It’s Not Doom and Gloom… It’s Reality

I read the thoughts the other night from one of the long-time participants here at SUFA. They expressed that they don’t often come here any longer and that they probably won’t in the future because, in their opinion, they are not missing anything by not coming to SUFA. I can understand that. SUFA certainly isn’t for everyone. It requires that you at least attempt to set aside your personal dogmas and try to see different points of view. Certainly there are different levels of ability to do so, but that just adds to the charm. What I think makes SUFA great is that most of the people who are on here are at least willing to consider the different perspectives and address them individually (despite the fact that Charlie for some odd reason has fallen into the belief that BF and I share the same perspectives, which is really, really not accurate).

But what struck me as odd about the comment the other night was that the author seems to believe that all of SUFA “salivates over the demise” of this country. With very few exceptions, I have never seen that the readership at SUFA has ever desired the destruction of the United States. What I do see at SUFA is a very harsh critique of the paths and actions of the government of the United States and a judgement of swaths of the citizens that roam within her boundaries. And from my perspective, that judgement comes from both sides. I know that I am certainly guilty of it. And I don’t apologize for my observations about what I see in the US population. It is a little thing I like to call “honest appraisal of the situation.”

I won’t attempt to speak on anyone else’s behalf. We are all adults here and I will leave the other folks to respond to this article answering for themselves as to what they observe or desire for the country. I will speak only for myself. To say that I salivate for the demise of the country is absolutely false. I love this country. I have served her for a long time, both as a ten year veteran of the military and as a political activist in the years since. What I desire is not the demise of the United States, but an alteration of the way that she does business that is more in line with the principles and values that I believe she was built on in the first place. Principles and values that she has struggled to live up to in the two centuries since she was built.

First and foremost is the concept of individual liberty. Personal freedom and individual liberty have become little more than ignored buzzwords in the last ten years. We hear them all the time, but 99% of those who speak those words do so and then the next sentence out of their mouth is something that is in direct contrast. And therein lies the contradictions that folks like BF and JAC consistently point out and chastise. But it is the concept of individual liberty that was the primary principle that this nation was founded on. I am well aware that the nation has not always met that principle in action, but it was the focus of what many embraced about this new nation.

And I am well aware that not everything that I espouse measures up to the principles that I seek. I think that far more does than it did 3 years ago. I am still learning and evolving when it comes to truly embracing the concepts. But I think that I do a fairly good job of listening to the arguments from all sides and altering what I believe whenever I feel a better argument has been made than the one I offered. Despite those that think I am a shill for this side or that side, I continually attempt to learn and apply what I learn.

What I see is a complete lack of personal responsibility in this country at this point. I can get any group of 100 people together and perhaps two will really understand and embrace the concept of personal responsibility. The rest will in some way rely on government to fix things or provide things that government has no business doing in the first place. These people sacrifice individual liberty for convenience and safety. They condone government stripping individual rights and liberties in order to gain something easier for themselves or in order to force others to behave in a way that they wish others to behave.

The same author who believes that SUFA salivates for the demise of the USA also made the statement that we have learned nothing from history. And that is a charge that I take some exception to. If I am nothing else, I am cognizant of the perils of failing to learn from one’s mistakes. I want to say two things about learning from history:

First, I want to point out that much of this “history lessons” that have been offered here at SUFA are irrelevant to the present day or the future of our country. Yes, you can point out the horrible history of slavery or the treatment of the Native Americans. But that doesn’t in any way alter the path that this country should be on. No one alive is responsible for those atrocities and those atrocities hold no bearing on the future. And it should be pointed out that simply because the founders had these faults doesn’t in some way negate the good things they offered or the proper paths that they took. The words of the Declaration of Independence are no less true simply because the men that wrote them didn’t practice what they preached. The sky doesn’t cease to be blue simply because a child rapist  pointed out its color.

However, the mistakes of our past shouldn’t be ignored, either. They happened and we should always endeavor to ensure that we learn from them and make the proper adjustments so that we don’t see a repeat performance of what happened. Allow slavery to be the catalyst for us to learn that taking away the individual liberty of another is wrong and heinous. Don’t point out the horror of slavery while simultaneously advocating a new form of it based on a flawed concept of big government taking away individual liberty!

Second, I want to say that anyone who consistently puts forth that we need to do nothing more than return to the government setup and standards of 1787 has done exactly what is claimed that SUFA doesn’t do: They have failed to learn a single thing from examining history. Allow me to summarize the basic contradiction in that argument when it is coupled with other thoughts from the same crowd of people making it:

  • Their claim is that communism is a failed endeavor, that history shows it won’t work. When those who embrace communism make the statement “this time we will do it right and it will work,” laughter erupts from their mouths as they aptly point out that it is the principles behind communism that will cause it to always fail.
  • But then they make the claim that we need to reset to 1787 and “this time we will do it right and it will work!” They don’t understand that there are some fundamental flaws in what was originally set up and those flaws will cause the same systemic failures that happened the first time around!

Talk about failing to learn from history!

When I started this blog I was a staunch advocate for simply returning to the base of the Constitution and doing it right this time. I believed that the founders had created a flawless system and that fallible men had consequently allowed the system to be corrupted. I credit JAC with siting me down and forcing me to understand that the flaws that allowed our country to falter in her principles must be changed if we hope to encounter a different result. He forced me to understand that if we don’t identify our core principles and ensure that whatever we do must align with them, we will simply go down another path that leads to the same result. The amount of gratitude I have for JAC for forcing that on me is larger than many of you may ever realize.

Yet the concepts put forth during the formation of the nation were sound and the principles that were espoused were morally flawless… All Men Are Created Equal… Individual Liberty… Very Limited Government…

All of these are just and moral principles. History has shown us that some of the other things that were put forth under that same group of people were flawed and the antithesis of what the above principles espoused… Creating law based on religious teachings… Pressing Our Will on those who do not wish to be pressed upon… Racial and Religious Bigotry…

So from the initial days there were flaws. I am all for returning to the principles that made this nation great. But in order to do so effectively we must also understand that there were other principles that doomed the nation to exactly where we have ended up. Learning from history means that we no longer hold the past as sacred, that we choose the great things from our history and return to them while shunning the things that did not mesh with the purest forms of what we were trying to create.

I don’t believe that the readers and authors at SUFA have turned into a doom and gloom crowd. I believe that the readers at SUFA have strengthened their ability to think critically. To see what is happening to our country and proclaim the negative that we see is rational and rooted in the reality of what we see in today’s America.

If you don’t see the country going south over the last century, then I posit that you aren’t doom and gloom, you are simply closely related to the proverbial Ostrich. Your head is so far in the sand that it is a wonder that you can breath. If you want to sit around and believe that everything is OK, or at least it will be as soon as we start believing what you believe and embrace a return to 1787, you are more than welcome to your beliefs. If I am the minority then I am happily so. I don’t crave acceptance. I crave a better country, even for those who oppose me by clinging to the dogma of ages past.

But remember… those founders that you hold in such high regard were a vast minority as well. I think they did OK without the help of those who embraced clinging to history. You are loyal to the crown. I get it. You have that right. I will fight for your right to worship the government that results from your idealistic version of history. In the mean time, I will try to save you from yourself.

I will be celebrating the 4th of July as well. I will celebrate the anniversary of a great ideal, an undertaking by mortal men to create a better system than anything that had ever been put in place previously. But instead of sitting on my hands with a sparkler betwixt my fingers, I will be devising plans to bring those moral principles back to the forefront, not saying the pledge while devising a plan to support the status quo…

Advertisements

Comments

  1. It’s about time a reference to “Charlie” is back in a SUFA post. He (Charlie) gets lonely at times. Ah, but is it Charlie Colbert or Charlie Stella? CC sees BF’s anarchism as the only way for truly free men to live; without the interference of any other person to his natural right to be free. CC even had CS wondering some more about this of late, but alas, CS came down on the side of the greater good in the end; mostly because truly free men living in a state of non-government nirvana isn’t going to happen … no more so than that dopey city in the clouds in that monstrous epic of boredom and greed, Atlas Shrugged (that Rand quote made me upchuck my soft boiled eggs this morning, which is good for the diet), is going to happen (or ever happened). Unlike CC, CS sees these arguments as fruitless endeavors that will mean nothing so long as capitalism rules the day; that we are more slaves to wages today than when this country was first stolen from native American Indians a couple of hundred years before any formal governments. The only thing missing from that picture of the ball and chain a) a wife and/or b) a paycheck.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Charlie, Why don’t you invent a new form of economy, put it on paper and send it to USW. That would be interesting. Of course, over time, it would get perverted by thieves and people of low moral standard, and we’d end up right back were we are, except people would be complaining about Charlienomics instead of capitalism.

      • gmanfortruth says:

        By the way, Good Morning Sir 🙂

      • Good morning to you, sir. I have no answers. I don’t assume all knowing (as some of yous do) … I simply believe that man in the state of nature cannot co-exist peacefully; that capitalism (in our time) has seen its better days and that even at its best, it did so with a blind eye to all that it harmed (overseas, etc.). The only way I see this civilization prolonging itself (and I don’t for a second think it will happen) is when the greater good becomes the primary concern. Without that, the process of self destruction will ony speed the plow, so to speak, but so it goes. If I have to opt for an economic theory that would enhance the greater good, it would have to be a blend of socialism and capitalism, but ultimately leading to socialism. Not to worry, we’ll all be dead long before that happens … and so will capitalism, sooner or later, as the economic system of the US&A. SUFS (stand up for socialism) …

        • Charlie

          I simply believe that man in the state of nature cannot co-exist peacefully

          Yet, there is Charlie, co-existing peacefully…..

          ; that capitalism (in our time) has seen its better days and that even at its best, it did so with a blind eye to all that it harmed (overseas, etc.).

          Yet, after all the posts, Charlie still confused capitalism and mercantilism. This is like confusing the boy scouts with the mafia.

          The only way I see this civilization prolonging itself (and I don’t for a second think it will happen) is when the greater good becomes the primary concern.

          A man cannot concern himself with everyone, for such a great conceit to claim that one man knows the best for other men.

          He can only concern himself with himself, and let peace and freedom be the interaction with others.

          Without that, the process of self destruction will ony speed the plow, so to speak, but so it goes. If I have to opt for an economic theory that would enhance the greater good, it would have to be a blend of socialism and capitalism, but ultimately leading to socialism.

          Should any economic society achieve socialism, that society will collapse in to a level of economic disorder that would destroy that society.

          • BF … as we say in the boy scouts, “blow it out your arse already” …

            Yet, there is Charlie, co-existing peacefully…..

            So, what, mercantalism works, BF? I mean, pick one and stick with it already. You blame mercantalism in one discussion, blame socialism in another … swear allegiance to “the best and brightest” never being wrong (because they got all of us to pay for their mistakes on wall street) … you say Bush was an economic genius (no matter how bad he failed) … i mean, shit or get off the pot already.

            If I’m getting along peacefully, BF, it must be that mercantilism is the answer … which means you side with corporations (which is what I believe, with all your free market bullshit) … make up your mind, big daddy.

  2. gmanfortruth says:

    Good Morning All 🙂

    As a resident Doom and Gloomer, I will be celebrating the 4th of July with family like most Americans. The local country music station puts on a great patriotic broadcast throughout the day. My flags will be flying high, as they do everyday.

    I will also hope that a few things can happen in the near future:

    a. The government will magically become uncorrupt and work for they people that hired them.

    b. The 14+ trillion dollar debt will magically go away and will not be an issue in the future.

    c. The wars and violence throughout the world will cease, and everyone will hold hands and sing Kum By Ya by a campfire.

    d. This nation will just chug along for the next few decades will I age gracefully and die from some new disease that is yet been invented in some government lab.

    e. My garden grows good this year, because I can’t see a, b, and c actually happening.

    • GMan!,

      Just like you to start off with such a funny. Right, we can all picture you “aging gracefully.”

      • gmanfortruth says:

        I happen to be a handsome man 🙂 I’m not sure which is funnier, my last statement or this:

        The lawn mower

        A preacher was making his rounds on a bicycle, when he came upon a little boy trying to sell a lawn mower. ‘How much do you want for the mower?’ asked the preacher.
        ‘I just want enough money to go out and buy me a bicycle,’ said the little boy.
        After a moment of consideration, the preacher asked, Will you take my bike in trade for it?’
        The little boy asked if he could try it out first, and, after riding the bike around a little while, said, ‘Mister, you’ve got yourself a deal.’
        The preacher took the mower and began to crank it. He pulled on the rope a few times with no response from the mower.
        The preacher called the little boy over and said, ‘I can’t get this mower to start.’
        The little boy said, ‘That’s because you have to cuss at it to get it started.’
        The preacher said, I can’t cuss. It’s been so long since I became a Christian that I don’t even remember how to cuss.’
        The little boy looked at him happily and said,

        ‘You just keep pulling on that rope. It’ll come back to ya.

  3. “But then they make the claim that we need to reset to 1787 and “this time we will do it right and it will work!” They don’t understand that there are some fundamental flaws in what was originally set up and those flaws will cause the same systemic failures that happened the first time around!”

    Overall I agree. But I would like to point out a couple of things. The founders did not account for their bias on some issues, or, perhaps the times would not allow them to put forth in practice, what principle demanded. They might have known all men created equal did indeed include all races, but compromised due to the pressure of war and a need for a united front.

    Also, there were issues no one could see that would arise.
    What person from that time could envision automobiles, planes, cellphones, computers or the “A”-bomb?

    My point is we are just as blind to our future as were they, and bias is also possible. Founding a government based on principals may resolve bias. As for the future, trying to guess what will come and how to govern then is futile now. I think one overwhelming thing history teaches us is small government is much more successful. Giving the most freedom and effectiveness. Large government always grows from servant to master. I think much of our freedom has been stolen by time, language shifts cannot be stopped. What does “gay” mean today vs Rock Hudson’s heyday? Does freedom mean the same thing now as in 1776?

  4. Canine Weapon says:
  5. Somewhat relevant

    These holes are not only amazing, but some are really terrifying! The sheer scale of these holes reminds you of just how tiny we are.

    Kimberley Big Hole – South Africa cid:1.3406313004@web82804.mail.mud.yahoo.com Apparently the largest ever hand-dug excavation in the world, this 1097 meter deep mine yielded
    over 3 tons of diamonds before being closed.

    Glory Hole – Monticello Dam, California cid:2.3406313004@web82804.mail.mud.yahoo.com A glory hole is used when a dam is at full capacity and water needs to be drained from the reservoir. It is the largest spillway of this type in the world and consumes 14,400 cubic feet of water every second.

    Great Blue Hole , Belize cid:3.3406313004@web82804.mail.mud.yahoo.com This incredible geographical phenomenon known as a blue hole is situated 60 miles off the mainland of Belize . There are numerous blue holes around the world, but none as stunning as this one.

    Sinkhole in Guatemala cid:4.3406313004@web82804.mail.mud.yahoo.com These photos are of a sinkhole that occurred in Guatemala . The hole swallowed 2 dozen homes and killed at least 3 people.

    SHIT HOLE, Washington D.C. cid:5.3406313004@web82804.mail.mud.yahoo.com This hole swallows trillions and trillions of U.S. Dollars annually! The money that falls into this hole is never heard from again. It is reported to be filled with at least 535 ‘ass holes’.

  6. LOI,

    Carryover from previous post:

    Understand and agree are different words, with different meanings. When Al Qaeda takes credit for killing women and children in a marketplace, that is terrorism. Call it a tactic. And expand that to include fleeing across the border of a friendly country, to hide behind an imaginary line. Our response is to follow them across that line, and make them very dead

    .

    No, that is NOT at all what “your” guys do.

    They go over an imaginary line and kill their innocent women and children.

    The US tactic “shock and awe” is a terrorist tactic.

    The use of evil to attack evil ensures a victory for evil.

    Must really irk you to be in agreement with Matt.

    Actually, not at all. Most of the time on most things we agree.

    He is merely stubborn on the remainder.

    • “Carryover from previous post:”

      ???? Oh, you mean highjack. Next thought….
      FLAG IS A HIGHJACKER!!!!! You terrorist blogger, My answer is back on War on Terrorism. And good morning.

  7. USWep,

    Your post is accurate, as usual.

    There is a difference between “doom and gloom” and reality.

    A man saying that you are about to drive off a cliff is not saying such to make your day bad – he is speaking a fact so to either prepare you for a serious crash or to provoke action to avoid the crash.

    I have posted my reasons to explain why the coming collapse is unavoidable:
    (1) “Public Choice Doctrine” (there will be no economic decisions that harm political choices).

    (2)arguments of “Change Systemics” (you cannot change a system made to resist change by acting inside that system).

    If one accepts the inevitability of such a collapse, the task next is not to weep about it, or deny it (as per my guest post), but to prepare for it and prepare for after it.

    You cannot be something with nothing. If you, the Remnant do not want a repeat of history, today is the day to make the preparations to build “something” – or else suffer the default status quo of those that are preparing today.

    • If you, the Remnant do not want a repeat of history, today is the day to make the preparations to build “something” – or else suffer the default status quo of those that are preparing today.

      And you wonder why people think you guys are batshit crazy? You actually believe this remnant crap? I mean, don’t get me wrong, it’s funny as all hell … but a little scary too. Sort of like Sarah Palin “Paul Revere warning the British and seeing Russia from her house” scary crazy … 🙂

      • Charlie,

        The Remnant are merely the People who are the ones who pick up the pieces after people like you get through with them.

        Of course, you don’t like those people because their existence threatens you.

        • The day someone who “thinks” he’s a “remnant” threatens me is the day I cut them off. Have no fear … not in your wildest imagination (and yours is pretty friggin’ wild, my man).

  8. Charlie,

    So, what, mercantalism works, BF?

    It works well for the hegemony, and is a disaster for everyone else – which means eventually it is a disaster for the hegemony too.

    Mercantilism depends upon the existence of an expanding Empire. If the Empire cannot expand or worse, shrinks, mercantilism begins to erode the hegemony society or worse, utterly collapses that society.

    I mean, pick one and stick with it already. You blame mercantalism in one discussion, blame socialism in another

    Correct. These two systems, socialism and mercantilism, are rooted in the same base philosophy: “I know better about you then you do”.

    There methodology of enforcing their philosophy may be different, but the root is the same.

    Thus, so is the consequence – social collapse.

  9. LOI,

    Not at all, I’m saying trying to craft laws based on our current situation, not on principle is doomed to fail.

    And that is why “you” fail.

    You do not apply your principles to the changing circumstances, you change your root principles depending on your whim.

    Thus, “new” stuff confuses “you”, since you have no rocks to anchor your understanding upon.

    The best thing we can do is set the principles for freedom that will guide and constrain future laws.

    Yet, in the next paragraph, you contradict yourself by destroying freedom due to an advent of technology!

    You are no different then the Elite who you rage against; your rage really means you are angry that they are the elite, and you are not.

    • your rage really means you are angry that they are the elite, and you are not.

      LOI, not that we agree on very much, but this kind of “reasoning” (BF’s) is beyond arrogance … ignore it. He has to turn everything into a black/white issue … because the gray area (where the real world exists) frightens the hell out of him.

      • “this kind of “reasoning” (BF’s) is beyond arrogance … ignore it. ” But Charlie, the same can be said about you. Look at the link below, at the Greater Good world you advocate.
        Sorry Charlie, but I’m much closer to Flagland than Stellasville.

        http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/06/is_it_time_to_push_cass_sunstein_over_the_cliff.html

        • Mathius™ says:

          How can you be closer to somewhere that’s at a right angle to reality?

        • Reread mine, LOI … I don’t expect you to agree with it, but I don’t have the answers … life IS NOT black and white. Men can cooperate to form coalitions (whether governments or communes) … If you’re not with BF on total non-government, you’re against him (that’s his take). I “think” you acknowledge there needs to be “some” government.

          As for the article. I saw Sarah Palin’s name mentioned and wouldn’t waste my time reading it. That broad is the best thing that happened to the progressive movement since tail gunner joe …

          • Charlie,

            “Reread mine” NOoooooooooooo (I could go on)
            After a long period of reading your posts, I think you always lean toward a government answer, like they will do whats best, what’s right. And there are many who work in government who do good, but what makes them better than a private person doing the same good? Why a government MANDATED welfare system instead of charities filling the same need? Look at US history, charities met the need without government assistance. Government got involved and took over because it could not compete.

            … If you’re not with BF on total non-government, you’re against him (that’s his take). (I know, but at least so far he hasn’t said anything really hurtful like”you are just like Charlie”)
            I “think” you acknowledge there needs to be “some” government. (No, I advocate there must be some government, the less, the better)

            “I saw Sarah Palin’s name ” What does that have to do with the price of gas??? Or can you do a song and dance number on how we are helping Libya?

    • Flagster,

      I feel all sad inside that I’ve failed, again. But then I remembered it’s only in your opinion I fail. Still a little sad, but I will get over it, someday…..

      I understand principle, and that to it’s full extent it only exists as a thought. It is not reality. In our minds we can be “free”, even as we wear shackles and chains. I understand much, possibly all that you advocate on total freedom, and even agree it would work, but not in today’s world.

      And so I find myself opposing your learned position, a constant naysayer, with a humble opinion, before true freedom, we will need a phase of
      Very Damn Little Government.

      For how would I protect my family in your world from a Jared Loughner with a nuclear bomb instead of a Glock?

      And who says I’m not the Elite? My dog has a very high opinion of me.

  10. Rick Santorum has joined the lemming march to the cliffs … Obama just increased his lead …

    • Mathius™ says:

      Not to put too fine of a point on it, but Rick Santorum is a douchebag.

    • Yes, so let us continue to support the man who said he would stop the Iraq war….the Afghanistan War…the Libyan War….(wait…that one was not started yet)….Yemen is next. let us continue to follow the administration that by passes Congress more than all the Presidents combined. Let us continue to follow the administration that is leading us to double digit inflation that will be greater than anything that Carter did. Let us continue to follow the man that has created the largest deficit of all President’s combined and that has created the largest debt of all President’s combined. Let us continue to follow the administration that is heading up the worse housing crises since before the great depression. Let us continue to follow the administration that institutes the Obama Care that promises to take care of everyone, then exempts all members of Congress, all Federal Employee’s, and all their respective family members from having to use it as well as 3,423 other exemptions (and still counting) to his supporters. Lets continue to follow the Administration that has exempted all Federal Employee’s, Congress members and their respective families from repaying student loans, let’s continue to follow an administration that thinks it is best to follow the failed stimulus with more stimulus and raising taxes for his cronies that will receive the same just like the first. Let’s continue to follow the administration that takes over corporations “too big to fail” and then watch as they sell the lion’s share to the labor unions and overseas contributors (which will sell our jobs overseas). Let’s continue to follow the administration that promised closing of GITMO and has not done so and even uses the information gleaned from the “supposed torture” of water boarding and then decries the use of it while taking credit for the results of it…..

      Yes, Lemmings all……..just a different breed but the result is the same.

      • Good morning, Colonel!

        Somebody spiked your oatmeal, sir. Let’s do away with both parties and elect Ralph Nader President in 2012!

        I’d even settle for Ron Paul (but only as a 2nd choice). Anything but the GOP (it was their policy of deregulating everything that caused the too big to fail crisis (and Bush was the first to provide bailouts, by the way)) or the Dems (who are a lighter version of the same bullshit.

        Go Bills!

        • It must have been the raisins, Charlie….they probably fermented.

          Seriously, I am getting really tired of the Obama/Bush bullshit and the right/left. I have been around a long time and the fiscal crises that we are in is not a Bush crises and never has been…the dems took over Congress well before Bush was out of office and the Congress has the purse strings. I can see NO economic reason for bailouts nor stimulus nor TARP. I am actually pretty smart despite by dumb approach on economics…its theories and its applications. I do not argue too much with BF on these items because he is fixed on his approach but he is correct most of the time…we differ on method. We both understand the FED and the differences in how they operate. You and I would go to jail for check kiting and ponzi schemes. Congress is kiting checks and developed several ponzi schemes that are about to come crashing down around our ears….but the everyday citizen is silent and the left is willing to turn their head and allow this criminality to continue. If the GOP actually pushed and supported true deregulation, things would be very different today….but you cannot deregulate with rules. A first grader. It is impossible…physically and financially impossible..to deregulate and then say…however. The policies today are not working and we worry about who the hell the GOP is going to run for President. ANYBODY will be better than the direction we are going….forget the Presidential race…the foundation is where all this needs to start. Change the bottom and the top will follow. It is the root system driving this out of control. I an hoping that the fiscal conservative (not the Tea Party, not the GOP, not the Dems) but true fiscal conservatives get control of the entire house and the pocket book and live by it. The entitlement program is out of control…totally. This dependency on government has not worked anywhere in the world and will not work here. You have an MBA…I have an MBA…there are probably many others on here that do….You should know the numbers and you should know the rules of productivity and you should know that raising anything…ANYTHING…stifles productivity. Look what is happening at the health care….half of the rules are not in place and health care has sky rocketed and will go higher. Even England and Canada are in serious trouble.,,more so that we are…..so…..

          You and I will differ in one thing. This world IS black and white. It either is or it is not. IT is not a maybe or an almost or a shade of grey. It is reality and you cannot play two ends against the middle and hope.

          Ok…..the fermentation has worn off now. Time to go fly.

          • LOL…I got on a roll up there and did not finish a couple of things…

            It should read ” A first grader knows this”…

            It appears that I intimated that Bush did not have a role…he did have one.

            It also appears that I am taking a Republican approach and I am not a Republican at all….nor a Democrat…nor a Nader supporter…nor a Tea Party member or anything else….I am ME….and there is only ONE ME. I do believe in fiscal responsibility. I do believe that if you take peoples money that you stifle competition and productivity. I owe you nothing and I owe the ghetto person nothing. I do not owe them food, shelter, nor health. They need to get off their dead ass and get it like the rest of us. So…does that make me a Republican? No sir. It means that I am capable of decision making and I do not believe in the greater good and never will.

  11. One evening an old Cherokee told his grandson about a battle that goes on
    inside people. He said, “My son, the battle is between two “wolves” inside
    us all. One is Evil. It is anger, envy, jealousy, sorrow, regret, greed,
    arrogance, self-pity, guilt, resentment, inferiority, lies, false pride,
    superiority, and ego. The other is Good. It is joy, peace, love, hope,
    serenity, humility, kindness, benevolence, empathy, generosity, truth,
    compassion and faith.”

    The grandson thought about it for a minute and then asked his grandfather:
    “Which wolf wins?”

    The old Cherokee simply replied, “The one you feed.”

  12. Mathius™ says:

    And it should be pointed out that simply because the founders had these faults doesn’t in some way negate the good things they offered or the proper paths that they took. The words of the Declaration of Independence are no less true simply because the men that wrote them didn’t practice what they preached. Yes… true… but typically when we (and I have done so several times) through out examples such as slavery, it is because the person we are addressing is using an appeal to authority.

    That is, they hold up the FF’s as a magic talisman and say “they said X, therefore X is true.” And, to counteract this, it is necessary to point out that they also said Y and Y is wrong.

    If they wish to argue the beliefs of the FF’s as a standalone argument and debate it on its merits, I am happy to leave white/male/landowners etc out of the argument.

    But a lot of times, people act as if I must accept something as true just because George Washington said it.

    • Mathius.
      I do not think that everything the FF’s said is true just because they said it. I do, however, believe a lot they said because I believe the same thing.

      Yes, they were white, property owning, slave-owners. But that was the times. You also forget that this was the times they lived in. Some of them, even most knew it was wrong. But it was too much a part of their society by then. At least George Wahington freed his upon his death.

      I wouldn’t knock them too hard. You did not live in that time. If you had, you might have owned slaves too. After all. Even Abraham Lincoln’s wife owned slaves.

  13. Mathius™ says:

    History has shown us that some of the other things that were put forth under that same group of people were flawed and the antithesis of what the above principles espoused… Creating law based on religious teachings…

    Speaking of laws based on religious teachings, how does everyone here feel about Dr. Kevorkian? He died Friday and, somehow, I missed the story.

    I consider him a hero.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/obituaries/dr-death-jack-kevorkian-dies-at-age-83/2011/06/03/AGV2wNIH_story.html

    • My dad and I came to blows on this several times. I was always for Dr.Jack, my dad worried about the slippery slope argument. Funny how smart your parents get as time moves on….I’m stuck somewhere in the middle now.

    • Have never thought of him as a “hero”. And that may be a failing of mine alone. I fully support a person’s right to take their own life, and to assist people looking to die without prolonged pain and some of the suffering they are forced to endure because of an intrusive government, maybe “hero” is proper. The modern day civil rights champion of death with dignity.

      Rest in Peace, Dr. Kevorkian.

      • Mathius™ says:

        I wonder if he got to go out on his own terms..

        My aunt (actually, my great aunt) had brain cancer not long ago. They diagnosed her, said it was operable. She was 92 years old, and in very good health for someone of that age. She said no.

        My mother tried to pressure her, persuade her, convince the hospital to operate anyway. No, she said, no, I am 92 and I will not spend my final years fighting cancer, losing weight, losing my hair, and having someone cut into my brain.

        Within a few months, my aunt had lost the power of coherent thought and speech and my mother then had the power to force her into surgery, but by that time the cancer was inoperable. She died a few days later.

        On her own terms.

        Aunt Kay, the most cranky old bat who ever walked the Earth. I couldn’t be more proud to be related to her.

        • “What I desire is not the demise of the United States, but an alteration of the way that she does business that is more in line with the principles and values that I believe she was built on in the first place. Principles and values that she has struggled to live up to in the two centuries since she was built.

          First and foremost is the concept of individual liberty. Personal freedom and individual liberty have become little more than ignored buzzwords in the last ten years. We hear them all the time, but 99% of those who speak those words do so and then the next sentence out of their mouth is something that is in direct contrast.”

          http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110527/us_nm/us_suicide_kits_raid

          If you don’t “own” your body and life, who does?

      • They interviewed a woman who called him a Serial Killer.

        ??????????

  14. Mathius™ says:

    If you don’t see the country going south over the last century, then I posit that you aren’t doom and gloom, you are simply closely related to the proverbial Ostrich.

    That’s the second time I’ve been called an ostrich recently.. Odd..

  15. I don’t wish to see the destruction of America, and that is why I hope to see the destruction of the US. America is the country, the “US” is the government which infests America. The country and the government are mortal enemies, whether people are aware of it or not. It is precisely because I love America that I try to get people to understand that they don’t need the US. Withdraw consent and refuse to be a party to your own enslavement.

    • Mathius™ says:

      Have you tried shouting “No Means No!”?

      • You can’t reason with those who are trying to kill you. I might say “no” in a calm and quiet voice before I fight back, but I’m probably not going to strain my throat for their benefit.

        • Actually, I find it psychologically beneficial to yell “NO!” at the top of my lungs before I fire my weapon. On occasion, it might even save a life, but more often it is a vent of anger so that I fire rationally in reference to the actual threat instead of in an emotional response to the very audacity of the threat itself.

          >:)

  16. No one alive is responsible for those atrocities and those atrocities hold no bearing on the future.

    One benefit to being king … so, what one takes today (however evil it is taken {BF, you listening}), 200 years down the road it’ll be okee-doke with whomever is around to benefit from it the most (and those who were raped and murdered–tough noogies.

    Sound reasoning … makes for a GREAT future!

    Lord have mercy …

  17. Still trying to stay on topic. This is for example small gov. vs big gov approach to airline safety.

    House Republicans blasted the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) last week in a report before voting to reduce the federal agency’s funding by hundreds of millions of dollars.

    In a report issued Friday, the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure blasted TSA’s decision not to allow the use of contract airport screeners, saying their use at the nation’s top 35 airports could save taxpayers $1 billion in five years.

    In a Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill, passed Friday, the House reduced TSA’s budget by $270 million and approved an amendment to the bill that would block TSA employees from collective bargaining. (In February, TSA decided to allow limited collective bargaining rights to its screeners.) The bill, sponsored by Republican Todd Rokita of Indiana, passed 218 to 205.

    After 9/11, airports were given the opportunity to switch to private contract screeners after two years of mandatory TSA screening. In January, TSA Administrator John Pistole halted expansion of the program.

    “Administrator Pistole made the decision not to expand the privatized screening program beyond the 16 airports currently participating unless there are clear and substantial advantages to do so,” a TSA spokesperson wrote in an e-mail.

    House Republicans characterized TSA as bloated and inefficient. According to the report, TSA has hired 137,100 staffers since the agency’s creation and spent more than $2 billion on recruiting and training. It also said private screeners were 65 percent more efficient than their federalized counterparts.

    Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/06/06/house-gop-blasts-tsa-for-passing-on-privatizing-screeners/#ixzz1OWVbxdEc

  18. LOI,

    I understand principle, and that to it’s full extent it only exists as a thought. It is not reality.

    Principles are as real as the will to exercise them.

    In our minds we can be “free”, even as we wear shackles and chains.

    That is not the freedom I talk about.

    I talk about the freedom from shackles and chains.

    I understand much, possibly all that you advocate on total freedom, and even agree it would work, but not in today’s world.

    It works already – so well, you ignore it.

    And so I find myself opposing your learned position, a constant naysayer, with a humble opinion, before true freedom, we will need a phase of
    Very Damn Little Government.

    Those that believe they can have a “little” government learn -over and over again- they have justified a “very large tyrannical” government.

    You vision is blurred by time. If such tyranny does not expose itself within your lifetime, you feel “success” – but you merely ignore the terror that will be delivered upon your children.

    For how would I protect my family in your world from a Jared Loughner with a nuclear bomb instead of a Glock?

    Jared could not ever own a nuke.

    To own a nuke would require the wealth of Bill Gates.

    If Jared had the wealth of Bill Gates, he would not need a nuke.

    I never worry about a man rich enough to own a nuke, because such a man has no need of it.

    I worry about governments of evil men who not only have nukes, but are willing to use them.

    • Mathius™ says:

      I never worry about a man rich enough to own a nuke, because such a man has no need of it.

      Osama Bin Ladin?

      • Mathius,

        OBL could not afford a nuke.

        He would never use one, either.

        • Mathius™ says:

          And you base this on… what, exactly?

          • Mathius,

            Based on the fact that it costs a couple of billion dollars to make a nuke, and he does not have a couple of billion dollars.

            • Mathius™ says:

              I think, perhaps, you’re thinking about an trident missile? Just the warhead. I would speculate that it’s somewhere in the range of 1-5 million, if that. Assuming, of course, a free market that did not restrict his access via government intervention. I bet our resident colonel could give us a ballpark estimate, D13?

              And OBL did have a few million bucks lying around.

              But let’s say it’s a billion dollars, hell 10 billion, each. Is it your considered opinion that anyone with that much money is too.. what? too smart? to want or use a nuke? It is out of the realm of possibility that Steve Jobs might like to nuke Redmond, WA?

              He would never use one, either. To repeat: And you base this on… what, exactly?

              • But of course…..My pleasure…..but before I do so….please let me know the size:

                Intercontinental Ballistic designed to wipe out and entire city and kill 100,000 on the initial blast?
                Short Range Ballistic designed to travel 1500 miles and kill 10-20 thousand?
                Tactical battlefield nuke designed as an area weapon for tactical filed advantage?
                Dirty nuke for terrorist aims (headlines and news and economic impact)?

                Let us keep it at four choices…..each has a different delivery system and each has a different triggering mechanism and each requires a different technical expertise.

              • Mathius™ says:

                Let’s assume one is shopping for a discount weapon.

                And, does one get a package deal if they buy the jumbo back at Costco?

              • Ok…..I can get you a dirty nuke for around 1.5 million. Not to hard to construct…..problem that you have is transporting and storage. You can make a dirty nuke in about 12 days…..but you better explode it within 30 or so days..it will degade to being worthless and nasty and, of course, you will die a slow agonizing death over a period of years due to your cheap suit you bought. But they are available to get. Pretty simple actually. My nuclear physicist Uncle…says he can make one pretty cheap and set it off with regular batteries….But his question was……to what aim?

    • I never worry about a man rich enough to own a nuke, because such a man has no need of it.

      Stupidity bordering on insanity.

    • I’mignoringflagI’mignoringflagI’mignoringflagI’mignoringflag
      I’mignoringflagI’mignoringflagI’mignoringflagI’mignoringflag

      • Mathius™ says:

        Let me know how that works out for you.. you know he’s just sitting there.. hitting refresh.. lying in wait.. lurking.. always lurking.. never sleeping.. never resting..

  19. Major highjack!

    It was his! And he did it!

    (Waiting for the left to commend his new found honesty in 3…2…)

    Resignation?????? What a lying piece of scum.

    • Mathius™ says:

      Sorry.. need some context here…

      • Buck the Wala says:

        so-called ‘Weinergate’

      • Buck the Wala says:

        not sure why he should resign though…will wait for Kathy to provide her reasoning.

        • Mathius™ says:

          Ah.. got it from drudge.. yea, a little surprised here, but (and you can check the archives) I don’t think it’s a resignation worthy offense either.

          Stupid as hell, yes, but I don’t see why this is a resignation-level event.

          Wikipedia says that he’s married. I guess not for long though..

          • Buck the Wala says:

            Apparantly it sounds as if they are going to remain married…

            But definitley not resignation-level.

            I’ve always liked the guy, still do, despite his (now-obvious) personal life issues.

            • Mathius™ says:

              If anything, it shows a remarkable lack of forethought.. I mean, if your name is wiener and you send a picture of your wiener, there’s no way that the media is going to pass up on a comedic goldmine like that.

              Idiot.

            • Good morning, Counselor……still exercising your double standard, I see. How are you otherwise, good sir?

          • Buck the Wala says:

            I’m sure the reason it will be argued that it is ‘resignation worthy’ is because he lied about it.

            But let’s be honest — who wouldn’t!? 🙂

            Let the voters in the NY-9th decide if they care when he’s up for reelection. Otherwise, non-news to me.

            • Mathius™ says:

              If lying was an ‘impeachment worthy’ event, there would be no one left at the federal level.

            • I’m with Buck, I can understand the media frenzy (sex sells), but am already bored with this “headline”. Let the voter’s handle him and his wife. Unless they show illegal activity, especially misuse of office, it’s not that big a story.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Best analysis of this whole circus (courtesy of Daily Kos):

                “Without condoning Weiner’s personal behavior, the amount of media attention this story has received is even more outsized than the photo that started this circus. I’d love to one day hear a politician get questioned this aggressively about a matter of actual substantive importance.”

              • The ONLY problem I have with it is that it took him 10 days and several lies to finally own up.

                Otherwise I could care less. Just a very stupid thing to do.

  20. 😐

  21. I take it all back!

    Shoot them all … wait, I always said that (this government needs an enema).

    http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/rep-anthony-weiner-picture/story?id=13774605

    He should resign tonight, yes. What a punk.

    • Buck the Wala says:

      Why should he resign? This is an element of his personal life. Sure it goes to character and will undoubtedly be part of any campaign for re-election. So let the voters in his district decide.

      • Let me count the ways:

        a) I’d get fired for doing the same (you better believe he was trolling for broads during office hours/on his office computer–that’ll come out along with a lot of other shit this moron should’ve owned up to).

        b) He should resign because (I hope) in that way he wouldn’t get his lifetime benefits/pension (because if I’m fired for the same reason, I sure wouldn’t).

        c) he should get fired because we’re paying that asswipe to act responsibly and that was far from responsible. Personal my ass. He may be a jerkoff acting like that, but you better believe he did it from his office, etc.

        He’s the last of the pure democrats (Bernie is the only real socialist in the pack) I can look to. kucinich folded like a cheap tent on health care with a simple ride on air force one. Weiner, who I agreed with most of the time, just shot himself in the balls.

      • gmanfortruth says:

        If it was Pelosi, you guys would be paying for the picture. The guy should be held to a higher standard, and hung.

        • gmanfortruth says:

          American hunter will ahve a scratch and sniff of Pelosi next month, it’s in the Avoiding Skunk’s article, for those interested.

  22. USWeapon,

    I can get any group of 100 people together and perhaps two will really understand and embrace the concept of personal responsibility.

    Do you seriously believe 98% of the people don’t understand “personal responsibility”?
    Are you saying 98% don’t agree with your definition, or “personal responsibility” in general?
    How’d you come up with the 2%?

    What I desire is not the demise of the United States, but an alteration of the way that she does business that is more in line with the principles and values that I believe she was built on in the first place. Principles and values that she has struggled to live up to in the two centuries since she was built.

    So when are you going to discuss this? There was that whole psychology series years ago, and since then this topic has come up every few months. But never really goes anywhere. It’s back to bashing Obama and Dems and declaring America is failing.

    Sure seems like “Doom and Gloom” to me…

    First, I want to point out that much of this “history lessons” that have been offered here at SUFA are irrelevant to the present day or the future of our country. Yes, you can point out the horrible history of slavery or the treatment of the Native Americans. But that doesn’t in any way alter the path that this country should be on. No one alive is responsible for those atrocities and those atrocities hold no bearing on the future. And it should be pointed out that simply because the founders had these faults doesn’t in some way negate the good things they offered or the proper paths that they took. The words of the Declaration of Independence are no less true simply because the men that wrote them didn’t practice what they preached. The sky doesn’t cease to be blue simply because a child rapist pointed out its color.

    Wow, you’re sure working hard to justify the “theft” that you approve of. So, do we learn from history or not? Or do we only “learn” the parts that you like/don’t like?

    If you don’t see the country going south over the last century, then I posit that you aren’t doom and gloom, you are simply closely related to the proverbial Ostrich.

    And anyone who disagrees with you is an idiot. Is this the kind of crap you’re going to base this new country on??

    I think I’ll pass…

    • USWeapon says:

      @Todd

      Do you seriously believe 98% of the people don’t understand “personal responsibility”?
      Are you saying 98% don’t agree with your definition, or “personal responsibility” in general?
      How’d you come up with the 2%?

      Yes I am seriously advocating that 98% of Americans don’t prescribe to a proper model of personal responsibility. People as a general rule in this country play the blame game continuously for every bad thing that comes their way. Is the number actually 2% or 10% or 20%? Who knows for sure. You can argue my percentage points all you like, but it is obvious that my point was made effectively. The reality is that a vast majority of Americans depend on government far too much, blame others far too much, or abdicate responsibility far too much.

      So when are you going to discuss this? There was that whole psychology series years ago, and since then this topic has come up every few months. But never really goes anywhere. It’s back to bashing Obama and Dems and declaring America is failing.

      Sure seems like “Doom and Gloom” to me…

      I don’t recall in my article above even mentioning Obama or the Democrats. It seems to me that on this particular part of the article you completely missed or ignored the words I wrote. I would think that pretty much every person who reads at SUFA can agree that there are principles and values espoused by the founders that were not lived up to, even by the founders. Leave it to you to be the one person who will argue against my saying so.

      And since when is pointing out reality doom and gloom? I guess you would argue that the reality is that everything is proceeding along hunky dory these days and my saying that they aren’t is just me projecting a negative influence on the hapless SUFA readers…

      First, I want to point out that much of this “history lessons” that have been offered here at SUFA are irrelevant to the present day or the future of our country. Yes, you can point out the horrible history of slavery or the treatment of the Native Americans. But that doesn’t in any way alter the path that this country should be on. No one alive is responsible for those atrocities and those atrocities hold no bearing on the future. And it should be pointed out that simply because the founders had these faults doesn’t in some way negate the good things they offered or the proper paths that they took. The words of the Declaration of Independence are no less true simply because the men that wrote them didn’t practice what they preached. The sky doesn’t cease to be blue simply because a child rapist pointed out its color.

      Wow, you’re sure working hard to justify the “theft” that you approve of.

      I don’t see anything at all written above that justifies theft of any kind. Are you just making this up as you go? What I pointed out above, in terms that I would have assumed someone as smart as you could understand, was that there were a plethora of good values, principles, and ideas that came from the founding of the United States and we shouldn’t ignore those good things because of actions that happened in contradiction to them. In other words, “all men are created equal” is not less valid simply because they didn’t practice what they preached. Are you intentionally being obtuse or are you really unable to grasp this simply concept?

      So, do we learn from history or not? Or do we only “learn” the parts that you like/don’t like?

      Of course we learn from history. But we stop using the treatment of slaves and indians as a smokescreen to repudiate the good parts of our founding. I will type this slow so that you don’t get lost again: If a rapist says “women should be treated like queens”, is the statement he made false because he is a rapist? Of course not. So stop countering “women should be treated like queens” with the argument that the words were spoken by a rapist. Yes I realize that the founding fathers owned slaves and did some bad shit, but that is not an argument against the aspects of our founding that were morally correct. Really, this isn’t rocket science, Todd. Why is it that my teenage son can read what I write and understand what is being said but you consistently either completely miss what the point it or consistently intentionally misrepresent what I say because you have no counter that logically makes sense?

      And anyone who disagrees with you is an idiot. Is this the kind of crap you’re going to base this new country on??
      I think I’ll pass…

      I don’t recall saying that anything that anyone who disagrees with me is an idiot, but I will reserve the right to quote you on that later. I will base this new country on the concept of individual liberty and personal freedom.

      I never expected that you would be on board with that.

      • USWeapon,
        Please explain how “it is obvious that my point was made effectively”? You provided nothing – other than your opinion – to back up your opinion…

        No, you didn’t mention Obama or the Democrats, but you did mention “the country going south over the last century”, and we all know who you blame for that. I guess you fall into the 98% you don’t take personal responsibility for things.

        No one alive is responsible for those atrocities and those atrocities hold no bearing on the future.

        So, if my grandfather stole all your grandfather’s money 60 years ago, do you think that might have a bearing on my and your future? I inherit $10 million and you have to go into debt to pay your grandfather’s medical bills…

        In other words, “all men are created equal” is not less valid simply because they didn’t practice what they preached.

        Right. Except “all men are created equal” was a fallacy. The reality is that “all white, wealthy, male property owners are created equal”. And I doubt you’ll be able to “fix” that when you’re in-charge.

        And I’ll type this slow so that you don’t get lost: You rapist examples are completely irrelevant and make no sense in the context of this article.

        Why is it that my teenage son can read what I write and understand what is being said

        Probably because he’s been brainwashed with this for much of his life.

        but you consistently either completely miss what the point it or consistently intentionally misrepresent what I say because you have no counter that logically makes sense?

        Or because you believe your own misconceptions?

        I don’t recall saying that anything that anyone who disagrees with me is an idiot

        What would you call your “proverbial Ostrich” comment? Besides childish?

        Ok, let’s cut to the chase.

        I will base this new country on the concept of individual liberty and personal freedom.

        How are you going to do this? How are you going to stop the Koch Brothers’ and the George Soros’ of the world from controlling things?

        Because if you think they’ll somehow “see the light” and suddenly follow your “concept of individual liberty and personal freedom”, then you’re the one who is “closely related to the proverbial Ostrich.”

        • Todd (and everyone else),
          Please accept the following disclaimer:
          “I am answering as a slightly anebriated vacationing person, not as my normal self. Regardless, my views are my own and do not reflect USW in spite of the fact I am answering a response to something he wrote.”
          Thanks

          Now, here goes:
          You mention that his numbers are opinion based. This is a valid point. It is also one USW admits to. He made a statement with the intention to make a point that was not based on verifiable statistics. Good call and all that. Nitpicky, but still a valid point.

          Then you say:
          “No, you didn’t mention Obama or the Democrats, but you did mention “the country going south over the last century”, and we all know who you blame for that. I guess you fall into the 98% you don’t take personal responsibility for things.”
          So, you not only make just as blatant an opinionated statement “we all know who you blme for that”, but you also use his own statement that you discredited to make your own point. You cannot have it both ways.

          So will economic actions 60 years ago affect me? Sure. The actions being spoken of date a lot farther back, as evidenced by USW’s statement that no one alive is responsible. My grandfather is 90. He had no more to do with the forceful taking of land in this country than you or I. Now, that said, it STILL has an affect on current economics. Regardless, however, it is not something that can be blamed or rectified. Does this allow it to be ignored? Of course not, but it cannot be justly dealt with either. If you disagree, tell me exactly how that is possible, and who the responsible parties are.

          As for the statements about equality. You are dead wrong and you know it. The founding fathers made statements that they did not abide by, as USW clearly pointed out. You proceeded to ignore that fact and say that he said something else, and imply some bullcrap, the factual parts of which have long been acknowledged and the emotional parts of have been treated with the proper disdain many times. As for your claim of irrelevance in his examples, you are incorrect. In fact, his examples are perfect. An evil man who speaks truth is not a liar simply by virtue of being evil. If a pathological liar says something that happens to be true, is that truth destoyed? If Bill Clinton (or any other lying politician) says the economy is crap does it make the unemployment numbers improve?

          Perhaps USW’s teenage son gets what he writes because he has been taught/raised to be a thinking individual.

          USW’s belief in his own statements, whether they are true or not, have nothing at all to do with you missing his points and making a decent counter argument. If the are misconceptions, fine, but show how and why they are. Acknowledge what was written and argue based on that not on what you ASSUME is meant by the writing, nor what you want to say that is irrelevant to what was actually part of the conversation. If you have something else to say then fine, write it as such, not as a response to something that was never written to start with.

          The ostrich statement might be a reference to the foolishness of people who fail to see what USW and many others here see. Perhaps that is too harsh. However, instead of saying “I am not!”, how about a statement of what you really think of the current state of the country and its economy and the reasons for it so that we can at least see where you are coming from, and see that you are not ignoring reality, but have a different understanding of it that we can learn from you so that the argument can be about the right subject and from the proper perspectives.

          So how do we keep Soros and the Koch brothers and all the other moguls from having too much power? How about removing/reducing government power to make it less attractive to corruption? And since you say that you hate that same control, how do you propose to fix the obvious issues?

          • Reality is rather hard to see with blinders on…Good Morning, Jon. Hope you are well…well thought out.

          • So how do we keep Soros and the Koch brothers and all the other moguls from having too much power?

            Nationalize their assets … bada-boom, bada-bing, they’re on the unemployment line. Then let’s see how “powerful” they are.

            • Charlie,

              Nationalize their assets

              Then all you have done is transfer the wealth held by Soros to be in the hands of a Bush or a Obama or a Stalin or a Hitler or a Mao or a Chavez or a … (pick any government) – and to you, you believe that is a better situation???

              Last I looked, Soros never ordered the bombing of a city…..

            • Firstly, you cannot use the tool they own (government) to enforce something on them because you do not control it. How do you propose to regain control?

              Secondly, such things have been tried many times. The super-rich do not have all their assets here, they will simply flee, taking some losses, to a place where they still have assets and from there find ways to manipulate the tool you somehow took power over so that it is back in their control and the proceed to get their stuff back with interest. At a minimum they will escape unscathed. Power does not work against the powerful, removal of power works. You cannot always fight fire with fire, sometimes you have to remove its fuel or its oxygen.

          • Hey Jon,

            So, you not only make just as blatant an opinionated statement “we all know who you blame for that”, but you also use his own statement that you discredited to make your own point. You cannot have it both ways.

            The comment about America going downhill for the last 100 years has been made here many times. And I’m pretty sure Progressives / Liberals have been blamed every time. This puts USWeapon in the group of people “not taking personal responsibility for things”. I did not say what percentage is in that group.

            So will economic actions 60 years ago affect me? Sure. The actions being spoken of date a lot farther back, as evidenced by USW’s statement that no one alive is responsible.

            Ok, so how many years back is the cut-off? Who decides?

            The Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act were both passed about 45 years ago. Before that (and in more subtle ways for many years after), discrimination, racism, the KKK, and Jim Crow were pretty much the “law” in much of America, especially the south. I was born in 1964, so if I were an African-American born in the south, these things would not have affected me personally. But my parents would have grown up with the discrimination, racism, KKK, and Jim Crow Laws. And my grandparents would have grown up with all that plus lynching’s, etc. And the effect these thing had on my parents and grandparents would/could have an effect on me.

            Just because slavery ended 150 years ago doesn’t mean it’s effects are not being felt today. When USWeapon tries to dismiss these things, he ignores the cumulative effect that history has on all of us.

            I’m not saying that reparations should be paid, and I don’t have the answer on how it should be dealt with, but if USWeapon just ignores it as he tries to recreate America on the “concept of individual liberty and personal freedom,” he will fail.

            As for the statements about equality. You are dead wrong and you know it.

            Yeah, I muddled up this whole part.

            USWeapon said “The words of the Declaration of Independence are no less true simply because the men that wrote them didn’t practice what they preached.”

            And I agree. My point I was trying to make was “How would you rewrite/re-implement it so the same “problems” don’t happen again?”

            Today, it’s hard to imagine how the Founding Fathers allowed slavery to continue. For them, I’m sure it was hard to imagine how the country would function without slavery. Or how could they get rid of it and still form a union of all 13 colonies.

            We face a similar issue today. “All men are created equal” sounds great, and I think we all know what that means. But in reality, “all men are not created equal,” as in “all men do not have the same opportunity to prosper.” The “luck of the draw” gives some people a huge advantage and some a huge dis-advantage at birth. Some are able to over-come this, but many do not have the tools to do that.

            How do you address this when you recreate America on the “concept of individual liberty and personal freedom?” I don’t mean make EVERYONE EQUAL, but improve everyone’s opportunity? Because the Founding Fathers didn’t resolve the issue of slavery, and 225 years later the cumulative effect of that omission are still causing problems.

            So how do we keep Soros and the Koch brothers and all the other moguls from having too much power? How about removing/reducing government power to make it less attractive to corruption?

            If you remove/reduce government, I guarantee they’ll have more power.

            And since you say that you hate that same control, how do you propose to fix the obvious issues?

            A strong and effective government. Not necessarily BIG.

        • Probably because he’s been brainwashed with this for much of his life.

          Bada-boom, bada-bing. Slam dunk … Point, set, match, Todd.

          • USWeapon says:

            Yes… because slandering my teenage son is a prime example of sound reasoning and crack debate technique.

            Honestly, it was low brow and showed what happens when someone runs out of logical backup for their imagined argument. Todd was disqualified the second he decided he was going to argue against the points he wanted to claim I made instead of arguing against the ones I actually made.

            You should try out for being a professional wrestling official, Chaz, your view of victory is as distorted as theirs…

            • USWeapon,
              I did not slander your teenage son. You injected him into the conversation and asked a question. I answered your question. If you disagree with my answer, then explain why.

            • See, you know not of what you speak … again.

              They ALWAYS get it right.

      • Yes I am seriously advocating that 98% of Americans don’t prescribe to a proper model of personal responsibility.

        This may well be a fraudian slip … 98 from 100 = 2 … i.e., 2%

        USW is a 2%’er!!!!!

        🙂

    • Wow, you’re sure working hard to justify the “theft” that you approve of.

      That’s my contention, as well, Todd. It’s sort of like … well, if we nationalize everything tonight (at the point of a gun or otherwise), 200 years from now there can be no beef from the right because it didn’t happen to them. That’s all it ever is — justification for the rape of a nation and culture and the bondage of a race.

      • gmanfortruth says:

        Never happen Bro! Count on that. As soon as they attempt to nationalize, the fights on. Liberals might as well barrackade themselves in the cities, that will be their coffin.

        • You sound very much like George Foreman before he was made a fool of in the rumble in the jungle.

          • gmanfortruth says:

            Yuk! I don’t follow boxing. GF makes hamburgers on so grill, what the hell does he know. He has 8 or kids, all named George, WTF! Apparently he couldn’t spell Ralph at the hospital. I think I’m just a few hundred degrees higher than that, I think you are 🙂

      • USWeapon says:

        @Charlie

        Completely misrepresenting what I said won’t win you any debates Chaz. I didn’t condone those things and I didn’t in any way rationalize what was done. What I said is that it has no bearing on whether some other principles put forth by the founders were right or wrong. I understand that you lefties completely lack the ability to rationally debate the concepts of individual liberty and personal freedom, but please don’t think that your blatant attempts to mischaracterize my positions are doing anything other than make you look foolish.

        • Yes, you can point out the horrible history of slavery or the treatment of the Native Americans. But that doesn’t in any way alter the path that this country should be on. No one alive is responsible for those atrocities and those atrocities hold no bearing on the future.

          Actually, what you said was EXACTLY what Todd and I addressed. So, my futuristic paradigm makes perfect sense. I understand how hard it is for your crazies on the right to grasp both reality and actual history (without rewriting it) … 200 years from now, after we’ve nationalized everything and maybe a few of the 2%’s (0.2%’s if it makes you happy) are tossed off roofs for their abuse of the system), those on the left can’t be blamed for it because what we did 200 years earlier … well, “No one alive” will be “responsible” …

    • Todd,

      I would agree 98% in overstating. Drama. I think you use the same tactic in some of your posts.

      “history lessons” that have been offered here at SUFA are irrelevant to the present day or the future of our country. ”

      Really? So Obama doing the same thing as FDR, with the same miserable results is not worth considering? How about welfare? Chart it’s expansion and compare poverty rates and you will find a link. We do still have welfare and poverty, and I thought you would be all about making things better.

      Pass still?

      http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2011/06/07/msnbccom-accuses-walter-williams-making-racist-statements-foxs-stosse#ixzz1Obmp3gte

      ED SCHULTZ, HOST: And in Psycho Talk tonight, Rush Limbaugh’s favorite fill-in host Walter Williams. We welcome him to the zone tonight. He’s the perfect substitute for Limbaugh because last year he went on the radio and said he believes in keeping wives under control. But sexism isn’t all that he’s good at. Here’s what happened when Fox’s John Stossel put Walter on the TV this weekend.

      (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

      JOHN STOSSEL: Government is like a giant drug pusher?

      WALTER WILLIAMS, ECONOMIST: That’s absolutely right. The welfare state has done to black Americans what slavery could not have done, the harshest Jim Crow laws and racism could not have done, namely break up the black family.

      (END VIDEO CLIP)

      SCHULTZ: Walter Williams should know better than to compare slavery and welfare. Slavery is perhaps the biggest stain on American history. It turned human beings into property. It doesn’t get much worse than that, does it? Meanwhile, welfare programs help American families survive when they’re destitute. Welfare helps folks meet their basic needs while they lift themselves up and get back on their feet. So for Walter Williams to say welfare has hurt black families more than slavery, pretty cruel psycho talk, don’t you think?

      Actually, Williams didn’t say “welfare has hurt black families more than slavery.” He said, “The welfare state has done to black Americans what slavery could not have done.”

      Why don’t we see what Williams meant by this by looking at his complete answer (video courtesy Daily Caller):

      STOSSEL: Government is like a giant drug pusher?

      WILLIAMS: That’s absolutely right. The welfare state has done to black Americans what slavery could not have done, the harshest Jim Crow laws and racism could not have done, namely break up the black family. That is, today, just slightly over 30 percent of black kids live in two parent families.

      Historically, from 1870s on up to about 1940s, and depending on the city, 75 to 90 percent of black kids lived in two parent families. Illegitimacy rate is 70 percent among blacks where that is unprecedented in our history.

      Now, it’s not just a matter of a racial thing, in Sweden is the mother of the welfare state and illegitimacy in Sweden is 54 percent.

      STOSSEL: And why does a welfare state create illegitimacy?

      WILLIAMS: Well, because, look, if you subsidize anything, you’re going to get surpluses of it, and if you tax something you’re going to get less of it. If you did not get welfare, then people would decide, I’m going to go out and get a job, I’m going to live more responsibly.

      STOSSEL: I’m going to get married before I have children.

      WILLIAMS: That’s absolutely right.

      STOSSEL: But the welfare state actually discouraged some men from marrying the woman, she would lose the check.

      WILLIAMS: That’s right, the government has said to many young women, I am the father. And so the father, black males, have become dispensable.

      STOSSEL: Black illegitimacy was 19 percent in 1940, but it skyrocketed during the Great Society and now it’s over 70 percent.

      WILLIAMS: Yes, and that’s a heck of a start in life, that is, to be born — you don’t know who or where your father is, that’s not really great start in life.

      Makes a little more sense with all of the actual data, doesn’t it?

      • LOI,

        I think you use the same tactic in some of your posts.

        Examples please??

        “history lessons” that have been offered here at SUFA are irrelevant to the present day or the future of our country.”

        This was USWeapon’s quote, not mine. Please address your comments to him. 😉

  23. Good article USW,
    It took a long time for me to get that we started with fundamental flaws. It is easy to see the flaws that were outside of the ideal, it is a lot harder to accept that there were flaws in the ideal as well. It may be better to reset to that time than it would be to stay on our path, but it would just be repeating histoty.

    Charlie, I get that you don’t like capitalism, tho I still want to know what your definition of capitalism is. Still, if you cannot offer a better solution, well, its sort of like the guy who point out all the negatives and never has an answer. Eventually no one cares what he thinks. I like your input, i hope that you can offer an idea of your own rather than just pointing out imperfections. Even your idea of the “greater good” is nothing more than an intention, not an idea. What is the greater good? And if, as has been shown to be the case, the greater good is actually acheived by an unequal system like the free market by improving the lot of all because of increased productivity, then how is it not the greater good? If caring for others, in the end, achieves only losses for all and an expensive and inneffective system that actually decreases the means and resources of all but manages to eliminate the gap between rich and poor, is it truly a greater good motivation?

    • Here’s one answer, Mr. Smith. Nationalize everything.

      That’ll set your wheels turning.

      • Oh C’mon. Put some effort into it. Either I have failed miserably in garnering any respect whatsoever, or you were just being lazy. Nationalize everything? Even YOU don’t buy that crap. The only nationalization you could possibly accept would be AFTER your dream government, which has even less credibility as a viable possiblity than BF’s no government concept. What you are suggesting is to hand over ALL of the production and businesses and the market and the economy to the mix of total morons and corrupt fools that are run by the very corporate greed, super-rich types you despise? Talk about frying-pan-into-the-fire thinking.

        Try again bud 🙂

        • I was being a “Little” Lazy, Jon … mostly because I’ve answered this way too many times to have to play this game again. You want me to define capitalism? Nice try. Whenever it is defined here, we have to hear the bullshit fog of rightwing war cry: “But it isn’t capitalism. It’s been diluted and polluted by Government.” Right, like credit default swaps were “regulated” before the last financial crisis.

          Sorry bud, you try again.

          • Charlie,

            You are the most adept person here in providing the very evidence against your own argument!! 🙂

            Yes, credit default swap are an example of regulation and how it perverts things.

            Only by law (regulation) can money be forced to buy a piece of utter junk

            And your solution … more and faster regulation to do more of it!!

            • BF, every time you spew this bullshit, you lose a little more credibility … I like to think you’re intelligent, but you’re just full of shit. Credit default swaps were TOTALLY deregulated. The same goes for most stock brokering today.

              • Charlie,

                You do not understand a thing about “credit default swaps”.

                They are legislated by the Treasury Dept. – which the last time I looked, was part of the government.

                I know I am using terms and words you are not familiar with, however, the Treasury Dept. ordered the sub-par assets of banks (mortgages) to be re-capitalized by the FED.

                The Treasury converted these assets into non-marketable securities, the FED bought them, and transferred the money to the banks.

          • Ok then you define capitalism as what we have now, or, more likely, you define capitalism as something that will always devolve into the mess we have now. Fair enough. I agree that what we have, and any system that permits what we have, is crap. I also believe that a stronger government is part of the problem we have now. It certainly was part of the problem in countries that went the nationalization route. Even in communist countries where some of the rich were destroyed, many of the very rich were not, they were simply moved over to government where they could continue to manipulate the system. Also, the rest of government ended up being populated by other control freaks and power seekers and the common man suffered even more than our pre-union workforce. The middle class ceased to exist altogether. That is the final result of your ideas of government force “levelling the playing field”.

            So what I propose is to take the power away from the super-rich by not allowing them to use the law to make money or eliminate competition. If they have no legal power or right to use force, then they are outnumbered and will eventually lose power.

  24. I am one of the Doom and Gloomers. But I do not say it with Glee. I say it with a vast sorrow. Sorrow that our great Nation is going down the shitter and the resident of the White House and the residents of the Capital building don’t give a shit.

    As I watch Gas and Grocery prices skyrocket. As I watch the deficit go up, up ,up. As I watch the incompetence that has become our Federal AND State governments grow worse and worse. Who could NOT be gloom and doom without their heads in the sand?

    As I watch politicians demagogue and play football with problems like SS and Medicaire instead of coming together with solutions for these kinds of budget problems, I am becoming more and more pissed at ALL of them.

    I say maybe that those like Herman Cain are right. We need more solutions and less politicians. Because the politicians ain’t doing jack. And if those who want to knock and laugh at Ryan’s solutions to the deficit problems we face think it’s that useless, then maybe they can try coming up with a solution themselves. At least he is trying.

    But alas. I am doom and gloom because I don’t think anything is going to be done. And the problem with Obama is that he has no freaking idea HOW to fix it. And he ain’t listening to anyone who might have.

  25. he stopped them, the British, from taking all our arms …

    Seriously, this broad needs to be put out of her misery.

    • MELISSA BLOCK, host:

      Sarah Palin is defending her knowledge of American history. Last week, after Palin visited Old North Church and Paul Revere’s house in Boston, a reporter asked her what she had seen and what she’d take away from her visit.

      Ms. SARAH PALIN (Former Governor, Alaska): We saw where Paul Revere hung out as a teenager, which was something new to learn. And, you know, he who warned the British that they weren’t going to be taking away our arms by ringing those bells and making sure, as he is riding his horse through town, to send those warning shots and bells, that we were going to be secure and we were going to be free.

      BLOCK: Well, after that generated howls of derision for historical inaccuracy, Palin amplified on “Fox News Sunday.” Here’s part of what she said.

      (Soundbite of TV show, “Fox News Sunday”)

      Ms. PALIN: Part of Paul Revere’s ride – and it wasn’t just one ride – he was a courier, he was a messenger. Part of his ride was to warn the British that we’re already there, that, hey, you’re not going to succeed. You’re not going to take American arms. You are not going to beat our own well-armed persons, individual, private militia that we have. He did warn the British.

      BLOCK: We are going to fact-check Palin’s Paul Revere history now with Robert Allison. He’s chair of the history department at Suffolk University in Boston.

      Professor Allison, welcome to the program.

      Professor ROBERT ALLISON (Chairman, History Department, Suffolk University): Thanks, Melissa.

      BLOCK: And let’s review Paul Revere’s midnight ride, April 18, 1775. He’s going to Lexington, Massachusetts. And according to Sarah Palin, he’s riding his horse through town sending warning shots and ringing those bells. True?

      Prof. ALLISON: Well, he’s not firing warning shots. He is telling people so that they can ring bells to alert others. What he’s doing is going from house to house, knocking on doors of members of the Committees of Safety saying the regulars are out. That is, he knew that General Gage was sending troops out to Lexington and Concord, really Concord, to seize the weapons being stockpiled there, but also perhaps to arrest John Hancock and Samuel Adams, leaders of the Continental Congress, who were staying in the town of Lexington.

      Remember, Gage was planning – this is a secret operation, that’s why he’s moving at night. He gets over to Cambridge, the troops start marching from Cambridge, and church bells are ringing throughout the countryside.

      BLOCK: So Paul Revere was ringing those bells? He was a silversmith, right?

      Prof. ALLISON: Well, he was – he also was a bell ringer. That is, he rang the bells at Old North Church as a boy. But he personally is not getting off his horse and going to ring bells. He’s telling other people – and this is their system before Facebook, before Twitter, before NPR, this was the way you get a message out is by having people ring church bells and everyone knows there is an emergency.

      And by this time, of course, the various town Committees of Safety, militia knew what the signals were, so they knew something was afoot. So this is no longer a secret operation for the British.

      Revere isn’t trying to alert the British, but he is trying to warn them. And in April of 1775, no one was talking about independence. We’re still part of the British Empire. We’re trying to save it. So this is a warning to the British Empire what will happen if you provoke Americans.

      BLOCK: And Sarah Palin also was saying there that Paul Revere’s message to the British in his warning was: you’re not going to take American arms. You know, basically a Second Amendment argument, even though the Second Amendment didn’t exist then.

      Prof. ALLISON: Yeah. She was making a Second Amendment case. But, in fact, the British were going out to Concord to seize colonists’ arms, the weapons that the Massachusetts Provincial Congress was stockpiling there.

      So, yeah, she is right in that. I mean, and she may be pushing it too far to say this is a Second Amendment case. Of course, neither the Second Amendment nor the Constitution was in anyone’s mind at the time. But the British objective was to get the arms that were stockpiled in Concord.

      BLOCK: So you think basically, on the whole, Sarah Palin got her history right.

      Prof. ALLISON: Well, yeah, she did. And remember, she is a politician. She’s not an historian. And God help us when historians start acting like politicians, and I suppose when politicians start writing history.

      BLOCK: Are there other historians, Professor, whom you’ve talked with who say you’re being entirely too charitable towards Sarah Palin here, and she really did misread American…

      Prof. ALLISON: I haven’t talked to many – well, I don’t know. I mean, I haven’t talked to too many historians today. And, you know, Sarah Palin is a lightning rod. I just was thinking about how many times, you know, I’ve spoken about Paul Revere. I’ve organized events about the American Revolution. No one ever pays any attention. Suddenly, Sarah Palin comes to town, makes an off-the-cuff remark about what she learned, and suddenly, you’re calling me to find out what I think about Paul Revere and the American Revolution.

      • LOI: Are you defending this numbskull? Are you trying to prove her right? Please, please, please, please, please say no.

        • Terry Evans says:

          She was right…

          • Oy vey … you guys are really (truly) hopeless.

            • Mathius™ says:

              Give it up, Charlie…

              They’re going to find a way to convince themselves she’s right no matter what.

              That garbled pile of excrement that passes itself as an historically accurate statement is now the truth and nothing you, or I, or Paul Revere say could ever change it.

              The history as it was before she opened her pie-hole is gone – down the memory hole it went – replaced with the new version of Paul Revere, riding down the street warning the British and ringing bells on his secret midnight ride. See? They have an expert and everything so it must be true.

              ::sigh::

              • Mathius,

                I am surprised you are unaware of the Revere “story”….

              • Terry Evans says:

                Spin it as you like…the bottom line is that whatever she says will be gleaned for some minute inconsistency and then be blown way out of proportion by you guys (those who loathe her). When the actual truth is you fear her…

              • Buck the Wala says:

                This passes as a ‘minute inconsistency’!?

                My biggest problem with Palin is not her lack of intelligence, nor her lack of intellectual curiosity. Rather, its her sheer stubborness. Rather than just admit to being flustered or just ignoring the whole thing, Palin has to double-down every single time. What’s even worse is how her supporters just follow along and parrot her inaccuracies as the ‘new truth’. But yet its we on the left who get labeled ‘sheeple’…geez.

              • Sorta like that Hope & Change thing!

              • Terry Evans says:

                The very things you dislike about her are some of the things I like most. She answers to neither of the established elites on either side of the isle…as I stated before, it is your fear of her that dirives your ire.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                “She answers to neither of the established elites on either side of the isle”

                …nor to the truth.

              • Terry Evans says:

                Not your “truth” for sure…

        • Yup. According to a history Prof. she is right and you and all the talking heads are wrong. And what’s interesting is it almost seems like a set-up. As if someone who knew the event in detail prepped her to phrase her response to “bait” the media. She may be a numbskull, but she sure “played” you.

  26. So I’m curious. Those of you who disagree with the statement on slavery and whatever, “No one alive is responsible for those atrocities and those atrocities hold no bearing on the future.” What would you like to see happen? Should we move out and give the land back to the Indians? Should we give tons of money to all black people?

    This is a genuine question, I want to know what you think.

    • JB: Maybe, I’m not sure how to recompense people fucked over so brutally for generations … but I will tell you this much. The idea that people fucked over for generations (those living in poverty forced upon them by a government run by their enslavers/enemy) can just pick themselves up without help is a fantasy you don’t get to ignore because a minute amount of them may have prospered over time. The playing field is not level … potential is not the same thing as reality. Look at the government today (corrupt as it is). Who corrupted it? Minorities or those with the power (Money) to do so. How do you take away power in a capitalist society? Seems like an obvious answer to me. And if it’s done by force today, 200 years from now nobody on the conservative side of the argument can blame anyone (if we’re to take USW’s comments as valid) … because 200 years from now, you can’t blame the left because they weren’t the ones who did it. It’s a bit absurd …

      • I hear you Charlie. Just a few points.

        Do you support something like Affirmative Action, which benefits people based solely on race and not affluence? That is, a black student will be favored over a white student of similar background simply because he is black, even if he is more affluent than his white counterpart.

        Many people here believe that welfare programs, which are intended to help poor people, are actually keeping them in poverty. They think it would be better to force the poor to stand on their own feet rather than just give them money. I know it doesn’t seem good to you, but I wouldn’t be too quick to judge them on the helping the poor argument. Their motives may be just as pure as yours. You just disagree on the means.

        Finally, I don’t understand your last point. No one is saying you can’t blame the pre-20th century US for slavery. In fact, everyone here does. The point that was made is that this does not negate the things they said which were correct. You and Todd seem reticent to accede that point, but don’t you think it makes sense? Or do you not think it is right that we should treat all men (read humans) as equals? So the founders couldn’t walk the walk, that doesn’t make them wrong.

        • JB,
          I support something like Affirmative Action, but it should not be based solely on race. It should be based on giving “everyone” (or at least more people) a better opportunity. Poor kids that are trying hard should be given the opportunity to attend better schools and colleges so that finances are not the only obstacle to them advancing.

          To me, race is only an issue because so many minorities are in the lower economic levels. There still are some racial issues, but economic dis-advantage is a bigger issue, and if we can over-come that, the racial issues will eventually fad away.

          The Founding Fathers had the right idea, but they botched the implementation. How do you fix that when you re-create America?

    • JB:

      Re: Native Indians

      They signed treaties; those treaties were ignored by the US government; those treaties need to be honored.

      Now “honoring” a treaty means “renegotiating” the terms.

      Obviously, no one is going to force the current landowner off of his land without destroying America.

      So financial compensation is necessary – how much? I don’t know, but that is part of the dialogue.

      Slaves:
      Sorry, but that is history. If the survivors of slaves want a free ticket back to Africa, I guess that could be arranged.

      • Mathius™ says:

        Who decides what is “fair” compensation for a stolen good? Still seems like theft to me..

        • Mathius,

          Who decides “fair”?

          Not you. Not me.

          Only the people involved in the situation. That is called “negotiation” between valid parties.

          • Buck the Wala says:

            Who are the valid parties then?

            And why shouldn’t the descendants of slaves be entitled to some form of compensation?

            • gmanfortruth says:

              And why shouldn’t the descendants of slaves be entitled to some form of compensation?

              Why should they? Many Cubans died trying to get in this country. Most of the countries in Africa where the descendents came from are very poor countries with a high AIDS problem. Why should there be reperations at this point?

              • Mathius™ says:

                So your argument is that we did them a favor and they should be grateful?

              • gmanfortruth says:

                No, but it sure sounded that way. Not everyone’s ancesters owned slaves, so why should they pay for something they had no history with.

                Grateful? Maybe a historical look at the ancestry of the slaves and where they came from might lead to that.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Wow, sorry but not really even sure where to start with that comment…

            • Buck,

              Re: Natives.
              Well, the Natives and the US government. That is who the treaty was made between.

              Re: Slaves
              Why should the descendants get anything? They didn’t suffer a thing.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Perhaps they didn’t suffer slavery, but many sure suffered the after-effects of slavery and discrimination.

              • After effects like what? Detroit is full of decendants of slaves. So do we give all these unmotivated folks…what..X dollars for being unmotivated?

          • Mathius™ says:

            I just stole your world series of poker championship bracelet.

            I’m not going to give it back.

            Ok, now let’s discuss a “fair” price for it.

            You demand it back, I say no.

            You demand one bajillion dollar for it, I say no.

            You aren’t going to get it back, so you settle for as much as you can get.

            Is that a “fair” and “moral” “sale”?

            • gmanfortruth says:

              No, I would just steal your wife and ask which one you want.

            • Mathius

              I just stole your world series of poker championship bracelet.

              I’m not going to give it back.

              Ok, now let’s discuss a “fair” price for it.

              You demand it back, I say no.

              You demand one bajillion dollar for it, I say no.

              You aren’t going to get it back, so you settle for as much as you can get.

              Is that a “fair” and “moral” “sale”?

              Fair is subjective, so you can’t be the judge of fair for someone else.

              If you pay me “X” for my bracelet and I say “ok” – we have established “fair” for both of us.

              What a “Charlie” thinks of our deal is moot and irrelevant. (Using Charlie as a third, uninvolved person)

              • Mathius™ says:

                But you take it only because you can’t get your property back. If you had your choice, you might opt to keep your property. So, you take less that you otherwise would and agree only because the other party has acted immorally, not because this is a free agreement.

                I have essentially forced you to sell and then offered you a pittance (which is better than nothing). This is not a “free market” sale. You say ok because something is better than nothing, not because you agree to the sale (you have no choice in the “sale” since that was forced on you).

        • So Matt, got an answer to my question? I genuinely want to hear what you think.

          • Mathius™ says:

            I got nothing.

            I didn’t steal their land. But I am a beneficiary of that theft.

            They didn’t (all) forfeit their land. Yet they are all deprived of what would otherwise be rightfully theirs.

            Seems that we “owe” them something. But what? I have no idea.

            I agree that we’re not going to force current owners off their land. That’s preposterous.

            But what in the world could “full restitution” possibly entail? Could we ever afford to buy back all the land? I think not.

            I just don’t know… sorry to disappoint.

    • JB,

      Slavery, stolen land, was in the past and cannot be undone..
      Repayment to the Indians is stalled, and agreement may never happen.

      One thing could be done right now, give them control and ownership of the land that is theirs, to do with as they see fit. Add to that, the Fed holds a huge amount of wilderness lands, and a portion of that could be part of a settlement.

    • JB,
      To add to my answer above:

      For the most part, everyone in America has benefited from the economic and financial systems in this county. These systems were created even before America was created, and they were “institutionalized” in the early years of America. Slavery and westward expansion were major parts of this, and we all benefited to some degree.

      Even the “poor” in America, for the most part, have it better than much of the world. But that doesn’t mean we should be satisfied with that. Unless you want that “One World Government” thingy!! 😉

      The “wealthy” have benefited much more than the average American. It’s not always a direct benefit, as in my grandfather owned slaves or stole land from the Indians. But indirectly from a growing and expanding and prosperous and strong America.

      Those that have reaped more of the benefits should pay more of the costs to maintain and improve America.

      We shouldn’t move out and give the land back to the Indians or give tons of money to all black people. We shouldn’t just take all the money from the rich and give it to the poor. But some type of “Affirmative Action” to help them get an education, improve their health, give them the opportunity to improve their lives. And this is not necessarily all financial. Things like partnerships or mentors that can help them take those first few steps toward success.

      And I don’t apply this only to Indians or Blacks, or even to all Indians and Blacks. I’d apply this more on economics than race.

  27. BF, that the same “government” owned by big money? Just curious …

  28. For BF (some credence to your cause). I just hope I’m wrong and it’s not an “alleged” cause.

    http://temporaryknucksline.blogspot.com/2011/06/what-dick-ringing-bells-and-warning.html

    • Charlie,

      You get there (being a true anarchist, that is)… eventually.

      🙂

      • I’m actually starting to fear that I will some day … I do consider it from time to time.

        • Charlie,

          FEAR
          False Expectations Appearing Real

          Your fear of anarchists is massive disorder – an expectation that is false.

          Self-organizing organisms are chaotic, but NOT disordered – that is, there is no pre-design managing a solution.

          (Famous physics quote: “Chaos always wins because it is so organized”)

          But because you cannot predict the solution or outcome does not mean that no solution is the outcome. It merely means you can’t predict what it will be.

          But self-organizing is the most powerful solution because it is organic and flexible. It is supremely adaptable to the unpredictable forces of nature.

          Man’s intellect is a struggle with himself. We want to know cause and effect so that we can effect the effect before the effect happens so that we can make it happen the way we like.

          In some things, we can do this.

          But over the most things, we only know effects and cannot work “backwards” to discover the root cause.

          IF we still try to “effect” the effect, we will most often get it wrong, and instead of designing a better outcome, we set into motion a series of unintended consequences that make the situation far, far worse.

          Free market was not “invented”. It exists because human exist. No one can predict its outcome, let alone try to manipulate it to some outcome. But what ever the Free Market produces is the optimum – not perfect, but as good as humanly possible.

          Freedom is not “invented”. It is the natural state of man. You cannot predict the desires and whims of other people – and attempting to manipulate those desires always leads to tyranny upon your own self and family.

          What non-violent, free men produce is the optimum decisions – not perfect, but as good as humanly possible.

  29. Buck,

    but many sure suffered the after-effects of slavery and discrimination

    What is the after-effect of slavery? Being set free?

    As far as discrimination – it is not evil. The Right of Freedom of Association is absolute.

    If a Black man is suffering a loss of his Rights, he has a Right to remedy. But first you have to show a loss of his Rights….

  30. Mathius

    But you take it only because you can’t get your property back.

    Your analysis is flawed to the degree you are subjectively judging it.

    I can take my property back anytime I want – I can attack you, kill you, dance on your grave, and get my bracelet back.

    But if I subjectively choose that is an inferior solution in the set of a lot better solutions, I subjectively choose differently, because the value of the bracelet, to me, is mine – not yours – to measure.

    If you had your choice, you might opt to keep your property.

    It is my choice – and is my action my choice. It is matter of tradeoffs and subjective value.

    If I had a choice, I’d like to own the Earth and the Moon and all it contains, too. But that -too- entails tradeoffs.

    • Mathius™ says:

      I can take my property back anytime I want – I can attack you, kill you, dance on your grave, and get my bracelet back.

      You cannot take your bracelet back because, in this analogy, I am the federal government and I will arrest or kill you. You have no chance.

      Your “choice” is death or some payment.

      So I have stolen your bracelet – it’s gone – poof, like a fart in the wind – gone.

      And now I’m offering you something because I feel guilty. You can take it or leave it. If you take it, at least you have something. If you leave it, you have nothing. But that’s not a purchase.

      Can you walk into a store, grab merchandise, run out and hide it, then walk back in an negotiate a price on your own terms? If they accept your price (because otherwise, you’ll just run away again leaving them with nothing), does that really morally constitute a sale in your mind?

      • Mathius

        You cannot take your bracelet back because, in this analogy, I am the federal government and I will arrest or kill you. You have no chance.

        In this, you err (again).

        Review your history. The Natives have regularly been quite adept and potent in refusing the Federal government.

        The “have no chance” is never a guarantee, one way or the other.

        Your “choice” is death or some payment.

        There is resistance, confounding, irritating, gumming up the works….

        So I have stolen your bracelet – it’s gone – poof, like a fart in the wind – gone.

        No, it is still there – because it is “land”.

        And now I’m offering you something because I feel guilty.

        and so you should.

        You should also judge yourself a thief, murderer and a liar, too. But that may be asking too much of a thief, murderer and a liar.

        Can you walk into a store, grab merchandise, run out and hide it, then walk back in an negotiate a price on your own terms?

        In what reference are you asking?

        Modern law or a Free man’s nation?

  31. Charlie,

    Palin is right – you are the one who is misinformed.

    Revere was captured and questioned by the British soldiers at gunpoint. He told them of the army’s movement from Boston, and that British army troops would be in some danger if they approached Lexington, because of the large number of hostile militia gathered there

    • Me thinks I just got pot stirred … but just in case Terry was serious, a little reminder …

      BF, you just lost ALL CREDIBILITY … ALL OF IT.

      • Charlie,

        A man who denies the historical truth is the one who has lost credibility.

        You obvious have no idea about Paul Revere whatsoever.

      • Terry Evans says:

        Yes…and I assume that Colbert is your choice for something that passes as news as well…

    • Mathius™ says:

      You just really love to be contrarian, don’t you…

      Ok.. and.. here.. we… go.

      Sarah “The Barracuda” Palin He who warned, uh, the, the British that they weren’t gonna be takin’ away our arms, uh, by ringin’ those bells and, um, makin’ sure as he’s ridin’ his horse through town to send those warning shots and bells that, uh, we were gonna be secure and we were gonna be free and we were gonna be armed.

      Oh, and America F*** Yea, doncha know!

      Sigh….

      Alright, time for us all to do some reading.. here it, in a letter written by Paul Revere himself:

      http://www.historycarper.com/resources/articles/prevere.htm

      Here he is fleeing the British (not “warning them”): I saw two men on horse back under a tree. When I got near them, I discovered they were British Officers. One tried to get ahead of me, and the other to take me. I turned my horse very quick and galloped towards Charlestown Neck, and then pushed for the Medford road. The one who chased me, endeavoring to cut me off, got into a clay pond where Mr. Russell’s Tavern in now built. I got clear of him, and went through Medford, […]

      Here he is warning the rebels: I found Messrs. Hancock and Adams at the Reverend Mr. Clarks; I told them my errand and enquired for Mr. Daws; they said he had not been there; I related the story of the two officers, and supposed that he must have been stopped, as he ought to have been there before me. […]

      Here he is suggesting that they warn the the townsfolk (again, not the British): I told of the ten officers that Mr. Devens met, and that it was probable we might be stopped before we got to Concord; for I suppose that after night they divided themselves, and that two of them fixed themselves in such passages as were most likely to stop any intelligence going to Concord. I likewise mentioned that had better alarm all the inhabitants till we got to Concord. The young doctor much approved of it and said he would stop with either of us, for the people between that and Concord knew him and would give the more credit to what we said. […]

      Getting detained: When I got there, out started six officers on horseback and ordered me to dismount.

      AH HA! “Warning the British!”: I told him, and added that their troops had catched aground in passing the river, and that there would be five hundred Americans there in a short time, for I had alarmed the country all the way up.

      HUZZAH! Vindicated.. or, you know, not..

      Palin: warned, uh, the, the British that they weren’t gonna be takin’ away our arms

      Nope..

      Palin: ringin’ those bells and, um, makin’ sure as he’s ridin’ his horse through town to send those warning shots and bells

      Nope.. in fact, he did his best to avoid the British until he was captured, so how does it make sense to claim he was firing warning shots and ringing bells?

      Palin: we were gonna be secure and we were gonna be free and we were gonna be armed.

      Eh.. I guess.. he told them there were 500 Americans en route, and I guess it is implied that they’d be secure and armed.. but this is extremely flimsy.. at best.. so let’s keep reading and maybe it’ll make more sense..

      Here he is experiencing and early version of, er, enhanced interrogation: Major Mitchel, of the 5th Regiment, clapped his pistol to my head, called me by name and told me he was going to ask me some questions, and if I did not give him true answers, he would blow my brains out.

      AH HA! Gunfire!: We rode till we got near Lexington meeting-house, when the militia fired a volley of guns, which appeared to alarm them very much.

      But, you know, he was under arrest.. the militia fired the volley, not Revere..

      Palin: he’s ridin’ his horse through town to send those warning shots

      Um, no.. he wasn’t. He was riding his horse with a gun to his back with solders whose orders were to shoot him if he tried to escape. It seems unlikely in this situation that they would have allowed him to have a gun with with to fire any warning shots.

      Getting released (I think..): the major rode up to the sergeant and asked if his horse was tired. He answered him he was- he was a sergeant of grenadiers and had a small horse. “Then,” said he, “take that man’s horse.” I dismounted, and the sergeant mounted my horse, when they all rode towards Lexington meeting-house.

      If I’m reading that right, the Brits stole his horse and just left him by the roadside.

      And, finally, here he is following new orders: Mr. Lowell asked me to go to the tavern with him, to get a trunk of papers belonging to Mr. Hancock. We went up chamber, and while we were getting the trunk, we saw the British very near, upon a full march. We hurried towards Mr. Clark’s house. In our way we passed through the militia. There were about fifty. When we had got about one hundred yards from the meeting-house, the British troops appeared on both sides of the meeting-house. In their front was an officer on horseback. They made a short halt; when I saw, and heard, a gun fired, which appeared to be a pistol. Then I could distinguish two guns, and then a continual roar of musketry; when we made off with the trunk.

      Palin: He who warned, uh, the, the British […] by ringin’ those bells and […] send[ing] those warning shots […]

      Me: NO! NO! NO!

      He “made off with the trunk” of paper. He slinked away. Snuck off. Do you think a man who risked his life to rescue (ostensibly important documentation) is then going to fire warning shots and ring bells to tell the British (who at that time, seemed to be facing off with with a militia (which did not include Revere himself)) that they’re “we were gonna be secure and we were gonna be free and we were gonna be armed.”

      Bah.

      • Terry Evans says:

        I see you also fear Sarah…

        • Mathius™ says:

          Terrified. Petrified. Stupefied.

          Sometimes I have to get up in the middle of the night to check my closet just to make sure she isn’t hiding in it. (I check for velociraptors too while I’m at it).

          ….

          But she’s an idiot, and I’m right and she’s wrong.

          • Terry Evans says:

            Matt…you are a funny fellow…Sarah most likely won’t even run, but the left fixates on her because they fear her, there is no other explanation for vitriol of the level that is generated by the left in response to anything she does.

        • Mathius™ says:

          Fearing of The Palin aside, would you care to refute my assessment on the merits? I took some effort to analyze the original first-hand documentation of the events.. it would be a shame if it generates no other observations than my apparent Palinphobia..

          • Terry Evans says:

            The mere fact you go to such great lengths to attempt to disprove anything she says only solidifys my position.

            • Mathius™ says:

              Yet, it does not change the fact that she is apologetically and demonstratively wrong.

              It does not change the fact that when called on her BS, she ops to (as Buck put it) double-down.

              It does not change the fact that millions of people out there insist that she is right in direct defiance of the truth.

              And it does not change the fact that, even if she does not seek office herself, she will have a profound affect on that race.

              So, again, and for the third time, do you care to argue the facts of my research here?

              • Buck the Wala says:

                No, of course not, because facts only get in the way…

                Instead you wind up with Terry dodging by pointing to the great lengths you go to just to disprove her and you have BF arguing that well it doesn’t matter if she was slightly off because her version is ‘reasonably correct’. Boggles the mind.

              • Mathius™ says:

                That should have read “unapologetically” not apologetically. Alas.

                That said, I will give Palin credit for one thing.. she got me far more interested in the actual story behind the midnight ride. Any time I can learn something new, I’ll consider it a positive.

              • Buck,

                ‘reasonably correct’. Boggles the mind.

                She was more accurate about Revere then you are about most things. Yes, that boggles the mind.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Let’s try this one last time.

                Paul Revere did not, DID NOT, ride through town ringing bells and warning the British. As Mathius demonstrated above, he was stopped by 6 British officers, held at gun point, and told them that if they contined on, they would be met with a militia of 500 armed Americans. This is not the same thing as “riding around ringing bells and warning the British”. Hell it’s not even in the same ballpark.

                Palin’s statement was not reasonably correct. It was demonstrably wrong.

  32. Buck

    This passes as a ‘minute inconsistency’!?

    My biggest problem with Palin is not her lack of intelligence, nor her lack of intellectual curiosity. Rather, its her sheer stubborness. Rather than just admit to being flustered or just ignoring the whole thing, Palin has to double-down every single time. What’s even worse is how her supporters just follow along and parrot her inaccuracies as the ‘new truth’. But yet its we on the left who get labeled ‘sheeple’…geez

    What the hell are you talking about?

    She was more than reasonably correct about Paul Revere – her political spin notwithstanding.

    • Buck the Wala says:
      • Buck,

        Good Gawd!

        You expect her, in three minutes, to spout off what took Mathius a couple of hours to research and 30 minutes to type.

        She was reasonably correct – she is not an historian, and was more correct about warning the British then you were dissing her about it

        • Mathius™ says:

          30 minutes might be charitable…

          That said, no, she was not “reasonably correct.”

          The only warning of the British that I could find was a claim (after his capture) that 500 militiamen were marching on their position. Nothing about taking our guns. Nothing about ringing bells. Nothing about warning shots. And, in fact, he went to great lengths, including the 18th century version of a high-speed chase, to avoid getting caught.

          So her base claim that he was warning the British is simply false.

          False. Period.

          Not reasonably close.

          Wrong.

          • Mathius,

            The only warning of the British that I could find was a claim (after his capture) that 500 militiamen were marching on their position

            Alas, poor Mathius, you didn’t even know Revere warned the British whatsoever before Palin mentioned it.

            Now, you know he did. You learned something from her!

            You should be grateful.

            • Mathius™ says:

              And that’s enough to justify your statement that she was “reasonably correct”?

              Even a broken clock is right twice a day. If you were a high school history teacher and this were the gist of report you were grading, you give her a D-.. if you were feeling charitable that day.

              • Mathius,

                I measure my opinion on this subject this way.

                If I did not know vs. someone who knows a little, the someone who knows a little … wins.

                You did not know. She knew a little. She wins.

                …and that pisses you off, so you have to diss her.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                She ‘wins’ based on her complete inaccuracy because you believe I did not know that Revere had ‘warned’ the British when he was captured? Come on BF, you know this is a huge huge stretch.

                I thought there were no shades of gray – there is either correct or wrong. Palin was wrong. Flat out wrong.

            • Mathius™ says:

              Oooh boy… no.

              She was WRONG. She said he was out to warn the British that we wouldn’t give up our guns and that were going to stay armed and that he did so by riding around shooting warning shots and ringing bells.

              This is WRONG.

              That, after being captured, he said something that just so happened to coincide with what she said, partially. No warning shots. No bells. He wasn’t out to warn them. He was trying to avoid notice. Maybe you could call it a warning, I would call it a BLUFF since it wasn’t true.

              And it had nothing to do with taking away our guns or our…

              Screw it. You’re wrong too and I don’t have the time or energy to beat you into admitting it.

              • Matt,
                How did the militia get called out in 1775? How did people know when there was an emergency in 1775? They rang the bells of the local meeting houses, churches, town halls. They are in the square of nearly every NE town to this day. Revere did not stop to ring the bells but left that for others. It’s called division of labor. The alarms were sounded through every Middlesex village and town as a direct result of Revere’s and Dawes’ rides. The whole countryside was up in arms, which the British had to know.
                I too, who once lived on the Great Road, i.e. the road to Concord, did not know that Revere had warned the British after he was captured. Give Sarah credit for enlightening us. Her response was indeed garbled but correct. Maybe she should us a teleprompter.

    • Lets talk Palin. She may run for President. Last time when going for VP all the media did was compare her to Obama, even though McCain was who they should have been looking at. Palin may have misstated an incident in our history from over two hundred years ago, media dogpile.
      Obama pretty much lies about the auto bailout. Yep, no story here….

      http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2011/06/07/wapo-fact-checker-obama-auto-bailout-claims-one-most-misleading-collecti#ixzz1OcbNagwn

      The educated guess here is that Washington Post fact checker Glenn Kessler is currently not the most popular person in the White House.

      On Saturday, in a relatively rare rebuke originating from what G. Gordon Liddy has mockingly derided as “Washington’s quaint little alternative newspaper” (daily circulation 741,000 in March 2005, 551,000 in March 2011), Kessler ripped into the President’s claims about the auto bailout, giving him “Three Pinocchios,” which in his ratings system means “Significant factual error(s) and/or obvious contradictions.” Kessler found “weasel words,” a “misleading figure” (actually, more), and (imagine that) a straw man.

      Here are selected paragraphs from Kessler’s KO (bolds are mine; internal link was in original):

      … What we found is one of the most misleading collections of assertions we have seen in a short presidential speech. Virtually every claim by the president regarding the auto industry needs an asterisk, just like the fine print in that too-good-to-be-true car loan.

      … Let’s look at the claims in the order in which the president said them.

      “Chrysler has repaid every dime and more of what it owes American taxpayers for their support during my presidency …”

      … Not so fast. The president snuck in the weasel words “during my presidency” in his statement. What does that mean?

      According to the White House, Obama is counting only the $8.5 billion loan that he made to Chrysler, not the $4 billion that President George W. Bush extended in his last month in office.

      … Through this sleight-of-hand accounting, the White House can conveniently ignore Bush’s loan, but even the Treasury Department admits that U.S. taxpayers will not recoup about $1.3 billion of the entire $12.5 billion investment when all is said and done.

      … This is chicanery. Under the president’s math, Chrysler paid back 100 percent of Obama’s loan and less than 70 percent of Bush’s loan. A more honest presentation would combine the two figures to say U.S. taxpayers got back 90 percent of what they invested.

      … “GM plans to hire back all of the workers they had to lay off during the recession.”

      … Obama is only talking about a sliver of workers — the 9,600 workers who were laid off in the fourth quarter of 2008.

      In the second-last paragraph, the weasel words are “during the recession.”

      Obama’s strawman argument is that opponents wanted to do nothing, which Kessler demonstrated isn’t so. I would argue that the path Obama chose was to “do nothing” — about the UAW’s outsized wages and benefits. As Ron Gettelfinger informed GM workers in May 2009, post-bankruptcy contractual arrangements involved “no loss in your base hourly pay, no reduction in your health care, and no reduction in pensions. The government’s moves during bankruptcy were about maintaining the status quo at the expense of specific creditors, the car-buying public, and the rest of the country.

      I also can’t let Kessler’s critique go by without noting that Chrysler’s ability to repay was aided by theft in bankruptcy from its secured Non-TARP lenders during bankruptcy proceedings. In effect, those victims of theft partially enabled the company to get back on its feet.

      That criticism aside, it’s good to see someone at WaPo actually giving Obama the skewering he deserves. Just don’t expect it to become a habit, with the likelihood of meaningful hits gradually moving down to near zero as November 2012 approaches.

    • Obamacare waivers weren’t in original law, appearance of political favors persists

      The Daily Caller has learned the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) never had the authority to issue waivers from Obamacare’s annual limit requirements.

      Language granting HHS that power was never in the original law. Instead, through new rules and regulations, HHS gave itself the power last summer using a broad interpretation of certain parts of the law.

      The annual limit requirement waivers exempt recipients for one year from having to increase the amount of health care coverage they provide their workers. Each year between now and 2014, the minimum annual limit rises to a new, higher amount. Though the waivers are only for one year, recipients can reapply and be re-approved every year through 2014.

      Heritage Foundation health policy expert Edmund Haislmaier said HHS “exceeded its statutory authority” by issuing such waivers.

      “The first problem is that it appears HHS has exceeded its statutory authority in creating this waiver process,” Haislmaier said in testimony before the House Oversight Committee’s subcommittee on Health Care. “The statute does not explicitly grant HHS authority to waive the application of this provision. In contrast, I count twenty-one other sections of PPACA [Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act] in which Congress did grant HHS explicit, new waiver authority with respect to specific provisions. Thus, it is reasonable to presume that if Congress had intended the department to institute a waiver process as part of its implementation of this particular provision, Congress would have said so in the statute.”

      The Obama administration, which touts itself as the most transparent in American history, hasn’t answered many questions about who’s been getting waivers and why, who’s been denied and why or who’s still in line. Seeing as the administration hasn’t complied with many Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests for information surrounding Obamacare, former George W. Bush adviser Karl Rove’s Crossroads GPS announced Monday it will seek summary judgment in federal court against HHS over “the agency’s failure to disclose materials concerning Obamacare waivers.” Crossroads GPS filed a FOIA request back in January for information regarding Obamacare waivers. After two months of inactivity on the request, Crossroads filed a lawsuit alleging HHS isn’t following FOIA standards.

      In what’s become a bit of a pattern for the Obama administration, there’s at least an appearance of political favoritism in favor of those who lobbied for HHS to grant itself waiver power. Many of the administration’s nearly 1,400 waivers, including the waivers that went to House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi’s San Francisco district in April, went to companies and entities that lobbied their support behind HHS’s drive to grant itself that power.

      Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/06/07/obamacare-waivers-werent-in-original-law-appearance-of-political-favors-persists/#ixzz1OcfHLN68

  33. Here’s that Paul Revere Gotcha question: “What have you seen so far today, and what are you going to take away from your visit?”

    Here’s that genius answer: [Revere] warned the British that they weren’t going to be taking away our arms, by ringing those bells and making sure as he was riding his horse through town to send those warning shots and bells that we were going to be secure and we were going to be free.

    This is you Terry: “ …whatever she says will be gleaned for some minute inconsistency and then be blown way out of proportion by you guys …”

    This is us: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9OdXx8KgnOU

    • Mathius™ says:

      Gotcha question: “What have you seen so far today, and what are you going to take away from your visit?”

      Potential answer: “Everyone has the potential to be a true American patriot, even a simple silversmith.”
      Potential answer: “America truly a nation blessed with a rich cultural heritage.”
      Potential answer: “Well he took his life in his hands to get a message out that the British were coming, possibly changing the course of the Revolutionary war by alerting revolutionary leaders.”
      Potential answer: “There’s more to it than just the poem.”
      Potential answer: “Ooooh.. silver is shiny…”

      I could do this all day. Why was it so hard for her? And why are people so hell-bent on defending her? Why is there a war on in Wikipedia with people altering the Paul Revere page to include this erroneous version of events?

      • And why are people so hell-bent on defending her?

        They’ve invested heart and soul in this loser (it’s why Peggy Noonan lost it when Palin was first announced on TV). They can’t/won’t reject her because there are X amount of simpletons who have done the same investing … frankly, quite similar to you dopey Dems and Obama. Alright, Obama can speak (and think) the mother tongue, but he has his lemmings as well. Stil, any reasonable person can “understand” some of the inital Obama magic (it’s more than worn off by now) but this imbecile, Palin? Soon as she went “off-script” it was over … only her followers can’t deal with how embarassing it’s become … so they keep on keepin’ on. Which is why we say: All righty then.

        • Mathius™ says:

          I have never said that Obama (or anyone else, for that matter) is right when they’re factually, demonstrably wrong. And, if someone proves him wrong, I change my opinion. Do I not? Do I not?

          I swear I’m going to start forcefeeding Red Bull to these people. I wonder what LOI and BL and BF would be like hopped up on RB?

      • Matt,

        “why are people so hell-bent on defending her?”

        Why do you judge her so, when she holds no office? And then ignore or excuse the actions of the sitting(or golfing) President? How long has it been since he announced a new budget, but has yet to present it for review (CBO)? Palin can play games and tease the media, she’s doing it at her own expense. Obama’s actions (or lack of ) are at our expense. Wanna bet he is planning on the debt ceiling deadline being spun against the Repug’s, allowing him to dictate terms?

        • Mathius™ says:

          Where in the world did you get the idea that I’m giving President Obama a pass?

          And you bet your heinie he’s planning on spinning the debt ceiling against the Red Shirts, allowing him to dictate terms.

          But that’s not really the topic at hand, now is it? One topic at a time. Have I made sufficient case to prove to the jury* that she was flat wrong? No, of course not. BF obstinately hangs the jury.

          *it would be a jury of my peers, but let’s face it, I have no peers

  34. Lets talk Palin. She may run for President.

    Maybe she might run.

    But no woman will be President -ever- in the USA.

    • Mathius™ says:

      Not only will I take that bet, but I’ll bet you we have a woman before we have an openly homosexual President. And I’ll bet you that we have an openly homosexual President before we have an atheist President.

      • Mathius,

        Maybe you might be right on the others, but that does not make you right about a woman President – no woman will be ELECTED President.

        (Qualifier: …unless the President dies in office….)

      • Hey, hold onto your horses Westchester …. you’ve still got that bet with me regarding Obama and unemployment rate. Save your coin, boyo … the big guy is on a diet and will be hungry come election day ….

    • Buck the Wala says:

      And you base this opinion on what, exactly?

      • Buck,

        I base that on an intelligent understanding of the US political system.

        • Mathius™ says:

          Care to elaborate?

          • Mathius,

            What do you want? A book?

            The US political system is not androgynous. Woman are at best peripheral in the process.

            I will go further and say any candidate that posts a woman as VP candidate will not win – but I will not say “never” in this case.

            • Mathius™ says:

              A century ago, the idea of a black man or a woman or a Jew in the house or senate would have been preposterous.

              Today the President is black. There are 43 African Americans and 92 women in congress. There are 44 Jews.

              Yes, they’re minorities. But I think you undervalue the sweep of history.

              Women gained the vote, they gained access to education. Today, they outnumber us in higher education. They will take over the show sooner or later. Not if, but when.

  35. Mathius,

    I think, perhaps, you’re thinking about an trident missile? Just the warhead.

    To make a nuke, you would need -at least- $2 billion, even “just the warhead”. Indeed, the rest of the “rocket” is irrelevant compared to “just the warhead”.

    Iran has advanced missiles, but no nukes. There is a reason they just have missiles…..
    N. Korea can’t even get their “warhead” out of a testing ground.

    S. Africa spent $5 billion to build one, blew it up, and figured “Darn, that wasn’t worth it”.

    I would speculate that it’s somewhere in the range of 1-5 million, if that.

    You seem to believe in the fantasy of “loose nukes” are for sale.
    Clue you in: none exist

    Nuclear weapons are nasty to hold – they are extremely radioactive. To shield yourself from the radiation – so that you can live at least one more day – you need massive amount of shielding – which is heavy. These are not carried around in suitcases.

    Further, if you don’t use “right away”, the darn thing dissolves – it is radioactive if you forgot. The thing does not last, and turns itself from a weapon that is radioactive into a messy pile of goo that is not a weapon but radioactive.

    Most of the cost of the US arsenal is not to make new weapons but merely maintain the ones they have.

    …and you think “loose nukes” exist….. (roll eyes)

    And OBL did have a few million bucks lying around.

    But there are no nukes lying around, and if one was “available” – the “owner” would have a real serious problem on his hand to make ” a few million bucks” not be worth the trouble at all.

    But let’s say it’s a billion dollars, hell 10 billion, each. Is it your considered opinion that anyone with that much money is too.. what? too smart? to want or use a nuke? It is out of the realm of possibility that Steve Jobs might like to nuke Redmond, WA?

    Please explain why a man who has a billion dollars needs to blow up a nuke…. for what? Another billion?

    You have proclaimed a man -who by his accumulation of massive wealth must be essentially a very rational man- is in fact, wholly irrational.

    I warned you before about making up fantasy stories, creating fantasy scenarios, and using them to “prove” your bizarre social theories.

  36. Mathius

    because you believe I did not know that Revere had ‘warned’ the British when he was captured? Come on BF, you know this is a huge huge stretch

    No one bit.
    You didn’t even know the British were warned at all!.

    She remembered something about it. Obviously, way back when she learned it … it stuck in her mind as interesting…. and years later, that particle of trivia remained. I bet you would do worse.

    • Buck the Wala says:

      I made that comment, not Mathius.

      I did know that Revere had been captured and ‘warned’ of the militia waiting for them — American History major, thank you very much — I did not know that he was being held at gun point though (thank you for that tidbit Mathius!)

      But again, this is not even remotely the same as what Palin had said. What’s even worse is you know it but just don’t want to admit it.

      • Mathius™ says:

        clapped his pistol to my head, called me by name and told me he was going to ask me some questions, and if I did not give him true answers, he would blow my brains out.

        What I found really interesting is that the expression “blow my brains out” was in use way back then. It’s always fascinating to me what expressions come and go, and to see one in use in such an historic context.

        It’s as if I were reading Shakespeare and saw King Leer talking about rickrolling.

  37. Mathius,

    A century ago, the idea of a black man or a woman or a Jew in the house or senate would have been preposterous.

    No, it was not. Any political observer knew that one day a black MAN or a Jewish MAN would hold the office.

    Yes, they’re minorities. But I think you undervalue the sweep of history.

    Nope, I don’t undervalue it at all. There will not be a woman elected President.

    Women gained the vote, they gained access to education. Today, they outnumber us in higher education. They will take over the show sooner or later. Not if, but when.

    No, they will not.
    Society will dissolve first.

    …and this is not an insult to women.

  38. BF, a woman will indeed win the white house sooner or later … you’re way too sure of yourself on way too many issues … and I haven’t seen you right once yet.

    • Charlie,

      I’ve been right all the time, except twice.

      And I say “Nope, US politics is not androgynous” – and yes, I know I’m right on this too.

  39. Curious…why won’t a woman be elected president?

  40. On slander … USW … you use your son to denigrate someone (Todd yesterday) by making yet another sarcastic remark about how “if my teenage son can understand” … Todd responds with a fair statement (perhaps your son is brainwashed– why not, most of our kids “probably” think like their parents) and you call it slander … why not once take a shot on responding without the sarcasm (which is what BF often resorts to when his positions are challenged–but not nearly as often as you do). Taking the initial sarcastic shot suggests frustration (more often than not) … why not give it a shot? Try responding without the sarcasm. I suggest you’ll get more polite return volleys that way. Or you can keep taking shots and we’ll do the same. No problem here.

  41. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    It is so frightfully easy to unmask the concept of “the greater good” as hogwash, and yet some people still cling to it as if it were some worthy ideal. Sigh….

    If you believe in “the greater good”, then you simply believe that there is an over-arching set of principles, beliefs, economic conditions, behaviors, and outcomes that is “best for everyone”.

    I echo BF’s line of questioning here… Who are you, O great believer in the “greater good” to determine what is best for ANYONE ON THE PLANET EXCEPT FOR YOURSELF AND YOUR DEPENDENTS? Are you THAT pretentious and pompous that you think that you have ANY IDEA what is best for anyone else at all? If so, ENLIGHTEN US, THEN UNWASHED MASSES, and EPLAIN IN GORY DETAIL PRECISELY WHAT YOUR VISION IS!

    • Mathius™ says:

      Most well adjusted sane men would be hesitant to take a job where their decisions could so drastically affect the lives of so many.

      But not me.

      I possess a sort of sociopathic narcissism that makes me think that I should be in charge of everyone.

  42. Todd,

    A strong and effective government

    …to do what?
    Steal from those that have to give to those that did not earn? That’s your solution for “equality”???

    You are a muddle of self-imposed contradictions – all which lead to your core principle:

    “I get what I want, but you pay the costs”

    • Mathius™ says:

      Close.

      “I get what I want, but WE ALL pay the costs.”

      • Mathius,

        No, mine is correct.

        The ‘you’ is the universal “you”, meaning “Everyone, except me”

        So to clarify for YOU,

        “I get what I want, but everyone except me pays the costs.”

        • Buck the Wala says:

          Wrong again BF — “…everyone, INCLUDING ME, pays the costs.”

          • Buck,

            You are working hard to replace Charlie as the master of contradiction.

            You cannot be both the pusher of a cost and a payer of that cost.

            If a sandwich costs $5, and you force me to pay $4 of it, you did not pay the $4 – you pushed that cost on me.

            No matter how you cut the cake of subsidization whether a penny or 100%, you avoid paying your cost.

            • No Black Flag,
              If the sandwich costs $5, we each pay $1.25, including me.

              • No, Todd, that is where you err again.

                You paid for the bread, but I paid for the meat YOU ate.
                Thus, you pushed the cost of the meat to me – who received no benefit from you eating it.

                Yours is a typical -but badly flawed- economic misunderstanding.

              • Black Flag,
                You are so adamant in your arguments here that taxes are bad, but just a few weeks ago you had no problem with sale tax.

                What’s the difference?

  43. Buck the Wala says:

    Still a bit off base.

    You don’t always get what you want either.

    • Buck,

      I did not say he would “get everything”, or even get anything- I said it is his principle.

      Thus, it is the driver of his action – whether or not he is successful is wholly something else.

      Because of that principle, he argues for and supports policies which move closer to that principle and works against those policies that drift from that principle.

      The problem and paradox, of course, is that the more support for that principle is created, the less likely he will be successful.

      When a broad society works to try to push costs onto other people, the more costs of other people are actually placed on him, reducing his ability to actually achieve his own personal goal.

      Then, of course, he becomes frustrated, and demands more of the same, which only creates a positive feedback loop.

      As everyone else is suffering this same effect, the
      consequence is eventual societal and economic collapse.

  44. Why Anthony Weiner should be FIRED (you crazies on the right) …
    http://temporaryknucksline.blogspot.com/2011/06/sports-more-foreign-flicks-why-dick.html

  45. Todd,

    Black Flag,
    You are so adamant in your arguments here that taxes are bad, but just a few weeks ago you had no problem with sale tax.

    What’s the difference?

    Please find where I had “no problem with sales tax”?

    I have been quite clear and consistent. Any tax damages the economy – there is no such thing as a “good” tax.

%d bloggers like this: