Tuesday Night Open Mic for October 12, 2010

A hearty good evening (or morning as it may be in reality as I am writing this at almost 3:00 am). I will again be keeping it short this evening as I am still having a bit of trouble typing at my usual rate of speed. I have thus far determined that they wrist is not broken. Instead it must be something in the joint or tendons or something. It can hold weight just fine, I just cannot turn the wrist or move it quickly without pain. I also have the big event this week at work: The release of a new product that will revolutionize the industry yet again. Very exciting times, and very busy times as I have all the bigwigs at my location for launch on Thursday. So tonight I will be adding only two articles to start and hoping to add more as the day goes on tomorrow (although I cannot promise). As always, feel free to add any topics that you want to discuss. It’s all fair game….

Advertisements

Comments

  1. USWeapon Topic #1

    Obama Administration Lifts Deepwater Drilling Moratorium

    The Obama administration is lifting the moratorium on deepwater oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico — as long as oil companies comply with several new rules that opponents of the ban say could hamper recovery of the Gulf Coast economy six months after the BP oil spill.

    Interior Secretary Ken Salazar announced a lifting of the moratorium on Tuesday after reviewing progress of safety reforms, availability of spill response resources, improved blowout containment capabilities and a report by Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement (BOEM) Director Michael R. Bromwich.

    Bromwich is head of the office that succeeded the Minerals Management Agency blamed with not doing enough inspections on oil platforms like the Deepwater Horizon rig that exploded on April 20 and created the worst environmental disaster in U.S. history.

    “In light of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, we must continue to take a cautious approach when it comes to deepwater drilling and remain aggressive in raising the bar for the oil and gas industry’s safety and environmental practices,” said Salazar, who announced the moratorium on July 12.

    “The oil and gas industry will be operating under tighter rules, stronger oversight, and in a regulatory environment that will remain dynamic as we continue to build on the reforms we have already implemented,” he said.

    Even though the ban is being lifted immediately, it will likely take a couple weeks for new permitting to be approved.  In addition to new safety rules, the BOEM will conduct inspections and require certifications from oil rig operators about operator compliance as well as mechanisms to contain failures of the blowout preventers (BOPs) designed to shut down a well that has an accident.

    The removal of the ban also does not mean that U.S. companies will operate at the pace and levels they did before the accident 40 miles off the coast of Louisiana. A de facto moratorium has also been in place on shallow-water drilling, with only four permits for such work approved by the federal government since the explosion, as contrasted with an average of 14 such permits having been approved per month for the 11 months that led up to the explosion.

    This slow-walking approach to drilling has been blamed for uncertainty in not only the drilling industry but other industries where the current regulatory and recession-era climate has made it difficult to hire or plan for the future.

    Read the rest of the article here:  http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/10/12/white-house-drilling-moratorium-lifted-soon/?test=latestnews

    What I really have an issue with at this point is what appears to be a de facto moratorium on drilling despite the public proclamations made by an administration that is lately doing nothing but trying to win back a few votes. The shallow water drilling that is not nearly as risky as the deep water drilling has come to a grinding halt in terms of permits issued. That is gigantic and something that few want to call the administration on.

    Look at those numbers and do the math. In the last six months, there have been only 4 permits issued for shallow water drilling. Using the average rates in the 11 months leading up to the deepwater accident, the normal amount of permits issued would be approximately 84. That is a huge difference. That is 80 less permits issued. And that means 80 less wells operating in the six months since the disaster.

    That equals a lot of unemployed rig operators. That means a lot less oil being brought up and subsequently placed in the market. Given the fact that oil is an ingredient in a vast majority of the products we use today, can you imagine the impact on costs that are in place, let alone the increases yet to come when this really plays itself out in the market place. And that is exactly what we need in an economy that is slumping with between 50% and 20% real unemployment: higher prices for goods and services.

    Also bothering me is the fact that the rules as they will exist have not been written yet. This means that for a potential company entering the fray in the gulf, there is a great amount of uncertainly. Why would they want to get involved in an area where they don’t know what the future of the industry’s regulations will be. If you could invest in something and had no idea whether the result would be profits or a regulatory environment that eliminates the ability to profit, would you pull the trigger? Me either.

    And if the drilling that didn’t have a moratorium on it saw a decrease in permits from 84 to 4, can you imagine how slow the pace of permits will be for deepwater drilling? And with the uncertainty also keeping companies from being willing to operate there, it all seems to me that the intent is to strangle the oil industry in America. Am I the only one that thinks that the real plan is to quietly strangle the oil industry in the US, causing prices to go up, all in the hopes that increased prices will sway more voters into accepting the alternative energy sources and their associated increases in costs? Perhaps I am a cynic, but that is what I see.

    • The lifting of the moratorium is a step, but a lot of us are unemployed and the red tape will continue to cause major delays in any new drilling.

      I must agree that the US “Zero-growth” energy policy seems to be designed to stop the oil industry. There is no solid estimate as to how many are unemployed, but we will all be sure to vote on 11/2. Then we can get a good count.

      I don’t understand how we can suddenly switch over to solar and wind power, 2 “new” sources of energy that Obama has recently discovered. Read Christopher Horner’s book, “Power Grab” for more.

      Hope your hand is feeling better.

      • Wasabi,

        I was thinking of you when I wrote this last night. The unemployment in that sector of the economy is really sad, especially given that there is work that needs to be done, companies willing to pay to do that work, and a definite need for the product. What we end up with is a sector of the economy that is literally without jobs BECAUSE of government. These are the types of things that I think need more exposure. All the campaign and political rhetoric means nothing when the actions are doing so much damage.

        For the record, you won’t get any traction with Horner as a source against those who disagree with you. AS is typical in political discourse, people dismiss arguments based on the source. It matters not how rational or logical Horner’s arguments are, the people on the other side of the issue ignore him because there are some ties with the oil industry.

        Hand feels a little better today.

        USW

        • It’s really a travesty and I can’t help thinking that this is what the “Regime” wants. 41 million people on food stamps isn’t enough???

          The oil companies WILL make money. If the US doesn’t want to participate and enjoy some of the profits, the companies will go to Brazil, Africa or someplace else. It seems that the loss of 40K jobs is acceptable to the Greens.

          I wouldn’t want to be in the OR having open-heart surgery when the wind stops blowing and the lights go out. I’m sure the hospital has a diesel generator. but some Green group will make that illegal too.

          • That is the hypocrisy here – it’s not about the Greens.

            We’ve given $$ to Mexico to drill in the same gulf!

    • Common Man says:

      All;

      BF and JAC will proclaim that the reason these pundits do these things is stupidity and ego, I disagree. Initially I might have aggreed with ignorance (lack of knowledge), but given there is a plethora of data available and accessable to heads of state that debunks almost eveything they are preaching, I’ve concluded that these people are just plain evil. Evil and driven to garner control and stear the public, the economy and the country towards their defined vision.

      These actions can no longer be defined as acts of stupidity, because they are just too calculated. They are in fact actions and steps designed to accomplish a specific agenda.

      As an example: The Gulf Oil disaster initiates a government shut down (Can’t waste a crisis) which excelorates their plan to promote alternative energy. The shut down causes the unemployment numbers to increase and stirs the public and businesses to question the mind set. So, the government apeases the public by making a major announcement that they are lifting the ban, but are also ensuring they will look after the ecology at the same time. Result = people see the government ‘graciously’ allowing drilling to continue while looking out for the ecology, but in reality they have set up a catch 22 that further solidifies their desire to push alternative fuels.

      Stupid people just don’t have the ability to think like this and it is just too calculated to be a coincidence.

      As such I will continue to believe and promote that those who currently hold office are:

      – Evil
      – Indignant of the Common Man’s opposition
      – Self-rightous
      – Power hungry
      – Greedy
      – assholes

      I use to believe that you looked for the best in a person and gave them the benefit of the doubt that they were good. I shall maintain that perspective with 99.9% of those I meet in the walk of life, however the remaining 1%, comprised of public officials get the opposite perspective.

      Snake Shit is the 2nd lowest form of excrement I know of, political representatives are the first.

      These people are out to take complete control and herd us like cattle/sheep inorder to further their indignant desires, and until the citizens of this once great country realize this is factual, we will continue to see a decline in individual liberty and freedom.

      P.S. Have tons of work today, so I will not be able to respond much until much later

      Everyone have a blessed day, keep your eyes and ears open and your mind clear.

      CM

      • Damn, CM….why did you insult the snake?

      • I think you nailed it at “Evil”.

        I’ve been saying the same thing, for a couple of years now, that this is being done intentionally. I’ve pretty well shut up about becuase the sheep don’t listen. Then they get angry. Sheep really are nasty creatures.

        • Common Man says:

          D-13 and Cyndi;

          Just for clarity I was comparing political representatives to Snake excrement not the specific snake

          And Cyndi I do believe that these people have a plan and one that has been in development for several years. Garnering the Executive office and the majority of seats in the House and Senate gave them the leverage they needed to excelorate that plan.

          As much as I loath the idea my reasoning will be further proven post the Nov 2 election with the ‘Lame Duck Congress’. Hopefully those that are ellected will make it a part of their term to repeal a great deal of the bullshit laws that have been or will be implemented.

          CM

          • I think this plan has been in the works for DECADES. You will be proven correct with the Lame Duck CONgress (you can’t have congress without the CON). I have a faint hope that true conservatives will get in power and start undoing the worst of the Agenda, but I know better. The damage is done.

      • Every once in awhile, someone lets the truth out. Here’s Salazar slipping out what is really the intent.

        http://www.therightscoop.com/is-oil-and-gas-becoming-an-after-thought

    • Late checking in as usual, and with no time even to read the full article. Has anyone found out what all the new “conditions” for deepwater drilling permits will require when they are issued? I seem to recall reading something earlier today that said it would almost be cost prohibitive at worse and drive prices at the pump over four bucks a gallon at best. Looked for that article again a few minutes ago but suffering from CRS as to what website I saw that on . . . . . Grey hair attacks just suck!

  2. USWeapon Topic #2

    Judge orders military to stop enforcing ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’

    A federal judge on Tuesday ordered the U.S. military to stop enforcing the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, putting an end to the ban on openly gay troops.

    U.S. District Judge Virginia Phillips’ permanent worldwide injunction — praised by gay rights organizations — orders the military “immediately to suspend and discontinue any investigation, or discharge, separation, or other proceeding, that may have been commenced” under the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy.

    The judge, a Clinton appointee based in the Central District of California, previously ruled that the policy regarding gays serving in the military violated service members’ Fifth Amendment rights to due process and freedom of speech, but had delayed issuing the injunction.

    The military was sued by Log Cabin Republicans, a gay rights group.

    Justice Department spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler would say only that the department is “reviewing the ruling.” The department has 60 days to appeal, but is not required to do so.

    The Defense Department is reviewing the ruling to determine whether it has immediate impact and is consulting with the Justice Department, Pentagon spokeswoman Cynthia Smith said.

    Air Force lawyers in a recent case argued the military — not the courts — is in the best position to evaluate and enforce the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy.

    President Barack Obama is pushing for a repeal of the controversial policy. A bill currently before Congress would overturn the measure after a Pentagon review is completed in December.

    In her ruling Tuesday, Phillips stated the policy infringes on the rights of military personnel. “Furthermore, there is no adequate remedy at law to prevent the continued violation of servicemembers’ rights or to compensate them for violation of their rights,” the judge wrote.

    More than 12,500 people have been booted from the military since “don’t ask, don’t tell” went into effect. Along with barring known gay, lesbian and bisexual individuals from serving, the policy prevents the military from asking them about it.

    Read the rest of the article here:  http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/10/12/judge.dont.ask.order/index.html?hpt=T2

    A topic that we have touched on briefly here at SUFA. I have several opinions on DADT. First and foremost, as most of you are aware, I am a supporter of gay rights. I don’t believe that they should be stripped of or denied rights based on the fact that they are a minority group that is not supported. Because of this, I am usually happy with any ruling that reinstates the rights that homosexuals have been denied, which includes marriage, as it is no longer a religious ceremony, but instead a government classification.

    However the military is one thing that I am a bit wary of. For a multitude of reasons. There is the ever important morale factor, which whether anyone likes it or not, IS a factor. The close working relationships in the military create a pretty unique situation that is difficult to rectify. I support gay rights, but I am not sure about DADT. It is the cause of the day for GLBT activists, and that is a shame because the majority of the activists also hate the military and really have no idea what they are talking about or what they are asking for.

    I personally am willing to wait for the results of the study that the military is conducting as to the impact of eliminating DADT from their regulations. And once we have that report, I am willing to accept whatever the report concludes. Because I think the only ones capable of determining the effects of reversing the policy are the Armed Forces themselves. Given the job that they do, they should have the right to determine the best way forward for their organization.

    Realistically, the military has always been exempted from many rules we consider sacred in other areas. Being a member of the military is a privilege (or based on the pay, a true sacrifice!). And the military has always been exempt from following such proclamations such as, for example, the Americans with Disabilities Act. The military is allowed to turn away disabled folks because of the job that they do. Disabilities can truly negatively impact the military’s ability to do what we pay them to do. Realistically, as much as many don’t like it, there is the possibility that allowing homosexuals to serve openly would also negatively impact their ability to do what they do. If that is the case, they should have the right to turn them away. The ability to perform the mission must trump our political correctness here.

    There are many, many places where this is accepted. There is no requirement that a certain percentage of disabled people be allowed to take a spot on a professional sports team. We don’t allow blind people to be public bus drivers. Performing the job is the primary goal, so that position is exempt from that type of discrimination claim. The military should be no different. When people’s lives are literally on the line, the military has an obligation to eliminate as many hinderances to job effectiveness as possible. And only they can make that determination.

    In our haste to ensure that the world is politically correct and everyone feels happy, we have lost our ability to use reason. It is in ALL of our best interests to have a military that is as effective as possible. When it comes down to it, I am not sorry if someone gets their feelings hurt in order to do that. The DADT activists have forgotten to use that reason before making their argument. I know quite a few people who are very active in that movement. Universally, they tend to be college students who are more interested in proving their point than actually thinking through the ramifications of what they are demanding. Just an observation.

    As for this particular ruling. I believe that it will be appealed. I find it ludicrous in the first place that a single judge has the ability to declare that henceforth, throughout the entire world, the military must stop all investigations, prosecutions, and expulsions around DADT. I also find it ludicrous that after 16 years and over 12,000 expulsions, a judge can out of the blue come up with a new interpretation of law that is different than the precedent that already exists. To me, this smacks of an activist judge who is interested in making a bigger name for herself.

    She should shut her pie hole. She is delving into a world of life and death, of ambushes and firefights. She is making rulings that affect a world that she doesn’t understand, doesn’t comprehend, and frankly, simply doesn’t know shit about. Soldiers don’t tell her what works in a court, she should not try to tell them what works on the battlefield.

    Then again, like D13, I am just an old soldier who doesn’t know much.

    • There have got to be more important issues we can work on, like steroids in baseball. I know, let’s figure out a way to create jobs for 17% of our population.

    • USW

      I don’t like it when judges get in the middle of major social changes before society has worked it out. It tends to cause a backlash, see abortion for example.

      However, I think your arguments sound just like the ones used to justify racial discrimination. While physical handicaps can affect a person’s ability to DO a job, their sexual preferences do not.

      It is not their ability to act or not act, it is the “reaction” of those around them that creates the problem. Thus it is their problem not the gay person’s.

      I want from the military is a plan to address gay folks serving, not another study to find out if it is a problem.

      As the Colonel and I discussed many months ago. Fraternization is prohibited……….for EVERYONE. Simply enforce the code of conduct.

      Off Steelhead fishing for a few days, so I’ll catch up this weekend.
      Hope your wrist feels better soon.
      Live free

      JAC

      • And a good morning JAC….good luck Steel heading…You are right and you are wrong….it is the gay persons problem. you cannot regulate the “personal” feelings of anyone and that is what is at stake here. As officers, we were handling the issue perfectly but like the racial issue, it was going to take time. all of the laws of the 60’s and 70’s did not change perception racially…it took leadership and it takes time….now…we have been set back 50 years. Crap.

    • There is a bigger and sadder note, USW. The gay community hail this as a great victory………and then they say….don’t tell anybody yet. You and I both know that the military was slowly but surely grinding away at this issue and it was fast on the way to accpetance. Now, all this judge has done, has made it an issue for both sides to dig in their heels. Everyone thinks that the military will just roll over and say, Oh well…..in reality what has happened is that the gay community is in greater danger now because it is still not going to be accepted and the minute some guy approaches another guy…..his face gets punched in and there will be NO repercussions. Once the word gets out…..does “fragging” come to mind? Accidents during training? It needs to be left alone. Just as the racial issue was left alone and is now not a problem, the dont ask dont tell policy was letting us handle the issue. Now, it has been yanked away from us.

      Now, before you supporters all get your panties in a wad….this ruling DOES NOT rule out individual thought. In addition, it should not be over looked that the civilian courts have NO jurisdiction over the mlitary. If some guy punches another in the face, they cannot run to the civil liberties union or some such organization. It will go to court martial where the evidenciary rules are quite different. You don’t pick the jury and you get ONE challenge. This judge has done nothing but driven this issue back under ground. We, as officers, had it handled but now… it is lost. In today’s world, if two military guys get into a fracas in a civilian bar, the police simply hold them until a MP unit picks them up. Same in an assault….the DA has no jurisdiction.

      Now, to the issue of morale. The civiian world, and those on here who have not served in field and combat environments, do not understand the comaraderie that happens in a unit on the battlefield or in combat units training for field duty….very unlike a football team or baseball team or marketing team or management team, morale has a whole different meaning. When the game is over or the workday is done, the team separates and goes home. In combat or field duty…it is 24/7. I have seen the morale of a unit affected simply by a person afraid to fight….or a conscious objector. That person is ostracized and not trusted and no one wants to serve with him. A judge or a general or any officer cannot force individual acceptance. All they can do is change the rules….not the mind.

      Lastly…let’s take a look at the psychological issue here. As a civilian, we have to accept the laws and the rule changes. If an individual does not wish to associate with a gay person, you simply turn your back and there is no interaction except where the work environment requires it. In the military, the openly gay person will still share the same barracks, showers, eating establishments, movies, etc. In the civilian world, you can strut around and say “hell, yeah” we won the court ruling and you cnnot do anything about it. I suggest that the gay person not do that in the military….because the individual CAN do something about it and probably will. Code Reds DO HAPPEN.

      Bad ruling….bad decision….I fear that all we have accomplished as officers…has been set back 50 years. I think that most will stay under the radar because they understand the issues and they are good soldiers. The other issue that is overlooked is the EER (Enlisted Evaluation Report) and the OER (Officer Eval report). When a soldier is rated..it affects assignments and promotions. Bad OER’s or EER’s can not be challenged in civililan court….you can call to question a bad evaluation in the military but that will show up on your NEXT report. There have been many reports that I have filled out on junior officers where I have used the statement., “this officer fully supportes the eeo policies of the military”. I do not have to support my report….just simply state it. If I leave that statement off….it says volumes. I do not have to support it or deny it…just leave it off. If a rated soldier is openly gay and it is not liked by a superior, there are ways to word an EER or OER to kill a career. Case in point..I will use my own example. I have a statement on an OER that says. and I quote, ” Captain D13 exhibits candor and frankness to both subordinates and superiors alike”. This means simply that I am outspoken and will tell it like it is. This ONE statement, kept me off the 0-7 (general) list. Your oer’s and eer’s stay with you…..for life. It also held me back on promotion to Colonel. Why? Because I am not a yes man. That is what that statement means.

      I can foresee a statement that says something like, “Private Tentpeg is a good soldier and generally meets the required assignments” instead of ” Private Handgrenade exhibits the quality and integrity of the highest of standards in the United States Army and always meets or exceeds the assignments given him and he should be quickly programmed for greater authority and repsonsibility.” Significant difference and requires no other support.

      Sigh….back to the dark ages.

    • Common Man says:

      USW;

      So your argument is that Gay folks have the same disadvantage as females relative to a dangerous mission? Specifically, non-gay individuals may alter their normal “mission” mentality to compensate for one of the squad members being gay or female.

      And I am not judging here, but it appears that you don’t feel females or homosexuals should be allowed in any risky/dangerous missions?

      CM

      • That is not it, CM. They can be exceptionally well in combat…..the problem lies with the individual accpetance which is homophobic but an issue neverthe less…and, yes, I will categorically state that there are those that would endanger a mission to make a point. It has happened before.

        We had the damn problem handled.

        • Buck the Wala says:

          So because there is a problem with individual acceptance of gays, we should follow a practice where gays are not permitted to serve?

          I understand that full acceptance of gays in the military among military members will not happen over night, and a repeal of DADT could cause problems, but to continue to ‘punish’ the gays because of others’ views??

          • No sir…no one, including me, is advocating not to serve…..but serve and shut up. Like racial issues, it takes time. This will take time. I will also say that there are plenty of gay individuals in the military serving quite honorably. As an officer, I would not give out a bad report at all…unless it created a problem. But not all officers think the same as I. Ratings are subjective. (ie: in OCS, when I was a senior TAC officer, and the women were forced into the same combat training, I have personally walked up on a foxhole where the male and female were “engaged” in rigorous hand to hand “combat”. They were immediately relieved of duty..not because they were interacting but because of dereliction of duty) Because of this judge’s ruling, if some gay openly approaches someone in the field, I would be in the position of having to stop the issue and that would be by eliminating him (the gay) from the field and his duty….not because he was gay, but because no one else will trust him/her.

            • Buck the Wala says:

              Why should they have to shut up? Why should they be afraid to receive mail from their loved ones? Why should they be unable to speak about their boyfriend back home?

              I agree it will take time. But why should gays be fearful of their job security due to their sexual orientation while the rest of the world comes around to accepting them?

              And what’s this talk of gays openly approaching someone in the field? Not sure how this ties in to DADT or this ruling — if two gay soldiers are fraternizing it is dereliction of duty and they should both be relieved, just as what happened with the man and women in your example. No one is arguing otherwise. The same rules apply.

              • Buck..you are still missing my point. I am not saying they have to shut up….but be prepared. Code reds do happen. They should NOT be afraid of anything at all. In your perfect world, you want everyone to just say….hunky dory> The reality, it is NOT accepted by the vast majority right now and you cannot wave a court ruling and enforce that. As officers, we can do only so much…but we cannot control what we cannot see. We can investigate a training accident or a fragging incident but it takes witnesses. We can suspect but we cannot go after what we cannot prove.

                The United States is not the rest of the world nor should we be…I am sick and tired of the rest of the world model. We are in the trouble we are in because of trying to emulate the rest of the frigging world.

                I am not talking of approcahing another GAY in the field. As an officer, they get the same treatment as the heterosexual couple. 90% of the the combat soldiers out there are homophobic. Accept it. it is reality. Some gay approaches another soldier who is NOT gay……do not expect a simple no thank you I am not that way…..expect a rifle butt to the face. Then expect the word to get around…..”don’t turn your back on Joe tent peg, out there, he wants you” or some such dribble. If that happens the mission is lost.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                I get your point and I understand that not everyone is going to magically get along. But to me all of this is besides the point – the US military should not be allowed to legally discriminate based upon sexual orientation. DADT allowed, even institutionalized, such discrimination.

                I am sure there will be issues that arise, but so be it. I also don’t believe they will be as numerous or widespread as you do. They can each be dealt with individually.

              • Quite a few of us agree with your premise and quite a few of us agree with your stance and, while DADT was the policy, we were handling it quite professionally and were well on the way to having it rescinded….quietly and effectively. You are quite right about the numerous and widespread assumption….I do not see it either….and therein lies the problem. It will go unreported.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Sadly that could very well be the case in many instances.

                I do disagree with us being well on our way to having DADT rescinded though…but maybe I’m just feeling a bit cynical this morning!

              • Can understand that…we were working on rescinding it through the military not the government. It was not well known but we were workingbehind the scenes and doing it at the unit levels.

                There is NO hope that the 9th circuit will reverse it….it will go silently in the night.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                My feeling is this is a golden opportunity for Obama — just don’t appeal the decision.

              • He won’t. That is why I said it will die quietly in the night. The justice department will not challenge it.

              • Murphy's Law says:

                Buck,

                I’m sure you are a really great guy…..but you just don’t get it. My dad was a captain in the Air Force in WWII, and I have military all around me in my family…..it is NOT and never will be kumbaya among military…they are there to do a job and they take it more seriously than any of us who have never been in the military can begin to understand. D13 is absolutely right when he said that waving a court ruling will not change anything in a soldier’s mind or heart regarding homosexuality. Anything a good soldier perceives as threatening their unit’s ability to carry out their mission will be dealt with, like he said, with a rifle butt. I could see my dad doing that very thing, not just back then, but today, were he in the position to do so, and there would be no apology. Nor would I want him to give one.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                I am a great guy, thanks! 🙂

                I think you may be missing my point (lack of coffee in the morning makes me incoherent) — I agree that waiving a Court order will change nothing. I agree that there are those in the military who will ‘deal with’ a gay soldier with a rifle butt or worse.

                But that changes absolutely nothing — DADT institutionalizes homophobia and discrimination. This is the US military, an extension of our government and society. This should not and cannot be tolerated. Do you really believe that someone who is gay in the military is going to suddenly wear a rainbow uniform and start approaching others, waiving the court ruling in their hand? No, of course not. The only thing this ruling does, when it comes down to it, is remove the ability to discharge, promote, etc. a soldier due to their sexual orientation, if and when their sexual orientation comes to light.

              • Actually Buck, it only removes the possibility of discharge. It cannot enforce promotion…nor should it. Promotions in the military are totally subjective and should remain so. No one, to my knowledge, has ever written an eval report citing gay as an issue. I have not seen one….like wise no one wrote a report on racial issues as an issue either.

                But, as you know, it is how you word a report…within the confines of terminology….hell you are a barrister…you know this…

                In the civilian world, when giving a reference to another employer, you know the one thing that is the kiss of death is the answer to the question, “would you rehire this person?” This is the civilian way of saying….bad person. Same in the military with one exception….eval reports are not subject to civilian scrutiny in the court system. A sergeant will not be able to file a law suit against the military for sexual discrimination in promotion in a civilian court. Can you imagine what the court system and the military would be like with OSHA, EEOC, NLRB, ACLU, etal involved?

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Fair enough – important distinction to be made.

                But given that I’m sure it happens regardless of DADT and being ‘openly gay’ based upon suspicions and beliefs.

              • Agreed.

              • Murphy's Law says:

                I just knew it! That you are a great guy, that is.

                I maybe didn’t do a good job stating my point clearly….I’m not condoning the mistreatment of gays in the military or anywhere else. My point was that ANY problem that is perceived as threatening a mission is dealt with quickly. I have been told that those in the military are trained to make decisions immediately when a problem arises- lives depend on it.

                The civilian courts need to stay the hell out of the military’s business.

                Have yourself a great day!

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Frankly I was pretty surprised the Court made this Order as usually courts will take a hands off approach with the military. I guess ending discrimination trumps judicial restraint…

                I agree that people in the military will take action when a problem arises, lives do depend on it. I guess I just disagree as to the real effect this ruling will have.

                Enjoy yours as well!

              • “I guess ending discrimination trumps judicial restraint…”

                No. political correctness trumps rational decision making.

              • Murphy's Law says:

                I have to disagree with one statement of yours, though, Buck. The US military is not and never will be an extension of US society. In my opinion, “US society” and the US military are damn near mutually exclusive. Totally different mindsets.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Fair point.

              • SK Trynosky Sr/. says:

                I actually take issue with the word homophobia and the way it bis routinely bandied about. I am not afraid of homosexuals, I just do not think that it is a good idea. I also have been around this planet awhile and have kept my eyes and ears open. There is way too much “in your face” stuff going on out there for shock value and frankly to be provocative. You have seen it too if you will be honest.

                In the unfortunate Matthew Shepard case, the reports were that he kept flaunting his homosexuality at the people who ultimatlty murdered him. He was asked to stop but did not. Finally, what happened, happened. There is no excuse for it but, in the same situation I could see him getting a bloody nose over it. People in bars, especially with their girlfriends tend to like to be left alone. There are many other things besides homosexuality which could get you a bloody nose under those circumstances. Since however, it was homosexuality, the full court press came out and few who would complain about Matthew’s boorish behavior would be heard. He immediately rose from the status of jerk to martyr.

                Sorry, I was raised to treat all people equally and I try to but if I ask you to knock it off and that means knock off anything I do not want to hear about, you would be wise to listen. Screaming loudly into my ear, on any topic, will not endear you to me.

              • Buck,

                I agree with the others that you are missing the point here. You are asking a lot of “why should they” questions instead of recognizing that it isn’t about what “should,” it is about what is.

                I am a big supporter of gay rights. They “shouldn’t” have to deal with any of the things that you are asking. They “shouldn’t” be denied any rights or asked to do anything. But the bottom line is, not matter what “should” happen, effectiveness is compromised because of how people feel in the real world. I am not willing to increase the risk to the lives of all the others in order to be politically correct.

                You are falling into that category that I was discussing above. You are letting idealism trump reality. Idealistically, there should be no problem with gays in the military. Idealistically, there should be no rights denied to homosexuals that want to serve. But realistically, their openly serving may in fact compromise effectiveness in an occupation where compromise can be deadly.

                It is just like true socialism and communism. Idealistically it works out great. In reality, not so much. Idealistically gays serving openly in the military works out great. In reality, not so much.

                USW

              • Buck the Wala says:

                USW, I’m sorry but these concerns, to me, still do not give you or anyone the right to discriminate against others.

                I seem to remember you had conceded this fact in our last discussion about DADT, though I could be mistaken.

                I am still willing to bet that, overwhelmingly in that situation, absolutely no one will care the guy in the foxhole next to them is gay (much like most did not care the guy fighting alongside him is black).

              • Agreed. In a military situation, everyone is trained equally and must act in accordance with protocol. If a person is not handling things properly either mentally or physically, they are out.

                As such, no one should be discriminated against based on race, religion, sexual orientation, or even gender, if the standards are held up.

                The issues only arise when the military gets turned into a welcoming entity or a place with limitations on what they can or cannot say, or what they are allowed to do in training, etc. In my opinion, this has already happened, which adds to the concerns over changes in DADT policies. If the military is allowed to operate within the parameters that it needs to, then they can make their own decisions about policies without it being made a political circus, and they can do so without concern for superficial aspects f discrimination. It should have very strict levels of discrimination based on performance and ability, and it should not apologize or compromise on those aspects of discrimination. If that attitude reigns, then the other discrimination is not only unnecessary, but it would generally not exist. As you say, no one cares who is in the fox hole with them when they are under fire unless that person is incompetent or weak or stupid or a traitor, nothing else in combat matters.

          • Buck,

            No one is being punished. When the ultimate objective is survival and success of the mission, you do everything that you can to eliminate obstacles to that success. We aren’t talking about writing reports or selling cars. We are talking about small teams of people who are directly in the line of fire. Get the courts out of the way and let commanders deal with this.

            USW

            • I remember when all this activity was kept in the Closet and we had “Private” parts. To me this is just fighting for the right to offend others.

      • CM,

        Yes and no. I don’t agree with the way that you have worded it, but that may be nothing more than semantics as opposed to differing philosophy.

        Whether the situation is dangerous or not has nothing to do with whether I think gays or women should be allowed. What I care about is the ability of the people involved in doing the mission to successfully complete the mission with the least amount of obstacles. I don’t think less of women or gays in terms of ability to complete a mission. What I do think is that it is important to understand the possible impacts on mission effectiveness should the PC court force compliance on the participants. Nothing more and nothing less. It is literally a life and death situation. I choose effectiveness over someone’s personal feelings in that particular situation.

        USW

        • Common Man says:

          USW;

          Not judging in anyway, just wanted to make sure I understod your specific point. I agree that those in the Military should be the only ones involved in making decisions about the Military.

          CM

    • Wasn’t there a time when men claimed to be gay to avoid the draft? You want the gay thing in the military to go away? Restart the draft…….I can hear the screaming now.

      😉

    • You will have to help me out on this one, I regularly hear that the American military is the most professional in the world but they cannot handle openly gay people serving, are they that childish and close minded?

      Albania
      Argentina
      Australia
      Austria
      Belgium
      Canada
      Colombia
      Czech Republic
      Denmark
      Estonia
      Finland
      France
      Germany
      Ireland
      Israel
      Italy
      Lithuania
      Luxembourg
      Malta
      The Netherlands
      New Zealand
      Norway
      Peru
      Philippines
      Poland
      Romania
      Russia
      Slovenia
      South Africa
      Spain
      Sweden
      Switzerland
      Taiwan
      United Kingdom
      Bermuda
      Uruguay

      The above is a list of the countries that allow people to openly serve, they somehow manage to function without the military falling apart, I just don’t understand where the US military is coming from here?

      • Buck the Wala says:

        Thanks for the list Bob!

      • Buck the Wala says:

        To add: perhaps one of the reasons why the US military may not be able to deal with openly gay soldiers is due to the institutionalized discrimination against gays from DADT??

        • And then there is the question of whether we can handle it or not. To be honest, I do not think it would be an issue at all were it not for it being a political or politicized issue. I don’t really buy the “we can’t handle it” argument to start with. Most of the arguments are based on throwbacks to a time when it was a big deal. Also, its easy to find examples of issues in our military because it is big enough to find a lot of a-holes. As a percentage of discriminating people, we are probably no worse than any other country on that list. The only reason its an issue at all, as I said, is that we allow politics in our military too much. I am sorry but the couch critics have no right to any say about military policy. Military costs and military action in a general sense, sure, but not personnel policy.

      • Also to pre-empt any “most of those military’s are small and crappy” rebuttals, the main argument against soldiers openly serving is due to unit cohesion which would effect each and every one of those countries in the list.

      • SK Trynosky Sr/. says:

        How do we know their militaries are not falling apart? Any of them engaged big time in a big time war at the moment? Last time I checked, Russia, the one on your list that surprises me most had a huge morale problem in its military. The Brits are shrinking down to nothing and about to incorporate the Royal Marines into the Army.

        China, North Korea, Viet-Nam,Cuba, Iran and Iraq are not on the list. These are the tough SOB’s we are going to have to worry about in the future. How does their military professionalism stack up against the countries on your list? India is not on my list of bad guys and seems to have a pretty good military whose Air Force kicked our asses last year in war games.

        Any thoughts on this Colonel?

        • Forget professionalism, SK. Its all about diviersity now. Militaries aren’t about fighting/winning wars. Its about social engineering. Gawd, you’re such a caveman…..

          🙂

        • Five of those countries are currently serving NATO in Afghanistan and they seem to function, again what does the size of the actual military have to do with it? We are talking about unit cohesion here and there effectiveness to fight. There is not one shred of proof that says that openly serving members of the military affect its ability. You are going to have to try harder on this one. Also no the royal marines are not going to join the army.

          • SK Trynosky Sr/. says:

            The merger talk for the Royal marines and Paras is still on the table.

            Unfortunately , you are right, there is not one shred of evidence indicating that openly serving gays affect the military’s ability. However there is not a single shred of evidence that it does not.

            Neither we nor our allies are currently doing particularly well in Afghanistan The non-US contingent is not terribly large and if I remember correctly, the German Army in particular came in for criticism last spring for basically sitting around drinking beer. The Dutch however have been, with their limited numbers, supurb. This is primarily a COIN operation with small units. Most of our allies have very small militaries. The question might be, would this make a difference? As you get less selective do the risks of discriminatory behavior get greater. We already know that as the standards dropped over the past few years, waiovers were granted to enlist people with records and crime as well as substance abuse increased.

            Rather than just spout off about this subject, we, that is all of us, should look for some objective reporting on the effects of openly serving gays on the armies that have accepted them. part of that should be a breakdown by military job. For example, is there a difference in the Army and Navy? Is there a difference between the Infantry and the Transportation Corps. This would make for some interesting reading.

            I researched a bit about the Russian Military and while it is legal to serve, it is not encouraged and gays are cautioned not to talk about it. One recruiter apparently said that if they were open, they might, “get beat up”. This problem, because of human nature, is not going away. It will be with us in the 22nd century.

            When we are making monumental changes we would do well indeed to step back and imagine the worst case scenerios first because, odds are, that’s what will happen.

            • http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/oct/12/armed-forces-defence-review

              “A plan to merge the Royal Marines with the Parachute Regiment has been abandoned.”

              Anyway, gays are serving right now in your military, they will have been from the beginning. They cannot talk about their sexuality but heterosexuals can. I don’t understand how people can happily repress soldiers that are fighting and dying for them. You can do reviews and studies but all you are doing is trying to delay any action. People need to adapt, they managed in the 50’s and 60’s I am sure they can manage today.

              • SK Trynosky Sr says:

                Your assumption that people will adapt is exactly that, an assumption. As pointed out before, this problem is not going away, not ever. It may be all well and good to theorize about it but if the Commandant of the Marine Corps does not think it a good idea, perhaps he may actually have a point. Of course, you can assume he is some red-necked jerk if you want to, but perhaps he understands the culture of the military better than you or I do.

              • There are two things you can do when placed in a new situation, you sink or you swim. If people don’t want to swim then get rid.

              • SK Trynosky Sr. says:

                You and I will never agree on this issue. There are psychological aspects that you will choose to ignore and there are unrestricted freedom/equality issues that I have to ignore.

                In a testosterone driven environment like the military, I have a hard time believing these problems will ever go away. Should they, then I question the ability of that military to fight and win.

                We already have a touchy freely military. The rules of engagement we now use would have prohibited a win in WW II. Bastardize the damn thing further and the lean hungry barbarians from the east will walk all over us. You are willing to play that type of Russian roulette, I am not. Sorry, but that is the way I see it. If I am wrong, a few, very few gay people are inconvenienced. If you are wrong, then it is all over, period. Rather not take the chance.

                So if our “best” people disagree with the new policy, then you are willing to get rid of them. May work well in the social work community but the stakes are a bit higher here. I always kind of got the phrase, “prejudicial to good order and discipline”. Apparently, as time goes by, it will be sacrificed on the altar of political correctness and mass psychosis leading to cultural suicide. Just my Neanderthal opinion here, nothing personal against anyone.

              • I would not say the intolerant and poorly educated ones that would have a problem could be described as the “best”. 13,000 military personnel have been discharged after their sexuality has been revealed since 1994.

                Ah so allowing gays in the military may somehow lead to the US getting invaded, am I right here? I did not understand your comment.

              • Bob you speak to “poorly educated ones” in your last reply.

                How is it that someone in the military who isn’t pro-homosexual is “poorly educated?” I’m interested in hearing your thoughts as it would seem to me such a remark shows it’s own intolerance.

              • You do not need to be pro-homosexual to work with gay people!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I do not know where you got that assumption from my comments.

                I can disagree with peoples lifestyles but will it affect how I work with them or my civility towards them or my level of professionalism, no!

                I am sure if you pressed real hard to find out why these soldiers would find it difficult with openly gay members of their unit you would get “I don’t like homos” and “being gay is icky and gross” in other words nonsense answers. I do not understand how someone else’s sexuality would affect my performance when I am doing my job.

              • SK Trynosky Sr says:

                Not enough room to slide in below.

                Seems to me that you are the one who just threw in the “poorly educated” thing. I, am not poorly educated. I doubt that the Commandant of the Marine Corps is either. We just agree that it is not a good idea and there is too much at risk. I will keep hammering away at the idea that this problem will always be with us especially in, as I said above, a testosterone charged environment like the military. Doubt it if you would but that’s, as Bill Murray would have said in “Stripes”, “A fact Jack”.

                It is not necessary that we be invaded here in the US by anyone or bombed for that matter nor have I alluded to that. I have always been a bit of a Gestaltist in all things. There are a great many ways to accomplish a goal. Since the beginning of the cold war in 1945 we have fought proxy war after proxy war. The enemy has changed as have the reasons for being an enemy of the United States. The goal however remains the same, the destruction of this country and its fragmentation if at all possible. There are folks out there who actually believe it would be a good thing for us to become a Yugoslavia, turn the melting pot into a mosaic. I, am not one of them.

                I believe it was Churchill who once said something like, “democracy is the worst form of government, except for all others.” So, on no less of an authority that that of one of the greatest men of the 20th century, I believe that majority rules, not one unelected judge. Yes, there is always the risk that the “plebs” may do something bad, but in most instances, it is quickly self correcting. Often it is the intelligentsia running the government, like Wilson, Roosevelt and Jackson not the people who oppressed the Indians, German Americans and Japanese. Even in the case of slavery, it was not the whole people but sections of the country who owned the guilt. After the civil war it was the intelligentsia who kept the black man down, “for his own good”. Sure, they rabble roused the poor white, but that was a way of keeping them in line too.

                Like Lincoln, I trust the people, wish that the courts did.

      • I have got to find another way to answer you…everyone is STILL missing the point. Let me think here…will post this pm.

        I will have to find a better way to explain…”as commanders, we had the problem solved and on the way to being totally solved”….now….with this ruling, we have been thrown back to the dark ages. It is OUT OF THE HANDS of the commanders now. I have to find a way to explain this.

        It took almost 30 years to solve the majority of the racial issues despite the court rulings of the 60’s and 70’s. The court messes things up. Think about this while I am trying to find a way to explain. A serving soldier cannot file a law suit in civilian court to enforce a court order….so…where is the advantage to the soldier? DADT has been deferred by the courts. So what? Enforce it now.

        • I get it, the military was on its way to a fix, then it became political and screwed it all up, creating a problem where there was not one, and reversing massive amounts of progress.

          In other words, DADT was not a problem and was going away already. Now all these people are making a fuss about it, acting like the government has to step in and “fix” some problem that was already fixed. Its like what happened with the unions. The unions themselves had already fixed the problems they set out to fix, then the government flies in and passes a lot of laws and screws up the employee/employer relationship completely, and problem that has remained ever since, and an issue that has made unions, a very good thing, into a bad thing for business. Out of nowhere, a problem was created and addressed very badly. Its infuriating.

    • Simple solution – change DADT to apply to homophobes instead. Problem solved. ;>

    • Well, since you all know my opinion on homosexuals and lesbians serving in our armed forces I won’t climb on my soapbox again. Instead, I will give you my prediction as to what the combat effectiveness of all U.S. Military units will be at once this has been in place for about five years . . . . O.OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO1%

      • Got any evidence whatsoever that would support that prediction? Have fun finding some.

        • You ask for evidence, but then since gays haven’t yet served openly there would be no evidence in our military on the effects of them serving openly.

          And all those countries that do have gays serving openly isn’t the USA. What goes well for them doesn’t mean it will be the same here, though it does provide an indication we could ultimately integrate the services.

          Let them serve openly, but let it be done in the planned way the administration and DoD are working on it.

          • After so many western countries have managed to have openly serving people in the military it would essentially be the same as dropping a ball 37 times, watching it bounce each time and then telling me it wont bounce the next time its dropped. Please give me the reasoning why it would not work for the US?

            • I don’t believe I said it wouldn’t work. I said let the path the DoD and the administration agreed upon run it’s course.

              I would venture to believe that many countries on that list didn’t always allow gays to serve openly and underwent their own changes as they “modernized” their attitudes, and did so in a controlled manner (though that is my personal opinion at this point since I haven’t researched it).

              The US military will adapt, but to expect it to happen all at once isn’t realistic. President Truman ordered the desegregation of military units, but it did not happen overnight and attitudes didn’t suddenly change from one day to the next. Truman issued his executive order in July 1948 and it wasn’t until the end of the Korean War (1953) that the US military was almost completely desegregated.

              It will occur and it is the right thing to have happen. But, let it be accomplished in a controlled manner. That’s all I am saying. What’s the problem with allowing DADT to die away in that manner?

    • Ok, CM….what do you have against snake excrement?

    • The military (and everybody in it now or who has ever been in it) need to get over this already. Gays have served and continue to serve this country with as much honor (and when it happens, dishonor) as straights. The morale factor is a non-issue. Sorry USW, but I don’t buy the morale factor. There have been gays in EVERY aspect of our lives, including the mob (and knowing it or not) is ONLY a factor when those around them make it one (a conscious decision).

      It is an absurd policy in the year 2010.

      • Charlie,

        The problem I have with gays in the military is due to their activist nature. SOME will join just to get the ‘benefits’ just like some non gays do. Military benefits are pretty good if you have a family. However, money is getting tight now. Family housing has waiting lists! So imagane Bill and Steve want to get married. Bill has aquired a child from somewhere. He wants to take care of Bill and the child. Bill and Steve decide to marry and apply for housing. There is a long waiting list. Bill decides that they are being discriminated against for being gay. He starts all kinds complaints and challenges. The military system must now defend itself against baseless charges. Baseless because there really IS a housing shortage and everyone must wait their turn, Even gays. But Bill sees a way to ‘work the system’ to his advantage. I live on an overseas US Army base. We’re mostly civilians here and family housing is EXTREMELY limited. You’d be impressed at the amount of discontent competition for family housing creates. For example, there are a number of gay civilans here. Nobody cares that they are gay. We had two women, they were police officers. They decided to have a baby. The younger one got pregnant and applied for housing. When she got it, people were surprised and outraged because around the same time we had a hetro couple here who were also expecting a baby. He was and engineer and she a school teacher. They were denied housing, and HAD to quit their jobs and leave the island (no job=no island). I don’t know the details of either couple. I do know that the gay couple split up shortly after getting the housing and the older woman left. The younger woman and her son are still in housing. People still get pissed about it and recall it whenever some other housing assignment issue comes up. Its been over a year.

        So now let’s estimate that there is at least one case of gays pushing some issue and making demands and claiming discrimination every two years. There are about 750 military overseas installations and I don’t know how many in CONUS. That’s a lot of disruption for an organization who’s primary mission is war fighting and not social engineering for the Left.

        BTW, the Army is considering removing all the families from this island, permanently because its too expensive to maintain them. The good news there is that there won’t be anymore squabbles over housing.

        • Cyndi: I hear what you’re saying … now think about how many gays (couples or otherwise) have been constitutionally denied their rights (to live together, never mind Army housing) because of antiquated rules that were never followed anyway.

          I understand the frustration and there are people who will work the system whenever possible, but it’s a burden others have to deal with ONLY because gays have been discrminated against way too long now.

          It seems to me, maybe some of the money we’re flushing down the toilet (never mind all the lives going in the same place) in Iraq and Afghanistan could be put to much better use (maybe building more housing).

          I do understand what you’re saying but it seems a weak argument vs. the fact gays have been victims forever in the military.

          • No one forces gays into the military. If we had a draft, I might go along with your argument. But there isn’t a draft and if gays have problem the military policies, which BTW, are geared toward warfighting, and not social justice BS,then perhaps they should find another line of work or volunteer to serve their country in some other fashion (its very possible to do). I see the whole gay agenda as an attack against conservative values. I’ve known gays all my life. I’m 48 yo, and have never seen gays persecuted legally or otherwise. I’m sure it happens but I’ve never seen it personally.

            I was active duty Army for over 5 years in the early 80s. As a woman,(knew plenty of gays and as long as they didn’t flaunt it no one bothered them) there were challenges. Now, as a woman working in a predominately male dominated field, yes, there are challenges. That said, no one is forcing me to be an electronics technician. Have there been ‘problems’ for me to deal with during my 15 year career? Yes. Should there be special programs/organizations tailored to make me feel special? NO! I don’t use my gender as an excuse for anything, nor do I flaunt it on the job. I keep the ‘girls’ modestly secured and hidden from view. I work as hard as the men. Gays can do the same. Keep their sexuality out of the work place and stop making demands. Unfortunately, we have a society that rewards ‘demands’ at the expense of others. The gay movement has now created a backlash. They’ve brought their problems on themselves. There have never been laws permitting discrimination against gays. And before you mention marriage, legally recognized marriage is NOT a human right. If it is I demand my right to have an extremely wealthy husband! 😉

            • Gays can do the same. Keep their sexuality out of the work place and stop making demands

              I hope I’m reading that out of context. Why should they? How can libertarians (or conservatives defending the constitution) say anything like that?

              Why should they have to is the question?

              As regards marriage, you’re right, it isn’t a right, which makes it all the more unconstitutional that it is discrimination.

              That is the problem with a libertarian society; people will be discriminating against.

              And you do have the right to marry a wealthy husband … gays don’t. Not fair …

              • To me, keeping sexuality out of the workplace, especially in military context, is absolutely essential, for ALL PERSONNEL. Its not about being gay or not. Sexuality has no place in the military, that was the primary reason for not wanting women in the military for so long. At least, it was the primary legitimate one. Sexuality is a distraction and can compromise people in war. As long as there is no sexuality in the workplace, there is no problem.

                Its got nothing to do with whether you are gay or straight.

                As for the marriage thing, I agree, but that, too, has nothing to do with the workplace.

              • Thanks Jon. You beat me to it.

                As for marriage, I’m all for eliminating legal recognition of it. Do as you damn well please with whomever or even whatever you want. Stand in front of a tree and marry your dog. I don’t care. Marry 15 other people of various skin colors and genders. I don’t give a shit, but your not getting any tax breaks, access to property, etc., nothing. People want fair, Fine. Nobody gets anything. Everyone is single forever. There, Its fixed.

              • I have a great idea. Let’s form an all-gay brigade and march it all over the Middle East just to rile everyone up. Great popcorn material.

              • See down below (i can’t stand this shifting right 🙂 all the time).

  3. Good Morning 🙂

    Here’s an interesting article that our resident economists can touch on:

    Dollar plunging — AGAIN!
    by Guest Editor, Larry Edelson
    Dear Gary,

    Anyone who hoped that the world’s 187 governments attending the IMF meeting in Washington would actually DO something to support the dollar is now sorely disappointed.

    All the governments have accomplished was to demonstrate their impotence — their total inability to stop the massive forces now sweeping the globe. Meanwhile, even as I write these words …

    Overseas investors continue to
    dump the U.S. dollar and scoop up gold!

    That’s why, just this morning, the U.S. dollar plunged to …

    The lowest level against the Japanese yen in 15 years …

    The lowest level against the Swiss Franc in 27 years, and …

    The lowest level against the Australian dollar in all history!
    That’s also why gold soared again this morning — coming within fractions of yet ANOTHER all-time record high at nearly $1,360 an ounce.

    In fact, there’s now so much fear of a dollar collapse, that London gold dealers report some well-healed INVESTORS ARE BUYING GOLD BY THE TON — more than $43 million — and even take physical delivery of the metal.

    Meanwhile, the dollar’s plunge has put massive upward pressure on the price of food. Fearing inflation down the pike, investors have rushed to gobble up supplies of corn, wheat and soybeans, leading to ENORMOUS price gains — as much as 26.2 percent just in the last five trading days.

    Thus, THREE of the world’s major asset classes — gold, commodities and currencies — are now in massive bull markets thanks to the dollar’s plunge.

    Make no mistake about it:
    The U.S. dollar is now facing
    a full-scale forced devaluation.

    Last Friday’s horrendous U.S. employment report — showing more than 95,000 jobs lost in September — is proof positive the U.S. economy is sinking.

    And already, just three days later, the Federal Reserve is reported to be priming the printing press, expected to print as much as $65 billion a month in new fiat dollars, starting almost immediately — a key driver behind the dollar’s plunge.

    The crux of the crisis: The U.S. dollar is the world’s reserve currency. So Federal Reserve officials seem to think they have the privilege and power to devalue the dollar without any consequences — all in a desperate attempt to inflate the U.S. economy and engineer a de-facto default on America’s massive debts to foreigners.

    But now the Federal Reserve is facing a new, unexpected problem: Stiff COMPETITION from other central banks who ALSO want to devalue THEIR currencies.

    We used to be one of the only ones saying this would happen. We warned readers of currency WARS many moons ago. But now, in separate meetings over the weekend, G-20 nations and the IMF both acknowledged that the world sits on the precipice of major currency wars.

    This means that, to goose up the U.S. economy and inflate away the U.S. debt, the Fed is being driven to do a lot MORE than just run its money printing presses. It’s going to run the printing presses FASTER than other central banks are running theirs!

    I’ve been watching the economy for some time and trying to learn as much as possible. As long as the subject of the failing of fiat money sticks around, the more I believe it may be “on purpose” that it continues to be an issue.

    G!

    • GMan

      It is quite simple. The Fed fears that the economy will not recover fast enough and it fears the looming debt. It fears runaway inflation but it needs inflation to pay the debt.

      So to stimulate the economy it must pump more money into the system.

      It will cause inflation as well, helping pay the debt with devalued dollars and false economic growth.

      So yes it is all on purpose. They think they can dance with the deadly snakes and pull out of the way at the last minute. Their Arrogance will destroy us all.

    • A morning radio report states that the higher price of gas in Western Pa.(up 8.7% in one week) is mostly due to the declining value of the dollar. This is the first local news report saying the the declining dollar is reason for higher costs, that I have heard in my locallity.

      • SK Trynosky Sr/. says:

        Crap!

        The price of gas is rising because they plugged the damn leak and people are not focusing on oil companies and the middlemen, especially the middlemen, anymore. Up 20cents in NJ in one week. Can’t tell me that oil came out of the ground last week and they paid X more dollars per barrel for it since the dollar fell.

        the whole damn thing is a joke.

        This country cannot rise again as a great industrial powerhouse unless and until we get cheap energy back. You can trace back most of the economic woes to the early and mid seventies. Quick, what happened back then? Arab oil embargo ring familiar? Oil doubled, then tripled, then doubled again.

        I am no economist but….

        If the price of an item Z is based on X (labor) + Y (cost to produce including energy) x + y = z, then a change such as x + y (3rd power) = equal moving the factory to India or China. That’s where we are. It is so damn simple, I do not understand why nobody gets it. Clear and simple when you look at the rust belt states that pay so much for their energy and have to worry about heating costs too.

        We have done so much to clean up our environment and can do so much more but the troglodites out there want us all to return to a bucolic 15th century that never existed and they really don’t care about how many or who they have to kill to get there. A short, brutal life for everyone but them.

    • read the comments too if you have time….some are enlightening.

      http://www.zerohedge.com/article/gold-surges-fresh-record-spot-136765-crb-passes-300

    • 420 Banks Demand 1-World Currency

      By SOP newswire2

      0diggsdigg

      JEROME CORSI`S RED ALERT
      By Dr. Jerome Corsi
      (c) 2010 http://www.RedAlert.WND.com

      Seen as remedy to looming exchange wars

      In advance of the International Monetary Fund and World Bank meeting in Washington last weekend, the Institute of International Finance, a group that represents 420 of the world`s largest banks and finance houses, issued yet another call for a one-world global currency.

      “A core group of the world`s leading economies need to come together and hammer out an understanding,” Charles Dallara, the Institute of International Finance`s managing director told the Financial Times in London.

      An IIF policy letter authored by Dallara and dated Oct. 4 made clear that global currency coordination was needed in the group`s view to prevent a looming currency war.

      “The narrowly focused unilateral and bilateral policy actions seen in recent months – including many proposed and actual measures on trade, currency intervention and monetary policy – have contributed to worsening underlying macroeconomic imbalances,” Dallara wrote. “They have also led to growing protectionist pressures as countries scramble for export markets as a source of growth.”

      Dallard encouraged a return to the G-20 commitment to utilize International Monetary Fund special drawing rights to create an international one-world currency alternative to the U.S. dollar as a new standard of foreign-exchange reserves.

      U.N. calls for 1-world currency

      A United Nations report released in July calls for the replacement of the dollar as the standard for holding foreign-exchange reserves in international trade with a new one-world currency
      issued by the International Monetary Fund
      .

      The 176-page report titled “United Nations World Economic and Social Survey 2010,” was issued at a high-level meeting of the U.N. Economic and Social Council and published in its entirety on the U.N. website.

      “The risk of exchange-rate instability and a hard landing of the dollar could be reduced by having a global payments and reserve system which is less dependent on one single national currency,” the report noted.

      The solution the U.N. report recommended was expanding Special Drawing Rights, or SDRs, at the International Monetary System, with the goal of replacing the dollar as the accepted international standard for holding foreign-exchange reserves.

      “A new global reserve system could be created, one that no longer relies on the United States dollar as the single major reserve currency,” the U.N. report said.

      By placing this statement in print, the United Nations has formally gotten behind a plan that was first advanced by Robert Mundell, the creator of the euro, and later funded through the G-20 by the Obama administration, even though the plan to advance IMF SDRs ultimately means the death of the dollar as the world`s standard for international trade.

      Let`s quickly review the background and the history of the issue.

      What are IMF Special Drawing Rights?

      SDRs are international reserve assets that are calculated by the IMF in a basket of major currencies that are allocated to the IMF 185 member nation-states in relation to the capital, largely in gold or widely accepted foreign currencies
      that the IMF member nation-states have on deposit with the IMF.

      As Red Alert previously reported, the proposal originally advanced by China and Russia would issue SDRs to central banks of IMF member states far in excess of any gold or currency reserves the member states have on deposit with the IMF.

      The idea is to utilize the little-understood and largely-ignored SDRs in a new capacity, as a sort of an international overdraft facility made available to bankrupt of financially failing IMF member nation-states, originated with Ted Turner, formerly a senior official at both the Federal Reserve and the U.S. Treasury.

      The IMF created SDRs in 1969 to support the Bretton Woods fixed exchange-rate system.

      “The international supply of two key reserve assets – gold and the U.S. dollar – proved inadequate for supporting the expansion of world trade and financial development that was taking place,” a document on the IMF website explains. “Therefore, the international community decided to create a new international reserve asset under the auspices of the IMF.”

      When the Bretton Woods fixed-rate system collapsed, major world currencies, including the dollar, shifted to a floating exchange-rate system where the price of the dollar and other major world currencies was created by trading on international currency exchanges.

      Until the current global economic crisis, SDRs issued by the IMF have been used by IMF member nation states primarily as a reserve account to support international trade transactions, not as an alternative international currency available to settle international debt transactions in danger of default.

      Fathers of the `1-world currency`

      WND has previously reported that strong support for the idea of a one-world currency has come from Canadian economist and Nobel Prize winner professor Robert Mundell, an influential proponent who is credited with having formulated the intellectual basis for creating the euro.

      Mundell, currently an adviser to China, was the originator of the suggestion that the IMF should utilize SDRs to replace the dollar as a new world standard for holding foreign-exchange reserves in international trade transactions.

      WND has also reported Benn Steil, a senior fellow and director of international economics at the Council of Foreign Relations, wrote in the May/June 2007 issue of the Council of Foreign Relations` Foreign Affairs magazine an article titled, “The End of National Currency,” in which his major conclusion was that “countries should abandon monetary nationalism.”

      Steil tempered his embrace of one-world currency, writing, “Governments should replace national currencies with the dollar or the euro or, in the case of Asia, collaborate to produce a new multinational currency over a comparably large and economically diversified area.”

      G20 meeting in London supported IMF 1-world currency

      Red Alert also reported that the G20 summit meeting in London in April took an important step to create a new one-world currency through the International Monetary Fund that is designed to replace the dollar as the world`s foreign-exchange reserve currency of choice.

      Appearing on Fox News` “The Sean Hannity Show,” political consultant Dick Morris and Hannity agreed the decision by the G20 proved the “conspiracy theorists were right” and there is now clear evidence of a plan to create a one-world currency.

      Point 19 of the final communiqu from the G20 summit in London on April 2, 2009, specified that, “We have agreed to support a general SDR which will inject $250 billion into the world economy and increase global liquidity,” taking the first steps forward to implement China`s proposal that Special Drawing Rights at the International Monetary Fund should be created as a foreign-exchange currency to replace the dollar.

      “I think the dollar is now under question,” billionaire investor George Soros told CNBC, commenting that the goal was to create an IMF rather than the dollar to use in international trade.

      Red Alert has also reported that the United Nations has supported the IMF plan, to utilize SDRs as an alternative to the dollar to settle international trade transactions.

      Red Alert believes we are witnessing the death of the dollar under the Obama administration.

      http://thesop.org/story/20101013/420-banks-demand-1world-currency.html

    • I seem to recall that the dollar was devalued once way back during the Nixon years . . . and that little fiasco was almost a total disaster!

  4. Morning everyone, posting for comments, will check back later, trying to fall back asleep!

  5. I wonder who is in control of the border. The Jet Skier that has disappeared on Lago Falcon….now, the chief invesitgator of the incident has been found beheaded……interesting. I am so glad to know that there is no border problem.

  6. Interesting on how the information is disseminated….

    “The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives reports that more than 7,700 guns sold in the United States were traced back to Mexico in 2008.

    That’s more than double the number the agency reported in 2007 and almost triple from 2006.

    For their part, Mexican authorities report that 90 percent of smuggled weapons come from the United States.”

    Funny, the reoport that the military has and submitted shows 32,415 weapons seized in 2008….let’s do some math here….24,715 guns left off the report for the same year. Hmmmmmmm…what were they? Ak 47,s, SKS, UZI’s, Chicoms, and non serialed numbered weapons… Funny….wonder why the government and mexico wold leave out this information?
    Why only American weapons bought or sold on this report?

  7. Murphy's Law says:

    Been awhile since I have been on here…..good morning all. It’s a beautiful day here in the Dallas-Fort Worth area. Cool morning and a warm afternoon. And what a wonderful day in Chile! I’m watching the men being brought to the surface as I write this……gives me chills!!

    And I just have to crow a little bit about my Texas Rangers…..still pinching myself this morning after that win last night in Tampa Bay, oops St. Petersburg. Thought I’d NEVER see the day. Does Cliff Lee rock, or what? And I still can’t believe that they did it after losing twice at home.

    Now we have to knock off the Yanks……tall order. Of course I would like to believe we can do it……any predictions from the rest of the baseball fans on this site?

    Sorry to hear about your wrist, USW. Hope it heals quickly.

    Murf

    • Stayed up very late last night watching them bring those men up-it was wonderful. As far as that wrist, USW, are you making assumptions or have you gone to the doctor? I’m thinking NO. You should go to the doctor! Why do I think you’ve already been given this advice 🙂

      • VH…we only go to the doc when it is about to fall off….a few staples, 100 mile per hour tape, and super glue works fine.

    • It’s been great to watch these rescues. Proud too of the role that those Colorado guys and NASA played. Guess we aren’t such bad people after all.

      Good luck to your Texans, Murf! Yankees are, well the Yankees – no explanation necessary on why I’ll cheer for you guys. Good luck!

      • Buck the Wala says:

        Wait…you’re not going to cheer for my beloved Yankees??

        • Hell no! The best team money can buy…will most likely win, but not because I am cheering for them!

          • Buck the Wala says:

            Eh, we can buy a better team. I guarantee it.

            • Perhaps, but the Yanks have the highest payroll in MLB…the next highest payroll is $43,586,056.00 lower (Boston Red Sox) than theirs…on average, their players are paid $2,641,359.00 more than the next highest paid team. If you are under the impression this makes no difference (I doubt you are), then compared to the lowest paid team (Pittsburgh Pirates), and one if not the worst teams as well, the gap is enormous. In fact the Pirates entire payroll is $34,943,000.00…Yankees is $206,333,389.00. Quite a difference…

              • And…just for reference, the Texas Rangers payroll is $55,250,545.00…#27 out of the 30 MLB teams…

              • Buck the Wala says:

                While I freely admit payroll has an impact, fact that Yanks are facing Texas does go to show that payroll is not everything.

              • It proves that Texas has beaten the odds…this year, so far. The Yanks will win in 5…what is your prediction?

              • Buck the Wala says:

                I’d have to agree on that one.

  8. October 13, 2010
    On the Right Track?
    By Vasko Kohlmayer
    When discussing the American economy during his recent swing through Iowa, President Obama said, “We are on the right path. We’re on the right track.”

    Not impressed with the president’s assurances, Goldman Sachs is advising its clients that the economy is likely to be “fairly bad” or “very bad” over the next six to nine months. Looking at the data, one can only wonder whether that assessment is not too optimistic.

    Consider this.

    According to Gallup, unemployment stood at 10.1 percent in September. Among Americans aged 18 to 29, the figure was nearly 14 percent.

    Noted Bloomberg, “The jobless rate would have equalled or exceeded 9.5 percent for 14 consecutive months, surpassing the 13-month period from mid 1982 to mid 1983 as the longest span of elevated joblessness since monthly records began in 1948.”

    Underemployment — which includes those who would like to work full-time but can find only part-time work — is at a staggering 18.8 percent.

    Last year, Congress extended $160 billion in unemployment benefits. This was up 30 percent from the previous year.

    Nearly 42 million people are on food stamps today. Each of the previous twenty months set a new record in terms of participation. This trend will continue. According to White House estimates, nearly one seventh of the American population will be receiving food stamps in this fiscal year. In New York City, the situation is even worse: one in five there relies on food stamps.

    The Census Bureau reported that America’s poverty rate was at a fifteen-year high of 14.3 percent in 2009. This means that one in seven Americans now lives below the poverty line. The figure represents the highest level since the 1960s.

    Last week, the dollar tumbled to a fifteen-year low against the Japanese yen. This despite the fact that the yen itself is becoming weaker, as the Bank of Japan tries to hold down the value of the currency in order to encourage exports.

    In the last six weeks, the dollar has declined 7 percent against a basket of major world currencies.

    Spending by Americans dropped 2.8 percent last year. This is the first decline on record. Even as American consumers had to limit their consumption, spending on health care shot up by 9.6 percent.

    In this calendar year alone, the U.S. has already racked up a trade deficit of more than $350 billion.

    The federal budget deficit during the fiscal year that ended September 30 was nearly $1.3 trillion. This represents nearly 9 percent of GDP. This was the second-highest shortfall — both in nominal terms and as a proportion of the whole economy — since 1945. This year’s figures are just a little shy of the record set during the previous year.

    During the fiscal year that just ended in September, the federal government spent $3.45 trillion. This accounts for nearly 25 percent of the country’s gross domestic product. One fourth of the U.S. economy is thus driven by government spending. This figures does not include spending by state and local governments.

    America’s national debt currently stands at $13.6 trillion. This is well over 90 percent of GDP.

    According to White House’s own projections, the national debt will exceed 100 percent of GDP during next fiscal year.

    Two years ago, our national debt was $10.2 trillion. During those 24 months alone, we added more than 30 percent to our national debt.

    Estimates of unfunded liabilities inherent in entitlement programs such as Medicare and Social Security range from $65 trillion to $200-plus trillion. Even if the lower-end appraisal is the correct one, the government is sunk in an insurmountable fiscal hole.

    Last week, President Obama observed that the U.S. is facing an “untenable fiscal situation” and that we need to get serious about tackling our excessive spending.

    A question for the president: Why, then, do you propose and run record budget deficits?

    A question for the rest: To those who think the economy is on the right track, would you please raise your hands?

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/10/on_the_right_track.html

    • Things are on the right track if you’re a power grabbing Marxist, creating your Empire.

      😦

      • That’s a little unfair. You left out so many others.

        Teachers know it’s on the right track, education reform remains throwing more money into the system(sucks to be a student, but they can’t vote)

        Government Motors and all the unions are happy (fewer jobs, but they will, by damn, be union)

        Everyone wanting to live on welfare and un-employment has been rewarded. And now free healthcare is coming!

        So it’s not just the Marxists who are happy, don’t forget the little people they bought along the way.:lol:

        • The ‘little people’ are effing Marxists too. Bastids
          👿

          • They just don’t know it, Cyndi.

            The big guys do.

            • Absolutely!!

              Many Americans are thoroughly indoctrinated with marxism but have not been told the name of their ideology. They think they’re patriotic Americans!

              :blink:

  9. Delusional comes to mind.

    President Obama Looks Forward — and Back
    By MICHAEL D. SHEAR
    THE 44TH PRESIDENT

    President Obama said that he expected Republicans to offer him more cooperation after November’s elections, no matter the outcome.

    In an hour-long interview with the Times’s White House correspondent, Peter Baker, Mr. Obama predicted that his political rivals would either be chastened by falling short of their electoral goals or burdened with the new responsibility that comes from achieving them.

    “It may be that regardless of what happens after this election, they feel more responsible, either because they didn’t do as well as they anticipated, and so the strategy of just saying no to everything and sitting on the sidelines and throwing bombs didn’t work for them,” Mr. Obama said. “Or they did reasonably well, in which case the American people are going to be looking to them to offer serious proposals and work with me in a serious way.”

    The president’s comments are reported in an in-depth assessment of Mr. Obama’s first two years in office that appears in the Times Magazine this Sunday.

    In the article, which is based on interviews with nearly two dozen of the president’s advisers in addition to the president himself, Mr. Baker offers a series of inside details about Mr. Obama’s time in the White House, including:

    * According to his wife, Michelle Obama, Mr. Obama is not particularly fond of the presidential retreat at Camp David. Mrs. Obama reports that her husband, a longtime resident of Chicago, is more at ease in an urban setting.

    * Pete Rouse, Mr. Obama’s new chief of staff, bet the deputy chief of staff, Jim Messina, $400 that he would be gone from the White House by the end of this year. Mr. Messina predicted that Mr. Rouse would stay well beyond that date.

    * Mr. Obama — unlike most of his senior staff — does not have an iPad. Asked why, he said: “Because I have an iReggie,” a reference to his personal aide, Reggie Love.

    In the magazine article, Mr. Obama reflects on his presidency, admitting that he let himself look too much like “the same old tax-and-spend Democrat,” realized too late that “there’s no such thing as shovel-ready projects” and perhaps should have “let the Republicans insist on the tax cuts” in the stimulus.

    He pushed back against what he called the “mythology” that his 2008 presidential campaign had been flawless and that his presidency suffers by comparison.

    “The mythology has emerged somehow that we ran this flawless campaign, I never made a mistake, that we were master communicators, everything worked in lockstep. And somehow now, as president, things are messy and they don’t always work as planned and people are mad at us,” Mr. Obama said. “That’s not how I look at stuff, because I remember what the campaign was like. And it was just as messy and just as difficult. And there were all sorts of moments when our supporters lost hope, and it looked like we weren’t going to win. And we’re going through that same period here.”

    He also predicted that in the next two years, his administration would focus less on trying to pass new legislation and more on implementing and consolidating what passed in the first two years.

    “Even if I had the exact same Congress, even if we don’t lose a seat in the Senate and we don’t lose a seat in the House, I think the rhythms of the next two years would inevitably be different from the rhythms of the first two years,” he said. “There’s going to be a lot of work in this administration just doing things right and making sure that new laws are stood up in the ways they’re intended.”

    http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/13/president-obama-looks-forward-and-back/

    • “the same old tax-and-spend Democrat” as compared to the other kind of Democrat????

      “there’s no such thing as shovel-ready projects” hell, isn’t he still using this language for this latest infrastructure spending he’s pushing?

      “let the Republicans insist on the tax cuts” but wait the Repubs never had any plans, or did they?

      If there ever was someone who fit the empty-suit billing, he is it.

    • Oh yeah, he will get lots of cooperation. NOT. He will wear out his veto pen and be obstructed and delayed for the next 2 years. Everyone go out and VOTE for the people you believe will help you, not help themselves to your money.

      • I think the veto is what they are fighting for now. The liberal media is in attack mode after all republicans and tea partiers. I think I read there are 130 seats the Democrats are sure to hold, so the Republicans might win enough seats to override every veto, and dictate for the next two years.

        http://www.newsbusters.org/
        Behar Rips Bachmann: ‘She’s Against Children’; Ignores She Raised Her 5 Children, Fostered 23
        By: Jeff Poor | October 13, 2010 | 12:08

        So you raise five children and provide foster care for 23 children, but according to HLN’s high-priestess of intellectualism, you hate children.

        Only from Joy Behar, host of a HLN show and co-host of “The View,” could offer such an assertion as fact to audience. On Behar’s Oct. 12 program, she made the claim the Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., and other so-called “Mama Grizzlies” were guilty of various misdeeds against humanity. She claimed the Republican Minnesota congresswoman was anti-children,

      • by John Lott

        Daily Kos and Google Searches

        The Daily Kos has figured out how to get voters reading the most negative stories about Republican candidates in closest 98 congressional races. They are going to drive up the rankings of negative stories about the candidates so that voters doing research on who to vote for will see the negative stories. As of 3 PM on Saturday, Daily Kos readers identified actual or possibly acceptable negative news articles about the Republican candidates that meant their requirements that they could up the Google rankings. Here is a nice synopsis of what they are planning on doing.

        “…as a group, we need to find and choose the damaging articles on Republican candidates that we want undecided voters to read. It is only after finding the articles that we can push them up search engine rankings. As such, finding those articles is the main purpose of this diary. (We are targeting House campaigns since Senate campaigns are so much more difficult to influence, due to their extensive media coverage.”

        Next they want participants to do their own searches and find the most damaging articles they can with these stipulations:

        Title damaging in and of itself. Not many people who see the article will actually click through and read it.
        Name of candidate in title. In addition to a catchy title, it is key that the name of the candidate appear in the title itself.
        …Find negative articles from as high profile a news organization as possible. When high profile can’t be found, then local news outlets will do just fine. Whatever you find, make sure said news organization is at least ostensibly claims to be non-partisan.
        …Already has a high Google ranking. Increasing the visibility of the article will be a lot easier if the article already has a decent Google ranking. For our purposes, top 100 is OK, and top 50 is good. Something already in the top 20, or even the top 10, would be awesome. (Note: make sure you sign out of Google before conducting keyword searches on the candidate’s full name to test the Google ranking of the article).
        Name of candidate in URL. The SEO effort will be greatly enhanced if the name of the candidate appears in the URL of the article.
        Keep it short… Keep it recent…

        Once the participant finds good (for their purposes) articles they are to send it to the folks at the daily Kos, who will publish the list for all the participants to publish, tweet, Facebook etc.

        “That’s it. Once we get the articles we can start working to push them up search engine rankings. We need to launch the campaign early next week, so let’s gather these articles as quickly as we can.”

        Google appears to have more directly been involved in manipulating the political debate in the past. They have been accused in the past of “purging Conservative news sites.” Al Gore has been a Senior Advisor to Google.

        Now Gore and MoveOn are, if not joined at the hip, at least extremely simpatico. Gore also sits on the board of Google. Its $600 a share stock has made him so rich he could fund his own presidential campaign with one check.

        Why do you think Google has denied Republican Collins ad space to fight back against MoveOn, which is trying to put her out of business?

        Google says her ad against MoveOn violates some policy or other and they have to tell her no. Translation: It’s Al Gore’s Google in this situation and Al Gore is more interested in MoveOn getting its anti-Bush, anti-war message out there than helping a Republican fight the Soros MoveOn machine to hold onto to her Senate seat.

        MoveOn has been a very, very Clinton-centric organization, of course. But do you think maybe, just maybe, MoveOn might be interested in the candidacy of the environmental saint Al Gore if she should stumble? . . .

        The amazing thing is that the Daily Kos is so open about this. I can’t find any statement by Google responding to this. In any case, here is a copy of the Daily Kos discussion just in case they ever decide to remove the post.

    • Common Man says:

      Got a couple of issues and a point to make.

      First- Congress creates laws and any they want passed will be dispite the Presidents veto or not. So his point about making it difficult for the Republicans, should they wind up controling Congress is 1) and egotistical statement and 2) irrelevant.

      Also, if the above quoted statements are true it sounds like obama has already figured out that he is a one trick pony.

      And if that does prove out to be true then all I can say is “THANK YOU JESUS!!!!!!!!!”

      CM

      • Common Man says:

        And BTW, Jimmy Carter should be over joyed by obama’s preformance as President, because Carter is no longer the WORST President to hold office since Nixon.

        CM

        • SK Trynosky Sr says:

          No, NO, No, The really interesting thing is that Carter had to wait so long for Bush to take him off the list. That Bush had to wait less than 18 months to be rehabilitated is nothing short of a miracle.

  10. from John Lott

    So you thought that President Obama wanted to get rid of waste and fraud in the health care system?
    This is a pretty amazing interview with Mort Zuckerman, a Democrat. They are discussing the offer from IBM’s Chairman and CEO Samuel Palmisano to use its expertise to root out fraud in the health care system. IBM offered to do this work for free.

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/10/08/fnc_did_white_house_snub_fraud_fighter.html

  11. Dread Pirate Mathius says:

    And now for your weekly update: 1372.1

    That is all.

    Y’AARGH!

  12. French Strike Extended as Sarkozy, Unions See No Common Ground
    October 13, 2010, 3:07 PM EDT
    More From Businessweek

    By Gregory Viscusi

    Oct. 13 (Bloomberg) — French unions have called for public transport workers to strike for a third day tomorrow to pressure the government to drop plans to increase the retirement age, even as fewer employees stayed away from work today.

    Total SA, Europe’s biggest refiner, started to halt operations at all its French plants following the strike, increasing the likelihood of fuel shortages. With the government of President Nicolas Sarkozy maintaining that it won’t back down on plans to

    raise the minimum retirement age to 62 from 60,

    the stalemate looked set to continue.

    “He has not budged from his position,” Bernard Thibault, who heads the Confederation Generale du Travail labor union, said today on Canal Plus television channel. “His point of departure in ‘no negotiations.’ We will continue.”

    The government says the changes are needed to help France cope with an aging population and help balance the pension system’s budget by 2018. The pensions’ system reform is part of the broader government’s struggle to cut down the budget deficit. This year the gap will stand at 7.7 percent and Sarkozy’s minister plan to cut it down to 92 billion euros ($125 billion), or 6 percent of gross domestic product, next year.

    http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-10-13/french-strike-extended-as-sarkozy-unions-see-no-common-ground.html

  13. Bottom Line says:

    The other day I posted about the story of a 16 hr. old baby kidnapped from her parents by Concord,NH authorities and CPS.

    Here is an update…

    (WARNING! – THIS IS DISTURBING!)

    http://www.philipbrennan.net/2010/10/13/baby-cheyenne-evidence-of-neglect-or-abuse-in-care/

    Confirmed reports have come to our attention that Baby Cheyenne is either being neglected or abused in the care of foster parents.

    When Jonathan and Stephanie arrived at at scheduled visit the baby would not wake up. They decided to change the diaper as that will wake up a baby. As they did, they discovered blood in her diaper and was found to be coming from her privates. The sheriff is a witness to this fact and the baby has been rushed to hospital by the sheriff as this discharge is not within the normal levels expected due to hormonal changes in a new born baby girl.

    These foster parents also have Stephanie’s other two children in their care from her former relationship.

    As we have already noted in a previous article, children in care are often at more risk of abuse or neglect than average, despite the fact that one would assume that they would be safer in care than not.

    The police were trying to lay the blame on the baby’s distress upon him, despite there being a sheriff who is a witness to the fact that he had nothing to do with the child’s condition. The hospital personnel did not want to let him in to the treatment room at first, but they agreed after security cleared it. This was due to Jonathan talking to Alex Jones by cellphone live on national radio, and the security staff have backed off and are now allowing him to see his daughter.

    The current status of Baby Cheyenne is not good as she keeps slipping in and out of conciousness. It is likely that she will have to be kept in overnight.

    As we get more news of these developments we will update this article.

    Update 19:48 BST (14:48 CST)

    There is significant bleeding and swelling around the private parts of Baby Cheyenne and the child is being referred to a paediatrician who specialises in the medical and forensic evidence of abuse.

    Baby Cheyenne is under the jurisdiction of the police while in hospital, not the CPS, and unconfirmed reports are that the deputy now has the foster parents in custody for questioning regarding the injuries sustained to Baby Cheyenne.

    Only the foster parents are in the frame for this, as there is a sheriff as a witness to the discovery. The sheriff is very unlikely to perjure himself after a full disclosure was made of the facts on national radio via the Alex Jones Radio Show on GCNLive.com.

    Jonathan and Stephanie are still at the hospital and are believed to be with their daughter.

    Update 20:00 BST (15:00 CST)

    Baby Cheyenne has been taken to a sexual assault speciality Doctor under police escort. The sheriff is with the baby. Stephanie and Jonathan are following them, along with CPS. Baby Cheyenne is ‘fussy’, going in and out of consciousness, and when she is awake doesn’t want any one touching her, which shows the level of her injuries and distress.

    Update 20:16 BST (15:16 CST)

    Baby Cheyenne has been taken out of CPS custody by the sheriff, who has taken over the whole case. She is being seen by a sexual abuse specialist. There were also abrasions on her vaginal area.

    • And the original reason for removing those children from their parents? I seem to recall reading that their had been a suspicion of the mother having post partem depression in the past?

      Somebody needs to wake up and take a hard look at the criteria for eligibility to be foster parents in that state!

      • Bottom Line says:

        From what I understand, the original reason for taking the baby was (as the affidavit stated) that Mr. Irish was a member of the “militia”(as THEY call it) “Oathkeepers” …and owned firearms. I think they were trying to make him out to be some sort of extremist as an excuse to steal their baby.

        Also, I think there was some sort of issue with the mother’s ex-husband having PSTD from the gulf war. The same foster parents that allegedly did this also had/have custody of her other two children from her previous marriage.

        I don’t know all of the details, but as a guess, I’d say that there was no real grounds for taking any of their children.

        Personally, I don’t think anyone has the right to take a child away from their parents. I have a real issue with CPS organizations. Often, motivated by government funding per child taken, they will make up some BS excuse to kidnap someone’s child…then the child ends up missing, beaten, molested, killed, etc.. while in the system.

        By posting this, I am just trying to raise awareness.

        • Bottom Line says:

          oops… I meant PTSD(Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder), not PSTD.

          • Judy Sabatini says:

            But, BL, they can also be beaten, molested and killed by their own parents too as you are well aware of. How many stories have you read or seen about babies or little kids being abused by their parents, sexually molested, limbs broken, having the crap beat out of them. Not all foster parents are like that, but I know there are those out there that are like that. I have read and seen way too many stories about abusive parents who have had their kids taken away, but only to be returned to them, and it starts all over again, and then it has a tragic ending. So, then what?

            • Bottom Line says:

              For me it is a question of rights and responsibility.

              In no way do I condone child abuse. As despicable as I find child abuse to be, I would argue that it is the right of a parent to decide on whether or not to abuse/neglect THEIR child.

              Also there is the question of subjectivity. What may be considered abuse/neglect to one person, may not be to another. Who is to say what is “abuse/neglect”?

              I.E. – One might feel that it is okay to spank a child while another may consider it abusive. One might feel that it is acceptable to feed their child junk-food all day, while another would consider it negligent.

              And by supporting the right of a government contractor(CPS) to kidnap a child on a subjective premise, you also support their right to kidnap YOUR child on a subjective premise.

              (yes, I know…yours are already all grown up, but you get the point)

              • Judy Sabatini says:

                Yes, BL, I get the point, and yes I think the parent has a right to spank a child if needed, but not to the point where there are bruises and broken bones, black eyes, and what have you. I don’t think it’s kidnapping as you say when the child is taken from their parents if there is any kind of abuse going on.

                Let me tell you a story and I want your honest answer on it and tell me it’s not abuse here.

                My son worked in ER this summer, and 3 times, this same little boy came in. Once was cuts and bruises on him, the next time, bumps and lumps, with more bruising, and the 3rd time, a broken shoulder. His mother said he kept falling off his bike, they asked him what happened, he said his mother and her boyfriend did it to him, she said no, he’s wrong, her story kept changing, they asked him again, what happened, he told them again, his mother and boyfriend did it too him, they asked his mother to leave the room, they asked him again, but this time show them what happened, he showed them how his mother twisted his arm so much, it broke his shoulder. Yes, they called the cops, they came and arrested her, took him to CPS and as it turned out, his mother and boyfriend had been using drugs at the time.

                Now, are you going to tell me that’s not child abuse? In my eyes it is, I don’t know what you consider child abuse, and at what time that said child should be removed or left there in the parents care. Is death by parent considered abuse?

              • Bottom Line says:

                Judy,

                You and I both agree that that is definitely abuse. And to add, I think she is a despicable piece of shit for doing such a thing.

                However unfortunate, It is her RIGHT and RESPONSIBILITY as a parent to decide what is appropriate for her child…even if it means breaking his arm.

                HER child is NOT MY RESPONSIBILITY, nor do I have a RIGHT to supersede her judgment, deem her unfit, and have HER child kidnapped.

                And yes, I mean “kidnap”. If you take a child contrary to the parents’ permission, it is kidnapping…regardless of the reason.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                It is her right and responsibility even if it means breaking the kid’s arm!?

                What about the rights of the child in such a case?

              • Judy Sabatini says:

                No BL, I have to disagree with you on that. It’s not her right to physically do harm to her child that way, that’s still abuse in my eyes. If you want to call it kidpnapping that’s your choice, but I find it trying to save that child from more harm.

                And I have to agree with what Buck said too, what about the right of that child? Or do they not get any?

              • I can land somewhere in the middle here…the woman and boyfriend you speak of…if what is represented is true…deserve everything they get. I think that CPS, or whoever took the child, should be damn sure that they are correct…to the point that if they are wrong, it is considered criminal.

              • I gotta ask BL-if we shouldn’t have an agency to watch over the rights of children and it isn’t any of your business-than just what do you suggest we do-because I know you don’t want children abused. I also know these agencies overstep all the time. But an all or nothing attitude seems dangerous. And if you believe that government shouldn’t get involved than it seems to me that individual men would need too.

              • Judy Sabatini says:

                Question for you BL

                What would you do if you happen to see a woman or man beating the crap out of a child, and I mean physically doing that child harm. My question to you is, would you not intervene and try to stop that person from doing any more harm to that child? Or would you just keep going and consider it not your responsibility to try and help that child because you might think that said child had it coming to him/her?

              • Bottom Line says:

                Buck The Wala – “What about the rights of the child in such a case?”

                BL – The child has a right to defend himself by whatever means necessary. If that means popping a cap in someone(mom,boyfriend), or running away, so be it. Also, I would think that “dad” has a responsibility to put “mom” in check.

                V.H. – “than just what do you suggest we do”

                BL – Nothing. It isn’t our responsibility, and isn’t our right to intervene.

                V.H. – “But an all or nothing attitude seems dangerous.”

                BL – It isn’t my attitude that is dangerous, but rather people that abuse children.

                V.H. – “it seems to me that individual men would need too.”

                BL – I agree. Where’s the father? Does he not care?

                Judy- “What would you do if you happen to see a woman or man beating the crap out of a child, and I mean physically doing that child harm.”

                BL – I would…

                A – Try to appeal to her conscience…draw her attention to what she is doing to her child.

                B – Nothing, bite my tongue, walk away before I snapped some lady’s neck.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                “That child has a right to defend himself”

                That may work well enough when the child is older, but a young child? toddler? infant?

                You look towards other individuals to step in who do have a direct role in that child’s upbringing, such as the father (if the mother is beating the child) or vice versa. And if they’re not around? Or if they also beat their child?

              • Judy Sabatini says:

                I would hope you would do A BL.

                That was a hypothetical question I was asking, and I’m sure you wouldn’t let anyone beat the crap out of any child, if they weren’t able to defend themselves in any way.

              • Bottom Line says:

                Buck The Wala- “…but a young child? toddler? infant?”

                “And if they’re not around? Or if they also beat their child?”

                BL – I would suggest that a close family member should decide, otherwise, it’s VERY VERY unfortunate for the child.

              • Bottom Line says:

                Buck,

                And what about a fetus?

                Should we call CPS on women that get abortions?

                Where do you draw the line of rights and responsibilities?

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Abortion is a completely different issue, and one I am not going to get into at the moment.

                I am a bit surprised by your ‘not my problem’ attitude when it comes to a child being beaten by their parents, though. Too bad for the child just doesn’t cut it in my book.

              • Bottom Line says:

                Buck The Wala – “Abortion is a completely different issue”

                BL – Not really. If you murder a pregnant woman, you get charged with a double murder…which means that the unborn is recognized as a living being.

                So which is it(abortion)? Is it abuse of a defenseless child, or within your right to do as you choose with what is yours?

                Should we NOT take an “it’s not my problem” attitude with abortion?

                Again I ask… Where do you draw the line of rights and responsibilities?

              • Buck the Wala says:

                As I said, not getting into abortion at the moment.

                But lets go back to the defenseless living and breathing child. The 5-year old getting seriously smacked around by his father. No other family around to stop him. Child is too young and defenseless to do anything.

                Too bad for the kid??

                Also, do you really seek to classify this as an issue of ‘your right to do as you choose with what is yours’? So a child is nothing more than something you own and can do with as you please?

              • Bottom Line says:

                Buck The Wala – “Too bad for the child just doesn’t cut it in my book.”

                BL – So you are against abortion?

                I don’t really like the idea of murdering an unborn child either, but unless it is MY unborn child inside her, I don’t believe it is my RIGHT to prohibit a woman from having an abortion. Too bad for all of those unborn children.

                🙂

              • Bottom Line says:

                oops – That was supposed to be a sad face

                😦

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Changes the whole meaning around!

                Gotta continue this another time – I’m out…

              • Wow, unless I have misunderstood your line of questioning-you are trying to show that Buck holds a contradiction but you don’t- so somehow your correct and he’s wrong-but what you have no contradiction on is: 1)it’s okay to murder(your word, which shows you know it’s wrong) an unborn baby as long as it’s your choice 2)it’s okay to beat a child to the point of harm as long as it’s your child. Lord help us!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

              • Bottom Line says:

                Below…

              • Bottom Line says:

                Buck The Wala – “do you really seek to classify this as an issue of ‘your right to do as you choose with what is yours’? So a child is nothing more than something you own and can do with as you please?”

                BL – Do you NOT?

                So since a child has their own rights independent of their parents, are you suggesting that you would allow your child to do heroin if they so choose?

                I’m just trying to find consistency here, Buck. Where do you draw the line?

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Obviously a parent has broad broad latitude in raising their own children and making decisions on their children’s behalf.

                Me allowing my 5-year old child to take drugs would be very similar to my beating my child half to death in the harm my actions are causing the child, so not sure how me advocating AGAINST your ‘right’ to beat your child would be akin to me advocating FOR your ‘right’ to give heroin to your child.

  14. Black Flag:

    How about an economic update from your wise perspective.

  15. I was surprised to see this in The Daily Bell today:

    http://www.thedailybell.com/1443/Dreamtime-of-the-Baby-Boomers.html

    As a result of reading McGowan’s extensive dozen-part series called “Wagging the Moondoggie,” we have a much harder time believing NASA or its astronauts went anywhere at all, other than to some sort of lunar-look alike Hollywood set.

    • Have you ever seen the stars at noon? I have.

      Those who have never lived through history always seem to doubt that the history ever took place.

      • I didn’t say I believed it. I found it interesting that The Daily Bell covered McGowan’s series called “Wagging the Moondoggie”.

  16. http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/104816414.html

    Groups protest voter fraud ads
    Rick Wood
    Community leaders gather Tuesday in front of a billboard at W. Morgan Ave. and S. 22nd St. to protest billboards that they say are meant to suppress the minority vote.
    Billboards aim to keep minorities from polls, they say

    By Georgia Pabst of the Journal Sentinel

    Oct. 12, 2010 |(193) Comments

    Several community groups Tuesday condemned billboards throughout Milwaukee that warn “Voter Fraud is a Felony,” saying they are an attempt by right-wing sources to intimidate and suppress minority voting.

    At a press conference in front of one of the billboards at S. 22nd St. and W. Morgan Ave., the groups called on Clear Channel Outdoor, the owner of the billboards, to take down the ads and disclose who paid for them.

    The bottom of the billboards, which show people behind jail bars, the words “We Voted Illegally” and the penalty for voting illegally, disclose only that the billboards were paid for “by a private family foundation.”

    “We’re tired of these tactics and signs like these that keep various groups from participating,” said Jayme Montgomery-Baker, state director of the League of Young Voters. “There are so many other issues we should be talking about, like jobs, education and health care.”

    The Rev. Ken Wheeler, pastor of Cross Lutheran Church and a member of the Milwaukee Innercity Congregations Allied for Hope, or MICAH, said: “The message is offensive and implicitly and explicitly creates a climate of fear in the African-American community that was historically denied justice and discouraged from voting.”

    Scot Ross, director of the liberal One Wisconsin Now, said that after a 20-month investigation the state attorney general prosecuted only 11 people for voter fraud. He said the issue of voter fraud had been used by Republicans and the right wing to discourage college students and minorities from voting.

    “This is not the Republican Party of Wisconsin, and we have no idea who or what group is behind these billboards, or what their intentions are,” said Andrew Welhouse, communications director for the Republican Party in Madison.

    Although he hadn’t seen the billboards, Welhouse said it appeared to him that the message was clear: When a vote is illegally or fraudulently cast, it takes away a legal vote, and that can be important in a close election.

    • http://blogs.browardpalmbeach.com/pulp/2010/10/broward_democratic_chairman_mitch_ceasar.php

      When the 2000 presidential election was stuck in Broward County and the world watched the recount, Democratic Chairman Mitchell Ceasar talked a lot about the sanctity of elections and votes.

      Everyone deserves to have his or her vote counted, he said over and over again. It was a basic American right. “There are people all over this country and certainly Florida who feel that a great disservice has occurred, that their votes were not counted accurately or at all,” he solemnly told the Herald.

      But when it comes to his own power base in the Democratic Party, those high ideals go out the window. Ceasar runs his party like a despotic fiefdom, say numerous party insiders, with more ballot-stuffing and vote-fixing than the worst of the old ward system in his native Brooklyn. And in one of the Democrats’ most important national strongholds, it has turned the party into a

      bitterly dysfunctional mess that does little to help Democratic candidates or anyone else other than Ceasar and his profiteering loyalists, like Diane Glasser, Barry Harris, and Jack Shifrel.

      To understand the level of Ceasar’s hypocrisy — and the cause of so much outrage by on-the-ground Democratic activists — ask only one question:

      Where are the ballots?

      During Ceasar’s contentious reelection as chairman of the Democratic Executive Committee in 2008, there were rampant allegations of election fraud against him. An official complaint was filed with the state party; affidavits were submitted alleging ballot stuffing, wrongfully banning anti-Ceasar voters, stacking the rolls with pro-Ceasar voters who weren’t qualified (some unregistered to vote, according to affidavits, some who were actually Republicans), and myriad other irregularities.

      Deutsch
      ​The only way to get to the bottom of that election, as any other, was to inspect the ballots and do a recount. That was the first order of business for Ceasar’s challenger in the election, former Congressman Peter Deutsch.

      When the vote was over, the ballots disappeared.

    • And forgive my bias, but so far, every story of voter fraud I have read about, Texas, Ohio, Florida & Wisconsin, has been by the Democrats. I tried to check
      out the NY Board that DoJ is charging for failure to send military ballots, but could not find their party affiliations.

    • NO, now it’s more of a felony to make a truthful statement. Scaring people with a statement of fact- Sorry but I give people more credit and if I was part of the minority I would be insulted by this argument.

      Somehow showing ID is a problem too-the only problem that doesn’t seem to matter is voter fraud or actually getting the ballot to our soldiers over seas. Funny, my daughter had to have an ID to go to a concert-but it’s asking to much to have one to vote.

    • Obama and Company trying to pull a fast one to keep his old seat in the D column?
      By Ed Lasky, American Thinker

      There is a very tight Senate race going on for the Senate seat once held by Barack Obama before his Ascension. The Republican, Mark Kirk (a military reservist)is in a tight race with the Democrat Alexi Giannoulias, Illinois state treasurer who has close ties to Barack Obama and the Cook County machine. There has been a fair amount of mudslinging between the two sides but there seems to be some mischief coming from on high. Illinois has been tardy in getting ballots out to our men and women serving in the military and thus their votes may not count in November.

      WLS reports from Chicago:

      The U.S. Justice Department is investigating whether the state of Illinois missed the deadline for mailing absentee ballots to members of the military and other overseas American voters as part of a new federal overseas voting law.

      Cris Cray, Director of Legislation at the Illinois State Board of Elections, says not all of Illinois’ 110 jurisdictions were compliant with the 2009 Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment Act (MOVE).

      The law requires every state to mail their absentee ballots 45 days prior to Election Day to overseas troops, government employees and other Americans who want to vote from abroad.

      Cray said it’s possible the ballots may not be counted because the state was tardy in sending them out.

      This is especially damaging to Mark Kirk since he is a military reservist and soldiers vote for Republicans over Democrats by a three to one ratio.

      But for the Democrats it is imperative that this seat be kept in Democratic hands. There will be a lame duck session where a lot of Obama-Pelosi-Reid’s agenda can be pushed through. Because the current Senator, Roland Burris, was appointed by the disgraced Rod Blagojevich, a new Senator when elected can be seated for the lame duck session and not have to wait until January. Therefore the Republicans need every seat they can in the Senate to stop further mischief. Beyond this need, it would be a blow to the pride of Barack Obama to have this seat be turned over to a Republican and not to Giannoulias — a person who so impressed Barack Obama by his ability to toss a basketball that Obama used his power to help get him elected to the state treasurer’s post (where he has failed miserably).

      The MOVE Act was passed in 2009 in reaction to ongoing problems with having overseas military votes counted. States have had time to prepare and abide by the law. Is it a bolt our of the blue that Illinois — a very blue state, home to Barack Obama and his cast of West Wing characters — somehow just let this slip off their to do list? All levels of state government are in the hands of Democrats, and Cook County — where the Democratic machine has been in operation for decades and where corruption is king — exercises a tremendous grip on what happens throughout the state.

      Could Rahm Emanuel and David Axelrod or their friends have just pulled a few strings, made a few phone calls to some key people and whispered that other things were more important than giving our soldiers the vote? Dirty tricks are the modus operandi of this Cook County gang (see also my recent column “Democratic Dirty Tricks: A Primer for Stealing Elections” for a further taxonomy of the tricks the Democrats have been playing as we approach Halloween and the witching hour of the November voting).

      What makes this inaction even worse is such skullduggery may have gotten a preemptive pass by the Department of Justice, headed by Eric Holder. The DOJ is charged with ensuring that all states abide by the Move Act and send the ballots out in time. Was the DOJ asleep at the switch? There are certainly signs that the problem may extend from Springfield to Washington.

      For months there have been numerous reports that the scandal-plagued Voting Rights division of the DOJ has been signaling to states that they do not have to worry about lawsuits for ignoring the Move Act law; that they could expect waivers from abiding by the 45 day requirement. The Washington Times:

      The Voting Section appears to be in no hurry to enforce the new law and, more problematic, appears to be hiding how many states have failed to comply fully with the MOVE Act. As one Wisconsin legislator recently stated, “If there’s no push from the feds, I’m not certain that we will see it happen,” referring to mailing absentee military ballots 45 days before the election.

      Could it be that Eric Holder and Barack Obama’s Justice Department have become tools to try to ensure Democratic dominance in Congress? Need one even ask?

      Let’s recall that Barack Obama from a very early time in his career made sure that his team was able to invalidate enough signatures on his opponents’ petitions to ensure that he faced no opposition when he ran as a state senator. Obama also engaged in redistricting gamesmanship to redraw boundaries to ensure he had a safe seat. When he ran against a tough primary opponent for the US Senate seat, news was mysteriously leaked that his opponent had been a wife abuser (David Axelrod, his campaign strategist at the time and now his domestic policy advisor, used to work for the Chicago Tribune- the paper that leaked the story right before the primary election). Obama came from behind in the wake of these reports and won the primary.

      When Obama than faced a well-qualified Republican candidate, news also leaked Obama’s opponent had taken his wife to a sex club-a visit that did not meet her approval (they later divorced and this history came to light when newspapers pealed open the closed divorce records).That opponent quite the race.

      Obama said during the campaign for the Presidency that if his opponents “bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun. ” Some things never change.

      Welcome to gangsta government.

  17. “TAPPER: Do you not understand the argument at all, that people in the public, sitting at home, watching their televisions at night, seeing campaign ads, would be better off, as good government groups argue, knowing who’s behind those ads? Not just conservative groups or liberal, any group, that it would be better off if the public could assess who’s behind the ads, or could assess the accuracy of the ads or the motivations of the ads, and part of that would be knowing who’s paying for the ads?”

    I actually agree that it would be best if we had this information but I know that any law passed would not be used to actually give us this information-It would just be used as a political tool to silence SOME of the people and organizations. I thought Josten did a good job of pointing out the hypocracy of this current emotional button pushing issue being circulated by this admin.

    “as good government groups argue” I also find adding the word GOOD in his question is how do I say this-revealing.

    Chamber of Commerce: The White House Wants Our Donor Lists So Its Allies Can Intimidate Our Donors

    October 13, 2010 11:10 AM
    PrintRSS
    Share:
    Email
    More
    FarkTechnoratiGoogleLiveMy Space
    NewsvineRedditDeliciousMixxYahoo

    Tuesday afternoon, I spoke with Bruce Josten, executive vice president for government affairs at the US Chamber of Commerce, about the White House pressing the Chamber to release its donors list, after President Obama seized on a ThinkProgress report suggesting that since some Chamber money comes from foreign multi-nationals and foreign-based Chamber affiliates, foreign money may be being spent on the Chamber’s political ads.

    TAPPER: What’s your reaction to this controversy?

    JOSTEN: My reaction is to stay focused on what I’m paid to do, which is represent the interests of the business community in this town before the Congress and the administration and the branches and agencies of the federal government and that is exactly what we intend to do.

    TAPPER: They’re suggesting, based on a ThinkProgress report, that since you do get some money from foreign companies and from AmChams, which are based in other countries, essentially foreign money is finding its way onto the American air waves to fund political attacks on politicians you are trying to defeat.

    JOSTEN: Well it’s a sad day and a last gasp I guess by this administration and their outside allies, and I wouldn’t call the ThinkProgress blog a report Jake, I would recognize it’s a liberal blog, subset of the Center for American Progress, which is run by the president’s transition campaign director John Podesta, that made a lot of inferences and clearly Al Fang who is the author of that blog doesn’t even understand what an American Chamber of Commerce abroad is.

    It’s a Chamber of Commerce, just like in the United States, members of which abroad are comprised of the American companies in that foreign country conducting business which provides them an association opportunity to compare notes on problems and challenges they may be having with respect to that trade relationship, where they can dialogue and advocate and, and represent their interests before whatever host foreign government that is.

    We have 115 of them as Chamber of Commerce of the United States members in 108 countries, paying de minimis dues out of a $200 million budget of around $100,000. We have had and welcome foreign multinationals that have a huge presence in the United States, in fact, no news here, some have been members of ours for over a century, many for decades. Their footprint in the United States is substantial, they comply with all the same laws and regulations as American companies. We strongly favor foreign direct investment in the United States. So we’re not troubled by that.

    It seems to me we’ve got an administration that in the final run up here, I guess we’re about three weeks away from Election Day, surprisingly rather than run on their legislative record of the past two cycles, two years, they’ve stooped to name-calling and trying to somehow entice us into a partisan political debate about campaign finance funding. When they’re simultaneously silent, for example, on the single largest campaign involved in the ’08 elections and probably in the 2010 elections and that’s and that’s organized labor who itself boasted of spending $420 million in ’08 to elect this current majority and the president. Three of the primary unions out of organized labor, the AFL-CIO, AFSCME and the SEIU back in May announced they were going to combined spend, just those three, $150 million to protect incumbents in this election.

    So, despite the fact that this Chamber supported this administration on TARP, on stimulus, on the auto rescue plan, on No Child Left Behind changes, on stem, which is the science technical engineering math issue with training teachers and students in this country, when we’re aligned we don’t seem to hear a lot. When we are policy adversaries, as we have been on health care, much aligned with the vast majority of the American public I would add, where we’ve been a different position than them, on the financial reg form issue, they seem to not take kindly to people who speak out and speak their views to represent the issues of other parties, which is exactly what we’re doing. So we do not declare that we use any foreign money to fund any of our issue advocacy activities.

    And as has been reported, and as I’m sure you know Jake, organizations across the political spectrum, if you go to the AFL-CIO website, you’ll see half of the unions, nearly half listed have the word international in their name.

    (NOTE: Josh Goldstein of the AFL-CIO says “That couldn’t be more misleading. ZERO unions in the AFL-CIO are foreign and further, the dues the unions pay to be a part of the federation ONLY come from American workers.”)

    They have international members, the Sierra Club does, the National Rifle Association has international affiliations. Nothing new here at all. We’ve got an administration and some of its allies in and outside of Congress seem to us desperately lying– trying to change the subject away from the economy, away from near double digit unemployment, trying to smear and demonize our name and our brand for, I guess, objecting to some of their policies and what seems to be, you know, 11th hour attempt to try to fire up and galvanize a dispirited, disappointed democratic base and top silence us in the process.

    TAPPER: What Gibbs said today, when asked about this, is that there is a relationship, directly with the economy and with this discussion that they have about who’s funding your ads specifically, because, a lot of Chamber members would object to some of the changes that the Obama administration is trying to make when it comes to, for instance, Wall Street. And if organizations such as the Chamber are trying to elect a lot of Republicans who will revisit those new regulations — or to use Gibbs’ words, bring things back to the way they were before the financial crisis — that there is a direct relationship. And that’s his argument.

    JOSTEN: His argument falls, you know, flat, you know, and as a guy who’s a spokesperson for an administration he should do a little bit of homework before he opens his mouth with those kind of comments.

    First off, two years before this president was elected, my institution, the US Chamber of Commerce, formed a bipartisan committee to look at the entire financial regulatory marketplace. It was co-chaired by Richard Daley, a democrat from Chicago, and a member at the time of Goldman Sachs who was a vice chairman. And they came forth and called for regulation, it’s not surprising because you have financial products, such as derivatives and default swaps, terminology Americans have come to learn as a result of the crisis, that not only were not regulated, they were off balance sheets.

    We called for modernizing the regulatory system, we highlighted the fact that you had regulatory agencies in silos and in tunnels that didn’t even share information, didn’t talk to each other in terms of systemic risks. And by the way, I would quickly add, Mayor Bloomberg in New York and Senator Schumer had a commission and it found the same finding.

    Those recommendations, two years before this entire financial crisis hit in the last year and the last months of the Bush administration, were ignored.

    We’re under no obligation as any organization or association in the United States is, to divulge who its members are, who its contributors are. We are under legal obligations to account and have an accounting method that ensures that in our accounts that funds or any aspect of money that comes from a foreign source is not in any way utilized in any political sense. We ensure that we do that

    What this administration wants is a list of who the companies are who are contributors, and we saw last year, Jake, why, when we very publicly ran ads against the Patients Protections and Affordable Care Act, quoting the CBO, quoting the head of CMS, the Centers for Medicare Services, that it would not in fact bend the cost curve down, that it would bend the cost curve up as they testified before the senate finance committee, there was an attempt to try and find out who were the corporations that were contributing to that effort.

    When some of those corporate names were divulged, not by us, by others, what did they receive? They received protests, they received threats, they were intimidated, they were harassed, they had to hire additional security, they were recipients of a host of proxies leveled at those companies that had nothing to do with the purpose of those companies. So we know what the purpose here is. It’s to harass and intimidate.

    Much like we’ve seen in California with ballot initiatives — when the proponents of ballot initiatives’ names have been divulged to the public — those people were harassed, they were threatened with violence and they were intimidated.

    TAPPER: Do you not understand the argument at all, that people in the public, sitting at home, watching their televisions at night, seeing campaign ads, would be better off, as good government groups argue, knowing who’s behind those ads? Not just conservative groups or liberal, any group, that it would be better off if the public could assess who’s behind the ads, or could assess the accuracy of the ads or the motivations of the ads, and part of that would be knowing who’s paying for the ads?

    JOSTEN: Well, look there’s plenty of groups that do fact checks on ads for public consumption. There’s been a lot of fact checks done in fact recently with the administrations kind of flailing allegations towards us. This is an attempt to change the subject. This has nothing to do with what you suggested. We put our name as a disclaimer, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, paid for by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, on our ads.

    We don’t shirk, and people know who we are, they know we’re a business organization, they know we represent business interests, they know that the money to pay for our activities come from businesses that voluntarily contribute. Now that’s entirely different than some of the ad hoc groups like moveon.org, if you will, we’ve been around for almost 100 years. I don’t think the American public is confused about who we are.

    But the good government groups know as well as I do, because there’s been studies done on it, with respect to disclosure, that forcing people to comply with disclosure rules in order to exercise their First Amendment, ultimately results in people remaining silent or uninvolved with little or no benefit to the public because it squelches speech.

    The seminal Supreme Court case, I would remind your listeners, was NAACP vs. the state of Alabama, in 1953 I believe, when certain people wanted to know who the white Americans that were promoting integration in this country over segregation and out those people to harass them. The Supreme Court decided then. Hell no was the answer.

    TAPPER: You mentioned the companies, the foreign companies, foreign multinationals that have been members of yours for a long time. Can you understand in any why some Americans might think, “well look, the money’s going in to the general account of the Chamber, how do they know that that money is staying segregated from the money that is funding political activities? Why can’t there be some assurance?”

    JOSTEN: They know that, they have the same assurance from us they had from this administration when it raised $400 million in 2008, much of it from undisclosed sources that was helped to elect president Obama and the current congressional majority. And they know as much from us as they do from the AFL-CIO, as I just mentioned with nearly half of its affiliates having international in their name with international members. Look, if you’re in the business that we are in, you are audited annually by the IRS, your activities are reviewed consistently by the federal election commission and others, that’s fine with us, because we comply with all the laws.

    I think this has nothing to do with the suggestions here, I think this has to do with a desperate administration, trying to change the subject away from what they have been doing, which is what the American people want to talk about, which is economy and jobs. Not this.

    TAPPER: But why not just settle the dispute by opening your books?

    JOSTEN: I’ve explained to you, we’re not going to subject our contributors to harassment, to intimidation, and to threats and to invasions of privacy at their houses and at their places of business, which is what has happened every time there’s been disclosure here.

    I would note that the same people, in this administration and the congressional majority, that supported the so-called DISCLOSE act. If you take a look at that legislation, Jake, you’ll find fascinatingly that it somehow amazingly carves out the single biggest monolithic contributor to elections: organized labor. 420 million bucks in 2008.

    As government contractors, employees as government contractors, they’re exempt, as recipients of government exams– grants, they’re exempt. Corporations with government contracts would not be exempt. They pick a funding level of $10,000 or more, average union dues is $380 annually for the 15 largest unions. You know they have disclaimer requirements that enables union affiliates to transfer up to $50,000 back and forth between themselves. they could set up an independent group to fund ads from.

    It’s very specific in this language in the Senate bill, and the House bill. It goes to great lengths to carve out a certain class of speaker, corporate speakers, and it goes to great lengths to carve in organized labor as speakers.

    TAPPER: Last night, in a Wisconsin senate debate, the republican Ron Johnson who is backed by a lot of the Tea Party forces, certainly no friend to the Obama administration said that he thought that the Chamber should disclose. Does it bother you at all that your losing the arguments when you hear republicans like Ron Johnson say things like that?

    JOSTEN: No, it does not bother me at all, it does not convince me that I am losing the argument. What it does it convince me that the attempts of this administration to try and push people that we have endorsed, or we are supporting, on their heels to be defensive over a flap that they’ve contrived out of foreign money on a liberal blog financed in terms of start-up by a guy by the name George Soros, got into the mainstream media, and the mainstream media has by and large rejected it, quite appropriately, so no it doesn’t bother me.

    TAPPER: Are you worried at all that this is damaging the reputation of the Chamber?

    JOSTEN: Well so far, we don’t have any proof that it has done that, it has certainly upped the profile of the Chamber. So I suspect and I hope that people are paying even more attention to the ads that we have up in this cycle, as the president is drawing more and more attention to us.

    And specifically since we’re the only group out there talking about issues, unlike the administration or the democrats running, I hope that the American people are drawn to pay attention to our issues.

    A year ago when we ran issue ads across this country, hundreds of them, against the patients protection and affordable care act, citing the CBO report, citing the Center for Medicare Studies–Services report, the companies that got divulged publicly were harassed, were intimidated.

    TAPPER: How?

    JOSTEN: The outside allies of this administration, the SEIU, the AFL-CIO, HCANN – Health Care Action Now network and Moveon.org, all combined and coordinated protests at those companies, at the CEOs’ homes in some cases, as they did here with us. And they began a proxy campaign, through outside groups, the Center for Political Accountability, and another group, Walden Asset Management. This is a game, ok? And they like to play that game out. So it’s clear that the game here is to harass and intimidate.

    When I cited what took place in California, there is a gentleman who has done research for the Institute for Justice in California, on Prop 8 and what happened with the CA marriage protection act, when personal information about those donors to support Prop 8 was posted on the internet.

    It led to death threats. It led to physical violence, vandalism and economic reprisals from against those people and their homes. So we know, how the public, if outed in supporting some controversial causes, if you will, we know what happens. We know what happens to our people.

    TAPPER: There are a lot of people, progressives, liberals, who think this is just a bunch of rich people trying to protect their interests, trying to pass laws using their clout, and they don’t want to be held accountable at all and so they give money to the Chamber, the Chamber then tries to defeat people who are not necessarily working in the interests of these corporations, and that this is just a matter of Fat Cats doing what Fat Cats do.

    JOSTEN: Pretty fascinating, I mean who’s the principal start-up supporter of MoveOn, and again the Center for American Progress. He’s a Fat Cat under your definition, named George Soros and the Sandler family.

    TAPPER: Right.

    (Note: Doug Gordon from MoveOn writes to say: “MoveOn was started in 1998. It got a one time donation from Soros in 2004. He did not give before and has not given since. To say he is the ‘principal start-up supporter’ is just a flat lie.”)

    JOSTEN: But that’s acceptable I guess.

    TAPPER: I’m not saying one’s accepta –

    JOSTEN: When the other side puts up money to have a dialogue, which is what we would prefer to have, a dialogue around the issues, not a tit for tat bric brac of outlandish claims of inference which may be juicy to some in the press. Let’s get serious. I don’t think the American public is swayed by outlandish claims made even by the President or his spokespeople and minions.

    TAPPER: One thing that David Axelrod said to me yesterday was the fear is not even about the Chamber, but the fear is that these campaign laws — since they allow unlimited contributions, for political ads that can attack candidates and no disclosure rules, depending on how the group is incorporated — the fear is a business can now go to a member of Congress, say “Vote this way, and if you don’t, I form the Americans for Truth and Beauty Committee and run $3 million in negative ads and defeat you in your next election and nobody will know who’s behind it.” Given that fear, that’s not Chamber specific—

    JOSTEN: This was Axelrod saying this?

    TAPPER: Well, I’m, I’m paraphrasing him, but something along those lines, yes.

    JOSTEN: He’s really stretching.

    TAPPER: But do you not understand why some people might say, “Let’s just have full disclosure of everything”?

    JOSTEN: Well so far Jake, what I’ve heard you offer me is Gibbs and Axelrod in a fantasy land, stretching and stretching and gasping and gasping for the next straw to grab onto here. Ok. Look, reality, I repeat, the single biggest outside funder, almost monolithically in the 2008 elections, was organized labor, under their boasting of $420 million.

    We, the US Chamber, spent $33 million in issue ads. The Citizens United case, by the way, has absolutely nothing to do with issue advocacy advertising at all. Period. What Axelrod is talking about is how to deal with independent expenditures and corporations being able because the case was predicated upon the fact that media corporations, up until Citizens United uniquely had that right.

    And Citizens United said, wait, the SC ruled, you can’t select certain speakers. So they granted the same legal rights to unions and corporations. I would suggest however, that you will not see corporations do what Axelrod or you paraphrased, because they have employees that are Republicans, Democrats, and independents, they have shareholders that are Democrats, independents and Republicans, vendors and suppliers that are Democrats, independents and Republicans.

    Corporations don’t do that. We the US Chamber aren’t doing independent expenditures with the magic express advocacy words of ‘Vote for, Vote against.’ Again, we draw a distinction on a member of congress’ vote on a specific issue and discuss the issue. So there’s a lot of confusion of a deliberate nature it sounds to me, listening to your paraphrasing of Axelrod since I didn’t hear him, that has nothing to do with the Citizens United Case whatsoever.

    TAPPER: I said this wasn’t necessarily related to the Chamber issue, I was talking about this to —

    JOSTEN: I know, but look, Target corporation in Minnesota, which is a very progressive company and exceptionally progressive with respect to the gay and lesbian community in that state, out some money behind a ballot initiative in that state on economic growth. And it just so happened that one of the people running for governor connected to that, is anti gay and lesbian rights. That company has had a boycott, they have been attacked, they have been harassed, and there have been attempts to demand, if you will, that they make equal contributions to other outside groups. Even though their history in that space speaks eloquently for itself.

    So, what happens here is intimidate, harass, and try and push people away from participating in the process. We have no intention of not participating in the process.

    -Jake Tapper

    http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/10/chamber-of-commerce-the-white-house-wants-our-donor-lists-so-its-allies-can-intimidate-our-donors.html

    • VH,

      JOSTEN is good! Amazing how Tapper kept coming back only on the Dem. talking points. Death threats and intimidation aren’t worth exploring.

      http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/jeff-poor/2010/10/12/hume-asks-about-undisclosed-08-obama-donors-wake-whs-chamber-witch-hunt

      why a president that claimed he was going to change the status quo in Washington is hanging his hat on allegations generated by a left-wing George Soros-funded operation, allegations that remind the public that Obama has never answered questions about funding for his 2008 campaign.

      “Amid high unemployment and widespread sentiment across the right and center that Obama and his party have gone too far left, even well-established Democratic politicians in such Democratic strongholds as California and New England are vulnerable,” Hume continued. “Thus, a president and the party who campaigned on hope and change ceases on an unsupported claim that originated on a left-wing website to raise dark questions about secret and foreign influence in the election. And never mind that a still undetermined amount of cash flowed in to the Obama’s campaign two years ago from donors who used prepaid credit cards and other devices that hid their actual identities.”

      Host Bret Baier asked if there were any developments on the questions surrounding Obama’s 2008 campaign, which seem to have been forgotten about two years later just as these allegations have arose.

      “We don’t. And back at the time, there was one woman who was down on the campaign finance list as having given almost $175,000 to the Obama campaign,” Hume replied. “She was well out in Missouri. She got a telephone call from The Washington Post to ask her about it. She said she hadn’t given any money. That scores of other contributors, we still don’t know who they are, had given that money in her name.”

    • Josten did an excellent job. Tapper was trying hard to get Gibbs/Axel/Dems point to stick and he wouldn’t let it.

  18. History 101:

    Humans originally existed as members of small bands of nomadic hunters/gatherers. They lived on deer in the mountains during the summer and would go to the coast and live on fish and lobster in the winter.

    The two most important events in all of history were the invention of beer and the invention of the wheel. The wheel was invented to get man to the beer. These were the foundation of modern civilization and together were the catalyst for the splitting of humanity into two distinct subgroups:

    1 . Liberals, and
    2. Conservatives.

    Once beer was discovered, it required grain and that was the beginning of agriculture. Neither the glass bottle nor aluminum can were invented yet, so while our early humans were sitting around waiting for them to be invented, they just stayed close to the brewery. That’s how villages were formed.

    Some men spent their days tracking and killing animals to BBQ at night while they were drinking beer. This was the beginning of what is known as the Conservative movement…

    Other men who were weaker and less skilled at hunting learned to live off the conservatives by showing up for the nightly BBQ’s and doing the sewing, fetching, and hair dressing. This was the beginning of the Liberal movement.

    Some of these liberal men eventually evolved into women. They became known as girlie-men. Some noteworthy liberal achievements include the domestication of cats, the invention of group therapy, group hugs, and the concept of Democratic voting to decide how to divide the meat and beer that conservatives provided.

    Over the years conservatives came to be symbolized by the largest, most powerful land animal on earth, the elephant. Liberals are symbolized by the jackass for obvious reasons.

    Modern liberals like imported beer (with lime added), but most prefer white wine or imported bottled water. They eat raw fish but like their beef well done. Sushi, tofu, and French food are standard liberal fare.. Another interesting evolutionary side note: most of their women have higher testosterone levels than their men. Most social workers, personal injury attorneys, journalists, dreamers in Hollywood and group therapists are liberals. Liberals invented the designated hitter rule because it wasn’t fair to make the pitcher also bat.

    Conservatives drink domestic beer, mostly Bud or Miller. They eat red meat and still provide for their women. Conservatives are big game hunters, rodeo cowboys, lumberjacks, construction workers, firemen, medical doctors, police officers, engineers, corporate executives, athletes, members of the military, airline pilots and generally anyone who works productively. Conservatives who own companies hire other conservatives who want to work for a living.

    Liberals produce little or nothing. They like to govern the producers and decide what to do with the production. Liberals believe Europeans are more enlightened than Americans. That is why most of the liberals remained in Europe when conservatives were coming to America . They crept in after the Wild West was tamed and created a business of trying to get more for nothing.

    Here ends today’s lesson in world history:

    It should be noted that a Liberal may have a momentary urge to angrily respond to the above before forwarding it.

    A Conservative will simply laugh and be so convinced of the absolute truth of this history that it will be forwarded immediately to other true believers and to more liberals just to piss them off.

    🙂

  19. 8)

  20. October 14, 2010
    A scholarly study of tea party signs shows little racial animus
    Rick Moran, American Thinker

    Who are you going to believe when it comes to the lack of racist signs at tea party rallies? The liberal media or someone who scoured “the crowd, row by row and hour by hour, and taking a picture of every sign she passed…?”

    A UCLA grad student did an in depth study at last month’s tea party rally on 9/12 and cataloged each individual sign. She found that only 5% mentioned the president’s race or religion and only 1% questioned his birthplace. Most of the signs reflected what tea partiers have been saying all along they were about; limited government and opposition to Obama’s spending schemes:

    Ekins’s conclusion is not that the racially charged messages are unimportant but that media coverage of tea party rallies over the past year have focused so heavily on the more controversial signs that it has contributed to the perception that such content dominates the tea party movement more than it actually does.

    “Really this is an issue of salience,” Ekins said. “Just because a couple of percentage points of signs have those messages doesn’t mean the other people don’t share those views, but it doesn’t mean they do, either. But when 25 percent of the coverage is devoted to those signs, it suggests that this is the issue that 25 percent of people think is so important that they’re going to put it on a sign, when it’s actually only a couple of people.”

    Ekins spent the summer researching the tea party movement and also as an intern at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank in Washington. The survey was for her UCLA graduate studies.

    The manipulation of images in this case was startling. One would think watching the coverage that the majority of tea partiers were expressing race hatred at Obama in the way the media dwelt on the most problematic signs. This turns out not to be the case which begs the question; will we see any retractions or corrections from those who were pushing this meme?

  21. More wonderfull economic news. Wish I knew where this was heading, where that is can’t be good.

    Larry here with a heads-up on an imminent event that’s about to rock global markets and could change history forever.

    Right now, gold is quickly closing in on the $1,400-per-ounce level … getting ready to explode to the $1,500 level … and on a beeline for our medium-term target of $2,000 per ounce.

    Commodities are rip-roaring higher at an even faster pace.

    Nearly every alternative to fiat money we’ve been recommending is going through the roof.

    But the truly BIG event I want to warn you about right now is none of the above. It’s the fact that …

    The once-mighty U.S. dollar — the reserve currency of the entire world and the global standard of value for nearly a century — is sitting at a fatal tipping point of unprecedented importance.

    Look how much the dollar has already fallen in this decade. And look how close it is to another major collapse of similar — or even greater — dimensions!

    Mark my words: If the U.S. Dollar Index falls through the double lows it made in recent years near the 77 level … watch out below! There’s absolutely NOTHING in the charts — and NO ONE in power — that can stop it from a free-fall.

    Already, early this morning, while most U.S. investors and traders were sleeping …

    — Beijing drove the yuan up to record highs by dumping dollars. This is what American authorities asked for, and now they’re getting it! But as we’ve been warning all along, with the rising yuan they’re also getting something they had not reckoned with — a major acceleration in the dollar’s global collapse.

    — Singapore’s central bank also dumped U.S. dollars to help defend its economy against the inflationary impact of a collapsing greenback.

    — Other major countries are contemplating similar moves.

    Meanwhile …

    — The Australian dollar hit a new 28-year high against the dollar!

    — The Thai baht has now moved to a fresh new 13-year high against the dollar!

    In all my years, I have never seen so many savvy investors … so many big hedge funds … and now so many governments — running so fast from the U.S. dollar.

    But it’s hardly surprising when you consider the monster they see — the still-sinking U.S. economy … the unprecedented Fed promise to run the money printing presses … and the great uncertainties of the upcoming U.S. elections.

    • Interesting read.

      The Fabian Society began in England in 1887 by a very small group of elitist socialist that sought to reform society gradually into one of socialism instead of through violent revolution. At first their purpose was to be an alternative in Britain for the more dominate Marxist Social-Democratic Federation, but their true goal was to accomplish socialism through a very gradual process using the voting booth and representative democracy as their instrument of change. In fact, one of their symbols is a Turtle with the motto: “When I Strike, I Strike Hard”. Another symbol is the Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing and the Globe on an Anvil being hammered into the Fabian model.

      The Fabian Plan for gradual Socialist Revolution was as definitive as it possibly could be, to say it has been a conspiracy is simplistic in the extreme. It instituted a widespread educational program for its leadership and its minions, as time progressed, it opened schools, such as the London School of Economics, and the New School of Social Research.

      One stroke of genius was that instead of advocating a Socialist State, they assisted in the implementation of the Welfare State, which as we should all know is merely a few steps away from a purely Socialistic State. It was, of course, implemented gradually, and played upon the weaknesses of human nature to gain popularity. Unlike the usual Socialist points of views, the Fabians didn’t advocate complete State ownership of businesses, industry, agriculture or land, instead they sought to involve the State into very specific areas of importance such as electric power production, transportation, precious metals and of course, credit. The remaining balance of economic systems would be left to the private sector however; it would be highly regulated by the State and operated according to the wishes of the State.

      If you look at Britain, you will see that they accomplished their goals with ease and while American has been more difficult, the goals are the same and they have made enormous advances toward those goals, as we all know. Much of their accomplishments have been realized without using that dreaded word: Socialism. They have brought the Fabian Dream to America through an extremely brilliant system that has been openly accepted by the voters of this country without the hint of suspicion on their part that they were voting a Socialistic system into place.

      Now, make no mistake about it, Fabian Socialists are Statist, they are absolutely authoritarian in their philosophy. Their long-term goal has always been a Socialistic Dictatorship with full-imposition of a very legalistic society where the individual is simply a part of the collective. An example of this can be found in the writings of one of the founders of the Fabian Society, George Bernard Shaw speaking of the Socialist Utopia, he said: “Under Socialism, you would not be allowed to be poor. You would be forcibly fed, clothed, lodged, taught, and employed whether you liked it or not. If it were discovered that you had not the character and industry enough to be worth all this trouble, you might possibly be executed in a kindly manner; but whilst you were permitted to live, you would have to live well.”

      Of course, all of this would be in the best interest of society as a whole and the whole made up simply of parts, individuals merely cogs in the machine of social justice. This idea of social justice is the biggest selling point and perhaps the easiest to peddle to the people. Programs of social reform, incremental at first, allowed for the tempering of the people; allowing for them to grow accustom to the intervention of the State in the affairs of the individual. Of course, such reforms are never an end unto themselves only stepping-stones to a greater Socialist construct of society.

      Regarding the great strides made toward these goals, Max Beer stated with confidence: “There was no reason for Socialists to wait for revolution. The realization of socialism had begun the moment when the State became accessible to social reform ideas.” Indeed, the revolution was already half realized at the moment when the State stepped over the threshold of progressive social construction and intervention into the private lives of the people.

      The first step in any Socialist plan is the reform of capitalism, when the capitalist system is sufficiently neutralized the rest comes relatively easy. The first step to an efficient plan of capitalist neutralization is control over the money supply and for that a central bank is required along with a fiat monetary system, in this country that was initiated with the advent of the Federal Reserve. Later, of course must come effective controls over major infrastructure and services, all accomplished through the New Deal. The New Deal accomplished substantial feats toward the Fabian Socialist construct with numerous price controls, quotas, subsidies, inspections, regulations, licenses, fees, penalties and massive government interventions into what was formerly private enterprise. Although you would never hear politicians of either political party to admit to support the ideals of socialism, they nevertheless not only support such measures, but also promote them.

      We have recently seen a greater push toward socialism, though few realize it. The government is assuming more and more responsibility for and authority over the economy, all under the guise of protecting the people from potentially unscrupulous free marketers. We are being moved yet another step closer to the dream-society of the Fabians. Of course, these are simply steps, essential parts to a much broader agenda, one that is authoritarian in nature and execution, even the centrally planned economy is a mere step, not the end product. It is all carefully crafted, manufactured to ensure the most popular support possible for “people-friendly” solutions while instituting a fraudulent system of central control over the unsuspecting public. The system has been marketed to the public, one specific component at a time, each component essential to the completion of the whole and that is the brilliance of this gradual imposition of Fabian Socialism in this country.

      The greatest bulwark against tyranny in America has always been the system of private ownership and free enterprise, it is the cornerstone of our system of government and without it our freedoms and liberty are in jeopardy. Central economic planning is, in a very basic sense, the keystone to Fabian Socialism, for in order for it to succeed, central State planning and control must replace the system of free enterprise. While it was not necessary for the State to actually own or directly control all the elements in the economy it is enough for the State to have the right to assert itself in any area that it deems necessary. The Fabians called it “the democratization of economic power”, in other words socialized and centralized control over economic direction within the country.

      In 1942, Stuart Chase, in his book “The Road We Are Traveling” spelled out the system of planning the Fabians had in mind; the interesting thing is to look at that plan in comparison to 2008 America.

      1. Strong, centralized government.

      2. Powerful Executive at the expense of Congress and the Judicial.

      3. Government controlled banking, credit and securities exchange.

      4. Government control over employment.

      5. Unemployment insurance, old age pensions.

      6. Universal medical care, food and housing programs.

      7. Access to unlimited government borrowing.

      8. A managed monetary system.

      9. Government control over foreign trade.

      10. Government control over natural energy sources, transportation and agricultural production.

      11. Government regulation of labor.

      12. Youth camps devoted to health discipline, community service and ideological teaching consistent with those of the authorities.

      13. Heavy progressive taxation.

      It should be evident that while Socialist no longer use the name that the plan is Socialism at its heart. The Fabian Socialist Revolution began in earnest in this country in 1933 with the imposition of the Welfare State and has been steadily progressing since. Those who are promoting this system, whether in the Republican Party or Democratic Party, are nothing less than Traitors, guilty of a type of high treason that deserves the most punitive penalty for such treachery. Listen carefully to the propositions of both McCain and Obama; I suspect that you will quickly find both of their positions are not only similar, but propose in essence and detail the Fabian Socialist construct. The system that these marauders are imposing upon us will ultimately alter our system of government beyond recognition.

      It is all accomplished with the utmost respectability of course, they would not dream of such an imposition without popular support and they will make sure that they have popular support.

      In 1933, they proposed that private enterprise had failed leaving the jobless to starve, hope to fade and that the State must step in to save the country and protect the people from the dangers associated with the inherent problems of free enterprise. Today, the call is very similar, the State must step in to protect the people. The Corporate State is, in the minds of Fabians, the ultimate protector of the common man, the provider of security on all fronts, but it requires our complete compliance and the relinquishment of our liberty in exchange. The State is to ultimately be the only one allowed wealth, the problem is that wealth is the people’s wealth confiscated in exchange for their hard labor. It is, in essence, a plan for a modern feudal society of peonage and the people are the peons.

      Proofs of a Conspiracy? Look around…

      In Liberty and Eternal Vigilance,

      Republicae-Seditionist

      • Unfortunately, too many people look at warnings such as this one as an exaggeration. After all we believe in freedom-we wouldn’t let it go that far. Yet, if you ask progressives-What is the stopping point-When does a few socialistic programs become too many-How much freedom should we give up before we say No more. They never have an answer-They don’t seem to realize we passed that POINT a longgggggg time ago. Part of the problem, sorry BF and others, is that they portray all who are against them as anarchists. And then they get the definition of anarchist wrong too. We are portrayed as no-government, selfish people who only stand for ourselves and would happily let everyone else die. Here’s an example from the man who personally makes my brain explode:

        http://www.theblaze.com/stories/matthews-chilean-miners-would-be-dead-if-they-followed-tea-party-philosophy/

      • Good postings G-Man and VH.

        There are a lot of forces at work to destroy us – I don’t think that is too strong a word to use. I’ve just recently read up on this Fabian Society.

        VH – Chris Matthews is a dolt; his comments regarding the Tea Party/miners showed how ignorant he is.

  22. Words and deeds on education reform
    John Fund has this at the WSJ’s Political Diary:

    The White House wants to have it both ways on education reform. This week, President Obama hosted an Oval Office meeting with the young students featured in the popular education reform documentary “Waiting for Superman.” The film follows five young people as they struggle to escape failing public schools by winning a lottery for seats in better-performing charter schools. Politics Daily reported that the meeting “was, perhaps, tacit approval of the film’s message,” which “lays much of the blame for the country’s underperforming schools squarely on teachers.”

    But just two days after the White House meeting came news that Michelle Rhee is resigning as head of Washington D.C.’s public school system. For three years, Ms. Rhee has shaken up the dysfunctional system by firing incompetent teachers, closing failing schools and forcing a more performance-based work contract on local teacher’s unions. The union didn’t forget, and when D.C. Mayor Adrian Fenty, who had appointed Ms. Rhee, ran for re-election this year, they poured over $1 million into the race to defeat him. Last month, Mr. Fenty narrowly lost the Democratic primary to Vincent Gray, a union-backed candidate, making Ms. Rhee’s departure a fait accompli.

    Though President Obama had spoken highly of Ms. Rhee and Mr. Fenty, who was one of his earliest supporters in 2008, the president was notably AWOL while Mr. Fenty was fighting for his political life. Despite public pleas from Mr. Fenty, Mr. Obama didn’t even offer his endorsement much less campaign for his friend. Andrew Rotherham, a senior fellow at the Progressive Policy Institute, said the decision was “a pretty deliberate move” by the Obama White House. “There was a calculation that they wouldn’t get involved in the race” regardless of the high stakes for the nation’s most visible effort to fix a moribund public school system.

    White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs dismissed questions this week about whether President Obama had any second thoughts about his failure to support Mr. Fenty. “I don’t think the president has any regrets about not getting involved in a mayoral race,” he told Politics Daily. “The important work of Michelle Rhee and Arne Duncan and others has to continue, regardless of the outcome of elections.” . . .

    http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/

    Does anyone really think that the pressure on unionized teachers will continue?

    • What a shame to lose Rhee. I’m hoping she will continue to work outside the mainstream (on the lines of what Sarah Palin is doing), to bring attention to the need for reform.

  23. 401K’s are back in the news. This lameduck session ought to be…..interesting?

    http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=39336

    New Lame Duck Threat to Bailout Union Pensions

  24. October surprise???

    Happy voting, serfs…

    http://www.zerohedge.com/article/plaza-accord-20-it-coming-it-here

  25. Judy Sabatini says:

    This is for the gals on here, hope you enjoyed it as much as I did.

    This is so funny! Hope you have a good laugh over it.

    This is an “actual letter” from an Austin , Texas woman sent to
    Proctor and Gamble regarding one of their feminine products. She really
    gets rolling after the first paragraph. This was PC Magazine’s 2009
    Editors’ Choice award-winner for the best letter sent via e-mail.

    Dear Mr. Thatcher,

    I have been a loyal user of your ‘Always’ maxi pads for over 20
    years and I appreciate many of their features. Why, without the
    LeakGuard Core or Dri-Weave absorbency, I’d probably never go horseback
    riding or salsa dancing, and I’d certainly steer clear of running up and
    down the beach in tight, white shorts.

    But my favorite feature has to be your revolutionary
    Flexi-Wings. Kudos on being the only company smart enough to realize how
    crucial it is that maxi pads be aerodynamic I can’t tell you how safe
    and secure I feel each month knowing there’s a little F-16 in my pants.

    Have you ever had a menstrual period, Mr. Thatcher? I’m guessing
    you haven’t. Well, my time of the month is starting right now. As I
    type, I can already feel hormonal forces violently surging through my
    body. Just a few minutes from now, my body will adjust and I’ll be
    transformed into what my husband likes to call ‘an inbred hillbilly with
    knife skills.’

    Isn’t the human body amazing?
    As Brand Manager in the Feminine-hygiene Division, you’ve no
    doubt seen quite a bit of research on what exactly happens during your
    customers’ monthly visits from “Aunt Flo”. Therefore, you must know
    about the bloating, puffiness, and cramping we endure, and about our
    intense mood swings, crying, and out-of-control behavior. You surely
    realize it’s a tough time for most women. In fact, only last week, my
    friend Jennifer fought the violent urge to shove her boyfriend’s
    testicles into a George Foreman Grill just because he told her he
    thought Grey’s Anatomy was written by drunken chimps.? Crazy!

    The point is, sir, you of all people must realize that America
    is just crawling with homicidal maniacs in Capri pants… Which brings
    me to the reason for my letter. Last month, while in the throes of
    cramping so painful I wanted to reach inside my body and yank out my
    uterus, I opened an Always maxi-pad, and there, printed on the adhesive
    backing, were these words: ‘Have a Happy Period.’

    Are you f—— kidding me? What I mean is, does any part of
    your tiny middle-manager brain really think happiness – actual smiling,
    laughing happiness, is possible during a menstrual period? Did anything
    mentioned above sound the least bit pleasurable? Well, did it, James?
    FYI, unless you’re some kind of sick S&M freak, there will never be
    anything ‘happy’ about a day in which you have to jack yourself up on
    Motrin and Kahlua and lock yourself in your house just so you don’t
    march down to the local Walgreen’s armed with a hunting rifle and a
    sketchy plan to end your life in a blaze of glory.

    For the love of God, pull your head out, man! If you have to
    slap a moronic message on a maxi pad, wouldn’t it make more sense to say
    something that’s actually pertinent, like ‘Put down the Hammer’ or
    ‘Vehicular Manslaughter is Wrong’.

    Sir, please inform your Accounting Department that, effective
    immediately, there will be an $8 drop in monthly profits, for I have
    chosen to take my maxi-pad business elsewhere. And though I will
    certainly miss your Flex-Wings, I will not for one minute miss your
    brand of condescending bullsh!t. And that’s a promise I will keep.

    Always. . …

    Wendi Aarons
    Austin , TX

  26. Black Flag,

    Do you think the “Bank Holiday Weekend” is rapidly approaching? If so, should we do anything about those balances? Do we withdraw the cash, pay the next monthly bill a little sooner, etc?

    • Cyndi,

      No, I don’t think a “Bank Holiday” is in the near future.

      However….

      … who knows?

      I personally pay cash for everything possible – I don’t use Credit Cards or Debit cards.

      I withdraw all but a minimum to pay my online bills from my account and hold cash in hand – always.

      Reason #1: I am doing my small part in destroying the Fractional Reserve system. It requires people to store their cash in an account electronically. Holding real cash reverses the Fractional Reserve – for every dollar in real cash, $9 of “debt” money disappears out of the economy.

      Reason #2: I don’t trust banks.

      • Thanks.

        I wish I could live without the CC, but that’s impossible here.

        I’m lile you in that I don’t trust the banks/financial system.

      • I’ve learned another good reason to limit the use of a debit card. If I order something and pay with a check I can stop payment on the check. You cannot stop payment on a debit charge-if you authorize it-it can go through-you then have, at least at my bank, I don’t remember exactly 60 or 90 days to dispute the charge-not sure what good that will do if they already have the money .

  27. Judy Sabatini says:

  28. Bottom Line says:

    VH – “Wow, unless I have misunderstood your line of questioning-you are trying to show that Buck holds a contradiction but you don’t- so somehow your correct and he’s wrong-but what you have no contradiction on is: 1)it’s okay to murder(your word, which shows you know it’s wrong) an unborn baby as long as it’s your choice 2)it’s okay to beat a child to the point of harm as long as it’s your child. Lord help us!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!”

    Yes VH, you have misunderstood…sort of.

    My stance is about RIGHTS, RESPONSIBILITY, and SUBJECTIVITY.

    In terms of the concept of subjectivity, no one can say what another does or believes is wrong or right. There is no consistency because everyone has their own independent definition of morality,rights,responsibility,values,etc…

    I’m not necessarily trying to pin Buck down with a contradiction, I am merely trying to define where Buck draws the line.(his “Bottom Line” if you will) But Buck ran out of time, so Buck hasn’t yet defined as such.

    The only REAL consistency (IMHO) is that which is consistent with the natural order of the universe.

    I.E. – NATURAL inalienable rights.

    IMHO, you have no responsibility beyond that which is yours, and have no right to encroach on the rights of others(what is theirs). That is to say that it is not your right or responsibility to decide on which is not your own.

    In the case of a child. I personally do not believe that it is right to abuse or neglect a child in any way. I believe that children are to be respected and treated with MUCH TLC. But my definition of TLC or abuse may differ from another’s. It is not within my right to decide for another on how they raise their child and if they are doing wrong or right. Therefore, it is not my right to intervene, nor is it my responsibility.

    Buck argues that it IS within one’s right to decide for another in the case of child abuse. So, according to Buck, it is okay to deem someone unfit and steal their baby according to BUCK’S definition of abuse…as in the case of physical injury to a defenseless child, toddler, or infant.

    The reason I used abortion is because it is a gray area that can be used to determine the “Bottom Line”.

    If a fetus is a life, according to Buck’s definitions, then it is a defenseless child that should not be abused(murdered/aborted). And therefore the mother should be deemed unfit and action should be taken to protect said child. But from what I have gathered, Buck is pro-choice, which is an apparent contradiction to his defined reasons for intervention in another’s affairs.

    I am also, pro-choice…simply because I recognize that it is not withing my right to decide the morality of the affairs of another. The only exception to my pro-choice stance, is in the event that it is MY child inside her womb…which IS INDEED within my right and MY RESPONSIBILITY to protect.

    According to the law(which Buck the liberal statist so vehemently defends in his life and “practice”), a fetus is a life, but is not a life. It is a life sometimes, but not others. It IS NOT a life in the case of abortion, but IS a life in the case of killing a pregnant woman. So, according to the law, a woman cannot murder her own child but someone else can. And according to the law, a woman that murders her own child can be sent to prison, but cannot be sent to prison for murdering her own child.

    Get it?

    • I do get your point on abortion as far as the contradiction BL. But I agree with Buck on people having a moral obligation to intervene. I admit that determining when someone should intervene can create problems but I will never believe people should just stand by and do nothing in the situation described because it isn’t their right to do so or because the parents have a right to so-if a court thinks I overstepped they can charge me with something.

      • Bottom Line says:

        Where do you draw the line on when to intervene?

        When is this “moral obligation” justified?

        How does YOUR definition of abuse compare to the definition of others?

        Should you call CPS on someone for feeding their children candy all day, or spanking them too hard, or not bathing them often enough??

        What is too much candy? What is too hard? What is too dirty?

        Should others have the “right” to take YOUR kids away if THEY feel that YOU haven’t taken care of YOUR children to THEIR standards?

        🙂

        • Where do you draw yours?
          Should people stand by while someone beats their child to actual physical harm?
          Should people stand by while people put their children in cages as punishment and almost starve them to death?(true story)

          I’m not going to discuss this from the view point of whats okay and what isn’t-obviously the government oversteps. I understand your argument and I understand that nothing will ever be perfect. Bad stuff will always happen-no matter what we do. But again we cannot throw out common sense and allow people to mistreat children just because they are their children-one extreme is as bad as the other extreme. The only argument for one over the other is that individual man and woman would use their common sense to stop obvious mistreatment. But if everyone wants to make the case that no moral obligation exists -all it leaves is allowing horrible acts to go unchallenged, which is unacceptable IMO.

          • V.H.

            But you have it backwards.

            The onus is on you to prove that your ethics are universal

            You cannot justify acting upon another unless your ethics are absolute.

            You have yet to demonstrate this at all.

            • And I suppose the way one does that is to get rid of any contradictions-but your contradictions argument seems to be based purely on the definition of freedom-I happen to believe that there are other principals besides freedom and I have not figured out how one holds to the definition of freedom in all things and at all times without being unjust to those who need help and protection such as the sick, disabled and the young. If you have, good for you, I will have to let my commonsense guide me.

              • V.H.

                And I suppose the way one does that is to get rid of any contradictions

                Ridding oneself of contradictions is a requirement in EVERY search for a truth – but it does not mean you will find it.

                You CANNOT find it while in a contradiction though.

                -but your contradictions argument seems to be based purely on the definition of freedom

                That is your ongoing issue.

                You are trying to defend your position based on my position. You can not. You are not me.

                You cannot (or you have not) ever defended your position from YOUR points. They never exist.

                -I happen to believe that there are other principals besides freedom

                EXPOSE Them and defend them by reason! and not by some mushy muck emotionalism.

                If you believe there is something “else” – present it and prove it is worthy of ALL HUMANITY and not just for you!

                Why?

                Because you insist on imposing it on everyone else

                and I have not figured out how one holds to the definition of freedom in all things and at all times without being unjust to those who need help and protection such as the sick, disabled and the young.

                UNJUST???

                What is your definition???

                You mean if God gives you no legs, its my fault????

                If you have no legs, go argue with God but leave me alone.

              • I’m still thinking -but you are right -I am trying to justify my beliefs using the definition of freedom-when I believe that freedom and moral obligation at least on an individual level must walk together to build a society that will last and be civilized. On this I feel no contradiction because moral obligation to me simply means an attitude of I should when I feel it is right to do so. Not I should be forced by another to help. But when it comes to societal moral obligation, it means force, it means giving up freedom-which is a contradiction which I do not feel comfortable with but I am not comfortable with the alternative either.

                So, I cannot rule out society fulfilling that moral obligation completely when I see the harm that can be done to individuals and to society if no one has a right to intervene in some situations.

            • TexasChem says:

              BF Stated:”You cannot justify acting upon another unless your ethics are absolute.”

              TC:If we had an absolute ethics applied throughout society their would be no more wars and violence!On a side tangent let me state that as long as there exists an absolute ethics amongst some cultures and societies which condones violence I have every right to justify acting upon another as long as my actions are considered consistent with the natural order of the universe!Hence my beliefs in Natural Law!

              Some religious and political idealogy; just does not support an absolute ethics which is consistent with the natural order of the universe!Now, does it BlackFlag?!?

              • Texaschem

                BF Stated:”You cannot justify acting upon another unless your ethics are absolute.”

                TC:If we had an absolute ethics applied throughout society their would be no more wars and violence!

                Your claim is completely untrue.

                One can hold an ethic that guarantees violence and war – as exampled by current Western political landscape.

                On a side tangent let me state that as long as there exists an absolute ethics amongst some cultures and societies which condones violence I have every right to justify acting upon another as long as my actions are considered consistent with the natural order of the universe!Hence my beliefs in Natural Law!

                If this is your claim, you give Right to all others to use violence upon you in any manner they see fit.

                Some religious and political idealogy; just does not support an absolute ethics which is consistent with the natural order of the universe!Now, does it BlackFlag?!?

                ALL religious ideology and ALL political ideology DOES NOT support absolute ethics.

                It is impossible.

          • Bottom Line says:

            VH – “Where do you draw yours?”

            BL – I draw mine where my responsibility ends and another’s begin. If it isn’t my responsibility, then it is not my right either.

            It’s not your responsibility to feed and house the world, …so how is your right to say what they eat or where they live?

            You have no obligation to take care of anyone else’s child, so how is it your right to decide what is best for them?

            Like Flag’s point about being absolute…how is it that some things are your right to intervene, but not others?

            If you can tell someone that they aren’t treating their child right, you can tell them what to eat, what to wear, what kind of car to drive, what to believe, etc…

            Just because it hurts your feelings to see them beat their kid doesn’t give you the right.

        • This is where social mores come in. I can do all sorts of non-violent things to influence your actions, and I do not require universal justification, because if I am just being “too picky” then my influence will have little effect.

          That said, if i see someone beating a defenseless child and doing damage, not spanking but actual attempt to harm, I am not going to appeal to their better nature and sense of propriety. I am going to appeal to their sense of self-preservation. I will let them know that if they hit the kid again they will be beaten just as unmercifully by me. If the threat does not work, I will back up that threat.

          Children are not property, you cannot apply the “right to do what you want with what is yours” to child rearing. That said, I agree that others do not have authority to intervene by taking the child away, etc. I do, however, have the right to exercise influence. In the case of violent action on a child, my “influence” may have to include a little violence as well due to the special nature of the situation.

          • Jon-why would you say people wouldn’t have the right to intervene as far as taking away a child-if what the parent is doing goes against the child’s rights. Would the parent not be breaking the law by imposing on the child’s rights? Should the child go back home where ones ability to physically intervene would be gone.

            • Because I don’t trust the takers any more than the parents, in almost every case I trust them less. I have met a lot of wards of the state and in general their lives are worse than the kids with psycho parents. Not in all cases, but in enough that I am not buying into a “right” to take kids away. There might be a point where I could support such an act, but it would likely be close to the point where the parents could not keep the child because they had been beaten up too much by concerned citizens.

              BL, I would also ask why you think another family member (not including the two parents) have any more rights to a child than a stranger that gives a crap? What makes “family” special according to your philosophy?

              • Bottom Line says:

                Jon Smith – “BL, I would also ask why you think another family member (not including the two parents) have any more rights to a child than a stranger that gives a crap? What makes “family” special according to your philosophy?”

                BL – Because rights and responsibility are connected. Family has a responsibility above that of a stranger, therefore has more of a right, but still does not supersede that of the parents’. At best, family’s rights/responsibilities are nominally equal to the parents’. For lack of a better explanation, I’ll call it a right via default. Think of it like this…when you write up your last will and testament, who gets your kids when you die? Typically with most, a family member does.

              • That is typical, yes, but if we are talking is terms of rights, we are not talking in what is typical nor really even of responsibility. If we are talking in terms of responsibility, it could just as easily be argued that I have a responsibility to help the helpless people that are suffering violence. Why does the responsibility of a parent override the responsibility I have to defend a child from a beating?

              • Bottom Line says:

                For the same reason that they cannot decide for you that your children
                need a spanking, then take them and spank them.

    • Bottom Line,

      I would argue that it is the right of a parent to decide on whether or not to abuse/neglect THEIR child.

      It is her RIGHT and RESPONSIBILITY as a parent to decide what is appropriate for her child…even if it means breaking his arm.

      You can’t be serious? Parents should be allowed to abuse and neglect their children? You think someone else close to the family should intervene, but what right to they have to do that?

      I guess that’s the ‘bottom line’ when your anarchy is allowed to run it’s course.

      When your ‘philosophy’ allows abuse and neglect of children, it shows just how disconnected you are from reality.

      This entire story has been blown out of portion by the right-wing. Did you even read the original stories? The issue is domestic violence by the father – not the ex-husband. You have completely misrepresented the facts the fit your little view of the world.

      Oath-keepers and guns are valid information when taken in the entire context so authorities know what they might encounter when they approach the family.

      Everything else in the right-wing blogs is just quoting the dad, who I wouldn’t trust.

      Why isn’t this story in any of the MSM? Do you think they would ignore this? What about Fox News – no mention of this. Are they now liberal sheep too?

      How will you feel when this baby is back at the hospital from actual abuse by her parents?

      Oh that’s right, you think that’s their right…

      • Todd,

        As typical, you have no understanding of rights so your argument is bizarre.

        The child has no less and no more rights then the parent.

        But first and foremost you have NO RIGHT regarding the matter at all! You are a total stranger and completely so off in left field a telescope couldn’t find you!

        Child abuse is an abuse of the child’s rights, no matter who does the abuse.

        However, you better come really clear on what you define is abuse because so far it is so specious to be pointless.

        • Buck the Wala says:

          “Child abuse is an abuse of the child’s rights, no matter who does the abuse”

          Yet, no one has the right to step in to protect the child?? I’m a bit confused here – what precisely would you suggest doing in such a situation?

          • Buck,

            Do you, Buck, have the right to enforce the rights of another person?

            • I’ll jump in on this. Yes, you have the right. But, you have to accept the consequences of your actions.

              • Hi Pretzel 🙂

                I must disagree with you answer. Individuals have the right of “self defense”. That would include defending your family, property and self. Beyond that, it is NOT a right to enforce the rights of others, it is a choice.

                As an example, if you run to the aid of a stranger getting his butt kicked by 4 or 5 people, and start shooting them to enforce the rights of that stranger, you will be hung by the law and may have just saved a child rapist.

                Peace!

              • G-MAN,
                I understand what you are saying. That is what I meant by accepting the responsibility of your actions. One needs to think and be sure before he acts

              • Yes, but it’s not a “right” but a choice. I have the “right” to eat as I choose, but cannot force what I eat on you. Nor can you force your food upon me (and No Matt, I’m not eating your veggies). See the difference?

        • Ah yes, more mellow-drama from Black Flag…

          So, let’s walk thru this…No violence on the non-violent…only you can determine what is violence against you…only you can determine when/what the appropriate response is, right?

          So, how does this work for a young child? They do not have the capacity to determine when violence is being used against them, nor the capacity to respond. If their parents are inflicting this violence, or not stopping it if inflicted by others, who should step in on their behalf?

          It seems no one in your little world…

          • Todd,

            Answer the question I asked of Buck.

            • No – you answer my questions – for once.

              • Todd,

                I did. I ask Buck a question.

                Before one can respond with clarity, one needs to understand your thinking, first.

                I find your thinking very unclear and whimsical. The question will eliminate some of that mist.

              • My answer is “Yes”.

                Now answer my questions.

              • Todd,

                If you believe a stranger has the right to enforce the rights of another stranger, then any stranger has the right to enforce those rights.

                Agree or disagree?

              • I answered your question.

                Now it’s your turn – answer my questions.

              • Todd,

                I did answer your question.

                I answered:
                “If you believe a stranger can impose upon another to enforce that other’s rights, then any stranger can impose upon anyone to enforce the other’s rights – (and additionally) even if that other does not want that stranger to impose as such

                In other words, Todd, you believe a person can enforce another persons rights even if that other person does not want such an enforcement!

                You have created an interesting situation!

                A person who holds the right to enforce their rights are now not able to do so by your demand! You claim you can interfere whether or not that person – whose rights you wish to enforce – wants you to do so.

                Thus, you actually break a person’s rights by you – on your demand – enforcing them!

                Good job tripping over yourself, sir!

              • See #44 below.

      • Bottom Line says:

        Todd – “You think someone else close to the family should intervene, but what right to they have to do that?”

        Refer to the above answer that I gave Jon…

        “Because rights and responsibility are connected. Family has a responsibility above that of a stranger, therefore has more of a right, but still does not supersede that of the parents’. At best, family’s rights/responsibilities are nominally equal to the parents’. For lack of a better explanation, I’ll call it a right via default. Think of it like this…when you write up your last will and testament, who gets your kids when you die? Typically with most, a family member does.”

        • Bottom Line says:

          Todd – “When your ‘philosophy’ allows abuse and neglect of children, it shows just how disconnected you are from reality.”

          BL – When your philosophy allows you to decide when and how to intervene in the affairs of others, there are no boundaries.

          Is THAT your version of reality?

          Should someone be able to decide for you that your children aren’t getting enough discipline, take them, and ground them to their room for a month, spank them, take away their stereo, etc…?

          • Bottom Line,

            Should someone be able to decide for you that your children aren’t getting enough discipline, take them, and ground them to their room for a month, spank them, take away their stereo, etc…?

            More drama-queen.

            The issue is not a child misbehaving or getting a spanking from a parent. The issue is clear abuse – like a broken arm. I think there has to be a way to protect children when families fail them.

            • Bottom Line says:

              Don’t get me wrong, Todd. I think breaking a kids arms is abuse. We all agree on that. It’s horrible. But the mother is the one that decides what is abusive to her child, and if abuse is appropriate.

              So what you’re saying is:

              I might consider you not feeding your kids a proper diet as clearly being abusive, therefore I have the right to take them from you?

              You might consider me not spanking my kid as not teaching them proper lessons in life, and not giving them the proper amount of discipline, which could be considered negligence, therefore you have the right to take them from me and spank them?

        • Bottom Line,

          “Because rights and responsibility are connected. Family has a responsibility above that of a stranger, therefore has more of a right, but still does not supersede that of the parents’. At best, family’s rights/responsibilities are nominally equal to the parents’. For lack of a better explanation, I’ll call it a right via default. Think of it like this…when you write up your last will and testament, who gets your kids when you die? Typically with most, a family member does.”

          So now you’re deciding who has a right to step in? How close does the family member have to be? Parent? Sibling? Fourth cousin from out of state?

          And if no family members step in, the abuse and neglect are just allowed to continue?

          • Bottom Line says:

            Todd – “So now you’re deciding who has a right to step in? How close does the family member have to be? Parent? Sibling? Fourth cousin from out of state?”

            BL – I was thinking of more like a grandparent or a sibling…Someone close. My point was of default. No one has the right to supersede a parent’s authority over their child, but if the parents are unable to make judgment as in the case of being handicap, mentally ill, death, or similar such circumstances, then it falls back on a family member as it is arguably more their responsibility that the state or a stranger. Perhaps a family member is one that can rightfully say “HEY ASSHOLE!, QUIT BREAKING YOUR KIDS ARMS!”

            Understand the word “DEFAULT”

            • Bottom Line,

              “HEY ASSHOLE!, QUIT BREAKING YOUR KIDS ARMS!”

              And if there are no other family members to step in, or if they don’t step in, or if the parents don’t listen, then what?

              • Bottom Line says:

                …Then too bad for the child.

                As much as it pains me to say that(and it very much does), it is where I draw the line in terms of rights and responsibility.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                So the child has no rights of its own? A parent has the right to beat their child to the point of broken bones? To beat their child near death? To kill their child?

                No offense, but that’s a pretty crappy place to draw the line.

                Let me ask you something else – in your view, if you see a man being beaten by a stranger, are you able to come to his aid without infringing on anyone’s rights? If yes, why are you then unable to come to a child’s aid when it is the parent doing the beating?

              • Bottom Line,
                I agree with Buck. You need to re-evaulate that “line” you’re drawing and the definition of terms like “rights” and “responsibilies”. If you think it’s Ok to let a parent abuse their child…well, I don’t know what to say…that’s about a low as it gets.

                As much as it pains me to say that(and it very much does)…

                Yeah, right. As much as it pains you – you still don’t give a shit.

              • Bottom Line says:

                BTW – “in your view, if you see a man being beaten by a stranger, are you able to come to his aid without infringing on anyone’s rights?”

                BL – I would argue that neither of them are my responsibility. And the difference between your example and a parent abusing their child is that the man doesn’t have any rights or responsibility to the other man.

                Buck,

                If you have the right to intervene to protect a child from their parents according to your standards, then you have the right to tell someone they cannot have an abortion, That they cannot spank their child, that they cannot feed them improperly,that they have to abide by YOUR standards in all of their parenting practices,that you have the right to intervene in their marriage, in ALL of their personal affairs, etc…

                You can’t say that it is okay to intervene in this case but not that case. Either you do or you don’t.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Absolutely wrong and not at all what I am saying.

                I am not arguing that I have a responsibility to step in to save someone being beaten by a stranger. I am just saying that, if I choose to do so, I may without violating anyone else’s rights (no one has a right to beat up someone else). The same holds true for a parent beating a child. I’m not sure how you can’t see that.

                You keep extrapolating to imposing my standards on all aspects of child rearing. I’ve never argued for anything remotely like this. This is a very narrow point — if someone is being beaten by another, regardless of having a familial relationship, I would be justified in stepping in if I so chose to protect the victim. It is an extension of my right to defend myself; I may also defend another.

              • Bottom Line says:

                Below #47

              • No, I am sorry, you cannot just walk away from a problem in the name of philosophical consistency. If your philosophy results in evil, then you need to work on your philosophy.

                Someone is allowed to beat their child to within inches of their life = evil

                Someone is allowed to intervene and take your child because you gave them a candy bar = evil.

                So find another way, its not always one or the other. There are standards that can be set that can be consistent. Do not justify your current philosophy if there are obvious problem with it, but do not take an alternative that also has problems. Find a better way.

              • Bottom Line says:

                Todd – “Yeah, right. As much as it pains you – you still don’t give a shit.”

                You’re assertion is without merit.

                I may appear to be a heartless asshole, but I am just trying to put emotions aside and be logical and consistent with respect to rights and responsibilities.

                And it does indeed sadden me to know that ANY child is abused.

                I’m more sympathetic than I appear, probably more so than most.

                Believe it or not, there were several years of my childhood where I WAS that abused and neglected child. I’ll spare you the details as it isn’t exactly something I would like to talk about publicly at SUFA.

                So believe me when I say that I know EXACTLY how it feels to be that kid.

                But,this isn’t about our feelings, it is about rights and responsibilities.

      • Bottom Line says:

        Todd – “This entire story has been blown out of portion by the right-wing. Did you even read the original stories? The issue is domestic violence by the father – not the ex-husband. You have completely misrepresented the facts the fit your little view of the world.”

        BL – I made it clear above when talking to GA Rowe, that I did not know all of the details. All I know is someone stole another’s child and abused it. What else do you need to know? It’s pretty cut and dry. They had no right to steal their baby.

        Todd – “Oath-keepers and guns are valid information when taken in the entire context so authorities know what they might encounter when they approach the family.”

        BL – Either it is relevent or itisn’t. So, according to you, someone’s political affiliations and their right to bear arms are grounds for taking their baby? Why don’t they go steal ALL of the Oathkeeper’s babies?

        Todd – “Why isn’t this story in any of the MSM? Do you think they would ignore this? What about Fox News – no mention of this. Are they now liberal sheep too?”

        BL – I dunno. Why don’t you go ask them? Siting that the media hasn’t covered it means didly squat to me. If anything, the MSM’s support of something only lends to discredit it as they are usually 99% full of shit. I am no fan of FAUX news any more than I am the rest of them. If I am tuned into any MSM news outlet, it is to see what lies are being told. I do sometimes like to watch FUX (muted)while jamming to the stereo though. Damn! they have some fine women working there!

        Todd – “How will you feel when this baby is back at the hospital from actual abuse by her parents?”

        BL – Very sad of course. DUH!

        Todd – “Oh that’s right, you think that’s their right…”

        BL – Indeed. However sad the situation may be, I know when it’s not my place to intervene.

        • Bottom Line,

          All I know is someone stole another’s child and abused it. What else do you need to know? It’s pretty cut and dry. They had no right to steal their baby.

          No, you don’t know that, and it’s not that cut and dry. The baby was not stolen and there was no abuse by the foster parents.

          Here’s a link to the original story. The issue is domestic violence, but all you can focus on is the Oath Keeper’s part.

          http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/219670/couple-state-took-our-baby

          But according to an affidavit provided to Irish by the state Division for Children, Youth and Families, state officials took the child because of Irish’s long record of violence and abuse. According to the affidavit, a judge determined that Irish abused Taylor’s two other children. She is still married to the father of those children, though Taylor said yesterday that her husband has refused to accept her divorce petition for the past two years.

          The affidavit also says that the police in Rochester report a “lengthy history of domestic violence” between Taylor and Irish, and that she accused him of choking and hitting her on more than one occasion. According to the document, Irish failed to complete a domestic violence course as ordered by the state, and that a hearing was held last month to terminate Taylor’s parental rights over her two older children.

          Taylor “has failed to recognize the impact of domestic violence in her life and the potential danger it poses to a newborn baby,” the affidavit reads. “Mr. Irish has not acknowledged any responsibility to date and remains a significant safety risk to an infant in his care. . . . Without the intervention of the court, the infant will be at risk of harm.”

          BL – Either it is relevent or itisn’t. So, according to you, someone’s political affiliations and their right to bear arms are grounds for taking their baby? Why don’t they go steal ALL of the Oathkeeper’s babies?

          You’re turning into a drama-queen like BF. Like I said before, when abuse and violence have been documented in the house in the past, “Oath-keepers and guns are valid information when taken in the entire context so authorities know what they might encounter when they approach the family.” His political affiliations and their right to bear arms are not the reason the baby was taken.

        • Bottom Line,

          The “abuse” is claimed by the father, but it’s not true. The Captain from the Sheriff’s Office (who was so prominently “quoted” completely out of context above in your post #14) confirmed the baby was taken to the hospital as a precaution and there was no evidence of abuse by the foster parents.

          http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/220349/baby-in-foster-care-sent-to-hospital

          The newborn taken from an Epsom couple last week by state social workers was sent to the hospital yesterday but is fine, officials said last night.

          Parents Johnathon Irish and Stephanie Taylor had a supervised visit with their daughter and a state social worker yesterday at a Strafford County administration building and during the visit “there was some concern about the possibility of some blood that was seen in a diaper,” said Capt. Joseph DiGregorio of the Strafford County Sheriff’s Office.

          As a “precautionary measure,” DiGregorio said, the sheriff’s office decided to have the baby examined at Exeter Hospital.

          But there was “no indication of any abuse,” he said. “Zero. Nothing.” The baby was back in foster care last night, DiGregorio said.

          • Bottom Line says:

            Then please explain to me why they(CPS) gave the baby back and claimed that they had Mr. Irish confused with someone with a similar name.

            Sounds to me like they made a mistake and tried to BS their way out of it.

            • Bottom Line,

              Then please explain to me why they(CPS) gave the baby back and claimed that they had Mr. Irish confused with someone with a similar name.

              Sounds to me like they made a mistake and tried to BS their way out of it.

              There was a court hearing – with a gag order. Where did you get this information?

              If they confused Jonathan Irish with someone else, why are Taylor’s 2 older children in state custody “because evidence pointed to Irish as “the main suspect” in an assault of his fiancee’s oldest son, now 3″?

              • Bottom Line says:

                Todd – “There was a court hearing – with a gag order. Where did you get this information?”

                BL – Go to the link I posted below(#34)
                and listen to the interview.

    • TexasChem says:

      BL Stated:”In terms of the concept of subjectivity, no one can say what another does or believes is wrong or right.”

      TC:In terms of realistic moral obligation, everyone is responsible towards acting upon their own belief of right when assesing harm done to one whom has no defense against violence!Consistency stems from doing whats right versus whats wrong on a regular basis AND applying that principle into your idealogy.Plain and simple!

      BL Stated:”But my definition of TLC or abuse may differ from another’s. It is not within my right to decide for another on how they raise their child and if they are doing wrong or right. Therefore, it is not my right to intervene, nor is it my responsibility.”

      TC:Yet if you stick to your guns, so to speak and definitely hold consistent with your belief in the natural order of the universe.You have to act upon right/wrong by the very definition of natural order.

      • Bottom Line says:

        Exactly, TC.

        …which is why I have a moral obligation to stay out of it, to not mind someone else’s business.

  29. Bottom Line says:

    WOW! I really stirred the pot yesterday!

    I don’t have much time today, and I hope I have the opportunity to come back later.

    SUFA is on fire, ROFL!

    BTW, Thanks for the backup, Flag.

    See y’all later…I hope.

  30. V.H.

    I’m still thinking

    Don’t stop, because if you do, death is the consequence.

    -but you are right -I am trying to justify my beliefs using the definition of freedom-when I believe that freedom and moral obligation at least on an individual level must walk together to build a society that will last and be civilized.

    Correct!

    But destroying freedom to achieve a moral society destroys freedom and society.

    On this I feel no contradiction because moral obligation to me simply means an attitude of I should when I feel it is right to do so.

    Exactly! It is an attitude and as such, is a subjective value of an individual.

    • Two points of contention-it isn’t just an attitude, it is a moral imperative-how one or if one fulfills this imperative is subjective, which is what makes putting this responsibility into the hands of government dangerous.

      “But destroying freedom to achieve a moral society destroys freedom and society.”

      This statement may be true but a lack of morality can also destroy a society.

      • V.H.

        This statement may be true but a lack of morality can also destroy a society.

        No, it cannot.

        The reason:
        If the Lack of Morality as a human condition is NOT imposed, it cannot become pervasive over society.

        This is a very important point, V.H.

        You point to specific, but rare, examples – which CANNOT create a pervasive condition over all society – but justify a PERVASIVE destruction of freedom over society in a (worthless and pointless) attempt to prevent these rare, specific, circumstances.

        It is YOUR demand of imposition which fundamentally destroys society, and NEVER the rare exceptions of immorality.

        • I am not sure you have basis for that BF. You might, I am not sure I have basis to refute it per se, but to say that something cannot become pervasive unless it is imposed is a bit presumptuous. the market has proven itself to make certain things pervasive. Marketting and influence and the tendency of people to copy each other has made a lot of things pervasive in society without them being enforced or imposed. What makes you say that only force and imposition can make immorality pervasive?

          Understand, I am not implying that we should enforce morality, only that immorality need not be enforced to be come pervasive. Perhaps it is the enforced restriction on moral influence that increases immorality, but I do not know that there is definitive proof of that. I am not even certain that there is definitive proof that immorality is a rare exception, depending on what society you refer to and what level or definition of morality/immorality.

          • Jon

            I am not sure you have basis for that BF. You might, I am not sure I have basis to refute it per se, but to say that something cannot become pervasive unless it is imposed is a bit presumptuous.

            Not presumptuous at all.

            Without imposition, no specific action can become pervasive.

            For you to be correct, in a non-imposition society, everyone would have to think the same for a specific action to be pervasive.

            But not all think the same things.

            Therefore, there cannot be a specific action which is pervasive over society.

            the market has proven itself to make certain things pervasive.

            Really??

            What I see in the market place is hundreds of millions of different products – and thousands upon thousands of products competing to solve the same problem.

            There is NO ONE solution per problem in the market place – EXCEPT government.

            • The variety of products is irrelevant to my point. New technology tends to become pervasive. Cell phones are now pervasive in our society, even people who dislike them generally have them now. Sure, there are many models and service providers, but they are all still cell phones. the fact is, in many cases people do think the same, or begin to think the same. Religion and otehr various belief systems certainly vary, in this country more than most, but the general attitude towards certain beliefs has shifted throughout society over the last few generations. This is PERVASIVE, in that it is held by a majority of persons, and has spread throughout our society.

              General group think studies show pervasive attitudes, and they show how certain attitudes or beliefs can become pervasive. Propoganda, marketting, social mores, and a host of other things can make something pervasive because of the tendency of people to not think or question things.

              When I said that the market could make something pervasive, I was not saying it was a bad thing, only that it had that effect. Cell phones are a great solution to a problem. They are not the only solution, and not every single person has one, but that is not required for cell phones to be considered pervasive in our society. But to say that only a forced mandate could make something pervasive is not accurate.

              • Jon

                The variety of products is irrelevant to my point.

                It is vital to the point.

                You are claiming everyone thinks the same.

                The variance in products show this not to be true.

                New technology tends to become pervasive. Cell phones are now pervasive in our society, even people who dislike them generally have them now.

                Cell phones are common, but so are radios, land-line phones, satellite phones, mail, email, etc.

                A cell phone is but one solution to communication.

                Within the “Set of Cell Phones” there are thousands of different solutions.

                Your scope of pervasive is improperly too tight.

                Sure, there are many models and service providers, but they are all still cell phones.

                So, you argue:
                “see here is a Ford auto” – and there a lots of Fords – therefore, it is pervasive BUT ignore all other models of cars, colors, accessories, designs, the trucks, the transports, trains, planes, buses, bicycles, and anyone who walks. Ford cars are pervasive

                the fact is, in many cases people do think the same, or begin to think the same.

                Even in a religion, everyone has a different view of it.

                No one believes exactly the same thing

                There are thousands of religions, thousands of sects within religions, and in the sect, thousands of different opinions about that sect.

        • What we have here is two choices, both bad, one you claim is worse than the other. I think that’s called a Shopie’s choice. First I agree that government can and does impose immorality. I agree that their doing so can cause immorality to be pervasive throughout society. But taking that truth and concluding thus immorality has to be imposed to become pervasive is simply not true IMO. Not to mention just how pervasive does it have to be to destroy a society. Immorality is not rare and government didn’t invent immorality, and people do not have to think the exact same way to create the same types of problems. So let me try to boil this down to what I conclude.
          Government imposes immorality on a large scale which with time and mans acceptance will destroy society.
          Man imposes immorality on a smaller scale but with time and mans acceptance it too will destroy society.
          The conclusion mans acceptance of immorality destroys society.

          • V.H.

            No, we do not have “Sophie’s Choice”.

            (1) Force morality on society will destroy society. There is no way to avoid it (except by ending the force).

            (2) Do not force morality on society will free society. The natural seeking of prosperity of men will create the necessary organizations of social order, which will include social mores

            But what you fear is the word “no”. You cannot stand that someone will say no to your demand (yours, morality – Buck and Mathius, forced charity).

            But the fundamental test of freedom is the word “no”.

            There is no freedom without the freedom to say “no”.
            Free people can say “no”. Slaves cannot.

            You argue about a pervasive immorality. You claim will accelerate in freedom. You refuse to acknowledge why there exists pervasive immorality.

            As I pointed out above, You cannot create a pervasive idea across society without the use of force. No one thinks the same. To create a pervasiveness of a morality (or its opposite) requires force.

            Thus, you point to immorality but refuse to the force behind it – government power and violence.
            The government steals – so why can’t you?
            So you do.
            The government kills – so why can’t you?
            So you do.
            The government lies and cheats – so why can’t you?
            So you do.

            Since the government condones these behaviors and acts in ways to prevent consequences of these behaviors you are so seem surprised that is it the cause???

            And another argument against you:

            Which came first, Man or Morals?

            Man created morals where none existed before. Where did it come from, then, if not men in their natural freedom creating them!!

            So your argument rests on the opposite – that Morals existed before Man – since by your position, Man cannot have survived without them.

            Moral behavior is a significant factor that leads to individual success. That does not mean success cannot be achieved with immoral behavior – it means it is not likely to.

            Further, moral behavior does not guarantee success – however, it does provide the best opportunity for it.

            It is this understanding that Man has created a series of moral paradigms and teaches them by rote to their children. It is the best probability of success for the children.

            No force required.

            • “No, we do not have “Sophie’s Choice”.”

              Yes, we do 

              “(1) Force morality on society will destroy society. There is no way to avoid it (except by ending the force).”

              It probably will- but not enforcing any morality would destroy it too

              (2) Do not force morality on society will free society. The natural seeking of prosperity of men will create the necessary organizations of social order, which will include social mores

              I agree

              “But what you fear is the word “no”. You cannot stand that someone will say no to your demand (yours, morality – Buck and Mathius, forced charity).”

              An argument which has no value other than ridicule-so I’m gonna ignore it.

              “But the fundamental test of freedom is the word “no”.”

              Yes it is

              “There is no freedom without the freedom to say “no”.
              Free people can say “no”. Slaves cannot.”

              That is true

              “You argue about a pervasive immorality. You claim will accelerate in freedom. You refuse to acknowledge why there exists pervasive immorality.”

              Nope I acknowledge that immorality exists and can and will become pervasive because of government and man-you seem to want to argue that only government has this power-something I do not believe is based in fact but is in fact an assumption.

              “As I pointed out above, You cannot create a pervasive idea across society without the use of force. No one thinks the same. To create a pervasiveness of a morality (or its opposite) requires force.”

              I agree that force will accelerate the problem but I do not believe it is the only way-time and mans acceptance will create the same types of problems. Our social norms change with time-some are good, some are bad. This would happen with or without government.

              “Thus, you point to immorality but refuse to the force behind it – government power and violence.
              The government steals – so why can’t you?
              So you do.
              The government kills – so why can’t you?
              So you do.
              The government lies and cheats – so why can’t you?
              So you do.”

              Don’t deny these are facts.

              “Since the government condones these behaviors and acts in ways to prevent consequences of these behaviors you are so seem surprised that is it the cause???”

              I’m not surprised at all-but it isn’t the cause it is a symptom of rampant immorality.

              “And another argument against you:Which came first, Man or Morals?Man created morals where none existed before. Where did it come from, then, if not men in their natural freedom creating them!!” “

              While your congratulating man for creating morals and using that to try and prove that immorality cannot destroy society . You might take note that man also created government per you the one and only cause of pervasive immorality. And the only thing which can destroy civilization.

              “So your argument rests on the opposite – that Morals existed before Man – since by your position, Man cannot have survived without them.”

              Man has a free mind so whether he learned that morals were needed or not doesn’t really matter. Either way he chose to use them and to abuse them.

              “Moral behavior is a significant factor that leads to individual success. That does not mean success cannot be achieved with immoral behavior – it means it is not likely to.
              Further, moral behavior does not guarantee success – however, it does provide the best opportunity for it.
              It is this understanding that Man has created a series of moral paradigms and teaches them by rote to their children. It is the best probability of success for the children.”

              I agree

              “No force required.”

              I go back to my Sophie’s Choice –both total freedom and total governmental control carry with them the hazard of having to accept gross immorality. So neither are good choices. But again I will state –I would choose freedom over total governmental control. But I’m not convinced that an extreme is the only answer. I am however convinced that man must respect both freedom and have an attitude of moral responsibility to his fellow man for humanity to survive.

              If one’s only way to stand for freedom is to allow a child to be beaten to the point of harm-than all one is standing for is extreme immorality. This type of immorality will destroy this society and in reality it should.

              • A point I didn’t make-I never said man couldn’t survive-I said a civilized society couldn’t survive.

              • V.H.

                I do not disagree.

                My point is: you do not have to force morality.

                It appeared naturally from man without force – therefore, is a part of natural man.

                Trying to control man to force what is natural to him will pervert him to the opposite.

                Thus, as I’ve said before

                Government – the opposite of civilization – is a war WITH civilization as civilization exists because of the voluntary and free association of men

  31. V.H.

    You want to impose your ethics upon others – which gives right of others to impose their ethics upon you.

    You bitterly complain about the latter while championing the former.

    Further and saddly, most people are like you.

    ————–

    The People hold the Whip of Hell and Evil in their hands.

    Every swing the People use of that Whip cracks the Whip against the People’s back.

    The People scream in pain, lift the Whip, and crack it again.

    Again, it strikes the back of the People, and the People cry out.

    The Few do not swing the Whip.

    The Few run and dodge and duck the Whip of Evil in the hands of the People, though often the Few get struck too.

    But, not all the time – sometimes the Whip misses the Few. But the People are hit with the Whip they swing every time.

    In their pain, the People crack the Whip harder and faster – lashing to shreds their back into a bloodied pulp, until the People collapse into an exhausting, writhing, pain-ridden mass on the ground.

    Then, they cannot lift the whip.

    This is the saddest thing to the Few to witness. It breaks their hearts.

    It is when the People are so bloodied, exhausted, writhing in pain, laid out on the ground that the Few, stand….standing over the People….no longer need to run to be free.

    The Few are free when the People are in the greatest pain and exhaustion.

    Without the whipping, the back of the People begins to heal.

    Slowly, the People regain their strength.

    The People rise to their knees.

    Then, The People rise to their feat.

    The People stand again.

    But they have not let go of the whip. They still hold it in their hand.

    The People see the Few do not hold the whip.

    The People demand the Few hold the whip.

    But the Few know the Whip of Hell and Evil can do no good.

    The Few will not hold the Whip.

    “Let go of the Whip”, the Few plead to the People.

    “But we need the Whip to protect us from the Few”, the People say.

    “When you were writhing in pain, and the Few were standing over you, you did not need the Whip, and you healed.

    When you were on your knees, and the Few were standing over you, you did not need the Whip, and you healed some more.

    Now you are standing with the Few. Why do you need the Whip now?”

    “To protect us from you”.

    And the Whip cracks.

    The Few run and dodge and duck.

    The People scream in pain.

    The cycle continues…

  32. Bottom Line says:

    http://www.infowars.com/irish-family-baby-returned/

    Irish Family Baby Returned

    Kurt Nimmo
    Infowars.com
    October 14, 2010

    Jonathan Irish appeared on the Alex Jones Show this evening and said his infant daughter, Cheyenne, was returned to him and his fiancé, Stephanie Taylor. The state of New Hampshire, citing neglect, had abducted the newborn at the Concord Hospital.

    Irish expressed his gratitude for the return of his daughter but said he was not at liberty to divulge details on the release due to a court gag order.

    Irish told Alex Jones that his name was confused with that of another man with a similar name. The second man apparently has a record of domestic abuse and violence.

    A court affidavit stated Jonathan Irish’s association with the Oath Keepers as one of the primary reasons the child was taken. “The Division became aware and confirmed that Mr. Irish associated with a militia known as the Oath Keepers and had purchased several different types of weapons, including a rifle, handgun and taser,” the affidavit states.

    The Oath Keepers was founded in March of 2009 in in Lexington, Massachusetts. The nonprofit organization advocates that its members, who are current and former U.S. military and law enforcement officers, uphold the Constitution of the United States should they be ordered to violate it. The Oath Keepers organization is not a militia as the court affidavit and corporate media insist.

    After Cheyenne was abducted by New Hampshire’s Division of Children, Youth and Families, authorities prevented Jonathon Irish from seeing his child. Authorities cited “security threats” as the reason for blocking visitation without explaining precisely what those threats were. Irish, his fiancé Stephanie and Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes appeared on the Alex Jones Show on October 11 to discuss this violation of basic visitation rights.

    On Friday, October 8, the FBI sent bomb-sniffing dogs into Concord Hospital to intimidate people who had gathered to protest against the snatching of a baby by the DCYF.

    On October 13, Stephanie Taylor voiced concerns when she discovered blood in her baby’s diaper during a supervised visit at the at a Strafford County administration building. After authorities determined there was “no indication of any abuse,” the child was returned to foster care.

    Will Bunch, writing for the Soros funded Media Matters for America, led a corporate media campaign to demonize Irish and characterize as a “bizarre right-wing campaign” the effort to have the child returned to her parents. Bunch writes that “the evidence is overwhelming that the girl was taken from Irish and the mother Stephanie Taylor at the hospital for the only reason that the government should take that extreme step: To ensure the safety of an otherwise helpless child.”

    Bunch’s assertion that CPS agencies protect children is at odds with the record. As the late Nancy Schaefer has documented, “child protection services” around the country have a record corruption and are often detrimental to the health and well-being of children. CPS agencies often act as legalized kidnapping services.

    Now that the court has admitted that the child was taken in error and Jonathan Irish is in fact not an abusive father and the authorities had either confused or deliberately associated Irish with the behavior of another individual, Mr. Bunch and Media Matters should immediately apologize for slandering Irish, Taylor, and Alex Jones.

    Media Matters, however, will likely not apologize or set the record straight because this obviously conflicts with its agenda to demonize the growing patriot movement and portray constitutionalist groups like Oath Keepers as paranoid right-wing extremists.

  33. DKII and Jon:

    Sexuality has no place in the military, that was the primary reason for not wanting women in the military for so long.

    Surely you realize we’re all sexual beings. The primary reason (wrong also) no? This is an insane policy. It is what scares the shit out of independents like myself about the Libertarian party. You seem to cherry pick your libertarian issues. What is the difference whether someone is gay or not regarding the military? Please don’t give me yet another homophobic reply.

    As for sending an all gay brigade to the Middle East … I like the idea (and it’s probably been closer to have happened than some would like to admit). Whatever makes extremists (on both sides of the political fence) upchuck their pablum is fine with me.

    • Its called Self Control, Charlie. Most people have it. Just look around. How many people have you seen humping each other in plain view at work? Dogs hump each other no matter who is watching.

      Don’t be so emotional.

      • Emotional? Moi? I don’t understand (if I’m understanding you correctly) why gays would have to maintain self control and straights …?

        • Stating that you’re scared shitless of the Libertarian Party sounds emotional to me, Charlie.

          In any case, I think that EVERYONE should keep their personal life personal when it comes to being at work. I really don’t want to hear about who’s banging who, who said what about whoever, etc. I’m not there to relive my high school lunch room days. I’m there to do a job. I don’t give a rats if your gay, straight, bi, whatever. Just do your damn job and play nice with others for the 8 hours your on the premises.

          Geez.

    • Homophobic response? Charlie, I agree the policy is a problem. It should be no sexual conduct in military operations, no breach of loyalty or disobeying of orders, etc. for sexual attraction or emotional connection reasons. DADT is irrelevant in an environment like that. There should be no restriction of gays in the military, but there should be sever punishment and/or discharge for those who cannot separate their emotions and attractions from the job they have to do. That is why they go through psychological training, to be able to control that crap. If you are in control of it, it does not matter if you think the girl in the foxhole with you is hot or if you think the guy is.

      We are talking about military operations, not another day at the office. Some stuff will be stricter out of necessity. Does that mean a certain group should be targeted with a specific policy? Absolutely not. But it does mean that if you are not controlling yourself, you are a problem, and should be dealt with. An no special group should get a break or certain protection any more than they should get restriction.

      • What makes you think gays would have a problem “controlling” themselves. I may not be understanding you, Jon, so forgive me if I’m mistaken here. It just seems to me those kinds of things happen all the time under all kinds of situations, including military operations. The military may have ideal situation with which to operate under, but there’s no sainthood in or out of a foxhole. The sexuality stuff just has to be ignored on this. It’s simply unconstitutional for gays to be discriminated against, end of story (in my book).

        • I think we are on the same page here. I do not think that gays should be discriminated against, nor that they would have self-control issues any more than a heterosexual person. I think that self-control is important for all people in the military. I also think that a policy of not letting people know you are attracted to them and not focussing on sexual orientation is a good one. I do NOT think that a gay person should be kicked out of the military if it is discovered they are gay. If, however, it is discovered due to misconduct, then they should be. If a person is in control of their sexual urges, they are fine. If they are not, then they are not fine. What those sexual urges happen to be is irrelevant.

          Basically all I am saying is:
          1) DADT is not a bad policy by itself, sexual orientation is no ones business. It is the policy of restricting gays if they are found out that is the problem.
          2) Civilian standards, especially politically motivated ones, should not be applied to the military. It is a different world. Let them run things in a military manner. That does not mean that discrimination based on race or religion or gender or sexual preference is allowed, but it does mean that discrimination based on ability, whether mental or physical or psychological, is not only allowed, it is needed.

    • TexasChem says:

      Could someone please explain to me how a man placing another mans’ reproductive organ in one of his body cavities is not a sign of some serious psychological issues?Could that also be a warning sign that this person may have other psychological tendencies to other unacceptable behavior such as pedophillia?(NAMBLA)Can someone please prove that this act is not totally against the natural order of the Universe?It is totally opposite of a species natural tendency towards the propogation and success of itself.The politically correct mentality has some of you trying to place a square peg into a triangular hole!This is utter nonsense.

      Alas, I am just an educated redneck from a deep southern state and my thoughts and opinions may not be as held in as high esteem as you do your own but, nevah-thah-lasss I will leave you ladies and gents with this statement in my long drawn out southeast Texas drawl…

      Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media and currently brainwashed public, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end!

      • Texaschem,

        Question back,

        If you are neither of those men, why are you so considered?

        • TexasChem says:

          I am so considered for the simple reason of the negative impact the lifestyle has upon young impressionable minds.It pisses me off to no end to see these T-shirts they wear that have “Recruiter” written on them with the rainbow symbol.

          I am so considered because if a man is attracted to another man then there is a distinct possibility that he will be attracted to the youth and vitality of little boys.

          I am so considered because I am not brainwashed into thinking it is politically correct to allow negative human behavior to become socially mainstream.

          • Texaschem,

            I am so considered for the simple reason of the negative impact the lifestyle has upon young impressionable minds.

            But that mind is not yours.

            You have no right to judge the content for that other person’s mind.

            You take care of your own mind.
            Trust me, it is more than you can handle for you to start worrying about other people’s.

            It pisses me off to no end to see these T-shirts they wear that have “Recruiter” written on them with the rainbow symbol.

            Then don’t look at their shirts nor buy those shirts.

            I am so considered because if a man is attracted to another man then there is a distinct possibility that he will be attracted to the youth and vitality of little boys.

            I consider that some men who are attracted to women end up raping them and killing them.

            Therefore, I should use violence on all heterosexual men to stop them from being attracted to women? <- this is your argument.

            I am so considered because I am not brainwashed into thinking it is politically correct to allow negative human behavior to become socially mainstream.

            It cannot become such, unless enforced by government.

            • TexasChem says:

              BF Stated:”I consider that some men who are attracted to women end up raping them and killing them.

              Therefore, I should use violence on all heterosexual men to stop them from being attracted to women? <- this is your argument."

              TC:No that is not my arguement.The above statement is illogical Dr. Spock!

              How about: therefore I should use violence on all hetero men that rape and kill women to immediately stop and discourage those acts from being committed in society.

              • Texaschem,

                Using violence as “punishment” is merely a blood-thirsty desire of revenge, and does not discourage a darn thing.

                And, until you show violence, you have no right to use violent – no matter how immoral you may believe you are or “they” are to you.

            • TexasChem says:

              BF:”You have no right to judge the content for that other person’s mind.”

              TC:Why I propose that I have every right to judge that content when it can be proven to be harmful to any members of my society.Just as I stated earlier about your non-governmental Utopia.If a man were to rape and murder he would be removed from that society.

              • Texaschem

                You cannot prove harm. If you can, you will have proven yourself to be as equally harmful.

                You have no right to judge over me.

                Your “rape murder” example continues to expose your confusion between rights, morals and rules.

                It is no surprise you continue to advocate for the wrong answers.

              • TexasChem says:

                BF Stated:”You have no right to judge over me.”

                TC:Come into my house and try to take my belongings and see if I do not judge you BF.
                I am quite certain, well actually I am positive you would be quick to judge as well if I came into your house to take your belongings sir!

              • Texas,

                As usual, you argue for the use of violence on non-violent people by pointing to violence on non-violent people.

            • Me and BF on the same page … again? TexasChem … I respect what you’re saying, but brother, I gotta tell you, it’s not very healthy. There’s a lot of assumptions in your theory, the least of which is that gay men would be interested in pedophelia (the majority of which, statistically, are heterosexuals) … and I guess the catholic church is fortunate not to have DADT … or maybe unfortunate.

          • On what do you base this so-called “distinct possibility” TC? What makes you think that a homosexual person will have a tendency toward pedophilia?

            • TexasChem says:

              Gee… Jon!
              Good evening sir!

              Does the average hetero male consider the 80 year old grandma knitting in her rocking chair sexually attractive or the 19 year old Playboy model posing?Youth and vitality are pre-determined sexual factors from thousands of years of Mans rise up from the muck.

              Are there some twisted hetero individuals that view this particular human sexual tendency in extremes?Yes, pedophiles.

              The same can be said about the gay preference.As I stated before any man that is willing to place another mans sexual organ in his body cavities is not psychologically sound of mind.It is totally opposite of a species natural tendency towards the propogation and success of itself.Every time that particular act takes place he is making a conscious decision to do that.It is not that he cannot help himself it is a decision.It is a preference.He didn’t trip and fall down with his mouth open and it just so happened the other mans organ went into it!

              In 1984, Jody Plauché (then 11) was taking martial art lessons from karate instructor (and pedophile) Jeffrey Doucet (25), in Louisiana. The boy was kidnapped by Doucet and taken to a California motel, while police searched the country for him and the boy.

              He was eventually tracked down when he made a collect phone call to his mother, who asked for “time and charges” and the operator told her the call was originating from Room #38 at the then-named Samoa Motel, 425 W Katella Avenue, ANAHEIM CA 92802–3607 (now called, “America’s Best Value Inn”).

              Local authorities were summoned and they arrested Doucet without incident (he supposedly voluntarily surrendered), and was quickly extradited back to Louisiana to face formal kidnapping charges.

              Leon “Gary” Plauché, (39, in 1984), was Jody’s father and good friends with certain high-ranking police officers in the Baton Rouge, Louisiana Police Department, which is how he learned exactly when Jeffrey Doucet would be arriving at Ryan Airport.

              On Friday, March 16th, 1984, at around 9:30 PM, Central Time, as Jeffrey Doucet was being led in handcuffs by police officers through the airport, they walked past a bank of pay telephones, while a local TV station news crew was videotaping.

              Unbeknownst to everyone, Leon “Gary” Plauché was pretending to use one of those phones when Jeffrey Doucet walked past with his police escorts. As the videotape camera recorded, Leon “Gary” Plauché leveled a firearm at Doucet’s head, firing once and scoring a direct hit, killing him almost instantly, at the airport. (Some reports said that so perfectly-aimed was the shot, that “Doucet was dead, before he fell down.”)

              In an example of just how “Louisiana justice” works, Plauché pleaded “no contest” to a reduced charge of manslaughter, was given a suspended prison term and sentenced to five years of probation, which he completed in 1989.

              To this day, he maintains in every interview that, “If it had been your son who was sexually abused by that pervert, you would have done exactly the same thing I did, if you had been given my opportunity.”

              So, pretend that this is your own child who has been kidnapped and sexually abused. Would you do what Mr. Plauché did, if you had the same chances he did?

              I would have, and with no hesitation, whatsoever, and I’m glad Mr. Plauché served no jail/prison time for his actions.

              • Good evening to you as well! 🙂

                Attracted to youth and vitality, certainly. Are you saying that 19 year-old men have no youth or vitality? What is it that the average hetero male can make the decision between and 80 year-old and a 19 year-old, but you think the average homosexual will look specifically for those under 18? To be honest, young body builders like yourself are far more likely to be the object of attraction than some 13 year-old kid.

                Therefore your argument comes back to an assumption that homosexuals are mentally unstable. I find this largely a matter of a lack of empathy. I understand that for you, a solidly heterosexual male, it would require insanity to engage in homosexual activity, especially by choice. However, there are women who want a male organ inside them, does that make them mentally unstable? (I know, sometimes it does seem that women are mentally unstable, but that is usually because of the same lack of understanding by men). Seriously, if someone finds something attractive, that is their thing. It does not require mental instability. That is not to say there are no cases of it, sure there are. I have seen people so obsessed over their cars that I could have them committed over it. That does not mean that every car guy or gal is mentally unstable, tho it might seem like it to someone who does not care about cars or does not need one.

                You operate on the assumption that gay action is some sort of twisted deviance. In the case of the actions of the priests in the headlines, that might be true, born of suppression of sexual desire, etc. In the case of some homosexual persons, it may also be true, born of some abuse or of avoiding an entire gender because of repeated abuse by members of that gender.

                I do not, however, believe that this is the case for the majority of gay persons. That is where we differ, and it is the root of your homophobia.

          • What a bizarre statement.

            I am so considered because if a man is attracted to another man then there is a distinct possibility that he will be attracted to the youth and vitality of little boys.

            I am so considered because if a man is attracted to a woman then there is a distinct possibility that he will be attracted to the youth and vitality of little girls.

            I am so considered because if a woman is attracted to a man then there is a distinct possibility that she will be attracted to the youth and vitality of little boys.

            So, what, ban all reproductive acts entirely?

            • TexasChem says:

              DKII Stated:”So, what, ban all reproductive acts entirely?
              I am so considered because if a man is attracted to a woman then there is a distinct possibility that he will be attracted to the youth and vitality of little girls.
              I am so considered because if a woman is attracted to a man then there is a distinct possibility that she will be attracted to the youth and vitality of little boys.”

              TC:Why DKII I am so glad you made the correlation between the sexual preferences of the sexes and asked that question!I have been waiting on someone to ask!

              I can give you examples of female teachers,male priests,perverted dirty old men…etc that are guilty of pedophillia all day long so why would you consider my statement bizarre when applied to homosexuals?It would not solve the problem of why we have this problem in our society though, now would it?

              As I stated in a post above to Jon-“Does the average hetero male consider the 80 year old grandma knitting in her rocking chair sexually attractive or the 19 year old Playboy model posing?Youth and vitality are pre-determined sexual factors from thousands of years of Mans rise up from the muck.

              Are there some twisted hetero individuals that view this particular human sexual tendency in extremes?Yes, pedophiles.

              The same can be said about the gay preference.As I stated before any man that is willing to place another mans sexual organ in his body cavities is not psychologically sound of mind.It is totally opposite of a species natural tendency towards the propogation and success of itself.Every time that particular act takes place he is making a conscious decision to do that.It is not that he cannot help himself it is a decision.It is a preference.He didn’t trip and fall down with his mouth open and it just so happened the other mans organ went into it!”

              You cannot logically expect a society to be safe and productive for children that condones and encourages negative sexual behavior.

              If society has lapsed into this twisted thing in which parents,teachers,communityleaders…etc aren’t teaching morals,values and ethics where the hell is the child supposed to learn them?

              Back to your question though:
              So, what, ban all reproductive acts entirely?

              No, that is the bizarre statement/question.That is an entirely unacceptable answer.I propose that not condoning and encouraging deviant sexual behavior that has a very distinct possibility of affecting the children of our society negatively, from becoming mainstream,would be a step in the right direction sir!

              • I propose that not condoning and encouraging deviant sexual behavior that has a very distinct possibility of affecting the children of our society negatively, from becoming mainstream,would be a step in the right direction sir!

                Ok. So don’t condone or encourage it. In fact, go ahead and refuse to do business with anyone who does it. Just don’t get bullies with government clubs to beat/kidnap them if they do it.

    • TexasChem says:

  34. V.H.

    “No, we do not have “Sophie’s Choice”.”

    Yes, we do 

    No we don’t.

    It is not a choice between two evils

    It the choice between good and evil.

    “(1) Force morality on society will destroy society. There is no way to avoid it (except by ending the force).”

    It probably will- but not enforcing any morality would destroy it too

    Not one bit.

    It is the force that creates all the evils associated with immorality

    If a man fornicates with strangers in his own home, he causes you no harm nor foul.

    If he forces you to participate, then he has caused harm and foul.

    It is always the force that creates the evil.

    An argument which has no value other than ridicule-so I’m gonna ignore it.

    It was not meant to be.

    However, the point reamains.
    You do not accept the “no”.
    You have admitted this, in fact.
    It is your entire complaint, so how can it be a ridicule to point it out?

    Nope I acknowledge that immorality exists and can and will become pervasive because of government and man

    It can only become pervasive by force – which is only by government.

    <1)Some men can be immoral, but that does not cause society to be so

    (2)Government is immoral, and can enforce that on society

    You want to use government force to stop (1) and thus, create (2)

    -you seem to want to argue that only government has this power-something I do not believe is based in fact but is in fact an assumption.

    It is an argument, not an assumption.

    The basis of my argument rests on the fact that you give government legitimacy to use violence.

    Therefore, Only government can exercise the legitimate violence to enforce immorality.

    A man cannot use violence legitimately. In fact, it does not matter whether he is enforcing his morals or immorals upon another – it is never accepted by the People.

    This is the core.
    The use of violence by a man is NEVER ACCEPTED BY THE PEOPLE no matter how lofty or low the goal he wishes to achieve.

    Therefore, immorality of A MAN can never become pervasive to society.

    Society is a negative feedback loop. It resists that which will destroy it. Thus, an immoral man -with no ability to enforce himself legitimately on society – will be discarded by society.

    It is only with the power of legitimate evil called government can this enforcement of immorality become pervasive.

    One need only to example Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, and Communist China and Cambodia for direct examples.

    Yet, you cannot find one example of immorality of a man that has destroyed society.

    • TexasChem says:

      BF Stated:”Yet, you cannot find one example of immorality of a man that has destroyed society.”

      TC:While our American society is not yet totally destroyed, I see no arguement that you could foster to negate the toll that pedagogic and thought coercion has taken upon our society.Political correctness and just outright lies against morality.My example would be the queering of education by Kevin Jennings the deputy secretary of the Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools inside the Department of Education. Unless of course you agree with the mainstreaming of homosexuality education into the public schools amongst kindergarten children.

      • Texaschem,

        But right in your post you presented my argument case.

        It is not the immorality that is the threat, but the government enforcement that is the threat.

        You use words like “Political correctness” where a misuse of a word can land you in huge legal trouble!

        You point to “Dept. of Eduction” – run by government. It is in the schools -which your kids MUST attend- that many of the alteration of the norms are taught.

        Yet, I do not see you advocating for the end of the Dept. of Education.

        I see you advocating for more government.

        • TexasChem says:

          BF Stated:”It is not the immorality that is the threat, but the government enforcement that is the threat.”

          TC:Semantics BF.Here we go again!How about whether or not it is government enforced immorality or a group such as NAMBLA enforcing their twisted version of morality?What is deemed immoral is still the root cause.

          • TexasChem says:

            No matter who is enforcing it.Whether it is by physical means or some twisted thought coercion.

          • Texaschem,

            If you believe you have a right to enforce your version of morals then others will claim that right on you and enforce theirs upon you.

            • TexasChem says:

              Then I had best have a proper understanding of morals,justice and rights then because I speak loudly and I do carry a “big” stick!

              Once I was pulling in to the parking lot of a grocery store in my hometown and a man was in the parking lot pushing a woman down on the concrete and slapped her and punched her in the face.She kept getting up and he was beating her back to the concrete.When I parked my truck and got out he was yelling at her something to the effect of “I needed that money for my dope you bitch.
              So I walked over and first attempted to calm the guy down by telling him there was no need to be hitting a woman and he told me to fuck-off and came towards me with clenched fists so I launched a haymaker into his temple that sprawled im head first into the concrete.The woman gets up off the concrete yelling “you kilt em!” and tried swinging at me!
              About this time a police cruiser arrives and they placed her in the back of the cruiser.The cop which happens to be a cousin of mine called for an ambulance for the other guy.I told him what had happened and no charges were filed against me, the lady was released (tried to press charges on me for assaulting her POS husband)and the guy went to jail for disorderly conduct and domestic violence.

              I would do the same exact thing again if I ever were put into that scenario again.That is my nature.

        • TexasChem says:

          BF Stated:”I see you advocating for more government.”

          TC:No, you see me advocating for a government that abides by my visions of liberty and freedom.Just like everybody else does!

          • Texaschem,

            “Just like everyone else does”

            And, thus, the root of human evil.

            • TexasChem says:

              My point is everyone has their own version of right/wrong.
              There can only be one version that is right or wrong.
              If you say 1+1=3 that does not make it right.

              Nothing evil about being…correct.But it is evil to be wrong and to condone and teach it!

              • Texaschem,

                There does not exist one right answer for any problem in the Universe

                There is an infinite number of them.

                The problem of “3”, has:
                1+2
                4-1
                53-50
                81/27
                … to infinity.

                The problem becomes when one believes their answer is the only one: 1+2, and refuse all the others.

                Evil is often correct, hence its attraction.

              • BF Stated:”There does not exist one right answer for any problem in the Universe

                There is an infinite number of them.

                The problem of “3″, has:
                1+2
                4-1
                53-50
                81/27
                … to infinity.”

                TC:Nah they all have the same correct answer BF.3.Different problems all containing results to the same answer!Still the only correct answer!

              • Tex,

                You do not understand that the problem is on the other side of the equation.

                The “=” does not pick sides.

                Neither do human rights.

  35. V.H.

    both total freedom and total governmental control carry with them the hazard of having to accept gross immorality. So neither are good choices.

    Nonsense.

    You are attributing your morals – a set of Individual behaviors of yours, and thus wholly subjective to be “good”.

    You can not claim good for what you cannot prove.

    And you cannot prove that.

    Therefore, it is not a choice between what you think is good and what you think is bad.

    It is a choice between you forcing your good on others or not.

    I am however convinced that man must respect both freedom and have an attitude of moral responsibility to his fellow man for humanity to survive.

    That is his natural state and the fundamental core of voluntarianism – that man voluntary associates with others for his own benefit

    If one’s only way to stand for freedom is to allow a child to be beaten to the point of harm-than all one is standing for is extreme immorality.

    Perhaps this is your confusion.

    You mix “morals” with “rights”.

    No one has the right to beat another innocent person and age does not change this.

    • After reading all the remarks and responses-I have noticed that you are separating the word immoral into two categories-immoral and violence upon non violent people. So let me change my wording to fit your definition:

      both total freedom and total governmental control carry with them the hazard of having to accept violence against non violent people. So neither are good choices. Now one can certainly say that a free man doesn’t have to accept anything-which is the wonderful part of no government but it is also the bad part of no government. But if the lesson is that violence against non violent people is wrong-than the answer is stopping violence against non violent people. I don’t see where either choice taken to the extreme accomplishes this. But I do see where both choices will lead to the destruction of civilization.

      As far as my mixing up morals and rights-the bottom line- although the parent doesn’t have the right to cause harm to their children-no one seems to have the right to stop them. So unless one chooses to break the rule-violence against the non violent continues without the government causing it or being able to prevent it. And the child’s rights don’t seem to matter at all in this situation. Because in a world where government force is not allowed -another type of force comes into play and rights go out the window. The only thing that remains is the survival of the fittest. A little government, a basic description of right and wrong based on getting rid of violence against non violent people and the force necessary to enforce is the right answer-dangerous to freedom-no doubt-but it is still the right answer IMHO.

  36. TexasChem says:

    BF Stated:”It is a choice between you forcing your good on others or not.”

    TC:Society forces “good” upon others with the justice it hands out to those that oppose its particular vision of morality at the time.Even in your perfect Utopia if a man were to commit rape and murder, that society would deem him unfit and remove him or else perish.Who are you BF to tell someone that your version of good over-rides theirs?What right do you have to say that?It seems to me just your way of endorsing your particular view through a thought coercion!

    • Texaschem,

      I do not even try to defend my morality to anyone else who does not want to know it.

      But you misuse “morals” and “rights”.

      A person who rapes and murders is not committing an “immoral” act. He is committing an assault on human rights, and as such, the act of violence upon the innocent receives a response of violence in defense.

      But as you’ve demonstrated – it is the confusion that immorality are acts of violence and that is where most people get twisted.

      They then are led to believe that all immorality must be met with violence.
      Thus, great evil is created.

      • TexasChem says:

        Ummm…Nope I am certain I did not confuse the two.Perhaps you did so I took the liberty of posting the definitions for you!Pay particular attention to the definition of rights in 1a. the very first definition of rights!

        immoral (ɪˈmɒrəl)

        — adj
        1. transgressing accepted moral rules; corrupt
        2. sexually dissolute; profligate or promiscuous
        3. unscrupulous or unethical: immoral trading
        4. tending to corrupt or resulting from corruption: an immoral film ; immoral earnings

        Legal Dictionary

        rights

        Main Entry: right/rights

        Function: noun
        Etymology: Old English riht , from riht righteous
        1 a : qualities (as adherence to duty or obedience to lawful authority) that together constitute the ideal of moral propriety or merit moral approval b : something that is morally just right from wrong>
        2 : something to which one has a just claim: as a : a power, privilege, or condition of existence to which one has a natural claim of enjoyment or possession right of liberty> right s — Declaration of Independence > —see also NATURAL RIGHT b : a power, privilege, immunity, or capacity the enjoyment of which is secured to a person by law right s > c : a legally enforceable claim against another that the other will do or will not do a given act right to insist on that care —W. L. Prosser and W. Pacific Reporter Keeton

        • Texaschem,

          You do confuse them

          (1) transgressing accepted moral rules

          with

          (2)something to which one has a just claim: as a : a power, privilege, or condition of existence to which one has a natural claim of enjoyment or possession right of liberty

          You want YOUR morals to be (2), when it can never be.

          If you try to make such, you will destroy (2) for yourself (and others).

          • TexasChem says:

            BF there has to be a standard for society to pull their morals,values and yes even rights from!

            I fully understand where you are coming from in reference to wanting to be left alone and having no violence committed upon a non-violent man to live life peacably and freely,but, I hold to the truth that there will always be a segment of Mankind that enjoys living in a non-peacable manner willing to impose their will upon others WITHOUT having an understanding or caring of others morals,values and rights.That my friend is evil.

            • Texaschem,

              They can not impose without violence – such a statement as you make is a contradiction.

              If your thinking is so weak as to fall for the words of immoral men, it is not the fault of immoral men – it is the fault of weak minds.

              You cannot protect weak minds by using violence on everyone else. The use of violence is the first tool of weak minds.

              Evil is measured by violence, and nothing more or less.

              • TexasChem says:

                That’s crazy talk BF.If a man is trying to take from me by violence because he is immoral, having no understanding or care for my rights then I am obligated by my right of self preservation to defend myself by whatever means is necessary.Including violence.

              • Texaschem

                .If a man is trying to take from me by violence because he is immoral

                Precisely your confusion.

                It isn’t a matter of moral or immoral – it is the matter of violent taking.

                If Jesus stole, it would be as much an evil if Satan stole.

              • Well duh!It is immoral to take by force…violence!

  37. Sparks Goes to the White House

    • Worrisome stuff there Cyndi!
      If more citizens understood what our own government has done to them then perhaps we really could get some hope and change!

      • The majority of Americans don’t want to know. Just like they didn’t want to know about the candidate they wanted as their president. Forget about hope, try to survive the change.

        The Hopim is running out.

        • TexasChem says:

          You can bet your little tanned island tush I am going to survive the change!

          • Sadly, my tush is neither tiny, nor tanned. All its done for the last two months is rain every weekend. As for the tush, I’m now taking thyroid medicine so maybe a tinier tush is in the cards, lol!

            Glad to see you plan to survive. Me too, even if it means fish and coconuts for a while!

            :o)

            • TexasChem says:

              T-3 or T-4 thyroid medication?
              The T-3 is a MUCH better metabolism booster!

              • Not sure. All I know is I’m already feeling better. I wentsnorkeling this afternoon and didn’t even feel like I needed a nap afterward!

                The bottle says: Levothyroxine sodium…..

      • Tex,

        You make me laugh.

        Your solution will be of course some sort of government.

        Your hope and change is the same hell you want out of.

        • TexasChem says:

          Yes an Oligarchy in which I can micro-manage my nation with my Blackberry!

          Just go ahead and make me your King now BlackFlag…you know you want to… 🙂

  38. BF Stated:”Texas,

    As usual, you argue for the use of violence on non-violent people by pointing to violence on non-violent people.”

    TC:If someone is performing violence upon a non-violent person then that non-violent person isn’t entitled to use violence to defend themselves?

    • Tex

      Of course.

      But that is not your argument.

      You have brought this scenario into the discussion for you to justify attacking non-violent people.

      • TexasChem says:

        BF,

        But, it pertains to my arguement.

        There is no such thing as non-violent people.

        • Tex,

          You have crossed into irrational insanity in argument.

          Thus ends our dialogue.

          • TexasChem says:

            Name me one successful civilization of Mans’ that has never committed acts of violence if I am being irrationally insane then Flag!
            The Eloi will always be eaten by the Morlocks unless they learn to fight back.

    • TexasChem says:

      BF Stated”The “=” does not pick sides.

      Neither do human rights.”

      TC:Bah…tell that to two warring nations BF.
      Whomever the victor is will write history and determine which side of the “=” sign you are on and what your human rights will be!

      • Tex

        It is hard for you to hold a consistent train of thought and argument.

        • TexasChem says:

          Flag,

          Not really, it’s just that I have multiple trains of thought running through my head and not enough conductors! 🙂

          Oh my Gawsh I am an unprecedented phenomenol funk phenomenon on SUFA tonight!

  39. Bob,

    Your quoting 13,000 gays discharged from the military since 1994 my not be the indicator of hate you claim. I was active duty Army from January 1983 to April 1988. It was fairly common for people to claim they were gay just to be discharged from the service. Mind you, that was during ‘peacetime’ when no one was being shot at.

    Not all known gays were discharged. In one of my units, two woman were caught in the act. A new arrival showed up on a weekend. She reported to the Charge of Quarters NCO, who gave her a room key to the only remaining ‘female’ room. Two other women were assigned to that three person room. When the new girl walked in, the other to were, shall we say, ‘going for it’. The new soldier went back to the CQ and reported what happened. Temporary accomodation was found for her that evening and the next. By Monday morning everyone in the unit knew what happened. It was a bit scandalous but no one was outraged and most thought it was funny. Neither of the two gay woman were discharged. The loop hole was that they were given the option of claiming that they were just experimenting with homosexuality. The reason I remember this is because we were all surprised that they were allowed to remain in the Army. So when I hear how persecuted gays are in the military, I just have to question the truth of that statement due to what I’ve seen with my own eyes.

  40. My Neitzen friend, John, has a very good -public media- perspective.

    http://revolutionarypolitics.com/?p=4410

  41. Black Flag,
    You asked a simple question:

    Do you, Buck (Todd), have the right to enforce the rights of another person?

    I gave a simple answer:

    Yes.

    And you extrapolated it to the response above? That’s an awful lot of assumptions in 5 sentences.

    Here’s an example when I have the right to enforce the rights of another person:

    1. My minor child
    2. My elderly parent who can no longer speak for him/her self

    Get it?

    The only person tripping over himself here is you as to try to twist my words to fit your demented little world.

    So now it’s your turn to answer my questions:

    So, let’s walk thru this…No violence on the non-violent…only you can determine what is violence against you…only you can determine when/what the appropriate response is, right?

    So, how does this work for a young child? They do not have the capacity to determine when violence is being used against them, nor the capacity to respond. If their parents are inflicting this violence, or not stopping it if inflicted by others, who should step in on their behalf?

    And please skip your long-winded bullshit – my tolerance for you is just about up.

    • Todd,

      Do you, Buck (Todd), have the right to enforce the rights of another person?

      I gave a simple answer:

      Yes.

      And you extrapolated it to the response above? That’s an awful lot of assumptions in 5 sentences.

      No, its not.

      My question was specific. It held no qualifiers. You provided none in return.

      This is not a trap, but a process of discovery.

      You are trying to suggest that you, Todd can overrule the exercise of rights of another person.

      If this is not your meaning or intention, then say so, but at this point – in all your discourse between myself and BL this remains the conditions of your argument

      Here’s an example when I have the right to enforce the rights of another person:

      1. My minor child
      2. My elderly parent who can no longer speak for him/her self

      Get it?

      Todd, get this.

      A specific example does not make a general policy

      So, try again, sir!

  42. Todd

    So, let’s walk thru this…No violence on the non-violent…only you can determine what is violence against you…only you can determine when/what the appropriate response is, right?

    So, how does this work for a young child? They do not have the capacity to determine when violence is being used against them, nor the capacity to respond. If their parents are inflicting this violence, or not stopping it if inflicted by others, who should step in on their behalf?

    And please skip your long-winded bullshit – my tolerance for you is just about up.
    /

    So we ’round about eventually to the root.

    Who has the right to determine what works for a child

    You… the stranger.

    or

    The parent.. not the stranger.

    Who do you chose?

    • BF Stated:”So we ’round about eventually to the root.

      Who has the right to determine what works for a child

      You… the stranger.

      or

      The parent.. not the stranger.

      Who do you chose?

      TC:The parent has the right unless the children are being taught negative social behavior (such as a group of 12 year old kids sawing off an infidels head) that would lead to a severe destabilization of society!
      Also, if the kids were involved in some form of religious/political brainwashing to blow themselves up in an attack upon a make-believe big and little satan, I believe would qualify for the intervention of a stranger.
      If the parents were addicted to some form of drug or were psychologically inadequate in some fashion and neglected their duties to maintain a childs health and well being that would qualify as well in my opinion.I don’t know why yall tend to beat around the bush so much.Don’t be scared to NOT be politically correct!
      I suppose the root of our dilemma would be stemming from the onus being upon the parent to be exactly that, a parent.I suppose if you want to dig even deeper the onus is actually upon society to agree upon a base standard to pull their morals, mores, values and ethics from relating to parenting…ehh BlackFlag??

      • TexasChem,
        You raise an interesting question:

        I suppose the root of our dilemma would be stemming from the onus being upon the parent to be exactly that, a parent.I suppose if you want to dig even deeper the onus is actually upon society to agree upon a base standard to pull their morals, mores, values and ethics from relating to parenting…

        Where do parents get there “rights” over their children from?

        Thru out most of human history, the extended family, friends, and the community/society all shared in raising children because it benefits society to have healthy children that grow up to be healthy adults.

        The idea of the two biological parents raising their children by themselves is a fairly new concept in our society. And the fact that our society created this concept does not create a “natural law” that parents are solely and completely responsible for their children. When parents fail to met the needs of their children, it is the responsibility of society/community to fill that need. That includes food, shelter, security, education, emotional stability – all the things a child needs to grow up to become a healthy adult. Societies that fail to recognize this and fail to provide it are doomed.

        Societies are judged by how they treat their most vulnerable members.

        • Todd Stated”Where do parents get there “rights” over their children from?”

          TC:Well, I would use the word responsibilty rather than rights.Being a parent entails taking ownership of bringing a person into this world and giving them everything you can possibly provide that they need, to the best of your ability, for them to become a productive and happy individual.It’s a huge undertaking.My Dad is my hero and I am so grateful for everything he did for me.He taught and gave me all the tools I needed to learn to become the man I am today.

    • Black Flag,
      You still have not answered my questions.

      • I wish he would hurry up, weigh anchor, raise his colors and set sail cause I’m laying in ambush on the other side of the cove to broadside em’!

      • Todd,

        If you do not believe I have answered, please repost your question.

        • Wouldn’t this have been easier if you had just answered the question up front???????????

          So, one more time:

          So, let’s walk thru this…No violence on the non-violent…only you can determine what is violence against you…only you can determine when/what the appropriate response is, right?

          So, how does this work for a young child? They do not have the capacity to determine when violence is being used against them, nor the capacity to respond. If their parents are inflicting this violence, or not stopping it if inflicted by others, who should step in on their behalf?

  43. I think there’s confusion over whether a bystander has the “right” to intervene on the behalf of “someone” (child or other victim) being beaten, and whether or not the bystander *can* do so.

    Bystander does not have the right to intervene. If the bystander *chooses* to intervene on behalf of the rights of the person being beaten, and the bystander is *wrong*, then the bystander will face the consequences of that decision.

    If parents are beating their child and no one else is willing/available to help, and you intervene on the child’s behalf (and even if you are correct in that the child wished you to intervene), it will be the community that decides whether you were right or wrong to do so through the exercise of their own rights of free association.

    Currently all of that personal responsibility has been absolved in favor of letting government thugs do the dirty work and turning a blind eye to any mishaps.

    • well said. that I agree with. It is not a requirement or legal obligation to step in, nor is it illegal to step in, unless it is determined that you have violated the rights of someone who was not in violation of anyone else’s rights, in which case you suffer the consequences of your decision.

  44. Bottom Line says:

    If you believe that it is your right and moral obligation(responsibility) to intervene in the case of a child being abused while noting that the child has it’s own rights,

    …then you have the right and moral obligation(responsibility) to intervene when a woman is beaten by her husband as she has her own rights,

    …then you have the right and moral obligation(responsibility) to intervene when a couple of gangsters do a drive-by,

    …then you have the right and moral obligation(responsibility) to intervene when an old lady is mugged by a thug.

    …then you have the right and moral obligation(responsibility) to intervene when you see a cop beating a defenseless man on the street

    …then you have the right and moral obligation(responsibility) to intervene when etc, etc…

    If you believe that you have a right and moral obligation(responsibility) to decide (according to your standards)how someone raises their child, and intervene accordingly,

    …then you have the right and moral obligation(responsibility) to decide(according to your standards) how someone treats their spouse, and intervene accordingly

    …then you have the right and moral obligation(responsibility) to decide (according to your standards) how someone treats their pet, and intervene accordingly

    …then you have the right and moral obligation(responsibility) to decide (according to your standards) how someone practices their religion, and intervene accordingly

    …then you have the right and moral obligation(responsibility) to decide (according to your standards) what a person eats, and intervene accordingly

    …then you have the right and moral obligation(responsibility) to decide (according to your standards) how much exercise they get, and intervene accordingly

    …then you have the right and moral obligation(responsibility) to decide (according to your standards) if they can get an abortion or not, and intervene accordingly

    …then you have the right and moral obligation(responsibility) to decide (according to your standards) what color their house is, and intervene accordingly

    …then you have the right and moral obligation(responsibility) to decide (according to your standards) what kind of car they drive, and intervene accordingly

    …then you have the right and moral obligation(responsibility) to decide (according to your standards) where they work, and intervene accordingly

    If you have the right and moral obligation(responsibility) to decide (according to YOUR standards) how someone chooses to live, Then they have the right and moral obligation(responsibility) to decide (according to THEIR standards) how YOU choose to live.

    If you have the right and moral obligation(responsibility) to decide (according to YOUR standards)how someone raises THEIR child, Then they have the right and moral obligation(responsibility) to decide (according to THEIR standards) how you raise YOUR child.

    If you have the right and moral obligation(responsibility) to decide (according to YOUR standards) what color THEIR house is, Then they have the right and moral obligation(responsibility) to decide (according to THEIR standards) what color YOUR house is.

    If you have the right and moral obligation(responsibility) to decide (according to YOUR standards)what someone else eats, Then they have the right and moral obligation(responsibility) to decide (according to THEIR standards) what YOU eat.

    If you have the right and moral obligation(responsibility) to decide (according to YOUR standards)what someone else believes, Then they have the right and moral obligation(responsibility) to decide (according to THEIR standards) what YOU are to believe.

    If you have the right and moral obligation(responsibility) to decide (according to YOUR standards)whether or not someone gets an abortion, Then they have the right and moral obligation(responsibility) to decide (according to THEIR standards)whether or not YOU have one.

    If you have the right and moral obligation(responsibility) to decide (according to YOUR standards)how they treat THEIR spouse, Then they have the right and moral obligation(responsibility) to decide (according to THEIR standards) how you treat YOUR spouse.

    etc…etc…etc…

    Where do you draw the line?

    To whom are you responsible to/for?

    What is pervasive?

    What is subjective?

    When is it okay or not okay to intervene in the affairs of another?

    What is your responsibility to strangers, friends, family, etc…?

    • Bottom Line says:

    • Buck the Wala says:

      Forget rights and responsibilities for a second. Are you able to act towards the self defense of a stranger (assuming the risk of being wrong and bearing responsibility for any harm caused) without infringing on the rights and freedoms of the aggressor and victim?

      • Bottom Line says:

        I’m confused.

        How can I forget about rights and responsibility when answering a question that mentions “bearing responsibility” and “infringing on the rights”?

        • Buck the Wala says:

          Don’t be so difficult BL! 🙂

          Forgetting about your own rights and responsibilities vis-a-vis the aggressor and victim, are you able to intervene to come to the self-defense of another individual without infringing upon their rights and responsibilities?

          • Bottom Line says:

            But my rights and responsibilities are relevant to the question.

            Since they are strangers, I have no responsibility to either of them, therefore I am not obligated to intervene.

            The aggressor has no right to violate the victim.

            The victim has a responsibility to protect their rights and therefore a right to defend themselves by responding with aggression.

            But I have no right to act against either of them…including the aggressor as the aggressor did not act aggressive toward me.

            So, if I intervene with aggression toward the aggressor, I am violating aggressor’s rights and aggressor has the right to respond with aggression toward me as the aggressor has a responsibility to defend him/herself just as the victim does.

            By acting in aggression toward the aggressor, I am essentially making the aggressor MY victim.

            So, the answer is no, I am not able to intervene to come to the self-defense of another individual without infringing upon another’s rights.

            I wouldn’t be infringing on the rights of the victim, but I would upon the aggressor.

            Of course, if I were able to extract the victim absent of aggression, I could come to the self-defense of another individual without infringing upon another’s rights.

            …Or if I could block the aggression while the victim ran, and become the victim myself, I could come to the self-defense of another individual without violating anyone’s rights but my own. But that is my right and responsibility to decide for me.

            In the case of a shared responsibility to each other such as husband and wife, then by intervention/extraction, I am violating their right to conduct their marital affairs as they see fit.

            Maybe she likes it. Maybe it turns her on to be hit. Maybe she is a masochists.

            Maybe she accepts it as normal and thinks that’s what a husband is supposed to do to a wife.

            Not my business.

            In the case of a child being abused, then it is the right and responsibility of the parent to decide what is acceptable for THEIR child. And by intervention, I am violating their right to raise their child as they see fit.

            Again, not my business.

            • Bottom Line says:

              Oh, and another possibility to the husband/wife scenario…

              Maybe he is punishing her for breaking their kid’s arm.

              In which case, it isn’t business either, and besides, she deserves it.

              🙂

            • Bottom Line,
              If I walk up to you and shoot you dead, who has the right to punish me?

              I have violated only your rights, but you are dead.

              Since no one else can assume your rights, I walk free.

              • Bottom Line says:

                Indeed.

                Shit happens.

              • Bottom Line says:

                Todd,

                Let’s say you walk up to me and shoot me dead, and there IS someone to punish you for violating my rights…

                I’m still dead.

                Shit still happens.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                So in your world if you are going to attack someone its best to kill them rather than merely injure them since, if they are dead, no one can assert their rights to punish you?

                Interesting result.

              • Watch your own back Buck, it’s a dangerous world. But I do feel much “freeer”…

                And don’t piss-off Mathius – or that Dread Pirate will be stalking you!!

                Just when I thought they couldn’t get any crazier…they do…

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Absolutely amazing.

              • Todd

                While you are so surprised by the craziness of anarchy-you might look around at the world we have created with government and question the craziness of allowing governmental power to grow to the size it has. If one allows themselves to SEE the truth- we have no RIGHTS anymore-we live under the allusion that we do but government can take those away anytime they want too. The fact that they have this ability is proven more and more everyday. And if it doesn’t stop, you might find that people who normally wouldn’t even consider such an extreme move-will-because quite frankly as a parent I have to protect my child from legalized governmental beatings. Truthfully the only thing more crazy to me than absolute anarchy is standing by while my freedoms are stripped from me and my children ONE BY ONE.

              • Bottom Line says:

                Get ’em V.H>!

                I love it!

              • Buck the Wala says:

                So VH, I take it you agree that if a child is being abused by his parents, too bad?

              • Bottom Line says:

                Buck,

                So, since the law punishes people for murder, a person can be brought back from the dead?

                Also, an interesting result.

                BTW, we live in the same world, You just see it differently than I do.

                You think that you have the right to steal my money by proxy of government and to tell me how to live.

                I think that I have no right to your life and your stuff whatsoever.

                Who violates who’s rights?

              • Bottom Line says:

                Buck,

                Further,…

                In “my world”, I don’t just attack people or shoot them unless they attack me first.

                Just because you advocate the use of violence to steal from others and to run their lives, doean’t mean that I do.

                Absolutely amazing…How you liberals rationalize things.

                🙂

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Let’s save the ‘tax is theft’ argument for another day.

                I’m still very very interested in your justifications on the ‘rights’ of a parent to physically abuse a child, just because it is their child.

                Do children have any rights in your view of the world? If so, who can act to protect those rights if the parents are the ones infringing upon them? Or the parents’ ‘rights’ supercede those of the children?

                It is your attitude of ‘shit happens’ that scares me the most. Every man for himself. No one can act to protect another from harm. You get attacked? Too bad for you.

              • Bottom Line says:

                Buck,

                I’m out of time for today. This will have to wait until tomorrow. But I am more than happy to indulge this then.

          • Bottom Line says:

            Now, I have one for you…

            If you saw a man spanking his kid, and by YOUR standards, decided that he is being abusive, then according to what YOU consider YOUR moral obligation, tried to take his kid away…

            A fist fight ensues between you and dad…

            When at such time, someone else decided BY THEIR STANDARDS, that you have no right to intervene in the affairs of another, and then tackled you…

            …while I stood at a safe distance watching it all go down…

            Would I be violating anyone’s rights?

            🙂

            • …while I stood at a safe distance watching it all go down…

              Since I already shot you dead, this should say “…while I lay cold and motionless at a safe distance…”.

              Would I be violating anyone’s rights?

              You’re dead – what do you care?

              • Bottom Line says:

                Todd,

                First of all, my question was for Buck regarding the depicted scenario. Perhaps I should have specified. I thought it was evident considering that I started it with “Now I have one for you” …meaning a question.

                Second, What’s with this shooting me bullshit? You’re starting to sound obsessive.

                And you talk about others(“they”) being crazy?

                Absolutely amazing…how you make such projections.

  45. Buck

    So VH, I take it you agree that if a child is being abused by his parents, too bad

    I haven’t waded into this because Bottom Line and DKII have done brilliantly.

    The challenge rests solely on Buck et al to understand the message – though it may be disagreeable, it is Right. And, yes, that is a hard thing to swallow sometimes.

    Buck, no where does V.H. suggest that parental abuse is “not a good thing” and is a “bad thing”.

    But between a bad thing, and a thing which – in its maximal form, threatens to destroy all of humanity – I believe the choice is very clear.

    • And that is my definition of a Sophie’s Choice 🙂 Thanks BF but I must point out that it isn’t my definition of what is right(I rather like the idea of a small government)but it may well be the only choice. At least until man created another one. But hopefully man would retain that fear of losing their freedoms enough not to get the “good of society” idea confused with the “protecting of rights” idea mixed up. Doubtful-I suspect it will either be a vicious circle or a life of bowing to governmental control. I’ll take the circle and do everything I can individually to protect those who need protecting.

      • V.H.

        It is NOT Sophie’s Choice.

        Sophie’s Choice is between two, equally personal catastrophic choices.

        In this matter, the choices are NOT equal, nor are they PERSONAL.

        The matter at hand is trade offs – you cannot both the cake in your hand and in your stomach (you cannot have your cake and eat it too).

        Human suffering will NEVER be removed from the human condition – suffering is a fact of the Universe.

        But creating suffering on innocent people will not reduce suffering – and that is your demand.

        You want to force others into your morality – which will create suffering so to solve the suffering of another person – whose suffering comes from the Universe and not that innocent person!

        That is where evil is created, V.H.

        Free men are not callous. But forcing free men to act is evil.

        • Dang BF-do you have a sense of humor or am I just back at humor-don’t answer that 🙂 I am not using a nit picky definition of a Sophie’s Choice-two bad choices-two imperfect choices. A trade-off if you will-but the back and forth arguing about it was a joke. As far as the rest-I agree with you on a large percentage of your arguments but Evil is Evil-one choice maybe being better doesn’t excuse the evil that is being done with the system you choose. Not for government and not for free man. I am not ready to accept that evil as the only option because over time I believe both options long term can and will destroy this country. People formed governments for reasons and if we want freedom to last we have to address those reasons.

  46. BL and Buck, et al., try this on for size.

    I believe that rights can be voided by ones self. We are born with certain rights, and those rights are within our own control. Consider the following examples:

    1) I have a right to not have violence done against me, as do you. If I attack you, then I have voided my right to not have violence done against me, since you have the right to defend yourself.

    2) I have a right to property, as do you. If I steal your property, I have voided my own right to my property, since you are able to take back what is yours, OR take back equivalent value if your property cannot be taken back.

    3) I have a right to non-violence, but I get off on kinky stuff that would be considered violent by most standards. I can forgo my rights by consenting to the actions of another person.

    Thus, our rights are within our own control.

    Example 1 shows why it is not a violation of the rights of the attacker to defend someone else. If I see someone breaking a child’s arm, I will step in without fear of a rights violation.

    Example 3 shows where things can get sticky. If the harmful actions are by consent, then I am violating the rights of the attacker and the presumed victim. I do not think this applies in the case of child abuse, but it is something to be cautious of.

    Another instance where this might get sticky is when it comes down to who decides when rights are forfeit. You might forfeit your rights by committing violence, but can I determine what level of violence or what constitutes violence? Breaking a child’s arm may be clear cut, but what about spanking, is that violence? I do not believe it is, but it fits the definition, technically.

    What do you guys think?

    • Bottom Line says:

      I think that when there is difficulty determining where to draw the line with respect to rights, it falls back on responsibility and subjectivity.

      It’s kinda like a three way balancing act.

      Somewhere in any set of circumstances, there is an inconsistency with respect to the above mentioned principles. If you can identify it, you know where to draw that line.

      Eventually you’re able to answer the question “What is pervasive?”.

  47. Bottom Line says:

    Buck – “Let’s save the ‘tax is theft’ argument for another day.”

    BL – Fundamentally speaking, it is the same argument as parental rights.

    Freedom is about doing as you choose, so long as it doesn’t encroach on the freedoms of others.

    Buck – “I’m still very very interested in your justifications on the ‘rights’ of a parent to physically abuse a child, just because it is their child.

    Do children have any rights in your view of the world? If so, who can act to protect those rights if the parents are the ones infringing upon them? Or the parents’ ‘rights’ supercede those of the children?”

    BL – This is a gray area, which makes it an awesome subject of debate. Like what I said to Jon above…

    “I think that when there is difficulty determining where to draw the line with respect to rights, it falls back on responsibility and subjectivity.

    It’s kinda like a three way balancing act.

    Somewhere in any set of circumstances, there is an inconsistency with respect to the above mentioned principles. If you can identify it, you know where to draw that line.

    Eventually you’re able to answer the question “What is pervasive?”.

    A parent has the right to determine what is appropriate for their child as it is THEIR child. But it’s hard to say that a parent has the right to violate a child’s rights as they are people too…which falls back on responsibility.

    Who’s responsible for that child? The parents? The child(depending on age)? Family? Friends of the family? Neighbors?

    Again, it’s hard to say. Perhaps the answer is all of the above. I would think that responsibility primarily falls on the parents. So, everyone else’s responsibility is secondary.

    And when you weigh in subjectivity, you have to ask…What makes me a better judge than them with respect to THEIR child? Who’s to say? Who the hell am I to determine what is best for someone else’s child? Is it MY responsibility? What right do I have to tell someone how to raise their kid?

    Buck – “It is your attitude of ‘shit happens’ that scares me the most. Every man for himself. No one can act to protect another from harm. You get attacked? Too bad for you.”

    BL – What scares the shit out of me is your belief that you have to control everything. At some point, you just have to let go.

    I accept that I have absolutely no control over Todd. So if he decides to stalk me and blow my brains out, I just have to deal with it.

    I can’t deal with it by infringing on his right to carry a gun. All I can do is have one ready for myself in case he tries to kill me.

    And besides, what will it accomplish to assume the rights of a dead person? If I’m dead, what rights do I have?

    • Bottom Line says:

      Buck – “No one can act to protect another from harm. You get attacked? Too bad for you.””

      BL – I dunno. Who am I to say whether or not you are wrong or right to intervene in such case as me being attacked?

      Not that I wouldn’t appreciate it…

      I would argue that you have no responsibility toward my welfare and therefore aren’t obligated to help me in time of personal crisis.

      And if I get shot in the head by some crazed liberal emo-tard, then well, yeah, too bad for me. It’s not like it can be reversed. I’m dead already.

%d bloggers like this: