Tuesday Night Open Mic for August 17, 2010

I have to tell you, the more I do the open mic nights, the more I begin to enjoy them. There are several reasons that this is so. First, the open mic articles are easier to write. They don’t take nearly as much research and thought as some of the other articles that I write. More important for me is that the open mic format allows me to tackle much smaller items that I wouldn’t normally be able to support with a whole article. They are the quick shots of the political blogging world. There are so many times I used to see topics and think that they would be great topics but far too short. I have committed myself to doing some shorter stand alone articles, but the open mic allows me to hit other ones. For tonight’s topics I have a bit of a theme around the use of words to form opinion and either attack or help someone. The first three stories tonight focus on language and campaign strategy and the ways we see it play out in our politically correct and over-analyzing society. The 4th article is unrelated to that stuff and the 5th article is a submission from Common Man for discussion.

Advertisements

Comments

  1. USWeapon Topic #1

    Opponents of R-Word Win Key Legislative Victory in New Jersey

    A movement to eliminate references to the disabled as “mentally retarded” from laws and regulations gained steam this week after New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie signed legislation replacing the terms with “intellectual disability” and “developmental disability.”

    This month, the U.S. Senate passed a similar bill and the House will take up its version next month.

    While advocates for the disabled have campaigned for years against the R-word, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel drew attention to the issue this year when he apologized for privately calling a group of liberal Democrats “retarded” last year. Sarah Palin, who has a son with Down syndrome, criticized Emanuel in a Facebook posting.

    The bill Christie signed Monday eliminates outdated terms such as “mentally retarded” and “feeble-minded.” Preferred terms are “intellectual disability” and “developmental disability.”

    The new law also promotes so-called “person-first” language. For example, it’s preferred to say “a person with a disability” rather than a “disabled person.”

    Existing laws and regulations will be edited to reflect the change.

    Senate President Stephen Sweeney, the Senate sponsor who has a daughter who is learning disabled, said the legislation is important “because words matter.”

    Dennis Donatelli, the president of the New Jersey Self-Advocacy Project, told FoxNews.com that people with disabilities don’t want to be degraded.

    “They want to have equal opportunities just like everyone else,” he said.

    The Senate bill, known as Rosa’s Law, passed this month and eliminates the terms “mental retardation” and “mentally retarded” from federal education, health and labor laws.

    “The bill was driven by a passion for social justice and a compassion for the human condition,” Sen. Barbara Mikulski, author of the legislation, said in a written statement.

    Read the rest of the article here:  http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/08/17/opponents-r-word-win-key-legislative-victory-new-jersey/

    I know that I run the risk of offending the really sensitive folks here at SUFA with this topic. But I had to step up and say something about what I think is absolutely ridiculous behavior at both the state and federal level. I understand that there is support for this legislation on both sides of the aisle. That means nothing to me. In the end, any candidate who doesn’t support such an asinine bill would be accused of being against the handicapped and labeled a disability bigot in the next race that they run. So of course everyone in both parties support this bill. Not doing so would be stupid in the world of “re-election is all that matters to me” politics.

    But this bill is just stupid. And to be honest, it pisses me off to think that in a time when our country faces tremendous challenges on all fronts, the US Congress is taking time to work on such inane legislation as banning the word retarded from the realm of political correctness. Put that in perspective folks. Political correctness, which I personally despise and which I blame for a not insignificant portion of the problems in our country today, has gotten to the point where the elitists in our federal government and state governments feel that they have the right to legislate it. They feel they have the mandate to spend our tax dollars to regulate what speech is acceptable because they don’t want to hurt anyone’s feelings.

    And all I can think as I read an article like this is, “Are you fracking kidding me?” We have an economy swirling in the toilet bowl, the most corrupt politicians in the world, a country that is locked in ideological battle, and our kids are looking up to people like Lindsey Lohan and Lady GaGa, and THIS is what our politicians are spending their time doing. If ever there was a time to look at Washington and declare the federal government unfit to lead us into the future, the time is now. These idiots are so enamored with their own greatness and importance that they have no idea what really matters any more. They are spending time passing legislation that mandates “person first” language? If it weren’t a true news story, it would be a Saturday Night Live skit.

    And let me address some of the quotes in the article. We have the State Senator saying that, “the legislation is important “because words matter.” No, words don’t matter that much. And they especially don’t matter in legislation, because no one reads that crap, including the idiots who vote on it. What matters are intentions, not words. Words only matter because politicians and media hacks have used them to attack people. And Barb Mikulski (a horrible Senator from Maryland) adds, “The bill was driven by a passion for social justice and a compassion for the human condition.” Really? What social justice was served by this legislation. Were the disabled somehow being discriminated against because the word retarded appeared in a bill? Were they not being allowed to participate in something or denied benefits because the wording wasn’t right?

    This is just another example of the bullshit that our governments have become. I am not for eliminating all government, but I sure am ready to discard this lemon that we have at the moment.

    • I’m going to have to agree with your sentiment here, Wep. Frak that.

      10,000% agreement that intent is what matters with words. What I never understood is this: the reason words have power is because we give them power. That is, the word “shit” would probably have been too vulgar for a public forum just a few years ago. I remember a hilarious South Park episode where they deliberately way overused it. Once everyone settled down and accepted the word, it lost it’s shock value and thus it’s power.

      This works in reverse as well. In ye olden times, black people referred to themselves (and this ties in to #2 below) as Negroes. Somewhere along the way, this became a bad word and, this year, the census bureau got in trouble for including it as an option. How does this happen? Well, some yahoo decides that it’s a naughty word and tells everyone it’s offensive. This gives the word power.

      So, let me be clear, words are words. They are neither good nor bad nor offensive in-and-of themselves. They simply are. It’s only retards like Senate President Stephen Sweeney who think otherwise.

      • Buck the Wala says:

        Please Mathius — Its only people like Senate President Stephen Sweeney who suffers from a disability, who think otherwise.

        Get with the program!

        But yes, agree 100% with both of you – ridiculous and a waste of time. Its all about tje intent behind the words that matter.

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      @USW, Buck and Mat – okay guys – how much time do you think they actually spent working on such a bill? Maybe there was 5 minutes of water cooler talk on what was appropriate to change it to? But seriously, if there are laws that impact the “developmentally disabled” community, and there is a history-with-a-mean-streak of using the legacy words to joke about people with/without disability, why would those who have no stake in that community feel it proper to decide whether that community should or should not be offended by the codified use of such words. You guys make no sense.

      p.s. – next time you run across some arcane, out of date law, or language in law, and bitch about “why wouldn’t somebody change this” – remember this posting.

      • Buck the Wala says:

        Good point — I always smirk when I look at the NY trust and estates law referencing ‘bastard children’.

        To be fair I’m torn on this – I’d rather they not waste their time and my money on this (how much time does it take to go through and correct all past laws referencing ‘retard’?), but it is meaningful to a lot of people and should be taken seriously.

      • I know I’m senile and all, but I don’t think I ever bitched about arcane language in law. I have complained about deliberately obtuse language which is designed to obfuscate the meaning and effects of the law.

        Whereas the second part herewith the primary addendum shall heretofore be recognized as pertaining to the means and ways hitherto known as ways and means, be it codified that such shall be repurposed with respect to nomenclature and forthwith imbued with such powers and duties as may be proscribed under the secondary addendum to the primary addendum of the tertiary part of this act provided that such shall not interfere with the obligatory earmarks to the same.

        • Buck the Wala says:

          Makes perfect sense to me.

          • I’m not positive, but I think it changed the name of the Ways and Means committee and imbued it with mystical powers.

            Perhaps if I spent a few years and a hundred grand on law school, this would be clearer to me.

      • Ray,

        To be honest I don’t think you are looking at this the right way. They are just words written in a bill that no one reads anyway. If the bill is written to help the disabled, and they succeed in that purpose, then they are fine. Obviously the word being used in a bill supporting them is not being used in a way meant to offend or with the intent to demean.

        What is ridiculous is that you really feel that it is within the scope of Congress to legislate the use of words. And you know it wasn’t 5 minutes of cooler talk. It was countless hours writing the legislation. It was more countless hours spent explaining the bill to colleagues and gathering support. And now it will be even more hours going back through every bill and changing the wording (which will require more floor votes I assure you).

        • Ray Hawkins says:

          @USW – if no one reads the bills anyway then why do you give a shit to begin with? And no, I guess I don’t know that it was or was not more than 5 minutes of water cooler talk – but to suggest that critical business of the nation somehow fell by the wayside is disingenuous on your part as well.

      • Ray,

        I forgot to address that last statement. There is a big difference between an arcane or out of date law and one that simply has language that has become this decades least popular flavor. If a law is innefective, un-Constitutional, harsh, or stupid, then I am all for eliminating or re-working it. When we are taking the time to do so because someone may be offended by what word is in the bill, that is childish politically correct bullshit.

        • Ray Hawkins says:

          @USW – no – I don’t think it is “childish politically correct bullshit”. I think the language of our laws should reflect the language of our times. In most all other cases it does.

    • Does kinda get ridiculous, doesn’t it.

      There is no blindness in this world…it is vision impaired.

      There is no deafness in this world….it is hearing impaired.

      You are not FAT….you are full figured.

      You cannot stutter…you have a speech impediment.

      You are no longer black..you are African American.

      You are no longer white….you are Caucasian American.

      you are no longer Oriental….you are Japanese, Chinese, Vietnamese American.

      You are no longer Apache, Cherokee, Tonkawa, etc….you are American Indian.

      You are no longer Mexican….you are Hispanic. If you are legal, you are a Hispanic American….soon to be Latino American. (Wonder why we just can’t be Americans?)

      You cannot lose anymore…you are an under achiever and still get a medal.

      You cannot win any longer…you are an over achiever or anal…and get the same medal.

      You are no longer retarded…you are mentally impaired or “intellectually disabled”.

      You are no longer homosexual….you are gay….soon to be alternative lifestyled.

      YOu cannot draft in little league anymore…because to do so means that the ones that do not get drafted will suffer a inferiority complex. Everyone bats….everyone gets a “participation” award.

      To strive to be the best….makes you egotistical.

      ( I personally like Vince Lombardi’s quote….show me a man that does not mind losing…I will show you a loser. Winning is not everything….it is the ONLY thing”.)

      You are no longer short…you are vertically challenged.

      You cannot go into a store and order a “Big Red” anymore…it must be a “strawberry soda”…because drinking a Big Red and eating a “Moon” Pie is now considered politically incorrect.

      You can’t order “chitlins and greens” anymore because it is offensive.

      Now you cannot even eat at Mickey D’s because it “makes” one fat….no personal responsibility needs to be taken because to call someone “fat” is insensitive and to imply that they make the choice to go to McDonalds implies that they cannot think for themselves…

      In schools, there are no failing grades anymore because it makes one who does not study “feel” inferior.

      Do not hold a student back because to make him go through the same grade again with the younger students makes them feel degraded.

      You no longer can read….you are comprehensive deficient.

      If you do not understand and cannot do math…you are number intolerant.

      Sheesh……………!

      Does all this mean that I cannot call the Democrats or Republicans idiots? That is actually a step up for them and a disgrace to the real idiots out there.

      Does all this mean I cannot call Washington, DC and its poltical environment a “pimple on a skunk’s ass”?….or is it merely a “blemish on the dorsal posterior”.

      I do not want to be equal to anyone…I want to be better. But I guess that makes me “insensitive”…..so to all the sensitive people out there….I hoist a big Dr Pepper (sugar and everything) to ya….Get a life.

      • Sir, you are liberally challenged.

        Raisin’ a Red Bull to ya!

        • Possible….entirely possible….but to suggest such makes me feel inferior and…and…makes me not able to function in society and….and….I must have government tell me what to do and…and…you must pay me the rest of my life to sit and feel sorry for me…and…and…..

          So, the conclusion is, since you called me liberally challenged…..that must mean you are *gasp*….CONSERVATIVE !!!! Bwaahahahhhahaha…

      • D13,

        Its the model of Utopia – everyone thinks, acts, believes and looks the same.

        • I am an Alpha.

          I am happy to be an Alpha.

          Betas are not as smart.

          Deltas have to do physical labor.

          I am glad I am an Alpha

          ….

          • Mathius,

            I am a “Undefined” – I do not count, nor am I counted as I do not fit.

            I am invisible and spoken about only as a myth.

            • I would say you are more authority, government, and system challenged.

            • I’m sorry, but there is no room for you in our society. We are only interested in Alphas, Betas, Gammas, Deltas, and Epsilons (all of which are delimited into plus, minor, or regular subclasses).

              Take some Soma.

              And remember, “everyone belongs to everyone else.”

    • USW

      A complete waste of time by the Legislative Branch.

      The agencies in the States and Fed Govt have, or are in the process of, eliminating the classification.

      The term is outdated by the “Professionals” and has been eliminated from many states as an official diagnosis. You will find reference to older classification in the new ones, so that Old School staff will know what to put in the new classification.

      Legislatures should not get caught up in terminology used by professionals within the Administrative ranks.

      • As a first cousin to 3 Mentally RETARDED boys whom I love very much. I say that this is just a another dunbass example of Government wasting taxpayer dollars and time for another stupid ass and retarded bill.

        And they wonder why they are running in the red.

  2. USWeapon Topic #2

    Dr. Laura Says She’s Quitting Radio After N-Word Flap

    Dr. Laura Schlessinger announced tonight she is ending her radio show, a week after she broadcast a five-minute-long rant in which she used the N-word 11 times.

    Schlessinger said on “Larry King Live” tonight that she has decided “not to do radio anymore” so she can say the things she wants to say.

    “The reason is, I want to regain my First Amendment rights,” she said. “I want to be able to say what’s on my mind and in my heart and what I think is helpful and useful without somebody getting angry, some special interest group deciding this is the time to silence a voice of dissent and attack affiliates, attack sponsors. I’m sort of done with that.”

    She told King she will not renew her contract, which expires at the end of the year. She said she told her bosses 10 minutes before she went on the air.

    She was trying to make a philosophical point, she said, but added, “I didn’t help her [the caller] by making that point.”

    Schlessinger ignited a firestorm of criticism after Media Matters posted audio from an Aug. 10 conversation she had with a black female caller. The caller was complaining about her white husband’s friends and their use of the N-word. In response, Schlessinger said:

    “Black guys use it all the time. Turn on HBO and listen to a black comic, and all you hear is n****r, n****r, n****r. I don’t get it. If anybody without enough melanin says it, it’s a horrible thing. But when black people say it, it’s affectionate. It’s very confusing.”

    When the caller said she was appalled by Schlessinger’s use of the N-word, the radio host demurred, “Oh, then I guess you don’t watch HBO or listen to any black comedians. My dear, the point I am trying to make … [is that] we’ve got a black man as president and we’ve got more complaining about racism than ever. I think that’s hilarious.”

    Their exchange heated up after that. When the caller said she couldn’t believe Schlessinger was “on the radio spewing out” the N-word, Schlessinger said she “didn’t spew out” the N-word and repeated, “n****r, n****r, n****r is what you hear on HBO.”

    She then criticized the caller, saying, “Don’t take things out of context. Don’t NAACP me.”

    Their conversation ended there. Schlessinger offered an epilogue to her audience: “If you’re that hypersensitive about color and don’t have a sense of humor, don’t marry outside of your race.”

    Read the rest of the article here:  http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/dr-laura-schlessinger-quits-radio-word-flap/story?id=11424039&page=1

    I find myself this evening feeling two separate and distinctly different emotions around this story. The first is that I feel sorry for Dr. Laura. She has fallen victim to the double standard that exists in America around race. If a black person were to go on the air and say the N-word 11 times, no one would say a single thing about it. But as soon as a white person does so, Al Sharpton takes to the airwaves and the streets and condemns them as racist son of a bitches! I have to agree with Dr. Laura when she says it is confusing. Sharpton doesn’t seem to find the word offensive when black people say it, but he does when white people say it. And don’t make it out to be that it is a matter of context and intent. Schlessinger wasn’t calling anyone that word. She was talking about what she hears on HBO.

    Not that she should be surprised. The double standard has been in place for quite some time. And for reasons that I cannot seem to fathom, that double standard seems to be accepted by all as a legitimate thing. I for one, hate the fact that I have to say the word in a hushed tone and be clear that I am quoting someone if I allow it to pass through my lips. I wouldn’t mind that as much if I didn’t hear the word uttered by blacks at least 50 times a day (and that is not an exaggeration). I will consider Sharpton a race baiter and a hypocritical piece of doo doo so long as he continues to blow a gasket over a white person saying the word while saying nothing about its use in every day language among the black population. And I will likewise consider people like Schlessinger and Imus victims of politically correct bullshit so long as that double standard is applied.

    I did mention at the beginning that I was torn between two emotions around this story. The other emotion is best described by typing out…. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!! Another person who makes their living in the media catches an acute case of foot in mouth disease. I would not feel this way about Dr. Laura if this were not the second time that she has made an idiotic statement. Her first gaff was far worse in my opinion. This time she was simply talking about the double standard and had the audacity to use the actual word instead of whispering “n-word” in the hushed tone that whites are supposed to use with that word. Her first gaff was when she referred to homosexuals as a “biological error”. I would have preferred she didn’t renew her contract then instead of waiting for now.

    • I once sent an email regarding a trade done in the African country of Niger. Due to a typo, the name of the country came out with an extra ‘g’. It got caught by my company’s ‘appropriate content’ email filter and I had to go in for a mandatory sensitivity meeting. (yes, the person realized what had happened and let me off without a formal reprimand, but I still had to sit through an hour of lecturing about why it is important to show cultural sensitivity).

      • Did you feel like you were better prepared to take on PC-ness after that hour.

        • Absolutely. And then I went and had a seat on the Group W bench.

          • Alice’s Resteraunt! I love that song. They always play it on Thanksgiving.

            • WOW!

              Never thought I’d say this, but 10 Points to Anita!

              • Mathius.

                HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!

                Not laughing at you buddy. I’m laughing with you.

                That is just funny as hell!

                You got in big time trouble for an extra “G”.

                Last year at school, on HAT day, I got in trouble for coming to school with a doo-rag(bandana) on my head. I’m sure I looked stupider than the teacher with the Dr. Suess hat.

    • Something interesting that I’m wondering about..

      Nobody has ever called me a kyke. Admittedly, it’s somewhat obscure of a term, but still, it’s never happened. If a Jew were to call me one, I don’t think I’d be offended per say, but I definitely wouldn’t appreciate it. If a non-Jew were to call me one (not in jest), I feel like I would respond the same way. So I’m curious how black people feel about being called “niggers” by other black people. Why, exactly, do they feel it’s ok (or do they??) when it comes from one person and not from another?

      • Good morning to ya, Matt….just watch the black comedy shows. The word “nigger” is used over and over referring to themselves.

        Dr. Laura…welllllll…………she used it, made her decisions accordingly and it is over.

        I am white, Caucasian or whatever…..I could care less if someone calls me “whitey” or “honky”………it does not matter to me even if they use it in anger…it is still just a word and nothing more. Boggles the mind….question for you….why would the use of the term “kyke” offend you? I do not find the term “honky” derrogatory, even though it is meant that way. Just curious.

        So, how are you today? We had a cold front blow through…was 99 yesterday…sweaters are out already.

        • Kyke doesn’t offend me. I realize that words are words, but the term is, by definition, derogatory. As such, the only plausible use is either in jest or as a slur. No Jew has ever turned to another Jew and said “what’s up, my kyke?” Doesn’t happen. So, in using it, I would have to assume that the intent was offense and so I would be annoyed.

          • hmmmm….interesting. Thanks for the reply.

            • anytime.. honkey 🙂

              • LOL…you insensitive kyke.

              • D! You offend me. I’ll have you waterboarded with Red Bull.

                Red Bull Boarded.

              • Common Man says:

                Guys;

                About two years ago my daughter asked that I come to her apartment because she was kicking one of her roommates out due to drug use and the roommate was having her druggy friends help with the moving. My daughter didn’t want them in the apartment because they were also know thieves.

                I went over and instructed the two punks to stay out. One of them got upset, threatened to kick my ass; which was a joke given I am 6’5″ and 260 and he was 5’5″ and 145. Anyway he got more irritated and then called me a “N”. I have not laughed that hard since. A white guy calling a very Celtic white guy a “N”.

                BTW: I was not offended

                CM

              • Cool…always wanted to try that but do not have the intestinal fortitude for it……Red Bull Boarded, that is…. but hey….let’s go for it…I might like it…..Mikey did.

        • Thye don’t use words like ‘Honkey” or “whitey” anymore, you bassackwards Texas hippie.

          Now they call us “Crackers”.

          And in my opinion, although I am not offended by it, if I can’t call them nigger, then they ain’t allowed to call me a cracker.

          Mind you, if I were a black person, that word would offend me also. It is the double standard that offends me. I t should offend them for ALL people to use that word.

          (I AM NOT PC. THEREFORE I WILL NOT USE SYMBOLS FOR THE WORD. I DO NOT MEAN TO BE OFFENSIVE. ALSO, D13, THE USE OF THE PHRASE BASSACKWARDS TEXAS HIPPIE WAS STATED WITH ALL POSSIBLE RESPECT COLONEL SIR!) 🙂

          • She was, however, very stupid, in this day, to use that word. Especially about 10 times.

          • No offense taken, you cracker assed hippo…..but you are quite right….I guess that shows that I am not up with the new words because they mean zippo to me…

            By the way, my retort was like wise in jest..lest we be PC and totally explain ourselves everytime we type or speak…. 🙂

          • At a job I had about 5 years ago a black guy and a white guy got into a pretty heated argument. The black guy kept calling the white guy cracker and honky and whitey and anything else you can think of. The white guy finally had enough and said F U nigger. The black guy got upset and went to management. The white guy got fired and the black guy went back to work. End of story.

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      So here is my conflicting view on this…..

      1. I hate when people say or write “the n-word” – you do that because you do not have the guts to say it out loud. When you do that I have to at least mentally say “nigger” when I read “the n-word”.

      2. The word could have been perfectly acceptable (in my view) in use by Doctor Laura she not put such emphasis on it – “nigger” once would have been more palatable imho than “nigger, nigger, nigger”. Because of her multiple use of it, there was immediate suspicion raised.

      3. It is a word with multiple meanings – that we cannot change – it matters contextually how it used and by whom. More deconstruction of intent will occur when “nigger” is used by any non-black person.

      4. We are but a generation removed from having to write laws to guarantee freedoms for black people – yes – the same black people whose condition was fenced as such in part by non-blacks using the word “nigger” in a wholly negative light when referring to them.

      5. Even a philosophical discussion of the word and its use by non-blacks will inherently raise the ire not just of blacks but over-sensitive non-blacks as well.

      6. In borrowing from my post above – if the word is to never be uttered by a non-white, and specifically in a non-negative manner – I’d like someone from the black community to explain to me why. If we’re at that extreme then you shouldn’t use the word either.

    • USWep,

      Also remember it is easier for multi-millionaires to act indifferent than Mathius or I. She can afford not working. Mathius cannot afford to not work.

      Thus, she can N- to her hearts content and the worse that would happen is an early, rich retirement instead of a little bit later rich retirement.

      Mathius can’t spell, and he faces remedial training at the risk of losing his entire financial life.

    • I was the victim of racism on two jobs. I was curious about this Dr. Laura thing (hadn’t read the transcript or heard the broadcast, so thanks for posting it). After reading it, it’s a lot of blowing smoke. She’s 1000% right from where I’m sitting.

      Last year on a liberal blog, I was referred to as all kinds of names Plus this beauty (“my lilly white ass”) by a person of color (I have to assume). Forget the blog issue, but what’s up with that?

      This isn’t to quote a tit-for-tat response, but I do think Dr. Laura is correct about the divisiveness in the country along racial lines these days (with a black president). I catch it at least once a week when taking the subway and ferry to and from work; a blatant hatred in action and words toward me for one of a few reasons: I’m fat, I’m white, I’m ugly and/or they’ve read my politically incorrect books (but I know it’s not the latter because if that many people read my books, I wouldn’t have to work a full-time job.

      Dr. Laura may be a complete moran and/or racist. I have no idea … but what I read above is no reason for being called called a racist. That’s typical PC bullshit.

      Update on my wife’s nursing situation. She may well be locked out of her final nursing class because according to her school, only ONE person can register her and that incompetent is on vacation until the semester already starts. So, she’s one of 5 in a class of about 30 who actually has to pay for her class … she has the highest grades in her class AND she’s supposed to have been pre-registered for all classes upon passing the previous class. If that happens (and it may well happen–she’s fighting it and losing her mind in the process), that’s it, I go Anarchist (and join BF and his army more from spite than any belief). Everybody fends for themselves or drops dead. Some of yous may have an idea of how frustrating this type of bureacratic bullshit is, but honestly, we’re starting to feel like the guy from Falling Down (if that’s the right movie). The incompetent, by the way, had an issue with my wife’s registration last semester. She felt he was prejudice (he’s a Hispanic and handicapped) because he’s treated others with similar problem who weren’t white very differently. Or maybe we’re both becoming paranoid …

      • She has been registered!

        Thus, I remain a left wingnut …

        • Charlie

          Congratulations.

          Besides, you not quite ready for radical right wing liberal.

          Open your mind and heart though and it won’t be much longer.

          • It was clarified for me on the way home. Some decent woman (hispanic) called my wife to say “He’s here” … “he” being the ONLY person at the school who can register people (can you believe this bullshit?). My wife went to him, basically on the sly because the woman who called to tell her could’ve gotten int trouble for doing so … he was nasty with her (even though it was HIS fault she wasn’t registered) … then HE pushed the magic button and said, “You’re registered. Goodbye.”

            Apparently he’s in a wheelchair … Tommy Udo immediately came to mind.

            I think I’m closer to anarchy than libertarian (probably because of some run-ins with the law over the years–that puffed up sense of power a few clowns had because of their badge–except the courts acknowledge that way more than they should).

            Onward …

  3. USWeapon Topic #3

    Video ‘Trackers’ Get Under Candidates’ Collective Skin

    The rash of political candidates getting caught on video clashing with fired-up voters is raising fresh questions about whether the fiery confrontations are going too far or activists are merely exposing the true nature of candidates for all constituents to see.

    In Minnesota, Democratic gubernatorial candidate Mark Dayton called a news conference Monday to complain that camcorder-carrying GOP operatives are “harassing me and preventing me from conducting my campaign.”

    and skipping to the relevant stuff later in the article:

    Both major political parties have used trackers for years to film events held by opposing candidates, hoping for slip-ups they can use against them. But now, some candidates are calling for a wrap.

    “The tactic has changed and it is clearly one of harassing me and trying to provoke me and one of intimidating citizens so they can’t have a conversation,” former U.S. Sen. Dayton at his news conference on Monday.

    Dayton aired his own footage of two Republicans seeking up-close shots of him that he says obstructed his booth at a weekend outdoors fair.

    Dayton wants both parties to call off trackers who go beyond taping public events, such as debates or news conferences. Alternatively, he suggested they keep a certain distance and wear clothing or badges to identify themselves so voters know exchanges with candidates are being taped by the opposition.

    Republican Party spokesman Mark Drake says camera-carrying staffers are a staple of the modern campaign and the GOP will keep using them.

    “I’m sure Mark Dayton would like to hide from the voters for the next three months. That’s just not going to happen,” Drake said.

    Dayton said he’s not worried about cameras picking up comments he makes.

    “Anything I say in a public setting is on the public record,” he said.

    Read the rest of the article here:  http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/08/17/video-trackers-candidates-collective-skin/

    Another article that leaves me torn in my opinion. On one hand, I understand exactly what Dayton is talking about. The tactics have gone well beyond attempting to possibly catch a political opponent making a gaff during a campaign speech. I have watched countless videos on the web posted by folks who taped a political candidate acting less than perfect. But I have grown quite skeptical as it appears that more often lately the tactic is to harass them into a reaction that is not typical of the person being filmed. Some of the examples that come to mind are the NC Representative Etheridge moment where he grabs the student by the arm and the gotcha moment attempted with Minnesota Senator Al Franken.

    These incidents, in my opinion, are the result of political activists intent on finding a way to paint a candidate in a bad light. The tapes are inevitably edited for maximum offensive results. I am not defending Etheridge or Franken (although I thought Franken did well defending himself in his tape). Instead I am simply noting that this was not an attempt to catch candidates doing something wrong. It was an attempt to coerce them into doing something wrong. And there is a big difference there. Should the candidates have more self control? I guess you could say so. But we have to remember that they are only human. And after the 100th time that they are harassed we can’t really blame them for reacting badly.

    Again there was a second part of my opinion. Dayton has to give us a break here in expecting us to be shocked by what he is claiming. He has thrown his hat into what is without a doubt the nastiest environment imaginable, the political arena. Politicians have for a hundred years allowed their behavior to decline in terms of running a honest and fair campaign. They have set the rules to a setting of “anything goes.” And sadly American voters have accepted this behavior. But after a hundred years of steadily declining principles and values on the campaign trail, should we even pay attention when a political candidate cries foul over the tactics their opponents use?

    So I guess the question is have we as the voting public allowed this to go too far? Should there be some sort of ethical standard employed around campaign tactics? After all, we voted for the jackasses that use the tactics. They wouldn’t be using them if they didn’t work effectively. But I cannot tell you how many good people (myself included) refuse to get into the political arena because they (a) don’t want to have to deal with the 24 hour a day harassment that comes with a political race, (b) have values that preclude them from taking part in all the dirty tactics that their opponents will use, and (c) don’t want to watch their entire history and every mistake they may have made or any of their family members have made dug up and presented to the world for judgement.

    Want to understand why all our politicians are dirtbag liars, cheats, and immoral cretins? It is because those are the only people willing to do the nasty business needed to win an election of any significance in American politics. As many of you know, I work closely with Rani on her campaign (which is going well although in need of campaign contributions!). I am constantly amazed that a woman of such high moral character and values has managed to get this far in the race. But she always operates at a disadvantage because she refuses to stoop to the level of her opponents.

    How many good leaders do we disqualify simply because of the nasty way politics are done in America?

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      Good article USW – why not have a taper tape the taper? We see what happens when there are ginned up charges and highly edited video as happened with the “Acorn-pimp” – best counter is not to take the bait, call your opponent on the carpet and/or offer the competing POV.

    • USWep,

      The first rule of power is legitimacy.

      Legitimacy is destroyed by ridicule.

      As I’ve constantly insisted here, to alter the political landscape, one must destroy the legitimacy of the current landscape.

      Ridicule is a core tactic.

      The increase in the use of this tactic -to show the weakness of politicians regardless of when or where they act- is a sign that the core of the People have “had it”. They are now attacking the legitimacy of the “Holier than thou” class.

      I say “Go for it!”

      • Agree! Finally some light is being shed on them and they don’t like it. We need to keep it up.

  4. USWeapon Topic #4

    MoveOn.Org Calls For Target Boycott In New Ad

    Progressive action committee MoveOn.org has released a TV ad urging Americans to boycott Target, in its latest swipe against the company for spending money on the Minnesota Governor’s race.

    “Target and other big corporations are trying to buy our elections,” the ad states.

    The 30-second ad calls for viewers to boycott Target for donating over $150,000 to conservative Rep. Tom Emmer’s bid for Minnesota governor. The money was reportedly put toward this political advertisement supporting the anti-gay-rights candidate, made by business interest group Minnesota Forward.

    “Target’s refusal to acknowledge its customers’ outrage at their attempt to buy elections is scandalous,” said Justin Ruben, Executive Director of MoveOn, in a statement. “Americans have spoken: we don’t want corporations meddling in our democracy. Corporate money in elections is nothing more than political bribery and we’re not going to stop targeting Target until they stop trying to buy our elections.”

    Read the rest of the article here:  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/17/boycott-target-commercial_n_684815.html

    I couldn’t help myself with this one. First of all let me come right out and say that I despise MoveOn. I don’t want to mislead anyone into thinking that I have any form of non-biased opinion of the organization. I have read their rhetoric for years now, and at one point literally was a registered user just so that I could see the madness that was coming out of that camp. As a general rule, I can take whatever comes from the trash peddlers over there and instantly assume that whatever they say I will be on the opposite side of. It isn’t just that they are so ridiculously left leaning (which is their right), it is that they are grossly dishonest, misleading, inaccurate, and hateful. I would literally say that half of what they say is either being presented out of context or an outright lie. What else can we expect from a Soros supported group?

    There really isn’t a lot to say about this particular article but I couldn’t stop myself from including it in the open mic as soon as I read that last paragraph above. “Americans have spoken: we don’t want corporations meddling in our democracy. Corporate money in elections is nothing more than political bribery” I was stunned to hear that from the organization that supported Barack Obama for President. You know, the Presidential candidate that received more corporate donations than any other presidential candidate in history (yeah I know some of you want to argue that, but go research it and you will find that it is true).

    I don’t want to get on a soap box here, but I have grown tired of groups such as MoveOn spouting off about the corporations buying elections as though this is a GOP thing only. The corporations, regardless of how much influence you believe they have or don’t have, finance candidates on both sides of the aisle just about equally. It is only a question of which corporations fall on which side of the aisle. Although most companies hedge their bets and contribute to both. I recall the articles around the time of the oil spill about BP’s contributions. Largest amount of contributions went to….. Obama. It is simply disingenuous of the left organizations to pretend that corporate manipulation of politics is a Republican phenomenon. Scratch that. It is not disingenuous, it is an outright lie, and they know it.

    I don’t have a whole lot of shopping to do. But I can guarantee you that whatever I do need I will go out of my way to shop at Target for it in the near future. MoveOn can kiss my ass.

  5. Common Man Topic #1

    Six Months to Go Until The Largest Tax Hikes in History

    From Ryan Ellis on Wednesday, July 7, 2010 5:27 PM

    In just six months, the largest tax hikes in the history of America will take effect. They will hit families and small businesses in three great waves on January 1, 2011:

    First Wave: Expiration of 2001 and 2003 Tax Relief

    In 2001 and 2003, the GOP Congress enacted several tax cuts for investors, small business owners, and families. These will all expire on January 1, 2011:

    Personal income tax rates will rise. The top income tax rate will rise from 35 to 39.6 percent (this is also the rate at which two-thirds of small business profits are taxed). The lowest rate will rise from 10 to 15 percent. All the rates in between will also rise. Itemized deductions and personal exemptions will again phase out, which has the same mathematical effect as higher marginal tax rates. The full list of marginal rate hikes is below:

    – The 10% bracket rises to an expanded 15%

    – The 25% bracket rises to 28%

    – The 28% bracket rises to 31%

    – The 33% bracket rises to 36%

    – The 35% bracket rises to 39.6%

    Higher taxes on marriage and family. The “marriage penalty” (narrower tax brackets for married couples) will return from the first dollar of income. The child tax credit will be cut in half from $1000 to $500 per child. The standard deduction will no longer be doubled for married couples relative to the single level. The dependent care and adoption tax credits will be cut.

    The return of the Death Tax. This year, there is no death tax. For those dying on or after January 1 2011, there is a 55 percent top death tax rate on estates over $1 million. A person leaving behind two homes and a retirement account could easily pass along a death tax bill to their loved ones.

    Higher tax rates on savers and investors. The capital gains tax will rise from 15 percent this year to 20 percent in 2011. The dividends tax will rise from 15 percent this year to 39.6 percent in 2011. These rates will rise another 3.8 percent in 2013.

    Second Wave: Obamacare

    There are over twenty new or higher taxes in Obamacare. Several will first go into effect on January 1, 2011. They include:

    The Tanning Tax. This went into effect on July 1st of this year. It imposes a new, 10% excise tax on getting a tan at a tanning salon. There is no exemption for tanners making less than $250,000 per year.

    The “Medicine Cabinet Tax” Thanks to Obamacare, Americans will no longer be able to use health savings account (HSA), flexible spending account (FSA), or health reimbursement (HRA) pre-tax dollars to purchase non-prescription, over-the-counter medicines (except insulin).

    The HSA Withdrawal Tax Hike. This provision of Obamacare increases the additional tax on non-medical early withdrawals from an HSA from 10 to 20 percent, disadvantaging them relative to IRAs and other tax-advantaged accounts, which remain at 10 percent.

    Brand Name Drug Tax. Starting next year, there will be a multi-billion dollar tax assessment imposed on name-brand drug manufacturers. This tax, like all excise taxes, will raise the price of medicine, hurting everyone.

    Economic Substance Doctrine. The IRS is now empowered to disallow perfectly-legal tax deductions and maneuvers merely because it judges that the deduction or action lacks “economic substance.” This is obviously an arbitrary empowerment of IRS agents.

    Employer Reporting of Health Insurance Costs on a W-2. This will start for W-2s in the 2011 tax year. While not a tax increase in itself, it makes it very easy for Congress to tax employer-provided healthcare benefits later.

    Third Wave: The Alternative Minimum Tax and Employer Tax Hikes

    When Americans prepare to file their tax returns in January of 2011, they’ll be in for a nasty surprise—the AMT won’t be held harmless, and many tax relief provisions will have expired. These major items include:

    The AMT will ensnare over 28 million families, up from 4 million last year. According to the left-leaning Tax Policy Center, Congress’ failure to index the AMT will lead to an explosion of AMT taxpaying families—rising from 4 million last year to 28.5 million. These families will have to calculate their tax burdens twice, and pay taxes at the higher level. The AMT was created in 1969 to ensnare a handful of taxpayers.

    Small business expensing will be slashed and 50% expensing will disappear. Small businesses can normally expense (rather than slowly-deduct, or “depreciate”) equipment purchases up to $250,000. This will be cut all the way down to $25,000. Larger businesses can expense half of their purchases of equipment. In January of 2011, all of it will have to be “depreciated.”

    Taxes will be raised on all types of businesses. There are literally scores of tax hikes on business that will take place. The biggest is the loss of the “research and experimentation tax credit,” but there are many, many others. Combining high marginal tax rates with the loss of this tax relief will cost jobs.

    Tax Benefits for Education and Teaching Reduced. The deduction for tuition and fees will not be available. Tax credits for education will be limited. Teachers will no longer be able to deduct classroom expenses. Coverdell Education Savings Accounts will be cut. Employer-provided educational assistance is curtailed. The student loan interest deduction will be disallowed for hundreds of thousands of families.

    Charitable Contributions from IRAs no longer allowed. Under current law, a retired person with an IRA can contribute up to $100,000 per year directly to a charity from their IRA. This contribution also counts toward an annual “required minimum distribution.” This ability will no longer be there.

    For more you can read here: http://www.atr.org/six-months-untilbr-largest-tax-hikes-a5171#%23ixzz0sY8waPq1#ixzz0wkZGRWX4

    I know this one is a bit long. Common Man sent this to me last night and said he is interested in hearing what the smart folks at SUFA have to say about it. I am interested in it as well because I plan on doing an article on this in the future. I see these big tax hikes coming and worry that it is going to cause some big issues for the American economy. We are already struggling, and this is simply going to make things worse. Here are the comments from Common Man that he asked to have included in the posting:

    OK, so what do we do to prevent this…nothing it is going to happen simply because we do not have the representation in Congress to prevent it. Maybe if enough progressives get voted out in November we can reverse it, but that is most likely a pipe dream since Republicans are just as much the problem as Democrats, Progressives and Liberals.

    Our country and our government need’s an enema, or a Biblical flood so we can start over. The challenge we face though is that is what the current regime is working toward as well; a total collapse. They are working to overload the system to a point that we have a social & financial melt down. At that point they can then stand up blame it on Capitalism and Big business and then propose government control that redistributes the wealth so that all are equal.

    The current regime evoked massive bail-outs, initiated massive spending, rammed a healthcare bill though that will accelerate our national debt, administered financial reform, empowered union mentality, is further corrupting our education system with indoctrination policy’s, sent money we don’t have overseas, slaughters our young men and women in wars we have no business being involved in and ignores individual States rights.

    It’s a masterful plan and one I fear will work; at least to the point of social and financial collapse.

    So what to do?

    • – Vote them out! It might help at the local level to elect individuals we can trust and influence, but at the Congressional level we would just be replacing a rotten egg with a tainted one.
    • – Rebel and Revolt! Too bloody and we would lose.
    • – Hunker down and ride it out. Draw in your family and friends and hold on. Build your own Ark of sorts.
    • – I don’t know…What say all of you?

    This posting was more of a statement and call to arms, but not arms of violence…no, more to attention; a wake up if you will.

    It’s kind of like the Tornado’s of the Midwest when the family retreated to the root cellar to stay safe and ride out the passing wind. After it passed we all climbed out, ‘took stock’ and set about rebuilding that which we lost. I remember my father and mother had a cache of treats set aside for events like this, and they would tell stories about our grandparents, cousins and family to help drowned out the howling storm. It helped to calm us down.

    How many of us have ‘root cellar’s, sanctuaries, retreats or safe havens to rely upon? If you don’t you need one.

    So, what does everyone think? How will you ride out the storm and what will we all do once it has passed?

    CM

    • I say hunker down and ride it out. Yes We Can!

      Let the Hopey-Changey crowd enjoy their fundamental change of the greatest nation on earth. They deserve nothing less.

    • Buck the Wala says:

      Speaking of playing games with language — the expiration of a tax cut (that in my opinion should never have been passed) is now characterized as ‘the largest tax hike in history’. Gotta love it.

      • yea.. noticed that one too..

        I also seem to recall that taxes were higher under Reagan than they will be once this tax cut expires, and yet Reagan is the shining example conservatives love to hold up..

        • Buck the Wala says:

          I feel we should call on US Wep to call this name-calling game for what it is – political shenanigans!

          • Common Man says:

            Matt/Buck;

            Any attempt to convince either of you two that our nation and our liberties are under siege is almost a waste of time. I do wonder, however, how many liberties and how much cash the two of your are willing to relenquish before you start screaming.

            Is 38% fair, or would you allow more? At that rate you are working Jan – May 15th just to pay the IRS. Would you be willing to work as much as 6 months to pay just the IRS?

            How do you feel about SS and the chance that neither of you will see any of the funds currently being deducted from your salary once you reach retirement.

            How about some of the liberties you are forced to give up, or not use; how many more are you willing to surrender?

            How much is too much and what has to happen before you two scream enough!

            I am one person that has had enough, as a matter of fact I have had enough for almost 8 years now. We know longer live as free men and women, we are slaves to a tyrannical regime that has grown way past appropriate boundries.

            Those seated, and those that proceeded them have adopted ‘king’ like authority, taking all that they can carry and providing 0 in return.

            As I said earlier we need a governmental enema.

            CM

            • Is 38% fair, or would you allow more? At that rate you are working Jan – May 15th just to pay the IRS. False. You are not factoring in sales tax, state, or local taxes, or the added costs associated with virtually everything we buy or do created by government intervention and/or regulation. Including these, it’s probably Jan 1 – August 18, at least.

              How do you feel about SS and the chance that neither of you will see any of the funds currently being deducted from your salary once you reach retirement. First, SS is a Ponzi scheme. The money we pay now is spent on current retirees, so no one ever sees any of their own money come back to them. Secondly, taking you at your meaning, I object to your use of the word “chance.” There is no chance that I will ever see a dime of SS. I am ok with this, though I feel badly for those of my generation who will need it and won’t be able to receive it – I will have plenty of money saved up to fund my own retirement thank you very much.

              • Common Man says:

                Matt;

                Working until May 15th only pays your Federal income tax, which is what I initially indicated. Yes, I am sure that when you add everything else up we are working somewhere between Aug and Sept to earn the funds needed to feed the monster.

                My point is again; When is it enough and why should we allow it?

                SS is a farse, and has been ever since the government robbed it to fund other tyranical endeavors. I’m still curious as to why you think we should continue to pay into a sinkhole?

                CM

              • How much is enough… good questions. I’ve seen estimates (I’ll try to find them) that entrepreneurship will suffer around the 70% mark and that, prior to that, benefit outweighs cost. That said, I’m good with where we are now. I would like to see a lot of things cut (massive DOD cuts, means testing for SS, etc) and a few expansions (education, HHS, HUD).

                On balance, I’d like taxes to stay roughly where they are (though a little higher is ok), and shrink the gov. But I think we all know that isn’t going to happen..

              • Common Man says:

                Matt;

                Why and what is it that the government provides for you that you think is worth half your income?

                CM

              • Hey CM,

                If Mathius wants to spend his life as a tax slave to his president, let him. Its his right and a right the government will never take away. If he’s happy being a tax slave, so much the better.

                😉

              • Hey! A right the government will never take away!

                Wahoo!

              • Party on, Dude. At least until the money runs out…..

                8)

              • If the money runs out, we can always just print more!

              • Weimar, Bitchez…..

        • Interesting comment, Matt. Went back and looked at the income streams and the tax/deductible streams of the familiy business’ and personal income….net income was much greater in the Reagan years than the Bush, Clinton, Bush years and my income from both has risen significantly in the same time period. But, I pay high powered GURUS to figure all this crap out for me.

      • Buck

        So in your world a 3 to 5% plus INCREASE in taxes is NOT a tax hike (increase)?

        It is now called an expired tax cut.

        Its all the same Buck.

        The Dems knew how it would be used when they agreed to it. It was a game of chicken to be played in the future. The Dems said it would increase deficits but AGREED to the cuts as long as they were sunset.

        The Repubs agreed to the sunset, figuring the public wouldn’t let the Dems “increase” their taxes in an election year (2010).

        So the Repubs failed to stand on their principles and get a permanent tax reduction because it gave them a political club later.

        And the Dems failed to stand on their principles and allowed the deficit to increase so they could have a political club later.

        As I have been trying to tell the Lefties for months. Letting the “Bush” tax cuts expire will hit the middle class much harder. Using their own logic. A 3 to 5% increase in taxes will hurt the lower brackets much harder in terms of disposable income.

        But you see, the left can’t stand the truth. So they cover their ears and cry Bush, Bush, Bush.

        • Buck the Wala says:

          I agree it was a game of chicken and is being done on both sides of the aisle. But this is not the massive tax hike it is being made out to be – why use the term ‘tax hike’ to describe it? Because that should gin up some votes in your favor.

          Call it what it is – the expiration of tax cuts resulting in a slightly higher tax rate back to previous rates prior to said tax cuts.

          🙂

          • Buck

            Because it is an INCREASE in taxes.

            Funny how you think “slightly”. Tell me what a lower income person tells you when you explain they just got jacked 5% (10% to 15%). New Republican talking point: “Looks like balancing the budget on the backs of the poor to me.”

            Everyone seems focused on the “brackets”.

            The list of exemptions, credits, etc is much longer and ADDS to the increase.

            I saw the list a few months ago and it seems twice as long as what CM has posted.

            • As one of the bottom 10%, I can truthfully say that it’s going to hurt like hell to pay an extra 5%.

              And all of the little extra taxes we will get to enjoy as well isn’t going to help.

              But all you Progressive folks just keep walking around with you ears plugged.

            • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

              JAC

              You have to remember that there are an ALARMING number of people in this country that seem to have the viewpoint that all money rightfully belongs to the government, and we are just lucky that we get to keep any of what we earn AT ALL!

              To these people, a TAX CUT is something that COSTS THE GOVERNMENT MONEY.

              In reality, a TAX CUT is actually allowing people to keep more of what they have earned rather than using the threat of force to confiscate it from them and take it in the name of government.

              A tax cut DOES NOT COST THE GOVERNMENT ONE DIME, BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT NEVER HAD A VALID CLAIM TO THAT DIME IN THE FIRST PLACE! The government most certainly did not EARN the dime!

              Anyone who thinks that tax cuts “cost the government money” is delusional. A tax cut is NOT the government taking money that it already has and spending it, therefore it is not an expenditure.

    • The tax hikes or whatever you want to call them have actually fast tracted my decision of closing the doors on my business this year and simply renting the buildings out (hopefully). I currently have another company using my equipment due to some equipment failures in their bldg and they have expressed interest in a full out purchase or a rent to own scenario.

      I had a plan to make a move to my lake property within 6 yrs but the tax hikes and general state of the economy make the decision to move in time for my son to start 9th grade in a new school district much easier. Why work harder to earn less money? Why give them more of my money to waste? It just doesn’t make sense.

      I’m also going to vote em out, which I already did in the primary. And I’m going to hunker down and hope for the best for two years. Luckily I’m debt free and have some savings. But I’m not just going to keep throwing my money out the window.

      • Wow, girl. That’s a HUGE decision!

        • I’m not going to be the last one gone. Just following the lead of two other long time business owners here. I’m only giving up 57 years of family history. The others are giving up 60+ & 70+ years. A shame.

          • Anita,

            A shame

            No, its not.

            We often get trapped by our own history – holding on to things because of sentiment and not because of value, logic or reason.

            Remember you are here in this country because someone a long time ago in your family past was brave enough to abandon the land of his father and instead to create new lands of adventure and opportunity

            You cannot leave for the shores of plenty while trying to hold dear the shores of the past.

            • Common Man says:

              Anita;

              Read the book entitled “Who moved my Cheese” It won’t take more than a few hours and it is very enlightening.

              And as my Pappa use to say: “The turtle never gets anywhere until he sticks his neck out”

              CM

            • BF. I am sure that it is an easy decision for you to just pack up and go somewhere else.

              As a person who has had land in my family for 150 years though, I will tell you that it’s not so easy for us.

              YOU can rationalize it all you want. It’s different when you have ties to something. It just is.

              • Esom,

                I know it is difficult – from personal experience.

                However, it is a necessary habit if you wish to be free.

              • Didn’t say it wasn’t. Just that it IS hard for us.

              • Ya got that right Esom.

              • You and Esom are right. It IS VERY hard, but, sometimes necessary. I’ve done it several times in my life. My take on it is thus: better to do things on MY terms, rather than someone else’s.

                Both of you are pretty smart and can see what’s headed your way. Wisdom comes with maturity. Maturity enables one to make tough choices.

              • Luckily, I allready live where I would move to if the world collapses.

    • Common Man,

      Sorry for not responding earlier.

      You cannot vote them out federally it is impossible.

      Take control locally. The collapse of the Federal government will not be seen as a huge gaping smoking hole in Washington.

      It will NOT be noticeable just like the fall of Rome was unseen by the people living in that time.

      The collapse will happen the day the check from Washington no longer buys anything. The check will bounce. Default on payments or a short-change on a payment or service. When that happens you know the fall has happened.

      The consequences will be a shift toward a more decentralized system – de jure though, not de facto. In other words, people will still call it “United States” but there will be no power in the United States – it will reside in the State or city themselves.

      Therefore, now is the time to organize control of the local State and city governments. One day, people will no longer show up at a federal window for their cash, they will show up at a State window for their cash.

      The Fed will throw up their hands and say “Well, boys, you live there – deal with the riot yourself”.

      And they will be right. You do live there and you will HAVE to deal with the issues where you live.

      So, now is the time to PREPARE. To take local control. Establish the type of governance that you believe will be most effective in your local area.

      As I’ve often repeated on SUFA –stop worrying and talking about federal politics and start organizing SUFA into State politics.

      I know “talking” about Federal politics tends to unite the widely geographically dispersed readership. Everyone sees the same President where few seem the same Governor. Mathius and his New York issues aren’t interesting to D13 and his Texas issues, and vis versa.

      But SUFA must over come this. As much as most of what G.A. Rowe wrongly believes, he is right in a core point.

      “You can’t beat something with nothing”.

      SUFA needs to organize a loose structure to co-ordinate inter-State political action for it to control at the State level and communicate effectively and share certain resources at an inter-State level.

      Now is the time. Soon, it will be too late because “they” are planning the same thing right now, too.

      • Common Man says:

        BF;

        Agree that local is the key; wholeheartedly. Federal actions still do get my dander up. Becoming more aware of the idea that I’m wasting energy focusing on Federal crap. Maybe it is time to channel that energy solely toward local and district efforts. We have a solid district representative in Mike Rogers, so will increase efforts there. The Michigan Govenor is most likely a wash in this progressive/entitlement minded state.

        Thanks again for your thoughts

        CM

        • CM,

          RE: Governor.

          So why don’t you start a campaign to be Governor?

          Cut to the chase: do you think the “soft” handouts can continue, even at the State level?

          If so, then no big deal about who sits in the State.

          If no, a real big deal about who sits in the State.

          If soft handouts are going to be a political stress point, there are only two solutions:

          -reduce the payments
          or
          -increase taxes

          Someone is going to get hurt. If you do not want to get hurt, you need to control the State.

          • Common Man says:

            BF;

            Thanks for the vote of confidence, but I wouldn’t stand a chance. And given the entitlement minded population of Michigan (1 of the highest paying wealfare states and heavilly union population) anyone running on the platform of cutting entitlements is more likely to be tarred and feathered. Lansings mayor won the bid for the Democratic nomination this past election and his main platform was working to increase union based jobs. He has the support of the UAW and many others.

            A better shot would be to promote someone I can support, but still searching for that person.

            Besides I would rather start small and look at city council or the like; if I decided to run at all.

            CM

            • CM,

              The goal is not to necessarily win – but to run.

              Political calculation works only if there are more than one answer to a problem.

              The problem with modern politics is that people run to win and will do anything to win, when the goal should be to present contrasting ideas to solve the same problem and let the People choose which one they think is the best solution.

              Politics worked “in the old days” because two, but opposite, ideas where presented to the People. The “loser” did not go away “sad” he did not win – he went way saying “The People choose, so be it”.

              But with the desire to win, there is a “rush to the middle” – filled with sickening compromise from both sides until you have the same answer twice. What choice is that??

            • Common Man for ……-has a nice ring to it 🙂

  6. Here is a comment I made the other day and D13 asked that we put off discussion until Open Mic. I’ll be gone the rest of the day but here it is for you all to consider.

    Buck would be especially helpful here as he probably knows more about the “legal” exceptions to the Freedom of Religion Right.

    Just A Citizen said
    August 16, 2010 at 10:50 am

    The Vladiator

    I beg to differ. Belief or preaching of violence does not disqualify a religion.

    Islam has all the characteristics of a religion.

    You may think it illegitimate when compared to yours. Or you may consider it some distortion of yours. But IT IS a Religion.

    The real question should be whether any religion that preaches, supports and tolerates violence against the innocent should be allowed to exist in a land where the citizens are “free to practice their religion”.

    I think we know that this “right” to practice religion really DOES NOT exist in the USA. We are just not willing to acknowledge that.

    🙂

    • Buck the Wala says:

      The problem with your consitutional queries is that I don’t have nearly as much time to think and respond as I would like.

      To put it mildly, you are free to practice, preach and support any religion you wish, until such practices violate the constitution. The vast vast vast majority of religious Muslims (as with all religions) go to mosque (or church, or synagogue, or whatever), pray with their families and friends, go home, go to work, etc. etc. etc. They try to live in accordance with their view of their religion.

      As for the freedom of religion in this country – and whether or not we have such freedom – sure we do. As long as you keep it to yourself, in private, behind closed doors. You as an individual can even take it outside to a public forum! But the government must take a complete hands-off approach. Does that make sense? I think so – why should the government even appear to favor one religion over another? Has it gone a bit too far in certain instances – perhaps.

    • JAC says: “I think we know that this “right” to practice religion really DOES NOT exist in the USA. We are just not willing to acknowledge that.”

      D13 says: JAC, you brought up the Mormon as an example of the “right” to practice and that it does not exist. I asked how is the Mormon religion an example…I have not gone back to look but I will use the dreaded assumption that you mean the abolition in our laws to polygamy is an example of how freedom of religion does not really exist….am I correct?

      • Consequently, the same would apply to…say the Islam religion and Sharia Law. Honor killings are not allowed in the United States. We call that murder…so, in fact, you are stating that by having laws that prohibit the free exercise of Sharia Law….there is no freedom of religion…per se.

        • D13

          Yes, that is correct. At least not in the context that is thrown around by the political types.

          Lets take the next step.

          If we don’t have TRUE freedom of religion, then what is the basis for the rules we use to constrain that freedom. It certainly can’t be the religion itself. It can’t be another religion because the logic applies to both directions of the “freedom” argument.

      • D13

        Sorry was gone all day.

        Yes, the Mormons could not practice their religion, which included Polygamy.

        Utah could not become a State until the Mormon Church denounced the practice. Another one of their great revelations no doubt. But the bottom line is that they were not truly free to practice their religion.

        Other “cults” are classified as such because the fall outside some “legal” norm we have established. But they claim it is their religion. Christian Scientists can not let their children die or be cured by the hands of God. The State must intercede. Where is the “freedom of religion”?

        I think you get the point by now. When we say “freedom of religion” that “right is not absolute”. I found Buck’s response very curious. A right protected by the Constitution is an absolute right unless it conflicts with the Constitution.

        So how exactly can an absolute right conflict with a document which clearly states that right can not be infringed upon?

        • Buck the Wala says:

          This isn’t gonna help much to clarify (as I said, been swamped at work the past few days, plus haven’t had my coffee yet)….

          Basically my view on the issue is that if you are a private person – do what you want, where you want, within reason (the reason being whether or not it infringes on someone else). However, if you are a government actor, hands off religion. You want to put up a Christmas display? Be my guest – just put a menorah next to it. You want to lead a prayer before starting a townhall meeting/legislative session? Be my guest – just make sure its nondenominational.

          I feel overall we do have freedom of religion. However, we as a society have strived to place reasonable limits on that freedom to allow all to practice freedom of religion and to ensure the government does not act to promote one over another. Have we gone too far in certain cases? Sure. But that doesn’t mean freedom of religion is nonexistent.

        • Buck the Wala says:

          As for your example of Christian Scientologists — why should the children die because of the parents religious choice? Once the children are old enough to make their own religious decision, fine. I could care less if due to your religious beliefs you made the free choice to not accept medical treatment. I do care when the parents make that choice for a young child, knowing full well that that choice will in all probability lead to the child’s death.

          As for polygamy and Mormonism – I agree that this is one area where we went a bit too far. If a group of adults decide they want to all marry each other, by my guest!

          • Buck

            What about the fact that the parents are legally responsible for the child until they are 18.

            By what right or authority does the STATE take a child from a parent?

            What about a religion that calls for Animal Sacrifice?

            How about human sacrifice (voluntarily of course)?

            The REAL question is what is the value that allows Religion to be ignored?

            • Buck the Wala says:

              I never said it was an easy question. However, do you believe that because the parents are legally responsible for the child they are able to make a decision to kill their child? How about when there is medicine readily available with a 100% success rate?

              More fun hypos!!

              1) Animal sacrifice – I’m ok with it, as long as they aren’t killing my pet…even better if they eat the animal afterwards.

              2) Human sacrifice – As long as they are sacrificing an ADULT who is willing to be sacrificed I could be ok with this. If someone wants to die for something they believe in, despite all evidence to the contrary, that is their choice.

              Not sure what you’re getting at by your real question though…

              • Buck

                While you say would be OK with the examples I gave, I doubt very much that Society would tolerate either.

                In fact animal sacrifice would be illegal in most states.

                In order to impose upon a right or freedom to exercise a right there must be a fundamental “principle” at work.

                So there are really two parts to the question.

                What is the current principle that allows such an imposition to occur and is it consistent?

                If not, is there an appropriate principle that would allow such imposition in a free society and if so, what is it?

                I am looking at base principles here and not offering judgment of the examples I gave. We are hunting for contradictions with the intent of slaying them.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                I completely agree that society will not allow either animal or human sacrifice to occur (though I believe some states have some exceptions with animal sacrifice and religion – not sure the extent of them though). The rationale being that you can’t just go around killing animals and humans, even if you want to.

                The overriding principal in these examples and why society would not allow them is, I guess, ‘do no harm unto others’. Animals don’t have the ability to choose to be killed in the name of someone’s religion. With humans, there is a value being placed on human life despite that human’s free choice – the same principal comes into play in how the vast majority of states approach suicide and end-of-life decisions.

                Your thoughts?

              • Buck

                The “do no harm” would be what I call an ethical standard or principle.

                But it seems to me it is supported by a more CORE principle.

                How do we know this concept is correct?

                Why do states have the authority to intervene in suicide or end of life decisions, or in polygamy by consenting adults?

    • Buck, JAC;

      Here is the problem, and I’m surprised no one saw it yet.

      There does not exist a “freedom of religion”.

      There exists only “freedom”.

      If you believe there is a freedom of religion, then, as JAC pointed out, you can pretty much anything under the guise of this declaration – including usurping real freedom.

      There is only “Freedom” – add-on descriptors wholly are unnecessary (and often dangerous).

      • Black Flag

        Yes, but WHAT supports freedom?

        • JAC,

          WHAT supports freedom?

          Freedom.

          • BF

            So Slavery supports Slavery?

            • JAC,

              No, Slavery is the antithesis of Freedom and is a contradiction.

              • BF

                How do you know that Freedom is an irreducible prime?

                You say freedom is supported by freedom but that slavery is simply the antisthesis of freedom.

                Thus freedom is the supporting principle for both.

                One as its own identity and the other a merely its opposite.

                Freedom is absolute and right because freedom is freedom?

                I think you need to dig deeper.

                What is the irreducible truth that supports freedom.

                Call it an ethic or a moral standard if you like.

                Or you can fall back to the metaphysical and epistemological primes if you like.

              • BF

                Do me a favor and post any response at the bottom.

                I am having trouble keeping up with the large number of comments.

                Thanx

      • Bill Press Keeps Ground Zero Mosque Debate in Proper Perspective
        By Doug Powers • August 17, 2010 11:19 AM

        **Written by Doug Powers

        Bill Press: “Sometimes you have to stand up and say, this is wrong — the wrong place… It’s a slap to the American people… There are some places where cheap political tricks should not be allowed.”

        Oh wait, that’s not Bill Press talking about the Ground Zero mosque — the above is what Press said about Glenn Beck’s rally at the Lincoln Memorial. Here’s what Press said about the Ground Zero mosque:

        “Let me tell you something, first of all, we’re not talking ground zero, we’re talking two blocks from ground zero, there are apartment buildings there, there’s a catholic church there, a pizza parlor there. there are hotels there. There might even be a porn shop there. This is not a sacred site, this is all about religion and the opponents, there’s only one reason to oppose this mosque, and that is to paint Islam as an evil religion and to paint all Muslims and equate them with a 19 terrorist who’s flew into that building. it is wrong. it is un-American and the people against it ought to be ashamed of playing a cheap political trick.”

        Condemning an entire group of people for the actions of a few is wrong. Got that?

        Okay, with that bit of wisdom in mind, let’s go back to a Tea Party/Glenn Beck rally at the Lincoln Memorial. Press went a step further:

        “In a slap at both President Lincoln and Dr. King, not to mention the American people, the National Park Service has given Glenn Beck permission to hold a Tea Party rally on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial on August 28 – 47 years to the day after Martin Luther King gave his magnificent ‘I Have A Dream’ speech”… If you ask me, that’s like granting al Qaeda permission to hold a rally on September 11 – at Ground Zero.”

        Tea Partiers are like Al Qaeda even though the only thing the Tea Party has in common with 9/11 is that it’s trying to prevent another one. In this case, Press is not condemning an entire group of people for the actions of a few, but rather demonizing an entire group of people for the actions of none of them.

        The Tea Party is comparable to the Islamic terrorists who murdered thousands on 9/11, but it’s un-American to criticize a mosque near Ground Zero because to do so is to blame an entire group for the actions of a few? This is hilariously misguided and insane even for Bill Press.

        Press has also adopted an angle that’s being parroted by others in the media: We shouldn’t be having a moral freakout over a mosque when there are strip clubs, an adult/lingerie store and an off-track betting parlor also nearby.

        That would be a logical rebuttal to Ground Zero mosque critics, provided the Twin Towers had been taken down by six pole dancers, three pairs of edible underwear and a bookie.

        **Written by Doug Powers

        http://michellemalkin.com/2010/08/17/bill-press/

        • As much as I don’t want to talk about it 😳 -I feel I must. I was going to reply to BF-decided to think about it a little longer, didn’t close the reply window-then decided to post this article didn’t notice it was still opened to BF’s comment-So here it sits-in the wrong place.

          • V.H.

            The nice thing about discussing CORE principles is that almost any other discussion FITS right in.

            So, you did not put it in the wrong place. Just not the one you intended.

            I did notice this line of thinking from the lefties yesterday and last night. I was amazed they would flop the argument within such a short time period.

            OK, I’m not really amazed. It is after all the normal for those who really have no solid principles.

            • Seems that some of them at least agree that there are times when one can disagree with something even if the persons have a Right to do it-Wonder if they classify themselves as bigots or haters or even killers apparently.

  7. Not a single dime……….Well, how many dimes are we taking about, Mr. President??

  8. We live in a police state…

    http://gizmodo.com/5615282/swat-team-called-over-umbrella-with-samurai-sword-handle

    Adding, HAHAHAAHHAHA AHAHAHAHAHA HA HAHAHHAHA HAHAHAHHA HAHAH I have this umbrella and, in fact, used it the night of Buck’s bachelor party.. HAHAHAH HAHAHAHA

    • Buck the Wala says:

      I’m still surprised you didn’t get stopped by someone with that thing!

    • Mathius

      Yesterday I went to a friends for lunch. On the way I passed a Pawn Shop along the highway and noticed a fella walking to his truck with a high powered rife with scope carrying it at his side. A sling was hanging under his hand as he strolled straight toward the U.S. Highway, where his truck was parked about 20 yards away.

      I remember thinking, I wonder what the reaction would be back east if someone say this fella along a U.S. Highway. Guess I have an idea after what you posted.

  9. Is Nancy Pelosi certifiably insane?

    In her latest SNAFU, Madame Speaker is calling for an investigation into all the people who OPPOSE the building of a mosque at ground zero.

    Yep.

    This is the same person who has determined that returning war veterans should be watched closely as they could be recruited by homegrown terrorist organizations.

    In the upcoming elections I would suggest that the political organization “GOOOH” is correct – VOTE OUT ALL INCUMBENTS!

    • Common Man says:

      GA

      As my brother says when speaking about Nancy P and her cronies; They are all crazier than a shithouse rat”

      CM

    • Manditory Annual Mental Competency Testing. She wouldn’t have passed for the last several years, if ever.

    • Also, I’m opposed to building the Mosque at that location. When does the funding start coming my way? Do I need to fill out an app or something? What did I miss?

  10. Judy if you are out there:

    Have you heard from G-Man and/or his dad lately? How is he doing in his recovery?

  11. We thought it was bad when home ownership was considered a right? Well take a look at what else is considered a right – and taxpayers should cover it!

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1303273/Councils-pay-disabled-visit-prostitutes-lap-dancing-clubs.html

    • Kathy

      What the hell. We paid for a new rail road next to a cat house, this is just the logical next step.

    • Hmmmmm?!?

      Do I see a solution to the Islamic Human Bomb problem? If the Imam promises 72 virgins for the bomber you can just imagine how frustrated those virgins must be . . . Send them all to Amsterdam and there won’t be any virgins left to promise these guys.

      I know, I know . . . I am, after all, a retired Marine . . . 😉

  12. You just can’t make this stuff up. After 10 years of Bush bashing- now they want Bush to bail Obama out on the mosque issue.

    WHO’S YOUR DADDY NOW?

    http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Mosque-supporters-beg-George-W-Bush-to-come-to-Obamas-rescue-100977179.html

    • Anita

      You have helped end my very long day on a most hilarious note. I almost chocked on my glass of wine.

      I think he should do what they ask. The thought of the lefties pissing on themselves as they quickly do an about face into the wind is just too good to let slide.

      Please Mr. Bush. DO IT. All you have to do is read your old speeches on the subject. PLEASE DO IT.

      Hope all is well with you.

      Sorry to hear your thinking of pulling the plug on your business but you are dead right. I have been there myself. The return simply gets to small for the hours, headaches, heartburn and anxiety suffered.

      If you are pushed out ahead of your planned schedule I am thinking you may need a little help. Don’t know why but just had an idea come to mind.

      Perhaps a little SUFA Cabin Raising on a small lake in Michigan is in order next year.

      🙂 🙂

      • JAC: Glad to give you a laugh at the end of the day!

        Don’t start throwing sorries my way, you’ll make me start second guessing myself. I’ve been through several changes in the last two years, I might as well make it a total makeover and get a fresh start. Excavation starts this fall. A home will be sitting there next spring, then a gradual move out there to complete the process. Sounds good to me. Gentlemen, start your backhoes! As I said…SUFA is always welcome!

    • Good one Anita-Woke up and had a good laugh. Sorry you were forced to make a decision you obviously didn’t want to make but really proud of you.

  13. “Now we see the violence inherent in the system! Help, help I’m being repressed!”

    Happy Thursday, everyone 🙂

    • Mathius

      Your starting to get it. Keep thinking.

      • Oh my god! All these years.. I’ve been so blind! How could I not see it before?

        We are living in a fascist dictatorship by mob rule. More than half of my money is being stolen from me in service to the false god of the Greater Good. The innocent are oppressed by threat of violence as we slowly lose our liberty and freedom – ideals upon which this nation was founded. The Bolshevik in Chief plans to turn America, Land of the Free, into America, Worker’s Paradise. I must act! I’m off to the Mexican border to find the Dread Pirate. Together we can stop this!

        But first, let me stop by the fridge for a refreshing beverage. A nice tasty Red Bull… Ahh.. delicious..

        Wait, where was I going? Things aren’t so bad. Never mind, I like the current system just fine. We’re headed in the right direction. Taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society. Obama is a great President and has (despite public opinion) done a great job so far. Big Brother is our friend!

  14. Canine Weapon:

    Here’s something for you to chew on:

    http://www.thoseshirts.com/dogshirts.html

    • Canine Weapon says:

      I suppose this is longer overdue, but it’s time I just come out with it once and for all..

      I, Canine Weapon, am… a liberal!

      There. I said it.

      I feel so liberated, I’m going to go chew a couch 🙂

      • We’ll see what the man of the house has to say 🙂

        • Canine Weapon says:

          He smacked me with a rolled up newspaper 😦

          And, by the way, who reads the newspaper anymore?

          I don’t think he’ll take it well when I tell him that I want to go vegan…

        • Canine Weapon has the freedom to believe whatever he likes. I wholly reject his claim of abuse via a newspaper. The defense will show that I have not purchased a newspaper in several years, and that the smack was, in fact, his spastic running into the wall while terrorizing the cat.

          When you think about it, all dogs are liberals. They constantly are hanging around begging for a handout. If they want to protest, they usually do so by destroying their own environment or barking loudly at those they disagree with.

          My dog, however, is only perpetrating such acts to lure folks like Mathius in closer. He has requested a 9mm for Christmas and the sheriff’s office called yesterday approving his doggy concealed carry permit. He is actually a Libertarian. However, he did not vote in the last election because he felt that Bob Barr didn’t do enough to get the government to get out of his dog life.

  15. Yesterday my wife came home with some news,

    It seems my wife’s and my insurance company will go up on us next year. In addition, we will have a $2400 deductible and will pay NOTHING, medicine included, until the deductible is met.

    They are starting to get ready for the Obamacare. I have a few questions.

    1. I thought Obamacare didn’t start until 2014?
    2. I thought Obamacare was supposed to make insurance CHEAPER?
    3. I thought that person’s who were po’, were going to be subsidized. I fall under that. Where is my Government subsidy?

    One other question that I have is that, why are the insurance companies allready getting ready to switch to Obamacare by raising prices and cutting benefits. I thought Obamacare didn’t start until 2014?

    Make no mistake about it. This is a financial disaster for my family. We have a lot of prescriptions we have to have. If the insurance quits picking up their part, we are SCREWED.

    Can anyone answer these questions for me? Because so far, Obamacare sucks dishwater.

    • Esom

      I do not have actual facts but only what I have heard from others the past few weeks.

      Supposedly there is some provision about controlling costs as of a certain date. So Insurance Companies are trying to raise rates before that deadline.

      By doing this they are also trying to push the high cost patients to move to the new govt pool. This will of course increase their profits once the program kicks in.

      If this is true, it was a completely foreseeable response. Another example of how those who think they are so much damn smarter than the rest of us don’t have a clue.

      • Thing is JAC, these f’n fools are going to wipe me out financially NOW. Not in 2014. By raising the rates and reducing coverage, they will thoroughly kick my ass beginning next year.

        My family may not make it through, without losing some property.

        • Esom

          My dear Georgian friend, I wish I could say otherwise but you are absolutely CORRECT.

          I suggest you start looking into some of these not for profit health insurance organizations I have heard about. I don’t know if they are tied to churches or what but they seem to have a good track record of keeping costs down and providing good coverage.

          I think they are basically “pools”. Will try to find some references for you.

          How’s the Peach Crop commin? We got Flathead Cherries and am workin on some Huckleberries.

          I’m ready for some tradin if you can pull it off.

          • I will check on the Peaches. The Frost got mine. It has the past 2 years. Plums too.

            But there are other places that protect theirs. Will check with them.

    • You ain’t seen nothin yet Esom. If I’m correct- starting ’11 all employer paid insurance premiums will also have to be included as income on your w-2 – meaning you’ll be taxed on benefits weather you use them or not! So your premium goes up and so do your taxes.

      Correct me if I’m wrong SUFA

    • Also, I believe some provisions kick in earlier than ’14, like “children” through the age of 26 being covered. That’s a lot of extra people to cover so costs go up now.

      • True, but twenty-year-olds are pretty cheap. It’s seniors who are expensive. We don’t really require much medical attention.

        • Buck the Wala says:

          Not to mention its not like the insurance companies are being forced to cover these kids for free — they just have to offer coverage through the parents’ policies until the kids turn 26; the parents still have to pay the additional premiums…

          • Buck

            Who gave the govt the authority to make me pay for my ADULT offspring’s health insurance.

            They don’t live with me. They don’t help support me in any way. But I have to pay for their health insurance.

            • Buck the Wala says:

              You don’t have to do anything. The insurance companies just have to offer it as an OPTION. Free choice, JAC, come on, you should be all for this!

              • Buck

                In my case it is NOT an option.

                It must be included in any policy that involves more than me and my wife.

                We have one qualifying child, under normal circumstances.

                So the others automatically get included and WE PAY, regardless.

        • True, Matt, they don’t. So why the hell are they going to be required to pay for insurance? Its the hidden tax that helps pay for this crap. Not a lot of 20 year olds make over 250k, but they are about to be forced to pay for something by the government, which is essentially the definition of a tax, except that the beneficiary is a private industry that is being bribed with that tax money to offset the costs of the stuff they are being required to pay for by law, another tax.

          Highway robbery.

  16. Adding some more questions to Esom’s dilema:

    There are groups forming to get Obamacare repealed. And I believe it’s Nebraska has filed suit for that state to be able to opt out.

    How then will insurance companie justify the higher premiums with everything still up in the air?

    This is going be a mess.

    • The GA insurance commisioner has refused to implement it. But my wife’s insurance comes from PA.

      • Esom

        You should dig deeper. While the Company is in PA I think all Insurance companies must comply with the laws of the state where the insured resides.

        That is why some company’s policies are not available or valid in certain states.

  17. Lets have some fun at the “conservatives” expense for awhile. I bet Buck and Mathius would appreciate a little break. Snatched from HuffPo, cause I didn’t want to take the time to build a separate article and paste.

    “Conservative website WND has dropped Ann Coulter as the keynote speaker at its upcoming conference over her plan to speak to a group in favor of gay rights.

    WND says that Coulter’s decision to speak at Homocon, an event sponsored by a gay Republican organization called GOProud, disqualifies her from speaking at their “Taking America Back National Conference.”

    “Ultimately, as a matter of principle, it would not make sense for us to have Ann speak to a conference about ‘taking America back’ when she clearly does not recognize that the ideals to be espoused there simply do not include the radical and very ‘unconservative’ agenda represented by GOProud,” WND editor and CEO Joseph Farah said. “The drift of the conservative movement to a brand of materialistic libertarianism is one of the main reasons we planned this conference from the beginning.”

    Coulter, who is and will remain a WND columnist, said she was hired to deliver a speech at Homocon but that does not mean she endorses GOProud’s views.

    “They hired me to give a speech, so I’m giving a speech. I do it all the time,” she said. “I speak to a lot of groups and do not endorse them. I speak at Harvard and I certainly don’t endorse their views. I’ve spoken to Democratic groups and liberal Republican groups that loooove abortion. The main thing I do is speak on college campuses, which is about the equivalent of speaking at an al-Qaida conference. I’m sure I agree with GOProud more than I do with at least half of my college audiences. But in any event, giving a speech is not an endorsement of every position held by the people I’m speaking to.”

    Coulter added that she was set to speak for WND, but she thinks the organization is “nuts on the birther thing.”

    Coulter’s history on gay issues is checkered: she notoriously called John Edwards a “faggot” in 2007, and earlier this year she railed against “irritating lesbian” Constance McMillen for challenging the sanctimony of heterosexual-only proms.”

    NOW, for my opening comments.

    First, what the heck does this mean? “”The drift of the conservative movement to a brand of materialistic libertarianism is one of the main reasons we planned this conference from the beginning.””

    They claim a move to Libertarianism yet drop Coulter because she has the brass to TALK to a group of gay Republicans. Not endorse, but simply talk.

    Which of course means they believe in imposing their values upon and controlling the “gay” population.

    Libertarianism, last I checked, does not embrace “materialism” it embraces “capitalism” which is because it is consistent with FREEDOM.

    So we have a “conservative” group that espouses FREEDOM that wants to restrict the rights of homo sexuals and embraces materialism, which of course enslaves us all to the “mercantilists”.

    So for you SUFA folks that think you are “conservatives” still, I ask you this. Is this group a mainstream of the “modern conservative” movement?

    Item Two: This from Coulter. “The main thing I do is speak on college campuses, which is about the equivalent of speaking at an al-Qaida conference.”

    If one of you ladies from SUFA see Ms. Coulter would you please remind her of this comment and then just slap the crap out of her for this one? I am a gentleman and thus can not do it myself.

    • PICK ME, PICK ME!!!!!! I have a lot of frustrations to get out right about now.

      • All yours.

        I never, ever, though I’d sympathize with Coulter on anything, but she definitely got the short end of this one. Not that she seems to mind.

        As for college campuses being the equivilent of Al Queda training camps, she is frequently a user of hyperbole. I wouldn’t read too much into that statement.

        However, there are 1,000,001 other reasons that I do feel she deserves a good slap. Or a pie in the face.

        Or, you know, the arm if you’re a lousy shot.

        • Adding, I somehow doubt Anita is a lousy shot…..

          • You are correct, for once, Mathius. You’re speaking to a ‘forgot how many years’ all-star shortstop…even into my late twenties.

        • I don’t have any familiarity with this group. But, as a REAL Conservative who believes in Freedom first above all. It is my opinion that Gay’s should have the same rights as anyone else.

          I don’t agree with it. I think it is wrong. But that is my OPINION. As long as they do not infringe on MY rights, they should be free to do anything thay want. It is their private business.

          This so-called conservative group is wrong. And their group will come to nothing because of it.

          • Esom

            Your talking more like a Radical Right Wing Liberal than a Conservative.

            I think you should re-think your label.

            I don’t believe those who wish to impose their moral values on others by using govt are going to give up the “conservative” name.

            You goin to Beck’s August rally?

        • Mathius

          Yes it is hyperbole. But when you rise to the level of criticizing others for similar comparison, in the public arena, then you need to clean up your own rhetoric.

          By the way, this is where Beck has slipped up a bit. Not so much on factual errors but in elevating his criticism of others directly. It makes one vulnerable to attack on the same basis. The old adage of don’t throw stones if you live in a glass house.

          • Very true.. I know I’ve seen some Jon Stewart videos where he shows Beck blasting someone for something and then cuts to Beck doing or saying the exact same thing. It is really quite hilarious. He’s done it a few times now.

            • Buck the Wala says:

              Last night was pretty funny — did his full Beck impression with the blackboard and everything. Worth looking up if you missed it.

            • Mathius

              I’ve seen Stewart do the same thing.

              I honestly think that the “fame” starts going to their heads. Kind of like the Potomac Fever in D.C..

              It destroys humility, which is our guard against doing and saying really stupid things that appear hypocritical.

    • Coulter should be allowed to talk and WND has a right to think what they want-they just don’t speak for me or all conservatives. As far as slapping her for that stupid comment it will just increase her book sales.

  18. I have another subject that I am quite sure will garner a few responses.

    GLENN BECK

    I have been watching Glenn since he came to FoxNews. I will grant that the man gets somtimes overly dramatic. I can say truthfully that he would probably agree with me that it is all part of the show to get people to watch. That by his own admission, he is an Entertainer.

    But I will also say this about Glenn Beck. In my opinion, Glenn Beck KNOWS what being an American citizen SHOULD be. He KNOWS what Liberty is supposed to be. And he KNOWS his American History and the Founders of this Nation as good or better than about any US Historian I know.

    He has a statement that he makes all the time that I challenge anyone to have a problem with. He says repeatedly to question everything and everyone, including him.

    When I have researched one of the subjects. It was on the Founder’s Religious beliefs, HE WAS RIGHT. Most of them were NOT, in fact, Deists, as some have claimed. Some were, most were NOT.
    Every time I have listened to what he says, he has been right about Liberty and Freedom.

    In my Opinion he has been right on everything he has said. At least he believes EXACTLY as I do about my Country. In most all cases, when you get through to the meat of his arguements, he is right.

    So. If you don’t agree with me, bring it on!

    • All of the founders were diets and/or atheists. Every single one. Most of them just never wrote it down anywhere or told anyone (even their wives). And they went to church to cover it up and gain social acceptance. After they all died, nobody knew.

      Go ahead, prove me wrong. 🙂

      • Actually, I can absilutely prove that they were not diets. There were no diets at the time named after any of the founders, nor were they eaten. I am reasonably certain that no one subsisted off of the founding fathers, unless you are referring to the specific baterium, bugs, etc. that were involved in digesting their corpses upon their death, but during their lives, they were definately not diets, whether they told their wives or not.

        😀

      • Thomas Jefferson was a deist. George Washington, John Adams, Ben Franklin and most others were not.

        Also, I said that was just one thing I researched. Glenn Beck, whether an self proclaimed entertainer, and remember he calls himself that, or not, is right most all of the time.

        That is why he gets all the media and liberal/progressive bullshit attention. Because they have to marginalize him and the things he uncovers.

        His lessons on America are right. If you dismiss him because of his theatrics, then that is your loss. If you don’t believe the historical and freedom and liberty he talks about, then you are simply, in my opinion, simpleTONS.

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      Thanks ESOM – like taking candy from a baby! 😉

      http://glennbeckreport.com/glenn-beck-lies/

    • I’ll back you up here Esom, regardless of the links shoved your way. I do believe Beck has opened more eyes and encouraged more people to get educated about history than any other person out there right now.

      You can also tell when someone is making an impact by the way the progressives jump on something – hence Ray and Buck scrambling to disprove him.

      It’s not about everything he says is the absolute truth and nothing but. It’s about his exposing and questioning and encouraging his listeners to do the same. I don’t idolize him or anything of the sort. I respect his commitment and courage.

      • I don’t “idolize” him either Kathy. Like you, I respect his views and agree with a lot of what he says.

        But don’t worry about Ray and Buck. Those are the first two I expected to get a rise out of.

        Progressives are just that way. Anyone who doesn’t agree with them is stupid and wrong. That is why we have the situation we find ourselves in as a Nation now.

        The Insane are in charge of the Asylum.

        • Hi Kathy and Esom,

          I agree with both of you. Don’t worry about the Beck haters. They’re just in denial, and denial is a very powerful emotion. They’re terrified that Beck might right and that they’ve been played for fools. In about 2 years from now, when the economy and society are in even worse shape, everyone who got high on Hopium is going to look and feel really, really stupid. Wait for it…

          😉

  19. Ray Hawkins says:
    • Ray old boy. You can google all the “facts” you want to on Glenn Beck. That does not make you or them right.

      I am speaking of the things Glenn says. I have not found one of them wrong. Just because you come up with some liberal peckerhead’s unproven opinion means nothing.

      • Buck the Wala says:

        So Glen Beck is correct, even when fact-checkers prove him wrong?? I guess he’s like the pope – infallible.

        • Since when has he been proven wrong Bucko? Why is it wrong to ask questions of our Government? Some of us that don’t see the Government through Progressive filters, don’t like the direction we are headed in.

          • Buck the Wala says:

            Ray just provided a series of links proving Beck wrong on any number of issues, yet you refuse to believe any of it.

            There’s no problem with questioning government, but please stop taking Beck at his word. The guy is certifiable.

      • Ray Hawkins says:

        Sorry to ruin your idol worship Esom – try releasing yourself long enough from Beck’s nutsack to read some of the things I sent you. You’ve been played Southern boy – plain and simple!

        • I don’t see Media Matters proving him wrong. And it’s not hero worship your poor dumbass. It’s agreement with his views.

          • Buck the Wala says:

            http://mediamatters.org/search/tag/glenn_beck_program?tab=research

            Whole slew of research done by Media Matters on Beck’s claims.

          • Ray Hawkins says:

            Esom – you said Beck “has been right on everything he has said”. Now you’re just being ridiculous. Beck is not right on everything he says – he repeatedly distorts the truth, outright lies, and takes things out of context – or he’ll just utter some bullshit nonsense that cannot be proven true or false:

            “this president has exposed himself, I think, as a guy, over and over and over again, who has a deep-seated hatred for white people, or white culture.”

            is like me asking you “Esom – do you still beat your wife?”

            When you throw some b.s. up on this board as such you need to expect to be called on it. Blindly accepting what Beck says is idol worship, messiah worship, whatever-the-hell-you-want-to-call-it. Your more than welcome to plaster your walls with Beck posters or to roll with the Glenn Beck vanity license plate or to daydream about the two of you sharing corndogs at a Braves game and giving each other drunken man hugs (“I love you Beckster! I love you too Esom!” – sorry I am making fun now – is all in jest) – but that doesn’t make everything the man says right!

            • I don’t say that he is ALWAYS right. If I wrote that I must have mis-wrote. 🙂 You know Ray. How you Progressives mis-speak all the time.

              Or maybe I was just taken out of context. 🙂

              I just said that I agree with him most of the time. And by what I know of US History, and that is more than you, most likely, he is right.

              • Ray Hawkins says:

                Esom – I guess I’ll really break your heart now and tell you that I own all of his books and have read them all (expect his latest “Fiction” release). Sorry bud – but I ain’t no Progressive so your epithet doesn’t work on me.

                I’m not sure why you think you know more of U.S. History than I do (“mines bigger than yours – yuck yuck yuck”) – I’m fairly well versed in most all aspects of history – I read more history than anything else.

                BTW Buck – I have not read Hitch 22 yet – just cracked open Anthony Bourdain’s latest – Hitchens is slated right after that.

                Oh – and Esom – here is your quote: “In my Opinion he has been right on everything he has said.”

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Let me know how Hitch-22 is; been debating picking it up.

                Haven’t read Bourdain’s latest but its on the bookshelf waiting. I loved Kitchen Confidential and am actually in the middle of ‘Waiter Rant’ now; kind of interesting to see the play out between kitchen and front from both perspectives.

              • “In my Opinion he has been right on everything he has said. At least he believes EXACTLY as I do about my Country. In most all cases, when you get through to the meat of his arguements, he is right.”

                There Ray. I went up and found where I said that. Notice the second sentence. “At least he believes EXACTLY as I do about my Country.” That is the crucial sentence in that paragraph.

                But like I expected someone to do, you took only the first sentence and ran with it. Sort of the the same shit Huffpo or Media Matters would do. But since you het your news from these sources, I guess you are just practicing a learned behaviour. 😉

              • Ray Hawkins says:

                Esom – I guess you don’t realize you’re maybe contradicting yourself. The 1st and third sentence agree with one another. The second is a subset of the other two, but not necessarily qualifying that you do not believe everything he says.

                Clear as mud?

              • No Ray. “In most all cases” leaves “some cases” where he may be wrong. That does not agree with the first sentence.

                And besides, no one is asking YOU to agree with him. I just said that I did. I agree with the meat of his arguments “most” of the time.

              • Ray Hawkins says:

                Esom – I am more and more confused with how you view Beck’s meat. You said “once you get through his meat” meaning his meat may not be the best but what is left afterwards is what you like.

              • Your confusion is caused by all of the Hopium that you have ingested in the past two years Ray. 😀

                By meat, I mean the substance. The subject that is brought up, stripped of all the Entertainment aspects.

                You know, for a samrt guy, sometimes you jus’ ignint.

              • You need to get the liberal lingo downpat…

                “Let me be clear…” is the all-time favorite.

                “Unexpectedly” is really popular and useful.

                “Unprecedented” another good one.

        • No he’s not infallible and I don’t know if everything he says is true-I just know that I agree with his overall premise. And I find the fact that there are web sites out there who’s sole purpose is to prove the man a liar says a lot about their purpose and I don’t think it’s based on being impartial or even on truth. So you will have to excuse my ignorance of not just being blown away by the fact that these things are FACT CHECKED and there are MILLIONS of examples.

  20. I knew I would get a rise out of the Liberal\Progressives on this site with Glenn Beck. This was on purpose too. I got the exact response I thought I would get.

    But you see, even IF you can prove that Glenn has exagerated a few times, 😉 I am not talking about his grand tales of what Obama and his minions are doing to our Country. No, that would be bad enough. I am talking about his belief’s about Freedom and Liberty in this Country and where we are headed.

    You see, that is his opinion. AND I AGREE WITH MOST OF WHAT HE SAYS. If you have a problem with that, tuff shit.

    I could care less if you think it’s funny, or that I want to have his babies. That is you stupid ass opinion. While I tend to think you are out of your rabbit-assed minds, you are welcome to them.

    Whether you believe it or not, we are headed down a dangerous path as a Nation. An Unsustainable path. Something is going to have to give, and bycracky it ain’t gonna be given by me if I can help it.

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      Esom – a stupid ass posting begets a stupid ass response.

      ftr – most of his statements regarding freedom and liberty I agree with in substance.

      • Thank you for your stupid ass response Ray. 🙂 The substance of his agruements are exactly what I am talking about. Not the crap he does for entertainment. Allthough he does get your attention with it.

  21. TIME FOR SOME INTROSPECTION AND HARD THINKING

    I will hold my comments until others offer theirs. I don’t want to influence your reactions.

    • One word JAC. Fascinating!

    • JAC: I will be willing to wager that the left leaners want cash for their work, the right learners would be willing to do it for nothing. Myself, I’ll do it for free to help someone out and for that same “purpose” notion. Have you ever read, somehow I think you have, Rick Warren’s Purpose Driven Life?

      You can hold off for more responses.

      • Anita,

        An what exactly are you leaning on as some sort of reasoning for why you believe that the left leaners and right leaners react as you are wagering?

        • My environment, for one USW. I’m from Democratic Detroit don’t forget. Bunch o freeloaders..Gimmee, gimmee, gimmee.

          My family. Strict conservatives. Will do anything for anyone, for free, just for the sake of being nice. And what goes around.. comes around

      • Anita

        I have NOT read his book. It is lying around the house somewhere but I have avoided it.

        I have heard some of his lectures or speeches if you will. I like some of his ideas but not all.

        In general, I have found all these “self help” gurus to be a little overly simplistic in their conclusions. And I have found they often are just re-packaging old concepts with modern language and graphics.

        Here is the key, to me. We each need to strive to discover what a “flourishing” life would mean to us. It is not the same for all of us, or perhaps any of us. There will be some common things among many, but not the ENTIRE package. What motivates our actions at any point in time will then be based on the relationship to that goal and our situation at that point in time.

        As a over simplified example, I may want to live on a yacht and write poetry, but if today I have no money, I am going to be motivated by money today. If I have enough to buy the yacht but don’t know how to write poetry, I am not going to be motivated or take action to get more money. I may work harder for poetry lessons.

        To this extent I am on board with Warren and others who stress a goal or purpose driven life. Once you have an idea of what a “flourishing” life means to you, all your actions should be directed to achieving that to the best of your ability. You may never reach the ultimate but at the end you will know “you played the game to the best of your ability, you gave it all you had, you loved the game and the game gave you joy in return, and for that reason you personally are a winner”.

        As an all star short stop I figured that phrase might bring home to you the concept I am getting at. There are NO EX-All Stars my dear. Once you have that star it never dies or fades.

        • Thanks for putting a smile on my face JAC!

          You’re an all-star too!

          Now I have to follow Esom’s lead and get something on the grill for the family. A ribeye and a pork steak should do it.

    • As an IT tech, I have to be a self starter. Sometimes I have to “find” things to do. It’s not hard to find, but I could ignore some of it if I wanted to. I find that I don’t want to.

      As a matter of fact, I work better if my boss leaves me alone. And it kind of ticks me off when he gets me to leave something at my school alone and leave it for him to fix. Like I need his help to fix anything. If he would supply me with the tools and parts, he would never hear a word from me OR the school.

      So I guess in that context, the video was correct.

      I particularly liked the point about LINUX and others being given away for free.

    • The fact that man is a complicated animal who isn’t motivated by bread alone, I have always known-all the factors that go into why this is a fact, boy that’s a hard one.

      • Antia

        Actually I think D13’s example is not exactly the same but does show impact to “motivation”.

        In that case it becomes obvious that no amount of personal effort will increase personal reward to the incentive to improve is killed.

        In the video we see the rewards are tied to individual effort, not group effort. So the question is what motivates each individual.

        The trap of these studies is that the “smart” people then think that ALL people react the same. So they then apply individualized results (a person) to large numbers (society). I think you know where this leads.

        One key thing ignored, for example, in “why” might results drop with higher reward for “complex” tasks is the issue of “ability”. If you are offering more money to someone to produce more complex tasks that they can not perform due to skill deficiency, you will get decreased performance due to the frustration created.

        But in general the realization that people are motivated by more than money is NOT a new discovery. I refer you and others to Maslow’s Hierarchy Triangle.

        • My college roommates and I used to joke about Maslow’s Hierarchy of needs because he put sex at the bottom of the pyramid with air and food and water.

          • Jennie

            I suppose as “liberated” young women you thought he should have put it on top?

            • Actually, we were very virtuous and chaste young women, and we used to joke that it was no wonder we couldn’t think about organic chemistry because how could we think about learning when we hadn’t even filled our most basic needs.

          • Jennie

            OK, on the more serious side. Sorry, just couldn’t resist picking the easy fruit.

            When I first saw his triangle I don’t recall Sex even being part of the discussion.

            Although I guess sex was an obvious basic need as it is required for our long term existence.

            At least until the new science gurus get their cloning machines up to full speed.

    • Hmm. My guess is that when people are offered a large reward for a task that requires some thinking, they assume that the problem must be hard and are too intimidated to perform well. It’s not that they aren’t motivated by the money, they just assume the problem is too much for them.

      Although people are obviously motivated by many things besides money.

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      JAC – excellent video – I posted it to my Facebook site and had several friends message me on it. Very thought provoking and well done.

  22. I would agree with his findings for some/most people. However, I’ve found in my own personal experience that there are many who can’t function on their own. They need to be told day in and day out what to do, and when to do it. Self-direction isn’t something they really want (even if they tell you that).

    Take this to a broader scope, it also isn’t what our government wants in its people. A self-directed people? Yikes, what will they need us for? That doesn’t jive with the government knows best model.

    So there is this battle of the minds of the people, if you will.

    • I know the kind of folks that you are talking about Kathy.

      I used to say that they left work on Friday, and on Monday, you had to retrain them.

      Or some just avoid any sense of being leaders. There are those who just want to put their 40 in, and accept zero responsibilty. Sort of like worker bees.

      And you are right about the government also. They want a nanny state. Be all things to all people. Immpossible.

      • I’m out for the day. Have to go tend to some of MY responsibilities. Like starting supper.

        Since it is summer and I don’t have to work. I play Mr. Mom.

        Only fair, don’t you think?

        • Esom

          I missed it if you posted, but how did the Baseball tourney turn out?

          • I’m back for a sec. The ball tourney did not go well JAC. It turns out that some of the parents and players went for the vacation instead of the tournament.

            Kind of like first time World Series teams geting caught up in the hype and glitter.

            As a team they lost the drive and focus that got them there to begin with. And boy did it show!

            Mine was not one of them, I promise, because I did not have the money to go to begin with, much less go and do that crap!

            But alas, he and the few who went to play ball could not do it by themselves.

            The rest of them were just caught in the vortex.

            • Beale Street and Rendesvous’ rib joint was cool though.

            • Esom

              My sympathies and fully understand.

              Played on a team once that did that. We beat the number one seed in the opening round and number two in the second. So everyone decided we had it licked and went out all night to party. Three of us stayed home and three of us performed the next day. At that was our last day in the tourney. Back to back losses after 5 wins.

              One of the few times in my life I actually felt absolute anger towards my team mates.

              At least it sounds like yours has his head in the right place.

              • Mine has his head set on the Pros. He knows and has dedication for his goal.

                And if he doesn’t make it, his second goal is ROTC in college, Officer in the Marines after college. AND HE WANTS TO BE A MARINE SNIPER.

                He wants to kill them all and let Allah sort them out. 😈

              • Esom

                For the sake of his soal and yours, I hope he reaches the first goal and not the second.

                The others I could care less about. But he and you matter.

                And I know you know what I mean. So nuff said my friend.

  23. Who knew the NYT was a Birther orgnaization? LOL

    … Senator Obama is half African by birth …

    muslim??? ….Senator Obama was born a Muslim under Muslim law as it is universally understood. It makes no difference that, as Senator Obama has written, his father said he renounced his religion. Likewise, under Muslim law based on the Koran his mother’s Christian background is irrelevant

    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/12/opinion/12luttwak.html?_r=3&pagewanted=print

  24. Oh wiat… Now I’m confused…

    The White House insisted on Thursday that President Barack Obama is a Christian who prays daily as it looked to tamp down growing doubts among Americans about the president’s religion.

    http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/aug/19/white-house-says-obama-is-christian-prays-daily/

    Somebody better straighten out the NYT. Better late than never.

    • Buck the Wala says:

      :::sigh:::

      [This is for both posts 24 and 25.]

      • Ranks of the Birthers increase by the day……

        🙂

        • Buck the Wala says:

          :::sigh:::

        • Cyndi P

          Come now Cyndi. The article was about his Muslim birth and why his conversion to Christianity works against the false belief his election would improve relations among Muslims.

          It has nothing to do with “where” he was born.

          You perhaps guilty of a little of the same game the political pro’s use here?

          • Buck the Wala says:

            Eh, Cyndi’s just trying to have a little fun here – I sincerely doubt she actually believes what she’s posting. But if she does…

            :::sigh:::

          • I just think its funny. Obama is supposed to be this brillant gift from God, to save us all from the evil racists and GWB. Instead, the Kenyans swear up and down he was born in Kenya; more Americans are beginning to doubt his loyalty to the US; and he’s building a pretty good record of putting Islam above all else. I find it humorous in a gallows sort of fashion. In five years none of this is going to matter because all of us are going to have much bigger problems to deal with than: was Obama born in Kenya and is he really a muslim. Hell, there are already millions of Americans who are dealing with those bigger problems. Their numbers increase by the day.

            • Buck the Wala says:

              Umm..can you point to his “good record of putting Islam above all else”? Not really sure what you’re talking about on this one.

              • Start here.

                http://www.actforamerica.org/#

                Or I can get your personal email and send you about two years worth of news articles.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                I’d rather not have such garbage sent to my inbox.

                No offense, of course. 🙂

                Didn’t really see any info on the site to answer my question though.

              • Well of course you didn’t. To get answers you would have to invest time and thought. Time to go to the links provided on the pages besides the home page, and then you’d have to think about what you’ve discovered.

                Its an investment few Americans are interested in making.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                I feel funny having that site up at work – I poked around a bit and couldn’t find anything that pointed to something Obama is doing to putting Islam above all else.

                Perhaps you could provide even one example of how you’ve come to this conclusion?

    • D’oh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Between those two posts……….

      No wonder he doesn’t know what he’s talkin about. He’s shakin in his shoes alll the time.

  25. Yet the survey also revealed that many Americans harbor lingering animosity toward Muslims. Twenty-eight percent of voters do not believe Muslims should be eligible to sit on the U.S. Supreme Court. Nearly one-third of the country thinks adherents of Islam should be barred from running for President

    http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2011799,00.html

    • Some select results from a different survey – couldn’t find the one this referred to though.. maybe one of y’all can?

      8. Overall, who do you think is the better president: George W. Bush or Barack Obama?

      Barack Obama 53%
      George W. Bush 33%
      Equal / Same 4%
      No answer / Don’t know 10%

      11. If the presidential election were held today and the candidates were Barack Obama, the Democrat, and Sarah Palin, the Republican, and you had to choose, for whom would you vote? (Only registered voters responding)

      Barack Obama, the Democrat 55%
      Sarah Palin, the Republican 34%
      Other / Neither 7%
      Would not vote in election 1%
      Undecided / Don’t know / No answer 4%

      22. A year from now, do you expect that economic conditions will be better than they are now, worse than they are now, or be about the same?

      Better 43%
      Same 36%
      Worse 18%
      No answer / Don’t know 3%

      23. Which administration do you think is more to blame for the economic problems the country faces today: the Bush administration or the Obama administration?

      Bush administration 61%
      Obama administration 27%
      Someone else 5%
      No answer / Don’t know 8%

      25. In general, which political party do you trust more to handle the economic recovery: the Republicans or the Democrats?

      Democrats 43%
      Republicans 39%
      Neither 13%
      Both 1%
      No answer / Don’t know 4%

      http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,2004157-1,00.html

      • Mathius

        It is the Time’s who did the poll. So I am not sure what you mean by “the one that this referred to”?

        Is it the 2009 poll numbers your talking about?

        • Times did both polls. But I wanted to see the question they asked where they ascertained that 1/3rd of Americans (likely voters?) think Muslims shouldn’t be eligible for President. I found this other survey and just thought there was some interesting stuff in there to share as well. But I’m really interested in that first one. Specifically, I’d love to see the party and ideological identification breakout for the respondents who said they should be ineligible.

          • Mathius

            That would be interesting. Will do some digging of my own to see what we can find.

            But I must tell you I would oppose a devout Muslim on the Supreme Court. But then I would oppose an Evangelical Christian for the same reasons.

            • But you would oppose them based on their stances. You wouldn’t oppose them based on their being a member of the religion.

              That is, you might oppose a devout Muslim because he advocates for Sharia law. But you wouldn’t oppose him because he’s a devout Muslim. Follow?

              This question seems to be asking if you think a person should be ineligible by virtue of their religious identification and I can’t think of anything more un-American than that.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Good point – I wouldn’t oppose a devout Muslim for being a devout Muslim. I would oppose a devout Muslim who advocates for overturning US law in favor of Sharia law. By the same token, I wouldn’t oppose a devout Jew, but I would oppose a devout Jew who advocates for Talmudic law.

              • Talmudic law would be worse than Sharia law.. especially for us moderate Jews.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Who you calling moderate? I’m as reform as they come.

              • I’m so reformed, Al Sharpton is more Jewish than me

              • Mathius and Buck

                I would not oppose them for being a member of a religion.

                By devout I mean those who are the hard followers of their respective documents and teaching.

                In both cases their religion would require them to act in a manner that would impose or modify our laws to be more consistent with their religious laws.

                Thus I would oppose a devout follower for being devout. Because it is his/her devoutness that creates the threat posed by the “literal” interpretations and “application” of their religious laws.

                I have not looked ad the Jewish faith or Talmudic Law as much as the Muslim and Christian. But I am guessing the same applies.

                Perhaps the word “Fundamentalist” would have more meaning for you two. But I see “devout” and “fundamentalist” as pretty much synonymous.

              • I don’t see them as meaning the same thing, but your point is well taken.

              • “That is, you might oppose a devout Muslim because he advocates for Sharia law. But you wouldn’t oppose him because he’s a devout Muslim. Follow?”

                ???? No I don’t follow. How can a devout Muslim not advocate Sharia law?

              • Buck the Wala says:

                There are many devout Jews and Christians who do not advocate for all of society to follow their religious beliefs. The same is true of Muslims – they are devout believers and practice what they preach in their own personal lives, but do not seek to force it unto anyone else.

          • Mathius

            Here is the actual Poll Questions and responses.

            It looks like the only sort criteria was “registered voter”.

            If they had other criteria they have not published it.

            There are many more questions and the answers actually present a rather good picture of American tolerance, compared to the one that is being portrayed.

      • Mathius

        That last question you posted represents a major set back for the Dems and the President.

        The margin in favor of the Dems on that question is usually much larger. That is now almost within the normal sampling error percent.

        What I like is the full 13% “Neither” but only 1% “Both”. That is the one that needs more in depth evaluation.

        • I thought republicans where the Party of Fiscal Responsibility. Why should the Party of Tax and Spend lead at all?

          • Mathius

            That is true as is their supposed support for Capitalism.

            But as far back as I can remember the D’s usually poll better on the economy than R’s.

            I believe it is because of the effect of FDR’s programs and the myths built around them. At least in part. The Republicans have also carried a stigma of being the “party of the bankers” since before the Great Depression.

            While I would argue both parties are now owned by the Bankers, many older Dems and more radical younger progressives still accept this old dogma.

            • I think the economy actually performs better under dems. I remember seeing a chart of inflation adjusted income growth by year with the years that the D’s and R’s are in charge shown as lines (shifted one year to allow for policies to take affect – ie, Bush’s term would be 2002-2010). I’ll try to dig it up or, baring that, I’m sure it’s easy enough to put the data on a graph.

              I’d be very interested in seeing the same graph reflecting who has the majority in Congress (and maybe how big that majority is).. maybe you’d like to put this together for us??

              • Mathius

                Ask my Spousal Unit Leader. I DO NOT DO Reverse Delegation very well at all. Ha, ha, ha, ha…..

                I may have something. But obviously the problem with any such data set is the actual cause/effect which includes the timeline.

                Politicos always try to ignore the timeline.

                Each president’s first year in office is largely dictated by the situation they inherit. They can help or hinder what they get but the general trend is out of their hands.

                Fed action used to take up to one year to one and a half years to work through the system, for example. Not sure if that is still true but was the old standard rule of thumb.

                Guess what my discussions with “progressives” at HuffPo and similar sites are like when I try to objectively discuss this point?

                Will see if I can find something off the shelf.

      • . Overall, who do you think is the better president: George W. Bush or Barack Obama? Bush. ~ It least we could the school records.

        Barack Obama 53%
        George W. Bush 33%
        Equal / Same 4%
        No answer / Don’t know 10%

        11. If the presidential election were held today and the candidates were Barack Obama, the Democrat, and Sarah Palin, the Republican, and you had to choose, for whom would you vote? (Only registered voters responding) ~neither

        Barack Obama, the Democrat 55%
        Sarah Palin, the Republican 34%
        Other / Neither 7%
        Would not vote in election 1%
        Undecided / Don’t know / No answer 4%

        22. A year from now, do you expect that economic conditions will be better than they are now, worse than they are now, or be about the same? ~ worse

        Better 43%
        Same 36%
        Worse 18%
        No answer / Don’t know 3%

        23. Which administration do you think is more to blame for the economic problems the country faces today: the Bush administration or the Obama administration? ~Someone else, tho’ Hope-N-Cahnge is bringing us closer to the collapse much sooner than if we didn’t have Hope-N-Change.

        Bush administration 61%
        Obama administration 27%
        Someone else 5%
        No answer / Don’t know 8%

        25. In general, which political party do you trust more to handle the economic recovery: the Republicans or the Democrats? ~ neither

        Democrats 43%
        Republicans 39%
        Neither 13%
        Both 1%
        No answer / Don’t know 4%

        • re #25.. it says more. So do you trust dems or reps MORE. If you don’t trust dems, but you really, really don’t trust reps, the answer is dems. ‘Neither’ shouldn’t be an option.

          Care to try again?

          • Buck the Wala says:

            Actually there are other political parties than just D and R. So neither is a viable option.

            Sorry, thought it’d be better coming from me than someone else here!

            • Buck the Wala says:

              Nevermind – didn’t read close enough. You’re right – gives a specific choice between the two.

              I’m with JAC though – really wonder about the ‘both’

            • The question is: Of the two, which one do you trust more. Neither does not make sense. One might be -100% and the other -99%, then the answer would the the -99% one.

              • Mathius

                As posed the question makes sense to most people, because they kind of understand the intent.

                But you raise an excellent point about polling questions.

                How many picked the other because they trusted them just a little less than the other one.

                The large, neither tells me most understood the intent.

              • Bottom Line says:

                Actually, in such a case, the proper wording would be…

                Which do you distrust the least?

          • No. I don’t trust either of them. They’ve BOTH been lying to us and selling us out to the highest bidder. Eff’em.

            Neither IS an option. I’m not going to play be their rules.

          • Bottom Line says:

            Who do you trust more, Charles Manson or Adolf Hitler?

            Who do you trust more, Joseph Stalin or Mao Zedong?

  26. Here you go Buck:

    July 7, 2010

    NASA’s Muslim Outreach

    By Mona Charen

    It’s not really surprising that President Obama told NASA administrator Charles Bolden that his highest priority should be “to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science … and math and engineering.” It fits with so much that we already knew about the president.

    It is consistent with his wildly exaggerated concept of governmental and presidential power and competence. Samuel Johnson wrote: “How small, of all that human hearts endure, that part which laws or kings can cause or cure.” Obama believes the opposite — that his presidency can be a transformative moment not just for the nation, but for the world. He will halt global warming and stop the rise of the oceans, transition America to a green energy future, prevent the “cycle of boom and bust” in the economy, provide universal health care while spending less than before, cushion “underwater” mortgage holders without rewarding profligate borrowers, increase taxes on the “rich” without harming the middle class, solve the problem of excessive public debt by amassing more public debt and so on.

    How in the world would NASA help Muslim nations to “feel good” about themselves? Would NASA hold science fairs in Tripoli or Tehran? Produce and circulate propaganda films about Great Muslim Men (careful, never women) of Science? Stress our global debt to Muhammad ibn Musa al-Khwarizmi, the father of algebra? (That’s risky, since al-Khwarizmi reportedly learned his math from the Indians.) How would Obama’s NASA chief undertake to alter the civilizational self-esteem of a billion people?

    Of course, it’s entirely possible (pace Bernard Lewis) that the Muslim world does not lack for self-esteem on the matter of science or anything else. Certainly, scientific know-how has not been lacking in nuclear-armed Pakistan or (would be) nuclear Iran. Besides, hasn’t Obama heard? The whole self-esteem myth has been exploded. Though millions of tax dollars and God only knows how many wasted instructional hours have gone toward making American kids think they are really, really special, it turns out that there is zero correlation between such drilled self-esteem and academic performance. (See Scientific American, January 2005)

    The Obama directive to NASA also revealed a mental tic common to liberals — the tendency to universalize the African-American experience. Just as African-Americans were denied their rights and dignity, goes this reasoning, so today fill-in-the-blank are being persecuted or demeaned — women, gays, Muslims, the handicapped, illegal immigrants, Palestinians, “people of color.”

    But this line of reasoning impedes rather than advances understanding. The African-American experience in America was actually very different from that of women, gays, the handicapped, illegal immigrants, or others here, to say nothing of the experience of Palestinians or “people of color” worldwide. Invoking the emotionally charged civil rights paradigm closes the door on nuance and context and encourages dogmatism.

    To treat the Muslim world as a vast ocean of African-Americans in need of respect and encouragement from us is both arrogant and incredibly solipsistic. In fact, large swaths of the Muslim world feel inexpressibly superior to us — particularly morally and spiritually. Until cold terror forced them to accept American servicemen on their soil, the Saudis kept “infidel” pollution to the barest minimum in the home of the prophet. That wasn’t an expression of inferiority. Osama bin Laden boasted in 2000 that he had defeated the Soviet Empire and that it would be a small matter to defeat the American one. Again, he may have been deluded, but he was not a candidate for assertiveness training. Nearly every Muslim child is instructed that his is the true faith, superior in every way to the errors that came before: Judaism and Christianity, and infinitely above paganism or atheism. Jihadis are taught that their shining pure religion requires no less than the mass murder of infidels and unbelievers.

    It might just be that Muslim self-confidence is more dangerous to us than imagined Muslim feelings of inadequacy. But in any case, solicitude about the feelings of individuals cannot comprise a foreign policy. Muslim nations, like other nations, are motivated by advantage and influenced by perceptions of strength and weakness. The president has absolutely no control over the way Muslims feel about themselves — but he has every power over the way they perceive us.

    http://townhall.com/columnists/DickMorrisandEileenMcGann/2010/07/21/kagan_promoted_shariah_law_at_harvard/print?showfull=true

    http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/homeland-security/105243-jihad-denial-syndrome
    By Andrew Gilligan and Alex Spillius in Washington
    Published: 8:00PM BST 08 Oct 2009

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/
    6274387/Obama-adviser-says-Sharia-Law-is-misunderstood.html

    President Barack Obama’s adviser on Muslim affairs, Dalia Mogahed, has provoked controversy by appearing on a British television show hosted by a member of an extremist group to talk about Sharia Law.

    Miss Mogahed, appointed to the President’s Council on Faith-Based and Neighbourhood Partnerships, said the Western view of Sharia was “oversimplified” and the majority of women around the world associate it with “gender justice”.

    The White House adviser made the remarks on a London-based TV discussion programme hosted by Ibtihal Bsis, a member of the extremist Hizb ut Tahrir party.

    The group believes in the non-violent destruction of Western democracy and the creation of an Islamic state under Sharia Law across the world.

    Miss Mogahed appeared alongside Hizb ut Tahrir’s national women’s officer, Nazreen Nawaz.

    During the 45-minute discussion, on the Islam Channel programme Muslimah Dilemma earlier this week, the two members of the group made repeated attacks on secular “man-made law” and the West’s “lethal cocktail of liberty and capitalism”.

    They called for Sharia Law to be “the source of legislation” and said that women should not be “permitted to hold a position of leadership in government”.

    Miss Mogahed made no challenge to these demands and said that “promiscuity” and the “breakdown of traditional values” were what Muslims admired least about the West.

    She said: “I think the reason so many women support Sharia is because they have a very different understanding of sharia than the common perception in Western media.

    “The majority of women around the world associate gender justice, or justice for women, with sharia compliance.

    “The portrayal of Sharia has been oversimplified in many cases.”

    Sharia in its broadest sense is a religious code for living, which decrees such matters as fasting and dressing modestly. However, it has also been interpreted as requiring the separation of men and women.

    It also includes the controversial “Hadd offences”, crimes with specific penalties set by the Koran and the sayings of the prophet Mohammed. These include death by stoning for adultery and homosexuality and the removal of a hand for theft.

    Miss Mogahed admitted that even many Muslims associated Sharia with “maximum criminal punishments” and “laws that… to many people seem unequal to women,” but added: “Part of the reason that there is this perception of Sharia is because Sharia is not well understood and Islam as a faith is not well understood.”

    The video of the broadcast has now been prominently posted on the front page of Hizb ut Tahrir’s website.

    Miss Mogahed, who was born in Egypt and moved to America at the age of five, is the first veiled Muslim woman to serve in the White House. Her appointment was seen as a sign of the Obama administration’s determination to reach out to the Muslim world.

    She is also the executive director of the Gallup Center for Muslim Studies, a project which aims to scientifically sample public opinion in the Muslim world.

    During this week’s broadcast, she described her White House role as “to convey… to the President and other public officials what it is Muslims want.”

    Wendy Wright, president of Concerned Women for America, said Miss Mogahed was “downplaying” Sharia Law.

    “There is a reason sharia has got a bad name and it is how it has been exercised. Regrettably in the US there have been acts of injustice perpetrated against women that are driven by the Sharia-type mindset that women are objects not human beings,” she said.

    She cited the example of Muzzammil Hassan, a Buffalo man who ran a cable channel aimed at countering Muslim stereotypes and was charged earlier this year with beheading his wife after she filed for divorce.

    “Americans understand by example, it’s not as if we are an ignorant mass of people. Just as we don’t broad brush all Muslims, so should Dalia not downplay the serious nature of sharia law.”

  27. Buck,

    I posted some quick copy and pastes which are now in moderation. I’ve got 100s of emails to on-line articles from various sources. If your looking for a video of your president saying he puts Islam above all else, I don’t have it. Even if I did, I’m sure you’d make some excuse for him. My Hope-N-Changey sister does it all the time.

    • Buck the Wala says:

      I’ll take a look through the links you post.

      No, I’m not looking for a video where Obama says “I put Islam above all else, including the US Constitution…”

      But in lieu of the links which are awaiting moderation, how about you telling me one example of Obama putting Islam above all else? Just one example, in your own words – shouldn’t be too hard if you have 100s of articles ‘proving’ he’s a secret Muslim who intends of destroying the US Constitution and imposing Sharia law.

      • He appoints muslims, with ties to radical groups, to key security positions. He has stated in his books that he will stand with the muslims, he has sent almost a BILLION dollars to the Palistian Authority, he has facilitated the immigration of 1300 Palistians into the US. He has ordered NASA to serve muslim interests, he bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia, he made up all kinds of flowery BS in his speech to the muslim world, he supports the Ground Zero Mosque, he is friends with Rashid Kahlidi, he is friends with Bill Ayers who is working with the so-called Peace Flotilla activsts……I could go on, but what’s the point. Your president could build a mosque in the White House and still you wouldn’t admit it.

        • Buck the Wala says:

          :::sigh:::

          Unfortunately I don’t have time to go through each of your ‘claims’ individually, but if you actually read up on any one of these ‘claims’ you will see that you are grossly overstating (or completely misunderstanding) the actual events.

          1) He bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia – you mean Bush’s hand-holding buddy? We can get into an argument over whether or not it is proper for the President of the US to bow to any one, but to use his bow to the King of SA (when he’s also been photographed and witnessed bowing to other non-Muslim rulers) to somehow prove he ‘promotes Islam over all else’??

          2) Supports the Ground Zero Mosque — if you actually read his own comments, he freely admits that this is perhaps not the best location, but completely supports their right to build the Cordoba House at this location.

          3) He has ordered NASA to serve Muslim interests – much more nuanced than you make it out to be, but NASA has always had diplomatic political objectives.

          You need to start seriously reading up on these things rather than just take those sites’ clearly biased word/interpretation/spin.

          • LOL, Buck. You pick the three things you feel you can muddle and then ignore the rest. HAHAHAHAHA! I hope you like living with Sharia, assuming you live long enough.

            • Buck the Wala says:

              As I clearly said – I don’t have time for this. I chose not the 3 things I could muddle through, but the 3 things I could quickly comment on having already looked into.

              To be honest there is absolutely nothing I can say or show you to alter your preconceived notions on all this.

          • Buck

            OK, I’m throwing the BS flag on you for 15 yard fallaceous argument penalty. You want to take Cyndi on based on the facts have at it. I’m with you on some of the points but not all.

            But this my friend is absolute B.S.: “1) He bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia – you mean Bush’s hand-holding buddy?”

            The second part is completely irrelevant to the first part and it is itself a politically motivated LIE perpetrated during an election. One in fact that attempt to do to Bush what you are accusing others of doing to Obama. You are using one fallacy to rationalize another. To continue using that sick allegation is pitiful.

            You expose your soft underbelly every time you stoop to the same lame strategy as your “progressive” peers. I see this same sick garbage on other sites all the time. I think you are better than that.

            The real issue on this one point is not just whether a President should bow, but why THIS particular President decided to bow and to do it in such an obvious fashion. From my perspective it was indicative of his overall attitude towards USA tradition and historical cultural values. As he said, it is time to remake America and this is consistent with his view of what that is.

            Only one little problem. He forgot to really explain to the American People what that meant.

            Unless the Republicans run a dunce, like Palin, against this man he is toast. All I do is run pictures of him bowing to people and pictures of his opponent looking the same people in the eye and ask the voters: “Which represents your America? This or this?

            • Buck the Wala says:

              Don’t latch onto my quick little comment of Bush holding hands with the King of SA – that’s not my argument and you know it. I’m trying to have a bit of fun with Cyndi or fear I’ll go crazy.

            • Ray Hawkins says:

              JAC – you beginning to sound more churlish and insulting than anything else over this bowing bullshit. There is ample evidence in pictures all over the Internet of current and former POTUS’ bowing to foreing leaders (Ike, Nixon, Bush II, Obama,….). To suggest Obama has somehow all-of-a-sudden compromised history, culture and values is rubbish – you’re better than that.

              On a lighter note, when dignitaries visit here they should greet our POTUS and other leaders in the way of all our great leaders in America nowadays – by motioning to stab them in the back.

  28. LMAO….you’ve got your work cut out for you Buck.

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/08/hes_not_a_muslim_not_that_ther.html

    • Buck the Wala says:

      I’ve never claimed Obama to be the Messiah nor the greatest thing since sliced bread. I didn’t support him nor vote for him in the primaries. However, his views are much closer to my own than McCain’s, so I voted for him and supported him. I am not 100% happy with everything Obama is doing/has done. But I do feel in general that he is on the right track with many things.

      There are clearly issues that should be explored/addressed/questioned. His ties to Wright are clearly one – I agree that he never satisfactorily explained that nut away.

      But I love how so many believe the man to be a Muslim – with no evidence whatsoever. I would agree that if some evidence came along that proved beyond all doubt he is a Muslim there would be a real issue as to character – why did he cover it up? why did he lie? Absent that evidence though, these wild accusations of his being Muslim are often taking a tone of Muslim-bashing. And that’s unacceptable. So, no Obama is not a Muslim – not that there’s anything wrong with being Muslim.

      • Whatever Buck, go ahead and ignore the evidence.

        The Left has finally managed to inflict a mortal blow on the Republic, so its just a matter of time until death. I’d say that in five years you’re going to have more pressing issues to deal with than whether or not your president lied to you on a whole slew of iusses. Keep your head in the sand, my SUFA friend!

    • Now we get to the real problem IMO-the man believes in black liberation theology-which would make him immediately on the side of muslams because in his viewpoint-they are being oppressed by the white men too. If anyone doesn’t agree-go read up on black liberation theology-if you object to Christianity in government, boy your gonna really hate BLT.

    • Very cleverly written article and great comments.

      Never thought there’d be a religious left, but they are coming out in force. Not that there’s anything wrong with being Muslim, there is something very wrong about lying about who you are. That’s where BO’s mistake was made.

      • Agreed. Why did he lie? Why is he appointing people with ties to radicals of various types? I think these questions need to looked into, as well as the BLT. If a white politican had ties to a religous organization that preached similar ideology, the press would make a huge stink about it. The double standard in this country disgusts me.

        • It is just hilarious to sit back and watch them scramble. They don’t know what message to play!! To tell the truth would never occur to them because they’ve been hiding the truth for so long they don’t remember what it is!! (Damn where is Journolist when we need it most to keep us on track!)

          Now AP says no more “Ground Zero Mosque” because, well, changing the wording worked for Nappy (manmade disasters) so well. Some of the more “appropriate”(?) names I’ve read: 15. Landing Gear Mosque 14. Project Bloomberg 13. 9/11 Victory Mosque 12. Daily Kosque 11. Caliphate-on-Hudson 10. The Gorelick & Clarke Building 9. Mosque formerly known as the Ground Zero Mosque
          8. Hamosque 7. Crater’s Edge 6. Bullseye 5. The Mohammed Atta Memorial 4. Hormel House 3. The Debris Field Mosque 2. Burlington Terrorist Factory 1. New York Fire Training Academy

          Bloggers are having a blast with these “professional left” idiots!

          http://pajamasmedia.com/eddriscoll/2010/08/20/the-modern-ruling-class-reactive-windblown-and-unprincipled/

          And now The Won is vacationing where even the water is full of shit!!!! You just can’t make this stuff up!

%d bloggers like this: