OPEN MIC

Just A Citizensays:

Great article. Note, it is from the perspective of the writer. But the writer does not tackle the question of when the slide began in history. Only from the writers life experience. Being from that time, I agree with much of what he says about how the radicals were able to use the JFK, MLK, RFK and Malcolm X assassinations to infuse their agenda into the mindset of the young and disgruntled. Sound familiar????

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/11/the_tipping_point_and_the_crossroad.html

JAC has found an interesting article.

Advertisements

Comments

  1. Anita says:
    November 22, 2011 at 8:28 am • Edit

    Black Flag re: Ann Barnhardt

    I forwarded her article to my sister who in turn forwarded it to her financial planner. Here is his response, spelling errors and all. Seems to me he’s saying “pay no attention to the man behind the curtain” Any thoughts on his comments?

    Hi Anita’s sister,
    I feel for the families and potential victims. It looks as though Barhhardt Capital Management was a Commodities dealer. This particular area of the financial world has a lot of complex and very complicated investment vehicles. Although I am familiar the general concepts it is certainly not my area of practice. MF Global was one of the biggest players in commodities arena and there leveraging techniques or lack there of is it what has lead to their demise. The commodities business looks like it needs to be regulated even more. My side of the business which is strictly personal financial planning is already very regulated and a tremendous amount of federal compliance rules govern our procedures and protect our clients first and foremost. Corzine’s MF Global issue at the surface seems to be very similar to the mortgage issue the US faced a few years back. Leveraging debt to levels that were not sustainable. Nonetheless, these people can play the blame game on whoever they want. Corzine, Barnhardt and the like are all responsible for their own actions, they new exactly how much risk was and is involved in the options and futures market. Each of there clients should be aware also. It looks like Ann Barnhardt is trying bow out gracefully. Hope you or someone you know wasn’t invested these assets. If so let me know and I can see what I can do to help. Talk to you soon.
    Reply

    Black Flag® says:
    November 22, 2011 at 9:30 am • Edit

    Anita and her sister,

    Comments throughout…..

    I feel for the families and potential victims. It looks as though Barhhardt Capital Management was a Commodities dealer.

    So, he really is not in tune to what is going on inside his field of expertise. This is new “news” to him.
    Hmmm……

    This particular area of the financial world has a lot of complex and very complicated investment vehicles.

    First thought ….. ah, “you shouldn’t be dabbling here – let the experts take care of you, it is too complex for your feeble mind to understand”

    Nonsense, there is nothing in commodities nor future trading that is more complex then, say, balancing a family budget. There are some arcane terms and descriptions, but that requires only a dictionary.

    Further, whether it is complex or not has nothing to do with the issue – the issue is the failure of the promise of securing non-invested assets.

    Most who dabbles in commodities tends to understand the risk/reward. The issue was that capital not invested or otherwise was secured from risk was seized – and issue beyond mere complexity of financial instruments and their transactions.

    Although I am familiar the general concepts it is certainly not my area of practice. MF Global was one of the biggest players in commodities arena and there leveraging techniques or lack there of is it what has lead to their demise. The commodities business looks like it needs to be regulated even more.

    Yep, the 70,000 rules were not enough, so let’s make in 140,000 rules and see what happens!

    No, the problem has nothing to do with the demise of a broker.

    It has to do with the seizure or block of distribution of assets. This can only be done by writ of government demand or a failure of enforcement of centuries old legal doctrine regarding the holding of such assets.

    My side of the business which is strictly personal financial planning is already very regulated and a tremendous amount of federal compliance rules govern our procedures and protect our clients first and foremost.

    ….would not save him if this happened to his clients.

    Corzine’s MF Global issue at the surface seems to be very similar to the mortgage issue the US faced a few years back. Leveraging debt to levels that were not sustainable. Nonetheless, these people can play the blame game on who ever they want. Corzine, Barnhardt and the like are all responsible for their own actions, they new exactly how much risk was and is involved in the options and futures market. Each of there clients should be aware also. It looks like Ann Barnhardt is trying bow out gracefully. Hope you or someone you know wasn’t invested these assets. If so let me know and I can see what I can do to help. Talk to you soon.

    He misses the point, because the point of this disaster missed him.
    Thus, he believes it won’t happen to him.

    That is a big mistake.

    We have seen under Obama’s “new” legal framework a series of significant overthrows.

    He invalidated bond holder rights (remember GM et al?)
    Now, here, he has invalidated the sanctity of accounts and fund held in trust.

    Within one administration, he has undermined the legal knowledge and understanding of contractual rights and trust accounts and management.

    Right now, I cannot tell you at all what other legal rights his administration will arbitrarily push aside so to suit some political game nor if any of your holdings, whether in a bank account, safety box, in trust with a third party, or if by contract, no matter its detail, will be held secure or is valid.

    This President and his administration has undermined a 1,000 years of civil legal framework on which most business is undertaken.

  2. These cases demonstrate an age-old wisdom:

    “You can’t beat something with nothing”

    When there are turning points, those with a plan will win over those who have no plan.

    The irony:
    Those whose mindset believes they must manipulate common people to bend them into some political program have a plan and are willing to act on it.

    Those whose mindset believe they have no right to manipulate common people, and leave others to a “live and let live” philosophy do not make plans to manipulate others and do not act on it

    Thus, we tend to live in a world of devious political manipulations.

    Evil tends to act on others, Good tends to leave others alone.

    If the People do not want Evil to act upon them, the People must Act.

    To make Action, the People must have a Plan.
    To have a Plan, the People must have an Idea.
    To have an Idea, the People must have a Principle.

    As JAC asks, day in and day out, what is the Founding Principle of your future?

    • BF

      Tip o’ the hat your way this fine wet day.

    • You’d think she was dealing with a reputable firm:

      Impacting Lives, Lifestyles, and Legacies
      XXXXX XXXXXX
      Investment Advisor Representative
      Michigan Financial Companies, Inc.
      Member John Hancock Financial Network

      I’m sure this is going to freak her out, and she’ll be making a run for it. Thank You BF. Another steak dinner coming your way.

  3. 😉

  4. “the young and disgruntled.” It does seem to me there has been an increase in mob violence. Include OWS/FleaParty in that. Remember a few months ago, a mob at a state fair began beating every white person they came across. At least this is pretty easy to understand……

    http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/Flash-Mob-Knocks-Over-Silver-Spring-7-Eleven-134286103.html

    • You have to admit this is new-just send in as many people as possible to openly steal-instead of trying to not get caught. They must really feel “justified in their actions” , wonder where they got that mentality from.

      • Well, since corporations and Wall Street get to steal without consequence, why not the little people?

        Remember what Big Al said (Capone): “Capitalism is the legitimate racket of the ruling class.”

        And he was a self made millionaire by 26 …

        • …by doing on a small scale what the government was doing writ large.

          Gen. Butler:
          “Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.”

          Capitalism is neither of these men.

          Both relied on violence to enforce themselves upon others.

          Free men need no such violence. Their goods and services speak loud enough.

          • So how to you brag about America these days (vs. your version of the rest of the world) when it is completely dependent on Government?

            I can’t keep this up tonight. The GOP geniuses are doing their road show … again.

            Ron Paul is kicking ass as usual, but nobody will pay attention. Huntsman is a closer second than the rest of them.

            But they’re all crazy …

            • Charlie

              So how to you brag about America these days (vs. your version of the rest of the world) when it is completely dependent on Government?

              Do you see me bragging???????????????????????

              Ron Paul is kicking ass as usual, but nobody will pay attention.

              Nope – because he is a threat

              But they’re all crazy …

              That, my friend, we can toast in agreement to all night long until we both fall over drunk.

  5. DisposableCarbonUnit says:

    And here BF thinks that Charlies’ “greater good” served no purpose at all…..

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/economy/economy-lab/daily-mix/taxmans-pen-mightier-than-a-witchs-wand/article2244517/

    You have to admit BF…there aren’t very many witches at SUFA! 😉

    • That’s because we won’t suffer a witch to live.

    • Carbon,

      *sigh*

      Idiocy of tenured, government-paid, academia and the lengths they reach to convince themselves and others that their paymaster is a good thing for society.

      • DisposableCarbonUnit says:

        Hmmm, only a momentary sigh….not the minor aneurysm I thought it may cause.

        I’ll try harder next time.

        • Mathius™ says:

          Try harder, Caribou!

          We’re all counting on you.

          Oooh.. let’s try this one: One day, sentient computers which are far smarter than humans will run the world as central planners, and everyone will be better off.

        • Carbon,

          When a government-paid, academic bureaucrats come up with a law the prohibits bottled water suppliers from making the claim that water quenches thirst – really, is there anything left in the world that could possibly exceed that?

          So hearing that other government lackeys now claim that witch hunts improved the economy of Europe because men suffering great fear are more productive – ah…. what else is new?

          • DisposableCarbonUnit says:

            Fear is a wonderful motivator….

            When SpousalCarbonUnit (imported from Italy!) says “….or else!”, it usually gets things done in record time.

          • Here I have to agree with BF. Men work much harder under threats of loss of job … how cool is that? What we really need is serfdom … wait, we already have that.

            Look at Penn State (for example) … everybody was terrified of upsetting Joe Pa … so kids were raped over at least a 15 year period.

            Yes, I’m going out on that limb and saying Sandusky is guilty as charge (and probably of a lot more).

            Fear, like Greed, is good (the mantra of a free society)?

            Oy friggin’ vey …

  6. 😐

  7. The problem with the “Young and Disgruntled” is that they as a whole are ignorant of history, it’s signifigance and ramifications. They, as a majority, follow thier peers or those they percieve as intelligent and righteous; usually someone with a bleeding heart cause. Hope and Change stir loyalty and passion, but at the same time shadow reality and common sense. Young and disgruntled follow that cause and its leaders which enables them to feel appreciated, and at the same time garners them recognition; a state or mindset they have been taught to covet. Disapointment, failure, loss and rejection are not circumstances the youth of the last 35 years have been taught or educated to deal with. They have been raised to accept balance and re-distribution as a means of fairness, Words and phrases like ;fairness, equality, peoples rights, liberty, freedom, social order and entitlement have been bastardized to recruit and mentally mold the young.

    Unfortunately society as a whole has grown to accept this mentality and promote it as correct and appropriate behaivor. This mindset has significantly contributed to our current state; and if left uncorrected will lead to a universial collapse.

    We must re-educate and educate our youth or we will face a meltdown.

    More later

    CM

    • So how is disgruntled youth different than your average adult?

      Human nature doesn’t change. The only thing that happens as we get older is that we become (sometimes) more jaded. But the hedonism and blind idealism of youth are tapered by age and the failure to bring about the imagined utopia.

      Every teenager worth has, at least once, uttered the words “you just don’t get it,” as if they are are privy to some deeper thoughts which are lost on the older generation.

      But it’s human nature to bias their inputs, seek like minds to reinforce world-views, discount anything that runs against your beliefs, and to believe that you are correct – that you have a complete and accurate and logically sound basis for your beliefs. And when someone else doesn’t agree, there must be something wrong with them, not your beliefs. Hence, “you just don’t get it.”

      So the youth try to change the world in every generation. And they are always surprised that they fail. But adults are no different – they’ve just lost hope.

      • Do you really believe that they fail? It may take awhile to see the effect-but there is
        one.

        And I beg your pardon-Hope is what keeps us old as dirt people going 🙂 We just get a little irritated at the “you just don’t get it” attitude. But we do understand it.

      • Matt;

        The issue I see is not the conclusion someone has arrived at, but the information, logic and circumstances that were or were not factored in. Youth typically makes decisions using more emotion than logic, and to a great degree void of historic events or the circumstances.

        Think about your own actions and how you may regret some of those actions. Having 20/20 hindsight you might wish you would have acted differently. All of us have like history, but those of us who learn from mistakes, or are taught, chose to avoid repeating them.

        My point is that there seems to be a much greater number of “Young and Disgruntled” that have allowed themselves to be brainwashed into a mindset of “Social Order”.

        Take those who have been protesting Wall Street, or are convinced that Capitalism is evil. I am willing to bet that the larger majority have no real fundimental understanding of what they are actually protesting, or that Capitalism is a result of Free Market Trade.

        I have a neice that was raised by great parents, and who is basically a kind and honest person that thinks it is perfectly OK for the government to increase taxes so that those who are less fortunate can have more of an equal share. That those who make more should be forced to give more, if they don’t contribute an acceptable percentage. In her mind it is not the “repressed” (and I use her word here to make a point) persons fault that they don’t or can’t obtain a certain level of income. And that person deserves the handout that she feels is fair. When I point out that is stealing, since I am not willing to give more, she argues that it is not theft, it is social responsibility, and since I am a heartless bastard, I need a government to ensure I do my fair share.

        She refuses to re-think her position because somewhere along the line she has concluded that we are all our brothers/sisters keepers and it takes a government to ensure everyone is provided for.

        At the wee age of 22 she would require a great deal of re-training, but she would at first need to look at things from a totally different perspective; and that may first require some kind of shock or life altering event.

        The question is how and what are the Young and Disgruntled going to do if and when the path they are following sends them into an abyss? I dare say that they will retreat to the home and basements of their parents, which is what they have been taught to do for the last 30+ years.

        CM

        • she argues that it is not theft, it is social responsibility, and since I am a heartless bastard, I need a government to ensure I do my fair share.

          Sounds like she and I would get along.. smart girl.

          She refuses to re-think her position

          I doubt this is true. It is a common enough “outside” perspective of the thinking of another. They aren’t changing their view in light of my perfectly logical argument, ergo they aren’t thinking. But that’s not really true.

          Firstly, she arrived at a conclusion of her own. Once it sets up camp in her mind, it becomes part of her mental framework. Like all of us, when conflicting information comes in which conflicts a set opinion, the gut reaction is to discount it, mitigate it, or outright reject it. (think birthers when they got the birth certificate – did they drop the issue or did they find some reason to reject the new certificate? Just an example). It’s confirmation bias.

          So, it’s not that she’s not “re-thinking” her opinion, she is constantly re-thinking it. But your arguments are being rejected or weakened BEFORE they even get to her conscious mind. By the way, you do the same thing when she tells you that it’s not fair that 1% has such a huge percentage of the wealth in this country – you reject, immediately, without considering it deeply, her concept of “fair” and thus throw out the entire argument without seriously considering her case.

          That’s why two otherwise rational people can look at the same set of facts and wonder why the other person just isn’t getting it. Both sides think they understand perfectly the other side, but that the other doesn’t understand them, and that if the other side would just stop being so intransigent and re-think their position, they would come to see the light.

          if and when the path they are following sends them into an abyss?

          Well, then the abyss will stare back into them. (sorry, couldn’t resist after yesterday).

          No, they’ll reverse course. OR, they’ll stick to their framework and blame external factors. “We went into the abyss because the establishment corrupted what we were trying to achieve. We were right, but we just couldn’t beat the system.” Or some other such self-reinforcing mentality.

          • Mathuis

            Sounds like she and I would get along.. smart girl.

            Madness seeks itself as company.

            Firstly, she arrived at a conclusion of her own.

            No!

            She was given her conclusion by rote from people she trusted as her “authorities”.

            She DID NOT question the conclusion – she accepted it WITHOUT thinking, based on (misplaced) trust.

            Once it sets up camp in her mind, it becomes part of her mental framework.

            NO!

            It is her mental framework, from which she tests her reality.

            Like all of us, when conflicting information comes in which conflicts a set opinion, the gut reaction is to discount it, mitigate it, or outright reject it.

            Speak for yourself, not me.

            But your arguments are being rejected or weakened BEFORE they even get to her conscious mind.

            Correct.

            As the argument is always presented with the conclusion (or hypothesis) first, she rejects it out of hand without review of evidence, reason or logic – since the conclusion is completely beyond her teaching.

            As she is still rooted in looking to “authorities” for her answers, she has no tools of thinking for herself. If her authorities have no answer, she is stuck.

            By the way, you do the same thing when she tells you that it’s not fair that 1% has such a huge percentage of the wealth in this country – you reject, immediately, without considering it deeply, her concept of “fair” and thus throw out the entire argument without seriously considering her case.

            Correct.

            “Fair” is SUBJECTIVE to that individual, and absolutely invalid in any objective argument or as an objective measure.

            That’s why two otherwise rational people can look at the same set of facts and wonder why the other person just isn’t getting it.

            Then one of them is NOT rational – your assumption here is flawed.

            • Mathius™ says:

              Like all of us, when conflicting information comes in which conflicts a set opinion, the gut reaction is to discount it, mitigate it, or outright reject it.

              Speak for yourself, not me.

              Yes, you.
              You, you, you. And me.

              But we can overcome this gut reaction. But human nature is what it is. Your brain wants to reject anything which conflicts your established opinions. You may fight it and force your brain into listening impartially, but that’s not what I said. I said your “gut reaction is to discount it.”

              My gut reaction when you deliberately misinterpret my posts is to hunt you down with an axe.. but I don’t.

              • Mathius,

                Yes, you.
                You, you, you. And me.

                No, speak for yourself.

                Experienced in such dialogue over decades, I have heard the same old fallacies over and over again – so, hearing such from someone new does not make the old fallacies new!. They are still the same old fallacies.

                Discarding such arguments immediately is not because of some “gut”.

                It is because of experience and knowledge gained over many years.

                When a new argument comes up, I will entertain listening

                But don’t waste my time with the same old crap.

            • Mathius™ says:

              That’s why two otherwise rational people can look at the same set of facts and wonder why the other person just isn’t getting it.

              Then one of them is NOT rational – your assumption here is flawed.

              Two OTHERWISE rational people. My assumption is that, save for a single factor causing irrationality in one or both, they would be rational. I didn’t say “that’s why two rational people…” I said two otherwise rational.

              And, for the record, even as rational people, it is possible to look at the same set of facts and reach different conclusions. Only you believe otherwise because whoever programmed your operating system couldn’t figure out how to account for shades of gray, so he left you in binary mode.

              Maybe some day there’ll be a system patch you can install.

              • Mathius,

                Two OTHERWISE rational people. My assumption is that, save for a single factor causing irrationality in one or both, they would be rational. I didn’t say “that’s why two rational people…” I said two otherwise rational.

                So you are saying at least one of them is IRRATIONAL – fine, I agree with that.

                And, for the record, even as rational people, it is possible to look at the same set of facts and reach different conclusions. Only you believe otherwise because whoever programmed your operating system couldn’t figure out how to account for shades of gray, so he left you in binary mode.

                Maybe some day there’ll be a system patch you can install.

                The ONLY way you can come up with different conclusions while reviewing the same facts is a difference of KNOWLEDGE.

                One must have more information then the other.

                Thus, they cannot be reviewing the same facts – one of them has reviewed MORE facts then the other.

                Thus, your condition has a flaw – you said they had the same facts, but now you argue they do not.

              • Mathius™ says:

                Which is worse Matrix II or Matrix III? We have the same facts.

                (BF: that’s opinion)

                Mathius: Where did I ever say it wasn’t opinion. I said “conclusion.” I conclude III was worse because I was willing to accept II as a bridge to a strong finish.

                ….. Want to try again?

                Ok, should I set up this security I’m looking at right now as [omitted] or [different omitted]? The former is better for trading purposes. The later is better for risk purposes. My coworker favors option 2, but I think option 1. But he is more concerned about risk reporting since he works in that area. I am the converse. We have all the same data and are both rational, but disagree over which is the correct choice.

                (BF: that’s a question of priorities)

                Mathius: Where did I ever say it wasn’t priorities. I said rational people reaching different conclusions. I didn’t specify what had to feed into reaching those conclusions. He is rational to want his system to be correct. I am rational to want mine correct.

                … Want to try again?

                Ok, what is the correct religion? Surely there must be a “right” answer. Most of them are mutually exclusive. I have the same facts as you – I have read the Koran, Torah, New Testament, apocrypha, and I’ve studied some others. Even if we don’t have exactly the same knowledge, we would have access to the same knowledge and could fill each other in. And besides, knowledge differentials are probably not the source of disagreement here.

                (BF: that’s not a rational decision)

                Mathius: So how do you contend that you’re correct with your view of God and the universe?

                (BF: Shut up.)

              • Mathius,

                Which is worse Matrix II or Matrix III? We have the same facts.

                (BF: that’s opinion)

                We started this dialogue based on some girls’ concept of “fair” – and we led to a dialogue on OBJECTIVE standards.

                Do not waste my time with falling back into some subjective mush muck.

              • Mathius,

                Mathius: So how do you contend that you’re correct with your view of God and the universe?

                I am correct with my view of the Universe.

                As far as my view about God – it all depends on your definition of God. If you do not hold to the same definition, then my view is wholly incompatible.

              • Mathius™ says:

                Objective standards?

                Did I say that or did you just infer it along the way somewhere?

              • Mathius,

                Yes, we did.

                Engaging in a debate over what color you want to paint your car is pointless for me – its not my car.

                This is not the case here.

                This is a debate over the the legitimizing and the use of violence on me based on some rationalization.

                You appear to believe this is done with bizarre, arbitrary, subjective dialogue.

                However, to actually do this requires one to provide an objective reason – not the same muck you used to justify painting your car pink.

          • Common Man says:

            Matt;

            Starting from the bottom up on your reply: They may change course, but they will still be dealing with the same set of standards, beliefs and mindset that got them to the abyss in the first place. And since they have refused to consider facts, universial law, and, and, there is a good chance they will not be able to alter their circumstance.

            Two people can look at the same facts and arrive at different conclusions based upon each persons developed values. However, if those conclusions are founded upon irrational and indignant principles then the conclusion is only valid in that one persons mind. As an example: Devote Baptists believe only Baptists will reach heaven, therefore Gandhi will not be in heaven.

            Re-thinking is only accomplished when you “consider” other factors and as a result, your initial conclusion varies. That is of course only if your principles/values are founded upon freedom and/or Universial Law. If your values are contrary to basic freedom and liberty then your conclusions are invalid. Even though the money she insists the government take from me benefits a “repressed” person the theft cannot be justified as righteous as it is still theft.

            She is in some ways the result of irrational influence and when she employs the principles of that irrational influence she is unable to consider logic or common sense; especially when she validates the theft with the guise that the person that was forced to give the money is no worse off. This mindset is a great deal of our current social problem. And it is my opinion that it is a flawed principle that has been accepted as normal and correct. As the cartoon video that was in the last post stated: Timmy cannot do wrong, therefore it is the teacher’s fault when Timmy fails.

            CM

            • Mathius™ says:

              they have refused to consider facts Again, it’s not that that they have refused to consider facts, so much as the idea that those facts have been shaded, colored, and altered BEFORE they are considered. And, again, let’s not pretend that you or I are innocent of this – we do it too. People see and hear what they want to see and hear. Things which conflict are minimized in the mental calculus. Confirmation bias is a huge hurdle to changing someone’s mind.

              they may change course, but they will still be dealing with the same set of standards, beliefs and mindset that got them to the abyss in the first place. Maybe. Maybe not. If you are solving a maze and you hit a dead end, you go back a little and try again. If you hit another dead end, you go back further and try again. If necessary, you go all the way back to the beginning, but it wouldn’t be your logical first step, would it? If they are wrong, so will take a small step back, some will take a big step back, some will deny any error (blaming someone else) and march straight ahead. And, by the way, that’s assuming they’re wrong – maybe they’re right.

              Two people can look at the same facts and arrive at different conclusions based upon each persons developed values. Not according to Flag.

              As an example: Devote Baptists believe only Baptists will reach heaven, therefore Gandhi will not be in heaven. Muslims believe Jesus isn’t allowed in the highest level of heaven because he wasn’t Muslim. I’m not sure where you’re going with this..

              Re-thinking is only accomplished when you “consider” other factors and as a result, your initial conclusion varies. That is of course only if your principles/values are founded upon freedom and/or Universial Law. This looks like a bit of a non-sequitur. Why can’t I re-think something from my framework of believing in societal obligations? Why do I have to think like you in order to qualify as thinking at all? My principles/values recognize the importance of freedom/liberty, but they also recognize a duty to our fellow man. Why is yours the only grounding for a “rational” thought? That’s like having a discussion with one of those devout Baptists about right and wrong, but being told your reasoned arguments are invalid because the bible is the only valid basis for rational thought. Huh?

              She is in some ways the result of irrational influence and when she employs the principles of that irrational influence she is unable to consider logic or common sense; Why do you think you have a corner “common sense”? That’s just a condescending way of saying “I’m right because it makes sense to me, so if you disagree, you just don’t see the obvious.” Screw that. And, again, logic is bound by the framework within which it is used. She recognizes (as do I) a framework where there are considerations other than just freedom/liberty. To you this looks like irrationality because you reject the fundamental premise. To her, yours looks like irrationality because you are missing a fundamental premise. To her, it is “common sense” that no one should starve while someone else has a three private jets.

              If your values are contrary to basic freedom and liberty then your conclusions are invalid. …. According to you. We see the world as more complicated than that. You can’t invalidate a basic premise (on a whim) and then assert that we’re fools because we don’t agree. Using those Baptists again, it’d be like arguing the nature of God, but insisting that the bible is invalid. Then you call them crazy for insisting things that are no longer supported. Well who are you to remove their premises?

              the theft cannot be justified as righteous as it is still theft. To-may-toh.. to-mah-toh… Theft to you because you don’t recognize the duty-premise. Righteous to her because she does recognize the duty-premise. Again, you’re ignoring a fundamental tenet of her logical framework, then claiming it doesn’t make sense. Well of course it doesn’t. But she doesn’t agree with removing that tenet.

              ———————–

              Imagine that I build a house of cards and we are discussing how they stay upright. You tell me that you don’t believe in the queen of spades. The queen of spades is part of the base of my house. Because you don’t believe in it, you cannot see how my house is standing. It makes no sense to you – it’s irrational! But I see the queen there and it all makes perfect sense. I try to explain it, but it makes no sense because the premise is missing.

              Likewise, you build your house of cards and we are discussing it. But I see there this extra card in the way. It doesn’t make any how you could build it because there’s this extra thing that’s in the way – so it doesn’t make any sense. And now you’re the one whose irrational.

              You have started with a premise (freedom/liberty is the only premise). And you hold it to be sacrosanct. And you reject anyone else’s premises. But what do you base it on? Why are you right and she is wrong?

              ————————

              You should invite CommonNiece to SUFA.. I bet she could add some value to this madhouse.

        • I think I just saw her…… Or was that Matt in a wig?

        • CM,

          Trying starting by finding out what her Principles are….

          She’ll probably start with some high-level statement like “help the poor” – then you start peeling the onion….”What is the best means (or way) of helping the poor?”

          Keep at it until you hit the root principle she holds.

          Then work back up – and she will hit a point where her beliefs and her principles contradict.

          Then, it becomes interesting…..

          • Common Man says:

            Flag;

            Even though she and I enjoy an excellent relationship when discussions of this nature arise she has a tendancy to retreat or tell me that she is not going to discuss it. I will try an approach of questioning that starts around why she has decided on the direction she is taking.

            CM

            • CM,

              Don’t hope for miracles.

              When people do this, it is usually because they are “married” to an outcome.

              Her example, she wishes that the poor be provided for … worthy moral goal as long as the means of provisioning is also moral

              However, the means she accepts for such a task is dangerously flawed – and she already probably knows it by past conversations.

              She is afraid that changing the “means” of provisioning will NOT fulfill the goal, and is willing to compromise on the Means for the gain – the Faustian deal with the devil.

              ……”End justifies the Means” type thinking.

              Further, there is a broad societal distrust of free men.

              Many people believe free men have no compassion (which, of course, must mean to these people that only tyrants have compassion).

              It will be very difficult to overcome this fear.

              I would aim for a very, very modest goal
              – question the “End justifies the Means” moral philosophy in contrast to the “Means justifies the End” philosophy – and dialogue around which one ends up to be measured as “moral”.

              • You can always try the “BF robs banks to provide for the poor” story … then question the differences between BF/Robber and the tax man…

                but maybe not … that tends to electro-shock them too hard ……

              • Common Man says:

                Flag;

                Thanksgiving and the family Christmas get-to-gether is coming up, so we will see how that topic/discussion turns out.

                Thanks,

                CM

              • Just don’t use ‘violence against the non-violent”. The ticked me off for a long, long time!

              • That’s interesting.

                Why did it annoy you so much?

              • I didn’t understand your definition of violence.

              • Interesting.
                I’m using you as a test case to understand better, if you don’t mind.

                So you applied a rote definition of violence to the statement and it made sense, but when the definition of violence was refined, the statement became difficult.

                Is that fair to say?

      • But it’s human nature to bias their inputs, seek like minds to reinforce world-views, discount anything that runs against your beliefs, and to believe that you are correct – that you have a complete and accurate and logically sound basis for your beliefs. And when someone else doesn’t agree, there must be something wrong with them, not your beliefs.

        We see this here every day…

      • Mathius and Todd

        What is it on the left that makes everyone think they are an expert in human psychology?

        I see this more everyday on the various blogs and some cable talk shows.

        Mathius, it seems to me you are trying to build a grand rationalization for humans to stop thinking and act like wild animals. If your explanation of human behavior were true the cave men would have just curled up in the fetal position and died. We would not have become what we are.

        • Mathius™ says:

          I am an expert in well versed in human psychology because I have studied it extensively. While, certainly, there are people out there better qualified, I am not pulling this stuff out of my ass.

          That said, what specifically do you dispute of my assertions about basic human psychology?

          it seems to me you are trying to build a grand rationalization for humans to stop thinking and act like wild animals.

          We are wild animals. We’re just in denial about it.

          But I never rationalized “stopping thinking” – in fact, that would be the most counter-productive thing a human (as wild animal) could do. We’re not strong, we’re not physically resilient, we’re not venomous, we can’t camouflage, we’re not huge, we’re not armored, we don’t have great immune systems, we’re not diverse eaters, we can’t fly, we have low endurance, we’re not fast, we can’t swim very well, and we’re made out of meat. The only thing that stops us from being eaten by bears is that we can think.

          Stop thinking and the bears will get you.

          • Perhaps you are aware of this-but just a point.

            People have to justify their actions because they KNOW that the action itself is wrong-when they start to believe that the underlying principal is Wrong. Depending on the principal-we either have advancement or utter chaos.

            Because I am poor-I was forced to steal to survive-but I know it is wrong to steal.

            BEcause I am poor-I have the right to steal-“you” owe me.

            Very different mindsets.

            • Nobody likes to think of themselves as “doing wrong.” So they have two choices. Victimization – “I steal because I have no choice because society is unfair” -or some such. Or justification – “It’s ok for me to steal because I’m owed it” – or some such (that is, the action itself isn’t wrong).

              Maybe victimization and justification are different mindsets, but they’re first cousins – they’re both just ways to lie to yourself so you don’t have to think of yourself as the bad guy.

              • Take it to the next level -what effect does that difference have on them, their actions, and how will it effect society?

              • Who knows? What do you think this means?

                I’m not really qualified to extrapolate broader meaning and effects on the whole of society. All I can say is that people lie to themselves all the time.

              • Of course you are.

              • One other thing-I would define both of those statement as victimization. The difference is in whether or not the person knows they are justifying wrong actions or they think they are justified.

              • I would define both of those statement as victimization I would generally agree with that statement.

              • 🙂 Somehow I believe I should qualify my statement-both statements are based on “I am a victim of circumstances mentality” -whether or not they have truly been victimized isn’t a given.

              • they’re both just ways to lie to yourself so you don’t have to think of yourself as the bad guy.

                Occasionally “Abyss Boy” becomes lucid.

              • You could also look at the fact that -you changed the wording of my first statement -I simply said I am poor-so I did something wrong to survive-why “I” am poor has many possible answers but you changed it to-being poor makes me a victim of an unfair society.

              • Mathius™ says:

                Yes, true. But I’m just saying people don’t like to think about the things they do wrong. It’s easier for a person to think of themselves as not doing anything wrong than face facts. Whether they blame society, or politicians, or Black Flag, or those pesky Canadians, or fate, or genetics, or their parents, it doesn’t really matter – the only question is which option do you think “most” people would choose in this situation:

                A) Makes you look in the mirror and know that you’re stealing from some innocent person.
                B) Let’s you look in the mirror and feel peachy because, hey, it’s not your fault.

              • I understand you are making a statement -people lie and justify-why does it matter? what effect does it have on the people and society in general? What device helps center people and makes justification harder? Just making a negative point about people may well be true but if you don’t go past that and make some judgments based on that fact-what difference does it make?

              • Dread Pirate Mathius says:

                If I can justify stealing from you when I am in desperate need, then I can justify stealing from you when I am in desperate slight need.

                If I can justify stealing from you when I am in slight need, I can justify stealing from you when I am in discomfort.

                If I can justify stealing from you when I am in discomfort, I can justify stealing from you because you have more than me.

                If I can justify stealing from you just because you have more than me, I can justify believing that I am entitled to it.

                If I can justify this, so can others.

                If I surround myself with others who believe as I do, then we will reinforce each others beliefs. (like alcoholics who tell each other that they don’t have a drinking problem)

                If we reinforce each other’s beliefs, then it can become accepted by society writ large.

                If it comes to be accepted by society writ large, then the politicians will institutionalize it.

                If the politicians institutionalize it, they will enforce it with further evil.

                ———-

                It makes a HUGE difference what people believe when they commit evil actions. Knowing it’s wrong, but believing you have no alternative does not place you on this path. Honest introspection of your motives does not change the nature of the action (that is, that it’s evil), but it does not allow you to mentally write off the evil such that you escalate.

              • Why did you change to Dread?

              • Dread Pirate Mathius says:

                Mathius and I don’t always agree on everything.

                So I find it helps to clarify who is speaking when I make certain arguments.

                (In other words, I’m torn on the issue. I can make the argument from one side without necessarily having accepted the conclusions as true – this is because there is a fundamental discrepancy in the question of what premise(s) form the basis of morality. If there is no societal/duty obligation, then DPM is the correct answer. If there is, then Mathius™ is the correct answer. Until I settle the debate, the two are just waring factions in my head, who have been given the free reign to post on SUFA independently of each other, as they try to hash it out.)

                Yes, I know I am insane.

              • Dread,

                This is no less the process I went through myself, BBF (Before Black Flag).

                However, I fear you will go/are insane, since resolution can only be achieved if one understands reality of the Universe and the Universal prohibition on contradictions.

                I fear your effort is futile since “Mathius” has not been able to achieve this very basic level.

              • Dread Pirate Mathius says:

                He’s a smart guy… I’m sure he’ll get there

              • I have doubts – he will die of old age first, is my bet.

              • Well, this is where I part company with both of you and BF and many on this site. There is a moral responsibility to help your fellow man(that is a principal)-but forcibly taking from Peter to give to Paul-fits the definition of stealing(that is also a principal)-somewhere in there is the answer. We may be able to justify some taking from Peter(if there is no other answer) but we must hold onto the other principal -so we will not turn the taking into an assumed right or escalate the process to the point of evil.

              • Yes, there is an answer in there – but you can’t accept it, because even though you state “one shouldn’t force…..”, you end up contradicting yourself a bit later, advocating for such force.

                The answer is easy:
                “Let each man, in his peace, choose his own method, route, degree, and situation that he wishes to help”

                What you cannot come to grips with nor accept is that there will be those that do “zero.”

                Because of that, you are willing to impose upon all men your version of “non-zero” – and, in that act, (eventually) end up destroying everything.

              • I state two principals and the need to honor both-I would be very happy if man would accept that responsibility and I even give credence to the possibility that he would. But if not-it is a responsibility that must be honored or we have freedom but have lost that which makes us human.

                Now I have to go back to the grocery store so I can finish cooking.

          • Common Man says:

            Matt:
            BUT:
            “We’re not strong, we’re not physically resilient, we’re not venomous, we can’t camouflage, we’re not huge, we’re not armored, we don’t have great immune systems, we’re not diverse eaters, we can’t fly, we have low endurance, we’re not fast, we can’t swim very well, and we’re made out of meat.”

            Oh contraire…We are strong, physically and mentally and our life expectancy is higher than most mammels. We can be venomous as our mouths hold more bacteria than dogs, and a human bite can kill if left untreated. And although you city boys may not understand it I can easily disapear in the woods with only minimal effort. WE may not be armored, but we have the intelligence to do so, and our immune system is one of the most advanced with sharks and wolverines being more advanced. As far as diversity in food, I dare say I have eaten almost everything that is eatable in North America and could survive on what I could find in those woods; although I would miss my Franks. We cannot fly without an aid, but we have invented those aids, and endurance is obtainable as is speed and swimming ability. And as far as being made of meat, so is every other mammel.

            CM

            • Mathius™ says:

              We can’t swim as well as a fish, no matter how we train.
              We’ll never have the endurance of a horse no matter how we train.
              We’ll never be as strong as a bear no matter how much we work out.
              Etc etc.

              And you confirm my point – we can fly by machine etc.. because we can think. It’s our brains which set us apart. The rest of us would barely survive, maybe, in the wild. Put a chimp brain in a human body and you’re odds of survival plummet.

              By the way, “I dare say I have eaten almost everything that is eatable in North America and could survive on what I could find in those woods.” But you can’t digest cellulose, can you. So most leaves and stalks are off limits to you. Grass too. Goats can eat it, but not you. There’s a lot of food out there that’s just not accessible to humans.

              • Common Man says:

                Ewell Gibbons: “You can eat a pine tree you know”. Maple leaves when they turn colors are full of sugar and can be digested. Pine nuts, acorns, grubs, ants, beetles, worms, the list goes on and on.

                I agree that our strongest asset is our brain and the ability to think reason and plan, but it can also be a weakness if allowed.

                CM

          • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

            “We’re not strong, we’re not physically resilient, we’re not venomous, we can’t camouflage, we’re not huge, we’re not armored, we don’t have great immune systems, we’re not diverse eaters, we can’t fly, we have low endurance, we’re not fast, we can’t swim very well, and we’re made out of meat. The only thing that stops us from being eaten by bears is that we can think.”

            Hmmm…. and yet, in spite of all that, the only animal ANYWHERE that is truly dangerous to man is… man.

        • JAC,
          What makes you think this is only on the left?

          We see this here every day too – from the right.

          I know this was directed at Mathius, but…I’m not trying to build some “grand rationalization for humans to stop thinking and act like wild animals.” I’m pointing out how some do ”curl up in the fetal position and die” (physically or mentally) and some keep an open body and mind and are constantly trying to improve.

          • Todd

            I mostly see psychological arguments on the left wing blogs and media like MSNBC.

            Not saying they are the only ones but certainly the most prevalent based on my personal experience. Such phrases as “confirmation bias” are a tell.

            The “conservatives” usually go straight for the jugular and don’t resort to this “psychologizing”. In other words, I see them usually just ignoring the other side and continuing with their rant, or falling back to the “your a socialist” retort.

            It seems to me that many on the left claim an intellectual superiority over their fellow citizens, especially those on the right. So it would seem they like to use these types of psychological arguments because it “confirms their bias” about the mental inadequacies of those who oppose their views. Yes, that was an attempt at complicated ironic humor.

            Speaking of Ironic Humor, I just love the Rachel Maddow ads for MSNBC’s “Leaning Forward”. Nice little SNARKY PROGRESSIVE standing in front of a DAM extolling the virtues and need for Government. After all, “who in the private sector would build this”?

            Maybe you could call her and explain the impact of the FEDERAL HYDRO POWER system on the environment in the Columbia and Colorado River Systems. Or that the Environmental Groups who comprise the “PROGRESSIVES” are fighting to get rid of as many dams as possible. You should send her a copy of Monkey Wrench Gang. I would have done it but I lost my copy.

            • JAC,

              In other words, I see them usually just ignoring the other side and continuing with their rant, or falling back to the “your a socialist” retort.

              Isn’t that a psychological argument from the right?

              • Todd

                NO! At least not anywhere close to the manner I was referring to.

                As I said, it is not exclusive to the left. Only more prevalent in my observations. Now don’t forget that I put many “conservatives” just “left of center”. But my original comment was aimed at the farther left crowd.

                Now………. you ignored my comment about Maddow. What are your thoughts on the hypocrisy or at least irony?

              • JAC,
                I haven’t seen the ads JAC. Don’t really care.

                At least not anywhere close to the manner I was referring to.

                That’s only because you can’t see it. Because you believe the RIGHT WING PSYCHOLOGIZING.

                And when David Frum writes something that disagrees with your narrow view of the world, the only valid conclusion is that it must be LEFT WING PSYCHOLOGIZING. Because if it’s not, it raises questions about everything that you stand for. Everything that you’ve preached out here on SUFA. And you can’t let that happen…

                PS – YES And stop yelling at ME! 😉

  8. Canine Weapon says:
    • First of all, I personally cannot understand why anyone would want a bigger behind-my is big enough thank you very much 🙂 🙂

      But in all seriousness it is so hard to understand why anyone would be this stupid. It can’t all just be about the money. I’ve read about even rich people going to botox parties-I think it was Elvis’s ex-wife-who had her face really messed.

      • I don’t get it either.. and the girl in that picture looks ridiculous.

        —–

        But actually, I have some idea. There is a herd mentality in people. If “everyone is doing it” or if it’s the “cool thing to do” or if it will make you look “like the ideal,” people are going to do what they have to to fit in. Peer pressure is no joke, and anyone without sufficient amounts of will power and self-respect is vulnerable to making really really stupid decisions based on it.

        This woman probably just wanted a little more attention from guys, saw that other people looked a certain way, and was told she could get it. Once the thought seeps in, it becomes self-reinforcing. She (probably) knew it was risky, but her brain knew what it wanted (must.. look.. like.. Kardashian..), and it overrode her concerns. The fact that she let it is certainly a personal failing, but we all to this from time to time (albeit on a far lesser scale) – say when you splurge and buy shoes – you knew you didn’t need them and you knew you should have saved the money, but your brain knew what it wanted it and impulse overrode reason.

        There is not just one person in your head. There is id and ego and superego. There is the reptile brain and the ‘human’ brain. There is a drive to be true to yourself. There is a drive to mate/procreate. There is a drive to eat/glut. There is a drive to slack off. There is a drive to achieve. There is a drive to think long term. There is a drive to seek immediate gratification. There is a drive to seek approval of the herd. And all of these are swirling around in the mix which, combined, is what you think of as “you.”

        Slick salesmen (and con-men) know all this, of course. And they rely on it to push you into doing what they want. The trick isn’t to force you into it. The trick is to let you force yourself into it.

        • Common Man says:

          You know it could be that the woman in the video was having a really busy day and as such was concerned she would not be able to fit her daily exercise routine in, so she decided to get some in by going up the down escalator.

          CM

      • Same reason other women use implants in their breasts.

        African men (and other cultures) like women with huge bottoms – it is as erotic to them as large breasts are to many men here.

  9. Top Democrats are aggressively pushing the claim that Republicans’ worries about voter fraud are an insincere excuse to suppress voting by African-Americans and Hispanics.

    But former Democratic Rep. Artur Davis told The Daily Caller that anti-fraud measures are needed to protect African-Americans from corrupt political bosses — many of them African-Americans themselves — who run Democratic Party machines in the South.

    On Nov. 14, progressive Democratic Reps. John Conyers, Steny Hoyer, Jerrold Nadler, Keith Ellison, Steve Cohen, Marcia Fudge and Emanuel Clearer, the chair of the Congressional Black Caucus — along with representatives from several advocacy groups — held a meeting to complain about what they say is the danger posed by laws that require voters to identify themselves.

    Artur Davis is unimpressed.

    “What I have seen in my state, in my region, is the the most aggressive practitioners of voter-fraud are local machines who are tied lock, stock and barrel to the special interests in their communities — the landfills, the casino operators — and they’re cooking the [ballot] boxes on election day, they’re manufacturing absentee ballots, they’re voting [in the names of] people named Donald Duck, because they want to control politics and thwart progress,” he told TheDC.

    “People who are progressives have no business defending those individuals.”

    Davis is free to talk publicly because he quit electoral politics in 2010, giving up his African-American-dominated district to run for the Democratic nomination in the 2010 gubernatorial race. He lost in the primary, and the the winning Democrat subsequently lost to the Republican by 16 points, 42 percent to 58 percent.

    Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/11/21/democrat-says-democratic-party-bosses-use-voter-fraud-video/#ixzz1eS5bpnwS

  10. Along the lines of financial risks in the markets. Check out the value of the “derivatives” on the BofA books.

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-10-18/bofa-said-to-split-regulators-over-moving-merrill-derivatives-to-bank-unit.html#

    Everyone, all together now. Shout it so the world can hear.

    WE ARE SO SCREWED !!!!!!!!!!

  11. http://theweek.com/bullpen/column/221584/in-defense-of-jon-corzine/2

    MF Global may have gone down on the Democrat’s watch. But first, Jon Corzine was a proud progressive who made New Jersey proud.

    Wow! Just wow! The progressive mindset.

  12. I don’t know what to say-I am so shocked and horrified at the pure stupidity and political BS of this move.

    Occupy L.A. receives offer to decamp
    Protesters could get downtown office space and farmland if they leave City Hall.

    Occupy L.A.

    Jim Lafferty, who has been negotiating with city officials on behalf of Occupy L.A., addresses protesters. (Robert Lachman, Los Angeles Times / November 21, 2011)

    By Kate Linthicum, Los Angeles Times

    November 22, 2011
    Los Angeles officials have offered Occupy L.A. protesters a package of incentives that includes downtown office space and farmland in an attempt to persuade them to abandon their camp outside of City Hall, according to several demonstrators who have been in negotiations with the city.

    The details of the proposal were revealed Monday during the demonstration’s nightly general assembly meeting by Jim Lafferty, an attorney with the National Lawyers Guild who has been advocating on behalf of the protest since it began seven weeks ago.

    Lafferty said city officials have offered protesters a $1-a-year lease on a 10,000-square-foot office space near City Hall. He said officials also promised land elsewhere for protesters who wish to farm, as well as additional housing for the contingent of homeless people who joined the camp.

    A spokesman for the mayor would not comment on the proposal, saying only: “We are in negotiations with organizers of Occupy L.A.”

    Los Angeles has been one of the most accommodating cities in the nation for its Occupy encampment.

    Officials here said they do not want the demonstration to end violently and have steered away from police raids like those in New York, Oakland and other cities.

    It is unclear whether the protesters will give up their camp.

    The proposals were received with a mix of excitement, anger and disbelief among protesters, many of whom did not know that members of the camp were in negotiations with city officials.

    “I don’t appreciate people appointing themselves to represent me, to represent us,” one woman called out during the assembly. “Who was in those meetings?”

    “It’s divide and conquer,” another protester said.

    Mario Brito, a protester who helped organize the demonstration and has been in the city meetings, said the office space could be an opportunity to expand the protest.

    Protesters have begun organizing a general strike in Los Angeles.

    But Brito told the crowd, “It’s not going to happen if we spend 90% of our time arguing about camp issues.”

    Lafferty said he told city officials that protesters may not agree to the proposed exit strategy.

    “I have made it clear that there are some people who would want to stay and others who want to take that offer,” he said, adding that the offer of office space will remain even if some “stay here and decide to get arrested.”

    Lafferty, who said he talks regularly to Los Angeles Police Department Chief Charlie Beck, said police “have said that the day is growing near when they will not allow the occupation in its present form to continue.”

    After Lafferty announced the proposal, the protesters discussed it and other alternatives.

    Protesters planned to meet again Tuesday to talk about their options.

    http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-1122-occupy-la-move-20111122,0,1592348.story

    • Another money pit. Just think if we’d eliminate all these black holes.

      • A conservative group is accusing state Sen. Lena C. Taylor of being “an accessory” to possible voter fraud after some 20 individuals, including a felon on work-release, voted in the April election listing as their residence a Milwaukee group home operated by Taylor’s mother on property owned by the senator.

        But the Milwaukee Democrat dismissed the allegations, saying her mother, Lena J. Taylor, was simply providing homeless and other individuals with a place to stay and then encouraging them to vote. Many come and go and might use the address as the closest they have to a residence.

        Media Trackers, a Mequon-based nonprofit that does political research targeting liberals, released records showing that 36 people were registered to vote using the address of Mama Delta’s Lovehouse, a group home and homeless shelter run by Lena J. Taylor. The home is at 1018 N. 35th St., property that is owned by the senator and next door to her law office.

        Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/11/21/wisconsin-state-sen-lena-taylor-denies-voter-fraud-allegation/#ixzz1eT3s6Hc5

        • Yeah, one of many instances of fraud (alleged….). Go figure.

          We are in the midst of the big Walker recall now. Unbelievable. The signature gathering groups are everywhere and a couple women interviewed said they were trying to hit as many sites as possible to sign their names. DUH! Can’t sign multiple times/places.

          Another woman signed her name and her parents names because they are out of the country. Then bragged about it on facebook. DUH!

          Video shows group in Milwaukee offering smokes to kids for them to sign their names. DUH!

          Government Accountability Board (how’s that for an oxymoron?) says they have so many complaints and reports of fraud and abuse it will take them a long time to verify petitions.

          And we wonder why the libs are screaming about Voter ID? It’ll mess up their whole program!

  13. One day late for the Climate Change discussion, but maybe this will help.

    http://www.livescience.com/17144-climate-change-skeptics-skeptical.html

  14. DisposableCarbonUnit says:

    Government does not like an end run around their rules OR their money, now pay up or else!

    http://www.theblaze.com/stories/roll-your-own-cigarette-shops-under-fire-for-undercutting-cigarette-tax/

  15. WARNING ISSUED BY HOMELAND SECURITY!!!!!! On turkey fryers? Isn’t some other government agency supposed to be “protecting” us from that while they worry about bad guys with guns and bombs?????

    http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/dhs-issues-turkey-fryer-warning

    • Common Man says:

      Wow, can you set up a commercial to be any more methodical? I see several things in this add. First the turkey was still frozen…Duh!, Second they didnt allow for dispersment relative to the amount of oil they put in. Third, of course it tips easy, but so does a portable grill. I could go on, but apparently the manufactures of Turkey fryers didn’t feel they had to get the UL approval to sell these.

      By the way these things make a great clam, fish, crap and lobster boil as well.

      CM

  16. PeterB in Indianapolis says:
    • Trying to put myself into an AGW believer’s thought process, just so we examine both sides of the issue….

      “Todd says:
      November 22, 2011 at 2:58 pm • Edit

      JAC,
      What makes you think this is only on the left?

      We see this here every day too – from the right.

      I know this was directed at Mathius, but…I’m not trying to build some “grand rationalization for humans to stop thinking and act like wild animals.” I’m pointing out how some do ”curl up in the fetal position and die” (physically or mentally) and some keep an open body and mind and are constantly trying to improve.”

      Nope, not working for me.LOL

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        Well, I used to be “on the left”. Quite FAR to the left as a matter of fact. Used to believe all of the “greater good” stuff, and that government was absolutely necessary to ensure that things would work towards the “greater good”.

        The only problem was, even though my education and most of my educators were very liberal, several of my educators were honest enough to teach me to think for myself and to use logic to analyze things, and to do so while recognizing, to the extent possible, my own biases.

        As a result, my position has changed immensely over the past 20 years or so.

        As far as AGW goes, as a scientist, my initial gut reaction was to go for it lock, stock, and barrel. I figured the theory was coming from scientists who knew what they were talking about and had designed reproducible experiments using the tried-and-true scientific method…

        Then I learned that these AGW charlatans were NOTHING OF THE SORT and had great potential to give actual scientists a bad name for decades, if not centuries. The end result, when AGW as a “science” comes crashing down will possibly be a rebirth of true science, but science may be so tarnished by these sycophantic fools that we may return to the dark ages….

      • Which is exactly my point!

  17. AN EMAIL FROM MY INBOX TODAY. PLEASE DON’T EVERYONE RUSH TO RESPOND AT ONCE. YOU COULD OVER LOAD THEIR SYSTEM.

    Friend —

    A few Thursdays ago, I had dinner with four Americans named Ken, Casey, Juanita, and Wendi — the winners of the campaign’s first Dinner with Barack contest.

    I loved getting to know each of them.

    We’re taking names for the next dinner starting now, and this time I want to add a new feature: If you win, you can bring a guest.

    Chip in $3 or more today to be automatically entered to win a spot for you and a guest at the next dinner.

    The folks who this election is all about tend to fall under the radar of the D.C. pundits and traditional news media.

    They’re people like Juanita, who helped put her three sons through college on a teacher’s salary while saving what she could for retirement.

    Like Ken, a single dad who stood by his mother as she fought insurance companies while battling two forms of cancer.

    They’re like Casey, whose three young kids may not yet appreciate what courage it took for their dad to take a chance and start his own business.

    And Wendi, an artist and third-generation teacher who canvassed, marched, and phone banked in Indiana in 2008, the year her home state defied the traditional electoral map.

    These people weren’t just there for themselves — they were representing you, this movement, and the folks I go to work for every day as president.

    These dinners are important to me because I want to spend time whenever I can with the people who sent me here. They’re proving wrong the conventional wisdom that says campaigns should cater to Washington lobbyists and powerful interests. And they’re an important reminder that this movement — and my presidency — have never just been about me.

    I’m proud that we’re choosing to run the kind of campaign where a dinner like this isn’t just possible, it’s a regular thing. And next time, I don’t just want to meet you — I want to meet someone else in your life.

    Donate $3 or more, and start thinking about who you’ll invite to dinner:

    http://my.democrats.org/Dinner

    Thanks for being part of this,

    Barack

    FUNNY HOW THE WINNERS, PICKED IN A RANDOM RAFFLE, ALL HAVE SOME APPROPRIATE STORY.

    AND ONE MORE TIME………..NOTICE THE USE OF THE PHRASE “THIS MOVEMENT”!!!

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      I think by the phrase “this movement” he is referring to something one leaves in the toilet (or at least really SHOULD leave there)

      🙂

  18. HERE IS AN EXAMPLE, NOT THE BEST, OF SOME OF THAT LEFT WING PSYCHOLOGIZING I MENTIONED EARLIER TODAY. THIS IS A COMMENT FROM A LEFTY (self proclaimed) TO A PERCEIVED RIGHTY.

    “David Frum in New York Magazine on Fox, talk radio, and the various think tanks, publicatio­ns and other GOP fan clubs that control the thoughts of GOP voters:

    “[C]onserv­atives have built a whole alternativ­e knowledge system, with its own facts, its own history, its own laws of economics. Outside this alternativ­e reality, the United States is a country dominated by a strong Christian religiosit­y. Within it, Christians are a persecuted minority. Outside the system, President Obama—what­ever his policy ­errors—is a figure of imposing intellect and dignity. Within the system, he’s a pitiful nothing, unable to speak without a teleprompt­er, an affirmativ­e-action ­phony doomed to inevitable defeat. … We used to say ‘You’re entitled to your own opinion, but not to your own facts.’ Now we are all entitled to our own facts, and conservati­ve media use this right to immerse their audience in a total environmen­t of pseudo-fac­ts and pretend informatio­n.””

    SO BY CREATING THIS NARRATIVE THAT CONSERVATIVES HAVE CREATED AN “ALTERNATE UNIVERSE IN THEIR HEADS” IT BECOMES POSSIBLE TO SIMPLY SHUT DOWN ANY ARGUMENT WITHOUT DISCUSSION OF THE MERITS. AFTER ALL, THE CONSERVATIVES DO NOT HAVE A GRIP ON REALITY. IN OTHER WORDS, THEY ARE FREAKING INSANE SO THEY SHOULD BE IGNORED. WORSE YET, INSANE PEOPLE ARE DANGEROUS.

    • Yes, JAC, that is one of the most powerful skills of the evil Left – they are able to quickly marginalize those that demand principle and reason.

      It is what makes THEM so darn dangerous.

      It is like striking at ghosts.

      • BF

        YES!

        And since I am on my Irony of the Left rant at the moment, I will point one out here.

        The lefty loves to tag the righty as “FASCIST”. We all know the examples.

        But here is the irony. The left’s creation of a “psychological” disorder among the opposition in order to marginalize them is a FASCIST technique. In fact it was THE method used by the NAZI’s that allowed them to murder millions.

        Just love those IRONIES. Like little nuggets of gold in a stream.

        Hope all is well with you and yours my pirate friend.
        Very soggy here, as you can imagine.
        Not used to constant temps in the 40’s. Seems very abnormal.

        Give your girls a big hug for me.
        JAC

    • They also speak so fast and string so much together in run-on sentences that by the time they shut up you forget what you wanted to strike back about. Example Marc LaMont Hill 👿

    • JAC,
      WHY ARE YOU YELLING AT ME? Or are you yelling at EVERYONE?? 😉

      HERE IS AN EXAMPLE, NOT THE BEST, OF SOME OF THAT LEFT WING PSYCHOLOGIZING I MENTIONED EARLIER TODAY. THIS IS A COMMENT FROM A LEFTY (self proclaimed) TO A PERCEIVED RIGHTY.

      First, the third paragraph of the article you quoted:

      I’ve been a Republican all my adult life. I have worked on the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal, at Forbes magazine, at the Manhattan and American Enterprise Institutes, as a speechwriter in the George W. Bush administration. I believe in free markets, low taxes, reasonable regulation, and limited government. I voted for John ­McCain in 2008, and I have strongly criticized the major policy decisions of the Obama administration. But as I contemplate my party and my movement in 2011, I see things I simply cannot support.

      So, exactly when did David Frum become a “self-proclaimed LEFTY”? It must have been sometime in the last 2 days – since he posted this article?

      And in your quote, you left out a few parts. Not sure why. They’re in bold below. Of course there are many more good tidbits in the article.

      Extremism and conflict make for bad politics but great TV. Over the past two decades, conservatism has evolved from a political philosophy into a market segment. An industry has grown up to serve that segment—and its stars have become the true thought leaders of the conservative world. The business model of the conservative media is built on two elements: provoking the audience into a fever of indignation (to keep them watching) and fomenting mistrust of all other information sources (so that they never change the channel). As a commercial proposition, this model has worked brilliantly in the Obama era. As journalism, not so much. As a tool of political mobilization, it backfires, by inciting followers to the point at which they force leaders into confrontations where everybody loses, like the summertime showdown over the debt ceiling.

      But the thought leaders on talk radio and Fox do more than shape opinion. Backed by their own wing of the book-publishing industry and supported by think tanks that increasingly function as public-relations agencies, conservatives have built a whole alternative knowledge system, with its own facts, its own history, its own laws of economics. Outside this alternative reality, the United States is a country dominated by a strong Christian religiosity. Within it, Christians are a persecuted minority. Outside the system, President Obama—whatever his policy ­errors—is a figure of imposing intellect and dignity. Within the system, he’s a pitiful nothing, unable to speak without a teleprompter, an affirmative-action ­phony doomed to inevitable defeat. Outside the system, social scientists worry that the U.S. is hardening into one of the most rigid class societies in the Western world, in which the children of the poor have less chance of escape than in France, Germany, or even England. Inside the system, the U.S. remains (to borrow the words of Senator Marco Rubio) “the only place in the world where it doesn’t matter who your parents were or where you came from.”

      We used to say “You’re entitled to your own opinion, but not to your own facts.” Now we are all entitled to our own facts, and conservative media use this right to immerse their audience in a total environment of pseudo-facts and pretend information.

      And here’s a link to the article:

      http://nymag.com/news/politics/conservatives-david-frum-2011-11/

      So JAC, with all the Left Wing Lame-Stream Media out there, the “evidence” you have (NOT THE BEST, of course – cause we all know there’s plenty more LEFT WING PSYCHOLOGIZING out there – we’ll just take your word for it, right?) OF THAT LEFT WING PSYCHOLOGIZING I MENTIONED EARLIER TODAY – is David Frum? A CONSERVATIVE?

      Is it just the fact that he dared to point out the obvious that you have proclaimed him a “self-proclaimed LEFTY”? (Geez – that sounds kinda stupid, doesn’t it!)

      Because anyone who strays from the Republican/Conservative/Tea Party narrative – must be a “self-proclaimed LEFTY” – right?

      Maybe, before you make more of your LEFT WING postulations, you should reread what David Frum wrote. I think it’s a perfect fit for SUFA.

      PS – the really funny part about this? If I hadn’t commented, most SUFAer’s would have just nodded in agreement and kept going. But now that I’ve challenged you, that will no doubt re-affirm all of their belief’s (and yours) that somehow, despite the fact that your “evidence” pretty much disproves your theory – that you are actually right. That anytime anyone says anything that disagrees with their/your narrow view of the world, it must be some LEFT WING PSYCHOLOGIZING.

      Keep up the good work JAC!

      • Todd

        There really is no need to be so snarky with me. I was not trying to pull the wool over anyone’s eyes.

        First, I was not citing from Frum’s article nor was I talking about Frum. I did not read his article. Because it was not HIS words in and of themselves that I was using as the example. It was the fact that a “self proclaimed lefty” took those particular words and posted them as an explanation of the “mental” state of the right. This particular person makes a lot of comments about the psychological condition and mental state of “conservatives”, “Republicans” and “Tea Party” folks.

        I took his comments from Huffington Post, where he likes to hang out. He and I have actually had some good conversations. But he is just one example of a person who claims to be on the left and constantly plays this “psychologizing” card. It happened that after our discussion of the subject I saw this post he made. It seemed to be an example of what I was talking about so I copied and pasted it.

        I find this method of evaluating the right very curious. And that was the point of my original question to you and Mathius.

        So is that to confirm their own bias or is it designed to marginalize their opposition to those who may be on the fence.

        By the way, Ed Shultz is another one that does this quite often.

        I don’t think Frum’s analysis fits SUFA very well at all. You seem to ignore the significant movement in the views of those who hang out here. That is not to say that some still get caught up in stereo types from time to time. Perhaps you are just as guilty in that regard as the rest of us.

        I am sorry if I confused the issue by posting this comment. Perhaps more explanation was needed given your response. I am also sorry you went to so much trouble to challenge me, as you put it. It really wasn’t necessary. A simple question would have worked just as well.

        • Sorry JAC, but I was having sooo much fun with that!

          So, in your original post – where “IS AN EXAMPLE, NOT THE BEST, OF SOME OF THAT LEFT WING PSYCHOLOGIZING I MENTIONED EARLIER TODAY”?

          • Todd

            It was in the way the poster used Frum’s comments. He selected the more psychological related quotes to make a point about the mentality of the “right”.

            I will keep my eye out for better examples. Like the stuff Mathius posted. 🙂

            In the meantime I challenge you to show how any of Frum’s comments somehow “contradict” what I have been saying here at SUFA. You have made a claim that I was displaying some sort of manipulation of the information to fit my story when the Frum article refutes my story. So was that just part of the “fun” or do you really think that is true. If so, I would like an explanation.

            Happy Thanksgiving to you and yours.
            JAC

            • Mathius™ says:

              Object all you like to my “psychologizing,” but I am still waiting to see a valid refutation of my statements.

              Until then, have a good turkey day!

              And remember, it’s not the tryptophan that get you – it’s the carbs.

            • JAC,
              I hope you had a good Thanksgiving too!

              It was in the way the poster used Frum’s comments. He selected the more psychological related quotes to make a point about the mentality of the “right”.

              How does quoting someone else raise to the level of “LEFT WING PSYCHOLOGIZING”. And he left out some of the best parts of Frum’s article.

              In the meantime I challenge you to show how any of Frum’s comments somehow “contradict” what I have been saying here at SUFA.

              I said Frum comments apply to SUFA. Some examples:

              The business model of the conservative media is built on two elements: provoking the audience into a fever of indignation (to keep them watching) and fomenting mistrust of all other information sources (so that they never change the channel).

              I would say this is working splendidly on those on the right at SUFA.

              As a tool of political mobilization, it backfires, by inciting followers to the point at which they force leaders into confrontations where everybody loses, like the summertime showdown over the debt ceiling.

              They created the Tea Party, and now it’s coming back to bite Republicans as they can’t control the Tea Party – or SUFA.

              Outside this alternative reality, the United States is a country dominated by a strong Christian religiosity. Within it, Christians are a persecuted minority.

              Is Mathius feeding ideas to Frum? 😉

              Outside the system, President Obama-whatever his policy errors-is a figure of imposing intellect and dignity. Within the system, he’s a pitiful nothing, unable to speak without a teleprompter, an affirmative-action phony doomed to inevitable defeat.

              Does this need anymore explanation?

              Outside the system, social scientists worry that the U.S. is hardening into one of the most rigid class societies in the Western world, in which the children of the poor have less chance of escape than in France, Germany, or even England. Inside the system, the U.S. remains (to borrow the words of Senator Marco Rubio) “the only place in the world where it doesn’t matter who your parents were or where you came from.”

              Many people here have said “pull yourself up by you boot straps” and “the poor in the US are better off than the rich in other countries”. Have you ever made any of those comments?

              We used to say “You’re entitled to your own opinion, but not to your own facts.” Now we are all entitled to our own facts, and conservative media blogs use this right to immerse their audience in a total environment of pseudo-facts and pretend information.

              SUFA everyday.

              These examples are from one page of Frum’s five page article. Do you want me to continue?

              And your previous comment “ignoring the other side and continuing with their rant, or falling back to the “your a socialist” retort” is no big deal (even though the conservative media does this on a regular basis) but one guy who posts on Huffington Post PROVES that the entire LEFT WING does nothing but “PSYCHOLOGIZING”?

              The conservative media walks a fine line between truth and fiction, knowing full well that their audience will take the bait and jump off the cliff with it. That’s the standard-operating-procedure for Limbaugh and Beck – and a lot of others.

              • Todd,

                As one who sword fights with both the “left” and “right” – this is what I see.

                Leftie’s are far more irrational.
                Rightie’s are far more hypocritical.

                You can argue with the Righties, ’cause eventually they will see reason – most of them will then agree, but still act against their principles

                That cannot be said about Lefties. They are married to irrational emotionalism and most are immune to reason. They will hold onto the most ridiculous ideas and beliefs – most until the day they die

              • Black Flag,
                I pretty much agree, except the “right” has gotten just as irrational and emotional as the “left”.

                One comment from Frum’s article that I think really hits-the-nail-on-the-head:

                Moderate-minded people dislike conflict—and thus tend to lose to people who relish conflict.

                The extremes are controlling the message on both sides, and we all lose when that happens.

              • Todd,

                Hope you are sitting down….

                …yep, I agree with you ….

                8)

              • As do I.

              • Geez, I’ve just barely recovered from agreeing with Black Flag, and then, in typical SUFA fashion, I get doubled-teamed up on… 😉

                I’ll have to work on my scathing reply!! 🙂

                Have a good night!!

  19. Message to Black Flag from Anita’s sister:

    “I want to be BFF with Black Flag I appreciate his response. Thanks”

    🙂

  20. Any opinions on tonight’s debate? I’m coming closer to backing Newt myself.

    • The Plutonian SAGE says: Gingrich whooped ass … so did Huntsman and Ron Paul (even though I can’t stand his free market mantra) … even MB didn’t look too bad … Rick Perry proved my fire hydrant is smarter than he is … and Hermain Cain isn’t far behind Mr. Perry … I won’t comment on Santorum as I usually don’t comment on 13th century sycophants of the realm.

      Go to my blog for how sad this all is … because what it probably means is Bush III will turn into Bush IV.

      AS we say on Pluto … Oy friggin’ vey …

  21. Interesting reading-if you have the time.

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/anarchy-usa_609222.html

    • As usual, they mis-catagorize “anarchy” and thus, rise a conclusion that simply is out of this world.

      *sigh*

      • Granted-but it is the same for many words-you will simply have to explain that there are different types of anarchy.

        • Well…..
          Actually, there isn’t – if you understand anarchy.

          Socialist Anarchist – which is what is referred to in the article – contradict themselves.

          The don’t want rulers – except when it comes to taking other people’s property. Then they get all bent out of shape.

          • Actually, I agree with that statement. You can’t be free and take away private ownership. But if you look up the word-many different types-show up. A reality, you simply can’t escape. 🙂

            I did find the discussions of the Utopian experiments interesting.

            • Most people equate “anarchy” to be “no rules” which is utterly false.

              It means “No Right to RULE” … no right for a man to rule over other men. There are still rules.

              But anarchy – like many things that cross the grains of established institutions, is twisted to be the enemy of convenience or the cause of convenience – just like “we fight for peace” or “giving others their freedom”.

              First blush at these phrases seem to be “ok” — but then you think about it for awhile……. same way certain philosophies twist backwards anarchy.

              • I’ve gotta go to bed BF-if you read the article-replace anarchy with socialist anarchy and let me know what you think of the points made-if you want too. Talk to you tomorrow. Night 🙂

              • I’ve gotta go to bed BF-talk to you tomorrow 🙂

              • Bottom Line says:

                ” Anarchy is Order Without Power ” – Pierre-Joseph Proudhon

  22. Mathius™ says:

    Thoughts? Comments?

    • More of the “The Great Political Messiah” Syndrome

      – as if a Rep/Dem President would have avoided what the Current Dem/Rep President’s administration did. (Nope, the same thing would have happened with pretty much the same outcome)

      -as if a new Rep/Dem President has a better plan then then Current Dem/Rep President (Nope, he doesn’t. It’s the same issues, with the same answers, except re-worded to sound different – which no matter how it twists, will end up with the same disastrous consequences)

      The Real Answer is “No one” – but only a handful truly believe and understand that.

    • Matt,

      What do you want comments on, did Romney take Obama’s words out of context? Sure, they said so themselves. And it’s not any different than what Obama does, not to say that is right or proper behavior. I think the established Repugs want Romney because they think he is the most electable, being so close to Obama on many issues he’s a progressive light. They think Obama defectors will be more likely to vote Romney than any other. For me, RomneyCare is reason enough to not support him. Other reasons:

  23. Canada’s polygamy laws upheld

    This is not a discussion on the polygamy, but a point to the depth and extent of irrational ideas and how easily they become mainstream and acceptable.

    The judge says this:
    Bauman acknowledges the infringement of the law on rights guaranteed by the charter, but concludes those limits are reasonable given the prohibition’s objectives

    Now think about what he said.

    He agreed they infringe on the rights that a Charter provided and guaranteed
    He says such infringement is reasonable because the objective (outcome) is so “good”

    He obviously:
    – has no flippin’ clue to what “guarantee” means
    – has no flippin’ clue to what is a “Right”
    – and completely believes the “Ends justifies the Means”

    And there are still people who wonder why it is so easy for tyranny to rise and slaughter millions of its own people……

  24. Canine Weapon says:

    Happy Thanksgiving. Stay safe.

    • Maybe she thought that was how American’s say happy turkey day!

      • Canine Weapon says:

        ╭∩╮(︶︿︶)╭∩╮

        Happy turkey day to you too!

        • Things You Can Only Say at Thanksgiving and get away with!

          1. Talk about a huge breast!

          2. Tying the legs together keeps the inside moist.

          3. It’s Cool Whip time!

          4. If I don’t undo my pants, I’ll burst!

          5. Whew, that’s one terrific spread!

          6. I’m in the mood for a little dark meat.

          7. Are you ready for seconds yet?

          8. It’s a little dry, do you still want to eat it?

          9. Just wait your turn, you’ll get some!

          10. Don’t play with your meat.

          11. Just spread the legs open and stuff it in.

          12. Do you think you’ll be able to handle all these people at once?

          13. I didn’t expect everyone to come at once!

          14. You still have a little bit on your chin.

          15. How long will it take after you stick it in?

          16. You’ll know it’s ready when it pops up.

          17. Wow, I didn’t think I could handle all of that!

          18. That’s the biggest one I’ve ever seen!

          19. How long do I beat it before it’s ready?

  25. Young Boy Saves His Mother’s Life By Shooting Drunken Attacker With a BB Gun

    * Posted on November 24, 2011 at 7:17am by Billy Hallowell Billy Hallowell

    It’s going to be a happy Thanksgiving for one Bellingham, Washington, family after a young boy took decisive action to save his mother from a vicious attacker.

    Police say 11-year-old Kobe Sturgeon shot the man with a BB rifle after he drunkenly attacked his mother in the family’s home. Authorities are calling the young boy a hero for taking action during such a dramatic and chaotic incident.

    Paul R. Newman (Image Credit: ABC News)

    The man at the center of the story, Paul R. Newman, 45, rents a room in the house. After he came home inebriated on Tuesday morning, authorities say he became enraged over the fact that his room was messy. So, according to authorities, Newman kicked down a bedroom door and began to choke Kobe’s mother.

    Kobe quickly intervened and hit Newman with a wooden board from a book shelf. When this didn’t work, he then shot the man in the face three or four times with a BB rifle. This freed the mother and son to escape to a neighbor’s house, where they were able to call police for help.

    “He kept on hurting my mom, so I went and grabbed my BB gun and I said, ‘Get off my mom. Get off my mom,’” the young boy said in an interview with KOMO-TV. “And then I shot him with my BB gun.”

    Newman was taken to the hospital and arrested for investigation of assault and making death threats. He was treated for non-life threatening injuries.

    Way to Go , Baby!!! 🙂 Hope everyone has a nice Thanksgiving!

  26. HAPPY THANKSGIVING TO ONE AND ALL.

  27. Happy Thanksgiving and God bless all of you and yours.

    CM

  28. Remember the true story of Thanksgiving (which will make Charlie unhappy)

    In his History of Plymouth Plantation, the governor of the colony, William Bradford, reported that the colonists went hungry for years, because they refused to work in the fields. They preferred instead to steal food.

    He says the colony was riddled with “corruption,” and with “confusion and discontent.” The crops were small because “much was stolen both by night and day, before it became scarce eatable.”

    After the poor harvest of 1622, writes Bradford, “they began to think how they might raise as much corn as they could, and obtain a better crop.” They began to question their form of economic organization.

    This had required that “all profits & benefits that are got by trade, working, fishing, or any other means” were to be placed in the common stock of the colony, and that, “all such persons as are of this colony, are to have their meat, drink, apparel, and all provisions out of the common stock.” A person was to put into the common stock all he could, and take out only what he needed.

    This “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need” was an early form of socialism, and it is why the Pilgrims were starving.

    Bradford writes that “young men that are most able and fit for labor and service” complained about being forced to “spend their time and strength to work for other men’s wives and children.” Also, “the strong, or man of parts, had no more in division of victuals and clothes, than he that was weak.” So the young and strong refused to work and the total amount of food produced was never adequate.

    To rectify this situation, in 1623 Bradford abolished socialism. He gave each household a parcel of land and told them they could keep what they produced, or trade it away as they saw fit. In other words, he replaced socialism with a free market, and that was the end of famines.

    • Mathius™ says:

      Very interesting. I presume you have sourcing to back up this story. I certainly recognize that many of the legends we learn in school are total and abject bullshit questionable, but this is the first I’ve heard about any pilgrim socialism.

      • Mathius,

        *Mathius sees ***stars*** as he is hit in the head by an oar from BF’s ship*

        Re-read my post:
        ….History of Plymouth Plantation…..

        http://www.amazon.com/Bradfords-History-Plymouth-Plantation-1606-1646/dp/140219594X

      • A Puritan Descendant says:

        The original story is from Bradford’s Manuscripts.

        “The Bradford journal is regarded by historians as the preeminent work of 17th century America. It is Bradford’s simple yet vivid story, as told in his journal, that has made the Pilgrims the much-loved “spiritual ancestors of all Americans” (Samuel Eliot Morison).” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Of_Plymouth_Plantation

        And from another source –
        “Cushman, in December, 1621, had taught in his sermon at New Plymouth, “Even so men blow the bellows hard, when they have an iron of their own a heating, work hard whilst their own house is in building, dig hard whilst their own garden is in planting, but is it so as the profit must go wholly or partly to others; their hands wax feeble, their hearts wax faint, they grow churlish, and give cross answers, like Naball, they are sour, discontent, and nothing will please them. … ”

        And if you still have your doubts, I can put them to rest, as the story was passed down to me generation after generation from my 10th great grandparents John and Priscella (Mullins) Alden.

        • A Puritan Descendant says:

          “The Bradford manuscript, which has been used by Morton, Hutchinson, Prince and other early historians of Massachusetts, disappeared from the library of the Old South Church at the time of the British evacuation of Boston in 1776. It later reached the library of the Bishop of London at Fulham, where it was discovered in 1855. In 1897 it was returned to the State of Massachusetts and is now deposited with the State Library of Massachusetts.”
          http://cmars.cwmars.org/record=b3581348~S54

    • Yep, Rush covered this on his show yesterday. Very wise of Mr. Bradford!

  29. Obviously, that’s one of a multitude of — of sanctions and actions that I think work very well from the standpoint of being able to pressure that regime, overt, covert, economic sanctions.

    I mean I think there are a number of ways. But when you put the no-fly zone above Syria, it obviously gives those dissidents and gives the military the opportunity to maybe disband, that want to get out of the situation that they’re in in Syria, as well.

    So I think if we’re serious about Iran — and that’s what we’re really talking about here. We’re talking about Syria is a partner with Iran in exporting terrorism all across that part of the world and — and around the globe.

    So if we’re serious about Iran, then we have to be serious about Syria, as well.

    So I think a no-fly zone is an option of one of a multitude of options that we should be using. And we should put them in place if we’re serious about Iran not getting the nuclear weapon.

    From the transcript of the CNN national security debate held on November 22, 2011 – http://archives.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1111/22/se.05.html

    Umm, can anyone give me a reasonable explanation why one shouldn’t consider Perry incompetent on foreign policy? I seem to remember both Obama and GWB being called just as incompetent.

    And if we’re going to be serious about saving Israel, we better get serious about Syria and Iran, and we better get serious right now.

    A bit of general saber rattling it seems. Just what does he think qualifies as getting serious on Syria and Iran – maybe dropping an ICBM on Iran to keep Iran from getting “the nuclear weapon?” he seems to be building his own scenario for fighting his own Middle East conflict should he become President.

    I also wonder about his statements on having a part-time Congress. Does that mean that when the Congress isn’t in session the administration would have total freedom to do as it believes necessary until the next Congressional session? I doubt those who disagree with the sitting President would want an administration to have that kind of unchecked authority – even temporarily.

    Gov Perry would best serve the nation by returning to Texas and fulfilling his commitment to the people of the Lonestar State.

  30. I believe it is safe to say that the Pack has beaten the pride of Lions and sent them running back to their dens. 😉

    Sorry Anita, I just had to…………………..

  31. Seems like common sense to me. 🙂

    The evolution of co-operation
    Make or break?
    Social networking tames cheats

    Nov 19th 2011 | from the print edition

    *
    *

    HOW people collaborate, in the face of numerous temptations to cheat, is an important field of psychological and economic research. A lot of this research focuses on the “tit-for-tat” theory of co-operation: that humans are disposed, when dealing with another person, to behave in a generous manner until that other person shows himself not to be generous. At this point co-operation is withdrawn. Fool me once, in other words, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

    When he encounters such a withdrawal of collaboration, the theory goes, the malefactor will learn the error of his ways and become a more co-operative individual. And there is experimental evidence, based on specially designed games, that tit-for-tat does work for pairs of people. Human societies, though, are more complex than mere dyads. And until recently, it has been difficult to model that complexity in the laboratory. But a paper published this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences by Nicholas Christakis and his colleagues at Harvard has changed that. Dr Christakis arranged for a collaboration-testing game to be played over the web, with many participants. As a result, he and his team have gained a more sophisticated insight into the way co-operation develops.

    Dr Christakis used what is known as a public-goods game for his experiment. At the beginning of such a game, points are doled out to each participant. During every round, players are given the opportunity to donate points to their neighbours. Points so donated are augmented by an equal number from the masters of the game. If everyone co-operates, then, everyone ends up richer. A “defector” who refuses to donate to his co-operating neighbours will, however, benefit at the expense of those neighbours. At the game’s end, the points are converted into real money, to ensure that proper incentives are in place.

    To play his large-scale public-goods game, Dr Christakis recruited 785 volunteers via Mechanical Turk—a service provided by Amazon, an online retailer, that works by farming out small tasks to an army of individual workers. Each volunteer was randomly assigned links to, on average, eight other players. Together, they played repeated rounds of one of three variations of the game.

    In the first, participants always interacted with the same group of people. In the second, the connections were randomly reshuffled after each round. In the final version, one-third of the possible pairings between participants were chosen at random after each round (such pairs may or may not, therefore, have been dealing with each other in the previous round). One player from each pair was first told or reminded of how the other had behaved in the previous round, and was then asked whether he wanted to break his connection with that player, if he already had one, or form a new connection, if he had not.

    In all versions of the game, roughly 60% of players started out co-operating. However, in the first two, this decreased over time as the pernicious influence of the freeloaders spread. The larger the fraction of a subject’s partners who defected in a given round, the less likely that person was to co-operate in the next—classical tit-for-tat. However, this tit-for-tat retaliation was not enough to save co-operation, and after a dozen rounds only 10-20% of the players were still willing to co-operate.

    In the variant where participants had some choice over whom they interacted with, though, the amount of co-operation stayed stable as the rounds progressed. When Dr Christakis and his team looked at how the relationships between players were evolving in this third version, they found that connections between two co-operators were much more likely to be maintained than links that involved a defector. Over time, the co-operators accumulated more social connections than the defectors did.

    Furthermore, as they were shunned, the defectors began to change their behaviour. A defector’s likelihood of switching to co-operation increased with the number of players who had broken links with him in the previous round. Unlike straightforward tit-for-tat, social retaliation was having a marked effect.

    The next question, then, is whether such a mechanism holds outside the laboratory. To find out, Dr Christakis has forged links with some anthropologists. They hope to report the answer soon.

    http://www.economist.com/node/21538658

  32. Well, well, well-some additional information-seems the protestors at UC -weren’t just peacefully protesting-they were purposely blocking the path so the police couldn’t leave and told the police they would “have to go through them”-these words can reasonably be interpreted as we are going to fight you-and makes spraying them a reasonable decision, IMO.

    UC Davis Student Admits Protesters Surrounded Cops and Wouldn’t Let Them Leave

    By Noel Sheppard | November 24, 2011 | 14:39

    As Occupy-loving media continue to express outrage over protesters getting pepper-sprayed by campus police officers at the University of California at Davis last week, a surprising admission by one of the attendees was uncovered in an interview Democracy Now!’s Amy Goodman did Monday.

    One of the pepper-sprayed students told Goodman, “We had encircled them [campus police], and they were trying to leave, and they were trying to clear a path. And so, we sat down, linked arms, and said that if they wanted to clear the path, they would have to go through us” (video follows with transcript and commentary):

    AMY GOODMAN, DEMOCRACY NOW!: To talk more about what happened at UC Davis, we go to Sacramento, California, to talk to Elli Pearson, one of the students pepper-sprayed Friday. She’s a sophomore at UC Davis studying sustainable agriculture and food systems.

    We’re also joined from Berkeley by Nathan Brown, assistant professor of English at UC Davis. He wrote an open letter calling for the resignation of UC Davis Chancellor Linda Katehi following the pepper-spraying incident Friday.

    Before we turn to our guests, let me just play a short clip, which shows Elli Pearson being pepper-sprayed.

    (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

    PROTESTERS: Don’t shoot students! Don’t shoot students! Don’t shoot students! Don’t shoot students!

    The whole world is watching! The whole world is watching! The whole world is watching! The whole world is watching! The whole world is watching! The whole world is watching!

    Shame on you! Shame on you! Shame on you! Shame on you! Shame on you! Shame on you! Shame on you! Shame on you!

    (END VIDEO CLIP)

    AMY GOODMAN: I want to turn to Elli Pearson. Elli, describe exactly what happened on Friday.

    ELLI PEARSON: Well, we were protesting together, and the riot cops came at us, and we linked arms and sat down peacefully to protest their presence on our campus. And at one point, they were—we had encircled them, and they were trying to leave, and they were trying to clear a path. And so, we sat down, linked arms, and said that if they wanted to clear the path, they would have to go through us. But we were on the ground, you know, heads down. And all I could see was people telling me to cover my head, protect myself, and put my head down. And the next thing I know, I was pepper-sprayed.

    AMY GOODMAN: You were in the white jacket?

    ELLI PEARSON: Yes, I was.

    AMY GOODMAN: And what did the pepper-spraying feel like?

    ELLI PEARSON: Well, I couldn’t see anything. And so, if I—you know, I felt like pepper spray go over my body, and then I started choking on the fumes. And I lifted my head at one point, and one of the protesters had come to kind of protect our huddle of people, and he just told me to keep my head down. And then, from that point on, all I could hear was screaming around me and people being jostled.

    That warrants repeating: “We had encircled them, and they were trying to leave, and they were trying to clear a path. And so, we sat down, linked arms, and said that if they wanted to clear the path, they would have to go through us.”

    This presents quite a different picture from what most media outlets have been depicting concerning this matter.

    As NewsBusters publisher Brent Bozell wrote Tuesday, “The Occupying Rabble needed a boost, and got it with the story of campus police pepper-spraying protesters at the University of California-Davis. It was a remarkable jump-start for every left-wing journalist looking to regain his mojo for championing the protesters against ‘The Man.’”

    Indeed, but not necessarily armed with the facts.

    Consider that this wasn’t just an innocent bystander describing what really happened at UC Davis. This was an actual protester that had been pepper-sprayed admitting to Goodman that she and her cohorts had surrounded police officers in a circle preventing their departure.

    Hardly the equivalent of Rodney King’s beating as crazed libtalker Ed Schultz claimed Wednesday.

    Which confirms what the Business and Media Institute’s Dan Gainor wrote Monday:

    What none of the anti-police crowd will admit is that quisling politicians have placed officers in an impossible situation. They have asked ordinary police forces to face down a movement that openly advocates for a revolution…But police must face them once more – knowing their every action will be videotaped and photographed by dozens or even hundreds of Occupiers.

    Story Continues Below Ad ↓

    And then these videotapes will be used by sympathetic media members to point the finger of blame at those trying to keep the peace.

    Wouldn’t it be nice if they actually did some investigating to determine what really happened rather than shooting first and asking questions later?

    Or would that be too much like journalism for press members on a mission?

    (H/T Adam Baldwin)

    *****Update: The following video clearly shows police officers encircled by protesters informing them that they will be removed by force if they don’t disperse.

    Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2011/11/24/uc-davis-student-admits-protesters-surrounded-cops-and-wouldnt-let-th#ixzz1egCVaomQ

  33. Hmmm-Interesting-the democratic party’s leadership having a mindset that the whole country is racist-seems to be backfiring.

    November 24, 2011
    GOP more open to minorities, says former Democratic congressman [VIDEO]
    Published: 12:16 AM 11/23/2011 | Updated: 3:18 PM 11/23/2011
    By Neil Munro

    Former Rep. Artur Davis (TheDC Video)

    Southern Democrats are losing clout and influence because they’re fighting for control over their shrinking bases while Republicans increasingly welcome individuals from minority groups, former Alabama Democratic Rep. Artur Davis told The Daily Caller.

    “For whatever reason, [the GOP] appears today to be a party more open to the aspirations of those individuals,” Davis said.

    Those up-and-coming Republican minority politicians include Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal and South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley, he said.

    Further west, Nevada Gov. Brian Sandoval and New Mexico Gov. Susana Martinez, both Hispanic, are also Republicans.

    One reason for this disparity, he said, is that southern Democratic politicians tend to emerge from majority-minority districts. That career path makes it difficult for them to appeal to centrist voters, he said.

    “The Democratic Party has become very quick to say that people of color are not electable unless they’re running in a minority district and it is the Republican Party that now seems to be opening more doors,” he said.

    He’s lived through this process.

    He represented Alabama’s 7th Congressional District for four years until he ran for governor in 2010. But he lost the Democratic primary race in a hard fight, and the Democrat who beat him then lost to the GOP candidate.

    Watch:

    Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/11/23/gop-more-open-to-minorities-says-former-democratic-congressman-video/#ixzz1egQyexOd

  34. Gee, I was struck by all the agreement (left and right and anarchist) over Frum’s statement about moderate minded people not liking conflict and how the extremes on both sides are controlling the message and then how we all lose.

    Are all those in the middle the sheeple you so often refer to here?

    Isn’t this site an extreme? Leaning more to Libertarian than middle of the road Reps (although I have no doubt most here will vote Rep when election day comes around (and forget Ron Paul’s name).

    This isn’t stirring the pot. Just SAGE-like curiousity from Pluto …

    • Charlie,

      Being one of the resident moderates here I’d say this site isn’t an extreme – there are too many various points of view regularly expressed here. That range of viewpoints is the main reason I prefer reading here than most blogs. While it at times – maybe many times – leads to extremist arguments, I would still not call SUFA extremist.

      I do spend time reading more extremist sites (both right and left), but very seldom will I comment on those sites since all you get in debate is rhetoric and disparaging personal attacks.

    • Oh, one more thing. I believe the sheeple come in all political flavors.

      • Fair enough, Plainly. In thinking about it, you’re right (the comments come from both directions), but the posts themselves are heavily weighted from the right. Except for yours, I don’t remember one from the left. That said, USW has offered to let lefties like myself (even from Pluto) post, but for me it’s just too time consuming (especially since returning to work full time). I’d want to respond to comments and I just don’t have the time to do so.

        Fair enough, brother.

  35. What is wrong with these people? A host for CNN may not be surprising, but Mark Kelly? Upset that he didn’t hear from Palin? What a tool he is to play this game.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2065809/Mark-Kelly-Piers-Morgan-blast-Sarah-Palin-bothering-pick-phone-cross-hairs-map-Giffords-shooting.html#ixzz1eeFou7sO

    • I know Congress has infinite sick days so there is no loss in salary, but the citizens in her district lost her vote all these months. It should have been clear that she would not return to full working status before the end of her term. Why did she not resign since she has full retirement anyway and let someone else complete the term. If she was up to it, she could then run again and 2012. It would have been the proper thing to do.

  36. A scientific look at the development of us-it is really neat!

  37. CRICKETS 8)

  38. Ready for Round 2 Sparty?

  39. Texas learns from woman in California…..shoppers in Houston, Dallas, and San Antonio……..used pepper spray against OWS protesters blocking their path. OWS protestors claiming their rights were violated…shoppers claiming their rights are violated……police response……..NONE and rightly so, I surmise……let the shoppers and OWS figure out their own problem…..

    Ya gotta love it.

  40. Today only: $5 off on 2012 hoodies
    2012 Hoodie

    The new 2012 hoodie can keep an Obama supporter you know—or you—warm all winter. And for today only, get $5 off the regular price of $55.

    Make a donation of $50 or more and we’ll send it your way in time for the holidays.

  41. Bye-Bye and good riddance!

    20 minutes ago
    Rep. Barney Frank won’t seek re-election
    mug.cnn
    Posted by
    CNN Wire Staff

    (CNN) – Massachusetts Congressman Barney Frank, a 16-term Democrat, will announce Monday he does not intend to seek re-election in 2012, according to a statement from Frank’s office.

    http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/11/28/rep-barney-frank-wont-seek-re-election/

  42. Senators Demand Military Lock Up Americans in “Battlefield” Defined as “United States” or anywhere else in the world

    Chris Anders
    ACLU
    November 25, 2011

    While nearly all Americans head to family and friends to celebrate Thanksgiving, the Senate is gearing up for a vote on Monday or Tuesday that goes to the very heart of who we are as Americans. The Senate will be voting on a bill that will direct American military resources not at an enemy shooting at our military in a war zone, but at American citizens and other civilians far from any battlefield — even people in the United States itself.

    Senators need to hear from you, on whether you think your front yard is part of a “battlefield” and if any president can send the military anywhere in the world to imprison civilians without charge or trial.

    The Senate is going to vote on whether Congress will give this president—and every future president — the power to order the military to pick up and imprison without charge or trial civilians anywhere in the world. Even Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) raised his concerns about the NDAA detention provisions during last night’s Republican debate. The power is so broad that even U.S. citizens could be swept up by the military and the military could be used far from any battlefield, even within the United States itself.

    The worldwide indefinite detention without charge or trial provision is in S. 1867, the National Defense Authorization Act bill, which will be on the Senate floor on Monday. The bill was drafted in secret by Sens. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.) and passed in a closed-door committee meeting, without even a single hearing.

    I know it sounds incredible. New powers to use the military worldwide, even within the United States? Hasn’t anyone told the Senate that Osama bin Laden is dead, that the president is pulling all of the combat troops out of Iraq and trying to figure out how to get combat troops out of Afghanistan too? And American citizens and people picked up on American or Canadian or British streets being sent to military prisons indefinitely without even being charged with a crime. Really? Does anyone think this is a good idea? And why now?

    The answer on why now is nothing more than election season politics. The White House, the Secretary of Defense, and the Attorney General have all said that the indefinite detention provisions in the National Defense Authorization Act are harmful and counterproductive. The White House has even threatened a veto. But Senate politics has propelled this bad legislation to the Senate floor.

    But there is a way to stop this dangerous legislation. Sen. Mark Udall (D-Colo.) is offering the Udall Amendment that will delete the harmful provisions and replace them with a requirement for an orderly Congressional review of detention power. The Udall Amendment will make sure that the bill matches up with American values.

    In support of this harmful bill, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) explained that the bill will “basically say in law for the first time that the homeland is part of the battlefield” and people can be imprisoned without charge or trial “American citizen or not.” Another supporter, Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) also declared that the bill is needed because “America is part of the battlefield.”

    The solution is the Udall Amendment; a way for the Senate to say no to indefinite detention without charge or trial anywhere in the world where any president decides to use the military. Instead of simply going along with a bill that was drafted in secret and is being jammed through the Senate, the Udall Amendment deletes the provisions and sets up an orderly review of detention power. It tries to take the politics out and put American values back in.

    In response to proponents of the indefinite detention legislation who contend that the bill “applies to American citizens and designates the world as the battlefield,” and that the “heart of the issue is whether or not the United States is part of the battlefield,” Sen. Udall disagrees, and says that we can win this fight without worldwide war and worldwide indefinite detention.

    The senators pushing the indefinite detention proposal have made their goals very clear that they want an okay for a worldwide military battlefield, that even extends to your hometown. That is an extreme position that will forever change our country.

    Now is the time to stop this bad idea. Please urge your senators to vote YES on the Udall Amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act.

    • Don’t yell at me BF but I’m not reading any of that in the bill. If you check out pgs 359-364 of the bill it lays out some details, none of which refer to a battlefield, but of who is “covered”–

      13 (2) COVERED PERSONS.—The requirement in
      14 paragraph (1) shall apply to any person whose de-
      15 tention is authorized under section 1031 who is de-
      16 termined—
      17 (A) to be a member of, or part of, al-
      18 Qaeda or an associated force that acts in co-
      19 ordination with or pursuant to the direction of
      20 al-Qaeda; and
      21 (B) to have participated in the course of
      22 planning or carrying out an attack or attempted
      23 attack against the United States or its coalition
      24 partners

      http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112s1867pcs/pdf/BILLS-112s1867pcs.pdf

      • Anita
        (B) to have participated in the course of
        22 planning or carrying out an attack or attempted
        23 attack against the United States or its coalition
        24 partners

        Further
        (4) WAIVER FOR NATIONAL SECURITY.—The
        9 Secretary of Defense may, in consultation with the
        10 Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence,
        11 waive the requirement of paragraph (1) if
        12 the Secretary submits to Congress a certification in
        13 writing that such a waiver is in the national security
        14 interests of the United States.

        This is the point:
        – any law will be interpreted to the extreme, most ridiculous understanding possible by the bureaucracy
        – use of military inside the USA is contrary to the Posse Comitatus Act
        – the justification of “planning” is dangerously open ended as there is nothing that expressly measures what kind of planning is determined to be significant or what planning is excluded.
        – by a written declaration of the Secretary of State, none of the paragraphs excluding “citizens” holds merit.

        • Never say never but I think it’s a stretch that they would come after (you first 🙂 ) us terrorist bloggers.

        • I think this is cause for concern, whenever anyone wants to pass laws to do away with due process, hold a citizen without charges or even admitting they are being held. I am willing to make allowances for terrorists in hostile countries who meet the definition of enemy combatant. But citizens in countries that honor extradition and even here in the US???? I thought McCain was against torture and such…..but he’s OK with abducting and locking up whoever the military/government doesn’t like and whatever happens to them then? Bet they will be immune from lawsuits even if they are ever released, for like, being innocent….

        • BF

          The “exceptions” do not apply to the prohibition on applying the rules to “citizens” or “legal aliens”. So the Sec of State CAN NOT simply declare them fair game.

          Bottom line here BF is that the article you posted is grossly distorting the truth about what the bill says. If this FEAR is to be justified by your analysis of how govt will interpret the law then that is fine. After all, it would apply to ANY LAW.

          But to claim that this bill allows the Military to unilaterally declare a “battlefield” anywhere it chooses is simply FALSE.

          • JAC,

            Wanna bet?

          • (1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS.—The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.

            My thought would be that the bill does not require military detention, but does not prohibit it either. With the ready rush by a fair number of Republicans/conservatives to keep this nation “at war” with terrorists by using laws designed to end run the Constitution, and with the help of the former Democrats who were so against the Patriot Act (ahem), they are stripping away Constitutional protections.

            So, it would be possible under this law, if they desired, to reclassify Americans here as enemy combatants and lock them up without charge/trial indefinitely – IMHO only of course. This harkens back to the 80’s preventative detention that the British used against the IRA.

            When it comes to our government of the past 10-12 years, never say never.

            • plainly

              While I share your concerns about Govt over reach, this law does not do what you state it could do.

              This section is a “direction” to the military from Congress. Congress is “requiring” certain actions, which it has also authorized elsewhere.

              So the fact that it states “requires” does not mean in does not prohibit. Such prohibition would be found in other laws, not this one.

              The REAL problem here is NOT THIS LAW. It is all the other laws and the willingness of Congress to ignore or undermine those laws. Such as the basic Constitution itself.

              • JAC,

                I am unconcerned with this law in particular, it is with the general idea that there even needs to be a clause exempting US Citizens or legal residents is disconcerting. Think about that a bit.

                Do you agree this bill allows for non-citizens and legal residents in the US to be detained under its terms? If so, why is a law that is contrary to the protections of the US Constitution to any person within the territory of the US even being considered? How is it that it would be a stretch to apply this bill against US citizens and legal residents, even if as you say that is prohibited elsewhere is law? You’ve stated, and I agree, that the problem is the willingness of Congress to ignore or undermine laws as they please. Those other laws can be ignored just as easily. I am sure there were a lot of American citizens (Japanese-Americans to be precise) who believed they would never be interned too.

    • Here is a copy of the Udall Amendment, for those who want to dive into this a little farther.

      I find this to be a typical BS approach often used by Congress to side step its responsibility. It requires the Administration to conduct an in depth review of all authorities given by Congress and as “interpreted” by the Administration.

      It authorizes the various committees to deal with their pertinent areas, but they already have that authority. If they are not doing this job then look to the Senate Majority Leader and the various Committee Chairmen.

  43. Mathius™ says:

    Let’s count the number of SUFA-ites whose head explode upon reading this

    • Mathius

      I would like to see more details before I explode or not.

      For example, what property was supposedly taken without compensation and how did he determine value?

      I agree with him that the Fed Govt take over was “un-Constitutional”. But not just for the reasons he is stating. Congress was never given authority to “take over” or “bail out” private companies.

      So if he is fighting for this principle then I would say, good show old chap.

      But if he really is just trying to get money they I would say, go to hell ya old coot.

    • Comment section is full of crazy people. OMG!

    • lol…….let the jury in the case be made up of OWS protesters………..

  44. There is a new sheriff in town for all of you folks up there in Yankee land.

    http://ohiostate.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1299060

    • He’ll have a tough road to hoe. OSU is still under sanctions. Michigan’s new coach did a pretty good job this year, Wisconsin is tough as always.Nebraska has a year under it’s belt in the Big 10 now. I don’t see MSU being a threat again for a few years. Their seniors have the school record for wins @38 so I bet they’re going to struggle for a few years. But first things first, ahem, whoopin some Badger ass!

    • What was his deal health-wise? I never did hear what his multiple resignations were about.

      I’m heading down to the Badger practice this afternoon to help the boys learn how to defend the hail mary! 😉

      We’ll be ready!

    • Plus, what the heck is with his name? You have this tiny little baby in the hospital and you look at it and think, “why, he looks like a little Urban!” Huh? I don’t care if it’s a family name thing – sometimes you just have to break the chain of bad decisions!

      Wonder if he named any of kids Suburban, like a little farther out and smaller Urban.

  45. Anyone else partaking in cyber-Monday? I’m trying to order some boots I ……err my kids want to get me and it is crazy!!!

    • figures… 🙂

      Matt probably needs a new heated jacket by now…hook him up!

      • I’m going to let a secret out.. Kathy travels with a full bag of shoes!!!!!! I’m in trouble again……

        • ONLY when traveling by car. Damn airline restrictions make me pack light now – even I can’t justify paying a bag fee for shoes.

  46. Outraged-I guess that word works!!!!

    Outrage!… After Demanding Refund From City, Richmond Tea Party Gets Letter: “You’re Being Audited”

    Nov 28

    Posted by darcprynce

    Outrage!… After Demanding Refund From City, Richmond Tea Party Gets Letter: “You’re Being Audited” – Gateway Pundit

    The City of Richmond charged the local tea party $10,000 to hold three rallies at the Kanawha Plaza… But, the #Occupy squatters were allowed to set up a tent city on the plaza for free.

    In late October the Richmond Tea Party sent a letter to city officials demanding a refund for the $10,000 the group spent on permits, portable toilets, police presence and emergency personnel for three rallies held at same plaza where the Occupy Richmond squatters set up their camp. Now the tea party is being audited.

    ……………

    Right Side News reported:

    Two weeks after the Richmond Tea Party delivered an invoice to Richmond Mayor Dwight Jones for costs incurred for previous rallies; we received a letter from the City of Richmond formally stating that the city is auditing our Tea Party. Coincidence? This audit is an obvious attempt to intimidate and harass us for standing up against the unfair treatment and discrimination against our Tea Party.

    As reported on the front page of the Richmond Times Dispatch, the Richmond Tea Party delivered an invoice for charges incurred in our previous three Tax Day rallies at Kanawha Plaza because Mayor Jones chose to allow Occupy Richmond protesters to convene in the same park for two weeks.

    The Mayor not only allowed the Occupiers to break the law, but he visited them in the city-owned park. “Jones said that as a ‘child of civil rights’ and protests, he had allowed the group to remain in the park but understands his mayoral responsibility to uphold laws of the city,” reported the Richmond Times Dispatch.

    Apparently his mayoral duties included preferential treatment for a group he sympathizes with ideologically at the expense of the taxpayers.

    The blog Virginia Right reported that the city provided services such as portable toilets, trash pickup etc. The incomplete invoices obtained from the city totaled $7,000. This was only a portion of the actual costs to taxpayers because the costs of police, helicopter and incarcerations were not included. Also not accounted for was the 24-hour police protection of the Mayor’s home after the Occupiers moved their camp next door to the Mayor’s house. The Richmond Tea Party, conversely, paid for all services for our rallies, including the police, portable toilets, park fees and permits, amounting to approximately $8,500.

    Last week the tea party received this letter from the City of Richmond.

    In the audit letter signed by Cynthia Carr, Field Auditor for the City of Richmond, it states that our Tea Party is delinquent in filing of Admissions, Lodging, and Meals Taxes with the city and as such our group has been targeted for a comprehensive audit.

    What thuggery. I hope you all help me spread word about this obvious abuse of power.

    http://thedaleygator.wordpress.com/2011/11/28/outrage-after-demanding-refund-from-city-richmond-tea-party-gets-letter-youre-being-audited/

    • I ran this by Spitfire and haven’t heard back from her on FB. What a crock. Oh well, a few more will get educated once this gets out (online only of course, as MSM wouldn’t dare talk about this.)

      • I’d be interested in hearing what she says!

        Is it just me-I know that bogus crap has always gone on in government-but didn’t they at least try to hide it, in the past-Now they seem proud to be obviously crooked and unfair.

    • I love this!

      The Tea Partiers are upset…
      because the Occupy Wall Street protesters didn’t get the correct permits…
      from the government that the Tea Partiers think has too much regulation!!

      Oh the IRONRY!

      Maybe if the Tea Partiers actually had the courage to live up to their convictions, they wouldn’t have gotten the permits in the first place!!

      And maybe the audit will show where that $10,000 came from.

      This is just too FUNNY!

      • Mathius™ says:

        Todd!

        Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!

        The inmates get upset when you point out their contradictions.

        However, since you’ve opened the doorway, I’ll just add a phrase I may have seen bouncing around SUFA from time to time which seems to fit nicely here: “Freedom for me, but not for you.” Too bad I can’t remember who said that..

        • In the audit letter signed by Cynthia Carr, Field Auditor for the City of Richmond, it states that our Tea Party is delinquent in filing of Admissions, Lodging, and Meals Taxes with the city and as such our group has been targeted for a comprehensive audit.

          Shouldn’t whoever applied for the permits follow thru on all reporting required in the permitting REGULATIONS?

          You don’t like it when Occupy Wall Street does not follow the rules.
          Shouldn’t the Tea Partiers have to follow the rules?

          Besides, if we don’t follow the rules, it will lead to you-know-what!!!

          ANARCHY!

          Aaaaaahhhhh – we can’t have that!! 😉

        • I’m not gonna get anything else done today. I’m laughing so hard I can barely sit up straight in my chair!! And I’ve had to clean my monitor twice already!!

          • That’s nice- laughter is good for you 🙂

            You also answered my question as to why those in power-are proud to publicly show off their bias and total disreguard for our laws and equality under the law. People think them doing so is Funny!!!!!!

        • Mathius

          I said it!

          But this line of reasoning that you and Todd seem to be chasing is NOT an example.

          In this case the Tea Party complaint is closer in meaning.

          • I said it!

            Last time Black Flag claimed it. Sounds like an “Intellectual property” lawsuit brewing!

            • I know he did, but since he doesn’t believe in “intellectual property” rights I didn’t think it was worth the fight last week.

              Besides, I wouldn’t consider a lawsuit because I want the concept spread far and wide. Copyright only acts to restrict distribution.

      • ??? What back assward twisted logic are you two using? How is this about Freedom for thee….???

        TPers do believe in smaller govt., but Richmond has a requirement for permits. TPers followed said law and paid for permits and costs associated with their 3 gatherings, ie security etc.

        OWS does none of the above – no permits, did not cover costs. TPers speak up about the inconsistency of applying permit and cost requirements and either want their $$ refunded or the OWS crowd charged.

        City responds with an audit for tax delinquency on items TPers don’t even charge for! Admissions? Lodging? Meals?

        I’m not even sure I want to try to understand how this leads to ANARCHY!

        But are you right, you two are just too FUNNY!

    • …the costs of police, helicopter and incarcerations were not included.

      You want the Occupy Wall Street group to pay for the cost of their incarcerations? Tell the police not to arrest them, and there will be no cost!

      Did the Tea partiers pay for their incarcerations? 😉

      • “Did the Tea partiers pay for their incarcerations?”

        What “incarcerations?” Funny thing, don’t break the law, you don’t get arrested as often. And they were very vocal (1st Amendment) at those town hall meetings, imagine yelling at a Congressman or Senator, you work for us! So other than in your dreams, when and how many TeaPartiers have been arrested at a protest??????

        • And when a TeaParty object to OWS (FleaParty) being allowed to demonstrate for free when they were required to pay for a license, they get hit with an audit…….

        • LOI,
          Just keeps getting better.

          See the little 😉 ? That means I’m joking around!

          PS – This is the same letter in VH’s original post

  47. Hmm.. sorry if this ends up a duplicate..didn’t show up the first time.

    https://www.supporthermancain.com/taxmonster/src/ACTENG34

  48. Mathius™ says:

    http://www.theblaze.com/stories/obama-doesnt-mention-god-in-thanksgiving-message-problem/

    Thoughts? Comments?

    G**, it pains me to link to The Blaze..

    • I’ve got to much work to do today to get into this conversation-But he should mention God-because a huge part of this country believes in a God. He should mention God to show respect for the citizens who believe and to respect our culture and our traditions. He doesn’t have to limit his comments to just thanking God-he can qualify his remarks to include non-believers.

      I find it sad, really, those who want to completely keep religion out of the public square-seem to think it’s the fair thing to do-I think being “inclusive” is the fair thing to do-not to just exclude those who believe.

      The answer to problems of past unfairness-always seem to end up being unfair in the opposite direction-do we want to fix wrongs or get revenge.

    • G**, you’re such a trouble-maker!!

  49. Two good calls to Rush’s show today..the first is typical OWS speak, the second caller brings up a good question..Where is the compromise between the statists and the constitutionalists? THIS is what needs to get figured out.

    http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2011/11/28/a_foot_soldier_for_national_decline

    • Anita

      Point of order.

      A “Constitutionalist” is a type of “Statist”.

      The opposite of Statist is Anarchist.

      Now to the real question. Do we really want to “compromise” with those we view as “statists”???

      Remember: When good compromises with evil, evil wins.

      • The opposite of a statist is an anarchist-doesn’t that make You a statist-JAC?????

        • oh man.. I have a headache 🙂

        • V.H.

          YES!

          Although very slight, I am sure that BF and his tribe would call me a Statist. The difference is that while I recognize the purity of what his tribe has, I know that is deserving of some long range goal, but it is not achievable in the foreseeable future. At least not at a “national” scale as we think of “nation”.

          I did not want to cause big heart burn but remind everyone to THINK about these things. Especially when they are being thrown around by people in the media or political pundits.

          The choice between a Constitutionalist and a Statist is a FALSE choice. Because it is the WRONG comparison. This allows someone to present what looks like a reasonable solution, or need for simple compromise between two sides. But the choice is FALSE thus making any solution, including compromise equally FALSE.

          • Nor do I see such a thing happening “soon” either.

            However, one does not get closer to a goal by organizing entities that are further or far from that goal either.

            As well, the “nation” – if it pertains to the People – will not go away. The “nation” as in the Federalist United States will go away. Indeed, I see that happening very soon, perhaps in your life time.

            Politics is always most powerful locally.
            The Federal systems are the anomalies, not the norms.
            When Washington’s checks start to bounce, the anomaly’s only saving grace – massive loot distribution – will have failed, and there will be little and few reasons to keep it around.

      • uuugh..we’ll never get anywhere. Since we’re not getting anywhere, can’t we just start from scratch? That would be 1776 where the paper says we are a constitutional republic and go from there? It’s not a far trip from there to today.

        • forget it..I already know what’s coming.. time for bed!

          • JAC..this “forget it” was me cursing myself. I realized my error in saying constitutional republic and figured I’d hear it for that! For all I know anymore, the way definitions change, I might even be correct. Seems like the more I learn, the less I know! Kind of like I don’t even know what I don’t know. No wonder we can’t get anywhere 🙂 I have your response in the memory bank.

            • Seems like the more I learn, the less I know!

              I find this to be true in my life as well. Only idiots and fools (and teenagers) think they know everything. For the rest of us, the more we learn, the bigger and more complex the world becomes and the less we know.

              Hurray for Anita!

        • Anita

          I apologize if I cause your head to hurt. It was not my intent to cause distress but to warn you against what appear to be “easy” answers.

          Yes, we will get somewhere. Where that is will depend on what WE each choose to do.

          Assuming each of us has completed the hard work of defining a solid, non-contradictory, principled foundation then the choices become easier to see.

          If VDLG is your goal, then you NEVER compromise UNLESS that compromise will move you CLOSER to your goal.

          You never compromise for the sake of “saving the country from bankruptcy” or some other silly excuse, often wrapped up nice in a patriotic slogan. That includes the belief that “moderates” hate the extremes and thus the extremes should be silenced by compromise, in order to win the “moderate” vote.

          We can not save Freedom and Liberty by destroying Freedom and Liberty. We can not establish Justice for All by favoring one group over another. We can not build a civilization by enforcing theft and violence upon innocent people.

          The problem with people like the call to Limbaugh, and others like it, is that they have NO GOAL that is based on sound philosophically defensible principles. Winning is paramount, so compromise becomes the goal. Just as action becomes the goal of the pragmatist. But you see the pragmatist and the moderate who hates conflict fails to recognize that the hard left has a hard core goal and they know what the game entails. So every time they compromise with this evil, EVIL WINS.

          We do not have to just start over. But we must turn away from the path we are on. Even if that is one small step at a time. If we succeed there will be a time when the steps will become many and more rapid. There will be a stampede once the herd realizes there is cold water and fresh grass in the valley below the hill where the VDLG flag is securely planted for all to see.

          You posed one question that also deserves attention. That of “can’t we just start from scratch?” Obviously we could. But of course that would mean the whole thing collapsed to the point where this would be possible. But what do you think the “from scratch” outcome would look like if that happened today?

          Do you think a large majority of Americans want smaller govt? Or do they just want smaller govt for the “other guy”?

          Who would win the fight for the hearts and minds of America today? BF, me perhaps…………. or Charlie Stella?

          • Who would win the fight for the hearts and minds of America today? BF, me perhaps…………. or Charlie Stella?

            The one who had an idea, turned into a plan, ready for action.

            Charlie’s gang has an idea, they have a plan and are ready to act

            The rest of “Us” are so far behind, we can’t even see Charlie’s dust.

            “Us” can’t even get the idea down.

            “Us” are so married to the current outcomes of a Nation State that any attempt to ground any moral ideas is completely resisted because it will change the outcomes of this Nation state.

            What is so intriguing is that the outcomes present are not good – their only qualities is that they are known and that they are unsustainable.

            But irony – the “Us” are so married to the known, that even if they admit to the lack of sustainability of the system, they will effort in attempts to maintain it regardless of the long term futility of it.
            So they will refuse to adopt any change of plan or strategy.
            Irrational, yes – but it is the mental reality of the “Us” right now.

            Thus, the collapse will occur, there will be no plan and evil wins again.

            I do not see this changing right now.

            But miracles do happens sometimes.

  50. This doesn’t sound good????

    November 28, 2011
    FATCA: A Ticking Time Bomb for the Economy
    By Peter W. Dunn

    See also: Federal Reserve Shennanigans

    Buried in an ostensible jobs bill signed by President Obama last year is a little-noticed job-destroying government regulation that threatens to trigger a massive outflow of capital from the American economy.

    The U.S. economy is in bad shape. Many want the federal government to fix it — to end the deficits, create jobs, and get America back onto the track of growth and stability. President Obama came to Washington with great promises: to restore international respect for the United States and to bring back the jobs. When signing the HIRE Act of 2010 on March 18, 2010, President Obama said:

    A consensus is forming that, partly because of the necessary — and often unpopular — measures we took over the past year, our economy is now growing again and we may soon be adding jobs instead of losing them. The jobs bill I’m signing today is intended to help accelerate that process.

    Now the HIRE Act of 2010 contains a time bomb called FATCA (Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act), which has indeed accelerated a process. Unfortunately that process is not job-generation, but job-destruction caused by an exodus of capital from the United States. Investment means jobs; a departure of investment capital means job losses. Thus, the HIRE Act is really the “FIRE Act.”

    FATCA (Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act) is the brood of FBAR (Foreign Bank Account Report). FBAR requires that U.S. persons divulge foreign accounts to the Treasury Department, but few knew about or ever complied with it (see “When Government turns Predator”). To stanch the bleeding of U.S. capital into secret bank jurisdictions like the Cayman Islands and Switzerland, Congress introduced FATCA into law as part of the HIRE Act. FATCA requires that foreign financial institutions (FFIs) reveal the accounts of U.S. persons to the IRS. The FFIs will then have to collect tax withholdings for the IRS from these clients. If by January 1, 2014 the FFI is unwilling to reveal its U.S. clients’ accounts, the IRS will impose a punitive 30% withholding on all payments to the FFIs, on dividends, interest, and gross sales of stocks, bonds, and financial derivatives.

    Let’s suppose that a foreign investor trades stocks on a U.S. exchange, but his broker is FATCA non-compliant. One day he buys 10,000 shares of XYZ at $25 per share, and the next day, he takes advantage of a nice uptick of $1.00 in XYZ and sells at $26 per share. He makes a tidy profit of $10,000. But because his broker is non-compliant, the IRS now withholds 30% — not of the profit, but of the gross proceeds of the sale! So the client now receives the sum of $260,000 minus 30%. The foreign investor is unhappy because his $250,000 investment has become $182,000. If he wants his money back, he must file a U.S. tax return.

    No investor would accept such conditions. Hence, an FFI must either comply with the invasive regulations of FATCA or simply abandon the U.S. markets.

    After some study, FFIs have warned that the costs of FATCA compliance will be in the hundreds of millions and likely in excess of whatever taxes that the IRS could gather through its enforcement (not that the IRS cares about that!). It is likely that many FFIs will simply choose to leave the United States, taking their clients’ money with them. In an open letter, “Farewell America,” Wegelin & Co., a private Swiss bank, cited their reasons for leaving the United States: excessive regulations, tax issues, and above all, the insolvency of U.S. government. Now add the expense of FATCA, and many other FFIs are going to follow Wegelin’s lead. American Citizens Abroad has cited Japanese and European FFIs as indicating a strong likelihood that they would pull out of the United States.

    FFIs could also face privacy lawsuits from affected customers. Canada’s privacy laws, for example, may not permit banks to divulge clients’ account information, for compliance is voluntary. Thus, Canada and several other countries would probably require a change in their privacy laws before their FFIs could lawfully comply with FATCA.

    FATCA’s enforcement of U.S. tax globally has resulted in serious alarm and backlash. FATCA is a clear violation of President Obama’s campaign promise on July 2007:

    To renew American leadership in the world, I intend to rebuild the alliances, partnerships, and institutions necessary to confront common threats and enhance common security. Needed reform of these alliances and institutions will not come by bullying other countries to ratify changes we hatch in isolation. It will come when we convince other governments and peoples that they, too, have a stake in effective partnerships.

    FATCA is an attempt to impose unilaterally the collection of U.S. taxes without consideration of the laws and the rights of sovereign nations, and that makes it bullying of the worst kind. In response, some FFIs are already turning away U.S. citizens and closing their existing accounts; their business is not worth the hassle anymore.

    U.S. citizens abroad, numbering about six million, would normally be America’s goodwill ambassadors. But they have become angry because of the threat of excessive FBAR penalties. Those who thought they could ignore FBAR now dread FATCA, which will force their FFIs to tattle on them. An increasing number of Americans are renouncing their U.S. citizenship. The U.S. consulates have had so many requests for renunciation that they have started arranging group sessions, like the one at the U.S. Consulate in Toronto in October. Moreover, some Americans abroad have pulled all of their investments out of the United States and are also planning their vacations to non-U.S. destinations — not from anger alone, but also from fear that border guards will arrest them and that a computer system will soon link the IRS to border enforcement.

    Richard W. Rahn writes in the Washington Post that FATCA has already sent foreign capital fleeing. He claims that the people running Washington are “mental midgets” unaware of how their policies affect the economy. He estimates that FATCA will cause the departure of an estimated $14 trillion of private foreign investment, destroying as many as 10,000,000 jobs in the United States.

    By signing the HIRE Act with its FATCA provisions, President Obama has bullied our allies, penalized FFIs, alienated many American citizens, and seriously jeopardized any possibility of an economic recovery. Apparently, Mr. Obama’s ideological predisposition in favor of taxes and against wealth blinds him to a balanced approach to the economy and its problems. FATCA’s imposition on FFIs is hegemony of the worst kind. Foreign investors are interpreting FATCA as a sign of the desperation that often precedes the imposition of capital and currency controls. In an investment climate now dominated by fear, capital flight is inevitable. FATCA only ensures its arrival, and it will exaggerate its effects.

    American Citizens Abroad reaches the following conclusions regarding the legislation:

    FATCA legislation is predicated on the faulty assumption that foreigners throughout the world with no predisposition to favor the U.S. will react positively to its attempts to convert them into unpaid IRS agents. Faced with similar investment and personnel options without the legal jeopardy and financial risks, reasonable people will choose non-U.S. alternatives. FATCA implementation will constitute a major disruption of the entire international financial world as we know it today. Reasonable persons and entities will develop effective antibodies to this perceived infection, in ways too numerous and manifold to predict. What can be predicted is that the cumulative effect of this legislation will be a major blow to U.S. economic interests and prestige. At stake for the United States is the potential loss of trillions of dollars of investment, the opportunity for American companies and financial institutions to compete in a competitive global environment and the possibility for American citizens residing overseas to survive and thrive. In brief, the economic future of the United States.

    In a time when government has caused what may be irreparable economic problems, we don’t need “help” like this. Mr. Obama, please stop helping us.

    Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/11/fatca_a_ticking_time_bomb_for_the_economy.html#ixzz1f3L6MJLr

  51. Ray Hawkins says:

    Ginger White: Her phone bill has 61 calls or texts from Herman Cain

    Ginger White, who says she had a 13-year affair with Herman Cain, showed reporters her phone bill. There were 61 texts or calls from Herman Cain.

    “…he [Ginger White] showed us some of her cell phone bills that included 61 phone calls or text messages to or from a number starting with 678. She says it is Herman Cain’s private cell phone. The calls were made during four different months— calls or texts made as early as 4:26 in the early morning, and as late as 7:52 at night. The latest were in September of this year.”

    http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Elections/From-the-Wires/2011/1129/Ginger-White-Her-phone-bill-has-61-calls-or-texts-from-Herman-Cain

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      Is this a final nail in his campaign coffin? Since, fortunately or unfortunately, one’s private affairs become very much part of the public’s assessment of their moral character and judgement – this doesn’t seem to bode well for Herman. He doesn’t lay on the social conservatism too heavily from a policy perspective (http://www.hermancain.com/issue/immigration-faith-and-family) but he certainly doesn’t get positioned real well with the harassment allegations and now this.

      Question: Are all reasonably identifiable/verifiable personal/private decisions fair game in politics as a way (not the only way) to judge one’s moral character, judgement and decision making?

      • Ray

        I think the “final nail” was his Douglas style debate against Newt followed by a lack luster performance in the regular debate. This is just piling more dirt on the hole.

        He WILL NOT recover and his campaign is OVER.

        The personal decisions and behavior do tell us something about a person. But obviously the media, and political opposition, has turned this kind of thing into a circus rather than simple information sharing. Time and context matter in these things. But what we get is “got ya”.

        I heard some of White’s comments yesterday about their relationship and notes Cain gave her with copies of his books. They sounded like they were very close. In fact, her comments about Cain made we wonder even more about the truth of the harassment charges. Which raises a very big question. WHY would she come forward NOW????

        She claims to avoid a political storm. What storm? From where and whom?

        • Ray Hawkins says:

          Thanks JAC – in a prior career in the restaurant biz I attended a speech by Cain at a Community College outside Harrisburg, PA (this was mid-90s). This was part of his motivational speaking side of things – he was dynamic, motivating and very engaging. Many of the higher level executives I worked with were enamored with him (to be fair – the folks I worked for back then placed the Tony Robbins and Steve Coveys and Paul Zane Pilzers of the world in near-God status). I tended to take these things in with a grain of salt and learn what I could.

          Years later where Cain has now entered into politics I was a bit surprised. I immediately disagreed with some of positions, but that aside – I was eager to see how a successful businessman could enter into politics – what would he do? Would he stand a chance? Is the time ripe for this type of Presidency?

          This turn of events leaves me kinda pissed. Whether you like Obama or not – he/we/all of us deserve to see a strong, viable, electable opposing candidate (or two or three….). Punting Cain at this point – maybe he’s made his bed and now must rest in it. And we’ll be left to wonder which of the remaining will pose a challenge and force us all to actually think about why we should even cast a vote and for whom.

    • Yea, but someone sued her for harassment/stalking once and she didn’t respond to the lawsuit so the court ruled against her. So everything she says about Cain is automatically a lie.

      Besides, Ginger White? Like that’s a real name. I mean, please, this obvious pseudonym could only have been cooked up by a Soros conspiracy aimed at stoking racist fears over black men stealing all the white women with their giant meat hammers endowments. Seriously, this is so obviously a frame job, I don’t understand why you would even bother to post about it.

      So what if there were 61 booty calls text messages in the early morning and late night to his private cell phone. He was only “trying to help her out financially.” And so what if 4 or 5 (honestly, I’m losing count) other women have made comparable claims – they’re all sluts and liars women of low moral character who are out for his money and/or media attention.

      Geez.. would you give the guy a break – he’s just an honest family man being victimized by a vast left-wing conspiracy.

      • Mathius

        4 or 5 other women HAVE NOT made similar claims. Theirs were entirely different and very possibly filled with lies.

        • JAC,

          4 or 5 other women HAVE NOT made similar claims. Theirs were entirely different and very possibly filled with lies.

          If this is your only complaint about Mathius’ post, I think Cain is toast!

          I wonder if it’s ever occurred to you how many times Cain has told entirely different stories and that they could be very possibly filled with lies?

    • I think the CAIN TRAIN has been making some “unscheduled stops!!” 🙂

  52. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    Todd said:

    “Peter,

    Your liberal elite brain might find it educational. Since you (like 99% of everyone else) probably didn’t take many “hard science” classes, you probably weren’t taught that (incredibly important) stuff at your high-quality liberal-elite “learning facilities”.

    Your assumptions about my education are completely inaccurate, therefore rendering your entire post NULL.”

    This is a carry-forward from the global-warming debate. Why is this quote from Todd important??? Well, in it we see the classic argument by logical fallacy! Here was my original post:

    “Todd,

    See my post above on the Null Hypothesis and the Scientific Method. Your liberal elite brain might find it educational. Since you (like 99% of everyone else) probably didn’t take many “hard science” classes, you probably weren’t taught that (incredibly important) stuff at your high-quality liberal-elite “learning facilities”.

    The problem with a large number (though not all) people who claim to be climatologists is that THEY either weren’t taught about null hypotheses or the scientific method either, or they were taught about it but either intentionally or unintentionally completely fail to apply it to the study of Earth’s climate. Whether their failure is intentional or unintentional is irrelevant. Either way it only produces junk science.

    One good thing to note, the upcoming IPCC AR5 report seems to be addressing previously unaddressed topics such as uncertainty and maybe even a little actual science this time:

    http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2011/11/leaked-text-of-ipcc-extreme-report.html

    Now, let’s stipulate that my assumptions about Todd’s education were completely incorrect. Perhaps Todd’s education included a strong foundation of “hard science” classes and he was thoroughly taught the scientific method. Fine, no problem. The problem arises when Todd attempts to invalidate the rest of my post due to my incorrect assumption in the first paragraph! It is just the type of thinking that Todd demonstrates in claiming that my incorrect assumption in the first paragraph somehow INVALIDATES the remainder of my post that clearly shows that whether he learned about logic and the scientific method or not, he is having trouble APPLYING his knowledge.

    If he wishes to have an honest debate and have any hope whatsoever of convincing anyone of his position, he will have to do better than that 🙂

    • Oh Peter,
      I was just having fun with you.

      But I’ll ask you a serious question: Why do you make a statement like this?

      Your liberal elite brain might find it educational. Since you (like 99% of everyone else) probably didn’t take many “hard science” classes, you probably weren’t taught that (incredibly important) stuff at your high-quality liberal-elite “learning facilities”.

      Is this statement based on any foundation of fact or evidence?
      Either about me or the “99%” you refer too?

      Or is it just another attempt to bring your opponent down to your level and win “points” with those who agree with you?

      Maybe I need to post a few times about how “SMART” I am and how I have so much to teach all of you? Like you and USWeapon do occasionally?

      I don’t think we’re going “to have an honest debate” about global warming here on SUFA.
      And I don’t think I “have any hope whatsoever of convincing anyone of my position” here on SUFA.

      To hold such beliefs would be ridiculous.

      Since you’re such a great thinker, I suggest you read and ponder this article:

      http://nymag.com/news/politics/conservatives-david-frum-2011-11/

  53. JAC,

    Some more on our discussion of whether American citizens could be detained by the military. A floor argument by Rand Paul and John McCain occurred today on the Senate floor (as reported by The Hill).

    Rand Paul arguing against a McCain amendment because it could place American citizens into military detention apparently. I haven’t read the amendment offered by McCain, but what I found interesting was his statement:

    “An individual, no matter who they are, if they pose a threat to the security of the United States of America, should not be allowed to continue that threat,” said McCain. ” We need to take every stop necessary to prevent that from happening, that’s for the safety and security of the men and women who are out there risking their lives … in our armed services.”

    http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/195889-sens-paul-mccain-clash-over-terrorist-detainee-amendment-

    Seems clear enough to me that absolutely anyone would be at risk of being in military custody. I will try and find his amendment and read the actual wording of it.

    • Plainly

      I am not ignoring you. I listened closely to much commentary yesterday making these same claims. Even Judge Napolitano got on the wagon.

      So I am doing some harder looking to find what it is they think is in here. I would make this comment now. The debate between Paul and McCain and then Paul’s comments last night on Napolitano’s show ALL centered around the classification of “Enemy Combatant”. In fact, McCain didn’t seem to really understand Paul’s questions. I think he is getting a little senile.

      So it seems there is a leap in the assumptions about how this could be applied. And of course ignoring the paragraph that excludes citizens from the requirement, and that the Supreme Court has ALREADY ruled against such a thing.

      I have to run to the mechanic for a few hours so will have to explore this more later.

      Best to you and yours.
      JAC

    • WTH??? Middle.Aged.Pervert. That’s what the peep shows are for dude! Luckily my daughter was in the business college and no where near those liberal artists. He’d have been a Flat Stanley if I ever came across him! It’s a scary world these days. 👿

  54. I have published a new post over at Gman’s blog. I hope you will take a few minutes and give it a read. I’d be very interested in your thoughts and opinions. Consider it a form of therapy for me.

    http://gmanfortruth.wordpress.com/2011/11/29/justice-and-closure-are-they-fantasies/

  55. And the system is solid and functioning properly they say…………….

    http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2011/11/29/former-philadelphia-schools-chief-arlene-ackerman-files-unemployment-claim/

    ::sigh::

    • Read that yesterday. What a bunch of bunk. Why would they let her go with the understanding that they would not interfere with her collecting unemployment? Why was she released with a severance instead of fired? Lots of unanswered questions.

      Ray? Any local insight?

    • Whether Frank was denying the existence of the housing bubble he helped create, procuring employment for his lover, or letting one rip on the Rachel Maddow Show, he has managed to make himself the center of attention. So as a parting gift, we’ll give ol’ Barney one more turn in the spotlight.

      Here’s a look at The Daily Caller’s top ten Barney Frank moments. Don’t say we didn’t warn you.

      Number 10: “I want to roll the dice”

      In a House Financial Services Committee hearing on Sept. 25, 2003, Frank told the committee,” I do think I do not want the same kind of focus on safety and soundness that we have in OCC [Office of the Comptroller of the Currency] and OTS [Office of Thrift Supervision]. I want to roll the dice a little bit more in this situation towards subsidized housing …”

      Frank’s willingness to put politics above the taxpayers who would eventually cover his losses from gambling on the housing market clearly did not end well.

      Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/11/30/top-ten-barneys-frankest-moments-slideshow/#ixzz1fCRrTlIr

      • And I read where next in line for his position is the one and only Max Waters! Under review for ethics violations pertaining to her hubby’s banking escapades. How appropriate!

      • LOI,
        Want to talk about Newt? Or do you just want to divert the conversation and avoid the topic?

        • Todd,

          I’m OK with Newt talk. What do you have to say? Divert and avoid? No, not really, compare Newt to Barney or Barry and I would have to sing his praises. Well, no, not his praises, more like he’s a less offensive odor, but if you compare bulldookey to pig to cow, it still smells like chit!

          I think Newt is very intelligent and informed on many issues and has good plans for how to deal with them. I think his latest statements on illegal immigration are wrong, idiotic and opportunist. I think he has a permanent “taint” on his ethics. His stance on Libya shifted every time Obama acted or failed to act, playing to the media. Makes me think he will say anything to get elected……Maybe he will replace Biden????

          • Maybe he will replace Biden???? No.. I don’t think Newt is flexible enough to fit his whole foot in his mouth while simultaneously shoving his head neck-deep up his a$$.

            Biden is a truly impressive specimen in this regard.

            • Mathius

              You and I may agree on this, but apparently the POTUS does not.

              I just heard on “Progressive Talk Radio” that the Obama campaign intends to “unleash Biden” on the country. It seems he is the consumate “retail politician” (their words, not mine) and Mr. O is suffering in this skill of late.

    • Are you trying to claim this as an intellectually serious evaluation of Newt?

      • I don’t think I’m trying to claim anything… I’m just posting a link to an article by some guy who is claiming some things.

        But since we’re on the subject..

        Assuming the facts (as opposed to the conclusions) of the article are true, one wonders how you could have any serious discussion of the Civil War without mentioning slavery – whether you agree or not that it was the “true cause” (I suspect it was a contributory, albeit secondary cause), there’s really just no way it can plausibly be left out entirely.

        Also, liberals don’t study Edison? I went to school in LA. Los “Liberal Mecca” Angeles. And we studied him ad nausium. Hell, we even put on a play about him in elementary school (I played Edison myself) – yet Newt would have you believe that we (liberals/”counterculture”/progressives) simply skipped over it because we think “all his values are exactly wrong”? We think it’s wrong to work hard and be creative? See, this is the kind of thing that pisses me off. He knows this is BS – he’s not stupid – but he chooses to deliberately malign liberals/progressives. This is comparable to when you see a prominent liberal talking about how conservatives “don’t care” about the plight of the poor – they know better, but they find it more expedient to simply malign you and pretend that, rather than having a nuanced view, conservatives are heartless and selfish.

        • “He knows this is BS – he’s not stupid – but he chooses to deliberately malign……”

          Hello?????

          Welcome to politics 101!

        • Mathius

          I think the comment about leaving out slavery to be juvenile. Just as I see the same claim made here by Charlie in response to ANY discussion about the good parts of our heritage.

          In the context of the article you cited Newt’s comments were regarding the unique concept in America that allowed the poor to elevate themselves to the rich. We all know that slavery existed and that women could not vote or hold the same political rights. These facts do not negate the other part of the claim about how unique, and thus American, these ideas were. It has not relevance or importance to the discussion. Except in the eye of the critic who, like so many of his ilk, can’t seem to stand any discussion about he positive aspects of America without tossing out the bad ones to dampen the mood.

          As for the Edison comment, I agree. It is pure political spin and rhetoric. Although I know that Edison was not studied in all that much detail in the schools I attended or in those my children attended. Just another famous inventor we had to thank for something that enhanced our standard of living. I don’t recall any political or economic theory attached to his invention. I will add this however. I have heard young people use the “light bulb” as an example of the benefits of Govt funded research. So I ask you. Where would they get such a notion?

        • I find this whole topic interesting too:

          Also, liberals don’t study Edison?

          A perfect example of this “logic” is Peter’s comments to me – which he felt were so important he had to bring them up again yesterday:

          Your liberal elite brain might find it educational. Since you (like 99% of everyone else) probably didn’t take many “hard science” classes, you probably weren’t taught that (incredibly important) stuff at your high-quality liberal-elite “learning facilities”.

          But he hasn’t answered my questions about how he arrived at this conclusion – because it’s just right-wing-talking-points-bull-shit that somehow makes you feel superior.

          Guess who????

          We used to say “You’re entitled to your own opinion, but not to your own facts.” Now we are all entitled to our own facts, and conservative media use this right to immerse their audience in a total environment of pseudo-facts and pretend information.

          I guess this would be called Right-Wing Kool-Aid.

          • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

            Todd,

            Define “fact” and provide examples of “pseudo-facts”. I don’t care whether you quote so-called right-wing pseudo-facts or left-wing pseudo-facts, as either side is rife with them.

            As far as right-wing talking points bullshit, if you actually had read my response and read the article I linked, you would discover that the article is by Roger Pielke Jr. who is a fellow in the Cooperative Institute for Research in the Environmental Sciences (CIRES), a professor at University of Colorado, and served as the director of the Center of Science and Technology Policy Research from 2001-2007. He is hardly a right-wing idealogue.

            My post has nothing whatever to do with “feeling superior” and everything to do with pointing out that logic and the scientific method be adhered to when studying or debating ANYTHING scientific, including AGW (or climate change, or whatever you wish to call it). If you have a sound education in these things, that is awesome! It is my wish that everyone could have such an education, but most do not. It is very difficult to rationally discuss anything scientific with those who are not well-versed in logic and the scientific method, because people who lack the proper foundation usually confuse scientific theory with “fact” (which it is not, although it had better be based on factual observations), and they rely on “experts” when it is possible that the experts are agenda-driven rather than fact-driven. Please note, I realize (and accept that there is bias in science (on any “side”, not just one) and part of understanding science is to attempt, as best you can, to understand and minimize the impact of, human biases in any scientific study or debate.

          • Todd,

            Not to defend Peter, but my articles and many of his post include sourced articles, published papers and research. The cloud experiment offers scientific “proof” of the theory Black Flag has mentioned months or years ago. I and we try to show what “science” has to say. I think throwing out opinion, (such as mine) without the degree’s in that field is fair, or you/mine is equal. But what about the science, without opinion? The last one you posted was challenged by his co-author! What “science” can you show that has not been discredited? Are you watching ClimateGate2? The science you have championed has been shown to have delibertately been falsified by the leading researchers!

    • I think someone needs to take a “dose” of his own medicine:

      Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!

      The inmates get upset when you point out their contradictions.

      🙂

        • The reader is likely to have two meanings for the term “Liberal”. In the USA, the term’s usual definition is that, the liberal is left-of-center but claims that he is the center. Most liberals will resent the leftist tag. In their view, their education, intelligence and the sensitivity derived from their philosophy, puts them above party politics. Due to their cerebral qualities and ethics, liberals claim to be able to see merits in any position. This enables them to discover a value in what the left advocates. Therefore, they support these against the reactionaries located on their right of the political spectrum.

          • Mathius™ says:

            This is not isolated to the left. The right likes to refer to themselves as having “common sense” which, in my opinion, is not to common. They also like to claim that they are the true center, though asked issue by issue, Americans tend to align more to the left (<a href="http://www.bobcesca.com/images/govtspendingchart.JPG"Here's Bob again).

            But, to your root point, why do we think we understand you but you don’t understand us (by the way, you think the same thing about us). This is human nature. I posted an absolutely wonderful link on this a while ago.. I just can’t find it..

            • Mathius™ says:

              FOUND IT! Link.

              Sherif noted the two groups spent a lot of time talking about how dumb and uncouth the other side was. They called them names, lots of names, and they seemed to be preoccupied every night with defining the essence of their enemies. Sherif was fascinated by this display. The two groups needed the other side to be inferior once the competition for limited resources became a factor, so they began defining them as such. It strengthened their identity to assume the identity of the enemy was a far cry from their own. Everything they learned about the other side became an example of how not to be, and if they did happen to see similarities they tended to be ignored.

              Liberals tend to see themselves as DIFFERENT and BETTER than conservatives. Our chosen method is to think of ourselves as smarter and more altruistic. Conservatives do the same thing, but they tend to do it by thinking of themselves as having more COMMON SENSE and being more REALISTIC. Or some such.

              When Pronin, Ross, Kruger and Savitsky moved from individuals to groups, they found an even more troubling version of the illusion of asymmetric insight. They had subjects identify themselves as either liberals or conservatives and in a separate run of the experiment as either pro-abortion and anti-abortion. The groups filled out questionnaires about their own beliefs and how they interpreted the beliefs of their opposition. They then rated how much insight their opponents possessed. The results showed liberals believed they knew more about conservatives than conservatives knew about liberals. The conservatives believed they knew more about liberals than liberals knew about conservatives. Both groups thought they knew more about their opponents than their opponents knew about themselves. The same was true of the pro-abortion rights and anti-abortion groups.

              I think this part speaks for itself in light of what you were saying. I strongly suggest a full reading.

              • Bob Cesca’s Awesome Blog!

                Seriously? Have I ever linked Rush or Hannity? The link doesn’t work, by the way. Did you fully read the editorial I posted?? I think there is merit in your thoughts and link on the mindset of both thinking they know the others thoughts better. I also think the fringes of both groups get most of the attention, not the moderate middle.

                “they tend to do it by thinking of themselves as having more COMMON SENSE and being more REALISTIC.”

                The truly sad thing about this, I remember multiple time Matt has posted about using common sense or being realistic…… the boy has become a closet conservative and just has not realized it yet….

              • Mathius™ says:

                I thought you’d appreciate my link to Cesca (remember, he’s the reason I’m a SUFA-ite today!) 😛

                As for being a closet conservative, you should know me better than that.. I’m a bleeding heart tree hugging lily liver California big government liberal!

                DPM on the other hand…

              • (remember, he’s the reason I’m a SUFA-ite today!)

                Is that suppose to be a GOOD thing??? 🙂 🙂 🙂

              • Canine Weapon says:

                LOI, I messed up the link to Bob.. here it is again: http://bobcesca.com/images/govtspendingchart.JPG

    • Terry Evans says:

      Allan Lichtman article…no surprise

  56. Hee Hee He 🙂

    Victory: McDonald’s outsmarts San Francisco on Happy Meal ban
    posted at 9:40 pm on November 29, 2011 by Allahpundit

    Remember when San Fran “banned” Happy Meals by requiring fruit and vegetables to be served with any meal that includes a toy? Question: What if the meal doesn’t automatically include the toy? What if the toy’s “optional,” purchasable with a Happy Meal plus a small additional fee that you’ll be happy to pay just to shut up that screaming brat who wants the toy, mom, c’monnnnn?

    I can’t shake the feeling that government intrusion produces higher costs, less choice, and inefficiency.

    Come Dec. 1, you can still buy the Happy Meal. But it doesn’t come with a toy. For that, you’ll have to pay an extra 10 cents.

    Huh. That hardly seems to have solved the problem (though adults and children purchasing unhealthy food can at least take solace that the 10 cents is going to Ronald McDonald House charities). But it actually gets worse from here. Thanks to Supervisor Eric Mar’s much-ballyhooed new law, parents browbeaten into supplementing their preteens’ Happy Meal toy collections are now mandated to buy the Happy Meals.

    Today and tomorrow mark the last days that put-upon parents can satiate their youngsters by simply throwing down $2.18 for a Happy Meal toy. But, thanks to the new law taking effect on Dec. 1, this is no longer permitted. Now, in order to have the privilege of making a 10-cent charitable donation in exchange for the toy, you must buy the Happy Meal. Hilariously, it appears Mar et al., in their desire to keep McDonald’s from selling grease and fat to kids with the lure of a toy have now actually incentivized the purchase of that grease and fat — when, beforehand, a put-upon parent could get out cheaper and healthier with just the damn toy.

    In other words, they dropped the healthy options from the Happy Meal, split off the toy — which is the only part most kids care about — and now require you to buy a tasty Meal comprised of a lardburger and death fries in order to get the prize for an extra dime. Your kid gets (a) something to play with and (b) fat, and you get momentary peace of mind. And San Francisco gets … a lesson? Nah. They won’t learn.

    Exit question one: Won’t San Fran have the last laugh here? I thought McD’s already agreed to healthy-up their Happy Meals nationwide, even though pretty much no one — at McDonald’s — actually chooses the healthy option. Go figure. Exit question two: Why don’t they just wait for your kid to get obese and then take him away instead?

    http://hotair.com/archives/2011/11/29/victory-mcdonalds-outsmarts-san-francisco-on-happy-meal-ban/

  57. So we are printing money for Europe. BF, could you tell me what all this means? Perhaps in a new open mic – thanks!

    • Kathy

      I think you know what it means.

      INFLATION

      Which means an improved Stock Market…….. for awhile.

      • Yeah, that much I get. But is it different when we flood them with dollars?

      • Republican candidate for president Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) appeared on CNBC to discuss the Federal Reserve and a worldwide quantitative easing, the 2012 field and an independent run for office.

        “That doesn’t mean a whole lot. That’s what they’re in the business of doing, and that is to inflate the currency to tide people over and to provide liquidity. And providing liquidity in a situation like this just means they’re buying up bad debt that nobody else wants and they do this by creating credit. But I think it’s sort of a reflection of a panicky type of reaction to get everybody doing this. Including China. They must really be worried to get together like this,” Ron Paul said about the Fed’s decision, 9 to 1, to not change the monetary policy, which means more printing.

        Opining on the Republican field, Ron Paul says they all “just represent the status quo.”

        “Yeah, I think it’s because it’s more of the status quo. I think all the other Republican candidates just represent the status quo,” Paul told CNBC. “More of the same. No change in the foreign policy. No change in the federal reserve. No cut in spending. I’m the one that’s offering a trillion dollars in cuts because I believe the government is so big and so out of control that you have to have real cuts. But all this other talk about cuts, whether it’s Romney or anybody else, the cuts in proposed increases, that’s why the American people don’t believe that they have a solution.”

        “We just keep doing exactly what we’ve been doing for the 40 years. Spending excessively, running up debt, printing up money, and manipulating interest rates. And we’re up against the wall now, it doesn’t work anymore. Lowering interest rates is essentially impossible. That’s what they’re desperately trying to do today. But, you know, when our interest rates to the banks are down to zero, What are they going to do? Used to be that Congress would just spend more money and that would help. How can they spend more money when there’s no more money in the Treasury. So, no, Romney and the rest aren’t offering anything new,” he said.

        Ron Paul also warns the Federal Reserve in the interview. He says the Fed shouldn’t bailout Europe on the backs of the American taxpayers.

        Paul once again wouldn’t rule out a third party run if he does not get the Republican nomination. However, Paul said it was very unlikely, describing the chances as 1 in 20 million.

        • Mathius™ says:

          … would I vote for Paul for 3rd Party….

          Hmm…

          Good question.

          I guess it would depend on the margin Obama has verse whoever is running Red-Shirt.

          Then again, I live in New York, which is very safely blue, so it doesn’t really matter how I vote.

          So yes, I do think I would vote for Paul 3rd Party.

          ….

          Not that he has a snowball’s chance in hell of winning.

  58. Obama Admin Seals Records of Murdered Border Patrol Agent Implicated in Fast and Furious
    11:45 AM, Nov 30, 2011 • By MARK HEMINGWAY
    Single Page Print Larger Text Smaller Text Alerts

    And to think thatAttorney General Eric Holder is getting testy about congressional calls for his resignation. After all, the Justice Department has nothing to hide, right?:

    The Obama Administration has abruptly sealed court records containing alarming details of how Mexican drug smugglers murdered a U.S. Border patrol agent with a gun connected to a failed federal experiment that allowed firearms to be smuggled into Mexico.

    This means information will now be kept from the public as well as the media. Could this be a cover-up on the part of the “most transparent” administration in history? After all, the rifle used to kill the federal agent (Brian Terry) last December in Arizona’s Peck Canyon was part of the now infamous Operation Fast and Furious. Conducted by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), the disastrous scheme allowed guns to be smuggled into Mexico so they could eventually be traced to drug cartels.

    The murder of a U.S. Border Patrol agent is related to a Justice Department willingly turning over thousands of guns to Mexican criminal gangs, and Obama administration is hiding information about his death from the public. Amazing.

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-admin-seals-records-murdered-border-patrol-agent-implicated-fast-and-furious_610783.html

  59. SK Trynosky Sr says:

    I am back! The computer fried itself in that wonderful ice storm we had five or so weeks back. It was an interesting storm to say the least. In an effort to protect the car from falling tree branches I moved it around the block to the local school parking lot (no trees) and then walked through the park, (trees) fairly stupid. As I was out on the open snow covered field, all around me 80 year old tree branches popped and cracked. This was followed by a huge puff of snow off the branches being displaced and then the branches dropping fifty feet or so crashing on the ground. . Suddenly I felt that I was in Bastogne, December ’44 watching tree bursts without the pyrotechnics. Wish I had a video camera for that. Hope to never see it again. lost power for a couple of days and of course the computer somehow.

    My wonderful kids rewarded me with this new state of the art machine to celebrate me officially becoming elderly (65) yesterday. Just think, now if I get mugged on the subway, I will be described as an elderly gent in the Daily News. Holy crap! where did 1967 go?

    Commenting on the lead article, I am fascinated that someone else thinks that 22 November 1963 was a pivotal point in American History too. I have been saying this for the last five years or so. It sort of took the wind out of our sails while knocking off our rudder. As a nation, we have been going in circles ever since. There was a sense of hopelessness after the assassination which affected us all deeply. In my own case it was an opposite effect. I was at 17, politically naive coming from a family of more or less democrats on automatic. The assassination made me study politics and the following year I worked on the Goldwater campaign. Have been to the right of Genghis Khan ever since. Just seems more logical to me.

    I have told all my friends and probably mentioned it here but if you younger people Youtube Kennedy’s inauguration speech and then a couple of his news conferences, you cannot help but being captivated by him. Regardless of politics, his loss was a very deep loss to the country and to both my parents and my generation. From a political standpoint I doubt that had Kennedy lived and proposed even a fraction of what Johnson actually rammed through the congress as the “Great Society” that it would have passed. Those who were there at the time saw these programs as somehow a “tribute” to the fallen leader despite the fact there is no indication, anywhere, that he would have been in favor of them.

  60. Memory Lane-Newt suddenly sounds just fine to me, along with Paul, Michelle, Perry, Cain, Romney, Santorum and even Huntsman.

    November 30, 2011 4:00 A.M.
    Obama 101
    Few presidents have dashed so many illusions as Obama.

    In the last three years, the president has taught us a great deal about America, the world, and himself.

    Before Obama, many Americans still believed in massive deficit spending, whether as an article of fairness, a means to economic growth, or just a lazy fallback position to justify an out-of-control federal government. But after the failure of a nearly $800 billion “stimulus” program — intended to keep unemployment under 8 percent — no one believes any more that an already indebted government will foster economic growth by taking on another $4 trillion in debt. In other words, “stimulus” is mostly a dead concept. The president — much as he advised a barnstorming President Bush in 2005 to cease pushing Social Security reform on a reluctant population — should give it up and junk the new $500 billion program euphemistically designated as a “jobs bill.” The U.S. government is already borrowing every three days what all of America spent on Black Friday.

    – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

    ADVERTISEMENT

    – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
    Obama has also taught us that prominent government intervention into the private sector often makes things worse, and invites crony-capitalist corruption. Nearly three years into this administration, it is striking how seldom Barack Obama brags about Cash for Clunkers, the Chrysler and GM bailouts, or Solyndra. He either is quiet about them or sort of shrugs, as if to say, “Stuff happens.” Even creative bookkeeping cannot mask the fact that the auto-company bailouts (begun, to be sure, by the Bush administration, but made worse under Obama) will prove a huge drain on the Treasury. No one even attempts any more to convince us that we will like Obamacare once we read the legislation, or that it will save us costs in the long run, or that it will cheer up businesses so that they will invest and hire. All that was dreamland, 2009, and this is reality, 2011, when we hear only “It could have been worse.”

    Obama has also taught us that a president’s name, his father’s religion, his ethnic background, loud denunciations of his predecessor, discomforting efforts to apologize, bow, and contextualize past American actions — none of that does anything to lead to greater peace in the world or security for the United States. And by the same token, George Bush’s drawl, Texas identification, and Christianity did not magically turn allies into neutrals and neutrals into enemies.

    Israel, Britain, and Eastern Europe are not closer allies now than they were in 2008. Iran is still Iran — and may be even a more dangerous adversary after the failed Obama outreach. Putin’s Russia, despite “reset” (a word we no longer much hear), is still Putin’s Russia. China still despises the U.S., and feels in 2011 that it is in a far better position to act on its contempt than it was in 2009. North Korea never got the “hope and change” message. Europe is collapsing, reminding the world where the United States is headed if it does not change course. Outreach didn’t seem to do much for the Castro brothers, Hugo Chávez, or Daniel Ortega. We are helping Mexico to sue our own states, but that does not seem to persuade its leaders to keep their citizens home. Muslim Pakistan went from a duplicitous ally to a veritable enemy. The more we bragged about Turkey, the more we could feel it holds us in contempt. We hope that the Libyan rebels and the Cairo protesters are headed toward democracy, but we privately admit that they seem to have no more interest in establishing it than we have in promoting it. In other words, Professor Obama reminds future presidents that the world will transcend their rhetoric, their pretensions, and their heritage. Other nations always calibrate their relations with the United States either by their own perceived self-interest, or by centuries-old American values and power, or both.

    Barack Obama has taught us a great deal about dealing with radical Islam, an ideology not predicated on what presidents do or say. There will be no shutting down of Guantanamo as promised, and no end to either renditions or preventive detentions and tribunals. Khalid Sheik Mohammed will never be tried, as promised, in a New York courtroom not far from the scene of his mass murdering. The so-called Ground Zero mosque — once so dear to sanctimonious members of the Obama administration — will never be built; either liberal New Yorkers will quietly prevent it, or the architects of the scheme will be exposed as financial as well as cultural con artists. Obama will never again give an interview to Al-Arabiya expanding on how his own heritage will ameliorate relations with Arabs. The Cairo speech will go down in history not as a landmark creative effort to win over Muslims, but, to the extent it is remembered, as one of the most ahistorical constructs in presidential history. The Obama legacy in the War on Terror is as Predator-in-Chief — boldly increasing targeted assassinations tenfold from the Bush era, on the theory that we more or less kill the right suspected terrorists; few civil libertarians care much, apparently because one of their own is doing it.

    – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

    ADVERTISEMENT

    – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
    We have learned from Obama that the messianic presidency is a myth. Obama’s attempt to recreate Camelot has only reminded us that JFK’s presidency — tax cuts, Cold War saber-rattling, Vietnam intervention — was never Camelot. We shall see no more Latinate presidential sloganeering (“Vero Possumus”), no more rainbow posters. Gone are the faux-Greek columns, the speeches about seas receding and the planet cooling — now sources of embarrassment rather than nostalgia. Chancellor Merkel won’t want another Victory Column address from someone who ducked out on the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall. Obama himself will not lecture crowds any longer about the dangers of their fainting when he speaks; Michelle will cease all the nonsense about “deign[ing] to enter the messy thing called politics” and finally acquiring pride in the U.S. when it nominated her husband. Even Chris Matthews’s leg has stopped tingling. There will be no more Newsweek comparisons of Obama to a god. Even the Nobel Prize committee will soon grasp that it tarnished its brand by equating fleeting celebrity with lasting achievement.

    “Green” will never be quite the same after Obama. When Solyndra and its affiliated scandals are at last fully brought into the light of day, we will see the logical reification of Climategate I & II, Al Gore’s hucksterism, and Van Jones’s lunacy. How ironic that the more Obama tried to stop drilling in the West, offshore, and in Alaska, as well as stopping the Canadian pipeline, the more the American private sector kept finding oil and gas despite rather than because of the U.S. government. How further ironic that the one area that Obama felt was unnecessary for, or indeed antithetical to, America’s economic recovery — vast new gas and oil finds — will soon turn out to be America’s greatest boon in the last 20 years. While Obama and Energy Secretary Chu still insist on subsidizing money-losing wind and solar concerns, we are in the midst of a revolution that, within 20 years, will reduce or even end the trade deficit, help pay off the national debt, create millions of new jobs, and turn the Western Hemisphere into the new Persian Gulf. The American petroleum revolution can be delayed by Obama, but it cannot be stopped.

    One lesson, however, has not fully sunk in and awaits final elucidation in the 2012 election: that of the Chicago style of Barack Obama’s politicking. In 2008 few of the true believers accepted that, in his first political race, in 1996, Barack Obama sued successfully to remove his opponents from the ballot. Or that in his race for the U.S. Senate eight years later, sealed divorced records for both his primary- and general-election opponents were mysteriously leaked by unnamed Chicagoans, leading to the implosions of both candidates’ campaigns. Or that Obama was the first presidential candidate in the history of public campaign financing to reject it, or that he was also the largest recipient of cash from Wall Street in general, and from BP and Goldman Sachs in particular. Or that Obama was the first presidential candidate in recent memory not to disclose either undergraduate records or even partial medical. Or that remarks like “typical white person,” the clingers speech, and the spread-the-wealth quip would soon prove to be characteristic rather than anomalous.

    Few American presidents have dashed so many popular, deeply embedded illusions as has Barack Obama. And for that, we owe him a strange sort of thanks.

    http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/284333/obama-101-victor-davis-hanson?pg=2

  61. Just returned from the car shop and thought I would share a couple of things I heard on “Progressive Talk Radio”.

    First, Tom Hartmann was interviewing a lady, with British accent, about US politics when the discussion turned to the public employee strikes in England. Story here: http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/30/world/europe/uk-public-sector-strike/index.html?hpt=hp_t3

    The discussion turned to the “Conservative Party” and the “Liberal Democrat Party” coalition and that the “Conservatives” will pay a dear price for their “austerity” and the expectation that the European economy will continue to suffer for several years. It was noted that the “austerity” measures CAUSED the unemployment to increase and GDP to decrease by 0.5%. A travesty according to Mr. Hartmann.

    But here is the kicker, which jumped out at me given our prior discussions about Progressives in general, and the one in the White House in particular. In summarizing the situation Mr. Hartmann offered his advice as to what is needed. The “Liberal Democrats” need to start pulling away from the coalition. In doing so they need to “make accusations against the Conservatives” as the cause for the economic hard times. Even more importantly, “they need to pull out of the coalition and FORCE A CRISIS”. Yep! That is what he said. “FORCE A CRISIS”.

    Could it be that Glenn Beck has been correct in his assessment of what is going on in Europe and how there are plans to spread it here???? Inquiring minds want to know!! 🙂

    Second, during a discussion with an economist from Australia, Mr. Hartmann kept referring to our economic situation as “A DEPRESSION”. He deliberately used this term many times in his conversation. Not sure how this is going to help Mr. Obama get re-elected. Maybe the idea is to blame Bush and the “Do nothing Republican Congress”???? 🙂

    By the way, the gist of the economist’s presentation is that consumer debt in the USA must be reduced to about 100% of GDP or about 20 trillion, before any serious economic recovery will occur. His estimate for the time needed to accomplish this? FIVE TO TEN YEARS!! 😦

    If you recall, I posted here a year or so ago that there is a theory that consumer savings must hit 10% of income before recovery gets into full swing. It seems that these two ideas are on the same track. Debt load must be reduced and then savings increased to the point the consumer no long feels “uncertain” about the future. Oh, you mean that “uncertainty” could ACTUALLY be playing a role in business decisions to not hire more people today???? Sorry to puncture the left wing talking point. Just couldn’t resist that one.

    • SK Trynosky Sr says:

      What is the likelihood that the boy wonder is not deluded enough to think he will win next year but plans to trash the economy and country even further before he departs? Sort of an ultimate up yours.

      • Mathius™ says:

        Interesting…

        What evidence do you have that he has ever behaved or will ever behave in a malicious manner in running this country? As opposed to simply doing what he thinks is best, though ideologically different from what you would do.

        In other words, what evidence do you have that his INTENT is bad and/or that he actually WANTS to “trash the economy and country” as an “ultimate up yours”?

        • VH has a whole bag of tricks listed above that answers your question.. in otherwords…a pattern of moves shows his INTENT…what other outcome could all those moves end up in?

          • Mathius™ says:

            So, I assume you also believe President Bush II also intended to “trash the economy and country,” correct?

            (please say no, please say no, please say no…)

            • OK..for kicks…NO

              • Mathius™ says:

                Ooooh goody!

                a pattern of moves shows his INTENT
                1. Bush invaded stampeded the country into war in Iraq over extremely flimsy evidence by fear mongering about non-existent WMDs
                2. Implemented protectionist tariffs on steel and shrimp (free-trade my foot)
                3. Fired prosecutors who didn’t pursue Democrats strongly enough
                4. Warrentless wiretaps
                5. Created an “enemy combatant” statu which allowed him to suspend due process and imprison people indefinitely without trial.
                6. USED TORTURE
                7. Passed the Military Commissions Act which removed Habeus Corpus (later overturned by SCOTUS)
                8. Outed a CIA agent
                9. Presided over a 4x increase in the price of oil
                10. Terry Shivo.
                11. Patriot Act
                12. Massive increase in the national debt.
                13. TARP #1
                14. Pushed banks to lend to home-buyers who couldn’t afford it, directly leading to the housing bubble and collapse.
                15. Abu Ghraib
                16. Nearly doubled the number of classified documents (because I keep seeing people complaining about Obama classifying things)
                17. Increased federal spending by over $400 Billion
                and worst of all:
                18. He made me vote for John Kerry.

                So, if a pattern of moves shows his INTENT, then I assume you are now ready to admit that Bush was out to destroy America and it’s economy.

                Right?

              • 1) YAY..believe what you want
                3) Prove it
                8) I believe someone else took the rap for that
                10) Family issue..no meddling necessary
                12 & 17Then Obama had to top him by spending more than all of them combined
                14 Bubba did that while he wasn’t preoccupied
                18) Shoulda voted for Captain Kangaroo instead

                He’s on the same side as Obama

                Back to you

              • Shady up there is , of course #8

        • Mathius

          It is quite simple. Using your words and a few of mine (in CAPS):

          he is simply doing what he thinks is best, WHICH is ideologically different from what THIS COUNTRY IS SUPPOSED TO BE, AND THUS has behaved AND will behave in a malicious manner in running this country!

          Or using his words: “It is time that we began to fundamentally change this country”! 🙂

      • SK,

        I do not engage in federal political discussions as they are as moot, irrelevant and futile.

        However, it would an error to believe Obama is trying to purposely destroy the economy.

        He thinks he is helping the economy. His problem: he is an economic moron, thus, his helping is making it worse.

        • Mathius™ says:

          Also interesting. I happen to agree with you (“However, it would an error to believe Obama is trying to purposely destroy the economy. He thinks he is helping the economy.”), but I am curious how you support this view as well. Care to elaborate?

          • The Elite’s political power is concentrated in maintaining the status quo.

            Simple People do not like change, and the Elite uses this to maintain themselves enriched by the People.

            Economic stability is the best way to manage the status quo. Do not rock the boat.

            Economic chaos is unnerving for the People, and the Simple People begin to look at who/what/where is causing the turmoil, and they look squarely at the “Powers that Be” as the fault.

            This seriously risks the Elite’s position. They have way more to lose if things go to hell-in-a-hand-basket.

            They would not have made Obama President if they truly believed he would ruin the economy. This is why they will not allow Ron Paul to be elected, for he would rock the boat. Obama’s job is to not rock the boat, but steady it.

            But Obama and the Elite are economic morons, they do not understand the marketplace and do not understand the Economics rules Politics, not the other way around. Thus, their attempt at steadying the boat is actually making it rock even harder.

      • It’s thinking like this that comes from inside that “whole alternative knowledge system, with its own facts, its own history” that conservatives have built.

        • SK Trynosky Sr says:

          Todd,

          I never have understood the concept of alternative facts. I believe in alternative interpretations but not facts eg. The Soviet Union Collapsed. Interpretations would be, it was already on its way to collapse from its own weight or Ronald Reagan spent them into the ground and made it obvious to them in a true contest they could not win.

          Now my decision on which of these two interpretations of a single fact would be based on a preponderance of evidence not the least of which would include the 1953 invasion of East Germany, the 1956 invasion of Hungary, the 1968 invasion of Czechoslovakia, the 1979 invasion of Afghanistan various and sundry support for wars of “national liberation” around the world, Aid to North Vietnam, subsidies to Cuba and general trouble making wherever possible. This to me would indicate that they were not thinking of folding up their tents anytime soon. But I accept that there are others, more doctrinaire than I on the other side of the fence, who despise Ronald Reagan so much that they would accept the tooth fairy as their savior.

          Regarding Obama collapsing the country and not just the economy, well, its sort of a gut feeling. As an almost psychologist back in the day, there are indications of a certain self loathing which most people would not dare mention, it goes against our penchant for having nothing but happy thoughts. He does evince a sort of divide and conquer mentality, seeks to put groups against one another and is pretty good on the “rules for radicals” thing. Some would say it is his desire to create that fundamental change but I caution people who like fundamental change that it does not always work out that well. One could ask any number of dead people, victims of the ideologies of the 20th Century who augured in “fundamental change” but, perhaps there I go again, making up my own facts.

          • SK Trynosky Sr,

            What is the likelihood that the boy wonder is not deluded enough to think he will win next year but plans to trash the economy and country even further before he departs? Sort of an ultimate up yours.

            The problem is that you say this like it’s a fact – Obama is already intentionally trashing the economy and country, and he’ll probably do it even more before he is voted out next November.

            The fact that you think this way tells me that you would do this type of thing if in Obama’s situation. But it says nothing of Obama’s intentions.

            My quote came from this article – you might enjoy it.

            http://nymag.com/news/politics/conservatives-david-frum-2011-11/

            • SK Trynosky Sr says:

              I am not a skillful enough debater but I don’t think that when you pose a question (which I did), it constitutes a fact. It is a possible opinion. Now I must admit I thought the boy wonder was a bit of a sham to begin with since Hope and Change are not positions I take very seriously. They lack a certain depth. This is one of the very few presidents that I honestly think I could do much better than and that is saying a lot. If I am right about his psychological make-up, then trashing the country before leaving is not beyond him. It is the equivalent of Hitler in the bunker demanding that the last German die because HIS plan didn’t work.

              Don’t think for a moment that I am equating the President with Hitler, I am not and would not but the psychological defect is there I fear.

              I myself cannot fathom what growing up must have been like for him, caught between two worlds in the most tumultuous decades, neither black nor white. I had friends in college of mixed race and friends in the Army too. I know what a horror show that could be. Growing up a Catholic and attending Catholic school in the ’50’s I had friends whose parents were of different religions. That, for at least two of them was a living hell which I only found about some 50 years later at our reunion. .

              I remember my Dad, one of the most open minded men I have ever known telling me back in the ’60’s and ’70’s that I could marry any girl I wanted, of any race and it would be fine with him. He went on to say however that if we brought children into the world, he would break my neck because that was something we had no right to inflict on an innocent child. True, things are much better today, mixed race or religion children seem to be accepted but that was NOT true in the president’s formative years . He was lucky to have been raised in Hawaii where it was and is not that much of an issue but his arrival on the mainland must have been an immense cultural shock. The Morningside Heights campus of Columbia sits right in the middle of traditional Harlem. Here is a man who looks black and acts white. Put yourself in his place.

              I can only speculate on these things but if you, or any of us for that matter, think back on the cruelty of children (and their parents) when you grew up, I am sure that there is something that still sticks in your craw . Hair color, eyeglasses, crooked teeth, stutter, whatever is nothing compared to a black father and a white mother let alone wacky grandparents. .

              • SK Trynosky Sr,
                Yes, you pose a “question,” but it’s the slimmest of possible “options”.

                You disagree with his positions, and somehow that makes him a “sham”.

                You have nothing to indicate your psychological make-up is right – except your dislike of him.

                You compare Obama to Hitler – but of course you really don’t MEAN that.

                You “fear” the psychological defect is there, but there’s no evidence of that – except in your conclusions.

                I can’t put myself in his place. And neither can you. But you can’t even fathom that he may have overcome the challenges he faced in his youth, even though many people do.

                But you’re still able to evaluate Obama’s youth and arrive at the conclusion that he’s already intentionally trashing the economy and country, and he’ll probably do it even more before he is voted out next November.

                Do you think your dislike of Obama may be influencing the conclusions you’ve reached?

                The conservative media (Limbaugh, Beck, etc) walk this fine line between truth and fiction all the time. They use a few facts and then draw wild conclusions from them, knowing full well that their audience will take the bait and jump off the cliff with it.

                And all these “conclusions” become the “facts” for the next argument.

                But of course Mr. Frum’s conclusions are wrong…

            • SK Trynosky Sr says:

              I could agree with many things Mr. Frum states but think his conclusions wrong. I came out of the Goldwater/Buckley conservative wing, being more of a libertarian than a traditional conservative yet I can see both existing side by side. He is absolutely right about the future, there is none for the middle class. The cause is greed which both parties share in. In addition to the insane demand for owning 15 televisions, a 6,000 sq. foot house and saddling your kids with $ 100,000 in loan debt at age 21, we export our jobs overseas and when there are less jobs to go around, look the other way as our borders are invaded. Years ago I said that both parties are equally guilty on these issues. As an example I pointed to how the Democrats wanted illegal immigration to continue as the road to political power for them (servicing the powerless is a big mantra) and the Republicans wanted cheap lawn service. I see no reason to change my opinion. Both the Occupiers and the tea party people are onto something but it won’t be allowed to grow. The biggest damnation for the entire current system is the bastards who ran the economy into the ground and have caused numerous divorces, suicides and other trouble are all out on the street still walking around. Imagine the worst man made economic mess since the great depression and nobody goes to jail.

  62. Kathy

    I would like to add one thing to the revelations in this article.

    I urge everyone to start listening for the use of the term “Progressive” as a pejorative. I am seeing a big increase in its use.

    Right now it is mostly from the “conservatives” or “libertarians” who have finally recognized that Progressive is NOT the same as Liberal.

    But I am also hearing it more and more from old time Democrats.

    Can’t wait for “Part Two” of the “WH Insider” interview. At first I thought it was someone from the R side, but then he started using “we” when discussing the Dem Party. So could it be a “Clintonista”??? Which raises several questions.

    First of which is, why would a Dem be pushing for the quick removal of Holder, when this would only hurt POTUS?

    Which leads of course to the next, WHO would benefit most from such a shame placed upon the POTUS?

    Could it be that we are seeing the beginning of a Dem Party Coup???

  63. Another GOP “Ooops” moment. This time Newt was just a little too honest (I know – I never thought I’d type those words about Newt either!):

    “One of the real changes that comes when you start running for President — as opposed to being an analyst on Fox — is I have to actually know what I’m talking about,” he said. The woman let out a startled laugh, and the audience joined in. “It’s a severe limitation,” Gingrich added.

    • Mathius™ says:

      Oh God, that’s fantastic!

      I mean.. we all knew it, of course, but to have it confirmed like this is just awesome.

  64. Another comment from a HuffPo regular. Seems eerily familiar doesn’t it?

    “This is unfortunat­e, but not surprising­. The GOP have clearly been punishing the country for taking the Congress and the White House away from them in 2006 and 2008, respective­ly, and the GOP’s propaganda outlets have been trying their darnedest to get their allies to do the same.

    There is, of course, no rational basis for the sentiment expressed by Mr. Looman. Indeed, only a person who takes GOP/Fox/&c­. propaganda absolutely literally could think there was. The “Obama” that Mr. Looman is referring to is a fictional character that only exists on Fox, on right-wing talk radio and blogs, and in various other GOP fan clubs, not here in the real world. They’ve created a character so loathesome that people who live in that universe are actually willing to hurt -themselve­s-, not to mention their country, to satiate their hatred. Social and political psychologi­sts are going to have a field day with this phenomenon for decades.

    Which is not to say that the hate generated in and by this alternate reality won’t pay dividends next November; in fact, I’m quite certain that it will. And it will be a shame, especially for people like Mr. Looman.”

  65. Reading the comments around Fox News and the MSM in general….

    To borrow from Mark Twain:

    Those that do not watch MSM news are uninformed.

    Those that do watch MSM news are misinformed

    • Mathius™ says:

      My favorite Twain:

      When I was a boy of 14, my father was so ignorant I could hardly stand to have the old man around. But when I got to be 21, I was astonished at how much the old man had learned in seven years.”

%d bloggers like this: