GOP Leadership or Just Louder Mouths?

I have to tell you that it is nice to be back home yet again. This weekend it was a trip to see my baby sister get married. The ceremony was great and she was beautiful. A great wedding overall. But being primarily out of touch with the web is tough for me. So Sunday I was listening to the Sunday morning shows and trying to catch up on whatever may have happened over the weekend. I am still not completely caught up, but I did catch something interesting over on NBC’s Meet the Press. David Plouffe was a guest on the show. For those who don’t know him, he was formerly Barack Obama’s campaign manager. As such, he is well connected to the Democratic strategy makers, and that was obvious in his being strategically placed on the Sunday morning circuit this week. In his appearance he was asked about a quote in his book, and took the opportunity to place the notion out there that the real leaders of the GOP are not politicians.

Plouffe was first asked about the quote from his book, which was provided on screen for people to digest:

This is the Republican Party of 2010 and I think it will be the Republican Party for a long time. It is hard to see how a Republican gets the presidential nomination without winning the plurality of the Palin-Limbaugh-Beck base of the Republican Party. Without a drastic change in orientation, they will probably nominate someone a good bit out of the mainstream.

David Plouffe

I found this to be a fairly bold statement. I wasn’t surprised in the least at the presumption that you will need Palin, Beck, and Limbaugh to get anywhere. What I thought was an odd statement was that someone outside of the mainstream will end up with the nomination. We will get back to that in a bit. During the conversation, Plouffe continued that train of thought by outright claiming that Palin, Beck, and Limbaugh are the leaders of the Republican Party. He states:

I think right now, and this is a problem for them, long term, I do think that Rush Lmbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, they are the leaders of the party. And you see, I was struck by Senator Coburn from Oklahoma, I think it was at a town hall meeting, and said I don’t agree with anything the Democrats are doing and I don’t agree with Speaker Pelosi, but she’s a nice person. And got attacked for that. There is an intolerance in that party, and an extremism, that I think is where the energy is. And what I see is that in ’11 or ’12 and their presidential primary, those are the people that are going to come out and vote.

First let me vent out a bit at the Democratic strategy that I see in play here. First, I am quickly tiring of the Democrats consistently and in unison adding those simple little words into the descriptions that they are using to talk about the GOP or the Tea Party or the people at a Glenn Beck rally. Two simple words that seem to magically appear in every appearance by a Democrat: Extremist and Intolerant. It is a blind attempt to paint anyone opposed to the progressive agenda as dangerous, out of touch, racist, etc. It is tiresome. And more important, it is wrong. People believing that taxes should be lower, that government should be smaller, or that politicians in DC do not serve their constituents, may be extreme if you are one of the crooked folks in DC, but it isn’t extreme.

Washington DC has, over the last 50 years, continued to show how inept they really are at formulating effective strategies to move our country forward. Their regulations don’t work, but folks still consider it extreme to offer a different alternative. They ignore their constituents, and people still scream that the approval ratings are dropping merely because Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh are tricking listeners. Government continues to grow and spend at a pace that baffles the mind, and it is called extreme to want them to stop growing and stop spending. Taxes now eat up upwards of 60% of the fruits of our labor, and we are told it is extreme to find that wrong and demand that it stop. The bottom line is that the positions we are talking about are COMMON SENSE positions, yet are termed extreme by those who are on board with the progressive agenda.

And oddly, when the topics were stopping the wars, halting government intrusion via the Patriot Act, or bilking shareholders to benefit unions, it wasn’t extreme, it was patriotic dissent. But I digress.

As for that other word, intolerant. It isn’t an accident how often that word is popping up either. Intolerant goes hand in hand with racist. And since the most effective way that the Democrats have found to hail the benefits of a new policy is to decry anyone opposed to it as a racist, that seems to be the strategy. Perhaps someday, the people with integrity will begin to demand that their party stop using this blatant tactic. So long as there is no negative repercussion from their base, they will throw out the race card on every issue.

Before any of our esteemed members of the left here get upset at my pointing out these tactics without spending equal time on the GOP and their shitty tactics, I merely point out that the tactics of the GOP aren’t the topic tonight. I find them equally appalling. And to prove so, I actually left their party and stopped supporting them. I am wondering when I will see a mass exodus from the left over the lack of integrity in that party. It appears the GOP had a lot of people with integrity walk away. I know just as many people with integrity are on the left, we have several of them here. But we haven’t seen a mass exodus over there yet…..

But the real point of this article is about Plouffe’s claim that the leaders of the GOP are Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, and Rush Limbaugh. I find it an interesting strategy to put that out there as a floated tactic. But the real question is whether there is validity to the statement.

One thing that I have noticed for quite some time is that absolute lack of leadership in the GOP. When your most outspoken leader is John Boehner, you really aren’t offering much in the way of leadership. Let’s face it, Michael Steele was little more than a lame attempt by the GOP to counter the racism claims that have become the common screed from the left (despite the fact that those claims are absolutely unfounded and, in many cases, outright lies and fabrications). Other names thrown out there as leaders for the GOP have been Eric Cantor of Virginia, Newt Gingrich of Fantasy Land, Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, and of course, Mitt Romney. Do any of those names cause any of you to step up and say, “yeah, there is our leader for the future,”? I mean, let’s be realistic, fruitcake Meghan McCain gets more press than these guys, with the possible exception of Romney and Jindal.

I do understand that it is a toxic environment in which to step forward as a leader for the GOP. Anyone who has the cajones to do so will instantly be targeted by an extremely biased to the left MSM, and will likely find themselves first accused of being a racist and then an extremist. Not a good time, and very difficult to counter when you are dealing with a press that is no holds barred as a candidate for whom the slightest mis-step will end your career. So perhaps it is no surprise that the most vocal people for the GOP are those who have no interest in being a politician.

Palin, Beck, and Limbaugh are members of the press. This allows them to be more vocal, more confrontational, and more direct. They are the only ones able to refute the liberal MSM claims and do so in a way that is direct enough to be effective against an aggressive media. Before anyone simply dismisses that these three press personnel are the only ones able to speak loudly enough in the face of a MSM with an obvious bias, really think about what happens to anyone who goes against the grain of the MSM. Do they lie? Yes they do. And Beck tells as many lies as he does truths (but he still is not the biggest liar on TV. That honor goes to Olbermann). But these three, despite their lack of integrity (and I do believe that Palin actually does have integrity, she just isn’t a polished politician. Beck and Limbaugh lack integrity), are the only ones loud enough to be heard.

But does that make them the leaders of the GOP? My personal opinion is no. But it is my personal opinion. I don’t think they are leaders of the party at all. I think that they are effective at getting people fired up. And I think anyone firing up any opposition to the Democrats is labeled as GOP. But I don’t think these three actually represent the majority of GOP voters. I get the conservative, religious position that all three hold. I understand that this is a portion of the GOP base. But I think that portion is continuing to decline. The power of the “religious right” is declining, and I know that scares the crap out of a lot of conservatives. But I have a message for all those that fall into that category.

Religion is not at the heart of what matters in politics. In fact, religion and its edicts are the antithesis of what matters. The extent of religion that should be intertwined with politics is a right to worship how you please and a protection of those rights. That’s it. Period.

Conservatives need not fall for the trap that in order to be a part of the group opposed to big government and in favor of lowering taxes, you also have to accept that a candidate must have religion or represent the religious right. I thought initially that the Tea Party might have some promise. But eventually they have been adopted into the GOP and infused with the religious right. And that is going to be their undoing.

I know that there are religious folks on this site who take umbrage with this position of mine. It’s OK. I understand your position. I applaud your morals and integrity. But to force religious belief on anyone else is simply wrong. To oppose giving someone equal rights because of your religious beliefs is equally wrong. I don’t dislike your religion. Many of you may be surprised at how much religion flies around in the Weapon household. I simply don’t believe that religion should have a place in the political spectrum. I believe that all that matters is liberty and freedom, regardless of what you believe in terms of religion.

And because I also believe that religion is something that isn’t nearly as important to a vast majority of Americans as it once was, I also believe that building your platform on religion isn’t a wise move in today’s political environment. The amount of people espousing no religious affiliation has doubled since 1990, from 8% to 15%. More important, rather than having the majority of those from the NorthWest, for the first time that largest concentration was in the NorthEast. The percentage of self identified christians has fallen 10% since 1990 (86% to 76%). Put that in perspective. There are many who believe that blacks got President Obama elected. Blacks make up 12% of the American population. There are now more people who don’t identify any religious affiliation than there are blacks in America. Still think that those numbers don’t mean anything?

So are Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, and Rush Limbaugh the new leaders of the GOP? I don’t think so. And if they are, then the GOP is really in far more trouble than they originally thought. Because religious dogma will turn a lot of people away from your message before you even finish the sermon.


  1. I wonder if the MSM is painting the right-wing media as partisan leaders to make them less credible and thus less of a competitor for them. On the other hand, perhaps they paint them as leaders because they see themselves as leaders, or wish to.

    • One thing I think we can all agree on is that Steele isn’t the real leader.

      I see Beck/Palin/Limbaugh (and I’ll add Gingrich) as the de facto leaders.

      The big question, though, is “why”. I see two possible reasons.

      1. There is no apparent “official” leader. Since we’ve ruled out Steele, who’s left? Mitch? Boehner?

      2. The loudest voices are perceived to be the most important. Especially from the perspective of the left, the right appears to be more homogeneous than it is. So, to us, it is the ones who stand out that we associate with the whole.

      • I myself would like to know where in the HELL you get that Palin, Beck, and Limbaugh are leaders of the GOP?

        Palin goes against the GOP more often than she goes with them.

        Beck doesn’t like ANYONE in Washington. GOP OR DEM.

        Limbaugh is just a radio personality who is also against both parties in WASHINGTON.

        What you and other progressives see as GOP Leaders, Mat; we who support them see as just people who see the damn truth and have the popularity to get the message out there that me and others like me, INCLUDING THE TEA PARTIES, are sick and freaking tired of Washington Politics. FROM BOTH OF THE PARTIES IN CHARGE!!

        I am quite sure that they do not see themselves as GOP leaders. And neither do I. Unfortunately for them, I don’t see any leaders IN the GOP at this time. I have to agree with USW at this point that the GOP is using Micheal Steele as their “race friendly” face. And also that Boehner and Romney don’t make very good “Leaders”.

        But also, I do not think that the Tea Parties have been taken over by the religious right USW. Neither have the GOP. As a matter of fact what I see is the Nation as a whole moving farther and farther AWAY from God. The Religious Right is not being marginalized because they are wrong, nor because they are wackos. They are being marginalized because they (or We) are becoming more and more outnumbered by the athiest and socially justice minded people.

        Let me give you one example: What used to be “normal”, that is paying attention to what religious people said and felt in Political matters, such as Abortion, Gays, and Prayer and Religious articles in Govt buildings, has turned into not only NOT being listened to, but actually being ridiculed and made fun of.

        We have gone from Religious Tolerance of ALL faiths, to Religious Tolerance, except in the case of Christians and Jews.

        I call it Pathetic. I don’t like ANYONE in Government. Period. I do not care if they are Republican OR Democrat. Or any other off-shoot Party. Even our present Independents.

        Washington D.C. needs an Enema. And an Elephant sized dose of Ex-Lax. To get rid of the SHIT clogging DC’s political pipes.

  2. Beck, Palin and Limbaugh as leaders of the GOP? Please. If that’s the case then Janeane Garofolo(or whatever her name is), Olberman and Howard Dean are leaders of the Progressives.

    We are so screwed.

    Off topic but still with being screwed:

  3. USW: the most effective way that the Democrats have found to hail the benefits of a new policy is to decry anyone opposed to it as a racist, that seems to be the strategy. Perhaps someday, the people with integrity will begin to demand that their party stop using this blatant tactic. I demand that my party stop using this blatant tactic.

    Now let’s see if that worked…

    • Made me feel better 🙂 now write or call your representatives-email liberal commentators and voice your opinion-oh never mind-they would just dismiss you and say you aren’t really a democrat-and yes the same is true for the republicans too! Although, I do think that the Tea Party has sent a strong message to the republicans that they better change their ways at least when it comes to fiscal policy.

    • Hi Matt,,,,,works for me. I feel better….almost makes me want to slug down a Red Bull just because of it.

  4. Could someone give me a definition of what exactly a far right republican is? WE throw these terms around but I have to admit I would have a problem defining what a far left liberal is?

    • I either have no takers on this question or there just aren’t many people around this morning 🙂 So I’ll ask it in another way-I believe abortion is wrong and that there should be a law against it-Does this make me fit the definition of far right?

      • Yep

        • Not in the sense that you believe it is wrong, but in the sense that you wish a law passed because of your morlity on it. This fits religious right philosophy…which I deem far right and I am a conservative.

          • I know many people who aren’t religious and are against abortion-I was against abortion before I became a christian. So abortion is not just an issue based on religion, whether it fits the religious view or not. To say that we cannot outlaw a medical procedure, when it’s sole purpose is to decide who gets to live and who doesn’t, simply because it fits within the belief system of a religion is IMO dangerous.

            But that really isn’t my point in this discussion-I think we judge any member of an opposite party as extreme, we may not judge them individually as extreme but as parties any disagreement-registers as extreme in the political debate.

            • I too, do not believe Abortion is wrong because I am a Christian.

              I believe Abortion is the legal murder of an innocent child.

              I believe this because I have seen pictures of aborted babies. I think that if you ever see that, you will NEVER be able to say that Abortion is right. Christian or not.

            • You missed my point. I am not arguing right or wrong…you asked a question….in my opinion, your statement is normally associated with the religious right. That is all. Nothing more. VH…please understand that I am not saying it is solely a religious issue…never said that…just that your statement is normally associated with that group.

              I will never argue the rights or wrong of abortion. It is too emotional an issue. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. If it does not agree with you…it is ok. My point is that if you believe a law should be passed because of your moral belief….then I suggest that makes it a pretty far right point. BUT, this is my opinion.

              • D13 all laws are based on morality-it is determining whether or not they are legitimate based on the principals of liberty which is in question. In order to determine whether or not passing a law banning abortion is right -One must decide if abortion is just a matter of individual moral values or if it goes against the basic principal of committing murder. So I do not understand how one can not consider the right or wrong of this issue based on that principal. I am concerned that many accept what they know is wrong based on the idea that they are supporting freedom when they are actually letting themselves be convinced by a false argument that abortion is simply a matter of personal choice and privacy,

              • And you are right to say so Colonel. It does associate us with the religious right to be Anti-Abortion. Although it is wrong, most still do it.

                I believe abortion should be left to the States to decide. It should NOT be a FEDERAL issue at all.

      • The abortion debate is a tough one. The question of whether it is right or wrong, and perhaps more importantly in the context of this site, whether it is philosophically in the realm of government law, hinges entirely on when a person becomes a person.

        Is it conception? Then abortion is murder. Even the arguments that one person cannot impose on another break down, because it could be considered just as much an imposition to abort, or even to conceive the child, as it is for the child to impose on the mother’s life. Thus the idea that it is the woman’s choice because it is her body gets fuzzy because there is a second body in question. Certainly, that other body is dependent on the mother, but if the child is a human with human rights, then abortion cannot be justified.

        So, is the time of becoming a human at a certain trimester or stage of development? I could see it being argued that a fetus becomes human when it can be distinguished from other mammals based on its stage of development. This stage is quite early, but might allow abortions for the first month, and would make things like the morning after pill ok.

        Is it the point at which they can survive independently? If so, then there is the question of whether “independently” means they can survive outside of the womb, this would include anyone in the last trimester, possibly sooner if you count modern medical technology. If you do include such medical technology, then the stage of development that classifies human will continue to change based on our medical capabilities.

        Is it the point of breath? Some would say, especially those who believe in the creation story, that since man became a living soul when he breathed the breath of life, that we become human at the point of birth. The various symbols in many belief systems surrounding birth would also point to this being an acceptable point at which a human becomes a human.

        So is the abortion debate one that can cleanly define someone as right wing? No, I don’t think so.

        • Try looking at a picture of a bit of hamburger meat with tiny arms and legs sticking out of it. Or Babies the size of mice, piled up in a garbage sack. Or even a baby the size of, well, a baby. With a hole in it’s damn head where the “Doctor” sucked it’s brains out.

          Then come back and tell me it’s a woman’s choice what she does with her body.

          IMHO it was her choice when she decided to sleep with a man. After that, her “choice” was made already.

          Now in the case of incest and rape, I have no answers. I still think there are alternatives to Abortion. But I just don’t know if I could make a woman have that baby. But I believe the chance to get pregnant should have been voided by the doctor BEFORE the pregnancy begins. But I am realistic. Some women will not report a rape for whatever reason. And incest cannot always BE reported by the child.

          • Emotional appeals do not change the questions in my argument. As I said, if human life begins at conception, then there is NO justification for abortion. Period.If it starts at a later time, then there is no justification for abortion after that later time. At least from a legal perspective. Personal morality is a completely seperate thing. In personal morality, things like emotional appeals or “potential human life” can come into play, you essentially operate according to your belief system.

      • Nope.

        Would you care to share a definition of a far left liberal?

        Put another way, I feel that it is not so cut and dry to define a living human being. As such, and given that I do not see abortion as murder, I feel that there is insufficient justification for government intervention telling women what they can and cannot do with their own bodies. Does this make me a far left liberal?

        • YES!

          Although I would argue that far left and liberal can not occupy the same space. The terms are oxymoronic (ahhhhhh).

          Perhaps far left “modern” liberal would work better.

        • I already said I couldn’t define what a far left liberal is, because in the political world being of either party seems to win you that title.-but obviously from the responses I am receiving you are far left and I am far right 🙂 As far as the debate on abortion-all the scientific BS is just away to justify taking away another humans right to be born and live. You can argue all the justification crap all you want to-but in the end- a human being has been denied the right to LIFE. No one should have the right to make that decision. Life isn’t fair but some things simply are what they are-women get pregnant -it effects them but it is just a fact of life and it shouldn’t give them the right to decide who has a right to live and who doesn’t.

        • Mat: I feel that there is insufficient justification for government intervention telling women what they can and cannot do with their own bodies.

          Me: I agree, but once a woman makes a choice (sex), she must live with the consequences of her actions instead of killing a human being (what species is it if it is not human?)!

          • A. What if the sex is not voluntary? Must she still suffer the consequences?

            B. If you behave in such a way that someone becomes dependent on you for their life, do you have to support them?

            C. Is a clump of cancer cells human? They have “human” DNA, yet they cannot think, cannot feel, and steal resources.. just like a fetus.

            D. If we apply the logic of non-violence, and assume (for the sake of argument) that a fetus is a human, what right does this human have to demand the resources of another human? If I came to your house and demanded to be fed for the next nine months, you would kick me out (even if it was your fault that I was there in the first place. For example, if you had invited me). And the fact that I might starve if you kicked me out would not create an obligation on you to support me – that’s my problem, not yours.

            • Mathius,

              A. What if the sex is not voluntary? Must she still suffer the consequences?

              Mathius, you can’t even get the simple situations clear and straight (such as the voluntary sex examples) – so don’t even try to figure out the complex ones.

              You are wholly ill-equipped to even contemplate this question (A).

              B. If you behave in such a way that someone becomes dependent on you for their life, do you have to support them?

              It is not a matter of behavior but of responsibility.

              If you crush a person’s spine by accident, you have to pay for it — even if it takes the rest of your life.

              C. Is a clump of cancer cells human?

              They are part of A human’s body.

              But this is not the same condition at all regarding a fetus. It is a different human being

              They have “human” DNA, yet they cannot think, cannot feel, and steal resources.. just like a fetus.

              You are scientifically illiterate.

              A fetus can feel, it is alive.

              If “thinking” defined humanity, there would be a few billion non-humans walking around in my opinion.

              D. If we apply the logic of non-violence, and assume (for the sake of argument) that a fetus is a human, what right does this human have to demand the resources of another human?

              By a consequence of your action, you have created a responsibility for that action.

              You wish to kill it so to avoid responsibility.

              That, sir, is an act of evil.

            • BF did a good job, but I’ll throw in my two cents worth.

              A. I think the morning after pill is ok for rape victims.

              D. So when we get tired of our 2 year olds demanding our resources we can kill it? Or just leave it on the stoop to die?

              BF answered the others to my satisfaction.

              I challenge you, Mat, to think about this issue beyond what you’ve already decided you believe. Is it really ok to kill a baby (call it what you will) just because you were too lazy or irresponsible to use contraception? What happened to taking responsibility for your own actions? Since when is it your right to give up on another living creature who is your responsibility simply because you don’t want it?! Especially when alternative options are so plentiful!

              • I accept your challenge. Prove it me.

              • you were too lazy or irresponsible to use contraception I reject that assertion. contraceptives are not 100%, and sometimes accidents happen. Further, sometimes it is not possible medically, financially, emotionally, or for any number of other reasons, to be unable or impractical to be pregnant. Don’t treat this as if it’s a simple question of laziness. Very, very, very few people who have abortions take the decision lightly.

                • Mathius,

                  Most people who commit murder do not take the decision lightly either.

                  The weight of the decision does not dispel the evil of it.

                  • I agree. But I do not think we can have an honest conversation on the topic if he treats it as a flippant decision by lazy and irresponsible women.

                    Allowing this line of thought places the blame on the women. That is, instead of the result of an accident, it is the result of negligence, and this, I think, makes a difference.

                    • Mathius,

                      Whether by accident or design, the responsibility does not change.

                    • I think this may tie in at a later point.

                      But will you, for now, concede that it is (generally) not a lightly taken decision made by lazy and irresponsible people?

                    • Mathius,

                      I believe many are careless with such taking of life while many are remorseful and others are hesitant.

                      It matters not, however, if a life is taken anyway, does it?

                    • I think it may be pertinent later. Will you conceded that at least a substantive percentage were careful and took appropriate steps to avoid the situation in the first place?

                    • Mathius,

                      I am sure some tried to avoid the consequence by some particular action.

                      It is not “conceding” a hypothetical – examples abound everyday – to not recognize this as a fact would be irrational.

                      It matters not at all, however.

              • Since when is it your right to give up on another living creature who is your responsibility simply because you don’t want it?! If you buy a dog, are you obligated to care for it for the rest of its life? What if you cannot do so financially, or if you develop a serious allergy?

                No-Kill shelters and almost impossible to get into and finding an adopter for a grown dog is almost as hard.

                Turning it loose on the streets is cruel and will probably lead to starvation or a car accident (which further endangers others).

                So is putting the dog down an act of evil?

                • Mathius,

                  If you buy a dog, are you obligated to care for it for the rest of its life? What if you cannot do so financially, or if you develop a serious allergy?

                  We are not taking about dogs or fish.

                  We are talking about human beings.

                  Keep on track, son.

                  • … oh, sorry… I was confused.

                    But just for my edification, what is the difference between a 2 year-old lab and a 2 month old baby? You know, other than the fact that one is human.

                    • Mathius,

                      other than the fact that one is human.

                      That is the difference that counts, Mathius.

                    • oh, ok.

                      Um, why?

                    • Mathius,

                      Because humans have human rights and dogs do not have human rights.

                    • No, no. We’ve been here before, my friend.

                      You cannot say that a circle is a cirle because it is a circle. A circle is a circle because it is made of all points on a plain that fall equidistant from a central point.

                      A human is not different from a dog because he is human. He is different because…. why?

                      I’ll get you started. DNA, there’s one. Anything else?

              • Especially when alternative options are so plentiful! Certainly there is a huge demand for adoption of a new born. This is very much an option.

                But it also necessitates nine months of being pregnant. A situation, which any woman will tell you, is very hard. You will have to pay hundreds if not thousands in medical expenses. You cannot smoke. You cannot drink. You have to buy all new clothes. You are sick, tired, sore. Your hormones flail all over the place. If you rely on appearances (ie model), you cannot do your job at all. There are potentially life-threatening risks (my mother-in-law developed severe diabetes while pregnant – she could have died). And, no small matter, you may just want to live your life without a parasite (biologically human or otherwise) in your body.

                Should women simply ignore all this?

                • Mathius,

                  But it also necessitates nine months of being pregnant. A situation, which any woman will tell you, is very hard.

                  If you are unable to deal with the consequences of your actions, do not do the action.

                  Pretty simple rule of life.

                  You will have to pay hundreds if not thousands in medical expenses.

                  So? See above.

                  Should women simply ignore all this?


                  In fact, they better understand that.

                  You do not want the consequences of such action, do not do such action

                  • Do you drive? You risk killing someone.

                    Don’t want to kill anyone, then you shouldn’t drive. It doesn’t matter if you practice “safe driving.”

                    So I guess you should just hand over your keys, right?

                    • Mathius,

                      Do you drive? You risk killing someone.


                      Now you are getting a glimmer of understanding what responsibility entails.

                      If you do not want to kill someone in a car accident, do not drive a car.

                      I, personally, assume that risk and with it the responsibility should I happen to have such an accident.

                      Neither I (or the law) is satisfied by the claim “It was an accident” as sufficient to get away with killing someone.

                    • Sure the law does. If it was an accident, they don’t throw you in jail.

                      I had an accident when I was younger where I destroyed some government property. I didn’t get in trouble. Why? Because it was an accident.

                      To get in trouble, you have to be somehow be at fault – negligent or criminal. Just driving and losing control is not sufficient.

    • V.H.

      The “radical right” or the “religious right” or the “far right” were terms developed by the democrats when Reagan decided to partner with the evangelical movement. Remember the “Christian Coalition”?

      The terms radical and right wing were used before this time but the intent was to create in the mind of the voter some link between militaristic, fascist like, behavior and the Republican candidate. Note the campaigns against Goldwater and Nixon.

      So back to the Reagan period. From that day forward the terms are used to conjure up fear that the “religious fanatics” are in control of the Republican party. The primary evidence used by the Dems is the positions on abortion and gay rights. This is because the “Christian Coalition” took a hard stand against both on “religious” grounds. Not just on some secular moral argument. Remember the Shaivo case? Well that just played right into the “stereo type” being created.

      Then you have people like Limbaugh and Levine, Hannity, Ingram, Colter, etc, telling everyone that “Conservatives” share these values along with a rapid patriotism that rationalizes any military conflict as unquestionable and part of our American Exceptionalism.

      This is now what I think the left refers to as the “radical right wing” of the Republican party. Depending on their audience they wrap the religious crusaders with the over zealous militarism of the conservatives. Despite the fact that is was the neo-cons who brought military intervention to the party as a means of “spreading democracy”.

      As I have explained before, the fallacy is that such political beliefs are in fact “leftist” in nature as they share the same philosophical roots as socialism, communism, fascism, monarchism, corporatism, etc.

      Another important thing to realize when trying to understand the Dem’s and Progressive attacks against the Republicans, tea party ,etc. That is this issue of race. The source is also linked to the “Christian Coalition” via the evangelicals of the southern states who were part of that coalition. And a deliberate strategy employed by the Republicans to take traditional Democrat votes in the SOUTH away from the Dem party after the Civil Rights Act was passed.

      While this strategy was admitted and discussed by Republicans of the time, it was not their intent to turn the Republican party into a racist party. They simply sold their soales to get political power. The South was Democrat up until that time. You see the Democrat party was the party of racists in the South and much of the northeast. When the Dems took what appeared to be an anti-American turn during the Viet Nam period the Southern Democrats became easy pickins for the Republicans. The Republicans in fact called it their “Southern Strategy”.

      So you see, the Dems know they had a party full of racists in those days and their attacks are validation of that fact. They are recognizing that those folks went Republican with Reagan and have pretty much stayed so since. They simply have to show their friends the red/blue map to validate their claims.

      Yes, it is stereo typing and thus bigoted in its own right. It is ugly and evil in my view. But that is the source of the claims you hear today.

      I think the racist claims fall on deaf ears except among the most radicalized left and of course the Negro population. But the fear of the religious zealots getting control of the government is much broader and easier to sell. Especially when they admit that is their intent.

      So you wish abortion to be banned and you are a Republican. Thus you become evidence of this “radical republican” movement. Even if your reasons are due to deep introspection and moral evaluation. It will be viewed as an attempt to impose your “religious” beliefs on the rest of us.

      By the way, the supposed “War on Christianity” is driven by the Republican operatives in order to keep the “conservative” base mobilized. But his too, feeds the Dem’s view that the “radical right” is the power in the party. So all they have to do is poke at the right once in a while to get them screaming about the mythic war once again.

      Notice I left Beck off the list above. He is not the same as the others. But his campaign to teach us real history has helped feed these flames and fits the stereo type created by the left. Because he is pushing the concept that the USA is a Christian Nation. He is absolutely correct, in the context of 1776 and that most Americans have and are Christian. But you see the term “Christian Nation” has the same reaction to the atheist or Progressive as “Muslim Nation” might have to you. It is easy for the left to portray them as the same. Meaning “those radicals want to turn the USA into a Theological Republic”.

      I hope I have given you enough to understand the origin of the accusations, how they are being used, and perhaps a way to combat them when dealing with personal contacts. Such a battle is not possible in the media, however, because the discussion takes far to much time.

      Happy Labor Day

      • Thank you JAC, for the History lesson. And that, my friend, is not sarcasm. the 1980’s were may PARTY years. Thus I wasn’t paying a whole lot of attention to Politics. You just gave me info that I didn’t really know a whole lot about.

        Also, it was interesting to hear that it was just more Political HorseDookey.

      • I too thank you for the information but I must say I do not care if Christians were the force behind the derogatory label of the “Christian” Right. I could very easily put up a case for singling out a part of the democrat party and using them to promote a derogatory meaning. How about I start talking about the black left or the African American left to denote their ideology or almost theology of wealth distribution. The majority of their organizations and talking heads promote taking away our rights. Would this be right-no, hell no, it would not and neither is singling out Christians and labeling them the christian right

        • V.H.

          You have me stumped a little by your response. You asked what “they” call the “far right”. I explained how the evangelicals via the “Christian Coalition” (this is an actual organization not just a bunch of Christians) came to have power in the party and how that group was pushing for Religious based legislation at the time. That is what the left calls the “far right”. Well part of it.

          I didn’t say it makes it right. It is what it is. And the fact remains, the more the hard core Christians push for “legislation” that addresses these “religious” issues the easier it is for the Dems to convince the rest of the public that this is what will happen if they vote for a Republican. And when someone like Sharron Angle openly comments on her belief that “all” abortion is bad, then she plays right into that story line, confirming that the claims may be true.

          For the record, I respected and appreciated her answer to this issue. She showed that, unlike many Republicans, she understood the moral contradiction of supporting abortion under certain conditions but not others. But that is a discussion to complicated for the MSM to address. They don’t think we are capable.

          As for names for the Dems, there are already many. “Liberal, progressive, socialist, Marxist, communist, and even racist”, you name it the Republicans have used them all to describe the Dems over the years.

          If there is something else I missed please ask.

          • I didn’t mean to confuse you-I do understand that you weren’t saying it was right-just explaining how it came about-my point is just what I said-when ones uses a particular set of people such as Christians or African Americans and attaches a title such as “Christian right” as a derogatory title used in a political debate-it is wrong. It isn’t pointing out the political ideology as wrong or even that some Christians support this ideology-it is putting a label on ALL Christians or ALL African Americans if you use my example. I have no problem with far right and such-I do with the words Christian or any other that identifies a specific set of people within a party- it is like using words like all when it isn’t all. And it’s only purpose is to produce hatred for whatever the set of people are-in this case it is promoting a hatred for Christians in particular, not the ideology.

            • V.H.

              Yes, and that is why political operatives love to use labels.

              But I caution against one of your conclusions. You may feel that linking Christian to right wing is designed to create hatred for Christians.

              But I don’t think that is the actual desired effect at work. Your feeling may be more to do with those on the right telling you that is what the left is doing. Hence the mythic “war on Christianity” by the “left”.

              What they are doing is using the All American Tradition of Separation of Church and State to scare the Left and Center into hating “Republicans” because they are being controlled by the “fanatical Christians”, as opposed to the regular/moderate Christians.

              The irony is that they then scream racist, or Islamophobe, when the right uses the same phraseology to describe certain folks within the Muslim faith.

              I almost guarantee that you will see the claim that the Dem party is controlled by “fanatical Muslims” used in this election cycle. Words may not be exact but the meaning will be plane.

              And You are absolutely correct. It is repugnant, evil and just plane wrong.

  5. Oh, by the way my niece just adopted twin baby boys-they will come to live with them tomorrow-TWO 🙂

  6. Good morning,all. Just dropping by for a little bit to say hello.

    USW… there is one thing that is puzzling to me on the “racist” issue. Those of us, whom grew up during that time, remember what true racism WAS…key word here…..WAS. Separate drinking fountains, separate eating facilities, riding in the back of the bus, separate restrooms, low wage jobs, employment ceilings, etc. Anyone born after 1950, does not know what true racism was UNLESS they have actually studied it.

    I do not understand why no one….I mean NO ONE….has stepped forward and said……Prove it. I want to see racism today…proven. So, I challenge those that are on the far left that feel racism is still alive today….Prove it. I want to know where it is beause I cannot see it. It is not in the work place anymore, it is not in sports anymore, it is not in big business anymore, it is not in lending, nor the information industry. I want to see where it is….

    I feel that the term racism is a hot button that inflames certain people, but I also think, that it is a time worn mantra that not very many are paying attention to much. So…prove it.

    As to the GOP leaders….it ain’t Limbaugh, it ain’t Beck, it ain’t Palin…..The only reason that I even tolerate Limbaugh and Beck is that they command a very large audience and can get out a conservative vote. I do not support the GOP as a party but I am very fiscally conservative and a social moderate. So , I will support parts of the conservative movement. But there are some moderate dems out there that are just fine as well….at least on the local level. But Beck and Limbaugh are loudmouths,,,and despite their inaccuracies (some call then lies) they are still closer to mainstream America that anyone on the left….and “mis-speak” far less than anyone on the left side of the spectrum.

    Something of note that I wonder why it is not being brought out…..Bush has just gone into the record books as the leading President that has had the most consecutive quarters of economic growth until 2006. He had 51 months, consecutive months, of growth. The only President that has had that and they are saying, that no one will be able to match that. Why isn’t some party leader jumping all over this. It stopped when the dems took the house and Senate in 2006. The dems killed the investigation into Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in 2006 when it was pointed out that the housing issue was about to happen. I do not understand why this is not a focal point.

    But…….no leadership. Anyway, back to house cleaning.

    • I really feel for you, did you ever realize just how much damage heat and smoke can do-Your house doesn’t have to burn down to destroy every thing. And smoke is so hard to clean. Wish I lived close enough to help.

      • What is amazing is everything that it penetrates. There was smoke even where I did not think it would be. But the smoke was thick enough to be halfway down the walls in all parts of the home. Yuck…

    • I have helped remodel a house after a fire. Not fun. Smoke is hard to remove. I am currently remodeling my basement after a flood this spring. Broken pipe.

      I agree with you on the racism issue. My comments on Beck, Palin and Rush are below. I too think Bush has been the recipient of a long disinformation campaign that resulted from the bitterness of the 2000 election. At the time, I said its a draw, the candidate who comes up with a winning strategy deserves the win. After hearing Gore’s ranting, angry speaches in the 2002-4 era before he went AGW, the right man won. After 911, I often said if you want a nightmare, think President Gore. Again see my comments below about our nominees. Neither should have been offered. Bush did some good things but also made some significant mistakes but it pales compared to where we are now.

  7. Rush and Glenn are decidedly not leaders of the Rubups even though the Dems would love them to be since it is easy to argue against them. Sarah, however, has credentials and could interject herself into a position of leadership. She delivers a good speech (as does O), and has some fundamentally good instincts about what governement needs. I like her shakem up, back to basics direct approach. That said, she is not presidential timber. I would like to see if she could run a cabinet post and turn around one of the hide bound departments such as such as DOE before she makes any run at the top job.

    I do not get Fox so do not see either Sarah or Glenn often. Rush I occasionally listen too but more often read his website as I can skip the endless repeats and self aggrandizement. He does link his sources, does lampoon the MSM, and does criticize the Dems and sometimes the Repubs. One of the things he often points out is the common language used by the MSM on any given topic. It sure sounds like they are reading from a common script. Plough’s attempt to make Rush a leader of the party has been going on since right after the last election.

    As for Steele, I have never thought of the Chairman’s position as being of much importance. Certainly Dean does not throw much weight these days on the other side. It is clear the Repubs are leaderless at this time. But that is not unexpected after such a thorough defeat in the last two elections. New leaders should appear after this election. It will be interesting to see if they tend towards libertarianism, small government, fiscal restraint, and uncommon common sense.

    I have been quite disappointed in the quality of the candidates offered by both parties for several decades now. I am always amazed at how such clunkers can get the nominations. This last election, it is clear that the MSM picked the candidates. Their failure to vet Obama and the Mormon debacle for Romney are just examples. Add to that the fact that Rupubs cannot, for some reason, debate worth a damn. I often think that they dumb down their arguments on purpose to try to reach the lower levels. It is a mistake unless it is not an act, then they deserve to lose. I once heard Goldwater give an interview near the end of his career. He was sharper and more well read than I had ever given him credit for. We need to hear that earlier in life from these people.

    Gotta go paint now.

    • Ya know, T Ray…..the good people are smart enough not to run…we are all entreprenuers.. 🙂

    • And to add merit to your arguement that the Chairman’s position isn’t much a leader either, Dean has not been the DNC leader for several years. It is now Tim Kaine.

  8. I agree that religion & politics don’t mix. But I also don’t think that a secular mindset will cut it either. You have to have faith in something I don’t care if that something is a pineapple. To have a totally secular mindset leads me to believe you’re out for yourself. Secular.. isn’t that where Europe is? That’s not working to well either. Faith goes hand in hand with being humble. We could use some humbleness in DC.

    Not trying to wave the flag for Gingrich but he has some good points here:

    • Anita

      Europe’s situation is not due to Secularism. I would say it has more to do with its Culturism. That is its long history of statist regimes, tribalism, racism, etc.

      I have said before and will say again, some of the most morally righteous people I know are atheists. They carry all the virtues ascribed to “religion” but they reject the notion of God. So I do not think secularism in govt is bad.

      What is bad in govt is bad people. Whether seculars who wish to impose godless socialism upon us or the religious who wish to impose their “devine law” upon us. Both are evil and the enemy of freedom.

      Now, that said, we should not be afraid of religious people being elected to high office. Most of our founders were very religious and devout Christians. But due to their memory of recent events in Europe and the colonies, they recognized the need to keep government separate from the church. You simply can not have freedom and liberty if you give government to those who believe that their “Church” is the only true church.

      I think Reagan set the proper standard for public discussion of religion while President. Kennedy might have been good too but had to be very careful because of his Catholic faith. I think Bush got carried away at times, like mentioning his religious values when making the stem cell decision. But I never felt afraid that Bush would push his views into lasting legislation. If he had tried there are always those who will oppose to much of a push. I am more afraid of the fascist and socialist than the evangelist. The first two can play to the mind of the people in clandestine ways.. The last is usually easier to spot and rejected by most people as violating our “heritage”.

      I think it is important to realize that when “most” (I have no polling data to support this)say they want “secular” government they are really saying they don’t want religion mixed with our government. That is the American “heritage” I refer to above. The freedom to practice our religion. The inability of govt to make rules that favor the values of one religion over another.

      You can not separate religion from politics completely. Unless we eliminate people from politics all together. All men and women will govern according to the values they have developed over time. Whether by rational thought alone or by religious teaching. When you get the person you get all they believe.

      All we ask is that they not use the power of govt to tell or try to make the rest of us believe or live within the religious teachings they have come to accept.

      Did you get some lake time in this weekend?

      • We had quite a breezy weekend here but I did get my lake and fishing time. All the granddaddies were elsewhere but we caught 20-25 grandbabies. Better than a bad day at home 🙂

      • JAC. As a Southern Baptist Christian (though severly backslidden one) I agree that you MUST keep Religion separate from Politics.

        They do NOT mix. However, voting your consience is different. But also, it is becoming irrelevant because there are NO candidates out there who is not a Lying, Decieving sack of dogshit.

        • Esom

          You have my second and my vote on that proposition my dear friend.

          HONOR is not dead, but it sure doesn’t seem to exist within the realm of politics any longer.

          Hope all is well in Georgia.

          • Georgia is fine my friend. Getting ready to watch YOUR team this evening.

            Love that Blue field! Also the way they have made the “football experts” look stupid the past few years.

    • Anita

      Regarding Newt.

      He is playing a very dangerous game of “Ultimate Populist Politics”. Run from him as fast as you can.

      And this from a guy who used to support him.

      With Newt you now have to listen for his reasons, not just his ideas. Although many of those have become hollow as well. His reasons have become irrational in my view because they are not consistent with his statements about freedom, liberty and justice.

      • I don’t care if you shoot the messanger on this one but you can’t argue with anything he said in the video

        • I have to admit that Newt says a lot that I agree with and I love that he is a studier of history. But I also have come to recognize when people are talking to the patriotic christian within me and I have to stop an question what they say and whether or not it supports liberty. His comments about Jefferson getting rid of judges sounds okay based on the judges not following liberty and the constitution but who gets to decide they are overstepping and should the President, which I assume Jefferson was at the time have the right to decide such a thing. I think not. But I really need to go back and look at what exactly happened to make any real judgement on his statement-but on the surface it doesn’t sound right.

        • Anita

          My dear, you should know me well enough by now to know that “you can’t argue with anything he said” is a clear challenge.

          I take GREAT exception to much of what he said, and it fits my warning above. His attack on the Attorney General and claim that impeachment articles should be drawn is a clear attack and afront to the Constitution and the rule of law which derives from it. He knows that yet he plays on the “populist” emotions that existed shortly after the Ft. Hood murders.

          His attack on the lawyers who defend terrorists is equally egregious. He knows full well that the philosophy of law and thus the functioning of a Democratic Republic requires that lawyers defend the law over political expediency. In the world of lawyers, defending “terrorists pro bono” reflects an allegiance to the concept of LAW not sympathy for terrorists. Newt knows that and yet plays it up for the audience.

          Also note his call for national agenda and “mind set” then accuses the ACLU of a “fascist mindset” over the challenge to the desert cross. Fascism is exemplified by an attempt via force or propaganda to create a “national mindset”. The very think Newt is calling for. The cross lawsuit was stupid in my opinion and an example of a few going beyond reason.

          Notice how he tries to tie “secular” to both “fascism” and to “socialism” in his statements. A clear attempt to manipulate the subconscious emotions of the audience and to let the “Christians” know that he is with “them” against the “others”.

          He is correct about abolishing courts. The Legislative branch has only two options. Constitutional Amendment to overturn, or abolish the courts. There has been an effort to split the 9th circuit into two courts for over 15 years, leaving California alone in the 9th. Until the Dems give up on that one, nothing will happen. In the meantime, the 9th circuit is beginning to realize it has stepped outside normal judicial constraint in areas like the environment. So perhaps it will be somewhat self correcting in the long term.

          As I said. Run from this man as fast as you can.

          • JAC: Like I said I’m not waving any flags for the man. But can’t some things just BE without parsing words or looking for hidden meaning. I don’t think most Americans give as much thought to things as you do. Not saying they are zombies. We’re much more aware today than 2 yrs ago. Newt saying dont buy a house if you can’t afford it..makes sense. The FtHood shooter with connections to terrorists.. makes sense. Abolish the 9th Circuit..makes sense. That’s all people are looking for is common sense. Most people don’t care what his motivations are they just want common sense.

            • Anita

              You may not be as vulnerable to this type of speech any longer but most still are. Think of where you were a year ago and whether you might have even questioned any of his claims then.

              You are right in that most won’t care, all they will here is the “common sense” part. And that is how evil people come to power. They are counting on the fact that ALL the people heard was the common sense part. Does 2008 ring a bell in this regard?

              This speech makes a great example of this classic ploy. It doesn’t mean that the good ideas are bad, or that the bad ideas are good. It simply shows how they can say both and we only remember “what we wanted to hear”. Again I remind you of the 2008 election as a prime example. Heh, heh, heh.

              You asked me once for examples of things you can do to help turn this country around. I just gave you one.

              Do not accept these kinds of speeches and let them sit uncontested. If you here a friend say “yeah, I agree totally” then challenge the “totally” part. Point out how they use “common sense” linked to “bad sense” to play us for fools. Point out the inconsistencies with respect to freedom, liberty and justice. Reveal the ugly hypocrisy where ever and when ever you find it.

              Slowly, those around you will start to wake up. And when they do, we will finally be ready for that little revolution of which we all speak.

    • Anita

      Just read your comments again and wanted to mention a couple of key things, from the philosophical point.

      Humble………..Humility is evil. Now before you blow your stack, humility as it is taught does not mean simply to not brag about your accomplishments. It is the acceptance that man is bad, that original sin exists and that I am guilty of the sins of my ancestors who lived thousands of years ago. It is the ultimate assault on the sovereign individual.

      Self Esteem………The opposite of humility, is the opposite of evil.

      Secular…..Does not impose religious beliefs on others. A secular nation does not mean that there are not religious people in the nation. Just no imposing or National Religion allowed.

      Secular mindset = out for yourself……..This is gonna hurt. I apologize in advance. We are all out for ourselves, and we should be. That is the nature of humans and anything that tries to stop that is evil, for it goes against our efforts to live.

      Natural Law: Humans will ALWAYS make the choice that is in their own best interest based on their perceptions at the time they make that choice.

      Selfish…… Is Good. Selfish does not mean that politicians are out to make themselves rich. It means that they value honesty and honor as part of their value system. It is part of their self-esteem. Thus they will “represent” you because that is the job you gave them and the promise they made.

      It is the “selfless” politician who promises you A and then votes for B because it helps him win votes or pads his bank account.

      Now I’ll let that all stew awhile.

      Standing ready to get a skillet up side the head.


      • CLANK! How’d that feel? Every time I think I’m getting somewhere you knock the wind outta my sails. I don’t care what your definitions are. You guys always get to make up the defs as you go. Far as I’m concerned if I have to use your defs then I get to be selfish when I’m in charge and vote myself a bunch of money in MY pocket. But if I’m humble when I’m in charge I try to do what is best for everyone and put a bunch of money in EVERYONE’s pocket. Take that! 🙂

        • Anita

          It hurts, but I’ll live.

          Your confusion doesn’t come from MY definitions, it comes from those who have twisted the meaning of these words over time for the purpose of manipulating your mind.

          Just think about the word selfless. It is a compound word. Self and less. It means literally “without self”. The modern meaning, lets use “charitable”, is not some innocuous creation. It attacks the concept of “self” directly. It is tied to the original definition of Altruism.

          In fact, you will find “altruistic” and “selfless” often used synonymously. So my dear Anita, it is not I that am the source of your struggles. It is the wonderful people who convinced you that charity and sacrifice of the individual for the good of society had the same moral value.

          You ARE a selfish person. Be proud and celebrate that fact. But do not vote yourself money because then you will have destroyed your honesty and integrity. Both of which are ‘values’ critical to maintaining your self-esteem, which of course is required to live a selfish and righteous life.

          Now give me a big hug so my headache will go away.

          🙂 🙂

      • Humble………..Humility is evil. Now before you blow your stack, humility as it is taught does not mean simply to not brag about your accomplishments. It is the acceptance that man is bad, that original sin exists and that I am guilty of the sins of my ancestors who lived thousands of years ago. It is the ultimate assault on the sovereign individual.

        Then you did not hear it properly taught. Humility is the recognition that no man is superior to any other man, and that one’s knowledge and ability did not come entirely from one’s self. Humanity’s knowledge is built on the knowledge of those before. It is sometimes taught that one should give glory to a higher power, rather than to history, but the point is that one should not take all the glory to one’s self. Self glory is the path to superiority, which is the path to justification of ruling others.

        Self Esteem………The opposite of humility, is the opposite of evil.

        This is not the opposite of humility, it is the opposite of self-loathing, which still makes it a good thing.

        Secular…..Does not impose religious beliefs on others. A secular nation does not mean that there are not religious people in the nation. Just no imposing or National Religion allowed.

        Secular is non-deism. It does not necessarily impose, but many who claim to be secular certainly attempt to. It is no more an attribute of secularism to impose than it is an attribute of other religions, with the exception that there is no organized focus on evangelism or conversion of others. That does not mean many people do not do so anyway.

        Secular mindset = out for yourself……..This is gonna hurt. I apologize in advance. We are all out for ourselves, and we should be. That is the nature of humans and anything that tries to stop that is evil, for it goes against our efforts to live.

        On some level this is indeed the state of all humanity. It can be argued that people are out for their family or those they love sometimes, but then that can be countered with the fact that ones emotions or instinctual drive motivates the action, and the good feelings from that are the benefit for doing what you are doing, and that you seeking that good feeling is self interest. I never heard this defined as a secular mindset specifically tho. I always heard secularism defined as a mindset with man as the highest power as opposed to a god or gods.

        Natural Law: Humans will ALWAYS make the choice that is in their own best interest based on their perceptions at the time they make that choice.

        Agreed. There is no other basis for making a choice unless one is insane.

        Selfish…… Is Good. Selfish does not mean that politicians are out to make themselves rich. It means that they value honesty and honor as part of their value system. It is part of their self-esteem. Thus they will “represent” you because that is the job you gave them and the promise they made.

        Selfish is basically a different word for the natural law you stated above. A better word for what selfish has come to mean would be greed. It is the mindset of acting on impulse, in ones own interest without regard for the future, or the longer term consequences of their actions. It is the act of thinking small.

        • One point-I think the word “Self respect” much more than self esteem.

        • Jon

          Re Humility. You say I was taught wrong but then use the same meaning in another context.

          “Self glory is the path to superiority, which is the path to justification of ruling others.” and “Humility is the recognition that no man is superior to any other man,…”

          Self glory is NOT the path to superiority. Superiority must be earned and thus the superiority is grounded in reality. And if it is real and then self glory is justified and there is nothing wrong with it. We call it PRIDE.

          Men ARE superior to other men. We know this by using reason to judge men against their words, their actions and their lives.

          Humility is a direct attack on the virtue of pride in oneself. As you show, it is designed to deny the reality that some men are in fact superior to other men. It is an attempt to rationalize the argument that reality is not real, that the truth does not matter because nothing is true.

          • No, some men act better, or are better at certain things, but I am not a superior being to you. If I were, then I could set rules for you because I know best or have that authority. I can own a dog or a horse because I am a superior being. I cannot own another human because I am not a superior being. I might be a better man at a given task or contest, but I am not a superior being. Furthermore, much of my knowledge, ability, success, etc. came from others. I respect this. Those who do not may find that their superiority is easily bested by superior numbers. No one likes a braggart.

            I am a great and powerful person. I have great physical, mental, and social ability. I respect myself. I honor others who I consider to be great in similar ways. I do not honor those who have not earned it. But I will not cast off even the lowest as unworthy of being a member of humanity. I consider myself, in many ways, a self-made man. However, if I look at my knowledge and training and the successes in my life, I am not truly “self made”. None of us are.

  9. Bottom Line says:

    Plouffe, Eric Cantor, Newt Gingrich, Bobby Jindal, Mitch McConnell, Mitt Romney, Palin, Beck, Limbaugh, Olberman, etc…

    All useless.

  10. 8)

  11. USW

    Rush Limbaugh is a leader among the “conservative movement” and thus PART of the Republican Party.

    Sarah Palin is a figure head for the conservative Republicans. More a party person and pure politician than “conservative ideologue”. She is NOT a leader of the party but probably would like to be. Especially once the novelty of her speaking tour wears thin and she can’t command the big money any longer. I think you will see her mentioned as RNC Chair after the elections. The conservatives will push for her, especially if their candidates do well.

    Glenn Beck is a VOICE of confused ex Republicans and almost Libertarians. He is NOT a leader of the Republican Party and the fact this guy says so shows his real motives, or his ignorance. If anything he could be called the Spiritual Leader of the Tea Party, but spiritual in the sense of political and moral guidance counselor.

  12. I don’t know about Limpbough, but as far as Beck and Palin goes, I agree with JAC.

    They are the frustrated voices of us once Conservative Republicans. We have discovered over the past few that we are people without representation. Which is odd since we are the true majority in this country of ours.

    We have discovered long, long ago that the Democrats no longer shared our ideals. And now recently (a few years ago for some) we have discovered that the GOP is not our Party anymore either. Both Parties, I am saddened to say, have fallen to increasingly Progressive agendas and Politically entrenched in the DC swamp mud.

    They have become basically all one Party, separated only by name. So now it’s come to be the far left, a Political Party, and the far right. That sound about right?

    I don’t mean that we are all one way or the other, just that this is the perception. In reality, most of us fall somewhere right of center. Not as far as the MSM paints us, but still right. And we are being ignored at Washington’s peril too.

    While we do not as yet have a Political Party, nor a REAL Candidate that we would be happy with, someone eventually may come. I say EVENTUALLY MAY because things have gotten so far out of hand that I personally do not believe it will matter now.

    We are too far in debt, with no way to pay it back, and no one is showing signs in the Government of caring a whit about it. In addition, the morals and respect of others is so sadly lacking now, I no longer think it possible to staighten out the Nation’s ills. There are too many out there who seem intent on destroying this country as quickly as possible, and some of them hold positions of great power in this Nation. I won’t name names. I don’t think that’s neccesary. Let’s just say they have until 2012 to do all the damage. Just look what they have done since 2006. Hell, since 2008! There’s no telling how far down we will be in another 2 and a half years.

    While I do not think the Tea Parties are the answer, I believe somthing along those lines would be. But they cannot be fractured. The new Party must be solid, all together as one and ready to kick ass and take names. If they be called the GOP, then they would have a lot of changing ahead of them. We are sick and tired of the same old tired crapola we have put up with for years. When someone tells us they stand for something, then they’d damn well better stand up for it, and not just give lip service to it.

    Like Sharon Angle, say what you believe. If it’s not popular, OK. But at least you told the truth and not just what you thought folks wanted to hear. I applaud that even if I didn’t feel the same way she does. Just the fact that she told it like she believed it says a lot. I hope she beats the dog piss out of Harry Reid. And for you Progressives here, One Senator isn’t going to get the law changed. Not unless a whole lot more like her get elected. And if that happens, then you will have been vastly outnumbered anyway, won’t you?

    The fact is, I believe Progressives ARE vastly outnumbered in the Country. At least I sure hope like hell you are. If no, then we are all doomed anyway. But don’t feel bad. It’s probably too late now anyway. You got your Progressive\Socialist\Communist President elected. And he is busily “fundamentally tranforming”\”destroying” us as we speak.

  13. BOISE ST. 33 Va Tech 30

    Yee freakin haw!!!!!!!!!!

    • I am cool with the outcome, but that was pass interference on the last 4th and 11 play.

      • USW

        That’s the beauty of having NO Television.

        There is no controversy………ha, ha, ha…..

        The most exciting way to watch a game is on ESPN simulcast. Watching those little lines move slower than a snail. Minutes pass and all of a sudden they post three plays and your back in the game.

        Sounds like Boise played sloppy. What was with all the penalties?

  14. Per Glen Beck-this man get’s it.

    I Think I See What Glenn Beck is Doing (Updated)

    Posted by Lexington Green on September 3rd, 2010 (All posts by Lexington Green)

    Print This Post Print This Post

    The Glenn Beck rally is confusing people.


    He is aiming far beyond what most people consider to be the goalposts.

    Using Boyd’s continuum for war: Material, Intellectual, Moral.

    Analogously for political change: Elections, Institutions, Culture.

    Beck sees correctly that the Conservative movement had only limited success because it was good at level 1, for a while, weak on level 2, and barely touched level 3. Talk Radio and the Tea Party are level 3 phenomena, popular outbreaks, which are blowing back into politics.

    Someone who asks what the rally has to do with the 2010 election is missing the point.

    Beck is building solidarity and cultural confidence in America, its Constitution, its military heritage, its freedom. This is a vision that is despised by the people who have long held the commanding heights of the culture. But is obviously alive and kicking.

    Beck is creating positive themes of unity and patriotism and freedom and independence which are above mere political or policy choices, but not irrelevant to them. Political and policy choices rest on a foundation of philosophy, culture, self-image, ideals, religion. Change the foundation, and the rest will flow from that. Defeat the enemy on that plane, and any merely tactical defeat will always be reversible.

    Beck is unabashed that God can be invoked in public places by citizens, who vote and assemble and speak and freely exercise their religion. They are supposed to be too browbeaten to do this. Gathering hundreds of thousands of them to peaceably assemble shows they are not. But showing that the people who believe in God and practice their religion are fellow-citizens who share political and economic values with majorities of Americans is a critical step. The idea that these people are an American Taliban is laughable, but showing that fact to the world — and to potential political allies who are not religious — is critical.

    Beck is attacking the enemy at the foundations of their power, their claim to race as a permanent trump card, their claim to the Civil Rights movement as a permanent model to constantly be transforming a perpetually unjust society.

    He is nuking out the foundations of the opposition’s moral preeminence, the very thing I proposed in this post.

    Ronald Reagan said we would not defeat Communism, we would transcend it.

    Beck is aiming to have America do the same thing to its decaying class of Overlords, transcend them.

    Beck is prepping the battlefield for a generation-long battle.

    He is that very American thing: A practical visionary.

    See, simple.

    Restore pride and confidence to your own side, and win the long game.

    As Ronald Reagan also said, there are simple solutions, just no easy solutions.

    God bless America.



    UPDATE: One commenter, Richard40 who attended the rally said “As a conservative secular libertarian, I felt a bit left out … .” He said Beck could have included him by having a non-religious person on stage, and by saying “our only requirement is you believe in the founding principles of America, and wish to return to those principles.” He noted further, correctly in my view, that “The key to the Tea Party coalition is to stay unified on issues where conservatives and libertarians agree, like spending, deficit, size of government, and honest government, but allowing a big tent, that respects differences on social issues … .”

    I did not go to the rally, I don’t know Glenn Beck, I don’t have a TV so I don’t know watch his show, and I am not a mind reader. So I can only speculate about this event. Other people have been a little bit stumped by it, too. I think that it was expressly not labeled as a Tea Party event. If so, that would make sense. The Tea Party is one circle on the Venn Diagram. The target audience for this event is an overlapping but not identical circle. The goal here seems to have been to encourage and mobilize one very large group of people, a huge segment of the population. No event is going to accomplish everything or appeal to everybody. Since the event included a call for forty days of prayer for the country, it was pretty obviously directed to people who pray. The totality of the coalition which is growing, which I think of as The Insurgency, is made up of several components. The unifying element is exactly the political and economic factors Richard40 mentions. A purely political event would have been a different event. There is room for all kinds of events.

    And as a Roman Catholic, I will extend my hand to Richard40 and all other non-religious fellow citizens who share the same civic, political, economic and Constitutional principles I do. For the small number of doctrinaire libertarians who cannot stand dealing with someone who goes to church, I can only say, wake up, look hard at what is happening, and see who your real opponents are. We can have a civil discussion about the issues we disagree about when this current menace has been beaten back. We are in this thing together.

  15. TC,

    Muslims are the terrorists, right? Christianity has evolved past such tactics.

    • Funny. My first thought was it’s a set up by some of YOUR cronies. 🙂

    • SK Trynosky Sr/. says:


      Nuts are nuts. I posit that we have fewer nuts and that we are a lot better at immediately standing up and condemning the nuts that think they are acting in our name.

      • I posit that you have roughly the same number of nuts. I further posit that that because your nuts don’t generally live in a war zone subject to a violent occupation, living with a perceptual cycle of suicide bombings and reprisals coupled with fanatical lunatics distorting their religion and massive unemployment (north of 40%) and massive poverty and temperatures upward of 110 degrees and water shortages and virtually no modern medicine and negligible education and always being told that the source of all your problems is the Jews and The West.

        Therefore, I posit further still, that your nuts are generally less volatile than their nuts.

        There’s a thing about pigs. Pigs are kind, clean and social creatures. They form complex social units. They care for their sick and injured. They collect food and share freely. But when you put them in bad conditions (too cramped, not enough food, not enough water, etc), they become violent and hostile. They fight and kill each other. They don’t share, they are brutish creatures. The same is true for humans. If you put us in this bountiful and (despite the present mindset) prosperous nation and we become kind and generous and generally good and (somewhat) peaceful. Put us in an hellhole like the West Bank and we’d be something else entirely.

        If you grew up like that, you might consider it a great honor to strap a bomb to your chest and kill yourself and others in the name of Jesus.

        Christians are fortunate, not different.

        • SK Trynosky Sr/. says:

          And, how will things improve?

          There has to be a discussion of how the cycle can be broken.

          Over the weekend there was a Turner Classic Movie Channel salute to “the March of Time” this was a twenty minute movie series, a new one every month, on a different topic. One that was shown was about palestine in 1945. It was a “little did we know that…..” show for me. Apparently there was a huge migration to palestine by Jews in the 1st half of teh 20th century, not including the post war immigration. At the same time, the new businesses they started, the new farmibng methods and the new factories drew a huge Muslim immigration into the country. So, when the shit hit the fan in ’48, problems were inevitable. We are still living with them. The interesting exercise is to think back to that time and see if anything at all could have been done differently which would have led to a different outcome.

          • How will things improve.. well… someday Iran is going to get the bomb. They’re going to bomb Israel, Israel will (probably) bomb back. When the entire middle east is a glow-in-the-dark radioactive wasteland with nothing living there, it will be peaceful.

            I guess that’s an improvement…

            • Mathius,

              There exists no political theory that would cause Iran to initiate an unprovoked assault on the hegemonic power of the region.

              • I have a political theory.

                It involved the Mullahs being crazy as an outhouse rat. And President Mahmoud “there are no gays in my country, the holocaust never happened, we will drive all Jews into the sea, ambassador of death missile” Ahmadinejad is right up there near the top of the list of people who should be allowed to handle M80’s, let alone nukes.

                • Mathius,

                  You hold the same fallacious political theory as many others.

                  You attribute insanity to others, but decline attributes to yourself.

                  Your world view is consistent..

                  “Freedom for me, but not for you”.

                  You are very ego-centric.

                  You see yourself as sane, intelligent, worthy, and righteous – but decline the same viewpoint to other – others are insane, stupid, unworthy, and evil.

                  Such a ego-centric world view will lead to personal disaster – and if such a view point inflicts a large percentage of a society, it will eventually devastate that society.

  16. The Deeper Meaning of the CBz Beck-O-Lanche

    Posted by Lexington Green on September 3rd, 2010 (All posts by Lexington Green)

    Print This Post Print This Post

    [This was an update to a previous post, but I decided it should stand on its own. There are some inspiring lessons here.]

    Great thanks to Glenn Beck for the mighty call-out on his TV show. He quotes this post here starting at 12:10, and continuing here. The transcript of the show is here.

    This has been an interesting couple of days.

    I saw a video of the Restoring Honor event, which struck me favorably. I looked at some commentary about it, and saw that no one was getting it, since everybody seems stuck looking through a straw at second-to-second issues, and narrow politics, where Beck was clearly aiming at big, culture-changing action. This is not, historically, unheard of. There is nickel-and-dime politics, and there is big, who-we-are politics. The second type only comes along once in a while, but when it does it changes the whole game. Beck sees correctly that we are living in an unusual era of major change and he is acting accordingly. I started to whip off an email to some of my usual group of pals about these penetrating insights, but it got too long. So I put it out on the blog, figuring our regular readers might like it, and didn’t think about it anymore.

    Later on I saw the post was getting an unusual number of comments, indicating that it was circulating around. I was out of town in a hotel room, working, and would look at the blog from time to time since there was a continual flow of comments. I responded to a few and made sure everyone was playing well with each other. (For some reason, it is always the posts you just type from the gut and dash off that get the most interest.) Then at 10:22 p.m. our pal PurpleSlog left a comment that Beck had tweeted the post, and said “The ONLY guy to actually get it!” Whoa. How crazy is that? The tempo of incoming comments increased, but I finally had to get some sleep. Today went fine at work, and I was able to check up from time to on my iPhone. At 8:22 a.m. a commenter named Jason Wilder commented that Mr. Beck had mentioned the post on his radio show. Cool. More comments were flowing in. Then, Jonathan calls and tells me someone from the Glenn Beck Program wanted to talk to me. I was in my car on the way to the airport when a nice lady named Jenna talked to me for a few minutes. I said of course Mr. Beck could read it or say whatever he wanted about the post on his TV show.

    When he did, the incoming traffic spiked and took the blog down. Crunch! The power of a Beck-O-Lanche!

    We stand in awe of such vast and primal forces.

    I got Jonathan on the phone, he got the hosting company on the phone, and they fixed it. I was getting a real-time feed from several friends via Facebook and email, on my phone, about the show. I got in line to get on the plane, and only then did I notice that in Louisville they have the TVs on Fox! I could have watched it.

    Too funny.

    So, OK, Lex. Why are you telling me all this? Surely it cannot merely be smug self-congratulation?

    Ahem. Moi? Certainly not!

    Let us consider the larger lessons. The ability of like-minded people to find each other, to spread ideas, to inform each other, is getting better and better all the time. This little episode is one of many examples of a critical and very hopeful fact:

    Today’s tools favor our side in this struggle, which I am calling the Insurgency.

    The Insurgency is based on individual freedom, autonomous decision-making, spontaneous order, voluntary association, open-mindedness, adaptiveness, transparency, networks rather than hierarchies. It is at bottom a fun loving and joyful and open spirit. In many cases this is based on religious faith. (I raise my hand.) In others it is based on love of human potential and creativeness, or other positive factors. This model works. And it works better and better with the tools of today and tomorrow.

    The Opposition is based on the outdated legacy systems of the Industrial Era. It is based on assembly lines, bureaucracies, railway timetables, rationing, coercive and rule-bound action, mandatory schedules, forcing people into niches and categories, stripping them of autonomy, and turning people into petty little beasts subject to political control. That is the vision of the Opposition: People standing in line, people asking permission, people filling out forms, people without cars, without money in their pockets, who need a political favor to get anything done. It is based on nostalgia for the old-time “Big Unit” America that worked tolerably well in its day, the period roughly 1900-1950. (Michael Barone wrote about this recently.) But a system of centralized control that barely worked in its heyday is utterly unsuited to the world of today. It is increasingly falling on its face. Our institutions no longer work, because they are ill-suited to who we are, what we need, and where we want to go.

    This top-down vision lives on because it is based on the self-flattering delusion that just because someone had good SAT scores he is qualified to tell millions of citizens how to live, from his desk. (Hayek could tell you why that is wrong.) The Soviet commissars couldn’t do it, and our smartypantses can’t do it, either.

    And of course there are cynical, rent-seeking people who benefit from the regulatory leviathan, and don’t want it to change. All too many in this category are Republicans.

    The Opposition’s model is a failure. Doubling down, as Mr. Obama has tried to do, will only dig the hole deeper. The American people have figured that out. They are looking for ways to wind up the legacy systems of the past, and move on. They are going to succeed, but the process won’t be pretty.

    The Insurgency is the wave of the future. We are going to wage this struggle on the moral, intellectual and material plane, with a smile, with charity, without rancor, with confidence. Anyway, that’s how I think we should play it.

    The American way of life is deeply rooted, it is alive, and it is heading for a new Renaissance. No kidding. You heard it here first. We are going to go through a rough patch, then we are going to win, hands down.

    This little episode is one shiny tile in a massive mosaic that we are building together.

    We have the tools.

    We have our history.

    We have our sense of humor.

    We have each other.

    We can change hearts and minds, then change ideas, then change the politics.

    A fair wind is beginning to blow.

    It’s going to be good.

    God bless America.

  17. Throwing this out there only so I can watch Black Flag’s head explode..

    • Could you give me the name of the article -so I can find it without having to register. 🙂

      • “How to End the Great Recession”

        and an excerpt:

        What else could be done to raise wages and thereby spur the economy? We might consider, for example, extending the earned income tax credit all the way up through the middle class, and paying for it with a tax on carbon. Or exempting the first $20,000 of income from payroll taxes and paying for it with a payroll tax on incomes over $250,000.

        In the longer term, Americans must be better prepared to succeed in the global, high-tech economy. Early childhood education should be more widely available, paid for by a small 0.5 percent fee on all financial transactions. Public universities should be free; in return, graduates would then be required to pay back 10 percent of their first 10 years of full-time income.

      • V.H.

        Try this link

        As I recall I posted a comment and link to this story last week. Maybe it was somewhere else.

    • V.H.,
      More on the obvious Hegemony Theory of mine….


      September 05, 2010

      On 2 Sept, 2001, in a newspaper article, I wrote: “America’s strategic and economic interests in the Mideast and Muslim world are being threatened by the agony in Palestine, which inevitably invites terrorist attacks against US citizens and property.” The 9/11 attacks came nine days later

      President Barack Obama is absolutely right to seek an end to the endless suffering of Palestinians. It is an affront to humanity and gravely undermines America’s values, security and prestige.

      In my most recent book, “American Raj – America and the Muslim World,” I tried to show how the poisonous conflict over Palestine has generated much of what we call “terrorism,” and how it is dragging the United States ever into a deeper but unnecessary conflict with the Muslim world.

      For those yearning to see an end to the seven decade Jewish-Palestinian conflict, to see security and tranquility for Israel, and justice for Palestinians, last week’s so-called “peace talks” in Washington were a painful farce.

      President Obama convoked Israel’s Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, to meet in Washington with Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas, Egypt’s strongman, Husni Mubarak, and Jordan’s King Abdullah.

      The result was the same kind of tired, stale Mideast political kabuki that has dragged on for the past decade: platitudes about peace, cheery handshakes, and talks about talks about talks.

      All involved knew that this was political theater designed to beguile American voters into believing progress was being made in the eternal Mideast mess.

      These faux peace talks were also supposed to send a message to the angry Arab world that the United States was indeed pushing for a fair peace in Palestine, and to show Israelis that their leader, PM Netanyahu, not long ago in Obama’s doghouse for humiliating visiting VP Joe Biden, was back in Washington’s good books in time for November elections.

      Hardly anyone in the Arab or Muslim world took this charade seriously. The only people who don’t seem to really understand what’s going on are poorly informed North Americans.

      America’s media dutifully reported the Washington talks with the same unquestioning solemnity and deference that the old Soviet media used to report Communist Party congresses.

      In this game, Israel holds all the cards.

      The ruling right-wing Likud coalition insists it will never tolerate creation of a Palestinian state, the key to resolving this conflict.


      At best, Likud says it may accept a self-governing Arab entity – in short, a old South African apartheid “Bantustan.”

      Making things even grimmer, Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, the loose-lipped head of Netanyahu’s major coalition partner, the ultra-orthodox Shas Party, proclaimed god should strike dead the hapless Mahmoud Abbas. Palestinian gunmen killed four Israeli settlers on the West Bank.

      As the brilliant Israeli writer Uri Avnery points out, Likud even refuses to define Israel’s final borders.

      According to Avnery, there remains an expansionist impulse within Likud and its hard right coalition parties that foresees an even larger Jewish state.

      Whatever the case, Netanyahu’s ruling Likud holds all the cards in this game. Israel’s strategy is simple: keep talking about peace talks, and make occasional cosmetic concessions to placate Washington, while speeding ahead with colonizing the West Bank and the nearly forgotten Golan Heights.

      As a Palestinian diplomat aptly noted, “we are negotiating with Israel over dividing a pizza while Israel is busy eating it up.”

      There are now 500,000 Jewish and non-Jewish Russian settlers on the West Bank in 121 settlements connected by special security roads off limits to Arabs. Much of the West Bank’s best farmland and underground water has been expropriated by Israel. Jewish Jerusalem keeps expanding into the West Bank through huge, fortified apartment buildings while Arabs in East Jerusalem are being steadily squeezed out, often with the help of tax deductible donations by American Zionist groups.

      Israeli check points and security controls are in part designed to make life so miserable for Palestinians that they will emigrate. Israel’s expanding security walls are carving away yet more land.

      Today, creation of a viable, contiguous Palestinian state looks hardly possible – and impossible tomorrow. Instead, the West Bank is becoming a patchwork of violent bantustans that are wholly dependent on Israel and surrounded by its security forces. Most Israelis are pleased because they no longer suffer as many bombings and attacks as they once did. But Palestinians and the Muslim world are outraged.

      Watching “negotiations’ between four American client states – Israel, Egypt, Jordan and the Palestinian Authority – who receive billions in US payments is beyond even acid Mideast cynicism. Egypt and Jordan, both close allies of Israel, have cooperated in the repression of the Palestinian movement Hamas. Neither wants to see a Palestinian state.

      Hamas, penned up in the giant open-air prison camp of Gaza, was not invited to Washington. Hamas rejects peace talks and refuses to recognize Israel until Israel recognizes the claims of five million uprooted, stateless Palestinians.

      But Hamas is also the legitimate voice of Palestinians, having been elected in a proper democratic election in 2006, the Arab world’s only honest vote since Algeria’s 1991 election that was subsequently quashed by the military, with French and US backing.

      However extreme, Hamas is largely free of the endemic corruption infecting Mahmoud Abbas’ Palestinian Authority, which most Arabs regard as a bunch of Israeli and American stooges and yes-men. The Palestinian Authority certainly does not speak for most Palestinians.

      Half of Israelis still want to make a land for peace deal with the Palestinians. Unfortunately, Israel’s peace camp has fallen silent and receives no backing from the United States.

      The American dialogue on the Holy Land is almost entirely controlled by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, which is virtually an arm of the Likud Party. Candidate Obama in fact promised AIPAC never to pressure Israel into a peace deal it did not want, a pledge he is keeping.

      But no pressure on Israel by Washington to trade land for peace means no real peace, no matter what sweetheart deal Abbas signs. No real peace means more woes for the United States in dealing with the Muslim world. And it likely means more 9/11’s.

      Copyright Eric S. Margolis 2010

      • I’m walking out the door-BF-will read it when I get back. But just reading the first line “obvious” we’ll see 🙂

    • He is a Keynesian moron who doesn’t even understand American history.

      “In the decades after World War II, legislation like the G.I. Bill, a vast expansion of public higher education and civil rights and voting rights laws further reduced economic inequality. Much of this was paid for with a 70 percent to 90 percent marginal income tax on the highest incomes.”

      The highest income tax rates was in 1945 – 94% – and dropped to *gasp* 86% after the war.

      To claim that the Public Education was paid by the taxes is a farce. The war was paid by taxes.

      Here is a bypass link:

      • Just wanted to get your blood pumping early in the day. You never responded to my gumitup post from the other day. I’d really love to see your thoughts and find out if you have any ideas on how something like that might be applied to the US without the risk of jail / violence.

        Though I only want a retooling of the government (as opposed to your wish for its abolition), I think gumitup has tremendous potential if you can just find and hit a weak spot.

        • Mathius,

          Your gumitup was excellent.

          In the matters of politics, it all depends where you wish to apply your effort.

          If it is federally, you have zero hope. Nada. Not even a prayer.


          State and civic politics, lots of opprotunities.

          Re: Retooling.
          Humanity has been retooling government for 5,000+ years with exactly the same outcome of tryanny.

          Time to throw the worthless tool away, I say.

          • I am composing a post to why government has remained a tyrannical institution and why, in face of such horrific history and action, people (like you) want its continuance.

          • Allow me to share with you a belief I have. This is hard won from years of experience in programming.

            All sufficiently large systems have weaknesses. Unless the whole thing was planned out in advance, analyzed in depth, kept simple and straight forward, adhered to plan, executed by a single person (of exceptional talent and commitment), there will be a vulnerability.

            Does that sound like the federal government to you?

            It has weak spots, and they’re easy to see if you’re willing to risk the hassle. We’ve already talked about my favorite: paying the IRS in pennies.

            It’s legal, and they have to count it out in front of you. Twice. If you do it yourself, you’re annoyed and they’re annoyed, but what if you got just 10 friends together in your local area and made your local branch spend days counting them? What if you could get 100 people (is that so many) in each city? You could stall the entire collection process for two or three weeks.

            But what if you could get 1,000 people in each major city? I bet you some places in the south could muster 10,000 without a problem. They wouldn’t finish counting until it was time to start collecting for the next year. Everyone loses one day of work. But you would effectively shut down the government.

            I also think that every time anyone see a cop car perform an illegal maneuver (ie speed, fail to signal, use their siren just to avoid a red light, park illegally – these happen all the time), they should call the police station and file a formal complaint.

            What are some other ones?

            Adding, I like the tool, in general, though there are definitely some changes I would like to see.

            • Mathius,

              You do not understand the nature of the federal government.

              You believe paying with pennies will enfeeble the IRS.

              You fail to see that these men have guns. They are eager to find an excuse to use them.

              They will not accept your pennies – and may indeed seize them while demanding you still pay your tax.

              Re: Cops.

              Cops are a local government – such as State or City or County. As I said, it is here where individuals can actually exert politic force over government

              • Re IRS:

                They play by rules. They cannot seize my money without admitting to lawlessness.

                If they are overtly stealing, the revolution begins immediately. Torches and pitchforks.

                They would pass a law banning the use of cash to pay the IRS, or specify how many of a specific type of coin may be used at once time. Which is why it would be important to hit them as big as you can first time round – you don’t get a second chance.

                Imagine if you could get even half of the 268,000 people who attended the tea parties?

                Every IRS worker assigned to count would quit. No one would be able to collect. The beast starves.

                • Mathius,

                  IRS plays by rules

                  You jest, sir!!

                  You do not understand them at all, and you are advising actions which are dangerous to your health!

                  There are hundreds of thousands of IRS’s own documentation on their use of intimidation, illegal seizure of assets and bank accounts, illegal arrests, and punitive tax audits.

                  And you seriously believe the average citizen has a hope resisting the IRS???

                  The IRS puts fear into President’s and Congressmen, even the CIA is afraid of them.

                  They can take anyone down – no one is safe.

                  • Flag.

                    No one is safe.

                    Thousands are perfectly safe. Hundreds are pretty safe. Even dozens are probably ok.

                    That said, they do play by rules. Those rules are written down somewhere. If they want to do something against those rules, they first have to change them. That takes time. They are slower than The People.

                    • Mathius,

                      You are serious deficient in your understanding of the IRS.

                      Their rule book is so complex, you cannot get the same answer to the same question twice.

                      They are above the law by law!

                      They have more power than any other dept. or agency in the USA.

                      They can jail the President of the USA.

                      They can jail the entire Joint Chiefs of Staff.

                      They can enter your home without notice and without warrant.

                      They can seize your assets, freeze your accounts and garnish your wages on suspicion of tax evasion and force the onus on you to prove your innocence.

                    • You want to kill the beast? That’s the beating heart. I don’t think it’s quite the way you describe it, but hey, you never know. Either way, you have to take risks if you want to win. You think the civil rights marchers felt safe in Selma, Alabama?

                    • Mathius,

                      You do not understand.

                      The “beast” is dying without lifting a finger.

                      By its own nature, it will consume itself and requires not one erg of effort on anyone’s part.

                      Indeed trying to kill will re-energize it, as will trying to save it.

                      It consumes energy – it matters not where that energy comes from.

                      You attack it – it goes stronger.

                      You defend it – it grows stronger.

                      You leave it alone – it dies.

                    • I disagree. Like every system in existence, it’s all about finding the sweet spot.

                    • Mathius,

                      Sweet spot

                      I just told you what it is.

                      Leave it alone and it dies

          • Estimates say that there are 200,035,318,672 pennies in circulation in the US.

            According to Wikipedia, 268,000 people attended the tea party protests.

            If each of them went to the bank and bought $75 in pennies (on average), they would dry up 1% of the penny supply in the country.

            It doesn’t sound like much, but you and I both know what something like that can do to a currency’s stability (and thus the government’s stability).

            This is to say nothing of the fact that it costs 1.23 cents to make a penny. So the cost to the government to replace them would be 23% higher.

            • Mathius,

              (1) You will not get 100 people to coordinate such a strategy.

              (2) The government would simply stop making pennies. Nowwhataregoingtodo?

              There is nothing you can do to the federal government

              It is a completely self-fulfilling, insulted negative feedback loop – the harder you try to push it away from its center, the larger by order of magnitude force will drive against you back to its center.

              • (1) No sweat.. If Sarah Palin said it at a rally, you’d have tens of thousands hoarding pennies by the end of the day. Banks would run out immediately.

                (2) And let’s say they do stop producing pennies..

                You’re better at economics than this. Tell me what happens if an artificial shortage in pennies occurs.

                • Everyone raises prices to the next whole nickle.

                  • There ya go!

                    Keep going.. What does that do to the economy?

                    Four extra cents per purchase doesn’t sound like much, but aggregated…?

                • Mathius,

                  They will use nickels.

                  • And…..?

                    Keep going…

                  • Stop playing dumb, Flag. You’re better at econ than this.

                    You well know the power of 4 cents aggregated across hundreds of millions of people and tens of billions of purchases.

                    Reason it out.

                    If a currency is not an exact medium of exchange, what inevitably happens?

                    • Mathius,

                      If a currency is not an exact medium of exchange, what inevitably happens?

                      First fallacy: you believe what you just said.

                      Currency is not an exact medium of exchange.

                      Second: Price, like value, is wholly subjective.

                      Prices vary by orders of magnitude greater the 4c on millions of products every day.

                      Pennies are merely a pebble on the economic highway – wouldn’t even make the consumer “jiggle”.

                • (2) And let’s say they do stop producing pennies..

                  Who needs pennies to charge pennies for an item? Years ago when I was stationed in England by the Status of Forces Agreement between the US and UK American pennies could not be used since they were so close in size, weight, etc., to English pennies (it may still be in force today for all I know).

                  So what occurred on base is that rounding was used to the nearest nickle (why they didn’t just price to the nearest nickle I couldn’t say). So if a product cost $.98, you paid $1.00. If it was $.97, you paid $.95.

                  Using pennies without having pennies to use.

            • The government would only tax us more to buy change counting machines…like they have in banks.

  18. Texschem

    Before it was Islam and Mexicans, it was Catholics and Irish

    The immigration of large numbers of Irish and German Catholics to the U.S. in the period between 1830 and 1860 made religious differences between Catholics and Protestants a political issue. The tensions echoed European conflicts between Catholics and Protestants. Violence occasionally erupted over elections.

    Although Catholics asserted that they were politically independent of priests, Protestants alleged that Pope Pius IX had put down the failed liberal Revolutions of 1848 and that he was an opponent of liberty and democracy.

    These concerns encouraged conspiracy theories regarding the Pope’s purported plans to subjugate the United States through a continuing influx of Catholics controlled by Irish bishops obedient to and personally selected by the Pope. In 1849, an oath-bound secret society, the Order of the Star Spangled Banner, was created by Charles Allen in New York City. It became the nucleus of some units of the American Party.

    Fear of Catholic immigration led to a dissatisfaction with the Democratic Party, whose leadership in many areas included Irish American Catholics. Activists formed secret groups, coordinating their votes and throwing their weight behind candidates sympathetic to their cause. When asked about these secret organizations, members were to reply “I know nothing,” which led to their popularly being called Know Nothings. This movement won elections in major cities from Chicago to Boston in 1855, and carried the Massachusetts legislature and governorship.

    Immigration during the first five years of the 1850s reached a level five times greater than a decade earlier. Most of the new arrivals were poor Catholic peasants or laborers from Ireland and Germany who crowded into the tenements of large cities. Crime and welfare costs soared. Cincinnati’s crime rate, for example, tripled between 1846 and 1853 and its murder rate increased sevenfold. Boston’s expenditures for poor relief rose threefold during the same period.

    – James M. McPherson, Battle Cry of Freedom, p. 131

    The platform of the American Party called for, among other things:

    * Severe limits on immigration, especially from Catholic countries.
    * Restricting political office to native-born Americans of English and/or Scottish lineage and Protestant persuasion.
    * Mandating a wait of 21 years before an immigrant could gain citizenship.
    * Restricting public school teacher positions to Protestants.
    * Mandating daily Bible readings in public schools.
    * Restricting the sale of liquor.
    * Restricting the use of languages other than English.

    • Ah yes: “Restricting the sale of liquor.”

      This was shortsighted on their part. Everyone knows that God created whiskey to keep the Irish from ruling the world.

    • Other than that one about liquor, that platform sound eerily familiar to me.. now where seen something like that recently…. I just can’t put my finger on it…

  19. Ray Hawkins says:

    Happy Monday/Tuesday to all……..

    Late to the game but I’ll simply add that in looking at the GOP – I too have wondered who the leadership is or is going to be. The reason so much focus I think gets places on empty suits like the Gorilla from Wasilla, Rushia and Blubbering Baby Beck is that there is a such a vacuum in the GOP it opens doors to ideologues and hate merchants – they can easily step in jackpot the debate – after all – misery always loves company. This always gives mouthpiece scumbags from the left the chance to paint the picture for folks – draw a bigger divide by almost embracing the negativity without ever looking in the mirror.

    • Ray

      While I may not agree with your characterization of the individual players, I think your overall assessment is dead on.

      It happened right after the election when Limbaugh and Hannity stepped out to lead the “opposition” to Mr. Obama and against the GOP leadership. They were screaming against both while what remained of the GOP leadership was saying “play nice”.

      As the poll numbers grew on the conservative side, the GOP leadership went silent. Mr. Steele is the leader of the GOP. But Mr. Steele is NOT a leader.

      I will be surprised if the GOP makes the gains in Congress that are being predicted. The pundits seem to be ignoring the “internal” battle going on within the GOP. This will leave the door open for the Dems to squeak by on many races.

      At the rate we are going, politics may replace football as the nations preferred spectator sport. I can’t wait for some good old fashioned “caning” on the floor of the house or at some debate.

      Hope your weekend was good.

      • Ray Hawkins says:

        JAC – I think the GOP will make very good gains – I have a hard time envisioning any good news for Dems to hang a hat on – I think all the GOP needs is a final good uplift/uptick and the whole cart will topple over. Will we be better in the long run? Tough to say.

        Weekend was fantastic – lots of time with my son and wife – family = numero uno!

    • Late also,

      Agree with “a vacuum in the GOP”.

      I think Beck & Rush are leaders of the conservative media. They and others including Palin are trying to create a new GOP. I don’t know much about Rush, but Beck and Palin can make a claim to be moral, which is where religion comes into play, that people look for leaders who have similar VALUES, not necessarily beliefs. Gingrich has shown himself lacking in values and ethics, but does have some interesting things to say, but cannot bet trusted anymore than Slick Willy.

      And I think one reason there is no perceived leadership in the GOP is the media bias and spin. The “racist”, party of “no”. They will not give a voice to emerging leaders such a Paul Ryan, who has a fiscal plan.

  20. Ray Hawkins says:

    The continued saga of why we’re fleeing the Democrat Party…..

    Obama Blasts GOP, Calls For $50 Billion Infrastructure Plan For Roads, Rail, Air Travel

    Some excerpts:

    Administration officials said the transportation plan’s initial $50 billion would be the beginning of a six-year program of transportation improvements, but they did not give an overall figure. The proposal has a longer-range focus than last year’s economic stimulus bill, which was more targeted on immediate job creation.

    The plan calls for rebuilding 150,000 miles of roads; building and maintaining 4,000 miles of rail lines and 150 miles of airport runways, and installing a new air navigation system to reduce travel times and delays.

    Obama also called for a permanent funding mechanism, an infrastructure bank, to focus on paying for national and regional infrastructure projects. Officials provided few details of how the bank would work.

    Obama said the proposal would be fully paid for. In an earlier briefing for reporters, administration officials said Obama would pay for the program by asking lawmakers to close tax breaks for oil and gas companies and multinational corporations.

    Here is the link:

    So here we go again – we create a perception that we have “saved” money in one spot then somehow that shows up magically to pay for something else – reality being as USW has pointed out before – the “trickle down” will be the trickle of costs down to consumers – plus – there is no long term value creation! Does the infrastructure needs upgrading? Sure! Is this going to put more asses in jobs that can expand the economy and create sustainable growth? Only marginally if that!

    • Ray,


      $50 billion has to come from somewhere – and it comes from government borrowing.

      Government borrowing competes with private borrowing.

      You are a banker scared to death of the economy. Will you lend to the government or lend to “Joe’s Bakery”?

      The government takes capital out of the market place – where the ROI is measured in months – and buries it in the ground called “infrastructure” where the ROI is measured by decades and even centuries.

      This is equivalent of throwing sand in the wheel bearings of the US economy.

      • Ray Hawkins says:

        Does Populism fail to be populist when it is no longer popular? Just askin’

      • I don’t know guys.. I like infrastructure spending. Successful businesses run better with good infrastructure. I make no claim to this particular bill, but in general, long term investments such as this pay off very well. I can’t sell anything at my store if the roads are so bad no one can get to my store.

        Is it worthwhile to borrow money to shore up the foundation of your house?

        • Ray Hawkins says:

          Mat – I do not disagree with investing in infrastructure – I do disagree with trying to hit the ball out of the park right now. It does not seem very prudent to take this action where the economy is starving – I’d like to see a more pragmatic longer term plan rather than a seemingly rush to win votes & favor. We cannot fix everything at once.

        • Mathius

          I don’t know guys.. I like infrastructure spending.

          Somehow, I am not surprised.

          Successful businesses run better with good infrastructure.

          Prove it.

          I make no claim to this particular bill, but in general, long term investments such as this pay off very well.

          Prove it.

          An ROI of decades stagnates an economy when those funds invested in private hands return that investment in months.

          It is one thing to build roads.

          It is a wholly different thing to redirect scarce capital away from high ROI to fund low ROI when the economy is struggling to get any ROI

          I can’t sell anything at my store if the roads are so bad no one can get to my store.

          It never has happened and never will happen, yet it is the example that you believe.

          It must stagger you that anything was bought and sold 50 years ago.

          Is it worthwhile to borrow money to shore up the foundation of your house

          If it is my house it is my choice

          But taking my money to fix your house does not make my house better

  21. Why does everyone say “Happy Labor Day?”

    Do we know what it is celebrating?

    Unionization and government control over the contracts of labor.

    • GRINCH! We’d still have unions even if there was no Labor Day so enjoy the extended weekend 🙂

      • Hehehe.. Just want to throw this out there.. Beck took Labor Day off. While he was on vacation for this holiday, his fill-in blasted Labor Day as socialist. 🙂

      • Anita,

        Just goes to show how ingrained this stuff is.

        And I work on Labor Day – that’s what it means, right?

  22. Mathius,

    He’s your responsibility?
    Why? Because you made him?
    Is he still your responsibility when he’s 18? You still made him then.

    There must be something else that justifies this.
    Care to speculate


    Speculation not necessary.

    • Is he your responsibility when he’s 45?

      What if he’s just lazy and like living in your basement? Can you never kick him out?

      • Mathius,

        Yes, I can kick him out.

        • Can you kick him out at 18?

          How about 15?



          If you kick him out and he can’t or won’t do what is necessary to put food on his own table, do you have to provide for him?

          • Mathius,


            • So, according to you, if I have this right, you can have a 45 year old son who is too lazy (though fully capable) to get a job and you are still obligated to feed him based solely on the fact that you created him?

              • Mathius

                Yes…. and no.

              • Mathius,

                The point is not the age.

                The point is the responsibility.

                If I had a child who was disabled, would that child’s age determine his ability to care for himself? Or would the child’s ability to meet his responsibilities?

                A man is free when he is responsible for his own actions

                • I am 27. I am financially stable, married, contemplating having children. (And I will raise them to be liberals).

                  My father is more stable, has more money, etc.

                  If I lose my job (perhaps for spending too much time on SUFA?) and cannot provide for my family, is he obligated to step in and feed us? Does he have to make my mortgage payments?

  23. Down here BF…Hell, I don’t advocate taking 25% of anyone’s money. I am just saying that if everyone felt some pain (income tax-wise), that maybe more would be involved in where their money is spent. As it stands now, a great number of folks pay no income tax…

    • Terry,

      Income tax is not necessary for government income.

      It’s primary use is for public manipulation.

      A tax creates avoidance.

      A tax break creates incentives.

      With that in mind, you can now understand why tax exists – such as income tax. It provides a de-incentive to work, thus, creates larger welfare class and dependency on government.

      However, many work regardless – which gives ample manipulation tools to the government by creating tax breaks – like buying a house before you can afford it by providing a housing credit and tax deductions against mortgage interest. Thus, a housing and credit boom is created – artificially accelerating the economy and making the current President and party “look good”.

      • I agree…no income tax is necessary…in fact I agree with your whole post. I was only pointing out the fact that so many do not pay the income tax, and it makes it easier for the politicians to manipulate them into doing what they want.

  24. Mathius,

    No, no. We’ve been here before, my friend.

    You cannot say that a circle is a cirle because it is a circle. A circle is a circle because it is made of all points on a plain that fall equidistant from a central point.

    A human is not different from a dog because he is human. He is different because…. why?

    I’ll get you started. DNA, there’s one. Anything else

    I can say a “point” is a “point” because we declare it.

    A human is different from a dog and because it is a dog and we are human.

    DNA is one – and it is enough.

    • I don’t think it’s enough.

      We share 98% of our DNA with a dog. So if the difference is in the DNA, then it’s in that 2%, wouldn’t you agree?

      • Mathius,

        You argue we are the same as a dog.

        Then you argue we are not the same as a dog.

        It is enough, Mathius, because we are not dogs.

        • We are very similar to dogs, but we are not dogs because 2% of our DNA is different.

          What is in that 2%? Many things, but here are a few.. tell me which one stands out to you. Dog (typical) DNA provides for the following as opposed to human (typical) DNA.

          A. Fur
          B. Big teeth
          C. Quadrupedal
          D. Tails
          E. A strange urge to steal and play with my shoes
          F. Long snouts
          G. Hatred of squirrels (SQUIRREL!!.. hello there..)
          H. Less brain power

          • Mathius

            We are very similar to dogs, but we are not dogs because 2% of our DNA is different.

            Lap Three:
            You agree and I agree. We are not dogs.

          • Yes, we agree that humans are not dogs. But there is something specific that sets us apart. If you took a fertilized dog egg and were capable of replacing the salient genes with human genes, leaving the rest intact, you would produce a human, would you not? I image that you would hold this human to have all the same rights as you or I?

          • Minor tangent:

            Would you say that Mr. Ed*, held all the same rights as a human? As a sentient being, capable of calling and ordering a pizza delivery, would you begrudge him the right to live, liberty, and freedom you confer on all humans?

            *Yes, I know he’s not a real talking horse, go with it, ok?

      • But we are, apparently, treating our poor President like a dog. Does that count?

  25. Mathius,

    ure the law does. If it was an accident, they don’t throw you in jail.

    I had an accident when I was younger where I destroyed some government property. I didn’t get in trouble. Why? Because it was an accident.

    To get in trouble, you have to be somehow be at fault – negligent or criminal. Just driving and losing control is not sufficient

    You are quite confused.

    You had to pay for the damages, whether it was by accident or design.

    If it was by design, the government may have decided to punish you – but that is another long thread of the value and right of punishment.

    The consequence of accident is you must accept responsibility and fix it.

    • Actually I didn’t have to pay anything. I suppose it’s possible my insurance picked it up and I never heard anything about it..

      I took out a light pole on the side of a freeway (my Buick went through it like butter). Last time I was in LA (a few years ago), it was still lying there.

      I see though where the disconnect is in this portion of our conversation. You are generally correct here. You have to pay for damages. I was discussing penalties. I agree to this point. I’m not positive that this would hold if, say, a deer had darted out in front of me causing this accident, but that’s neither here nor there.

      • Mathius

        Actually I didn’t have to pay anything. I suppose it’s possible my insurance picked it up and I never heard anything about it..

        Then your insurance paid for it, and then you paid for it via insurance premiums.

        But for sure, somebody paid for it.

        You have to pay for damages. I was discussing penalties. I agree to this point. I’m not positive that this would hold if, say, a deer had darted out in front of me causing this accident, but that’s neither here nor there.

        If I hit the deer, the deer would not pay for my damages to my car. I would.

        If I slid out of control and hit another car after hitting the deer, I would have to pay for the damage to the other car, not the deer.

        Humans hold and assign responsibility.

        • Mathius,

          I agree to your unintended wisdom.

          People often see responsibility as a punishment.

          It is a disappointing and terribly destructive view.

          • Mathius,

            Slaves have no responsibility.

            • We are all slaves to causality. You are what you are because you were brought up a certain way and lived in the world and in the places you did and your brain developed the way it did. Any sense of control is illusory at best. You, and I, and the universe itself, are like windup toys.

              How can you be responsible if you never had a choice other than to be what you are?

              • Mathius,

                How can you be responsible if you never had a choice other than to be what you are?

                Man holds a unique power over other animals.

                He has the power to change himself.

                What was the first animal man domesticated?


                • Let’s not delude ourselves. Man was domesticated by Woman.

                  Cats domesticated themselves, insofar as one can consider cats to be domesticated.

        • But for sure, somebody paid for it. Maybe not if no one fixed it, but whatever.. irrelevant at this point.

          If I hit the deer, the deer would not pay for my damages to my car. I would. It pays me in backstraps. Ooh, or it pays me a buck, get it! I crack me up 🙂

  26. Mathius

    Yes, we agree that humans are not dogs. But there is something specific that sets us apart. If you took a fertilized dog egg and were capable of replacing the salient genes with human genes, leaving the rest intact, you would produce a human, would you not? I image that you would hold this human to have all the same rights as you or I?


    You have a hard enough time with the basic questions – creating even more complex scenarios such as above (involuntary sex leading to pregnancy) and here, genetic manipulation, will only confuse you even more.

    Get the simple questions solid and clear first, young man, before you attempt the complex.

    Do not try calculus while you are still struggling with addition.

    • Mathius,

      So, we agree dogs are not human.

      So arguing about dogs in reference to human rights is irrational.

      Now, go back to the top where you attempted to sidetrack JB, and pick up from there.

    • No Flag, I am trying to get to the heart of the subject. Just what is it about “being human” means more/superior rights to those of animals.

      “Because I said so” doesn’t cut it.

      • Mathius,

        You arguing about nothing.

        We call it Human rights. Not Almost-human rights, or “Everything under the sun with legs” Rights.

        So, move on. The definition is clear:

        Human rights pertains to humans

        • Why?

          A. Squares have rights #1, 2 and 3
          B. Rectangles have rights #1 and 2

          BF interpretation:
          Squares have square rights (defined as rights, #1, 2 and 3)
          Rectangles have rectangle rights (defined as #1 and 2)

          Mathius interpretation:
          Something must be different between squares and rectangles. The only difference is that squares are a subset of rectangles where all sides are equal in length. Therefore, all rectangles (which includes squares) hold rights #1 and 2. Having equal sides must be what confers right #3.

          • Mathius,


            Because – as you have repeatedly agreed – we are not dogs.

            You can try to create artificial hypothesis to deny what you have already agreed to – but you are arguing with yourself.

            • Arguing with you is like arguing with my kitchen table.

              One more time….

              Yes, I agree we are not dogs. Stop. But why should that mean anything? Stop.

              You basically say that one group gets a set of rights (which you conveniently get to decide). And another gets to have a different set. But you refuse to give a reason for the difference other than that “they’re different groups.” That’s not sufficient.

              Blacks and whites are different groups. Do blacks have one set of rights and whites another? (BF: “No, because they’re both human”) Right, so you define rights on the species level? (BF: “sure”) But you must have some logical framework for defining which species get which rights.

              Do ants have the same rights as dogs? If not, why not?

              Do monkeys have the same rights as cows? If not, why not?

              BF: “ants have ant rights, dogs have dog rights, etc”

              Yes, but what determines what those rights are? What is the underlying framework?

              • Okay, I have been home long enough to read all the posts, I’m tired and I find myself like Kathy or Terry, whoever said it to BF-would you just make your point already 🙂

                • V.H.

                  He has many times V. but Matt seems to want some complicated answer that doesn’t matter.

                  Everything within the Universe has an identity. It is what it is.

                  We are humans. Period. It is called the Law of Identity.

                  There is no need to go beyond that.

                  Now the next relevant question is what does that mean.

                  What are the essential characteristics of “humans”?

                  But today is not the time for that one.


              • I was talking to Matt, not BF-someone else had just asked the same of Bf earlier on a different subject. Sorry for the confusion. 🙂

                • Fair enough.

                  (and there goes any positive opinion anyone may hold of me, but so be it..)

                  If we humans have superior rights to the animals, those rights must be intrinsic to some attribute of “human-ness.” The only attribute in which humans are superior to or substantively different from other animals is in our brains. Therefore it follows necessarily that without a “human brain” there are no more rights than other animals. Conversely, a “human brain” in a non-human should confer those same rights (ie, Mr. Ed, Lassie, Flipper, genetically engineered super sharks, or an AI).

                  Now, before everyone goes off on me, I have said before and say again, I do not mean this to convey the opinion that mentally disabled people don’t have human rights. They do. Even if their brains are malformed, damaged, or underdeveloped, they remain irrevocably human. But brain death, or while the brain is only a few cells in size* does not qualify.

                  Ergo, no special “human” rights.

                  Anyway, that’s it for me today. Good night, and good luck.

                  *Generally speaking, I would think that a third trimester fetus is probably far enough along to qualify as having a “human brain” though I am no expert in the field and, as such, cannot make a specific claim as to where the cutoff is.

                • We are not just brains, my friend, we are emotional creatures-If one becomes unable to defend their human rights -then it is the responsibility of the other humans to defend their rights-the fact that we feel that responsibility is part of what makes us the superior being-what those rights are-we will continue to fight over.

                  • All this is attributable to your big brain. Without it, you would feel no responsibility nor any emotion.

                    • In my opinion the beginning of life and the end of life are two very different things-In one example the brain has died, in the other the brain isn’t being allowed to develop and grow. In both these cases other human brains have to make decision for and protect the rights of those who cannot protect their own.

  27. Hi Ya’ll 🙂

    After a few months of being ingognito, I figure I’d update everyone on life in the great wilds of PA.

    Six weeks ago tomorrow, I had a nice flight from about 20 feet up, but the landing really sucked (need to work on that, LOL). Ended up in ER as a level 2 trauma, walked in and was found to have a commpression fraction of the L1 and a couple herniated discs in the C4-C5 area. The neck is fine and has little problems, the back, depending on my activity, can be a bit uncomfortable. But, life continues and all hunting areas are now in place and ready for October. We also had a great canning season so far (over 250 quarts) and are really stocking up on homemade brandy. (as a note, I also walked out of ER 4 hours later, no wheels under this American butt!)

    Now, on to the subject of the article. As always, USW puts up some good stuff to discuss, how he keeps up with it is a small miracle in itself. AS I read the article, I wondered about those of us who have no perceived voice in the political arena. As I am oppossed to both Parties, I asked myself, if less than half of the population is either registered as a Jackass or an Elephant, who than speaks for the rest of the population? I don’t listen to Rush, Beck or Palin, and can’t stomach the other mouths from the Jackass side as well. So I ponder…. Who speaks for me? Who speaks for those like me?

    Answer ? I do it for myself. While I’m not alone, I must often stand alone in my principles. It’s not always easy, but necessary. More to come in a few months on this subject.

    Missed all of Ya’ll 🙂



    • GMan

      Peace and freedom my friend.

      Happy hunting this fall.


      • Thanks JAC,

        Hunting looks VERY promising this year! THe Whitetail herd is fantastic, plenty of rabbits, Grouse, Squirrel and pheasants. I’m gonna take on bear with a bow for the first time, from ground level no less, but we have some big ones running around (500-600 lbs range).

        Peace to you my friend!


    • Nice to hear from you G-MAN. The news sounded pretty grim at first. Good luck on your continued recovery.

    • So good to hear you are doing OK G-man! We’ve missed you.

  28. Mathius,

    Arguing with you is like arguing with my kitchen table.

    Well, I speak English at least instead of Woodish.

    One more time….

    Lap 5 and one more time? Somehow I doubt it.

    Yes, I agree we are not dogs. Stop. But why should that mean anything? Stop.

    It means something because we are human.

    If martians want to debate martian rights – good for them. But they aren’t human so they don’t have human rights.

    Note the qualifer –human.

    You basically say that one group gets a set of rights (which you conveniently get to decide).

    I basically say if dogs want to argue for their dog rights among dogs – well, I’m not anticipating such a thing – but if they wish to do that, good on them too!

    Same with dolphins. And bears. Bears have bear rights articulated by bears – but since they don’t articulate (shrug) a moot point.

    And another gets to have a different set. But you refuse to give a reason for the difference other than that “they’re different groups.” That’s not sufficient.

    You have already admitted we are different – why the struggle to figure out we are different?

    Do you usually claim and agree that chairs are different then tables, and then try to argue yourself out of it?

    Blacks and whites are different groups. Do blacks have one set of rights and whites another? (BF: “No, because they’re both human”)

    No, because they’re human.

    Right, so you define rights on the species level? (BF: “sure”)

    No, I define human rights for humans.

    As above, if dogs want to debate among themselves about their rights as dogs, I’d like to see that but… (shrug) good on them if they did.

    But you must have some logical framework for defining which species get which rights.

    Humans define it for humans.
    Dogs define it for dogs.
    Bears define it for bears.
    Martians define it for Martians.

    Do ants have the same rights as dogs? If not, why not?

    I don’t know.

    I haven’t been able to speak neither ant or dog language to ask them.

    Do monkeys have the same rights as cows? If not, why not?

    Because monkeys are not cows? But I am speculating since I don’t speak monkey either.

    BF: “ants have ant rights, dogs have dog rights, etc”

    Maybe they do, maybe they don’t – but the ants and dogs will have to articulate that for us, and when they do, I let you know.

    Yes, but what determines what those rights are? What is the underlying framework?

    Humans determine human rights.

    Since that is the only species that has done so, I’m safe to say that will probably be the case forever.

  29. Mathius,

    If we humans have superior rights to the animals

    Who made this claim?

    A shark, when he eats you, does not claim to have a “superior” right that makes you his meal. He just eats you.

    When we eat a cow, we do not claim we have a “superior” right over cows. We just eat them.

    Humans have Human rights that determine how Humans Rightfully act among Humans

    Sharks and cows couldn’t care less how humans act with humans.

    Whether they care how they “rightfully” act among Sharks or Cows … (shrug) … I couldn’t care less either.

    Conversely, a “human brain” in a non-human should confer those same rights (ie, Mr. Ed, Lassie, Flipper, genetically engineered super sharks, or an AI).


    Mr. Ed would need to dialogue with other talking horses to determine talking-horse rights.

    Lassie would need to dialogue with other dogs.

    Flipper with dolphins.

    Super sharks with super sharks,

    and AI with AI.

    None of it matters to human and their rights one little bit (unless we made it so).

    mentally disabled people don’t have human rights. They do.

    Correct….because they are human – brain or body parts missing or extra makes not one wit of difference.

    *Generally speaking, I would think that a third trimester fetus is probably far enough along to qualify as having a “human brain” though I am no expert in the field and, as such, cannot make a specific claim as to where the cutoff is.

    It is interesting, but does not change the fact that a fetus is human and has human rights.

    • It took you two all day to come up with that? I coulda told you that hours ago. 🙂

      • Anita,

        It takes a man to walk his own path to figure it out.

        Mathius tends to take a very meandering path. Hopefully he will have figured it out.

        • And to think he works in the financial industry…it’s no wonder we’re going backwards! 🙂

        • Screw it.. I’m going to go argue with my kitchen table instead. You’re too frustrating.

          My path is scenic for a reason. Like the Cylons before me, I have a plan.

  30. I need to write this down before I forget the words-A guy on the news just said. The left isn’t playing THE RACE CARD-THE RIGHT is PLAYING THE RACE RESENTMENT CARD-and the reason the left isn’t playing the race card is because there isn’t a card you can play that will make white people do what you tell them too. So basically as long as the card doesn’t work-they aren’t playing it. Banging head on desk !!!

    • OK – I’ve read this through a couple times now and not sure I get the Logic? Is there some here?

      • SK Trynosky Sr/. says:

        These thoughts come from dropping too much acid in one’s youth. That is the only way they ever make any sense.

      • No there isn’t any logic-it is the same type of illogical argument they use for defining racism-one must have power to actually be racist-and since the white man has all the power only the white man can be racist-but don’t worry at some point they will have to admit that they have power and this illogical argument will be dropped for some other convenient re-defining of a concept.

    • SK Trynosky Sr/. says:


      This is absolutely correct. The right ALWAYS plays the race resentment card. Why all right thinking people everywhere know that.

      Take for example the recently tossed out NYFD examination. First a disclaimer, I have a dog or rather a son in the fight. After six years in the Air Force and starting grad school, he decided that he wanted to be a NY fireman. Well, as you know, he has about as much a chance of that now as a snowball in hell despite being number 118 on a list of 20,000 or so. The judge has decided that the test is not racist nor is it unfair but that the results are unfair because not enough of a specific minority passed. He therefore has decided, after the fact, that the test is composed of questions not necessaraly relevant to being a fireman.

      My son having already waited three years, as you can imagine, has a certain amount of resentment over this. Because the judge is using the race issue to justify his decision, my son therefore must be exhibiting RACE BASED RESENTMENT. There, see how easy that was?

  31. This just shows the ignorant, broad paint stroke, wrap anyone against Obama in the same lump statement that the left always throws out there. No, Palin, Beck and Limbaugh are not the leaders of the republican party.. People are pist and Palin, Beck and Limbaugh just speak about the very same things that making people pist.

%d bloggers like this: