Quick Debate Thoughts…

I watched the Republican debate in Iowa this evening. To be honest, I had not intended to watch. Tonight was the first pre-season NFL games and my Baltimore Ravens were playing the Eagles. As it turns out, because of the BS “broadcasting rights”, here in North Carolina the game was blacked out. I despise blacking out professional sporting events. The idea that everyone has the ability to travel to the game is ridiculous. Same happens when the Red Sox play the crappy Orioles. They will black out the game for the national feed and the station that has the rights to broadcast the game will not be showing it. Drives me insane. But, since I couldn’t watch my football game, I decided I would watch the debate…

And boy was it interesting. I want so bad to write a lengthy article detailing the entire thing, but I simply don’t have time to do so this evening. The first time I may have the time to do so is this weekend, so I may do so. But I know some of you are going to want to discuss it now, so I figured I would offer my really quick thoughts on how each candidate performed:

Tim Pawlenty – Effectively ended his run this evening. He gave a poor performance, spent a lot of time attempting to make non-sensical points about Bachman, and didn’t appear in the least bit Presidential. Some of his answers weren’t so bad, but overall he just came across weak and unprepared.

Mitt Romney – Easily the most “presidential” candidate this evening. He stayed focused on what he wanted to discuss, the economy. He said a lot of the right things, but to be honest I wasn’t wanting someone to appear presidential, I wanted a clear vision for where we need to go. His “7 points” were the closest to a real plan offered this evening. I predict his lead will increase, but I am still not sold.

Newt Gingrich – You had to love Newt this evening. He was bold and his normal brash self. I thought he probably endeared a lot of people to him when he attacked the media effectively. He was looking to do so and leapt at the opportunity. He gained some fans this evening, but I don’t think he gave enough in the way of explanation to actually win people over to his side. For example, he several time called for repeal of the Frank-Dodd bill and Sarbanes-Oxley, but didn’t explain why that was important.

Michelle Bachman – I don’t think she hurt herself at all tonight. People were looking for her to appear crazy. On the contrary I didn’t think that she appeared crazy at all. She was pointed and quick to attack. She came across as someone who will stand on principle no matter what. And she handled what I thought was the most bullshit question of the night flawlessly:

Byron York from The Washington Examiner asked her about a quote she made in 2006, in which she said she’d become a tax attorney because her husband urged her to, and it was important for wives to be “submissive”. York asked, “would you be submissive to your husband as President?”

I thought it was a very sexist question and I lost a lot of respect for York for asking it. Do you think they would ever ask a male candidate a question such as that? And I thought that Bachman’s answer was classy and a very good answer to a question that should never have been asked.

Ron Paul – Ron said all the things I wanted to hear. The unfortunate thing is that Paul looked and sounded like a very old man. He appeared to sometimes stumble over words as he tried to say what he wanted to say. But the answers that he gave were tremendous, in my personal opinion. I especially liked his outlook on the wars abroad.

Tim Huntsman – I felt that he did a pretty good job this evening. There was a little too much “I stand on my record” instead of explaining why he was right and not others. He didn’t give a bad showing overall, but I don’t think he was personable enough or sounded effective enough to make any real progress against the field.

Rick Santorum – Perhaps the most surprising performance in my opinion. He was personable funny early on. I thought that his answer around rule of law versus state’s rights was dead on. Unfortunately he took a few positions that I simply don’t agree with. But not a bad showing. The way that he treated Ron Paul did turn me off some though.

Herman Cain – You know, I really like Mr. Cain. And I actually think that of all the people on that stage tonight he is perhaps the most down to earth, the most honest, and the most personable. He gave a few answers that I thought were really good and an answer or two that I thought showed that he might not be prepared for a role as the leader of the country. Then again, I am not sure that anyone else on that stage showed they were ready yet either….

So that is my quick down and dirty on the performance of the candidates. I will try to find time this weekend to write up something that talks about some of their positions that I found flawed. Not sure if I will have time or not.

So what did anyone else who may have watched think?

Advertisements

Comments

  1. No.
    Football is a brain-dead sport.
    Politics is worse.
    Glad I missed all of it.

  2. Just real quick I’ll rank in order from best to worst in my opinion of who performed the best.

    #1 Ron Paul
    #2 Newt Gingrich
    #3 Herman Cain
    #4 Michelle Bachman
    #5 Rick Santorum
    #6 Mitt Romney
    #7 Tim Huntsman
    #8 Tim Pawlenty

    • This data below is from MSNBC polls— Total of 11,730 votes. I was keeping up on the Fox National poll that had Ron Paul way out in the lead with 8,900 votes (twice as many as any other candidate) but it “mysteriously” dissapeared and I can’t find it anymore!

      Ron Paul 33.5%(3,932 votes)
      There was no clear winner 23.6%(2,765 votes)
      Mitt Romney 14.4%(1,686 votes)
      Newt Gingrich 7.8%(912 votes)
      Michele Bachmann 6.8%(793 votes)
      Jon Huntsman 4.9%(577 votes)
      Herman Cain 4.7%(550 votes)
      Tim Pawlenty 2.7%(321 votes)

  3. USW stated:”Mitt Romney – Easily the most “presidential” candidate this evening. He stayed focused on what he wanted to discuss, the economy. He said a lot of the right things, but to be honest I wasn’t wanting someone to appear presidential, I wanted a clear vision for where we need to go. His “7 points” were the closest to a real plan offered this evening. I predict his lead will increase, but I am still not sold.”

    TC: Mitt Romney would be like having another four years of Obama in my opinion. He is such an establishment shill.
    I do not think he even has a lead in the GOP nomination…I believe that to be 100% propoganda from the media.

  4. 😐

  5. Just watched Morning Joe and I guess Bachmann opened up with wishing the country had defaulted. Scarborough went on a rant about how foolish Bachmann types make the right look. I agree … of course.

    But BF is right on this point. It’s a brain dead process … just vote for the corporation of your choice because that’s all this collection of morons represents. Last election it was Goldman Sachs (Obama) and they chose wisely (bailout). You really think this collection wouldn’t do the same? That’s funny if you do. Bachmann has as much chance of winning as I do. Romney will do whatever would keep him in power (the same as Obama–maybe even less conservatively–depends on the political winds that morning).

    Taking this bullshit serious is, well … it’s already taken more of my time than necessary. Have a good day, you crazies on the right …:)

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      Spot on Charlie – I was personally disappointed that the candidates were not asked where they stand on the Bert-and-Ernie-are-gay-and-should-get-married-petition that some loonie righties are passing about.

      As for @USW – I watched most of the game – was ok for a preseason game. Thought my Birds looked decent. Ravens looked ok.

      • They certainly had no problem saying what they thought on gay marriage.

        • Somehow-I don’t think gay marriage is the most important issue this time around-no matter what ones stance is-and I haven’t heard any democrat Presidents or those who have run for President say anything other than they too SUPPORT marriage. Even Obama-who I suppose has done the most for their cause-won’t say it either. But lets keep the socialist regime in power-because of disagreements over abortion and gay marriage. These two issues should not decide this countries economic fate. And gay marriage will and is being decided by the states. As far as a marriage amendment-it takes alot to pass an amendment-the President and Congress can’t do it alone-no matter how much they talk about it.

          • Ray Hawkins says:

            @VH – I don’t disagree with you per se – but I’m no fan of a socialist GOPer that wants to appeal to a voting base by linking directly/indirectly the economic fate of our country to the “breakdown” of the traditional family unit that all these darn gay marriages would all of a sudden cause (because only heterosexuals have monopolies on being moral upstanding real Americans that love their country).

            • Well, I would rather have a person who stands up there and tells the truth as they see it-than a democrat who uses the idea that the left is for gay marriage as a political point but won’t actually stand up and fight for it. This issue has been used as a political tool at the Federal level for so long by both parties-and it is being decided at the state level-through the courts and votes by the people. I suppose at some time it will eventually come to the supreme court-But I suspect that is a long way off. But if you want to vote for someone that has so socialist characteristics at all-you might have to vote for Ron Paul

              • Vote socialist already and deal with it. It’s coming sooner or later, thank GOD!

                There, I said it, I must believe in God too!

                Oy vey … the greater good is only served when people realize we’re all in this together … until then, especially in this capitalist society, we’re all slaves to wages … Aren’t you glad football is back, though?

  6. Buck the Wala says:

    USW: “Michelle Bachman – I don’t think she hurt herself at all tonight. People were looking for her to appear crazy. On the contrary I didn’t think that she appeared crazy at all. ”

    Pretty low bar for a presidential candidate, don’t you think?

    • @ Buck…

      Pretty low bar for a presidential candidate, don’t you think?

      If I thought she were a good choice to be President, then yes I would agree that I had set my bar pretty low. I was just noting that I didn’t think she came off as crazy. That wasn’t an endorsement of her for the position. As I said at the end of the article, I am not sure anyone on that stage is a good choice for the Presidency. It appears to me we are heading towards yet another election where our choices are between terrible and more terrible.

      • Buck the Wala says:

        “It appears to me we are heading towards yet another election where our choices are between terrible and more terrible.”

        Par for the course, no?

        Though I do agree with you that “not sure anyone on that stage is a good choice for the Presidency”.

    • No lower than the one currently in there, counselor.

  7. Ray Hawkins says:

    So when do we see Rick Perry or Sarah Palin enter the race? Any other dark horses?

    I hear Monty Paulsen is considering (Pat’s son).

  8. @USW……The most stupid asinine question asked last night happened to be to Michelle Bachmann. NOw, before ANY of you think that I am a Bachmann supporter…think again. Think really long and hard about that because she is not a candidate in my books at all…..none of them are.

    However….”will you be submissive to your husband as a President?” has to rank among the really stupid and set up questions of all times.

    Her answer should have been ” None of your damned business”…now ask me a legitimate question.

    Sheesh!! No wonder BF thinks the way he does.

    OH….at BF from yesterday…..OMG, you and I are in agreement yet again…..cash is King, no matter the devaluation or currency issue. As I stated, one persons panic (quick sell on the stock market) is another persons opportunity ( time to also buy). Amazing what panic can cause isn’t it?

    • Yup, I am buy, buy, buy right now. If the market craters for good I’m a goner though D13… I am betting it recovers though. Gonna hafta start a home hydro grow operation or something for retirement if it doesn’t recover though! 😉

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      I suppose she could be submissive to him in a “between the sheets” sorta way – but that is a visual I don’t need. It was a stupid ignorant question.

    • What do you not like about Paul? His foreign policy views?

    • Mathius™ says:

      I don’t know, Colonel.. I think it’s a fair question given that she’s proclaimed herself a believer in a literal and absolute interpretation of the bible as the finite word and law of the one true God.

      “Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.” – Ephesians 5:22 (KJV)

      So, if she follows the bible, then her husband, not her, would be President. In other words, she’s either lying about complete adherence to the bible, or she would do her husband’s bidding. So which is it?

      It’s one of those great “gotcha” questions! 🙂

      PS: And, hey, that’s New Testaments, so you can’t give me any of that BS about the Old Testament being obsolete 😛

      • Buck the Wala says:

        Not only does the question stem from her interpretation of the bible, but from her own statements in the past about her ‘proper’ role! It may be a gotcha type question, but I am not outraged by it in the least.

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          http://www.counselcareconnection.org/articles/149/1/What-Does-it-Mean-to-be-a-Submissive-Wife/Page1.html

          This is the way most “modern” Christian faiths interpret those passages. I am not personally saying whether I believe the interpretation to be “right” or “wrong” since biblical interpretation is far from my area of expertise. At any rate, submissive =/= subservient, and it also generally seems to apply to “matters of the home”, not “matters of national leadership”. Hope that helps.

          • Buck the Wala says:

            While that may be the case, from USW statement above, it was Bachmann who herself said that she became a tax attorney because her husband urged her and because it was her role to be subservient to her husband. If she honestly believes this, and she has allowed her husband to dictate her career path, isn’t it a fair question as to how much control her husband would exert over her role in national leadership as well?

          • Mathius™ says:

            I don’t think I would qualify as a “biblical scholar.” I have read the books cover to cover and I have taken some effort to understand the language barriers and historical/societal context behind them. That said, it is my humble opinion that this article is full of it.

            “The emphasis is on responsibility and accountability, not on authority and power.” No it’s not. God does not need to tell us who he holds accountable. He is not instructing men that they should submit to his account. He is granting them authority. How else to make sense of the next sentence: “Husbands, love your wives and do not be harsh with them.” He is saying, husbands are to be the boss, then turning to the husband and saying “you’re in charge.. but be nice.” Otherwise this is a complete non-sequitur (not that there aren’t hundreds of other non-sequiturs in the bible anyway).

            If this is what you want to read in the bible, that fine. I have no problem with that. I don’t think a literal reading of the bible makes any sense. You HAVE TO interpret it and view it in historical context. You HAVE TO account for modern morality and societal standards. Otherwise, you’d go nuts (to say nothing of the explicit contradictions – Matthew and Luke, say Jesus was crucified on Passover, but John says it’s the day before, to take just one example). So if you want to read it in the light of a interpretable document, that’s perfectly alright with me.

            But then you have to open the whole thing up for interpretation. If you look at a plain text sentence and “read into it” to see something else, then you have to be willing to admit the possibility that other sections (say, the ones against homosexuality) are also subject to interpretation. You have to acknowledge that you do not have the corner on truth, that maybe you, the reader, are wrong. Because, after all, humans are fallible creatures, even if the Good Book is divine.

            My two cents.

            • Mathius™ says:

              Just adding a little bit more, if the link you posted is correct and God is simply assigning accountability for the household, not authority, how does that make any sense?

              If you boss comes to you and says, “I’m holding you responsible for your group’s project. You, personally, will have to account for it.” But he did not grant you authority over members of your group to control the outcome. So the group does a mediocre job, yet your boss holds you responsible?

              Wouldn’t you call him nuts? I mean, that’s a borderline insane style of management.

              If you accept this to be true, and yes, I know he’s supposed to be unknowable and all, but if this is true, there’s really only one inescapable conclusion: God is either crazy or He’s messing with us.

        • Hi Buck…..I am not outraged at all……just rating it as the dumbest question ever asked. Probably asked by the same person that taught Dan Quayle how to spell.

          • Mathius™ says:

            P-O-T-A-T-O-E

            … dead silence …

            ——————

            One of the most priceless moments in all of America political history, but I like this one:

            Quayle: […] I have far more experience than many others that sought the office of vice president of this country. I have as much experience in the Congress as Jack Kennedy did when he sought the presidency. I will be prepared to deal with the people in the Bush administration, if that unfortunate event would ever occur.

            Judy Woodruff: Senator [Bentsen]?

            Bentsen: Senator, I served with Jack Kennedy, I knew Jack Kennedy, Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine. Senator, you’re no Jack Kennedy

            … and Quayle’s face … poor guy.. walked right into that one..

            • It was good….don’t pick on us Texans….democrat or republican…..but a democrat Texan is becoming as rare as the horned lizard around here. There are a few and on the endangered species list…..we are working making Republicans extinct now.

      • I know this passage is a sticking point for many people. I’ve met Christian reverends who refuse to read it at a marriage. I think people just naturally get the wrong idea. Here’s what I think:

        “Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.” – Ephesians 5:22 (KJV)

        The last phrase is very important. When the Lord tells you to do something, you know it is right and pleasing to Him. Of course, He would never approve of, say, murder. So then, if a husband tells his wife to murder someone, she would be doing something that is displeasing to God. I don’t think that total control is the proper reading of this passage. A wife should submit to her husband to the extent that it does not conflict with her relationship to God. That is, a woman does not have to obey everything her husband says, but rather be guided by him to the extent that he is acting in a godly way. If Bachman were to become president, she would best serve God by fulfilling her role to the best of her abilities. If her husband gave her advise that was counter to her convictions, she should disregard it.

        I know we all love to get caught up in the “let’s prove the Bible is stupid” game, but I want to make one point. This verse has a twin.

        “Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her” – Ephesians 5:25 (NIV)

        The point of these verses are not to give a husband free reign on his wife, they are to guide a man and woman as to the proper role they play in a marriage. A man should not live according to verse 22, but rather according to verse 25. A woman should not live according to verse 25, but rather according to verse 22. When I think about my role in loving my wife and she thinks of hers to support me, our marriage will be full of God-centered love. If I think of dominating her and her of expecting sacrifice for me, our marriage will be full of self-centered love. Which one adheres more closely to the message of Jesus Christ?

        Now, if Bachman’s husband told her what to do as President, to which of these is he ascribing? Is that really the will of God?

        I hope I made my point a little more clear.

        • bah

          “expecting sacrifice for me” should be “expecting sacrifice FROM me”

          that sort of changes the idea, doesn’t it…

        • Mathius™ says:

          JB! My good and long-lost friend!

          When the Lord tells you to do something, you know it is right and pleasing to Him. I know no such thing. God loves to test people. Remember when he told Abraham to sacrifice his son?

          What I do know is this: when God tells me to do something, right or wrong, test or not, you do it. Because the man who controls the pillars of fire and the keys to eternal live is not someone to be disobeyed.

          Of course, He would never approve of, say, murder. Sure he would. He just frowns on murdering his own people. He was just fine with it in a lot of other places. But, conveniently, since he controls the terminology, he gets to decide what is and is not “murder” versus what is and is not “capital punishment.” He condones stoning people to death left and right for minor offense – something that is clearly murder in any secular sense. Also, his prophets sure seem to do quite a bit of killing – and one could infer that God condones the actions of his prophets.

          If Bachman were to become president, she would best serve God by fulfilling her role to the best of her abilities. I’m unclear how you made this leap.. I remember a lot of laws and “thou shall” and “thou shalt” being thrown around in both old and new testaments, but I don’t remember one that says you have to fulfill your job to the best of your abilities. Generally, the line of reasoning your supplied says that she has to do whatever her husband wants unless it explicitly contradicts the will of God.

          So, following that, I have to obey my boss.. unless his boss countermands him. Makes sense. But if my boss’s boss hasn’t given me any instructions in a specific area, is my boss now free to make unlimited demands of me? Your argument would suggest that, yes, this is the case. Since God has no law about hopping on one foot (to my knowledge), her husband would be within his authority to command her to hop around on one foot for the duration of her term in office? I don’t know.. seems off to me..

          “Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her” – Ephesians 5:25 (NIV) Fair enough, but I fail to see how this countermands the preceding sentences. When God tells husbands not to be harsh, for example, this is not an instruction you would give to someone in regards to a peer, but rather in regards to a subordinate. God has placed (in a literal reading) husbands at the head of the table – they’re the boss, but then he walks it back a little saying “be nice” and “love your wife as Jesus loved the church” (side note: what church? There was no “the church” when Jesus died – he was a Jew).

          Which one adheres more closely to the message of Jesus Christ? HUZZAH! Well said, sir, well said. Love is, as always, the correct answer.

          Now, if Bachman’s husband told her what to do as President, to which of these is he ascribing? Is that really the will of God? Who knows? How can any of us know the will of God? The only this we have to go on is a set of books. What if her husband, who thinks homosexuals need to be “disciplined,” orders her to use her power to do the disciplining? That could very readily fall into line of the “will of God” by their interpretations, no?

          I just think it’s dangerous to think this way, and I think this section of the bible is an excellent example of why you have to consider context. But she insists on claiming the corner on truth while ignoring her own hypocrisy and that scares me.

          “let’s prove the Bible is stupid” game NOT AT ALL! I’m just proving that a literal reading of the bible is stupid. A nuanced and interpretive reading of the bible is just fine. Although, personally, I consider it a work of fiction and not the best thing to base your life on, there’s really no issue as long as you apply critical though as you’re reading through it.

          • Not long lost, just spectating in recent weeks. I find my work load increasing and free time decreasing and so rarely take the time to post here, but I try to follow along. Soon I will have even less time. My wife and I are expecting a baby this January! Such a blessing and such an exciting time!

            Now, back to business.

            What I do know is this: when God tells me to do something, right or wrong, test or not, you do it. Because the man who controls the pillars of fire and the keys to eternal live is not someone to be disobeyed. Indeed this is true, but we Christians take a different tack. I recognize that I am pathetically unworthy of God’s approval, having disobeyed Him left and right, but I continue to try to do His will.

            “For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.” Matthew 5:20

            I do this not because I think He’ll come around, but because I already know He loves me and forgives me for the sake of Jesus Christ. Now, good works take on a whole new meaning. I do it out of respect for the awesome gift that I can never earn. My point was that there are several things that we know from the Word are pleasing to God (obeying parents via commandment 4, etc). Sadly, even at these we will fail as we do not understand the real meaning behind God’s words.

            “You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘You shall not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment. ” Matthew 5:21-22

            He just frowns on murdering his own people. He was just fine with it in a lot of other places. Your jab at Christianity actually points out the answer. Since people have sinned against God, they deserve only death. This will is carried out at various points throughout the Bible (even on God’s people by others ex. Ezekiel). The problem with murder is that it is not a bringing of judgment, but of taking judgment into one’s own hands. A murderer may be put to death by a jury (or God), but a person may not kill that person if it is outside the law. This was beside the point, but I felt compelled to make that clarification as it is generally used as fodder by the anti-Christian crowd.

            The rest of your points are summed up by the main point of my post. Generally, the line of reasoning your supplied says that she has to do whatever her husband wants unless it explicitly contradicts the will of God. Not quite. A wife should obey her husband only if her husband is following the will of God. Just as I believe no one should be expected to follow a law that contradicts the will of God, no wife should be expected to obey a husband who is being ungodly. Your silly example of jumping on one foot is a good one. In what sense would a husband telling his wife to jump on one foot be considered the will of God? I would call this a mocking condescension on the husband’s part, which is certainly not husbandly.

            God has placed the husband at the head of the family, but he is still under God. He power (as all earthly power) derives from God. He can only exercise it as it adheres to God’s will.

            Let me put it this way. What role do I consider myself having in my (growing) family? I consider myself the provider, defender and leader. If there is a problem in my family, it is my responsibility to see it gets fixed. If my family is going hungry, it’s my fault. If my family is moving away from God, I must try to bring them back. Nowhere in there does it say I should order my wife around like a servant. I don’t order her to do anything, I help her make decisions just as she does for me.

            You seem to agree with my statement above about a God-centered love in marriage, so where are we disagreeing?

            I think this section of the bible is an excellent example of why you have to consider context. Absolutely! You must also consider how each part of the Bible fits with the whole. That’s the point I’ve been trying to make. What many people call a “literal reading of the Bible” is actually out of sync with the rest of the Word. That’s sad!

            Now, do I think Bachman has it right and is the go-to for Biblical answers. Not at all. But make sure you don’t get yourself caught in a situation where you’re the one claiming you know it all. In other words, she’s either lying about complete adherence to the bible, or she would do her husband’s bidding. So which is it?

            • Mathius™ says:

              I find my work load increasing and free time decreasing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkinson%27s_Law

              My wife and I are expecting a baby this January! MAZEL TOV!!! Boy? Girl? Too soon to tell?

              Did you ever see the movie Idiocracy? It’s good to see SUFA-ites breeding, maybe we can prevent that scenario from ever happening..

              “You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘You shall not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment. ” Matthew 5:21-22 Matthew is, not surprisingly, my favorite book for the bible (followed closely by Corinthians). The reason is because it is, in my humble opinion, the book which most strongly emphasizes that the really important thing is love. I could list a dozen verses (but for the sake of brevity, I won’t) where Matthew makes this clear. In this, I don’t think you and I are far apart.

              Adding, hmm.. it’s a boy, maybe you should name him Matthew.. just saying…….

              a person may not kill that person if it is outside the law The Talmud (the Jewish book of laws – basically rabbinical interpretations of what, exactly, the Torah means and how we should interpret it) shows that the death penalty is the right and God-ordained punishment for a whole host of “crimes”.. but then they went on to set the barrier for implementing the death penalty so high that, in Jewish law, it’s borderline impossible to ever actually convict someone and carry out the sentence. The rabbinical scholar read the Torah (Old Testament to you folks) and came to the conclusion that God loves everyone and doesn’t want us to be judgmental or wrathful. I consider this to be one of the most important inferred tenants of what it means to be a Jew – that we should be kind and charitable to everyone. (note, “should be” – it’s a goal, not something we always achieve).

              You seem to agree with my statement above about a God-centered love in marriage, so where are we disagreeing? We’re not really disagreeing that a husband shouldn’t boss his wife around like a dog. I certainly agree with it (and wish, sometimes, that my wife would remember that she shouldn’t boss me around like a dog, either.

              What I’m saying is this: a <bLITERAL reading of the words of the bible, not an interpretation, not a consideration of the times and linguistic nuances, etc., but a literal reading of the bible puts the man in charge of the wife. He is the boss. She is subject to him. Period. The verses do not specify constraints on his authority beyond the clarification that he should not be harsh. This is The Word of the bible. If you recall, we were discussing Bachmann, who claims that she follows the plain word of the bible and believes it to be the absolute law. If this is the case, there is no escape from the conclusion that her husband would be in charge of her as President.

              You, however, are not using a strict literal reading. You are doing what I have repeatedly approved of – you are taking it and interpreting it. You are trying to see what God meant, not just what he said. This is an important distinction. Whether you’re right or wrong, whether the book is divine or not, I find no fault in reading the bible and coming to the conclusion that you should love and be good to your wife.

              My problem is not with that – it’s with people, like Bachmann, who think you do not need to apply critical thought, or who think it’s just fine to interpret some parts while treating other parts as absolute. Does this make sense? I’m not bashing the bible – I’m bashing people who do not use their brains when reading the bible.

              As for a God-centered love, I love my wife (whose birthday is today, btw). I wouldn’t call it God-centered as neither of us, despite being nominally Jewish, are particularly religious (she is more than me though). It’s not, to me, about god – it’s about being good to each other and finding a way to make the partnership last and grow. About finding a way not to kill each other, and to help each other. I think, 1 Corinthians 13:4-7 pretty much hits it on the head. But if there is a beating heart to the bible, one verse which more than any other captures the “divine spirit,” it’s 1 Corinthians 13:13:

              And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.

              Note, not insignificantly, that the bible places love even above faith. Your religion, your faith in God, your hope for the rewards of eternal life, everything, all of it – comes after love. God is not necessary for love – he places himself after it: love first, god second.

              And that, right there, that one verse is why it’s so hard for me to understand how people like the WBC and some of these other “churches” and several politicians such as Rick Santorum can come to the conclusion that God is wrathful and hateful – that he hates gays and Jews and Muslims – that he hates this and hates that. That he’s judgmental and wrathful. I don’t understand how someone like Bachmann can read that verse and still come to the conclusion that gay couples should not be allowed to marry. I just do not understand how anyone who really reads and understands and believes in the bible as the word of God on earth can reach that conclusion.

              don’t get yourself caught in a situation where you’re the one claiming you know it all. In other words, she’s either lying about complete adherence to the bible, or she would do her husband’s bidding. So which is it? I’ve repeatedly specified that I don’t know it all, and I would hardly qualify as a biblical scholar. But I can read a simple sentence. And if she says that we should take everything at face value, then I’m more than capable of putting 2 and 2 together. She is either lying about following the bible as plain (uninterpretable) text, or she’s doing what the plain (uninterpreted) words say. One or the other. I think it’s.. unfair.. to hold someone to such an obviously blustery claim as “I follow the word of the bible as written” – of course (of course!) she’s interpreting it. It’s just not possible to use the bible as a flat text void of context and nuance. Of course she’s interpreting it and being selective – she has to. So, yes, it’s a “gotcha” question.

              But, to be fair.. she did walk right into it.

              • Actually, we have the first ultrasound tomorrow afternoon. I’m not sure if it’s too soon or not, but we may know tomorrow! One thing I must say, I haven’t even began parenthood yet and I’m still meeting exciting event after exciting event. I can’t wait to be a father!

                It’s funny how sometimes you come into an argument thinking you oppose someone, but find out that you actually mostly agree! Actually I do this with a liberal friend of mine all the time. We don’t always agree 100%, but we usually agree with the basic principles. I just wish congress could do this (fat chance). The more I learn about politics, the more I realize that there is not best choice, only terrible and worse. It’s just kind of funny to me that some people can realize this and then push for a stronger federal government…

                Happy Birthday to the wife!

              • It’s a girl!

              • Mathius™ says:

                HUZZAH!!!!

    • @USW……The most stupid asinine question asked last night happened to be to Michelle Bachmann. NOw, before ANY of you think that I am a Bachmann supporter…think again. Think really long and hard about that because she is not a candidate in my books at all…..none of them are.
      However….”will you be submissive to your husband as a President?” has to rank among the really stupid and set up questions of all times.
      Her answer should have been ” None of your damned business”…now ask me a legitimate question.

      Agreed Colonel, which is why I called out that question in the article. I was honestly pretty angry when that jerk off asked the question. As I said, you would never see a male candidate asked a similar question.

  9. For the last decade Paul has been trying to audit the Fed and get the countries financial system overhauled! He wants to get America in order before sending aid to foreign countries. He is very anti-war and wants to bring the troops home to take care of our border problem! Hell I don’t even have a problem with him legalizing drugs as I believe if that were happen then eventually the idiots that abuse them would bring upon themselves their just reward. Either that or get so messed up society would take them out of it!
    Paul is not establishment. This is why he is portrayed by the media as not being a viable candidate. There is nothing, I repeat nothing more that the bought Republicans and bought Democrats in Congress along with their string pulling puppeteers would hate; is for this man to get elected! Hell that is reason enough right there to vote for him in and of itself! I would like for those of you that do not see Paul as a viable candidate to please post your reason and proof behind it please!

    Ron Paul/Herman Cain 2012!

    • BlackFlag says:

      Texchem

      …Paul cannot win… the system repulses change from within and Paul threatens such change.

      He will not get on the ballot – therefore, no one can vote for him, therefore, he cannot win.

      He has done his job.

      Before Paul, the common folk never heard of the FED. Now, the FED is being exposed.
      Paul has highlighted the issues that surround government – and it is up to the next generation to heed or ignore.

  10. Bah typed my name in twice and now am awaiting moderation…

  11. Jeesh I just wanna hog tie Mitt up and shave off his grey sideburns…looks like he dyed them to look more “Presidential”..!

  12. Mathius™ says:

    because of the BS “broadcasting rights”, here in North Carolina the game was blacked out.

    You can get the game on an ESPN subscription – they’ll still black it out because they look at your IP and know you’re in the black out area. The trick is to use a free service like Tor to make it look to them like you’re watching from Spain or some such. You might have will have some lag issues but at least you’ll be able to watch the game.

    This is not very hard if you actually care enough and have some decent bandwidth.

  13. Anyways I’m going to sleep now…just came off a four night 12 hour set and am off the weekend! Gonna take the kids out swimming in the creek later when I get up today and nurse a bottle of Crown Reserve back to health!

  14. Ray Hawkins says:

    Rick Perry’s Army of God

    “A little-known movement of radical Christians and self-proclaimed prophets wants to infiltrate government, and Rick Perry might be their man.”

    http://www.texasobserver.org/cover-story/rick-perrys-army-of-god

    Any resident conspiracy folks seen this or can comment on it?

    • Buck the Wala says:
      • Mathius™ says:

        I smell something burning..

        Oh wait, it’s just Texas.

        • Mathius™ says:

          “As a nation, we must call upon Jesus to guide us through unprecedented struggles,”

          Well that freaks me out a little bit. I mean, it’s bad enough when they tell us we should appeal to some non-denominational higher power, but I really get skittish about Texas governors who want to be President who think we should all believe in Jesus Christ as a sort of national policy.

          • Mathius,

            Repeat after me

            “The US is NOT a theocracy” 😉

            • Mathius™ says:

              The US is very close to being a theocracy. It is a democracy which is unduly and blatantly influenced by Christianity. Theocracies are just a little more subject to the religion, and generally more open to it. I think it was VH who took me to task on this one – I hate to admit being wrong, but she was right: close, but no cigar………. yet, anyway.

              At least, that’s what I’m going to keep telling myself, otherwise I’d never be able to get to sleep.

              • Oh come off it you theophobic person!
                Seriously, you act like that is the first reference to God by a president or presidential candidate. I get that you dont want an Christian in office anymore than a Christian wants and atheist in office. But so what. Freedom of religion applies to public servants too. I support them being able to say what they want and encourage others along the same line. So long as they refrain from legal enforcement of a religion or legal restriction of a religion its fine. As far as I am concerned the restriction of religious displays borders on restriction of religion, which is just as bad and just as much a violation of religious freedom as enforcing religious standards.

              • Mathius™ says:

                I get that you dont want an Christian in office anymore than a Christian wants and atheist in office.

                NOOOOOOOOOOO!!!

                I have no problem with a Christian in office. I have a problem with anyone in office who thinks that their religious beliefs should be imposed on me. I have a problem with people who think that the functions of their job should be delegated to their deity of choice. I have a problem when the performance of duties is determined by their religion rather than logic (see, DOMA, Shivo, DADT, etc).

                As far as I am concerned the restriction of religious displays borders on restriction of religion Care to be more specific? Are you talking about religious displays on government property which is paid for by tax-payer money? Those displays? The ones for which I am paying, however slightly? Why should I be required to pay for land to display your religious symbols?

              • Come on Matt-you can’t bring up any social issue or apparently even climate change per some people-pushed by the right without blaming it on religious belief-you don’t care about logic with it comes to the right-that shows very clearly by the constant claims that they are forcing their religious beliefs on you. You do it at every opportunity-then claim that your stance isn’t that the religious shouldn’t be president. You say it is only people who “think that the functions of their job should be delegated to their deity of choice” while at the same time claiming consistently that anyone on the right who acknowledges they are Christian thinks that way-per you-they must by YOUR interpretation of the Bible. I suppose those on the left who push social justice based on their religious beliefs aren’t pushing their faith onto the rest of us. I suppose they must have some logic that guides them. As Charlie would say-Oy vey

              • Mathius™ says:

                you can’t bring up any social issue or apparently even climate change per some people-pushed by the right without blaming it on religious belief Not sure where you’re getting this.. when did I blame people’s views on climate change on their religious beliefs? Unless they explicitly said their beliefs are due to some religious aspect (which I can’t think of cases), then I assume it’s based on a consideration of the evidence, for better or worse.

                Many, many, many, many social issues have nothing to do with religion. When have I blamed a person’s religious views for their views on, say, immigration? Or drug policy? Or education policy (other than prayer in school / religious curriculum / etc)?

                But abortion.. you keep hearing how “life is sacred” or how “god is against it”.. that’s a problem. When they argue it secularly, however, though I disagree, I don’t have a problem with their opinions. Similarly, gay marriage.. you keep hearing about the sacrament of marriage, about “Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve,” about how homosexuality is “an abomination.” BAH!

                No, V, I think that opinion is unwarranted. There’s a clear distinction here if you care to see it.

                you don’t care about logic with it comes to the right-that shows very clearly by the constant claims that they are forcing their religious beliefs on you. They are constantly pushing their views on me. From blue laws, to gay rights, to noise exemptions for church bells, to teaching creationism in school (or trying to, anyway), to putting “God” on our money, the list is endless. You cannot escape the implication that this is a Christian country and the rest of us are just living in it.

                You do it at every opportunity-then claim that your stance isn’t that the religious shouldn’t be president. Right. As long as they can keep their religion to themselves. If it impacts me, then it has to be secular. If I’m paying for it, however slightly, it has to be secular. Otherwise, I don’t care what you believe.

                You say it is only people who “think that the functions of their job should be delegated to their deity of choice” while at the same time claiming consistently that anyone on the right who acknowledges they are Christian thinks that way Absolutely not! I have a problem with him just throwing his hands in the air and saying “pray for god to fix it.” Admittedly, in this example, I’m not sure what else he could have done.

                But in examples like, say, praying the recession away, it’s preposterous, frankly offensive, and negligent of his actual duties. Whether Flag is correct, and he could help end the recession by cutting taxes or Keynesians are correct and he could help end the recession by stimulus spending, he has to do something – doing nothing and hope God will take care of it is, simply put, a dereliction of duty.

                per you-they must by YOUR interpretation of the Bible. No. Not at all. I think a literal reading of the bible is insanity. That said, if it doesn’t impact me, I don’t care. They must believe whatever they want to believe, not my interpretation. But, where it does impact me, I demand a secular thought process – for better or worse.

                I suppose those on the left who push social justice based on their religious beliefs aren’t pushing their faith onto the rest of us. Generally not. I tend to believe in a secular concept of social justice, but not everyone thinks that way. There is such a thing as the religious-left. They believe (and the bible absolutely supports) that god wants people to help the poor, etc. And those people, even though I agree with the goals, have no place in politics either. I don’t want them in power any more than I want Bachmann and her crazy husband.

                As Charlie would say-Oy vey Oy vey indeed.

              • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

                “I have a problem with anyone in office who thinks that their religious beliefs should be imposed on me.”

                Good, I have a problem with that too. However, I don’t personally equate the phrase “As a nation, we must call upon Jesus to guide us through unprecedented struggles,” as an imposition of his religion on me. You are, of course, free to regard it as an imposition of his religion on you if you so choose, but I just don’t see it that way.

              • Firstly, someone saying “we must call upon Jesus to guide us through” is not the same as “by law, all must call upon Jesus”. If you feel imposed on by that, then you have a serious issue with authority, more specifically, you think anyone in a position of authority has power over you by simply speaking. We are a nation of laws, not the whimsical edicts of royalty.

                Secondly, I am talking about displays of behavior, such as a prayer or a declaration of faith, not physical displays. I would no sooner see you pay even a fraction of money to pay for a religious display than I would see a fraction of some Christian’s money going to pay for abortions. Both are a gross violation of freedom of religion by forcing the donation of personal property to fund that which you do not believe in or support.

              • Mathius™ says:

                …………………….

                Yea……

                I can see how it would cut both ways.

                Personally, I don’t see that, exactly, as an imposition of his religion on me.. but it makes me uncomfortable and I wish we would choose different language. Just sub out Jesus and see how it sits with you:

                A prominent politician, and a very possible future President: “As a nation, we must call upon Allah and Mohammad to guide us through unprecedented struggles,”

                We Jews do tend to be touchy on this kind of thing, I’ll admit it.. but it just makes me squirm in my seat. Can you honestly say that you would be just fine and dandy with that statement?

              • How are you not pushing social justice on the rest of us if you are supporting putting it into law and making everyone pay for it? That is like saying that if the religious people want to put all their morality stuff into lawand make me pay for it, thats fine, so long as they don’t get preachy about it or say it out loud or use any visible symbols. You just got through saying that you didnt want to pay for a religious display, not matter how little of your taxdollars it took. Then you say that those pushing social justice are not pushing their beliefs on others, despite the fact they they are pushing to have tax dollars pay for their social justice programs.

                Hardly consistent.

              • Mathius™ says:

                Hardly consistent. Very consistent.

                You just got through saying that you didnt want to pay for a religious display, not matter how little of your taxdollars it took. Then you say that those pushing social justice are not pushing their beliefs on others ooh.. right there at the end, did you see it?

                You dropped the word religious.

                Where did I ever say I don’t want people pushing their [non religious] beliefs? Push, don’t push, I don’t care, it’ll sink or swim on it’s merits. That’s fine. That’s healthy debate.

                I said I don’t want people pushing their religious beliefs, but I never said I have a problem with their secular beliefs. In fact, several times I specifically clarified that secular opinion, even where I disagree, are just fine with me.

                Here, for example:

                When they argue it secularly, however, though I disagree, I don’t have a problem with their opinions.

                Social Justice, though I’m not a huge fan of the term, is the idea that those of us with the most have a moral obligation to help the less fortunate. Noblesse oblige as it was once known. It’s a morality position, right or wrong.

                If a Christian happens to believe the same thing, I have no problem. If he thinks so because he read it in the bible, I do have a problem.

                When we are discussing drug policy, for example, I never point at religion and say it shouldn’t be involved. Why? Because it’s not really all that involved. Both sides of the debate are, right or wrong, pretty much secular.

                But social justice lends itself to religion. In fact, I’m very confused why so many on the Christian-right are against wealth redistribution – the bible is very clearly in favor of it. But regardless, I don’t want them on my side – I don’t want the debate influence by religion.

                I don’t see where you find me inconsistent.

              • Mainly because you are selectively outraged-because you talk against Christianity only when you disagree with a stance-in other words you selectively criticize Christianity as a political tool against the right.

              • Mathius™ says:

                I think if you’ll re-read what I’ve said, I have no problem with Christianity in-and-of-itself. I have a problem followers of Christianity. I have a problem with people either making laws based on it, or pushing it on me in some other manner. Otherwise, to quote the Koran, “To you is your faith. To me is mine.”

          • Buck the Wala says:

            Personally, my favorite part of the article:

            In the four months since Perry’s request for divine intervention, his state has taken a dramatic turn for the worse. Nearly all of Texas is now in “extreme or exceptional” drought, as classified by federal meteorologists, the worst in Texas history.

            Lakes have disappeared. Creeks are phantoms, the caked bottoms littered with rotting, dead fish. Farmers cannot coax a kernel of grain from ground that looks like the skin of an aging elephant.

            Is this Rick Perry’s fault, a slap to a man who doesn’t believe that humans can alter the earth’s climate — God messin’ with Texas?

            • Wow, Buck-that’s makes about as much sense as me saying I hope the economy gets worse so Obama will be proven wrong. I suppose you take this as proof that prayer is useless-it isn’t but I’m not going to argue that point-and quite frankly asking people to pray for Gods help-doesn’t HURT the economy-or cause droughts. Climate legislation on the other hand-won’t alter the earth’s climate but it sure will help bankrupt the country.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                It is a fact of life that, the worse the economy does, the better the GOPs chance of taking the presidency. Do you disagree? I’m not saying that the GOP is actively rooting for the economy to fail, but at the very least there is a conflict of interest here.

                By the same token, I’m not saying that prayer is useless. But it does put Perry’s beliefs into stark contrast on the issue.

              • I wasn’t saying you were accusing anyone of anything. I said it was wrong because you were making it “Sound” like you were happy about the situation in Texas because you could use it to take a shot at Christianity. And I do mean “sound” I don’t think you are really happy about it.

                I don’t understand the comment about a conflict of interest-yea it’s a fact that a bad economy makes it harder for a sitting President to get re-elected-how is this a conflict of interest.

                And it only puts Perry’s religion into stark contrast-if you want to claim that he’s against climate change solely because he’s religious. Believing God will help in bad times-doesn’t even mean he would automatically be against climate change legislation. Are there non-religious people out there who think climate change is total BS-I think there are-many of them. Are there people out there who are religious who believe climate change legislation is necessary-I don’t know-but I suspect there are.

              • Actually, I do know that there are-Pelosi, Obama, are both for climate change regulation.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                It is a conflict of interest in sorts because, the worse the economy is, the better the GOP candidate’s chances at election. So while the candidate may want a stronger economy, it is in the candidate’s own self interest to have a bad economy going into the election.

                As for Perry, his own statement is that we should just hand it (the problems) over to god to handle. That concerns me. I’m not happy about the situation in Texas, but when you elect a governor who believes it best to do nothing, but look to god to magically solve the problems, well, you get what you pay for.

              • Buck, what else can you do when your problem is the weather? Praying is kind of your best option.

              • Buck-you simply don’t understand religious speak-giving something over to God does not mean do nothing.

                As far as this conflict-so what-if it’s a conflict- it can equally effect any President regardless of party.

            • Ok Buck, you need to buy a copy of the Farmer’s Almanac and look back a little ways. You act like droughts in Texas are new. Weather happens. If you can show me proof that it is humankind’s impact that is changing it, fine, but at least have a grasp on teh reality of changing weather. You sound like some religious fanatic pointing to every catastrophe as “gods judgement” and to every good thing that happens as “miracles”, every bad thing as “the devil” and every good decisions as “god’s guidance”. Even those who believe in God usually know better than to think that everything is micromanaged by him.

              Not every weather shift or anomoly is outside of normal, or cause by global warming, or cuase by humanity.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Clearly I have not been clear in getting across my thoughts here and I fear you and VH have focused in on the issue of climate change / the weather.

                My real issue has absolutely nothing to do with this singular issue, but with Perrys public statements and approach in calling for a public prayer, and a desire to turn the problems over to god.

                I pointed to this paragraph as my favorite of the article because, to me, it highlights what concerns me about Perry in an amusing way.

                Regarding Perry himself, my concern is for any leader who would stand on their public pulpit to invoke god or Jesus to come solve our problems, to sit back and pray away the issue. As Mathius suggested, you may have no problem with this because you are Christian, but I imagine you would have a very different reaction if a politician was to invoke Allah, or call for an Islamic prayer session. I hope I am wrong on this.

    • Nope….dont see it. He has done nothing like that here. I am perfectly happy with him as the Gov and wish he were not running for Pres. We do not have crosses on every corner and no one is wearing robes around.

      BUt….I will keep an eye out. I do not profess to be Christian and his prayer breakfast or whatever he did does not bother me at all.

  15. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    I didn’t watch, so I can’t really comment on the actual “debate”. I greet all such events with a resounding “meh”. The ONLY things I want to hear from a Presidential Candidate are the following:

    I will sign off on any bill with REAL, ACTUAL spending cuts.

    I will veto any bill with spending increases.

    I will veto any bill with increases in power to any regulatory agency.

    I will limit the powers of all regulatory agencies to pass laws (i.e. promulgate regulations) without the consent of Congress and the people.

    I will devolve as much federal power as possible to the States and to local governments.

    I will not make any executive orders, and I will rescind the majority of executive orders of my predecessors.

    I will get government out of the way so that Americans can start producing again.

    Since none of them are going to say ANY of that, or if they do say it they aren’t gonna mean it, what’s the point?

    By the way, do you know what the “Federal Register” is? Do you know how extensive it is? Do you realize that it is updated at least bi-weekly with NEW regulations? If you are not familiar with the Federal Register, I would suggest you access it online and check it out. It is (literally) ridiculous.

    • Mathius™ says:

      I missed it, also… too bad, I really enjoyed it as a drinking game the last two times around.

      This year’s rules:
      http://www.cityweekly.net/utah/blog-5817-gop-presidential-debate-drinking-game.html

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        We had a drinking game back in college which had to be played on Saturday mornings. The game was, you had to watch the Bugs Bunny/Road Runner show (which at that time was an hour and a half of cartoons) and take a drink any time a law of physics was violated.

        Needless to say, few people made it through the entire show… however, there were some pretty interesting debates at times as to whether a law of physics was ACTUALLY violated or not 🙂

        Also needless to say, I wasn’t stupid enough to ever participate in THAT particular game!

        • Mathius™ says:

          Buck can vouch for one of my favorite drinking games back in college.

          Here’s how you play:
          1. Buy alcohol
          2. Drink alcohol
          3. Repeat step 2 until alcohol runs out
          4. Repeat step 1 until money runs out

          Ah, the good old days…

          • Ah, nostalgia -unfortunately -they weren’t as good as we remember them. Felt bad for two days after all the FUN-almost always embarrassed about something that was said or done. Or just not being able to actually remember all of the evening -was the worse 🙂 But actual drinking games-never did that.

            • Mathius™ says:

              Oh, V… I have no regrets – none.

              I never had a hangover either – got my first one at 26, and it wasn’t so bad.

              I one had two black outs (and one was due to an accidental mix of Benadryl and booze). My thyroid is messed up and it causes my metabolism to run differently, even though I weighed 125 my sophomore year, I had the kind of tolerance usually reserved for Irish dock workers.

              Those days were exactly as much fun as I remember them. And if I were a younger man, I’d do it all over the same way.

              ….

              OK, one regret – I didn’t discover the joys of Red Bull until after college.. man, that would have been AWESOME!

          • Buck the Wala says:

            My favorite game!

    • And I want my president to nationalize everything, whack every SOB on Wall Street who was involved in the great financial “crisis” for which they were bailed out. I want both parties eliminated pronto. I become dictator (until 70 or so–but I’ll determine when). The 0.2%’ers get to live in tents while we redistribute their ill gotten gains, Bill Gates goes from $650K an hour to minimum wage (and actually working) and that hedge fund clown who made $2.4 million an hour last year gets to sweep the streets from Main to the far reaches of Alaska … for free.

      Bada-boom, bada-bing, Petie-boy …

      • Charlie,

        That is more or less what they did in Lenist Russia ….

        ….100 million dead later….

        😦

        • It’s much more than they did in Leninist Russia (military dictatorship) and much less than the propaganda spewed here, but I don’t have time to roll that carpet out again. Let’s go with anarchy and you can live your way and us reds can live our way. Just so long as you understand we won’t be taking orders from bosses; you’ll have to find your own slaves (you can start at SUFA; many here seem into it). We’ll leave you alone so long as you leave us alone … but eventually capitalism will keep you from doing that and we’ll have to ruin your party for our own defense, but if you can swing it peacefully, so can we. We don’t need slaves to wages, just some breathing room.

          34 minutes to the bears taking a beating from the bills … can you stand the suspense?

  16. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    This is OT for today, but I didn’t wanna put it back in the open-mic thread because people might miss it there.

    John Holdren is President Obama’s “Science Czar”. Many of you know about Holdren from the 1970s, and as such many of you probably consider him a loon (which is accurate). Here is some stuff about him you may find revealing:

    http://hauntingthelibrary.wordpress.com/2011/01/31/flashback-1975-holdren-says-real-threat-to-usa-is-cheap-energy/

    Now, as I, or BF, or Isaac Asimov, or Robert Heinlein, or anyone with even half of an active braincell can tell you, the KEY to prosperity is cheap, abundant energy. Cheap abundant energy ALWAYS means more jobs, more leisure, more food, basically more everything.

    With a guy like this as the “Science Czar” to the President, you can see why energy prices are way up and the desire to produce more cheap, abundant energy is currently non-existent!

    • Read this “. . . diverting financial resources from compelling social needs(taking money from the people and giving it to government to waste-my addition), making hasty commitments to unproved technologies, and generating environmental and social costs that harm human welfare” take out this ” more than the extra energy improves it.” And we have exactly what the left and the environmentalist are doing. 🙂

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        The scary thing is that Holdren now seems to FAVOR making hasty commitments to unproved technologies, provided those technologies that those technologies are designed to produce HORRIBLY INEFFICIENT forms of energy, such as Ethanol or wind.

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          I didn’t edit that very well, but you get my point 8)

          • 🙂 I stop and try to decide whether or not it is necessary to go back and point out my mistakes for the point of clarity-I do it so often.

      • Peter,

        Now, as I, or BF, or Isaac Asimov, or Robert Heinlein, or anyone with even half of an active braincell can tell you, the KEY to prosperity is cheap, abundant energy

        Hey, Peter (or AKA “Dread Pirate Roberts”)

        Exactly!!!

        All human solutions to human problems ends up requiring ENERGY

        …and the cheaper the energy – the more easier, permanent, and prosperous the solution.

    • Wow! You know what I find surprising is some of the commenters lamenting they can’t believe Obama would put someone this radical in a top level position. Duh! He is exactly Obama’s type! Why is this still so hard for people to see?

      • Kathy (my secret love), has it really made a different who Obama puts in any position? They all fold their cards and give into the lunatics on the right anyway. Stop hating the guy, he’s done more for the Republican cause the dubbya ever dreamed of doing. He couldn’t be more republican if he tried.

  17. Mathius™ says:

    Ladies and Gentlemen,

    For your consideration, Herman Cain.

    Ooooh boy…

    • You are aware, of course, that he back stepped those comments and kissed and made up with the Muslims?

  18. Terry Evans says:

    So Buck, it appears that all of law does not share your opinion…

    An appeals court ruled Friday that President Barack Obama’s healthcare law requiring Americans to buy healthcare insurance or face a penalty was unconstitutional, a blow to the White House.

    • Buck the Wala says:

      Damn conservative activist judges!

      Got a link for that?

      • Mathius™ says:

        Buck! Don’t you know, they’re only “activists” when they’re liberals.

      • Terry Evans says:

        One of the judges who determined that the individual mandate was not constitutional was a Democrat appointed by Clinton…

      • 11th circuit

        • Buck the Wala says:

          At least they had the good sense to keep the rest of the act in tact.

          • My understanding is that they need the money from the mandate to PAY for the bill-so how is getting rid of the mandate and keeping the rest a smart move.

          • It is going to the SCOTUS…….my objection is the mandate anyway. I actually think the SCOTUS will rule 6/3 against the mandate and I believe that of the whole issue goes to SCOTUS it will be 5/4 that it does not fall under the commerce clause…..just my opinion.

    • You must read this-just to hear the argument used by the Judge that dissented.

      August 12, 2011
      Court of Appeals finds ObamaCare individual mandate unconstitutional
      Thomas Lifson

      A second federal circuit court of appeals has spoken in the ObamaCare case, the one brought by 26 states. A split three judge panel for the Atlanta-based 11th Citcuit has found the individual mandate unconstitutional, but leaves the rest of the law intact, though crippled and financially not viable.

      Jennifer Haberkorn of Politico:

      The 2-1 ruling marks the first time a judge appointed by a Democrat has voted to strike down the mandate. Judge Frank Hull, who was nominated by former President Bill Clinton, joined Chief Judge Joel Dubina, who was appointed by George H.W. Bush, to strike down the mandate.

      Judge Stanley Marcus, in a dissenting opinion, said the mandate is constitutional. He was also appointed by Clinton.

      This ruling all but guarantees that the Supreme Court will review the case, as the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the mandate in a similar suit six weeks ago.

      Reuters quotes the decision

      “This economic mandate represents a wholly novel and potentially unbounded assertion of congressional authority: the ability to compel Americans to purchase an expensive health insurance product they have elected not to buy, and to make them re-purchase that insurance product every month for their entire lives,” a divided three-judge panel said.

      Update. R. Clayton Strang writes:

      Today the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals has declared the portion of President Obama’s Job Killing Health Care Law requiring all residents of the United States to buy health insurance unconstitutional. Of course it is! While this is a great victory for America, we still have a long row to hoe.

      We shouldn’t be shocked that two federal judges ruled that the individual mandate is unconstitutional. We should, however, be outraged that any judge thinks that it is constitutional! Stanley Marcus, the one judge on this three judge panel who agreed with the Obama administration, wrote that the other two judges “ignored the undeniable fact that Congress’ commerce power has grown exponentially over the past two centuries and is now generally accepted as having afforded Congress the authority to create rules regulating large areas of our national economy.” Let’s stop here for a minute. Let’s all go back and read that one more time.

      Have you read it again? Do you catch what he said? He is asserting not that Congress has the legal power to force us to buy a product or service, rather that they have that authority because it is “generally accepted” that they have the authority! Marcus is telling us that simply because the power that Congress has seized has grown that We the People simply have to accept it. It doesn’t matter that Congress has absolutely zero Constitutional authority to do something. They’ve done it! They’ve taken the power! It happens all the time so it must be fine, right? Isn’t that a bit like telling a murder that he won’t be charged because the murder rate has gone up?

      Might does not make right. Just because something has been done, it doesn’t necessarily follow that it is right. We are a nation of laws. Our Founders put in place a system that limits what our government can do, specifically to keep that government from running amok. We, as a people, should insist that checks on governmental power be enforced. No one in America, not individuals, not the Congress, not even the President, is above the law.

      http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/08/court_of_appeals_finds_obamacare_individual_mandate_unconstitutional.html

      • A Puritan Descendant says:

        “Congress’ commerce power has grown exponentially over the past two centuries”

        Or maybe Judge Stanley Marcus is really trying to say, “Since precedence has been such a great tool in rewriting our constitution, it is then only a small innocent step to rule that non-activity in the insurance market can be regulated under the commerce clause.” “and just think where we can go from here….”

  19. I have all your answers…I do not know why ya’ll can’t see it..

    D13 The Colonel for President

    • I already have two votes……Mine and my mom.

      • Mathius™ says:

        I disagree with you on damn near everything, but hell, you’ve got my vote!

        • You really don’t disagree with me that much, Mathius….but I did promise not to tell the others on here that you really are not a left winger and…….ooops..

          • Mathius™ says:

            Left winger? No, I’m really much more of a REDISTRIBUTE THE WEALTH!! (shouted in the manner of Dr. Strangelove).. much more of a moderate, though I do pull a little to the left.

            • missingtexas says:

              Isn’t it more correct to say “more of a REDISTRIBUTE OF INCOME” instead of wealth? As we all know, it is infinitely more possible to “protect” wealth in all sorts of shelters, trusts and what not ..as opposed to being able to protect income for most of the USA’s taxpayers.

  20. Matt,
    that is why I call you theophobic. You do not want anything based on religion, whether you agree with it or not.

    So, what defines secular, and why is it automatically more credible? Some base their secular opinions and beliefs on emotional reaction, or on how they were raised, or on the writings of someone who appealed to them. Why are those people more credible than someone who believes in a bood that happens to be religious or gets their “guidance” from what they believe to be their god rather than their feelings? What makes one better than the other?

    I know a lot of conservatives who are not religious, who are basing their beleifs on how they were raised. They cannot articulate anything more than “it just makes sense” or “thats whats right” or even “Its not fair to take from those who earned stuff and give to those who havent”. Those are secular views, but are they credible? I dont think so.

    If you are ignoring the arguments of those who base it on religious beliefs, but accept those based on personal beliefs that happen to not be religious, yet one is based on nothing more solid than the other, is that not simply bigotry? Perhaps, as you say, you are consistent, but you are still contradicting your own reasoning. Understand, I am not saying this in support of religion based arguments, but in opposition to arguments based on belief systems that have no better evidence.

    • Oh, and by the by, the Bible is not in favor of legally enforced morality. It is in favor of helping those in need, in charity from one sould to another, not througha government middleman that removes the most valuable parts of charity. Hope and education and love are the real value, the material things are just to open the door for the rest, and to meet the immidiate needs. The real goal of charity is to help one grow to the point of meeting their own needs.

    • Mathius™ says:

      Ahhhhh… a new thread.. much nicer..

      You do not want anything based on religion, whether you agree with it or not. Yup.

      Some base their secular opinions and beliefs on emotional reaction Yes. Yes they do. And I don’t want those either. You may have seen me argue more than once against emotional-inspired legislation. It’s hard to separate emotion from a person’s thoughts, in much the same way as it’s difficult to segregate out religion from secular reasoning. In my ideal work, it would be pure and simple logic, but human beings (with very few exceptions), simple do not operate that way – alas.

      They cannot articulate anything more than “it just makes sense” or “thats whats right” or even “Its not fair to take from those who earned stuff and give to those who havent”. Those are secular views, but are they credible? I dont think so. I do think so. Though, of course, I’d prefer something more reasoned that “it seems right,” there is something to be said about things just making sense – there’s an internal sense of reasoning that goes on behind the scenes – even if someone can’t articulate it, I don’t think that necessarily makes it fair to discount entirely.

      personal beliefs that happen to not be religious what creates a personal belief that happens not to be religious? Experiences? Logic? Teaching? Thoughts? History? Something, right? Something other than “the bible says X, therefore X.” That’s not to say that all “personal beliefs” are valid or worthwhile – again, given my druthers, everything would have to be reasoned out in a thorough, intelligent, and comprehensive debate – but we’re still humans and that world is unlikely to occur.

      yet one is based on nothing more solid than the other, is that not simply bigotry No, because the sources are not equal. But where personal opinion has no basis (as is, to be fair, often the case), then that opinion is equally void and has no place in politics either.

      in opposition to arguments based on belief systems that have no better evidence. I completely agree here (as you may have inferred from my previous paragraph). If there’s nothing behind a belief other than “that’s what I believe” then I would join you in arguing against it.

  21. Just out of curiosity -does anyone want to talk about these candidates-on any issues that aren’t pigeonholed as nothing more than religious beliefs by the left. Or has this turned into nothing more than a discussion of Christianity and social issues. Which is part of the problem-we keep being hi-jacked by social issues-while the country burns economically. How about their stances on the economy, smaller government, debt ceiling, taxes, energy etc, etc, etc, 🙂

    How did they distinguish themselves from each other, on issues besides their stances on abortion and gay marriage? I’d make more comments but I’ve only watched the second half of the debate so far-taped it though-so I’ll watch it tonight.

    • Buck the Wala says:

      OOOH, I’ll answer first.

      I disagree with all of them and will not vote for any of them. That help?

      Sorry for the short answer, but its Friday and its a gorgeous day outside, and I’m heading home! Enjoy the weekend all!

      • Well, I don’t know about help-since it wasn’t new information 🙂 Have a good weekend!

  22. This just makes me sick to my stomach. Everything he touches becomes a disaster and for him to hold the green and gold is not a good thing.

    Obama Welcomes Green Bay Packers to White House

    Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/08/12/obama-welcomes-green-bay-packers-to-white-house/#ixzz1UsGf7PBn

    • Oh, that got my blood flowing this morning-that last remark-I don’t take you seriously-really made me mad-guess what jerk, you just said you don’t take half the country seriously-you don’t take a portion of your constituency seriously-you don’t care about freedom of the press or freedom of speech. We all wish we didn’t have to take YOU seriously-but unfortunately -We don’t have that option. We can’t just dismiss you-you smug jerk-because you have the power of your office.

      • 🙂 Sorry to piss you off this morning. I had the same reaction. Durbin winked at the other reporters and said ” you’re not going to cover this, right?”

  23. Finally got a chance to view the debate on the internet since I do not get cable channels. I was greatly disappointed…. in the questions not the answers. Newt was exactly right about the gotcha questions. As a result it was more theater than a real political discourse. I was especially disappointed with Chris Wallace. I thought he was better than that. When will these interviewers realize that they have our attention and the candidate’s time for only a brief period? They need to need to make the most of the opportunity rather than waste our time on trivia.

    As for the candidates, they did well but like most of these “debates” were too vague on many issues.

    Cain – I like his approach to fiscal government. Cut corporate taxes, bring home corporate profits, set up metrics for each department and hold them to those metrics. If they do not or have not performed up to expectations, cut off their funds. He wants the Feds out of education. He is learning fast. I hope he makes the semifinals. I would like to hear more from him as he is one of the more informative of the candidates. I like the way he breaks down problems and identifies root causes. He clearly pointed out that immigration and Afghanistan are multiple problems not just a single issue. He clearly is a problem solver.

    Romney – What can on say. Polished, presidential, business experienced, intelligent. He is the Repub’s centrist candidate, safe but uninspiring. I’d like to see him in a major cabinet position, maybe one of the troubled ones that needs a serious shakeup.
    Bachmann – Not enough long term vision but clearly a scrapper. I thought she got some of the worst questions. The infighting between here and Pawlenty is not helpful. She needs to ignore him and establish a long term vision. I do not see her as a finalist but I hope she is stays in the debate to keep things stirred up. I would like to see her establish executive experience at maybe one of the lesser cabinet posts. A few years in the cabinet followed by a Senate seat could make her a strong candidate in 2020.

    Paul – I agreed with Ron until he got to the issue of Iran. I know the history regarding the Shah. Yes we interfered but we did not implement the theocracy they have now and are not responsible for it. I do think Iran is a long term threat. I also think that their getting the bomb is inevitable, there is nothing short of war that will stop that. My position would be to make it clear to them that if they use it, Iran will become one big sheet of glass. In this case it is not MAD just AD. He is right about Iraq and Afghanistan. When we went into both, I said (long before SUFA) that we would be there a decade because it is an education process. We are half way there. Iraq may have the strength to succeed as a democracy if Iran leaves them alone. Afghanistan does not. It is time to leave both.

    Santorum – I was not impressed with him. He made a few good points about his record but I did not see a vision. Not a semifinalist in my book.

    Pawlenty – Also not impressed with him. He spent too much time attaching Michelle. His record may be good but what is his vision for the future.

    Newt – Next to Romney, he is the most experienced in government. As for those who bring up his baggage, so what, no one was bothered by Clinton’s, Obama’s past is closed to all, etc. He makes good arguments and has a reasoned approach.

    Huntsman – I would like to hear more from him. He was too quiet. Since my company sells to chemical and petroleum companies including his, I know something about the industry. The one question on jobs relating to Huntsman Chemical, I thought he gave a so-so answer to. He tried to expand the question to jobs in general but he should have directly answered the question using Huntsman Chemical as an example of worldwide commerce. He tried at the end of the question to point out that the growth area was in China so that is where the plants belong. He also pointed out that the permitting process in the US is prohibitive. These are good real world examples that are not just indicative of the petrochemical industry but of all manufacturing in the US and the harm that over regulation and taxes plays in our economics. He should use these examples as teaching tools.

    Missing from the debate was strong discussions of Libya, energy, education, unions, and home land security. Finally, how do we get an amalgam of the best traits of these candidates, Romney’s presidential appearance, Cain’s analytical skills, Huntsman’s diplomatic and business experience, Bachmann’s fire and convictions, Paul’s libertarian streak, and Newt’s common sense?

  24. I want to try and clarify my stance on politics vs. the attack on Christianity debate.

    I have no problem with people bringing up religion if they disagree with a politicians statements or actions-as long as they confine those comments to that person, to their actions, and the actions actually involved an act solely based on their faith.

    Perry as a leader has a prayer rally-if you believe this goes against the separation of church and state it is a legitimate debate. But if you try to attach his stance on global warming and his asking for people to pray to God or Jesus or if it wasn’t Perry Allah as praying the problem away or attempt to make Christianity the talking point on why the right objects to global warming legislation-I call BS-I call attacking Christianity as a political tool.

    If every time a candidate on the right says-I am against abortion, I am against gay marriage, etc.-and you know they are Christian-you start talking about Christianity as the reason for their stance-I call attack on Christianity. I call hypocrisy-because when a candidate on the left stands up that you know is a Christian and starts talking about distribution of wealth-which is easily attached to the Christian value of helping the needy-you do not start talking about Christianity as the culprit.

    Matt told me once that it is only natural not to object when people agree with you and he is well aware that it is not right , he is correct. But there is a difference between nice sensible logical words of justification and the actual affect of your arguments. The end result of the lefts doing what comes naturally is an attack on Christianity as a whole. It is not right and it is dangerous. All the logic and understanding in the world does not change that. So if you are against the ideas on the right-you go ahead and fight against them-you bring up Christianity only when the argument is solely one of Christianity and freedom of religion-but unless you are going to judge Christianity on the whole-democrat, republican, independents-leave us out of it. I am not your political tool-I don’t fit in a box-you want to argue I’m a republican-fine-I vote for them-I am responsible for their actions by doing so-many I don’t agree with. You want to judge me on my religion-you need to judge me individually.

    • I have a question too – why are there so many attacks on Tim Tebow’s religious beliefs?

      • A fall out -of the attack on Christianity in general-hate being promoted for political reasons. Would be my answer.

    • Here we go-listen to the man in the gray(a democrat, I think is obvious) telling everyone what a Christian is supposed to believe-that support of Walker proves what their religious views are. And good grief listen to the police explain how this guy getting between someone touching his mom in an aggressive way could lead to him going to jail.

  25. Racism and “PUT to that CROSS”-Case closed-democrats that use race and Christianity to further their careers are just SO WRONG!!!!!

    http://www.theblaze.com/stories/nancy-pelosi-tells-predominantly-black-audience-sheila-jackson-lee-was-right-to-suggest-the-gop-complicated-debt-debate-because-obama-is-black/

  26. Charlie,

    much more than they did in Leninist Russia (military dictatorship) and much less than the propaganda spewed here, but I don’t have time to roll that carpet out again. Let’s go with anarchy and you can live your way and us reds can live our way

    Oh, God I wish.

    But part of the “your” philosophy is envy.

    You will not allow “us” to live our way – you will destroy what you do not have.

    • Yeah, sure, it’s envy. Convince yourself.

    • BF,

      I would venture to say that Charlie has sincere belief in his philosophy of the way societies should be structured, as much as your beliefs are sincere in your philosophy. Does envy come into play over your beliefs?

      • Plainly,

        Does envy come into play over your beliefs?

        No, because I am not jealous over what he has in his wallet.

        Charlie is – he is very jealous of everyone else’s wallets and demands access to those wallets.

        Envy is a dangerous form of jealousy. Jealousy is the emotion of wanting what someone else has. Envy is the emotion of destroying what you cannot have.

        • And thus ends any credibility to your imagined “genius”, Mr. BF. With all your articulation and rational thinking, you break it down to something foolish. Those with my view who are wealthy, are they envious also? Those who don’t believe wealth (or what you have in your wallet) is of any interest to them (that there are greater “wealths” they might aspire to), are they jealous?

          It’s a childish ploy. You come off as foolish; your credibility is gone.

          • Maybe this will help (you to get over the nonsense argument you spew for lack of something concrete), BF.

            Stop Coddling the Super-Rich
            By WARREN E. BUFFETT
            http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/opinion/stop-coddling-the-super-rich.html?_r=1&hp

            • He is free to write IRS a check for whatever he thinks is a “fair” tax for him self, not what he feels as fair for others.

          • BlackFlag says:

            Charlie,

            And thus ends any credibility to your imagined “genius”, Mr. BF. With all your articulation and rational thinking, you break it down to something foolish

            You cannot deny you covet the property of others – and you cannot deny that you have argued that if you cannot have, you would deny them their own property by any means.

            . Those with my view who are wealthy, are they envious also?

            No doubt some are. Envy is not limited by societal class, education, wealth, sex, age or culture. It is a serious human problem.

            Those who don’t believe wealth (or what you have in your wallet) is of any interest to them (that there are greater “wealths” they might aspire to), are they jealous?

            Some aren’t.

            But we are not talking about “them” – we are talking about you and your beliefs.

  27. B A C H M A N N….. Take that lefties! Ron Paul a close second. Now we’re talkin’

    • B A C H M A N N    for    P R E S I D E N T

      Take that lefties? Ok, sounds good to me!

      Maybe I should clarify – is that Michele or Marcus? 😉

      • I just think it’s funny. The lefties here want nothing to do with Bachmann. The folks think otherwise. So much for our lefties!
        Michelle or Marcus? The whole submissive issue? Doesn’t bother me. An attempt to smear, that’s all. As in any marriage, spouses influence each other. Been that way forever.

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      Take that Lefties? Um – I think it was a straw poll for Republicans only. Just sayin’

      But she does have a great hair helmet.

  28. I didn’t watch the debate, but I saw some “high-lights”. I gotta say, Michelle Bachmann actually looked pretty good. She jumped off the “crazy train” a few months ago (right before Obama released his birth certificate – remember that JAC – I noticed it then too!). Of course her politics are still “crazy,” but she’s not acting quite as crazy as the past. 😉

    As far as the question “would you be submissive to your husband as President?” What’s wrong with that question? She has said she was “submissive” to him in the past on a major career decision. I too think she gave a good answer.

    Do you think they would ever ask a male candidate a question such as that?

    Well, I remember during the 1992 campaign, one of the Republican’s “Talking Points” was about how much influence Hilary would have in a Clinton presidency…

    Why is it that there are so many questions that shouldn’t be asked? Or the famous “gotcha questions?”

    • It seems we finally agree on something-sorta 🙂 I don’t think Michelle acts crazy-but the gotcha questions-I do think there are a lot of them but I don’t think it was a gotcha question because it was asked at the debate-this gotcha question is out there in the public-it is being discussed-I think it was only fair to give her a chance to address the issue at the debate. I think she handled it well and I think when she made the statement she was actually making a joke within a religious circle who would understand her meaning-how did she end her quote-if it didn’t work out it would be his fault and then she laughed.

    • Why is it that there are so many questions that shouldn’t be asked? Or the famous “gotcha questions?”

      A) Because these morons can’t answer them.
      B) When they do answer them, they make fools of themsevles (probably because they are fools).

      One can only hope Sarah Palin runs …. for the entertainment value alone.

      • Most of the gotcha questions are old news that do not serve any purpose other than to garner ratings for the interviewer. They are a waste of time in a time critical situation. There should have been more questions on energy policy, foreign aid, foreign relations, the wars (3), the economy, jobs, political philosophy, education, EPA, spending, debt, etc., etc, etc. Or do you watch just to be entertained? I watch to find out why these people want to be president and what they will do if elected. I do not watch to learn if the interviewer is a moron nor do I watch to have my time wasted.

  29. Gotta love this! 😉

    S & P Downgrades Iowa’s IQ

    http://www.borowitzreport.com/

  30. Anyone else watching Stossel’s Money Pit special? It’s very good and guess who he interviewed due to his sheer stupidity? My dipwad Senator of the infamous Flight(y) Fourteen. Great special.

  31. So what does everyone think of Sarah Palin showing up every time someone else might be getting some attention? First New Hampshire and now the Iowa State Fair?

    I don’t think she’ll run for President. Too many downsides for her – she’d have to report finances, follow campaign laws, maybe come up with real policies (or maybe not 😉 ), give up a lot of her speaking engagements and Fox News commentator “job”.

    She’ll continue to keep herself in the “debate”, influence the narrative, attack Obama, and make lots of money. Running for President would be a huge step back for her.

    But I would love to watch her in the debates with the other Republicans – I think they would tear her apart…

    • I think Sarah Palin can do whatever she wants. Why is it any concern whatsoever of yours?

      • Uuuummmm, cause I live in America and she’s influencing America’s future?

        Cause this is a political blog and we occasionally discuss stuff like “who might run for president?”

        A little defensive tonight Kathy?

        • Here you go Todd – others who are very concerned about Sarah…..

          http://legalinsurrection.com/2011/08/keep-checking-chuck-keep-checking/

          So, she got into a mini-van, omg, well let’s see, because of her influence on America’s future does that mean……I should also go buy a mini-van? What is the sign?? I can’t get it! I’ll never get to sleep tonight without knowing what this means…..

          (Is Todd your last name? Maybe you are related to this other Todd, another “Sarah’s got me befuddled!)

          • You know what Abe said before he married into the family?

            “One “d” was good enough for God.”

          • I think you’re going off the deep-end Kathy!

            But you definitely should buy a mini-van!

    • Run, Sarah, Run. She has beefs with many of the seasoned Rs too. A debate would be interesting.

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      Palin is doing what I’d expect any politician/attention-whore to do – go out of one’s way to keep in the spotlight. All sides of the spectrum are guilty of this – they cannot help themselves. I suppose those officially in the field cannot be real excited to see her showing up. And to think she is contributing in any material way to a debate of the issues or policy is asinine (either with other GOPers or the Democrats). Sarah has been decomposed to her very core – a chirpy quote-machine who regurgitates the same verbal ejaculate to cheering masses – in reality, not much different than a certain Illinois Senator a few years ago. The one benefit of this wart is she creates at least some interest in the political process/scene – prepping her followers for the sugary sweet schlock that Sarah, and her peers, spoon feed them.

    • more money to be made by publishing books and making appearances, rather then spending money to run for president.

  32. I had an “interesting” week – a last minute business trip to the east coast. I won’t tell you which city, but I did get to experience a lot of American History, including the part about someone warning the British that they weren’t gonna be takin’ away our guns or tramplin’ on our second amendment rights! You betcha! 😉 I still get chills just thinking about it! 😉

    I didn’t have a lot of free time for sight seeing, but I did a few late evening runs thru some of the old parts of the city with a couple of locals, and they pointed out a lot of the historic sites.

    There was one thing that stuck in the back of my mind. It seems like the Founding Father’s built a lot of public buildings (State House, meeting halls, schools) and created a lot of public spaces (parks, commons, markets, cemeteries). And of course this has been continued by subsequent generations to include museums, libraries, monuments, and the preservation of these historic sites.

    I wonder, if the Founding Fathers and all the subsequent generations had the SUFA attitude of “small government”, would any of these things exist?

    I suppose it might be “The Freedom Trail sponsored by Nike” – and it’ll cost you $25 to walk it ($30 to run it because of the increased impact!). Of course, you’d have to use the “Sidewalk sponsored by Halliburton” and cross the “Street sponsored by Exxon”, both of which would require additional (although quite reasonable I’m sure) fees…

    To me, these are the types of things that make a “society”, connect us to our history, and remind us of what is special and great about America. I’d hate to live in a “society” that doesn’t value these types of things.

    • Todd,

      From memory, I thought the founding fathers set it up where land was set aside for schools and even to be sold to support local governments.
      They wanted to promote the common good, but more at the local level. The move to big government might even be charted by the increased number of museums and monuments.

      • Yes, when the Congress under the Articles ordered the survey of the old NW Territory, they reserved 1 section (sq. mi.) out of every township (36 sections) for a school. Most townships (local governments) sold the land except for a small corner which was retained to build the school. Hence the hundreds of country schools scattered throughout the territory. Many were still being used when I started school.

        As for the abundance of public buildings in Boston, most were built by local and state government not by the Feds. The Feds were responsible for the customs house, federal court house and other buildings naturally associated with their business needs. The first national park was Yellowstone in 1872. Before that as far as I know, parks and historic sites were all local or state owned and run.

        • T-ray

          Before that as far as I know, parks and historic sites were all local or state owned and run.

          No, the oldest state park was founded in 1885.

          Before then, they were privately owned

          The creation of Yellowstone was to protect the property of J. Rockefeller, who owned vast areas around what is now know as that park. He did not want “common folk” the right to build beside his property, so he established the “national park” concept as a means to block development.

          It worked so well, everyone followed suit – so that now most of the land in the West is government owned.

          • One Rockefeller family biographers say of Junior’s role: “Very shortly, he became a towering figure, the greatest ally the National Park Service ever had.” The assistance was mutual. The National Park Service provides the authority to keep the rest of us out of these areas on a permanent basis.

            This program to seal off wilderness areas from development had its origins in the special role of wilderness in the coming of age for the sons of the rich, wealthy scion Teddy Roosevelt is the most famous exemplar.

          • 1) Boston Common existed long before 1776 as did commons in many towns. They became the beginnings of the park system.
            2) Central Park in NYC was authorized in 1853 by legislation. It was publicly owned and still is.
            3) Bunker Hill Monument was dedicated in 1843. Yes it was private as were many others.
            4) The government originally owned all of the western lands prior to their sale to individuals. RRs and others. These sales were a major source of income for the government for many decades. Not all the land was sold. The governemnt still holds original title to lots of it. Some of my ancestor took part in that process by buying farm land directly from the government.

            One could argue the benefits and motives of the super rich like the Rockefellers, Roosevelts, etc. all day long. But are we better off for some of these actions? Would we better off if Yellowstone was mined, logged, cleared for farming, and if Yosemite Valley was damned? I think preserving some of the most remarkable landscapes in the country is goood. Where I disagree is locking large nondescript tracts of land by executive order because evironmentalist want to stop resource development.

            • T-ray,

              If the land is that important to you to NOT use, then buy it yourself and not use it.

              • From this comment then, can I assume you do not appreciate any of our great national parks like Yellowstone, Yosemite, the Grand Canyon, the Bad Lands, or some of our historical parks like Gettysburg, Mt Vernon, Montecello, Bunker Hill, Old Ironsides, the North Bridge in Concord, Sagamore Hill, …….. since most are government owned and funded? What did I say that deserved the above response?

                There were no national parks prior to Yellowstone but there were public parks owned by state and local governments. As you pointed out, there were private parks and monuments.

                Yellowstone was established prior to J. D. Rockefeller’s status as a super millionaire. J. D. Jr. was involved with the Tetons which maybe the confusion. J. D. Sr. officially retired in the 1890’s and made most of his money after 1900 due to the increased use of gasoline for cars. Prior to that Standard Oil was declining because electricity was replacing kerosene.

                Maybe you misunderstood my last statement. I disagree with Presidents setting aside vast tracts of lands just to prevent resource development to curry favor with environmental groups. Many of these tracts have no intrinsic value as parks. If parks are to be created it should be done by acts of Congress.

              • T- Ray,

                It is not a matter of going “oo0oh, pretty!”

                It is matter that the vast majority of people who have had their money stolen to pay for it, do not benefit.

                You are fooled by the glitter, and rationalize the theft because it buys glitters.

                People who have never seen nor will never see this glitter are deluded and tricked into believing it would not exist unless the money was stolen from them.

                If the glitter is so important, people will pay to protect it without a gun to their head.

        • T-Ray,
          Yes, many of the historic buildings were built before the Founding Fathers, so they were built with colonial or local funds, volunteers, and donations.

          I was just using the FF’s as an example. I idea of “public places” goes back very far in our history. The FF’s and the generations after them continued that. I think that is a worth while function of government at all levels.

          No surprise that Black Flag disagrees!

          • Todd, Boston does have many fine historical sites. I’ve been to many of them and enjoyed them. Despite BF’s opinion, I think such historical treasures should be kept open and free for all to see. But if BF had his way it would be open only to those who could afford it. It is part of our common heritage and helps bind us together as one country.

            BF is ticked at me because I caught him in some factual discrepensies so he is changing the subject to his usual anachy message. Even his statement about the first state park isn’t exactly right. Wiki states that Niagara Falls (1885) is considered the first “state park” but the next sentence states that Georgia ran Indian Springs as a park, hence a state park, from 1825. Notice he did not anwer my question about visiting or enjoying any of our government owned parks. To do so would mean that he has to admit using government resources that are the result of their ill gotten gains.

            • Yes, he tends to do that a lot!

              But I’m sure he’ll correct you and explain why he was actually “correct”. 😉

          • Todd,

            So you believe this to be true, why do not support that the Federal government nationalize all the land, including your house, and make a “national park”?

            If heritage is so important to you that you advocate the theft of land of others for it, you should be good enough for your land too.

            • Mathius™ says:

              Mr. Flag,

              I believe you are confused.

              You see, all land in the United States is actually a “national park.” You do not own your house – you rent land from the government. This is why you pay “property taxes” – it’s actually rent. This is also why you must seek their approval to cut down trees or build an extension – because like renters in an apartment, you’re now actually the owner.

              If you were the owner, you would have absolute freedom to do what you like. When you “bought” your home, you did so from another renter. He could not sell you the land because he, like you, did not own the land. You cannot sell what you do not own. What he actually did is just transfer the lease from one person to another.

              Now, I know you reject the idea that “the government” is a real thing which can own anything, but try to think of it in terms of a company – the directors of the company nominally “own” the company and all its asses. As such, the President and Congress own your house and delegate their rights over it to the individuals who make up this thing called government. When they leave office, they will transfer title to the new President and/or members of Congress, likewise with your town board (they are like superintendents of an apartment building with authority over the renters as authorized by the rental agreement). These are real, physical human beings who can, unlike “government,” own property. They own the land you think of as “yours,” and they allow you to live there as long as you follow their rules.

              If you think about this, I think you’ll find that it explains a great deal. It explains why they can take it away from you (eminent domain). It explains why they are allowed to pass laws (in your own home, you can create whatever laws you like, and if I don’t like it, I should leave, correct?). It explains why you have to pay taxes in perpetuity.

              Happy Monday, sir!

              • Mathius,

                Ah, good sir!

                This is merely an illusion – it is merely a thief who claims he owns your house, and your life – and has a gun to prove it.

                As long as you fear his gun, his claim is not contradicted.

                When no long fear his gun, he has no claim.

              • Mathius™ says:

                😀

            • Black Flag,
              In your typical style you take the issue to a ridiculous extreme.

      • LOI,
        But isn’t that the federal government telling the local government what to do, where to build the schools, etc? 😉

        So if you think “the move to big government might even be charted by the increased number of museums and monuments,” then you don’t approve of federal funding for such projects?

        • Todd,

          “But isn’t that the federal government telling the local government what to do, where to build the schools, etc?”
          No, wrong in all aspects. from T-Ray above “Congress under the Articles ordered the survey of the old NW Territory, they reserved 1 section (sq. mi.) out of every township (36 sections) for a school.”
          Reserving a section does not require anyone to build a school. They assured future generations there would be land available for the schools they envisioned would come, but the power is still with the local gov. to decide if and where they wish to build.

          “you think “the move to big government might even be charted by the increased number of museums and monuments,” then you don’t approve of federal funding for such projects?” Was more interested in the historic ties and if that helps explain how we got where we are today, but if you want to pin me down to a yes/no answer to a different question, then NO, I don’t approve of federal funding of monuments, museums and such. DC has the Smithsonian, so does every city and town get to demand their own someday? Just to be fair? I would agree with them providing land and tax exemptions but not funding.

          • Thanks, LOI, you got to the answer before I could. Most townships sold the land and acquired a few acres scattered around the township to build schools. It is a long walk from one corner of a 6 mi x 6 mi township to the middle on a cold, windy, and snow winter day in the midwest. Believe me, even a 1/2 mi walk in open praririe to school on a 15°F morning with a 25 mph west wind is cold. Been there done that.

            https://alumni.rose-hulman.edu/store/view_product.asp?id=148605

          • Hey Guys,

            “But isn’t that the federal government telling the local government what to do, where to build the schools, etc?”

            That was suppose to be a little joke! 😉

  33. It seems the US Government has information that the Pakistanis (specifically the ISI) gave Chinese engineers access to the “stealth” helicopter that was destroyed during the raid to kill bin Laden – and aren’t happy that they did.

    We had explicitly asked the Pakistanis in the immediate aftermath of the raid not to let anyone have access to the damaged remains of the helicopter

    That was a comment by a source for the story in the Financial Times, as reported on MSNBC.com (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44137555/ns/world_news-south_and_central_asia/#.TkiUPYIsKE0)

    Now I ask myself why would the Pakistanis care to comply with the US request when the military operation was launched against an individual in an “allied” nation, wherein US military forces crossed the border into a sovereign nation (an “act” of war in and of itself in most cases) without the knowledge or permission of that nation and killed someone (even a wanted someone) in an act of assassination?

    Makes me wonder how the US government would react if Mexico sent in a military assault force to kill someone that the Mexican government had on their “wanted dead or alive” list?

    So what, now the US “punishes” Pakistan in some manner. Where I in charge there when I got the “complaint” from the US I’d tell them where to stick it.

    • oops, didn’t mean for all of it to be in the blockquote………..

    • Plainly,

      Gee ….

      Kill hundreds of innocent citizens in “drone” raids…
      Invade the sovereignty of an ally to kill a mere criminal …..

      ..and get all huffy that they show one helicopter to their real ally, China….

      … I’d say “What did you expect???”

    • Plainly…..gotta go with BF partly on this. (BF and I will always disagree on what a criminal is) but….there is NO,,,,REPEAT NO NO NO…ally of the United States out there and quit thinking that there is. If we use or give any technology to anyone…..expect it to be used against us or sold. It is no more simple than that. EVERY SINGLE COUNTRY (not yelling, just trying to make a point) will do what they consider is in their best interest…period. So, as BF says…expect it.

      • Really Colonel? Expect that our “nation of laws” is a law unto itself when it decides to violate the sovereignty of a nation that the US is NOT in a declared state of war with, whenever the US chooses to do so – and that’s okay? Boy, talk about arrogance and ugly Americanism!

        Whether the US has any allies or not, whether we give technology away that gets used against us – only an arrogant nation would act as the US has, and does, because the US decides it can – law be damned. I could care less that the Chinese were allowed access to the downed helicopter, the US is entitled to no consideration of any kind because of its aggressive (and illegal, immoral, unethical) in Pakistan. I am not, any more than you are, unaware of the fact that ANY nation we help will use that help against us if it fits that nations interests to do so.

        What I expect is for the United States to maintain our sovereignty, and not ignore the sovereignty of nations we ARE NOT AT WAR WITH (not yelling, just emphasizing a point)!

        If a government is willing to violate the rights of another nation, then that same government cares not about the rights of its own people.

        Well, then I guess you have no problem with Mexico making attacks within US borders – like Texas? We should just expect it.

  34. T-Ray,

    Despite BF’s opinion, I think such historical treasures should be kept open and free for all to see. But if BF had his way it would be open only to those who could afford it. It is part of our common heritage and helps bind us together as one country.

    See, this is exactly the problem.

    You think you can see, but your eyes are glued shut.

    It is not free, it has never been freepeople who will never go there are forced to pay for it – but you are blind – you believe as long as you benefit from their loss it is a good thing, because you belief they can benefit from your loss some other time!

    As long as they get to steal from you, you hold you can steal from them and everyone is happy!

    BF is ticked at me because I caught him in some factual discrepensies so he is changing the subject to his usual anachy message.

    Such minor fluff is irrelevant. The “National” park system is used to control property and prevent the common people from ownership and nothing less.

    Notice he did not anwer my question about visiting or enjoying any of our government owned parks. To do so would mean that he has to admit using government resources that are the result of their ill gotten gains.

    Of course I visit the parks – I paid for them – but you are blinded to the fact that those that never will use such parks pay for them too.

    But to you “they’re free!”

    And people wonder why government grows and dominates – it is because they are too blind to see it.

    • The Park system is a defining point.

      Most people who call themselves “small government” or “Libertarians” or “VLDG” fail here. They want the government to give them something that they enjoy, regardless what others may or may chose otherwise.

      Such failure demonstrates that their positions have been unthoughtful; indeed, their positions really have always meant “we want government to do what we want it to do, and not what “you” want it to do” – which is a position no different the the “big government”, “Socialist/Progressives” or “Left Wing”.

      Thus, nothing changes.

      • First, we have now established the fact that you, like Ayn Rand, use government resources that you rant against. Oh, it’s justifiable because the government stole your money to do it, so you are just visiting your long expatriated funds. I think the Greeks had a word that applies here. But you do refuse to participate in the selection of government representatives because that would validate the thievery. A bit inconsistent here as well.

        Second, I have never espoused VDLG. I do espouse responsible government that stays within the bounds of the Constitution at the Federal level; that obeys the rule of law; that is open and fair and does not treat one individual more equal than another. I believe in personal responsibility. I also believe in fiscal responsibility. I have heard very little from you in terms of positive ideas to fix the current problems in government. Your total solution is to let the system implode, the sooner the better, so we can get to your nirvana of anarchy. If you love anarchy so much, move to Somalia. They have lots of it.

        As far as the national park system is concerned you have expressed your opinion and I have expressed mine. Nuff said.

  35. Charlie

    here he likens pure capitalism to what exists in the third world

    Carry over from Open Mic.

    As JAC already pointed out, Chomsky points to mercantilism, redefines it as capitalism, then attacks it.

    This is called a “strawman” attack – but Chomsky is a master – he infuses “Revolution within the Form” tactics to make such an argument superficially plausible – and only after someone tests his mis-definition, finds his argument flawed.

  36. Charlie,

    Warren Buffet’s father was a Libertarian Congressman – he was the “Ron Paul” of his day. He vehemently argued against government intrusions, against income tax, against death tax, against war.

    His son – Warren – was educated in a very leftist, socialist schools all the way up through college. He reneged on his father’s ideals and principles, and became very, very rich instead.

    Warren is rich because his father interfered with government.

    Warren does not want you to be rich, Charlie.

  37. Texas eliminates 9,300 government jobs in new budget. Wonder how that will resonate in Perry’s presidential bid?

    • Mathius™ says:

      My guess is “not well.”

      I heard you guys had a break in the weather robbing you of some major record.. Sorry. I know 95F sucks, but wear your jacket and it’ll be ok, I promise.

      • Curious….why do you think not well? I am talking about the Republican nomination…sorry. I could see where that would not play well on the national scene in a presidential election.

  38. Came across an interesting sign:

    If you don’t like gay marriage..blame straight people..they’re the ones who keep having gay babies.

  39. The political battles today should have as their foundation this question:
    How can we make sure Washington’s power is removed after the crisis?”

    This is not a question that politicians will ask.
    Politics is short-sighted.
    This question creates thinking for the future.

    But the question is what matters most is the post-default world.

    We need to keep Federalism under tight control, once it proves to have been a false messiah.”

  40. charlie,
    If, in fact, you would leave us capitalists alone we would be happy to leave you alone as well. If you took over all of the current means of production and set it up the way you want, all worker owned and socialist and all that, then told everyone that wanted to stay capitalist that they had to go live on a reservation (it can be any property of your choice, but it would need to be reasonable on population density, something no more dense than Japan, lets say, as far as how large the reservation was), I would go there willingly. And I would have no interest in hiring anyone from the red zone to work as a wage slave. So long as we were left alone as well, no taxes, no taking of property, nothing we produce would pass to your nation unless it was done in trade on terms both trading parties agreed to. On our side, it would be up to the individuals trading, on yours it would be subject to the socialist state approval. Our laws would not affect your nation or the people in it, nor would yours affect us.

    Within a short time, we would be buying your empty dying lands from you to make room for the immigration from your empty dying lands.

  41. ‘Black Flags and Windmills’ TRAILER

  42. “If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly,
    you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the
    odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival.

    There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is
    no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.”

  43. Matt-I thought you might find this interesting. Of course all comments are welcome 🙂

    A Rational Argument for the Existence of the Human Soul
    Posted: 8/10/11 01:00 PM ET

    All sentient people possess the same intuitive awareness of their own existence. We refer to this cognizance as the “self,” and though it is one of the most fundamental human experiences, it is also one of the most mysterious. I have asked people on very many occasions to answer the question “who are you?” without using their name, profession or character traits. Most are stumped and find themselves surprised to have never really considered the question before. Who indeed are we? It seems to me that the answer to this query is fairly binary — either our self-awareness is a function of the mechanistic forces of the brain and its structure or our consciousness exists in time but not in space and is rooted in a plane of reality that is beyond (but interacts with) our own. All we need concern ourselves with is — what is the simplest solution to what Tufts University philosopher Daniel Dennett has referred to as the “problem of consciousness?” As I have in the past, I draw much of my inspiration on this topic from my friend Moshe Averick and his compelling book “Nonsense of a High Order.”

    In this discussion, many modern scientific thinkers have taken position that consciousness is an illusory faculty created by our neuronal activity. According to this position, our subjective self-awareness is wholly imagined fantasy that has no objective existence:

    “Despite our every instinct to the contrary, there is one thing that consciousness is not; some deep entity inside the brain that corresponds to the “self”, some kernel of awareness that runs the show … after more than a century of looking for it brain researchers have long since concluded that there is no conceivable place for such a self to be located in the physical brain, and that it simply doesn’t exist.” (Journalist Michael Leminick, Time Magazine)

    “We feel, most of the time, like we are riding around inside our bodies, as though we are an inner subject that can utilize the body as a kind of object. This last representation is an illusion … ” (Atheist author Sam Harris)

    “The intuitive feeling that we have that there’s an executive “I” that sits in the control room of our brain … is an illusion.” (Dr. Steven Pinker)

    These thinkers all readily acknowledge that our actual experience of reality seems to fly in the face of their description of it — hence Professor Dennett’s “problem of consciousness.” One would think that in order to draw conclusions about the true nature of this problem they would rely on carefully researched evidence and hard facts before informing us that every experience that we have (or will ever have) — from love and morality to the appreciation of beauty and free will — are fictitious. Here are some examples of what the world of science does actually offer on this topic:

    “Nobody has the slightest idea how anything material could be conscious.” (Dr. Jerry Fodor, Professor of philosophy and cognitive science)

    “The problem of consciousness tends to embarrass biologists. Taking it to be an aspect of living things, they feel they should know about it and be able to tell physicists about it, whereas they have nothing relevant to say.” (Dr. George Wald, Nobel Prize winning biologist)

    “Science’s biggest mystery is the nature of consciousness. It is not that we possess bad or imperfect theories of human awareness; we simply have no such theories at all.” (Dr. Nick Herbert, Physicist)

    Based on these honest assessments of the state of scientific knowledge on this topic one might think that these thinkers — who have a priori drawn conclusions on a subject for which they seem to have little to no evidence — would speak in far more humble and guarded tones. No one seriously suggests that protons, quarks or chemical compounds possess innate awareness. Why then do they suggest that the products of these foundational materials will suddenly leap into self-cognizance? Is this a truly rational position to hold? Exactly how many electrons does it take for them to become “aware” of themselves? Cells do not wonder about themselves, molecules have no identity and a machine — no matter how sophisticated — is imbecilic (without its programmer).

    If our decision-making faculty was indeed an illusion of the brain it should be impossible to physically affect the brain through our own willful decisions and yet research has demonstrated that the “I” can and does alter brain activity through the agency of free will as described by Canadian neuroscientist Dr. Mario Beauregard:

    “Jeffrey Schwartz … a UCLA neuropsychiatrist, treats obsessive-compulsive disorder — by getting patients to reprogram their brains. Evidence of the mind’s control over the brain is actually captured in these studies. There is such a thing as mind over matter. We do have will power, consciousness, and emotions, and combined with a sense of purpose and meaning, we can effect change.”

    Why then should we not consider the possibility — the one that satisfies our deepest, most powerful and intuitive sense — that the “I” that we all experience is the human soul? And that the reason that science has not discovered its whereabouts is not that it doesn’t exist, but rather that it is not part of physical reality as we know it and as such is undetectable and unmeasurable by material means. It is certainly understandable that for those who believe that material reality is the only reality this would be an unwelcome notion. Nonetheless, I submit that in absence of any compelling alternative and with the obviousness of the reality of our self-awareness so manifestly apparent — it is the rational conclusion to draw.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rabbi-adam-jacobs/rational-argument-human-soul_b_920558.html

  44. RIDDLE:

    Barack Obama met with the Queen of England.

    He asked her, “Your Majesty, how do you run such an efficient government?

    Are there any tips you can give to me?”

    “Well,” said the Queen, “the most important thing is to surround yourself

    with intelligent people.”

    Obama frowned, and then asked, “But how do I know the people around me

    are really intelligent?”

    The Queen took a sip of tea. “Oh, that’s easy; you just ask them to

    answer an intelligent riddle.”

    The Queen pushed a button on her intercom. “Please send Tony Blair in

    here, would you?”

    Tony Blair walked into the room and said, “Yes, Your Majesty?”

    The Queen smiled and said, “Answer me this please, Tony , your mother and

    father have a child. It is not your brother and it is not your sister.

    Who is it?”

    Without pausing for a moment, Tony Blair answered, “That would be me.”

    “Yes! Very good,” said the Queen.

    Obama went back home to ask Joe Biden , his vice presidential choice the

    same question. “Joe, answer this for me. Your mother and your father have

    a child. It’s not your brother and it’s not your sister. Who is it?”

    “I’m not sure,” said Biden “Let me get back to you on that one….”

    He went to his advisors and asked every one, but none could give him an

    answer.

    Finally, he ran into Sarah Palin out eating one night. Biden asked,

    “Sarah, can you answer this for me? Your mother and father have a child

    and it’s not your brother or your sister. Who is it?”

    Sarah Palin answered back, “That’s easy, it’s me!”

    Biden smiled, and said, “Thanks!” Then, he went back to speak with Obama.

    “Say, I did some research and I have the answer to that riddle. It’s

    Sarah Palin!”

    Obama got up, stomped over to Biden, and angrily yelled into his face,

    “No! You idiot! It’s Tony Blair!”

    ..AND THAT IS PRECISELY WHAT’S GOING ON WITH OUR FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IN

    WASHINGTON , D.C

    • I believe it was sometime in Jan or Feb of 10 when I put up a list of presidential candidates. Sarah Palin was on it. I got laughed outta the SUFA ballpark for that one. I did explain that she was capable of surrounding herself with intelligent people, again I was scoffed at. Still here today, Palin and Bachmann are getting ridiculed as the ladies stand tall. I keep telling yous I’m a step ahead of you.

      • Anita

        NOT me, my dear. Although I think Ms. Palin’s time has passed. I still would not be shocked to call Ms. Bachman, Madam President. I do think it a much longer shot now with Perry in the race, however.

        But for those who scoff at her right wingnuttery, please note what her stated key points to a recovery plan were on Saturday. Basically, reassure everyone on Soc Sec, and Medicare, along with our creditors and military that THEY HAVE NOTHING TO WORRY ABOUT. She also alluded to future flexibility on “revenue increases” to PAY DOWN DEBT once we have cut enough to ELIMINATE THE DEFICIT.

        Bammmmmmmm. That my lefty friends is a subtle but abrupt move towards the center.

        • I caught that too. Shame, shame, Ms. Bachman.

        • A Puritan Descendant says:

          As we know, Bachman also has said no raising of the debt ceiling no matter what. So if she really would not cut SS, Medicare, Military, and pay interest on the debt, without raising taxes until the deficit is eliminated, this would ‘roughly’ mean ALL discretionary spending plus medicaid and an additional 400+ billion in other mandatory spending would have to be eliminated entirely.

          I don’t think so………….. Nice lady but a bit full of ****, I think. Candidates play on voters lack of knowledge/awareness/confusion to reality.

          (I am using Paul Ryan’s 2010 pie chart on page 12 of his 2012 path to prosperity document, for a rough idea.)

          So far I like what Perry has said, especially about regulations.

          • She didn’t say she wouldn’t cut these things-she was talking about present day seniors falsely being told they would lose their benefits.

            • A Puritan Descendant says:

              Seniors would lose some benefits if she cut SS/Medicare to balance this years budget deficit. She said she would not raise the debt ceiling under any circumstances. She also said no tax increases. This would mean a 40% cut across the board this year if spread over the whole budget. If anything is exempted, then what is left inm the budget would need to be cut even more than 40%.

              • I actually agree that the debt ceiling had to be raised-not over 2 trillion dollar 😦 I was merely responding that she never said she wouldn’t cut these programs. But this is what she said in a speech-I still do not know what bill it is that she co-sponsored or if it would have stopped a default. But from the figures I read on current revenue vs. expenses there was enough to cover the basics, SS, medical, military and others(who know which figures are right 🙂 ). But personally I think she was wrong-I think an immediate 40% cut would be impossible. But the fact that I think this does not in my mind-mean I dismiss her-if the government continues on it’s current course and doesn’t get our fiscal house in order-the next time they ask for a debt limit increase-I will be screaming at the top of my lungs-NO-if we have to cut 50% of the budget-so be it.

              • A Puritan Descendant says:

                I guess I should not pick on her alone. Many said they would not raise the debt ceiling or taxes. That is fine, except I wish, when they are saying they would ‘Never’ raise the debt ceiling or taxes, they would explain exactly what they plan on cutting. Then we could all make a judgement if it is feasible or not. People root them on without understanding the consequences.

              • Puritan

                Your conclusions are also a bit off. You can thank the media’s lack of reporting for this, however.

                The debt ceiling crunch was tied to a DAILY “cash flow” problem.

                It is true that using the income to pay Soc Sec/Medicare, interest due and troops would leave nothing for the rest of the federal govt, but that was only for certain days and portions of weeks within the month of August and September. The full 40% reduction in “OTHER” federal spending did not need to be carried forward for months upon months.

                But in the end, a reduction of about 50% will be required, anyway. So lets get started.

              • A Puritan Descendant says:

                Jac,

                I am 100% aware of the DAILY “cash flow” problem for the debt ceiling crunch in early August.

                You say, “The full 40% reduction in “OTHER” federal spending did not need to be carried forward for months upon months.”

                Correct if the debt ceiling was raised, and it was. If the debt ceiling was never increased under any circumstances, which is what I believe Bachman stated, then the 40% reduction would indeed have to be carried forward.

                Sorry if I fail to articulate clearly.

    • Some fun online today regarding the, “this is not a campaign bus” tour of Obama. Of course it isn’t, this way we can pay for it. Commenters on this article have some catchy names for it. Any creative SUFAites?

      http://legalinsurrection.com/2011/08/name-that-bus-tour/

      Magical Misery Tour is sure appropriate. Or maybe this:

      • Great song!
        Honey you really tempt me the way you look so fine
        I’d love to stick around but I’m running behind
        you know I don’t even know what I hope to find
        (running blind)
        running into the sun but I’m running behind

        Maybe the Eagles?

      • Kathy

        I heard the bus referred to as Downgrade One.

        So that means the Downgrade One Tour

        By the way. Gingrich is a total chameleon. That was one of the reasons to find a new crush. The guy changes the story for his audience. But I would love to see him one on one in debate with the anointed one. Newt is way more actually intelligent.

        But if you want MORE Federal Govt trying to solve all our problems then Newt is you man. Since you don’t you need to run the other way.

        • Yeah, I know Newt is bad blood. You are right though, a good debate that would be. Obama with his tele-tubbies and Newt speaking with no notes, because Newt is “way more actually intelligent”. Love the joke!

          Rolling Blunder (Plunder?) Tour are good too.

          Perhaps he is just trying to keep up with Sarah?

  45. Todd,

    First, we have now established the fact that you, like Ayn Rand, use government resources that you rant against.

    Equating me to Ayn Rand is like me equating you to Lenin – except my claim would be more accurate.

    And when nothing else is available using what is necessary is not a sin. Only the truly ideological brainwashed see otherwise.

    Oh, it’s justifiable because the government stole your money to do it, so you are just visiting your long expatriated funds.

    Yes, and also because I want to go there.

    Even if government didn’t own it, I’d want to go there.

    But you do refuse to participate in the selection of government representatives because that would validate the thievery.

    You really do not read very well my posts.
    That is NEVER an argument to my “not voting”.

    The core of my argument against voting is it doesn’t make a difference because you neither chose the candidate, nor chose the issues, and even if you did, the politician does not have to do what he promised.

    It is an act worse than futile.

    A bit inconsistent here as well.

    Nope.

    Second, I have never espoused VDLG.

    Others did, and *shock* perhaps more than one person reads the post.

    I do espouse responsible government that stays within the bounds of the Constitution at the Federal level; that obeys the rule of law;

    Now that is a contradiction!!

    How do you propose enforcing the law upon the entity that makes and enforces the law?

    that is open and fair

    Fair is subjective, and thus, an irrational demand.

    and does not treat one individual more equal than another.

    But nobody is the same – so how can you treat everyone equal????

    I believe in personal responsibility.

    No you don’t, or else you would not support government action.

    I also believe in fiscal responsibility.

    Government cannot and does not earn. It steals.
    You cannot enforce fiscal responsibility on an entity that has no concept nor measure of fiscal responsibility.

    .
    I have heard very little from you in terms of positive ideas to fix the current problems in government.

    Yes you have.

    I have said it is impossible – the problem rests at the root and core of government – to “fix” it means it cannot exist.

    It is a fairy tale that by some method of paper work, they can continue the power of massive centralization of violence.

    Your total solution is to let the system implode

    “Let”… as if I, lil ol Black Flag has:
    (1) the power to print money out of thin (hence the power to unprint money back into air)
    (2) the power to force others to use MY money and no one else’s
    (3) the economic might to reverse $400 trillion of massive misspent waste.

    So I am not “Letting” anything .. it is doing all of it all by itself…

    the sooner the better, so we can get to your nirvana of anarchy.

    The sooner the better because that will lessen the suffering

    The longer it takes, the worse the suffering will get.

    If it waits too long, the suffering will be so bad it will rip apart the social cohesion of Western Civilization.

    This warning was given by Hayek in 1970. He said the West had maybe 15 to 20 years. That is 1990 or so.

    We are long, long past that. Our hope right now, is that he made a mistake and meant 40 to 50 years…. but he was never wrong by that much…

    If you love anarchy so much, move to Somalia. They have lots of it.

    If you love government so much, move to N.Korea. They have lots of it.

    • they can CONTAIN the power of massive centralization of violence.”

    • I think you have me confused with someone else…

      • Todd,

        No.
        Lenin was a Statist – the State, everything that there is, and nothing else mattered.

        He even wrote a book on it ‘The State and Revolution’

      • Todd, he is so livid he has no idea what mistakes he has made. I warned him above but he rose to the bait anyway like an angry northern pike. It has been fun playing him.

        Flag, we have had the discussion before. If you would mix a little humility in, admit when you make mistakes and back off a liitle, you would be a much better debater. In this case you have come off as condescending and arrrogant. When challenged you must show your superiority by destroying the opposition. The act is childish and actually counterproductive to your objective.

        • T-Ray,

          Confrontation is my style – live with it.

          My point is made: those who proclaim “small government” are no different then those that proclaim “big government” – they both love the power of evil to gain benefits for themselves at the cost of others.

          The only difference – the desires and wants.

          Parks are the very same thing. You like them, therefore support theft to have them. Then you get all huffy when others support theft for the things they like (but you don’t).

%d bloggers like this: