Wednesday Morning Open Mic for January 12, 2010

A hearty good morning to all on a fine Wednesday morning. Today’s open mic will be done a little differently. I am considering this going forward for a couple of reasons, chief among them being that with my new schedule, it might be easier to accomplish! What I am going to do is post this normal introduction and then add the open mic topics throughout the day, whenever time permits me to do so. I appreciate the discussions had on Monday’s post. I feel like some of us got a little off track, but that is to be expected (and even encouraged!). The key point to my article was that what happened were the acts of someone who was not right in the head, and as such I refuse to any longer accept acts such as this as part of political wrangling. It is about removing the partisan BS and focusing instead on logical and responsible solutions and observations. As such, I found it interesting that I was attacked as jumping to conclusions when I simply state that someone who shoots 18 people isn’t right in the head. I made no other conclusions to judge. It makes me wonder….


  1. USWeapon Topic #1

    Democrats Single Out Sharron Angle in Calling for Limits on Speech

    The motive behind Jared Lee Loughner’s attack in Arizona remains a mystery, but some Democratic lawmakers are looking to curb speech they claim creates an “aura of hatred” — and are pointing to failed Republican Senate candidate Sharron Angle of Nevada as an example of the need for federal regulations.

    Rep. Louise Slaughter, D-N.Y., on Monday referenced a comment by Angle in calling for a change in the nation’s political dialogue — by will or by law.

    “‘Don’t retreat, reload.’ Someone in Nevada saying we may need to use Second Amendment remedies. There’s only one way to read this,” Slaughter said.

    Rep. Brad Sherman, D-Calif., told Fox News that Angle “talked about people rising up and taking over the government by force, using their guns. She was very explicit.”

    Sherman said that even if language used by Angle and her supporters hadn’t incited the shootings in Arizona, eventually it will lead to violence.

    “I’m saying if you have a heart attack, stop smoking, not because nicotine may or may not have caused your last heart attack, you’ll never know, but it’s going to cause the next one,” Sherman said. “And if we continue to bring into the mainstream and treat as civil those who call for violence and disruption and assassination and revolution and insurrection, then whether that caused what happened in Tucson or not, it will cause the next tragedy.”

    Angle was not immediately available for a response.

    Loughner, the accused gunman with no discernible connection to American political discourse, has not stated why he allegedly shot 20 people in an assault that left six dead and 14 injured, including Arizona Democratic Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, who is in critical condition.

    In the wake of the shooting, the National Hispanic Media Coalition used the incident to reiterate its call for the FCC to update its definitions of hate speech in media. It also asked the FCC to “examine the extent and effects of hate speech in media, and non-regulatory options for counteracting the violence that extreme rhetoric breeds.”

    Rep. Robert Brady, D-Pa., said he has no knowledge about what motivated Loughner to attack Giffords and the others, but he still wants legislation that bans the use of certain imagery when talking about congressional targets.

    “I want to eliminate what may have been,” Brady told Fox News. “I’m not a psychologist … All I’m saying is you can’t put a bullseye or a crosshair on a member of Congress.”

    Read the rest of the article here:

    Fresh off yesterday’s discussions I found this particular article interesting. And at the same time frightening. Then again, I believe that I said our politicians have become so predictable that we know exactly how they are going to spin it before it even happens. Fortunately for me, our DC representation has not let me down. They immediately began clamoring for restrictions on free speech.

    A few comments really stuck out for me. Let’s start with this gem: “‘Don’t retreat, reload.’ Someone in Nevada saying we may need to use Second Amendment remedies. There’s only one way to read this,” On the contrary, Congress Creature, there are several ways that this can be read. One way is literal, meaning that Angle meant to literally reload a weapon and commence shooting your opposition. Only a fracking idiot would conclude that Angle meant it literally. And if that is the only way that you can read it, I have to seriously question both your logical processing ability as well as your mental state. Someone who can only see this statement as a literal command certainly doesn’t seem fit to be a leader in this country. Another way to read it would be that Angle wishes for her supporters to not give up the fight to alter government action through the voting process. This translation certainly seems more probable given that the statement was made by someone who just lost an election.

    Another statement that stood out to me was this: “I’m not a psychologist … All I’m saying is you can’t put a bullseye or a crosshair on a member of Congress.” And why not? Are members of Congress some special breed of people? A protected class that should gain special treatment? Any sane person is well aware that the crosshairs are not meant to say that these people should literally be shot. The tactic was identifying vulnerable members of Congress who could be defeated in an election process. And before you get your pants in a wad, Congressman, remember that the exact same tactic was used by Democrats during previous election cycles. Heck, even your very own Messiah, the President, made the statement during a speech, ” If they bring a knife, we’ll bring a gun.” But I am guessing no one would assume the President meant that literally. I wonder if Rep. Slaughter found only one way to read the President’s statement…

    The full article contains other noteworthy comments and a response from Angle which wasn’t available when I originally pulled the article. The point to all this is that we should ALL be standing up and decrying these false prophets in Congress. The game they are playing is obvious, and it appears as if no one on the left is willing to hold them responsible for the game they are attempting to play. Instead, I watch as those on the left merely attempt to bolster these ridiculous arguments laid out by game players in Congress. That is sad to me.

    We cannot sit idly by and accept these ridiculous claims by the left that are being used as nothing more than some sort of justification for introducing legislation meant to curtail the free speech rights of American citizens. While I am sure that members of Congress would love a world where they are not criticized or targeted. However, the fact remains that their absolutely abysmal performance over the last couple of decades shows that we should be targeting them for criticism and removal from office DAILY. We would get more competent representation from members gathered randomly from any homeless shelter. I would say prison, but if we randomly gathered people from prisons, we might accidentally end up with former members of Congress back in office.

    We don’t need legislation to curtail free speech. And any attempt to do so should be met with fierce resistance. Instead of punishing all American citizens for the actions of a few nutballs, perhaps we could, and I know those on the left are tired of hearing me say it, start expecting people to act with a little more personal responsibility.

    • Buck the Wala says:

      So USW, how else can you interpret a statement to use ‘Second Amendment remedies’??

      • Truthseeker says:

        Buck, did you forget how this country was founded? It could happen again if the government becomes to tyranical. Just because it is the 21st centuary doesn’t mean it will never happen. Rome afterall never saw it comming…

        • Buck the Wala says:

          Umm..ok…but still wondering as to another interpretation of that statement…

          • Correct me if I am wrong but the way I read it is that Angle said “don’t retreat, reload” and Slaughter characterized it as “second amendment remedies.” If Angle did say it then I would like to see the entire statement to get the context.

            • Buck the Wala says:

              Asked by the host, Lars Larson of Portland, Oregon, where she stands on Second Amendment issues, Angle replied:

              You know, our Founding Fathers, they put that Second Amendment in there for a good reason and that was for the people to protect themselves against a tyrannical government. And in fact Thomas Jefferson said it’s good for a country to have a revolution every 20 years.

              I hope that’s not where we’re going, but, you know, if this Congress keeps going the way it is, people are really looking toward those Second Amendment remedies and saying my goodness what can we do to turn this country around? I’ll tell you the first thing we need to do is take Harry Reid out.

              • Buck

                And you actually think this is inciting violence, let alone a cold blooded murder?

                • Buck the Wala says:

                  When you put it all together, taken in context, yes this could be taken to incite violence.

                  I am not saying that we should ban such speech (let me be perfectly clear: we shouldn’t and I am against any and all attempts to do so), but it certainly says something when a woman running for office in the US Senate feels it is perfectly OK to say that ‘people are looking forward to Second Amendment remedies’ and that ‘we need to take Harry Reid out’.

                  I am astounded that you still refuse to see this as a problem.

                  The real question is well, what do we do about it? We don’t go on a rampage banning speech or censoring politicians and talking heads. But we make sure these individuals know that we will not tolerate such commentary. We refuse to elect the Angles of the world. We tune out the talking heads who continue to use such commentary.

                  • Buck

                    To make the connection between “second amendment remedy” and “take Harry Reid out” you had to ignore the words located between them, and the entire statement itself.

                    I hear her saying that the first step to showing people there is an alternative to violence is to take Harry Reid out.

                    I do not refuse to see a problem when a problem does not exist.

              • Buck, Do you actually think Angle thought of this? Talk of armed revolution or revolt came from the people, not her. I’m still pissed she let the secret out 🙂

                Seriously, I find it amusing that this is even talked about in DC, we have much bigger problems than what someone who lost an election said months ago. Maybe we can unite and call for these idiots in DC to focus on real issues that face Americans today, instead of catering to an agenda.

                • G man says….”Seriously, I find it amusing that this is even talked about in DC, we have much bigger problems than what someone who lost an election said months ago. Maybe we can unite and call for these idiots in DC to focus on real issues that face Americans today, instead of catering to an agenda.”

                  Well said, sir…well said.

      • Buck

        How about, “arm yourselves”.

        Or perhaps, “the time may come when it is necessary that we take up arms against this tyrannical government”.

        Ahhhhhhhhhh, both of which are very traditional American ideas.

        • Ray Hawkins says:

          “Traditional American ideas”? As in we lead all developed nations in the number of assassinated or attempted assassinations of public officials? Real traditional eh JAC?

          • Ray

            Not sure that would be traditional but it would certainly be historical. And I am sure as hell not sure what your point is.

            You are trying to project beyond my statement Ray. Relax, I am not putting forth the idea that armed revolt is needed, yet. And obviously, as I and others have said here many times, it would be futile.

            And yes, both are traditional American ideas. One of them in fact is the first American idea.

      • Interpret it rhetorically.

        • Ray Hawkins says:

          I’m sure the folks at gun shows in Arizona don’t interpret it rhetorically.

          • Ray, I go to gunshows all the time. I do not see skin heads or dont tread on me flags there…nor do I interpret those statements literally.

            BYW…asked you a question yesterday on how your son is doing….taken total control yet?

            • Ray Hawkins says:

              D13 – he has not taken complete control – but damn near it! Time gets budgeted waaaaay differently with a little guy running around.

              • Doesn’t it though….enjoy it. It goes away quickly. But, I will say, that my son and I are real buddies and it is deightful,,,he is 38.

        • Let me extrapolate some…. no one, especially me…advocates violence to change our government. If anything, I have been consistent upon using the vote and taking personal responsibility. You made a statement and I quote “I am astounded that you still refuse to see this as a problem.” Well, sir, I do not see it as a problem at all. It is no more a problem than I stated before…reading PLayboy magazine does not incite a person to rape. Making comments like, “I can tell you, but then I have to kill you” does not incite violence. I can narrowly interpret the statement as “take Harry Reid out” as to kill him…but I can also interpret it…to take him out of office. I have said many times to many people….”we fought for state’s rights before, perhaps we need to do it again”. Or, “save your confederate money, the South will rise again !” Does this make me an anarchist? A treasonous person? A violent one intent on overthrowing the government by force? Does it mean that I am a slave owner or want that type of life? Or could it mean, I am tired of it and used the phrase metaphorically.

          I have seen vitriolic politics all of my life. Calling a President’s wife a whore is just as bad as saying “take em out” (Reference LBJ’s Presidency). If we arrested everybody that used metaphoric statements…we would all be in jail.

          If you want to clean up politics, do not cherry pick these statements….pick em all. Politics is nasty business and I hate it….but I do not think for a New York skinny minute that a simple statement incites people to kill anymore than I believe carrying a weapon makes me a potential murderer.

          • Tip of the hat yer way my dear Texican.

            You found the words I have been searching for all morning.

            • To much time to think. Recovering from a bout with strep that I caught on the border herding bad guys…but recovering. It is 29 friggin degrees and my Texican thin blood does not like it…but I am in the warm cozy environment today…writing a new SOP for the border and bantering with all the fine folks on SUFA.

              HOw are ya, sir.

              • We are supposed to get to 40 something later this week.

                Do you know what the ice looks like on a skating rink?

                It is every where and will only get worse as the rain falls upon the frozen snow.

                So as soon as we are done with it, I’ll see if we can send some of that warm air your way.

          • Perfect word-Cherry pick-I remember watching that awful movie -19something-they were censuring specific words-sounds like the new bill one of the democratic(for Matt-although I have to admit that it sounds more pretentious than grammatically correct to me 🙂 )Congressmen is pushing.

      • It wasn’t Angle that said to use second amendment rememdies. Notice that the quotation marks ended prior to that. The second amendment remedies part was added as the interpretation from Rep. Slaughter. The only part that was a quote from Angle was “Don’t retreat, reload.”

        • “Don’t retreat, reload.”

          To be interpreted as….dont take a step back…get the facts straight and keep on trucking…

        • Say it isn’t so!!! A Liberal Democrat spinning a three work statement into meaning something totally different than it’s intented meaning. Well, that answers the question of where Todd learned his craft.

          • word not work, damn keyboard.

          • G-Man,
            Everyone of my quotes was correct. USWeapon obviously did not do any research on his own. And you lap it up like a little puppy dog… 😉

            Well, that answers the question of where Todd learned his craft.

            I guess we know where you learned your “craft”… 😉

            • Your statement lacks originality. I didn’t hurt your credibility, I just made it public knowledge. I see you have at least figured out that I won’t play in your little confrontational, personnal attack world, so now you set your sights on someone else. I’m at odds at which you lack the most in, credibility, integrity, or class.

            • I have an overwhelming urge to say “Take it outside Boys” 🙂

            • And what research were you looking for me to do Todd?

              • How about a search on Sharon Angle to determine what her comments really were?

                • I did a search and did not find a single place where she said “don’t retreat, reload” while talking about using 2nd Amendment actions. The article I was pulling the quote from didn’t have that part in quotations so I didn’t assume that it was a direct quote I should be looking for. I watched several videos and read several articles around the quoted material and found nothing that mentioned the use of 2nd amendment solutions.

                  Are we really going to get into a “USW doesn’t do enough research” debate? I write opinion. And I am open to being proven wrong each day. So, no I don’t do as much research as you like. And I am not going to. I don’t need to. People like you will work far harder to prove me wrong than I will. The truth comes out one way or another! 😉

                  • You require anyone who disagrees with you to use reason, logic, and facts. One of your main tenets is that Liberals use emotion, not facts.

                    But now you’re saying opinion is just fine?

                    We should all just post our opinions and others have to prove us wrong?

                    This will certainly be “Fun”…;)

        • Buck the Wala says:

          Actually that’s incorrect. Look at the statement by Angle I posted above – that was lifted verbatim from an interview she gave.

          While she did not refer to ‘Second Amendment remedies’ in the statement she made to ‘reload’, she has most certainly used the phrase in the past.

          • So what you are saying is that in two separate places in two different interviews she made two separate comments that Representative HappyTimes mashed together to infer a different meaning than the one intended by the original speaker…

            This is where I say things are getting ridiculous.

            You can find me saying “never back down from your principles” in one article and “sometimes you have to fight for what you believe in” in another article and “never bring a gun to a knife fight” in a third article. Would it be fair, then, to claim that I advocate using a gun against someone who doesn’t share my principles?

            • Buck the Wala says:

              Not going to take the bait USW – I was never arguing the ‘reload’ comment.

              In your original post you had mentioned how does someone interpret ‘reload’ to mean ‘Second Amendment remedies’. I was merely pointing out that Angle had also used that phrase and was wondering how you would interpret same.

              • Buck,

                I have now seen two different contexts of Angle saying the 2nd Amendment remedies thing, one from you and one from Ray. When Angle takes the tact that second amendment remedies SHOULD be used or suggests that it is the only alternative, then I would say she is crossing a line as a public figure. Like you, as reprehensible as that would be, I do not advocate laws to limit free speech. I am not a great Angle fan anyway. However, I do believe she should be given a fair and accurate review rather than the one sided, there is no other interpretation claim made by Rep HappyTimes.

                I will give that there are several ways that Angle’s statements can be interpretted. One of those plausible interpretations is the one offered by Rep. HappyTimes. I don’t think that is the correct interpretation, but it is a plausible one. But she said that was the ONLY interpretation. I offered a far more plausible one as just one possibility. I have seen several other ideas offered as well.

                In today’s slang and metaphor filled society, I tend to always assume that the literal interpretation is not the one meant when stated by a public figure. Unless they go too far, I think the benefit of the doubt in affording them an honest appraisal of their character is warranted. Do you really think that Angle is advocating picking up guns and shooting members of Congress?

                • Ray Hawkins says:

                  Your analysis falls short USW is you recall many of the events of 2010 (and postings herein) where numerous people were spotted intentionally coming to public events (Tea Party and non-Tea Party) with weapons on display. You’re saying Angle and others did not directly encourage this – they sure as hell didn’t discourage it either.

                  • Agreed. I don’t know that they didn’t directly encourage it. I didn’t see anything showing that they did, but it would not surprise me if someone produced some evidence of such behavior. Without a doubt they certainly didn’t discourage it. However, there is a big difference between people peacefully exercising their 2nd amendment rights and the encouragement of using firearms against political opponents.

            • Ray Hawkins says:

              Liar liar USWeapons pants on fire… can start at the 1:19 mark – and yes – I picked Rachel to intentionally tweak you. 😉

              • Ray Hawkins says:
              • First, Hillary’s face on SUFA, the, Maddows face on SUFA. Now that’s a tragedy!

              • Liar? That is a bit harsh. I could be wrong, but I am not intentionally hiding anything. I actually dont’ really mind Maddow all that much. I think she is full of crap and plays the exact same bullshit game that Olbermann, Beck and Limbaugh play. But I think that Maddow does it with a little bit more finesse than the others, which makes her appear more credible, even if she isn’t. I cannot say that I have listened to enough of her to make a really accurate call as to whether she is or isn’t credible. As for what she is reporting in your provided clip…

                So Angle said that she sees this and asks if that is what it means. What WAS NOT said in this little Maddow hit piece is that Angle, in that very statement DID NOT call for violence, did not say that people should use guns. She was talking about the reports that ammo cannot be kept in stock, and then, with a question mark, proposed what it might mean. I certainly didn’t hear her saying that people should use second amendment remedies. Nice try Ray.

                Now as for whether Angle has or has not in the past RECOMMENDED 2nd amendment rememdies, I couldn’t truly say. I am not a big fan of hers and haven’t spent a ton of time listening to her. But what I see so far from you and Buck is a linking of different statements made at different times in different contexts in order to create a meaning form them that doesn’t appear to me to exist. Show me somewhere where she said people should pick up weapons and use them to change Washington. I am not interested in more instances of her saying she thinks that is what is going to happen. I am interested in a time where she prescribed it as a remedy. If she has, shame on her. If she hasn’t, then shame on you.

                • Ray Hawkins says:

                  This is getting old USW – so what she said on Larson’s talk show was not prescriptive? What logic allowed you to arrive at that?

                  Also – how do you claim Maddow is not credible then in the same paragraph state you haven’t listened to enough of her to make a really accurate call if she is credible or not? Are you assuming she is not credible for some other reason?

                  • Read what I said again Ray. I never once stated that Maddow was not credible. Allow me to cut and paste for you:

                    But I think that Maddow does it with a little bit more finesse than the others, which makes her appear more credible, even if she isn’t. I cannot say that I have listened to enough of her to make a really accurate call as to whether she is or isn’t credible.

                    Where did I say she was not credible? To paraphrase what I said yet again, her finesse makes her appear credible, whether she is credible or not. I don’t know if she is credible because I don’t watch her enough.

                    I believe that what she said on Larsens talk show can be used to say she was being prescriptive, but I don’t think that her actual intention was to be prescriptive.

                    • Ray Hawkins says:

                      You’ve watched enough of her to assert she uses “finesse” to make her appear more credible. What that means is that absent the finesse you have attributed to her, you believe she may be something less than completely credible. Nice try at a backtrack,

                      So answer me this: what does “fight for liberty in more 2nd amendment kinds of ways” mean then?

                    • I don’t think I backtracked at all. I think you misunderstood what I was saying the first time. I did not say she uses finesse to make her appear more credible. I said she does her commentary with a little more finesse, meaning that I don’t think she comes across as harsh or as combative as Beck, Olbermann and Limbaugh. I think that approach lends more credibility than the doom and gloom and obvious deception tactics that the others employ. It really is amazing to me to be so soundly grilled when what I intended to do was give Rachel a little more benefit of the doubt. But believe what you want… I guess it really doesn’t matter what you believe I really think about Rachel Maddow. I tried to explain myself, but if you don’t want to believe me I can live with it.

                      As for what does “fight for liberty in more 2nd amendment kinds of ways” actually means. I would say it appears self explanatory. However in one example, the one you provided, it appeared to me that she was offering her thoughts on what could happen, while in Buck’s example it may be closer to a recommendation, which I would whole heartedly disapprove of. However, I see ZERO link between her saying that in one interview and her saying “don’t retreat, reload” in an entirely different moment after losing an election.

                  • Ray, Buck and I played this game yesterday about TV talking heads. Truthfully, I don’t think it really accomplished anything. Talking heads and politicians had zero to do with the shooting. You mentioned people armed at town halls/tea party events. Noone got shot! Most people carry concealed in these parts, there are more armed citizens in Wal-Mart then there are cops in the entire county. Nobody gets shot, and best of all, nobody gets mugged or car jacked.

                    Sorry about your 4 inches, I’d be disappointed too!

                • Ray Hawkins says:

                  More Rachel for you USW – around 1:10 the actual recording Angle:

          • Gotta give Buck some back up on this one-I feel I know exactly what she means-and a also know that the people who are upset about her words know what she meant. But She really messed up saying this- and then mentioning Reid-I don’t believe her words incited any violence-I just think they were wayyyyy stupid.

    • I think this use of this woman’s name, Slaughter, is inciting violence and insist you stop USW.

    • I didn’t take long for some Dem Reps to forget what was read during the reading on the Constitution,

    • Guess this is why I am not pursuing political office right now, but here goes:

      1) Don’t retreat, reload, is a standard metaphor for taking pause or ducking for cover to do a tactical reload to stay on the offensive. Finding cover is not always a time to seek escape, it may be a time to regroup in order to press forward. The fact that a gunfight-type analogy is used I think is more to make the metaphor have weight. Metaphors do many things, not the least of which is strike an emotional chord, making the meaning more clear, more forceful and more easily identified with. This was a good statement.

      2) A lot of people are seriously considering second amendment solutions, or at least preparing for them. I do not currently believe it is time for that yet, but I would not shy from it if it became necessary. I will not place a false sense of peace above freedom. There is a point where tyranny must be destroyed, regardless of risk and regardless of the distasteful aspects. I will exhaust every option I know, and seek others, and encourage others to do the same, but I will raise arms to defend my freedom, and come what may I will die a free man. I would raise arms to defend my freedom and that of my fellowman. I would have raised arms to free those in slavery, had I been there at the time, and I would have raised arms to free this country had I been there. If I am there when the need is truly there again, I will not shy away. The second amendment exists so that it CAN be an option, a “solution”. I pray we have enough harsh rhetoric that we can show the seriousness of our resolve without requiring arms. Not as bullies using threats, but as men and women standing for our freedom and shouting down those who would control or steal from us, regardless of their intentions, because they do not have the right to do so, nor the qualifications and wisdom to be correct in their thinking or feelings or actions.

      3) “take out Harry Reid”. This was not a good statement. It was politically foolish and bad form. However, considering the suffering of millions of free Americans as a result of his actions and the actions of those like him, I certainly understand the sentiment. Quite honestly, I do not think it is bad to vent anger at those who would control you using threatening language. Congresspeople are just that: people. I do not want their lives threatened or taken, but I care no more for their lives than of a homeless man on the street. Perhaps slightly less since the homeless guy at least never did anything to harm me or control me, but they still should not be shot.

      4) Rhetoric is essential to our political process. If it is harsh, then perhaps it is something that needs to be heard and taken seriously. Suppressing it will only make things worse in the long run. Suppressing debate is something sought by those who stand to lose something from the words. And no, I do not mean their lives, the actions of violent men have always been impossible to eliminate, as the dismal failure of gun control laws and laws against various forms of violence have shown. Laws do not prevent violence, removing “inciting speech” because it “might” push some unstable person over the edge is not nearly a good enough reason to restrict freedom of speech. I know that Buck and other more liberally minded here on SUFA are specifically stating that they are not favoring this, but there are those who are, and many who would like to see that, even if they do not really fear for their lives, they fear the debate itself. The thing is, even without legal restriction, do we really need concerted “intolerance”? Some thing certainly need not be said, and should be shouted down, like the “take out Harry Reid” statement, even in sarcasm it has little place in this sound byte world for a person of leadership. Honestly, however, a person of opinion should be given more leeway. The market can determine their effect. People like Ann Coulter and Michael Savage lose their intelligent audiences because they sound like conservative versions of Howard Stern, while others still hold some appeal. Perhaps an open minded listen to them is useful and educational, even if it remains utterly unconvincing.

  2. Truthseeker says:

    “eventually it will lead to violence.”

    I don’t get it. So 1 person said some comments and now they will be blamed for some strawman violence that cannot be proven? Do people know how many books, games and movies out there that preach violence? We are very desensitized (sp?) to violence and trying to limit free speech on the “hopes” that it will eventually lead to violence is rediculous. If the left wishes to silence people, perhaps they should look into their own backyard and start there first? I am talking about Hollywood and their own political pundits.


    • The heavy metal band whose song “Bodies” was the only video listed on Jared Loughtner’s YouTube page is denying suggestions that one of their songs had anything to do with last weekend’s shootings.

      A recent Washington Post article chronicles instances in which music has apparently influenced killers, most notably Charles Manson, whose fascination with the Beatles song “Helter Skelter” guided some of the killings for which he was convicted.

      The Post noted similar parallels in a song by the heavy metal band Drowning Pool: “‘Let the bodies hit the floor, let the bodies hit the floor, let the bodies hit the floor,’ the singer barks in a refrain that carries an eerie echo in the context of the shooting rampage Saturday in Tucson.”

      Members of Drowning Pool disagree. “‘Bodies’ was written about the brotherhood of the mosh pit and the respect people have for each other in the pit. If you push others down, you have to pick them back up. It was never about violence. It’s about a certain amount of respect and a code,” the band said in a statement

      A few days later, Drowning Pool again took to their website to express frustration at the Post story, saying it was a fallacy to cite their music as a reason for the carnage and cited their past good works performing for the troops in harms way.

      “The Washington Post ran an article on ‘Bodies’ and the Tucson shootings. But instead of telling the whole story, the writer decided to edit what we had to say in order to make it seem like we were somehow responsible for what happened last weekend. He left out some really important facts,” they wrote.

      “We find it inappropriate to imply that our song or rock music in general is to blame for this tragic event. It is premature to make this assumption without having all the facts in the case. It is just as likely that this horrible act was caused by the irresponsible and violent rhetoric used by mainstream media outlets such as the Washington Post.

      “Listening to Drowning Pool music does not make you a bad person. Misleading people does.’”

      Read more:

  3. The only way an assassination of a political official can be labeled political is if the shooter labels it so. As far as I can see from reports, this lunatic read the communist manifesto, denies God (“No! I wont trust in God!”) and was complaining about… “grammar”?

    “The literacy rate is below 5%. I haven’t talked to one person who is literate.” or how about this one, “the government is implying mind control and brainwash on the people by controlling grammar.”

    This was not a political assassination, this was a lunatic that found a target, and I am not entirely sure it was the congresswomen. There was a federal judge murdered along with other innocents like a 9 year old girl. Maybe he hated kids because they did not use proper grammar.

    • The left is not interested in your logical statements based on what we do know.

      It was an act carried out because people on the right are gun toting lunatics. Glen Beck told Loughner to shoot a Congresswoman. There is no other explanation.

      And how are you faring this fine day?

    • Ray Hawkins says:


      “The only way an assassination of a political official can be labeled political is if the shooter labels it so”

      How do you assert this?

      Let’s say he was successful with Giffords – it is at minimum an assassination. The quality of political would be determined by the available evidence and/or the defendant’s statements.

      • Ray, Sounds like you both agree to me. Only evidence and shooter statements (the labels of the shooter)) would determine it political, as you said. Not sure what assertion is different from the other.

        How’s your day today! Hopefully no much snow your way.

        • Ray Hawkins says:

          G-Man – I was bummed – had the brand new snowblower ready to roll – and we got a whopping 4 inches.

      • Until the shooter makes a statement to the point of the shooting, all we KNOW is that a dirt bag took the lives of innocent people. Just because a judge or a politician was involved does not automatically make it political.

        If you ram your car into another and killed the driver , who happens to be a politician, would that make your act a political assassination? If you wrote a letter to a news paper, or made statements at the scene calling for the death of certain political figures the answer would be yes. But until that happened, the evidence would just tell us that some moron caused the death of another person.

        Now if this scumbag in AZ, I refuse to use his name, makes a statement that he read Sarah Palin’s book and decided he should shoot a congresswomen because Sarah told him to, no rational individual can draw a conclusion to such.

        Maybe thats the clue to the whole issue, no one who is rational would be promoting the Democratic talking points.

        • Ray Hawkins says:

          It does not only require the perp to make a statement to such.

        • Mcoville,
          How to you equate shooting 20 people, several at point-blank range in the head, with a car accident?

          • I didn’t. I equated the inference of intent into an action when only the one taking the action knows their real intent.

            If a politician or a federal judge where not among the victims would half the number of news stations even mention this tragedy? Would the President of the United States attend the memorial of a 9 year old girl murdered by some lunatic if a politician was not also involved?

  4. Oh boy, this is just way to much fun. I wanted to be the one who pilfered this so instead of paraphrasing or quoting here is the whole enchilada.


    Like millions of Americans I learned of the tragic events in Arizona on Saturday, and my heart broke for the innocent victims. No words can fill the hole left by the death of an innocent, but we do mourn for the victims’ families as we express our sympathy.
    Story continues below

    I agree with the sentiments shared yesterday at the beautiful Catholic mass held in honor of the victims. The mass will hopefully help begin a healing process for the families touched by this tragedy and for our country.

    Our exceptional nation, so vibrant with ideas and the passionate exchange and debate of ideas, is a light to the rest of the world. Congresswoman Giffords and her constituents were exercising their right to exchange ideas that day, to celebrate our Republic’s core values and peacefully assemble to petition our government. It’s inexcusable and incomprehensible why a single evil man took the lives of peaceful citizens that day.

    There is a bittersweet irony that the strength of the American spirit shines brightest in times of tragedy. We saw that in Arizona. We saw the tenacity of those clinging to life, the compassion of those who kept the victims alive, and the heroism of those who overpowered a deranged gunman.

    Like many, I’ve spent the past few days reflecting on what happened and praying for guidance. After this shocking tragedy, I listened at first puzzled, then with concern, and now with sadness, to the irresponsible statements from people attempting to apportion blame for this terrible event.

    President Reagan said, “We must reject the idea that every time a law’s broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions.” Acts of monstrous criminality stand on their own. They begin and end with the criminals who commit them, not collectively with all the citizens of a state, not with those who listen to talk radio, not with maps of swing districts used by both sides of the aisle, not with law-abiding citizens who respectfully exercise their First Amendment rights at campaign rallies, not with those who proudly voted in the last election.

    The last election was all about taking responsibility for our country’s future. President Obama and I may not agree on everything, but I know he would join me in affirming the health of our democratic process. Two years ago his party was victorious. Last November, the other party won. In both elections the will of the American people was heard, and the peaceful transition of power proved yet again the enduring strength of our Republic.

    Vigorous and spirited public debates during elections are among our most cherished traditions. And after the election, we shake hands and get back to work, and often both sides find common ground back in D.C. and elsewhere. If you don’t like a person’s vision for the country, you’re free to debate that vision. If you don’t like their ideas, you’re free to propose better ideas. But, especially within hours of a tragedy unfolding, journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn. That is reprehensible.

    There are those who claim political rhetoric is to blame for the despicable act of this deranged, apparently apolitical criminal. And they claim political debate has somehow gotten more heated just recently. But when was it less heated? Back in those “calm days” when political figures literally settled their differences with dueling pistols? In an ideal world all discourse would be civil and all disagreements cordial. But our Founding Fathers knew they weren’t designing a system for perfect men and women. If men and women were angels, there would be no need for government. Our Founders’ genius was to design a system that helped settle the inevitable conflicts caused by our imperfect passions in civil ways. So, we must condemn violence if our Republic is to endure.

    As I said while campaigning for others last March in Arizona during a very heated primary race, “We know violence isn’t the answer. When we ‘take up our arms’, we’re talking about our vote.” Yes, our debates are full of passion, but we settle our political differences respectfully at the ballot box – as we did just two months ago, and as our Republic enables us to do again in the next election, and the next. That’s who we are as Americans and how we were meant to be. Public discourse and debate isn’t a sign of crisis, but of our enduring strength. It is part of why America is exceptional.

    No one should be deterred from speaking up and speaking out in peaceful dissent, and we certainly must not be deterred by those who embrace evil and call it good. And we will not be stopped from celebrating the greatness of our country and our foundational freedoms by those who mock its greatness by being intolerant of differing opinion and seeking to muzzle dissent with shrill cries of imagined insults.

    Just days before she was shot, Congresswoman Giffords read the First Amendment on the floor of the House. It was a beautiful moment and more than simply “symbolic,” as some claim, to have the Constitution read by our Congress. I am confident she knew that reading our sacred charter of liberty was more than just “symbolic.” But less than a week after Congresswoman Giffords reaffirmed our protected freedoms, another member of Congress announced that he would propose a law that would criminalize speech he found offensive.

    It is in the hour when our values are challenged that we must remain resolved to protect those values. Recall how the events of 9-11 challenged our values and we had to fight the tendency to trade our freedoms for perceived security. And so it is today.

    Let us honor those precious lives cut short in Tucson by praying for them and their families and by cherishing their memories. Let us pray for the full recovery of the wounded. And let us pray for our country. In times like this we need God’s guidance and the peace He provides. We need strength to not let the random acts of a criminal turn us against ourselves, or weaken our solid foundation, or provide a pretext to stifle debate.

    America must be stronger than the evil we saw displayed last week. We are better than the mindless finger-pointing we endured in the wake of the tragedy. We will come out of this stronger and more united in our desire to peacefully engage in the great debates of our time, to respectfully embrace our differences in a positive manner, and to unite in the knowledge that, though our ideas may be different, we must all strive for a better future for our country. May God bless America.

    – Sarah Palin


    • “You know the Bush Era is gone when Palin is getting blamed for everything, not Bush.” — Erick Erickson

    • “We must reject the idea that every time a law’s broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions.”

    • Ray Hawkins says:


      We’re a light to the rest of the world? We’re the most heavily armed and violent developed nation on Earth.

      In incomprehensible? No it is not. The last two decades have seen this type of event occur with regularity. It is no longer incomprehensible – it should now be expected!

      Praying for guidance? Put this rhetoric bullshit and target maps aside for a second. You’re either going to accept that the periodic slaughter of innocent people is a necessary by-product of our current state-of-affairs or you’re going to do something about it. Bitching about people bitching about you doesn’t resolve a thing.

      • Ray, I hate the fact that we have assasinations and attempts at it. I do not like Obama at all. I think the man is a pariah….but he IS my President. I do not advocate killing him at all and would do all in my power to stop such an attempt. I want to “take him out”….out of office…with the vote and not a bullet. But, with freedom goes responsibility. I do not want violence…but I do not want the alternative either. (The alternative meaning gun control and restrictions on free speech). I do not want to become the unarmed developed Nation.

        We cannot control nut jobs. AND..I do NOT like the rhetoric I see from both camps at all.

        I wonder if President Obama will leave it alone tonight? Any bets? I hope he does not politicize it but feel his speech makers will do so. Any reference to speech or hate speech from him will be rightfully interpreted as political grandstanding. I hope he is Presidential for a change.

      • Ray

        Since you seem to be teetering on the edge of the cliff of rationality today, let me throw you a life line.

        Ayn Rand, Ayn Rand, Ayn Rand, Ayn Rand, Ayn Rand, Ayn Rand……………………..


        Warning Label: Any resemblance of this post to any effort, perceived, imagined, or otherwise, to encourage you to jump off a cliff or to do violence against and Objectivist is purely coincidental!!!!!!!!!!

        • Ray, ignore that lifeline!!!!

          Ayn Rand is the great abyss … repeat after me: Ayn Rand is the great abyss … Ayn Rand is the great abyss … Ayn Rand is the great abyss

          Workers of the world unite!

          Let me run while I have my sneakers on …

        • Ray Hawkins says:

          @JAC – I’m sitting on a throne of rationality sir.

          I’ll be blunt and simple – every time I ask someone who is a strong advocate of the 2nd amendment / believes there should be no gun control laws / believes the nanny-state is too invasive in finding the next Loughner the same question as I have been posing – I generally get the same Gumby-ish (no balls, no spine, no brain, no heart) stare-at-the-shoelaces bullshit of an answer…..

          “It is what it is”

          “Their parents dis a lousy job – its their fault”

          “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people”

          “We aren’t the only violent people. There are other violent people in history”

          “Its, its, its too big a problem to fix”

          “It ain’t my problem bro”

          so on and so forth….


          You either agree/disagree that the periodic & recurring mass murder by firearm of innocent people is a problem. (I’d hope you agree less you think something that has alternately been defined herein as “crazy” and “illegal” isn’t really a problem)

          If you agree….

          Then how does the problem get solved?


          Do you merely say “Yes – it is a problem, but we accept that its the price we pay to exercise our 2nd amendment” (or something to that effect.

          • Ray

            You have changed the discussion. But I will play as I like this one better.

            “Periodic and recurring mass murder by firearm of innocent people” IS A PROBLEM.

            Solution you ask?

            Bring the military home and restrict them to purely defensive action from here on in.

            • JAC,

              How does bringing the military home and restricting them to purely defensive action solve the problem of mass murder by firearms?

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Easy – if the military is home they won’t be committing the mass murder of others by firearms.

                Not sure how it relates to the purely domestic situation Ray was talking about though…


                • But he didn’t limit his question to “domestic” violence.

                  Now lets apply the standard Progressive view that a cost/benefit analysis should be applied to public policy.

                  Now you guys answer the question.

                  Do we have a problem, within the USA, with mass murder by firearms?

                  • Buck the Wala says:

                    A single incident such as this, in my mind, is a problem.

                    But you keep evading the question — do you agree that it is a problem? And if so, do you believe that is just the cost of the 2d Amendment and we should not try to address the problem?

                    • Buck

                      You want to prevent death of innocent people in large numbers?

                      Make everyone stop driving.

                      The question is quite frankly ridiculous. The loss of a single innocent life is sad, tragic and a problem to those affected.

                      The fact that these murders were committed with firearms is not a problem in itself. The real problem is that somebody thinks mass murder appropriate. Once you cross that line the tool becomes a matter of choice and convenience. No guns, then use a car, or bus, or plane.

                      Send poison in the mail, put it in the water or food.

                      Does that mean that murder is a “cost” of my freedom? Absolutely not. Another ridiculous assertion.

                      The nature of the entire question is to put forth the belief that my freedom carries a cost to you or to society. But that is a False claim.

                      My freedom and liberty does not impose any cost upon you or society. The action of a particular person can impact you and others.

                      But it is not my freedom, it is their personal actions.

                    • Bottom Line says:

                      Buck – “And if so, do you believe that is just the cost of the 2d Amendment and we should not try to address the problem?”

                      BL – Cost of the 2nd amendment?

                      I believe you have it backwards. It is the cost of the partial loss of the 2nd amendment.

                      Our right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed upon, but it most certainly is with all of these stupid f’ing gun laws.

                      If EVERYONE owned and carried(keep and bear)arms, there would likely be a lot less violent crime.

                      Try robbing a bank where everyone in and around the bank is packin’.

                      Try raping a woman with a 9mm pointed at you.

                      An armed society is a polite society.

                    • Ray Hawkins says:

                      That is quite a leap in logic JAC – so you assert that sans guns – someone who wants to kill large numbers of people in a short period of time will use a car or other transportation device (and before you use the 9/11 tactic – we don’t have a 9/11 happening every 6-8 months). It astonishes me that you fail to acknowledge that part of the reason a gun is used is because of the ease with which one can be obtained and the efficiency and effectiveness inherent in using one.

      • Ray,

        In the theme that great minds think alike, here’s someone who shares your thoughts.

        LEE: Here’s my, my take in it. I think that, as film makers, as politicians, as artists, we have to understand that all, whatever we do goes out in the universe. And you should be aware of what you’re doing. And you cannot just say “Well I just did this and, and my – had nothing to do with what happened.” That’s, that’s not, that’s not the case. Also the United States of America is the most violent country in the history of civilization.

        Read more:

        “You’re either going to accept that the periodic slaughter of innocent people is a necessary by-product of our current state-of-affairs.”

        Ray, I bet you know the meaning of “Et tu, Brute?” Do you know in general, the current violent crime rate? How does that compare with the past VCR? How does that compare to violence in the rest of the world? There has been violence from day one, and will continue till the last day. Maybe by that last day, the violence will be limited to killing an avatar in a video duel. Our our current state-of-affairs is there are still crazy and violent people that the the rest of us have to watch out for…

    • A Puritan Descendant says:

      I kinda like this part >

      “No one should be deterred from speaking up and speaking out in peaceful dissent, and we certainly must not be deterred by those who embrace evil and call it good. And we will not be stopped from celebrating the greatness of our country and our foundational freedoms by those who mock its greatness by being intolerant of differing opinion and seeking to muzzle dissent with shrill cries of imagined insults.”

      I noticed the U.S. Flag next to her while making her statment. To me it looks like she fully plans to run for President.

    • A Puritan Descendant says:

      For anyone interested in Sarah’s ancestry you can see it here.

      Sarah’s ancestry shows several common ancestors with myself from Western Massachusetts and she descends from 10 Mayflower passengers, and I think 4 Kings of Eng/Scot

      The owner of the website “William Addams Reitwiesner” recently passed away. He contributed much to genealogy.

  5. Channel surfing and was just on CNN….watching Bob Beckel explain that when he used the bull’s eye to target republican districts back in was not the same as using a target siight on democratic districts as was used in the last election…


    • A Puritan Descendant says:

      Does anyone take Bob serious? LOL

    • Funny, isn’t it-how one’s perspective of the same thing can change with one’s political ideology. I think it’s a matter of knowing that YOU meant no physical harm but being unable to give that same benefit of the doubt to your opponent. Usually out of anger or for political strength.

  6. A Puritan Descendant says:
  7. @ Matt…why are you surrounding your grog supply with land mines… are supposed to be a pacifist.

    • We focus in on a quiet house in the suburbs. It is a pretty colonial, but the yard is pocked with foxholes and the apparently bulletproof siding shows signs of battle damage. A trench lines the middle of the sprawling front yard. Helmeted velociraptors can be seen peering over the top of the trench.

      KABOOOM! Little bits of raptor rain down on the Mathius household. A daring and foolhardy raptor private had attempted to sneak through the treeline in the back only to meet a well-placed claymore. A mid-sized dog rushes out and starts playing with the corpse like some kind of chew toy.

      A single shot rings out from a second story window and one of the raptor heads in the trench is instantly converted to a puff of gore as the 50cal round reaches its target ahead of the sound of the shot, coming to rest buried several inches in the back wall. The troops duck down, having learned from hard experience that the unseen shooter never missed and that a second shot was not out of the question. Over a hundred rounds had been fired and every one had scored a head-shot.

      Before the pointy “Kaiser” helmet had stopped rolling on the ground at the bottom of the trench, another report could be heard, followed by a dull thump from somewhere in the treeline. This was turning out to be a costlier campaign than anticipated.

      The secret passageway which had once been used by the a nuclear submarine to free the Dread Pirate from his basement captivity, had been sealed and mined, depriving the attackers of the use of that strategic assault front. Likewise para-raptors had been met with roof-mounted turrets and a 100% casualty rate.

      “An unlimited flow for my friends, not one drop for tribute” cried an unseen voice. Something flew from a different window, landing in the trench. The raptors, at a top speed of nearly 55 mph fled from the object, suspecting another frag grenade. But seconds later, it became clear what the object was: another empty can of Red Bull. The smell was noxious to the raptors, but they feared to approach it lest they get any of the amber liquid on their scales – even the tiniest amount Red Bull in the blood stream would be lethal to their kind.

      A large pirate ship could be seen parked on the street around the corner, flying the flag of the Dread Pirate. Yet the Dread Pirate was stymied. He could hold the siege indefinitely, but the inhabitant of the house seemed equal to the challenge.

      Sipping his grog and sighing with disgust at his failure, the Dread Pirate removed his shoe phone and placed the call.

      “Colonel, I need your help…”

  8. Have just surfed all of yesterday’s comments and all of today’s comments.

    Kudos to Charlie. He is the only lefty who called the shooter a whack job. All other lefties decided to attack the media and called for everyone to cool it.

    So instead of admitting that it was one lone loon they all deflected the conversation to somewhere they had an argument.

    Rules for radicals!

    • So what are you saying Anita? Let me try.

      Shooting in AZ = Tragedy
      Liberal media spin = disgusting
      liberal minions marching lockstep with media = priceless

    • Buck the Wala says:

      We’ve all been saying the guy is unstable and had mental problems. There’s nothing to debate there, so best to move on to something more interesting.

      It doesn’t matter, at least not to me, whether this one guy was influenced by the media. I could care less. Regardless though there is a recipe for disaster brewing and both sides (again…BOTH SIDES) should tone down the rhetoric.

      • I agree with moving on. What do you think of Illinois raising the state income tax by 66%, and at the same time allowing for 2% increased spending?

        • Buck the Wala says:

          Eh, going from 3% to 5% is a big jump but its all relative. But lets face it, 5% is nowhere near the highest state income tax rate in the country.

          State needs to raise revenue so makes sense to me to raise what are relatively low tax rates to begin with.

          • That is to assume you like State Income Texas…I live in a State where there are none.

            • Buck the Wala says:

              Yes you do, but you’re kidding yourself if you think Texas isn’t having economic problems at the moment.

              And no, I have absolutely no issue with the concept of state income taxes.

  9. A voice of reason and sanity! Dr. (of psychiatry) Charles Krauthammer:

    Massacre, followed by libel

  10. A video on YouTube showcases dozens of tweets, sent in the aftermath of Saturday’s Arizona massacre, that call for the death of former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin.

    Some of the Tweeters wish Palin would die of cancer, while others advocate for her assassination.

    “My hatred for Sarah Palin continues to grow. I think this woman should be assassinated,” said one person. “Sarah Palin should be shot for her encouragement of fanaticism against Democrats,” says another.

    Numerous left-wing commentators have accused Palin of inspiring the attack on Democratic Rep. Gabrielle Giffords that left 6 dead. The Daily Caller’s Jim Treacher reported that liberal blogger Matthew Yglesias, Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitsas, actress Jane Fonda, film critic Roger Ebert, and filmmaker Michael Moore all took to Twitter within hours of the attack to accuse Palin of being in some way responsible.

    Read more:

    Ray, Buck, do you guys “tweet”? Just joking, hehehe

  11. USWeapon Topic #2

    Illinois Lawmakers Pass 66 Percent Income Tax Increase

    Democrats in the Illinois Legislature on Wednesday approved a 66 percent income-tax increase in a desperate and politically risky effort to end the state’s crippling budget crisis.

    The increase now goes to Democratic Gov. Pat Quinn, who supports the plan to temporarily raise the personal tax rate to 5 percent, a two-thirds increase from the current 3 percent rate. Corporate taxes also would climb as part of the effort to close a budget hole that could hit $15 billion this year.

    The higher taxes will generate about $6.8 billion a year, Quinn’s office said — a major increase by any measure. In percentage terms, 66 percent might be the biggest increase any state has adopted while grappling with recent economic woes.

    It will be coupled with strict 2 percent limits on spending growth. If officials violate those limits, the tax increase will automatically be canceled. The plan’s supporters warned that rising pension and health care costs probably will eat up all the spending allowed by the caps, forcing cuts in other areas of government.

    Other pieces of the budget plan failed.

    Lawmakers rejected a $1-a-pack increase in cigarette taxes, which would have provided money for schools. They also blocked a plan to borrow $8.7 billion to pay off the state’s overdue bills, which means long-suffering businesses and social-service agencies won’t get their money anytime soon.

    House Speaker Michael Madigan, sounding weary, said Republicans should have supported some parts of the plan instead of voting against everything.

    “They’re on the sidelines. They don’t want to get on the field of play,” the Chicago Democrat said. “I’m happy that the day has ended.”

    But Republicans noted they were not included in negotiations. They also fundamentally reject the idea of raising taxes after years of spending growth.

    “We’re saying to the people of Illinois, ‘For eight years we’ve overspent, now we’re going to make it your problem,”‘ said Rep. Roger Eddy. “We’re making up for our mistakes on your back.”

    The increase means an Illinois resident who now owes $1,000 in state income taxes will pay $1,666 at the new rate. After four years, the rate drops to 4 percent and that same taxpayer will then owe $1,333.

    Republicans predict the tax eventually will be made permanent.

    “It’s a cruel hoax to play on citizens to say this is temporary,” said House Minority Leader Tom Cross, R-Oswego.

    Democrats bristled at the idea that they are to blame for the state’s financial problems, although they’ve controlled the governor’s office and both legislative chambers since 2003.

    Read the rest of the article here:

    • There are alot of states with similar problems, but eventually, everyone elses money will run out. An increase in taxes, coupled with an increase in spending is a huge slap in the face. Maybe it might wake people up to whats coming down the road. This is only the beginning.

    • Look out all you state tax free states! I can’t believe they actually did that. Didn’t read the full article but heard that it was a lame duck move in the dead of night. Haven’t confirmed just heard it.

      • Anita, How’s the tigress today. Todays question. Which is more likely to lead to violence against public officials, a. political rhetoric b. massive tax increases

        • Doing good today G! Can I phone a friend? 🙂 Naaah this one’s easy. Start reaching any deeper in people’s pockets, throw in a continuous increase in food and gas prices and the SHTF in short order. I’m closer to ready for that than I’ve ever been.

          • Good for you, being ready for bad times makes me feel better, and if nothing happens, I still feel better. I do see bad times, especially when DC sings “Don’t worry, Be happy” in unison.

    • A Puritan Descendant says:

      Maybe I should move to Illinois. Maine’s top rate for those making over about $19,000 is 8.5%

    • They rob you while you’re alive and then don’t even take care of you when you die! But hey, Rahm’s back in town – he loves crisis!

    • Bottom Line says:

      I’m having a difficult time comprehending 66%. I keep wanting to think 6.6%.

      That is a HUGE increase!

      What is so wrong with their budget that they have to raise taxes 66%?

      Illinois is history.

  12. Gun Control Debate: Political Opportunists Swarm In
    Jan 11, 2011 – 8:25 AM

    John R. Lott Jr.
    Special to AOL News
    The horrible attack that has left U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords seriously wounded and six others dead has not brought out the best in many people. Ugly political opportunism looks to have led many into making statements they will soon regret. Within hours without knowing anything about the attacker’s background or motives, many started blaming Sarah Palin and the tea party.

    For instance, New York Times columnist Paul Krugman wrote that Giffords was a target because “she’s a Democrat who survived what was otherwise a GOP sweep in Arizona, precisely because the Republicans nominated a tea party activist.” And on CNN, correspondent Jessica Yellin singled out Sarah Palin, saying her “political rhetoric [created] the environment that allowed this instance to happen.”

    Opposing View

    * Why Do We Make Gun Violence So Easy?

    Well, it looks like those who blamed Palin and the tea party for political gain are going to wish they had waited just a couple of days. Jared Loughner, hardly a tea party fan, has been described by a former classmate as “left wing, quite liberal” and a “pothead” who has had a fixation on Giffords since 2007, a year before Palin or the tea party made their entry onto the national political scene.

    Then there are the gun control activists jumping at the chance to take advantage of the tragedy. Within a day of the attack, Rep. Raul Grijalva, D-Ariz., Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, D-N.Y., and Senator Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., said that the attack proved the need for more gun regulations. McCarthy and Lautenberg are expected to release bills proposing new regulations shortly.

    Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, blamed the attack on Arizona’s alleged complete lack of gun control laws.

    “Arizona basically has no laws restricting guns, and everyone can get a gun,” he told Fox News on Sunday.

    It’s an absurd claim, something that someone with the Brady Campaign should surely know, since the national background checks are named after former White House Press Secretary James Brady, the same person that his organization is named after. Arizona has the same Brady Act background checks for purchasing guns as the rest of the country.

    The McCarthy and Lautenberg bills reportedly would restore the ban on ammunition clips that can hold more than 10 bullets. That ban in the federal assault weapons ban expired on Sept. 14, 2004. With the ban’s sunset, those favoring the ban predicted a massive violent crime wave.

    Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., the Democratic party’s presidential nominee that year, warned it would make “the job of terrorists easier.”

    Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., foresaw that deadly crime would soar because of the “pent-up demand for 50-round magazines and larger.” Gun control advocates such as Sarah Brady, James’ wife, anticipated similar problems.

    Sponsored Links
    Six years have passed since the ban sunset, and none of those fears has been borne out. Indeed, every category of violent crime has fallen, with the murder rate falling by about 15 percent between 2004 and June 2010. The recently released third edition of “More Guns, Less Crime” found that the seven states that have their own assault weapons ban saw a smaller drop in murders than the 43 states without such laws.

    There is no academic research by criminologists or economists that shows that either state or federal assault weapon bans have reduced any type of violent crime. Clips are very easy to cheaply make, and the only people inconvenienced by a ban would be law-abiding individuals.

    Americans can forgive a lot of things, but using a horrible tragedy for partisan gain isn’t one of them.

  13. At 2:00 PM Eastern Time today, the U.S. Treasury announced that our government added another $80 billion to the cumulative budget deficit in December.

    And believe it or not, that’s the GOOD news: Washington is bracing for even higher deficits down the road because of the tax relief package the White House and Congress passed in December.

    Before that tax package passed, the Obama administration forecast that the deficit for this year would hit $1.42 trillion. Thanks to this newest round of tax cuts, that estimate may now prove to be wildly optimistic.

    But even in the unlikely event that the White House’s earlier estimates hold, 2011 is certain to be the third consecutive year of $1 trillion-plus deficits for Washington. More than $4.1 trillion in deficits will have been run up in just 36 months!

    The Conundrum of the Federal Debt Ceiling

    Here’s the kicker: The national debt now stands at nearly $13.9 trillion. That’s only $400 billion below the $14.3 trillion federal debt ceiling set by Congress.

    In fact, in a letter to congressional leaders, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner recently warned that U.S. borrowing could push the amount of debt past the legal borrowing limit sometime between March 31 and May 16.

    That means Congress now faces a vote — and possibly a big BATTLE — on raising the debt ceiling, posing a huge challenge for the fiscal conservatives who have swept into Congress promising to cut federal deficits. Here’s the conundrum …

    If they vote so soon to RAISE the debt ceiling, it could be the kiss of death to scores of new political careers.

    But if they vote NOT to raise the federal debt ceiling, it would cause a fatal paralysis in Washington.
    Meanwhile, Washington is approaching a second fork in the road: The likelihood that up to 100 major states and local governments could go broke this year. So our leaders will also have to decide

    Either to let the cities and states fail …

    Or bail them out with taxpayer money.
    Once again …

    Washington Is Damned If It
    Does and Damned If It Doesn’t!

    If lawmakers rush to the aid of even one state, county or city, it will face a barrage of demands to bail out hundreds more — a move that could add trillions more dollars to the 2011 federal deficit.

    But if Congress chooses to allow these state and local governments to default, the results could be equally catastrophic: A collapse of the muni bond market, soaring interest rates, plunging stock prices and a return to the darkest days of this recession.

    This is clearly Sarah Palin’s fault. 🙂 Any opinions?

    • Picked from a commenter on another site:

      “I’m beginning to believe the dems and media are doing this to move the discussion away from the republican led house agenda and the upcoming defunding of the EPA and the guttting of obamacare. If the dems and media control the airwaves with their deceitful claptrap they think we will all forget what needs to be done.”

      Good point. We need to keep an eye on the ball.

      • Oh great, just what need. Let’s import more right-wing conspiracy theories from other sites!!

        Like there aren’t enough already here!! 😉

    • Yeah! Pull a Chris Christie and tell the truth! We do not have the money. We must stop all unnecessary spending then own the words. SIMPLE

  14. Dear Journalists: “Civil Discourse” Does Not Equal Suppression of Conservative Voices
    Posted by Ezra Dulis Jan 12th 2011 at 11:00 am in Mainstream Media, Tea Parties, media bias | 157560Comments(14)

    Any time someone commits an act of violence that grabs headlines, journalists scramble desperately for a scapegoat, some person or social force to crusade against and extend the story’s expiration date (and thus ratings). While it appears that Jared Lee Loughner’s motivation for shooting Gabrielle Giffords was nonpartisan (aka mental illness), there have already been reports from CBS, CNN, and the Associated Press attempting to pin Loughner’s motivations to Sarah Palin’s gun-target map, Giffords’ opponent Jesse Kelly using an M16 at a campaign event, and a general atmosphere of fear and animosity created solely by Republicans in Arizona.

    As long as they’re bringing this subject up, I believe it’s a good time to discuss what the media could do if they really wanted to prevent future violence. The answer is not to force conservative speakers to be “more careful” with their rhetoric. In fact, I believe that the greater responsibility to prevent violence lies on the shoulders of journalists themselves; the media must stop suppressing conservative voices and increasing the ire of the nation.

    This is not what makes us angry.

    Only a literalistic idiot could find Palin’s “target” map something that would inspire violence, and only a partisan idiot could think that Loughner, a fan of flag-burning, would be a big enough Palin fan to have ever seen that map. I find it extremely unlikely that someone can be inspired to violence through the words of a political leader unless it’s a direct order, which neither Palin nor Beck nor Rush have come anywhere close to saying. The people who claim that these three use “coded language” to incite violence are as paranoid as Loughner; only crazy people see calls to violence in innocuous speech, such as John Lennon’s shooter claiming The Catcher in the Rye as his inspiration.

    Indeed, when these conservative media personalities talk about removing politicians through the power of one’s vote, that is actually a deterrent to violence. For Palin fans, her political speech gives them joy and hope, a cathartic reminder that someone out there is speaking for them. Her defining political contribution has been giving hope to all the flyover country-dwellers deemed subhuman and unworthy by the elites in the media — hope that their votes mattered and that they could change things through their speech and political involvement.

    In fact, the only thing that I see inspiring violence without a direct command is if someone feels that there is no effective alternative to violence, that they cannot resolve their dissatisfaction without violence. People use violence to get money when they feel they cannot get it (or the amount they want) through working; people use violence to get sex when they feel they cannot get it (or the amount they want) through a normal, committed relationship. In the same way, those who want a political change would turn to violence only if they felt that other means of change their political landscape are ineffectual. Looking through the quotes of violent revolutionaries through history, one can see that same sentiment — that what they needed to accomplish could not be done through democratic means:

    “Not a single problem of the class struggle has ever been solved in history except by violence.” -Vladimir Lenin

    “Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.” –Mao Tse-Tung

    “The revolution is not an apple that falls when it is ripe. You have to make it fall.”–Che Guevara

    “It is humiliating to remain with our hands folded while others write history. It matters little who wins. To make a people great it is necessary to send them to battle even if you have to kick them in the pants. That is what I shall do.” –Benito Mussolini

    The way to fuel such feelings is disfranchisement, which is Priority #1 when it comes to the media’s treatment of the tea party. Leftists talk incessantly of maintaining “civil discourse,” but in practice that becomes a euphemism for shutting down discourse altogether. The last 50 years has been spent redefining “acceptable,” “normal,” and “moderate” political speech to exclude anyone who applies the argument for gay marriage to economic transactions, that the federal government should have little or no say in the business of two consenting adults. For reasons that are still inscrutable to me, the favored line of attack/derision against conservatives remains painting them as racists who only believe what they believe because of their simmering, hidden bigotry. Because they are racists, they are ontologically corrupted and cannot be given even a proverbial kiosk in the marketplace of ideas.

    When you remove the tea partiers’ option to speak their minds by putting words in their mouths, ignoring them, and proliferating slanderous rumors about them, their only remaining options are to shut up and bear it or vocally protest, as we saw in the summer of ‘09 (as their frustration was exacerbated by a congress who ignored them and the media’s active suppression). Consider the quiet, civil conversation David Letterman had with a local Tea Party organizer Pam Stout; when a media figure allowed a conservative to speak her mind and respectfully listened instead of asking barbed questions to paint her as a puppy blood drinker, the conversation was civil. When Katie Couric insultingly asked Sarah Palin a question equivalent to saying, “Prove to me you’re not a trailer-trash rube who doesn’t know how to read,” it spurred anger and vitriol for months afterwards. When the media enters into the conversation with hostility, attempting to delegitimize legitimate voices, it only provokes greater hostility.

    Suppression makes us frustrated.

    As I watched tweets and articles that poured in yesterday during the aftermath of the Giffords shooting, I was so frustrated I wanted to scream, to act out. Anyone who knows me knows I have no temper, and such feelings are extremely abnormal for me. I didn’t feel this because of some secret racial code word from Sarah Palin; my anger was caused by the lying, smearing, smug, condescending crap spouted by slimy partisans who blamed us for the actions of a mentally unstable man and couldn’t put aside politics for one tragic day. It was the same anger I felt when Charlie Gibson lied through his teeth, claiming ignorance about Big Government’s ACORN videos when the federal census had dropped ties with the organization the night before. It was the same anger I felt when the LA Times said that uploading their video of Obama toasting the virulent anti-Semite Rashid Khalidi was irrelevant to the ’08 campaign when they had already hosted a video of Sarah Palin strutting in a swimsuit for a 1984 beauty pageant.

    At the risk of becoming the latest Media Matters example of tea party violence (although I will admit, I have sneezed a couple times today), I firmly declare that any frustration I experience is directly caused by journalists’ obstinate refusal to do their jobs and give a fair shake to mainstream political viewpoints. Progressive journalists, in their search for ways to prevent more political violence, should look in the mirror and ask themselves whether their dismissal and sliming of the tea party are contributing to people’s anger more than a stupid map. By denying a place on the nightly news for the actual positions of conservatives, are they eliminating the possibility of peaceful expression by the American right? In the words of liberal hero John Kennedy, “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.”

    I found this view point very relevant -The rhetoric is the fault of biased news media-suppressing the voices of the people. Freedom of the Press-Honest reporting-seems that is what would bring about less rhetoric.

    • There was once, a long time ago, when media and journalists had ethics. Thier goal was truth. Those days are gone, the MSM are nothing more than mouthpieces to Big Brother whom they soldout too long ago. The internet gave us alternative media, the MSM hates it, because it successfully calls them out on the lies, and more and more people are accessing alternative media. Because of this, the Liberal/Progressive Agenda is under attack, their whole agenda is based on lies, and the people are waking up. Thier lies are being attacked in realtime, they don’t have the time they used to to spin their lies. If the last for days showed anything about politics, it showed that people are rejecting the lies, thus rejecting the L/P Agenda.

      • I also found it interesting that the author said basically that the left(not every single individual-being PC is driving me nuts 🙂 ) wants to limit freedom of speech to limit the danger of violence and revolution. When freedom of speech is the main thing that will stop a violent revolution. This view makes perfect sense to me.

      • I’m amazed at how low the media has stooped these last few days, and my expectations are not very high.

        Slowly but surely, there are some sane minds coming out and speaking up. I’ve noticed few Repub congressman have made any statements, which is good. Let the Clyburns of the world bury themselves (not to be taken literally!)

        • Buck the Wala says:

          Wait, Kathy, I’m confused.

          You applaud the Repubs for staying silent and not making any statements in the wake of this tragedy, while at the same time criticizing Obama for…wait for it…staying silent.

          Am I missing something?

          • Obama has made several statements over the last few days. What are you referring to? His use of photo ops over the last few days?

            • Buck the Wala says:

              Wasn’t it you who had commented on Obama’s so-called ‘look at me moment’ for standing in silence during a moment of silence?

              If not, I take back my earlier comment.

              • My point on BO was not specifically the moment of silence but that this whole situation will be a look at me moment for him. What a great involved, caring, emotionally responsive leader I am. You know, those things we’ve not yet seen from him over the last two years.

                • Buck the Wala says:

                  And yet you don’t think for a second that the Repubs are thinking the same thing?

                  Its damned if you do and damned if you don’t.

          • Ah Buck…they’re spelled different…didn’t you notice that?

  15. Judy Sabatini says:

    Sharron Angle Fights Incitement Criticism
    Wednesday, 12 Jan 2011 12:26 PM
    Article Font Size

    By Dan Weil

    The Arizona shooting tragedy has led some on the left to criticize former Nevada Republican Senate candidate Sharron Angle for her strong views, saying they helped incite violence. But Angle, who lost to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid last year, rebuts the accusations vigorously, Politico reports.

    Angle, Tucson, shooting, Arizona, Giffords“Expanding the context of the attack to blame and to infringe upon the people’s Constitutional liberties is both dangerous and ignorant,” she writes in a statement, Politico reports.

    “The irresponsible assignment of blame to me, Sarah Palin or the TEA Party movement by commentators and elected officials puts all who gather to redress grievances in danger. Finger-pointing towards political figures is an audience-rating game and contradicts the facts as they are known — that the shooter was obsessed with his twisted plans long before the TEA Party movement began.”

    • No Hate in Arizona. Nope. None at all.

      A nasty battle between factions of Legislative District 20 Republicans and fears that it could turn violent in the wake of what happened in Tucson on Saturday prompted District Chairman Anthony Miller and several others to resign.

      Miller, a 43-year-old Ahwatukee Foothills resident and former campaign worker for U.S. Sen. John McCain, was re-elected to a second one-year term last month. He said constant verbal attacks after that election and Internet blog posts by some local members with Tea Party ties made him worry about his family’s safety.

      Miller said when he was a member of McCain’s campaign staff last year has been criticized by the more conservative party members who supported Republican opponent J.D. Hayworth. The first and only African-American to hold the party’s precinct chairmanship, Miller said he has been called “McCain’s boy,” and during the campaign saw a critic form his hand in the shape of a gun and point it at him.

      “I wasn’t going to resign but decided to quit after what happened Saturday,” Miller said. “I love the Republican Party but I don’t want to take a bullet for anyone.”

      • What’s your point?

        • THere is no point.

          • Right. No Point. Because we all know that racism doesn’t exist anymore, right Colonel?

            • No, I cannot say that at all….of course it exists….my comments are limited ot institutional racism as a form of employment or assignemnts,,,no one can change someones individual mind…We all, including you sir, have our own racism. I admit mine. I do not let it invade my judgement. We witnessed a Presidential election based on racism..that is to say because he was black. I know many who admit this….saying specifically, I voted for Obama because he is a black man.

              So, for me to say it does not exist is folly. But….the race card is played so much it is like chicken little. I pay it no heed and that is sad because when it does actually happen, no one will pay heed. It has been playued extensively during this Presidency….by the leftist side primarily….Just look at the arguments made by the left on anyone who is against..say…the Health Care Reform…….it is quite often said by the majo left talking heads that those against health reform are racists….and that is bull shit. You know and I know it.

              But I stand by my statement that institutionalized racism does not exist any longer or if it does it is so minimal that it is inconsequential. And please… not point to Target or Walmart….those excuses are time worn.

              • Have a hypothetical question for you Todd. Fast Forward to 2012. President Obama ends up as a one term president because he has lost the independent voter (typically white). It seems to me that the foregone conclusion from you will be it was a racist election…would I be incorrect?

            • I just read your post and the article-Why did you bring up racism? What makes it a factor in this discussion?

        • That even Republican’s are afraid of the Tea Party.

          • Your damn straight any and all RINOs should be afraid of the Tea Party! (not to be taken literally).

            Look at the battle Michael Steele is going through right now. (not encouraging an actual battle though)

            Again, your point?

            The Progressives in AZ put up another candidate against Giffords in the Primary as they felt she is too center. Do you think that primary was full of love and sweet kisses?

            Your losing it Todd. You and the rest of the Progressives that can’t, even in this moment of tragedy, get over your ideology.

            • Allow me to add….That Kay Hutchinson is a long time republican stalwart for the Fort Worth area. Responsible for millions in ear marks for this city. I am supporting her opponent for no other reason than she is part of the old guard and votes that way. That is my perceived problem with Washington. But I guess that I will now be an antifeminist. We stand a great chance of unseating her.

            • OK, I’m usually pretty good at this word but noticed twice, twice that I said “your” and before our grammar police Mathius shows up, let me correct that to “you’re”.

              (Something that makes you go hmmmm, that AZ guy was obsessed with grammar……)

              • There’s just no excuse for poor grammar.

                I think my high school English teacher put it best: Speaking or writing poorly will ruin your chances for success in life as surely as getting a tribal tattoo on your face.

                I had a professor in grad school tell me that anyone who used poor grammar on his term paper would not pass his class.

                • Mathius,

                  Your prof was a moron.

                  The purpose of language is to communicate and it is successful if that is accomplished.

                  Enforcing artificial rules of “grammar” detracts from that goal – unless you are paid as an ARTIST, grammar is simply not that important.

                  Any man who said that in a class would cause me to bellow in laughter at him!

                  • Note that “poor grammar” is different from making an error here or there.

                    He clarified that he was talking about people who wrote poorly.

                    As for the artificial rules of grammar, yes and no. The medium of communication of language is useful only insofar as we can understand one another. Failure to adhere to the standardized guidelines will make you difficult to understand and, thus, the value of language is decreased.

                    The prof’s point, of course, was that if you want to be taken seriously in a serious world, you have to speak and write like a serious and educated person – not like a fourteen year old girl sending out tweets.

                  • Mathius,

                    talking about people who wrote poorly

                    WHO CARES!?

                    What is important is the argument reasoned and rational – not whether the use of a verb or adjective is technically incorrect.

                    Way too much is made of structure pretending to be education

                    It is a typical but serious mistake to confuse grammar with knowledge

                    It shows that a person is more impressed by the sizzle of the steak instead of its taste.

                    • A reasoned argument is useless if you cannot convey it in a way that the other person will understand.

                    • Mathius,

                      I agree – but that has nothing to do with poor grammar which is exactly my point.

                      You can be absolutely incomprehensible with perfect grammar.

          • Taxed
            Already Party

            All Washington establishments should fear that message and the way it was conveyed. Public awareness raised by nationwide peaceful assemblies, resulting in a change in the balance of power.

      • Todd,

        My #10 post, do you “tweet”?

        I think there is hate everywhere, and it’s a sad thing. A person that carries hate in their heart is bound to be unhappy, and that is a poor way to live their life. In some thankfully rare cases, their unhappiness leads to violence, which resolves nothing, but makes life worse for all of us. If we let the fringe groups on both sides control the debate, because that’s what brings viewers to the MSM, the voices of reason get drowned out.

        • No, I don’t tweet.

          Buck covered this yesterday. The tweets you’re referring to are random individuals, right? I’ll bet I could find a bunch about Obama too…

          In the case above, it’s right-wingers intimidating someone they know. And that person feeling threatened to the point of resigning.

          Can you understand the difference?

          If we let the fringe groups on both sides control the debate, because that’s what brings viewers to the MSM, the voices of reason get drowned out.

          I agree 100%. But you seem to support the right-wing fringe groups while de-crying the left-wing fringe groups. Or have I misunderstood most of your comments here?

  16. Remember the MMA fighter who wanted to beat up Obama last week? He’s had a change of heart…isn’t that sweet…

    But the interesting part is, one of the reasons he’s so upset is because of Obama’s mortgage modification program.

    Apparently it hasn’t helped him enough…

    • Oh, I’m guessing the SS thugs sent out because of his innocuous statement had something to do with it too.

  17. Have a question for you SUFA? Does anyone on here like Donald Trump for President? Other than being a business man which the left despises…please enlighten me as to why you would not like him as President?

    (That otta get things going)

    • D13

      Because he never accomplished anything in life without using other people’s money.

      Most of his investments involved special favors by local governments and then breaking his deals when things went sour. In other words, lying to get what he wanted. Pumping up his ego and reputation while bankrupting his investors.

      Need more?

      • nope..thanks

        • The Donald has a saying:

          When you owe the bank a million dollars, you have a problem. When you owe the bank 100 million dollars, the bank has a problem.

          Is this someone you want running the show? Also, how many times has he declared bankruptcy?

      • He also used the government to obtain favors for his business. If I wanted someone screwed over very professionally, he would be a top pick. President, no way.

    • No. Do not see him as a very moral person. Oversized ego. God-awful hair.

    • I’ve thought about this before but thought I’d get blown out of the water on SUFA. I actually like the idea. Not getting to deep cuz I just don’t think that deeply plain & simple. I’ve seen him stand for many conservative causes, he’s been on public TV and said why he doesn’t support leftist programs, he’s raised two college educated kids who must work and earn money, he’s obviously run many successful businesses, not afraid to say he messed up and not afraid to say You’re Fired! He’s also called out airheaded Republicans.

      Don’t bring it on cause that’s all I’ve got to say about it 🙂

  18. I Don’t Like Ike
    He vastly expanded the garrison state.
    By Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.

    Eisenhower’s farewell speech was a long and nearly hysterical argument for the Cold War. He presented it as more than a military policy against Russia, but rather as a grand metaphysical struggle that should take over our minds and souls, as bizarre as that must sound to the current generation.

    His words were Wilsonian, even messianic. The job of U.S. military policy is to “foster progress in human achievement” and enhance “dignity and integrity” the world over. That’s a rather expansive role for government by any standard. But he went further. An enemy stands in the way of achieving this dream, and this enemy is “global in scope, atheistic in character, ruthless in purpose, and insidious in method.” This great struggle “commands our whole attention, absorbs our very beings.”

    Because some crusty apparatchiks are imposing every manner of economic control over Russia and a few satellites, U.S. foreign policy must absorb the whole of our beings? So much for limited government.

    The rhetoric had to be hysterical to overcome a few obvious problems. Russia is a faraway country and the notion of an invasion was about as likely as one from Mars. Russia, an authoritarian state operating under the ideological cover of Communism, had only a few years earlier been declared our valiant ally in the struggle against Japan and Germany.

    But Americans woke up one day to find that the line had suddenly changed: now Russia was the enemy to be defeated. In fact, the Russian government—already in deep economic trouble as a socialist regime—was bankrupted by World War II and dealing with incredible internal problems. The Soviets couldn’t begin to manage the world of Eastern Europe that had been given as a prize for being the ally of the United States during the war. It was for this reason that Nikita Khrushchev began the first great period of liberalization that would end in the eventual unraveling of this nonviable state. The U.S. not only failed to encourage this liberalization, but pretended it wasn’t happening so as to build up a new form of socialism at home.

    Indeed, the entire Cold War ideology was invented by Harry Truman and his advisers in 1948 as: 1.) a political trick to keep from losing more congressional backing, 2.) a way to circumvent political pressure for postwar disarmament, and 3.) a method to maintain U.S. industrial dependence on government spending, particularly with regard to American corporations operating overseas.

    It was an unprecedented form of peacetime socialism, designed to appeal to big business, and Eisenhower became its spokesman. Savvy libertarians knew exactly what was going on and supported Cold War opponent Robert Taft for the Republican nomination in 1952. But the nomination was effectively stolen by Eisenhower, with massive establishment backing. He repaid his backers with his support and expansion of Truman’s program.

    It’s true that his farewell speech warned against “unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex,” and this is the part that people remember. But Eisenhower himself entrenched this very machinery in American life, virtually inventing the peacetime armaments industry and imposing military regimentation on the country. His approach was fundamentally un-American; or, another way to put it, he redefined what it meant to be an American. Instead of a free people, he forged a program for the permanent militarization of the country.

    The evidence for this militarization begins with massive increases in military spending. As a percent of total budget outlays, military spending went from 30 percent in 1950 to 70 percent in 1957. This was the largest peacetime buildup in American history. During a dramatic economic expansion, the president worked to maintain a high military spending level as a percentage of the rising GDP—establishing the modern precedent that military socialism is integral to the economic life of the country. Spending rose in absolute terms every year he was president, from $358 billion in 1952 to $585 billion in the last budget for which he bore responsibility in 1962, a whopping 63.4 percent increase during the Eisenhower years.

    His buildup was not limited to the arms sector; it penetrated every aspect of civilian life. Our schools were made to feature scary and abusive drills to practice what children should do if the Russians should drop bombs on their heads. An entire generation was raised with irrational fears of mythical threats.

    Then there was the catastrophic Interstate Highway System, which was not built to make your trip to the beach go faster. Its purpose was to permit the military to move troops quickly. There were also cockamamie schemes of driving nuclear bombs around on those highways to prevent the commies from keeping track of them.

    Eisenhower was influenced in funding this amazing boondoggle by his experience in 1919 with the Transcontinental Convoy on the Lincoln Highway, which drove military trucks from one coast to the other. Another influence was Hitler’s pro-ject of building cross-country roads, again to move troops. The Interstate Highway System led to huge population upheavals and continues to distort commercial demographics in every town in the United States.

    Given all this, the notion that Eisenhower was worried about the military-industrial complex is preposterous. He was devoted to it.

    Llewellyn H. Rockwell Jr. is founder and chairman of the Ludwig von Mises Institute and editor of His latest book is The Left, the Right, and the State.
    This article is part of a symposium on the fiftieth anniversary of Eisenhower’s Farewell Address and the military-industrial complex.

    • Ahhhhhh…the nuclear bomb drills. I remember them well. Get under your desk and kiss your ass goodbye. I remember the bomb shelters as well and know only one person that did that….but do it they did.

    • I like Ike! And I have a button with that expression. Had the priveledge of being invited on the USS Dwight D Eisenhower when my niece came in from the Gulf. Talk about a massive piece of machinery! Saw a good deal of the ship..not all of it but was on it for one good hour. She even got us on the flight deck which was not SOP. Too bad they flew all the planes off before it docked. Wanna feel like a proud American? Go watch a Navy ship come in..sailors manning the rails! It’s a sight to see.

  19. Gotta love Coulter!

    Liberal Seek Ban on Metaphors In Wake of Arizona Shooting
    by Ann Coulter

    After the monstrous shooting in Arizona last week, surely we can all agree that we’ve got to pass Obama’s agenda immediately and stop using metaphors.

    At least I think that’s what the mainstream media are trying to tell me.

    Liberals instantly leapt on the sickening massacre at a Tucson political event over the weekend to accuse tea partiers, Sarah Palin and all conservatives who talk out loud of being complicit in murder by inspiring the shooter, Jared Loughner.

    Of course, to make their case, they first must demonstrate:

    (a) Right-wingers have called for violence against anyone, especially conservative, pro-Second Amendment Democratic congresswomen;

    (b) Loughner was listening to them; and

    (c) Loughner was influenced by them.

    They’ve proved none of this. In fact, it’s nearly the opposite.

    Needless to say, no conservative has called for violence against anyone. Nor has any conservative engaged in any “rhetoric” that was likely to lead to violence. Every putative example of “violent rhetoric” these squeamish liberals produce keeps being matched by an identical example from the Democrats.

    Sarah Palin, for example, had a chart of congressional districts being targeted by Republicans. So did the Democratic Leadership Committee. Indeed, Democratic consultant Bob Beckel went on Fox News and said he invented the bull’s-eye maps.

    Similarly, every time liberals produce an example of military lingo from a Republican — “we’re going to target this district” — Republicans produce five more from the Democrats.

    President “whose asses to kick” Obama predicted “hand-to-hand combat” with his political opponents and has made such remarks as “if they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun” — making Obama the first American president to advocate gun fights since Andrew Jackson.

    These are figures of speech known as “metaphors.” (Do liberals know where we got the word “campaign”?)

    It’s not that both sides did something wrong; neither side did anything wrong. The drama queens need to settle down.

    The winner of the most cretinous statement of 2011 — and the list is now closed, so please hold your submissions — is MSNBC’s Chris Matthews, who on Monday night recalled Palin’s statement, “We’re not retreating, we’re reloading,” and said, I quote, “THAT’S not a metaphor.”

    Really, Chris? If that’s not a metaphor, who did she shoot?

    By blaming a mass killing on figures of speech, liberals sound as crazy as Loughner with his complaints about people’s grammar. Maybe in lieu of dropping all metaphors, liberals should demand we ban metonyms so that tragedies like this will never happen again.

    As for Loughner being influenced by tea partiers, Fox News and talk radio — oops, another dead-end. According to all available evidence, Loughner is a liberal.

    Every friend of Loughner who has characterized his politics has described him as liberal. Not one called him a conservative.

    One friend says Loughner never listened to talk radio or watched the TV news. Throw in “never read books” and you have the dictionary definition of a liberal. Being completely uninformed is precisely how most liberals stay liberal.

    According to voluminous Twitter postings on Saturday by one of Loughner’s friends since high school, Caitie Parker, he was “left wing,” “a political radical” “quite liberal” and “a pot head.”

    If any public figure influenced this guy, my money’s on Bill Maher.

    But liberals have been so determined to exploit this tragedy to geld conservatives, they have told calculated lies about Loughner’s politics.

    In the most bald-faced lie I have ever read in The New York Times — which is saying something — that paper implied Loughner is a pro-life zealot. This is the precise opposite of the truth.

    Only because numerous other news outlets, including ABC News and The Associated Press, reported the exact same shocking incident in much greater detail — and with direct quotes — do we know that the Times’ rendition was complete bunk.

    ABC News reported: “One Pima Community College student, who had a poetry class with Loughner later in his college career, said he would often act ‘wildly inappropriate.’

    “‘One day (Loughner) started making comments about terrorism and laughing about killing the baby,’ classmate Don Coorough told ABC News, referring to a discussion about abortions. ‘The rest of us were looking at him in shock … I thought this young man was troubled.’

    “Another classmate, Lydian Ali, recalled the incident as well.

    “‘A girl had written a poem about an abortion. It was very emotional and she was teary eyed and he said something about strapping a bomb to the fetus and making a baby bomber,’ Ali said.”

    Here’s the Times’ version: “After another student read a poem about getting an abortion, Mr. Loughner compared the young woman to a ‘terrorist for killing the baby.'”

    So that’s how the Times transformed Loughner from a sicko laughing about a dead fetus to a deadly earnest pro-life fanatic. (Never believe a news story written by Eric Lipton, Charlie Savage or Scott Shane of The New York Times — or for simplicity, anything in the Times.)

    I wouldn’t have mentioned Loughner’s far-left world view immediately after a tragedy like this, but now that liberals have opened the door by blaming Loughner’s politics, they better brace themselves.

    And when I say “brace themselves,” I don’t mean they need to actually strap themselves into a brace. That’s a metaphor, Chris.

  20. No one has sufficiently answered this question…..why is everyone so afraid of Sarah Palin? And before you answer, please keep in mind that I am NOT a Palin fan at all. BUt I am also not afraid of her at all or her influence…so why?

    • Buck the Wala says:

      I’m not afraid of her. I’m afraid for this country if it would seriously consider electing her! The woman is completely unqualified to hold public office.

      • How so afraid for this country?

      • Judy Sabatini says:

        And, you’re not afraid for this country now?

      • ok..interesting thought Buck..let’s extrapolate a litte for my amusement ( I actually really want to know )…compare the current qualifications of Obama and Palin. I actuall see her more qualified weighing out in black and white the pros and cons… Nothing personal.

        • Wait…please substitute the “black and white” and insert “ummmmmm..purple and gold? Dont want to be accused of being a racist because I used black vs white….you know me….a politically correct retired old Colonel who knows nothing.

          • Buck the Wala says:

            hahaha, that’s actually pretty funny!

            First of all, despite what you and others may believe, Obama was never my first (nor second, nor third) choice for President. I know…shocking! 🙂

            But Obama is much more qualified than Palin. Perhaps not much in actual personal experience in political office itself, but clearly in understanding and having a grasp on the issues. Palin wasn’t able to name a single newspaper she reads, nor a SCOTUS case other than Roe which she disagrees with, for crying out loud!

            And for Judy’s comment above: “And, you’re not afraid for this country now” – given the context I believe you are getting at Obama’s policies and the so-called liberal/progressive agenda, correct? In that sense, no not at all. While I believe Obama has made some major missteps and I do have concerns with certain things, overall I support the general direction we are headed in as a country. And let’s be honest – some of the things I disagree with are probably things you completely agree with (e.g., the tax legislation) or are things that I disagree with because they did not go nearly far enough (e.g., the health care legislation).

            • Buck,

              If you read her book….

              She admits to fumbling the “what do you read” question.

              She agreed to an interview with Couric. She took that to mean A single interview. It turned into a 4 day process which she graciously put up with. The question in question came as she just came off the set of another interview expecting to get some dinner or whatever. She came backstage to see Ms Couric IN HER FACE IMMEDIATELY firing THAT question. I can understand her frustration on that one. Can you?

              • Buck the Wala says:

                No, I can’t.

                There were so many lies, exaggerations, misrepresentations, etc. in that book that I find it difficult to believe anything written in it.

                • Buck, Nothing aimed at you but…

                  There were so many lies, exaggerations, misrepresentations, etc.

                  You just described the liberal media this past week, congrats! 🙂

                  • Buck the Wala says:

                    And when did I ever say that such was confined to the right?

                    I just happen to believe that the right is a bit worse (I liked Mathius’ 60/40 split).

                    • Not at you or anything that I didn’t think you implied, I was simply equating your opinion of a book, to my opinion of the media this past week. I do not imply you said anything.

                    • Buck the Wala says:

                      Understood. Just feel like I’ve had to keep repeating myself the past few days that this is a problem on both sides!


                • I find it hard to believe you even read the…..

                  forget it! No need in wasting good breath.

              • Ray Hawkins says:

                “What do you read?” is about a complicated, trip-me-up kinda of question similar to “Do you like bacon?”

            • Judy Sabatini says:

              Yeah, & Obama thinks there’s 57 states too. You’re right Buck, I don’t like one damn policy of his, not one. Cramming health care down our throats, whether we want it or not, raising the deficit to God only knows how high, & knows how many generations it will take to fix it, all those jobs he’s said he’s created, right along with Reid, raising taxes when he’s said he wouldn’t. The list goes on & on, but I think you get what I’m saying. There’s nothing I like what he’s doing to this country, nothing. And what about the illegal immigration he was going to fix, HMMMMMM!, wanting to give them amnesty, bailing out all these companies, banks, & so on. You tell me one good thing he’s done. This country is so divided now because of him. He hasn’t got a clue about anything, unless someone is behind him pulling his strings. He’s taken more vacations & spent more money, I think than any other president. Now we have to watch what we say, if we don’t agree with him & his policies, we’re the terrorists, our freedoms are slowly, little by little being taken away from us, getting involved in every aspect of our lives. Telling how much we should be able to live on, telling us where we should live, what kind of car we should drive, what’s best for us & our kids, what schools they should go to, what kind of food to feed our kids, what we adults should eat. You tell me, is that what a president &his minions should the this country? What happened to them working for us, not us working for them. It’s do as I say, not what I do, & I think most of us, if not more Americans are sick & tired of all the bull shit.

              • Damn,

                I got sore fingers just reading that. Don’t hold back now, next time let him really have it! 🙂

                • Judy Sabatini says:

                  LOL! Yeah, I know G, just getting sick of all the praises he gets from people, in what they think he’s doing for us.

                  Hope your fingers heal up. LOL! Hope you’re doing well too.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                So Judy, tell me what you really think…

                Just a few key points:

                The country is divided BECAUSE of Obama? Where have you been the past decade?? You attribute the country’s division to Obama? How so?

                Obama has taken more vacations than any other President? Again, where have you been the past decade? Has Obama taken more vacation than Bush? I don’t know about that. Regardless though, this particular criticism was misplaced when applied to Bush (did you criticize Bush as well for this though?) and it is misplaced when applied to Obama. The office of the president travels with him. Truman spent so much time in Key West he had his own Little White House down there!

                You’re a terrorist for not agreeing with Obama and his policies? Welcome to the club – According to some on the right I’m a terrorist who is worthy of being tortured and killed at Guantanamo for my own views!

                You’re being forced to feed your kids only what Michelle Obama says? Now that’s just a ridiculous claim (straight out of Palin’s mouth, I might add!).

                I could go on and on, but just feel it isn’t worth the effort.

                • Judy Sabatini says:

                  Hey Buck I was just giving my opinion on what I see is happening. If you think he’s doing such a wonderful job, then so be it, & I’m glad you’re happy with the way this country is being run. He couldn’t fight his way out of a wet paper bag for what I see.

                • The country is divided BECAUSE of Obama? Where have you been the past decade?? You attribute the country’s division to Obama? How so?

                  This needs to be a thread all by itself, Buck…not for here but would be a great article.

                  You know my age…(I dont know or remember yours) but I feel this country is more divided now and it is just if not more divided on racial lines as was the 60’s. I remember it well and I attribute that to Obama and his policies but I also attribute it to his advisors which are mostly academia and academia is not the proper forum for running a country. But, as I said, that is another article.

                  Have a good day counselor.

                  • Buck the Wala says:

                    For arguments sake lets say that the country is now divided more than ever before.

                    You say that division is because of Obama, that it is caused by him?

                    I say that is a very very difficult leap to make. The country has arguably been becoming more and more divided over the past number of years (decades even?).

                    • Hmmmm…caused by him alone? No…..Obama did not do it by himself. He did not have to. His policy mantra has done it as well as his advisors. But, I actually think and believe that the progressive movement has done more damage.

                      The anti war rhetoric from the administration lackeys reminds me of the 60’s and the division it has created. And there is one particular statement that he (Obama) made that brings back the 60’s. I do not know the word for word but it went something like ” the republicans can come on board but they must ride in the back or the back of the bus “. I took that as more than a metaphor very much like the attacks on Palin etal. RACISTS would have been the first word out of the mouths of the left if Bush or someone else had said that and references to chains and slavery would have been the topic of the day. There is a pervasive attitude out in the public that say with Obama in the white house, it will now be the chocolate house…it is time for payback…things like that.
                      This is what I am talking about….attitudes and the pandering to race that is taking place in the white house today.

                    • Buck the Wala says:

                      So Obama’s (and his administration’s) rhetoric has caused the division, but the rhetoric on the right has not?

                      I did not take kindly to being called an un-American traitor by Bush and his lackeys (“you are either with us or against us”)

                    • Point made and understood….although I did not equate the “either with us or against us” as traitorus (sp). I do not believe I have heard that stated by Bush etal….however, I do acknowledge that both left and right have their rhetoric and both are doing this in repsonse to the other. It feeds upon itself.

                    • Buck the Wala says:

                      If you equate Obama’s metaphor as being equivalent to calling you a racist, then how is Bush’s statement (it may have been Cheney), not equivalent to callling someone a traitor?

                      How would you characterize the statement?

                  • Colonel,

                    This could be a good discussion, since it is Open Mic, let’s take it to the bottom. It may result in some problem solving, at least here on SUFA. I’m not sold it’s Obama’s fault, but I’ll start a new thread below.

                • Don’t worry Buck, Obama closed Guantanamo. Oh wait…. nevermind

                  • Buck the Wala says:

                    Good example of something I disagree with him on – Guantanamo should be closed by now.

            • THanks, Buck.

        • Ray Hawkins says:

          @D13 – she is a quitter. Plain and simple. I’m shocked a military guy considers that a quality desired in their leader.

          • Yep…she is a quitter and I despise that and she would never get my vote simply because of that one thing. Unlike several on here, I refuse to dwell in the gray areas. There is no gray. I did not say that I supported her..I was wanting to know why people are so incensed. When you analyze her accomplishments and experience item for item…she outweighs Obama by a bunch. I will give just a couple of examples. Palin was Commander in Chief of one of the largest military units in the states. The protection of the Alaskan Pipeline is NOT a Federal responsibility as most seem to think…it is the responsibility of the Alaskan National Guard. As governor, she had the keys and the briefings and the responsibility. She was also briefed on National Security issues because of the close proximity to Russia and the invasion route. She also ran a large State budget and had executive powers that she wielded quite well or as good or on par with most governors. She has had more experience than a community organizer or a state senator for less than two years for a state and city that is broke. She took on a good old boy administration and won. Everyone can go on and on about statements taken out of context….57 states (Obama), not knowing a newspaper (Palin)…..all bullshit items. iden has more foot in mouth disease than anyone and he is a heartbeat away.

            NOw..those are just a couple of issues as there are many others, if put on a scale objectively, the scale tips in her favor quite handily.

            Pros and Cons do not have the luxury of gray/grey (never can get that right) areas. It either is or is not.

            The reason that Palin does not get my vote is quite simple…..she quit. That’s all. She quit! As for qualifications, she blows away Obama…prior to his election. Now that he has been in office and has experience..he blows her away. But Obama scares me more. As I said before, I did not think anyone could be as bad as Jimmy Carter…but I was wrong. Carter is a piker compared to Obama….however, that is not the subject I asked.

            Thanks for your input.

            • Ray Hawkins says:

              @D13 – you’re quick to give someone credit for effectively serving for what – about 2 years? She served slightly over 1.5 years prior to being named to the ticket and then about .5 years after the election – I don’t give her credit for serving during the election (nor do I give the same credit to McCain, Obama or Biden – all elected officials that were currently holding office). Most everything you stated is entirely subjective….

              “She also ran a large State budget” – seriously? Alaska? NYC has a budget something like 7 times as large.

              “As Governor she had the keys and the briefings and the responsibility” (in re: Alaska National Guard) – seriously? My understanding is you also get briefings on matters of National Security as well as border security issues that are probably more volatile than what is occurring with respect to the Alaskan Pipeline. Does that make you a better leader or Presidential candidate? In a former work situation I had an Algerian National who was (and still is) an Infragard member – who by default receive briefings on National and Infrastructure security – does that make him a better or more suitable leader / Presidential candidate than Obama or Palin? Uh – no.

              “She took on the good old boy administration and won” – really? By implementing an income re-distribution plan sourced from oil company revenues?

              C’mon D13 – I trust your analysis would be deeper than Sean Hannity / Dennis Miller talking points……


              • Actually RAy, I did not know they were talking points….who is Dennis Miller? But, I give her credit for that just like I give Obama credit now….who had NONE prior to being President. Your hatred for Palin is clear and I understand your stance quite well. I understand that but I am really interested how…on paper…Obama was more qualified at the time. It matters not if the Alaskan budget is $1.50. It was a $1.50 more than Obama. I pointed out the Alaskan Pipeline as an example. Not that it was great thing but it was and is considered a primary target and she (Palin)and the National Guard which she was the CIC had the primary responsibility for its protection. The fact still remains, as inconsequential as you want to make it, she still had the keys to the car….if only for one day….it was one day more than Obama. As near as I can tell, Obama had the responsibility for…………………..? I see this as 2-0 as qualifications go so far. THAT is all I am talking about. And that is point by point qualifications. You, of all people, should be glad she took on the Oil Companies….and won….to a point. You have always been against big oil if I remember correctly. The only thing Obama has done with big oil has line his pockets equal to that of Cheney.

                This is all I am talking about Ray…on paper. You already know my stance on her and how I see her but I am not understanding the vitriol against her by you or the media or the left. She has absolutely no shot at being on the ticket in the future and rightly so but I feel the same about Obama who was elected with skullduggery but elected he was and he is my President. My analysis is deep but maybe not by your standards, my friend. She quite simply had more military experience in command authority, executive experience at the table, and hutzpah at the time of the ticket.

                But who cares what Sarah Palin has to say now? She is a non player. I just do not understand and really want to understand. I do not buy the fact that as governor she wanted to protect her family and quit. She quit. She did not face the fire. She surrendered but at least, for a short while she was in the trenches….during the same time Obama was a mess cook.

          • Ray,

            I think you know the other side of it, but your bias overwhelms your sense of fair play. With all the lawsuits, how much of her and her staffs time was being devoted to answering those suits, as REQUIRED by law. And how much to actually fulfilling her duties as governor?

            What commander worthy of the title, would not resign their position if it was being used to harm the whole group that she represented? A battalion commander singled out by an irate general punishes the battalion in every way possible. Every soldier of every rank attacked, loosing pay, no promotions, equipment shortages, discomfort and even life threatening conditions. Loyalty goes both ways. She did what was best for her state.

            • Ray Hawkins says:

              @LOI – its been fairly well established that Palin and staff were exaggerating with respect to time and cost involved in the ethics violations. Even if it were egregious (the ethics complaints process perhaps being too enabling) rather than reform it she just quit.

    • D13,

      Interesting question and answers. I don’t think I read the key one for me, VALUES. When she joined McCain, she tried to align herself with him on global warming, which I think was dishonest. I think her “handlers” pressured or forced this, and that it was a mistake. Why can’t a president & VP have different opinions? The boss makes the final decision, but he’s heard from the other side.

      But I come back to values. On one issue, to me, she has lied. I understand the reasons, and could overlook it if she had come clean, but that has not happened. And I may be using too high a standard, what politician has not had to tell one lie or renege on something? But for high office, they should be held to the highest standard.

      Overall, I like Palin for high office because I think we have similar values.
      I think she will state her position, and try to stay true to it if a deal violated her principals.

      By comparison, Obama made many broad promises during the campaign, on which I stated my opposition to him. He promised to be bi-partisan, but his past showed he would not be, and his actions after election have shown what he says means nothing, only by his actions can you see if he will keep his word.
      His advisors are picked from special interest and Goldman Sachs, despite promises against that. How long does the public get to review legislation?
      Values. I think saying anything to get elected and then doing whatever you want to push a personal agenda is wrong. Obama and I do not share the same values.

      And use Huckabee as another example. He has come out favoring more federal control on our food. In the larger sense, I think I share values with him, as he is honest in his intentions, and makes me think I can trust him to act as he says. I will not support him because I do not like the nanny state mentality, and think the government needs to respect personal freedom more than an ever increasing policy of deciding what’s good for us.

      • Very thoughtful, LOI and thank you for your response.

        LOI says: “When she joined McCain, she tried to align herself with him on global warming, which I think was dishonest. I think her “handlers” pressured or forced this, and that it was a mistake. Why can’t a president & VP have different opinions? The boss makes the final decision, but he’s heard from the other side.”

        D13 responds: Yes, I agree. She tried to walk in lock step with the “old Guard” and that was the downfall.

  21. ? for SUFA – do you guys have to show ID when voting?

    We’ve had some voter fraud in the Milwaukee area (ACORN presence) but have not heard of significant fraud elsewhere in the state.

    Our new Repub Gov is pushing for it and the Dems are fighting back big time. It would require those that do not have valid Drivers’ License to get an ID for voting. There are already other instances where ID is required, like purchases with checks and sometimes even with credit card. Library check-outs has been mentioned as an ID requirement place too.

    I don’t see a problem with it. To combat the cost arguement of the left (elderly and poor with no licenses would have to go get one – usually a cost), there is proposal to do this free when they are just getting it for voting purposes.

    • Judy Sabatini says:

      We did, had to show our driver licenses to show proof of being a resident here in Reno. Also, to show proof of who we said we were & if our addresses matches accordingly.

    • A Puritan Descendant says:

      I had to show ID the last time I voted here in Maine.

    • I have always had to show at least voter registration card. Last couple elections they wanted picture ID

    • Voters registrqtion card.

    • Yes, picture ID.

      Matched against the records at the polling place.

      It has been working fine but get this. The Dem Gov and AG are proposing legislation to allow Mail In Ballots for ALL elected offices.

      Currently we can only use them for local elections if there are no Federal Offices on the ballot. So it is usually bond levies and such.

      All that is needed to vote by mail is the ability to copy a signature of the person to whom the ballot was sent. No double check for validity when sent. Regular voting has two or three “election judges” looking over the shoulders to make sure everything is cool.

    • Alabama requires driver licenses.

    • Buck the Wala says:

      Nope, never had to show my ID to vote.

      • Do you think you should? I had to in Louisiana, and I think it is warranted.

        • Buck the Wala says:

          Nope – When I vote, I sign in and they compare my signature to that on record. Then I vote.

          There is no reason to require ID. Why do you feel it is warranted?

    • Have to show proof of address (utility bill, drivers license, etc.) the first time you vote at a polling place. After that no ID, but they do make you sign something and they compare it to your signature on record.

    • This last election in CA I had to show a picture ID (DL). This is the first time I remember doing this. I had not heard that any laws had changed. Previously, we signed a book that was used repeatedly so you signed under an old signature hence comparison was easy. The old book was not is use this year. Years (& years & years) ago in IL when I first voted, we had voter registration cards. When you moved to a new district, you turned in your card for a new one. The old one was mailed to the old precinct for removing your name from their roles. (Where I grew up IDs where unnecessary since everyone knew everyone.) I see no problem with showing IDs to participate in one of our best national traditions. I also have no problem with requiring people to show up in person to vote as long as reasonable means are available for shut-ins and travellers to participate. I think that vote by mail can be easily corrupted, hence I am not sure we should go that route.

  22. Here SUFA, Lets ee if we can put something to rest once and for all! Props to Cyndi P for sending this my way.


    Maybe our Left leaning friends who already understand this could pass this on to those that don’t.

    I also resent being fringe! 😆 I never wear the stuff

  23. Judy Sabatini says:

    Buck, down here

    Look, we both can go round & round on this, & we both know we’re not going to agree with each other, so I say, let just agree to disagree. You have your opinion, & I have mine. We’re on opposite ends here.

  24. I take back everything I’ve ever said! He IS the Messiah! Rep. Giffords opened her eyes right after THE ONE was in her room. OMG!

    Memorial service or another campaign stop? What a frickin’ embarrassment this group is. Whooping and hollering and passing out t-shirts with a new logo for this event? Did they collect money for his re-election on the way out the door?

    Before the fall election all he did was appear on college campuses for campaign stops as that was the only place he could still pull people. Didn’t think they would stoop so low to do the same thing for this tragedy.

  25. Remember when I said that the Bush Tax Cut COMPROMISE would help the President and if he played it right, it could help launch his second term? Well take a gander at this:

    “WASHINGTON — Americans give higher marks to President Barack Obama and congressional Republicans after a holiday season of compromise paid dividends for both, according to the latest Associated Press-GfK poll.

    At the start of the divided government era, the survey found that 53 percent of Americans approve of how Obama is doing his job, his best numbers since the divisive health care vote 10 months ago.

    And, compared with just after the November elections, more now express confidence that Obama and the new Republican-controlled House can work together to solve the country’s most urgent problems, chief among them the struggling economy.

    “It’s going to be difficult because there are some bleeding-heart liberals way over on the left and some uptight conservatives,” said Spirit Fliege, 83, a Republican from Brentwood, Calif. “It’s going to take someone who can operate very smoothly. Whether Obama can or not, we don’t know.”

    Most people, according to the poll, now are putting their faith in Republicans to implement the changes needed to fix the economy. But a majority also now view the Democrats favorably, an oddity just two months after voters dealt Obama’s party what he called “a shellacking” in congressional elections.

    Still, despite expressing more optimism in certain areas, Americans are down on Congress itself. And roughly half express anger with American politics, while disappointment and frustration remain with politicians of all stripes.

    “They’re totally ignoring the people. They make all kinds of promises and put the shaft to the people,” said Sandy Parton, 66, of Honey Grove, Texas. “I’ve seen them say one thing and do another.”

    The period during which the poll was conducted included last Saturday, when a shooting rampage in Arizona left six dead and several more injured, including a congresswoman, and touched off debate over the caustic nature of American politics.

    The December lame-duck session of Congress left an imprint on Americans who had made it clear in November that they were tired of one-party rule in Washington and hungry for bipartisanship.
    Story continues below

    In a bow to that desire as 2010 ended, Obama struck a deal with Republicans to extend temporarily all the Bush-era tax cuts. And he has indicated a willingness to work with new House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, on several other issues, including looming trade deals and the reauthorization of an education law.

    Some people like what they see.

    “He’s doing the best he can with what he was handed,” said Richard Cambell, 42, a truck driver from Rockingham, N.C., who says Obama deserves a second term.

    The poll found that since the year began:

    _Obama improved his job-performance rating by 6 percentage points, up from 47 percent just after the November elections. Disapproval is at 46 percent. He scored higher marks on handling the economy, too, as the unemployment rate edged down to 9.4 percent; 47 percent now approve, compared with 41 percent two months ago. And 59 percent view him favorably, while 40 percent view him unfavorably.

    _Boehner became better known to the general public in his first foray on the political scene as a national leader. And impressions of him were about evenly divided, with 34 percent viewing him positively and 31 percent viewing him negatively.

    _Republicans in Congress got a slight bump, too, though they are not nearly as popular as Obama. Now, 36 percent give them high marks, compared with 29 percent last fall. But the increase was driven entirely by people who identify themselves as Republicans. Support among independents did not change.

    _On the question of whether Obama and Republicans can work in a bipartisan manner to solve what ails the country, 48 percent express some degree of optimism and 52 percent express some level of pessimism. It’s an improvement from just after the elections, when 41 percent were confident and 58 percent were not.

    _Democrats generally are back to being viewed in a positive light by most Americans – 53 percent favorable to 45 percent unfavorable. That’s better than at any point during the height of the 2010 campaign. Views of the Republican Party are evenly split at 48 percent.

    _More than half – 56 percent – say they are confident that the GOP can improve the economy, though slightly less – 51 percent – say they think Republicans in Congress will actually implement their campaign policy promises. And relatively few think Republicans in Congress understand the important short-term issues the country must focus on.

    _People still aren’t hot on Congress: 69 percent disapprove, 26 percent approve. And nearly 6 in 10 still say the nation is heading in the wrong direction.

    _Democrats slightly improved their standing on most issues, most notably surpassing Republicans on handling the economy for the first time since June: 45 percent trust the Democrats to handle it, 40 percent the Republicans. Democrats also pulled even with Republicans on managing the federal budget deficit, and they expanded their advantage on handling health care.

    The poll was conducted Jan. 5-10 by GfK Roper Public Affairs and Corporate Communications. It involved landline and cell phone interviews with 1,001 adults nationwide and has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 4.2 percentage points.


    Associated Press Deputy Polling Director Jennifer Agiesta, News Survey Specialist Dennis Junius and Associated Press writer Philip Elliott contributed to this report.

  26. When I posted Palin’s speech about the shooting and the media after math I figured we would get a few irrational responses but that our local left wing would at least admit it was a good speech.

    Boy, I guess I’ll never make it as a politician either. Who would have guessed that you have to know every little thing that might cause the Jews anxiety or apoplexy. The following is an article in Mother Jones. But the headline is being spread and I picked it up from you know who. The embellished it a little more, portraying the Republicans as “afraid” to associate with Palin. Anyway, read and weep.

    “GOPers Steer Clear of Palin’s “Blood Libel” Comments

    — By Suzy Khimm
    | Wed Jan. 12, 2011 11:39 AM PST

    — Zuma/Kevin Sullivan

    Sarah Palin dropped her latest rhetorical bombshell on Wednesday morning, claiming, in a widely circulated video, that media reports highlighting incendiary right-wing rhetoric (hers in particular) in the wake of the Tucson shootings was comparable to “blood libel.” Palin lobbed the term—which has historically referred to the claim that Jews used the blood of Christian babies to make matzoh—just as the House was convening in Washington for the first time since Saturday. Hours before a congressional prayer service for the victims of the shooting rampage, Republican lawmakers made it clear they didn’t want to go near the former Alaska governor’s inflammatory remarks. JAC–Please note the choice of words here and how they affect your perception. “didn’t want to go near”. Now read on. 🙂

    “I’m going to let her speak for herself,” Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC), a tea party-backed freshman, told Mother Jones before walking onto the House floor for speeches mourning the Arizona victims. Other House Republicans were also cautious about weighing in. Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), who’s made joint appearances with Palin, said: “I haven’t seen the video yet… I gotta watch the video before I comment.”

    Rep. Kristi Noem (R-SD), one of the Palin-backed “Mama Grizzlies” during the midterms, had even less to say. When asked whether she any comment or reaction to Palin’s use of “blood libel,” Noem said, “No, I don’t.” Pressed further on whether the media attacks on Palin over the Arizona shooting have been out of line, Noem replied, “I don’t have a comment for that.”

    But at least one House Republican stepped forward to warn the media against using Palin’s latest “blood libel” comment to unfairly malign her. “I didn’t hear what she said exactly, but I just want to make sure that people on both sides of the media don’t take this and try to turn it into something that I’m not sure that it is,” said Rep. Bill Shuster (R-Pa.), leaing the House GOP’s caucus meeting on Wednesday, adding that Palin has been unjustly attacked in the past. The Pennsylvania Republican, however, declined to comment on her specific remarks. “I honestly couldn’t you exactly what she said, so I couldn’t put a comment out there that would be intelligent.”

    Shuster, however, did offer up his own reinterpretation of Jewish history in response to another question. When asked about accused assailant Jared Lee Loughner’s political leanings, Shuster said: “I don’t know. We’ll uncover that as we go forward…But from what I heard, his two favorite books were Mein Kampf and the Communist Manifesto—that tells me the guy is on the left. People like to associate Hitler with the right, but in fact he was a socialist himself.” JAC– Note here how the claim that Fascism is really on the left side of the scale is portrayed as “reinterpretation of Jewish history”. Aside from the fact it is world history and not just Jewish history, the goal here is to fuel the existing view that Republicans are stupid, don’t know history and revise history for “propoganda”.

    The majority of the comments on the MJ site confirm this view. There was one fellow that actually posted why Mr. Shuster was correct and provided some evidence. But he was summarily dismissed as the Progressives pointed out that Fascism isn’t the same as Socialism. Of course, nobody said it was the same now did they! What was said is that Hitler was a socialist, which means they are on the same side….LEFT….and that one is related to the other. Which is historically accurate but is also more complex than the simple linkage provided by Mr. Shuster.

    I hope we can all agree that it is understandable why he might not try to provide the more complex explanation. One, he may not understand it, and two, given our medias attention span and habits you don’t want to give more than a sound bite worth of words. 🙂

  27. Holy cow batman. I am no great Palin fan but these dipsticks are starting to make me feel sorry for the woman. If they keep this up I may vote for her just to REALLY, REALLY piss them off.

    Clyburn: Palin ‘Intellectually’ Incapable Of Understanding Arizona Shootings

    By: Sam Stein

    WASHINGTON — Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin’s first spoken words on the shootings in Tucson, Ariz. — a lengthy denunciation of both violence and pundits who are “manufacturing a blood libel” — was more an effort in media critique than post-tragedy reconciliation.
    And in the immediate aftermath, the reaction to it was a bit of incredulity, shock or simple confusion. Assistant House Minority Leader James Clyburn (D-S.C.) became one of the first lawmakers to weigh in Wednesday morning.

    “You know, Sarah Palin just can’t seem to get it, on any front. I think that she’s an attractive person, she is articulate,” Clyburn said on Bill Press’ radio show. “But I think intellectually, she seems not to be able to understand what’s going on here.”

    Clyburn’s comments were tame compared to the chilly reception and head-scratching that Palin’s statement received on the Internet and cable, where the anti-Semitic roots of the term “blood libel” did not go unnoticed.

    “Whether it was her intention or not today, she is feeding the beast of what has really been a pretty nasty ideological finger-pointing fight that we have been watching on Twitter and the Internet and on some forms of cable television,” NBC News’ Chuck Todd said on MSNBC.

    “There was some sympathy for Palin over being tied to shooting, + she chose to go inflammatory,” The Daily Beast’s Howard Kurtz wrote via Twitter.

    All of which should serve as a telling backdrop for President Barack Obama as he takes center stage during the memorial service for the shooting victims on Wednesday evening. Whereas the defining tone from Palin and others is one of self-defense and even victimization — former Nevada Senate candidate Sharron Angle accused her critics of being “dangerous and ignorant” on Tuesday — Obama is likely to stick with his default positions: projections of civility, calls for unity, pleas for depolarization.

    😦 😦

    • JAC,

      What’s your thoughts on how the Left/Right disconnect will resolve itself, or do you see a rather bloody resolution to it? I don’t see much comprimise in the near future, I think the lines are drawn and they are close to being crossed, with no return. What say you my friend?

      On a side note, snow is well over a foot on the ground now, sure is pretty, but makes walking hard, think I’ll go out and take some pics.


      • G-Man

        Sorry for the delay in responding. Got caught up with blood liable.

        I DO NOT see the left/right disconnect ending in “rather bloody resolution”.

        I do expect we will see some bloody type events and almost exclusively from the far left, ie., communists, “anarchists” and hard core Progressives (Capital P). Those will be like riots and things like that.

        Quite frankly, I think the left could take control of govt and role over the rest of us and you wouldn’t see a major bloody revolt. A few outliers might act but nothing major.

        Now, this all goes out the window if we undergo serious economic collapse. That is when the “law abiding” types can come unhinged. We are talking self preservation at that point. And all kinds of finger pointing.

        I do see the lines being more clearly drawn each day. That is our first and formost task. Help others see that there are in fact lines that NEED to be drawn.

        I also believe that the majority of Americans will stand on the “right” side of that line once they understand it. They may not go as far as VDLG but they will say…..STOP the madness and go back ten paces.

        The question is whether enough will see the line. Right now about 60% of the population does not. The hard left/right thing is the other 40% split 20/20.

        I do see the “high” potential for a large population shift in the country, with those of us on the “right” moving to places where we can live as close to freedom as possible. Places like Texas, Montana, Wyoming, N.& S. Dakota, and Idaho might get more crowded. Once large enough they can tell the FED to go to hell.

        Here is another of my observations, one I wish I didn’t see. I think we will continue to see the pendulum swing farther and farther left. Each time the “right” gets in control it never returns to its previous position. We are always moving left and I don’t see that stopping.

        As long as we can be fooled into thinking that “all we want for Christmas is compromise” or that “why can’t we just get along” or that “leadership is about giving up your positions for the good of the nation” then we will continue on our leftward journey. That is when the population shift will happen. We will not start a blood bath with our friends and neighbors. We will simply find new friends and neighbors.

        • G-Man

          I forgot my major caveat to this: “We are always moving left and I don’t see that stopping.”

          Without a concerted and long term effort to change that trend.

          Hope that makes the medicine taste a little better.

          Peace and live free.
          Life is a game that must be played.

        • “leadership is about giving up your positions for the good of the nation” UUUhmmm, I know there is a political divide on this issue that is based more on the fact that it is Palin that quit her job. But I am beginning to think that it may be some type of difference in the way men and women think. What do you think? 🙂

          • V.H.

            Not sure I understand your question. Could you explain further.

            Obviously the avg. man and woman think differently. But not sure what you are getting at here.

            • I’ve just noticed that the woman on here seem to agree that Palin wasn’t wrong for leaving her job as governor and most of the men seem to disagree. It wasn’t a super serious question but I don’t think it’s out of the realm of possibilities either.

              • V.H.

                Well let me break the mold. Letting my feminine side out.

                IF, and I say IF, what she claimed was true about the fiasco getting in the way of her ability to govern then I think she made the right decision.

                I noticed at the time the attackers spent a lot of time trying to dispute her claim that it would cost the tax payers, etc.

                But to me was the issue of her ability to perform her duties. I think it had reached a breaking point. The ethics BS was the straw in this regard.

                In the end, that is part of my concern with her. It appears that some of those charges were valid. Letting family, Todd in particular, get mixed up in dealing with govt people over family issues.

                That will ALL come back.

                I expect the gender split in the opinion of her resigning might be linked to the “sisterhood” gene on the female side and the “never quit jock” gene on the male side.

                I think your question is a good one by the way.

        • No worries on the delay. At first, I wanted to disagree some, then the wishful thinking bubble above my head popped. Then I said, Holy Cookies, JAC’s right. As long as the people want/need the cookies, they will vote for the ones who are going to promise it to them. The cookie makers are passing out cookies like they will never run out of “dough”. But the “dough” isn’t going to make enough cookies in short time. As long as there is just enough “dough”, I see your moving left position. But how long will there be enough “dough”? The “dough” is being bought with debt. The credit cards are maxxed out. Big problem for the cookie makers!

          Peace my Friend! Stay warm!


    • It continues to amaze me that all these people keep claiming that Palin causes all the nasty rhetoric that befalls her.All she needs to do to stop the nastiness is to shut up. I’m sure they would like that, I’m sure that is their intention. But it ain’t gonna happen anytime soon because no matter how many times they call her a quitter-she just isn’t a quitter. Deal with it! And quite frankly it would be nice if they practiced what they preached and stopped their nasty, over the top rhetoric about her and her children.

      • VH…I will deal with it. You know my politics. I am a fisal conservative and a social moderate….but lean to the right of the center. Palin lost me when she quit as governor adn VH….she quit. She lost most of the military vote there as well and she did have that support. She should have stayed the course and finished regardless of the rhetoric and the attacks against her. That will also equate, in people’s mind, to public policy and foreign affairs. NOw, do not take my stance to mean that Obama is not the same or worse. We are now considered a weak minded country. That did not happen under Bush no matter the spin that I know some will out on it….but the opinion of this country has reverted to that under Carter…weak and will not stay the course. We already have a President like that….we do not need another.

        That, my frend VH, is my reason.

        • Sorry, my keyboard still cannot spell properly but I bet you get the gist…as I am sure everyone else will.

    • Buck the Wala says:

      Another take on Palin’s speech:

    • I find the media coverage of Palin very confusing. By now the media has cast her as such a villain that the independents and democrats will not vote for her and many republicans must realize that she is unelectable. We all know that the media did anything in their power to get Obama elected, so wouldn’t you think that they would want Palin to get the republican nomination so that Obama will have an easy time beating her?

      Is anyone on the left seriously concerned that she is going to be president? So I am really confused as to why they continue their vile attack on whatever she does or say instead of allowing her to fade away. Or is it that they are trying to say that what she says is what all republicans stand for and trying to convince the independents that all republicans are like that?

      • I have an unsupported theory on this Nate…want it? It will rile the left…tho.

      • She is a viable threat.

        As people have become more and more involved and educated on politics and Washington, conservatives find her views much inline with theirs.

        I was initially disappointed with her leaving the Gov. post early, but once I learned more about it and found out about the excessive lawsuits that were totally consuming her time (none of which were successful btw – frivilous lawsuits much?) and money. She was not serving the people of Alaska because of the time involved with them. The only way to stop them was to remove herself from public office.

        I don’t hold her stepping down against her any longer.

        • Agree. Never did have a problem with it. She made her decision based on the best interest of the state..the lawsuits had her handcuffed. She would still been fighting the allegations daily costing the state millions and not allowing the state to move forward. Since then she is able to still address the nation on her terms and she still has a great number of supporters. Win/Win

        • I understand D13’s point and he of course needs to use his own thoughts to determine who he wants to vote for, but I agree with you. I don’t think someone shows their worth or their strength simply by stubbornly refusing to be moved. Sometimes they need to retreat and reload. Sometimes they need to look at the damage their fight is doing to innocents and take them out of the line of fire. That’s what I think she did. Now I too have my doubts about her as President-but it isn’t based on the unfair, dehumanized picture that the left has intentionally painted of her. I have listened to her response to questions about policy(not her reading list)and as JAC commented she seems very intelligent to me on paper but she hasn’t proved herself to me when she is on the ground and questions are thrown at her. And as President I think you need that ability. I have no intention of voting for a President just because he or she can read a nice speech.

        • Ray Hawkins says:

          Quitters always have excuses don’t they?

      • Naten

        She is a tremendous FUNDRAISING DRAW for the left.

        She may pull in money for her side, but by keeping her out there they can keep the “FEAR” going on their side and hope it generates BIG BUCKS.

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      @JAC – any thoughts on the use of the term “blood libel”? My discussions with several Jews I work with varied from complete disgust to moderate disgust. It has to be a head scratcher that her response to criticism over the use of imagery (verbal or visual) would be done using such a provocative term.

      • Buck the Wala says:

        I just want to know how that got in there. I seriously doubt that Palin had used it purposely to convey an anti-Semetic message. But I find it extremely odd that the phrase appeared in the speech.

        Perhaps one of her speechwriters needs to be fired?

        • See what happens when the definitions keep getting changed? I do not like Dershowitz but for him to come to her defense is a good move in trying to bridge the gap.

          • Buck the Wala says:

            As I said, I seriously doubt (but cannot know for a fact) that the term was used to convey an anti-Semetic message.

            Still a foolish term to use, and for what reason?

            Did you take a look at the Slate article about her speech above – be interested to hear your thoughts.

            • I did and saw it was just another hit. And knowing your views on her decided it was best not to respond. Put yourself in her shoes considering the hits she has taken durinng the last two years. Now she’s taking hits for this newest nutjob.. would you not stand up for yourself? ….small letters-not yelling…

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Perhaps this was not the best time for her to stand up for herself?

                • perhaps you will never find any good in what she does on anything?

                  • Anita

                    This is VERY TRUE.

                    But I must add this, please don’t explode.

                    That shoe fits BOTH feet.

                    We need to guard against the same thing.


                    • It is a danger-and it’s true for some people already-I think at this point there is very little that Obama can do to change my opinion of him and his policies. But I will give him credit for making a good speech last night. As I’ve heard others comment on this morning-I did think the audiences reactions were a little unusual for a memorial but the speeches and such were respectful of the dead and uplifting when it came to the survivors. I think he did good.

                    • Now I will yell this: AGREED!

                      HOWEVER..I give credit where it’s due. I stuck up for the Prez on this very page. I also stuck up for Gabby yesterday..then something went terribly wrong..NOT TO MENTION ANY NAMES…………

                • She wasn’t just standing up for herself

            • Buck

              The Slate article was CRAP.

              More “confirmation bias” by your own people.

              She had to stand up for herself and did so in a non inflammatory way while expressing sadness for the event.

              If not for the Jewish connection the Slate and other criticisms would seem completely contrived. If you don’t think she was trying to be anti-semetic then why do you have a problem with using the phrase?

              That seems contradictory to me.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Not contradictory in the least.

                Do you agree that there are phrases out there that, despite your ‘innocent’ use, still have loaded meanings and conjure certain emotions/views/etc.? It was a stupid choice of words.

                And no, Palin did not have to stand up for herself, at least not at that exact moment nor in that exact manner. All she wound up doing was coopting the moment to defend herself.

                • There is no such thing as a bad time to defend oneself.

                  Especially in politics.

                  Why do you think the White House has been so quick to pull the trigger these past two years?

                  They saw Bush flounder by not immediately responding directly to attacks.

                  Your BIAS is showing through Buck. Palin’s speech was well constructed and did not belittle the moment or the tragedy.

                  That only exists in the minds of those who can’t stand her.

        • I have to wonder how many people, actually even knew what the phase meant before all this came out, I certainly didn’t. I also seem to remember seeing this phrase in another article headline and I’m pretty sure it was before her speech came out. I will check but I’m pretty sure. Maybe she read this article and decided to use the term. If you think about it-if it didn’t have such bad connotations-it would be a pretty good sound bite.

      • See link above to Dershowitz’s comment.

      • From a commenter on another site:

        Ever since I was two years old, I was told stories of Jewish persecution and blood libels. I was told how the Jews were accused for using the blood of Christian children to bake matzoh bread. I was told the stories of how whenever there was a murder in town the Jews were blamed for it. Whatever the scenario, the chain of events were the same. The Jews were accused of a murder, followed by calls for their deaths, followed by riots and then killings of all the Jews. At all time when the Jews spoke up and defended themselves, they were told to sit down and shut up and further killings took place just for that reason alone.

        After the horrific killings in Tucson this Saturday and the finger-pointing at Governor Palin begun, I was mad and I was angry. Not that I’m not used to seeing irrational criticism thrown at Governor Palin, I’m used to seeing that by now and frankly I have come to expect it. But this time it was different; this time it felt as if all those stories I was told as a kid were coming to life. A heartless murderer shot and killed innocent victims. Governor Palin, who is hated just because she exists, was blamed, and that was followed by a flood of calls for her death on Twitter and Facebook. If this isn’t a blood libel than nothing is.

      • Ray

        I thought it was a good phrase. In fact I thought it brilliant when I first read it.

        But I took the words as just words used in the context of the speech and surrounding events. It seemed the perfect metaphor or description of what was going on with the media pundits. I immediately thought of the blood libel that leads to blood feuds, like the Hatfields and McCoys.

        However, I had NO knowledge of the “jewish” or religious connection to the phrase. I DID NOT KNOW it was considered a “provocative” term.

        Of course, now the million dollar question is whether she knew it and ignored it, knew it and did it on purpose to slander Jews once again (doubtful in my view), or knew of the phrase and context but not that the Jews had taken ownership of the phrase. I am guessing here but would think that given her “religious” stance that she should have maybe known this was loaded. But maybe because of her background she thought it the perfect metaphor and wasn’t aware of the “baggage” attached.

        I think the backlash is idiotic, quite frankly. In fact my initial reaction (gut level stuff before engaging brain) was, who the hell are the Jews to claim a monopoly on the use of certain WORDS. I suppose next we will not be able to use the word Holocaust except in reference to the murder of Jews. We will need a new word for everybody else or we will be insulting them.

        But now from a purely political view, if she knew and did it anyway, she’s toast. If she did not know of the “baggage” then it is too bad because it ruined what I thought was a pretty well constructed response to the situation at the moment. She will have to explain herself eventually and apologize to the Jews for “unintentionally opening old wounds”.

        Hope that helps answer your question and the ones you hadn’t asked yet 🙂

        That would be me admitting I got carried away with my response. To much coffee before my first post of the day.

        Hope you at least used that new blower on your dusting.

        Best to you and yours this fine Thursday.

        • Buck the Wala says:

          Pretty spot on analysis JAC!

          I think it was stupid of her to use the phrase, and have a hard time believing she had absolutely no idea of the phrase’s meaning. I also have a hard time believing she used it to convey an anti-Semetic message.

          I don’t believe the Jews have (nor should have) a monopoly on any term or phrase. The same goes to any group. However, when a term has such a history and baggage attached to it as this term does, maybe its not the best term to use to convey one’s message.

          • Buck

            But what if she DID NOT know that it carried such baggage. You can not accuse someone of being “stupid” if they did not know the potential backlash. It is completely irrational to claim someone “should have known” when it comes to the hurt feelings of others.

            I thought I was the only one ignorant on this or the use of the term.

            But then look at the links Kathy provided.

            Do you NOT see the deliberate effort here to tear her apart over her comments?

            Was it really that controversial or is controversy being created where it should not have existed. Is the Left not guilty of confirmation bias here just as they accuse the Right of doing with Mr. Obama?

            Regardless, my advice to her now is explain and apologize. And then explain some more so that the idea behind the phrase sticks in the minds of the American public. Our media is a bunch of back biting jackals.

            • Buck the Wala says:

              Wait, I had a similar reaction to your own reaction and I’m being irrational??

              I agreed with your own view that it seems she knew at least some of the history behind the phrase, but perhaps not all the baggage that went along with it.

              As you stated: “I am guessing here but would think that given her “religious” stance that she should have maybe known this was loaded. But maybe because of her background she thought it the perfect metaphor and wasn’t aware of the “baggage” attached.”

              As I stated: “I think it was stupid of her to use the phrase, and have a hard time believing she had absolutely no idea of the phrase’s meaning. I also have a hard time believing she used it to convey an anti-Semetic message.”

              Assuming she did have some idea of the meaning and history of the word (even without knowing the entirety of the baggage it carried) it was clearly a bad choice of words.

              • Buck

                First of all Buck, I did NOT call you irrational.

                Yes we are in general agreement, but nuanced. Please notice my use of the word “maybe” in that sentence.

                My criticism of your comment is due to your use of the word “stupid”.

                That is the left’s story line on Palin. The fact that you used it to describe what could be an innocent but politically bad choice does not mean she was stupid.

                So in that sense you are showing your victim to the “confirmation bias”.

                Now, if she did know about the baggage then that is stupid. If not, then bad choice as you say in your last comment. But again, purely bad choice from a “political” stand point.

                But it was entirely proper for her to respond and defend herself while doing so. To attack that is just more hokey stuff.

            • JAC,

              I’ll talk to you so I don’t have to yell 😆 To use a phrase, related to atrocities of the past (a long time ago!), and said atrocities occurred at the expense of the Jewish (but not only them) and apply it to current times happens all the time, with very little fanfare. This is about Political Correctness. If I was Palin, I’d look into a Liberal Media camera, raise both my middle fingers and tell them all to go f$%k off!

              • I like “the media is a bunch of back biting jackals” much better.

                That way nobody can say she is telling the audience to F Off.

                This is NOT political correctness in itself.

                It is Character Assassination in full view and ongoing. P.C. is designed to stifle speech. This is much more than that.

                And of course, it sells papers and increases viewership in the meantime.

        • I had to look it up as well. From Wikipedia, the Jews weren’t the only minorities it affected, a long list to include Native Americans and Christians. The basis is that a child is killed (for some religious thing) and someone is wrongfully accused (most cases I read were Jews). Considering the amount of death threats the women has had, she might not be far off in using the term. IMHO, this is just more media BS. The Liberal media is on the attack, and they may be responsible for even more problems then they bargain for.

  28. Judy, D13 and Buck had some talk as to why this country is so divided 👿 I think this country is divided, not not because of Obama. I do think he has let it get worse, he is the HMFIC, and should have taken the high road on this. Over the course of the last 2-3 years, I have watched and read some very disparraging remarks from the MSM, Congressman and people in general. Let me clearly say that the “race” card that was widely used has expired. The media and congressman, amongst others have totally dilluted racism to be a political weapon, which it should never be, it is a social issue, that just 5 years ago was not nearly as volitile as it is today. How I saw the “race” card played, “if your against healthcare reform, your a racist, because it will help so many minorities”. This was used alot during the HC debate. Minorities were told over and over and over, that basically, conservatives were racist, and if a lie is told long enough, people believe it. Since HC reform was passed, Obama has given exemptions to well over 200 large companies. If it were so damn good, why all the exemptions? Are there no minority employees at these companies? The inflammatory language used by supporters of HC reform dug a hole of divide, and the sheep fell in.

    Then of course there was the Tea Parties. Jackwagons like Chris Mathews continuosly called them racists, amongst other not so nice names. They put up pictures that were edited to alter the truth to fit their points of view, only to be discredited later. Congressmen have outright lied (the spitting incident) and I could go on and on.

    Then we have all the socialism talk, more government control ect. The talk has gone on and on, examples of how I see the divide: The right wing is racist, un-American conspiracy theorists who are just plain nuts, the left wingers are fredom killing socailist wannabes who want to push this country into a thrid world lifestyle by inventing lies and using deception to further their agenda.

    I’ll stop here in hopes of conversation and examples from both sides on the aisle.

    Have a great day!

    • No, G….I cannot throw the blame entirely at Obama either. Do not intend to do such. But… I will have some more to say,,,it will have to be later but I think I would like to go into it.

  29. OK, I know this is nominally a political blog, but there’s something I have to get off my chest. ENOUGH WITH THE SNOW, ALREADY!

    .. and thanks for listening.

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      Whiney New Yawker

    • On the news this morning they showed a guy trying to shovel out his car with a CARDBOARD BOX! Please tell me that wasn’t you and you at least own a real snow shovel (along with gloves, boots, hat, scarf).

      • I still have his shovel…hahahahahahaha.. it was Matt with the box! 😛

      • I own:
        *a snow shovel
        *a spare snow shovel
        *a backup to the spare snow shovel
        *a snow thrower (electric, virtually worthless)
        *a 40lb bag of salt
        *a spare 40lb bag of salt
        *several scarfs
        *several winter coats of various thickness (my favorite looks like I skinned a bear and am wearing it intact)
        *a few hats (I generally don’t wear hats, but will if it’s bad enough)
        *earmuffs (in case of emergency)
        *a ski mask (also good for the occasional bank robbery)
        *good waterproof work-boots
        *a covered garage (at home and work)
        *ice scrapers
        *and one of these

        And I have a contract with a snow plow so that I don’t have to shovel my walkway or driveway with a cardboard box.

        The other thing I have is a tolerance for heat far surpassing anyone I know (though I bet D13, the Texan, could give me a run for my money), but no tolerance for the cold.

        • Do you REALLY have a heated jacket? Fleece is the way to go though.. I have the same trouble as you..thyroid..not fun..but I don’t see the need for a heated jacket. KEEP SHOVELING!

          • Buck the Wala says:

            Yes, he is serious. Believe it or not.

            The guy is certifiable! 🙂

          • Yes, my wife bought it as a gift. I love it!

            On max power, it only lasts about an hour (4 hour on medium). But it’s really quite amazing. I might buy a second battery and just change it out as needed.

            Can I have my spare shovel back now?

            • WTH? Hell no you can’t have it back now? Put the damn jacket on the snow and turn it on full blast.

              I will say that my niece ended up with my mom’s car.. It had heated seats..that was very nice and my next vehicle will be equipped with them.

            • WHOA>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you live in an area where you have to have a battery operated heated jacket with snow shovels, back up shovels, back up to the back ups? AND…you live there purposely? And ou call some of us crazy???? Hell, no wonder my rappotrs cant get through to your grog supply… is frozen.

              DPM has it right….Laguna Madre..but hell, it is even cold there…way below 85. High today is going to be 41…….do you hear that……41 for a high. Now I know that is t shirt weather for some….but keep your damned yankee weather up there. I want my 105… the shade.

              I thought there was some hope for you, Matt……..

              • Would if I could, sir. Would if I could. I’m built for 105, myself.

                Mexico in a few weeks for me – I’m counting the days.

                • Buck the Wala says:

                  Warm weather in a few weeks for me as well! Finally can get away from this damn cold and snow…

                • Where are you going? I will get an up to date security briefing for you and the area you are going.

      • The best tool to fight snow and the winter:

        *A plane ticket to Aruba.

        • But- But-

          Damnit, Flag! I hate having to agree with you. 😦

        • as long as the airport you are leaving from is open

          • DPM owns Pirate Airlines. They take off on time regardless of weather, permission, passengers, or any other consideration.

            Airport’s closed with a gale-force hurricane, 12ft of snow and a bomb threat during an alien attack? It’s taking off. And they’ll land on time whether the other airport wants them to or not.

            It’s really the only way to fly.

  30. Sometime back BF provided us with a warning signs list. I remember us talking about food prices. Holy crap! Our grocery bill (and we live pretty simply) is getting outrageous!

    Now with gas at or even just over $3/gal we are once again feeling the need to hunker down.

    Anyone else?

    • We grind our own wheat to make bread, etc.

      We bought 25lbs of wheat this summer for $6.

      We bough 25lbs of wheat last week for $17.

      If you are not yet prepared for inflation, your time is coming fast to an end.

      • Oh we have a stockpile. I took your warnings to heart, even though my husband thinks I’m a little over the top.

      • And I thought I was the only one on SULFA that owned a wheat grinder and had a supply of long storage wheat.

  31. No I am saying that I offer my opinion and back it up with the facts I have time to look up. I don’t worry about missing something because I know people like you just lie in wait to find a mistake and use is as proof that I have some hidden agenda or that I am intentionally trying to mislead people.

    You are grasping at straws at this point Todd. I don’t mean to sound harsh, but my original comments on the articles were fairly accurate as I see them. I am willing to consider whatever else people bring to me and have been attempting to do so all afternoon. I have attempted to address what Buck offered and what Ray offered. Ray seems too intent on persuading people that I am intentionally trying to mislead people and you want to spend your time prattling on about how I should have known everything about Angle before I offered an opinion. So what I see in this discussion is me trying to have a discussion based on the facts that people are presenting to me while you are wasting breath decrying my inability to bring those facts to the forefront first.

    Yes my tenet is to debate using facts and logic and reason. If you think that I am refusing to consider the facts presented to me, then show me where. If you think that I am not applying logic properly in the discussions with Ray and Buck, show me where. If you think that my positions are unreasonable, show me where. But quit whining that I didn’t do enough pre-research to satisfy you before I offered an opinion. I will offer my opinion with as little or as much research as I choose to do. YOU are then free to point out that I missed facts A and B and that I am therefore a dumbass. I will then consider what you present and use logic and reason to apply them to the situation. Emotion will not play into how I consider the facts you present. That is what I have offered.

    I often wonder if you and Ray have considered the fact that you and I, or Ray and I, could have some really great discussions with intelligent discourse if everything you posted about me weren’t little more than a condemnation of my method? Show me where I am wrong and I am willing to admit that I am wrong. Show me what I missed in my limited time to research and I will consider what you offer honestly. Really, Todd, you are a really smart guy and I would love to have some discussions about how to fix things or what is right and wrong in DC. But instead all you offer is a critique of how I present something or how little you feel I researched. How exactly is that productive? It feels as if your only reason for coming to SUFA is to attempt to discredit me. You are free to do so but I don’t see the point. I want to have discussions rather than spending all my time doing nothing more than defending my motives or defending my methods. You have made your point that you think I am not all that smart, that I don’t research enough before I post my opinion, that I am intentionally trying to mislead the readers at SUFA, and that I am overall just not a very good person. I get it. I accept that you think so.

    But I already know that people think that of me. Can we start sticking to the actual issues for a change?

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      @USW – sorry bub – but I need to call you on the carpet – so when I offer you originally sourced material (via a You Tube clip of Rachel Maddow) your response is coyly framed to address her credibility? And then you claim you were making no assessment of her credibility and that I just misunderstood you? WTF dood? You had at least seen enough of her to subjectively critique the amount of “finesse” she uses to potentially mask any shortcoming she may have in credibility if she is not credible. Your merely insinuating that she is perhaps not always credible and then confusing this by closing with – “well I haven’t fully assessed her” is just verbal gymnastics and clever planting – you’re just using a linguistic device whether you realize it or not – same crap several of us were associating with Glenn Beck.

      • Ray’s pick….

        Maddow 2012 ❗

        • Ray Hawkins says:

          Maddow in 2012?


          I’m liking that idea.

          Maybe with Wanda Sykes as a Veep?

          • What a freakin hoot that would be.

            Can we put Wanda with somebody else?

            Hell, lets make her the top of the ticket.

            • I am with you on that… Doesn’t really matter what her policies are. She will have the highest TV ratings for a “State of the Union” address EVER!

              • USW

                I can see her sitting with Putin and he starts talking about Iran or Georgia or something.

                She squirms a little and then cocks her head like she does and utters:

                That’s Bull Shit! And your mamma ought to know better than let you ride a horse in below zero weather. You trying to kill the horse or what?

                And man, put some damn cloths on when your swimming in front of cameras. That lilly white skin of yours burns a sister’s eyes.

                Yep, I can just imagine. I might have to vote for a lefty just one more time to see that.

      • Ray

        I have one thought on the Beck example you cited the other day and bring up again here. It is an argument that either your or Matt used.

        If Beck is just the clown and evil dunce that the Left thinks he is, then the guy couldn’t spell “linquistic device”, let alone know how to use one.

        I planted a subliminal joke in there. Did you get it?

        • I did…. I think.

          Oh look. I did exactly what Ray accuses me of. I gave an opinion and then muddled the opinion by presenting a different opinion in the very next line!

        • Ray Hawkins says:

          Whatever happened to Colin Powell. Sorta liked that guy….

          • THe General pretty much stepped on his dolly. He will not have the military vote and he knows it.

            • Buck the Wala says:

              “He will not have the military vote…”

              In your opinion, why is that?

              • Hey Buck…..he was a great administrator but he would change policies in mid stream. Once you get to his level as general, you are a policy maker and doer…not a commander. You have a staff. I know you do not agree with the DADT…but when he changed his opinion on that..he lost most of his support. The msm is not correctly reporting the true feelings of the military personnel. They are dead set against the repeal of DADT by a strong majority..(I do not care what other armies and countries is not relevant). But that is why he has lost a great deal of support.

                • Buck the Wala says:

                  Any evidence of this ‘strong majority’ against DADT? All reports I have come across indicate that is untrue. Care to back that up with any facts, or is it just your opinion from what you yourself have heard?

          • Ray

            He lost my support when he let Cheney and Libby blow in the wind over the exposure of Valerie Plame.

            He knew damn well it was his #1 guy that spilled the beans and let Libby take the fall, and Cheney the public blame. The whole time he sat there quiet as a church mouse.

            I also don’t want another Globalist for President. Its about time we stopped trying to run the world. Powell is a traditional Council on Foreign Relations kind of guy.

            In my humble opinion.

            Besides, what we need now is someone who understands economics, global and otherwise and how the free market is supposed to function. Somebody who can tell Geitner and The Bernank to go sit in the corner.

      • Let me ask you this Ray, because I have to understand whether you really think that I am that conniving or whether you think I am that stupid…

        If I was trying to imply in one sentence that she was not credible, why would I, on my own with no prodding, say in the very next sentence that I haven’t seen enough of her to form an opinion as to whether she is credible. Wouldn’t I have just not added that part in? THIS is where your argument totally falls apart in my opinion. You are attempting to ascribe some form of intentional deceit to my character. But do you really think that I am so dumb as to say she has no credibility in one sentence and then say I wouldn’t know what credibility she has in the next sentence? Do you really think that I am that dense. Man, you guys think I am dumberer than I thought. I should hang out with Dumb and Dumber.

        But this is what I was talking about in the post to Todd. Not enough time talking the topic and a whole lot of time attacking my methods, my motives, etc. Can we not just assume that I apparently didn’t make my meaning clear enough and accept when I try to clarify what I meant that I am making an honest attempt to JUST CLARIFY WHAT I MEANT? Why is it that you seem so pre-disposed to assume I am some sly huckster who knew exactly how cleverly he was spinning his distrust of Rachel Maddow?

        I have to ask for the opinion of others here? Am I over-reacting to what Ray is saying? Am I missing the point? Did others feel that what I MEANT to say about Maddow was that she has no credibility and that I was cleverly confusing the issue by saying in the next sentence that I don’t know whether she is credible? It is quite frustrating. So I ask for the opinion of all others here because we have to at some point address the issues instead of playing these games, especially the ones that this particular thread is referencing.

        • I’ll go first.

          WSW, I had your back from the start of this a few days ago which is why I let loose on Ray and will continue to do so if I think he’s out of line. Attack the messanger indeed. I see all the lefties playing the same game and it’s frustrating.

          I’ve scrawled a couple other posts in your defense as well but have just erased them thinking your man enough to handle it.

          Not to get all drooly but without you we wouldn’t be here and we at least owe you respect not ridicule.

        • USW,

          I had the same problem a day or so ago. Instead of talking subject matter and debating such, it turned into attack the messenger. You’ve read it I’m sure so there’s no point in beatin that horse anymore. I’ve seen alot of red herring moments in the last few days, maybe a clue as to how the left deals with a no win situation. 🙂

        • Bottom Line says:


          Their lack of intellectual honesty and inability to clearly define personal responsibility has them grasping at bullshit.

          You’re stepping all over them.

          Ray’s usual method – Deny the obvious reality and call it reserving judgment, put your opponent on the defense by twisting the premise and arguing straw-man BS, remain stubborn and insistent until opponent is worn down.

          Todd’s usual method – Attack the messenger, attack again, claim racism or resort to an emotional appeal of some sort, repeat as necessary.


          • Ray Hawkins says:

            @BottomLine –

            My lack of intellectual honesty?

            My inability to clearly define personal responsibility?

            Please provide me examples of my dishonesty. Please provide me examples of where I have failed to define personal responsibility.

            Otherwise – you’re merely manifesting that which you despise. Brilliant you are sir.

            • Bottom Line says:

              Ray – “My lack of intellectual honesty?

              My inability to clearly define personal responsibility?”

              BL – Yes, Ray, you read that correctly…your lack of intellectual honesty and inability to clearly define responsibility.

              By “intellectual honesty”, I mean using your noggin to analyze and interpret things as they truly are.(I wasn’t accusing you of being a liar)

              By “personal responsibility”, I mean that which an individual is responsible for.

              Ray – “Please provide me examples of my dishonesty.”

              BL – Okay…

              Intellectual dishonesty is your normal M.O. from what I can tell.

              The first thing that comes to mind is that day we were debating the Black Panther voter intimidation case. Even though it was glaringly obvious that the Black Panthers were indeed intimidating voters, you made every excuse as to why we should reserve judgment, citing that there was insufficient evidence.

              The second thing that comes to mind is the day before yesterday… Even though Laughlin has a long history of exhibiting almost every conceivable behavior associated with a lunatic, even though his friends, neighbors, community, etc. all say/confirm he’s nuts, even though he shot up a bunch of people over “government grammar mind control”, etc, etc… you argue that we shouldn’t jump to conclusions and call him a whacko until it can be verified by a shrink.

              Next is you acting like you don’t understand what USW meant regarding Maddow and that somehow he has contradicted himself.

              She has finesse, which makes her APPEAR credible, but it’s hard to say since he hasn’t watched her enough to make that determination.

              His fair and accurate assessment sounded pretty clear to me.

              Ray – “Please provide me examples of where I have failed to define personal responsibility.”

              BL – Okay…

              If you’re arguing that inflammatory speech by anyone(public figure or not) is any way remotely responsible for the violent actions of another individual, you’re deflecting blame and denying the concept of personal responsibility and accountability.

              With a clear definition of personal responsibility, you cannot possibly make such an argument… or actually believe it anyway.

              Short of passing a law saying we have to kill people, public figures cannot be held personally responsible or accountable for the actions of a crazed gunman.

              Even if Angle, Palin, and all the others came right out and directly and publicly demanded that we the people kill all of the liberals, it doesn’t mean we the people have to comply.

              What are they, gods?

              Ray – “Brilliant you are sir.”

              BL – I’m not sure I agree that I’m “brilliant”, but I thank you anyway. 🙂

              • Even if Angle, Palin, and all the others came right out and directly and publicly demanded that we the people kill all of the liberals.

                Where do I buy that hunting license?!? I even figured out how to identify liberals vs. everyone else. Great hunting secret, shhh 🙂

                • Bottom Line says:


                  I just twisted the cap off of a bottle of MGD, and made the mistake of swallowing my first swig as I read “Where do I buy that hunting license?!? ”


              • Bottom Line says:

                Correction: Loughner, not Laughlin

              • Ray Hawkins says:

                BottomLine – your posting begs for a harsh rebuke. But I’ll be nice.

                Starting from the bottom…..

                (1) Its interesting you accuse me of lacking some ability to define personal responsibility. My example here will actually tie into the first point so bear with me. First off, you couldn’t provide me an example of where I met your criteria – that is why you had the use the operative “IF” as in “if you’re arguing”…..

                Here is the rub BL – the reason, and as I pointed out in the original posting to you, I’m probably one of the few or only people on this board to say “halt with the shooter-is-insane talk”. Why? Precisely because of personal responsibility. Everyone is quick to point to essentially why this guy is f’in crazy/nuts/insance/blah-blah-blah. I am merely saying that while his act/actions are not normal, I want to ensure this d-bag has been properly evaluated and not given a free pass to avoiding punishment because we take it as face value that he is clinically insane w/o properly assessing him as such. I want that m-effer to take personal responsibility for his actions. Second, have I said that Palin or Angle or Beck or anyone else are to blame for this? F-no I haven’t. Could their words have contributed to some of this guy’s behavior? Maybe. Maybe they didn’t. Let the evidence show us what did or did not.

                (2) Intellectual dishonesty – here is how you really rub me the wrong way BL – you make a decent living (so to speak) challenging the conventional wisdom on this board. There is nothing wrong with that – however – extend the same courtesy to others when they do the same, and it challenges what your underlying assumptions, thought process and conclusions are. I will readily admit guilt to sometimes throwing the flag and saying I think something is a bit over the top (my Infragard discussions, anything in general with Cyndi). That may come across as mean – but I cannot change the medium we use to communicate here – and time to time folks get personal. Part of being intellectually honest is also realizing when you’ve stepped over the bounds and need to step back – something I cannot recall you ever doing. And while you may feel absolved by saying you don’t mean “liar” by saying “dishonest” – where I grew up those are kissing cousins. To end – the Panthers example was B.S. – intimidation requires two actors. The “actor” in this case wasn’t even someone who was voting. The BP guys are colossal dicks and I have said that as well – my approach was to challenge what you were seeing on those videos, challenge the interpretations of the talking heads and to challenge your own precepts about it. Just because that collides with your particular worldview in that instance does not inherently make it wrong.

                • Bottom Line says:


                  Forgive me if I’ve been a bit of a dick.

                  I don’t mean to be so harsh, or intimating or however you like to label it.

                  Admittedly, I like to pick at you sometimes. It is because I suspect that you, like others here at SUFA, appreciate the element of sport in our debates, and will likely respond with a worthy challenge.

                  Don’t take me too seriously. It’s just an attempt to get you fired up a little, and to stir your political passion.

                  Not to invalidate my points though. I still stand by what I said.

                  Perhaps I should elaborate a little.

                  We’re all guilty of intellectual dishonesty at times. It deters and distracts us from seeing reality and thus hinders our ability to progress as a species. Which is why I strive to analyze and interpret things in the most truthful, consistent, logical, and practical way I can. I like to stay grounded.

                  In order to fix a problem, you have to identify it. To identify it, you have to see the situation for what it is.

                  But that’s not what happens in modern US society. Every time some major event happens, it’s politicized and exploited for sake of an agenda or personal gain. All the talking heads who are, for some odd reason, considered important and influential to the masses, bend, twist, stretch, over-complicate and exaggerate and talk so much smack that everyone misses the point.

                  And because their talking about it, everyone else is too, including us.

                  People are dead and injured because some nut didn’t like “grammar control” and we’re actually wasting our time talking about whether or not politicians and media-tards bear responsibility.

                  Aren’t we quite the pathetic sheeple lately.

                  I can certainly appreciate your advocating reserving judgment until all facts are known.

                  I can appreciate your wanting the killer to be held responsible for his actions. I think you speak for pretty much everyone when you say “I want that m-effer to take personal responsibility for his actions.”

                  But if the truth is right there in front of you…look at it, even if you don’t want to.

                  The killer is nuts. You’d like to think that he isn’t nuts, that he is just a cold blooded killer that would be found sane and competent to stand trial and be sentenced to life or death instead of living the next 20 years in a mental institution getting “rehabilitated”.

                  But in spite of what you’d like to think, all things considered, he’s most likely mentally ill with an anger problem.

                  And it doesn’t take a shrink to see it.

                  Of course he’s nuts.

                  He did what he did because of some bizarre and insane rationale that most sane people have difficulty comprehending, not because of this media driven distraction/excuse that Beck, Palin or Angle told him to.

                  Which brings me to…

                  Ray – “…that is why you had the use the operative “IF” as in “if you’re arguing”…..”

                  When you use language like…

                  “You’re saying Angle and others did not directly encourage this – they sure as hell didn’t discourage it either.”


                  “so what she said on Larson’s talk show was not prescriptive? What logic allowed you to arrive at that?”

                  ..suggesting in the form of question that she “encourages” and “prescribes” this type of violent behavior

                  …which implies that she is in some way at least partially responsible for the Tucson incident.

                  I think it’s safe to say that you’re arguing on the side of assigning responsibility and accountability.

                  …but however safe, that is an assumption none the less…

                  ..hence my use of the word “If”.

                  And IF I may reiterate, …”IF you’re arguing that inflammatory speech by anyone(public figure or not) is any way remotely responsible for the violent actions of another individual, you’re deflecting blame and denying the concept of personal responsibility and accountability.

                  With a clear definition of personal responsibility, you cannot possibly make such an argument… or actually believe it anyway.”

                  But we never got around to discussing the principles surrounding responsibility because you like to deter conversations with unsubstantial BS like the use of “IF”, and like you did with USW, focusing on his alleged misstatement about Maddows credibility.

                  Why is this important?

                  IF you want to take a realistic approach, you’ll reject all this media hype tragedy exploitation politicized bullshit and instead try to understand how and why the ONE responsible did what he did and how to prevent it in the future.

                  He obviously did it because he was a nut.

                  You are a smart man, Ray. You’re perfectly capable of analyzing and interpreting things as they really are.

        • Ray Hawkins says:

          @USW – I considered sending you a private note rather than reply in public, but you’d rather keep this public which is fine by me.

          You’re a smart guy

          You sometimes go to unnecessary lengths to assert you’re a smart guy (few months ago you spent a few congratulatory pat-thyself-on-the-back sentences spreading your feathers – my response to you then was something like “narcissistic lately?”)

          You’ll go to obscene lengths to combat anything that undermines or counters an assertion or point or conclusion you’ve made. Often – this is issued as a challenge to your readers. (twice I know of in SUFA history you were using an assertion that (and yes I am paraphrasing) since the media in the 70s was so wrong about global cooling, there was little reason to trust them today when they pontificate about global warming. Both times I shared with you a scientific study done that analyzed and typed the same data/output you were critical of – the net being you were actually wrong in your assertion which then in turn undermined your existing analysis and conclusion. You went to rather obnoxious lengths to defend what should have a relatively easy “maybe I need to rethink that particular assertion” and ended up telling me that you had firsthand recollection of your assertion being true – meaning you were witness to this avalanche of supposedly erroneous media reporting. When I pointed out that you were probably between 4-6 years of age, you, with a straight face no doubt, offered that you weren’t like other 4-6 year old’s at the time – that yes – you would have been following that type of news event be it in TV or print, etc. At that point I recall my reaction to be something like….”ya gotta be f’in kidding me”)

          So to deconstruct you one more time…..

          Here is what you wrote:

          But I think that Maddow does it with a little bit more finesse than the others, which makes her appear more credible, even if she isn’t. I cannot say that I have listened to enough of her to make a really accurate call as to whether she is or isn’t credible.


          “But I think that Maddow does it with a little bit more finesse than the others”

          This means that (a) you have watched Maddow and (b) that you have watched her enough to conclude that she uses more “finesse” than others. Finesse in this context is meant in the pejorative – meaning she is using finesse negatively.

          “which makes her appear more credible, even if she isn’t.” – this is what makes your use of the word finesse pejorative. The key where you flub up is – with respect to reporting facts (which is what I was providing) – she is either credible or not credible. If someone is reporting the weather temperature outside right now – they are either credible (they report the right temperature) or not credible (they reported the wrong temperature). Analysis can vary in credibility – maybe a certain variable was not considered. Or contrary evidence was not considered. By injecting for example the word “more” you are asserting that she can at times appears “more” credible than she would absent finesse and basing that on the additional assertion that her credibility is inherently something less than credible or completely credible. For one – her reporting of the facts is either credible or not. Second – you cannot assess her credibility (by intention or mistake) and then say that you cannot really assess her credibility because you haven’t really listened to enough of her (when you’ve already stated you’ve listened to enough of her to pick up on the quality of “finesse”).

          Net is I think you wrote a fast and maybe sloppy response because you don’t like someone/anyone saying you had it wrong.

          Your turn………..

          • Dang, Matt I think this is an example of that black and white thinking you were talking about. Someone is either credible or their not-seems like more of a subjective evaluation to me. People are human and we are talking about commentators who are stating their opinions. They are effected by more than just facts, emotions come in there too. So sometimes I may feel she is totally credible, being lead simply by the facts. Other times I might think she’s misreading the facts to fit her beliefs-Is she still credible-maybe if it’s what she really believes but maybe not.

          • Chill out! You are way to uptight. This is not a court of law. It’s a blog. You’re setting the bar way too high for a guy who does this for a hobby. And you do it in a snide way. Not cool. Don’t want your childish response either.

            • Ray Hawkins says:

              I’m pretty chill Anita. Listening to Europe ’72 right now, eating some homemade granola and playing with my dreadlocks.

  32. New CBS poll:

    Do you think it is ever justified for citizens to take violent action against the government, or is it never justified?

    Republican 28% yes, 64% no
    Democrat 11% yes, 81% no
    Indepdent 11% yes, 81% no

    Very interesting.. very interesting..

    BTW, I would have to say yes, it is sometimes justified (see, Manzanar for example). I would also have to say that Independent is spelled incorrectly. I would also have to say that the question is phrased poorly with an “or” but a “yes/no” answer.

    Still, very interesting. Thoughts?

    • I think it was a badddd time to take this poll-I also think the question was poorly worded-but yes it is. Reaching that point or making that decision-wayyyy hard and you better be right or your just a murderer.

    • A Puritan Descendant says:

      Interesting Poll. Looks like Republicans are more honest than the others. 😉

      • For real APD because once the govt can’t give the free food to the D voting poor neighborhoods they will be the first ones using violence.

      • APD, Do you think theses answers would have been different pre-Patriot Act?

        • A Puritan Descendant says:

          Probably, but there are many ways to spin it. Listening in on foreign phone calls never concerned me. But things like Ins. mandates freak me out.

        • I just want to know why the answer isn’t 100% “Yes, but-“. Yes, it is sometimes justified, but only if..

          To say it is never justified is to say that the government could arrest you for no reason, beat you, torture you, confiscate everything you own, and shoot your dog, and you would not be justified in raising a finger. That’s patently absurd.

          • When you were talking about a black and white mind set lead to bad things the other day-for some reason my mind went to this idea-would be very hard to answer that question with specifics.

            • I was having the same problem. Specifics.

              Obviously some are easy: when the army experimented with drugs on soldiers without telling them; the Japanese internment camps; etc.

              But a lot of others are more difficult. But then again, maybe the line isn’t so difficult to see. Maybe we’re just having a hard time because we’re asking the wrong question.

              Maybe the question shouldn’t be when is it justified, but rather, when is it worth the cost/benefit to actually oppose the government with violence?

              • I think I answered that question-great reasoning there by the way-when we feel we have absolutely no other choice-unfortunately by the time we reach that point it would probably be to late.

              • At what point are your REALLY willing to RISK YOUR LIFE?

                Doubt very much that most folks can answer that question in advance of reaching that point.

                Look to New Orleans. Even when the Cops showed up and busted into homes and handcuffed innocent people and stole their property, they never fired upon the govt thugs.

          • Bottom Line says:

            Once you recognize government as coercive and violent, the question becomes…

            Do you have the right to defend yourself against violence?

            The answer is “Yes”.

            (I’m curious as to how Randy Weaver(Ruby Ridge) would respond to this topic)

    • Mathius

      Perhaps interesting that the independents scored the same as the Dems. I would have thought that the indy’s would have included some of the “libertarian” or Ron Paul crowd. Makes me wonder if they are now identifying as Republican or if they were excluded from the poll.

      What is not interesting and what is the REAL story here, is that the very large majority thing it is NEVER “justified”. I would say the last 100 years of brainwashing has worked quite well.

      • I wonder how many of those that said YES are now on some list held by the DHS?

        • I would be very interested in a poll showing what people think justifies violence against the government. Not whether it is ever justified, but when it’s justified.

          • A Puritan Descendant says:

            Some Loyalists thought Patriots were fools having a war over a silly thing like taxes. So going by our founders, someone could argue a revolution is way past due.

          • Mathius

            That was my thought as well as I typed my response.

            But it is hard to construct polls to address such questions. However, I wonder where the line is for people?

            I find this encouraging for Republicans though. Looks like they could Kill Social Security, Medicare, Medicade and Obamacare and not have to worry about the population rising up in violence, as has been threatened by the Left.

            I wonder if the folks who put this out ever thought of that interpretation?


            • They would be mistaken. The question was poorly phrased. Touch SS, no threat of violence since the most angry will all be too old to really riot (though everyone loses their job in the next election cycle).

              Touch welfare though… well that would make Watts look like a Buddhist monastery.

              • Mathius

                Along the line of the questions regarding mass murder by guns.

                Would this be a problem??????

                Yes, that is my poor attempt at sarcastic humor!

                Just in case you missed it.

          • Mathius,

            what people think justifies violence against the government.

            Precisely – no more or no less – the same justification of when a man can use violence against another man – self defense.

            Ultimately all human action is individual, thus, it is at that level where the levels of justification must be met.

            • BF

              Self defense against what?

              Taxes are not violence.

              EPA restrictions are not violence.

              Refusal to drill for oil/gas is not violence.

              Forcing me to use mercury laden lightbulbs……..well maybe that is it.

              • JAC


                Self defense against what?

                Taxes are not violence.

                Try not paying and men with guns will force you.

                The response to taxation is not violence, it is simply not paying taxes.

                The response to the men who come to seize your property and you is violence and self-defense is justified.

                As I said, the level of measure is at the individual level not some abstraction.

                When a man attacks, you are justified to defend.

                Kent does a very nice job explaining this = maybe he can find that link to the article he wrote about it.

                • Yea JAC,

                  THink of this, don’t pay your taxes for awhile. They come and drag you from your home kicking and screaming and throw you in the pokie. (they named it the POKIE for a reason). What’s your choice now, self defense or the POKIE. 😆

                • BF

                  Sorry my pirate friend.

                  Violence requires “physical harm” as it is very difficult to prove harm without physical evidence.

                  Taking my property is theft, it is violation of my right to property, but it is not violence.

                  Putting me in jail for not paying taxes violates my rights but unless they beat me is not violence.

                  When a man attacks I can only defend myself in kind. If he is not violent then I can defend with violence.

                  Would you like to change your definition of violence now?

    • Looks like the majority of the people in this poll do not support the formation of the United States.

    • I would like to know the definition of violence. When I first started reading this fine blog, I would get really, really PO’d at none other than BF for his constant use of “violence against non-violent men” quote. As it turns out, his definition of violence was just different than mine.

      Does violent mean kill? Does violent mean forced action? I would say there was a small revolution at the polls last November. Was it violent? Not at all.


  33. All in favor of a split ticket 2012 raise their hand.

  34. And here it comes. The R’s are getting advice (warnings) from Dems on how to control their language and actions in light of the AZ tragedy, ie, there should be no talk of O’Care repeal, because how is that bi-partisan?

    GOP in a bind over healthcare repeal vote
    (ed by Kathy – uhhh, no we’re not),0,4502549.story

    • Keep it in perspective. A tradegy indeed. But this is not a war we’re talking about. The D’s snuck this thru under the banner of we have to pass it to see what’s in it. We’ve done that and don’t like it. Now they want us to wait for an appropriate time. When is that?

      Stick with FACTS. Present FACTUAL numbers. Tell the TRUTH. We are ‘man’ enough for the truth.

      Let’s roll!

  35. 🙂

  36. Ahhhhhhhh……Kay Hutchinson just announced that she will not run for another term at Senator. One more “Old Guard” down. More to go!

    Uh oh….More to go can now be interpreted as violent.

  37. Betsy M. Galliher
    American Thinker
    Jan 13, 2011

    My name is Betsy. I’m a wife and proud soccer mom, a writer, and small business owner. I’m also a killer.

    On the morning of January 8th, 2011, I intentionally entered a gathering held by Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, and shot her at near point blank range. I injured 14 others, killing six: among them a beautiful, curious, doe-eyed, nine-year-old girl. I didn’t actually pull the trigger, but I’m as guilty as the psychopath who did.

    Here are just a few of the charges against me:

    I am a conservative.

    On occasion, I listen to Beck, Limbaugh, and Fox News.

    I’ve been known to pick up a book or two by conservative authors; Thomas Sowell, Andrew McCarthy, or the Founding Fathers, for example!

    I believe the federal government is too large, far too intrusive, and dangerously powerful.

    I believe in personal responsibility, and the amazing generosity of Americans to aid those in need, rather than permanent entitlements.

    I believe the private, not public sector, is the backbone of our economy.

    I believe our progressive tax system is punitive. We are over-taxed, over-regulated, and over-lectured.

    I believe in the power of the free market to correct itself, without government (taxpayer) intervention.

    I believe the Constitution is intended to limit government, and empower the individual.

    I believe in holding our elected official’s feet to the fire, be they Republican or Democrat (incendiary pun intended).

    I believe our sovereignty is at risk via unsecured borders, out of control spending and our crippling deficit, reckless abuses of the Constitution, and the moral decay of Washington.

    In short, I’m a madman. Guilty as charged, and armed with the belief in my 1st Amendment right to peaceably question those we elect to serve.

    The only person who actually pulled the trigger on that terrible, fateful day was Jared Loughner, by every account, a deeply troubled young man. But the real guilty walk among us: senior citizens in red, white, and blue, armed with signs, “Taxed Enough Already,” flag-wavers clinging to guns and religion, doctors, the wealthy, business owners, talk radio, and any citizen that dare exercise his or her right to free speech, particularly a conservative.

    We’re called greedy, stupid, and racist. We’re ridiculed with snide “slurpee” innuendos, and called lewd and malicious names, such as “teabaggers.” Ordinary citizens maligned by their own government while the pious, liberal elite get a free pass on reason and truth; while Islamists invoke their religious cloak; while the ideologue professes his moral superiority; while the media uses the power of spin; and leftists, including Robert Gibbs and Barack Obama, employ their bully pulpit.

    We defend conservatism by our very way of life: as self-reliant, tax-paying, moral citizens, and faithful defenders of limited government and the power of the individual. We are violent inciters only in so much as we threaten the current Leftist, agenda-driven stronghold on government. So alarming is our threat, the real inciters wasted no time in politicizing the tragic deaths of six innocent citizens, and one revered Congresswoman, still fighting for her life. And they will waste no time in shamelessly exploiting a ‘crisis’ at the hand of a lone psychopath to further enact gun control, and squelch freedom of speech under cries of ‘civility.’

    Does the Left really believe the “rhetoric” of Palin, Beck, Limbaugh, and Fox is incendiary? Do they fail to understand the language of conservative “talk” is the echo of ordinary citizens calling for limited government, and individual freedoms? Or, do they silence us because we know our current leaders don’t actually believe in their own limited power? Truth be told, even Jared Loughner undermines their agenda. And they know it. They know their “transformation” of America is failing, and that people like me are not afraid to say so.

    My name is Betsy, and I’m a killer. They are determined to stop me before I kill again.

  38. Is it just me-or does it seem like the amount of heat in the conversations have gone up since we started talking about lowering the rhetoric. I know for some reason-I’m feeling a little more aggressive today.

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      Maybe all the women in here (and BottomLine) have somehow managed to synchronize their menstrual cycles?

      (kidding….) 😉

      • Wow.. if looks could kill, you would be dead right now… kudos!

        Still.. it is eerie, the way women do that… kindof creeps me out, to be honest.

        • Ray Hawkins says:

          Oh crap. I said that in my outside voice.

          Logging off…..

          And running like hell…..

        • Bottom Line says:


          Think caveman tribe/klan.

          Humans are more sensitive to pheromones than most realize.

          They do that out of competition for alpha male sperm.

          If their periods are synchronized, then so likely is their ovulation.

          Alpha male can only bang so many at a time, thus only being able to impregnate one or two females at a time.

          May the alpha female/best woman win the prize…good sperm and a strong healthy alpha baby.

          Likewise, when a man smells the scent of another man on his woman(consciously or not), his sperm count and libido spike so that he can compete to get her pregnant before her other lover does.

          …All of this process of natural selection resulting in the best possible combination of genetic exchange, survival of the fittest breeding habits.

      • Bottom Line says:

        Hardy har har…very funny, Ray.

  39. Re: Definitions and their importance

    Confucius observed that the first order of business in rebuilding a collapsed society is to restore the proper meaning of words.

    • Interesting. The AZ shooter asked the Congresswomen in 2007 “do you know the meaning of words?” Coincidence?

      • Bottom Line says:

        Not to be a “quote-Nazi” or anything, but I believe his question to her was…

        “What is government if words have no meaning?”

        She didn’t get it, and this apparently pissed him off.

        Government is law. Laws are words. So what IS government if words have no meaning?

        I wonder what exactly he meant by words having no meaning. Just a guess, but perhaps he holds government in contempt of the very laws they create.

        • Interesting thoughts. Not sure of exact question, not sure the person who said he said it was even right. Flags post just hit me strange, “the first order of business in rebuilding a collapsed society is to restore the proper meaning of words.”

          I thought of that question and the all the gold and currency babbling and threw it out there.

          Salute! As I tip back some homemade apple brandy!

          • Bottom Line says:

            I think you’re right in making the connection.

            Maybe he’s studied Confucius. As I understand, he WAS into philosophy.


            • WOW, Philosophy, reading the communist Manifesto and Mien Kempf (SP?) ! It seems he was a LEFT WING NUT! Cool, this should extend the life of my hunting secret!!!! 👿

      • G-Man and Bottom Line

        The effect of muddling up the meaning of words is to enhance the effect of the Nihilist. It prevents man from being able to use reason and communicate his discoveries. It attacks the very core of civilization.

        Integrity, honor, honesty, valor, judgment, freedom, Liberty, Justice………are just a few that come to mind. If freedom means slavery and honesty means theft then how can a civilized society be restored?

        The distortion of the meaning of words is a direct attack on our ability to think, and thus an insult to freedom and thus our ability to live a flourishing life.


    Let go back and kick that old Global Warming Horse. Its been awhile and I would like some answers.

    BF, Peter, etc, please explain what, if anything is wrong with the data that created this graph.

    • JAC,

      Good ol’ chartism at its best.

      First the graph scale is bizarrely +-1C over 120 years – an impossible degree of accuracy. The error bars on the graph – purposely not printed – are greater then the total anomaly – which means in normal word – there is no way we can separate the noise from the signal.

      Second, it is the CHANGE in temperature, not THE temperature. A delta needs a “beginning” or a norm. No where has such been provided in the article – but in the link, you find it is 1971 the coldest period of the last century. This is like taking the temp. of a hypothermia patient – calling it “normal” and then declaring that the person has a fever when they start to warm up!

      Thirdly, who the hell knows the global temperature in 1880! – heck, we do not even know it today. No such thing is measurable – there is no anal cavity of the Earth we can stick a thermometer to declare a “global” temp.

      Fourth, what is the starting point – as Anthony Watts posted – why not “This is the 9,090 warmest year in the last 10,000” – making this if true (which it is not) – a ridiculous claim.

      Fifth, it is not the warmest. 1934 still wins, according to GISS/NASA – the NCDC data has been shown to be badly compromised with irrational “corrections” and much disputed methodology of combining ocean and land (where land measures suffer Urban Heat Island effect).

      For example, directly from NCDC
      ese grid boxes are then averaged to provide an average global temperature anomaly. An area-weighted scheme is used to reflect the reality that the boxes are smaller near the poles and larger near the equator

      …so the warmer areas have larger counts and the colder areas smaller counts.

      Further, there is far fewer measuring stations in the North (cold) then the South (warm), a bias that is not accounted for in the stats. This is how the “North” is suffering a heat wave while buried in snow and a deep freeze.

      There are volumes of dispute to this “claim” but frankly “WHO CARES”?

      Whether it goes up or down is not in human control – it just is.

    • Just read some of the comments over there. Oh my.

    • Me first, with a bit of humor.

      1. It’s created by a US government agency.

      2. The scientist needs more funding for his failed findings.

      3. If the whole golbe was warming, it wouldn’t be so damn cold outside

      4. Most of us are buried in snow, ask Matt, warming my ass.

      5. To the scientist… It’s the sun, stupid!

      6. When will these Jackwagons just give up, they’ve only changed the name about five times now, and it’s still a hoax.

      7. Being in the POKIE, you will experience violence.

      8. It’s a Liberal thing, we don’t understand!

      9. If it was warming, the growing season would be longer, I grow, It ain’t.

      10. Birds and fish are dying in mass all over the world, the most common reason…COLD WEATHER all over the world.

      11. Lastly, what Black Flag said above or below me when I hit the submit button 🙂

      Then, maybe I should invest in some sunscreen company, or some green energy company, or… maybe just gold and silver, since the jackoffs that invented this hoax are destroying the world economy with their lies and bullshit. Really funny, isn’t it.

      Thanks JAC, I needed to rant on this subject, I feel better now! 🙂


      • Sidenote: #10, the bird and fish thing, it isn’t cold in many of the places, that’s just the “only” reason in a few cases. Surprised there has been little talk about it, can you help out Flag?

        • Mrs. Flag is actually doing most of the reading on the subject of “birds dying”…

          …but my thoughts…

          The polar jet stream is moving N/S -from Australia (where it snowed in Dec) up through Alaska down through US up through Atlantic down through Europe etc. … if you follow that track, you find the “dead bird” stories too.

          Secondly, it is a consequence of news reporting.

          There will be a report of a type of crime, then for then next month, all the reports will be nothing but that crime.

          It isn’t that there is more of that crime – it is merely being reported more.

          Birds die all the time – and in flocks due to weather and storms – but no one reports it.

          Now, every bird death is reported and now it looks like a plague – but it isn’t.

          • Thanks,

            I’ll check out the polar jet stream as you have put it. Tell Mrs. Flag, that if finds anything interesting to pass it along. I do find that large flocks are falling out of the sky, and quickly in small areas, is strange. How could the polar jet stream be a factor? Animals can sense weather better than humans and tend to move out of the way and out of danger. I understand your your view of news reporting, maybe this is common. I have read some theories on this, but still think it’s weather related. The fish are a different issue, but it’s more common than birds, with red algea and all (or whatever it’s called).

            Have a great evening! Pass on my best wishes to the family.


    • Oh, bring this over to the new open mic thread I posted this evening. I am interested in that discussion.

  41. JAC,

    Violence requires “physical harm” as it is very difficult to prove harm without physical evidence.

    Taking my property is theft, it is violation of my right to property, but it is not violence.

    The right of property derives from the requirement of right of use – that is, one cannot eat a steak twice.

    If you steal my food, I die. Thus, the right of defense of property.

    Theft is violence for it requires force to achieve it. It is not voluntary, hence it is violent

    • BF

      No physical harm, no violence.

      Black Flag said so, therefore that is the definition we must use.

      Force without physical harm is not violence.

      Seems you had a discussion with Buck or Mathius about using violence in response to theft, or perhaps it was fraud. As I recall you brought up the issue of commensurate retaliation.

      And what about all the other impositions of Govt? Since they do not involve theft of property I assume we have no right of self defense. Correct?

      • JAC,

        It was fraud – because you voluntarily gave your money to the man – true, he lied, but he did not force you involuntarily to surrender your cash.

        You took it out of your bank and gave it to him.

        This is wholly different then theft

  42. “That’s because the federal government borrowed all that money and spent it, meaning younger taxpayers will have to make it up.”

    Thank you Mathius and any other young’uns on here. Sucks being on the bottom of a pyramid scheme doesn’t it?

    Younger Workers Have Most to Lose In Social Security Breakdown

    • Kathy,

      Walk with me, and see why the “younger” workers will not lose the SS breakdown game. The geezers will.

      Who pays the most taxes in the future? A young, new worker entering the employment arena or the older, retired geezer leaving the employment arena?

      Political Rule #1: Pay yourself first. Politicians and government minions will always look at their pockets before anyone else.

      A choice between paying old geezers their SS – a forever growing cost that is out of control – or stiffing the geezers to ensure the minions are paid…. which one wins?

      The “young” will be going into the “minion” jobs left by the retirees – private and government.

      The “young” will resent paying the geezers that can never be paid off. The payments will threaten the “young” ability to live nice.

      The geezers will lose … everything. They will be stiffed. They will yell and scream and threaten the “gray power” vote – but they do not pay the taxes, and they will lose.

      For the “young”, you must prepare for your parents coming to your home to live if they depend on government money. It will stop, and the stop maybe instant and hard. “The checks bounced, Grandma!”

      The Consanguinity based family or “extended” family will be rediscovered in the up-coming “troubles” –

      • I see your point. Not sure I agree. But I will forward your response on to my kids to get them howling about having to take me in 😀

        Just glad that SS doesn’t even show up on our “retirement” plan except as a sidebar, so that in case it is still around, we can have an occasional dinner out.

%d bloggers like this: