But I Killed Bin Laden!

Despite my inability to write regularly lately, I have continued to read along as best I can and to interject comments wherever I found the inclination. One of the things that I read repeatedly over the last few weeks was the notion that the 2012 election is already over. It isn’t a statement that exists in a vacuum here at SUFA. It can be found across the lame-stream media as well. The idea that because Bin Laden was executed on his watch, Barack Obama is unbeatable in 2012. This notion is not well founded, and is in fact ridiculous. The reality is that the only one who can get elected based on killing Bin Laden are members of SEAL Team 6 that went in to that compound and double-tapped that assclown in the cranium. Tonight I offer a short article on why I think that Bin Laden will hardly play into the decisions made by the people in November of 2012.

Let’s start with a simple fact. Obama didn’t kill Bin Laden. A never to be revealed Navy SEAL did. Was is a courageous move by Obama? Perhaps it was. My gut tells me that it was more about not wanting to be remembered as yet another Democrat President who had a chance to kill the leader of Al Qaeda and didn’t take it. And I don’t think it is all that courageous to have the chance to order some other man on the other side of the world kill the most hated man in America fall in your lap and take it. Do you think that George Bush would not have made the same decision? In fact, I would say making the call that NO ONE in America would fault you for (Killing Bin Laden) took far less courage than making the call to enter a war that a decent percentage of Americans opposed (Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya).

And this silly notion that Obama did in 3 years what Bush couldn’t do in 8 is ridiculous, unless of course you are talking about adding to the national debt, in which case it is accurate. Obama did not do one thing differently than Bush did. Obama ordered our intelligence agencies to make Bin Laden their #1 priority? Let’s say it accurately: Obama ordered our intelligence agencies to continue to make him the top priority. Bush made that same order in 2003. After ten years of chasing Bin Laden around the world, running down every lead, the CIA finally caught a break and had an opportunity. And it had nothing to do with which dolt was sitting in the Oval Office when it happened.

It was Bush’s incompetence that caused it to not happen during his Presidency? That is too asinine a statement to warrant any merit what-so-ever. What part, exactly, do you think Bush or Obama played in gathering the intel or chasing down the leads that would put the failure or success on either one of their shoulders? Precisely… none. Bin Laden avoided US intelligence for almost ten years. It wasn’t the fault of Bush or Obama. And the person making that statement knows this, which is why his statement is nothing more than “stirring the pot” once again.

And further, most of the thinking American public also knows this. Despite what anyone may think, there are not a lot of average Americans who think that Barack Obama had much to do with Bin Laden finally taking a double-tap above the left temple. Nor would they have given Bush much credit for it, or the next President had it happened in 2013. American voters are ignorant about a great many things, but this one is simple enough to understand. Which means that it isn’t going to be a large part of the 2012 campaign difference making.

What will matter in November 2012 are the things that affect our lives in a more meaningful way. It will start with the primary issue being the state of the US economy. Whether he deserves the credit or not, that is an issue that has the potential to vault Obama to a second term. Get unemployment down below 7% and make Americans believe that you are serious about reforming the way that government spends money, and you will ride that wave to a second term. Do it not, and your candidacy will end with a concession speech in November (go ahead, say that sentence with a Scottish accent, like William Wallace. It will just sound cooler).

The bottom line around the economy is this. At least half the country believes that the Democrats, led by Obama, handled the situation in the wrong way. Increasing spending to record levels was not the way to right this ship in their minds. And the only way to overcome that condemnation of your policies is to be proven right by having the economy do what you said it would do if you spent all those trillions. If we go into late 2012 with unemployment still above the levels you promised your “stimulus” would save us from (8%), you can consider the run for a second term…. terminated.

As mentioned above, issue number 2 will be government spending reform. If the challenger can make a decent case that they will responsibly lower government spending by large chunks, they will hold in their hands the 2012 version of “Hope and Change.” Americans want to believe that this can happen. Some of us understand that the chance that it will become reality are about as promising as we knew that whole “Hope and Change” bullshit was from the beginning.

Issue #3 will be immigration reform. This is an escalating issue for many Americans. And here is the surprise, most Americans don’t agree with either party when it comes to immigration reform. Most don’t like the far right’s “deport them all” stance or the far left’s “blanket amnesty and ignore all the existing immigration laws” stance. Most want to see a common sense, fair, and reasonable approach to solving the problem (and yes it is a problem) of illegal immigration. The candidate that does that stands a far better chance of winning in November.

And finally, my personal opinion is that the other big issue that can tip the scales will be in how we deal with the deployment of American soldiers  as we move forward in a new era. I believe that the VAST majority of Americans any longer have the stomach for war. I am willing to wager that a candidate that makes the case for bringing all our soldiers home and deploying them only when absolutely necessary in the future will win the hearts of a large percentage of the voting public.

There are, of course, those other ancillary issues that I don’t believe will come to the forefront. Here are just a few that I don’t think will make an impact, but that I think could if someone had the balls to add them to their platform:

  1. Telling the United Nations to suck it
  2. Exposing and promising to reform the Federal Reserve
  3. Taking marriage out of the hands of the federal government, thus allowing it to be fairly administered to all
  4. Actually presenting a way to eliminate the power of lobbyists in Washington
  5. Revitalizing US business (increasing manufacturing and decreasing corporate tax rates)
  6. Radical reform of the education system

Of course there is the chance that the GOP simply lays an egg in putting a candidate up there. They certainly did when they put McCain out there and watched as he ran arguably the worst campaign in modern history. And no one will soon forget the Democrats offering up John Kerry, a candidate so bad that it allowed George Bush to get a second term. So I admit that Obama isn’t beaten yet. I even concede that he stands a good chance of getting re-elected if the factors above play out better by mid-2012.

But if anyone would like to go ahead and believe that Barack Obama has already won the 2012 election, they are welcome to live in their fantasy land. But I would remind you of a few things. At this point in the 2008 election process, Hillary Clinton and Mitt Romney were the front-running party candidates. History is abundant in examples of people believing that the game is over when there was still a lot of decision to be made…

Just ask the 2004 New York Yankees

Just ask the 2010 Boston Bruins

Just ask the 1993 Houston Oilers

Just ask Robert Downey Jr. or Mickey Rourke

Just ask the 1969 Miracle Mets

Hell… Just ask Hillary Clinton

Advertisements

Comments

  1. The idea that because Bin Laden was executed on his watch, Barack Obama is unbeatable in 2012. This notion is not well founded, and is in fact ridiculous.

    I’m honored at SUFA yet again.

    Consistency is your forte, USW … arrogance from Mars its support system. The reason Obama will win in 2012 is two-fold, but Bin Laden will be where he gets credit for an accomplishment both sides of the aisle are happy with (or at least one where the GOP has to make believe it is happy–I’m pretty sure they would rather Bin Laden survived one more election cycle).

    The point being, the GOP has NOBODY to run against Obama … NOBODY. The best thing about Sarah Palin’s Vice Presidential run and then her fleeing her Governorship for duckets was the absolute laying to waste of any chance tea party-like individuals would have at winning a Presidential race. Not in this country (we’re just not that stupid … or, if you prefer, ridiculous). Who is going to beat Obama? Please, enlighten us …

    Now I can read more of your post … but I’ve already spotted another “ridiculous” … and I smiled from ear to ear …

    • Good morning, Charlie….. I think I will run…..nah, I am smarter than that. You are quite right about only one thing….here is no one to run against him and that is the shame of our system….only the crooks get elected.

      • Just one thing, Colonel? Do I win a cookie at least?

        But you’re right, sir … that was my point … in this field of GOP losers, Obama needed 1 single accomplishment. You can debate whether he should get credit or not all you want, the fact is (and you noted this yourself), he was in the oval office when it happened, he gave the executive order required to execute the plan, and it happened–bin laden is dead (or are we still going to debate whether that’s true or not)? Nobody in the GOP field has a shot. It’s over.

        • Ok…one cookie….a three day old raisin and oatmel coconut. Nothing to wash it down, however. Buck and I ate all the choc chips.

          Now. I think you missed the point of USW almost entirely..however, I do understand that Plutonian air this early in the morning is very thin and toxic….BUT….as a fiscal conservative and a social moderate, I see no one capable of beating him unless they can keep the focus on economics. If they can keep the focus on economics and not agree to softball debate questions, Obama is very beatable. UBL is not going to be much of a factor…even with the brow beating we are going to get by his reelection campaign. Even the most uninformed homeless person knows that it was not an Obama operation…..just his turn in the big chair. I hope the Senate is captured by the repubs and defund these czar positions which is nothing more than by bpassing Congress. This is where the damage is being done and this is where the misdirection is being waged.

          • Now. I think you missed the point of USW almost entirely

            I missed nada, Colonel … his point is pointless. Unless we hit 10% unemployment, the GOP has ZERO chance of beating Obama. They have NOBODY to run against a guy with a huge Cash war chest and a VERY BIG accomplishment, whether you want to insist Bush is throwing up in his mouth or not (Personally, I think that picture is from his speech lessons from Mike Tyson) … it’s over … la comedia e finita

          • Mathius says:

            Even the most uninformed homeless person knows that it was not an Obama operation…..just his turn in the big chair. Oh boy, do you overestimate average citizen…

            They have no idea.

            And Obama’s campaign will work hard to make sure they have no idea.

            By the time the election rolls around, half the population will believe that BO flew out to Pakistan and led the raid himself and personally performed the double-tap. The other half will think Bush got the information from torture that the lily-livered liberal was too weak to continue, but it didn’t matter because Bush set everything in motion and it just so happened under BO, but he should get no credit at all, whatsoever.

            The truth, of course, as always, is somewhere in between.. but if you think “the most uninformed homeless person” has any clue of this fact, you need to get out more.

    • USWeapon says:

      @Charlie

      I have no idea who can step up and beat Obama in 2012. But this notion that it is already over over is simple and shows a lack of foresight, at least in my opinion. I don’t think Sarah Palin altered the landscape that much in the long run. I don’t think America was prepared to elect a real Tea Party candidate regardless of her actions. Sadly, we just aren’t there yet. Whether we will ever get to that point is debatable.

      But it is fun to watch as you take things so personally. I didn’t even mention your name and went further and noted that this sentiment that the election is already over has appeared across the MSM.

      • Awww….WEP…..let him have his fifteen minutes. He still has a couple left.

        • Like Lombardi, my 15 minutes is worth a month of USW’s time … but I digress … I’m a solo act vs. the wingie crowd and whipping ass consistently … if I do say so myself.

          He didn’t mention my name … just my quotes … although he did get one wrong (as is at least the case) … I said Obama did in 2.5 years what Bush didn’t do in 8 … USW put it at 3 …

      • USWeapon,

        I don’t think Sarah Palin altered the landscape that much in the long run.

        You must be kidding?? Sarah Palin has had a HUGE impact on the political landscape. If not for her 2008 VP campaign, the Tea Party would not exist. She stirred up the right-wing, gave them a focus and an idol to attack and an idol to worship.

        • She had DESTROYED any hint of legitimacy (to the independents, which both parties need to win) … she was an uninformed whackjob who made a fool of herself and her cause. Add Michele Bachmann to the party and you can count on it, Obama’s victory in 2012. Romney will be walking back his healthcare up to and including his failed attempt and Newt? Come on … stop kidding yourselves, it’s over.

          • It ain’t over till it’s over or it ain’t over until the fat lady sings or don’t count your chickens before they hatch. And I like Bachmann-how the heck McCain won the primary I will never know-I guess the liberal media convinced enough people that we needed a moderate. Hopefully that won’t work this time.

          • Mathius says:

            she was an uninformed whackjob who made a fool of herself and her cause.

            Charlie!

            I must strenuously object to your use of the past tense here.

          • Romney-I suspect if he wins the primary(which he might considering how much money he is getting) that those on the right will vote for him anyway, because he isn’t Obama and he says he’s against federal control of healthcare and there may not be anyone else people like better running. And the independents, are they necessarily against state sponsored health care(I don’t know) so in the end it might be a plus for him.

            • Romney is a walking, talking Ken doll … about as sincere as one too. He has zero charisma. Good looks and zero charisma = loser. Romney-Obama is an easy Obama victory. I doubt Romney carries Michigan or Massachusetts.

            • kateriozzi says:

              Romney is a mormon, he does not stand a chance in the southern states.

  2. Shame on you, USW. Shame, Shame, Shame….mmmm….mmmmm…mmmmm.

    I don’t understand why you would say such things. I mean after all, unemployment is up yet again but the numbers have been crunched to eliminate part time work. After all, the great leader has a staff that says pay no attention to the fact that unemployment applications have increased back to levels 10 months ago but that does not mean unemployment is up. Huh?

    Do not look at the fact that the oil spot market and sweet crude has dropped from the $120 level to 99 and 100 but the pump price has remained the same and is going higher. Got to blame the corporations and ignore the fact that his czars and himself has reduced the supply and forget the funding of Brazilian oil exploring while stopping ours and promising to buy from Brazil at higher prices.

    Forget the fact that the NLRB under his czars have violated about every constitutional amendment that I can think of and prohibiting companies from moving operations for lower costs as a union payback. Forget about freedom of choice and the freedom to operate your company as you see fit. Zeig Heil!!!

    Forget about the 1200+ health waivers to Pelosi etal as exemptions from his health care, thereby, raising the costs to the rest. This is more critical than the Watergate breakins and it stinks fo more cronyism than Dick Cheney ever thought about doing.

    Forget about promising to never involve America in any other war forever, and the chastising of EVERY American President that went into another country to do political assassinations. Forget about the fact that he ordered the operation to proceed to assassinate a leader that he said we were not at war.

    Forget about the fact that he wants to eliminate states rights.

    Forget about the fact that he supports the illegal entry into our country of any and all who wish to come here and partake in our entitlement program over the what is best for our own citizens….

    Forget about the fact that we have a terrible cash flow problem and he continues to spend uncontrollably and is going to bail out other countries in deference to our own poor and hungry.

    Forget about the fact that his administration is backing the printing of money like toilet paper and creating deficits and debts.

    Forget about the fact that he railed against Bush for spending and then outspends all Presidents combined,,,,,for his cronies.

    Forget about the fact that his policies are destroying the United States and trying to emulate Europe which is folder faster than a cheap tent.

    Forget about stifling the production of corporate America and forcing them overseas and then complain that they are moving where it is cheaper to operate.

    Forget all of this and more….sigh.

    • Oh…but HE did put the crosshairs on UBL and pulled the trigger himself….I thought you knew that.

      • Hopefully he does now … but I doubt it. You know these closet Bush types …

      • gmanfortruth says:

        As the lefties wre driving down the street singing sweet nothings about Obama and his great victory in gettin Osama, they pull into the gas station, begin pumping gas, whistling happily. They grab the reciept and look down at it, the whistling stops, the cuss words begin.

        Things change quickly, few trust the MSM or the government anymore. Niether can control the message. So Obama spent how many millions to kill an old guy on dialysis. All so they next boogieman can step up and make a name for himself.

        So, when the next major attack hits the US before the election, will the same people who gave Obama credt for OBL going to blame him equally for allowing this attack?

        • gmanfortruth says:

          Bumper sticker of the week 🙂

          “If you voted for Obama in 2008 to prove you’re not a racist…..

          ….you’ll have to vote for someone else in 2012 to prove you’re not an idiot!”

        • So Obama spent how many millions to kill an old guy on dialysis.

          Once again, the super patriotic SUFA site PROVES it didn’t want Bin Laden whacked (not while a Democrat was in office) … suddenly you’re all worried about spending? Think back, oh, great patriots, to the genius in the white house when 9-11 occurred … the same genius who said, “Spend, don’t worry. Why tax a war?”

          Yous guys kill me …

          • USWeapon says:

            I don’t know where you are getting that SUFA didn’t want him killed. I certainly wanted him dead. And I really didn’t care one way or the other who held the White House when it happened.

            Interesting though, that you have an issue (and rightly so) with Bush’s ridiculous spending at a time when the economy wasn’t in the tank but feel like when the economy is in the tank, Obama’s spending many times as much isn’t nearly enough…

            • I’m no fan of Obama. I “think” you know that. I’d rather see Nader or any socialist or communist candidate win. But that’s another debate for another day. I was merely responding to some inconsistencies I often see here at SUFA. No big deal.

          • Charlie….ask this question…..ask how many of us agreed with the Iraq decision? YOu might be surprised.

            • I might be more surprised if I asked how many of you here voted Libertarian vs. Republican … but I made that point last week, I think and at least some here admitted they voted Republican rather than the Libertarian Party so enthusiastically espoused here.

        • Correction:

          As the lefties wre driving down the street singing sweet nothings about Obama and his great victory in gettin Osama, they pull into the gas station, begin pumping gas, whistling happily. They grab the reciept and look down at it, the whistling stops and the chuckling begins. Yeah, $4 a gallon sucks, but the dividend check from their Exxon stock more than makes up for it. They do feel sorry for the right-wing rednecks who pay the $4 a gallon with no dividend check. That must be the cuss words they hear from that beater of a car over there.

  3. Let’s start with a simple fact. Obama didn’t kill Bin Laden. A never to be revealed Navy SEAL did.

    I don’t think anyone said or implied that it was actually Obama who killed Bin Laden … unless of course, you count the executive order to do so. In this (Sara Palin voiceover) “great land of ours, the United states of America” … there are such things as conspiracy to kill laws. In fact, many have gone away for such conspiracies (Vinny Gorgeous Basciano was convicted in NY last week for “ordering a hit” and may face the death penalty for it) … so, actually, I take it back. Obama ordered the hit. He gets the credit. End of story. You, sir, are ridiculous once again.

    Obama did not do one thing differently than Bush did. Obama ordered our intelligence agencies to make Bin Laden their #1 priority? Let’s say it accurately: Obama ordered our intelligence agencies to continue to make him the top priority.

    Well, we can debate/argue this tidbit until the cows come home, but since you’re so sold on what George Bush (and the government you claim is overblown and ineffective) said he did, well … what’s the point. I guess starting a war in the neighboring country has little to do with the same intelligence Mr. Bush ultimately blamed for that second war (Iraq) … they got the intelligence wrong! Man, could you possibly weaken this argument any further? The bottom line, sir ridiculous a lot, is Bush took his eye off the ball more than once while in office (and I seriously doubt YOU had this firsthand knowledge of ANYTHING going on in this white house during either administration … but the fact remains that things were sped up (apparently) under Obama and Bin Laden is no more.

    It was Bush’s incompetence that caused it to not happen during his Presidency? That is too asinine a statement to warrant any merit what-so-ever.

    We’ve moved on to making an ass of you now, have we? Okay, that’s easy enough … of course it can’t merit an answer what-so-ever …. in your mind Bush was competent. Case closed.

    Bin Laden avoided US intelligence for almost ten years. It wasn’t the fault of Bush or Obama. And the person making that statement knows this, which is why his statement is nothing more than “stirring the pot” once again.

    Actually, no, this isn’t pot stirring … I refuse to accept so blindly what you swallow so willingly (it seems only when it has to do with a GOP president, by the way) … I don’t know that Bin Laden avoided U.S. intelligence for 10 years … in fact, if it’s true the first leak to capturing/killing him came in 2004, that blows your 10 year theory into the stratostphere (Mars, perhaps)?

    or the next President had it happened in 2013. American voters are ignorant about a great many things, but this one is simple enough to understand. Which means that it isn’t going to be a large part of the 2012 campaign difference making.

    Now that’s funny … you’re probably too young to remember when Nixon lost to Kennedy because he had sweat on his upper lip during a televised debate. You don’t think the fully loaded presidential coffers of Obama are going to ram Bin Laden down our throats (and rightfully so)? Sit back and watch it … cause it’s a gonna happen. You give the American voting public FAR too much credit, signor. Think before you write … think.

    The rest of your post is too long to read so I skipped here and there … but you’re wrong, as usual, and when Obama wins in 2012, I’m sure you’ll have a ready-made excuse in your pocket for SUFA masturbation on the right … but … unless unemployment rises to 10%, you can kiss 2012 goodbye. Romney is going to beat Obama? Pawlenty? Gingrich? Realize what you’re saying, my friend. It’s not going to happen. And you can blame, in part, the morons in the tea party (and Trump) who insisted on Obama showing his birth certificate … add Bin Laden to the mix and it’s a done deal.

    • AS much as it pains me to agree with you, my Plutonian friend, there is no one right now that has the hutzpah to beat Obama….not that I see. The only way to beat Obama….take the Senate and then block him bu not funding. That is the only way……..until we can find a competent third grader that can run a lemonade stand….then he or she has a chance to beat him…that is all it will take.

      • Me and Colonel are in agreement once again!

        I’ve often used that lemonade line in wars with so-called liberal democrats (democrats who claim they are liberal but vote Democrat in most elections because they’re knees knock at the thought of Republicans winning). They ignore third party candidates (which I used to do) to their own detriment. But you’re right, Colonel … find someone who could run a lemonade stand with an ounce of decency and you’d have a better candidate than either of the two major parties could ever run.

        • Charlie, I have told you over and over again…….you are supposed to keep our agreements secret…..now, you are going to be lambasted for agreeing with a….gasp…conservative….and a conservative Texan at that !!!! Not only that…but a “war mongering, mindless, retired old Colonel who knows nothing”*****conservative Texan. Shall I inform DPM to make room for you as first mate?

          **** Because I am Colonel, there have been many references (not on here) that all military are mindless robots and since I am military, I am a war mongerer. (Was called that once in San Francisco).

        • Mathius says:

          CHARLIE!!

          How dare you agree with D13? Don’t you know he’s a *gasp* conservative? And a Texan to boot?!

          Geez, you’re such a sell-out.

          And, further, that guy going around telling everyone that the rapture is coming this Saturday? No, made a simple error.. the raptors are coming this Saturday.. and whose fault do you think that is?

    • USWeapon says:

      @Charlie

      Well, we can debate/argue this tidbit until the cows come home, but since you’re so sold on what George Bush (and the government you claim is overblown and ineffective) said he did, well … what’s the point.

      I wasn’t aware that Bush has said anything about this since the news broke. But I do know that Bush told the intelligence agencies that getting Bin Laden was the top priority. You will refuse to accept that it was so while simultaneously swallowing hook, line and sinker when Obama, a proven liar, says that he did so.

      I guess starting a war in the neighboring country has little to do with the same intelligence Mr. Bush ultimately blamed for that second war (Iraq) … they got the intelligence wrong! Man, could you possibly weaken this argument any further?

      Stick to the topic, sir. You are attempting to deflect the weakness of your argument by interjecting completely different topics and issues. You want to have a discussion about why we went into Iraq, write a guest commentary and we can discuss it. But it doesn’t have anything to do with this topic. Focus….

      The bottom line, sir ridiculous a lot, is Bush took his eye off the ball more than once while in office (and I seriously doubt YOU had this firsthand knowledge of ANYTHING going on in this white house during either administration … but the fact remains that things were sped up (apparently) under Obama and Bin Laden is no more.

      You are correct that I don’t have much firsthand knowledge of what went on in the last two administrations. I haven’t worked in DC since Clinton was in office. But I do understand how the government works, which is something you appear to be sorely lacking. Bush designated an entire division of the intelligence community to Bin Laden. I fail to see how that is taking his eye off the ball.

      This notion that you have that somehow the government can do only one thing at a time is false. The people who worked on Bin Laden focused on Bin Laden. Heck, the intelligence community now admits that the leads that led to this hit came from intelligence work done during the Bush administration, but you refuse to acknowledge that. You prefer to put forth this false notion that the government re-set when Obama took office and we started from scratch, and Obama was simply better at pursuing Bin Laden. Obama did in 3 what Bush couldn’t in 8… when the reality is that the CIA did in 10 what the rest of the world couldn’t do at all. You can castigate me and attempt to belittle me all you like, my friend. But the reality is that you are showing either a true lack of knowledge about how things work or a willingness to ignore it to make a point that lacks merit.

      We’ve moved on to making an ass of you now, have we? Okay, that’s easy enough … of course it can’t merit an answer what-so-ever …. in your mind Bush was competent. Case closed.

      I am no fan of Bush, regardless of your continued claims otherwise. But I am smart enough to realize that how incompetent he was or was not plays no part in efforts of the intelligence community to pursue Bin Laden. As I said above, the leads and actions pursued by the people during this reign of an incompetent President led directly to the killing of Bin Laden during this administration. A fact that everyone, including the Obama administration, admits. Everyone except you, that is.

      I don’t know that Bin Laden avoided U.S. intelligence for 10 years … in fact, if it’s true the first leak to capturing/killing him came in 2004, that blows your 10 year theory into the stratostphere (Mars, perhaps)?

      How exactly does this blow any theory? That this first leak came in 2004 and the intelligence community spent the next 7 years chasing it down to fruition is fact. Although I am sure in your mind Bush ignored this leak until he left office. Then Obama personally dug through the archives and found it, then personally instructed the CIA to follow it and got the job done.

      Now that’s funny … you’re probably too young to remember when Nixon lost to Kennedy because he had sweat on his upper lip during a televised debate.

      This isn’t 1960 and that is a gross overestimation of the reason why Kennedy won. Kennedy won that race by capturing the public’s imagination around what this country can be. But I realize that the realities of that campaign don’t neatly fit your argument…

      You don’t think the fully loaded presidential coffers of Obama are going to ram Bin Laden down our throats (and rightfully so)? Sit back and watch it … cause it’s a gonna happen. You give the American voting public FAR too much credit, signor. Think before you write … think.

      I absolutely think that he will attempt to ram it down our throats. I just don’t think it is going to be a difference maker in the election. My claim was never that we wont’ be hearing about it throughout the election cycle. My claim was that the issues I put forth in this article will be what gets Obama reelected or not reelected. But of course you ignored the entire article in order to attempt to demean me.

      The rest of your post is too long to read so I skipped here and there …

      Of course you didn’t bother to read the entire article. As usual, you don’t have time to actually read what I write and base your comments on what I actually put forth. You will instead spend your time cherry picking statements, making false claims about what “SUFA” believes, and avoiding any topics that you can’t “stir the pot” over.

      but you’re wrong, as usual, and when Obama wins in 2012, I’m sure you’ll have a ready-made excuse in your pocket for SUFA masturbation on the right

      How would you know if I was wrong? 1400 words was too long for you to read. You are too busy stirring the pot and attempting to belittle me (and failing) to discuss the real issues that will determine the outcome of the election. If Obama wins in 2012 it will be exactly for the reasons that I pointed out above. Of course you will claim that I am making excuses because you didn’t bother to read it, and will thus be unaware of what my position actually was, as usual…

      • But I am smart enough to realize that how incompetent he was or was not plays no part in efforts of the intelligence community to pursue Bin Laden.

        I’ll address these one at a time (as they amuse me) … so, what you’re rationally saying is: an incompetent in several areas has to be competent in another?

        I think you know how “work” in general works (so to speak). When someone is on your ass to produce, you produce. I can’t help but think Mr. Bush took his pressure off everything bin Laden related once he bullshitted us all into Iraq. The fact he relied on the same intelligence agency (which he ultimately blamed) is not switching subjects. You want to legitimize “intelligence” than you get to take the hit for what they failed to get right (in oh so many instances) … You worked in DC under Clinton. I guess if people visited DC during Clinton that would make them what, privy to Clinton’s WH decisions? Focus … yes, try to.

      • This notion that you have that somehow the government can do only one thing at a time is false.

        This coming from a guy who spends an awful lot of time telling us how the government can’t do ANYTHING right … you don’t even realize how absurd you read …

      • A fact that everyone, including the Obama administration, admits. Everyone except you, that is.

        You really believe that, huh? The Obama administration/white house was probably doing cartwheels telling jokes about this. They were being generous and reaching across very strained political aisles (and if you don’t know that, you’re a fool) … I’m sure Bush would’ve done the same thing had he gotten Bin Laden … but he didn’t … so he couldn’t show graciousness there … and his white house would’ve done the same thing (joking about beating the Dems to Bin Laden) …. the bottom line is he had a “mission accomplished” ceremony instead, Mr. competence.

      • This isn’t 1960 and that is a gross overestimation of the reason why Kennedy won. Kennedy won that race by capturing the public’s imagination around what this country can be. But I realize that the realities of that campaign don’t neatly fit your argument…

        Brother, are you delusional … Kennedy won because dead voters got to vote (sometimes twice) in Illinois (fact) … but his swing throughout the rest of the country has been attributed to the televised debates in which Nixon looked nervous and sweaty (also a fact) … time to read some history, brother … it was a media victory (alongside some dirty electioneering) that won it for Kennedy

      • But of course you ignored the entire article in order to attempt to demean me

        Wrong again (and again) but what’s the point? I read through, saw nothing that made much sense at all (if any) and responded. I respond in kind. If you haven’t figured that out yet … well, it makes sense, I guess.

        Obama will win in 2012 because he has something to hang his hat on (Bin Laden) and the GOP has NOBODY to run against him; nobody with any charisma (which is what wins elections, believe it or not–like Kennedy, except he had some dirty help and a badly sweating Nixon on tv), nobody who can’t speak without putting their foot in their mouth and nobody with an original idea they can’t step back from (Romney’s health care) … forgetaboutit, it’s over.

        • Mathius says:

          Charlie.. Obama may win, but the election is far, far from already decided.

          Care to place a wager on it? I say that whoever gets the nom for the red team will, at some point (even if they ultimately lose) pass Obama in the polls. If it’s already decided, that should never happen, right?

          • Obama may win-Obama may lose-I remember the guys on Huffpo-screaming and I mean screaming that the republican party was dead -To never rise again!!!!!! Have they paid any attention to how the people in this country vote.

          • Do I care to place a wager on the final result? You bet your Westchesterian ass I do …:)

            Hell, I’ll come out of retirement and book the bet. But ONLY on what counts, signore … the end result, which is what I’m predicting … Obama will win in 2012 (has already won) because he has something to point to (bin laden). Nothing else, but that’ll be enough vs. a field of absolute dingbats. Now, stick your little finger out so we can finalize this bet. Or … email me and we’ll arrange the bet.

            • Mathius says:

              I still think Obama may win.. but only because, thus far, I think he’s the better candidate.

              The way I see this, the red shirt primary is going to be a killing field for anyone to the left of Ann Coulter, so whoever emerges is going to be very unappealing to the center.

              They’ll then have to try to run to the center, where Obama will have already set up camp.

              But, as always, people will vote with their wallets, and if the economy is solid, they’ll re-elect. If the economy is bad, they’ll boot him out.

              So the bet I’ll make with you is this: If the economy does not improve substantially between now and election day, I’ll bet that Obama loses. If the economy does improve, all bets are off.

              What stakes would you like?

              • Let’s be specific, signore. If unemployment does not rise above 9% (where it currently stands, I believe) I say Obama will walk to the finish line way ahead of the GOP candidate (probably Romney). That’s a bet.

  4. LAWRENCE O’DONNELL: In “The Rewrite” tonight, Boston’s conservative-leaning newspaper the Boston Herald is accusing the White House of playing favorites with the local media. The President is in Boston for fund-raising events today and tonight and the Herald says its reporters were not given full access because of an op-ed written by Mitt Romney that the Herald published on its front page back in March. That op-ed entitled “Obama Misery Index hits a Record High” ran on the same day President Obama was in Boston for a previous fund-raiser.

    For more details on this matter, please see “White House Threatens Boston Herald’s Press Access for Not Being Favorable Enough to Obama.”

    Read more: http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2011/05/18/lawrence-odonnell-takes-conservative-boston-heralds-side-dispute-obam#ixzz1MnuO86qc

    Charlie, you have commented on how Obama has lost touch with his base and that you will never support him again. Will the unions still back him when he avoided involving himself in Wisconsin? He’s trying to be everything and reality is forcing him to take sides. And have you heard the news this AM? About Milwaukee cutting 650 school employee’s to help meet budget demands of TWO BILLION for union contracted health benefits, for retired teachers?

    • Obama is a total piece of garbage from where I stand. I will NEVER vote for him, brother. He sold out the unions in Wisconsin and everywhere else for that matter. He was Wall Street’s best friend forever with not only the bailouts, but the $38 billion in taxes he excused them from one year later. He is as duplicitous as every other politician and I (as I’ve stated countless times) will vote for either Ralph Nader or the socialist or communist candidate (a wasted vote according to my fellow lefties in the Democrapolis Party) … that doesn’t change the fact he will win in 2012 and because he has something to hang his hat on (Bin Laden) becuase there sure isn’t anything else he can take pride in (and because the GOP has NOBODY to run against him).

  5. Watching FOX this AM, Dick Morris thinks it’s between Romney, Gingrich & Bachmann, based on some polls. Again it makes me think FOX has a bias, trying to only offer established players. They commented Bachmann is only known to 50% of Americans.

    Charlie says,”Nobody in the GOP field has a shot. It’s over.”
    I say in 2012, we will raise some Cain!

    What a difference a debate makes.

    Businessman Herman Cain is the big winner in the latest Daily Caller/ConservativeHome presidential primary tracking poll, surging forward to become a top contender, despite generally being considered an underdog.

    This month’s tracking poll asked only three questions: “Who would be your top pick for president?”; “Who would be your second choice for president?”; and “Who do you think is the most electable in 2012?”

    Cain, the CEO of Godfather’s Pizza, is usually talked about as something of a fringe candidate: likeable, but with little chance at actually winning the nomination. But in the first GOP primary debate earlier this month in Greenville, S.C., Cain performed very well, and a focus group conducted by Frank Luntz declared him the winner. His debate performance seems to have helped him immensely.

    Cain jumped to the top of the pack in terms of electability, taking 13 percent of the vote in the tracking poll, compared to the mere 3 percent he got last time. That puts him right behind New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie – ever the favorite, even though he says he won’t run — who attracted 19 percent of the vote and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, who gets 17 percent, a slight drop from the last poll.

    Cain beats Romney as respondents’ top pick for president – netting 15 percent of the vote, an increase of 10 percentage points from the last poll. As a second choice, he ties Christie for the largest percentage of the vote – 11 percent – just ahead of Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann, and a significant increase from the 5 percent he got in the last poll.

    If Cain is the big winner, then Donald Trump (who had not yet announced that he would not run when the poll was conducted), is the big loser. His numbers dropped precipitously since the last poll, suggesting that he made a wise choice to drop out of the race. For instance, in this poll, just 6 percent of respondents said he was the most electable; in the last poll, 15 percent said that of him.

    Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/05/18/what-a-difference-a-debate-makes-cain-surges-to-the-top-in-latest-thedcconservativehome-tracking-poll/#ixzz1Mo0WEk7f

    • Herman who? Forgetaboutit …

      • Naten53 says:

        “Charlie Stella Says:
        May 19, 2011 at 10:13 am
        Herman who? Forgetaboutit …”

        Just pointing out that if you change 2011 to 2007 and Herman to Barack and this post is just as accurate.

        • Nope, Obama’s Dem convention speech was a clear sign (at least at Casa Stella) that he was the next Democratic Candidate … and the street guy was right … again.

    • Cain-has no experience as a politician-now some may feel this is an advantage which I definitely understand 🙂 but it gives me pause-to think that a man can go from citizen to president without any steps in the middle-have to wonder if he will be eaten alive by the professionals.

      • I agree with V.H. … that little billionaire Texarkana guy from a few years ago who gave the election to Clinton … there was a prime example. He put that poor SOB military guy up for VP and his debate (pay attention, USW) was a disaster.

      • Think about the TeaParty effect. Many are tired of the games both parties play. Cain represents a true break from the change shirts, but don’t change the game most people are fed up with, or, it’s the Independents who will decide.

        • I haven’t crossed him off the list but I would prefer someone like Perry or Bachmann. But I still have alot of listening and researching to do.

          • Don’t waste your time trying to figure this out. A tea party candidate will NOT win the primary. If they do, you can fold the tent right then and there (because Obama would landslide the election). Try to get used to this fellas … 4 more years with a very slick politician in office (as far as I’m concerned, he’s just another shade of Republican—and on that, I agree with Black Flag (except for the colors) they’re all Green, just different shades … They’re all millionaires (or soon to be) … forgetaboutit

  6. Rumors are going around that Rick Perry might run. I suspect one would hear horrible claims of him wanting to destroy the union 10,000 times a day but he would I believe give Obama a run for his money.

    Unhappy conservatives turn their lonely eyes to Texas Gov. Rick Perry

    Texas Gov. Rick Perry speaks at a conference in Washington. D.C. earlier this year. Some conservatives are urging Perry to run for president.

    Texas Gov. Rick Perry speaks at a conference in Washington. D.C. earlier this year. Some conservatives are urging Perry to run for president. (Jonathan Ernst/Reuters)
    By Tom Hamburger

    May 19, 2011, 6:48 a.m.

    Texas Gov. Rick Perry says he has “the best job in the world,” but his name continues to reverberate among GOP conservative activists dissatisfied with the presidential field so far. On Wednesday, Rush Limbaugh said Perry had the best chance to enliven what he sees as a dull Republican field. Today, a “Draft Perry ” committee goes online sponsored by a handful of Republicans, including California State Asembyman David Logue, who recently led a legislative trip to Texas.

    The effort has caught the interest of some influential party activists, including David Lane, who has organized Christian conservatives in battle ground states.

    “If Rick Perry gets in, he’ll fill the vacuum on the right and be very difficult to beat,” Lane said this morning in an e-mail.

    In a “Draft Perry” announcement released late Wednesday, Logue wrote of his recent trip to Texas where he compared the state’s expanding economy to California’s lagging growth.

    “If we can get Governor Rick Perry in Washington instead of Texas he will no longer recruit businesses from California but he will recruit jobs back to America from China and India and put America, not just Texas, back to work,” Logue wrote on the new Draft Perry site.

    “Rick Perry has not just talked about building a thriving economy, he’s actually done it,” Logue wrote. “That’s why CEO’s – people who know a thing or two about job creation – rank Texas the best place in the nation to do business. We need a President who can make “Made in America” our national slogan again.

    The potential GOP presidential field has narrowed in the past week with Gov. Mike Huckabee, a favorite of Christian conservatives, and developer Donald Trump taking themselves out of the running. Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney is the self-declared front runner, but many conservatives have so far been reluctant to embrace him.

    Among those considering a run, former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty and Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota are vying for conservative support. Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels, a favorite of more establishment Republicans, is considering jumping in to the race. Like Daniels, Perry is seen as an experienced political leader, but Perry has stronger credentials with social conservatives.

    On Tuesday, the RealClearPolitics.com reported that Perry aides have been inquiring about the possibility of a national race. That day, Perry addressed Republican National Committee executive committee members meeting in Texas and received a warm reception.

    http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-rick-perry-president-20110519,0,4922230.story

    • Rick who? Forgetaboutit …

      • Cain/Rice?..betterthinkaboutit!

        Yes we Cain!

        • Anita, my love … who?

        • Mathius says:

          HAHAHAHAHAA HHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA HAH

          • 🙂 Nobody asked you 🙂

            But while we’re on the subject…do you care to offer a suggestion?

            • Anita, you’re now in charge of our campaign. Doc can be president if I can veto him … he gets to make snarky remarks, but I get to nationalize everything. We are the Curmudgeon ticket for 2012 …

              Matt … stop laughing … we could do a much better job than the two asswipe parties we currently have running this fiasco of a government. Doc says he’d go along with me if I promised to execute abuses of power (I think he means myself) …

            • Mathius says:

              Hm.. I’ll take that as a serious question and give a serious answer..

              God I hate myself for saying this..

              Donald Trump

              ::sobs of self-loathing::

              Ok, and here’s why. It’s not because he’s the best man for the job. But, as I’ve said repeatedly, the primary is going to be so far to the right that a moderate doesn’t stand a chance. Trump is right, but not lunatic fringe (read: SUFA) right, and he shouldn’t be able to win the primary in this environment except that he has very, very deep pockets and a recognizable brand synonymous with successful business.

              He could eek by in the primary.. maybe.. Maybe. Maybe. And maybe, maybe, he could do it without taking too much damage that the right become disenchanted with him and his brand.

              Then, and people forget this, but the last thing in the world that the a black man who is perceived as anti-capitalist wants to face in an election cycle is a “proven successful” businessman who happens to be pasty-white. And, especially since Obama is now seen as very politicized, Trump’s outsider status is another perk. Further, Trump’s own wealth could provide a buffer against Obama’s war-chest.

              He’d have to put a Washington veteran at the bottom of the ticket.. someone more moderate, but not Romney (remember, RomneyCare is political TNT).. I’d steer clear of Rice – why muddy the waters trying to get a woman elected by men who already are on the fence? McCain, maybe? I don’t think he’d do it. Jeb Bush would be a great pick if it weren’t for his last name.. hmm… Lieberman.. no.. I don’t know.. I’ll need to think about it. It’s a tough call. Christ? Eh

              I don’t think they need to worry about Florida.. the recession devastated it, so it’s going to go anti-incumbent unless things turn around dramatically, and fast.. Cali is blue no matter what, Texas Red.. I wonder if they could flip NY.. Bloomberg!

              That’s the one. Bloomberg on the bottom, Trump at the top. Not one, but TWO self-made billionaires, white, male, businessmen, one with a famous brand, one with some political and homeland defense experience, running against a perceived socialist black man in a down economy.

              Yea, that would do the trick. But Trump, I think, has already said he’s not running. I guess he could change his mind though.

  7. USWeapon,

    My gut tells me that it was more about not wanting to be remembered as yet another Democrat President who had a chance to kill the leader of Al Qaeda and didn’t take it.

    Please tell me which “Democrat President had a chance to kill the leader of Al Qaeda and didn’t take it?”

    I think you’re confusing Democrat & Republican.

    And I don’t think it is all that courageous to have the chance to order some other man on the other side of the world kill the most hated man in America fall in your lap and take it.

    If this mission had failed, the Republicans would be all over this for DECADES. Another Democrat who is soft on defense, can’t get the job done, etc. And you would have been leading that chorus.

    Do you think that George Bush would not have made the same decision?

    No, he needed Osama alive to justify his wars.

    And this silly notion that Obama did in 3 years what Bush couldn’t do in 8 is ridiculous, unless of course you are talking about adding to the national debt, in which case it is accurate.

    Ah yes, just like usual. Can’t stick to the topic – have to take cheap shots to try to justify your point.

    If Bush gets credit for Osama 2 years after leaving office, does he also get “credit” for the economy 2 years after leaving office?

    Obama did not do one thing differently than Bush did.

    Yes he did. Bush said publicly Osama was no big deal, I don’t think about him, etc. Obama said Osama would be a top priority and he’d go into Pakistan to get him if necessary – and he did.

    Bush was afraid of taking a stand and failing. Obama wasn’t.

    What part, exactly, do you think Bush or Obama played in gathering the intel or chasing down the leads that would put the failure or success on either one of their shoulders?

    It’s called LEADERSHIP USWeapon. I’d think someone with a military background would understand that.

    A good leader sets the objectives, assembles the correct team to fulfill those objectives, gives the team the resources they need to be successful, makes good decisions when necessary, and lets the team do their job.

    Issue #1 – Economy
    Issue #2 – Government Spending
    Issue #3 – Immigration Reform
    Issue #4 – Bring Troops home

    Ok – but what are the Republicans proposing on these issues that’s different than the Democrats?

    Of course the economy will be the top priority, but the death of Osama eliminates the “Democrats are soft on defense” mantra (although I’m sure you’ll still twist facts to try to use that line).

    Also, have you surveyed the field of Republican candidates lately? It’s like a really bad B movie. They can’t cut each other off at the knees fast enough – except when they’re busy cutting themselves off at the knees!

    The ones that don’t pander to the Tea Party crowd get ripped by the right-wing media / blogs and will not be nominated.

    The ones that do pander to the Tea Party crowd are not electable.

    It’s been so much fun to watch – but I’m running out of popcorn!!

    • Bada-boom, bada-bing …

    • YO Todd…only democrat that I am aware of was Clinton. UBL was actually offered to him….his response was no.

      • Colonel,
        Clinton took a shot and missed. That’s more courage than GWB showed.

      • SK Trynosky Sr. says:

        Seems to me that Clinton had a few opportunities, one that I seem to remember while he was on the golf course. All however is irrelevant since Osama was named by Ollie North back during Iran/Contra as the most dangerous man in the world. I guess everyone was too busy trying to hang Regan to care.

      • LOI,
        Yeah – I saw this the first time you posted it. Right-wing propaganda written for a target audience – and it hit a bulls-eye!

        • “Yeah – I saw this the first time you posted it. ”
          You’re bad, this is my first time to post this.

          “Right-wing propaganda written for a target audience”
          I plead “No contest”. Accuse me of “pot stirring” and I might change my plea….

          • Pot Stirrer!! Pot Stirrer!!

            My bad – T-Ray posted this before. How’d you miss it LOI???

      • Mathius says:

        Stop posting that unless you have some evidence to back it up more than “some insider said so.”

        I heard from a reliable insider that George Bush was doing lines off of Liz Cheney’s ass while he was given the now-famous terrorist-attack-imminent briefing.

    • USWeapon says:

      Please tell me which “Democrat President had a chance to kill the leader of Al Qaeda and didn’t take it?”

      President Clinton. D13 already filled you in minimally. His take is accurate

      I think you’re confusing Democrat & Republican.

      There is a difference at this point?

      If this mission had failed, the Republicans would be all over this for DECADES. Another Democrat who is soft on defense, can’t get the job done, etc. And you would have been leading that chorus.

      Exactly how would giving the OK to attack Bin Laden and kill him, and subsequently failing, be considered “soft on defense”? That is like saying that because Bush didn’t execute Iraq or Afghanistan well, we would consider him soft on defense. That makes no sense.

      No, he needed Osama alive to justify his wars.

      Talk about reaching for the fringes….

      Ah yes, just like usual. Can’t stick to the topic – have to take cheap shots to try to justify your point.

      My cheap shot wasn’t at all meant to justify my point. I gave plenty of facts to justify my point. My cheap shot was just for fun.

      If Bush gets credit for Osama 2 years after leaving office, does he also get “credit” for the economy 2 years after leaving office?

      Pay a little closer attention. I didn’t give Bush credit for Osama. I gave the intelligence community credit for Osama. If you are going to berate me, at least berate me for what my actual position in the article was.

      Yes he did. Bush said publicly Osama was no big deal, I don’t think about him, etc. Obama said Osama would be a top priority and he’d go into Pakistan to get him if necessary – and he did.

      That is not at all how Bush treated Osama. He gave the intelligence community the message that Osama was top priority. He ordered the creation of an entire division of the intelligence community dedicated to nothing but Bin Laden.

      Bush was afraid of taking a stand and failing. Obama wasn’t.

      ???????????????????????? Now you are saying that he was afraid of taking a stand and failing??????????

      Were you on drugs from 2001-2008. I would say he took every stand he ever even thought about having an opinion on. And failed at a great many of them. Sometimes the things you say just make me wonder what you could possibly be thinking.

      It’s called LEADERSHIP USWeapon. I’d think someone with a military background would understand that.

      I am vaguely familiar with the concept.

      A good leader sets the objectives, assembles the correct team to fulfill those objectives, gives the team the resources they need to be successful, makes good decisions when necessary, and lets the team do their job.

      So I ask you again. What did Obama do differently than Bush. He issued the same objectives that Bush issued. He used Bush’s Secretary of Defense (assemble the correct team) along with replacing very few of the key figures within the intelligence community. And did all the rest the same as Bush as well. I give no credit to the President now or the one that preceded him for what went down. I know you are eager to kiss Obama’s feet, but I feel you are lacking understanding of how this all works. Just my opinion 😉

      Issue #1 – Economy
      Issue #2 – Government Spending
      Issue #3 – Immigration Reform
      Issue #4 – Bring Troops home

      Ok – but what are the Republicans proposing on these issues that’s different than the Democrats?

      Perhaps nothing. I said that these issue I listed would be the deciding factors in the election. I didn’t say that the Republicans have some great position around them.

      Also, have you surveyed the field of Republican candidates lately? It’s like a really bad B movie. They can’t cut each other off at the knees fast enough – except when they’re busy cutting themselves off at the knees!

      Yep, I agree that it is pretty bad. But my point was, and still is, that the 2012 election will focus on the areas I noted and that it is far too early to declare anyone the victor. As I pointed out, at this time in the last cycle, the nominees were Hillary and Mitt.

      • Exactly how would giving the OK to attack Bin Laden and kill him, and subsequently failing, be considered “soft on defense”?

        See Jimmy Carter, Iran … oy vey

      • USWeapon,

        Exactly how would giving the OK to attack Bin Laden and kill him, and subsequently failing, be considered “soft on defense”? That is like saying that because Bush didn’t execute Iraq or Afghanistan well, we would consider him soft on defense. That makes no sense.

        Those are the types of “talking points” the right uses all the time. I agree they don’t make sense – so take that up with those who use these illogical arguments.

        Pay a little closer attention. I didn’t give Bush credit for Osama. I gave the intelligence community credit for Osama. If you are going to berate me, at least berate me for what my actual position in the article was.

        Yes, you mentioned the intelligence community, but you spent much more time comparing Bush and Obama.

        That is not at all how Bush treated Osama. He gave the intelligence community the message that Osama was top priority. He ordered the creation of an entire division of the intelligence community dedicated to nothing but Bin Laden.

        Bush was more interested in pushing his ideology and having the intelligence community justify his plans for invading Iraq than catching Osama bin Laden.

        Were you on drugs from 2001-2008. I would say he took every stand he ever even thought about having an opinion on. And failed at a great many of them. Sometimes the things you say just make me wonder what you could possibly be thinking.

        Taking a stand on everything “he ever even thought about having an opinion on” is not exactly LEADERSHIP. It’s just Bush acting on his GUT FEELINGS to push his IDEOLOGY.

        Understand now????????????

        So I ask you again. What did Obama do differently than Bush.

        If you’re on a mission, and your leader says publicly it’s not a priority, it has an affect on moral and the out-come. Obama went on record that Osama was a priority. That he would go after him. Bush repeatedly said Osama was not a priority.

        I know you are eager to kiss Obama’s feet

        Yeah, that’s right. And you’re just so knowledgeable, straight-forward, and unbiased in your analysis of everything.

        SSDD…

  8. I don’t think Governor Rick will run. If he does, he has a pretty good chance IF and only IF the msm will look at his accomplishments and the accomplishments of Texas. We are not doing badly at all. HOWEVER…. if he does…..Charlie, you wil lhave to learn a few thangs….like the word ya’ll. (yawl). It is singular and it is plural. You will have to like things like guns, balanced budgets, spending caps, open carry, entitlement programs within budget constraints, no borrowing and a penchant for fajitas and refried frijoles. (Commonly referred to as Texas wrap arounds). You will have to learn such things that Dr Pepper is the State drink (not Tequila), Steak is the preferred meal and not this foo foo stuff from Japan called Kobe Beef, pick up trucks are the standard vehicle, complete with gun rack filled with guns, everybody waves at you on the roads and it is not road rage but actually being friends, Quiche is a word to look up in the dictionary, cowboy hats and boots, women are protected and equal ( and can shoot straight ), and football is a religion, not a sport. You will have to have a geography lesson in where the Red River is and the Sabine and the Rio Grande, know what a Blue Bonnet really is, and unbderstand that you dont just get in your car to run across town for it will take hours. Anything less than 25,000 acres is a hobby and we have every poisonous snake in the world except the King Cobra and the Bushmaster. We like our scorpions and make pets out of them and my Raptors are not just “cute little buggers”….you have so much to learn. If it crawls, walks, slithers, or fly…it usually bites. There are 4.5 guns PER household…and breakins are usually met with flying projectiles. We do not like being in foreign countries giving away our money. We like drilling for our OWN oil. So perhaps a little Texas justice is what is needed.

    PS: Most did not like Bush or Johnson….they caught the Potomac Fever. We are all now innoculated.

    • Actually, I wish we would secede from the United States and form the Republic of Texas….then apply for foreign aid. We could probably get 5 or 10 billion to protect your Southern Border from the Gulf to the Chisos…after all you are giving 3.5 billion to Pakistan.

      • I really wish he would run-so very disappointed to hear you don’t think he will-I read somewhere that he had said he wouldn’t at least until he had finished his term or reached some date-don’t remember the details-but I remember the date had passed-so I was hopeful 🙂

      • What do you think about us forgiving Egypt’s debt? It drives me nuts-why do we forgive debts-does anyone else in the world forgive debts. We should at least keep it on the books even if we don’t make them pay it.

      • Naten53 says:

        Texas would have an immigration problem from the US if that happened

        • We’d consider moving there.

        • Good point. It already has…there are more Californians here than I have ever seen.

          • eeewwwww……..

            CAians who get it or that just don’t want to suffer the consequences of their doomed state. Are they trying to makeover TX in their (previous) image?

            • Mathius says:

              BWA HA HA HA

            • Nawwww…not gonna happen. They come here, get doused with Brazos River Water, given a pair of cowboy boots and a hat and an honorary Texas Passport. It only takes two weeks and they say ya’ll with a TExas accent and become conservatives.

      • I bought my drums in Texas … cymbalfusion (ask for Greg) … great guy.

        I don’t know about all those sprawling malls, though, Colonel … reminds me of New Jersey with a lot of heat …

    • Colonel,
      You make Texas sound like the promised land. And for you it most likely is.

      But my home is Georgia. My land has been in my family since and including the Cherokees (although there used to be a whole lot more of it). We also have most of the same things ya’ll do. Hell, most of us LIKE the same things ya’ll do (‘cept we like fried taters and onions and pintos instead of fajitas, but we like them to).

      As a matter of fact, a lot of us would be willing to seceed WITH Texas. Maybe we could get La., Ms., and Alabamy to come with us. Be better to have one continuous nation.

      I couldn’t participate in the conversation yesterday because I just cannot stand the Obama praise fest. The longer he is President the worse off this Nation is. A second term will be the end of us.

      • the Obama praise fest

        Essom, it isn’t an Obama praise fest. I think the guy blows (probably for VERY different reasons than you do, but I have ZERO use for him) … what it was (yesterday) was me responding to quotes of mine determined ridiculous by USW … I say Obama is a guaranteed winner in 2012 because of his single accomplishment (getting Bin Laden) … AND because the GOP has NOBODY to run against him. Those two factors say the race is over (in my book). Can something catastrophic happen that would overturn Obama’s HUGE lead right now? Sure, but my guess is it isn’t going to happen over the next 1.5 years … what will happen is a steady increase in “foot-in-mouth” disease by GOP hopefuls that will render the election nothing more than protocol. I’d rather see Ralph Nader win myself but that isn’t going to happen. Right now he stands as good a chance as any GOP candidate though … bank on it.

      • Hey Esom….not a thing wrong with Georgia. Come on with us….although it is a great thought, we, of course, know this would not happen but it is nice to think about.

  9. Bama dad says:

    It is time to lighten up for a moment.

    Know it all women.

    Two women were playing golf. One teed off and watched in horror as her ball headed directly toward a foursome of men playing the next hole. The ball hit one of the men. He immediately clasped his hands together at his groin, fell to the ground and proceeded to roll around in agony. The woman rushed down to the man, and immediately began to apologize. ‘Please allow me to help. I’m a Physical Therapist and I know I could relieve your pain if you’d allow me, she told him.
    ‘Oh, no, I’ll be all right. I’ll be fine in a few minutes,’ the man replied. He was in obvious agony, lying in the fetal position, still
    clasping his hands there at his groin. At her persistence, however, he finally allowed her to help. She gently took his hands away and laid them to the side, loosened his pants and put her hands inside. She administered tender and artful massage for several long moments and asked, ‘How does that feel’?

    “Feels great”, he replied; “but I still think my thumb’s broken”!

  10. Canine Weapon says:
  11. Bama dad says:

    What can you say but big brother is watching.

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thecutline/20110519/ts_yblog_thecutline/secret-service-issues-mea-culpa-for-accidental-anti-fox-news-tweet

    So when the Secret Service breaks the law is it really breaking the law?

  12. Mathius says:

    It isn’t a statement that exists in a vacuum here at SUFA. It can be found across the lame-stream media as well.

    Pet peeve of mine: lame-stream media.

    Wep,

    I know what you’re going for here, but resorting to this this type of juvenile name-calling strikes me as amateurish and, well, juvenile.

    We know the weaknesses, biases, and flaws in the established media, and we know that they are, well, lame. But I feel that utilizing a meme catchphrase like this just is something designed to appeal to resonate with the ignorant masses whereas SUFA appeals, in large part, because it is a place where nuance is valued.

    On balance, a good article, but this is off-putting for those of us who are disinclined to be treated like children and spoon-fed opinions in clever pun format.

    Just my 2 cents. It’s a cheap tactic, and you’re above that.

    • Are we listing our pet peeve’s-here’s mine 🙂

      Fox is not a news organization and all the other over the top condemnations.

      Beck is crazy, evil and should be silenced.

      Palin is stupid and her children are fair targets even when they were only 17, 14 years old.

      Bush is just evil.

      Christian Right as a political category.

      NEXT-I feel much better

      • Mathius says:

        Well this should be cathartic..

        Fox is not a news organization and all the other over the top condemnations. It’s a news organization with an obvious and strong bias. Better?

        Beck is crazy, evil and should be silenced. Beck is crazy, and possibly evil, but shouldn’t be silenced.. just ignored. Better?

        Palin is stupid and her children are fair targets even when they were only 17, 14 years old. Palin is a stark raving lunatic, but not actually stupid, per say. Her kids are fair game in the public sphere because she uses them as props and they go on dancing with the stars. Further, if you’re going to be militant about abstinence only, it’s salient news that she had a child out of wedlock. Better?

        Bush is just evil. A distinct possibility. I would say wrong rather than evil. Cheney is evil.

        Christian Right as a political category. Of course it is. They have PACs and all. Preachers organize voters and encourage voting in specific ways. Anyone wishing to run for office has to prove to the Christian Right that they’re Christian enough

        • You left one out. DPM is a republican…..with a Jack Sparrow hat and cutlass.

          • Dread Pirate Mathius says:

            That’s a blatant lie, you scurvy dog!

            I’m an anarchist!

            You owe me a heart-felt apology.

            • Heart felt apology following: Get ready….set…. (ahem)…(takes sip of DP with cane sugar)…(ahem)….heart felt apology forth coming…..(ahem…damn throat wont clear…wait this is a keyboard….. mi mi mi…..ok….ready..from the heart felt fingers of The Colonel..

              Please accpet my heart felt (through my fingers) apologies. I had a severe senior moment and did not realize that true Dr Pepper drinkers are neither democrat/repubs/lie-ber-tar-eons/socialists/communists or any other “ists”….You are, by far, a Jack Sparrow hatted and cutlass bearing anarchist of the first order. Ye are hereby dubbed, as an official Raptorland citizen, SIR Dread Pirate, the anarchist of the FIrst Order. BE IT KNOWN by all present.

              HOw was that??

        • Christians are no more a political category than African Americans are a political category or any other minority or majority is a political category. Anyone for the far left African American category. There are many Christian democrats-using Christian as a tag line is just wrong. Just as using African American or Hispanic or Jewish or any other term that puts any specific identifiable group of people firmly on one side or the other. It is an attack against that group causing a bias against their religion or skin color or whatever the defining factor happens to be.

          Bush-better Cheney-too harsh -determining that someone is evil at their core-is almost impossible-but I suspect most of us use the term a little more loosely-than I am-at this moment. 🙂 JAC’s fault all that philosophical stuff makes one crazy.

          Children are not fair game, I do not care what their parents do, until they are adults and based on their own actions.

          Beck better-but not by much 🙂 -but everyone is welcome to their personal opinions. I only object when it is used to shut them up-which is what has been happening to Beck.

          Fox-that works for me

  13. USWep,

    One of the things that I read repeatedly over the last few weeks was the notion that the 2012 election is already over

    It is over.

    The Warfare/Welfare party will win -again- for the 35th time in a row.

  14. USWep

    Telling the United Nations to suck it

    The UN was created by the US.

    Exposing and promising to reform the Federal Reserve

    The FED dominates Congress because that is where Congress gets its cash.

    The FED is afraid of Congress because Congress can nationalize the FED.

    One will protect the other for as long as necessary.

    Taking marriage out of the hands of the federal government, thus allowing it to be fairly administered to all

    1500 years of state-sanctioned marriage ….. will be overturned by 2012….fairy tale.

    Actually presenting a way to eliminate the power of lobbyists in Washington

    Why would either Congress or the Lobbyist want this?

    Revitalizing US business (increasing manufacturing and decreasing corporate tax rates)

    The government cannot “increase manufacturing”.
    Decreasing corporate tax does NOT necessarily do a darn thing.

    Eliminate Personal Income tax, period.

    Then stand back.

    Radical reform of the education system

    Again, why would anyone in government do this?
    The public education system is functioning as designed – providing people who are competent enough to do a task, but are wholly obedient to authority for decisions making.

  15. Answering VH on Jeb Bush. I doubt I could stomach his policy very much at all, but I have absolute respect for the fact he isn’t a moron like his brother; that he in fact earned all his grades (which I believe were very accelerated). He can speak the mother tongue and I have no doubt that he would go forth with some level of integrity. I don’t blame him for rigging the Florida election for Bush in 2000 … that was all SC horseshit. I have little against Jeb (from what I know about him–which probably isn’t enough) … but I know this much, I sure wish he’d run instead of the imbecile who did run (making me, a bigger imbecile for voting for him … twice) … Christ, that hurts …

  16. Charlie,

    Don’t waste your time trying to figure this out. A tea party candidate will NOT win the primary.

    I agree. Most will not even get on a ballot.

    If they do, you can fold the tent right then and there (because Obama would landslide the election).

    I agree. Status quo must be maintained.

    Try to get used to this fellas … 4 more years with a very slick politician in office (as far as I’m concerned, he’s just another shade of Republican—and on that, I agree with Black Flag (except for the colors) they’re all Green, just different shades … They’re all millionaires (or soon to be) … forgetaboutit

    I agree with Charlie.

    Federal Politics….

    forgetaboutit

    • News Flash … BF joins the Curmudgeon Party in 2012 … Doc for President; Charlie for VP (with veto power of the P) … Anita runs the campagin and BF handles the gelt … jump on board now before it’s too late …

  17. Today’s thread reminds me of a large dysfunctional family sitting around the Saturday evening sinner table doing nothing but arguing……….wasted time and energy.

    I’m going to get a Happy Meal.

  18. Haven’t listened to Obama’s speech but I cannot believe he said this- Hey Charlie-this may very well cost Obama the election.

    May 19, 2011
    Obama and Israel
    Steve McCann
    I forced myself to listen to Obama deliver his so-called new Middle East policy speech. It was exceedingly difficult to do. During the speech, as Obama declared that Israel should acquiesce to the 1967 borders, my minds eye turned toward the days of 1938 and Czechoslovakia wherein the leaders of Western Europe so callously decided the fate of that country and declared it “Peace in our Time”. Within less than a year the country ceased to exist.

    I realize my perspective is colored by my personal experience surviving World War II; but I am haunted by the prospect of history repeating itself as the entire Middle East is about to become a tinderbox with the ascendancy of radical islamists in Egypt, Tunisia, Yemen and Lebanon while Iran becomes the major power in the region. Israel can do nothing to assuage the blood lust of these radicals; there is not enough land to surrender, there is no compromise on the right of return that the Palestinians demand. Only the destruction of the state of Israel will satisfy the mob outside the gates of that country.

    Yet today a President of the United States willingly puts Israel in a box, attempts to impose a course of action that if not taken by Israel will further inflame the Arab world and international sentiment. The seeds of conflict have been sown for many years, this past spring and today they have been watered and will sprout.

    http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/05/obama_and_israel_1.html

    • Mathius says:

      Always a bad idea to piss off the Joooooooooooos

    • I’m real close to using the word EVIL – The word Ally seems to mean nothing to this, this Man. Well, he doesn’t speak for me and I hope he finds out in 2012 that he doesn’t speak for the rest of the US. Although I would much rather he just hadn’t said it. It is one thing for people to believe we shouldn’t support Israel(I strongly disagree) but to just stab a knife in their back-Just makes be sick, sick ,sick. Should of used capitals because I am indeed screaming.

      DAMNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      • Forgetaboutit … it’s over … yo’ll just reaching now.

        How was that yo’ll, Colonel?

      • Why do I have a vision in my mind’s eye of Black Flag dancing a Adolf Hitler style jig?

        It has come full circle . . . The only Democrat POTUS in my memory who was worth a tinker’s damn (Harry Truman) was first to recognize the new Nation State of Israel has now been shit upon by the worst POTUS in the history of this country by declaring that the U.S. is now an ally of the Islamic Brotherhood and no longer an ally to Israel.

        I have a real fear for the immediate future of this country I was born in and fought for.

        What will this asshole do next? Declare that all school children recite the “Pledge to Obama” every morning at the start of school?

        Seig Heil, BHO, Seig Heil . . . . . . NOT ME!

      • V.H.

        I am curious why you agonize over Israel so much.

        We certainly don’t owe them a damn thing. Respect and recognition perhaps but nothing more.

        Mr. Obama has openly stated what has been the USA policy for decades. Mr. Bush was the one who was first to vocalize the two state solution but also broke USA policy by abandoning the pre 1967 boundaries.

        Now if you wish to chastise both for destroying any chance of the USA being an honest broker in the peace deal then fine. That is what they both have done.

        But beyond that, I think dislike for Mr. Obama is affecting our reactions to his policies when those policies are not far off from the norm.

        • Stabbing our friends and allies in the back is the “norm” for this country?

          What has this country turned into?!?

          Maybe since we screwed Viet Nam, but this POTUS is so damn blatant about it.

          I haven’t had a chance to read his speech today, didn’t see it either & due to prior commitments I won’t be able to get to it til way late tomorrow.

          • G.A.

            You constantly suggest Israel is “our friend”.

            How do you determine this?
            What good have they done for the US?

            They’ve bombed the US, spied on the US, sold US secerts to China, and spent US tax dollars on themselves and weapons of war.

            But what have they done FOR the US???

        • Good morning, JAC…..
          I am no fan of Israel at all but, Israel is a state recognized by the UNited Nations (cough cough)…Bush was wrong and Obama was wrong. If I was Israel, I would tell Obama and the United States this coming Tuesday on my visit…to go to hell. I would never give up the Golan Heights at any price even if the price was peace…because..as long as Hamas is around…there will be no peace no matter what is agreed to and if anybody believes that, I would be surprised.

          Actually, I would like to see it go to what Obama/Bush wants…what a legacy that would turn out to be….Hamas would continue to attack Israel, the Arab world still wants them out of the continent and there will be a war.

          • d13

            Good morning to you as well sir.

            I agree that as long as both sides exist there will be war.

            But my bigger question goes to this almost primal instinct by many to defend Israel. I have never understood that.

            I don’t think the standard reply that they are an “Allie” explains it. We are allies with many nations, yet we do not get mixed up in their regional disputes like we do with Israel and her neighbors.

            I do think that thanks to Mssrs Bush and Obama that any chance of the USA being considered an objective “facilitator” is now gone. Even more reason to leave them all to settle their own disputes.

            See ya’ll are burning off a little more brush lately. Hope all is well in the great Republic of Texas.

            Best wishes to you and yours.

            • JAC,

              Now I’m curious. I remember you having trouble with this same thing when I first popped up at SUFA . I said something to the effect of Israel being God’s chosen land and people. You fired back at me to the effect of ‘then let them (Israel) take it up with God.’ I’m wondering if religion and faith are part of your life. I’m also thinking this may be part of V’s reply. I won’t be offended if you tell me to mind my own business.

              • anita

                My concern is the beliefs of those who seem to so adamantly defend Israel at all costs. If, as you say, religion is playing a role then we had better wake up to the reality of what that means.

                I listened to Beck go on about this the other day. Extolling everyone to realize that Jerusalem will be lost to all religions if we do not wake up and defend Israel. What he means is all but Islam.

                This was the battle cry that was used to justify the crusades. Is that where everyone wants us to go? Are we going to be pulled into a global religious war because the Jews are the “chosen” people and Israel the “chosen land”? And even if this were true, why is it of any concern to the rest of us?

                And where was this decree or covenant written? Oh yeah, in books written by Jews and Christians, over 2000 years ago.

                Anita, I know deeply religious Christians and Jews who do not agree with our support of Israel. If they can believe this then why do so many other Christians defend Israel on religious grounds?

                Could it be that something else is at play? Is it just the difference in various Christian sects? Or perhaps is it a political group using religion to motivate hatred of the other political group?

                And I stand by my original comment, as you recall it here.

                If the Jews are the Chosen People and Israel is the Chosen Land of God, then let the Jews and God sort it out with their Arab neighbors.

                And to answer your question directly, I do not subscribe to any of the “organized” religions. But “faith” does play a major part in my life.

              • Fair enough JAC. Its a difficult situation for sure. I guess faith just leads folks in different directions. Must be all part of the master plan.

                Side note.. Thought of you big time as I flew over the snow capped mountains of Montana…BEAUTIFUL!

        • JAC

          “Mr. Obama has openly stated what has been the USA policy for decades. Mr. Bush was the one who was first to vocalize the two state solution but also broke USA policy by abandoning the pre 1967 boundaries.”

          I agree. And if you look at the rest of the speech he rejected their demands for UN recognition since the joined Hamas. And all previous demands went, give us the land, then we’ll talk. No, stop attacking us, then we’ll give up the land… And back and forth.

          Obama has said virtually nothing different from what all involved have said. The difference is he announced it to the world, and since he’s seeking to dictate policy to Israel, a “close ally”, most would think that was a mistake. Remember the Egypt riots, Israel and Saudi Arabia urged Obama not to make strong public statements, but to work behind the scenes. I think his ego is more important than any treaty is far away places, like Israel or Texas. People who may die because he want’s center stage do not matter to him.

          I also think with him, what he says means almost nothing.
          How many times has he said he would do something, then done the opposite? By his speech, he should cut of aid to the PLO, since they have joined Hamas, a terrorist organization, according to the US government.

          • I also think with him, what he says means almost nothing.

            His campaign promise to walk union picket lines threatened with the loss of collective bargaining.

            One reason he sucks …

  19. Ahhh…the tangled web we continue to weave…… Let me see if I have this correct. The Palestinian authority aligned with Hamas in March…the President adopts the Palestinian/Hamas line on his mideast speech….and then funds Hamas with 250 million of your dollars via the Palestinian Authority.

    So, Bush gets blasted for going into Iraq…ok I can see that.

    So, I waited with bated breath to see the bashing of Obama for funding Hamas that has the direct design of the elimination of Israel. Or I await the spin as to why it is ok.

  20. Bama dad says:

    I got in the wrong profession.

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110520/ap_on_re_us/us_lucrative_lifeguarding

    Retirement at 50 with 90% salary, California what a State.

    • I thought that too until my wife reminded me what I look like in Speedo…

    • Please don’t rub it in, we in the private sector in CA are getting sensitive. Hell if things continue all we will be left with is a speedo and you do not want to see me in one.

    • So while the core issues of the conflict must be negotiated, the basis of those negotiations is clear: a viable Palestine, and a secure Israel. The United States believes that negotiations should result in two states, with permanent Palestinian borders with Israel, Jordan, and Egypt, and permanent Israeli borders with Palestine. The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states. The Palestinian people must have the right to govern themselves, and reach their potential, in a sovereign and contiguous state.

      As for security, every state has the right to self-defense, and Israel must be able to defend itself – by itself – against any threat. Provisions must also be robust enough to prevent a resurgence of terrorism; to stop the infiltration of weapons; and to provide effective border security. The full and phased withdrawal of Israeli military forces should be coordinated with the assumption of Palestinian security responsibility in a sovereign, non-militarized state. The duration of this transition period must be agreed, and the effectiveness of security arrangements must be demonstrated.

      These principles provide a foundation for negotiations. Palestinians should know the territorial outlines of their state; Israelis should know that their basic security concerns will be met. I know that these steps alone will not resolve this conflict. Two wrenching and emotional issues remain: the future of Jerusalem, and the fate of Palestinian refugees. But moving forward now on the basis of territory and security provides a foundation to resolve those two issues in a way that is just and fair, and that respects the rights and aspirations of Israelis and Palestinians.

      Recognizing that negotiations need to begin with the issues of territory and security does not mean that it will be easy to come back to the table.

      In particular, the recent announcement of an agreement between Fatah and Hamas raises profound and legitimate questions for Israel – how can one negotiate with a party that has shown itself unwilling to recognize your right to exist. In the weeks and months to come, Palestinian leaders will have to provide a credible answer to that question.

      Meanwhile, the United States, our Quartet partners, and the Arab states will need to continue every effort to get beyond the current impasse.

      • President Obama’s Message To Israel: Go To Hell
        by Joseph Klein
        Posted on May 19 2011 11:27 pm

        President Barack Obama wants Israel to return to its pre-1967 borders, with a few minor agreed upon swaps. He might as well have told the Jews living in Israel to pack up their belongings and leave or take their chances in the Hell that Hamas has waiting for them.

        In his stab-Israel-in-the-back speech delivered on Thursday at the State Department, Obama declared:

        The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states. The Palestinian people must have the right to govern themselves, and reach their potential, in a sovereign and contiguous state.

        Obama waited towards the end of his speech on the Middle East and North Africa to throw our most reliable Mideast ally, and the region’s only true democracy, under the bus. His timing, on the eve of his meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu at the White House on Friday, could not have been more provocative.

        Prime Minister Netanyahu did not waste any time in reacting to Obama’s gambit. He said that Israel would object to any withdrawal to “indefensible” borders, which the pre-1967 borders would most certainly be.

        A future attack launched from the pre-1967 lines against Israel’s nine-mile-wide waist at its narrowest point could easily split the country in two. Most of its national infrastructure (airports, industries, and inter-city highways) and population centers would be fully exposed to hostile fire from military forces deployed along the adjacent West Bank hill terrain, which would serve as an ideal platform of attack for Arab military forces. The Golan Heights would provide the Syrians with the same strategic military position to threaten Israeli civilians living below. Protecting against infiltration by Palestinian terrorists would be virtually impossible.

        Obama’s inclusion of a demand for a “contiguous” Palestinian state encompassing Gaza and the West Bank would also have the effect of splitting Israel in two.

        In short, the pre-1967 borders are not defensible because they do not provide Israel with sufficient buffer depth to enable Israel to protect itself against terrorist incursions, as well as to ensure a defeat of conventional military assaults if Israel is once again attacked.

        To illustrate Israel’s profound vulnerabilities if it returned to the pre-1967 borders, here is a map of what those borders would look like:

        Israel has returned Sinai to Egypt. Under the terms of the peace treaty Israel signed with Egypt, there has been more than thirty years of relative peace between the two countries. However, that peace is now threatened as a result of the so-called Arab Spring Obama is so proud of, which swept Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak from power and left a vacuum that is likely to be filled by the Egyptian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood.

        And what does the Muslim Brotherhood have in mind for Israel? A leading member of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, Muhammad Ghannem, provided the answer to the Arabic-language Iranian news network Al-Alam:

        the people should be prepared for war against Israel

        Israel withdrew from Gaza unilaterally in 2005, after entering into detailed security arrangements with the Palestinian Authority. When Hamas took over Gaza completely in 2007, the agreed upon security arrangements fell by the wayside as the terrorist organization launched thousands of rockets into populated areas of Israel, targeting and killing civilians including children.

        At least President Obama recognized in his State Department speech that Hamas is not to be trusted. He criticized the ongoing rocket attacks and other terrorist acts by Hamas and its allies and the long-standing Palestinian culture of hate. Israelis, he said, have had to live

        with the fear that their children could get blown up on a bus or by rockets fired at their homes, as well as the pain of knowing that other children in the region are taught to hate them

        Obama even acknowledged that Hamas’s participation in the new Palestinian government

        raises profound and legitimate questions for Israel

        And he asked rhetorically

        how can one negotiate with a party that has shown itself unwilling to recognize your right to exist

        Yet, rather than first insist on the logical condition that such a terrorist party – namely, Hamas – be excluded from the Palestinian government and repudiated by Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, Obama told the Israelis to never mind and just turn the clock back to pre-1967.

        Obama seeks to define in advance the Palestinian-Israeli borders, after which the “emotional issues” of Jerusalem and return of the Palestinian refugees would be negotiated. What kind of leverage would Israel have then, especially when the Obama administration has declared previously that East Jerusalem belongs to the Palestinians?

        Obama is essentially telling Israel: Give up all defensible borders first — then take your chances on Jerusalem and the Palestinians’ claim to a “right of return.”

        All of these issues are inextricably linked. Why didn’t Obama insist, in his same speech telling the Israelis what they must do for “peace,” that the Palestinians must renounce once and for all their bogus claim for the right of millions of descendents of the original refugees to return to their so-called “homes” within Israel’s pre-1967 borders?

        As Prime Minister Netanyahu’s statement, issued in response to Obama’s speech, pointed out:

        Without a solution to the refugee issue by settling them outside of Israel, no territorial concessions will end the conflict. Equally, the Palestinians, and not just the United States, must recognize Israel as the nation state of the Jewish people, and any peace agreement with them must end all claims against Israel.

        Whatever intentions Obama may have had in making his reckless proposal, his meddling where he does not belong will likely make the Jews’ historic and legitimate homeland a living Hell.

        http://www.newsrealblog.com/2011/05/19/president-obamas-message-to-israel-go-to-hell/

  21. LOI,

    No, stop attacking us, then we’ll give up the land

    But this is what Hamas did.
    They prevented attacks on the hope Israel would stop building in the occupied areas.

    So let’s be clear.
    This was not a demand to return the occupied lands.
    This was a demand to stop building on occupied lands.

    And Israel refused.

    So your pro-Israel defense as being “conciliatory” is patently false.

  22. LOI,

    In particular, the recent announcement of an agreement between Fatah and Hamas raises profound and legitimate questions for Israel – how can one negotiate with a party that has shown itself unwilling to recognize your right to exist. In the weeks and months to come, Palestinian leaders will have to provide a credible answer to that question

    The fact that both Fatah and Hamas HAVE negiotated with Israel places the “unwilling to recognize” comments as merely rhetoric and not policy.

    No less than the Israeli politicians calling Palestinians “dogs who deserve to be kicked”.

    • BF: Do you recognize Israel’s right to exist? This is a Yes or No question.

      • Anita,

        It is not a yes and no question when you declare an abstraction (a nation state) has RIGHTS, something that can only be applied to a human individual.

        PEOPLE have RIGHTS.

        • Ok, then do you recognize that the people of Israel have a right to live on that particular plot of land called Israel? Yes or No?

          • Anita,

            I recognize that people have a RIGHT to live on their land, period.

            • Mathius says:

              Do you recognize that the current inhabitants of Eretz Israel have a right to live where they currently do? Why/why not?

              • Mathius,

                No man has a right to steal another man’s land, and then proclaim a right to such land.

              • Mathius says:

                The current residents didn’t steal anything. They bought from others who bought from others who might have stolen the land. The same can be said of the Palestinians who left – that is, they bought it or settled there after stealing it from the previous inhabitants many many years before.

                Why is it that the Palestinian’s claim supersedes the current residents’ claims given that they both acquired it via moral means from individuals who acquired it via immoral means?

              • Yeah! What he said!

      • Mathius says:

        I’m not sure he’s physically capable of answering just yes/no..

  23. Question

    I put a $5 into a vending machine in Seattle for a $2 bottle of water ( 👿 ). I was given 3 of those gold dollars as change. Is this the same gold dollars that we were speaking of a while back that are basically illegal?

    • Mathius says:

      Are they just gold colored / plated? Or are they actually gold? Maybe you got a really good deal and just don’t realize it. 🙂

      • Oh No! They don’t look anything like my real gold! 🙂

        They’re almost bronze colored gold, niks stamped into the edges, Statue of Liberty on one side, different presidents on the other side. By the way..who ever heard of Franklin Pierce?

        • Mathius says:

          Who hasn’t?

          [Captain Benjamin] Franklin Pierce (AKA Hawkeye Pierce), born in Crab Apple Cove, Maine. He was drafted for service in the Korean War and served as chief surgeon in the 4077th Mobile Army Surgical Hospital for 11 years (which is, oddly, eight years longer than the duration of the Korean War).

          I was unaware that he was featured on any legal tender currency.

  24. Hu Huh of course I believe in free speech-it’s just that sprewing(sp?) of hate I don’t like–We are so doomed!!!!!!

  25. srael has returned Sinai to Egypt. Under the terms of the peace treaty Israel signed with Egypt, there has been more than thirty years of relative peace between the two countries. However, that peace is now threatened as a result of the so-called Arab Spring Obama is so proud of, which swept Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak from power and left a vacuum that is likely to be filled by the Egyptian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood.

    Like all deadly lies, this has a grain of truth.

    True, returning land has led to peace, but this fact is ignored as it is inconvenient when applied to Palestinian land.

    False, there is no “Brotherhood” rising in Egypt.

    False, the threat of the Egyptian accord has nothing to do with the Brotherhood, but everything to do with the horrific treatment of the Palestinians by Israel.

    What is rarely mentioned is that in the Egyptian peace treaty Israel committed itself to establishing Palestinian homeland.

    But Israel knew it would never do this, and sucked Egypt into the treaty with a fake promise.

    Decades later, Egyptians -who held up their side of the bargain- feel betrayed by the Israeli duplicity, and doubly so.

    Not only has Israel refused to hold to its agreement on par its normal behavior of ignoring its agreements, the peace treaty made the conditions worse for the Palestinians, as without the Egyptian military threat, Israel’s abusive hand was not stayed, but doubled upon the Palestinians.

  26. Mathius says:
    • Mathius,

      You still have to pay tax on the capital gains.

      All they avoided was prepaying the tax.

      • Mathius says:

        That’s a start.

        But the gov can’t tax what they can’t find.. once it’s in my hand, I’ll turn it in somewhere as needed. Good luck charging me cap gains.

        • Mathius,

          But the gov can’t tax what they can’t find

          So says the tax evader as he sits in jail……

          …they do not have to find anything…

          …they come to your house with your tax return that says “0 income” and ask a simple questions:

          “How did you buy ‘this’ if you have no money?”

          …the End (of you).

          • Mathius says:

            “How did you buy ‘this’ if you have no money?”

            I plead the fifth.

            • Mathius,

              You poor soul. You really do not understand the tax code at all.

              You cannot plead the 5th in the matters of Tax. You are compelled to testify, or risk jail.

              • Mathius says:

                Really? I’ve never heard that. Source?

              • Mathius,

                Also be aware that the IRS does NOT have to prove income.

                All they need to do is demonstrate tax evasion.

                You buying stuff with “no money” is impossible. Therefore, they merely need to point to the fact that you own stuff, therefore must have an income, therefore owe tax.

                You have all the onus on you to prove how you came to have real goods without income.

              • Mathius says:

                Source?

              • Buck the Wala says:

                BF:

                You cannot be compelled to testify in a criminal case for tax fraud/evasion.

                “The IRS does not need to prove income. All they have to do is demonstrate [prove] evasion.” While technically true, simply making the argument that you bought stuff while filing a tax return indicating -$0- is not nearly sufficient. The burden is on the government to prove fraud/evasion beyond a reasonable doubt.

  27. Buck the Wala says:

    Due to the coming Rapture this weekend, I wanted to wish you all well and thank you for the good times we’ve shared. I’ve always enjoyed the lively debates and distraction from the grind of work.

    I sincerely regret not having had the time to participate in the daily discussions over the past week or so. I’ve been bogged down at work; seems that everyone in NJ wants to get their wills drafted and signed prior to the rapture to ensure their affairs are in order.

    🙂

    • Mathius says:

      Don’t worry, Buck.. Anita and V.H. will be Raptured, but most of the rest of us will still be here.

      Assuming we survive the earthquakes and rivers of lava, and somehow get the power-grid back up, and if the wordpress servers don’t go down…

      There’s also a bit in there about a 7-headed dragon.. I’d keep an eye out for that one.. that could get pretty nasty.

      • 🙂 VH Party at my lake Sunday! Jesus will be there! 🙂

      • Buck the Wala says:

        I wouldn’t want to have to wrestle with a 7-headed dragon. Six heads, maybe. But not 7.

        • Mathius says:

          Not just that.. seven heads and TEN horns!

          No word yet on how the horns are distributed, if three of the heads have two and four of the heads have one, or if one lucky head got them all.

          I’m looking forward to finding out. Also, it will have seven crowns, presumably one on each head, but that also remains to be verified.

    • Buck, send me some of those addresses (signed wills). Soon as they take off, I’m there (looting the joint) … you’re in for 10%

    • The End of the World already happened, back in 476 CE.

      The GDP (by various calculations) went up from 30 million tonnes of wheat equilivent to 50 million tonne of wheat.

  28. Mathius

    The current residents didn’t steal anything. They bought from others who bought from others who might have stolen the land.

    Buying stolen property is a crime in most jurisdictions.

    The same can be said of the Palestinians who left – that is, they bought it or settled there after stealing it from the previous inhabitants many many years before.

    You probably cannot say this, for you have no knowledge to confirm such.

    Why is it that the Palestinian’s claim supersedes the current residents’ claims given that they both acquired it via moral means from individuals who acquired it via immoral means?

    Because we have knowledge of what has happened today, here, there is no doubt.

    • So why don’t you advocate the US return it’s land to Mexico, Spain, England and the Indians?

      • LOI,

        See above.
        People own land, not abstractions.

        Prove that a living person has right to a property.

        • Mathius says:

          Can you prove that you have a right to the property you call home?

          Presumably you bought it from someone.

          Presumably they bought it from someone.

          Maybe it was in their family for a while.

          Presumably they bought it from someone.

          Presumably they bought it from someone.

          Presumably they acquired it from Native Americans.

          …..

          Prove that this last transaction was not theft by violence, or I demand that you relinquish your home to your nearest tribe.

          • Mathius,

            Presumably they acquired it from Native Americans.

            Who? Give me a name of the person.

            …..

            Prove that this last transaction was not theft by violence, or I demand that you relinquish your home to your nearest tribe.

            I need not prove anything, for you have not provided a single shred of evidence that anyone called a “tribe” owned it.

            • Mathius says:

              So the burden of proof falls on the individual wishing to claim it?

              Ok.

              What standard of proof do you require?

              • Mathius,

                To establish a claim on property, you must demonstrate you have a claim to begin with, otherwise, any fool whose name starts with “M” can claim anything at any time.

                Standard of Proof:
                Names Person, land location and claim to title, plus description of why the person so named does not have said property claim today.

              • Mathius says:

                “claim to title”.. well there’s a sticky wicket.. clarify?

        • Who Says Lawyers Don’t Have a Sense of Humor?

          A New Orleans lawyer sought an FHA loan for a client. He was told the loan would be granted if he could prove satisfactory title to a parcel of property being offered as collateral. The title to the property dated back to 1803, which took the lawyer three months to track down.

          After sending the information to the FHA, he received the following reply (actual letter):

          “Upon review of your letter adjoining your client’s loan application, we note that the request is supported by an Abstract of Title. While we compliment the able manner in which you have prepared and presented the application, we must point out that you have only cleared title to the proposed collateral proper back to 1803. Before final approval can be accorded, it will be necessary to clear the title back to its origin.”

          Annoyed, the lawyer responded as follows (actual letter):

          “Your letter regarding title in Case No. 189156 has been received. I note that you wish to have title extended further than the 194 years covered by the present application. I was unaware that any educated person in this country, particularly those working in the property area, would not know that Louisiana was purchased by the U.S. from France in 1803, the year of origin identified in our application. For the edification of uninformed FHA bureaucrats, the title to the land prior to U.S. ownership was obtained from France, which had acquired it by Right of Conquest from Spain. The land came into possession of Spain by Right of Discovery made in the year 1492 by a sea captain named Christopher Columbus, who had been granted the privilege of seeking a new route to India by the then reigning monarch, Isabella.

          “The good queen, being a pious woman and careful about titles, almost as much as the FHA, took the precaution of securing the blessing of the Pope before she sold her jewels to fund Columbus’ expedition. Now the Pope, as I’m sure you know, is the emissary of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. And God, it is commonly accepted, created this world. Therefore, I believe it is safe to presume that He also made that part of the world called Louisiana. He, therefore, would be the owner of origin.

          “I hope to hell you find His original claim to be satisfactory.

          Now, may we have our damn loan?”

          They got it.

    • Mathius says:

      Buying stolen property is a crime in most jurisdictions. No. Knowingly buying stolen property is a crime in most jurisdictions. If you believe the owner has a rightful claim, there is no crime. Mens Rea applies.

      You probably cannot say this, for you have no knowledge to confirm such. That’s true. Similarly, you cannot say it of the current occupants since the Palestinians did not keep thorough records and the ranks of Palestinians old enough to have actually lived there (thus direct memory) is pretty thin.

      Because we have knowledge of what has happened today, here, there is no doubt. Since when does having knowledge make the difference in your eyes? My opinion, sure.. but yours…?

      I remember fighting with you for hours over a fictitious pile of gold. I posited that you found a pile of gold, can you take it? – you said no, it belongs to the original owner. I posited that the owner was dead – you asked how I knew? I posited that he left a note. You said it belonged to his heirs. I posited that his note specified he had no heirs. You said it belonged to whoever owned the land. I posited that no one owned the land. You demanded proof. I said the land was on the surface of the moon. You said “are you sure nobody owns the moon?” Do you remember this conversation?

      So, if the morality barrier, in your mind, is absolute 100% (ie, impossible) conviction that something has no owner, how could the Palestinians possible own the land in the first place? Therefore, if the Palestinians have no right to it, the Israelis can’t have stolen it (from them, anyway).

      By this logic, I think you should have to concede that NEITHER group has an unassailable moral claim to the land. So, given this, why should the group that doesn’t occupy the land have the superior right to it?

        • Mathius says:

          Care to elaborate?

          Also, I’d like to add that the Palestinians fled, but for the most part, were not evicted by the incoming Jews. How does ownership of land work if you leave that land of your own free will and then later decide you want it back after someone else has moved in?

          Remember, that during the foundation of Israel, it was the Muslim clerics who hysterically convinced the masses that the Jews would kill them all. Though, yes, this did happen in a few instances, for the most part, the Jews just set up Kibbutzim in uncontested dessert. These, of course, were attacked en frequently and violently.

          Also adding, one of my personal all-time favorite novels: Exodus by Leon Uris

          • Mathius,

            but for the most part, were not evicted by the incoming Jews

            You jest.

            An army approaching who already slaughtered villages is approaching. You run. Now you claim they weren’t evicted but left on their own accord.

            Exodus by Leon Uris

            Fictional propaganda loosely based on history.

            • Mathius says:

              The Israelis really weren’t an army at the founding.. this took a little while to get together. They certainly invaded Jerusalem and a few other areas, but for the most part, 99% of the land “stolen” was unoccupied dessert which they settled with Kibbutzim.

              These settlements were attacked by Arabs armed and trained by the British who were supposed to be leaving the land to form a Jewish state.

              Re Exodus: have you actually read it? It’s a fantastic novel and far more historically (though admittedly one-sided) than you give it credit for.

  29. Charlie, I would be very happy to buy you this book if you would read and review for the rest of us. 🙂

    http://video.foxnews.com/v/950932342001/your-teacher-said-what/?playlist_id=86856

    • Mathius says:

      This interview is hurting my brain.

      “I’m big on American exceptionalism” – code for I believe we’re better than everyone else, but I have no reason for this belief

      “If it looks a factory if polluting, you don’t just shut it down. You look to see if it’s really polluting or if it’s safe” – objection, straw man

      “Are the people who think it’s bad to make money? Yes.” NO! I realize she’s a kid, but her logic on the back of this question is absurd and in no way supports her conclusion.

      “Do we cut down the trees or protect the spotted owls? I want to set up a little oasis for them and cut down other timber” – Right because the owls will distinguish between “the oasis” and “the killing zone”.

      Note: extensive paraphrasing

      • What do you want you child taught? Pick one.

        Capitalism is an economic system, known for exploiting the earth and the poor, using the middle class to pay taxes, all for the benefit of the rich, upper class.

        Capitalism as a system where production is carried out to generate profit. It is credited with leading into the Industrial revolution which resulted in raising the standard of living in every country that industrialized to the highest levels in history.

    • No way, LOI. Blake scares the living shit out of me. So does her dad. That is obvious brainwashing going on (he had to answer her questions for her to Greta) … no way. I’m sure there are an equal number of brainwashed kids from the other side of the political spectrum, but I don’t have the desire or energy to read obvious propaganda. I’m sure his intentions are good, make no mistake, but reading that would be like reread a USW post (without the sarcasm) … 🙂

      • So you agree with her teachers, the economic bubble was all Wall Street and evil capitalism? And her dad answered mostly about who they had met. But I guess you are OK with thew barinwashing, as long as they are state approved.

        • Not at all, but you need to think that way to convince yourself capitalism brings about the greatest prosperity to all (the greater good does not agree at all).

          By the way, I have no doubt the economic crisis was the fault of capitalism gone wild (Wall Street) and yous can blame corporatism and mercantilism all yous want … it’s all born from capitalism (because money will always protect itself in whatever forms are necessary—this particular government is the best example). Until I see examples of the free market benefiting more than those who already have, I’m not buying into the assumption it (truly free markets, etc.) would work.

  30. Mathius,

    Buying stolen property is a crime in most jurisdictions. No. Knowingly buying stolen property is a crime in most jurisdictions. If you believe the owner has a rightful claim, there is no crime.Mens Rea applies.

    Not correct.
    Mens Rea only applies to guilt, not the crime.

    If you buy stolen goods innocently, you still must return it when the rightful owner is identified.

    You probably cannot say this, for you have no knowledge to confirm such. That’s true. Similarly, you cannot say it of the current occupants since the Palestinians did not keep thorough records and the ranks of Palestinians old enough to have actually lived there (thus direct memory) is pretty thin.

    Your claim is NOT true. There are ample records. The British are very good accountants.

    Further, word of mouth claims, based on testimony of heirs on behalf of their forefathers all who can be named is valid (and not ‘thin’).

    I remember fighting with you for hours over a fictitious pile of gold. I posited that you found a pile of gold, can you take it? – you said no, it belongs to the original owner. I posited that the owner was dead – you asked how I knew? I posited that he left a note. You said it belonged to his heirs. I posited that his note specified he had no heirs. You said it belonged to whoever owned the land. I posited that no one owned the land. You demanded proof. I said the land was on the surface of the moon. You said “are you sure nobody owns the moon?” Do you remember this conversation?

    Yep, and I also said too that making up impossible stories to prove is a fallacy.

    Since we have no ownership of the moon, there can be no human gold storage there either.

    So bring your little tale back down to earth, and we can review it.

    So, if the morality barrier, in your mind, is absolute 100% (ie, impossible) conviction that something has no owner, how could the Palestinians possible own the land in the first place?

    There is the danger of using an impossible fiction and applying it in reality. You get all screwed up about “ownership” of property by human beings.

    • Mathius says:

      If you buy stolen goods innocently, you still must return it when the rightful owner is identified. Yes, but it is not a crime. Buck, help me our here.

      The British are very good accountants. This goes back well before the British. For fun, let’s start just before the diaspora, shall we?

      There is the danger of using an impossible fiction and applying it in reality. You get all screwed up about “ownership” of property by human beings. Our conversation demonstrated clearly that your view requires an impossible standard of certainty in order to take ownership of something. Forget that the scenario if fictional, the fact is that you required me to go to absurd lengths to permit taking ownership of an “unowned” item, and even after going to absurd lengths, you still were not satisfied. So the question still applies:

      So, if the morality barrier, in your mind, is absolute 100% (ie, impossible) conviction that something has no owner, how could the Palestinians possible own the land in the first place?

      • Buck the Wala says:

        Re: knowledge and crime

        Mathius is correct – it is not a crime, as in you, the individual buyer, did not commit a crime.

        Mens Rea does not only apply to guilt vs. innocence – it applies to whether or not a crime was committed in the first instance. Mens Rea is an element of the crime itself.

        You’re welcome Mathius.

  31. Mathius,

    If you buy stolen goods innocently, you still must return it when the rightful owner is identified. Yes, but it is not a crime. Buck, help me our here.

    It is a crime
    You avoid punishment because of Mens Rea
    You still lose the stuff.

    The British are very good accountants. This goes back well before the British. For fun, let’s start just before the diaspora, shall we?

    Go back as far as you can find records with names and location.

    Our conversation demonstrated clearly that your view requires an impossible standard of certainty in order to take ownership of something.

    No, it does not. It demonstrates that using fantasy to provide proof of reality is a fallacy.

    Forget that the scenario if fictional, the fact is that you required me to go to absurd lengths to permit taking ownership of an “unowned” item, and even after going to absurd lengths, you still were not satisfied.

    Not absurd at all. It all goes down to proof of ownership. When the proof runs out, +1 that point is the owner.

    So, if the morality barrier, in your mind, is absolute 100% (ie, impossible) conviction that something has no owner, how could the Palestinians possible own the land in the first place?

    Because they lived there and have proof.

    • Mathius says:

      It is a crime
      You avoid punishment because of Mens Rea

      No. You avoid punishment because to qualify as a crime, you must need intent. Lack of intent means you are not guilty, thus no punishment. Reference

      Go back as far as you can find records with names and location. OK, I don’t have records on hand, but can you show that the current claimants have a direct line back to these earliest records?

      Because they lived there and have proof. What proof of ownership though? And they can’t prove that they owned the desert where they didn’t live, where these illegal settlements are being set up. The Israeli settlements aren’t being build over Palestinian villages, they’re being built in the middle of nowhere in the desert.

      ::sigh::

      • Mathius,

        No. You avoid punishment because to qualify as a crime, you must need intent. Lack of intent means you are not guilty, thus no punishment.

        Guilt: Some statutes provide that a person has knowledge if he knows, or has reason to know, that goods are stolen.

        Another test is whether a reasonable person would suspect that the property was stolen.

        Knowledge is commonly proved by the circumstances surrounding the receipt of the property. For example, unexplained possession of goods that were recently stolen raises a presumption that the possessor received them illegally.

        In order to be guilty, the receiver must intend to deprive the owner of the property.

        The crime is committed even if the receiver intends to obtain a reward for returning the property because she has gained a benefit from depriving the owner of possession, even temporarily.

      • Mathius,

        Go back as far as you can find records with names and location. OK, I don’t have records on hand, but can you show that the current claimants have a direct line back to these earliest records?

        Yes, they do. There is no dispute here, including from the Zionists.

        This is why I find this very strange. Your argument thread here is not used -at all- by any Zionist.

        They know they stole the land, because they call it Occupied Territory.

        Because they lived there and have proof. What proof of ownership though?

        The fact they built a house on it, and lived there for a very long time goes a long way to proof their ownership.

        And they can’t prove that they owned the desert where they didn’t live, where these illegal settlements are being set up.

        Again, let’s be clear. People own land, not abstractions.

        Don’t bother offering arguments that require an abstraction.

  32. Mathius,

    The Israelis really weren’t an army at the founding..

    Say what?
    Irgun:
    “National Military Organization in the Land of Israel”

    Haganah:
    “The Defense”

    What were these, a boy scout troop????

    this took a little while to get together. They certainly invaded Jerusalem and a few other areas, but for the most part, 99% of the land “stolen” was unoccupied dessert which they settled with Kibbutzim.

    Where the Israeli settled peacefully has never been disputed, including the Palestinians. Jews have lived in Palestine for centuries – nothing new here.

    These settlements were attacked by Arabs armed and trained by the British who were supposed to be leaving the land to form a Jewish state.

    Ah, no, the other way around.
    the Haganah participated actively to protect British interests and to quell Arab rebellion using the FOSH, and then Hish units. At that time, the Haganah fielded 10,000 mobilized men along with 40,000 reservists. Although the British administration did not officially recognize the Haganah, the British security forces cooperated with it by forming the Jewish Settlement Police, Jewish Supernumerary Police and Special Night Squads, which were trained and led by Colonel Orde Wingate.

    Re Exodus: have you actually read it? It’s a fantastic novel and far more historically (though admittedly one-sided) than you give it credit for.

    Of course I have read it, and my comments remains steadfast.

  33. Mathius,

    claim to title, sticky

    Not at all sticky.
    “Preponderance of evidence” is the standard, not “Beyond a Shadow of a Doubt”

    • Mathius says:

      Oh really!

      Wow.

      OK, so you have a right to ownership.

      And you’re saying I can crack that right if the preponderance of evidence suggests you’re wrong?

      Who are you, and what have you done with Black Flag?

      If the preponderance of evidence suggests that you’re a threat to me, can I use violence on you to protect myself?

      • Mathius,

        There is nothing bizarre with my position that should startle you.

        Please stick to one line of dialogue (property ownership) and not drift. You tend to get all tied up inside yourself otherwise.

        (And yes, preponderance of evidence is exactly what the Clear and Present Danger doctrine rests upon)

        • Mathius says:

          I think you’ve gone senile on me…

          I could swear that you’ve always held that you must be absolutely certain before you can use clear and present danger as a justification.. Now I just have to be more convinced than not?

          Ok, that’s it for me, time to do some work and go home to my wife.

          • Mathius,

            CPD rests upon a preponderance, because if you need to wait to beyond a shadow, you’re dead.

            “Beyond a Shadow” evidence tends to be factual. The only way I know -for sure- that you will kill me is for you to kill me.

            Preponderance has “degree” – and CPD measures those degrees, and yes, as my advice to you it better be very convincing.

  34. Black Flag Says:
    May 20, 2011 at 3:22 pm

    LOI,

    “See above.
    People own land, not abstractions.
    Prove that a living person has right to a property.”

    By your statements, the Palestinians, as a people have no more claim to the land than the Jews….
    And I’m out of here, hot date with the misses

    • LOI,

      Yes.

      Those who lost their land get them back. You know I do not measure land by abstractions of politic entities.

    • However, when we discuss the issue, we do generalize and accumulate the masses.

      As a large group, people called Palestinians lost their land to a large group identified as Israelis.

      So as a large group, they are persecuted by the large group called Israelis.

      • Sort of reminds me of a large group of people called native American Indians who lost their land to resettled Europeans …

        • Charlie,

          Yes it does.

        • Mathius says:

          Shut up, Charlie.. I don’t want to have to read another 3,000 word essay on why that’s different and how BF actually morally owns his house but the Israelis don’t own theirs.

          • Mathius,

            My house is clear.
            Your might not be.

            Further, it can be argued that the Indians lost their land by Right of Conquest.

            Remember the doctrine of Right of Land.

            Conquest
            Trade
            Terra Nova – “land with no law”

            Right by Conquest was invalidate in 1945 by Nuremberg and made to be a war crime.

            • Buck the Wala says:

              So the act of invading and conquering land was always a valid right (of the conquering party, of course), up until some men sitting behind closed doors decided to make a law declaring this practice to be a ‘war crime’?

              This doesn’t sound like you at all BF.

        • Buck the Wala says:

          Stop it Charlie! You know that doesn’t matter and is completely irrelevant to this discussion.

          • Yous mugs should see the smile on my mug right now …

            • And since I’m reading Burroughs again … I’m curious what BF thinks of him (another anarchist) …

              • Charlie,

                Sorry, who?

              • My fault, BF. William S. Burroughs (Naked Lunch, Junkie, etc.). Shot his wife in the forehead (accident/maybe?) … but he was a devout anarchist (probably more left leaning than yourself, but definitely an anarchist).

              • Charlie,

                I have to admit I have not read his work.

                But a quick Wiki read later….

                …he murders his “wife”…
                …he is druggie….
                …he is in legal trouble in nearly every western country ….
                …he believes in magic….

                …maybe he is an anarchist, maybe not….
                …but he is one bizarre guy.

  35. A Puritan Descendant says:

    “Why the debt ceiling absolutely, positively, will be raised
    In just 58 seconds, an economist makes an ironclad argument for expanding the government’s authority to borrow”

    see the 58 second video > http://www.salon.com/news/budget_showdown/?story=/tech/htww/2011/05/20/why_the_debt_ceiling_will_be_raised

    Pretty simple right?

  36. Charlie,

    but you need to think that way to convince yourself capitalism brings about the greatest prosperity to all (the greater good does not agree at all).

    Capitalism, which is that the ownership of the reward a man’s own effort, is the optimum manner to improve the prosperity of mankind.

    Great good theory requires violence.
    When resource allocation is done by violence, violence is rewarded.
    What is rewarded is multiplied.
    Violence expands from the thief into the murderer.
    Society collapses as slaughter dominates.

    This is why every society that has invoked such a philosophy has suffered such a slaughter, whether Soviet Russia under Stalin, China under Man, Cambodia under Pol Pot.

    By the way, I have no doubt the economic crisis was the fault of capitalism gone wild (Wall Street) and yous can blame corporatism and mercantilism all yous want … it’s all born from capitalism (because money will always protect itself in whatever forms are necessary—this particular government is the best example).

    Correct. A man will protect himself and the earns of his own effort from those that wish to steal that effort from him.

    Thus, the battle over control of the legitimized thief and murderer becomes paramount so to protect oneself FROM the that thief and murderer. As it turns out, once in control, you can turn that thief and murderer to prey upon your enemies.

    To stop this; end the legitimacy of theft and murder.

    Until I see examples of the free market benefiting more than those who already have, I’m not buying into the assumption it (truly free markets, etc.) would work.

    Until I see voluntary trade between men benefit men, I will assume that voluntary trade cannot work.

    Yet, everyday you prove this by your own hand. But you ignore it.

    • Can I get this guy going or what?

    • Capitalism, which is that the ownership of the reward a man’s own effort, is the optimum manner to improve the prosperity of mankind.

      While capitalism doesn’t require violence, it sure does seem to embrace it (not the theory, BF) the actual actions involved. Very little (if any) of what is prosperous in this (Sarah Palin voice) “great land of ours, the united states of america” came
      about through sheer hard work alone. There seems to have been an awful lot of exploitation, violence, robbery, murder, et al … how you ignore that “evil” fact doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.

      • Charlie

        While capitalism doesn’t require violence, it sure does seem to embrace it (not the theory, BF) the actual actions involved. Very little (if any) of what is prosperous in this (Sarah Palin voice) “great land of ours, the united states of america” came
        about through sheer hard work alone. There seems to have been an awful lot of exploitation, violence, robbery, murder, et al … how you ignore that “evil” fact doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.

        You hold a very bizarre economic theory that states, simply, the “harder” the work (I assume physical) the more they get in money.

        The economic fact, Charlie, is that men trade VALUE for VALUE.

        Your complaint is irrational as it stands.

        You point your finger at the man who IS PAID MONEY.

        You do not understand that some one gave him that money for a reason.

        You are actually complaining about how another person spends their own money!

        If I want to give LOI a million bucks because I like him, who are you to have any say in that?

        If I want to give LOI a million bucks in return for a minute of advice, who are you to have any say in that, too?

        The point: It is my money to spend how I see fit, and not your money

        • You hold a very bizarre economic theory that states, simply, the “harder” the work (I assume physical) the more they get in money.

          Nope. It can be intellectual work as well. The point being, value for value is a nice hypothetical dream, but when one is exploited (whether forced or not), the value is skewed.

          You also ignore the other fact I stated: that violence was a great part of the expansion of wealth in America (whether a capitalist theory promotes it or not), it happened. The taking of lands, the exploitation of workers home and abroad (i.e., migrant workers here, third world workers abroad) who do not get their “fare” share (unless you find if fair that a owner dictates the miserly wages–and you seem to find it fair) … that people were shoved off (or murdered off) their lands for capitalist expansion (here you’ll blame government again–a government owned by capitalists) … but I’ll stop now because I have other stuff to do tonight.

  37. Buck,

    So the act of invading and conquering land was always a valid right (of the conquering party, of course),

    I am giving you historical references in the matters of the ME conflict.

    The arguments presented have held that Israel has a right to the occupied territories.

    I have offered FACT that it is war crime to do so.

    I do not -ever- support the taking of anything by violence.

  38. Charlie Stella

    I have told you once if not a hundred times we did not steal the land from the Indians. We took it fair and square according to the rules of the Eye..talians.

    Five Hundred Years of Injustice:
    The Legacy of Fifteenth Century Religious Prejudice
    by Steve Newcomb
    When Christopher Columbus first set foot on the white sands of Guanahani island, he performed a ceremony to “take possession” of the land for the king and queen of Spain, acting under the international laws of Western Christendom. Although the story of Columbus’ “discovery” has taken on mythological proportions in most of the Western world, few people are aware that his act of “possession” was based on a religious doctrine now known in history as the Doctrine of Discovery. Even fewer people realize that today – five centuries later – the United States government still uses this archaic Judeo-Christian doctrine to deny the rights of Native American Indians.
    Origins of the Doctrine of Discovery
    To understand the connection between Christendom’s principle of discovery and the laws of the United States, we need to begin by examining a papal document issued forty years before Columbus’ historic voyage In 1452, Pope Nicholas V issued to King Alfonso V of Portugal the bull Romanus Pontifex, declaring war against all non-Christians throughout the world, and specifically sanctioning and promoting the conquest, colonization, and exploitation of non-Christian nations and their territories.
    Under various theological and legal doctrines formulated during and after the Crusades, non-Christians were considered enemies of the Catholic faith and, as such, less than human. Accordingly, in the bull of 1452, Pope Nicholas directed King Alfonso to “capture, vanquish, and subdue the saracens, pagans, and other enemies of Christ,” to “put them into perpetual slavery,” and “to take all their possessions and property.” [Davenport: 20-26] Acting on this papal privilege, Portugal continued to traffic in African slaves, and expanded its royal dominions by making “discoveries” along the western coast of Africa, claiming those lands as Portuguese territory.
    Thus, when Columbus sailed west across the Sea of Darkness in 1492 – with the express understanding that he was authorized to “take possession” of any lands he “discovered” that were “not under the dominion of any Christian rulers” – he and the Spanish sovereigns of Aragon and Castile were following an already well-established tradition of “discovery” and conquest. [Thacher:96] Indeed, after Columbus returned to Europe, Pope Alexander VI issued a papal document, the bull Inter Cetera of May 3, 1493, “granting” to Spain – at the request of Ferdinand and Isabella – the right to conquer the lands which Columbus had already found, as well as any lands which Spain might “discover” in the future.
    In the Inter Cetera document, Pope Alexander stated his desire that the “discovered” people be “subjugated and brought to the faith itself.” [Davenport:61] By this means, said the pope, the “Christian Empire” would be propagated. [Thacher:127] When Portugal protested this concession to Spain, Pope Alexander stipulated in a subsequent bull – issued May 4, 1493 – that Spain must not attempt to establish its dominion over lands which had already “come into the possession of any Christian lords.” [Davenport:68] Then, to placate the two rival monarchs, the pope drew a line of demarcation between the two poles, giving Spain rights of conquest and dominion over one side of the globe, and Portugal over the other.
    During this quincentennial of Columbus’ journey to the Americas, it is important to recognize that the grim acts of genocide and conquest committed by Columbus and his men against the peaceful Native people of the Caribbean were sanctioned by the abovementioned documents of the Catholic Church. Indeed, these papal documents were frequently used by Christian European conquerors in the Americas to justify an incredibly brutal system of colonization – which dehumanized the indigenous people by regarding their territories as being “inhabited only by brute animals.” [Story:135-6]
    The lesson to be learned is that the papal bulls of 1452 and 1493 are but two clear examples of how the “Christian Powers,” or “different States of Christendom,” viewed indigenous peoples as “the lawful spoil and prey of their civilized conquerors.” [Wheaton:270-1] In fact, the Christian “Law of Nations” asserted that Christian nations had a divine right, based on the Bible, to claim absolute title to and ultimate authority over any newly “discovered” Non-Christian inhabitants and their lands. Over the next several centuries, these beliefs gave rise to the Doctrine of Discovery used by Spain, Portugal, England, France, and Holland – all Christian nations.
    The Doctrine of Discovery in U.S. Law
    In 1823, the Christian Doctrine of Discovery was quietly adopted into U.S. law by the Supreme Court in the celebrated case, Johnson v. McIntosh (8 Wheat., 543). Writing for a unanimous court, Chief Justice John Marshall observed that Christian European nations had assumed “ultimate dominion” over the lands of America during the Age of Discovery, and that – upon “discovery” – the Indians had lost “their rights to complete sovereignty, as independent nations,” and only retained a right of “occupancy” in their lands. In other words, Indians nations were subject to the ultimate authority of the first nation of Christendom to claim possession of a given region of Indian lands. [Johnson:574; Wheaton:270-1]
    According to Marshall, the United States – upon winning its independence in 1776 – became a successor nation to the right of “discovery” and acquired the power of “dominion” from Great Britain. [Johnson:587-9] Of course, when Marshall first defined the principle of “discovery,” he used language phrased in such a way that it drew attention away from its religious bias, stating that “discovery gave title to the government, by whose subject, or by whose authority, the discovery was made, against all other European governments.” [Johnson:573-4] However, when discussing legal precedent to support the court’s findings, Marshall specifically cited the English charter issued to the explorer John Cabot, in order to document England’s “complete recognition” of the Doctrine of Discovery. [Johnson:576] Then, paraphrasing the language of the charter, Marshall noted that Cabot was authorized to take possession of lands, “notwithstanding the occupancy of the natives, who were heathens, and, at the same time, admitting the prior title of any Christian people who may have made a previous discovery.” [Johnson:577]
    In other words, the Court affirmed that United States law was based on a fundamental rule of the “Law of Nations” – that it was permissible to virtually ignore the most basic rights of indigenous “heathens,” and to claim that the “unoccupied lands” of America rightfully belonged to discovering Christian European nations. Of course, it’s important to understand that, as Benjamin Munn Ziegler pointed out in The International Law of John Marshall, the term “unoccupied lands” referred to “the lands in America which, when discovered, were ‘occupied by Indians’ but ‘unoccupied’ by Christians.” [Ziegler:46]
    Ironically, the same year that the Johnson v. McIntosh decision was handed down, founding father James Madison wrote: “Religion is not in the purview of human government. Religion is essentially distinct from civil government, and exempt from its cognizance; a connection between them is injurious to both.”
    Most of us have been brought up to believe that the United States Constitution was designed to keep church and state apart. Unfortunately, with the Johnson decision, the Christian Doctrine of Discovery was not only written into U.S. law but also became the cornerstone of U.S. Indian policy over the next century.
    From Doctrine of Discovery
    to Domestic Dependent Nations
    Using the principle of “discovery” as its premise, the Supreme Court stated in 1831 that the Cherokee Nation (and, by implication, all Indian nations) was not fully sovereign, but “may, perhaps,” be deemed a “domestic dependent nation.” [Cherokee Nation v. Georgia] The federal government took this to mean that treaties made with Indian nations did not recognize Indian nations as free of U.S. control. According to the U.S. government, Indian nations were “domestic dependent nations” subject to the federal government’s absolute legislative authority – known in the law as “plenary power.” Thus, the ancient doctrine of Christian discovery and its subjugation of “heathen” Indians were extended by the federal government into a mythical doctrine that the U.S. Constitution allows for governmental authority over Indian nations and their lands. [Savage:59-60]
    The myth of U.S. “plenary power” over Indians – a power, by the way, that was never intended by the authors of the Constitution [Savage:115-17] – has been used by the United States to:
    a. Circumvent the terms of solemn treaties that the U.S. entered into with Indian nations, despite the fact that all such treaties are “supreme Law of the Land, anything in the Constitution notwithstanding.”
    b. Steal the homelands of Indian peoples living east of the Mississippi River, by removing them from their traditional ancestral homelands through the Indian Removal Act of 1835.
    c. Use a congressional statute, known as the General Allotment Act of 1887, to divest Indian people of some 90 million acres of their lands. This act, explained John Collier (Commissioner of Indian Affairs) was “an indirect method – peacefully under the forms of law – of taking away the land that we were determined to take away but did not want to take it openly by breaking the treaties.”
    d. Steal the sacred Black Hills from the Great Sioux nation in violation of the 1868 Treaty of Fort Laramie which recognized the Sioux Nation’s exclusive and absolute possession of their lands.
    e. Pay the Secretary of the Interior $26 million for 24 million acres of Western Shoshone lands, because the Western Shoshone people have steadfastly refused to sell the land and refused to accept the money. Although the Western Shoshone Nation’s sovereignty and territorial boundaries were clearly recognized by the federal government in the 1863 Ruby Valley Treaty, the government now claims that paying itself on behalf of the Western Shoshone has extinguished the Western Shoshone’s title to their lands.
    The above cases are just a few examples of how the United States government has used the Johnson v. McIntosh and Cherokee Nation v. Georgia decisions to callously disregard the human rights of Native peoples. Indeed, countless U.S. Indian policies have been based on the underlying, hidden rationale of “Christian discovery” – a rationale which holds that the “heathen” indigenous peoples of the Americas are “subordinate to the first Christian discoverer,” or its successor. [Wheaton:271]
    As Thomas Jefferson once observed, when the state uses church doctrine as a coercive tool, the result is “hypocrisy and meanness.” Unfortunately, the United States Supreme Court’s use of the ancient Christian Doctrine of Discovery – to circumvent the Constitution as a means of taking Indian lands and placing Indian nations under U.S. control – has proven Madison and Jefferson right.
    Bringing an End to Five Hundred Years of Injustice
    to Indigenous Peoples
    In a country set up to maintain a strict separation of church and state, the Doctrine of Discovery should have long ago been declared unconstitutional because it is based on a prejudicial treatment of Native American people simply because they were not Christians at the time of European arrival. By penalizing Native people on the basis of their non-Christian religious beliefs and ceremonial practices, stripping them of most of their lands and most of their sovereignty, the Johnson v. McIntosh ruling stands as a monumental violation of the “natural rights” of humankind, as well as the most fundamental human rights of indigenous peoples.
    As we move beyond the quincentennial of Columbus’ invasion of the Americas, it is high time to formally renounce and put an end to the religious prejudice that was written into U.S. law by Chief Justice John Marshall. Whether or not the American people – especially the Christian right – prove willing to assist Native people in getting the Johnson ruling overturned will say a lot to the world community about just how seriously the United States takes its own foundational principles of liberty, justice, and religious freedom.
    As we approach the 500th anniversary of the Inter Cetera bulls on May 3 and 4 of 1993, it is important to keep in mind that the Doctrine of Discovery is still being used by countries throughout the Americas to deny the rights of indigenous peoples, and to perpetuate colonization throughout the Western Hemisphere. To begin to bring that system of colonization to an end, and to move away from a cultural and spiritual tradition of subjugation, we must overturn the doctrine at its roots. Therefore, I propose that non-Native people – especially Christians – unite in solidarity with indigenous peoples of the Western Hemisphere to impress upon Pope John Paul II how important it is for him to revoke, in a formal ceremony with indigenous people, the Inter Cetera bulls of 1493.
    Revoking those papal documents and overturning the Johnson v. McIntosh decision are two important first steps toward correcting the injustices that have been inflicted on indigenous peoples over the past five hundred years. They are also spiritually significant steps toward creating a way of life that is no longer based on greed and subjugation. Perhaps then we will be able to use our newfound solidarity to begin to create a lifestyle based on the first indigenous principle: “Respect the Earth and have a Sacred Regard for All Living Things.”
    References
    Cherokee Nation v. Georgia 30 U.S. (5 Pet.) 1, 8 L.Ed. 25 (1831).
    Davenport, Frances Gardiner, 19l7, European Treaties bearing on the History of the United States and its Dependencies to 1648, Vol. 1, Washington, D.C.: Carnegie Institution of Washington.
    Johnson and Graham’s Lessee V McIntosh 21 U.S. (8 Wheat.) 543, 5 L.Ed. 681(1823).
    Rivera-Pagan, Luis N., 1991, “Cross Preceded Sword in ‘Discovery’ of the Americas,” in Yakima Nation Review, 1991, Oct. 4.
    Story, Joseph, 1833, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States Vol. 1 Boston: Little, Brown & Co.
    Thacher, John Boyd, 1903, Christopher Columbus Vol. 11, New York: G.P. Putman’s Sons.
    Williamson, James A., 1962, The Cabot Voyages And Bristol Discovery Under Henry VII, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    Wheaton, Henry, 1855, Elements of International Law, Sixth Edition, Boston: Little Brown, and Co.
    Ziegler, Benjamin Munn, 1939, The International Law of John Marshall, Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press.
    ________________________________________
    Steve Newcomb is an American Indian of Shawnee & Lenape ancestry. For over a decade, he has studied the origins of United States federal Indian law and international law dating back to the early days of Christendom. He is currently completing a book on his findings titled, Pagans In the Promised Land: Religion, Law, and the American Indian.

  39. Charlie Stella Part two

    And now for a little justice for those Eye..talians.

    Indians claim Italy by right of discovery

    From Our Correspondent: Rome, Sept 24, 1992

    Italy, cradle of Western civili¬zation, woke up today to the fact that it has never actually been discovered. The situation, however, was remedied at 11 o’clock in the morning when the chief of the Indian Chippewa tribe, Adam Nordwall, stepped off an Alitalia jumbo jet and claimed it for the Indian people.
    The intrepid explorer, in full Indian dress, accompanied by his wife—in ordinary clothes because her suitcase had been lost in New York—stood on the tarmac of Fiumicino airport here and took possession of Italy “by right of discovery.”
    The fact that Italy has long been inhabited by people who consider themselves to be in full possession of the place was exactly the point that Mr Nordwall was trying to make. “What right had Columbus to discover America when it was already inhabited for thousands of years? The same right that I have to come now to Italy and claim to have discovered your country,” he said.
    The difference, however, was that Columbus “came to conquer a country by force where a peaceful people were living, while I am on a mission of peace and goodwill.”
    Mr Nordwall led a party of Indians which occupied the prison on Alcatraz in San Fran¬cisco Bay in 1969 to call attention to the conditions in which Indians were compelled to live in America.

    I just love my cousin’s sense of humor.

  40. Charlie,

    Nope. It can be intellectual work as well.

    …as long as Charlie is the judge, right?

    But who gave you the right?

    The point being, value for value is a nice hypothetical dream, but when one is exploited (whether forced or not), the value is skewed.

    It is not hypothetical – it is descriptive.

    Every man values things differently then other men – which is why we trade.

    You value what I have more than I, and you have something I value more than you. What you value changes depending on your life changes, and the value of things change ans your life changes.

    Exploitation? What measure? You need something I have, and you want it cheap. But I value it too, so it is not cheap. To you, I am exploiting you because I will not trade cheap.

    All non-violent “exploitation” arguments are generally “I am a cheapskate and want my stuff for free!”

    You also ignore the other fact I stated: that violence was a great part of the expansion of wealth in America

    I do not ignore this, in fact, I have agreed with you on this point.

    But that does not make Free Market systems wrong because you happen to point to a NON-FREE MARKET SYSTEM at work.

    • And since you can’t point to one (free market) that does work, forgetaboutit … we’re circling each other’s tails …

      • Charlie

        Isn’t the market for your books a free market?

      • Thanks, JAC

        ..or that cup’o’java you bought today?
        ..or the fine restaurant dinner you surprised your wife with?

        Voluntary Trade of value for value.

        Free market is scalable, from two to infinite number of people.

        • Ah, so this wonderful economic system of ours IS a free market after all!!!!!!

          Great, now you can get on your knees and thank it for saving Wall Street and all those billionaires from bankruptcy!

          How cool is that? Once again, BF, et al, come to defense of the economic system they usually insist isn’t a free market at all (except when the government is bailing it out). Thanks, guys, for clearing it up … again.

          • Charlie,

            Again you wildly point to “not a free market” as your complaint about the free market.

            Try as you might, pointing north proclaiming it is south does not turn the north south.

            • Once again, you kill me … but try as you might, you can’t worm your way out of the mess capitalism is today and always has been … the chickens are just coming home to roost …

              But maybe in a few hours it’ll all be pointless anyway (this dumber than dumb merry-go-round debates) … something about a rapture?

  41. Charlie,

    our way out of the mess capitalism is today and always has

    What mess?
    You point at white and calling it black does not make white black.

  42. gmanfortruth says:

    For all you guys who are married, don’t ever say this (or you could to give it a try, 🙂 )

    The wife and I were sitting around the breakfast table one lazy Sunday morning.

    I said to her, “If I were to die suddenly, I want you to immediately sell all my stuff.”

    “Now why would you want me to do something like that?” she asked.

    “I figure that you would eventually remarry and I don’t want some other asshole

    using my stuff..”

    She looked at me and said: “What makes you think I’d marry another asshole?”

  43. Buck,

    The burden is on the government to prove fraud/evasion beyond a reasonable doubt.

    Sir,
    While I will agree to your post regarding Mens Rea, here, I know you are out of bounds.

    The onus of proof in tax matters are reversed.

    You are required to prove sources of funds not the government.

    All the government is required to do is point to the obvious fact you spent money…. which infers income, which obligates taxes. You have to prove your source of funds.

    You can say “Oh, I saved a bazzilion dollars after taxes” and you win.

    But if you cannot do that, you lose…badly.

    • Buck the Wala says:

      Either you are conflating two different issues, or I am going down a side track you didn’t intend.

      Yes, the onus is on the taxpayer to prove tax owed (either that the taxpayer is due a refund, or that the taxpayer does not owe additional money).

      But, in the event criminal charges are brought for tax fraud/evasion, you most certainly cannot be compelled to testify and you do retain your 5th Amendment rights.

      • Buck

        So when I get my next “audit” letter from the IRS I should just tell them to pound sand. Right?

        That would force the burden of proof to them instead of putting it on me.

        • Buck the Wala says:

          Your next audit letter!? How many of these are you getting JAC!?

          As I posted to BF — in the audit context, the onus is on the TP; in the criminal context, the onus is on the gov’t.

  44. I’d safely say the left kicked some serious butt in this game of political ping-pong.

    • TRay

      Come on, you know we shouldn’t be constrained by the ideas of a bunch of rich white men who wrote them down hundreds of years ago.

      Govt itself is a “living document”, not just its charter.

  45. SUFA

    Just wanted to share this with those who might not have seen it. A classic example of how bad graphics is used to form or confirm public view points. The graph is a fallacy. But read the article and many of the comments.

    See how many take the graphic at its face value. I would actually go so far as to call this propaganda, given the obvious purpose it was posted at HuffPo.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/20/bush-tax-cuts-debt_n_864812.html

    • gmanfortruth says:

      JAC, This is a perfect example of the left. The graph, claims that the deficit will rise because of tax decreases, which is pure bullshit. The deficit rises because of government spending, which they seemingly can’t stop until all hell breaks loose.

      Most people who frequent HuffPO are sheeple in the 1st degree. Totally clueless about living life withour Big Brother there, because they wrongly believe they are being protected. Idiots. Many make the CS’s of the world look like highly intelligent people that deserve recognition of some kind ( never mind, Obama won the opeace prize, what else can be said).

    • USWeapon says:

      Is it any wonder, with the ignorance and arrogance of the commenters on this article, that the country is falling into the abyss? It makes you want to shake them and ask them where they learned any level of critical thinking. The commenters at Huffington Post, in general with a few exceptions (Mathius), are a stark reminder of how the public education system is completely failing the American people.

      • BF claims this country is doing fine (capitalism anyway) … you guys need to make up your minds … again.

        • Charlie,

          Please find where I said “this country is doing fine”?

          US is Mercantilist, like most other countries.

          All all of them will suffer the consequences of mercantilist policies
          boom/crackup

          • Charlie,

            our way out of the mess capitalism is today and always has

            What mess?
            You point at white and calling it black does not make white black.

            It’s only the free market when, BF?

            I could also go back to where you defended the bailout (those guys who were never wrong, couldn’t possibly be (the best and brightest, etc.) … but you’ll have to backpeddle all over again … capitalism is doing fine in America so long as your on the money receiving end of the bailouts … everybody else payes for it.

  46. Buck

    Respectfully, … you are wrong.

    Reporting and Disclosure .–The line of cases begins with United States v. Sullivan 232 in which a unanimous Court held that the Fifth Amendment did not privilege a bootlegger in not filing an income tax return because the filing would have disclosed the illegality in which he was engaged.

    ”It would be an extreme if not an extravagant application of the Fifth Amendment to say that it authorized a man to refuse to state the amount of his income because it had been made in crime.”

    These requirements were upheld by the Court against self-incrimination challenges on the three grounds that (1) the privilege did not excuse a complete failure to file, (2) since the threshold decision to gamble was voluntary, the required disclosures were not compulsory, and (3) since registration required disclosure only of prospective conduct, the privilege, limited to past or present acts, did not apply. 234

    Constitutional limitations appeared, however, in Albertson v. SACB, 235 which struck down under the self-incrimination clause an order pursuant to statute requiring registration by individual members of the Communist Party or associated organizations. ”In Sullivan the questions in the income tax return were neutral on their face and directed at the public at large, but here they are di rected at a highly selective group inherently suspect of criminal activities. Petitioners’ claims are not asserted in an essentially noncriminal and regulatory area of inquiry, but against an inquiry in an area permeated with criminal statutes, where response to any of the form’s questions in context might involve the petitioners in the admission of a crucial element of a crime.”

    In essence, Buck, you cannot use the 5th to avoid paying tax.

    You can use the 5th IF the disclosure of funds necessary to pay your tax risks your prosecution of another crime (say, extortion).

    • Buck the Wala says:

      I think we’re saying the same thing here BF:

      You cannot use the 5th in a determination of the amount owed. You can most certainly use the 5th in a criminal case for fraud/evasion.

      The difference being, as stated in the Albertson case, whether the context is an ‘essentially noncriminal and regulatory area of inquiry’ versus ‘inquiry in an area permeated with criminal statutes’.

      • gmanfortruth says:

        Buck, Good day Sir! 🙂

        I do have a question. If someone owes alot of back taxes, they would normally pay or go to jail. The last few years or so, many companies claim they can negotiate a lower amount of what is owed. MY question is, why would govt negotiate if they were right?

        • Buck the Wala says:

          Settlement. Its better for the gov’t to get something than nothing. Not to mention oftentimes in these scenarios there is some dispute as to the amount owed.

        • Gman,

          Though Buck offers the typical “government” excuse, I will offer the truth.

          The Government knows they are stealing. They are willing to use whatever means necessary to take your stuff.

          But when faced with even a modicum of resistance, they will backpedal into “negotiation”… why?

          They do not want the attitude of resistance to have a foothold

          If you win your fight – others will fight. The Government knows they will lose the day the people figure out the government are just a gang of thieves.

          So, they will rather have a “settlement” then risk massive resistance.

          I have a true story that demonstrates this.
          Because it was costing me “too much” to fight in court, I settled.

          The settlement:
          I paid a “fine” – the minimum.
          The prosecution offered no case, and I no defense.
          I was NOT guilty.
          No record of guilt was made.

          The judge’s words:
          “I understand, BF, you have an arrangement?”
          “Yes”
          “You are not guilty, but will pay the minimum fine?”
          “Yes”
          “…hmm, I think you would have won this one..”
          “I think so too, but it would cost me too much to continue past this point”.
          “I see”
          “Ok, that’s acceptable by me…see the clerk”

          • gmanfortruth says:

            THat’s mostly what I figured. If what the Govt was doing was really legal, they wouldn’t need to negotiate. Then again Charlie might say they just have a big heart. But, that’s the thinking of Charlie. 🙂

  47. Charlie,

    What mess?
    You point at white and calling it black does not make white black.

    No, Charlie. I know “my color scheme” perfectly.

    You are confused about what is what. You call freedom “slavery”, and freedom “evil”. I offer reason, and do not fall for such inane redefinitions.

    It’s only the free market when, BF?

    Ah, Charlie, you know when.

    The struggle you have with yourself: you know I’m right, which means the position you hold is not right.

    I know you believe in freedom, because that is what you demand for yourself.

    Your struggle: you just don’t want other men to have freedom, just you.

    Free market is wherever a trade happens voluntarily.

    Where the trade is no voluntary, it is NOT a Free Market.

    The easy of this situation confounds you, because it means you advocate for slavery with your philosophy, yet, you do not want to be a slave.

    Your only out:
    Redefine freedom to be slavery, and your slavery to be freedom … as if that will make you “right’.

  48. Post Rapture Party at the Fort of D13…..it is free and all the DP you an drink. I so wanted to see the graves open up and spent all night in a cemetery waiting for such…I wanted to feel the earth quake and for a moment I thought it was…but it was just the after effects of frijoles and peppers kicking in….then there was this bright light….here it is, I thought …..and I heard this booming voice asking me what the hell I was doing in a cemetery after closing hours. The guard was not amused even after I offered him a DP and some frijoles….

    Sigh….then I return to SUFA where my “online” friends are and I find that you are all still here…….even Charlie, the Plutonian. DPM is navigating off the coast of Texas with his new laser guided rail gun and pirate raptor crew…. Life is good.

    • Pluto rocks, Colonel!

      My shin splints are killing me today … way too much aerobic activity yesterday … I need a beer.

      • Hey Charlie…..I just dont understand peole sometimes. Here I am, throwing a post rapture party and in good friendhsip, invited some rather staunch religious friends of mone over for some steaks and taters and jalepeno peppers. Being somewhat of a self proclaimed master griller, and my grilling is well known, I was out grilling when they arrived. I had just put on some steaks that had been marinating for awhile and when queries began where I was, they were told that the master griller was out master basting on the steaks…….they left in an abrupt hurry. The nerve…..

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Sorry I missed the party Colonel. Today it was butterflied backstrap(venison) and hobo potatoes on the grill. 🙂

  49. Much to my disappointment, I thought that the Texas cops had a sense of humor…after rolling through a stop sign, a very agitated policeman asked me if I thought that stop signs were just decorations….sensing that he was agitated, I put on my best sorrowful face (very hard for a Colonel to do, by the way) and I profusely apologized for not coming to a complete stop and offered to correct my mistake by stopping twice at the next one….I guess a $75 ticket for being a smart ass (according to the gendarme) is more preferrable than a stint with Bruno the Barbarian in a jail cell.

    • Didn’t you explain that you have it on good authority that they are more like guidelines than hard rules?

      You need to have DPM with you when you travel on land among the heathens.

      • Hey JAC….top O th evenin to ya……..I even tried the “40 year retired Colonel” bit by having my ID next to my driver’s license. He asked me to pull the driver’s license out and pulled both out…he simply flipped the military ID back at me and proceeded to write the ticket. He was a young whipper snapper but seeing as how I was in violation of traffic laws (my rolling stop ploy did not work either) I decided against trying to humor the lad. To make matters worse, he smiled, as he handed my ticket to me, and said “thank you for your service to our country, Colonel”…..please exercise more diligence at your next stop sign…(sigh)….gotta give the young troop a pat on the back….he was not intimidated.

  50. gmanfortruth says:

    Many of you know of this article from Feb 2010 that I wrote and was published here. I did a republish on my site, as the problem still exists today, and it’s growing.

    http://gmanfortruth.wordpress.com/2011/05/22/our-vets-health-future/

  51. Buck,
    Respectively, you are still wrong.

    You cannot plead the 5th in an attempt to hide your income. You will be compelled to disclose your sources.

    This started with Mathius claiming he’d plead the 5th to avoid disclosing his income to avoid taxes. I said that is not possible, and as confirmed, it is not.

    • Buck the Wala says:

      Then as I said above — perhaps I was going down a track you didn’t intend. You are correct in the scenario of attempting to use the 5th in regards to a determination of your income or tax due.

      • Buck,

        And, to be fair, you are correct that the government needs to prove Mens Rea regarding “Willful failure to file” and “evasion”

%d bloggers like this: