutant PROVIDED THAT THE EPA MAKES A SOUND SCIENTIFIC FINDING to back up the claim that the substance in question poses some sort of hazard to human health.

      CO2 is not only essential (and a required byproduct) of human life, it is a required FOOD SOURCE for plant life. To attempt to regulate it as a “pollutant” is utterly bizzare. There has been nothing, I repeat NOTHING, which has shown it has any harmful effects whatsoever in the concentrations which are present in the atmosphere.

      To claim that the SCOTUS ruled that CO2 is a pollutant is an outright lie. To claim that the science on the subject is settled is also an outright lie. Science is NEVER settled! Only religious dogma is “settled”, and even that can change from time to time (although dogma is generally highly resistant to change).

      What you are seeing here is NOT science, it is religious zealotry.

      When someone objects to “intelligent design” based upon “religion” and “lack of evidence” if they wish to be logically consistent, they must also oppose the idea that CO2 causes “global warming”. There is an equal component of religion and an equal lack of evidence in BOTH hypotheses!

  7. naten53 says:

    http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/05/18/doll.study.parents/index.html?hpt=C2

    Kids’ test answers on race brings mother to tears

    (CNN) — A 5-year-old girl in Georgia is being asked a series of questions in her school library. The girl, who is white, is looking at pictures of five cartoons of girls, all identical except for skin color ranging from light to dark.

    When asked who the smart child is, she points to a light-skinned doll. When asked who the mean child is she points to a dark-skinned doll. She says a white child is good because “I think she looks like me”, and says the black child is ugly because “she’s a lot darker.”

    As she answers her mother watches, and gently weeps.

    Her daughter is taking part in a new CNN pilot study on children’s attitudes on race and her answers actually reflect one of the major findings of the study, that white children have an overwhelming bias toward white, and that black children also have a bias toward white but not nearly as strong as the bias shown by the white children.

    Renowned child psychologist and University of Chicago professor Margaret Beale Spencer, a leading researcher in the field of child development, was hired as a consultant by CNN. She designed the pilot study and used a team of three psychologists to implement it: two testers to execute the study and a statistician to help analyze the results.

    Her team tested 133 children from schools that met very specific economic and demographic requirements. In total, eight schools participated: four in the greater New York City area and four in Georgia.

    The mother, whose name the study prohibits from being used, says her daughter has “never asked her about color” and that the results of the test were an eye opener, and she says she and her daughter “talked a long time about it”

    Her daughter’s perception on race and the fact that the issue was not taken up at home is in many ways typical.

    Research and discussions with parents of the children who participated in this study, indicate that white parents as a whole do not talk to their kids about race as much as black parents.

    A 2007 study in the Journal of Marriage and Family found that 75 percent of white families with kindergartners never, or almost never, talk about race. For black parents the number is reversed with 75 percent addressing race with their children.

    Po Bronson, author of NurtureShock and an award-winning writer on parenting issues says white parents “want to give their kids this sort of post-racial future when they’re very young and they’re under the wrong conclusion that their kids are colorblind. … It’s in the absence of messages of tolerance that they will naturally … develop these skin preferences.”

    Many African-American parents CNN spoke to during the study say they begin discussing race at a very early age because they say they feel they have to prepare their children for a society where their skin color will create obstacles for them.

    The study has generated thousands of comments to CNN. After seeing the report, iReporter Omekongo Dibinga said, “My daughters are 4 and 2 years old. I didn’t realize that at 2 years old I’d have to start teaching them to be proud of their skin color.”

    The father of a black girl who took part in the CNN study says, “You can not get away from the fact that race is a factor but hopefully what we instill in them at home will help them to put that in its right place and move on”

    • This implies that because white families don’t talk race and black families do, white families are not pushing tolerance forward? Right?

      I would like to know how the black families are addressing it? As tolerance or as so many of their race baiting leaders do, with anger and a chip on their shoulder attitude?

    • Interesting….I offer this is reply….personal observation.

      Dateline 1980’s…My son and daughter have never been “indoctrinated” on race. My son had a very close friend that was black. They played sports together and went to school together. I was asked if he could spend the night and I never hesitated and said “sure”. He was my son’s friend. He spent the night several times and was welcomed at our dinner table…etc. He was introduced around the neighborhood and welcomed with open arms. when my son asked to spend the night with him….it was not possible. He said that his parents will never allow a “white” to spend the night but also that he would not be recognized and accepted by his friends and quite possibly hurt. In addition, he (my son’s friend) would lose respect for allowing a white to spend the night.

      It was a wake up call to my son and he, of course, was hurt and did not understand and this was high school age..not elementary or middle school. It is a sad state when color is a determining factor. But, because of this, he has formed an opinion opposite of what he was taught….that is also sad.

      Race is and always will be a factor. The world will never be color blind…and that is unfortunate.

      • SK Trynosky Sr/. says:

        Interesting. Reminds me of AIT in 1969. That, by the way was not a particularly good year for race relations in the Army. We had a number of black city kids and a number of college educated white boys. The white boys fell all over themselves trying to “not offend” the black kids. It actually got quite ridiculous and after a while the white boys were perceived by the blacks as sniveling cowards for their refusal to stand up to insults. By the end of the cycle, the whites had pretty much all become racists. Unfortunately the cadre was almost all white in the unit and was deathly afraid of dealing with any aspect of the race problem (career ender).

        This was quite a change from basic where the SDI and two platoon sergeants were black. Originally we were allowed to pick our own barracks and bunks, When it became obvious that the blacks self segregated, the sergeants dragged everyone out onto the company street and assigned us to platoons and bunks. I still remember Jesse L. Glover standing there on the platform booming, ” In my Army there ain’t no such thing as black or white, there is only green”. Wish I had him in AIT, might have encouraged me to stay.

        The one soldier I felt sorriest for in AIT was a black kid from an upwardly mobile family who went to one of the ivy league schools. Nice kid, was treated fairly by the whites but with suspicion by the blacks, after a week or two, he stopped hanging with us and was exclusively hanging in the predominently black barracks. He even started to talk “jive”. He wouldn’t talk about it with me but the kid had obviously figured he had sonme survival issues.

        Frankly D-13, that’s what I liked best about the big green machine, the ability to meet people and see things that I would never have seen otherwise. These little memory moments make me long for the draft again.

    • I’m very open about the race issue with my kids. My son runs with a pack of 11-12 yr olds. One of his best friends is bi-racial. I would claim him as my own and have knicknamed him “my son”. There was a problem one day with a pack of 14+ yrs olds giving “my son” some racial flack. “My son” called ME to come settle it. I was there in 37 seconds, horns up, spouting who knows what but it included “ya wanna pick on someone- PICK ON ME” Of course the older kids were having none of my shinanigans and scattered like ants never to be seen or heard from again. I am “my son’s” hero and he has reminded me and the pack several times of that. Everyone learned form that experience. There is no racial problem at my house. The kids just see themselves as kids.

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      People don’t “gently weep”, guitars do! 🙂

  8. naten53 says:

    What I can’t stand about these tests is that there is no choice to say “none” given. Things like this lead people to think that they have to answer. Like saying pick which color you associate with bad and they give you red and blue as the only choices. You try and say neither they say “but if you had to choose, which would it be?” They don’t want you to say “if I had to choose I wouldn’t choose either of those colors.” And they will keep prodding until you answer. I got a phone call to do a stupid survey like this last night because I had gone someplace and they wanted feedback and used the line above “but if you had to choose, which would it be?”

    All I am saying is in this experiment and any experiment like this, the results would be drastically different if there was a “none of the above option.”

    (experiment like this: voting)

    • naten53 says:

      damn, this is what i get for having my response to the article ready before i submit the article then copy and paste. this is in reply to #7

    • Good point! Not sure what to think about this study. I find it normal that young children would pick people who look like them based on the fact that they normally live with people who look like them. So feeling safer and that these people are smarter seems completely normal. On the other hand the fact that black children do the opposite seems to be what we should be discussing. Not trying to say that whites are teaching their children to be racist by not discussing race at a young age.

      • Alright before anyone brings it up -I am basing the second part of my comment on other discussions I have heard on this subject not solely on this article. 🙂

  9. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    “There are three types of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics!”

    This quote has been attributed variously to Ben Franklin, Mark Twain, and several other possible sources as well.

    Now, we have yet ANOTHER thing to add to the end of the list! What, you ask, could be a MORE POWERFUL LIAR than lies, damned lies, and statistics? Good question! The answer is THE COMPUTER MODEL!

    Real science is done by observation, recording of measurements, and processing and handling of resulting data. Often scientists will create a computer model BASED ON OBSERVATIONS as a potential predictive tool. Such a predictive tool IS NOT SCIENCE! It is (ideally) an extrapolation of the behavior of an observed system based upon trends in the originally observed data.

    A GOOD model requires the following things:

    1. Good, unbiased original data based on sound standardized methods of observation and reliable recording of data.

    2. Valid methods of processing, analyzing, and interpreting the original data.

    3. Method design which attempts to incorporate all known variables and account for the observed behavior of all known variables in the observed system.

    4. An attempt to account for suspected or unknown variables to the extent possible.

    5. Actual predictive value.

    “Climate Models” are first of all NOT science, they are models. ANYTHING which they predict CANNOT BE PROVED SCIENTIFICALLY other than by comparison to actual observation.

    Climate models FAIL to be good models IN EVERY SINGLE CASE because:

    1. The original data is not good, nor is it unbiased. The methods of collection were not uniform nor were they standard. The recording of data was unreliable.

    2. Many of the methods of processing, analyzing, and interpreting the data have been shown to be at a minimum faulty, and in many cases outright invalid.

    3. The models are not correctly designed to attempt to account for all known variables and the behavior of those known variables within the system. ALL of the models assume that any and all climate variables WILL ONLY AMPLIFY warming caused by CO2 (none of the models assume ANY NEGATIVE FEEDBACK from any known variables). Therefore with ALL climate models, the ONLY answer that you get is that less CO2 = lower temperature, and more CO2 = higher temperature.

    4. The models make no attempt to ascertain unknowns in the system.

    5. The models have ZERO (ZIP NONE NADA) predictive value. The number of climate models which ACCURATELY PREDICTED the temperatures from 1998-2010 and the trend in temperatures from 1998-2010 is ZERO! NONE of the models were in the least bit accurate for that time period! MORE IMPORTANTLY, if you RUN THE MODELS BACKWARDS, NOT A SINGLE MODEL IS ABLE TO PREDICT THE LITTLE ICE AGE OR THE MEDIEVAL WARM PERIOD! We KNOW that these events happen, and we have strong evidence that both the LIA and the MWP were global phenomena, yet absolutely ZERO of the climate models are able to predict these events when you run them backwards.

    In short, if you here anyone claiming that the “science is settled” on global warming based on what all the climate models are saying, you can rest assured that they are religious zealots and have no comprehension of science whatsoever.

    • Bama dad says:

      http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100519/ap_on_sc/us_sci_climate_reports

      Be that as it may, but again another group worships at the climate alter.

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        “Change is occurring in warmer temperatures, melting ice caps, sea rise and many other areas that have been carefully studied, Matson said. Future changes will include water and food shortages in many areas, more heat waves and increased intense rainfall in some regions.”

        Yeah, the only problem with that is that there has been no statistically significant rise in global temperatures in the past 15 years, the ice caps are recovering from their 2007 lows, which means that they have been GROWING and NOT SHRINKING (recovery from a low requires positive growth), and there has been absolutely ZERO studies that show any statistically significant rise in sea level ANYWHERE.

        Other than that, sure, GREAT science!

        If these people really want food shortages and a tremendous increase in human famine and disease, wait until 30 years from now when the global temperature is about 2 degrees C COOLER THAN IT IS NOW!

        WARMING DOES NOT CAUSE FAMINE AND DISEASE, IT CAUSES ABUNDANCE AND PROSPERITY.

        COLD causes famine and disease!

        Buncha friggin idiots we have posing as “scientists” these days.

        They will be the first up against the wall when the revolution comes. The politicians will only be 2nd.

        These so-called scientists have traded their integrity for unlimited government grants. Science as we know it is dead.

        • I thought the lawyers went first.

          • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

            Everyone knows lawyers lie, it is in their job description. That is why they will not be the first to go.

            Everyone believes that scientists are supposed to search for (and report) the TRUTH.

            When it is finally discovered by all that the scientists have been lying en masse, they will be the first to go. Hopefully those scientists that still have professional integrity will be spared, or we may be doomed to repeat the dark ages.

    • I’ve always thought the changes were called “WEATHER”. But don’t take my word for it, I spent many years not knowing how to pronounce “Pakistan”. Tom-aa-to, tom-ah-to, Heroin, Hamas, Terrorism

      But I digress

  10. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    Mortgage delinquencies hit an all time high.

    Applications for new mortgages hit a 13-year low.

    Stock market in the tank again.

    “Bailouts” never fixed a thing. A few of us here warned all of you that bailouts would only exacerbate the existing problem and make the collapse far more intense than it would have been without the bailouts.

    The last two weeks are only the beginning I am afraid.

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      Buy gold today, it has fallen rather dramatically today in a misguided “flight to cash”.

      • Peter is right.

        Place orders now.

        This is a Margin Call sell, where speculators who bought on credit are closing out their orders and taking profits.

        • Where do you guys buy your gold from?

          • Cyndi P says:

            I buy from http://www.govmint.com

            I don’t have much money so my purchases are small. I’m very happy with the service and the price seems about right for a small fry such as myself.

            They sell mostly coins, and some ingots of silver gold, platinum, and palladium.

          • I buy from a trusted local gold dealer.

            • TexasChem says:

              So BF where has all the money gone that will be lost when gold drops back down in price?As in I buy gold for 1200 an oz. then 3 years from now gold drops to 400 dollars an ounce?hmmm…I suppose all the wealth will actually have been transferred to those who originally had the gold to sell when the demand skyrocketed ehh?The same folks that have been preaching and screaming buy buy buy are about to start screaming sell sell sell and make money once more on their gold.Asinine way to lose your wealth in my opinion.Buy land land land…there is only so much of it and as the population increases so will the demand and hence the price.Me…I’m just going to make sure I have plenty to provide for my friends and family if the need ever arises in the event of falling upon hard times.

              • TexasChem

                So BF where has all the money gone that will be lost when gold drops back down in price?

                Specifically, it goes into someone’s bank account.

                I am not being glib here – that is exactly what happens.

                When you buy gold, you turn MONEY into GOLD.

                When people sell gold, the turn GOLD into MONEY.

                So, reanalyze your question with that in mind.

                As in I buy gold for 1200 an oz. then 3 years from now gold drops to 400 dollars an ounce?hmmm

                The sun will explode before gold falls to $400/oz.

                The bottom for gold is $1050. Barrick set the floor and the Indians will enforce it with dowry purchases.

                …I suppose all the wealth will actually have been transferred to those who originally had the gold to sell when the demand skyrocketed ehh?The same folks that have been preaching and screaming buy buy buy are about to start screaming sell sell sell and make money once more on their gold.

                As with any asset, if one mismanages and misunderstands the reason you bought it in the first place, you’ll probably lose money.

                Asinine way to lose your wealth in my opinion.

                If you do not know what you are doing and why you are doing it, you’ll probably not know when to do what you need to do, nor why you need to do it then.

                (That paragraph is know as a “Black Flag’ism”

                Buy land land land…there is only so much of it and as the population increases so will the demand and hence the price.

                You expose your novice understanding of economics.

                According to your theory, the property pricing collapse would not occur.

                But it did.

                Thus, you have a serious flaw in your economic theory.

                Land is no different a good or service as is any other good or service. It follows the same economic theory.

                Air is not being “made” any more either – yet is has no value.

                Thus, just because it is not producible does not make it valuable.

                Me…I’m just going to make sure I have plenty to provide for my friends and family if the need ever arises in the event of falling upon hard times.

                Good plan.

              • TexasChem says:

                BF Stated:”According to your theory, the property pricing collapse would not occur.”

                TC:Oh really! =)
                Actually I am not that worried about the price of the land dropping.I plan to use the land as a means to produce other commodities.Cattle.Poultry.Hogs.Vegetables.etc…So instead of buying 600 1oz. gold coins knowing that eventually the price will drop I buy 200 acres of land and invest in it; I am not placing all my eggs under a goose hoping they will turn to …gold!

              • TexasChem says:

                when the economy collapses you can buy one of my cows for 100 of your gold coins BF =)!

              • TexasChem says:

                How’s that for novice economics?

              • Texas Chem

                You have a plan – and that is a good thing.

                Land has a host of disadvantages.

                (1) You can’t take it with you.

                (2) How can you sell your land for a pair of shoes?

                However, the most important thing is you have a plan and are working your plan.

                The odds of success for you is much higher than the average “Joe”.

              • Yes, land has some disadvantages but this is where we consider our advantages…..

                The family has a ranch…it supports 4,500 head of cattle and has good grass in a temperate zone that has good rainfall. It has 14 deep water wells and a 24/7 spring that originates on our property. We can grow any crop we wish….we will have a place to stay, water to drink, and food to eat. We can grow crops for sale and raise cattle for sale and a never ending supply of fresh water for sale…..if need be. Cannot take it with me….that is for sure but it will sustain me forever….snd, in the end, I will have the gold.

                I kinda like that plan.

          • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

            I also buy from trusted local dealers. I know a shop in the Chicago area where I trust the guys that run it implicitly, and I know a dealer in Southeastern Wisconsin who my father has known (and bought all of HIS gold from) since the early 1970s. I don’t buy from anyone other than these 2 dealers personally.

            • PeterB – would like the name of the SE WI dealer, please.

              USW, can you give PeterB my email so I can get this info? Thanks to both of you.

              • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

                USW,

                Send me an email with Kathy’s email address and I will get her the information on this 🙂

    • Saw an interesting statistic the other day on the mortgages….(Can’t remember the exact figures but I will get close)

      Roughly 350,000 refinanced mortgages so far with the “bailout money”…..of that number roughly 270,000 have already defaulted yet again.

      • TexasChem says:

        Silly to force a lending institution to loan to someone that has no means of paying for their home other than government subsidies.-Infinitum In Infinitum!Oh puteus, stercus accidit!

        • If you do, you will clean it up……is there a Texas translation in there somewhere….I am just a Texan.

  11. Mathius says:

    PeterB in Indianapolis

    Reductio ad absurdum much Mathius? Maybe a little bit.. it’s such a fun tactic.. 😛

    Just because you are OFFENDED by the notion that America was at one time by and large a “Christian” nation and our laws and customs are a product of that heritage doesn’t mean that you need to go into such deep denial over it simply because you are offended by the concept

    First, let me say: That is a run on sentence; consider revising.

    Secondly: I’m not offended, but I do get uncomfortable when people start claiming my country for their God.. I’m sure you can understand that. I’m sure you can appreciate it through the thought experiment with an influx of Muslims claiming America as an Islamic nation.

    Similarly, America was founded by and for white people (did you happen to notice any individuals with melanin present at the Constitutional Convention?). If you didn’t like my previous Reductio ad Absurdum, try this one: does this make America a White Nation? If/when whites become a minority, will this be a Hispanic Nation? See how we can get into very uncomfortable territory here?

    Third: This was never a Christian nation – it was a nation of mostly Christians. A Christian nation recognizes an official religion. The US does not. A Christian nation makes laws based on scripture. The US (though there have been some lapses) does not. In a Christian nation, it is “correct” to be Christian and “incorrect” to be otherwise. In the US, this is not the case.

    • TexasChem says:

      What amazes me Mathius is that a lot of your personal beliefs are influenced by Judean/Christian beliefs yet you adamantly refuse to acknowledge that fact.If your beliefs were not then you would not be the person you are today my friend.

      • Mathius says:

        Ahhhhh…. well now… Judeo-Christian…. that’s not quite the same thing. Judeo-Christianity is an ethical basis, a system of morality and social norms. Judaism and Christianity are religions.

        One could expand Judeo-Christianity to include their shared religious beliefs (God, sabbath, commandments, etc), but that would be similarly incorrect as a statement of what the US is. However, in the stricter sense that it is a secular system of good-will, charity, duty, moral behavior, it is a fair and reasonable descriptor.

        I’m still not crazy about it, but it doesn’t make the hair on my neck stand up.

        • A Puritan Descendant says:

          Is there a ‘name’ for people without religion who believe in God and are 100% certain they have communicated with God through dream revelations? Please don’t say ‘NUTS’…. And of course I am not talking about me…………………….

          • Mathius says:

            Agnostic is about as close as I can come up with for that, but I don’t think they’d fit the bill for the dream communication…

            As the Metatron said: everyone who ever said they spoke to God, they were speaking to me.. or they were speaking to themselves..

            • Metatron, whoever that is, is not making a statement of fact, he is voicing his opinion.

              • Mathius says:

                He is the highest of angels (above the archangels). He is the scribe and voice of God according to some Jewish and Christian texts. According to this interpretation, God never speaks directly to men, but communicates exclusively through Metatron.

                Metatron may have been the one who stopped Abraham from sacrificing his son.

          • Common Man says:

            P;

            Spiritual

            CM

          • A Puritan Descendant says:

            Here is one dream of many >

            Just a day or two before Christmas, ‘this person’ has a dream a man knocks on the door. This man at the door reveals the State Lotto number. ‘This person’ awakes and can only remember some of the numbers. This person buys a Lottory ticket and wins a free ticket by getting I think 4 of the 6 numbers or however many numbers there were. Upon seeing the correct two missed numbers, then remembers them as the numbers from the dream.

            ‘This person’ believes he/she was never meant to remember all the numbers, but was just one of many communications with God, as God wanted this person to be sure of God’s existence.

            Many more dreams much more compelling but it gets personal to ‘this person’ and proves nothing in the end. One could argue it is the devil just as easy as God I suppose.

            Only ‘This person’ knows for sure.

            • Mathius says:

              There are many things we do not understand. Generally, I would chalk something like that to coincidence and luck. If it happens repeatedly and convincingly, I do not have a good answer, but would hesitate to jump to the conclusion that a God is behind it. (this is my personal take, others may see things differently).

              If the lottery is the only truly unpredictable event, I might suggest that this person’s unconscious is feeding him some insights. That is, if a dream suggested that a specific girl was about to show an interest, his brain may have picked up the subtle signs ahead of time. Follow? This kind of thing happens to me all the time and when I trace it back, I can see how I might have just been crunching the data in the background rather than having revelations.

              For instance, I drove to work very slowly this morning. I just felt that I should do this. Turns out there was a speed trap on my usual route. I could say I’m psychic or that God was helping me out, but I see another explanation. In hindsight, a few other drivers seemed somewhat slow (including the drivers of a few cars that are designed to go very fast). So maybe they had radar detectors, or knew about the trap from other sources (ie Trapster, etc) and I just picked up on it subconsciously. My brain told me to drive slowly – it didn’t tell me why.

              As I said, this happens to me all the time. This is how I interpret it.

              But who knows, maybe the Metatron is talking to you.

              • A Puritan Descendant says:

                Thanks for your input.

              • TexasChem says:

                Mathius,

                Perhaps you should begin wearing a tin foil hat to block those harmful rays the Aliens are broadcasting into your mind!

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      Mathius,

      You inadvertantly proved my point for me and refuted your own, thank you!

      The Nation was founded by white men who were primarily Christian or at least Deist, and this had a profound effect on the methods they used for founding the nation.

      Whether we end up with a minority of some other race or religion is IRRELEVANT, because the founding principles were put in place by white men who were Christian or at least Deist.

      So basically, no matter WHO becomes the majority, the only way to fundamentally change the nature of this country would be to fundamentally alter the nature of the founding documents or to attempt to make them largely irrelevant.

      Of course, this is precisely what some people in power are attempting to do, but they have not wholly succeeded yet 🙂

      As far as run-on sentences go, I was not aware that you were an english teacher, nor was I aware that our posts were graded for grammatical correctness.

      • “As far as run-on sentences go, I was not aware that you were an english teacher, nor was I aware that our posts were graded for grammatical correctness.” Boy, I hope not!!! I would be banned from the site. 🙂

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        Secondly Mathius,

        ACKNOWLEDGING that the founding principles came from white males who were largely Christian or Deist IS NOT EQUIVALENT TO “Claiming my country for their God”.

        First of all, it is not YOUR country, it is all of ours. We ARE a COLLECTIVE after all, no? (LOL)

        Secondly, merely stating the facts that are clearly in evidence as to the influences which affected the founders of our country has nothing whatsoever to do with “claiming the country for someone’s God.”

        • Mathius says:

          See, I disagree. As I pointed out below, Christianity is a religion – by saying we are a Christian nation, you are saying we are adherents to that religion. This is false.

          If you wish to, you could make the case that we are a nation which follows the system of ethics which has its roots in Judeo-Christianity.

          • TexasChem says:

            Or we could say that we are a nation composed of a majority of Christians that has a minority of non-Christian parasites living off the good-will of our society that has been brought about by the Judeo/Christian principles that we spoke of earlier!These parasites have infected the host to the point that the hosts good-will towards society is becoming a thing of the past and once that good-will has been used up: Hell on Earth will be let loosed!

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        OOPS,

        That should have read, “Whether we end up with a MAJORITY of some other race or religion is IRRELEVANT….”

        I need to L2Proofread 🙂

      • Mathius says:

        You have two basic means of claiming the US as a Christian nation: either it’s founding, or it’s present circumstances.

        That is:
        A. The US is a Christian nation because it was founded on and for Christianity.
        -or-
        B. The US is a Christian nation because it is currently populated mostly by Christians.

        A: As the Constitution (see: Amend. #1) is expressly designed to prohibit the establishment of a national religion, this seems like an odd claim.

        You therefore suggest that, despite the fact that they prohibited a national religion, they establish a Christian nation anyway because they, themselves, were mostly Christian. If you accept this logic, you must also accept that the US is a White nation because they were all white.

        You then suggest that the fact that they were Christian, or at least Deist, informed their moral beliefs such that they were drawn toward creating the government they did. This claim is ok so far as it goes, but it has a problem. Christianity is not a system of morals and ethics – it is a system religious doctrine. To say that we are a Christian nation is to say we are followers of the Christian RELIGION. Thus, this is an inaccurate statement. However, you could make the somewhat-awkwardly-worded claim that we are a “Nation of adherents to the system of ethics and morality in which the Christian faith is rooted” (“NOATTSOEAMIWCFIR” – for short)

        B: If you accept that the US is a Christian nation because it is populated mostly by Christians, then you must accept that it would be an Islamic nation if enough Muslims moved in. You, however, already dismissed this claim above.

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          Mathius,

          I never specifically claimed the US was a “Christian Nation”, I merely acknowledge the fact that as a Nation, we were founded by white men who were largely Christians or Deists, and this had a profound effect on their thought processes and formulation of the founding principles of the country.

          So, perhaps a better wording would be, “The United States Constitution is based upon values of a group of white men who were either Christian or Deist, and this had a strong influence in the ideas which they had and the rules they set forth at the founding of the country. Since those rules (supposedly) are still the rule of law for the country (we still have the Constitution), the United States is still based on the principles of white men who are/were Christian or Deist in their beliefs.”

          Does that clear it up for you?

          I would say that the phrase, “The United States is a Christian Nation” is not accurate. Perhaps they way I worded it makes more sense to you.

          I know you are arguing against TexasChem and others who are saying we are a “Christian Nation”. I guess I would argue against that too. I would say that we are a nation founded on principles heavily influenced by Christianity.

          • Mathius says:

            Sounds like we agree. HUZZAH!

            • Peter and Mathius

              You two forgot the values added by the Enlightenment, which is separate from those garnered from the Christian Religion.

              Oh, and that pesky little fact that they also studied and borrowed from Greek, Roman and Muslim political philosophies and systems.

              • TexasChem says:

                JaC Stated:”You two forgot the values added by the Enlightenment, which is separate from those garnered from the Christian Religion.”

                TC:I highly doubt the Enlightenment era would have come about without the freedom and ethical morality brought upon society by the influence of Judeo/Christian values JaC!Whatcha’ think bout’ them apples?

              • Tex

                I think you have a distinctly biased and distorted view of human history. Whether my perception is true is not known. All I have to go on is the stuff you post here at SUFA.

                You are correct in that the “Enlightenment” probably owes it’s name to that preceding period of Christian control we call the “Dark Ages”.

              • TexasChem,

                The “Enlightenment” came as a DIRECT RESULT of Renaissance – which was the DIRECT result of Islamic culture.

                Art, science, medicine, and education that was adopted by the “West” all came from Islamic culture.

                Some of the significant achievements Muslim philosophers included the development of a strict science of citation, the development of a method of open inquiry to disprove claims and the willingness to both accept and challenge authority within the same process; recognition that science and philosophy are both subordinate to morality, and that moral choices are prior to any investigation or concern with either; the separation of theology and law (separation of “Church” and “State”); the distinction between religion and philosophy, marking the beginning of secular thought; the beginning of a peer review process; early ideas on evolution; the beginnings of the scientific method;
                non-Aristotelian logic and the introduction of temporal modal logic and inductive logic; the beginning of social philosophy, including the formulation of theories on social cohesion and social conflict; the beginning of the philosophy of history; the development of the philosophical novel and the concepts of empiricism and tabula rasa; and distinguishing between essence and existence.

              • TexasChem says:

                Go blow smoke up someone elses butt that will believe you BF.I do not.I have been studying History as a hobby since I was twelve years old.I am now 37.

  12. Common Man says:

    Another topic

    The oil leak down in the Gulf. Does anyone know of a reputable source(s) that can answer some questions?

    – Will BP survive this whole ordeal?
    – Any accurate scientific information as to how the Gulf will be ecologically affected now and 10+ years from now?
    – Can we expect commercial fishing in the region to basically go belly-up?
    – How will this disaster effect the Deep well drilling industry throughout the US?
    – Since gas prices are going to go up, how much?
    – Has this happened before anywhere?
    – How will obama use this to his advantage?
    – How will the EPA use this to their advantage

    I’m curious and interested to see what others out there think and if anyone can recommend some links or sites that provide factual information please let me know.

    CM

    • – Will BP survive this whole ordeal?

      Yes.

      – Any accurate scientific information as to how the Gulf will be ecologically affected now and 10+ years from now?

      Zero effect.

      – Can we expect commercial fishing in the region to basically go belly-up?

      Fish don’t eat oil, so no.

      – How will this disaster effect the Deep well drilling industry throughout the US?

      It will gum it up like you can’t believe.

      – Since gas prices are going to go up, how much?

      Oil prices are going way way down….the largest drop in a decade. $69/brl.

      This will not dent anything. It is a pimple.

      Gasoline prices are determined at the refinery.

      There is a huge critical shortage in refinery capacity in the USA. This is why a drop in oil prices don’t dent gasoline prices. There is a shortage of refineries, thus a shortage of gasoline.

      – Has this happened before anywhere?

      Gulf War One.

      – How will obama use this to his advantage?

      He will use this to increase fascists policies and control more of the economy by command.

      – How will the EPA use this to their advantage

      Increase government control over everything.

      • Common Man says:

        Peter/BF

        Thanks for the info

        CM

      • BF, yes we have shortage of refineries in this country but historically refining is not the major source of income for the big oil companies. It is exploration and production. Refineries make good money during transition times when crude is either going up or down. During steady state times, refineries make very little money at least in comparison to the investment. Part of this is on purpose and goes back to the old days when there was significant tax advantages (oil depletion allowances) that made it advantageous to keep the price high at the well head. Part of it is to keep profits low to discourage independent refiners.

        Finished product for US markets is now being refined in other countries. Reliance in India has build a 750K/d refinery just for US export. There are many others around the world that blend gasoline to US EPA specifications. The US majors have given up on building plants here because of NIMBY, environmentalists, unions, regulations, workman’s comp., health insurance and many other costs that they can avoid overseas. It is often frustrating to work with these overseas “engineers” as many do not understand the fundamental chemistry that they are dealing with.

        BP will most likely survive but this spill is in one of the worst possible locations from a publicity perspective. It will generate many suites probably more than the Valdez did. BP is fortunate in one aspect, that is the only lives lost were workers not civilians in the general population. As an example of what happens to major corporations as a result of disasters, look at Union Carbide and Bhopal. As result of this “accident” in India, UC shrunk by over 60% and eventually was bought by Dow. So such incidents can cripple and kill even large companies.

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      Will BP survive this ordeal?

      Yes, they make 30 Billion per year in profits, they will be ok, although their image will be tarnished as badly or worse than Exxon after the Valdez.

      How will the gulf be ecologically effected now and 10+ years from now?

      Once the oil hits the surface of the water, 30% evaporates IMMEDIATELY. The longer it sits on the surface, the more of it evaporates. The heavier stuff sinks to the bottom of the ocean and becomes part of the sediment. Bacteria which love to eat hydrocarbons for breakfast, lunch, and dinner break alot of this stuff down. Because the rig was 40-50 miles from shore, a lot of the oil will be dissipated/broken up before ever reaching the shoreline. Some oil will reach land, and this will have a short-term effect.

      Can we expect fishing in the region to go belly-up?

      No, but we can expect significant interruptions in fishing and less product from the area for probably several years, depending on just how much damage is done to the prime breeding and fishing grounds. Assuming they get the leak fully controlled/stopped soon, this will last less than 5 years and things will return to normal, or perhaps even better than they are now. The interruption will cause some short-term economic havoc in the region though.

      How will this disaster effect the deep-well drilling industry in the US?

      There will be a halt on all new projects and a flurry of attempts at new “regulation”. The actual answer would be to drill closer to shore where the water isn’t a mile deep and the chances of such a disaster happening would be much lower, but if such a disaster DID happen much closer to shore, the ecological impact would be far more severe, so this will never happen. This will definitely stop, at least temporarily, any and all new projects of this type, and probably will cause more stringent regulations and inspections of existing projects. Interestingly, the company which runs these rigs was sited for multiple violations under the Bush administration. Under the Obama administration, they were nominated for safety awards….

      Since gas prices are going up, how much?

      Gas prices are currently going down. Due to the impending economic problems in Europe (and the problems here in the US), the dollar is rising and the projected demand for oil is falling. This is putting downward pressure on oil prices. The amount of oil from this one well is insignificant. It will not cause any change in oil prices by itself.

      Has this happened anywhere before?

      To my knowledge, this specific type of accident has not happened before.

      How will Obama use this to his advantage?

      He will use it to further push for subsidies for “clean, alternative energy”. Subsidies create economic distortions, meaning that you will pay more for energy.

      How will the EPA use this to their advantage?

      Regulate, regulate, regulate! The more regulations (laws enacted without actual legislation) that they can get into the Federal Register, the more money they will get as an agency, thus assuring their own continuation as a bureaucracy.

  13. From Arizona Utilities Commissioner: Gotta love it.

    Turn off the power to LA. Twenty Five percent of the power to Los Angeles? Cool. It will probably not happen but I like the idea. One boycott authorizes the use of another. Of course, I am sure that LA would cry foul and say that it is not fair….but that is tantamount to bringing a knife to a gunfight. Do it Arizona….please do it.

    From Charlie Daniels: Gotta love it.

    I don’t know how everybody else feels about it, but to me I
    think Hispanic people in this country, legally or illegally,
    made a huge public relations mistake with their recent demonstrations.

    I don’t blame anybody in the world for wanting to come to the
    United States of America , as it is a truly wonderful place.

    But when the first thing you do when you set foot on American soil is illegal it is flat out wrong and I don’t care how many lala land left heads come out of the woodwork and start trying
    to give me sensitivity lessons.

    I don’t need sensitivity lessons, in fact I don’t have any-thing against Mexicans! I just have something against criminals and anybody who comes into this country illegally is a criminal
    and if you don’t believe it try coming into America from a foreign country without a passport and see how far you get. What disturbs me about the demonstrations is that it’s tanta-mount to saying, “I am going to come into your country even if it means breaking your laws and there’s nothing you can do about it.”

    It’s an “in your face” action and speaking just for me, I don’t like it one little bit and if there were a half dozen pairs of gonads in Washington bigger than English peas it wouldn’t be happening.

    Where are you, you bunch of lily livered, pantywaist, forked tongued, sorry excuses for defenders of The Constitution? Have you been drinking the water out of the Potomac again?
    And even if you pass a bill on immigration it will probably be so pork laden and watered down that it won’t mean anything anyway Besides, what good is another law going to do when you
    won’t enforce the ones on the books now?

    And what ever happened to the polls, guys? I thought you folks were the quintessential finger wetters. Well you sure ain’t paying any attention to the polls this time because somewhere around eighty percent of Americans want some thing done about this mess, and mess it is and getting bigger everyday.

    This is no longer a problem, it is a dilemma and headed for being a tragedy. Do you honestly think that what happened in France with the Muslims can’t happen here when the businesses who hire these people finally run out of jobs and a few million disillusioned Hispanics take to the streets?

    If you, Mr. President, Congressmen and Senators, knuckle under on this and refuse to do something meaningful it means that you care nothing for the kind of country your children and grand-children will inherit. But I guess that doesn’t matter as long as you get re-elected.
    Shame on you.
    One of the big problems in America today is that if you have the nerve to say anything derogatory about any group of people (except Christians) you are going to be screamed at by the media and called a racist, a bigot and anything else they can think of to call you

    Well I’ve been pounded by the media before and I’m still rockin’ and rollin’ and when it comes to speaking the truth I fear not.
    And the truth is that the gutless, gonadless, milksop politicians are just about to sell out the United States of America because they don’t have the intestinal fortitude to stand up to face reality.

    And reality is that we would never allow any other group of people to have 12 million illegal in this country and turn around and say, “Oh it’s ok, ya’ll can stay here if you’ll just allow us to slap your wrist.”

    And I know that some of you who read this column are saying “Well what’s wrong with that?”
    I’ll tell you what’s wrong with it. These people could be from Mars as far as we know. We don’t know who they are, where they are or what they’re up to and the way the Congress is going we’re not going to.

    Does this make sense? Labor force you say? We already subsidize corporate agriculture as it is, must we subsidize their labor as well?
    If these people were from Haiti would we be so fast to turn a blind eye to them or if they were from Somalia or Afghanistan ?
    I think not.

    All the media shows us are pictures of hard working Hispanics who have crossed the border just to try to better their life.
    They don’t show you pictures of the Feds rounding up members of MS 13, the violent gang who came across the same way the decent folks did. They don’t tell you about the living conditions of the Mexican illegal some fat cat hired to pick his crop.

    I want to make two predictions.

    No. 1: This situation is going to grow and fester until it erupts in violence on our streets while the wimps in Washington drag their toes in the dirt and try to figure how many tons of political hay they can make to the acre.

    No 2: Somebody is going to cross that border with some kind of weapon of mass destruction and set it off in a major American city after which there will be a backlash such as this country has never experienced and the Capitol building in Washington will probably tilt as Congressmen and Senators rush to the other side of the issue.

    I don’t know about you but I would love to see just one major politician stand up and say, “I don’t care who I make mad and I don’t care how many votes I lose, this is a desperate situation and I’m going to lead the fight to get it straightened out.”
    I don’t blame anybody for wanting to come to America , but if you don’t respect our immigration laws why should you respect any others?
    And by the way, this is America and our flag has stars and stripes Please get that other one out of my face.

    God Bless America

    Charlie Daniels

  14. This means, apparently, that the inanimate object simply discharged sua sponte, independent of intentional or negligent action on the part of its owner, a fully credentialed member of the exalted “Only Ones” — as in “law enforcement and the military are the Only Ones who should be permitted to own and carry firearms.”

    Firearms in the hands of the hoi polloi, we are told, have a way of spontaneously firing and killing innocent children

    http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com/

  15. Words from the wise:

    “If you do not know what you are doing and why you are doing it, you’ll probably not know when to do what you need to do, nor why you need to do it then.”

    This one is going on my wall of great quotes, BF!

  16. TexasChem says:

    BF Stated”You have a plan – and that is a good thing.
    Land has a host of disadvantages.
    (1) You can’t take it with you.
    (2) How can you sell your land for a pair of shoes?
    However, the most important thing is you have a plan and are working your plan.
    The odds of success for you is much higher than the average “Joe”.”

    TC:I have taken my wealth and converted that wealth into material asset commodities with a much higher probability of retaining and increasing the initial investment than I ever would have with Gold at its current price.

    (1)You are right I cannot take it with me yet I can pass it along to my sons!
    (2)I don’t need to sell my land for shoes anyways.I’m a cowboy from Texas…I wear boots or go barefoot!

    My name is “Darrell”.
    “Joe” lives in the Appalachians somewhere with “Billy”,”Bob” and “Ned”!

    • A Puritan Descendant says:

      I sold solid gold krugerrands and bought land. I now have land and ‘liquid gold’ or ‘sparkling golden cider’. If a frost don’t catch my apple blossoms I will never have an excuse for being sober ever again ! 😉

  17. TexasChem says:

    @ D-13,

    Nice! 4500 head is a multi-million dollar a year operation!

    What breeds do yall run?

  18. http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001451.html

    Also check wikipedia for the “Piper Alpha” disaster.

  19. I just learned in the local paper that buried in ObamaCare is the requirement that any business purchasing more then $600 worth of goods or services from another business must file a 1099 with the IRS and the other business. This will generate a blizzard of useless paper and they wonder why jobs are going overseas.

    • Read the same thing T-Ray, seems Big Brother wants to know eveything and anything that they can tax. Sad days ahead, I feel.

      G!

  20. Allright, time to lighten up and smile. Consider all this a response to D13’s C.R.A.F.T. story yesterday . . . ;

    Children Writing About the Ocean…

    1) – This is a picture of an octopus. It has eight testicles. (Kelly, age 6)

    2) – Oysters’ balls are called pearls. (Jerry, age 6)

    3) – If you are surrounded by ocean, you are an island. If you don’t
    have ocean all round you, you are incontinent. (, age 7)

    4) – Sharks are ugly and mean, and have big teeth, just like Emily
    Richardson She’s not my friend any more. (Kylie, age 6)

    5) – A dolphin breaths through an asshole on the top of its head. (Billy, age 8)

    6) – My uncle goes out in his boat with 2 other men and a woman and pots
    and comes back with crabs. (Millie, age 6)

    7) – When ships had sails, they used to use the trade winds to cross the
    ocean. Sometimes when the wind didn’t blow the sailors would whistle to
    make the wind come. My brother said they would have been better off
    eating beans. (William, age 7)

    8) – Mermaids live in the ocean. I like mermaids. They are beautiful and
    I like their shiny tails, but how on earth do mermaids get pregnant?
    Like, really? (Helen, age 6)

    9) – I’m not going to write about the ocean. My baby brother is a lways
    crying, my Dad keeps yelling at my Mom, and my big sister has just got
    pregnant, so I can’t think what to write. (Amy, age 6)

    10) – Some fish are dangerous. Jellyfish can sting. Electric eels can
    give you a shock. They have to live in caves under the sea where I think
    they have to plug themselves in to chargers.
    (Christopher, age 7)

    11) – When you go swimming in the ocean, it is very cold, and it makes
    my willy small. (Kevin, age 6)

    12) – Divers have to be safe when they go under the water. Divers can’t
    go down alone, so they have to go down on each other. (Becky, age 8)

    13) – On vacation my Mom went water skiing. She fell off when she was
    going very fast. She says she won’t do it again because water fired
    right up her big fat ass.. (Julie, age 7)

    14) – The ocean is made up of water and fish. Why the fish don’t drown
    I don’t know. (Bobby, age 6)

    15) – My dad was a sailor on the ocean He knows all about the ocean.
    What he doesn’t know is why he quit being a sailor and married my mom.
    (James, age 7)

    If you didn’t chuckle at one of these, you need to find a better sense of
    humour.

  21. Does anyone but me have a problem with the mosques being built at or near ground zero? I missed exactly who Feisel Abdul Rauf is but he has something important to do with these mosques backs and feels that Sharia Law is the predominant law of Islam and that the Mosques at ground zero will be peaching Sharia Law. Anyone have a problem with that or am I just being paranoid about Sharia Law being practiced inthe United States.

    • Mathius says:

      Not me. I think it’s stupid, but I don’t see the problem with them preaching whatever they want wherever they want. I have no concerns about Sharia law in the US. The Muslim population is far too small (and even smaller if you only count Muslims who agree with Sharia Law) to implement that. And just because it happens to be near the WTC site doesn’t give us the right to block them from peaceful religious activity.

      The Christian equivalent of Sharia Law though… That I worry about..

      • TexasChem says:

        Saudi outlaws the practice of any religion in Saudi other than Islam.They are providing the financial backing for this Mosque.Feisel Abdul Rauf is there puppet.During the second segment of the CBS News show 60 minutes broadcast on September 30, 2001, Feisal Abdul Rauf – the alleged moderate – engaged host Ed Bradley in the following manner:

        Bradley: “Are you in any way suggesting that we in the United States deserved what happened?”

        Faisal: “I wouldn’t say that the United States deserved what happened, but United States policies were an accessory to the crime that happened.”

        Bradley: “You say that we’re an accessory? How?”

        Faisal: “Because we have been accessory to a lot of innocent lives dying in the world. In fact, in the most direct sense Osama bin-Laden is made in the U.S.A.”

        Feisal has also claimed that the essential elements of Shari’a – Islamic religious law – are embodied in the American Constitution which seems to be a naked attempt on his part to create a moral equivalency where none exists.

        “Islamic law and American democratic principles have many things in common…The framers of the Constitution wrote that they were establishing justice, ensuring domestic tranquility, promoting the general welfare and securing the blessings of liberty. In the same way, Islamic law believes that God has ordained political justice, economic justice, help for the weak and impoverished. These are very Islamic concepts.”

        Imam Feisal has assured critics that the building of a mosque – on sacred ground, soaked in the blood of innocents – is neither insensitive nor intentionally antagonistic. However when seen clearly, it’s an outrageous and blatant act of Muslim domination…a concept dredged up from the 7th century.

        That the takiyya laden Feisal and his murky group of backers are so blind as to be unable or unwilling to see the offensive nature of such a move – perhaps the most singularly insensitive and indeed warlike move that any Muslim could propose – speaks with elegant testimony to the assertion that advocates of radical Islam will not stop until both their violent as well as the stealth jihad – of which Feisal could be the poster child – is defeated.

        If this is what moderate Islam is all about perhaps a rethinking on our part of the religion’s capacity to coexist at any level with the West is in order.

        You need to understand the terrorists’ point of view
        It is this: Osama bin Laden: “Carrying out terrorism … is one of the tenets of our religion and Shari’ah…. This war is fundamentally religious…. Under no circumstances should we forget this enmity between us and the infidels. For the enmity is based on creed.”

        Hussein Massawi, former leader of Hezbollah: “We are not fighting so that you will offer us something. We are fighting to eliminate you.”

        You also need to understand what our response to it must be: It is this:
        “We shall fight on the beaches. We shall fight on the landing grounds. We shall fight in the fields, and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills. We shall never surrender!”

        What more is there to understand?

        • Mathius says:

          WTC was attacked by crazed Muslims who wish to destroy us.

          Therefore Muslims wish to destroy us.

          Muslims wish to build a mosque near the WTC site.

          Therefore this must be a part of the plan to destroy us.

          Therefore we must stop them from building the mosque.

          Did I get that right?

        • Hussein Massawi, former leader of Hezbollah: “We are not fighting so that you will offer us something. We are fighting to eliminate you.”

          *blink*

          So says a man whose region has been invaded by the self-proclaimed “Christians”….

          …I wonder what YOU’d say to the Chinese as they occupied and slaughtered Americans in the USA…

          TexasChem: “Oh joy, I bring flowers to our great oppressors…”

          …none so blind that cannot see…

          • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

            BF,

            Terrorism is generally an act of violence DIRECTED AT INNOCENT PEOPLE WHO HAVE COMMITTED NO VIOLENCE.

            As such, regardless of the JUSTIFICATION for the terrorist act, according to natural law, terrorism is EVIL, and therefore you should ABHOR it, regardless of who is committing the terrorist act or what their justification for the act was.

            Your arguments are inconsistent my friend.

            Any act of violence against non-violent men is evil.

            All actions are ultimately INDIVIDUAL; therefore you cannot say, “The United States did such-and-so in their country, so they are justified in using violence against non-violent Americans, because they must be guilty by association.”

            That just doesn’t fly.

            In order to be consistent and not contradictory, you must be against ANY AND ALL violent actions against non-violent individuals.

            I suggest you examine your logic on this subject.

            • Mathius says:

              I find his logic to be sound. He is not justifying terrorism, but only their anger at us which he finds fair given our trespass against them.

              • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

                Violating the individual rights of the innocent is NEVER FAIR Mathius,

                It might be UNDERSTANDABLE, but it is NEVER fair, and it is NEVER justifiable.

              • Mathius says:

                Again, let’s try to distinguish between cause/effect and morality. Flag has argued that it is understandable that they would be angry and that they would use immoral tactics. Neither of us condones the tactics.

                Flag and I are explaining the mindset and circumstances that cause terrorism. We are not approving of it’s use on innocents.

            • PeterB in Indianapolis

              Terrorism is generally an act of violence DIRECTED AT INNOCENT PEOPLE WHO HAVE COMMITTED NO VIOLENCE.

              No.

              Terrorism is TACTIC of warfare aimed at the psychology of your enemy.

              As such, regardless of the JUSTIFICATION for the terrorist act, according to natural law, terrorism is EVIL, and therefore you should ABHOR it, regardless of who is committing the terrorist act or what their justification for the act was.

              Of course.

              The point however is the cause is not Hezbollah – they didn’t appear out of “no reason”.

              The end of the American hegemony in the ME will naturally evaporate these groups too.

              Your arguments are inconsistent my friend.

              You are not considering them properly.

              There is a difference between
              “Acts of evil”
              (moral action)
              and

              “This act causes that act”
              (Cause and Effect)

              Any act of violence against non-violent men is evil.

              True. But that does NOT prevent us from UNDERSTANDING why some men act is that way.

              All actions are ultimately INDIVIDUAL; therefore you cannot say, “The United States did such-and-so in their country, so they are justified in using violence against non-violent Americans, because they must be guilty by association.”

              I sure can say that!!

              Just because I KNOW that acts are individual, does not erase my brain to ALSO KNOW other people avoid their responsibility.

              If a person cedes their own morals to the operators of an abstraction, then I, as a sane and smart man, will point to that abstraction AS WELL as the cause of evil.

              Knowing these people are robots – and will do whatever the operator says – then to reign in great evil, one must deal with that operator, not?

              That just doesn’t fly.

              In order to be consistent and not contradictory, you must be against ANY AND ALL violent actions against non-violent individuals.

              I suggest you examine your logic on this subject.

              • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

                BF,

                Many acts of terrorism are acts of violence by individuals against those that demonstrably do not pose a clear and present danger to the one committing the act of terrorism.

                Any act of terrorism against a force that poses a clear and present danger to the actor could be seen as being justified by Natural Rights.

                Any act of terrorism against innocent people who do not pose a clear and present danger to the actor must be rejected as evil by anyone who believes in liberty, regardless of the JUSTIFICATION.

                What you seem to be saying is that if I am killed by a terrorist even though I do not pose a clear and present danger to that terrorist, that is EXCUSABLE due to the circumstances.

                So, are you saying that violence against the non-violent is excusable depending on the circumstances?

                That seems to violate your own principles in my opinion.

              • Peter,

                Many acts of terrorism are acts of violence by individuals against those that demonstrably do not pose a clear and present danger to the one committing the act of terrorism.

                True, but that does not change the fact that it is a Tactic of war

                Whether it is a human bomb on a bus, or the fire bombing of Dresden or the nuking of Japan…

                Do NOT get crossed between what is morally justified to understanding why such action is done.

              • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

                BF,

                The thing is, there is a difference between UNDERSTANDING why humans perform an evil act, and condoning that evil act.

                Even though I understand WHY terrorism happens, my principles cause me to state that I am totally against it in all cases where the innocent are harmed, just as I am against the actions of the United States in all cases where the innocent are harmed. Thus, I am consistent.

              • Bottom Line says:

                Pete – “So, are you saying that violence against the non-violent is excusable depending on the circumstances?”

                BL – He does, but good luck getting him to admit it. I already tried to pin him down on that one.

                At least you’re getting a circular argument out of him. All I got was silence as a “more than worthy” response.

                lol

                🙂

              • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

                BF,

                Simply because I understand the CAUSE of an evil act was another evil act, that does not mean I condone EITHER evil act.

                I condone NEITHER.

                If your response to an evil act is an act of self defense, then your action is not evil.

                If your response to an act of evil is to lash out against the innocent, then your action is evil.

                You seem to be claiming that a terrorist has no choice but to lash out against the innocent because they may not have the means to lash out directly against those that did evil against them, and that somehow makes it understandable.

                Ok, fine. You can UNDERSTAND it, but that should in no way make it JUSTIFIABLE. It is patently UNJUST using the principles which you espouse.

                I do agree that the best course of action for us is to eliminate the evil being done to them in the first place. This would make it highly likely that the vast majority of them would not feel compelled to act in evil against us. I don’t disagree with that premise at all.

                To over-simplify my argument a bit, let’s say that you are a known friend of mine, and Ray is a known friend of JAC.

                I rob JAC’s house, he catches me in the act, and I murder him because he catches me in the act of robbing his house.

                Ray, being JAC’s friend, decides to seek revenge upon me for killing JAC. He looks for me, but cannot find me. However, he knows you are a friend of mine. Even though you had nothing to do with my murder of JAC, Ray finds you and kills you, since he cannot find me.

                I might UNDERSTAND why Ray killed you, but I would also understand that he committed a violent act against a non-violent man, regardless of his reason for doing so.

              • Peter,

                If someone whips and kicks a dog, why are you surprised it bites at nearly anyone around it?

              • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

                I am not surprised by that. However, Muslims are humans, and not dogs. Therefore they have the capacity to reason.

                Therefore they have a CHOICE about whether or not to violate the individual rights of the innocent.

                Unless you are saying that Muslims are no more capable of reason than a dog?

              • Peter,

                Nope. But by reason, one can determine that when a man is repeatedly injured, he will respond.

                To ignore this is foolish.

              • Bottom Line says:

                BF – “If someone whips and kicks a dog, why are you surprised it bites at nearly anyone around it?”

                BL – If a dog bites at nearly anyone around, why are you surprised someone whips and kicks it?

                …action/reaction…chicken/egg blah blah blah…

              • BL,

                Correct.

                So in all such cases, it MUST be the hegemonic power that stops FIRST

    • I have a big problem with it. It’s a deliberate “in your face” move. I’ve always wondered why, since citizens from many countries were killed in the WORLD Trade Center, that the whole world doesn’t just rise up and take care of business. They still have the blind sheik waiting for trial for cryin out loud.

      • Mathius says:

        What would you like them to do, exactly?

        • Die. Exactly. Just like the three thousand innocent civilians they murdered. End of discussion.

          • Mathius says:

            There are a billion of them. You want them all to die?

            Are you aware you’re advocating for genocide on a heretofore unimagined scale?

            • Mathius

              I don’t think G.A. was calling for genocide.

              More like divine intervention.

              • Mathius says:

                Is there a loophole in the definition of the word genocide that excludes acts of God?

                I’m so glad that he wants a billion people to die by God’s hand rather than by bombs and bullets – that is much more tolerant and moral.

              • I do not call for an act of God to eliminate the cult calling itself Islam.

              • No, JAC, I never pray for God to strike anyone down as I do not believe that is His forte. Remember the Ten Commandments?

            • That is exactly what they are trying to do to us. Don’t you think turnabout is fair play? After all, it is their cult (I refuse to call it a religion) that advocates strapping bombs on to women and children and sending them into crowds of innocent people and blowing them up.

      • Anita

        “I have a big problem with it. It’s a deliberate “in your face” move.”

        I agree with you completely.

        However, there is nothing we can or should do about it except continue watching for actual acts against us.

        Although, I think we should very vocally point out the hypocrisy of someone who supports erecting a mosque in the shadow of the WTC and then cries for the death of a cartoonist because he “disrespects” Islam.

        Deep breaths my dear, deep breaths.

    • D13.

      So perhaps you now have a sense to a fraction of the outrage that the Muslims have with US soldiers on Islamic land.

      • TexasChem says:

        Ok see this red area on this map.These ar OIC countries.Territory that Muslims now consider Islamic Territory.The Ummah Wahida.Research the history of the countries as to when, why and how, they became a part of the Ummah.Quite frankly I am sick of hearing how Islam is not still being used exactly as it was intended from its inception in the 7th century as a politically charged theocratic movement of conquest.

        http://www.infoplease.com/spot/oicstates1.html

        Now look at this map showing countries with a greater than 50% and 10% population of Muslims.Do you see a trend?

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

        Now look at this map.

        http://www.iris.org.il/sizemaps/usa.htm

        This conflict in the middle-east over the territories of Israel is completely ridiculous.Islam just does not want Israel to exist.Period.The Quran makes this point abundantly clear if you research this matter.Stop drinkn the kool-aid.

    • If you don’t support the freedom of those you despise you do not understand freedom at all.

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        Those that I despise are free to do whatever they want provided they are not creating an imposition on me 🙂

  22. TexasChem says:

    I have a problem with it.Evidently a majority of sheeple are so concerned with being politically correct that they fail to understand the supremacist ideology of Islam and to recognize that the building of a mosque at Ground Zero is viewed by Muslims as a decisive victory over the infidels in Islam’s march to establish its ultimate goal: the submission of all others to Islam and to Sharia Law!The Minarets from which the Muezzins call out to prayer at ground zero would be seen as the ultimate victory to these Islamic extremists!Who the heck do you think is funding this multimillion dollar project?You think they seek to do it to promote relations between America and the Muslim world or to assert dominance?

    I also have a serious problem with comparing Christian beliefs with Sharia Law Mathius.

    • Mathius says:

      I don’t care who’s funding it or why. As long as they practice peacefully, I will not agree with banning a religion from establishing a church/mosque/synagogue wherever they like.

      Near Ground Zero? That’s just unfortunate for people who are still sensitive to what happened.

      Advocating for Sharia Law? Fine. As long as they aren’t using violence to push it.

      Extremists will view it as a victory? So what? Why are we concerned with how they’ll view it.

      Who is funding it? You could be right that extremists are funding it in order to rub our noses in it. So what? Why does this give us the right to ban a place of worship?

      I also have a serious problem with comparing Christian beliefs with Sharia Law Mathius. I’m not comparing Christian beliefs. I’m comparing the Christian equivalent (for which I do not know a term). People always whine about the tyranny of the minority, but they should be far more concerned about the tyranny of the majority. The bible thumpers who think that the US should enforce the ten commandments, laws should be based on scripture, everyone should be Christian, etc.. this is a far more likely scenario.

      Don’t agree? Consider the debate over gay marriage: what percentage of opponents base their opposition on Leviticus? Sure, a fair number base it on tradition and other reasons, but an unhealthy amount object because God said it’s an abomination. That should set off warning bells.

      • TexasChem says:

        Mathius stated:”The Muslim population is far too small (and even smaller if you only count Muslims who agree with Sharia Law)”

        TC:Sahria Law definition:”Muslim or Islamic law, both civil and criminal justice as well as regulating individual conduct both personal and moral. The custom-based body of law based on the Quran and the religion of Islam. Because, by definition, Muslim states are theocracies, religious texts are law, the latter distinguished by Islam and Muslims in their application, as Sharia or Sharia law.”

        Now go read the Quran and Hadiths of Mohammed Mathius.While your at it research immigration into the US from Islamic countries.Come back and let me know your findings.

        • Mathius says:

          Quran, Surah 109 – Al-Kafirun:

          قُلۡ يَـٰٓأَيُّہَا ٱلۡڪَـٰفِرُونَ

          Say (O Prophet): O ye who reject faith! (1)

          لَآ أَعۡبُدُ مَا تَعۡبُدُونَ

          I worship not that which ye worship; (2)

          وَلَآ أَنتُمۡ عَـٰبِدُونَ مَآ أَعۡبُدُ

          Nor worship ye that which I worship. (3)

          وَلَآ أَنَا۟ عَابِدٌ۬ مَّا عَبَدتُّمۡ

          And I shall not worship that which ye worship. (4)

          وَلَآ أَنتُمۡ عَـٰبِدُونَ مَآ أَعۡبُدُ

          Nor will ye worship that which I worship. (5)

          لَكُمۡ دِينُكُمۡ وَلِىَ دِينِ

          Unto you your religion, and unto me my religion. (6)

          Sounds good to me.

          It is people who interpret texts. I can find plenty of violent and bloody parts of the bible to support the opinion that Christianity is a religion of violence and domination, and I can back it up with plenty of history. Likewise, I can do the same for Judaism. I’m sure if I dug, I could find it for almost any other major religion.

          Estimates of the population of Muslims in the US run from 2.5mm to 7mm, or 0.8%-2.3%. They are immigrating must slower than other groups (specifically Christian Hispanics). So I see no immediate concern of a Muslim takeover of the US.

          You are being reactionary.

          • TexasChem says:

            You do not even understand the meaning of the text you are quoting!Muslims use those verses to lie of their true intent until ready to implement their will.It is used to identify between a believer and non-believer.If you don’t believe me read this literal interpretation from an Imam.

            (109:1) Say: “O unbelievers!” *1
            *1 A few points in this verse are particularly noteworthy:
            (1)Although the Holy Prophet (upon whom be peace) has been commanded to tell this to the disbelievers plainly, the theme that follows makes it explicit that every believer should tell the disbelievers plainly what has been said in the following verses; so much so that the person who has just believed and repented of kufr is also bound to express similarly his disgust with and disapproval of the creed and rites of worship and gods of kufr. Thus, though the first addressee of the word qul (say) is the Holy Prophet (upon whom be peace) himself, the command is not restricted to him alone but it reaches every believer through him.
            (2)The word “kafir’ is no abuse, which might have been used for the addressees of this verse, but it implies the one who refuses to believe, or is an unbeliever. As against it the word “mu min” is used for the believer. Therefore, the Holy Prophet’s saying, by Allah’s command, “O disbelievers, … ‘, in fact, means: “O you, who have refused to believe in my apostleship and in the teachings brought by me.” Likewise. when a believer uses this word, it will imply those who do not believe in the Holy Prophet Mauhmmad (upon whom be Allah’s peace and blessings),
            (3) The word used is “O kafirs” and not “O muslmiks”; therefore, the addressees are not only the mushriks but all those people who do not acknowledge Muhammad (upon whom be Allah’s peace and blessings) as Allah’s Messenger and the teachings and guidance brought by him as the teaching and guidance given by Allah Himself, whether they be Jews, Christians, Zoroastrians or the disbelievers, polytheists and pagans of the entire world. There is no reason why this address be restricted to the pagans of Quraish or of Arabia only.
            (4) To address the deniers with the word “O kafirs” is just like addressing certain people as “O enemies”, or “O opponents”. Such an address is not, in fact, directed to the person of the addressee but it is made on the basis of their characteristic of enmity and opposition, and lasts only until they are so characterised. If one of them gives up enmity and opposition, or turns a friend and supporter, he no longer remains the addressee of this word. Likewise, the address of “O kafirs” to the people also is in view of their characteristic of kufr and not their person. This address would be perpetual for him who continues to be a kafir till death, but the one who believes will no longer be its addressee.
            (5) Many scholars from among the commentators have expressed the opinion that in this Surah the address of “O disbelievers” applied only to a few persons of Quraish, who were visiting the Holy Prophet (upon whom be peace) with proposals of compromise regarding religion and about whom Allah had informed His Messenger than they would not believe. They have formed this opinion for two reasons. First, that it is followed by La a `budu ma to `budun: “I do not worship him or those whom you worship” . They say that this does not apply to the Jews and Christians, for they worship AIlah. Second, that this is also followed by: wa la antum `abiduna ma a`bud “Nor are you worshippers of Him Whom 1 worship”. Their reasoning is that this statement does not apply to the people who at the revelation of this Surah were disbelievers but later believed. Both these arguments are incorrect. As for these verses, their explanation that follows will show that they do not bear the meaning which has been understood from them. Here, to point out the error of the reasoning it would be enough to say that if the addressees of this Surah were only these people, why then dces this Surah still continue to be recited when they are dead and gone from the world long long ago? And what was the need of making this Surah a part of the Qur’an permanently so that the Muslims should continue to read it for ever afterwards’?

            لَا أَعْبُدُ مَا تَعْبُدُونَ ﴿109:2﴾
            (109:2) I do not worship those that you worship *2
            *2 This includes aII those deities whom the disbelievers and the polytheists have been, and are still, worshipping everywhere in the world, whether they are the angels, the jinn, prophets, saints, spirits of the living or dead men, or the sun, the moon, stars, animals, trees, rivers, idols and imaginary gods and goddesses. One may say that the pagans of Arabia acknowledged Allah also as a Deity and the other pagans of the world also have never disacknowledged Allah as a Deity till today. As for the followers of the earlier scriptures, they also acknowledge Allah alone as the real Deity. How then can it be correct to exonerate oneself froth the worship of all the deities of all those people, without’ exception, when AIIah too is included among them? The answer is that if AIlah is worshipped along with others regarding Him as a Deity among other deities, the believer in Tauhid will inevitably express his inmunity from this worship, for in his sight Allah is oat a Deity out of a collection of deities, but He alone is the real Deity, and the worship of the collection of deities is no worship of Allah, although worship of Allah also is included in it. The Qur’an has clearly stated that Allah’s worship is only that which does not have any tinge of the worship of another and in which man makes his worship exclusively Allah’s. “And the only Command they were given, was to worship Allah, making their religion sincerely His, turning all their attention towards Him.” (Al-Bayyinah: S). This subject has been explained at many places iu the Qur’an forcefully; for example, see Au-Nisa’: 145-146, AI-A`raf :29, AzZumar: 2, 3, 11, 14, 15, A1-Mu’min: 14, 64-66. It has been further explained in a Hadith Qudsi (i.e. Divine Word revealed through the mouth of the Prophet) in which the messenger of Allah says: “Allah says: I am Self-Sufficient of the association of every associate most of all. Whoever performed an act in which he associated another also with Me, 1 am free of it, and the entire act is for him who was associated.” (Muslim, Musnad Ahmad, Ibn Majah). Thus, acknowledging Allah as one of the two, three or many gods and serving and worshipping others along with Him is, in fact, the real kufr, declaration of immunity from which is the object of this Surah.

            وَلَا أَنْتُمْ عَابِدُونَ مَا أَعْبُدُ ﴿109:3﴾
            (109:3) neither do you worship Him Whom I worship; *3
            *3 The words used are: ma a’budu. The word ma in Arabic, is generally used for lifeless or unintelligent things, and the word man for intelligent and rational beings. The question arises why has ma a `budu been used here instead of man a `budu? The commentators generally give four answers to it: (1) that ma here is in the meaning of man; (2) that ma here is in the meaning of alladhi (i.e. which or who); (3) that in both the sentences ma is in the meaning of a noun of action (masdar) and it means: “1 do not perform the kind of worship that you perform, i. e. polytheistic worship, and you do not perform the kind of worship that I perform, i.e. worship of One God;” (4) that since in the first sentence ma ta’buduna has been used, in the second ma a `budu has been used to keep the style; in both places there is only the uniformity of the word, there is no uniformity of meaning; instances of this are found elsewhere also in the Qur’an. For example, in AI-Baqarah: 194, it has been said: ‘”Therefore, if anyone transgresses a prohibition by attacking you, you may do likewise.” Obviously, to transgress likewise in retaliation is no transgression, but the word transgression (in retaliation) Gas been used only for the sake of uniformity in style. In Surah At-Taubah: 67, it has been said: “They forgot Allah, so Allah forgot them”, whereas Allah does not forget. what meant to be said is that Allah ignored them. The word nisyan in respect of AIlah has been used corresponding to their nisyaa (forgetfulness) only to keep the uniformity of the study.
            Although all these four interpretations are correct in their own way, and there is room in Arabic to take all these meanings, yet none of these explains the real object for which ma a’budu has been used instead of man a `budu. As a matter of fact, when man is used for a person in Arabic, it is meant to say or ask something about his person, and when ma is used, it is meant to ask or express something about his characteristics and traits. This can be explained in English by the questions: who is he, and what is he?, about a person. When it is asked, who is he?, the object is to know something about his person. But when it is asked, what is he?, the object is to know whether, for example, he belongs to the army, and if so, what is his rank, or whether he belongs to some teaching organisation, and if so, whether he is a lecturer in it, or a reader, or a professor, what science or art subject he teaches, what are his qualifications, etc. Thus, if in this verse, it was said: La antum abiduna man a `bud, it would mean: “You are not worshippers of the being whom I worship, and in response, the disbelievers and the polytheists could have said that they too believed in the Being of AIIah and also worshipped Him. But when it was said: La antum ‘abiduna ma a `bud, it meant: “You are not worshippers of the Deity who has the attributes of the Deity whom I worship.” And this is the real point on the basis of which the religion of the Prophet Muhammad (upon whom be Allah’s peace and blessings) is absolutely distinguish-ed from the religions of all kinds of disbelievers, besides the deniers of God, for his God is utterly different from the God of all of them. The God of some of them is such that He stood in need of rest on the seventh day after having created the world in six days, Who is not God of the universe but God of Israel, Who stands in a special relationship to the people of one particular race, which is not shared by other men, Who wrestles with the Prophet Jacob and cannot throw him, Who has also a son, named Ezra. The God of some others is father of an only son, called Jesus Christ, and He causes His son to be crucified in order to make him an atonement for the sins of others. The God of some has wife and children, but begets only daughters. The God of some assumes human form and shape and living in a human body on the earth works like men. The God of some is merely an Essence, or Cause of causes, or the First Cause, Who after giving the system of the universe the initial push is sitting aside unconcerned, the universe is working by itself according to some relentless laws, and now He and man have nothing to do with each other. In short, even the unbelievers who acknowledge God do not, in fact, acknowledge the God, Who is the Creator, . Master, Disposer, Administrator and Ruler of the entire universe, Who has not only set the system of the universe but is running and controlling it by Himself every moment, Who is above every defect, fault, weakness and error, Who is free from every similitude, every physical limitation, every likeness, Who is Self-Sufficient of every companion and associate, Who has no partner in His Being, attributes, powers and entitlement to worship, Who is far too Holy that He should have children, or should take some one for a son, or should have an exclusive relationship with a community or race, Who is directly related to each individual creature of His as His Providence, Sustainer and Guardian, Who hears the prayers and answers them, Who alone possesses all the powers to give Iife and death, to cause profit and loss, and to make and mar destinies, Who not only sustains His creatures but also guides each according to its nature and need, Who is not only our God Whom we worship but also enjoins commands and prohibitions through His Prophets and His Books, which we have to obey, before Whom we are accountable for our deeds, Who will resurrect us after death, call us to account and reward and punish us accordingly. No one in the world except for Muhammad (upon whom be Allah’s peace and blessings) and his followers, is worshipping the God with these attributes. If at alI some others also are worshipping God, they are not worshipping the real and true God but the God who is their self-invented, imaginary God.

            وَلَا أَنَا عَابِدٌ مَا عَبَدْتُمْ ﴿109:4﴾
            (109:4) nor will I worship those whom you have worshipped;

            وَلَا أَنْتُمْ عَابِدُونَ مَا أَعْبُدُ ﴿109:5﴾
            (109:5) nor are you going to worship Him Whom I worship. *4
            *4 A section of the commentators is of the view that both these sentences are a repetition of the theme of the first two sentences and the repetition is meant to strengthen the statement in the first two sentences. But many commentators do not regard it as a repetition. They say that a new theme has been expressed in these which is different from the theme of the first two sentences. In our opinion they arc correct in so far as there is no repetition in these sentences, for in these only “nor are you worshippers of Him Whom 1 worship” Gas been repeated, and this repetition also is not in the sense in which this sentence was used first. But after negating the repetition the meanings that this section of the commentators has given of these two sentenses are very different from each other. There is no occasion here to take up and discuss each of the meanings given by the conunentators. Avoiding details we shall only discuss the meaning which is correct in our opinion.
            In the first sentence, it has been said: “Nor am 1 a worshipper of chase whom you have worshipped.” Its theme is absolutely different from the theme of verse2, in which it was said: “I do not worship those whom you warship,” These two things widely differ in two aspects. First, that although there is denial, and a forceful denial, in saying that “I do not, or shall not, do such and such a thing”, yet there is much greater force in saying that “1 am not a doer of such and such a thing”, for it means: “It is such an evil thing that nothing to say of committing it; it is not possible that I would even think of it, or have intention of doing it.” Second, that the sentence “whom you worship” applies to only those gods whom the disbelievers are worshipping now. On the contrary, the sentence “whom you have worshipped” applies to aII those gods whom the disbelievers and their forefathers have been worshipping in the past. Now, it is a well known fact that the gods of the polytheists and disbelievers have always been changing and their number increasing and decreasing. In different ages different groups of them have been worshipping different gods and the gods of all the disbelievers have never always been the same everywhere. Therefore, the verse means: “I exonerate myself not only from your gods of today but also from the gods of your forefathers, and I am not a person who would even think of worshipping such gods. ”
            As for the second sentence, although its words in verse 5 are the same as in verse 3, yet its meaning at the two places is different. In verse 3, it follows this sentence: “I do not worship those whom you worship.” Therefore, it means: “Nor are you worshippers of the God having the attributes of the One God Whom I worship.” And in verse 5, it follows this sentence: “Nor am I a worshipper of those whom you have worshipped.” Therefore, it means: “Nor dces it seem you would become worshippers of the One God Whom I worship.” Or, in other words, “It is not possible that 1 should become a worshipper of each of those gods whom you and your forefathers have worshipped, and on account of your aversion to adopting worship of One God, instead of many gads, it cannot be expected that you would desist from this wrong worship and will become worshipper of Him Whom 1 worship.”

            لَكُمْ دِينُكُمْ وَلِيَ دِينِ ﴿109:6﴾
            (109:6) To you is your religion, and to me, my religion. *5
            *5 That is, “My religion is entirely distinct and separate from your religion. I am not a worshipper of your gods and you are not worshippers of my God. I cannot worship your gods and you are not prepared to worship my God, Therefore, you and I can never follow and walk one and the same path together.” This is not a message of tolerance to the disbelievers, but a declaration of immunity, disgust with and dissociation from them as long as they are disbelievers. Its object is to disappoint them absolutely and finally that in the matter of religion the party of Allah’s Messenger and his followers would ever come to terms with them. This same declaration of immunity and expression of disgust has been made in the Makki Surahs revealed after this Surah successively. Thus, in Surah Yunus, it was said: “If these people deny you, say to them: 1 am responsible for my deeds and you are responsible for yours: you are not accountable for what I do, and I am not accountable for what you do.” (v. 41). Then further on in the same Surah it was said: “O Prophet, say: O mankind, if you are still in doubt concerning my Faith, know that I do not worship those whom you worship beside Allah, but I worship that Allah alone, Who has the power to cause your death.” (v. 104). In Surah Ash-Shu’ara it was said: “If they disobey you, tell them: I am not responsible for what you do.” (v. 216). In Surah Saba it was said: “Say to them: you will not be questioned for the errors we have committed, nor shall we be answerable for what you are doing. Say, our Lord will gather us together, then He will judge between us rightly.” (w. 25-26). In Surah az-Zumar: “Tell them plainly: O my people, do whatever you will, so shall 1. Soon you shall come to know as to whom comes the disgraceful torment and who gets the enduring punishment.” (w. 39-40). Then the same lesson was taught in Madinah to aII the Muslims: “There is indeed an excellent example for you in Abraham and his companions when they said to their people plainly: `We have nothing to do with you and your gods, whom you worship beside God: we have renounced you and there has arisen between us and you enmity and hatred for ever, until you believe in Allah, the One.” (Al-Mumtahinah: 4). These continuous explanations of the Qur’an do not leave any room whatever for the doubt that the verse Lakum dims kum wa liya din dces not mean: “You may go on following your religion and allow me to follow mine”, but it is the kind of declaration made in Surah Az-Zumar: 14: “O Prophet, say to them: I shall serve Allah alone, making my religion sincerely His. As for you, you may serve whomever you please beside Him.” (v. 14).
            From this verse lmam Abu Hanifah and Imam Shafe`i have deduced that kufr (unbelief ), as a whole, is one community, however discordant and different from each other be the religions of the unbelievers; therefore, a Jew can inherit a Christian, and a Christian a Jew, and likewise the unbeliever of one religion can inherit the un-believer of another religion, if there exists between them a relationship by descent or marriage, or some other connection, which necessitates the passage of inheritance of one to another. On the contrary, Imam Malik, Imam Auza`i and Imam Ahmad hold the view that the followers of one religion cannot inherit the followers of another religion. They deduce this from the Hadith which has been related on the authority of Hadrat ‘Abdullah bin ‘Amr bin al-As, saying that Allah’s Messenger (upon whom be peace) said: “The people of two different communities cannot inherit each other.” (Musnad Ahmad, Abu Da’ud, Ibn Majah, Daraqutni). A ,Hadith with almost the same content has been related by Tirmidhi from Hadrat Jabir, by Ibn Hibban from Hadrat `Ahdullah bin `Umar, and by Bazzar from Hadrat Abu Hurairah. Dealing with this legal problem comprehensively, the well known Hanafi Imam; Shamsul-A’immah Sarakhsi, writes: “The unbelievers can inherit each other mutually for alI those reasons for which the Muslims inherit each other mutually, and they can also inherit each other in certain other cases in which the Muslims do not inherit each other … The fact is that Allah recognizes only two ways of life, the religion of Truth and the religion of falsehood; that is why He has declared: Lakum dine-kum wa liya din. And He has classified the people also into two groups, one group will go to Paradise and this consists of the believers, and the second group will go to Hell and this consists of the disbelievers collectively. And He has declared the two groups only as the potential opponents of each other: “These are the two parties who have disputed about their Lord.” (AI-Hajj: 19). That is, one group comprises all the disbelievers collectively and they are opposed to the believers … We do not admit that they are separate and distinct communities according to their beliefs, but as against the Muslims they all form one community. For the Muslims affirm faith in the apostleship of Muhammad (upon whom be Allah’s peace and blessings) and in the Qur’an and they refuse to affirm faith. For this very reason they have been declared to be unbelievers and are one community as opposed to the Muslims … The Hadith, La yata-warith ahl millatain, points to the same thing as explained above. For the Holy Prophet has explained the word millatain (two communities) by his saying: La yarithul Muslim al-kafir wa lal-kafir al-Maslim: “The Muslim cannot inherit the disbeliever, nor the disbeliever can inherit the Muslim.” (AIMabsut vol. 30, pp. 30-32). The Hadith cited here by Imam Sarakhsi has been related by Bukhari, Muslim, Nasa’i, Ahmad, Tirmidhi, Ibn Majah and Abu Da’ud on the authority of Hadrat Usamah bin Zaid.

            • Mathius says:

              5 That is, “My religion is entirely distinct and separate from your religion. I am not a worshipper of your gods and you are not worshippers of my God. I cannot worship your gods and you are not prepared to worship my God, Therefore, you and I can never follow and walk one and the same path together.” This is not a message of tolerance to the disbelievers, but a declaration of immunity, disgust with and dissociation from them as long as they are disbelievers

              Oh wow, an intolerant cleric see a message of tolerance as a statement of disgust. Shocker!

              Let’s see if we can do the same thing with Christianity, shall we? We could start with Westboro Baptist Church, or the perennial favorite Jeremiah Write.

              I don’t need to play this game with you. It is very simple. People will abuse formalized religions to suit their ends and manipulate its followers. If you can say, God has anointed me to lead you to attack His enemies, I can do whatever I want.

              Power. That’s what it’s all about. Not faith.

              • TexasChem says:

                No it is not interpretation of an intolerant cleric Mathius.The intended message from Mohammed is quite clear.If you study the history of Islam from its inception you would realize this.You are taking bits and pieces trying to make your arguement without understanding the context of the culture at the time Islam was conceptualized.

              • Mathius says:

                Gotcha.. all Muslims secretly hate the infidel and use this Sura to convince the world that they are tolerant while a few commit the actual crimes so that the rest have deniability.

                And the plain language interpretation means almost exactly the opposite.

                When Jesus said to turn the other cheek, he was giving a coded message that we should look away from and shun everyone who is different and treat them with disdain.

      • Near Ground Zero? That’s just unfortunate for people who are still sensitive to what happened

        MATHIUS, I have just lost a tremendous amount of respect for you for this comment. Have you no shame? I feel sorry for you for feeling this way.

        • Mathius says:

          I was unaware you had any respect for me to begin with.

          9/11 was a major event. I get it. It was an act of terrorism and mass murder. I get it. People are understandably upset and angry. I get it.

          Islam is not evil. Islam is a religion like any other that is manipulated and used by man to suit his ends. The Catholic church used to sponsor raids into Muslim lands to murder and pillage. Should we reach the conclusion that Catholicism is evil or that evil men used Catholicism for evil ends? The same logic holds for Islam.

          It is unfortunate what happened to the WTC. It is unfortunate that people are still upset. It is unfortunate that Muslims have opted to open a Mosque near the site. But I would like to know how you, who claim to value freedom above all else, are able to support intervening with the opening of a religious center because you find it offensive.

          • TexasChem says:

            Mathiusstated:”Islam is not evil. Islam is a religion like any other that is manipulated and used by man to suit his ends. The Catholic church used to sponsor raids into Muslim lands to murder and pillage. Should we reach the conclusion that Catholicism is evil or that evil men used Catholicism for evil ends? The same logic holds for Islam.”

            TC:It is pointless to use history to justify the actions of Islam in todays world.The present is what you should be concentrating upon.

            • Mathius says:

              Only fools disregard history.

              You write off the evil actions done under the banner of your faith because they occurred a long time ago and then paint all of Islam as evil for doing the same thing today.

              • TexasChem says:

                Mathius stated:”Only fools disregard history.”

                TC:I agree.That is why I wonder your purpose with the Ad hominem ploy to mistate my meaning.In other words:justify and disregard have two totally seperate meanings.Do not attempt to mistate my wording.

                You need to leap out of the make-believe false reality that you take shelter in.That fringe reality you depend upon will only cause you misfortune in life!

              • Cyndi P says:

                Hi TC,

                Don’t waste your time with Mathius. Like most poeple of his political persuassoin, he’ll just defend Islam more. As a young Jew, Mathius will someday experience first hand, the peacefulness of Islam and Shariah. For a preview of what awaits him he start visiting Atlas Shrugs and see what’s been happening to Jewish neighborhoods in the UK.

              • I find it intriguing that the vast majority of Muslims see Christians as brothes, yet so many so-called Christians have nothing but vile for Muslims.

              • Mathius says:

                I was wondering whee you were.. I knew you wouldn’t be able to stay away 🙂

              • Not Muslims BF. Just the radical ones hiding in between the good ones. Why won’t they just come out and fight if they want to stand on their principles?

              • Anita,

                The same reason why radical so-called Christians use other people’s children to go to die in deserts far from home.

              • HOOOOLD up BF,

                Our guys go in voluntarily.

              • They may join voluntarily, but they do not chose where they will die.

              • Ok I can’t argue with that darnit

            • When the Jews were being slaughtered by the Christians, it was the Muslims that gave the sanctuary.

              When it was the Christians being slaughtered by the Mongols, it was the Muslims that gave them sanctuary.

              To TexasChem, that makes Muslims evil.

              • TexasChem says:

                BF Stated:”When the Jews were being slaughtered by the Christians, it was the Muslims that gave the sanctuary.

                When it was the Christians being slaughtered by the Mongols, it was the Muslims that gave them sanctuary.”

                Replace the word (sanctuary) in both paragraphs with (slavery and oppression) and you will have it correct BF.

              • TC,

                So, your argument here is

                “Ignore the mass genocide by Christians – and those that give aid and defense to the helpless are evil”

          • I would like to know at exactly what point you draw a line in the sand and say enough is enough. Is the death of thousands not enough to convince you. Where do you stand up for anything? You think these people are harmless? MY God. Like I said I feel sorry for you. God created good and evil for a reason. At some point believe it or not you will have to justify yourself to him not me. In the meantime these guys will still have you in the crosshairs. Deny all you want Matt. Religious center? BWAHAHAHA. Have a nice day.

            • Mathius says:

              There are a billion Muslims 99.99% are peaceful, good, honest, hardworking and tolerant. They are men and women you would be happy to call friend and neighbor.

              But there are so few in the US that you don’t see them and it’s easy to lump them all together. The ones who make the news are not the good ones. So you see only one group and no subsets. And you paint them all with the same brush.

              Tell me, what is your master plan to fight the evil scourge that is Islam?

              • @$$#@^$#@()**)(+&%$%^#$@#@%*^*&^%&%$#$#@&^&^(*&^&^%$#@&^&**

                Any questions?

              • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

                Mathius,

                Please verify the accuracy of your figure that 99.99% of all Muslims are peaceful. Sounds like a PDOOMA to me!

                (Everyone Google the acronym PDOOMA if you are not already familliar with the term, you will enjoy the definition!)

              • Mathius says:

                It is sir. Directly.

              • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

                🙂

            • Ray Hawkins says:

              So what is the answer Anita? Be specific please.

              • Anything except stand around making excuses and getting killed in the meantime.

                It’s on you Ray. Specifically.

              • Ray Hawkins says:

                I didn’t draw a line in the sand Anita – you did.

                Stop the cowardice and tell us what you really mean.

              • Ray gimmie a freakin break. I have already told you I don’t have the answers all I know is there is trouble ok.

                Pick on someone your own size.

                Oh that’s right you ONLY pick on females I have noticed

              • Ray Hawkins says:

                My apologies Anita – I figured that melded into the emotional rhetoric you actually had an idea of what you were saying. You’re painting a portrait that from the cause of the atrocities of 9/11 some line in the sand must be drawn – so a “they” that you refuse to identify or quantify, that has all of us in some cross-hairs and should be seen as evil should have “something” or anything done to them.

                I’d offer the suggestion Anita that if you’re not willing to think some positions through, and be prepared to be challenged on them, then read some more, ingest/chew some more, take some long walks and think things through. There are thousands of other blogs out there full of emotional wind up toys that end debates with things like go “pick on someone your own size”.

              • And you also have no answer.

                So maybe you should take your own advice.

                Maybe you are right. I’M OUT

              • Ray Hawkins says:

                You haven’t posed me a question Anita.

      • TexasChem says:

        Mathius stated:”The bible thumpers who think that the US should enforce the ten commandments”

        TC:THE TEN COMMANDMENTS
        1. Do not worship other gods.
        2. Do not worship idols.
        3. Do not misuse God’s name.
        4. Keep the Sabbath holy.
        5. Honor your father & mother.
        6. Do not murder.
        7. Do not commit adultery.
        8. Do not steal.
        9. Do not lie.
        10. Do not covet.

        Those who take the time to study the commandments find they’re not a list of “Do nots,” but are in fact God’s guide to the good life—a life full of blessings. That’s why the Bible calls them “the royal law” and “the law of liberty.”

        There’s much more to these commandments than meets the eye. They’re not just God’s way of preventing us from having a good time.

        The commandments are designed to protect us, our families and our communities.

        They’re a guide to transforming the way we think, what we do and how we live.

        John Adams (also known as “The Atlas of Independence”) wrote to his wife Abigail in 1775: “Statesmen may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is Religion and Morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand.

        A patriot must be a religious man.” Thomas Jefferson, who disagreed with Adams on so many points of policy, clearly concurred with him on this essential principle. “God who gave us life gave us liberty,” he wrote in 1781. “And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the Gift of God?”

        • Mathius says:

          Those aren’t the commandments listed in the bible. I touched upon this a while back, but those are actually just a standardized subset – taken out and cleaned up for modern consumption.

          But let’s just go with it for now:
          1. Do not worship other gods. Who are you to tell me what I can and cannot worship? Sounds like a theocracy to me.
          2. Do not worship idols. See #1
          3. Do not misuse God’s name. Goddamnit, I will speak however I want. See the 1st Amendment.
          4. Keep the Sabbath holy. No thanks. I like to work when I want to work. Further, I dislike not being able to buy booze on Sundays.
          5. Honor your father & mother. What if they haven’t earned it? You would legally obligate to to honor someone who was an awful parent?
          6. Do not murder. OK, sure, I can get behind this one
          7. Do not commit adultery. Generally a good idea, but I don’t see why you should be able to make it illegal for me to do so. (note however that #6 would not stop my wife if I violated #7)
          8. Do not steal. Sure.
          9. Do not lie. See 1st Amendment. How should husbands around the world respond when asked “does this dress make me look fat”?
          10. Do not covet. Coveting makes the economy go round. Keeping up with the Jones’ is a major pillar of the modern economy.

          Doesn’t see like a good idea to me..

          I should add: you can pitch the ones I support without appeal to divine authority.

          • TexasChem says:

            Mathius stated”1. Do not worship other gods. Who are you to tell me what I can and cannot worship? Sounds like a theocracy to me.
            2. Do not worship idols. See #1″

            TC:This belief is for those who follow christian doctrine.It is not forced upon someone.Within christian beliefs this promotes the growth of society by repressing dissent in a non-violent way.In other words if a society had a belief in multiple gods then there would be constant bickering that could lead to violent behavior.

            Mathius stated:”3. Do not misuse God’s name. Goddamnit, I will speak however I want. See the 1st Amendment.”

            TC:Perhaps you should develop your vocabulary further, the English language is such a masterful tool of expression, why would one choose to dilute it with directionless obscenities?

            I find that when I hear others swear, they simply sound unintelligent, non-educated and common! As satisfying swearing can potentilly be to one who is frustrated, angry or upset, I consider that giving up swearing would be a far more empowering, enlightening personal development in light of the other avenues of expression.

            Mathius stated:”4. Keep the Sabbath holy. No thanks. I like to work when I want to work. Further, I dislike not being able to buy booze on Sundays.”

            TC:God woos us to rest so we can find our worth in who we are, not what we do.Family time.Time with friends.Time to philosophize.Social gatherings.

            Mathius stated:” 5. Honor your father & mother. What if they haven’t earned it? You would legally obligate to to honor someone who was an awful parent?”

            TC: “A wise son heeds his father’s instruction, but a mocker does not listen to rebuke.”
            Obeying parents goes hand in hand with honoring them. That includes listening, heeding, and submitting to their authority. After children mature, the obedience that they learned as children will serve them well in honoring other authorities and fellow peers!
            While we are required to honor parents, that doesn’t include imitating ungodly ones. If a parent ever instructs a child to do something that clearly contradicts God’s commands, that child must obey God rather than his/her parents.

            Mathius stated:”9. Do not lie. See 1st Amendment. How should husbands around the world respond when asked “does this dress make me look fat”?
            10. Do not covet. Coveting makes the economy go round. Keeping up with the Jones’ is a major pillar of the modern economy.”

            TC:Lies are morally wrong for two reasons. First, lying corrupts the most important quality of my being human: my ability to make free, rational choices. Each lie I tell contradicts the part of me that gives me moral worth. Second, my lies rob others of their freedom to choose rationally. When my lie leads people to decide other than they would had they known the truth, I have harmed their human dignity.To value ourselves and others as ends instead of means, we have perfect duties (i.e., no exceptions) to avoid damaging, interfering with, or misusing the ability to make free decisions.

            By prohibiting covetousness, God reveals that he does not want it to be a motive for action found in the hearts of his followers.

            Desires motivated by greed and covetousness are wrong and the opposite of godly qualities like peace and contentment. Contentment is important for it allows a person to be free and able to treat his neighbor as he himself would wish to be treated. It is discontented people who use others as tools for their own personal gain, which is contrary to God’s law and what Jesus modeled for his followers.

            So you see Mathius, if you actually take these cleaned up standardized subsets and put a bit of thought into the underlying implications they have within them as to their meaning in society they become quite beneficial to mankind do they not?Think about it.

            • Mathius says:

              I’ve thought about it and made a decision.

              If you want to pass a law that binds me, you must do so in a secular manner that does not rely on any variation of the argument “because God said so.”

              Some of what you’ve said is good, but we are not a theocracy (or are we??) and I will not submit to writing laws based on scripture. Logic is just fine, thank you.

              Adding, and where does this stop? Blue laws prohibit the selling of alcohol on Sundays. What’s next, closing all businesses on Sunday? And then mandating family time? How about church attendance? And mandated tithing? Next stop is the rounding up of heretics. This is far more worrisome and plausible for the US than Sharia Law.

              Sinclair Lewis: When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in a flag and holding a cross.

              • TexasChem says:

                A philologus fossor est magis stultus quam an ignarus fossor.

              • Okay am I gonna have to start a discussion on whether or not English should be the official language of the US- 🙂 Translation please

              • Meant the official language of SUFA 🙂

              • My thoughts-1. we should not pass laws based on the Bible-theocracies are dangerous but please do not tie every argument you disagree with to the Bible as a means to discredit the argument.
                2. If I want freedom of religion I must give that same freedom to everyone else.
                3. The founding Fathers IMO felt faith brought along with it a moral base that helped counteract the negative in man so it was good for society but they were against any establishment of a particular religion.
                4. We would be stupid to ignore the present day treat of the Muslim extremist but we need to remember our history and never again use our anger and fear to repeat our past mistake. Ex. the rounding up of Japanese citizens.

              • Mathius says:

                Thanks, V. Agree 100%

                On an unrelated note: what in world are you aliens doing with turning the sky red??

              • Don’t know-missed the last meeting must tune into HULU to get an update.

              • OK VH, I am NOT trying to be a grammar police, but just want to clarify in your #4, you mean “modern day THREAT”, not “TREAT”

              • You are right-thanks for pointing that out gives the statement a whole diffirent meaning. Yikes 🙂

              • SK Trynosky Sr/. says:

                Lewis had it wrong. When Fascism comes to America it will be Athiestic, Darwinian and Socialist.

                I liked “It Can’t Happen Here”, when I first read it forty years ago but even then I knew he was wrong.

                To give you my favorite example, while Tail Gunner Joe did a lot of damage to some people, the people he castigated and opposed have destroyed many more careers and lives by hurling indiscriminate charges of “McCarthyite”.

                Hell, No less a person than Bill Buckley used to have the charge thrown at him almost weekly for his entire career.

                Even today if you say McCarthyite, people take you seriously but if I call a friggin Communist a Communist at the least I get laughed at. Go Figure?

        • Ray Hawkins says:

          @TexasChem – So I get this right:

          “A patriot must be a religious man”

          Therefore a patriotic man must be religious

          If I am not religious (according to TexasChem’s definition) then I cannot be patriotic

          We aren’t really free at all are we TexasChem? Nor do you want us to be do you?

          • TexasChem says:

            The mans point was without religion as a moral compass man tends to not have the necessary beliefs and values to govern justly.

            • Ray Hawkins says:

              And you’re saying that you believe in that TexasChem?

              • TexasChem says:

                I am saying that I believe that the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth can be likened to the needle in the compass that can set us upon the correct path towards a moral and ethical existence within the brotherhood of man.

              • TexasChem,

                Then you tell me what teaching he had that said you should demonize other religions.

              • TexasChem says:

                I am not demonizing anything.I am pointing out legitimate concern based upon factual evidence.

                If you were walking across a field in Jurassic Park and I was up in a tree(since I talked you into going for help)I would keep a sharp eye out for danger.If I saw 10 raptors running towards you…I would yell out the danger to you.I would then pray for you!And if you actually made it back to the tree I would jump down and help you!

            • Ray Hawkins says:

              Using religion as its moral compass on how to govern justly, the Vatican (a recognized State) has institutionalized criminal behavior and enabled crooks like Bernard Law to escape prosecution and go sit in Vatican City. Didn’t need to scoot back hundreds of years for that example.

            • A man who depends on others to give him his moral compass will be easily deceived and led astray to do great evil in the name of some God.

  23. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    To anyone who is SURE that gold is going to eventually, at some time, fall back to $400 per ounce, therefore making purchase of gold at $1200 per ounce a dumb thing to do:

    In order for gold to fall to $400 per ounce, three things would have to happen:

    1. The value of a dollar RELATIVE TO GOLD would have to rise significantly.

    2. People’s faith in governments and in the fiat currency which is created by those governments would have to rise significantly.

    3. Worldwide demand for gold would have to fall significantly.

    Since I do not see ANY of those things (much less all three of those things) happening any time soon, it is a buyer’s market at the current price.

    Another thing to keep in mind. There are millions and milloins of little pieces of paper floating around the globe that say, “I promise to deliver you X amount of gold on demand”. The sum-total of the gold represented by all of those pieces of paper FAR EXCEEDS THE ACTUAL SUPPLY OF GOLD. This is yet another significant reason that gold is WAY underpriced. If even 25% of the people holding these little scraps of paper were to demand actual physical delivery, the price of gold would go up by a factor of 5 to 10 times the current price IMMEDIATELY.

    Those are the reasons why $400 gold is MOST LIKELY a thing of the past.

    Certainly, I am not saying that $400 gold is IMPOSSIBLE (anything is theoretically possible), but a careful analysis of all current factors says that $1200 is probably STILL a reasonable price to be buying physical gold, in spite of the fact that the price was only $250 only 15 years ago or so. A lot has changed in that 15 years, and those changes which caused gold to go up appear to be ACCELERATING rather than reversing, so you do the math!

  24. A Puritan Descendant says:

    A quick thought here, I wonder if “freedom of religion”, when stated by America’s founders, was assumed as freedom of religion within Christianity with little thought put into religions outside of Christianity?

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      As a Puritan Descentdant it is natural that you would be curious about that, since the Puritans came here to escape religious persecution.

      However, Christianity was not the only source for the ideas which the founders used in formulating the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution, and other papers at the time. It seems pretty clear (to me anyway) that they were well aware of other religious systems/beliefs in the world and were probably aware that these would eventually be present within the United States. I don’t have any concrete proof of that without doing more research than I am inclined to do right now, but I am pretty sure it is safe to say that the founders were pretty aware of the rest of the world and many studied both history and current world events of their time pretty closely.

      • A Puritan Descendant says:

        I don’t know, they did drink a lot of cider, they may have gotten careless.

    • Absolutely.

      The founders were very aware at the prosperity the Moor’s had with the religious freedoms in that Spanish era. It set the foundation that allowed Spain to become the first global superpower. Under the Islamic Moor’s, Spain became the center of knowledge for Europe.

      Further the consequences of 30 years War of Europe still fresh in their minds where millions died over religion. They did not want a repeat in America.

      • TexasChem says:

        Hah! Tell me exactly what era in a timeframe date you are referring to here BF.

        • I do not understand your question, TexasChem.

          The damage that the wars of the Reformation did on the psyche of Europe STILL haunts their culture.

          The Founders were well learned to understand how great the extent of the slaughter of men that happens when mere religion is the purpose.

          • TexasChem says:

            BF Stated:”understand how great the extent of the slaughter of men that happens when mere religion is the purpose.”

            TC:And yet you defend Islam as some religion of peace when nothing could be further from the truth.How hypocritical.

            • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

              Islam could be defended as a religion of peace if and only if all acts of violence in the name of Allah were in direct response to all acts of violence in the name of God.

              If you wish to correctly damn the Christians and exonerate the Muslims, you must prove that in each case the Christians “started it”, at least in my opinion.

              I strongly suspect that historically speaking both Christianity and Islam have been used as the justification of evil acts, as well as many of the other religions of the world.

            • In the entire history of Islam, the slaughter that may have been done in their religious name is a minute fraction of the slaughter done by Christians in their name.

              I do not “defend” Islam – I resist the polarization and incitement of evil upon a people based on their religion.

              • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

                I pretty much agree with that, although your statistics on which religion has killed more innocent people is a PDOOMA.

                It is possible that Christians have killed more people than Muslims have, although I am not sure of the relative percentages. Christianity has been around several hundred years longer than Islam, so the odds are Christians probably have killed more people in the name of religion than Muslims have, but I would have to see actual numbers in order to declare your contention of “an insignificant fraction” to be true.

                Of course, you define the United States as a “Christian Puritanical Theocracy”, so by your definition, any killing done by the United States would be “in the name of God”. I do not agree with that definition, but I do agree that using that definition, your math is probably right.

              • Peter,

                It is a matter of historical record and fact.

                Christians invented Holy War

              • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

                I am pretty sure the Jews invented the Holy War before the Christians… Joshua “fit” the battle of Jherico long before Jesus was born 🙂

              • The babylonians spared no haters of Dagon either.

          • TexasChem says:

            See here we go again with you jumping centuries to make a false statement praising Islam.

            In 711 AD, the now Islamic Moors conquered Visigothic Christian Hispania. Under their leader, a general named Tariq ibn-Ziyad, they brought most of Iberia under Islamic rule in an eight-year campaign. They moved northeast across the Pyrenees Mountains but were defeated by the Frank Charles Martel at the Battle of Poitiers in 732 AD.From 790AD to sometime in the 1300s’AD Islam held Spain under its rule.Until gradually forced out of Europe.

            The Reformation wars lasted from 1517 to 1648 and was mostly protestant upon catholic.

            How did the Reformation wars have anything to do with the Islamic conquest of Spain, which is EXACTLY what your prosperity of the Moors in Spain was.A conquest.Spain did not become a superpower until after the marriage of Ferdinand II of Aragon and Isabella I of Castile, the Catholic Monarchs in 1469AD.

  25. Cyndi P says:

    USW, Jon, G.A. Rowe and anyone else with a blog,

    Have ya’ll heard of the DISCLOSE Act?

    http://www.redstate.com/amymiller/2010/05/19/creeping-progressivism/

    • Looks like we heard about it at just about the same time ! 🙂

      • Cyndi P says:

        I saw that. If my connection weren’t so slow, our posts would have been much closer in time. Great minds, girl!

        🙂

  26. Cyndi P says:

    Not a question of IF, but a matter of WHEN, I guess…

    http://www.shtfplan.com/headline-news/the-die-has-been-cast_05202010

  27. TexasChem says:

    BF Stated:”to go to die in deserts far from home.”

    TC:Lop off the head of the serpent and you kill the rest of the body.

  28. From Cafe Hayek:

    Woody Allen thinks that “It would be good … if he [Barack Obama] could be a dictator for a few years because he could do a lot of good things quickly.”

    Contrast Mr. Allen’s fetish for political strongmen with Milton Friedman’s attitude. When asked by an interviewer what he (Friedman) would do if he (Friedman) were dictator for a day, this great and good man answered “I don’t like dictators…. If we can’t persuade the public that it’s desirable to do these things, we have no right to impose them even if we had the power to do it.” (Friedman gives this response starting at about the 24:20 mark in this taped interview.

    Correct or incorrect, right or wrong, wise or foolish, informed or ignorant, smart or stupid, insightful or benighted – classical liberals and libertarians have none of the fetish for power that infects the minds and souls of so many people on the political left. And this fact alone goes a very long way to recommending classical liberalism (or libertarianism) over alternative ideologies. Indeed, fear of concentrated power – and the recognition that power is never remotely as concentrated or as dangerous as when it is in the hands of the state – might well be the single most important reason why persons become classical liberals or libertarians. (and Black Flags)

  29. TexasChem says:

    Reposting this in its own frame.

    Ok see this red area on this map.These ar OIC countries.Territory that Muslims now consider Islamic Territory.The Ummah Wahida.Research the history of the countries as to when, why and how, they became a part of the Ummah.Quite frankly I am sick of hearing how Islam is not still being used exactly as it was intended from its inception in the 7th century as a politically charged theocratic movement of conquest.

    http://www.infoplease.com/spot/oicstates1.html

    Now look at this map showing countries with a greater than 50% and 10% population of Muslims.Do you see a trend?

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

    Now look at this map.

    http://www.iris.org.il/sizemaps/usa.htm

    This conflict in the middle-east over the territories of Israel is completely ridiculous.Islam just does not want Israel to exist.Period.The Quran makes this point abundantly clear if you research this matter.Stop drinkn the kool-aid.

  30. Cyndi P says:

    Anita,

    Check your email 😉

  31. I really don’t understand the purpose behind arguing about which religion has done the most harm throughout history. We all know that any organization can be perverted by the acts of man. Are any of us ready to take away individual peoples rights based on what others have done?

    • TexasChem says:

      My arguement is not against which religion has done the most harm throughout history.My arguement is against the religion that is doing harm in our present modern times.That, and not stating the true historical nature of events.
      Those that defend the harm are trying to use historical examples to justify the existence of a worldwide cult that has already become a direct influence upon freedom and liberty in my country and will grow worse if given free reign.

      • TexasChem,

        Then your first and primary job should be facing the evil of those that say they are Christian but are barbarians.

        You “fix” Christians first, and I guarantee, the rest will be much better too.

        • TexasChem says:

          @-BF,

          How about Islamic Ummah Wahida just being content with their share of the world and stop encroaching into western civilization?

          You face the evil of Islam and see if you can “fix” them I’ll speak to the mean ole’ christian ladies in my church and see if I can get them to stop criticizing Islam for their oppression of women!

          • TexasChem

            Islamic Ummah Wahida just being content with their share of the world and stop encroaching into western civilization

            Utterly bizarre statement made by an American as his country invaded two Middle Eastern nations and threatens a third….

  32. Cyndi P says:
  33. Cyndi P says:

    ****ALERT****

    I just tried to terminate one of my 401ks with Vanguard. Seems my plan has been “temporarily disallowed termination transactions”.

    What the hell is going on??!!! (this is a rhetorical question)

  34. Sorry, hit and run post. Don’t we have 30,000 US troops standing in between these guys? I hope our fearless leader is paying attention. from UK Gardian

    North Korea threatens South over report on sinking of warship

    Pyongyang dismisses finding that it torpedoed navy ship and says it will wage ‘all-out war of justice’ if punished

    Investigators blame North Korea for sinking of navy ship Link to this video

    Tensions between North and South Korea escalated dramatically today following the publication of an international report which concluded that a South Korean warship was sunk by a torpedo from a North Korean submarine in March. The report by civilian and military investigators, who worked with experts from countries including Britain, said there was “no other plausible explanation” for the sinking of the Cheonan, which caused the deaths of 46 sailors.

    But the findings prompt as many questions as they answer for Seoul, which has limited options in response.

    Pyongyang again denied involvement, dismissing the South’s findings as a fabrication and threatening to wage “all-out war” if punished. Such hawkish comments are common in its disputes.

    The South Korean president, Lee Myung-bak, vowed to take stern action against the North and the White House described the attack as an act of aggression that challenged international peace and security.

    The British foreign secretary, William Hague, said the UK and others would work closely with Seoul on an appropriate multilateral response.

    But China – North Korea’s main ally and a permanent member of the security council – said it was still assessing the investigation results.

    • Cyndi P says:

      Dear Leader is probably preoccupied with the financail collapse his brillant policies are contributing to.

  35. Judy Sabatini says:

    Hey, all, this was just sent to me and I thought I would share with all of you.

    Hope everybody is doing good today.

    Subject: What are the rules?>>
    >>
    >>I was in my neighborhood restaurant this morning and was seated
    >>behind a group of jubilant individuals celebrating the successful
    >>passing of the recent health care bill. I could not finish my
    >>breakfast. This is what ensued:
    >>
    >>They were a diverse group of several races and both sexes. I heard
    >>the young man exclaim, “Isn’t Obama like Jesus Christ? I mean,
    >>after all, he is healing the sick.” The young woman
    >>enthusiastically proclaimed, “Yeah, and he does it for free. I
    >>cannot believe anyone would think that a free market would work for
    >>health care. They are all crooks and thieves and don’t deserve all
    >>of that money.” Another said, ‘The stupid Republicans want us all
    >>to starve to death so they can inherit all of the power. Obama
    >>should be made a Saint for what he did for those of us less
    >>fortunate.” At this, I had had enough.
    >>
    >>I arose from my seat, mustering all the restraint I could find, and
    >>approached their table. “Please excuse me; may I impose upon you
    >>for one moment?” They smiled and welcomed me to the
    >>conversation. I stood at the end of their table, smiled as best I
    >>could and began an experiment.
    >>
    >>”I would like to give one of you my house. It will cost you no
    >>money and I will pay all of the expenses and taxes for as long as
    >>you live there. Anyone interested?” They looked at each other in
    >>astonishment. “Why would you do something like that?” asked a young
    >>man, “There isn’t anything for free in this world.” They began to
    >>laugh at me, as they did not realize this man had just made my
    >>point. “I am serious, I will give you my house for free, no money
    >>what so ever. Anyone interested?” In unison, a resounding “Hell
    >>Yeah” fills the room.
    >>
    >>”Since there are too many of you, I will have to make a choice as to
    >>who receives this money free bargain.” I noticed an elderly couple
    >>was paying attention to the spectacle unfolding before their eyes,
    >>the old man shaking his head in apparent disgust. “I tell you what;
    >>I will give it to the one of you most willing to obey my
    >>rules.” Again, they looked at one another, an expression of
    >>bewilderment on their faces. The perky young woman asked, “What are
    >>the rules?” I smiled and said, “I don’t know. I have not yet
    >>defined them. However, it is a free home that I offer you.” They
    >>giggled amongst themselves, the youngest of which said, “What an old
    >>coot. He must be crazy to give away his home. Go take your meds,
    >>old man.” I smiled and leaned into the table a bit further. “I am
    >>serious, this is a legitimate offer.” They gaped at me for a moment.
    >>
    >>”Hell, I’ll take it you old fool. Where are the keys?” boasted the
    >>youngest among them. “Then I presume you accept ALL of my terms
    >>then?” I asked. The elderly couple seemed amused and entertained
    >>as they watched from the privacy of their table. “Oh hell
    >>yeah! Where do I sign up?” I took a napkin and wrote, “I give this
    >>man my home, without the burden of financial obligation, so long as
    >>he accepts and abides by the terms that I shall set forth upon
    >>consummation of this transaction.” I signed it and handed it to the
    >>young man who eagerly scratched out his signature.
    >>
    >>”Where are the keys to my new house?” he asked in a mocking tone of
    >>voice. All eyes were upon us as I stepped back from the table,
    >>pulling the keys from pocket and dangling them before the excited
    >>new homeowner.
    >>
    >>”Now that we have entered into this binding contract, witnessed by
    >>all of your friends, I have decided upon the conditions you are
    >>obligated to adhere from this point forward. You may only live in
    >>the house for one hour a day. You will not use anything inside of
    >>the home. You will obey me without question or resistance. I
    >>expect complete loyalty and admiration for this gift I bestow upon
    >>you. You will accept my commands and wishes with enthusiasm, no
    >>matter the nature. Your morals and principles shall be as
    >>mine. You will vote as I do, think as I do and do it with blind
    >>faith. These are my terms. Here are your keys.” I reached the keys
    >>forward and the young man looked at me dumb founded.
    >>
    >>”Are you out of your freaking mind? Who would ever agree to those
    >>ridiculous terms?” the young man appeared irritated. “You did when
    >>you signed this contract before reading it, understanding it and
    >>with the full knowledge that I would provide my conditions only
    >>after you committed to the agreement.” was all I said. The elderly
    >>man chuckled as his wife tried to restrain him. I was looking at a
    >>now silenced and bewildered group of people. “You can shove that
    >>stupid deal up you’re a** old man, I want no part of it” exclaimed
    >>the now infuriated young man. “You have committed to the contract,
    >>as witnessed by all of your friends; you cannot get out of the deal
    >>unless I agree to it. I do not intend to let you free now that I
    >>have you ensnared. I am the power you agreed to. I am the one you
    >>blindly and without thought chose to enslave yourself to. In short,
    >>I am your Master.” At this, the table of celebrating individuals
    >>became a unified group against the unfairness of the deal.
    >>
    >>After a few moments of unrepeatable comments and slurs, I revealed
    >>my true intent. “What I did to you is what this administration and
    >>congress did to you with the health care legislation. I easily
    >>suckered you in and then revealed the real cost of the
    >>bargain. Your folly was in the belief that you can have something
    >>you did not earn; that you are entitled to that which you did not
    >>earn; that you willingly allowed someone else to think for
    >>you. Your failure to research, study and inform yourself permitted
    >>reason to escape you. You have entered into a trap from which you
    >>cannot flee. Your only chance of freedom is if your new Master
    >>gives it unto you. A freedom that is given can also be taken away;
    >>therefore, it is not freedom.” With that, I tore up the napkin and
    >>placed it before the astonished young man. “This is the nature of
    >>your new health care legislation.”
    >>
    >>I turned away to leave these few in thought and contemplation and
    >>was surprised by applause. The elderly gentleman, who was clearly
    >>entertained, shook my hand enthusiastically and said, “Thank you
    >>Sir, these kids don’t understand Liberty these days.” He refused to
    >>allow me to pay my bill as he said, “You earned this one, it is an
    >>honor to pickup the tab.” I shook his hand in thanks, leaving the
    >>restaurant somewhat humbled, and sensing a glimmer of hope for my
    >>beloved country.

  36. What the hell is wrong with this country? So we allow Calderon to speak in front of Congress and he proceeds to bash the US/AZ law and members of the Dem party stand and cheer for him? How absolutely sickening. Nothing less than treason, for each and every person that stood and clapped there today. To defend a foreign president on our soil vs. standing with one of our own states is absolutely appalling.

  37. A Puritan Descendant says:

    http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:pZxd15KB7HgJ:nepacrossroads.com/about12104.html+%22freedom+of+religion+within+christianity%22&cd=6&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

    Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting “Jesus Christ,” so that it would read “A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;” the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination.

    -Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography, in reference to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom

    • A Puritan Descendant says:

      I was little surprised to get hits by googling in quotes “Freedom of religion within christianity”

  38. Subject: American working in Mexico .

    Received this from a friend who worked in Mexico and had to jump thru all kinds of hoops—If you think Arizona new law is bad, compare – ;
    From the other side of the fence…
    Received the following from Tom O’Malley, who was a Director with S.W. BELL in Mexico City :

    “I spent five years working in Mexico . I worked under a tourist Visa for three months and could legally renew it for three more months. After that you were working illegally. I was technically illegal for three weeks waiting on the FM3 approval.

    “During that six months our Mexican and U.S. attorneys were working to secure a permanent work visa called a ‘FM3’. It was in addition to my U.S. passport that I had to show each time I entered and left the country. Barbara’s was the same, except hers did not permit her to work.

    “To apply for the FM3, I needed to submit the following notarized originals (not copies):
    1. Birth certificate for Barbara and me.
    2. Marriage certificate.
    3. High school transcripts and proof of graduation.
    4. College transcripts for every college I attended and proof of graduation.
    5. Two letters of recommendation from supervisors I had worked for at least one year.
    6. A letter from the St. Louis Chief of Police indicating that I had no arrest record in the U.S. and no outstanding warrants and, was “a citizen in good standing”.
    7. “Finally, I had to write a letter about myself that clearly stated why there was no Mexican citizen with my skills and why my skills were important to Mexico . We called it our ‘I am the greatest person on Earth’ letter. It was fun to write.”

    “All of the above were in English that had to be translated into Spanish and be certified as legal
    translations, and our signatures notarized. It produced a folder about 1.5 inches thick with English on the left side & Spanish on the right.”

    “Once they were completed Barbara and I spent about five hours, accompanied by a Mexican attorney, touring Mexican government office locations and being photographed and fingerprinted at least three times at each location, and we remember at least four locations where we were instructed on Mexican tax, labor, housing, and criminal law and that we were required to obey their laws or face the consequences. We could not protest any of the government’s actions or we would be committing a felony. We paid out four thousand dollars in fees and bribes to complete the process. When this was done we could legally bring in our household goods that were held by U.S. Customs in Laredo , Texas . This meant we had rented furniture in Mexico while awaiting our goods. There were extensive fees involved here that the company paid.”

    “We could not buy a home and were required to rent at very high rates and under contract and compliance with Mexican law.”

    “We were required to get a Mexican driver’s license. This was an amazing process. The company arranged for the licensing agency to come to our headquarters location with their photography and fingerprint equipment and the laminating machine. We showed our U.S. license, were photographed and fingerprinted again and issued the license instantly after paying out a six dollar fee. We did not take a written or driving test and never received instructions on the rules of the road. Our only instruction was to never give a policeman your license if stopped and asked. We were instructed to hold it against the inside window away from his grasp. If he got his hands on it you would have to pay ransom to get it back. ”

    “We then had to pay and file Mexican income tax annually using the number of our FM3 as our ID number. The company’s Mexican accountants did this for us and we just signed what they prepared. It was about twenty legal size pages annually.”

    “The FM3 was good for three years and renewable for two more after paying more fees.”

    “Leaving the country meant turning in the FM3 and certifying we were leaving no debts behind and no outstanding legal affairs (warrants, tickets or liens) before our household goods were released to customs.”

    “It was a real adventure and if any of our Senators or Congressmen went through it once they would have a different attitude toward Mexico .”

    “The Mexican government uses its vast military and police forces to keep its citizens intimidated and compliant. They never protest at their capitol or government offices, but do protest daily in front of the United States Embassy. The U.S. Embassy looks like a strongly reinforced fortress and during most protests the Mexican military surrounds the block with their men standing shoulder to shoulder in full riot gear to protect the Embassy. These protests are never shown on U.S. or Mexican TV. There is a large public park across the street where they do their protesting. Anything can cause a protest such as proposed law changes in California or Texas .”

    Please feel free to share this with everyone who thinks we are being hard on the illegals.

    • The “moral equivalency” plea doesn’t work.

      Just because some other guy is a baddie doesn’t make you doing bad a good thing.

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        BF,

        Ideally the moral equivalency thing does not work.

        However, the President of Mexico openly admits that any suspected “illegal immigrant” can have their papers checked AT RANDOM, and if they are found to be in the country illegally they can be immediately imprisoned on felony charges, fined, or deported. There does not need to be any probably cause or “police interaction”.

        So basically what we have here is the Mexican president calling the Arizona Law “a bad law” and “racial profiling”, when in reality the Arizona law is LESS STRICT than Mexican immigration law!

        This, CLEARLY, makes the Mexican president both an idiot and a hypocrite.

        I know that you recognize that BOTH the Arizona law and the Mexican law violate the principles of individual liberty. We understand that.

        However, you should still be able to recognize complete idiocy and hypocrisy when the Mexican President claims that Arizona immigration law is somehow “bad” while Mexican immigration law is perfectly fine as far as he is concerned!

        • Peter

          This, CLEARLY, makes the Mexican president both an idiot and a hypocrite.

          Well I would not call him an idiot. 😉 (Definition time!)

          The term “idiot” comes from French, meaning:

          “a man who is NOT employed by the government”.

          The French Republic believed the highest order of duty was to work for the government and only “idiots” would not – such as shopkeepers.

          Thus, Napoleon insult to the British was “it was a nation of shopkeepers”. ie: a nation of “idiots”

          So, the Prez is not an “idiot” – he is a “moron” 🙂

          So, by definition, since he is a politician he must be a hypocrite and a moron – and evil.

  39. Cyndi P says:
  40. Cyndi P says:
  41. A very good interview with the Arizona governor immigration. Mr. President do your Job

    http://video.foxnews.com/v/4206174/gov-brewer-mr-president-secretary-napolitano—do-your-

    Mathius: This one’s for you. Put this in your pipe and smoke it

    job#/v/4206151/hannity-special-report/?playlist_id=87937

    • Second one didn’t send right. It can be found on the same page as above link. Touchee

    • Great find Anita!! Was watching Bill O last night and they talked about the federal immigration law. They said that it didn’t have anything in it to guard against racial profiling where the people in Arizona had gone out of their way to guard against that possibility.

    • I’ve listened to and read Robert Spencer before. I respect his opinion and concerns.

  42. There’s a rate in the house, there’s a rat in the house!

    OMG, this is just priceless….

    http://sistertoldjah.com/archives/2010/05/21/caption-this-rodent-scurries-by-obama-edition/

  43. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    BF,

    I think you are still somewhat confused on the point of my terrorism argument.

    My point is, it is pretty easy to UNDERSTAND the actions of the terrorist.

    However,

    As someone who claims to believe in individual liberty and the FACT that NO ONE has a right to use violence against a non-violent individual, I would think that you would be VEHEMENTLY against acts of terrorism because of your principles.

    In many of your arguments, it sounds like you not only UNDERSTAND the actions of terrorists, you attempt to JUSTIFY the actions of the terrorists, even though those actions QUITE OFTEN are acts of violence against clearly non-violent individuals.

    So let’s review:

    1. Any violent action against a non-violent individual is evil.

    2. All actions are ultimately individual.

    3. Most acts of terrorism inflict violence upon non-violent individuals.

    4. Therefore terrorism is evil.

    So, what I am really saying is YES, I understand that MOST of the time, terrorist acts are in response to an evil act which was done against Muslims. However, the fact that they are responding to an evil act DOES NOT MAKE THEIR ACTIONS ANY LESS EVIL.

    I am NOT arguing “Behavior of Christians = Good, behavior of Muslims = evil.”

    You seem to think that is what I am aruing.

    NO

    What I am saying is that the behavior of BOTH is EVIL. However, if you insist on using one evil action to justify another evil action, you are also evil.

    What you seem to be saying is that Muslims are incapable of defending themselves directly against those that commit evil acts upon them; therefore it is ok for them to lash out against the innocent instead.

    No, that is not ok. It is UNDERSTANDABLE, but lashing out against the innocent violates the Natural Rights of the innocent.

    Does that make my position more clear?

    Now OF COURSE if we elimiate the evil ON OUR SIDE, it is very likely to elimiate the evil ON THEIR SIDE as they will not have anything they feel the need to retaliate against.

    It would not eliminate ALL EVIL, because no matter what you do, there will still be evil people, and those evil people will still do evil things.

    So I guess for me, the key is that while I UNDERSTAND the reason for terrorism, there is absolutely NO WAY I can condone it. In the same vein, there is NO WAY that I can condone ANY government or religion-sponsored use of violence against the non-violent, regardless of “who started it”.

    History is written by the winners of wars. It is very difficult to prove “who started it”. It always depends on where you pick the starting point. “He started it! NO! HE STARTED IT!” is a child’s argument used in the attempt to justify evil behavior.

    • Peter,

      As someone who claims to believe in individual liberty and the FACT that NO ONE has a right to use violence against a non-violent individual, I would think that you would be VEHEMENTLY against acts of terrorism because of your principles.

      True, I am.

      In many of your arguments, it sounds like you not only UNDERSTAND the actions of terrorists, you attempt to JUSTIFY the actions of the terrorists, even though those actions QUITE OFTEN are acts of violence against clearly non-violent individuals.

      I guess I have to fall into my Obi-wan impression when Luke said to his ghost “You lied to me about my Father!” and Obi-wan said “Sometimes truth is based on your point of view”.

      I “justify” their actions only in the terms of the assaults and violence upon them.

      As a military theorist, I *know* that using human bombs is the lowest order tactic – that is, it is the tactic of the military weak.

      If they had Abrams tanks, and F-16 fighters, and aircraft carriers and B-52 bombers, they would definitely use these “weapons” first.

      But they have nothing, but their bodies as a weapons delivery system.

      So that is what they use.

      Further, they have no means to attack military targets.

      To attack a fortified military target, you needs Abrams tanks, F-16 fighter planes, and B-52 bombers to achieve a chance of success. Without them, you have no chance.

      They have no chance to attack military targets as they do not have these weapons.

      Thus, their target must be “soft” targets.

      The tactic is simple.

      It is not to win a “military” victory – that is, capture territory and deny its use from the enemy.

      Their tactic is to de-legitimize the hegemonic power.

      They are demonstrating that the occupying power has no strength in providing its promise of security to the people.

      It is a war.
      I am wholly “anti-war”.

      However, if we accept for argument sake that it is a war then the tactic – within that framework, is a valid tactic.

      If you do not accept the framework of war – then, as a consequence, the occupation of these nations by America is illegitimate as well!

      Thus, regardless of the framework – IT IS THE PRESENCE of Foreign POWER that is the root of the problem.

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        Oh yes BF,

        It is the presence of foreign power that is the MAIN root of the problem.

        Even if there were no foreign power present, there would still be SOME bad people that would still be willing to strap bombs to themselves and blow up civilians, perhaps because they were being taught by their institutions that the “West” is “Evil” even when we are not attacking them in any way.

        One would certainly hope, and perhaps even suspect, that such violence would be MUCH LESS without our presence there. Removing the primary root cause would serve to de-legitimize those institutions which taught that we were evil, because it would no longer be possible to demonstate our evil presence in their very midst!

        It would probably be a long process, their memory of history is great, and their evidence of our evil done against them is manifest, so it might take GENERATIONS after we leave before they finally accept that we are not evil and pose no threat to them, but that is, in large part, our own fault, I would agree!

        • Peter

          Some still strap on bombs

          They would be eliminated quickly IF there was no hegemonic foreign power.

          The People there protect and feed these bombers because they know they are fighting a war against hegemony.

          If the hegemony makes peace, the war is over.

          If the bombers continue, the hegemony will return to take revenge. The people are not stupid, and know this.

          The people will flip and expose the bombers so to protect themselves from a return of the hegemony.

          The bombers will have no support no food no shelter.

          They will evaporate naturally.

          You do not see Vietnamese people sailing over to America and blowing themselves up.

          • TexasChem says:

            Your post if misconeptualized to the point it makes me wonder at the true nature and meaning behind the majority of your philosophical positions in regards to the society you seek BlackFlag.

            You know as well as I do that as long as little satan-(Israel) exists as an ally to Big Satan (the United States) the Islamic world will continue their attacks whether or not the US has a military presence in the middle east or not…

            Not only is the above a valid fact but Islamic doctrine dictates, nay; demands the expansion of the Ummah Wahida.Do you deny this?

            Period.Made my point.It is a fact.

  44. TexasChem says:

    @-BF,

    BF Stated”If they had Abrams tanks, and F-16 fighters, and aircraft carriers and B-52 bombers, they would definitely use these “weapons” first.”

    I quite agree with you BF.Now I would also like to add that Iran WILL use the nuke as soon as they have the oppurtunity to deploy it.

    • TexasChem

      like to add that Iran WILL use the nuke as soon as they have [it]

      Same utterly bizarre comments made about Russia when it got nukes, and China when it got nukes and India when it got nukes and Pakistan when it got nukes….

      Let’s be clear:

      Only one nation on earth has ever used nukes and it is the USA.

      • TexasChem says:

        BF Stated:”Only one nation on earth has ever used nukes and it is the USA.”

        TC:You are correct sir.We have already established that the weapon was used to minimize further casualties and end WWII.

        BF Stated:”like to add that Iran WILL use the nuke as soon as they have [it]”

        TC:Don’t snip my quotes!My meaning was quite clear.As soon as they have the oppurtunity and means to deploy it.Iran is governed by irrational 7th century minded, oppressively religious, Islamic nut-jobs!Are you mad?They convince men to strap explosives to themselves to kill “infidels” with their belief of tremendous rewards in heavens for these atrocious acts!There is absolutely no doubt that if they were to detonate a nuke these nut-jobs would believe themselves to be sitting at the “right hand of Allah!”

        • TexasChem

          .We have already established that the weapon was used to minimize further casualties and end WWII.

          Such is the embrace of evil. And on top of that … a lie.

          Slaughter thousands of innocent people under the lie it saves the lives of men willing to kill innocent lives at a whim. Can you think of a greater evil?

          Scarf ice innocent lives to save those that have no qualms about killing innocent people???

          (1)Key American military men were aghast at the notion of the wholesale slaughter of innocent lives. They protested (to no avail) of the purposeless slaughter.

          (2) It did not end the war. The war was over by 1944 – but the doctrine of “unconditional” surrender prevented any compromise.

          Ironically, the only condition – the Emperor – was finally agreed to after two nukes by the Americans!

          The nukes convinced the American government that the Japanese were mortally serious about the state of the Emperor and finally relented. The cost of American ignorance:… hundreds of thousands of lives and two years of futile, bloody war.

          BF Stated:”like to add that Iran WILL use the nuke as soon as they have [it]”

          TC:Don’t snip my quotes!

          You said posted PRECISELY that!!

          If you made a mistake and posted exaggerated, THEN SAY SO!

          Your protest is without any merit.

          You posted what you did. You meant what you said (until qualified).

          Do NOT DEMAND of me to *somehow* reinterpret your words into some less offensive meaning without you!!

          You have to “mea cupla” your own word!

          My meaning was quite clear

          .

          …which is why I reposted them EXACTLY as you posted.

          Your meaning was QUITE CLEAR, but probably unthoughtful…., am I right?

          As soon as they have the oppurtunity and means to deploy it.Iran is governed by irrational 7th century minded, oppressively religious,

          …and America is governed by a irrational 1st century minded oppressive religion.

          Islamic nut-jobs!Are you mad?They convince men to strap explosives to themselves to kill “infidels” with their belief of tremendous rewards in heavens for these atrocious acts!There is absolutely no doubt that if they were to detonate a nuke these nut-jobs would believe themselves to be sitting at the “right hand of Allah!”

          And Americans nut-jobs are convinced to sit in a chair surrounded by machines to drop bombs on kids believing Muslims are only good for one thing and that is to die.

%d bloggers like this: